Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:

[Update: See this thread for an addition to the material below which was deemed appropriate to cover briefly in a followup thread. -ISM 7/05/06 3:00pm]

Lots of stuff to touch on briefly before taking a sabbatical for at least a few days if not more...

Was the Pope a Nazi? (Mark Riebling)

Yeah, this subject has been done to death but to his credit, Mark Riebling has some original contributions to this subject matter. Those who are not Catholic but who at the very least have a respect for both history as well as truh will find Mark's piece to contribute in this area quite nicely.

Murtha's Charade! (The Dumb Ox)

A brief snippet if I may{1}:

The Dumb Ox revealed back in early DECEMBER 2005 Murtha's troop withdrawal antics as part of his scheme to avoid ethics and criminal corruption charges...

Now those of us manning Rerum Novarum were hardly completely ignorant on this matter though it did not seem appropriate to comment on at the time. However, with an election coming up soon and with a lot of skeletons on the closet of John Murtha{2}, we are at the point now where it helps to remind people of the kinds of double standards involved viz. the whole "ethics" issues with government officials. But enough on that for now.

Iraq and the WOT - A Roundup (Christopher Blosser)

A good collection of threads on the subjects covered on Iraq and the War on Terror courtesy of Chris' Catholic Just War BLOG.

WMD's? What WMDs? (Greg Mockeridge)

Readers are advised to consider what your humble servant has said all along on the subject of WMD's -recently recapitulated to some extent in an audioposting for your convenience.{4}

Bush Goes Jogging With Iraqi Amputee (Christopher Blosser)

A minor bit this is true but it is nice to see a politician follow through on the kinds of "lets do lunch" offhand comments made to people they visit in hospitals or whatever.

Oh, lest we forget to note it publicly, a happy Blogiversary is extended to Frank Trainor from Franktalk. For those who do not know, Frank is a genuine songwriter who has written for (and personally met) many of the greats out of Nashville and elsewhere. Certainly this interests your host for many reasons and (perhaps) we can get Frank's take on some of those persons in the coming weeks and months.

Mark Shea's "Torture Poll"

This whole scenario is reminding us of something spoken of last year pertaining to those who use terms they do not bother to define or who otherwise shirk from doing so when challenged to do so.{5} But enough on that matter for now.

And finally, among the threads from this weblog which I want to revisit for inclusion in this posting are two from last year at this time:


Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Modern Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)

America the Beautiful Revisited (circa July 3, 2005)

As the fourth of July is tomorrow, I would like to wish readers and listeners of this humble weblog a most happy and blessed Independence Day.

Notes:

{1} And since it is my weblog, I will do as I like on this matter of course :)

{2} It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable actions. Or maybe it isn't. Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings, scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator." [The Washington Times: The real Jack Murtha (via Dumb Ox News)]

{3} Anyone who is surprised at the double standard here email me and I will sell you my shares in the Hope Diamond real cheap...

{4} Miscellaneous Musings on the Death of Zarqawi and the Presence of WMD's in Iraq--An Audio Post (circa June 23, 2006)

Greg also makes mention in his article of the Syria Hypothesis which is something your host has opined about for a few years now at sundry times and in diverse places (including on occasion at this very weblog believe it or not).

{5} [W]atch those who are incapable of giving a reasonable working definition of "rights" to claim that there is one. Definitions are the tools of thought and frankly, those who are not willing to define their terms do not deserve to be taken seriously...whether they are misappropriating the term "rights", "neo cons", or whatever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005)]

The request here is for a "working definition" and that is what one should strive for in my view: something that gives at least a reasonable approximation of what a term means if one insists on raising it as a kind of shibboleth in disputations. Or as your host noted in an email correspondence from June of this year:

One of the problems I have with most bloggers or commentators in any genre is their frequent unwillingness to define their terms. Failure in this area is both dishonest as well as lazy. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa June 23, 2006)]

The above thread was sent in a private email shortly after this post was published earlier in that day. Oh and the request for people to define their terms is far from being an unreasonable one. Instead, it is the minimum that any commentator should do if they expect people to take them seriously in the arena of ideas. And that is the bottom line really.

Points to Ponder:
(On Secular Religious Zealots)

[I]f Christ himself stood in my way, I, like Nietzsche, would not hesitate to squish him like a worm. [Ernesto "Che" Guevara]

Miscellaneous Notes on the Supreme Court Decision on Military Tribunals

Briefly on the New Holy See Secretary of State Appointment:
(With Kevin Tierney)

Kevin's words will be in light red font.

So Cardinal berton is the new secretary of state

Pitty it wasn't Ruini. :) Now I don't know much about Bertone. I know the Fatima types hate his guts. About the most I know is that the man has never been a diplomat, and as far as I'm aware, has never been that active on the geopolitical sphere. Could it be Benedict is changing the Secretary of State, so it isn't the "true pope" office that it was under Sodano? (Sodano wielded more power as Secretary of State than most before him, and was joked to be the real "man in charge" in the Vatican.)

Maybe he wants Cardinal Ruini closer to home for consulting with instead of travelling all over as Secretary of State. Bertone is doctrinally shrewd and he did serve at the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) for a number of years. It seems probable to me that Papa Benedict wants to make sure his Secretary of State does not muddle doctrinal matters with geopolitical/prudential ones the way Sodano at times did (among other personages like Cardinal Martino, Cardinal Laghi, Archbishop Tauran, etc). Either way, I think this is a solid B+ pick starting out...only time will tell the real tale of course.

Points to Ponder:

[I]t ain't the time
To learn how to swim
When the tide comes rushin' in. [Frank Trainor]

Responding to Another Accusation of Being "Afraid of Debate":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I'm gonna say this once and because you are outta Littleton, Massachusetts I'm gonna say it all r-e-a-l s-l-o-w. [What Terry Funk would say to Stephen Hand if he was writing this post]

As was expected, Stephen Hand did not react kindly to my public resumption of the Chronicles of Hand weblog. What I found rather amusing though is the extent to which he thinks other focus on him when (in reality) the purpose behind the weblog was to categorize some of the threads I am occasionally sent from others of Mr. Hand's exaggerations, errors, and downright disingenuous statements.{1} However, before readers think I have taken time to write this post to respond to one person, I want to make it clear that it goes much further and deeper than that: getting to the root and matrix of what is wrong with our society generally speaking.

Mr. Hand you see is merely a poster child (emphasis on child) for what is wrong with our society. He epitomizes the ever-increasing unwillingness or inability of people generally speaking to utilize the natural God-given lights of reason and logic --their ornamental paens to those disciplines notwithstanding. It is by their failure to do this that they make a mockery of reason and logic and by demonstration espouse (i) a rational sophism, (ii) a theological fideism, and (iii) a general solipsistic approach to reality which permeates their discourse. People such as your humble servant are an annoyance for these kinds of people because we refuse to play this game out of a respect for the aforementioned God-given faculties. But before this gets too far offtrack, I want to return to the purpose of this posting and also an explanation for why the Chronicles of Hand (C of H) weblog was founded and what it was (and is) intended to demonstrate.

After one too many wasted go-arounds with Mr. Hand, the idea of keeping a small archive of some of the more libelous assertions he has made against myself and friends/associates of mine{2} came to me in a flash and I ran with it (as is my wont with these kinds of things). The project was undertaken earlier this year and christened The Chronicles of Hand. though some parties thought The Chronicles of Handia would be more appropriate. The latter was envisioned essentially as a kind of hedge against Mr. Hand's continual attempts to claim innocence in the ad hominem department{3} and was a project worth doing for a while. The investment of time was miniscule and basically it would involve whatever readers of my weblog (who knew of Mr. Hand's animus against me and some of my friends/associates) happened to draw my attention to.

The aforementioned point seems appropriate to note at this time since I never once have gone to TCR to look for stuff to include on the C of H and do not envision ever doing that. However, the unfortunate circumstances from March of this year{4} made such an exercise in my mind absurd since there were greater (and more supernatural) factors that entered into the matrix of issues and which were far more deserving of the investment of one's time on. But that is neither here nor there.

I have said it before on more than one occasion{5} and I will say it again at this time: I can defend any position I have taken on any issue whatsoever. These are not merely words on my part but they have been backed up with actions which is a hell of a lot more than many people can say. However, just because I can defend any position taken does not mean that I will. There are time factors to consider of course as well as what issues are of greater importance than others in the hierarchy of disputation if you will. And as far as I am concerned, arguing for a position on its intrinsic merits or lack thereof utilizing the tools of reason and logic is a serious business and far too many of a sophistic bent either do not realize this or they fail to take seriously the principle that ideas are serious things.

People have fought for ideas, they have died for ideas, and this has not only not changed in the present but these things still occur. Therefore, what someone is willing to involve themselves in (should they set foot into the arena of ideas) should be focused on primary or serious matters and not secondary or ancillary griping. What interests me is the discipline of the dialogue.

I am willing to consider for engagement on various and sundry issues anyone else who shows a similar concern for what that entails. I am also interested in productive dialogue which means getting beyond the useless back and forth exchanges{6} where no one is willing to put their foundational presuppositions on the line and reapprise them at regular intervals. The latter is a process that by its very nature must involve respecting the faculties of reason and logic. That means one has to consider from time to time not only if the arguments they use to advance their position are good ones or not but even if their position itself is actually correct. As all of this probably sounds more complicated than it actually is, I will use the analogy of stocks and options to explain it in brief.

Those who are familiar with how stocks and options have a symbiotic relationship know that one of the reasons many investors like options{7} is because a small movement in the stock results in a magnified movement in the underlying option. This is the potential power inherent in dealing with foundational presuppositions of an individual: small shifts there can result in magnified movements in the individual's weltanschauung though sometimes it takes a bit of time for working out the ramifications of such shifts.

Mr. Hand is not interested in the slightest in wading into those waters. Instead, he wants to snipe at me for not allowing him to fill comments boxes at the C of H with ancillary drivel to waste both my time as well as that of others. He considers my refusal to play this game to be "censorship" on my part rather than an expedient attempt to keep focus on the actual issues and avoid distractions. I will however reverse my policy on the comments thread at the C of H if Mr. Hand is willing to take this request seriously. As it has been a while since I publicly said anything on this at Rerum Novarum, pardon the brief reiteration at this time if you have seen this stuff before:

Essentially, I took a look at the back and forth threads between Mr. Hand and his positional adversaries (including myself) and boiled it down to four points on which clarification was requested from him back in October of this year. Those points fell under the following headings:

Issue 1 - Magisterial vs. Non-Magisterial

Issue 2 - Recourse to Statistics Which Have Been Either Debunked or (At a Minimum) Have Been Challenged As To Their Veracity

Issue 3 - Use of Divisive Epithets by Mr. Hand to Distinguish Various Catholics Contrary to Explicit Magisterial Teachings Proscribing This Conduct

Issue 4 - Confusion on the Issue of Just War, Whose Authority The Criteria is Ascertained, Whose Authority a Just War is Levied, Etc. by Mr. Hand

I summarized the points covered under each heading in these words at the end of the posting (all footnotes excised):

--Viz. Issue 1, there are several points which need a response from Mr. Hand. They can all be summarized in Greg's recent question to Mr. Hand[...]. However, for the sake of greater exactness, I want to note the others which pertain to the latter. They are (i) a public request from me for Mr. Hand to clarify once and for all if Pope John Paul II's position on the war -which seems to be mirrored by his successor Pope Benedict XVI- constitutes Church teaching or not and (ii) should he answer in the negative on the matter, Mr. Hand needs to make it clear that he accepts the position on the matter that the Church does with the proper disposition of mind and in the future reflect this realization accordingly in his writings and statements on the subject in question.

If Mr. Hand responds to my request in the affirmative, he is called upon to produce the magisterial texts to support to support his usage of authoritative language and also to support his reference to the war issue as "grave" and justify this usage in light of the doctrinal clarifications of the present pope on these matters when he was chief theologian for the previous pope.

---Viz. Issue 2, Mr. Hand needs to explain (i) why he continues to parrot discredited statistics as he does and (ii) why anyone should take him seriously as a credible commentator on these issues in light of his continual parrotting of said discredited statistics.

---Viz. Issue 3, Mr. Hand also has to explain why he continues for ideological reasons to flout the teachings of Pope Benedict XV on the use of derisive labels as he does.

---Viz. Issue 4, Mr. Hand needs to explain why he reads into the words of Cardinal Ratzinger (on Pope John Paul II's view being one "of conscience enlightened by faith") sentiments not expressed by him. Furthermore, it would be nice if Mr. Hand could explain to us in light of what I have noted in this posting from Catholic sources[...] how his manifested views on just war (viz. who is the competent authority to assess the evidences and ultimately levy such a war) are at all congruent with the totality of the Catholic just war tradition.

While more could be noted, I think this suffices. One of the roles of dialogue is clarification and I have not been hesitant to clarify my positions over the years when others have questioned me on them. Mr. Hand mentioned having a debate but in truth, a dialogue is potentially far more productive than a debate. Mr. Hand has claimed I and others have misrepresented him on various issues. I have chosen these four issues to request from him further clarifications. In the interest of facilitating dialogue on these issues in accordance with the minds of the recent (and present) pope,[...] I humbly request of Mr. Hand clarifications on the points noted above. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa October 6, 2005)]

After eight months of Mr. Hand dodging the above requests for clarification --and I have reiterated this request about a dozen times in that span albeit none of them were in the past three months prior to this point-- any assertions that I "fear open debate" from him can easily be seen for what it is by those with eyes to see. But that is not all.

For I also have issued a challenge with him and several other persons in mind{8} but I do not want to touch on it until the above challenge is met first. (At least not with Mr. Hand.) Readers can judge from Mr. Hand's refusal to engage these issues who among the two of us is really afraid of engaging the issues publicly but for the sake of the slower sorts in Littleton, MA I will give a final hint: it is certainly not any of Us at Rerum Novarum.


Notes:

{1} Generally pertaining either to me or to others I happen to know. I explained the reason for the weblog in these message box comments to Mr. Hand (who chalked the existence of the weblog up to some strange attempt to "flatter" him) in this manner:

The original idea of this weblog was to archive some of your more egregious public statements before you decided to airbrush them from your site. If you think categorizing a handful of your gaffes (and there is not enough time in the day to deal with them all even if we wanted to) constitutes "flattery" than you have a strange understanding of that term.

Unlike Mr. Hand, my archives are an open book whereas he does not maintain a public archive. He claims to archive stuff on his computer but that is essentially leaving the fox in charge of the henhouse for reasons I have outlined in the past on this very weblog -particularly HERE, HERE, and HERE.

{2} The difference between you and I with the ad hominem Stephen is that I make actual arguments and you make insulting insinuations and throw around terms you do not bother defining. Then when you are asked to define them, you ignore such requests. I fail to see how you think people should take you seriously when you do that. [I. Shawn McElhinney to Stephen Hand Via The Chronicles of Hand Comments Box (circa June 26, 2006)]

{3} In light of how he and not a few others like to try and revise the historical record by removing in various ways public statements they have made --and almost always without apology-- this seemed an interesting project for a while. And though I am hesitant to quote Ann Coulter; nonetheless, an observation she made about Al Franken is particularly applicable to this situation so here goes:

It's interesting that the most devastating examples of my alleged "lies" keep changing. As soon as one is disproved, I'm asked to respond to another. This is behavior normally associated with conspiracy theorists in tinfoil hats. One crackpot argument after another is shot down - but the conspiracy theorists just move on to the next crackpot argument without pause or reconsideration. Certainly without apology.

Those who wonder why I have not the slightest interest in entertaining a similar approach by Mr. Hand in the comments threads of the Chronicles of Hand now have your answer...well most of it anyway.

{4} See the thread located HERE for details.

{5} Miscellaneous Musings on Reason, Logic, and Their Proper Application Thereof--An Audio Post (circa June 8, 2006)

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

Oh and see the postings in footnotes one and two for ample evidence of this assertion on my part. Unlike Mr. Hand, I prefer to provide evidences for my assertions and not just talk since we all know talk is cheap. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 22, 2005)]

{7} I am of the view that options are like lemon juice when cooking up a portfolio: a little can go a long way and should not be overdone. (More on this subject in the future if I feel inclined to want to discuss it again on my own volition or if someone emails me on it, etc.)

{8} The threads from where this idea took root and has developed in subsequent postings can be reviewed in the following posts (listed from oldest to newest):

Miscellaneous Morning Musings on Blogging, the So-Called "Neo-Cons", and the Miers Nomination--An Audio Post (circa October 27, 2005)

Briefly Revisiting the Term "Neo-Con" and its Usage With Christopher Blosser (circa November 9, 2005)

"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept. -A Continuing Series (circa December 4, 2005-March 6, 2006)

I note through March 6, 2006 not because the series is over yet but instead because I have simply not added to it since posting a thread on Dale Vree from New Oxford Review back in early March of this year where (despite everything else said about him in that thread) Dale at least comes the closest. (Essentially he defines it and then seeks to label with the term those who do not fit his definition: a subject for another time perhaps.)

Until there is an answer by those who frequently throw around the term "neo-con" without bothering to define it, the series will remain unfinished and ever-susceptible to my addition of yet more installments depending on time, circumstances, my mood to talk about it, etc.

Briefly on the Resumption of The Chronicles of Hand Weblog:

[Update: I tweaked this posting a bit so it reads less cluttered than it did when I threw it up in a matter of minutes yesterday. -ISM 6/26/06 1:30pm]

I was frankly quite content to let the Chronicles of Hand weblog be mothballed and remain in that state in perpetuity. Indeed, readers of Rerum Novarum who are familiar with what transpired in March of this year are aware that Mr. Hand had a family tragedy with his son of which I was sympathetic to for reasons too numerous to go over here in brief. I also had hoped that the situation would produce in him the kind of changes that can happen when people are drawn out of their own little worlds and into reality the way family deaths and/or sicknesses, etc can but obviously that did not happen. And while more could be noted on the matter than that, I do not intend at the present time to say anything else and instead move onto the reason for resuming the activity of the aforementioned weblog.

Essentially, the latest ignorant vitriol against yours truly was deserving of comment if only because of the common stereotypes that Mr. Hand is espousing. Without further ado, one can read HERE my interaction with some of the material he posted on 6/22/06 as sent to me via email.{1} For the time being, that is all that will be noted here except to remind readers of my previous request to not speculate on this matter and how once again your host's predictions were accurate as they usually are in non-sports related subject matters.

Note:

{1} I am not about to check to see if he has changed it since then but knowing his trackrecord, it is even money that he may well have done so. This is touched upon briefly in both the recent Chronicles posting and also in a recent audioposting where I discussed this problem that certain critics -Mr. Hand among them- have demonstrated in spades over the years on various and sundry subjects of disputation. The aforementioned audioposting can be listened to here:

Miscellaneous Musings on Reason, Logic, and Their Proper Application Thereof--An Audio Post (circa June 8, 2006)

Miscellaneous Musings on the Death of Zarqawi and the Presence of WMD's in Iraq

Some Recent and Future Weblog Additions, A Reappraisal of Site Principles, Reapplying Said Principles, and Other Applicable Tidbits:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

The fee-ling is gone
I won't be your fool again...
The feel-ing is gonnne away...
I won't be your fool again...

What you have in front of you is the thread spoken of earlier this week. And as was predicted by us last week, some unsavoury sorts took a "ready, fire, aim" approach to some of the side margin additions without giving us the opportunity we requested to explain their inclusion here first. Coincidentally (perhaps), these are the same sorts of people who try to claim they model themselves after Jesus Christ and Saint Paul. That such people often fall into the "ready fire, aim" category and (just as concidentally perhaps) they will at some point go back and either delete their comments or revise them to remove the more odious parts should someone bring it to their attention.

Indeed, the above scenario was already anticipated (and briefly explained) by us in a recent audioposting along with the kind of challenge these sorts of people shirk from in true yellowbelly fashion ala a vampire fleeing from a crucifix. But enough noting on noting predictions on our part which have either already been vindicated or at some point will be in the future and onto the promised explanation at hand for the various changes that have been made already (or remain to be made in the future) at this weblog.

Now readers of (and listeners to) this humble weblog have probably noticed some new additions to the side margin in the blogroll department. As your host has started the laborious nature of preparing a weblog update (the first since February of this year), it seems appropriate to note briefly what these webroll additions are for and why they were added particularly since it is not often that structural adjustments are made to the weblog akin to what will be done in a peacemeal fashion in the coming days and weeks ahead.

To start with, there has been a longtime tiring on our part of certain typecasting tendencies that are common amongst certain kinds of people that have been applied to the present writer (and by logical extension, this weblog) over the years.{1} This element of the equation may be touched on more in detail later on when an email correspondence from last year is blogged where the subject was dealt with to some extent.{2} The bottom line though is that there are and have been interests that significantly exceed what has been written on thus far either in this weblog or in past essay or message board formats by us. After all, your host is reasonably well read on more subjects than can be casually listed but the problem is, this does not often translate well in a society of soundbytes where people seek to label others{3} in various ways to try and "categorize" them. However, as that is something that the present writer has bitched on a few occasions in the past, there is no desire at the present time to delve anew into that subject.{4}

Part and parcel to the latter circumstance is the recognition that certain circles that your host had afflilated with over time had little if any interest in considering some of the creative ways put forth on this weblog for dealing with problems in society which were not only logical and rational but also consistent. One can only watch the same people miss the boat over and over again before realizing that they are either unwilling or unable to think beyond whatever their chosen masters happen to be. Or to quote from the late great Mike Mentzer who long ago (in your host's younger days) influenced our intellectual cultivation:

[W]hat I observed [with other people] was abject conformity and the desperate desire for the safety of will-less passivity. Not passivity of the body, but passivity of the mind…They were either unwilling or unable to think beyond the confines established by the pack…They lead blighted lives, bereft of any interest in science, philosophy, morality or art… They were merely passing through existence, as cultural ballast, individuals that never looked up, held nothing sacred; while I and others seeking to achieve the ideal were righteously doing what truly, in logic and reality, was of fundamental importance.

Whatever differences exist between this writer and those whose webrolls he has affiliated with in recent months,{5} at least there seems to be as a rule a similarity in looking for viable solutions to problems rather than regurgitating tired old formularies in a blind and uncritical fashion. The latter tiring and predictable pattern was recognized a long time ago by us but frankly it did not seem worth noting at the time publicly. However, the season has arrived to note it since we do not intend any longer to entertain such people here at Rerum Novarum either explicitly or by implication.

Admittedly, the present writer was maybe a bit naive in presuming that good ideas which were presented logically would appeal to a cross-section of those who were of good will amongst those with whom we were affiliated.{6} Nonetheless, we harbour no such illusions anymore and therefore have decided to focus elsewhere where potentially these kinds of ideas may find an audience willing to assimilate them and (perhaps) contribute to their further elucidation and propagation amongst the populace at large.{7} Basically, the blogroll the present writer had occasionally toyed with in years past on a private weblog{8} will be installed here soon...it is currently being built in spare moments and should be ready for unveiling over the weekend if not sooner to facilitate easier monitoring by us in the months ahead. Rather than viewing what will transpire as a definitive burning of bridges, longtime readers should see this as a separation of certain allegiences that are no longer viewed as adequate.

For one can be critical of systems or structures without being critical of people who operate within them -either out of habit or otherwise. And those who have been closest to the present writer in recent years need not think that what is in the works at this weblog will in any way detract from either that or their friendship with us. After all, your host has never made personal differences a reason for breaking up friendships however much others may have done this either in the past or at the present time.{9} And while for a long time we viewed this as adequately implied in everything we have done at this humble weblog, in light of the permutations currently taking place or which are in the works, perhaps no time like the present is more appropriate to explicitly state this to remove any doubt whatsoever on this matter.{10}

Now regular readers are hardly unaware that Rerum Novarum was enrolled in the American Conservative Blogroll a while back.{11} Of more recent vintage was our inclusion in the Children of the Confederacy Blogroll as well as a pending application for involvement in two other webrolls. In light of these activities, it seems appropriate to briefly note what the intentions of the above involvements on our part involve.

The reason for involvement in the American Conservative Blogroll is for networking purposes with a group who share general principles (if not how said principles are to be applied) in actively engaging the culture wars. The reason for involvement in the other two affiliations (not named as of this writing) are for similar reasons as the affiliation with the American Conservative Blogroll. The Children of the Confederacy involvement was more a whim on the present writer's part after considering how southern in many ways he is for one not born or raised in Dixie.{12} Basically, a long-sensed need for proactive approaches to make the present writer's ideas for fruitfully combatting the problems in society today reached the point of no return recently. It therefore seemed appropriate to us to write the present posting to explain some of the factors involved. And while more could be noted on this subject,{13} at the present time that is all your humble servant intends to say on it.

If anything, the aforementioned upcoming posting of an email from last year will point out how this decision is actually one of being true to the present writer's long-held principles. For much as Ronald Reagan once said that he never left the Democratic Party but the Democratic Party left him, the present writer has not changed either in his core principles or on any other subject of a significant nature over the years. What has changed though is the surrounding landscape and certain intuitions that your host had from time to time{14} being manifested with greater clarity by various parties to an appalling degree.

In summary, the mask was removed and what was revealed was what was truly underneath it all along. And while the latter is something the present writer may touch on if he feels inclined to in the future, that is all that will be noted at the present time except (of course) that we at Rerum Novarum want no part anymore be it explicitly or tacitly in giving support to reactionary, blind, and unthinking sophistic timewasters.

Notes:

{1} Certain episodes --both already past and also to some extent ongoing and/or unresolved as of this writing-- essentially made this decision on our part inevitable as we consider it now in retrospect.

{2} Some additional situations and circumstances since that text was written will probably be touched upon in a subsequent posting should your host be inclined to deal with those subjects.

{3} That is not to say that labels on occasion cannot be qpplied of course; however accuracy should be the goal in that endeavour whenever it is utilized: something your host does with care unlike the vast majority of people out there regardless of their particular socio/political/religious operative presuppositions.

{4} We may write or contribute to writings from friends and associates on some of these matters in the coming months depending on the present writer's available time for such things as well as our mood for discussing those subjects. (Suffice to say, this writer is aware of certain projects from other parties currently in draft form which would adequately address some of these problems when completed but enough on that for now.)

{5} Even if the latter affiliation was (and is) more of a loose confederation than a coordinated effort.

{6} Certainly there are a few differences though noting what has been discerned thus far is not necessary as it does not detract from the general rule we noted in the posting above.

{7} Some of this was noted in a weblog posting from last year titled On "Social Commentary" and St. Blog's "Awards" posted on February 7, 2005. The parts particularly germane to the context of this posting are the following ones:

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

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

In closing, the "award" in and of itself is something that I frankly could care less about if not for the ideas I have worked on at this weblog over the years and crystallized into viable policies and principled arguments. It is with an eye towards reaching that broader audience with these concepts which is why I raise these issues at all at the present time. For that reason, "social commentary" nominees should be able to make a case for similar contributions[...] and not merely be there because they were nominated in every category under the sun regardless of their qualifications to be in a respective category thereof. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa February 7, 2005)]

Thankfully, Southern Appeal won the category for 2004 and some of those who had no business being nominated did not. Unfortunately, that cannot be said for 2005 where at least two of my three pre-voting predictions came to pass and in not a few places, people "won" for categories they had no business being nominated for. In the meantime, banners are posted, people "campaign" for this stuff, and serious and principled ideas that (if considered and promoted) could create a seismic shift in the foundational presuppositions of many who are on the wrong side of the culture wars get ignored. Pardon those of us who think the latter is inexcusable and refuse in the future to in any fashion whatsoever contribute to such negligence either explicitly or (as occasionally was the case in the past) tacitly via our silence on the matters in question.

{8} Briefly on Blogrolling Formats (circa April 22, 2003)

{9} The names of the parties we have in mind will not be mentioned in order to protect the guilty and avoid making this a matter of personalities rather than the principles that are involved here.

{10} We do not after all want friends being at a loss as to how to interpret what has taken place and is in the process of taking place; ergo this clarification is being supplied by us at the present time.

{11} On the American Conservative Webring and Our Involvement Therein (circa April 19, 2006)

{12} And whose ancestors during the War Between the States fought for the west ;-)

{13} Other facets will be covered in the posting of an email from last year which will highlight other elements and explain why this realignment is not as much of a break as longtime casual readers may presume.

{14} But the present writer generally did not speak about these matters publicly.

Points to Ponder:
(On the Violent Death Rate in Iraq Compared to Many US Cities)

According to [Rep. Steve King of Iowa], the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000. That may sound high, but not when you compare it to places like Colombia 61.7" per 100,000 death rate, violent death rate. South Africa, has a higher violent death rate per 100,000: 49.6 per 100,000. Even Jamaica has a higher violent death rate than does Iraq: 32.4, and Venezuela comes in at 31.6 violent deaths per 100,000. "How about the violent death rates in American cities? New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina was 53.1," violent death rate per 100,000. "FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington" DC's violent death rate at 45.9 per 100,000; Baltimore at 37.7 per 100,000, and Atlanta at 34.9 per 100,000. The figure again from Iraq, 25.71 per 100,000, and that includes the war. [Rush Limbaugh]

Briefly:

Any prayers and well wishes for my mother on this day (her birthday) from the readers of Rerum Novarum would be greatly appreciated.

It has just dawned on your weblog host that some of the webroll additions to the weblog margin in the past day or so may be misunderstood by some of you readers. For this reason, I will endeavour tomorrow or on Monday to explain the reasons for their additions. In the meantime, I ask those who are predisposed to take a "ready, fire, aim" approach to commentary generally speaking (and you know whom you are){1} to kindly cease and desist until the time that my reasons for those additions are explained to the readers of this humble weblog by yours truly. (At which time, this temporary posting will be deleted forthwith.)

[Update: The promised thread is about 65% done as of this moment and should be ready for blogging sometime tomorrow. -ISM 6/18/06 7:55pm]

Note:

{1} Indeed you sorts were primarily the ones I had in mind when recording this audioposting earlier in the month:

Miscellaneous Musings on Reason, Logic, and Their Proper Application Thereof--An Audio Post (circa June 8, 2006)

Points to Ponder:

Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is "The Road to Serfdom."[...] He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens. [Janice Rogers Brown (circa April 20, 2000)]

On the Death of Zarqawi and the MSM's Coverage Thereof:
(A Guest Editorial by Henry Odum)

[Prefatory Note: Sometimes readers of this humble weblog can express a point more passionately than your host either can or will. On those occasions, it is more appropriate to post their stuff and add to it at my discretion rather than write from scratch on the subject they email on. Though the words of the emailer will be in black font; other than that, the normal protocols of the guest editorial format will be utilized. -ISM]

#######

I woke up the other day to here the joyous news of the end of Zarqawi's efforts on behalf of Satan.

I saw it announced at a press conference in Iraq, and saw the Iraqi press burst into spontaneous applause. I heard on the radio about people in Jordan, who lost loved ones in his attacks there rejoicing, and others in Jordan celebrate saying that he defamed Islam and Jordanians as well.

Then I turned on "Good Morning America" in time to catch the end of a report on the death, with an interview from a freed hostage who appeared to be (can't say with 100% certainty) one of those party of Chicago based peace activists (one was killed, the others let go as I recall) bemoaning Zarqawi's death, saying he did deserve to be "brought to justice" but was sorry to see him killed. We then cut to the reporter, talking to Diane Sawyer, finishing up his report on this final note [paraphrasing] "And Diane, we also spoke to the father of Nick Berg who also said he was sorry that Zarqawi was killed and that in his opinion, it is George Bush, not Zarqawi, who is responsible for his son's death for starting the war in Iraq."

And that was the note the report ended on.

Incredible.

Just incredible.

That the MSM's, all-consuming loathing of Bush means that even the news of the elimination of this evil man must be skewed to be yet another indictment against George Bush. That upon hearing of Zarqawi's killing, the immediately - *immediately* - sought out those victim's of his depredations who they knew would not applaud, but complain about Bush.

It's not that the president's actions can't ever be questioned or criticized, but the way this story is being handled just spells out, yet again, how many reports coming out of the MSM must always be qualified by the fact that it extrudes through the filter of their what can only be charitably described as "unhealthy obsession" with the president.

Actually the speed with which they sought dependable anti-Bush victims for their coverage on Zarqawi's death, crosses over the realm from unhealthy obsession into morbid obsession.

I think we've all been given a preview of what kind of coverage we can expect when the day comes that Bin Laden is taken out of the picture. Notwithstanding the past few years of "Why hasn't he been able to capture bin Laden/Zarqawi" talk, no doubt the coverage will be just the same as what we're seeing now.

MSM = Mainstream Madness.

Just had to vent.

#######

[Epilogual Comment: I cannot think of anything of a necessary nature to add to what Henry said except to note that while I do not always agree with the contents of a guest editorial, there is at least a macro concurrence between my views and those Henry expressed above. -ISM]

Points to Ponder:
(On Principles)

We cannot be sure of having something to live for unless we are willing to die for it. [Ernesto "Che" Guevara]

Please pray for the eternal repose of the soul of my beloved father Richard Dunn McElhinney. Today is the fifth anniversary of his passing.



Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed. Amen.

More on the Bush Administration/FBI Constitutionality Question:
(From the Mailbag)

This is a response written to an email received recently which pertained to these previous weblog postings:

On the Latest Bush Administration SNAFU Situation (circa May 27, 2006)

On the Fourth Amendment, The Supreme Court, and Warrantless Searches (circa June 1, 2006)

The words of the emailer will be in purple font.

It isn’t a matter of a warrant. It is a question of use of power by one branch of government to intimidate another branch. It is FBI agents, representing the executive branch, intimidating and making threats against capitol police, employees of the legislative branch, and seizing papers of a legislator.

Okay, let us consider that subject for a moment. Are the legislators somehow by virtue of their office free from having to obey the law??? This would be an odd position for the Framers to have taken considering how they were themselves the victims of aristocratic double standards. The idea of any class of people being above the law was repugnant to them and it therefore stretches credibility to presume that such an intention could be manifested anywhere in the Constitution. There was however, a separation of powers with checks and balances but that is not the same thing.

The section of the constitution in question is “They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.”

This is non-sequiturial. To my knowledge (and I may be mistaken), Rep. Jefferson has not himself been arrested and is not in jail. The whole clause involves the arrest of legislators or attempts to intimidate or otherwise coerce a legislators vote in any session of the legislature. This includes arresting them in the chambers during session, going to and from any of the legislative sessions, or questioning them in any other place with regards to a speech they delivered or a debate they were involved in within any chamber of the legislature. That is all.

The point of this section is to preserve the independence of the legislative branch.

The issue does not involve any speech or debate Rep. Jefferson delivered in either house and he has not been arrested. To postulate as the writer did that the above passage of the Constitution in any way is a violation of the separation of powers is to read into the Constitution provisions that are not there. Surely the emailer does not intend to do that; therefore I am wondering if they had another passage of the Constitution in mind when they assert a claim of "violation of separation of powers" because if not, then the assertion has more than adequately been confuted with the contents of this posting.

Points to Ponder:
(On Interacting With The Arguments of Others)

The following quote was spotted yesterday when taking a breather from business research (and perusing the web):

If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn't their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why can't the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speaker's personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?" [Ann Coulter]

Those who recognize a congruency between the above quote and some recent audiomusings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum on the subject of reason and logic{1} get an extra gold star for paying attention.

Note:

{1} Here is the aforementioned audioposting recorded in recent days:

Miscellaneous Musings on Reason, Logic, and Their Proper Application Thereof (An Audio Post)

Other audiopostings on this subject may be recorded in the days and weeks ahead should your host feel the inclination to do so.

Prayer Requests:

I noted last week a relative of mine was dying and she passed within a day of that blog posting. Her funeral was last Saturday and yesterday another relative passed on also who had been fighting cancer. (A second cousin I am not even sure I ever met now that I think about it.)

Anyway, please remember Jenny Riley as well as Joanne in your prayers and also their closest family members too. I think Joanne's maiden name was Ripplinger. (I do not know what her married name was.)


[Lord] remember Jenny Riley and Joanne Ripplinger. In baptism they died with Christ: may they also share his resurrection, when Christ will raise our mortal bodies and make them like his own in glory. [Eucharistic Prayer III: From The Roman Missal under Masses for the Dead]

Greg Mockeridge gets off his blogging keister and weighs in with some apropo observations about June 7th as a "day of infamy" for the Islamofascists

Miscellaneous Musings on Reason, Logic, and Their Proper Application Thereof

Points to Ponder:
(On Freedoms and How They Are Both Earned and Preserved)

[I]t has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag." [Zell Miller]

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:

Your host's comments will be interspersed where applicable.

The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism (James Arlandson)

The essence of the above article can be summed up in the author's own words from the article:

It must be admitted that there is much to dislike about the European Crusades. If they are contrasted with the mission and ministry of Jesus and the first generations of Christians, then the Crusades do not look so good. But did the Europeans launch the first Crusade in a mindless, bloodthirsty and irrational way, or were there more pressing reasons? Were they the only ones to be militant?

In light of the various strands of propaganda involved on this issue, the above article is a good reminder of who started the imperialist military incursions and I will give you a hint: it was not the Christians. Moving on...

Looking Back at Iraq (Victor Davis Hanson)

The above article contains an important correction on a lot of the absurd moonbat shrieking about the military intervention in Iraq by a credentialed military historian.{1} Also worth considering is the historical parallel that Davis expounded upon in early 2002 in explaining the approach taken to the Islamic terrorists and how it was similar in several respects to how Western Europe and America approached the problem of Nazi Germany in the 1930's.

The New World of Immigration (Victor Davis Hanson)

One of the dark sides of the illegal immigration issue (read: what most people do not care to consider) is touched on in the above article.

Iraq Veteran Sues Moore Over 9/11 Film (Denise LaVoie)

A hat tip is in order to Christopher Blosser for alerting us to the thread. All I have to say about it is "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" because it is about time this modern day Joseph Goebbels gets his comeuppance in one area where he will probably feel pain: in the pocketbook. Hopefully this honourable veteran wins his case and gets what he is seeking. But enough on that for now.

An Assessment of the First Year of Pope Benedict XVI's Papacy (Sandro Magister)

Self-explanatory except to note that Sandro Magister's insight on the interworkings of the Vatican is among the finest out there.{2}

Democrats Eye November Landslide (Ron Fournier)

Readers who think this is a pipedream on the part of the Democrats would be advised to consider some of the factors I wrote on in private late last year and blogged to this humble weblog in early spring of this year.{3}

Gore in Hay Climate Change Plea (BBC News)

Am I the only one who when I read the above article has visions of the South Park "Man-Bear-Pig" parody of Al Gore dancing in my head???{4}

Bold Statement on Immigration Shows Off Lady Liberty's Undies (WTOL -Toledo)

My sentiments precisely. The article speaks of Rep. James Sensenbrenner, normally a good barometer on these kinds of issues.{5} However, I plan to blog either tomorrow or later this week (when there is time to finish the draft) on a subject where Rep. Sensenbrenner is mistaken.

We Are Determined: Interview With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

I certainly hope I am mistaken in detecting similar threads of reasoning between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and certain self-styled "peacemakers"{6} -the issue of the Holocaust's existence notwithstanding of course.

The Blogosphere’s own Captain Queeg (Allahpundit)

Having affixed the Captain Queeg label on someone before who was not of the blogosphere in the past,{7} I suppose affixing it to Mary Mapes is also appropriate in light of the argument she is trying to make. Essentially, she is trying to claim that the CBS document forgeries were not forged. I have dealt with some of the key argumentation fallacies surrounding that issue before and do not want to reiterate past bits on it here. However, she is essentially claiming that the documents are true by trying to attack those who have demonstrated otherwise.{8} It is the same kind of idiocy that those who raise the shibboleth of the so-called "stolen elections" of 2000 and 2004 inexorably involve themselves in.

The fallacy is in not making her own arguments to support her contentions. It does not suffice to simply claim that someone is wrong but one must propose their own alternative theory and that means going beyond merely asserting something which anyone can do.{9} In a word: Ms. Maples needs to put up or shut the hell up. I for one would prefer to see the latter but heck, if she wants to establish a theory{10} I and others can interact with, then bring...it...on. For as far as I am concerned, I doubt it will be anything more than illogical solipsistic gibberish as is par for the course with people of her particular weltanschauung. And you can take that prediction to the bank my friends...guaranteed :)

Notes:

{1} I am not by saying this asserting that Davis' arguments are unimpeachable because of his credentials as a military historian as this would be the very kind of argumentation fallacies I dealt with in another military discussion topic that spanned over a month last year and (unfortunately) resurfaced briefly in January of this year. However, Davis' solid arguments for his position are enhanced by his credentials and that is how one should appeal to an authority if they hope to do so in a non-fallacious fashion.

{2} It seems appropriate to remind readers of an excellent piece Magister wrote on the geopolitics of the Holy See

Between Venus and Mars the Church of Rome Chooses Both

The subtitle of the article reads as follows:

The Holy See’s geopolitics analyzed in the light of the dominant doctrines: realism, isolationism, internationalism, and neoconservatism. For Vatican diplomacy, there can be good reasons even for war.

Hopefully it will help in clarifying a lot of the propaganda by certain partisans against our military involvement in the Middle East viz. what the Holy See actually thinks on this matter and why. (In a nutshell: it is not as clear-cut as many have attempted to portray it.)

{3} On Geopolitical Issues, the 2006 Elections, Shifting Voting Demographics, Etc. --Dialogue With Mark Bonocore Parts I-IV (circa March 3-4, 2006)

{4} I refer of course to this on-target parody (quoted script courtesy of Right Wing News):

Students of South Park Elementary...I'm here to educate you about the single biggest threat to our planet. You see, there is something out there which threatens our very existence and may be the end of the human race as we know it. I'm talking of course about...Manbearpig...

It is a creature which roams the earth alone. It is half man, half bear, and half pig. Some people say that Manbearpig isn't real. Well, I'm here to tell you know, Manbearpig is very real, and he most certainly exists. I'm serial. Manbearpig doesn't care who you are or what you've done. Manbearpig simply wants to get you! I'm super-serial. But have no fear, because I am here to save you! And someday, when the world is rid of Manbearpig, everyone will say "Thank you, Al Gore. You're super awesome."

{5} Though I am not sure I have ever mentioned it up to this time, I have over the years used Rep. Sensenbrenner as a kind of "acid test" for initial positions on issues. This has been done primarily on those occasions when I have not had the time to study them myself with the detail required. This has proven to be a good rule to follow but all rules admit of exceptions -one of which I will be writing on soon.

{6} Here are a few threads from this weblog pertaining in some fashion or another to the subject noted above in order from newest to oldest:

Revisiting the Flawed "Chickenhawk" Argument (circa May 1, 2006)

"Vreebird" Dept. (circa March 6, 2006)

Miscellaneous Musings (circa December 10, 2005)

More on Marxists, Their Methodology, and Other Tidbits (circa July 20, 2005)

{7} A subject I do not intend to revisit at this time.

{8} Whatever one wants to say about the merits or demerits of the arguments advanced by those who have asserted that those documents were forged; nonetheless, arguments have been made to sustain the assertion. Ms. Maples cannot claim the same for her own assertions (at least not as of this writing).

{9} The following are two examples of many which could be noted from the archives of this humble weblog:

Preserving the Historical Record (circa January 23, 2006)

Responding to a Rationally Challenged So-Called "Progressivist" (circa May 17, 2005)

{10} [W]hen one is dealing with a theory, they are dealing with both abstract notions as well as coordinating dynamic principles of action. One of the author's intellectual mentors once defined a theory as "a set of non contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them 'principles') which purports to be either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action."...

Having established a working meaning of the term theory, it is worth noting also that the word thesis according to the Merriam Webster Thesaurus is related to the word theory. (Both of them having a foundation in the term assumption.) A good way of looking at this in the current context is to view a thesis as "an abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument" and a theory as incorporating a thesis -or a series of theses -with a guideline for successful action. The reason for this is because a theory by its nature must involve either (i) a correct description of reality or (ii) a guideline for successful action. For this reason, any viable theory involves several principles if you will which work together.

Or another way of looking at it would be to consider that a theory is being conceived of a series of non contradictory coordinative theses or points of presupposition. When viewed in this light, a theory clearly is only as strong as the theses which support it. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 14, 2004)]

Points to Ponder:
(A D-Day Rememberance)

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.

Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your "lives fought for life . . . and left the vivid air signed with your honor.''

I think I know what you may be thinking right now--thinking, "We were just part of a bigger effort; everyone was brave that day.'' Well, everyone was. Do you remember the story of Bill Millin of the 51st Highlanders? Forty years ago today, British troops were pinned down near a bridge, waiting desperately for help. Suddenly, they heard the sound of bagpipes, and some thought they were dreaming. Well, they weren't. They looked up and saw Bill Millin with his bagpipes, leading the reinforcements and ignoring the smack of the bullets into the ground around him.

Lord Lovat was with him--Lord Lovat of Scotland, who calmly announced when he got to the bridge, "Sorry I'm a few minutes late,'' as if he'd been delayed by a traffic jam, when in truth he'd just come from the bloody fighting on Sword Beach, which he and his men had just taken.

There was the impossible valor of the Poles who threw themselves between the enemy and the rest of Europe as the invasion took hold, and the unsurpassed courage of the Canadians who had already seen the horrors of war on this coast. They knew what awaited them there, but they would not be deterred. And once they hit Juno Beach, they never looked back.

All of these men were part of a rollcall of honor with names that spoke of a pride as bright as the colors they bore: the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, Poland's 24th Lancers, the Royal Scots Fusiliers, the Screaming Eagles, the Yeomen of England's armored divisions, the forces of Free France, the Coast Guard's "Matchbox Fleet'' and you, the American Rangers.

Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet, you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love.

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge--and pray God we have not lost it--that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you. [President Ronald W. Reagan (circa June 6, 1984)]

Miscellaneous Musings on "Stolen Elections"

Prayer Request:

Another relative is going to be dead before this time next week due to a rare kind of lymphoma which is incurable. I ask therefore that you please keep Jenny Riley in your prayers along with her immediate family.

On the Fourth Amendment, The Supreme Court, and Warrantless Searches:
(Aka "One From the Mailbag" Dept.)

My interlocuter's words will be in blue font.

I believe your reading of the 4th [Amendment] is incorrect. If you look at the text the first clause, about unreasonable searches, it is an independent clause and can function as a complete sentence. The following part, about warrants, is also an independent clause. This means that searches are grammatically and logically distinct from the issuance of warrants. A search, in other words, can be reasonable and warrantless, but a warrant requires certain standards.

This is certainly a feasible theory you have. I should note that my intention of that posting was not to deal with all facets of what is and is not an acceptable search in conformity with constitutional principles. Essentially, I did not intend to say anything more than if the four provisions in the body of the amendment are met, the argument for a constitutional violation when raiding a building to search and seize cannot be credibly maintained. That is all.{1}

I'm not a lawyer, but if I recall correctly I think there have been a number of cases in which SCOTUS has ruled that some warrantless searches are reasonable.

Well, the Supreme Court has ruled on a lot of issues where one wonders what they are smoking in the judges chambers (to put it mildly). Need I remind you of Kelo{2}??? When the justices can miss the boat that badly on constitutional so-called "interpretation", one should be hesitant if the judgments you talk about were handed down by a Supreme Court with the same justice configuration as the one that muffed that ruling. But I digress.

Notes:

{1} Upon reviewing that text, I see that the phrasing I used lent itself to the interpretation my interlocuter placed on it. For that reason, I have tweaked the text slightly in a few spots to clarify my original intentions and thank the writer for bringing it to my attention.

{2} Miscellaneous Notes and Notifications (circa June 29, 2005)

Points to Ponder:
(On Liberals)

What the liberal really wants is to bring about change which will not in any way endanger his position. [Stokely Carmichael]

On the Latest Bush Administration SNAFU Situation:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Readers of this weblog are aware that I have had a rather ambivalent view of President Bush for years. On some issues, his approach is correct and on others there is little if anything to differentiate him from those who politically oppose him. On the latest situation with the FBI raid of Rep. William Jefferson's offices, at the very least there is the appearance of impropriety in how this was handled. The usual suspects are griping about supposed "Constitutional violations" but in doing this, they only show how the Constitution is appealed to by them when it is expedient and otherwise it is ignored. In this case, the griping is about the fourth amendment and a supposed "infringement" therein. Let us consider now that amendment and what it allows and does not allow:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Okay now, it is made clear in the text that what people are to be secure from is unreasonable searches and seizures. That phrasing implies that there are searches and seizures which are reasonable; otherwise the text would assert a right from all forms of searches and seizures. It is also clear that a search and seizure can be considered "reasonable" if certain guidelines are followed including (i) issuing a warrant to search, (ii) issuing said warrant with probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, (iii) a description of the place to be searched being included in the aforesaid warrant, and (iv) the persons or things to be seized also being described in the warrant issued. If the aforementioned criteria is met, than the assertion of a "constitutional violation" has no merit to it whatsoever.

Let us start with the issuing of a search warrant. Was this done in the Jefferson case??? Yes it was and you can review it HERE if you like. In fact, open that text in a separate window and let us go over it step by step.

We know that a warrant was issued so step one of the procedure for a reasonable search and seizure was met. If you look at the first part of the warrant, you will see a sworn affidavit which meets part of the second part of the criteria for a reasonable search and seizure. Included in that affidavit is a detailed description of the place to be searched which meets the third criteria and a listing of the persons or things to be seized is also listed -albeit in the link above (available for public viewing) they are blacked out for confidentiality purposes.{1} The warrant is ninety-five pages long and contains all the required criteria for a reasonable search including establishing within it the reasons for probable cause justifying the search thus meeting the second part of the second piece of criteria for a reasonable search and seizure.

In the search warrant, the arguments for probable cause include violations by Rep. Jefferson of (i) bribery of a public official, (ii) wire fraud -deprivation of honest services, (iii) wire fraud -scheme to defraud, (iv) bribery of a foreign official, (v) conspiracy to commit the aforementioned offenses. So as the criteria was met as enumerated by the fourth amendment, the search therefore was reasonable and the the cries of "unconstitutionality" on this are nothing more than the babblings of ignorant people. But that is not all.

As Texas Fred noted, the Bush Administration is attempting to get in the way of the FBI doing their job here and that has resulted in the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Director of the FBI Robert S. Mueller III threatening to resign. If there is probable cause that an elected representative of the United States (in this case, Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana) broke the law, then the FBI and the Attorney General are acting accordingly here and any attempt to obstruct them in the process is a serious offense. It stretches credibility to claim it is an impeachable offense in and of itself of course; however, that does not mean that the matter is lacking in seriousness.

Now I am aware that even House Republican leaders are claiming that this is a constitutional violation but there is another dynamic involved here that needs to be considered: 2006 is an election year. Because of the latter, there are probably some who want to be on the side of objecting to this because (i) President Bush's popularity figures are at an all-time low and (ii) by opposing the president of their own party, the Republicans who take that position can try to claim some kind of independence from presidential coattails going into the fall elections.

As much as I am hesitant to compare the Bush Administration to the Nixon Administration, on the matter of interfering with an FBI investigation, it certainly appears that there is a viable connection to be made on that point. Likewise, much as I am hesitant to compare the Bush Administration to the Clinton Administration, it bears noting that one of the charges brought against President Clinton and which he was impeached on{2} was obstruction of justice. With that in mind, I cannot fault some people{3} for seeing in the above comparisons a stronger case on obstruction of justice being levied at President Bush than President Clinton considering the seriousness of the charges involved with the obstruction of justice in the Jefferson case. By contrast, Bill Clinton lying under oath to a grand jury about his sexual escapades{4} is more of a bagatelle really. But enough on this matter for now.

[Update: Due to a misunderstanding of my intention in writing this post, the material above has been tweaked a bit in spots. I explain my reasons for doing this HERE. - ISM 6/01/06 5:50pm]

Notes:

{1} This is hardly irregular since (i) evidence in a criminal investigation is supposed to be protected and (ii) the public does not have a right to know the intricacies of this criminal investigation any more than they do any other investigation. It suffices that the requirements for reasonable search and seizure are met which could logically be taken to mean the guidelines noted in the fourth amendment. As was noted above, this has been met in the Jefferson case so no more needs to be said on this point at this time.

{2} The House impeaches and the Senate votes for removal from office; ergo this explains why Clinton could be impeached and yet still serve out the remaining part of his term.

{3} Obviously those who have been spreading lies and libel about George Bush the past six years on a whole host of issues are not to be taken seriously as they are simply like the blind pig who finds an acorn once in a while. (Not hard to do when you rail against everything.) But even many who are much more discerning and who are willing to allow for the normal conventions of politics in their analysis, some of this cannot help but be troubling.

{4} There were far more impeachable high crimes (including treason) committed in the Clinton Administration. Or as I noted when discussing these issues in mid 2003:

Where were these nitwits during Filegate when Clinton and his wife pilfered over 1,000 FBI files on political opponents??? Chuck Colson went to jail for a while in the 1970's for possessing just ONE of these kinds of files. But Clinton??? Nope, he and Moloch Hillary got off scott free because there is a clear and unmistakable double-standard here.

What about Chinagate where the safety of our nuclear secrets were sacrificed for re-election funds??? Anyone who thinks THIS can possibly be less problematical than any war mismanagement by the current president is in need of a SERIOUS reality transplant. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2003)]

The rarely updated Miscellaneous BLOG has received a new post today inspired by the words of Texas Fred. That entry is accessible HERE for those who are interested in a new word definition for future discussions and (perhaps) posterity.

"Cohiba Ergo Sum" Dept.
(Dan Brown and The DaVinci Code Are "MISTed" The Curmudgeon in a Guest Editorial)

[Prefatory Note: Unlike what I normally do with guest editorials (either posit prefatory and/or concluding commentary or write a separate commentary of my own on them) with this one, it is so short and self-explanatory (I hope) that those conventions can be avoided. Without further ado, here it is. -ISM]

#######

If Dan Brown wrote a novel about the Holocaust it would probably look like this:

Robert Langdon, while on a lecture tour in Germany, is contacted by a reclusive unorthodox World War 2 historian who claims to have a great secret which would rock the Western world to its foundations:

Everything we have been taught for the past 60 years about the Nazis and the Holocaust were lies, Langdon is told. No Jews died at the hands of the Nazis and there were no death camps in Poland and Eastern Europe. In fact, Langdon "discovers," the "real" secret behind the Holocaust is that the Nazis were persecuted by the Jews, not the other way around. Langdon also "discovers" that the "myth of the Holocaust" was created by a Vast Zionist Conspiracy under the control of the Israeli government and international bankers.

Langdon soon "learns" that for thousands of years ruthless Jewish conspirators have been murdering the true heirs of Abraham in order to preserve their false version of Judaism and to hide the “truth” that Abraham really worshiped the Divine Feminine and intended to start a fertility cult.

The "evidence" Langdon uncovers? A set of "ancient" secret documents known as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." (The "Protocols" were actually fabricated by the Russian secret police and released to a gullible Russian public as a pretext for the Czar's systematic murder of thousands of innocent Jewish peasants. But so what?)

Of course, Dan Brown would say that all this is "just fiction," but that it "poses" some "interesting" questions about history, which we can't really know anything about for sure anyway. After all, Brown would argue, he has done his research:

He has read the "scholarly" papers published by the Institute for Historical Review and "well-researched" books such as "Did Six Million Really Die?" and "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century." (Both books were written by notorious neo-Nazi nutcases, and the IHR was set up by a well-known anti-semitic propagandist. But what the heck; it's great material for a novel, no?)

And so it would go in the confused world of Dan Brown.

#######

A Weblog Remembrance:

Considering how much the propagandists in the MSM made a big deal out of the "2000th death in Iraq since the start of military operations" last year, I do not expect them to give equal time to the fact that we have now surpassed 5,000th deaths at the hands of Islamic terrorists since September 11, 2001. Nonetheless, you can view it for yourself in the side margin of this humble weblog and click on the logo to get the code to add to your own website or weblog if you have one and feel inclined to do that. (The logo will also be included in this posting.) If not than at the very least give a minimal of equal time to this milestone in the war on terror if you do not want to be thought of as placing ideology ahead of both principles as well as consistency.

Points to Ponder:

[R]eactionaries rarely wish to restore a past more than a generation old. [John J. Reilly]

"Dog Days of Summer" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Apparently I am not the only one who has noticed this situation as of late:

Blogger Burnout: it's the end of the beginning ("Neo-NeoCon")

The above post explains to some extent why I have found blogging such a chore as of late -though I do not have a problem "wrapping my mind around" the Iran issue as the writer above claims that they do. But just because I can "wrap my mind around" the issue does not mean that I am either (i) enthusiastic to discuss it or (ii) motivated to put much energy into blogging. I sense that the summer months will be hard ones blogging-wise to maintain reasonable production on this matter both with my business increasing in time demands and the general mental malaise noted by "neo-neocon" in the thread noted above.

There is a reason why they refer to the summer months as the "dog days of summer" and with this being an election year, it is imperative that minds remain focused on the big picture and not get bogged down with side distractions. And as I intend to be razor sharp for the final months before the election; ergo that will necessitate dialing back the intensity a bit for the summer months. Intensity and duration are two sides of the same coin and this is manifested in the laws of nature itself.{1} I am not therefore going to try and fight it as I know it will be futile and I take Santayana's dictum{2} seriously.


Notes:

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

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

{2} It is a lesson that with elections coming up needs to be reiterated time and again lest we repeat history because we do not learn from it (cf. Santayana). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 17, 2002)]