"Ducks on the Pond" Dept.
(Dispatching Easily With Three Critics)
For those who doubt the value of careful planning in one's writing -and why I bothered to set out exacting criteria for dialogue on the subject of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the morality of using atomic bombs in general earlier in the week, they are now going to see in two forms the wisdom behind such tactics.
Now there is a longer response to Mark Shea and two of his positional allies which when I sent a draft form to two friends to look over (it needs to be tweaked a bit but is substantially completed as of this writing), they compared my approach as taking a marine platoon up against a boy scout troop. Of course that was my idea anyway -to so thoroughly dispatch with the haughty righteousness of people such as Mark Shea that there would be no stone left unturned. But a thought came to me after reading the feedback on the longer version and it was this:
--For practical as well as tactical reasons, it may be worthwhile to precede the longer expository musing thread with a shorter posting outlining why Mark and his positional allies are not even worth being taken seriously on this issue to begin with since they do not meet the requirements as we outlined them on July 22nd.
So it is with that in mind that the post you have before you was written today over lunch. Let us review now and dispatch in short order with what the longer post interacts with in detail by examining the comments of Mark Shea and certain positional allies of his and seeing if they even meet the minimal requirements for what I outlined in the posting on dialogue conditions from July 22nd. The words of the other two interlocutors will be in different shades of green font with Mark Shea's words in an appropriate hue of yellow. Without further ado...
I had an English friend who immensely enjoyed websites that took some manifestly absurd proposition and then threw vast intellectual resources at trying to defend it against all the assaults of common sense
Now, here is the fantastically verbose Rerum Novarum, slaughtering trillions of electrons to make the extremely long-winded case for why that plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face teaching does not apply to us when we nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Masterpieces of sophistry. And that's just two posts. There's even more where that came from.
Here's the Catechism saying, just about as clearly as can possibly be said that "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."
That is the first batch of words from Mark Shea on this subject. Here is the second batch of words from him:
I do agree that Truman probably thought he was doing the right thing. He did not have the benefit of Catholic teaching. Shawn does. Given that the document being cited by the Catechism is directly addressing the annihilation of cities which took place in WWII and given that both Paul VI and JPII condemned the bombings of H and N, I think Shawn's attempts to justify them are a particularly egregious example of nationalism triumphing over the obvious teaching of the Church.
All of this will be touched on shortly after noting what "Jarnor23" had to say:
Well, you know how it is with some Catholics. Since nobody came right out and said we demand assent of the will on the matter, they'll ignore anything they find inconvenient about the faith and call it "prudential judgment". Then they'll proceed to call people who aren't as conservative about something else like returning to a married priesthood "Cafeteria Catholics".
Then there was some fella who apparently likes to call themselves "Anonymous" who noted these things:
Shawn is a cafeteria Catholic, pure and simple. And a good deal worse than a lot of his cousins on the left, who at least believe that abortion is wrong even if they aren't eager to do anything about it. Shawn's on the level of a Catholic who not only doesn't want to stop abortion legally, but actually thinks it's acceptable.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki's civilian casualties could never meet the proportionality test since the military assets in those cities simply weren't valuable enough.
Now then, let us demonstrate in short order why Mark and these other two persons have proven they cannot meet the challenge I set out on this issue by examining the criteria set down point by point. The points themselves will be in the regular dark blue source font but bolded to separated them from the other sources cited. Without further ado, let us get to it...
1) The discussion must conform itself to the discipline of the dialogue at all times...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 22, 2007)]
Readers who review the thread on dialogue linked to that point can now consider whether Mark Shea, "Jarnor23", and "Anonymous" meet that criteria or not. To summarize the bare bones of authentic dialogue from that linked posting before moving on with the other criteria, there are nine principles touched on which we will now look at one by one:
---Striving to enter into the viewpoint of the other person as much as you possibly can...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]
It is obvious when what I wrote is looked at and you review what Mark Shea, "Jarnor23", and "Anonymous" wrote that they failed to adhere to the above principle of authentic dialogue.
---Listening to what someone actually says and taking time to assimilate their arguments into the collective of your mind...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]
Review my previous comments as per Mark Shea, "Jarnor23", and "Anonymous" as they also apply here.
---Striving to conform ones approaches to the canons of traditional charity as much as one feasibly can...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]
Review my previous comments as per Mark Shea, "Jarnor23", and "Anonymous" as they also apply here -particularly in the case of Mark Shea and "Anonymous."
---Seeking to properly represent the positions of the other person in accordance with objective criteria...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]
When what I wrote is looked at and you review what Mark Shea, "Jarnor23", and "Anonymous" wrote, it is evident that they failed to adhere to the above principle of authentic dialogue.
---Seeking to at all times respect the wishes of the other person viz. the manner in which one seeks dialogue in various mediums...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]
Review my previous comments as per Mark Shea, "Jarnor23", and "Anonymous" as they also apply here.
---Make actual arguments for a position rather than merely give the opinions of others as if said opinions constitute an actual argument in and of themselves...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]
When what I wrote is looked at and you review what Mark Shea, "Jarnor23", and "Anonymous" wrote, it is evident that they failed to adhere to the above principle of authentic dialogue. In the case of Mark Shea, he engaged in elementary argumentation fallacies as did "Anonymous." Meanwhile, "Jarnor23" showed that he did not understand an important distinction to be made between what is a matter of open theological speculation and what is not admitting of divergence in the Catholic weltanschauung.
---In citing sources, concern for proper context should be viewed to be of importance...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]
When what I wrote is looked at and you review what Mark Shea wrote, it is evident that he failed to adhere to the above principle of authentic dialogue. Mark Shea references sources without concern for the actual context involved and utilizes a common fallacy of argumentation in the process. As for the other two, they did not cite sources so they did not run afoul of this principle.
---In utilizing any source with a degree of controversion pertaining to it, factors which may bias that source should be disclosed to the readers if they either are known or can be reasonably ascertained...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]
When what I wrote is looked at and you review what Mark Shea wrote, it is evident that he failed to adhere to the above principle of authentic dialogue. Mark Shea references sources without concern for the actual context involved and utilizes a common fallacy of argumentation in the process. As for the other two, they did not cite sources so they did not run afoul of this principle.
---There should always be a strong hesitancy against making any kind of strong and opinionated public assertions on an issue where the person in question has minimal knowledge (if any) on....[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]
It is obvious when what I wrote is looked at and you review what Mark Shea, "Jarnor23", and "Anonymous" wrote that they failed to adhere to the above principle of authentic dialogue. Both Mark Shea and "Anonymous" run afoul on an argumentation fallacy to boot which "Jarnor23" in what is noted above did not do -though he did make forceful statements on a subject which he obviously is not well informed about as Mark Shea and "Anonymous" likewise did.
In recapping the 9 principles outlined above which are indispensable for authentic dialogue and and how each critic fared, Mark Shea goes 0 for 9, "Jarnor23" goes 3 for 9, and "Anonymous" goes 2 for 9. On this one issue alone, there is reason enough to disqualify them from being taken seriously on the subject in question and no more needs to be said about it. But unfortunately, that is not all.
2) It is absolutely a requirement that anyone who wants to discuss this matter with me review some of what I have already written on the matter in question. I realize that a lot has been written; therefore I have decided to make as a minimal requirement that the inaugural posting I wrote on the problems with revisionist historians, the posting on double effect, and the posting on Gaudium et Spes and general norms be given due diligence as to their content...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 22, 2007)]
All one has to do is review the threads I refer to above and read the words of Mark Shea, "Jarnor23", and "Anonymous" and notice that none of them have fulfilled this requirement -indeed I had already confuted a year and a half to two years ago various purported "arguments" made by all three of them. Once again, on this one issue alone, Mark Shea, "Jarnor23", and "Anonymous" can be disqualified as well to say nothing about failing to meet what was noted under point one. And that is not all either unfortunately.
3) Any such challenger will be expected by me to stick to the natural lights of reason and logic if they expect to try and persuade me of the merits of their position over and above mine.[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 22, 2007)]
Considering that Mark Shea has engaged in three distinct argumentation/logical fallacies in his referenced words above, it is clear that by this criteria alone he disqualifies himself apart from failing to meet what was noted under points one and two. In the case of "Jarnor23", he did not run afoul on this point but "Anonymous" sure did with the attempt to claim that someone can be a "cafeteria Catholic" by not accepting certain area where the Catholic conscience makes no requirements thereof. And unfortunately that is not all either.
4) Any such challenger will be expected by me to not confuse the subjective with the objective...Those who do not take the time to familiarize themselves with this distinction will be summarily disqualified as unfit...as they will inexorably write a bunch of non-sequiturial drivel which I will not lift a finger to interact with. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum(circa July 22, 2007)]
I am virtually certain that Mark Shea, "Jarnor23", and "Anonymous" would over time run afoul of this criteria if they spent much time discussing these issues with me. However, in what little is written by them above, it does not appear that they have yet run afoul of this criteria objectively; nonetheless, I note that here.
5) Any such challenger will be expected by me to not engage in any illegitimate appeals to authority as others in the past have done with me. I will not long tolerate it and indeed I will not dispatch with such pathetic attempts irenically so be warned in advance about that. The post noted in footnote fourteen explains this subject adequately and therefore any presumed challenger will be expected to familiarize themselves with its contents...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 22, 2007)]
This is one that Mark Shea has repeatedly involved himself in. As for "Jarnor23" and "Anonymous", they do not but that is quite likely because in their above words, they do not appeal to any authority but merely make unsubstantiated assertions.
6) I have no problem with valid usages of the ad hominem approach -unlike many so-called "apologists" I can take a punch as well as throw one. (As this is a subject which naturally effects emotions on both sides, for that reason bits of valid ad hominem will therefore be tolerated by me as a means of letting off steam.) However, any such challenger will be expected by me to make sure they know the difference between valid and invalid uses of the ad hominem because I will not tolerate the latter at any time whatsoever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 22, 2007)]
In the case of Mark Shea, he has not in at least a couple years involved himself in anything remotely approaching valid ad hominem; ergo, he fails on this point and miserably at that. As for "Jarnor23", I did not see enough in this area to tell if he/she did or not. But with "Anonymous", it is obvious that they did.
7) Any such challenger will be expected by me to being open to questioning their own infallibility. I have seen a failure in this area far too often and frankly it annoys me. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 22, 2007)]
I am of course always willing to do this. From what they have written, Mark Shea obviously is not and I cannot tell from what I have seen from "Jarnor23" or "Anonymous" if they are of a like-mind as Mark Shea on this matter. I am inclined to view "Anonymous" as such based on part of what he/she said but nothing "Jarnor23" said would lend me to presume the same about them a priori; ergo I will not do so.
Oh and finally: do not (i) insult my intelligence, (ii) question my orthodoxy, or (iii) engage in any other cheap trick which I have seen from people who have (up to now) proven incapable of interacting on this issue as Catholics should act. Or should I say they should act if they are what they claim (both explicitly and implicitly) to be. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 22, 2007)]
On all three of the points noted in the final cited paragraph, Mark Shea, "Jarnor23", and "Anonymous" could not avoid running afoul of them. Let us sum up the results of this brief examination now.
In the final tally of the principles required for me to dialogue on this issue, there were seven major points (one of which had nine sub parts to it) and three final requirements -the latter of which can simply be summed up in the phrase "show that you are the Catholic that you claim to be."
In other words, there were seven major points -any one of which if it is not met means automatic disqualification. And all three of these critics ran aground on one or more points including various subsections of the first one.{1} Mark Shea also ran afoul of the second, third, fifth, sixth, and seventh points as well. As for "Anonymous", they also ran afoul of points three, six, and seven while "Jarnor23" (considering only what is noted above) did not fail to measure up in the other major areas except with regards to point two.{2}
The end result though is that Mark Shea get the gold medal as the worst of the bunch as far as meeting the criteria so noted in my July 22nd dialogue criteria posting -indeed he fails to measure up practically across the board. "Anonymous" comes in a not-too-distant second and gets the silver medal while "Jarnor23" receives from a distance the bronze.{3} Of course the outline was set up as an all or nothing proposition and this was after careful thought and deliberation on my part for a reason. Understanding that in advance, all three fail to stack up precisely as I predicted in advance would happen almost universally with those who talk the talk on this issue but do not walk the walk.
I noted in the final line of that posting that I was curious to see if any Catholics actually would prove themselves to be worthy or if it would be more of the illogical and theologically vapid status quo. So far it has been the latter unfortunately -at least among those who were briefly noted above.
I also already noted that a more detailed exposition is coming where I will outline certain argumentation/logical fallacies that Mark Shea, "Anonymous", and "Jarnor23" utilized in their words cited above. In that text I will also note some persons who I noticed may be able to meet the criteria I have specified for a productive dialogue on the subject of the atomic bombings.{4} But enough on what is to come and we now need to consider what has been dealt with in this posting.
Without the slightest doubt whatsoever, it is a case of "ducks on the pond" with the persons briefly dealt with in this posting.{5} They would need to do a lot better than they have already if they want me to take them seriously. A hell of a lot better to put it mildly and that is the bottom line really.
Notes:
{1} Mark Shea again going 0 for 9, "Jarnor23" going 3 for 9, and "Anonymous" going 2 for 9. (Where nothing less than 9 for 9 is acceptable if they are to avoid being disqualified on the first point alone.)
{2} It is worth noting though that I view it as probable that both "Jarnor23" and "Anonymous" would if drawn out further run afoul of the fourth and fifth points and Mark Shea unquestionably would with the fourth point making him summarily unfit to be taken seriously on all points involved. I say this based on what I have seen thus far and also based on experience in dealing with people who try and discuss this issue rationally; namely, it so rarely happens that I presume it will not until the contrary is demonstrated.
{3} This means that of the three, "Jarnor23" did the best job even though they still fell far short of the guidelines.
{4} I refer here to the historical incidents as well as the morality of the matter in general.
{5} The longer exposition thread when it is posted (which it will be either tomorrow or perhaps on Monday) will be more methodical in dealing with this subject.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Miscellaneous Threads and Musings:
Without further ado...
The Real Threat to Civil Liberties (Victor Davis Hanson)
This sentence from the article sums it up well in a nutshell:
[L]iberal civil libertarians are not so liberal about free speech when it is a matter of the public not buying into their own progressive agendas.
Essentially the above thread from VDH is a well-written synopsis of the real threats to civil liberties that those who whine the loudest about wanting to "protect" not only do not care about but that they actually encourage.
Moving on, we have more "sound and fury signifying nothing" (cf. W. Shakespeare) as it pertains to the firing of the eight US Attorneys by the Bush Administration. For now the House Judiciary Committee is seeking contempt charges against the president's chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers. They do this in the name of the Constitution which shows just how ignorant they really are about the latter (as if we did not know already).
Whether you like President Bush or not, what the Democrats in the House are doing here is unconstitutional and the precedent for Bush's position was set by President George Washington when the House of Representatives in his day demanded all papers pertaining to the then-unpopular Jay Treaty which was viewed as too favourable to Great Britain. President Washington set the precedent here by refusing to comply under the rubric that there was nothing in the Constitution granting the House of Representatives any authority in the making of treaties. Indeed, any purely executive function is exempt from legislative meddling and President Bush will win this fight if the Democrats are stupid enough to press it. And I for one hope they do because it will insure that they fall further in popularity than they already have.
Of course I noted earlier this month what I viewed as the problematical weltanschauung under which the Democrats are operating in their mania to try and get Bush at any cost whatsoever and I do not intend to revisit it anew here except in a footnote.{1} As for the rest, the following article from John Yoo explains this subject so well that I will defer to it now and follow it up with a reminder to readers of what I have previously written on the subject of the US Attorney firings and the hypocrisy of this Democratic Congress in the stance they are taking on the matter. First Mr. Yoo's article:
Contempt and Congress (John Yoo)
And now my previous comments on the aforementioned subject:
To start with, lets call this media hubbub over the 8 US Attorneys fired by the Bush Administration what it is: a crock of horse pucky. I remember well the Clinton Administration firing all the US Attorneys two months into the first term of President Bill Clinton and the msm's response was to say nothing. Only the conservatives on talk radio made a big stink about it but that is neither here nor there. Logically, if firing 8 is a "crisis situation" than what does that make firing 93??? And if firing 8 for supposed "political reasons" is so damned evil than what about firing all the US Attorneys as Clinton did??? Where was the msm when that heinous evil was performed by the Clinton's??? As usual, they were AWOL because Clinton was "their guy" and Bush is not.
The truth is, the whole handling of attorneys in the US Department of Justice (USDOJ) is an executive function and the executive can hire or fire whomever they want. That is true with Bush as it was with Clinton. However, I fail to see how this is anything more than a ploy by the Democrats in Congress and their partisans in the msm to sabotage the Bush Administration with another non-scandalous so-called "scandal." If anything was truly a sign of corruption or seeking to impose favouritism onto the USDOJ it would have been the unprecedented firing of all the attorneys as President Clinton did. No president in United States history ever did that before and that was a genuine example of "destabilization" not the Bush Administration's firing of a mere eight attorneys.
What this boils down to folks is yet another obvious and blatant msm double standard against the present Administration in particular and Republicans in general. What more needs to be said than that really??? [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 15, 2007)]
As no more needs to be said about this really than what is noted in my above comments and John Yoo's article, let us move on now to a Baghdad update from a few weeks ago via someone on the ground over there:
Baqubah Update: 05 July 2007 (Michael Yon)
Mr. Yon highlights something in his update which I believe is crucial to understanding how the winds have changed over there amongst the Iraqi populace:
Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth.
Now that all those realizations and more have settled in, the dynamics here are changing in palpable ways.
In other words, the US's post-1975{2} track record of not "having our allies' back" was a significant reason for the Iraqi distrust of us for a while after the ceasing of major military operations in Iraq. And in the case of the Iraqis, they only had to remember what we did after the ceasing of major operations after the 1991. For those with short memories, allow me via Wikipedia to refresh your memory:
A peace conference was held in Iraqi territory occupied by the coalition. At the conference, Iraq won the approval of the use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian transportation. Soon after, these helicopters, and much of the Iraqi armed forces, were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. The rebellions were encouraged on 2 February 1991 by a broadcast on CIA run radio station The Voice of Free Iraq broadcasting out of Saudi Arabia. The Arabic service of the Voice of America supported the uprising by stating that the rebellion was large and that they soon would be liberated from Saddam.
In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support an uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. [Wikipedia: From the Article Gulf War]
This is why I have never jumped on the whole "we have to get out because the Iraqis are not stepping up" school of thought that even permeates the outlook of some conservatives initially supportive of the war effort. Unlike them, I was taking history as my teacher here and recognizing that the Iraqis knew what we did last time and what the result of our failure to have their back did under Hussein's regime. It would not be any different this time around except in the specific tyrant or tyrants doing the crackdown.
It has taken a while not only to stabilize the country -which in the age of idiotic PC self-anointed "watchdogs" means walking on eggshells to an extent that has been frankly absurd- but to get the Iraqis to trust us. Now this collection of Congressional cretins wants to show that they do not learn from history and repeat the mistakes of the 1974 Congress. And they have the gall some of them to kvetch about supposedly impeaching President Bush??? As I noted earlier this year, the only viably impeachable offense no longer is one by virtue of dumb luck really since the President if he had gotten his way would have been ripe for the plucking.{3} But I do not want to get offtrack on this issue as the time to wrap up the current thread is at hand. Oh, one more thing from Mr. Yon's July Baghdad update which is particularly chilling to consider:
Speaking through an American interpreter, Lieutenant David Wallach who is a native Arabic speaker, the Iraqi official related how al Qaeda united these gangs who then became absorbed into “al Qaeda.” They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al Qaeda. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people.
At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.
As far as I am concerned, those who bitch continually about the use of slightly rough coercion/interrogation tactics of captured "insurgents" deserve a severe caning for their idiocy. And I for one would be glad to wield that cane if asked to with no qualms whatsoever on those kinds{4} of morons but that is all I will say on the matter at the present time.
Notes:
{1} The more I have mused on their behaviour, the more apparent it is that their entire approach is akin to the old Articles of Confederation where the power was vested solely in a congressional body. For readers who do not know history very well, that is the sort of governmental arrangement that the Founding Fathers sought to do away with in writing the Constitution of the United States which intended to support and sustain a strong and vigorous executive branch. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2007)]
{2} Basically when the Congress in 1974 betrayed our allies in South Vietnam and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and ushered in atrocities that the pseudo-"peacemakers" to this day do not want to accept responsibility for. (See this thread from 2006 for a snapshot of a longer thread I wrote on this subject in years past.)
{3} I noted a couple of times back in June[...] that I was coming to the conclusion that the immigration approach that President Bush wanted to undertake was potentially an impeachable offense -indeed this was the reason I decided to shelve a project I have worked on intermittently dealing with the whole "impeachment of Bush" issue.[...] However, as we noted the other day, since the illegal immigrant amnesty bill is dead and will not be revivable until the next congress and presidency for various and sundry reasons[...], essentially President Bush dodged a bullet on this matter and therefore the subject previously noted as being shelved may be revived and completed for posting before the end of the year time and motivation-willing on my part. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2007)]
{4} I will not for the sake of time constraints note some of the parties I had in mind when writing those words.
Without further ado...
The Real Threat to Civil Liberties (Victor Davis Hanson)
This sentence from the article sums it up well in a nutshell:
[L]iberal civil libertarians are not so liberal about free speech when it is a matter of the public not buying into their own progressive agendas.
Essentially the above thread from VDH is a well-written synopsis of the real threats to civil liberties that those who whine the loudest about wanting to "protect" not only do not care about but that they actually encourage.
Moving on, we have more "sound and fury signifying nothing" (cf. W. Shakespeare) as it pertains to the firing of the eight US Attorneys by the Bush Administration. For now the House Judiciary Committee is seeking contempt charges against the president's chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers. They do this in the name of the Constitution which shows just how ignorant they really are about the latter (as if we did not know already).
Whether you like President Bush or not, what the Democrats in the House are doing here is unconstitutional and the precedent for Bush's position was set by President George Washington when the House of Representatives in his day demanded all papers pertaining to the then-unpopular Jay Treaty which was viewed as too favourable to Great Britain. President Washington set the precedent here by refusing to comply under the rubric that there was nothing in the Constitution granting the House of Representatives any authority in the making of treaties. Indeed, any purely executive function is exempt from legislative meddling and President Bush will win this fight if the Democrats are stupid enough to press it. And I for one hope they do because it will insure that they fall further in popularity than they already have.
Of course I noted earlier this month what I viewed as the problematical weltanschauung under which the Democrats are operating in their mania to try and get Bush at any cost whatsoever and I do not intend to revisit it anew here except in a footnote.{1} As for the rest, the following article from John Yoo explains this subject so well that I will defer to it now and follow it up with a reminder to readers of what I have previously written on the subject of the US Attorney firings and the hypocrisy of this Democratic Congress in the stance they are taking on the matter. First Mr. Yoo's article:
Contempt and Congress (John Yoo)
And now my previous comments on the aforementioned subject:
To start with, lets call this media hubbub over the 8 US Attorneys fired by the Bush Administration what it is: a crock of horse pucky. I remember well the Clinton Administration firing all the US Attorneys two months into the first term of President Bill Clinton and the msm's response was to say nothing. Only the conservatives on talk radio made a big stink about it but that is neither here nor there. Logically, if firing 8 is a "crisis situation" than what does that make firing 93??? And if firing 8 for supposed "political reasons" is so damned evil than what about firing all the US Attorneys as Clinton did??? Where was the msm when that heinous evil was performed by the Clinton's??? As usual, they were AWOL because Clinton was "their guy" and Bush is not.
The truth is, the whole handling of attorneys in the US Department of Justice (USDOJ) is an executive function and the executive can hire or fire whomever they want. That is true with Bush as it was with Clinton. However, I fail to see how this is anything more than a ploy by the Democrats in Congress and their partisans in the msm to sabotage the Bush Administration with another non-scandalous so-called "scandal." If anything was truly a sign of corruption or seeking to impose favouritism onto the USDOJ it would have been the unprecedented firing of all the attorneys as President Clinton did. No president in United States history ever did that before and that was a genuine example of "destabilization" not the Bush Administration's firing of a mere eight attorneys.
What this boils down to folks is yet another obvious and blatant msm double standard against the present Administration in particular and Republicans in general. What more needs to be said than that really??? [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 15, 2007)]
As no more needs to be said about this really than what is noted in my above comments and John Yoo's article, let us move on now to a Baghdad update from a few weeks ago via someone on the ground over there:
Baqubah Update: 05 July 2007 (Michael Yon)
Mr. Yon highlights something in his update which I believe is crucial to understanding how the winds have changed over there amongst the Iraqi populace:
Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth.
Now that all those realizations and more have settled in, the dynamics here are changing in palpable ways.
In other words, the US's post-1975{2} track record of not "having our allies' back" was a significant reason for the Iraqi distrust of us for a while after the ceasing of major military operations in Iraq. And in the case of the Iraqis, they only had to remember what we did after the ceasing of major operations after the 1991. For those with short memories, allow me via Wikipedia to refresh your memory:
A peace conference was held in Iraqi territory occupied by the coalition. At the conference, Iraq won the approval of the use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian transportation. Soon after, these helicopters, and much of the Iraqi armed forces, were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. The rebellions were encouraged on 2 February 1991 by a broadcast on CIA run radio station The Voice of Free Iraq broadcasting out of Saudi Arabia. The Arabic service of the Voice of America supported the uprising by stating that the rebellion was large and that they soon would be liberated from Saddam.
In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support an uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. [Wikipedia: From the Article Gulf War]
This is why I have never jumped on the whole "we have to get out because the Iraqis are not stepping up" school of thought that even permeates the outlook of some conservatives initially supportive of the war effort. Unlike them, I was taking history as my teacher here and recognizing that the Iraqis knew what we did last time and what the result of our failure to have their back did under Hussein's regime. It would not be any different this time around except in the specific tyrant or tyrants doing the crackdown.
It has taken a while not only to stabilize the country -which in the age of idiotic PC self-anointed "watchdogs" means walking on eggshells to an extent that has been frankly absurd- but to get the Iraqis to trust us. Now this collection of Congressional cretins wants to show that they do not learn from history and repeat the mistakes of the 1974 Congress. And they have the gall some of them to kvetch about supposedly impeaching President Bush??? As I noted earlier this year, the only viably impeachable offense no longer is one by virtue of dumb luck really since the President if he had gotten his way would have been ripe for the plucking.{3} But I do not want to get offtrack on this issue as the time to wrap up the current thread is at hand. Oh, one more thing from Mr. Yon's July Baghdad update which is particularly chilling to consider:
Speaking through an American interpreter, Lieutenant David Wallach who is a native Arabic speaker, the Iraqi official related how al Qaeda united these gangs who then became absorbed into “al Qaeda.” They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al Qaeda. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people.
At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.
As far as I am concerned, those who bitch continually about the use of slightly rough coercion/interrogation tactics of captured "insurgents" deserve a severe caning for their idiocy. And I for one would be glad to wield that cane if asked to with no qualms whatsoever on those kinds{4} of morons but that is all I will say on the matter at the present time.
Notes:
{1} The more I have mused on their behaviour, the more apparent it is that their entire approach is akin to the old Articles of Confederation where the power was vested solely in a congressional body. For readers who do not know history very well, that is the sort of governmental arrangement that the Founding Fathers sought to do away with in writing the Constitution of the United States which intended to support and sustain a strong and vigorous executive branch. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2007)]
{2} Basically when the Congress in 1974 betrayed our allies in South Vietnam and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and ushered in atrocities that the pseudo-"peacemakers" to this day do not want to accept responsibility for. (See this thread from 2006 for a snapshot of a longer thread I wrote on this subject in years past.)
{3} I noted a couple of times back in June[...] that I was coming to the conclusion that the immigration approach that President Bush wanted to undertake was potentially an impeachable offense -indeed this was the reason I decided to shelve a project I have worked on intermittently dealing with the whole "impeachment of Bush" issue.[...] However, as we noted the other day, since the illegal immigrant amnesty bill is dead and will not be revivable until the next congress and presidency for various and sundry reasons[...], essentially President Bush dodged a bullet on this matter and therefore the subject previously noted as being shelved may be revived and completed for posting before the end of the year time and motivation-willing on my part. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2007)]
{4} I will not for the sake of time constraints note some of the parties I had in mind when writing those words.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Points to Ponder:
In the past few days, the number of those killed by the extremists of the "religion of peace" since 9/11 has surpassed 9,000. Care to bet that the mainstream media is not going to report this as breathlessly as they did the 2,000 death in Iraq since the start of the war in 2003??? [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Thought From Five Minutes Ago]
In the past few days, the number of those killed by the extremists of the "religion of peace" since 9/11 has surpassed 9,000. Care to bet that the mainstream media is not going to report this as breathlessly as they did the 2,000 death in Iraq since the start of the war in 2003??? [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Thought From Five Minutes Ago]
Sunday, July 22, 2007
On the Morality of Using Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Use of Atomic Bombs in General -Outline for a Possible Dialogue in August of 2007:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Though I have sought consciously to avoid this subject directly for the better part of the past year and a half{1}, I began pondering a few months ago the possibility of giving another go at an actual dialogue{2} on these matters. But before going into my reason for deciding to do this, a bit of background on the issue is important so I will do that at the present time.
To start with, the subject of the morality of using atomic weapons have been discussed from time to time by your humble servant at Rerum Novarum. This has occurred at sundry times and in diverse manners over the years with the decision made a couple of years ago to put together a synthesis if you will of our view on the subject in question. The latter decision was sparked by our becoming aware of certain very ignorant and historically revisionist statements made on the matter in question by a Catholic apologist of once high reputation{3} which we decided at the time to address in a pseudononymous fashion.
The subject in question was one which when made the subject of an extensive analysis and exposition in August of 2005{4} resulted in a number of unfortunate situations developing. I had long known that the complexity involved in attempting an equitable analysis of the issue were seriously lacking by the lions share of people who had written on this subject over the years. However, while it is true that this was not a subject which normally reasonable people were either able or willing to discuss intelligently though I had naively thought that some good friends would be able to at some point do this. Ultimately this proved not to happen{5} and subsequently I have unfortunately found myself out of principle forced to revisit the subject as a result of others' engaging in standard revisionist history or misrepresenting certain curial statements as being statements of the Catholic Church's magisterium{6} thus evincing a significant ignorance of general norms of theological interpretation.{7}
Essentially, I realized through experience on the issue in question the Pandora's Box that is involved in discussing it. Part of the reason for this is the emotions that an issue such as this can have. With the overall lack of anything resembling rational thought and logical analysis of issues in society at large, I should have realized that such a situation could have occurred which did but alas, I was naive in trusting friends to act as friends. And when considering the number of times this subject has been on the verge of being rehashed in the past year -and how I have managed to skirt it through a proper appeal to principled rationale{8} the time has come in my mind for a careful reappraisal of my normative approach to this matter.
As much as I tire of hearing about this issue{9} from the usual suspects{10}, it also stands to reason that no subject can be shut off from being discussed indefinitely. For those reasons, and to insure that the subject is neither (i) completely neglected or (ii) handled in the embarrassing fashions to which I have unfortunately witnessed on not a few occasions, I will despite my reluctance agree to discuss it between August 6, 2007 and August 21, 2007 within certain parameters. I will now spell out the aforementioned parameters so that there is no confusion on the matter.
1) The discussion must conform itself to the discipline of the dialogue at all times as spelled out to some extent in the posting on the principles of authentic dialogue noted in this thread.{11} I go over with no small degree of care this subject in that thread because it is an important and often neglected facet of modern discourse. Any such challenger will be presumed by me apriori to have familiarized themselves with those principles and will be assessed accordingly by them.
2) It is absolutely a requirement that anyone who wants to discuss this matter with me review some of what I have already written on the matter in question. I realize that a lot has been written; therefore I have decided to make as a minimal requirement that the inaugural posting I wrote on the problems with revisionist historians, the posting on double effect, and the posting on Gaudium et Spes and general norms be given due diligence as to their content. Those will be linked in this thread in an accompanying footnote.{12} As those threads are the minimal requirement for someone to understand where I am coming from on this subject, I will therefore focus most of any response to defending what is written in those postings though (if necessary) I will have recourse to other postings if the person who wants to try and dialogue cannot stay on topic or if they try a lot of the standard evasion tactics or referencing certain so-called "experts" if said "experts" are ones whose credibility has been debunked by me already in years past.
3) Any such challenger will be expected by me to stick to the natural lights of reason and logic if they expect to try and persuade me of the merits of their position over and above mine. Illogical appeals to emotion will be grounds for disqualifying the party in question from being taken seriously without a moment's hesitation on my part.
4) Any such challenger will be expected by me to not confuse the subjective with the objective -a subject I have written on before and will note in a footnote an important clarifying thread on this matter written earlier this year.{13} Those who do not take the time to familiarize themselves with this distinction will be summarily disqualified as unfit for me to expend my time trying to dialogue with as they will inexorably write a bunch of non-sequiturial drivel which I will not lift a finger to interact with. If I am going to attempt a dialogue with someone, I want it to be substantive and not involve wasting my time; ergo the importance of any presumed challenger familiarizing themselves with the distinction outlined in footnote thirteen above.
5) Any such challenger will be expected by me to not engage in any illegitimate appeals to authority as others in the past have done with me. I will not long tolerate it and indeed I will not dispatch with such pathetic attempts irenically so be warned in advance about that. The post noted in footnote fourteen explains this subject adequately and therefore any presumed challenger will be expected to familiarize themselves with its contents.{14}
6) I have no problem with valid usages of the ad hominem approach -unlike many so-called "apologists" I can take a punch as well as throw one. (As this is a subject which naturally effects emotions on both sides, for that reason bits of valid ad hominem will therefore be tolerated by me as a means of letting off steam.) However, any such challenger will be expected by me to make sure they know the difference between valid and invalid uses of the ad hominem because I will not tolerate the latter at any time whatsoever. The post thread in footnote fifteen{15} explains this more than adequately and therefore any challenger will be expected by me to familiarize themselves with its contents.
7) Any such challenger will be expected by me to being open to questioning their own infallibility. I have seen a failure in this area far too often and frankly it annoys me.
More could be noted but in a nutshell that will suffice for the time being. Oh, there is another thing which needs to be noted in advance before I finish this thread and it is this:
--I have practically no confidence whatsoever that any Catholic will be able to meet the criteria as noted above.
My reason for setting this down as I have is to make it clear from the outset that I do not expect to see a single Catholic of the common school of what passes for "thought" on this issue to be able to stack up. However, I would love on this latter point to be disproven. The ball is therefore in the court of those who have tried without success to get me to discuss this issue since the last dispatching of a poor excuse for a supposed "dialogue" on this matter back in early 2006.
I have posted this thread and the one preceding it over two weeks prior to the proposed dialogual period to provide for anyone who wants to dialogue on this issue a sufficient amount of time to become at least minimally informed on my position and familiarize themselves with some tools for being able to effectively argue their position to the extent that they can. Furthermore, I have by no means set up an impossible standard for people to meet in how this criteria is outlined. However, it will involve anyone wanting to have a rational dialogue on this matter to do a bit of homework and figure out why I hold the position I do and for what reasons. That is a core requirement for the discipline of the dialogue after all and one that we have noted on this weblog before:
To tell the truth, it is very difficult to carry on a dialogue: Many dialogues, even of Plato are fictitious, juxtapositions of monologues. Each stays as they were. This is so often what happens at assemblies and congresses. The true dialogue demands an effort which is continual and almost heroic, which consists first in trying to see from the other's viewpoint. Leibniz, that mind so open and elastic, said that the position of the other is the true viewpoint of politics and morals, and this going out of oneself to adopt --if only for a moment--the point of view of one's interlocutor he calls quite simply: love. [Jean Guitton: Dialogues of Paul VI With Jean Guitton pg. 163 (c. 1967) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum Posting (circa May 20, 2005)]
Oh and finally: do not (i) insult my intelligence, (ii) question my orthodoxy, or (iii) engage in any other cheap trick which I have seen from people who have (up to now) proven incapable of interacting on this issue as Catholics should act. Or should I say they should act if they are what they claim (both explicitly and implicitly) to be.
In summary, for those who have sought to try and get me to discuss this subject again in various overt and covert ways -or anyone else for that matter- these are my terms for discussing it and the time frame in which I am willing to discuss it. I await to see if any Catholics will actually stack up on this issue or if it will be more of the illogical, ahistorical, and theologically obtuse status quo among them.
Notes:
{1} The better part of a year and a half as of August 4, 2007
{2} Though this is a subject which has resulted in a number of weblog postings in written and audio form over the years, there is one in particular which I want to note here:
Some Principles For Authentic Dialogue and the Proper Use of Sources in Papers (circa February 9, 2006)
The above thread gives an outline of sorts on certain elements which are required for a genuine dialogue and I expect them to be present in any presumed dialogue I have -either on this subject or any other really.
{3} I say "once high reputation" because certain events in the more recent past have seriously sullied our once high view of this individual and their organization.
{4} For a history of the postings to this weblog on the subject of the atomic bombings, see this thread from earlier today where all the links are posted in sequential order from oldest to newest.
{5} I had hoped after I had notified some friends of the intention to publicly weigh in on the matter in question that it may be intelligently discussed at some point in the future once my position was properly understood. However, I had naively underestimated the good-will of certain friends on this matter. For that reason -and without agreeing in advance to a format for discussion of the matter- the result was unfortunate but in retrospect not completely a surprise.
{6} This is a reference to the teaching authority of the Church and the statements it sets forth which are requiring of assent to varying degrees by faithful Catholics.
{7} If necessary, I will outline the Vatican's general norms of theological interpretation and how they apply to the issue in question. However, if a dialogue fitting the above criteria cannot be established first, I am hesitant to take the time to do the extra effort outlined in this footnote by my own admission.
{8} I would be more than happy to discuss the subject of atomic bombings at another time -say contemporary to the next anniversary which will be in August of this year. The reason for that is that I have already written a fair amount on this subject already and it has a way of getting under people's skin in a way few other subjects can. For that reason -and because I am tired of discussing the subject[...]- I would ask that if you want to talk about it with me to let me know around August or so when the subject of the anniversaries of those events come around again and the circumstances would be more appropriate. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 15, 2007)]
{9} Mainly because I have not seen anything approaching a serious and intelligent public response to what I have written on this matter from other Catholics up to the present day.
{10} Namely, Catholics who are obviously not familiar with either the degree of theological speculation allowed in this area or the concept of general norms of theological interpretation when reviewing various statements or texts which may to a certain extent apply to the subject in general.
{11} See footnote two.
{12} Namely these threads:
On Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications (circa August 17, 2005)
Expanding Futher on the Subject of Double Effect Viz. the Atomic Bombings (circa August 26, 2005)
On Gaudium et Spes and General Norms of Interpretation (circa February 4, 2006)
While far from the only ones I have written on this subject and the various complexities involved philosophically, rationally, theologically, historically, etc., those thread will serve as a good starting point for this discussion with the others being brought into the mix to the extent that it would be deemed necessary by me in accordance with how a dialogue on this subject would develop.
{13} On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)
{14} On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)
{15} On Ad Hominem, Revisiting Argumentum Ad Vericundiam , and Considering the Core Principle That Is Behind Any Argumentation/Logical Fallacy (circa June 1, 2007)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Though I have sought consciously to avoid this subject directly for the better part of the past year and a half{1}, I began pondering a few months ago the possibility of giving another go at an actual dialogue{2} on these matters. But before going into my reason for deciding to do this, a bit of background on the issue is important so I will do that at the present time.
To start with, the subject of the morality of using atomic weapons have been discussed from time to time by your humble servant at Rerum Novarum. This has occurred at sundry times and in diverse manners over the years with the decision made a couple of years ago to put together a synthesis if you will of our view on the subject in question. The latter decision was sparked by our becoming aware of certain very ignorant and historically revisionist statements made on the matter in question by a Catholic apologist of once high reputation{3} which we decided at the time to address in a pseudononymous fashion.
The subject in question was one which when made the subject of an extensive analysis and exposition in August of 2005{4} resulted in a number of unfortunate situations developing. I had long known that the complexity involved in attempting an equitable analysis of the issue were seriously lacking by the lions share of people who had written on this subject over the years. However, while it is true that this was not a subject which normally reasonable people were either able or willing to discuss intelligently though I had naively thought that some good friends would be able to at some point do this. Ultimately this proved not to happen{5} and subsequently I have unfortunately found myself out of principle forced to revisit the subject as a result of others' engaging in standard revisionist history or misrepresenting certain curial statements as being statements of the Catholic Church's magisterium{6} thus evincing a significant ignorance of general norms of theological interpretation.{7}
Essentially, I realized through experience on the issue in question the Pandora's Box that is involved in discussing it. Part of the reason for this is the emotions that an issue such as this can have. With the overall lack of anything resembling rational thought and logical analysis of issues in society at large, I should have realized that such a situation could have occurred which did but alas, I was naive in trusting friends to act as friends. And when considering the number of times this subject has been on the verge of being rehashed in the past year -and how I have managed to skirt it through a proper appeal to principled rationale{8} the time has come in my mind for a careful reappraisal of my normative approach to this matter.
As much as I tire of hearing about this issue{9} from the usual suspects{10}, it also stands to reason that no subject can be shut off from being discussed indefinitely. For those reasons, and to insure that the subject is neither (i) completely neglected or (ii) handled in the embarrassing fashions to which I have unfortunately witnessed on not a few occasions, I will despite my reluctance agree to discuss it between August 6, 2007 and August 21, 2007 within certain parameters. I will now spell out the aforementioned parameters so that there is no confusion on the matter.
1) The discussion must conform itself to the discipline of the dialogue at all times as spelled out to some extent in the posting on the principles of authentic dialogue noted in this thread.{11} I go over with no small degree of care this subject in that thread because it is an important and often neglected facet of modern discourse. Any such challenger will be presumed by me apriori to have familiarized themselves with those principles and will be assessed accordingly by them.
2) It is absolutely a requirement that anyone who wants to discuss this matter with me review some of what I have already written on the matter in question. I realize that a lot has been written; therefore I have decided to make as a minimal requirement that the inaugural posting I wrote on the problems with revisionist historians, the posting on double effect, and the posting on Gaudium et Spes and general norms be given due diligence as to their content. Those will be linked in this thread in an accompanying footnote.{12} As those threads are the minimal requirement for someone to understand where I am coming from on this subject, I will therefore focus most of any response to defending what is written in those postings though (if necessary) I will have recourse to other postings if the person who wants to try and dialogue cannot stay on topic or if they try a lot of the standard evasion tactics or referencing certain so-called "experts" if said "experts" are ones whose credibility has been debunked by me already in years past.
3) Any such challenger will be expected by me to stick to the natural lights of reason and logic if they expect to try and persuade me of the merits of their position over and above mine. Illogical appeals to emotion will be grounds for disqualifying the party in question from being taken seriously without a moment's hesitation on my part.
4) Any such challenger will be expected by me to not confuse the subjective with the objective -a subject I have written on before and will note in a footnote an important clarifying thread on this matter written earlier this year.{13} Those who do not take the time to familiarize themselves with this distinction will be summarily disqualified as unfit for me to expend my time trying to dialogue with as they will inexorably write a bunch of non-sequiturial drivel which I will not lift a finger to interact with. If I am going to attempt a dialogue with someone, I want it to be substantive and not involve wasting my time; ergo the importance of any presumed challenger familiarizing themselves with the distinction outlined in footnote thirteen above.
5) Any such challenger will be expected by me to not engage in any illegitimate appeals to authority as others in the past have done with me. I will not long tolerate it and indeed I will not dispatch with such pathetic attempts irenically so be warned in advance about that. The post noted in footnote fourteen explains this subject adequately and therefore any presumed challenger will be expected to familiarize themselves with its contents.{14}
6) I have no problem with valid usages of the ad hominem approach -unlike many so-called "apologists" I can take a punch as well as throw one. (As this is a subject which naturally effects emotions on both sides, for that reason bits of valid ad hominem will therefore be tolerated by me as a means of letting off steam.) However, any such challenger will be expected by me to make sure they know the difference between valid and invalid uses of the ad hominem because I will not tolerate the latter at any time whatsoever. The post thread in footnote fifteen{15} explains this more than adequately and therefore any challenger will be expected by me to familiarize themselves with its contents.
7) Any such challenger will be expected by me to being open to questioning their own infallibility. I have seen a failure in this area far too often and frankly it annoys me.
More could be noted but in a nutshell that will suffice for the time being. Oh, there is another thing which needs to be noted in advance before I finish this thread and it is this:
--I have practically no confidence whatsoever that any Catholic will be able to meet the criteria as noted above.
My reason for setting this down as I have is to make it clear from the outset that I do not expect to see a single Catholic of the common school of what passes for "thought" on this issue to be able to stack up. However, I would love on this latter point to be disproven. The ball is therefore in the court of those who have tried without success to get me to discuss this issue since the last dispatching of a poor excuse for a supposed "dialogue" on this matter back in early 2006.
I have posted this thread and the one preceding it over two weeks prior to the proposed dialogual period to provide for anyone who wants to dialogue on this issue a sufficient amount of time to become at least minimally informed on my position and familiarize themselves with some tools for being able to effectively argue their position to the extent that they can. Furthermore, I have by no means set up an impossible standard for people to meet in how this criteria is outlined. However, it will involve anyone wanting to have a rational dialogue on this matter to do a bit of homework and figure out why I hold the position I do and for what reasons. That is a core requirement for the discipline of the dialogue after all and one that we have noted on this weblog before:
To tell the truth, it is very difficult to carry on a dialogue: Many dialogues, even of Plato are fictitious, juxtapositions of monologues. Each stays as they were. This is so often what happens at assemblies and congresses. The true dialogue demands an effort which is continual and almost heroic, which consists first in trying to see from the other's viewpoint. Leibniz, that mind so open and elastic, said that the position of the other is the true viewpoint of politics and morals, and this going out of oneself to adopt --if only for a moment--the point of view of one's interlocutor he calls quite simply: love. [Jean Guitton: Dialogues of Paul VI With Jean Guitton pg. 163 (c. 1967) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum Posting (circa May 20, 2005)]
Oh and finally: do not (i) insult my intelligence, (ii) question my orthodoxy, or (iii) engage in any other cheap trick which I have seen from people who have (up to now) proven incapable of interacting on this issue as Catholics should act. Or should I say they should act if they are what they claim (both explicitly and implicitly) to be.
In summary, for those who have sought to try and get me to discuss this subject again in various overt and covert ways -or anyone else for that matter- these are my terms for discussing it and the time frame in which I am willing to discuss it. I await to see if any Catholics will actually stack up on this issue or if it will be more of the illogical, ahistorical, and theologically obtuse status quo among them.
Notes:
{1} The better part of a year and a half as of August 4, 2007
{2} Though this is a subject which has resulted in a number of weblog postings in written and audio form over the years, there is one in particular which I want to note here:
Some Principles For Authentic Dialogue and the Proper Use of Sources in Papers (circa February 9, 2006)
The above thread gives an outline of sorts on certain elements which are required for a genuine dialogue and I expect them to be present in any presumed dialogue I have -either on this subject or any other really.
{3} I say "once high reputation" because certain events in the more recent past have seriously sullied our once high view of this individual and their organization.
{4} For a history of the postings to this weblog on the subject of the atomic bombings, see this thread from earlier today where all the links are posted in sequential order from oldest to newest.
{5} I had hoped after I had notified some friends of the intention to publicly weigh in on the matter in question that it may be intelligently discussed at some point in the future once my position was properly understood. However, I had naively underestimated the good-will of certain friends on this matter. For that reason -and without agreeing in advance to a format for discussion of the matter- the result was unfortunate but in retrospect not completely a surprise.
{6} This is a reference to the teaching authority of the Church and the statements it sets forth which are requiring of assent to varying degrees by faithful Catholics.
{7} If necessary, I will outline the Vatican's general norms of theological interpretation and how they apply to the issue in question. However, if a dialogue fitting the above criteria cannot be established first, I am hesitant to take the time to do the extra effort outlined in this footnote by my own admission.
{8} I would be more than happy to discuss the subject of atomic bombings at another time -say contemporary to the next anniversary which will be in August of this year. The reason for that is that I have already written a fair amount on this subject already and it has a way of getting under people's skin in a way few other subjects can. For that reason -and because I am tired of discussing the subject[...]- I would ask that if you want to talk about it with me to let me know around August or so when the subject of the anniversaries of those events come around again and the circumstances would be more appropriate. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 15, 2007)]
{9} Mainly because I have not seen anything approaching a serious and intelligent public response to what I have written on this matter from other Catholics up to the present day.
{10} Namely, Catholics who are obviously not familiar with either the degree of theological speculation allowed in this area or the concept of general norms of theological interpretation when reviewing various statements or texts which may to a certain extent apply to the subject in general.
{11} See footnote two.
{12} Namely these threads:
On Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications (circa August 17, 2005)
Expanding Futher on the Subject of Double Effect Viz. the Atomic Bombings (circa August 26, 2005)
On Gaudium et Spes and General Norms of Interpretation (circa February 4, 2006)
While far from the only ones I have written on this subject and the various complexities involved philosophically, rationally, theologically, historically, etc., those thread will serve as a good starting point for this discussion with the others being brought into the mix to the extent that it would be deemed necessary by me in accordance with how a dialogue on this subject would develop.
{13} On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)
{14} On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)
{15} On Ad Hominem, Revisiting Argumentum Ad Vericundiam , and Considering the Core Principle That Is Behind Any Argumentation/Logical Fallacy (circa June 1, 2007)
Threads on the Atomic Bomb Droppings, Military and Statistical Calculations, the Moral and Ethical Aspects of the Subject Matter in Question, Etc...
(A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation/Update Thread)
This subject was treated to a similar recapitulation treatment back in January of 2006 prior to dispatching once and for all with the pretensions of "scholarship" and "logical argument" posited by a former friend of this weblog writer at their instigation. In light of a post I am readying for posting later today, it seems appropriate to summarize up to this point in one spot all of the threads on the above subject matters from August 17, 2005 through July 20, 2007. Without further ado (in order from oldest to newest):
On Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications (circa August 17, 2005)
Some Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (From Dr. Art Sippo circa August 18, 2005)
More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (From Tim Tull circa August 19, 2005)
More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontificatons" Thread (From Tim Tull on Dr. Sippo's Email circa August 21, 2005)
Points to Ponder --On the Atomic Bombs and Their Usage (By Dr. Art Sippo circa August 22, 2005)
And Yet More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (circa August 25, 2005)
And More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (circa August 26, 2005)
And Yet Still More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (circa August 26, 2005)
Expanding Futher on the Subject of Double Effect Viz. the Atomic Bombings (circa August 26, 2005)
Clarifying Some Additional Points on the Atomic Bombing Subject With Dave Armstrong (circa August 28, 2005)
"Armstrong Illusions" Dept. --Part I of II (circa September 6, 2005)
"Armstrong Illusions" Dept. --Part II of II (circa September 6, 2005)
Points to Ponder --On Appealing to Authority in Argumentation (circa September 9, 2005)
Briefly on Making a Valid Argument and Avoiding Argumentation Fallacies (circa September 11, 2005)
"Exit Stage Left" Dept. (circa September 12, 2005)
Abstract Theorizing and Hypothetical Wartime Situations With SecretAgentMan--Parts I-II (circa September 20 & 23, 2005)
"Armstrong Illusions" Revisited (circa January 23, 2006)
Guest Editorial on the Atomic Bombings, the Continued Emphasis on it Publicly by Certain Apologists, and the Goal of Catholic Apologetics--By Dr. Art Sippo (circa January 26, 2006)
A Followup Guest Editorial on the Atomic Bombings, the Continued Emphasis on it Publicly by Certain Apologists, and the Goal of Catholic Apologetics--By Dr. Art Sippo (circa January 31, 2006)
Naked Anticipation -A Poem by Albert Cipriani (circa January 31, 2006)
Some Wrapup Comments on the Previous Guest Editorial (circa January 31, 2006)
On Gaudium et Spes and General Norms of Interpretation (circa February 4, 2006)
Responding to Various Assertions of Stephen Hand (circa March 12, 2006)
Some Core Problems With Apologetics Methodology (circa August 5, 2006)
Core Problems With Apologetics Methodology Revisited With Apolonio Latar III (circa August 14, 2006)
Setting the Record Straight on Old Controversies (circa August 16, 2006)
Highlighting a Key Problem With Apologetics Methodology With Jimmy Akin (circa November 28, 2006)
On Peace, the Role of Force, and Gaudium et Spes §80 Revisited, Plus a Bit More on Rerum Novarum Guest Editorial Policy With Nate Wildermuth (circa January 15, 2007)
On General Norms of Theological Interpretation (circa April 27, 2007)
From the Mailbag (circa May 17, 2007)
The reason for this recapitulation/update thread will become evident soon.
(A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation/Update Thread)
This subject was treated to a similar recapitulation treatment back in January of 2006 prior to dispatching once and for all with the pretensions of "scholarship" and "logical argument" posited by a former friend of this weblog writer at their instigation. In light of a post I am readying for posting later today, it seems appropriate to summarize up to this point in one spot all of the threads on the above subject matters from August 17, 2005 through July 20, 2007. Without further ado (in order from oldest to newest):
On Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications (circa August 17, 2005)
Some Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (From Dr. Art Sippo circa August 18, 2005)
More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (From Tim Tull circa August 19, 2005)
More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontificatons" Thread (From Tim Tull on Dr. Sippo's Email circa August 21, 2005)
Points to Ponder --On the Atomic Bombs and Their Usage (By Dr. Art Sippo circa August 22, 2005)
And Yet More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (circa August 25, 2005)
And More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (circa August 26, 2005)
And Yet Still More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (circa August 26, 2005)
Expanding Futher on the Subject of Double Effect Viz. the Atomic Bombings (circa August 26, 2005)
Clarifying Some Additional Points on the Atomic Bombing Subject With Dave Armstrong (circa August 28, 2005)
"Armstrong Illusions" Dept. --Part I of II (circa September 6, 2005)
"Armstrong Illusions" Dept. --Part II of II (circa September 6, 2005)
Points to Ponder --On Appealing to Authority in Argumentation (circa September 9, 2005)
Briefly on Making a Valid Argument and Avoiding Argumentation Fallacies (circa September 11, 2005)
"Exit Stage Left" Dept. (circa September 12, 2005)
Abstract Theorizing and Hypothetical Wartime Situations With SecretAgentMan--Parts I-II (circa September 20 & 23, 2005)
"Armstrong Illusions" Revisited (circa January 23, 2006)
Guest Editorial on the Atomic Bombings, the Continued Emphasis on it Publicly by Certain Apologists, and the Goal of Catholic Apologetics--By Dr. Art Sippo (circa January 26, 2006)
A Followup Guest Editorial on the Atomic Bombings, the Continued Emphasis on it Publicly by Certain Apologists, and the Goal of Catholic Apologetics--By Dr. Art Sippo (circa January 31, 2006)
Naked Anticipation -A Poem by Albert Cipriani (circa January 31, 2006)
Some Wrapup Comments on the Previous Guest Editorial (circa January 31, 2006)
On Gaudium et Spes and General Norms of Interpretation (circa February 4, 2006)
Responding to Various Assertions of Stephen Hand (circa March 12, 2006)
Some Core Problems With Apologetics Methodology (circa August 5, 2006)
Core Problems With Apologetics Methodology Revisited With Apolonio Latar III (circa August 14, 2006)
Setting the Record Straight on Old Controversies (circa August 16, 2006)
Highlighting a Key Problem With Apologetics Methodology With Jimmy Akin (circa November 28, 2006)
On Peace, the Role of Force, and Gaudium et Spes §80 Revisited, Plus a Bit More on Rerum Novarum Guest Editorial Policy With Nate Wildermuth (circa January 15, 2007)
On General Norms of Theological Interpretation (circa April 27, 2007)
From the Mailbag (circa May 17, 2007)
The reason for this recapitulation/update thread will become evident soon.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Points to Ponder:
(From John Adams)
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
In politics the middle way is none at all.
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.
(From John Adams)
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
In politics the middle way is none at all.
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.
On the "Catholics Against Rudy" Website:
Steve Dillard (formerly of Southern Appeal) has launched finally his Catholics Against Rudy website and I note it here so that readers of this humble weblog are aware that I support this endeavour. I have noted before that Rudy Guiliani would make a fine attorney general or even director of the FBI but not a good president.{1} The difference in the positions is not insignificant. The presidency is supposed to be a position of national influence and the morality of the officeholder is of no small significance. Rudy claims to be a Catholic and yet his stated positions in not a few areas{2} are contrary to accepted positions for Catholics to hold and profess.
Whatever one wants to say about the other candidates, they do not claim to be Catholic and flout what the Catholic Church teaches on several important issues as Rudy does. That is one argument whereby Catholics can oppose his candidacy at this time. For others who do not find this a convincing argument , try this one: Rudy Guiliani does not deserve support as president as long as there are more qualified people out there than him.
I am aware that there are differences in how some issues are interpreted. For that reason, I want to do my part at this time to ask fellow Catholics to support this venture and leave aside differences on interpretation of broader concepts for another day. The cause of shooting down Rudy Guiliani for the Republican nomination for president is more important than rehashing battles which can be fought another day.
Oh and lest I forget to mention it, after the next posting I am going to take the rest of the "blogging" month off here at Rerum Novarum which means no more postings until the start of the next "blogging month" (July 22, 2007).
Notes:
{1} I like Rudy Guiliani as Director of the FBI or as Attorney General but not as president. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 20, 2007)]
{2} Most notably the subject of abortion. To note two of the several threads written in the past on that subject for this humble weblog:
On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)
A Brief Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread on the Abortion Subject (circa January 25, 2005)
Steve Dillard (formerly of Southern Appeal) has launched finally his Catholics Against Rudy website and I note it here so that readers of this humble weblog are aware that I support this endeavour. I have noted before that Rudy Guiliani would make a fine attorney general or even director of the FBI but not a good president.{1} The difference in the positions is not insignificant. The presidency is supposed to be a position of national influence and the morality of the officeholder is of no small significance. Rudy claims to be a Catholic and yet his stated positions in not a few areas{2} are contrary to accepted positions for Catholics to hold and profess.
Whatever one wants to say about the other candidates, they do not claim to be Catholic and flout what the Catholic Church teaches on several important issues as Rudy does. That is one argument whereby Catholics can oppose his candidacy at this time. For others who do not find this a convincing argument , try this one: Rudy Guiliani does not deserve support as president as long as there are more qualified people out there than him.
I am aware that there are differences in how some issues are interpreted. For that reason, I want to do my part at this time to ask fellow Catholics to support this venture and leave aside differences on interpretation of broader concepts for another day. The cause of shooting down Rudy Guiliani for the Republican nomination for president is more important than rehashing battles which can be fought another day.
Oh and lest I forget to mention it, after the next posting I am going to take the rest of the "blogging" month off here at Rerum Novarum which means no more postings until the start of the next "blogging month" (July 22, 2007).
Notes:
{1} I like Rudy Guiliani as Director of the FBI or as Attorney General but not as president. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 20, 2007)]
{2} Most notably the subject of abortion. To note two of the several threads written in the past on that subject for this humble weblog:
On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)
A Brief Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread on the Abortion Subject (circa January 25, 2005)
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Points to Ponder:
(From George Washington)
(From George Washington)
It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn.
The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.
Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for, I have grown not only gray, but almost blind in the service of my country.
Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.
No morn ever dawned more favorable than ours did; and no day was every more clouded than the present! Wisdom, and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm.
No morn ever dawned more favorable than ours did; and no day was every more clouded than the present! Wisdom, and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm.
There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.
On President Bush and His Administration As of Mid 2007:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
There are a variety of things to point to in mid-2007 with regards to the presidency of George W. Bush. The most obvious ones thus far have to do with the war in Iraq, with the progress of the US Supreme Court, and the illegal amnesty subject. I will touch on these first before getting to other subject starting with the subject of the alien amnesty issue.
I noted a couple of times back in June{1} that I was coming to the conclusion that the immigration approach that President Bush wanted to undertake was potentially an impeachable offense -indeed this was the reason I decided to shelve a project I have worked on intermittently dealing with the whole "impeachment of Bush" issue.{2} However, as we noted the other day, since the illegal immigrant amnesty bill is dead and will not be revivable until the next congress and presidency for various and sundry reasons{3}, essentially President Bush dodged a bullet on this matter and therefore the subject previously noted as being shelved may be revived and completed for posting before the end of the year time and motivation-willing on my part.{4}
With regards to the US Supreme Court, as I noted recently{5},the signs are there that this court will be far more constitutional than many of its predecessors in recent decades. However, as National Review noted in an editorial recently, thus far the moves have been very modest ones despite the hysterical tones of many who view the Constitution not as the law of the land but as some sort of clay lump to mould as they see fit. The offer to play "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em to illustrate the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" crowd is extended once again to those sorts in the same fashion as we outlined it over two years ago:
The writer of this post would like to take this opportunity to to invite anyone who believes in an evolving constitutional interpretation to email him if they are fans of Texas Hold 'Em and are interested in playing for money. For your humble servant is not only a pretty decent poker player but he also has in mind starting a game with people like you for money to illustrate by demonstration the logical absurdity of your positions: Texas Hold 'Em with "evolving rules."[...] Something tells your host that such a game would amply clarify the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" position in precise proportion to the amount of money the promoters of the "evolving constitutional interpretation" theory lost their cash in the aforeproposed card game. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
Gee, thus far none of the readers of this humble weblog who have explicitly or implicitly taken the position of an "evolving Constitution" have taken us up on our challenge. Why is that??? It is because they know damn well they would never win a single hand. And yes I can say that not because I am unbeatable at poker but because of the principle of "evolving hand values."
Rationally, if you do not take a fixed approach to a law, precept, or principle, then they are subject to change. Noting that, it should also be considered that there would be a weird notion in place if such persons were to ascribe some fixed schedule for such evolutions when they do not recognize the concept of fixity to laws, precepts, or principles to begin with. So in the game of "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em", the values of the hands would change often -perhaps even hand to hand at times or intermittently during hands.
After all, no matter what I had in my hand, I could go all in and "win" because the "interpretation" of what hand was higher would change constantly to reflect what I was holding in my own hand.{6} As absurd as this premise may sound, stop and think for a moment what absurdity my proposed game plan is intended to illustrate.
It is impossible for there to be a stable society where the law is so manipulated as these sorts favouring an "evolving Constitution" would like to see. However, at the same time it is important to have some degree of room for revision of the laws of the land if we are to avoid being in the position of advocating that the law is made for man rather than the converse.{7} That is why the Founders put the amendment procedure into the mix at the very beginning: to insure that any adjustments to the Constitution would require effort to undertake and would require a super majority of states to ratify. This was to affirm the important understanding that law was not a minor trifle but instead was to some extent a requirement for societal stability by codifying the natural right of all to defend themselves and their natural God-given rights.
On the war front, the Iraq surge strategery is on the whole going pretty good. The Bush Administration is wisely understating this a bit in the period before a progress report due in September is released. No matter what the report says, it is going to be spun in as negative of a fashion as the msm and its willingseditionist comrades allies in the Democratic party and other places have a vested interest in seeing defeat in Iraq by any means necessary.
The economy is in excellent shape and the Democratic congress is trying desperately to make hay on minutiae issues -spinning irrelevant molehills into mountains. The whole firing of the attorneys "scandal" was touched on by this writer earlier in the year as the whole non-issue it was and the whole "lets defund Cheney's office" schtick is more of the same. As far as those who want to whine about President Bush's commutation of the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, they should consider the various degenerates that President Clinton pardoned{8} and their own silence about them before wasting my time or anyone else's with such gnats at the expense of genuine camels.{9}
Basically, the Dems cannot win on any of the major issues and they know it. Otherwise, they would stick with the significant issues and one issue which is not significant at all is yet another waste of time and ink on studying the "lead up to the war" or whatever. But this is the sort of time-wasting garbage that political losers do and the 20% approval rating Congress has now{10} is only going to go down further still the more they do it.
The more I have mused on their behaviour, the more apparent it is that their entire approach is akin to the old Articles of Confederation where the power was vested solely in a congressional body. For readers who do not know history very well, that is the sort of governmental arrangement that the Founding Fathers sought to do away with in writing the Constitution of the United States which intended to support and sustain a strong and vigorous executive branch. But to say anymore on that at the moment would be to tangent off and I want to wrap this thread up now.
On the whole, the Bush Administration is doing better in 2007 than in 2006 or 2005 but sometimes this is in spite of their intentions on some issues rather than because of them. History will give a better accounting to this administration than the contemporary ahistoric partisan and ignorant sorts currently are. Offhand, my guess is that it will rank about average overall. But right now, things are looking about as good as they probably can for an Administration which is on the verge of getting overall favourable news about the effects of the surge in Iraq come September. After all, we have an economy at very low unemployment, low inflation, a president who cannot run for re-election and who may have another court vacancy to fill. We also have a president who no longer has to worry about committing a kind of political hari-kiri with the illegal immigration issue as they were doing before that issue was rendered politically dead until the next Congress/Administration.
Notes:
{1} I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007) and reiterated in a Rerum Novarum Post (circa June 23, 2007)]
{2} While appearing to not have much to do with the above thread per se, it is interesting that I have had on the drafting table for quite a while a planned post responding to twenty-five so-called "arguments" for impeaching President Bush. Most of those objections have been refuted in the draft as it is written now but the reason I am not likely to finish it anytime soon is this:
--I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!!
I do not intend to set forth the full panopoly of arguments to explain this at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007)]
{3} Namely that most of those nimrod congresspeople who supported this would be defeated if they had to run for re-election after passing such a bill. (Excepting the states and districts where the voters are and have been stupid enough to keep electing the same incompetent incumbent senators and representatives because of the their ability to bring pork home to the district of course.)
{4} Admittedly I have lost any remaining motivation to complete it after the last round of trying to pass the illegal amnesty proposal and make it into law. The reason for lacking the motivation now is not because the arguments of the kooks are difficult to dispatch with. (Quite the contrary actually: the hardest part of it is finding the time to dispatch with them piece by piece in reasonable detail.) The problem is mainly that I have no confidence in President Bush to do much of anything right anymore. And since he has shown a lack of concern for having the back of those who have supported him over the years for the most part -or at the very least defended him from unfair attacks- why should anyone have his back now???
{5} It is about time the Supreme Court got away from activist agendas and got back to doing what it is supposed to do and the latter involves interpreting the Constitution not inventing out of whole cloth penumbra of a penumbra kind of bull crap and passing it off as "constitutional." Or absurd "right to privacy"[...] schtick and claiming that such things are "constitutional." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 29, 2007)]
{6} With the way the latter game is played, it is possible for an ace high to beat three of a kind, two pair to beat a flush, or three of a kind to beat a full house, etc...if the lower hands were held in that round by your weblog host of course :) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
{7} Those who wonder why true conservatives worthy of the name[...] have an abhorrence of the federal government intervening everywhere and anywhere this is the reason in a nutshell even if those conservatives have never stopped to crystallize their instinct into a coherent principle before. The reason is an instinctive understanding that law is made for man not man for law: the understanding that law's purpose is to protect legitimate rights not to grant them and not to revoke them. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 1, 2007)]
{8} It's about time someone sounded off regarding the hypocrisy surrounding President Bush's commutation of "Scooter" Libby. It took White House spokesman Tony Snow to set the record straight and challenge the Democrats to look at the record of former President Bill Clinton and the numerous pardons he issued. Bush's commutation pales by comparison. It appears the spineless Republican members of Congress don't have the backbone to stand up in defense of President Bush and his decision. Instead they are letting the Democrats berate and undermine the president's authority.
How soon people forget the mass pardons generously handed out during the waning days of the Clinton administration.
Now on the campaign stump Bill and Hillary have the gall to criticize the president for his commutation of Mr. Libby.
Once again, the Clintons show they have no shame or class. [Boyce Clark of Edmonds (WA): Letter to the Editor of The Everett Herald (circa July 9, 2007)]
{9} To use a biblical analogy.
{10} Bush by contrast has to like his roughly 30% rating by comparison.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
There are a variety of things to point to in mid-2007 with regards to the presidency of George W. Bush. The most obvious ones thus far have to do with the war in Iraq, with the progress of the US Supreme Court, and the illegal amnesty subject. I will touch on these first before getting to other subject starting with the subject of the alien amnesty issue.
I noted a couple of times back in June{1} that I was coming to the conclusion that the immigration approach that President Bush wanted to undertake was potentially an impeachable offense -indeed this was the reason I decided to shelve a project I have worked on intermittently dealing with the whole "impeachment of Bush" issue.{2} However, as we noted the other day, since the illegal immigrant amnesty bill is dead and will not be revivable until the next congress and presidency for various and sundry reasons{3}, essentially President Bush dodged a bullet on this matter and therefore the subject previously noted as being shelved may be revived and completed for posting before the end of the year time and motivation-willing on my part.{4}
With regards to the US Supreme Court, as I noted recently{5},the signs are there that this court will be far more constitutional than many of its predecessors in recent decades. However, as National Review noted in an editorial recently, thus far the moves have been very modest ones despite the hysterical tones of many who view the Constitution not as the law of the land but as some sort of clay lump to mould as they see fit. The offer to play "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em to illustrate the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" crowd is extended once again to those sorts in the same fashion as we outlined it over two years ago:
The writer of this post would like to take this opportunity to to invite anyone who believes in an evolving constitutional interpretation to email him if they are fans of Texas Hold 'Em and are interested in playing for money. For your humble servant is not only a pretty decent poker player but he also has in mind starting a game with people like you for money to illustrate by demonstration the logical absurdity of your positions: Texas Hold 'Em with "evolving rules."[...] Something tells your host that such a game would amply clarify the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" position in precise proportion to the amount of money the promoters of the "evolving constitutional interpretation" theory lost their cash in the aforeproposed card game. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
Gee, thus far none of the readers of this humble weblog who have explicitly or implicitly taken the position of an "evolving Constitution" have taken us up on our challenge. Why is that??? It is because they know damn well they would never win a single hand. And yes I can say that not because I am unbeatable at poker but because of the principle of "evolving hand values."
Rationally, if you do not take a fixed approach to a law, precept, or principle, then they are subject to change. Noting that, it should also be considered that there would be a weird notion in place if such persons were to ascribe some fixed schedule for such evolutions when they do not recognize the concept of fixity to laws, precepts, or principles to begin with. So in the game of "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em", the values of the hands would change often -perhaps even hand to hand at times or intermittently during hands.
After all, no matter what I had in my hand, I could go all in and "win" because the "interpretation" of what hand was higher would change constantly to reflect what I was holding in my own hand.{6} As absurd as this premise may sound, stop and think for a moment what absurdity my proposed game plan is intended to illustrate.
It is impossible for there to be a stable society where the law is so manipulated as these sorts favouring an "evolving Constitution" would like to see. However, at the same time it is important to have some degree of room for revision of the laws of the land if we are to avoid being in the position of advocating that the law is made for man rather than the converse.{7} That is why the Founders put the amendment procedure into the mix at the very beginning: to insure that any adjustments to the Constitution would require effort to undertake and would require a super majority of states to ratify. This was to affirm the important understanding that law was not a minor trifle but instead was to some extent a requirement for societal stability by codifying the natural right of all to defend themselves and their natural God-given rights.
On the war front, the Iraq surge strategery is on the whole going pretty good. The Bush Administration is wisely understating this a bit in the period before a progress report due in September is released. No matter what the report says, it is going to be spun in as negative of a fashion as the msm and its willing
The economy is in excellent shape and the Democratic congress is trying desperately to make hay on minutiae issues -spinning irrelevant molehills into mountains. The whole firing of the attorneys "scandal" was touched on by this writer earlier in the year as the whole non-issue it was and the whole "lets defund Cheney's office" schtick is more of the same. As far as those who want to whine about President Bush's commutation of the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, they should consider the various degenerates that President Clinton pardoned{8} and their own silence about them before wasting my time or anyone else's with such gnats at the expense of genuine camels.{9}
Basically, the Dems cannot win on any of the major issues and they know it. Otherwise, they would stick with the significant issues and one issue which is not significant at all is yet another waste of time and ink on studying the "lead up to the war" or whatever. But this is the sort of time-wasting garbage that political losers do and the 20% approval rating Congress has now{10} is only going to go down further still the more they do it.
The more I have mused on their behaviour, the more apparent it is that their entire approach is akin to the old Articles of Confederation where the power was vested solely in a congressional body. For readers who do not know history very well, that is the sort of governmental arrangement that the Founding Fathers sought to do away with in writing the Constitution of the United States which intended to support and sustain a strong and vigorous executive branch. But to say anymore on that at the moment would be to tangent off and I want to wrap this thread up now.
On the whole, the Bush Administration is doing better in 2007 than in 2006 or 2005 but sometimes this is in spite of their intentions on some issues rather than because of them. History will give a better accounting to this administration than the contemporary ahistoric partisan and ignorant sorts currently are. Offhand, my guess is that it will rank about average overall. But right now, things are looking about as good as they probably can for an Administration which is on the verge of getting overall favourable news about the effects of the surge in Iraq come September. After all, we have an economy at very low unemployment, low inflation, a president who cannot run for re-election and who may have another court vacancy to fill. We also have a president who no longer has to worry about committing a kind of political hari-kiri with the illegal immigration issue as they were doing before that issue was rendered politically dead until the next Congress/Administration.
Notes:
{1} I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007) and reiterated in a Rerum Novarum Post (circa June 23, 2007)]
{2} While appearing to not have much to do with the above thread per se, it is interesting that I have had on the drafting table for quite a while a planned post responding to twenty-five so-called "arguments" for impeaching President Bush. Most of those objections have been refuted in the draft as it is written now but the reason I am not likely to finish it anytime soon is this:
--I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!!
I do not intend to set forth the full panopoly of arguments to explain this at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007)]
{3} Namely that most of those nimrod congresspeople who supported this would be defeated if they had to run for re-election after passing such a bill. (Excepting the states and districts where the voters are and have been stupid enough to keep electing the same incompetent incumbent senators and representatives because of the their ability to bring pork home to the district of course.)
{4} Admittedly I have lost any remaining motivation to complete it after the last round of trying to pass the illegal amnesty proposal and make it into law. The reason for lacking the motivation now is not because the arguments of the kooks are difficult to dispatch with. (Quite the contrary actually: the hardest part of it is finding the time to dispatch with them piece by piece in reasonable detail.) The problem is mainly that I have no confidence in President Bush to do much of anything right anymore. And since he has shown a lack of concern for having the back of those who have supported him over the years for the most part -or at the very least defended him from unfair attacks- why should anyone have his back now???
{5} It is about time the Supreme Court got away from activist agendas and got back to doing what it is supposed to do and the latter involves interpreting the Constitution not inventing out of whole cloth penumbra of a penumbra kind of bull crap and passing it off as "constitutional." Or absurd "right to privacy"[...] schtick and claiming that such things are "constitutional." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 29, 2007)]
{6} With the way the latter game is played, it is possible for an ace high to beat three of a kind, two pair to beat a flush, or three of a kind to beat a full house, etc...if the lower hands were held in that round by your weblog host of course :) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
{7} Those who wonder why true conservatives worthy of the name[...] have an abhorrence of the federal government intervening everywhere and anywhere this is the reason in a nutshell even if those conservatives have never stopped to crystallize their instinct into a coherent principle before. The reason is an instinctive understanding that law is made for man not man for law: the understanding that law's purpose is to protect legitimate rights not to grant them and not to revoke them. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 1, 2007)]
{8} It's about time someone sounded off regarding the hypocrisy surrounding President Bush's commutation of "Scooter" Libby. It took White House spokesman Tony Snow to set the record straight and challenge the Democrats to look at the record of former President Bill Clinton and the numerous pardons he issued. Bush's commutation pales by comparison. It appears the spineless Republican members of Congress don't have the backbone to stand up in defense of President Bush and his decision. Instead they are letting the Democrats berate and undermine the president's authority.
How soon people forget the mass pardons generously handed out during the waning days of the Clinton administration.
Now on the campaign stump Bill and Hillary have the gall to criticize the president for his commutation of Mr. Libby.
Once again, the Clintons show they have no shame or class. [Boyce Clark of Edmonds (WA): Letter to the Editor of The Everett Herald (circa July 9, 2007)]
{9} To use a biblical analogy.
{10} Bush by contrast has to like his roughly 30% rating by comparison.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Guest Editorial Outlining the Importance of Geopolitical Sanity and Knowledge of History Amidst a Sea of Rationally-Challenged Illiterates and the Historically Ignorant:
(By Donald R. McClarey)
I should note at the outset that this material is being posted with permission from the author. Because it was originally put up in a different context, the material may read a bit jagged but I wanted to keep it as close to the original as I could. For the sake of differentiation, I have put the words of the misinformed pseudo-"peacemaker" (or should I say useful idiot for Al Queda???) in red font to highlight the colour of their true sympathies and Donald's words in reply will be in blue font with any sources he quotes in darkblue font. Without further ado...
##########################
For those who wonder why this site is needed, I submit a copy of an e-mail I sent out tonight to a Catholic gentleman who took me to task for my recent comments on Open Book. My responses are underneath each of the quoted sections:
1."Not even the Bush people peddle that line. 93% of the Iraqi's want the American soliders out of the country. The only reason we are there is because the PNAC manifesto was adopted by Bush and others and a bogus war was launched. This was to neutralize Iraq and secure the oil fields, and the all important pipline to Haifa."
PNAC manifesto causing the invasion of Iraq? Please, that is tinfoil hat wearing conspiratorial garbage and unworthy of a response. We went to war against Saddam for numerous reasons, all of which were set forth in the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force. As for the Iraqi people, their freely elected government can ask us to depart at any time and we will. They haven't yet because they realize the blood bath that would ensue if US forces were to depart right now.
2. "Saddam was a dictator but one who allowed Catholics to practice their faith. America has installed more dictators in the world in the past 150 years, than there are states in our union. "
Actually the US has worked with the local governments thrown up by competing factions in other nations. The idea that the US is a malign force preventing people from choosing their own governments is ahistoric. Of course you hold this belief while also condemning the US for toppling a dictator and fostering democracy in Iraq. The US in your eyes is evil if it works with a dictator and evil if it topples a dictator. As to Catholics in Iraq, they made up their fair share of Saddam's victims, and now are under assault from the Jihadists who we are fighting. You of course would like us to withdraw yesterday and leave these fellow Catholics to the tender mercy of the beheaders.
3. "John NegroPonte turned a blind eye to the massacres in Central America in the 1980's.
And he is just one of many with blood soaked hands that helped push this war in Iraq. "
Balderdash. The Reagan policy in Central America prevented the creation of a series of little Cubas where the populations would have to endured the type of tyranny that have caused millions of Cubans to flee their own country. The attitude of the Sandanistas when the Pope visited Nicaragua in the 80s showed the contempt the Marxists had for the Catholic faith.
4. "America was not threatened by Iraq. and if Iraq had WMD's at one time, it is because America sold them to Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld was the salesman in 1983!"
You really don't know your history do you? The US had zero involvement in any chemical weapons produced by Saddam. His arms purchases from the US during 1973-1990 constituted .5% of total arms sales to Iraq. Arms from the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact totaled 68.9%, France 12.7% and mainland China 11.8%. Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. As to Iraq not constituting a threat are you kidding me? In 1990 Saddam attempted to corner the world oil market by seizing Kuwait. He failed to honor any of the terms of the truce which ended the First Gulf War. He was up his eyeballs in the first World Trade Center bombing and an attempt to assassinate Bush 41. Through the oil for food scam he was rapidly rebuilding his military. He had links, and had given funding, to most Arab terrorist groups. He was a clear and present danger.
5. "Israel has 800-2000 nukes, and yet not one American politician calls for inspections. If they have nukes they are not allowed to receive any aid. israel kiiled 34 unarmed americans in 1967. Iraq has killed no Americans, until forced to defend itself."
Got a thing about Jews don't you? It doesn't matter to us if Israel has nukes. They are not a threat to us, just as we do not care that the Brits or the French have nukes. Iraq didn't kill many Americans during the First Gulf War, but it wasn't for want of trying, or do you contend that Iraq was merely defending itself when it invaded Kuwait? As for the attack on the Liberty, Israel instantly apologized and paid compensation to the families of the survivors. In other words it acted like a friendly power that had made a mistake and not an enemy power out to kill Americans.
6. "George Bush is a man who has introduced real WMD's into the nation of Iraq by using depleted Urainium."
You really have got to stop getting your information from Moonbat sites on the net. Depleted uranium rounds pose no health risk except to occupants of an armored vehicle when the rounds slam home.
7. "Any Catholic who supports Bush and his Neo Bolsheviks in their pursuit of plundering other nations is acting in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church ,which has ruled this war
totally unjust. "
The Church hasn't ruled the war unjust, and all the neo-Bolsheviks probably contribute to anti-Bush sites you frequent. You will find a lot of them under a group known as A.N.S.W.E.R
My correspondent came back for more. Interesting how wackdoodle Bush hatred often walks in tandem with Jew hatred. The last comment from my correspondent is classic.
1."Your responses offer a level of obstinate ignorance in the face of indisputable truth."
That statement has as much substance as "No, I'm right, you're wrong."
2."Please look up the definition of delusional."
Why, when I see such a fine example of it in your ravings?
2. "Yes, the good ole USA only acts to do good and help other nations all the time. And Jews are the friends of America."
Yes almost all the time to the first, and most Jews I believe are friends of America due to our lack of persecution of members of their faith, no doubt to your dismay.
3." Do you also believe the Jews who brutally took over Palestine in 1946-1948 did so because God wanted them there."
No, they created Israel by accepting the UN division of Palestine. The Palestinians did not because they thought they could exterminate the Jews with the aid of the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt. Big mistake. To the astonishment of the world, the outnumbered Jews won.
4. "Look, you are 100% wrong on the USS Liberty. Obviously you never served in the military."
Three years in the US Army Reserves 1975-78.
5. "The radar codes that are emitted from ships have a unique fingerprint which identifies them as US. French etc...
The Israel defense forces had to jam our radar in order to prevent the USS Liberty from radioing for help. That means they had to jam USA military codes.
It was not a mistake and our American flag on that ship was 15 x 30. 2 Israeli pilots were punished for refusing to attack the ship becasue they knew it was American. Israel never admitted it was a mistake. "
Too bad every official report has found that the attack was a tragic error caused by the Israeli pilots misidentifying the ship. You can find these reports online:
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, June 18, 1967
" Available evidence combines to indicate the attack on the Liberty on 8 June was in fact a case of mistaken identity."
CIA Report, June 13, 1967
The attack was a mistake. In 1978, in a response to an inquiry, Director of Central Intelligence Stansfield Turner wrote: "It remains our best judgment that the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty was not made in malice toward the United States and was a mistake."
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Russ Report, June 9-20, 1967 General Russ did not make any findings about the actual attack. The report compiled all message traffic and contains no evidence that the attack was not a mistake.
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Clifford Report, July 18, 1967
"The information thus far available does not reflect that the Israeli high command made a premeditated attack on a ship known to be American…. "
National Security Agency, 1981
"Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculation and egregious errors."
Israeli Report
Ram Ron Commission of Inquiry, June 16, 1967
"[T]he attack on the ship by the Israeli Defense Forces was made neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as a result of a bona fide mistake."
6. "You think DU is not toxic? Then why was it banned under international treaties? The known birth defects from its use are well documented."
More Moonbattery. Here are the facts:
"Study Finds Little Risk From Depleted-Uranium Particles
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19, 2004 – A new study finds the health risks from inhaling airborne particles of depleted uranium are very low.
The Capstone Study found that even soldiers in armored vehicles hit by depleted-uranium munitions would still not suffer health risks from inhaling the particles. Of course, officials said, soldiers would certainly have other problems if their tank or armored personnel carrier was hit by a depleted- uranium round.
The U.S. military uses depleted uranium as armor and in munitions. The five- year, $6 million study, analyzed for the Army and the DoD Deployment Health Support Directorate by Batelle Memorial Institute, found that even in extreme cases exposure to "aerosolized" depleted uranium did not pose a health risk.
The study looked at the health risks faced by servicemembers who had been in an armored vehicle that was breached by a depleted-uranium round. It also looked at the exposures mechanics or other maintenance personnel would get from working in such a vehicle. "What we found in this study is the highest-exposed individuals are those that are in, on or near vehicles when they were struck," said Army Lt. Col. Mark Melanson.
"What we found is the radiation doses for people in that situation are below peacetime safety standards," he continued. "We also found that the chemical risks of breathing in uranium dust is so low that it won't cause any long-term health risks."
Melanson, who holds a doctorate in radiation health sciences, is the program manager of the Health Physics Program at the Army's Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.
DoD has been assessing the safety of depleted uranium for more than 30 years. The radiation risk from the rounds and armor is negligible. Melanson pointed out that uranium is a common element. Depleted uranium has most of the U-235 isotope -- the type used to make atomic bombs -- taken out of it, leaving the more stable U-238.
But uranium is a heavy metal and, like lead or mercury, can pose problems if enough is ingested.
Specialists at Aberdeen fired depleted-uranium rounds at the turrets of M-1 tanks and at Bradley fighting vehicles. They measured the concentration of DU inside the turrets and passenger compartments and compared those rates with allowable peacetime standards. The levels were below the standards set for peacetime civilian workers.
"If it's safe for workers in the States to receive these exposures during peacetime, it's definitely safe for our troops to receive them in combat when there are other more dangerous risks out there on the battlefield," Melanson said.
The study is further proof that DU poses little danger. Since 1993, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been assessing the health of American soldiers wounded in 1991's Operation Desert Storm by depleted-uranium rounds. These individuals have particles of depleted uranium remaining inside them.
"There are no health affects attributable to DU," Melanson said. "There are health problems from their wounding, but nothing from depleted uranium."
7. "America sold Iraq its WMD and it was Donald Rumsfeld who was the salesman."
Only in Moonbat land. The US sold no chemical or biological weapons to Iraq.
8. "You forget that John Negroponte helped to organize and fund the death squads in Guatemala under General Martinez, a man responsible for 50,000 deaths in the region. General Martinez was his most frequent lunch guest."
You can't even keep the info you get from kook leftist or paleocon web sites straight. Negroponte was ambassador to Honduras not Guatemala. General Gustavo Alvarez Martinez is probably the man you are attempting to refer to. He was the head of the Honduran military while Negroponte was ambassador. As for the figure of 50,000, here is the reality:
"The human rights situation deteriorated significantly after the return to civilian rule in 1982. Under the new civilian president, the military, under the command of General Gustavo Álvarez Martínez, initiated a campaign against leftists. This campaign allegedly led to the disappearance of more than 100 people. Small insurgent groups also began operating during this period, but the overwhelming majority of political killings were carried out by the military, according to human rights observers. Although this violence paled in comparison to that in neighboring El Salvador and Guatemala, it marked a departure from the relatively tranquil Honduran political environment. " Source: Library of Congress Country Studies.
Where you get the 50,000 figure from, only God and the Moonbats know.
8. "The Downing Street memos prove that Bush had no reason to invade Iraq. He went with WMD because there was no link to Osama or anyone else. The war is all about reordering the Middle east according to the PNAC manifesto which if you ever read it, which you have not, clearly outlines regime change in Iraq, Syria and Iran, as good for the United States"
Actually virtually every intelligence agency on Earth thought that Saddam had WMDs. His own generals were shocked during the war when Saddam did not order the use of chemical weapons because they assumed he had them. The rest of what you say is typical of the type of paranoia common among conspiracy mongers.
9. " As to the Israelis and their illegal nukes, why are you so willing to turn a blind eye to the law?"
Actually, Israel possessing nukes is no more illegal than the US possessing nukes. I assume that your statement is merely rhetorical, and you are not referring to a specific statute of Israel that would prevent it from having nuclear weapons.
10. "I assuem you are a Jewish Zionist. Let me encourage you to convert to the One True Faith soon, as the blood curse your forefathers called down upon you, will remain with you, until you are baptized."
Actually, as you might have guessed from my name, my forebears are Scots and Irish with a few Cherokees tossed in for seasoning. I am a Catholic as you might also have guessed from my frequent posts at Open Book. As for you, you are a deluded anti-Semite. Here is something for you to contemplate. Saint Ignatius of Loyola was warned that one of his novices might have Jewish blood. This was at a time when such a charge was serious business in Spain. The Saint responded how fortunate for the novice in having a blood kinship with Our Lord and His mother.
Free yourself from the foul hatred that obviously has you in its grip, lest it be held against you when your soul comes before Christ.
##########################
Oh and I would be remiss if I did not thank Donald for saving me a lot of time rehashing these subjects myself which I had planned to do around the time I came across this material. And while I do not always agree with the contents of guest editorials, with the above it converges so well with what I would say (if not in how I would say it) that I want to note that here for the benefit of those reading this text.
(By Donald R. McClarey)
I should note at the outset that this material is being posted with permission from the author. Because it was originally put up in a different context, the material may read a bit jagged but I wanted to keep it as close to the original as I could. For the sake of differentiation, I have put the words of the misinformed pseudo-"peacemaker" (or should I say useful idiot for Al Queda???) in red font to highlight the colour of their true sympathies and Donald's words in reply will be in blue font with any sources he quotes in darkblue font. Without further ado...
##########################
For those who wonder why this site is needed, I submit a copy of an e-mail I sent out tonight to a Catholic gentleman who took me to task for my recent comments on Open Book. My responses are underneath each of the quoted sections:
1."Not even the Bush people peddle that line. 93% of the Iraqi's want the American soliders out of the country. The only reason we are there is because the PNAC manifesto was adopted by Bush and others and a bogus war was launched. This was to neutralize Iraq and secure the oil fields, and the all important pipline to Haifa."
PNAC manifesto causing the invasion of Iraq? Please, that is tinfoil hat wearing conspiratorial garbage and unworthy of a response. We went to war against Saddam for numerous reasons, all of which were set forth in the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force. As for the Iraqi people, their freely elected government can ask us to depart at any time and we will. They haven't yet because they realize the blood bath that would ensue if US forces were to depart right now.
2. "Saddam was a dictator but one who allowed Catholics to practice their faith. America has installed more dictators in the world in the past 150 years, than there are states in our union. "
Actually the US has worked with the local governments thrown up by competing factions in other nations. The idea that the US is a malign force preventing people from choosing their own governments is ahistoric. Of course you hold this belief while also condemning the US for toppling a dictator and fostering democracy in Iraq. The US in your eyes is evil if it works with a dictator and evil if it topples a dictator. As to Catholics in Iraq, they made up their fair share of Saddam's victims, and now are under assault from the Jihadists who we are fighting. You of course would like us to withdraw yesterday and leave these fellow Catholics to the tender mercy of the beheaders.
3. "John NegroPonte turned a blind eye to the massacres in Central America in the 1980's.
And he is just one of many with blood soaked hands that helped push this war in Iraq. "
Balderdash. The Reagan policy in Central America prevented the creation of a series of little Cubas where the populations would have to endured the type of tyranny that have caused millions of Cubans to flee their own country. The attitude of the Sandanistas when the Pope visited Nicaragua in the 80s showed the contempt the Marxists had for the Catholic faith.
4. "America was not threatened by Iraq. and if Iraq had WMD's at one time, it is because America sold them to Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld was the salesman in 1983!"
You really don't know your history do you? The US had zero involvement in any chemical weapons produced by Saddam. His arms purchases from the US during 1973-1990 constituted .5% of total arms sales to Iraq. Arms from the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact totaled 68.9%, France 12.7% and mainland China 11.8%. Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. As to Iraq not constituting a threat are you kidding me? In 1990 Saddam attempted to corner the world oil market by seizing Kuwait. He failed to honor any of the terms of the truce which ended the First Gulf War. He was up his eyeballs in the first World Trade Center bombing and an attempt to assassinate Bush 41. Through the oil for food scam he was rapidly rebuilding his military. He had links, and had given funding, to most Arab terrorist groups. He was a clear and present danger.
5. "Israel has 800-2000 nukes, and yet not one American politician calls for inspections. If they have nukes they are not allowed to receive any aid. israel kiiled 34 unarmed americans in 1967. Iraq has killed no Americans, until forced to defend itself."
Got a thing about Jews don't you? It doesn't matter to us if Israel has nukes. They are not a threat to us, just as we do not care that the Brits or the French have nukes. Iraq didn't kill many Americans during the First Gulf War, but it wasn't for want of trying, or do you contend that Iraq was merely defending itself when it invaded Kuwait? As for the attack on the Liberty, Israel instantly apologized and paid compensation to the families of the survivors. In other words it acted like a friendly power that had made a mistake and not an enemy power out to kill Americans.
6. "George Bush is a man who has introduced real WMD's into the nation of Iraq by using depleted Urainium."
You really have got to stop getting your information from Moonbat sites on the net. Depleted uranium rounds pose no health risk except to occupants of an armored vehicle when the rounds slam home.
7. "Any Catholic who supports Bush and his Neo Bolsheviks in their pursuit of plundering other nations is acting in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church ,which has ruled this war
totally unjust. "
The Church hasn't ruled the war unjust, and all the neo-Bolsheviks probably contribute to anti-Bush sites you frequent. You will find a lot of them under a group known as A.N.S.W.E.R
My correspondent came back for more. Interesting how wackdoodle Bush hatred often walks in tandem with Jew hatred. The last comment from my correspondent is classic.
1."Your responses offer a level of obstinate ignorance in the face of indisputable truth."
That statement has as much substance as "No, I'm right, you're wrong."
2."Please look up the definition of delusional."
Why, when I see such a fine example of it in your ravings?
2. "Yes, the good ole USA only acts to do good and help other nations all the time. And Jews are the friends of America."
Yes almost all the time to the first, and most Jews I believe are friends of America due to our lack of persecution of members of their faith, no doubt to your dismay.
3." Do you also believe the Jews who brutally took over Palestine in 1946-1948 did so because God wanted them there."
No, they created Israel by accepting the UN division of Palestine. The Palestinians did not because they thought they could exterminate the Jews with the aid of the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt. Big mistake. To the astonishment of the world, the outnumbered Jews won.
4. "Look, you are 100% wrong on the USS Liberty. Obviously you never served in the military."
Three years in the US Army Reserves 1975-78.
5. "The radar codes that are emitted from ships have a unique fingerprint which identifies them as US. French etc...
The Israel defense forces had to jam our radar in order to prevent the USS Liberty from radioing for help. That means they had to jam USA military codes.
It was not a mistake and our American flag on that ship was 15 x 30. 2 Israeli pilots were punished for refusing to attack the ship becasue they knew it was American. Israel never admitted it was a mistake. "
Too bad every official report has found that the attack was a tragic error caused by the Israeli pilots misidentifying the ship. You can find these reports online:
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, June 18, 1967
" Available evidence combines to indicate the attack on the Liberty on 8 June was in fact a case of mistaken identity."
CIA Report, June 13, 1967
The attack was a mistake. In 1978, in a response to an inquiry, Director of Central Intelligence Stansfield Turner wrote: "It remains our best judgment that the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty was not made in malice toward the United States and was a mistake."
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Russ Report, June 9-20, 1967 General Russ did not make any findings about the actual attack. The report compiled all message traffic and contains no evidence that the attack was not a mistake.
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Clifford Report, July 18, 1967
"The information thus far available does not reflect that the Israeli high command made a premeditated attack on a ship known to be American…. "
National Security Agency, 1981
"Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculation and egregious errors."
Israeli Report
Ram Ron Commission of Inquiry, June 16, 1967
"[T]he attack on the ship by the Israeli Defense Forces was made neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as a result of a bona fide mistake."
6. "You think DU is not toxic? Then why was it banned under international treaties? The known birth defects from its use are well documented."
More Moonbattery. Here are the facts:
"Study Finds Little Risk From Depleted-Uranium Particles
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19, 2004 – A new study finds the health risks from inhaling airborne particles of depleted uranium are very low.
The Capstone Study found that even soldiers in armored vehicles hit by depleted-uranium munitions would still not suffer health risks from inhaling the particles. Of course, officials said, soldiers would certainly have other problems if their tank or armored personnel carrier was hit by a depleted- uranium round.
The U.S. military uses depleted uranium as armor and in munitions. The five- year, $6 million study, analyzed for the Army and the DoD Deployment Health Support Directorate by Batelle Memorial Institute, found that even in extreme cases exposure to "aerosolized" depleted uranium did not pose a health risk.
The study looked at the health risks faced by servicemembers who had been in an armored vehicle that was breached by a depleted-uranium round. It also looked at the exposures mechanics or other maintenance personnel would get from working in such a vehicle. "What we found in this study is the highest-exposed individuals are those that are in, on or near vehicles when they were struck," said Army Lt. Col. Mark Melanson.
"What we found is the radiation doses for people in that situation are below peacetime safety standards," he continued. "We also found that the chemical risks of breathing in uranium dust is so low that it won't cause any long-term health risks."
Melanson, who holds a doctorate in radiation health sciences, is the program manager of the Health Physics Program at the Army's Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.
DoD has been assessing the safety of depleted uranium for more than 30 years. The radiation risk from the rounds and armor is negligible. Melanson pointed out that uranium is a common element. Depleted uranium has most of the U-235 isotope -- the type used to make atomic bombs -- taken out of it, leaving the more stable U-238.
But uranium is a heavy metal and, like lead or mercury, can pose problems if enough is ingested.
Specialists at Aberdeen fired depleted-uranium rounds at the turrets of M-1 tanks and at Bradley fighting vehicles. They measured the concentration of DU inside the turrets and passenger compartments and compared those rates with allowable peacetime standards. The levels were below the standards set for peacetime civilian workers.
"If it's safe for workers in the States to receive these exposures during peacetime, it's definitely safe for our troops to receive them in combat when there are other more dangerous risks out there on the battlefield," Melanson said.
The study is further proof that DU poses little danger. Since 1993, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been assessing the health of American soldiers wounded in 1991's Operation Desert Storm by depleted-uranium rounds. These individuals have particles of depleted uranium remaining inside them.
"There are no health affects attributable to DU," Melanson said. "There are health problems from their wounding, but nothing from depleted uranium."
7. "America sold Iraq its WMD and it was Donald Rumsfeld who was the salesman."
Only in Moonbat land. The US sold no chemical or biological weapons to Iraq.
8. "You forget that John Negroponte helped to organize and fund the death squads in Guatemala under General Martinez, a man responsible for 50,000 deaths in the region. General Martinez was his most frequent lunch guest."
You can't even keep the info you get from kook leftist or paleocon web sites straight. Negroponte was ambassador to Honduras not Guatemala. General Gustavo Alvarez Martinez is probably the man you are attempting to refer to. He was the head of the Honduran military while Negroponte was ambassador. As for the figure of 50,000, here is the reality:
"The human rights situation deteriorated significantly after the return to civilian rule in 1982. Under the new civilian president, the military, under the command of General Gustavo Álvarez Martínez, initiated a campaign against leftists. This campaign allegedly led to the disappearance of more than 100 people. Small insurgent groups also began operating during this period, but the overwhelming majority of political killings were carried out by the military, according to human rights observers. Although this violence paled in comparison to that in neighboring El Salvador and Guatemala, it marked a departure from the relatively tranquil Honduran political environment. " Source: Library of Congress Country Studies.
Where you get the 50,000 figure from, only God and the Moonbats know.
8. "The Downing Street memos prove that Bush had no reason to invade Iraq. He went with WMD because there was no link to Osama or anyone else. The war is all about reordering the Middle east according to the PNAC manifesto which if you ever read it, which you have not, clearly outlines regime change in Iraq, Syria and Iran, as good for the United States"
Actually virtually every intelligence agency on Earth thought that Saddam had WMDs. His own generals were shocked during the war when Saddam did not order the use of chemical weapons because they assumed he had them. The rest of what you say is typical of the type of paranoia common among conspiracy mongers.
9. " As to the Israelis and their illegal nukes, why are you so willing to turn a blind eye to the law?"
Actually, Israel possessing nukes is no more illegal than the US possessing nukes. I assume that your statement is merely rhetorical, and you are not referring to a specific statute of Israel that would prevent it from having nuclear weapons.
10. "I assuem you are a Jewish Zionist. Let me encourage you to convert to the One True Faith soon, as the blood curse your forefathers called down upon you, will remain with you, until you are baptized."
Actually, as you might have guessed from my name, my forebears are Scots and Irish with a few Cherokees tossed in for seasoning. I am a Catholic as you might also have guessed from my frequent posts at Open Book. As for you, you are a deluded anti-Semite. Here is something for you to contemplate. Saint Ignatius of Loyola was warned that one of his novices might have Jewish blood. This was at a time when such a charge was serious business in Spain. The Saint responded how fortunate for the novice in having a blood kinship with Our Lord and His mother.
Free yourself from the foul hatred that obviously has you in its grip, lest it be held against you when your soul comes before Christ.
##########################
Oh and I would be remiss if I did not thank Donald for saving me a lot of time rehashing these subjects myself which I had planned to do around the time I came across this material. And while I do not always agree with the contents of guest editorials, with the above it converges so well with what I would say (if not in how I would say it) that I want to note that here for the benefit of those reading this text.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Points to Ponder:
(From Benjamin Franklin)
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.
As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those disputing, contradicting, and confuting people are generally unfortunate in their affairs. They get victory, sometimes, but they never get good will, which would be of more use to them.
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.
(From Benjamin Franklin)
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.
As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those disputing, contradicting, and confuting people are generally unfortunate in their affairs. They get victory, sometimes, but they never get good will, which would be of more use to them.
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.
Miscellaneous Notes:
Three bits briefly before calling it a night...
--Having tired recently of seeing that stupid "cost of the war in Iraq" price ticker, I am curious to know if any readers of this weblog know where there may be a ticker tallying the cost of the war on poverty. I know it is around seven trillion which dwarfs any cost to the war in Iraq and would like to have a copy of it to put in the side margin of this weblog.
--Apparently a previously posted assumption about audioblogger not having access to previously recorded audioposts was quite possibly wrong. I was unable to make them work for some time but the other day, they worked. So I am not sure if I was mistaken or if it was the technology of the computers I tried them on previously as to what the problem was. Either way, I will assume the worst and make a mea culpa here on the matter.
--I have on the drafting table and about seventy percent done a review of the Bush Administration through the first half of 2007. It should be completed and ready for posting if not this weekend than sometime next week.
Three bits briefly before calling it a night...
--Having tired recently of seeing that stupid "cost of the war in Iraq" price ticker, I am curious to know if any readers of this weblog know where there may be a ticker tallying the cost of the war on poverty. I know it is around seven trillion which dwarfs any cost to the war in Iraq and would like to have a copy of it to put in the side margin of this weblog.
--Apparently a previously posted assumption about audioblogger not having access to previously recorded audioposts was quite possibly wrong. I was unable to make them work for some time but the other day, they worked. So I am not sure if I was mistaken or if it was the technology of the computers I tried them on previously as to what the problem was. Either way, I will assume the worst and make a mea culpa here on the matter.
--I have on the drafting table and about seventy percent done a review of the Bush Administration through the first half of 2007. It should be completed and ready for posting if not this weekend than sometime next week.
Friday, July 06, 2007
What the president ought to have done yesterday (Greg Krehbiel)
I cannot say I disagree with Greg's analysis in the above thread.
I cannot say I disagree with Greg's analysis in the above thread.
Points to Ponder:
(On Conscientious Objectors)
I have no quarrel with men who absent themselves from war, or combat in war, due to reasons of conscience clearly stated so long as they take their lumps in the public arena. That is crucial, for an individual conscience is worthy of respect only to the extent it's honestly directed at the right ordering of society. The acid test of that direction is a man's willingness to suffer at the hands of the community whose right ordering he supposedly desires. Christ took that test, and passed it, not least because He wanted to show us how necessary and expensive a conscience can be. So we should judge Eugene Debs an honorable man, whether or not we think he was right to oppose World War I, because Debs went to jail for opposing it. [Ian Mclean (circa April 26, 2006)]
(On Conscientious Objectors)
I have no quarrel with men who absent themselves from war, or combat in war, due to reasons of conscience clearly stated so long as they take their lumps in the public arena. That is crucial, for an individual conscience is worthy of respect only to the extent it's honestly directed at the right ordering of society. The acid test of that direction is a man's willingness to suffer at the hands of the community whose right ordering he supposedly desires. Christ took that test, and passed it, not least because He wanted to show us how necessary and expensive a conscience can be. So we should judge Eugene Debs an honorable man, whether or not we think he was right to oppose World War I, because Debs went to jail for opposing it. [Ian Mclean (circa April 26, 2006)]
Amnesty’s Fall (National Catholic Register)
I have taken a mixed view of Amnesty International over the years -mainly because it so often comes across as wanting to focus its blame for "human rights violations" on the countries with better overall human rights records and ignore or downplay the actions of the most blatant offenders.{1} This kind of hypocrisy does not sit well with me but recently AI went beyond even this degree of hypocrisy and has moved to endorsing the taking of life: a blatant contradiction of their stated aim.
At least previously, one could point to the mission statement of sorts from AI and note where they were being inconsistent and chalk it up to them simply falling short of their stated intentions. But they have now endorsed murder{2} so they cannot be taken even remotely seriously anymore.
Those who have invested their time and efforts in promoting AI lo these many years now have to wipe a good chunk of egg off of their faces. And while I have not given them much thought of a positive nature over the years, they have now insured that I will think of them only in a negative fashion until they come to see the error of their ways and the absurdity of claiming to speak out for "human rights" when they endorse a violation of one of the most fundamental rights imaginable: the right to life.
Notes:
{1} Or to reference Moynihan's Law codified by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
"The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country."
{2} I go over the issue of abortion most recently as it pertains to the fundamental rights of man in this weblog posting:
On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)
I have taken a mixed view of Amnesty International over the years -mainly because it so often comes across as wanting to focus its blame for "human rights violations" on the countries with better overall human rights records and ignore or downplay the actions of the most blatant offenders.{1} This kind of hypocrisy does not sit well with me but recently AI went beyond even this degree of hypocrisy and has moved to endorsing the taking of life: a blatant contradiction of their stated aim.
At least previously, one could point to the mission statement of sorts from AI and note where they were being inconsistent and chalk it up to them simply falling short of their stated intentions. But they have now endorsed murder{2} so they cannot be taken even remotely seriously anymore.
Those who have invested their time and efforts in promoting AI lo these many years now have to wipe a good chunk of egg off of their faces. And while I have not given them much thought of a positive nature over the years, they have now insured that I will think of them only in a negative fashion until they come to see the error of their ways and the absurdity of claiming to speak out for "human rights" when they endorse a violation of one of the most fundamental rights imaginable: the right to life.
Notes:
{1} Or to reference Moynihan's Law codified by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
"The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country."
{2} I go over the issue of abortion most recently as it pertains to the fundamental rights of man in this weblog posting:
On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
I was going to write on the Founding Fathers and on Claude Frederic Bastiat but as it is, I was made aware of an article on the founders written by Rush Limbaugh. This is not the same Rush Limbaugh who has the radio show but is the latter's father. It is a marvelous speech which outlined just what sacrifices were made so that we could live in a free nation and can serve as a reminder for those who balk at the idea of real sacrifice in pursuit of one's principles -not the rabble of modern day pseudo-"peacemakers" who would trade liberty for the "security" of slavery.{1}
Oh and for those who want to play the "founding fathers were slave owners so nothing they did is worthy of admiration" card, I will link to something written on this weblog which outlines some of the intellectual and ethical bankruptcy of that view with an eye towards the realities of their time.{2} But without further ado, here is the thread on the Founding Fathers noted above followed by the thread by Dr. Walter E. Williams on Claude Frederic Bastiat which we have posted to this site before on more than one occasion. Enjoy them and from all of us here at Rerum Novarum, we wish you all a splendid Fourth of July!!!
Notes:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)