On the Iraq Situation, the Military Surge, and Playing Politics:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I have said next to nothing about the Iraq surge since the strategy was announced late last year in the wake of the probable election losses for the Republicans in the congressional races.{1} Part of the reason for this is that it takes a while to implement a new military strategy and when I did speak on the matter back in July{2}, the full number of extra troops were still not in place yet. I did however know that the surge was working about as well as it could be expected under the circumstances including that the msm has no interest in winning in Iraq for political reasons any more than the Democrats do.

I have in the past expressed the depth of my disgust for this and sometimes in quite strident prose at that.{3} My view has not wavered. Indeed, the only reason I raise the subject now is not because of yet another msm pile of horse crap on how supposedly "bad" things are going in Iraq and how we are "losing" over there but instead because of a rather surprising about face by the two main Democratic candidates.

Obama, Clinton Both Cite Iraq Progress, Say It's Not Enough (Perry Bacon, Jr. of WashingtonPost.Com)

Now it is true that each tries to find a way of supporting the surge while not supporting it and this is so that they can be on record no matter what General Petraeus reports in September as being able to say they either "support" or "oppose" what we are doing there. But remember folks, these are people who have opposed any kind of forceful response to the Islamofascist sorts all along...well...at least Senator Obama has. Senator Clinton on this issue took the right position for the wrong reasons back in 2002 as we noted on this weblog some time ago{4} -indeed a lot of Democrats did this who have since then tried to run from their past.{5}

This is why principles need to be formulated on solid rather than shaky foundations -something we of course never fail to do on this weblog.{6} The problem is, three to four years ago is an age of sorts in media and a lot of people have short term memories. Throw in the fact that there are many readers who were not followers of this weblog three and four years ago and it is easy for our principled positions on the war and its aftermath to be forgotten.

To summarize my position from four years ago briefly, in substance there is no change whatsoever nor will there be. The reason is that the criteria we based it on back then{7} is not and cannot change. Despite that though, we would be less than forthright if we did not note that just because we support the general direction or idea behind a policy does not mean we support all of the particulars. But admittedly we have not wanted to talk about particulars on this matter very often. The reason is the mountains of ignorance that come from the usual contingent{8} whose solipsistic weltanschauung has no concept of the law of non-contradiction.

We noted in an audioposting recorded sometime in 2004 about a key factor which we were continually considering. Since audioblogger is not working again, we cannot figure out for sure which posting it is but we believe it was a two parter recorded in mid September of 2004.{9} Within that recording, we noted the serious problem of the 24/7 news cycle and how it was not an asset in this war on terror which will take years to sort out.{10}

To reiterate that theme anew at this time, the problem with a 24/7 news cycle is that it can wear down the most resolute of people. Obviously therefore, if you have people who are not as principled or who do not look that deeply into issues, they are even more likely to be swayed by the cumulation of perceived "bad news" on the matter. And based on the polling data across the board, it would appear that our concerns as articulated at that time have shown themselves to be accurate. It also does not help that the msm by and large are at least materially seditionist but to go off on that tangent at this time would make this posting overlong and therefore would not be prudent.

In summary, we rarely have discussed the day to day msm war reports and that is not going to change anytime soon. The reason for this is one of principles and points to why reason and logic are so indispensible to analyzing the facts of reality and in proportion to how well those are grasped, the greater the solidity of one's outlook on a given matter. And with the war in Iraq, the big picture is not going to change and no assemblage of trivial drivel matters an iota. But enough on that subject for now at least until General Petraeus gives his progress report in mid September of this year.

Notes:

{1} Though a number of threads were posted on this subject, one in particular which synthesized a number of them into one place is deserving of particular mention; ergo we will do that now:

A Synopsis of Our Overall Prescience Viz. the 2006 Elections and A Bit of Analysis As Well (circa November 24, 2006)

Another worth mentioning is this thread from the year prior which is quoted in the above thread:

One Hundred Years of Mid Term Election History, Etc. (circa June 21, 2005)


{2} 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 seditionist comrades allies in the Democratic party and other places have a vested interest in seeing defeat in Iraq by any means necessary. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2007)]

{3} Wake up you self-anointed "activists" with your blind and irrational hatred of George Walker Bush. Your position is not only illogical but further: it is idiotic and plays Russian roulette with this nation's national security. You would compromise the safety of American citizens for the sake of political advantage in an election. For that, I spit on you!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 18, 2004)]

{4} "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." [Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Oct 10, 2002 which was quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa August 4, 2004)]

{5} Your humble servant at Rerum Novarum -seeing a clear violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction in the above situation must ask you readers these questions:

1) Were the above "esteemed Senators" (falsely so-called) lying prior to March 17, 2003 or did they tell the truth then and start lying on these matters since March 17, 2003???

2) If the above "esteemed Senators" (falsely so-called) were lying prior to March 17, 2003, why should we trust them to tell us the truth now???

3) If the above "esteemed Senators" (falsely so-called) were telling the truth prior to March 17, 2003, then they are quite evidently lying now. Why therefore should we trust them now???

Oh what a tangled web they weave...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 4, 2004)]

{6} We will on occasion set something out in short form for further musing and sometimes those threads are advanced tentatively. However, they are always based on solid foundations even if the principles set forth admit at times of more than one possible application thereof.

{7} The issue of whether there were or were not WMD's was (at most) a very small part of the equation -not enough to be a determining factor in and of itself.

{8} By "usual suspects", I refer of course to the marxists, seditionists, and general all-around "we hate America but love totalitarian regimes where they suppress people's freedoms" crowd.

{9} We refer to these recordings from 2004:

Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part I (circa September 22, 2004)

Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part II (circa September 22, 2004)

For some reason, audioblogger is not working so we cannot verify for sure but we believe the principle was enunciated in one or more of those recordings.

{10} And yes, we mean "years" as history well testifies to every time we have been involved in a similar situation -be it the early nineteenth century Philippines, the aftermath of Germany and Japan post-WWII, or any other example we can think of: it always took three to seven years or more to get things completely stabilized. The difference between past endeavours and the current one is that there was no 24/7 media cycle to hinder more than help with public morale on these matters.

Points to Ponder:

Satire is tragedy plus time. You give it enough time, the public, the reviewers will allow you to satirize it. Which is rather ridiculous, when you think about it. [Lenny Bruce]

Scott Beauchamp, lying sack of s%#t, E-2 after two years, fesses up (Beth Cleaver of My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)

My father passed on six years ago and my mother still has difficulties on days such as this one which would have been their forty-first anniversary. Any prayers the readers could offer for my parents on this occasion would be most appreciated.

Points to Ponder:

Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned. [Avicenna]

Miscellaneous Notes:

Briefly on several points...

--I want to thank Steve Dillard for taking a more nuanced and objectively correct approach to a certain subject of no small degree of controversy at his Catholics Against Rudy website. I had endorsed the site back on July 12th and something additional was posted after that date whch had me concerned and reconsidering my public stand. And while I will write a bit soon on what I feel needs to be touched on to flesh out Mr. Dillard's amendments to a fuller extent; nonetheless, what is up there now in the form it is in{1} is sufficiently nuanced to maintain our endorsement here at Rerum Novarum.

--As time allows for it, I am working on a few posts on various subjects including sports, geopolitics,{2} and possibly some more material on ethics. (I am also toying with the idea of reformatting a couple of emails for posting to this weblog in lieu of certain profoundly disappointing and inexcusable attitudes taken by friends of mine.)

--The long long planned{3} (but for various reasons delayed) "third way in politics" material I hope to have ready by Labour Day or (at the latest) in late September. As noted previously on this weblog{4}, the delay is not due to length of prose as much as complexity of the subject matter and my motivations to tackle it at a given point in time.

--I plan in the coming week or two to put up the final installments in the Founding Fathers "points to ponder" series to put up as well. For those who were following this series of threads, here is a brief recapitulation of the threads in the series thus far:

Points to Ponder From Benjamin Franklin (circa July 7, 2007)

Points to Ponder From George Washington (circa July 11, 2007)

Points to Ponder From John Adams (circa July 12, 2007)

Points to Ponder From Thomas Jefferson (circa July 27, 2007)

Points to Ponder From Gouverneur Morris (circa July 30, 2007)

As the Founding Father series is being done in order of the age of the Founding Fathers, the next up is James Madison and it will conclude with Alexander Hamilton.

--It has been a long time since I remember concurring so significantly with a societal analysis of Mark Shea's but I have to confess that he wrote something back on August 9th about the "emergent church" which I can actually say "bravo" to. (Even broken clocks are right once to twice a day after all depending on if they are digital or have traditional hands but I digress.) Ironically, I was saying something eerily similar in a private conversation around August 11th unaware of what Mark had written two days earlier: the serendipity of this cannot be emphasized enough therefore.

--Today former Yankees player and announcer Phil Rizzuto died at the age of 89. He was a tenacious player{5} and an even better announcer.{6} Interestingly enough, I found out from one of the Seattle radio stations which gave him a "memorial" of sorts by playing a song that he supplied baseball commentary for back in 1977. I refer here to the Meatloaf song Paradise By The Dashboard Light from the 1978 album Bat Out of Hell where the baseball commentary was...I should not have to explain this so I will not. Rest in peace Phil.

--I also wanted to take a moment and note here for those who are interested that my previous dialogual challenge on the subject of the atomic bombings of 1945 has met with a respondent who has fulfilled the material requirements I noted in that posting from July 22nd.{7} The person in question is one whom I am somewhat familiar with and after further private conversations believe not only has the intelligence but (even more important) the proper disposition towards dialogue in general and responding to criticisms. As it sits now, the scheduled start date for this endeavour is August 30, 2007. More will be noted as it is known but for now that will be sufficient.

Notes:

{1} If it has to remain there at all of course.

{2} Including the new Bush Administration plan to crack down on illegal immigrant workers and what I believe may be the psychology behind what appears to be no insignificant about face policy-wise.

{3} The first explicit mention of the intention to write on this subject was back in April of this year in this thread:

On Slavery and the Founding Fathers of America (circa April 17, 2007)

It had (of course) been on our mind to write on the subject for some time prior to that.

{4} It was noted last month that your host planned to write on the Founding Fathers, some of the principles and systems that shaped their outlook, and also to point out what he believes is a serious problem of imbalance in the modern political climate.[...] That intention is being worked through bit by bit as we have both time to and also are in the mood to write on that subject. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 15, 2007)]

{5} He was mainly known for his defensive abilities and as a hustler but he did have a career .273 average and have over 1500 hits. He was also voted an AL All Star 4 times and lead the league for four years (1949-1952) in a stat that I believe is important but does not get much mention: sacrifice flyes.

{6} Among his most famous announcer moments were the calling of Roger Maris' 61st home run on the last game of the 1961 season and the pennant winning home run in the 1976 playoffs.

{7} I refer to reviewing the minimal reading requirements to get an overview of my outlook as well as the procedural postings I noted in the aforementioned posting. They also are aware of what I do not want to see happen and have assured me that they will do their best to approach this subject in an ethical and principled fashion for which I am pleased.

Points to Ponder:

It never ceases to amaze me how many who call themselves Christians act worse than non-Christians. I noticed this years ago on the Infidels message board where the self-described "infidels" and "freethinkers" were more charitable towards others than many who claimed the mantle of Jesus Christ. It was not all sweetness and light of course -there was an operative presupposition on the part of the "infidels" that any Christian or theist was viewed as a defacto brainless twit and you had to basically earn your stripes as someone who could utilize the natural tools adequately. But once that was done, the overall approach was good. The same is not the case with many who consider themselves "apologists" -including the higher profile ones who subsist on the public dole of Paypal donations and the like.

No, with not a few of them the modus opperandi is to spout off as a know-it-all on various issues where they are embarrassingly ignorant, act overly dogmatic in opposing proportion to how little they know on a given subject, and then find creative ways of trying to assassinate the characters of those they cannot overcome by reasoned argument. I guess the slogan for these sorts is "when you cannot beat the argument logically, engage in character assassination and then try to pass yourself off as doing 'the Lord's work'." With "Christians" like that, is there any wonder many find so-called "organized religion" to be hypocritical and want little if anything to do with it???

I do not of course endorse the last part of the above sentence but I do agree with the hypocrisy bit at least in part -and having noted this in past posting am not going to revisit it at the present time. I do not agree with the conclusion of the last sentence of the previous paragraph but I do understand it -or rather, I understand how some people can come to that conclusion based on the way those who most publicly proclaim themselves to be "defenders of the faith" or whatever so frequently act. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Offhand Notebook Reflections From Three Hours Ago Condensed Into Summary Format]

Why Al-Qaeda Wants the Head of the Grand Ayatollah Sistani (Sandro Magister)

Ayatollah Sistani sounds like my kind of Shi-ite Muslim. May Al Qaeda fail in finding him and may Ayatollah Sistani's vision of Islam succeed in Iraq, the rest of the Middle East, and the world.

"Engrave the Tombstone" Dept.

(On the Democratic Party "Leadership" and 2008)

It is too early and certainly with an year being an eternity in politics as we have noted many times before{1}, it is not advisable to make any concrete or permanent predictions. However, one has to be on the watch for trends which indicate where things may be going and certainly the political hari kiri of the Democrats has to be an enjoyable thing to see for those with a visceral hatred for that party and what it stands for as your host has for reasons I am not about to go into yet again here.{2}

To start with, impeachment of Gonzalez will be a serious wound to them for two reasons. First of all, there is no perjury charge involved here that will stick{3} second, the whole "firing of the attorneys" situation is within the purview of the executive and does not require congressional or any other consent or approval whatsoever except the president's.{4} But those are the two bases on which they are calling for Gonzalez' "impeachment." Can you say "congressional defeat in 08 for the Dems in both houses of Congress???" If they try and pull this off, the useful idiots for Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden will love it but they are about all who will.

Furthermore, it is interesting how often many critics of the Bush Administration call for "accountability" when the subject involves either a Constitutionally delegated power to the executive or a matter where by logical extension there is an executive oversight involved. But find for me the Democratic supported sites where they have actually come out against the abuse of power by the Democratically controlled Congress. The most egregious example of many which could be noted was the attempt by the Congress around midnight to steal a vote on a key issue which was caught by C-SPAN. This has been covered in a number of places favourable overall to Republicans{5} but I am as of this writing unaware of any who support the Democrats overall admitting to this or distancing themselves from it.

For that reason, while it is way too early to count anyone out of the 2008 elections, all the media attempts to carve a tombstone in time for the 2008 congressional races and the presidency race strongly point to the party other than the one the msm wants to claim is the political loser. And all of this makes me realize that the post I have had on the drafting desk since spring on a proposed third way in politics apart from the third party option needs to be finished soon. I hope before Labour Day to have it done or at least before the end of September. The problem is not one of length but the subject involved my motivation to write on it which admittedly has waxed and waned over the months. (Chalk it up to the "dog days of summer" perhaps.)

Notes:

{1} To note three of the numerous places where this principle has been enunciated (in order from oldest to newest):

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

I have said many times that a month is a long time in politics. A year by comparison is an eternity. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 4, 2004)]

I have noted in the past on various occasions that a year is an eternity in politics. Keeping that factor in mind, it suffices to note that even two months is a long time -maybe an ice age or whatever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 14, 2006)]

{2} Though I will note a few spots from my archives where I sum up rather tersely the reason why (in order from oldest to newest):

The Democratic party is and always will be the party of slavery. The difference is that they have moved from physical slavery to economic and psychological slavery. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 6, 2002)]

I remind the readers of what I noted back on November 6, 2002 and little has substantially changed in my views of the matter between then and now. The crux of the issue then was summed up in the following terse statement:

The Democratic party is and always will be the party of slavery. The difference is that they have moved from physical slavery to economic and psychological slavery.

The economic slavery element has been done to death by many commentators including yours truly. It seems at this time appropriate to deal with the psychological slavery part of the equation and that will be part of the purpose of this weblog post.

Psychological slavery can take many forms. It would be beyond the purpose of this post to categorize and analyze them all but the root and matrix to them all is the same: a mental barrier that prevents the captive from seeing beyond the inner world in which their subjective perceptions are the only realities that they can grasp. To sum it up in an apt expression: it is solipsism plain and simple. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 24, 2004)]

You are talking to someone who has asserted often over the many years that the Democratic party is and always has been the party of slavery. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 4, 2006)]

{3} When a critic of the Administration such as Ruth Marcus recognizes this fact, others would be wise to take heed of it also.

{4} 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)]

{5} To note three of the many sites that fit this criteria where the matter was reported:

Liars & Cheaters - At Any Expense (Fetching Jen)

House To Investigate Itself -Update: Replay Confirms Cheating (Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters)

House Democrats Try to Rig, then Cancel Vote in U.S. House (Mike of Flopping Aces)

The latter link actually has the video feed from C-SPAN so give it a watch if you doubt me. As far as my view on the matter, it was well summed up to a macro extent by Captain Ed so I will end this footnote with his words:

I'd also note that this shows what happens when both sides try to play games with vote casting. If both Democrats and Republicans hadn't tried to be too cute by half, this never would have happened. The vote-switching, ass-covering, and sandbagging should be roundly condemned by all.

Clearing the Ground for a Real Dialogue on the Atomic Bombings:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Technically, there is no reason to post this thread. It was written back on July 26th or so but before it was reviewed for posting, I got the idea to show in a shorter more concise way why people such as Mark Shea had disqualified themselves from being taken seriously to discuss an issue as complex as that of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I outlined a format for a possible dialogue back on July 22nd and Mark and numerous others fell so seriously short of qualifying that they almost made a prophet out of me yet again. I say almost because I did actually receive a communique a few days back from someone who has expressed interest in a dialogue on these matters and I am in the process of setting an agreeable parameter down for seeing if this can occur. But before doing that, I want to (as one reviewer of the draft about to be posted said when they saw the original form) "send in a marine brigade to take out a boy scout troop"{1} to drive home the point of why reason and logic is so indispensable and why those who take the fideistic approach to complex subjects that Mark Shea does do the very Catholicism he wants to promote a serious injustice.

But before getting to this posting, remember, it is not necessary because Mr. Shea has already been soundly confuted before we even get to the substance (or lack thereof) of his actual arguments. The reasons why are spelled out meticulously and irrefutably on this thread but I will now post the originally planned response because I want there to be not a stone left upon another one with him for the benefit of the party I mentioned earlier who is a worthy contender not only by virtue of their overall intelligence but also (and this is more important) their understanding of a proper Catholic spiritual disposition. But enough on that and onto today's lesson of why children should not try this at home. Mark's words will be in an appropriate yellow hue and the words of his positional allies as in the "ducks on the pond" posting will be in different shades of green.

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

This is a classic fallacy of argumentation called poisoning the well. One of the reasons I recently set out an outline of conditions for potential dialogue on the subject of the 1945 atomic bombings was because I anticipated this kind of ignorant waste of bandwidth. For Mark Shea has in uttering those words engaged in a fallacy he utilizes oftentimes when he tries to avoid giving a substantive response on a subject. In the field of reason and logic this tactic is called poisoning the well and it combines a couple of fallacies at once essentially.

Those who read my proposed dialogual outline would remember that one of the conditions was that the distinction was made between valid and invalid uses of the ad hominem -specifically noted because of problems I had back in 2005 and 2006 with David Armstrong who did not distinguish these factors correctly. Or as I wrote in the outline:

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[...] explains this more than adequately and therefore any challenger will be expected by me to familiarize themselves with its contents. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 22, 2007)]

And of course the thread referred to in the paragraph above was specifically footnoted so that readers would have no excuse on this matter. To wit:

On Ad Hominem, Revisiting Argumentum Ad Vericundiam , and Considering the Core Principle That Is Behind Any Argumentation/Logical Fallacy (circa June 1, 2007)

And yes, the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem has been committed by Mark Shea from the outset as well as the fallacy of begging the question -both of which contribute to the fallacy of poisoning the well.{2} I will touch on each separately because unlike Mark Shea, I do not make assertions without substantiating them by rational argument.

Now then, the reason Mark's poisoning the well approach is so evidently fallacious (and thus easily dismissable) is because the person engaging in it (read: Mark Shea) is both disingenuous as well as unethical. I say this because he makes the attack hoping to create an unfavourable impression from the outset to bias anyone reviewing what he says against me to try and get the reviewers to reject any claims I have said a priori. The problem for him and his lackeys is, presenting unfavourable information about me (even if it was true) does not in any fashion whatsoever count as evidence against the arguments I have made on the subject of contention!!! And as there is no interaction whatsoever with my arguments, Mark's attack against me personally is in a nutshell the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

The second fallacy he engages in is that of begging the question whereby Mark has claimed that his position is correct by assuming that his position is correct. Note the tone of his statement:

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

Mark in the above statement has assumed that my proposition is "manifestly absurd" and that it was (by logical extension) opposed to common sense. The circularity of this should be obvious to anyone with a normal intact functioning brain but I did not note in the conditions I set down for dialogue on this subject the emotional component to the equation. And that is not all:

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.

The only potentially viable criticism Mark makes in the above paragraph is that I write lengthy cogitations sometimes. However, to concede that is to put Mark into a quandry because he had better (on that basis) prepare to see other critics of his use that excuse to dismiss wholesale arguments propounded by two of his claimed favourites. (Pope John Paul II and G K Chesterton: both of which were a hell of a lot more verbose than I can be.) So as Mark Shea will not take that approach with them in a million years, the principle of logic and non-contradiction requires that my own work not be dismissed on similar grounds either; ergo we can ignore that criticism from Mark's keyboard.

Setting aside also the scientific absurdity of "destroying electrons" aside, I must ask if Mark Shea even tries to prove any of the above assertions -either the "manifest absurdity" of my propositions, how they are "opposed to common sense", or that my arguments are "sophistry"???{3} Of course not because that would involve trying to think and...well...I will hold my tongue on what I was about to say even though I could easily substantiate it unlike what Mark can do with his stated position above.

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."

This is the same kind of "argument" that many Protestant apologists make when they cite the Bible. For example:

Here's the Bible saying, just about as clearly as it can possibly be said that "[Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

Yep, so much for the Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary -the Bible has spoken on the matter after all and it is "just about as clearly as can possibly be said." But Catholic arguments against that understanding of the text all focus on important factors such as the grammar of the underlying original language, the fact that the word translated as "till" in the above phrasing does not imply anything after the point of reference it outlines, etc. In other words, the Catholic apologist points out in the various approaches noted above that there is possibly an alternative or more probably correct understanding to the passage in question which is not what the passage at face value would convey!!!

Similarly, I have focused on the subjects of history and military and statistical calculations of the situations in question but I brought to the table Catholic moral, theological, and ethical principles as lenses for viewing the subject. Among them are the moral issues surrounding life and its defense, the moral and ethical principle of double effect, and general norms of theological interpretation for properly understanding the weight of various statements from popes and councils on the specific issue in question.

The above factors were outlined in a series of posts on the subject and it is people like Mark being either intellectually unwilling and/or intellectually incapable of comprehending these issues which is the source of all the public acrimony. I am inclined to see the latter as a "both/and" situation myself based on the lack of quality thought I have observed from Mark's keyboard in recent years -apart from apologetics stuff of which he does precious little of anymore.

But enough on Mark Shea as he has shown he is both disingenuous and unethical in his approach to these matters.{4} Now let us consider what some who commented on his words had to say -their words will be in various colours of font. The first is "Jarnor23":

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".

If it does not require religious submission of the mind and will, then there is no reason to suspend the mind and will on a matter. But you know how it is with some Catholics, if the pope says it, then it is true no matter what it is. If Pope Benedict XVI says that the world was shaped like a burrito than that makes it so. Fortunately, the popes themselves do not take such absurdly illogical approaches to their statements as people like Mark Shea and the other person cited above.{5}

Indeed, the very tone of the above statement shows just how warped the person in question's understanding is of what Catholicism is. Catholics are bound to certain truths of faith or close proximity to it but beyond that, there is a diversity of schools of thought theologically, philosophically, economically, geopolitically, etc. that are permissible. While it is true that there are some core principles that are required to be recognized by all; nonetheless, how those are to be applied admits of a variegation which the above person (much as Mark Shea) seems woefully ignorant of. And the variegation I speak of is something the Vatican has always to some extent recognized both in the past as well as in the present day.{6}

To give as an illustration of what I refer to in the latter statement, consider some of the words that Cardinal Dario Castillo Hoyos wrote in a letter to the schismatic SSPX bishop Bernard Fellay in responding to the latter's concerns about statements and actions of the late Pope John Paul II. When explaining the various theological differences in the documents of Vatican II and in responding to some of Bishop Fellay's concerns about statements and actions of the late Pope John Paul II in 2001, he noted the following -all emphasis is mine:

If Your Excellency seriously considers this declaration about the "never-ending faith" in the Roman Pontiff, it seems to me that it would be necessary to show a greater theological consistency in reflecting on the organic development of the magisterium of the Church in recent years. It is true that one notes differences of opinion and theological formation among the prelates of the Church; however, a simple sentence, even said by the Sovereign Pontiff, is not an act of the magisterium; we know that all statements assume different degrees of authority.

It is always possible to criticize this type of statement, as well as a style of governing. The criticism, however, demands an authentic understanding of the thinking of the other person, and should presuppose that he also possess the Catholic faith. If one raises inconsistencies, the criticism, made with humility and charity, becomes a service rendered with great respect and in a spirit of sincere collaboration.

Readers can consider just how close Mark Shea and his positional allies as a rule conform to what Cardinal Hoyos noted above. For my part, the very challenge in how I framed it implied everything he noted in the statement above about (i) how different statements have differing levels of authority, (ii) criticism of anyone demands an authentic understanding of their thinking and Catholics should in charity take as an operative presupposition that their brethren also posses the Catholic faith. Then there is some person who apparently can only be brave when they are known as "Anonymous" who noted these words:

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.

A cafeteria Catholic is someone who selectively accepts Church teachings. I do not do this and I challenge someone to prove otherwise.

By the criteria of "Anonymous" above, Cardinal Hoyos (acting on behalf of Pope John Paul II) was acting as a "cafeteria Catholic" in his dialogue with Bishop Fellay and the SSPX. Likewise, the current pope back in 1990 was a "cafeteria Catholic" when he noted the following on matters pertaining to magisterial teachings -again all emphasis is mine:

It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed. [CDF: Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian (circa 1990)]

And with interventions of the prudential order:

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. [ibid]

What a "cafeteria Catholic" Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was when he wrote those words in 1990!!! What a "cafeteria Catholic" Pope John Paul II was in making those conclusions part of his magisterium the same year. And unless Ratzinger retracted his position before he was elected, what a "cafeteria Catholic" we have as Pope now!!! Or at least that would be the case if the Vatican took as absurdly literal an approach to issues as "Anonymous" does above.{7} But that is what is so common with these sorts who accuse me overtly (as "Anonymous" did) or covertly (as people such as Mark Shea have done) of "cafeteria Catholicism" who prove to be incapable of sustaining that assertion by recourse to general norms of theological interpretation. Or at least that would be the case if there were any interventions on this matter which were by their nature and in accordance with general norms of theological interpretation magisterial and therefore requiring of assent. But there are not, end of story, game/set/match, etc. the rest from this point on is mere commentary.

By this person "Anonymous'" rationale, everything the popes say on anything is of required unquestioning assent. If any readers familiar with history find that position to appear eerily similar to the old anti-Catholic caricature of Catholics as dimwitted simpletons who cannot think for themselves but must accept every hiccup from Rome on any subject whatsoever, their intuition there would be correct. Such a view is such a monstrous falsification of what is required of Catholics that it is shameful to see Catholics actually contributing to the old caricature rather than doing what they can to stamp it out.

Then they'll proceed to call people who aren't as conservative about something else like returning to a married priesthood "Cafeteria Catholics".

The issue of clerical celibacy is a matter of ecclesiastical discipline. Obviously there is room for disagreement as to the prudence or lack thereof of an ecclesiastical discipline much as there is with interventions of the prudential order. However, one must be careful in how they go about it as unlike subjects of the prudential order, there is in the Catholic understanding on these matters a degree of assistance from the Holy Spirit on matters of ecclesiastical discipline. There is no similar promise made for the popes as military tacticians, as historians, as scientists, in the application of any principles admitting of a variety of ways of weighing the data, or with any facts whatsoever that do not fall into the realm of dogmatic facts.{8}

So to respond to your strawman, no I would not claim that if you think there should be married priests that you are a "cafeteria Catholic." But maybe if you actually read what I have written you would realize this.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki's civilian casualties could never meet the proportionality test since the military assets in those cities simply weren't valuable enough.

Who is it that determines if there was or was not "value enough" or lack thereof of the military assets in Hiroshima or any other city during a war "Anonymous"??? All we have to go on here is your statement which is unsubstantiated and is a normative one at that. And because your statement is normative{9}, that makes it worthless when the subject of discussion must be non-normative (or objective) in nature if there is to be any possibility of settling this issue rationally. And of course when you refer to a conscripted populace as "civilian", you blur another factor in the equation that needs to be accounted for if all factors are to be given due diligence in consideration. I will touch on it briefly in a footnote{10} or two{11} before moving on to finish this posting.

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.

We are back to Mark Shea again so the hue of the words are once again an appropriate yellow font. And as I have already explained the problems with Mark's theologically stunted approach to these matters in other places -indeed responding to Mark personally at that- I will refer readers in a final footnote to that thread{12} and wrap up the current one.

To summarize, what has happened here only vindicates what I noted in the summary of my outline for possible dialogue so I will end this thread by quoting my own words:

[T]here 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...

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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 22, 2007)]

As the above examples from Mark Shea, "Jarnor23", and "Anonymous" well demonstrate how I anticipated responses to my offer to go, no more needs to be said on the matter at this time except that at the very least I saw a few people on the thread actually make a good effort at an intelligent conversation on that thread. I would not be fair to close this post without noting them in brief and by name so here goes:

--Deserving particular mention is Mike Petrik who while we do not agree nonetheless showed he can approach this subject intelligently and thoughtfully.

--Likewise, David G. has made an honest effort to wrestle with these issues and I appreciate that (despite my disagreements with him)

--And Jim Scott's recognition of the diversity of opinion on this matter which is permitted within the Catholic fold(*) is appreciated. 

These individuals -probably none of which agree with me positionally apriori (and I know Jim does not) nonetheless by implication in how they conduct themselves on that thread recognize the ancient principle enunciated by Pope John XXIII in his first encyclical letter:

[T]he common saying, expressed in various ways and attributed to various authors, must be recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity.

Would that people such as Mark Shea and the lions share of his positional allies show for once that they practice the very Catholic principles which they preach to others also. Or would we be more likely to hear of the discovery of Juan Ponce de Leon's fabled fountain of youth??? I hate to say I would see betting on the latter at this point to be the wiser bet but that unfortunately how I see it at the present time.

[(*) Update: Despite numerous threads in cyberspace by Mr. Scott which both explicitly and implicitly state precisely what I said; Mr. Scott has emailed me today requesting that I airbrush the historical record and remove that part of the posting. I am not going to do that of course; however, I will note here in a footnote that Mr. Scott's opposition to my position is not a slight one and that he honestly goes so far as to say that my view on the issue in question is "[not] helpful to the spead of the Catholic faith." Readers should in reviewing what I noted above about Mr. Scott's publicly stated views -all of which could be documented if I had the time or inclination to- take into account the contents of this update to properly contextualize Mr. Scott's previous statements on this matter. -ISM 9/26/07 11:40am]

Notes:

{1} 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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 27, 2007)]

{2} To my knowledge, the term poison the well was first used in 1864 by Dr. Newman against Dr. Kingsley in their celebrated public interaction. Or as Newman wrote in his apologia against Kingsley:

[W]hat shall I say of the upshot of all this talk of my economies and equivocations and the like? What is the precise work which it is directed to effect? I am at war with him; but there is such a thing as legitimate warfare: war has its laws; there are things which may fairly be done, and things which may not be done. I say it with shame and with stern sorrow;—he has attempted a great transgression; he has attempted (as I may call it) to poison the wells. [J. H. Newman: Excerpt from Apologia Pro Vita Sua (circa 1874)]

{3} For those who do not know the meaning of this term, here is a definition from wikipedia:

Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone.

I challenge Mark Shea to demonstrate the illogic in my arguments or how I have in any fashion confused the issues involved. Put up or shut the hell up Mark!!!

{4} If he merely confined his statements to saying he disagreed with me and that my view was not a common one amongst Catholics, etc. then I would not make an assertion such as this one.

{5} I am reminded of a very trenchant statement by the late Pope John Paul II on the sort of fideistic approaches taken by people such as Mark Shea:

It is an illusion to think that faith, tied to weak reasoning, might be more penetrating; on the contrary, faith then runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition. [Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (circa September 14, 1998)]

On the issue in question, I hate to say it but the Shea's of the world in their waving of any snippet of a papal or council text they can find without concern for its context or proper understanding thereof have become the very superstitious sorts that the late pontiff wrote about in the above words.

{6} The Church has no philosophy of her own nor does she canonize any one particular philosophy in preference to others. [Cf. Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis (12 August 1950): AAS 42 (1950), 566.] The underlying reason for this reluctance is that, even when it engages theology, philosophy must remain faithful to its own principles and methods. Otherwise there would be no guarantee that it would remain oriented to truth and that it was moving towards truth by way of a process governed by reason. A philosophy which did not proceed in the light of reason according to its own principles and methods would serve little purpose. At the deepest level, the autonomy which philosophy enjoys is rooted in the fact that reason is by its nature oriented to truth and is equipped moreover with the means necessary to arrive at truth. A philosophy conscious of this as its “constitutive status” cannot but respect the demands and the data of revealed truth. [Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (circa September 14, 1998)]

{7} And a standard misinformed and intellectually dependent approach it is to put it mildly.

{8} Dogmatic facts also apply such as "Paul VI was a valid Supreme Pontiff" and "Vatican II was a valid ecumenical council". These are facts that are required to be protected from error because they touch directly on matters of dogma. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 7, 2002)]

And of course dogmatic facts are not even remotely involved in this issue.

{9} As opposed to non-normative. There is a reason why when the first posting on the atomic bombings was in draft form and being prepared for posting that I preceded it with a posting on the difference between normative and non-normative frames of reference when it comes to rational thought and analysis. In a nutshell, I knew that if I did not make the distinction up front before the first threads were posted on the subject that it would make any attempt to navigate these matters much harder because of all the overly emotional and sloppy "thinking" in general on this issue. (For a briefer treatment on the subject, including precise definitions of the terms themselves, see this thread from last year.)

{10} [I]t is not only arguable that more lives were saved than lost, it is an indisputable fact as anyone with a smidgen of knowledge of the war situation in Japan during WWII is well aware. Secondly, the idea that there were all of these "innocents" in Japan and that their deaths was a means to achieve the end (rather than a derivative effect of the action taken) is also misguided. All that is required is for the good effect to be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. And with most of the populace in Japan under conscription, there were very few who could be called "innocent" and even with those that were who died it does not get in the way of a proper understanding of the principle of double effect. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 23, 2006)]

{11} Since this posting was originally drafted, I have clarified the matter of conscription a bit in a posting which is linked to this thread from the present weblog.

{12} "Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, The Doctor Is In" -On General Norms of Theological Interpretation Revisited (circa April 27, 2007)

Points to Ponder:

[The Jihad] has turned the civility of the United States and Europe, into a weapon and turned it against us. It has weaponized niceness, it has weaponized compassion, it has weaponized the fundamental decency of Western Civilization. It has weaponized our desire for peace. It has recognized that our goodness is no match for its savagery, and will continue to exploit that fact until we lose and they win. (…) We have become too civilized to defeat our enemies, perhaps too civilized to survive. The dagger of our decency stabs us in the back.” [Raymond Kraft]

Miscellaneous Musings:

There are four points briefly that I want to touch on so here goes...

--I plan to write in the coming week on the absurd "impeach Alberto Gonzales" chants from those who are playing the "get Bush at any cost and by any means" game. Others have called it Bush Derangement Syndrome and I cannot say I disagree with this assessment. The aforementioned subject will be covered in a general posting on various hints that the Democrats are starting the process of engraving the tombstone on their control of Congress in 2008.

--I believe I have found an actual person with the right disposition to be able to have a proper dialogue on the morality of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who has claimed to have fulfilled the pre-qualification criteria I set down in July of 2007. Due to the short time frame I initially set down for this (August 6th-August 21st) and considering that we do not have in place yet everything needed to start on August 6th,{1} I hereby abrogate my original time frame on this. I do intend to keep the time this is done relatively short but the latter is a normative concept to some extent. Anyway, I will notify you of when this will start if it does at all -I will not say it will for sure but I am very optimistic based on what I have reviewed from that person thus far that it will.

--I am unfortunately not surprised that some of the usual suspects are jumping to conclusions about who was or was not responsible for the bridge collapse in Minnesota and why. The most laughable one is that the money would have been there if not for the Iraq war and the $$$ sent over there for stabilization and rebuilding after the war. These are the same people who are rather mum about the trillions of dollars spent in the past forty years on the so-called War on Poverty which has made matters worse overall instead of better.{2} It is an example of the sorts of people who claim to care more about others but in reality they place ideology ahead of actual compassion and the latter is but a tool used to advance their ideology whenever it is convenient for them.

--After reading some news about the deaths of some{3}, the tragedies of others, and reflecting upon the subject of various evils and injustices in general, I found myself remembering something that I read many years ago from St. Catherine of Siena's Dialogues which in my mind was the best answer to the question of those who doubt the existence of God because of what they see as evils and injustices in the world. The Dialogue has God saying the following words to St. Catherine of Siena OP:

I ask you to love me with same love with which I love you. But for me you cannot do this, for I love you without being loved. Whatever love you have for me you owe me, so you love me not gratuitously but out of duty, while I love you not out of duty but gratuitously. So you cannot give me the kind of love I ask of you. This is why I have put you among your neighbors: so that you can do for them what you cannot do for me--that is, love them without any concern for thanks and without looking for any profit for yourself. And whatever you do for them I will consider done for me. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 19, 2003)]

This is a principle that is often overlooked and seemingly in direct proportion to those who blow the trumpets the loudest for what they "do for the poor." As I noted last year in a Christmas musing{4}, this is precisely the wrong attitude to have.

Ultimately, the reason why catastrophes happen and injustice of any kind actually exists is because it is only through having compassion on others{5} that it is possible for us to show the virtue of charity. The latter is the only prism we are granted with which to see God as long as we view things "indistinctly as in a mirror" (cf. 1 Cor. xiii,12): the best we can ordinarily expect to see in the present age.

Notes:

{1} Including the person in question sending me an outline of their own position or something similar enabling me to understand where they are coming from and their foundational presuppositions. (This is needed so that I can do well by them in accordance with the principles I have set down for how I want my own position treated.)

{2} By the way, my request for a rolling clock showing the $$$ spent on the War on Poverty since 1965 remains: anyone know where I can find one to post to this site???

{3} Including Karen Marie Knapp who was someone whose weblog we read on occasion with great appreciation for her overall Gerard Seraphinesque kind of approach to issues. Rest in peace Karen and please remember those of us below in prayer.

{4} [R]emember my friends: those who try to make themselves look the most compassionate among us usually give less than those who give in silence without others knowing about it. And because they draw attention to themselves in doing so, they have already received their reward as Jesus said. Do not be like them. Do not draw attention to yourself when helping other people. Keep it between yourself and God. But by all means, help out however you can in accordance with your means to do so. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 22, 2007)]

{5} I refer here to genuine compassion and not the pseudo-"compassion" of those who blow a trumpet to tell others what "great people" they were or who "thank God" they are not like the rest of us "publicans" or whatever.

Points to Ponder:
(On "Supporting the Troops")

"If you say that you support the soldier but not what I am doing you are a liar. Soldiers are what they do and what they do is fight and win the nations wars. Popular or unpopular." [A Sergeant Major Stationed in Iraq: Responding to the "I Support the Troops But Not the War" Mantra]

The Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG has been updated!!!

The subject is one that is directly applicable to the subject of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -one which I have already set out parameters for a possible August dialogue on. Thus far, I may have one taker who may be able to stick to the guidelines unlike a certain intellectually-challenged simp{1} who obviously cannot. (I will email the possible party on the matter hopefully tomorrow time willing and find out.)

The clarification to the Miscellaneous BLOG is one which I have made many times but for the reasons noted in the above link, I was not always as consistent on as is noted in the posting itself. Nonetheless, from this point on, I will expect it to be recognized and accounted for whenever this subject is discussed with me.

Note:

{1} More will be posted on them in the coming days.

Points to Ponder:
(From Gouverneur Morris -Writer of the US Constitution's Final Draft)

All these [agitations] in a nation, not yet fitted by education and habit for the enjoyment of freedom, gives me frequent suspicions, that they will greatly overshoot the mark, if indeed they have not already done it....Having never felt the evils of too weak an executive, the disorders to be apprehended from anarchy make as yet no impression. [Letter to John Jay From The Chateau de Versailles in Paris, France (circa June 26, 1789)]

"[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people.

Religion is the solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God.

Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.

Will you trust the Commissioners? Trust crocodiles, trust the hungry wolf in your flock or a rattlesnake near your bosom, you may yet be something wise. But trust the King, his Ministers, his Commissioners, it is madness in the extreme. Why will you trust them? Why force yourself to make a daily resort to arms? Is this miserable country to be plunged in an endless war? Must each revolving year come heavy laden witli those dismal scenes which we have already witnessed ? If so, farewell liberty, farewell virtue, farewell happiness ! "

"What may be the event of the present war it is not in man to determine. Great revolutions of empire are seldom achieved without much human calamity, but the worst which can happen is to fall on the last bleak mountain of America, and he who dies there, in defense of the injured rights of mankind, is happier than his conqueror, more beloved by mankind, more applauded by his own heart."

"You will, ere this have seen the Constitution proposed for the United States. I have many reasons to believe that it was the work of plain, honest men, and such I think it will appear. Faulty it must be, for what is perfect? Should it take effect, the affairs of this country will put on a much better aspect than they have yet worn, and America will soon be as much respected abroad as she has for some time past been disregarded."

Two reasons I am not likely to diss either Sweden or France anytime soon:

Frederik Reinfeldt

Nicolas Sarkozy

Granted they are not perfect as those Wikipedia profiles will testify to; however, politics is the art of the achievable not the art of the perfect and I am satisfied for the time being to cease and desist any derogatory comments about either Sweden or France while I watch to see if things actually improve there as a result of this significant political paradigm shift.

Maybe there is hope for those countries after all.

A Case Study on What I Wrote Earlier Today:
(Aka "Reason and Logic Revisited")

Before I delve into the case study that fell into my lap a matter of a few minutes ago, I want to direct the readers to something written a couple of hours ago and posted to this very weblog. Here is that thread:

On Why Reason and Logic Are So Indispensible

As I will use what is written in that thread as a foundation for this posting, a quick review by those who have not seen it would be advisable.

Since the above thread was written, I received communication from someone who calls themselves The Midnight Rider who was apparently banned from Mark Shea's comboxes for refusing to denounce something I had said. If readers need a case study in why reason and logic are indispensable and yet so sorely lacking today, this one will work in spades; ergo I will now use it.

According to Mark Shea -someone who repeatedly throws gratuitous and unsubstantiated insults at anyone who does not agree with him, I have by claiming that he is a posterchild for why we need another sedition act in this country during a time of war "lied" about him and his view. The problem with the assertion of someone "lying" is that it is usually based on subjective frames of reference. In other words, Mark by not viewing himself as a seditionist naturally accuses those who say otherwise of "lying" about him. The question is, how does a reader approach objectively this subject to determine who is right and who is wrong.

The thread that got me banned from Mark Shea's site was later expanded into a weblog posting and blogged here. After what is noted in this posting, readers familiar with the rudimentary tools of reason and logic will be able to review it along with Mark Shea's site to determine which of us is objectively correct. But before they do that, they need to know what is involved in utilizing reason and logic as well as why failure in this area is so applicable to Mark Shea.{1} For that reason, the following material written by us earlier this year on the difference between objective manifestation and subjective intention is particularly a propo so it will be referenced at this time:

[T]he purpose of citing the above material in the present posting is to point out an example of the problems that come from confusing intentions with reality. This is what solipsism is as has been noted before: the self knowing nothing but its own states and their constituent modifications. To such persons, you can reason with them until your hair falls out but they will often not budge. One reason could be because they cannot be reasoned with. Another though can be due to the person confusing reality with their intentions.{3} If we are dealing with a person's written words, the latter problem can at times make it very difficult to talk with them because while you point out to them what they actually said{4}, they may take issue with this and shift the ground to what they claim to have intended. This is a variation of a fallacy called red herring because it does not pertain to the issue of discussion.{5} In the case of shifting from emperical evidence of what was said to subjective intention of the person saying it is to shift from the non-normative to the normative context. Those terms were defined briefly here and the distinction being made between them is hardly insignificant. Indeed, the difference between what is objectively verifiable and what was subjectively intended is a night and day distinction because one can be verified by empirical evidence objectively and the other cannot. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 27, 2007)]

Here are the footnotes from the above text for fleshing out further the points made -notice in particular how what is outlined in footnote three fits Mark Shea like the DNA at Brentwood fit OJ:

{3} It is not uncommon for these sorts to accuse those who point out what their statements and actions logically involve of being "liars" or of "lying" and often they do this with a degree of personal indignation. The reader should remember that the reason for this is that the person is confusing objective reality with subjective intention. Since these people would claim that their subjective intention is pure, right, or whatever, they view anything that does not support their subjective intention as a misrepresentation of objective reality rather than consider the alternative.

The alternative, of course is that the objective meaning of their statements does not support their later-stated intentions or subjective intentions. When the latter is properly understood, it is evident that those who point these distinctions out (where they are valid) are not "lying" or "slandering" them but instead are correctly describing the situation objectively and apart from the other person's subjective intention.

{4} Assuming for a moment that they even bothered to quote the words in context of course. (This is unfortunately no small assumption to be making oftentimes.)

{5} To take the definition of red herring from the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary for the sake of reader convenience (all emphasis is the present writer's):

Main Entry: red herring
Function: noun
1 : a herring cured by salting and slow smoking to a dark brown color
2 [from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] something that distracts attention from the real issue. [LINK] [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 27, 2007)]

Now then, readers armed with this knowledge are asked, nay encouraged to review what I have written on sedition and what it consists{2} of and also consider a number of Mark Shea's public statements{3} and see if my equating of the two is not objectively correct. Do not take Mark at his word on this and do not uncritically take mine either. Look at the evidences and use them to determine objectively whether or not I am "lying" (as Mark claims) or objectively verifying what Mark has materially conveyed{4} as I have and will continue to assert that I have done until objectively proven to the contrary. One of us has no problem with having people examine both sides of the issue and the other feels threatened by it and is desperate to try and squelch anyone who would point this out -even stooping to character assassination as a means to the end of no one questioning him.{5} And that is the bottom line really.

Notes:

{1} And why what I have asserted is objectively correct despite Mark Shea's vehement denials to the contrary.

{2} On Sedition and What it Consists Of (circa May 3, 2007)

{3} Two sites which have numerous threads on them which fit the requirement above are The Mark Shea Reader and particularly The Coalition For Fog.

{4} Whatever he would claim his intentions are is not the issue here; only what he has materially conveyed - see the sites noted in footnote two for some of the numerous examples which could be noted on this matter.

{5} And yes, this assertion (much as any I have made here or elsewhere) I am more than capable of substantiating by rational argument and objective evidences unlike the Mark Shea's of the world who demand accountability from others but then run from it themselves like a vampire fleeing a crucifix.

On Why Reason and Logic Are So Indispensable:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

What I noted in the dialogual thread posted prior to the one you are currently reading is a phenomenon that easily leads into what Vernon Reid of the band In Living Colour wrote a song about in the late 1980's; namely a "cult of personality." The latter explains why sometimes intelligent people (to say nothing about those who are not intelligent) can act like such mindless drones drinking different kinds of "Kool-Aid" at the beck and call of their chosen Jim Jones.

As I get older I find myself more and more concurring with the observation of one of my early intellectual mentors Mike Mentzer when he referred to the modern era as "a new Dark Ages." He predicated this observation on how intellectually dependent most people are and at bottom it is because as a rule people do not know much about logic or how to use it -how they can use reason to separate probable truth from probable falsehood.{1}

When you couple the short attention spans of modern people with the information overload from the msm and other media outlets -most of which I might add is irrelevant or a distraction from what is actually important- this is where the inability of most people to utilize logic and reason correctly is most problematical.

If there is a reason why I have focused so much on foundational presuppositions over the years and why it is important for everyone to recognize how this relates to their own outlook and also to challenge from time to time "their own infallibility" as Ben Franklin called it, this is the reason why. Because by default, everyone treats their own foundational presuppositions as if they are infallible. And no one has any business challenging someone else to reassess their foundational presuppositions if that person themselves is not similarly willing to do the same in their own case from time to time.

Note:

{1} I say "probable truth" because logic and reason have their limits when it comes to identifying what is and is not truth. Their primary value is to eliminate what is either evidently or by logical extension most probably false and thus make ascertaining truth much easier to do than when they are not utilized. And obviously the better they are utilized, the narrower the field to choose from and inexorably the greater likelihood that one will choose truth over falsehood.

"Rare as Hen's Teeth But They Do Exist" Dept.
(On Good Apologists With Bob Klaus)

The following was taken from a discussion list thread last year but mothballed for a variety of reasons to be used later. Considering a few of the postings as of late (and at least one more that will be posted next week), I dug the following from my drafts folder and put the finishing touches on it for posting at this time. My previous words will be in aqua coloured font with the subsequent words in blue font.

On 12/20/06, XXXX XXXXXXXXX wrote: Someone asked me if Bob Klaus left Catholic Legate and I said I didn't know. Bob? Bueller?

I hope not. Much as apologists in general have ticked me off as of late, Bueller...I mean Bob is one of those I believe does it right and the Legate would be diminished if he left it.

That is kind of you to say, Shawn. I appreciate it.

No problemo amigo.

Unfortunately, unless I won the Powerball tonight I still need to earn a living -- which means I have a limited amount of time to work "my hobby" -- and hence I cannot work the Legate and Christian Forums at the same time.

Frankly Bob, that is probably a good thing that it is not your job the way it is with not a few whom I shall not mention. But for those who do make $$$ off of it, there is the at least implicit need to stir the pot and create controversy because that is what people react to. Well, that and the "if you do not send what you can, my kids and wife will starve" kind of letters. When there is no financial concern, the problem of being compromised is a lot less as is the temptation to put oneself in that position.

############################

Hi Shawn,

Frankly Bob, that is probably a good thing that it is not your job the way it is with not a few whom I shall not mention. But for those who do make $$$ off of it, there is the at least implicit need to stir the pot and create controversy because that is what people react to. Well, that and the "if you do not send what you can, my kids and wife will starve" kind of letters. When there is no financial concern, the problem of being compromised is a lot less as is the temptation to put oneself in that position.

That is why I said "win the powerball" - if I was independently wealthy and didn't depend on speaking fees and selling books (and gaining donations) for a living...then I could devote myself to my hobby full time instead of only part-time.

I have ZERO interest in becoming a "professional" apologist...for all the reasons you and I have discussed many times.

Give and take is fine. The problem I have with a lot of the apologists is that they are illogical. They base the veracity of a particular argument or position not on its intrinsic merits or lack thereof but instead on who says it as if that is by itself the determining factor.

For an additional musing pertaining to the above material, see the thread to be posted following this one.

Points to Ponder:
(From Thomas Jefferson)

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people' (10th Amendment). To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also.

Happy for us, that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions.

If God is just, I tremble for my country.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

The concentrating [of powers] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one.