Miscellaneous Notes and Notifications:

I want to touch on a few things here in brief subject-wise as well as notify the readers of this humble weblog of some upcoming posts and projects. Without further ado...

--Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is speaking at the United Nations as I put the final touches on this posting. It is nice to see President George Bush getting a bit of support from French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel on this one -I forgot when mentioning earlier this year my recent about-face on Sweden and France to mention Angela Merkel and Germany too. Consider that oversight with this mention to be rectified.

--In a posting from last week, I noted how someone should by default approach national security matters. After that thread was posted, I was reviewing a thread reporting that Israel bombed an installation in Syria that may have been a joint Syrian-North Korean nuclear facility As there is speculation on the matter, that is all I will note on it except to point out how former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu took the sort of approach that the opposition parties in America should learn from.

I do not mean that the opposition party needs to explicitly and uncritically support everything the party in control does mind you, that would be ludicrous and contrary to one of the principles of our underlying weltanschauung here at Rerum Novarum. Uncritical acceptance is the problem here much as uncritical rejection is. If any opposition is taken at all it should be solidly based, principled, and not for the sake of being contrarian but out of a genuine concern for just public order and the common good of society. Few issues impact the latter elements more than that of national security. And as I have noted before on several occasions -including in a recent blog posting revisiting the Able Danger controversy- matters of national security should be free of the sort of partisan bickering that has been all-to-common in recent years on this issue among numerous other ones.

--The Senate of the United States deserves to be given some credit for their condemning of a full page ad against General Petraus issued prior to his testimony before the Congress. The vote was 72-25. Among those of note are Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Christopher Dodd for voting against the condemation -hopefully voters will remember their craven nature when it comes primary time.{1}

If not for the fact that these sorts are so evidently out to undermine the Iraq situation by any means possible, I would not care what they say. Nor would I care if this ad was run after Petraus' testimony was looked atbecause at the very least they would have at least had the testimony to review before running such an ad if they wanted to run it at that point. For all the talk these so-called "progressivists" have about so-called "free speech", they do not realize that with freedome comes responsibility and those not willing to accept the responsibility for their public statements do not deserve the freedom to make them.

Furthermore, in a free society decisions should be made after evidence is heard, not beforehand. The Moveon.org crowd has proven with this stunt{2} that they do not care about dialogue or discussion on issues. They also proved that they have no interest in questioning their own infallibility by dismissing in advance without a hearing information that could possibly give them reason to reassess or even (possibly) change their mind on the matter. This is how kangaroo courts have been (and are0 run in totalitarianist nations -obviously the marxist apple does not fall far from the communist tree methodologically.

--I am working on a piece in dialogual format responding to some recent statements made by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. I am not sure when it will be finished but probably sometime in October time-willing.

--The talk I have seen in some circles about the Catholics for Ron Paul movement has got me thinking about the draft I started on a necessary third way in politics earlier this year and how I need to find the motivation to finish it.{3} If I continue to read material on the Ron Paul movement, I may well have that motivation because I do not see him as fitting that necessary third way at all. Instead, in his own way it would be more of the same as that posting (when it is finished) will hopefully make reasonably evident.

--The frequently-mentioned dialogue on the atomic bombings of 1945 will commense soon.{4} I still need to format the opening posts and review my dialogue partner's opening statement a few more times to get a sense of how he wants to go about handling the subject. The first posting will be a joint statement of principles that was drafted back in early August and to which my dialogue partner gave his full concurrence to after reviewing it and offering a few small revisions which I gladly accepted. Basically, we should be ready to go on it within the week now -time willing as always but this will be put in priority over and above anything else being blogged once it starts.

--There is also a sports posting I have been working on here and there as well as a posting on my approach to blogging which will touch on the weaknesses of my approach to this medium.{5}

--The "points to ponder" series featuring key Founding Fathers has one more installment to go to wrap it up -that will be tended to soon as well.

More could be noted but that is enough for now to point out what will be worked on in the immediate future at this humble weblog.

Notes:

{1} Senator Barack Obama also should be noted because he abstained from the main vote and voted in some package proposition condemning this ad and specific ads in the past. Nice try Senator Obama but we can take that kind of retroactive approach to condemnations of ads even further back than 2004. This attempt on your part shows not decisiveness but indecisiveness and even cowardice. Any chance you had of getting my vote in 2008 (and you had a decent chance) is practically nill after this stunt. I can vote for someone whose principles are not the same as mine but not someone who puts principles behind politics. Politics should never come before principles. PERIOD.

{2} If there was any doubt whatsoever prior to it and this writer certainly did not have any.

{3} I am not sure when I first mentioned it on the weblog but I believe it was in this posting from April of 2007 which was written as a prelude to it. The idea had been in my mind for quite some time prior to that posting though -the seeds of which were in retrospect planted when I was publicly noting my views on the need for a third party in the United States. (As noted in a pair of postings from 2002, a pair of postings from 2004, and a couple of posts from early 2006 prior to the elections.) Perhaps the time it would take to make the vision as I outlined it occur coupled with the intuition I have had for years that serious fixes are needed and needed now facilitated this approach to the issue in question. Anyway, it has been in the works for some time and hopefully I can put the finished product into the arena of ideas for criticism and/or interaction with soon.

{4} To note the history of this briefly, after watching the usual babbling on this subject last year, I decided in early 2007 to entertain issuing a challenge for 2007 on the matter if things looked no different this year than in the past. In the meantime, I wrote some posts dealing with procedural matters that went so badly askew the last time this was publicly delved into with others and waited to see if history would repeat itself. Well, it always does and this time the subject in question was delved into even earlier this year than last in some places. For that reason, I pondered what would be needed for a potentially fruitful dialogue on the matter and in July issued a challenge for a dialogue on this matter. I did this as I noted before fully expecting no Catholic to measure up to the very basic criteria I outlined -heck I said this in the challenge posting itself!!!

As I predicted, a few people (including one fairly known author/"apologist") contributed to making a prophet out of me on the matter until I received a couple emails from people interested in the idea who were willing to fulfull the criteria I outlined. From that point, I dialogued behind the scenes with them to set it up and in the process have occasionally mentioned here and there that this project was in the process of being done. After several delays due to more pressing issues and also lack of time, it is on the verge of being started now; ergo I mention it here for those who are interested in the topic.

{5} As a way to balance it out since my methodology overall has a lot of strengths to it.

Points to Ponder:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. [John Stuart Mill]

Four Down, Four to Go, and a Bit on "Benedict" John Murtha:

U.S. officer charges dismissed in Haditha killings

Out of the original eight who were accused in early January of 2006 of being "cold blooded murderers" by one of the highest ranking fifth columnists in the United States House of Representatives (referring to one "Benedict" John Murtha), four have been exonerated thus far. The article sums up the problem in a nutshell with this quote from the defense counsel:

You don't want the lance corporal, the 19-year-old kid with the M-16, thinking twice about pulling the trigger for fear that he'll end up being investigated if in fact he reasonably believes there are insurgents involved with the attack upon him.

In a military situation, you have to make split second decisions. Sometimes those decisions however much one may want otherwise will have disasterous results. However, a soldier in a warzone if he reasonably believes that he is being attacked, has the right to self-defense. Furthermore, the presumption should be that the soldier acted correctly unless there is solid preponderant evidence indicating that the contrary proposition is more probable.

It truly disturbs me that there are people in America who want to see failure in Iraq simply to advance their own ideologies. It is my hope that the remaining four are also exonerated and "Benedict" John Murtha is subjected to contempt by the congress for his irresponsiblity. Bryan Preston{1} has the footage of someone in the msm with some actual cajones confronting "Benedict" Murtha on his previous statements and readers can watch him try to weasel his way out of being accountable for his previous statements:

Rep. Jack Murtha confronted about Haditha accusations (HotAir TV)

Truthfully, I would prefer to see him soundly caned{2} but since that is not going to happen, I hold out the hope{3} that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will grow a pair and have this disgrace of a congressman censured. I do not even care if she views throwing Murtha under the bus as a politically calculated move for 2008 -whatever it takes to get it through to politicians and other public figures that condemning people without a trial will not be tolerated. PERIOD.

Notes:

{1} The commentator formerly known as the proprietor of The JunkYard BLOG -one of our favourite reads in years past.

{2} For the record, I volunteer to do the caning if by some stroke of luck that is agreed to as punishment for Murtha.

{3} Not a good hope mind you, just a faint one.

Pope warns Catholic theologians against arrogance

It would be nice to see him issue a similar warning to self-styled "apologist" sorts who can be every bit as dogmatic in their opinions as any Catholic theologian but who have a lot less to be humble about (to put it nicely).

Points to Ponder:
(From James Madison)

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species.

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Texas Fred is understandably livid over the manner in which the msm treats the soldiers. He notes this in a recent posting to his blog. For those unaware of his site, Texas Fred's weblog is a somewhat regular read for your weblog host. In some respects Texas Fred reminds me of an old neighbour of mine years ago -a very tough veteran who actually earned his purple hearts and other medals.{1} I reviewed the above posting from Texas Fred and I share his lividness though not because of the title of the article -well not exactly anyway.

I am among the last people to defend the msm but with this posting I will make at least a slight exception to that rule. This is done because I do not believe media stories are always titled by their writers. I have heard of a number of cases where the writer of the story was not the author of the title -this happens with articles and even (sometimes) with books. I am not sure if this happened here or now but it may have; ergo my reason for noting it here.

In reviewing the story briefly, it is evident that the title of the story should include the assassination of Adbul-Sattar Abu Risha because that is what 75% of the story is about. But they know they cannot manipulate the American readers with that kind of report so they mentioned the deaths of four US soldiers as the eye-catcher.

Texas Fred is right that the mentions of the soldiers in the article are for the most part flippant and showing an obvious lack of respect for them.{2} I am not sure though that his criticisms of the title of the article are on track though for reasons noted above. Nonetheless, I recommend giving the article a read because a good chunk of his commentary resonates with how I view the msm on the matter of their coverage of the situation in Iraq.

Notes:

{1} Unlike John F-word Kerry.

{2} And that the msm (along with so many of their willing accomplices in other media outlets) is so evidently wanting to see us fail in Iraq. It is a case of agendas over national security and the safety of the American people and that sort of thing is beyond repugnant to me.

Points to Ponder:
(On Avoiding Rash Judgment)

DO NOT yield to every impulse and suggestion but consider things carefully and patiently in the light of God's will. For very often, sad to say, we are so weak that we believe and speak evil of others rather than good. Perfect men, however, do not readily believe every talebearer, because they know that human frailty is prone to evil and is likely to appear in speech.

Not to act rashly or to cling obstinately to one's opinion, not to believe everything people say or to spread abroad the gossip one has heard, is great wisdom. [Thomas a Kempis (circa 1418)]

How Wives Can Kill Their Marriage: Part One

How Wives Can Kill Their Marriage: Part Two

How Wives Can Kill Their Marriage: The Final Straw

With the anniversary of 9/11 upon us, Victor Davis Hanson reminds us of the importance of Santayana's dictum on history as it applies to the subject or war

Points to Ponder:

(On Civility in Argument and Proper Dialogue)

Barbarism likewise threatens when men cease to talk together according to reasonable laws. There are laws of argument, the observance of which is imperative if discourse is to be civilized. Argument ceases to be civil when it is dominated by passion and prejudice . . . when dialogue gives way to a series of monologues . . . when the parties to the conversation cease to listen to one another, or hear only what they want to hear, or see the other's argument only through the screen of their own categories; when defiance is flung to the basic ontological principle of all ordered discourse, which asserts that Reality is an analogical structure, within which there are variant modes of reality, to each of which there corresponds a distinctive method of thought that imposes on argument its own special rules. When things like this happen, men cannot be locked together in argument. Conversation becomes merely quarrelsome or querulous. Civility dies with the death of the dialogue. [John Courtney Murray, SJ]

"From the Mailbag" Dept.
(On Distributivism)

The emailer's words will be in darkgreen font.

Shawn,

I wanted to share some thoughts on your recent posts regardind distributivism. I do not consider myself a distributivist. My observations do not really come from reading Chesterton or Belloc. My observations come more from my time reading about a 19th century strains of libertarianism known as mutualism and georgism, which seem to have some (at least facial) simialrity to distributivism.

Ok.

I think that reading through the dialogue, the main issue is what constitutes "property" and what constitutes "theft". How was property first obtained? If a person made a fense and said "all land herein is mine", is that necessarily his property?

This is a very good question. Ultimately we either operate under a rule of law or a rule of the jungle. I for one prefer the rule of law with the caveat that the rule of law does not precede the fundamental rights of man. Nor are the fundamental rights of man derived from law. Instead they are God-given.{1} Property can change hands in a variety of ways and there is a variety of what can be constituted as "property" with land but one facet of the equation.{2}

Then they found other people and paid them to work the land, and took the produce of the work. Some would say that this is theft of the product of the worker who was prevented from owning the land he works because someone else who never worked the land found some way to claim the property as his.

The problem with your analysis would appear to lie in the idea that ownership depends on the individual or their family physically working the land. If this is applied across the entire spectrum of what constitutes "property" without arbitrary constrictions on the matter as you will undoubtedly do (even if you are not conscious of doing it), then there is not and cannot be ownership of anything whatsoever.

According to mutualists such as Benjamin Tucker, one cannot own property that one does not personally occupy or use.

This analysis implies that one has to make use of what they own and therefore they do not really own it. Ownership involves the right to make use of what is owned in the manner the owner determines. There are obviously some limitations to this approach{3} but morally not many.

Once you justly obtain possession of land, it is yours, and any charge of rent is plunder and theft.

Then it is not yours. If it was then if you want to charge others who want to make use (within certain limits) of your land, what are you plundering from them??? The answers is: nothing. Plunder involves taking from others what is not yours and giving it to someone else. If there is an agreement between you and me for you to work my land for a fee that you pay me, there is no plunder. Or as Claude Frederic Bastiat noted in The Law:

[H]ow is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. [Excerpt from The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa May 7, 2005)]

How does one identify "just possession" in your view of things??? Furthermore, if you own the land, how are you plundering those who want to make use of your land by paying you for the privilege to do so (within certain limits)???

Illegal plunder is if you steal my property and either keep it or give it to someone else. Legal plunder is the same thing except with the government doing it. Either way plunder is heinous and contrary to a fundamental right of man. But if you agree to pay me for the privilege of using my property, there is no plunder because you have given consent to pay me to use my property and I have given my consent for you to do so. As long as what we are doing does not break any legitimate laws (such as me allowing you to use my property to set up a crack house), there is nothing illegal or immoral in what we would be doing.

I will go to the example that is mentioned in the post. That is where the twenty families owned all of Taiwan, and then there was land reform. According to your theory such land reform is plunder and theft.

Not necessarily. It depends on how it is gone about. If the government stole the property and gave it to someone else, that is plunder which is theft. If however, I of my own choice gave you some of my property, there is no plunder involved at all because I acted of my own free choice on the matter with my own property in giving it to you.

However, I think that the distributivists and mutualists may have a plausable claim that the fact that twenty families owned all of Taiwan is in itself plunder and theft of property belionging to others.

This is a presupposition they do not bother to prove. Barring certain legitimate enactions of eminent domain,{3} those families have a right to their property. If they owned the property then there is no plunder whatsoever if they consent to either sell or give it to someone else.

The paragraph of Leo's enciclycal that seems to be bantered about so much starts with the sentence expressing the sentiment that every person has the right to own land.

Yes but this does not mean they have the right to take someone else's land or have someone else take it and give it to them.

However, if twenty people own all the land in Taiwan, nobody else on the island has the right to own any land without their permission.

You assume that they are stuck on Taiwan and cannot go elsewhere. My ancestors were not allowed to own land either in Ireland or the Ukraine. They solved that problem by moving to a place where they were able to acquire land of their own in various legitimate ways.

Once I was a very traditional type of American Libertarian. I read Friedman, Rothbard, and Rand (not exactly Catholic, I know).

I am not going to criticize you for that. I have read a lot of sources on various subjects and not all of them are Catholic either. Frankly, most of what passes for "economics" written by Catholics I do not find very inspiring or impressive. Catholic writers can be quite good at outlining broad principles which are important for considering when looking into a panoply of issues. However, when it comes to application, some of it leaves a lot to be desired for a variety of reasons too numerous to go into here.

However, eventually I came to realize that a landlord, in a way, is a government.

This is true; however it is also false. Governments are institutions established by man but the right to property is a fundamental right from God. It is because of the fundamental rights of man that governments were established to begin with: to protect those rights from usurpation by others.

If twenty people own all the land in Taiwan, they might as well be the government. They can tell everyone else what to do because it is their land!

Within certain limits, yes but only on their own property.

So much for freedom!

You have a few presuppositions to your outlook here which I want to highlight briefly. First of all, you are presuming that there is a finite pie here. (Taiwan is not the only land on earth.) Second, you are presuming that there is no freedom involved here for these people to go elsewhere -essentially you are saying they have to stay where they are indefinitely. Are they somehow constrained from moving???

While I have much sympathy for your view, I am beginning to see that theories such as distributivism (and similar theories) may have much more plausibility.

So stealing from someone to give to another person "may have much more plausibility" to you??? That is a disturbing thought because if you do not defend the fundamental rights of man, then everything else is arbitrary. Either there are certain fundamental rights which are God-given and which governments are established to protect or all rights are derived from government. You have implied support for the latter and that is the seed from which all totalitarianist forms of government grow. I hope you are willing to reconsider that in your assessment of these matters.

Notes:

{1} A Collection of Threads on Claude Frederic Bastiat's Theory of the Three Fundamental Rights of Man and the Role of Law in a Just Society -Spanning October 31, 2003 through January 5, 2007 (circa January 19, 2007)

There is also a link in that posting to a similar thread collection from August 25, 2002 through October 30, 2003.

{2} There is by some categorizations three types of property: real property (land), personal property (other items), and intellectual property.

{3} This is a matter which requires significant care because of the rampant abuse that can come about by it. However, there is some rationale where it can be properly utilized and I noted one such example in one of the previous threads on distributivism earlier this year:

A person can do with their property what they like within certain limits. One of those limits is what is called the "common good" which Bastiat recognized at least implicitly in his 1850 synthesis. Another is a concept that did not explicitly exist in Bastiat's time but which is a Catholic principle incorporated into Dignitatis Humanae and that is what is called "just public order." The latter is an objective verifying criteria to balance out the criteria of "common good" which to some extent (and taken by itself) is prone to subjectivist rationale.[...]

For example, if I wanted to build a nuclear reactor on my property (assuming I could), the state would have a right to deny me my project because of the endangering of the common good of my neighbours under what can be called "just public order" resulting from my endeavour. However, if the state wanted to take my property and give it to Walmart to build another super mall, that would be a violation of my right to property and a perversion of law. The reason for the latter is it would be the taking of private property to sell to another party which does not involve the common good but instead the enrichment of the latter party at the expense of the former. At least in the extraordinary circumstances in which eminent domain can be justified the beneficiary in question is the public at large. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 31, 2007)]

Excerpts from Classic Writings:
(Claude Frederic Bastiat's 1850 Opus Economic Harmonies)

Let us take a man belonging to a modest class in society, a village cabinetmaker, for example, and let us observe the services he renders to society and receives in return. This man spends his day planing boards, making tables and cabinets; he complains of his status in society, and yet what, in fact, does he receive from this society in exchange for his labor? The disproportion between the two is tremendous.

Every day, when he gets up, he dresses; and he has not himself made any of the numerous articles he puts on. Now, for all these articles of clothing, simple as they are, to be available to him, an enormous amount of labor, industry, transportation, and ingenious invention has been necessary. Americans have had to produce the cotton; Indians, the dye; Frenchmen, the wool and the flax; Brazilians, the leather; and all these materials have had to be shipped to various cities to be processed, spun, woven, dyed, etc.

Next, he breakfasts. For his bread to arrive every morning, farm lands have had to be cleared, fenced in, ploughed, fertilized, planted; the crops have had to be protected from theft; a certain degree of law and order has had to reign over a vast multitude of people; wheat has had to be harvested, ground, kneaded, and prepared; iron, steel, wood, stone have had to be converted by industry into tools of production; certain men have had to exploit the strength of animals, others the power of a waterfall, etc.—all things of which each one by itself alone presupposes an incalculable output of labor not only in space, but in time as well.

In the course of the day this man consumes a little sugar and a little olive oil, and uses a few utensils.

He sends his son to school to receive instruction, which, though limited, still presupposes on the part of his teachers research, previous study, and a store of knowledge that startles one's imagination.

He leaves his house: he finds his street paved and lighted.

His ownership of a piece of property is contested: he finds lawyers to plead his rights, judges to reaffirm them, officers of the law to execute the judgment. These men, too, have had to acquire extensive and costly knowledge in order to defend and protect him.

He goes to church: it is a prodigious monument, and the book that he brings with him is perhaps an even more prodigious monument of human intelligence. He is taught morals, his mind is enlightened, his soul is elevated; and for all this to be done, still another man has had to have professional training, to have frequented libraries and seminaries, to have drawn knowledge from all the sources of human tradition, and to have lived the while without concerning himself directly with his bodily needs.

If our artisan takes a trip, he finds that, to save him time and lessen his discomfort, other men have smoothed and leveled the ground, filled in the valleys, lowered the mountains, spanned the rivers, and, to reduce their friction, placed wheeled cars on blocks of sandstone or iron rails, tamed horses or steam, etc.

It is impossible not to be struck by the disproportion, truly incommensurable, that exists between the satisfactions this man derives from society and the satisfactions that he could provide for himself if he were reduced to his own resources. I make bold to say that in one day he consumes more things than he could produce himself in ten centuries.

What makes the phenomenon stranger still is that the same thing holds true for all other men. Every one of the members of society has consumed a million times more than he could have produced; yet no one has robbed anyone else. If we examine matters closely, we perceive that our cabinetmaker has paid in services for all the services he has received. He has, in fact, received nothing that he did not pay for out of his modest industry; all those ever employed in serving him, at any time or in any place, have received or will receive their remuneration.

So ingenious, so powerful, then, is the social mechanism that every man, even the humblest, obtains in one day more satisfactions than he could produce for himself in several centuries.

Revisiting the Absurd "Chickenhawk" Purported "Argument" and on the Odds of a Military Draft Anytime Soon:

My interlocuter's words (with only the most minor of modifications to remove the parties addressed originally) will be in darkgreen font and pertains to a subject discussed in a forum over a month ago.

[I]f invading Pakistan brings down the Musharraf government, then what? We'll likely end up with an Al Qaeda-dominated government with a full nuclear arsenal.

Where is anyone talking about overthrowing the Musharraf government??? The talk about military endeavours in Pakistan (and that is all it is) involves assisting the Musharaaf government in dealing with Al Qaeda operatives should they actually be in northern Pakistan as is believed to be the case right now.

In light of certain major examples of worldwide intelligence snafus with regards to the Iraqi situation pre-war, it is not likely they are going to jump too quickly on this one if they can help it. And any military involvement is not likely to be extensive but instead smaller special forces stuff or (perhaps) targeted bombing campaigns.

Unless of course we invade Pakistan in toto. This would, of course, require tons more troops.

I do not seen anything akin to a massive invasion of Pakistan happening anytime soon. Not (at least) until things are a lot more stable in Afghanistan and Iraq than they are now and troops are taken out of there. (That does not rule out using small special forces units of course.)

I hope you, [Vvvvvv], and the rest of the Laptop Bombardiers are ready to sign up

Do we have to listen to this fallacious argument again??? There is enough of a problem keeping those who in overt and covert ways undermine the projects in Afghanistan and Iraq at bay as it is already. The idea that every person who supports a military excursion should be willing to register to fight -assuming that they all would pass the military physical and general evaluation which is a stretch and a half in itself- would mean that the home front would be left to every fifth columnist seditionist without challenge to thereby poison the home front and thus weaken military morale.

If we should have learned anything from Vietnam -a war won on the battlefront but lost in the halls of Congress due to the influence of the marxist sponsored "antiwar" movement- it is what happens when there is a loss of support on the home front.{1}

Should that scenario you seem to want to see happen, I hope you like chanting in Arabic facing Mecca five times a day amigo -cause refusing would get you a dull blade being sawed through your throat while you are told in chant how "great" Allah is.

rather than blithely sending those of us of draftable age

The last draft we had in this country ended in 1973 and even with Selective Service there has not been an attempt to enforce it since the mid 1980's. (Probably before you were born.) There is no support in the public for it and there is no support amongst the legislators for it either -well except for those who are trying to play politics with the war.

The bottom line son is that there is no draft and there is not likely to be one anytime soon. I remind you that the last congressional motion to institute a draft for this war -and which was only brought to the floor for a vote to shut up the Democrats who tried to make it a political issue in 2004- was voted on October 5, 2004 and was defeated in the House 402-2.

into the Valley of Death for your grand End to Evil theories.

My concern that we are entering another Dark Ages of people who do not understand reason logic and how to use it properly is not helped when I consider how may young folks today parrot antiwar slogans and think that they are in doing so somehow speaking intelligently.

I doubt you will bother to take seriously informing yourself from sources apart from the kool-aid you are drinking courtesy of the geopolitically-challenged Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers. But take heart, you need not worry about being drafted anytime soon as the party that endorsed re instituting the draft would commit a form of political hari kari.

There is a resolution in the House right now which was introduced by Rep. Rangel of New York six days into the Pelosi-controlled House of Representatives. You can follow it by googling HR 393. I doubt anything will come out of it because most introduced bills die in committee anyway. I kinda hope it does pick up steam so that the Republicans can make it an election issue in 2008: then watch how many candidates run from this issue like a vampire fleeing a crucifix.

Note:

{1} This subject has been covered from time to time on this weblog most recently prior to this posting in this thread.

I mentioned recently that I was working on a sports posting. This is not that posting. However, as the Mariners have lost 11 of their last 12 games, I am predicting as of tonight that they are finished this year as a playoffs contender{1}. I hate to say it but it is what it is -at least Seahawk football starts tomorrow that is all I will say on these matters for now.

Note:

{1} My normal prognosticating accuracy is inverted when it comes to sports predictions. (Meaning, unlike with other subjects, with sports I am wrong a lot more often than I am right.) If the M's want to prove me wrong on this, they can be my guest and I would gladly eat crow. But barring a miracle, that is not going to happen so this prediction is a pretty safe one.

Feeling quite drowsy
Laptop battery dying
Time to go to bed

Points to Ponder:

Communism teaches and seeks two objectives: unrelenting class warfare and the complete eradication of private ownership. [Pope Pius XI]

"From the Mailbag" Dept.
(On the "Phantom Menace" of Distributivism)

This email was sent about ten weeks ago. The reader's words will be in blue font.

Hi, Shawn,

I wandered onto your blog today and found a very interesting exchange between a distributivist and you.

That was the third post on that topic in a seven day period of time actually.{1}

My understanding of distributivism is undoubtedly very amateurish, but that system is something that has long escaped me as a viable way of making certain that the poor are helped.

I should note that I believe the promoters of that approach generally mean well. I certainly believe that John means well. If I showed a bit of impatience with him it is mainly because I am sick of seeing distributivists accept a marxist definition of capitalism as their point of departure.

It bears a disconcerting resemblance to the forced taking of income by the IRS; even if the reasons for seizing others' property maybe more noble than governmental taxation, such a taking still is reminiscent of legalized theft.

Claude Frederic Bastiat{2} referred to this as "legalized plunder" and explained the problems that this perversion has on the consciences of people who tend by nature to presume a priori that something that is legal is therefore just. Or to quote from his magnum opus once again:

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 17, 2002)]


What is legal and what is just or moral should go hand in hand but at times they do not. And I will always firmly oppose a dichotomy in those areas no matter whom is making it or how good their intentions may be in doing it.

And in the end, distributivism, like taxation, is forced giving that denies the opportunity for the better-off group to practice voluntary charity, an avenue of many graces.

I believe that a confiscatory economic system deprives people of being able to be generous in their giving to others. It in other words is not only unjust from the standpoint of what it does to those who are robbed of their property but it also hinders their impulse to want to help others who are less fortunate than they are.

It was very good of you to try to clearly define and defend your position to the gentleman, and I hope he absorbs what you presented.

I hope that he reviews and reflects carefully upon what I presented to him.

In reading your material, it is evident that you have read Thomas Aquinas. That is why you do not use a brilliant medieval theologian to assist in your explication of economic theory on the ownership of private property. In Thomas' day, such ownership was the privilege of the few, not more commonly done as it is today. The Angelic Doctor has many wonderfully relevant things to offer, but not in this area, which if he were with us today, he would frankly admit was out of his life experience, cultureand education.

Well said and I do not say that because you are complementing me. St. Thomas' work is a very good source but like all sources it has its limits. The latter is something you would not know if you were to talk with someone who thinks Aquinas is the last word on everything.{3}

Well, end of drivel....

I suppose if St. Thomas could view his writings after heavenly visions as "so much straw", that you can view your comments as "drivel" too.

Pope Leo XIII must be very pleased with your choice of blog name and your understanding of his encyclical. ;)

I did not originally name this weblog after the encyclical per se. But to explain the reason for the name selection -or at least the ones I originally had and later on came to serendipitously view as the more appropriate reasons for the choice- will be for another time perhaps.

Notes:

{1} To list briefly in one spot all three of those postings in order from oldest to newest:

Revisiting Distributivism (circa May 25, 2007)

"The Empire Distributivist Strikes Back" Dept. (circa May 27, 2007)

On Fundamental Rights, Private Property, and Authentic Dialogue (circa May 31, 2007)

{2} As much as I dump on the French as a people overall, Bastiat was a brilliant man and unquestionably mankind's greatest advocate of liberty.

{3} This is what a lot of people prior to St. Thomas' time thought about the writings of St. Augustine. Obviously though he venerated St. Augustine, St. Thomas did not accept St. Augustine's work uncritically. He instead scrutinized St. Augustine's work and accepted and rejected certain parts based on what he saw as the correctness or incorrectness of St. Augustine's views. Indeed, the idea that St. Thomas' work should be viewed as some unimpeachable source is one that St. Thomas himself would have found both absurd as well as discomforting.

Excerpts From Classic Writings:

This installment is from Plato's Republic and is titled Allegory of the Den. Enjoy...

SOCRATES
AND now, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: Behold! human beings living in an underground den, which has a mouth open toward the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette-players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

GLAUCON
I see.

SOCRATES
And do you see, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

GLAUCON
You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.

SOCRATES
Like ourselves, and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

GLAUCON
True, how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

SOCRATES
And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

GLAUCON
Yes

SOCRATES
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

GLAUCON
Very true.

SOCRATES
And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

GLAUCON
No question.

SOCRATES
To them, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

GLAUCON
That is certain.

SOCRATES
And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look toward the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive someone saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned toward more real existence, he has a clearer vision—what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them—will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

GLAUCON
Far truer.

SOCRATES
And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take refuge in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?

GLAUCON
True.

SOCRATES
And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he is forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.

GLAUCON
Not all in a moment.

SOCRATES
He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?

GLAUCON
Certainly.

SOCRATES
Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.

GLAUCON
Certainly.

SOCRATES
He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?

GLAUCON
Clearly, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.

SOCRATES
And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity him?

GLAUCON
Certainly, he would.

SOCRATES
And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,

"Better to be the poor servant of a poor master,"

and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?

GLAUCON
Yes, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.

SOCRATES
Imagine once more, such a one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?

GLAUCON
To be sure.

SOCRATES
And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable), would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if anyone tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

GLAUCON
No question.

SOCRATES
This entire allegory, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upward to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed—whether rightly or wrongly, God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.

GLAUCON
I agree, as far as I am able to understand you.

SOCRATES
Moreover, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted.

GLAUCON
Yes, very natural.

SOCRATES
And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplations to the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of images of justice, and is endeavoring to meet the conceptions of those who have never yet seen absolute justice?

GLAUCON
Anything but surprising.

SOCRATES
Anyone who has common-sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye; and he who remembers this when he sees anyone whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter life, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than in the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the den.

On the Exodus of Karl Rove:

[Note: This thread was written ten days ago but only finished for posting (with some last minute adjustments including omitting parts of the text for a later posting) today. -ISM]

As far as the soon-to-be exit of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, I have a mixed view. Ultimately he is to President Bush what Dick Morris was to President Clinton: a tactician whose pluses outweighed his minuses in that area. He also was one who was no small source of irritation to those whose views he worked at opposing.{1} My initial hunch despite claims made by Rove that this is family motivated is that there is a political reason also but that should not surprise readers of this weblog presumably.

I am not claiming that Rove is lying about the family claim as people can and do make decisions for a variety of reasons. But he is a political animal and taking the politics out of someone like Rove is not easy to do. I am sure at some election level, Rove will have involvement in 2008. But back to my personal view of Rove which is mixed and always has been. The main burr under my saddle with him was the support of the illegal immigrants amnesty: that is effectively dead for the time being though it will rise like Jason in a bad Friday the 13th sequel as soon as the 2008 elections are over -of that we can be sure so vigilance is definitely called for in that area. But that is a subject for another time and back to the subject of Karl Rove we go.

I am sure there will be many who will try to make Rove's accomplishments look far more meager than they are among the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) crowd. After all, he is Senator Palpatine to Bush's Darth Vader to that crowd. Plus, there is a tradition of treating the president as an idiot who has his strings pulled by nefarious behind the scenes sorts remains alive and well it seems -except this time the fixture of the caricature was not Jewish.{2}

I also suppose the lack of a Jewish mastermind who pulls the president's strings is a minor improvement worth noting though I suspect that the BDS crowd will point to Kristol, Wolfowitz, and Ledeen and probably claim Rove was their puppet or something along those lines. Unless they try and claim that Rove's real name is Rovestein or something along those lines -who knows what the Mother Jones and World Socialist Review sorts will do in this area. About all I will predict is that it will be a standard illogical diatribe or more and have a number of very predictable operative presuppositions behind it -one of which is to blame the Jews for everything though not usually as brazenly as the John Birch Society sorts do.{3}

But however those sorts spin it, Karl Rove is gone now from the Bush Administration. I also predict that if the Republicans win back congress and retain the White House in 2008 that we will hear the predictable "stolen election" crap that has been the stock in trade of those moonbats since they tried it in 2000{4} and for the sake of not going off on another tangent will spare the readers at this time examples of the hypocritical double standards of the latter sorts of people.

Notes:

{1} The difference is that people who were opposed to Clinton had a begrudging respect for Morris despite their annoyance at him. By contrast, those suffering from BDS (see the main post text above) froth at the mouth when talking about Rove every bit as much as they do with Dubya.

{2} This pattern if memory serves started in the adminstration of President Woodrow Wilson who was the supposed "dummy puppet" of Col. Edward Mandell House his chief advisor. (House also was an advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt in the latter's first term.)

{3} I have been planning to write a bit on the conspiracy theory mindset and why it is not worth taking seriously so part of this post can be considered a prelude of sorts on that subject much as a few others in recent months have been.

{4} And many of which are still deluded enough to believe was an accurate description of reality.

On Able Danger:
(A Rerum Novarum Revisitation and Update Thread)

[Prefatory Note: The lions share of this thread was drafted last year, slated for a September 29, 2006 posting, but for reasons which I cannot remember was never finished. I only discovered this when doing a search for my last Able Danger thread to flesh out a recent "miscellaneous musings" thread where two of the subjects discussed were the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the credibility problems of George Tenet. When I discovered that the last post to this weblogon Able Danger was in February of 2006 (and that the late 2006 thread was incomplete), I decided to update it to reflect the situation since September of 2006 and post it to the weblog; ergo the thread you have in front of you. -ISM]

To start with, here is a catalogue of sorts of the threads on Able Danger posted to this humble weblog that we can recall via a brief archive search:{1}

As I have noted in private correspondence to a few individuals, what he has done (in writing a book about Able Danger and 9/11) and what he is saying (in promoting his book on the various media curcuits), Rep. Curt Weldon has taken quite a gamble here...[I]f he is called and does not produce the cards, he will be finished politically. However, if he can deliver on what he says he can, then his prestige will increase. In fact, if the latter proves to be true, look for Rep. Weldon to become a Republican darkhorse candidate for the presidency in 2008 (whether he wants it or not). My money is on Weldon's gamble paying off because generally speaking people do not make public stances like this unless they can deliver. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2005)]

On Able Danger and A Potential Defense Department Coverup (circa September 21, 2005)

Briefly Revisiting Able Danger (circa October 20, 2005)

"Focus on Able Danger Stupid" Dept. (circa November 2, 2005)

"Focus on Able Danger" Revisited (circa November 3, 2005)

Bug your senators people...including Senator Arlen Spector who expressed interest in [Able Danger] back in September but may well get wishy washy in true congressional fashion on the matter in question. Of course those of us who have Maria Cantvotewell and Patty Murray (the latter of whose lips have been firmly attached to the backside of Robert "Sheets" Byrd for the past thirteen years), it will not make much of a difference but one must try nonetheless. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 19, 2005)]

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

On Able Danger and Hearings Being Opened in the House of Representatives (circa February 13, 2006)

As of August 2005, there were three sources backing the claims made by Rep. Curt Weldon about a defense department coverup of information that could have prevented 9/11.

It may seem strange to posit a bunch of stuff on an issue which will not be was not the election issue of 2006. However, what your host has written on these things is a matter of public record and we do not shirk from it unlike certain other parties who shall not be mentioned. We also explained why this should be the issue back in February of this year last year and (in saying that) pointed out the reason it would not be:

I do not give a damn about who or which party these hearings will "help" or "hurt" since what is at stake here is possible national security lapses in the past which (if they had not happened) may have averted what happened on 9/11. National security should be a non-partisan issue but I sense that this will be as politicized as any other issue is in today's climate and it should not be. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 13, 2006)]

The election of 2006 was decided on a number of issues and to some extent fit a historical pattern as we outlined on this weblog after the election when noting the extent to which we were accurate in predicting what would most likely happen.

Since the election, there have been some attempts by the Pentagon and a few senators to try and bury this issue. Certainly the congress elected in 2006{2} has done nothing whatsoever to get to the bottom of this issue. They have instead sought to manufacture "scandals" to get at President Bush and I have my suspicions as to why they have avoided this issue.{3} Meanwhile, it appears that the attempt to smear former congressman Curt Weldon (which I believe is directly tied to his involvement in investigating Chinagate and Able Danger) continues.

I for one want to see hearings on this and not ones behind closed doors. This issue needs to be examined and partisan politics set aside. If it has credibility, those who were behind the intelligence blunders should account for them and I do not care which party they belong to. But then again, it is easy for someone such as myself who has long been independent of the two main parties to take that stance. National security should be a non-partisan issue. And that is the bottom line really.

Notes:

{1} While it is possible that there are other threads -as we have discussed this issue for a long time- it was a late bloomer of sorts for blogging; ergo this may be all there is in the archives up to the present day.

{2} And seated in January of 2007.

{3} Namely the administration of President Bill Clinton the wife of whom is running for president as I type this.

Notification of Four to Seven Upcoming Posts and a Prayer Request:

Yesterday came and went with no start to the oft-mentioned (in recent weeks) dialogue which will be taking place. Work projects have intervened to an unexpected degree and I decided to get a few other postings out of the way before devoting my attention to that endeavour. Blogging has been sporatic and in bunches as is our tendency here but prior to the Wednesday after Labour Day, I anticipate completing and posting at least four and possibly as many as seven pieces to this weblog. Those threads will be as follows:

--A thread on the resignation of Karl Rove.{1}

--A thread on "distributivism" and responding to an email from a couple months ago when the latter subject was revisited on this weblog.{2}

--A thread on Able Danger which came to mind when writing on the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the credibility of George Tenet earlier in the week.{3}

--Two "points to ponder" threads from James Madison and Alexander Hamilton to complete the Founding Father series of quotes started in July of this year.{4}

--A thread on the strengths and weaknesses of my approach to blogging in general and a case example of the sort of casualty that is the result of my approach to this medium.{5}

--A post on an anniversary event or two.

I am not sure if it will be four, five, six, or seven threads which are posted at this point but I wanted to give a bit of a heads up as to what is on tap for the coming week. There is also a sports posting in draft form which could conceivably be posted in that span too (it is nearly finished) but I am likely to hold back on that one for at least a couple of weeks.

As far as the prayer requests go, there is another family death to report -the twenty-fifth in six and a half years if I count both sides of my family. The good news for me I suppose is that I do not feel anything for this person because I did not know them well at all. (Last time I saw them I was probably ten.) Nonetheless, every death in a family takes some toll and those who can offer some prayer for the eternal repose of the soul of Alice Romanick and for her family in their hour of grief it would be most appreciated.

Notes:

{1} This post was finished a couple of days ago and just needs a final read through and minor revisions before it is ready for posting.

{2} This post was finished and formatted back in late June. I will therefore have to review and make minor revisions to it before it is ready to be posted.

{3} This post was drafted last September and never finished. I found it when looking for it to link to in the Gonzales posting and discovered that it was unfinished. As it stands now, it is probably 90% done or more and needs to be updated since September of 2006 before it is ready to be posted.

{4} These threads are done and ready for posting as of this writing.

{5} I started drafting this one Thursday night. I am unsure as to where I want to go with it at the moment but it is probably 75% done and should be ready for posting by Monday or Tuesday.

Clarifying a Previous Endorsement of Catholics Against Rudy:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

After much thought on this matter and in light of some indicators I was made aware of, I have concluded that I need to clarify my precise view on a project which I have previously given an endorsement to on more than one occasion.

I wish I did not have to do this but principles are principles and there is a nebulosity remaining in CAR's formulation on the subject of torture.To some extent it is treated as if on a par with various subjects which are not admitting of latitude in Catholic belief. Unlike the other areas Mr. Dillard outlines (i.e. abortion, gay "marriage", euthanasia, adultery and divorce, and even fetal stem cell research) the Catholic Church has not defined what they mean by "torture."{1} This is why to include it in list of issues where the operative terms have been defined is problematical. If a differentiation was made between the fundamental issues and "other subjects" with "torture" being grouped under the latter{2}, then readers of the site would at least not be so confused on this.

I should clarify what I mean by "defining torture." When I use the term "define", I do not mean define as in solemnly defining a dogma of the faith but defining the term they are using as to how they are using it. I would of course have no problem with Mr. Dillard referring in the part prefacing the above paragraph something akin to "Catholic principles on human dignity" and then quoting the section of the Catechism which he quotes. There is a difference between noting principles and enunciating teaching and without a definition for a word being understood, there cannot be actual teaching on any issue whatsoever.

Mr. Dillard's site appears to rule out of court any forms of coercion or interrogation whatsoever. But this is what is expected when a term (such as torture) is bandied about without being defined: it creates no shortage of sloppy thinking and public confusion.

If he was to consent to the above sectional adjustment as well as adding to the bottom of the page on "torture" a small clarifying footnote to distinguish on these matters a bit, then there would be no reason to write this posting. I do agree with the end to which he is striving but not all of the means. To try and assist in clarifying this matter, I will now publicly propose two acceptable variations one longer and one shorter. Let us start with the longer one first:

"There has been no definition by the Church on what constitutes 'torture.' This lack of a definition has given some people the pretext for lumping under the nebulous term 'torture' many forms of interrogation which seek for a just cause during wartime to coerce enemies to give up vital information for the safety of the common good of society and protection of just public order. It is not the intention of CAR to take a position on how these matters are debated but instead to highlight Catholic principles on this issue which should enlighten consciences on the matters in question and point out where Rudy Guiliani's statements show no manifested intention whatsoever to take said principles into account."

That would be a perfect definition to use; however I can understand perhaps that Mr. Dillard may not want to go into too much detail on the matter. With that in mind, here is a truncated version:

"There has been no definition by the Church on what constitutes 'torture.' It is not the intention of CAR to take a position on how these matters are debated but instead to highlight Catholic principles on this issue which should enlighten consciences on the matters in question and point out where Rudy Guiliani's statements show no manifested intention whatsoever to take said principles into account."

While not as detailed as the first one, it is nonetheless theologically correct and therefore acceptable. Now admittedly I would go a lot further on this matter personally but this is not a matter of personal issues but instead a matter of principles. And for that reason, the shorter clarifying note above while not what I believe would be ideal would be sufficient to make it clear that this is an issue with greater variation to it than the other issues he has outlined at CAR thus far.

Again, the end to which Mr. Dillard seeks to accomplish is one that I concur with and readers can review the post containing my previous endorsement{2} to see where I have enunciated the same core view on Guiliani for a few months now publicly (and a lot longer in private). However, the means as they are in need of improvement{3} and as I noted in the previous endorsement posting that I would make explicit points that should be noted as such on Mr. Dillard's site{4}, that is what I have done with this posting.

So that there is no misunderstanding, my endorsement of the goal of CAR remains as this is an important endeavour and I want to see it succeed. However, in conscience I could not give an endorsement without qualifying the extent to which it was made. On the manner in which "torture" is covered, that thread if it was to remain at all{5} is in need of clarifications that the other threads do not require for reasons touched on in this posting already.

Nonetheless, for those who require more or want to familiarize themselves with the complexities involved on this issue, I recommend reviewing my thread series on torture and general norms of theological interpretation which was posted last October.

Notes:

{1} I have reiterated this point over and over including in these words from October of 2006:

To start with, the notion of defining the terms that someone uses is so elementary that we are frankly embarrassed that it needs to even be mentioned. But experience has shown that the best way to deal with pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of various stripes is to insist on this principle at all times. This is why we have insisted with greater frequency over the years[...] that those who want to be taken seriously define their terms much as we always have done. The willingness or lack thereof of anyone to conform to this fundamental principle of rational thought has always served as a kind of acid test by your host in ascertaining the integrity or lack thereof of a positional adversary.

So with that in mind, on the subject of torture we are asking those who have seized on this as a major agenda item of theirs to give the rest of us the most basic of courtesies and explain themselves. Define for us what in a workable sense constitutes "torture" and what does not. Notice we are not asking for an abstract manualist definition of the term but one which can be applied to real life situations with reasonable assurance that it provides a point of reference on the subject in question. Technically, until this is done, there is no need to take those who prattle on about this issue with even the most remote of seriousness; however we intend in the post or series to follow to touch on some of the more pertinent issues pertaining to the subject in question. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 13, 2006)]

To provide additional witness to what I have asserted, the core of the problem is summarized in these words from Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin:

We do not have a definition of torture from the Church and if, as has been suggested, the definition of torture includes a reasonability or proportinality condition then exactly the same thing will apply to torture: Not everything that looks like torture will turn out to be torture in all circumstances. [From Jimmy Akin's Site (circa December 1, 2006)]

The most fundamental element of any position is that the terms being used have an understanding to them as to what they constitute.

{2} On the "Catholics Against Rudy" Website (circa July 12, 2007)

{3} As it sits now, the formulary on "torture" does create no small amount of public confusion which not only unscrupulous and theologically ignorant "apologists" can manipulate for their own ends but also the mainstream media whose grasp of these issues falls right in line with the McElhinney Media Dictum; ergo no more needs to be said about it than that.

{4} 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 which 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[...] is sufficiently nuanced to maintain our endorsement here at Rerum Novarum. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 14, 2007)]

{5} Frankly, the "torture" subject because of the variables involved should not have been covered under the "issues" section at all. However, even if for some reason Mr. Dillard felt personally as if it needed to be touched on, it certainly should not be lumped indiscriminately in with the other subjects as it currently is.

Miscellaneous Musings:

To touch on four issues briefly...

--Just as I am putting the finishing touches on a post about Karl Rove stepping down, Alberto Gonzales' resignation as Attorney General is in the news. I was not a fan of Alberto Gonzales as AG mainly because I could not get past the cronyism that was involved in the appointment. This was one of the same problems I had with the Harriet Miers nomination so that part should not surprise. The one thing this does for sure is derail any possibility of Gonzales ever making it to the Supreme Court presuming for a moment that President Bush may well have another nomination to the court before he steps down in January of 2009.

Basically, the usual moonbat contingent and the mainstream media hacks who has been whining for Gonzales' head finally got it indirectly. That is the only reason I am not pleased with what happened as I rarely like seeing those sorts get their way. Certainly Gonzales did fine as an advisor and with his involvement in the nominations of Roberts and Alito. However, I am not persuaded he did much of anything else of note as AG -I preferred John Ashcroft myself. I will certainly not miss him nor (in light of his apparent view on the illegal alien amnesty issue) speak fondly of him at any point in the future that I can discern so hasta la vista Alberto...

--Also in the news in recent days is George Tenet. I could not recall writing anything on the blog about him prior to this point -a quick check of the archives by word search indicates that his name was raised twice: both of which were in old JunkYard BLOG megapostings and in neither one did I comment on the Tenet-related stuff.{1} Basically, I had nothing nice to say about Tenet and the stuff I did comment on where he was in the general area subject-wise I viewed others in the mix at the time to have greater importance. I viewed him as an administrative hack who was one of those who would tell anyone anything to ensure that he kept his job: basically a classic bureaucrat. And it now appears that my intuition in that area was quite correct.

The sorts of national security breaches involved with the latest CIA/Tenet revelations got me to thinking about Able Danger again and a posting from late last year I was going to reference. However, when doing a search, apparently that post was never finished but was in a draft text from September 29, 2006.{2} For that reason, I will as soon as I can update that thread further and post it to this weblog in completed form.

--I mentioned in the past about certain ideas on this weblog being possibly fodder for state initiatives and in the past couple of months have made contact with the major initiative mover and shaker in Washington state. As they are always on the lookout for initiative ideas, I am putting together some stuff from this weblog's archives to send to them. I have in mind at least two specific initiative proposals designed to make the government more accountable. Perhaps if I am in the mood to discuss these on the weblog in the coming months I will do so but I wanted to note it here briefly for now.

--As it sits now, the party I mentioned earlier in the month that was going to dialogue with me on the subject of the atomic bombings of 1945 has put the finishing touches on their opening comments. So that project will soon be underway -the start date of August 30, 2007 still looks like a go and I will update you on if there are any changes to the time frame prior to that point.

Notes:

{1} I came close once though.

{2} I cannot at the moment remember the reason it was not finished but there are a lot of threads in draft form that get forgotten or pushed down in priority as I try to make do with what time I have for this blogging endeavour.

On the Weblog Anniversary:
(Musings from your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Prefatory Note: Most of this thread was written or otherwise formulated the day before yesterday. -ISM]

Though August 22nd was the anniversary of this weblog's birth, I do not have time or the desire to go over this event in and of itself, note what I see as key points along the way among the 2255 postings logged in the first five years, or anything else along those lines. However, a five year anniversary does not come around very often so I feel I should say something about it. With that in mind, here goes...

How does one account with a reasonable sense of completion for five years of blogging and the literally innumerable subjects we have covered at different times here??? I frankly would not know where to begin. I am also not one to want to spend much time with this kind of introspection because it is an endless subject in and of itself. Plus, even as I write this, there are numerous subjects I have a reasonable knowledge of and which interest me which have barely if at all been touched on at this weblog yet (if they will be at all). I touched a bit on some of what has always motivated me in the 2007 posting of resolutions for the year and refer the reader to it now with a short snippet from that posting:

I anticipate the following year will involve a greater exploration into the realm of foundational presuppositions than I have done in years past -how much more I am not certain as of this writing...

Ideas have been fought for and died over and that is and will always be the case as long as there are those who believe passionately that there is such a thing as truth. The problem is, most people do not take the time to attempt to assess whether what they hold as truth actually is or not -operating instead from an intellectual prison of solipsism to varying degrees.

It has been my goal over the years to try and move those I have spoken with towards reassessing their foundational presuppositions or the filter through which they strain all information that comes their way from divers sources. While doing this though, I have rarely done more than mention a few bits in passing about why I go about things this way but the long and short of it is this: it has the potential to save a lot of time and effort by cutting down on the ratio of useless discussion. This alone can help pave the way for much more potentially fruitful dialogue to take place. Plus, I simply loathe talking points approaches to subjects and always have[...] viewing such things as shutting off the thinking mechanism and creating an environment detrimental to the cultivation of one's intellectual capabilities.[...] [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 2, 2007)]

I cannot emphasize enough how much I abhor anything that smacks of blind or uncritical acceptance of a position or worldview. There are a few reasons for this{1} but rather than go over that now, I want to focus instead on some of this weblog in the shapes it has taken over time. In the May categorization project where we placed primary and secondary tags on every post in the weblog, we were reminded of past postings directly as that project involved having to look at virtually every posting{2} and figure out how to categorize it into primary non-overlapping groups and additional overlapping secondary groupings.

In perusing the postings, many of them found favour with us in reviewing them, others were overall approved of even if some minor elements would be different if they were written today, some had been forgotten completely, and there was even a few (some forgotten, others not) which were in retrospect rather embarrassing either in part or completely. Yes, I admit to that and will not run from it as practically everyone else who writes on subjects wants to do. For much as anything, projects like this weblog are a learning process to some extent. And when pondering over how best to address this matter and taking account for our own views on people who engage in historical airbrushing, we decided on the following formulation of explanation:

[W]e would be less than fully honest if we did not admit that there are some postings in the archive which we do not find to be of value anymore for a variety of reasons which we are not going to delve into at the moment[...] except to note one significant reason which went into this determination. For you see, your host has refused to purge his archives of stuff which in retrospect he regrets posting. Part of the reason for this is principles as we have been critical of others for trying to airbrush the historical record at their own sites to avoid telling the truth about their past actions or statements in a given point of time. But another reason is that life itself is a process of growth and development across a broad continuum. This includes weblog writing and interests. We have no problem admitting that it took a bit of time before this weblog really started to take a discernable shape and some of the features and/or principles which have become standard or typical over time were in the "finding their feet" stage early on. The posts noted in the "archivally obsolete/duplicate posting/minutiae" category may also have been a localized kind of project which either was left incomplete due to time or interest factors or which was of a limited applicability back before your host sought to as much as possible make this weblog's contents have both a timeless and general applicability and also a particular circumstantial one.[...] But that is all that this writer intends to say on the matter at the present time except to say that yes, we have even categorized the obsolete or otherwise no-longer-of-any-real-value chaff from the archives. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 15, 2007)]

We do not believe it behooves anyone to airbrush their past even if it would be better for them to because oftentimes, turns in one's views can be traced out in their work and having it available can help the person themself as much as anyone else see the path they have taken. To erase the path is to erase the memory to some extent as the worst of writings stand up better than the best of memories. Having the trail outlined can also help in outlining a person's foundational presuppositions{3} or at the very least, giving an idea as to what they are. I do not believe one can progress as a human being without being aware of the lenses whereby they view reality{4} and this is one reason we not only preserve the archives at this weblog but are critical of others who refuse a similar service to their readers.

Beyond those notes above, we cannot think of anything we want to cover on the occasion of this anniversary so with that will conclude this posting.

Notes:

{1} Part of the reason is because I myself despite priding myself on being a good utilizer of reason and logic was seduced during and a bit after my college years by what are often called "conspiracy theories." It was only in my working through the logical ramifications of those issues with a focused concern for the law of non-contradiction that I was able to set that outlook aside for the illogical internally contradictory paranoid mishmash that it is.

{2} Not in a micro sense as that would have been impossible to do in any reasonable time frame let alone the short one we gave ourselves to do it in.

{3} No one can claim to approach issues in a purely abstract way and apart from personal mitigating factors in their apprehension of reality. This is why I have focused more and more on foundational presuppositions and less on the round and round kinds of arguments that go nowhere as I have gotten older and (hopefully) aged with some measure of grace. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 7, 2007)]

{4} In a nutshell, someone who is not willing to reassess themselves in this area from time to time -to (in paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin) "doubt a bit of their own infallibility" makes themselves incapable of any potential progress as a human being. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 7, 2007)]