A Primary Update, Vindicating a Previous Proclamation, and Briefly on Fred Thompson:
First in the interest of reminding the esteemed gentleman from Michigan about something he and I said in a previous conversation about the New Hampshire primary won by Sen. John McCain:
me: I think Romney can lose NH and still be the nominee
Kevin: no he can't
me: but he needs to win elsewhere. Wyoming. Michigan. Somewhere in an early primary. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 8, 2008)]
As Romney won in both Wyoming and Michigan and leads in the Republican delegate count by a significant margin{1} while his closest in the delegate count{2} has peaked already and the other major challenger at the moment having less than a third of the count thus far{3}, it should be obvious that New Hampshire will not be the deciding factor in the Republican nomination. Or as I noted over lunch earlier today in a short chat with my esteemed colleague from Michigan on the matter:
me: any time you want to admit your error is fine with me ;-p
Kevin: which one? where am i in error? lol
me: how's that for an intro?
I believe I predicted that Mitt would not be out of it if he did not win NH. you said he would [and] ironically your state was the pivot.
Kevin: well i didn't say he would drop out, just that he'd be crushed. I was wrong lol. now mitt has a ticket to super tuesday but he still needs to win Florida I think.
me: I was listening to him on Glenn Beck today. i must say, [Romney] appears strategically astute. Beck noted that he was behind in SC. Mitt admitted that but noted that he believes he will win Nevada which has more delegates than SC.
Kevin: it does and there's a chance he will. SC is more symbolic though.
me: my point is, Mitt is counting delegates, not keying in on specific primaries. he already leads in that area and is looking to build on it more even if the states he wins are not symbolically huge.
Kevin: well if he survives until super tuesday with a good running, McCain is in trouble, since these primaries are party only.
me: agreed. [Chat circa 12:30pm today]
Despite his second place spot in delegate count, by all appearances Huckabee has peaked. He did well in winning Iowa where he got 17 of his 19 delegates but he has done poorly since. McCain got half of his delegates in New Hampshire and the others from a fourth place finish in Iowa and a second place finish in Michigan.
In other words, though Huckabee has more delegates than McCain, there is no evidence that Huckabee has any momentum at all. Compared to candidates with lower delegate totals who have not won a primary (i.e. Thompson with 6, Paul with 2, Guiliani with 1, and Hunter with 1), by all appearances, they could catch fire on Super Tuesday whereas Huckabee appears to have used up all his momentum.{4}
With regards to one of those candidates who your host is hoping will show some sign of catching on soon, here is a bit that we wrote in a combox thread on him in dark green font -the words of the person we were responding to will be in italics...
I wonder how much of the "lack of energy" is media fabricated...
An "energetic executive" is what we need but the media's idea of "energetic" and the Founders' idea are significantly different.
I would not give the msm's dictums on that too much credit -remember all that talk about Reagan "sleeping through cabinet meetings"??? Compared to the relentless minutiae-focused approaches of his predecessor and successor, I would prefer a president who "slept through cabinet meetings" even if Reagan did that and he rarely did that in reality.
Thompson is in my top tier of candidate preferences. I would not have a problem voting for him if he can get a fair shake from the msm to present his message. I fail to see what the msm is worried about -both Thompson and Hunter are treated as Tancredo clones when they quite obviously are not.
And though Paul is a complete loon, I think he should be allowed into the debates too -if these candidates are to fall then it should be of their own making, not the media proclaiming, pronouncing, and defining as dogma that they have when primary and caucus season has only just begun.
Readers will also notice that we are going solely off of actual delegates thus far, not projections. So for all that talk about Clinton having twice the delegates as Obama (190 vs. 103) and Edwards (51) half of Obama, those are projections and not actual counts. When we look at the actual counts they are nowhere near that.{5} So make sure you read the fine print before accepting any msm source on the matter in question. Well that and/or just remember to read Rerum Novarum when we deign to post anything here of course. Our non-sports prognosticating is usually pretty accurate on the whole after all.
Notes:
{1} As of this morning, Romney has 48 delegates.
{2} As of this morning, Huckabee has 19 delegates.
{3} As of this morning, McCain has 15 delegates.
{4} This is not to say that he will not get more delegates of course, only that traditionally a candidate that starts off as he did and then declines is usually done whereas a candidate who starts off weak can catch fire later on traditionally.
{5} The actual counts of delegates for the Democratic candidates thus far are as follows:
Clinton: 28-29
Obama: 28-30
Edwards: 21
The reason for the range on the first two is it is unclear which number is correct from our sources as of this writing.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Reviewing Past Site Intentions, Some Current Tidbits, and Weblogging Policy For the Indefinite Future:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: Most of this was written and arranged on the evening of November 17, 2007. However, a few bits were added subsequently as we reviewed the text when time allowed for it and thought of additional points that were not covered in the original drafting which were fleshed out in the thread below. -ISM]
Readers may recall that a year and a week ago last Wednesday, we wrote on the subjects of the then coming year (2007), a bit on foundational presuppositions, on warmer climates and the like. The post itself{1} was far more systematically laid out than the brief description just given but we want to touch very briefly on those key elements here as they play no small factor in what has been prevalent in our mind to a more explicit degree as last year unfolded.{2} They contribute to a proper understanding of what the future of this weblog's activity will involve from this point on in perpetuity. Without further ado...
One of the plans for the new year (though not officially a resolution) is to figure out a way to live part of the year in a warmer climate. Seattle is fine about eight months of the year (and great about six of those months -particularly the summer months) but the first two and last two months of the annual cycle are the pits weather wise. Adjusting my business to being almost completely mobile will help in that way -by the end of the month I should be able to run virtually everything by a laptop, cellphone, and fax machine.
That assessment was overly optimistic. It is true that the present writer has gotten to the point as of this writing where his main business can be run almost completely mobile -though state regulations being what they now are, he is to some extent still having to do a few things in a fixed office. However, that fixed office can technically be anywhere as long as there is proper licensing. The idea of living part of the year in a warmer climate{3} as far as being put on track towards being a practical reality took some time to jell into a cohesive plan. Nonetheless, as of roughly July of 2007, the outlines have finally solidified for us to make that desire a reality at some point in the new year.{4}
What has also formulated within the present writer is the steely resolution to make this happen. Little by little, steps have been taken to set that plan into concrete motion including the critical assessing of our current business templates which once everything is taken care of with the state compliance-wise will aid greatly in achieving our intentions in this area. Everything will be overhauled essentially and made a lot more efficient and productive along the lines of what was noted back in an October 2007 weblog post touching on Vilfredo Pareto's principle of economic efficiency.
Furthermore, other factors have since presented themselves which will further assist in this{5} but with enough ado on those points, the time is at hand to revisit what was written a year ago today and how it relates to what will be transpiring in the present writer's life in the near future on many fronts.
By this time next year, I will be thirty pounds or more lighter presuming there is no serious injury or some other significant unforeseen development.
Well, we are at that point now so an assessment of that intention can be viewed for what it is. To start with, this may seem like a minor point but often the life of your humble servant has seemed to have an almost dualistic element to it where the physical and mental elements interplay. And predictably perhaps (based on life precedents), the concern for setting down a template to make the warmer climate non resolution an eventual reality resulted in your host not giving the weight loss resolution the focus it needed. As a result, he gained six pounds between the writing of those words and his birthday in late October.
The process was started the day after the birthday (October 22nd) counting calories, protein and other factors (such as water intake/regulation) as we did back in 1998 when three times the weight we are aiming for now{6} was lost both rapidly and with no evidences of massive loss whatsoever. After a setback over the weekend in which this posting was substantially drafted (November 17-18), things got back on track and we finished the Thanksgiving week strong -including a 1000 calorie elliptical session on Thanksgiving morning to offset our modest turkey consumption later in that evening. The bottom line was that your host still lost weight on Thanksgiving and over the following weekend -almost five pounds for that week incidentally enough all of which was lost in a five day period.
As of Sunday November 25th, the present writer was the lightest he has been in over six years having lost fifteen pounds in less than a month's time (thirteen in the first twenty four days of November), held steady through December where two more pounds were lost. That put us over halfway to meeting the unofficial goal for the year that was set down a year ago last Wednesday with all of it being done in a little over a month's time.{7} Christmas was an unavoidable diet train derailing but suffice to say, body and mind as well as resolve are on track together as of this writing being posted and not in opposition to one another as has been the case oftentimes in the past ten odd years.
Some would view only reaching the halfway point of that non-resolution-but-stated-intention as a "failure" but your host does not as the process reaffirmed something he has known for many years and has written on at sundry times and in diverse manners on this weblog{8} and elsewhere; namely, the power of the mind to achieve the seemingly "impossible" when it has access to the correct information on methodology, the tools in place to assist, and the will to see it through.
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.
This area in many respects was tended to -sometimes in ways not anticipated when writing those words originally. But our focus has been here in a direct fashion more and more over the years with a particular focus in a number of subject threads written in 2007. The present writer wants to take this moment to call attention to three topics in particular which were composed as a direct result of both public as well as private correspondence on key issues which affect proper dialogue.
As one who has seen certain disturbing patterns over and over again in many dialogues on a variety of subjects, it is only natural that eventually attention would be called to them by us in proportion to how little they were recognized by the parties utilizing them. That pattern started in late 2003, picked up steam in 2004, and then really came to fruition in 2005 and 2006 publicly in a number of postings as well as privately at times with certain individuals. We had presumed (naively in retrospect) that not a few people who should have known better would realize upon having those matters pointed out to them but some of them quite evidently did not.{9}
When considering that some of the persons in mind who were running afoul in key areas were not unintelligent, it struck us that the subjects in question would do well to be fleshed out individually in a series of postings dealing directly with certain approaches to argument in general rather than merely addressing them in the sequence of longer posts on other subject matters which was previously our wont. For one thing, in the latter form, they may not be as evident to a casual reader of those threads due to how many other interconnected issues were dealt with. But without further digression, here are four examples of exposition on often overlooked key factors that can impede authentic dialogue on a whole variety of subjects in order from oldest to newest:
On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)
More on the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Appeals Thereof -Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean (circa March 24, 2007)
On Ad Hominem, Revisiting Argumentum Ad Vericundiam, and Considering the Core Principle That Is Behind Any Argumentation/Logical Fallacy (circa June 1, 2007)
Included in the above threads is a discussion thread from an astute friend who provided us with both some appreciated criticisms as well as the opportunity to clarify a couple of additional key elements in the overall matrix of the oft misused "appeal to authority" (Lat. argumentum ad vericundiam) in argumentation.
While those threads are hardly the only ones which could be noted, they were nonetheless significant in that the subjects they covered are almost never discussed directly. As a result of that informational lacuna, the problems the posts outline are rarely realized by those who fall prey to them: a failure that results inexorably in said problems being perpetuated across a broad continuum of subjects discussed. (To the detriment of authentic and potentially productive dialogue on subjects where passionate diversity of opinions can often persist.) Anyway, that is another example of what was meant in the bit quoted above and also in the paragraph to follow.
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.
One of the reasons we made the dialogual offer on the incendiary subject matter of the atomic bombings in 2007 is encapsulated in the above paragraph. The principle behind it is the same as all other subjects which could be mentioned: to promote potentially fruitful dialogue. If it can be conducted on a subject such as that, then by logical extension it should be able on a host of lesser troubling issues be able to be similarly handled.
One of my resolutions for the new year is to try and sketch these elements out in greater detail as circumstances may lend themselves to it. Of course that is the key really: events and circumstances have to lend themselves to discussing these matters and the treatment needs to be both contemporary to the subject matter and circumstance at hand as well as contain general principles which are timeless in their validity.
It is not always easy to properly mix the two but we certainly do what we can here at Rerum Novarum as part of an ongoing effort to cultivate reason and logic and help people come to see just how helpful those God-given natural lights really are. So another resolution for 2007 is to focus more on foundational presuppositions behind various philosophies as we run across them in the arena of ideas.
As was noted in that posting, these matters would be (and have been) dealt with in accordance with events and circumstances which lend themselves to dealing with them -even if sometimes the posts that get written are delayed for a variety of reasons for being posted as quickly as would be ideal.
Nonetheless, as this writer noted at the beginning of the present posting, there will be for the indefinite future a change in blogging approach here at Rerum Novarum with the focus being first and foremost on what will facilitate the host's ability to live part of the year in warmer climates. This means that even with more time for blogging when we finish solidifying and streamlining life overall in accordance with Pareto's Principle, that the time for blogging will by necessity be reduced as well. For the rest of the year at least if not indeed for longer still, the postings here will be not much less in number{10} even if they are overall noticeably shorter in length: following an overall pattern that longtime readers may have noticed was happening bit by bit as the last two years (particularly 2007) unfolded anyway{11} -at least as a rule.
The "miscellaneous threads for reviewing" vehicle (along with the "miscellaneous musings" one) will probably make even more appearances than in a normal blogging cycle up to this point because they both facilitate the coverage of a variety of subjects in a briefer fashion than the kinds of expository cogitations that have been a feature of this weblog to varying degrees almost from day one.{12} There are a variety of subjects that we have wanted to touch on as time allowed but are no longer going to allow for them in the indefinite future. Plus, that this is an election year that factor will be more in play than in most other election years -with a mixture of material of both timeless principles and contemporary significance which has been a longstanding goal of this weblog.{13}
Now we will still blog here at Rerum Novarum of course but to noticeably less of an overall extent than has been our wont even in recent years when we scaled the blogging back significantly from where it once was.{14} But what needs to be formally recognized at this time is that as demands on time increase and the various outside projects to which focus must be given priority have multiplied dramatically over the past year. For that reason, inexorably something has to give.
When they hit a point in time where they attain explicit cognizance of where various factors spanning an expanse of time finally are converging, it is at that point when a choice to needs make akin to what Robert Frost denoted in a poem of his which we blogged recently.{15} And said persons will either embrace that direction or they move from it. Your humble servant at Rerum Novarum has chosen the former route and that makes prioritizing an even greater factor than it has been to this point.
More could be noted and may be on this but for the time being this will have to suffice except for one more thing:
No additional projects will be taken on which have any potential of unduly detracting from our focus in the areas outlined earlier in this posting -though a few posts which are near completion (or are completed and not blogged yet) will be finished and posted in due course{16} with a list of them to be made in a "notifications" style posting to be made (if possible) in the coming week.
In light of all we need to do in a variety of areas -only some of which{17} are noted above or will be in the aforementioned forthcoming "notifications" posting- something must give and in our mind, it is the blogging as well as any other side activity that impacts our overall focus to any significant extent on the areas which to us constitute the greatest possible importance.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Notes:
{1} On the Coming New Year, Warmer Climates, Foundational Presuppositions, Personal and Blogging Resolutions, Etc. (circa January 2, 2007)
{2} As with so much of what we have undertaken here at Rerum Novarum, deeper meanings are later found in even simple seeming matters such as these. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 31, 2007)]
{3} Your host loves Seattle but at the moment he does not like Seattle if that makes any sense -and since last winter (with the exception of the warmer weather of summer and the sunny weather of part of fall this year) that has been our view of the matter.
{4} There is not as of this posting a precise date planned for it but rather a range -that is all that will be said on the matter until a few currently-nebulous factors in the equation solidify into something of a definite nature.
{5} Including an offer to run a couple divisions of an additional business alongside the current one. There is also an additional business to be started up in the early part of 2008 -divisions which may well eventually be in different states from one another as well and has the capacity of both servicing clientele anywhere in the country as well as responding to a few areas of a timely nature insofar as the way the economic climate has been shaping up for quite some time now.
{6} We do not want to delve into this subject at the moment except to say that what was done was what by most "conventional wisdom" accounts of weight loss was next to impossible. This is much the way in years past your host was able to make the kinds of progress in the gym which "conventional wisdom" would see as next to impossible if all the factors of the equation are looked at. Or to quote a bit from the archives on the matter:
[We] used proper methodology and therefore were able to make progress predictably and constantly: two factors which conventional wisdom would claim cannot be done without (i) favourable genetics or (ii) chemical enhancement. Those who wonder why I have little use for "conventional wisdom" in any field: it all goes back to this. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 21, 2003)]
As noted before, if there was more focused on certain key factors at the time, the results would have been even greater still but enough digression on that.
{7} Fifteen pounds in thirty days thirteen pounds of which were lost in the last twenty-four days (nearly five of those in the week of Thanksgiving including on turkey day). This is said not to boast but to show what can be done when one sets their mind to achieving a goal, focuses on the productive elements involved, disregards the inefficiencies which frequently creep into the mix, and is willing to go all out in goal attainment.
{8} To note a couple of the threads in the past year or so that have touched to various degrees on this subject:
Notes on the Indictment of Barry Bonds (circa November 16, 2007)
On Vilfredo Pareto and Notes on Applying A Basic Economic Principle to Life In General Including Blogging (circa October 13, 2007)
On the Intensity/Duration Equation, Physics, and Trying to Understand Engineering Majors With Tim Tull (circa December 17, 2006)
{9} Frankly, at least a couple of them probably still do not but at the very least, these matters are explicitly sketched out now for future reference if necessary.
{10} Your host does have a kind of self-imposed monthly blogging cycle quota which he has explicitly been aware of and followed for a bit over two years now. (Implicitly it was followed from day one and has only not been met once once: though we were not conscious of it at the time.)
{11} This was dictated as much by circumstances as it was any conscious intentions to do so on our part otherwise.
{12} However, despite the reputation for lengthy cogitations that we have had over the years, even strictly by the numbers, a majority of the postings to this weblog from the beginning have been of a briefer nature than the longer postings. This makes to some extent what we will be doing a kind of blogging ressourcement movement now that we think about it.
{13} [L]ife 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 discernible 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...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)]
{14} Those familiar with this writer's stuff from prior to the blogging days know that even more volume used to be involved back then than has as a rule subsequently been the case for a variety of reasons (including conscious efforts by your host to economize in this area overall).
{15} The Road Less Traveled From Robert Frost (blogged on November 26, 2007).
{16} We will make a note of most of them in a posting to follow this one at some point -unless some of them are finished and posted before that post is tended to of course (at which time the draft currently written for that purpose will requires some editing before it is posted).
{17} Another of the "outside projects" we have decided to focus on dovetails with something we wrote on over the years -most recently back around Thanksgiving and Christmas of 2007. To quote from the latter posting briefly:
I want to remind readers of what I wrote at this time last year about the Christmas season and giving. And while this season is one where giving has a special place, it should not be the only time of year. Try at whatever time of year though to do what you can to avoid taking any more of the spotlight than you have to. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 22, 2007)]
For reasons noted in the Christmas posting of 2006, no details will be given on this weblog unless they are specifically to solicit the assistance of others. It is an ambitious project and one if brought to the attention of the readers would be specifically to request their assistance rather than in any way call attention to ourselves on the matter in question. (In following the principles we have expounded on before at sundry times and in divers manners at this humble weblog.)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Readers may recall that a year and a week ago last Wednesday, we wrote on the subjects of the then coming year (2007), a bit on foundational presuppositions, on warmer climates and the like. The post itself{1} was far more systematically laid out than the brief description just given but we want to touch very briefly on those key elements here as they play no small factor in what has been prevalent in our mind to a more explicit degree as last year unfolded.{2} They contribute to a proper understanding of what the future of this weblog's activity will involve from this point on in perpetuity. Without further ado...
One of the plans for the new year (though not officially a resolution) is to figure out a way to live part of the year in a warmer climate. Seattle is fine about eight months of the year (and great about six of those months -particularly the summer months) but the first two and last two months of the annual cycle are the pits weather wise. Adjusting my business to being almost completely mobile will help in that way -by the end of the month I should be able to run virtually everything by a laptop, cellphone, and fax machine.
That assessment was overly optimistic. It is true that the present writer has gotten to the point as of this writing where his main business can be run almost completely mobile -though state regulations being what they now are, he is to some extent still having to do a few things in a fixed office. However, that fixed office can technically be anywhere as long as there is proper licensing. The idea of living part of the year in a warmer climate{3} as far as being put on track towards being a practical reality took some time to jell into a cohesive plan. Nonetheless, as of roughly July of 2007, the outlines have finally solidified for us to make that desire a reality at some point in the new year.{4}
What has also formulated within the present writer is the steely resolution to make this happen. Little by little, steps have been taken to set that plan into concrete motion including the critical assessing of our current business templates which once everything is taken care of with the state compliance-wise will aid greatly in achieving our intentions in this area. Everything will be overhauled essentially and made a lot more efficient and productive along the lines of what was noted back in an October 2007 weblog post touching on Vilfredo Pareto's principle of economic efficiency.
Furthermore, other factors have since presented themselves which will further assist in this{5} but with enough ado on those points, the time is at hand to revisit what was written a year ago today and how it relates to what will be transpiring in the present writer's life in the near future on many fronts.
By this time next year, I will be thirty pounds or more lighter presuming there is no serious injury or some other significant unforeseen development.
Well, we are at that point now so an assessment of that intention can be viewed for what it is. To start with, this may seem like a minor point but often the life of your humble servant has seemed to have an almost dualistic element to it where the physical and mental elements interplay. And predictably perhaps (based on life precedents), the concern for setting down a template to make the warmer climate non resolution an eventual reality resulted in your host not giving the weight loss resolution the focus it needed. As a result, he gained six pounds between the writing of those words and his birthday in late October.
The process was started the day after the birthday (October 22nd) counting calories, protein and other factors (such as water intake/regulation) as we did back in 1998 when three times the weight we are aiming for now{6} was lost both rapidly and with no evidences of massive loss whatsoever. After a setback over the weekend in which this posting was substantially drafted (November 17-18), things got back on track and we finished the Thanksgiving week strong -including a 1000 calorie elliptical session on Thanksgiving morning to offset our modest turkey consumption later in that evening. The bottom line was that your host still lost weight on Thanksgiving and over the following weekend -almost five pounds for that week incidentally enough all of which was lost in a five day period.
As of Sunday November 25th, the present writer was the lightest he has been in over six years having lost fifteen pounds in less than a month's time (thirteen in the first twenty four days of November), held steady through December where two more pounds were lost. That put us over halfway to meeting the unofficial goal for the year that was set down a year ago last Wednesday with all of it being done in a little over a month's time.{7} Christmas was an unavoidable diet train derailing but suffice to say, body and mind as well as resolve are on track together as of this writing being posted and not in opposition to one another as has been the case oftentimes in the past ten odd years.
Some would view only reaching the halfway point of that non-resolution-but-stated-intention as a "failure" but your host does not as the process reaffirmed something he has known for many years and has written on at sundry times and in diverse manners on this weblog{8} and elsewhere; namely, the power of the mind to achieve the seemingly "impossible" when it has access to the correct information on methodology, the tools in place to assist, and the will to see it through.
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.
This area in many respects was tended to -sometimes in ways not anticipated when writing those words originally. But our focus has been here in a direct fashion more and more over the years with a particular focus in a number of subject threads written in 2007. The present writer wants to take this moment to call attention to three topics in particular which were composed as a direct result of both public as well as private correspondence on key issues which affect proper dialogue.
As one who has seen certain disturbing patterns over and over again in many dialogues on a variety of subjects, it is only natural that eventually attention would be called to them by us in proportion to how little they were recognized by the parties utilizing them. That pattern started in late 2003, picked up steam in 2004, and then really came to fruition in 2005 and 2006 publicly in a number of postings as well as privately at times with certain individuals. We had presumed (naively in retrospect) that not a few people who should have known better would realize upon having those matters pointed out to them but some of them quite evidently did not.{9}
When considering that some of the persons in mind who were running afoul in key areas were not unintelligent, it struck us that the subjects in question would do well to be fleshed out individually in a series of postings dealing directly with certain approaches to argument in general rather than merely addressing them in the sequence of longer posts on other subject matters which was previously our wont. For one thing, in the latter form, they may not be as evident to a casual reader of those threads due to how many other interconnected issues were dealt with. But without further digression, here are four examples of exposition on often overlooked key factors that can impede authentic dialogue on a whole variety of subjects in order from oldest to newest:
On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)
More on the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Appeals Thereof -Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean (circa March 24, 2007)
On Ad Hominem, Revisiting Argumentum Ad Vericundiam, and Considering the Core Principle That Is Behind Any Argumentation/Logical Fallacy (circa June 1, 2007)
Included in the above threads is a discussion thread from an astute friend who provided us with both some appreciated criticisms as well as the opportunity to clarify a couple of additional key elements in the overall matrix of the oft misused "appeal to authority" (Lat. argumentum ad vericundiam) in argumentation.
While those threads are hardly the only ones which could be noted, they were nonetheless significant in that the subjects they covered are almost never discussed directly. As a result of that informational lacuna, the problems the posts outline are rarely realized by those who fall prey to them: a failure that results inexorably in said problems being perpetuated across a broad continuum of subjects discussed. (To the detriment of authentic and potentially productive dialogue on subjects where passionate diversity of opinions can often persist.) Anyway, that is another example of what was meant in the bit quoted above and also in the paragraph to follow.
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.
One of the reasons we made the dialogual offer on the incendiary subject matter of the atomic bombings in 2007 is encapsulated in the above paragraph. The principle behind it is the same as all other subjects which could be mentioned: to promote potentially fruitful dialogue. If it can be conducted on a subject such as that, then by logical extension it should be able on a host of lesser troubling issues be able to be similarly handled.
One of my resolutions for the new year is to try and sketch these elements out in greater detail as circumstances may lend themselves to it. Of course that is the key really: events and circumstances have to lend themselves to discussing these matters and the treatment needs to be both contemporary to the subject matter and circumstance at hand as well as contain general principles which are timeless in their validity.
It is not always easy to properly mix the two but we certainly do what we can here at Rerum Novarum as part of an ongoing effort to cultivate reason and logic and help people come to see just how helpful those God-given natural lights really are. So another resolution for 2007 is to focus more on foundational presuppositions behind various philosophies as we run across them in the arena of ideas.
As was noted in that posting, these matters would be (and have been) dealt with in accordance with events and circumstances which lend themselves to dealing with them -even if sometimes the posts that get written are delayed for a variety of reasons for being posted as quickly as would be ideal.
Nonetheless, as this writer noted at the beginning of the present posting, there will be for the indefinite future a change in blogging approach here at Rerum Novarum with the focus being first and foremost on what will facilitate the host's ability to live part of the year in warmer climates. This means that even with more time for blogging when we finish solidifying and streamlining life overall in accordance with Pareto's Principle, that the time for blogging will by necessity be reduced as well. For the rest of the year at least if not indeed for longer still, the postings here will be not much less in number{10} even if they are overall noticeably shorter in length: following an overall pattern that longtime readers may have noticed was happening bit by bit as the last two years (particularly 2007) unfolded anyway{11} -at least as a rule.
The "miscellaneous threads for reviewing" vehicle (along with the "miscellaneous musings" one) will probably make even more appearances than in a normal blogging cycle up to this point because they both facilitate the coverage of a variety of subjects in a briefer fashion than the kinds of expository cogitations that have been a feature of this weblog to varying degrees almost from day one.{12} There are a variety of subjects that we have wanted to touch on as time allowed but are no longer going to allow for them in the indefinite future. Plus, that this is an election year that factor will be more in play than in most other election years -with a mixture of material of both timeless principles and contemporary significance which has been a longstanding goal of this weblog.{13}
Now we will still blog here at Rerum Novarum of course but to noticeably less of an overall extent than has been our wont even in recent years when we scaled the blogging back significantly from where it once was.{14} But what needs to be formally recognized at this time is that as demands on time increase and the various outside projects to which focus must be given priority have multiplied dramatically over the past year. For that reason, inexorably something has to give.
When they hit a point in time where they attain explicit cognizance of where various factors spanning an expanse of time finally are converging, it is at that point when a choice to needs make akin to what Robert Frost denoted in a poem of his which we blogged recently.{15} And said persons will either embrace that direction or they move from it. Your humble servant at Rerum Novarum has chosen the former route and that makes prioritizing an even greater factor than it has been to this point.
More could be noted and may be on this but for the time being this will have to suffice except for one more thing:
No additional projects will be taken on which have any potential of unduly detracting from our focus in the areas outlined earlier in this posting -though a few posts which are near completion (or are completed and not blogged yet) will be finished and posted in due course{16} with a list of them to be made in a "notifications" style posting to be made (if possible) in the coming week.
In light of all we need to do in a variety of areas -only some of which{17} are noted above or will be in the aforementioned forthcoming "notifications" posting- something must give and in our mind, it is the blogging as well as any other side activity that impacts our overall focus to any significant extent on the areas which to us constitute the greatest possible importance.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Notes:
{1} On the Coming New Year, Warmer Climates, Foundational Presuppositions, Personal and Blogging Resolutions, Etc. (circa January 2, 2007)
{2} As with so much of what we have undertaken here at Rerum Novarum, deeper meanings are later found in even simple seeming matters such as these. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 31, 2007)]
{3} Your host loves Seattle but at the moment he does not like Seattle if that makes any sense -and since last winter (with the exception of the warmer weather of summer and the sunny weather of part of fall this year) that has been our view of the matter.
{4} There is not as of this posting a precise date planned for it but rather a range -that is all that will be said on the matter until a few currently-nebulous factors in the equation solidify into something of a definite nature.
{5} Including an offer to run a couple divisions of an additional business alongside the current one. There is also an additional business to be started up in the early part of 2008 -divisions which may well eventually be in different states from one another as well and has the capacity of both servicing clientele anywhere in the country as well as responding to a few areas of a timely nature insofar as the way the economic climate has been shaping up for quite some time now.
{6} We do not want to delve into this subject at the moment except to say that what was done was what by most "conventional wisdom" accounts of weight loss was next to impossible. This is much the way in years past your host was able to make the kinds of progress in the gym which "conventional wisdom" would see as next to impossible if all the factors of the equation are looked at. Or to quote a bit from the archives on the matter:
[We] used proper methodology and therefore were able to make progress predictably and constantly: two factors which conventional wisdom would claim cannot be done without (i) favourable genetics or (ii) chemical enhancement. Those who wonder why I have little use for "conventional wisdom" in any field: it all goes back to this. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 21, 2003)]
As noted before, if there was more focused on certain key factors at the time, the results would have been even greater still but enough digression on that.
{7} Fifteen pounds in thirty days thirteen pounds of which were lost in the last twenty-four days (nearly five of those in the week of Thanksgiving including on turkey day). This is said not to boast but to show what can be done when one sets their mind to achieving a goal, focuses on the productive elements involved, disregards the inefficiencies which frequently creep into the mix, and is willing to go all out in goal attainment.
{8} To note a couple of the threads in the past year or so that have touched to various degrees on this subject:
Notes on the Indictment of Barry Bonds (circa November 16, 2007)
On Vilfredo Pareto and Notes on Applying A Basic Economic Principle to Life In General Including Blogging (circa October 13, 2007)
On the Intensity/Duration Equation, Physics, and Trying to Understand Engineering Majors With Tim Tull (circa December 17, 2006)
{9} Frankly, at least a couple of them probably still do not but at the very least, these matters are explicitly sketched out now for future reference if necessary.
{10} Your host does have a kind of self-imposed monthly blogging cycle quota which he has explicitly been aware of and followed for a bit over two years now. (Implicitly it was followed from day one and has only not been met once once: though we were not conscious of it at the time.)
{11} This was dictated as much by circumstances as it was any conscious intentions to do so on our part otherwise.
{12} However, despite the reputation for lengthy cogitations that we have had over the years, even strictly by the numbers, a majority of the postings to this weblog from the beginning have been of a briefer nature than the longer postings. This makes to some extent what we will be doing a kind of blogging ressourcement movement now that we think about it.
{13} [L]ife 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 discernible 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...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)]
{14} Those familiar with this writer's stuff from prior to the blogging days know that even more volume used to be involved back then than has as a rule subsequently been the case for a variety of reasons (including conscious efforts by your host to economize in this area overall).
{15} The Road Less Traveled From Robert Frost (blogged on November 26, 2007).
{16} We will make a note of most of them in a posting to follow this one at some point -unless some of them are finished and posted before that post is tended to of course (at which time the draft currently written for that purpose will requires some editing before it is posted).
{17} Another of the "outside projects" we have decided to focus on dovetails with something we wrote on over the years -most recently back around Thanksgiving and Christmas of 2007. To quote from the latter posting briefly:
I want to remind readers of what I wrote at this time last year about the Christmas season and giving. And while this season is one where giving has a special place, it should not be the only time of year. Try at whatever time of year though to do what you can to avoid taking any more of the spotlight than you have to. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 22, 2007)]
For reasons noted in the Christmas posting of 2006, no details will be given on this weblog unless they are specifically to solicit the assistance of others. It is an ambitious project and one if brought to the attention of the readers would be specifically to request their assistance rather than in any way call attention to ourselves on the matter in question. (In following the principles we have expounded on before at sundry times and in divers manners at this humble weblog.)
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Points to Ponder:
What is racist about wanting secure borders and a secure America? What is racist about not wanting people to sneak into America and steal benefits we have set aside for legal aliens, senior citizens, children and other legal residents? What is it about race that entitles people to violate our laws, steal identities, and take the American Dream without paying the price? For about four decades American politicians have refused to secure our borders and look after the welfare of middle class Americans. These politicians have been of both parties. A huge debt to American society has resulted. This debt will be satisfied and the interest will be high. There has already been riots in the streets by illegal aliens and their supporters. There will be more.
You, as a politician, have a choice to offend the illegal aliens who have stolen into this country and demanded the rights afforded to U.S. citizens or to offend those of us who are stakeholders' in this country. The interest will be steep either way. There will be civil unrest. There will be a reckoning. Do you have the courage to do what is right for America? Or, will you bow to the wants and needs of those who don't even have the right to remain here? There will be a reckoning. We will not allow America to be stolen by third world agitators and thieves. [David J. Stoddard U.S. Border Patrol (Ret.)]
What is racist about wanting secure borders and a secure America? What is racist about not wanting people to sneak into America and steal benefits we have set aside for legal aliens, senior citizens, children and other legal residents? What is it about race that entitles people to violate our laws, steal identities, and take the American Dream without paying the price? For about four decades American politicians have refused to secure our borders and look after the welfare of middle class Americans. These politicians have been of both parties. A huge debt to American society has resulted. This debt will be satisfied and the interest will be high. There has already been riots in the streets by illegal aliens and their supporters. There will be more.
You, as a politician, have a choice to offend the illegal aliens who have stolen into this country and demanded the rights afforded to U.S. citizens or to offend those of us who are stakeholders' in this country. The interest will be steep either way. There will be civil unrest. There will be a reckoning. Do you have the courage to do what is right for America? Or, will you bow to the wants and needs of those who don't even have the right to remain here? There will be a reckoning. We will not allow America to be stolen by third world agitators and thieves. [David J. Stoddard U.S. Border Patrol (Ret.)]
On the Candidacy of Mike Huckabee and the Political Stupidity of Pro-Lifers:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: This is a near-verbatim text which we wrote yesterday during lunch for another site when the outcome of the New Hampshire primary was yet to be revealed. Some additional links from this weblog were added which the site the original text was posted to would not accept along with two additional footnotes that came to mind when formatting the original text for posting. -ISM]
Hucksterbee's nomination would be a complete disaster of 1964 proportions for the Republicans with one significant difference: at least Goldwater's political immolation planted the seeds that started the modern conservative movement. Hucksterbee will be carried along by the media because they are salivating at presenting Hucksterbee as another Pat Robertson if he was nominated. But prior to that, they will give him whatever life support they think he needs. And that brings me to the subject of the traditional electoral pro life hari kiri.
The pattern of the modern Court with Roberts as chief justice is not one of legislating from the bench. And with us on the verge of two more court replacements (at least one in the next presidential term) -ask yourself who is more likely to replace Ginsberg or Stevens with a juror of the mould of Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, or Alito.
A McCain presidency or even one with Don Guiliani would have a much greater chance of getting another originalist on the court. Similarly those who would refuse to vote for Mitt because he is a Mormon: Hucksterbee's pathetic attempt to make the job of the presidency one of a religious test deserves the swiftest of rebukes.
As a twelve year independent voter who was annoyed at many of McCain's deviations from the conservative orthodoxy and who does not favour him for the nomination, I have to look at the alternatives and put my "ideal candidate" mould aside. (And as Duncan Hunter is the longest of long shots to win, that is a reality for me anyway.)
A McCain presidency or even one with Don Guiliani would have a much greater chance of getting another originalist on the court -McCain because he is overall pro-life in his outlook and Guiliani because (i) he keeps insisting he wants an originalist on the court and (ii) he is interested in outcomes and knows that a deal will have to be struck with the conservatives in lieu of other areas he is questionable on. And I say this as someone who does not want Guiliani to get the nomination.{1}
As far as the pro lifers doing their traditional geopolitical hari kiri, Hill, Edwards, and Obama would never nominate a genuine originalist for the high court. EVER. They would not even give such a person a chance. Do you the reader honestly think that McCain, Thompson, Hunter, Romney{2}, or Guiliani would do a worse job{3} in this area than any of the Dem major candidates???
A Hucksterbee nomination would be a disaster. As far as those who would not support Romney because of his Mormonism, as a friend of mine noted "it is better to be ruled by a wise Mormon than a foolish Baptist" -an apropo paraphrase of Martin Luther's dictum on wise Turks and foolish Christians.
I do not want to have to go through twenty more years of self-inflicted damage akin to the way the prolifers in their political stupidity in the 1986 elections got us Anthony Kennedy on the court instead of Robert Bork in 1987 and the high court voting difference in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in 1990 which retained Roe. Religious pro lifers had better learn Jesus' advice about being "wise as serpents and guileless as doves" darn fast unless they want to go a long time undoing the damage that their 2008 election stupidity would foist upon us with a Hucksterbee nomination -and that is apart from Hucksterbee's naive view of economics which is beyond the scope of my time or inclination to go into at this time.
Notes:
{1} Plus, there are these two "commitments" as listed on Guiliani's site:
I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, & protect the quality of life for our children
I will reform the legal system & appoint strict constructionist judges
Rudy saw what happened when Bush tried to push Miers on the conservatives. He is no dummy and realizes that his stock is not high with the same constituency who rebuked Bush on Miers and illegal alien amnesty.
{2} Dialogue on Mitt Romney, Conservatives, and the Judiciary (circa December 16, 2007)
{3} I exclude Ron Paul from that list because he would be a trainwreck as president and not only because of his significant ignorance of American history and the proper understanding of basic constitutional issues. This is subject we will cover soon on this weblog in general (the post is already written) though a bit of a foretaste as far as Paul is particularly concerned was touched on in this thread for those who are interested:
On the Constitutional Standing of Wars Undertaken Without a Formal "Declaration of War" (circa December 26, 2007)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: This is a near-verbatim text which we wrote yesterday during lunch for another site when the outcome of the New Hampshire primary was yet to be revealed. Some additional links from this weblog were added which the site the original text was posted to would not accept along with two additional footnotes that came to mind when formatting the original text for posting. -ISM]
Hucksterbee's nomination would be a complete disaster of 1964 proportions for the Republicans with one significant difference: at least Goldwater's political immolation planted the seeds that started the modern conservative movement. Hucksterbee will be carried along by the media because they are salivating at presenting Hucksterbee as another Pat Robertson if he was nominated. But prior to that, they will give him whatever life support they think he needs. And that brings me to the subject of the traditional electoral pro life hari kiri.
The pattern of the modern Court with Roberts as chief justice is not one of legislating from the bench. And with us on the verge of two more court replacements (at least one in the next presidential term) -ask yourself who is more likely to replace Ginsberg or Stevens with a juror of the mould of Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, or Alito.
A McCain presidency or even one with Don Guiliani would have a much greater chance of getting another originalist on the court. Similarly those who would refuse to vote for Mitt because he is a Mormon: Hucksterbee's pathetic attempt to make the job of the presidency one of a religious test deserves the swiftest of rebukes.
As a twelve year independent voter who was annoyed at many of McCain's deviations from the conservative orthodoxy and who does not favour him for the nomination, I have to look at the alternatives and put my "ideal candidate" mould aside. (And as Duncan Hunter is the longest of long shots to win, that is a reality for me anyway.)
A McCain presidency or even one with Don Guiliani would have a much greater chance of getting another originalist on the court -McCain because he is overall pro-life in his outlook and Guiliani because (i) he keeps insisting he wants an originalist on the court and (ii) he is interested in outcomes and knows that a deal will have to be struck with the conservatives in lieu of other areas he is questionable on. And I say this as someone who does not want Guiliani to get the nomination.{1}
As far as the pro lifers doing their traditional geopolitical hari kiri, Hill, Edwards, and Obama would never nominate a genuine originalist for the high court. EVER. They would not even give such a person a chance. Do you the reader honestly think that McCain, Thompson, Hunter, Romney{2}, or Guiliani would do a worse job{3} in this area than any of the Dem major candidates???
A Hucksterbee nomination would be a disaster. As far as those who would not support Romney because of his Mormonism, as a friend of mine noted "it is better to be ruled by a wise Mormon than a foolish Baptist" -an apropo paraphrase of Martin Luther's dictum on wise Turks and foolish Christians.
I do not want to have to go through twenty more years of self-inflicted damage akin to the way the prolifers in their political stupidity in the 1986 elections got us Anthony Kennedy on the court instead of Robert Bork in 1987 and the high court voting difference in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in 1990 which retained Roe. Religious pro lifers had better learn Jesus' advice about being "wise as serpents and guileless as doves" darn fast unless they want to go a long time undoing the damage that their 2008 election stupidity would foist upon us with a Hucksterbee nomination -and that is apart from Hucksterbee's naive view of economics which is beyond the scope of my time or inclination to go into at this time.
Notes:
{1} Plus, there are these two "commitments" as listed on Guiliani's site:
I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, & protect the quality of life for our children
I will reform the legal system & appoint strict constructionist judges
Rudy saw what happened when Bush tried to push Miers on the conservatives. He is no dummy and realizes that his stock is not high with the same constituency who rebuked Bush on Miers and illegal alien amnesty.
{2} Dialogue on Mitt Romney, Conservatives, and the Judiciary (circa December 16, 2007)
{3} I exclude Ron Paul from that list because he would be a trainwreck as president and not only because of his significant ignorance of American history and the proper understanding of basic constitutional issues. This is subject we will cover soon on this weblog in general (the post is already written) though a bit of a foretaste as far as Paul is particularly concerned was touched on in this thread for those who are interested:
On the Constitutional Standing of Wars Undertaken Without a Formal "Declaration of War" (circa December 26, 2007)
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
A Friday Lunchtime Analysis of the Upcoming New Hampshire Primary and Subsequent Candidate Viability:
(Dialogue With Kevin Tierney)
This is a continuation of sorts of a previous dialogue which can be read HERE.
Kevin: well, next week we find out if the republican party is truly brain dead
me: indeed. Edwards needs to win or place in NH to still be viable; otherwise it is a Obama/Clinton race
Kevin: I can understand why people voted for huckabee, I think they are wrong, or are ignoring reality
me: meanwhile, Paul is [basically done]
Kevin: Paul did [a lot] better than expected though
me: Hucksterbee is not likely to win NH
Kevin: if Obama wins NH, we're looking at the dem nominee
me: Duncan Hunter is apparently putting some eggs in NH where in IA he had none
Kevin: which Rudy or McCain could dispatch easily
me: Guiliani's strategy is really risky
Kevin: I think Romney is toast unless he wins in NH convincingly well with Romney losing Iowa and McCain winning NH, it just might work
me: the two who did best in IA are Thompson and McCain in terms of establishment
Kevin: the true victor of last night was Rudy though there's a reason Rudy has been awful chipper the last 24 hours
me: I think Romney can lose NH and still be the nominee
Kevin: no he can't
me: but he needs to win elsewhere. Wyoming. Michigan. Somewhere in an early primary{1}
Kevin: Romney put too much time and investment into the two early states to lose
me: or he will be done. On the Dem side, Edwards needs to win SC and place well in NH or he is done. McCain is amazingly resilient in appearance -he looked to be toast a couple months ago.
Kevin: if Romney loses NH, expect Don Giuliani to make him an offer he can't refuse
me: lol. You mean VP?
Kevin: or some other high level cabinet position to bring Romney aboard
me: Ambassador to outer Mongolia will not swing it?
Kevin: though in all honesty, Iowa's influence on the GOP is not as pervasive as it is on the Dems
Bush the younger is the only exception. Reagan got trounced in Iowa, as did Bush the elder.
me: Iowa is not a Republican maker the way it is for Dems
Kevin: I agree with most, SC is the true kingmaker of the GOP
me: NH even does not require a win from either party however to not place or show in NH is to mean you are done barring some miracle. That is why Rudy's strategy is so risky -if he is not top 3 there after placing so badly in IA then he is in big trouble.
Kevin: as long as the race stays divided, with the new super Tuesday, he has a chance and if it stays divided, people may view him as the last hope to prevent the GOP from driving off a cliff.
me: Wyoming will be a factor this time if only to allow someone who has not done well to this point to get on the board and get noticed
Kevin: because lets be honest, Hillary won't be there to unite the GOP very likely. If its Obama vs Huck, I'm predicting an Obama slaughter
me: Obama would win easily. So would Hill.
Kevin: If it is Hillary vs Huck, Huck would win, but would do vast damage to the GOP.
me: you think Huck would win? I do not see how [as] he is the classic "cannot win the big show but can perhaps win nomination" kind of guy like McGovern in 72, Dukakis in 88, Mondale in 84. That is my gut on him anyway.
Kevin: he'd have a high negatives Hillary, and the rest of the GOP would swallow their animus but if thought fratricide was bad with President Bush, just wait til you see a President Huckabee he would be a guaranteed one termer and the GOP would be sundered.
me: and unlike Goldwater, the conservative movement will not rise like the Phoenix from his electoral immolation. Huck needs to be defeated and early but here is the kicker: no matter how badly he does, the msm will make him always sound "one hill from the shining city" cause as you said (and astutely at that) some time back Huck is roadkill that they are salivating for. He is a chance to say it is the second coming of Robertson who I remind you did very well in IA in 88.
Kevin: since whether or not one will say it publicly, Bush has done much to destroy the GOP coalition, and I'm not talking Iraq
me: Huck is the only candidate to have the taint of the "fundy coalition" on him. Romney is religious but he cannot be lumped in with that group as many of them view Romney with derision. You know, the whole "he is not Trinitarian" thing which is not the sort of argument that needs to happen here in the election where no religious tests for public office are supposed to be administered.
Kevin: one will see what happens, but things got a bit more interesting
me: True. I did not say Edwards needs to win SC because of the power of that primary as a major kingmaker though it is that of course. I remind you Buchanan won SC in 92 along with NH{2} so it is not bulletproof. Hunter and Thompson along with McCain have eyed it as must have for them and I cannot disagree. In Edwards case, it is his home state which he failed to carry as VP for Kerry in 2004. Edwards wins it and stays in or he loses it and is finished. He does not have (and would not get) the finances to go all the way otherwise.
Notes:
{1} As I noted on Saturday evening, this happened in Wyoming with a huge Romney caucus win.
{2} [Update: I misspoke here: Buchanan came in second in 1992. I had 1996 in mind when he came in first but mixed the two up in the chat; ergo this footnote of correction and the adding of the "mea culpa" post tag. -ISM 1/09/08 8:29pm]
(Dialogue With Kevin Tierney)
This is a continuation of sorts of a previous dialogue which can be read HERE.
Kevin: well, next week we find out if the republican party is truly brain dead
me: indeed. Edwards needs to win or place in NH to still be viable; otherwise it is a Obama/Clinton race
Kevin: I can understand why people voted for huckabee, I think they are wrong, or are ignoring reality
me: meanwhile, Paul is [basically done]
Kevin: Paul did [a lot] better than expected though
me: Hucksterbee is not likely to win NH
Kevin: if Obama wins NH, we're looking at the dem nominee
me: Duncan Hunter is apparently putting some eggs in NH where in IA he had none
Kevin: which Rudy or McCain could dispatch easily
me: Guiliani's strategy is really risky
Kevin: I think Romney is toast unless he wins in NH convincingly well with Romney losing Iowa and McCain winning NH, it just might work
me: the two who did best in IA are Thompson and McCain in terms of establishment
Kevin: the true victor of last night was Rudy though there's a reason Rudy has been awful chipper the last 24 hours
me: I think Romney can lose NH and still be the nominee
Kevin: no he can't
me: but he needs to win elsewhere. Wyoming. Michigan. Somewhere in an early primary{1}
Kevin: Romney put too much time and investment into the two early states to lose
me: or he will be done. On the Dem side, Edwards needs to win SC and place well in NH or he is done. McCain is amazingly resilient in appearance -he looked to be toast a couple months ago.
Kevin: if Romney loses NH, expect Don Giuliani to make him an offer he can't refuse
me: lol. You mean VP?
Kevin: or some other high level cabinet position to bring Romney aboard
me: Ambassador to outer Mongolia will not swing it?
Kevin: though in all honesty, Iowa's influence on the GOP is not as pervasive as it is on the Dems
Bush the younger is the only exception. Reagan got trounced in Iowa, as did Bush the elder.
me: Iowa is not a Republican maker the way it is for Dems
Kevin: I agree with most, SC is the true kingmaker of the GOP
me: NH even does not require a win from either party however to not place or show in NH is to mean you are done barring some miracle. That is why Rudy's strategy is so risky -if he is not top 3 there after placing so badly in IA then he is in big trouble.
Kevin: as long as the race stays divided, with the new super Tuesday, he has a chance and if it stays divided, people may view him as the last hope to prevent the GOP from driving off a cliff.
me: Wyoming will be a factor this time if only to allow someone who has not done well to this point to get on the board and get noticed
Kevin: because lets be honest, Hillary won't be there to unite the GOP very likely. If its Obama vs Huck, I'm predicting an Obama slaughter
me: Obama would win easily. So would Hill.
Kevin: If it is Hillary vs Huck, Huck would win, but would do vast damage to the GOP.
me: you think Huck would win? I do not see how [as] he is the classic "cannot win the big show but can perhaps win nomination" kind of guy like McGovern in 72, Dukakis in 88, Mondale in 84. That is my gut on him anyway.
Kevin: he'd have a high negatives Hillary, and the rest of the GOP would swallow their animus but if thought fratricide was bad with President Bush, just wait til you see a President Huckabee he would be a guaranteed one termer and the GOP would be sundered.
me: and unlike Goldwater, the conservative movement will not rise like the Phoenix from his electoral immolation. Huck needs to be defeated and early but here is the kicker: no matter how badly he does, the msm will make him always sound "one hill from the shining city" cause as you said (and astutely at that) some time back Huck is roadkill that they are salivating for. He is a chance to say it is the second coming of Robertson who I remind you did very well in IA in 88.
Kevin: since whether or not one will say it publicly, Bush has done much to destroy the GOP coalition, and I'm not talking Iraq
me: Huck is the only candidate to have the taint of the "fundy coalition" on him. Romney is religious but he cannot be lumped in with that group as many of them view Romney with derision. You know, the whole "he is not Trinitarian" thing which is not the sort of argument that needs to happen here in the election where no religious tests for public office are supposed to be administered.
Kevin: one will see what happens, but things got a bit more interesting
me: True. I did not say Edwards needs to win SC because of the power of that primary as a major kingmaker though it is that of course. I remind you Buchanan won SC in 92 along with NH{2} so it is not bulletproof. Hunter and Thompson along with McCain have eyed it as must have for them and I cannot disagree. In Edwards case, it is his home state which he failed to carry as VP for Kerry in 2004. Edwards wins it and stays in or he loses it and is finished. He does not have (and would not get) the finances to go all the way otherwise.
Notes:
{1} As I noted on Saturday evening, this happened in Wyoming with a huge Romney caucus win.
{2} [Update: I misspoke here: Buchanan came in second in 1992. I had 1996 in mind when he came in first but mixed the two up in the chat; ergo this footnote of correction and the adding of the "mea culpa" post tag. -ISM 1/09/08 8:29pm]
Monday, January 07, 2008
Points to Ponder:
Everyone has the right to renounce past views. But not to make up that past. It is beyond brazen to think that one can get away with inventing not ancient history but what everyone saw and read with their own eyes just a few years ago. And yet sometimes brazenness works. [Charles Krauthammer]
Everyone has the right to renounce past views. But not to make up that past. It is beyond brazen to think that one can get away with inventing not ancient history but what everyone saw and read with their own eyes just a few years ago. And yet sometimes brazenness works. [Charles Krauthammer]
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting:
I should note as I post this thread which was prepared a few days ago that right when I am about to blog that frequently-mentioned post explaining the direction in which the weblog will be officially going for the indefinite future{1} that a major event comes up that gets in the way.
In the case of Sunday, it was a variety of factors in "real life" which were the culprit and today it is the knowledge of the next major primary being tomorrow. Between that and the usual political aftermath, the timing is again not right. For that reason, I have in mind posting it either Thursday or Friday of the coming week. But without further ado, onto the threads this posting intends to highlight.
Terror on the Run (Ralph Peters)
The best story of 2007 which is rarely being reported if at all is dealt with in the above piece from the online New York Post. Here is the core of the piece in a summary excerpt from the thread:
The year was a strategic catastrophe for Islamist terrorists - and possibly a historic turning point in the struggle against al Qaeda and its affiliates.
That is correct folks though readers of this weblog know our views on why things changed in 2007 in Iraq the way they did -though we have put in a footnote a few threads and post excerpts in order from oldest to newest{2}to serve as a reminder for those with short memories.
The Necessity of Democratic Survival in Pakistan (Charles Krauthammer)
The last two paragraphs of the article above may well serve as a future "points to ponder" installment.
Notes:
{1} Which has been mentioned in five separate threads excluding this posting:
Miscellaneous Musings (circa November 18, 2007)
Miscellaneous Notes (circa November 22, 2007)
A Brief Note on an Upcoming Posting (circa December 11, 2007)
Miscellaneous Musings and Christmas Wishes (circa December 22, 2007)
On "Auld Lang Syne", Its Meaning, and the Reasons For Our Annual Lyrical Posting Thereof (circa December 31, 2007)
{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 willingseditionist 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)]
On the Iraq Situation, the Military Surge, and Playing Politics (circa August 21, 2007)
On the Situation in Iraq as of Early November 2007 (circa November 9, 2007)
I should note as I post this thread which was prepared a few days ago that right when I am about to blog that frequently-mentioned post explaining the direction in which the weblog will be officially going for the indefinite future{1} that a major event comes up that gets in the way.
In the case of Sunday, it was a variety of factors in "real life" which were the culprit and today it is the knowledge of the next major primary being tomorrow. Between that and the usual political aftermath, the timing is again not right. For that reason, I have in mind posting it either Thursday or Friday of the coming week. But without further ado, onto the threads this posting intends to highlight.
Terror on the Run (Ralph Peters)
The best story of 2007 which is rarely being reported if at all is dealt with in the above piece from the online New York Post. Here is the core of the piece in a summary excerpt from the thread:
The year was a strategic catastrophe for Islamist terrorists - and possibly a historic turning point in the struggle against al Qaeda and its affiliates.
That is correct folks though readers of this weblog know our views on why things changed in 2007 in Iraq the way they did -though we have put in a footnote a few threads and post excerpts in order from oldest to newest{2}to serve as a reminder for those with short memories.
The Necessity of Democratic Survival in Pakistan (Charles Krauthammer)
The last two paragraphs of the article above may well serve as a future "points to ponder" installment.
Notes:
{1} Which has been mentioned in five separate threads excluding this posting:
Miscellaneous Musings (circa November 18, 2007)
Miscellaneous Notes (circa November 22, 2007)
A Brief Note on an Upcoming Posting (circa December 11, 2007)
Miscellaneous Musings and Christmas Wishes (circa December 22, 2007)
On "Auld Lang Syne", Its Meaning, and the Reasons For Our Annual Lyrical Posting Thereof (circa December 31, 2007)
{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
On the Iraq Situation, the Military Surge, and Playing Politics (circa August 21, 2007)
On the Situation in Iraq as of Early November 2007 (circa November 9, 2007)
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Miscellaneous Musings:
Briefly on two different subject threads...
Romney Wins Wyoming Caucus
It was a three candidate race with Mitt Romney winning 67% for first, Fred Thompson, winning 25% for second place, and Rep. Duncan Hunter winning 8% for third. For Romney this gives him traction, for Thompson, this shows that he has built on his third place showing at Iowa from Thursday. In Hunter's case, it puts him on the radar screen even if only at the periphery. Your host would like to see Hunter get more exposure and hopefully his getting a delegate from this caucus will help a bit.
Seahawks Convincingly Defeat Redskins Despite Playing Subpar on Offense Most of the Games And Poorly On Defense For Three Minutes of the Fourth Quarter
Those who wrote me predicting the Hawks would lose, my Hawks post-season prediction still holds.
Briefly on two different subject threads...
Romney Wins Wyoming Caucus
It was a three candidate race with Mitt Romney winning 67% for first, Fred Thompson, winning 25% for second place, and Rep. Duncan Hunter winning 8% for third. For Romney this gives him traction, for Thompson, this shows that he has built on his third place showing at Iowa from Thursday. In Hunter's case, it puts him on the radar screen even if only at the periphery. Your host would like to see Hunter get more exposure and hopefully his getting a delegate from this caucus will help a bit.
Seahawks Convincingly Defeat Redskins Despite Playing Subpar on Offense Most of the Games And Poorly On Defense For Three Minutes of the Fourth Quarter
Those who wrote me predicting the Hawks would lose, my Hawks post-season prediction still holds.
A Wednesday Night Analysis of Possible Iowa Caucus Results:
(With Kevin Tierney)
It may seem strange to blog this thread since significant missteps were made in prognosticating both on my part as well as Kevin's. However, some undercurrents of what we discussed are still viable so it seems appropriate to note its contents at this time with a possible follow-up tomorrow or on Monday based on the aftermath of Iowa's results prior to the New Hampshire primary. Without further ado...
me: at least Dean waited until after Iowa to fall apart Huck may not even make it through tomorrow at this rate this stuff coming out at the last minute of a must-win (for him) primary is ominous in its tones of finality for his campaign
Kevin: I think social conservatives need to think long and hard about this. If they go with Huck to the death, they may be heading back into exile politically which will be a tragedy
me: Hucksterbee would be another 1964 except] with no upside whatsoever
Kevin: because who is gonna win a war between the religious right and everyone else in the conservative movement?
me: unlike Goldwater's martyrdom which spawned a movement the same crowd that defeated Bush on immigration and Miers will win (of course)
Kevin: if Huck becomes the nominee, we may be looking to his candidacy which destroyed the GOP coalition
me: I cannot see Huck winning it however I also predict that with every loss he gets in primaries and caucuses and the reason Huck could pull off Iowa no matter what (and someone like Paul could do better there than other places) is the structure of a caucus as opposed to a primary. I have been involved in caucuses they favour candidates with rabid followings over those whose support is a mile wide and an inch deep because they take longer to resolve
Kevin: the damage has already been done, there's a lot of fractures amongst the base now thanks to huckabee's identity politics
me: and time is on the side of those with passionate followings in those things. Ultimately, if Huck loses Iowa and Paul does not crack the top three then that is about as good as I would want in the realm of the feasible. Paul is doomed if he cannot make a splash in a caucus state...I want to see him finished off early along with Huck heck compared to them, I would eagerly support McCain and be willing to deal with Guiliani and I do not want either of them to win as you probably know...
Kevin: The Dems are already set to make gains in the house and senate in 08, i think its logical the presidency will go with it. It's not a foregone conclusion, but a strong chance.
me: just cause they won in 06 does not mean they will in 08 congressionally the war's success is not in their favour nor overall is the economy granted we are a year out and anything can happen a year as I have said for years is an eternity politically. I remind you a year out, Bush 41 looked invincible literally bulletproof [and] we know what happened there. In this election there is also the possible Bloomberg factor which could affect Dems the way Perot did Repubs in 92 and to a lesser extent 96. This current congress is so unpopular that they make Bush 43's 25% approval rating look good granted we are a year out.
Kevin: we shall see...if our predictions about Iowa are correct tomorrow
me: but I am not pessimistic on the R's chances in 08 at all -presidentially or congressionally
what are yours again?
Kevin: Romney, Huck, Fred, then McCain then Iowa is Obama, Edwards Hillary pretty close to Novak's
me: heck, that is my Repub picks 1-3 my Dem pick is yours for 3 but reverse 1 and 2.
As readers will note, Kevin and I both were wrong on Iowa for the Republicans insofar as who would win and place (we both predicted Thompson to show and McCain to place fourth). However Kevin got the Iowa picks for the Democrats correct for win, place, and show whereas I only got the part about Hillary showing correct.
But it is still early and we both have time to improve our prognosticating on these matters.
(With Kevin Tierney)
It may seem strange to blog this thread since significant missteps were made in prognosticating both on my part as well as Kevin's. However, some undercurrents of what we discussed are still viable so it seems appropriate to note its contents at this time with a possible follow-up tomorrow or on Monday based on the aftermath of Iowa's results prior to the New Hampshire primary. Without further ado...
me: at least Dean waited until after Iowa to fall apart Huck may not even make it through tomorrow at this rate this stuff coming out at the last minute of a must-win (for him) primary is ominous in its tones of finality for his campaign
Kevin: I think social conservatives need to think long and hard about this. If they go with Huck to the death, they may be heading back into exile politically which will be a tragedy
me: Hucksterbee would be another 1964 except] with no upside whatsoever
Kevin: because who is gonna win a war between the religious right and everyone else in the conservative movement?
me: unlike Goldwater's martyrdom which spawned a movement the same crowd that defeated Bush on immigration and Miers will win (of course)
Kevin: if Huck becomes the nominee, we may be looking to his candidacy which destroyed the GOP coalition
me: I cannot see Huck winning it however I also predict that with every loss he gets in primaries and caucuses and the reason Huck could pull off Iowa no matter what (and someone like Paul could do better there than other places) is the structure of a caucus as opposed to a primary. I have been involved in caucuses they favour candidates with rabid followings over those whose support is a mile wide and an inch deep because they take longer to resolve
Kevin: the damage has already been done, there's a lot of fractures amongst the base now thanks to huckabee's identity politics
me: and time is on the side of those with passionate followings in those things. Ultimately, if Huck loses Iowa and Paul does not crack the top three then that is about as good as I would want in the realm of the feasible. Paul is doomed if he cannot make a splash in a caucus state...I want to see him finished off early along with Huck heck compared to them, I would eagerly support McCain and be willing to deal with Guiliani and I do not want either of them to win as you probably know...
Kevin: The Dems are already set to make gains in the house and senate in 08, i think its logical the presidency will go with it. It's not a foregone conclusion, but a strong chance.
me: just cause they won in 06 does not mean they will in 08 congressionally the war's success is not in their favour nor overall is the economy granted we are a year out and anything can happen a year as I have said for years is an eternity politically. I remind you a year out, Bush 41 looked invincible literally bulletproof [and] we know what happened there. In this election there is also the possible Bloomberg factor which could affect Dems the way Perot did Repubs in 92 and to a lesser extent 96. This current congress is so unpopular that they make Bush 43's 25% approval rating look good granted we are a year out.
Kevin: we shall see...if our predictions about Iowa are correct tomorrow
me: but I am not pessimistic on the R's chances in 08 at all -presidentially or congressionally
what are yours again?
Kevin: Romney, Huck, Fred, then McCain then Iowa is Obama, Edwards Hillary pretty close to Novak's
me: heck, that is my Repub picks 1-3 my Dem pick is yours for 3 but reverse 1 and 2.
As readers will note, Kevin and I both were wrong on Iowa for the Republicans insofar as who would win and place (we both predicted Thompson to show and McCain to place fourth). However Kevin got the Iowa picks for the Democrats correct for win, place, and show whereas I only got the part about Hillary showing correct.
But it is still early and we both have time to improve our prognosticating on these matters.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
We at Rerum Novarum hope that readers will offer prayers (in the next day or so) for the eternal repose of the soul of one of the greatest generals in American history who died 103 years ago today; namely, General James Longstreet. (May he rest in peace.)
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Should old acquaintance be forgot,
and never brought to mind ?
Should old acquaintance be forgot,
and auld lang syne ?
For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.
And surely you’ll buy your pint cup !
And surely I’ll buy mine !
And we'll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.
For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.
We two have run about the slopes,
and picked the daisies fine ;
But we’ve wandered many a weary foot,
since auld lang syne.
For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.
We two have paddled in the stream,
from morning sun till dine† ;
But seas between us broad have roared
since auld lang syne.
For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.
And there’s a hand my trusty friend !
And give us a hand o’ thine !
And we’ll take a right good-will draught,
for auld lang syne.
For an understanding of the lyrics to this song verse by verse and the reason why we traditionally post it at the start of every year, see this thread for details.
and never brought to mind ?
Should old acquaintance be forgot,
and auld lang syne ?
For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.
And surely you’ll buy your pint cup !
And surely I’ll buy mine !
And we'll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.
For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.
We two have run about the slopes,
and picked the daisies fine ;
But we’ve wandered many a weary foot,
since auld lang syne.
For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.
We two have paddled in the stream,
from morning sun till dine† ;
But seas between us broad have roared
since auld lang syne.
For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.
And there’s a hand my trusty friend !
And give us a hand o’ thine !
And we’ll take a right good-will draught,
for auld lang syne.
For an understanding of the lyrics to this song verse by verse and the reason why we traditionally post it at the start of every year, see this thread for details.
On "Auld Lang Syne", Its Meaning, and the Reasons For Our Annual Lyrical Posting Thereof:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
A tradition was started on this weblog on January 1, 2004 basically on a whim with a posting of the lyrics to auld lang syne in the traditional Olde English. However, as with so much of what we have undertaken here at Rerum Novarum, deeper meanings are later found in even simple seeming matters such as these.
The meaning of this gesture is deeper than merely a casual song that people sing when they are tipsy ringing in the new year. But as I had previously posted the lyrics in the old Scottish version, the full meaning of the song was for that reason to some extent obscured. The intention of this posting is to explain before we post the traditional first thread of the new year, its meaning and why I make reference to it with the ringing in of a new year as will be done at some point tomorrow or the next day (depending on when I am in the mood to blog again).
Traditionally the song auld lang syne is sung to ring out the old and ring in the new year but often it is done without thought to what is being sung -to the extent that those singing it of course even know what they are singing and are not merely mumbling the parts they do not know and singing the familiar chorus. The latter part of the song is simple enough as it involves raising a pint for "auld lang syne" or "olden times." The verses between it are a bit more complex in their simplicity of meaning.
The core of the song itself contains a recollection of "olden times" and notes that they should not be forgotten. This is the meaning of the first verse in a nutshell, the one that people remember if they remember anything but the chorus. The rest of the verses unpack this a bit and we will explain each verse in sequence so that the meaning is clearer to those who will sing it tonight who happen to read this tomorrow so they know what it is they were singing as the passing of 2007 into the night unfolds.
The second verse of auld lang syne explains the means of remembrance -basically that each will toast one another to "olden times" and outlines the manner of toasting: basically that each will buy their own "pint cup." So far so good but to what are they toasting exactly??? That is what the rest of the song unfolds in subsequent verses.
The third verse echoes in it both the good and bad times between the parties involved -symbolized in the "picking of daisies" and "running about the slopes" for the good times and the "wander[ing] many a weary foot" to symbolize times of conflict which it is drawn out a bit in the fourth verse of the song.
Verse four refers to the two parties who "have paddled in the stream, from morning sun till dine" where the day is a metaphor basically with "morning sun" being earlier and "dine" being a reference to dinner or later in the evening -with the metaphor being of life itself and its varied stages. During that span of time, "seas between us broad have roared" makes reference to personal slights, quarrels, and discontents which affect all friendships to some extent not infrequently putting parties once on good terms at estrangement with one another.
The fifth verse is the final verse other than a final run through of the chorus. It is the explicit verse of reconciliation in the song -each party taking hand of the other and drinking a good will toast to "olden times" meaning not to the bad blood that has occurred between them at sundry times and diverse manners but instead to the times before the bad blood occurred.
There is an eminently Christian undertone to this song: one of recognition of problems and a seeking of resolution if not to the problems than at least to the people involved. I probably did not have a fully conscious reflecting on the matters so noted when I started singing those words at the dawn of every year. However, they have been part and parcel to my annual outlook explicitly ever since the departure from my life of many who were close to me either personally or by family relation in rapid succession.{1}
The more one has those close to them take leave of this mortal coil -or who has those close to them who are close to that point in various ways- it has a way of sharpening the discerning mind to the quarrels that we can have which are minute in the grand scheme of things. The song itself is an explicit call to reflect upon "olden times", the times of solidarity and strife, and to toast in remembrance of the better times in "olden days."
I have at the end of each year consciously closed the book on that year's toils and strifes and done so for a number of years now. However, I would be less than truthful if I did not humbly admit that I have allowed myself to be baited back into old quarrels on occasion in subsequent years -and rarer still but of required mentioning perhaps presumed to have seen bait where it was possibly not being so intentionally dangled.{2} Nonetheless, as the direction this weblog to a good extent will be changing for the indefinite future,{3} it seems appropriate at this time to note the customary "closing of the book" on the past explicitly.
For my part, I will "raise a pint" tonight to all my departed loved ones and friends who have passed on and also another "pint" to those still alive -be they in explicit good stead with me as of this writing or not. Disputes will always subsist whenever you have a passionate advocation of ideals but they should nonetheless always be based on issues without the parties themselves being drawn into it personally.{4} We do not always succeed but that does not mean we should abandon the effort of walking anew with reaffirmed purpose or what in Christian thought could be called "putting off the old man and putting on the new."
In closing the postings for the year of 2007, hopefully what is noted above explains the proper understanding of the song that we all will hopefully sing as the old year leaves and the new year begins. 2008 much as any new year about to dawn is a new year with new opportunities to write fresh pages in the varied scripts of our interactions with others. And (of course) the reasons I have discerned over the years{5} for its usage and the appropriateness of confirming for a fifth straight year, the tradition of ringing in the new year with auld lang syne in text form on this weblog with the first posting of the year whenever that happens to be.
A most blessed, happy, and prosperous new year to you all!!!
Notes:
{1} A process that started in 2000 and for the most part was concluded by 2006 -though there were some notable losses in early 2004 and late 2005 which I do not want to omit noting at least in brief. (And three additional losses this year though all of the parties involved were expected to pass at some point which makes it a bit easier.)
{2} This is not a naive ignoring of actual slights mind you, only a note signifying that I consider them set aside unless and until the parties in question explicitly manifest beyond a reasonable doubt the intention of continuing them. (In which case, I will strive to only do so to the extent that I discern in what they have said compromise in ethics and principles and nothing more -however personal the attacks may be perceived.)
{3} For reasons many of which will be made known soon.
{4} As so often is the case and to which admittedly I have not always avoided doing.
{5} At first in a more subconscious reflection and then with greater fullness upon further consideration as the years went passing by.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
A tradition was started on this weblog on January 1, 2004 basically on a whim with a posting of the lyrics to auld lang syne in the traditional Olde English. However, as with so much of what we have undertaken here at Rerum Novarum, deeper meanings are later found in even simple seeming matters such as these.
The meaning of this gesture is deeper than merely a casual song that people sing when they are tipsy ringing in the new year. But as I had previously posted the lyrics in the old Scottish version, the full meaning of the song was for that reason to some extent obscured. The intention of this posting is to explain before we post the traditional first thread of the new year, its meaning and why I make reference to it with the ringing in of a new year as will be done at some point tomorrow or the next day (depending on when I am in the mood to blog again).
Traditionally the song auld lang syne is sung to ring out the old and ring in the new year but often it is done without thought to what is being sung -to the extent that those singing it of course even know what they are singing and are not merely mumbling the parts they do not know and singing the familiar chorus. The latter part of the song is simple enough as it involves raising a pint for "auld lang syne" or "olden times." The verses between it are a bit more complex in their simplicity of meaning.
The core of the song itself contains a recollection of "olden times" and notes that they should not be forgotten. This is the meaning of the first verse in a nutshell, the one that people remember if they remember anything but the chorus. The rest of the verses unpack this a bit and we will explain each verse in sequence so that the meaning is clearer to those who will sing it tonight who happen to read this tomorrow so they know what it is they were singing as the passing of 2007 into the night unfolds.
The second verse of auld lang syne explains the means of remembrance -basically that each will toast one another to "olden times" and outlines the manner of toasting: basically that each will buy their own "pint cup." So far so good but to what are they toasting exactly??? That is what the rest of the song unfolds in subsequent verses.
The third verse echoes in it both the good and bad times between the parties involved -symbolized in the "picking of daisies" and "running about the slopes" for the good times and the "wander[ing] many a weary foot" to symbolize times of conflict which it is drawn out a bit in the fourth verse of the song.
Verse four refers to the two parties who "have paddled in the stream, from morning sun till dine" where the day is a metaphor basically with "morning sun" being earlier and "dine" being a reference to dinner or later in the evening -with the metaphor being of life itself and its varied stages. During that span of time, "seas between us broad have roared" makes reference to personal slights, quarrels, and discontents which affect all friendships to some extent not infrequently putting parties once on good terms at estrangement with one another.
The fifth verse is the final verse other than a final run through of the chorus. It is the explicit verse of reconciliation in the song -each party taking hand of the other and drinking a good will toast to "olden times" meaning not to the bad blood that has occurred between them at sundry times and diverse manners but instead to the times before the bad blood occurred.
There is an eminently Christian undertone to this song: one of recognition of problems and a seeking of resolution if not to the problems than at least to the people involved. I probably did not have a fully conscious reflecting on the matters so noted when I started singing those words at the dawn of every year. However, they have been part and parcel to my annual outlook explicitly ever since the departure from my life of many who were close to me either personally or by family relation in rapid succession.{1}
The more one has those close to them take leave of this mortal coil -or who has those close to them who are close to that point in various ways- it has a way of sharpening the discerning mind to the quarrels that we can have which are minute in the grand scheme of things. The song itself is an explicit call to reflect upon "olden times", the times of solidarity and strife, and to toast in remembrance of the better times in "olden days."
I have at the end of each year consciously closed the book on that year's toils and strifes and done so for a number of years now. However, I would be less than truthful if I did not humbly admit that I have allowed myself to be baited back into old quarrels on occasion in subsequent years -and rarer still but of required mentioning perhaps presumed to have seen bait where it was possibly not being so intentionally dangled.{2} Nonetheless, as the direction this weblog to a good extent will be changing for the indefinite future,{3} it seems appropriate at this time to note the customary "closing of the book" on the past explicitly.
For my part, I will "raise a pint" tonight to all my departed loved ones and friends who have passed on and also another "pint" to those still alive -be they in explicit good stead with me as of this writing or not. Disputes will always subsist whenever you have a passionate advocation of ideals but they should nonetheless always be based on issues without the parties themselves being drawn into it personally.{4} We do not always succeed but that does not mean we should abandon the effort of walking anew with reaffirmed purpose or what in Christian thought could be called "putting off the old man and putting on the new."
In closing the postings for the year of 2007, hopefully what is noted above explains the proper understanding of the song that we all will hopefully sing as the old year leaves and the new year begins. 2008 much as any new year about to dawn is a new year with new opportunities to write fresh pages in the varied scripts of our interactions with others. And (of course) the reasons I have discerned over the years{5} for its usage and the appropriateness of confirming for a fifth straight year, the tradition of ringing in the new year with auld lang syne in text form on this weblog with the first posting of the year whenever that happens to be.
A most blessed, happy, and prosperous new year to you all!!!
Notes:
{1} A process that started in 2000 and for the most part was concluded by 2006 -though there were some notable losses in early 2004 and late 2005 which I do not want to omit noting at least in brief. (And three additional losses this year though all of the parties involved were expected to pass at some point which makes it a bit easier.)
{2} This is not a naive ignoring of actual slights mind you, only a note signifying that I consider them set aside unless and until the parties in question explicitly manifest beyond a reasonable doubt the intention of continuing them. (In which case, I will strive to only do so to the extent that I discern in what they have said compromise in ethics and principles and nothing more -however personal the attacks may be perceived.)
{3} For reasons many of which will be made known soon.
{4} As so often is the case and to which admittedly I have not always avoided doing.
{5} At first in a more subconscious reflection and then with greater fullness upon further consideration as the years went passing by.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Points to Ponder:
We always make our opponents out to be more radical than they are, so that we can position ourselves as part of the mainstream. But in times of great social tension this polarizing game can become an extremely dangerous form of self-fulfilling prophecy. We use the alleged radicalism of our opponents as an excuse to become radical ourselves, and thus prompt our opponents to follow suit, turning them into the monsters we thought they were all along (and so justifying further extremism on our part). [Edwin Tait]
We always make our opponents out to be more radical than they are, so that we can position ourselves as part of the mainstream. But in times of great social tension this polarizing game can become an extremely dangerous form of self-fulfilling prophecy. We use the alleged radicalism of our opponents as an excuse to become radical ourselves, and thus prompt our opponents to follow suit, turning them into the monsters we thought they were all along (and so justifying further extremism on our part). [Edwin Tait]
I would be remiss if I did not finally acknowledge that the 12-4 part of the predictions I made for the Seahawks this season record-wise did not pan. This should not surprise those aware that my sports prognosticating average is as wrong on average as my geopolitical predictions are right. Nonetheless, we cannot point out when we are right and not when we are also wrong so it is only appropriate to make this notation prior to the playoffs.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
On the Constitutional Standing of Wars Undertaken Without a Formal "Declaration of War":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: For those who would roll their eyes and raise the shibboleth of slavery and the Founders as a lazy expedient to try and avoid the rationale behind the arguments set down in this posting, I have as of today added a new footnote (footnote two) which include previous posts from the archives which treat on certain principles that need to be accounted for at all times when assessing historical figures and complex societal issues. -ISM 1/9/2008 3:15pm]
Ron Paul belongs to a school of thought on Constitutional matters which is intrinsically flawed and historically unviable for reasons I will explain in an upcoming posting on constitutional matters to this humble weblog. However, I do not in that posting go into much detail on this in Paul's specific case. Nor do I intend in this one to do anything more than address one aspect of Rep. Paul's campaign platform (the "antiwar" platform) and do so indirectly at best.
The focus of this posting is the following assertion by Ron Paul -who is the cosponsor of some legislation I am in favour of at the moment by the way-{1} from one of the Republican Party candidate "debates" back in October of this year.
“Why don’t we just open up the Constitution and read it? You’re not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war.”
Unfortunately, Constitutional interpretation is not that simple nor was it the intention of the Founders{2} for it to be. However, that subject will be touched on in the upcoming posting on Constitutional matters. Suffice to say, Rep. Paul's words would have surprised those who wrote the Constitution, including the man who most influenced its construction and is sometimes called its "father" (James Madison), its greatest defender (Alexander Hamilton), the Father of the Country (George Washington), the nation's first Vice-President and a major indirect influence on the Constitution's content (John Adams), the writer of the Constitution (Gouvernor Morris), and even the originator of Rep. Paul school of Constitutional interpretation himself (Thomas Jefferson). Some historical examples will be noted to sustain these assertions so that readers do not think we are stating things we cannot prove ala what Rep. Paul has done on this matter.
Starting with President George Washington who inherited the Chicamunga Wars which had been going on since the end of the French and Indian War of 1763{3} as well as the Northwest Indian War which preceded his presidency by six years{4}, the President of the United States and former President of the Second Constitutional Convention did not ask for a formal declaration of war from the Congress to utilize the military in those conflicts with rival nations.
Nor did Washington's involvement of the military in the Whiskey Insurrection of 1794 under the advice of his adviser Alexander Hamilton,{5} and the Battle of Fallen Timbers fought that same year was the final battle of the ten year long Northwest Indian War (1785-1795) of which there was never a formal declaration of war. Likewise, in the Undeclared War with France under President John Adams{6}, there was not a single declaration of war issued yet the military was mobilized to fight and legislation was passed to make the nation ready including various Alien and Sedition Acts{7} which made evident the state of war the country was in at the time.
Moving onto President Thomas Jefferson whose constitutional hermeneutic Rep. Paul appears to subscribe to, the First Barbary War was entered into in 1801 by President Thomas Jefferson without the formality of a declaration of war and continued until 1805. The Congress did authorize the use of military force in the endeavour but by Rep. Paul's criteria, President Jefferson acted "illegally."
The first formal declaration of war was for the War of 1812 and followed the pattern that all formal declarations of war do; namely, the president requested it and the Congress then votes on it. If the president does not request it, the declaration of war is not delivered. This is how the matter has always been conducted in the nation's history starting with the War of 1812 fought under the presidency of the "Father of the Constitution" James Madison.
However, it is not often recognized by those who take the approach to the Constitution that Ron Paul takes that other wars were fought in the presidency of James Madison which did not involve a formal declaration of war. There was also the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811, the Creek War (1813-1814) , and the Second Barbary War (1815). There was also the First Seminole War which started under Madison's presidency (roughly in 1814) and continued under his successor President James Monroe until 1818. And while numerous other examples could be noted both in that time period as well as throughout American history, it suffices to cover the first thirty years of American history to make the point this post is intended to make.
At no time did the Founding Fathers or their successors take the view of wars fought without a formal declaration of war as "unconstitutional" the way Rep. Ron Paul does. Furthermore, the John Adams-appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (John Marshall) who established the principle of judicial review early in his tenure{8} never in thirty-five years on the bench declared a non-declaration of war military engagement as "unconstitutional."
There is in other words, a serious lack of support in the earliest examples of governance by those who either wrote or were closely affiliated with those who wrote the Constitution of the United States for a view on fighting wars that is currently being espoused by Rep. Ron Paul. And those who think Paul is somehow the "more Constitutional candidate"{9} would do well to consider this example as part of the lens from which they assess Rep. Paul's pretensions on this matter.
Notes:
{1} I refer here to HR 3664 the Tax Free Tips Act of 2007 and no, I do not favour this bill because it in any way benefits me (because it does not).
{3} The Chicamunga Wars did not end until 1794.
{4} The Northwest Indian Wars did not end until 1795.
{5} This example is mentioned because it was an important early step in the constitutional application of federal power by the commander in chief without the concurrence of the United States Congress to put down an armed rebellion.
{6} Adams was not at the Constitutional Convention but his writings (particularly Thoughts on Government) were among the sources drawn on by the participants at the convention in framing what was eventually ratified as the Constitution of the United States.
{7} Now is not the time to discuss these acts one of which is still in force today and has been used by President George W. Bush in the war on terror. Furthermore, funds were appropriated for building up the army and military vessels for future use if needed.
{8} With his decision in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803.
{9} And of course Paul on some issues gets right what many others get wrong -but his stance on the constitutionality or lack thereof of wars fought without a formal declaration of war is not one of them.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Miscellaneous Musings and Christmas Wishes:
I made a few additions to yesterday's posting including adding a few more tidbits to the expository musing and a video clip. With Christmas being upon us now, it is time to take leave from blogging to tend to a number of matters which take significant priority.
I hope to get a few more postings up before the end of the year including the thrice-referenced posting which will outline the direction this weblog will take in the indefinite future from that point on.
But before departing until at least St. Stephen's day (December 26, 2007), I want to remind readers of what I wrote at this time last year about the Christmas season and giving. And while this season is one where giving has a special place, it should not be the only time of year. Try at whatever time of year though to do what you can to avoid taking any more of the spotlight than you have to.
And (of course) may the readers of this humble weblog have a most blessed Christmas.
I made a few additions to yesterday's posting including adding a few more tidbits to the expository musing and a video clip. With Christmas being upon us now, it is time to take leave from blogging to tend to a number of matters which take significant priority.
I hope to get a few more postings up before the end of the year including the thrice-referenced posting which will outline the direction this weblog will take in the indefinite future from that point on.
But before departing until at least St. Stephen's day (December 26, 2007), I want to remind readers of what I wrote at this time last year about the Christmas season and giving. And while this season is one where giving has a special place, it should not be the only time of year. Try at whatever time of year though to do what you can to avoid taking any more of the spotlight than you have to.
And (of course) may the readers of this humble weblog have a most blessed Christmas.
Commemorating a Blues Classic:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Born Under A Bad Sign Turns 40
As today is the fifteenth anniversary of the passing of blues legend Albert King (1923-1992), it seems appropriate to say something of note on that anniversary and another milestone to which he will forever be associated with. But first a small bit from the above link:
Born Under A Bad Sign was unlike any blues album that came before—or since. And four decades after its release, guitarists everywhere are still reeling.
To start with, the actual birthday of the album was back in August but for all the talk about the music of the "Summer of Love" and the great albums released that year from The Beatles, Cream, Jimi Hendrix, and countless others,{1} one album that has consistently not been mentioned was blues legend Albert King's seminal 1967 album Born Under A Bad Sign.
Rarely has an album been released that completely redefined an entire genre of music (in this case, the blues) and had influence radiating beyond its genre. Furthermore, it is rare that a musician who forged his own unique style and innovated his own licks to have had so many licks stolen -both consciously as well as unconsciously- by fellow musicians who generally received greater recognition than him.
Eric Clapton was lauded as "God" in Britain as far back as 1965 when he was reproducing licks from Albert King's Bobbin Records sessions of the late 1950's and early 1960's. Jimi Hendrix would put his guitar down and pick up a bass to back up King on stage so he could study the man's technique which was wholly original. Fellow blues titans who had reached acclaim and wider audiences when King was still toiling in relative obscurity (i.e. Otis Rush, Freddie King) and who both had earlier influential hits and later significant successes (i.e. Albert Collins) to a man noticeably revamped their styles of play as a result of King's influence.
Clapton's work on Cream's two biggest albums (particularly 1967's Disraeli Gears) and Jimi Hendrix's Are You Experienced? and subsequent albums have so many copped licks from King (including at times solos nearly note for note) that they should have paid the man royalties.{2} Albert King was also the only bluesmen of that era who consistently sold equally to both black and white listening audiences without changing the fundamentals of his playing style an iota. But while not changing in the fundamentals, he did nonetheless show a capacity for applying his playing style to a variety of rhythmic stylings.
His earliest recordings for Bobbin in the late 1950's for example had more of a swinging jazz approach to them and this carried a bit into the early 1960's. By the mid 1960's, he was the only bluesman on the St. Louis-based Stax label and recording singles with the rhythmic backing of Booker T. and the MG's. After the breakout of Born Under A Bad Sign and a slew of live performances that followed, King at the age of 43 finally crossed over to the white audience and solidified blues as not a dying form but one which was vibrant, living, and adaptable.
This carried into the early 1970's where when funk came about, he utilized funk rhythms and later even some disco rhythms on albums from the late 1970's. But despite those things, the core of his style never changed and he continued to sell about evenly to black and white audiences. This is significant because better known blues musicians (such as BB King) did not accomplish the same feat.{3} He continued to play concerts all the way up to the end of his life with what he may have lost in the final year of his life{4} being minor at best.
Blues would not sound the way it does today if not for Albert King. The same is the case for rock and roll, for "heavy metal", or any other genre you could mention from that time. So for that reason alone, Albert King deserves to be remembered and on this the fifteenth anniversary of his passing and the fortieth anniversary year of THE most important blues album of the past fifty years (if not of all time), that is what we intend to do here at Rerum Novarum.
The video below is from a DVD titled Albert King Live in Sweden from 1980 which suffers from being way too short and the song below being broken up in the middle with an interview which would have been better either at the beginning or end of the song. Oh well, you can still catch from the parts you can hear some of the elements behind his unique approach to playing and singing. The man just oozed soul with every note played as a statement unto itself -something these guitar shredder types completely miss. Nonetheless...
Rest in peace Albert.
Notes:
{1} 1967 was also the year of debut albums by Pink Floyd and The Grateful Dead.
{2} The biggest culprit in this area was Stevie Ray Vaughan but Vaughan was also the most generous of the bunch -never failing to give Albert King his due as the significant cornerstone influence in Vaughan's own style of play. For more on the relationship between these two, see this album review we posted back in January of 2006.
{3} Well in BB's case, he did with his 1970 hit The Thrill is Gone but that was an exception to the rule.
{4} He lost a lot of weight in his final year due to diabetes and that coupled with a bit of hearing loss affected his playing a bit at that time.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Born Under A Bad Sign Turns 40
As today is the fifteenth anniversary of the passing of blues legend Albert King (1923-1992), it seems appropriate to say something of note on that anniversary and another milestone to which he will forever be associated with. But first a small bit from the above link:
Born Under A Bad Sign was unlike any blues album that came before—or since. And four decades after its release, guitarists everywhere are still reeling.
To start with, the actual birthday of the album was back in August but for all the talk about the music of the "Summer of Love" and the great albums released that year from The Beatles, Cream, Jimi Hendrix, and countless others,{1} one album that has consistently not been mentioned was blues legend Albert King's seminal 1967 album Born Under A Bad Sign.
Rarely has an album been released that completely redefined an entire genre of music (in this case, the blues) and had influence radiating beyond its genre. Furthermore, it is rare that a musician who forged his own unique style and innovated his own licks to have had so many licks stolen -both consciously as well as unconsciously- by fellow musicians who generally received greater recognition than him.
Eric Clapton was lauded as "God" in Britain as far back as 1965 when he was reproducing licks from Albert King's Bobbin Records sessions of the late 1950's and early 1960's. Jimi Hendrix would put his guitar down and pick up a bass to back up King on stage so he could study the man's technique which was wholly original. Fellow blues titans who had reached acclaim and wider audiences when King was still toiling in relative obscurity (i.e. Otis Rush, Freddie King) and who both had earlier influential hits and later significant successes (i.e. Albert Collins) to a man noticeably revamped their styles of play as a result of King's influence.
Clapton's work on Cream's two biggest albums (particularly 1967's Disraeli Gears) and Jimi Hendrix's Are You Experienced? and subsequent albums have so many copped licks from King (including at times solos nearly note for note) that they should have paid the man royalties.{2} Albert King was also the only bluesmen of that era who consistently sold equally to both black and white listening audiences without changing the fundamentals of his playing style an iota. But while not changing in the fundamentals, he did nonetheless show a capacity for applying his playing style to a variety of rhythmic stylings.
His earliest recordings for Bobbin in the late 1950's for example had more of a swinging jazz approach to them and this carried a bit into the early 1960's. By the mid 1960's, he was the only bluesman on the St. Louis-based Stax label and recording singles with the rhythmic backing of Booker T. and the MG's. After the breakout of Born Under A Bad Sign and a slew of live performances that followed, King at the age of 43 finally crossed over to the white audience and solidified blues as not a dying form but one which was vibrant, living, and adaptable.
This carried into the early 1970's where when funk came about, he utilized funk rhythms and later even some disco rhythms on albums from the late 1970's. But despite those things, the core of his style never changed and he continued to sell about evenly to black and white audiences. This is significant because better known blues musicians (such as BB King) did not accomplish the same feat.{3} He continued to play concerts all the way up to the end of his life with what he may have lost in the final year of his life{4} being minor at best.
Blues would not sound the way it does today if not for Albert King. The same is the case for rock and roll, for "heavy metal", or any other genre you could mention from that time. So for that reason alone, Albert King deserves to be remembered and on this the fifteenth anniversary of his passing and the fortieth anniversary year of THE most important blues album of the past fifty years (if not of all time), that is what we intend to do here at Rerum Novarum.
The video below is from a DVD titled Albert King Live in Sweden from 1980 which suffers from being way too short and the song below being broken up in the middle with an interview which would have been better either at the beginning or end of the song. Oh well, you can still catch from the parts you can hear some of the elements behind his unique approach to playing and singing. The man just oozed soul with every note played as a statement unto itself -something these guitar shredder types completely miss. Nonetheless...
Rest in peace Albert.
Notes:
{1} 1967 was also the year of debut albums by Pink Floyd and The Grateful Dead.
{2} The biggest culprit in this area was Stevie Ray Vaughan but Vaughan was also the most generous of the bunch -never failing to give Albert King his due as the significant cornerstone influence in Vaughan's own style of play. For more on the relationship between these two, see this album review we posted back in January of 2006.
{3} Well in BB's case, he did with his 1970 hit The Thrill is Gone but that was an exception to the rule.
{4} He lost a lot of weight in his final year due to diabetes and that coupled with a bit of hearing loss affected his playing a bit at that time.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Sunday, December 16, 2007
On Mitt Romney, Conservatives, and the Judiciary:
(Dialogue With Kevin Tierney)
Kevin's words will be in shale coloured font. Without further ado...
So I pursue some reading today, and it talks about how [Mitt] Romney didn’t really oppose same sex marriage. They state that when the court forced the issue, Romney complied.
That is no different than Appellate Court Justice John Roberts voting to confirm Roe vs. Wade in 2003. It did not mean he supported the decision. He was doing what an appellate judge is supposed to do: affirm the laws on the books whether they personally like them or not. Nor in his hearings when he said RvW was "settled law" mean that he did not intend to find a way of overturning that abominable excuse for a proper common law judgment{1} when it was feasible to do. It merely meant he recognized that it was the law until that law was changed.
When faced with the fact that Romney had to obey, they proclaim that Romney should’ve pulled an Andrew Jackson “Justice Marshall has made his decision, let him enforce it.”
That is Jacksonian Democracy at it starkest there. And while hard to be too critical of Andrew Jackson overall -as we would have lost to Great Britain had he not through clever strategery taken out installations in Florida and forced the British to invade at New Orleans- it is also true that what one does when involved in their very survival differs from decisions made in a more calm and secure scenario.
I never understood this fascination with people championing Jackson’s statement.
It has to do with the rise in judicial activism in recent decades. People repine for a simpler time when justices did not invent law and instead sought to rule in accordance with the law. Justice Marshall was the crown jewel of President John Adams' administration apart from Adams keeping us out of full-blown war with France in the last three years of his presidency. There is irony in Adams abhorring Alexander Hamilton as he did but then appointed as Chief Justice someone who was ideologically a Hamilton acolyte. Of course Hamilton and Adams were not diametrically opposite one another ideologically -they both had Federalist outlooks overall- but there is a splendid irony in Marshall's tenure on the court and the decisions he made which shaped it.{2} He was unquestionably the most important chief justice in history but I have optimism that we may see in Chief Justice John Roberts and his court a similar period of judicial cultivation.
But in a summary statement, it is Jackson's statement of telling the Supreme Court to go pound sand which those fascinated with his statement like. Unfortunately, the pre-Roberts courts -going back to at least the late 1930's to an increasingly degree since with the Rhenquist court not exactly doing a complete about face on the matter- have soured a lot of people's countenance on the matter of the Supreme Court and what its limitations are constitutionally. And people in that frame of mind like to see someone stand up to them even if they project Jackson into the present day and his words as applying to certain decisions of the Court in recent decades.{3}
The issue at hand was the forcible removal by United States troops of American Indians. The state of Georgia also attempted to force the Cherokees to abide by Georgia state laws, a clear violation of existing treaties between the federal government and the Indians.
That is correct. The Cherokees were a nation unto their own and therefore the proper relation to the United States was on the federal level, not that of the states.
There’s no doubt that what Jackson did was clearly unconstitutional, and a grave usurpation of executive power.
The problem is, Jackson should have set aside his personal views and executed the decision of the Court. This was not a case of the Court ruling in a fashion that violated the Constitution as was the case with the 2005 Kelo decision.{4}
He ignored the Supreme Court ruling and his actions culminated in the trail of tears, where thousands of Indians died.
Not only that but President Jackson took it a step beyond that. When some Cherokees signed the Treaty of New Enchota in 1835, President Jackson lobbied the Senate to ratify it which they did by one vote. (It was then proclaimed in May of 1836.) President Jackson then escaped the ramifications of the treaty by turning over the presidency to the incoming Martin Van Buren in March of 1837 who refused to consider that the treaty itself was possibly invalid because those who signed it were not authorized by the Cherokee nation to do so. The rest sadly enough is history.
When people study history, nobody ever talks about the Trail of Tears as a highpoint of American History.
Well, no one I am aware of does. The idea of reservations themselves are not the issue with me as much as how this was handled. Those who did not want to assimilate should have been allowed to retain their land either wholly or in part and received just compensation for the rest. But without question the Cherokee relocation was a black mark on this nation's history.
Jackson flagrantly violated the Constitution he was sworn to uphold, his actions were fueled by bigotry, and led to the death of thousands.
Andrew Jackson was very much a despiser of Indians and this went back to his history as a warrior fighting the Indians.The problem is, as President of the United States you have a responsibility to the common good in a way that you do not as a military man. And on the matter in question, one could argue that President Jackson should have recused himself -his lobbying for the passage of the treaty certainly does not fall under the category of "recusing oneself" or at least I do not see how it does.
And conservatives want to emulate this???
Well, this is an example of wanting the wrong thing for the right reasons on the part of many conservatives. Judicial activism is rightfully deplored by so many of them. But you do not fight judicial activism by refusing to recognize the rule of law. I understand the problem with judicial activism and I sympathize with those who parrot the famous Jackson dictum on Justice Marshall. However, once one side sanctions judicial activism, they have no recourse against the other side doing it as well. And without recognizing the rule of law, we are no better than the animals -that is the bottom line really.
Notes:
{1} On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)
{2} Not to mention that John Adams sent his son John Quincy to clerk for Alexander Hamilton when the latter was arguing cases in court -another interesting irony in the Adams-Hamilton saga to put it mildly.
{3} I will not lie: I had Jackson's statement in mind after the Rhenquist Court ruled on Kelo case back in 2005. If not for the fact that the decision made me so livid I could not write genteelly on the matter, I would have blogged on it at the time in some detail.
{4} One of several cases in recent decades prior to the Roberts Court where this was unquestionably done as the pretenses of judicial activism grew amongst the "penumbra of a penumbra of a penumbra" crowd of make-it-up-as-you-do Constitutional so-called "interpretation." Chief Justice Marshall's words in his ruling of Worcester vs. Georgia in 1832 should be branded onto the forehead of every nominee to the high court:
"If it be true that the Cherokee nation have rights, this is not the tribunal in which those rights are to be asserted. If it be true that wrongs have been inflicted, and that still greater are to be apprehended, this is not the tribunal which can redress the past or prevent the future."
That embodies a principle that was misplaced in a good chunk of the twentieth century. Hopefully with the Roberts Court we will see a court much more like the Marshall Court than any Court of the previous six decades plus were.
(Dialogue With Kevin Tierney)
Kevin's words will be in shale coloured font. Without further ado...
So I pursue some reading today, and it talks about how [Mitt] Romney didn’t really oppose same sex marriage. They state that when the court forced the issue, Romney complied.
That is no different than Appellate Court Justice John Roberts voting to confirm Roe vs. Wade in 2003. It did not mean he supported the decision. He was doing what an appellate judge is supposed to do: affirm the laws on the books whether they personally like them or not. Nor in his hearings when he said RvW was "settled law" mean that he did not intend to find a way of overturning that abominable excuse for a proper common law judgment{1} when it was feasible to do. It merely meant he recognized that it was the law until that law was changed.
When faced with the fact that Romney had to obey, they proclaim that Romney should’ve pulled an Andrew Jackson “Justice Marshall has made his decision, let him enforce it.”
That is Jacksonian Democracy at it starkest there. And while hard to be too critical of Andrew Jackson overall -as we would have lost to Great Britain had he not through clever strategery taken out installations in Florida and forced the British to invade at New Orleans- it is also true that what one does when involved in their very survival differs from decisions made in a more calm and secure scenario.
I never understood this fascination with people championing Jackson’s statement.
It has to do with the rise in judicial activism in recent decades. People repine for a simpler time when justices did not invent law and instead sought to rule in accordance with the law. Justice Marshall was the crown jewel of President John Adams' administration apart from Adams keeping us out of full-blown war with France in the last three years of his presidency. There is irony in Adams abhorring Alexander Hamilton as he did but then appointed as Chief Justice someone who was ideologically a Hamilton acolyte. Of course Hamilton and Adams were not diametrically opposite one another ideologically -they both had Federalist outlooks overall- but there is a splendid irony in Marshall's tenure on the court and the decisions he made which shaped it.{2} He was unquestionably the most important chief justice in history but I have optimism that we may see in Chief Justice John Roberts and his court a similar period of judicial cultivation.
But in a summary statement, it is Jackson's statement of telling the Supreme Court to go pound sand which those fascinated with his statement like. Unfortunately, the pre-Roberts courts -going back to at least the late 1930's to an increasingly degree since with the Rhenquist court not exactly doing a complete about face on the matter- have soured a lot of people's countenance on the matter of the Supreme Court and what its limitations are constitutionally. And people in that frame of mind like to see someone stand up to them even if they project Jackson into the present day and his words as applying to certain decisions of the Court in recent decades.{3}
The issue at hand was the forcible removal by United States troops of American Indians. The state of Georgia also attempted to force the Cherokees to abide by Georgia state laws, a clear violation of existing treaties between the federal government and the Indians.
That is correct. The Cherokees were a nation unto their own and therefore the proper relation to the United States was on the federal level, not that of the states.
There’s no doubt that what Jackson did was clearly unconstitutional, and a grave usurpation of executive power.
The problem is, Jackson should have set aside his personal views and executed the decision of the Court. This was not a case of the Court ruling in a fashion that violated the Constitution as was the case with the 2005 Kelo decision.{4}
He ignored the Supreme Court ruling and his actions culminated in the trail of tears, where thousands of Indians died.
Not only that but President Jackson took it a step beyond that. When some Cherokees signed the Treaty of New Enchota in 1835, President Jackson lobbied the Senate to ratify it which they did by one vote. (It was then proclaimed in May of 1836.) President Jackson then escaped the ramifications of the treaty by turning over the presidency to the incoming Martin Van Buren in March of 1837 who refused to consider that the treaty itself was possibly invalid because those who signed it were not authorized by the Cherokee nation to do so. The rest sadly enough is history.
When people study history, nobody ever talks about the Trail of Tears as a highpoint of American History.
Well, no one I am aware of does. The idea of reservations themselves are not the issue with me as much as how this was handled. Those who did not want to assimilate should have been allowed to retain their land either wholly or in part and received just compensation for the rest. But without question the Cherokee relocation was a black mark on this nation's history.
Jackson flagrantly violated the Constitution he was sworn to uphold, his actions were fueled by bigotry, and led to the death of thousands.
Andrew Jackson was very much a despiser of Indians and this went back to his history as a warrior fighting the Indians.The problem is, as President of the United States you have a responsibility to the common good in a way that you do not as a military man. And on the matter in question, one could argue that President Jackson should have recused himself -his lobbying for the passage of the treaty certainly does not fall under the category of "recusing oneself" or at least I do not see how it does.
And conservatives want to emulate this???
Well, this is an example of wanting the wrong thing for the right reasons on the part of many conservatives. Judicial activism is rightfully deplored by so many of them. But you do not fight judicial activism by refusing to recognize the rule of law. I understand the problem with judicial activism and I sympathize with those who parrot the famous Jackson dictum on Justice Marshall. However, once one side sanctions judicial activism, they have no recourse against the other side doing it as well. And without recognizing the rule of law, we are no better than the animals -that is the bottom line really.
Notes:
{1} On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)
{2} Not to mention that John Adams sent his son John Quincy to clerk for Alexander Hamilton when the latter was arguing cases in court -another interesting irony in the Adams-Hamilton saga to put it mildly.
{3} I will not lie: I had Jackson's statement in mind after the Rhenquist Court ruled on Kelo case back in 2005. If not for the fact that the decision made me so livid I could not write genteelly on the matter, I would have blogged on it at the time in some detail.
{4} One of several cases in recent decades prior to the Roberts Court where this was unquestionably done as the pretenses of judicial activism grew amongst the "penumbra of a penumbra of a penumbra" crowd of make-it-up-as-you-do Constitutional so-called "interpretation." Chief Justice Marshall's words in his ruling of Worcester vs. Georgia in 1832 should be branded onto the forehead of every nominee to the high court:
"If it be true that the Cherokee nation have rights, this is not the tribunal in which those rights are to be asserted. If it be true that wrongs have been inflicted, and that still greater are to be apprehended, this is not the tribunal which can redress the past or prevent the future."
That embodies a principle that was misplaced in a good chunk of the twentieth century. Hopefully with the Roberts Court we will see a court much more like the Marshall Court than any Court of the previous six decades plus were.
Friday, December 14, 2007
It's What We Call The News
It has been a while since we checked in with Jibjab and this one from earlier in the year ticked our fancy. As usual, their astute "commentary" explains it well...in this case the BS that we so often call "news" these days.
It has been a while since we checked in with Jibjab and this one from earlier in the year ticked our fancy. As usual, their astute "commentary" explains it well...in this case the BS that we so often call "news" these days.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Briefly before I forget to mention it again, I referred to a posting back on November 18th that was forthcoming on this humble weblog in the following words:
I have finally decided as of yesterday morning to outline a few things pertaining to where this weblog has focused in the past year as well as what my blogging policies will be into the indefinite future. Hints have been dropped here and there in the past year (some intentional, others were of a more implicit nature) since I outlined early in 2007 some areas I wanted to focus on both in blogging as well as in the real world in general. I do not want to say more on it until then as that posting will explain things adequately- both by revisiting those previously enunciated intentions and also point out certain factors subsequent to them which have crystallized my mind on the matters at hand both with blogging as well as real life.[...] But enough on that for now -see the thread when it is finished and blogged (which it will be on November 22nd) for more details. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 18, 2007)]
The thread spoke of in the above posting was substantially completed when those words were blogged but remains to be reviewed and refined before it is ready for actual posting. I originally was optimistic for a November 22nd completion but in a posting written on November 21st{1} realized it was not yet ready. This acknowledgement was made in these words:
I just realized that November 22nd is Thanksgiving and therefore am moving the posting previously scheduled for that day until probably November 24th. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 22, 2007)]
And of course I had to issue a further clarification on the matter two days later in the form of an update note to the posting of November 22nd in these words:
Update: I have neither the time nor the desire to deal with that posting at the present time. It will be added in the coming week probably on Monday. -ISM 11/24/07 7:25 pm. [ibid]
It does not take much astuteness to note that the post itself has not been put up yet. Like several projects I have had in mind doing which have not materialized as of yet, things beyond my control prevented it. Nonetheless, I will be tending to it soon along with the unfinished projects I still intend to undertake completing -their number dwindling with each passing day and greater reflection on my part as to the expediency of spending time on them notwithstanding.
Note:
{1} It was written then but would not post on the evening of November 21st for some reason.
I have finally decided as of yesterday morning to outline a few things pertaining to where this weblog has focused in the past year as well as what my blogging policies will be into the indefinite future. Hints have been dropped here and there in the past year (some intentional, others were of a more implicit nature) since I outlined early in 2007 some areas I wanted to focus on both in blogging as well as in the real world in general. I do not want to say more on it until then as that posting will explain things adequately- both by revisiting those previously enunciated intentions and also point out certain factors subsequent to them which have crystallized my mind on the matters at hand both with blogging as well as real life.[...] But enough on that for now -see the thread when it is finished and blogged (which it will be on November 22nd) for more details. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 18, 2007)]
The thread spoke of in the above posting was substantially completed when those words were blogged but remains to be reviewed and refined before it is ready for actual posting. I originally was optimistic for a November 22nd completion but in a posting written on November 21st{1} realized it was not yet ready. This acknowledgement was made in these words:
I just realized that November 22nd is Thanksgiving and therefore am moving the posting previously scheduled for that day until probably November 24th. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 22, 2007)]
And of course I had to issue a further clarification on the matter two days later in the form of an update note to the posting of November 22nd in these words:
Update: I have neither the time nor the desire to deal with that posting at the present time. It will be added in the coming week probably on Monday. -ISM 11/24/07 7:25 pm. [ibid]
It does not take much astuteness to note that the post itself has not been put up yet. Like several projects I have had in mind doing which have not materialized as of yet, things beyond my control prevented it. Nonetheless, I will be tending to it soon along with the unfinished projects I still intend to undertake completing -their number dwindling with each passing day and greater reflection on my part as to the expediency of spending time on them notwithstanding.
Note:
{1} It was written then but would not post on the evening of November 21st for some reason.
Points to Ponder:
(Pertaining to the Mainstream Media's Reporting on Iraq)
Your country is rich and I want you to set aside differences between yourselves and your Sunni brothers and stand like a formidable mountain against attempts by certain satellite networks which try to disrupt this unity because these networks exaggerate about the reports of deaths and explosions and depict them in a way as if tribal war is underway in Iraq. [Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani (circa September 26, 2007)]
(Pertaining to the Mainstream Media's Reporting on Iraq)
Your country is rich and I want you to set aside differences between yourselves and your Sunni brothers and stand like a formidable mountain against attempts by certain satellite networks which try to disrupt this unity because these networks exaggerate about the reports of deaths and explosions and depict them in a way as if tribal war is underway in Iraq. [Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani (circa September 26, 2007)]
Better to Be Ruled By A Wise Mormon Than A Foolish Baptist (Kevin Tierney)
In trying to get a handle on a variety of issues both in real life as well as of a blogging nature, I requested of my friend to write a commentary on Mitt Romney's recent big speech. I anticipated a good text but Kevin really exceeded himself. Without hesitation I recommend as a substantial accounting of my own view on the subject in question the above commentary to the readers of Rerum Novarum.
In trying to get a handle on a variety of issues both in real life as well as of a blogging nature, I requested of my friend to write a commentary on Mitt Romney's recent big speech. I anticipated a good text but Kevin really exceeded himself. Without hesitation I recommend as a substantial accounting of my own view on the subject in question the above commentary to the readers of Rerum Novarum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)