More on Senator John McCain, the Boundaries of Conservative Republican Thought Historically Speaking, and Certain Troubling Contemporary Ahistorical So-Called "Conservative" Trends Thereof:
(Part II of a Dialogue)
This posting is a continuation from the first part of a dialogual series which (if you have not read it yet) can be accessed here. I also want to remind the readers of the colour schemata noted in the first part of the series so there is (hopefully) no confusion as to who said what and where:
The orange font is from the emailer's original email while light blue font is my responses to the emailer's original note. The dark green font is from the emailer's follow-up to my first response while the regular blog font colour is my response to the emailer's follow-up note. Any sources I quote in this note will be in dark blue font and possibly smaller type as a result of the format this original text was taken from (I do not have time to change it). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
Without further ado...
The budget grew over 30% with a Republican congress during the first six years of his presidency. As the only reason we got Alito was a refusal to accept Miers and as the surge only was announced after the Republicans lost congress, even half of those achievements can be taken away as minimal concessions W made. It would not be hard for McCain to be more conservative than W as the bar sure is not set that high. I would advise that you put down the crack pipe and look at W's real record. The liberals like [name deleted] who savage him have it all wrong: he is one of them. All the Republicans did in six years of congressional control with a Republican president is vindicate my decision after the 96 elections to throw them under the bus. I saw this coming then in faint outline when the Republicans did not have the guts to follow through when Clinton called them on their bluff about the government shut down, when they achieved virtually nothing they solemnly pledged to do with the Contract With America except welfare reform and eventually a balanced budget. And the final straw for me was when the establishment stacked the deck to give the nomination to Dole in a year where probably any of the other candidates in a general election would have beaten Clinton. As Limbaugh and others pretended otherwise, I saw problems with the Republicans in congress then and in the establishment. But unlike them, I was not and have not felt any obligation to support them.
I supported W in 2000 partly because the thought of Gore as president was disturbing but also because he appeared to be an an energetic executive and I knew that such would be needed. This nation always needs an energetic executive as the federalists like Hamilton, Morris, Washington, Adams, and others (including Madison initially and then later on as president) realized and supported. W in that role has been horrible. I am not about to publicly bash him though as it is unbecoming to do so in the final year of a lame duck presidency but that does not means I will not say this in private to you and others -or say so publicly in a benign manner and leave it at that without explanation. Much the way I did not bash the pre-surge approach even though I thought it was short sighted and a failure (something I admitted on the blog only in mid [to late] 2007 after the surge was so obviously working) I am not going to give any additional ammunition to those who want to hang on the Republican nominee the W Bush record. But the reason is more tactical than any special affinity I have for W.
[Disclaimer: Obviously by posting this thread, I changed my mind about not mentioning this stuff publicly -SM]
Boy, Shawn you know how to serve up the red herring with the best of them. I have never said that Bush didn't have his problems or that the GOP doesn't have its serious problems. I have made almost identical laments regarding both and you know it!
I am aware of your laments on those matters.
What I am saying is that Bush is better than McCain would be, that's all.
I disagree with you on that point XXXXXXX -primarily because I refuse to negatively judge McCain presidential potential before he goes into office should he be elected president. I would not have disagreed in 2000 (where I supported W over McCain) but that was eight years ago and I instinctively went with the party with executive experience over the one that did not: Bush having run businesses as well as been Governor of Texas. I also had a lot of optimism about what W would be able to accomplish...you know the whole "now that we have a Republican president and Republican congress we will show the Democrats what it means to govern in a fiscally conservative fashion" sort of stuff. Thanks to that bunch of losers they may well have destroyed the Republican party as a viable party right when the Democrats themselves can only win by claiming to not be Republicans. Pretty sad really.
To wit: the war. All of McCain's newly found conservative sycophants are talking about how much of a hawk on the war Johnny Mac is. Let's see, he wants to close Gitmo, which means bringing terrorists here to the U.S. which would afford them constitutional rights.
Not necessarily. Senator McCain does not favour giving terrorists constitutional rights and has said this bluntly more than once. Indeed with this current Supreme Court, they are not likely to get a sympathetic hearing if we look at the totality of the decisions they have handed down on national security issues thus far.
And as far as the detainees getting the rights of American citizens (read: constitutional rights), consider the following from last month:
I asked the Senator whether he would have any reservations about the execution of the six detainees on trial at Guantanamo Bay for their role in the 9/11 attacks, whether he is comfortable with the current legal regime for trying detainees, and whether the interrogation techniques used there cast doubt on the fairness of the trials. His response:
McCain: No. I would not have concerns. I rely to a large degree on my friend Lindsey Graham, who is a JAG lawyer and who has been intimately involved in this whole process. These are not individuals who deserve the protections of the kind of judicial process that a citizen of the United States would have. We did not give those rights and privileges in the Nuremberg tribunals...these tribunals as far as I can tell...are appropriate and they are the way to address these particular cases...and there's nothing in the Geneva Conventions or any other rule of law that I've ever seen that said that the same rights and privileges apply to them as apply to American citizens. [LINK]
In other words, your assumption that closing Gitmo would involve the defacto giving of constitutional rights to terrorists does not jive with what McCain has noted he wants to do.
He also has been [moonbat]-like on the torture issue sponsoring what Rush Limbaugh rightly calls the "al Qaeda bill of rights. He also uses Kerryequse global test lingo, lamenting about how the appeasement-loving "rest of the world" would view us if we used heavy handed interrogation techniques, even in ticking time bomb scenario question. I think Tom Tancredo had a great line in response to that when he said, "Worry about waterboarding? I'm looking for Jack Bauer." After all, effective interrogation and intelligence gathering (and yes, if that necessitates torture, which by the way is not intrinsically evil, in and of itself, despite how hard [name deleted] and [name deleted] want to spin it, then so be it!) is essential to any war effort. And McCain has worked hard to undermine our ability to do just that. If McCain is a hawk, give me a dove, please!
This is a subject that McCain has firsthand knowledge about unlike you and me. I place very little stock in military advice asserted dogmatically by those who do not understand the environment involved. You certainly served in the military but to my knowledge (and correct me if I am wrong) you cannot claim any expertise in this area -and even if you could I would assess your statements in the same manner I do anyone else's.
Being a POW by itself does not give someone expertise in this area.
I did not say it gave expert status now did I??? It does not bode well to accuse me of red herrings and then immediately do the same thing yourself !!!
In fact, an argument can made that because of such a truamatic experience, it can cloud one's judgment.
Arguments can be made for both sides of this. I have my views on the matter and they happen to coincide with yours for the most part. But that does not mean that those who disagree with us on this matter cannot legitimately call themselves conservatives. Differences in the application of agreed upon principles are not the stuff of anathemas.
Many of those who have real expertise, like trained interrogators, as well as documented evidence of the effectiveness of methods McCain opposes (waterboarding got Khalid Shiekh Mohammed to give up key information) carry alot more weight than McCain's experience as a POW does here.
I am not comparing McCain's experience as a POW with the views of trained interrogators. That is quite an apples and oranges attempt on your part. However, I will always give some credence to those who have been in the arena over ivory tower sorts who theorize about what they have no actual experience of.
And quite frankly I don't think McCain's exerience as a POW is influencing his positions as much as political opportunism is. He just uses the former to advance the latter. And I think that much is rather clear to anyone who has intelligent eyes to see with.
There are trained interrogators who support the methods McCain opposes and trained interrogators who oppose them. I am not making my support for them a sine qua non of what constitutes being "conservative" XXXXXXX. It appears to me though that you are doing this and on what basis???
Furthermore, you apparently are not aware that when the Senate voted to ban federal agencies from using interrogation tactics not in the US Army Field Manuel (one of which is waterboarding), McCain opposed the proposed ban. It is certainly possible that he is gambling on the Bush Administration not using that approach again rather than take a stance on an outright ban but it is on the record for those who are interested in knowing how their senators and representatives vote on issues.
Furthermore, Why is it that when Dick Durban says what he says about comparing our troops and intelligence agents to Pol Pot, he is engagin in sedition while McCain's positions are really no different in substance and McCain gets a pass because he was a POW?
When did McCain in any respect approximate Dick Durbin??? It is true that McCain noted that one of the war crimes that the Japanese were tried for was waterboarding. It is also true that the manner in which they did it differs from the way in which we did. But you and I both know that that sort of nuance is lost on the lions share of people including the voting public. (Hell, look at the problem I am having trying to get a neutral point of view on Wikipedia on this subject for an illustration of this.) In a political season, nuanced positions are the death knell of election hopes. I wish it was otherwise but history demonstrates unequivocally that it is.
If anything McCain should have loudly denounced Durbin by saying "Senator Durbin, as one who experienced first hand the kind of treatment the Pol Pot-type communists treat their enemies, I can tell you you haven't the first clue as to what you are talking about. Whether or not you agree with the tactics our side uses they are nowhere close to that of the Pol Pot-types. And I demand you retract those vile comments." And McCain's credibility as a former POW would have been such that the left wouldn't have dared trying to demonize him for it.
I agree with you here in principle. However, you would do well to review the proceedings of that day and you would realize that the placement of Durbin's statement which was at the end of the legislative day just before the close of the session. He also raised it in the context of an energy bill and took some time to concur with proposed legislation from Senator Harkin of Iowa and then diverged into his tirade. You can see this by noting these threads where the entire speech was given:
RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD -- Senate - June 14, 2005 pg. 6591 (Senator Harkin and Senator Durbin) pgs. 6592-6593 (Senator Durbin recognized for 25 minutes)
RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD -- Senate - June 14, 2005 pg. 6594-6595 (Senator Dick Durbin with three minute extension of remarks granted)
You read that right: the subject in discussion when Durbin went off on his rant was the renewable fuel standard. Furthermore, if you read the Congressional Record, you will see that the very next entry is this one:
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW -- (Senate - June 14, 2005)
GPO's PDF
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 15, 2005. Thereupon, the Senate, at 7:19 p.m., adjourned until Wednesday, June 15, 2005, at 9:30 a.m.
LINK
In other words (to use a football analogy), Durbin used his time and leverage at that session to run out the clock -including taking the three minute extension when he did to insure that he could not be responded to in that session.{1} The next day, Durbin tried to defend himself without apologizing for the statements and was condemned for it by the leader of the Illinois Republican Party Chairman (Durbin is an Illinois senator). I am sure I could find the exact transcripts of Durbin's dodges from that day in the record if I had time to peruse it all. The day after that, Al Jazeera ran with the story. Then on Thursday, June 16, 2005, Durbin's refusal to retract and apologize for his statements was met with angry retorts by four Republican senators on June 17, 2005.
I unfortunately cannot find The Congressional Record for that Senate day online so I have no idea where to acquire the text offhand. (And the online congressional record site is blocked in the internet archive by the owner's robot.txt so I cannot verify if it was ever there or not.) However, based on what I can verify (and thanks to a bit of additional tracking in the internet archive for the thread), Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia was the primary bulldog on this and his age (81) and length of time in the Senate (since 1979) were of no small significance. Similarly Senator Mitch McConnell who is the senior senator from Kentucky who outranked McCain in the Senate by virtue of position (Senate Majority Whip at the time) and Senator McCain's fellow Arizona senator Jon Kyl (the junior senator from Arizona whose total time in the congress is the same as McCain's) was particularly vocal in his denouncements. So too was Senator Jeff Sessions the junior senator from Alabama.
If you want to claim that McCain also should have raised his voice, perhaps so but Durbin was getting hammered that day by a number of senators and justly so. It is possible that McCain viewed what the others did as adequate. I do not know because I cannot find the Congressional Record for that day to know who said what and where. But it is not as if Durbin went unrebuked for what he said and I am not about to put an unfavourable interpretation onto what happened out of personal animosity towards Senator McCain as you seem intent on doing.
But McCain was quieter than a mouse fart.
Considering the pummeling that Durbin was getting from mostly higher ranking or longer tenured senators, I do not have a problem with this. If no one had spoken up, it would be another matter altogether but "Turbin" Durbin did not get away with it now did he???
But yet when fellow GOP Sen. John Cornyn takes McCain to task for trying to shove amnesty down the throats of the American public, McCain tells him to "fuck off"!
That was a direct affront to McCain individually. And I say that not because I supported McCain's position...you presumably know that I have denounced amnesty proposals publicly and explicitly numerous times going back explicitly on this weblog over four years. But to compare a direct personal affront to McCain personally and a statement that at best implied McCain and from which four senators (three of which have equal or greater tenure or position of authority in the Senate) already responded to is a different kettle of fish altogether.
It would be akin to you being present while someone verbally attacked the military and then they were effectively slapped down in rebuke by a major general, a captain, a major, and a sergeant. Would you feel the need in that company to also say anything extra??? Probably not. But what if someone else came into the room and went after you personally??? It makes more sense that you would respond to them than you would in the first scenario.
Look, there is a degree of politics involved when you have elections and politicians running for office. And all candidates have to try and come across as to some extent diplomatic on various "hot point" issues -even if the degree of nuance and carefully chosen words for doing that can bother those who consider themselves the "real deal." We both think highly of President Reagan and he did this too -albeit not to the extent of most who run for office. Do not forget this: the last conservative candidate who bluntly told people what was what was Barry Goldwater and we know what happened to him when he ran for president. We had Duncan Hunter this time saying what was what and he got nowhere. Fred Thompson understood the issues better than the candidates running ahead of him and yet he could not catch traction either.
As far as Goldwater is concerned, it wasn't his conservatism that cost him the 64 election, it was one, he was running against the ghost of the recently assasinated JFK, something you had told me Goldwater admitted.
That was one reason sure. There were many ingredients to the gumbo and that was the one Goldwater generally focused most on -perhaps out of respect for his friend JFK who would have been man enough to stand or fall against Goldwater on issues unlike that cowardly bully Lyndon Johnson. Another was that he was half Jewish...Goldwater being an Anglicanized version of the name Goldwasser which was the name of his paternal grandfather. There were many reasons in essence -enough to probably write a book about.
Number two, the differences between conservatives and liberals were nowhere as stark back then as they are now.
Are you kidding??? XXXXXXX, I am laughing as I read that statement from you. There were some areas of common ground then which now do not exist now but there are also significant differences then which now no longer exist. Reagan's A Time For Choosing speech encapsulated the stark differences of the visions then and now and Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative -a book I still hold in high esteem for its role in the development of my political outlook years ago{2}- is still of great value in this area. Those sources should be perused by you if they have not been in a while.
Number three, Goldwater was not the articulate voice Reagan was at least when he was elected in 1980, if not at the time (many believe his Time for Choosing speech did more to advance the conservative cause back then than anything Goldwater said).
Goldwater was not the polished speaker that Reagan was but that was not a major factor -Senator Goldwater was a gifted public orator in his own right after all. What was a factor though is that Goldwater personally had a habit of saying what was on his mind without concern for whomever's overly delicate sensitivities he offended. Between that and certain conservative stances he took which were against the grain{3} and Johnson's campaign dirty tricks combined to sink Goldwater's candidacy -along with Eisenhower's refusal to support him because of Goldwater's late 1950's statement about the Eisenhower Administration being a "dime store new deal."
But those factors aside, Goldwater did break the establishment's decades old hold on the party as well as electorally breaking through the old "solid south" on principles for the first time in 110 years if we exclude Hoover's 1928 sweep of the south.{4} The involvement of McCarthy in 1968 helped Nixon get through and the result was the 1972 landslide which was duplicated and exceeded in 1980 and then in 1984. Etc.
As far as Duncan Hunter is concerned, his conservatism wasn't what sunk his candidcacy.
I never said it was. What I said was that he was similarly blunt as Goldwater and this contributed to him being unable to get traction in the crowded field -that and whomever ran his campaign deserving to be shot for gross incompetence but that is another matter altogether. His bluntness was one reason and the other was the media tarring him with the brush of that xenophobe Tancredo and pitching them as clones when they are not.
None of the candidates who were blunt on the problems got traction because the public as a rule does not like to hear the truth: a subject I am not about to go into now but that gets to the heart of it in a sentence.
Number one, he is just a former congressman who really didn't have much of a following.
His lack of being a governor was a liability this is true. (Executives like governors and mayors always have advantages in running for president.)
Number two, while there are things I like about Duncan Hunter, I think he has a great deal of growing up to do before he can be considered presidential timber. I think he ought to consider running for Governor of CA. That would give him the springboard from which to make a serious run at the presdiency.
I agree with this stance actually.
However, he would have to learn how do a better job as a campaigner. And he ought to rethink some of his populist positions. BTW, guess who Hunter endorsed after dropping out? You guessed it, Schmuckabee!
Must you remind me??? I already blogged on my disappointment with that right after it happened.
Now if you think Hunter is this great guy, but Huckabee is such as disgrace and Hunter endorses him over a more conservative and before he dropped out viable candidate Romney, what does that say about Duncan Hunter viz your view of Huckabee, hmmmmmmm?
I can understand a lot of people who had problems with Romney XXXXXXX. I was not one of them even if Romney was my fourth selection. Romney could not escape the suspicion of many that his views were changed so completely and so recently as to be questioned as to their substance and that was a key reason why his campaign faltered.
Fred Thompson? C'Mon man, you know that Thompson was asleep at the switch and showed absolutely no energy and didn't act anything like a serious candidate.
I was disappointed in the way Thompson ran generally speaking. Of those who were allowed into the debates, his statements on the positions were the most articulate and correct. Unfortunately, it takes more than that to run a campaign.
Quite frankly, if any of those candidates had made McCain defend his actions with any real seriousness, like they should have, McCain's candicacy would have been sunk a long time ago.
I cannot argue with you on that so I will not.
"You also need to remember what I said previously about how different offices come with different functions and the like. Senator McCain as a senator has a different role than he would as president and the difference of the office means a difference in how you go about doing things. To use a religious example, Cardinal Ratzinger when he was Pope John Paul II's CDF prefect approached issues one way and as Pope Benedict XVI his approach has been strikingly different. The difference is the positions: as CDF prefect, his role was preserving doctrine. As pope his role is guardian of the common unity and as the largest voice of Christian conscience in the world. We are seeing things from Benedict as pope that we did not see from Ratzinger the prefect and this is analogous to what a president does and what a senator does...not a perfect analogy but one that to some extent should be taken into consideration on this matter."
Please tell you are not serious here.
I am serious. I noted that the analogy was not perfect but it does nonetheless apply here to some extent.
Before this analogy can even be considered, you would have to cite an instance where Ratzinger had, in his capacity as CDF prefect, sided with those who dissent from Catholic doctrine against the pope.
No I do not. Conservatism is not exactly the same with the principles involved as Catholicism is with doctrine; however with applications of core principles there is a similarity and that is what I was referring to. On the latter, I could list a number of things that John Paul II did or sanctioned that Cardinal Ratzinger was not happy about. The difference between Ratzinger and McCain is that the former has a much greater store of prudence.
I understand the difference in roles between a senator and a president, but that is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is John McCain's active repeated attempts to undermine conservative efforts, while having the audcity of claiming to be a conservative. If you are going to try to insult my intelligence with a lame ass analogy like this, you could at least humor me and act like you are trying to intelligently interact with what I am saying. This is moonbat shit Shawn, really!
The analogy works albeit imperfectly. But considering your track-record thus far in being wider than Oprah's backside after a month of binging at Ezell's{5} of the mark, I would advise being careful in presuming any moonbattery on my part.
About McCain's allegedly seeking the VP spot on the John "F-ing" Kerry ticket. His denial wasn't all that passionate. I mean, if that wasn't true don't you think McCain would be screaming "HELL NO"?
Not necessarily. This is politics and those who habitually scream and rant are quickly painted as lunatics. Furthermore, this is not the senate or house floor where tirades could go mostly unreported -this is a candidate running for president and anything of this sort would be a major media point of focus. McCain is not that stupid whatever else you may want to say about him.
If McCain was even sympathetic to consevatism, not to mention being conservative, would have done so with more passion than he did. After all, he has no compunction in letting his temper fly when attacking conservatives.
This is speculation on your part. Not all conservative-minded people are the same way. And sometimes when McCain has attacked conservatives it was to avoid being painted with the same brush as those he does not agree with. You may not like this or you may question his prudence on the matter{6} but at bottom you are engaging in a lot of speculation and presuming the worst in McCain at every opportunity it seems.
I mean, any conservative in their right mind would, especially someone like Johnny Mac who can go ballastic with the best of them, would do at least that.
Depends on the situation and the place XXXXXXX. Going ballistic is not usually a good approach to take unless one does so sparingly.
Again, McCain does all the time when going after conservatives.
I already covered this.
To succeed in politics you have to be Machiavellian: smile and pretend all is well for the cameras (maybe be a touch snappy but not too much) and save the stack blowing for private.
Besides, McCain actually did publicly state he would consider it if asked.
As you raised this point again, let us deal with it to show the context.
And he also considered bolting the GOP but Jumpin' Jim jumped first first (say that real fast ten times) stealing his thunder.
Considering the sort of underhanded approaches that W's campaign used against Johnny O'Mac I can understand a possibility that he entertained the idea. But then again, I am one who is not a Republican anyway.
Exactly what underhanded approaches did W's campaign use against McCain? Proof please!
Read up on what happened in South Carolina in 2000 for starters. I have done enough thus far in tracking down sources to substantiate my positions against what you wrote and this email needs to be ended at some point.
In fact, Bush bent over backwards and sideways to accmodate John McCain, especially after he became president.
After he was president sure, I will not argue with that.
That's why he signed MF into law. It was a stupid ass thing to do, but that's why he did it.
McCain-Feingold was an unfortunate piece of legislation: well intended but woefully inadequate and procedurally problematical.
And, even granting that they did, how does this justify McCain's behavior? I mean this would not only hurt the GOP, it would have hurt the conservative aganda all the more.
There you go with the "conservative agenda" as if it is a single monolithic mentality when it is not. Conservatism is not whatever Rush Limbaugh says it is XXXXXXX.
McCain's even entertaining the idea of being VP on the ticket of the unrepentant John Kerry is at the very least tantamount to McCain, of all people, condoning Kerry's actions in 1971. Gee, I wonder what former Senator Jeremiah Denton thought of that, given the rather vitriolic way he criticized Kerry in 2004. Without minimizing McCain's ordeal, it paled in comparison to what Denton, along with Stockdale, went through. If you ever heard of the movie When Hell Was in Session that was about Denton's ordeal. If you can even "understand" why McCain would do some thing like this against this backdrop, you are suffereing from a strain of Bush Derangement Syndrome that is every bit as potent, albeit different, as that of what Stephen Hand and Mark Shea are suffereing from.
Again, can you provide serious proof of this other than from the mouth of the same John Kerry you would claim any other time was a lying fraud??? For until you do, I will not even dignify the above with a response. Aaah sod it, I will respond to this to show you just how RIDICULOUS this whole line of argument on your part is. Here goes:
McCain said in a television interview that he would consider the unorthodox step of running for vice president on the Democratic ticket — in the unlikely event he received such an offer from the presidential candidate. "John Kerry is a close friend of mine. We have been friends for years," McCain said Wednesday when pressed to squelch speculation about a Kerry-McCain ticket. "Obviously I would entertain it." Within hours, the Arizona senator's chief of staff, Mark Salter, closed the door on that idea. "Senator McCain will not be a candidate for vice president in 2004," Salter told The Associated Press, saying he spoke for the senator. McCain had emphasized how unlikely the whole idea was. "It's impossible to imagine the Democratic Party seeking a pro-life, free-trading, non-protectionist, deficit hawk," the senator told ABC's "Good Morning America" during an interview about illegal steroid use. "They'd have to be taking some steroids, I think, in order to let that happen." [LINK]
Yeah, that is a real serious response there!!! This is no different than if I were to entertain the idea of Rush Limbaugh giving me all the cigars in his humidors along with the humidors themselves if someone asked me if I was open to that idea. Sure I would entertain that idea (damn right I would!!!) but the likelihood of it{7} is so slim as to be considered impossible.
Honestly, I don't see where you're not and my being still Republican have anything to do with this.
Simple, I do not at any time feel compelled to have to defend Bush or the establishment Republicans whereas you by virtue of being a professed Republican give every appearance of needing to beyond the realm of the reasonable. Either that is the compulsion on your part or else it is taking the view that whatever Rush and Dave say is THE Conservative position and any other positions (even if they have longer pedigrees in the conservative movement) are anathema to "THE conservative movement." Boy, I thought it was liberals who claimed that conservatives marched in mindless lockstep fashion, not fellow conservatives!!!
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} The remaining senate time that day was to handle nominations and confirmations.
{2} The Conscience of a Conservative: An Upcoming Amazon Book Review (circa March 8, 2005)
{3} Including against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on constitutional principle rather than going along with the zeitgeist.
{4} Which I do because it was motivated by solely antiCatholic bigotry against Alfred Smith and not on actual principles.
{5} For those who do not know, Ezell's Chicken is a chain of sorts which serves southern style chicken, sweet potato pie, and a variety of other fixins which are simply delightful. Oprah has eaten there and her picture is on the wall along with her raves about the quality of the food. I happen to love the food there too though due to my current weight reduction regimen, I cannot allow myself to get anywhere in the vicinity of one of those places but I digress.
{6} Or his seeming inability to be as tactful in dealing with those he does not agree with as the late William F. Buckley Jr. and those of Buckley's mindset can do.
{7} You need to remember that the media asks politicians a lot of these "would you consider this hypothetical situation" kind of questions in press conferences and the like. It is considered part of the diplomatic game to play along generally speaking.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Points to Ponder:
(On the Vice of "Needing Public Approval")
I never suffered [from] the dire need for approval. Rather than be like a creeping vine climbing up a tall tree where I could not stand alone, I preferred to be intellectually-emotionally and morally self-sufficient. [Early in life], owing to the lack of proper, rational guidance, I was blindly rebellious and desperately sought self-assertion. As I matured, however, the blind rebelliousness progressively decreased; and I was less under the control of my subconscious, emotional sense of life, and became increasingly directed by an explicitly verbalized, conscious, rational philosophy of life. The blind rebellion had been replaced by a passionate desire to discover the dispassionate, objective truth. At the time that my maturation was reaching a pinnacle, I became thoroughly fact-centered, truth-oriented; which placed me out of step with the rest. It’s not that I was a lone wolf; it was that I learned to think for myself; which I came to understand required privacy. [Mike Mentzer (circa 2001)]
(On the Vice of "Needing Public Approval")
I never suffered [from] the dire need for approval. Rather than be like a creeping vine climbing up a tall tree where I could not stand alone, I preferred to be intellectually-emotionally and morally self-sufficient. [Early in life], owing to the lack of proper, rational guidance, I was blindly rebellious and desperately sought self-assertion. As I matured, however, the blind rebelliousness progressively decreased; and I was less under the control of my subconscious, emotional sense of life, and became increasingly directed by an explicitly verbalized, conscious, rational philosophy of life. The blind rebellion had been replaced by a passionate desire to discover the dispassionate, objective truth. At the time that my maturation was reaching a pinnacle, I became thoroughly fact-centered, truth-oriented; which placed me out of step with the rest. It’s not that I was a lone wolf; it was that I learned to think for myself; which I came to understand required privacy. [Mike Mentzer (circa 2001)]
Saturday, April 26, 2008
More on Senator John McCain, the Boundaries of Conservative Republican Thought Historically Speaking, and Certain Troubling Contemporary Ahistorical So-Called "Conservative" Trends Thereof:
(Part I of a Dialogue)
This is a follow up to a previous conversation which can be read here:
A Dialogue on John McCain and "Conservatism" (circa March 26, 2008)
To facilitate an easier following of who said what -as there are many layers to this thread in divers font colourings- the following hopefully will be of assistance.
The orange font is from the emailer's original email while light blue font is my responses to the emailer's original note. The dark green font is from the emailer's follow-up to my first response while the regular blog font colour is my response to the emailer's follow-up note. Any sources I quote in this note will be in dark blue font and possibly smaller type as a result of the format this original text was taken from (I do not have time to change it).
Without further ado...
Hello XXXXXXX:
First of all, I hope your Easter was a good one. Without further ado…
You surely did not think I would let this one pass now did you??? I could have of course if not for being accused of sophistry and red herrings by someone who quite evidently was wearing blinders when it comes to a variety of the pertinent factors involved in the discussion. Nonetheless…
Michael Medved (or Michael Methhead as he was affectionately referred to by a caller to Rick Roberts, a talk radio local yokel here in San Diego) has the audicity to call McCain a Reagan Republican here.
I read the thread the other day actually.
What kind of Reagan Republican busts his ass to endear himself to the leftist media, sellout to the pseudo-science loving global warming touting, Algore worshipping, envirommentally ill wackos, whose significant legislative achievements also bear the names of the most radical leftist Democraps in the Senate.
I remind you XXXXXXX that it is nearly impossible to do anything legislatively without some degree of reaching across the aisle unless one party dominates the congresses and the presidency significantly.
There's a big difference between reaching arcoss the aisle, making compromises that garner some kind of benefit for our side and putting on the opposition's uniform and singing their fight song, and help construct legislation that is purely antithetical to conservatism. McCain's "bipartisanship" is clearly in the latter category. Can you think of any legislation co-authored by McCain that even has a whiff of conservatism to it? I can't. I am shocked you would even try flaoting this canard by me in regards to McCain.
This line of argument on your part is puzzling to me because your choice of terms admits of a few interpretations. (Feel free to clarify which one you refer to.) When you say "coauthored" do you mean the same thing as "co-sponsored" or do you mean he had to have written it himself or been the key sponsor to it???
Of course no matter which standard above you are applying, your claim of "co-authored legislation" is a canard itself since the lions share of bills never make it out of committee anyway. According to the NAAYP{1} and a "hostile witness" if you will for the sake of this discussion, in the 107th Congress (2001-2002) there were 8,948 bills introduced into the House and Senate. Do you care to guess the number which actually became law??? Try 377. If you do the math, you will find that it comes out to about 4%. That is roughly the same percentage as with any session of Congress: about 95% of introduced bills in every session fail to become law for a variety of reasons and usually because they die in committee and do not even get voted on by the full congressional bodies and sent to the president to begin with. And bear in mind, that is the entire congress, not just Senator John McCain. This fact is why your request to find a "piece of legislation" is on its face rather humourous. But heck, let us up the ante a bit now shall we???
Since you want to argue in this fashion -and presumably because you were not aware of the low number of bills that even become law in any session: if you actually knew this would be disingenuous and I doubt that was your intention- I will ask you to tell me if you can think of any legislation that President Bush vetoed in the first six years of his presidency that had more than a mere whiff of liberalism to it??? I guarantee you I would have better luck with answering your question than you would mine because even if I found one example for McCain which meets your criteria, you will never find a single example that meets mine because W did not veto a single piece of legislation in his first six years!!! That showed tremendous executive weakness since unlike McCain and the laborious process that it takes for any proposed bill to become law, the president has a pretty solid way of not letting bad legislation through. It is called the veto pen...you know that thing he only discovered after the Democrats took over Congress.
It is hard enough to get a bill through for presidential consideration and a veto is darn difficult to override. The historical average on overrides is 4% with recent presidents (since Truman to draw the line somewhere) having the following percentage of success in over-riding a presidential veto:
Harry S. Truman: 5%
Dwight D. Eisenhower: 1%
John F. Kennedy: 0%
Lyndon B. Johnson: 0%
Richard M. Nixon: 16%
Gerald R. Ford: 18%
James E. Carter: 6%
Ronald W. Reagan: 12%
George H. W. Bush: 2%
William J. Clinton: 5%
George W. Bush: 11%
You can follow this thread here. With regards to percentages, one must consider that except for Eisenhower having Republicans running Congress for a small part of his term, the Republican presidents (except W) had the opposing party in control of Congress and the Democrats (except Truman and Bubba) did not. But even the most embattled of presidents still succeeds at least 80% of the time in sustaining a veto; thus the failure of W to wield that instrument the first six years of his presidency against the unprincipled Republican congresses starting in January of 2001 and running through January of 2007 is a significant weakness on his part to lead.
And as that has not been seen since the first administration of fdr, it is not something that can or should be presumed at any time. And as the most influential persons in the Democratic camp (and the ones therefore who have the most "pull" influentially) are the older and more liberal ones, that does not leave much of a choice tactically. You would do well to remember that every conservative has had to make deals with liberals to get things passed and vice versa. Reagan never would have gotten his agenda through without the help of O'Neill and before you claim that was cause they were in his favour, remember that he also was involved in policies that were not beneficial to the conservative cause. The tax increases that Reagan agreed to in 1982 is one example. The mass amnesty from 1986 was another. More could be noted but on both of those
Yes, but as I point out above, this is not in the least the case with McCain. McCain throws in with the Democraps to poke conservatives in the eyes whereas Reagan at least did what he did to help the conservative agenda, not undermine it the way McCain has.
Undermine whose "conservative agenda"??? I really tire of this idea that there is one monolithic "conservative agenda" XXXXXXX because it is not true. There are general conservative issues of course but even then there is still a degree of difference of opinion which subsists. I am unaware of one single bread and butter definitively conservative issue that John McCain does not in some measure support even if I do not agree with the manner in which he seeks to apply the underlying principles involved. Do not mistaken failure to support certain methodologies as a failure to support particular principles or else you are doing nothing different than those who make matters of Catholic requirement concurring with matters of the prudential order as if they are akin to doctrine.
On the following subjects, McCain's voting record is on the whole quite conservative -not perfect certainly but substantial. For example:
On the subject of abortion, McCain gets a B+ which is not perfect but is still a hell of a lot better than the alternatives we have.
On overall life issues he gets at worst a B- which is not great of course but "conservatism" is a philosophy embodying a number of core principles not just one and there is not definitive unanimity on some of the underlying factors involved here anyway.
On budget issues, McCain gets a solid A and has a sterling record here which frankly after six years of W and a drunken sailor Republican congress would be a breath of fresh air in many respects.
On matters of the economy, he scores a B particularly on matters of taxation having never voted for a tax increase. I know you think he deserves to be flogged for not supporting Bush's tax cuts all along but I remind you that support for broad and deep tax cuts in the absence of definite spending reductions is not a traditional conservative position. If anything, the traditional conservative approach to deficits is to raise taxes not cut them!!! McCain's position on taxes is quite evidently not supply side-based. I am not saying it is wrong mind you, only that supporting tax cuts in the absence of definite (as opposed to future promised) spending reductions is not a position that is required to be a conservative. And I say that as someone who does view tax cuts as important economic stimulator and who defended the hypothesis of supply side economics before a class of liberals back in college.{2}
I note this here so that you understand that I take a different view on this than McCain does in one fundamental respect yet agree with him on another. I do not favour tax cuts without corresponding cuts in spending also -increasing revenue is pointless if that increased revenue is spent and then some- so I in that respect embody in symbiosis two historical conservative positions in one. Prior to Reagan, the mainstream conservative position was one that favoured raising taxes and cutting spending. Even Reagan in cutting taxes wanted corresponding spending reductions so in this respect, my position is solidly in line with Reagan as would appear to be McCain's.
Reagan to some extent though he failed in this area can be given some leeway as he was working with a Democratic congress. Even W's daddy who really messed up by not learning from Reagan's experience in this area again was dealing with a Democratic congress. But W had his guys in control and thus there is no excuse -I do not buy the bullshit of "well we are at war now" as an excuse for a three TRILLION dollar budget and still running a quarter to a half trillion a year deficit. This was pure horseshit and the idea that Bush cares about the budget now when the Democrats have control is "nearly a laugh but [its] really a cry" (cf. R. Waters).
On the subject of business, McCain gets a B-: not great but not too bad. I would score him a lot higher if he favoured repealing subsidies for companies that move jobs offshore to produce products for sending to American markets. Few things piss me off more and I say this as someone who does not personally benefit in any fashion from this move.{3} Nonetheless, his stance of not repealing such subsidies is more "mainstream conservative" than mine is so arguably that B- could be bumped up to a B+ if the goal here is conforming to what is considered by many to be "conservative" by virtue of what the mainstream pundits believe.
On the subject of civil rights, McCain gets a B-/C+: he is a bit nebulous on affirmative action and gay issues{4} but on balance here he is somewhat decent even if nothing to write home about.
On the subject of crime, McCain gets an A
On the subject of drugs, McCain gets an A+
On the subject of education, McCain gets an A-
On the subject of energy and oil, McCain gets a C. If he favoured more ANWAR drilling and more refineries being built along with utilizing the federal government to provide greater incentives for private businesses to develop alternative energy sources, I would grade him much higher. Those views are traditionally conservative after all: the Jeffersonian model is not the only traditional conservative model even if today it is the most prevalent one.{5}
On the subject of the environment, McCain gets a B. If not for his stance on global warming which is (at best) an unproven hypothesis, he would get an A. However, since he supports certain other environmental matters which modern "conservatives" do not generally favour, they would dock him for this. (For example, his stances on national parks and commercial whaling.) But again, there is a tradition of Republican thought as well as a traditional conservatism going back to Theodore Roosevelt which is more mindful of the environment than many modern conservatives are -a tradition that Senator Barry Goldwater also shared throughout his career. So while by modern standards, he would be viewed as lacking in this area, if judged by earlier conservative principles he would rate higher.{6}
On the subject of families and children, McCain gets an A.
On the subject of foreign policy, McCain gets a B+.
On the subject of "free trade", McCain by the general consensus of conservatives today gets an A+ but in my view gets a D.{7} Nonetheless, my point here is to note areas where McCain is closer or further from overall stances which would fall within the parameters of the outlines of what is "conservative." With that in mind, he gets an A+ here as he has never failed to support "free trade" issues thus getting a 100% vote from CATO Institute.
On second amendment issues, McCain gets an A-: I cannot give him a solid A since he does not own a firearm after all ;-)
On the subject of government reform, McCain gets another solid A.
On homeland security, McCain gets at least a B- if not a solid B if we account for general overview, defense spending, and his overall voting record. I dock him from a solid A for his stance on the subjects of Gitmo and water boarding but those are not sine qua non positions for determining or anathematizing someone from being a conservative. If McCain were to favour giving the terrorists constitutional rights -and he has said explicitly he does not favour this at all- then you would be able to make a solid argument on this matter that his conservative credentials would be questionable. But not in the absence of that factor in my humble opinion.
On jobs, McCain is given a 15% rating by the AFL-CIO which means he gets at least a middle B by virtue of the simple acid test of unions generally being wrong on what is best for effective economic productivity.{8}
On immigration, McCain gets a D or worse of that there is no doubt. You know my views on this and my disappointment in his position. But the problem is, his position is not different in substance than the one Reagan had...you know, one of those areas where Reagan made a mistake. But The Gipper for better or worse has framed this issue as an acceptable conservative hypothesis by virtue of his support for the proposal coupled with his status as a great conservative party icon. We would be wise to not forget that however much we view that position of McCain's part as a monumental mistake.
On social security issues, McCain gets a solid A.
On tax reform, McCain gets a solid A.
On technology, McCain gets a solid A.
On the war, McCain gets a solid A gaining points for what he loses on the torture subject for his stubbornness on supporting the surge unlike a lot of congressional Republicans. (He has been the strongest supporter of President Bush on this significant issue.)
On welfare and poverty issues, McCain gets a solid A.
He favours appointing originalist judges to the courts who interpret and not invent law so he gets a solid A+ on this issue pending actual disappointment on the matter in the same fashion I start all presidents (or in this case, potential presidents) off with A's. I did that with W too{9} so my approach here with McCain is hardly a novel one.
Shall I list more general areas or does this suffice??? The problem here XXXXXXX is your apparent identification of "the conservative agenda" as synonymous with what Rush Limbaugh thinks or what the general consensus of talk show hosts happens to be. They do not doth conservatism make. I do not in saying this mean they are not conservatives of course, only that they do not set the boundaries and they do not determine who is in the camp or not -they at times have an artificially narrowed view of these matters viewing conservatism as synonymous with their own personal views or certain zeitgeists of the recent past. And Limbaugh is not the only one who does this.
Now, Reagan made mistakes in that regard, which were miniscule in comparison the good he accomplished.
Of course Reagan made mistakes. So has McCain. So have you. So have I. Etcetera...
Now while becuase Reagan never was a Senator and therefore can we can never know for sure what kind of record he would have had there, it is more than safe to say that the Reagan we know and love would not have been caught dead acting anything like John McCain. Hell, even Bob "let's make a deal" Dole never would have been caught dead doing such a thing either. Shawn, if you think McCain would govern more conservatively than even the not so conservative Bush, you really need to flush out your headgear.
Frankly, anyone but Huckabee among the candidates this year would govern more conservatively than Bush did. Other than the tax cuts and war in 03, the surge in 07, and two justices on the court in 05 and 06, Bush has been a disgrace.
Say what??? Shawn if you think with McCain's record of real consequence (something I will elaborate on later) he will govern more conservatively than Bush, you need to take few hits off the crackppipe just to come to your senses. You really think I am that stupid to fall for this horseshit? I was born in the morning, but not this morning.
I am looking at two factors here XXXXXXX, the panopoly of issues and not just one or two "talking point" ones selected by Limbaugh and his cronies and also the change in office which comes with a change in responsibilities. There is a significant difference between being a senator and being a president. I am not presuming a priori that McCain cannot make the change as you are. I am open to the possibility that he can particularly if the conservatives McCain will need to win are in positions to be able to influence him in this direction. McCain is not stupid and he saw what happened when W rubbed the conservatives the wrong way on key points. The alternative media is here to stay whether he likes it or not.
Also, as president McCain would not need to haggle and compromise to come up with proposals that may or may not pass congress, he as the executive would be able to sign or veto what is put before him. This sets the stage for a more conservative governance potentially. I am not saying he will of course, only that if he is elected and does, it will not surprise me all that much actually. If anything McCain being no stranger to DC the past two decades means he is less likely to govern more liberally than he manifests himself to be going into the office because of the common change that DC can have on even the best intentioned of persons.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} The "National Association for the Advancement of You People" -coined by Rush Limbaugh circa 1992.
{2} I helped them see the value in it and many including the teacher came to support them until I mentioned I had just outlined "Reaganomics in a nutshell" at which point many flip-flopped but I digress.
{3} Unfortunately, so many people advocate positions because they benefit from them rather than out of principle (whether they benefit or not) and this is not what someone who is concerned with principle and an ethical approach to matters in general.
{4} Leaning towards if not taking a more modern "liberal" stance.
{5} I will write on this very soon on the weblog in a long-planned and finally completed sans final edited posting.
{6} Again, in doing the latter, I give him a B and if not for his support of the unproven hypothesis of global warming, I would give him a solid A.
{7} I do not have time to go through the archives of this weblog and track down the posts I have written on the subject of so-called "free trade" and my opposition to what masquerades as "free trade" in reality compared to the idea in the abstract. Hopefully this thread on CAFTA from mid 2005 will suffice as one example of my rather complex view on this matter.
{8} This is something I have noticed throughout my life and probably could raise this acid test to the status of at least a corollary if not a full blown dictum with a bit more development of thought and analysis on the matter (though I have no intention of doing either anytime soon due to lack of time). Ergo, if the unions do not like what he is doing, he is doing a lot more right than wrong: pretty simple really but effective nonetheless as a gauge of measurement here akin to The Carter Corollary if you will.
{9} Not docking him to A- until his stem cell decision which in light of his response to 9/11 bumped him back to a solid A at the time.
(Part I of a Dialogue)
This is a follow up to a previous conversation which can be read here:
A Dialogue on John McCain and "Conservatism" (circa March 26, 2008)
To facilitate an easier following of who said what -as there are many layers to this thread in divers font colourings- the following hopefully will be of assistance.
The orange font is from the emailer's original email while light blue font is my responses to the emailer's original note. The dark green font is from the emailer's follow-up to my first response while the regular blog font colour is my response to the emailer's follow-up note. Any sources I quote in this note will be in dark blue font and possibly smaller type as a result of the format this original text was taken from (I do not have time to change it).
Without further ado...
Hello XXXXXXX:
First of all, I hope your Easter was a good one. Without further ado…
You surely did not think I would let this one pass now did you??? I could have of course if not for being accused of sophistry and red herrings by someone who quite evidently was wearing blinders when it comes to a variety of the pertinent factors involved in the discussion. Nonetheless…
Michael Medved (or Michael Methhead as he was affectionately referred to by a caller to Rick Roberts, a talk radio local yokel here in San Diego) has the audicity to call McCain a Reagan Republican here.
I read the thread the other day actually.
What kind of Reagan Republican busts his ass to endear himself to the leftist media, sellout to the pseudo-science loving global warming touting, Algore worshipping, envirommentally ill wackos, whose significant legislative achievements also bear the names of the most radical leftist Democraps in the Senate.
I remind you XXXXXXX that it is nearly impossible to do anything legislatively without some degree of reaching across the aisle unless one party dominates the congresses and the presidency significantly.
There's a big difference between reaching arcoss the aisle, making compromises that garner some kind of benefit for our side and putting on the opposition's uniform and singing their fight song, and help construct legislation that is purely antithetical to conservatism. McCain's "bipartisanship" is clearly in the latter category. Can you think of any legislation co-authored by McCain that even has a whiff of conservatism to it? I can't. I am shocked you would even try flaoting this canard by me in regards to McCain.
This line of argument on your part is puzzling to me because your choice of terms admits of a few interpretations. (Feel free to clarify which one you refer to.) When you say "coauthored" do you mean the same thing as "co-sponsored" or do you mean he had to have written it himself or been the key sponsor to it???
Of course no matter which standard above you are applying, your claim of "co-authored legislation" is a canard itself since the lions share of bills never make it out of committee anyway. According to the NAAYP{1} and a "hostile witness" if you will for the sake of this discussion, in the 107th Congress (2001-2002) there were 8,948 bills introduced into the House and Senate. Do you care to guess the number which actually became law??? Try 377. If you do the math, you will find that it comes out to about 4%. That is roughly the same percentage as with any session of Congress: about 95% of introduced bills in every session fail to become law for a variety of reasons and usually because they die in committee and do not even get voted on by the full congressional bodies and sent to the president to begin with. And bear in mind, that is the entire congress, not just Senator John McCain. This fact is why your request to find a "piece of legislation" is on its face rather humourous. But heck, let us up the ante a bit now shall we???
Since you want to argue in this fashion -and presumably because you were not aware of the low number of bills that even become law in any session: if you actually knew this would be disingenuous and I doubt that was your intention- I will ask you to tell me if you can think of any legislation that President Bush vetoed in the first six years of his presidency that had more than a mere whiff of liberalism to it??? I guarantee you I would have better luck with answering your question than you would mine because even if I found one example for McCain which meets your criteria, you will never find a single example that meets mine because W did not veto a single piece of legislation in his first six years!!! That showed tremendous executive weakness since unlike McCain and the laborious process that it takes for any proposed bill to become law, the president has a pretty solid way of not letting bad legislation through. It is called the veto pen...you know that thing he only discovered after the Democrats took over Congress.
It is hard enough to get a bill through for presidential consideration and a veto is darn difficult to override. The historical average on overrides is 4% with recent presidents (since Truman to draw the line somewhere) having the following percentage of success in over-riding a presidential veto:
Harry S. Truman: 5%
Dwight D. Eisenhower: 1%
John F. Kennedy: 0%
Lyndon B. Johnson: 0%
Richard M. Nixon: 16%
Gerald R. Ford: 18%
James E. Carter: 6%
Ronald W. Reagan: 12%
George H. W. Bush: 2%
William J. Clinton: 5%
George W. Bush: 11%
You can follow this thread here. With regards to percentages, one must consider that except for Eisenhower having Republicans running Congress for a small part of his term, the Republican presidents (except W) had the opposing party in control of Congress and the Democrats (except Truman and Bubba) did not. But even the most embattled of presidents still succeeds at least 80% of the time in sustaining a veto; thus the failure of W to wield that instrument the first six years of his presidency against the unprincipled Republican congresses starting in January of 2001 and running through January of 2007 is a significant weakness on his part to lead.
And as that has not been seen since the first administration of fdr, it is not something that can or should be presumed at any time. And as the most influential persons in the Democratic camp (and the ones therefore who have the most "pull" influentially) are the older and more liberal ones, that does not leave much of a choice tactically. You would do well to remember that every conservative has had to make deals with liberals to get things passed and vice versa. Reagan never would have gotten his agenda through without the help of O'Neill and before you claim that was cause they were in his favour, remember that he also was involved in policies that were not beneficial to the conservative cause. The tax increases that Reagan agreed to in 1982 is one example. The mass amnesty from 1986 was another. More could be noted but on both of those
Yes, but as I point out above, this is not in the least the case with McCain. McCain throws in with the Democraps to poke conservatives in the eyes whereas Reagan at least did what he did to help the conservative agenda, not undermine it the way McCain has.
Undermine whose "conservative agenda"??? I really tire of this idea that there is one monolithic "conservative agenda" XXXXXXX because it is not true. There are general conservative issues of course but even then there is still a degree of difference of opinion which subsists. I am unaware of one single bread and butter definitively conservative issue that John McCain does not in some measure support even if I do not agree with the manner in which he seeks to apply the underlying principles involved. Do not mistaken failure to support certain methodologies as a failure to support particular principles or else you are doing nothing different than those who make matters of Catholic requirement concurring with matters of the prudential order as if they are akin to doctrine.
On the following subjects, McCain's voting record is on the whole quite conservative -not perfect certainly but substantial. For example:
On the subject of abortion, McCain gets a B+ which is not perfect but is still a hell of a lot better than the alternatives we have.
On overall life issues he gets at worst a B- which is not great of course but "conservatism" is a philosophy embodying a number of core principles not just one and there is not definitive unanimity on some of the underlying factors involved here anyway.
On budget issues, McCain gets a solid A and has a sterling record here which frankly after six years of W and a drunken sailor Republican congress would be a breath of fresh air in many respects.
On matters of the economy, he scores a B particularly on matters of taxation having never voted for a tax increase. I know you think he deserves to be flogged for not supporting Bush's tax cuts all along but I remind you that support for broad and deep tax cuts in the absence of definite spending reductions is not a traditional conservative position. If anything, the traditional conservative approach to deficits is to raise taxes not cut them!!! McCain's position on taxes is quite evidently not supply side-based. I am not saying it is wrong mind you, only that supporting tax cuts in the absence of definite (as opposed to future promised) spending reductions is not a position that is required to be a conservative. And I say that as someone who does view tax cuts as important economic stimulator and who defended the hypothesis of supply side economics before a class of liberals back in college.{2}
I note this here so that you understand that I take a different view on this than McCain does in one fundamental respect yet agree with him on another. I do not favour tax cuts without corresponding cuts in spending also -increasing revenue is pointless if that increased revenue is spent and then some- so I in that respect embody in symbiosis two historical conservative positions in one. Prior to Reagan, the mainstream conservative position was one that favoured raising taxes and cutting spending. Even Reagan in cutting taxes wanted corresponding spending reductions so in this respect, my position is solidly in line with Reagan as would appear to be McCain's.
Reagan to some extent though he failed in this area can be given some leeway as he was working with a Democratic congress. Even W's daddy who really messed up by not learning from Reagan's experience in this area again was dealing with a Democratic congress. But W had his guys in control and thus there is no excuse -I do not buy the bullshit of "well we are at war now" as an excuse for a three TRILLION dollar budget and still running a quarter to a half trillion a year deficit. This was pure horseshit and the idea that Bush cares about the budget now when the Democrats have control is "nearly a laugh but [its] really a cry" (cf. R. Waters).
On the subject of business, McCain gets a B-: not great but not too bad. I would score him a lot higher if he favoured repealing subsidies for companies that move jobs offshore to produce products for sending to American markets. Few things piss me off more and I say this as someone who does not personally benefit in any fashion from this move.{3} Nonetheless, his stance of not repealing such subsidies is more "mainstream conservative" than mine is so arguably that B- could be bumped up to a B+ if the goal here is conforming to what is considered by many to be "conservative" by virtue of what the mainstream pundits believe.
On the subject of civil rights, McCain gets a B-/C+: he is a bit nebulous on affirmative action and gay issues{4} but on balance here he is somewhat decent even if nothing to write home about.
On the subject of crime, McCain gets an A
On the subject of drugs, McCain gets an A+
On the subject of education, McCain gets an A-
On the subject of energy and oil, McCain gets a C. If he favoured more ANWAR drilling and more refineries being built along with utilizing the federal government to provide greater incentives for private businesses to develop alternative energy sources, I would grade him much higher. Those views are traditionally conservative after all: the Jeffersonian model is not the only traditional conservative model even if today it is the most prevalent one.{5}
On the subject of the environment, McCain gets a B. If not for his stance on global warming which is (at best) an unproven hypothesis, he would get an A. However, since he supports certain other environmental matters which modern "conservatives" do not generally favour, they would dock him for this. (For example, his stances on national parks and commercial whaling.) But again, there is a tradition of Republican thought as well as a traditional conservatism going back to Theodore Roosevelt which is more mindful of the environment than many modern conservatives are -a tradition that Senator Barry Goldwater also shared throughout his career. So while by modern standards, he would be viewed as lacking in this area, if judged by earlier conservative principles he would rate higher.{6}
On the subject of families and children, McCain gets an A.
On the subject of foreign policy, McCain gets a B+.
On the subject of "free trade", McCain by the general consensus of conservatives today gets an A+ but in my view gets a D.{7} Nonetheless, my point here is to note areas where McCain is closer or further from overall stances which would fall within the parameters of the outlines of what is "conservative." With that in mind, he gets an A+ here as he has never failed to support "free trade" issues thus getting a 100% vote from CATO Institute.
On second amendment issues, McCain gets an A-: I cannot give him a solid A since he does not own a firearm after all ;-)
On the subject of government reform, McCain gets another solid A.
On homeland security, McCain gets at least a B- if not a solid B if we account for general overview, defense spending, and his overall voting record. I dock him from a solid A for his stance on the subjects of Gitmo and water boarding but those are not sine qua non positions for determining or anathematizing someone from being a conservative. If McCain were to favour giving the terrorists constitutional rights -and he has said explicitly he does not favour this at all- then you would be able to make a solid argument on this matter that his conservative credentials would be questionable. But not in the absence of that factor in my humble opinion.
On jobs, McCain is given a 15% rating by the AFL-CIO which means he gets at least a middle B by virtue of the simple acid test of unions generally being wrong on what is best for effective economic productivity.{8}
On immigration, McCain gets a D or worse of that there is no doubt. You know my views on this and my disappointment in his position. But the problem is, his position is not different in substance than the one Reagan had...you know, one of those areas where Reagan made a mistake. But The Gipper for better or worse has framed this issue as an acceptable conservative hypothesis by virtue of his support for the proposal coupled with his status as a great conservative party icon. We would be wise to not forget that however much we view that position of McCain's part as a monumental mistake.
On social security issues, McCain gets a solid A.
On tax reform, McCain gets a solid A.
On technology, McCain gets a solid A.
On the war, McCain gets a solid A gaining points for what he loses on the torture subject for his stubbornness on supporting the surge unlike a lot of congressional Republicans. (He has been the strongest supporter of President Bush on this significant issue.)
On welfare and poverty issues, McCain gets a solid A.
He favours appointing originalist judges to the courts who interpret and not invent law so he gets a solid A+ on this issue pending actual disappointment on the matter in the same fashion I start all presidents (or in this case, potential presidents) off with A's. I did that with W too{9} so my approach here with McCain is hardly a novel one.
Shall I list more general areas or does this suffice??? The problem here XXXXXXX is your apparent identification of "the conservative agenda" as synonymous with what Rush Limbaugh thinks or what the general consensus of talk show hosts happens to be. They do not doth conservatism make. I do not in saying this mean they are not conservatives of course, only that they do not set the boundaries and they do not determine who is in the camp or not -they at times have an artificially narrowed view of these matters viewing conservatism as synonymous with their own personal views or certain zeitgeists of the recent past. And Limbaugh is not the only one who does this.
Now, Reagan made mistakes in that regard, which were miniscule in comparison the good he accomplished.
Of course Reagan made mistakes. So has McCain. So have you. So have I. Etcetera...
Now while becuase Reagan never was a Senator and therefore can we can never know for sure what kind of record he would have had there, it is more than safe to say that the Reagan we know and love would not have been caught dead acting anything like John McCain. Hell, even Bob "let's make a deal" Dole never would have been caught dead doing such a thing either. Shawn, if you think McCain would govern more conservatively than even the not so conservative Bush, you really need to flush out your headgear.
Frankly, anyone but Huckabee among the candidates this year would govern more conservatively than Bush did. Other than the tax cuts and war in 03, the surge in 07, and two justices on the court in 05 and 06, Bush has been a disgrace.
Say what??? Shawn if you think with McCain's record of real consequence (something I will elaborate on later) he will govern more conservatively than Bush, you need to take few hits off the crackppipe just to come to your senses. You really think I am that stupid to fall for this horseshit? I was born in the morning, but not this morning.
I am looking at two factors here XXXXXXX, the panopoly of issues and not just one or two "talking point" ones selected by Limbaugh and his cronies and also the change in office which comes with a change in responsibilities. There is a significant difference between being a senator and being a president. I am not presuming a priori that McCain cannot make the change as you are. I am open to the possibility that he can particularly if the conservatives McCain will need to win are in positions to be able to influence him in this direction. McCain is not stupid and he saw what happened when W rubbed the conservatives the wrong way on key points. The alternative media is here to stay whether he likes it or not.
Also, as president McCain would not need to haggle and compromise to come up with proposals that may or may not pass congress, he as the executive would be able to sign or veto what is put before him. This sets the stage for a more conservative governance potentially. I am not saying he will of course, only that if he is elected and does, it will not surprise me all that much actually. If anything McCain being no stranger to DC the past two decades means he is less likely to govern more liberally than he manifests himself to be going into the office because of the common change that DC can have on even the best intentioned of persons.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} The "National Association for the Advancement of You People" -coined by Rush Limbaugh circa 1992.
{2} I helped them see the value in it and many including the teacher came to support them until I mentioned I had just outlined "Reaganomics in a nutshell" at which point many flip-flopped but I digress.
{3} Unfortunately, so many people advocate positions because they benefit from them rather than out of principle (whether they benefit or not) and this is not what someone who is concerned with principle and an ethical approach to matters in general.
{4} Leaning towards if not taking a more modern "liberal" stance.
{5} I will write on this very soon on the weblog in a long-planned and finally completed sans final edited posting.
{6} Again, in doing the latter, I give him a B and if not for his support of the unproven hypothesis of global warming, I would give him a solid A.
{7} I do not have time to go through the archives of this weblog and track down the posts I have written on the subject of so-called "free trade" and my opposition to what masquerades as "free trade" in reality compared to the idea in the abstract. Hopefully this thread on CAFTA from mid 2005 will suffice as one example of my rather complex view on this matter.
{8} This is something I have noticed throughout my life and probably could raise this acid test to the status of at least a corollary if not a full blown dictum with a bit more development of thought and analysis on the matter (though I have no intention of doing either anytime soon due to lack of time). Ergo, if the unions do not like what he is doing, he is doing a lot more right than wrong: pretty simple really but effective nonetheless as a gauge of measurement here akin to The Carter Corollary if you will.
{9} Not docking him to A- until his stem cell decision which in light of his response to 9/11 bumped him back to a solid A at the time.
A Near-Finalized Draft of a Long Planned Amazon Book Review of David Armstrong's The Catholic Verses:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Originally I had planned a much more ambitious and detailed review of this book but time and subsequent circumstances scuttled that idea significantly. A few months ago though, I ran across some of my old notes from mid 2005 and decided to piece them together into a review which will also be posted to Amazon probably this month or next. I also did a quick subsequent review of the sections of the book referred to in my notes, reviewing previous observations and jotting down a few additional ones pertaining to it on a section by section basis. My intention with the finished product is that the combination of the two will make this as fair a review as possible.
But before tending to that, I want to note briefly something I wrote earlier this year on a semi-private correspondence when the subject of David Armstrong came up in a discussion list I was on and misperception was not wanting as to my views on the matter. (And considering some of what transpired in past years, these misunderstandings were to some extent understandable.) So to help set the stage for this review, here is part of what I wrote very early in the new year in another medium so that readers can see how my assessment of David Armstrong's overall approach in the areas he does well meshes well with the review of this book which will follow:
To ask him about me, I went from being "wonderful" and "brilliant" and all of that to the "son of satan" with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. But I do not take that kind of absurd view of him -I do not view now as poorly done anything I previously praised or vice versa. (Though I tended before to make my views of Dave's poorer quality stuff very rarely known and almost never publicly.) That is what one who has the favour of friendship gets essentially: the benefit of the doubt. Here for your consideration (and the others on the list if they like) is my assessment of Dave's work as a whole apart from my view of him personally.
Starting with the good, Dave does very well to practically excellent on many aspects of bread and butter apologetics subjects particularly Catholic-Protestant stuff and on core Catholic doctrines. He does less well on ancillary subjects but that is the case for everyone really: by their nature they are harder to substantiate with the same degree of rock solidity as primary doctrinal matter. And on primary doctrinal subject matter, Dave's stuff is well worth reviewing. I said this years ago and my view on it has not in substance changed because (unlike Dave) I do not make personalities the criteria on how I view these matters.
Dave's work on Orthodox-Catholic stuff is not as good as his Catholic-Protestant stuff but it is still on the whole pretty good. On the subject of development of doctrine he is quite good -I now view him as perhaps overextending a bit on his application compared to previously as well as viewing Newman's theory as being more conclusive than it is. There are other areas he does well too but this suffices to show that I do not take a singular negative view of Dave's work. On balance his stuff in this area is well worth reading and my views on the above stuff now is no different than it was when he and I were on great terms (which was the case prior to September of 2005). I plan to review one of his books at some point in the new year -basically will take up a bare bones sketch of a draft from mid 2005 and my review of the work is not going to change now from what it was going to be then...
My problems with Dave on some issues do not detract from recognizing what he does that is good. [Excerpt from a Correspondence (circa January 1, 2008)]
There is more to it than just the above of course -the less positive parts of the above correspondence following that point and being heavily footnoted and perhaps worth going over at some point should I feel inclined to. I will simply note at this time on them that the major criticisms I have long had entail (i) his understanding of what is properly understood as "magisterial", (ii) his approach to what is called "general norms of interpretation" on theological matters in general, and (iii) his approach to moral theology in light of the previous two problematical areas. There has also been (iv) a tendency on his part at times towards fallacious forms of argumentation. However, in fairness I should note that the latter one is generally only a problem on ancillary subject matters.
But noting those things briefly at the outset is as far as I will take the critical element in this posting at least generally speaking -as it would not be honest of me to fail to disclose them at least briefly at the outset. But without further ado, here is a review of Mr. Armstrong's book The Catholic Verses which in substance was drafted nearly three years ago. The words of the review will be in red font.
The theme of this book is an interesting one -covering ninety-five biblical verses as a kind of symbolic response to Fr. Martin Luther's 95 Theses tacked by legend to the door of the Wittenburg cathedral in late 1517. And the manifested intention to demonstrate that there can be plausibly argued from a biblical standpoint for many of what Mr. Armstrong calls "Catholic distinctives" is amply sustained -though there is a variegated quality of his arguments in the book notwithstanding of course. This was unquestionably a very ambitious undertaking on the part of the author and for that fact alone he deserves some credit.
This book has a few weaknesses which affect the overall text. For one thing, it is very choppy in spots with the manuscript needing improvement by smoothing out some of the rough structural barbs. I should in fairness note in stating this criticism that part of that is perhaps inevitable if one looks at the pattern of the book and its intentions. For example, as the book is based on specific verses, there will be inexorably a greater degree of commentary interspersed with other sources. And of course the aforementioned commentary and use of sources will also bring to it certain unspoken and unsubstantiated presuppositions of the author no matter how one tries to avoid this -and the latter cannot be done justice in a volume such as this.
But that point noted, Mr. Armstrong is usually good at recognizing the principle that more formally developed concepts need not be present in later fullness in earlier periods of time: what Catholics refer to as development of doctrine. Mr. Armstrong understands the concept better than most but it is nonetheless one with its limits and not the magical "one size fits all" remedy that he at times appears to think it is. Mr. Armstrong also has a tendency to overplay his hand a bit through the use of statements of a more absolute nature where theologically there is more room than he appears to presume. But this criticism is one that is hardly applicable to him alone -I note it here nonetheless because it needs to be accounted for by the reader to receive a fuller picture of the author's work itself.
Despite the manifested intention to avoid triumphalist tonalities in the book, Mr. Armstrong while generally succeeding in this area nonetheless does involve a bit of sardonic phrasing in spots -seemingly at the points where either his arguments are the weakest or the internal contradictions of some of the sources he critically interacts with happen to be. John Calvin is a particular target in this area but considering the snide way Calvin approaches a number of subjects in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, it is hard to fault Mr. Armstrong for taking a bit of schadenfreude in puncturing the balloons of bombast common to Calvin's methodology even if in other areas one could find it easier for this criticism to have a bit more weight. (And I emphasize "a bit more" because on balance this book is light on explicit triumphalism: something which is to Mr. Armstrong's credit.)
On specific matters, to compile a detailed sketch would take more time than I have so I will note what is particularly well done section by section. The sections on The Church, Bible and Tradition, Papacy, Communion of Saints, and Prayers for the Dead are all despite the overall structural weaknesses noted earlier very solid in content and argumentation. (Likewise the sections on Baptism and Eucharist.) I could quibble with a few additional bits but they would not detract from my view of these sections at all so I will leave it be for now. The Communion of Saints section also possesses some nice nuances to it which someone familiar with the boilerplate elements of this subject could well appreciate -the same is the case for the section on Prayers for the Dead.
Other sections which are also good (albeit not to the extent the ones already noted are) include the ones on Penance and Relics/Sacramentals. The problem with these sections that I discerned most is brevity primarily: they require a lot more exposition due to being more implied in the scripture than the others noted thus far. It is also questionable in my mind if including these subjects in the book was a good idea for those reasons but what is there is good so I will leave it at that.
The section on Divisions/Denominationalism is on balance good but it has more weaknesses to it than the other sections noted thus far. For one thing, it needs to emphasize that the only divisions Mr. Armstrong intends to be critical of are ones that pertain to faith. In failing to do this, it leaves Mr. Armstrong open to those who point out areas of diversity in Catholic philosophy, theology, application of moral/ethical principles, geopolitical matters, etc. as a presumed "refutation" of his position in this section. If he were to in a subsequent edition make this delineation clearer, it would vindicate this section from the sort of criticism I noted above.
The last quarter of the book is of markedly less quality than the parts covered thus far -in part because the subjects move to more peripheral or controverted nature. For the sake of presenting a stronger product it would have been better to have either covered them in greater detail or passed these matters over completely. The section on Celibacy is written from a western perspective which gives the impression that there is one traditional approach to this matter instead of two. It would do Mr. Armstrong well in subsequent editions of this work to add a bit in there about the eastern tradition which allows for married clergy much as certain extraordinary provisions in the western church in recent decades does. In both traditions there is (albeit in differing ways) a recognition of the biblical principle of clerical celibacy so this revision would only strengthen the latter section of this book.
The section on Divorce suffers from a lack of completion akin to the one on Celibacy though not to the same extent. The main weakness here is the lack of distinguishing between the concepts of divorce and annulment. The latter is often called "Catholic divorce" but that expression is not accurate at all and failing to note the distinction in this section after the passages pertaining to divorce weakens the presentation here.
The section on Contraception is the weakest one in the book for a variety of reasons. The first reason is that it is a derivative concept which as I noted earlier is harder to cover than a primary subject. The second is that it is based on so little Scriptural reference and implied ones at that: making it by nature involving a lot more commentary. The third is that there are other objections raised against the OT passage he cited being interpreted as Mr. Armstrong does that he gives no credence whatsoever to. There are other factors too on this one but my guess is that this being an issue that was of particular resonance to Mr. Armstrong in his conversion is what prompted him to include a section in this book on the topic in question.
But to cover the latter subject with the detail required and accounting for all parameters (including certain presuppositions Mr. Armstrong unconsciously and uncritically accepts) would be to make the book a lot longer which is why it would have been better to have passed over it completely in this treatment.
To summarize this review, Mr. Armstrong attempts to cover an entire spectrum of ideas with this book. In doing this there will be a variegation of success and on the lions share of the topics covered as well as overall presentation, this book is a worthwhile read. But there are also some topics of which it would have been better to have a bit more material on to insure a more correct presentation. And there is exactly one subject which would have by the nature of the subject in question have benefited from being passed over with the idea of focusing on the ones where the greater strength of demonstration and argument can be made.
In closing, I with minimal reservation recommend this work for those who have questions as to the presumed "unbiblical" nature of certain Catholic beliefs and practices. It would serve well to help them realize that (whether they agree with them or not) there are arguments that can be made from Scripture for many "Catholic distinctives" which non-Catholics may have been led to believe did not exist.
Rating: ****
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Originally I had planned a much more ambitious and detailed review of this book but time and subsequent circumstances scuttled that idea significantly. A few months ago though, I ran across some of my old notes from mid 2005 and decided to piece them together into a review which will also be posted to Amazon probably this month or next. I also did a quick subsequent review of the sections of the book referred to in my notes, reviewing previous observations and jotting down a few additional ones pertaining to it on a section by section basis. My intention with the finished product is that the combination of the two will make this as fair a review as possible.
But before tending to that, I want to note briefly something I wrote earlier this year on a semi-private correspondence when the subject of David Armstrong came up in a discussion list I was on and misperception was not wanting as to my views on the matter. (And considering some of what transpired in past years, these misunderstandings were to some extent understandable.) So to help set the stage for this review, here is part of what I wrote very early in the new year in another medium so that readers can see how my assessment of David Armstrong's overall approach in the areas he does well meshes well with the review of this book which will follow:
To ask him about me, I went from being "wonderful" and "brilliant" and all of that to the "son of satan" with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. But I do not take that kind of absurd view of him -I do not view now as poorly done anything I previously praised or vice versa. (Though I tended before to make my views of Dave's poorer quality stuff very rarely known and almost never publicly.) That is what one who has the favour of friendship gets essentially: the benefit of the doubt. Here for your consideration (and the others on the list if they like) is my assessment of Dave's work as a whole apart from my view of him personally.
Starting with the good, Dave does very well to practically excellent on many aspects of bread and butter apologetics subjects particularly Catholic-Protestant stuff and on core Catholic doctrines. He does less well on ancillary subjects but that is the case for everyone really: by their nature they are harder to substantiate with the same degree of rock solidity as primary doctrinal matter. And on primary doctrinal subject matter, Dave's stuff is well worth reviewing. I said this years ago and my view on it has not in substance changed because (unlike Dave) I do not make personalities the criteria on how I view these matters.
Dave's work on Orthodox-Catholic stuff is not as good as his Catholic-Protestant stuff but it is still on the whole pretty good. On the subject of development of doctrine he is quite good -I now view him as perhaps overextending a bit on his application compared to previously as well as viewing Newman's theory as being more conclusive than it is. There are other areas he does well too but this suffices to show that I do not take a singular negative view of Dave's work. On balance his stuff in this area is well worth reading and my views on the above stuff now is no different than it was when he and I were on great terms (which was the case prior to September of 2005). I plan to review one of his books at some point in the new year -basically will take up a bare bones sketch of a draft from mid 2005 and my review of the work is not going to change now from what it was going to be then...
My problems with Dave on some issues do not detract from recognizing what he does that is good. [Excerpt from a Correspondence (circa January 1, 2008)]
There is more to it than just the above of course -the less positive parts of the above correspondence following that point and being heavily footnoted and perhaps worth going over at some point should I feel inclined to. I will simply note at this time on them that the major criticisms I have long had entail (i) his understanding of what is properly understood as "magisterial", (ii) his approach to what is called "general norms of interpretation" on theological matters in general, and (iii) his approach to moral theology in light of the previous two problematical areas. There has also been (iv) a tendency on his part at times towards fallacious forms of argumentation. However, in fairness I should note that the latter one is generally only a problem on ancillary subject matters.
But noting those things briefly at the outset is as far as I will take the critical element in this posting at least generally speaking -as it would not be honest of me to fail to disclose them at least briefly at the outset. But without further ado, here is a review of Mr. Armstrong's book The Catholic Verses which in substance was drafted nearly three years ago. The words of the review will be in red font.
The theme of this book is an interesting one -covering ninety-five biblical verses as a kind of symbolic response to Fr. Martin Luther's 95 Theses tacked by legend to the door of the Wittenburg cathedral in late 1517. And the manifested intention to demonstrate that there can be plausibly argued from a biblical standpoint for many of what Mr. Armstrong calls "Catholic distinctives" is amply sustained -though there is a variegated quality of his arguments in the book notwithstanding of course. This was unquestionably a very ambitious undertaking on the part of the author and for that fact alone he deserves some credit.
This book has a few weaknesses which affect the overall text. For one thing, it is very choppy in spots with the manuscript needing improvement by smoothing out some of the rough structural barbs. I should in fairness note in stating this criticism that part of that is perhaps inevitable if one looks at the pattern of the book and its intentions. For example, as the book is based on specific verses, there will be inexorably a greater degree of commentary interspersed with other sources. And of course the aforementioned commentary and use of sources will also bring to it certain unspoken and unsubstantiated presuppositions of the author no matter how one tries to avoid this -and the latter cannot be done justice in a volume such as this.
But that point noted, Mr. Armstrong is usually good at recognizing the principle that more formally developed concepts need not be present in later fullness in earlier periods of time: what Catholics refer to as development of doctrine. Mr. Armstrong understands the concept better than most but it is nonetheless one with its limits and not the magical "one size fits all" remedy that he at times appears to think it is. Mr. Armstrong also has a tendency to overplay his hand a bit through the use of statements of a more absolute nature where theologically there is more room than he appears to presume. But this criticism is one that is hardly applicable to him alone -I note it here nonetheless because it needs to be accounted for by the reader to receive a fuller picture of the author's work itself.
Despite the manifested intention to avoid triumphalist tonalities in the book, Mr. Armstrong while generally succeeding in this area nonetheless does involve a bit of sardonic phrasing in spots -seemingly at the points where either his arguments are the weakest or the internal contradictions of some of the sources he critically interacts with happen to be. John Calvin is a particular target in this area but considering the snide way Calvin approaches a number of subjects in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, it is hard to fault Mr. Armstrong for taking a bit of schadenfreude in puncturing the balloons of bombast common to Calvin's methodology even if in other areas one could find it easier for this criticism to have a bit more weight. (And I emphasize "a bit more" because on balance this book is light on explicit triumphalism: something which is to Mr. Armstrong's credit.)
On specific matters, to compile a detailed sketch would take more time than I have so I will note what is particularly well done section by section. The sections on The Church, Bible and Tradition, Papacy, Communion of Saints, and Prayers for the Dead are all despite the overall structural weaknesses noted earlier very solid in content and argumentation. (Likewise the sections on Baptism and Eucharist.) I could quibble with a few additional bits but they would not detract from my view of these sections at all so I will leave it be for now. The Communion of Saints section also possesses some nice nuances to it which someone familiar with the boilerplate elements of this subject could well appreciate -the same is the case for the section on Prayers for the Dead.
Other sections which are also good (albeit not to the extent the ones already noted are) include the ones on Penance and Relics/Sacramentals. The problem with these sections that I discerned most is brevity primarily: they require a lot more exposition due to being more implied in the scripture than the others noted thus far. It is also questionable in my mind if including these subjects in the book was a good idea for those reasons but what is there is good so I will leave it at that.
The section on Divisions/Denominationalism is on balance good but it has more weaknesses to it than the other sections noted thus far. For one thing, it needs to emphasize that the only divisions Mr. Armstrong intends to be critical of are ones that pertain to faith. In failing to do this, it leaves Mr. Armstrong open to those who point out areas of diversity in Catholic philosophy, theology, application of moral/ethical principles, geopolitical matters, etc. as a presumed "refutation" of his position in this section. If he were to in a subsequent edition make this delineation clearer, it would vindicate this section from the sort of criticism I noted above.
The last quarter of the book is of markedly less quality than the parts covered thus far -in part because the subjects move to more peripheral or controverted nature. For the sake of presenting a stronger product it would have been better to have either covered them in greater detail or passed these matters over completely. The section on Celibacy is written from a western perspective which gives the impression that there is one traditional approach to this matter instead of two. It would do Mr. Armstrong well in subsequent editions of this work to add a bit in there about the eastern tradition which allows for married clergy much as certain extraordinary provisions in the western church in recent decades does. In both traditions there is (albeit in differing ways) a recognition of the biblical principle of clerical celibacy so this revision would only strengthen the latter section of this book.
The section on Divorce suffers from a lack of completion akin to the one on Celibacy though not to the same extent. The main weakness here is the lack of distinguishing between the concepts of divorce and annulment. The latter is often called "Catholic divorce" but that expression is not accurate at all and failing to note the distinction in this section after the passages pertaining to divorce weakens the presentation here.
The section on Contraception is the weakest one in the book for a variety of reasons. The first reason is that it is a derivative concept which as I noted earlier is harder to cover than a primary subject. The second is that it is based on so little Scriptural reference and implied ones at that: making it by nature involving a lot more commentary. The third is that there are other objections raised against the OT passage he cited being interpreted as Mr. Armstrong does that he gives no credence whatsoever to. There are other factors too on this one but my guess is that this being an issue that was of particular resonance to Mr. Armstrong in his conversion is what prompted him to include a section in this book on the topic in question.
But to cover the latter subject with the detail required and accounting for all parameters (including certain presuppositions Mr. Armstrong unconsciously and uncritically accepts) would be to make the book a lot longer which is why it would have been better to have passed over it completely in this treatment.
To summarize this review, Mr. Armstrong attempts to cover an entire spectrum of ideas with this book. In doing this there will be a variegation of success and on the lions share of the topics covered as well as overall presentation, this book is a worthwhile read. But there are also some topics of which it would have been better to have a bit more material on to insure a more correct presentation. And there is exactly one subject which would have by the nature of the subject in question have benefited from being passed over with the idea of focusing on the ones where the greater strength of demonstration and argument can be made.
In closing, I with minimal reservation recommend this work for those who have questions as to the presumed "unbiblical" nature of certain Catholic beliefs and practices. It would serve well to help them realize that (whether they agree with them or not) there are arguments that can be made from Scripture for many "Catholic distinctives" which non-Catholics may have been led to believe did not exist.
Rating: ****
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Miscellaneous Musings:
Briefly on some subjects of the past week...
--When it comes to the economy and the stock market, there is far more mixed signals on the matter than seems to be the msm's inclination to portray. One thing we do know for sure is that the economy has slowed down but as for an actual "recession", it is still too early to tell.
--I will be posting in the days after Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary a thread series containing my most detailed view of Senator John McCain yet -along with some of my most critical statements about President Bush as well. But not until after the Pennsylvania primary on Tuesday.
--On the upcoming primary in Pennsylvania, I noted already my sense of schadenfraude viz. how the Democrats are acting now with Senator Clinton considering how in the past they have played the "keep fighting" card even when the latter was genuinely hopeless. But this is hardly a case of a hopeless campaign for Senator Clinton because the very structure of the Democratic party nominating process has made this an open race. Heck, there is less than a ten percent margin in the delegate counts between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama!!! If that is cause for her to throw in the towel, then the Democrats who have whined about Florida since 2000{1} and Ohio since 2004{2} should apologize to everyone whose ear drums had to be subjected to their screeds over many years and give Senator Clinton her "recount" equivalent in this race by at least finishing it.
--As far as predictions on Pennsylvania go, I predict Senator Clinton will win by approximately 5%.
--I have not said anything about the pope's visit except in private to some friends. It is obviously great on one level that he came to America but there are other factors that I cannot ignore in the overall assessment. Here with some heavy editing out of material of a more confidential and other nature are some of the bits from one of those conversations six days ago with my interlocutor's words in dark green, my words in light blue font, and some structure added to the substance of my comments as well as theirs where needed:
BTW, are you doing anything with the Pope's visit.
with the pope coming...I am going to take a wait and see basically. I respect him tremendously
sure
I hear a but coming
much as I did [John Paul II]...but
I was right
I am concerned with the attitude many take on different fronts on different matters. Basically, I am a subsidiarity fella: it is how I approach things constitutionally and geopolitically. It is also how I approach things ecclesially
which would rule out distributism, obviously
that does not (lol)
mean I rule out the pope disciplining people of course. But we have two extremes I think need to be avoided. We need to avoid on the one hand a micromanaging pope
I think I see where this is goin.
engaging in a kind of ecclesial extreme federalism to the detriment of diocesan issues but at the same time we need a check on the tyranny of diocesan bureaucracies. It is ironic
and on the tyranny of individual bishops
that there are those in dioceses who complain about the Vatican intervening in their dioceses but they then act as if people in the dioceses owe them a much greater obedience than they owe the pope.
Boy, you said it.
This applies to bishops as well as lay people in bureaucracy...the balance needs to be struck. I will be honest...I think you at times err towards the "put their heads on the Tiber bridge" approach :P but then there are others who take too lax an approach. Basically if dogma or canon law is being violated, the pope has a responsibility to step in. Otherwise, more care is needed.
I do hope Benedict talks with the bishops about the pedophilia scandal though along with the college heads about the importance of JP II's ex corde ecclesiae on catholic college identity issues.
The problem, as I've maintained all along, is that the ecclesiastical structure promotes arrogance, blind deference and a lack of accountability and transparency. This is true of all hierarchical, bureaucratic systems, religious or secular (e.g.USSR)
and that does not include those who get excited at every new papal document that comes out as if the pope needs to speak on every issues under the sun so that they can check their brains at the door in true prot caricatures of brainless dimwit catholics from polemical eras past.
The problem w/Benedict on the clerical sex-abuse problem is that I find him to be too much of an esoteric academic. He likes to make subtle messages (such as immediately accepting McCarrick's pro forma resignation) but some of that subtlety is beyond the minimal IQs of some of the bishops.
As I told the [discussion] list and others, I do not need any authority to do my thinking for me nor do I want it. If it is a matter of dogma or a doctrine that is evidently definitive (i.e. the bans on abortion or women priests) that is one thing but even those matters have certain subtleties that many do not appreciate...
and on geopolitical matters, history does not give me comfort the more I study it on the wisdom of Vatican geopolitics in general. That does not mean I do not respect the popes and the role they have to play on those matters of course. But those who treat geopolitical interventions as matters of unquestioning assent do not do the matter proper justice. [Excerpts from a Chat Correspondence (circa April 14, 2008)]
My geopolitical disillusionment is also not helped by the seeming obliviousness of His Holiness to several key factors that undermine particular geopolitical stances he has taken in recent years either. The question is how to respectfully address them{3} without the usual suspects accusing me of being "disrespectful" as if somehow the pope is above any and all criticism. But enough on these matters for now.
Notes:
{1} And no to any Bush Derangement Syndrome readers of this humble weblog but there was no presidential "stolen" elections in either 2000 or in 2004. The Supreme Court made the correct decision under the law in 2000 with the blatant crime being the activism of the Florida Supreme Court on that matter.
Yes we all know that the vote to stop the recount was 5-4 for Bush, but there is more to the story than that. For example, 2 of the 4 who sided with Gore concurred with the majority that there was no uniform standard of vote counting and that there were constitutional issues in what the Florida State Supreme Court was requiring. Further still, one of those justices who concurred with the majority but did not vote with them was a personal friend of Al Gore and therefore he arguably should have recused himself. With such a recusal of course a 5-3 vote on the matter would have taken place. (4-3 if Scalia had recused himself also though the connection he had to Bush was far less solid.) In other words, 7 of the 9 justices concurred on the problems in Florida but had a plurality of views on how to remedy the problem.
More could be said but the constitutional problems in Florida with the vote counting -to say nothing of 50,000 military absentee ballots which were ignored and the military vote for Bush would have been at least 70%- presented a problem that could not be resolved during an election cycle. Besides, Bush had already won four recounts anyway. There is no rational way to conclude that Florida was "stolen" in 2000 when all the factors above among other ones are taken into account. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 29, 2007)]
{2} As for Ohio in 2004, the irregularities there were no different than what happens in a lot of states though I do not recall the Democrats calling for investigations into the election oddities in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin which were if anything more suspicious than Ohio. Oh yes, they won those states so there could not have been voting irregularities!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 29, 2007)]
{3} One of these matters will be addressed closer to the election in a few posts written last year which I decided to hold back at the time on posting. Another is the death penalty for reasons I noted here.
Briefly on some subjects of the past week...
--When it comes to the economy and the stock market, there is far more mixed signals on the matter than seems to be the msm's inclination to portray. One thing we do know for sure is that the economy has slowed down but as for an actual "recession", it is still too early to tell.
--I will be posting in the days after Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary a thread series containing my most detailed view of Senator John McCain yet -along with some of my most critical statements about President Bush as well. But not until after the Pennsylvania primary on Tuesday.
--On the upcoming primary in Pennsylvania, I noted already my sense of schadenfraude viz. how the Democrats are acting now with Senator Clinton considering how in the past they have played the "keep fighting" card even when the latter was genuinely hopeless. But this is hardly a case of a hopeless campaign for Senator Clinton because the very structure of the Democratic party nominating process has made this an open race. Heck, there is less than a ten percent margin in the delegate counts between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama!!! If that is cause for her to throw in the towel, then the Democrats who have whined about Florida since 2000{1} and Ohio since 2004{2} should apologize to everyone whose ear drums had to be subjected to their screeds over many years and give Senator Clinton her "recount" equivalent in this race by at least finishing it.
--As far as predictions on Pennsylvania go, I predict Senator Clinton will win by approximately 5%.
--I have not said anything about the pope's visit except in private to some friends. It is obviously great on one level that he came to America but there are other factors that I cannot ignore in the overall assessment. Here with some heavy editing out of material of a more confidential and other nature are some of the bits from one of those conversations six days ago with my interlocutor's words in dark green, my words in light blue font, and some structure added to the substance of my comments as well as theirs where needed:
BTW, are you doing anything with the Pope's visit.
with the pope coming...I am going to take a wait and see basically. I respect him tremendously
sure
I hear a but coming
much as I did [John Paul II]...but
I was right
I am concerned with the attitude many take on different fronts on different matters. Basically, I am a subsidiarity fella: it is how I approach things constitutionally and geopolitically. It is also how I approach things ecclesially
which would rule out distributism, obviously
that does not (lol)
mean I rule out the pope disciplining people of course. But we have two extremes I think need to be avoided. We need to avoid on the one hand a micromanaging pope
I think I see where this is goin.
engaging in a kind of ecclesial extreme federalism to the detriment of diocesan issues but at the same time we need a check on the tyranny of diocesan bureaucracies. It is ironic
and on the tyranny of individual bishops
that there are those in dioceses who complain about the Vatican intervening in their dioceses but they then act as if people in the dioceses owe them a much greater obedience than they owe the pope.
Boy, you said it.
This applies to bishops as well as lay people in bureaucracy...the balance needs to be struck. I will be honest...I think you at times err towards the "put their heads on the Tiber bridge" approach :P but then there are others who take too lax an approach. Basically if dogma or canon law is being violated, the pope has a responsibility to step in. Otherwise, more care is needed.
I do hope Benedict talks with the bishops about the pedophilia scandal though along with the college heads about the importance of JP II's ex corde ecclesiae on catholic college identity issues.
The problem, as I've maintained all along, is that the ecclesiastical structure promotes arrogance, blind deference and a lack of accountability and transparency. This is true of all hierarchical, bureaucratic systems, religious or secular (e.g.USSR)
and that does not include those who get excited at every new papal document that comes out as if the pope needs to speak on every issues under the sun so that they can check their brains at the door in true prot caricatures of brainless dimwit catholics from polemical eras past.
The problem w/Benedict on the clerical sex-abuse problem is that I find him to be too much of an esoteric academic. He likes to make subtle messages (such as immediately accepting McCarrick's pro forma resignation) but some of that subtlety is beyond the minimal IQs of some of the bishops.
As I told the [discussion] list and others, I do not need any authority to do my thinking for me nor do I want it. If it is a matter of dogma or a doctrine that is evidently definitive (i.e. the bans on abortion or women priests) that is one thing but even those matters have certain subtleties that many do not appreciate...
and on geopolitical matters, history does not give me comfort the more I study it on the wisdom of Vatican geopolitics in general. That does not mean I do not respect the popes and the role they have to play on those matters of course. But those who treat geopolitical interventions as matters of unquestioning assent do not do the matter proper justice. [Excerpts from a Chat Correspondence (circa April 14, 2008)]
My geopolitical disillusionment is also not helped by the seeming obliviousness of His Holiness to several key factors that undermine particular geopolitical stances he has taken in recent years either. The question is how to respectfully address them{3} without the usual suspects accusing me of being "disrespectful" as if somehow the pope is above any and all criticism. But enough on these matters for now.
Notes:
{1} And no to any Bush Derangement Syndrome readers of this humble weblog but there was no presidential "stolen" elections in either 2000 or in 2004. The Supreme Court made the correct decision under the law in 2000 with the blatant crime being the activism of the Florida Supreme Court on that matter.
Yes we all know that the vote to stop the recount was 5-4 for Bush, but there is more to the story than that. For example, 2 of the 4 who sided with Gore concurred with the majority that there was no uniform standard of vote counting and that there were constitutional issues in what the Florida State Supreme Court was requiring. Further still, one of those justices who concurred with the majority but did not vote with them was a personal friend of Al Gore and therefore he arguably should have recused himself. With such a recusal of course a 5-3 vote on the matter would have taken place. (4-3 if Scalia had recused himself also though the connection he had to Bush was far less solid.) In other words, 7 of the 9 justices concurred on the problems in Florida but had a plurality of views on how to remedy the problem.
More could be said but the constitutional problems in Florida with the vote counting -to say nothing of 50,000 military absentee ballots which were ignored and the military vote for Bush would have been at least 70%- presented a problem that could not be resolved during an election cycle. Besides, Bush had already won four recounts anyway. There is no rational way to conclude that Florida was "stolen" in 2000 when all the factors above among other ones are taken into account. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 29, 2007)]
{2} As for Ohio in 2004, the irregularities there were no different than what happens in a lot of states though I do not recall the Democrats calling for investigations into the election oddities in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin which were if anything more suspicious than Ohio. Oh yes, they won those states so there could not have been voting irregularities!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 29, 2007)]
{3} One of these matters will be addressed closer to the election in a few posts written last year which I decided to hold back at the time on posting. Another is the death penalty for reasons I noted here.
Friday, April 18, 2008
The irony of the Democrats whining about trying to get Hillary out of the race before "all the votes are counted" (in lieu of their pushing Al Gore to continue his futile 2000 crusade in the general election under that very mantra) is simply too much!!! The Germans call this schadenfraude and yes folks, that is what I feel as I review the comments on this thread.
I simply want to reiterate what I said earlier about Senator Clinton and her chances at this time{1} and remind readers of why I have long said that "a year is an eternity time in politics." I predict this move by Howardthe Duck Dean will benefit Senator Clinton in Pennsylvania's primary on April 22, 2008.
Note:
{1} On Senator Hillary Clinton and Her Nomination Chances (circa March 7, 2008)
I simply want to reiterate what I said earlier about Senator Clinton and her chances at this time{1} and remind readers of why I have long said that "a year is an eternity time in politics." I predict this move by Howard
Note:
{1} On Senator Hillary Clinton and Her Nomination Chances (circa March 7, 2008)
Thursday, April 17, 2008
On Principles and Consistency:
(From the Mailbag on Sean Hannity and Problematical Strains of "Conservative" Catholicism)
The words of the emailer will be in dark green font.
Just looked at your comments about Hannity on RN. If the allegations are true, it wouldn't surprise me; just look at Pat Buchanan.
I would rather not consider Pat Buchanan actually. I spent far too much time in years past giving him too much credit for the parts he does get right{1} when he (i) misses the boat so often and (ii) so often makes statements that are imprudent at best or antisemitic at worst. I have no desire whatsoever to defend such people and will not give passes to Buchanan that I will not to others. Unlike many Catholics, I am not a provincialist{2} nor have I ever been one.
There's an element of conservative Catholicism that, if it isn't anti-Semitic outright, ignores the issue or tries to cozy up to Muslims too much. One example is a piece on insidecatholic.com (the online remnant of Crisis Magazine) that criticizes U.S. "imperialism" (obviously, in reference to the war in Iraq). Go to the site yourself and click on the icon on the right side featuring Teddy Roosevelt superimposed over an early-20th century battleship.
Oh yes, the usual suspects whose understanding of the Constitution results in practice in something that fails. Their instincts against this "evolving constitution" schtick which is common today are good but methodologically misguided to no small degree. Their hearts are in the right place though -that is where I will leave it for now.{3}
Of course, the last article written by Deal Hudson for Crisis criticized the Israeli security fence as injurious to Palestinian Christians (who are mostly in communion with Rome). Never mind that the fence saved innocent lives from suicide bombers.
Well, I do not have much interest in Catholic publications when they discourse on geopolitical matters because far too often it is embarrassing. As long as they do not try to make others believe that they are required to give assent to the opinions they espouse on geopolitical matters, then I do not care what they say. But when they do dogmatize on derivative issues, then they make themselves subject to a possible fisking should I have the time or otherwise feel the inclination to.
Notes:
{1} One example of which comes to mind offhand from the archives is this one:
I have noted my reservations about Patrick J. Buchanan before but to remind readers who may have forgotten:
This writer has often noted in the years since he was an avid Buchanan supporter[...] that Patrick J. Buchanan is a streaky kind of writer. I say this in the sense that when he is on, he is quite often not merely on target but indeed en fuego....In closing, though Buchanan is a streaky shooter, as I noted above, when he is on, he tends to get it on the bullseye. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 01, 2004))]
And on CAFTA, Mr. Buchanan gets it right on this subject in so many ways in the opinion of your weblog host. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 29, 2005)]
{2} See a recent bit on provincialism as posted here for more information on this matter.
{3} Except to note that a piece on a necessary third way in political understanding on constitutional issues which has often been mentioned on this weblog as being on the way at some point (most recently here) had the first parts of a rough draft composed and was first publicly mentioned as forthcoming a year ago today. The draft itself was revised into the form it is in now back in December but needs one final review before it will be ready for posting. (I have not had time to do that yet for many reasons including the ones noted here from January of 2008.)
(From the Mailbag on Sean Hannity and Problematical Strains of "Conservative" Catholicism)
The words of the emailer will be in dark green font.
Just looked at your comments about Hannity on RN. If the allegations are true, it wouldn't surprise me; just look at Pat Buchanan.
I would rather not consider Pat Buchanan actually. I spent far too much time in years past giving him too much credit for the parts he does get right{1} when he (i) misses the boat so often and (ii) so often makes statements that are imprudent at best or antisemitic at worst. I have no desire whatsoever to defend such people and will not give passes to Buchanan that I will not to others. Unlike many Catholics, I am not a provincialist{2} nor have I ever been one.
There's an element of conservative Catholicism that, if it isn't anti-Semitic outright, ignores the issue or tries to cozy up to Muslims too much. One example is a piece on insidecatholic.com (the online remnant of Crisis Magazine) that criticizes U.S. "imperialism" (obviously, in reference to the war in Iraq). Go to the site yourself and click on the icon on the right side featuring Teddy Roosevelt superimposed over an early-20th century battleship.
Oh yes, the usual suspects whose understanding of the Constitution results in practice in something that fails. Their instincts against this "evolving constitution" schtick which is common today are good but methodologically misguided to no small degree. Their hearts are in the right place though -that is where I will leave it for now.{3}
Of course, the last article written by Deal Hudson for Crisis criticized the Israeli security fence as injurious to Palestinian Christians (who are mostly in communion with Rome). Never mind that the fence saved innocent lives from suicide bombers.
Well, I do not have much interest in Catholic publications when they discourse on geopolitical matters because far too often it is embarrassing. As long as they do not try to make others believe that they are required to give assent to the opinions they espouse on geopolitical matters, then I do not care what they say. But when they do dogmatize on derivative issues, then they make themselves subject to a possible fisking should I have the time or otherwise feel the inclination to.
Notes:
{1} One example of which comes to mind offhand from the archives is this one:
I have noted my reservations about Patrick J. Buchanan before but to remind readers who may have forgotten:
This writer has often noted in the years since he was an avid Buchanan supporter[...] that Patrick J. Buchanan is a streaky kind of writer. I say this in the sense that when he is on, he is quite often not merely on target but indeed en fuego....In closing, though Buchanan is a streaky shooter, as I noted above, when he is on, he tends to get it on the bullseye. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 01, 2004))]
And on CAFTA, Mr. Buchanan gets it right on this subject in so many ways in the opinion of your weblog host. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 29, 2005)]
{2} See a recent bit on provincialism as posted here for more information on this matter.
{3} Except to note that a piece on a necessary third way in political understanding on constitutional issues which has often been mentioned on this weblog as being on the way at some point (most recently here) had the first parts of a rough draft composed and was first publicly mentioned as forthcoming a year ago today. The draft itself was revised into the form it is in now back in December but needs one final review before it will be ready for posting. (I have not had time to do that yet for many reasons including the ones noted here from January of 2008.)
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Briefly Revisiting An Argumentation Fallacy From Years Past:
As one of the posts I will be blogging soon mentions the subject of provincialism, it seems appropriate in light of the importance of this subject to revisit this matter matter briefly for those who have either forgotten or were unaware of our previous expositions on the matter.
To start with, I recorded an audio post on the argumentation fallacy of provincialism back in May of 2005 but for some reason, none of the audioblogger recordings are accessible anymore despite the promise that they would be.{1}
Without exhausting much type on the matter at the present time, let it suffice to say that fallacious provincialism is present whenever a party engages in double standards with moral and ethical principles. The most prevalent one is where they give a free pass or promotion of various sorts to those who are their positional allies while either not giving a free pass or condemning the same things in those who are not their positional allies that they let those who agree with them get away with.{2}
A lot more could be said on the matter than that but that is all I presently have time for.
Notes:
{1] I keep the audio post links in the archive on the long shot that the company who now stores them will eventually keep their promise and allow access to them.
{2} For those who recall various postings in the archives which have taken issue with these kinds of double standards, this is one of the fallacies at the heart of my criticisms of not a few either rationally oblivious or profoundly disingenuous partisans.
As one of the posts I will be blogging soon mentions the subject of provincialism, it seems appropriate in light of the importance of this subject to revisit this matter matter briefly for those who have either forgotten or were unaware of our previous expositions on the matter.
To start with, I recorded an audio post on the argumentation fallacy of provincialism back in May of 2005 but for some reason, none of the audioblogger recordings are accessible anymore despite the promise that they would be.{1}
Without exhausting much type on the matter at the present time, let it suffice to say that fallacious provincialism is present whenever a party engages in double standards with moral and ethical principles. The most prevalent one is where they give a free pass or promotion of various sorts to those who are their positional allies while either not giving a free pass or condemning the same things in those who are not their positional allies that they let those who agree with them get away with.{2}
A lot more could be said on the matter than that but that is all I presently have time for.
Notes:
{1] I keep the audio post links in the archive on the long shot that the company who now stores them will eventually keep their promise and allow access to them.
{2} For those who recall various postings in the archives which have taken issue with these kinds of double standards, this is one of the fallacies at the heart of my criticisms of not a few either rationally oblivious or profoundly disingenuous partisans.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Points to Ponder:
No talk of peace, justice, truth, or virtue is complete without a clear understanding that certain individuals, movements, and nations must be met with measured force, however much we might prefer to deal with them peacefully or pleasantly. Without force, many will not talk seriously at all, and some not even then. Human, moral, and economic problems are greater today for the lack of adequate military force or, more often, for the failure to use it when necessary. [Fr. James V. Schall SJ]
No talk of peace, justice, truth, or virtue is complete without a clear understanding that certain individuals, movements, and nations must be met with measured force, however much we might prefer to deal with them peacefully or pleasantly. Without force, many will not talk seriously at all, and some not even then. Human, moral, and economic problems are greater today for the lack of adequate military force or, more often, for the failure to use it when necessary. [Fr. James V. Schall SJ]
Friday, April 11, 2008
"One From the Vault" Dept.
(On Atheism)
Originally this was drafted in December of 2006 as a short critique of someone else's writing in response to an atheist interlocuter but for some reason I cannot recall at the moment, it was never actually blogged.{1} I have made some redactions to the completed post as it was in the archives and decided to post it at this time for something I have had in the works for completing and posting for about five months now as a point of reference. Without further ado...
Now, I don't subscribe to the belief that religion is the only thing that makes people compelled to good behavior (although it's certainly true for some), but it does give people inner peace, serenity, enlightenment, and often things like creativity and clarity in thinking.
I would change "it does" to "it can." I know not a few theists who frankly are lousy thinkers. But yes, if one accepts as a certain foundational presupposition that there is Infinite Intelligence (in some form or another) it can definitely assist with creativity and clarity in thinking because it defines a point of reference from which one can operate from. And as I am wont to say at times "definitions are the tools of thought."
On the whole the piece you sent me reads fine except it did not seem to me that you challenged the atheist while trying to defend yourself from his assertions. The following threads from my weblog may be of assistance in this area:
Musings on Atheism (circa August 15, 2003)
Points to Ponder on Atheism By Dr. Art Sippo (circa August 14, 2003)
Ultimately, atheism is arbitrary as both Dr. Sippo and I note in various ways. Because to be an atheist is to have an operative presupposition in your thinking that something was created out of nothing. I remember really pissing off atheists at the infidels board about seven to eight years ago with pointing that out in various ways to a whole host of their presumed "arguments against God's existence." The beauty of it is that no matter how they slice it, that is what all of their attempts inexorably boil down to. I hope that helps.
Note:
{1} It was drafted on December 14, 2006 -a few days before the posting of this thread which was written at about the same time and pertaining to similar subject matter:
On Implicit Faith (circa December 16, 2006)
My best guess offhand (since I cannot remember) is that though both posts were similarly of a universal nature and covered some of the same elements that I viewed the above thread to be of greater service both generally as well as particularly at the time than this one. That is one possible reason and the only one I can think of offhand that explains it other than simply being so inundated with a variety of things that I forgot about it and more drafts in various stages of completion piled up after it and it got buried.
(On Atheism)
Originally this was drafted in December of 2006 as a short critique of someone else's writing in response to an atheist interlocuter but for some reason I cannot recall at the moment, it was never actually blogged.{1} I have made some redactions to the completed post as it was in the archives and decided to post it at this time for something I have had in the works for completing and posting for about five months now as a point of reference. Without further ado...
Now, I don't subscribe to the belief that religion is the only thing that makes people compelled to good behavior (although it's certainly true for some), but it does give people inner peace, serenity, enlightenment, and often things like creativity and clarity in thinking.
I would change "it does" to "it can." I know not a few theists who frankly are lousy thinkers. But yes, if one accepts as a certain foundational presupposition that there is Infinite Intelligence (in some form or another) it can definitely assist with creativity and clarity in thinking because it defines a point of reference from which one can operate from. And as I am wont to say at times "definitions are the tools of thought."
On the whole the piece you sent me reads fine except it did not seem to me that you challenged the atheist while trying to defend yourself from his assertions. The following threads from my weblog may be of assistance in this area:
Musings on Atheism (circa August 15, 2003)
Points to Ponder on Atheism By Dr. Art Sippo (circa August 14, 2003)
Ultimately, atheism is arbitrary as both Dr. Sippo and I note in various ways. Because to be an atheist is to have an operative presupposition in your thinking that something was created out of nothing. I remember really pissing off atheists at the infidels board about seven to eight years ago with pointing that out in various ways to a whole host of their presumed "arguments against God's existence." The beauty of it is that no matter how they slice it, that is what all of their attempts inexorably boil down to. I hope that helps.
Note:
{1} It was drafted on December 14, 2006 -a few days before the posting of this thread which was written at about the same time and pertaining to similar subject matter:
On Implicit Faith (circa December 16, 2006)
My best guess offhand (since I cannot remember) is that though both posts were similarly of a universal nature and covered some of the same elements that I viewed the above thread to be of greater service both generally as well as particularly at the time than this one. That is one possible reason and the only one I can think of offhand that explains it other than simply being so inundated with a variety of things that I forgot about it and more drafts in various stages of completion piled up after it and it got buried.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Points to Ponder:
I cannot help in pondering the subject of war come to any conclusion except that if it was ever outlawed, if those who are the most manic of the so-called "peacemakers" among us were to actually achieve their intended aim, that we will have forever enthroned an unstoppable totalitarianism on the world. We need to always have the option of what Chesterton called "the sacred right of insurrection" if we are to have a modicum of restoring societies from the tyranny of legal perversion by bureaucratic termites and whores who see mankind as clay for their own sociological "moulding." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 16, 2005)]
I cannot help in pondering the subject of war come to any conclusion except that if it was ever outlawed, if those who are the most manic of the so-called "peacemakers" among us were to actually achieve their intended aim, that we will have forever enthroned an unstoppable totalitarianism on the world. We need to always have the option of what Chesterton called "the sacred right of insurrection" if we are to have a modicum of restoring societies from the tyranny of legal perversion by bureaucratic termites and whores who see mankind as clay for their own sociological "moulding." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 16, 2005)]
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Mexico reconquers California? Absolut drinks to that!
And that my friends is why I will not drink Absolut vodka anytime soon -even going so far as to ask every place I go where vodka is served what they are serving.
Also, the presumed apology of Absolut does not change my mind an iota -particularly since this supposed "absolut world" happens to coincide with an actual movement to try and achieve what that map outlines. Pardon your humble servant if he does not find this matter so amusing.
As for the rest, I summarized it last year in a post which I will include in a footnote{1} and that is all I plan to say on it for now.
Note:
{1} On President Bush and the Southern Border (circa June 23, 2007)
And that my friends is why I will not drink Absolut vodka anytime soon -even going so far as to ask every place I go where vodka is served what they are serving.
Also, the presumed apology of Absolut does not change my mind an iota -particularly since this supposed "absolut world" happens to coincide with an actual movement to try and achieve what that map outlines. Pardon your humble servant if he does not find this matter so amusing.
As for the rest, I summarized it last year in a post which I will include in a footnote{1} and that is all I plan to say on it for now.
Note:
{1} On President Bush and the Southern Border (circa June 23, 2007)
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Points to Ponder:
(On "Fark")
(On "Fark")
Fark is what fills space when mass media runs out of news. It's not news, it's Fark. Fark is supposed to look like news... but it's not news.
There is an ancient (supposed) Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times." Let's face it, interesting times suck. Whenever Mass Media is really fulfilling its intended purpose, generally something bad is going on. Wars, blown elections, bad weather, you name it -- when people need to know something, it's probably because it's likely to kill them. We'd be much better off living in non-interesting times.
This presents a problem for Mass Media, however, when we are not living in interesting times. This has been further compounded by the advent of twenty-four hour news channels and the Internet as a news source. Back in the days when TV news concentrated most of its resources on one half-hour blocks of news, finding material to fill the time slot wasn't difficult. Nowadays cable news networks have to scramble to have something to talk about for twenty-four hours a day, even when nothing of important is going on. Sales departments are still selling advertisements, after all. Mass Media can't just run content made entirely of ads (with the possible exception of the Home Shopping Network). Something has to fill the space.
Over the years Mass Media has developed several methods of filling this space. No one teaches this in journalism school; odds are Mass Media itself hasn't given much thought to the process. It's a practice honed over the years by editors and publishers, verbally passed down from one generation to the next. They're not entirely aware they're doing it, although the media folks who read advance copies of this manuscript all had the same reaction: "I've been saying we should stop doing this for YEARS." [Drew Curtis]
God rest your soul Charlton Heston and thank you for your contributions to humanity
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and my Thy perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace with all the souls of the faithful departed through the mercy of God. Amen.
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and my Thy perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace with all the souls of the faithful departed through the mercy of God. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)