Revisiting the Subject of the Surge and the Deafening Silence of the MSM Thereof:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

One of the advantages of focusing so much on fundamental principles for the positions we have taken and continue to take on various and sundry issues over the years is it enables us to approach the issues we write about generally speaking with a calmer detachment than the lions share of commentators who write on the same issues regardless of their ideological leanings.{1}

Now we say "generally speaking" because it would be the height of absurdity to claim that we have never succumbed to this tendency ourselves. However, on significant subject matter{2} we have not done this. And that is one reason why we do not regret or feel the need to try and hide what we have written on over the years even if in some cases we are less likely to advertise the work than others.

For what it is worth, our reticence here is not because we cannot admit to making mistakes or anything like that -heck we have a mea culpa blog tag for that- but simply that some subjects of interest to us in years past either no longer are or rarely are and for that reason we are not inclined to want to revisit those subjects.{3}

However, periodically at this weblog we find it relevant to remind readers of our prescience on various subject revisit subjects that certain provocateurs focus on seemingly daily without seeing the forest for the trees. One such subject is the so-called "surge" which we last wrote on back in November of last year and which will be a factor of no small significance in the 2008 fall elections. It seems appropriate to revisit that thread with a quote to remind readers of what we said then to set up what we are about to say. Without further ado...

These musings were the result of the following article from The Washington Post which we read about a month ago:

Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled (Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung)

To start with, the article itself is another piece of evidence for the hypothesis that the surge approach in Iraq is working. However, there is as always a broader approach to these matters that needs to be considered and I will touch on it now for those who are interested.

One of the reasons I have not reacted to every news story on this subject the way so many do is because the principles whereby I formulated my original position on the military involvement in Iraq nearly five years ago has not changed and will not change. That being said though, it does not mean that I have always liked the way things have been done over there. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 9, 2007)]

Though we had noted before on more than one occasion support to various degrees for the surge{4} and also have noted since that time the irrevocable nature of our publicly stated war position in Iraq{5}, the present writer cannot recall offhand any public statement prior to the above posting where it was revealed that he was unhappy with the pre-surge post war approach to stabilization. Of course we have since that posting noted this a few times{6} but over time there has been little if anything in the mainstream media (msm) about the surge. The reason folks is simply: it is working.

Those who remember last year and the msm's crowing about how only eight of eighteen set "benchmarks" had been met with a "satisfactory" grade by even the White House's reckoning should take note of how little we are hearing about "benchmarks" now. Indeed, it was pointed out in April by Frederic Kagan of The Weekly Standard that those who were opposed to the war in Iraq and also to the surge who had previously gone out of their way to claim that success was "impossible" or who sought to emphasize the importance on meeting certain so-called "benchmarks" were moving the goalposts as it became clear that the previously assessed "benchmarks" were being gradually met:

AS THE REDUCTION IN violence in Iraq has become incontestable (the insistence of early critics that no such reduction was possible notwithstanding), war opponents have fallen back on their next line of defense--that the military progress has not been matched by the political progress it was supposed to enable. This talking point, however, is also outdated and invalid. The Bush administration, commanders and ambassadors in the field, and supporters of the effort to win in Iraq have long pointed to evidence of grassroots reconciliation and political progress. This evidence is growing and the importance of these developments is becoming increasingly apparent. But critics have long dismissed these developments on the grounds that they meant nothing if the central government did not meet the key benchmarks established in 2007 as the basis for continued American support. For most of 2007, such critics at least had some facts on their side--the Iraqi Government quickly moved to achieve most of the security-related benchmarks, but key legislative benchmarks remained stalled. The facts no longer support this argument, however. As a recent study by the U.S. Institute of Peace noted, "It may be that February 13, 2008 will be remembered as the day when Iraq's political climate began to catch up with its improved security situation--or, more to the point, when Iraqi leaders discovered the key to political compromise and reconciliation."

As the tally below shows, the Government of Iraq has now met 12 out of the original 18 benchmarks set for it, including four out of the six key legislative benchmarks. It has made substantial progress on five more, and only one remains truly stalled. One can argue about the scoring of this or that benchmark, but the overall picture is very clear: before the surge began, the Iraqi Government had accomplished none of the benchmarks and was on the way to accomplishing very few. As the surge winds down, it has accomplished around two-thirds of them and is moving ahead on almost all of the remainder. To say in the face of these facts that Iraq has made "little" or "no" political progress is simply false-to-fact.[LINK]

As we noted in last November's post on these matters{7} and in the other threads of 2007 where the surge was mentioned{8}, the msm has no interest in winning in Iraq.{9} It should therefore not surprise that the more good news that comes out of Iraq on the progress front, the less they are going to say on the matter. Now with the news of 15 of the 18 "benchmarks" being satisfactorily met as of May 2008, expect these sorts to continue to be as silent as a whore in church on this subject.

Now it is one thing to disagree on policies of any politician, president, pope, or whomever and even do so strongly at that. But disagreement for the sake of disagreement or because of blindly or uncritically following the opinions of others (whomever they are) should be shunned on all sides.

One should always strive to take any position on a principle or an issue consonant with the facts to the extent they can ascertain them and in doing this be willing to admit even if it is inconvenient to do so when the facts as they are made aware of them do not countenance their previously enunciated views. This is a minimum requirement of logic and rational thought to say nothing about the accompanying moral and ethical dimensions. And while this writer can in disagreement respect those who do not agree with him, such respect however is contingent upon said parties involved meeting the aforementioned logical, rational, moral, and ethical criteria.{10} And that is the bottom line really.

Notes:

{1} While we have noticed that those of a so-called "progressivist" mindset are habitually prone to this problem, there are also knee jerk sorts who identify as "conservatives" who do the same thing.

{2} As opposed to ancillary or minutiae subject matter where occasionally this has happened.

{3} There have also been cases where we have changed our mind or are less sure of views as espoused in years past but these are few and far between and (usually) a pattern of sorts will probably indicate these matters in the archives as subjects are written on in a variety of ways over time. (Emphasis on "probably" as we are not certain if this applies in all cases though with the ones we can think of offhand it does.)

{4} On President Bush and His Administration As of Mid 2007 (circa July 11, 2007)

On the Iraq Situation, the Military Surge, and Playing Politics (circa August 21, 2007)

{5} Most recently noted in this thread from February.

{6} Most notably in these threads:

A Dialogue on John McCain and "Conservatism" (circa March 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 --Parts I-V of a Dialogue (circa April 26-May 14, 2008)

{7} On the Situation in Iraq As of Early November 2007 (circa November 9, 2007)

{8} See footnote four.

{9} I have said next to nothing about the Iraq surge since the strategy was announced late last year in the wake of the probable election losses for the Republicans in the congressional races.[...] Part of the reason for this is that it takes a while to implement a new military strategy and when I did speak on the matter back in July[...], the full number of extra troops were still not in place yet. I did however know that the surge was working about as well as it could be expected under the circumstances including that the msm has no interest in winning in Iraq for political reasons any more than the Democrats do. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 21, 2007)]

{10} Or benchmarks if we were to utilize the terms being used in discussing the results of the surge in Iraq.

Points to Ponder:
(On Constitutional Interpretation From Democratic President Grover Cleveland)

Here is the background of what is about to be quoted from another website:

After a drought had ruined crops in several Texas counties, the Congress appropriated $10,000 to purchase seed grain for farmers there. Cleveland vetoed the expenditure.

And here is the message on why the bill was vetoed -today's "points to ponder" installment:

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people. [President Grover Cleveland]

Briefly on Appeasement Ecclesial-Style:

[Update: I added a title to this posting to enable me to precede it with an update that a portion of this note was not finished yesterday -something I did not realize until briefly perusing it again. The required material to complete it was added to the third footnote shortly before this note was attached. -ISM 7/8/08 7:00pm]

In looking into our proverbial crystal ball, "NostraShawnus" predicts that a lot of Anglicans will become either Catholics or Orthodox after the latest round of capitulation by their synod.

Whatever you have to say about it, at least the Catholics and Orthodox traditions reject the very notion of women's ordination -tying the principle to a sacramental understanding of clerical major orders which involves to some extent the intrinsic trait of masculinity.{1} But despite claiming an Apostolic pedigree, there is a marked absence of this principle amongst the Anglicans which is what made this new decision in the synod one that was eventually going to happen with enough time.

One who stands on fundamental philosophical principles is able to withstand what those who do not take such stands cannot for long endure. And I would be remiss in failing to note that this is also what happens when there is something rather irrational in your approach to these things.

Faith and reason should support and sustain one another when each is properly understood. But the claim that women can be priests but cannot be bishops (as the Anglican community has been claiming for some time now) is patently irrational if you consider that in the Christian tradition a bishop is merely receiver of a fullness of a common mystery{2} that priests receive to a lesser degree than bishops and deacons an even more marked lessening thereof. Such a consistency of principle is what protects the Catholic{3} and Orthodox{4} while the Anglicans show yet again the dangers of extreme or untethered latitudinarianism. Caveat Emptor!!!

Notes:

{1} The imagery drawn on in both traditions embodies in part Jesus' masculinity being part of his humanity and the Church in a mystical sense being his bride; ergo (one argument goes) the priest as a representative of Jesus for the assembly (or the bishop for the dioceses) requires the same fundamental characteristics of Jesus' humanity including his maleness.

{2} Or in Latin sacramentum or the basis for the theological principle of what is called "sacraments." The Anglicans rejecting the concept of clerical orders as a sacrament basically (and to put it nicely) cut off the branch on which they are sitting when it comes to these sorts of matters.

{3} In the Catholic tradition, this matter has become a matter of controversy since the Second Vatican Council. It is perhaps ironic that prior to the council this matter was theologically an open subject but at the council the matter was closed when the grades of what is called holy orders is expressly restricted to bishops, priests, and deacons in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium. (See sections 22-29 where the hierarchy and its various roles and functions are discussed.) With the boundaries of the sacrament of holy orders now as a matter of settled doctrine in the Catholic understanding of things, the inadmissibility on doctrinal, theological, and historical grounds of women to the priesthood was later proclaimed by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) under then-prefect Franjo Seper in a declaration which was issued with the concurrence of Pope Paul VI in 1976.

Not long after the Anglicans started "ordaining" women to be "priests", Pope John Paul II proclaimed the inadmissibility of women to the priesthood in a more solemn fashion in 1994. (In the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.) The CDF in 1995 under then-prefect Joseph Ratzinger issued a clarification in response to a question on the matter affirming the definitive nature of the aforementioned declaration which was authorized by Pope John Paul II. In 2007, the CDF issued under current prefect William Levada a declaration that any woman attempting to receive the sacrament of holy orders and any cleric who would dare attempt to administer it would receive an automatic excommunication latae sententae (or basically "by virtue of the act itself.") That decision was published in the Vatican's official newspaper on May 30, 2008.

{4} The Orthodox understanding of this tradition mirrors the Catholic one in many respects and is outlined in this writing by Fr. Alister Anderson.

Reissuing the "'Neo-Con' Challenge'":

Since first sketching out my questions with regard to use of this term in October of 2005{1}, and putting together a more systematical presentation in December of that year{2}, I have from time to time when the mood strikes me reissued{3} the challenge to those who frequently utilize this term -most recently in January of last year.{4}

Though some will probably find this notion amusing, I nonetheless have a method to my madness and am doing this for a reason: to point out the problem with using terms that are not defined or not explaining how one who uses a term understands that term to be applicable. It is too common for people to lazily throw around terms to avoid having to think about issues and that is a problem that is seemingly increasing over time. And as we noted in the last reissuing of this challenge, the problem was summed up rather tersely in the following statement by one of our early{5} intellectual mentors:

[W]e are living in a new Dark Ages, we really are. Most people have no concept of logic and how to use it. How to use their intellectual faculties to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Most people are intellectually dependent. [Mike Mentzer (circa 1993) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa February 12, 2006)]

This is a serious problem we face in society and it is one reason I see value in the challenge I am proposing here. So as definitions are the tools of thought,{6}, it would be nice if those who have a bug up their hind quarters about these supposed "neo-cons" actually explain what I have requested in the threads above. This is not that difficult to do actually but doing so would hold those who kvetch about these supposed beings to a certain standard. Thus far, only one party who has frequent recourse to this term has taken the time to formulate a definition of the term{7} but even they were trying to go beyond the boundaries they set down in applying it.

So is it possible that someone will step up to the plate and actually define this term so we can identify these so-called 'neo-cons' or is it going to be more of the same indiscriminate labeling of others with what is intended to be a derisive or dismissive term akin to "antisemite", "nazi", or whatever??? I highly doubt the frequenters of that term will provide us with an answer but hope springs eternal I suppose.

Notes:

{1} Miscellaneous Morning Musings on Blogging, the So-Called "Neo-Cons", and the Miers Nomination--An Audio Post (circa October 27, 2005)

{2} "Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept. (circa December 4, 2005)

{3} "Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo-Con'" Dept. --A Rerum Novarum Challenge Revisitation/Reiussuance Thread (circa October 2, 2006)

{4} "Lions and Tigers and 'Neo-Cons', Oh My!!!" Dept. (circa January 31, 2007)

{5} I touched on this a bit in the following post:

Responding to the Blogosphere Book Meme (circa June 14, 2005)

{6} Points to Ponder as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa December 17, 2004)

{7} That party for those who are interested was Dale Vree. Mr. Vree's proposed definition and application were addressed in a March 2006 posting to Rerum Novarum which is viewable HERE.

There are a couple links from the archives of this humble weblog that I want to remind readers of before going off to celebrate the fourth. Without further ado...

Some Brief Biographical Bits on a Few Founding Fathers (circa January 23, 2007)

I sketched out a few for the benefit of the readers -some of them were involved in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, some in the Continental Congress of 1776, and some were involved in both pivotal events.

Rough Draft of a Book Review of Charles Cerami's Young Patriots (circa January 25, 2007)

Though that text was posted almost verbatim to Amazon earlier this year, that draft (originally written in mid 2006) has a few bits the Amazon review does not if memory serves.

On the Founding Fathers and Liberty's Greatest Advocate -By Rush H. Limbaugh Jr., Dr. Walter E. Williams, Plus Some Ultra Brief Musings from Your Blog Host (circa July 3, 2007)

For those who think that the Limbaugh in that thread is the talk show host, actually it is Rush's father.

Anyway, it is my hope that readers will find something of value in those threads and that they celebrate today the birth of a great nation and take note of both its tremendous achievements these past 232 years but also give a fair pause of some of the failings too. There is a reason why the writer of the song America the Beautiful included a verse not commonly known about America and "God mend her every flaw." Some have been mended over time and others await their day of reckoning still. Nonetheless, the structure set up by the Founders is one subject to amendment and revision without destroying the entire structure{1} and we should celebrate that achievement as well as our independence without forgetting that there is still a lot of work left to be done.

God Bless America!!!

Note:

{1} I go over at some length this principle in the following expository musing on one of the black marks of American history:

On Being Fair to Historical Figures in General and Revisiting the Subject of Slavery in American History (circa October 25, 2007)

The Declaration of Independence - A Brief History

Points to Ponder:
(On the Negativity of the Mainstream Media)

There's so much negative imagery of black fatherhood. I've got tons of friends that are doing the right thing by their kids, and doing the right thing as a father - and how come that's not as newsworthy? [Will Smith]

On the Recent Supreme Court Second Amendment Case:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Though I recently noted one of the rare examples of where the John Roberts Court had gone astray when it came to a judgment on a case that conformed to judicial interpretation as opposed to judicial activism{1} -and furthermore said that I might cover it in more detail later on{2}, it would be remiss of me to not give them credit for getting right the decision in D.C. v. Heller. Before readers presume that I am saying a given case is "right" or "wrong" based on subjective whims, I remind them that my stance is and always has been one of taking an originalist approach to the Constitution and not merely saying that there are "Constitutional rights" whenever the issue is one that fits any individual's personal whims.

In saying this, I have taken issue with those who would look for so-called "litmus tests" for justices on the court of any sort{3} that they are involving themselves in judicial activism which as a principle is wrong period not merely wrong when those a person believes are morally wrong on their position utilize it but okay when those you believe are morally right are the asserters of it.{4}

For I have long said and on more than one occasion that there are certain positions I am not opposed to in principle but which I would never claim are "constitutional" because they are not. One is the concept of a federal right to privacy. Or as I noted briefly last year on one such matter:

I cannot recall if I have said this on the weblog in the past or not (as I cannot find anything in a quick archive search) but I am not opposed in principle to the idea of a federal right to privacy. The problem is, there is no constitutional foundation for such a position; ergo those who want to see one should do what they can to amend the Constitution to reflect that right. Otherwise, they should have the decency to admit that they do not give a damn about the Constitution at all. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 29, 2007)]

And on the matter of D.C. v. Heller, the Roberts Court led by the lucid reasoning of Justice Antonin Scalia took the view of the Second Amendment that the text itself conveys. It is interesting how the four justices who voted against the position of Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy would have no problem finding in the Constitution a supposed "constitutional right" to either a "federal right to privacy"{5}, a supposed "constitutional right" to an abortion{6} or to engage in sodomy{7}, or a "constitutional right" for stealing an individual's private property to sell to another private party in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment{8} yet these same proponents cannot see the simple language of the Second Amendment that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and somehow claim it does not say precisely what it says!!!

But this is why I have long endorsed the idea of involving those who would attempt to "reason" the way the proponents of an "evolving constitution" do in a game of Texas Hold'Em with "evolving rules" to illustrate the stupidity of their judicial pretensions.{9} But enough on that for now and I want to simply at this time give congrats to the four originalist justices for voting as they did out of principle, and to Justice Kennedy whose "judicial magic 8 ball"{10} came up on the originalist side of the vote this time. And lest I forget, to remind readers that this is an example of why the types of justices who are placed on the Supreme Court is a matter of no small importance and why votes for president in 2008 should take that factor heavily into account.

Notes:

{1} The cases I have in mind here are the ones purporting to give constitutional rights to foreign terrorists (Boumediene v. Bush) and the recent case that child rapists could not be given the death penalty because the latter was supposedly "unconstitutional" (Kennedy v. Lousiana). But I could also mention the case from 2006 which Chief Justice Roberts had to abstain on which applied Geneva Convention protocols to those who do not fit the criteria outlined by the Geneva Conventions for such protections to be granted to them.

{2} Though overall the Roberts Court has pleased me greatly compared to its predecessors of recent decades; nonetheless, the occasional decision such as this reminds us all that there are still some on the court whose vote essentially is tied to a lack of solid judicial philosophy and thus subject to personal inclinations. I may go over that in detail another time{1} if so inclined but for the time being that is all I intend to say on it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 28, 2008)]

In the footnote of the above quote, the following clarification was made:

I will only note here briefly that the role of a justice is to interpret the law and not invent law. This may well mean rendering a ruling that is opposed to the individual justice's personal views on a matter. [(ibid.)]

{3} Whether it be (to give one example that comes readily to mind) the abolition of Roe v. Wade as favoured by pro life advocates or the assertion of abortion as a "constitutional right" by those who support Roe v. Wade. To understand my view on this subject, readers are advised to consider some of the threads in this weblog's archive on the subject of judicial activism. Here are several of them going back five years in order from most recent to oldest:

Clarification on Our Use of Judicial Terminology (circa March 13, 2008)

On Mitt Romney, Conservatives, and the Judiciary (circa December 16, 2007)

On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)

On the Election, "Lost Causes", and Activism (circa December 7, 2006)

On the Election and the Attitudes of Self-Identified Conservatives (circa November 7, 2006)

Briefly on Originalism and Chief Justice John Roberts (circa March 7, 2006)

On the Miers Nomination and Activist Conservative Agendas (circa October 10, 2005)

"The Stupid [Republican] Party Strikes Back" Dept. (circa May 25, 2005)

Notations on Short and Long Term Approaches to Dealing With Judicial Activism (circa August 29, 2004)

Society's Ills, the Function of Law in a Just Society, Etc. (circa April 16, 2004)

On Judicial "Constructionists", "Whores", and "Termites" (circa June 24, 2003)

{4} Which is a form of what is called consequentialism that some who claim to have a problem with "consequentialism" irrationally involve themselves in: a subject I recently finished a draft text on which will be blogged in the coming days or weeks.

{5} Cf. Griswold vs. Connecticut (circa 1965).

{6} Cf. Roe v. Wade (circa 1973).

{7} Cf. Lawrence v. Texas (circa 2003).

{8} Cf. Kelo v. New London (circa 2005).

{9} The writer of this post would like to take this opportunity to to invite anyone who believes in an evolving constitutional interpretation to email him if they are fans of Texas Hold 'Em and are interested in playing for money. For your humble servant is not only a pretty decent poker player but he also has in mind starting a game with people like you for money to illustrate by demonstration the logical absurdity of your positions: Texas Hold 'Em with "evolving rules."[...] Something tells your host that such a game would amply clarify the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" position in precise proportion to the amount of money the promoters of the "evolving constitutional interpretation" theory lost their cash in the afore-proposed card game. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]

{10} [Supreme Conflict] well outlines how [lack of philosophical identity] was Kennedy's problem and why he ended up looking so promising to conservatives but has on key conservative issues been such a let-down. Kennedy started with conservative instincts and still to some extent has them but without a solid template of sorts from which to operate from, there were and are inconsistencies in how he comes down on a given issue. Too often without such a template the environment to some extent can play an influence that may well go unnoticed and a sequence of small shifts (each in and of themselves seemingly innocuous) can create over time the materials for a completely different paradigm altogether. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 7, 2007)]

On Coercion, the War on Terror, "Torture", and "Fantasy Situations":

(An Attempted Dialogue With the Words of Mark Shea -Part III of III)

To read the previous part to this thread, please go here. To start from the beginning of this series, please go here. Without further ado (and yet again with Mark Shea's words in dark green font)...

The argument of the Christian revelation is that this is, not to put too fine a point on it, a lie from the pit of hell. Because the argument of the Christian revelation is that Christ intends our happiness and knows better than we do what is actually the best way for the human person to realize that. This involves a conception of Christ's commands as something other than impossible ideals or as cruel irrational restrictions on our freedom which we have to obey for no reason other than fear. In short, it involves the idea that the one who created us did so because he wills our happiness and obedience is actually ordered toward life and freedom, not toward our destruction.

Notice the bait and switch here folks. Mark has now after creating no small amount of confusion with regards to certain concepts taken to wrapping his opinion up in the mantle of "the Christian revelation" to the exclusion of other views!!! It is all well and good to say that "obedience is actually ordered towards life and freedom" but when you advocate approaches as Mark does which endanger the very life you seek to protect, you cannot expect anyone who respects the natural God-given faculties of reason and logic along with the fundamental rights of man to take such rhetoric seriously.

I appreciate the fear that lies behind all this "How far can we go in really desperate situations?" hypothesizing. I really do. I am constitutionally Irish and I feel the temptation every day to imagine The Worst ("What would I do if my wife were killed? Or my children contracted a wasting disease? Or Seattle was nuked? Or the ferry I'm on is sunk by an Al-Quaeda agent? Or a thousand other terrifying things happened?") But I also recognize that such cultivation of fear is sinful.

The cultivation of libel and bearing false witness against one's neighbour is also sinful. And on this matter Mark has far more often than not engaged in these very things -the only exceptions being (it would seem) when he bumps up against someone who can impact his income.{1} This shows not a concern for moral and ethical principles on his part but instead one of expediency: ironically the very sort of thing he seeks to dress up in a giant strawman and accuse of what he is doing those who disagree with his interpretation of Christian principles.

It place me, for the most part, not in the "real world" but in a fantasy. In the real world is God and my duty to my family and my work. This is not speculation on my part. This is the command of the gospel. Jesus specifically forbids us to worry. St. Paul does not command us to constantly rehearse the horrible ways in which we and those we live might suffer (and this was a man who experienced more actual suffering than we ever will). Instead--from jail--he wrote:

Have no anxiety about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. 7 And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, will keep your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. 8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 9* What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.

Paul says that we must "be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our minds." (Romans 12). It is significant that, for the world, readiness comes from being afraid, tense, jumping at the rustle of leaves, worried about what horrible thing *might* happen.

Readiness comes from preparing oneself for all possible contingencies, not acting like a bunch of geopolitical snake handlers. I had better explain what I mean by that term lest I do what I am critical of Mark of doing and not define my terms.

The reference to snake handling is part of an analogy I use to refer to certain fundamentalist Christian groups who take the phrasing from the end of the Gospel of Mark literally about picking up serpents and not being harmed by them. There are entire sects who have as a ritual the playing with poisonous snakes (usually rattlers) under the delusional belief that because they "believe in Jesus" that they will not be harmed. And yet not a few of them are harmed -indeed if not for the fact that there is an effective antidote against rattlesnake poison today, many of them would die as a result.

Geopolitical snake handlers are those who are similarly misguided as the fundamentalists are with their snakes except with regards to geopolitical matters such as enemy combatants who do not conform to the rubrics set down by the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war even if they were signatories to them which (of course) they are not. But those factors aside, we apparently need to recoil at every individual's whim of what constitutes "torture" and put these people up in five star resorts with the best food and wine, the most comfortable of amenities, and somehow they will magically give us valuable information which we can use against Al Qaeda to insure their defeat.

Now I am sure people such as Mark would claim that my illustration of their position is ridiculously caricatured but at bottom that is what it logically implies. And without the attempt being made to define the terms of discussion, basically anything the government does to try and obtain information can be construed by some activist wacko as "torture." In true rational nominalist{2} fashion, words without accepted meanings can mean anything.

This is why the attempts on my part and presumably on the part of others to get people such as Mark to explain the terms they throw around so casually is so important. It is important because not only does an absence of definition of terms allow any person of Mark's general outlook{3} to ascribe any action they do not like as "torture" but it also allows someone whose general outlook is the opposite of Mark's{4} to ascribe anything they like as "coercion." There is in other words a need for understanding of terms so that excesses on either side are more easily recognized. As I noted previously, this will not result in agreement across the board by any means but it would help in making discourse on the matter a lot more civil and perhaps building some unexpected coalitions of sort which could work as a check and balance on both tendencies on these matters.

For Paul, readiness comes from peace. That's why he tells the Ephesians to let there feet be shod with "the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace" (Ephesians 6).

We start with the revelation, not with servile fear and concupiscence, in thinking about these matters.

Again, Mark presumes without demonstrative warrant that those who disagree with his interpretation of things are not "start[ing] with revelation" on these matters and that is no small source of annoyance. It would be one thing for Mark to presume that those who do not agree with him reason from revelation erroneously on these matters but do not do so in bad faith but he quite clearly has not done this. Or shall I say he has not done this with anyone who does not potentially have a discernible impact on his ability to make a living off of apologetics.{5} That is the sort of noxious double standard that has no place amongst those who are truly interested in the cultivation and promotion of not only the God-given tools of reason and logic but also those who endeavour (however imperfectly) to take the councils of the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition seriously when it comes to proper conduct towards others.{6}

While a lot more could be noted than this, I do not intend to do so at this time as enough has been covered in this thread already. And again, for those who think it strange that I would take time to do this they would do well to remember certain basic principles of ethics{7} which are at the foundation of how we do things here at Rerum Novarum.

Notes:

{1} For example, the whole Jimmy Akin incident from late 2006.

{2} Rational Nominalism: A mindset or foundational presupposition which wholeheartedly embraces the nominalist concept of using words in a variety of ways without concern for any universal or underlying coherency across the continuum of words, phrases, subjects, etc. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 21, 2007)]

{3} By this term I mean someone who is generally inclined against the efforts of the government when it comes to its handling of WOT.

{4} By this term I mean someone who is generally inclined towards the efforts of the government when it comes to its handling of WOT.

{5} See footnote one.

{6} To note one example of countless others which could be noted is the principle of charity:

Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 24, 2004)]

By the principles of St. Francis de Sales, Mark is an "uncharitable person" on these matters the lions share of the time.

{7} Or to encapsulate a principle I have enunciated so often publicly and privately over the years that I feel like a broken record:

That is at bottom what it means to be moral and ethical: avoiding double standards and recognizing the same principles apply across the board, regardless of whom they help or harm. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 3, 2008)]

Unfortunately, the violators of this principle are either too blind or too stupid to figure this out or (if they do) they sure do not care to apply it across the board as anyone of integrity would seek to do.

On Coercion, the War on Terror, "Torture", and "Fantasy Situations":
(An Attempted Dialogue With the Words of Mark Shea -Part II of III)

To read the first part of this thread, please go here. Without further ado (and again with Mark Shea's words in dark green font)...

And we need to start that converation based, not on our worst fears, but on revelation, which says we have the right to defend ourselves and that prisoners must be treat humanely.

It is true that we have the right to self-defense and indeed this could be said (as I have often said) that the right to life is a fundamental right of man given to us by God. But I am unaware of any "revelation" on the matter except perhaps indirectly; for example, a strong implication in the divine prohibition against murder though self-defense can at times consist of killing another that does not constitute murder properly-speaking. The second one is even more indirect as the "dignity of the human person" (CCC) is similarly admitting of extraordinary situation as the first one. It is contingent upon anyone serious about discussing these matters to account for all relevant factors, not just ones they particularly find to be of interest to them.

*Beginning* a deliberation of the approach to interrogation, not with fundamental facts from revelation about the dignity of the human person, the purpose (and limits) of the state, and the developed teaching concerning the relationship between them is to ignore revelation and allow our fears to dictate our thinking.

But [beginning] a deliberation on the approach to interrogation with the fundamental God-given rights of man in mind (one of which is the right to life and thus survival) and how those rights are protected from those who would try to take them away is both common sense as well as rational.

To account for what the limits are of any profession of freedom must be -both rationally as well as informed by divine revelation- and to delineate carefully where the civil authority has the right to use coercion for the protection of the common good of society and just public order{1} is to approach things with a perspective neither weighted towards suicidal geopolitical snake handling{2} nor towards undue or unreasonable suppression of the fundamental rights of others by the civil authority. There is in other words balance to be struck between what someone would subjectively say is a matter of "revelation" and what is objectively in accordance with our God-given fundamental rights which precede all man made laws.

To then allow those fears to tells us that we are being "realistic" to fantasize about boys in boxes and ticking bombs but unrealistic to draw on the Tradition to formulate our thoughts is, well, to "feed the flesh" to use Pauline language. "The flesh" includes, for Paul, not simply sexual lusts, but things like servile fear as well. We are not to do that. That's my point.

Okay but Mark to some extent begs the question here by presuming that those who do not agree with him do not themselves "draw on the Tradition to formulate [their] thoughts." Just because they do not blow a trumpet in the synagogue and announce explicitly that they are "draw[ing] on the Tradition to formulate [their] thoughts" does not mean that they fail to do this. There are a variety of ways of approaching matters of the prudential order when seeking to apply moral and ethical principles to them.{3} If Mark did not so brusquely presume that only he and those who have the same opinions he does do this, then he would not generate half the vitriol against him that he does.

The mark, by the way, of how much our thinking is clouded by "the mind of the flesh" is precisely that we cannot distinguish between the statements "a terrorist attack is likely in the future" and "a ticking time bomb is likely in the future". I have no doubt that we will experience more terrorism in the future. It's been a staple of war since the beginning and will be with us till the parousia. However, as reader Publus said:

it is very, very unlikely that

a) A nuclear time bomb will be planted somewhere in the US.

b) We apprehend someone we know knows where it is and/or how to disarm it safely.

c) We really KNOW that they know and don't just suspect it.

and

d) We have sufficient time to get it out of him using torture or other forms of coercion (he'll of course know that he only need hold out for x amount of time) but insufficient time to find another way.

However probable it is or is not, history shows that major events can turn on pinpoint situations. But that point aside, even if we are not talking about a "nuclear time bomb" there could well be nuclear bombs planted in the United States which we could find out about through a proper approach to coercion of enemy combatants. Even if they are not on a time switch per se, finding them before they could be armed is preferable to finding out about them after they have been used. But I want to focus on the second part of what Mark noted because there is an obvious attempt on his part to nuance in an area where he tried to obliterate nuance previously.

I refer to Mark's reference to "[t]orture or other forms of coercion." Why is Mark now making a distinction that previously he was unwilling to make??? My whole point as well as that of others was that there are distinctions to be made on the matter and that means defining what words mean and what they do not mean. If Mark is willing to admit that not all forms of coercion are "torture" now, then he owes an apology to all of those he libeled or otherwise insulted previously who had made this point in a variety of ways.{4} Will he actually be enough of a man and enough of a Christian to do this though??? Inquiring minds want to know.

Like the fantasy of the ticking time bomb, it is likewise a fantasy that "this is a war like no other" requiring us to abandon outmoded standards of civilized conduct in order to win. Every war presents us with that temptation. The notion that Al Quaeda is an enemy uniquiely wicked (unlike, say Nazis and Communists) is, once again, a function of our own fear-clouded minds, not of reality.

We are dealing with a civilizational struggle akin to the Albigensians in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries -like the latter the present one contains the religious component to it and that is not to be taken lightly. As much trouble as the Nazis and Communists were -and as evil as they were- they were hardly interested in sacrificing their own lives the way these Al Qaeda sorts are. The supernatural dimension here{5} makes this a war unlike any we have fought in the west for a long time...well...since the last time the Turks were beaten at Vienna in 1683 anyway.

On the other hand, it is not a fantasy, but a fact that the Executive has--right now--the power to declare anybody he likes an illegal combatant and subject them to torture.

This was already covered by yours truly earlier in the year 2007 to some extent. But again, we have the use of nebulous terminology to try and make an argument on Mark's part which is hardly an antidote for clarity of thinking on these matters (to put it nicely).

It is a fact that our government has already tortured at least one person to death.

It is also a fact that there have been at least 11,340 deaths as of this writing by virtue of Muslim extremists in various terrorist attacks since 9/11.{6} It is for this reason very difficult to take seriously those who would weep for enemy combatants and find various ways to excuse the evil of these extremists who have no conscience whatsoever. Of course if those like Mark actually sought to contribute to finding some common ground rather than continuing their attempts at assassinating the characters of those who do not agree with them, more people would be willing to consider what they have to say.

And it is a fact that we are wasting a great deal of time basing our public policy debates on this question--in debates conducted with all the candidates for both parties, based on this fantasy scenario from movies and television and not based on the revelation or even on Madisonian, Jeffersonian, and Constitutional understandings of the limitations of the state and the rights of the human person. We are being stampeded by fear and we are being told that if we do not base our thinking on fear we are being "unrealistic".

I cannot speak for others but I have never based any position I have taken on these matters on television and movie scenarios. The fact that Mark would presume that this must be the operative presupposition of those who disagree with him is the hallmark of what traditional Catholic spiritual writers would condemn as an "uncharitable interpretation" and that fact alone should give Mark reason for pause.

This is why I wrote the other day that:

What lies at the heart of all consequentialist appeals to do grave evil for the greater good is, ultimately, a refusal to trust that God knows what he is talking about. It is the conviction that the Christian revelation is not an insight into the heart of reality, but a sort of idealistic dream that is fun to contemplate in quiet moments and maybe even an "inspiration" in a vague way, but is nonetheless something that hard thinkers and tough-minded men must sweep away when crunch time comes in favor of "realistic" solutions that require us to frankly embrace sin and evil if we hope to live or remain free. In this analysis, the functional belief of the Machiavellian realist is "You shall embrace evil, and evil shall make you free and keep you safe."

Here is Mark engaging in strawman caricatures once again!!! He could have been a lot more careful and not so presumptive in the above paragraph. Those of us who take these matters seriously and do not advocate an "end justifying the means" approach cannot take these sorts of misrepresentations on his part seriously.

Furthermore, we are well within our rights to try and have Mark discredited until the time where he stops this crap, apologizes for his uncharitable attitudes, and at the very least seeks to represent accurately those he does not agree with. And he could start by not continuing to use terms he either does not explain or obviously does not understand the meaning of.{7} But enough on that point for now.


To be Continued...

Notes:

{1} I outlined some of the core principles behind both a Catholic as well as a logical approach to these matter in the following posting from a few years ago:

Some More Notes on Dignitatis Humanae (circa December 16, 2004)

{2} Essentially, this is a term I use to refer to those whose approach to geopolitical issues such as the war on terror is akin to those cultists who take a literal interpretation to the last part of the Gospel of Mark and like to handle poisonous snakes: their naivety being revealed when the snakes bite them.

{3} And for Catholics, specifically Catholic principles as well.

{4} And yes, I could put together a list of names if necessary but I would not be able to make a complete list as there are probably as many I do not know of as those I do.

{5} Where they think they will receive an afterlife reward for dying as "martyrs" in a jihad against "the infidels" (read: us).

{6} As of the last update and these are very conservative estimates at that.

{7} I am obviously going to once again have to fill in for the educational shortcomings of one of these presumed "apologists" and explain the meaning of certain terms they indiscriminately wield about.

Points to Ponder:

Tradition may be defined as the extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes: our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking about.

All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion,
even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father. [G.K. Chesterton: From Orthodoxy (circa 1908)]

Miscellaneous Threads and Musings:

I have time to touch on a few threads at the moment so here goes...

Is France America's New Best Friend?

I would be curious to know the views of any the French readers of this weblog about their current president having made my views on President Sarkozy known on this weblog in the past. Is the election of Sarkozy representative of a paradigm shift for the French people or will the next election be back to more of the recent past status quo??? That is something I would be interested in finding out from any French readers of this humble weblog.

Europe struggles to keep reform plans alive after Irish reject treaty

There is something to be said about the Irish being a stubborn people :)

McCain attacks Guantánamo ruling

Senator McCain earns some brownie points for taking the stand he did against the latest round of judicial activism by the Supreme Court.

Though overall the Roberts Court has pleased me greatly compared to its predecessors of recent decades; nonetheless, the occasional decision such as this reminds us all that there are still some on the court whose vote essentially is tied to a lack of solid judicial philosophy and thus subject to personal inclinations. I may go over that in detail another time{1} if so inclined but for the time being that is all I intend to say on it.

Note:

{1} I will only note here briefly that the role of a justice is to interpret the law and not invent law. This may well mean rendering a ruling that is opposed to the individual justice's personal views on a matter.

On Coercion, the War on Terror, "Torture", and "Fantasy Situations":
(An Attempted Dialogue With the Words of Mark Shea -Part I of III)

[Prefatory Note: This material was primarily written last October but for various and sundry reasons remained incomplete until recently when I had a bit of time and decided to make some minor revisions and complete it. I have also decided for easier viewing to divide the thread into multiple parts.-ISM]

When I see people actually stop shrieking and come across as trying to be calm and rational -for whom experience of their failure to conform to basic strictures of a rational discussion/authentic dialogue has told me to ignore them- I must admit of a degree of surprise. As one of those parties (Mark Shea) did this some time ago in a couple of postings to his weblog, I will actually interact now with what he had to say in them.

I am not sure what it is -maybe it was an approaching birthday when the bulk of this post was drafted and reflecting on the knowledge that I am a little bit closer to the grave{1} as a result. Either way though, I have been critical of the man for taking "drive by" approaches to subjects which are much more complicated than he cares to admit and that is hardly going to change anytime soon when he takes that approach on issues that I believe are serious ones.

However, out of principle and as he appears in the material to be covered to be making an attempt to muse calmly, it seems appropriate to give some due notice to it as the issues are more important than personalities that express them. Without further ado (his words will be in dark green font) here is some interaction with those threads starting with the first of the two...

I notice in my comboxes that people are playing "What if?" games. It's a happy pastime sometimes. It's the birth of all stories. "What if a little girl rode a tornado to a land beyond the rainbow?" "What if you could travel in time?"

However, it can also be the birth of sin and, in this particular case, I would warn against it, since the topic under discussion is the umpteenth iteration of "Okay, so when *would* it be okay to torture somebody?"

When the term in question is not given a definition, it is subject to a variety of applications some proper and some improper. I could say more but readers need to remember that at the outset because the rest of Mark's comments in this thread build on that premise -not to mention those of the people he is responding to -presuming for the moment that he is not misrepresenting the people he is responding to of course.{2}

The game works this way: Propose some incredibly unlikely scenario. Your son is kidnapped and buried in a box and you have the guy who did it, but he won't tell you where you kid is. What do you do?

The reason such scenarios are sinful to contemplate, I think, is not because of the story idea itself, but because of the larger cultural context in which such fantasizing occurs.

Let's change the scene. You are from a family of multiple divorce and remarriage. Most of your friends are the same. Your own marriage is a bit rocky and your secretary is hot and sending out the signals that she is available and not terrible concerned about the integrity of the sacrament of marriage.

At this point, do you a) make it clear to the secretary that you are a Catholic and such things are absolutely off-limits and will not take place in this office or b) have long, leisurely lunchtime conversations with friends in which you speculate over and over and over about whether we can really know if our marriage is a valid one, if there is room in the Church's teaching for the concept of open marriage, and what you would do if a nuclear holocaust left you permanently separated from your wife (alive but on another continent) and still bound to try to repopulate the earth with the hot secretary who was one of your few fellow survivors.

An impartial observer would get the sense that there is a certain unhealthy agenda at work here.

In the same way, these preposterous ticking bomb scenarios say very loudly, "We are indulging the spirit of fear." The counsel of the gospel is "Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of itself." Hypotheticals are fun and all, but, when they feed the spirit of fear (meaning not, "Healthy fear of God" but "servile fear of suffering") the wisdom of the saints is, "Crucify them!" Find something else to talk about and Be Not Afraid.

Okay, I agree with the substance of what Mark appears to be saying -at least with the analogy he supplies. The problem is, he is context switching and comparing areas where Catholic principles are solid and indisputable (i.e. committing adultery which is a defined concept and is always wrong period: ditto with the Catholic understanding of the indissolubility of a valid marriage) with areas which are not so solid and indisputable (i.e what is "torture" and what does it consist of).

I wish I could say I was surprised but when you have people unwilling to define the terms they use, this is the sort of stuff you are left with. I wish I could say Mark was contributing to greater understanding and a fruitful dialogue on these matters but alas, history does not support this presumption.

Mark has on some issues the very bad habit of presuming the worst in other people without warrant to do so. He also presumes with equally less warrant that those who disagree with him on matters where Church doctrine or its applications are not an open and shut situation that if they disagree with his interpretation that they are somehow less than concerned for Church doctrine, lack of concern for Catholic principles of human dignity, lack of concern for people in general, the supporting some enthroning of Caesar about Christ, etc. There is a common thread running through all of these presumptions and it is intrinsically alien to a proper Catholic temperament.This is a serious problem but it is also not Mark's alone but instead is a product of the modern media culture.

As I will note should a dialogue on atomic weaponry and its usages in 1945 be undertaken at some point as previously planned{3} that the joint statement of principles that my dialogual partner and I have both given our concurrence to will contain among other things this passage:

[A] problem of modern life is the loss of a habit of mind that allows differentiation of arguments from quarrels with the result that disagreements or attempts at correction tend to be destructive rather than constructive.

There has been a lot of that both at Mark's site as well as other places. Mark does not seem to understand that this presupposition on his part is what fuels a lot of the vitriol against him -well that and his presumption that he has found some Rosetta Stone to interpreting the rationales behind those who disagree with him and being unwilling to consider the possibility that his lack of charity on these matters is the sin that has made him "stupid" to paraphrase one of his favourite slogans for a moment.{4} Let us now consider the follow up thread he wrote to those who apparently took issue with what was covered above.

Several people objected to my Be Not Afraid post for various reasons yesterday. HokiePundit, who apparently originated the discussion thought I was making fun of him. Seamus pointed out the analogy I used is flawed (which I grant). Others have other objections.

It is good to see that Mark acknowledges that his analogy in the previous material was to some degree problematical -I for one pointed out some of the problems with it above. But enough on that for now -his admission is appreciated.

First things first, my apologies to Hokie for hurting his feelings. It was not my intention. I was running around yesterday and only glanced in to see the discussion was in progress. I didn't pay attention to names, merely to the basic idea being kicked around. So I was not making fun of him (or of anybody else). (I'm not sure why, but when I'm being serious, I often find readers think I'm being either facetious or flippant and when I'm being silly, they take me seriously.) At any rate, I was trying to address something quite serious.

The reason I chose to interact with these threads of his is because I sensed Mark was actually doing more than his usual flippant modus opperandi on these kinds of subjects. And as one who has written posts on the fly which were not as sharp{5} as the ones I have taken more time and greater precision on, I will certainly extend to him leeway that his above thread was one of those "write on the fly" sorts of blogs that anyone familiar with this medium knows can happen from time to time.

The purpose of my analogy was not to say that hypotheticals about extremely desperate situations are intrinsically sinful. They are, as I say, the basis of a thousand really good stories. Indeed, the Greeks *loved* these sorts of moral conundrum: Do you bury your dead brother in defiance of the king's mortal decree and die as a result or leave him to rot and incur the wrath of the gods? Nor was it to say or suggest that the questions being asked were not asked in good faith. Nor was it to say that temptation to torture is the same sort of temptation as the temptation to sleep with the hot secretary, as though somebody is suggesting it would be fun.

My point was simply this: Temptation is temptation. And temptation *always* looks like a good thing at the time and we can *always* find ways of explaining to ourselves how this temptation is different then the temptations of Those People Over There.

Point taken.

Now the readers of this blog are not, I presume, living in a situation where they are contemplating adultery. But we are living in a situation where we are bombarded continually with another sort of temptation: the temptation to servile fear of death and suffering. All you need to do is click over to Drudge to get the latest terrifying visions of World War III to know that. And when you are tempted to be terrified, you tend to base your thinking on your fears, just as when you are tempted sexually you tend to base your thinking on your desires. That's what concupiscence means. It is the darkened intellect, disordered appetites, and weakened will that results from the fall. As a result, we often don't think clearly, act sensibly, or do the hard thing God demands. That's the human condition. And it's why revelation and grace are necessary.

Certainly revelation and grace are necessary. However, what is also necessary is proper respect and care of the natural faculties God gave us -the ones where we are made in His image. I refer to reason and logic and note as I have many times in the past{6} the importance of taking them seriously at all times. One reason people often do not think clearly is that they do not have a grasp of the proper meaning of the terms and concepts which they employ. Logic is an exacting discipline and when you do not have points of reference embodied in definitions which are "the tools of thought" (cf. M. Mentzer) you cannot reason at all. And on this issue, it is the lack of concern for clarifying the terms we use which creates a good chunk of the acrimony -well that and emotions tending to override reason which is a secular explanation of sorts for the theological concept of "concupiscence" that Mark mentioned earlier.

That is not to say that everyone who uses a term uses it in precisely the same way of course or even if there was an agreed upon universal meaning for certain nebulous terms that areas of disagreement would evaporate of course. But these matters cannot be hurt by greater clarity, only hindered and readers should consider the parties who strive for clarity of expression and those who not only do not but even mock in various supposedly "clever ways" the very notion.

When we are tempted, we do not help ourselves think clearly by rasping away at a raw nerve that is already overstimulated. Yes, kidnappings happen. Yes, 9/11 happened. Yes, there are desperadoes.

This is true; however we also do not help ourselves think clearly by muddling the meaning of terms and not concerning ourselves with precise meanings. We do not render a service to the discipline of the dialogue by such actions but instead it is made a mockery of. And those who involve themselves in the latter contribute to the degeneration of rational thought and become handmaidens to a kind of neo-fideism whether they realize it or not.

Does it follow from this that our thinking about interrogation and the rights of the human person before the law should be predicated on what we would do in some absolutely desperate hypothetical situation that is less likely than a lightning strike? I submit the answer is no.

Does it follow that our thinking about interrogation and the rights of the human person before the law should be extended to include no privations of any sort whatsoever for those subjected to interrogation to compel them to potentially valuable information to prevent other attacks such as what we saw on 9/11??? Shall we house them all in the Waldorf Astoria and try and pamper from them information that may save the innocent people from future attacks such as what we saw on 9/11??? I submit the answer is not only no but hell no.

I further submit that, in a time when the state has *already* arrogated to itself the power to take exactly these desperate measures against anybody the Executive chooses, it is unwise to, as Screwtape says, crowd to that side of the boat that is already nearly gunwale under or run around with fire extinguishers during a flood. We need to concern ourselves far more with limiting the power of the state than we do with what we'd do if somebody locked our son in a box.

I am all in favour of limiting the power of the federal government. How come though people such as Mark have no problem (or at least they express no problem with) the federal leviathan going into a whole host of areas where it has no explicit or even logically implied Constitutional sanction; however in areas where there is Constitutional sanction{7} all of a sudden there is a problem with "the power of the state" according to them??? It is nice to see Mark on this issue become a foe of the federal leviathan considering that folks such as myself have been one for decades now.

To be Continued...

Notes:

{1} Assuming for a moment that I live at least as long as the national average: considering some of those I know who in recent years have passed on short of it by a bit, more than a bit, or even significantly so, this is not a presumption to make lightly.

{2} This is a presumption that based on his history stretches the bands of credulity past the snapping point but for the sake of this posting, I am going to make it nonetheless.

{3} It kept getting postponed and (unfortunately) as with anyone my non-blogging schedule dictates and takes precedence over my blogging one -particularly in light of the new year and certain factors (outlined here) which are more applicable now than previously.

{4} "Sin makes you stupid" is the slogan as he phrases it.

{5} I doubt the readers would generally know which of the posts in the archive I am talking about -suffice to say I know about them and that is all I plan to say on the matter.

{6} To note all the threads where I have covered this to some extent or another would be to make an unwieldy list. I will therefore confine myself to just what was posted this year last year and note a few shorter and a few longer threads where various facets pertaining to reasoning and the use of logic were treated on -first the shorter ones in order from newest to oldest:

A Fatal Rational Flaw in the Atheist/Agnostic "Empiricism Only" Weltanschauung (circa October 17, 2007)

Points to Ponder From Mike Mentzer on the Importance of Establishing Precise Definitions For Clarity in Thought (circa October 13, 2007)

On Why Reason and Logic Are So Indispensable (circa July 29, 2007)

And now a few longer ones where these matters are covered in some detail from oldest to newest:

On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)

On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)

More on the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Appeals Thereof --With Jonathan Prejean (circa March 24, 2007)

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

{7} Such as areas pertaining to national security to note one example pertinent to the matter in question.

Points to Ponder:

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

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

Points to Ponder:
(On Various Subjects From Tim Russert)

The primary responsibility of the media is accountability of government, whether it's about lying under oath, which upset Democrats, or the mismanagement of responding to a hurricane, which happens to upset Republicans. [On Government]

Shouldn't the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of New Orleans bear some responsibility? [On the Katrina Mess]

Whatever the criticisms and the after-action report may be about what was right and what was wrong looking back, what would be a horrible tragedy would be to distract ourselves from avoiding further problems because we're spending time talking about problems that have already occurred. [On the Iraq War]

On the Passing of Tim Russert:

This is a subject I have intended to comment on for a while...

Journalist Revitalized Washington Talk Shows (The Washington Post)

I was not a junkie of the show but I did watch Tim Russert on Meet the Press though nowhere near as much as I should have. And while I have noted before on many occasions{1} my contempt of journalism and the mainstream media in general{2}, none of those statements applied to Tim Russert who (agree with him or not) was someone who did journalism the old fashioned way. The tributes to Russert are from people across the political spectrum and not without reason: he was (to quote Rush Limbaugh) "the closest thing to an objective journalist at any of the networks, totally honest."

Rest in peace Mr. Russert and may God comfort your family in their time of grieving.

Notes:

{1} Of particular not is this thread when discussing the subject of Deep Throat:

On the Subject of "Deep Throat", the Correlative Ramifications Thereof, Etc. (circa June 1, 2005)

{2} See the thread in footnote one. I have particularly in mind this excerpt which while applying to the lions share of journalists in no way whatsoever applied to Tim Russert:

The depravity to which the journalistic profession has fallen since the days of Watergate can be to some extent pinned on Woodward and Bernstein...not as much them personally as what they ushered in in the aftermath of the Nixon resignation.[...] The journalistic profession has become one where you "make it" by finding someone whose reputation you can destroy. Ethics are often not a factor, indeed morals and ethics often get the screw from journalists who are trying to "make it" and then (for those who "make it") the same tactics are utilized to try and stay "on top." The same is the case with the legal profession and the political profession: oftentimes those who "make it" do so by screwing other people. So the parallel to prostitution is an apt one. The only difference of course is that prostitutes are somewhat honest about it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 1, 2005)]

{3} [Lord] remember Tim Russert. In baptism he died with Christ: may he also share his resurrection, when Christ will raise our mortal bodies and make them like his own in glory. [Eucharistic Prayer III: From The Roman Missal under Masses for the Dead]

Points to Ponder:

Hear much, leave to one side that which is doubtful, and speak with due caution concerning the remainder. See much, leave to one side that of which the meaning is not clear, and act carefully with regard to the rest. [Confucious]

U.S. Senate report cites intelligence flaws in lead up to Iraq war

Just a snippet before I comment...

WASHINGTON: President George W. Bush and his aides built a public case for war against Iraq by exaggerating available intelligence and ignoring disagreements among spy agencies over Iraq's weapons programs and Saddam Hussein's links to Al Qaeda, according to a Senate report long delayed by partisan squabbling.

The report accuses Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials of repeatedly overstating the Iraqi threat in the months before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, and playing on American fears in emotional aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Okay now, here it goes folks.

To start with, I covered the revisionism on these matters four years ago in two postings prior to the 2004 election. Here they are for those who may be new to this reading audience since that time:

"Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain" Dept. --On Democrat Lies and WMD's (circa August 4, 2004)

"Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain" Dept. --On Democrat Lies and WMD's Revisited (circa August 5, 2004)

And to supplement those reminders, consider this text from the very same Senator Jay Rockefeller delivered on the floor of the US Senate on October 10, 2002. A small snippet seems appropriate to remind readers who have forgotten so here goes...

We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability. Rebuilding that capability has been a higher priority for Saddam than the welfare of his own people -- and he has ill-will toward America.

I am forced to conclude, on all the evidence, that Saddam poses a significant risk.

Pardon those of us familiar with history if we view Sen. Rockefeller's attempts to run from his past statements and whitewash the past noxious to say the least. But enough on that for now.

Calumny in the Blogosphere

Hats off to Fr. Orsi for covering a subject of no small importance which we at Rerum Novarum have written on often over the years. The only problem with his treatment is that he does not mention that anonymous bloggers who do not sign their names to their work are not the only culprits of what he outlines but there are also (i) those who do sign their names, (ii) those who sign their names and are in their own spheres people of influence, and (iii) those who enable the latter sorts while criticizing others for the same failings that their "chosen allies" possess.

In short, it does not deal with the double standards so prevalent in apologetics today or mention the names of certain enablers of those who act as Fr. Orsi outlines (such as Karl Keating) or those who act as Fr. Orsi does who sign their names to their own work (such as Mark Shea or Dale Vree).

But those criticisms aside, it is a good piece and hopefully can be a spark to get the fire going on getting these egregious and long-neglected problems in apologetics on the way towards correction. Maybe then, many who used to affiliate themselves with such endeavours would not remain embarrassed to anymore. Hope springs eternal on the latter in my mind anyway.

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting:

There will be more in the coming days but as today is the birthday of someone celebrated by the left as a "freedom fighter", it seems appropriate to touch on that as well as another ideological ally of sorts. First the "birthday boy" though...

Should Che be an icon? No

Here is a small taste to whet the appetite:

Since the Soviet Union was too soft for his tastes, there were only two countries that Che found truly admirable: Maoist China and Kim Il Sung's North Korea. He bragged that there was "not a single discrepancy" between Mao's world view and his own. As Che was happily fawning over Mao in the flesh in Beijing, in the surrounding countryside there was an epidemic of mothers cutting off the flesh from their inner thighs to feed it to their starving children. The programme that caused this biting hunger – the mass collectivisation of the farms – represented "true socialist morality", Che said. The dictator killed 70 million people in the end, cheered on by his guerrilla friend at every stage.

The so-called "Cultural Revolution" in China was an unmitigated disaster and provided one of a long list of case studies in why marxism cannot work.{1} Considering the number of fawning mindless sychophants who "celebrate" the life of Che Guevara, a bit of a reminder of the Che of reality (as opposed to leftist fantasy) seems in order and the above thread contains a good synopsis of why no one truly concerned about people could in any way "celebrate" such a man any more than they could "celebrate" the "humanitarian spirit" of Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, or Adolph Hitler. And in the same company as Che and the aforementioned murderers, let us look at a modern ideological brother of their's; namely one Robert Mugabe...

Now the opposition takes up arms in Zimbabwe

Just a taste...

Since Mr Mugabe – the only president Zimbabwe has ever known – was pushed into second place by Morgan Tsvangirai in the first-round ballot of the presidential election, the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) says more than 60 supporters have been murdered and thousands more threatened in a well-oiled operation to rig the second round of voting.

This is the sort of thing you get with the Mugabe's and Chavez's of the world: no different than what you got with the Mao's and the Che's of the world. Yet those who lionize the Che's, Mao's, Pol Pot's, Stalin's, and Castro's of the world also play various forms of the "Bush is Hitler" card and the notion that Bush is somehow a worse leader than their idols. Here is the difference between the two in a nutshell folks:

In the case of the present president as well as virtually any of his predecessors{2}, you could within reason and the lions share of circumstances protest their governance and not have to worry about being thrown in jail or worse. But with the Che's and the Castro's and the Mao's and the Chavez's of the world, that opposition gets you jailed or worse.

And that is the bottom line folks as to why while I can respect those in conscience who do not agree with me politically in many respects{3} that I cannot say the same for those who involve themselves in the hypocritical double standards of defending modern marxists regardless of the masks under which they choose to parade under today. It is a foundation of morality as well as basic logic and ethics to not make of others standards that you ignore or excuse in others. I have written on this matter many times before in a variety of mediums and may revisit this theme again in the coming weeks. However, for now that is all I plan to say on it.

Notes:

{1} Those who are similarly fawning over Sen. Barack Obama as someone who will supposedly bring "change" should consider what sort of "change" he is talking about because he is promising nothing new whatsoever.

{2} Emphasis on the words "virtually all" and no, I do not have Clinton in mind as one who was not.

{3} The issue here is not and never has been whether or not they agree with me -indeed if they act charitably and ethically then there is no problem whatsoever. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa June 10, 2008)]