"Down on the Corner" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Four Thread NRO Commentary)

A few musings on these threads from recent days...

Did W Backfire? (NRO)

Interesting hypothesis by Tom Hoopes -here is the gist of what the article is about in its own words:

Reviewers keep remarking on the strange phenomenon. They hated Bush going in — and kind of liked the guy when they came out.

If that is the case, it may not bode well for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama in the election next week. Moving on we get to an article on the msm:

An Instructive Candidacy (Victor Davis Hanson)

The unethical double standards of the msm with regards to Sen. Obama and Gov. Palin could not be more educational as we wind down in this election season. As Hanson notes so well in the article there turns out to be no standard of objectivity in contemporary journalism. Gee folks, who has been saying that for years??? The first footnote of this posting will give you a hint{1} and that is all we will say on the matter for now. And finally...

Point of No Return (Mark Steyn)

No, this is not a reference to the 1977 concept album by Kansas{2} however preferable such a reference may be. No, this is to how potentially transformative for the worse this upcoming election could be if Sen. Obama wins and there is not at least a super majority-proof Republican minority in the Senate. Or as Steyn succinctly puts it:

[T]he only reason why Belgium has gotten away with being Belgium and Sweden Sweden and Germany Germany this long is because America’s America. The soft comfortable cocoon in which western Europe has dozed this last half-century is girded by cold hard American power. What happens when the last serious western nation votes for the same soothing beguiling siren song as its enervated allies?

I explained the problem last year in the context of the subject of the Crusades as the enemy we are facing now is in many ways not much different and I stand by that assessment now which will be linked to in a footnote on this posting for those who may not remember it.{3}

Right now we are demonstrating a willingness to take stands unpopular to the Euroweenie contingent but it is because of those stands that they have been able to get away with being Euroweenies. Peace cannot be achieved with enemies such as those we are facing except through either a profound spiritual metanoia on their part (which is alien to the genesis and expansion of Islam historically) or the west showing resolve to not be pushed around by these kinds of thugs.

For it is easy to take stands like "why can't we be friends???"{4} and make grandiose advocacy of "unconditional dialogue" when there is someone there willing to do the heavy lifting of the sort that you are not willing to do. But what happens in this geopolitical world of "recess" when you cannot run to the adult on duty for protection from those who would seek to do you harm??? You do one of two things, you either run scared and goad those sorts to continue to try and inflict harm on you or you take it upon yourself to build yourself up, develop a mean streak, and knock their blocks off so they will leave you alone.{5}

It may sound simple to many readers but workable solutions are rarely complicated when the dynamics of what prompts people to act a certain way are known. And those who prey on weaker people{6} regardless of the context in which it is done{7} do so usually as a result of two factors; namely (i) their own insecurities about things they have no control over and (ii) their seeing in the perceived weaker person or group a source with which they can exercise control over as a way of masking the aforementioned insecurities. This is why bullies often back down when confronted by someone who refuses to be bullied and will oppose them with force to prevent it. Usually it is in their best interests for such bullies to either cease such things or to find other targets who will roll over for them.

Whatever one wants to say about Sen. John McCain as president, I do not have anxiety about him in the area of national security and presenting the required projection of America as a bulwark against these kinds of threats. I cannot say the same thing about someone like Sen. Barack Obama who has taken no positions of principle that went against the grain -either in the Illinois State Senate or in the United States Senate where he constantly voted present in the former and nearly 100% on the side of liberal Democrats in the latter. In fact, that is the subject of this article by Rich Lowry:

Barack Obama, False Moderate

The article is worth a read but here is the summary which is worth reflecting upon:

When has Obama stood up to liberals and fought for a principled centrism? Never. This is why part of McCain’s closing argument must be that he’d be a better check on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid than the moderate poseur.

Indeed, I do not see someone with such a track record of placating political machines as being sufficiently independent minded to truly give pause to our enemies. And that is why I cannot in conscience vote for him -his quasi-marxist economy destroying tax and income redistribution policies{8} notwithstanding. Like Charles Krauthammer{9} I take a stand not popular but one that on principle I must take even if it means going down with the ship figuratively speaking.

Notes:

{1} A Dialogue on the State of Journalism With Joseph D'Hippolito (circa October 17, 2008)

{2} Which I have on vinyl by the way.

{3} On the Crusades and Learning From History (circa April 13, 2007)

{4} This is not a reference to the song by War of that name.

{5} This is an area of which I was not unfamiliar in school and thus I speak from experience on both fronts. (Being bullied and later after preparation and getting stronger smacking around many of those same bullies who were still around who then left me alone.)

{6} And these terrorist sorts see in the west a people weakened by decadence: make no mistake about that.

{7} Either individually or collectively, physically, psychologically, economically, or in other ways. (Bullying can take many forms after all.)

{8} Another significant reason for opposing Sen. Obama but that is subject I am not going to touch on now but instead mention only in passing due to lack of time and desire to talk about it now.

{9} McCain Gets My Vote (Charles Krauthammer)

Points to Ponder:
(On Fundamentals of Income Redistribution)

Redistribution experiment. On my way to lunch today, a homeless man was sitting on the sidewalk holding a sign, "vote for Obama...I need the money!" The waiter had a "Vote for Obama" tie. After lunch, the waiting handed me the bill. I told [him] that he was not getting a tip because I am doing an experiment of redistribution of wealth. I told him that I am going to give his tip the homeless man. He turned abruptly and left in a huff. I gave the homeless man $10.00 for which he did not earn. I told him to thank the waiter in the restaurant because he's the one that actually earned it. ["AzVet" (circa October 24, 2008)]

On Logic, Reason, and the Concept of Faith:
("Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.)

This is a response to an email from last year responding to an expository musings of your humble servant on the annoyance we have with arrogant atheists who do not realize how much faith is actually involved in their own presumed "faithlessness." The original posting was written in October of 2007{1} and this response was sent by a reader in early November. I was unable to get to and complete this response until the present time for various and sundry reasons. The emailer's words will be in shale coloured font.

Shawn:

I agree entirely with your conclusions on atheistic scientism (which, when severed from intelligible philosophical roots, becomes just another ideology) as to their being hypocritical in their judgment about religion. Unfortunately, I think you muddle the middle steps to that conclusion.

I should note that I am willing to consider the possibility that something I wrote off the cuff is in need of some refining. (And shorter threads -even if they are of an expository character- are at times written in that way.) Nonetheless...

You say:

"Another way of saying it is that logic is not possible without recognizing as valid some rules that are required in order to utilize logic and reasoning to begin with. And since it is not possible to prove these rules as true or false without assuming they exist to begin with, there is no way we can empirically demonstrate in a manner that is not circuitous (and thus logically specious) in its approach that it is possible to utilize logic and reason at all."

From the truth that the rules required to utilize logic are not themselves deduced logically, it does not follow of necessity that we take the rules of logic on faith. The reason is that there are other modes of coming to know than by syllogism.

To really take this to brass tacks, faith is something that we give assent to that we cannot prove. I am referring in those words to how we have no way to verify emperically that the rules required to utilize reason and logic actually exist but we must presuppose them in order to reason at all. And even that statement itself embodies an often unrealized element so I will briefly note it at this time.

All presuppositions to some extent require a degree of faith when they are not grounded on proven or otherwise provable tenets. And those who lionize empiricism as the be-all and end-all of verification are involving themselves in a double standard on the laws of utilizing logic and reason that they would never accept in other contexts. Ergo, they inexorably deny the law of non-contradiction by failing to require empirical evidences for the laws of logic and reason the way they would other empirically unverifiable presuppositions. (Such as the existence of God.)

So at bottom, as the existence of the rules required to utilize logic cannot be proven in a fashion that does not presuppose them, they cannot be proven logically. They have to be taken as presuppositions and thus they are taken on a kind of faith. And for this reason, the atheists who mock religious people for believing in something they cannot empirically verify are hypocritical for doing the exact same thing themselves.

This is part of the importance of St. Thomas's use of Aristotle's philosophical foundation in developing a Christian understanding of what and how we know.

I take issue to some degree with the idea that there has to be a "Christian understanding" of what and how we know. But that point aside, my intention with that posting was merely to point out that there is no completely naturalistic way to verify the facts of reality when it comes to the laws required for utilizing logic and reason. This is the Achilles heel of the purely rationalist outlook when you take it down to the aforementioned brass tacks.

Aristotle shows how man reasons in syllogism, starting from premises and working deductively to conclusion.

Yes he did but premises are often presumed without warrant and when that happens, any deduction to a conclusion could well be wide of the mark of reality. This is the case even if the deductions undertaken are all one hundred percent solid. Additional problems could well be present when you couple the latter with the sort of common shoddiness that plagues most people who try to engage in deductive reasoning and throw into the equation the tendency of most people to engage in double standards viz. how they treat ideas/persons/etc they are inclined towards as opposed to those they are not so inclined.

He separately shows how the mind works in deriving the predecessor details that create the premises, and it is not deductively.

There are inductive and deductive approaches{2} towards creating premises. I have never said otherwise.

First of all, one must grasp the meaning of the terms. This process is handled in one of two ways: one is organically by natural exposure to objects of experience, leading to more complete and more comprehensive conceptualization of things, so that a child first grasps "dog" under the notion of "short wiggly thing" , then "short wiggly thing on four legs", then short wiggly thing with 4 legs which bites, barks, wags, and eats" until he finally understands the notion of dog as a species of canine. This process of conceptualization is not deductive – it precedes syllogistic activity, for it is merely the coming to knowledge about a thing, i.e. forming a concept giving us one of the terms which form a premise.

Well, we are in what you note now moving into the realm of universals -a subject I have covered on many an occasion either directly or indirectly and do not have time to peruse the archives for examples of at this time.{3}

The second typical way is analytically, by way of experiment and intentional expansion of and testing of one's concept against reality. (These are not exactly opposed methods, they are merely the non-reflective way and the reflective way of doing the same thing.)

I do not disagree with you on this at all. My guess offhand is you are going beyond my limited intentions with that posting and extending on those points a bit which is (of course) fine with me. And for that reason -and because what you wrote has a timeless element or principle to it not just a limited or circumstantial one- I have decided to respond to your note here at a time when I have had some time to do so.

Once things (and their natures) are grasped by the intellect by way of this conceptualization, one can form propositions about them. These propositions can be true or false. But there are underlying propositions which are inherently self-evident to the intellect: As soon as the intellect understands the terms, it grasps directly the validity of the proposition.

What you refer to as underlying propositions would appear to be somewhat synonymous with what I refer to by the term "foundational presuppositions."{4}

The principle "the whole is greater than the (proper) part" is not something that requires a middle term (and hence a syllogism) to grasp validly with certainty.

Is this a reference to the principle known as Law of Excluded Middle???

Nor does one's grasp of it depend upon faith. The natural force of the intellect upon the objects of its thought (the concepts "whole", "part," and "greater") derives both the proposition and its certainty without aid of any outside agent.

You are presuming something even in that statement though and I refer to the notion that items are what they are or what they are said to be: essentially the Law of Identity. That is another foundational presupposition which cannot strictly speaking be empirically proven but instead must be assumed. For the only way to avoid illogic in its usage is to presume it is correct because the only way to prove it rationally is by a self-reference to the object or idea in question which is a form of the fallacy of petitio principii. Implicitly you have in doing that provided an evidentiary proof of what I was saying in the original posting to which you responded to.

Indeed, in a person not malformed by false philosophy, it is almost a definition of self-evident truth that it is a truth about which one cannot be in doubt as to its truth.

There are presumptions in what you have just said also: the idea that there is self-evident veracity.{5} I am not trying to deconstruct this down too far mind you, only point out again the principle I made in that previous posting about it requiring faith in order to reason properly and utilize the tools of logic.

Unfortunately, there are too many people whose self-reflective abilities have been damaged to the point where they imagine doubt about EVERY proposition. (But even here, they imagine doubt when philosophizing, but in actual practical reasoning they use these self-evident principles with just as much certainty as the next person.)

I believe I know what you are trying to say here but again, every proposition which can be sustained by rational argumentation requires an element of faith in the rudimentary tools of reason and logic to be accepted -the laws of logic if you will which strictly speaking cannot be proven but must be assumed. But assuming them as we must, that does not mean that every proposition inexorably involves an element of doubt in reality -though I agree with you that there are those who would presume it.

Some of these self-evident truths are precisely those root principles (non-contradiction, excluded middle) that underlie ALL attempts to reason intelligently, without recognition of which, at least implicitly, one would not even try to argue truth with another. The fact that scientists attempt to argue truth shows that in reality they accept the validity of these root principles.

You have just made the very same point I asserted all along but in a more circuitous and lengthy manner. Furthermore, if I have "muddle[d] the middle steps to that conclusion" which we both agree is the correct one, I fail to see how you have demonstrated that assertion. I simply made the statement up front of the following point:

The ability to reason is either true or false. Logic itself applied as we would say "properly" is either an assemblage of disconnected non-sequiturs which lead us nowhere or else it can lead us to being able to discern if not with certainty what is true than at the very least isolate what is probably and what is most definitely false. The very laws of logic -be they the law of identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle, etc.- themselves are presumed to be valid because without them, there is no capacity for logic to be operative; no frames of reference or foundation from which we can then utilize reason and logic itself.

Another way of saying it is that logic is not possible without recognizing as valid some rules that are required in order to utilize logic and reasoning to begin with. And since it is not possible to prove these rules as true or false without assuming they exist to begin with, there is no way we can empirically demonstrate in a manner that is not circuitous (and thus logically specious) in its approach that it is possible to utilize logic and reason at all.

For that reason, all this talk about "freethought" is an intrinsic charade. Think about it: the very sort of empirical evidence that people like Dawkins say they will accept is predicated upon accepting without scientific evidence that the basic laws universally accepted for being able to utilize logic and be able to reason do in fact exist and are themselves operative. It is unavoidable therefore that we require faith that those laws are true to enable us to try and explain reality, solve problems, discern what is false, etc. And as it requires faith to even reason at all, there cannot be anything intrinsically "irrational" about having faith in other non-emperically verifiable phenomena unless it is also "irrational" to be rational. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 17, 2007)]

Now it is possible that you are merely trying to go into more scholastic-style subtleties here than what I did but know in advance that I try to avoid those to the extent it is feasible for a variety of reasons. One is that most people have enough problems being consistent in their application of reason and logic at the elementary levels so there is no reason to complicate matters further with more complex stuff. The second reason is that on this issue, there is no more complexity needed than what I provided on this matter.

That is why for years I would annoy the self-proclaimed "infidels" and self-anointed "freethinkers" with the same basic questions over and over again on this theme. It is not a complicated issue at all so I see no reason to make it one. Essentially, 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.

If it were true that deductive reasoning were the only kind of activity respecting knowledge which the intellect has of its own nature, then it would be true also that the all reasoning would rest on some basis other than knowledge, and then faith or belief would be the stand-in. But asSt. Thomas explains the workings of the mind, deduction is only one kind of intellectual activity toward truth. God in his wisdom fashioned man so that his intellectual faculty has ALL the operations needed to know truth in the natural order, understanding "know" as a distinct species of activity from belief. The precursors to deduction, i.e. conceptualization and forming propositions which are self-evident, are two of those processes of the intellect.

Since I never gave assent to the proposition as you have framed it viz. deductive reasoning, I fail to see how what you have noted in any way indicts my previous arguments. But even if it does, my assertion that there are points of presupposition in the most rudimentary and essential elements of reasoning and using logic inexorably covers the areas of conceptualiation and forming propositions as well.

For we cannot conceive of something without having some forms of frame references for what we are conceiving. Or as I used to say to the atheists in years past in varying ways "no one's philosophical presuppositions are formed in a vacuum."

Which, by the way, leads me to another bone I would like to pick with the philosophical skeptics.

Pick away.

Generally, they denigrate belief as an act which is INHERENTLY unworthy of the intellect as such, so that (in their view) saying that you believe something is as much as to admit that you use the intellect in a manner in violation of its nature. The ONLY act worthy of the intellect, according to them, is to know.

They do say that and the problem is, they have their own beliefs that they do not readily admit to. But lest I get in the way of your train of thought, please continue.

But, of course, most skeptics have also swallowed the stupidity of the deductive-only crowd, perceiving only deduction as a valid way of "knowing." This of course leads ultimately to the notion that there is no such thing as knowledge properly. (Of course, they "know" this because they reason it deductively from the fact that belief in premises cannot create knowledge, and the only kind of knowledge is deductive. So at the very same time they deny knowledge, they root that denial in their certainty of the rules of logic. Hmmm…)

You are basically saying the same thing I have asserted myself. My point in the post you responded to was that it requires a kind of faith to be an atheist because if your only verification depends on what you can empirically prove, you are presuming without proof that the tools of logic and reason actually can help one discern truth from falsehood. Put another way, they presume principles such as identity and non-contradiction because without them you cannot reason at all but they cannot actually prove without petitio principii that those presupposed rules of logical thought are actually true.{6}

But my point is that while the act wherein we know is a proper act of the intellect, it is by no means theexclusive valid act of the intellect properly understanding human nature.

I never said it was. As I noted earlier this year in 2007 in a dialogue with Jonathan Prejean:

Strictly speaking, deductive reasoning is the only reasoning which can be said to be reliable to a substantial degree when properly utilized as it is not as prone to the degree of open or nebulous constructs which inductive reasoning has. Furthermore, I do not see how inductive reasoning can ever be said to actually bind anyone rationally. Its value is in my view very circumscribed and anyone who would use it against an argument based on deduction would find themselves on the losing side far more frequently than not -all things presumed equal of course. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 24, 2007)]

Now obviously we can observe people and situations and from what we have observed make inductive assessments of course. But we are limited in this respect by what we have observed to some extent. And new information or ways of viewing something can change the fundamental presuppositions from which we operate. Take for example the view commonly ascribed to "science" prior to the twentieth century of the genetic defects of black people in the area of the intellect. This view was held to a large part presumably because of the absence of educated, literate blacks amongst the population. Even intellectuals such as Thomas Jefferson bought into this idea{7} and it took a while for this supposedly "scientific" view to go the way of bleeding with leeches in the medical field analogically speaking.

Humans (as I pointed out in my last email to you) are intrinsically social.

Agreed.

One of the ways this is illustrated is in the reality that knowledge is a common good. But it is a common good not only in its very essence (as distinguished from "proper goods" where, if I possess some proper good such as this glass of wine, you cannot enjoy the very same glass of wine, common goods can be held at the same time by multiple persons) it is also common in the process of coming to knowledge. (Scientists of all people should understand this, but they ignore its implications).

I do not disagree with this. Reason and logic are what I call the "natural lights" because they are accessible to anyone by virtue of being made in the image of the One Who Is. Indeed I have made the point in the past that the day we accept tacitly or otherwise that one has to be learned to be logical is the day we impose an intellectual tyranny on the world{8} and I stand by that assessment on both inductive as well as deductive grounds.

At least 95% of our day consists of actions where we make choices which inherently require prior acts of belief in the validity of other person's knowledge about things. When I turn the key of my car (and especially when I push it to 70mph, I assume that the engineers truly understood the laws of physics when they made it. This is belief on my part, belief that they know. When I pull over for a cop and take a speeding ticket, and go to court and pay it, I believe that they know the law. When I get a prescription filled, I put my belief in the pharmacist's knowledge about chemicals. When a team of scientists set up an enormous super-collider cyclotron, they rely on the accurate knowledge of those who first experimented with mere cyclotrons.

Agreed.

The point is that we rest 95% of our daily acts at least partly on belief in the superior knowledge of those who are more expert than we are on various subjects. These acts of belief are not violations of our intellectual nature, they are a validation of our nature as social. We are MADE so as to rely on others, including relying on others' intellects.

You would appear to be basically arguing that humans being intrinsically social have it built into their nature to rely on others and thus express "belief" in these areas not to the detrument their intellectual nature. I do not disagree with this proposition at all -indeed if we sought to verify every step of everything we do on a daily basis before giving or withholding assent or engaging or disengaging in an action, we would never get out of the house. I do not see how what you are outlining in any way detracts from what I have asserted with regards to the requirement of faith in order to even utilize the natural tools of reason and logic.

For what I was doing with that post was striking at what is at the root and matrix of all rational thought and analysis: the necessity of accepting certain propositions for even being able to reason and use logic which cannot strictly speaking be proven. But the foundation of those who would deny the existence of some kind of First Mover or God{9} is to elevate as the apex of all knowledge reason and logic who then mock those who believe in God on the basis of the latter not being able to be strictly proven in an empirical fashion.

My point was they are in the same position as those whom they mock: giving assent to something they cannot emperically verify without recourse to circularity of argument and thus invalidating the foundation on which they stand. How is what you have argued in any way a refutation of what I have been saying??? If anything what you are saying concurs with me albeit you get a bit more Scholastic and technical in the process from what I can discern.

In human interaction, we cannot function without belief. This is never more true than in marriage. When I commit myself to my spouse in marriage, I have a belief that she interiorly makes the same act of commitment which we both outwardly express in words. I cannot prove this interior reality, as I have no direct vision into her mind. I can reason about it from her outward acts, but this reasoning is never more than probable. Therefore, when I make an act of total commitment in the secure understanding of her commitment to me, I am taking a leap of(natural) faith in her as a person.

Correct, your act of faith is based on induction and thus subject to what I noted earlier with regards to being more or less probable based on the totality of your knowledge and observation of your spouse. But like all inductive rationale it cannot be accepted as binding in the sense of being in any way definitive.

The only way the skeptics could be right about belief as contrary to the nature of the intellect is if all human interaction ought to be rooted in doubt, and this would utterly destroy true marriage. But beyond that, it would make man universally paranoid schizophrenics, attempting to be continually doubting everyone around them consciously, while at the same eating food which they did not grow, getting on planes which they did not build or drive, etc.

Well stated though I think my simpler formula of "something cannot come out of nothing" not to mention the proposition which I have yet to see any atheist I have presented it to disprove rationally is the proposition that it takes faith to even reason at all; ergo the concept of faith cannot be intrinsically separated from reason but indeed is required in order to be able to reason at all.

Dedicated to my friend Albert Cipriani whose birthday is today.

Notes:

{1} Musings on the Core Flaw in the Atheist's Logical/Rational Slaw (circa October 17, 2007)

{2} I realize that someone can come to correct conclusions with invalid or faulty arguments but outside of the supernatural sciences and certain mechanisms that are contained therein for providing solid points of reference, such situations are more conducive to dumb luck or simply betting on the come viz. picking a particular authority with which to accept the conclusion of. In everyday discussions though, the natural lights of reason and logic are ample when they are properly understood and inculcated. As far as the distinction between inductive and deductive, you are right but the tenor of my posting implies deductive reasoning.

Strictly speaking, deductive reasoning is the only reasoning which can be said to be reliable to a substantial degree when properly utilized as it is not as prone to the degree of open or nebulous constructs which inductive reasoning has. Furthermore, I do not see how inductive reasoning can ever be said to actually bind anyone rationally. Its value is in my view very circumscribed and anyone who would use it against an argument based on deduction would find themselves on the losing side far more frequently than not -all things presumed equal of course. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 24, 2007)]

{3} I may at some point add some archive examples to this posting in the present footnote should I have time to actually track any down. (Or should I in future postings on other subjects stumble across one or more of them in the archives when looking for previous statements on particular subjects in which those concepts are embodied.)

{4} By this term I mean those principles on which our respective views of the world and its constituent elements are based.

{5} The whole idea of self-evident veracity is a problem because as I noted in the other posting, the ability to even utilize logic and reason is subject to certain presuppositions which are required a priori. Ergo, any utilization whatsoever of logic and reason presupposes those points I noted previously making every exercise of reason an exercise of faith in some form or another.

{6} For without them, it is impossible to reason at all.

{7} Others of his time such as Jefferson's political and intellectual rival Alexander Hamilton expressly rejected this notion in part (presumably) from growing up on the island of Nevis in the Carribean and seeing black people of a different mould than those Thomas Jefferson had seen: an example of how Jefferson's inductive reasoning based on experience and observation differed from that of Hamilton and how induction as a basis for reason and logic while capable of cogency of argument if properly utilized is also capable of serious flaws.

{8} Indeed, the moment it is conceded (even tacitly) that one has to be learned to be logical is the moment that academic elitists can impose an intellectual tyranny onto the rest of humanity. The truth is, intellectuals are often quite stupid and can make stupid arguments. Likewise, recognized "experts" in a particular area of study also can make poor arguments or misjudge matters. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 11, 2006)]

{9} However they perceive Him/Her/Them, Etc.

Okay, I will admit that I said yesterday that I intended to post something today on some of the thoughts I have had pertaining to what the msm is trying to do with regards to the subjects of the 2008 election in general{1} and Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Hussein Obama{2} in particular.{3} But that posting is not done and I have no motivation to work on it today after having the best birthday I have had since 2004. Prior to that I would have to go back to 1999 or 2000 to find a birthday comparable to today's. But that point aside, the originally planned posting will be done soon -though I may lead off tomorrow's new blogging cycle with the oft-mentioned posting on the needed third way in politics.

I am not sure right now how I plan to do that and will basically decide on a whim tomorrow depending on if I am motivated to finish the aforementioned material into a bloggable piece or not at that time or thereabouts. But in the meantime, that is all I want to say on the matter except to direct readers to a link I found which substantially outlines many of my views on this matter:

Mr. Dodger's Neighborhood (NetRight Nation)

As many would characterize me as someone of the so-called "right wing", it seems appropriate to remind readers of part of the longstanding weblog disclaimer which has adorned the side margin for years; namely this part:

My approval of a website, weblog, or essay is to be properly understood as approval of a macro nature and not necessarily a micro one and the macro approval pertains to the general theme so categorized not necessarily to micro elements not pertaining to said theme thereof. [Part of the Rerum Novarum Weblog Disclaimer]

Having reiterated that point, I will deal with the rest of the matters pertaining to the general subjects noted in the beginning of this posting in the previously mentioned list of skeletal pointers when I get to it.

Notes:

{1} I am putting together some skeletal bits for musing tomorrow on the issue of the msm and the election coverage as well as certain things that I and others are being asked to presume in this election concerning the candidates. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 20, 2008)]

{2} Particularly Sen. Obama.

{3} Along with to some extent Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Joe Biden though this was touched on yesterday as well.

Palin Becomes Increasingly Accessible To The National Media (CBS News)

Meanwhile, it would seem that Sen. Joe Biden is MIA for some reason...my guess is that they do not want him saying anything stupid to get in the way of the presumed "coronation" of the Obamessiah. I am putting together some skeletal bits for musing tomorrow on the issue of the msm and the election coverage as well as certain things that I and others are being asked to presume in this election concerning the candidates{1} so that is all I will say on the matter for now except to note that Sen. McCain was being criticized for "hiding Gov. Palin" two weeks ago whereas nothing of a similar nature is being said about the Obama campaign and the absence of Sen. Biden.

Note:

{1} Not to mention other persons involved to varying degrees in this election season.

Points to Ponder:

There’s a lot of things I wish McCain would say. As far as this, yes, I would like him to speak. Not so much about small businesses, but just people in general that make this money. It’s not up to them to help America, I mean – let me rephrase that. It’s not – they shouldn’t be taxed more because they’ve succeeded. That’s envy and jealousy. Get off your butt and go work. Don’t sit there and expect the government to give it to you. So I wouldn’t mind him speaking on it like that. I know he couldn’t say it probably like that because that’d turn a lot of people off. But it just – yeah, I guess I would like him to speak about that and a bunch of other things. I’d like to hear him talk about immigration and what he plans on doing about that and with our borders. I mean, there’s a lot of things that haven’t even been addressed in the last two debates. ["Joe the Plumber"]

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Points to Ponder:

Impartial observers from other planets would consider ours an utterly bizarre enclave if it were populated by birds, defined as flying animals, that nevertheless rarely or never actually flew. They would also be perplexed if they encountered in our seas, lakes, rivers, and ponds, creatures defined as swimmers that never did any swimming. But they would be even more surprised to encounter a species defined as a thinking animal if, in fact, the creature very rarely indulged in actual thinking. [Steve Allen]

Remembering Fides et Ratio Ten Years After:

A month ago Wednesday marked the tenth anniversary of the publication of what I believe may be the most significant document of Pope John Paul II's pontificate: the encyclical letter Fides et Ratio. I have written before on how highly I think of this text and want to reiterate that at this time from the archives so without further ado:

Five books that mean a lot to me

Five is too few so I will expand the number a bit. And like...Chris Blosser, I will not include the Bible or the Catechism in this short list. What I will list will be books which would prove to be pivotal to my overall approach to all subject matters. They will be listed in roughly chronological order of what was read first:

...

Pope John Paul II's 1998 Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio should be ranked among the best works on the subject of the relationship between faith and reason. The late pontiff was heavily influenced by St. John of the Cross -indeed his doctoral thesis was on St. John's Dark Night of the Soul. From a Catholic standpoint, this is a highly authoritative magisterial statement on the matter; however that does not mean that non-Catholics cannot benefit as well.

Society today tends towards either overrationalization which disparages spirituality or a kind of mystical fideism which disparages reason. Pope John Paul II's Fides et Ratio is an excellent antidote for these tendencies. Because it is a very philosophically deep work, one should not read it too quickly. But one should give it a read if they are interested in the subjects of faith or reason and do not understand why each needs the other to properly achieve its intended function. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 14, 2005)]

However much I find myself annoyed at the way so many Catholics of a variety of outlooks{1} pay lip service to the concepts of reason and logic, a text such as Fides et Ratio reminds me that the Catholic Church is in principle not opposed to the natural lights of reason and logic and never has been.

So for those whom this posting has piqued their curiosity as to the aforementioned encyclical letter, here is a link to the text itself:

Fides et Ratio

I would advise that those undertaking an examination of said text to pack themselves a couple of meals and have a dictionary nearby. Spread out the study in at least a few sessions and do not try to read it too quickly if you want to really comprehend what the late pontiff was saying about a chief crises of our time that affects to a certain extent virtually everything around us.

I was going to end this posting there but decided to note my opinion that someone should put together a kind of Cliff Notes version of this text. Among those I have in mind for such a project would be Cardinal Avery Dulles or Cardinal Camillo Ruini. Cardinal Dulles is the pre-eminent American Catholic theologian in my view -and not merely because I find out as I have noted before after taking a position on numerous theological issues that our views so often are simpatico.{2} Cardinal Ruini is one of those who contributed to the text of the encyclical itself. Here is some of what Cardinal Dulles has said on the aforementioned encyclical:

Can Philosophy Be Christian (Avery Dulles SJ from First Things circa April 2000)

I am unaware at this time of any commentaries by Cardinal Ruini on the encyclical but will amend this posting at a later date if apprised of any.

Notes:

{1} And I do not exclude in this view members of the clergy -even some whom I ordinarily respect who nonetheless have blind spots in at least a few areas.

{2} To note a few examples from the archives in order from newest to oldest:

I note that this is how you cite Cardinal Dulles, but almost no one else does it correctly.

I appreciate you noticing that actually. It just so happens that on a lot of issues, I realize that Cardinal Dulles agrees with me after the fact meaning after I have pondered an issue and taken a position on it. Almost never has Dulles directly influenced my view on anything with the exception of the subject of church models where he was admittedly the primary influence. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 24, 2007)]

It may help the readers to consider that once again, we have taken a position on an issue and then discovered that Cardinal Avery Dulles has agreed with us[...] -a most pleasing pattern over the years to put it mildly. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 25, 2006)]

Normally Dulles and I are of a like mind on subjects -as I tend to discover after I have formed an opinion on a subject and then read his views on it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 9, 2004)]

Normally Dulles and I are of a like mind on subjects -as I tend to discover after I have formed an opinion on a subject and then read his views on it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 16, 2003)]

I recently heard an excellent program...where Cardinal Avery Dulles so frequently enunciated my views...It is nice to know that my views so closely align with this brilliant man. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 23, 2003)]

Points to Ponder:

Irons rusts from disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold weather becomes frozen; even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind. [Leonardo da Vinci]

Miscellaneous Musings on Threads of Interest:

I intended to post this a few days ago but did not have time to finish it. Nonetheless...

CNN: Obama’s lying about William Ayers (Hot Air)

Here is a bit from the thread:

Obama has lied repeatedly about his relationship with the unrepentant domestic terrorist. He spent years working for Ayers, promoting Ayers’ causes. Even CNN won’t buy the Obama line any longer. Expect John McCain to raise this point tonight in the debate.

Well let us hope so. As I said recently in a chat with a good friend:

McCain had a "Vietnam" kind of debate the first time basically winning on all the points but being perceived as losing he needs to do a lot better this time around and he can start by looking at Obama at times when talking to or about him. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa October 6, 2008)]

Now I have to admit that I am so not thrilled with this election selection that I did not watch the second debate. But my friend Kevin Tierney did; ergo I quote from a chat we had on the matter to give his take:

me: [I] wanted to see if you saw the debate the other night or not I am getting the impression that it was another "Vietnam debate" for Sen. McCain or is it simply the media insisting no matter what that Obama wins? what are your Spidey senses telling you?

Kevin: McCain won on points, but he needs a real knockout...which he isn't getting.

me: so he won another match on points but the unwashed masses think he lost? or is it tricky polling by various places? I mean we know the msm is so in bed with Obama's campaign that he should pay them money for their services. I guess I am starting to get into the mindset that the public at large is stupid and we are about to be snowed. [An] Irish defense mechanism to prepare for the letdown perhaps.

Kevin: well winning on points isn't enough right now he needs to win bigtime. [Excerpt from a Chat With Kevin Tierney (circa October 8, 2008)]

I do not want the reader to think I am somehow being fatalistic about the election situation though on the night I chatted with Kevin I was not feeling too optimistic admittedly. One reason is if the public is so stupid that they think the Fannie and Freddie mess is the fault of President Bush and "the last eight years" then we are in for a snow job worthy of any Alaska blizzard because that is what it would involve. I have gone over this before but right now will relegate those threads to a footnote{1} so I do not get sidetracked and move onto the next thread for this posting.

BLAME BARACK FOR ME$$: MAC (New York Post)

Here is a bit from the thread:

"Whatever the question, whatever the issues, there's always a back story with Senator Obama... Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. The crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them.

"Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread," McCain said during an event in Albuquerque, NM.

"This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama."

Whatever one wants to say about both Sen. John McCain and President George W. Bush{2}, they were stumping for reform of Fannie and Freddie for years before the meltdown -unlike Sen. Obama and the leaders of the current Congressional majority. And that is the bottom line really.

Notes:

{1} To note two recent threads in order from oldest to newest:

Briefly on the Current Real Estate Situation (circa July 26, 2008)

More Brief Bits on the "Bailout" (circa October 5, 2008)

{2} And Lord knows I have said plenty about both over the years -particularly President Bush. (See the tags "Pres. Bush" and "John McCain" for more information on this if you are so inclined.)

On "Consequentialism", "Proportionalism", and a Lesson in General Norms of Interpretation, Theological or Otherwise:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Prefatory Note: This post was drafted late last year and with only the most minor of edits and additions is being posted at this time. -ISM]

There has been in recent years a variety of moral positions which have been ascribed by certain persons of a more polemical nature as being either consequentialist or proportionalist in nature. However, the parties who make these assertions to a near-universal degree do not bother explaining either (i) what those terms mean or (ii) what they mean by those terms. Instead, those sorts involve themselves in applying the term indiscriminately across the board and often to positions which are neither consequentialist or proportionalist as those terms are properly understood. It is a reason I have issued{1} and periodically reissue{2} the "neo-con challenge": the principle is the same regardless of the subject of discussion. The problem is precisely the sort of ethical cowardice that is unfortunately not in short supply in society generally speaking.

Those who refuse to explain their usage of terms soil the ground of potentially productive dialogue and therefore should be deprived of all credibility they have been given either explicitly or tacitly. The reason for this statement on my part is simple: definitions are the tools of thought and those who adamantly refuse to define their terms in any workable sense are either profoundly disingenuous and/or they inexorably prove to be very shoddy thinkers. Having noted those points briefly, let us look at two terms which like the phrase "neo-con" are often used as a lazy expedient to ignore the critiques of others by shoddy thinkers, intellectual and/or ethical cowards, or all of the above.

I should note starting out that though the principles I am about to enunciate in this posting are universal to some extent, with the terms to be addressed in this posting many of those I am critical of are Catholics. For that reason, I will use as one of my sources a writing from Pope John Paul II (Veritatis Splendour) which dealt in a broad panorama with moral theological issues. I will then supplement the words of the late pope with definitions from academic sources and follow it with an important distinction for proper interpretation which is not hard to grasp but is so often either overlooked or ignored by the ethically and/or intellectually challenged. Without further ado:

"[C]onsequentialism" or "proportionalism". The former claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice. The latter, by weighing the various values and goods being sought, focuses rather on the proportion acknowledged between the good and bad effects of that choice, with a view to the "greater good" or "lesser evil" actually possible in a particular situation. [Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendour (circa August 6, 1993)]

The reader is asked to notice that His Holiness said that "consequentialism" claims "to draw the criteria for rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice"!!! This understanding is highlighted in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in the following definition of the concept:

Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is the view that normative properties depend only on consequences. [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Entry on Consequentialism]

The common thread underlying the above two understandings of the term is the idea that consequentialism is concerned only with consequences. That means logically that a position utilizing consequentialist methodology which did not derive its criteria solely from such calculations would not properly be understood as "consequentialist" or as "consequentalism."

Yet notice how some disingenuous pundits will throw into some kind of consequentialism on parade kind of categorization anything that contains a remote echo of consequentialist methodology!!! To highlight briefly the absurdity of such a methodology, the reader is asked to consider if someone is a consequentialist for doing anything that involves in its calculation the consequences of the action to be undertaken. For example, would a surgeon who uses a technique with the consequences of healing their patient for that reason be a consequentialist??? What about a mother who tells her child to not run with scissors lest the child trip and hurt themselves, is she a consequentialist???

All human decisions involve within them an intrinsic desire for particular consequences. For this reason, to make such things a kind of proverbial Rosetta Stone of what constitutes "consequentialism" is to open a huge can of epistemological worms. For a Catholic to do so is to inexorably assert that Catholic theology is undecipherable and completely bereft of congruity with the reality of human existence.

The same problems that plague such applications of the term "consequentialist" or "consequentialism" also apply to the terms proportionalist or proportionalism. Pope John Paul II noted that proportionalism is a focus which is based solely on the proportion of good to evil in an act as the standard that is used. Wikipedia explains the rationale behind proportionalist methodology thusly:

Proportionalist theories like rule utilitarianism, however, says that "it is never right to go against a principle unless there is a proportionate reason which would justify it" (Hoose, 1987). [Wikipedia: Excerpt from the Entry Proportionalism]

In other words, proportionalist theory basically says that principles are subject to proportionality criteria in determining whether or not it needs to be followed. In sales this is utilized in part by what is called the "Ben Franklin close" where lists are made of pros and cons and the decision is made on whether or not to undertake the action of study based solely on whether there are more positives or more negatives. But however valuable such a methodology is to something such as sales, to apply such a concept to ethics is to engage in the logical fallacy of context-switching. It is to make of principles an arbitrary out of context injunction based on personal whims rather than to recognize the concept of there being principles which regardless of circumstances are not admitting of dispensation period.

For the benefit of the readers and also for the sake of restoring some sanity to the use of these words, I have done more now in this one post to explain these terms than many who frequently use them have bothered to do over a span of months or years.{3} But noting that briefly also requires me to point out an additional principle of interpretation of no small importance which applies to every subject under the moon including theological and philosophical ones:

--Similarity of a position is not the same as identity.

Another way of saying it is that there is a distinction with a difference between actual consequentialist positions and those who take into account in an overall analysis (as one factor of many) consequential factors. Similarly, there is a distinction with a difference between those who espouse proportionalist positions and those who take into account in an overall analysis (again, as one factor of many) proportionalist elements.

It has long been and will continue to be the educated assessment of the webmaster at Rerum Novarum that the sort of persons who would make shipwreck of the natural lights of reason and logic in these ways deserve to be given the widest possible berth. Philosophically, they are rational nominalists{4}, theologically they are solipsists.{5} But either way, they contribute directly to the new Dark Ages we are entering into (or are already in) where more and more people do not understand reason and logic or how to properly utilize them. And as should be plenty evident by our track record over the years, the latter is something we have no interest whatsover in contributing to.

Notes:

{1} "Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept. (circa December 5, 2005)

{2} I had to change this footnote since the most recent reissue of the challenge was made subsequent to when the post you are reading was drafted and substantially completed (circa early November to late December a few weeks before Christmas). The latest challenge reissuing can be viewed in the thread below:

Reissuing the "'Neo-Con' Challenge" (circa July 5, 2008)

{3} And with all that, I have rarely prior to this posting mentioned either of those terms except when mentioning the intention to write on this subject in postings from earlier this year.

{4} Proposing for Use and Future Definition the Terms "Rational Nominalism" and "Selective Rational Nominalism" (circa October 21, 2007)

{5} I used the term a couple of times on my main weblog so it seems appropriate to add it to the defined terms if you will. The term being referred to is solipsism and I noted the following in a weblog entry about it:

[The] epistemological theory of solipsism [is one] whereby the self knows nothing but its own states and their constituent modifications if you will. This is a core philosophical flaw of modern day liberal political views.

I had a footnote to this point and fleshed it out with the following text:

This is why certain kinds of people of the extremist liberal mindset such as the Deanings cannot be reasoned with. You can throw all the facts in the world at them and reason until your gray hairs fall out but they will not budge because so much of what you would say does not pertain to them personally.

This problem infects not only people in liberal extreme political viewpoints but also some people of more peripheral theological or philosophical viewpoints as well. Those who follow Rerum Novarum are aware of a couple of these viewpoints to which I refer so I will not belabour this brief weblog entry with examples. [From the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa February 7, 2004)]

And More Brief Bits on the "Bailout":

The following is a follow up to the previous brief comments on this subject and were also written before the proposal passed both houses of congress and signed into law by President Bush.

I am not opposed to a bailout proposal but those who were responsible for this problem do not deserve to benefit from this. One proposal I heard that made sense was to have them pledge every asset they own as collateral on the money to be appropriated for this. If we figure a trillion dollars will be spent on this bailout and if the totality of their assets was five billion, that would be less than 1% collateral pledged but at the very least it would be something. I do not favour the idea of limiting what the executives can be paid who are hired to fix this problem but those who messed it up do not deserve to make a penny off of it. At a minimum they should be fined and they should stand trial for fraud (cause there was a lot of that), gross negligence, and whatever else can be brought against them.

And as someone wary about federal takeovers and how the nearest thing to eternity on earth is a federal program, I think the solution is to put a sunset provision into the legislation for these entities to revert back to private control at some point in time -say five years or whatever. I could say more but you cover it well in [what you wrote] above.

Oh and XXXX, I do not know of many of a conservative view who do not see blame to go around on this -something I thought I made clear in one of my notes to you previously but I would have to go back and check to be sure. (Going off of memory here.)

More Brief Bits on the Once-Proposed "Bailout":

This is a continuation of the thread located here and consists of a follow up to the first thread which was also written on September 24th in another medium and before the "bailout" became official as it did today.{1} Nonetheless...

Kevin is a friend of mine and in reviewing his comments I added a few of my own. (Blame him for it lol.) As far as the idea of supporting "tax cuts and bailouts for the wealthy" I do support tax cuts but not the bailout: those who made this bed as far as I am concerned deserve jail time. But I am used to liberals misrepresenting my view in the name of some caricatured "conservative position" so you need not worry about me taking offense :)

The myth of liberals that FDR's "New Deal" took us out of the Depression continues I see.{2} The truth is, the "New Deal" prolonged the depression as a result of FDR not having a coherent economic plan but instead trying a hodgepodge of things which were often contradictory -this is not difficult to demonstrate if not for wanting to avoid writing a tome on the matter and getting a laugh out of Kevin in the process. (Due to a reputation I have for expository cogitations that he is aware of.){3}

I noticed also that you did not touch what I noted about the polices of the Clinton administration's justice department under Deval Patrick of threatening with lawsuits banks that refused to loan to high credit risks: that is the gist of the problems with housing that we are seeing in a nutshell. Interesting omission by you there I must say!

Kevin touched already on your welfare misunderstandings but that is not all that could be noted. Indeed, the idea that the federal government was required to make the infrastructure improvements you talk about is an example of how you do not understand the strain that the private sector was under in the 1930's because of the economically obtuse federal approach to these matters. (Much more could be noted but there are space limits here so that is all I will say at this time.){4}

As far as being a "kid" goes, I cannot recall the last time someone likely younger than me called me a "kid." I do try to maintain a youthful look to mask my actual chronological age but that is another subject altogether ;-)

Notes:

{1} Though we of course reserve to ourselves the right to weigh in on this matter at a later date, there is (i) no intention at the present time to do so and (ii) what we have noted in brief thus far should give some hints as to how we would approach this in a future musing be it of a more expository or briefer form.

{2} I have rarely written much on this subject but the following multi part thread comes to mind so I will post it here for those who are interested:

On Historical Revisionism Surrounding the New Deal --Parts I-III (circa October 28, 2006)

{3} I am sure at least some of those who are familiar with your host's overall written output over the years (on this blog and elsewhere) view that statement as one of the understatements of the year.

{4} I may develop this point further in the future if in the mood to and as time allows for it.

ACORN, Obama, and the Mortgage Mess (By Mona Charin)

I tip the hat tip to Contra Pauli for alerting me to this thread.

Briefly on the Proposed "Bailout":

This is a text written a few days ago in response to a discussion thread from September 24, 2008 pertaining to the subject in question.

XXXX and Kevin [Tierney] are both correct on this in part. They forgot about the Justice Department under Clinton threatening banks with federal lawsuits for "redlining" if the banks did not make a certain percentage of loans available for those who were very high credit risks. The program was put in place by the Carter administration in 1977 but it was not until 1994 that the Clinton administration started really giving it teeth via that scumbag Deval Patrick at the helm of the Justice Department.{1}

The problem with the Bush administration is that they basically went along with what was in place already when they should not have. Both Bush and the post 2001 Republican congresses are equally at blame for this as far as I am concerned -the 2007-present Democratic congresses for recessing and leaving the mess as it is for political advantage should be taken outside and shot every last one of them for wasting time on stupid "impeachment" crap and other attempts to obstruct the Bush administration instead of focusing on this problem which they knew very well was coming.

I am no congressperson but this problem was one I knew would happen at some point and indeed some such as Sen. McCain warned of it back in 2005 and 2006 when Sen. Obama was supping at the trough of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as one of their three most financed lobbyists.{2}

The solution is not federalizing things as that always has historically made things worse. (Such as the New Deal prolonging the Depression which we only went out of by going to war and ramping up military production.) The solution is letting the market work and not trying to coerce it -including not trying to force banks to lend to people who are high credit risks at the risk of federal lawsuits. That is after all how we got into this mess to begin with.

Notes:

{1} Briefly on the Current Real Estate Situation (circa July 26, 2008)

{2} I meant to say "contributed to politicians" but wrote that text in a hurry without giving it the customary final review before sending it.

Miscellaneous Musings on Threads of Interest:

Two quick subjects for the time being...

The First Presidential Debate Comments Via Little Green Footballs

I watched the debate after the fact on reruns and probably saw about 70% of it. But what I saw was adequate and it really shows that Sen. Obama could practice for days while Sen. McCain was in Washington only to be badly outclassed by Sen. McCain when at the last minute the debate was on again. My view is closely aligned with that of message #346 in the thread above so much so that I could have written most of that comment myself.{1}

Hopefully for round two Sen. McCain will not pull so many punches as he did in the first debate -it is obvious that Sen. Obama without a teleprompter is no better than President Bush oratorically. And his lack of experience was glaringly apparent in the first debate though Sen. McCain would have done better to actually look at Sen. Obama from time to time. Moving on, we come to something else that was pleasing to our eyes and it is trouble for a representative of congress who deserves to be in trouble...

Murtha sued over remarks

It is not the first time this has happened and hopefully it will not be the last time. Whatever you think about the military involvement in Iraq, to ruin someone's good name{2} for attempted political gain is disgusting. Rep. Murtha deserves a heavy financial penalty as well as jail time for what he did (at a minimum). I could say more but that is all I intend to at this time on that matter.

Notes:

{1} Though I did not of course.

{2} I will not go into the theological aspects of the matter at this time.

Paul Newman Passes On

I may talk a bit about this if emailed on the matter but as for now, I am at a loss for words. One of my favourite actors both on and offscreen...may he rest in peace.