"Rider Reform Revisited" Dept.

I noted in the immediate aftermath of the election{1} that I was thinking of revisiting two initiative ideas I had gone over to varying degrees of depth over the years. However, I wanted to make sure I finished and published my musings on the election which were completed about a week ago{2} before addressing the initiative ideas I mentioned in passing back on November 5th of this year.{3}

As far as the aforementioned initiatives go, the second one I want to mull over a bit more before putting a sketch to but the first was sketched out in some detail almost five years ago. Here is what I wrote off the cuff in the aftermath of President Bush's 2004 State of the Union Address when I remember bristling over the lack of concern for budgetary matters that said speech contained. Without further ado...

[H]ere are my proposals for making [the rider] process accountable to the voting public.

1) Any proposed rider to a bill must have some reasonably demonstrable congruency with the subject of the main funding bill being voted on. The current practice of attaching unrelated or non-sequitur funding proposals to major funding bills would thereby be eliminated.

2) Any proposed rider should requires a separate congressional "rider attachment vote" so that those who want it and those who do not are on the record.

3) Any proposed rider should require at least two thirds concurrence by each house of Congress insuch that anything less means that the rider initiative fails to attach to the bill.

4) Any proposed rider that succeeds in getting two thirds concurrence by each house of Congress officially attaches with the provision that the president has the right to line-item veto that rider proposal.

5) If the president vetoes such rider proposal but signs the main funding bill to which it was attached, Congress can override and permanently attach said rider to the main funding bill with the concurrence of seventy-five percent of both houses of Congress. If said seventy-five percent concurrence of both houses of Congress cannot be mustered for an override, the override fails and the rider is officially declared dead.

6) And of course the rider proposals -pass or fail- must all be entered into the record for perusal of the people under the 1978 Freedom of Information Act along with (i) the names of the proposers and subsequent sponsors of said rider (ii) their party affiliation and (iii) the state which they represent.

These practices would insure that riders were proposed far less often and rarely enacted if they were because it would put our representatives on the hook and accountable for every proposal they voted on. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]

Well obviously to the reader who knows their civics I made a small glitch in the above formulation -something that can happen when ideas are thrown together in rough draft form as that one was. The glitch was presenting it in a federal context with the idea of a presidential line item veto. So a constitutional amendment would be needed to secure that first. But in the meantime, everything noted above could apply to state legislatures and states where governors have line item veto capabilities. So that is what I hope to present to someone at the state level where I live to fashion it into the language that would withstand a court challenge should it make the ballot and pass.

I am sick and tired of seeing nothing done with growing budgets no matter which party is in power. It is evident to me that the leviathans of state and federal levels need to be starved to death of funds if they are to be shrunk in size but no political party has the balls to do anything about it. Ergo, this proposal for rider reform and the idea to follow this one which would take an even stronger weapon to government bureaucracy and which to my knowledge would work at both federal and state levels without any additional preparation being needed at the federal level as in the case of the proposal so outlined above.

Notes:

{1} I may however in that interim and as time allows for it sketch out a rough draft of the second of two initiative ideas I want to get on the ballot for Washington State in the 2010 election. (The first idea was sketched out nearly five years ago on this humble weblog and may be revisited again in the interim prior to the election as well.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 5, 2008)]

{2} On How To Approach the Presidential Election Results of 2008 and Analyzing the Political Trends for 2008 and Beyond (circa December 9, 2008)

{3} Ultrabriefly on the Election Results (circa November 5, 2008)

On the Passing of Cardinal Avery Dulles SJ:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I was nearly finished with a posting yesterday on other subject matters when I received the word. Upon hearing this news, I felt compelled to set that material aside and focus on the subject to be covered in this posting. That other posting will be put up in the coming week when I feel inclined to do so but this matter in my mind takes precedence for reasons that hopefully will be come clear.

To start with, someone who has gone though as many deaths of family, close friends, and major influences in my life as I have in the past eight years{1} gets to the point to where they can become rather unaffected by such things. But in the case of Avery Dulles, this one is different for a variety of reasons. And as Cardinal Dulles' passing happens to tie into a general principle long propounded at this weblog and in other places, it seems appropriate to touch on both the principle as well as the man himself.

Not even two months ago, I noted in blogging a commemoration of an important yet often not known papal encyclical letter dealing with the subjects of faith and reason how close so many of my views were with those of the now-late Avery Dulles. Indeed it is no exaggeration to say that if someone wanted to know with ninety percent certainty or more how I would view any given theological issue, all one would have to do to read Dulles' work -something I noted back in October when touching on the aforementioned encyclical commemoration in a footnote.{2}

I realized quite some time ago that after I had studied a theological issue and taken a reasoned position that Dulles and I were so frequently in agreement that it was literally uncanny.{3} I did not study much of his work directly in my more formative period on these matters so it is not because of direct input the lions share of the time. But at the same time, there has to be more to this than a mere coincidence. I believe it shows that when you place importance on reason and logic as natural God-given lights and do not denigrate them, that they are tools that can serve you well in coming to a grasp of knowledge and how to use it to one's profit.

Of course, once I realized how common this occurrence was, I started reading Dulles' writings on subjects where I had already come to my own conclusions after study and reflection: something I did not consciously do for areas where I was still uncertain. The reason for this was to avoid the tendency that so many people can have of intellectual laziness -a malady to which no one can claim immunity from at least potentially. I have never been one to let others do my thinking for me{4} and this is a trait I noticed that Dulles also shared.

Avery Dulles was one who would go wherever the evidence led essentially and did this within the context of a very profound faith. But having noted similarities in the rational approach on various matters, I want to take a moment and distance myself from the late cardinal in the realm of faith. I am not going to claim that my faith is anywhere near as profound as his was before he shed this mortal coil and the distance is probably greater than I currently realize. But hand in hand with faith in some form or another should go concern for ethics and principles and His Eminence was imbued with a concern for both of these things much as your host is.

Now many who have already or who will eulogize him in the coming weeks have themselves evinced no concern for these matters whatsoever{5} but your host will not be among them. Instead, I will endeavour to remember Avery Dulles in the future as I do in the present conscious of what I have obtained from him in the refining of my intellectual outlook on matters theological{6}, of his focus on being a public thinker who challenged conventional views regardless of the source{7}, and in other areas which may be mentioned another time if I am so inclined to do so.

Actually, there is one other area I am going to mention right now because in light of the current age of incivility, this characteristic of His Eminence is one that bears noting: showing patience as well as due respect for opposing viewpoints. Avery Dulles the theologian made many impressions on me but Avery Dulles the Christian imprinted upon me the importance of this important factor when in years past I had not always been as careful as I have tried in subsequent years to be in this area.{8}

Much more could be said but I am at a loss to organize my thoughts on this anymore than I already have so I will take leave of this subject for now after noting two more things. First, I will pray for him to the extent that my pathetic efforts will be either efficacious or even needed and ask him for his prayers for those of us in much greater need than he likely is. I also have created a tag for all Dulles related posts to this weblog both previously blogged as well as for this one and for use in perpetuity. But as he has passed on now, it seems appropriate to recall some of the final public words this tremendous thinker put forth when he released his farewell lecture at Fordham University where he had held a teaching chair for twenty years. Without further ado:

Suffering and diminishment are not the greatest of evils but are normal ingredients in life, especially in old age. They are to be expected as elements of a full human existence. Well into my 90th year I have been able to work productively. As I become increasingly paralyzed and unable to speak, I can identify with the many paralytics and mute persons in the Gospels, grateful for the loving and skillful care I receive and for the hope of everlasting life in Christ. If the Lord now calls me to a period of weakness, I know well that his power can be made perfect in infirmity. “Blessed be the name of the Lord!”

And with that I take leave of this subject for now making my own one for the late Cardinal Avery Dulles a prayer from the Roman Missal.

Lord please remember Avery Dulles. 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. [Roman Missal: Eucharistic Prayer III From Masses for the Dead]

Notes:

{1} I do not want to say anymore on the subject at this time than that.

{2} See footnote two of that note for details from the archives of this blog if interested.

{3} This pattern is one I first noticed about seven to eight years ago.

{4} Well, almost never anyway. (It has been years since I accepted anything uncritically.)

{5} To say nothing of their contempt for such things as reason and logic in reality as opposed to their paying lip service to the concepts through mindless parroting of church texts from one era or another speaking of these matters being of significance.

{6} Particularly in the area of church models -one of the few where there was not only influence from Avery Dulles but of a direct nature in my understanding and approach to this very intricate ecclesiplogical subject matter. Here are threads posted to this weblog in years past in order of oldest to newest where this subject was treated in some detail:

An Outline of Various Church Models Throughout History --Parts I-V (circa November 23-24, 2003)

More on Church Models (circa July 9, 2005)

{7} Including from the Vatican: something today's purveyors of an obsessive uncritical cult of the pope mentality towards every Vatican utterance either currently or from the past would do well to consider.

{8} Nor do I harbour any illusions that I am completely free from need of additional work in this area lest anyone wonder.

Camille Paglia on various issues (Salon Magazine)

Though she and I often disagree, I have often found Camille Paglia to be an interesting and provocative read. On the above thread, she covers:

--The subject of President Obama's pledge of federal money for infrastructure repairs which she applauds as well as the approach to using computers in classrooms.{1}

--The comportment of President Obama{2} thus far with his appointments -something she is pleased with.{3}

--Her question with regards to the appointment of Sen. Hillary Clinton to the position of Secretary of State.{4}

--Her views on the massacre in Mumbai and on (by implication) national security issues.{5}

--Her assessment of Gov. Sarah Palin's preparation of sorts for 2012{6} and she really lets Dick Cavett have it not to mention the ivory tower elitist mentality that permeates how so many of the msm sorts act.{7}

--Her assessment of the antics of the gay lobby on the subject of homosexual so-called "marriage"{8}

--Some musings on Christmas carols which are...interesting to say the least.{9}

What are the views of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum on these issues??? Check the footnotes of this posting for details on that and be sure to give Camille's thread above a review.

Notes:

{1} I am not sure I agree with her on this unless it involves contracting the work out to private companies to do. I cannot stand the idea of the federal government running anything of a business nature because they will inexorably screw it up as always. But if she favours the use of private contractors for this infrastructure work to be done, then we could be simpatico with her on this one. Certainly improvements on this score are needed, the question is more of the how they are to be done sort than the do they need to be done ones because that they are needed is in my mind pretty self-evident.

On the computers issue, we are in agreement most definitely and I speak as someone who went through the whole public school system and got the lions share of my knowledge through my own outside the classroom efforts.

{2} Yes he is the President-elect but barring extraordinary circumstances occurring, he will be president next month so we at Rerum Novarum will refer to him as such now.

{3} She is right that so far President Obama has conducted himself well.

{4} I was wondering much the same thing myself.

{5} Of which I completely concur.

{6} On this she and I are in agreement. I should note in the interest of disclosure that Paglia was one of the few feminists who stood up for Gov. Palin during the election and gave her a lot more credit than the msm as a rule was willing to do. This is to her credit and it illustrates why even in disagreeing with her at times (sometimes diametrically so) that I read her work with interest.

{7} I am one hundred percent in agreement with her on her disdain for this mentality of which we saw in spades during this election in how Gov. Palin was treated (whatever one thinks of Gov. Palin or her politics this treatment was disgusting).

{8} For those readers who wonder why I refer to "so-called 'marriage'", I remind them of a principle I have always adhered to which was outlined again recently:

Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of "Language Control" (circa November 25, 2008)

Suffice to say, on this issue Paglia and I have some differences of view and I will leave it at that.

{9} On this subject let it suffice to say that when it comes to an atheist's musings on Christmas carols I am somewhat agnostic but intrigued ;-)

Illinois Gov. Blagojevich, chief of staff arrested

Via Drudge we get this story:

Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, were arrested by FBI agents on federal corruption charges Tuesday morning.

Blagojevich and Harris were arrested simultaneously at their homes at about 6:15 a.m., according to Frank Bochte of the FBI. Both were transported to FBI headquarters in Chicago.

In one charge related to the appointment of a senator to replace Barack Obama, prosecutors allege that Blagojevich sought appointment for himself as secretary of Health and Human Services in the new Obama administration, or a lucrative job with a union, in exchange for appointing a union-preferred candidate.

Another charge alleges Blagojevich and Harris conspired to demand the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members responsible for editorials critical of him in exchange for state help with the sale of Wrigley Field, the Chicago Cubs baseball stadium owned by Tribune Co.

This has to be the biggest news story of the day because it is not often a chief of staff or a governor of a state get arrested while in office -to say nothing about happening on the same day!!! I do not know what to say about this except to let this thing run its natural course and if these guys are convicted, throw the book at them. But as was noted in part of the commentary posted this morning, this is an area which is fair game as long as those who delve into this area do not attempt to use it to run counter to the will of the voters. Or to quote from earlier this morning:

Chronicling specific examples of voter fraud is fine, outlining various connections of unsavoury persons and circumstances with the Obama campaign is also fine. Going over how absolutely disgracefully the msm conducted themselves is also fine as well as problems with fundraising that the Obama campaign had with various donations of a controversial nature. But using any of this as a pre-text for rejecting the verdict of the voters is unacceptable.

But however this turns out, it is not something that can help incoming President Barack Obama. He will be president soon so I will wait to see how he responds to this both at the moment as well as when he is president. He has done nothing of a near-official capacity{1} thus far to give me reason to not give the benefit of the doubt. Whether that changes or not in the future only time will tell.


Note:

{1} Many things were noted during the campaign that gave reason for pause of course but campaiging is different than governing or getting ready to govern; ergo they should be treated differently.

On How To Approach the Presidential Election Results of 2008 and Analyzing the Political Trends for 2008 and Beyond:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

We announced in a previous posting, certain exceptions notwithstanding and at our discretion{1}, that this was the only posting we intend to make on election related issues prior to inauguration day. And while we were planning on a shorter yet comprehensive coverage of this subject in the following posting, frankly we are simply not in the mood to do it. So we have decided to touch briefly on a variety of points which we believe point towards general trends of the electorate. From there we will restate in a very brief fashion{2} our own philosophy on these matters, and also point out some steps we believe need to be undertaken if genuine progress is to be made without the sacrificing of core principles as we move into the next administration of government this coming January 20th. It seems appropriate to touch on these in the order listed so without further ado, let us get to it.

To start with the same sex pseudo "marriage"{3} initiatives failed in every state that ran them including those states which went heavily for the soon-to-be President Barack H. Obama. Similarly in states where affirmative action was on the ballot it was voted down. The Republicans despite this being the worst election season to be a Republican since the 1974 midterm election{4} held down some pretty important seats which many of the talking punditry were proclaiming would be likely lost causes. This factor points towards not some sort of "mandate" for the incoming president{5} and congress but more of a referendum on the present administration.

As far as a supposed "landslide" goes, this was no landslide by objective criteria folks. A "landslide" requires a much larger electoral vote margin than the one that Senator Obama got.{6} And those who denied presidential mandates were in order for Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. (whose electoral college majorities were much larger than that of the soon-to-be-President Obama) cannot be allowed to engage in double standards on this matter. No, they must be held to ethical consistency even if it means dragging them there kicking and screaming in the process. Having noted those matters at the outset, how should conservatives handle this upcoming paradigm shift of sorts??? In our mind there are a variety of ways that this needs to be approached and we will go over the more pertinent ones right now underlining them for easier text differentiation.

Any attempts to pretend that President Brack H. Obama is not "our president" need to be avoided.

It was both stupid as well as embarrassing to see the deranged antics of the moonbat fringe who played this game with President George W. Bush because they did not like how the election of 2000 turned out. Many of these same sorts will make "holy pilgrimages" to pray at Mecca worship at the next inaugural. Meanwhile, conservatives who are bitter over how the msm handled the election coverage{7} or how badly in spots Senator John McCain ran his campaign or other factors{8} need to set all that aside now. More on this in a moment.

Opposition if it is made at all must be differentiated between that of the president and the country

Far too often we witnessed since 2000 a tactic taken by those who were opposed to the president that resulted in a blurring of distinctions. Meaning, they took opposition to the president so far and to such an extreme that it inexorably became opposition to the country. This is something conservatives need to avoid at all costs. They must oppose President Obama personally where warranted, support him where warranted, and never in any fashion come across as opposing their country in the process.

Avoid taking a "chickenhawk" approach

One thing that really bothered us was the attitudes of those who despised our last two presidents whereby they took issue with the principle of their utilizing the military as opposed to having issues with the use of the military in a particular situation based on how the presidents themselves never served in the military. Conservatives criticized this with President Clinton before he was elected which was of course just fine much as they raised the superior military credentials of President Bush Sr. in 1992 they did the same with Senator Dole in 1996. In an election season this is one thing but arguing this way on the basis of any president using the military is out of line. Your host never took the latter approach when Clinton was president then{9} and he will not with Obama as president now.

Questioning the verdict of the election

There is voter fraud in all elections including both this last one and the one preceding it -though you would not know that to hear the silence from the msm on the last two elections because they got "their guys" in as opposed to the three elections previous to 2006.

Chronicling specific examples of voter fraud is fine, outlining various connections of unsavoury persons and circumstances with the Obama campaign is also fine. Going over how absolutely disgracefully the msm conducted themselves is also fine as well as problems with fundraising that the Obama campaign had with various donations of a controversial nature. But using any of this as a pre-text for rejecting the verdict of the voters is unacceptable.

Part of being not only a good soldier but also a mature human being is knowing not only which battles have been lost but also which battles are worth fighting. I will not go into the physiological realities behind the inverse natures of intensity and duration at this time but battles will need to be fought with the coming administration but ones based on principles. And acting like the spoiled child who throws a temper tantrum after losing a game -as many of the most rabid supporters of the incoming president did for the past eight years- will not help in any fashion.{10}

Blaming the voters

Your host has at times voiced an opinion of the electorate prior to an election that was by no means flattering. But he has never in recent memory{11} blamed the voters afterward. It serves no constructive purpose as what is done is done. There are reasons for this and the GOP needs to do some serious soul searching first and foremost because they gave the public reasons for doing what they did. That is where they can focus and should they do that, they can expect support from independent voters such as your host. If not...well...lets move onto the next subject.

Refocus for the next election

Building on what was just covered, the focus needs to be the next election and we are not talking about 2012 here. No, we are talking about the 2010 midterms which are less than two years away now. We at Rerum Novarum certainly are going to do our part to assist on these matters at various levels of government as we noted recently in our ultra-brief post election comments.{12} We advise all who are not pleased with how this election went to do likewise.

Strategery, Strategery, Strategery

With an incoming Democratic president and a Democratic majority in both houses of the Congress, a lot of issues are going to be pushed -many of them ones that we who did not vote for President Obama and the Democrats do not agree with. The problem is, if we run all over the map and oppose simply to be opposing, that will achieve nothing constructive. And furthermore, it is naive to think that everything they attempt to do we will be able to stop so that also needs to be taken into account.

Basically, we need to decide in how we go about this first of all, what we will fight tooth and nail for: what are the issues which we absolutely must stand up and hold the line on without an iota of compromise. From there, the rest can be categorized into basically (i) things we want to try and force the Democrats on record supporting so we can make election issues on them in 2010, (ii) things of a less significant nature we actually think can be accomplished despite the Democrats having control of the government, (iii) things we need to put out there for the future which we know will not succeed in the soon-to-be present but nonetheless are points of reference for the future of a positive nature.

In other words, we need to strategerize here and not play the same bullshit of those who opposed the outgoing Bush administration on everything and anything simply because they hated President Bush, thought he was Hitler, or whatever.

It is a tall order and those who are presuming that the incoming president is some kind of messianic figure are going to be profoundly disappointed before long. Keep that in mind and do not let their smugness get to you. And remember, politics is the art of the possible not of the perfect. As far as that goes, it is just about time for a final grade on the Bush presidency and as we do with every administration, President Barack Obama will start off with an A grade by us on the day of his inauguration. What he does after that is up to him.

Notes:

{1} I do not intend prior to the publishing of that commentary to say anything about the election unless it is a response to reader email.[...] Furthermore, even after that commentary is published through at least the final months of President Bush's term that is how I intend to approach this matter. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 5, 2008)]

{2} It is probably a certainty that our view as touched on in this posting will be misunderstood with the brevity to be undertaken -and we would gladly after the inauguration clarify the position as the need is perceived to do so of course. But our intention here is to give a general overview for the reader so they have some points of reference in navigating this and other statements we have made over the years on these matters.

{3} We say "pseudo 'marriage'" because your host refuses to concede to the proponents of such absurdity any pretext of legitimacy for their position. We have explained the extremely important principle being used here in years gone by and felt prior to the posting of this commentary that the subject needed to be revisited in a more complete fashion than could be done in this posting; ergo it was pre-emptively done with the results viewable here:

Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of "Language Control" (circa November 25, 2008)

{4} The elections held in the immediate aftermath of the resignation in disgrace of President Richard M. Nxon.

{5} Setting aside the issue of 2000 for a moment here, if there was no "mandate" for President George W. Bush with his 52% popular vote gain in 2004 than there is no "mandate" for President Barack H. Obama who only got 53% of the vote in this election. Those who affirmed the former must out of consistency affirm the latter if they want anyone with a normal intact functioning brain to take them seriously.

{6} We define a "landslide" as far more than a major majority vote but instead an election where the winner received 70% or more of the electoral vote. Here are some examples of presidential electoral landslides to illustrate our point -more than one set of numbers indicates an election with three or more candidates getting electoral votes:

1789: Washington won 69-0 - 1792: Washington won 132-0 - 1804; Jefferson won 163-14 - 1816: Monroe won 116-34 - 1820: Monroe won 231-1 - 1832: Jackson won 219-49 - 1840: Harrison won 234-60 - 1852: Pierce won 254-42 - 1864: Lincoln won 212-21 - 1868: Grant won 214-80 - 1872: Grant won 286-42-18-3-2 - 1904: T. Roosevelt won 336-140 - 1920: Harding won 404-120 - 1924: Coolidge won 382-136-13 - 1928: Hoover won 444-87 - 1932: F. Roosevelt won 472-59 - 1936: FDR won 523-8 - 1940: FDR won 449-82 - 1944: FDR won 432-99 - 1952: Eisenhower won 442-89 - 1956: Eisenhower won 457-83 - 1964: Johnson won 486-52 - 1972: Nixon won 520-17 - 1980: Reagan won 489-49 - 1984: Reagan won 525-13 - 1988: Bush Sr. won 426-111

There has not been a "landslide" since 1988 going by the manner in which we have defined the term and the last time a Democrat won by a landside was LBJ over Senator Goldwater in 1964.

{7} And yes, it was so biased to be ridiculous and has perhaps destroyed if not forever than at least for a long time any remaining credibility the msm had left after the past six years of ever-increasing journalistic ethical malpractice. This was touched on a bit in a dialogue with freelance writer Joseph D'Hippolito which can be read here for those who are interested in the context of a dialogue on the state of journalism in general. (Mr. D'Hippolito was responding to a commentary your host did on journalism back in June of 2005 and while it had been in the can for a while, the increasing irresponsibility of the msm in covering this election is what prompted its posting in the final weeks before the election.)

{8} Including the whole question of who the best Republican candidate would have been, whether Bush was better than McCain would have been as president, and all the other kinds of questions that were thrashed about before the election was concluded.

{9} We opposed President Clinton on many things but never on either the manner in which he was elected or the principle that he as commander in chief of the armed forces was not eligible to utilize them on the basis of who he was personally.

{10} Your host is aware of the court challenges to the legitimacy of President Obama to even run constitutionally due to questions of the circumstances and place of birth, etc. But even if such challenges are in various courts at the present time, prior to any ruling on these matters, the reality of Obama as president needs to be recognized even by those who are filing such cases. We cannot say we have put much thought into this particular approach though we will say this: if those filing the lawsuits do not win, they should show themselves to be of a higher species of humanity than those who spent eight years inaccurately regurgitating what happened in 2000 as their excuse to act like spoiled children who refused to grow up.

{11} Well, not since 1992 anyway: a year we voted for H. Ross Perot incidentally enough.

{12} I may however in that interim [prior to the inauguration] and as time allows for it sketch out a rough draft of the second of two initiative ideas I want to get on the ballot for Washington State in the 2010 election. (The first idea of which was sketched out nearly five years ago on this humble weblog and may be revisited again in the interim prior to the election as well.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 5, 2008)]

really helps balance everyone's sorrow and brings love into tomorrow
the next days emotion the previous day had to borrow
with winter coming the farmers have to break out the farrow
to prepare the earth for next year's yield

if its not the cold weather that's getting you down
then for what reason pray tell does your face wear a frown
there is a carnival on the edge of town
crooked games and cotton candy.
[Written on 10/12/08]

fates consternation
nona, decima, morta
destiny's agents
[Written on 3/4/08]

Points to Ponder:

The essence of bigotry is refusing to others the rights that you demand for yourself. [Dr. Thomas Sowell]

There has been a lot of events on the world stage in recent weeks we intend to touch on at some point but feel we cannot do adequate justice to until the post election commentary we mentioned we were working on is completed. It was started on November 14, 2008 and worked on bit by bit as time allowed for it though we had not prior to today (when we worked on it some more) done anything on it since prior to Thanksgiving. And when we were working on it, the draft tangented off into another subject connected with it but at the same time different that we felt the need to segregate the two and tackle the latter one first.{1} So this we did in the days prior to Thanksgiving and want to recall that offering for you the reader at this time:

Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of "Language Control" (circa November 25, 2008)

Between that and our recent philosophical revisiting of the subject of comments boxes and the principles behind our longstanding refusal to have any at this humble weblog{2} that should suffice as far as expository style musings on this weblog until we finish the commentary itself which is about 90% completed as of this writing and we hope to have it finished for publishing on Friday of this week.

Notes:

{1} We did after all promise to be briefer in this treatment than any other post election commentary we have written but without losing an overall sense of relative completeness.

{2} On Reiterating Anew Our Comments Box Policy (circa December 1, 2008)

On Reiterating Anew Our Comments Box Policy:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

It is rare that we are at a loss to know what to blog at a given time and now is such a case. Part of the reason is that we have in some respects too much to do and not enough time to do it in and the window of time will be slamming even tighter in the coming months as we take on additional responsibilities for putting into action goals we have gone over before and indeed touched on anew late last month.{1} With these factors being a reality that cannot be evaded, it seems opportune to revisit a subject that we return to from time to time and that is the subject of comments boxes; ergo the purpose of this posting.

In starting this subject off, we will readily concede that our position is a minority one in the blogosphere and even on the internet in general. Most people who blog have that feature at their site and of course those who want to do so can of course do what they like. And often the treatments we have covered on this in periods of greater contention were defensive in nature -circumstances at the times lent themselves to that admittedly. But we also would be less than truthful if we did not own up to regretting some of the manner in which we expressed ourselves in those postings even though the substance of our positions remains the same. So while we will categorize previous treatments in footnote form on this weblog{2} and even perhaps borrow from some of them in covering this subject again, we intend to do so with a greater focus on being less deliberately provocative and treating on the subject in a briefer way than previously.

Readers with an interest in all the details pertaining to our view on this can review the other posts from years past with the aforementioned deficiencies of approach taken into account. But without further ado, here is why we do not have nor will we barring certain technological breakthroughs on this forum{3} change in our principled position one iota. But the substance of it all can be boiled down to something we said in our last extended treatment on this issue; ergo we refer to it now:

[T]hey are not strictly speaking required for interaction with others as there are many ways to get feedback. I interact with some of the more interesting emails or discussion list stuff on this blog -interesting to me that is and if I am not interested in the subject, it is not going to get dealt with here. Sometimes I get emails from people that they want posted as guest editorials and generally I am willing to do that too -even if I do not agree with viewpoint on the subject matter being posted. There are also times where I will interact with others on discussion lists, in chat logs, on message boards (occasionally) and in the comboxes of other weblogs: virtually none of which I have editorial control over and that is of no small significance.[...]...

Before I started blogging, I perused various weblogs and observed the manner in which comments boxes were handled by their participants. I came to realize after a period of observation that they cause more problems than they are worth most of the time and therefore decided to find other avenues for interaction with others when I got around to starting a blog of my own. This is why I never have had and never will have comboxes at Rerum Novarum of a general nature...

The primary reason I do not use comments boxes is because combox stuff is rarely up to snuff and I do not want to take the time to dig in the coal mines to find the rare diamond or two there may be. Someone who is moved enough to send an email is usually (though not always) going to put some thought into what they send. And I only use the cream of the emails I receive because I have no interest in playing "erect the strawman and knock him down" which much too frequently is what many of those of an "apologetics" mindset do.[...]

There is a serious lack of interest in logic and rational thought out there and I do not want to contribute to it either explicitly or by implication. For that reason, my interest is in taking the best possible argument shots people want to throw my way. There is also the part where I discuss only what I want to discuss at a given point in time. Emails may sit for a while unresponded to until I want to respond to them -usually my stock response to emailers if it is something that I intend to respond to is that I am "working on a response." That lets them know that they will be taken seriously when I do get around to responding to them and not infrequently they send a follow-up email expressing gratitude for that.[...]

In the end, it is quality over quantity and I will take the former any day of the week. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 26, 2007)]

We could delve deeper into the subject than that but there is no need to. It has always been essentially a matter of equal parts concern for quality interactions{4} and a lack of time on our part to police such endeavours which in our experience (observing them on other sites) can descend into the nastiest of invective unworthy of reasonable beings.

Of course those who want to use comments boxes can do so as they wish and that is fine with us. However, the idea that they somehow need to be used in order for there to be interaction with the points of view as propounded on this weblog or anywhere else is of course not true.{5}

And though we could also cite our diminishing time for blogging as one reason to not want to take on additional duties of combox monitoring, that takes a backseat to what we have long believed are rational and substantive reasons for our stance which hopefully this post serves to illustrate -both for those who misunderstand our reasons for this stance and also for others who (like us) believe they can be more hassle and produce less quality material than they are worth to endure most of the time.

Notes:

{1} On Thanksgivings Present and Past and What We Are Thankful For Now (circa November 27, 2008)

{2} In order from earliest to most recent on the matter and excluding any postings that did not to some extend extend or amplify previous comments on this subject:

Unlike major media outlets the contents of this blog are not a result of intense focus group testing nor Zogby-like polling data mind you; Rerum Novarum does not function that way. (So those who wrote about adding comments boxes, nada as I do not have the time to police them and besides: most of those who inquired about the comments boxes are not the sorts I would long tolerate posting in comments boxes at my blog.) The reason I have the occasional "guest editorial" policy is to bridge the gap if you will in that regard. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 30, 2002)]

I also blog and interact with emailers if (i) it is a subject I have not blogged on before (ii) it is a subject that interests me (iii) the emailer is polite and (iv) the emailer asks challenging questions. If the emailer is not polite, then their piece becomes fodder for potential fisking in accordance with my mood at the time.

I also interact with stuff on discussion lists, blogs, and the message boxes at other blogs and all of that is potentially bloggable as well. (And usually I email the link to the person so they can read and respond to it if they want to.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 24, 2003)]

On the Comments Box Subject Revisited (circa June 6, 2005)

Briefly on Comboxes Again With Jonathan Prejean (circa June 10, 2005)

The Comments Box Subject Revisited (circa January 26, 2007)

{3} Now it is possible when I am able to transfer my blog to the new beta that I may have targeted comments allowed as that can be done on a post by post basis with the new software. But at the present time, I have too many posts for my archive to be moved to the new platform. We shall see when the time comes if a selective use of comboxes on a post by post basis is feasible to do or not. But that is as close as I will get to the comments box zeitgeist for reasons I noted in the text above. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 26, 2007)]

Ultimately that was not possible with the beta format but should that circumstance change, we would strongly consider making those kinds of occasional exceptions to the rule as noted above.

{4} By the lions share of those involved on the sites but (obviously) not everyone.

{5} See footnote two and the quote from the 2003 posting for some details.

Having noted a pattern I have recently set down in no small detail (and that I have every intention of following on this humble weblog), here is another of the poems written earlier this year. Unlike an eight line stanza variation posted recently, this one a haiku but like the aforementioned poem, I had to use someone else's last line as the first line of my own poem. Without further ado...

dreaming sets you free
dont tell the government lest
they tax your slumbers
[Written on 2/13/08]

skipping through rain drops
have you ever seen the rain
John Fogarty asked
[Written on 11/29/08]

Points to Ponder:

Habits of mind or of a person's general disposition take time to form and they are thus not going to change as quickly as we might like them too. But if the right approach is set down in advance and a proper strategery undertaken, the odds of success will be much greater in whatever the area of intended improvement happens to be. Just keep in mind the determination that you will succeed at whatever your goals are and do not let setbacks be anything but temporary delays.[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 2, 2006)]

On Thanksgivings Present and Past and What We Are Thankful For Now:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

As it sits right now, I have been sidetracked with my post election commentary though a significant revisiting of a key subject was recently issued{1} which will now be able to only briefly be touched on when that commentary is finished and ready for posting. It is an important issue most certainly but with Thanksgiving upon us, it seems appropriate to touch at least briefly on this and to mention the tradition of Thanksgiving presidential proclamations as well as reflect upon what we are thankful for here at Rerum Novarum. I noted briefly last year the first such proclamation as issued by President George Washington in 1789 and how often it referenced Almighty God; in fact, before moving onto what I want to do this year I need to revisit what I wrote last year on the matter so without further ado:

I also want to remind readers of President George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789. It is not that long a text indeed the previous sentence contains a link to it. But notice if you will how many references in the text are to God -fourteen in three paragraphs counting the signature of President Washington on a public act of the President of the United States. So those of you who are buying into that canard about the so-called "separation of church and state"[...] which has been paraded about in recent decades that dog will not hunt. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 22, 2007)]

This matter will be revisited later in the present posting but first I want to muse a bit on the subject of Thanksgiving and how my views on it are different this year than in any year of the millennium thus far.

To start with, it may come as a surprise that I have not written much on Thanksgiving at this weblog during its existence and not because of a lack of things to be thankful. However, on several fronts in recent years there has been no shortage of obstacles impeding my having a genuine sense of thankfulness by my own admission -areas I have gone over at times before but will simply note here briefly before moving on with these musings. Essentially, every Thanksgiving since 2000 was one where I had some anger at God for what had been taken from me that year or the previous one -though in the case of the one from 2000 it was looking back the best of a bunch{2} spanning from rotten to defective for a long time with the worst of the bunch (by far) being the one from 2001 which in so many ways was the worst year of my life.

And despite wishing readers a Happy Thanksgiving in 2002, I was not feeling thankful myself for that year or the previous one. 2003 was a little bit better year indeed on some levels that Thanksgiving was surprisingly pleasant as I noted at the time but it was still somewhat defective. 2004 was ok all things considered -I was too busy writing a post-election commentary at the time to comment on that year's celebration. (I note it here because it contains elements of the subject covered in more detail in the first footnote of this posting.)

I do not remember much about the one from 2005 because it was overshadowed with the news of my childhood best friend's passing away and that was something that will forever mar that year as far as I am concerned. 2006 was a pretty decent Thanksgiving -certainly the best one since 2003- I did not write on it at the time but it was spent at my sister's place eating food and playing board and card games. And last year's Thanksgiving was okay though it was marred a bit by my missing of one of my best friends who had recently exited my life.{3} That particular Thanksgiving also happened to be not long after I had finally decided definitively what I was long musing on insofar as a goal I wanted to attain{4} and making more solid efforts to go about it.

I know my friend's departure in the week prior to last year's Thanksgiving was the final tripping switch for me but in retrospect, I was moving inexorably towards that point at the time bit by bit. Nonetheless, on the evening of the day she left Seattle, I sat down and drafted in nearly one take the lions share of the blog posting which I later put up on the weblog announcing in outline both our intentions as well as the indefinite blogging priorities to be officially implemented at this humble weblog. To quote the pertinent parts of that posting at this time:

Readers may recall that a year and a week ago last Wednesday, we wrote on the subjects of the then-coming year (2007), a bit on foundational presuppositions, on warmer climates and the like. The post itself[...] was far more systematically laid out than the brief description just given but we want to touch very briefly on those key elements here as they play no small factor in what has been prevalent in our mind to a more explicit degree as last year unfolded.[...] They contribute to a proper understanding of what the future of this weblog's activity will involve from this point on in perpetuity...

The idea of living part of the year in a warmer climate[...] as far as being put on track towards being a practical reality took some time to jell into a cohesive plan. Nonetheless, as of roughly July of 2007, the outlines have finally solidified for us to make that desire a reality at some point in the new year.[...]

What has also formulated within the present writer is the steely resolution to make this happen. Little by little, steps have been taken to set that plan into concrete motion including the critical assessing of our current business templates which once everything is taken care of with the state compliance-wise will aid greatly in achieving our intentions in this area. Everything will be overhauled essentially and made a lot more efficient and productive along the lines of what was noted back in an October 2007 weblog post touching on Vilfredo Pareto's principle of economic efficiency. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa January 11, 2008)]

When those words were written initially, we had decided definitively on what we were going to do but it was not until the following month that a significant opportunity to expedite those goals fell into our lap which enabled us to begin really pushing towards the goal at hand. For one thing, the new business venture required the assistance of one of the few people we trust for key aspects to be tended to; ergo, our friend returned to Seattle to aid in that respect in early February of this year. However, the wheels fell off of that cart later this year when some unexpected and unforeseen disasters took place.

The fallout created a period of drift for my friend and I which required that things be salvaged if the plan was to eventually happen as we both want it to. Towards that end, additional research was conducted by yours truly, and my friend and I put together a completely new plan of action which I eventually had codified into precise steps to facilitate the desired outcome.{5} However, the problem with reformulating the plan was it delayed by at least a year the realization of the goal which when the posting of January 11, 2008 was put up was seen as being about six months in the future.{6}

And though the process itself has had to be shelved temporarily to tend to more immediate matters of importance, it will be resumed before Christmas so that the mission is realized at some point in 2009.{7} So with those factors in mind and how the work we have put into this goal has gotten to the present point, I can actually say I am thankful this year and mean it. The combination of the goals being on target to be achieved is only part of it though, there are others too such as being thankful for good health, etc. Another reason for being thankful in my mind is my reflecting in spare moments the losses of the new millennium and how time has to some extent healed many of the wounds albeit not completely{8} -but significantly enough to where we can have a real appreciation again for many things.

We are thankful for being alive and for the most part remarkably together considering all we have faced in recent years. We are also thankful for family which we still have even those for whom things are not without their tensions. We are thankful for our friends both those of longstanding and those who we have been able to reconcile with after rougher times in years past. And of course we are thankful for being born into and able to live in what is still the greatest nation on earth.{9} And with those feelings of gratitude in mind, I want to return to the subject of presidential Thanksgiving proclamations which was touched on earlier with the revisiting of the first as issued by President George Washington.

President Washington issued a Thanksgiving proclamation in 1789 and another one in 1795 though at the time there was not a fixed national holiday on the matter so they were issued at different times of the respective years.{10} President John Adams issued Thanksgiving proclamations in 1798 and 1799 -presumably the struggles for trying to achieve a peaceful settlement to the Undeclared War with France at the time coupled with a rather bitter election year combined to sour President Adams on making a Thanksgiving proclamation for the year 1800. President Thomas Jefferson was elected that year and for eight years he broke with the precedent of Washington and Adams by not issuing a single Thanksgiving proclamation.

The practice was revived briefly by his successor President James Madison who issued proclamations in late 1814 and early 1815 corresponding to a successful ending to a war that was a near-disaster for the nation's very existence.{11} But presumably because of the great successes of America as a growing nation both in riches as well as power subsequent to 1815, there was not the same perceived need to have days of Thanksgiving. For that reason perhaps, the practice fell into disuse after 1815 and there was not another proclamation of thanksgiving issued by a president until President Abraham Lincoln issued one in 1862 when the nation was at war with itself.

However, President Lincoln was not following precisely in the footsteps of his predecessors with the issuance of such proclamations in 1862 and early 1863 because they were issued giving thanks for specific victories at war rather than for more general blessings of God upon the nation. So strictly speaking, they do not constitute a resumption of the Washington tradition. It was with a second proclamation issued in late 1863 which restarted the annual tradition of such presidential proclamations thanking God for the blessings He has bestowed upon the nation. And with 1864, we have President Lincoln affixing the annual celebration as a national holiday on the last Thursday of November every year which has remained so unto the present day.{12} And I want to close these musings by recalling the 1864 Thanksgiving proclamation of President Abraham Lincoln issued at a time of tremendous struggle for the very soul of the nation; incidentally, many might claim we are at a similar crossroads today. But without further ado...

It has pleased Almighty God to prolong our national life another year, defending us with His guardian care against unfriendly designs from abroad and vouchsafing to us in His mercy many and signal victories over the enemy, who is of our own household. It has also pleased our Heavenly Father to favor as well our citizens in their homes as our soldiers in their camps and our sailors on the rivers and seas with unusual health. He has largely augmented our free population by emancipation and by immigration, while He has opened to use new sources of wealth and has crowned the labor of our workingmen in every department of industry with abundant rewards. Moreover, He has been pleased to animate and inspire our minds and hearts with fortitude, courage, and resolution sufficient for the great trial of civil war into which we have been brought by our adherence as a nation to the cause of freedom and humanity, and to afford to us reasonable hopes of an ultimate and happy deliverance from all our dangers and afflictions :

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby appoint and set apart the last Thursday in November next as a day which I desire to be observed by all my fellow-citizens, wherever they may then be, as a day of thanksgiving and praise to Almighty God, the beneficent Creator and Ruler of the Universe. And I do further recommend to my fellow-citizens aforesaid that on that occasion they do reverently humble themselves in the dust and from thence offer up penitent and fervent prayers and supplications to the Great Disposer of Events for a return of the inestimable blessings of peace, union, and harmony throughout the land which it has pleased Him to assign as a dwelling place for ourselves and for our posterity throughout all generations.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this 20th day of October, A.D. 1864, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-ninth.

May you all have a happy and blessed Thanksgiving!!!

Notes:

{1} Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of "Language Control" (circa November 25, 2008)

{2} Looking back though, I would take twenty more Thanksgivings like it compared to the ones I have been through since because it was the last one I spent with my father before he died.

{3} Thankfully she was to return a few months later.

{4} One of the plans for the new year (though not officially a resolution) is to figure out a way to live part of the year in a warmer climate. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 2, 2007)]

{5} It will have to be revised and expanded when what is set in place is completed but I have set down in business flow chart format all the required steps as well as the initial costs for start up to get this business operating.

{6} This is a long story and not one I want to go into at the present time.

{7} There is not a precise date for the completion of the plan, only certain financial milestones that need to be met as well as certain target profit goals of the business before the planned move can take place. At a minimum by current projections, it will happen in July of 2009 but it is possible even if what is required to meet that target goal occurs on schedule that we may postpone it a bit longer and leave in September of 2009. (Though if things go at a faster than predicted pace, we are not above shooting for a June 2009 departure though admittedly that would probably not be feasible the way things are looking right now.)

{8} I doubt they ever will completely heal.

{9} I say this despite an acute awareness of the actual (as opposed to the fictitious) historical warts on this country's past.

{10} In October for 1789 and in January for 1795.

{11} I refer here to The War of 1812 which spanned from June 18, 1812 to March 23, 1815.

{12} This year's presidential Thanksgiving proclamation was issued by President George W. Bush on November 21, 2008 and can be viewed here for those who are interested.

Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of "Language Control":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Prefatory Note: I decided to handle this matter in its own posting so it does not make my planned election commentary any longer than necessary.]

I have discussed this subject at sundry times and in divers manners in years gone by{1} and have decided the time has come to touch on the matter again. The circumstances are not exactly the same as some of the times I have explicitly{2} gone over this before but the value of timeless principles is that they are admitting of a variety of applications depending on changed circumstances.{3} For that reason, I want to precede the election commentary I am working on with a revisiting of the subject of language control to avoid having to quote large chunks of other postings in that commentary in the form of footnotes.{4}

To start with, I have as long as I can remember resisted being typecast by the many who have tried in one form or another. One reason for this is my views are not easy to categorize into any one "school of thought" in part because while there are degrees of systematization to how I view various issues; there is also a good degree of what could be called "cross-pollination" as a result of the amount of study I have done in my life on a panoply of subjects. But to it seems not a few people, something I have written or a view I would appear to concur with even if only in part is presumed to be my view. This kind of approach is more than a bit deceptive and persons who make such presumptions are thus inexorably wrong and often stunningly so. Or as I have said in a multiplicity of ways over the years including quite recently{5}: similarity is not the same as identity.

What does all of this have to do with "language control" is something probably crossing the minds of many who read these words. Well, for one thing, when you have the combination of seriously misunderstanding someones view coupled with the tendency most people have towards trying to find easy ways to categorize things, it can involve no small degree of miscategorization. And while this would not per se be a problem in and of itself, it can very well be if you also have in the mix those who try to define the terms of categorization in a way to give the impression that those so categorized should have their views{6} dismissed without fair consideration. This is the methodology of the propagandist after all. Any cursory reading of history should open one's eyes to the various ways people can have their humanity reduced in the eyes of others by means of varied forms of propaganda and this does not only apply to totalitarianist viewpoints of the most explicit and horrifying kind. It also applies to those who in a variety of ways fit the bill for what the late Senator Barry M. Goldwater called "those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play God with the human race" though they do not often merely ask for such permissions anymore.{7}

Such persons will always find a foe in those such as your humble blog host who take seriously not only the concept of ideas but actual ideas themselves and recognize their power both in potentiality as well as actuality{8}, the importance of controlling the terms of identification if you will becomes in my mind pretty self-evident for those who ponder this matter syllogistically.

Or as has been noted on this weblog in years past in various ways{9} engineering of a social nature in whatever area one seeks to do it is always preceded by an engineering of a verbal nature. The reason for this is because in order to engineer things in actuality you first have to engineer them abstractly or in the realm of ideas for everything that is or ever will be starts with an idea. So if engineering requires precedence in the area of verbality before being manifested in actuality, then to fight the former with the greatest likelihood of success you must take a stand on the latter.

Because the moment we allow those who would seek to enslave us to coin their own terminology in reasonable sounding prose is the moment we give them the pretense of nobility for whatever nefarious scheme they are seeking to push onto us. Thus we get euthanasia promoted under terms such as "death with dignity", homosexual liaisons promoted by an attempted hijacking and redefinition of the term "marriage",{10} etc. -all of which provides the cultural wolves the cover of sheep's fleece to cloak themselves in to more easily hoodwink the unsuspecting masses. They want to control the terms of the battle because they can thereby put their opposition at a significant disadvantage positionally. And that is the first step towards putting their God-given rights at risk in reality; ergo they need to be fought positionally and on principles and not be allowed to set the terms for any debate.

This is why I have long said that I will not allow others to control the terms of any subject matter I am involved in{11} and my opposition at times can be pretty strident on this. Even if the subject involved may appear trivial to the casual observer, the underlying issue is where the matter of principle is with me my friends. Hence though the circumstances can differ, the principles behind my actions in a panoply of situations remain unchanged.

To give two examples of seemingly inconsequential subject matters, I was at one point quite strident in battling the attempt to typecast me as a writer of certain theological views characterized as "traditionalist" in nature. I have also steadfastly refused to allow people to caricature me as a Republican or in any way as a spokesman for the outgoing administration of whom I have had nearly as much disagreement with as agreement{12} over the years. Both of these do not seem significant but part of the reason was my concern to try and head off these matters in their most embryonic of stages before things developed further. And while on the former I have been quite successful, the latter has taken a bit more work and I am not so sure "victory" has been achieved there yet though the overall signs have been generally quite positive as I see them. But that is neither here nor there.

The principle I refer to in the above examples also extends to my reasons for demanding at times that users of certain buzzwords define said terms or cease using them altogether as "definitions are the tools of thought" (cf. M. Mentzer); ergo thought cannot be well cultivated in an environment where the words used are not given workable meanings. The failure to do this philosophically leads to what I call rational nominalism{13} which is a form of the epistemological fallacy of solipsism.{14} Theologically this principle manifests itself in what was once misappropriately called modernism.{15}

It also bears noting that often those opposed to a particular view will caricature it in a gross manner and those sympathetic often react to this by seeming to embrace and magnify the caricatured elements both of their own side as well as the other side. I do not and never have liked this kind of polemics{16} because it does not serve the cause of truth well however the latter is perceived by the parties in question.{17} And it does advertise well the lesser angels of our natures when those are the kinds of writings which get the most attention oftentimes to the detriment of ones where serious points of reference are put forward for potentially productive dialogue.

Yes in one sense it is a war of words but as I firmly believe that everything including our very existence as persons started with an idea{18}; ergo principles and ideas are of the utmost importance to me. People have fought for ideas and even died for them since the dawn of time. I do not feel therefore that ideas deserve to be treated as anything less than what they are which is merely the first points of contact with something that is of tremendous power potentially before it can be effectively realized in reality. That makes ideas quite powerful and therefore deserving of our respect in how they are interacted with -certainly a hell of a lot more respect than most people care to accord them in this day and age of increasing barbarity but I digress.

Notes:

{1} To note some stuff from the archives in past years in order from oldest to most recent pertaining to this subject:

On the Underlying Weltanschauung of Language Control (circa August 30, 2003)

On the Use of Labels -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Posting (circa August 30, 2003)

On Workable Remedies for Society's Problems -Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa March 31, 2004)

[That] I recognize (for tactical or other reasons) certain exceptions is an indicator that there is no such thing as an immutable rule on these matters. There are however principles that construct my rule of discourse if you will and one of them is not ceding to opposing viewpoints the right to define the terms of dialogue. It might sound arrogant but I insist on defining those terms myself or (at the very least) relegating that to a stalemate in finding terms that each party can concur with. It sounds petty but propaganda is a matter of language and perceptions which are generated by images or concepts play a strong role in the matter. I am not saying that I am a propagandist of course[...]; however, as one who knows how propaganda works, I do what I can to not allow myself to be so caricatured by those who disagree with me. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 2, 2004)]

Since at least the point in 2004 where the above example was blogged up to the current posting, to my knowledge, all of the examples of my noting this principle in various subjects and circumstances on this weblog have come more from actual implementation of it rather than calling attention to it explicitly as was the case in the other links noted above.

{2} Rarely has it been discussed directly at this humble weblog but often it has been addressed in implicit or less recognizable ways.

{3} [A] subject as a rule needs to be of contemporary significance to be of interest to me in its discussing. This can take many forms including but not limited to (i) something that interests me that I have a reasonable degree of knowledge about which I may not have discussed before and want to discuss for some reason, (ii) that someone emails me on a subject previously discussed and I am predisposed for some reason to discuss it again at or approximate to that time, (iii) contemporary events which provide for the opportunity to in some fashion expound on timeless principles pertaining in some fashion or another to the subject so discussed, (iv) something I recall from reading which is of interest to me at a given moment in time, or (v) a situation whereby some additional threads can be added to the mosaic of subjects which have been of interest to me at various times as a way of further refining through development my views on a given subject matter. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 27, 2006)]

{4} I did promise brevity to the extent that would be possible of course which is part of what makes a posting like this an opportune one at the present time.

{5} On "Consequentialism", "Proportionalism", and a Lesson in General Norms of Interpretation, Theological or Otherwise (circa October 6, 2008)

{6} Or should I say, their views in the manner in which they have been often misrepresented by the one doing the categorizing thereof.

{7} No, they have gone from merely asking to do these things to trying through a variety of perversions of law and government to impose themselves onto others to deprive people of their fundamental God-given rights in the name of what they call "progress." As a fundamentally conservative person (but not a fundamentalist: again similarity is not the same as identity), I find this to be appalling but history proves the corruption that power oftentimes has in proportion to the amount it is possessed.

{8} [A]s far as I am concerned, arguing for a position on its intrinsic merits or lack thereof utilizing the tools of reason and logic is a serious business and far too many of a sophistic bent either do not realize this or they fail to take seriously the principle that ideas are serious things.

People have fought for ideas, they have died for ideas, and this has not only not changed in the present but these things still occur. Therefore, what someone is willing to involve themselves in (should they set foot into the arena of ideas) should be focused on primary or serious matters and not secondary or ancillary griping. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 28, 2006)]

{9} I for my part want nothing to do with this scuffling nor will I allow others to label me - even if they attempt to do so as a kind of "reference point" in a discussion.[...] Again, I either control the vernacular or we relegate it to a stalemate. The moment I as a rule allow others to do so[...] is the moment that I begin to give control of the arena to someone else. And that my friends is (i) not something I have ever done and (ii) it simply is not going to happen at any time in the future. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 30, 2003)]

{10} However, wherever, and whatever pretext one might use in defining this term, the variety of forms marriage has taken since the dawn of time have one constituent element to them that is the same: that marriage is between human beings of the opposite sex. To propose an application to this term of an arrangement that does not involve this constituent element is to do violence to the principle of words meaning things and with a concept that is the root and matrix of civilization itself.

{11} I have always recognized that at times concessions are required in this area, the underlying principle is to control the terms used in the arena of ideas as much as it is possible to do. Or as I noted to Charles de Nunzio when discussing this in the context of so-called homosexual "marriage" back in mid 2004:

[That] I recognize (for tactical or other reasons) certain exceptions is an indicator that there is no such thing as an immutable rule on these matters. There are however principles that construct my rule of discourse if you will and one of them is not ceding to opposing viewpoints the right to define the terms of dialogue. It might sound arrogant but I insist on defining those terms myself or (at the very least) relegating that to a stalemate in finding terms that each party can concur with. It sounds petty but propaganda is a matter of language and perceptions which are generated by images or concepts play a strong role in the matter. I am not saying that I am a propagandist of course[...]; however, as one who knows how propaganda works, I do what I can to not allow myself to be so caricatured by those who disagree with me. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 2, 2004)]

{12} Plus that I have not been affiliated with any political party for over a decade now explains my motivations in part with matters of a political nature.

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

{14} Defining the Term "Solipsism" -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Post (circa February 7, 2004)

{15} I say "misappropriately called" because the term itself has a deeper concept that the presumption of applying it only to the modern age misses the forest for the trees on. (I may go over this another time if asked about it and if I am inclined to want to discuss it at the time but it is one of those factors under the surface which is of no small significance and yet rarely recognized as such -at least explicitly.)

{16} I will not claim to be without fault in this area myself at times in the past of course.

{17} As no one's philosophical. sociological, theological, political, or any other views exist in a vacuum, the foundational presuppositions that people operate from in seeking to perceive what is true can vary and sometimes quite dramatically.

{18} To really take it all down to brass tacks.

Points to Ponder:

If you have no confidence in self, you are twice defeated in the race of life. With confidence, you have won even before you have started. [Marcus Tullius Cicero]

In line with the recent musings on poetry and my intention to manifest that side of me more on this humble weblog, here is one of the eight line stanzas I wrote in recent months using the last line of some one else's stanza as the first of my own. Without further ado...

the world is lazy, we can take what we seek
the law of the jungle no friend of the meek
when ethics are slack the strong plunder the weak
in a variety of ways

optimistic football year
the source of many a tear
the Hawks more laughed at than feared
bring on 2009. [Written on 10/16/08]

Having written on the subject of poetry yesterday, I can now turn to this posting which was intended for then but now can be more adequately tended to in light of that writing. The following is a song from The Band on their second album circa 1969 -an album I reviewed here for those who are interested. I post it today as I have had my late father (may he rest in peace) in mind who was himself a union man for most of his working life. Without further ado...

King Harvest:

Corn in the fields.
Listen to the rice when the wind blows 'cross the water,
King Harvest has surely come.

I work for the union 'cause she's so good to me;
And I'm bound to come out on top,
That's where I should be.
I will hear ev'ry word the boss may say,
For he's the one who hands me down my pay.
Looks like this time I'm gonna get to stay,
I'm a union man, now, all the way.

The smell of the leaves,
From the magnolia trees in the meadow,
King Harvest has surely come.

Dry summer, then comes fall,
Which I depend on most of all.
Hey, rainmaker, can't you hear my call?
Please let these crops grow tall.
Long enough I've been up on skid row
And it's plain to see, I've nothin to show.
I'm glad to pay those union dues,
Just don't judge me by my shoes.

Scarecrow and a yellow moon,
And pretty soon a carnival on the edge of town,
King Harvest has surely come.

Last year, this time, wasn't no joke,
My whole barn went up in smoke.
My horse Jethro, well he went mad
And I can't remember things bein' so bad.
Then there comes a man with a paper and a pen
Tellin' us our hard times are about to end.
And then, if they don't give us what we like
He said, "men, that's when you gotta go on strike."

Corn in the fields.
Listen to the rice when the wind blows 'cross the water,
King Harvest has surely come. [J. R. Robertson]

On Poetry and Lyrics:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

It is customary to post some poetry and lyrics at times to this site as my mood to do so presents itself. However, the past year has seen next to none of that by my own admission -something I realized when doing a check on the matter when preparing to post some lyrical poetry today from The Band. That will now be postponed{1} as I muse a bit on this facet to my personality which like some others has seen scant if any mention on the weblog over the years.

I have so many sides to my being and poems and poetry (and the enjoyment of them) is one of them. However, this is a side of me that while I started to manifest it a bit on the weblog with the intention of further cultivation has nonetheless in recent years (for a variety of reasons) not happened. Last year was an exception to that pattern though -indeed, I was pleased in reviewing the archives to see that 2007 had a moderate degree of posts pertaining to poetry and lyric related matters{2}: more than any year since 2003.{3}

I did not realize this until I did a quick search of the archival tags for lyrics/poetry and lyrics/poetry/musings in preparing a lyrical post for publishing that this year had been so sparse in that area.{4} And when you omit one which has become a tradition at this weblog every year{5} that makes 2008 that much bleaker still not to mention every year since 2004.{6}

So something that started off solid and carried fairly decently into the second year of blogging really started tailing off in 2004 when the number of poetry and lyric postings fell to six, 2005 when it fell to five, and 2006 which likewise had five such postings. And when you consider that most of the forty-seven odd postings in these categorizations over the years have not been my own poetry{7}, that makes the matter even more interesting to ponder on the part of yours truly.

Now of course it is not necessary that such things be my own creation -I certainly do not possess this gift to the extent of many others by my own admission.{8} However, I have this year made a conscious effort to write more poetry -not only haikus but also some eight line rhyming stanza poems which is a new area for me. Indeed, I have written about two hundred haikus this year -many of which were in formats where I had to use someone else's last line as my first line which makes them a bit harder to whip out in traditional poetic haiku form (which I follow meticulously by the way) than if I do so completely on my own from scratch.{9}

As for why the poetry and lyrical postings have been less in recent years, I am sure to no small measure it was due to the election season of 2004 and various other factors in the subsequent years which were not helped by my noticeably greater focus on geopolitical subject matter since late 2003 on this humble weblog.{10}

But as was noted already, I have this year written a mess of haikus and even some stanza poetry of the sort I have not done in longer than I can remember. Many of this year's compositions will find their way onto the blog in the coming year at various intervals I am sure along with contributions from others in this area. But this is definitely an area I want to give renewed focus to for the duration of this year and into 2009 and beyond; ergo, I will do so.

Notes:

{1} For to explain this detracts from that posting so it will be put up in the coming days as I originally planned to do today before getting in the mood to muse on the subject of poetry in general as I have done here.

{2} There were eight such postings from 2007.

{3} Numerically 2003 was the best year but by ratio, it was unquestionably 2002. For while there were ten such postings in all of 2003, there were eight in the last four months of 2002: the only months we were blogging that year.

{4} Thus far, there have been two such postings in 2008.

{5} I refer here to what has become the traditional Auld Lang Syne posting to start every year which debuted in January of 2004 and starting with January of 2005 has been posted to start every year since with the exception of 2006 when it was posted on New Years Eve 2005 due to extraordinary circumstances of the time. (Starting with 2007, the January pattern was resumed in this regard and this was carried through to the present year.) As is our wont, things start off at times as intuitions that we end up analyzing later on and this was no different. Ergo, in some expository musings posted on New Years Eve 2007, we explained how the original intuition had crystallized over the years in our mind to become more than a mere whimsical gesture but instead had far deeper meanings. For those who are interested, those musings can be viewed here.

{6} For while none of the eight from 2002 or ten from 2003 included this posting, all years starting with 2004 have. (And if this is taken to account, that makes the poetry/lyrics postings from those years even fewer than they already were -particularly 2005 which had two postings of this sort with the second being posted to ring in 2006 on New Years Eve that year.)

{7} Of self-composed pieces there were two posted in 2002, one in 2004, one in 2005, and two in 2007.

{8} Such as Robert Frost (a favourite poet of mine), William Shakespeare, AE Housman, and more contemporarily: my friend Albert Cipriani. (A few of whose poems have been blogged to this weblog over the years with I am sure more to come.)

{9} The same using another person's first line approach was used with the eight line stanzas of which I have written about a dozen of them so far with the most recent one being composed today.

{10} This was not the stark departure that many presumed but instead a return to the sort of postings to discussion boards I used to do both on the web and in other ways long before I wrote any web essays or involved myself so much in theological subject.The latter pattern from 2000-2003 being the novelty rather than the converse as I noted in late 2006 when my friend Apolonio expressed concern about it in a dialogue that I blogged to this weblog in September of 2006. (The correspondence was originally from November 2005 and slightly tweaked to make the response relevant to September 2006 when the material was eventually blogged.)