On the Passing of Ron Silver and on Suffering for Truth:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
"[W]hat courage traditionally meant was risking the disapprobation of people you know. It was about losing friends, losing work and losing status where you live -- not alienating people you will never meet. Insulting people in Kansas when you live in Los Angeles is not speaking truth to power; it's speaking anything to serve power." [Ann Coulter on the Courage of Ron Silver]
I want to start this off with some articles on Ron Silver which were in the mainstream media in recent days so without further ado...
Silver Star
Obituary of Ron Silver (New York Times)
Silver's Bravery Not An Act (Ann Coulter)
To discuss the man himself, Ron Silver is a man I greatly respect. Yes I say I greatly respect in present and not past tense is used because in the Judeo-Christian tradition we believe the soul lives beyond this mortal coil. But lest this statement bring forth a host of predictable and erroneous presumptions, I want to touch on them at this point at least in brief.
To start with, I do not respect Ron Silver because he agreed with me -indeed I do not and never have based respect on this criteria though obviously if there is agreement it cannot hurt.{1} But more important than agreement is the principle of truth and a person's approach to the latter. For there are those I agree a lot with whom I do not have much if any respect for and conversely, there are those I agree very little with whom I have a great deal of respect for. In the case of Ron Silver as with anyone, this factor while helpful to some extent is not strictly speaking obligatory. It boils down as I have said many times over the years to someone being willing to access from time to time their foundational presuppositions or those lenses through which they filter all the information they receive and whether said presuppositions are true or not. This is something that Ron Silver did.
While Silver was not a conventional sort in Hollywood even in his liberal days{2}; however, 9/11 changed him. It wrought in him a change in his foundational presuppositions which caused him to view things differently than before. This set him at odds with a lot of his friends and colleagues. He could have done one of two things at this point for someone who was passionate about ideas.{3} One was close his eyes and pretend not to see what he saw for the sake of family accord and retaining the bonds of friendship and peer/colleague kinships. But Ron Silver of Jewish lineage followed however unconsciously the dictum of a Jewish rabbi named Jesus who said that those are not worthy who do not hate their father, mother, wife, children, etc. for the sake of what is true.{4}
Indeed, I am someone who has over the years their own degree of suffering in a variety of ways for following what my light of conscience tells me is true or at least probably so.{5} Therefore, when I see in someone else the willingness to follow their conscience to the point of suffering for it either through ostracizing by former colleagues, peers, acquaintances, friends, family, etc. it creates for me a kind of spiritual kinship with them. Having been there myself as I said, I understand at the very least in an approximate fashion what they are going through. As a result of such circumstances, I have been able to have friends that other friends have wondered how I could be friends with them and if I was to give an answer, this is it in a nutshell: I have a connection between those who suffer loss in following what they believe is true however much I believe they may or may not be mistaken in doing so.
So from this standpoint when you look at what Ron Silver lost for the sake of his convictions and following them, it should engender in anyone who takes ideas seriously at least a begrudging respect. In my case the respect is more than begrudging and I concur with Ann Coulter's words in the opening quote of this posting as well as those when she said that with Silver's passing "there is one less person in the world who never chooses his positions to feed a pompous ego or to stroke his self-image as a thinking person." The world never has enough of these kinds of people and now it has one less. I pray that through his trials and in his final bout with cancer that Ron may have been prepared for what is to come and and that his example may serve to educate others in what genuine bravery (as opposed to the pseudo "bravery" of self-righteous Hollywood sorts) actually entails. And of course that God may rest the soul of Ron Silver.
Notes:
{1} I say this because I believe on the lions share of issues and certainly in my general view of things I am right. However, I have had the same view before on some issues and found reasonable cause to reassess them at which time my view changed. So for that reason let it suffice to say that I believe I am either right or (at the very least) I have not been remotely persuaded to the contrary as of this writing.
{2} Meaning, he had certain views that did not jive with the predominant liberal weltanschauung.
{3} There is also the lethargic indifference option but it does not apply here.
{4} Hatred in this sense being properly understood as not actual hatred of course but having the disposition of not allowing anyone (whoever they are) to get between someone and their search for (or adherence to) what they believe in conscience. Hence Jesus said those who would follow him were not worthy of him if they put anyone as an impediment between themselves and Jesus if they believed He was Truth.
{5} What I mean by "probably so" is that one can only base their adherence to any principle or set of principles thereof on a basis of probabilities or what can be referred to as motives of credibility with the particular view being weighed in light of the latter. The greater the number and/or logical the arguments adduced for a particular view the more said view can be said to be "probable" in its pertinence to the truth. One should in the words of ex-atheist Antony Flew go "wherever the evidence leads" and trust that any mistakes honestly made in the process will be viewed mercifully by God.
Monday, March 30, 2009
First thing I remember was askin' papa, why? ,
For there were many things I didn't know.
And daddy always smiled; took me by the hand,
Sayin', someday you'll understand.
Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes.
Well, time and tears went by and I collected dust,
For there were many things I didn't know.
When daddy went away, he said, try to be a man,
And, someday you'll understand.
Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes.
And then, one day in april, I wasn't even there,
For there were many things I didn't know.
A son was born to me; mama held his hand,
Sayin' someday you'll understand.
Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes.
Think it was September, the year I went away,
For there were many things I didn't know.
And I still see him standing, tryin' to be a man;
I said, someday you'll understand.
Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes. [J C Fogerty]
And as many have presumed that this song was about war, here is John Fogerty the songwriter explaining the meaning of his song:
"Every parent tells their child "someday". "Gee daddy,can we go fishing?"... yeah, someday. My parents divorced when I was young and I ended up divorcing from my first wife... The song is basically talking about... here it happened to me when I was young and here I go doing the same damn thing. It's sad. I wanted to express what a kid feels, "Someday never comes."
For there were many things I didn't know.
And daddy always smiled; took me by the hand,
Sayin', someday you'll understand.
Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes.
Well, time and tears went by and I collected dust,
For there were many things I didn't know.
When daddy went away, he said, try to be a man,
And, someday you'll understand.
Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes.
And then, one day in april, I wasn't even there,
For there were many things I didn't know.
A son was born to me; mama held his hand,
Sayin' someday you'll understand.
Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes.
Think it was September, the year I went away,
For there were many things I didn't know.
And I still see him standing, tryin' to be a man;
I said, someday you'll understand.
Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes. [J C Fogerty]
And as many have presumed that this song was about war, here is John Fogerty the songwriter explaining the meaning of his song:
"Every parent tells their child "someday". "Gee daddy,can we go fishing?"... yeah, someday. My parents divorced when I was young and I ended up divorcing from my first wife... The song is basically talking about... here it happened to me when I was young and here I go doing the same damn thing. It's sad. I wanted to express what a kid feels, "Someday never comes."
Saturday, March 28, 2009
"War On Terror" Rebranded As "Overseas Contingency Operations" (Telegraph/UK)
Though it is not something I have spoken of very often, I did not like the term "war on terror" coined by President Bush's administration because it was too vague. A better term as I see it would have been a "war on terrorists" or "war on terrorism." But having said that, the term "overseas contingency operations" is even vaguer still and what will happen when{1} your greater blurring of distinctions gets us attacked again by terrorists re-emboldened by evidence that you do not take their thread to national security with the seriousness it deserves??? Will the attacks on our soil still be "overseas contingency operations" or will you attempt to re-euphemize things once again to an even more vague terminology like "non-overseas domestic contingency containment operative protocols" or whatever???
For reasons that should be obvious to the reader, I will despite my not liking the term "war on terror" continue to use it much as I will continue to stand by my assertion that water boarding as the CIA did it -which differed from how the Japanese in WWII and others who have utilized it have done it{2}- is not torture when the term "torture" is properly understood.{3} Pound sand President Obama, words do not change their meanings at your mere whim.
Notes:
{1} Yes I said "when and not if" because within the next four years or however long President Obama occupies the White Hizzouse we will be attacked again.
{2} I commented on this matter most recently in this posting from yesterday:
Points to Ponder on Waterboarding and Distinctions With a Difference (circa March 27, 2009)
My point in the above thread material was not to take a position one way or the other but only to point out that there is a distinction with a difference in various methods of what is called "water boarding" and while some methods would fit the criteria for torture properly defined, others (such as the CIA's method) would not whatever one happens to think about it personally.
{3} On Torture and General Norms of Theological Interpretation --Parts I-III (circa October 13, 2006)
Though it is not something I have spoken of very often, I did not like the term "war on terror" coined by President Bush's administration because it was too vague. A better term as I see it would have been a "war on terrorists" or "war on terrorism." But having said that, the term "overseas contingency operations" is even vaguer still and what will happen when{1} your greater blurring of distinctions gets us attacked again by terrorists re-emboldened by evidence that you do not take their thread to national security with the seriousness it deserves??? Will the attacks on our soil still be "overseas contingency operations" or will you attempt to re-euphemize things once again to an even more vague terminology like "non-overseas domestic contingency containment operative protocols" or whatever???
For reasons that should be obvious to the reader, I will despite my not liking the term "war on terror" continue to use it much as I will continue to stand by my assertion that water boarding as the CIA did it -which differed from how the Japanese in WWII and others who have utilized it have done it{2}- is not torture when the term "torture" is properly understood.{3} Pound sand President Obama, words do not change their meanings at your mere whim.
Notes:
{1} Yes I said "when and not if" because within the next four years or however long President Obama occupies the White Hizzouse we will be attacked again.
{2} I commented on this matter most recently in this posting from yesterday:
Points to Ponder on Waterboarding and Distinctions With a Difference (circa March 27, 2009)
My point in the above thread material was not to take a position one way or the other but only to point out that there is a distinction with a difference in various methods of what is called "water boarding" and while some methods would fit the criteria for torture properly defined, others (such as the CIA's method) would not whatever one happens to think about it personally.
{3} On Torture and General Norms of Theological Interpretation --Parts I-III (circa October 13, 2006)
Friday, March 27, 2009
Points to Ponder:
(On Waterboarding and Distinctions With a Difference)
[Prefatory Note: I decided for the sake of not making the original posting today overlong to run it in a day or two and preface it with this material. -ISM]
It is rather disingenuous to not note that there are a variety of ways of doing water boarding and that the method the US government has used is in certain respects markedly different than what the Japanese and others have done. The failure of this article to note the differences (and also to claim that the method is torture) is profoundly disappointing for a source which is supposed to present a neutral point of view. As someone else correctly noted "[t]his article... is taking sides in a controversial issue while simplifying the nuances of that issue."...
Now while you could claim that source is taken second hand, I can respond to that by noting that I took the quote and the link being quoted from a site that does not support my view on this -to the extent that I have even made my view known here which I have not. My underlying point all along is that this article is not demonstrating neutral point of view in treating on the issue fairly which means (by definition) not taking sides or appearing to take sides.
Now then, you claimed "XXXXXXX" that there are "no sources" which posit a difference in the methods that I claimed there was. But as noted above, the Japanese were pouring water into noses and throats of those so subjected to their method and according to the CIA's instruction manual, the CIA method did not do this. And whatever trick the CIA method plays on the body there is nonetheless no actual suffocation that takes place with the CIA method; ergo no "torture" takes place even by your own definition of that word. The same cannot be said for the method utilized by the Japanese during the war where water was poured into the nose and throat. Or other methods of water boarding where the person's head is dunked in water. In other words, arguments can be made that some uses of this method could constitute torture and others may well not. [Excerpts from an Email Correspondence (circa March 8-10, 2008)]
(On Waterboarding and Distinctions With a Difference)
[Prefatory Note: I decided for the sake of not making the original posting today overlong to run it in a day or two and preface it with this material. -ISM]
It is rather disingenuous to not note that there are a variety of ways of doing water boarding and that the method the US government has used is in certain respects markedly different than what the Japanese and others have done. The failure of this article to note the differences (and also to claim that the method is torture) is profoundly disappointing for a source which is supposed to present a neutral point of view. As someone else correctly noted "[t]his article... is taking sides in a controversial issue while simplifying the nuances of that issue."...
Now while you could claim that source is taken second hand, I can respond to that by noting that I took the quote and the link being quoted from a site that does not support my view on this -to the extent that I have even made my view known here which I have not. My underlying point all along is that this article is not demonstrating neutral point of view in treating on the issue fairly which means (by definition) not taking sides or appearing to take sides.
Now then, you claimed "XXXXXXX" that there are "no sources" which posit a difference in the methods that I claimed there was. But as noted above, the Japanese were pouring water into noses and throats of those so subjected to their method and according to the CIA's instruction manual, the CIA method did not do this. And whatever trick the CIA method plays on the body there is nonetheless no actual suffocation that takes place with the CIA method; ergo no "torture" takes place even by your own definition of that word. The same cannot be said for the method utilized by the Japanese during the war where water was poured into the nose and throat. Or other methods of water boarding where the person's head is dunked in water. In other words, arguments can be made that some uses of this method could constitute torture and others may well not. [Excerpts from an Email Correspondence (circa March 8-10, 2008)]
Thursday, March 26, 2009
"Tales From the Crypt Mailbag" Dept.
The emailers words will be in dark red font. Without further ado...
A month ago, when Republican hopeful Bobby Jindal stood at a press conference and ridiculed federal money spent on volcano monitoring, many observers marveled at the sheer stupidity of a Louisiana governor belittling a system that could give advance warning of a natural disaster.
First of all, I am curious to know who these "many" observers were. Secondly, if memory serves, the subject at the time was economic stimulus and federal money on volcano monitoring is not going to help with economic stimulus. Or are you claiming it would??? Because if so I have my own "marvel[ing]" to do but that is neither here nor there.
But before the governor could take his foot out of his mouth, an Alaskan volcano erupted five times, a volcano that, thanks to promised stimulus money, will be monitored more closely in the future.
Again, volcano monitoring money is not an economic stimulus. And care to bet that the volcano you mentioned in its five eruptions did more to the environment of a detrimental nature than all of human industry in the past two hundred plus years??? Yet you probably are one of those who stand in the blizzards claiming we need to stop "global warming" under the presumption that man's activity is somehow more damaging than that of nature's.
Cleary, Mr. Jindal doesn't think much about volcanoes. If he can't fathom what pre-disaster monitoring could do for his home state, he can't be expected to know that between 1980 and 1990, volcanoes worldwide killed at least 26,000 people and caused 450,000 people to flee their homes.
First of all, you are not staying on target here. The issue at the time was a proposed government economic "stimulus" by President Obama and the Democratic congress: that is what "stimulus" money is for. If you want to claim that federal monitoring money would "stimulate" the economy you would only reveal how little you really know about economics. Of course that would probably earn you a spot in BHO's cabinet since competence does not seem to be a pre-qualification.
But even that point aside, there is also the issue of whether volcano monitoring is something the federal government should be involving itself in to begin with or if this is a function of state government. Jindal probably views it as the latter and that makes this a philosophical issue not one of Jindal thinking that volcano monitoring is not of importance. That is the problem with people like you: you think someone who opposes federal intervention into an area or program means that there is opposition to an intervention or program period. The two are not synonymous at all.
And one can assume that on May 18th, 1980, when Mt. St. Helen's erupted, claiming 65 lives and causing $1.2 billion in damage, Mr. Jindal was reading the funny papers.
One can assume that when economics was taught in school you were not even in class if you think federal volcano monitoring would help with economic "stimulus."
In reality, Mr. Jindal is not as thickheaded as he seems. Rather, he's a Republican, and thus, spends his days taking random shots at any and all federal expenditure, no matter how crucial.
In fairness to you, I do not think you are as off the reservation intellectually as your email to me appears. It seems to me that you are so opposed to Governor Jindal that you are attempting to go after the only thing he said that with a bit of clever twisting can appear to be an argument against him. But you need to keep focused on the issue at hand. For apart from the question of if it is a federal or state matter and whether the federal government has any business putting funds for this sort of thing in the federal budget, the question is if this is something that would "stimulate" the economy. So unless you are going to claim it would "stimulate the economy"{1}, your entire line of purported "argument" against Governor Jindal is irrelevant.
Notes:
{1} This would be an interesting argument to see you try and make: good luck with it!!!
{2} See footnote one.
The emailers words will be in dark red font. Without further ado...
A month ago, when Republican hopeful Bobby Jindal stood at a press conference and ridiculed federal money spent on volcano monitoring, many observers marveled at the sheer stupidity of a Louisiana governor belittling a system that could give advance warning of a natural disaster.
First of all, I am curious to know who these "many" observers were. Secondly, if memory serves, the subject at the time was economic stimulus and federal money on volcano monitoring is not going to help with economic stimulus. Or are you claiming it would??? Because if so I have my own "marvel[ing]" to do but that is neither here nor there.
But before the governor could take his foot out of his mouth, an Alaskan volcano erupted five times, a volcano that, thanks to promised stimulus money, will be monitored more closely in the future.
Again, volcano monitoring money is not an economic stimulus. And care to bet that the volcano you mentioned in its five eruptions did more to the environment of a detrimental nature than all of human industry in the past two hundred plus years??? Yet you probably are one of those who stand in the blizzards claiming we need to stop "global warming" under the presumption that man's activity is somehow more damaging than that of nature's.
Cleary, Mr. Jindal doesn't think much about volcanoes. If he can't fathom what pre-disaster monitoring could do for his home state, he can't be expected to know that between 1980 and 1990, volcanoes worldwide killed at least 26,000 people and caused 450,000 people to flee their homes.
First of all, you are not staying on target here. The issue at the time was a proposed government economic "stimulus" by President Obama and the Democratic congress: that is what "stimulus" money is for. If you want to claim that federal monitoring money would "stimulate" the economy you would only reveal how little you really know about economics. Of course that would probably earn you a spot in BHO's cabinet since competence does not seem to be a pre-qualification.
But even that point aside, there is also the issue of whether volcano monitoring is something the federal government should be involving itself in to begin with or if this is a function of state government. Jindal probably views it as the latter and that makes this a philosophical issue not one of Jindal thinking that volcano monitoring is not of importance. That is the problem with people like you: you think someone who opposes federal intervention into an area or program means that there is opposition to an intervention or program period. The two are not synonymous at all.
And one can assume that on May 18th, 1980, when Mt. St. Helen's erupted, claiming 65 lives and causing $1.2 billion in damage, Mr. Jindal was reading the funny papers.
One can assume that when economics was taught in school you were not even in class if you think federal volcano monitoring would help with economic "stimulus."
In reality, Mr. Jindal is not as thickheaded as he seems. Rather, he's a Republican, and thus, spends his days taking random shots at any and all federal expenditure, no matter how crucial.
In fairness to you, I do not think you are as off the reservation intellectually as your email to me appears. It seems to me that you are so opposed to Governor Jindal that you are attempting to go after the only thing he said that with a bit of clever twisting can appear to be an argument against him. But you need to keep focused on the issue at hand. For apart from the question of if it is a federal or state matter and whether the federal government has any business putting funds for this sort of thing in the federal budget, the question is if this is something that would "stimulate" the economy. So unless you are going to claim it would "stimulate the economy"{1}, your entire line of purported "argument" against Governor Jindal is irrelevant.
Notes:
{1} This would be an interesting argument to see you try and make: good luck with it!!!
{2} See footnote one.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
"One From the Vault" Dept.
(On Presidential Legacies)
[Prefatory Note: This was drafted on August 14, 2008 but for some reason it was never published. Having just re-discovered it when perusing various unpublished drafts and seeing as the principles underlying what I say in it are applicable to a variety of circumstances, I post it at this time. -ISM]
He is not even out of office yet...
The Bush legacy cannot be fairly judged when the person in question is still in office. It takes time and distance to attain a proper historical perspective. For example, in 1952 Harry Truman was viewed by most people in the same light as Bush is now. But now Truman is considered one of the best presidents of the twentieth century.
(On Presidential Legacies)
[Prefatory Note: This was drafted on August 14, 2008 but for some reason it was never published. Having just re-discovered it when perusing various unpublished drafts and seeing as the principles underlying what I say in it are applicable to a variety of circumstances, I post it at this time. -ISM]
He is not even out of office yet...
The Bush legacy cannot be fairly judged when the person in question is still in office. It takes time and distance to attain a proper historical perspective. For example, in 1952 Harry Truman was viewed by most people in the same light as Bush is now. But now Truman is considered one of the best presidents of the twentieth century.
Then there is the "tax cuts for the rich" crap which others have commented on which tells me the unmentioned side of the story: these "historians" have agendas to push and cannot allow themselves to approach matters with even a pretense of objectivity.
I predict Bush will look a little bit better to posterity than Clinton for a variety of reasons but neither of them will be considered a great president. And neither of them was or is as completely incompetent as Jimmy Carter was. Apparently these "historians" to the tune of 98% have forgotten about the peanut farmer which tells us all we need to know about the integrity of their presumed "poll" on this matter.
Friday, March 20, 2009
"One From the Vault" Dept.
(On "Global Warming")
I intended to post this last year but for some reason it was not tended to; ergo it seems fitting at this time to do so considering all the cold weather we have been seeing -particularly at "global warming" rallies.
2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved (Telegraph/UK)
Of course this writer has never subscribed to this hysteria and written on the absurdity of this matter on its face not a few times over the years.{1} It is nothing more than another of the many masks of marxism{2} which the latter uses to try and advance covertly as opposed to overtly as all deceitful agendas noxious to basic human sensibilities must be if they are to have the greatest chance at success. Throw in the multitude of people who react emotionally rather than rationally to the myriad of issues under which the marxists hitch their wagon to{3} and it only complicates matters further. But as the writer of the Telegraph article noted, 2008 was the year that history will show the fallacy of "man-made global warming" from both a climate standpoint as well as that of the so-called "scientific consensus"{4} was likewise disproved.
Notes:
{1} To note a few offhand:
On the Fraud of "Global Warming" With Greg Mockeridge and Kevin Tierney (circa April 13, 2006)
[I]ndeed readers of this weblog know that we pronounced on the global warming matter some time ago[...] but it does not hurt to remind readers of this considering the magnitude of the confidence trick many are attempting to pull with the so-called "global warming" schtick. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 29, 2007)]
On the subject of the environment, McCain gets a B. If not for his stance on global warming which is (at best) an unproven hypothesis, he would get an A. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
{2} Again to note a few posts from the archives on the matter at hand:
Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)
More on Marxists and Their Many Masks (circa July 8, 2005)
On Marxists and Their Methodology (circa July 22, 2006)
{3} Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)
{4} Those who appeal to consensus of anybody are obligated under the rubrics of logic and reason as well as ethics to approach these matters utilizing a proper as opposed to an improper appeal to authority. I go over the latter distinction many times at my weblog -here are two from the archives that come to mind offhand:
"Argumentation Fallacy" Dept. (circa August 27, 2004)
On Proper and Improper Approaches to Argumentation (circa May 14, 2005)
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)
More on the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof--Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean (circa March 24, 2007)
The thread from 2005 is a reworking of the one from 2004 which redacts the text down to basically the most elemental facets of the subject being covered in the latter thread. The dialogual one with Jonathan Prejean was interacting with his comments and criticisms of the thread from March 8, 2007 originally posted in another medium subsequent to being posted to this weblog.
(On "Global Warming")
I intended to post this last year but for some reason it was not tended to; ergo it seems fitting at this time to do so considering all the cold weather we have been seeing -particularly at "global warming" rallies.
2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved (Telegraph/UK)
Of course this writer has never subscribed to this hysteria and written on the absurdity of this matter on its face not a few times over the years.{1} It is nothing more than another of the many masks of marxism{2} which the latter uses to try and advance covertly as opposed to overtly as all deceitful agendas noxious to basic human sensibilities must be if they are to have the greatest chance at success. Throw in the multitude of people who react emotionally rather than rationally to the myriad of issues under which the marxists hitch their wagon to{3} and it only complicates matters further. But as the writer of the Telegraph article noted, 2008 was the year that history will show the fallacy of "man-made global warming" from both a climate standpoint as well as that of the so-called "scientific consensus"{4} was likewise disproved.
Notes:
{1} To note a few offhand:
On the Fraud of "Global Warming" With Greg Mockeridge and Kevin Tierney (circa April 13, 2006)
[I]ndeed readers of this weblog know that we pronounced on the global warming matter some time ago[...] but it does not hurt to remind readers of this considering the magnitude of the confidence trick many are attempting to pull with the so-called "global warming" schtick. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 29, 2007)]
On the subject of the environment, McCain gets a B. If not for his stance on global warming which is (at best) an unproven hypothesis, he would get an A. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
{2} Again to note a few posts from the archives on the matter at hand:
Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)
More on Marxists and Their Many Masks (circa July 8, 2005)
On Marxists and Their Methodology (circa July 22, 2006)
{3} Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)
{4} Those who appeal to consensus of anybody are obligated under the rubrics of logic and reason as well as ethics to approach these matters utilizing a proper as opposed to an improper appeal to authority. I go over the latter distinction many times at my weblog -here are two from the archives that come to mind offhand:
"Argumentation Fallacy" Dept. (circa August 27, 2004)
On Proper and Improper Approaches to Argumentation (circa May 14, 2005)
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)
More on the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof--Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean (circa March 24, 2007)
The thread from 2005 is a reworking of the one from 2004 which redacts the text down to basically the most elemental facets of the subject being covered in the latter thread. The dialogual one with Jonathan Prejean was interacting with his comments and criticisms of the thread from March 8, 2007 originally posted in another medium subsequent to being posted to this weblog.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The White House Misfires on Limbaugh (Karl Rove)
Conservatives need to wise up to what the Obama Administration is doing -they are trying to use Rush Limbaugh as not only a diversionary tactic but also to give a personal face to the opposition. Or as President Obama's ideological mentor{1} put it in his "rules for radicals":
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
The rationale for this was as follows:
In conflict tactics there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and "frozen." By this I mean that in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant, and somewhat legitimate, passing of the buck....
It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target....
One of the criteria in picking your target is the target's vulnerability--where do you have the power to start? Furthermore, the target can always say, "Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?" When you "freeze the target," you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all others to blame.
Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the "others" come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target.
The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract...
Conservatives need to wise up on this and fast and that includes using the tactics of the Obama Administration{2} against them by making President Obama the personification of what they are opposing. This also falls into the rules of President Obama's mentor who stated the following as "rule four:"
The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
When General Erwin "Desert Fox" Rommel wrote his treatise on tank warfare strategies, it was studied by many students of that craft including a young Colonel by the name of George S. Patton Jr. Later on, as a general in his own right, General George S. Patton was able to defeat "The Desert Fox" in battle and according to legend screamed "I read your book!!!" In like manner, conservatives would be wise to familiarize themselves with the book of tactics followed by those of the same school of "community organizing" as President Barack Obama and the rest of his Chi-Town amigos{3} to have the best odds of beating Obama at his own game as Patton beat Rommel.
Notes:
{1} President Barack Obama's Mentor on Mass Organizing Tactics (circa March 14, 2009)
{2} See footnote one.
{3} To the extent this can be done morally and ethically of course: books dedicated "to Lucifer the first radical" need to be taken with a grain of salt and not have any of their prescriptions applied indiscriminately.
Conservatives need to wise up to what the Obama Administration is doing -they are trying to use Rush Limbaugh as not only a diversionary tactic but also to give a personal face to the opposition. Or as President Obama's ideological mentor{1} put it in his "rules for radicals":
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
The rationale for this was as follows:
In conflict tactics there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and "frozen." By this I mean that in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant, and somewhat legitimate, passing of the buck....
It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target....
One of the criteria in picking your target is the target's vulnerability--where do you have the power to start? Furthermore, the target can always say, "Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?" When you "freeze the target," you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all others to blame.
Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the "others" come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target.
The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract...
Conservatives need to wise up on this and fast and that includes using the tactics of the Obama Administration{2} against them by making President Obama the personification of what they are opposing. This also falls into the rules of President Obama's mentor who stated the following as "rule four:"
The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
When General Erwin "Desert Fox" Rommel wrote his treatise on tank warfare strategies, it was studied by many students of that craft including a young Colonel by the name of George S. Patton Jr. Later on, as a general in his own right, General George S. Patton was able to defeat "The Desert Fox" in battle and according to legend screamed "I read your book!!!" In like manner, conservatives would be wise to familiarize themselves with the book of tactics followed by those of the same school of "community organizing" as President Barack Obama and the rest of his Chi-Town amigos{3} to have the best odds of beating Obama at his own game as Patton beat Rommel.
Notes:
{1} President Barack Obama's Mentor on Mass Organizing Tactics (circa March 14, 2009)
{2} See footnote one.
{3} To the extent this can be done morally and ethically of course: books dedicated "to Lucifer the first radical" need to be taken with a grain of salt and not have any of their prescriptions applied indiscriminately.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
MSNBC Cooks the Books on Their Obama Poll:
[Prefatory Note: This was written in another medium on March 14, 2009. -ISM]
If we need any proof, look at the other day when they had 51% A, 13odd% voting B, and 7odd% voting C. That totaled 71% at a time when Rasmussen{1} had Obama at about 55% approval which is a difference of about 16% if we presume that anyone giving Obama a grade higher than D has some degree of approval of his performance thus far. So I suppose if MSNBC were to admit that their poll had a "margin of error" of "+/- 16%"{2} then there would be no problem...though it would basically make the poll useless. Of course that polls are even newsworthy shows you just how much "fark" passes for news these days but I digress...
Notes:
{1} The most reliable pollster the past two elections and one of the few that uses only "likely voters" which is the true measure of these things, not the opinions of those who have no likelihood of voting.
{2} Even if we went at the highest poll in the RCP batch of polling (62%) there would still be a +/- 9% difference. I went with Rasmussen despite not being either the highest or the lowest because for the reasons noted in footnote one.
[Prefatory Note: This was written in another medium on March 14, 2009. -ISM]
If we need any proof, look at the other day when they had 51% A, 13odd% voting B, and 7odd% voting C. That totaled 71% at a time when Rasmussen{1} had Obama at about 55% approval which is a difference of about 16% if we presume that anyone giving Obama a grade higher than D has some degree of approval of his performance thus far. So I suppose if MSNBC were to admit that their poll had a "margin of error" of "+/- 16%"{2} then there would be no problem...though it would basically make the poll useless. Of course that polls are even newsworthy shows you just how much "fark" passes for news these days but I digress...
Notes:
{1} The most reliable pollster the past two elections and one of the few that uses only "likely voters" which is the true measure of these things, not the opinions of those who have no likelihood of voting.
{2} Even if we went at the highest poll in the RCP batch of polling (62%) there would still be a +/- 9% difference. I went with Rasmussen despite not being either the highest or the lowest because for the reasons noted in footnote one.
On the Problem With Conservatives Dabbling in So-Called "Conspiracy Theories":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum}
I have seen over the years time and again something that has long compelled me to cover the subject of conspiracy theories. And a few recent circumstances I have been privy to have finally pushed this point to one of critical mass and I do not feel I can go without saying something on the matter at this time however brief it may be so that is the purpose of what you are reading at this time.
To start with, I have long realized when you get any group of conservatives together there are always going to be some who put forth the idea of a grand overarching conspiracy to explain all of the problems they see. For I approach these matters as someone who had my own affiliation with the cult of the conspiracy theorist. The affiliation was not long (a few years) but it certainly influenced my views on not a few matters particularly after I intellectually worked my way through it, routed it as a viable theory and cast it aside as logically and rationally specious (to put it nicely). And I want to provide in this note a schemata of sorts for others to similarly navigate these issues without being led down the myriad of blind alleys that such approaches inevitably entail.
In stating that, I want to explain some of the building blocks of rational thought because society today suffers because of those who are unfamiliar with such things. I define three steps to establish a theory. One reason I have a problem with the term "conspiracy theorist" should be evident after I explain those steps if you will. The first point of contact with rational thought is deciding upon a thesis which I have defined{1} as follows:
Thesis: An abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument.
A thesis is essentially a position that you assert before it has been substantiated by argument. Those who make statements for or against a position essentially are both on the same playing field. That takes us to the realm of the hypothesis. The latter can be defined{2} as follows:
Hypothesis: An explanation of a subject, circumstance, or event which is advanced on tentative grounds by a proposed thesis or series of theses and is open to further examination or being potentially disproved before it reaches the stature of a viable theory.
I define it that way because not all hypotheses are equal in merit. A hypothesis by this understanding is a thesis or a coordinative series of theses which are set forth in explanatory form for examination and testing, and for potential flaws which could invalidate it. Among the potential flaws are errors of fact, errors in logic, and formal contradiction. If a hypothesis withstands this kind of scrutiny and remains intact, it can validly be considered a theory. And as one of my early intellectual mentors Mike Mentzer used to like to define the latter term{3}:
Theory: a set of non-contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them, principles) which purports to give either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action.
A theory in other words is a solid point of reference and is not to be dismissed as a mere whim. This is where I have a problem with the "conspiracy theory" phrasing because definitions are the tools of thought. Therefore, to utilize logic and reason efficaciously the terms we use have to be given precise or at least workable definitions if we are to give as accurate a description as we can. So conspiracy theorists should be called "conspiracy hypothesizers" to be properly classified. Then when we look at how many internal contradictions these people have entertained over the decades -not to mention how many predictions they have made that have not come true- this shows us the true worth of their worldview.
Getting back to where I said I "worked my way through it", etc. I am not saying that I solved every previous puzzle involved in the conspiracy hypothesizing mindset of course. However, by identifying the root causes or foundational presuppositions that guided that particular world view, I was able in applying them to so many of the positions taken by the conspiracy sorts to see the viability of the overarching purported theory itself melt away like ice cream on a hot July day. Hence, when I set that outlook aside definitively, I basically imposed a kind of self-agnosticism on the areas I had not yet solved because I had realized that the outlook was not tenable rationally. Over time and with greater research and reflection on a host of issues, most of them have resolved themselves without the need for active intellectual involvement on my part. (And on occasion in responding to conspiracy-hypothesizing sorts on issues I once set aside in this fashion, I was able to intellectually overcome them when revisiting said matters anew.) The very few that remain will likely go by the wayside in the same fashion as most of the others; ergo I see no reason to alter my approach to them taken lo these past twelve odd years.
But noting these things, it may help to consider why people latch onto these things as they do. For one thing, the world is a very complex place. And people who face the whirlwind of complex factors and do not understand them often will look for anything they can find to help them make sense of it all.{4} And one thing that conspiracy hypothesizers do is give what they purport to be a correct description of reality. And because it all fits together apparently so nice and neat, their approach is a seductive one. However, any hypothesis is only as good as the arguments that sustain it and in science a hypothesis that cannot sustain itself when subjected to testing is cast aside as unviable.
The core problem with conspiracy hypothesizers is they do not admit of anything that can serve as an invalidation of their view. They often misuse sources they cite{5} and even go as far as to entertain mutually contradictory positions without realizing that in doing so they have made any attempts to apply logic to the matter inoperable. This is the same mindset that blames in true xenophobic fashion all perceived "outsiders" as being the source of any and all "evils" -can anyone say Jewish blood libel trials of the Middle Ages??? How about blaming everything from the assassination of Lincoln and Kennedy to any calamity of the past four hundred years to the "Papists", the "Jews", the "Masons", or the "Jesuits"??? More could be noted but the bottom line is this: it is always easier to comfort oneself in dealing with issues that have a befuddling complexity to them by having recourse to simplistic "explanations" and then ignoring or refusing to come to grips with the problems of reason and logic (not to mention fact) that such "explanations" may have.
I do not in saying these things deny that there are conspiracies out there or people who conspire with others. Nor would I claim that there are not members of various groups past (or present) often considered to be Borg-like in their machinations for some kind of global governance who do not have an outlook that is what would be called "globalist" in many respects. The fallacy is the claim that all members have the same views which is its own form of stereotyping.
The charm of these various hypotheses is that they purport to give a simplistic explanation for much more complex geopolitical strata. But hopefully what is outlined in this note makes it clear that there are significant problems with this kind of outlook as a rule and taken to too much of an extent. I furthermore hope that this short note of musings adequately explains why those who would claim to respect reason and logic as valuable tools for ascertaining reality should think long and hard before either espousing such views themselves or giving any kind of endorsement to others who would.
Notes:
{1} Defining the Term "Thesis" -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Post (circa January 14, 2004)
{2} A Workable Definition of "Hypothesis" -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Post (circa August 21, 2006)
{3} Defining the Term "Theory" -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Post (circa January 14, 2004)
{4} They are also big on playing the provincialism card and blaming ills on various groups of people (i.e. Jews, Masons, Catholics, International Bankers, etc) which is a classic tactic of a cult: try to scare those "inside" of others who are "outside" all the better to practice mind control over them but I digress.
{5} One that is often misrepresented to no small degree (to put it nicely) is the work of the late Professor of Georgetown Carroll Quigley whose tome Tragedy and Hope is treated as practically Sacred Scripture by conspiracy hypothesizers. I happen to have perused this book myself in years past and to say that it has been misappropriated or that only part of Quigley's views (and a very small part) have been accurately represented by those who attempt to cite him as an "ally" for various conspiracy hypotheses would not be inaccurate.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum}
I have seen over the years time and again something that has long compelled me to cover the subject of conspiracy theories. And a few recent circumstances I have been privy to have finally pushed this point to one of critical mass and I do not feel I can go without saying something on the matter at this time however brief it may be so that is the purpose of what you are reading at this time.
To start with, I have long realized when you get any group of conservatives together there are always going to be some who put forth the idea of a grand overarching conspiracy to explain all of the problems they see. For I approach these matters as someone who had my own affiliation with the cult of the conspiracy theorist. The affiliation was not long (a few years) but it certainly influenced my views on not a few matters particularly after I intellectually worked my way through it, routed it as a viable theory and cast it aside as logically and rationally specious (to put it nicely). And I want to provide in this note a schemata of sorts for others to similarly navigate these issues without being led down the myriad of blind alleys that such approaches inevitably entail.
In stating that, I want to explain some of the building blocks of rational thought because society today suffers because of those who are unfamiliar with such things. I define three steps to establish a theory. One reason I have a problem with the term "conspiracy theorist" should be evident after I explain those steps if you will. The first point of contact with rational thought is deciding upon a thesis which I have defined{1} as follows:
Thesis: An abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument.
A thesis is essentially a position that you assert before it has been substantiated by argument. Those who make statements for or against a position essentially are both on the same playing field. That takes us to the realm of the hypothesis. The latter can be defined{2} as follows:
Hypothesis: An explanation of a subject, circumstance, or event which is advanced on tentative grounds by a proposed thesis or series of theses and is open to further examination or being potentially disproved before it reaches the stature of a viable theory.
I define it that way because not all hypotheses are equal in merit. A hypothesis by this understanding is a thesis or a coordinative series of theses which are set forth in explanatory form for examination and testing, and for potential flaws which could invalidate it. Among the potential flaws are errors of fact, errors in logic, and formal contradiction. If a hypothesis withstands this kind of scrutiny and remains intact, it can validly be considered a theory. And as one of my early intellectual mentors Mike Mentzer used to like to define the latter term{3}:
Theory: a set of non-contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them, principles) which purports to give either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action.
A theory in other words is a solid point of reference and is not to be dismissed as a mere whim. This is where I have a problem with the "conspiracy theory" phrasing because definitions are the tools of thought. Therefore, to utilize logic and reason efficaciously the terms we use have to be given precise or at least workable definitions if we are to give as accurate a description as we can. So conspiracy theorists should be called "conspiracy hypothesizers" to be properly classified. Then when we look at how many internal contradictions these people have entertained over the decades -not to mention how many predictions they have made that have not come true- this shows us the true worth of their worldview.
Getting back to where I said I "worked my way through it", etc. I am not saying that I solved every previous puzzle involved in the conspiracy hypothesizing mindset of course. However, by identifying the root causes or foundational presuppositions that guided that particular world view, I was able in applying them to so many of the positions taken by the conspiracy sorts to see the viability of the overarching purported theory itself melt away like ice cream on a hot July day. Hence, when I set that outlook aside definitively, I basically imposed a kind of self-agnosticism on the areas I had not yet solved because I had realized that the outlook was not tenable rationally. Over time and with greater research and reflection on a host of issues, most of them have resolved themselves without the need for active intellectual involvement on my part. (And on occasion in responding to conspiracy-hypothesizing sorts on issues I once set aside in this fashion, I was able to intellectually overcome them when revisiting said matters anew.) The very few that remain will likely go by the wayside in the same fashion as most of the others; ergo I see no reason to alter my approach to them taken lo these past twelve odd years.
But noting these things, it may help to consider why people latch onto these things as they do. For one thing, the world is a very complex place. And people who face the whirlwind of complex factors and do not understand them often will look for anything they can find to help them make sense of it all.{4} And one thing that conspiracy hypothesizers do is give what they purport to be a correct description of reality. And because it all fits together apparently so nice and neat, their approach is a seductive one. However, any hypothesis is only as good as the arguments that sustain it and in science a hypothesis that cannot sustain itself when subjected to testing is cast aside as unviable.
The core problem with conspiracy hypothesizers is they do not admit of anything that can serve as an invalidation of their view. They often misuse sources they cite{5} and even go as far as to entertain mutually contradictory positions without realizing that in doing so they have made any attempts to apply logic to the matter inoperable. This is the same mindset that blames in true xenophobic fashion all perceived "outsiders" as being the source of any and all "evils" -can anyone say Jewish blood libel trials of the Middle Ages??? How about blaming everything from the assassination of Lincoln and Kennedy to any calamity of the past four hundred years to the "Papists", the "Jews", the "Masons", or the "Jesuits"??? More could be noted but the bottom line is this: it is always easier to comfort oneself in dealing with issues that have a befuddling complexity to them by having recourse to simplistic "explanations" and then ignoring or refusing to come to grips with the problems of reason and logic (not to mention fact) that such "explanations" may have.
I do not in saying these things deny that there are conspiracies out there or people who conspire with others. Nor would I claim that there are not members of various groups past (or present) often considered to be Borg-like in their machinations for some kind of global governance who do not have an outlook that is what would be called "globalist" in many respects. The fallacy is the claim that all members have the same views which is its own form of stereotyping.
The charm of these various hypotheses is that they purport to give a simplistic explanation for much more complex geopolitical strata. But hopefully what is outlined in this note makes it clear that there are significant problems with this kind of outlook as a rule and taken to too much of an extent. I furthermore hope that this short note of musings adequately explains why those who would claim to respect reason and logic as valuable tools for ascertaining reality should think long and hard before either espousing such views themselves or giving any kind of endorsement to others who would.
Notes:
{1} Defining the Term "Thesis" -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Post (circa January 14, 2004)
{2} A Workable Definition of "Hypothesis" -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Post (circa August 21, 2006)
{3} Defining the Term "Theory" -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Post (circa January 14, 2004)
{4} They are also big on playing the provincialism card and blaming ills on various groups of people (i.e. Jews, Masons, Catholics, International Bankers, etc) which is a classic tactic of a cult: try to scare those "inside" of others who are "outside" all the better to practice mind control over them but I digress.
{5} One that is often misrepresented to no small degree (to put it nicely) is the work of the late Professor of Georgetown Carroll Quigley whose tome Tragedy and Hope is treated as practically Sacred Scripture by conspiracy hypothesizers. I happen to have perused this book myself in years past and to say that it has been misappropriated or that only part of Quigley's views (and a very small part) have been accurately represented by those who attempt to cite him as an "ally" for various conspiracy hypotheses would not be inaccurate.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
President Barack Obama's Mentor on Mass Organizing Tactics...
[Prefatory Note: This material was first posted to another medium on February 21, 2009. -ISM]
This is from the founder of Chicago style "community organizing" Saul Alinsky and his book Rules For Radicals, a book incidentally that along with its writer{1} influenced Barack Obama in his community organizing days and which Alinsky himself dedicated "To Lucifer the first radical." It was also a book which Michelle Obama quoted from in her speech at the Democratic Convention. Without further ado...
Tactics mean doing what you can with what you have. Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. In the world of give and take, tactics is the art of how to take and how to give. Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves.
For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people's organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then...conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.
Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.
The seventh rule is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment...
The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative...
The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right--we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
In conflict tactics there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and "frozen." By this I mean that in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant, and somewhat legitimate, passing of the buck....
It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target....
One of the criteria in picking your target is the target's vulnerability--where do you have the power to start? Furthermore, the target can always say, "Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?" When you "freeze the target," you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all others to blame.
Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the "others" come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target.
The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract such as a community's segregated practices or a major corporation or City Hall. It is not possible to develop the necessary hostility against, say, City Hall, which after all is a concrete, physical, inanimate structure, or against a corporation, which has no soul or identity, or a public school administration, which again is an inanimate system. [Saul Alinsky: From Rules For Radicals pgs. 126-140 (c. 1971)]
If anything, some of these tactics can be used against the agenda of President Obama now.
Note:
{1} On President Barack Obama's Political Mentor (circa February 28, 2009)
[Prefatory Note: This material was first posted to another medium on February 21, 2009. -ISM]
This is from the founder of Chicago style "community organizing" Saul Alinsky and his book Rules For Radicals, a book incidentally that along with its writer{1} influenced Barack Obama in his community organizing days and which Alinsky himself dedicated "To Lucifer the first radical." It was also a book which Michelle Obama quoted from in her speech at the Democratic Convention. Without further ado...
Tactics mean doing what you can with what you have. Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. In the world of give and take, tactics is the art of how to take and how to give. Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves.
For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people's organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then...conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.
Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.
The seventh rule is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment...
The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative...
The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right--we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
In conflict tactics there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and "frozen." By this I mean that in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant, and somewhat legitimate, passing of the buck....
It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target....
One of the criteria in picking your target is the target's vulnerability--where do you have the power to start? Furthermore, the target can always say, "Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?" When you "freeze the target," you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all others to blame.
Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the "others" come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target.
The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract such as a community's segregated practices or a major corporation or City Hall. It is not possible to develop the necessary hostility against, say, City Hall, which after all is a concrete, physical, inanimate structure, or against a corporation, which has no soul or identity, or a public school administration, which again is an inanimate system. [Saul Alinsky: From Rules For Radicals pgs. 126-140 (c. 1971)]
If anything, some of these tactics can be used against the agenda of President Obama now.
Note:
{1} On President Barack Obama's Political Mentor (circa February 28, 2009)
Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth
When we have a president who continually says one thing and then does another (or does one thing and says another) why does this news surprise??? The bloom has come off the Obama rose already and for those who think President George W. Bush was unpopular (as he was in the latter half of his presidency), it bears reflecting that GWB was more popular than BHO was at this point in his presidency.
When we have a president who continually says one thing and then does another (or does one thing and says another) why does this news surprise??? The bloom has come off the Obama rose already and for those who think President George W. Bush was unpopular (as he was in the latter half of his presidency), it bears reflecting that GWB was more popular than BHO was at this point in his presidency.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
On the Closing of Another Major Newspaper and on Journalism in General:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
These musings were triggered by the following article courtesy of Matt Drudge:
Seattle paper says workers told jobs will end
I write this as someone who feels bad for those who fall on hard times as a rule and as someone who has lived in Seattle all his life.{1} I also want to disclose up front that I have read the major papers in this town over the years including the subject of this posting. Having noted those things, I wish I could say I was sympathetic but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has been a liberal rag for years. I tire of papers which attempt to present themselves as "impartial" which are anything but and after the travesty of partiality of last year's election -which made even the previously stooped lows of the msm look about as high off the ground as the top of Washington's monument- I have no sympathy for papers which were blatantly partisan last year and which subsequently lose circulation and go out of business. None whatsoever.
The purpose of the media and city newspapers where they make claims of being "objective" should be to walk the walk not just talk it. I noted last year in a dialogue with my friend Joe on the state of journalism{2} and have written on numerous times in years past{3}, journalism has been stained by those who attempt to editorialize or to take the Hunter S. Thompson "gonzo-journalism" approach{4} in news stories and attempt to pass that stuff off as impartial reporting. The mark of a good journalist is akin to that of a good teacher, good lawyer, good justice, etc.; namely the more you do not know their personal views based on how they do their jobs , the better they are.
Journalism is not the same as commentary which is what I do on this weblog and elsewhere but there are some similarities that should be noted. The first is that neither the journalist nor the commentator should strive as much as possible to represent accurately the views they are either concurring with or taking issue with. The second is that neither the journalist nor the commentator should practice disclosure of particular evidences that may or may not bias their views to more than the ordinary degree of bias that can be expected of someone who holds to a view and does so with more than a transient whim. The third is that neither the journalist nor the commentator should attempt to pass themselves off as completely objective or otherwise "impartial" when indeed no one is. However, the commentator is a bit more free to let their emotion show in their work than the journalist who should like Joe Friday be interested in "just the facts" and present them as is without diminuation or personal spin.{5}
And it should go without saying that the basic principles of reason, logic, and ethics should accompany the work of the journalist or the commentator. To the extent that they do not, I have no sympathy for them or those papers or institutions who would give them succor and opportunities.{6} And it is for that reason that my view of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is that of Rome's view of Carthage; namely "carthago delenda est"{7} and any other newspaper that similarly disgraces journalism should see the same fate that they will. Period.
Notes:
{1} This will be changing in the current year though at which precise time I am not current sure.
{2} A Dialogue on the State of Journalism (circa October 17, 2008)
{3} Most notably in this expository musing:
On the Subject of "Deep Throat", the Correlative Ramifications Thereof, Etc. (circa June 1, 2005)
{4} I go over this in the thread in footnote one.
{5} The one exception is if the journalist is writing an op-ed which by its very nature is styled as an "opinion editorial" and therefore the requirement of striving for impartiality does not apply.
{6} This is why I have taken the views I have over the years with those I view as being either unprincipled, unscholarly, or otherwise unethical in their public pronouncements no matter who they are: the principle here does not change because of personal esteem or lack thereof with particular individuals.
{7} Literally "carthage, let it be destroyed."
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
These musings were triggered by the following article courtesy of Matt Drudge:
Seattle paper says workers told jobs will end
I write this as someone who feels bad for those who fall on hard times as a rule and as someone who has lived in Seattle all his life.{1} I also want to disclose up front that I have read the major papers in this town over the years including the subject of this posting. Having noted those things, I wish I could say I was sympathetic but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has been a liberal rag for years. I tire of papers which attempt to present themselves as "impartial" which are anything but and after the travesty of partiality of last year's election -which made even the previously stooped lows of the msm look about as high off the ground as the top of Washington's monument- I have no sympathy for papers which were blatantly partisan last year and which subsequently lose circulation and go out of business. None whatsoever.
The purpose of the media and city newspapers where they make claims of being "objective" should be to walk the walk not just talk it. I noted last year in a dialogue with my friend Joe on the state of journalism{2} and have written on numerous times in years past{3}, journalism has been stained by those who attempt to editorialize or to take the Hunter S. Thompson "gonzo-journalism" approach{4} in news stories and attempt to pass that stuff off as impartial reporting. The mark of a good journalist is akin to that of a good teacher, good lawyer, good justice, etc.; namely the more you do not know their personal views based on how they do their jobs , the better they are.
Journalism is not the same as commentary which is what I do on this weblog and elsewhere but there are some similarities that should be noted. The first is that neither the journalist nor the commentator should strive as much as possible to represent accurately the views they are either concurring with or taking issue with. The second is that neither the journalist nor the commentator should practice disclosure of particular evidences that may or may not bias their views to more than the ordinary degree of bias that can be expected of someone who holds to a view and does so with more than a transient whim. The third is that neither the journalist nor the commentator should attempt to pass themselves off as completely objective or otherwise "impartial" when indeed no one is. However, the commentator is a bit more free to let their emotion show in their work than the journalist who should like Joe Friday be interested in "just the facts" and present them as is without diminuation or personal spin.{5}
And it should go without saying that the basic principles of reason, logic, and ethics should accompany the work of the journalist or the commentator. To the extent that they do not, I have no sympathy for them or those papers or institutions who would give them succor and opportunities.{6} And it is for that reason that my view of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is that of Rome's view of Carthage; namely "carthago delenda est"{7} and any other newspaper that similarly disgraces journalism should see the same fate that they will. Period.
Notes:
{1} This will be changing in the current year though at which precise time I am not current sure.
{2} A Dialogue on the State of Journalism (circa October 17, 2008)
{3} Most notably in this expository musing:
On the Subject of "Deep Throat", the Correlative Ramifications Thereof, Etc. (circa June 1, 2005)
{4} I go over this in the thread in footnote one.
{5} The one exception is if the journalist is writing an op-ed which by its very nature is styled as an "opinion editorial" and therefore the requirement of striving for impartiality does not apply.
{6} This is why I have taken the views I have over the years with those I view as being either unprincipled, unscholarly, or otherwise unethical in their public pronouncements no matter who they are: the principle here does not change because of personal esteem or lack thereof with particular individuals.
{7} Literally "carthage, let it be destroyed."
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Clarification of a Previous Posting In Lieu of a Recent Posting:
Though I posted a finalized version of a long talked about posting recently{1}, a previous posting which was written around when the former was being sufficiently completed for posting{2} served as an "appetizer" of sorts and dealt specifically with the constitutional question pertaining to declaring war.{3} And of course many who have claimed that the Iraq was illegal on constitutional grounds have asserted that it was required for Congress to actually declare war to enable President George W. Bush to actually go to war. I dealt with that constitutional misunderstanding{4} in a preceding post to avoid making the post in footnote one any longer than it already was. But since that time, I have been made privy to some information from Findlaw on this matter of which I was not completely aware. So without further ado...
An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President's powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war. Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed.Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . ." But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton's view. [LINK]
Let this additional evidence suffice to illustrate further the absurdity of those who would claim that the constitutionality of the war in Iraq required a formal declaration of war as some well meaning but unfortunately unrealistic individuals have claimed. And furthermore, let this posting be considered an amendment in perpetuity to the posting from December 26, 2007 on the constitutionality of wars fought without a formal declaration.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Notes:
{2} As for the posting in footnote one, that post had been "in the can" for more than a year with only a few adjustments made (mostly of a minor nature) to the form that was finally blogged on February 6, 2009.
{4} See footnote one.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Another Idea For Federal (or State) Legislative Reform:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
At sundry times and in divers manner your host has written on the issue of legislative reform in the context of major movements underlying the foundational presuppositions of this endeavour. My approach though differs from many in that it encapsulates a process which intends to be diametrically opposed to the ordinary way these matters are addressed. The reason is that I view there to be far too much focus on one or another particular program or one amount of money or another "wasted", etc. I am not one to advocate approaches that deal superficially or insubstantially with these matters because treating symptoms while leaving the basis from which any infection can perpetuate is ultimately not going to work. Furthermore, the federal leviathan is in not a few ways akin to the hydra monster of Greek mythology and its perpetuation is based on some problematical presuppositions which (taken together) complicates matters further. I will have to briefly explain the hydra analogy so that I do not lose any readers in making that analogy -for those who already know this can serve as a refresher of sorts.
For those unfamiliar with the mythical hydra, it had many heads and every time one was cut off, two or three would grow back in its place. This is why any attempt to kill the monster could not be by lopping heads off but instead you had to aim at the heart of the beast to kill it. How this relates to the federal leviathan is that cutting one small program here and there or a stray billion or tens of billions in three plus trillion dollar budgets is like cutting off a "head" and you know darn well that others will grow back in its place -usually through that nasty rider approach which I have proposed a solution to before.{1} But that solution has one element that needs to be tended to at the federal level first and at the state level at least in Washington State I was advised that my solution for the most part is already in place.{2} And however laudable that idea is, we are past the point where the time to implement a policy like that can be casually entertained. For as is evident to anyone not hiding under a rock, we have a reckless fiscally irresponsible congress paired with a reckless fiscally irresponsible president.{3}
In dealing with the debt issue, I have an idea for not only balancing the budget but also to pay down the debt over a ten year period.{4} However, now is not the time to go over that proposal -I mention it here only in passing. For as offense wins games, it is defense that wins championships as the sports dictum goes. So before we get to a proactive approach to paying off the debt we have to get the issue of balancing the budget under control. And one way we can obviously not do this is with hoping to elect leaders who will be responsible in this area.
I have long been critical of the fact that the Republicans not only in their leadership have made a mockery of the notion of limited government.{5} However, it goes beyond that and even gets to the point that the seeming "nostalgia" many have for the Gingrich led Congresses also does not deal with the problem we are facing really is. Instead, the Gingrich congresses at best dealt with symptoms instead of causes. But I am about to go over a proposal to deal with causes. There are three things we need to do on this matter and two of them would not be difficult at all. The third is the hard one and that is going to take the greatest courage. But lest I get ahead of myself here, let us touch on the first two briefly before getting to the purpose of this posting.
To start with, the first of the aforementioned proposals is the reinstatement by the congress of presidential impoundment authority: something which no president since Nixon has been able to do.{6} The second of the proposals would be abolishing the notion of what is called "base line budgeting" a subject I do not have time to go over now but one which starts with the presumption that there will be budgetary increases.{7} Readers are aware that I have noted over the years{8} that to control the terms is to control the debate and the moment we let the debate be based on how much or how little a program or the budget is increased is the moment that we have surrendered the principle we are trying to espouse whether we realize this or not. And that brings us to the third proposal; namely the idea I want to set forth in this posting however incompletely: the idea of indefinite budgetary items.
This is an area which I believe the Republicans now that they appear to have found their spine again can make as a point of emphasis. For besides pushing for executive authority to impound funds{9} and going after the notion of "based line budgeting", it is important to deal efficaciously with the noxious idea that federal programs once they are formed are immortal. And the latter is this third area I want to go over in the material before you -a proposal to get at the root and matrix of the federal leviathan program.
I am not sure how exactly it would be implemented for best possible effect mind you but I first mentioned the idea around the same time as my rider reform initiative for the federal government{10} though it first came to my mind even prior to that point. Its origin was in the debates early in President George W. Bush's first term. I remember hearing all this talk about the tax cuts he and the congress implemented not being "permanent" and the legislation called "the Patriot Act"{11} having to be "renewed" before it "sunsetted." When pondering that and also recalling President Ronald Reagan's comment about eternity on earth is most closely realized in a federal program,{12} I found myself thinking "why can we not have sunset provisions in every piece of legislation"??? And why can this principle not be applies to every piece of legislation not only future and present but also from the past??? And that is the idea basically. How it would be implemented is another matter altogether but this would effectively put the entire federal leviathan on watch program by program and make it a requirement for periodical voting by the legislative bodies to retain certain programs or they automatically expire within say ninety days of a failure to extend them.
In such a proposition the bill extension periods could vary but basically something significant needs to be on the docket for potential expiration in every election cycle and if many of the more important programs were due to expire in off term election years this alone would make midterm elections more interesting as a rule. And it would put a stop to the "inevitability" of the federal leviathan growing larger but indeed would put it constantly in a state of potentially getting smaller and it would take the proactive aspect of cutting the size of government out of the equation to a good degree.{13}
Anyway, that is what I am looking at idea-wise though I do not have an idea as to how it would be fashioned in terms of precise legislation but I suppose if I put the idea out there in some form or another that others can propose a variety of ways of going about this. Furthermore, the terms of the debate or "language control" if you will{14} can be re framed in the context of genuine budgetary reductions and not the political shell game we have seen both parties play for far too long now which coupled with a functional template for constitutional interpretation{15} might see us actually make some real progress in arresting this government behemoth which up to now we have not succeeded in doing for want of a proper strategery of doing do in my mind. Once that is tended to, then we can go on offense and talk about paying down the debt but defense first, offense second. The question is, can we find any representatives or senators who would take this as their rallying cry or not??? Inquiring minds wanna know and perhaps we can if they will not put an amendment into the Constitution to do this.
Notes:
{1} The original idea was first set out in some detail in a posting of January 20, 2004 not long after listening to President Bush's State of the Union that year. I then subsequently went about reiterating on more than a few times in subsequent years some of which are linked to this sentence and the most recent of which can be viewed here:
"Rider Reform Revisited" Dept. (circa December 16, 2008)
{2} The original idea was in a federal context but then I remembered we do not have a line item veto for the executive which the absence of that would basically make the idea inoperative. So before that can be approached, a constitutional amendment or some legislative provision to pass Supreme Court muster granting that power would be required. I then turned to the state level knowing that Washington State is one of over 40 states that have the line item veto for their governors. But Bob Williams (one time gubernatorial candidate for Washington State and head of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation) informed me that most of my ideas in that note were already part of Washington state law.
{3} And this was not exactly a problem we were without during the presidency of George W. Bush either of course.
{4} I have gone over it before but do not want to get sidetracked here by reiterating it anew.
{5} [P]erhaps the best way to understand why modern Republicans are not Republicans in the true sense of that term -and further, why I am not and for some time have not been a supporter of the Republican Party in any capacity- is to consider how their leaders view their own party today.
The following discussion between Rush Limbaugh and Ed Gillespie is instructive for one key reason: the Chairman of the Republican National Committee is absolutely clueless about the principles of limited government!!! Limbaugh granted could be more consistent on this subject than he is, but when the head of the RNC quite clearly has no idea what "limited government" is, that is not a minor bagatelle folks. Let me clarify if for you.
Limited government is not [reducing] the size of the increase, as Gillespie claims. How can one claim to be for "limited government" by arguing that [w]hen Bill Clinton left office, he proposed his last budget was an increase of 15% in non-defense discretionary spending. President Bush came in, he brought it down to 6% in his first budget, down to 5% in his second. It is at 2% today, non-defense discretionary spending??? This is a mockery of the entire notion of limited government.
First of all, who cares what the President proposes. The role of setting a budget is that of the Congress. The problem is that the role of impounding funds -shared by every president from Nixon back to Washington- was abolished by President Nixon when he signed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Since then, deficits have skyrocketed and an important check on Congressional excesses was cast aside.
This Act needs to be rescinded. The following article covers the subject in some detail -certainly better than the laughable Congressional article which tried to make the impounding sound like a novel notion of Nixon's...But it was not. And while there were still deficits prior to 1974, the national deficits starting in 1975 increased at an exponential rate...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa October 31, 2003]
{6} I do not make distinctions between one part of Reagan's philosophy and another XXXXXXX. Instead, I take into account the entire picture and just as the Democratic Party left Reagan in the 1950's and early 1960's, the Republican Party has left behind the principles of Ronald Reagan the man and the president since 1988. The so-called 1994 revolution was a joke because they did almost nothing they promised to do: unlike Reagan who kept most of his promises.
They could not even close down a single federal department!!! That is ridiculous since so much of the federal leviathan as Reagan recognized was patently unconstitutional. They had the control of the congress and thus the legislative ability to make changes including (if necessary) changing the rules of procedure to make it harder for the Democrats to resist. But they did not. Care to go over the "Contract With America" with me point by point and see how much they actually enacted??? That alone makes my case since if anything the contract was a drop in the bucket of what needed (and needs) to be done to combat the unconstitutional federal behemoth. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa November 11, 2004]
{7} I do not have time to go over this right now but Citizens Against Government Waste has a really good explanation which I refer the reader to at this time.
{8} Most recently in this posting:
Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of "Language Control" (circa November 25, 2008)
{9} If anything this proposal with a Democrat in the White House as we have now might have a better chance of being advanced by the Republicans because the potential of it being chalked up to "self-interest" is refuted by the circumstances of a Democrat being in the White House.
{10} Namely in this part:
Enact a law that inserts into every budget proposal and program a sunset provision. The points of sunset can be staggered to some extent so the entire wheel is not reinvented at once. However, in every presidential cycle all budget items or federal programs should have to come up for renewal at least once. My proposed point for this is of course the midterm elections. (That way, turnout will be higher and of course it will keep our officials honest.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]
Since then it has probably been mentioned on my weblog at least a dozen odd times when times or circumstances warranted.
{11} The "Patriot Act" is something which I have some reservations to parts of but that is a subject for another time perhaps.
{12} I paraphrase The Gipper here.
{13} And while I am not opposed to a national bank in either principle or on constitutional grounds, it bears noting that the first two national banks of the United States both had sunset clauses in them much as most of the Alien and Sedition legislation of 1798 did; ergo the idea of sunset clauses in government legislation is hardly untraditional from a constitutional standpoint even for seemingly "untouchable" programs.
{14} See footnote eight.
{15} Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
At sundry times and in divers manner your host has written on the issue of legislative reform in the context of major movements underlying the foundational presuppositions of this endeavour. My approach though differs from many in that it encapsulates a process which intends to be diametrically opposed to the ordinary way these matters are addressed. The reason is that I view there to be far too much focus on one or another particular program or one amount of money or another "wasted", etc. I am not one to advocate approaches that deal superficially or insubstantially with these matters because treating symptoms while leaving the basis from which any infection can perpetuate is ultimately not going to work. Furthermore, the federal leviathan is in not a few ways akin to the hydra monster of Greek mythology and its perpetuation is based on some problematical presuppositions which (taken together) complicates matters further. I will have to briefly explain the hydra analogy so that I do not lose any readers in making that analogy -for those who already know this can serve as a refresher of sorts.
For those unfamiliar with the mythical hydra, it had many heads and every time one was cut off, two or three would grow back in its place. This is why any attempt to kill the monster could not be by lopping heads off but instead you had to aim at the heart of the beast to kill it. How this relates to the federal leviathan is that cutting one small program here and there or a stray billion or tens of billions in three plus trillion dollar budgets is like cutting off a "head" and you know darn well that others will grow back in its place -usually through that nasty rider approach which I have proposed a solution to before.{1} But that solution has one element that needs to be tended to at the federal level first and at the state level at least in Washington State I was advised that my solution for the most part is already in place.{2} And however laudable that idea is, we are past the point where the time to implement a policy like that can be casually entertained. For as is evident to anyone not hiding under a rock, we have a reckless fiscally irresponsible congress paired with a reckless fiscally irresponsible president.{3}
In dealing with the debt issue, I have an idea for not only balancing the budget but also to pay down the debt over a ten year period.{4} However, now is not the time to go over that proposal -I mention it here only in passing. For as offense wins games, it is defense that wins championships as the sports dictum goes. So before we get to a proactive approach to paying off the debt we have to get the issue of balancing the budget under control. And one way we can obviously not do this is with hoping to elect leaders who will be responsible in this area.
I have long been critical of the fact that the Republicans not only in their leadership have made a mockery of the notion of limited government.{5} However, it goes beyond that and even gets to the point that the seeming "nostalgia" many have for the Gingrich led Congresses also does not deal with the problem we are facing really is. Instead, the Gingrich congresses at best dealt with symptoms instead of causes. But I am about to go over a proposal to deal with causes. There are three things we need to do on this matter and two of them would not be difficult at all. The third is the hard one and that is going to take the greatest courage. But lest I get ahead of myself here, let us touch on the first two briefly before getting to the purpose of this posting.
To start with, the first of the aforementioned proposals is the reinstatement by the congress of presidential impoundment authority: something which no president since Nixon has been able to do.{6} The second of the proposals would be abolishing the notion of what is called "base line budgeting" a subject I do not have time to go over now but one which starts with the presumption that there will be budgetary increases.{7} Readers are aware that I have noted over the years{8} that to control the terms is to control the debate and the moment we let the debate be based on how much or how little a program or the budget is increased is the moment that we have surrendered the principle we are trying to espouse whether we realize this or not. And that brings us to the third proposal; namely the idea I want to set forth in this posting however incompletely: the idea of indefinite budgetary items.
This is an area which I believe the Republicans now that they appear to have found their spine again can make as a point of emphasis. For besides pushing for executive authority to impound funds{9} and going after the notion of "based line budgeting", it is important to deal efficaciously with the noxious idea that federal programs once they are formed are immortal. And the latter is this third area I want to go over in the material before you -a proposal to get at the root and matrix of the federal leviathan program.
I am not sure how exactly it would be implemented for best possible effect mind you but I first mentioned the idea around the same time as my rider reform initiative for the federal government{10} though it first came to my mind even prior to that point. Its origin was in the debates early in President George W. Bush's first term. I remember hearing all this talk about the tax cuts he and the congress implemented not being "permanent" and the legislation called "the Patriot Act"{11} having to be "renewed" before it "sunsetted." When pondering that and also recalling President Ronald Reagan's comment about eternity on earth is most closely realized in a federal program,{12} I found myself thinking "why can we not have sunset provisions in every piece of legislation"??? And why can this principle not be applies to every piece of legislation not only future and present but also from the past??? And that is the idea basically. How it would be implemented is another matter altogether but this would effectively put the entire federal leviathan on watch program by program and make it a requirement for periodical voting by the legislative bodies to retain certain programs or they automatically expire within say ninety days of a failure to extend them.
In such a proposition the bill extension periods could vary but basically something significant needs to be on the docket for potential expiration in every election cycle and if many of the more important programs were due to expire in off term election years this alone would make midterm elections more interesting as a rule. And it would put a stop to the "inevitability" of the federal leviathan growing larger but indeed would put it constantly in a state of potentially getting smaller and it would take the proactive aspect of cutting the size of government out of the equation to a good degree.{13}
Anyway, that is what I am looking at idea-wise though I do not have an idea as to how it would be fashioned in terms of precise legislation but I suppose if I put the idea out there in some form or another that others can propose a variety of ways of going about this. Furthermore, the terms of the debate or "language control" if you will{14} can be re framed in the context of genuine budgetary reductions and not the political shell game we have seen both parties play for far too long now which coupled with a functional template for constitutional interpretation{15} might see us actually make some real progress in arresting this government behemoth which up to now we have not succeeded in doing for want of a proper strategery of doing do in my mind. Once that is tended to, then we can go on offense and talk about paying down the debt but defense first, offense second. The question is, can we find any representatives or senators who would take this as their rallying cry or not??? Inquiring minds wanna know and perhaps we can if they will not put an amendment into the Constitution to do this.
Notes:
{1} The original idea was first set out in some detail in a posting of January 20, 2004 not long after listening to President Bush's State of the Union that year. I then subsequently went about reiterating on more than a few times in subsequent years some of which are linked to this sentence and the most recent of which can be viewed here:
"Rider Reform Revisited" Dept. (circa December 16, 2008)
{2} The original idea was in a federal context but then I remembered we do not have a line item veto for the executive which the absence of that would basically make the idea inoperative. So before that can be approached, a constitutional amendment or some legislative provision to pass Supreme Court muster granting that power would be required. I then turned to the state level knowing that Washington State is one of over 40 states that have the line item veto for their governors. But Bob Williams (one time gubernatorial candidate for Washington State and head of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation) informed me that most of my ideas in that note were already part of Washington state law.
{3} And this was not exactly a problem we were without during the presidency of George W. Bush either of course.
{4} I have gone over it before but do not want to get sidetracked here by reiterating it anew.
{5} [P]erhaps the best way to understand why modern Republicans are not Republicans in the true sense of that term -and further, why I am not and for some time have not been a supporter of the Republican Party in any capacity- is to consider how their leaders view their own party today.
The following discussion between Rush Limbaugh and Ed Gillespie is instructive for one key reason: the Chairman of the Republican National Committee is absolutely clueless about the principles of limited government!!! Limbaugh granted could be more consistent on this subject than he is, but when the head of the RNC quite clearly has no idea what "limited government" is, that is not a minor bagatelle folks. Let me clarify if for you.
Limited government is not [reducing] the size of the increase, as Gillespie claims. How can one claim to be for "limited government" by arguing that [w]hen Bill Clinton left office, he proposed his last budget was an increase of 15% in non-defense discretionary spending. President Bush came in, he brought it down to 6% in his first budget, down to 5% in his second. It is at 2% today, non-defense discretionary spending??? This is a mockery of the entire notion of limited government.
First of all, who cares what the President proposes. The role of setting a budget is that of the Congress. The problem is that the role of impounding funds -shared by every president from Nixon back to Washington- was abolished by President Nixon when he signed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Since then, deficits have skyrocketed and an important check on Congressional excesses was cast aside.
This Act needs to be rescinded. The following article covers the subject in some detail -certainly better than the laughable Congressional article which tried to make the impounding sound like a novel notion of Nixon's...But it was not. And while there were still deficits prior to 1974, the national deficits starting in 1975 increased at an exponential rate...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa October 31, 2003]
{6} I do not make distinctions between one part of Reagan's philosophy and another XXXXXXX. Instead, I take into account the entire picture and just as the Democratic Party left Reagan in the 1950's and early 1960's, the Republican Party has left behind the principles of Ronald Reagan the man and the president since 1988. The so-called 1994 revolution was a joke because they did almost nothing they promised to do: unlike Reagan who kept most of his promises.
They could not even close down a single federal department!!! That is ridiculous since so much of the federal leviathan as Reagan recognized was patently unconstitutional. They had the control of the congress and thus the legislative ability to make changes including (if necessary) changing the rules of procedure to make it harder for the Democrats to resist. But they did not. Care to go over the "Contract With America" with me point by point and see how much they actually enacted??? That alone makes my case since if anything the contract was a drop in the bucket of what needed (and needs) to be done to combat the unconstitutional federal behemoth. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa November 11, 2004]
{7} I do not have time to go over this right now but Citizens Against Government Waste has a really good explanation which I refer the reader to at this time.
{8} Most recently in this posting:
Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of "Language Control" (circa November 25, 2008)
{9} If anything this proposal with a Democrat in the White House as we have now might have a better chance of being advanced by the Republicans because the potential of it being chalked up to "self-interest" is refuted by the circumstances of a Democrat being in the White House.
{10} Namely in this part:
Enact a law that inserts into every budget proposal and program a sunset provision. The points of sunset can be staggered to some extent so the entire wheel is not reinvented at once. However, in every presidential cycle all budget items or federal programs should have to come up for renewal at least once. My proposed point for this is of course the midterm elections. (That way, turnout will be higher and of course it will keep our officials honest.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]
Since then it has probably been mentioned on my weblog at least a dozen odd times when times or circumstances warranted.
{11} The "Patriot Act" is something which I have some reservations to parts of but that is a subject for another time perhaps.
{12} I paraphrase The Gipper here.
{13} And while I am not opposed to a national bank in either principle or on constitutional grounds, it bears noting that the first two national banks of the United States both had sunset clauses in them much as most of the Alien and Sedition legislation of 1798 did; ergo the idea of sunset clauses in government legislation is hardly untraditional from a constitutional standpoint even for seemingly "untouchable" programs.
{14} See footnote eight.
{15} Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009)
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Today would have been the 68th birthday of my father Richard Dunn McElhinney. As I have noted before, days like this are ones of more intense than normal reflection for me. It seems appropriate to note it here and ask the readers of this weblog if they could offer some prayers for the eternal repose of his soul. (And for those who do not believe in this ancient custom, then prayers for my mother -who still has difficulties on anniversaries such as this- and the rest of the family would be appreciated.)
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him...May his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him...May his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.
Points to Ponder:
(On Presidential Hypocrisy and Its Relationship To Double Standards)
The issue of presidents and who really spends the country's money aside for a moment...
I can understand some who want things more irenic but I ask them this:
How did you approach things when GWB was president???
Did you play the "he was not elected" BS??? If so you cannot criticize those who question BHO's eligibility to even be president based on presumably failing to verify that he fits citizenship criteria. (The case against BHO here is significantly more credible than the one against GWB in 2000.)
Did you complain about "violations of free speech" when GWB was president??? If so then if you stand quietly while the party in power moves to silence dissent to a degree that GWB never even came close to doing (with this so-called "Fairness Doctrine") you are being a hypocrite.
Did you criticize deficits when GWB was president??? (I sure as heck did!!!) If you did and try to excuse them with Obama you are being a hypocrite since one year of Obama is more than eight years of Reagan, more than four years of GWB's dad, and more than five of eight years we ran a deficit under Clinton. Etc. [Circa February 27, 2009 @ 9:37am]
(On Presidential Hypocrisy and Its Relationship To Double Standards)
The issue of presidents and who really spends the country's money aside for a moment...
I can understand some who want things more irenic but I ask them this:
How did you approach things when GWB was president???
Did you play the "he was not elected" BS??? If so you cannot criticize those who question BHO's eligibility to even be president based on presumably failing to verify that he fits citizenship criteria. (The case against BHO here is significantly more credible than the one against GWB in 2000.)
Did you complain about "violations of free speech" when GWB was president??? If so then if you stand quietly while the party in power moves to silence dissent to a degree that GWB never even came close to doing (with this so-called "Fairness Doctrine") you are being a hypocrite.
Did you criticize deficits when GWB was president??? (I sure as heck did!!!) If you did and try to excuse them with Obama you are being a hypocrite since one year of Obama is more than eight years of Reagan, more than four years of GWB's dad, and more than five of eight years we ran a deficit under Clinton. Etc. [Circa February 27, 2009 @ 9:37am]
"One From the Vault" Dept.
(With "Crimson Catholic")
[Prefatory Note: The bulk of this was originally written in October of 2008 and finished earlier today -the footnotes needed to be finished and some parts updated since the first draft was put together: I did this in purple font. Anyway, this material is now ready for posting at the present time and in light of a lot of what we are seeing from the present administration and congress could not be more apropo in my mind. -ISM]
I should note in advance that this "Crimson Catholic" is the same "Crimson" I was interacting with last year in 2007 on the subject of appeal to authority.{1} And as I am going to finish in the coming weeks a dialogual thread in the coming weeks with a reader who has intelligently{2} taken issue with one of your host's foundational presuppositions{3} pertaining to how he views a wide variety of subjects be they philosophical, sociological, geopolitical, etc., it seems appropriate to post this short bit from last year. It will serve as a reminder to those who may not be familiar with the subject of fundamental rights -one we have written a lot on in a variety of contexts over the years{4} but not as much recently for various and sundry reasons. Without further ado...
Crimson:
I found these statements by you to be of interest:
The state's role is protection of the common good; outside of this role, the state has no more authority to exercise its power than an individual...
[T]he objection here indicates that Justice Scalia doesn't grasp the argument. He doesn't realize that the state's power to avenge, to vindicate the public order, is yet limited by its own mandate to protect the public good, just as the individual's is limited to his moral duty to protect his own life and the lives of others. That is the argument of Evangelium Vitae.
This rationale looks eerily familiar Crimson. Note...
[C]onsider the theory[...] of fundamental rights which I have reiterated at this weblog not to mention developed further[...] in light of contemporary realities and applied to a whole plethora of issues in years past. The premise is that there is a gift from God given to us which encompasses the physical (life), intellectual (faculties), and moral (production) spheres of existence. This gift precedes all human laws and was the basis on which all human laws were constructed to begin with -whether those who constructed them realized it or not. From there a need to know what law actually is comes into play since to argue anything on the basis of stare decisis requires knowing what the function of law is. And again, let us consider Bastiat's synthesis on that subject before getting to the whole stare decisis issue:
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force-his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right-its reason for existing, its lawfulness-is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa February 1, 2007)]
I have made this argument for a long time and have never until now seen it made by any other contemporary Catholics in the blogosphere or anywhere else. I would not be rubbing off on you by chance now would I Crimson???
Notes:
{2} Unlike a lot of people who make pretenses towards dialogue but prefer to only respond to the weakest of arguments from their critics, your host prefers to only interact with intelligent and thought out objections to our viewpoints. This is one reason we do not have comments boxes at this weblog -not to berate those who do but we have our reasons for choosing otherwise and they are substantial ones and we noted this most recently in a posting located here:
Since the bulk of this post was put together in October of 2008, I have revisited this subject in what I believe is a more irenic presentation and recommend this version instead if you only have time to review one of these threads:
As for the threads mentioned in this posting, one of them was completed after this posting was originally drafted and posted here:
The other one as of this posting remains unfinished but I will get to and finish it soon time and motivation-willing.
{3} I explained this once in the heat of polemic in the following way in years past:
[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. What interests me is the discipline of the dialogue.
I am willing to consider for engagement on various and sundry issues anyone else who shows a similar concern for what that entails. I am also interested in productive dialogue which means getting beyond the useless back and forth exchanges[...] where no one is willing to put their foundational presuppositions on the line and reapprise them at regular intervals. The latter is a process that by its very nature must involve respecting the faculties of reason and logic. That means one has to consider from time to time not only if the arguments they use to advance their position are good ones or not but even if their position itself is actually correct. As all of this probably sounds more complicated than it actually is, I will use the analogy of stocks and options to explain it in brief.
Those who are familiar with how stocks and options have a symbiotic relationship know that one of the reasons many investors like options[...] is because a small movement in the stock results in a magnified movement in the underlying option. This is the potential power inherent in dealing with foundational presuppositions of an individual: small shifts there can result in magnified movements in the individual's weltanschauung though sometimes it takes a bit of time for working out the ramifications of such shifts. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 28, 2006)]
{4} The last compilation post on this subject was posted in early 2007:
If I have the time in the coming month or two I hope to finish another thread from that point on which was started at some point in 2008 but not finished. But for now that one will have to do even if it does not include two rather significant postings I did on the subjects of fetal stem cell research and abortion as they pertain to said fundamental rights which were on the drafting table when that thread was posted and completed in the weeks afterward. (They will be in the follow up compilation thread when I get around to finishing it but I digress.)
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Points to Ponder:
(On True and False "Rights")
A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That's because, since there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. [Dr. Walter E. Williams]
(On True and False "Rights")
A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That's because, since there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. [Dr. Walter E. Williams]
On President Barack Obama's Political Mentor:
(A Rerum Novarum Compilation Thread)
Saul Alinsky is one of the largest intellectual influences on our president as well as the whole "community organizing" model that President Obama was trained in. He also also ran as president using this approach and therefore will presumably will try to use as president. To give an idea of what this means for Americans, I have put together a series of threads for readers of this humble weblog to review. The thread spans from March 25, 2007 to October 22, 2008. I do not necessarily agree with the views of the threads below but have included a cross-section to give a balanced approach to the subject of Saul Alinsky and what he was really about. Without further ado...
For Clinton and Obama, a Common Ideological Touchstone (circa March 25, 2007)
Obama in Chicago: portrait of a pragmatist (circa April 3, 2007)
[Deval] Patrick, [Barack] Obama campaigns share language of 'hope' (circa April 16, 2007)
Reading Hillary Clinton's hidden thesis (circa May 19, 2007)
While then-college student Hillary Rodham wrote her thesis, she met Saul Alinsky and interviewed him. She however could not have known in 1969 that Saul Alinsky would write a manifesto of sorts in 1971 called Rules For Radicals that he would dedicate "[t]o Lucifer, the first radical." Young Barack Obama on the other hand having been privy to such a book does not have the same excuse. Moving on...
Democrats and the Legacy of Activist Saul Alinsky (circa May 21, 2007)
"Ruthless" For Obama (circa September 4, 2007)
Obama's Alinsky Jujitsu (circa January 8, 2008)
Alinsky, Clinton, Obama (circa January 10, 2008)
In the above bit, a reader of the site's writer supporting Obama talked about how Clinton and Obama differed as it pertains to Alinsky.
Hillary Hardball vs. Barack Softball: Is there a Genuine Difference? (circa March 7, 2008)
Alinsky, Governance, Democracy, Obama (circa April 6, 2008)
The above one lists Alinsky's "Thirteen Rules" making it a must read in my view for that reason alone. Sod that, I will post the thirteen rules from Rules For Radicals to this humble weblog in the coming week. Moving on...
Saul Alinsky -Yet Another Obama Mentor From His Marxist Past (circa May 17, 2008)
WANTED: An Honest Journalist That Will Investigate B. Hussein Obama (circa July 2, 2008)
Michelle Obama Used Lines From Saul Alinsky's Book "Rules For Radicals" In Last Night's Speech (circa August 26, 2008)
Saul Alinsky's Son: "Obama Learned His Lesson Well" (circa September 2, 2008)
Obama, His Mentor Saul Akinsky, and the Relationship Between "Community Organizer" and Marxism (circa September 10, 2008)
Guess who recommended Obama to enter Harvard (circa September 24, 2008)
GARRETT: What Obama picked up from Saul Alinsky's playbook (circa October 22, 2008)
Readers who review the above threads and take into account your host's view of marxism{1} will well realize why I viewed posting a thread like this to be necessary so that those who want to combat what this president is going to try can familiarize themselves with one of his chief tactical influences.
Note:
{1} Here are just a few of the threads from this weblog's archives on marxism in order from oldest to most recent so our view of the matter is discernible without the slightest shade of ambiguity:
Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Modern Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)
On Marxists and Their Methodology (circa July 22, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings (circa June 29, 2007)
On Reminding Readers of the Significance of "May Day" (circa May 1, 2008)
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting (circa June 18, 2008)
(A Rerum Novarum Compilation Thread)
Saul Alinsky is one of the largest intellectual influences on our president as well as the whole "community organizing" model that President Obama was trained in. He also also ran as president using this approach and therefore will presumably will try to use as president. To give an idea of what this means for Americans, I have put together a series of threads for readers of this humble weblog to review. The thread spans from March 25, 2007 to October 22, 2008. I do not necessarily agree with the views of the threads below but have included a cross-section to give a balanced approach to the subject of Saul Alinsky and what he was really about. Without further ado...
For Clinton and Obama, a Common Ideological Touchstone (circa March 25, 2007)
Obama in Chicago: portrait of a pragmatist (circa April 3, 2007)
[Deval] Patrick, [Barack] Obama campaigns share language of 'hope' (circa April 16, 2007)
Reading Hillary Clinton's hidden thesis (circa May 19, 2007)
While then-college student Hillary Rodham wrote her thesis, she met Saul Alinsky and interviewed him. She however could not have known in 1969 that Saul Alinsky would write a manifesto of sorts in 1971 called Rules For Radicals that he would dedicate "[t]o Lucifer, the first radical." Young Barack Obama on the other hand having been privy to such a book does not have the same excuse. Moving on...
Democrats and the Legacy of Activist Saul Alinsky (circa May 21, 2007)
"Ruthless" For Obama (circa September 4, 2007)
Obama's Alinsky Jujitsu (circa January 8, 2008)
Alinsky, Clinton, Obama (circa January 10, 2008)
In the above bit, a reader of the site's writer supporting Obama talked about how Clinton and Obama differed as it pertains to Alinsky.
Hillary Hardball vs. Barack Softball: Is there a Genuine Difference? (circa March 7, 2008)
Alinsky, Governance, Democracy, Obama (circa April 6, 2008)
The above one lists Alinsky's "Thirteen Rules" making it a must read in my view for that reason alone. Sod that, I will post the thirteen rules from Rules For Radicals to this humble weblog in the coming week. Moving on...
Saul Alinsky -Yet Another Obama Mentor From His Marxist Past (circa May 17, 2008)
WANTED: An Honest Journalist That Will Investigate B. Hussein Obama (circa July 2, 2008)
Michelle Obama Used Lines From Saul Alinsky's Book "Rules For Radicals" In Last Night's Speech (circa August 26, 2008)
Saul Alinsky's Son: "Obama Learned His Lesson Well" (circa September 2, 2008)
Obama, His Mentor Saul Akinsky, and the Relationship Between "Community Organizer" and Marxism (circa September 10, 2008)
Guess who recommended Obama to enter Harvard (circa September 24, 2008)
GARRETT: What Obama picked up from Saul Alinsky's playbook (circa October 22, 2008)
Readers who review the above threads and take into account your host's view of marxism{1} will well realize why I viewed posting a thread like this to be necessary so that those who want to combat what this president is going to try can familiarize themselves with one of his chief tactical influences.
Note:
{1} Here are just a few of the threads from this weblog's archives on marxism in order from oldest to most recent so our view of the matter is discernible without the slightest shade of ambiguity:
Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Modern Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)
On Marxists and Their Methodology (circa July 22, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings (circa June 29, 2007)
On Reminding Readers of the Significance of "May Day" (circa May 1, 2008)
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting (circa June 18, 2008)
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Clarifying Ourselves on a Previous Point:
The purpose of posting today is to touch on a point in the following thread outlining the actions being taken by a soldier of the United States Military:
The crux of the above article can be summarized in the subheading of the article itself, namely this:
'As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this'
It seems appropriate to your humble host to clarify something he said back in December when writing on the election aftermath. Among the many points covered in that rather expansive expository musing{1} was the part about questioning the verdict of the election. My words on that subject were as follows:
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}
The tenth footnote from that posting read as follows:
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.
As the footnote noted, I did not put much thought into the approach being noted above but from a practical standpoint I did not see much value in this approach. However, I also did not take into consideration the phenomenon noted above concerning a soldier's pledged oath to the Constitution and what that involved. So having that factor brought into the equation, it changes a tad bit what I said previously so allow me to clarify my view on the matter further at this time.
Essentially, while I reaffirm my previous statement on the matter, I want to remove the appearance of an absolute statement on the matter and declare it to be a statement involving a general norm. I do not see for example how those who are bound by Constitutional oaths should be forced to go against their conscience if the latter really is a factor in the matter. However, those who would do so should have a degree of moral certainty that enables them to fulfill that function. And that means that for those sworn to follow the president should have a degree of moral certainty that the person they are following is actually the president. Ordinarily an election would suffice to supply this but in the case of both parties in the last election, they were born in extraordinary circumstances. However, Senator John McCain still fit the criteria under the Constitution to be president and the US Senate even went so far as to declare his meeting of this criteria in an official resolution. The same was not done for President Obama when he was running for the office.{2}
The bottom line is this really: if then-senator and now President Obama was actually born in Hawaii as he and his supporters claim, than what is wrong with releasing the original birth certificate for review. If there is one, this is the fastest way to end the controversy and do so decisively. The stubborn refusal of President Obama and others to do this is at the very least profoundly suspicious. And for that reason and in light of what this soldier has sworn under the Constitution to uphold, I cannot blame him for wanting proof of the legitimacy of the office holder to whom he is expected to obey in life and death situations.
Notes:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)