On D-Day and Writing Photographs:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I intend in this posting to cover two subjects but in reverse order from how they read in the title. Without further ado...
Today on a much lesser scale than the grand anniversary of D-Day is the anniversary of my public writing debut in terms of formal web essay style writing. I had been involved in a variety of discussion forums on various and sundry subject matters for a few years prior to that point{1} but June 6, 2000 was the debut of a pretty sprawling and ambitious book length project dealing in systematical fashion with a subject to which I had not seen a similar web treatment of anywhere else prior to that time. Others were to follow including the material on this weblog but I mention the project that debuted on the web nine years ago today as a point of reference for reasons that the rest of this note will make hopefully crystal clear.
Cleaning out storage areas and boxes is a treasure hunt or at least it can be and also on the writing front, in cleaning out boxes and boxes of papers I came across not a few of the essays I wrote back in high school and college for various classes (intensive English, Shakespearean studies, philosophy, economics, international business etc). It was interesting to go over them one by one and see my writing to the extent I have a discernible style take shape so to speak. I had written prior to that point of course but it was not until high school that I started developing the outlines of the approach to writing that I take and it was not without some occasional glitches here and there.
For one thing, I can remember in perusing these papers which ones I took at least a bit of time on and which ones I basically pulled an all-nighter on. It was not reflected in the grades per se{2} but the manner in which I went about it. There are some papers where I smile reading them now because they resonate well still with these older eyes{3} and there are some I smile at reading because of the naive nature of the boy who wrote them. There are some where I evince a sense of humour of the sort I am still misunderstood about.{4} There are also more than a few hints to put it mildly of a kind of hyper-dogmatism{5} of the sort that I now loathe when I see it in the work of what should be mature adults.{6} But that is neither here nor there.
A common theme in the papers taken as a corpus of work criticism wise was that they could have used more content -this was the case even with the straight A papers of which there were many more of them than of other grades. I wonder therefore when after college my written product would contain insane amounts of documentation if this was not some kind of internal reaction to seeing the criticism over and over again that more content was needed.{7} Of course then I was receiving criticism for too much content from various and sundry parties so Chesterton's dictum about something being "too tall, too short, too skinny, too fat, etc"{8} comes to mind.
But taken with what I remember of the discussion board material, the formal web essays, and the contents of this weblog, these old writings really paint a vivid picture of my development as a writer. It makes one realize the paths one travels on things like this from a writing standpoint. Anyway, though I am recycling boxes of papers and shredding a lot of stuff too of a financial nature, the folder of these essays is among the small percentage of stuff that I am saving. My handwriting on the ones which were handwritten was as a rule so much neater then so I want to have a record of the fact that I once had penmanship bordering on the beautiful lest anyone who sees what passes for my handwriting these days as a rule think otherwise. But that is a minor matter really.
The saving of some landmarks of one's life at various stages serves as a kind of written photo album and much as some real life photos may be embarrassing to look at when older, without them you can easily forget where you have been and how you have gotten to the point in time that you are at now. Forgetting history is far too common even for those who actually know their history{9} and that brings me to the historical event of today: D-Day.
The anniversary of D-Day of course has a hell of a lot more to commemorate it than the anniversary of anything to do with me. It was a grand day in the history of the Second World War -the start of the liberation of Europe from the Nazi stranglehold. But not often looked at is the way the invasion appeared to those who were not fighting on either side of the conflict; namely, the average people. With that in mind I want to close this note of musings with an approach to D-Day that will diverge from the standard treatments to some extent and include links that honour not only those who were willing to fight and die for what I would view as a just cause.{10}
So again with those thoughts in mind, I want to close this posting with two links to the invasion of Normandy from two different sides and of course to hope that people in general remember history (both personal as well as general) so that by better knowing where they have been{11} they can better discern where they may well be going.
The Boys of Pointe du Hoc -June 6, 1984 on the Fiftieth Anniversary of D-Day
Invasion of Normandy June 6, 1944 -A French Woman Remembers
Notes:
{1} I had originally intended to try and restore the hard drive of my old crashed Mac G3 which contained at one point literally hundreds of dialogual threads from a variety of different discussion boards on variegated subject matter spanning from 1998-2002 (I lost everything on the hard drive in May of 2002). I ultimately decided though to recycle the computer since I abandoned my plan to upgrade it a few years back for reasons of practicality and also because I knew that I was not about to expend the time necessary to format those dialogues for proper posting as I once intended to do.
{2} Though I almost always got notably better grades and created a better product on those where I spent more time or at least some degree of thought planning out where they were going.
{3} Of particular note I must say was a philosophical analysis I did on a C P Cavafy poem titled Ithaca which I remember writing literally in one take --I doubt I spent more than ten minutes on it if that-- and getting a perfect grade and significantly positive feedback from the teacher. Another was a paper I wrote on romantic love at around the same time before later life experiences obliterated nearly all the sunny-eyed optimism in that area I once had. Though a bit of the latter has been returning as of late, I see in the paper an kind of abstract innocence untainted by practical experience of the sort that makes my eyes roll when I see people enunciate it in various areas from politics to social issues to theology or whatever.
That is not to say the paper is bad mind you -I am actually surprised at some of the insights I had in it in retrospect. But it also has within it a bit of expecting more from people than is realistic even in the best of situations: something that part of acquiring wisdom means disabusing oneself of as I have come to see it.
{4} Probably about as often too because my approach to humour is significantly more implied or otherwise tongue-in-cheek now than it was at that time. (And I was actually writing comedy bits and stuff back then also so my focus at that time in that area was not lacking.)
{5} My philosophical paper on a dialogue with Christ and a Grand Inquisitor is a mixed bag in this area -got a good grade on the paper (A-) but the teacher's criticism of my Christ dialogue was spot on now that I think of it though at the time I sure did not think so. (My picture of Jesus at the time was practically a Jansenistic one warped by some of the ecclesial affiliations I had at that time.)
{6} This is one area where I have been particularly critical of those of an apologetics style mindset. Admittedly I had one of those myself at one point before transcending it -ironically perhaps it was when I knew least that I was the most dogmatic but then again, I have learned over the years that such is par for the course for humanity in general.
{7} I rarely if ever got criticism on the structure of papers -almost all points lost if any were was because of perceived lack of content to substantiate points made.
{8} This is a really crude paraphrase of the exact statement which I cannot readily recall offhand.
{9} Which sadly enough is not nearly enough people -including not a few who would claim to yet manifest in what they write that their knowledge of it is superficial at best.
{10} I am aware of some even amongst friends who may dispute this view and while that may be a subject for discussion at a future date, I do not intend to entertain such a matter now.
{11} I later on expanded on this theme a bit in a posting which can be read here for those who are interested.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
On the Subject of Analyzing "Convert Stories" and Questions For Tim Enloe:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I have modified parts of the original text and shifted some material into footnotes, and added a new footnote. But without further ado...
Tim, though I have not been involved in apologetics stuff for years{1}, I must admit that this series you are posting is one I find interesting. I should also note at the outset that these comments are being written on the fly and without my usual concern for systematization and precision of phrasing so any defects they contain I want to apologize for in advance.
To start with, I am curious to know what you are trying to demonstrate with this series. If you want to use it to point out that a lot of conversion stories as they are presented have certain patterns to them and characteristics to the parties involved, this should be self-evident without a major examination like the one you intend to outline. People after all tend to gravitate towards similarity in patterns of thought and behaviour and few are genuinely original.
Even in a six month time frame{2} if someone is intensely reassessing themselves on a major aspect of their worldview, there are potentially dozens of points of reflection. This makes it difficult at times to point out more than a few of what a person views as significant turning points in their change of mind. There is also the supernatural element of this equation which I do not see reflected in your series so far.
Surely we all can agree that if God is involved in someone’s journey He can fill in for the weaknesses and lack of understanding of those He seeks to guide. There may be more or less “filling in” depending on the knowledge or predispositions of the persons involved but the God portrayed in the Bible had a tendency to pick those who were not in positions to boast of their superior learning or faculties of humanity as His chosen instruments. It therefore does not stretch credulity fora Christian to believe that he would do the same today at times and it is possible that at least some of those outlined in the stories you refer to are of that kind. At least Rabbi Gamaliel was willing to consider the possibility that a movement he did not view as of God could possibly be such. I am wondering if whatever defects you may find in the convert stories you intend to profile if this same caveat will be given in your series deliberations.
I would also remind you that people do not change their foundational presuppositions or those lenses whereby they filter all the information that they receive easily or without a lot of time. Furthermore, one person’s “burden of proof” is not the same as another. And I would be remiss if I did not point out that there are a lot of people who seem to expect others to challenge their foundational presuppositions who do not themselves engage in the same courtesy -my view is what is good for the goose is good for the gander on that score and it applies to not only apologists of various stripes but also those who would be their critics.
I have been critical of many people over the years who do not do this and without respect to persons or religious, political, social, or other views they advocated.{3} The bottom line is anyone can read a variety of evidences partially or with the mind towards confirming them in a belief they want to hold rather than in a way that challenges their “sacred cows” if you will. And this tendency applies to everyone not just certain select groups of people.
If you are intending to point out that many apologetics methods are faulty and that there are many Catholic convert apologists who engage in sophistic or superficial readings of historical and/or documentary evidences as presumed “definitive proofs” of their views, this again is no big admission and I could see Catholics or others doing the same thing conversely. But care should be taken that you do not criticize your neighbours of erecting straw men in their fields and then end up doing the same thing yourself: not saying you will do this of course but pointing it out as a warning of sorts.
I would also remind you that most treatments on any issue you will find are less than ideal and are often flawed to no small degree. This should not surprise as everyone who writes on a matter does so with a purpose or an agenda and rarely is any “study” done to do anything but confirm the presuppositions of those who administer it. And of course I am reminded of Arthur Jones’ dictum about “ninety-five percent of what is published on all subjects is hogwash.”{4} But again, I am interested in wanting to know the purpose of this sort of series.
I have not concealed my disgust for many of the purveyors of apologetics methods in recent years and trust me, as a Catholic I know where their real weaknesses are. But all sides have their weaknesses. If you want to try with this series to claim that most of what might be “convincing” to the “fundamentalist converts” you intend to portray would never convince you, that is fine of course but I remind you: no matter how much anyone knows, there is always more they will not know.
History itself the more you probe it reveals itself to be incapable of definitive verdicts and also more complex than many perceive. But even beyond that is the supernatural dimension and if you do not account for the supernatural element in this equation to some extent, no matter how thorough and documented your series is, it will be glaringly incomplete.
Notes:
{1} For a variety of reasons too numerous to go over here.
{2} One end of the time frame you mentioned for the "typical conversion story."
{3} For the sake of not making the list overlong, there are threads dealing with these matters primarily under the sub-categories The Good/The Bad/The Ugly -Apologetics but also occasionally (as warranted) under the Reason/Logic/Ethics and Theological categories. To my knowledge there is no overlap between the apologetics and theological subcategories -the latter being as a rule for more complex and deeper subject matter than the former and the only time some of this is put into the reason/logic/ethics category is when it pertains to certain deficiencies of apologists or their arguments in one or more of those areas respectively.
{4} I for one think he was with that assessment being a bit charitable and for that reason if no other have no doubt you will find lots of evidences to compile for your series.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I have modified parts of the original text and shifted some material into footnotes, and added a new footnote. But without further ado...
Tim, though I have not been involved in apologetics stuff for years{1}, I must admit that this series you are posting is one I find interesting. I should also note at the outset that these comments are being written on the fly and without my usual concern for systematization and precision of phrasing so any defects they contain I want to apologize for in advance.
To start with, I am curious to know what you are trying to demonstrate with this series. If you want to use it to point out that a lot of conversion stories as they are presented have certain patterns to them and characteristics to the parties involved, this should be self-evident without a major examination like the one you intend to outline. People after all tend to gravitate towards similarity in patterns of thought and behaviour and few are genuinely original.
Even in a six month time frame{2} if someone is intensely reassessing themselves on a major aspect of their worldview, there are potentially dozens of points of reflection. This makes it difficult at times to point out more than a few of what a person views as significant turning points in their change of mind. There is also the supernatural element of this equation which I do not see reflected in your series so far.
Surely we all can agree that if God is involved in someone’s journey He can fill in for the weaknesses and lack of understanding of those He seeks to guide. There may be more or less “filling in” depending on the knowledge or predispositions of the persons involved but the God portrayed in the Bible had a tendency to pick those who were not in positions to boast of their superior learning or faculties of humanity as His chosen instruments. It therefore does not stretch credulity fora Christian to believe that he would do the same today at times and it is possible that at least some of those outlined in the stories you refer to are of that kind. At least Rabbi Gamaliel was willing to consider the possibility that a movement he did not view as of God could possibly be such. I am wondering if whatever defects you may find in the convert stories you intend to profile if this same caveat will be given in your series deliberations.
I would also remind you that people do not change their foundational presuppositions or those lenses whereby they filter all the information that they receive easily or without a lot of time. Furthermore, one person’s “burden of proof” is not the same as another. And I would be remiss if I did not point out that there are a lot of people who seem to expect others to challenge their foundational presuppositions who do not themselves engage in the same courtesy -my view is what is good for the goose is good for the gander on that score and it applies to not only apologists of various stripes but also those who would be their critics.
I have been critical of many people over the years who do not do this and without respect to persons or religious, political, social, or other views they advocated.{3} The bottom line is anyone can read a variety of evidences partially or with the mind towards confirming them in a belief they want to hold rather than in a way that challenges their “sacred cows” if you will. And this tendency applies to everyone not just certain select groups of people.
If you are intending to point out that many apologetics methods are faulty and that there are many Catholic convert apologists who engage in sophistic or superficial readings of historical and/or documentary evidences as presumed “definitive proofs” of their views, this again is no big admission and I could see Catholics or others doing the same thing conversely. But care should be taken that you do not criticize your neighbours of erecting straw men in their fields and then end up doing the same thing yourself: not saying you will do this of course but pointing it out as a warning of sorts.
I would also remind you that most treatments on any issue you will find are less than ideal and are often flawed to no small degree. This should not surprise as everyone who writes on a matter does so with a purpose or an agenda and rarely is any “study” done to do anything but confirm the presuppositions of those who administer it. And of course I am reminded of Arthur Jones’ dictum about “ninety-five percent of what is published on all subjects is hogwash.”{4} But again, I am interested in wanting to know the purpose of this sort of series.
I have not concealed my disgust for many of the purveyors of apologetics methods in recent years and trust me, as a Catholic I know where their real weaknesses are. But all sides have their weaknesses. If you want to try with this series to claim that most of what might be “convincing” to the “fundamentalist converts” you intend to portray would never convince you, that is fine of course but I remind you: no matter how much anyone knows, there is always more they will not know.
History itself the more you probe it reveals itself to be incapable of definitive verdicts and also more complex than many perceive. But even beyond that is the supernatural dimension and if you do not account for the supernatural element in this equation to some extent, no matter how thorough and documented your series is, it will be glaringly incomplete.
Notes:
{1} For a variety of reasons too numerous to go over here.
{2} One end of the time frame you mentioned for the "typical conversion story."
{3} For the sake of not making the list overlong, there are threads dealing with these matters primarily under the sub-categories The Good/The Bad/The Ugly -Apologetics but also occasionally (as warranted) under the Reason/Logic/Ethics and Theological categories. To my knowledge there is no overlap between the apologetics and theological subcategories -the latter being as a rule for more complex and deeper subject matter than the former and the only time some of this is put into the reason/logic/ethics category is when it pertains to certain deficiencies of apologists or their arguments in one or more of those areas respectively.
{4} I for one think he was with that assessment being a bit charitable and for that reason if no other have no doubt you will find lots of evidences to compile for your series.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Miscellaneous Musings on Michelle Malkin, Sonya Sotomayor, "Compelling Stories", Activist Agendas, Etc:
First a link to Michelle's article and then my comments so without further ado...
LINK
Michelle basically outlines the Animal Farm mentality of Democrats on President Obama's high court pick because they are touting Sotomayor's "compelling life story" as a selling point despite not being too concerned about the "compelling life story" issue when it came to Judge Clarence Thomas, Judge Samuel Alito, or former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Heck, they would not even let Judge Miguel Estrada get a hearing for being seated on the federal appeals court and Estrada's personal life story was even more compelling than that of Sotomayor. The same argument can be made about Clarence Thomas.
But just as in Animal Farm the dictum was "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others" that is how the Democrats view the issue of "compelling life stories." They will brutally go after anyone whom they think might be a judicial danger to certain pet issues of theirs while expecting others to give those who are favourable to their little pet issues to play nice. They will excuse away her blatantly racist statements and rulings while attempting to crucify people like Estrada, Thomas, and Alito and smear them with every evil they can imagine. Pardon me for not feeling sorry for a racist judicial activist like Sonya Sotomayor but I am opposed to not only her racism but also her judicial activism.
I have never favoured judicial activism and I opposed the Republicans who attempted to endorse it on their pet issues -particularly in my opposition to President Bush's attempted nomination of Harriet Miers to the Roberts Court in 2005.{1} I am therefore as is my wont completely consistent in my stance here in opposing Sonia Sotomayor on that basis alone and apart from other matters which also go into framing my opposition to this candidate. (Such as her aforementioned racism.)
Note:
{1} Not a few threads were posted on this matter and the manner in which I analyzed the various opinions from different quarters. The substance of them can be noted (as well as some of those postings linked to) in this dialogue on judicial activism:
On the Miers Nomination and Activist Court Agendas -Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa October 10, 2005)
As I have said more times than I can count over the years, something is either right or wrong in and of itself not because of the persons who espouse the viewpoint: a criticism I have had for various and sundry pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of an entire panopoly of special interests.
First a link to Michelle's article and then my comments so without further ado...
LINK
Michelle basically outlines the Animal Farm mentality of Democrats on President Obama's high court pick because they are touting Sotomayor's "compelling life story" as a selling point despite not being too concerned about the "compelling life story" issue when it came to Judge Clarence Thomas, Judge Samuel Alito, or former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Heck, they would not even let Judge Miguel Estrada get a hearing for being seated on the federal appeals court and Estrada's personal life story was even more compelling than that of Sotomayor. The same argument can be made about Clarence Thomas.
But just as in Animal Farm the dictum was "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others" that is how the Democrats view the issue of "compelling life stories." They will brutally go after anyone whom they think might be a judicial danger to certain pet issues of theirs while expecting others to give those who are favourable to their little pet issues to play nice. They will excuse away her blatantly racist statements and rulings while attempting to crucify people like Estrada, Thomas, and Alito and smear them with every evil they can imagine. Pardon me for not feeling sorry for a racist judicial activist like Sonya Sotomayor but I am opposed to not only her racism but also her judicial activism.
I have never favoured judicial activism and I opposed the Republicans who attempted to endorse it on their pet issues -particularly in my opposition to President Bush's attempted nomination of Harriet Miers to the Roberts Court in 2005.{1} I am therefore as is my wont completely consistent in my stance here in opposing Sonia Sotomayor on that basis alone and apart from other matters which also go into framing my opposition to this candidate. (Such as her aforementioned racism.)
Note:
{1} Not a few threads were posted on this matter and the manner in which I analyzed the various opinions from different quarters. The substance of them can be noted (as well as some of those postings linked to) in this dialogue on judicial activism:
On the Miers Nomination and Activist Court Agendas -Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa October 10, 2005)
As I have said more times than I can count over the years, something is either right or wrong in and of itself not because of the persons who espouse the viewpoint: a criticism I have had for various and sundry pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of an entire panopoly of special interests.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Briefly On The Real Problem With The GOP:
I have been toying for some time with writing an expository musing on the subject of conservatism and what it entails because all too often we have people with no sense of history who confuse conservative philosophy with the views of a given person or group. This note is not intended to achieve that in general but instead will be much briefer and is intended to set down some shorthand notes which will go into the longer treatment I have planned. Hopefully it can provide some food for musing for those who read it though.
To start with, there is a general philosophy which can rightfully be called "conservative" and it revolves around the concept of freedom. However, conservatism to be realistic must be functional and not merely theoretical, practical and not merely abstract, realistic and not some myth based on what would be "ideal." We are faced with a situation in the coming years where huge grabs of power and diminishment of legitimate freedoms are likely to happen. This needs to be opposed but there needs to be a unified opposition. As I wrote in part in a previous posting{1} when talking about the tea party movement in general and the tea parties in particular:
There is...the downright annoying attitude of some of those whose methodologies approach what I call the "true believer" mentality. These are the people to whom politics is not the art of the possible but instead the art of demanding the perfect lest they refuse to participate at all. This could be in general but also on particular matters -be it their lack of participation a given agenda item, a given political movement, or whatever. I am one who believes that politically anything that can be reasonably foreseen to have potential positive effects and which has a reasonably feasible chance of working should be undertaken. However, it never fails to surprise me how many will attempt to excommunicate from political communion those who do not share their views on issues to a near 100% degree if not darn close to it. And ironically enough, self-identified "conservatives" who do this often laud President Ronald Reagan as their model ignoring how often (i) Reagan balanced political philosophy with political pragmatism and (ii) how often Reagan said essentially that those who agree with him 80% of the time were not his political foe.
The truth is, you need both philosophy and pragmatism if you can expect to be successful in any endeavour in life. Too often however, you have those more inclined towards pure political philosophy trying to narrow the tent too much while on the other side of the equation you have those who are far more politically pragmatic trying to widen the tent too much. What is needed between these two extreme tendencies is a more balanced approach -the political philosophers who have a map far too often do not know how to get anywhere on it. Conversely, the political pragmatists often excel in getting things done but lack a map to know where they are even going. It is my hope that these tea parties will in how they are organized and in those who participate in them can strive to find that balance required to make this movement a genuine success instead of a populist flame out of the sort that litters the political landscape spanning the centuries of America's existence. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 30, 2009)]
To summarize the problem in short form, that will suffice for now but more needs to be said because it is not as simple as just that unfortunately. I will endeavour as I have time and when I am in the mood to do so write further on this subject including covering the subject of conservatism in general, certain foundational principles that embody a conservative view of the world ethically, economically, etc., as well as certain diversities of thought that pertain to the application of the aforementioned principles.
I will also attempt to explain how those who place a value on reason and logic need to incorporate conservative philosophy for the greatest possible political success in the coming years. But first and foremost it will help to remember the old maxim that "a house divided against itself cannot stand" because that is the first principle that those of us who value freedom of speech, economic freedom, religious freedom, and any other freedom you can name over and against the ever-increasing totalitarian mentality of those who control the federal leviathan need to remember at all times. We need to in the timeless words of Benjamin Franklin "hang together or most assuredly we will hang separately." And that is the bottom line.
Note:
{1} Musings on the Tea Parties in Particular and the Tea Party Movement in General (circa May 30, 2009)
I have been toying for some time with writing an expository musing on the subject of conservatism and what it entails because all too often we have people with no sense of history who confuse conservative philosophy with the views of a given person or group. This note is not intended to achieve that in general but instead will be much briefer and is intended to set down some shorthand notes which will go into the longer treatment I have planned. Hopefully it can provide some food for musing for those who read it though.
To start with, there is a general philosophy which can rightfully be called "conservative" and it revolves around the concept of freedom. However, conservatism to be realistic must be functional and not merely theoretical, practical and not merely abstract, realistic and not some myth based on what would be "ideal." We are faced with a situation in the coming years where huge grabs of power and diminishment of legitimate freedoms are likely to happen. This needs to be opposed but there needs to be a unified opposition. As I wrote in part in a previous posting{1} when talking about the tea party movement in general and the tea parties in particular:
There is...the downright annoying attitude of some of those whose methodologies approach what I call the "true believer" mentality. These are the people to whom politics is not the art of the possible but instead the art of demanding the perfect lest they refuse to participate at all. This could be in general but also on particular matters -be it their lack of participation a given agenda item, a given political movement, or whatever. I am one who believes that politically anything that can be reasonably foreseen to have potential positive effects and which has a reasonably feasible chance of working should be undertaken. However, it never fails to surprise me how many will attempt to excommunicate from political communion those who do not share their views on issues to a near 100% degree if not darn close to it. And ironically enough, self-identified "conservatives" who do this often laud President Ronald Reagan as their model ignoring how often (i) Reagan balanced political philosophy with political pragmatism and (ii) how often Reagan said essentially that those who agree with him 80% of the time were not his political foe.
The truth is, you need both philosophy and pragmatism if you can expect to be successful in any endeavour in life. Too often however, you have those more inclined towards pure political philosophy trying to narrow the tent too much while on the other side of the equation you have those who are far more politically pragmatic trying to widen the tent too much. What is needed between these two extreme tendencies is a more balanced approach -the political philosophers who have a map far too often do not know how to get anywhere on it. Conversely, the political pragmatists often excel in getting things done but lack a map to know where they are even going. It is my hope that these tea parties will in how they are organized and in those who participate in them can strive to find that balance required to make this movement a genuine success instead of a populist flame out of the sort that litters the political landscape spanning the centuries of America's existence. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 30, 2009)]
To summarize the problem in short form, that will suffice for now but more needs to be said because it is not as simple as just that unfortunately. I will endeavour as I have time and when I am in the mood to do so write further on this subject including covering the subject of conservatism in general, certain foundational principles that embody a conservative view of the world ethically, economically, etc., as well as certain diversities of thought that pertain to the application of the aforementioned principles.
I will also attempt to explain how those who place a value on reason and logic need to incorporate conservative philosophy for the greatest possible political success in the coming years. But first and foremost it will help to remember the old maxim that "a house divided against itself cannot stand" because that is the first principle that those of us who value freedom of speech, economic freedom, religious freedom, and any other freedom you can name over and against the ever-increasing totalitarian mentality of those who control the federal leviathan need to remember at all times. We need to in the timeless words of Benjamin Franklin "hang together or most assuredly we will hang separately." And that is the bottom line.
Note:
{1} Musings on the Tea Parties in Particular and the Tea Party Movement in General (circa May 30, 2009)
Saturday, May 30, 2009
On the Tea Parties in Particular and the Tea Party Movement in General:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: This was originally written for another publishing medium on April 16, 2009 and published a day later. With a few revisions it is being presented in this medium at the present time. -ISM]
Honesty and the interest of disclosure compels me to admit at the outset that there are certain elements to this movement I do not agree with including but not limited to certain unsavoury elements which inexorably carry within them the seeds for potential destruction of the movement in general if they are not carefully monitored. (Of the latter I want no part whatsoever.) I will get to those factors in a moment. As a whole though, I was very pleased with the turnout at Westlakeyesterday even though I ended up unable to get out of a lane directly going into the carpool lane onto the freeway in the opposite direction from whence I came and had to backtrack when looking initially for parking. (It was a rare navigating snafu and I will relegate it to a footnote{1} to continue with my previous train of thought.)
Anyway, I got my Independent self to Westlake late for reasons outlined in the first footnote and because I had to park west of Pike Place Market and trek up the hill about probably a half a mile. I did however wear my NRA hat which I have never worn downtown before but this seemed as good a day as any in lieu of the DHS "report" which I have posted a few bits on already{2} and will write more on at some point{3} but enough on that lest I tangent off onto another matter altogether. I arrived at the scene to a sea of signs and while some of them made my eyes roll{4}, there were others I agreed with and one in particular which made me laugh as it was from what appeared to be the token counter-protester there.{5}
The people who were there represented every strata of society from what I could discern -almost everyone was informally dressed. I unfortunately missed Bob Williams' speech due to the driving snafu and also got there shortly after Tim Eyman's speech. I did however in short order affix my name to one of his latest initiatives -another one dealing with tax rollbacks that is all I needed to hear. The speeches I imbibed via my eardrums were both interesting and inspiring. I found myself sensing that this was the start of something even bigger to come: the start of the counter-offensive as I told my amigo Tim by email this morning. As a quick aside, Tim attended the Phoenix rally with his wife Annette{6} and told me there was between 3000 and 5000 people there.
Though there are many positives there are also some negatives I should take note of. The first is a more benign sort in that I sense many angry over unconstitutional usurpations of power by the federal government are approaching this matter from a strict literalist reading of the Constitution. This is an approach which historically has not only not worked{7} and even the Founders in general who are being cited in its favour were not as restrictive on the application of the Constitution as many from the "Ron Paul school"{8} seem to want to be. But that is a more benign matter when it comes to proper political pragmatism. I believe before we can talk about the manner in which the Constitution is to be interpreted, we need to clear the field as much as possible of those who do not care about the Constitution except as a political tool to be manipulated when it suits them and ignored when it does not. We need a mutual frame of reference basically and until we are able to do that, those who differ on Constitutional application should stand united against those who do not care about the Constitution whatever pious lip service they pay to it notwithstanding.
The much more serious negative in my mind is the extreme conspiracy theorists. I wrote a post a while back for this weblog and also for another publishing medium which explains the logical and rational problems I have with this crowd{9} but beyond those arguments is the issue of credibility in general. The mainstream media would LOVE to paint these Tea Parties as being run by or primarily populated by those who advance really oddball conspiracy views because it is all the more easy to dismiss the credibility of the movement. And this is the part of the movement I want personally no part of but fortunately these sorts seem to be a minority at the tea parties so far and may it stay that way if this is going to be a worthwhile and effective endeavour for positive and long-lasting effect.
There is also is the downright annoying attitude of some of those whose methodologies approach what I call the "true believer" mentality. These are the people to whom politics is not the art of the possible but instead the art of demanding the perfect lest they refuse to participate at all. This could be in general but also on particular matters -be it their lack of participation a given agenda item, a given political movement, or whatever. I am one who believes that anything that can be reasonably foreseen to have potential positive effects and which has a reasonably feasible chance of working should be undertaken provided that it is not unethical. However, it never fails to surprise me how many will attempt to excommunicate from political communion those who do not share their views on issues to a near 100% degree if not darn close to it. And ironically enough, self-identified "conservatives" who do this often laud President Ronald Reagan as their model ignoring how often (i) Reagan balanced political philosophy with political pragmatism and (ii) how often Reagan said essentially that those who agree with him 80% of the time were not his political foe.
The truth is, you need both philosophy and pragmatism if you can expect to be successful in any endeavour in life. Too often however, you have those more inclined towards pure political philosophy trying to narrow the tent too much while on the other side of the equation you have those who are far more politically pragmatic trying to widen the tent too much. What is needed between these two extreme tendencies is a more balanced approach. The political philosophers who have a map far too often do not know how to get anywhere on it. Conversely, the political pragmatists often excel in getting things done but lack a map to know where they are even going. It is my hope that these tea parties will in how they are organized and in those who participate in them can strive to find that balance required to make this movement a genuine success instead of a populist flame out of the sort that litters the political landscape spanning the centuries of America's existence.
Anyway, having noted these things, I must say it pleases me to see these gatherings which represent a true grassroots movement and not some bankrolled group of paid "protesters" or "volunteers" the way so many liberal movements{10} are. I am wondering if my idea for significant legislative reform long pondered over{11} and recently written on{12} can perhaps find some traction in this movement but that is a subject for another time altogether.
Notes:
{1} For those familiar with Seattle, I was stuck on the carpool lane up around Pine and forced onto the express lanes northbound. This resulted in me crossing Lake Union to the north, taking the first exit off, and getting quickly onto the University Bridge to Eastlake Avenue (along Lake Union) traveling under the I-5 Bridge from which I exited and coming back into Seattle that way. In short, it killed about thirty minutes of my day and made me an hour late to the tea party.
{2} Those bits were posted if memory serves in another publishing medium. I am probably not through berating that worthless pile of pig crap called a "report" yet. If I turned in a report in school with that much lack of source citation or complete lack of cogent argumentation for a given thesis, etc. I would have received an F grade. It must have been a Huffington Post staffer who ghostwrote it for Napolitano.
{3} I write things for various mediums and in a variety of contexts but usually what I write has some element of timeless principle to it which means it can serve a variety of purposes. But because the context of one posting may differ from another, sometimes a piece written for one medium needs to be reworked for posting in another medium, shortened, added to, etc.
{4} Mainly the ones that would seem to replace one Messiah (Obama) with another (Paul).
{5} I hesitate to post the slogans that protester used here because many may not understand what was being said and those who would understand would question either my prudence in posting them here or even why (perhaps) I know what they mean.
{6} Tim told me he did not get my voice mail when I contacted him because he was at the Phoenix gathering and he was talking with his mother and step father who were at a gathering in Monterrey.
{7} I went over this to some degree in a posting to this weblog earlier in the year:
Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009)
{8} See my criticisms of this approach philosophically in the thread of footnote seven. With greater specificity on one issue (i.e. the constitutional requirement of declaring war), see this posting:
On the Constitutionality of Wars Undertaken Without a Formal Declaration (circa December 26, 2007)
{9} On the Problem With Conservatives Dabbling in So-Called "Conspiracy Theories" (circa March 18, 2009)
{10} I was informed by my very good friend Anna when we were talking about the tea parties that when she was campaigning for Senator John McCain she and some friends were approached by some of those "volunteering" for Senator Barack Obama asking them "how much was the McCain campaign paying you to volunteer???" or something along those lines. (This only confirmed my suspicions about the so-called "grassroots massive support for Obama and change" bandied about by that campaign and their willing and fawning sycophants in the mainstream media.)
{11} See footnote twelve. (This idea has been in my mind in some form or another for at least seven years.)
{12} Another Idea For Federal and State Legislative Reform (circa March 6, 2009)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: This was originally written for another publishing medium on April 16, 2009 and published a day later. With a few revisions it is being presented in this medium at the present time. -ISM]
Honesty and the interest of disclosure compels me to admit at the outset that there are certain elements to this movement I do not agree with including but not limited to certain unsavoury elements which inexorably carry within them the seeds for potential destruction of the movement in general if they are not carefully monitored. (Of the latter I want no part whatsoever.) I will get to those factors in a moment. As a whole though, I was very pleased with the turnout at Westlake
Anyway, I got my Independent self to Westlake late for reasons outlined in the first footnote and because I had to park west of Pike Place Market and trek up the hill about probably a half a mile. I did however wear my NRA hat which I have never worn downtown before but this seemed as good a day as any in lieu of the DHS "report" which I have posted a few bits on already{2} and will write more on at some point{3} but enough on that lest I tangent off onto another matter altogether. I arrived at the scene to a sea of signs and while some of them made my eyes roll{4}, there were others I agreed with and one in particular which made me laugh as it was from what appeared to be the token counter-protester there.{5}
The people who were there represented every strata of society from what I could discern -almost everyone was informally dressed. I unfortunately missed Bob Williams' speech due to the driving snafu and also got there shortly after Tim Eyman's speech. I did however in short order affix my name to one of his latest initiatives -another one dealing with tax rollbacks that is all I needed to hear. The speeches I imbibed via my eardrums were both interesting and inspiring. I found myself sensing that this was the start of something even bigger to come: the start of the counter-offensive as I told my amigo Tim by email this morning. As a quick aside, Tim attended the Phoenix rally with his wife Annette{6} and told me there was between 3000 and 5000 people there.
Though there are many positives there are also some negatives I should take note of. The first is a more benign sort in that I sense many angry over unconstitutional usurpations of power by the federal government are approaching this matter from a strict literalist reading of the Constitution. This is an approach which historically has not only not worked{7} and even the Founders in general who are being cited in its favour were not as restrictive on the application of the Constitution as many from the "Ron Paul school"{8} seem to want to be. But that is a more benign matter when it comes to proper political pragmatism. I believe before we can talk about the manner in which the Constitution is to be interpreted, we need to clear the field as much as possible of those who do not care about the Constitution except as a political tool to be manipulated when it suits them and ignored when it does not. We need a mutual frame of reference basically and until we are able to do that, those who differ on Constitutional application should stand united against those who do not care about the Constitution whatever pious lip service they pay to it notwithstanding.
The much more serious negative in my mind is the extreme conspiracy theorists. I wrote a post a while back for this weblog and also for another publishing medium which explains the logical and rational problems I have with this crowd{9} but beyond those arguments is the issue of credibility in general. The mainstream media would LOVE to paint these Tea Parties as being run by or primarily populated by those who advance really oddball conspiracy views because it is all the more easy to dismiss the credibility of the movement. And this is the part of the movement I want personally no part of but fortunately these sorts seem to be a minority at the tea parties so far and may it stay that way if this is going to be a worthwhile and effective endeavour for positive and long-lasting effect.
There is also is the downright annoying attitude of some of those whose methodologies approach what I call the "true believer" mentality. These are the people to whom politics is not the art of the possible but instead the art of demanding the perfect lest they refuse to participate at all. This could be in general but also on particular matters -be it their lack of participation a given agenda item, a given political movement, or whatever. I am one who believes that anything that can be reasonably foreseen to have potential positive effects and which has a reasonably feasible chance of working should be undertaken provided that it is not unethical. However, it never fails to surprise me how many will attempt to excommunicate from political communion those who do not share their views on issues to a near 100% degree if not darn close to it. And ironically enough, self-identified "conservatives" who do this often laud President Ronald Reagan as their model ignoring how often (i) Reagan balanced political philosophy with political pragmatism and (ii) how often Reagan said essentially that those who agree with him 80% of the time were not his political foe.
The truth is, you need both philosophy and pragmatism if you can expect to be successful in any endeavour in life. Too often however, you have those more inclined towards pure political philosophy trying to narrow the tent too much while on the other side of the equation you have those who are far more politically pragmatic trying to widen the tent too much. What is needed between these two extreme tendencies is a more balanced approach. The political philosophers who have a map far too often do not know how to get anywhere on it. Conversely, the political pragmatists often excel in getting things done but lack a map to know where they are even going. It is my hope that these tea parties will in how they are organized and in those who participate in them can strive to find that balance required to make this movement a genuine success instead of a populist flame out of the sort that litters the political landscape spanning the centuries of America's existence.
Anyway, having noted these things, I must say it pleases me to see these gatherings which represent a true grassroots movement and not some bankrolled group of paid "protesters" or "volunteers" the way so many liberal movements{10} are. I am wondering if my idea for significant legislative reform long pondered over{11} and recently written on{12} can perhaps find some traction in this movement but that is a subject for another time altogether.
Notes:
{1} For those familiar with Seattle, I was stuck on the carpool lane up around Pine and forced onto the express lanes northbound. This resulted in me crossing Lake Union to the north, taking the first exit off, and getting quickly onto the University Bridge to Eastlake Avenue (along Lake Union) traveling under the I-5 Bridge from which I exited and coming back into Seattle that way. In short, it killed about thirty minutes of my day and made me an hour late to the tea party.
{2} Those bits were posted if memory serves in another publishing medium. I am probably not through berating that worthless pile of pig crap called a "report" yet. If I turned in a report in school with that much lack of source citation or complete lack of cogent argumentation for a given thesis, etc. I would have received an F grade. It must have been a Huffington Post staffer who ghostwrote it for Napolitano.
{3} I write things for various mediums and in a variety of contexts but usually what I write has some element of timeless principle to it which means it can serve a variety of purposes. But because the context of one posting may differ from another, sometimes a piece written for one medium needs to be reworked for posting in another medium, shortened, added to, etc.
{4} Mainly the ones that would seem to replace one Messiah (Obama) with another (Paul).
{5} I hesitate to post the slogans that protester used here because many may not understand what was being said and those who would understand would question either my prudence in posting them here or even why (perhaps) I know what they mean.
{6} Tim told me he did not get my voice mail when I contacted him because he was at the Phoenix gathering and he was talking with his mother and step father who were at a gathering in Monterrey.
{7} I went over this to some degree in a posting to this weblog earlier in the year:
Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009)
{8} See my criticisms of this approach philosophically in the thread of footnote seven. With greater specificity on one issue (i.e. the constitutional requirement of declaring war), see this posting:
On the Constitutionality of Wars Undertaken Without a Formal Declaration (circa December 26, 2007)
{9} On the Problem With Conservatives Dabbling in So-Called "Conspiracy Theories" (circa March 18, 2009)
{10} I was informed by my very good friend Anna when we were talking about the tea parties that when she was campaigning for Senator John McCain she and some friends were approached by some of those "volunteering" for Senator Barack Obama asking them "how much was the McCain campaign paying you to volunteer???" or something along those lines. (This only confirmed my suspicions about the so-called "grassroots massive support for Obama and change" bandied about by that campaign and their willing and fawning sycophants in the mainstream media.)
{11} See footnote twelve. (This idea has been in my mind in some form or another for at least seven years.)
{12} Another Idea For Federal and State Legislative Reform (circa March 6, 2009)
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Points to Ponder:
(On the Popularity of Obama and That of His Policies)
[W]hat will it take to wake these people up? Look at the polls, very few people like anything that Obama has done, yet they still say he is doing a good job. It's like owning a Corvette, in which nothing works, but it has a great paint job. ["Bigone5555J" -comment on YouTube (circa mid May 2009)]
(On the Popularity of Obama and That of His Policies)
[W]hat will it take to wake these people up? Look at the polls, very few people like anything that Obama has done, yet they still say he is doing a good job. It's like owning a Corvette, in which nothing works, but it has a great paint job. ["Bigone5555J" -comment on YouTube (circa mid May 2009)]
Obama Vindicates Bush
Charles Krauthammer as he so often does hits the nail on the head in the above article. Hopefully this trend will continue and the Bush tax cuts will also be renewed and made permanent but that may be asking for too much. One thing is for sure though, if President Obama is an astute enough politician, he will want the economy to be doing well enough to assist him in running for re-election and letting those tax cuts expire will not aid him in that endeavour.
Charles Krauthammer as he so often does hits the nail on the head in the above article. Hopefully this trend will continue and the Bush tax cuts will also be renewed and made permanent but that may be asking for too much. One thing is for sure though, if President Obama is an astute enough politician, he will want the economy to be doing well enough to assist him in running for re-election and letting those tax cuts expire will not aid him in that endeavour.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Points to Ponder:
(For the Fallen Soldiers)
"Our young friends -- yes, young friends, for in our hearts you will always be young, full of the love that is youth, love of life, love of joy, love of country -- you fought for your country and for its safety and for the freedom of others with strength and courage. We love you for it. We honor you. And we have faith that, as He does all His sacred children, the Lord will bless you and keep you, the Lord will make His face to shine upon you and give you peace, now and forever more." [President Ronald Reagan: Note Inserted into the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (circa November 11, 1988)]
(For the Fallen Soldiers)
"Our young friends -- yes, young friends, for in our hearts you will always be young, full of the love that is youth, love of life, love of joy, love of country -- you fought for your country and for its safety and for the freedom of others with strength and courage. We love you for it. We honor you. And we have faith that, as He does all His sacred children, the Lord will bless you and keep you, the Lord will make His face to shine upon you and give you peace, now and forever more." [President Ronald Reagan: Note Inserted into the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (circa November 11, 1988)]
I have little that I could add now or am inclined to anyway to what I wrote on the subject of Memorial Day last year. I will however at this point encapsulate the substance of everything in that note. This will be done by pointing out what I believe is an important (albeit secondary) principle that permeates my outlook on these matters; namely this:
If there is not something you are willing to fight and possibly die for, then you are not worthy to live.
That is my view in a nutshell{1} and though I see value in everything I said in the above posted material, at bottom the rest is mere commentary on that fundamental principle really.
Note:
{1} If you need a theological principle to anchor this to, consider Jesus' statement about how one cannot show greater love than by laying down their life for another.
If there is not something you are willing to fight and possibly die for, then you are not worthy to live.
That is my view in a nutshell{1} and though I see value in everything I said in the above posted material, at bottom the rest is mere commentary on that fundamental principle really.
Note:
{1} If you need a theological principle to anchor this to, consider Jesus' statement about how one cannot show greater love than by laying down their life for another.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Al Gore Rakes in the Green
Joseph D'Hippolito writes on the racket called "cap and trade" and the whole so-called "global warming crisis." It is pleasing to see his inclusion of information about Lord Christopher Monckton of whom we recently wrote on at this humble weblog.{1} As we see it, the more people know about people like Lord Monckton and those like him who fly in the face of the attempted snowjob on this matter, the better.
Note:
{1} My Views on Lord Monckton (circa April 26, 2009)
Joseph D'Hippolito writes on the racket called "cap and trade" and the whole so-called "global warming crisis." It is pleasing to see his inclusion of information about Lord Christopher Monckton of whom we recently wrote on at this humble weblog.{1} As we see it, the more people know about people like Lord Monckton and those like him who fly in the face of the attempted snowjob on this matter, the better.
Note:
{1} My Views on Lord Monckton (circa April 26, 2009)
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Radio Host Savage Seeks Clinton's Help Over Ban
Here is a sample from the article before I comment:
Attorneys for the controversial San Francisco host of the syndicated "Savage Nation" radio show, say the ban is of a blatant human rights violation and formally asked Clinton on Thursday to demand that British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith "rescind the arbitrary and capricious decision" last week to "name and shame" 16 individuals, including Savage, who have been barred from entry into the country.
Smith made headlines - and raised eyebrows - when she included Savage on a list that also includes Islamic terrorists, Russian skinhead killers and neo-Nazis, saying that the individuals don't represent the United Kingdom's "values."
...
Savage - whose show reaches an estimated 8 million to 10 million listeners on nearly 400 stations nationwide, according to industry sources - told The Chronicle in an exclusive interview Thursday that "I've been very harsh on Hillary and Bill (Clinton) over the years."
"But precisely for this reason, she should take my case. It would show that she can rise above partisan politics," he said, "because Jacqui Smith is in violation of the European Union's laws themselves."
The bottom line on this issue is simple: though Michael Savage and Hillary Clinton do not agree on very much issue-wise, that he has been lumped in on the list with people who are murderers, terrorists, Nazi's and the like is blatant and vicious libel.
It is one thing to disagree with someone on issues (even stridently at that) but it is another to tolerate the smearing of other people for their views. A person who would not stand to see this happen to someone they did not agree with if (i) that person was not advocating violence and (ii) if they have any semblance of character.
It is the hope of this writer that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recognizes the principle of respect for freedom of speech in reality by standing by someone whose speech she would not agree with and not just in theory and for those for whom she agrees with. Again, right and wrong cannot depend on who agrees with you but instead on the objective nature of a position intrinsically if we are to believe in anything at all. This is something that a lot of people these days do not seem to realize but it is nonetheless a principle that once again requires being mentioned as well as defended by those who take concepts such as reason, logic, ethics, and principles seriously. I hope on this matter that Secretary of State Clinton does the right thing and stands for free speech and against defamation of character.
Here is a sample from the article before I comment:
Attorneys for the controversial San Francisco host of the syndicated "Savage Nation" radio show, say the ban is of a blatant human rights violation and formally asked Clinton on Thursday to demand that British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith "rescind the arbitrary and capricious decision" last week to "name and shame" 16 individuals, including Savage, who have been barred from entry into the country.
Smith made headlines - and raised eyebrows - when she included Savage on a list that also includes Islamic terrorists, Russian skinhead killers and neo-Nazis, saying that the individuals don't represent the United Kingdom's "values."
...
Savage - whose show reaches an estimated 8 million to 10 million listeners on nearly 400 stations nationwide, according to industry sources - told The Chronicle in an exclusive interview Thursday that "I've been very harsh on Hillary and Bill (Clinton) over the years."
"But precisely for this reason, she should take my case. It would show that she can rise above partisan politics," he said, "because Jacqui Smith is in violation of the European Union's laws themselves."
The bottom line on this issue is simple: though Michael Savage and Hillary Clinton do not agree on very much issue-wise, that he has been lumped in on the list with people who are murderers, terrorists, Nazi's and the like is blatant and vicious libel.
It is one thing to disagree with someone on issues (even stridently at that) but it is another to tolerate the smearing of other people for their views. A person who would not stand to see this happen to someone they did not agree with if (i) that person was not advocating violence and (ii) if they have any semblance of character.
It is the hope of this writer that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recognizes the principle of respect for freedom of speech in reality by standing by someone whose speech she would not agree with and not just in theory and for those for whom she agrees with. Again, right and wrong cannot depend on who agrees with you but instead on the objective nature of a position intrinsically if we are to believe in anything at all. This is something that a lot of people these days do not seem to realize but it is nonetheless a principle that once again requires being mentioned as well as defended by those who take concepts such as reason, logic, ethics, and principles seriously. I hope on this matter that Secretary of State Clinton does the right thing and stands for free speech and against defamation of character.
Gingrich: Pelosi 'Lied,' 'Despicable,' 'Dishonest,' 'Vicious,' 'Trivial'
To follow up on the Pelosi matter which has been in the media in recent days, we have former Speaker Gingrich giving urrent Speaker Pelosi a much deserved reaming for either lying and/or being incompetent. The law of non-contradiction is in play folks so take your pick because based on the evidence{1} she is cannot escape being at least one or the other (if not both) at this point.
Note:
{1} Certainly CIA Director Leon Panetta by all appearances as we noted recently has the goods on Pelosi and more than reasonable evidence that she is lying through her teeth about this.
To follow up on the Pelosi matter which has been in the media in recent days, we have former Speaker Gingrich giving urrent Speaker Pelosi a much deserved reaming for either lying and/or being incompetent. The law of non-contradiction is in play folks so take your pick because based on the evidence{1} she is cannot escape being at least one or the other (if not both) at this point.
Note:
{1} Certainly CIA Director Leon Panetta by all appearances as we noted recently has the goods on Pelosi and more than reasonable evidence that she is lying through her teeth about this.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Obama Breaks Major Campaign Promise as Military Commissions Resume, Says Amnesty International
Depending on who you ask (and when you asked them), there had been between seven{1}, eleven{2}, and eighteen{3} promises broken prior to this one already. Meanwhile the O-bots will continue to treat this guy like he can change water into wine and complain that Bush is the embodiment of evil.
The disturbing truth is, President Barack Obama has shown more of a wanton disregard for campaign promises than any president I have ever witnessed and at times with promises that he could very easily have kept at that!!!
Say what you will about someone like Cindy Sheehan{4} but at least when President Obama broke his promise to get all the troops out of Iraq in sixteen months{5}, she did not hesitate to call him a "war monger" much as she has his predecessor. At least she is showing consistency on this issue and not giving President Obama a pass where she would not give one to President Bush. Would that more of the O-bots have a concern for consistency but I digress.
Notes:
{1} Obama's Broken Promises (circa February 17, 2009)
{2} Obama Racks Up a List of Broken Promises (circa March 12, 2009)
{3} 100 Days, Almost As Many Expired Campaign Promises (circa April 29, 2009)
{4} And Lord knows I have from time to time in years past.
{5} A promise I might add that I am glad he has broken.
Depending on who you ask (and when you asked them), there had been between seven{1}, eleven{2}, and eighteen{3} promises broken prior to this one already. Meanwhile the O-bots will continue to treat this guy like he can change water into wine and complain that Bush is the embodiment of evil.
The disturbing truth is, President Barack Obama has shown more of a wanton disregard for campaign promises than any president I have ever witnessed and at times with promises that he could very easily have kept at that!!!
Say what you will about someone like Cindy Sheehan{4} but at least when President Obama broke his promise to get all the troops out of Iraq in sixteen months{5}, she did not hesitate to call him a "war monger" much as she has his predecessor. At least she is showing consistency on this issue and not giving President Obama a pass where she would not give one to President Bush. Would that more of the O-bots have a concern for consistency but I digress.
Notes:
{1} Obama's Broken Promises (circa February 17, 2009)
{2} Obama Racks Up a List of Broken Promises (circa March 12, 2009)
{3} 100 Days, Almost As Many Expired Campaign Promises (circa April 29, 2009)
{4} And Lord knows I have from time to time in years past.
{5} A promise I might add that I am glad he has broken.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
U.S. Attorney's office tells employees not to log on to Drudge Report
Oh brother. Look, I have been accessing The Drudge Report for probably ten years from a variety of computers and have never had a problem. This has all the earmarks of attempts to curb the rights of people to access whatever information they want at work that is not in violation of basic workplace ethics.{1} The attempt to blame ESPN for the same thing is also pretty lame because I have been accessing their sites at least as long as I have The Drudge Report with nary a problem there either.
Maybe these offices need to utilize these newfangled devices called "virus protection software" and "firewalls" that someone such as myself who is no computer tech sort utilizes. I have to admit that a story like this really makes me wonder about the quality of intelligence of those we hire for federal positions even more so than I already did{2} but enough on that for now.
Notes:
{1} I mean, it is not as if they were looking at porn at work
{2} This is not rocket science after all.
Oh brother. Look, I have been accessing The Drudge Report for probably ten years from a variety of computers and have never had a problem. This has all the earmarks of attempts to curb the rights of people to access whatever information they want at work that is not in violation of basic workplace ethics.{1} The attempt to blame ESPN for the same thing is also pretty lame because I have been accessing their sites at least as long as I have The Drudge Report with nary a problem there either.
Maybe these offices need to utilize these newfangled devices called "virus protection software" and "firewalls" that someone such as myself who is no computer tech sort utilizes. I have to admit that a story like this really makes me wonder about the quality of intelligence of those we hire for federal positions even more so than I already did{2} but enough on that for now.
Notes:
{1} I mean, it is not as if they were looking at porn at work
{2} This is not rocket science after all.
Panetta to CIA employees: We told Pelosi the truth
The whole article has to be read and for those who want to know where I stand on the matter, I will tell you but observe her body language in the clip above.{1} Also, here are some offhand comments I made in another publishing medium in recent days:
[I] wonder if Nancy Pelosi knows what the underside of a bus looks like... [5/14/09 @1:14pm]
That one was amplified by this clarification:
[I]t is amusing to see and hear Pelosi's pathetic ass kissing of the president. Folks, SHE KNOWS she is next to be thrown under the bus and to watch her struggle to try and avoid it brings me no small amount of schadenfraude :) [5/15/09 @9:06am]
One of two things are going to come out of this and one of them is not greater power and prestige for Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Basically, she will either have to resign her position in the Congress or if she survives she will become a major kiss ass rubber-stamp for the president's agenda beyond what she even is now. Either way though, she has lost any remaining pretense of credibility she may have still had{2} in the eyes of anyone with a normal intact functioning brain. Heck folks, when Bob Beckel of all people on the Democratic side says that someone in his party is a liar, you know they are in more than a bit of trouble.{3} To paraphrase the late Gorilla Monsoon: "stick a fork in her, she's done!!!"
Notes:
{1} While not an expert on body language myself, I am nonetheless reasonably informed on the matter and that Pelosi is lying on this matter is crystal clear when you look at what her face say -to the extent that her heavily Botoxed face can be read of course. (Pay particular attention to her eyes.)
{2} However small it was.
{3} I say this because Beckel defends a lot of stuff that no one who was not a party ideologue would even attempt to defend.
The whole article has to be read and for those who want to know where I stand on the matter, I will tell you but observe her body language in the clip above.{1} Also, here are some offhand comments I made in another publishing medium in recent days:
[I] wonder if Nancy Pelosi knows what the underside of a bus looks like... [5/14/09 @1:14pm]
That one was amplified by this clarification:
[I]t is amusing to see and hear Pelosi's pathetic ass kissing of the president. Folks, SHE KNOWS she is next to be thrown under the bus and to watch her struggle to try and avoid it brings me no small amount of schadenfraude :) [5/15/09 @9:06am]
One of two things are going to come out of this and one of them is not greater power and prestige for Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Basically, she will either have to resign her position in the Congress or if she survives she will become a major kiss ass rubber-stamp for the president's agenda beyond what she even is now. Either way though, she has lost any remaining pretense of credibility she may have still had{2} in the eyes of anyone with a normal intact functioning brain. Heck folks, when Bob Beckel of all people on the Democratic side says that someone in his party is a liar, you know they are in more than a bit of trouble.{3} To paraphrase the late Gorilla Monsoon: "stick a fork in her, she's done!!!"
Notes:
{1} While not an expert on body language myself, I am nonetheless reasonably informed on the matter and that Pelosi is lying on this matter is crystal clear when you look at what her face say -to the extent that her heavily Botoxed face can be read of course. (Pay particular attention to her eyes.)
{2} However small it was.
{3} I say this because Beckel defends a lot of stuff that no one who was not a party ideologue would even attempt to defend.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Wanted: A Fighting Party
Pat Buchanan as I have often said is a streaky shooter -when he is off he misses by a lot but when he is on, it is usually from downtown and nothing but net. This article belongs to the latter classification.
Pat Buchanan as I have often said is a streaky shooter -when he is off he misses by a lot but when he is on, it is usually from downtown and nothing but net. This article belongs to the latter classification.
On the Issue of Good and Bad Arguments in Apologetics or Elsewhere:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: The substance of this material was written on May 3, 2009 when I was made aware of it on a discussion list I occasionally involve myself with. Below is the material as it was slightly redacted and revised for an email circular sent out on May 9, 2009. -ISM]
I very rarely do apologetics stuff at all anymore for a variety of reasons. However, here are my thoughts on the arguments made by Ben Douglass, David Palm, and Nick E and positions they have taken on the thread that were sent to myself and others for comment -musings written on the morning of May 3rd when waking up so any deficiencies it contains I apologize for in advance.
I want to note at the outset though that I believe what Ben, David, and Nick have offered in principle is a good thing because if there is one thing I am really tired of (and feel like a broken record in reiterating) it is a lack of ethics so often taken by apologists in general of all stripes. Presenting this kind of thread on their part is helpful because it makes the point that yes there are bad or not so wise arguments that can be made by Catholics in arguing against Protestants (or anyone else) rather than closing one's eyes and pretending that any argument made against Protestants by Catholics is good and any argument made by Protestants against Catholics is a bad one. Ben, David, and Nick by publishing such an article and not following the unfortunate mainstream apologetics trends are doing a great service to authentic dialogue but without further ado, onto the individual arguments and conclusions themselves...
On Argument #1:
I agree with both the argument and the conclusion they draw. I was for those who have forgotten making the argument against 20,000 plus "denominations" as far back as late 2000 myself on Steve Ray's board and telling others not to do so. (Some listened, most others continued making this mistake, others still thought I was wrong to admit that Eric Svendsen actually had a valuable point to make on this matter that others ignored at the risk of looking foolish.) The original source of the thousands of arguments was some David Barrett fellow circa 1982 and he posited about 23,000. But if his methodology is looked at and taken literally with Protestants, consistency demands the same be done with Catholics and to do so would have rendered hundreds of Catholic churches because it counted religious orders, and dioceses and other such things as individual "churches." In the interest of internal and rational consistency you cannot have it both ways.
Argument #2:
I agree with their argument as a rule. I only use the term "anti-Catholic" when dealing with people who have an obvious and deep-rooted hatred for Catholicism or what they perceive the latter to be. I prefer to refer to Protestants as "groups" because Catholic theology -particularly when viewed through the lens of Church as communion or what is called communio theology -which since the Second Vatican Council has been the manner in which these things have been and will be viewed{1}- theologically distinguishes between those properly called "churches" and those which are not.
Argument #3:
I most definitely agree with them on this one.
Argument #4:
I was saying this years ago myself -again we agree.
Argument #5:
I have used variations of the argument they made myself in years past.
Argument #6:
They are right that the argument does not suffice all by itself. But as one of a number of things gathered together to demonstrate a pattern of extra-scriptural appeal, it can be quite useful.
Argument #7:
See my response to argument #6. They are right that this one is even more tenuous by itself (one reason I never had recourse to it myself) but with the right qualification it could still be used. Certainly that St. Paul did not appeal to the Scriptures alone to make this argument shows that one can appeal to other sources and not just Scripture as some Protestants claim for example.
Argument #8:
I do not to some extent agree with this argument because there is a principle those verses convey which also applies when it comes to biblical interpretation. I agree with the writers that this argument can be overused; however, just as the prophecies of Scripture are not matters of private interpretation, neither is the proper meaning or meanings of scriptural passages to be incontrovertibly ascertained in like fashion. The argument works but it is not as broad in scope as many may presume.
Argument #9:
I agree wholeheartedly with argument nine and its conclusions. I doubt any source of the ancient world is as well preserved as the Bible is and while there are some areas "where the original text is indeterminate", as a rule this is not an issue and considering how many sources replicate the same overall texts, again no ancient source I am aware of has nearly as much manuscript integrity as the books of the Bible do.
Argument #10:
I disagree with argument #10. An argument to be given probability of truth cannot be internally contradictory and the same goes with a method of interpretation. If the Protestant arguments of that fashion against 2 Maccabees are valid, then they must accept that the same arguments against Samuel and Chronicles as likewise valid. (Meaning that if the arguments prove the lack of inspiration to Maccabees then the same is the case for Samuel and Chronicles.) But if the person would seek to defend Samuel and Chronicles by various and sundry nuances or exemptions from such a critique, then they undercut the very arguments they used against Maccabees and therefore they must be forced to admit to that. Failing that, their inconsistency must be pointed out for what it is to their discredit though if at all reasonably possible this should be handled delicately.
Argument #11:
I agree with argument #11 to a point. James ii,24 is not a magic cure-all for everything pertaining to the issue of sola fide. However, at the same time, it works well oftentimes because of the ways which Protestants have to jump through hoops to try and claim the text means other than what it says when taken literally. I was able to convince Tim Enloe in years past that the manner in which we understand grace and works was well explained in a passage of Augustine{2} and I agree with Ben, David, and Nick that other arguments are also necessary to drive this point home more firmly. But that does not mean the James ii,24 argument has no merit particularly since it specifically contradicts the sola fide original idea -so much that Luther added the word "alone" to Romans iii,28 and then disparaged the Epistle of James and insulted the writer for not saying what he thought it should say. (Something that would be quite odd for Luther to do if he did not see a serious disconnect between his view and the words of scripture in this passage.)
Argument #12:
Pointing out that Christians should give priority to the words of Jesus of those of Paul is not a bad argument when done correctly. If it is done as an expedient to dismiss the words of Paul then it is bad but if it is to establish a kind of "canon within a canon" then it is not bad because Protestants do this themselves much as anyone does. (In the case of Prots, they place Romans and Galatians seemingly over every other epistle in priority. Catholics used to with the Old Testament do this with the so-called "Deuterocanonical Books.") It is not completely honest to claim that different sides do not place certain works in a priority over others. For this reason, to point out that Catholics often put the recorded words of the Son of God over those of his apostles and adopted apostle is fine. However, once that is done, then showing how Peter, James, John, and Paul's words harmonize with those of first Jesus and then of Catholic theology is the next step. I did this years ago in apologetics arguments and also in an essay I wrote nearly a decade ago on justification by faith but that is another subject altogether.
Argument #13:
I never tried to or thought about taking the approach that they outline in this argument so I cannot comment much. I will say in perusing their argument that I do not disagree with its internal logic but I also do not think you need to make that kind of argument anyway: it is too technical and you run the risk of hanging yourself in the process. I have seen a lot of apologists make arguments or debate in areas they have no business debating on. I say this not just out of an opinion on the matter but because objectively certain arguments or doctrines require presuppositional arguments or doctrines to be held before they can be solidly advanced. In my mind, debates should be confined to the presuppositional arguments or doctrines and not on those which extend beyond it until and unless there can be an agreement reached on the latter ones. (I went over this on discussion lists in years past when discussing what topics Catholics should and should not debate with Protestants publicly.)
Argument #14:
My points about argument #13 apply here as well.
Argument #15:
There is a reason Protestants cite Ephesians ii,8-9 and leave out verse ten and it is because verse ten quite clearly contextualizes the first two verses in a way that leaving it out does not do. I went over this in greater detail in my essay on justification both amplifying the tenth verse and also explaining why the three taken as a whole cohere well with Catholic theology. I would have used the same St. Augustine argument I used to persuade Tim Enloe in that essay but I was trying at the time to do as little exegesis from scripture as possible while presenting passages with more contextualization than they commonly received -from not only Protestants but also Catholics.
Argument #16:
This argument has its value but needs to be approached more carefully than many presume. For example, the writers are correct that some saw it as a justifiable gloss on the text but the concept of "faith alone" that preceded the sixteenth century (yes this concept did not completely fail to predate Luther) was one that included all the theological virtues combined. This was presupposed in its usage but generally, faith was distinguished from hope and charity as distinct virtues. I note this because Luther appeared to interpret faith as being literally "alone" -and by his commentary on one of St. Paul's epistles (I think Galatians but cannot remember: have not done this stuff in a while so I apologize for the lapse) he disparaged charitable works so much that it was made evident that he viewed sola fide as exactly what it says. This made his appropriation of the concept a "theological novum" as Anglican scholar Alister McGrath pointed out years ago.
My point of difference with Ben, David, and Nick on this is that I view this as more than a mere exegestical error on Luther's part. Part of the reason is that those who are involved with a great deal of their resources (time, energy, money, etc) selling a particular concept, product, etc. can at times become so intent on seeing their idea/creation/product accepted by others that they tend to lose their objectivity. The same principle is at stake with the sola fide position -it was the basis of a so-called "reformation" and therefore a lot is invested in it by its apologists/advocates. This is therefore not a matter to take lightly not that Ben, David, and Nick are doing this of course.
Requiring those who advocate for a position or idea to be consistent is not a bad argument at all but instead it is at the very heart of respecting reason and logic. I do not want to appear to accuse the writers of the article of not wanting this mind you but instead to outline the principle behind why I do not agree with them on this point{3} to at least some extent.
Argument #17:
Considering how many Protestants respond to those who previously claimed they were "saved" and "secure" who later on fall by saying "they were never saved to begin with", I am not so sure I agree with the writers on this point. Consistency is a powerful and valuable tool in the arsenal of anyone who strives to make use of the natural lights of reason and logic. It therefore stands to reason that if someone could claim to be "saved" and "secure" at one point but later on (if they fall) are claimed to be "never saved to begin with" that they cannot (and should not) be allowed to have it both ways. I can agree with the writers that this argument is more complex if properly applied and I reiterate at this time my comments in the last paragraph of my argument #16 response -in substance{4} anyway.
Argument #18:
I agree with them 100% on this one. Do not expect more out of sources than what they are and always disclose to the extent you are aware of it the reliability or lack thereof of the source you cite.
Conclusion:
Those are my thoughts on the article. Basically I agree with nine of them (arguments 1-5, 9, 13-14, 18), agree to some degree but have issues with part of them on five (arguments 6-8,11,16), and disagree with them for the most part or completely with four (arguments 10,12,15,17). I admire though the clarification that Ben, David, and Nick put at the beginning of their piece and I make the substance of it my own in concluding this "counter-missive" of my own -so I will quote them at this time in a final footnote{5} and hope this response is of assistance in some way or another.
Notes:
{1} This is a complex theological subject matter which I went over in years past in outline form for those who are interested:
An Outline of Various Church Models Throughout History (circa November 23-24, 2003)
{2} One thing that's always interested me about Shawn's position is his notation of Augustine's doctrine of merit being that God crowns His own gifts in us. [Tim Enloe (circa April 15, 2007)]
{3} If Ben, David, and Nick are merely trying to say that this argument can easily be overdone and taken beyond the point to where it is useful then I agree with them wholeheartedly. If they are trying to say it is not a good argument at all period then I do not.
{4} Namely, the part where I noted this:
"Requiring those who advocate for a position or idea to be consistent is not a bad argument at all but instead it is at the very heart of respecting reason and logic."
Again, I do not accuse any of them of failing to follow this principle -indeed the principle behind their article to a certain extent presupposes it.
{5} To reiterate their introduction at this time:
The following is a list of arguments against Protestantism which, in our judgment, Catholics should not use, either because they are not true, or because, while they might be true, it is impossible to prove that they are, for a plausible alternative explanation of the data exists. This is certainly not a complete list: it is merely one missive fired for intellectual honesty. Neither is it an infallible list: it is possible that one or more of these arguments might be saved. [LINK]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: The substance of this material was written on May 3, 2009 when I was made aware of it on a discussion list I occasionally involve myself with. Below is the material as it was slightly redacted and revised for an email circular sent out on May 9, 2009. -ISM]
I very rarely do apologetics stuff at all anymore for a variety of reasons. However, here are my thoughts on the arguments made by Ben Douglass, David Palm, and Nick E and positions they have taken on the thread that were sent to myself and others for comment -musings written on the morning of May 3rd when waking up so any deficiencies it contains I apologize for in advance.
I want to note at the outset though that I believe what Ben, David, and Nick have offered in principle is a good thing because if there is one thing I am really tired of (and feel like a broken record in reiterating) it is a lack of ethics so often taken by apologists in general of all stripes. Presenting this kind of thread on their part is helpful because it makes the point that yes there are bad or not so wise arguments that can be made by Catholics in arguing against Protestants (or anyone else) rather than closing one's eyes and pretending that any argument made against Protestants by Catholics is good and any argument made by Protestants against Catholics is a bad one. Ben, David, and Nick by publishing such an article and not following the unfortunate mainstream apologetics trends are doing a great service to authentic dialogue but without further ado, onto the individual arguments and conclusions themselves...
On Argument #1:
I agree with both the argument and the conclusion they draw. I was for those who have forgotten making the argument against 20,000 plus "denominations" as far back as late 2000 myself on Steve Ray's board and telling others not to do so. (Some listened, most others continued making this mistake, others still thought I was wrong to admit that Eric Svendsen actually had a valuable point to make on this matter that others ignored at the risk of looking foolish.) The original source of the thousands of arguments was some David Barrett fellow circa 1982 and he posited about 23,000. But if his methodology is looked at and taken literally with Protestants, consistency demands the same be done with Catholics and to do so would have rendered hundreds of Catholic churches because it counted religious orders, and dioceses and other such things as individual "churches." In the interest of internal and rational consistency you cannot have it both ways.
Argument #2:
I agree with their argument as a rule. I only use the term "anti-Catholic" when dealing with people who have an obvious and deep-rooted hatred for Catholicism or what they perceive the latter to be. I prefer to refer to Protestants as "groups" because Catholic theology -particularly when viewed through the lens of Church as communion or what is called communio theology -which since the Second Vatican Council has been the manner in which these things have been and will be viewed{1}- theologically distinguishes between those properly called "churches" and those which are not.
Argument #3:
I most definitely agree with them on this one.
Argument #4:
I was saying this years ago myself -again we agree.
Argument #5:
I have used variations of the argument they made myself in years past.
Argument #6:
They are right that the argument does not suffice all by itself. But as one of a number of things gathered together to demonstrate a pattern of extra-scriptural appeal, it can be quite useful.
Argument #7:
See my response to argument #6. They are right that this one is even more tenuous by itself (one reason I never had recourse to it myself) but with the right qualification it could still be used. Certainly that St. Paul did not appeal to the Scriptures alone to make this argument shows that one can appeal to other sources and not just Scripture as some Protestants claim for example.
Argument #8:
I do not to some extent agree with this argument because there is a principle those verses convey which also applies when it comes to biblical interpretation. I agree with the writers that this argument can be overused; however, just as the prophecies of Scripture are not matters of private interpretation, neither is the proper meaning or meanings of scriptural passages to be incontrovertibly ascertained in like fashion. The argument works but it is not as broad in scope as many may presume.
Argument #9:
I agree wholeheartedly with argument nine and its conclusions. I doubt any source of the ancient world is as well preserved as the Bible is and while there are some areas "where the original text is indeterminate", as a rule this is not an issue and considering how many sources replicate the same overall texts, again no ancient source I am aware of has nearly as much manuscript integrity as the books of the Bible do.
Argument #10:
I disagree with argument #10. An argument to be given probability of truth cannot be internally contradictory and the same goes with a method of interpretation. If the Protestant arguments of that fashion against 2 Maccabees are valid, then they must accept that the same arguments against Samuel and Chronicles as likewise valid. (Meaning that if the arguments prove the lack of inspiration to Maccabees then the same is the case for Samuel and Chronicles.) But if the person would seek to defend Samuel and Chronicles by various and sundry nuances or exemptions from such a critique, then they undercut the very arguments they used against Maccabees and therefore they must be forced to admit to that. Failing that, their inconsistency must be pointed out for what it is to their discredit though if at all reasonably possible this should be handled delicately.
Argument #11:
I agree with argument #11 to a point. James ii,24 is not a magic cure-all for everything pertaining to the issue of sola fide. However, at the same time, it works well oftentimes because of the ways which Protestants have to jump through hoops to try and claim the text means other than what it says when taken literally. I was able to convince Tim Enloe in years past that the manner in which we understand grace and works was well explained in a passage of Augustine{2} and I agree with Ben, David, and Nick that other arguments are also necessary to drive this point home more firmly. But that does not mean the James ii,24 argument has no merit particularly since it specifically contradicts the sola fide original idea -so much that Luther added the word "alone" to Romans iii,28 and then disparaged the Epistle of James and insulted the writer for not saying what he thought it should say. (Something that would be quite odd for Luther to do if he did not see a serious disconnect between his view and the words of scripture in this passage.)
Argument #12:
Pointing out that Christians should give priority to the words of Jesus of those of Paul is not a bad argument when done correctly. If it is done as an expedient to dismiss the words of Paul then it is bad but if it is to establish a kind of "canon within a canon" then it is not bad because Protestants do this themselves much as anyone does. (In the case of Prots, they place Romans and Galatians seemingly over every other epistle in priority. Catholics used to with the Old Testament do this with the so-called "Deuterocanonical Books.") It is not completely honest to claim that different sides do not place certain works in a priority over others. For this reason, to point out that Catholics often put the recorded words of the Son of God over those of his apostles and adopted apostle is fine. However, once that is done, then showing how Peter, James, John, and Paul's words harmonize with those of first Jesus and then of Catholic theology is the next step. I did this years ago in apologetics arguments and also in an essay I wrote nearly a decade ago on justification by faith but that is another subject altogether.
Argument #13:
I never tried to or thought about taking the approach that they outline in this argument so I cannot comment much. I will say in perusing their argument that I do not disagree with its internal logic but I also do not think you need to make that kind of argument anyway: it is too technical and you run the risk of hanging yourself in the process. I have seen a lot of apologists make arguments or debate in areas they have no business debating on. I say this not just out of an opinion on the matter but because objectively certain arguments or doctrines require presuppositional arguments or doctrines to be held before they can be solidly advanced. In my mind, debates should be confined to the presuppositional arguments or doctrines and not on those which extend beyond it until and unless there can be an agreement reached on the latter ones. (I went over this on discussion lists in years past when discussing what topics Catholics should and should not debate with Protestants publicly.)
Argument #14:
My points about argument #13 apply here as well.
Argument #15:
There is a reason Protestants cite Ephesians ii,8-9 and leave out verse ten and it is because verse ten quite clearly contextualizes the first two verses in a way that leaving it out does not do. I went over this in greater detail in my essay on justification both amplifying the tenth verse and also explaining why the three taken as a whole cohere well with Catholic theology. I would have used the same St. Augustine argument I used to persuade Tim Enloe in that essay but I was trying at the time to do as little exegesis from scripture as possible while presenting passages with more contextualization than they commonly received -from not only Protestants but also Catholics.
Argument #16:
This argument has its value but needs to be approached more carefully than many presume. For example, the writers are correct that some saw it as a justifiable gloss on the text but the concept of "faith alone" that preceded the sixteenth century (yes this concept did not completely fail to predate Luther) was one that included all the theological virtues combined. This was presupposed in its usage but generally, faith was distinguished from hope and charity as distinct virtues. I note this because Luther appeared to interpret faith as being literally "alone" -and by his commentary on one of St. Paul's epistles (I think Galatians but cannot remember: have not done this stuff in a while so I apologize for the lapse) he disparaged charitable works so much that it was made evident that he viewed sola fide as exactly what it says. This made his appropriation of the concept a "theological novum" as Anglican scholar Alister McGrath pointed out years ago.
My point of difference with Ben, David, and Nick on this is that I view this as more than a mere exegestical error on Luther's part. Part of the reason is that those who are involved with a great deal of their resources (time, energy, money, etc) selling a particular concept, product, etc. can at times become so intent on seeing their idea/creation/product accepted by others that they tend to lose their objectivity. The same principle is at stake with the sola fide position -it was the basis of a so-called "reformation" and therefore a lot is invested in it by its apologists/advocates. This is therefore not a matter to take lightly not that Ben, David, and Nick are doing this of course.
Requiring those who advocate for a position or idea to be consistent is not a bad argument at all but instead it is at the very heart of respecting reason and logic. I do not want to appear to accuse the writers of the article of not wanting this mind you but instead to outline the principle behind why I do not agree with them on this point{3} to at least some extent.
Argument #17:
Considering how many Protestants respond to those who previously claimed they were "saved" and "secure" who later on fall by saying "they were never saved to begin with", I am not so sure I agree with the writers on this point. Consistency is a powerful and valuable tool in the arsenal of anyone who strives to make use of the natural lights of reason and logic. It therefore stands to reason that if someone could claim to be "saved" and "secure" at one point but later on (if they fall) are claimed to be "never saved to begin with" that they cannot (and should not) be allowed to have it both ways. I can agree with the writers that this argument is more complex if properly applied and I reiterate at this time my comments in the last paragraph of my argument #16 response -in substance{4} anyway.
Argument #18:
I agree with them 100% on this one. Do not expect more out of sources than what they are and always disclose to the extent you are aware of it the reliability or lack thereof of the source you cite.
Conclusion:
Those are my thoughts on the article. Basically I agree with nine of them (arguments 1-5, 9, 13-14, 18), agree to some degree but have issues with part of them on five (arguments 6-8,11,16), and disagree with them for the most part or completely with four (arguments 10,12,15,17). I admire though the clarification that Ben, David, and Nick put at the beginning of their piece and I make the substance of it my own in concluding this "counter-missive" of my own -so I will quote them at this time in a final footnote{5} and hope this response is of assistance in some way or another.
Notes:
{1} This is a complex theological subject matter which I went over in years past in outline form for those who are interested:
An Outline of Various Church Models Throughout History (circa November 23-24, 2003)
{2} One thing that's always interested me about Shawn's position is his notation of Augustine's doctrine of merit being that God crowns His own gifts in us. [Tim Enloe (circa April 15, 2007)]
{3} If Ben, David, and Nick are merely trying to say that this argument can easily be overdone and taken beyond the point to where it is useful then I agree with them wholeheartedly. If they are trying to say it is not a good argument at all period then I do not.
{4} Namely, the part where I noted this:
"Requiring those who advocate for a position or idea to be consistent is not a bad argument at all but instead it is at the very heart of respecting reason and logic."
Again, I do not accuse any of them of failing to follow this principle -indeed the principle behind their article to a certain extent presupposes it.
{5} To reiterate their introduction at this time:
The following is a list of arguments against Protestantism which, in our judgment, Catholics should not use, either because they are not true, or because, while they might be true, it is impossible to prove that they are, for a plausible alternative explanation of the data exists. This is certainly not a complete list: it is merely one missive fired for intellectual honesty. Neither is it an infallible list: it is possible that one or more of these arguments might be saved. [LINK]
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Revisiting the Subject of Argument by "Expert Opinions":
I have written on this subject many times before but for the sake of time constraints will limit myself to only three such references chosen at random from the archives of this weblog.{1} In the meantime, as this matter comes up from time to time when engaged in arguing a position with people, it seems appropriate to revisit it at various intervals and I intend to do that now courtesy of something I wrote last year in the combox of someone else's weblog and saved for a possible later posting. Without further ado...
So often major discoveries have been made by “non-experts” who have not limited themselves to what the “experts” have said cannot be done. The example of the Wright Brothers vs. the Esteemed Lord Kelvin of the British Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge is only one of many examples. And as you will see if you read Lord Kelvin’s file on Wikipedia, he was a brilliant highly credentialed man and an inventor/innovator of his own right. But in some areas he had some blind spots -the statement he made on the impossibility of machines heavier than air flying (made in 1895) was one. He also claimed in 1897 that “radio has no future” which we all know is patently false. Then there was his 1900 claim that “[t]here is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement” -a statement made five years before Einstein’s famous 1905 paper on relativity was published.
I note this example because Lord Kelvin was a physicist. And he is far from the only “expert” to have been seriously disproved in one or more areas within their own fields of expertise by upstarts without their credentials or pedigree. I posted back in January of 2007 in one of my “points to ponder” threads a slew of “experts” whose “authoritative pronouncements” were later disproved by non-experts. This is why opinions and conclusions should never be accepted uncritically by anyone regardless of their “expert” status. [Written on August 25, 2008]
Note:
{1} Here they are in order from most recent to oldest:
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Usages Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)
Points to Ponder on Logic Being a Special Preserve of the Learned (circa February 11, 2006)
On Proper and Improper Approaches to Argumentation (circa May 14, 2005)
I have written on this subject many times before but for the sake of time constraints will limit myself to only three such references chosen at random from the archives of this weblog.{1} In the meantime, as this matter comes up from time to time when engaged in arguing a position with people, it seems appropriate to revisit it at various intervals and I intend to do that now courtesy of something I wrote last year in the combox of someone else's weblog and saved for a possible later posting. Without further ado...
So often major discoveries have been made by “non-experts” who have not limited themselves to what the “experts” have said cannot be done. The example of the Wright Brothers vs. the Esteemed Lord Kelvin of the British Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge is only one of many examples. And as you will see if you read Lord Kelvin’s file on Wikipedia, he was a brilliant highly credentialed man and an inventor/innovator of his own right. But in some areas he had some blind spots -the statement he made on the impossibility of machines heavier than air flying (made in 1895) was one. He also claimed in 1897 that “radio has no future” which we all know is patently false. Then there was his 1900 claim that “[t]here is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement” -a statement made five years before Einstein’s famous 1905 paper on relativity was published.
I note this example because Lord Kelvin was a physicist. And he is far from the only “expert” to have been seriously disproved in one or more areas within their own fields of expertise by upstarts without their credentials or pedigree. I posted back in January of 2007 in one of my “points to ponder” threads a slew of “experts” whose “authoritative pronouncements” were later disproved by non-experts. This is why opinions and conclusions should never be accepted uncritically by anyone regardless of their “expert” status. [Written on August 25, 2008]
Note:
{1} Here they are in order from most recent to oldest:
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Usages Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)
Points to Ponder on Logic Being a Special Preserve of the Learned (circa February 11, 2006)
On Proper and Improper Approaches to Argumentation (circa May 14, 2005)
'El no habla': Obama jumbles Cinco de Mayo salute
They called President Bush a "dummy" when this sort of stuff happens. I wonder if the late night comedians will mock President Obama mercilessly over this or if they will ignore it. The late night comedian presidential double standard -much as with the mainstream media presidential double standard- undoubtedly will continue.
They called President Bush a "dummy" when this sort of stuff happens. I wonder if the late night comedians will mock President Obama mercilessly over this or if they will ignore it. The late night comedian presidential double standard -much as with the mainstream media presidential double standard- undoubtedly will continue.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Briefly on Ethics and Modifying Past Posts to This Weblog's Archives
Though I do not delete things from the archives of this weblog, there are at times modifications made to older threads. When said modifications are in the area of either fixing spelling mistakes or grammatical glitches, I do not say anything about it but when major additions are made to something, it is my custom in the thread so revised to note these things in the form of an small update or clarification of some kind.
With that in mind, I was perusing a thread written years ago today before sending a link to it in an email circular because I needed to remind myself of what I wrote then so I could be prepared if necessary to defend it. In doing so, I noticed that I overlooked in the sequence of sources one document I was to deal with in a commentary in the month following the original publication of that series. I do not intend to link to it here or even to the series in question but I wanted to note here that as is my wont on this weblog when changing past postings beyond simple grammar or spelling fixes that I added a couple of citations from the previously overlooked source at the very beginning of the post involved, wrote some necessary segues to integrate it fully into what I originally wrote, and have linked this clarifying note to the beginning of the aforementioned modified thread in the interest of greater clarity on that matter thereof.
My notation of these actions in a brief musing at this time is in the interest of disclosure. I view as ethically necessary to clarify a principle I have always followed but not to my knowledge ever said much explicitly about at least publicly.
Though I do not delete things from the archives of this weblog, there are at times modifications made to older threads. When said modifications are in the area of either fixing spelling mistakes or grammatical glitches, I do not say anything about it but when major additions are made to something, it is my custom in the thread so revised to note these things in the form of an small update or clarification of some kind.
With that in mind, I was perusing a thread written years ago today before sending a link to it in an email circular because I needed to remind myself of what I wrote then so I could be prepared if necessary to defend it. In doing so, I noticed that I overlooked in the sequence of sources one document I was to deal with in a commentary in the month following the original publication of that series. I do not intend to link to it here or even to the series in question but I wanted to note here that as is my wont on this weblog when changing past postings beyond simple grammar or spelling fixes that I added a couple of citations from the previously overlooked source at the very beginning of the post involved, wrote some necessary segues to integrate it fully into what I originally wrote, and have linked this clarifying note to the beginning of the aforementioned modified thread in the interest of greater clarity on that matter thereof.
My notation of these actions in a brief musing at this time is in the interest of disclosure. I view as ethically necessary to clarify a principle I have always followed but not to my knowledge ever said much explicitly about at least publicly.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
On the Subject of CIA Interrogation of Terrorist Suspects In Light of Recent Events:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I want to start this posting by giving a smattering of links from various recent and older media source before getting to the crux of this posting:
The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture (The Wall Street Journal)
Intel Chief: Harsh Techniques Brought Good Info (MSNBC)
Obama Muddles...Message (Politico)
Intel director: High-Value Info Obtained (Breitbart)
Cheney Calls for Release of Memos Showing Results of Interrogation Efforts (Fox News)
Dick Cheney calls for release of CIA Waterboarding Success Memos (Telegraph/UK)
Cheney to Obama: Release All CIA Interrogation Memos (CNN)
Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002 (Washington Post circa December 9, 2007)
Now many will try to approach this from predictable polarity points and the use of the word "torture" will inexorably be brought out by those opposed to certain methods of interrogation. Others in defending those methods will point to the success they may or may not have had in procuring valuable intelligence information. There are those who will defend the release of these memos and those who would oppose their release and also those who take the view that if certain ones should be released than they all should be. Your humble servant wants to avoid the surface quibbles and get to the core of the matter --something that those who bring these issues up the most continually try to avoid and that is the purpose of the material you have before you.
From the very beginning of my more active involvement in what became known in some quarters as "the torture controversy"{1}, I insisted on a fundamental principle of reason and logic; namely, defining the terms one uses in discourse:
To start with, the notion of defining the terms that someone uses is so elementary that we are frankly embarrassed that it needs to even be mentioned. But experience has shown that the best way to deal with pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of various stripes is to insist on this principle at all times. This is why we have insisted with greater frequency over the years[...] that those who want to be taken seriously define their terms much as we always have done. The willingness or lack thereof of anyone to conform to this fundamental principle of rational thought has always served as a kind of acid test by your host in ascertaining the integrity or lack thereof of a positional adversary. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 13, 2006)]
But readers of this weblog know I required that all along even if my explicit demands for such things have admittedly increased with time. Those readers who may have wondered why I insisted upon a workable definition for the word "torture"{2} all along{3} and every time this subject came up{4} -be it in incendiary{5} or irenic{6} contexts- you now have an answer on the whole "torture" issue. This is also the reason your host --in the face of all the public wailing and gnashing of teeth over a word that the most frequent of the public whiners on this subject used-- demanded that such people give a workable definition{7} or basically shut the hell up altogether. The principle behind this request should be obvious but since some parties more interested in obfuscation and fog than clarity and light continue to evade it, I restate it anew from words previously used on this weblog in the form of a general principle:
When the term in question is not given a definition, it is subject to a variety of applications some proper and some improper.
That summation{8} encapsulates the principle by which I have always approached this and other subject matters. I have never been interested in television scenarios from shows I have never watched. Nor have I been insisting on defining terms that are used as some sort of game of making excuses for anybody. But the bottom line is, words mean things. And when you have different parties who use the same terms, then those parties in exercising their right to give an opinion --if they are to have any credibility whatsoever as either sound thinkers or ethical persons-- have a corresponding moral obligation. They are morally obligated to strive for clarity not obfuscation, light and not fog, and to give a proper accounting of all pertinent data not merely that which they think supports their views while ignoring that which may not.
All people regardless of their views should be held to these standards. Failure to do so and any attempts made to evade this simple requirement of both ethics and common charity demonstrates a serious lack of a spine on their part as well as a corresponding lack of credibility.{9} Words mean things.{10}
This posting will stand in perpetuity as a testimony to why I approach subjects the way I do. It will also serve to illustrate why I have such a low opinion for those who act as if such things as defining the words one uses is somehow beneath basic charity and human decencies.{11} Now certainly those who try to avoid the realm of the ethical on these sorts of matters do not mind bearing false witness{12} against anyone who dares to question their simplistic and erroneous presuppositions -regardless of whatever they may say to the contrary.{13} But more than that, this kind of irrational hermeneutic has a way of inexorably working its way into any subject that these kinds of unethical, uncharitable, and worthless excuses for human beings touch on in some form or another.{14} The end result of the process is said persons become as bereft of their intellectual and moral senses as Helen Keller was of her physical ones.
Such persons --who criticize others for supposedly making "fine distinctions" while they themselves make no distinctions only end up looking pretty stupid in the end when the truth they played no small part in attempting to hide from or dissuade others from finding eventually becomes better known. Let the following post stand as a testament to the idea that it is better to get things right from the beginning --or, at the very least utilize a methodology that greatly improves one's chances of being right in the end. And this writer can think of no better principle to follow (apart from basic charity and ethics) than one that respects reason and logic which intrinsically demands that the words used to express oneself be given workable definitions. Without them, reason and logic cannot operate. And that's the bottom line.
Notes:
{1} On Torture and General Norms of Interpretation --Parts I-III (circa October 13, 2006)
{2} [O]n the subject of torture we are asking those who have seized on this as a major agenda item of theirs to give the rest of us the most basic of courtesies and explain themselves. Define for us what in a workable sense constitutes "torture" and what does not. Notice we are not asking for an abstract manualist definition of the term but one which can be applied to real life situations with reasonable assurance that it provides a point of reference on the subject in question. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 13, 2006)]
{3} To note what I believe is my earliest involvement in any recognizable capacity on the subject of what does and does not constitute "torture":
[XXXX XXXX's] "Torture Poll"
This whole scenario is reminding us of something spoken of last year pertaining to those who use terms they do not bother to define or who otherwise shirk from doing so when challenged to do so.[...] But enough on that matter for now. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 3, 2006)]
Readers can click on the links to see the person to whom I was referring -my interest here (as almost always) is to recall the principles of the dispute and not make this an issue of personalities.
{4} See footnote three and the quote from December of 2005. (One of the parties I had in mind when originally writing that passage was [XXXX XXXX] and the subject involved was the one I referred to back on July 3rd of this year.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 17, 2006)]
{5} For the sake of keeping this posting more to the irenic side, I will merely note that the archives of this weblog contain not a few less-than-irenic treatments on this matter and will leave it to the reader to track them down if they are so inclined.
{6} To give one example of being fairly irenic when (considering the person I was responding to) all my instincts were to the contrary on this matter:
On Coercion, the War on Terror, "Torture", and Fantasy Scenarios --Parts I-III (circa June 28-30, 2008)
{7} Defining the Word "Torture" Since No One Else Will -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Posting (circa November 18, 2006)
{8} See footnote six.
{9} One of the problems I have with most bloggers or commentators in any genre is their frequent unwillingness to define their terms. Failure in this area is both dishonest as well as lazy. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa June 23, 2006) as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa July 3, 2006)]
{10} Definitions are the tools of thought. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 17, 2004)]
{11} This principle was encapsulated in various and sundry ways at this weblog long before the whole "torture controversy" broke out involving (among other things) personal attacks on yours truly. To note one such example that I recalled and was able with the aid of a simple archival search to dig up:
[W]atch those who are incapable of giving a reasonable working definition of "rights" to claim that there is one. Definitions are the tools of thought and frankly, those who are not willing to define their terms do not deserve to be taken seriously...whether they are misappropriating the term "rights", "neo cons", or whatever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005)]
And to note another example from over four years ago:
My interest in any social commentary is in formulating workable solutions to societies problems and not just regurgitating the canned "Catholic" responses...
Every entry which falls into this area intends to either advance, fortify, recall, or develop further the kind of core principles that enable someone to provide a coherent and consistent (not to mention workable) alternative to the ideas which permeate society at large in the present day. The reason for this is because definitions are the tools of thought.[...] I refuse to merely go along with "status quo" nebulous concepts -but apparently that is what one has to do to be considered a "social commentator"... [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 7, 2005)]
Like all solid principles, it has a variety of applications and is timeless in its validity thereof.
{12} A Case Study in the Importance of Reason and Logic (circa August 29, 2007)
{13} See footnote ten and also remember that while words mean things, actions speak louder than any words so judge these sorts by what they do not what they say. And remember, Pharisees in any era are quite good at talking the talk of acting in principle, acting morally, and being ethical but not so good walking the walk when the rubber meets the road if to do so proves to be an inconvenience for them.
{14} On "Consequentialism", "Proportionalism", and a Lesson in General Norms of Interpretation Theological and Otherwise (circa October 6, 2008)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I want to start this posting by giving a smattering of links from various recent and older media source before getting to the crux of this posting:
The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture (The Wall Street Journal)
Intel Chief: Harsh Techniques Brought Good Info (MSNBC)
Obama Muddles...Message (Politico)
Intel director: High-Value Info Obtained (Breitbart)
Cheney Calls for Release of Memos Showing Results of Interrogation Efforts (Fox News)
Dick Cheney calls for release of CIA Waterboarding Success Memos (Telegraph/UK)
Cheney to Obama: Release All CIA Interrogation Memos (CNN)
Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002 (Washington Post circa December 9, 2007)
Now many will try to approach this from predictable polarity points and the use of the word "torture" will inexorably be brought out by those opposed to certain methods of interrogation. Others in defending those methods will point to the success they may or may not have had in procuring valuable intelligence information. There are those who will defend the release of these memos and those who would oppose their release and also those who take the view that if certain ones should be released than they all should be. Your humble servant wants to avoid the surface quibbles and get to the core of the matter --something that those who bring these issues up the most continually try to avoid and that is the purpose of the material you have before you.
From the very beginning of my more active involvement in what became known in some quarters as "the torture controversy"{1}, I insisted on a fundamental principle of reason and logic; namely, defining the terms one uses in discourse:
To start with, the notion of defining the terms that someone uses is so elementary that we are frankly embarrassed that it needs to even be mentioned. But experience has shown that the best way to deal with pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of various stripes is to insist on this principle at all times. This is why we have insisted with greater frequency over the years[...] that those who want to be taken seriously define their terms much as we always have done. The willingness or lack thereof of anyone to conform to this fundamental principle of rational thought has always served as a kind of acid test by your host in ascertaining the integrity or lack thereof of a positional adversary. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 13, 2006)]
But readers of this weblog know I required that all along even if my explicit demands for such things have admittedly increased with time. Those readers who may have wondered why I insisted upon a workable definition for the word "torture"{2} all along{3} and every time this subject came up{4} -be it in incendiary{5} or irenic{6} contexts- you now have an answer on the whole "torture" issue. This is also the reason your host --in the face of all the public wailing and gnashing of teeth over a word that the most frequent of the public whiners on this subject used-- demanded that such people give a workable definition{7} or basically shut the hell up altogether. The principle behind this request should be obvious but since some parties more interested in obfuscation and fog than clarity and light continue to evade it, I restate it anew from words previously used on this weblog in the form of a general principle:
When the term in question is not given a definition, it is subject to a variety of applications some proper and some improper.
That summation{8} encapsulates the principle by which I have always approached this and other subject matters. I have never been interested in television scenarios from shows I have never watched. Nor have I been insisting on defining terms that are used as some sort of game of making excuses for anybody. But the bottom line is, words mean things. And when you have different parties who use the same terms, then those parties in exercising their right to give an opinion --if they are to have any credibility whatsoever as either sound thinkers or ethical persons-- have a corresponding moral obligation. They are morally obligated to strive for clarity not obfuscation, light and not fog, and to give a proper accounting of all pertinent data not merely that which they think supports their views while ignoring that which may not.
All people regardless of their views should be held to these standards. Failure to do so and any attempts made to evade this simple requirement of both ethics and common charity demonstrates a serious lack of a spine on their part as well as a corresponding lack of credibility.{9} Words mean things.{10}
This posting will stand in perpetuity as a testimony to why I approach subjects the way I do. It will also serve to illustrate why I have such a low opinion for those who act as if such things as defining the words one uses is somehow beneath basic charity and human decencies.{11} Now certainly those who try to avoid the realm of the ethical on these sorts of matters do not mind bearing false witness{12} against anyone who dares to question their simplistic and erroneous presuppositions -regardless of whatever they may say to the contrary.{13} But more than that, this kind of irrational hermeneutic has a way of inexorably working its way into any subject that these kinds of unethical, uncharitable, and worthless excuses for human beings touch on in some form or another.{14} The end result of the process is said persons become as bereft of their intellectual and moral senses as Helen Keller was of her physical ones.
Such persons --who criticize others for supposedly making "fine distinctions" while they themselves make no distinctions only end up looking pretty stupid in the end when the truth they played no small part in attempting to hide from or dissuade others from finding eventually becomes better known. Let the following post stand as a testament to the idea that it is better to get things right from the beginning --or, at the very least utilize a methodology that greatly improves one's chances of being right in the end. And this writer can think of no better principle to follow (apart from basic charity and ethics) than one that respects reason and logic which intrinsically demands that the words used to express oneself be given workable definitions. Without them, reason and logic cannot operate. And that's the bottom line.
Notes:
{1} On Torture and General Norms of Interpretation --Parts I-III (circa October 13, 2006)
{2} [O]n the subject of torture we are asking those who have seized on this as a major agenda item of theirs to give the rest of us the most basic of courtesies and explain themselves. Define for us what in a workable sense constitutes "torture" and what does not. Notice we are not asking for an abstract manualist definition of the term but one which can be applied to real life situations with reasonable assurance that it provides a point of reference on the subject in question. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 13, 2006)]
{3} To note what I believe is my earliest involvement in any recognizable capacity on the subject of what does and does not constitute "torture":
[XXXX XXXX's] "Torture Poll"
This whole scenario is reminding us of something spoken of last year pertaining to those who use terms they do not bother to define or who otherwise shirk from doing so when challenged to do so.[...] But enough on that matter for now. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 3, 2006)]
Readers can click on the links to see the person to whom I was referring -my interest here (as almost always) is to recall the principles of the dispute and not make this an issue of personalities.
{4} See footnote three and the quote from December of 2005. (One of the parties I had in mind when originally writing that passage was [XXXX XXXX] and the subject involved was the one I referred to back on July 3rd of this year.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 17, 2006)]
{5} For the sake of keeping this posting more to the irenic side, I will merely note that the archives of this weblog contain not a few less-than-irenic treatments on this matter and will leave it to the reader to track them down if they are so inclined.
{6} To give one example of being fairly irenic when (considering the person I was responding to) all my instincts were to the contrary on this matter:
On Coercion, the War on Terror, "Torture", and Fantasy Scenarios --Parts I-III (circa June 28-30, 2008)
{7} Defining the Word "Torture" Since No One Else Will -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Posting (circa November 18, 2006)
{8} See footnote six.
{9} One of the problems I have with most bloggers or commentators in any genre is their frequent unwillingness to define their terms. Failure in this area is both dishonest as well as lazy. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa June 23, 2006) as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa July 3, 2006)]
{10} Definitions are the tools of thought. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 17, 2004)]
{11} This principle was encapsulated in various and sundry ways at this weblog long before the whole "torture controversy" broke out involving (among other things) personal attacks on yours truly. To note one such example that I recalled and was able with the aid of a simple archival search to dig up:
[W]atch those who are incapable of giving a reasonable working definition of "rights" to claim that there is one. Definitions are the tools of thought and frankly, those who are not willing to define their terms do not deserve to be taken seriously...whether they are misappropriating the term "rights", "neo cons", or whatever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005)]
And to note another example from over four years ago:
My interest in any social commentary is in formulating workable solutions to societies problems and not just regurgitating the canned "Catholic" responses...
Every entry which falls into this area intends to either advance, fortify, recall, or develop further the kind of core principles that enable someone to provide a coherent and consistent (not to mention workable) alternative to the ideas which permeate society at large in the present day. The reason for this is because definitions are the tools of thought.[...] I refuse to merely go along with "status quo" nebulous concepts -but apparently that is what one has to do to be considered a "social commentator"... [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 7, 2005)]
Like all solid principles, it has a variety of applications and is timeless in its validity thereof.
{12} A Case Study in the Importance of Reason and Logic (circa August 29, 2007)
{13} See footnote ten and also remember that while words mean things, actions speak louder than any words so judge these sorts by what they do not what they say. And remember, Pharisees in any era are quite good at talking the talk of acting in principle, acting morally, and being ethical but not so good walking the walk when the rubber meets the road if to do so proves to be an inconvenience for them.
{14} On "Consequentialism", "Proportionalism", and a Lesson in General Norms of Interpretation Theological and Otherwise (circa October 6, 2008)
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Points to Ponder:
(And One Reason Your Host Has Long Read Foreign Papers)
Why do I, a US citizen, have to read the Telegraph for any sort of criticism of this President? The Press in America doesn't care about results. They care about intentions. Gee those Democrats care. See them caring? Who cares if we shred the Constitution? Who cares if we set bad precedents? Who cares if we bankrupt generations? Our media is far too invested in Obama to give honest assessments and criticism is almost unheard. Instead, we hear 4 days worth of reports on the stupid dog and Michelle's toned arms. In case it hasn't been noted, Obama's entire political career has been campaigning. He spent 147 days as a Senator and a few years as a Senator here in IL rubbing elbows with the corrupt Chicago Democrat Machine. Bob Woodward warned to keep an eye on Obama. He isn't who he pretends to be. I believe it. God help us all. ["KKNC" (circa April 29, 2009 @ 7:38 am)]
(And One Reason Your Host Has Long Read Foreign Papers)
Why do I, a US citizen, have to read the Telegraph for any sort of criticism of this President? The Press in America doesn't care about results. They care about intentions. Gee those Democrats care. See them caring? Who cares if we shred the Constitution? Who cares if we set bad precedents? Who cares if we bankrupt generations? Our media is far too invested in Obama to give honest assessments and criticism is almost unheard. Instead, we hear 4 days worth of reports on the stupid dog and Michelle's toned arms. In case it hasn't been noted, Obama's entire political career has been campaigning. He spent 147 days as a Senator and a few years as a Senator here in IL rubbing elbows with the corrupt Chicago Democrat Machine. Bob Woodward warned to keep an eye on Obama. He isn't who he pretends to be. I believe it. God help us all. ["KKNC" (circa April 29, 2009 @ 7:38 am)]
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Gore "Gored" by Lord Monckton
Here is a bit to supply some context before we comment on it:
UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington.
Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.
“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”
I love it when someone can not only talk smack but intelligently can back it up and props to Lord Christopher Monckton for being one of the very few who can do this on the issue of climatology. Though my view was already pretty solid on this matter and based solely on reason and logic{1}, there were admittedly areas I did not know much about or was not comfortable treading into. I therefore thank Lord Monckton for the sound education on this matter that reading his work{2} and listening to him on the radio{3} has supplied.
God bless Lord Christopher Monckton for standing up in principle against the irrational barbarians and spineless cowards who promote the horseshit of "global warming" as a way of trying to profit unethically off of other people.{4} And may the global warming apologist Al Gore grow a pair to face Monckton in public debate or shut the hell up on this matter once and for all!!!
Notes:
{1} Here are a few such threads from the archives where this matter is touched upon by us:
On the Fraud of "Global Warming" With Kevin Tierney and Greg Mockeridge (circa April 13, 2006)
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing (circa November 29, 2007)
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing (circa February 13, 2008)
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)]
More on "Global Warming" (circa December 27, 2008)
{2} Gore Gored -A Twenty Nine Page Response to Al Gore (Lord Christopher Monckton)
{3} I heard him on the radio the other day and was absolutely fascinated: something that I almost never am when listening to radio or television personalities.
{4} Sadly enough, whenever you have those who are apologists for certain viewpoints and there is a corresponding degree of time, finances, or other investments on their part. It is common in these situations for those so invested to have an interest in protecting the status quo even if it means either (i) giving a free pass on those who act unethically or (ii) acting unethically themselves.
Here is a bit to supply some context before we comment on it:
UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington.
Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.
“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”
I love it when someone can not only talk smack but intelligently can back it up and props to Lord Christopher Monckton for being one of the very few who can do this on the issue of climatology. Though my view was already pretty solid on this matter and based solely on reason and logic{1}, there were admittedly areas I did not know much about or was not comfortable treading into. I therefore thank Lord Monckton for the sound education on this matter that reading his work{2} and listening to him on the radio{3} has supplied.
God bless Lord Christopher Monckton for standing up in principle against the irrational barbarians and spineless cowards who promote the horseshit of "global warming" as a way of trying to profit unethically off of other people.{4} And may the global warming apologist Al Gore grow a pair to face Monckton in public debate or shut the hell up on this matter once and for all!!!
Notes:
{1} Here are a few such threads from the archives where this matter is touched upon by us:
On the Fraud of "Global Warming" With Kevin Tierney and Greg Mockeridge (circa April 13, 2006)
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing (circa November 29, 2007)
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing (circa February 13, 2008)
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)]
More on "Global Warming" (circa December 27, 2008)
{2} Gore Gored -A Twenty Nine Page Response to Al Gore (Lord Christopher Monckton)
{3} I heard him on the radio the other day and was absolutely fascinated: something that I almost never am when listening to radio or television personalities.
{4} Sadly enough, whenever you have those who are apologists for certain viewpoints and there is a corresponding degree of time, finances, or other investments on their part. It is common in these situations for those so invested to have an interest in protecting the status quo even if it means either (i) giving a free pass on those who act unethically or (ii) acting unethically themselves.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Briefly on So-Called "Gay Marriage":
The material below was revised slightly from material written by yours truly on April 21, 2009...
Marriage must have as a intrinsic component to it something that two people of the same sex are incapable of producing: children. I say this because since the dawn of time it has been understood that there was a requirement to establish a stable foundation for the next generation's cultivation and some special societal status to both recognize as well as encourage it. That is why every society in recorded history has had some kind of similar arrangement and whatever the variations it has taken, the one core and key component in all of its manifestations is that marriage requires people of the opposite sex. Furthermore, every society that has broken this barrier down has eventually become extinct: something that those who promote breaking that barrier down today would do well to consider.
This is not to say that every marriage requires children of course but the potential must be there at least intrinsic to the coupling. The day two genetic people of the same sex successfully procreate between the two of them is the day I will consider supporting gay marriage. But not before then!!!
The material below was revised slightly from material written by yours truly on April 21, 2009...
Marriage must have as a intrinsic component to it something that two people of the same sex are incapable of producing: children. I say this because since the dawn of time it has been understood that there was a requirement to establish a stable foundation for the next generation's cultivation and some special societal status to both recognize as well as encourage it. That is why every society in recorded history has had some kind of similar arrangement and whatever the variations it has taken, the one core and key component in all of its manifestations is that marriage requires people of the opposite sex. Furthermore, every society that has broken this barrier down has eventually become extinct: something that those who promote breaking that barrier down today would do well to consider.
This is not to say that every marriage requires children of course but the potential must be there at least intrinsic to the coupling. The day two genetic people of the same sex successfully procreate between the two of them is the day I will consider supporting gay marriage. But not before then!!!
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Miscellaneous Musings:
To touch briefly on a few subjects...
--I must admit I am surprised and very pleasantly so that the Seattle Mariners are off to such a splendid start. Principles I have long said this team needs to embrace to work best with the kinds of talent they have are being realized -hats off to the new general manager Jack Zduriencik for the hiring of Don Wakamatsu as the new coach. I look forward to the M's actually being a competitive team this year for the first time since the departure of "Sweet" Lou Piniella.
--I am working at the moment on a text to respond to both the recent release by the Obama Administration of certain so-called "torture memos" and also to address certain predictable parties with regards to their continuing promotion of irrationality and unethical evasions on these matters under the presumed mantle of some "higher morality" or whatever pretenses they attempt to cloak themselves in to confuse not a few people. I anticipate it will be done next week -it is substantially completed in draft form now but needs review and also perhaps a few more tidbits added. I intend with the text to point to some past statements and principles I have set down in greater expository fashion but for this text to be briefer and more concise than other treatments on this matter have been.
--Today is the anniversary of the birth of blues legend Albert King. I originally intended to finish a tribute I was writing last December to commemorate the anniversary of his passing for this occasion but was unable to for various and sundry reasons. I will therefore leave that draft for finishing hopefully by December if I have the time and inclination and will point the readers to a review I wrote for two of his albums on Amazon.com in years past and also what I wrote back in December of 2007 on the man and his music:
Musings on the 40th Anniversary of Born Under a Bad Sign (circa December 21, 2007)
In Session --Rough Draft of Eventual Amazon Book Review (circa January 20, 2006)
Live (written for Amazon in 2001; slightly revised today)
Rest in peace "Velvet Bulldozer"
To touch briefly on a few subjects...
--I must admit I am surprised and very pleasantly so that the Seattle Mariners are off to such a splendid start. Principles I have long said this team needs to embrace to work best with the kinds of talent they have are being realized -hats off to the new general manager Jack Zduriencik for the hiring of Don Wakamatsu as the new coach. I look forward to the M's actually being a competitive team this year for the first time since the departure of "Sweet" Lou Piniella.
--I am working at the moment on a text to respond to both the recent release by the Obama Administration of certain so-called "torture memos" and also to address certain predictable parties with regards to their continuing promotion of irrationality and unethical evasions on these matters under the presumed mantle of some "higher morality" or whatever pretenses they attempt to cloak themselves in to confuse not a few people. I anticipate it will be done next week -it is substantially completed in draft form now but needs review and also perhaps a few more tidbits added. I intend with the text to point to some past statements and principles I have set down in greater expository fashion but for this text to be briefer and more concise than other treatments on this matter have been.
--Today is the anniversary of the birth of blues legend Albert King. I originally intended to finish a tribute I was writing last December to commemorate the anniversary of his passing for this occasion but was unable to for various and sundry reasons. I will therefore leave that draft for finishing hopefully by December if I have the time and inclination and will point the readers to a review I wrote for two of his albums on Amazon.com in years past and also what I wrote back in December of 2007 on the man and his music:
Musings on the 40th Anniversary of Born Under a Bad Sign (circa December 21, 2007)
In Session --Rough Draft of Eventual Amazon Book Review (circa January 20, 2006)
Live (written for Amazon in 2001; slightly revised today)
Rest in peace "Velvet Bulldozer"
Monday, April 20, 2009
Points to Ponder:
(On the Principle of Truth)
I'm more interested in truth than in being proved right or wrong. We all benefit by learning the truth. The truth is our best friend, as it allows us to advance our knowledge. I'd be more than happy – ecstatic even – if someone could prove to me that my approach...was in error, because I could learn something from that. Not simply an opinion, on the matter, mind you, but to provide rational, demonstrable proof. [Mike Mentzer]
(On the Principle of Truth)
I'm more interested in truth than in being proved right or wrong. We all benefit by learning the truth. The truth is our best friend, as it allows us to advance our knowledge. I'd be more than happy – ecstatic even – if someone could prove to me that my approach...was in error, because I could learn something from that. Not simply an opinion, on the matter, mind you, but to provide rational, demonstrable proof. [Mike Mentzer]
"Illustrating Absurdity By Being Absurd" Dept.
This was originally going to be posted in substantially the same form back in June of 2006 but for reasons I cannot recall at the moment never was. Nonetheless, changing times and circumstances made a slight revision of the original posting required but in light of how our foreign policy appears to be viewed by the present administration, maybe the flaws in the Obama weltanschauung{1} can best be illustrated with a bit of humour (the last line of the poem excluded of course). Without further ado...
Little Melissa comes home from first grade and tells her father that they learned about the history of Valentine's Day.
"Since Valentine's Day is for a Christian saint and we're Jewish," she asks, will God get mad at me for giving someone a valentine?"
Melissa's father thinks a bit, then says "No, I don't think God would get mad. Who do you want to give a valentine to?"
"Osama Bin Laden," she says.
"Why Osama Bin Laden?" her father asks, in shock.
"Well," she says, "I thought that if a little American Jewish girl could have enough love to give Osama a valentine, he might start to think that maybe we're not all bad, and maybe start loving people a little. And if other kids saw what I did and sent valentines to Osama, he'd love everyone a lot. And then he'd start going all over the place to tell everyone how much he loved them and how he didn't hate anyone anymore."
Her father's heart swells with pride and he looks at his daughter with new found admiration. "Melissa, that's the most wonderful thing I've ever heard!"
"I know," Melissa says. "And once that gets him out in the open, the Marines could blow the shit out of him."
Note:
{1} Or as I have referred to in the past: false "peacemaking" being one of the many masks of modern marxism.
This was originally going to be posted in substantially the same form back in June of 2006 but for reasons I cannot recall at the moment never was. Nonetheless, changing times and circumstances made a slight revision of the original posting required but in light of how our foreign policy appears to be viewed by the present administration, maybe the flaws in the Obama weltanschauung{1} can best be illustrated with a bit of humour (the last line of the poem excluded of course). Without further ado...
Little Melissa comes home from first grade and tells her father that they learned about the history of Valentine's Day.
"Since Valentine's Day is for a Christian saint and we're Jewish," she asks, will God get mad at me for giving someone a valentine?"
Melissa's father thinks a bit, then says "No, I don't think God would get mad. Who do you want to give a valentine to?"
"Osama Bin Laden," she says.
"Why Osama Bin Laden?" her father asks, in shock.
"Well," she says, "I thought that if a little American Jewish girl could have enough love to give Osama a valentine, he might start to think that maybe we're not all bad, and maybe start loving people a little. And if other kids saw what I did and sent valentines to Osama, he'd love everyone a lot. And then he'd start going all over the place to tell everyone how much he loved them and how he didn't hate anyone anymore."
Her father's heart swells with pride and he looks at his daughter with new found admiration. "Melissa, that's the most wonderful thing I've ever heard!"
"I know," Melissa says. "And once that gets him out in the open, the Marines could blow the shit out of him."
Note:
{1} Or as I have referred to in the past: false "peacemaking" being one of the many masks of modern marxism.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Points to Ponder:
Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. [Alexander Hamilton]
Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. [Alexander Hamilton]
Dialogue...is a recognized method of the apostolate. It is a way of making spiritual contact. It should however have the following characteristics:
1) Clarity before all else; the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible. We can think of it as a kind of thought transfusion. It is an invitation to the exercise and development of the highest spiritual and mental powers a man possesses. This fact alone would suffice to make such dialogue rank among the greatest manifestations of human activity and culture. In order to satisfy this first requirement, all of us who feel the spur of the apostolate should examine closely the kind of speech we use. Is it easy to understand? Can it be grasped by ordinary people? Is it current idiom?
2) Our dialogue must be accompanied by that meekness which Christ bade us learn from Himself: "Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart." (Mt 11. 29.) It would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity.
3) Confidence is also necessary; confidence not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue. Hence dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides. It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good, and thus excludes all self-seeking.
4) Finally, the prudence of a teacher who is most careful to make allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, (Mt 7.6.) particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile. The person who speaks is always at pains to learn the sensitivities of his audience, and if reason demands it, he adapts himself and the manner of his presentation to the susceptibilities and the degree of intelligence of his hearers.
In a dialogue conducted with this kind of foresight, truth is wedded to charity and understanding to love. [Pope Paul VI: Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam §81-82 (c. 1964) as quoted in my writing On the Intricacies of Dialogue (c. 2003)]
1) Clarity before all else; the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible. We can think of it as a kind of thought transfusion. It is an invitation to the exercise and development of the highest spiritual and mental powers a man possesses. This fact alone would suffice to make such dialogue rank among the greatest manifestations of human activity and culture. In order to satisfy this first requirement, all of us who feel the spur of the apostolate should examine closely the kind of speech we use. Is it easy to understand? Can it be grasped by ordinary people? Is it current idiom?
2) Our dialogue must be accompanied by that meekness which Christ bade us learn from Himself: "Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart." (Mt 11. 29.) It would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity.
3) Confidence is also necessary; confidence not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue. Hence dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides. It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good, and thus excludes all self-seeking.
4) Finally, the prudence of a teacher who is most careful to make allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, (Mt 7.6.) particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile. The person who speaks is always at pains to learn the sensitivities of his audience, and if reason demands it, he adapts himself and the manner of his presentation to the susceptibilities and the degree of intelligence of his hearers.
In a dialogue conducted with this kind of foresight, truth is wedded to charity and understanding to love. [Pope Paul VI: Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam §81-82 (c. 1964) as quoted in my writing On the Intricacies of Dialogue (c. 2003)]
In Defense of Tax Havens
What is really sad is that a defense of tax havens is even necessary but the state to which people unfamiliar with the fundamental rights of man find themselves. Rather than expositate on the latter subject myself (and as time does not allow for me to), the above thread does a pretty good job so I will defer to it at the present time and reserve to myself the right to comment further later on as I see fit if and when I have the time and desire to.
What is really sad is that a defense of tax havens is even necessary but the state to which people unfamiliar with the fundamental rights of man find themselves. Rather than expositate on the latter subject myself (and as time does not allow for me to), the above thread does a pretty good job so I will defer to it at the present time and reserve to myself the right to comment further later on as I see fit if and when I have the time and desire to.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Gov. Perry Backs Resolution Affirming Texas’ Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment
While I would argue that his interpretation of the constitution is a bit too narrow if I was in the mood to quibble{1} -failing to account for necessary implied powers for example{2}- I nonetheless fully support the governor of Texas standing up to the federal leviathan and saying "enough" when it comes to federal encroachments onto state prerogatives. And before we can talk about the aforementioned implied powers aspect and what it lawfully entails{3}, we need to stop unchecked federal impositions into the states at the whim of federal legislators and bureaucrats. And as an important step in that direction, the governor of Texas deserves credit and he has the support of this writer.
Notes:
{1} Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009)
{2} See footnote one for some examples.
{3} Yes this can be unlawfully appealed to; ergo my distinction here.
While I would argue that his interpretation of the constitution is a bit too narrow if I was in the mood to quibble{1} -failing to account for necessary implied powers for example{2}- I nonetheless fully support the governor of Texas standing up to the federal leviathan and saying "enough" when it comes to federal encroachments onto state prerogatives. And before we can talk about the aforementioned implied powers aspect and what it lawfully entails{3}, we need to stop unchecked federal impositions into the states at the whim of federal legislators and bureaucrats. And as an important step in that direction, the governor of Texas deserves credit and he has the support of this writer.
Notes:
{1} Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009)
{2} See footnote one for some examples.
{3} Yes this can be unlawfully appealed to; ergo my distinction here.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Points to Ponder:
(On the Common Good)
It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn. [George Washington]
(On the Common Good)
It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn. [George Washington]
Responding to Various Statements About President Barack Hussein Obama:
This stuff was written between 7:47 and 7:50am Saturday morning in another publishing medium. The words of the person being responded to will be in dark green font. Without further ado...
Just for the record Dubya spent more than all the presidents that preceded HIM.
And Obama will under his watch see a larger amount of spending in the first two years than all eight of Dubya's.
Secondly Obama doesn't need a teleprompter
Then why does he use one for almost everything??? And why when he speaks without one does he sound like such a blithering idiot???
because he already runs circles around Bush both intellectually and verbally.
And you can prove this how??? Lest you forget, Obama is too much of a coward to let his transcripts from Harvard be released. Kerry did the same thing and though many people claimed he was an "intellectual" and Bush was an "idiot", only one person actually ran the numbers as best they could determine them from Kerry and Bush's military assessment tests and found that (i) Bush's IQ was with a high degree of probability higher than Kerry's and (ii) both men would score in the highest percentile of Americans. To wit:
This Just In: Kerry's IQ Likely Lower Than Bush's
Furthermore, Sailer like myself spent at least as much time criticizing Bush as he did defending him so for that reason, he cannot be accused of the sort of bias you display in your fawning love for Obama.
I am willing to wager that the reason Obama will not release the transcripts is that he did not do all that well and prefers to maintain this media myth that he is some ultra smart guy. But we unfortunately do not have a way of running a similar test in the absence of your hero's refusal to release his transcripts and a lack of similar military assessment tests to compare the two. Nonetheless, if you want to so easily dismiss a man with two Ivy League degrees including an MBA in business (Bush) and laud the supposed brilliance of someone whose understanding of how economies work is so pathetically laughable as to be an embarrassment (Obama), that is your prerogative. I knew more about how economies worked before I took economics than Obama seems to know now so if he is as smart as you claim, obviously it does not translate into economics knowledge.
Of course if he does actually know basic economics and still pushes what he is pushing than he is formally trying to destroy this country rather than materially and out of ignorance but there are no other alternatives than that based on what he is trying to push.
He already has more respect from foreign leaders than Dubya ever enjoyed.
Foreign leaders do not respect Obama. They like him because he is their lapdog and will not dare criticize them when warranted. You would like me too if I gave you a bunch of money but you would not respect me. Ditto for Obama and the foreign leaders of which you speak.
It is sad to see another black American embrace willingly the party that enslaved his ancestors, fought to keep them enslaved, founded the Ku Klux Klan after they were freed to try and put them back into slavery, enacted Jim Crow discrimination laws against them, fought desegregation, fought against Ike's Civil Rights Act of 1957, fought against LBJ's Civil Rights Act of 1964, fought against the Voters Rights Act of 1965, and has sought as a party and in general (with some notable exceptions I will admit) a variety of means to enslave black people both psychologically and economically all along. But that is probably why Martin Luther King was a Republican anyway -he believed in judging people by the content of their character not the colour of their skin. Remember that the next time someone brings race into the argument to attempt to discredit someone criticizing the incompetence of this president: they are spitting in the face of Dr. King and what he died for. And that's the bottom line.
This stuff was written between 7:47 and 7:50am Saturday morning in another publishing medium. The words of the person being responded to will be in dark green font. Without further ado...
Just for the record Dubya spent more than all the presidents that preceded HIM.
And Obama will under his watch see a larger amount of spending in the first two years than all eight of Dubya's.
Secondly Obama doesn't need a teleprompter
Then why does he use one for almost everything??? And why when he speaks without one does he sound like such a blithering idiot???
because he already runs circles around Bush both intellectually and verbally.
And you can prove this how??? Lest you forget, Obama is too much of a coward to let his transcripts from Harvard be released. Kerry did the same thing and though many people claimed he was an "intellectual" and Bush was an "idiot", only one person actually ran the numbers as best they could determine them from Kerry and Bush's military assessment tests and found that (i) Bush's IQ was with a high degree of probability higher than Kerry's and (ii) both men would score in the highest percentile of Americans. To wit:
This Just In: Kerry's IQ Likely Lower Than Bush's
Furthermore, Sailer like myself spent at least as much time criticizing Bush as he did defending him so for that reason, he cannot be accused of the sort of bias you display in your fawning love for Obama.
I am willing to wager that the reason Obama will not release the transcripts is that he did not do all that well and prefers to maintain this media myth that he is some ultra smart guy. But we unfortunately do not have a way of running a similar test in the absence of your hero's refusal to release his transcripts and a lack of similar military assessment tests to compare the two. Nonetheless, if you want to so easily dismiss a man with two Ivy League degrees including an MBA in business (Bush) and laud the supposed brilliance of someone whose understanding of how economies work is so pathetically laughable as to be an embarrassment (Obama), that is your prerogative. I knew more about how economies worked before I took economics than Obama seems to know now so if he is as smart as you claim, obviously it does not translate into economics knowledge.
Of course if he does actually know basic economics and still pushes what he is pushing than he is formally trying to destroy this country rather than materially and out of ignorance but there are no other alternatives than that based on what he is trying to push.
He already has more respect from foreign leaders than Dubya ever enjoyed.
Foreign leaders do not respect Obama. They like him because he is their lapdog and will not dare criticize them when warranted. You would like me too if I gave you a bunch of money but you would not respect me. Ditto for Obama and the foreign leaders of which you speak.
It is sad to see another black American embrace willingly the party that enslaved his ancestors, fought to keep them enslaved, founded the Ku Klux Klan after they were freed to try and put them back into slavery, enacted Jim Crow discrimination laws against them, fought desegregation, fought against Ike's Civil Rights Act of 1957, fought against LBJ's Civil Rights Act of 1964, fought against the Voters Rights Act of 1965, and has sought as a party and in general (with some notable exceptions I will admit) a variety of means to enslave black people both psychologically and economically all along. But that is probably why Martin Luther King was a Republican anyway -he believed in judging people by the content of their character not the colour of their skin. Remember that the next time someone brings race into the argument to attempt to discredit someone criticizing the incompetence of this president: they are spitting in the face of Dr. King and what he died for. And that's the bottom line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)