On Objective Principles and Subjective Circumstances Where Citing Sources Are Concerned...

[Prefatory Note: This was originally published to Facebook on June 12, 2012. -ISM]

This material is taken from a status posted by a friend of mine circa June 10, 2012. Here is said status for the sake of contextualizing what is said below -all names removed to eliminate the possibility of anyone taking this personally as my concern here is the principles involved, not the parties themselves. Without further ado...

‎"In some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception. For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail." ---The U.S. Supreme Court, in "Planned Parenthood v Casey" [1992]

And here are the words of my original comment on the thread:

I am presuming that you got that quote from someone and did not get it from the case itself. Because that quote above appears nowhere in the case texts. Here are the actual quotes:

"The Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed. Pp. 855-856.

...

It should be recognized, moreover, that in some critical respects, the abortion decision is of the same character as the decision to use contraception, to which Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and Carey v. Population Services International afford constitutional protection. We have no doubt as to the correctness of those decisions.

I should add here that the two parts above which were prooftexted for the manufactured quote in this status were from the members of the court that UPHELD Roe vs. Wade in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey!

The above words on my part got the following response on the thread which will be in bolded font. My response to them will be in regular font.

Shawn, the manufactured quote above takes a bit from the second paragraph you cite and the rest from the first. I don't think that is so bad.

I have a serious problem with playing fast and loose with citations.

The court did say both things.

That is an egregious butchering of what the Court said both in terms of ripping the statements from context as well as how they are presented. 

And I am quite sure XXXXXXX is aware that what he cites is from the rationale for upholding Roe v. Wade.

It is quite possible XXXXXXX got the citation from a pro-life website without checking it. I have learned over the years that pro-life websites are roughly as prone to miscite sources as anti-life sources are. That is why I said what I did where XXXXXXX is concerned: I cannot believe he would knowingly cite a quote in the manner above -it is highly unscholarly and blatantly disingenuous. XXXXXXX is from everything I know about him both scholarly as well as ethical. 

He isn't quoting it to approve of it, but rather to lay bare the way these folks think, and what they think is of more value than human life.

And how does this help matters when someone goes back to find the citation and discovers the unscholarly hack job that the above quote represents viz. what the Court actually said? This is not even a case of citing two things in sequence with an ellipse between the different parts -that would be ok. This is reformulating what was said and making it say something that the Court did not say for the sake of political agenda. 

Which is, to be explicit, the right to have sex without having to be prepared to raise children. Which they think is good and we think is bad.

By way of example, what would you say if someone did this with your last comment?:

"Which is, to be explicit, the right to have sex without having to be prepared to raise children. Which we think is good." 

Before you object, you did say all of that yourself in your last comment on the thread prior to mine. Heck, there is not a word in that sentence that you did not say. So by your rationale, you would have no right to take offense at someone misrepresenting your words like that. But you would take offense at it because that is not what you actually said as anyone who checks the comment you made can readily see. How is that any different than the quote above objectively speaking?

Look, I have blistered my adversaries over the years when I have caught them doing such things with sources they cite. For that reason, I cannot in the interest of both ethics and rational consistency turn a blind eye to my allies when they do the very same thing. It is a matter of objective truth insofar as such things are not right or okay when "the good guys" do it and wrong, deplorable or to be condemned when "the bad guys" do it. The subjective nobility of the cause is not the determining factor of the objective rightness or wrongness of the conduct undertaken but instead, said conduct is objectively wrong, period.

Points to Ponder:

It would seem that in the vacuum of our modern lives has morphed what we construe to be mistakes and “failures.” When we are able to live life without the atrocities and sacrifices of war, we somehow feel as though that our comfort should be juxtaposed onto war itself. Yet, Mr. Hanson paints a vivid landscape of what would be these same expectations during World War II. It is quite illuminating to see such a historian critique an era from the perspective of modern eyes and expectations foisting upon the “Greatest Generation” our ideas of mistakes and “failures.” ["Publius" (circa late May 2006)]

Chelsea Clinton: America Was ‘Too Sexist’ To Elect My Mom


In brief...

The drawer's dullest knife
Desperate for relevance
Poor homely Chelsea

Points to Ponder:

“I read to experience other places, other people. I write to describe a moment in my ordinary life. Sometimes there are scents, sometimes there are sounds. And I often wonder, is that enough? Maybe not if I wanted to make a living writing. Maybe not if I wanted to write the next great American novel, or publish a short story in the The New Yorker. But to write for my personal blog? Sometimes scent, sound, and a sense of ‘in this moment’ are enough. The poem about cooking an eggplant, that was enough for Natalie Goldberg; Williams’ poem written on a prescription pad, that is enough for me. Details are meaning enough. Being present in a moment is meaning enough. “ [Angela Badgley]

My latest contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile website{1} can be read HERE.

Note:

{1} "I link to the Musings From Exile website version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page; thereby ensuring that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 8, 2017)]

Points to Ponder:

“A great nation is like a great man:
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.
He thinks of his enemy
as the shadow that he himself casts.”
[Lao Tzu]

Briefly on War Atrocities, History, Selective Outrage, Etc. 

I must admit I am rather surprised at the moralizing outrage positions taken against ISIS{1} by certain sorts who every year or so bemoan the ending of WWII in the Pacific theater while glossing over what occurred at that time and place. I want to note at the present time that this thread is not an invitation to debate the issues surrounding the end of the war in the Pacific Theater -an issue that experience in past years showed was best limited only to the time of year where those events are anniversaried if they are addressed at all.{2} 

Having clarified that, I simply want to remind folks who had forgotten or who did not know that the war crimes committed by Imperial Japan dwarfed anything we have seen so far from ISIS. I point this out not to exonerate ISIS by any stretch mind you{3}, only to point to the amazing double standard folks take when figuratively or in reality{4} it is their ox being gored versus someone else's rather than being rationally and ethically consistent on the matter. But I digress.

Notes:

{1} Including the claim that they are "monsters" or some other dehumanizing tag being attached to them.

{2} For those who are interested, here is what was published on this site on that subject in years past:

Threads on the Atomic Bomb Subject and Various Factors Involved in Objectively Assessing the Moral and Ethical Ramifications Thereof--A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread (circa August 6, 2009)

I do not plan to say anything new on those matters anytime soon.

{3} I have zero sympathy for them whatsoever to be quite frank about it.

{4} This includes those who play the sob sister card for the purported “innocents” in the days of Imperial Japan but do not do this for the folks connected with ISIS.

My latest contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile website{1} can be read HERE.

As there is no shortage of folks across the political spectrum who are drinking various flavours of Kool Aid where the Trump Administration is concerned, it seems appropriate to remind folks of what my standard disclaimer on that subject entails:

I am one of the very few no BS commentators on the actions of the Trump Administration; meaning: you will get no BS from me on what they do. I call fair balls and strikes. I am no administration slappie unlike a lot of folks now who unfortunately were reactionary critics of Obama for eight years. Nor am I a reactionary critic either unlike a lot of folks who are now but were Obama slappies for eight years previously. If you are looking for either (i) uncritical and mindless fanbot worship of the Trump Administration or (ii) constant unrelenting criticism of everything the Trump Administration does, this page is not for you. If however, you are looking for someone who will call a fair strike zone and give credit to President Trump and his Administration where warranted and also criticize them when warranted, then you are at the right place!{2}

This same disclaimer applies to virtually every subject out there. To frame it another way, and since this site only recently became active again, for those who do not know or may have forgotten: I call fair balls and strikes on all subjects I write on. I do not believe in spin nor do I believe in being a slappie for any person or cause{3} -even those causes I happen to generally agree with.

And as the archives of Rerum Novarum more than adequately substantiates this claim; ergo, no more needs to be said on that at the present time.

Notes:

{1} "I link to the Musings From Exile website version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page; thereby ensuring that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 8, 2017)]

{2} Excerpt from the Musings From Exile Article Introduction and Page Disclaimer (circa April 5, 2017)

{3} Though I write from a predominantly conservative point of view politically and socially, I am a longtime Independent voter. I am therefore not wedded to conservatism and when I view it as wrong or lacking on an issue, I will where applicable say so. On moral and ethical matters, my position is within Catholic thought and this also applies to theological matters. However, with Catholic positions that fall outside the realm of doctrine, if I view a given position taken as wrong or lacking, said positions will hardly be blindly accepted by me no matter now predominant they may be.

Points to Ponder:

"A willingness to apologize is part of the willingness to shoulder responsibility, which is an important part of growing up. A mature person is supposed to feel regret when he or she has offended or upset some other person...Someone who rarely apologizes will seem unsympathetic and uninterested in coming to terms with others. He or she will seem overly proud. It may seem to a more dispassionate observer that that person is more insecure than arrogant, and unwilling to admit to a mistake for that reason." [Fredric Neuman M.D.]

My latest contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile website{1} can be read HERE.

It was actually was originally handled in a much shorter blurb to Rerum Novarum yesterday. After the project editor in a conference asked if anyone wanted this story for Jaded Politics, I figured since I already had a blurb done on it here at Rerum Novarum that I would take it and rework it a bit for that endeavour. The above link encapsulates the essence of yesterday's blurb but goes into greater detail on the subject with pictures and video.

Note:

{1} "I link to the Musings From Exile website version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page; thereby ensuring that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 8, 2017)]

A Public Notification To Dave Armstrong:

Dave,

It was brought to my attention that you are talking about me yet again behind my back on your Facebook page. In appropriately yellow font:

"I think Mary may have surpassed Shawn McElhinney's extraordinary insults from a fellow Catholic to me: his coming after I condemned the nuclear bombings of Japan and he thought they were fine and dandy according to Catholic teaching.

That record of the greatest insults from a Catholic has stood since 2005, so it's quite a feat for Mary to pass it.

It's hard to imagine that Mary's record will ever be beaten in my lifetime (unless she herself does it)."

To start with, Proverbs disapproves of this kind of behaviour: 

"The north wind brings forth rain, And a backbiting tongue, an angry countenance." [Proverbs 25:23]

Now you can try and convince yourself of whatever you want -and undoubtedly by your previous deleting of your history on these matters in years past, it makes such historical revision much easier for you. However, to talk about people behind their back when you know they are blocked from responding to thereby refute you is quite the act of cowardice. But beyond that, is this how you prepare for Holy Week?

Whatever else you do, kindly at least as long as you maintain your cowardly ban do not bring up my name at any time in any context whatsoever.

Having noted that, I do forgive you Dave. As Scripture says:

"And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses." [Mark 11:25]

I will also continue to pray for you.

[Update I: I have been informed that Dave has removed the reference now -presumably quietly and without fanfare much as the way the mainstream media makes their own corrections much quieter than their original proclamations. I will thus leave this note visible for another day and then consign it to private status pending any future violations of this sort in the future. (At which point it will again be made public.) -SM 4/12/17]

[Update II: As unfortunately, Dave cannot help himself and has a few times since this posting was consigned to draft status committed a few of the violations I spoke of back in 2017, I am due to his most recent behaviour once again making this posting public in perpetuity. -SM 1/12/20]

Woman Banned From Uber for Life After Threatening to Falsely Accuse Driver of Rape

This sort of story is a good reason to assert the following: any woman who falsely accuses a man of rape and has him charged should be imprisoned for the equivalent amount of time he would serve if convicted of such a charge.

By the way, the same principle goes for false claims in any other area as well (i.e. domestic violence). No one who engages in false accusations should be allowed to walk away unscathed from their lies. And this same principle should apply to cops who lie, prosecutors who during a trial who withhold evidence, etc. Furthermore, any and all false accusations should be treated as a felony.

Maybe if this kind of hard approach was taken, there would be a deterrent from such stuff.

More on the Controversial Dubia Subject:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I finished this material some time ago and have been debating with myself as to the best time to post it. I suppose there is no better time than the start of Holy Week, so I have decided to post it today. For those who have not seen the previous note on this subject, I recommend they read it first as it provides both some context as well as material for what is to follow.

To start with, I want to make it clear for any who object to the stance taken in the previous note that its not a requirement of the pope to respond to the four cardinals on their terms and whose “Dubia” is arguably worded in a somewhat disingenuous fashion. The reason I say this is simple: the answers are more complex than simple black and white yes and no answers. To illustrate that point in greater detail, I will touch on each question after posting them in their entirety first. Without further ado, let us get to it!

1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

My response to Question #1:

Question #1 as phrased above involves certain presuppositions and drastically over-simplifies the situations of the divorced and remarried.{1} It cannot for those reasons be answered in a one word yes or no format; therefore, to ask for an answer in that form as the four cardinals do comes off to these eyes as rather questionable viz their motives for reasons I specified in the previous note{2}.

2. After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

My response to Question #2: 

Question #2 suffers from the same kind of presuppositional flaws as Question #1 does above. The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) acknowledges that objective mortal sin is not always in individual circumstances actual mortal sin. How is that a denial of Veritatis Splendor's teaching on the existence of intrinsically grave sins? Simple, its not. But again, that cannot be explained with a simple yes or no answer and the cardinals who issued this “Dubia” should know this as its a pretty fundamental Catholic moral theology issue.

3. After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?

My response to Question #3: 

Question #3 is asking if the prohibition against adultery is still in force. Obviously it is. The assumption behind the question from all appearances is that any “objective situation of grave habitual sin” (“Dubia”) must ipso facto involve actual mortal sin. I touched on this in my prior note{3} but again, the attempt with the question to try and force a one word answer is at the very least suspicious.{4}

4. After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

My response to Question #4: 

Question #4 proposes a false dichotomy in the form of an argument which strives to make "circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility” incompatible with a condemnation of acts which are objectively intrinsically evil. This is a false dichotomy disingenuously masquerading as a question. Furthermore, it cannot be answered accurately with a single word yes or no so again, the cardinals who pushed this publicly contrary to the manner in which the Magisterium has said such issues should be handled{5} are for that reason at least deserving of a rebuke. I for one consider Pope Francis’ refusal to even acknowledge them on this to be an adequate rebuke but that is neither here nor there. Onto the final question.

5. After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

My response to Question #5: 

Question #5 is essentially a form of Neo-Feeneyism as it by logical extension treats every objectively grave act as automatically an actual mortal sin. In that sense, it is more or less a rehashing of Question #4. Like its predecessor question, this question involves presuppositions that fly in the face of Magisterial teaching (pre-Francis), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC){6}, and Doctors of the Church such as St Alphonsis Ligouri and St Thomas Aquinas. And like the prior questions, it cannot be accurately responded to in a one word answer which again, the drafters of the “Dubia” have to have known. We are not talking about ordinary Catholics in the pew here as for them this might not be so evident. No, these are Cardinals of the Roman Church so what is their excuse for either not knowing this or (if they did) disingenuously pretending they did not in issuing this purported “Dubia” to Pope Francis?

In summary, while I have my own issues with some of what Pope Francis has said and done -and even in some minor ways with this Apostolic Exhortation{7}; nonetheless, the Pope’s choosing to leave these four Cardinals hanging by not responding to their "Dubia" is hardly one of them.


Notes:

{1} In essence, the divorced and remarried can go to Confession and then receive Communion if they are striving to live chastely but nonetheless fall into sin of a grave nature. And as often as they continue to strive to live chastely and yet fail, as long as their repentance is sincere, God will forgive them in Confession and they can receive Communion. This is why discretion and the aid of a Confessor on these matters is of no small importance and is emphasized a number of times in AL.

{2} "[I]t is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth" (CDF: Instruction Donum Veritatis). By any objective observation, these Cardinals ran afoul of this Joseph Ratzinger penned and John Paul II approved Instruction by taking their issue public as they did.” [Excerpt from the Facebook Note Very Briefly On the Dubia (circa March 13, 2017) as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa April 9, 2017)]

{3} “The bottom line is this: the principle that every objectively grave act or situation is not automatically mortally sinful is not new.”  [Excerpt from the Facebook Note Very Briefly On the Dubia (circa March 13, 2017) as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa April 9, 2017)]

{4} See footnote two.

{5} "[I]t is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth." [CDF: Instruction Donum Veritatis as cited in the Facebook Note Very Briefly On the Dubia as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa April 9, 2017)]

{6} “The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.” [Excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church Part III, Section I, Chapter I, Article IV The Morality of Human Acts Section 1754 (circa October 11, 1992)]

{7} Sticking only to ecclesial matters here, I do believe that a greater emphasis on repentance and the Sacrament of Reconciliation as well as the importance of regularly receiving it for those who intend to receive Communion at mass would have been a worthwhile inclusion in AL. Also worth including could have been a recommended timeline of reception for folks who intend to continue receiving Communion on at least a weekly basis. (Say once every 3 months at least!) But that’s a subject for another time perhaps.

Very Briefly on the Dubia Subject...

As it is Lent and I am frankly beyond sick and tired of seeing the issue in question here be flogged in the feeds like a proverbial dead horse by the usual suspects, I am posting at this time with a few minor tweaks a note I wrote back in January which has been in draft form until now.{1} My words will be in regular font.

He should as the Roman Pontiff, answer [the] dubia

Why? To start with, the CDF has made it eminently clear in past instructions that "it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth" (CDF: Instruction Donum Veritatis). By any objective observation, these Cardinals ran afoul of this Joseph Ratzinger penned and John Paul II approved Instruction by taking their issue public as they did.

Also, the deliberate obtuseness involved here frankly does not do those prelates any credit. This is not that hard to figure out really and here is a hint: it involves the ethical methodology of casuistry or case based reasoning seeking to resolve moral problems by applying abstract rules to concrete or particular instances. Here is an article on the subject for your consideration:

LINK

The bottom line is this: the principle that every objectively grave act or situation is not automatically mortally sinful is not new. St. Alphonsus Ligouri wrote on this in the seventeenth century, heck St. Thomas Aquinas wrote on it in the thirteenth century. St. John Paul II noted in 1984 that "[c]learly there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint and which have an influence on the sinner's subjective culpability" (Ap. Ex Reconciliato et Paenitentia). All Pope Francis has done is take that principle and apply it to divorce and remarriage. The argument is not that the latter is not wrong or seriously sinful of course but instead that "[i]t can no longer simply be said that all those living in any ‘irregular situation’ are living in a state of mortal sin" (Ap. Ex. Amoris Laetitia). Discernment of individual cases is needed and that is for penitents and their confessors to do, not those outside the specific situation, be they folks on Facebook, folks who write for periodicals, or even Cardinals of the Church. This is really not all that difficult for those who are not determined to be obtuse about it.

Oh and before anyone gets mad at me, hey I am just "speaking hard truths in love" here folks. Most notably the hard truths that individual situations are not as black and white as many may wish. I realize this frustrates the desire of many folks to play the roles of James and John and ask Jesus if they can call down fire from heaven on all the sinners and heathens but I digress.

Note:

{1} I have a sequel to this note that addresses various objections that were posted when this material was originally posted in comment form a while back. It will be published to this website and elsewhere soon.

As its been a long while since I have published here, it seems appropriate to revisit briefly the subject of comments boxes. I have from day one not been a fan of them, have used them only sparingly in any publishing medium since that time, and have never used them here at Rerum Novarum. Rather than revisit that subject here at any detail, I will simply refer the reader to the last substantial treatment written here about them. After all, for the most part everything I would say now on the subject was already said back then so why invent the wheel anew? Without further ado...

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

My second contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile webpage{1} can be read HERE.

Note:

{1} I link to the Musings From Exile website version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page. (To ensure that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project.)

My third posting to Musings From Exile can be read HERE. In essence it is an old draft of expository musings from Rerum Novarum which was brought up from mothballs, revised slightly, and posted today. The subject is sports related and as the Masters tournament has concluded, it is on the issue of what is required of someone to be considered "Golf's Greatest."

My debut column as posted to Jaded Politics can be read HERE. I link to the Musings From Exile website version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page. (To ensure that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from the other project I am contributing to.) {1}

It may seem odd to try and keep that traffic from this website but when you work on a group project -be it in writing or other endeavours, you need to recognize the rules inherent in the respective projects involved. For that reason, to avoid any possibility of transgressing the latter, all material from Jaded Politics threads will be posted to the Musings From Exile website and shared to Rerum Novarum via the latter, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Note:

{1} I am simply going to note this point in a single footnote to all applicable threads for a while.

Musings From Exile: Introduction and Page Disclaimer

This is the inaugural posting from the Musings From Exile website outlining a little about the project I mentioned earlier that I would be involved with. For those who have questions as to how I view things in the interval since Rerum Novarum was suspended and now, I touch on it briefly there. In short, not much has changed in how I approach issues from my first involvements in online writing to the present but I digress.

Points to Ponder:

For everything there is a season,
And a time for every matter under heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die;
A time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
A time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
A time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to seek, and a time to lose;
A time to keep, and a time to throw away;
A time to tear, and a time to sew;
A time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate,
A time for war, and a time for peace.
[Ecclesiastes iii,1-8]

Notification of An Intended Return to Website Publishing:

Though it has been pondered a bit in sundry times and in divers occasions to return to this site, I could not find the motivation to do so apart from one specific circumstance a few years ago.{1} However, the motivation previously lacking has been found now with my planned involvement in an extensive writing project that I may touch on a bit here and there if I feel so inclined to.

While I will mainly be publishing on a new website that I have set up for that purpose{2}, it is also likely that I will resume posting here as well on subjects that will not be germane to the subjects to be written on there. However, upon resuming publication at this humble site, I will not have any set schedule for it as I did in years past where I sought to post at certain self-prescribed intervals of output.

Anyway, that is all for now until further notice.

Notes:

{1} I did subsequent to December of 2009 post revisions to some postings from 2006 which I had a few people tell me were far too polemical in tone and which had needlessly prolonged or otherwise exasperated an old feud. In the interest of seeking to heal wounds, I undertook a rather ambitious project reworking in more amiable tonality four posts which were particularly polemical in tonality and intent. But that is a subject for another time perhaps if ever I decide to revisit it which (quite frankly) is highly doubtful at this point.

{2} As for whether or not I will cross post links or material from that website here or not, I see no reason not to post material from there to this website as well. I have however decided that material composed for this website which are not germane to the specific project guidelines for the new website will not be posted there.

Notification of Suspension:

Unfortunately, Rerum Novarum has been a struggle to maintain with any degree of regularity in recent months.{1} It is now at a point of critical mass on many fronts and there is simply too much more stuff that will be focused on in the coming year. In applying anew and with greater determination on my part the theory of economics of Vilfredo Pareto on which I have written before to the principle of time-management, I am required at this time to suspend the current operative protocols of this humble weblog{2} indefinitely.

What is in the archives will remain there and posts which were planned for the coming months which are in unfinished draft status{3} will remain in the form they are currently in until I am both able as well as willing to get to them again. But as of the present posting, Rerum Novarum is hereby declared to be indefinitely suspended.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Notes:

{1} Actually, it has been this way for a good part of the past year essentially.

{2} The most recent operative protocols of Rerum Novarum were set forth in the following expository musing some time ago:

Reviewing Past Site Intentions, Some Current Tidbits, and Weblogging Policy For the Indefinite Future (circa January 11, 2008)

The aforementioned template will take effect once again should this suspension be lifted in the future and I start blogging again but as it sits now, they are to be considered superseded by what is outlined in this posting until further notice.

{3} Or even posts which are finished awaiting an opportune time or circumstance to occasion their posting.

It's Time to Explode the Myths About the New Deal

History repeats itself today because Dumbocrats do not learn from it. The New Deal prolonged and deepened a recession into a depression that was worse eight years into it than it was when it started and many of FDR's follies are being duplicated by the present administration. I have gone into this before in detail so rather than reinvent the wheel, I will simply put in a footnote the three part series where I did this in late 2006 responding to a rather misinformed individual{1} whose views on this are sadly not uncommon. Such lacunas in knowledge in my mind really make a good argument for home schooling in the more formative years in the absence of either solid charter schools or private education but that is a subject for another time perhaps.

Note:

{1} For a three part exposition on some of the myths of the New Deal that I wrote a few years ago on this humble weblog, see this thread for details:

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

The Tip of the Climategate Iceberg (Wall Street Journal)

Those who wonder why I have over the years to an increasing degree written on the subjects of argumentation fallacies, how to reason and apply logic, how to dialogue, and all that as well as emphasized the principle that logic and reason does not depend on ones academic degrees when disputing with people of various and sundry outlooks, I cannot think of a better illustration of why than the scandal of Climategate. It encapsulates in the magnitude and depth of its corruption by so-called "experts" precisely why I have always and will always take the approach towards issues and pronouncements on matters by so-called "experts" the way I do. And that is the bottom line really.

Obama Asked About Legalized Prostitution to Stimulate the Economy

We already have legalized prostitution in this country President Obama, look at what you and the Democrats are doing to try and get government run healthcare implemented for one such example. Oh and btw, you do not look good in black fishnets Mr. President!!!

Who Wants This Health Care "Reform"?

Someone should remind senators and representatives from Tennessee, Massachussets, Maine (earth to Snowe!!!), and Hawaii (not mentioned in the article but they had one that also went tits up) about the failures of such universal programs in their own states and ask them if they really want that nationally.

Alexander Hamilton, Economic Prophet

I cannot recommend Ron Chernow's book (of which the above article heavily excerpts) more highly for the detail and scope of what it undertakes to cover on one of the "forgotten Founding Fathers."

Points to Ponder:

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.

Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your children won’t decide when they’re in school where they will go or what they will do for a living. They will wait for the government to tell them where they will go to work and what they will do.

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.

Former Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”

So write, and if your representative writes back to you and tells you that he or she too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let them get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell them that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”

Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. [Ronald Reagan (circa 1961)]

Miscellaneous Musings on "ObamaCare":

This was originally written as a footnote for a posting in another publishing medium. Without further ado...

[I]f this health care crap goes through, I will be considered a criminal. Because I am not going to buy health insurance PERIOD unless it is a purely catastrophic-only policy. I do not want health insurance, I do not need it, I take reasonably good care of myself and am improving in this area with each passing year (hence I look younger now than I did ten years ago), I never go to the emergency room for anything, I pay cash every time I go to the doctor, and I do not want to subsidize those who are irresponsible with their own health choices. So if this crap is passed, I will be fined and will not pay that fine which means I will have a misdemeanor on my otherwise spotless record and probably spend time in jail on this. Those who wonder why I rarely comment on this list and am slacking on my blogging in recent months, the reason is I am working through various channels to build coalitions politically to fight this garbage.

And though I have said it for months in other mediums, I have predicted a 40 seat GOP pickup in the House next year (and 6 in the Senate) of which I note here for the record. Unlike a lot of commentators or apologists, if I am wrong on something I will admit to it later to the same extent in which the original comment was made. (In this case, a post-post script of a list posting.)

In the aftermath of the last election, I revised my prediction to be a 41 seat GOP pickup in the House because Owens will not win re-election.

All Falling Down (Victor Davis Hanson)

One problem with knowing history when most people do not is you can see when it is repeating itself and many people do not listen. VDH goes over recent and more ancient history and points to parallels that more people should be aware of. And of course his indictment of Obama's governing is one I would love to see an O-bot respond to but I am not holding my breath!!!

2010 Could Easily Be Disastrous For Democrats

This was originally supposed to be posted in early October but I was unable to finish it until now. Nonetheless, Sean Trende has a good article here on the Kilgore election prediction absurdities. I did not have a chance to write an analysis on Kilgore's article but Trende now makes any effort on my part in that area superfluous. I will accompany this with my own reasons for espousing this for what is going on{1} but here it is in a nutshell: I have been saying since June in various and sundry places{2} that I was predicting a 40/6 seat pickup for the Republicans in 2010.

My 40 seat prediction{3} is a number incidentally that Michael Barone has since come around to viewing as "dark horse possibility" as of late compared to "not a snowballs chance" which was his view only six weeks earlier. Charlie Cook is now saying the odds of 40 in the House picked up is in the "33-50% range" compared to earlier when he was not so bold.{4} Here were my thoughts on this matter as of five weeks ago as expressed elsewhere:

[T]he entire House is up for re-election and there are about 50 seats in districts that went for McCain that are Democratic. Add to that the fact that there are Democratic incumbents in weak districts who have voted for crap and tax and also for this health care boondoggle and also that more seniors vote in off-elections than any other constituency and the seniors are PISSED at Obama and the Dems. The Senate for the demographic alignment issues cannot be taken in this cycle (though 6 seats as I said would be a nice dent into their advantage and solidify a filibuster: out of 34 odd seats up in this cycle that is about as good as it could get) and Obama is not up for re-election for three years at that point. So the anger at these arrogant Democratic majorities running roughshod over the public will have to come out somewhere and my guess is the body of congress where everyone is up for re-election and which is chaired by the highly unpopular Nancy Pelosi (who herself will win with about 73% of the vote in her district and therefore does not have the same fear as many of her colleagues will). I remind you in 1994 there was a 54 seat pickup and the environment now is a lot worse than it was then because the bills people were pissed about back then (assault weapons ban and Clinton's 1993 budget raising taxes) are nothing compared to the ones now (crap and tax passing the House with all but 8 votes from Democrats, the government run- health care that the public does not want and which they have been trying to ram through without anyone being able to read). Despite it all, a 40 seat gain would not match the 54 seat gain from 1994 but it would be enough for them to lose the House. And it may even be worse than that.

People like Kilgore can keep telling themselves it will be nothing because the guys in Jaws did not need a bigger boat either!!!

Notes:

{1} I am not sure if I covered any of this on the weblog offhand and do not have time to look for it if I did.

{2} As far as this weblog goes, see footnote one.

{3} Which since Owens won in NY 23 I have subsequently revised to a 41/6 prediction.

{4} Instead, saying the odds were "less than 25%".

Harry Reid on the Cloture Vote Today (HotAir)

A lot could be said about this but basically: comparing those who do not want to imprison others to Leviathan as "Orwellian" puts the "iron" in "ironic" Senator Reid. Does the "D" after your name stand for "Douchebag", "Dumbshit", or both???

Video: Norah O’Donnell challenges teen Palin admirer to televised debate (Hot Air)

This has to be seen to be believed. I will be posting a thread written about three months ago which follows up on the theme of corruption in journalism but for the moment, this is a case study in how far the msm has degenerated.

Breitbart To AG Eric Holder: Investigate ACORN or We Will Release More Tapes Just Before the Election

Having already written in some detail on the subject of ACORN and corruption in recent months{1} along other matters pertaining to this issue{2}, I want to reiterate something I have said more than once in various and sundry other mediums if not this one:

Hannah Giles, James O'Keefe, and Andrew Breitbart are genuine journalists as well as heroes.

And considering how badly 2010 is already going to be for the Democrats{3}, this news from Andrew Breitbart could very well only compound things beyond even what I have predicted{4} will happen.

Notes:

{1} On ACORN and Corruption (circa October 1, 2009)

{2} On Hannah Giles, ACORN, and the Fourth Amendment (circa October 24, 2009)

{3} I will go over this later today when I have more time and motivation to.

{4} See footnote three.

while watching Red Eye
and catching up a bit here
with haikus and stuff
[Written just now]

To pick up on something I just noted in another posting, I was recently made privy to the fact that someone else has decided to take up the sort of stuff the now defunct Coalition of Fog used to do and run a weblog directed against the idiocies of one Mark Shea. I wish them the best of luck in retaining their sanity as they attempt to navigate the depths of Shea's psyche.

The Coalition For Fog may be gone now but thankfully not from the Internet Archive

when will it begin?
well, depends on what "it" is
Clinton flashback mode
[Written on 11/20/08]

Dallas Police Ticketed 39 Drivers in 3 Years For Not Speaking English

I can sympathize for those who are ticketed and certainly if the cops were not supposed to give tickets for failing to speak English, they should not have. But at the same time, I am SICK AND TIRED of people who come to this country or are here a generation or more who do not assimilate. You can keep your native traditions and language within your family, etc. but in order to vote, in order to drive, in order to receive any benefit whatsoever, you should assimilate and learn the English language. Otherwise get the HELL out of this country!!!

in the midnight hour
thinking of the one I love
and watching Red Eye
[Written just now]

Congressman Says He Now Has ‘About 40 Likeminded Democrats’ Who Will Vote to Kill Health Bill if He Doesn’t Get Floor Vote on Pro-Life Amendment

Though ultimately the above amendment was passed and Nancy Pelosi's proposed health care bill along with it by a narrow margin (220-115), the principles I wrote in another medium retain their validity.

To reiterate them at this time, I do not for a second believe anyone who claims something is "not in the bill" who then votes against amendments to insure that what is "not in the bill" is not later on snuck into said bill either by rider, interpretation, etc.{1} Abortion whatever you think about it is not "health care" and therefore an amendment like this -which insures that any bill passed cannot later be interpreted or applied to allow for abortion- is wholly appropriate. I would personally prefer to see this whole misguided attempt at so-called "health care reform" crumble and burn in toto but if something is going to get through, than the more innocuous and less damaging, the better.

Note:

{1} Such people are unethical hypocritical pieces of garbage and should be shunned by anyone who purports to take reason, logic, and ethics seriously.

On the White Hizzouse Targeting Fox News:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Prefatory Note: This material was originally written to expand further on something written in another publishing medium by a good friend on the subjects noted in the title of this posting. It is posted here slightly revised and sans the original material of interaction but those who want to know the context can review this speech by Senator Lamar Alexander delivered on the Senate floor today to understand the magnitude of the subject at hand. -ISM]

While I watch Fox less than most others of my general outlook who watch it, those who would find nothing wrong with Fox being attacked by a sitting president and his administration in many cases would have crapped their pants if President George W. Bush and his administration had tried similar things with the alphabet channels, CNN, or MSNBC. Apologists of various views often do not follow a simple but important principle that what is right or wrong is right or wrong period, not determined by who does a particular action. The government trying to intimidate or silence the press outside of rare circumstances{1} is wrong PERIOD. It is what happens in police states and banana republics, NOT a society purporting to be a free Republic such as ours which talks about the importance of free speech and democratic rights.

There is a reason that while the mainstream media is dying and the lions share of their papers and publications are dwindling in subscriptions and it is not because of the internet. I say this because similar declines are not only avoided by Fox News but also The Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily all of which are increasing in subscribers. The Washington Times saw a decline but roughly less than half a percent which is probably too small to consider any kind of trend. The pattern is that periodicals and networks that do not actually do investigative journalism and do not report the news are losing viewers and readers while those that do these things are increasing.

If anyone needs a case in point to substantiate this assertion, I will go one better and provide you with two:

1) CNN purports to "fact check" the SNL comedy skit mocking President Obama for his two presidential accomplishments (namely "jack" and "squat").

2) The biggest story of corruption in decades was uncovered by Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe in busting ACORN:{2} those two did more investigative journalism on that matter than every news network. And only Fox was willing to give them airtime. The others avoided it as long as they could and when they did report it, they tried to make excuses for ACORN and find ways of shooting the messengers.

Those two alone outline the reason why while I get most of my news from the web when I do turn on a television to watch the news, 95% of the time I turn to Fox News. And the actions by the Obama administration only make me more determined in that choice. Any liberal who would claim to want "free speech" who would NOT defend Fox News from government intrusion and intimidation is a hypocrite and deserves to be exposed as such. (Conversely, any liberal who would go to bat for Fox News against government intrusion and intimidation deserves to be commended for their principled stand.)

Notes:

{1} There are very few of these areas and I am not about to go over them now except to state that the general rule I refer to here does have a few exceptions.

{2} I went over this subject in an expository musing on ACORN and corruption written mostly in mid September but completed and finally posted with last minute updates on October 1, 2009.

Briefly on the Al Cy Young:

The AL Cy Young was given recently to Zach Greinke of Kansas City. The following were my original statements made on October 4, 2009 in another publishing medium as to who should get it this year -later buttressed by additional arguments to sustain my original assertions but here were my original thoughts on the matter which remain unchanged in lieu of the recent news.

CC Sabathia in my mind blew his shot at the Cy Young by failing to win his 20th game in his final start and thus giving some limp to the Yankees going into the playoffs. Zach Greinke by blowing his final start should also lose out on the Cy Young since he had a chance to play spoiler for the Twins' playoff chances and did not get the job done.

King Felix won his 19th game and with an ERA in the 2's with the third fewest walks (after Greinke and Roy Halliday) is therefore is my defacto pick for the Cy Young. In my mind, besides the stats a player should do whatever he can to advance his team so the jury is still out on Verlander in my mind but if he loses today, no Cy Young for him give it to King Felix.

till death do us part
words often spoken but yet
rendered meaningless
[Written on 10/16/08]

The Inevitability Myth

Matthew Continetti is right: the idea that "they will get something done on health care" that is being floated around by pundits of various stripes is playing into a myth. There is nothing in stone saying that they will get anything done and when you look at the magnitude of the hurdles and the various competing and often glaring contradictions in different constituencies, etc., it should be glaringly evident that it will be darn difficult to pass even a severely watered down bill that will make all parties in the House happy{1}, likewise in the Senate. Then said divergent congressional bills would have to be reconciled in a way to make all parties happy and pass both houses before the president could sign and seal the deal. In other words, A LOT to do and quite possibly impossible. Keep your chins up, keep calling congresspeople and senators, and keep fighting folks!!!

Note:

{1} I originally wrote this for another publishing medium in the days before the House voted on Pelosi's bill last Saturday night barely passing it 220-215. Other than the bit footnoted, I stand by the rest of what is noted above.

Berkeley Breathed, drawn back to 'Bloom County' but looking forward | Hero Complex (Los Angeles Times)

Yeah Berke Breathed is mostly a liberal but I gotta admit that I miss Bloom County and am looking forward at some point in the future to getting the five volume anthology of every strip ever drawn.

Al Gore sued by over 30,000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud


The sad thing is, most people are so bereft of the concept of logic and how to use it, so incapable of using their intellectual faculties to discern that they often buy what anyone with a degree on something tells them. I have no degrees in climatology, just a lot of horse sense and I have been saying for years that this is a bunch of cowcrap. For crying out loud, Greenland is a sheet of ice now and 1000 years ago, Eric the Red or Leif Ericcson (cannot offhand recall which) named it "Greenland" because it was green then.

The earth was warmer during the so-called "Dark Ages" than it was in the twentieth century to say nothing of the twenty-first century. Global temperatures between 1940 and 1980 cooled, in the late 1970's many "experts" were saying it would be "another ice age." Then the earth warmed from 1980 to approximately 2000 and they sceamed "global warming oh God the seas will rise." Now things are cooling again and have been since approximately 1999-2000 and they are trying to equivocate on the temperature in order to claim an "emergency" no matter which direction the temperatures go in direct violation of the law of non-contradiction.

CNN Drops to Last Place Among Cable News Networks (The New York Times)

Keep "fact checking" SNL skits CNN, I am sure that will help your ratings!!!

What if George W. Bush had done that? (Politico)

I ask this question all the time whenever I see the msm let Obama slide on something they would have crucified Bush for.

On Hannah Giles, ACORN, and the Fourth Amendment:
(A Dialogue)

This material was written in another publishing medium about five minutes ago. The positional adversary's words will be in dark green font.

So let me get this...everyone in here hates Acorn because they broke the law, but yet are supportive of Hannah even thought she too broke the law?

The colonists also "broke the law" when they threw tea into Boston Harbor. It was once "against the law" for someone to help black slaves become free because they were "property" of other people. Heck, into the twentieth century it was once "against the law" for a black person to drink from a "white drinking fountain." Something is not always moral or ethical simply because it is legal. Law should constitute justice but it is often perverted and used as a pre-text for inflicting evils upon others.

ACORN as an entity that operated in secrecy and yet received tax-payer money was just such a situation of the immoral and unethical who now try to hide behind the thin veneer of "the law." Hannah busted them and God bless her for it. As far as I am concerned, she deserves the Pulitzer Prize in journalism for this and James deserves "documentary filmmaker of the year."{1}

Acorn's lawsuit is based on the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution, so I feel like that is a fairly just claim since I support the US Constitution

Well if you support the Constitution, how about making even an elementary attempt at properly applying it rather than inventing things out of whole cloth as typical "evolving constitution" style nonsense sorts are prone to do. The Fourth Amendment was promulgated as a safeguard of the rights of individuals to provide reasonable privacy from intrusion by the government. Giles and O'Keefe are private citizens and not the government so this suit should be thrown out as the joke that it is. The key word is "should."

I also do not know how she took on this big corrupt firm on her own, CNN published articles about Acorn employees being tried nearly a year before Hannah's "breaking" story.

For election fraud sure. The corruption of ACORN goes far beyond that though. And the msm had stories on ACORN that they spiked during the 2008 election season because they did not want to make the "ObaMessiah" look bad. Furthermore, the depth of ACORN's rotted nature was not touched on by any media source prior to Hannah's expose.

Note:

{1} For some expository musings that I wrote on the subject of ACORN and corruption, see this weblog posting from earlier in the year:

On ACORN and Corruption (circa October 1, 2009)

Excerpts From Literature/Writings:

[Prefatory Note: For some insights into why I chose the particular material below for posting under this heading when it technically does not belong here, please see this previous posting for details as well as my thoughts on the material below. -ISM]

At last I was granted permission to come to Washington and bring my friend Yellow Bull and our interpreter with me. I am glad I came. I have shaken hands with a good many friends, but there are some things I want to know which no one seems able to explain. I cannot understand how the Government sends a man out to fight us, as it did General Miles, and then breaks his word. Such a government has something wrong about it. I cannot understand why so many chiefs are allowed to talk so many different ways, and promise so many different things. I have seen the Great Father Chief [President Hayes]; the Next Great Chief [Secretary of the Interior]; the Commissioner Chief; the Law Chief; and many other law chiefs [Congressmen] and they all say they are my friends, and that I shall have justice, but while all their mouths talk right I do not understand why nothing is done for my people. I have heard talk and talk but nothing is done. Good words do not last long unless they amount to something. Words do not pay for my dead people. They do not pay for my country now overrun by white men. They do not protect my father's grave. They do not pay for my horses and cattle. Good words do not give me back my children. Good words will not make good the promise of your war chief, General Miles. Good words will not give my people a home where they can live in peace and take care of themselves.

I am tired of talk that comes to nothing. It makes my heart sick when I remember all the good words and all the broken promises. There has been too much talking by men who had no right to talk. Too many misinterpretations have been made; too many misunderstandings have come up between the white men and the Indians. If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian he can live in peace. There need be no trouble. Treat all men alike. Give them the same laws. Give them all an even chance to live and grow. All men were made by the same Great Spirit Chief. They are all brothers. The earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it. You might as well expect all rivers to run backward as that any man who was born a free man should be contented penned up and denied liberty to go where he pleases. If you tie a horse to a stake, do you expect he will grow fat? If you pen an Indian up on a small spot of earth and compel him to stay there, he will not be contented nor will he grow and prosper. I have asked some of the Great White Chiefs where they get their authority to say to the Indian that he shall stay in one place, while he sees white men going where they please. They cannot tell me.

I only ask of the Government to be treated as all other men are treated. If I cannot go to my own home, let me have a home in a country where my people will not die so fast. I would like to go to Bitter Root Valley. There my people would be happy; where they are now they are dying. Three have died since I left my camp to come to Washington.

When I think of our condition, my heart is heavy. I see men of my own race treated as outlaws and driven from country to country, or shot down like animals.

I know that my race must change. We cannot hold our own with the white men as we are. We only ask an even chance to live as other men live. We ask to be recognized as men. We ask that the same law shall work alike on all men. If an Indian breaks the law, punish him by the law. If a white man breaks the law, punish him also.

Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to talk, think and act for myself -- and I will obey every law or submit to the penalty.

Whenever the white man treats the Indian as they treat each other then we shall have no more wars. We shall be all alike -- brothers of one father and mother, with one sky above us and one country around us and one government for all. Then the Great Spirit Chief who rules above will smile upon this land and send rain to wash out the bloody spots made by brothers' hands upon the face of the earth. For this time the Indian race is waiting and praying. I hope no more groans of wounded men and women will ever go to the ear of the Great Spirit Chief above, and that all people may be one people.

Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekht has spoken for his people. [Chief Joseph: From a Speech Delivered in Washington DC (circa 1879)]

Miscellaneous Musings:

The category to which the next post of material is to be classified is one that is usually confined to selections strictly speaking that fit the title so given but as this is my blog, I can allow in special circumstances for some leeway and as this is my birthday today, I am going to allow even more leeway still. Technically, this does not fit the category of classification but I believe the speech to be quoted from here speaks to the heart of any person who is of goodwill who sees injustices being perpetrated.

Though I am a staunch advocate and defender of this great country of ours, I am at the same time aware of the line from America the Beautiful which goes "America, America, God mend thy every flaw." And one of the latter flaws was the way in which the nation treated the Indians they had conquered in wars. As a believer in fighting for what one believes in, I also believe that when battle ceases, an important part of ethics is keeping the words to which one promises themselves. And this area of keeping the promises one makes is one of the areas where America in its leaders insofar as the treatment of the Native American tribes did not live up to the ideals espoused in its founding.

In speaking on this issue I want to be clear that I am not speaking of those tribes which continued hostilities or otherwise sought to inflict damage on the settlers or people of various states or territories. No, I speak of tribes such as the Nez Perce and the warrior Chief Joseph who when the end of the road had come in their struggle against the United States surrendered in a most noble way and was made promises by this nation which its leaders did not keep. And bearing that failing in mind, the next post will contain excerpts from Chief Joseph in a speech he delivered two years after his surrender in Washington DC when he came to the capital to seek justice and recompense in areas to which he had been promised. The basic principles he outlines in that speech are timeless and applicable to people of all times and places; ergo it seems fitting to set them forth for our own contemplation which the next post to this humble weblog will endeavour to do.

wish time would stand still
on the morrow advancing
one year more I'll be
[Written on 10/20/08]

Lawyer Orly Taitz tries patience of federal court

Those who wonder why I give virtually no time at all to this subject{1}, the article above explains some of the reasons albeit indirectly.

Note

{1} These are the only two postings I am aware of on this subject prior to the present one (posted in order of oldest to most recently):

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

Clarifying A Previous Point (circa February 25, 2009)

Washington is Nuts (Tony Blankley)

Yes Tony, they are.

Don't blame Limbaugh for our faults (LZ Granderson)

This thread is a solid read overall and the general principles it outlines apply to all communities, not just the black community.

Senate Finance Committee

Back on October 6th, I went complete William Jennings Bryan "Cross of Gold" speech-like{1} on the switchboard operator of the Senate Finance Committee. She told me the Baucus bill was put online Friday and gave me the link above but I have to update my Java software to get the health care bill link to open correctly apparently. I want to point y'all to it and ask why (if what she says is true) did I have to learn this from calling them and not from the news -ANY news program. And posting it Friday night right before the weekend??? Tell me that was not their attempt to jam it through today hoping no one would find out about it!!!

Note:

{1} In terms of the passion in which I set forth my view on this matter via the telephone.

He Won But For What?

I am not one of those alarmists who see sinister machinations behind every news story or end times gibberish under every acorn but I am not gonna lie: when I saw this article and realized that I agreed with Jennifer Loven of all people on something, I thought I might be making out on the horizon the first of the four apocalypse horses ;-)

Sunday and Wednesday
Two milestones in my life
Different yet the same
[Written just now]

The Sunday in the above haiku refers to yesterday.

Liberals Lay Off Obama

For those who wonder who could be claiming in lieu of the fact that President Obama has done NOTHING that he is "doing a great job" or has "done something", here is an example from The Daily Beast. Try to not be drinking anything when you read it though.

And yes folks, being "on your way" to doing something is now considered actually doing something by this crowd. The 10,000 point Dow level is considered significant to these same people who did not blink when the Dow under President Bush topped 14,000 in late 2007.

Furthermore, he is actually claiming the stimulus has been "slowing the nation's descent", and considering it an accomplishment that "a universal health care bill’s passage through Senate Committee." Celebrating a bill making it out of committee??? Boy these folks do not realize how they wear their desperation on their sleeves.

Inflation and Deficits

Dr. Walter E. Williams explains the connection between inflation and deficits in the link above.

celebrate dear friend
for you only live one time
try to make it count
[Written on February 4, 2008]