"One From the Vault" Dept.
(Revisiting An Old False Dichotomy)

[Prefatory Disclaimer: The material below was first published over fifteen years ago in a third revision to a longer piece I wrote a few years previously. As I have again seen the false dichotomy presented as of late, it seems appropriate to revisit the material below excerpted from its original source and tweak it a bit to be republished independently on this humble website as a Vault Flashback{1} at the present time. -SM]

The "Dogmatic/Pastoral" Artificial Dichotomy:

There is some truth to the assertion that the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council was "predominantly pastoral in character" but the dichotomy made between "dogmatic" and "pastoral" - as if something "pastoral" is automatically not "dogmatic" in any sense whatsoever -  is frankly a facile one. It has no support whatsoever from the Magisterium of the Church and therefore it should not be handled with the kind of smug certainty that many so-called 'traditionalists' like to utilize it. At the very least, it seems to this writer that "pastoral" and "dogmatic" as concepts should not be interpreted in a vacuum. Instead, the meaning of the expressions should be sought in light of the way pastoral theology and dogmatic theology respectively are viewed. The following quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia article Pastoral Theology defines this concept as it applies to theology in general:

Pastoral theology is a branch of practical theology; it is essentially a practical science. All branches of theology, whether theoretical or practical, purpose in one way or another to make priests "the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God" (I Cor., iv, 1). Pastoral theology presupposes other various branches; accepts the apologetic, dogmatic, exegetic, moral, juridical, ascetical, liturgical, and other conclusions reached by the ecclesiastical student, and scientifically applies these various conclusions to the priestly ministry. [1]

Before delving into all that pastoral theology entails, a look at how it differs from dogmatic and other fields of theology would be in order as well:

Dogmatic theology establishes the Church as the depository of revealed truth and systematizes the deposit of faith which Christ entrusted to His Church to hand down to all generations; pastoral theology teaches the priest his part in this work of Catholic and Christian tradition of revealed truth. Moral theology explains the laws of God and of the Church, the means of grace and hindrances thereto; pastoral theology teaches the practical bearing of these laws, means, and hindrances upon the daily life of the priest, alone and in touch with his people. Canon law collects, correlates, and co-ordinates the laws of the Church; pastoral theology applies those laws to the care of souls. In brief, pastoral theology begins, where the other theological sciences leave off; takes the results of them all and makes these results effective for the salvation of souls through the ministry of the priesthood established by Christ. [2]

In "presuppos[ing] the fields of apologetic, dogmatic, moral, juridical, and other fields of study in its applications to the care of souls", pastoral theology would not be divorced from the other sciences. (Indeed to some extent it would rely on them.) Hence one could accurately say that pastoral theology is indirectly concerned with dogmatic theology as well as moral theology and juridical theology (canon law). Transposing these distinctions onto the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council by corollary extension, it could be logically asserted that a Council that was "predominantly pastoral in character" would nonetheless have an indirect foundation in dogmatics; consequently a "pastoral council" would be "indirectly dogmatic" and presupposing the foundation of dogmatic theology in its pronouncements. (Which by asserting that the Council unlike previous Councils was not "directly dogmatic" is precisely what Pope Paul noted in several general audience speeches in the final thirteen years of his reign.)

By contrast, most of the earlier ecumenical councils were "predominantly dogmatic" but that did not detract from the fact that most of them also issued canons of disciplinary import as well. The distinction would be that most of the earlier councils were called to resolve a doctrinal crisis and disciplinary issues were an addendum issue if they were treated on at all. (Councils such as Constantinople II and III did not treat on disciplinary matters at all whereas by contrast of the five Lateran councils only the fourth was not predominantly concerned with matters of discipline.)

With the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, it was called not to address any one point of doctrine but instead to address the application of all Church doctrine to more effectively meet the conditions of the modern age. In the process, (i) previous dogmas of the faith would be reaffirmed, (ii) previously declared doctrines reasserted and perhaps developed a bit further, and (iii) theological controversies which touched on matters closely joined to dogma would be settled. Further still, (iv) doctrine would be developed to meet the needs of the age in certain parameters, (v) the disciplinary code would be revised, and (vi) the overarching approach in all areas would lean more to doctrinal exposition and its application then to dogmatic formulations. The tools used for this process would mirror those used in pastoral theology and include the following:

Tradition and the Holy Bible...are the first sources of pastoral theology. As evidence of Tradition the decrees of general councils are of the highest moment. Next come pontifical [documents]; decrees of Roman Congregations...the various sources of dogmatic and moral theology and of canon law, in so far as they bear directly or indirectly upon the care of souls. Decrees of various provincial councils and diocesan synods together with pastoral letters of archbishops and bishops are also among the sources whence pastoral theology draws. [3]

If one reads the index of every document from the Second Vatican Council, they will see copious references to Sacred Scripture. There are also numerous references to the documents of the General Councils. (Particularly Vatican I and Trent but there is also more than thirty references to other ecumenical councils - particularly the councils of Florence, Nicaea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Lateran IV, Constantinople IV, and Nicaea II.) There are also numerous references to documents from the papal magisterium - particularly Pius XII, Pius XI, John XXIII, and Leo XIII - along with various other papal pronouncements. (Such as Allocutions and Radio/General Addresses.) Included in this mosaic are references to the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church among other sources. Finally, the use was also made of documents from plenary councils which had received papal approbation, decrees from the Roman Congregations, etc.

Consistent with the understanding of "pastoral" in theology, the Second Vatican Council certainly meets the criteria in its usage of sources spanning the dogmatic, moral, and other fields of study. As far as the dependence of pastoral theology on dogmatic theology, the Catholic Encyclopedia article Dogmatic Theology had this to say about the correlation:

Pastoral theology, which embraces liturgy, homiletics, and catechetics, proceeded from, and bears close relationship to, moral theology; its dependence on dogmatic theology needs, therefore, no further proof. [4]

And just as "no further proof" is needed to demonstrate the dependence of pastoral theology on dogmatic theology, there is no further proof needed to refute the facile dichotomy of "pastoral" and "dogmatic" when it comes to Vatican II when compared with most of the previous ecumenical councils. It suffices to say that most previous councils were directly dogmatic and indirectly pastoral whereas with Vatican II the converse was the case. But it does not suffice to say that the predominantly pastoral character of the Second Vatican Council precluded any active dogmatic elements at all and (as a consequence) any formal infallibility.

Notes:

[1] Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article Pastoral Theology (c. 1913)

[2] Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article Pastoral Theology (c. 1913)

[3] Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article Pastoral Theology (c. 1913)

[4] Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article Dogmatic Theology (c. 1913)


Additional Notes:

The citations from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) article Pastoral Theology were obtained at the following link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14611a.htm

The citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) article Dogmatic Theology was obtained at the following link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm


Note:

{1} In posting this thread as I have, it necessitates creating a new primary posting tag so with this posting, consider the primary posting tag Vault Flashback to be added to this website for the current and future postings where applicable. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 20, 2017)]

“Local Control” Must Not Be a Weapon Against Individual Rights

Briefly...

My only criticism of the Scooter Libby pardon is timing and the sense that its being done now as a distraction from something else.

Trump To Larry Kudlow: Go Take A Look At The U.S. Maybe Rejoining TPP

President Trump called TPP a "rape of America." I guess by his lights he buys into Todd Akin's concept of "legitimate rape."

Not an apologetic for Pope Francis or Gaudete et Exsultate.

I find it amusing that the Apostle Paul and church fathers like Jerome hurled more invective than Pope Francis does but those who whine about the latter do not seem to have a problem with the former.

Is it perhaps because as much as these folks love papal condemnations of things they do not like and papal condemnations aimed at other folks, they have a problem when they are the target or something they like is on the receiving end of a chastisement?

I am reminded of what St John of the Cross said once about these sorts of spiritual gluttons:

"You will find that many of these persons are very insistent with their spiritual masters to be granted that which they desire, extracting it from them almost by force; if they be refused it they become as peevish as children and go about in great displeasure, thinking that they are not serving God when they are not allowed to do that which they would. For they go about clinging to their own will and pleasure, which they treat as though it came from God; and immediately their directors take it from them, and try to subject them to the will of God, they become peevish, faint-hearted, and fall away. These persons think that their own satisfaction and pleasure are the satisfaction and service of God."

“Local Control” Must Not Be a Weapon Against Individual Rights

Briefly...

A tip for #AlwaysTrump folks: if the president does or says something that you whined and complained about when Mr. Obama did or said it, have the guts to condemn the same stuff now unless you want to be viewed as a unprincipled hypocrite...

Briefly...

A tip for #NeverTrump folks: if you support a position or policy but cannot give President Trump credit if he supports and/or seeks to implement the same position or policy you support, then you damage your own credibility.

Pope Francis' new Apostolic Exhortation In Gaudette ex Exultate

Briefly...

I am amused in equal measure by those from #TeamRed who insist the president is innocent and there's nothing to the special prosecutor stuff and those from #TeamBlue who think every story that comes out on that stuff means "Muller is closer to arresting Trump."

Anything to sustain the particular gimmick desired it seems!

On the One Year Anniversary of My Return to Web Publishing:

(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

It may have seemed counter-intuitive to have returned to publishing here after this medium more or less faded from general importance with the rise of more interactive social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. But as helpful as those features can be; at the same time, a growing concern for censorship and other factors led me to consider taking this site out of mothballs and using it again. Or as I said a year ago today:

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.[...] 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[...], 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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 4, 2017)]

As for the project I have been involved in intermittently, it is one where I write pieces here and there with no set schedule. While it is in some form of existence at least, I will continue to dabble from time to time on this humble website.

Coming up in the following month are a few pieces which I finished last year and which will treat on an issue of controversy. As those who followed this website in years past know, I am no stranger to wading into controversial matters and I am sure as with some issues in the past, this one will sever more ties as some prior ones have.{1} But as with everything, if I think something has to be said, it will be said and there are unfortunately not a few folks who cannot deal with anything that disrupts their chosen narratives in various and sundry areas of study or thought. But that is neither here nor there.

In short, this website will remain in somewhat regular use more along the lines of how it has been over the past year with fewer long drawn out pieces compared to the way things were in their heyday here. Some of those longer threads from years past will be revisited either in abridged or other forms where warranted or if I feel inclined to as the lions share of what I have written on here in years past was intentionally done with both contemporary as well as more timeless threads to it.

On and before concluding the thread you are reading, it seems appropriate to remind people of what my combox thread policy is here and why I have it so this reminder thread from roughly a year ago suffices to do that. So with that reminder in conclusion, onward and upward we go here at Rerum Novarum{2} in some form or another!

Notes:

{1} To list one such prominent matter from years past:

Commemorating A Controversial Anniversary (circa August 17, 2017)

{2} I am considering the possibility of retaining a long term interest in web publishing again of perhaps changing formats and even site names. Only time will tell if those ideas come to fruition or not however. 

A Dialogue on Conservative Republican Hypocrisy:

My words will be in regular font.

Eugene Craig 

2014-2017 Black Lives Matter: Law enforcement is tainted and biased

GOP: No it's not and Blue lives matter

2018:
GOP: Release the memo. Law enforcement is tainted. Protect POTUS

BLM: Oh now that you are the victim its tainted. * inserts side-eye*

One small difference, those clamoring to release the memos aren’t calling for and perpetuating violence. Regardless of what anyone thinks about the release of the memos, any suggestion that is even remotely equal to the racist thugs of BLM is beyond disgusting! 

Wanna talk about what is truly beyond disgusting? 

Baltimore Cops Kept Toy Guns to Plant Just in Case They Shot an Unarmed Person 

[H]ow do we know that is even true? 

Practice some due diligence.

Who’s even heard of The Root? 

Just because you have not heard of a source does not ipso facto make said source an erroneous one.

For all we know, it could be a Fake News site. 

Merely dismissing a source without reading it is as a rule{1} not a very responsible thing to do. If you check closely, among the sources cited is the Baltimore Sun:

I suppose they are Fake News too?

Also cited are the New York Daily News, the Times Union, and NBC News. More Fake News I suppose because they do not fit the squawk radio narrative on these things? 

those cops in the Freddie Gray case, who were rightly acquitted, under the bus

Yes I know, #CopsDoNoWrong as far as some conservatives are concerned. When someone dies in police custody, someone should be held responsible but police rarely are. And of course most conservatives are due to their ideological blinders unwilling or unable to admit that maybe, just maybe a movement like BLM may have within its ranks folks who have legitimate grievances. Nah, they gotta focus on the cranks and kooks and paint them as the entirety of the movement because that fits the narrative they want to believe. Strangely, I seem to recall many of the same folks who do that were livid when more liberal elements of the media did the exact same thing to the Tea Party. Oh but that's different I suppose because that was *patriots* being targeted rather than various and sundry "urban scum", right?

I have to say this anti-cop posture you have taken recently is seriously troubling.

There is nothing recent about it. I have long been ambivalent at best about law enforcement{2} with very good reasons. Beyond what I have actually seen as well as in my youth dealt with, there is also the fact that there are a LOT more dirtbags in uniform than head-in-the-sand conservative "law and order" sorts care to admit to. But when they are not on the receiving end of the corruption, conservatives do not give a shit about this stuff generally speaking. But if they are the ones in the crosshairs? Well then they squawk like stuck pigs and will not stfu about it. And truthfully, I do not have sympathy anymore for those sorts of conservatives who only make a fuss when it involves them and otherwise make excuses or shoot the messengers when it involves bad news which does not.

Not only are there more dirtbag cops than conservatives as a rule care to admit to but even cops who are not dirtbags far too often succumb to pressure not to rat out one of their brother or sister fellows in blue. As a result, things like what happened to Freddie Gray so often result in acquittals, not because the cops are innocent per se but instead because too many supposedly "good cops" refuse to cooperate or otherwise obstruct prosecution attempts of fellow officers. 

The bottom line: we need serious criminal justice, sentencing, and police reform in this country. But as long as the myth of "cops do no wrong" is perpetrated (coupled with the "well, maybe some do but its only 1% of them" nonsense), its not going to happen. But I digress.

Notes:

{1} I say “as a rule” because every rule admits of exceptions. But they are reserved for sites with a demonstrated history of frequent false news reporting. Also, something is not false simply because it does not fit a person’s particular ideological template be they right or left.

{2} “When I was younger, my first car was a 1975 Dodge Dart. Mechanically it was sound but electrically not as much. One of the problems it had was lights would go out in the running boards, license plate area, tail lights (particularly on the right side as I recall), etc far more frequently than would be the norm. And I lived in near a small town where the cops basically funded the town with tickets -I think you may see where this is going. In that area and a number of other places, I was pulled over at times so frequently that even many years later and to this very day, I am at times highly uncomfortable when I see a police car behind me or alongside me in traffic.[...] I have to constantly fight the temptation to change lanes, pull into a parking lot of a place I am not going to, etc and let the cop car pass before I get back on the road. And while I do not do the latter nearly as often as I used to, I still from time to time out of long ingrained habit do it. While not the only personal experiences I have had with law enforcement officials, I posit the above to point out a psychological phenomenon that is hardly unique to myself. And I am as white as white can be!” [Excerpt from the Jaded Politics Article On Anthems, Protests, Free Speech, Hard Truths, Etc. (published December 3, 2017)]

Prayer For Good Friday:

Trans-Siberian Railway Nicholas II's Key Success

With this link, I am inaugurating a new subthread for this site titled "History" for links or material that has a historical connotation to it.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Spanish court remands Catalan presidential candidate in custody

Michael Bennett Taken into Custody on Assault Charge, Expected to Post Bond

Rising Homelessness Among Working Californians

This is a problem in more places than just California and has been a problem for many years now.

Seahawks sign ex-Vikings DT Shamar Stephen

Seahawks sign Tom Johnson

Hero Policeman Traded Himself For Female Hostage, Was Killed By Terrorist

"Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends." [John xv,13]

Report: Ex-Seahawk Michael Bennett indicted on felony charge

He's not a Seahawk anymore, that is all I will say on it.

Lessons from Germany’s ‘Spring Offensive,’ 100 Years Later

Report: Seahawks agree to terms with offensive lineman D.J. Fluker

"...Bus stop rat bag

Ha, ha, charade you are

You fucked up old hag

Ha, ha, charade you are

You radiate cold shafts of broken glass

You're nearly a good laugh

Almost worth a quick grin

You like the feel of steel

You're hot stuff with a hatpin

And good fun with a hand gun

You're nearly a laugh

You're nearly a laugh

But you're really a cry..."

Video: Hillary Almost Falling On Her Face Symbolizes Failed Campaign And The Nonsense She Spewed In India

Ted Cruz says Cambridge Analytica assured him its voter data methods were legit after Facebook leak

Ted Cruz's slimy lawyer tactics continue...

Before you burn all your Seahawks jerseys, take a minute

Points to Ponder:

If the 2nd Amendment does not cover semi automatics because (as the argument goes) "the Founders only had muskets and could not have foreseen semi-automatic guns", then how does the 1st Amendment (by that same logic) cover anything other than spoken public words, hand written letters, and newspapers? [Me (circa March 9, 2018)]

So The Democrats Have Decided To Run On Abolishing ICE

Donald Trump is not all that but his potential 2020 opponents really are a special brand of stupid if they think this is a winning presidential campaign issue!

#StupidIsAsStupidDoes

The Man Who Knew Too Little

Hillary On 2016: I Won The Places That Aren’t Looking Backwards

Gee, think #Hildabeast just helped write some GOP ads in swing states this fall?

GOLDWATER INSTITUTE REPORT: SHAKY CASES STILL GET “RUBBER-STAMP” CONVICTIONS IN TRAFFIC COURT

Briefly...

I believe that neither liberals nor conservatives as a rule{1} really believe in the full Bill of Rights.

The Amendments Liberals do not believe in:

Part of the 1st, the 2nd, the 5th (most of it anyway!), the 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th amendments.

The Amendments Conservatives do not believe in:

The 1st (apart from Citizens United!), the 4th, about half of the 5th, the 6th, the 7th, and 8th amendments.

Note:

{1} Strangely, they both agree on the 3rd and the non-self incriminating part of the 5th.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH: Letter Placuit Deo To the Bishops of the Catholic Church On Certain Aspects of Christian Salvation

Briefly...

I will not listen to any purported "solutions" to school shootings or kvetching about lost lives from anyone who blames objects rather than people because such people are too dim to be reasoned with.

Points to Ponder:

"I have come to recognize over time as I have aged (and hopefully done so with some measure of grace!) that divisions between family and friends should have a statute of limitations. Meaning, its normal to feel anger and resentment over some things but there should be some time reasonable time period you decide on that acts as a 'statute of limitations' whereby after said point, you force yourself to forgive and mend fences.

When you are younger, such a time period may be of longer duration by nature as young folks usually think or by default act as if they will more or less live forever. However, the older you get, the shorter the time frame should be. Why? Because carrying grudges only hurts the one who carries them and thus forgiveness can lead to needed healing.

I cannot recall anyone ever saying they regretted keeping a grudge but countless folks have regretted grudges when the time passes for amends to be made. So as you age (and hopefully with some degree of grace!), establish a uniform statute of limitations on any past grievances with others and shorten the time period as you grow older." [Me (circa February 27, 2017)]

Briefly...

If you whine about the Parkland 17 but support Planned Parenthood's slaughter of more than 17 x 50,000 annually, kindly do us all a favour and shut the f up!

#Hypocrites
#NoCredibility

I’m Glad I Got Booed at CPAC

CPAC jumped the shark years ago Mona, that they booed you is nothing to get bothered about.

"Just the other day
I heard my friend say
Life was oh so bad
Love was all he had

You know all day long
I sing sad songs
Got the blues feel
Things no doctor can heal

You know thats ok
I never change my ways
Maybe I am wrong
But I'll soon be gone..."

[Ronnie Van Zant (circa 1970)]

"One From the Vault" Dept.

The following is a flashback to the archives this website{1} from 2003...

"[B]y my own admission I am rather resolute about not being put in a box of any kind. The reason of course should be self-evident: that he who controls the vernacular controls the parameters of the debate. Instead, I prefer to control the vernacular myself. And if I cannot control the vernacular myself, at the very least I will not let others do so either.

For when we get down to brass tacks, all forms of engineering - be it social, philosophical, theological, political, medical, scientific, legal, or otherwise - is preceded by verbal engineering. This is why I refuse to cede to the extremists of any stripe their own choice of terminology. Instead, I refer to them as they are...

[W]hen we let counterfeit philosophies or outlooks coin their own noble terminology, we provide them with a shibboleth of their own to mindlessly parrot and/or cloak themselves in to with greater ease attempt to (and potentially succeed at) confusing the unwary. Allowing them to control the language and eventually they will control the terms of the battle...

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

Note:

{1} In posting this thread as I have, it necessitates creating a new primary posting tag so with this posting, consider the primary posting tag Vault Flashback to be added to this website for the current and future postings where applicable. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 20, 2017)]

Briefly...

I am thinking at some point this year to address a couple of topics of controversy from past year in a completely different way than was previously done on this website or elsewhere. The only question I have is what sort of time I will have to work on them -one would be published in August if its done at all this year.

Anyway, I just wanted to note this thought I have had recently in brief here as I may refer back to it at a future point.

Points to Ponder:

"We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner." [Senator Barry Goldwater (circa 1962)]

Buy Your Popcorn. BuzzFeed Sues The DNC Over The Trump Dossier

Mitt Romney Will Announce His Run For Senate Thursday

Elizabeth Warren doubles-down on claim to be Native American in speech to Native American group

Her Indian name: Sitting Bullshit!

Miscellaneous Musings on Bubbles Political and Otherwise:

Though some of what I am about to say has been said on this humble website in the past; some of it is new information. Having noted that, I want to clarify that I enjoy being outside the various political bubbles and it seems few folks who seek to follow the news and world events are willing to do this.

Now in my case, it admittedly came in stages. I listened to talk radio close to around the clock from 1991-1996 but left the Republican Party after the 1996 elections. I started using Drudge to get my online news in 2000 while dialing back my talk radio consumption and watching more Fox News. I really cut back talk radio after I gave Limbaugh the heave after the 2006 elections along with Drudge who had begin courting conspiracy schmucks and featuring them. I changed my primary news source online to Real Clear Politics and its subsidiary pages around that time as well but I still consumed Fox and other cable news regularly until I cast Fox and other cable news aside when the bubble created by Fox propaganda around the 2012 election was burst on election night. I swore on that night that Fox and the others could go to hell and I have not regretted my decision one iota since.

Now if I listen to talk radio at all its local stuff or sports 90% of the time. I avoid all television and radio news and get my news in small doses online from various sources via the Real Clear aggregators. Though a longtime Independent voter, it took a while to completely free myself from the various bubbles of the right but I am glad to be and it pleases me when I see and hear of others freeing themselves as well...

Points to Ponder:

"If you’re fine with the U.S. government using paid-for opposition research to justify spying on persons connected to presidential campaign staff, then nothing I can say will help you understand how worrisome this disclosure is. Except maybe this: switch the candidate’s name you hate with the one you like. That means President Trump surveilling staff from the Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign after a dossier commissioned by the Republican Party links them to China. You’d trust Trump, and every future president, with that, right?

The involvement of the intelligence community in the 2016 presidential campaign, clumsy and disorganized as it appears to have been, will be part of the next election, and the ones after that. If you’re in search of a constitutional crisis, here it is. After all, when we let George W. Bush create, and Barack Obama greatly expand, the surveillance state, didn’t we think it would eventually come to this?" [Peter Van Buren]

A contribution to the Jaded Politics project was posted to the Musings From Exile website{1} back on September 27, 2017 which can be read HERE. I did not mention it earlier because for a variety of reasons, the piece originally scheduled for that date was not actually published to Jaded Politics until December 3, 2017.

I was not aware of the publication being approved until about a week ago when going to the page to reference material for a column currently being drafted. Anyway, I apologize for not notifying readers of it until now.

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:

"'REAL socialism hasn't been done yet' is in itself an argument against socialism. If your system is so susceptible to abuse that it happens literally every time you try it, what does that say about your system?" ["neontaster"]

"One From the Vault" Dept.

The following is a flashback to the archives of this website{1} from 2009. Without further ado...

Now certainly one problem the GOP has had in the past twenty years is the attempt to placate moderate voters at the expense of principles. It is one thing to reach out to others -indeed this is always well and good. However, one can also take any good thing too far and the GOP was showing an unwillingness oftentimes to take stands on principle against the Democrats. There was also a perverse sense of entitlement to the GOP elections at the presidential level since 1988 and even before that time. Part of the problem with that kind of political entitlement mentality was that people presumed in 1988 that George H. W. Bush would be a worthy successor to Ronald Reagan rather than Jack Kemp and Bush won the nomination that year (followed by a healthy election landslide) by giving indications that he would continue to follow in Reagan's footsteps. He then betrayed this trust and that was what started the ball rolling in the direction we saw in the past twenty years. Another problem in that interim was the message that the GOP received in the 1994 midterms after Bill Clinton's election triumph over President Bush and Ross Perot two years earlier.

I have heard some try to posit the excuse that the GOP "did not know how to govern while in the majority" and while this may have been true in 1994[...], it does not explain problems in subsequent years. It certainly does not explain what we saw when George H. W. Bush's son was elected and the GOP led congresses of the first six years of his presidency.[...] But there was also the sense of "entitlement" in the GOP where they viewed whoever came up short last time as "due" the next time. We saw this with Senator Bob Dole in 1996[...], we also saw this in 2008 with Senator John McCain.[...] However, there is also a problem of nostalgia that while I have seen it addressed recently has been the source of criticism by some from the more conservative persuasion.

If there is one thing that has become an annoyance as of late it is reading the words of those who present facile solutions to the GOP's problem. Yes there were problems with letting the so-called "RINOS" have too much control of the party apparatus. But there is also the problem of opposing extremes with extremes; namely, those who would respond to an overly wide tent mentality with one that is much too narrow... 

It is all find and well to raise the banner of Reagan as many do but you have to know what Reagan really stood for and how he operated politically or else you will not learn from the past so that it informs your future: learning from the past being a hallmark of proper conservative philosophy...

It is all find and well to raise the banner of Reagan as many do but you have to know what Reagan really stood for and how he operated politically or else you will not learn from the past so that it informs your future: learning from the past being a hallmark of proper conservative philosophy...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 16, 2009)]

On the anniversary of President Reagan's birth, revisiting some material I wrote in years past about him seems apropo.

May he rest in peace.

Note:

{1} In posting this thread as I have, it necessitates creating a new primary posting tag so with this posting, consider the primary posting tag Vault Flashback to be added to this website for the current and future postings where applicable. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 20, 2017)]

Security Cam Catches Brazen Package Thief Trying To Flee Porch Only To Fall And Break Her Leg

‘Frasier’ star John Mahoney dead at 77

Trumps hosting Super Bowl watch party at Palm Beach golf club

Think of the Trump supporters who "boycotted the NFL" and "boycotted the Superbowl" while President Trump hosted his own Superbowl viewing party in Palm Beach!

At least Mr. Trump got to see a pretty compelling game :D

On the Changing of One's Positions:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

It is very rare that I can say that I have actually changed in any real substance a position I have previously taken over the past thirty years of my life. However, it bears noting in the interest of disclosure that my approach to the subject of amnesty which was once as hardened as stone against any movement whatsoever in this area as recently as a bit over ten years ago or more has undergone some change. This website was suspended in December of 2009 and not reactivated until April of 2017. As a fair amount of time had passed where this site was dormant and as I work very hard to be consistent in every position I have taken, it is only rational that I acknowledge what could appear to be a glaring contradiction in a position currently held versus one previously held.{1} And in researching past threads of this website for a piece I am currently writing on a different subject{2}, I was reminded of my previous position on amnesty as I had quite often publicly stated it. Therefore, I want to in the interest of proper ethics at the present time address this matter directly.

As for the precise moment when my position changed from what it was to what it currently is, I was able in other communications mediums to find an example of my previously set-in-stone position as recently as June 19, 2013 when I said the following:

[L]ets see, the two biggest issues on Capitol Hill right now are immigration reform and amnesty with the Senate trying to ram through an amnesty-laden bill before July 4th. Meanwhile, Tea Party folks are holding an "Abolish the IRS" rally in DC for today. Those who wonder why I have in the past year viewed the Tea Party as having jumped the shark, here is a crystal clear reason why!

However, I was also able to find a comment on another thread from June 13, 2013 where I stated the following:

Getting back to the immigration reform proposal on the table now, I do not see how S 744 is a net positive for Republicans. The best time to deal with immigration reform is after the 2016 election if the GOP can retain the House, gain the Senate, and win the presidency. At that point, they can address this issue with a far better bill than the crap being offered up here.

And then there is this posting of mine in another communications medium from April 18, 2014:

[I] heard that Nancy Pelosi sought to use the Holy Thursday footwashing ritual to play the role of Jesus and wash a couple of immigrant childrens feet to push amnesty for illegals and I am wondering: can we nail her to a cross for illegal immigrants on Good Friday?

It would appear that pinpointing in writing a precise eureka moment where my view changed is probably not possible to do. However, I can narrow down a range and it is over the past few years where I have taken more time to think with greater care on this particular matter in all of its particulars which caused my position to change. It has changed to one which is in my view more reasonable and humane than the position I had previously taken.{3} And while I may well in the coming weeks and months publish some materials written in the period of this website's suspension where I delve into this matter more precisely, it makes sense to me to first acknowledge in a forthright manner that any appearance of inconsistency between my past enunciations on this matter and any future ones on this humble site will not be imaginary ones.

In short, there has been a change in how I view this matter so consider this posting to be a public acknowledgement of the matter that may be referenced if needed from this point onward in future postings on the matter in question.

Notes:

{1} Should such a phenomenon actually exist or be brought to my attention.

{2} It will be for Jaded Politics.

{3} "Last I checked, being in the country illegally is at least a misdemeanor. So as citizens with misdemeanors can satisfy their violations with paying fines and jail time, why should illegals not be able to do likewise? [Excerpt from a Communications Thread (circa June 14, 2014)]

Woman denied emotional support peacock on United flight

Truth is at times stranger than fiction!

The Prison Industry in the United States: Big Business or a New Form of Slavery?

Points to Ponder:

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, 'If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" [Matthew 23:29-33]

Miscellaneous Musings on the First 2018 Government Shutdown...

Having already explained last week how one can logically figure out how to ascribe blame for the shutdown, let us now consider what the deal struck to reopen the government means based on what the demands were that precipitated the shutdown to begin with. See my first comment for details...

Originally, the Republicans wanted a clean CR whereas the Dems wanted a six year extension of the CHIP program as well as a legislative solution for DACA. Republicans agreed to the former but balked at including the latter in an appropriations bill. The Democrats then withheld enough votes to shut down the government when they did not get DACA in the CR resolution. So Republicans wanted a CR without DACA in it and the Democrats insisted it be included.

The resolution to reopen the government does not have DACA in it. Therefore, the Republicans got what they wanted on the primary point of contention and the Democrats did not.

So insofar as one can rationally conclude that in terms of who "won" to the extent anyone actually "wins" in this stuff, the side that got what they wanted is logically the "winner" in this meaning the internal polling for the Democrats must have been pretty awful for them to have caved so quickly.

‘Trump Was Merely Sharing The Gospel With That Porn Star,’ Explains Jim Bakker

I was literally making this same joke to people for a few days before I saw this!

Miscellaneous Musings:

Whose fault is the shutdown?

Consider the House vote. A resolution was passed 230-197 in the House to fund the government. The yes votes were 224 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Meanwhile the no votes were 11 Republicans and 186 Democrats.

Consider the Senate vote. 60 votes were needed to break a filibuster and 45 Republicans voted yes along with 5 Democrats. Meanwhile 44 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted no. There was one Republican who did not vote. When you remove McConnells no vote which was a parliamentary trick to enable for a fast revote later on, 46-4-1 for Republicans and 5-44 for the Democrats. Furthermore, even if all 51 Republicans voted yes along with the 5 Democrats, they still would have been 4 votes short of the needed 60.

Consider that President Trump would have signed the bill upon it passing the Senate if it had done so.

There is no way this can logically be pinned on the Republicans so...

#SchumerShutdown

On the Probable Government Shutdown:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

There are too many conservatives who are really #clownservatards and incapable of recognizing a political gift when its given.

Case in point, those responding to a probable government shutdown with #releasethememo. There are too many Captain Ahab's on the #clownservatard front who have spent literally years (and sometimes decades!) predicting Obama and/or Hillary would be exposed, arrested, etc. These same folks now are stupidly kvetching about a memo they think will be another smoking gun in their long list of predicted (and failed!) smoking guns. Meanwhile, a political gift is about to be made of the sort that rarely comes around and they are sabotaging it with their latest white whale obsession.

For you see, usually when there has been a government shutdown, the Republicans have caused it and gotten boned politically as a result. However, what we have now is the Democrats pushing for one who have picked a hill to die on in DACA which even among those who support it is not a high priority item as a rule. (If anything its higher priority for those who do not support it!) The same Democrats who pitched reams of apocalyptic talk in 2013 about how social security recipients, children's health care, and a whole host of other vulnerables would suffer as a result of the prior shutdown are themselves pushing for a shutdown now. So either they lied about the effects of the last shutdown or they told the truth but would inflict all the supposed suffering on the same vulnerable for what? Not something that benefits Ma and Pa America in Peoria but instead for illegal immigrants. Yes the same Democrats who decried a shutdown over something that would have helped Americans in 2013 now will push for one to help illegals. The optics of that are politically disastrous for the Democrats.

But what do clownservatard white whalers do? They distract with the whole memo thing rather than get out of the way of their political adversaries willingly cutting their own throats! Rather than table the silly memo thing and let their opponents cut their own throats and hang themselves by owning a shutdown over helping illegals (read: something they would NEVER do for American citizens!) they are getting in the way of their opponents committing political seppeku with another #MobyDickMoment of the sort they have foolishly wasted time and energy on for years to get nothing out of it.

A tip: if there is anything to this memo, table the damn thing right now. Let your opponent cut their own throat tonight (or reveal to the DACAites that they are merely a political pawn and they do not give a shit about them if they refuse to shut down the government over DACA as they are claiming they would do right now!) and let the political fallout over this stunt wreck your political foes for several days first. Then if you must, chase the memo thing. But do not get in the way of your opponent willingly cutting their own throat first. Unless you want to lose yet again as you so often have on these matters over the years in which case, as you were.

On Ethics, Principles, “Going Off the Deep End”, Etc.

The purpose of this brief note is to address something not a few folks have been saying to me in various and sundry ways as of late. My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...

Seriously...you're going off the deep end.

I realize the point I am raising is one that is uncomfortable for many of todays Trump supporters who yesterday criticized Obama (or Clinton) for the same sort of matters. But that is neither my problem nor am I going off the deep end unless seeking truth and consistency are now off the deep end. Are they?

I heard for twenty-three years from Republicans and conservatives that character was important, ethics mattered, and the Republicans go after past Democrat presidents on these matters. And even though I left the Republican Party more than twenty years ago, I still on some level respected Republicans for taking these stands and generally voted for them. Then one to two years ago, everything changed. Now ethical problems or problems in character are not beneath the president or to be frowned upon but indeed they are either to be ignored, have excuses made for them, or even (God forbid!) celebrated. What changed?

Ethics and principles either matter or they do not. Character and expecting a higher degree of ethics from presidents either matters or it does not. If it does not matter now, then those claiming it mattered when Obama and Clinton were president did not believe what they were pushing for so many years and they owe those men an apology.

That (to be blunt) means the Republicans and many Trump supporters lied through their teeth for more than twenty years on these matters only to abandon their long claimed positions when it was suddenly politically inconvenient for them to espouse them. So if they were a bunch of liars for so many years, why should I believe them now? Why should I believe or trust anything a Trump supporter says now which flatly contradicts what they were saying just a couple years ago? And once Trump is gone and the same folks who kicked long held conservative core principles to the curb recently suddenly start parroting them again, why should I or anyone believe them then?

Or to summarize all of this briefly:

Kindly explain to me how expecting ethical and principled consistency from folks is going off the deep end when it is what conservatives have done for DECADES until only very recently. Now when suddenly its inconvenient, these matters are (at best) ignored. 

With all due respect, folks who talk like this should take a long hard look in the mirror and consider what has been done.

2011 Interview With Stormy Daniels: Trump Cheated On Melania With Me

I am sure the Moral Majority and Religious Right folks will find a way to say what was reported here was acceptable "because Trump" of course and presumably even though it happened before the #GreatMoralParadigmShiftOf2016, a dispensation has been retroactively granted to Trump by these folks nonetheless. And as the claim made by Stephanie Clifford (aka "Stormy Daniels") was corroborated by two named persons and the claimant herself took and passed a polygraph at the time of the interview six plus years ago, I trust that is enough probable evidence for those from the #EscalatedBurdenOfProof crowd which has really grown in number since January 20, 2017. But that is neither here nor there.

I do have one exit question though and it is this:

--Will the Moral Majority and the Religious Right folks ever apologize to Bill Clinton?

I mean the whole "but ethics and character matter" schtick: they obviously did not actually believe those things. (I base my claim on their subsequent actions and statements.) So they rightfully owe Bubba an apology if we take their current statements and actions as their real positions on these matters.

Where are you going I don't mind
I've killed my world and I've killed my time
So where do I go what do I see
I see many people coming after me

So where are you going to I don't mind
If I live too long I'm afraid I'll die
So I will follow you wherever you go
If your offered hand is still open to me
Strangers on this road we are on
We are not two we are one. [Dave Davies]

On the "Escalating Standard of Proof" Position Taken By Many Trump Supporters:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

It is the considered opinion of your host that these folks are establishing a dangerous precedent implicit in much of what they are saying. I have seen claims of such-and-such was "never established in a court of law" or "there was no sworn statement" as if we cannot ascertain something or take as probable any claim not meeting said standards.

If we are going to now require sworn testimony on everything, then we have really moved the goalposts. (Heck, imagine if Woodward and Bernstein had needed sworn testimony from "Deep Throat" before they could do or say anything!)

I remind readers that the Supreme Court, in the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos ruled that government employees are not protected from retaliation by their employers under the First Amendment of the Constitution when speaking pursuant to their official job duties. So anyone from the WH who went on the record with claims with a sworn statement could easily lose their job!

This approach if institutionalized would ensure that there is no motivations to try and correct problems in government or elsewhere but instead would protect the status quo as well as abusers within the latter. I know many who make these claims never explicitly or consciously do that so I would simply recommend greater consideration of the implicit ramifications of this new standard that they few others have been advocating for as of late.

Inside the tense, profane White House meeting on immigration

Well well well...

"Three White House officials said Perdue and Cotton told the White House that they heard 'shithouse' rather than 'shithole' allowing them to deny the president’s comments on television over the weekend. The two men initially said publicly that they could not recall what the president said..."

Briefly...

I have noticed that apologists for the Trump administration who are pushing the "lowest black unemployment numbers in decades" story as well as the 4.1% u3 unemployment figures now are many of the same ones who when Obama was in the WH were pushing things like "labour participation rate" (which has declined by .2% for blacks since Obama left the WH!) and the u6 unemployment figure (standing at 8.6%) which they once said were the *true unemployment figures.*

Gee, looks like some folks have been #MovingTheGoalPosts again to me!

Points to Ponder:

For those who wonder why libertarianism cannot work in reality, spend twenty minutes arguing with libertarians and the reason becomes obvious! [Me (circa January 9, 2018)]

How The Free Market Spanked Seattle’s Government After It Tried To Dictate How Its Citizens Lived

Stunned family reunited with their missing pet cat 15 YEARS after the moggie went missing

We Were Wrong about Stop-and-Frisk

When claims are made that later data does not support, you can either ignore the data and continue to spout talking points divorced from reality or recognize your prior claims were wrong and change your view accordingly!

Ten more “hottest” takes on the Iranian protests

Ten “hottest” takes on the Iranian protests

"Auld Lang Syne" Dept.

Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And days of auld lang syne?

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

And surely ye'll be your pint stoop
And surely I'll be mine
And we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae run about the braes
And pou'd the gowans fine
But we've wander'd mony a weary foot
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae paidl'd i' the burn
Frae mornin' sun till dine
But seas between us braid hae roared
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

And here's a hand, my trusty fiere
And gi'e's a hand o' thine
And we'll tak a right good willy waught
For auld lang syne. [Attr. Robert Burns]

Points to Ponder:

"Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing The fifth would pay $1 The sixth would pay $3 The seventh would pay $7 The eighth would pay $12 The ninth would pay $18 The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59 So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that’s right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!'

'That’s true!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison, 'we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier." [Daniel J. Mitchell]

Enemy Reaction 2017: Dallas Cowboys

Miscellaneous Musings...

With a bit of tax reform done, President Trump wants to do "infrastructure" next. My predictions:

---The same folks who bellyached, bitched, and would not STFU about Obama and his infrastructure bill in 2009 will suddenly forget they are supposed to hate "big government boondoggles" and "adding to the debt" (like they did when Obama was in the WH) and instead laud, make excuses for, and generally support Trump planned big government boondoggles and debt additions. You know, because #TeamRed and all!

---The same folks who defended to the hilt Obama's stimulus and infrastructure bills as necessary, great, wonderful, etc will suddenly (now that Obama or Hillary are not in the WH) start bellyaching, bitching, and generally not STFU'ing about how what Trump wants to do is a bunch of "boondoggle projects" that "do not pay for themselves", and will "add to the debt" and all that jazz: stuff they did not care about for eight years when Obama was in power but now that they are not, #TeamBlue suddenly cares about this stuff you see!

Meanwhile, both tribes will be united in one way if nothing else: lashing out in butthurt fashion at those of us who were not born yesterday and who recognize fake principles and politically opportune #hypocrisy when we see it!

Points to Ponder:

"The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots." [Elbridge Gerry (circa May 31, 1787)]

Points to Ponder:

"[H]eartbreak is transient, but regret is eternal." [Donna Provencher]

WHAT DIDN’T HAPPEN IN 2017

Briefly: 

Cocaine is a powerful drug!

Fox guest floats possibility of FBI assassination plot against Trump

Points to Ponder:

"Sport, properly directed, develops character, makes a man courageous, a generous loser, and a gracious victor; it refines the senses, gives intellectual penetration, and steels the will to endurance. It is not merely a physical development then. Sport, rightly understood, is an occupation of the whole man, and while perfecting the body as an instrument of the mind, it also makes the mind itself a more refined instrument for the search and communication of truth and helps man to achieve that end to which all others must be subservient, the service and praise of his Creator." [Pope Pius XII, Sport at the Service of the Spirit (circa July 29, 1945)]

Points to Ponder:

"For those screaming 'WAPO hit job' you had a candidate:

Who when asked if he dated teenagers as a 30 yr old said 'not usually'

Warned of shariah courts being established in Michigan and Illinois

Had surrogates tell a pregnant host 'Doug Jones wants to abort your baby'

Said America was better during the era of slavery.... TO A BLACK MAN

Wanted to repeal the 13th and 14th amendments

Had his wife counter charges of insensitivity towards Jews with 'my lawyer is a Jew'

Spent the final day of the campaign arguing over whether people had to take the oath of office on a Christian bible, and if homosexuality should be criminalized.

But please, please tell me how he lost due to a media hit job." [Kevin M. Tierney]

Briefly...

Last night answered one question and it was this:

--Are we going to get a slew of articles on how the GOP is beyond redemption or on how the GOP is finished?

With Jones' win, it is/will be the latter.

#SoPredictable

Points to Ponder:

“I'd just like to thank Steve Bannon for showing us how to lose the reddest state in the union and Governor Ivey for the opportunity to make this national embarrassment a reality.” [Josh Holmes]

Briefly...

One of the Trump loving radio folks apparently admitted saying in a tweet (in a tip to one of their advertisers) that she cut her twat while shaving last night and should have used a Harry's razor!

Briefly...

A good summary of the Roy Moore situation can be read here:

No Moore Pretense

It would be so much easier if Moore supporters just admitted the guy was scum but to paraphrase FDR on Somoza "he is our scum." For those who play the "he's innocent" and "theres no evidence" cards, you are beneath contempt and would fit in well at the Institute of Historical Review!

#YeahIWentThere

Quin Hillyer: Roy Moore's own words prove his falsehood

Quin Hillyer summarizes a core problem with the Republican Senate candidate from Alabama well in this article (I will quote the first few paragraphs here):

"Even if we don’t know for certain whether Roy Moore had sexual contact (of a sort) with 14-year-old Leigh Corfman, we now know that Moore has made a conscious decision to lie about his onetime relationships with teenage girls.

We know this from a combination of his own words and of new evidence that would be accepted as probative in any American court of law. (More on the evidence, shortly.)

The odd thing is that Moore’s initial reaction was to tell at least a simulacrum of the truth, only later to change to a flat-out lie. Often, a liar works in the other direction, at first denying everything and then admitting little dribs and drabs as new evidence warrants. Who knows: Maybe this strange evolution from partial truth to full prevarication gives an indication that, somehow, Moore’s conscience is warring with itself.

Either way, his willingness to move to full-fledged dishonesty helps undermine his onetime semi-believable denials of the worst of the charges against him. One fib does not prove that his other statements are lies, of course, but it does establish that he is not entirely trustworthy..."

Points to Ponder:

"Where is the politician who has not promised to fight to the death for lower taxes- and who has not proceeded to vote for the very spending projects that make tax cuts impossible?" [Senator Barry Goldwater]

Briefly on a Past Controversy...

It was brought to my attention recently that some parties with whom there were some some heated contentions with on some topics{1} has sought for reasons known only to themselves to try and goad persons such as your humble servant into a recurrence of those prior disputations. It is not my intention to mention any names on this, only to remark briefly that (i) I am aware of what they are trying to do and (ii) considering how it has been my practice for nearly ten years now to only discuss the issue in question at the time of year when it can properly be considered a live issue{2}, their attempting to raise it outside of that very limited time frame seems to indicate a hope on their part that they could get away with slipping their latest text dump by without comment to thereby proclaim that said latest text dump was "unanswerable" by persons such as myself.

I will only note briefly at this time that if the party in question had bothered to actually read what was written at this humble website and elsewhere many years ago, they would have learned that nothing they are offering now makes a dent in what was said here and elsewhere on the subject in question and their presumptive "smoking gun" in recent days is far from what they think it is.

I will however leave it at that and note that maybe if said parties want a real dialogue on the issue, they can act in a fashion more fitting of a dialogue{3} and approach this issue directly and during a relevant time for such discussions{4} if that is what they really want. I suspect it is not but I note these things briefly at this time nonetheless and with that will say nary a word on these matters prior to the relevant time to do so{5} if even then. It is too bad that others do not do likewise and while I suspect there are monetary reasons behind such reticence on their part, that is all I will say about these matters at the present time.

Notes:

{1} Particularly one of a rather incendiary nature.

{2} Namely, the month of August.

{3} For a change.

{4} See footnote two.

{5} See footnote two.

'Holy crap': Experts find tax plan riddled with glitches

I do not remember Politico being so concerned about "glitches" back when the "Affordable Care Act" was being rolled out...

Tax reform should reduce payroll taxes, cut corporate levy

This is what Congress should be doing with tax policy!

Right on schedule, the Seahawks shock the league

Points to Ponder:

Where is the politician who has not promised to fight to the death for lower taxes- and who has not proceeded to vote for the very spending projects that make tax cuts impossible? [Barry Goldwater]

SENATE TAX REFORM BILL PASSES

Briefly...

The growing list of "moves" struck from the old "playbook" in recent months include...

--The mall troll
--The strip-to-ones underwear (with or without robe)
--The ass smack
--The backrub into a six inch hand slide (up or down)
--The boob grab (from the front or the reacharound)
--The innocent kiss into a tongue probe
--The winkie presentation

Points to Ponder:

“Constitutional protections for due process apply when the state is attempting to deprive a person of ‘life, liberty, or property.’ That’s why we have trials before we render civil or criminal judgments. That’s why due process is mandatory before state-mandated punishment in campus sexual assault tribunals. As a general rule, when the state is attempting to deprive you of rights you’d otherwise enjoy, due process attaches. Here, there is no state action. Roy Moore will not lose his life, liberty, or property if voters reject his bid for high office. 

Due process protections, absolutely, positively do not prevent voters from evaluating the veracity of news reports and judging whether a politician is fit for public office. It was entirely fair for voters to analyze the available facts about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal or the available facts about the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation without waiting for the outcome of a civil or criminal proceeding. It is entirely fair for members of the public to evaluate Juanita Broaddrick’s claims against Bill Clinton without a trial. Similarly, it’s entirely fair for the public to analyze the available facts about Roy Moore before deciding how to vote.” [David French]

Points to Ponder:

"One of the advantages of getting old is that what the Byzantine liturgy refers to as the 'dread tribunal of Christ' that you're going to stand before puts the fear of God into you, and so you move to pray more. That already has had an influence on my spiritual life." [Fr. Robert Taft SJ]

Free Campaign Strategy Advice For Republicans:

If you want to keep Jeff Sessions' old seat, you need to recognize the gift you have been given in Nancy Pelosi. When the leader of congressional Democrats has a colleague who has serious charges of sexual impropriety against him two of which he has been sued and also settled out of court on respectively and she refuses to call for their resignation for political reasons, you need to point this out. You need to hammer on the example of Conyers as well as Leader Pelosi's blatant assertion that Rep Conyers is too important politically to be sacrificed and say "see, it is obvious they do not give a damn about women and accusations of abuse, its all politics with them." Dare them to force Conyers to resign and publicly say they have no credibility on these matters until they force him out.

Yeah its a huge distraction but when you have been given such a juicy club with which to beat your opponent senseless with, you need to use it. If you do this enough, you will likely retain enough Republican and Independent voters to win Jeff Sessions' seat in two weeks time.

Free Campaign Strategy Advice For Democrats:

If you want to win Jeff Sessions' old seat, you need to present the appearance of moral high ground. The eight or nine accusations against Roy Moore are for the most part serious and credible. However, those against John Conyers are even more so insofar as one accused him, one filed a lawsuit against him, and he agreed to settle with a third. If your leader Nancy Pelosi cannot even admit that Rep. Conyers should resign over his indiscretions (to say nothing of his seeming senility!), do not expect Alabama Republicans to take any calls you make for Roy Moore to step aside or any claims you make about Moore's unfitness for office seriously.

In short, if you want the moral high ground to castigate Moore and his supporters, you need to call for Conyers to resign and if you do not: brace yourself for Senator Roy Moore!

"Because Trump SoHo is doing so well financially that its tough to keep up with it all, I have decided I need to remove my name from the project!" [Donald Trump]

Final Nights at the Trump SoHo Before Trump Checks Out