"One From the Vault" Dept.
(Revisiting Material From Years Past)

This thread is a Vault Flashback in general content if not in precise composition. I am seeing the Doug Long sources trotted out by the garden variety virtue signalling sorts as is not uncommon this time of year. As I have responded to these sources in other more polemical contexts, I decided to abridge the prior material, reformulate it in a more irenic fashion, and present it anew. New phrasings to the material below will be in brackets. New footnote material not in the prior version will be in purple font. I will not indicate where prior material was removed. Nor will I link to the prior material here as I have no interest in engaging anew prior timewasters uninterested in genuine dialogue. My sources will again be in darkblue font. Without further ado...

The best and most obvious place from which to start this examination in my humble opinion is with the Supreme Commander of the Pacific himself one General Douglas MacArthur. Doug Long starts his quote-fest by quoting from American Caesar which was William Manchester’s well written biography on the man. As I happen to own the very same William Manchester biography of General MacArthur being cited, I will deal with that source first. Starting on page 510, the following is outlined after discussing the inter-service rivalry between MacArthur, Le May, and Nimitz, the following words from pages 510-511 of American Caesar set the stage for putting Doug Long’s quote into proper context:

Hirohito’s generals, grimly preparing for the invasion, had not abandoned hope of saving their homeland. Although a few strategic islands had been lost, they told each other, most of their conquests, including the Chinese heartland, were firmly in their hands, and the bulk of their army was undefeated. Even now they could scarcely believe that any foe would have the audacity to attempt landings in Japan itself. Allied troops, they boasted, would face the fiercest resistance in history. Over ten thousand kamikaze planes were readied for “Ketsu-Go,” Operation Decision. Behind the beaches, enormous connecting underground caves had been stocked with caches of food and thousands of tons of ammunition. Manning the nation’s ground defenses were 2,350,000 regular soldiers, 250,000 garrison troops, and 32,000,000 civilian militiamen –a total of 34,600,000, more than the combined armies of the United States, Great Britain, and Nazi Germany. All males aged fifteen to sixty, and all females ages seventeen to forty-five, had been conscripted. Their weapons included ancient bronze cannon, muzzle loaded muskets, bamboo spears, and bows and arrows. Even little children had been trained to strap explosives around their waists, roll under tank treads, and blow themselves up. They were called “Sherman’s carpets.”

This was the enemy the Pentagon had learned to fear and hate –a country of fanatics dedicated to hara-kiri, determined to slay as many invaders as possible as they went down fighting. [William Manchester: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 510-511)]

From there the book discusses a dovish contingent that was also present. According to the book (pg. 511) everyone MacArthur talked to in the War Department believed that Japan could hold out for at least two more years. From there, the book quotes some Japanese persons with retrospect statements about how “Japan was finished” all of that is towards the end of page 511 leading into page 512 where the citation from Long is made. I will interact with these quotes shortly but first, here is the passage from pg. 512 as Long quotes it:

"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary." [William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.]

Before supplying the text after the quotation for proper context, I cannot avoid mentioning here that the quote given represents equal parts MacArthur’s outlook and the opinion of the biographer. The latter gives the assertion that "...[h]ad the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary” which clearly is a normative argument and thus useless in a discussion of objective facts. Sure it is possible that the bombings may not have been necessary if MacArthur’s advice had been followed but was it probable -that is the question. And in response to the latter I must state for the record that I highly doubt it.

Interestingly enough, Long does not quote the paragraphs immediately following what he does cite which state the following:

In an implacable mood, then, successive versions of “Downfall”, the code name for the invasion of Dai Nippon, were drafted in Washington, and revised in Manila. All of them assumed the worst: that Russian support would be unavailable, that B-29 raids and a naval blockade of Dai Nippon would not be decisive, and that the Manhattan project (of whose existence MacArthur and Nimitz were unaware until late July) would fail to produce practical nuclear fission devices. Germany’s surrender on May 7, 1945, however, guaranteed masses of veteran Allied infantrymen. Thirty divisions were on their way to the Philippines from the ETO. In June, there were 1,400,000 GI’s ready to stage from the archipelago; another 1,000,000 were expected by December. Courtney Hodges, commander of the U.S. First Army already had arrived in Manila but MacArthur still preferred his own field commanders. “Downfall” would begin with “Operation Olympic”, a frontal assault on Kyushu on November 1, 1945, whose purpose would be to secure, in the General’s words “airfields to cover the main assault on Honshu.” The second phase, “Operation Coronet,” the landing on Honshu, would follow on March 1, 1946. He himself probably with Eichelbarger as his chief of staff would lead that.

He had no illusions about the savagery that lay ahead –he told Stimson that Downfall would “cost over a million casualties to American forces alone”—but he was confident that with the tanks from Europe he could outmaneuver the defenders on the great Kanto Plain before Tokyo. Whether he would be as adroit with Eisenhower’s generals –not to mention Ike himself- was another matter. Granting an interview to Bert Andrews of the New York Herald Tribune, he said that the ETO commanders had made “every mistake that supposedly intelligent men could make,” that “the North African operation was absolutely useless,” that “the European strategy was to hammer stupidly against the enemy’s strongest points” and that if he had been given “just a portion of the force” sent to North Africa in 1942, he “could have retaken the Philippines in three months because by then the Japanese were not ready.” [William Manchester: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512-513]

Now then, having established the sitz im leben of Long’s quotation, let us examine the statements made on the preceding page about the dove contingent. First of all, it bears noting that MacArthur and Nimitz were not aware of the Manhattan Project until late July. The short gap in time between their awareness of the bomb's existence and its actual usage was therefore at most three weeks time. According to Louis Morton's writing The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, MacArthur and Nimitz were told of the atomic bombing after July 25, 1945:

In orders issued on 25 July and approved by Stimson and Marshall, Spaatz was ordered to drop the "first special bomb as soon as weather will permit visual bombing after about 3 August 1945 on one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata and Nagasaki." He was instructed also to deliver a copy of this order personally to MacArthur and Nimitz. [Louis Morton: The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb pg. 514 (c. 1958)]

The reason I make the assertion that MacArthur and Nimitz were told of the atomic bombing after July 25, 1945 is because with the greatest likelihood -because of the degree of secrecy that surrounded the Manhattan project- that this was the first time that either MacArthur or Nimitz heard about the existence of the bomb itself. If that theory is correct, than they heard about the bomb either on the 25th or (perhaps) the 26th of July in 1945. That would mean that they would have heard of it at the most with twelve days to go before the actual drop on Hiroshima. Considering that both General MacArthur and Admiral Nimitz were heavily into planning strategery for the November 1, 1945 Operation Olympic invasion at that time --and what would have been the largest land and sea invasion in history: easily dwarfing Normandy-- they were unlikely to have put much thinking into the use of the bomb and the ramifications involved in said usage at that time.

What was also definitely not correct is the assessment of Japan’s lack of capacity for making war. At this point, we will consider this position as mentioned in the Manchester biography of General MacArthur. To start with, their “production was finished” and they could only “produce war materials for a few days more”, had their “factories bombed out of existence” and had “no raw materials” as Japanese industrialist Ryozo Asano is quoted as saying in May of 1945 (American Caesar pg. 511), then how were the Japanese able to continue the building of carriers and other warships in Hiroshima, various planes and other munitions in Nagasaki which we knew that they were doing?

If they were so incapable of production as Ryozo Asano claimed, then those wily Japanese must have been building their ships from May through August of 1945 out of some kind of pixiedust. Further still, how could they be in the process of producing at that time a jet powered fighter craft that (if they had later managed to put it into service in late 1945 for dealing with the impending US invasion) would have had easy pickings from our convoys of military ships due to its ability to run rings around the best planes that the US military had in service at the time?

Obviously this industrialist did not know what they were talking about viz. the whole of Japan and its capabilities since Hiroshima had not even been touched by bombs in the war nor was (to my knowledge) Nagasaki. Indeed, those targets were chosen not only because they constituted complex military industrial nerve centers of the island’s defense and production plants for the armaments to make war but also because of their pristine conditions viz. the effects of the bombings: they were untouched by any of our bombing runs. This was to show just how formidable this new weapon was –though even as I noted earlier, they knew it would be effective but not to the extent that it actually was.

Considering all of these factors, I am making an educated guess here and presuming that the aforementioned industrialist was from Tokyo, which had been decimated of its military production capacities at the time. If I am right about that, then they accurately assessed things as they were in Tokyo viz. military capacities for production but they had little to no knowledge of the capacities of production plants in cities in the south of Japan.

For more on the above Doug Long, the following observations from “Hiroshima_facts” –an internet interlocutor I will occasionally cite for an alternate take on these matters—is of interest: His words will be in blue font where applicable.

MacArthur's biographer seems ignorant of the reality of the surrender, in which Japan accepted our terms unconditionally, and in which there was no condition guaranteeing imperial reign.

The above points with regards to the surrender are a matter of record and are frankly not even disputable.

We did insist on a condition giving MacArthur the power to depose the Emperor at will though...

The biographer does note that in American Caesar interestingly enough which only underscores how those who make the “retaining-the-Emperor-would-have-resulted-in-an-early-surrender” argument missed the proverbial boat. If they were so concerned about the Emperor –and if they made his retention a matter of non-negotiation previously –then it is strange that they would agree later on to give General MacArthur the power to depose the Emperor at will: a minor matter perhaps but considered in light of everything else I noted above, it does not favour the view of those who have tried to argue against the bombings in the manner outlined above by the biographer.

Moving onto the second quote from MacArthur, we have this one:

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.]

It is obvious that MacArthur was operating from the faulty presumption that “the institution of the emperor” being retained would have resulted in a surrender. I will discuss this factor later on in this thread but not without noting that the Americans could not accept the Japanese idea of “retention of the emperor” which was vastly different from what was eventually accepted after the bombs were dropped.

More could be noted on this but perhaps the clincher is that MacArthur was not to my knowledge ever informed about MAGIC and what we knew from that source. Indeed, the biography I have cited heavily from is copyrighted 1978, which was around the time the first batch of MAGIC was partially declassified.{1} The reasons for the general's ignorance on the matter was twofold.

First of all, President Roosevelt did not want General MacArthur to be too in the loop about this kind of stuff because he was capable of being disobedient to his superiors much the way General George Patton was in the European arena.{2} Secondly, President Truman (who actually served under then-Colonel MacArthur in WWI) was not unfamiliar with MacArthur’s reputation for flouting the commands of higher authorities and was not about to act any differently than Roosevelt had -particularly since General MacArthur had shown his loose-lips capabilities by being openly critical of the way military operations were handled in Europe in not a few ways. He was thus viewed as too much of a loose cannon to be trusted with this kind of delicate information. Nonetheless, considering everything noted above, it is safe to say that General Douglas MacArthur’s view on this matter was grounded on some faulty presuppositions and furthermore was not enlightened by the additional information that President Truman and the War Department possessed via MAGIC.

Let us now look briefly at the Doug Long quotes one by one starting with General Eisenhower:

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." - Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson: "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

As I have pointed out in not a few threads [in years past], the presumption that the Japanese were ready to surrender was an erroneous notion. Furthermore, as I noted in dealing with the MacArthur quotes, the MAGIC cables do not appear to be anything that General Eisenhower knew anything about. He may have known about Venona at the time due to his status as Supreme Commander in Europe but Venona was Soviet-focused and had nothing to do with what happened in the Pacific arena. Indeed, by the time he would have learned about these things as president, he would not have had time to go back and review stuff from 1945 as he had a country to run by that point after all. And (of course) in 1963 he was out of the loop completely and could not have accessed them even if he was inclined to.

The following observations from the aforementioned internet interlocutor “Hiroshima_facts” are also of interest on these issues:

Funny how Stimson, who always recorded dissent from officials regarding the bombs, failed to record anything about Ike.

Even funnier how Ike's own early depictions of the encounter claimed that he did not voice any vehement objection.

As what is noted in the above paragraphs are adequate to deal with the quotes from General (later President) Eisenhower on the matter, let us move from the two Supreme Commanders to the former president Herbert Hoover. In Doug Long's citations, we see the following:

Herbert Hoover

On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over." Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.

This is of course is what is called normative argumentation since Hoover was giving his opinion on the matter. We do not see anything to substantiate said opinion and furthermore, we already know that the Japanese insisted on retaining the Emperor but not in the fashion he was eventually retained.

On August 8, 1945, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Hoover wrote to Army and Navy Journal publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." quoted from Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 635.

I have dealt [in the past] with this canard in a posting on double effect so I will not reiterate it here.

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs." quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142

Of course they were prepared to negotiate. However, they were also “prepar[ing] to negotiate” prior to Pearl Harbour…something that not a few people seem to conveniently forget. However, I for one have not.

It bears remembering that President Hoover was not in the loop on MAGIC so that needs to be taken into account as well when assessing his posited opinion above –indeed the aforementioned internet interlocutor “Hiroshima_facts” points this out as well:

That's not what the MAGIC summaries were indicating to Truman.

The Japanese government did not get behind the negotiation gambit until August 2nd, 1945.

All of that is true and verifiable by the evidences. The next bit from “Hiroshima_facts” is subjective but I will post it nonetheless since it represents a MAGIC-informed opinion[:]

At any rate, the war wasn't going to end with negotiations. The only way it could end was with Japan accepting all our terms unconditionally.

Of course that is not all that the former president had to say:

Hoover biographer Richard Norton Smith has written: "Use of the bomb had besmirched America's reputation, he [Hoover] told friends. It ought to have been described in graphic terms before being flung out into the sky over Japan." Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 349-350.

Once again we have normative argumentation. The late President apparently forgot that we did not know the full extent of the bomb’s power beforehand…we knew it was superior to anything ever used before but insofar as its precise power we did not know. It is always easy to play “second guess” in retrospect but that game is subjective in nature and does not actually solve anything.

In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria." Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.

I have already dealt with General MacArthur’s statements in this thread so I will not repeat them here. Furthermore, I have effectively disqualified former President Hoover as a credible authority on these matters so no more needs to be said about those assertions.  I also [dealt with] Col. Carter Clarke’s quote from an earlier posting.{3} Indeed, so many of the rest of Long's quotes from Einstein (scientist) to Nitze (Air Force) to Szilard (scientist) to General Spaatz (Air Force) were not privy to the MAGIC cables so they are easily dismissed on that score as not credible due to lack of key information on the matter. I will therefore touch on some of them only briefly here, starting with Paul Nitze.

First of all, he was in the Air Force so he knew nothing about MAGIC. That is the first strike against him as a credible source. The following points from the aforementioned internet interlocutor “Hiroshima_facts” are also quite interesting –pertaining as they do to Paul Nitze’s position:

The Strategic Bombing Survey was Air Force propaganda that tried to claim that conventional heavy bombers would have won the war on their own, and so should receive the most funding from Congress in an era of rapidly shrinking post-war defense budgets.

Now as far as I know, that is an accurate assertion to some extent -a bit exaggerated perhaps but the essence of the statement is accurate. Furthermore, I have already dealt with the rivalry element of the different armed service divisions as well as pointed out that the Air Force had no familiarity with the contents of the MAGIC cable intercepts after at least February of 1942 –the decoding of various portions being the job of the Army and Navy branches after that time. The Air Force was actually in favour of approaches such as firebombing (as advocated by General Curtis Le May) so I will not say anything more than that. Nonetheless, that is adequate to dispatch with Paul Nitze.

With regards to Joseph Grew (another supposed "authority" posited by Doug Long), I will defer to the internet interlocutor “Hiroshima_facts” on Joseph Grew before addressing this matter myself.

Something most people miss about Grew's suggestion. He was suggesting we allow Hirohito's son to be Emperor under a constitutional monarchy, not suggesting a guarantee for Hirohito himself.

Those who want to review Grew’s comments to check to see if that interpretation is viable are free to do so. It appears correct to me since Grew refers to the "[retention of the] dynasty" which does not necessarily mean Hirohito himself. Here they are from Doug Long's files:

Joseph Grew
(Under Sec. of State)

In a February 12, 1947 letter to Henry Stimson (Sec. of War during WWII), Grew responded to the defense of the atomic bombings Stimson had made in a February 1947 Harpers magazine article:

"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

Anyone can say something after the fact. Why on earth this should be considered a solid piece of evidence is a mystery to me. Moving on...

"If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer." Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29-32.

And if there were real leprechans and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow, that would be great too. Honestly, it is quite evident that Grew was ignorant of the MAGIC cables just by the idiotic statements he made above. But let us first review the words of John McCloy which are similarly misguided before we address both of them with some explication on the subject at hand.

John McCloy
(Assistant Sec. of War)

"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs." McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500.

And this was also wishful thinking. As the very well-read (and MAGIC-informed) historian Richard Frank correctly noted on the whole question of a Japanese surrender:

The Japanese government retained two minimal war aims: preservation both (1) of the Imperial Institution and (2) of the old order in Japan in which the militarists were dominant. They were not just seeking a guarantee of the imperial institution with a figurehead emperor as is often argued. The U.S. war aim of "unconditional surrender" was not merely a hollow wartime slogan. By 1945, it formed an essential element in an overall vision for an enduring peace. "Unconditional surrender" meant the U.S. would secure the legal authority to conduct a complete renovation of Japan to eradicate the old order and assure that Japan never again launched a war of aggression.

Given these minimal war aims on both sides, diplomacy could not work because there was no common ground for compromise between the continuation and the extinction of the old order in Japan. As the [PBS] program noted, even after the atomic bombs and Soviet entry, the Japanese cabinet deadlocked, with the hard liners still holding out for terms including no occupation -- and no occupation means no occupation reforms. As the program further highlighted, as late as the first Japanese peace offer of August 10, 1945, they were still demanding that the U.S. grant real, substantive power to the emperor so that he could veto occupation reforms and defeat the American aim of eradicating the old order in Japan. While critics speak broadly about backing away from or even dropping "unconditional surrender" they have not, to the best of my knowledge, set forth precisely how this could be accomplished and still allow the U.S. to conduct the occupation and the ensuing reforms that produced the peaceful Japan that has exited since 1945. Thus, insisting on "unconditional surrender" was not merely a matter of pride or some perverted American version of "face"; it was the key to the enduring peace. [Richard Frank: Victory in the Pacific from the thread Was there a real strategic reason for the bombing of Nagasaki? (circa May 3, 2005)]

That is more than adequate to dispatch with the fantasies of John McCloy and Joseph Grew on this matter as any kinds of "authority" to use in supporting one's argumentation. But we are not done yet as there are a couple more to tend to.

Admiral William Leahy
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

I have gone over in detail [in years past] why this presumption (that Japan was already defeated and ready to surrender) was false. I will now supplement my arguments by referring the reader back to my previous citation from the historian Richard Frank. There is also these points to take into consideration on the matter:

That diplomacy offered no prospect of success was made clear to American leaders by the daily Magic Diplomatic Summary covering the decoded Japanese diplomatic communications. Copies of each day's edition were distributed to a select band of American policy makers, with the president at the top of the list. The intercepts first of all established that the diplomats of foreign (neutral) governments in Japan were reporting to their own governments by a three or four to one ratio that it was clear to them that the Japanese had no intention of surrendering and meant to fight on to the end. The intercepts next demonstrated that a half dozen or so Japanese diplomats, including military and naval attaches in Europe, who attempted to approach American officials to initiate negotiations all lacked actual authority from the Japanese government for their actions.

The Magic Diplomatic Summary demonstrated that the sole Japanese diplomatic effort that carried the actual sanction of any real authority in Japan was an effort to secure Soviet good offices to mediate an end to the war on terms acceptable to Japan. It was not, as it is sometimes represented, just an effort to have the Soviets act as a postman to deliver a "we surrender" note. The man who was supposed to present this proposal to the Soviets and secure their good offices was the Japanese Ambassador in Moscow, Sato Naotake. When you read as American officials did Sato's comments, you see clearly the diplomatic initiative was not serious. [ibid.]

It seems to me that Admiral Leahy's opinion was summarized well in the following part of the text:

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." - William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

Of course retrospect has shown us that the use of those bombs not only brought a quick end to the war and saved lives on both sides –as I noted in [years past] –as that there have been no subsequent atomic or nuclear weapons which have been used in warfare. Indeed, we even test them underground because of the knowledge of the radiation effects now, which was not available to us back then. As far as the claim that we were "making war” by "destroying women and children” I refer the readers to what I outlined in the double effect posting [and also advise greater care in considering the factor of conscription].

To second (to some extent) my position on Admiral Leahy, I again refer to the interlocutor “Hiroshima_facts” who correctly notes the following:

This is a post WWII position, not a WWII position as claimed above.

And whether or not that is true or not is of course debatable. I have already noted the problem with retrospective argumentation so the viability of that last Leahy quote is at least called into question and thus cannot be viewed as a piece of evidence to establish an argument upon. And (of course) what is not debatable is that Admiral Leahy was presenting a normative argument on the matter [which is of course subjective not objective in nature].

More could be noted but I think it is clear how so many of those who are cited as “proofs” do not stack up for reasons I have noted above. Frankly, I do not see much in the other statements [frequently] cited from Doug Long that is not one giant normative argument and those will not do for reasons I already cited. But (of course) I have done more than merely assert it but indeed have interacted with all of the names on the list who were of any position to potentially have access to all the pertinent information. There is but one more remaining and that is Ralph Bard and he will be dealt with next...

Ralph Bard
(Under Sec. of the Navy)

On June 28, 1945, a memorandum written by Bard the previous day was given to Sec. of War Henry Stimson. It stated, in part:

"Following the three-power [July 1945 Potsdam] conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position [they were about to declare war on Japan] and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the [retention of the] Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.

We know of course that even after the bombs were dropped that the Japanese War Cabinet was considering four conditions prior to Hirohito's intervention. One of them was the retention of the Emperor this is true but not in the fashion that the bureaucrats like Bard were naively presuming. Furthermore, there was also the elements of (i) no occupation and (ii) voluntary disarmament in the mix. It is absurd to suggest that the Japanese would have settled for less before the bombings than they were seeking afterwards and (if not for Hirohito's intervention) they would with the greatest of likelihood not have budged from that position -particularly the ones on no occupation and veto power for the emperor over any US reconstruction ideas.

"I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program." He concluded the memorandum by noting, "The only way to find out is to try it out." Memorandum on the Use of S-1 Bomb, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 77, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 307-308).

See my previous comments.

Later Bard related, "...it definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn't get any imports and they couldn't export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in...". quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 144-145, 324.

The naiveity of the above statement is amazing!!! Furthermore, it ignores the fact that a wounded animal often fights with even greater ferocity and the Japanese were certainly wounded. The Navy had yet to face the full brunt of 10,000 kamikaze planes and I guarantee that the Japanese would have sooner chose that route than surrender: a concept foreign to their 2000 year history and something that those who opined on them surrendering never seemed to take into consideration.

Bard also asserted, "I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted." He continued, "In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb." War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.

See my previous citation from Richard Frank on the "surrender attempt to the Russians" red herring pro-offered by Bard above.{4} Moving on we come to this final thread from Lewis Strauss:

Lewis Strauss
Special Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy)

Strauss recalled a recommendation he gave to Sec. of the Navy James Forrestal before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima:

"I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate... My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood... I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest... would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will... Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation..."

I have already outlined in detail why the above opinions (about the Japanese being "nearly ready to capitulate" are the exact opposite of what was reflected in the MAGIC summaries. If [anyone] wants to explain why such ill-informed so-called "experts" are still viable for this discussion [they] can feel free to.{5} I am confident though that the casual readers can put things together and see why they are not[.]

Strauss added, "It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...". quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 145, 325.

We know of course via the MAGIC Russian cryptological branch of MAGIC called Venona that the Russians had already hacked into the Manhattan Project so the idea that somehow the weapon would have not been put into the arsenals of the world's powers if we had not used it in WWII is pathetically naive at best.

In summary, every single so-called "authority" cited from Doug Long fails and fails badly to be a credible source on this subject for reasons I have detailed in this thread. 

Addendum:

For further reading on the subject of attempted historical revisionism at the 1995 Smithsonian Exhibit, see this very good article. Readers who recognize in there some of the names I have just been critical of can consider the additional arguments in that thread as supplements to my own in this thread.

Notes:

{1} They would not be fully declassified until 1995 as a result of the tireless efforts of the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

{2} I will not go into the problems that General Eisenhower had with General Patton and who I side with on that issue as it is not germane to this discussion.

{3} There is also the issue of context in that we only have one source verifying the position of Brigader General Carter Clarke as being involved with MAGIC. We do not know from this whether or not he was in that position at the time of the bomb droppings or not. This is highly improbable for reasons I will not outline in brief.

To start with, at one point, all the intelligence cabels from MAGIC were under the same umbrella of control if you will but that changed in the early 1940's. The signal date of sorts was February 2, 1943: the date when there was a division made within the MAGIC cooperative of sorts by President Franklin Roosevelt. The divisions were along military service lines. Starting on February 2, 1943, the Navy was placed solely in charge of the Japanese intelligence cabels (their decoding, etc.) while the Army was given a new assignment altogether. Then-Colonel Carter Clark was the founder of Venona or the Russian chryptological branch of MAGIC charged with working on Soviet decoding. The agency under which that decoding was to take place was renamed the Signal Security Agency (SSA). This is not insignificant when you consider that [Doug Long quoted] a second hand source from Brigader General Carter Clarke on Hiroshima fourteen years after the fact. For those who missed the problem with this source being cited, I will reiterate it at this time.

First of all, Carter Clarke was not a Brigader General in 1945 but was instead a colonel. And as he was in the Army and assigned to head up SSA in early 1943, Colonel Clarke would not have overseen the dispatches on the Japanese from at least early 1943 onward. The reason of course should be obvious: he was the founder of the Venona branch of the MAGIC network and the Army had no involvement in the Japanese decoding from that point onward. Colonel Clarke worked on Venona from February 2, 1943 through at least October of 1949...I am uncertain as to if he was involved with Venona past that point. Nonetheless, it is not even deniable that Colonel Carter Clarke was involved in the founding of Venona in early 1943 and that with Venona, Colonel Clarke was involved with Soviet cabels not Japanese ones. For this reason, citing him as MAGIC operative in the position as Doug Long does (in the context of Pacific Theatre codebreaking and information gathering under MAGIC) is very sloppy scholarship (to put it nicely). [Substantially Cited From a Rerum Novarum Posting (circa August 28, 2005)] 

{4} Also worth considering is this observation from Austin Hoyt:

People who argue Japan was about to surrender also ignore the military intercepts which indicate an increase in the divisions defending the invasion beaches on the southern island of Kyushu from three in June to nine in July to 13 in early August and a fight to the death attitude on the part of the Imperial Army. [Austin Hoyt: Victory in the Pacific from the thread Are there historians who believe that the atomic bombs were not justified? (circa May 2, 2005)]

Those who recognize those military numbers as being from [past material I wrote] are correct. I did not get them from Austin Hoyt or even from the Truman library but they are common facts for those marginally familiar with these subjects.

{5} Provided of course that they actually demonstrate their assertions rather than merely make assertions –as anyone can do the latter. 

Preparing to walk
Morning therapy session
When not humid out

Threads on the Atomic Bomb Subject and Various Factors Involved in Objectively Assessing the Moral and Ethical Ramifications Thereof:
(A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread)

I posted a longer variation of this thread eleven years ago with a specific purpose in mind.{1} I may have a different purpose this time{2} depending on my mood, time available, and other factors.{3}

Without further ado...

2005:

On Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications (circa August 17, 2005)

Some Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (From Dr. Art Sippo circa August 18, 2005)

More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (From Tim Tull circa August 19, 2005)

More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontificatons" Thread (From Tim Tull on Dr. Sippo's Email circa August 21, 2005)

Points to Ponder --On the Atomic Bombs and Their Usage (By Dr. Art Sippo circa August 22, 2005)

And Yet More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (circa August 25, 2005)

And More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (circa August 26, 2005)

And Yet Still More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (circa August 26, 2005)

Expanding Futher on the Subject of Double Effect Viz. the Atomic Bombings (circa August 26, 2005)

Clarifying Some Additional Points on the Atomic Bombing Subject With Dave Armstrong (circa August 28, 2005)

"Armstrong Illusions" Dept. --Part I of II (circa September 6, 2005)

"Armstrong Illusions" Dept. --Part II of II (circa September 6, 2005)

Points to Ponder --On Appealing to Authority in Argumentation (circa September 9, 2005)

Briefly on Making a Valid Argument and Avoiding Argumentation Fallacies (circa September 11, 2005)

"Exit Stage Left" Dept. (circa September 12, 2005)

Abstract Theorizing and Hypothetical Wartime Situations With SecretAgentMan--Parts I-II (circa September 20, 2005; September 23, 2005)


2006:

"Armstrong Illusions" Revisited (circa January 23, 2006)

Guest Editorial on the Atomic Bombings, the Continued Emphasis on it Publicly by Certain Apologists, and the Goal of Catholic Apologetics--By Dr. Art Sippo (circa January 26, 2006)

A Followup Guest Editorial on the Atomic Bombings, the Continued Emphasis on it Publicly by Certain Apologists, and the Goal of Catholic Apologetics--By Dr. Art Sippo (circa January 31, 2006)

Naked Anticipation -A Poem by Albert Cipriani (circa January 31, 2006)

Some Wrapup Comments on the Previous Guest Editorial (circa January 31, 2006)

On Gaudium et Spes and General Norms of Interpretation (circa February 4, 2006)

Responding to Various Assertions (circa March 12, 2006)

Some Core Problems With Apologetics Methodology (circa August 5, 2006)

Core Problems With Apologetics Methodology Revisited With Apolonio Latar III (circa August 14, 2006)

Setting the Record Straight on Old Controversies (circa August 16, 2006)

Highlighting a Key Problem With Apologetics Methodology With Jimmy Akin (circa November 28, 2006)


2007:

On General Norms of Theological Interpretation (circa April 27, 2007)

From the Mailbag (circa May 17, 2007)

On the Morality of Using Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Use of Atomic Bombs in General -Outline for a Possible Dialogue in August of 2007 (circa July 22, 2007)

Dispatching Easily With Three Critics -aka "Ducks on the Pond Dept." (circa July 27, 2007)

On A Key Principle Pertaining to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Incidents From 1945 -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Post (circa July 31, 2007)

Miscellaneous Musings (circa August 4, 2007)

Clearing the Ground for a Real Dialogue on the Atomic Bombings (circa August 6, 2007)


2008:

In lieu of what we outlined recently about the wheres (and most of the whys) of the change in direction and emphasis of this weblog which has officially taken place, it seems opportune to note for readers of this humble weblog some of the upcoming projects from the various previously-intended ones which we plan to complete for posting in the coming days, weeks, months, etc of this humble weblog...

...

--A dialogue on the moral and ethical principles behind the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki if the previously-agreed upon dialogual format is still acceptable to the party who accepted my invitation of the previous year and met the minimal requirements requested thereof.[...]

--A thread written with the latter project in mind which may be formatted into a general principle statement apart from that project -in content the two threads would be substantially the same even verbatim in spots but each will pertain to a somewhat different (even if somewhat related by logical extension) context. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 21, 2008)]

My Preliminary Musings on the Anniversary of Hiroshima, on Revisiting This Subject, and on "Blackadder" (circa August 6, 2008)

Some Additional Musings on the Subject of the Atomic Bombings Subject and the Importance of Doing My Part to Facilitate Potentially Fruitful Dialogue (circa August 7, 2008)

Principles of Proper Dialogue -Part of a 2007 Joint Declaration by Shawn and "Blackadder" (circa August 10, 2008)

Response to "Blackadder" on the Atomic Bombings -Part I (circa August 14, 2008)

Response to "Blackadder" on the Atomic Bombings -Part II (circa August 23, 2008)


2017:

Briefly on War Atrocities, History, Selective Outrage, Etc. (circa April 18, 2017)

Commemorating A Controversial Anniversary (circa August 17, 2017)

2018:

Briefly (circa July 31, 2018)


2019:

On a Possible Revisitation of Atomic August (circa August 1, 2019)

Briefly (circa August 17, 2019)

Briefly (circa August 21, 2019)

On the Status of This Year's Atomic August (circa August 30, 2019)


Notes:

{1} This posting will stand in perpetuity as all I intend to say on this subject both to the present time and likely in the years to follow.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 6, 2009)]

{2} On a Possible Revisitation of Atomic August (circa August 1, 2019)

{3} This remains to be seen.

Briefly...

It is time for the president to tell the mayors of cities where rioting has continued regularly for going on two months now and where the state governors have refused to send in the National Guard that their failure to restore order means he will now invoke the Insurrection Act and intervene with the National Guard and federal troops if necessary to do the job mayors and governors have refused to do...

Briefly...

If students are not going back to school after Labour Day, then the teachers should be laid off and their salaries sent to the parents having to home school their kids to help cover said parents increased budgetary expenses.

It seems the software hosting this site has been changed and they are unrolling a new format. I like a couple of the new features but in general prefer what they call the legacy format. Hopefully there will remain an optional feature to access it because if not, it will make publishing here a lot harder and I may have to seek other mediums if this journal of sorts is to be continued here.

Miscellaneous Dyspeptic Mutterings:

I am loathe to mention these subjects but...

I have become convinced than in the lions share of cases, those espousing a particular position on masks would take the diametrically opposite view if they thought they could get a political benefit out of it. Meaning:

--Those #MAGA folks who publicly virtue signal about not wearing masks ever under any circumstance and take a "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" on reopening everything all at once would be the biggest mask nazis and wanting everything shuttered like a ghost town if Hillary Clinton was president right now. Why? To better hurt her politically.

--Those #NeverTrump folks who want to shut everything down everywhere and want people more masked than a Saudi wife are not the beacons of moral principle they purport to be. No, they are much more interested in crippling the economy to try and hurt the political standing of Orange Man this fall than they are for public safety. They would be the biggest "open it all up, we cannot be in fear" folks you can find and would probably be reprising FDR's famous slogan if someone more acceptable to them politically was in office.

It is no different here than with say the budget and debt. We now have folks who for eight years ignored and did not give a shit about ballooning deficits and skyrocketing debt under the prior administration who now suddenly are so concerned about these things? Yeah right!

Or those trusty Tea Party sorts who wailed and gnashed their teeth for eight years as the Obama administration stacked up debt but now say nary a thing when things under Orange Man continue as they did under his dusky-toned predecessor.

It even trickles down to the golf thing where those who gripe about Trump's golfing frequencies did not give a shit about the frequencies of Obama hitting the links while those who bitched often about how often Obama golfed suddenly are as quiet as whores in church when it comes to Trump's golfing.

THIS IS ALL POLITICS AND NOTHING MORE!

With the overwhelming majority of you all, stop pretending it is anything but this. The number of folks on any side who truly are taking stands of principle on these and other issues is very much in the minority. And that's the bottom line, cause Stone Cold said so!

Points to Ponder:

Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. [Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]

Seattle Police Chief: Sorry, business owners. You’re on your own

More willful blindness by the media on spying by Obama administration

In a nutshell: this is a lot worse than Watergate. But the mainstream media does not care because it does not fit any of their preselected narratives.

Relaxing in bed

Preparing to meet the day

Calm before the storm

I have not written
Any haikus for some time
Let us change that now

Points to Ponder:

Trials and tribulations offer us a chance to make reparation for our past faults and sins. On such occasions the Lord comes to us like a physician to heal the wounds left by our sins. Tribulation is the divine medicine. [St. Augustine of Hippo]

The Mayor of Portland was just tear gassed… by federal officers

Points to Ponder:

If the good Lord wishes to prolong the hour of trial, do not complain and look for the reason; but remember always, that the children of Israel had to remain forty years in the desert before reaching the Promised Land. [St. Padre Pio]

"Argumentation Fallacy" Dept. Revisited:
(With Apologies to the Late Aldous Huxley)

[Prefatory Note: This is an abridged version of a thread I first published on August 27, 2004 on critical thinking skills after being appalled at how poorly I had seen people utilize reason and logic over the span of not a few years at that time. The version below was abridged from the original piece and published to Facebook on January 27, 2009. However, since we are closing in on another election now, it seems appropriate to republish the note anew to this site as an aid to those who are endeavouring to deal with various and sundry "arguments" pro-offered by different people as a guide to help them in their discernment of whether said arguments are properly offered or not. -SM]

One of the most frequently means of arguing a point is resorting to an erroneous usage of what is called argument from authority. Now I should note in advance that to some extent, everyone relies on those whom are recognized to various degrees as "authorities" outside of themselves to develop and/or maintain a position in an argument. (As no one can possibly know everything there is to know about any subject in question, let alone the entire spectrum of subject matter.) Nonetheless, there are proper and improper ways of doing this -and the post you are reading will endeavour to explain the proper means versus the improper means of appealing to authority.

What is about to be covered here is hardly something that I am discussing for the first time. However, there is a perceived need to round out and develop a complementary thread to those where this issue was previously dealt with -a "counter-thread" if you will focusing more on positive exposition and less on negative pronouncements. For though I have dealt with this subject before, the genesis of this kind of argumentation was barely touched on in those links.{1} And in not dealing with the foundational presuppositions angle -mainly because I was livid when those threads were written for reasons I am not about to go into at this time- provided to some extent a kind of cover for those guilty of this fallacy to continue to perpetuate it.

With the reception of some emails espousing variations of this problem, essentially we reached critical mass. The previously gruff treatments of this subject was in large part because I cannot stand sophistic time wasters who prefer a character assassination to legitimate discussion of issues.{2} However, it is not only these sorts of individuals who engage in fallacious forms of argument from authority. No my friends, even people interested in genuine dialogue on issues often appropriate this method fallaciously. The question that needs to be answered is essentially one of how people can legitimately argue from authority -should they want to do this. In that regard, it is done primarily by noting first of all how one cannot legitimately do so -and from there avoiding the snares of improper argumentation methodology.{3} To assist in achieving this is the purpose of the thread you are reading.

To start with, arguments that base themselves on any presumed "credentials" of the person so arguing are intrinsically fallacious. I have dealt with this subject before in a number of ways -including using a methodology of argumentation which can be accurately referred to as reducionum ad absurdum. The reason why this kind of argument is logically specious should be obvious on its face. However, because many of those who are agenda-minded can tend to ignore what is (or should be) obvious, a few notes on the matter are worth sketching out for the benefit of those of good will.

To start with, it should be obvious that no opinion is either intrinsically valid or invalid on the basis of the espousing party's particular learning degrees. For one thing, oftentimes people posit degrees after their names of a generalized nature -such as a PhD. This can be deceiving to the reader because they would naturally presume that the author's degree so noted applies to the subject matter in which they are writing about. However, quite often this is not the case. And that of course brings us to the first principle that is essential to take into account when considering the accreditation of said writers -should they posit any of course.

--A recognized authority in one area is not necessarily worth listening to in another area.

It would involve a degree of investigation on the part of the inquirer to determine if such a person is actually to be listened to in the area in which they are speaking. Or should I say, it would be if their primary concern about considering the merits of an argument is based on letters after a name. Those who are familiar with the foundational tools of reason and logic are able to equitably weigh someone's arguments on those standards and receive a kind of "acid test reading" of the relative stability of the arguments advanced.{4} If the arguments pass muster there, then they are worth considering further whereas if they fail there, then there is no reason to consider them any further.{5}

--On topics which are of a controverted nature (or where there are disagreements among recognized experts), it is fallacious to accept the opinion of an authority.

Opinions are usually based on some form of argumentation; however not all forms of argumentation are equal. This is another area that could call for careful discernment -though even "experts" can be found to not infrequently argue in facile ways to support a particular opinion they may have on an issue. While it is true that it is not necessarily fallacious to accept the arguments of an authority which support a particular opinion; at the same time the arguments themselves had better have some solid foundation to them beyond the mere "say so" of the "expert" so cited. It should be obvious (though often it is not unfortunately) that if the authority being cited has grounded their opinion on fallacious argumentation or questionable evidences, then one should not be predisposed to accept their opinion on the matter in the natural sphere of things.{6}

--In areas where there is disagreement among recognized experts, individuals then have to turn to various sources. However, whatever the sources turned to, the purpose cannot be for conclusions or opinions of said authority.

In the above scenario, what must be sought out from the sources turned to is evidences for a particular opinion along with reasons and arguments all working in symbiotic fashion to sustain a particular opinion. Merely accepting conclusions or opinions in and of themselves is a fallacious appeal to authority.

--Appeals to any presumable "authoritative" source should take into account (to the extent this is possible) the track record of accuracy of the source being utilized.

As this is a principle that can itself be easily abused -as one person's conception of error is not necessarily the same as anothers- the general rules of charity should apply here. For those unaware of what I refer to, the principle to be considered basically is this one:

--Do not presume to put an unfavourable interpretation upon the words or actions of another because the same words or actions can be looked upon in different circumstances or contexts.

When there is an obvious misuse of a source in an argument, that is one thing. However, an argument that is based on one particular frame of reference (or context) may be true within that frame of reference but false within another frame of reference. To determine if this is the case or not would of course require some work to be done on the part of the inquirer.

To summarize the above points, these principles if followed will not guarantee that one will be successful in their quest to ascertain the truth from the varying threads of opinion or argumentation out there. However, along with the additional tools of logic and reason,{7} they will mitigate significantly the problem of falling into fallacious forms of argumentation as per the appealing to any presumed "authority." (Within the context of attempting to set forth or sustain a particular position within the framework of a dialogue or debate on issues.)

For it is neither necessarily fallacious nor improper to appeal to an authority in dialogue or debate (or other forms of discussion). Nor is it necessarily inappropriate for those who have certain specializations in a field to denote this with the credentials they have gathered.{8} However, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of doing this. Appeals to supposed "credentials" in order to buttress one's arguments (and try to at the same time silence an opposing view) is the tactics of a poltroon -no matter whom the party is who engages in these tactics.

Now obviously those with related credentials should be accorded a measure of respect. However, such individuals should never presume that they can protect themselves from criticism on this factor alone -particularly if their arguments are specious ones. Also, in the citing of authorities or sources to support one's point of view, one should be careful in how they go about interacting with the work of presumed "experts" to support a particular position being advanced and maintained by argument.{9}

In conclusion, I hope this brief post is of assistance to many in separating the wheat from the chaff and avoiding the all-too-common fallacious forms of argument from authority in your future arguments and elucidations.

Notes:

{1} I originally covered this in a very short thread back in 2003 titled "Sophistic Arguments Learned in Ten Minutes" or something along those lines. As the intended message that sarcastic approach took was not adequately realized by those who were targeted by it at the time; I am hesitant to recreate it here.

{2} In a footnote of the original text I mentioned those who are psychotic enough in their Orwellian Doublespeak methodology to accuse me (falsely) of slander after they have obviously (to anyone who is not blind) libeled me numerous times. (As a way of trying to compensate for their lacking of the basic mental equipment to separate actual slander or libel from a legitimate critique -even sharply- of them and their outlooks.)

{3} Logically if you avoid what is incorrect in your approach to issues, you end up by default utilizing a legitimate method of inquiry. This is the foundation behind the method that seeks what is true only after identifying first of all what is false to thereby narrow the number of potential paths of inquiry.

{4} I have in my life taken on and confuted "experts" in several fields. In the process, I have come to believe an old maxim of one of my intellectual mentors Arthur Jones that "ninety-five percent of what is published on all subjects is hogwash." And that includes by the way what is published by those who are called "experts." If they write in an area that they have extensive knowledge in, their views are of course to be accorded proper respect. However, if the arguments they utilize are shoddy, then no amount of appeal to their "expert status" can fix that deficiency. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa June 27, 2004)]

{5} Mike Mentzer was a large influence in refining my intellectual approach. Mike used to often dissuade people from accepting what he had to say on subjects of his field of expertise simply on the basis of him possessing one of the hallmark "credentials" in the particular field he was involved in. Indeed, rather than base any of his arguments on this factor, Mike would instead often make statements akin to the following:

"I've always reasoned that if the material I presented was valid in and of itself, was offered in a logical manner, and designed to appeal to one's reason and common sense, then the likelihood of it being accepted for its intrinsic worth was greater."

That is how I have throughout my adult life approached discussing any subject matter as a rule. It should go without saying that I therefore recommend the same approach to anyone who wants to make a contribution of value to the arena of ideas: focus only on the intrinsic validity or lack thereof of any argument proposed. For that is what really matters in the legitimate advancement of ideas if we take it down to brass tacks.

{6} I say "natural sphere of things" because on religious subject matters, there can be a supernatural dimension which needs to be accounted for by those who accept a particular religious weltanschauung in question. (Whatever it may be.)

{7} Such as the Laws of Identity and Non-Contradiction.

{8} It is generally a practice of those who are setting forth an argument in peer review journals or other mediums of this sort to denote their degrees relative to the subject matter being discussed. Such a practice is of course fine and proper in those environs to do. In weighing the merits of the arguments advanced, it is incumbent upon the reader who is interested in the subject matter to avoid accepting or rejecting propositions advanced by someone on those criteria rather than on the solidity (or lack thereof) of the arguments said individuals actually advance.

{9} There is also the appeal to an unnamed authority -often in the context of generalized statements. This can be either a legitimate or illegitimate method depending on the circumstances and the context in which this is conducted. Even when legitimate, this is not a very strong form of argument and therefore should be used prudently or in conjunction with other forms of argumentation which have a stronger foundation to them.

Points to Ponder:

Now, my children, where do you get with your impatience and your grumbling? Do your affairs go any better? Do they cause you any less trouble? Is it not, rather, the other way around? You have a lot more trouble with them, and, what is even worse, you lose all the merit which you might have gained for Heaven. [St. John Vianney]

On "Traditionalism", the Catholic Spiritual Tradition, and How To Approach Ecclesial Problems:

My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...

Where is the McCarrick report...where is the Bernardin report...maybe Bernardin/jadot type bishops are a recipe for more crime and deviancy...idk...not saying anything about bishop hicks...but celebrating Bernardin bishops is pretty damn stupid for your insurance premium as a diocese...

"Now, my children, where do you get with your impatience and your grumbling? Do your affairs go any better? Do they cause you any less trouble? Is it not, rather, the other way around? You have a lot more trouble with them, and, what is even worse, you lose all the merit which you might have gained for Heaven." [St. John Vianney]

yes, Shawn, we should just sit back and act like everything’s fine when literally everyone including those in Rome realize it’s so bad they are formulating a report to see how the rot got where it got. In the mean time we shouldn’t tread carefully.

"If the good Lord wishes to prolong the hour of trial, do not complain and look for the reason; but remember always, that the children of Israel had to remain forty years in the desert before reaching the Promised Land." [St. Padre Pio]

Shawn using Sts John vianney and padre pio to justify passively enduring a criminal deviant enterprise perpetuating itself is despicable. I refuse to believe that’s what you’re doing and instead choose to believe you think they are all gone. I thought so too. But now we have Bernardin guys and McCarrick guys rising again thanks to blasé. So hold the vianney and pio quotes. They don’t justify criminal deviancy endured passively.

"Trials and tribulations offer us a chance to make reparation for our past faults and sins. On such occasions the Lord comes to us like a physician to heal the wounds left by our sins. Tribulation is the divine medicine." [St. Augustine of Hippo]

Shawn yeah we’re not going to agree. You want passive enduring. They should be executed.

For someone who claims to be a Traditionalist, you often seem oblivious if not dismissive of the Catholic spiritual tradition. When complaining goes beyond the occasional and into the realm of the habitual, that is a strong sign of spiritual weakness. You would be wise to take greater note of these things and seek counsel from the riches of traditional Catholic spiritual instruction.

Shawn we aren’t talking about an inconvenience in leadership or an ugly statue or a new interior color we’re talking about a criminal deviant enterprise that perpetuated the ritualistic rape of children...

I am fully aware of what it is. However, that does not dispense us from striving to act with the proper spiritual disposition. And it is often not easy to do. A hint: there is a reason it is called "carrying one's cross." There is nothing of spiritual benefit by constantly complaining -especially about things we have no control over. 

When considering how to deal with bad priests following from St. Catherine of Siena's Dialogues is particularly apropo. Here is just some of what it says on the matter:

Christ on earth, then, has the keys to the blood. If you remember, I showed you this in an image when I wanted to teach you the respect laypeople ought to have for these ministers of mine, regardless of how good or evil they may be, and how displeased I am with disrespect... 

These are my anointed ones, and therefore it has been said through Scripture, 'Dare not touch my christs.' Therefore, a person can do no worse violence than to assume the right to punish my ministers... 

The reverence you pay to [priests] is not actually paid to them but to me, in virtue of the blood I have entrusted to their ministry. If this were not so, you should pay them as much reverence as to anyone else, and no more. It is this ministry of theirs that dictates that you should reverence them and come to them, not for what they are in themselves but for the power I have entrusted to them... 

So the reverence belongs not to the ministers, but to me and to this glorious blood made one thing with me because of the union of divinity with humanity. And just as the reverence is done to me, so also is the irreverence, for I have already told you that you must not reverence them for themselves, but for the authority I have entrusted to them. Therefore you must not sin against them, because if you do, you are really sinning not against them but against me. This I have forbidden, and I have said that it is my will that no one should touch them... 

For this reason no one has excuse to say, 'I am doing no harm, nor am I rebelling against holy Church. I am simply acting against the sins of evil pastors.' Such persons are deluded, blinded as they are by their own selfishness. They see well enough, but they pretend not to see so as to blunt the pricking of conscience. If they would look, they could see that they are persecuting not these ministers but the blood. It is me they assault, just as it was me they reverenced. To me redounds every assault they make on my ministers: derision, slander, disgrace, abuse. Whatever is done to them I count as done to me. 

By not paying me reverence in the persons of my ministers, they have lost respect for the latter and persecuted them because of the many sins and faults they saw in them. If in truth the reverence they had for them had been for my sake, they would not have cut it off on account of any sin in them. For no sin can lessen the power of this sacrament, and therefore their reverence should not lessen either. When it does, it is against me they sin... 

If all the other sins these people have committed were put on one side and this one sin on the other, the one would weigh more in my sight than all the others..."

In short, the more the ministers sin, the more you are to reverence them for God's sake, not their own. Perhaps if more so-called "traditionalists" and others had been doing this all along, we would not be seeing what we are seeing now. And by specifically responding to this in ways God has said He particularly detests, you are not doing your own soul any good. 

On the Ahistorical Fiction of 'Traditionalist' Liturgical Worldviews:

This was taken from a Disqus comments thread back in 2013 when the present website was suspended.

The article being interacted with can be read here:

Mass instruction: Fr. Robert Taft on liturgical reform

My words will be in regular font.

Excuse me Father but the mass is the objective worship of God, which we owe to Him as our creator, why else is honouring the sabath one of the commandments?

Fr. Taft did not say otherwise so your rebuttal is a strawman.

The Mass is meant to give objective worship to the Godhead as He commands us to do, only secondly for our edification and instruction.

You apparently missed the part of the article where he said "What you get out of the liturgy is the privilege of glorifying almighty God."

So yes, we are reading the gospel and epistles for Him and Latin is entirely appropriate, considering that all the major religions use ancient languages that are non vernacular.

Do not be ridiculous. The readings are read at Mass for the instruction of the faithful. There is no reason to read the epistles and gospel for God because He both knows what they say and is in no need of being instructed by them. The same is not the case for the people at mass.

The faithful do not understand Latin therefore it makes no sense to read the Epistle and Gospel in Latin at mass and then in the vernacular. And those who try to defend this sort of thing only come off sounding silly in the process.

########

Well let me see if I get this straight, you say "... it makes no sense to read the Epistle and Gospel in Latin at mass..." when the Church has done this for well over 1,000 years?

When Latin was the vernacular tongue in the west (from the third century on), it made perfect sense. Furthermore, every educated person down to the Renaissance in the west if they could read and write knew Latin so it still made some sense -indeed Latin was the foundation for the Romance languages (Italian, Spanish, French) which dominated the west and folks who know those languages can at least to a certain extent know whats being said. But knowledge and understanding of Latin declined in subsequent centuries which created a different situation altogether -one that the church authorities banning vernacular missals until 1898 did not help with but I digress.

The bottom line is the faithful do not understand Latin very well (apart from the ordinary parts of the mass in some cases) and have not for a long time. For that reason, reading the Epistle and Gospel at mass in Latin and then in the vernacular is both unnecessarily duplicative as well as downright silly. But that is what ended up happening because of the foolish notion that developed after the Council of Trent that anything in the vernacular in the liturgy was automatically suspected of Protestantism.

So the Church was wrong for 1,000 years, but you are correct?

There is more to the Church than just the west. In the east, the liturgy was always celebrated in Greek and other languages because they were the vernacular tongues of the people. And even in the west where there is some myth to liturgical monolithicity, the Church historically made use of the vernacular in a variety of cultures. In fact, here are some of the notable derogations{1} from the norm of celebrating the liturgy in Latin within the timeframe you refer:

--Pope Hadrian II granted Sts. Cyril and Methodius a rescript to use Slavonic in the liturgy (circa 869) and Pope John VIII in 880 did the same thing.

--Pope Innocent IV granted Bishop Philip of Senj the right to use the vernacular in his dioceses of Senj, Modrus, Kirk, Sibernik, and Split.

--The Franciscan John of Montecorvino used the Chinese vernacular in the 1300's liturgically without known disapproval from Rome to do so and Pope Paul V in 1615 allowed all Jesuit missionaries to China to follow the earlier precedent.

--The Dominican liturgy (which differs from the Roman liturgy) was translated into Greek for the Dominican missionaries to Greece with the concurrence of the popes who also gave approval around the same time to translate the Dominican rite into Armenian for missionary work there.

--Subsequent to the Council of Trent, the missionaries of India were allowed to translate the Latin liturgy into Syriac for missionary work in that country.

--In the seventeenth century, the Theatine order in Georgia was allowed to celebrate the liturgy in either Armenian or Georgian for their missionary work.

--The Franciscans in the Holy Land in the nineteenth century were allowed to celebrate the liturgy in Arabic.

--Pope Pius XII allowed missionaries in India to celebrate the liturgy in Hindi.

Other examples could be noted but the idea that the Church for 1,000 years did not allow the celebration of the liturgy in languages other than Latin is absurd on its face -even if we confine it just to the churches of the Latin rite!

Prudence would dictate that perhaps the last 50 years are wrong in the face of 1,000 years of constant tradition, and the flowering of devotion and faith throughout the world.

See my previous comments to put the lie to your ahistorical fictions.

Now with the vernacular, all we see is devastation and faithlessness.

Actually, prudence would dictate that you owe faithful Eastern Christians as well as a whole host of western missionaries and popes from Sts. Cyril and Methodius and Pope Hadrian II in the late ninth century all the way down to the Indian missionaries and Pope Pius XII in the mid twentieth century a profound apology for having the temerity of accusing them of promoting "devastation and faithlessness."

Note:

{1} See the Catholic Encyclopedia Article on Derogation for details.

Points to Ponder:

'My country, right or wrong,’ is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’ [GK Chesterton]

Briefly on "Traditionalist Critiques":

This is in response to the following statement which was seen on social media earlier in the year.

[T]here are...quasi- or semi- or crypto-trads, people who intellectually or emotionally agree with traditionalist critiques of the modern situation, but for one reason or another stick it out in the novus ordo paradigm

Virtually all traditionalist critiques are facile and ignore underlying causes in favour of focusing on symptoms. They also usually manifest a shocking degree of spiritual immaturity and ignorance of traditional Catholic spiritual principles in practice even if some may know of them in theory.

There are exactly two (and only two) strong arguments from the traditionalist camp and they rarely focus on either as much as they should. Those arguments involve aesthetics: the two chief weaknesses of the ordinary form contingent as a rule. The first is church architecture. The second is church music. If trads spent most of their time developing those areas and not wasting time on subjective nonsense, they would get further with most folks than they usually do. Well that and ceasing the spiritually immature bile{1} that tends if unchecked to propagate their enclaves over time of course.

Note:

{1} I agree with you that the concern that animates their positions is important. However, a lot of it is simply a lack of spiritual maturity on their side -something I made note of in many of my writings... [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa May 7, 2004) as cited in a Rerum Novarum Vault Posting (circa July 18, 2018)]

Points to Ponder:

There has never been a statue erected to honor a critic. [Zig Ziglar]

On the Inexorable Path of the Intransigent Traditionalist:

My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...

This is pretty straightforward...he...Cardinal Burke...bishop Schneider...Cardinal Brandmueller and others need to sit down and write a serious plan on how to go forward and then submit it to Francis...and if he won’t listen, to his successor...

In other words they would appeal "from a pope ill informed to a pope better informed"?

absolutely. Its clear Benedict felt it was manipulated. Francis might not. He's clearly wrong if he doesn't think it was. A successor not formed during and right after would likely agree.

You do realize you have just sided with Fr. Martin Luther against Pope Leo X right? (I used the words of Luther's appeal against Leo nearly verbatim.)

You would do well to think long and hard about this and not just delete my follow up and pretend it did not happen. This is how schism is cultivated my friend. Seriously.

When doing a quick archival search for something I had previously stated, I discovered the posting it was in had a number of formatting glitches that somehow was overlooked in the compositional and revision stages prior to final publication.

I took a few minutes and did a quick scan and made about a dozen fixes to the text. Most of them were minor but annoying oversights but three were more significant including two bits of discoloured font that got missed in reformatting including half of a paragraph long footnote. I also discovered a uniformity glitch in my footnotes so I changed one word to fix it.

Anyway, all these changes have been published and here is the new hopefully fully deglitched version of a piece I believe is among the most (if not the most) important I have done in two decades plus of web writings.{1} Without further ado...

On the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, Obedience, and the Requirements of Faithful Catholics (circa February 26, 2020)

Note:

{1} The above piece of writing is one that is so significant that it pre-emptively beget three prefatory spinoff pieces composed of material edited out of the piece during revisions (but linked to it in various places later on) as well as a subsequent clarification and retraction piece. The latter can be read here:

On Clarifying and Retracting Some Prior Statements on the Magisterium (circa March 8, 2020)

The most significant of three former pieces can be read here:

On Magisterial Interpretation (circa January 4, 2020)

Points to Ponder:

Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness. [James Wilson]

Roberts Isn’t a Liberal. He’s a Perfectionist Who Wants to Win

This is a response to the following posting. My words are in regular font.

Shawn, a fine is not a tax.

You are forgetting a few things. For example, that if the court is asked to decide between two possible readings and one of those readings will save an statute from unconstitutionality, they will as a rule go with the one that saves the statute. This principle of American constitutional law goes back explicitly to at least the days of Joseph Story who sat on the Marshall Court and who wrote in one of his decisions that "[n]o court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution."{1} Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made the same point a century later writing "the rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act."{2} For "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality."{3} None of this is new.

As for your claim a fine is not a tax, you obviously are not familiar with The Child Labour Cases most notably Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co{4} where the Court determined that a purported tax levied by the statute was actually a penalty disguised as a tax. Also applicable here is the License Tax Cases{5} where the Court held that fees assessed by federal licencees for selling lottery and alcohol products were permissible under the federal taxing power despite their classification as a "fee."{6} And in New York v. United States (1992), the Court upheld as a tax something referred to not as a tax but instead as a "surcharge." For as the Court explained in the syllabus of yet another case, "[a]n exaction which in reality is a penalty cannot be converted into a tax by so naming it; its purpose and operation determine its character."{7}

In other words, your simplistic unsubstantiated assertion does not stand.

Notes:

{1} Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448–449 (1830)

{2} Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927)

{3} Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895)

{4} Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922)

{5} License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 5 Wall. 462 462 (1866)

{6} Which is in essence what you are claiming above.

{7} United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935)

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This is a further response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

The first installments in this series can be read HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. My words will be in regular font.

I think doing away with qualified immunity makes cops prey to ambulance chasing lawyers. They don’t need to have evidence to begin a lawsuit and bankrupt cops who don’t make a whole lot of money to begin with. If there is clear evidence of misconduct, that’s another thing.

Besides, is this something Congress ought to be focusing a lot of energy on? Where’s the evidence of systemic police brutality and abuse?

On qualified immunity...

Qualified immunity hinders the protection of civil rights in a number of ways: 

1. First and foremost, qualified immunity means that victims of brutality or harassment by law enforcement generally get no relief in court and have no ability to hold offending officers accountable for their actions. That means the officers who commit the brutality and harassment—and the governments that employ them—have little incentive to improve their practices and follow the law. This undermines safety and justice for everyone, and particularly for people of color or vulnerable people who are most likely to be the target of police misconduct. 

2. Qualified immunity doesn’t just reduce a person’s chance for victory in a civil rights lawsuit; it means many claims will never be brought to court in the first place. As part of a civil rights law passed in 1976, Congress tried to create an incentive for lawyers to represent victims in civil rights actions and ensure that constitutional rights are safeguarded. To do so, Congress guaranteed that lawyers who represent victims in successful civil rights actions would be able to recover the cost of their time. A huge number of lawyers who bring civil rights actions rely on this law or on the possibility of contingency fees in the event they succeed. 

But when a case is dismissed based on qualified immunity, the victim loses and attorneys are not able to recover the fees for their work. Thus, as a result of the Supreme Court’s aggressive defense of qualified immunity, victims of civil rights violations may be less likely to find a lawyer who is willing to represent them and suits will not be brought in the first place. 

3. Qualified immunity freezes constitutional law. As mentioned previously, in order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, a victim must show that law enforcement violated “clearly established” law by pointing to a case arising in the same context and involving the same conduct. This has given courts a shortcut to resolving cases: Instead of reviewing, analyzing, and applying constitutional doctrine to determine whether a person’s rights were violated, a court can instead simply say that there has been no sufficiently similar case in the past. The result is that fewer courts ever resolve constitutional issues, and constitutional rights are hardly ever “clearly established.”
This shortcut has led to some outrageous results. In an opinion filed in March 2019, for instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that officers were immune from liability for the deliberate stealing of property simply because there was no “clearly established” case law governing the circumstances. In that case, police officers who had executed a search warrant seized about $275,000 in property: approximately $150,000 in cash, and another $125,000 in rare coins, but stated that they had seized only $50,000. In other words, the officers attempted to steal $225,000 while on the job. 

The Ninth Circuit dismissed the lawsuit against the officers, granting qualified immunity because it had “never before addressed” whether officers executing a warrant could steal property. And, according to the court, it was not sufficiently “obvious” to police officers that stealing property under the guise of executing a search warrant violated an individual’s constitutional rights. As a result, the Ninth Circuit said that it “need not” even address whether the officers’ stealing was illegal. 

This example should show the degree to which qualified immunity opens the door for wrongdoing on the part of law enforcement. No reasonable officer needs a case to tell them that stealing property is wrong. But it’s worse than that. Because the court did not say that the conduct was illegal, the law is still not clearly established that officers may not deliberately steal property when exercising a search. So an officer could, again, claim immunity for the same behavior. 

As Fifth Circuit Judge Don Willett described this phenomenon: Victims of abuse “must produce precedent even as fewer courts are producing precedent. Important constitutional questions go unanswered precisely because those questions are yet unanswered. Courts then rely on that judicial silence to conclude there’s no equivalent case on the books. No precedent = no clearly established law = no liability.” In other words, Judge Willett said, “Heads defendants win, tails plaintiffs lose.” [LINK]

‘I’m Tired of Being the Help’

Points to Ponder:

Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. [Jaroslav Pelikan]

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This is a further response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

The first installments in this series can be read HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. My words will be in regular font

Shawn, oh, and by the way, I think cops who commit crimes should be themselves

Then what was your objection to the original status?

Shawn, I didn’t make an objection to your original status per se, although I don’t know if I would be 100% onboard with 3every point. Nor do I believe this should be federal issue. States and cities should make those calls.]

You do realize that these are all areas that were aggravated by federal legislation and federal courts right? It makes it very tough to have states and cities make the calls when the feds overrule it anyway. But that is neither here nor there.

Of the seven points listed, which ones do you have a problem with and why?

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This is a further response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

The first installments in this series can be read HERE, HERE, and HERE. My words will be in regular font.

Apples and oranges? “unelected tin badge wearing authoritah jackoff”

Boy, your cop hatred is as obsessive as I suspected.

When you do not blow cops and place them on an untouchable pedestal, you have a more realist and less fairytale view.

Briefly on Pope Francis and Traditional Spiritual Instruction:

My words will be in regular font.

he’s repeatedly used words that lend one to think he believes in impanation or consubstantiation..

Only if you presume what he is saying must be unorthodox because he does not use specific words you want him to use or because your judgment is formed by an presuppositional inclination against him. St. Francis de Sales counseled against "people whose judgment is solely formed by inclination; who always think well of those they like, and ill of those they dislike." This principle applies to the words and actions of others. As Fr. Quadrupani noted in an eighteenth century spiritual instruction to devout souls referencing St Francis de Sales:

"Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable one will just as certainly choose the worst." 

This principle also made it into the CCC in the section on the eighth commandment and violations thereof (CCC 2478).

can you find similar words before 1965?

It would not matter if I could or could not. But if you want words "prior to 1965" for some arbitrary reason, the words of Quadrupani are from 1795 and the words of de Sales are from 1619.

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This is a further response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

The first installments in this series can be read HERE and HERE. My words will be in regular font.

Shawn, wait a second. You gonna tell me that the assassination of a president, governor, or mayor is not going to be more vigorously prosecuted than a drive-by shooting?

Apples and oranges. There is a qualitative difference between a democratically elected chief executive and some unelected tin badge wearing authoritah jackoff.

Same principle applies, albeit to a lesser extent, to law enforcement for the simple reason that these occupations represent security beyond just themselves.

Geez, the photo from earlier was more on point with you than I thought.

7 Times John Roberts Was A Leftist Hack

Briefly...

1) The clownservatard right were the ones engaging in judicial activism by refusing to sever the mandate in NFIB v Sebilius and instead pretending it could not be severed (which was a lie) all so they could try and strike down an entire statute. This was blatant judicial activism of the sort clownservatards claimed they abhorred. Except it is not true. Because when supposed "conservatives" think they can get away with it, they will curb kick all that talk about originalism and judicial restraint. Hypocrites.

2) This was a basic move of the sort the court often does when there is a case in the pipeline on the same matter awaiting a lower court ruling. That the author sought to use it as one of her examples shows she is really straining to build her list.

3) Now she is bitching about a Roberts' concurrence in a 9-0 court case? Sad and pathetic reaching yet again.

4) The decision here actually was a proper utilization of the Administrative Practices Act. Wilbur Ross' agency screwed up by giving a less than reasonable reason for the addition so it was an example of doing the right thing for the wrong stated reasons. For those who do not give a damn about procedure and only want their chosen end result, they will of course not care.

5) So one complaint she had is during the President Trump impeachment trial, the presiding chief justice refused to engage in right wing political bullshit preferring to focus on the real issue at hand? Yeah, that is such hackery whereas nothing Rand Paul was doing was grandstanding hackish bs? Bitch, please.

6) Gorsuch wrote the opinion and Roberts is being blamed for this one? Boy are we desperate now.

7) Ok, finally we get a legitimate gripe rather than political hackery. What one president puts in place with pure executive authority should be just as easily be removed by another president. So yeah, Roberts blew it on this one.

So of her seven examples, only one really holds water.

We must always put the best construction that we can upon what we see our neighbour do. In doubtful matters, we ought to persuade ourselves that what we noticed is not bad, but that it is our imperfections that cause such a thought to arise in our minds; that thus we may avoid rash judgments, which are a very dangerous evil, and for which we ought to have a sovereign detestation. In cases clearly wrong, we ought to have compassion for our neighbour, and humble ourselves for his defects as if they were our own, and pray God for his amend ment with the same heart we should for our own, were we subject to the same defects. [St. Francis de Sales]

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This is a further response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

The first installment in this series can be read HERE. My words will be in regular font.

Shawn, I have made no excuses whatsoever for police misconduct. And no, it is not an Animal Farm view of things to believe that violent crimes against law enforcement should be prosecuted with even more vigor. It’s not because they are better than anyone else, but for the reason I state above, that is killing cops makes a community more vulnerable. In other words, to BETTER PROTECT A COMMUNITY!!! Woke Shawn refuses to understand the simple logic of deterrence there.

As far as the death penalty is concerned, you know I’m one of the most pro-death penalty folks around for the capital murder of civilians,

Equality under the law should not be a mindless slogan. But just as leftists love to namedrop Dr. King while not bothering to listen to what he said, folks like yourself pay lip service to the notion of being "a nation of laws" and "equality under the law" to create special exemption preserves for some groups of people. In short, "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." In a nutshell: Animal Farm.

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This was a response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

My words will be in regular font.

This should be a two way street. 1) If you mouth off to a cop (tell him to fuck off, call him a pig etc.)in the performance of his duties (traffic stops etc.) you should at least spend the night in jail. When I was growing up, a cop whipped your ass if you mouthed off and no one said shit about it. This was especially true with cops in the suburbs.

2) If you try to physically attack a cop on duty, it should be a felony if it isn’t already. If you happen to get a concussion in the process, tough shit!

3) Murder of a police officer should be an automatic federal death penalty-eligible offense. Since we are treating the Tenth Amendment as dead letter, might as well do it in favor of the good guys once in a while.

There is a difference between wanting effective law enforcement that respects the constitutional and civil rights of those they are supposed to serve and blowing the cops while making excuses for inexcusable violations of constitutional and civil rights with an Animal Farm view of things. Maybe someday you will realize this.

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform:

1) Abolish civil asset forfeiture

2) Make falsifying a police report a felony

3) End qualified immunity

4) End no knock warrants

5) End warrantless searches

6) Make intentionally turning off a police body camera to conceal evidence a felony

7) Require at least a year's training for police officers before they are allowed to go armed into a community.

Today is the 19th anniversary of the passing of my father Richard Dunn McElhinney. If readers could offer some prayers for the eternal repose of his soul, I would appreciate it.



Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him...May his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Points to Ponder:

The work of evangelization presupposes in the evangelizer an ever increasing love for those whom he is evangelizing. That model evangelizer, the Apostle Paul, wrote these words to the Thessalonians, and they are a program for us all: "With such yearning love we chose to impart to you not only the gospel of God but our very selves, so dear had you become to us."{1 Thess 2:8; cf. Phil 1:8.} What is this love? It is much more than that of a teacher; it is the love of a father; and again, it is the love of a mother.{Cf. 1 Thess 2:7-11; 1 Cor 4:15; Gal 4:19.} It is this love that the Lord expects from every preacher of the Gospel, from every builder of the Church. A sign of love will be the concern to give the truth and to bring people into unity. Another sign of love will be a devotion to the proclamation of Jesus Christ, without reservation or turning back. Let us add some other signs of this love.

The first is respect for the religious and spiritual situation of those being evangelized. Respect for their tempo and pace; no one has the right to force them excessively. Respect for their conscience and convictions, which are not to be treated in a harsh manner.

Another sign of this love is concern not to wound the other person, especially if he or she is weak in faith,{Cf. 1 Cor 8:9-13; Rom 14:15.} with statements that may be clear for those who are already initiated but which for the faithful can be a source of bewilderment and scandal, like a wound in the soul.

Yet another sign of love will be the effort to transmit to Christians not doubts and uncertainties born of an erudition poorly assimilated but certainties that are solid because they are anchored in the Word of God. The faithful need these certainties for their Christian life; they have a right to them, as children of God who abandon themselves entirely into His arms and to the exigencies of love. [Pope Paul VI: Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi §79 (December 8, 1975) as Quoted in a Rerum Novarum Posting On the Double Effect Principle in Ethical Argumentation (circa December 30, 2004)]

Viganò: Vatican II Marked The Beginning of a False, Parallel Church

Well, it is official: Vigano finally took an objectively manifested schismatic plunge. I knew he eventually would as the pattern leading toward such things was evident. Nonetheless, somehow he avoided going completely over the edge until now. No longer, he is now a manifested schismatic who espouses positions that are proximate to heresy and quite possibly (if drawn to their logical conclusions) heretical.

Anathema sit!

Points to Ponder:

We would willingly have others perfect, and yet we do not amend our own faults. We would have others strictly corrected; but are not willing to be corrected ourselves. [Thomas a Kempis (circa 1418)]