As We noted earlier, the addition of Debbie Schlussel's website to the Ecumenical Jihad listing was deemed to be the less proper place for categorizing. Instead, due to the predominantly political nature of her material, We decided to reclassify her to the Predominantly Political category and to slightly retitle that category. It now reads Approved* Weblogs and Websites of a Predominantly Political Nature. It also seemed appropriate to add the recently launched weblog of Michelle Malkin to that category as well -based heavily on her precedent for writing thought provoking material.{1}
Oh and lest anyone accuse Us of discrimination by not including women journalists or commentators in Our scroll of recommended links, let this serve to confute that accusation and make known the fact that We have no objections whatsoever to recommending well-reasoned work composed by brainy and beautiful infobabes.{2} Having noted that, We declare by virtue of Our authority that the aforementioned adjustments are hereby promulgated to Rerum Novarum in perpetuity, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Notes:
{1} We have followed her since her days as a staff columnist for The Seattle Times. (Followed her work that is.)
{2} That oughta rile the so-called "feminists" a bit :)
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
A Very Minor Weblog Update:
Some adjustments were made to the template at this weblog a few minutes ago -almost exclusively in the area of adding to the Ecumenical Jihad category. Though there are a few additional sites and weblogs that I am mulling over adding to the scroll of links, the following were added today:
---Debbie Schlussel's Website (Jewish)
---The Catholic Kerry Watch BLOG - Christopher Blosser, Jeff Miller, Oswald Sobrino, Earl A. Appleby, Jamie Blosser
---Christopher Blosser's Watching Michael Moore BLOG
Also restored to the recommended list of catholic weblogs was Alan Phipps' weblog. Somehow it was overlooked when the template was restored last month but it has been readded now.
By virtue of my authority as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I declare that these adjustments to said weblog are promulgated in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
[Note: Upon further reflection, as Debbie Schlussel's material is predominantly political and not a hybrid of religious and political material, it properly should be classified with JYB and company. For that reason, it will be reclassified hopefully later today. -ISM 7/8/04 7:30 am]
Some adjustments were made to the template at this weblog a few minutes ago -almost exclusively in the area of adding to the Ecumenical Jihad category. Though there are a few additional sites and weblogs that I am mulling over adding to the scroll of links, the following were added today:
---Debbie Schlussel's Website (Jewish)
---The Catholic Kerry Watch BLOG - Christopher Blosser, Jeff Miller, Oswald Sobrino, Earl A. Appleby, Jamie Blosser
---Christopher Blosser's Watching Michael Moore BLOG
Also restored to the recommended list of catholic weblogs was Alan Phipps' weblog. Somehow it was overlooked when the template was restored last month but it has been readded now.
By virtue of my authority as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I declare that these adjustments to said weblog are promulgated in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
[Note: Upon further reflection, as Debbie Schlussel's material is predominantly political and not a hybrid of religious and political material, it properly should be classified with JYB and company. For that reason, it will be reclassified hopefully later today. -ISM 7/8/04 7:30 am]
The readers of this humble weblog may be interested to know that I made some tweaks to the draft of the Reagan book review that I posted earlier on. It now reads on the weblog exactly as it will read when I submit the review tomorrow or so to Amazon.
Points to Ponder:
Difficulties can be solved with philosophy and theology, but in order to "solve" a mystery, it takes obedience and submission. Sometimes, when we ask God questions, He answers with a question, like when He was in the temple, and the way to get the answer is to be silent and let Him come to you...All types of mysteries can only be answered by an abandonment to Christ, letting Christ work through you. [Apolonio Latar III (circa 2/14/04)]
Difficulties can be solved with philosophy and theology, but in order to "solve" a mystery, it takes obedience and submission. Sometimes, when we ask God questions, He answers with a question, like when He was in the temple, and the way to get the answer is to be silent and let Him come to you...All types of mysteries can only be answered by an abandonment to Christ, letting Christ work through you. [Apolonio Latar III (circa 2/14/04)]
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Rev. Michael J. Pahls outlines the fate of slavery in the US if President Lincoln had "thought" on slavery like Kerry does on abortion.
Monday, July 05, 2004
Ronald Reagan - How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Note: This is thesecond and probably final third and final draft of a review I will be submitting to Amazon.com hopefully later in the week. President Reagan, may you rest in peace - ISM]
*****
One of history's greatest presidents...
...and definitely the best president of the second half of the twentieth century. Dinesh D' Souza would argue that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the twentieth century. I would claim a bit less myself: second perhaps to President Roosevelt...and not the President Roosevelt that most people would presume I refer to. But that is neither here nor there.
This book is very compact and seeks to cover a lot of material in a reasonably economical manner. The prologue sets the tone, starting with the manner whereby the Soviet Union was viewed prior to its collapse by the establishment "experts." From there, D' Souza explains why the "wise men" were all wrong and the "dummy" (as the intellectuals viewed Reagan) was right. He also deals with the manner whereby revisionists have sought to paint the USSR's collapse as "inevitable" which is certainly not what these same people were saying at the time. It seems that the approach is say anything except give credit to Reagan for his foresight on this significant issue.
The aforementioned prologue ("The Wise Men and the Dummy") sets the table for the manner whereby the rest of the book unfolds. The topics covered in the work in sequential order are as follows with brief comments from yours truly:
---Why Reagan Gets No Respect.
This chapter outlines well the manner whereby not only the pseudo-"intellectual" elites of the left viewed Reagan but also many hard nosed conservatives of the right (including some of their recognized bigwigs such as George Will and Michael Novak).
---The Education of an Actor.
This chapter is a necessary look into the formation of Reagan's conservative political philosophy as well as the paradigm shift from Roosevelt New Deal supporter to conservative Goldwater-style in his philosophy.
It starts to some extent from his formative years because in order to hope to understand Reagan, one must understand those events which formed the environment which shaped his outlook and convictions. And as Reagan reached his conservative Republican outlook after being born into poverty and living through two world wars, the Great Depression, Korea, the McCarthy era, and the early 1960's, it is important to review this period where his philosophy -which he would refine and deepen in later years- was first set forth in its broad outlines. The chapter ends with Reagan's speech at the 1964 Republican convention: the speech that definitively put him "on the map" for a political career.
---Mr. Reagan Goes To Washington.
This chapter covers the period where Reagan's philosophy received greater deepening and refinement through two terms as governor of California and two significant challenges to the presidency (1976 and 1980). Some may refer to his campaign of 1968 but that was not a serious campaign and Reagan had no chance at the nomination then.
---A Walk on the Supply Side.
If no other chapter in this book was read, this one is essential because it debunks so much of the idiotic myths surrounding Reagan and his role in the increasing deficits of the 1980's.
This chapter outlines an integral part of Reagan's presidential economic plan. It is well worth a read due to the profound ignorance commonly expressed about supply-side policies by historical revisionists and economists too wedded to Keynesian policies: policies which were discredited in the 1970's economic climate by the way.
The reviewer who said that D'Souza "dismisses the massive budget deficits accumulated during the Reagan years" would do well to reread this chapter since the deficit subject is discussed in the context of the Democratic Congress not following through on their promise to cut $3 in spending for every $1 in taxes during the 1982 budget battle. Oliver North was criticized for lying to Congress during Iran-contra but the dishonour Congress brought on themselves in the interim -starting with their broken promises in 1982- made North's actions a venial sin at best.
Those who want to discuss the budget deficits need look no further than here for the reasons. But of course that reviewer is not about to do that because 75% or more of the federal budget is unconstitutional and they are certain to support a fair amount of it. At least Reagan's military spending was constitutional but I digress.
---They Don't Call it Reaganomics Anymore.
This chapter is a good follow-up to the one on supply side economics because it explains the truth behind Reagan's economic policies. In a short phrase: they worked.
---Confronting the Evil Empire.
Picks up and develops what was touched on in the prologue.
---Making the World Safe for Democracy.
In this chapter, D'Souza outlines the principles behind Reagan's approach to totalitarian dictatorships -and the success those policies had throughout the world as dictatorship after dictatorship fell in places such as Central America, South America, Asia, and the Philippines. In this context, Reagan's policy towards Nicaragua and supporting the contras stands out as the brilliant policy that it was. Even Grenada's invasion in 1983 is noted as a significant milestone in foreign policy in that it was the death-knell of the Breshnev Doctrine. Those who are unfamiliar with the latter would do well to read this chapter.
---And the Wall Came Tumbling Down.
Much as the Reagonomics chapter built on the preceding supply side chapter, this one builds on the one that precedes it in dealing with Reagan's skills in negotiating an end to the Cold War. (Through arms reduction treaties and also standing firm against Soviet demands.) This is all material "conveniently" overlooked by modern revisionists. But as "ninety five percent of what is published on all things is hogwash" (A. Jones), this should hardly surprise.
---The Man Behind the Mask.
After dealing with the external effects of Reagan's policies on America and throughout the world, this one seeks to go into the man himself and deal with the many paradoxes that were Reagan. This section is essential for coming close to understanding Ronald Reagan the man.
---Spirit of a Leader.
This chapter deals with Reagan as a leader and also highlights his responses to some of the administrative controversies that occurred in his Administration. Subjects such as PATCO, Lybian jets firing on the USS Nimitz in late 1981, the visiting of the Bitberg cemetery in Germany in 1985, the Lybian bombing of a West Berlin discoteque in 1986 and the US response to it, Iran-contra, and other examples are covered here.
With regards to the latter, D' Souza deals well with Iran-contra. Unfortunately, he did not touch on the 240 odd Marines who died in Lebanon in 1983 as a result of a suicide bomber. Despite the many fabrications and exaggerations often conjured up by Reagan-despising historical revisionists, this was a definite policy blunder and it would have been good to cover here along with some of the others that D'Souza does note. Despite the brevity of this tome, that is not asking too much as it would provide a bit more balance in a work that on the whole is quite vindicating of Reagan's legacy as president and as a man.
---Epilogue: The Road Not Taken.
The epilogue essentially explains why the Republicans have for the most part been floundering without a firm sense of purpose since Reagan left office.
One interesting par of this book is D'Souza's approach which is geared quite obviously to setting the record straight in areas where it is often anything but. To do this, he often follows a pattern of outlining what Reagan's opponents said about his ideas and policies -buttressed with source citations from newspapers and magazines as well as books written by critics or adversaries- and then recounts Reagan's uncanny ability to confute his adversaries again and again. In that sense it reads like an apologetic but, in light of the mountains of lies and distortions that are fed the populace about Reagan and his policies, perhaps that approach is the best way of cutting through the rubbish and focusing on what really happened. (As opposed to what Reagan's opponents wish had happened.)
The subtitle of the paperback is "how an ordinary man became an extraordinary leader." Indeed that is what President Reagan was and no one who approaches the historical record who makes any pretense of objectivity can conclude otherwise. And this book well explains the many reasons why this was so.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Note: This is the
*****
One of history's greatest presidents...
...and definitely the best president of the second half of the twentieth century. Dinesh D' Souza would argue that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the twentieth century. I would claim a bit less myself: second perhaps to President Roosevelt...and not the President Roosevelt that most people would presume I refer to. But that is neither here nor there.
This book is very compact and seeks to cover a lot of material in a reasonably economical manner. The prologue sets the tone, starting with the manner whereby the Soviet Union was viewed prior to its collapse by the establishment "experts." From there, D' Souza explains why the "wise men" were all wrong and the "dummy" (as the intellectuals viewed Reagan) was right. He also deals with the manner whereby revisionists have sought to paint the USSR's collapse as "inevitable" which is certainly not what these same people were saying at the time. It seems that the approach is say anything except give credit to Reagan for his foresight on this significant issue.
The aforementioned prologue ("The Wise Men and the Dummy") sets the table for the manner whereby the rest of the book unfolds. The topics covered in the work in sequential order are as follows with brief comments from yours truly:
---Why Reagan Gets No Respect.
This chapter outlines well the manner whereby not only the pseudo-"intellectual" elites of the left viewed Reagan but also many hard nosed conservatives of the right (including some of their recognized bigwigs such as George Will and Michael Novak).
---The Education of an Actor.
This chapter is a necessary look into the formation of Reagan's conservative political philosophy as well as the paradigm shift from Roosevelt New Deal supporter to conservative Goldwater-style in his philosophy.
It starts to some extent from his formative years because in order to hope to understand Reagan, one must understand those events which formed the environment which shaped his outlook and convictions. And as Reagan reached his conservative Republican outlook after being born into poverty and living through two world wars, the Great Depression, Korea, the McCarthy era, and the early 1960's, it is important to review this period where his philosophy -which he would refine and deepen in later years- was first set forth in its broad outlines. The chapter ends with Reagan's speech at the 1964 Republican convention: the speech that definitively put him "on the map" for a political career.
---Mr. Reagan Goes To Washington.
This chapter covers the period where Reagan's philosophy received greater deepening and refinement through two terms as governor of California and two significant challenges to the presidency (1976 and 1980). Some may refer to his campaign of 1968 but that was not a serious campaign and Reagan had no chance at the nomination then.
---A Walk on the Supply Side.
If no other chapter in this book was read, this one is essential because it debunks so much of the idiotic myths surrounding Reagan and his role in the increasing deficits of the 1980's.
This chapter outlines an integral part of Reagan's presidential economic plan. It is well worth a read due to the profound ignorance commonly expressed about supply-side policies by historical revisionists and economists too wedded to Keynesian policies: policies which were discredited in the 1970's economic climate by the way.
The reviewer who said that D'Souza "dismisses the massive budget deficits accumulated during the Reagan years" would do well to reread this chapter since the deficit subject is discussed in the context of the Democratic Congress not following through on their promise to cut $3 in spending for every $1 in taxes during the 1982 budget battle. Oliver North was criticized for lying to Congress during Iran-contra but the dishonour Congress brought on themselves in the interim -starting with their broken promises in 1982- made North's actions a venial sin at best.
Those who want to discuss the budget deficits need look no further than here for the reasons. But of course that reviewer is not about to do that because 75% or more of the federal budget is unconstitutional and they are certain to support a fair amount of it. At least Reagan's military spending was constitutional but I digress.
---They Don't Call it Reaganomics Anymore.
This chapter is a good follow-up to the one on supply side economics because it explains the truth behind Reagan's economic policies. In a short phrase: they worked.
---Confronting the Evil Empire.
Picks up and develops what was touched on in the prologue.
---Making the World Safe for Democracy.
In this chapter, D'Souza outlines the principles behind Reagan's approach to totalitarian dictatorships -and the success those policies had throughout the world as dictatorship after dictatorship fell in places such as Central America, South America, Asia, and the Philippines. In this context, Reagan's policy towards Nicaragua and supporting the contras stands out as the brilliant policy that it was. Even Grenada's invasion in 1983 is noted as a significant milestone in foreign policy in that it was the death-knell of the Breshnev Doctrine. Those who are unfamiliar with the latter would do well to read this chapter.
---And the Wall Came Tumbling Down.
Much as the Reagonomics chapter built on the preceding supply side chapter, this one builds on the one that precedes it in dealing with Reagan's skills in negotiating an end to the Cold War. (Through arms reduction treaties and also standing firm against Soviet demands.) This is all material "conveniently" overlooked by modern revisionists. But as "ninety five percent of what is published on all things is hogwash" (A. Jones), this should hardly surprise.
---The Man Behind the Mask.
After dealing with the external effects of Reagan's policies on America and throughout the world, this one seeks to go into the man himself and deal with the many paradoxes that were Reagan. This section is essential for coming close to understanding Ronald Reagan the man.
---Spirit of a Leader.
This chapter deals with Reagan as a leader and also highlights his responses to some of the administrative controversies that occurred in his Administration. Subjects such as PATCO, Lybian jets firing on the USS Nimitz in late 1981, the visiting of the Bitberg cemetery in Germany in 1985, the Lybian bombing of a West Berlin discoteque in 1986 and the US response to it, Iran-contra, and other examples are covered here.
With regards to the latter, D' Souza deals well with Iran-contra. Unfortunately, he did not touch on the 240 odd Marines who died in Lebanon in 1983 as a result of a suicide bomber. Despite the many fabrications and exaggerations often conjured up by Reagan-despising historical revisionists, this was a definite policy blunder and it would have been good to cover here along with some of the others that D'Souza does note. Despite the brevity of this tome, that is not asking too much as it would provide a bit more balance in a work that on the whole is quite vindicating of Reagan's legacy as president and as a man.
---Epilogue: The Road Not Taken.
The epilogue essentially explains why the Republicans have for the most part been floundering without a firm sense of purpose since Reagan left office.
One interesting par of this book is D'Souza's approach which is geared quite obviously to setting the record straight in areas where it is often anything but. To do this, he often follows a pattern of outlining what Reagan's opponents said about his ideas and policies -buttressed with source citations from newspapers and magazines as well as books written by critics or adversaries- and then recounts Reagan's uncanny ability to confute his adversaries again and again. In that sense it reads like an apologetic but, in light of the mountains of lies and distortions that are fed the populace about Reagan and his policies, perhaps that approach is the best way of cutting through the rubbish and focusing on what really happened. (As opposed to what Reagan's opponents wish had happened.)
The subtitle of the paperback is "how an ordinary man became an extraordinary leader." Indeed that is what President Reagan was and no one who approaches the historical record who makes any pretense of objectivity can conclude otherwise. And this book well explains the many reasons why this was so.
Friday, July 02, 2004
"Anathema Sit" Dept.
Apparently John Fword Kerry has had a libellus filed against him in the Ecclesiastical Court of Boston. The charge: heresy. You can read more about this HERE and visit the plaintiff's site HERE. Among other points noted in De Fide's statement of purpose is the following:
DE FIDE aims to stop the monumental scandal which has been ongoing for the past thirty-one years of baptized Catholic politicians claiming to be Christian while professing the life-threatening Right-to-Murder heresy.
The crisis is outrageous - it is completely unacceptable - it must be stopped. Otherwise, we, and our children, and our children's children stand more to lose than simply our lives: We risk losing our salvation.
Please help DE FIDE defend the Church and the Faith.
Despite some questioning of the potential fallout from this action viz. the upcoming election,{1} We at Rerum Novarum must nonetheless take into account the potential snowball effect this could cause in the Catholic Church for the public order and the common good of the Church in America{2} as well as the Church universal.{3} For that reason, We will be supporting this cause{4} even if it seems potentially Custerian of Us to do so. John Fword Kerry: Anathema Sit!!!
Notes:
{1} We refer here to the possibility that this could help Kerry in recruiting other heretic, schismatic, and apostate Catholics to his cause by waving about the "Inquisition" red herring for the gullible masses to lap up like Jim Jones' Kool-Aid.
{2} There is also the possibility that this will mobilize many of the pro-life fence sitters to throw in for Bush who has a significantly better track record in this area than Kerry does.
{3} It is possible that this could start a worldwide trend amongst savvy prolife people.
{4} As one of Our earliest political and intellectual mentors Senator Barry Morris Goldwater of happy memory stated at the Republican Convention in 1964:
"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Those who would question this approach can ask themselves if the "liberty" of the unborn has been adequately secured in the past thirty-one odd years or if it has been (to put if quite mildly) profoundly compromised by heretical traitors such as Kerry and company.
Apparently John F
DE FIDE aims to stop the monumental scandal which has been ongoing for the past thirty-one years of baptized Catholic politicians claiming to be Christian while professing the life-threatening Right-to-Murder heresy.
The crisis is outrageous - it is completely unacceptable - it must be stopped. Otherwise, we, and our children, and our children's children stand more to lose than simply our lives: We risk losing our salvation.
Please help DE FIDE defend the Church and the Faith.
Despite some questioning of the potential fallout from this action viz. the upcoming election,{1} We at Rerum Novarum must nonetheless take into account the potential snowball effect this could cause in the Catholic Church for the public order and the common good of the Church in America{2} as well as the Church universal.{3} For that reason, We will be supporting this cause{4} even if it seems potentially Custerian of Us to do so. John F
Notes:
{1} We refer here to the possibility that this could help Kerry in recruiting other heretic, schismatic, and apostate Catholics to his cause by waving about the "Inquisition" red herring for the gullible masses to lap up like Jim Jones' Kool-Aid.
{2} There is also the possibility that this will mobilize many of the pro-life fence sitters to throw in for Bush who has a significantly better track record in this area than Kerry does.
{3} It is possible that this could start a worldwide trend amongst savvy prolife people.
{4} As one of Our earliest political and intellectual mentors Senator Barry Morris Goldwater of happy memory stated at the Republican Convention in 1964:
"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Those who would question this approach can ask themselves if the "liberty" of the unborn has been adequately secured in the past thirty-one odd years or if it has been (to put if quite mildly) profoundly compromised by heretical traitors such as Kerry and company.
Monday, June 28, 2004
"Serendipity on Ice" Dept.
Among other offhand tasks, I am currently working on a review of Dinesh D' Souza's 1997 book on Ronald Reagan. This time though, the Amazon word limit will hopefully not be my enemy. (As the book is a shade under 300 pages and was an enjoyable couple of hours read.)
I do not know where those who write so many reviews for Amazon get the time to do it...those who write detailed reviews I mean. The plan is to have it done before the week is out and (of course) it will be posted to this weblog before it is put up at Amazon. As one who has not written a book review in eighteen months, the sudden nature of this endeavour is rather strange in light of my lack of time to actually do what I am doing (in my spare time).
I am guessing that it is the recent flareup of lividness with regards to MichaelGoebbels Moore that has lit the fire under me to write a review for that book{1} but either way, it is getting done and will be done soon. (Hopefully before the week is out.)
Note:
{1} I may have to actually write that review for Ann Coulter's book Treason which I recall intending to do about ten months ago or so. While not as enjoyable a read as D' Souza's book, it was still very informative and (contra the sophisms of Al Franken) quite accurate. Nonetheless, that will be dealt with in the review if I can find the time to do it.
Among other offhand tasks, I am currently working on a review of Dinesh D' Souza's 1997 book on Ronald Reagan. This time though, the Amazon word limit will hopefully not be my enemy. (As the book is a shade under 300 pages and was an enjoyable couple of hours read.)
I do not know where those who write so many reviews for Amazon get the time to do it...those who write detailed reviews I mean. The plan is to have it done before the week is out and (of course) it will be posted to this weblog before it is put up at Amazon. As one who has not written a book review in eighteen months, the sudden nature of this endeavour is rather strange in light of my lack of time to actually do what I am doing (in my spare time).
I am guessing that it is the recent flareup of lividness with regards to Michael
Note:
{1} I may have to actually write that review for Ann Coulter's book Treason which I recall intending to do about ten months ago or so. While not as enjoyable a read as D' Souza's book, it was still very informative and (contra the sophisms of Al Franken) quite accurate. Nonetheless, that will be dealt with in the review if I can find the time to do it.
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Notification on Some Upcoming Weblog Post Subject Matter:
(And some links onJoseph Goebbels Reincarnated Michael Moore)
To start with, I plan to blog a bit in the coming week on the war, "traditionalism", "progressivism", possibly some more entries on Reagan, and perhaps on some other subjects.{1} In the meantime though , since a member of my family is so insistent that I watch Michael Moore's latest self-styled "documentary" with them,{2} it seems appropriate to provide the following sources as a public service to the readers of Rerum Novarum to balance out what the major media is not going to tell you about thissteaming pile of manure "man."
Hatriotism and Michael Moore
The Moore Lies Archive
If you still have time to read this stuff (and are not sick of it yet), I offer the following as additional sources:
Bowling for Truth
Moorewatch
The last one I must admit has a disturbing subtitle of Watching Michael Moore's Every Move. Considering (i) Moore's ponderous girth and (ii) how much he must eat, I am not so sure I want to see his every move if you know what I mean.
With regards to the above links, I would say "happy reading" but Moore is the very embodiment of the kind of people I noted previously that I spit upon. In the meantime, We at Rerum Novarum extend Our support for Michael Wilson's Unfinished Project and exhort you all to do so in like manner. What's the matter Mikey Moore, afraid of a 17 year old kid interviewing you???
In closing, while par t of me feels that Michael Moore should be treated as the seditionist that he is, at the same time, I am confident that most people are reasonable enough to see through this crap with the appropriate guidance.
I emphasize guidance because I said that prior to the 1996 election also and was proven wrong back then.{3} For that reason, I am supplying some links for my readers despite my belief that they are (as a group) the most intelligent of weblog readers in the blogosphere and do not need said links supplied to them.{4}
[Update: Christopher Blosser informed me today that he now has a Michael Moore weblog. Also worth noting is Debbie Schlussel's review which is an effective dismantling of Moore's film. I definitely recommend printing out and sharing with others --and not only because she opens the review with one of my favourite dictums from Mark Twain. - ISM 6/28/04 11:58 am]
Notes:
{1} Most of the materials are already written and need to be formatted for posting.
{2} My comments last night by phone to this relative included the following question: "how about I watch that film with you and then afterwards we can watch some of Joseph Goebbels' filmwork together???" The response given was "sure" which prompted me to immediately respond with this question: "you do not know whom Joseph Goebbels was do you???"
Out of pity for those who vindicate Santayana's dictum on history, I revealed Goebbels' identity to this family member along with my view that I expected about as much truth from Moore's work as I do from Goebbels' movies or from the texts promulgated as "truth" by the Journal of Historical Review.
The coming days will reveal just how much of an impact the aforementioned statement has on this family member -who despite being very liberal is still much too smart to fall for Moore's drivel. I cannot be more disappointed in them for that reason so I shant reflect upon it much except when they bring the subject up again.
{3} Thankfully, when I made the same prediction in 2000 and 2002, it was vindicated both times. Time will tell if it holds up for 2004 as well.
{4} Call it an "insurance policy" if you will.
(And some links on
To start with, I plan to blog a bit in the coming week on the war, "traditionalism", "progressivism", possibly some more entries on Reagan, and perhaps on some other subjects.{1} In the meantime though , since a member of my family is so insistent that I watch Michael Moore's latest self-styled "documentary" with them,{2} it seems appropriate to provide the following sources as a public service to the readers of Rerum Novarum to balance out what the major media is not going to tell you about this
Hatriotism and Michael Moore
The Moore Lies Archive
If you still have time to read this stuff (and are not sick of it yet), I offer the following as additional sources:
Bowling for Truth
Moorewatch
The last one I must admit has a disturbing subtitle of Watching Michael Moore's Every Move. Considering (i) Moore's ponderous girth and (ii) how much he must eat, I am not so sure I want to see his every move if you know what I mean.
With regards to the above links, I would say "happy reading" but Moore is the very embodiment of the kind of people I noted previously that I spit upon. In the meantime, We at Rerum Novarum extend Our support for Michael Wilson's Unfinished Project and exhort you all to do so in like manner. What's the matter Mikey Moore, afraid of a 17 year old kid interviewing you???
In closing, while par t of me feels that Michael Moore should be treated as the seditionist that he is, at the same time, I am confident that most people are reasonable enough to see through this crap with the appropriate guidance.
I emphasize guidance because I said that prior to the 1996 election also and was proven wrong back then.{3} For that reason, I am supplying some links for my readers despite my belief that they are (as a group) the most intelligent of weblog readers in the blogosphere and do not need said links supplied to them.{4}
[Update: Christopher Blosser informed me today that he now has a Michael Moore weblog. Also worth noting is Debbie Schlussel's review which is an effective dismantling of Moore's film. I definitely recommend printing out and sharing with others --and not only because she opens the review with one of my favourite dictums from Mark Twain. - ISM 6/28/04 11:58 am]
Notes:
{1} Most of the materials are already written and need to be formatted for posting.
{2} My comments last night by phone to this relative included the following question: "how about I watch that film with you and then afterwards we can watch some of Joseph Goebbels' filmwork together???" The response given was "sure" which prompted me to immediately respond with this question: "you do not know whom Joseph Goebbels was do you???"
Out of pity for those who vindicate Santayana's dictum on history, I revealed Goebbels' identity to this family member along with my view that I expected about as much truth from Moore's work as I do from Goebbels' movies or from the texts promulgated as "truth" by the Journal of Historical Review.
The coming days will reveal just how much of an impact the aforementioned statement has on this family member -who despite being very liberal is still much too smart to fall for Moore's drivel. I cannot be more disappointed in them for that reason so I shant reflect upon it much except when they bring the subject up again.
{3} Thankfully, when I made the same prediction in 2000 and 2002, it was vindicated both times. Time will tell if it holds up for 2004 as well.
{4} Call it an "insurance policy" if you will.
Friday, June 18, 2004
On Paul Johnson and the Worthless Human Debris Who Murdered Him:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[WARNING: Any children or those with weak stomachs or sensitive eyes, kindly do not read this post. You have been warned. -ISM]
The beheading of another American ( Paul Johnson RIP) is an occasion to reiterate my previous notes on the beheading of Nick Berg and perhaps to further develop some of those points.
To start with, I need to note that the same essence of the message (and the same sentiments expressed therein) apply here for Paul Johnson and for the Johnson family as I noted there for Nick Berg and the Berg family. Among the views set forth back then on the subject (among other things) were the following:
I suppose we are still going to hear the hollow paens of "involving the UN" in the Iraq situation - the same UN who cannot even run a simple oil for food program without massive corruption. I suppose we are going to still hear the cheap rhetoric of "give peace a chance" and after all, if we simply reason with these people and if we show them we are nice people that they will be nice too and all will be well. No my friends, you do not deal with a rabid disease infested dog that attacks you with kind words or idle threats. You deal with such an animal by shooting it. Likewise, these vile people need to be dealt with.
Of course in some quarters this kind of approach towards these vile specimens has continued. Now inasmuch as extreme liberalism is a mental disorder and not a philosophy in its own right,{1} I can at least understand their idiocy.
For so many of those kinds of people are mentally ill and are to be pitied more than anything. The problem is, not all who take this approach are extreme liberals. There are also some who are generally speaking quite "on the ball" in political and social issues who fall into this trap.{2} Those are the people to which I cannot pity -even when I number them among my friends and/or associates. They are smart enough and they should know better. But I digress.
I already dealt with why what was outlined previously at this weblog does not conflict with the Church's teaching on the death penalty --not to mention why my previously enunciated stance on the war effort was likewise the proper position to be taking. (And further still, why it did not conflict with Church teaching.){3} In the meantime, it is worth noting that the evidence reinforcing my position on the war (as enunciated in February of 2003) has only been increasing over the months and here is another piece for you to mull over. Kindly take a moment and view these pictures:
Pictures of Paul Johnson's Beheading
As I see it, stake burning is too good for the worthless excuses for "people" who would do such a thing to another human being. Even serial murderers do not deserve this kind of death. I am sick and tired of seeing the United States government pussyfoot around on this matter: find these dregs of humanity and wipe them off the face of the earth.
DO NOT TALK TO ME ABOUT REMEDIES FOR THE DISEASE OR PREVENTION MEASURES WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO CONSCIENCES!!! THEY ARE BEYOND BEING REASONED WITH!!! Give them only enough time to commend their souls to whatever their twisted view of "God" is and then destroy them. Then and only then will you have any hope of a long-term peaceful solution.{4}
For that is the only way these kinds of people can be "reasoned with." The only "reasoning" they can do is at the most instinctive survival-level and our message there should be clear: if you kill civilians you will be killed and your remains buried in pig entrails. That will not only take care of them in this life but also in the next.{5}
Once these people are hit where they will hurt -meaning making examples of some of them as noted above- they will be far more likely to stop thinking that they can get away with what they are currently getting away with. And upon achieving that paradigm shift in the actions of these animals (if not their outlooks), then we can focus more on the "transforming society in ways that neutralize or otherwise inhibit the likely formation of such individuals" subject matter.
The above talk is fine in its proper season. However, it is not that season at this time. And Sacred Scripture is clear that there are times and seasons for everything:
All things have their season, and in all their times all things pass under heaven. A time to be born and a time to die; a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted. A time to kill and a time to heal; a time to destroy and a time to build...A time to rend and a time to sow; a time to keep silent and a time to speak. A time of love and a time of hatred; a time of war and a time of peace. (Ecclesiastes iii,1-3; 7-9).
In other words, the idea that there is never a time for war, a time to kill, or a time for hatred is false. We are at war with sub-animals and we cannot reason with them. They either want us to convert to their perverted notion of "religion" and worship their perverted notion of "God" or they will kill us. This has been explicitly stated by them and they have been demonstrating this intention for some time now -the latest example of which was Paul Johnson (may he rest in peace).
Wake up you self-anointed "activists" with your blind and irrational hatred of George Walker Bush. Your position is not only illogical but further: it is idiotic and plays Russian roulette with this nation's national security. You would compromise the safety of American citizens for the sake of political advantage in an election. For that, I spit on you!!!{6}
For as arduous and annoying as this election season is (and will be), one thing is clear as crystal to this writer: President Bush, despite his many problems is the only major presidential candidate who understands the nature of the enemy that we are facing and what they are capable of.{7} That is information that should be first and foremost in the minds of anyone interested in their survival and the safety of their nation when they step into that voting booth.
For those who claim they will "not be voting", I remind you that half a loaf (Bush) is better than no loaf at all (Kerry) and that Catholic teaching recognizes this principle throughout its social corpus.{8} The most fundamental factor involved in this conflict is our survival. And if this country is not kept safe, then all your rantings for your precious agenda items are in vain because should we lose, the Islamofascists would not care a whit about your precious "causes". It is that simple really.
In closing, if the savage beheading of American civilians by rabid infested subhuman debris is not enough to get self-styled "activists" to wake from their pathetic Vietnam-era pretensions and face reality, I have to wonder what it will take. And if they think people like me will wait around for them to finally "get it", I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell them. That is all for now.
Notes:
{1} Credit for this apt analogy goes to radio talk host and best selling author Michael Savage.
{2} I will not mention names here for the sake of keeping this focused on issues and not personalities. However, those of you to whom the shoe fits...you know who you are!!!
{3} Seethe aforementioned Rerum Novarum post on Nick Berg and his murderers for those details and the other mentioned archive links.
{4} Without strength, there can be no peace: this is what history has shown us in many lurid colours over the millennias.
Mankind has not changed in the sense that bullies will ever actually refrain from picking on those whom they perceive as being weak or unwilling to fight. That is what we are seeing with Al Queda sorts who see America as being weak in will and unwilling to stand up for herself. That perception has to be changed and it needed to be changed yesterday.
{5} As it will screw them out of their seventy-odd virgins in the afterlife: thus making their life a hell on both sides of the eschaton.
{6} I would say more but I think you can imagine what might be said.
{7} I am thinking of making two bumperstickers that would read as follows:
--- "Support Al Queda: Vote for John Kerry for President in 2004"
---"Support Islamofascism: Abstain from Voting in 2004."
Anyone who wants to beat me to the punch on those slogans, by all means feel free to use them without concern for proper crediting. For my concern for the common good overrides everything else in this war. (And what is important is the message, not the one delivering it.)
{8} As my late father used to astutely note about voting, "those who do not vote have no credible grounds for complaint later on." I for one happen to concur with that view.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[WARNING: Any children or those with weak stomachs or sensitive eyes, kindly do not read this post. You have been warned. -ISM]
The beheading of another American ( Paul Johnson RIP) is an occasion to reiterate my previous notes on the beheading of Nick Berg and perhaps to further develop some of those points.
To start with, I need to note that the same essence of the message (and the same sentiments expressed therein) apply here for Paul Johnson and for the Johnson family as I noted there for Nick Berg and the Berg family. Among the views set forth back then on the subject (among other things) were the following:
I suppose we are still going to hear the hollow paens of "involving the UN" in the Iraq situation - the same UN who cannot even run a simple oil for food program without massive corruption. I suppose we are going to still hear the cheap rhetoric of "give peace a chance" and after all, if we simply reason with these people and if we show them we are nice people that they will be nice too and all will be well. No my friends, you do not deal with a rabid disease infested dog that attacks you with kind words or idle threats. You deal with such an animal by shooting it. Likewise, these vile people need to be dealt with.
Of course in some quarters this kind of approach towards these vile specimens has continued. Now inasmuch as extreme liberalism is a mental disorder and not a philosophy in its own right,{1} I can at least understand their idiocy.
For so many of those kinds of people are mentally ill and are to be pitied more than anything. The problem is, not all who take this approach are extreme liberals. There are also some who are generally speaking quite "on the ball" in political and social issues who fall into this trap.{2} Those are the people to which I cannot pity -even when I number them among my friends and/or associates. They are smart enough and they should know better. But I digress.
I already dealt with why what was outlined previously at this weblog does not conflict with the Church's teaching on the death penalty --not to mention why my previously enunciated stance on the war effort was likewise the proper position to be taking. (And further still, why it did not conflict with Church teaching.){3} In the meantime, it is worth noting that the evidence reinforcing my position on the war (as enunciated in February of 2003) has only been increasing over the months and here is another piece for you to mull over. Kindly take a moment and view these pictures:
Pictures of Paul Johnson's Beheading
As I see it, stake burning is too good for the worthless excuses for "people" who would do such a thing to another human being. Even serial murderers do not deserve this kind of death. I am sick and tired of seeing the United States government pussyfoot around on this matter: find these dregs of humanity and wipe them off the face of the earth.
DO NOT TALK TO ME ABOUT REMEDIES FOR THE DISEASE OR PREVENTION MEASURES WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO CONSCIENCES!!! THEY ARE BEYOND BEING REASONED WITH!!! Give them only enough time to commend their souls to whatever their twisted view of "God" is and then destroy them. Then and only then will you have any hope of a long-term peaceful solution.{4}
For that is the only way these kinds of people can be "reasoned with." The only "reasoning" they can do is at the most instinctive survival-level and our message there should be clear: if you kill civilians you will be killed and your remains buried in pig entrails. That will not only take care of them in this life but also in the next.{5}
Once these people are hit where they will hurt -meaning making examples of some of them as noted above- they will be far more likely to stop thinking that they can get away with what they are currently getting away with. And upon achieving that paradigm shift in the actions of these animals (if not their outlooks), then we can focus more on the "transforming society in ways that neutralize or otherwise inhibit the likely formation of such individuals" subject matter.
The above talk is fine in its proper season. However, it is not that season at this time. And Sacred Scripture is clear that there are times and seasons for everything:
All things have their season, and in all their times all things pass under heaven. A time to be born and a time to die; a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted. A time to kill and a time to heal; a time to destroy and a time to build...A time to rend and a time to sow; a time to keep silent and a time to speak. A time of love and a time of hatred; a time of war and a time of peace. (Ecclesiastes iii,1-3; 7-9).
In other words, the idea that there is never a time for war, a time to kill, or a time for hatred is false. We are at war with sub-animals and we cannot reason with them. They either want us to convert to their perverted notion of "religion" and worship their perverted notion of "God" or they will kill us. This has been explicitly stated by them and they have been demonstrating this intention for some time now -the latest example of which was Paul Johnson (may he rest in peace).
Wake up you self-anointed "activists" with your blind and irrational hatred of George Walker Bush. Your position is not only illogical but further: it is idiotic and plays Russian roulette with this nation's national security. You would compromise the safety of American citizens for the sake of political advantage in an election. For that, I spit on you!!!{6}
For as arduous and annoying as this election season is (and will be), one thing is clear as crystal to this writer: President Bush, despite his many problems is the only major presidential candidate who understands the nature of the enemy that we are facing and what they are capable of.{7} That is information that should be first and foremost in the minds of anyone interested in their survival and the safety of their nation when they step into that voting booth.
For those who claim they will "not be voting", I remind you that half a loaf (Bush) is better than no loaf at all (Kerry) and that Catholic teaching recognizes this principle throughout its social corpus.{8} The most fundamental factor involved in this conflict is our survival. And if this country is not kept safe, then all your rantings for your precious agenda items are in vain because should we lose, the Islamofascists would not care a whit about your precious "causes". It is that simple really.
In closing, if the savage beheading of American civilians by rabid infested subhuman debris is not enough to get self-styled "activists" to wake from their pathetic Vietnam-era pretensions and face reality, I have to wonder what it will take. And if they think people like me will wait around for them to finally "get it", I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell them. That is all for now.
Notes:
{1} Credit for this apt analogy goes to radio talk host and best selling author Michael Savage.
{2} I will not mention names here for the sake of keeping this focused on issues and not personalities. However, those of you to whom the shoe fits...you know who you are!!!
{3} Seethe aforementioned Rerum Novarum post on Nick Berg and his murderers for those details and the other mentioned archive links.
{4} Without strength, there can be no peace: this is what history has shown us in many lurid colours over the millennias.
Mankind has not changed in the sense that bullies will ever actually refrain from picking on those whom they perceive as being weak or unwilling to fight. That is what we are seeing with Al Queda sorts who see America as being weak in will and unwilling to stand up for herself. That perception has to be changed and it needed to be changed yesterday.
{5} As it will screw them out of their seventy-odd virgins in the afterlife: thus making their life a hell on both sides of the eschaton.
{6} I would say more but I think you can imagine what might be said.
{7} I am thinking of making two bumperstickers that would read as follows:
--- "Support Al Queda: Vote for John Kerry for President in 2004"
---"Support Islamofascism: Abstain from Voting in 2004."
Anyone who wants to beat me to the punch on those slogans, by all means feel free to use them without concern for proper crediting. For my concern for the common good overrides everything else in this war. (And what is important is the message, not the one delivering it.)
{8} As my late father used to astutely note about voting, "those who do not vote have no credible grounds for complaint later on." I for one happen to concur with that view.
The following is probably the best non-Catholic commentary on Trent Session VI that I have ever read:
Reversing Babylon: A Calvinist Reading of the Tridentine Doctrine of Merit - Rev. Michael J. Pahls
For those who set the constitutions, declarations, and decrees of Vatican II in the "ambiguous" category while presuming that the canons and decrees of Trent are "perspicuous" or otherwise "crystal clear" in their elucidation of doctrine, this will not be easy reading for you. Of course those of you who are familiar with my work on "traditionalist" related magisterial exegesis --either in essay form or on one of my weblogs-- will not be surprised by this factor at all.
Reversing Babylon: A Calvinist Reading of the Tridentine Doctrine of Merit - Rev. Michael J. Pahls
For those who set the constitutions, declarations, and decrees of Vatican II in the "ambiguous" category while presuming that the canons and decrees of Trent are "perspicuous" or otherwise "crystal clear" in their elucidation of doctrine, this will not be easy reading for you. Of course those of you who are familiar with my work on "traditionalist" related magisterial exegesis --either in essay form or on one of my weblogs-- will not be surprised by this factor at all.
A "Politically Correct" Pledge of Allegience:
This was thrown together rather quickly so it may need some tweaking later on. Nonetheless...
I pledge allegience to the ACLU
of the racist and homophobic nation of America.
And to the Supreme Court who invents the laws
Many nations, possibly under a Supreme Being{1}
Divisible, with multiculturalism and diversity for all.
As for liberty and justice, I pledge belief in them for those who agree with the ACLU and the Supreme Court.
And I pledge belief in liberty and justice also for all those whose existence is not judged to be worthless or inconvenient{2} by others who are judged by the ACLU or the Supreme Court to be of greater worth.
Notes:
{1} Or just the UN.
{2} As in the case of fetal unviable tissue masses and anyone so old that they are judged by the ACLU and the Supreme Court to be *useless* members of society.
This was thrown together rather quickly so it may need some tweaking later on. Nonetheless...
I pledge allegience to the ACLU
of the racist and homophobic nation of America.
And to the Supreme Court who invents the laws
Many nations, possibly under a Supreme Being{1}
Divisible, with multiculturalism and diversity for all.
As for liberty and justice, I pledge belief in them for those who agree with the ACLU and the Supreme Court.
And I pledge belief in liberty and justice also for all those whose existence is not judged to be worthless or inconvenient{2} by others who are judged by the ACLU or the Supreme Court to be of greater worth.
Notes:
{1} Or just the UN.
{2} As in the case of fetal unviable tissue masses and anyone so old that they are judged by the ACLU and the Supreme Court to be *useless* members of society.
"Cohiba Ergo Sum" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Double Slam)
Much as in the case of Christopher Blosser, another personage of the blogosphere who does not post enough is The Curmudgeon.{1} The following are his two most recent entries to the Disturber of the Peace BLOG. Just a sampling though, you have to click on the links for the rest...
AL QUEDA'S USEFUL IDIOTS:
At Least One Columnist 'Gets It' About Islamo-Fascism
In his very thoughtful column yesterday at National Review Online, Victor David Hanson addresses a central Western liberal attitude which will inevitably lead to the demise of the West if something isn't done to reverse it.
The West, especially Europe, says Hanson, has been playing into the hands of Al Queda and other militant Islamist threats through self-loathing combined with ignorantly regarding them as mere nutcases and unthinking fanatics who 'don't understand' us. On the contrary, he asserts, they understand us all too well, and perhaps better than we understand ourselves.
Uh oh.
And that is what makes them so dangerous, on some level even more dangerous than the Nazis and the USSR were...For more on this, please click HERE.
Have they been reading Sun Tzu's Ancient Art of War on the importance of understanding one's enemy as well as themselves???{2} This writer for one certainly hopes not.
The essential difference between the USSR and the Nazis and these terrorist sorts is that many of the latter believe they are fighting for God. And that is what makes them (in this writer's view) significantly more dangerous.{3}
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY FOR WHOM?
Political Correctness and the Coming Death of the First Amendment
Dr. James Hitchcock, a professor of history at St. Louis University, notes some scary trends here and in the rest of the West which bode ill for the survival of freedom of conscience and religion -at least for those whose consciences are religious in orientation.
In an his weekly column titled Religious Liberty for Whom? Hitchcock cites some examples of how liberal government officials here and abroad have been increasingly trampling on the rights of Christians and other religious people who refuse to walk in lockstep with whatever guilt-and-envy-driven public policy comes down the pike...For more on this, please click HERE.
I wish I could say I was surprised but alas, I am not.
Notes:
{1} The Curmudgeon is a regular contributor to comments boxes at various message boards. See this thread for some examples. (For the record, this writer sides with The Curmudgeon on the subject he is discussing here contra Mark Shea.)
{2} Thus, here are five factors from which victory can be known: (1) One who knows when he can fight, and when he cannot fight, will be victorious; (2) One who recognizes how to employ both large and small numbers will be victorious; (3) One whose upper and lower ranks have the same desires will be victorious; (4) One who, fully prepared, awaits the unprepared will be victorious; (5) One whose general is capable and not interfered by the ruler will be victorious.
These five factors are the Way (Tao) to know victory.
Thus it is said that one who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be endangered in a hundred engagements. One who does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes be victorious, sometimes meet with defeat. One who does not know the enemy and does not know himself will invariably be defeated in every engagement. [Sun Tzu: Ancient Art of War Chapter III on Planning Offenses (c. 2500 BC)]
{3} The danger comes from the warped notion of "God" that these sorts of people possess.
(A Rerum Novarum Double Slam)
Much as in the case of Christopher Blosser, another personage of the blogosphere who does not post enough is The Curmudgeon.{1} The following are his two most recent entries to the Disturber of the Peace BLOG. Just a sampling though, you have to click on the links for the rest...
AL QUEDA'S USEFUL IDIOTS:
At Least One Columnist 'Gets It' About Islamo-Fascism
In his very thoughtful column yesterday at National Review Online, Victor David Hanson addresses a central Western liberal attitude which will inevitably lead to the demise of the West if something isn't done to reverse it.
The West, especially Europe, says Hanson, has been playing into the hands of Al Queda and other militant Islamist threats through self-loathing combined with ignorantly regarding them as mere nutcases and unthinking fanatics who 'don't understand' us. On the contrary, he asserts, they understand us all too well, and perhaps better than we understand ourselves.
Uh oh.
And that is what makes them so dangerous, on some level even more dangerous than the Nazis and the USSR were...For more on this, please click HERE.
Have they been reading Sun Tzu's Ancient Art of War on the importance of understanding one's enemy as well as themselves???{2} This writer for one certainly hopes not.
The essential difference between the USSR and the Nazis and these terrorist sorts is that many of the latter believe they are fighting for God. And that is what makes them (in this writer's view) significantly more dangerous.{3}
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY FOR WHOM?
Political Correctness and the Coming Death of the First Amendment
Dr. James Hitchcock, a professor of history at St. Louis University, notes some scary trends here and in the rest of the West which bode ill for the survival of freedom of conscience and religion -at least for those whose consciences are religious in orientation.
In an his weekly column titled Religious Liberty for Whom? Hitchcock cites some examples of how liberal government officials here and abroad have been increasingly trampling on the rights of Christians and other religious people who refuse to walk in lockstep with whatever guilt-and-envy-driven public policy comes down the pike...For more on this, please click HERE.
I wish I could say I was surprised but alas, I am not.
Notes:
{1} The Curmudgeon is a regular contributor to comments boxes at various message boards. See this thread for some examples. (For the record, this writer sides with The Curmudgeon on the subject he is discussing here contra Mark Shea.)
{2} Thus, here are five factors from which victory can be known: (1) One who knows when he can fight, and when he cannot fight, will be victorious; (2) One who recognizes how to employ both large and small numbers will be victorious; (3) One whose upper and lower ranks have the same desires will be victorious; (4) One who, fully prepared, awaits the unprepared will be victorious; (5) One whose general is capable and not interfered by the ruler will be victorious.
These five factors are the Way (Tao) to know victory.
Thus it is said that one who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be endangered in a hundred engagements. One who does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes be victorious, sometimes meet with defeat. One who does not know the enemy and does not know himself will invariably be defeated in every engagement. [Sun Tzu: Ancient Art of War Chapter III on Planning Offenses (c. 2500 BC)]
{3} The danger comes from the warped notion of "God" that these sorts of people possess.
Thursday, June 17, 2004
"JunkYard BLOG" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Quadruple Slam)
It has been a long time since a JYB update thread made to this humble weblog. Nonetheless, in light of the recent report of "no connection between Al Queda and Iraq by theElect Kerry Campaign so-called "9/11 commission" and the play it is getting in the press,{1} it seems time to address these assertions. We at Rerum Novarum defer on that matter to the JYB where the following entries (among others) have been blogged:
THE ABU GHRAIB BAIT AND SWITCH
As I predicted weeks ago, the Abu Ghraib scandal is the one line of attack available to everyone who opposed the Iraq war--the Western left, Democrat demagogues the likes of Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden, the press, and most obviously the terrorists themselves--that has any chance of succeeding. And because it has a chance of succeeding, it is being pursued with untrammeled vigor. I'm sure Biden and Kennedy and their allies can see the top of the hill they're climbing now, unmindful or uncaring that their possession of that hill all but dictates that we lose the war in Iraq and on terrorism itself. That's fine with them, as long as anybody but Bush is in the White House this time next year.
The latest round of the Abu Ghraib abuse-a-thon has to do with the Justice Department memos written up presumably for the Attorney General and President's consideration in the wake of 9-11. Gleeful Democrat Senators have adopted a slashing [technique] of demanding the Attorney General's testimony before their committees, then mocking each of his answers to all of their questions. They are also, in the process, pulling a bait and switch.
They are holding up Justice memos that suggest, correctly, that al Qaeda terrorists are not subject to treatment under the Geneva Conventions because in their techniques, their tactics and their mode of dress have taken themselves outside Geneva's strictures and therefore its protections. Those memos are then being used to suggest that they created policy that became the abuse in Abu Ghraib...For more on this posting, please go HERE.
If you read nothing else in this post, read everything Bryan wrote word for word on the Abu Ghraib subject -as he is as on target as he possibly can be.{2} Moving on we find this interesting piece on the war and who is winning it:
WHO'S WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ?
To listen to our press, not only are we losing the war, but because of Abu Ghraib we deserve to lose. To listen to terrorist Abu al Zarqawi, though, we're handily winning the war in Iraq:
Al Qaida's most dangerous operative, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, has personally warned terror kingpin Osama bin Laden that his troops are under intensifying pressure from U.S. forces in Iraq and prospects for a terrorist victory look bleak.
A purported letter from Zarqawi to bin Laden, posted to Islamic web sites Monday night, complains that al Qaida fighters in Iraq are being "squeezed" by U.S.-led coalition forces, the Associated Press said...For more on this posting, please go HERE.
Bryan's noting of how this dispatch -whether it is authentic or a forgery- is a win-win for us is worth reflecting upon.
And with the question of WMD's in mind, the following post is of interest:
Another interesting story on the discovery of some of Saddam's weapons cache in junkyards other than this blog. That this information is coming from Blix-free UNMOVIC is startling. UNMOVIC is mad at the US, yet is essentially making our case for war for us. And the Bush administration isn't seizing the moment for some bizarre reason. I just don't get that at all.
So let's get this straight--Saddam Hussein ran one of the most odious regimes on earth. He loved terrorists--kept several of them as pets in Baghdad. Yeah, he put one of them to sleep right before the war, but probably only to keep him from falling into our hands and ratting him out.
Czech intelligence insists to this very day that 9-11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met an Iraqi intel agent in Prague in 2001 a few months before the attacks. The press has fabricated stories that try to knock down the Praque connection, but the Czechs still insist it's true. And there's a whole book on the subject of Saddam and al Qaeda. Yet the 9-11 Whitewash Commission's final report insists that Saddam and al Qaeda didn't tango. Sorry, not buying it.
When that Commission gets testimony from one of the most relevant players in the intel/law enforcement scene--Jamie Gorelick--it will regain about 10% of its lost credibility. Until that time, I will consider that Commission to have been full of sound and fury, but signifying not a thing.
Its final report is worse than useless as a national security document--it is counterproductive. And not just because it states a case it can't prove (the lack of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection), but because the Commission went out of its way to keep a tainted member of its little unity cult on board when she clearly had a conflict of interest...For more on this posting, please go HERE.
Scratch my previous statement, this one is essential reading too. Bryan goes into an interesting theory on Saudia Arabia being among the next targets of Al Queda and notes similarities between this election and 1992. Both are worth a read.
Finally, Bryan's post on "fighting the lie" is short and sweet so it will be posted here in its entirety. Those who are interested in the truth would be wise to do as he outlines:
FIGHT THE LIE
I don't normally include action items in posts, but in this case I'm going to. Here's the thing--the persistent lie that Bush lied about Iraq's WMDs in order to get the American people to support the war has reached the status of Established Truth. It is, however, a lie. And there is a simple and effective way to counter it.
So, in order to counter it, I'm going to ask you to do two things, neither of which will take up much time. The first assignment is to bring up a Google search window and type in three words: Clinton Iraq 1998. Once you run that search, you will find a treasure trove of quotes from the ancien regime regarding Iraq and the reasons Saddam should be pushed off a cliff.
Poke around in the stories you will find, and you will find yourself illuminated on the subject of Iraq's WMD programs like never before. You will read Madeline Albright arguing that the United States should attack Iraq, and you will read Sandy Berger and William Cohen--Clinton administration figures all--agreeing with her.
You will read a tantalizing quote from Berger arguing that pre-emption is a proper doctrine in a world in which stateless terrorism has become the number one national security threat.
I want you to remember that search string--Clinton Iraq 1998. For good measure, you can add Ohio State to it and you'll zero in on an episode you've probably forgotten.
In February of 1998, the Clinton administration tried and failed to take America to war in Iraq. The hard left denounced them at the time for running a racist war. The hard left always plays the race card, even when the action of ousting Saddam results in freeing millions of people with brown skin.
You will need this information in the coming months. Whenever you run across someone who maintains that Bush lied, give them the search string. If you can, sit down with them and run the search with them and make sure they read at least one or two of the stories it finds. You will impress your family and amaze your friends, and you just might change a mind or two.
Fight the lie!
Notes:
{1} And even by some who are good friends of this humble weblog.
{2} It is also worth noting thatt this JYB post was highly recommended by one of Our favourite columnists in the media: Michelle Malkin.
Apparently she has a weblog now which will soon be in the recommended list of predominantly political weblogs at this humble weblog. At least that is this writer's prediction on the matter...
(A Rerum Novarum Quadruple Slam)
It has been a long time since a JYB update thread made to this humble weblog. Nonetheless, in light of the recent report of "no connection between Al Queda and Iraq by the
THE ABU GHRAIB BAIT AND SWITCH
As I predicted weeks ago, the Abu Ghraib scandal is the one line of attack available to everyone who opposed the Iraq war--the Western left, Democrat demagogues the likes of Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden, the press, and most obviously the terrorists themselves--that has any chance of succeeding. And because it has a chance of succeeding, it is being pursued with untrammeled vigor. I'm sure Biden and Kennedy and their allies can see the top of the hill they're climbing now, unmindful or uncaring that their possession of that hill all but dictates that we lose the war in Iraq and on terrorism itself. That's fine with them, as long as anybody but Bush is in the White House this time next year.
The latest round of the Abu Ghraib abuse-a-thon has to do with the Justice Department memos written up presumably for the Attorney General and President's consideration in the wake of 9-11. Gleeful Democrat Senators have adopted a slashing [technique] of demanding the Attorney General's testimony before their committees, then mocking each of his answers to all of their questions. They are also, in the process, pulling a bait and switch.
They are holding up Justice memos that suggest, correctly, that al Qaeda terrorists are not subject to treatment under the Geneva Conventions because in their techniques, their tactics and their mode of dress have taken themselves outside Geneva's strictures and therefore its protections. Those memos are then being used to suggest that they created policy that became the abuse in Abu Ghraib...For more on this posting, please go HERE.
If you read nothing else in this post, read everything Bryan wrote word for word on the Abu Ghraib subject -as he is as on target as he possibly can be.{2} Moving on we find this interesting piece on the war and who is winning it:
WHO'S WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ?
To listen to our press, not only are we losing the war, but because of Abu Ghraib we deserve to lose. To listen to terrorist Abu al Zarqawi, though, we're handily winning the war in Iraq:
Al Qaida's most dangerous operative, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, has personally warned terror kingpin Osama bin Laden that his troops are under intensifying pressure from U.S. forces in Iraq and prospects for a terrorist victory look bleak.
A purported letter from Zarqawi to bin Laden, posted to Islamic web sites Monday night, complains that al Qaida fighters in Iraq are being "squeezed" by U.S.-led coalition forces, the Associated Press said...For more on this posting, please go HERE.
Bryan's noting of how this dispatch -whether it is authentic or a forgery- is a win-win for us is worth reflecting upon.
And with the question of WMD's in mind, the following post is of interest:
Another interesting story on the discovery of some of Saddam's weapons cache in junkyards other than this blog. That this information is coming from Blix-free UNMOVIC is startling. UNMOVIC is mad at the US, yet is essentially making our case for war for us. And the Bush administration isn't seizing the moment for some bizarre reason. I just don't get that at all.
So let's get this straight--Saddam Hussein ran one of the most odious regimes on earth. He loved terrorists--kept several of them as pets in Baghdad. Yeah, he put one of them to sleep right before the war, but probably only to keep him from falling into our hands and ratting him out.
Czech intelligence insists to this very day that 9-11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met an Iraqi intel agent in Prague in 2001 a few months before the attacks. The press has fabricated stories that try to knock down the Praque connection, but the Czechs still insist it's true. And there's a whole book on the subject of Saddam and al Qaeda. Yet the 9-11 Whitewash Commission's final report insists that Saddam and al Qaeda didn't tango. Sorry, not buying it.
When that Commission gets testimony from one of the most relevant players in the intel/law enforcement scene--Jamie Gorelick--it will regain about 10% of its lost credibility. Until that time, I will consider that Commission to have been full of sound and fury, but signifying not a thing.
Its final report is worse than useless as a national security document--it is counterproductive. And not just because it states a case it can't prove (the lack of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection), but because the Commission went out of its way to keep a tainted member of its little unity cult on board when she clearly had a conflict of interest...For more on this posting, please go HERE.
Scratch my previous statement, this one is essential reading too. Bryan goes into an interesting theory on Saudia Arabia being among the next targets of Al Queda and notes similarities between this election and 1992. Both are worth a read.
Finally, Bryan's post on "fighting the lie" is short and sweet so it will be posted here in its entirety. Those who are interested in the truth would be wise to do as he outlines:
FIGHT THE LIE
I don't normally include action items in posts, but in this case I'm going to. Here's the thing--the persistent lie that Bush lied about Iraq's WMDs in order to get the American people to support the war has reached the status of Established Truth. It is, however, a lie. And there is a simple and effective way to counter it.
So, in order to counter it, I'm going to ask you to do two things, neither of which will take up much time. The first assignment is to bring up a Google search window and type in three words: Clinton Iraq 1998. Once you run that search, you will find a treasure trove of quotes from the ancien regime regarding Iraq and the reasons Saddam should be pushed off a cliff.
Poke around in the stories you will find, and you will find yourself illuminated on the subject of Iraq's WMD programs like never before. You will read Madeline Albright arguing that the United States should attack Iraq, and you will read Sandy Berger and William Cohen--Clinton administration figures all--agreeing with her.
You will read a tantalizing quote from Berger arguing that pre-emption is a proper doctrine in a world in which stateless terrorism has become the number one national security threat.
I want you to remember that search string--Clinton Iraq 1998. For good measure, you can add Ohio State to it and you'll zero in on an episode you've probably forgotten.
In February of 1998, the Clinton administration tried and failed to take America to war in Iraq. The hard left denounced them at the time for running a racist war. The hard left always plays the race card, even when the action of ousting Saddam results in freeing millions of people with brown skin.
You will need this information in the coming months. Whenever you run across someone who maintains that Bush lied, give them the search string. If you can, sit down with them and run the search with them and make sure they read at least one or two of the stories it finds. You will impress your family and amaze your friends, and you just might change a mind or two.
Fight the lie!
Notes:
{1} And even by some who are good friends of this humble weblog.
{2} It is also worth noting thatt this JYB post was highly recommended by one of Our favourite columnists in the media: Michelle Malkin.
Apparently she has a weblog now which will soon be in the recommended list of predominantly political weblogs at this humble weblog. At least that is this writer's prediction on the matter...
It would be remiss on the part of this humble weblog not to note that Against the Grain has many good threads as of late. Here are a few that We found of particular interest:
---To start with, there is a story on Cardinal Ratzinger who apparently wants toslap around genteely meet with US bishops to discuss the issue of distributing communion to politicians.We lead off with a Ratzinger story to remind you folks that Against the Grain is your best source for Ratzinger information this side of Zenit.
---There is also a good piece on the conversion of Canon Edward Norman. This guy apparently is an ecclesial historian and the chancellor of York Minster. In three words: heap big fish.
And of course the following one:
---In light of the many would-be "philosophers" that permeate cyberspace, Christopher notes a milestone anniversary of one of the most gifted philosophers in recent centuries.
As one of the favourite stops of this weblog writer, the more frequent blogging by Against the Grain of course pleases Us greatly. The above examples are just a few offerings and are by no means the only ones worth reviewing while you are there.
---To start with, there is a story on Cardinal Ratzinger who apparently wants to
---There is also a good piece on the conversion of Canon Edward Norman. This guy apparently is an ecclesial historian and the chancellor of York Minster. In three words: heap big fish.
And of course the following one:
---In light of the many would-be "philosophers" that permeate cyberspace, Christopher notes a milestone anniversary of one of the most gifted philosophers in recent centuries.
As one of the favourite stops of this weblog writer, the more frequent blogging by Against the Grain of course pleases Us greatly. The above examples are just a few offerings and are by no means the only ones worth reviewing while you are there.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
The Haloscan software at the Lidless Eye weblog and the Rerum Novarum Comments blog{1} has been upgraded. This was done to do away with that absurd 1000 character limit...yes my friends, I basically snapped and decided to fix that problem once and for all.
What that means essentially is this: I paid Haloscan to jazz up my Haloscan account -which should include removing character limits to responses. Worry not, there will be no monetary blegging on my part: only the request that people handle this new freedom of sorts responsibly and make their interactions with others on the threads interesting.
Oh, and if you could say some prayers for the repose of the soul of my father, that would be greatly appreciated.
Note:
{1} For those who are interested, I will be discussing a side of my philosophical weltanschauung in the comments box at the Rerum Novarum Comments weblog that thus far has not been directly dealt with at Rerum Novarum or my other weblogs.
What that means essentially is this: I paid Haloscan to jazz up my Haloscan account -which should include removing character limits to responses. Worry not, there will be no monetary blegging on my part: only the request that people handle this new freedom of sorts responsibly and make their interactions with others on the threads interesting.
Oh, and if you could say some prayers for the repose of the soul of my father, that would be greatly appreciated.
Note:
{1} For those who are interested, I will be discussing a side of my philosophical weltanschauung in the comments box at the Rerum Novarum Comments weblog that thus far has not been directly dealt with at Rerum Novarum or my other weblogs.
The following is a poem written by a good friend of mine. I post it here because it has become very difficult to talk with them in recent months and as a way of letting them know that I am thinking of them at the present time. I hope I have posted it with the right couplet divisions -if not I will allow the author of the work to correct me on the matter.
Jesus Christ I might as well be dead
If I can't see how dangerous it must feel to be
Training human cogs for the machine
Without some shell-shocked lunatic like me
Bombarding their still soft shores
With sticks and stones that were lying around
In the pile of unspeakable feelings I'd found
And I turned back the stone
Turned over the stone
Of my own disappointment
Back home
Jesus Christ I might as well be dead
If I can't see how dangerous it must feel to be
Training human cogs for the machine
Without some shell-shocked lunatic like me
Bombarding their still soft shores
With sticks and stones that were lying around
In the pile of unspeakable feelings I'd found
And I turned back the stone
Turned over the stone
Of my own disappointment
Back home
Monitum on Recent Weblog Activity and Upcoming Subjects for Discussion:
The Lidless Eye Inquisition weblog has been active in recent days with posts from both myself as well as Apolonio Latar. I plan to add the third installment to the thread I was working on either today or tomorrow. (It is done but needs to be formatted properly.)
In the meantime, some poetry from a friend and discussion of a late mentor of mine are on the burner for the upcoming posts. I may also interact with some of the stupid gripes that unthinking liberal loons have about President Reagan in the coming weeks as well.
The Lidless Eye Inquisition weblog has been active in recent days with posts from both myself as well as Apolonio Latar. I plan to add the third installment to the thread I was working on either today or tomorrow. (It is done but needs to be formatted properly.)
In the meantime, some poetry from a friend and discussion of a late mentor of mine are on the burner for the upcoming posts. I may also interact with some of the stupid gripes that unthinking liberal loons have about President Reagan in the coming weeks as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)