The Iraq - Al Queda Connection:
(And a Bit on WMD's in General)
To start with, I find it so amusing that certain partisans seem to think that a definitive verdict has been rendered at this time on the existence or lack thereof of WMD's in Iraq. (Based on headlines from newspapers or statements from groups of dubious repute.) Because so many of the antiwar partisans are ignorant of Santayana's dictum about history, I want to return to it briefly to remind the readers of this weblog that it took longer to find weapons of this sort in countries where there has been greater cooperation than the time thus far spent in Iraq. Until those who parrot the "no WMD's in Iraq" line take these facts of reality seriously -not to mention certain other factors that they also conveniently overlook,{1} I fail to see why anyone should give their statements on this subject (whomever they happen to be){2} the time of day.
Having noted that in brief, it is now time for what will probably be a series the next six or so weeks on the Iraq-Al Queda connections. Though it has been noted a number of times at this weblog{3} about the often-not-acknowledged connections between Iraq and Al Queda, as FOXNews will be running a series on this subject -and as they are by far the most credible mainstream American news network- this weblog will be carrying that series as each installment is made public. The first part of it can be read HERE. Others will be posted as they come along -possibly by themselves with only a headline or possibly with additional commentary as in the installment linked to in this post. (It will all depend on how much time I have to post it, my mood at the time in general, and other factors I shant go into at this time.)
Notes:
{1} For example, there is the long proposed (and well supported evidentially) theory that Iraq smuggled weapons and materials into Syria. This is a theory that has rarely been given due play in the obviously anti-Bush media apparatus. This theory is hardly a new one. Indeed, there is a lot to this story and other related ones that have gone unreported for some time by certain apparently blind partisans on this subject whom I shall neglect to name at this time. All I will say on that point presently is that it is manifestly absurd that those who mindlessly parrot catchphrases about "no WMD's" do not dig a little deeper and actually see the forest for the trees but I digress.
{2} I will follow this post up with an audio post dealing with a historical example of the kind of naivety that seems to permeate the weltanschauung of these kinds of people.
{3} Among other places this link where twenty plus pieces of evidence of varying degrees of probability are noted.
Saturday, September 18, 2004
Thursday, September 16, 2004
A Weblog Post Clarification:
For those who may have questions about my stance on Iraq and "just war theory" applications -as outlined in my recent dialogue with SAM{1}, please see the link below for clarification on the matter.
Note:
{1} I refer to the part of the above post where I explain that my stance on the war in Iraq is "more practical than theoretical" - a stance I have held for about two years now - even before I finally came to my current position on the war in February of 2003. The thread where I clarify this point can be read HERE.
For those who may have questions about my stance on Iraq and "just war theory" applications -as outlined in my recent dialogue with SAM{1}, please see the link below for clarification on the matter.
Note:
{1} I refer to the part of the above post where I explain that my stance on the war in Iraq is "more practical than theoretical" - a stance I have held for about two years now - even before I finally came to my current position on the war in February of 2003. The thread where I clarify this point can be read HERE.
"Engrave the Tombstone" Dept.
(On the Mainstream Media and Liberal Inbreeding)
Shawn:
In one of your recent posts, you said that the mainstream media has been in decline for the last fifteen years. The clear decline of the mainstream media began in 1968 when the "most trusted man in America" Walter Cankersore (aka Cronkite) reported that the Tet offensive was a major victory for the Viet Cong when in fact it was the exact opposite, a fact that even the left leaning History Channel now acknowledges. In fact, it actually wiped out the VC. From then on, the NVA was pretty much our sole military opponent.
I am not so sure that this was the start of the decline or if it instead was more of a precursor of what was to come. Of course it is also possible that we are defining the term "decline" differently. When I say the mainstream media has been "in decline for about fifteen years", I refer to their dominance in shaping public opinion. You would appear to be referring to their propagandistic attempts to create impressions of "truth" rather than merely report on it. I am sure we could find examples of this predating 1968 if we looked for them; ergo I am not sure this is the start of decline in your view unless you are referring to the "Emperor has no clothes" part of it viz. Cronkite showing himself to be a seditionist rather than a reliable news source at that time. But that is neither here nor there.
As my use of the term "decline" differs from what yours seems to be, perhaps I should quantify it a bit more. Prior to the late 1980's there was virtually no other outlets except for the alphabet channels and major newspapers for news and views.{1} The first significant challenges to the major media hegemony in terms of influence was the proliferation of cable in the mid to late 1980's; however this was a challenge merely to the monopoly on news and the like, not a credible political/social alternative. The latter would only take place with the simultaneous rise of talk radio from the dead so to speak - something to which Rush Limbaugh had a signal role in with the launching of his national show in 1989.{2} Since then, it has been a steady downward spiral for the major media viz. their influence over public opinion -the past four or five years that spiral has been particularly swift. Here is an example of what I mean by the difference in influence if you will.
Back around 1989-1991 (I cannot remember exactly when) Dan Rather and CBS ran a series on Vietnam veterans which was one giant propaganda broadcast. They had people who claimed to be veterans but not a single one of them was except for a supply clerk who claimed he was a navy assassin. CBS and Dan Rather got away with that forgery back then because there was no alternative media to challenge it except for a few shows like Limbaughs but talk radio was not influential enough at that time to have an impact.
With the two signal events of the past two months (swiftboat vets and the CBS forgeries), the situation could not be more reversed. The major media twelve years ago would have buried the swift vets story without a trace; however, today the alternative media outlets (i.e. talk radio, Drudge, NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, National Review Online, the blogosphere, etc) forced the major media to keep that story afloat a lot longer than they wanted to -and to Kerry's detriment. Because though the major media covered it, they quite clearly wanted to see it discredited. However, with very few sad exceptions (i.e. Bill O'Reilly) the alternative media outlined the swift vets story and demonstrated the overall credibility of the swift vets by fisking all attempts of the major media to conjure up "errors" or "contradictions" in the stories of the vets involved. That is one significant difference from years back -possibly in retrospect it it will be seen as the watershed issue for alternative media because it set the table for what came next with CBS and Dan Rather.
If this had happened back in, say 1994, about the only play it would have gotten would have been on talk radio but that would not have been enough to humiliate CBS and Rather. Today though, the alternative media (led by the Internet and the blogosphere) seized on this story and it spread to talk radio and other alternative outlets like a wildfire. Within 48 hours of breaking, there was enough blood in the water that even the rest of the major media came on board in the feeding frenzy against CBS. The rest is history as they say.
Have you read either of Bernard Goldberg's books on liberal bias, Bias and Arrogance?
No, I have not. (They are on a list of about a hundred odd books I want to read at some point though.)
If you haven't I would strongly suggest that you do. Although you will find much of it will be preaching to the choir, he does give great insights into the pysche behind the leftward slant in the major newsrooms across America. According to Mr. Goldberg, they, because they only associate with likeminded people, honestly believe that their liberal beliefs are MAINSTREAM, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Heck, I could have told you that!!! The major media is a lot like America's bluebloods: too much interbreeding is the problem. The lessons of nature include the phenomenon of physical interbreeding within too close of familial ties creating a weaker organism. If this is carried too far, then the offspring are literally incapable of reproduction. The same is the case with intellectual cultivation.
Conservative-minded people do not have a choice in that much of what they interact with is liberal nonsense; thus they are used to having their views challenged -even if this is usually not by much. (And of course conservatives usually have at least a few liberal friends.) By contrast, liberal-minded people frequently do not hang out with anyone except those who think as they do. They therefore do not receive the intellectual depth of cultivation that comes with interaction with other viewpoints. As a result of this kind of "intellectual inbreeding", it creates a weaker organism cerebrally and a marked propensity towards a worldview that is steeped in solipsism.{3} But I digress.
For example, in '72 when Nixon defeated McGovern in a major landslide, they were genuinely shocked.
They were also shocked in 1980 when Reagan did the same thing as well as in 1984 which was one of the most lopsided presidential contests in history. Likewise, W's dad won pretty comfortably in 1988.
He remembers many of these reporters saying, "How did he win? Nobody I know voted for Nixon."
I will say it again: it is intellectual and political inbreeding.
This is what we are up against and this is what going to sink their ship if they don't get their heads out of...
I think cutting it off there suffices to get the view across just fine. But the problem with solipsists is that they are in some respects constitutionally incapable of doing what you say they need to do. The reason for this is adequately noted in brief at one of the previous links in this post. I will repost it HERE as the concluding point to this post.
Notes:
{1} I know you can point to Firing Line, National Review, and the like but those were fringe sources in the sense that their circulation was miniscule compared to the major media outlets.
{2} Limbaugh's show originated four or five years earlier in Sacramento on a single radio station before it was launched nationally on fifty-six stations in 1989. Since then, he has gone onto be over six hundred stations (including Armed Forces Radio) and accumulate an audience of twenty odd million a week. And with Limbaugh's success came a new format for conservative voices which many others (i.e. Ken Hamblin, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc) were to join making this the first significant challenge to major media.
{3} I have noted elsewhere that this secular scenario has a theological parallel in what is called vital immanence. See the post located HERE for details on that.
(On the Mainstream Media and Liberal Inbreeding)
Shawn:
In one of your recent posts, you said that the mainstream media has been in decline for the last fifteen years. The clear decline of the mainstream media began in 1968 when the "most trusted man in America" Walter Cankersore (aka Cronkite) reported that the Tet offensive was a major victory for the Viet Cong when in fact it was the exact opposite, a fact that even the left leaning History Channel now acknowledges. In fact, it actually wiped out the VC. From then on, the NVA was pretty much our sole military opponent.
I am not so sure that this was the start of the decline or if it instead was more of a precursor of what was to come. Of course it is also possible that we are defining the term "decline" differently. When I say the mainstream media has been "in decline for about fifteen years", I refer to their dominance in shaping public opinion. You would appear to be referring to their propagandistic attempts to create impressions of "truth" rather than merely report on it. I am sure we could find examples of this predating 1968 if we looked for them; ergo I am not sure this is the start of decline in your view unless you are referring to the "Emperor has no clothes" part of it viz. Cronkite showing himself to be a seditionist rather than a reliable news source at that time. But that is neither here nor there.
As my use of the term "decline" differs from what yours seems to be, perhaps I should quantify it a bit more. Prior to the late 1980's there was virtually no other outlets except for the alphabet channels and major newspapers for news and views.{1} The first significant challenges to the major media hegemony in terms of influence was the proliferation of cable in the mid to late 1980's; however this was a challenge merely to the monopoly on news and the like, not a credible political/social alternative. The latter would only take place with the simultaneous rise of talk radio from the dead so to speak - something to which Rush Limbaugh had a signal role in with the launching of his national show in 1989.{2} Since then, it has been a steady downward spiral for the major media viz. their influence over public opinion -the past four or five years that spiral has been particularly swift. Here is an example of what I mean by the difference in influence if you will.
Back around 1989-1991 (I cannot remember exactly when) Dan Rather and CBS ran a series on Vietnam veterans which was one giant propaganda broadcast. They had people who claimed to be veterans but not a single one of them was except for a supply clerk who claimed he was a navy assassin. CBS and Dan Rather got away with that forgery back then because there was no alternative media to challenge it except for a few shows like Limbaughs but talk radio was not influential enough at that time to have an impact.
With the two signal events of the past two months (swiftboat vets and the CBS forgeries), the situation could not be more reversed. The major media twelve years ago would have buried the swift vets story without a trace; however, today the alternative media outlets (i.e. talk radio, Drudge, NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, National Review Online, the blogosphere, etc) forced the major media to keep that story afloat a lot longer than they wanted to -and to Kerry's detriment. Because though the major media covered it, they quite clearly wanted to see it discredited. However, with very few sad exceptions (i.e. Bill O'Reilly) the alternative media outlined the swift vets story and demonstrated the overall credibility of the swift vets by fisking all attempts of the major media to conjure up "errors" or "contradictions" in the stories of the vets involved. That is one significant difference from years back -possibly in retrospect it it will be seen as the watershed issue for alternative media because it set the table for what came next with CBS and Dan Rather.
If this had happened back in, say 1994, about the only play it would have gotten would have been on talk radio but that would not have been enough to humiliate CBS and Rather. Today though, the alternative media (led by the Internet and the blogosphere) seized on this story and it spread to talk radio and other alternative outlets like a wildfire. Within 48 hours of breaking, there was enough blood in the water that even the rest of the major media came on board in the feeding frenzy against CBS. The rest is history as they say.
Have you read either of Bernard Goldberg's books on liberal bias, Bias and Arrogance?
No, I have not. (They are on a list of about a hundred odd books I want to read at some point though.)
If you haven't I would strongly suggest that you do. Although you will find much of it will be preaching to the choir, he does give great insights into the pysche behind the leftward slant in the major newsrooms across America. According to Mr. Goldberg, they, because they only associate with likeminded people, honestly believe that their liberal beliefs are MAINSTREAM, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Heck, I could have told you that!!! The major media is a lot like America's bluebloods: too much interbreeding is the problem. The lessons of nature include the phenomenon of physical interbreeding within too close of familial ties creating a weaker organism. If this is carried too far, then the offspring are literally incapable of reproduction. The same is the case with intellectual cultivation.
Conservative-minded people do not have a choice in that much of what they interact with is liberal nonsense; thus they are used to having their views challenged -even if this is usually not by much. (And of course conservatives usually have at least a few liberal friends.) By contrast, liberal-minded people frequently do not hang out with anyone except those who think as they do. They therefore do not receive the intellectual depth of cultivation that comes with interaction with other viewpoints. As a result of this kind of "intellectual inbreeding", it creates a weaker organism cerebrally and a marked propensity towards a worldview that is steeped in solipsism.{3} But I digress.
For example, in '72 when Nixon defeated McGovern in a major landslide, they were genuinely shocked.
They were also shocked in 1980 when Reagan did the same thing as well as in 1984 which was one of the most lopsided presidential contests in history. Likewise, W's dad won pretty comfortably in 1988.
He remembers many of these reporters saying, "How did he win? Nobody I know voted for Nixon."
I will say it again: it is intellectual and political inbreeding.
This is what we are up against and this is what going to sink their ship if they don't get their heads out of...
I think cutting it off there suffices to get the view across just fine. But the problem with solipsists is that they are in some respects constitutionally incapable of doing what you say they need to do. The reason for this is adequately noted in brief at one of the previous links in this post. I will repost it HERE as the concluding point to this post.
Notes:
{1} I know you can point to Firing Line, National Review, and the like but those were fringe sources in the sense that their circulation was miniscule compared to the major media outlets.
{2} Limbaugh's show originated four or five years earlier in Sacramento on a single radio station before it was launched nationally on fifty-six stations in 1989. Since then, he has gone onto be over six hundred stations (including Armed Forces Radio) and accumulate an audience of twenty odd million a week. And with Limbaugh's success came a new format for conservative voices which many others (i.e. Ken Hamblin, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc) were to join making this the first significant challenge to major media.
{3} I have noted elsewhere that this secular scenario has a theological parallel in what is called vital immanence. See the post located HERE for details on that.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Election Ecumenical Jihad and Voting Principles for Restoring Our Society:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
It has been over two weeks since your host at Rerum Novarum first manifested the intention to weigh in on the subject of the USCCB/Catholic Answers voting guides issue.{1} There was also a rather serendipitous response to an antiwar loon where the person/group I fisked in a previous weblog post on "Bush's war"{2} tried to respond with a kind of "all issues are equal weight" followup which of course served as an "appetizer" if you will for the response you are about to read. Indeed I encourage you to read that rather short post before you peruse the text below because that will enable me to avoid having to duplicate subjects covered in that thread within this one. That post can be read HERE.
Having gotten the subjects in that post out of the way in advance, we are better able to move onto this intended study of a few key voting issues in the upcoming election. I must note in advance though that I have long admitted publicly on occasion that there are some fundamental disagreements between myself and Catholic Answers viz. the approach taken on religious, political, or cultural issues.{3} However, with the election coming up, it seems appropriate to join in solidarity with them on a salutary aim of theirs in this election: the education of voters.
I also confess to having a far more ambitious approach towards contributing to the consistent moulding of thought patterns amongst those who consider themselves "conservatives" primarily{4} than do groups like Catholic Answers.{5} However, I am not naive enough to think that the systematical approach I take to issues will bear nearly the fruit in the short term that would be ideal.{6} For to fruitfully apply a prescription such as I have been outlining at sundry times and in divers manners at this weblog from virtually day one of its existence requires a couple of things to be tended too. For example, it involves at the very least not only (i) informing the electorate but (ii) persuading them to elect a solid core of leaders who will be open to these kinds of ideas.{7} And of course any legitimate idea in my view must conform to certain criterion to be considered viable. That brings us to the Catholic Answers (CA) voters guide but first a few brief notes on the USCCB and their discouragement of the distribution of the CA voters guide.
The ever-handy EWTN has noted recently that Citing papal and Vatican documents, "Voter's Guide" identifies five issues it calls "non-negotiable": abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual "marriage." Supporting any of these issues, according to the guide, would disqualify a candidate as a viable option for a faithful Catholic. By stark contrast, the USCCB guidelines for voting shows an amazing degree of homogenization of subject matter. A classic example of this is abortion.
The position that abortion has in the CA voting guide is unequivocal. But the USCCB guide appears to treat abortion as if it is on equal footing as other issues such as the death penalty and its application, social justice issues of various sorts, or "global solidarity." I am not about to demean any of these subjects of course; however there is a "hierarchy of truths" here as there is elsewhere. And abortion being the death of life that it is cannot be put on par with prudential regulations of the death penalty usage or appeals to "global solidarity" -which are themselves somewhat nebulously understood in the manner whereby their promoters often utilize the terms.
Now lest some readers see in statements such as this an attempt to bash the USCCB, I can only appeal to my trackrecord at this weblog and on message boards and other media forms over the years. Those who are familiar with my postings there know that I am not one of those who trashes the USCCB the way a lot of people do.{8} However, it is true that at times I do make criticisms of some of their policies -albeit in a more measured manner. Having noted that, I confess to an inability to see how the USCCB guidelines on this subject can be considered "helpful" to voters in the manner that the more focused CA voting booklet is.
For when they are going into the voting booth --and in the absense of a clearly defined weltanschauung ala what this weblog seeks to provide for its readers-- what most voters need are snapshots of the myriad of issues and their relation to the hierarchy of basic truths. Another way of saying it is that voters in those circumstances do not need loquacious texts. I therefore have to come to the support of CA on this matter because my very clearly delineated view of things happens to concur with the particular issues that CA focuses on. The rest of this post will be to set them out in a manner that goes beyond Catholic circles.
After all, it is not enough to approach this from a Catholic standpoint when these issues affect the whole of society and bear careful consideration by all people of good will. For that reason, I will situate each of the five issues within the general framework of my operative point of view to point out why it makes sense (apart from religious purposes) to vote in accordance with CA's guidelines on these matters. The most basic framework we can work off of is the classical theory of mankind having three fundamental interrelated rights. Those rights, as defined by Claude Frederic Bastiat are as follows: life, faculties, and production. And furthermore, these rights are deemed "fundamental" because they are given not by man-made laws but by the Creator. To quote Bastiat himself on these matters:
Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]
In other words, these rights do not depend on legislation nor can legislation be the grantor or revoker of these rights. Instead, these rights are given to us by God and they therefore precede all manmade laws. In the matter of application, I have woven into the matrix two concepts of the Christian tradition which are in varying degrees implied in Bastiat's work -two concepts which are limiting factors on the above rights in a society. Before I touch on them again, it is important to show how Bastiat frames the entire subject of what constitutes law.
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.[Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]
One of the limiting factors that I add to the three fundamental rights of man is that of what has traditionally been called the common good. It is clear in his definition of the law that Bastiat was operating under this same presupposition; otherwise, his definition of law as the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense would have a degree of internal contradiction to it. And in his understanding of the concept of "legal plunder" --a concept that politicians of virtually all stripes are tone-deaf to these days-- the common good principle stands out in bold relief:
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.
This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.[Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]
Now I know for a fact (and have long lamented) that the Republicans fail in varying degrees (sometimes miserably) in conforming themselves to the limits of the law as outlined by Bastiat above. That is not the point of this post to outline except to note it briefly and also that the Democrats are generally much worse still. I will get to that point in a moment but first, notice the common good thread that permeates Bastiat's outlook. It therefore makes sense that the three fundamental rights of man must be checked by the common good or (in other words) the assertions of "rights" by one party cannot be recognized if they contain an intrinsic undermining of the common good of the society as a whole. That is one check if you will.
However, because there can be diverging interpretations of what constitutes the common good -particularly in a pluralistic society- another check or balance is needed. That principle is the principle of "public order" -one that has been explicitly manifested in Catholic doctrine since 1965{9} and one which provides an objective verificator if you will for the criteria of common good. And from a logical standpoint, this limitation makes sense because without it, there is a risk of applications of the common good which would be subjective in nature.
Now that the three fundamental rights and their two logically limiting factors have been taken into account, let us consider the guidelines within the CA booklet. According to EWTN, abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual "marriage" are the main issues of focus. Consider where they fit into the matrix of the points covered in this post.
Abortion and euthanasia are violations of the fundamental right to life. Human cloning -particularly since the main motivation for cloning is to often provide "spare parts" for other human beings- is if not a direct violation of the right to life{10} of the cloned person then at the very least it is proximate to the right to life to fall under that classification.{11} Fetal stem cell research -because often stem cell research is conducted on cells from aborted fetuses- can be said to be proximate to the right to life and disqualified for that reason alone as well.{12}
Besides the connexion to the fundamental right to life, the principles of common good and public order can also be said to be violated by fetal stem cell research and human cloning. And homosexual so-called "marriages" are blatant violations of the common good of society but also just public order insomuch as marriage is the root and matrix of all societies. As marriage goes, so society goes; ergo there are reasons both logically as well as anthropologically for opposing without compromise on this issue as well.
In summary, there are reasons adequately noted above for supporting CA's guidelines on avoiding politicians who support these issues which go beyond Catholic religious reasons. Hopefully if you are not Catholic and want to contribute to restoring our society, you will whenever possible vote against politicians who support these issues. Otherwise, you are only contributing to the problem and not to the solution whether you realize it or not.
Notes:
{1} Though in an audio post of miscellaneous notes and notifications this intention was reiterated with more detail.
{2} A September 11th Confutation of Extremist Liberal Canards Viz. the War on Terror
{3} This is a potential series of posts in and of itself.
{4} Though "libertarians" and maybe some "liberals" may find this approach to be of interest as well.
{5} In fairness though, it must be noted that this weblog is not nearly as limited subject-wise as Catholic Answers is -since I can basically muse on whatever I want to and that includes non-apologetics subject matter. (The latter of which is the bulk of what is posted here at Rerum Novarum.)
{6} The readership at this humble weblog is nowhere near what Catholic Answers readership is. However, I have noted before and on more than one occasion my belief (based on the email I receive) that our reading audience is among the finest and most intelligent out there.
{7} These are ideas that are not only radical but also common-sensical; ergo they have the potential to transform political and social philosophies from within by providing a systemization to issues that in virtually all cases is sorely lacking - even among the most intelligent and well informed of people. That is what we want to help in promoting above all else.
{8} My handling of the whole Reflections situation should have made this eminently clear to those who were following the earliest threads at this weblog. (See the archives of this weblog for details if interested.)
{9} In the past, there were persecutions of people even in Catholic states because the criteria of the "common good" was not recognized to be limited by what is properly called "just public order."...In order to be consistent in one's approach, they must be emphasized together. Otherwise, dire consequences can result.
The Catholic Church since the promulgation of the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae has recognized the connexion between these two factors. However, I do not defend the notion of public order in the matrix of a just societal government because of DH...
As a Catholic, I accept it of course as pertaining to divine revelation. (As this is what the Declaration quite clearly taught on the matter.) However, when discussing the subject with non-Catholics, I appeal to the principle only as a logically sound principle. (Because it is.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 16, 2004)]
{10} Obviously if the clone is used for "spare parts" then there is a violation of the right to life.
{11} These kinds of positions proximate to life are those which while they can arguably be said to not be direct violations of life nonetheless are so intrinsic to it that to allow for them is to undermine by logical extension the fundamental right to life. Furthermore, the clone also has the right to life and of course stripping it of parts is a violation of its right to faculties: the second of the three fundamental rights.
{12} I. Shawn McElhinney: Pre-Rerum Novarum Stem Cell Commentary (circa August 20, 2001)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
It has been over two weeks since your host at Rerum Novarum first manifested the intention to weigh in on the subject of the USCCB/Catholic Answers voting guides issue.{1} There was also a rather serendipitous response to an antiwar loon where the person/group I fisked in a previous weblog post on "Bush's war"{2} tried to respond with a kind of "all issues are equal weight" followup which of course served as an "appetizer" if you will for the response you are about to read. Indeed I encourage you to read that rather short post before you peruse the text below because that will enable me to avoid having to duplicate subjects covered in that thread within this one. That post can be read HERE.
Having gotten the subjects in that post out of the way in advance, we are better able to move onto this intended study of a few key voting issues in the upcoming election. I must note in advance though that I have long admitted publicly on occasion that there are some fundamental disagreements between myself and Catholic Answers viz. the approach taken on religious, political, or cultural issues.{3} However, with the election coming up, it seems appropriate to join in solidarity with them on a salutary aim of theirs in this election: the education of voters.
I also confess to having a far more ambitious approach towards contributing to the consistent moulding of thought patterns amongst those who consider themselves "conservatives" primarily{4} than do groups like Catholic Answers.{5} However, I am not naive enough to think that the systematical approach I take to issues will bear nearly the fruit in the short term that would be ideal.{6} For to fruitfully apply a prescription such as I have been outlining at sundry times and in divers manners at this weblog from virtually day one of its existence requires a couple of things to be tended too. For example, it involves at the very least not only (i) informing the electorate but (ii) persuading them to elect a solid core of leaders who will be open to these kinds of ideas.{7} And of course any legitimate idea in my view must conform to certain criterion to be considered viable. That brings us to the Catholic Answers (CA) voters guide but first a few brief notes on the USCCB and their discouragement of the distribution of the CA voters guide.
The ever-handy EWTN has noted recently that Citing papal and Vatican documents, "Voter's Guide" identifies five issues it calls "non-negotiable": abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual "marriage." Supporting any of these issues, according to the guide, would disqualify a candidate as a viable option for a faithful Catholic. By stark contrast, the USCCB guidelines for voting shows an amazing degree of homogenization of subject matter. A classic example of this is abortion.
The position that abortion has in the CA voting guide is unequivocal. But the USCCB guide appears to treat abortion as if it is on equal footing as other issues such as the death penalty and its application, social justice issues of various sorts, or "global solidarity." I am not about to demean any of these subjects of course; however there is a "hierarchy of truths" here as there is elsewhere. And abortion being the death of life that it is cannot be put on par with prudential regulations of the death penalty usage or appeals to "global solidarity" -which are themselves somewhat nebulously understood in the manner whereby their promoters often utilize the terms.
Now lest some readers see in statements such as this an attempt to bash the USCCB, I can only appeal to my trackrecord at this weblog and on message boards and other media forms over the years. Those who are familiar with my postings there know that I am not one of those who trashes the USCCB the way a lot of people do.{8} However, it is true that at times I do make criticisms of some of their policies -albeit in a more measured manner. Having noted that, I confess to an inability to see how the USCCB guidelines on this subject can be considered "helpful" to voters in the manner that the more focused CA voting booklet is.
For when they are going into the voting booth --and in the absense of a clearly defined weltanschauung ala what this weblog seeks to provide for its readers-- what most voters need are snapshots of the myriad of issues and their relation to the hierarchy of basic truths. Another way of saying it is that voters in those circumstances do not need loquacious texts. I therefore have to come to the support of CA on this matter because my very clearly delineated view of things happens to concur with the particular issues that CA focuses on. The rest of this post will be to set them out in a manner that goes beyond Catholic circles.
After all, it is not enough to approach this from a Catholic standpoint when these issues affect the whole of society and bear careful consideration by all people of good will. For that reason, I will situate each of the five issues within the general framework of my operative point of view to point out why it makes sense (apart from religious purposes) to vote in accordance with CA's guidelines on these matters. The most basic framework we can work off of is the classical theory of mankind having three fundamental interrelated rights. Those rights, as defined by Claude Frederic Bastiat are as follows: life, faculties, and production. And furthermore, these rights are deemed "fundamental" because they are given not by man-made laws but by the Creator. To quote Bastiat himself on these matters:
Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]
In other words, these rights do not depend on legislation nor can legislation be the grantor or revoker of these rights. Instead, these rights are given to us by God and they therefore precede all manmade laws. In the matter of application, I have woven into the matrix two concepts of the Christian tradition which are in varying degrees implied in Bastiat's work -two concepts which are limiting factors on the above rights in a society. Before I touch on them again, it is important to show how Bastiat frames the entire subject of what constitutes law.
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.[Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]
One of the limiting factors that I add to the three fundamental rights of man is that of what has traditionally been called the common good. It is clear in his definition of the law that Bastiat was operating under this same presupposition; otherwise, his definition of law as the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense would have a degree of internal contradiction to it. And in his understanding of the concept of "legal plunder" --a concept that politicians of virtually all stripes are tone-deaf to these days-- the common good principle stands out in bold relief:
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.
This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.[Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]
Now I know for a fact (and have long lamented) that the Republicans fail in varying degrees (sometimes miserably) in conforming themselves to the limits of the law as outlined by Bastiat above. That is not the point of this post to outline except to note it briefly and also that the Democrats are generally much worse still. I will get to that point in a moment but first, notice the common good thread that permeates Bastiat's outlook. It therefore makes sense that the three fundamental rights of man must be checked by the common good or (in other words) the assertions of "rights" by one party cannot be recognized if they contain an intrinsic undermining of the common good of the society as a whole. That is one check if you will.
However, because there can be diverging interpretations of what constitutes the common good -particularly in a pluralistic society- another check or balance is needed. That principle is the principle of "public order" -one that has been explicitly manifested in Catholic doctrine since 1965{9} and one which provides an objective verificator if you will for the criteria of common good. And from a logical standpoint, this limitation makes sense because without it, there is a risk of applications of the common good which would be subjective in nature.
Now that the three fundamental rights and their two logically limiting factors have been taken into account, let us consider the guidelines within the CA booklet. According to EWTN, abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual "marriage" are the main issues of focus. Consider where they fit into the matrix of the points covered in this post.
Abortion and euthanasia are violations of the fundamental right to life. Human cloning -particularly since the main motivation for cloning is to often provide "spare parts" for other human beings- is if not a direct violation of the right to life{10} of the cloned person then at the very least it is proximate to the right to life to fall under that classification.{11} Fetal stem cell research -because often stem cell research is conducted on cells from aborted fetuses- can be said to be proximate to the right to life and disqualified for that reason alone as well.{12}
Besides the connexion to the fundamental right to life, the principles of common good and public order can also be said to be violated by fetal stem cell research and human cloning. And homosexual so-called "marriages" are blatant violations of the common good of society but also just public order insomuch as marriage is the root and matrix of all societies. As marriage goes, so society goes; ergo there are reasons both logically as well as anthropologically for opposing without compromise on this issue as well.
In summary, there are reasons adequately noted above for supporting CA's guidelines on avoiding politicians who support these issues which go beyond Catholic religious reasons. Hopefully if you are not Catholic and want to contribute to restoring our society, you will whenever possible vote against politicians who support these issues. Otherwise, you are only contributing to the problem and not to the solution whether you realize it or not.
Notes:
{1} Though in an audio post of miscellaneous notes and notifications this intention was reiterated with more detail.
{2} A September 11th Confutation of Extremist Liberal Canards Viz. the War on Terror
{3} This is a potential series of posts in and of itself.
{4} Though "libertarians" and maybe some "liberals" may find this approach to be of interest as well.
{5} In fairness though, it must be noted that this weblog is not nearly as limited subject-wise as Catholic Answers is -since I can basically muse on whatever I want to and that includes non-apologetics subject matter. (The latter of which is the bulk of what is posted here at Rerum Novarum.)
{6} The readership at this humble weblog is nowhere near what Catholic Answers readership is. However, I have noted before and on more than one occasion my belief (based on the email I receive) that our reading audience is among the finest and most intelligent out there.
{7} These are ideas that are not only radical but also common-sensical; ergo they have the potential to transform political and social philosophies from within by providing a systemization to issues that in virtually all cases is sorely lacking - even among the most intelligent and well informed of people. That is what we want to help in promoting above all else.
{8} My handling of the whole Reflections situation should have made this eminently clear to those who were following the earliest threads at this weblog. (See the archives of this weblog for details if interested.)
{9} In the past, there were persecutions of people even in Catholic states because the criteria of the "common good" was not recognized to be limited by what is properly called "just public order."...In order to be consistent in one's approach, they must be emphasized together. Otherwise, dire consequences can result.
The Catholic Church since the promulgation of the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae has recognized the connexion between these two factors. However, I do not defend the notion of public order in the matrix of a just societal government because of DH...
As a Catholic, I accept it of course as pertaining to divine revelation. (As this is what the Declaration quite clearly taught on the matter.) However, when discussing the subject with non-Catholics, I appeal to the principle only as a logically sound principle. (Because it is.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 16, 2004)]
{10} Obviously if the clone is used for "spare parts" then there is a violation of the right to life.
{11} These kinds of positions proximate to life are those which while they can arguably be said to not be direct violations of life nonetheless are so intrinsic to it that to allow for them is to undermine by logical extension the fundamental right to life. Furthermore, the clone also has the right to life and of course stripping it of parts is a violation of its right to faculties: the second of the three fundamental rights.
{12} I. Shawn McElhinney: Pre-Rerum Novarum Stem Cell Commentary (circa August 20, 2001)
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Briefly on the False Notion of "Equal Weight" Catholic Voting Issues:
(A Rerum Novarum Clarification Post)
Though We at Rerum Novarum have indicated an intention on more than one occasion to weigh in on the elections issue viz. the Catholic Answers and USCCB voters guides, what you are reading here is not that planned post. The latter text is at this time slated for release tomorrow. Instead, this is a followup response to a person or group who refer to themselves as VOTEINFORMED.
Upon sending them the link to my September 11th confutation of one of their idiotic peacenik tracts, they responded with an email containing four separate links in it and no accompanying text. As all four links are Catholic related -and attempt to argue for Catholics voting for John F-word Kerry and other Catholic Democrats, these issues will be touched on as a kind of preface to the planned commentary. Here is the text of my email -their subject title will be in black font.
Subject: RE: Fwd: 1000 DIE IN BUSH'S WAR
I suppose in sending these links you are under the assumption that these links cannot be fisked in the same manner as your tract was. I am not impressed with this kind of fallacious appeal to authority -indeed no one who values sound logic is. The fact that you ignored my criticisms of your article and responded with more links only validates my categorization of you as being infected with the intellectual malady of solipsism. Thank you for validating that point.
Now to briefly deal with these links:
LINK 1
Apparently you figured out that Rerum Novarum is authored by a Catholic. Brilliant sleuthing there - the Sherlock Holmes medal is surely yours for uncovering that well concealed fact.
Having noted that, apparently you think that a 50% score by Catholic politicians on the issues in the USCCB's guide is commendable. I have news for you: not all issues are of equal weight and those you mentioned fail in the areas of greatest doctrinal weight. (While the issues where they "pass" if you will are ones where there is latitude for private prudential judgment as recognized by the Catholic Church.) This will be dealt with in my upcoming election guide analysis of the voters guides as pro offered by USCCB and also Catholic Answers.
LINK 2
Ditto to my previous comments. You are under the illusion that all issues in the USCCB guide are of equal weight. That is not remotely accurate but again - I will be dealing at least indirectly with this subject when I post a non theological defense of the five key issues from the Catholic Answers voters guide: all of which have greater weight by far (as well as significantly less latitude for prudential judgment) than "global solidarity", "social justice", or applications of the death penalty (among other issues in the USCCB guide.
LINK 3
This also retreads the previous two link topics. I must admit that the giant icon with a link to the Unfit for Command book (contra Kerry) is certainly interesting. The article blurs the distinctions because "gun control" is not a Catholic teaching by any stretch nor is minimum wage legislation. (The latter falls into the subject of social teaching but there are differences of opinion in how this is applied.) All this does is vindicate my long-held media dictum but before you continue to make my case for me by demonstration, there is the final link of the four you sent:
LINK 4
Need I remind you (again) that the issue of the death penalty is one involving a prudential judgment??? Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (which has far more authority than any USCCB document) recognizes this fact explicitly. I have gone over the death penalty issue many times and frankly, while I would probably not agree with Bush's usage of it when he was governor, at the same time, this is an ancillary issue and is trumped by far with Bush's adherence to the issues surrounding human life which are not open to debate amongst faithful Catholics.
In summary, nice try with the links but I am not fooled for an instant. Now then, do you care to respond to my fisking of your original tract or are you simply going to send links [in response] and not interact with the arguments of others???
(A Rerum Novarum Clarification Post)
Though We at Rerum Novarum have indicated an intention on more than one occasion to weigh in on the elections issue viz. the Catholic Answers and USCCB voters guides, what you are reading here is not that planned post. The latter text is at this time slated for release tomorrow. Instead, this is a followup response to a person or group who refer to themselves as VOTEINFORMED.
Upon sending them the link to my September 11th confutation of one of their idiotic peacenik tracts, they responded with an email containing four separate links in it and no accompanying text. As all four links are Catholic related -and attempt to argue for Catholics voting for John F
Subject: RE: Fwd: 1000 DIE IN BUSH'S WAR
I suppose in sending these links you are under the assumption that these links cannot be fisked in the same manner as your tract was. I am not impressed with this kind of fallacious appeal to authority -indeed no one who values sound logic is. The fact that you ignored my criticisms of your article and responded with more links only validates my categorization of you as being infected with the intellectual malady of solipsism. Thank you for validating that point.
Now to briefly deal with these links:
LINK 1
Apparently you figured out that Rerum Novarum is authored by a Catholic. Brilliant sleuthing there - the Sherlock Holmes medal is surely yours for uncovering that well concealed fact.
Having noted that, apparently you think that a 50% score by Catholic politicians on the issues in the USCCB's guide is commendable. I have news for you: not all issues are of equal weight and those you mentioned fail in the areas of greatest doctrinal weight. (While the issues where they "pass" if you will are ones where there is latitude for private prudential judgment as recognized by the Catholic Church.) This will be dealt with in my upcoming election guide analysis of the voters guides as pro offered by USCCB and also Catholic Answers.
LINK 2
Ditto to my previous comments. You are under the illusion that all issues in the USCCB guide are of equal weight. That is not remotely accurate but again - I will be dealing at least indirectly with this subject when I post a non theological defense of the five key issues from the Catholic Answers voters guide: all of which have greater weight by far (as well as significantly less latitude for prudential judgment) than "global solidarity", "social justice", or applications of the death penalty (among other issues in the USCCB guide.
LINK 3
This also retreads the previous two link topics. I must admit that the giant icon with a link to the Unfit for Command book (contra Kerry) is certainly interesting. The article blurs the distinctions because "gun control" is not a Catholic teaching by any stretch nor is minimum wage legislation. (The latter falls into the subject of social teaching but there are differences of opinion in how this is applied.) All this does is vindicate my long-held media dictum but before you continue to make my case for me by demonstration, there is the final link of the four you sent:
LINK 4
Need I remind you (again) that the issue of the death penalty is one involving a prudential judgment??? Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (which has far more authority than any USCCB document) recognizes this fact explicitly. I have gone over the death penalty issue many times and frankly, while I would probably not agree with Bush's usage of it when he was governor, at the same time, this is an ancillary issue and is trumped by far with Bush's adherence to the issues surrounding human life which are not open to debate amongst faithful Catholics.
In summary, nice try with the links but I am not fooled for an instant. Now then, do you care to respond to my fisking of your original tract or are you simply going to send links [in response] and not interact with the arguments of others???
Monday, September 13, 2004
Miscellaneous Notes:
I updated the thread of links posted on September 11th from various weblogs. The additions made included a new thread (Charles de Nunzio's September 11, 2004 weblog post) but also an old one (Fr. Reginald Martin OP's Homily of September 11, 2002). This was done in the custom of "bringing forth things both new and old" (cf. Matthew xiii,52).
I updated the thread of links posted on September 11th from various weblogs. The additions made included a new thread (Charles de Nunzio's September 11, 2004 weblog post) but also an old one (Fr. Reginald Martin OP's Homily of September 11, 2002). This was done in the custom of "bringing forth things both new and old" (cf. Matthew xiii,52).
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Some September 11th Recollections:
(A Recapitulation Thread From Rerum Novarum and Other Weblogs)
Lane Core Jr's Five Sonnets In Memoriam September Eleventh (Posted on September 11, 2004)
Charles de Nunzio's On the 3rd Anniversary of What's Just Called "9/11" (Posted on September 11, 2004)
Chris Burgwald's Thoughts (Posted on September 11, 2003)
Bill Bannon's Rerum Novarum Guest Editorial (Posted on September 12, 2002)
Homily of Blessed Sacrament's Former Pastor Fr. Reginald Martin OP (Delivered on September 11, 2002)
G. Thomas Fitzpatrick's Recollections (Originally Posted on September 11, 2002)
Comments from the JunkYard BLOG (Posted on September 11, 2002)
Lane Core Jr's September 11: a Date Without a Year (c. September 11, 2002)
John Betts' Prayers for 9/11 (Posted on September 10, 2002)
John Betts' Remembering the Fallen (Posted on September 10, 2002)
(A Recapitulation Thread From Rerum Novarum and Other Weblogs)
Lane Core Jr's Five Sonnets In Memoriam September Eleventh (Posted on September 11, 2004)
Charles de Nunzio's On the 3rd Anniversary of What's Just Called "9/11" (Posted on September 11, 2004)
Chris Burgwald's Thoughts (Posted on September 11, 2003)
Bill Bannon's Rerum Novarum Guest Editorial (Posted on September 12, 2002)
Homily of Blessed Sacrament's Former Pastor Fr. Reginald Martin OP (Delivered on September 11, 2002)
G. Thomas Fitzpatrick's Recollections (Originally Posted on September 11, 2002)
Comments from the JunkYard BLOG (Posted on September 11, 2002)
Lane Core Jr's September 11: a Date Without a Year (c. September 11, 2002)
John Betts' Prayers for 9/11 (Posted on September 10, 2002)
John Betts' Remembering the Fallen (Posted on September 10, 2002)
A September 11th Confutation of Extremist Liberal Canards Viz. the War on Terror:
To start with, this fisking is dedicated to the memory of those who died on that fateful day three years ago. (And also to the soldiers from all nations who have fallen in battle while engaging terrorists and their benefactors since that time.) May they all rest in peace.
In this post, my words will be in regular font and any sources will be quoted in darkblue font. My opponent's words will be in a pinko coloured font and bolded.
Subject: 1000 DIE IN BUSH'S WAR
It may be of interest to put this number into perspective before dealing with the substance of this email. (To the extent that it can be said to have substance of course.) For doing that, I would refer interested readers to the following thread from G. Thomas Fitzpatrick's Recta Ratio BLOG for a bit of pre-fisking perspective.
Moving onto the meat of this text, it should be noted that this person/group is obviously unaware that in the period from 1861-1865, the War Between the States (aka the "Civil War" or the "War of Northern Aggression") was often referred to by anti-Lincoln partisans as "Lincoln's War." Yet again Santayana'sproverb dictum about history and those who refuse to learn from it is vindicated by demonstration.
Today, the 1000th brave American died in Iraq. in the war Bush declared in May 2003 as "Mission Accomplished".
To confute the above idiocy, the reader is pointed to this May 2003 story from CNN. It is clear from what is noted there that President Bush in his speech on the carrier said nothing akin to what this propagandist person/group would attempt to lead us to believe. Indeed, let us quote the President's speech now as relayed to us from CNN:
"The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done."
Furthermore, in the same speech, the president made it clear that "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed..." yet at the same time he noted that "now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."
In other words, the war in Iraq was completed but there was more work to be done. Anyone with a normal intact functioning brain can see that the president is not saying that EVERYTHING is done in Iraq in the speech. No, what was accomplished was the war phase itself: one part of the overall task in Iraq. And for the servicemen on the USS Abraham Lincoln, their mission was accomplished upon victory being declared in the war in Iraq. It really is not difficult to put the pieces in proper sequence.
In the Scriptures it tells us that we need to be prepared.
This is a pathetic out of context non-sequitur. Of course if we were to accurately quote the Scriptures with regards to the sitz im leben viz. the current situation, the passage "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" is quite applicable. But based on the rest of this propagandist person/group's screed, obviously they are not too concerned about that particular part of the Bible - preferring to prooftext parts they like and ignoring those which they do not like. (And which are condemning of them.)
Bush did not prepare for his war.
For a war that was supposedly "not prepare[d] for", the US military sure crushed their adversaries in a feat of historical porportions. Is this person/group saying that if they were "prepare[d]" that they could have won the military campaign in less than seven weeks???
The truth is, General Tommy Franks and the US military prepared for Iraq and how to expeditiously prosecute the war many months in advance of March 19, 2003. The sound and strategic planning of Franks and company is the reason the war itself was so short and casualties were so few. If they had not prepared as they did, casualties would have been higher and then seditionists like this person/group would have picked that factoid to use in their propagandist screeds. In short, propagandists like this want to have it both ways like the inconsistent hypocrites that they are.
Furthermore, Bush was hardly the only one who realized that Saddam Hussein needed to be dealt with militarily. Indeed THIS LINK and also THIS LINK deal adequately with this common antiwar looney lib Goebbels-like prevarication of persons/groups such as this. And of course this leads to a question that must be asked about persons/groups like this which are basically schills for the Democrats. The question that must be asked has two parts (i) if the Democrats noted in the above threads were lying prior to the war, why should we believe them now??? Conversely, (ii) if they were telling the truth then, why should we believe them now when they patently contradict their earlier statements???
he ignored the United Nations and our Allies throughout the world,
Our resident Joseph Goebbels is engaged in yet another hairless-cheeked prevarication. President Bush sought to work with the UN and even secured from them a resolution that supported eventual military action against Saddam Hussein that was voted on 15-0 by the Security Council. (This was Resolution 1441.) Only when it was clear that the UN had no intentions of *ever* enforcing their own resolution -much as they had failed to enforce the terms of the ceasefire from Desert Storm for twelve years previously- did President Bush decide to go outside the UN and form a coalition of nations for dispatching with Saddam Hussein's regime. Anyone who is too stupid to recognize this easily verifiable fact has no business expecting others to take them seriously.
[W]ho were adamantly opposed to the United States invading Iraq.
More disingenuous drivel from this person/group's keyboard. As the link above demonstrates, there have been at least 125 foreign casualties as of August 14, 2004. Here they are by nation:
United Kingdom: 65 - Poland: 10 - Denmark: 1 - Spain: 11 - Italy: 19 - Ukraine: 8 - Bulgaria: 6 - Thailand: 2 - Estonia: 1 - El Salvador: 1 - Slovakia: 3 - Latvia: 1 - Hungary: 1.
Granted, these countries have a marginal military presence in Iraq compared to the United States but we also did the heavy lifting in Desert Storm - where 90% or more of the fighting troops were American. This is always the case in any modern coalition situation where the US is involved: we do the heavy lifting and foot the bill too.
As a result, the United States has become the most hated country in the world.
Maybe we are the most hated country to the French, the Germans, and other collaborators with Saddam Hussein but frankly I do not give a damn. As for this broadbrush assertion (that we are the most hated country in the world, I will expect to see it substantiated or retracted. In brief: either put up or shut the hell up!!!
It is a sad situation when Americans, who are traveling in other countries, are urged by the airline personnel to indicate they are from Canada.
Who are "the airline personnel" being referred to here??? I ask because when I travelled abroad last year, not a single airline person urged or even suggested to me in any way to do this. And I was on four different airflights. Therefore, if this was some kind of "universal" occurrence, I find it odd that NOT ONCE did I encounter it. So again, it must be insisted upon this person/group to either substantiate what they say or retract this assertion. Again: put up or shut the hell up!!!
To be opposed to the war is NOT in anyway being unsupportive of our troops.
As I have noted in other places,{1} the manner whereby most who publicly oppose the war is borderline (if not actually) seditious. People like this person/group oughta feel happy that people like me are not president because I would request of the Congress a re-ennacting the US Sedition Act of 1798 and the US Espionage Act of 1918. If the Congress did not do this within three months, I would issue Executive Orders reenacting them and then have people like this person/group jailed for sedition.
There was no "clear and present danger" when Bush invaded Iraq.
I deal with this putrid prevarication HERE when discussing the moral and constitutional principles behind the war with my good friend SecretAgentMan. There are twenty-three pieces of evidence spanning from remote to probable to downright convincing in that thread which expose the prevarications of this person/group for what they are.
If the people in Iraq were asked, "are you better off today than you were", I think we all know the answer.
I am not one who is fond of polls -generally seeing them as a form of lying that Mark Twain overlooked.{2} Nonetheless, every rule has its exceptions and to fight these kinds of propagandists on their own turf, I will have recourse to polling data from a source that is established for being reliable over the years: John Zogby.
For John Zogby is a highly respected pollster because his polls have a trackrecord for accuracy which are probably unmatched by any other polling firm. Zogby did an actual poll of Iraqis about twelve months ago. The Wall Street Journal ran a feature piece on it which can be read HERE. The results are largely positive which only makes sense since the Iraqis are not in a position of having to be worried about being tortured or killed for expressing unconventional (read: non-Hussein bootlicking) views as they were in the days of Saddam Hussein's regime. But of course these facts (which are well established beyond debate) are not mentioned by people like this person/group because they are inconvenient to their propaganda against the war on terror.
both Iraq and Americans are daily being killed in Bush's war.
Americans were killed daily during "Lincoln's war" too. Unfortunately, death is part of what happens with wars fought on principle. This fact is recognized even by honest and principled liberals who have a personal disdain for President Bush.{3} But far be it for me to presume that people like this person/group have any real principles here except to oppose people who do take principled stands as President Bush as done v iz. the war on terror.
The statistics are often just cold facts. "another Marine has died in Iraq".
Yes, they often are.
lets put faces to those that have died in this war in which Bush has involved us.
Ok. But let us play fair and include pictures of people jumping from the Trade Towers on September 11th and the horrors of that day as well. Let us also include pictures of the recent massacre of children in Russia by the same Al Queda worthless slime that were behind 9/11, the 3/11 train bombings in Spain, and had unmistakable connections with Saddam Hussein's regime.{4} I am all in favour of showing the total picture, not merely the isolated examples that people like this person/group want to show. But propagandists such as this person/group would flee from the full picture like a vampire fleeing from a crucifix because the whole picture is anathema to their agenda of sedition and undisguised hatred of President Bush.
Now granted, I have many times been critical of President Bush in not a few areas.{5} However, I have sought at the same time to give as rounded a view of him as possible in the process. I am not at all convinced that polemicists such as this person/group have done this in like manner from the other side. Ergo, any thing they say is immediately viewed by me as suspect. This is something which (in light of the woeful trackrecord of accuracy that partisans of this stripe generally possess) is eminently justifiable on my part.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
Looking at all the faces of the young men and women that have died, do you believe that Bush deserves another four years?
Two can play this game:
Pictures of the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Towers
Time Photo Essays of September 11
Thomas Hobbs' Live Chronology of September 11th
Now then, examine the pictures at the links above. I tried to get actual photos of people jumping from the towers but strangely enough, I could not find them on the web.{6} So though these pictures are muter than they could be in light of that fact, examine them nonetheless.
Of course if this person/group happens to think that the US government's actions to eradicate Al Queda for their role in these attacks -first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq- were not proportional to deal with the terror unleashed on the US on that day, then they do not have much of a connection with reality. And for that reason, probably nothing I say here will register with them because their weltanschauung is one grounded on a foundation of solipsism. But I digress.
If so, just deny the facts, and delete this message.
Oh no, on the anniversary of the September 11th attack, this person/group is not getting off that easily. Nice try comrades but these putrid prevarications are not going to merely be deleted without comment. For the only ones "deny[ing] the facts" here are people such as you. But as I have already outlined in detail what persons/groups such as this have overlooked --and also pointed to the underlying reasons why they probably are incapable of recognizing the truth-- no more really needs to be said on these points.
If you agree, then forward it on to all those in your email address directory.
Those in my email directory receive enough garbage in their email boxes from spammers. These persons/groups are beyond delusional if they think I would want to contribute to the trash pile by forwarding to anyone the kind of deranged drivel that I have just spent some of my valuable time soundly confuting.
Notes:
{1} See THIS LINK for details.
{2} In delineating "lies, damn lies, and statistics" as the three kinds of lies.
{3} An example of which can be read HERE.
{4} See this link:
On the War, Moral and Constitutional Principles, "Supporting the Troops", Etc. (Dialogue With SecretAgentMan)
{5} It seems appropriate to list here in order (from oldest to newest) some of the threads from this weblog (and one thread predating it) whereby the reader can see a progression downward in my esteem by President Bush -whom I with a fair amount of enthusiasiasm voted for in 2000.
On Stem Cell Research
This commentary was written in August of 2001. The decision of President Bush on the stem cell issue was to me the first significant indicator that Bush was not a great leader. (Potentially good but not great: a distinction which was made in the aforementioned commentary.)
Final Installment of "Bastiat's Corner."
Basically, in the above link, Bush is unambiguously inferred as the "lessor evil" because his programs will plunder us all less than the alternatives offered by the Democrats: hardly a complement by any stretch of the imagination.
"Lie to Me" Dept.
Though targeted at Democrat hypocrisy about truth telling, the acknowledgment that Bush "could be doing better in many areas" is made in the post.
Miscellaneous Mutterings
Essentially this post includes a vindication of my hypothesis that Bush is no Reagan pace the contrary position as taken by a friend of this weblog. The basic criticisms of the Republican party chairman not understanding what limited government actually is are also applied here by logical extension to President Bush.
Predictions for 2004
Two predictions in the above thread deal with President Bush. The first has to do with his first Supreme Court nominee being a Hispanic, the second was that President Bush will continue to play a two card monte game of "war of terror" and "recovering economy" and disillusion former Republicans (and long-time Independents) like your humble servant. (And his latest pandering is frankly almost enough to make me vote Democrat in the 2004 election.)
The Problems With Bush's "Mass Amnesty" Proposal
This monumentally stupid policy -the "latest pandering" that was noted in the predictions thread- was gauged to attempt to curry political favour with Hispanics. It was almost the final straw for me viz. supporting President Bush for reelection.
On President Bush, the Upcoming Primaries, the Upcoming Election, and Standing on Principles
The above comments apply even more so to this post by which I was at the end of my rope in supporting (in any way) President Bush.
On the 2004 Election
Basically, I did not make a solid decision to support the reelection of President Bush until late February of 2004. Any support prior to that time was tenuous at best for a number of reasons -many of which were blogged on prior to that point. I note these threads to put the axe to the notion some may have that I am some "uncritical Bush lackey." Not by any stretch of the imagination can this theory be viably advanced; however, some undoubtedly will try to nonetheless -the above threads notwithstanding.
{6} Though of course anyone who can come up with these pictures, please email me the links and I will post them here and give you proper credit for finding them.
To start with, this fisking is dedicated to the memory of those who died on that fateful day three years ago. (And also to the soldiers from all nations who have fallen in battle while engaging terrorists and their benefactors since that time.) May they all rest in peace.
In this post, my words will be in regular font and any sources will be quoted in darkblue font. My opponent's words will be in a pinko coloured font and bolded.
Subject: 1000 DIE IN BUSH'S WAR
It may be of interest to put this number into perspective before dealing with the substance of this email. (To the extent that it can be said to have substance of course.) For doing that, I would refer interested readers to the following thread from G. Thomas Fitzpatrick's Recta Ratio BLOG for a bit of pre-fisking perspective.
Moving onto the meat of this text, it should be noted that this person/group is obviously unaware that in the period from 1861-1865, the War Between the States (aka the "Civil War" or the "War of Northern Aggression") was often referred to by anti-Lincoln partisans as "Lincoln's War." Yet again Santayana's
Today, the 1000th brave American died in Iraq. in the war Bush declared in May 2003 as "Mission Accomplished".
To confute the above idiocy, the reader is pointed to this May 2003 story from CNN. It is clear from what is noted there that President Bush in his speech on the carrier said nothing akin to what this propagandist person/group would attempt to lead us to believe. Indeed, let us quote the President's speech now as relayed to us from CNN:
"The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done."
Furthermore, in the same speech, the president made it clear that "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed..." yet at the same time he noted that "now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."
In other words, the war in Iraq was completed but there was more work to be done. Anyone with a normal intact functioning brain can see that the president is not saying that EVERYTHING is done in Iraq in the speech. No, what was accomplished was the war phase itself: one part of the overall task in Iraq. And for the servicemen on the USS Abraham Lincoln, their mission was accomplished upon victory being declared in the war in Iraq. It really is not difficult to put the pieces in proper sequence.
In the Scriptures it tells us that we need to be prepared.
This is a pathetic out of context non-sequitur. Of course if we were to accurately quote the Scriptures with regards to the sitz im leben viz. the current situation, the passage "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" is quite applicable. But based on the rest of this propagandist person/group's screed, obviously they are not too concerned about that particular part of the Bible - preferring to prooftext parts they like and ignoring those which they do not like. (And which are condemning of them.)
Bush did not prepare for his war.
For a war that was supposedly "not prepare[d] for", the US military sure crushed their adversaries in a feat of historical porportions. Is this person/group saying that if they were "prepare[d]" that they could have won the military campaign in less than seven weeks???
The truth is, General Tommy Franks and the US military prepared for Iraq and how to expeditiously prosecute the war many months in advance of March 19, 2003. The sound and strategic planning of Franks and company is the reason the war itself was so short and casualties were so few. If they had not prepared as they did, casualties would have been higher and then seditionists like this person/group would have picked that factoid to use in their propagandist screeds. In short, propagandists like this want to have it both ways like the inconsistent hypocrites that they are.
Furthermore, Bush was hardly the only one who realized that Saddam Hussein needed to be dealt with militarily. Indeed THIS LINK and also THIS LINK deal adequately with this common antiwar looney lib Goebbels-like prevarication of persons/groups such as this. And of course this leads to a question that must be asked about persons/groups like this which are basically schills for the Democrats. The question that must be asked has two parts (i) if the Democrats noted in the above threads were lying prior to the war, why should we believe them now??? Conversely, (ii) if they were telling the truth then, why should we believe them now when they patently contradict their earlier statements???
he ignored the United Nations and our Allies throughout the world,
Our resident Joseph Goebbels is engaged in yet another hairless-cheeked prevarication. President Bush sought to work with the UN and even secured from them a resolution that supported eventual military action against Saddam Hussein that was voted on 15-0 by the Security Council. (This was Resolution 1441.) Only when it was clear that the UN had no intentions of *ever* enforcing their own resolution -much as they had failed to enforce the terms of the ceasefire from Desert Storm for twelve years previously- did President Bush decide to go outside the UN and form a coalition of nations for dispatching with Saddam Hussein's regime. Anyone who is too stupid to recognize this easily verifiable fact has no business expecting others to take them seriously.
[W]ho were adamantly opposed to the United States invading Iraq.
More disingenuous drivel from this person/group's keyboard. As the link above demonstrates, there have been at least 125 foreign casualties as of August 14, 2004. Here they are by nation:
United Kingdom: 65 - Poland: 10 - Denmark: 1 - Spain: 11 - Italy: 19 - Ukraine: 8 - Bulgaria: 6 - Thailand: 2 - Estonia: 1 - El Salvador: 1 - Slovakia: 3 - Latvia: 1 - Hungary: 1.
Granted, these countries have a marginal military presence in Iraq compared to the United States but we also did the heavy lifting in Desert Storm - where 90% or more of the fighting troops were American. This is always the case in any modern coalition situation where the US is involved: we do the heavy lifting and foot the bill too.
As a result, the United States has become the most hated country in the world.
Maybe we are the most hated country to the French, the Germans, and other collaborators with Saddam Hussein but frankly I do not give a damn. As for this broadbrush assertion (that we are the most hated country in the world, I will expect to see it substantiated or retracted. In brief: either put up or shut the hell up!!!
It is a sad situation when Americans, who are traveling in other countries, are urged by the airline personnel to indicate they are from Canada.
Who are "the airline personnel" being referred to here??? I ask because when I travelled abroad last year, not a single airline person urged or even suggested to me in any way to do this. And I was on four different airflights. Therefore, if this was some kind of "universal" occurrence, I find it odd that NOT ONCE did I encounter it. So again, it must be insisted upon this person/group to either substantiate what they say or retract this assertion. Again: put up or shut the hell up!!!
To be opposed to the war is NOT in anyway being unsupportive of our troops.
As I have noted in other places,{1} the manner whereby most who publicly oppose the war is borderline (if not actually) seditious. People like this person/group oughta feel happy that people like me are not president because I would request of the Congress a re-ennacting the US Sedition Act of 1798 and the US Espionage Act of 1918. If the Congress did not do this within three months, I would issue Executive Orders reenacting them and then have people like this person/group jailed for sedition.
There was no "clear and present danger" when Bush invaded Iraq.
I deal with this putrid prevarication HERE when discussing the moral and constitutional principles behind the war with my good friend SecretAgentMan. There are twenty-three pieces of evidence spanning from remote to probable to downright convincing in that thread which expose the prevarications of this person/group for what they are.
If the people in Iraq were asked, "are you better off today than you were", I think we all know the answer.
I am not one who is fond of polls -generally seeing them as a form of lying that Mark Twain overlooked.{2} Nonetheless, every rule has its exceptions and to fight these kinds of propagandists on their own turf, I will have recourse to polling data from a source that is established for being reliable over the years: John Zogby.
For John Zogby is a highly respected pollster because his polls have a trackrecord for accuracy which are probably unmatched by any other polling firm. Zogby did an actual poll of Iraqis about twelve months ago. The Wall Street Journal ran a feature piece on it which can be read HERE. The results are largely positive which only makes sense since the Iraqis are not in a position of having to be worried about being tortured or killed for expressing unconventional (read: non-Hussein bootlicking) views as they were in the days of Saddam Hussein's regime. But of course these facts (which are well established beyond debate) are not mentioned by people like this person/group because they are inconvenient to their propaganda against the war on terror.
both Iraq and Americans are daily being killed in Bush's war.
Americans were killed daily during "Lincoln's war" too. Unfortunately, death is part of what happens with wars fought on principle. This fact is recognized even by honest and principled liberals who have a personal disdain for President Bush.{3} But far be it for me to presume that people like this person/group have any real principles here except to oppose people who do take principled stands as President Bush as done v iz. the war on terror.
The statistics are often just cold facts. "another Marine has died in Iraq".
Yes, they often are.
lets put faces to those that have died in this war in which Bush has involved us.
Ok. But let us play fair and include pictures of people jumping from the Trade Towers on September 11th and the horrors of that day as well. Let us also include pictures of the recent massacre of children in Russia by the same Al Queda worthless slime that were behind 9/11, the 3/11 train bombings in Spain, and had unmistakable connections with Saddam Hussein's regime.{4} I am all in favour of showing the total picture, not merely the isolated examples that people like this person/group want to show. But propagandists such as this person/group would flee from the full picture like a vampire fleeing from a crucifix because the whole picture is anathema to their agenda of sedition and undisguised hatred of President Bush.
Now granted, I have many times been critical of President Bush in not a few areas.{5} However, I have sought at the same time to give as rounded a view of him as possible in the process. I am not at all convinced that polemicists such as this person/group have done this in like manner from the other side. Ergo, any thing they say is immediately viewed by me as suspect. This is something which (in light of the woeful trackrecord of accuracy that partisans of this stripe generally possess) is eminently justifiable on my part.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
Looking at all the faces of the young men and women that have died, do you believe that Bush deserves another four years?
Two can play this game:
Pictures of the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Towers
Time Photo Essays of September 11
Thomas Hobbs' Live Chronology of September 11th
Now then, examine the pictures at the links above. I tried to get actual photos of people jumping from the towers but strangely enough, I could not find them on the web.{6} So though these pictures are muter than they could be in light of that fact, examine them nonetheless.
Of course if this person/group happens to think that the US government's actions to eradicate Al Queda for their role in these attacks -first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq- were not proportional to deal with the terror unleashed on the US on that day, then they do not have much of a connection with reality. And for that reason, probably nothing I say here will register with them because their weltanschauung is one grounded on a foundation of solipsism. But I digress.
If so, just deny the facts, and delete this message.
Oh no, on the anniversary of the September 11th attack, this person/group is not getting off that easily. Nice try comrades but these putrid prevarications are not going to merely be deleted without comment. For the only ones "deny[ing] the facts" here are people such as you. But as I have already outlined in detail what persons/groups such as this have overlooked --and also pointed to the underlying reasons why they probably are incapable of recognizing the truth-- no more really needs to be said on these points.
If you agree, then forward it on to all those in your email address directory.
Those in my email directory receive enough garbage in their email boxes from spammers. These persons/groups are beyond delusional if they think I would want to contribute to the trash pile by forwarding to anyone the kind of deranged drivel that I have just spent some of my valuable time soundly confuting.
Notes:
{1} See THIS LINK for details.
{2} In delineating "lies, damn lies, and statistics" as the three kinds of lies.
{3} An example of which can be read HERE.
{4} See this link:
On the War, Moral and Constitutional Principles, "Supporting the Troops", Etc. (Dialogue With SecretAgentMan)
{5} It seems appropriate to list here in order (from oldest to newest) some of the threads from this weblog (and one thread predating it) whereby the reader can see a progression downward in my esteem by President Bush -whom I with a fair amount of enthusiasiasm voted for in 2000.
On Stem Cell Research
This commentary was written in August of 2001. The decision of President Bush on the stem cell issue was to me the first significant indicator that Bush was not a great leader. (Potentially good but not great: a distinction which was made in the aforementioned commentary.)
Final Installment of "Bastiat's Corner."
Basically, in the above link, Bush is unambiguously inferred as the "lessor evil" because his programs will plunder us all less than the alternatives offered by the Democrats: hardly a complement by any stretch of the imagination.
"Lie to Me" Dept.
Though targeted at Democrat hypocrisy about truth telling, the acknowledgment that Bush "could be doing better in many areas" is made in the post.
Miscellaneous Mutterings
Essentially this post includes a vindication of my hypothesis that Bush is no Reagan pace the contrary position as taken by a friend of this weblog. The basic criticisms of the Republican party chairman not understanding what limited government actually is are also applied here by logical extension to President Bush.
Predictions for 2004
Two predictions in the above thread deal with President Bush. The first has to do with his first Supreme Court nominee being a Hispanic, the second was that President Bush will continue to play a two card monte game of "war of terror" and "recovering economy" and disillusion former Republicans (and long-time Independents) like your humble servant. (And his latest pandering is frankly almost enough to make me vote Democrat in the 2004 election.)
The Problems With Bush's "Mass Amnesty" Proposal
This monumentally stupid policy -the "latest pandering" that was noted in the predictions thread- was gauged to attempt to curry political favour with Hispanics. It was almost the final straw for me viz. supporting President Bush for reelection.
On President Bush, the Upcoming Primaries, the Upcoming Election, and Standing on Principles
The above comments apply even more so to this post by which I was at the end of my rope in supporting (in any way) President Bush.
On the 2004 Election
Basically, I did not make a solid decision to support the reelection of President Bush until late February of 2004. Any support prior to that time was tenuous at best for a number of reasons -many of which were blogged on prior to that point. I note these threads to put the axe to the notion some may have that I am some "uncritical Bush lackey." Not by any stretch of the imagination can this theory be viably advanced; however, some undoubtedly will try to nonetheless -the above threads notwithstanding.
{6} Though of course anyone who can come up with these pictures, please email me the links and I will post them here and give you proper credit for finding them.
Friday, September 10, 2004
More on the Nature and Grace Controversy:
(And a Bit on General Norms of Theological Interpretation)
In this post, my words will be in regular font and my sources in darkblue font.
Hello Shawn.
Hello XXXXXXX:
Long time no hear from.
Hope everything is well with you.
I have very little to complain about personally. I hope things are going at least as well for you if not better.
Life has been very hectic for the past few months but I just recently re-read an article on the whole issue of de Lubac and nature vs. grace.
Aah yes, the nature vs. grace controversy. I presume you were rereading the Garver article that I recommended previously.
I know that we've discussed this issue before, but the following quote from Pius XII's encyclical HUMANI GENERIS still troubles me and it certainly seems to condemn the opinion of de Lubac:
"Others destroy (corrumpunt) the gratuitous character of the supernatural order, by suggesting that it would be impossible for God to create rational beings without equipping (ordering) them for the beatific vision and calling them to it".
Could you please comment, at length if you have time, about this sentence from humani generis? I greatly appreciate it.
Certainly. It must first be noted first of all that if Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange OP was not the ghostwriter of Humani Generis then at the very least he had a strong influence on the text in its original form. I have also read that Fr. de Lubac apparently was notified that Pius XII had personally edited the parts of the original draft that were directly critical of the work that he was doing. My reason for noting this is that if this is true, then Pius XII personally invervened to modified the text prior to promulgation to prevent Humani Generis from being the kind of indictment of de Lubac that many have erroneously preceived it to have been.
If the sentence is read carefully, you will see that the erroneous opinion being addressed is one that would hold that it is not possible for God to create rational beings without ordering them towards or calling them to the beatific vision. This is certainly not the position that de Lubac held.{1} Nor to my knowledge did Rahner (who also wrote on this subject) hold to the view proscribed in Humani Generis. This brings up a very important element of the equation when one attempts to properly interpret any text: concern for proper context.
It is not uncommon for those who have a manifested contempt for certain theologians (i.e. de Lubac, Rahner) to read into certain texts (i.e. Humani Generis) concepts which are not there. It is important to remember that any proscription is properly viewed narrowly as opposed to broadly in its application. What this means is that the proscription only applies in the precise sense in which it is set forth -not in any and all preceived similar propositions out there.
Self-styled "traditionalists" so often do not realize this; hence they raise the shibboleths of numerous past magisterial sources{2} without properly paying attention to what is actually being proscribed or otherwise taught from within those texts.{3} Having dealt and dispatched with virtually all of their significant canards over the years,{4} I am in a position to say with certainty that lack of attention to precisely what is being said in the sources is the primary culprit of their errors.
It is a general norm of proper theological interpretation that any condemnations of a theological or philosophical proposition are properly understood as being condemned in the sense they are being condemned in. And of course it must be noted that this sense is not necessarily the same sense that a reader of the text attaches to the words of the text when casually reading it. Proper discernment here takes a good amount of care and far too frequently this is lacking by partisans of all stripes.
In summary, the following points are worth reflecting upon as they get to the very core of the problem with so much of the presuppositions that guide those who misappropriate magisterial texts as fuel for their respective agendas:
If the Bible (which is inspired) can be misinterpreted by men or (to paraphrase St. Vincent of Lerens) "is as capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters", the reader needs to ask themselves why any Catholic would be naïve enough to assume that non inspired magisterial documents would be any different. Why would the Bible have "some things that are hard to understand which the ignorant and the unstable wrest to their own destruction" (2 Pet. 3:16) while magisterial documents would be free and easily accessible to be understood by anyone at face value apart from the times, circumstances, and assumptions under which they were written in??? Such an assessment is obviously absurd but yet that is what the self-style 'traditionalists' do in trying to polarize the Council teachings against previous teachings all the while ignoring the context from which the teachings were promulgat ed or the assumptions of the time periods in which they were made. [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part X (c. 2000, rev. 2003)]
I made that point a couple of times in my treatise (including in the excerpt above) and have reiterated it several times since. And I continue to be surprised (though maybe I should not be anymore) that the above very common-sense observation is so overlooked by many people.{5} But I digress.
Notes:
{1} If I am not mistaken, de Lubac held that while possible, such a stance was nonetheless insufficient. (I will send this link to a couple theologians more familiar with de Lubac's work than I am for confirmation on this.) It seems to me that what really got de Lubac in dutch with the authorities were the attempts to defend his friend Teilhard de Chardin from charges of heterodoxy. (With regards to Teilhard, de Lubac held that he was orthodox but very imprecise in his statements.) I think out of charity we can see this as someone trying in the best of the spiritual traditions to put a favourable interpretation on the statements of another.
It is also probable that because they were friends, de Lubac was willing to cut de Chardin much more slack than would have been prudent. This is probably par for the course viz. how friends treat friends; ergo I would not be too hard on de Lubac for doing this. (If memory serves, he eventually realized that de Chardin's writings were too imprecise to be credibly defended but I may be mistaken on this point too.)
{2} Or even post Pius XII sources interpreted through the same faulty hermeneutic whereby the pre-Pius XII sources are interpreted.
{3} And self-styled "progressivists" make the same kinds of mistakes with those same sources as well lest this appear to be a one-sided indictment.
{4} And it bears noting that the arguments set forth by these people are commonly constructed upon a faulty reading of the very sources they reference.
{5} I hope you have not started uncritically imbibing the work of self-styled "traditionalist" apostolates. (Or even giving their work any reasonable investment of your time.) The reason I say this is because the example you give is a common one in those environs and (hopefully) showing how wide of the mark they are on it can serve as a example of the kinds of error that are habitually made by such apostolates. (Based as they are on the same faulty hermeneutics as I have noted above in this post.) Nor should the above statements be considered to appertain to papally approved Tridentine apostolates -the major ones of which are linked to the side margin of this weblog.
(And a Bit on General Norms of Theological Interpretation)
In this post, my words will be in regular font and my sources in darkblue font.
Hello Shawn.
Hello XXXXXXX:
Long time no hear from.
Hope everything is well with you.
I have very little to complain about personally. I hope things are going at least as well for you if not better.
Life has been very hectic for the past few months but I just recently re-read an article on the whole issue of de Lubac and nature vs. grace.
Aah yes, the nature vs. grace controversy. I presume you were rereading the Garver article that I recommended previously.
I know that we've discussed this issue before, but the following quote from Pius XII's encyclical HUMANI GENERIS still troubles me and it certainly seems to condemn the opinion of de Lubac:
"Others destroy (corrumpunt) the gratuitous character of the supernatural order, by suggesting that it would be impossible for God to create rational beings without equipping (ordering) them for the beatific vision and calling them to it".
Could you please comment, at length if you have time, about this sentence from humani generis? I greatly appreciate it.
Certainly. It must first be noted first of all that if Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange OP was not the ghostwriter of Humani Generis then at the very least he had a strong influence on the text in its original form. I have also read that Fr. de Lubac apparently was notified that Pius XII had personally edited the parts of the original draft that were directly critical of the work that he was doing. My reason for noting this is that if this is true, then Pius XII personally invervened to modified the text prior to promulgation to prevent Humani Generis from being the kind of indictment of de Lubac that many have erroneously preceived it to have been.
If the sentence is read carefully, you will see that the erroneous opinion being addressed is one that would hold that it is not possible for God to create rational beings without ordering them towards or calling them to the beatific vision. This is certainly not the position that de Lubac held.{1} Nor to my knowledge did Rahner (who also wrote on this subject) hold to the view proscribed in Humani Generis. This brings up a very important element of the equation when one attempts to properly interpret any text: concern for proper context.
It is not uncommon for those who have a manifested contempt for certain theologians (i.e. de Lubac, Rahner) to read into certain texts (i.e. Humani Generis) concepts which are not there. It is important to remember that any proscription is properly viewed narrowly as opposed to broadly in its application. What this means is that the proscription only applies in the precise sense in which it is set forth -not in any and all preceived similar propositions out there.
Self-styled "traditionalists" so often do not realize this; hence they raise the shibboleths of numerous past magisterial sources{2} without properly paying attention to what is actually being proscribed or otherwise taught from within those texts.{3} Having dealt and dispatched with virtually all of their significant canards over the years,{4} I am in a position to say with certainty that lack of attention to precisely what is being said in the sources is the primary culprit of their errors.
It is a general norm of proper theological interpretation that any condemnations of a theological or philosophical proposition are properly understood as being condemned in the sense they are being condemned in. And of course it must be noted that this sense is not necessarily the same sense that a reader of the text attaches to the words of the text when casually reading it. Proper discernment here takes a good amount of care and far too frequently this is lacking by partisans of all stripes.
In summary, the following points are worth reflecting upon as they get to the very core of the problem with so much of the presuppositions that guide those who misappropriate magisterial texts as fuel for their respective agendas:
If the Bible (which is inspired) can be misinterpreted by men or (to paraphrase St. Vincent of Lerens) "is as capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters", the reader needs to ask themselves why any Catholic would be naïve enough to assume that non inspired magisterial documents would be any different. Why would the Bible have "some things that are hard to understand which the ignorant and the unstable wrest to their own destruction" (2 Pet. 3:16) while magisterial documents would be free and easily accessible to be understood by anyone at face value apart from the times, circumstances, and assumptions under which they were written in??? Such an assessment is obviously absurd but yet that is what the self-style 'traditionalists' do in trying to polarize the Council teachings against previous teachings all the while ignoring the context from which the teachings were promulgat ed or the assumptions of the time periods in which they were made. [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part X (c. 2000, rev. 2003)]
I made that point a couple of times in my treatise (including in the excerpt above) and have reiterated it several times since. And I continue to be surprised (though maybe I should not be anymore) that the above very common-sense observation is so overlooked by many people.{5} But I digress.
Notes:
{1} If I am not mistaken, de Lubac held that while possible, such a stance was nonetheless insufficient. (I will send this link to a couple theologians more familiar with de Lubac's work than I am for confirmation on this.) It seems to me that what really got de Lubac in dutch with the authorities were the attempts to defend his friend Teilhard de Chardin from charges of heterodoxy. (With regards to Teilhard, de Lubac held that he was orthodox but very imprecise in his statements.) I think out of charity we can see this as someone trying in the best of the spiritual traditions to put a favourable interpretation on the statements of another.
It is also probable that because they were friends, de Lubac was willing to cut de Chardin much more slack than would have been prudent. This is probably par for the course viz. how friends treat friends; ergo I would not be too hard on de Lubac for doing this. (If memory serves, he eventually realized that de Chardin's writings were too imprecise to be credibly defended but I may be mistaken on this point too.)
{2} Or even post Pius XII sources interpreted through the same faulty hermeneutic whereby the pre-Pius XII sources are interpreted.
{3} And self-styled "progressivists" make the same kinds of mistakes with those same sources as well lest this appear to be a one-sided indictment.
{4} And it bears noting that the arguments set forth by these people are commonly constructed upon a faulty reading of the very sources they reference.
{5} I hope you have not started uncritically imbibing the work of self-styled "traditionalist" apostolates. (Or even giving their work any reasonable investment of your time.) The reason I say this is because the example you give is a common one in those environs and (hopefully) showing how wide of the mark they are on it can serve as a example of the kinds of error that are habitually made by such apostolates. (Based as they are on the same faulty hermeneutics as I have noted above in this post.) Nor should the above statements be considered to appertain to papally approved Tridentine apostolates -the major ones of which are linked to the side margin of this weblog.
A very good article on ressourcement theology and the methodology of aggiornamento properly understood can be read HERE.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
On the Pro-Life Issue and the Myopic Vision of Many Pro-Life Advocates:
(A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread)
[Prefatory Notification: Though it is the manifested intention of this weblog to post moral and philosophical arguments with regards to the major voting issues as enunciated in the Catholic Answers and USCCB voting guides, before that is done, it seems appropriate to balance the scales a bit by addressing yet again problems in the approach to pro-life issues that are seen as philosophically shortsighted and internally counterproductive by your weblog host. That is the purpose of this thread to summarize by virtue of recalling previous declarations on the matter from the archives. The analysis previously promised last month is virtually done and will be posted before the end of the week time-willing. - ISM]
Originally, your humble servant planned to continue his comments from the audio blog on the boneheadedly myopic nature of many prolife outlooks. (There are even indications of this on the audio itself.) However, it has been decided instead to scan the archives to list posts where this subject has been dealt with before. After all, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel anew when an old one (or two) will work just as well. Without further ado, let us get to it:
Miscellaneous Notes
Though not the first time your humble servant has publicly noted his problems with much of the pro-life movement, the first utterings of this subject at Rerum Novarum are at the thread above.
"Election Aids For Proper Voting" Dept.
On Election Day 2002, We outlined some principles in brief including noting for the benefit of potential voters what had been covered up to that point in the weblog series viz. Claude Frederic Bastiat's magnum opus The Law.{1} Some of your host's long-held philosophical problems with the approach of many pro-lifers to political issues are noted in that thread in a bit more detail than the first thread of this string.
Why Bush is Not "Reagan II" Part III
The above thread is the last installment of a series where your weblog host took to task Lane Core Jr. for promoting the notion that there were significant commonalities between W and Reagan. That thread deals adequately with the superficiality of this notion{2}. Furthermore, this writer's position has only been confirmed by events subsequent to that thread being posted. The problem with prolife shortsightedness is dealt with a bit more in detail in that thread.
And of course Our long-standing derision for the Supreme Court and its activism had to eventually come out on this weblog. See this thread from June of 2003 where the distinctions between the court's various "constructionists", "whores", and "termites" are first spelled out in vivid and blunt (not to mention painfully true) tonalities.
With that note, this Rerum Novarum recapitulation thread on the subject of pro-life political incompetence is concluded. However, We should note also that this is not intended to bash the pro-lifers. Instead, it is to note areas where in their zeal to defend life they have undermined their future success in this endeavour for far too long. Essentially this is a "learn from the mistakes of the past so that you do not repeat them in the future" plea so kindly do not read anything into it except for that.
Notes:
{1} This is a series that ran pretty much weekly or bi-monthly from late September 2002 until early March 2003. Because so much of the philosophical weltanschauung of your weblog host is patterned on those principles -and because they provide conservatives of good will with a logical approach to dealing with contemporary issues in a systematical fashion, We note it again here and strongly exhort readers to check the side margin under the heading On the US Constitution and the Fundamental Rights of Man for the thread in full.
{2} Our respect for Lane Core Jr has been noted time and again at this weblog. Nonetheless, the truth must be stated as We see it; ergo the comments posted above about the facile nature of comparing W to Reagan in any significant capacity.
(A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread)
[Prefatory Notification: Though it is the manifested intention of this weblog to post moral and philosophical arguments with regards to the major voting issues as enunciated in the Catholic Answers and USCCB voting guides, before that is done, it seems appropriate to balance the scales a bit by addressing yet again problems in the approach to pro-life issues that are seen as philosophically shortsighted and internally counterproductive by your weblog host. That is the purpose of this thread to summarize by virtue of recalling previous declarations on the matter from the archives. The analysis previously promised last month is virtually done and will be posted before the end of the week time-willing. - ISM]
Originally, your humble servant planned to continue his comments from the audio blog on the boneheadedly myopic nature of many prolife outlooks. (There are even indications of this on the audio itself.) However, it has been decided instead to scan the archives to list posts where this subject has been dealt with before. After all, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel anew when an old one (or two) will work just as well. Without further ado, let us get to it:
Miscellaneous Notes
Though not the first time your humble servant has publicly noted his problems with much of the pro-life movement, the first utterings of this subject at Rerum Novarum are at the thread above.
"Election Aids For Proper Voting" Dept.
On Election Day 2002, We outlined some principles in brief including noting for the benefit of potential voters what had been covered up to that point in the weblog series viz. Claude Frederic Bastiat's magnum opus The Law.{1} Some of your host's long-held philosophical problems with the approach of many pro-lifers to political issues are noted in that thread in a bit more detail than the first thread of this string.
Why Bush is Not "Reagan II" Part III
The above thread is the last installment of a series where your weblog host took to task Lane Core Jr. for promoting the notion that there were significant commonalities between W and Reagan. That thread deals adequately with the superficiality of this notion{2}. Furthermore, this writer's position has only been confirmed by events subsequent to that thread being posted. The problem with prolife shortsightedness is dealt with a bit more in detail in that thread.
And of course Our long-standing derision for the Supreme Court and its activism had to eventually come out on this weblog. See this thread from June of 2003 where the distinctions between the court's various "constructionists", "whores", and "termites" are first spelled out in vivid and blunt (not to mention painfully true) tonalities.
With that note, this Rerum Novarum recapitulation thread on the subject of pro-life political incompetence is concluded. However, We should note also that this is not intended to bash the pro-lifers. Instead, it is to note areas where in their zeal to defend life they have undermined their future success in this endeavour for far too long. Essentially this is a "learn from the mistakes of the past so that you do not repeat them in the future" plea so kindly do not read anything into it except for that.
Notes:
{1} This is a series that ran pretty much weekly or bi-monthly from late September 2002 until early March 2003. Because so much of the philosophical weltanschauung of your weblog host is patterned on those principles -and because they provide conservatives of good will with a logical approach to dealing with contemporary issues in a systematical fashion, We note it again here and strongly exhort readers to check the side margin under the heading On the US Constitution and the Fundamental Rights of Man for the thread in full.
{2} Our respect for Lane Core Jr has been noted time and again at this weblog. Nonetheless, the truth must be stated as We see it; ergo the comments posted above about the facile nature of comparing W to Reagan in any significant capacity.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
The Problems With Terrorists and Terrorism According to a Muslim:
Here is an excerpt of an article that ran today in the London Telegraph.
It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.
The hostage-takers of children in Beslan, North Ossetia, were Muslims. The other hostage-takers and subsequent murderers of the Nepalese chefs and workers in Iraq were also Muslims. Those involved in rape and murder in Darfur, Sudan, are Muslims, with other Muslims chosen to be their victims.
Those responsible for the attacks on residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar were Muslims. The two women who crashed two airliners last week were also Muslims.
Bin Laden is a Muslim. The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim.
What a pathetic record. What an abominable "achievement". Does all this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?
These images, when put together, or taken separately, are shameful and degrading. But let us start with putting an end to a history of denial. Let us acknowledge their reality, instead of denying them and seeking to justify them with sound and fury signifying nothing. [Excerpt from Abdel Rahman al-Rashed's article 'Innocent religion is now a message of hate' (c. 9/05/04)]
Thanks are in order to Charles at Little Green Footballs for posting this link. By all means, read the rest of the article. Though I take issue with the title of the article (in light of the recent past as well as the actions of Muhammed and his followers down through the centuries); nonetheless, it is refreshing to see a public admission of this sort (and the others in the article not posted above) from a Muslim in the media. Apparently, this article ran yesterday in an Arabic newspaper called Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. Let us hope that readers of good will imbibe this article and recognize the problems the author outlines -and of course receive the motivation to publicly oppose these kinds of inexcusable actions by the more extremist Muslims in their (and our) midst.
Here is an excerpt of an article that ran today in the London Telegraph.
It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.
The hostage-takers of children in Beslan, North Ossetia, were Muslims. The other hostage-takers and subsequent murderers of the Nepalese chefs and workers in Iraq were also Muslims. Those involved in rape and murder in Darfur, Sudan, are Muslims, with other Muslims chosen to be their victims.
Those responsible for the attacks on residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar were Muslims. The two women who crashed two airliners last week were also Muslims.
Bin Laden is a Muslim. The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim.
What a pathetic record. What an abominable "achievement". Does all this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?
These images, when put together, or taken separately, are shameful and degrading. But let us start with putting an end to a history of denial. Let us acknowledge their reality, instead of denying them and seeking to justify them with sound and fury signifying nothing. [Excerpt from Abdel Rahman al-Rashed's article 'Innocent religion is now a message of hate' (c. 9/05/04)]
Thanks are in order to Charles at Little Green Footballs for posting this link. By all means, read the rest of the article. Though I take issue with the title of the article (in light of the recent past as well as the actions of Muhammed and his followers down through the centuries); nonetheless, it is refreshing to see a public admission of this sort (and the others in the article not posted above) from a Muslim in the media. Apparently, this article ran yesterday in an Arabic newspaper called Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. Let us hope that readers of good will imbibe this article and recognize the problems the author outlines -and of course receive the motivation to publicly oppose these kinds of inexcusable actions by the more extremist Muslims in their (and our) midst.
Briefly on the Founding Fathers and Propagandistic Uses of Their Words:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The post you are about to read was at one time a footnote to this post.
I want to interact briefly at this time with a problem that is inherent in some of those who position themselves as "antiwar" and/or who promote those who style themselves as "antiwar" with regards to the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.{1} It is unfortunate that there are those who in striving to defend a position of military inaction abroad do so with out of context excerpts from the Founding Fathers of America. This kind of approach is hardly a novelty by any means; indeed the practice of seeking precedents in earlier time periods for what someone has already decided to do or believe is the hallmark of what those who consider themselves "reformers" do to try and claim an authority for their views. It is beyond the scope of this post to outline some of the problems with this kind of uncritical (and often fallacious) attempts to appeal to authority -indeed notwithstanding this problem there is also the issue of how well this really represents the views of the Founders of the United States.
Let us at the moment consider an example of this kind of manipulation that I have seen on the web. There are certain antiwar partisans who have seized on two sentences from John Quincy Adams where he says that America "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy" and Adams' reference to America and if all foreign affairs were engaged in by her that America "might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit." Of course a careful reader of the speech those lines are prooftexted from would see that Adams said a lot more in that speech -and in between those very sentences in fact- than the isolated referencing of them would lend a casual reader to presume. Observe if you will what happens when we contextualize those statements both within the surrounding ones of the speech and also by having recourse to US history and what it reveals:
[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
The involvement of the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq is to destroy Al Queda first and foremost. There is a secondary end of establishing democracy in Iraq as a way of showing Arabs that they can have governments in forms other than totalitarian theocratic despotic regimes or benevolent dictatorships where the wealth is in the hands of a scarce few and everyone else is poor or barely scraping by.{2}
In brief, anyone who does not believe that by her involvement in the Middle East contra Al Queda (and her benefactors) that America is championing her own liberty and vindicating herself against internationally organized terrorism and its benefactors first and foremost is hardly one who is in touch with reality on this issue. But there is more...
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
This speech was given in 1821. By that time and in the ten year period afterward, the US military had been involved in numerous foreign ventures including the following ones:
--Invasion of Canada (1775)
Generals Washington and Arnold invaded Canada in the winter of 1775.
--Undeclared Naval War with France (1798-1800)
This war included military actions in the Dominican Republic -which was French territory thus qualifying as a "foreign invasion" by US forces.
--First Barbary War (1801-1805)
This included naval invasions of Tripoli to free members of the USS Pennsylvania who were held captive in Tripoli. Oh, Tripoli is in Africa in modern day Lybia lest anyone not know that.
--Invasion of Mexico (1806)
Mexico was Spanish territory at the time.
--Invasion of West Florida (1810)
West Florida was Spanish territory at the time.
--Amelia Island and east Florida (1812)
This was also Spanish territory at the time.
--War of 1812 (1812-1815)
This war was declared on the basis of the British interception of US ships bound for France (and British blockades of the US as well).
--West Florida (1813)
The US seized Mobile Bay which was at the time the property of the Spanish.
--1814 Spanish Florida (1814)
US forces lead by General Andrew Jackson invaded and drove the British out of Spanish-controlled Florida. This was for that reason a "foreign invasion" because we invaded land controlled by another because our war enemy of the time (Britain in the War of 1812) had soldiers residing there.
--Second Barbary War (1815)
The United States Navy attacked Algiers in Africa.
--Carribean Conflicts (1814-1825)
American forces engaged in many battles with pirate forces both on and around Cuba, Puerto Rico, Santo Domingo, and Yucatan.
--Spanish Florida (1816-1818)
Generals Jackson and Gaines invaded the Seminole area and dispatched with British who were there and also occupied Spanish ports. Florida was ceded to the United States in 1819.
--Oregon (1818)
The US sent a gunship to the Columbia and took possession of the Oregon Territory (modern day Washington, Oregon, and Idaho).
--Africa invasions (1820-1823)
The slave traffic was invaded by US naval units in this time period.
--Cuba (1822)
US naval forces invaded Cuba to attack and destroy a pirate outpost on the west side of the island. US forces also invaded the island under similar pretenses in 1823 and 1824 -the latter being a fairly sizable invasion of two hundred troops. (Commodore David Porter was later court martialed for the 1824 action.)
-- Cuba (1825)
American and British forces landed at Sagua La Grande to capture pirates.
-- Greece (1827)
US forces hunted pirates on three of the Greek islands.
--Falkland Islands (1831-1832)
In response to the capture of three American vessels, Captain Duncan of the USS Lexington invaded the Falkland Islands (in modern day Argentina).
Now then, I could continue to list examples of foreign military excursions -indeed the US has averaged about one every year of her existence. There are thirty-one examples above if we include at least one invasion for every year of the longer-chained indefinite events noted above. (Eighteen if we do not.) Either way, it proves that an attempt to co-opt John Quincy Adams -who was President during the 1825 invasion of Cuba and the 1827 invasion of Greece- as some promoter of a pacifist-like "we never should involve ourselves abroad" outlook to be quilty of historical malpractice. But there is more to the 1821 speech of Mr. Adams which does not bode well for peacenik types:
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force...
Yet many of those who think America should take marching orders from the UN do precisely what Mr. Adams cautioned against. And in opposing Al Queda in foreign nations, this is to some extent akin to what the US did in the early nineteenth century with her military interventions abroad in opposing the pirates of that time.
The difference between those pirates and the modern ones is that those pirates were not governed by a religious ideology of "conversion or death" the way the modern day Hitlers-in-headscarves are.
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit...
Obviously in light of the US's foreign trackrecord prior to and subsequent to 1821 -including the foreign military endeavours during the Quincy Adams Administration- one would be misinterpreting Mr. Adams in no small degree to see in the above statements any discouragement of foreign involvement beyond a recognition that the United States should not involve itself in all foreign affairs militarily. That is not the same as saying that the United States cannot (or should not) involve itself in some foreign affairs militarily.
In summary, any attempts to make Founders like John Quincy Adams into supporters of cowering in the face of global terror threats are facile at best. (Out of charity I will not say more about it than that at this time.)
Notes:
{1} And within the context of the continuing war on international terrorism in general.
{2} It is strange how many who do not see this are also activists for the poor but I digress.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The post you are about to read was at one time a footnote to this post.
I want to interact briefly at this time with a problem that is inherent in some of those who position themselves as "antiwar" and/or who promote those who style themselves as "antiwar" with regards to the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.{1} It is unfortunate that there are those who in striving to defend a position of military inaction abroad do so with out of context excerpts from the Founding Fathers of America. This kind of approach is hardly a novelty by any means; indeed the practice of seeking precedents in earlier time periods for what someone has already decided to do or believe is the hallmark of what those who consider themselves "reformers" do to try and claim an authority for their views. It is beyond the scope of this post to outline some of the problems with this kind of uncritical (and often fallacious) attempts to appeal to authority -indeed notwithstanding this problem there is also the issue of how well this really represents the views of the Founders of the United States.
Let us at the moment consider an example of this kind of manipulation that I have seen on the web. There are certain antiwar partisans who have seized on two sentences from John Quincy Adams where he says that America "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy" and Adams' reference to America and if all foreign affairs were engaged in by her that America "might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit." Of course a careful reader of the speech those lines are prooftexted from would see that Adams said a lot more in that speech -and in between those very sentences in fact- than the isolated referencing of them would lend a casual reader to presume. Observe if you will what happens when we contextualize those statements both within the surrounding ones of the speech and also by having recourse to US history and what it reveals:
[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
The involvement of the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq is to destroy Al Queda first and foremost. There is a secondary end of establishing democracy in Iraq as a way of showing Arabs that they can have governments in forms other than totalitarian theocratic despotic regimes or benevolent dictatorships where the wealth is in the hands of a scarce few and everyone else is poor or barely scraping by.{2}
In brief, anyone who does not believe that by her involvement in the Middle East contra Al Queda (and her benefactors) that America is championing her own liberty and vindicating herself against internationally organized terrorism and its benefactors first and foremost is hardly one who is in touch with reality on this issue. But there is more...
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
This speech was given in 1821. By that time and in the ten year period afterward, the US military had been involved in numerous foreign ventures including the following ones:
--Invasion of Canada (1775)
Generals Washington and Arnold invaded Canada in the winter of 1775.
--Undeclared Naval War with France (1798-1800)
This war included military actions in the Dominican Republic -which was French territory thus qualifying as a "foreign invasion" by US forces.
--First Barbary War (1801-1805)
This included naval invasions of Tripoli to free members of the USS Pennsylvania who were held captive in Tripoli. Oh, Tripoli is in Africa in modern day Lybia lest anyone not know that.
--Invasion of Mexico (1806)
Mexico was Spanish territory at the time.
--Invasion of West Florida (1810)
West Florida was Spanish territory at the time.
--Amelia Island and east Florida (1812)
This was also Spanish territory at the time.
--War of 1812 (1812-1815)
This war was declared on the basis of the British interception of US ships bound for France (and British blockades of the US as well).
--West Florida (1813)
The US seized Mobile Bay which was at the time the property of the Spanish.
--1814 Spanish Florida (1814)
US forces lead by General Andrew Jackson invaded and drove the British out of Spanish-controlled Florida. This was for that reason a "foreign invasion" because we invaded land controlled by another because our war enemy of the time (Britain in the War of 1812) had soldiers residing there.
--Second Barbary War (1815)
The United States Navy attacked Algiers in Africa.
--Carribean Conflicts (1814-1825)
American forces engaged in many battles with pirate forces both on and around Cuba, Puerto Rico, Santo Domingo, and Yucatan.
--Spanish Florida (1816-1818)
Generals Jackson and Gaines invaded the Seminole area and dispatched with British who were there and also occupied Spanish ports. Florida was ceded to the United States in 1819.
--Oregon (1818)
The US sent a gunship to the Columbia and took possession of the Oregon Territory (modern day Washington, Oregon, and Idaho).
--Africa invasions (1820-1823)
The slave traffic was invaded by US naval units in this time period.
--Cuba (1822)
US naval forces invaded Cuba to attack and destroy a pirate outpost on the west side of the island. US forces also invaded the island under similar pretenses in 1823 and 1824 -the latter being a fairly sizable invasion of two hundred troops. (Commodore David Porter was later court martialed for the 1824 action.)
-- Cuba (1825)
American and British forces landed at Sagua La Grande to capture pirates.
-- Greece (1827)
US forces hunted pirates on three of the Greek islands.
--Falkland Islands (1831-1832)
In response to the capture of three American vessels, Captain Duncan of the USS Lexington invaded the Falkland Islands (in modern day Argentina).
Now then, I could continue to list examples of foreign military excursions -indeed the US has averaged about one every year of her existence. There are thirty-one examples above if we include at least one invasion for every year of the longer-chained indefinite events noted above. (Eighteen if we do not.) Either way, it proves that an attempt to co-opt John Quincy Adams -who was President during the 1825 invasion of Cuba and the 1827 invasion of Greece- as some promoter of a pacifist-like "we never should involve ourselves abroad" outlook to be quilty of historical malpractice. But there is more to the 1821 speech of Mr. Adams which does not bode well for peacenik types:
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force...
Yet many of those who think America should take marching orders from the UN do precisely what Mr. Adams cautioned against. And in opposing Al Queda in foreign nations, this is to some extent akin to what the US did in the early nineteenth century with her military interventions abroad in opposing the pirates of that time.
The difference between those pirates and the modern ones is that those pirates were not governed by a religious ideology of "conversion or death" the way the modern day Hitlers-in-headscarves are.
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit...
Obviously in light of the US's foreign trackrecord prior to and subsequent to 1821 -including the foreign military endeavours during the Quincy Adams Administration- one would be misinterpreting Mr. Adams in no small degree to see in the above statements any discouragement of foreign involvement beyond a recognition that the United States should not involve itself in all foreign affairs militarily. That is not the same as saying that the United States cannot (or should not) involve itself in some foreign affairs militarily.
In summary, any attempts to make Founders like John Quincy Adams into supporters of cowering in the face of global terror threats are facile at best. (Out of charity I will not say more about it than that at this time.)
Notes:
{1} And within the context of the continuing war on international terrorism in general.
{2} It is strange how many who do not see this are also activists for the poor but I digress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)