Briefly Dispatching With A Standard Pseudo-"Peacemaker" War "Argument" Yet Again:
Based on an email received earlier today, it seems that one of the readers wants to revisit the so-called "chickenhawk" subject to some extent. Frankly, I have shot that dog dead already. Twice. (Once on my birthday last year and once again on Mayday this year.) For that reason, I see no need to waste any more ammunition on that illogical excuse for an "argument." Nonetheless, to show for the umpteenth time in the past four odd years that I do to some extent take reader emails into account with what is blogged at this humble weblog, I will briefly recount one of those threads at this time -starting with the preface of the thread from May 1, 2006:
The material in this posting was originally blogged back in October as a birthday fisking under the title Another Flawed Argument From Pseudo "Peacemakers" Bites the Dust. Without wanting to reconstitute the entire post at this time, I nonetheless want to remind readers of why this kind of argumentation is so flawed. For that reason, a truncated version of the earlier posting will suffice to avoid reinventing the wheel innecessarily. Without further ado, here goes...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 1, 2006)]
To read the rest, click on the link above.
The readers are advised to not expect anything in the way of a substantive argument against what is outlined in the above thread by the more rabid of the self-styled "peacemakers."{1} Instead, any attempted responses by those sorts will consist of illogical and irrational rants based not on reason and logic but instead on said party's solipsistic view of the war in Iraq and war in general -be it actual arguments they attempt to advance, links to similarly flawed articles by other parties they consider to be "allies", etc.
Note:
{1} I remind you readers that this does not involve the issue of the war in general, only one particularly stupid and easily confutable argument that is a stock talking point amongst the self-styled "progressivists" and pseudo-"peacemakers."
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
"All The News That We Think Fits Or Can Be Made To Fit" Dept.
Who wants yesterdays papers
Who wants yesterdays girl
Who wants yesterdays papers
Nobody in the world
Apparently, the New York Times is in trouble and they are taking actions to try and regain viability. After fourteen years of obvious decline, here are some of my suggestions{1} for improving the paper overnight -starting with what they should really do:
---Have "Pinchy" Sulzberger arrested, tried for sedition{2} (if not downright treason), and then promptly executed.
But since that is not likely, lets consider some other approaches they can take. Before doing that however, it would help to recall some of what your host wrote last year on the problems with the journalistic profession in the aftermath of the whole Deep Throat subject:
The journalistic profession has become one where you "make it" by finding someone whose reputation you can destroy. Ethics are often not a factor, indeed morals and ethics often get the screw from journalists who are trying to "make it" and then (for those who "make it") the same tactics are utilized to try and stay "on top." The same is the case with the legal profession and the political profession: oftentimes those who "make it" do so by screwing other people. So the parallel to prostitution is an apt one. The only difference of course is that prostitutes are somewhat honest about it. But enough on that subject for now.
To summarize these musings, Woodward and Bernstein by their approach to "Deep Throat" ushered in a new era of journalism which is rotten to the core. It is comprised of people who seek to create news and who are interested in spinning the facts to advance an agenda rather than report on what is happening and letting the readers draw their own conclusions. The ethics in this field are abysmal and a strong reason why the MSM is slowly becoming more and more irrelevant in this new age of alternative media is because they are no longer a monopoly.
Unlike in the days of the Watergate scandal and even in the days of the so-called "Iran Contra scandal", the MSM does not have their former capabilities to propagandize the public discourse. Instead, today they must peddle their wares in the marketplace with a variety of viewpoints now and do not have the luxury of monopolizing the media as they once did. This has made many of them take an approach from being wary to being skeptical (if not downright hostile) towards alternative media. And they will find out in the coming weeks that the conventional wisdom about W. Mark Felt being a "hero" in the early 1970's will not play with the public in quite the sameway they think it will. And when that happens, the MSM's disconnect with the populace will again be set forth in bold relief. The present writer would not bet on them figuring it out at that point though for those who are wondering. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 1, 2005)]
Having diagnosed the core problems with modern day "journalism", a real remedy could be suggested for their predicament but it is not as if the New York Times sorts would accept it. Therefore, lets consider some of the more absurd possibilities since it seems with these sorts the propensity for them to accept an idea is in direct proportion to its absurdity, illogic, etc. With that in mind, here are this writer's suggestions for them to consider:
--Changing the paper to resemble the Weekly World News format except on a slightly larger scale of course.
--Changing "All the News that is Fit to Print" to "All the News We Can Find or Create That We Think You Should Accept Blindly and Uncritically Like the Moronic Sheeple That You Are." A bit windier to read but nonetheless it would be quite forthright of them to admit to their agenda up front like that.
--Inaugurating a special position called Al Jazeera Quality Control Inspector to review all stories and insure that they conform to the proper groupthink view of events.
--Create two different posts within the aforementioned position: one for national affairs and one for international affairs.
--Give the above posts to Jayson Blair for national affairs and Noam Chomsky for international affairs.
Since a working definition of insanity is doing exactly the same things over and over again while expecting a different result each time, this writer recommends that the NYT do more of the same but somewhat differently. Meaning: do more of the same but be more open and honest with your viewpoints and what you think of your readers and the public at large.
Notes:
{1} In accordance with the suggested "assignment" at this link.
{2} Much as I hate to remind people, we are at war and no amount of closing one's eyes and wishing it was not so will change that. There have been a lot of actions taken by the MSM which in a time of war should not be tolerated by a logical and sane people. The extent to which "political correctness" has been involved in these occurrences taking place is obvious; nonetheless, whatever idiocies are tolerated outside of a time of war should not be tolerated when at war. And that is the bottom line really.
Who wants yesterdays papers
Who wants yesterdays girl
Who wants yesterdays papers
Nobody in the world
Apparently, the New York Times is in trouble and they are taking actions to try and regain viability. After fourteen years of obvious decline, here are some of my suggestions{1} for improving the paper overnight -starting with what they should really do:
---Have "Pinchy" Sulzberger arrested, tried for sedition{2} (if not downright treason), and then promptly executed.
But since that is not likely, lets consider some other approaches they can take. Before doing that however, it would help to recall some of what your host wrote last year on the problems with the journalistic profession in the aftermath of the whole Deep Throat subject:
The journalistic profession has become one where you "make it" by finding someone whose reputation you can destroy. Ethics are often not a factor, indeed morals and ethics often get the screw from journalists who are trying to "make it" and then (for those who "make it") the same tactics are utilized to try and stay "on top." The same is the case with the legal profession and the political profession: oftentimes those who "make it" do so by screwing other people. So the parallel to prostitution is an apt one. The only difference of course is that prostitutes are somewhat honest about it. But enough on that subject for now.
To summarize these musings, Woodward and Bernstein by their approach to "Deep Throat" ushered in a new era of journalism which is rotten to the core. It is comprised of people who seek to create news and who are interested in spinning the facts to advance an agenda rather than report on what is happening and letting the readers draw their own conclusions. The ethics in this field are abysmal and a strong reason why the MSM is slowly becoming more and more irrelevant in this new age of alternative media is because they are no longer a monopoly.
Unlike in the days of the Watergate scandal and even in the days of the so-called "Iran Contra scandal", the MSM does not have their former capabilities to propagandize the public discourse. Instead, today they must peddle their wares in the marketplace with a variety of viewpoints now and do not have the luxury of monopolizing the media as they once did. This has made many of them take an approach from being wary to being skeptical (if not downright hostile) towards alternative media. And they will find out in the coming weeks that the conventional wisdom about W. Mark Felt being a "hero" in the early 1970's will not play with the public in quite the sameway they think it will. And when that happens, the MSM's disconnect with the populace will again be set forth in bold relief. The present writer would not bet on them figuring it out at that point though for those who are wondering. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 1, 2005)]
Having diagnosed the core problems with modern day "journalism", a real remedy could be suggested for their predicament but it is not as if the New York Times sorts would accept it. Therefore, lets consider some of the more absurd possibilities since it seems with these sorts the propensity for them to accept an idea is in direct proportion to its absurdity, illogic, etc. With that in mind, here are this writer's suggestions for them to consider:
--Changing the paper to resemble the Weekly World News format except on a slightly larger scale of course.
--Changing "All the News that is Fit to Print" to "All the News We Can Find or Create That We Think You Should Accept Blindly and Uncritically Like the Moronic Sheeple That You Are." A bit windier to read but nonetheless it would be quite forthright of them to admit to their agenda up front like that.
--Inaugurating a special position called Al Jazeera Quality Control Inspector to review all stories and insure that they conform to the proper groupthink view of events.
--Create two different posts within the aforementioned position: one for national affairs and one for international affairs.
--Give the above posts to Jayson Blair for national affairs and Noam Chomsky for international affairs.
Since a working definition of insanity is doing exactly the same things over and over again while expecting a different result each time, this writer recommends that the NYT do more of the same but somewhat differently. Meaning: do more of the same but be more open and honest with your viewpoints and what you think of your readers and the public at large.
Notes:
{1} In accordance with the suggested "assignment" at this link.
{2} Much as I hate to remind people, we are at war and no amount of closing one's eyes and wishing it was not so will change that. There have been a lot of actions taken by the MSM which in a time of war should not be tolerated by a logical and sane people. The extent to which "political correctness" has been involved in these occurrences taking place is obvious; nonetheless, whatever idiocies are tolerated outside of a time of war should not be tolerated when at war. And that is the bottom line really.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On The Proper Way to Make and Present Arguments)
Mike Mentzer was the man who refined and developed further Arthur Jones' theories on exercise science. He also was one who was an even larger influence in a subsequent refining of my intellectual approach than Arthur Jones was. (Indeed it was through Mike that I learned about Jones to begin with.) Mike used to often dissuade people from accepting what he had to say on subjects of exercise science simply on the basis of him possessing one of the hallmark "credentials" in the particular field he was involved in. (In this case, being one of the greatest physical specimens of all time.) Indeed, rather than base any of his arguments on this factor, Mike would instead often make statements akin to the following:
I've always reasoned that if the material I presented was valid in and of itself, was offered in a logical manner, and designed to appeal to one's reason and common sense, then the likelihood of it being accepted for its intrinsic worth was greater.
That is a direct quote taken from his last written work (published shortly after he passed on) but he often made statements in that vein of thought throughout his lifetime. And that is how I have throughout my life approached discussing any subject matter as a rule. It should go without saying that I therefore recommend the same approach to anyone who wants to make a contribution of value to the arena of ideas: focus only on the intrinsic validity or lack thereof of any argument proposed. For that is what really matters in the legitimate advancement of ideas if we take it down to brass tacks. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 27, 2004)]
(On The Proper Way to Make and Present Arguments)
Mike Mentzer was the man who refined and developed further Arthur Jones' theories on exercise science. He also was one who was an even larger influence in a subsequent refining of my intellectual approach than Arthur Jones was. (Indeed it was through Mike that I learned about Jones to begin with.) Mike used to often dissuade people from accepting what he had to say on subjects of exercise science simply on the basis of him possessing one of the hallmark "credentials" in the particular field he was involved in. (In this case, being one of the greatest physical specimens of all time.) Indeed, rather than base any of his arguments on this factor, Mike would instead often make statements akin to the following:
I've always reasoned that if the material I presented was valid in and of itself, was offered in a logical manner, and designed to appeal to one's reason and common sense, then the likelihood of it being accepted for its intrinsic worth was greater.
That is a direct quote taken from his last written work (published shortly after he passed on) but he often made statements in that vein of thought throughout his lifetime. And that is how I have throughout my life approached discussing any subject matter as a rule. It should go without saying that I therefore recommend the same approach to anyone who wants to make a contribution of value to the arena of ideas: focus only on the intrinsic validity or lack thereof of any argument proposed. For that is what really matters in the legitimate advancement of ideas if we take it down to brass tacks. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 27, 2004)]
Saturday, July 22, 2006
On Marxists and Their Methodology:
(A Visit to the Rerum Novarum Archives)
[Note: This is part of a longer posting I wrote a year ago last Thursday. In light of the kinds of drivel continuing to permeate cyberspace and the MSM on the subject of current wars, it seems appropriate to point out the underlying weltanschauung of many who try to pass themselves off as so-called "peacemakers" and the foundation of their solipsistic view of the world. -ISM]
[W]ith the marxists it is not actual results which are important but instead it is the intentions of the advocates.... I have no patience whatsoever for pseudo-"peacemakers" anymore when it comes to the subject of the current military involvement in the Middle East. These pseudo-"peacemakers" have no proactive plan behind US withdrawal from Iraq and they would not be willing to face up to what would happen in that scenario: because they would claim that their intentions were good.
Remember, there was no shortage of marxists who were masquerading under the masks of "peacemakers" and "social justice advocacy" who celebrated the US withdrawal from Vietnam. However, these very same seditionists never took responsibility for the aftermath. The very same people who (i) protested the war, (ii) tried to paint our soldiers in the worst light possible, and (iii) often were vocal about wanting to see a communist victory in SE Asia managed to get their way. They then lie and make stupid statements like "the violence ended when the US was forced out of the country" and then they wonder why no one familiar with history[...] takes them seriously for a second.
The United States scaled down military operations in 1972 shortly before the elections. After the elections, there was some continued bombing -particularly over Christmas of 1972 to bring the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table. The war ended in 1973 and the US military presence was absent the country after April of 1973. That is not to say that we were completely gone but the presence that remained there until 1975 was very minimal. It was not until 1975 that it could be said (albeit rather disingenuously) that the US was "forced out of the country" and that "force" was a result of the curtailing of funding by the congress -certainly not by the North Vietnamese themselves.
Lest there be any misunderstandings, from 1975-1978, there were more people massacred by the communist Vietnamese and Cambodian regimes than killed in any fashion during the period of US involvement from the earliest date we sent in so-called "military advisors" in 1957 to the final vestiges leaving Saigon in 1975. But the more activist of the hippie scumbags who sought to undermine our efforts in Vietnam refuse to face up to the results of what their seditious (if not downright treasonous) actions brought about. Again, results do not matter to marxists much as facts do not matter. All that matters is their intentions - a point which raises another interesting theme to consider.
The marxists --and every promoter of socialism is a defacto marxist in some form or another[...]-- have a notorious double standard from which they operate. Essentially, they judge their own policies not by the uniform and undeniable[...] failure of their policies every time they have been tried. No, with the marxists it is on the intentions behind their policies that they focus on. But they then judge their political enemies -and America is probably first on that list- by the results of their policies. And since America --despite its overall success as a bastion of freedom unlike any nation in history-- is imperfect, then there are always points that can be focused on to America's discredit. But the marxist intentions of a "paradise on earth" are far more idyllic than the even the significant results that America has achieved. For that reason, the results of marxist policies are ignored while the intentions of the marxists are their point of focus.
Now granted, the marxists fabricated a lot of stuff to make things appear even worse than they actually were but that point aside, there is enough in the historical record without fabrications to enable America to always look bad next to the ideal that marxists claim to repine for. And that is the secret essentially to why marxists can lie, cheat, steal, murder, and commit any atrocity and still be held up as icons for the marxist cause ala the near-veneration of predators like Castro, Guevera, Ortega, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Lenin, etc. by not a few who disingenuously claim the mantles of "progressivist" or "peacemakers." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 20, 2005)]
(A Visit to the Rerum Novarum Archives)
[Note: This is part of a longer posting I wrote a year ago last Thursday. In light of the kinds of drivel continuing to permeate cyberspace and the MSM on the subject of current wars, it seems appropriate to point out the underlying weltanschauung of many who try to pass themselves off as so-called "peacemakers" and the foundation of their solipsistic view of the world. -ISM]
[W]ith the marxists it is not actual results which are important but instead it is the intentions of the advocates.... I have no patience whatsoever for pseudo-"peacemakers" anymore when it comes to the subject of the current military involvement in the Middle East. These pseudo-"peacemakers" have no proactive plan behind US withdrawal from Iraq and they would not be willing to face up to what would happen in that scenario: because they would claim that their intentions were good.
Remember, there was no shortage of marxists who were masquerading under the masks of "peacemakers" and "social justice advocacy" who celebrated the US withdrawal from Vietnam. However, these very same seditionists never took responsibility for the aftermath. The very same people who (i) protested the war, (ii) tried to paint our soldiers in the worst light possible, and (iii) often were vocal about wanting to see a communist victory in SE Asia managed to get their way. They then lie and make stupid statements like "the violence ended when the US was forced out of the country" and then they wonder why no one familiar with history[...] takes them seriously for a second.
The United States scaled down military operations in 1972 shortly before the elections. After the elections, there was some continued bombing -particularly over Christmas of 1972 to bring the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table. The war ended in 1973 and the US military presence was absent the country after April of 1973. That is not to say that we were completely gone but the presence that remained there until 1975 was very minimal. It was not until 1975 that it could be said (albeit rather disingenuously) that the US was "forced out of the country" and that "force" was a result of the curtailing of funding by the congress -certainly not by the North Vietnamese themselves.
Lest there be any misunderstandings, from 1975-1978, there were more people massacred by the communist Vietnamese and Cambodian regimes than killed in any fashion during the period of US involvement from the earliest date we sent in so-called "military advisors" in 1957 to the final vestiges leaving Saigon in 1975. But the more activist of the hippie scumbags who sought to undermine our efforts in Vietnam refuse to face up to the results of what their seditious (if not downright treasonous) actions brought about. Again, results do not matter to marxists much as facts do not matter. All that matters is their intentions - a point which raises another interesting theme to consider.
The marxists --and every promoter of socialism is a defacto marxist in some form or another[...]-- have a notorious double standard from which they operate. Essentially, they judge their own policies not by the uniform and undeniable[...] failure of their policies every time they have been tried. No, with the marxists it is on the intentions behind their policies that they focus on. But they then judge their political enemies -and America is probably first on that list- by the results of their policies. And since America --despite its overall success as a bastion of freedom unlike any nation in history-- is imperfect, then there are always points that can be focused on to America's discredit. But the marxist intentions of a "paradise on earth" are far more idyllic than the even the significant results that America has achieved. For that reason, the results of marxist policies are ignored while the intentions of the marxists are their point of focus.
Now granted, the marxists fabricated a lot of stuff to make things appear even worse than they actually were but that point aside, there is enough in the historical record without fabrications to enable America to always look bad next to the ideal that marxists claim to repine for. And that is the secret essentially to why marxists can lie, cheat, steal, murder, and commit any atrocity and still be held up as icons for the marxist cause ala the near-veneration of predators like Castro, Guevera, Ortega, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Lenin, etc. by not a few who disingenuously claim the mantles of "progressivist" or "peacemakers." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 20, 2005)]
Friday, July 21, 2006
"Illustrating Absurdity By Being Absurd" Dept.
With the exception of the last line, the mentality of the following joke explains adequately what is wrong with the approach towards the war on terror which pseudo-"peacemakers"{1} advocate...
Little Melissa comes home from first grade and tells her father that they learned about the history of Valentine's Day.
"Since Valentine's Day is for a Christian saint and we're Jewish," she asks, will God get mad at me for giving someone a valentine?"
Melissa's father thinks a bit, then says "No, I don't think God would get mad. Who do you want to give a valentine to?"
"Osama Bin Laden," she says.
"Why Osama Bin Laden?" her father asks, in shock.
"Well," she says, "I thought that if a little American Jewish girl could have enough love to give Osama a valentine, he might start to think that maybe we're not all bad, and maybe start loving people a little. And if other kids saw what I did and sent valentines to Osama, he'd love everyone a lot. And then he'd start going all over the place to tell everyone how much he loved them and how he didn't hate anyone anymore."
Her father's heart swells with pride and he looks at his daughter with new found admiration. "Melissa, that's the most wonderful thing I've ever heard!"
"I know," Melissa says. "And once that gets him out in the open, the Marines could blow the shit out of him."
Note:
{1} Or as I have referred to in the past: false "peacemaking" being one of the many masks of modern marxism.
With the exception of the last line, the mentality of the following joke explains adequately what is wrong with the approach towards the war on terror which pseudo-"peacemakers"{1} advocate...
Little Melissa comes home from first grade and tells her father that they learned about the history of Valentine's Day.
"Since Valentine's Day is for a Christian saint and we're Jewish," she asks, will God get mad at me for giving someone a valentine?"
Melissa's father thinks a bit, then says "No, I don't think God would get mad. Who do you want to give a valentine to?"
"Osama Bin Laden," she says.
"Why Osama Bin Laden?" her father asks, in shock.
"Well," she says, "I thought that if a little American Jewish girl could have enough love to give Osama a valentine, he might start to think that maybe we're not all bad, and maybe start loving people a little. And if other kids saw what I did and sent valentines to Osama, he'd love everyone a lot. And then he'd start going all over the place to tell everyone how much he loved them and how he didn't hate anyone anymore."
Her father's heart swells with pride and he looks at his daughter with new found admiration. "Melissa, that's the most wonderful thing I've ever heard!"
"I know," Melissa says. "And once that gets him out in the open, the Marines could blow the shit out of him."
Note:
{1} Or as I have referred to in the past: false "peacemaking" being one of the many masks of modern marxism.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
A Minor Rerum Novarum Pre-Update Update:
It has been four months since this weblog was last updated. For that reason, it seemed appropriate to me to start the process now by pruning the side margin a bit and adding some weblogs to my webroll. Basically the blogs in the blogroll are not to my knowledge in any of the blogrolls that I have been part of since earlier this year. And to the aforementioned blogs, two which I had followed for varying degrees of time were added: Right Reason and Flit(tm). I also anticipate making some divisions in the blogrolling format when that account is updated to premium though I am not sure at the moment when I will do that. But enough on blogroll additions for now.
I have also deleted from the sidemargin (but not from the archives themselves) several posts which were once categorized there. That is hardly unusual with a weblog update but this time (unlike any update I can ever recall), I actually retitled some of the posts as they were long labeled in the side margin to account for past tense instead of the present tense which they were originally titled under. (Though the original titles used in the postings themselves remains untouched.) Here are the lions share of the posts whose titles were changed in the side margin earlier today along with the new titles they were given and the reasons for the title change:
Why I Am Becoming A Reluctant Hawk [>>>]
That posting was written in January of 2003 before I reached a definitive synthesis on my views on utilizing the military option in Iraq -though I was rapidly approaching at that time the position I would later outline in no small detail. Nonetheless, to remove confusion and to put the title in the past tense in the side margin, it was retitled to read as follows:
Why I Am Gradually Became A Reluctant Hawk [>>>]
Why Peaceful Solutions With Iraq Are Pointless [>>>]
Time has passed (almost three and a half years to be exact) but as my position as outlined in that thread has not, the title of the posting was changed to read as follows:
My Definitive Pre-War Position on the Eventual War in Iraq [>>>]
I have yet to see anyone seriously interact with what I wrote in that post and do not expect any of the irrational pundits who repeatt the same vapid catchphrases again and again to do so. I say the position taken is "definitive" because it was based on non-normative criteria and not normative criteria for the most part; ergo, the judgment was based in objectivity and not subjectivity. Furthermore, I paid no heed at the time to the whole WMD subject viewing the arguments for utilizing the military option to be sufficient without taking what was then thought about WMD's into account. That is why I was not one of those who based their position on the WMD's and then changed their view when the latter were not found shortly after the war was started. But enough on that subject for now except to note the new title of that posting in the side margin.
Why I Disagree With the Pope on the War and Remain a Faithful Catholic [>>>]
I changed present to past tense and retitled it thusly:
Why I Disagreed With the Pope on the War and Remained a Faithful Catholic [>>>]
On the War and Certain Props for the Pope [>>>]
That posting was retitled to read as follows:
On the War and Certain Props for the Late Pope John Paul II
Briefly on Colonel Muammar Khadafi's Situation [>>>]
That posting was retitled to read as follows:
Briefly on Colonel Muammar Khadafi's Situation in Late 2003
The situation has a date but the principles I outlined in that posting are still viable ones; ergo the post was left in the side margin and changed to reflect the time it was posted.
On David Kay and His Testimony [>>>]
That posting was retitled to read as follows:
On David Kay and His Testimony in Early 2004 [>>>]
My rationale with the above change was the same as with the post preceding it. (All subsequent title changes where a date is inserted or something of a then-current nature was excised from the previous titling were modified according to this principle.)
Briefly on the Founding Fathers and Propagandistic Uses of Their Words by AntiWar Activists [>>>]
That posting was frankly too irenic in its original wording but I had not had a falling out with one of the parties in which I had in mind with that posting at the time. (The post was generally directed albeit it was taken from a specific site.) Since then though, the vitriol has been thick at times and the party in question has revealed themselves to be something I do not intend to go over at this time. Nonetheless, the post was retitled to read more appropriately as thus:
Briefly on the Founding Fathers and Propagandistic Uses of Their Words by Pseudo-"Peacemakers" [>>>]
Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part I (An Audio Post) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part II (An Audio Post) [>>>]
In the above postings, the words "most recent" were excised and replaced with "Beheadings of September of 2004."
A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation of Threads on the Recent War, the Politics Involved, and War in General [>>>]
The above thread title was changed to read as follows:
A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation of Threads on the Recent War, the Politics Involved, and War in General Circa Pre-April 2005 [>>>]
On the Pope, Moral Principles, the UN, and Stephen Hand [>>>]
Though the content of the post remains unchanged, the post itself in the side margin has been retitled to read as follows:
On the Pope, Moral Principles, the UN, Etc. [>>>]
The So-called "Bush Regime" and the "Free Tibet" Hypocrisy of theBraindead Communists and Their Sympathizers Progressives [>>>]
Retitled to read as follows:
The So-Called "Bush Regime" and the "Free Tibet" Hypocrisy of theBraindead Communists and Their Sympathizers Pseudo-"Peacemakers" [>>>]
Miscellaneous Musings on the Presidential Debate, the War on Terror, "Weisbach's Theorem", Etc. --Part I (An Audio Post) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Musings on the Presidential Debate, the War on Terror, "Weisbach's Theorem", Etc. --Part II (An Audio Post) [>>>]
In the above posting, the part referring to the then-current presidential debate was excised.
Briefly on the Upcoming Conclave [>>>]
Changed to read as follows:
Preliminary Musings Prior to the 2005 Papal Conclave [>>>]
An About Face From John Allen on the New Pope [>>>]
Now titled as follows:
An About Face From John Allen on Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) [>>>]
The side margin will be updated subsequent to March 25, 2006 (and possibly have some current links pruned from it) as I have time to do so...though it should be completed before the end of the month all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
It has been four months since this weblog was last updated. For that reason, it seemed appropriate to me to start the process now by pruning the side margin a bit and adding some weblogs to my webroll. Basically the blogs in the blogroll are not to my knowledge in any of the blogrolls that I have been part of since earlier this year. And to the aforementioned blogs, two which I had followed for varying degrees of time were added: Right Reason and Flit(tm). I also anticipate making some divisions in the blogrolling format when that account is updated to premium though I am not sure at the moment when I will do that. But enough on blogroll additions for now.
I have also deleted from the sidemargin (but not from the archives themselves) several posts which were once categorized there. That is hardly unusual with a weblog update but this time (unlike any update I can ever recall), I actually retitled some of the posts as they were long labeled in the side margin to account for past tense instead of the present tense which they were originally titled under. (Though the original titles used in the postings themselves remains untouched.) Here are the lions share of the posts whose titles were changed in the side margin earlier today along with the new titles they were given and the reasons for the title change:
Why I Am Becoming A Reluctant Hawk [>>>]
That posting was written in January of 2003 before I reached a definitive synthesis on my views on utilizing the military option in Iraq -though I was rapidly approaching at that time the position I would later outline in no small detail. Nonetheless, to remove confusion and to put the title in the past tense in the side margin, it was retitled to read as follows:
Why I Am Gradually Became A Reluctant Hawk [>>>]
Why Peaceful Solutions With Iraq Are Pointless [>>>]
Time has passed (almost three and a half years to be exact) but as my position as outlined in that thread has not, the title of the posting was changed to read as follows:
My Definitive Pre-War Position on the Eventual War in Iraq [>>>]
I have yet to see anyone seriously interact with what I wrote in that post and do not expect any of the irrational pundits who repeatt the same vapid catchphrases again and again to do so. I say the position taken is "definitive" because it was based on non-normative criteria and not normative criteria for the most part; ergo, the judgment was based in objectivity and not subjectivity. Furthermore, I paid no heed at the time to the whole WMD subject viewing the arguments for utilizing the military option to be sufficient without taking what was then thought about WMD's into account. That is why I was not one of those who based their position on the WMD's and then changed their view when the latter were not found shortly after the war was started. But enough on that subject for now except to note the new title of that posting in the side margin.
Why I Disagree With the Pope on the War and Remain a Faithful Catholic [>>>]
I changed present to past tense and retitled it thusly:
Why I Disagreed With the Pope on the War and Remained a Faithful Catholic [>>>]
On the War and Certain Props for the Pope [>>>]
That posting was retitled to read as follows:
On the War and Certain Props for the Late Pope John Paul II
Briefly on Colonel Muammar Khadafi's Situation [>>>]
That posting was retitled to read as follows:
Briefly on Colonel Muammar Khadafi's Situation in Late 2003
The situation has a date but the principles I outlined in that posting are still viable ones; ergo the post was left in the side margin and changed to reflect the time it was posted.
On David Kay and His Testimony [>>>]
That posting was retitled to read as follows:
On David Kay and His Testimony in Early 2004 [>>>]
My rationale with the above change was the same as with the post preceding it. (All subsequent title changes where a date is inserted or something of a then-current nature was excised from the previous titling were modified according to this principle.)
Briefly on the Founding Fathers and Propagandistic Uses of Their Words by AntiWar Activists [>>>]
That posting was frankly too irenic in its original wording but I had not had a falling out with one of the parties in which I had in mind with that posting at the time. (The post was generally directed albeit it was taken from a specific site.) Since then though, the vitriol has been thick at times and the party in question has revealed themselves to be something I do not intend to go over at this time. Nonetheless, the post was retitled to read more appropriately as thus:
Briefly on the Founding Fathers and Propagandistic Uses of Their Words by Pseudo-"Peacemakers" [>>>]
Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part I (An Audio Post) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part II (An Audio Post) [>>>]
In the above postings, the words "most recent" were excised and replaced with "Beheadings of September of 2004."
A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation of Threads on the Recent War, the Politics Involved, and War in General [>>>]
The above thread title was changed to read as follows:
A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation of Threads on the Recent War, the Politics Involved, and War in General Circa Pre-April 2005 [>>>]
On the Pope, Moral Principles, the UN, and Stephen Hand [>>>]
Though the content of the post remains unchanged, the post itself in the side margin has been retitled to read as follows:
On the Pope, Moral Principles, the UN, Etc. [>>>]
The So-called "Bush Regime" and the "Free Tibet" Hypocrisy of the
Retitled to read as follows:
The So-Called "Bush Regime" and the "Free Tibet" Hypocrisy of the
Miscellaneous Musings on the Presidential Debate, the War on Terror, "Weisbach's Theorem", Etc. --Part I (An Audio Post) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Musings on the Presidential Debate, the War on Terror, "Weisbach's Theorem", Etc. --Part II (An Audio Post) [>>>]
In the above posting, the part referring to the then-current presidential debate was excised.
Briefly on the Upcoming Conclave [>>>]
Changed to read as follows:
Preliminary Musings Prior to the 2005 Papal Conclave [>>>]
An About Face From John Allen on the New Pope [>>>]
Now titled as follows:
An About Face From John Allen on Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) [>>>]
The side margin will be updated subsequent to March 25, 2006 (and possibly have some current links pruned from it) as I have time to do so...though it should be completed before the end of the month all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Monday, July 17, 2006
"Texas Death Match" Dept.
(Eric Johnson vs. Mark Shea)
It seems that Mark Shea{1} has once again provided a solid piece of evidence to substantiate your host's decision to avoid making even a tacit connection with certain sorts of people.{2} I was content to allude to a problem I have seen for some time with one of St. Blog's bigger kahunas in a miscellaneous threads posting from last month and using a specific example.{3} However, the latest one seems to be worth more than a mere aside comment.
Fortunately, it often happens that when I am too swamped to write on an issue I feel needs to be addressed, Providence{4} provides someone who covers the issue adequately enough for me to give at least a macro concurrence with what they have to say. In this case, the batter who stepped up to the plate and went yard was Eric Johnson of Catholic Light. It would seem in light of the title that Eric has given his posting{5} that there may be some animosity between him and Mark Shea. My interest is not in focusing on that possibility but instead on what Eric had to say in response on this particular issue. For that reason, I recommend that readers give Eric's posting a read through first before I continue. Here it is:
From the Bulging "Mark Shea Outbursts" File (Eric Johnson)
Normally, something like this would be relegated to a miscellaneous threads roundup but there are significant factors in the equation here which I have alluded to before{6} and very recently noted in an explicit example blogged to this very weblog.{7} It bothers me to have to note these things publicly because of the perception that some would get in me doing this. It is particularly problematical when you like the person you are addressing in this fashion and I like Mark a lot. However, this is a pattern that has been increasingly evident over the past year or so whenever he delves into geopolitical issues.
Lest there be any confusion on the matter (i) I like Mark a lot{8} and (ii) Mark is usually a very good apologist.{9} Nonetheless, as often happens with those gifted in apologetics, there is a problem that crops up which at some point will need to be addressed either at this humble weblog or elsewhere.{10} To summarize it in a nutshell, they often come over time to overestimate the degree of their general competence. Once this happens, they inexorably end up writing with as much of a presumed "certainty" on issues where their grasp of the issues involved is obviously razor thin as they do on issues where they have good knowledge and can legitimately discourse with.
For the sake of Mark's overall reputation as a good apologist, writer, and communicator, I hope he recognizes this problem and takes a proactive approach in rectifying it. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that one may have certain lacunas in their overall knowledge of an issue to comment on it. Or (at the very least) approach those matters with greater hesitation than they would if they were writing on something they are well versed on. But enough on this matter for now.
Notes:
{1} And while not belavouring the point, it nonetheless should be noted that if this is a typical example of St. Blog's "best social commentary" for 2005 than the award is about as valuable as confederate currency was in 1867. (Why on earth Southern Appeal lost out in this category among those who were nominated is a mystery to me but I digress.)
{2} In a nutshell, those who out of habit or other reasons resort either in general or on certain issues to utilizing various fallacious forms of argumentation. See this thread for more details:
Some Recent and Future Weblog Additions, A Reappraisal of Site Principles, Reapplying Said Principles, and Other Applicable Tidbits (circa June 23, 2006)
{3} Mark Shea's "Torture Poll"
This whole scenario is reminding us of something spoken of last year pertaining to those who use terms they do not bother to define or who otherwise shirk from doing so when challenged to do so.[...] But enough on that matter for now...
[...] [W]atch those who are incapable of giving a reasonable working definition of "rights" to claim that there is one. Definitions are the tools of thought and frankly, those who are not willing to define their terms do not deserve to be taken seriously...whether they are misappropriating the term "rights", "neo cons", or whatever.[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum post (circa July 3, 2006)]
{4} If I may call it that (and it is my weblog so I will).
{5} I say this based on the title he gives the blog post which reads From the Bulging "Mark Shea Outbursts" File. With a title like that, it seems probable that Eric has been following Mark's blog postings for some time and noticing a pattern of sorts.
{6} See footnote three and the quote from December of 2005. (One of the parties I had in mind when originally writing that passage was Mark Shea and the subject involved was the one I referred to back on July 3rd of this year.)
{7} Miscellanous Musings (circa July 10, 2006)
{8} We have met in person several times as we attend the same parish.
{9} On some subjects there is arguably no one in the blogosphere who is better.
{10} Or to quote something I noted the other day in a thread footnote:
This is a subject well worth writing on at some point IMHO -not specifically aimed at Mark but to the problem as it exists in general. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 10, 2006)]
Unfortunately, time is not on my side at the present time to do the subject the justice it will require.
(Eric Johnson vs. Mark Shea)
It seems that Mark Shea{1} has once again provided a solid piece of evidence to substantiate your host's decision to avoid making even a tacit connection with certain sorts of people.{2} I was content to allude to a problem I have seen for some time with one of St. Blog's bigger kahunas in a miscellaneous threads posting from last month and using a specific example.{3} However, the latest one seems to be worth more than a mere aside comment.
Fortunately, it often happens that when I am too swamped to write on an issue I feel needs to be addressed, Providence{4} provides someone who covers the issue adequately enough for me to give at least a macro concurrence with what they have to say. In this case, the batter who stepped up to the plate and went yard was Eric Johnson of Catholic Light. It would seem in light of the title that Eric has given his posting{5} that there may be some animosity between him and Mark Shea. My interest is not in focusing on that possibility but instead on what Eric had to say in response on this particular issue. For that reason, I recommend that readers give Eric's posting a read through first before I continue. Here it is:
From the Bulging "Mark Shea Outbursts" File (Eric Johnson)
Normally, something like this would be relegated to a miscellaneous threads roundup but there are significant factors in the equation here which I have alluded to before{6} and very recently noted in an explicit example blogged to this very weblog.{7} It bothers me to have to note these things publicly because of the perception that some would get in me doing this. It is particularly problematical when you like the person you are addressing in this fashion and I like Mark a lot. However, this is a pattern that has been increasingly evident over the past year or so whenever he delves into geopolitical issues.
Lest there be any confusion on the matter (i) I like Mark a lot{8} and (ii) Mark is usually a very good apologist.{9} Nonetheless, as often happens with those gifted in apologetics, there is a problem that crops up which at some point will need to be addressed either at this humble weblog or elsewhere.{10} To summarize it in a nutshell, they often come over time to overestimate the degree of their general competence. Once this happens, they inexorably end up writing with as much of a presumed "certainty" on issues where their grasp of the issues involved is obviously razor thin as they do on issues where they have good knowledge and can legitimately discourse with.
For the sake of Mark's overall reputation as a good apologist, writer, and communicator, I hope he recognizes this problem and takes a proactive approach in rectifying it. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that one may have certain lacunas in their overall knowledge of an issue to comment on it. Or (at the very least) approach those matters with greater hesitation than they would if they were writing on something they are well versed on. But enough on this matter for now.
Notes:
{1} And while not belavouring the point, it nonetheless should be noted that if this is a typical example of St. Blog's "best social commentary" for 2005 than the award is about as valuable as confederate currency was in 1867. (Why on earth Southern Appeal lost out in this category among those who were nominated is a mystery to me but I digress.)
{2} In a nutshell, those who out of habit or other reasons resort either in general or on certain issues to utilizing various fallacious forms of argumentation. See this thread for more details:
Some Recent and Future Weblog Additions, A Reappraisal of Site Principles, Reapplying Said Principles, and Other Applicable Tidbits (circa June 23, 2006)
{3} Mark Shea's "Torture Poll"
This whole scenario is reminding us of something spoken of last year pertaining to those who use terms they do not bother to define or who otherwise shirk from doing so when challenged to do so.[...] But enough on that matter for now...
[...] [W]atch those who are incapable of giving a reasonable working definition of "rights" to claim that there is one. Definitions are the tools of thought and frankly, those who are not willing to define their terms do not deserve to be taken seriously...whether they are misappropriating the term "rights", "neo cons", or whatever.[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum post (circa July 3, 2006)]
{4} If I may call it that (and it is my weblog so I will).
{5} I say this based on the title he gives the blog post which reads From the Bulging "Mark Shea Outbursts" File. With a title like that, it seems probable that Eric has been following Mark's blog postings for some time and noticing a pattern of sorts.
{6} See footnote three and the quote from December of 2005. (One of the parties I had in mind when originally writing that passage was Mark Shea and the subject involved was the one I referred to back on July 3rd of this year.)
{7} Miscellanous Musings (circa July 10, 2006)
{8} We have met in person several times as we attend the same parish.
{9} On some subjects there is arguably no one in the blogosphere who is better.
{10} Or to quote something I noted the other day in a thread footnote:
This is a subject well worth writing on at some point IMHO -not specifically aimed at Mark but to the problem as it exists in general. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 10, 2006)]
Unfortunately, time is not on my side at the present time to do the subject the justice it will require.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Very Briefly on the Invasion of Lebanon By Israel:
This is a subject I will almost certainly write more on as I have time to but briefly:
I have a very close friend whose family is from Lebanon. (They came to the States when she was a kid during the original occupation.) In two weeks time, her mother was scheduled to return to stay with relatives for about two months but after Beirut International was shelled, that trip has been cancelled.
More will be noted later on but I need to be in a proper frame of mind to handle this with the detachment it will require. (At the moment I am not capable of that so what is noted here is all I will say on the matter at the present time.)
This is a subject I will almost certainly write more on as I have time to but briefly:
I have a very close friend whose family is from Lebanon. (They came to the States when she was a kid during the original occupation.) In two weeks time, her mother was scheduled to return to stay with relatives for about two months but after Beirut International was shelled, that trip has been cancelled.
More will be noted later on but I need to be in a proper frame of mind to handle this with the detachment it will require. (At the moment I am not capable of that so what is noted here is all I will say on the matter at the present time.)
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On Irrational Approaches to Gain Self-Esteem)
[A] lot of people like to see celebrated figures come down a notch or two because their own self-esteem is not very high. They gain a sense of self-esteem when they can say, Look, I'm not like that; that person has shortcomings. And that's not the proper way to gain self-esteem. That's irrational. [Mike Mentzer]
(On Irrational Approaches to Gain Self-Esteem)
[A] lot of people like to see celebrated figures come down a notch or two because their own self-esteem is not very high. They gain a sense of self-esteem when they can say, Look, I'm not like that; that person has shortcomings. And that's not the proper way to gain self-esteem. That's irrational. [Mike Mentzer]
Health Tip: Can Beer Be Good for You? (Forbes.Com)
A wonderful piece of news received via fellow beer connoisseur Greg Krehbiel. For position papers of sorts on beer from this humble weblog, some links will be provided below{1} and there are others in the archives. I recall reading once that beer can be good for bones...if memory serves it was Greg Krehbiel who found that thread too.
Note:
{1} Though there is a lot more that has been noted on this weblog over the years than the link I am about to provide; nonetheless, some of my observations on the subject can be seen in the thread located HERE.
A wonderful piece of news received via fellow beer connoisseur Greg Krehbiel. For position papers of sorts on beer from this humble weblog, some links will be provided below{1} and there are others in the archives. I recall reading once that beer can be good for bones...if memory serves it was Greg Krehbiel who found that thread too.
Note:
{1} Though there is a lot more that has been noted on this weblog over the years than the link I am about to provide; nonetheless, some of my observations on the subject can be seen in the thread located HERE.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Points to Ponder:
Individuals who have spent enormous amounts of time, energy, and money selling a particular idea or product often become so intent on seeing their [idea/creation] accepted by others that they tend to lose their objectivity...the stakes [involved] are in some manner intellectual/philosophical. [Mike Mentzer]
Individuals who have spent enormous amounts of time, energy, and money selling a particular idea or product often become so intent on seeing their [idea/creation] accepted by others that they tend to lose their objectivity...the stakes [involved] are in some manner intellectual/philosophical. [Mike Mentzer]
On Miscellanous Matters:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Note: I originally planned to post the first part of this note on July 6, 2006 with the working title "Damn Kim Jong II" Dept. but decided against it. -ISM]
---Right when I plan to not comment for five days or so, North Korea goes and tests some missiles. I was sorely tempted to write on this matter but to do so would have been to let that little twerp of a dictator interfere with my downtime so I said "sod it" and kept quiet. Thanks are in order to my amigos at the American Conservative Blogroll and The Alliance for dealing more than adequately with this issue. Having noted that, I want to expand on comments I made on Texas Fred's weblog on some other subjects (along with a couple other bits) so here goes...
---With regards to the whole slavery reparations issue, I personally have no sympathy whatsoever for those who whine about wanting "reparations"{1} because my ancestors were also slaves economically{2} or otherwise{3} which is part of the reason they immigrated to this country. They also either arrived here legally or they quickly made themselves legal citizens. If not for the fact that there is no evidence of the Mexican immigrants who arrive here illegally to become legal of their own accord{4}, I would hardly take the stance I do on these matters. But enough on that for now.
---As far as the Congress and being trusted, I do not need to remind those with longer memories that it was the Dems on Congress who cozied up to Commandante Ortega in the 1980’s when the Soviet Union was still around and taking territory like the Cornhusker offense on a Saturday in the fall. They cannot be trusted and should not be trusted with information that is intended to be kept quiet…too many seditionists in that batch along with some of the Republicans who are essentially ”me-too” sorts and thus are not better.
---It was brought to my attention a little while ago that Mark Shea took issue at being called a "distributivst" by yours truly a couple months ago. This stumped me as I could not recall making the assertion -indeed I checked the postings where I wrote/spoke on this matter{5} and gave them a read/listen. Having found nothing in them to substantiate this point, I was wondering where on earth Mark got this idea when I remembered a private email exchange I had with Greg Krehbiel where I wrote him pertaining to the subject of Catholic Church teaching. It was in that note that the assertion of distributivism was made pertaining to Mark Shea.
The purpose of my note to Greg was to point out in a discussion he and Mark were having, areas where each was right and wrong. Or to quote my own words on the matter:
You and Mark [Shea]'s disagreement is more interesting to me because (as I see it) each of you gets part of it right and part of it wrong.
In your case, you [Greg] are correct that on particulars the magisterium has not bound people to much in the way of specifics. However, it appears based on what I read (and I may have misinterpreted your view) that you do not think there is anything the magisterium has said on these matters that is requiring of assent. That would be incorrect. Mark is right that there are general principles that are bound viz. how we need to approach these matters. He errs however in presuming (as he seems to) that the magisterium has bound people to particular economic theories when in fact this has not happened at all.
The problem as I see it with many who would argue as Mark and company do is that they are adherents to an economic theory (distributivism) that is internally contradictory. They are right that one cannot dismiss wholeheartedly the magisterium’s interventions in economic matters; however, they are wrong to presume that said interventions are at all crystal-clear and precise and not admitting of a variation of applications depending on particular circumstances.
There are certain theories which we cannot accept of course (i.e. communism/socialism, forms of capitalism which are utilitarian and shorn of moral proinciples, etc.) but other than that, there is a broad spectrum of acceptable approaches to these matters.
Furthermore, Mark Shea’s assertion that your argument is no different than those who would question the church’s stand on bioethical matters is context-switching since bioethics involves matters which are not contingent ( i.e. when life begins, what is life, etc.) whereas economic theory is admitting of varying interpretations many of them which are contingent. But the thread above touches on these matters adequately for the present time -though I may develop parts of it later on if it seems appropriate or necessary (time-willing of course). [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence With Greg Krehbiel (circa April of 2006)]
For those who wonder how this note made it into the public forum, Greg asked me if he could blog that email and I said he could. Now then, if what I wrote is looked at carefully, the distributivist comment was a side issue to the broader subject matter of discussion. My main criticism was that Mark was not making proper differentiations between matters of teaching and matters of prudential judgment on some issues.{6} Another way of saying it was that Mark was in seeking to affirm that there are certain general principles which Catholics must give assent to was extending this to particular applications. Nonetheless, I did appear to call Mark a distributivist and he is right that in part I did this based on his esteem for G K Chesterton. The latter was a distributivist but it was not for that reason alone that I claimed that Mark was a distributivist.
My comment was based on the latter in part but also on observing that Mark seems to have a definition of capitalism that mirrors the caricatured one that the distributivists use. The rest of what I noted in that email remains intact though and I do believe that Mark and Greg each get certain parts right and certain parts wrong in their dispute.{7} Nonetheless, if Mark claims he is not a distributivist{8}, then I take him at his word, retract the assertion, and with this public notation, apologize to him for it.
---On the World Cup, I was so supportive of Italy in this final that I practically acquired an Italian flag to fly and took on a paizano accent. Anything to see the French go down to a crushing defeat yet again...they are cowards militarily and otherwise and now have been denied the World Cup. Aaaah how I love the smell of raviolli in the morning ;-)
Notes:
{1} Unless they either have actual family members who are slaves or have living relatives who were slaves of course.
{2} My father's ancestors were treated like subhuman crap by the British in the Potato Famine which was pretty much a creation of the British who let Irish who refused to convert to the Anglican religion to starve.
{3} My mother's ancestors (including her grandmother) were either serfs under the Tzar in the Ukraine or perished in the Terror Famine of the 1930's.
{4} In a fashion that respects the role of law in a just society of course -something that the proposed "amnesty" programs do not do. Oh and before I hear any of the "but they cannot speak English" schtick, that will not fly with me cause my ancestors could not speak the language initially either.
{5} On the Acton Institutes' Critique of Distributivism (circa March 27, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings on Illegal Immigration, Voting Issues, Audioblogger, Fundamental Rights, Activism, Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Etc.--An Audiopost (circa April 8, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings on Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Illegal Immigration, Activism, Fundamental Rights, Etc.: A Continuation Audiopost (circa April 8, 2006)
{6} This is a subject well worth writing on at some point IMHO -not specifically aimed at Mark but to the problem as it exists in general.
{7} In Greg's defense though, I believe his approach is more common to the general Catholic approach of wanting to live one's life as a Catholic and not wanting to delve too deeply into these kinds of more intricate matters. Let us face it: there is a lot of depth to those waters and no one can successfully navigate them all.
For that reason, those who would rather focus on living the faith instead of trying to understand everything, I can respect that certainly. I am also well aware of the way not a few who call themselves "apologists" overemphasize certain applications of principles and place the latter on a par with the principles themselves. I think part of the reason Greg approaches things as he does is in reaction to what not a few who call themselves "apologists" do either in general or (on certain issues) from time to time. But that is enough on the matter for now.
{8} Distributivist and distributist are two different terms used to explain that economics pseudo-"theory." (And that is what it is: see the threads in footnote five for more than ample substantiation of this assertion if you are interested.)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Note: I originally planned to post the first part of this note on July 6, 2006 with the working title "Damn Kim Jong II" Dept. but decided against it. -ISM]
---Right when I plan to not comment for five days or so, North Korea goes and tests some missiles. I was sorely tempted to write on this matter but to do so would have been to let that little twerp of a dictator interfere with my downtime so I said "sod it" and kept quiet. Thanks are in order to my amigos at the American Conservative Blogroll and The Alliance for dealing more than adequately with this issue. Having noted that, I want to expand on comments I made on Texas Fred's weblog on some other subjects (along with a couple other bits) so here goes...
---With regards to the whole slavery reparations issue, I personally have no sympathy whatsoever for those who whine about wanting "reparations"{1} because my ancestors were also slaves economically{2} or otherwise{3} which is part of the reason they immigrated to this country. They also either arrived here legally or they quickly made themselves legal citizens. If not for the fact that there is no evidence of the Mexican immigrants who arrive here illegally to become legal of their own accord{4}, I would hardly take the stance I do on these matters. But enough on that for now.
---As far as the Congress and being trusted, I do not need to remind those with longer memories that it was the Dems on Congress who cozied up to Commandante Ortega in the 1980’s when the Soviet Union was still around and taking territory like the Cornhusker offense on a Saturday in the fall. They cannot be trusted and should not be trusted with information that is intended to be kept quiet…too many seditionists in that batch along with some of the Republicans who are essentially ”me-too” sorts and thus are not better.
---It was brought to my attention a little while ago that Mark Shea took issue at being called a "distributivst" by yours truly a couple months ago. This stumped me as I could not recall making the assertion -indeed I checked the postings where I wrote/spoke on this matter{5} and gave them a read/listen. Having found nothing in them to substantiate this point, I was wondering where on earth Mark got this idea when I remembered a private email exchange I had with Greg Krehbiel where I wrote him pertaining to the subject of Catholic Church teaching. It was in that note that the assertion of distributivism was made pertaining to Mark Shea.
The purpose of my note to Greg was to point out in a discussion he and Mark were having, areas where each was right and wrong. Or to quote my own words on the matter:
You and Mark [Shea]'s disagreement is more interesting to me because (as I see it) each of you gets part of it right and part of it wrong.
In your case, you [Greg] are correct that on particulars the magisterium has not bound people to much in the way of specifics. However, it appears based on what I read (and I may have misinterpreted your view) that you do not think there is anything the magisterium has said on these matters that is requiring of assent. That would be incorrect. Mark is right that there are general principles that are bound viz. how we need to approach these matters. He errs however in presuming (as he seems to) that the magisterium has bound people to particular economic theories when in fact this has not happened at all.
The problem as I see it with many who would argue as Mark and company do is that they are adherents to an economic theory (distributivism) that is internally contradictory. They are right that one cannot dismiss wholeheartedly the magisterium’s interventions in economic matters; however, they are wrong to presume that said interventions are at all crystal-clear and precise and not admitting of a variation of applications depending on particular circumstances.
There are certain theories which we cannot accept of course (i.e. communism/socialism, forms of capitalism which are utilitarian and shorn of moral proinciples, etc.) but other than that, there is a broad spectrum of acceptable approaches to these matters.
Furthermore, Mark Shea’s assertion that your argument is no different than those who would question the church’s stand on bioethical matters is context-switching since bioethics involves matters which are not contingent ( i.e. when life begins, what is life, etc.) whereas economic theory is admitting of varying interpretations many of them which are contingent. But the thread above touches on these matters adequately for the present time -though I may develop parts of it later on if it seems appropriate or necessary (time-willing of course). [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence With Greg Krehbiel (circa April of 2006)]
For those who wonder how this note made it into the public forum, Greg asked me if he could blog that email and I said he could. Now then, if what I wrote is looked at carefully, the distributivist comment was a side issue to the broader subject matter of discussion. My main criticism was that Mark was not making proper differentiations between matters of teaching and matters of prudential judgment on some issues.{6} Another way of saying it was that Mark was in seeking to affirm that there are certain general principles which Catholics must give assent to was extending this to particular applications. Nonetheless, I did appear to call Mark a distributivist and he is right that in part I did this based on his esteem for G K Chesterton. The latter was a distributivist but it was not for that reason alone that I claimed that Mark was a distributivist.
My comment was based on the latter in part but also on observing that Mark seems to have a definition of capitalism that mirrors the caricatured one that the distributivists use. The rest of what I noted in that email remains intact though and I do believe that Mark and Greg each get certain parts right and certain parts wrong in their dispute.{7} Nonetheless, if Mark claims he is not a distributivist{8}, then I take him at his word, retract the assertion, and with this public notation, apologize to him for it.
---On the World Cup, I was so supportive of Italy in this final that I practically acquired an Italian flag to fly and took on a paizano accent. Anything to see the French go down to a crushing defeat yet again...they are cowards militarily and otherwise and now have been denied the World Cup. Aaaah how I love the smell of raviolli in the morning ;-)
Notes:
{1} Unless they either have actual family members who are slaves or have living relatives who were slaves of course.
{2} My father's ancestors were treated like subhuman crap by the British in the Potato Famine which was pretty much a creation of the British who let Irish who refused to convert to the Anglican religion to starve.
{3} My mother's ancestors (including her grandmother) were either serfs under the Tzar in the Ukraine or perished in the Terror Famine of the 1930's.
{4} In a fashion that respects the role of law in a just society of course -something that the proposed "amnesty" programs do not do. Oh and before I hear any of the "but they cannot speak English" schtick, that will not fly with me cause my ancestors could not speak the language initially either.
{5} On the Acton Institutes' Critique of Distributivism (circa March 27, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings on Illegal Immigration, Voting Issues, Audioblogger, Fundamental Rights, Activism, Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Etc.--An Audiopost (circa April 8, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings on Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Illegal Immigration, Activism, Fundamental Rights, Etc.: A Continuation Audiopost (circa April 8, 2006)
{6} This is a subject well worth writing on at some point IMHO -not specifically aimed at Mark but to the problem as it exists in general.
{7} In Greg's defense though, I believe his approach is more common to the general Catholic approach of wanting to live one's life as a Catholic and not wanting to delve too deeply into these kinds of more intricate matters. Let us face it: there is a lot of depth to those waters and no one can successfully navigate them all.
For that reason, those who would rather focus on living the faith instead of trying to understand everything, I can respect that certainly. I am also well aware of the way not a few who call themselves "apologists" overemphasize certain applications of principles and place the latter on a par with the principles themselves. I think part of the reason Greg approaches things as he does is in reaction to what not a few who call themselves "apologists" do either in general or (on certain issues) from time to time. But that is enough on the matter for now.
{8} Distributivist and distributist are two different terms used to explain that economics pseudo-"theory." (And that is what it is: see the threads in footnote five for more than ample substantiation of this assertion if you are interested.)
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
To add a thread to the miscellaneous thread installment posted back on the third...
Culture Wars' Troubling Praise of Israel Shamir (Christopher Blosser)
I have spoken before on the importance of properly vetting one's sources.{1} The reason should be obvious but unfortunately it often is overlooked. Essentially, there is a connection between those who are not inclined to want to reassess their foundational presuppositions on a reasonable basis and an inability on their part to maintain a sense of perspective. The latter results oftentimes in some pretty glaring blindspots on the part of such ideologues where they accept any argument they can find without concern for either (i) the solidity of the argument itself or (ii) the particular source they get it from. This is an example of the argumentation fallacy of provincialism in a nutshell.
Christopher's article outlines the latter problem with the magazine called Culture Wars which I subscribed to about six years ago (for about a year).{2} Anyway, give the above a read if you want to see a snapshot of what is wrong with ideological approaches to issues and what such persons and groups inexorably have to resort to when they refuse to call into question their operative presuppositions from time to time. But enough on that subject for now as it is brief sabbatical time now...should be back on Monday or so...same Bat time...same Bat blog ;-)
Notes:
{1} This is an important area to consider when seeking to viably advance one's views in the arena of ideas.
{2} One of the reasons I let the subscription expire without renewing it was because of traces of this problem. However, the primary reason at the time involved an even greater problem which I will not go into at the moment except to note that it has been commented upon by various personages in recent years.
Culture Wars' Troubling Praise of Israel Shamir (Christopher Blosser)
I have spoken before on the importance of properly vetting one's sources.{1} The reason should be obvious but unfortunately it often is overlooked. Essentially, there is a connection between those who are not inclined to want to reassess their foundational presuppositions on a reasonable basis and an inability on their part to maintain a sense of perspective. The latter results oftentimes in some pretty glaring blindspots on the part of such ideologues where they accept any argument they can find without concern for either (i) the solidity of the argument itself or (ii) the particular source they get it from. This is an example of the argumentation fallacy of provincialism in a nutshell.
Christopher's article outlines the latter problem with the magazine called Culture Wars which I subscribed to about six years ago (for about a year).{2} Anyway, give the above a read if you want to see a snapshot of what is wrong with ideological approaches to issues and what such persons and groups inexorably have to resort to when they refuse to call into question their operative presuppositions from time to time. But enough on that subject for now as it is brief sabbatical time now...should be back on Monday or so...same Bat time...same Bat blog ;-)
Notes:
{1} This is an important area to consider when seeking to viably advance one's views in the arena of ideas.
{2} One of the reasons I let the subscription expire without renewing it was because of traces of this problem. However, the primary reason at the time involved an even greater problem which I will not go into at the moment except to note that it has been commented upon by various personages in recent years.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:
[Update: See this thread for an addition to the material below which was deemed appropriate to cover briefly in a followup thread. -ISM 7/05/06 3:00pm]
Lots of stuff to touch on briefly before taking a sabbatical for at least a few days if not more...
Was the Pope a Nazi? (Mark Riebling)
Yeah, this subject has been done to death but to his credit, Mark Riebling has some original contributions to this subject matter. Those who are not Catholic but who at the very least have a respect for both history as well as truh will find Mark's piece to contribute in this area quite nicely.
Murtha's Charade! (The Dumb Ox)
A brief snippet if I may{1}:
The Dumb Ox revealed back in early DECEMBER 2005 Murtha's troop withdrawal antics as part of his scheme to avoid ethics and criminal corruption charges...
Now those of us manning Rerum Novarum were hardly completely ignorant on this matter though it did not seem appropriate to comment on at the time. However, with an election coming up soon and with a lot of skeletons on the closet of John Murtha{2}, we are at the point now where it helps to remind people of the kinds of double standards involved viz. the whole "ethics" issues with government officials. But enough on that for now.
Iraq and the WOT - A Roundup (Christopher Blosser)
A good collection of threads on the subjects covered on Iraq and the War on Terror courtesy of Chris' Catholic Just War BLOG.
WMD's? What WMDs? (Greg Mockeridge)
Readers are advised to consider what your humble servant has said all along on the subject of WMD's -recently recapitulated to some extent in an audioposting for your convenience.{4}
Bush Goes Jogging With Iraqi Amputee (Christopher Blosser)
A minor bit this is true but it is nice to see a politician follow through on the kinds of "lets do lunch" offhand comments made to people they visit in hospitals or whatever.
Oh, lest we forget to note it publicly, a happy Blogiversary is extended to Frank Trainor from Franktalk. For those who do not know, Frank is a genuine songwriter who has written for (and personally met) many of the greats out of Nashville and elsewhere. Certainly this interests your host for many reasons and (perhaps) we can get Frank's take on some of those persons in the coming weeks and months.
Mark Shea's "Torture Poll"
This whole scenario is reminding us of something spoken of last year pertaining to those who use terms they do not bother to define or who otherwise shirk from doing so when challenged to do so.{5} But enough on that matter for now.
And finally, among the threads from this weblog which I want to revisit for inclusion in this posting are two from last year at this time:
Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Modern Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)
America the Beautiful Revisited (circa July 3, 2005)
As the fourth of July is tomorrow, I would like to wish readers and listeners of this humble weblog a most happy and blessed Independence Day.
Notes:
{1} And since it is my weblog, I will do as I like on this matter of course :)
{2} It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable actions. Or maybe it isn't. Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings, scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator." [The Washington Times: The real Jack Murtha (via Dumb Ox News)]
{3} Anyone who is surprised at the double standard here email me and I will sell you my shares in the Hope Diamond real cheap...
{4} Miscellaneous Musings on the Death of Zarqawi and the Presence of WMD's in Iraq--An Audio Post (circa June 23, 2006)
Greg also makes mention in his article of the Syria Hypothesis which is something your host has opined about for a few years now at sundry times and in diverse places (including on occasion at this very weblog believe it or not).
{5} [W]atch those who are incapable of giving a reasonable working definition of "rights" to claim that there is one. Definitions are the tools of thought and frankly, those who are not willing to define their terms do not deserve to be taken seriously...whether they are misappropriating the term "rights", "neo cons", or whatever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005)]
The request here is for a "working definition" and that is what one should strive for in my view: something that gives at least a reasonable approximation of what a term means if one insists on raising it as a kind of shibboleth in disputations. Or as your host noted in an email correspondence from June of this year:
One of the problems I have with most bloggers or commentators in any genre is their frequent unwillingness to define their terms. Failure in this area is both dishonest as well as lazy. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa June 23, 2006)]
The above thread was sent in a private email shortly after this post was published earlier in that day. Oh and the request for people to define their terms is far from being an unreasonable one. Instead, it is the minimum that any commentator should do if they expect people to take them seriously in the arena of ideas. And that is the bottom line really.
[Update: See this thread for an addition to the material below which was deemed appropriate to cover briefly in a followup thread. -ISM 7/05/06 3:00pm]
Lots of stuff to touch on briefly before taking a sabbatical for at least a few days if not more...
Was the Pope a Nazi? (Mark Riebling)
Yeah, this subject has been done to death but to his credit, Mark Riebling has some original contributions to this subject matter. Those who are not Catholic but who at the very least have a respect for both history as well as truh will find Mark's piece to contribute in this area quite nicely.
Murtha's Charade! (The Dumb Ox)
A brief snippet if I may{1}:
The Dumb Ox revealed back in early DECEMBER 2005 Murtha's troop withdrawal antics as part of his scheme to avoid ethics and criminal corruption charges...
Now those of us manning Rerum Novarum were hardly completely ignorant on this matter though it did not seem appropriate to comment on at the time. However, with an election coming up soon and with a lot of skeletons on the closet of John Murtha{2}, we are at the point now where it helps to remind people of the kinds of double standards involved viz. the whole "ethics" issues with government officials. But enough on that for now.
Iraq and the WOT - A Roundup (Christopher Blosser)
A good collection of threads on the subjects covered on Iraq and the War on Terror courtesy of Chris' Catholic Just War BLOG.
WMD's? What WMDs? (Greg Mockeridge)
Readers are advised to consider what your humble servant has said all along on the subject of WMD's -recently recapitulated to some extent in an audioposting for your convenience.{4}
Bush Goes Jogging With Iraqi Amputee (Christopher Blosser)
A minor bit this is true but it is nice to see a politician follow through on the kinds of "lets do lunch" offhand comments made to people they visit in hospitals or whatever.
Oh, lest we forget to note it publicly, a happy Blogiversary is extended to Frank Trainor from Franktalk. For those who do not know, Frank is a genuine songwriter who has written for (and personally met) many of the greats out of Nashville and elsewhere. Certainly this interests your host for many reasons and (perhaps) we can get Frank's take on some of those persons in the coming weeks and months.
Mark Shea's "Torture Poll"
This whole scenario is reminding us of something spoken of last year pertaining to those who use terms they do not bother to define or who otherwise shirk from doing so when challenged to do so.{5} But enough on that matter for now.
And finally, among the threads from this weblog which I want to revisit for inclusion in this posting are two from last year at this time:
Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Modern Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)
America the Beautiful Revisited (circa July 3, 2005)
As the fourth of July is tomorrow, I would like to wish readers and listeners of this humble weblog a most happy and blessed Independence Day.
Notes:
{1} And since it is my weblog, I will do as I like on this matter of course :)
{2} It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable actions. Or maybe it isn't. Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings, scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator." [The Washington Times: The real Jack Murtha (via Dumb Ox News)]
{3} Anyone who is surprised at the double standard here email me and I will sell you my shares in the Hope Diamond real cheap...
{4} Miscellaneous Musings on the Death of Zarqawi and the Presence of WMD's in Iraq--An Audio Post (circa June 23, 2006)
Greg also makes mention in his article of the Syria Hypothesis which is something your host has opined about for a few years now at sundry times and in diverse places (including on occasion at this very weblog believe it or not).
{5} [W]atch those who are incapable of giving a reasonable working definition of "rights" to claim that there is one. Definitions are the tools of thought and frankly, those who are not willing to define their terms do not deserve to be taken seriously...whether they are misappropriating the term "rights", "neo cons", or whatever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005)]
The request here is for a "working definition" and that is what one should strive for in my view: something that gives at least a reasonable approximation of what a term means if one insists on raising it as a kind of shibboleth in disputations. Or as your host noted in an email correspondence from June of this year:
One of the problems I have with most bloggers or commentators in any genre is their frequent unwillingness to define their terms. Failure in this area is both dishonest as well as lazy. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa June 23, 2006)]
The above thread was sent in a private email shortly after this post was published earlier in that day. Oh and the request for people to define their terms is far from being an unreasonable one. Instead, it is the minimum that any commentator should do if they expect people to take them seriously in the arena of ideas. And that is the bottom line really.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Briefly on the New Holy See Secretary of State Appointment:
(With Kevin Tierney)
Kevin's words will be in light red font.
So Cardinal berton is the new secretary of state
Pitty it wasn't Ruini. :) Now I don't know much about Bertone. I know the Fatima types hate his guts. About the most I know is that the man has never been a diplomat, and as far as I'm aware, has never been that active on the geopolitical sphere. Could it be Benedict is changing the Secretary of State, so it isn't the "true pope" office that it was under Sodano? (Sodano wielded more power as Secretary of State than most before him, and was joked to be the real "man in charge" in the Vatican.)
Maybe he wants Cardinal Ruini closer to home for consulting with instead of travelling all over as Secretary of State. Bertone is doctrinally shrewd and he did serve at the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) for a number of years. It seems probable to me that Papa Benedict wants to make sure his Secretary of State does not muddle doctrinal matters with geopolitical/prudential ones the way Sodano at times did (among other personages like Cardinal Martino, Cardinal Laghi, Archbishop Tauran, etc). Either way, I think this is a solid B+ pick starting out...only time will tell the real tale of course.
(With Kevin Tierney)
Kevin's words will be in light red font.
So Cardinal berton is the new secretary of state
Pitty it wasn't Ruini. :) Now I don't know much about Bertone. I know the Fatima types hate his guts. About the most I know is that the man has never been a diplomat, and as far as I'm aware, has never been that active on the geopolitical sphere. Could it be Benedict is changing the Secretary of State, so it isn't the "true pope" office that it was under Sodano? (Sodano wielded more power as Secretary of State than most before him, and was joked to be the real "man in charge" in the Vatican.)
Maybe he wants Cardinal Ruini closer to home for consulting with instead of travelling all over as Secretary of State. Bertone is doctrinally shrewd and he did serve at the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) for a number of years. It seems probable to me that Papa Benedict wants to make sure his Secretary of State does not muddle doctrinal matters with geopolitical/prudential ones the way Sodano at times did (among other personages like Cardinal Martino, Cardinal Laghi, Archbishop Tauran, etc). Either way, I think this is a solid B+ pick starting out...only time will tell the real tale of course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)