On the Issue of Good and Bad Arguments in Apologetics or Elsewhere:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: The substance of this material was written on May 3, 2009 when I was made aware of it on a discussion list I occasionally involve myself with. Below is the material as it was slightly redacted and revised for an email circular sent out on May 9, 2009. -ISM]
I very rarely do apologetics stuff at all anymore for a variety of reasons. However, here are my thoughts on the arguments made by Ben Douglass, David Palm, and Nick E and positions they have taken on the thread that were sent to myself and others for comment -musings written on the morning of May 3rd when waking up so any deficiencies it contains I apologize for in advance.
I want to note at the outset though that I believe what Ben, David, and Nick have offered in principle is a good thing because if there is one thing I am really tired of (and feel like a broken record in reiterating) it is a lack of ethics so often taken by apologists in general of all stripes. Presenting this kind of thread on their part is helpful because it makes the point that yes there are bad or not so wise arguments that can be made by Catholics in arguing against Protestants (or anyone else) rather than closing one's eyes and pretending that any argument made against Protestants by Catholics is good and any argument made by Protestants against Catholics is a bad one. Ben, David, and Nick by publishing such an article and not following the unfortunate mainstream apologetics trends are doing a great service to authentic dialogue but without further ado, onto the individual arguments and conclusions themselves...
On Argument #1:
I agree with both the argument and the conclusion they draw. I was for those who have forgotten making the argument against 20,000 plus "denominations" as far back as late 2000 myself on Steve Ray's board and telling others not to do so. (Some listened, most others continued making this mistake, others still thought I was wrong to admit that Eric Svendsen actually had a valuable point to make on this matter that others ignored at the risk of looking foolish.) The original source of the thousands of arguments was some David Barrett fellow circa 1982 and he posited about 23,000. But if his methodology is looked at and taken literally with Protestants, consistency demands the same be done with Catholics and to do so would have rendered hundreds of Catholic churches because it counted religious orders, and dioceses and other such things as individual "churches." In the interest of internal and rational consistency you cannot have it both ways.
Argument #2:
I agree with their argument as a rule. I only use the term "anti-Catholic" when dealing with people who have an obvious and deep-rooted hatred for Catholicism or what they perceive the latter to be. I prefer to refer to Protestants as "groups" because Catholic theology -particularly when viewed through the lens of Church as communion or what is called communio theology -which since the Second Vatican Council has been the manner in which these things have been and will be viewed{1}- theologically distinguishes between those properly called "churches" and those which are not.
Argument #3:
I most definitely agree with them on this one.
Argument #4:
I was saying this years ago myself -again we agree.
Argument #5:
I have used variations of the argument they made myself in years past.
Argument #6:
They are right that the argument does not suffice all by itself. But as one of a number of things gathered together to demonstrate a pattern of extra-scriptural appeal, it can be quite useful.
Argument #7:
See my response to argument #6. They are right that this one is even more tenuous by itself (one reason I never had recourse to it myself) but with the right qualification it could still be used. Certainly that St. Paul did not appeal to the Scriptures alone to make this argument shows that one can appeal to other sources and not just Scripture as some Protestants claim for example.
Argument #8:
I do not to some extent agree with this argument because there is a principle those verses convey which also applies when it comes to biblical interpretation. I agree with the writers that this argument can be overused; however, just as the prophecies of Scripture are not matters of private interpretation, neither is the proper meaning or meanings of scriptural passages to be incontrovertibly ascertained in like fashion. The argument works but it is not as broad in scope as many may presume.
Argument #9:
I agree wholeheartedly with argument nine and its conclusions. I doubt any source of the ancient world is as well preserved as the Bible is and while there are some areas "where the original text is indeterminate", as a rule this is not an issue and considering how many sources replicate the same overall texts, again no ancient source I am aware of has nearly as much manuscript integrity as the books of the Bible do.
Argument #10:
I disagree with argument #10. An argument to be given probability of truth cannot be internally contradictory and the same goes with a method of interpretation. If the Protestant arguments of that fashion against 2 Maccabees are valid, then they must accept that the same arguments against Samuel and Chronicles as likewise valid. (Meaning that if the arguments prove the lack of inspiration to Maccabees then the same is the case for Samuel and Chronicles.) But if the person would seek to defend Samuel and Chronicles by various and sundry nuances or exemptions from such a critique, then they undercut the very arguments they used against Maccabees and therefore they must be forced to admit to that. Failing that, their inconsistency must be pointed out for what it is to their discredit though if at all reasonably possible this should be handled delicately.
Argument #11:
I agree with argument #11 to a point. James ii,24 is not a magic cure-all for everything pertaining to the issue of sola fide. However, at the same time, it works well oftentimes because of the ways which Protestants have to jump through hoops to try and claim the text means other than what it says when taken literally. I was able to convince Tim Enloe in years past that the manner in which we understand grace and works was well explained in a passage of Augustine{2} and I agree with Ben, David, and Nick that other arguments are also necessary to drive this point home more firmly. But that does not mean the James ii,24 argument has no merit particularly since it specifically contradicts the sola fide original idea -so much that Luther added the word "alone" to Romans iii,28 and then disparaged the Epistle of James and insulted the writer for not saying what he thought it should say. (Something that would be quite odd for Luther to do if he did not see a serious disconnect between his view and the words of scripture in this passage.)
Argument #12:
Pointing out that Christians should give priority to the words of Jesus of those of Paul is not a bad argument when done correctly. If it is done as an expedient to dismiss the words of Paul then it is bad but if it is to establish a kind of "canon within a canon" then it is not bad because Protestants do this themselves much as anyone does. (In the case of Prots, they place Romans and Galatians seemingly over every other epistle in priority. Catholics used to with the Old Testament do this with the so-called "Deuterocanonical Books.") It is not completely honest to claim that different sides do not place certain works in a priority over others. For this reason, to point out that Catholics often put the recorded words of the Son of God over those of his apostles and adopted apostle is fine. However, once that is done, then showing how Peter, James, John, and Paul's words harmonize with those of first Jesus and then of Catholic theology is the next step. I did this years ago in apologetics arguments and also in an essay I wrote nearly a decade ago on justification by faith but that is another subject altogether.
Argument #13:
I never tried to or thought about taking the approach that they outline in this argument so I cannot comment much. I will say in perusing their argument that I do not disagree with its internal logic but I also do not think you need to make that kind of argument anyway: it is too technical and you run the risk of hanging yourself in the process. I have seen a lot of apologists make arguments or debate in areas they have no business debating on. I say this not just out of an opinion on the matter but because objectively certain arguments or doctrines require presuppositional arguments or doctrines to be held before they can be solidly advanced. In my mind, debates should be confined to the presuppositional arguments or doctrines and not on those which extend beyond it until and unless there can be an agreement reached on the latter ones. (I went over this on discussion lists in years past when discussing what topics Catholics should and should not debate with Protestants publicly.)
Argument #14:
My points about argument #13 apply here as well.
Argument #15:
There is a reason Protestants cite Ephesians ii,8-9 and leave out verse ten and it is because verse ten quite clearly contextualizes the first two verses in a way that leaving it out does not do. I went over this in greater detail in my essay on justification both amplifying the tenth verse and also explaining why the three taken as a whole cohere well with Catholic theology. I would have used the same St. Augustine argument I used to persuade Tim Enloe in that essay but I was trying at the time to do as little exegesis from scripture as possible while presenting passages with more contextualization than they commonly received -from not only Protestants but also Catholics.
Argument #16:
This argument has its value but needs to be approached more carefully than many presume. For example, the writers are correct that some saw it as a justifiable gloss on the text but the concept of "faith alone" that preceded the sixteenth century (yes this concept did not completely fail to predate Luther) was one that included all the theological virtues combined. This was presupposed in its usage but generally, faith was distinguished from hope and charity as distinct virtues. I note this because Luther appeared to interpret faith as being literally "alone" -and by his commentary on one of St. Paul's epistles (I think Galatians but cannot remember: have not done this stuff in a while so I apologize for the lapse) he disparaged charitable works so much that it was made evident that he viewed sola fide as exactly what it says. This made his appropriation of the concept a "theological novum" as Anglican scholar Alister McGrath pointed out years ago.
My point of difference with Ben, David, and Nick on this is that I view this as more than a mere exegestical error on Luther's part. Part of the reason is that those who are involved with a great deal of their resources (time, energy, money, etc) selling a particular concept, product, etc. can at times become so intent on seeing their idea/creation/product accepted by others that they tend to lose their objectivity. The same principle is at stake with the sola fide position -it was the basis of a so-called "reformation" and therefore a lot is invested in it by its apologists/advocates. This is therefore not a matter to take lightly not that Ben, David, and Nick are doing this of course.
Requiring those who advocate for a position or idea to be consistent is not a bad argument at all but instead it is at the very heart of respecting reason and logic. I do not want to appear to accuse the writers of the article of not wanting this mind you but instead to outline the principle behind why I do not agree with them on this point{3} to at least some extent.
Argument #17:
Considering how many Protestants respond to those who previously claimed they were "saved" and "secure" who later on fall by saying "they were never saved to begin with", I am not so sure I agree with the writers on this point. Consistency is a powerful and valuable tool in the arsenal of anyone who strives to make use of the natural lights of reason and logic. It therefore stands to reason that if someone could claim to be "saved" and "secure" at one point but later on (if they fall) are claimed to be "never saved to begin with" that they cannot (and should not) be allowed to have it both ways. I can agree with the writers that this argument is more complex if properly applied and I reiterate at this time my comments in the last paragraph of my argument #16 response -in substance{4} anyway.
Argument #18:
I agree with them 100% on this one. Do not expect more out of sources than what they are and always disclose to the extent you are aware of it the reliability or lack thereof of the source you cite.
Conclusion:
Those are my thoughts on the article. Basically I agree with nine of them (arguments 1-5, 9, 13-14, 18), agree to some degree but have issues with part of them on five (arguments 6-8,11,16), and disagree with them for the most part or completely with four (arguments 10,12,15,17). I admire though the clarification that Ben, David, and Nick put at the beginning of their piece and I make the substance of it my own in concluding this "counter-missive" of my own -so I will quote them at this time in a final footnote{5} and hope this response is of assistance in some way or another.
Notes:
{1} This is a complex theological subject matter which I went over in years past in outline form for those who are interested:
An Outline of Various Church Models Throughout History (circa November 23-24, 2003)
{2} One thing that's always interested me about Shawn's position is his notation of Augustine's doctrine of merit being that God crowns His own gifts in us. [Tim Enloe (circa April 15, 2007)]
{3} If Ben, David, and Nick are merely trying to say that this argument can easily be overdone and taken beyond the point to where it is useful then I agree with them wholeheartedly. If they are trying to say it is not a good argument at all period then I do not.
{4} Namely, the part where I noted this:
"Requiring those who advocate for a position or idea to be consistent is not a bad argument at all but instead it is at the very heart of respecting reason and logic."
Again, I do not accuse any of them of failing to follow this principle -indeed the principle behind their article to a certain extent presupposes it.
{5} To reiterate their introduction at this time:
The following is a list of arguments against Protestantism which, in our judgment, Catholics should not use, either because they are not true, or because, while they might be true, it is impossible to prove that they are, for a plausible alternative explanation of the data exists. This is certainly not a complete list: it is merely one missive fired for intellectual honesty. Neither is it an infallible list: it is possible that one or more of these arguments might be saved. [LINK]
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Revisiting the Subject of Argument by "Expert Opinions":
I have written on this subject many times before but for the sake of time constraints will limit myself to only three such references chosen at random from the archives of this weblog.{1} In the meantime, as this matter comes up from time to time when engaged in arguing a position with people, it seems appropriate to revisit it at various intervals and I intend to do that now courtesy of something I wrote last year in the combox of someone else's weblog and saved for a possible later posting. Without further ado...
So often major discoveries have been made by “non-experts” who have not limited themselves to what the “experts” have said cannot be done. The example of the Wright Brothers vs. the Esteemed Lord Kelvin of the British Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge is only one of many examples. And as you will see if you read Lord Kelvin’s file on Wikipedia, he was a brilliant highly credentialed man and an inventor/innovator of his own right. But in some areas he had some blind spots -the statement he made on the impossibility of machines heavier than air flying (made in 1895) was one. He also claimed in 1897 that “radio has no future” which we all know is patently false. Then there was his 1900 claim that “[t]here is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement” -a statement made five years before Einstein’s famous 1905 paper on relativity was published.
I note this example because Lord Kelvin was a physicist. And he is far from the only “expert” to have been seriously disproved in one or more areas within their own fields of expertise by upstarts without their credentials or pedigree. I posted back in January of 2007 in one of my “points to ponder” threads a slew of “experts” whose “authoritative pronouncements” were later disproved by non-experts. This is why opinions and conclusions should never be accepted uncritically by anyone regardless of their “expert” status. [Written on August 25, 2008]
Note:
{1} Here they are in order from most recent to oldest:
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Usages Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)
Points to Ponder on Logic Being a Special Preserve of the Learned (circa February 11, 2006)
On Proper and Improper Approaches to Argumentation (circa May 14, 2005)
I have written on this subject many times before but for the sake of time constraints will limit myself to only three such references chosen at random from the archives of this weblog.{1} In the meantime, as this matter comes up from time to time when engaged in arguing a position with people, it seems appropriate to revisit it at various intervals and I intend to do that now courtesy of something I wrote last year in the combox of someone else's weblog and saved for a possible later posting. Without further ado...
So often major discoveries have been made by “non-experts” who have not limited themselves to what the “experts” have said cannot be done. The example of the Wright Brothers vs. the Esteemed Lord Kelvin of the British Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge is only one of many examples. And as you will see if you read Lord Kelvin’s file on Wikipedia, he was a brilliant highly credentialed man and an inventor/innovator of his own right. But in some areas he had some blind spots -the statement he made on the impossibility of machines heavier than air flying (made in 1895) was one. He also claimed in 1897 that “radio has no future” which we all know is patently false. Then there was his 1900 claim that “[t]here is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement” -a statement made five years before Einstein’s famous 1905 paper on relativity was published.
I note this example because Lord Kelvin was a physicist. And he is far from the only “expert” to have been seriously disproved in one or more areas within their own fields of expertise by upstarts without their credentials or pedigree. I posted back in January of 2007 in one of my “points to ponder” threads a slew of “experts” whose “authoritative pronouncements” were later disproved by non-experts. This is why opinions and conclusions should never be accepted uncritically by anyone regardless of their “expert” status. [Written on August 25, 2008]
Note:
{1} Here they are in order from most recent to oldest:
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Usages Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)
Points to Ponder on Logic Being a Special Preserve of the Learned (circa February 11, 2006)
On Proper and Improper Approaches to Argumentation (circa May 14, 2005)
'El no habla': Obama jumbles Cinco de Mayo salute
They called President Bush a "dummy" when this sort of stuff happens. I wonder if the late night comedians will mock President Obama mercilessly over this or if they will ignore it. The late night comedian presidential double standard -much as with the mainstream media presidential double standard- undoubtedly will continue.
They called President Bush a "dummy" when this sort of stuff happens. I wonder if the late night comedians will mock President Obama mercilessly over this or if they will ignore it. The late night comedian presidential double standard -much as with the mainstream media presidential double standard- undoubtedly will continue.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Briefly on Ethics and Modifying Past Posts to This Weblog's Archives
Though I do not delete things from the archives of this weblog, there are at times modifications made to older threads. When said modifications are in the area of either fixing spelling mistakes or grammatical glitches, I do not say anything about it but when major additions are made to something, it is my custom in the thread so revised to note these things in the form of an small update or clarification of some kind.
With that in mind, I was perusing a thread written years ago today before sending a link to it in an email circular because I needed to remind myself of what I wrote then so I could be prepared if necessary to defend it. In doing so, I noticed that I overlooked in the sequence of sources one document I was to deal with in a commentary in the month following the original publication of that series. I do not intend to link to it here or even to the series in question but I wanted to note here that as is my wont on this weblog when changing past postings beyond simple grammar or spelling fixes that I added a couple of citations from the previously overlooked source at the very beginning of the post involved, wrote some necessary segues to integrate it fully into what I originally wrote, and have linked this clarifying note to the beginning of the aforementioned modified thread in the interest of greater clarity on that matter thereof.
My notation of these actions in a brief musing at this time is in the interest of disclosure. I view as ethically necessary to clarify a principle I have always followed but not to my knowledge ever said much explicitly about at least publicly.
Though I do not delete things from the archives of this weblog, there are at times modifications made to older threads. When said modifications are in the area of either fixing spelling mistakes or grammatical glitches, I do not say anything about it but when major additions are made to something, it is my custom in the thread so revised to note these things in the form of an small update or clarification of some kind.
With that in mind, I was perusing a thread written years ago today before sending a link to it in an email circular because I needed to remind myself of what I wrote then so I could be prepared if necessary to defend it. In doing so, I noticed that I overlooked in the sequence of sources one document I was to deal with in a commentary in the month following the original publication of that series. I do not intend to link to it here or even to the series in question but I wanted to note here that as is my wont on this weblog when changing past postings beyond simple grammar or spelling fixes that I added a couple of citations from the previously overlooked source at the very beginning of the post involved, wrote some necessary segues to integrate it fully into what I originally wrote, and have linked this clarifying note to the beginning of the aforementioned modified thread in the interest of greater clarity on that matter thereof.
My notation of these actions in a brief musing at this time is in the interest of disclosure. I view as ethically necessary to clarify a principle I have always followed but not to my knowledge ever said much explicitly about at least publicly.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
On the Subject of CIA Interrogation of Terrorist Suspects In Light of Recent Events:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I want to start this posting by giving a smattering of links from various recent and older media source before getting to the crux of this posting:
The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture (The Wall Street Journal)
Intel Chief: Harsh Techniques Brought Good Info (MSNBC)
Obama Muddles...Message (Politico)
Intel director: High-Value Info Obtained (Breitbart)
Cheney Calls for Release of Memos Showing Results of Interrogation Efforts (Fox News)
Dick Cheney calls for release of CIA Waterboarding Success Memos (Telegraph/UK)
Cheney to Obama: Release All CIA Interrogation Memos (CNN)
Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002 (Washington Post circa December 9, 2007)
Now many will try to approach this from predictable polarity points and the use of the word "torture" will inexorably be brought out by those opposed to certain methods of interrogation. Others in defending those methods will point to the success they may or may not have had in procuring valuable intelligence information. There are those who will defend the release of these memos and those who would oppose their release and also those who take the view that if certain ones should be released than they all should be. Your humble servant wants to avoid the surface quibbles and get to the core of the matter --something that those who bring these issues up the most continually try to avoid and that is the purpose of the material you have before you.
From the very beginning of my more active involvement in what became known in some quarters as "the torture controversy"{1}, I insisted on a fundamental principle of reason and logic; namely, defining the terms one uses in discourse:
To start with, the notion of defining the terms that someone uses is so elementary that we are frankly embarrassed that it needs to even be mentioned. But experience has shown that the best way to deal with pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of various stripes is to insist on this principle at all times. This is why we have insisted with greater frequency over the years[...] that those who want to be taken seriously define their terms much as we always have done. The willingness or lack thereof of anyone to conform to this fundamental principle of rational thought has always served as a kind of acid test by your host in ascertaining the integrity or lack thereof of a positional adversary. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 13, 2006)]
But readers of this weblog know I required that all along even if my explicit demands for such things have admittedly increased with time. Those readers who may have wondered why I insisted upon a workable definition for the word "torture"{2} all along{3} and every time this subject came up{4} -be it in incendiary{5} or irenic{6} contexts- you now have an answer on the whole "torture" issue. This is also the reason your host --in the face of all the public wailing and gnashing of teeth over a word that the most frequent of the public whiners on this subject used-- demanded that such people give a workable definition{7} or basically shut the hell up altogether. The principle behind this request should be obvious but since some parties more interested in obfuscation and fog than clarity and light continue to evade it, I restate it anew from words previously used on this weblog in the form of a general principle:
When the term in question is not given a definition, it is subject to a variety of applications some proper and some improper.
That summation{8} encapsulates the principle by which I have always approached this and other subject matters. I have never been interested in television scenarios from shows I have never watched. Nor have I been insisting on defining terms that are used as some sort of game of making excuses for anybody. But the bottom line is, words mean things. And when you have different parties who use the same terms, then those parties in exercising their right to give an opinion --if they are to have any credibility whatsoever as either sound thinkers or ethical persons-- have a corresponding moral obligation. They are morally obligated to strive for clarity not obfuscation, light and not fog, and to give a proper accounting of all pertinent data not merely that which they think supports their views while ignoring that which may not.
All people regardless of their views should be held to these standards. Failure to do so and any attempts made to evade this simple requirement of both ethics and common charity demonstrates a serious lack of a spine on their part as well as a corresponding lack of credibility.{9} Words mean things.{10}
This posting will stand in perpetuity as a testimony to why I approach subjects the way I do. It will also serve to illustrate why I have such a low opinion for those who act as if such things as defining the words one uses is somehow beneath basic charity and human decencies.{11} Now certainly those who try to avoid the realm of the ethical on these sorts of matters do not mind bearing false witness{12} against anyone who dares to question their simplistic and erroneous presuppositions -regardless of whatever they may say to the contrary.{13} But more than that, this kind of irrational hermeneutic has a way of inexorably working its way into any subject that these kinds of unethical, uncharitable, and worthless excuses for human beings touch on in some form or another.{14} The end result of the process is said persons become as bereft of their intellectual and moral senses as Helen Keller was of her physical ones.
Such persons --who criticize others for supposedly making "fine distinctions" while they themselves make no distinctions only end up looking pretty stupid in the end when the truth they played no small part in attempting to hide from or dissuade others from finding eventually becomes better known. Let the following post stand as a testament to the idea that it is better to get things right from the beginning --or, at the very least utilize a methodology that greatly improves one's chances of being right in the end. And this writer can think of no better principle to follow (apart from basic charity and ethics) than one that respects reason and logic which intrinsically demands that the words used to express oneself be given workable definitions. Without them, reason and logic cannot operate. And that's the bottom line.
Notes:
{1} On Torture and General Norms of Interpretation --Parts I-III (circa October 13, 2006)
{2} [O]n the subject of torture we are asking those who have seized on this as a major agenda item of theirs to give the rest of us the most basic of courtesies and explain themselves. Define for us what in a workable sense constitutes "torture" and what does not. Notice we are not asking for an abstract manualist definition of the term but one which can be applied to real life situations with reasonable assurance that it provides a point of reference on the subject in question. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 13, 2006)]
{3} To note what I believe is my earliest involvement in any recognizable capacity on the subject of what does and does not constitute "torture":
[XXXX XXXX'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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 3, 2006)]
Readers can click on the links to see the person to whom I was referring -my interest here (as almost always) is to recall the principles of the dispute and not make this an issue of personalities.
{4} See footnote three and the quote from December of 2005. (One of the parties I had in mind when originally writing that passage was [XXXX XXXX] and the subject involved was the one I referred to back on July 3rd of this year.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 17, 2006)]
{5} For the sake of keeping this posting more to the irenic side, I will merely note that the archives of this weblog contain not a few less-than-irenic treatments on this matter and will leave it to the reader to track them down if they are so inclined.
{6} To give one example of being fairly irenic when (considering the person I was responding to) all my instincts were to the contrary on this matter:
On Coercion, the War on Terror, "Torture", and Fantasy Scenarios --Parts I-III (circa June 28-30, 2008)
{7} Defining the Word "Torture" Since No One Else Will -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Posting (circa November 18, 2006)
{8} See footnote six.
{9} 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) as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa July 3, 2006)]
{10} Definitions are the tools of thought. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 17, 2004)]
{11} This principle was encapsulated in various and sundry ways at this weblog long before the whole "torture controversy" broke out involving (among other things) personal attacks on yours truly. To note one such example that I recalled and was able with the aid of a simple archival search to dig up:
[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)]
And to note another example from over four years ago:
My interest in any social commentary is in formulating workable solutions to societies problems and not just regurgitating the canned "Catholic" responses...
Every entry which falls into this area intends to either advance, fortify, recall, or develop further the kind of core principles that enable someone to provide a coherent and consistent (not to mention workable) alternative to the ideas which permeate society at large in the present day. The reason for this is because definitions are the tools of thought.[...] I refuse to merely go along with "status quo" nebulous concepts -but apparently that is what one has to do to be considered a "social commentator"... [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 7, 2005)]
Like all solid principles, it has a variety of applications and is timeless in its validity thereof.
{12} A Case Study in the Importance of Reason and Logic (circa August 29, 2007)
{13} See footnote ten and also remember that while words mean things, actions speak louder than any words so judge these sorts by what they do not what they say. And remember, Pharisees in any era are quite good at talking the talk of acting in principle, acting morally, and being ethical but not so good walking the walk when the rubber meets the road if to do so proves to be an inconvenience for them.
{14} On "Consequentialism", "Proportionalism", and a Lesson in General Norms of Interpretation Theological and Otherwise (circa October 6, 2008)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I want to start this posting by giving a smattering of links from various recent and older media source before getting to the crux of this posting:
The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture (The Wall Street Journal)
Intel Chief: Harsh Techniques Brought Good Info (MSNBC)
Obama Muddles...Message (Politico)
Intel director: High-Value Info Obtained (Breitbart)
Cheney Calls for Release of Memos Showing Results of Interrogation Efforts (Fox News)
Dick Cheney calls for release of CIA Waterboarding Success Memos (Telegraph/UK)
Cheney to Obama: Release All CIA Interrogation Memos (CNN)
Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002 (Washington Post circa December 9, 2007)
Now many will try to approach this from predictable polarity points and the use of the word "torture" will inexorably be brought out by those opposed to certain methods of interrogation. Others in defending those methods will point to the success they may or may not have had in procuring valuable intelligence information. There are those who will defend the release of these memos and those who would oppose their release and also those who take the view that if certain ones should be released than they all should be. Your humble servant wants to avoid the surface quibbles and get to the core of the matter --something that those who bring these issues up the most continually try to avoid and that is the purpose of the material you have before you.
From the very beginning of my more active involvement in what became known in some quarters as "the torture controversy"{1}, I insisted on a fundamental principle of reason and logic; namely, defining the terms one uses in discourse:
To start with, the notion of defining the terms that someone uses is so elementary that we are frankly embarrassed that it needs to even be mentioned. But experience has shown that the best way to deal with pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of various stripes is to insist on this principle at all times. This is why we have insisted with greater frequency over the years[...] that those who want to be taken seriously define their terms much as we always have done. The willingness or lack thereof of anyone to conform to this fundamental principle of rational thought has always served as a kind of acid test by your host in ascertaining the integrity or lack thereof of a positional adversary. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 13, 2006)]
But readers of this weblog know I required that all along even if my explicit demands for such things have admittedly increased with time. Those readers who may have wondered why I insisted upon a workable definition for the word "torture"{2} all along{3} and every time this subject came up{4} -be it in incendiary{5} or irenic{6} contexts- you now have an answer on the whole "torture" issue. This is also the reason your host --in the face of all the public wailing and gnashing of teeth over a word that the most frequent of the public whiners on this subject used-- demanded that such people give a workable definition{7} or basically shut the hell up altogether. The principle behind this request should be obvious but since some parties more interested in obfuscation and fog than clarity and light continue to evade it, I restate it anew from words previously used on this weblog in the form of a general principle:
When the term in question is not given a definition, it is subject to a variety of applications some proper and some improper.
That summation{8} encapsulates the principle by which I have always approached this and other subject matters. I have never been interested in television scenarios from shows I have never watched. Nor have I been insisting on defining terms that are used as some sort of game of making excuses for anybody. But the bottom line is, words mean things. And when you have different parties who use the same terms, then those parties in exercising their right to give an opinion --if they are to have any credibility whatsoever as either sound thinkers or ethical persons-- have a corresponding moral obligation. They are morally obligated to strive for clarity not obfuscation, light and not fog, and to give a proper accounting of all pertinent data not merely that which they think supports their views while ignoring that which may not.
All people regardless of their views should be held to these standards. Failure to do so and any attempts made to evade this simple requirement of both ethics and common charity demonstrates a serious lack of a spine on their part as well as a corresponding lack of credibility.{9} Words mean things.{10}
This posting will stand in perpetuity as a testimony to why I approach subjects the way I do. It will also serve to illustrate why I have such a low opinion for those who act as if such things as defining the words one uses is somehow beneath basic charity and human decencies.{11} Now certainly those who try to avoid the realm of the ethical on these sorts of matters do not mind bearing false witness{12} against anyone who dares to question their simplistic and erroneous presuppositions -regardless of whatever they may say to the contrary.{13} But more than that, this kind of irrational hermeneutic has a way of inexorably working its way into any subject that these kinds of unethical, uncharitable, and worthless excuses for human beings touch on in some form or another.{14} The end result of the process is said persons become as bereft of their intellectual and moral senses as Helen Keller was of her physical ones.
Such persons --who criticize others for supposedly making "fine distinctions" while they themselves make no distinctions only end up looking pretty stupid in the end when the truth they played no small part in attempting to hide from or dissuade others from finding eventually becomes better known. Let the following post stand as a testament to the idea that it is better to get things right from the beginning --or, at the very least utilize a methodology that greatly improves one's chances of being right in the end. And this writer can think of no better principle to follow (apart from basic charity and ethics) than one that respects reason and logic which intrinsically demands that the words used to express oneself be given workable definitions. Without them, reason and logic cannot operate. And that's the bottom line.
Notes:
{1} On Torture and General Norms of Interpretation --Parts I-III (circa October 13, 2006)
{2} [O]n the subject of torture we are asking those who have seized on this as a major agenda item of theirs to give the rest of us the most basic of courtesies and explain themselves. Define for us what in a workable sense constitutes "torture" and what does not. Notice we are not asking for an abstract manualist definition of the term but one which can be applied to real life situations with reasonable assurance that it provides a point of reference on the subject in question. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 13, 2006)]
{3} To note what I believe is my earliest involvement in any recognizable capacity on the subject of what does and does not constitute "torture":
[XXXX XXXX'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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 3, 2006)]
Readers can click on the links to see the person to whom I was referring -my interest here (as almost always) is to recall the principles of the dispute and not make this an issue of personalities.
{4} See footnote three and the quote from December of 2005. (One of the parties I had in mind when originally writing that passage was [XXXX XXXX] and the subject involved was the one I referred to back on July 3rd of this year.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 17, 2006)]
{5} For the sake of keeping this posting more to the irenic side, I will merely note that the archives of this weblog contain not a few less-than-irenic treatments on this matter and will leave it to the reader to track them down if they are so inclined.
{6} To give one example of being fairly irenic when (considering the person I was responding to) all my instincts were to the contrary on this matter:
On Coercion, the War on Terror, "Torture", and Fantasy Scenarios --Parts I-III (circa June 28-30, 2008)
{7} Defining the Word "Torture" Since No One Else Will -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Posting (circa November 18, 2006)
{8} See footnote six.
{9} 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) as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa July 3, 2006)]
{10} Definitions are the tools of thought. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 17, 2004)]
{11} This principle was encapsulated in various and sundry ways at this weblog long before the whole "torture controversy" broke out involving (among other things) personal attacks on yours truly. To note one such example that I recalled and was able with the aid of a simple archival search to dig up:
[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)]
And to note another example from over four years ago:
My interest in any social commentary is in formulating workable solutions to societies problems and not just regurgitating the canned "Catholic" responses...
Every entry which falls into this area intends to either advance, fortify, recall, or develop further the kind of core principles that enable someone to provide a coherent and consistent (not to mention workable) alternative to the ideas which permeate society at large in the present day. The reason for this is because definitions are the tools of thought.[...] I refuse to merely go along with "status quo" nebulous concepts -but apparently that is what one has to do to be considered a "social commentator"... [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 7, 2005)]
Like all solid principles, it has a variety of applications and is timeless in its validity thereof.
{12} A Case Study in the Importance of Reason and Logic (circa August 29, 2007)
{13} See footnote ten and also remember that while words mean things, actions speak louder than any words so judge these sorts by what they do not what they say. And remember, Pharisees in any era are quite good at talking the talk of acting in principle, acting morally, and being ethical but not so good walking the walk when the rubber meets the road if to do so proves to be an inconvenience for them.
{14} On "Consequentialism", "Proportionalism", and a Lesson in General Norms of Interpretation Theological and Otherwise (circa October 6, 2008)
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Points to Ponder:
(And One Reason Your Host Has Long Read Foreign Papers)
Why do I, a US citizen, have to read the Telegraph for any sort of criticism of this President? The Press in America doesn't care about results. They care about intentions. Gee those Democrats care. See them caring? Who cares if we shred the Constitution? Who cares if we set bad precedents? Who cares if we bankrupt generations? Our media is far too invested in Obama to give honest assessments and criticism is almost unheard. Instead, we hear 4 days worth of reports on the stupid dog and Michelle's toned arms. In case it hasn't been noted, Obama's entire political career has been campaigning. He spent 147 days as a Senator and a few years as a Senator here in IL rubbing elbows with the corrupt Chicago Democrat Machine. Bob Woodward warned to keep an eye on Obama. He isn't who he pretends to be. I believe it. God help us all. ["KKNC" (circa April 29, 2009 @ 7:38 am)]
(And One Reason Your Host Has Long Read Foreign Papers)
Why do I, a US citizen, have to read the Telegraph for any sort of criticism of this President? The Press in America doesn't care about results. They care about intentions. Gee those Democrats care. See them caring? Who cares if we shred the Constitution? Who cares if we set bad precedents? Who cares if we bankrupt generations? Our media is far too invested in Obama to give honest assessments and criticism is almost unheard. Instead, we hear 4 days worth of reports on the stupid dog and Michelle's toned arms. In case it hasn't been noted, Obama's entire political career has been campaigning. He spent 147 days as a Senator and a few years as a Senator here in IL rubbing elbows with the corrupt Chicago Democrat Machine. Bob Woodward warned to keep an eye on Obama. He isn't who he pretends to be. I believe it. God help us all. ["KKNC" (circa April 29, 2009 @ 7:38 am)]
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Gore "Gored" by Lord Monckton
Here is a bit to supply some context before we comment on it:
UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington.
Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.
“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”
I love it when someone can not only talk smack but intelligently can back it up and props to Lord Christopher Monckton for being one of the very few who can do this on the issue of climatology. Though my view was already pretty solid on this matter and based solely on reason and logic{1}, there were admittedly areas I did not know much about or was not comfortable treading into. I therefore thank Lord Monckton for the sound education on this matter that reading his work{2} and listening to him on the radio{3} has supplied.
God bless Lord Christopher Monckton for standing up in principle against the irrational barbarians and spineless cowards who promote the horseshit of "global warming" as a way of trying to profit unethically off of other people.{4} And may the global warming apologist Al Gore grow a pair to face Monckton in public debate or shut the hell up on this matter once and for all!!!
Notes:
{1} Here are a few such threads from the archives where this matter is touched upon by us:
On the Fraud of "Global Warming" With Kevin Tierney and Greg Mockeridge (circa April 13, 2006)
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing (circa November 29, 2007)
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing (circa February 13, 2008)
On the subject of the environment, McCain gets a B. If not for his stance on global warming which is (at best) an unproven hypothesis, he would get an A. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
More on "Global Warming" (circa December 27, 2008)
{2} Gore Gored -A Twenty Nine Page Response to Al Gore (Lord Christopher Monckton)
{3} I heard him on the radio the other day and was absolutely fascinated: something that I almost never am when listening to radio or television personalities.
{4} Sadly enough, whenever you have those who are apologists for certain viewpoints and there is a corresponding degree of time, finances, or other investments on their part. It is common in these situations for those so invested to have an interest in protecting the status quo even if it means either (i) giving a free pass on those who act unethically or (ii) acting unethically themselves.
Here is a bit to supply some context before we comment on it:
UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington.
Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.
“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”
I love it when someone can not only talk smack but intelligently can back it up and props to Lord Christopher Monckton for being one of the very few who can do this on the issue of climatology. Though my view was already pretty solid on this matter and based solely on reason and logic{1}, there were admittedly areas I did not know much about or was not comfortable treading into. I therefore thank Lord Monckton for the sound education on this matter that reading his work{2} and listening to him on the radio{3} has supplied.
God bless Lord Christopher Monckton for standing up in principle against the irrational barbarians and spineless cowards who promote the horseshit of "global warming" as a way of trying to profit unethically off of other people.{4} And may the global warming apologist Al Gore grow a pair to face Monckton in public debate or shut the hell up on this matter once and for all!!!
Notes:
{1} Here are a few such threads from the archives where this matter is touched upon by us:
On the Fraud of "Global Warming" With Kevin Tierney and Greg Mockeridge (circa April 13, 2006)
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing (circa November 29, 2007)
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing (circa February 13, 2008)
On the subject of the environment, McCain gets a B. If not for his stance on global warming which is (at best) an unproven hypothesis, he would get an A. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
More on "Global Warming" (circa December 27, 2008)
{2} Gore Gored -A Twenty Nine Page Response to Al Gore (Lord Christopher Monckton)
{3} I heard him on the radio the other day and was absolutely fascinated: something that I almost never am when listening to radio or television personalities.
{4} Sadly enough, whenever you have those who are apologists for certain viewpoints and there is a corresponding degree of time, finances, or other investments on their part. It is common in these situations for those so invested to have an interest in protecting the status quo even if it means either (i) giving a free pass on those who act unethically or (ii) acting unethically themselves.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Briefly on So-Called "Gay Marriage":
The material below was revised slightly from material written by yours truly on April 21, 2009...
Marriage must have as a intrinsic component to it something that two people of the same sex are incapable of producing: children. I say this because since the dawn of time it has been understood that there was a requirement to establish a stable foundation for the next generation's cultivation and some special societal status to both recognize as well as encourage it. That is why every society in recorded history has had some kind of similar arrangement and whatever the variations it has taken, the one core and key component in all of its manifestations is that marriage requires people of the opposite sex. Furthermore, every society that has broken this barrier down has eventually become extinct: something that those who promote breaking that barrier down today would do well to consider.
This is not to say that every marriage requires children of course but the potential must be there at least intrinsic to the coupling. The day two genetic people of the same sex successfully procreate between the two of them is the day I will consider supporting gay marriage. But not before then!!!
The material below was revised slightly from material written by yours truly on April 21, 2009...
Marriage must have as a intrinsic component to it something that two people of the same sex are incapable of producing: children. I say this because since the dawn of time it has been understood that there was a requirement to establish a stable foundation for the next generation's cultivation and some special societal status to both recognize as well as encourage it. That is why every society in recorded history has had some kind of similar arrangement and whatever the variations it has taken, the one core and key component in all of its manifestations is that marriage requires people of the opposite sex. Furthermore, every society that has broken this barrier down has eventually become extinct: something that those who promote breaking that barrier down today would do well to consider.
This is not to say that every marriage requires children of course but the potential must be there at least intrinsic to the coupling. The day two genetic people of the same sex successfully procreate between the two of them is the day I will consider supporting gay marriage. But not before then!!!
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Miscellaneous Musings:
To touch briefly on a few subjects...
--I must admit I am surprised and very pleasantly so that the Seattle Mariners are off to such a splendid start. Principles I have long said this team needs to embrace to work best with the kinds of talent they have are being realized -hats off to the new general manager Jack Zduriencik for the hiring of Don Wakamatsu as the new coach. I look forward to the M's actually being a competitive team this year for the first time since the departure of "Sweet" Lou Piniella.
--I am working at the moment on a text to respond to both the recent release by the Obama Administration of certain so-called "torture memos" and also to address certain predictable parties with regards to their continuing promotion of irrationality and unethical evasions on these matters under the presumed mantle of some "higher morality" or whatever pretenses they attempt to cloak themselves in to confuse not a few people. I anticipate it will be done next week -it is substantially completed in draft form now but needs review and also perhaps a few more tidbits added. I intend with the text to point to some past statements and principles I have set down in greater expository fashion but for this text to be briefer and more concise than other treatments on this matter have been.
--Today is the anniversary of the birth of blues legend Albert King. I originally intended to finish a tribute I was writing last December to commemorate the anniversary of his passing for this occasion but was unable to for various and sundry reasons. I will therefore leave that draft for finishing hopefully by December if I have the time and inclination and will point the readers to a review I wrote for two of his albums on Amazon.com in years past and also what I wrote back in December of 2007 on the man and his music:
Musings on the 40th Anniversary of Born Under a Bad Sign (circa December 21, 2007)
In Session --Rough Draft of Eventual Amazon Book Review (circa January 20, 2006)
Live (written for Amazon in 2001; slightly revised today)
Rest in peace "Velvet Bulldozer"
To touch briefly on a few subjects...
--I must admit I am surprised and very pleasantly so that the Seattle Mariners are off to such a splendid start. Principles I have long said this team needs to embrace to work best with the kinds of talent they have are being realized -hats off to the new general manager Jack Zduriencik for the hiring of Don Wakamatsu as the new coach. I look forward to the M's actually being a competitive team this year for the first time since the departure of "Sweet" Lou Piniella.
--I am working at the moment on a text to respond to both the recent release by the Obama Administration of certain so-called "torture memos" and also to address certain predictable parties with regards to their continuing promotion of irrationality and unethical evasions on these matters under the presumed mantle of some "higher morality" or whatever pretenses they attempt to cloak themselves in to confuse not a few people. I anticipate it will be done next week -it is substantially completed in draft form now but needs review and also perhaps a few more tidbits added. I intend with the text to point to some past statements and principles I have set down in greater expository fashion but for this text to be briefer and more concise than other treatments on this matter have been.
--Today is the anniversary of the birth of blues legend Albert King. I originally intended to finish a tribute I was writing last December to commemorate the anniversary of his passing for this occasion but was unable to for various and sundry reasons. I will therefore leave that draft for finishing hopefully by December if I have the time and inclination and will point the readers to a review I wrote for two of his albums on Amazon.com in years past and also what I wrote back in December of 2007 on the man and his music:
Musings on the 40th Anniversary of Born Under a Bad Sign (circa December 21, 2007)
In Session --Rough Draft of Eventual Amazon Book Review (circa January 20, 2006)
Live (written for Amazon in 2001; slightly revised today)
Rest in peace "Velvet Bulldozer"
Monday, April 20, 2009
Points to Ponder:
(On the Principle of Truth)
I'm more interested in truth than in being proved right or wrong. We all benefit by learning the truth. The truth is our best friend, as it allows us to advance our knowledge. I'd be more than happy – ecstatic even – if someone could prove to me that my approach...was in error, because I could learn something from that. Not simply an opinion, on the matter, mind you, but to provide rational, demonstrable proof. [Mike Mentzer]
(On the Principle of Truth)
I'm more interested in truth than in being proved right or wrong. We all benefit by learning the truth. The truth is our best friend, as it allows us to advance our knowledge. I'd be more than happy – ecstatic even – if someone could prove to me that my approach...was in error, because I could learn something from that. Not simply an opinion, on the matter, mind you, but to provide rational, demonstrable proof. [Mike Mentzer]
"Illustrating Absurdity By Being Absurd" Dept.
This was originally going to be posted in substantially the same form back in June of 2006 but for reasons I cannot recall at the moment never was. Nonetheless, changing times and circumstances made a slight revision of the original posting required but in light of how our foreign policy appears to be viewed by the present administration, maybe the flaws in the Obama weltanschauung{1} can best be illustrated with a bit of humour (the last line of the poem excluded of course). Without further ado...
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.
This was originally going to be posted in substantially the same form back in June of 2006 but for reasons I cannot recall at the moment never was. Nonetheless, changing times and circumstances made a slight revision of the original posting required but in light of how our foreign policy appears to be viewed by the present administration, maybe the flaws in the Obama weltanschauung{1} can best be illustrated with a bit of humour (the last line of the poem excluded of course). Without further ado...
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.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Points to Ponder:
Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. [Alexander Hamilton]
Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. [Alexander Hamilton]
Dialogue...is a recognized method of the apostolate. It is a way of making spiritual contact. It should however have the following characteristics:
1) Clarity before all else; the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible. We can think of it as a kind of thought transfusion. It is an invitation to the exercise and development of the highest spiritual and mental powers a man possesses. This fact alone would suffice to make such dialogue rank among the greatest manifestations of human activity and culture. In order to satisfy this first requirement, all of us who feel the spur of the apostolate should examine closely the kind of speech we use. Is it easy to understand? Can it be grasped by ordinary people? Is it current idiom?
2) Our dialogue must be accompanied by that meekness which Christ bade us learn from Himself: "Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart." (Mt 11. 29.) It would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity.
3) Confidence is also necessary; confidence not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue. Hence dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides. It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good, and thus excludes all self-seeking.
4) Finally, the prudence of a teacher who is most careful to make allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, (Mt 7.6.) particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile. The person who speaks is always at pains to learn the sensitivities of his audience, and if reason demands it, he adapts himself and the manner of his presentation to the susceptibilities and the degree of intelligence of his hearers.
In a dialogue conducted with this kind of foresight, truth is wedded to charity and understanding to love. [Pope Paul VI: Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam §81-82 (c. 1964) as quoted in my writing On the Intricacies of Dialogue (c. 2003)]
1) Clarity before all else; the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible. We can think of it as a kind of thought transfusion. It is an invitation to the exercise and development of the highest spiritual and mental powers a man possesses. This fact alone would suffice to make such dialogue rank among the greatest manifestations of human activity and culture. In order to satisfy this first requirement, all of us who feel the spur of the apostolate should examine closely the kind of speech we use. Is it easy to understand? Can it be grasped by ordinary people? Is it current idiom?
2) Our dialogue must be accompanied by that meekness which Christ bade us learn from Himself: "Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart." (Mt 11. 29.) It would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity.
3) Confidence is also necessary; confidence not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue. Hence dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides. It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good, and thus excludes all self-seeking.
4) Finally, the prudence of a teacher who is most careful to make allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, (Mt 7.6.) particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile. The person who speaks is always at pains to learn the sensitivities of his audience, and if reason demands it, he adapts himself and the manner of his presentation to the susceptibilities and the degree of intelligence of his hearers.
In a dialogue conducted with this kind of foresight, truth is wedded to charity and understanding to love. [Pope Paul VI: Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam §81-82 (c. 1964) as quoted in my writing On the Intricacies of Dialogue (c. 2003)]
In Defense of Tax Havens
What is really sad is that a defense of tax havens is even necessary but the state to which people unfamiliar with the fundamental rights of man find themselves. Rather than expositate on the latter subject myself (and as time does not allow for me to), the above thread does a pretty good job so I will defer to it at the present time and reserve to myself the right to comment further later on as I see fit if and when I have the time and desire to.
What is really sad is that a defense of tax havens is even necessary but the state to which people unfamiliar with the fundamental rights of man find themselves. Rather than expositate on the latter subject myself (and as time does not allow for me to), the above thread does a pretty good job so I will defer to it at the present time and reserve to myself the right to comment further later on as I see fit if and when I have the time and desire to.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Gov. Perry Backs Resolution Affirming Texas’ Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment
While I would argue that his interpretation of the constitution is a bit too narrow if I was in the mood to quibble{1} -failing to account for necessary implied powers for example{2}- I nonetheless fully support the governor of Texas standing up to the federal leviathan and saying "enough" when it comes to federal encroachments onto state prerogatives. And before we can talk about the aforementioned implied powers aspect and what it lawfully entails{3}, we need to stop unchecked federal impositions into the states at the whim of federal legislators and bureaucrats. And as an important step in that direction, the governor of Texas deserves credit and he has the support of this writer.
Notes:
{1} Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009)
{2} See footnote one for some examples.
{3} Yes this can be unlawfully appealed to; ergo my distinction here.
While I would argue that his interpretation of the constitution is a bit too narrow if I was in the mood to quibble{1} -failing to account for necessary implied powers for example{2}- I nonetheless fully support the governor of Texas standing up to the federal leviathan and saying "enough" when it comes to federal encroachments onto state prerogatives. And before we can talk about the aforementioned implied powers aspect and what it lawfully entails{3}, we need to stop unchecked federal impositions into the states at the whim of federal legislators and bureaucrats. And as an important step in that direction, the governor of Texas deserves credit and he has the support of this writer.
Notes:
{1} Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009)
{2} See footnote one for some examples.
{3} Yes this can be unlawfully appealed to; ergo my distinction here.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Points to Ponder:
(On the Common Good)
It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn. [George Washington]
(On the Common Good)
It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn. [George Washington]
Responding to Various Statements About President Barack Hussein Obama:
This stuff was written between 7:47 and 7:50am Saturday morning in another publishing medium. The words of the person being responded to will be in dark green font. Without further ado...
Just for the record Dubya spent more than all the presidents that preceded HIM.
And Obama will under his watch see a larger amount of spending in the first two years than all eight of Dubya's.
Secondly Obama doesn't need a teleprompter
Then why does he use one for almost everything??? And why when he speaks without one does he sound like such a blithering idiot???
because he already runs circles around Bush both intellectually and verbally.
And you can prove this how??? Lest you forget, Obama is too much of a coward to let his transcripts from Harvard be released. Kerry did the same thing and though many people claimed he was an "intellectual" and Bush was an "idiot", only one person actually ran the numbers as best they could determine them from Kerry and Bush's military assessment tests and found that (i) Bush's IQ was with a high degree of probability higher than Kerry's and (ii) both men would score in the highest percentile of Americans. To wit:
This Just In: Kerry's IQ Likely Lower Than Bush's
Furthermore, Sailer like myself spent at least as much time criticizing Bush as he did defending him so for that reason, he cannot be accused of the sort of bias you display in your fawning love for Obama.
I am willing to wager that the reason Obama will not release the transcripts is that he did not do all that well and prefers to maintain this media myth that he is some ultra smart guy. But we unfortunately do not have a way of running a similar test in the absence of your hero's refusal to release his transcripts and a lack of similar military assessment tests to compare the two. Nonetheless, if you want to so easily dismiss a man with two Ivy League degrees including an MBA in business (Bush) and laud the supposed brilliance of someone whose understanding of how economies work is so pathetically laughable as to be an embarrassment (Obama), that is your prerogative. I knew more about how economies worked before I took economics than Obama seems to know now so if he is as smart as you claim, obviously it does not translate into economics knowledge.
Of course if he does actually know basic economics and still pushes what he is pushing than he is formally trying to destroy this country rather than materially and out of ignorance but there are no other alternatives than that based on what he is trying to push.
He already has more respect from foreign leaders than Dubya ever enjoyed.
Foreign leaders do not respect Obama. They like him because he is their lapdog and will not dare criticize them when warranted. You would like me too if I gave you a bunch of money but you would not respect me. Ditto for Obama and the foreign leaders of which you speak.
It is sad to see another black American embrace willingly the party that enslaved his ancestors, fought to keep them enslaved, founded the Ku Klux Klan after they were freed to try and put them back into slavery, enacted Jim Crow discrimination laws against them, fought desegregation, fought against Ike's Civil Rights Act of 1957, fought against LBJ's Civil Rights Act of 1964, fought against the Voters Rights Act of 1965, and has sought as a party and in general (with some notable exceptions I will admit) a variety of means to enslave black people both psychologically and economically all along. But that is probably why Martin Luther King was a Republican anyway -he believed in judging people by the content of their character not the colour of their skin. Remember that the next time someone brings race into the argument to attempt to discredit someone criticizing the incompetence of this president: they are spitting in the face of Dr. King and what he died for. And that's the bottom line.
This stuff was written between 7:47 and 7:50am Saturday morning in another publishing medium. The words of the person being responded to will be in dark green font. Without further ado...
Just for the record Dubya spent more than all the presidents that preceded HIM.
And Obama will under his watch see a larger amount of spending in the first two years than all eight of Dubya's.
Secondly Obama doesn't need a teleprompter
Then why does he use one for almost everything??? And why when he speaks without one does he sound like such a blithering idiot???
because he already runs circles around Bush both intellectually and verbally.
And you can prove this how??? Lest you forget, Obama is too much of a coward to let his transcripts from Harvard be released. Kerry did the same thing and though many people claimed he was an "intellectual" and Bush was an "idiot", only one person actually ran the numbers as best they could determine them from Kerry and Bush's military assessment tests and found that (i) Bush's IQ was with a high degree of probability higher than Kerry's and (ii) both men would score in the highest percentile of Americans. To wit:
This Just In: Kerry's IQ Likely Lower Than Bush's
Furthermore, Sailer like myself spent at least as much time criticizing Bush as he did defending him so for that reason, he cannot be accused of the sort of bias you display in your fawning love for Obama.
I am willing to wager that the reason Obama will not release the transcripts is that he did not do all that well and prefers to maintain this media myth that he is some ultra smart guy. But we unfortunately do not have a way of running a similar test in the absence of your hero's refusal to release his transcripts and a lack of similar military assessment tests to compare the two. Nonetheless, if you want to so easily dismiss a man with two Ivy League degrees including an MBA in business (Bush) and laud the supposed brilliance of someone whose understanding of how economies work is so pathetically laughable as to be an embarrassment (Obama), that is your prerogative. I knew more about how economies worked before I took economics than Obama seems to know now so if he is as smart as you claim, obviously it does not translate into economics knowledge.
Of course if he does actually know basic economics and still pushes what he is pushing than he is formally trying to destroy this country rather than materially and out of ignorance but there are no other alternatives than that based on what he is trying to push.
He already has more respect from foreign leaders than Dubya ever enjoyed.
Foreign leaders do not respect Obama. They like him because he is their lapdog and will not dare criticize them when warranted. You would like me too if I gave you a bunch of money but you would not respect me. Ditto for Obama and the foreign leaders of which you speak.
It is sad to see another black American embrace willingly the party that enslaved his ancestors, fought to keep them enslaved, founded the Ku Klux Klan after they were freed to try and put them back into slavery, enacted Jim Crow discrimination laws against them, fought desegregation, fought against Ike's Civil Rights Act of 1957, fought against LBJ's Civil Rights Act of 1964, fought against the Voters Rights Act of 1965, and has sought as a party and in general (with some notable exceptions I will admit) a variety of means to enslave black people both psychologically and economically all along. But that is probably why Martin Luther King was a Republican anyway -he believed in judging people by the content of their character not the colour of their skin. Remember that the next time someone brings race into the argument to attempt to discredit someone criticizing the incompetence of this president: they are spitting in the face of Dr. King and what he died for. And that's the bottom line.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Monday, April 06, 2009
When an idea, whether real or not, is of a nature to arrest and possess the mind, it may be said to have life, that is, to live in the mind which is its recipient. Thus mathematical ideas, real as they are, can hardly properly be called living, at least ordinarily. But, when some great enunciation, whether true or false, about human nature, or present good, or government, or duty, or religion, is carried forward into the public throng of men and draws attention, then it is not merely received passively in this or that form into many minds, but it becomes an active principle within them, leading them to an ever-new contemplation of itself, to an application of it in various directions, and a propagation of it on every side. Such is the doctrine of the divine right of kings, or of the rights of man, or of the anti-social bearings of a priesthood, or utilitarianism, or free trade, or the duty of benevolent enterprises, or the philosophy of Zeno or Epicurus, doctrines which are of a nature to attract and influence, and have so far a primâ facie reality, that they may be looked at on many sides and strike various minds very variously. Let one such idea get possession of the popular mind, or the mind of any portion of the community, and it is not difficult to understand what will be the result. At first men will not fully realise what it is that moves them, and will express and explain themselves inadequately. There will be a general agitation of thought, and an action of mind upon mind. There will be a time of confusion, when conceptions and misconceptions are in conflict, and it is uncertain whether anything is to come of the idea at all, or which view of it is to get the start of the others. New lights will be brought to bear upon the original statements of the doctrine put forward; judgments and aspects will accumulate. After a while some definite teaching emerges; and, as time proceeds, one view will be modified or expanded by another, and then combined with a third; till the idea to which these various aspects belong, will be to each mind separately what at first it was only to all together. It will be surveyed too in its relation to other doctrines or facts, to other natural laws or established customs, to the varying circumstances of times and places, to other religions, polities, philosophies, as the case may be. How it stands affected towards other systems, how it affects them, how far it may be made to combine with them, how far it tolerates them, when it interferes with them, will be gradually wrought out. It will be interrogated and criticized by enemies, and defended by well-wishers. The multitude of opinions formed concerning it in these respects and many others will be collected, compared, sorted, sifted, selected, rejected, gradually attached to it, separated from it, in the minds of individuals and of the community. It will, in proportion to its native vigour and subtlety, introduce itself into the framework and details of social life, changing public opinion, and strengthening or undermining the foundations of established order. Thus in time it will have grown into an ethical code, or into a system of government, or into a theology, or into a ritual, according to its capabilities: and this body of thought, thus laboriously gained, will after all be little more than the proper representative of one idea, being in substance what that idea meant from the first, its complete image as seen in a combination of diversified aspects, with the suggestions and corrections of many minds, and the illustration of many experiences.
This process, whether it be longer or shorter in point of time, by which the aspects of an idea are brought into consistency and form, I call its development, being the germination and maturation of some truth or apparent truth on a large mental field. On the other hand this process will not be a development, unless the assemblage of aspects, which constitute its ultimate shape, really belongs to the idea from which they start. [John Henry Newman: Excerpt from An Essay on the Development of Doctrine pgs. 36-38 (circa 1845)]
This process, whether it be longer or shorter in point of time, by which the aspects of an idea are brought into consistency and form, I call its development, being the germination and maturation of some truth or apparent truth on a large mental field. On the other hand this process will not be a development, unless the assemblage of aspects, which constitute its ultimate shape, really belongs to the idea from which they start. [John Henry Newman: Excerpt from An Essay on the Development of Doctrine pgs. 36-38 (circa 1845)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)