A Public Notification To Dave Armstrong:
Dave,
It was brought to my attention that you are talking about me yet again behind my back on your Facebook page. In appropriately yellow font:
"I think Mary may have surpassed Shawn McElhinney's extraordinary insults from a fellow Catholic to me: his coming after I condemned the nuclear bombings of Japan and he thought they were fine and dandy according to Catholic teaching.
That record of the greatest insults from a Catholic has stood since 2005, so it's quite a feat for Mary to pass it.
It's hard to imagine that Mary's record will ever be beaten in my lifetime (unless she herself does it)."
To start with, Proverbs disapproves of this kind of behaviour:
"The north wind brings forth rain, And a backbiting tongue, an angry countenance." [Proverbs 25:23]
Now you can try and convince yourself of whatever you want -and undoubtedly by your previous deleting of your history on these matters in years past, it makes such historical revision much easier for you. However, to talk about people behind their back when you know they are blocked from responding to thereby refute you is quite the act of cowardice. But beyond that, is this how you prepare for Holy Week?
Whatever else you do, kindly at least as long as you maintain your cowardly ban do not bring up my name at any time in any context whatsoever.
Having noted that, I do forgive you Dave. As Scripture says:
"And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses." [Mark 11:25]
I will also continue to pray for you.
[Update I: I have been informed that Dave has removed the reference now -presumably quietly and without fanfare much as the way the mainstream media makes their own corrections much quieter than their original proclamations. I will thus leave this note visible for another day and then consign it to private status pending any future violations of this sort in the future. (At which point it will again be made public.) -SM 4/12/17]
[Update II: As unfortunately, Dave cannot help himself and has a few times since this posting was consigned to draft status committed a few of the violations I spoke of back in 2017, I am due to his most recent behaviour once again making this posting public in perpetuity. -SM 1/12/20]
Monday, April 10, 2017
Woman Banned From Uber for Life After Threatening to Falsely Accuse Driver of Rape
This sort of story is a good reason to assert the following: any woman who falsely accuses a man of rape and has him charged should be imprisoned for the equivalent amount of time he would serve if convicted of such a charge.
By the way, the same principle goes for false claims in any other area as well (i.e. domestic violence). No one who engages in false accusations should be allowed to walk away unscathed from their lies. And this same principle should apply to cops who lie, prosecutors who during a trial who withhold evidence, etc. Furthermore, any and all false accusations should be treated as a felony.
This sort of story is a good reason to assert the following: any woman who falsely accuses a man of rape and has him charged should be imprisoned for the equivalent amount of time he would serve if convicted of such a charge.
By the way, the same principle goes for false claims in any other area as well (i.e. domestic violence). No one who engages in false accusations should be allowed to walk away unscathed from their lies. And this same principle should apply to cops who lie, prosecutors who during a trial who withhold evidence, etc. Furthermore, any and all false accusations should be treated as a felony.
Maybe if this kind of hard approach was taken, there would be a deterrent from such stuff.
More on the Controversial Dubia Subject:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I finished this material some time ago and have been debating with myself as to the best time to post it. I suppose there is no better time than the start of Holy Week, so I have decided to post it today. For those who have not seen the previous note on this subject, I recommend they read it first as it provides both some context as well as material for what is to follow.
To start with, I want to make it clear for any who object to the stance taken in the previous note that its not a requirement of the pope to respond to the four cardinals on their terms and whose “Dubia” is arguably worded in a somewhat disingenuous fashion. The reason I say this is simple: the answers are more complex than simple black and white yes and no answers. To illustrate that point in greater detail, I will touch on each question after posting them in their entirety first. Without further ado, let us get to it!
1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?
My response to Question #1:
Question #1 as phrased above involves certain presuppositions and drastically over-simplifies the situations of the divorced and remarried.{1} It cannot for those reasons be answered in a one word yes or no format; therefore, to ask for an answer in that form as the four cardinals do comes off to these eyes as rather questionable viz their motives for reasons I specified in the previous note{2}.
My response to Question #2:
Question #2 suffers from the same kind of presuppositional flaws as Question #1 does above. The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) acknowledges that objective mortal sin is not always in individual circumstances actual mortal sin. How is that a denial of Veritatis Splendor's teaching on the existence of intrinsically grave sins? Simple, its not. But again, that cannot be explained with a simple yes or no answer and the cardinals who issued this “Dubia” should know this as its a pretty fundamental Catholic moral theology issue.
3. After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?
My response to Question #3:
Question #3 is asking if the prohibition against adultery is still in force. Obviously it is. The assumption behind the question from all appearances is that any “objective situation of grave habitual sin” (“Dubia”) must ipso facto involve actual mortal sin. I touched on this in my prior note{3} but again, the attempt with the question to try and force a one word answer is at the very least suspicious.{4}
4. After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
My response to Question #4:
Question #4 proposes a false dichotomy in the form of an argument which strives to make "circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility” incompatible with a condemnation of acts which are objectively intrinsically evil. This is a false dichotomy disingenuously masquerading as a question. Furthermore, it cannot be answered accurately with a single word yes or no so again, the cardinals who pushed this publicly contrary to the manner in which the Magisterium has said such issues should be handled{5} are for that reason at least deserving of a rebuke. I for one consider Pope Francis’ refusal to even acknowledge them on this to be an adequate rebuke but that is neither here nor there. Onto the final question.
5. After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
My response to Question #5:
Question #5 is essentially a form of Neo-Feeneyism as it by logical extension treats every objectively grave act as automatically an actual mortal sin. In that sense, it is more or less a rehashing of Question #4. Like its predecessor question, this question involves presuppositions that fly in the face of Magisterial teaching (pre-Francis), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC){6}, and Doctors of the Church such as St Alphonsis Ligouri and St Thomas Aquinas. And like the prior questions, it cannot be accurately responded to in a one word answer which again, the drafters of the “Dubia” have to have known. We are not talking about ordinary Catholics in the pew here as for them this might not be so evident. No, these are Cardinals of the Roman Church so what is their excuse for either not knowing this or (if they did) disingenuously pretending they did not in issuing this purported “Dubia” to Pope Francis?
In summary, while I have my own issues with some of what Pope Francis has said and done -and even in some minor ways with this Apostolic Exhortation{7}; nonetheless, the Pope’s choosing to leave these four Cardinals hanging by not responding to their "Dubia" is hardly one of them.
Notes:
{1} In essence, the divorced and remarried can go to Confession and then receive Communion if they are striving to live chastely but nonetheless fall into sin of a grave nature. And as often as they continue to strive to live chastely and yet fail, as long as their repentance is sincere, God will forgive them in Confession and they can receive Communion. This is why discretion and the aid of a Confessor on these matters is of no small importance and is emphasized a number of times in AL.
{2} "[I]t is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth" (CDF: Instruction Donum Veritatis). By any objective observation, these Cardinals ran afoul of this Joseph Ratzinger penned and John Paul II approved Instruction by taking their issue public as they did.” [Excerpt from the Facebook Note Very Briefly On the Dubia (circa March 13, 2017) as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa April 9, 2017)]
{3} “The bottom line is this: the principle that every objectively grave act or situation is not automatically mortally sinful is not new.” [Excerpt from the Facebook Note Very Briefly On the Dubia (circa March 13, 2017) as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa April 9, 2017)]
{4} See footnote two.
{5} "[I]t is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth." [CDF: Instruction Donum Veritatis as cited in the Facebook Note Very Briefly On the Dubia as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa April 9, 2017)]
{6} “The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.” [Excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church Part III, Section I, Chapter I, Article IV The Morality of Human Acts Section 1754 (circa October 11, 1992)]
{7} Sticking only to ecclesial matters here, I do believe that a greater emphasis on repentance and the Sacrament of Reconciliation as well as the importance of regularly receiving it for those who intend to receive Communion at mass would have been a worthwhile inclusion in AL. Also worth including could have been a recommended timeline of reception for folks who intend to continue receiving Communion on at least a weekly basis. (Say once every 3 months at least!) But that’s a subject for another time perhaps.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I finished this material some time ago and have been debating with myself as to the best time to post it. I suppose there is no better time than the start of Holy Week, so I have decided to post it today. For those who have not seen the previous note on this subject, I recommend they read it first as it provides both some context as well as material for what is to follow.
To start with, I want to make it clear for any who object to the stance taken in the previous note that its not a requirement of the pope to respond to the four cardinals on their terms and whose “Dubia” is arguably worded in a somewhat disingenuous fashion. The reason I say this is simple: the answers are more complex than simple black and white yes and no answers. To illustrate that point in greater detail, I will touch on each question after posting them in their entirety first. Without further ado, let us get to it!
1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?
My response to Question #1:
Question #1 as phrased above involves certain presuppositions and drastically over-simplifies the situations of the divorced and remarried.{1} It cannot for those reasons be answered in a one word yes or no format; therefore, to ask for an answer in that form as the four cardinals do comes off to these eyes as rather questionable viz their motives for reasons I specified in the previous note{2}.
2. After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
My response to Question #2:
Question #2 suffers from the same kind of presuppositional flaws as Question #1 does above. The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) acknowledges that objective mortal sin is not always in individual circumstances actual mortal sin. How is that a denial of Veritatis Splendor's teaching on the existence of intrinsically grave sins? Simple, its not. But again, that cannot be explained with a simple yes or no answer and the cardinals who issued this “Dubia” should know this as its a pretty fundamental Catholic moral theology issue.
3. After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?
My response to Question #3:
Question #3 is asking if the prohibition against adultery is still in force. Obviously it is. The assumption behind the question from all appearances is that any “objective situation of grave habitual sin” (“Dubia”) must ipso facto involve actual mortal sin. I touched on this in my prior note{3} but again, the attempt with the question to try and force a one word answer is at the very least suspicious.{4}
4. After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
My response to Question #4:
Question #4 proposes a false dichotomy in the form of an argument which strives to make "circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility” incompatible with a condemnation of acts which are objectively intrinsically evil. This is a false dichotomy disingenuously masquerading as a question. Furthermore, it cannot be answered accurately with a single word yes or no so again, the cardinals who pushed this publicly contrary to the manner in which the Magisterium has said such issues should be handled{5} are for that reason at least deserving of a rebuke. I for one consider Pope Francis’ refusal to even acknowledge them on this to be an adequate rebuke but that is neither here nor there. Onto the final question.
5. After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?
My response to Question #5:
Question #5 is essentially a form of Neo-Feeneyism as it by logical extension treats every objectively grave act as automatically an actual mortal sin. In that sense, it is more or less a rehashing of Question #4. Like its predecessor question, this question involves presuppositions that fly in the face of Magisterial teaching (pre-Francis), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC){6}, and Doctors of the Church such as St Alphonsis Ligouri and St Thomas Aquinas. And like the prior questions, it cannot be accurately responded to in a one word answer which again, the drafters of the “Dubia” have to have known. We are not talking about ordinary Catholics in the pew here as for them this might not be so evident. No, these are Cardinals of the Roman Church so what is their excuse for either not knowing this or (if they did) disingenuously pretending they did not in issuing this purported “Dubia” to Pope Francis?
In summary, while I have my own issues with some of what Pope Francis has said and done -and even in some minor ways with this Apostolic Exhortation{7}; nonetheless, the Pope’s choosing to leave these four Cardinals hanging by not responding to their "Dubia" is hardly one of them.
Notes:
{1} In essence, the divorced and remarried can go to Confession and then receive Communion if they are striving to live chastely but nonetheless fall into sin of a grave nature. And as often as they continue to strive to live chastely and yet fail, as long as their repentance is sincere, God will forgive them in Confession and they can receive Communion. This is why discretion and the aid of a Confessor on these matters is of no small importance and is emphasized a number of times in AL.
{2} "[I]t is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth" (CDF: Instruction Donum Veritatis). By any objective observation, these Cardinals ran afoul of this Joseph Ratzinger penned and John Paul II approved Instruction by taking their issue public as they did.” [Excerpt from the Facebook Note Very Briefly On the Dubia (circa March 13, 2017) as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa April 9, 2017)]
{3} “The bottom line is this: the principle that every objectively grave act or situation is not automatically mortally sinful is not new.” [Excerpt from the Facebook Note Very Briefly On the Dubia (circa March 13, 2017) as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa April 9, 2017)]
{4} See footnote two.
{5} "[I]t is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth." [CDF: Instruction Donum Veritatis as cited in the Facebook Note Very Briefly On the Dubia as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa April 9, 2017)]
{6} “The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.” [Excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church Part III, Section I, Chapter I, Article IV The Morality of Human Acts Section 1754 (circa October 11, 1992)]
{7} Sticking only to ecclesial matters here, I do believe that a greater emphasis on repentance and the Sacrament of Reconciliation as well as the importance of regularly receiving it for those who intend to receive Communion at mass would have been a worthwhile inclusion in AL. Also worth including could have been a recommended timeline of reception for folks who intend to continue receiving Communion on at least a weekly basis. (Say once every 3 months at least!) But that’s a subject for another time perhaps.
Sunday, April 09, 2017
Very Briefly on the Dubia Subject...
As it is Lent and I am frankly beyond sick and tired of seeing the issue in question here be flogged in the feeds like a proverbial dead horse by the usual suspects, I am posting at this time with a few minor tweaks a note I wrote back in January which has been in draft form until now.{1} My words will be in regular font.
He should as the Roman Pontiff, answer [the] dubia
Why? To start with, the CDF has made it eminently clear in past instructions that "it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth" (CDF: Instruction Donum Veritatis). By any objective observation, these Cardinals ran afoul of this Joseph Ratzinger penned and John Paul II approved Instruction by taking their issue public as they did.
Also, the deliberate obtuseness involved here frankly does not do those prelates any credit. This is not that hard to figure out really and here is a hint: it involves the ethical methodology of casuistry or case based reasoning seeking to resolve moral problems by applying abstract rules to concrete or particular instances. Here is an article on the subject for your consideration:
LINK
The bottom line is this: the principle that every objectively grave act or situation is not automatically mortally sinful is not new. St. Alphonsus Ligouri wrote on this in the seventeenth century, heck St. Thomas Aquinas wrote on it in the thirteenth century. St. John Paul II noted in 1984 that "[c]learly there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint and which have an influence on the sinner's subjective culpability" (Ap. Ex Reconciliato et Paenitentia). All Pope Francis has done is take that principle and apply it to divorce and remarriage. The argument is not that the latter is not wrong or seriously sinful of course but instead that "[i]t can no longer simply be said that all those living in any ‘irregular situation’ are living in a state of mortal sin" (Ap. Ex. Amoris Laetitia). Discernment of individual cases is needed and that is for penitents and their confessors to do, not those outside the specific situation, be they folks on Facebook, folks who write for periodicals, or even Cardinals of the Church. This is really not all that difficult for those who are not determined to be obtuse about it.
Oh and before anyone gets mad at me, hey I am just "speaking hard truths in love" here folks. Most notably the hard truths that individual situations are not as black and white as many may wish. I realize this frustrates the desire of many folks to play the roles of James and John and ask Jesus if they can call down fire from heaven on all the sinners and heathens but I digress.
Note:
{1} I have a sequel to this note that addresses various objections that were posted when this material was originally posted in comment form a while back. It will be published to this website and elsewhere soon.
As it is Lent and I am frankly beyond sick and tired of seeing the issue in question here be flogged in the feeds like a proverbial dead horse by the usual suspects, I am posting at this time with a few minor tweaks a note I wrote back in January which has been in draft form until now.{1} My words will be in regular font.
He should as the Roman Pontiff, answer [the] dubia
Why? To start with, the CDF has made it eminently clear in past instructions that "it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth" (CDF: Instruction Donum Veritatis). By any objective observation, these Cardinals ran afoul of this Joseph Ratzinger penned and John Paul II approved Instruction by taking their issue public as they did.
Also, the deliberate obtuseness involved here frankly does not do those prelates any credit. This is not that hard to figure out really and here is a hint: it involves the ethical methodology of casuistry or case based reasoning seeking to resolve moral problems by applying abstract rules to concrete or particular instances. Here is an article on the subject for your consideration:
LINK
The bottom line is this: the principle that every objectively grave act or situation is not automatically mortally sinful is not new. St. Alphonsus Ligouri wrote on this in the seventeenth century, heck St. Thomas Aquinas wrote on it in the thirteenth century. St. John Paul II noted in 1984 that "[c]learly there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint and which have an influence on the sinner's subjective culpability" (Ap. Ex Reconciliato et Paenitentia). All Pope Francis has done is take that principle and apply it to divorce and remarriage. The argument is not that the latter is not wrong or seriously sinful of course but instead that "[i]t can no longer simply be said that all those living in any ‘irregular situation’ are living in a state of mortal sin" (Ap. Ex. Amoris Laetitia). Discernment of individual cases is needed and that is for penitents and their confessors to do, not those outside the specific situation, be they folks on Facebook, folks who write for periodicals, or even Cardinals of the Church. This is really not all that difficult for those who are not determined to be obtuse about it.
Oh and before anyone gets mad at me, hey I am just "speaking hard truths in love" here folks. Most notably the hard truths that individual situations are not as black and white as many may wish. I realize this frustrates the desire of many folks to play the roles of James and John and ask Jesus if they can call down fire from heaven on all the sinners and heathens but I digress.
Note:
{1} I have a sequel to this note that addresses various objections that were posted when this material was originally posted in comment form a while back. It will be published to this website and elsewhere soon.
Saturday, April 08, 2017
As its been a long while since I have published here, it seems appropriate to revisit briefly the subject of comments boxes. I have from day one not been a fan of them, have used them only sparingly in any publishing medium since that time, and have never used them here at Rerum Novarum. Rather than revisit that subject here at any detail, I will simply refer the reader to the last substantial treatment written here about them. After all, for the most part everything I would say now on the subject was already said back then so why invent the wheel anew? Without further ado...
On Reiterating Anew Our Comments Box Policy (circa December 1, 2008)
My second contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile webpage{1} can be read HERE.
Note:
{1} I link to the Musings From Exile website version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page. (To ensure that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project.)
Note:
{1} I link to the Musings From Exile website version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page. (To ensure that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project.)
Friday, April 07, 2017
My third posting to Musings From Exile can be read HERE. In essence it is an old draft of expository musings from Rerum Novarum which was brought up from mothballs, revised slightly, and posted today. The subject is sports related and as the Masters tournament has concluded, it is on the issue of what is required of someone to be considered "Golf's Greatest."
Thursday, April 06, 2017
My debut column as posted to Jaded Politics can be read HERE. I link to the Musings From Exile website version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page. (To ensure that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from the other project I am contributing to.) {1}
It may seem odd to try and keep that traffic from this website but when you work on a group project -be it in writing or other endeavours, you need to recognize the rules inherent in the respective projects involved. For that reason, to avoid any possibility of transgressing the latter, all material from Jaded Politics threads will be posted to the Musings From Exile website and shared to Rerum Novarum via the latter, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Note:
{1} I am simply going to note this point in a single footnote to all applicable threads for a while.
It may seem odd to try and keep that traffic from this website but when you work on a group project -be it in writing or other endeavours, you need to recognize the rules inherent in the respective projects involved. For that reason, to avoid any possibility of transgressing the latter, all material from Jaded Politics threads will be posted to the Musings From Exile website and shared to Rerum Novarum via the latter, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Note:
{1} I am simply going to note this point in a single footnote to all applicable threads for a while.
Musings From Exile: Introduction and Page Disclaimer
This is the inaugural posting from the Musings From Exile website outlining a little about the project I mentioned earlier that I would be involved with. For those who have questions as to how I view things in the interval since Rerum Novarum was suspended and now, I touch on it briefly there. In short, not much has changed in how I approach issues from my first involvements in online writing to the present but I digress.
This is the inaugural posting from the Musings From Exile website outlining a little about the project I mentioned earlier that I would be involved with. For those who have questions as to how I view things in the interval since Rerum Novarum was suspended and now, I touch on it briefly there. In short, not much has changed in how I approach issues from my first involvements in online writing to the present but I digress.
Points to Ponder:
For everything there is a season,
And a time for every matter under heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die;
A time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
A time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
A time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to seek, and a time to lose;
A time to keep, and a time to throw away;
A time to tear, and a time to sew;
A time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate,
A time for war, and a time for peace.
[Ecclesiastes iii,1-8]
For everything there is a season,
And a time for every matter under heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die;
A time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
A time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
A time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to seek, and a time to lose;
A time to keep, and a time to throw away;
A time to tear, and a time to sew;
A time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate,
A time for war, and a time for peace.
[Ecclesiastes iii,1-8]
Tuesday, April 04, 2017
Notification of An Intended Return to Website Publishing:
Though it has been pondered a bit in sundry times and in divers occasions to return to this site, I could not find the motivation to do so apart from one specific circumstance a few years ago.{1} However, the motivation previously lacking has been found now with my planned involvement in an extensive writing project that I may touch on a bit here and there if I feel so inclined to.
While I will mainly be publishing on a new website that I have set up for that purpose{2}, it is also likely that I will resume posting here as well on subjects that will not be germane to the subjects to be written on there. However, upon resuming publication at this humble site, I will not have any set schedule for it as I did in years past where I sought to post at certain self-prescribed intervals of output.
Anyway, that is all for now until further notice.
Notes:
{1} I did subsequent to December of 2009 post revisions to some postings from 2006 which I had a few people tell me were far too polemical in tone and which had needlessly prolonged or otherwise exasperated an old feud. In the interest of seeking to heal wounds, I undertook a rather ambitious project reworking in more amiable tonality four posts which were particularly polemical in tonality and intent. But that is a subject for another time perhaps if ever I decide to revisit it which (quite frankly) is highly doubtful at this point.
{2} As for whether or not I will cross post links or material from that website here or not, I see no reason not to post material from there to this website as well. I have however decided that material composed for this website which are not germane to the specific project guidelines for the new website will not be posted there.
Though it has been pondered a bit in sundry times and in divers occasions to return to this site, I could not find the motivation to do so apart from one specific circumstance a few years ago.{1} However, the motivation previously lacking has been found now with my planned involvement in an extensive writing project that I may touch on a bit here and there if I feel so inclined to.
While I will mainly be publishing on a new website that I have set up for that purpose{2}, it is also likely that I will resume posting here as well on subjects that will not be germane to the subjects to be written on there. However, upon resuming publication at this humble site, I will not have any set schedule for it as I did in years past where I sought to post at certain self-prescribed intervals of output.
Anyway, that is all for now until further notice.
Notes:
{1} I did subsequent to December of 2009 post revisions to some postings from 2006 which I had a few people tell me were far too polemical in tone and which had needlessly prolonged or otherwise exasperated an old feud. In the interest of seeking to heal wounds, I undertook a rather ambitious project reworking in more amiable tonality four posts which were particularly polemical in tonality and intent. But that is a subject for another time perhaps if ever I decide to revisit it which (quite frankly) is highly doubtful at this point.
{2} As for whether or not I will cross post links or material from that website here or not, I see no reason not to post material from there to this website as well. I have however decided that material composed for this website which are not germane to the specific project guidelines for the new website will not be posted there.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Notification of Suspension:
Unfortunately, Rerum Novarum has been a struggle to maintain with any degree of regularity in recent months.{1} It is now at a point of critical mass on many fronts and there is simply too much more stuff that will be focused on in the coming year. In applying anew and with greater determination on my part the theory of economics of Vilfredo Pareto on which I have written before to the principle of time-management, I am required at this time to suspend the current operative protocols of this humble weblog{2} indefinitely.
What is in the archives will remain there and posts which were planned for the coming months which are in unfinished draft status{3} will remain in the form they are currently in until I am both able as well as willing to get to them again. But as of the present posting, Rerum Novarum is hereby declared to be indefinitely suspended.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Notes:
{1} Actually, it has been this way for a good part of the past year essentially.
{2} The most recent operative protocols of Rerum Novarum were set forth in the following expository musing some time ago:
Reviewing Past Site Intentions, Some Current Tidbits, and Weblogging Policy For the Indefinite Future (circa January 11, 2008)
The aforementioned template will take effect once again should this suspension be lifted in the future and I start blogging again but as it sits now, they are to be considered superseded by what is outlined in this posting until further notice.
{3} Or even posts which are finished awaiting an opportune time or circumstance to occasion their posting.
Unfortunately, Rerum Novarum has been a struggle to maintain with any degree of regularity in recent months.{1} It is now at a point of critical mass on many fronts and there is simply too much more stuff that will be focused on in the coming year. In applying anew and with greater determination on my part the theory of economics of Vilfredo Pareto on which I have written before to the principle of time-management, I am required at this time to suspend the current operative protocols of this humble weblog{2} indefinitely.
What is in the archives will remain there and posts which were planned for the coming months which are in unfinished draft status{3} will remain in the form they are currently in until I am both able as well as willing to get to them again. But as of the present posting, Rerum Novarum is hereby declared to be indefinitely suspended.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Notes:
{1} Actually, it has been this way for a good part of the past year essentially.
{2} The most recent operative protocols of Rerum Novarum were set forth in the following expository musing some time ago:
Reviewing Past Site Intentions, Some Current Tidbits, and Weblogging Policy For the Indefinite Future (circa January 11, 2008)
The aforementioned template will take effect once again should this suspension be lifted in the future and I start blogging again but as it sits now, they are to be considered superseded by what is outlined in this posting until further notice.
{3} Or even posts which are finished awaiting an opportune time or circumstance to occasion their posting.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
It's Time to Explode the Myths About the New Deal
History repeats itself today because Dumbocrats do not learn from it. The New Deal prolonged and deepened a recession into a depression that was worse eight years into it than it was when it started and many of FDR's follies are being duplicated by the present administration. I have gone into this before in detail so rather than reinvent the wheel, I will simply put in a footnote the three part series where I did this in late 2006 responding to a rather misinformed individual{1} whose views on this are sadly not uncommon. Such lacunas in knowledge in my mind really make a good argument for home schooling in the more formative years in the absence of either solid charter schools or private education but that is a subject for another time perhaps.
Note:
{1} For a three part exposition on some of the myths of the New Deal that I wrote a few years ago on this humble weblog, see this thread for details:
On Historical Revisionism Surrounding the New Deal -Parts I-III (circa October 28, 2006)
History repeats itself today because Dumbocrats do not learn from it. The New Deal prolonged and deepened a recession into a depression that was worse eight years into it than it was when it started and many of FDR's follies are being duplicated by the present administration. I have gone into this before in detail so rather than reinvent the wheel, I will simply put in a footnote the three part series where I did this in late 2006 responding to a rather misinformed individual{1} whose views on this are sadly not uncommon. Such lacunas in knowledge in my mind really make a good argument for home schooling in the more formative years in the absence of either solid charter schools or private education but that is a subject for another time perhaps.
Note:
{1} For a three part exposition on some of the myths of the New Deal that I wrote a few years ago on this humble weblog, see this thread for details:
On Historical Revisionism Surrounding the New Deal -Parts I-III (circa October 28, 2006)
The Tip of the Climategate Iceberg (Wall Street Journal)
Those who wonder why I have over the years to an increasing degree written on the subjects of argumentation fallacies, how to reason and apply logic, how to dialogue, and all that as well as emphasized the principle that logic and reason does not depend on ones academic degrees when disputing with people of various and sundry outlooks, I cannot think of a better illustration of why than the scandal of Climategate. It encapsulates in the magnitude and depth of its corruption by so-called "experts" precisely why I have always and will always take the approach towards issues and pronouncements on matters by so-called "experts" the way I do. And that is the bottom line really.
Those who wonder why I have over the years to an increasing degree written on the subjects of argumentation fallacies, how to reason and apply logic, how to dialogue, and all that as well as emphasized the principle that logic and reason does not depend on ones academic degrees when disputing with people of various and sundry outlooks, I cannot think of a better illustration of why than the scandal of Climategate. It encapsulates in the magnitude and depth of its corruption by so-called "experts" precisely why I have always and will always take the approach towards issues and pronouncements on matters by so-called "experts" the way I do. And that is the bottom line really.
Obama Asked About Legalized Prostitution to Stimulate the Economy
We already have legalized prostitution in this country President Obama, look at what you and the Democrats are doing to try and get government run healthcare implemented for one such example. Oh and btw, you do not look good in black fishnets Mr. President!!!
We already have legalized prostitution in this country President Obama, look at what you and the Democrats are doing to try and get government run healthcare implemented for one such example. Oh and btw, you do not look good in black fishnets Mr. President!!!
Who Wants This Health Care "Reform"?
Someone should remind senators and representatives from Tennessee, Massachussets, Maine (earth to Snowe!!!), and Hawaii (not mentioned in the article but they had one that also went tits up) about the failures of such universal programs in their own states and ask them if they really want that nationally.
Someone should remind senators and representatives from Tennessee, Massachussets, Maine (earth to Snowe!!!), and Hawaii (not mentioned in the article but they had one that also went tits up) about the failures of such universal programs in their own states and ask them if they really want that nationally.
Alexander Hamilton, Economic Prophet
I cannot recommend Ron Chernow's book (of which the above article heavily excerpts) more highly for the detail and scope of what it undertakes to cover on one of the "forgotten Founding Fathers."
I cannot recommend Ron Chernow's book (of which the above article heavily excerpts) more highly for the detail and scope of what it undertakes to cover on one of the "forgotten Founding Fathers."
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Points to Ponder:
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your children won’t decide when they’re in school where they will go or what they will do for a living. They will wait for the government to tell them where they will go to work and what they will do.
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.
Former Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”
So write, and if your representative writes back to you and tells you that he or she too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let them get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell them that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”
Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. [Ronald Reagan (circa 1961)]
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your children won’t decide when they’re in school where they will go or what they will do for a living. They will wait for the government to tell them where they will go to work and what they will do.
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.
Former Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”
So write, and if your representative writes back to you and tells you that he or she too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let them get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell them that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”
Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. [Ronald Reagan (circa 1961)]
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Miscellaneous Musings on "ObamaCare":
This was originally written as a footnote for a posting in another publishing medium. Without further ado...
[I]f this health care crap goes through, I will be considered a criminal. Because I am not going to buy health insurance PERIOD unless it is a purely catastrophic-only policy. I do not want health insurance, I do not need it, I take reasonably good care of myself and am improving in this area with each passing year (hence I look younger now than I did ten years ago), I never go to the emergency room for anything, I pay cash every time I go to the doctor, and I do not want to subsidize those who are irresponsible with their own health choices. So if this crap is passed, I will be fined and will not pay that fine which means I will have a misdemeanor on my otherwise spotless record and probably spend time in jail on this. Those who wonder why I rarely comment on this list and am slacking on my blogging in recent months, the reason is I am working through various channels to build coalitions politically to fight this garbage.
And though I have said it for months in other mediums, I have predicted a 40 seat GOP pickup in the House next year (and 6 in the Senate) of which I note here for the record. Unlike a lot of commentators or apologists, if I am wrong on something I will admit to it later to the same extent in which the original comment was made. (In this case, a post-post script of a list posting.)
In the aftermath of the last election, I revised my prediction to be a 41 seat GOP pickup in the House because Owens will not win re-election.
This was originally written as a footnote for a posting in another publishing medium. Without further ado...
[I]f this health care crap goes through, I will be considered a criminal. Because I am not going to buy health insurance PERIOD unless it is a purely catastrophic-only policy. I do not want health insurance, I do not need it, I take reasonably good care of myself and am improving in this area with each passing year (hence I look younger now than I did ten years ago), I never go to the emergency room for anything, I pay cash every time I go to the doctor, and I do not want to subsidize those who are irresponsible with their own health choices. So if this crap is passed, I will be fined and will not pay that fine which means I will have a misdemeanor on my otherwise spotless record and probably spend time in jail on this. Those who wonder why I rarely comment on this list and am slacking on my blogging in recent months, the reason is I am working through various channels to build coalitions politically to fight this garbage.
And though I have said it for months in other mediums, I have predicted a 40 seat GOP pickup in the House next year (and 6 in the Senate) of which I note here for the record. Unlike a lot of commentators or apologists, if I am wrong on something I will admit to it later to the same extent in which the original comment was made. (In this case, a post-post script of a list posting.)
In the aftermath of the last election, I revised my prediction to be a 41 seat GOP pickup in the House because Owens will not win re-election.
One problem with knowing history when most people do not is you can see when it is repeating itself and many people do not listen. VDH goes over recent and more ancient history and points to parallels that more people should be aware of. And of course his indictment of Obama's governing is one I would love to see an O-bot respond to but I am not holding my breath!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)