Bluntly on Lay Ecclesial Hypocrisy...

One positive about the pontificate of Pope Francis is he is exposing many conservatives as Pharisees. One problem is Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI inadvertently gave not a few conservatives the false idea that conservatism is the Catholic Faith and that is not true at all.

We also saw from so many of these same folks a papal worship in the prior two pontificates that treated every word from the pope as some all-hallowed requirement of belief which the same folks do the exact opposite in denigrating and ignoring Pope Francis in areas not only of faith and morals but church discipline and government. Too many hypocrites about on the conservative side. It was long time to trim the boat a bit but lest I forget, those liberals who denigrated and ignored Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI but worship and exalt Pope Francis' every hiccup are just as big a hypocrites.

Folks need to remember that the Faith is not one and the same with conservatism or liberalism.

General Questions For the Seth Rich Conspiracy Promoters:

Are you really all that concerned about Seth Rich homicide or are you just trying to find a political club to beat Hillary and the Democrats with that you will grab at anything?

Washington DC has long been a murder capital as conservatives love to claim in their pro gun propaganda in counter to the Democrats anti-gun propaganda. A person who walks home alone at 4am in a dangerous town (or a dangerous part of any town!) is asking for trouble.

There were over 140 homicides in DC in 2016. In fact, here is a list of unsolved homicides in DC from 2016.

Prior to me posting this, could you have named even one other DC homicide victim in 2016 other than Seth Rich?

If you could not, you should seriously take stock of what your motivations are here my friend because they would appear to be politically self-serving and not genuinely interested in justice.

Points to Ponder:
(From the Archives)

Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent. [Napoleon Bonaparte]

Briefly on Grieving:

When it comes to grieving, it is difficult no matter which side you are on. When you are the one who has gone through loss, oftentimes those who reach out are very awkward in how they do it and can at times unintentionally offend in how they do it. It helps those who are hurting to remember that.

For those on the other side of the fence who are reaching out to someone grieving, remember that no two people grieve in the same way. As much as possible do not take rebuffs personally (if they happen) and patiently try to find different ways to reach out until something works.

Greater patience and love on all sides is something we all should strive for.

My latest contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile website{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; thereby ensuring that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 8, 2017)]

Points to Ponder:

"Contributing to polarization via argumentation fallacies is no laughing matter." [Shawn McElhinney]

Points to Ponder:
(From the Archives)

Politics is the art of the possible not the art of the perfect. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 16, 2009)]

My latest contribution{1} to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile website{2} can be read HERE.

Notes:

{1} It is substantially the same as an article I posted yesterday.

{2} "I link to the Musings From Exile website version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page; thereby ensuring that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 8, 2017)]

"Meanwhile In Dumbfuckistan" Dept.

A bit of backstory is needed on this one so here goes:

About a month ago, the recently elected chair of the Democratic National Committee proclaimed that pro life people were not welcome in the Democratic Party. Here were his words:

"Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health...That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state."

Since that time, the Democrats have dumped a ton of money into one special election that they lost{1} and there are four more special elections coming up: one in May{2} and three in June.{3} Other than CA-4 in which the Democrats will hold serve, they could very well lose the other three elections which are in Republican favourable districts. Recent polling has the Republicans leading in MT-AL,{4} favoured over the Democrat in SC-5{5}, and its a dead heat in GA-6.

So, as the Democrats are literally sweating to produce a notable victory since the November election that they can hang their hats on, DNC Chairman Mao Tom Perez is now walking back his self-inflicted wound from a month ago. But what is he going to do about this? Well, funny you should ask:

Perez plans to meet with Democrats for Life of America and its executive director Kristen Day, but … the date has not yet been set. The meeting will take place at DNC headquarters in DC too, which makes this less an outreach than a grant of a schedule slot. That’s the only meeting set up for the purpose of engaging a “big tent,” which seems to indicate that Perez doesn’t plan to get out much in other areas to engage pro-life Democrats and independents. In fact, it doesn’t look like he’s getting out at all.

I do not see how this will accomplish anything in terms of placating a faction of the Democratic Party that has been marginalized in recent decades and then told to STFU and GTFO just last month by the reigning DNC Chair. Considering how vulnerable the Republicans are due to the self-inflicted wounds of President Donald Trump in recent months, this barrel-swallowing by Chairman Mao Perez makes no sense and only seems to confirm what many of us have suspected about the leaders of Dumbfuckistan the Democratic Party; namely, that they have no idea why they lost and therefore do not know what they need to do to put out a winning political coalition in the Trump era.

Notes:

{1} I refer here to KA-4.

{2} I refer here to the Montana At Large seat election on May 25, 2017.

{3} I refer here to CA-4 on June 6, 2017 as well as GA-6 and SC-5 on June 20, 2017

{4} The poll here is a Democratic Super PAC's poll.

{5} The runoff election there is currently too close to call.

"One From The Vault" Dept.

I found this in the archives of the draft folder when doing a search for something. Apparently it was a bit being worked on for a while and finished on August 5, 2008 but for some reason, I never posted it. Since so many of these same kinds of arguments could be tweaked and directed towards Donald Trump or any Republican in the White House, I have decided for fun to lightly tweak and publish the material at the present time since the principles outlined in the text below are just as valid now as they were then even if every little detail may not be. Without further ado...

Oh brother...

Environmetally unfriendly read Kyoto,

Kyoto would cost a ton of money and do nothing whatsoever to change things.

no sane person doubts global warming. 

More like no sane person buys into this garbage and that is why Gore and his ilk are being sued by a few parties including the founder of the Weather Channel who has accused Gore of being the lying fraud that he is. The earth was warmer in the 1940's than it is now, it was warmer during the Renaissance than it is now, it was warmer in the eleventh century than it is now: with the latter that is why Greenland was named "Greenland" because it was green not the icebox it has subsequently become. However, the earth is also warmer now than it was in the 1970's when they were claiming "global cooling" and predicting a coming ice age.

These things are and always have been cyclical and the overwhelming majority of the factors involved are outside of man's control. Meanwhile, the ones that are in our control it is debatable to what extent they even matter except in the most localized of incidents.

The problem with people today is they have no sense of perspective on these matters and will believe whatever fits their inclinations. Furthermore, you have historians and scientists today who let their politics or personal views cloud their professional judgment much as you do judges and other people in positions of authority. The idol of "creativity" in jobs where "creativity" is not part of the description and only leads to confusion as a result.

Katrina totally mishandled due to cronies appointed to positions that should been held by bureaucrats. 

As if bureaucrats are to be trusted with anything...I am not defending the appointment of cronies by any stretch but the idea that somehow bureaucrats are to be trusted as competent is a comment that can only be made by someone naive as to the inefficiencies of bureaucracies. Katrina happened in large part because of weaknesses in the state system of Louisiana going back decades -decades I might add of mismanagement by democratic governors and legislators. Furthermore, it is not the role of the federal government to be handing out money for disaster relief anyway: something else that many folks apparently are unaware of.

Osama - still on the loose, fumbled at Tora Tora.

Yes, Bush was on the ground over there personally overseeing everything...how could we not know this. Phuleeze ;-)

Iraq - billions wasted, 4000 dead, no weapons of mass destruction.

The level of casualties in Iraq is ridiculously low by historical standards and still people whine. I trust most people believe the Civil War was fought for just causes and General Grant in winning that war lost on average 1700 soldiers a DAY in the final year. Both sides combined lost 625,000. There were whole battles in WWII where we lost significantly more than 4000 - Okinawa and Iwo Jima come to mind, so does the Battle of the Bulge and D-Day. Other examples could be noted but this suffices to illustrate my point.

I do not say these things to deprecate those who lost their lives in Iraq but instead to point out the ridiculous lack of historical perspective people today have as well as their overall weakness.

As far as weapons of mass destruction, it is interesting how many people think that was the only reason for the war -the belief by all the major intelligence agencies in the world that Saddam had them notwithstanding.

At any point since 1991 we could have lawfully gone back into Iraq because Hussein never abided by the terms of the ceasefire. And however this was dealt with in that interim, it was becoming evident that something was going to be done about Saddam at some point: that is why President Clinton reoriented the approach towards Iraq to be one of "regime change" in the late 1990's. And after 9/11, it was decided that certain things could not be tolerated anymore and one of them was the situation in Iraq after 1991.

But the media as is their wont never presented the full picture on this matter, focusing only on the WMD subject. As far as whether or not there ever were any -and a variety of sources (including former Iraqi generals) telling us they were moved to Syria in 2002 notwithstanding- it nonetheless was not the sole justifying reason.

I remind you also that even the UN voted on resolution 1441 15-0 but when it came time to vote for the actual use of force (rather than merely another toothless scolding from the UN) there were three nations voting against (Russia, France, and Germany) all of which were found to be receiving kickbacks from Hussein. Or have you forgotten about Oil-For -Food and that whole racket?

If determining the justness or lack thereof depended on a unanimous vote of the UN Security Council (itself a dubious proposition) and the parties voting "nay" did so because they were in Hussein's back pocket, that makes appealing to that UN vote to justify the assertion of "unjust war" a most pathetic and embarrassing stance to be taking.

Tax laws favoring the wealthy

The wealthiest 5% pay roughly 75% of all income taxes. How does this favour them?

while borrowing to run a war our children will pay for.

The problem with borrowing money is a problem this is true but is it a problem in principle or simply because the money is being used for something you do not approve of? If you say the latter then you are without principle, if the former than at least there is hope.

Stopping alternative sources of energy with his oil cronies,

And who is going to develop these supposed "alternative sources of energy"? It is not the role of the federal government to do this and even if it was, the federal government's history of incompetence on these kinds of matters gives us a good read of how successful they would be with this one.

The problem with economically ignorant liberals is they are all in favour of taxing the "rich" who often own the sorts of large businesses with the capital to fund research into these matters. (Not to mention business owners in general most of which are small business owners: they are often lumped in with the "rich" also.) Then they complain when alternative sources either are not available or are too expensive for average people when they are.

These things do not just grow on trees but require research, planning, and the risk of capital in speculative enterprises. But continue to whine about "the rich not paying enough" and levying more and more taxes on them so that they do not invest their capital in development in these areas. That is what happens when you have so many economically ignorant people -and a good chunk of the latter tend to vote democratic.

laws disregarded,

Yet I will wager that you have no problem with the idiotic notion of an "evolving constitution" which (if I am correct about this presumption) makes your complaint here have no merit whatsoever.

civil liberties violated.

This is a broadbrush term that you do not bother to explain further; ergo it is worthless until you do.

Firing of DA's for political reasons.

Where you this mad when Clinton fired all 93 federal attorneys upon taking office or is it just with this president firing 8 of them that makes you so mad? Or was Clinton's firing of all the attorneys altrustic and not political in nature?

My stance on what both presidents did is that as chief executives they have complete authority over that department so they can do what they want on it -and I say this despite believing that Clinton's firing of all the attorneys at once was wrong from the standpoint of having no continuity in this area where historically there always had been. But despite that, he was president and had the right to do what he did. That right did not cease when W became president.

Failed immigration policies.

I do not disagree with you on this one but the problems go back prior to this administration.

Disregard for separation of powers.

More useless talking points. Specific examples would be helpful here.

Politicizing the Supreme Court,

Are you nuts? The ones politicizing the Supreme Court are and have been the democrats. The idea that they would ask any justice how they would vote on hypothetical issues and use that as up or down criteria is abominable. But with the democrats, that is why they sandbagged Bork, sought to sandbag Thomas, and the like. Show me where the republicans did this with Clinton's nominees and his nominees are among the worst in history if you care a whit about the actual Constitution and the interpretation thereof as opposed to inventing things out of whole cloth.

alienating all our allies and many other countries in the world.

You realize I presume that a universal negative like "all" can be disproved by one contrary example. And when many of those who are "alienated" were on the take from Hussein, I frankly do not give a damn if they are "alienated" though in the case of France and Germany I am willing in light of the presidencies of Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel to consider the possibility that they have changed courses and are no longer collaborationists.

His financial policies have had a hand leading us into a recession.

What exactly are you referring to here? First of all, there is no definite proof that we are in a recession yet -even if it is looking more and more that we may be. There are certain measurements that all must align for that determination and thus far, they are mixed. Secondly, what exactly has Bush done personally that affects the economy negatively? If you want to claim that he did not wield his veto pen to discipline the Republican congresses of the first six years of his presidency, then that is a viable criticism. (Though the current congress appears to be more money-hungry and wasteful still but at least Bush found his long-lost veto pen to use on them.)

Have I left anything out.

Most of what you list is a bunch of either ignorant gibberish or terms which require further examination to see if the criticisms are even viable ones.

Bush is a disaster.

Bush has not been a great president this is true. He also has been disappointing in a number of areas. Nonetheless, your attempts to "prove" he is a "disaster" are seriously wanting.

Only blindly ignorant conservatives could rally to Dubya.

Considering the degree of ignorance of reality in your comments, I would not be so quick to call other people blindly ignorant if I were you.

Briefly on the Problem With An Emeritus Pope Benedict Statement on "Torture":

[Disclaimer: This is something that was prepped in draft form back on September 9, 2009 but for reasons I cannot recall at the moment was never published. While I do not remember at the moment what the statement made was, the basic criticism made on this subject remains intact and extends to Pope Francis as well. For that reason, I am dusting off this prior blurb from the drafts folder, tweaking it slightly (including revising the title), and publishing it at this time. -SM]

This is a small bit posted in a combox thread a couple weeks some time ago. I will likely may follow it with a more detailed exposition on the problem so noted below at some point in the coming days or weeks.

We are in need of a definition here. Not a definition as in dogma but instead in the meaning of the term and how it is to be applied. I have gone over these matters before and at times at length{1} but that is the bottom line really: definitions are the tools of thought and it bothers me that this pope and his predecessor{2} on some subjects do not bother clarifying their use of words.

As far as whom I am with, I do not make the mistake of confusing the role of the church with that of the state. I am with whomever stands up for the three fundamental rights of man and one of those rights is life and thus survival. And I will not align myself with any pundit, politician, philosopher, pope, president, or anyone else whose positions by logical extension endanger my survival or that of my loved ones. And that is the bottom line really.

Notes:

{1} On Torture and General Norms of Interpretation--Parts I-III (circa October 13, 2006)

{2} Who were/are not lacking in the intelligence department.

Perusing archives
Past post drafts considered for
Finishing to post

My latest contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile website{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; thereby ensuring that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 8, 2017)]

Miscellaneous Dyspeptic Mutterings on the Budget:

I have seen in more than one place some attempted apologetics by supporters of the Trump Administration for the budget deal that was passed and will be signed by the president. The rationale they use if summarized in a bullet point is as follows:

• Give them everything so there is no shutdown 

Seriously, the excuses need to end.

The Republicans passed a reconciliation bill in 2015 that Resident Obama vetoed. If they do not serve up that same bill for President Trump to sign, then we know they were engaging in a stunt before because they knew Obama would veto what they sent to his desk. There is no excuse now to not pass the exact same bill gutting Obamacare...unless...they were not serious before. And if that is the case, then why take them seriously now?

It is inexcusable to serve up a budget that could have been proposed by a Pelosi-Schumer-Clinton government and which Trump supporters would gripe about if they had. At some point a stand needs to be taken and with Republican control of government, what's the excuse now?

If capitulating across the board is supposed to show that Republicans can govern, then why bother turning out in 2018 or 2020? Seriously.

What will the excuse be when the GOP fails again to repeal Obamacare this week?

What will be the excuse when tax reform just nibbles the edges and does nothing of substance to really reform the system?

What will the excuse be in September when there is no shutdown and the GOP funds everything once again?

Why should voters in 2018 believe these folks when they make all the same promises again next year after failing to keep 2016's promises in 2017?

Inquiring minds want to know!

On Objective Principles and Subjective Circumstances Where Citing Sources Are Concerned...

[Prefatory Note: This was originally published to Facebook on June 12, 2012. -ISM]

This material is taken from a status posted by a friend of mine circa June 10, 2012. Here is said status for the sake of contextualizing what is said below -all names removed to eliminate the possibility of anyone taking this personally as my concern here is the principles involved, not the parties themselves. Without further ado...

‎"In some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception. For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail." ---The U.S. Supreme Court, in "Planned Parenthood v Casey" [1992]

And here are the words of my original comment on the thread:

I am presuming that you got that quote from someone and did not get it from the case itself. Because that quote above appears nowhere in the case texts. Here are the actual quotes:

"The Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed. Pp. 855-856.

...

It should be recognized, moreover, that in some critical respects, the abortion decision is of the same character as the decision to use contraception, to which Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and Carey v. Population Services International afford constitutional protection. We have no doubt as to the correctness of those decisions.

I should add here that the two parts above which were prooftexted for the manufactured quote in this status were from the members of the court that UPHELD Roe vs. Wade in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey!

The above words on my part got the following response on the thread which will be in bolded font. My response to them will be in regular font.

Shawn, the manufactured quote above takes a bit from the second paragraph you cite and the rest from the first. I don't think that is so bad.

I have a serious problem with playing fast and loose with citations.

The court did say both things.

That is an egregious butchering of what the Court said both in terms of ripping the statements from context as well as how they are presented. 

And I am quite sure XXXXXXX is aware that what he cites is from the rationale for upholding Roe v. Wade.

It is quite possible XXXXXXX got the citation from a pro-life website without checking it. I have learned over the years that pro-life websites are roughly as prone to miscite sources as anti-life sources are. That is why I said what I did where XXXXXXX is concerned: I cannot believe he would knowingly cite a quote in the manner above -it is highly unscholarly and blatantly disingenuous. XXXXXXX is from everything I know about him both scholarly as well as ethical. 

He isn't quoting it to approve of it, but rather to lay bare the way these folks think, and what they think is of more value than human life.

And how does this help matters when someone goes back to find the citation and discovers the unscholarly hack job that the above quote represents viz. what the Court actually said? This is not even a case of citing two things in sequence with an ellipse between the different parts -that would be ok. This is reformulating what was said and making it say something that the Court did not say for the sake of political agenda. 

Which is, to be explicit, the right to have sex without having to be prepared to raise children. Which they think is good and we think is bad.

By way of example, what would you say if someone did this with your last comment?:

"Which is, to be explicit, the right to have sex without having to be prepared to raise children. Which we think is good." 

Before you object, you did say all of that yourself in your last comment on the thread prior to mine. Heck, there is not a word in that sentence that you did not say. So by your rationale, you would have no right to take offense at someone misrepresenting your words like that. But you would take offense at it because that is not what you actually said as anyone who checks the comment you made can readily see. How is that any different than the quote above objectively speaking?

Look, I have blistered my adversaries over the years when I have caught them doing such things with sources they cite. For that reason, I cannot in the interest of both ethics and rational consistency turn a blind eye to my allies when they do the very same thing. It is a matter of objective truth insofar as such things are not right or okay when "the good guys" do it and wrong, deplorable or to be condemned when "the bad guys" do it. The subjective nobility of the cause is not the determining factor of the objective rightness or wrongness of the conduct undertaken but instead, said conduct is objectively wrong, period.

Points to Ponder:

It would seem that in the vacuum of our modern lives has morphed what we construe to be mistakes and “failures.” When we are able to live life without the atrocities and sacrifices of war, we somehow feel as though that our comfort should be juxtaposed onto war itself. Yet, Mr. Hanson paints a vivid landscape of what would be these same expectations during World War II. It is quite illuminating to see such a historian critique an era from the perspective of modern eyes and expectations foisting upon the “Greatest Generation” our ideas of mistakes and “failures.” ["Publius" (circa late May 2006)]

Chelsea Clinton: America Was ‘Too Sexist’ To Elect My Mom


In brief...

The drawer's dullest knife
Desperate for relevance
Poor homely Chelsea

Points to Ponder:

“I read to experience other places, other people. I write to describe a moment in my ordinary life. Sometimes there are scents, sometimes there are sounds. And I often wonder, is that enough? Maybe not if I wanted to make a living writing. Maybe not if I wanted to write the next great American novel, or publish a short story in the The New Yorker. But to write for my personal blog? Sometimes scent, sound, and a sense of ‘in this moment’ are enough. The poem about cooking an eggplant, that was enough for Natalie Goldberg; Williams’ poem written on a prescription pad, that is enough for me. Details are meaning enough. Being present in a moment is meaning enough. “ [Angela Badgley]

My latest contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile website{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; thereby ensuring that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 8, 2017)]

Points to Ponder:

“A great nation is like a great man:
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.
He thinks of his enemy
as the shadow that he himself casts.”
[Lao Tzu]