Some Sites Worth Catching Up On:
Of many which could be listed, these five seem good at this time for noting:
Musings of a Pertinacious Papist -Dr. Philip Blosser
Basically, just read everything on the front page. We not sure what it says about Us in finding the story about the kitten out at sea screaming for help to be so compelling; nonetheless that and the parts about Bush's accusers being confuted (yet again) on the war subject are particularly worth noting.{1}
A Catholic BLOG for Lovers - Gerard Seraphin
Again, everything on the front page is worth reading.
The Curt Jester BLOG - Jeff Miller
Everything on the front page -particularly the posts on Dissent as an Endorsement for Bishop DeLorenzo, Prayer and Punditry, and (for a bit of levity) CJ Sports.
The HMS BLOG (Various)
The front page appears to be the "Kevin Miller Show" which as readers of this weblog know is fine with Us.
The Cor ad Cor Loquuitur BLOG - Dave Armstrong
Likewise, We recommend a review of everything on the front page.
Finally, We have a couple of Ecumenical Jihad threads to recommend here as well:
Rabbi Daniel Lapin's Toward Tradition Website
Rabbi Lapin has long been Our favourite Sunday night talk show host. And with Toward Tradition, his discourses on moral matters and engaging the culture are always worth reading. We particularly recommend Rabbi Lapin's article The Slippery Slope of Secularism and Samuel Silver's Guide to Same Sex Marriage.
Debbie Schlussel's latest editorial on the FBI.
Enjoy!!!
Note:
{1} Oh, and congrats on the good news Phil.
Saturday, July 17, 2004
Miscellaneous Mutterings:
(On post volume: a digression)
The ironic thing about writing is that it is possibly the one area of my life where I am anything but economical. When it comes to the written word, often have I been accused (and not without justification) of tending towards the verbose in my written pieces.{1} Having posted a profile at Lidless Eye today to account for the summary of my weblog mutterings these past near two years, the sum total as of this moment is 1,405 posts totalling 980,330 words.{2} The post per weblog averages are 644 words at Rerum Novarum and its subsidiaries, and 1,383.5 words at Lidless Eye. Taken together, that is a per post average of 697.74 or 698 if we round up to the nearest word. I assure you just reflecting upon those totals gives me reason to pause and consider a greater effort towards economy of verse.
It is true that I have improved in this area on the whole with my written essays over the years. Also, this weblog medium has forced me to significantly economize over what I used to do before on discussion list forums when my prowess with the cut and paste made for quite ponderous and lengthy cogitations by my own admission. Heck, compared to the days of yore, 700 words a post does not seem like much but then again, just because a 747 is small compared to the Grand Canyon does not mean that a 747 is small if you catch my drift.
I think the time constraints of my current endeavours have helped significantly in this area. At the very least it has resulted if not in actual reduction in volume then at least in frequency of posting. Either way though, I promise to work on this aspect of my blogging to the extent that I can do so without losing the essence of the points I strive to make on various issues I muse on at my weblogs.
Notes:
{1} To put it mildly.
{2} 839,213 words in 1303 posts to this weblog and its subsidiaries, 141,117 words in 102 posts to the Lidless Eye weblog.
(On post volume: a digression)
The ironic thing about writing is that it is possibly the one area of my life where I am anything but economical. When it comes to the written word, often have I been accused (and not without justification) of tending towards the verbose in my written pieces.{1} Having posted a profile at Lidless Eye today to account for the summary of my weblog mutterings these past near two years, the sum total as of this moment is 1,405 posts totalling 980,330 words.{2} The post per weblog averages are 644 words at Rerum Novarum and its subsidiaries, and 1,383.5 words at Lidless Eye. Taken together, that is a per post average of 697.74 or 698 if we round up to the nearest word. I assure you just reflecting upon those totals gives me reason to pause and consider a greater effort towards economy of verse.
It is true that I have improved in this area on the whole with my written essays over the years. Also, this weblog medium has forced me to significantly economize over what I used to do before on discussion list forums when my prowess with the cut and paste made for quite ponderous and lengthy cogitations by my own admission. Heck, compared to the days of yore, 700 words a post does not seem like much but then again, just because a 747 is small compared to the Grand Canyon does not mean that a 747 is small if you catch my drift.
I think the time constraints of my current endeavours have helped significantly in this area. At the very least it has resulted if not in actual reduction in volume then at least in frequency of posting. Either way though, I promise to work on this aspect of my blogging to the extent that I can do so without losing the essence of the points I strive to make on various issues I muse on at my weblogs.
Notes:
{1} To put it mildly.
{2} 839,213 words in 1303 posts to this weblog and its subsidiaries, 141,117 words in 102 posts to the Lidless Eye weblog.
Friday, July 16, 2004
"Confuting Conventional Wisdom" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: I wrote this yesterday in a message box at one of my favourite weblogs. -ISM]
The notion that two totalitarian systems (i.e. communism and fascism) could be polar opposites philosophically speaking is an example of Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction being violated in spades. Think about it for a moment:
---If Communism represents totalitarian control over every sphere of a society, the opposite of total control is no control. Thus, the converse of communism is not fascism but anarchy.
Fascism is nothing except a slightly more palatable form of socialism than communism. Oh and do not even bring up Nazi Germany as an "opposite" of communism. Communism is totalitarian socialism and the Nazis were the National Socialist German Workers Party. Unless the entire political spectrum is socialist, the notion that fascism or naziism could be the political "opposite" of communism is ludicrous on its face. Yet notice how many anointed "experts" trot out this false notion of political opposites.
I believe the reason this is done is because if people believe that extremities of either liberalism or conservatism are both totalitarian -as communism and fascism so obviously are- that it will consciously shove a lot of people incapable of solidly logical thought towards the presumed "safer ground" of the political middle: those who often identify themselves as "moderates."
With regards to the so-called "moderates", most people who situate themselves here are precisely the sort of people who are incapable of making decisive judgments -indeed they often impugn people who do this. And as a result, they set themselves up as lambs for the slaughter by those who can make decisive judgments and who lack the moral grounding to render such judgments in accordance with any standard of morality except the subjective morality of the individual.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: I wrote this yesterday in a message box at one of my favourite weblogs. -ISM]
The notion that two totalitarian systems (i.e. communism and fascism) could be polar opposites philosophically speaking is an example of Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction being violated in spades. Think about it for a moment:
---If Communism represents totalitarian control over every sphere of a society, the opposite of total control is no control. Thus, the converse of communism is not fascism but anarchy.
Fascism is nothing except a slightly more palatable form of socialism than communism. Oh and do not even bring up Nazi Germany as an "opposite" of communism. Communism is totalitarian socialism and the Nazis were the National Socialist German Workers Party. Unless the entire political spectrum is socialist, the notion that fascism or naziism could be the political "opposite" of communism is ludicrous on its face. Yet notice how many anointed "experts" trot out this false notion of political opposites.
I believe the reason this is done is because if people believe that extremities of either liberalism or conservatism are both totalitarian -as communism and fascism so obviously are- that it will consciously shove a lot of people incapable of solidly logical thought towards the presumed "safer ground" of the political middle: those who often identify themselves as "moderates."
With regards to the so-called "moderates", most people who situate themselves here are precisely the sort of people who are incapable of making decisive judgments -indeed they often impugn people who do this. And as a result, they set themselves up as lambs for the slaughter by those who can make decisive judgments and who lack the moral grounding to render such judgments in accordance with any standard of morality except the subjective morality of the individual.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
On NFP and a Unique Contribution to the Arena of Ideas:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: I cannot believe I forgot the title and footnotes for this post yesterday. But then again, if you take into account that it was "Friday" for me yesterday all the way until around 6pm, hopefully these oversights can be understood. (What occasioned this is in retrospect rather hilarious but I have no time to discuss it at this point.) Nonetheless, I have added the title and footnotes to this post that were intended and apologize for their omission. -ISM 7/16/04 11:07am]
Though I have not said much of anything on my weblogs about the matter thus far,{1} the subject of NFP{2} is one which I have approached in some of my web writings -particularly my treatise which was promulgated to the web four years ago last D-Day. In that work, I dealt with the subject as it pertained to certain Jansenistic outlooks on sexuality and also certain contemporary realities that were often not taken into account by those who were of the "traditionalist" persuasion. (In the case of NFP, the "traditionalists" are not infrequently quick to scoff at this practice.) Here is some what I noted on the matter then -though this section received a little touching up in last year's revision viz. the approach taken towards this position (though not the arguments utilized to sustain it):
There are also an often very rigorous (often fanatically so) attitudes of 'traditionalists' with certain warped concepts of modesty. A woman not wearing slacks is one concept that comes to mind. Never mind the degree of modesty that a given pair of pants may have (there are after all, immodest and modest pants), comments such as "the Blessed Mother never wore slacks" are thrown out which are indicative of a gross stupidity. First of all, in apostolic times both men and women wore long flowing garments. In fact, the actual attire was quite similar between women and men back then (except women covered their heads often time of course). Another warped concept is one of an exaggerated Puritan concept of marriage and also the relationship between the spouses. When it comes to husband and wife relationships, 'traditionalists' take an exaggerated view of the submission owed by a wife to her husband and makes it equivalent to a near-servitude (if not explicitly stated as such).
Then there is the subject of conjugal love and procreation. Ignoring the manifold factors that make excessively large families less congruent to modern society, there is the condemnation of NFP and other family planning methods (that are intrinsic ally congruent to the Divine Law) by the 'traditionalist' movement both implicitly and explicitly. The facts that (i) we live in a more urban and industrialized culture so (ii) the need of large families to support an agriculturally based society is no longer necessary are not factors that are ever taken into consideration. Further still (iii) with the death rate being overcome in the late nineteenth century, the same degree of emphasis on the need to preserve the species is not in existence. This is due in no small part to (iv) numerous advances in medicine that aid in the cure of many ailments that were fatal to infants and young children even a century ago along with (v) a lower degree of miscarriages today primarily since we have greater knowledge of the types of stress that causes a miscarriage: knowledge that did not exist in previous centuries. In other words, the same number of conceptions today would result in a vastly higher rate of both births and survival to adulthood of many children who due to the particular circumstances in previous centuries were either miscarried, stillborn, or died before the age of five.
The Church in her timeless wisdom has recognized in certain situations (because of the changes in times and circumstances and the advance of medicine and knowledge) there are natural God-given means of addressing these matters. There is of course nothing wrong with having a large family of course. (Nor is it being implied in this paragraph that there is.) However at the same time it is not and never has been a Catholic understanding that one was to have as many children as they could. The difference in the industrial-technological society of today is that family sizes that were common in centuries past are often not as practical as they once were and (because of our advances in medicine and knowledge) it is often necessary to be regulated as long as such regulation is conducted in a morally licit manner. There are legitimate and illegitimate means of limiting and/or spacing births and the judicious use of NFP is just such a means, which is in no way contradictory to the Divine Law. Nevertheless, many 'traditionalist' groups erroneously ascribe such methods to "Modernism."
While these methods of consistent natural regulation were not unheard of in previous centuries; using philosophical approaches predating the twentieth century to analyze discoveries of the twentieth century is what is known as a "non sequitur." These methods only became known with enough information to be reasonably consistent in their application around the turn of the century (becoming better known in the 1920's), it involves having recourse to more recent decisions of the Magisterium in this vein to have a proper perspective on these matters. Initial methods of natural regulation (such as rhythm) were not as efficient as the more advanced ones developed since the early to mid 1970's (and refined since then), but the principle is the same. It appears to be God's answer to the contraception mania that has erupted this century since Lambeth in 1930. (Since reasonably consistent natural regulation was only discovered before the evil of contraception became more prominent.) This is not to say that a contraceptive mentality should be employed in utilizing NFP of course, but there are legitimate reasons for its usage which the Church has approved of. Even predating Vatican II we can find this principle outlined in Pope Pius XI's Encyclical Letter Casti Connubii:
Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. (Pope Pius XI: Encyclical Letter Casti Connubii §59 circa December 31, 1930)
The intrinsic nature of the act is not deterred through sexual abstinence; therefore methods such as NFP which utilize period of abstinence cannot be accused of acting against nature. However, there are many so-called 'traditionalists' who would mark such people as 'untraditional' and demonstrate in doing so the very kind of rigorism that is another parallel to Jansenism. [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part XIII (c. 2000, rev. c. 2003)]
I never presumed that those were the only arguments to sustain a cogent support for NFP mind you; however, I did in the context of that multi subject work find them adequate for dealing in short order with that matter. Some who identify themselves as "traditionalists" would give at most a grudging acknowledgement of NFP as a kind of "lessor of two evils." However, as I have often noted when it comes to the almost pathological nature of many people to try to box people into various categories, that this can work on the other side as well -with the way those who call themselves "traditionalists" are approached by other people.
With this subject, I have an opportunity to demonstrate my assertions in this vein{3} with a real life example.{4} That therefore is what this weblog entry will endeavour to do in pointing out a person who identifies in many respects with the "traditionalist" weltanschauung but who has shown that they can think outside the box. That personage is one Charles De Nunzio.
When surfing over at Charles De Nunzio's weblog yesterday, I found him supporting NFP for many of the same reasons I noted in the writing quoted above. He also posted additional reasons -some of which to a degree go beyond the ones that I noted in my treatise of four years ago.
Now, my concern in writing the material above was to explain this from predominantly the area of modern physical issues which pertain to the matter -advances in science, adjustments in the economies of scale, and preservation of the species essentially. Charles goes beyond this and advances the theory that the spiritual climate of society since (roughly) the mid twentieth century is a good argument for the judicious usage of NFP. I am not sure I completely concur with his analysis but I find myself intrigued enough to ponder this point further. And having noted that, a development that has long been latent has come to fruition in my mind.
For I have been monitoring Charles' site for a while with considerations of adding it to my scroll of links. This line of argumentation he has set forth on NFP -being very original and presenting some rather compelling points to ponder- was the cincher for me on that matter. Henceforth, you will find after this post is added, Charles' weblog link added to the side margin under Ecumenical Jihad all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Notes:
{1} If you check the archives, you may find a post or two on the matter but I do not believe I blogged on this particular subject before prior to now.
{2} Natural Family Planning in case you are unfamiliar with the term.
{3} The assertion that the indiscriminate usage of labels is a woefully inadequate (and often inaccurate) way of trying to separate various distinctions of outlook from people with differing operative presuppositions.
{4} Mr. De Nunzio is far from "garden variety" in his particular views on this or numerous other matters.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: I cannot believe I forgot the title and footnotes for this post yesterday. But then again, if you take into account that it was "Friday" for me yesterday all the way until around 6pm, hopefully these oversights can be understood. (What occasioned this is in retrospect rather hilarious but I have no time to discuss it at this point.) Nonetheless, I have added the title and footnotes to this post that were intended and apologize for their omission. -ISM 7/16/04 11:07am]
Though I have not said much of anything on my weblogs about the matter thus far,{1} the subject of NFP{2} is one which I have approached in some of my web writings -particularly my treatise which was promulgated to the web four years ago last D-Day. In that work, I dealt with the subject as it pertained to certain Jansenistic outlooks on sexuality and also certain contemporary realities that were often not taken into account by those who were of the "traditionalist" persuasion. (In the case of NFP, the "traditionalists" are not infrequently quick to scoff at this practice.) Here is some what I noted on the matter then -though this section received a little touching up in last year's revision viz. the approach taken towards this position (though not the arguments utilized to sustain it):
There are also an often very rigorous (often fanatically so) attitudes of 'traditionalists' with certain warped concepts of modesty. A woman not wearing slacks is one concept that comes to mind. Never mind the degree of modesty that a given pair of pants may have (there are after all, immodest and modest pants), comments such as "the Blessed Mother never wore slacks" are thrown out which are indicative of a gross stupidity. First of all, in apostolic times both men and women wore long flowing garments. In fact, the actual attire was quite similar between women and men back then (except women covered their heads often time of course). Another warped concept is one of an exaggerated Puritan concept of marriage and also the relationship between the spouses. When it comes to husband and wife relationships, 'traditionalists' take an exaggerated view of the submission owed by a wife to her husband and makes it equivalent to a near-servitude (if not explicitly stated as such).
Then there is the subject of conjugal love and procreation. Ignoring the manifold factors that make excessively large families less congruent to modern society, there is the condemnation of NFP and other family planning methods (that are intrinsic ally congruent to the Divine Law) by the 'traditionalist' movement both implicitly and explicitly. The facts that (i) we live in a more urban and industrialized culture so (ii) the need of large families to support an agriculturally based society is no longer necessary are not factors that are ever taken into consideration. Further still (iii) with the death rate being overcome in the late nineteenth century, the same degree of emphasis on the need to preserve the species is not in existence. This is due in no small part to (iv) numerous advances in medicine that aid in the cure of many ailments that were fatal to infants and young children even a century ago along with (v) a lower degree of miscarriages today primarily since we have greater knowledge of the types of stress that causes a miscarriage: knowledge that did not exist in previous centuries. In other words, the same number of conceptions today would result in a vastly higher rate of both births and survival to adulthood of many children who due to the particular circumstances in previous centuries were either miscarried, stillborn, or died before the age of five.
The Church in her timeless wisdom has recognized in certain situations (because of the changes in times and circumstances and the advance of medicine and knowledge) there are natural God-given means of addressing these matters. There is of course nothing wrong with having a large family of course. (Nor is it being implied in this paragraph that there is.) However at the same time it is not and never has been a Catholic understanding that one was to have as many children as they could. The difference in the industrial-technological society of today is that family sizes that were common in centuries past are often not as practical as they once were and (because of our advances in medicine and knowledge) it is often necessary to be regulated as long as such regulation is conducted in a morally licit manner. There are legitimate and illegitimate means of limiting and/or spacing births and the judicious use of NFP is just such a means, which is in no way contradictory to the Divine Law. Nevertheless, many 'traditionalist' groups erroneously ascribe such methods to "Modernism."
While these methods of consistent natural regulation were not unheard of in previous centuries; using philosophical approaches predating the twentieth century to analyze discoveries of the twentieth century is what is known as a "non sequitur." These methods only became known with enough information to be reasonably consistent in their application around the turn of the century (becoming better known in the 1920's), it involves having recourse to more recent decisions of the Magisterium in this vein to have a proper perspective on these matters. Initial methods of natural regulation (such as rhythm) were not as efficient as the more advanced ones developed since the early to mid 1970's (and refined since then), but the principle is the same. It appears to be God's answer to the contraception mania that has erupted this century since Lambeth in 1930. (Since reasonably consistent natural regulation was only discovered before the evil of contraception became more prominent.) This is not to say that a contraceptive mentality should be employed in utilizing NFP of course, but there are legitimate reasons for its usage which the Church has approved of. Even predating Vatican II we can find this principle outlined in Pope Pius XI's Encyclical Letter Casti Connubii:
Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. (Pope Pius XI: Encyclical Letter Casti Connubii §59 circa December 31, 1930)
The intrinsic nature of the act is not deterred through sexual abstinence; therefore methods such as NFP which utilize period of abstinence cannot be accused of acting against nature. However, there are many so-called 'traditionalists' who would mark such people as 'untraditional' and demonstrate in doing so the very kind of rigorism that is another parallel to Jansenism. [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part XIII (c. 2000, rev. c. 2003)]
I never presumed that those were the only arguments to sustain a cogent support for NFP mind you; however, I did in the context of that multi subject work find them adequate for dealing in short order with that matter. Some who identify themselves as "traditionalists" would give at most a grudging acknowledgement of NFP as a kind of "lessor of two evils." However, as I have often noted when it comes to the almost pathological nature of many people to try to box people into various categories, that this can work on the other side as well -with the way those who call themselves "traditionalists" are approached by other people.
With this subject, I have an opportunity to demonstrate my assertions in this vein{3} with a real life example.{4} That therefore is what this weblog entry will endeavour to do in pointing out a person who identifies in many respects with the "traditionalist" weltanschauung but who has shown that they can think outside the box. That personage is one Charles De Nunzio.
When surfing over at Charles De Nunzio's weblog yesterday, I found him supporting NFP for many of the same reasons I noted in the writing quoted above. He also posted additional reasons -some of which to a degree go beyond the ones that I noted in my treatise of four years ago.
Now, my concern in writing the material above was to explain this from predominantly the area of modern physical issues which pertain to the matter -advances in science, adjustments in the economies of scale, and preservation of the species essentially. Charles goes beyond this and advances the theory that the spiritual climate of society since (roughly) the mid twentieth century is a good argument for the judicious usage of NFP. I am not sure I completely concur with his analysis but I find myself intrigued enough to ponder this point further. And having noted that, a development that has long been latent has come to fruition in my mind.
For I have been monitoring Charles' site for a while with considerations of adding it to my scroll of links. This line of argumentation he has set forth on NFP -being very original and presenting some rather compelling points to ponder- was the cincher for me on that matter. Henceforth, you will find after this post is added, Charles' weblog link added to the side margin under Ecumenical Jihad all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Notes:
{1} If you check the archives, you may find a post or two on the matter but I do not believe I blogged on this particular subject before prior to now.
{2} Natural Family Planning in case you are unfamiliar with the term.
{3} The assertion that the indiscriminate usage of labels is a woefully inadequate (and often inaccurate) way of trying to separate various distinctions of outlook from people with differing operative presuppositions.
{4} Mr. De Nunzio is far from "garden variety" in his particular views on this or numerous other matters.
A TALE OF TWO MOVIES: FAHRENHEIT 9/11 vs PASSION OF THE CHRIST
The above compendium is courtesy of Jeff at Beautiful Atrocities. Oh, and lest I forget, this link was brought to the attention of St. Blog's patrons and visitors via Dominico Bettinelli's Bettnet BLOG to which I was directed by my friend Mark Bonocore at a discussion list that we both frequent. Thanks for the headsup guys but I am not at all surprised at this double standard.{1}
For bringing down Bush and promoting liberal idiocy is not a minor bagatelle to these kinds of people. Rather, Moore's movie it seems is being viewed by them as yet another sacrament in their secularist "religion."{2} Again, this is no surprise at all but thanks Jeff for compiling the list for us all to see.
Notes:
{1} As longtime readers of my musings at this weblog can attest to.
{2} Abortion is the most obvious "sacrament" in their "religion." I am left to wonder if ousting Bush and Moore's movie are actually "sacraments" or are mere "sacramentals" to them.
Readers of a pious nature who think I am being sacrilegious with this terminology apparently do not realize just how integral such things as abortion, gay marriage, pornography, and public funding and/or promotion of these and other abominable matters are to people of this mindset. They are core pillars to their particular weltanschauung akin to the sacraments in Christendom. For that reason, they are properly referred to in that context as their "sacraments" (or "sacramentals") if you will -provided that one shrouds those words in proper quotation marks when doing so.
The above compendium is courtesy of Jeff at Beautiful Atrocities. Oh, and lest I forget, this link was brought to the attention of St. Blog's patrons and visitors via Dominico Bettinelli's Bettnet BLOG to which I was directed by my friend Mark Bonocore at a discussion list that we both frequent. Thanks for the headsup guys but I am not at all surprised at this double standard.{1}
For bringing down Bush and promoting liberal idiocy is not a minor bagatelle to these kinds of people. Rather, Moore's movie it seems is being viewed by them as yet another sacrament in their secularist "religion."{2} Again, this is no surprise at all but thanks Jeff for compiling the list for us all to see.
Notes:
{1} As longtime readers of my musings at this weblog can attest to.
{2} Abortion is the most obvious "sacrament" in their "religion." I am left to wonder if ousting Bush and Moore's movie are actually "sacraments" or are mere "sacramentals" to them.
Readers of a pious nature who think I am being sacrilegious with this terminology apparently do not realize just how integral such things as abortion, gay marriage, pornography, and public funding and/or promotion of these and other abominable matters are to people of this mindset. They are core pillars to their particular weltanschauung akin to the sacraments in Christendom. For that reason, they are properly referred to in that context as their "sacraments" (or "sacramentals") if you will -provided that one shrouds those words in proper quotation marks when doing so.
Monday, July 12, 2004
My Public Profile Is Now Released:
Okay, it is not much of a profile but I decided to put a little bit of information about myself in cyberspace.
Regular readers of this weblog since its earliest of days will probably see very little that I have not explicated or implicated before at this humble weblog. Nonetheless, there are still some additional bits of information here and there that may be of interest. I also dug up the only web photo of me that there is and added it as well.{1}
One should bear in mind that these figures do not include postings to The Lidless Eye Inquisition or any of my web essays but only what I have blogged since August of 2002 from my Rerum Novarum weblog and other direct affiliates to it.{2} Having noted those things, the following statistics are interesting:
On Blogger Since August 2002
August 22, 2002 to be precise. (Yes, Our two year anniversary is a little over a month away.)
Recent Posts 22
By "recent" I presume they mean in the past month.
Avg Posts Per Week 13
Based heavily on my blogging overall prior to February of this year I am sure.
Posts Written 1,298
All but ten of those are posts from Rerum Novarum.
Words Written 836,630
If we divide number of words by number of posts, we get an average post length of 644.55 words...geez.{3}
Outbound Links 2,831
Presumably that does not rule out double and triple counting of the same links at times. (Either way, it is quite a lot but no Amy Welborn, Mark Shea, or Instapundit that is for sure.)
Profile View 0
Well, I just set it up so there should not be any profile views yet. Anyway, I hope that you find this information to be of some interest.
Notes:
{1} It is posted to my two Journeyman e-zine entries from September of 2001 and November of 2001. I still resemble in some ways the person in the picture even though the latter was taken 35 months ago today. I will try to get another one taken in the next few months to replace the one on this profile.
{2} Meaning the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG and also the Rerum Novarum Comments BLOG.
{3} None of those stats include this current post of course.
Okay, it is not much of a profile but I decided to put a little bit of information about myself in cyberspace.
Regular readers of this weblog since its earliest of days will probably see very little that I have not explicated or implicated before at this humble weblog. Nonetheless, there are still some additional bits of information here and there that may be of interest. I also dug up the only web photo of me that there is and added it as well.{1}
One should bear in mind that these figures do not include postings to The Lidless Eye Inquisition or any of my web essays but only what I have blogged since August of 2002 from my Rerum Novarum weblog and other direct affiliates to it.{2} Having noted those things, the following statistics are interesting:
On Blogger Since August 2002
August 22, 2002 to be precise. (Yes, Our two year anniversary is a little over a month away.)
Recent Posts 22
By "recent" I presume they mean in the past month.
Avg Posts Per Week 13
Based heavily on my blogging overall prior to February of this year I am sure.
Posts Written 1,298
All but ten of those are posts from Rerum Novarum.
Words Written 836,630
If we divide number of words by number of posts, we get an average post length of 644.55 words...geez.{3}
Outbound Links 2,831
Presumably that does not rule out double and triple counting of the same links at times. (Either way, it is quite a lot but no Amy Welborn, Mark Shea, or Instapundit that is for sure.)
Profile View 0
Well, I just set it up so there should not be any profile views yet. Anyway, I hope that you find this information to be of some interest.
Notes:
{1} It is posted to my two Journeyman e-zine entries from September of 2001 and November of 2001. I still resemble in some ways the person in the picture even though the latter was taken 35 months ago today. I will try to get another one taken in the next few months to replace the one on this profile.
{2} Meaning the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG and also the Rerum Novarum Comments BLOG.
{3} None of those stats include this current post of course.
Sunday, July 11, 2004
"Anathema Sit" Dept.
Though I commented on the most recent Boston Heresy Case HERE, there have been some additional developments since my aforementioned comments.
For example, apparently the founder of De Fide (one Marc Balestrieri), has probably lost his job as a result of this action.
Over at Envoy Encore, my good friend Pete Vere (he with the JCL) assesses the current situation HERE. He also goes into some of the background elements in the equation including the issue of what could be constituted as a kind of "canonical tradition" in the sense of certain unwritten rules that differing sides in a dispute are expected to follow.
Apparently, canon law like baseball has its own version of "The Book" which is unwritten but which the major players are expected to follow. Between that and the various behind the scenes machinations, I think I am starting to see why canon law can have such die-hards like Pete, Edward Peters, and others. Anyway, see the above link to Pete's commentary for more details on the matter.
Also, I exhort you all to offer some some prayers for Mark and anyone else involved in this enterprise that they are successful in their endeavours. Whatever problems there were with overzealous and rash suspicions viz. canonical "investigations" in days of yore, in recent decades the opposite extreme has happened.
In closing, the correct approach is balanced between the two and at the moment, the scale needs to be tipped towards more discipline being meted out.
Though I commented on the most recent Boston Heresy Case HERE, there have been some additional developments since my aforementioned comments.
For example, apparently the founder of De Fide (one Marc Balestrieri), has probably lost his job as a result of this action.
Over at Envoy Encore, my good friend Pete Vere (he with the JCL) assesses the current situation HERE. He also goes into some of the background elements in the equation including the issue of what could be constituted as a kind of "canonical tradition" in the sense of certain unwritten rules that differing sides in a dispute are expected to follow.
Apparently, canon law like baseball has its own version of "The Book" which is unwritten but which the major players are expected to follow. Between that and the various behind the scenes machinations, I think I am starting to see why canon law can have such die-hards like Pete, Edward Peters, and others. Anyway, see the above link to Pete's commentary for more details on the matter.
Also, I exhort you all to offer some some prayers for Mark and anyone else involved in this enterprise that they are successful in their endeavours. Whatever problems there were with overzealous and rash suspicions viz. canonical "investigations" in days of yore, in recent decades the opposite extreme has happened.
In closing, the correct approach is balanced between the two and at the moment, the scale needs to be tipped towards more discipline being meted out.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Points to Ponder:
I find myself not just a little confused by the mantras of those who say "we support the troops but oppose the war." I have to wonder if they realize how sophistic this stance really is. For if (i) they believe the war is immoral or evil and (ii) the troops they claim to "support" as a rule{1} believe in what they are fighting and willing to die for and (iii) they claim to support the troops who are fighting in that war, then (iv) they are claiming to "support" people who by an overwhelming majority profess a belief in and willingness to sacrifice themselves for something that they (the antiwar crowd) believes is evil or immoral. In short, their positions are patently illogical and a classic example of sophistic rationale. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Lunchtime Musings on the War circa 7/08/04]
Note:
{1} I realise there are some who do not take this view but from all indications that I have seen thus far, the troop support for what they are doing exceeds those troops who do not endorse what they are doing by at least 3 to 1.
I find myself not just a little confused by the mantras of those who say "we support the troops but oppose the war." I have to wonder if they realize how sophistic this stance really is. For if (i) they believe the war is immoral or evil and (ii) the troops they claim to "support" as a rule{1} believe in what they are fighting and willing to die for and (iii) they claim to support the troops who are fighting in that war, then (iv) they are claiming to "support" people who by an overwhelming majority profess a belief in and willingness to sacrifice themselves for something that they (the antiwar crowd) believes is evil or immoral. In short, their positions are patently illogical and a classic example of sophistic rationale. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Lunchtime Musings on the War circa 7/08/04]
Note:
{1} I realise there are some who do not take this view but from all indications that I have seen thus far, the troop support for what they are doing exceeds those troops who do not endorse what they are doing by at least 3 to 1.
As We noted earlier, the addition of Debbie Schlussel's website to the Ecumenical Jihad listing was deemed to be the less proper place for categorizing. Instead, due to the predominantly political nature of her material, We decided to reclassify her to the Predominantly Political category and to slightly retitle that category. It now reads Approved* Weblogs and Websites of a Predominantly Political Nature. It also seemed appropriate to add the recently launched weblog of Michelle Malkin to that category as well -based heavily on her precedent for writing thought provoking material.{1}
Oh and lest anyone accuse Us of discrimination by not including women journalists or commentators in Our scroll of recommended links, let this serve to confute that accusation and make known the fact that We have no objections whatsoever to recommending well-reasoned work composed by brainy and beautiful infobabes.{2} Having noted that, We declare by virtue of Our authority that the aforementioned adjustments are hereby promulgated to Rerum Novarum in perpetuity, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Notes:
{1} We have followed her since her days as a staff columnist for The Seattle Times. (Followed her work that is.)
{2} That oughta rile the so-called "feminists" a bit :)
Oh and lest anyone accuse Us of discrimination by not including women journalists or commentators in Our scroll of recommended links, let this serve to confute that accusation and make known the fact that We have no objections whatsoever to recommending well-reasoned work composed by brainy and beautiful infobabes.{2} Having noted that, We declare by virtue of Our authority that the aforementioned adjustments are hereby promulgated to Rerum Novarum in perpetuity, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Notes:
{1} We have followed her since her days as a staff columnist for The Seattle Times. (Followed her work that is.)
{2} That oughta rile the so-called "feminists" a bit :)
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
A Very Minor Weblog Update:
Some adjustments were made to the template at this weblog a few minutes ago -almost exclusively in the area of adding to the Ecumenical Jihad category. Though there are a few additional sites and weblogs that I am mulling over adding to the scroll of links, the following were added today:
---Debbie Schlussel's Website (Jewish)
---The Catholic Kerry Watch BLOG - Christopher Blosser, Jeff Miller, Oswald Sobrino, Earl A. Appleby, Jamie Blosser
---Christopher Blosser's Watching Michael Moore BLOG
Also restored to the recommended list of catholic weblogs was Alan Phipps' weblog. Somehow it was overlooked when the template was restored last month but it has been readded now.
By virtue of my authority as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I declare that these adjustments to said weblog are promulgated in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
[Note: Upon further reflection, as Debbie Schlussel's material is predominantly political and not a hybrid of religious and political material, it properly should be classified with JYB and company. For that reason, it will be reclassified hopefully later today. -ISM 7/8/04 7:30 am]
Some adjustments were made to the template at this weblog a few minutes ago -almost exclusively in the area of adding to the Ecumenical Jihad category. Though there are a few additional sites and weblogs that I am mulling over adding to the scroll of links, the following were added today:
---Debbie Schlussel's Website (Jewish)
---The Catholic Kerry Watch BLOG - Christopher Blosser, Jeff Miller, Oswald Sobrino, Earl A. Appleby, Jamie Blosser
---Christopher Blosser's Watching Michael Moore BLOG
Also restored to the recommended list of catholic weblogs was Alan Phipps' weblog. Somehow it was overlooked when the template was restored last month but it has been readded now.
By virtue of my authority as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I declare that these adjustments to said weblog are promulgated in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
[Note: Upon further reflection, as Debbie Schlussel's material is predominantly political and not a hybrid of religious and political material, it properly should be classified with JYB and company. For that reason, it will be reclassified hopefully later today. -ISM 7/8/04 7:30 am]
The readers of this humble weblog may be interested to know that I made some tweaks to the draft of the Reagan book review that I posted earlier on. It now reads on the weblog exactly as it will read when I submit the review tomorrow or so to Amazon.
Points to Ponder:
Difficulties can be solved with philosophy and theology, but in order to "solve" a mystery, it takes obedience and submission. Sometimes, when we ask God questions, He answers with a question, like when He was in the temple, and the way to get the answer is to be silent and let Him come to you...All types of mysteries can only be answered by an abandonment to Christ, letting Christ work through you. [Apolonio Latar III (circa 2/14/04)]
Difficulties can be solved with philosophy and theology, but in order to "solve" a mystery, it takes obedience and submission. Sometimes, when we ask God questions, He answers with a question, like when He was in the temple, and the way to get the answer is to be silent and let Him come to you...All types of mysteries can only be answered by an abandonment to Christ, letting Christ work through you. [Apolonio Latar III (circa 2/14/04)]
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Rev. Michael J. Pahls outlines the fate of slavery in the US if President Lincoln had "thought" on slavery like Kerry does on abortion.
Monday, July 05, 2004
Ronald Reagan - How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Note: This is thesecond and probably final third and final draft of a review I will be submitting to Amazon.com hopefully later in the week. President Reagan, may you rest in peace - ISM]
*****
One of history's greatest presidents...
...and definitely the best president of the second half of the twentieth century. Dinesh D' Souza would argue that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the twentieth century. I would claim a bit less myself: second perhaps to President Roosevelt...and not the President Roosevelt that most people would presume I refer to. But that is neither here nor there.
This book is very compact and seeks to cover a lot of material in a reasonably economical manner. The prologue sets the tone, starting with the manner whereby the Soviet Union was viewed prior to its collapse by the establishment "experts." From there, D' Souza explains why the "wise men" were all wrong and the "dummy" (as the intellectuals viewed Reagan) was right. He also deals with the manner whereby revisionists have sought to paint the USSR's collapse as "inevitable" which is certainly not what these same people were saying at the time. It seems that the approach is say anything except give credit to Reagan for his foresight on this significant issue.
The aforementioned prologue ("The Wise Men and the Dummy") sets the table for the manner whereby the rest of the book unfolds. The topics covered in the work in sequential order are as follows with brief comments from yours truly:
---Why Reagan Gets No Respect.
This chapter outlines well the manner whereby not only the pseudo-"intellectual" elites of the left viewed Reagan but also many hard nosed conservatives of the right (including some of their recognized bigwigs such as George Will and Michael Novak).
---The Education of an Actor.
This chapter is a necessary look into the formation of Reagan's conservative political philosophy as well as the paradigm shift from Roosevelt New Deal supporter to conservative Goldwater-style in his philosophy.
It starts to some extent from his formative years because in order to hope to understand Reagan, one must understand those events which formed the environment which shaped his outlook and convictions. And as Reagan reached his conservative Republican outlook after being born into poverty and living through two world wars, the Great Depression, Korea, the McCarthy era, and the early 1960's, it is important to review this period where his philosophy -which he would refine and deepen in later years- was first set forth in its broad outlines. The chapter ends with Reagan's speech at the 1964 Republican convention: the speech that definitively put him "on the map" for a political career.
---Mr. Reagan Goes To Washington.
This chapter covers the period where Reagan's philosophy received greater deepening and refinement through two terms as governor of California and two significant challenges to the presidency (1976 and 1980). Some may refer to his campaign of 1968 but that was not a serious campaign and Reagan had no chance at the nomination then.
---A Walk on the Supply Side.
If no other chapter in this book was read, this one is essential because it debunks so much of the idiotic myths surrounding Reagan and his role in the increasing deficits of the 1980's.
This chapter outlines an integral part of Reagan's presidential economic plan. It is well worth a read due to the profound ignorance commonly expressed about supply-side policies by historical revisionists and economists too wedded to Keynesian policies: policies which were discredited in the 1970's economic climate by the way.
The reviewer who said that D'Souza "dismisses the massive budget deficits accumulated during the Reagan years" would do well to reread this chapter since the deficit subject is discussed in the context of the Democratic Congress not following through on their promise to cut $3 in spending for every $1 in taxes during the 1982 budget battle. Oliver North was criticized for lying to Congress during Iran-contra but the dishonour Congress brought on themselves in the interim -starting with their broken promises in 1982- made North's actions a venial sin at best.
Those who want to discuss the budget deficits need look no further than here for the reasons. But of course that reviewer is not about to do that because 75% or more of the federal budget is unconstitutional and they are certain to support a fair amount of it. At least Reagan's military spending was constitutional but I digress.
---They Don't Call it Reaganomics Anymore.
This chapter is a good follow-up to the one on supply side economics because it explains the truth behind Reagan's economic policies. In a short phrase: they worked.
---Confronting the Evil Empire.
Picks up and develops what was touched on in the prologue.
---Making the World Safe for Democracy.
In this chapter, D'Souza outlines the principles behind Reagan's approach to totalitarian dictatorships -and the success those policies had throughout the world as dictatorship after dictatorship fell in places such as Central America, South America, Asia, and the Philippines. In this context, Reagan's policy towards Nicaragua and supporting the contras stands out as the brilliant policy that it was. Even Grenada's invasion in 1983 is noted as a significant milestone in foreign policy in that it was the death-knell of the Breshnev Doctrine. Those who are unfamiliar with the latter would do well to read this chapter.
---And the Wall Came Tumbling Down.
Much as the Reagonomics chapter built on the preceding supply side chapter, this one builds on the one that precedes it in dealing with Reagan's skills in negotiating an end to the Cold War. (Through arms reduction treaties and also standing firm against Soviet demands.) This is all material "conveniently" overlooked by modern revisionists. But as "ninety five percent of what is published on all things is hogwash" (A. Jones), this should hardly surprise.
---The Man Behind the Mask.
After dealing with the external effects of Reagan's policies on America and throughout the world, this one seeks to go into the man himself and deal with the many paradoxes that were Reagan. This section is essential for coming close to understanding Ronald Reagan the man.
---Spirit of a Leader.
This chapter deals with Reagan as a leader and also highlights his responses to some of the administrative controversies that occurred in his Administration. Subjects such as PATCO, Lybian jets firing on the USS Nimitz in late 1981, the visiting of the Bitberg cemetery in Germany in 1985, the Lybian bombing of a West Berlin discoteque in 1986 and the US response to it, Iran-contra, and other examples are covered here.
With regards to the latter, D' Souza deals well with Iran-contra. Unfortunately, he did not touch on the 240 odd Marines who died in Lebanon in 1983 as a result of a suicide bomber. Despite the many fabrications and exaggerations often conjured up by Reagan-despising historical revisionists, this was a definite policy blunder and it would have been good to cover here along with some of the others that D'Souza does note. Despite the brevity of this tome, that is not asking too much as it would provide a bit more balance in a work that on the whole is quite vindicating of Reagan's legacy as president and as a man.
---Epilogue: The Road Not Taken.
The epilogue essentially explains why the Republicans have for the most part been floundering without a firm sense of purpose since Reagan left office.
One interesting par of this book is D'Souza's approach which is geared quite obviously to setting the record straight in areas where it is often anything but. To do this, he often follows a pattern of outlining what Reagan's opponents said about his ideas and policies -buttressed with source citations from newspapers and magazines as well as books written by critics or adversaries- and then recounts Reagan's uncanny ability to confute his adversaries again and again. In that sense it reads like an apologetic but, in light of the mountains of lies and distortions that are fed the populace about Reagan and his policies, perhaps that approach is the best way of cutting through the rubbish and focusing on what really happened. (As opposed to what Reagan's opponents wish had happened.)
The subtitle of the paperback is "how an ordinary man became an extraordinary leader." Indeed that is what President Reagan was and no one who approaches the historical record who makes any pretense of objectivity can conclude otherwise. And this book well explains the many reasons why this was so.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Note: This is the
*****
One of history's greatest presidents...
...and definitely the best president of the second half of the twentieth century. Dinesh D' Souza would argue that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the twentieth century. I would claim a bit less myself: second perhaps to President Roosevelt...and not the President Roosevelt that most people would presume I refer to. But that is neither here nor there.
This book is very compact and seeks to cover a lot of material in a reasonably economical manner. The prologue sets the tone, starting with the manner whereby the Soviet Union was viewed prior to its collapse by the establishment "experts." From there, D' Souza explains why the "wise men" were all wrong and the "dummy" (as the intellectuals viewed Reagan) was right. He also deals with the manner whereby revisionists have sought to paint the USSR's collapse as "inevitable" which is certainly not what these same people were saying at the time. It seems that the approach is say anything except give credit to Reagan for his foresight on this significant issue.
The aforementioned prologue ("The Wise Men and the Dummy") sets the table for the manner whereby the rest of the book unfolds. The topics covered in the work in sequential order are as follows with brief comments from yours truly:
---Why Reagan Gets No Respect.
This chapter outlines well the manner whereby not only the pseudo-"intellectual" elites of the left viewed Reagan but also many hard nosed conservatives of the right (including some of their recognized bigwigs such as George Will and Michael Novak).
---The Education of an Actor.
This chapter is a necessary look into the formation of Reagan's conservative political philosophy as well as the paradigm shift from Roosevelt New Deal supporter to conservative Goldwater-style in his philosophy.
It starts to some extent from his formative years because in order to hope to understand Reagan, one must understand those events which formed the environment which shaped his outlook and convictions. And as Reagan reached his conservative Republican outlook after being born into poverty and living through two world wars, the Great Depression, Korea, the McCarthy era, and the early 1960's, it is important to review this period where his philosophy -which he would refine and deepen in later years- was first set forth in its broad outlines. The chapter ends with Reagan's speech at the 1964 Republican convention: the speech that definitively put him "on the map" for a political career.
---Mr. Reagan Goes To Washington.
This chapter covers the period where Reagan's philosophy received greater deepening and refinement through two terms as governor of California and two significant challenges to the presidency (1976 and 1980). Some may refer to his campaign of 1968 but that was not a serious campaign and Reagan had no chance at the nomination then.
---A Walk on the Supply Side.
If no other chapter in this book was read, this one is essential because it debunks so much of the idiotic myths surrounding Reagan and his role in the increasing deficits of the 1980's.
This chapter outlines an integral part of Reagan's presidential economic plan. It is well worth a read due to the profound ignorance commonly expressed about supply-side policies by historical revisionists and economists too wedded to Keynesian policies: policies which were discredited in the 1970's economic climate by the way.
The reviewer who said that D'Souza "dismisses the massive budget deficits accumulated during the Reagan years" would do well to reread this chapter since the deficit subject is discussed in the context of the Democratic Congress not following through on their promise to cut $3 in spending for every $1 in taxes during the 1982 budget battle. Oliver North was criticized for lying to Congress during Iran-contra but the dishonour Congress brought on themselves in the interim -starting with their broken promises in 1982- made North's actions a venial sin at best.
Those who want to discuss the budget deficits need look no further than here for the reasons. But of course that reviewer is not about to do that because 75% or more of the federal budget is unconstitutional and they are certain to support a fair amount of it. At least Reagan's military spending was constitutional but I digress.
---They Don't Call it Reaganomics Anymore.
This chapter is a good follow-up to the one on supply side economics because it explains the truth behind Reagan's economic policies. In a short phrase: they worked.
---Confronting the Evil Empire.
Picks up and develops what was touched on in the prologue.
---Making the World Safe for Democracy.
In this chapter, D'Souza outlines the principles behind Reagan's approach to totalitarian dictatorships -and the success those policies had throughout the world as dictatorship after dictatorship fell in places such as Central America, South America, Asia, and the Philippines. In this context, Reagan's policy towards Nicaragua and supporting the contras stands out as the brilliant policy that it was. Even Grenada's invasion in 1983 is noted as a significant milestone in foreign policy in that it was the death-knell of the Breshnev Doctrine. Those who are unfamiliar with the latter would do well to read this chapter.
---And the Wall Came Tumbling Down.
Much as the Reagonomics chapter built on the preceding supply side chapter, this one builds on the one that precedes it in dealing with Reagan's skills in negotiating an end to the Cold War. (Through arms reduction treaties and also standing firm against Soviet demands.) This is all material "conveniently" overlooked by modern revisionists. But as "ninety five percent of what is published on all things is hogwash" (A. Jones), this should hardly surprise.
---The Man Behind the Mask.
After dealing with the external effects of Reagan's policies on America and throughout the world, this one seeks to go into the man himself and deal with the many paradoxes that were Reagan. This section is essential for coming close to understanding Ronald Reagan the man.
---Spirit of a Leader.
This chapter deals with Reagan as a leader and also highlights his responses to some of the administrative controversies that occurred in his Administration. Subjects such as PATCO, Lybian jets firing on the USS Nimitz in late 1981, the visiting of the Bitberg cemetery in Germany in 1985, the Lybian bombing of a West Berlin discoteque in 1986 and the US response to it, Iran-contra, and other examples are covered here.
With regards to the latter, D' Souza deals well with Iran-contra. Unfortunately, he did not touch on the 240 odd Marines who died in Lebanon in 1983 as a result of a suicide bomber. Despite the many fabrications and exaggerations often conjured up by Reagan-despising historical revisionists, this was a definite policy blunder and it would have been good to cover here along with some of the others that D'Souza does note. Despite the brevity of this tome, that is not asking too much as it would provide a bit more balance in a work that on the whole is quite vindicating of Reagan's legacy as president and as a man.
---Epilogue: The Road Not Taken.
The epilogue essentially explains why the Republicans have for the most part been floundering without a firm sense of purpose since Reagan left office.
One interesting par of this book is D'Souza's approach which is geared quite obviously to setting the record straight in areas where it is often anything but. To do this, he often follows a pattern of outlining what Reagan's opponents said about his ideas and policies -buttressed with source citations from newspapers and magazines as well as books written by critics or adversaries- and then recounts Reagan's uncanny ability to confute his adversaries again and again. In that sense it reads like an apologetic but, in light of the mountains of lies and distortions that are fed the populace about Reagan and his policies, perhaps that approach is the best way of cutting through the rubbish and focusing on what really happened. (As opposed to what Reagan's opponents wish had happened.)
The subtitle of the paperback is "how an ordinary man became an extraordinary leader." Indeed that is what President Reagan was and no one who approaches the historical record who makes any pretense of objectivity can conclude otherwise. And this book well explains the many reasons why this was so.
Friday, July 02, 2004
"Anathema Sit" Dept.
Apparently John Fword Kerry has had a libellus filed against him in the Ecclesiastical Court of Boston. The charge: heresy. You can read more about this HERE and visit the plaintiff's site HERE. Among other points noted in De Fide's statement of purpose is the following:
DE FIDE aims to stop the monumental scandal which has been ongoing for the past thirty-one years of baptized Catholic politicians claiming to be Christian while professing the life-threatening Right-to-Murder heresy.
The crisis is outrageous - it is completely unacceptable - it must be stopped. Otherwise, we, and our children, and our children's children stand more to lose than simply our lives: We risk losing our salvation.
Please help DE FIDE defend the Church and the Faith.
Despite some questioning of the potential fallout from this action viz. the upcoming election,{1} We at Rerum Novarum must nonetheless take into account the potential snowball effect this could cause in the Catholic Church for the public order and the common good of the Church in America{2} as well as the Church universal.{3} For that reason, We will be supporting this cause{4} even if it seems potentially Custerian of Us to do so. John Fword Kerry: Anathema Sit!!!
Notes:
{1} We refer here to the possibility that this could help Kerry in recruiting other heretic, schismatic, and apostate Catholics to his cause by waving about the "Inquisition" red herring for the gullible masses to lap up like Jim Jones' Kool-Aid.
{2} There is also the possibility that this will mobilize many of the pro-life fence sitters to throw in for Bush who has a significantly better track record in this area than Kerry does.
{3} It is possible that this could start a worldwide trend amongst savvy prolife people.
{4} As one of Our earliest political and intellectual mentors Senator Barry Morris Goldwater of happy memory stated at the Republican Convention in 1964:
"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Those who would question this approach can ask themselves if the "liberty" of the unborn has been adequately secured in the past thirty-one odd years or if it has been (to put if quite mildly) profoundly compromised by heretical traitors such as Kerry and company.
Apparently John F
DE FIDE aims to stop the monumental scandal which has been ongoing for the past thirty-one years of baptized Catholic politicians claiming to be Christian while professing the life-threatening Right-to-Murder heresy.
The crisis is outrageous - it is completely unacceptable - it must be stopped. Otherwise, we, and our children, and our children's children stand more to lose than simply our lives: We risk losing our salvation.
Please help DE FIDE defend the Church and the Faith.
Despite some questioning of the potential fallout from this action viz. the upcoming election,{1} We at Rerum Novarum must nonetheless take into account the potential snowball effect this could cause in the Catholic Church for the public order and the common good of the Church in America{2} as well as the Church universal.{3} For that reason, We will be supporting this cause{4} even if it seems potentially Custerian of Us to do so. John F
Notes:
{1} We refer here to the possibility that this could help Kerry in recruiting other heretic, schismatic, and apostate Catholics to his cause by waving about the "Inquisition" red herring for the gullible masses to lap up like Jim Jones' Kool-Aid.
{2} There is also the possibility that this will mobilize many of the pro-life fence sitters to throw in for Bush who has a significantly better track record in this area than Kerry does.
{3} It is possible that this could start a worldwide trend amongst savvy prolife people.
{4} As one of Our earliest political and intellectual mentors Senator Barry Morris Goldwater of happy memory stated at the Republican Convention in 1964:
"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Those who would question this approach can ask themselves if the "liberty" of the unborn has been adequately secured in the past thirty-one odd years or if it has been (to put if quite mildly) profoundly compromised by heretical traitors such as Kerry and company.
Monday, June 28, 2004
"Serendipity on Ice" Dept.
Among other offhand tasks, I am currently working on a review of Dinesh D' Souza's 1997 book on Ronald Reagan. This time though, the Amazon word limit will hopefully not be my enemy. (As the book is a shade under 300 pages and was an enjoyable couple of hours read.)
I do not know where those who write so many reviews for Amazon get the time to do it...those who write detailed reviews I mean. The plan is to have it done before the week is out and (of course) it will be posted to this weblog before it is put up at Amazon. As one who has not written a book review in eighteen months, the sudden nature of this endeavour is rather strange in light of my lack of time to actually do what I am doing (in my spare time).
I am guessing that it is the recent flareup of lividness with regards to MichaelGoebbels Moore that has lit the fire under me to write a review for that book{1} but either way, it is getting done and will be done soon. (Hopefully before the week is out.)
Note:
{1} I may have to actually write that review for Ann Coulter's book Treason which I recall intending to do about ten months ago or so. While not as enjoyable a read as D' Souza's book, it was still very informative and (contra the sophisms of Al Franken) quite accurate. Nonetheless, that will be dealt with in the review if I can find the time to do it.
Among other offhand tasks, I am currently working on a review of Dinesh D' Souza's 1997 book on Ronald Reagan. This time though, the Amazon word limit will hopefully not be my enemy. (As the book is a shade under 300 pages and was an enjoyable couple of hours read.)
I do not know where those who write so many reviews for Amazon get the time to do it...those who write detailed reviews I mean. The plan is to have it done before the week is out and (of course) it will be posted to this weblog before it is put up at Amazon. As one who has not written a book review in eighteen months, the sudden nature of this endeavour is rather strange in light of my lack of time to actually do what I am doing (in my spare time).
I am guessing that it is the recent flareup of lividness with regards to Michael
Note:
{1} I may have to actually write that review for Ann Coulter's book Treason which I recall intending to do about ten months ago or so. While not as enjoyable a read as D' Souza's book, it was still very informative and (contra the sophisms of Al Franken) quite accurate. Nonetheless, that will be dealt with in the review if I can find the time to do it.
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Notification on Some Upcoming Weblog Post Subject Matter:
(And some links onJoseph Goebbels Reincarnated Michael Moore)
To start with, I plan to blog a bit in the coming week on the war, "traditionalism", "progressivism", possibly some more entries on Reagan, and perhaps on some other subjects.{1} In the meantime though , since a member of my family is so insistent that I watch Michael Moore's latest self-styled "documentary" with them,{2} it seems appropriate to provide the following sources as a public service to the readers of Rerum Novarum to balance out what the major media is not going to tell you about thissteaming pile of manure "man."
Hatriotism and Michael Moore
The Moore Lies Archive
If you still have time to read this stuff (and are not sick of it yet), I offer the following as additional sources:
Bowling for Truth
Moorewatch
The last one I must admit has a disturbing subtitle of Watching Michael Moore's Every Move. Considering (i) Moore's ponderous girth and (ii) how much he must eat, I am not so sure I want to see his every move if you know what I mean.
With regards to the above links, I would say "happy reading" but Moore is the very embodiment of the kind of people I noted previously that I spit upon. In the meantime, We at Rerum Novarum extend Our support for Michael Wilson's Unfinished Project and exhort you all to do so in like manner. What's the matter Mikey Moore, afraid of a 17 year old kid interviewing you???
In closing, while par t of me feels that Michael Moore should be treated as the seditionist that he is, at the same time, I am confident that most people are reasonable enough to see through this crap with the appropriate guidance.
I emphasize guidance because I said that prior to the 1996 election also and was proven wrong back then.{3} For that reason, I am supplying some links for my readers despite my belief that they are (as a group) the most intelligent of weblog readers in the blogosphere and do not need said links supplied to them.{4}
[Update: Christopher Blosser informed me today that he now has a Michael Moore weblog. Also worth noting is Debbie Schlussel's review which is an effective dismantling of Moore's film. I definitely recommend printing out and sharing with others --and not only because she opens the review with one of my favourite dictums from Mark Twain. - ISM 6/28/04 11:58 am]
Notes:
{1} Most of the materials are already written and need to be formatted for posting.
{2} My comments last night by phone to this relative included the following question: "how about I watch that film with you and then afterwards we can watch some of Joseph Goebbels' filmwork together???" The response given was "sure" which prompted me to immediately respond with this question: "you do not know whom Joseph Goebbels was do you???"
Out of pity for those who vindicate Santayana's dictum on history, I revealed Goebbels' identity to this family member along with my view that I expected about as much truth from Moore's work as I do from Goebbels' movies or from the texts promulgated as "truth" by the Journal of Historical Review.
The coming days will reveal just how much of an impact the aforementioned statement has on this family member -who despite being very liberal is still much too smart to fall for Moore's drivel. I cannot be more disappointed in them for that reason so I shant reflect upon it much except when they bring the subject up again.
{3} Thankfully, when I made the same prediction in 2000 and 2002, it was vindicated both times. Time will tell if it holds up for 2004 as well.
{4} Call it an "insurance policy" if you will.
(And some links on
To start with, I plan to blog a bit in the coming week on the war, "traditionalism", "progressivism", possibly some more entries on Reagan, and perhaps on some other subjects.{1} In the meantime though , since a member of my family is so insistent that I watch Michael Moore's latest self-styled "documentary" with them,{2} it seems appropriate to provide the following sources as a public service to the readers of Rerum Novarum to balance out what the major media is not going to tell you about this
Hatriotism and Michael Moore
The Moore Lies Archive
If you still have time to read this stuff (and are not sick of it yet), I offer the following as additional sources:
Bowling for Truth
Moorewatch
The last one I must admit has a disturbing subtitle of Watching Michael Moore's Every Move. Considering (i) Moore's ponderous girth and (ii) how much he must eat, I am not so sure I want to see his every move if you know what I mean.
With regards to the above links, I would say "happy reading" but Moore is the very embodiment of the kind of people I noted previously that I spit upon. In the meantime, We at Rerum Novarum extend Our support for Michael Wilson's Unfinished Project and exhort you all to do so in like manner. What's the matter Mikey Moore, afraid of a 17 year old kid interviewing you???
In closing, while par t of me feels that Michael Moore should be treated as the seditionist that he is, at the same time, I am confident that most people are reasonable enough to see through this crap with the appropriate guidance.
I emphasize guidance because I said that prior to the 1996 election also and was proven wrong back then.{3} For that reason, I am supplying some links for my readers despite my belief that they are (as a group) the most intelligent of weblog readers in the blogosphere and do not need said links supplied to them.{4}
[Update: Christopher Blosser informed me today that he now has a Michael Moore weblog. Also worth noting is Debbie Schlussel's review which is an effective dismantling of Moore's film. I definitely recommend printing out and sharing with others --and not only because she opens the review with one of my favourite dictums from Mark Twain. - ISM 6/28/04 11:58 am]
Notes:
{1} Most of the materials are already written and need to be formatted for posting.
{2} My comments last night by phone to this relative included the following question: "how about I watch that film with you and then afterwards we can watch some of Joseph Goebbels' filmwork together???" The response given was "sure" which prompted me to immediately respond with this question: "you do not know whom Joseph Goebbels was do you???"
Out of pity for those who vindicate Santayana's dictum on history, I revealed Goebbels' identity to this family member along with my view that I expected about as much truth from Moore's work as I do from Goebbels' movies or from the texts promulgated as "truth" by the Journal of Historical Review.
The coming days will reveal just how much of an impact the aforementioned statement has on this family member -who despite being very liberal is still much too smart to fall for Moore's drivel. I cannot be more disappointed in them for that reason so I shant reflect upon it much except when they bring the subject up again.
{3} Thankfully, when I made the same prediction in 2000 and 2002, it was vindicated both times. Time will tell if it holds up for 2004 as well.
{4} Call it an "insurance policy" if you will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)