St. Blogs own Domenico Bettinelli, Jr. was on MSNBC's Coast to Coast recently. Click on the latter link and check under "blog reads" if interested.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Briefly on Iwo Jima at the Sixtieth Anniversary:
(A Rerum Novarum Remembrance Thread)
Lane Core Jr. reminds us that Iwo Jima happened sixty years ago this month (and next). Go HERE to read what he has posted and view some black and white photographs of a triumph during WW II that cost nearly 20,000 American lives. I commented on this event two years ago in a post which can be read HERE and which includes a memorial eulogy from a military chaplain circa 1946.
For those who kvetch repeatedly about the toll thus far in Iraq, maybe these posts will help you gain a sense of perspective on this subject. One can certainly hope so anyway...
(A Rerum Novarum Remembrance Thread)
Lane Core Jr. reminds us that Iwo Jima happened sixty years ago this month (and next). Go HERE to read what he has posted and view some black and white photographs of a triumph during WW II that cost nearly 20,000 American lives. I commented on this event two years ago in a post which can be read HERE and which includes a memorial eulogy from a military chaplain circa 1946.
For those who kvetch repeatedly about the toll thus far in Iraq, maybe these posts will help you gain a sense of perspective on this subject. One can certainly hope so anyway...
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Miscellaneous Bits on the Terri Schiavo Situation:
For those interested in contributing to Terri Schiavo's cause, you can do so by making contributions to a PalPal account. A special thank you is extended on Our part to Beth of My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for the heads up on this matter. To make contributions, go HERE and click on the button to contribute what you can.
Also, We at Rerum Novarum have added the weblog links for both blogsforterri and also prolifeblogs to our side margin of links under the heading Ecumenical Jihad all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
For those interested in contributing to Terri Schiavo's cause, you can do so by making contributions to a PalPal account. A special thank you is extended on Our part to Beth of My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for the heads up on this matter. To make contributions, go HERE and click on the button to contribute what you can.
Also, We at Rerum Novarum have added the weblog links for both blogsforterri and also prolifeblogs to our side margin of links under the heading Ecumenical Jihad all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
"Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.
(On the Terri Schiavo Situation and the Culture War in General)
The words of the emailer will be in purple font.
Shawn,
Hi XXXX:
I may post this email tomorrow or the next day as it is a Terri
Schiavo related thread.
I read your post and the associated writings, and I fully concur. This alone won't solve the problem; it's just basically a desperate (?) effort to get the facts out in this particular case since so many are of the perception that she is completely brain-dead and think that justifies her being killed.
Frankly, we need to define the principle of life and what it constitutes. Definitions are the tools of thought and without them, it is difficult if not impossible for some people to differentiate between what is logical and what is not. There is too much nebulosity involved in the present discourse on the other side. When you have John Kerry on the national stage supposedly "agreeing" with the pro-life position but feeling that he cannot "impose it on others" ala the Cuomo line of argumentation, it is evident that core principles of the debate needs to be defined.
The first principle that needs to be defined in this debate is "what is life and where does it begin???" The other principles that need to be utilized are a recognition of the laws of identity and non-contradiction without which logical discourse is impossible. And Kerry's stance (and those of people who "reason" as he does) directly violates non-contradiction and equivocates disingenuously on identity.
Many who are comfortable with the idea of the "right to die" (read: right to put down a human as if she were a dog) in the case of the persistently and permanently vegetative disabled have reconsidered their position when confronted with the facts of this case.
I am not as close to the situation as you are (so I am going on your word here) but some progress -even if minor- is comforting in light of the horror of what we are hearing.
However, you're right--it doesn't address their belief that it's OK to kill in certain circumstances. For now, with time being so limited and legal options running out, it's all we can do for now.
I agree with one caveat: the argumentation that opposes these people must be consistent and it must be unwavering at that. There are issues that tie directly into the right to life that need to be recognized and supported. Someone who supports the right to life undermines their own cause when they seek to undermine the right of their neighbours to their faculties (aka "liberty") or production (aka "property") if you will. Likewise, someone who promotes the right to faculties or production but does not support the right to life undermine their own cause as well.
With prolifers and so-called "social conservatives" the right to life is the focus and with a degree of tunnel vision that is often exasperating to those of us who sympathize with what they strive to achieve.
George Bush is a case in point: he claims to support life but his administration endorses absurd regulations on faculties and production to the point to where his support of life is compromised. With libertarians and capitalists it is the rights to faculties (read: liberty) and production (read: property) which are the focus while they support a so-called "pro-choice" position which is self-defeating. With capitalists it is the right to production and sometimes faculties which is their focus -though the latter two oftentimes selectively apply the rights of the other to the extent that it helps them of course.{1} But I digress.
The culture of death we're in now will take time--and lost lives, unfortunately--before it's rectified. It seems that liberal groupthink loves the sanctity of life when it comes to criminals on death row, but no other lives are worthy. Sad commentary on their priorities and values.
Indeed.
ALL lives are worthy in the eyes of God; who are we to say we know better? I guess that doesn't matter to the Godless masses these days, though...
That is why we have to approach this with as much reason and logic as we can muster. They may not be people of faith but if they have good-will and are willing to consider an argument or position on its merits, then oftentimes such people can be reached even if it takes time and more effort than normal to do it.
Note:
{1} I go over this in greater detail at the following link:
The Fundamental Rights of Man Revisited (circa September 25, 2004)
You may find the approach taken against euthanasia in the above link to be particularly of interest since (at least implicitly) that is what Michael Schiavo is trying to do with his wife. I would argue that Terri's life may possibly be more solidly defended if a defense is made of her right to faculties (however diminished they happen to be) concurrent with the defense of life. (Along with tying into this the principle of society's collective or common good.) All of this is noted with greater exactness within the link above.
(On the Terri Schiavo Situation and the Culture War in General)
The words of the emailer will be in purple font.
Shawn,
Hi XXXX:
I may post this email tomorrow or the next day as it is a Terri
Schiavo related thread.
I read your post and the associated writings, and I fully concur. This alone won't solve the problem; it's just basically a desperate (?) effort to get the facts out in this particular case since so many are of the perception that she is completely brain-dead and think that justifies her being killed.
Frankly, we need to define the principle of life and what it constitutes. Definitions are the tools of thought and without them, it is difficult if not impossible for some people to differentiate between what is logical and what is not. There is too much nebulosity involved in the present discourse on the other side. When you have John Kerry on the national stage supposedly "agreeing" with the pro-life position but feeling that he cannot "impose it on others" ala the Cuomo line of argumentation, it is evident that core principles of the debate needs to be defined.
The first principle that needs to be defined in this debate is "what is life and where does it begin???" The other principles that need to be utilized are a recognition of the laws of identity and non-contradiction without which logical discourse is impossible. And Kerry's stance (and those of people who "reason" as he does) directly violates non-contradiction and equivocates disingenuously on identity.
Many who are comfortable with the idea of the "right to die" (read: right to put down a human as if she were a dog) in the case of the persistently and permanently vegetative disabled have reconsidered their position when confronted with the facts of this case.
I am not as close to the situation as you are (so I am going on your word here) but some progress -even if minor- is comforting in light of the horror of what we are hearing.
However, you're right--it doesn't address their belief that it's OK to kill in certain circumstances. For now, with time being so limited and legal options running out, it's all we can do for now.
I agree with one caveat: the argumentation that opposes these people must be consistent and it must be unwavering at that. There are issues that tie directly into the right to life that need to be recognized and supported. Someone who supports the right to life undermines their own cause when they seek to undermine the right of their neighbours to their faculties (aka "liberty") or production (aka "property") if you will. Likewise, someone who promotes the right to faculties or production but does not support the right to life undermine their own cause as well.
With prolifers and so-called "social conservatives" the right to life is the focus and with a degree of tunnel vision that is often exasperating to those of us who sympathize with what they strive to achieve.
George Bush is a case in point: he claims to support life but his administration endorses absurd regulations on faculties and production to the point to where his support of life is compromised. With libertarians and capitalists it is the rights to faculties (read: liberty) and production (read: property) which are the focus while they support a so-called "pro-choice" position which is self-defeating. With capitalists it is the right to production and sometimes faculties which is their focus -though the latter two oftentimes selectively apply the rights of the other to the extent that it helps them of course.{1} But I digress.
The culture of death we're in now will take time--and lost lives, unfortunately--before it's rectified. It seems that liberal groupthink loves the sanctity of life when it comes to criminals on death row, but no other lives are worthy. Sad commentary on their priorities and values.
Indeed.
ALL lives are worthy in the eyes of God; who are we to say we know better? I guess that doesn't matter to the Godless masses these days, though...
That is why we have to approach this with as much reason and logic as we can muster. They may not be people of faith but if they have good-will and are willing to consider an argument or position on its merits, then oftentimes such people can be reached even if it takes time and more effort than normal to do it.
Note:
{1} I go over this in greater detail at the following link:
The Fundamental Rights of Man Revisited (circa September 25, 2004)
You may find the approach taken against euthanasia in the above link to be particularly of interest since (at least implicitly) that is what Michael Schiavo is trying to do with his wife. I would argue that Terri's life may possibly be more solidly defended if a defense is made of her right to faculties (however diminished they happen to be) concurrent with the defense of life. (Along with tying into this the principle of society's collective or common good.) All of this is noted with greater exactness within the link above.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
More on Terri Schiavo, an Activist Blogosphere Effort on Her Behalf, Etc.:
The recent Rerum Novarum inculcation thread on Terri Schavo and the fundamental rights of man elicited some email from those who are in the trenches for her cause. In light of the seriousness of this matter, I have selected the following email and am for publication at Rerum Novarum as per the Welborn Protocol. This appear to be a form letter of sorts sent out to bloggers who have discussed this issue either recently or in the past. Nonetheless, that does not mean that the letter itself is not well thought out or well intended. The writer's words will be in purple font with minor changes made to give life to the links that she sent.
Dear Shawn,
I am writing to invite you to become part of an organized effort among over 100 bloggers to help bring a just resolution to the plight of Terri Schiavo. Terri Schiavo is a disabled woman who has been denied appropriate medical treatment and whose life has been threatened for the past fifteen years. Right now there is a massive effort in the Blogosphere to first save her life and then restore her rights to appropriate medical treatment. You can help in this effort. Here's how:
1. Educate yourself on her situation. A good comprehensive website to start with is her family's official website [HERE]. You can find the latest breaking news on her case [HERE]. In addition, there are many other linked websites and blogs you can visit, and you can find your own sources with the help of your favorite search engine.
2. Get the word out. Email your family and friends, your local radio stations, newspapers, and anyone else you can think of.
3. Join the effort [HERE]. Since you have a blog, consider joining the blogburst and post about Terri on a daily basis. Contact the key people in Florida provided [HERE]. You also have an opportunity to participate in a pledge drive to raise funds to place a full page ad in the St. Petersburg Times, Terri Schiavo's local paper. Go [HERE] for more information. No doubt, there are other ways to get involved in the works. Check back [HERE] often for updates.
I know we can't all do everything, but if we all do what we can, we can make a difference. Please join our efforts to help save Terri Schiavo's life and provide her with the medical treatment she has been so long denied. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Beth Cleaver
Beth's Weblog
Blogs For Terri
Certainly I am quite willing to give an assist to this noble effort. However, let it be noted that (thus far) I am (to my knowledge) the only one who has provided a principle of argumentation capable of consistently defending Terri Schiavo in the entire blogosphere without indirectly undermining the other fundamental rights that singleissue advocates inexorably ignore. In doing this, I have taken it upon myself to reiterate and refine further a classical economic and legal model for an authentically conservative society where situations such as Terri Schiavo's would not occur or be sanctioned by any legal system worthy of being called "just." While this may not be as direct a service to Terri Schiavo as many who are involved in this struggle at the front lines; at the same time, all movements have to have both short term and long term strategists.
My approach to this is both long term and also (for the most part) transcends this circumstance to consider the underlying ramifications behind the so-called "rights" which certain parties claim to have over other people which in reality they do not. And in doing so, I must reiterate until enough people finally start grasping it what the bottom line of any defense of Terri Schiavo that crosses religious boundaries must entail.
That bottom line is the recognition that there are three fundamental rights of mankind that precede all laws ever written by mankind. Furthermore, all three of these rights stand together and must be recognized as such if defending one of them is to succeed in a permanent (as opposed to a transitory) manner. I have noted this countless times in the past and also admitted that before that I did not explicitly have the Terri Schiavo situation in mind in doing any of this.
Maybe it helps that I did not have any particular issues directly in mind initially except the overarching ones of (i) authentic freedoms as opposed to pseudo-"freedoms" and (ii) the role of law a just society in safeguarding said authentic freedoms. By implication, this involves an entire spectrum of issues{1} including those involved in the Terri Schiavo situation.
In summarizing this thread, I will again reiterate a point I have made on various occasions in the past including recently{2} -with slight modifications where warranted:
[Any] ranting about violations in [various legal/moral/social/political, etc.] areas have to be addressed systematically my friends and from the same core premises. This will require learning a new hermeneutic of argumentation to some extent but if we want to actually win this culture war -and not merely receive constant "stays of execution"- it is something that all of us who care about these issues must learn to do.
At its foundation, that is what must accompany all of these efforts on Terri Schiavo's behalf. Because if it does not, then one of two things will happen (i) Terri will be spared but this same circumstance will arise again -either with her or with someone else in a similar predicament or (ii) she will lose and those who campaigned for her life will learn nothing from their experiences to prevent a future event like hers from occurring.{3} My interest is in these kinds of situations not happening again. And that is why I approach this issue as I do and always will.
However, one person has a slim chance of getting an idea to be accepted across a broader continuum of philosophical or ethical outlooks. Therefore, those truly interested in helping not only the Terri Schiavo's of today but also those of tomorrow{4} do well to learn this and learn it fast lest again they make a prophet out of Santayana much as many people before them have done.
Having noted all of that, it seems appropriate to end this post with an article on the situation from Fr. Rob Johansen. Hopefully readers will be able to see in light of what Fr. Rob had to say why (i) it is important to approach this subject in a number of ways and (ii) why what I have proposed is the only viable way to procedurally mitigate against future situations such as this cropping up in our society. But that is all I will note on this subject at the present time except (of course) to note that Terri and her family will be in my prayers.
Notes:
{1} To see how they pertain to the subjects of a person's liberty/faculties and their production/property, see this link where I make a few clarifications to an earlier post where there was a bit of confusion on the part of some of the readers. (Including the individual whom I wrote the defense for in the first place.)
{2} The original form of this statement (reiterated HERE) can be accessed from the same source.
{3} And as far as future situations such as the Schiavo one, it is only a matter of when (and not if) it happens again. (If her supporters do not wise up on this and wise up soon.)
{4} In both cases, there are many of these whom the bulk of her supporters would not recognize. A classic example of this can be viewed in the link within footnote one. And as long as this fact goes unrecognized, we will inevitably have more Terri Schiavo situations crop up with greater frequency in the future. To kill the weed you have to pluck out the roots. And it is plucking out the roots which is what I recommend and have long recommended at this humble weblog.
The recent Rerum Novarum inculcation thread on Terri Schavo and the fundamental rights of man elicited some email from those who are in the trenches for her cause. In light of the seriousness of this matter, I have selected the following email and am for publication at Rerum Novarum as per the Welborn Protocol. This appear to be a form letter of sorts sent out to bloggers who have discussed this issue either recently or in the past. Nonetheless, that does not mean that the letter itself is not well thought out or well intended. The writer's words will be in purple font with minor changes made to give life to the links that she sent.
Dear Shawn,
I am writing to invite you to become part of an organized effort among over 100 bloggers to help bring a just resolution to the plight of Terri Schiavo. Terri Schiavo is a disabled woman who has been denied appropriate medical treatment and whose life has been threatened for the past fifteen years. Right now there is a massive effort in the Blogosphere to first save her life and then restore her rights to appropriate medical treatment. You can help in this effort. Here's how:
1. Educate yourself on her situation. A good comprehensive website to start with is her family's official website [HERE]. You can find the latest breaking news on her case [HERE]. In addition, there are many other linked websites and blogs you can visit, and you can find your own sources with the help of your favorite search engine.
2. Get the word out. Email your family and friends, your local radio stations, newspapers, and anyone else you can think of.
3. Join the effort [HERE]. Since you have a blog, consider joining the blogburst and post about Terri on a daily basis. Contact the key people in Florida provided [HERE]. You also have an opportunity to participate in a pledge drive to raise funds to place a full page ad in the St. Petersburg Times, Terri Schiavo's local paper. Go [HERE] for more information. No doubt, there are other ways to get involved in the works. Check back [HERE] often for updates.
I know we can't all do everything, but if we all do what we can, we can make a difference. Please join our efforts to help save Terri Schiavo's life and provide her with the medical treatment she has been so long denied. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Beth Cleaver
Beth's Weblog
Blogs For Terri
Certainly I am quite willing to give an assist to this noble effort. However, let it be noted that (thus far) I am (to my knowledge) the only one who has provided a principle of argumentation capable of consistently defending Terri Schiavo in the entire blogosphere without indirectly undermining the other fundamental rights that singleissue advocates inexorably ignore. In doing this, I have taken it upon myself to reiterate and refine further a classical economic and legal model for an authentically conservative society where situations such as Terri Schiavo's would not occur or be sanctioned by any legal system worthy of being called "just." While this may not be as direct a service to Terri Schiavo as many who are involved in this struggle at the front lines; at the same time, all movements have to have both short term and long term strategists.
My approach to this is both long term and also (for the most part) transcends this circumstance to consider the underlying ramifications behind the so-called "rights" which certain parties claim to have over other people which in reality they do not. And in doing so, I must reiterate until enough people finally start grasping it what the bottom line of any defense of Terri Schiavo that crosses religious boundaries must entail.
That bottom line is the recognition that there are three fundamental rights of mankind that precede all laws ever written by mankind. Furthermore, all three of these rights stand together and must be recognized as such if defending one of them is to succeed in a permanent (as opposed to a transitory) manner. I have noted this countless times in the past and also admitted that before that I did not explicitly have the Terri Schiavo situation in mind in doing any of this.
Maybe it helps that I did not have any particular issues directly in mind initially except the overarching ones of (i) authentic freedoms as opposed to pseudo-"freedoms" and (ii) the role of law a just society in safeguarding said authentic freedoms. By implication, this involves an entire spectrum of issues{1} including those involved in the Terri Schiavo situation.
In summarizing this thread, I will again reiterate a point I have made on various occasions in the past including recently{2} -with slight modifications where warranted:
[Any] ranting about violations in [various legal/moral/social/political, etc.] areas have to be addressed systematically my friends and from the same core premises. This will require learning a new hermeneutic of argumentation to some extent but if we want to actually win this culture war -and not merely receive constant "stays of execution"- it is something that all of us who care about these issues must learn to do.
At its foundation, that is what must accompany all of these efforts on Terri Schiavo's behalf. Because if it does not, then one of two things will happen (i) Terri will be spared but this same circumstance will arise again -either with her or with someone else in a similar predicament or (ii) she will lose and those who campaigned for her life will learn nothing from their experiences to prevent a future event like hers from occurring.{3} My interest is in these kinds of situations not happening again. And that is why I approach this issue as I do and always will.
However, one person has a slim chance of getting an idea to be accepted across a broader continuum of philosophical or ethical outlooks. Therefore, those truly interested in helping not only the Terri Schiavo's of today but also those of tomorrow{4} do well to learn this and learn it fast lest again they make a prophet out of Santayana much as many people before them have done.
Having noted all of that, it seems appropriate to end this post with an article on the situation from Fr. Rob Johansen. Hopefully readers will be able to see in light of what Fr. Rob had to say why (i) it is important to approach this subject in a number of ways and (ii) why what I have proposed is the only viable way to procedurally mitigate against future situations such as this cropping up in our society. But that is all I will note on this subject at the present time except (of course) to note that Terri and her family will be in my prayers.
Notes:
{1} To see how they pertain to the subjects of a person's liberty/faculties and their production/property, see this link where I make a few clarifications to an earlier post where there was a bit of confusion on the part of some of the readers. (Including the individual whom I wrote the defense for in the first place.)
{2} The original form of this statement (reiterated HERE) can be accessed from the same source.
{3} And as far as future situations such as the Schiavo one, it is only a matter of when (and not if) it happens again. (If her supporters do not wise up on this and wise up soon.)
{4} In both cases, there are many of these whom the bulk of her supporters would not recognize. A classic example of this can be viewed in the link within footnote one. And as long as this fact goes unrecognized, we will inevitably have more Terri Schiavo situations crop up with greater frequency in the future. To kill the weed you have to pluck out the roots. And it is plucking out the roots which is what I recommend and have long recommended at this humble weblog.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Friday, February 18, 2005
More on Terri Schiavo and the Fundamental Rights of Man:
(A Rerum Novarum Inculcation Thread)
According to Fr. Rob Johansen, [a] Kansas woman, Sarah Scantlin, recently began talking after 20 years of brain-damage induced silence.
Her doctors "believe critical pathways in the brain may have regenerated."
It seems providential that this occurrence has taken place not long before Terri Schiavo's husband will again again attempt to sacrifice her life on the altar of "inconvenience" within the coming week. For that reason, it seems appropriate to remind readers of this weblog about one of my defenses of the three fundamental rights of man -in this case pertaining to Terri Schiavo.{1} As critical as I have been of the inconsistency of those who selectively defend one fundamental right while undermining one or more of the other two by inaction, I am thereby bound out of principle to reiterate these principles at opportune points of time where they may serve a benefit for the legions of those who are unable to formulate a consistent thread of argumentation on these issues. With that in mind, I direct the readers to this thread and the following important points from it as they again pertain to the Terri Schiavo situation:
Hopefully my readers will now realize that all three fundamental rights of man must be defended as a unit or else they all fall. And hopefully my explicit exhortations [...] in developing a consistent philosophical ethic to combat these evils over the past year -and implicit in the year plus preceding it- will finally start gaining some traction in the blogosphere.
All of the hair pulling, all of the ranting about violations in these areas have to be addressed systematically my friends and from the same core premises. This will require learning a new hermeneutic of argumentation to some extent but if we want to actually win this culture war -and not merely receive constant "stays of execution"- it is something that all of us who care about these issues must learn to do. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 30, 2003)]
Basically my friends, the approach of too many well meaning people is merely to get Terri another "stay of execution" and that is not a viable long-term approach to this issue. What is needed long term is learning a valuable theory which will aid people of a conservative mindset in supplying order to their thinking and helping them to see the broader forest for the trees.
But this is not an "either/or" situation by any means but instead it is a "both/and" situation. Or to phrase it in that manner, we should be seeking both to preserve Terri's life and laying in place a consistent principle of argumentation for defending the fundamental rights of man.{2} These rights are all dependent upon one another and when one is undermined, the other two by logical extension are as well. I am left wondering when Terri's advocates are not only going to stop seeing this as only a "life" issue but are also going to start seeing both parts of the "both/and" rather than only the first one. But that is all I will say on the matter at this time.
Notes:
{1} For those who wondered why I approached the subject of Jeff Culbreath's business and property a while back as I did in discussing the subject of Traditional Moral Principles and the clarifying followup post, you now have your reason.
I did not explicitly have the Terri Schiavo situation in mind; however note if you will that the defense of Jeff with altering a few particulars also functions as a defense of Terri. The latter was serendipitous by my own admission but a grounded logic on these matters is easily adaptable to other situations where fundamental rights are violated. In Jeff's case, the fundamental right was to property or production. With Terri Schiavo, the fundamental right was the right to life.
This is why I have focused in the past year on fundamental rights and grounding them in a consistent rationale. If we are to turn the tide on the culture wars, it will be by a strong and consistent rationale as well as the kind of heroic front line stances taken by those in the Shiavo and Culbreath situations. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 26, 2003)]
{2} The fundamental rights of man are three in number. They are God given and they precede all man made laws. It is in fact because these rights already existed -and an innate understanding of their implications- which is why men formed societies and wrote laws to begin with. And as these rights do not depend on laws for their existence, they likewise cannot be repealed by laws without perverting justice and the very notion of what law in a just society is intended to achieve.
(A Rerum Novarum Inculcation Thread)
According to Fr. Rob Johansen, [a] Kansas woman, Sarah Scantlin, recently began talking after 20 years of brain-damage induced silence.
Her doctors "believe critical pathways in the brain may have regenerated."
It seems providential that this occurrence has taken place not long before Terri Schiavo's husband will again again attempt to sacrifice her life on the altar of "inconvenience" within the coming week. For that reason, it seems appropriate to remind readers of this weblog about one of my defenses of the three fundamental rights of man -in this case pertaining to Terri Schiavo.{1} As critical as I have been of the inconsistency of those who selectively defend one fundamental right while undermining one or more of the other two by inaction, I am thereby bound out of principle to reiterate these principles at opportune points of time where they may serve a benefit for the legions of those who are unable to formulate a consistent thread of argumentation on these issues. With that in mind, I direct the readers to this thread and the following important points from it as they again pertain to the Terri Schiavo situation:
Hopefully my readers will now realize that all three fundamental rights of man must be defended as a unit or else they all fall. And hopefully my explicit exhortations [...] in developing a consistent philosophical ethic to combat these evils over the past year -and implicit in the year plus preceding it- will finally start gaining some traction in the blogosphere.
All of the hair pulling, all of the ranting about violations in these areas have to be addressed systematically my friends and from the same core premises. This will require learning a new hermeneutic of argumentation to some extent but if we want to actually win this culture war -and not merely receive constant "stays of execution"- it is something that all of us who care about these issues must learn to do. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 30, 2003)]
Basically my friends, the approach of too many well meaning people is merely to get Terri another "stay of execution" and that is not a viable long-term approach to this issue. What is needed long term is learning a valuable theory which will aid people of a conservative mindset in supplying order to their thinking and helping them to see the broader forest for the trees.
But this is not an "either/or" situation by any means but instead it is a "both/and" situation. Or to phrase it in that manner, we should be seeking both to preserve Terri's life and laying in place a consistent principle of argumentation for defending the fundamental rights of man.{2} These rights are all dependent upon one another and when one is undermined, the other two by logical extension are as well. I am left wondering when Terri's advocates are not only going to stop seeing this as only a "life" issue but are also going to start seeing both parts of the "both/and" rather than only the first one. But that is all I will say on the matter at this time.
Notes:
{1} For those who wondered why I approached the subject of Jeff Culbreath's business and property a while back as I did in discussing the subject of Traditional Moral Principles and the clarifying followup post, you now have your reason.
I did not explicitly have the Terri Schiavo situation in mind; however note if you will that the defense of Jeff with altering a few particulars also functions as a defense of Terri. The latter was serendipitous by my own admission but a grounded logic on these matters is easily adaptable to other situations where fundamental rights are violated. In Jeff's case, the fundamental right was to property or production. With Terri Schiavo, the fundamental right was the right to life.
This is why I have focused in the past year on fundamental rights and grounding them in a consistent rationale. If we are to turn the tide on the culture wars, it will be by a strong and consistent rationale as well as the kind of heroic front line stances taken by those in the Shiavo and Culbreath situations. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 26, 2003)]
{2} The fundamental rights of man are three in number. They are God given and they precede all man made laws. It is in fact because these rights already existed -and an innate understanding of their implications- which is why men formed societies and wrote laws to begin with. And as these rights do not depend on laws for their existence, they likewise cannot be repealed by laws without perverting justice and the very notion of what law in a just society is intended to achieve.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Monday, February 14, 2005
On the Blogosphere and Mainstream Media Hypocritical Double Standards:
(A Brief Rerum Novarum Reinteration Thread)
The purpose of this post is twofold: (i) to reiterate one of this weblog's positions and also (ii) to direct readers to a scathing indictment of the mainstream media (MSM) attitude and approach to the blogosphere which was posted today. Just a couple of titbits though...
What is unique in the war on blogging is that the battles are not one based on politics, but one based on hatred of the blogosphere by the old media as it continues to lose readership and the revenues a large readership attracts. The targets are both those on the left and right of the blogosphere...
Old media did, and still do not only report on those that have erred in the public eye, but in many cases go overboard in their attempts to report the story.
Bloggers have not staked out private residences, nor thrust Television camera’s into people's faces. They have simply reported what they believe to be fact.
Which is worse, a media salivating for blood with telescopic photo lenses, or a relatively small number of bloggers sitting at their computers writing on the events of the day.
Who is really the lynch mob? [LINK]
In short, the article above is an excellent summation of why We at Rerum Novarum have long had such a low view of the MSM...so low in fact that We formulated a dictum on the MSM a long time ago.{1} Admittedly the definition of this principle was a still a tad bit nebulous until last year after several shorthand asides to it in various dialogues compelled Us to define the concept. Anyway, the McElhinney Media Dictum is defined as follows:
The media, particularly the major outlets of the press --their pretensions of being "more enlightened than thou" notwithstanding-- seem almost inexorably to operate on a presuppositional foundation that is equal parts irresponsible fundamentalism and an unproven (but presumed a priori) empiricist outlook. Therefore, the more complex the variables of a particular position, argument, situation, problem, etc., the less they can be trusted to be reliable reporters of said positions, situations, arguments, etc. In summary, the media's propensity for error is in direct proportion to the intricacies of the particular position, argument, situation, problem, etc.
This definition was followed with an important clarification{3} but noting those things will help readers of this post understand with greater clarity why an article such as the one excerpted above finds such favour with Us so that is all that will be noted on the matter at this time.
Notes:
{1} Indeed the principles behind this long held dictum were held long before this writer had ever even heard of an internet (let along the blogosphere of which Rerum Novarum is a part thereof).
{2} The definition was taken from a Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG entry (circa August 2, 2004).
{3} It should go without saying that this principle also applies to many of the major media outlets of any particular weltanschauung. Generally the more "mainstream" something is, the more simplified and bereft of essential details or nuances it inevitably is or will become. And as they say "God is often in the details." [A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG entry (circa August 2, 2004)]
(A Brief Rerum Novarum Reinteration Thread)
The purpose of this post is twofold: (i) to reiterate one of this weblog's positions and also (ii) to direct readers to a scathing indictment of the mainstream media (MSM) attitude and approach to the blogosphere which was posted today. Just a couple of titbits though...
What is unique in the war on blogging is that the battles are not one based on politics, but one based on hatred of the blogosphere by the old media as it continues to lose readership and the revenues a large readership attracts. The targets are both those on the left and right of the blogosphere...
Old media did, and still do not only report on those that have erred in the public eye, but in many cases go overboard in their attempts to report the story.
Bloggers have not staked out private residences, nor thrust Television camera’s into people's faces. They have simply reported what they believe to be fact.
Which is worse, a media salivating for blood with telescopic photo lenses, or a relatively small number of bloggers sitting at their computers writing on the events of the day.
Who is really the lynch mob? [LINK]
In short, the article above is an excellent summation of why We at Rerum Novarum have long had such a low view of the MSM...so low in fact that We formulated a dictum on the MSM a long time ago.{1} Admittedly the definition of this principle was a still a tad bit nebulous until last year after several shorthand asides to it in various dialogues compelled Us to define the concept. Anyway, the McElhinney Media Dictum is defined as follows:
The media, particularly the major outlets of the press --their pretensions of being "more enlightened than thou" notwithstanding-- seem almost inexorably to operate on a presuppositional foundation that is equal parts irresponsible fundamentalism and an unproven (but presumed a priori) empiricist outlook. Therefore, the more complex the variables of a particular position, argument, situation, problem, etc., the less they can be trusted to be reliable reporters of said positions, situations, arguments, etc. In summary, the media's propensity for error is in direct proportion to the intricacies of the particular position, argument, situation, problem, etc.
This definition was followed with an important clarification{3} but noting those things will help readers of this post understand with greater clarity why an article such as the one excerpted above finds such favour with Us so that is all that will be noted on the matter at this time.
Notes:
{1} Indeed the principles behind this long held dictum were held long before this writer had ever even heard of an internet (let along the blogosphere of which Rerum Novarum is a part thereof).
{2} The definition was taken from a Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG entry (circa August 2, 2004).
{3} It should go without saying that this principle also applies to many of the major media outlets of any particular weltanschauung. Generally the more "mainstream" something is, the more simplified and bereft of essential details or nuances it inevitably is or will become. And as they say "God is often in the details." [A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG entry (circa August 2, 2004)]
Friday, February 11, 2005
"Down on the Corner" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Triple Slam)
In the styling of Our JunkYard BLOG and Volokh Conspiracy larger threads posted on occasion,{1} We offer the following from National Review Online at their Corner BLOG:
MEDIA-BIAS MOMENTS [Tim Graham]
As you head into the weekend, you might enjoy exploring the following topics in current media bias. Or they might make your head explode. You decide.
1. Does the media always reduce the federal budget debate into little heart-tugging political ads about how the poor will have their hearts ripped out by supposed Republican budget slashers? See here.
2. Why is a 30-year-old allegation of sexual fondling against a comedian considered "news" by CBS, but a 20-year-old allegation of rape against a sitting president is not? See here. [LINK]
Of course Tim Graham does not say anything about these issues that have not been enunciated before at this humble weblog and many others. Nonetheless, it is worth reiterating it again so that those who do not comprehend the obvious double standard involved here maybe will in time with enough inculcation.{2}
WARD CHURCHILL [Jonah Goldberg ]
If you hadn't figured out from my column I disagree with what seems to be the consensus view among conservatives about Ward Churchill. I think he should be canned. It would be preferable if they could do it for cause -- i.e. find fraud, or malfeasance or some such -- but if not I still think he should go. I appreciate the arguments on the other side from a lot of smart folks, but at the end of the day he should never have been hired in the first place (has anyone found out if he was hired as part of a "diversity" program on account of his almost certainly fictional Indian status?). And while I understand the worries of a "chilling-effect" backlash, I think academic freedom would actually be better served if he were fired in the long run. Right now the left chills speech it doesn't like with impunity and there is no sign that they see any reason to stop. Perhaps if they realized that this is a two way street we might get some more appreciation for real ideological diversity. [LINK]
Frankly, We must disagree with Jonah Goldberg on this one with one caveat. In Our view, if the university can find other reasons for dismissing Professor Churchill then that would be okay grounds for doing so. But his moronic comments about those in the Towers being "little Eichmans" and "deserving" what they got should not be grounds for firing him for one reason: it would be a source of various "suppression of free speech" cries from the contemporary ignorant who fail to realize that (logically speaking) any authentic freedom must possess a contingent responsibility attached to it.
Now admittedly while such an outcry would be both predictable as well as provide Us and many others with an opportunity to fisk such pseudo-"progressivist" lunacies; at the same time, it would be better to retain Professor Churchill if they cannot find other grounds to dismiss him. In Our view, if fraud or incompetence can be demonstrated, that would be a good way to open up a discussion on "affirmative action" style hiring or "quota preferences" and the inexorable diminishment of quality that results from such practices. That in Our view is a far better argument to have than "suppression of free speech part mcmlxxxiv" would be.
WRITING OFF ROMNEY [K. J. Lopez ]
What an obnoxious editorial in the NYTimes this morning about Massachusetts cloning. The editors begin: “Let's hope Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts was posturing for a national audience of conservative Republicans when he came out strongly for a ban on some of the most promising stem cell research planned at prominent institutions in his state.”
%#@%$!
I’ve already joked that I’ve been charmed by Romney. But no Boston reporter at yesterday’s press conference is going to persuasively tell me that he wasn’t impressed by how considered Romney was on the issue (I wasn’t in Boston, but listened to the audio). I wish he had gone all out and opposed using IVF embryos as well as creating new embryos for research, but he would have gotten nowhere had he taken that position there, for one thing. At the moment he’s really starting at a point where he’s reaching out: He says, ok, we can use frozen embryos. There’s meeting the other side at a point where they should be able to cooperate. And let’s look at all the many alternatives to using embryos in the first place.
See Romney’s problem seems to be—and I have no doubt this has something to do with his wife’s M.S.—he has really thought through this issue. So he gets it. He was citing that Dr. Hurlburt, who the bioethics commission had at their last meeting—who’s talking about another alternative possibility for the future. In other words, he just understands the issue just so much more than most pols and reporters writing on it.
Is he doing it because he wants to be president? Maybe. But I buy that he actually believes this stuff. And, to be brutally honest, he may fail, so I’m not sure as a political strategy it would be the world’s best road to the White House. But regardless, I think where he is right now is laudable and important and he deserves support from those of us who oppose human cloning, for taking this on.
I'll have a little more on this all in a bit. [LINK]
Basically K-Lo is on target here. It is probable that Gov. Romney's family situation has driven his stance on this issue. And if he was doing this for political aspirations, then he needs to fire his advisors because this is not a "safe" stance to be taking politically. Instead, it is a definite stance which will have repercussions politically -particularly since most of those opposed to Romney are (i)not very well informed on these issues yet (ii) control the apparati of the mainstream media (MSM) and are adept at arguing by soundbyte. Gov. Romney could very well win the arguments but lose in the realm of perception by virtue of being demonized by the soundbyte in the MSM. Nonetheless, this kind of stand shows backbone regardless of the reason he has for taking it and (therefore) should be of interest to the Republicans who are looking for someone to run in '08{3} even as We write this.
Notes:
{1} We just realized that it has been almost eighteen months since we posted a Volokh Conspiracy superthread. That negligence will be partially rectified soon with a new thread as time allows for it.
{2} Orrrr perrrhaaaaps Weeee couuuuld slooowwwwww Ourrrr verrrballlllll caaaaaadenceeeesssss dooownnnnnnnn fooorrrrrrr themmmmm.
{3} And for those who think Jeb Bush is a candidate, it is Our view that he would lose for one important reason (among others): Americans do not like political dynasties and a third Bush presidency would be precisely that.
(A Rerum Novarum Triple Slam)
In the styling of Our JunkYard BLOG and Volokh Conspiracy larger threads posted on occasion,{1} We offer the following from National Review Online at their Corner BLOG:
MEDIA-BIAS MOMENTS [Tim Graham]
As you head into the weekend, you might enjoy exploring the following topics in current media bias. Or they might make your head explode. You decide.
1. Does the media always reduce the federal budget debate into little heart-tugging political ads about how the poor will have their hearts ripped out by supposed Republican budget slashers? See here.
2. Why is a 30-year-old allegation of sexual fondling against a comedian considered "news" by CBS, but a 20-year-old allegation of rape against a sitting president is not? See here. [LINK]
Of course Tim Graham does not say anything about these issues that have not been enunciated before at this humble weblog and many others. Nonetheless, it is worth reiterating it again so that those who do not comprehend the obvious double standard involved here maybe will in time with enough inculcation.{2}
WARD CHURCHILL [Jonah Goldberg ]
If you hadn't figured out from my column I disagree with what seems to be the consensus view among conservatives about Ward Churchill. I think he should be canned. It would be preferable if they could do it for cause -- i.e. find fraud, or malfeasance or some such -- but if not I still think he should go. I appreciate the arguments on the other side from a lot of smart folks, but at the end of the day he should never have been hired in the first place (has anyone found out if he was hired as part of a "diversity" program on account of his almost certainly fictional Indian status?). And while I understand the worries of a "chilling-effect" backlash, I think academic freedom would actually be better served if he were fired in the long run. Right now the left chills speech it doesn't like with impunity and there is no sign that they see any reason to stop. Perhaps if they realized that this is a two way street we might get some more appreciation for real ideological diversity. [LINK]
Frankly, We must disagree with Jonah Goldberg on this one with one caveat. In Our view, if the university can find other reasons for dismissing Professor Churchill then that would be okay grounds for doing so. But his moronic comments about those in the Towers being "little Eichmans" and "deserving" what they got should not be grounds for firing him for one reason: it would be a source of various "suppression of free speech" cries from the contemporary ignorant who fail to realize that (logically speaking) any authentic freedom must possess a contingent responsibility attached to it.
Now admittedly while such an outcry would be both predictable as well as provide Us and many others with an opportunity to fisk such pseudo-"progressivist" lunacies; at the same time, it would be better to retain Professor Churchill if they cannot find other grounds to dismiss him. In Our view, if fraud or incompetence can be demonstrated, that would be a good way to open up a discussion on "affirmative action" style hiring or "quota preferences" and the inexorable diminishment of quality that results from such practices. That in Our view is a far better argument to have than "suppression of free speech part mcmlxxxiv" would be.
WRITING OFF ROMNEY [K. J. Lopez ]
What an obnoxious editorial in the NYTimes this morning about Massachusetts cloning. The editors begin: “Let's hope Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts was posturing for a national audience of conservative Republicans when he came out strongly for a ban on some of the most promising stem cell research planned at prominent institutions in his state.”
%#@%$!
I’ve already joked that I’ve been charmed by Romney. But no Boston reporter at yesterday’s press conference is going to persuasively tell me that he wasn’t impressed by how considered Romney was on the issue (I wasn’t in Boston, but listened to the audio). I wish he had gone all out and opposed using IVF embryos as well as creating new embryos for research, but he would have gotten nowhere had he taken that position there, for one thing. At the moment he’s really starting at a point where he’s reaching out: He says, ok, we can use frozen embryos. There’s meeting the other side at a point where they should be able to cooperate. And let’s look at all the many alternatives to using embryos in the first place.
See Romney’s problem seems to be—and I have no doubt this has something to do with his wife’s M.S.—he has really thought through this issue. So he gets it. He was citing that Dr. Hurlburt, who the bioethics commission had at their last meeting—who’s talking about another alternative possibility for the future. In other words, he just understands the issue just so much more than most pols and reporters writing on it.
Is he doing it because he wants to be president? Maybe. But I buy that he actually believes this stuff. And, to be brutally honest, he may fail, so I’m not sure as a political strategy it would be the world’s best road to the White House. But regardless, I think where he is right now is laudable and important and he deserves support from those of us who oppose human cloning, for taking this on.
I'll have a little more on this all in a bit. [LINK]
Basically K-Lo is on target here. It is probable that Gov. Romney's family situation has driven his stance on this issue. And if he was doing this for political aspirations, then he needs to fire his advisors because this is not a "safe" stance to be taking politically. Instead, it is a definite stance which will have repercussions politically -particularly since most of those opposed to Romney are (i)not very well informed on these issues yet (ii) control the apparati of the mainstream media (MSM) and are adept at arguing by soundbyte. Gov. Romney could very well win the arguments but lose in the realm of perception by virtue of being demonized by the soundbyte in the MSM. Nonetheless, this kind of stand shows backbone regardless of the reason he has for taking it and (therefore) should be of interest to the Republicans who are looking for someone to run in '08{3} even as We write this.
Notes:
{1} We just realized that it has been almost eighteen months since we posted a Volokh Conspiracy superthread. That negligence will be partially rectified soon with a new thread as time allows for it.
{2} Orrrr perrrhaaaaps Weeee couuuuld slooowwwwww Ourrrr verrrballlllll caaaaaadenceeeesssss dooownnnnnnnn fooorrrrrrr themmmmm.
{3} And for those who think Jeb Bush is a candidate, it is Our view that he would lose for one important reason (among others): Americans do not like political dynasties and a third Bush presidency would be precisely that.
Points to Ponder:
Psychiatrists are beginning to turn toward notions of evil, even while they make noises about defining religion as a pathology. Rational religious folks are starting to reassert that religion can be rational, and to apply that understanding to social constructs. Secularists continue their mutual indoctrination. Meanwhile, Islamofascists are working to undermine and destroy Western civilization in multiple ways, and the response in many Western nations still resembles a person the morning after a late, indulgent night alternately struggling to wake up and to ignore the faint alarm and continue sleeping. [Justin Katz (circa 02/10/04)]
Psychiatrists are beginning to turn toward notions of evil, even while they make noises about defining religion as a pathology. Rational religious folks are starting to reassert that religion can be rational, and to apply that understanding to social constructs. Secularists continue their mutual indoctrination. Meanwhile, Islamofascists are working to undermine and destroy Western civilization in multiple ways, and the response in many Western nations still resembles a person the morning after a late, indulgent night alternately struggling to wake up and to ignore the faint alarm and continue sleeping. [Justin Katz (circa 02/10/04)]
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Monday, February 07, 2005
On "Social Commentary" and St. Blog's "Awards":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
As voting takes place in various categories for the various St. Blog's "Awards", it seems appropriate after noting my picks in various categories something that seems to be overlooked in how those listed in certain categories are picked. For example, this weblog was apparently nominated in the "best social commentary" category which is of course appreciated. However, upon looking at other nominees in that category,{1} it gives me reason to wonder what people are thinking when they nominate for various categories. For one thing, that the late Gerard Serafin's stellar weblog received no finalist consideration for anything is a crying shame. It makes this whole thing a charade to me from the get go but that point aside, let us consider the "best social commentary" category and what that category should entail.
First of all, let us get real: if we really want to get technical about it, (and modesty aside for the duration of this note) this category should be a three blog race between Rerum Novarum, Southern Appeal, and Dust in the Light. No one else who is nominated in that category of the "big five" finalists has anything particularly original to offer in these areas. All of which (thus far) confirms my long-viewed assessment about the "worth" of these kinds of awards: the predictable ones win and those who are truly creative in their analysis and suggestions (as in the three noted above are to some extent) tend to be more marginalized. But of course as assertions by themselves are cheap, here are several examples which pertain to the subject of social commentary as dealt with at Rerum Novarum --all of which are to some degree original (either in and of themselves) or in my development/refining of the underlying concepts involved.{2}
To start with, there is the renewal, further development (in some parameters), and careful application of the classical legal and economic theories of Claude Frederic Bastiat to the problems that beset society today -thereby providing a logical coherence to the authentic conservative position on these matters. The latter is a project that is an ongoing one at this weblog and from which there are probably thirty or forty threads from 2004 alone which would easily fit into this category. More will be taking place in 2005 as time allows for it -as this is an ambitious undertaking that has no small amount of work involved in it. But a short word on this process (since I see it as of no small significance) before moving onto the other subjects to be covered in this post.
For if nothing else at Rerum Novarum was accomplished in two and a half years (and for the remaining duration of this weblog's existence however long that will be), than the aforementioned ambitious project which has been undertaken here, the fact that I have sought to provide a consistent (and adaptable) rationale for advancing an agenda contrary to that which prevails in the society at large should suffice all by itself for that category. The subject being covered here is particularly pertinent to the whole subject because it involves an entire weltanschauung that is not only congruent with Catholic principles but which could be accepted by non-Catholics solely on the basis of the consistency of the positions and their relative logic thereof. (In other words, it has a dual benefit and is not only aimed at Catholics.) But of course there are others threads to consider too -some of which would be among the posts falling in the aforementioned area but nonetheless (to list roughly one per month):
--My posts on religious liberty and its application at large (particularly the one from December of 2004) which discusses the important components of any asserted "liberty" or "right" in a society. This has ramifications for a whole host of issues and therefore is of no small value.
--My musings on the role of the double effect principle in ethical argumentation as it pertains to issues which involve both the natural and supernatural. (Circa December of 2004.)
--The development of a unique application of the third party concept that could actually work in practice if implemented at the grass roots level over the next sixteen to twenty years. (Circa November of 2004.)
--My posts on voting circa September of 2004 -the one from the twenty-fifth on taking an integrated approach to voting and the one from the eighth on the myopic approach of pro lifers which is ultimately a self-defeating one.
--Posts such as the occasional "argumentation fallacy" posts which deal with the subject of how one properly utilizes reason and logic in argumentation. (The most recent one is circa August of 2004.) These are not directly involved with the social commentary subject but they do assist readers in being able to formulate viable arguments of their own as well as recognize fallacious forms of argumentation when others utilize it.
--The post from August 20, 2004 on the war, moral and constitutional principles, and "supporting the troops" in response to Ian McLean.
--My post on the logical fallacy of the "communist-fascist" political spectrum theory circa July 2004. The Beltway pundits who utilize this fallacious form of argumentation are legion but pointing this fallacy out and sustaining it by logical argumentation is something that you will not find in very many places. (If you will at all.)
--The post on humanizing formal enemies in a time of war (an audio post circa July 25th).
--The post on Paul Johnson and those who killed him (circa June 18, 2004).
--The post on Nick Berg and those who killed him (circa May 9, 2004)
--The two posts from March 2004 on John Kerry, Al Queda, and Spain
--My post on the 2004 elections circa February of 2004. This is a far more cogent argument for electing President Bush (his many warts and all) than the common boilerplate shrieking of certain Catholic "social commentators" who shall not be named.
--A rider reform proposal which is unlike any that I have seen offered anywhere else by anybody. (This one is circa January of 2004.) This proposal if enacted would clean up a lot of the crap that gets guided through the legislatures at the state and federal levels by making legislators accountable for their votes on these kinds of currently "under the radar" issues. The day someone puts through a rider mandating more federal funding for abortions and tacks it to some bill supported by Catholics at large is the day that they will realize why this proposal is of value and should be promoted.{3}
Though numerous others could be listed, that would result in an unnecessarily long biblical scroll of subjects. For that reason, I will refrain from mentioning any others here except for one caveat: my position on the war in Iraq as outlined in February of 2003 is not only one that was unique in the blogosphere but it also (in light of subsequent developments) has lost none of its credibility whatsoever.{4} The latter is an area where this weblog did a hell of a lot better job making a case for war than the Bush Administration did at the time. Many who took the same position have either done an about face or had to reconfigure their arguments significantly. But enough with presenting evidences.
My interest in any social commentary is in formulating workable solutions to societies problems and not just regurgitating the canned "Catholic" responses ala what the likely "winners" of this "award" will produce. Every entry which falls into this area intends to either advance, fortify, recall, or develop further the kind of core principles that enable someone to provide a coherent and consistent (not to mention workable) alternative to the ideas which permeate society at large in the present day. The reason for this is because definitions are the tools of thought.{4} I refuse to merely go along with "status quo" nebulous concepts -but apparently that is what one has to do to be considered a "social commentator" in these kinds of "awards." Along with the refusal to nominate Gerard Serafin's wonderful weblog for anything, we see the true "value" in these kinds of "awards."{5}
I should note that it is my concern for ideas such as those noted above reaching a broader audience that I have made any issue out of this "award." It is certainly not for the sake of the "award" itself -heck, I am frankly surprised that anyone would nominate this weblog for a specialized kind of category when it does not categorize well by my own admission. But at the very least, if Rerum Novarum is nominated for this category, then it deserves to be in there with weblogs which actually fit the category itself. And other than Southern Appeal and Dust in the Light{6} the nominees of this category do not belong and it is that simple really. This proves that the so-called "award" process in general is merely an exercise of nominating people for the sake of nominating them -not because they actually fit into the category to which they are being nominated. I need not explain further why this cheapens any pretense of a genuine "award" being offered here presumably; ergo I will not belabour this point further.
In closing, the "award" in and of itself is something that I frankly could care less about if not for the ideas I have worked on at this weblog over the years and crystallized into viable policies and principled arguments. It is with an eye towards reaching that broader audience with these concepts which is why I raise these issues at all at the present time. For that reason, "social commentary" nominees should be able to make a case for similar contributions{7} and not merely be there because they were nominated in every category under the sun regardless of their qualifications to be in a respective category thereof.
Notes:
{1} One of the weblogs nominated for "social commentary" is that of St. Blog's resident diva Amy Welborn. She has a good weblog -of this there is not doubt. However, this category is specifically one of "social commentary." And on that subject, when Amy has deigned to make commentary in this area, I have seen little that is truly original or which rises about the standard canned "responses" of the sort that are commonly blogged in these areas by most Catholics. If canned commentary is what wins in "best social commentary" than we are in a lot more trouble viz. having any relevancy in the blogosphere arena of ideas than I thought.
{2} I am incapable of producing a similar sampling from Dust in the Light or Southern Appeal but what I have read of those weblogs certainly does qualify them to be in this category.
{3} I intend to approach an initiative pusher in my state on this issue to try and get it on the ballot for the 2006 election.
{4} As one of my mentors Michael J. Mentzer was noted for saying at times.
{5} Apparently Gerard (may he rest in peace) has fallen prey to the "publish or perish" mantra which permeates fundamentalism and the short attention span of society at large these days. Oh well, he is in my "St. Blog's Hall of Fame" if no one else's. But I digress.
{6} Both of which have been considered for addition to my list of weblogs for some time now btw. (And one of which will probably be added in the next update whenever that happens to be.)
{7} Someone pointed out to me that the bulk of "social commentary" at Ms. Welborn's weblog takes place in the comments boxes. Here is what I noted about that argument in an email correspondence:
If that is the criteria, then how is it any different than a message board??? Social/political commentary should be voted on with the contributions of the weblog contributors in mind first and foremost. Whatever happens in Amy's comments boxes (and I do peruse them on occasion and even comment at times) I do not consider anything I say in comments boxes to be contributions to those weblogs.
Now it is true that I oftentimes blog stuff I put in comments boxes (usually refining it further in the process) but only then do I consider it as contributing to a weblog -and of course at that point it is a contribution to my own weblog. I certainly do not vote for any weblogs in any category based on what happens in their comments boxes. It should be by definition what the contributors to the weblog post-if a single weblog than that person's if a group than the contributions of the group [involved.]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
As voting takes place in various categories for the various St. Blog's "Awards", it seems appropriate after noting my picks in various categories something that seems to be overlooked in how those listed in certain categories are picked. For example, this weblog was apparently nominated in the "best social commentary" category which is of course appreciated. However, upon looking at other nominees in that category,{1} it gives me reason to wonder what people are thinking when they nominate for various categories. For one thing, that the late Gerard Serafin's stellar weblog received no finalist consideration for anything is a crying shame. It makes this whole thing a charade to me from the get go but that point aside, let us consider the "best social commentary" category and what that category should entail.
First of all, let us get real: if we really want to get technical about it, (and modesty aside for the duration of this note) this category should be a three blog race between Rerum Novarum, Southern Appeal, and Dust in the Light. No one else who is nominated in that category of the "big five" finalists has anything particularly original to offer in these areas. All of which (thus far) confirms my long-viewed assessment about the "worth" of these kinds of awards: the predictable ones win and those who are truly creative in their analysis and suggestions (as in the three noted above are to some extent) tend to be more marginalized. But of course as assertions by themselves are cheap, here are several examples which pertain to the subject of social commentary as dealt with at Rerum Novarum --all of which are to some degree original (either in and of themselves) or in my development/refining of the underlying concepts involved.{2}
To start with, there is the renewal, further development (in some parameters), and careful application of the classical legal and economic theories of Claude Frederic Bastiat to the problems that beset society today -thereby providing a logical coherence to the authentic conservative position on these matters. The latter is a project that is an ongoing one at this weblog and from which there are probably thirty or forty threads from 2004 alone which would easily fit into this category. More will be taking place in 2005 as time allows for it -as this is an ambitious undertaking that has no small amount of work involved in it. But a short word on this process (since I see it as of no small significance) before moving onto the other subjects to be covered in this post.
For if nothing else at Rerum Novarum was accomplished in two and a half years (and for the remaining duration of this weblog's existence however long that will be), than the aforementioned ambitious project which has been undertaken here, the fact that I have sought to provide a consistent (and adaptable) rationale for advancing an agenda contrary to that which prevails in the society at large should suffice all by itself for that category. The subject being covered here is particularly pertinent to the whole subject because it involves an entire weltanschauung that is not only congruent with Catholic principles but which could be accepted by non-Catholics solely on the basis of the consistency of the positions and their relative logic thereof. (In other words, it has a dual benefit and is not only aimed at Catholics.) But of course there are others threads to consider too -some of which would be among the posts falling in the aforementioned area but nonetheless (to list roughly one per month):
--My posts on religious liberty and its application at large (particularly the one from December of 2004) which discusses the important components of any asserted "liberty" or "right" in a society. This has ramifications for a whole host of issues and therefore is of no small value.
--My musings on the role of the double effect principle in ethical argumentation as it pertains to issues which involve both the natural and supernatural. (Circa December of 2004.)
--The development of a unique application of the third party concept that could actually work in practice if implemented at the grass roots level over the next sixteen to twenty years. (Circa November of 2004.)
--My posts on voting circa September of 2004 -the one from the twenty-fifth on taking an integrated approach to voting and the one from the eighth on the myopic approach of pro lifers which is ultimately a self-defeating one.
--Posts such as the occasional "argumentation fallacy" posts which deal with the subject of how one properly utilizes reason and logic in argumentation. (The most recent one is circa August of 2004.) These are not directly involved with the social commentary subject but they do assist readers in being able to formulate viable arguments of their own as well as recognize fallacious forms of argumentation when others utilize it.
--The post from August 20, 2004 on the war, moral and constitutional principles, and "supporting the troops" in response to Ian McLean.
--My post on the logical fallacy of the "communist-fascist" political spectrum theory circa July 2004. The Beltway pundits who utilize this fallacious form of argumentation are legion but pointing this fallacy out and sustaining it by logical argumentation is something that you will not find in very many places. (If you will at all.)
--The post on humanizing formal enemies in a time of war (an audio post circa July 25th).
--The post on Paul Johnson and those who killed him (circa June 18, 2004).
--The post on Nick Berg and those who killed him (circa May 9, 2004)
--The two posts from March 2004 on John Kerry, Al Queda, and Spain
--My post on the 2004 elections circa February of 2004. This is a far more cogent argument for electing President Bush (his many warts and all) than the common boilerplate shrieking of certain Catholic "social commentators" who shall not be named.
--A rider reform proposal which is unlike any that I have seen offered anywhere else by anybody. (This one is circa January of 2004.) This proposal if enacted would clean up a lot of the crap that gets guided through the legislatures at the state and federal levels by making legislators accountable for their votes on these kinds of currently "under the radar" issues. The day someone puts through a rider mandating more federal funding for abortions and tacks it to some bill supported by Catholics at large is the day that they will realize why this proposal is of value and should be promoted.{3}
Though numerous others could be listed, that would result in an unnecessarily long biblical scroll of subjects. For that reason, I will refrain from mentioning any others here except for one caveat: my position on the war in Iraq as outlined in February of 2003 is not only one that was unique in the blogosphere but it also (in light of subsequent developments) has lost none of its credibility whatsoever.{4} The latter is an area where this weblog did a hell of a lot better job making a case for war than the Bush Administration did at the time. Many who took the same position have either done an about face or had to reconfigure their arguments significantly. But enough with presenting evidences.
My interest in any social commentary is in formulating workable solutions to societies problems and not just regurgitating the canned "Catholic" responses ala what the likely "winners" of this "award" will produce. Every entry which falls into this area intends to either advance, fortify, recall, or develop further the kind of core principles that enable someone to provide a coherent and consistent (not to mention workable) alternative to the ideas which permeate society at large in the present day. The reason for this is because definitions are the tools of thought.{4} I refuse to merely go along with "status quo" nebulous concepts -but apparently that is what one has to do to be considered a "social commentator" in these kinds of "awards." Along with the refusal to nominate Gerard Serafin's wonderful weblog for anything, we see the true "value" in these kinds of "awards."{5}
I should note that it is my concern for ideas such as those noted above reaching a broader audience that I have made any issue out of this "award." It is certainly not for the sake of the "award" itself -heck, I am frankly surprised that anyone would nominate this weblog for a specialized kind of category when it does not categorize well by my own admission. But at the very least, if Rerum Novarum is nominated for this category, then it deserves to be in there with weblogs which actually fit the category itself. And other than Southern Appeal and Dust in the Light{6} the nominees of this category do not belong and it is that simple really. This proves that the so-called "award" process in general is merely an exercise of nominating people for the sake of nominating them -not because they actually fit into the category to which they are being nominated. I need not explain further why this cheapens any pretense of a genuine "award" being offered here presumably; ergo I will not belabour this point further.
In closing, the "award" in and of itself is something that I frankly could care less about if not for the ideas I have worked on at this weblog over the years and crystallized into viable policies and principled arguments. It is with an eye towards reaching that broader audience with these concepts which is why I raise these issues at all at the present time. For that reason, "social commentary" nominees should be able to make a case for similar contributions{7} and not merely be there because they were nominated in every category under the sun regardless of their qualifications to be in a respective category thereof.
Notes:
{1} One of the weblogs nominated for "social commentary" is that of St. Blog's resident diva Amy Welborn. She has a good weblog -of this there is not doubt. However, this category is specifically one of "social commentary." And on that subject, when Amy has deigned to make commentary in this area, I have seen little that is truly original or which rises about the standard canned "responses" of the sort that are commonly blogged in these areas by most Catholics. If canned commentary is what wins in "best social commentary" than we are in a lot more trouble viz. having any relevancy in the blogosphere arena of ideas than I thought.
{2} I am incapable of producing a similar sampling from Dust in the Light or Southern Appeal but what I have read of those weblogs certainly does qualify them to be in this category.
{3} I intend to approach an initiative pusher in my state on this issue to try and get it on the ballot for the 2006 election.
{4} As one of my mentors Michael J. Mentzer was noted for saying at times.
{5} Apparently Gerard (may he rest in peace) has fallen prey to the "publish or perish" mantra which permeates fundamentalism and the short attention span of society at large these days. Oh well, he is in my "St. Blog's Hall of Fame" if no one else's. But I digress.
{6} Both of which have been considered for addition to my list of weblogs for some time now btw. (And one of which will probably be added in the next update whenever that happens to be.)
{7} Someone pointed out to me that the bulk of "social commentary" at Ms. Welborn's weblog takes place in the comments boxes. Here is what I noted about that argument in an email correspondence:
If that is the criteria, then how is it any different than a message board??? Social/political commentary should be voted on with the contributions of the weblog contributors in mind first and foremost. Whatever happens in Amy's comments boxes (and I do peruse them on occasion and even comment at times) I do not consider anything I say in comments boxes to be contributions to those weblogs.
Now it is true that I oftentimes blog stuff I put in comments boxes (usually refining it further in the process) but only then do I consider it as contributing to a weblog -and of course at that point it is a contribution to my own weblog. I certainly do not vote for any weblogs in any category based on what happens in their comments boxes. It should be by definition what the contributors to the weblog post-if a single weblog than that person's if a group than the contributions of the group [involved.]
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Some Clarifications on Fr. Henri de Lubac and His Views on the Relationship Between Nature and Grace:
When responding to an email correspondence some time ago on the subject of nature and grace at this humble weblog, I noted a few things about Fr. Henri de Lubac's position and also that I would send this link to a couple theologians more familiar with de Lubac's work than I am for confirmation on this.{1} That was done and responses were actually pretty prompt on the part of those whom I sent a note to about a clarification. However, as this was in the weeks winding down to the election, I wanted to focus on subjects pertaining to that event and put this thread on the backburner. Nonetheless, here is the note that was sent back in mid September of 2004:
From: I. Shawn McElhinney
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 12:47 PM
To:
Subject: Request for a Clarification (and Possible Correction)...
I note the area where I would like a clarification (if it is deemed necessary) in this post:
[Link snipped]
As two theologians who have read more of Cardinal de Lubac's work than I have, I will accept any corrections you may have of my representation of his view on nature and grace.
The first response I received was from Kevin Miller, a professor of theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville -who is well studied in the work of Fr. Henri de Lubac (certainly far beyond my own studies in this area). Here is what he had to say:
Shawn,
Yes, de Lubac (and Rahner) did indeed take a position that was explicitly distinct from the one rejected in HG.
Regarding Teilhard de Chardin - I'm actually not sure when de L started defending him; I'm not sure, therefore, how much that had to do with de L's troubles. I think the problem was at least partly that some people in Rome (who already disliked de L's work) misread HG and/or de L and wrongly took de L's view on nature/grace as he'd recently expressed it in Surnaturel (and perhaps other elements of his methodology) to be rejected by HG (e.g., by reading the position of the writer "D" into de L). Robert can probably give you more details on that.
The second response I received was from Robert Gotcher, a professor of systematic theology at Sacred Heart School of Theology among whose specialties include the theology of Fr. Henri de Lubac. Here is what he had to say:
Shawn,
De Lubac didn't start publicly defending Teilhard de Chardin until 1960, as far as I know. What he did in private, I don't know. As for HG, de Lubac would have said "of course!" to Pius XII's statement. He would have then added that those rational beings would not be human beings, but something else. So he did dodge that particular bullet.
He was never censured for any statement as far as I know. Nor was he ever punished by the Vatican.
Anyway, the readers are asked to accept these notes as correctives to my previously enunciated post on these subjects.
Note:
{1} Though this statement was true as far as it goes; nonetheless it was admittedly no small understatement on my part. (As my studies of de Lubac cannot compare to that of two professors who are specialized in his theology.)
When responding to an email correspondence some time ago on the subject of nature and grace at this humble weblog, I noted a few things about Fr. Henri de Lubac's position and also that I would send this link to a couple theologians more familiar with de Lubac's work than I am for confirmation on this.{1} That was done and responses were actually pretty prompt on the part of those whom I sent a note to about a clarification. However, as this was in the weeks winding down to the election, I wanted to focus on subjects pertaining to that event and put this thread on the backburner. Nonetheless, here is the note that was sent back in mid September of 2004:
From: I. Shawn McElhinney
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 12:47 PM
To:
Subject: Request for a Clarification (and Possible Correction)...
I note the area where I would like a clarification (if it is deemed necessary) in this post:
[Link snipped]
As two theologians who have read more of Cardinal de Lubac's work than I have, I will accept any corrections you may have of my representation of his view on nature and grace.
The first response I received was from Kevin Miller, a professor of theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville -who is well studied in the work of Fr. Henri de Lubac (certainly far beyond my own studies in this area). Here is what he had to say:
Shawn,
Yes, de Lubac (and Rahner) did indeed take a position that was explicitly distinct from the one rejected in HG.
Regarding Teilhard de Chardin - I'm actually not sure when de L started defending him; I'm not sure, therefore, how much that had to do with de L's troubles. I think the problem was at least partly that some people in Rome (who already disliked de L's work) misread HG and/or de L and wrongly took de L's view on nature/grace as he'd recently expressed it in Surnaturel (and perhaps other elements of his methodology) to be rejected by HG (e.g., by reading the position of the writer "D" into de L). Robert can probably give you more details on that.
The second response I received was from Robert Gotcher, a professor of systematic theology at Sacred Heart School of Theology among whose specialties include the theology of Fr. Henri de Lubac. Here is what he had to say:
Shawn,
De Lubac didn't start publicly defending Teilhard de Chardin until 1960, as far as I know. What he did in private, I don't know. As for HG, de Lubac would have said "of course!" to Pius XII's statement. He would have then added that those rational beings would not be human beings, but something else. So he did dodge that particular bullet.
He was never censured for any statement as far as I know. Nor was he ever punished by the Vatican.
Anyway, the readers are asked to accept these notes as correctives to my previously enunciated post on these subjects.
Note:
{1} Though this statement was true as far as it goes; nonetheless it was admittedly no small understatement on my part. (As my studies of de Lubac cannot compare to that of two professors who are specialized in his theology.)
Points to Ponder:
(On an Obvious Double Standard)
I remember a few years back when Bill Clinton was president. Social Security, we were frequently told, was on the verge of bankruptcy. Decreasing worker payments and increasing boomer retirements were the cause. Only a dedicated, brilliant, and left-wing social servant like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Bill Bradley could possibly save us by reforming the program.
But now that George Bush works in the Oval Office, things are looking up. Social Security is just fine and dandy, thank you very much, and there's no reason to change one iota of the program. Oh we might consider tinkering here and there to make it even better than perfect, but really there's no need for alarmed, hasty, or even prompt action on the matter. [Ian McLean (circa 02/05/05)]
(On an Obvious Double Standard)
I remember a few years back when Bill Clinton was president. Social Security, we were frequently told, was on the verge of bankruptcy. Decreasing worker payments and increasing boomer retirements were the cause. Only a dedicated, brilliant, and left-wing social servant like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Bill Bradley could possibly save us by reforming the program.
But now that George Bush works in the Oval Office, things are looking up. Social Security is just fine and dandy, thank you very much, and there's no reason to change one iota of the program. Oh we might consider tinkering here and there to make it even better than perfect, but really there's no need for alarmed, hasty, or even prompt action on the matter. [Ian McLean (circa 02/05/05)]
Friday, February 04, 2005
Points to Ponder:
We've heard it before that whenever social security reform is planned, republicans are out to "steal the money of old people" or "mortaging our future by robbing from the people present." Yet this tactic is now absolutely useless in the social security debate, since those around the age of 55 who are going to retire will not be effected by any of the Reforms. The AARP can no longer complain about how retired people will be effected, because retired people won't be effected! This has been the lefts tactic on social security for 20 years, and with one masterful swoop, Bush flanked them. He also laid out just the principles, and wants Congress to do something. In other words, if the left wants to succeed here, they can't just be anti-bush, but for something. Yet as we know, the Democrat Party no longer stands for anything worthwhile, they just oppose Bush. [Kevin Tierney (circa February 3, 2005)]
We've heard it before that whenever social security reform is planned, republicans are out to "steal the money of old people" or "mortaging our future by robbing from the people present." Yet this tactic is now absolutely useless in the social security debate, since those around the age of 55 who are going to retire will not be effected by any of the Reforms. The AARP can no longer complain about how retired people will be effected, because retired people won't be effected! This has been the lefts tactic on social security for 20 years, and with one masterful swoop, Bush flanked them. He also laid out just the principles, and wants Congress to do something. In other words, if the left wants to succeed here, they can't just be anti-bush, but for something. Yet as we know, the Democrat Party no longer stands for anything worthwhile, they just oppose Bush. [Kevin Tierney (circa February 3, 2005)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)