Threads on the Atomic Bomb Droppings, Military and Statistical Calculations, the Moral and Ethical Aspects of the Subject Matter in Question, Etc...
(A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread)
In light of what I am about to post, it seems appropriate to summarize up to this point in one spot all of the threads on the above subject matters from August 17th to September 20th of 2005:
On Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications (circa August 17, 2005)
Some Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (From Dr. Art Sippo circa August 18, 2005)
More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (From Tim Tull circa August 19, 2005)
More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontificatons" Thread (From Tim Tull on Dr. Sippo's Email circa August 21, 2005)
Points to Ponder --On the Atomic Bombs and Their Usage (By Dr. Art Sippo circa August 22, 2005)
And Yet More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (circa August 25, 2005)
And More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (circa August 26, 2005)
And Yet Still More Feedback on the "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications" Thread (circa August 26, 2005)
Expanding Futher on the Subject of Double Effect Viz. the Atomic Bombings (circa August 26, 2005)
Clarifying Some Additional Points on the Atomic Bombing Subject With Dave Armstrong (circa August 28, 2005)
"Armstrong Illusions" Dept. --Part I of II (circa September 6, 2005)
"Armstrong Illusions" Dept. --Part II of II (circa September 6, 2005)
Points to Ponder --On Appealing to Authority in Argumentation (circa September 9, 2005)
Briefly on Making a Valid Argument and Avoiding Argumentation Fallacies (circa September 11, 2005)
"Exit Stage Left" Dept. (circa September 12, 2005)
Abstract Theorizing and Hypothetical Wartime Situations With SecretAgentMan--Parts I-II (circa September 20 & 23, 2005)
The reason for this recapitulation thread will become quite evident in short order...
Sunday, January 22, 2006
| John Wayne You scored 30% Tough, 23% Roguish, 23% Friendly, and 23% Charming! |
| You, my friend, are a man's man, the original true grit, one tough talking, swaggering son of a bitch. You're not a bad guy, on the contrary, you're the ultimate good guy, but you're one tough character, rough and tumble, ready for anything. You call the shots and go your own way, and if some screwy dame is willing to accept your terms, that's just fine by you. Otherwise, you'll just hit the open trail and stay true to yourself. You stand up for what you believe and can handle any situation, usually by rushing into the thick of the action. You're not polished and you're not overly warm, but you're a straight shooter and a real stand up guy. Co-stars include Lauren Bacall and Maureen O'Hara, tough broads who can take care of themselves. Find out what kind of classic dame you'd make by taking the Classic Dames Test. |
 |
My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|
| Link: The Classic Leading Man Test written by gidgetgoes on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test |
In light of a controversy which certain parties seem insistent on resurrecting publicly, I have judged it as necessary to add to this weblog three threads I deliberately left out of the last weblog update. Those threads are as follows:
Clarifying Some Additional Points on the Atomic Bombing Subject (With Dave Armstrong) [>>>]
"Armstrong Illusions" Dept. (Part I) [>>>]
"Armstrong Illusions" Dept. (Part II) [>>>]
Normally I add series links which are threaded together as one entry but on this occasion I am making an exception because the two parts to that thread are both important but significantly different in the subjects discussed. Nonetheless, I tire very quickly of sophistic timewasters and those who try to revise the historical record; ergo the addition of the threads noted above.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Clarifying Some Additional Points on the Atomic Bombing Subject (With Dave Armstrong) [>>>]
"Armstrong Illusions" Dept. (Part I) [>>>]
"Armstrong Illusions" Dept. (Part II) [>>>]
Normally I add series links which are threaded together as one entry but on this occasion I am making an exception because the two parts to that thread are both important but significantly different in the subjects discussed. Nonetheless, I tire very quickly of sophistic timewasters and those who try to revise the historical record; ergo the addition of the threads noted above.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Rough Draft of an Album Review:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
*****
A Jam Session Well Worth Listening To...
Albert King was always overshadowed by BB King and thus never received the credit he deserved for the way he shaped how the electric guitar is played. This is true not only in the blues but indeed in all styles of music. Modern guitar players who look back with a sense of fondness for players such as Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, Jimmy Page, Paul Kossof, etc. would do well to consider the man who so strongly influenced their playing. Bill Belmont tells in his album notes of a young British guitar player who wanted to borrow a copy of his friend’s album of Albert King’s Bobbin singles (c. 1958-1961) in 1965. The player was Eric Clapton. The latter’s tenure in Cream earned him the moniker “Clapton is God” but in reality, the British guitar virtuoso was copping riffs and even (on occasion) whole solos note for note from Albert King. The bluesier side of Jimi Hendrix’s playing was similar affected and countless other guitarists could be mentioned if not for word limits on this review. (Including bluesmen Otis Rush and Albert Collins: already distinctive stylists in their own right prior to King’s signing with Stax in 1966.) When Stax released “Born Under a Bad Sign” in 1967, the blues world would never be the same indeed the approach to the electric guitar in music generally speaking would be altered forever. The reviewer Robert Palmer (in reviewing a late ‘70s live album of Albert King’s) said of the “Bad Sign” album “its impact was as inescapable amongst blues players as John Coltraine’s influence was in jazz.” And perhaps no other guitar player was as influenced by Albert King as the young Texan Stevie Ray Vaughan.
To say that Stevie Ray Vaughan idolized Albert King would not be inaccurate nor would saying that Stevie’s style was about 80% influenced by the mammoth Mississippi bluesman. King was not the nimblest on the fretboard but he was among the most expressive with a torrid tone, a stirring vibrato, and an authoritative string-bending style that created a perfect wailing sound for the blues. Couple these things with an effective use of dynamics, an impeccable sense of timing, a deep grainy voice, and an inherent competitive nature and you have the makings for a player that could (and did) intimidate fellow musicians. Certainly when Stevie was little, he was awed by his mentor’s presence and whether he was at this session or not we will never know. But even if he was, Albert King would have expected Stevie to bring his A game and indeed Vaughan did for this recording. The songs are mainly from King’s repertoire but in many cases Stevie had been weaned on them and practiced them in his formative years so there was not much in the way of adjustment for him here generally speaking. In Albert’s case, only one song was unfamiliar to him but we will get to that in time…onto the album though.
It starts off with “Stormy Monday” which King begins with some of his signature mournful phrasing while Vaughan utilizes a tasteful countermelody in return. Albert’s comments as the song was starting off indicate that they have played the song together before and the way they played off one another that would seem to be the case as it comes off so smooth. Albert sings the song (as he does all but one of the songs on this album). Stevie’s playing is retrained and tasteful on the tune...a few flashes of wildness but not many. Albert counters with a throaty vibrato-drenched solo and Stevie answers with a King-influenced solo and Albert counters again by going lighter for the close and nine minutes of stirring blues comes to a close. From there a bit of dialogue takes place where they reminisce about old times including the first time Stevie met Albert, the first time they played together, and Albert’s assessment of how Stevie stands out from so many other guitar players not because of his speed but his ability to play with soul. From there Albert asks about “that thing you do, that rap thing with a heck of a groove” and Stevie kicks off “Pride and Joy” with Albert playing small fills and Stevie singing.
On "Pride and Joy", Stevie is clearly in control as well he should be (he wrote it after all) but Albert pulls a few bits from his bag and at one point in the nimble turnarounds I thought it was Vaughan playing…if not for the tone and a few signature bits from King I would have been fooled. But King can play riffs that way even if he usually does not. Vaughan finishes the song and they moved into the BB King song “Ask Me No Questions.” Unlike the previous song where it was King who had to adapt to a new song, this time it was Vaughan and he does so quite well with tasteful vibrato fills and taking the first solo at King’s request. With the latter’s prompting, he ratchets the intensity up and then mixes in some tasteful vibrato bits. King follows with a short solo and the piano player solos at length before the verses resume and then King and Vaughan have another alternating of solos. They then dialogue a bit more with Albert asking Stevie to never settle but instead to always strive to work and play better.
From there Albert kicks off “Blues at Sunrise” with a trademark scorching opener…probably the oldest song of the ones he plays here chronology-wise. Albert talks a bit about how they calmed the people down in the old days by “back[ing] up, reach, and grab one from the bottom” and he goes down the register for a trademark low range riff pattern before going back up top to preface his singing of the song. About a third of the way in, after two verses Albert recollects playing the song with Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin at the Fillmore West and later on mixes his story a bit by mentioning Stevie in the sequence prior to meeting him. (There is definite misaccounting going on with the latter –Hendrix and Joplin dying two years before Stevie first met Albert- but since Albert was 60 when this was recorded, I think he can be pardoned the memory lapse.) Stevie’s playing is more rapid here as a counter mainly because Albert told him he “had to play the Jimi Hendrix thing” which he does to Albert’s laughing and encouragement. (Few could mimic Hendrix as well as Vaughan could as anyone familiar with the latter’s work is well aware.)
As far as the song goes, Stevie would be familiar with this if not from Albert’s Bobbin period (when he wrote it) than at least from his 1968 “Live Wire/Blues Power” Fillmore recording which a young Stevie certainly had in his collection and probably spent hours listening to and copping riffs from. Albert’s playing from after the scorching intro to about the seven-minute mark was pretty light in counter to Vaughan’s more aggressive approach but the former then kicks off a two chorus solo spanning over a minute which is torrid to say the least. Vaughan responds with an intense lead on his part and then after the chorus, he plays the low riff range pattern Albert played earlier in the song (a bit of homage to which he laughs when King says “that sounds familiar”). Then King ratchets up the intensity with his counter and Vaughan follow suit with a very King-like solo replete with repeated intense bends and his use of vibrato with a bit of Stevie’s flash thrown into the mix. Anyone who doubts that a fifteen minute blues song with a shuffle beat can be kept interesting for fifteen minutes needs to hear these two play off of each other.
After the song concludes, Vaughan breaks a string, King laughs, and then they have a discussion about restringing their “git-fiddles” (cf. King). From there, it moves into the instrumental “Overall Junction” which was on King’s “Born Under a Bad Sign” album (and originally released a year earlier as the B side to “Laundromat Blues”). This song has a strident pacing to it and King and his band often used it as a warm-up for that reason. Vaughan starts it off and gets his bits in certainly –based on much of what he plays his familiarity with the original tune is evident to this listener. And King shows on the song for those who would question it that he can move around the fretboard nimbly…a feature he usually saved for instrumentals but not always. They then move pretty quickly into “Matchbox Blues” a longtime King concert staple, which he finally recorded in 1983 just prior to this session. There is a bit of talk between them before it starts and the playing alternates in its dynamics by both players. Stevie’s playing in the song is a homage to Albert and he certainly could authentically approach the latter’s style better than arguably anyone else. There is then another dialogual interlude prior to the last song where both players express appreciation for the other.
The last song on the album is “Don’t Lie to Me”, a song Stevie would recognize as “I Get Evil” the title Albert originally recorded it under and usually referred to it by in concert performances (though the title used here is closer to the actual title than the one Albert used ironically enough). Again the dueling is entertaining when Vaughan goes into the lower registers and Albert encourages him further in the process. That concludes the album but not this review.
The essence of blues playing requires soul and you cannot manufacture it by wanking speed riffs on a fretboard. (I note that here for those who think "better blues playing" means faster playing: that is not necessarily so.) If you take King’s influence from Vaughan, you would have a very mediocre player at best whereas if you took any of Stevie’s other influences from him, you would still have a good guitarist. That is all that needs to be said about such ignorance of the blues and the many facets that go into playing the blues like a master. Albert King was a master of the blues and Stevie Ray Vaughan was his most loyal disciple. Indeed, I believe he is the only one who could so flagrantly use King’s own signature riffs in his playing without the master himself taking offense. And when you consider that Albert did not take such things lightly --because he developed a unique style and by his reckoning owned it—that is no mean achievement.
But clearly on this album King had in mind to some extent a passing of the torch to Vaughan at one point in the recording because he plainly says so after they finished playing “Blues at Sunrise.” Stevie laughs and says he does not believe it but the sentiments sounds convincing enough even if King was to continue playing live after Vaughan’s passing in 1990 at the tender age of 35. (The former retired and made comebacks in the same fashion as Frank Sinatra and presumably for the same reasons: the difficulty of performers to let it go but at least in King’s case, he retained his form all the way to the end with minimal if any diminishment.) As far as Vaughan’s passing goes, King would recount in a 1991 interview published before his passing that Stevie’s loss hurt him and if you listen to the way they interact musically and otherwise on this album, it makes sense. What started out as a young boy and his idol grew into a situation where they were contemporaries and there was a genuine affection between them. And Albert seemed to view Stevie as his son in the blues and no father wants to see his son go before him. May they both rest in peace and may this recording stand as a testament to two masters. If only more jam albums were this entertaining but alas, that is as rare as diamonds. But those who obtain this album have just that and it is worth obtaining, owning, and cherishing: particularly for lovers of the blues but music lovers in general.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
A Jam Session Well Worth Listening To...
Albert King was always overshadowed by BB King and thus never received the credit he deserved for the way he shaped how the electric guitar is played. This is true not only in the blues but indeed in all styles of music. Modern guitar players who look back with a sense of fondness for players such as Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, Jimmy Page, Paul Kossof, etc. would do well to consider the man who so strongly influenced their playing. Bill Belmont tells in his album notes of a young British guitar player who wanted to borrow a copy of his friend’s album of Albert King’s Bobbin singles (c. 1958-1961) in 1965. The player was Eric Clapton. The latter’s tenure in Cream earned him the moniker “Clapton is God” but in reality, the British guitar virtuoso was copping riffs and even (on occasion) whole solos note for note from Albert King. The bluesier side of Jimi Hendrix’s playing was similar affected and countless other guitarists could be mentioned if not for word limits on this review. (Including bluesmen Otis Rush and Albert Collins: already distinctive stylists in their own right prior to King’s signing with Stax in 1966.) When Stax released “Born Under a Bad Sign” in 1967, the blues world would never be the same indeed the approach to the electric guitar in music generally speaking would be altered forever. The reviewer Robert Palmer (in reviewing a late ‘70s live album of Albert King’s) said of the “Bad Sign” album “its impact was as inescapable amongst blues players as John Coltraine’s influence was in jazz.” And perhaps no other guitar player was as influenced by Albert King as the young Texan Stevie Ray Vaughan.
To say that Stevie Ray Vaughan idolized Albert King would not be inaccurate nor would saying that Stevie’s style was about 80% influenced by the mammoth Mississippi bluesman. King was not the nimblest on the fretboard but he was among the most expressive with a torrid tone, a stirring vibrato, and an authoritative string-bending style that created a perfect wailing sound for the blues. Couple these things with an effective use of dynamics, an impeccable sense of timing, a deep grainy voice, and an inherent competitive nature and you have the makings for a player that could (and did) intimidate fellow musicians. Certainly when Stevie was little, he was awed by his mentor’s presence and whether he was at this session or not we will never know. But even if he was, Albert King would have expected Stevie to bring his A game and indeed Vaughan did for this recording. The songs are mainly from King’s repertoire but in many cases Stevie had been weaned on them and practiced them in his formative years so there was not much in the way of adjustment for him here generally speaking. In Albert’s case, only one song was unfamiliar to him but we will get to that in time…onto the album though.
It starts off with “Stormy Monday” which King begins with some of his signature mournful phrasing while Vaughan utilizes a tasteful countermelody in return. Albert’s comments as the song was starting off indicate that they have played the song together before and the way they played off one another that would seem to be the case as it comes off so smooth. Albert sings the song (as he does all but one of the songs on this album). Stevie’s playing is retrained and tasteful on the tune...a few flashes of wildness but not many. Albert counters with a throaty vibrato-drenched solo and Stevie answers with a King-influenced solo and Albert counters again by going lighter for the close and nine minutes of stirring blues comes to a close. From there a bit of dialogue takes place where they reminisce about old times including the first time Stevie met Albert, the first time they played together, and Albert’s assessment of how Stevie stands out from so many other guitar players not because of his speed but his ability to play with soul. From there Albert asks about “that thing you do, that rap thing with a heck of a groove” and Stevie kicks off “Pride and Joy” with Albert playing small fills and Stevie singing.
On "Pride and Joy", Stevie is clearly in control as well he should be (he wrote it after all) but Albert pulls a few bits from his bag and at one point in the nimble turnarounds I thought it was Vaughan playing…if not for the tone and a few signature bits from King I would have been fooled. But King can play riffs that way even if he usually does not. Vaughan finishes the song and they moved into the BB King song “Ask Me No Questions.” Unlike the previous song where it was King who had to adapt to a new song, this time it was Vaughan and he does so quite well with tasteful vibrato fills and taking the first solo at King’s request. With the latter’s prompting, he ratchets the intensity up and then mixes in some tasteful vibrato bits. King follows with a short solo and the piano player solos at length before the verses resume and then King and Vaughan have another alternating of solos. They then dialogue a bit more with Albert asking Stevie to never settle but instead to always strive to work and play better.
From there Albert kicks off “Blues at Sunrise” with a trademark scorching opener…probably the oldest song of the ones he plays here chronology-wise. Albert talks a bit about how they calmed the people down in the old days by “back[ing] up, reach, and grab one from the bottom” and he goes down the register for a trademark low range riff pattern before going back up top to preface his singing of the song. About a third of the way in, after two verses Albert recollects playing the song with Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin at the Fillmore West and later on mixes his story a bit by mentioning Stevie in the sequence prior to meeting him. (There is definite misaccounting going on with the latter –Hendrix and Joplin dying two years before Stevie first met Albert- but since Albert was 60 when this was recorded, I think he can be pardoned the memory lapse.) Stevie’s playing is more rapid here as a counter mainly because Albert told him he “had to play the Jimi Hendrix thing” which he does to Albert’s laughing and encouragement. (Few could mimic Hendrix as well as Vaughan could as anyone familiar with the latter’s work is well aware.)
As far as the song goes, Stevie would be familiar with this if not from Albert’s Bobbin period (when he wrote it) than at least from his 1968 “Live Wire/Blues Power” Fillmore recording which a young Stevie certainly had in his collection and probably spent hours listening to and copping riffs from. Albert’s playing from after the scorching intro to about the seven-minute mark was pretty light in counter to Vaughan’s more aggressive approach but the former then kicks off a two chorus solo spanning over a minute which is torrid to say the least. Vaughan responds with an intense lead on his part and then after the chorus, he plays the low riff range pattern Albert played earlier in the song (a bit of homage to which he laughs when King says “that sounds familiar”). Then King ratchets up the intensity with his counter and Vaughan follow suit with a very King-like solo replete with repeated intense bends and his use of vibrato with a bit of Stevie’s flash thrown into the mix. Anyone who doubts that a fifteen minute blues song with a shuffle beat can be kept interesting for fifteen minutes needs to hear these two play off of each other.
After the song concludes, Vaughan breaks a string, King laughs, and then they have a discussion about restringing their “git-fiddles” (cf. King). From there, it moves into the instrumental “Overall Junction” which was on King’s “Born Under a Bad Sign” album (and originally released a year earlier as the B side to “Laundromat Blues”). This song has a strident pacing to it and King and his band often used it as a warm-up for that reason. Vaughan starts it off and gets his bits in certainly –based on much of what he plays his familiarity with the original tune is evident to this listener. And King shows on the song for those who would question it that he can move around the fretboard nimbly…a feature he usually saved for instrumentals but not always. They then move pretty quickly into “Matchbox Blues” a longtime King concert staple, which he finally recorded in 1983 just prior to this session. There is a bit of talk between them before it starts and the playing alternates in its dynamics by both players. Stevie’s playing in the song is a homage to Albert and he certainly could authentically approach the latter’s style better than arguably anyone else. There is then another dialogual interlude prior to the last song where both players express appreciation for the other.
The last song on the album is “Don’t Lie to Me”, a song Stevie would recognize as “I Get Evil” the title Albert originally recorded it under and usually referred to it by in concert performances (though the title used here is closer to the actual title than the one Albert used ironically enough). Again the dueling is entertaining when Vaughan goes into the lower registers and Albert encourages him further in the process. That concludes the album but not this review.
The essence of blues playing requires soul and you cannot manufacture it by wanking speed riffs on a fretboard. (I note that here for those who think "better blues playing" means faster playing: that is not necessarily so.) If you take King’s influence from Vaughan, you would have a very mediocre player at best whereas if you took any of Stevie’s other influences from him, you would still have a good guitarist. That is all that needs to be said about such ignorance of the blues and the many facets that go into playing the blues like a master. Albert King was a master of the blues and Stevie Ray Vaughan was his most loyal disciple. Indeed, I believe he is the only one who could so flagrantly use King’s own signature riffs in his playing without the master himself taking offense. And when you consider that Albert did not take such things lightly --because he developed a unique style and by his reckoning owned it—that is no mean achievement.
But clearly on this album King had in mind to some extent a passing of the torch to Vaughan at one point in the recording because he plainly says so after they finished playing “Blues at Sunrise.” Stevie laughs and says he does not believe it but the sentiments sounds convincing enough even if King was to continue playing live after Vaughan’s passing in 1990 at the tender age of 35. (The former retired and made comebacks in the same fashion as Frank Sinatra and presumably for the same reasons: the difficulty of performers to let it go but at least in King’s case, he retained his form all the way to the end with minimal if any diminishment.) As far as Vaughan’s passing goes, King would recount in a 1991 interview published before his passing that Stevie’s loss hurt him and if you listen to the way they interact musically and otherwise on this album, it makes sense. What started out as a young boy and his idol grew into a situation where they were contemporaries and there was a genuine affection between them. And Albert seemed to view Stevie as his son in the blues and no father wants to see his son go before him. May they both rest in peace and may this recording stand as a testament to two masters. If only more jam albums were this entertaining but alas, that is as rare as diamonds. But those who obtain this album have just that and it is worth obtaining, owning, and cherishing: particularly for lovers of the blues but music lovers in general.
Since I play a Les Paul Epiphone (a Gibson copy) when I play electric guitar, this result is not surprising to me...
Take the quiz:
Which guitar are you
Gibson Les Paul
You are a Gibson Les Paul. You are a favorite of some of the best metal AND rock and roll bands. You are flaxible and can be used in almost any genre. you are a classic.
Which guitar are you
Gibson Les Paul
You are a Gibson Les Paul. You are a favorite of some of the best metal AND rock and roll bands. You are flaxible and can be used in almost any genre. you are a classic.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On the Left and HistoricalRevisionism "Airbrushing")
The left aims to be born again...by erasing the embarrassment of its disreputable past, by hiding the shame of having supported Stalin and Mao and Fidel and Ho and all the purges, mass murders, and other "necessary" means that finally served no beneficial end. But the real embarrassment for the left is to have been so stubbornly and persistently on the wrong side of history, to have embraced "solutions" that were morally, practically, and economically bankrupt. It is the important struggles of our time. As Josef Stalin was the first socialist to truly understand, the airbrushing of history is the onyl sure means to preserve the honour of the left. [David Horowitz (circa 1999)]
(On the Left and Historical
The left aims to be born again...by erasing the embarrassment of its disreputable past, by hiding the shame of having supported Stalin and Mao and Fidel and Ho and all the purges, mass murders, and other "necessary" means that finally served no beneficial end. But the real embarrassment for the left is to have been so stubbornly and persistently on the wrong side of history, to have embraced "solutions" that were morally, practically, and economically bankrupt. It is the important struggles of our time. As Josef Stalin was the first socialist to truly understand, the airbrushing of history is the onyl sure means to preserve the honour of the left. [David Horowitz (circa 1999)]
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Santa Cruz Special Reports:
Though not technically a part of the Santa Cruz Reports series I spoke of earlier, this is a posting done while on vacation so technically it qualifies even though I am not calling it that. Nonetheless, I wanted to let you know that I have added forty-nine artists to my Launchcast radio station, rated everyone there, and also some songs that popped up while I was doing that. So go there and you will get a better feel for the eclectic nature of my musical tastes than you would have gotten previously. Meanwhile, I have drinking and other things to tend to now...later y'all...
Though not technically a part of the Santa Cruz Reports series I spoke of earlier, this is a posting done while on vacation so technically it qualifies even though I am not calling it that. Nonetheless, I wanted to let you know that I have added forty-nine artists to my Launchcast radio station, rated everyone there, and also some songs that popped up while I was doing that. So go there and you will get a better feel for the eclectic nature of my musical tastes than you would have gotten previously. Meanwhile, I have drinking and other things to tend to now...later y'all...
Thursday, January 12, 2006
There seems to be a consensus among the sources I have read that the Alito so-called "hearings" are not worth spending much time on...vindicating my gut intuition on the matter as noted yesterday. But at least there is some excitement in the blososphere if not on the hearings themselves than on events or persons pertaining to them in some respect...witness Beth's recent outburst which had me chucking as I read it. My first thought when finishing the thread was that she must be a fun person to drink with 
Which reminds me...
Goin' to California, yes
To resurrect my soul
The sun is always shinin', shinin'
Or at least that's what I'm told...
I will be vacationing in California later this month (Santa Cruz to be precise) and may blog once or twice when I am down there if there is time to. Those who would find it interesting that I would head down to a place like Santa Cruz (which is one of the former Kremlin's west coast branches) it is to visit one of my oldest friends who has (in their time there) definitely become another Ted Nugent if you know what I mean. So it should be a blast and be a good recharge for my mental and physiological batteries. I am going to have to get in some "pre-emptive training" at the gym to prepay in advance for the
we will do but that will be fine...I may even get a temporary membership at a gym when I am down there as well (if there is time for it).
So in the tradition started with the late 2003's Puerto Vallarta Special Reports threads, there will probably be a thread or more blogged when I am down there...time-willing of course.
[Update: What is posted below this point was added around 8pm PST (20:00 for you military types) -ISM]
Finally, I found this thread from the weblog called Girl on the Right as a recommended read. Just a little taste though...
Conservatives are scary. Everyone knows it. They're fanatical, radical, evangelical . . . or not. But what do the facts matter in politics.
Just like there are fanatical, radical, evangelical conservatives, there are also fanatical, radical, evangelical socialists. Our country has been run by the latter for the better part of 40 years, so it is not entirely unreasonable that a couple of generations of Canadian children have grown up without ever understanding that there is a middle ground -- and that in many ways, especially recently, it is the Conservative Party of Canada that holds that middle ground.
Just like 2004, Paul Martin is using this election to attack my values and tell me that I don't belong. He's aiming his vitriol at Stephen Harper, but most of what he says applies to me as well and since the shoe fits . . [LINK]
I will readily admit that Canadian politics is something I find confusing; ergo I will email my Canadian friend Pete Vere and ask for his appraisal of the above thread. From what I have read, it looks good but I know better than to attempt an analysis of Canadian politics lest I come across looking like a moron. So Pete, give that thread a read and email me with your comments so I can blog them for the benefit of the readers m'kay???
Which reminds me...Goin' to California, yes
To resurrect my soul
The sun is always shinin', shinin'
Or at least that's what I'm told...
I will be vacationing in California later this month (Santa Cruz to be precise) and may blog once or twice when I am down there if there is time to. Those who would find it interesting that I would head down to a place like Santa Cruz (which is one of the former Kremlin's west coast branches) it is to visit one of my oldest friends who has (in their time there) definitely become another Ted Nugent if you know what I mean. So it should be a blast and be a good recharge for my mental and physiological batteries. I am going to have to get in some "pre-emptive training" at the gym to prepay in advance for the
we will do but that will be fine...I may even get a temporary membership at a gym when I am down there as well (if there is time for it). So in the tradition started with the late 2003's Puerto Vallarta Special Reports threads, there will probably be a thread or more blogged when I am down there...time-willing of course.
[Update: What is posted below this point was added around 8pm PST (20:00 for you military types) -ISM]
Finally, I found this thread from the weblog called Girl on the Right as a recommended read. Just a little taste though...
Conservatives are scary. Everyone knows it. They're fanatical, radical, evangelical . . . or not. But what do the facts matter in politics.
Just like there are fanatical, radical, evangelical conservatives, there are also fanatical, radical, evangelical socialists. Our country has been run by the latter for the better part of 40 years, so it is not entirely unreasonable that a couple of generations of Canadian children have grown up without ever understanding that there is a middle ground -- and that in many ways, especially recently, it is the Conservative Party of Canada that holds that middle ground.
Just like 2004, Paul Martin is using this election to attack my values and tell me that I don't belong. He's aiming his vitriol at Stephen Harper, but most of what he says applies to me as well and since the shoe fits . . [LINK]
I will readily admit that Canadian politics is something I find confusing; ergo I will email my Canadian friend Pete Vere and ask for his appraisal of the above thread. From what I have read, it looks good but I know better than to attempt an analysis of Canadian politics lest I come across looking like a moron. So Pete, give that thread a read and email me with your comments so I can blog them for the benefit of the readers m'kay???
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Some Confirmation Hearing Predictions:
(Courtesy of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Note: This thread has been updated with the additions in purple font - ISM 1/11/06 7:00pm]
I wish I could say that I was paying a lot of attention to the Alito hearing but frankly I am not.{1} Basically, I can predict what will happen with this pretty much already so (donning my Kreskin hat) here goes...
---The Democrats are going to try to get Alito to answer questions about their pet issues as a kind of litmus test.
---They will have abortion on their minds primarily but as a rule will not address it as much as the so-called "right to privacy" or Griswald v. Connecticut in 1965 which fabricated a so-called "right to privacy" which is the lynchpin for Roe v. Wade.
---Alito like Roberts before him will have to answer these questions in a fashion that gives at least the appearance that he would consider sticking with the status quo in order to get confirmed and avoid a major fight on the nomination.
---Certain Catholic commentators will claim without suitable warrant that Alito like Roberts in answering in this fashion would be "selling their faith down the river" ignoring the obvious fact that if ever was there a time to have to approach something with the "cunningness of serpents and the guileness of doves" (cf. Jesus Christ) than it is in these instances.{2}
---Alito will be confirmed by a vote of approximately 57-43.
---President Bush will afterwards figure he has appeased his supporters enough and do something stupid figuring he can get away with it. (Depending on what that is, it is difficult to say whether or not he will succeed at it or not.)
---Both Alito and Roberts will pan as genuine originalists as a rule viz. how they approach the issues brought before the court during their tenures.
---There may well be a third confirmation hearing before the 2006 elections and thus Bush needs to be watched like a hawk to avoid picking another Miers or viewing the Stevens seat (the next to be vacated) as "the seat of Alberto Gonzales" or some equivalent thereof.
As for the rest, the gang at Southern Appeal have written a bit on this subject as one might expect. I for one concur with Patrick Carver (and Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters whom he quotes) that Alito thus far is a much better candidate than Miers...see this example which illustrates the difference well in snapshot form for those who are interested.
Notes:
{1} Apparently I am not missing much according to Beth at VRWC.
{2} Anyone with a normal intact functioning brain realizes that if Alito or Roberts would have been 100% forthright and answered the questions the Democrats asked of them that they never would be confirmed. But certain geopolitically naive sorts seem to think it is better to do that and lose rather than take a more tactical approach in the hearings and win.
(Courtesy of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Note: This thread has been updated with the additions in purple font - ISM 1/11/06 7:00pm]
I wish I could say that I was paying a lot of attention to the Alito hearing but frankly I am not.{1} Basically, I can predict what will happen with this pretty much already so (donning my Kreskin hat) here goes...
---The Democrats are going to try to get Alito to answer questions about their pet issues as a kind of litmus test.
---They will have abortion on their minds primarily but as a rule will not address it as much as the so-called "right to privacy" or Griswald v. Connecticut in 1965 which fabricated a so-called "right to privacy" which is the lynchpin for Roe v. Wade.
---Alito like Roberts before him will have to answer these questions in a fashion that gives at least the appearance that he would consider sticking with the status quo in order to get confirmed and avoid a major fight on the nomination.
---Certain Catholic commentators will claim without suitable warrant that Alito like Roberts in answering in this fashion would be "selling their faith down the river" ignoring the obvious fact that if ever was there a time to have to approach something with the "cunningness of serpents and the guileness of doves" (cf. Jesus Christ) than it is in these instances.{2}
---Alito will be confirmed by a vote of approximately 57-43.
---President Bush will afterwards figure he has appeased his supporters enough and do something stupid figuring he can get away with it. (Depending on what that is, it is difficult to say whether or not he will succeed at it or not.)
---Both Alito and Roberts will pan as genuine originalists as a rule viz. how they approach the issues brought before the court during their tenures.
---There may well be a third confirmation hearing before the 2006 elections and thus Bush needs to be watched like a hawk to avoid picking another Miers or viewing the Stevens seat (the next to be vacated) as "the seat of Alberto Gonzales" or some equivalent thereof.
As for the rest, the gang at Southern Appeal have written a bit on this subject as one might expect. I for one concur with Patrick Carver (and Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters whom he quotes) that Alito thus far is a much better candidate than Miers...see this example which illustrates the difference well in snapshot form for those who are interested.
Notes:
{1} Apparently I am not missing much according to Beth at VRWC.
{2} Anyone with a normal intact functioning brain realizes that if Alito or Roberts would have been 100% forthright and answered the questions the Democrats asked of them that they never would be confirmed. But certain geopolitically naive sorts seem to think it is better to do that and lose rather than take a more tactical approach in the hearings and win.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On Fighting Wars in a Timely or Appropriate Manner)
[Prefatory Note: The below statement by Fr. James V. Schall SJ coheres quite well with something your host posted to this weblog almost seven months ago in another "points to ponder" thread taken from his own private musings - ISM]
"I could make an historical argument, I think, to the effect that failure to fight wars in time or appropriately has caused as much chaos, degradation of the human spirit, and slaughter as wars that were in fact fought. Wars are a question of justice. When justice is an obvious and paramount question, it is not a virtue to avoid them. It is the mistake of always framing the issue in terms of peace and not in terms of justice. Logically, the former cannot be had without the latter. Peace without justice is the definition of extreme tyranny. And it is not just a question of justice, but of generosity and self-sacrifice. If there are no causes worth fighting and dying for, we might as well give up pretending that we are civilized." [Fr. James V. Schall SJ]
(On Fighting Wars in a Timely or Appropriate Manner)
[Prefatory Note: The below statement by Fr. James V. Schall SJ coheres quite well with something your host posted to this weblog almost seven months ago in another "points to ponder" thread taken from his own private musings - ISM]
"I could make an historical argument, I think, to the effect that failure to fight wars in time or appropriately has caused as much chaos, degradation of the human spirit, and slaughter as wars that were in fact fought. Wars are a question of justice. When justice is an obvious and paramount question, it is not a virtue to avoid them. It is the mistake of always framing the issue in terms of peace and not in terms of justice. Logically, the former cannot be had without the latter. Peace without justice is the definition of extreme tyranny. And it is not just a question of justice, but of generosity and self-sacrifice. If there are no causes worth fighting and dying for, we might as well give up pretending that we are civilized." [Fr. James V. Schall SJ]
Thursday, January 05, 2006
First Draft of An Album Review:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: I made a few minor tweaks to this review dividing the larger paragraphs into smaller ones, adding some segues, and also some new stuff to two of the songs discussed -ISM]
[This is the rough draft of an album review which I plan to revise and abridge for posting at Amazon before the end of the month. -ISM]
*****
The Band’s Magnum Opus
Perhaps no musical group exemplified an anti-counter cultural approach to music better than The Band did in various ways. They influenced many people who were influential in their own right either at the time (Eric Clapton and George Harrison’s approach to music) or would be in years to come (i.e. Roger Waters’ approach to concept album writing with Pink Floyd) not to mention being one of the begetters of 1970’s style "folk country." And while more could be said about them than that, there is plenty to say about this album and that is where the review will be focused. But the mark of a memorable musician/group/thinker/writer, etc. is not only their influence on subsequent generations but also on their contemporaries. And in this area The Band definitely succeeded…a few examples of which were given above to illustrate this assertion in brief. But that is enough ado…let us get onto the songs themselves now.
The album opens with "Across the Great Divide" and it sets the tone for the very down home Americana feel of this album full of uniformly excellent songs. The latter song contains the story of a man who tries to explain himself to his woman and recounts to some extent the recklessness of his “younger days” as he tries to persuade her to not kill herself. It is not as grim as it sounds in words I assure you.
The second song is “Rag Mama Rag” which is a fun quirky song with fiddles, an offbeat drum pattern (played by Richard Manuel who usually plays piano: the multitalented Garth Hudson played piano on this one), Levon Helm eschewing his drums for mandolin, Rick Danko playing fiddle instead of bass, and John Simon (the co-producer) playing the bass parts on tuba. The lyrics of the song were about a woman who only wants to play ragtime music…there may be a sly message in that but whatever. That brings us to one of the best songs on the album.
“The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down” is musically and lyrically a masterpiece. It is ironic a Canadian songwriter (Jaime Robbie Robertson) could write such an empathetic tune about the old South but it the power of the song cannot be denied. It was delivered with conviction by the only American in the group (the southerner Levon Helm) who was back on drums for this tune. (Levon also apparently persuaded Robbie not to mention Lincoln in the tune: Robbie more fittingly substituted in the narrative a story about Robert E. Lee instead and saved the song from being an affront to southerners unintentionally.) Garth Hudson gets some very textural sounds with a melodica overdubbed via his Lowrey organ, which sounds like a harmonica starting with the second verse of the song. It is an example of the multifaceted talents of the Band’s members –all of whom except Robbie Robertson played multiple instruments. I never get tired of hearing this song, singing it, or playing it on guitar. At this point, it seems fitting to touch on the genius of Robbie Robertson as a songwriter.
While the latter wrote only a few songs on the group’s very solid “Music From Big Pink” debut album (with band mate Richard Manuel and Bob Dylan contributing more in that area) on this album, that changed dramatically. Robertson solidified himself on this album as the chief songwriter of the group to the extent that he wrote eight of the songs by himself and has co-writing credit on the other four. One of the co-writing credits is “When You Awake” with Richard Manuel (who also sings the song) who was back behind the drum kit on this song with his frantic drumming style. Garth Hudson’s organ gives a nice backing to the song while Robertson’s lyrics are about family and remembering with grandfatherly advice being given.
From there the album moves to “Up on Cripple Creek” which is a song with a very “back porch” feel which is (I must say it) deliciously sleazy in a way. Garth Hudson is playing a clavinet through a wah wah pedal to create the sound of a jew’s harp. When mixed with Danko’s bass playing, it gives a significantly low range to the tune about a narrative of a man who wants to lookup an old girlfriend for “assistance” if you will and how in many areas she completes him. “Whispering Pines” follows, which Robertson co-wrote with Richard Manuel. The song has a completely different tempo than the one preceding it and Manuel delivers a very wrenching vocal performance vocally and on piano.
Following “Whispering Pines” is “Jemima Surrender” which has a heavier tempo with boogie-woogie piano (played not by Manuel but by Hudson), Manuel on drums, Levon Helm not on drums but rhythm guitar, and Robertson on lead guitar. (The alternate take –-half the songs on the album have an alternative take on this CD- has the members on their usual instruments for a completely different approach to the song.) The song is about the singer wanting a girl named Jemima to give in and...well...that is all I will tell you about it.
“Rocking Chair” is possibly my favourite song on the album. It is unconventional musically for the group in that there is no drums (Helm is on mandolin on this tune), Hudson plays accordion, Robertson is on acoustic guitar, and the timekeeping is done solely by Danko’s bass and that is adequate. The lyrics (Manuel on lead, Danko joining on the bridge) are about two old time sailors –one telling his first mate (and best friend) “don’t raise the sails anymore” because he has been at sea his whole life, he believes they have used up all the time they have in that endeavour and should spend the sunset years of their lives together “back in old Virginny” in rocking chairs. Having lost my oldest friend recently, this song really has an effect on me now…musically the song is quite excellent and the lyrics I find to be quite haunting for reasons already expressed and others not to be mentioned here.
“Look Out Cleveland” is a up tempo rocker sung by Danko with some aggressive lead fills by Robertson backed by Danko’s equally aggressive bass picking and is about “a storm coming through” which ends up devastating everything. (Compared to everything else on the album, this song stands out in its strident phrasing.)
From there the next song is “Jawbone” and it opens with a very slow start and alternates time signatures from verses to the pre-chorus to the chorus and back again with lyrics about a thief who is unrepentant. The album next moves into “Unfaithful Servant” which is sung by Danko and is a slow creeper about…well…exactly what the title says and the narrator tries to examine the reason for the faithlessness involved.
The album ends officially with “King Harvest” which is a frantic tune sung by Manuel. The song has an unusual sound even for an album of songs many of which are distinctive in that sense. The shifting tempos from verse to verse (a feature common to many of my favourite songwriters) gives a distinctive sound as does Robertson’s stinging lead playing which shows a pleasing restraint to it (another feature I like in lead guitar players). The lyrics show the tensions of paradoxical attachments (city and country, past and present, etc) and is a tale about a union man who is feeling the pinch ala Steinbeck's “Grapes of Wrath” and wraps up the album quite strongly. (It is also one of my favourites on the album.)
There are also alternate takes of six of the songs on the CD release as well as an outtake of a song that would appear on future albums (referring to “Get Up Jake"). They are all interesting for different approaches taken to songs in different takes…from instruments used to who played what, who sang the songs, some false starts, instructions given, etc. But the twelve songs on the album as originally released are the focus of this review and they all cohere well making this album a must have for anyone who likes good music.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: I made a few minor tweaks to this review dividing the larger paragraphs into smaller ones, adding some segues, and also some new stuff to two of the songs discussed -ISM]
[This is the rough draft of an album review which I plan to revise and abridge for posting at Amazon before the end of the month. -ISM]
*****
The Band’s Magnum Opus
Perhaps no musical group exemplified an anti-counter cultural approach to music better than The Band did in various ways. They influenced many people who were influential in their own right either at the time (Eric Clapton and George Harrison’s approach to music) or would be in years to come (i.e. Roger Waters’ approach to concept album writing with Pink Floyd) not to mention being one of the begetters of 1970’s style "folk country." And while more could be said about them than that, there is plenty to say about this album and that is where the review will be focused. But the mark of a memorable musician/group/thinker/writer, etc. is not only their influence on subsequent generations but also on their contemporaries. And in this area The Band definitely succeeded…a few examples of which were given above to illustrate this assertion in brief. But that is enough ado…let us get onto the songs themselves now.
The album opens with "Across the Great Divide" and it sets the tone for the very down home Americana feel of this album full of uniformly excellent songs. The latter song contains the story of a man who tries to explain himself to his woman and recounts to some extent the recklessness of his “younger days” as he tries to persuade her to not kill herself. It is not as grim as it sounds in words I assure you.
The second song is “Rag Mama Rag” which is a fun quirky song with fiddles, an offbeat drum pattern (played by Richard Manuel who usually plays piano: the multitalented Garth Hudson played piano on this one), Levon Helm eschewing his drums for mandolin, Rick Danko playing fiddle instead of bass, and John Simon (the co-producer) playing the bass parts on tuba. The lyrics of the song were about a woman who only wants to play ragtime music…there may be a sly message in that but whatever. That brings us to one of the best songs on the album.
“The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down” is musically and lyrically a masterpiece. It is ironic a Canadian songwriter (Jaime Robbie Robertson) could write such an empathetic tune about the old South but it the power of the song cannot be denied. It was delivered with conviction by the only American in the group (the southerner Levon Helm) who was back on drums for this tune. (Levon also apparently persuaded Robbie not to mention Lincoln in the tune: Robbie more fittingly substituted in the narrative a story about Robert E. Lee instead and saved the song from being an affront to southerners unintentionally.) Garth Hudson gets some very textural sounds with a melodica overdubbed via his Lowrey organ, which sounds like a harmonica starting with the second verse of the song. It is an example of the multifaceted talents of the Band’s members –all of whom except Robbie Robertson played multiple instruments. I never get tired of hearing this song, singing it, or playing it on guitar. At this point, it seems fitting to touch on the genius of Robbie Robertson as a songwriter.
While the latter wrote only a few songs on the group’s very solid “Music From Big Pink” debut album (with band mate Richard Manuel and Bob Dylan contributing more in that area) on this album, that changed dramatically. Robertson solidified himself on this album as the chief songwriter of the group to the extent that he wrote eight of the songs by himself and has co-writing credit on the other four. One of the co-writing credits is “When You Awake” with Richard Manuel (who also sings the song) who was back behind the drum kit on this song with his frantic drumming style. Garth Hudson’s organ gives a nice backing to the song while Robertson’s lyrics are about family and remembering with grandfatherly advice being given.
From there the album moves to “Up on Cripple Creek” which is a song with a very “back porch” feel which is (I must say it) deliciously sleazy in a way. Garth Hudson is playing a clavinet through a wah wah pedal to create the sound of a jew’s harp. When mixed with Danko’s bass playing, it gives a significantly low range to the tune about a narrative of a man who wants to lookup an old girlfriend for “assistance” if you will and how in many areas she completes him. “Whispering Pines” follows, which Robertson co-wrote with Richard Manuel. The song has a completely different tempo than the one preceding it and Manuel delivers a very wrenching vocal performance vocally and on piano.
Following “Whispering Pines” is “Jemima Surrender” which has a heavier tempo with boogie-woogie piano (played not by Manuel but by Hudson), Manuel on drums, Levon Helm not on drums but rhythm guitar, and Robertson on lead guitar. (The alternate take –-half the songs on the album have an alternative take on this CD- has the members on their usual instruments for a completely different approach to the song.) The song is about the singer wanting a girl named Jemima to give in and...well...that is all I will tell you about it.
“Rocking Chair” is possibly my favourite song on the album. It is unconventional musically for the group in that there is no drums (Helm is on mandolin on this tune), Hudson plays accordion, Robertson is on acoustic guitar, and the timekeeping is done solely by Danko’s bass and that is adequate. The lyrics (Manuel on lead, Danko joining on the bridge) are about two old time sailors –one telling his first mate (and best friend) “don’t raise the sails anymore” because he has been at sea his whole life, he believes they have used up all the time they have in that endeavour and should spend the sunset years of their lives together “back in old Virginny” in rocking chairs. Having lost my oldest friend recently, this song really has an effect on me now…musically the song is quite excellent and the lyrics I find to be quite haunting for reasons already expressed and others not to be mentioned here.
“Look Out Cleveland” is a up tempo rocker sung by Danko with some aggressive lead fills by Robertson backed by Danko’s equally aggressive bass picking and is about “a storm coming through” which ends up devastating everything. (Compared to everything else on the album, this song stands out in its strident phrasing.)
From there the next song is “Jawbone” and it opens with a very slow start and alternates time signatures from verses to the pre-chorus to the chorus and back again with lyrics about a thief who is unrepentant. The album next moves into “Unfaithful Servant” which is sung by Danko and is a slow creeper about…well…exactly what the title says and the narrator tries to examine the reason for the faithlessness involved.
The album ends officially with “King Harvest” which is a frantic tune sung by Manuel. The song has an unusual sound even for an album of songs many of which are distinctive in that sense. The shifting tempos from verse to verse (a feature common to many of my favourite songwriters) gives a distinctive sound as does Robertson’s stinging lead playing which shows a pleasing restraint to it (another feature I like in lead guitar players). The lyrics show the tensions of paradoxical attachments (city and country, past and present, etc) and is a tale about a union man who is feeling the pinch ala Steinbeck's “Grapes of Wrath” and wraps up the album quite strongly. (It is also one of my favourites on the album.)
There are also alternate takes of six of the songs on the CD release as well as an outtake of a song that would appear on future albums (referring to “Get Up Jake"). They are all interesting for different approaches taken to songs in different takes…from instruments used to who played what, who sang the songs, some false starts, instructions given, etc. But the twelve songs on the album as originally released are the focus of this review and they all cohere well making this album a must have for anyone who likes good music.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
"If You Want Something Done Right, Do It Yourself" Dept.
(On Arguments Opposed to Military Involvement in the Middle East)
Due to the bankrupt nature of the "arguments" propounded by the lions share of who are opposed to the utilization of the military option in the Middle East (with regards to Iraq or otherwise), many ideas for approaching this have been pondered over by those of Us at Rerum Novarum. One of those that has seemed increasingly necessary is to insure that if critics will kvetch that at least they will use solid argumentation in the process and not the brainless ideological twaddle of the antiwar.com crowd and various and sundry idiotarians (read: moonbats) of that sort. For such things grate on your host who is and always has been generally speaking quite anti-idiotarian in his geopolitical approaches and not only because there is not enough time in the day to fact check those sorry specimens and post the biblical scroll of errors, distortions, and logical/argumentation fallacies that the screeds of such ideologues inexorably contain.
However, it is not often recognized that there are those who could be classified as anti-idiotarian who take a different view on the war situation. Such people are rare and deserve to be recognized. And as they are intellectually capable of making rational arguments, your host has thought about providing adversaries of this sort with some actual arguments with which they can use to construct a viable argument with which he and others can interact with. Or as this writer noted in a recent emailing to a friend on this subject matter (modified slightly in spots):
[T]o show what a standup guy I am, I [may] actually...post sometime [soon] some probable arguments against the war in Iraq which I will give to the antiwar crowd to develop free of charge. Basically I am tired of confuting stupid arguments on that score and am thus [contemplating giving] them some bonafide arguments which they can use...though I may offer them to [a good friend] to use against me first...[someone who] can be brutal at times in [their] argumentation. [Excerpt from Email Correspondence (circa September 9, 2005)]
Exactly when or if this is done remains to be seen but it is leaning more and more in that direction simply because your host wants there to be in the public square solid arguments on both sides rather than the common shrieking and irrational opposition by various assortments of moonbats countered by various fiskings or mistings by those of Our general outlook where only our side uses actual arguments. Anyway, that is what We are considering doing at some point in the future but it seemed appropriate to publicly note it at this time so that certain parties We have in mind for a possible future dialogue on the subject can be alerted to this free gift from your humble servant at Rerum Novarum and can ready their brickbats accordingly (if they are so inclined to).
[Last minute update: Your host has literally just been notified as of posting the above thread by one of the anti-war anti-idiotarians he had in mind that the proposed dialogue noted above is of interest to them. For that reason, it is now a question of when and not if it will take place. Stay tuned for the arguments your host will offer the opposition to develop in opposition to his own position...they need to be finetuned and sent to Our adversary first so they can start developing them. (Once they are in at least draft form, We will post the arguments in bullet form to this weblog for your perusal.)]
[Update: A continuation of this thread can be read HERE. - ISM 1/29/06 2:27pm]
(On Arguments Opposed to Military Involvement in the Middle East)
Due to the bankrupt nature of the "arguments" propounded by the lions share of who are opposed to the utilization of the military option in the Middle East (with regards to Iraq or otherwise), many ideas for approaching this have been pondered over by those of Us at Rerum Novarum. One of those that has seemed increasingly necessary is to insure that if critics will kvetch that at least they will use solid argumentation in the process and not the brainless ideological twaddle of the antiwar.com crowd and various and sundry idiotarians (read: moonbats) of that sort. For such things grate on your host who is and always has been generally speaking quite anti-idiotarian in his geopolitical approaches and not only because there is not enough time in the day to fact check those sorry specimens and post the biblical scroll of errors, distortions, and logical/argumentation fallacies that the screeds of such ideologues inexorably contain.
However, it is not often recognized that there are those who could be classified as anti-idiotarian who take a different view on the war situation. Such people are rare and deserve to be recognized. And as they are intellectually capable of making rational arguments, your host has thought about providing adversaries of this sort with some actual arguments with which they can use to construct a viable argument with which he and others can interact with. Or as this writer noted in a recent emailing to a friend on this subject matter (modified slightly in spots):
[T]o show what a standup guy I am, I [may] actually...post sometime [soon] some probable arguments against the war in Iraq which I will give to the antiwar crowd to develop free of charge. Basically I am tired of confuting stupid arguments on that score and am thus [contemplating giving] them some bonafide arguments which they can use...though I may offer them to [a good friend] to use against me first...[someone who] can be brutal at times in [their] argumentation. [Excerpt from Email Correspondence (circa September 9, 2005)]
Exactly when or if this is done remains to be seen but it is leaning more and more in that direction simply because your host wants there to be in the public square solid arguments on both sides rather than the common shrieking and irrational opposition by various assortments of moonbats countered by various fiskings or mistings by those of Our general outlook where only our side uses actual arguments. Anyway, that is what We are considering doing at some point in the future but it seemed appropriate to publicly note it at this time so that certain parties We have in mind for a possible future dialogue on the subject can be alerted to this free gift from your humble servant at Rerum Novarum and can ready their brickbats accordingly (if they are so inclined to).
[Last minute update: Your host has literally just been notified as of posting the above thread by one of the anti-war anti-idiotarians he had in mind that the proposed dialogue noted above is of interest to them. For that reason, it is now a question of when and not if it will take place. Stay tuned for the arguments your host will offer the opposition to develop in opposition to his own position...they need to be finetuned and sent to Our adversary first so they can start developing them. (Once they are in at least draft form, We will post the arguments in bullet form to this weblog for your perusal.)]
[Update: A continuation of this thread can be read HERE. - ISM 1/29/06 2:27pm]
Monday, January 02, 2006
On Miscellaneous Matters:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
They call it stormy Monday...aah but Tuesday's just as bad...
Ohhhhh they call it stormy Monday...but Tuesday's just as bad...
You know Wednesday's worse...
Aaaand Thursday's oh so sad...
It should not surprise me that it is raining in Seattle on a Monday but today I could have used better weather for my mood...normally the latter is not affected much by external environment but today it certainly is. It also does not help that it is a holiday today either but what can one do with the uncontrollable elements such as that??? The answer is nothing of course and while I am optimistic about this being a better year than last year (and even better than 2004 which was the best overall year of the new millennium for me thus far); nonetheless, it seems appropriate to jot down some notes of various subjects that I have had in mind for a while. The first is the subject of resolutions.
It has been a long time since I bought into the idea of "resolutions" for the new year...part of the reason I suppose is that they are treated as such a joke by the culture at large. I am not opposed to resolving to do better of course but there is too much making of resolutions by people which are constructed in a way that almost guarantees them failure. For example, someone who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day and has for years is not about to be likely to go cold turkey on the new year and expect to succeed. But at the same time, that does not mean that they cannot succeed at their goal within the year. Likewise with those trying to lose weight...you cannot go from eating lots of food a day to no food without some form of phased in program as well as certain kinds of supplement support. And the idea of giving anything up completely if it is something you are accustomed to needs to be dealt with carefully.
I would not hold it against someone who (for example) resolved to quit smoking on the new year who has already failed in the "cold turkey" approach. Likewise, someone who sought to give up refined sugar products completely, lose a certain amount of excess body weight, or something else of that sort. However, I do find it interesting how people if they fail once in a resolution often take an "oh well, I tried" and act as if since they failed once, they need not try again. This is akin to someone who gets a flat on the highway choosing instead of fixing the flat and moving on again towards their destination to shoot out the other three tires too. Habits of mind or of a person's general disposition take time to form and they are thus not going to change as quickly as we might like them too. But if the right approach is set down in advance and a proper strategery undertaken, the odds of success will be much greater in whatever the area of intended improvement happens to be. Just keep in mind the determination that you will succeed at whatever your goals are and do not let setbacks be anything but temporary delays.
Occasionally the subject of writing is one I ponder particularly when I see a website or weblog writer who start such an endeavour and then cease it under the pretext that they have nothing to write about. But then again, that is what happens when you start a weblog or a website with a very limited scope as your primary means of expression. That is not to say that certain projects may not at times call for their own individual site of course. But there should be a general or primary source which is not so limited if you want to insure against anything more than a temporary (at most) writers block.
I suppose some would view it as a good thing that I have more things to blog on than I have time for...but the reason for that is my refusal to limit myself for the sake of fitting a particular "niche" or whatever. As I see it, most of what we do in life has some form of stratification to it and thus one's space for musing should not be so "specialized." Obviously if you involve yourself in projects of other people which have certain limits set down then those limits should be respected. But beyond that, only limit yourself in weblog or website writing if you want to build in your own obsolescence device of sorts.{1} There are a number of different sources for insuring against permanent "writers block" for anyone who cares to search them out. But to save on time, consider what the present writer has discovered in his time blogging viz. sources you can utilize to assist in coming up with material.
The truth is, writing is like anything really and when you have a system or methodology in place to assist you in generating material, you can mitigate the problems that develop in the absence of having such a system in place. And while I did not always recognize the approaches I utilize as encompassing a "system" of sorts; nonetheless, I do not mind sharing many of the means from which I have come up with nearly 1800 posts (thus far) since this weblog debuted nearly three and a half years ago. Admittedly it is not the complete list of sources I have used (and continue to use). But what I publicly wrote on this matter nearly two and a half years ago{2} was reprised in a different context{3} and can be considered good points of reference for anyone who wants to cultivate the writing discipline to some extent either in weblog format or some other form of media communication.
Anyway, that is all I have time to muse on at the moment..."the time is gone...this post is over....thought I'd something more to say???"
Notes:
{1} Speaking only for myself, I do not feel a sense of guilt if I go for a day or two (or three or whatever length) without blogging. Initially I did but then it dawned on me (and fortunately this happened very early in the life of this blog) that the moment I worry about that is the moment any edge I have (if I even have one) is blunted...
I do not know what subjects elicit the most readership and which do not and frankly, I have no interest in finding out. For the moment I do that is the moment my impulse to blog my mind becomes to some extent compromised. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 3, 2003)]
{2} What originally got me sketching these ideas down as I discovered them was a test that made the rounds in mid 2003 which was a "personality quiz" of sorts seeking to identify the personalities behind various blogging collectives. My setting forth of many of the sources I have used (and continue to use to the present day) was to counter the assessment that weblogging was a "soliloquy" of sorts and that there was no feedback of sorts from other people in what was or was not blogged. In light of the conspicuous lack of comments boxes at Rerum Novarum, it seemed appropriate to note that We were not hurting for outside input in many other ways which more than compensated for not having comments boxes.
{3} The differing context of the post reprising that subject matter was a revisiting of the comments box subject earlier this year. My position on comments boxes has not wavered on this weblog since its founding yet whenever I mention this, there are inevitable people who accuse me of not wanting to interact with other people, not receiving feedback on post material, or other kinds of what can be summarized as "soliloquizing." I doubt what I wrote then will silence the comments box "true believers" but at the very least it showed (hopefully) that one can receive ideas for writing and no shortage of feedback from others in a variety of ways other than comments boxes.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
They call it stormy Monday...aah but Tuesday's just as bad...
Ohhhhh they call it stormy Monday...but Tuesday's just as bad...
You know Wednesday's worse...
Aaaand Thursday's oh so sad...
It should not surprise me that it is raining in Seattle on a Monday but today I could have used better weather for my mood...normally the latter is not affected much by external environment but today it certainly is. It also does not help that it is a holiday today either but what can one do with the uncontrollable elements such as that??? The answer is nothing of course and while I am optimistic about this being a better year than last year (and even better than 2004 which was the best overall year of the new millennium for me thus far); nonetheless, it seems appropriate to jot down some notes of various subjects that I have had in mind for a while. The first is the subject of resolutions.
It has been a long time since I bought into the idea of "resolutions" for the new year...part of the reason I suppose is that they are treated as such a joke by the culture at large. I am not opposed to resolving to do better of course but there is too much making of resolutions by people which are constructed in a way that almost guarantees them failure. For example, someone who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day and has for years is not about to be likely to go cold turkey on the new year and expect to succeed. But at the same time, that does not mean that they cannot succeed at their goal within the year. Likewise with those trying to lose weight...you cannot go from eating lots of food a day to no food without some form of phased in program as well as certain kinds of supplement support. And the idea of giving anything up completely if it is something you are accustomed to needs to be dealt with carefully.
I would not hold it against someone who (for example) resolved to quit smoking on the new year who has already failed in the "cold turkey" approach. Likewise, someone who sought to give up refined sugar products completely, lose a certain amount of excess body weight, or something else of that sort. However, I do find it interesting how people if they fail once in a resolution often take an "oh well, I tried" and act as if since they failed once, they need not try again. This is akin to someone who gets a flat on the highway choosing instead of fixing the flat and moving on again towards their destination to shoot out the other three tires too. Habits of mind or of a person's general disposition take time to form and they are thus not going to change as quickly as we might like them too. But if the right approach is set down in advance and a proper strategery undertaken, the odds of success will be much greater in whatever the area of intended improvement happens to be. Just keep in mind the determination that you will succeed at whatever your goals are and do not let setbacks be anything but temporary delays.
Occasionally the subject of writing is one I ponder particularly when I see a website or weblog writer who start such an endeavour and then cease it under the pretext that they have nothing to write about. But then again, that is what happens when you start a weblog or a website with a very limited scope as your primary means of expression. That is not to say that certain projects may not at times call for their own individual site of course. But there should be a general or primary source which is not so limited if you want to insure against anything more than a temporary (at most) writers block.
I suppose some would view it as a good thing that I have more things to blog on than I have time for...but the reason for that is my refusal to limit myself for the sake of fitting a particular "niche" or whatever. As I see it, most of what we do in life has some form of stratification to it and thus one's space for musing should not be so "specialized." Obviously if you involve yourself in projects of other people which have certain limits set down then those limits should be respected. But beyond that, only limit yourself in weblog or website writing if you want to build in your own obsolescence device of sorts.{1} There are a number of different sources for insuring against permanent "writers block" for anyone who cares to search them out. But to save on time, consider what the present writer has discovered in his time blogging viz. sources you can utilize to assist in coming up with material.
The truth is, writing is like anything really and when you have a system or methodology in place to assist you in generating material, you can mitigate the problems that develop in the absence of having such a system in place. And while I did not always recognize the approaches I utilize as encompassing a "system" of sorts; nonetheless, I do not mind sharing many of the means from which I have come up with nearly 1800 posts (thus far) since this weblog debuted nearly three and a half years ago. Admittedly it is not the complete list of sources I have used (and continue to use). But what I publicly wrote on this matter nearly two and a half years ago{2} was reprised in a different context{3} and can be considered good points of reference for anyone who wants to cultivate the writing discipline to some extent either in weblog format or some other form of media communication.
Anyway, that is all I have time to muse on at the moment..."the time is gone...this post is over....thought I'd something more to say???"
Notes:
{1} Speaking only for myself, I do not feel a sense of guilt if I go for a day or two (or three or whatever length) without blogging. Initially I did but then it dawned on me (and fortunately this happened very early in the life of this blog) that the moment I worry about that is the moment any edge I have (if I even have one) is blunted...
I do not know what subjects elicit the most readership and which do not and frankly, I have no interest in finding out. For the moment I do that is the moment my impulse to blog my mind becomes to some extent compromised. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 3, 2003)]
{2} What originally got me sketching these ideas down as I discovered them was a test that made the rounds in mid 2003 which was a "personality quiz" of sorts seeking to identify the personalities behind various blogging collectives. My setting forth of many of the sources I have used (and continue to use to the present day) was to counter the assessment that weblogging was a "soliloquy" of sorts and that there was no feedback of sorts from other people in what was or was not blogged. In light of the conspicuous lack of comments boxes at Rerum Novarum, it seemed appropriate to note that We were not hurting for outside input in many other ways which more than compensated for not having comments boxes.
{3} The differing context of the post reprising that subject matter was a revisiting of the comments box subject earlier this year. My position on comments boxes has not wavered on this weblog since its founding yet whenever I mention this, there are inevitable people who accuse me of not wanting to interact with other people, not receiving feedback on post material, or other kinds of what can be summarized as "soliloquizing." I doubt what I wrote then will silence the comments box "true believers" but at the very least it showed (hopefully) that one can receive ideas for writing and no shortage of feedback from others in a variety of ways other than comments boxes.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
"Auld Lang Syne" Dept.
(Aka "The Last Post of the Year")
I have tended for the past couple of years on this weblog to open the year (or close it) with the traditional song for ringing in the new year. As I did ringing in 2004, I will forward-post the present thread now (as I will not being in front of a computer when the new year rings in) yet want it to be time stamped in a contemporary way; thus it will be the last post of 2005. Here 'tis:
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And days of auld lang syne?
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.
And surely ye'll be your pint stoop
And surely I'll be mine
And we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.
We twa hae run about the braes
And pou'd the gowans fine
But we've wander'd mony a weary foot
Sin' auld lang syne.
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.
We twa hae paidl'd i' the burn
Frae mornin' sun till dine
But seas between us braid hae roared
Sin' auld lang syne.
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.
And here's a hand, my trusty fiere
And gi'e's a hand o' thine
And we'll tak a right good willy waught
For auld lang syne. [Attr. Robert Burns]
May you all have a blessed and prosperous new year and I hope to see y'all next year...same Bat time...same Bat blog ;-)
(Aka "The Last Post of the Year")
I have tended for the past couple of years on this weblog to open the year (or close it) with the traditional song for ringing in the new year. As I did ringing in 2004, I will forward-post the present thread now (as I will not being in front of a computer when the new year rings in) yet want it to be time stamped in a contemporary way; thus it will be the last post of 2005. Here 'tis:
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And days of auld lang syne?
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.
And surely ye'll be your pint stoop
And surely I'll be mine
And we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.
We twa hae run about the braes
And pou'd the gowans fine
But we've wander'd mony a weary foot
Sin' auld lang syne.
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.
We twa hae paidl'd i' the burn
Frae mornin' sun till dine
But seas between us braid hae roared
Sin' auld lang syne.
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.
And here's a hand, my trusty fiere
And gi'e's a hand o' thine
And we'll tak a right good willy waught
For auld lang syne. [Attr. Robert Burns]
May you all have a blessed and prosperous new year and I hope to see y'all next year...same Bat time...same Bat blog ;-)
Saturday, December 31, 2005
On the Subjects of National Security, the Patriot Act, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I have said very little about The Patriot Act {1} except that I agree with it in principle if not in certain specifics. However, there is more to it than just that and as certain personages with soundbyte mentalities tend to misunderstand my view all too often, it seems appropriate to discuss this subject at the present time because...well...because I want to and that is a good enough reason for me.
One of the things I have not explictly said about the whole idea of The Patriot Act is that I see the approach as contradictory when you have a president and legislative branch of the government who are not concerned with securing the borders. This is one of the key issues on which I wavered a bit in my support of President Bush about two years ago and my view on the issue has not changed. Our borders are overrun by illegals everyday and the lack of security of them gives a good route of passage for potential terrorists. A key problem with The Patriot Act is that it is yet another case of creating more laws while ones already on the books are not properly enforced. There is also the issue to any piece of legislation not having a sunset provision in it as I noted back in August of this year.
The Patriot Act was extended six months as a kind of congressional compromise. But six months from now, we will be in the middle of June 2006 about five months from the midterm elections. I hate to say it but if I was a Democrat, I would hammer the Republicans and the president for their insistence on the "necessity" of The Patriot Act while they basically let the borders go unsecured. This is a pretty basic violation of the law of non contradiction...not that most committed Democrats and other quasi-socialists concern themselves with non-contradiction most of the time of course. But this will be an election year and if President Bush and the Republicans want to bring up the whole "national security" issue when The Patriot Act is up for extension in the middle of 2006, they can (and should be) hammered for their obvious inconsistency here.{2}
And (of course) if President Bush and the Republicans start talking about securing the borders in 2006 --and I predict that they will-- ideological enemies who want to publicly opine as to why this was not a concern for President Bush and many of the Republicans for the last five years will not in doing so find any criticism from this writer, that is for sure.
Notes:
{1} Briefly on the Patriot Act, Some Problems I Have With It, Etc. (circa August 2, 2005)
Miscellaneous Musings on the Patriot Act and Legislative Reform--An Audio Post (circa November 23, 2004)
{2} Granted, the claims of "inconsistency" or "crimes" by Bush's political opponents are usually able to be exposed as ideologically driven and lacking a basis in fact as well as in logic. However, what is noted above is a clear example of contradiction which cannot exist in a position if the latter is to be sound.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I have said very little about The Patriot Act {1} except that I agree with it in principle if not in certain specifics. However, there is more to it than just that and as certain personages with soundbyte mentalities tend to misunderstand my view all too often, it seems appropriate to discuss this subject at the present time because...well...because I want to and that is a good enough reason for me.
One of the things I have not explictly said about the whole idea of The Patriot Act is that I see the approach as contradictory when you have a president and legislative branch of the government who are not concerned with securing the borders. This is one of the key issues on which I wavered a bit in my support of President Bush about two years ago and my view on the issue has not changed. Our borders are overrun by illegals everyday and the lack of security of them gives a good route of passage for potential terrorists. A key problem with The Patriot Act is that it is yet another case of creating more laws while ones already on the books are not properly enforced. There is also the issue to any piece of legislation not having a sunset provision in it as I noted back in August of this year.
The Patriot Act was extended six months as a kind of congressional compromise. But six months from now, we will be in the middle of June 2006 about five months from the midterm elections. I hate to say it but if I was a Democrat, I would hammer the Republicans and the president for their insistence on the "necessity" of The Patriot Act while they basically let the borders go unsecured. This is a pretty basic violation of the law of non contradiction...not that most committed Democrats and other quasi-socialists concern themselves with non-contradiction most of the time of course. But this will be an election year and if President Bush and the Republicans want to bring up the whole "national security" issue when The Patriot Act is up for extension in the middle of 2006, they can (and should be) hammered for their obvious inconsistency here.{2}
And (of course) if President Bush and the Republicans start talking about securing the borders in 2006 --and I predict that they will-- ideological enemies who want to publicly opine as to why this was not a concern for President Bush and many of the Republicans for the last five years will not in doing so find any criticism from this writer, that is for sure.
Notes:
{1} Briefly on the Patriot Act, Some Problems I Have With It, Etc. (circa August 2, 2005)
Miscellaneous Musings on the Patriot Act and Legislative Reform--An Audio Post (circa November 23, 2004)
{2} Granted, the claims of "inconsistency" or "crimes" by Bush's political opponents are usually able to be exposed as ideologically driven and lacking a basis in fact as well as in logic. However, what is noted above is a clear example of contradiction which cannot exist in a position if the latter is to be sound.
| You Should Get a JD (Juris Doctor) |
 You're logical, driven, and ruthless. You'd make a mighty fine lawyer. |
As my father used to sardonically say in a Dirty Harry kinda way (squinted eyes and all): Marvelous!!!
Points to Ponder:
(On Inconsistent Approaches to Nature)
Nature is raw material, worthless without the mixture of human labor; yet nature is also the highest and most sacred thing. The same people who struggle to save the snail darter bless the pill, worry about hunting deer and defend abortion. Reverence for nature, mastery of nature—whichever is convenient. The principle of contradiction has been repealed. [Allan Bloom: From The Closing of the American Mind pg. 172 (c. 1987)]
(On Inconsistent Approaches to Nature)
Nature is raw material, worthless without the mixture of human labor; yet nature is also the highest and most sacred thing. The same people who struggle to save the snail darter bless the pill, worry about hunting deer and defend abortion. Reverence for nature, mastery of nature—whichever is convenient. The principle of contradiction has been repealed. [Allan Bloom: From The Closing of the American Mind pg. 172 (c. 1987)]
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Please remember in your prayers Larry Gonczy and his grieving family...Larry passed away a few days before Christmas and his funeral was today yesterday.
[Lord] remember Larry Gonczy. In baptism he died with Christ: may he also share his resurrection, when Christ will raise our mortal bodies and make them like his own in glory. [Eucharistic Prayer III: From The Roman Missal under Masses for the Dead]
Also commended to your prayers is the mother of a good friend of mine (one of my oldest friends actually) who will be going into hospice soon. For those who do not know that means that her death is all but imminent so please keep Kathy Hanks and her family in your prayers.
[Lord] remember Larry Gonczy. In baptism he died with Christ: may he also share his resurrection, when Christ will raise our mortal bodies and make them like his own in glory. [Eucharistic Prayer III: From The Roman Missal under Masses for the Dead]
Also commended to your prayers is the mother of a good friend of mine (one of my oldest friends actually) who will be going into hospice soon. For those who do not know that means that her death is all but imminent so please keep Kathy Hanks and her family in your prayers.
Points to Ponder:
It is now fashionable to deny that there ever was a state of nature. We are like aristocrats who do not care to know that our ancestors were once savages who, motivated only by fear of death and scarcity, killed one another in quarrels over acorns. But we continue to live off of the capital passed on to us by these rejected predecessors. Everyone believes in freedom and equality and the rights consequent to them. These were, however, brought to civil society from the state of nature; in the absence of any other ground for them, they must be just as mythical as the tale of the state of nature told by the unreliable travelers. [Allan Bloom: From The Closing of the American Mind pg. 162 (c. 1987)]
It is now fashionable to deny that there ever was a state of nature. We are like aristocrats who do not care to know that our ancestors were once savages who, motivated only by fear of death and scarcity, killed one another in quarrels over acorns. But we continue to live off of the capital passed on to us by these rejected predecessors. Everyone believes in freedom and equality and the rights consequent to them. These were, however, brought to civil society from the state of nature; in the absence of any other ground for them, they must be just as mythical as the tale of the state of nature told by the unreliable travelers. [Allan Bloom: From The Closing of the American Mind pg. 162 (c. 1987)]
Briefly on Claude Frederic Bastiat, the US Constitution, and Socialism:
My interlocuter's words will be in shale font.
To paraphrase XX XXXXXXXX's argument, I hope I can be forgiven for a Frederic Bastiat quote:
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."
Indeed. Claude Frederic Bastiat's work should be required reading in schools. Any liberal arts degree or economics degree without reasonable familiarity in Bastiat's magnum opus The Law is worthless.
A SCOTUS that will invalidate the laws creating Social Security, workplace safety regulations, the minimum wage, medicare, medicaid, and uunemployment insurance is their real aim.
Social Security is unconstitutional as is the minimum wage, medicare, medicaid, etc. Obviously if states wanted to put in place workplace safety regulations and minimum wage legislation, that would be fine and the same is the case with the other programs noted above. But socialism is nothing more than communism in a lessor-developed state of growth: something else that Bastiat correctly pointed out over 150 years ago.
Furthermore, there is no Constitutional authority for federal intervention in so-called "social welfare" programs. PERIOD. The Constitution does have a commerce clause which indicates that Congress has the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." But that does not mean that the federal government has power to govern commerce within individual states. Indeed as Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1789, the proposed Constitution made certain distinctions which so-called "social democrats" are either ignorant of or are interested in subverting. Here is the distinction on the commerce clause that our so-called "enlightened justices" have ignored for about seventy years or so:
The proper division between federal and state authorities Commerce, finance, negotiation, and war seem to comprehend all the objects which have charms for minds governed by that passion; and all the powers necessary to those objects ought, in the first instance, to be lodged in the national depository. The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction. (Federalist #17)]
In other words, the federal government can licitly regulate commerce between nations, states, and other extra-state configurations (such as the Indian tribes) but not inner-state commerce. Thus, all attempts at the latter are blatantly unconstitutional and make a mockery of the Constitution whether you like it or not.
However, (as I noted) states have the authority to enact the kinds of legislation you speak of. Furthermore, if a company governs across state lines, one could argue that it is subject to the federal commerce clause. However, small inner-state companies, franchises, etc. are another matter altogether: the state has the authority to regulate them but not the federal government.
Meanwhile regarding NNNN's defense of Social Security and such. Would remind him that in the real world, the current Social Security structure would send its managers to the hoosegow. Ponzi scheme- with increasingly shrinking number of paying employees to support those who need its services. Would strongly urge Mr. N. and all y'all to hook up with national best-seller The FairTax Book by Neal Boortz and Cong. John Linder. Arguing for 22% Federal flat tax on all goods and services, eliminating FICA, IRS, other impediments to our economic growth and development. Prof. Drs. Boortz and Linder developed a sixth sense for any and all objections to their proposal in clear and easy terminology. More necessary for our future than who sits in snazzy robes and makes rulings to be misinterpreted down the line.
Precisely. I have always found it ironic that those who are the most adamantly opposed to multi level marketing arrangements tend to be very loyal to the panzi scheme of Social Security. As far as the flat tax goes, I am more in favour of a consumption tax with food and medicine exempted as well as (perhaps) a certain portion of home purchase price as well. However, if the choices left are what we have now and a flat tax, obviously the latter is preferable with certain income exemptions of course...say the first $30,000 to $40,000 of income.
Percentage wise, I think 22% is too high...the federal leviathan does not need that much of our money to govern according to constitutional boundaries. However, if we were talking a phased in flat tax starting at 22% and then graduating downward over time (to allow us to gradually prune back the federal tree) to say 10% or less, that is something I would definitely like to see.
My interlocuter's words will be in shale font.
To paraphrase XX XXXXXXXX's argument, I hope I can be forgiven for a Frederic Bastiat quote:
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."
Indeed. Claude Frederic Bastiat's work should be required reading in schools. Any liberal arts degree or economics degree without reasonable familiarity in Bastiat's magnum opus The Law is worthless.
A SCOTUS that will invalidate the laws creating Social Security, workplace safety regulations, the minimum wage, medicare, medicaid, and uunemployment insurance is their real aim.
Social Security is unconstitutional as is the minimum wage, medicare, medicaid, etc. Obviously if states wanted to put in place workplace safety regulations and minimum wage legislation, that would be fine and the same is the case with the other programs noted above. But socialism is nothing more than communism in a lessor-developed state of growth: something else that Bastiat correctly pointed out over 150 years ago.
Furthermore, there is no Constitutional authority for federal intervention in so-called "social welfare" programs. PERIOD. The Constitution does have a commerce clause which indicates that Congress has the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." But that does not mean that the federal government has power to govern commerce within individual states. Indeed as Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1789, the proposed Constitution made certain distinctions which so-called "social democrats" are either ignorant of or are interested in subverting. Here is the distinction on the commerce clause that our so-called "enlightened justices" have ignored for about seventy years or so:
The proper division between federal and state authorities Commerce, finance, negotiation, and war seem to comprehend all the objects which have charms for minds governed by that passion; and all the powers necessary to those objects ought, in the first instance, to be lodged in the national depository. The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction. (Federalist #17)]
In other words, the federal government can licitly regulate commerce between nations, states, and other extra-state configurations (such as the Indian tribes) but not inner-state commerce. Thus, all attempts at the latter are blatantly unconstitutional and make a mockery of the Constitution whether you like it or not.
However, (as I noted) states have the authority to enact the kinds of legislation you speak of. Furthermore, if a company governs across state lines, one could argue that it is subject to the federal commerce clause. However, small inner-state companies, franchises, etc. are another matter altogether: the state has the authority to regulate them but not the federal government.
Meanwhile regarding NNNN's defense of Social Security and such. Would remind him that in the real world, the current Social Security structure would send its managers to the hoosegow. Ponzi scheme- with increasingly shrinking number of paying employees to support those who need its services. Would strongly urge Mr. N. and all y'all to hook up with national best-seller The FairTax Book by Neal Boortz and Cong. John Linder. Arguing for 22% Federal flat tax on all goods and services, eliminating FICA, IRS, other impediments to our economic growth and development. Prof. Drs. Boortz and Linder developed a sixth sense for any and all objections to their proposal in clear and easy terminology. More necessary for our future than who sits in snazzy robes and makes rulings to be misinterpreted down the line.
Precisely. I have always found it ironic that those who are the most adamantly opposed to multi level marketing arrangements tend to be very loyal to the panzi scheme of Social Security. As far as the flat tax goes, I am more in favour of a consumption tax with food and medicine exempted as well as (perhaps) a certain portion of home purchase price as well. However, if the choices left are what we have now and a flat tax, obviously the latter is preferable with certain income exemptions of course...say the first $30,000 to $40,000 of income.
Percentage wise, I think 22% is too high...the federal leviathan does not need that much of our money to govern according to constitutional boundaries. However, if we were talking a phased in flat tax starting at 22% and then graduating downward over time (to allow us to gradually prune back the federal tree) to say 10% or less, that is something I would definitely like to see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)