Points to Ponder:
(On The Two Party System}
[Prefatory Note: Please read this brief clarifying post before reflecting upon the quote below. - ISM]
The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day. [Theodore Roosevelt]
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
On the Two Political Party System:
(A Pre-emptory Clarification Posting)
With the third party idea permeating the blogosphere and the alternative media with an increasing frequency in the past year, it is possible that my next installment of this long-running series{1} will cause some confusion. To avoid that, I want to make it clear from the outset that I do not intend with the quotation to follow this posting to in any sense repudiate what I have written either very recently or in the past few years about third parties at sundry times and in diverse ways over the years.
The issue boils down to recognizing a need but also realizing pragmatically that it cannot be met at this time. However, as I noted in two of the threads above{1}, there is a way to make a viable third party a reality. However, the general process involved in third parties goes against the very laws of nature{2} and therefore needs to be rethought as I have done in recent years{3} basing it on my years of study of human physiology.{4} And as I do not see how the principle can be implemented effectively at the present time, I am thus in the odd position of wanting a third party, willing to support a third party in principle, but not willing to vote for many third party candidates. And as my reasons having been adequately noted in the two postings from November of 2004 and the two from earlier in this month, that is all I will note on the matter at the present time.
For the quote which this posting was intended to pre-emptively clarify, please go HERE.
Notes:
{1} Which will be the 227th installment since this weblog was founded.
{2} Which I will repost here:
"My Kingdom for a Viable Third Party" Dept. (circa November 6, 2004)
"My Kingdom For a Viable Third Party" Dept. Redux (circa November 11, 2004)
{3} I remind you of the theories of motion as discovered by Sir Isaac Newton. If an object in motion will remain in motion, then attempts to stop that object will not succeed without a greater or equal force being involved. In light of the manner whereby intensity and duration are inversely proportioned, an intense reaction cannot sustain itself for very long in opposing an object in motion -particularly if that object appeals to the lower levels of our nature from which there is continual struggle against anyway.
What must be attempted is to reverse the direction of the moving object but the approach taken has to be one focused on success over the long term. For that reason, the intensity behind such an approach has to be by logical necessity of lessor import if there is to be a conceivable reversal of trends that will be more than illusory. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa August 11, 2004]
{4} See footnote one.
{5} This is too long a subject to go into at this time but suffice to say, my understanding of the mathematics of human physiology is (modesty aside for a moment) quite advanced and is something that to a certain extent probably permeates my thinking on virtually all foundational thought issues.
(A Pre-emptory Clarification Posting)
With the third party idea permeating the blogosphere and the alternative media with an increasing frequency in the past year, it is possible that my next installment of this long-running series{1} will cause some confusion. To avoid that, I want to make it clear from the outset that I do not intend with the quotation to follow this posting to in any sense repudiate what I have written either very recently or in the past few years about third parties at sundry times and in diverse ways over the years.
The issue boils down to recognizing a need but also realizing pragmatically that it cannot be met at this time. However, as I noted in two of the threads above{1}, there is a way to make a viable third party a reality. However, the general process involved in third parties goes against the very laws of nature{2} and therefore needs to be rethought as I have done in recent years{3} basing it on my years of study of human physiology.{4} And as I do not see how the principle can be implemented effectively at the present time, I am thus in the odd position of wanting a third party, willing to support a third party in principle, but not willing to vote for many third party candidates. And as my reasons having been adequately noted in the two postings from November of 2004 and the two from earlier in this month, that is all I will note on the matter at the present time.
For the quote which this posting was intended to pre-emptively clarify, please go HERE.
Notes:
{1} Which will be the 227th installment since this weblog was founded.
{2} Which I will repost here:
"My Kingdom for a Viable Third Party" Dept. (circa November 6, 2004)
"My Kingdom For a Viable Third Party" Dept. Redux (circa November 11, 2004)
{3} I remind you of the theories of motion as discovered by Sir Isaac Newton. If an object in motion will remain in motion, then attempts to stop that object will not succeed without a greater or equal force being involved. In light of the manner whereby intensity and duration are inversely proportioned, an intense reaction cannot sustain itself for very long in opposing an object in motion -particularly if that object appeals to the lower levels of our nature from which there is continual struggle against anyway.
What must be attempted is to reverse the direction of the moving object but the approach taken has to be one focused on success over the long term. For that reason, the intensity behind such an approach has to be by logical necessity of lessor import if there is to be a conceivable reversal of trends that will be more than illusory. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa August 11, 2004]
{4} See footnote one.
{5} This is too long a subject to go into at this time but suffice to say, my understanding of the mathematics of human physiology is (modesty aside for a moment) quite advanced and is something that to a certain extent probably permeates my thinking on virtually all foundational thought issues.
Monday, May 08, 2006
On Congressional Spending:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The trigger of sorts for this posting was the following weblog entry:
Out of Control!!!
I particularly enjoyed reading this line from the piece:
I would say that the Senate is spending money like drunken sailors, but that would unfairly disparage sailors, sober or drunk.
Of course what the Texas Cowgirl notes is such a small trickle in the bucket of the budget problem that it is not even funny. I noted over three years ago{1} that the problem is baseline budgeting and explained this in greater detail a few times since then -both privately as well as publicly.{2} There is also the problem of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which needs to be rescinded to restore some balance to the budgetary issues -something else I have discussed some time ago. Or to quote myself at length circa October of 2003:
[W]ho cares what the President proposes. The role of setting a budget is that of the Congress. The problem is that the role of impounding funds -shared by every president from Nixon back to Washington- was abolished by President Nixon when he signed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Since then, deficits have skyrocketed and an important check on Congressional excesses was cast aside...
The ignorance politicians have of the Constitution -while problematical of course- is nonetheless not as bad as the people who will vote for whomever enriches their interests irrespective of what the Constitution actually says.
To such people as this, I challenge them: find for me the Social Security recipient who would support outlawing Social Security.[...] Find for me the Medicare recipient who would support shutting down Medicare.[...] More could be mentioned but these are the two biggest sacred cows in politics that need to be skewered.
But do not think more could not be pointed out - indeed at least 75% of the budget is unconstitutional expenditures. The question I have for the readers is this: would you vote against your sacred cow to benefit the common good of society??? For some reason, I am not too optimistic that the "yes" votes on that question would be very high. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa October 31, 2003)]
One proposal I have made in recent years is the idea of rider reform. Here is how the proposal jelled in my mind within a half hour{3} of finishing some musings on President Bush's State of the Union Address in January of 2004{4}:
I will avoid discussing the constitutionality of federal disaster relief acts but this serves to show how the rider is used to pass stuff without accountability. Having noted that, here are my proposals for making this process accountable to the voting public.
1) Any proposed rider to a bill must have some reasonably demonstrable congruency with the subject of the main funding bill being voted on. The current practice of attaching unrelated or non-sequitur funding proposals to major funding bills would thereby be eliminated.
2) Any proposed rider should requires a separate congressional "rider attachment vote" so that those who want it and those who do not are on the record.
3) Any proposed rider should require at least two thirds concurrence by each house of Congress insuch that anything less means that the rider initiative fails to attach to the bill.
4) Any proposed rider that succeeds in getting two thirds concurrence by each house of Congress officially attaches with the provision that the president has the right to line-item veto that rider proposal.
5) If the president vetoes such rider proposal but signs the main funding bill to which it was attached, Congress can override and perminently attach said rider to the main funding bill with the concurrence of seventy-five percent of both houses of Congress. If said seventy-five percent concurrence of both houses of Congress cannot be mustered for an override, the override fails and the rider is officially declared dead.
6) And of course the rider proposals -pass or fail- must all be entered into the record for perusal of the people under the 1978 Freedom of Information Act along with (i) the names of the proposers and subsequent sponsors of said rider (ii) their party affiliation and (iii) the state which they represent. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]
I have also noted on numerous occasions the idea of sunsetting the federal budget in toto.{5} I explained that principle in greater detail in a late 2005 weblog posting in these words:
The one area that the Republicans have long run on is being more fiscally sound than the Democrats but those of Us who have been paying close attention to their performance since President Bush won the 2000 election are not impressed. It is not that difficult to balance the budget -indeed in a 2.6 trillion budget, We could find at least 1.6 trillion in unconstitutional pork spending.
For the sake of being nice, let Us propose a 1 trillion cut in the budget from all unconstitutional spending programs and a bill that would sunset every spending provision in the next five years. Obviously it would not help to sunset them all at once but it should be staggered so that every item is sunsetted within a six year election cycle. That way, even senators (who do not control the purse strings but who do play a role in the budgeting) are not exempt from being held accountable on these matters. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 29, 2005)]
In summary, yes the Congress is continuing to be irresponsible in their spending. However, just because the Senate is putting a few things in that the House is not does not mean the House's omission of those items is laudatory by any stretch. No my friends, the Congress of the United States is a disgrace and has been for a long time. Putting the Democrats back into power will not improve matters in the slightest -if anything they would probably be worse. And since there is no viable third party at the moment to go to, all we can try and do is educate these "public servants" on what the Constitution allows for and what it does not allow for. And with the latter, it is 3/4ths of the annual budget (possibly more) which is patently unconstitutional and this crap needed to stop yesterday.
Notes:
{1} With such manifest illogic is it any wonder we have a nearly six trillion dollar debt??? (The enemy is "base-line budgeting" my friends.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 9, 2002)]
{2} Here are the only public weblog bits on this subject that I can find on short notice:
[T]hose who know their history are aware that President Reagan proposed a combination of across the board tax cuts. However, that was intended merely to spur on the economy in the short term and not as a long-term proposition in and of itself. The long term proposition for handling the deficit was raising taxes and cutting spending simultaneously -indeed President Reagan got Congress to agree to $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in taxes raised in 1982. Of course the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives never followed through with the promised spending cuts. This caused no shortage of problems because when taxes are cut and spending is not reduced at the same time. For even when the dynamic (as opposed to static) effects that tax cuts have on an economy are considered, with evils such as "base line budgeting" in place long-term deficits are an inevitability.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 8, 2005)]
A Congress which cannot put together a budget that balances[...] does not deserve a pay increase. PERIOD. This is not rocket science folks. If the federal government got its nose out of the areas which it does not have Constitutionally delegated authority to intervene in, the budget could easily be balanced. Heck, at the current rate of taxation, the debt itself could be paid off in about seven years or less.[...] But there are too many selfish people out there who prefer their own isolated self-interests to the common good. There is also the issue of baseline budgeting which no one wants to honestly face[...] but that is to open another tangent I do not have the time to delve into at the moment. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 10, 2005)]
{3} And that is not an exaggeration my friends.
{4} Miscellaneous Musings on the State of the Union Address (circa January 20, 2004)
{5} What problems do we have when government views our money as theirs and them returning to us what is ours as some "benevolent gesture"??? We need to educate these people on the truth of the fact that federal government delegated powers are limited and we need to start respecting the Constitution in reality and not just the abstract. I have a few quick proposals for going a significant way towards doing this...
---Enact a law that inserts into every budget proposal and program a sunset provision. The points of sunset can be staggered to some extent so the entire wheel is not reinvented at once. However, in every presidential cycle all budget items or federal programs should have to come up for renewal at least once. My proposed point for this is of course the midterm elections. (That way, turnout will be higher and of course it will keep our officials honest.)
And if the representatives do not do the latter, then we the people need to start the Constitutional Amendment process. In fact, maybe we need to start it from the ground up here. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The trigger of sorts for this posting was the following weblog entry:
Out of Control!!!
I particularly enjoyed reading this line from the piece:
I would say that the Senate is spending money like drunken sailors, but that would unfairly disparage sailors, sober or drunk.
Of course what the Texas Cowgirl notes is such a small trickle in the bucket of the budget problem that it is not even funny. I noted over three years ago{1} that the problem is baseline budgeting and explained this in greater detail a few times since then -both privately as well as publicly.{2} There is also the problem of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which needs to be rescinded to restore some balance to the budgetary issues -something else I have discussed some time ago. Or to quote myself at length circa October of 2003:
[W]ho cares what the President proposes. The role of setting a budget is that of the Congress. The problem is that the role of impounding funds -shared by every president from Nixon back to Washington- was abolished by President Nixon when he signed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Since then, deficits have skyrocketed and an important check on Congressional excesses was cast aside...
The ignorance politicians have of the Constitution -while problematical of course- is nonetheless not as bad as the people who will vote for whomever enriches their interests irrespective of what the Constitution actually says.
To such people as this, I challenge them: find for me the Social Security recipient who would support outlawing Social Security.[...] Find for me the Medicare recipient who would support shutting down Medicare.[...] More could be mentioned but these are the two biggest sacred cows in politics that need to be skewered.
But do not think more could not be pointed out - indeed at least 75% of the budget is unconstitutional expenditures. The question I have for the readers is this: would you vote against your sacred cow to benefit the common good of society??? For some reason, I am not too optimistic that the "yes" votes on that question would be very high. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa October 31, 2003)]
One proposal I have made in recent years is the idea of rider reform. Here is how the proposal jelled in my mind within a half hour{3} of finishing some musings on President Bush's State of the Union Address in January of 2004{4}:
I will avoid discussing the constitutionality of federal disaster relief acts but this serves to show how the rider is used to pass stuff without accountability. Having noted that, here are my proposals for making this process accountable to the voting public.
1) Any proposed rider to a bill must have some reasonably demonstrable congruency with the subject of the main funding bill being voted on. The current practice of attaching unrelated or non-sequitur funding proposals to major funding bills would thereby be eliminated.
2) Any proposed rider should requires a separate congressional "rider attachment vote" so that those who want it and those who do not are on the record.
3) Any proposed rider should require at least two thirds concurrence by each house of Congress insuch that anything less means that the rider initiative fails to attach to the bill.
4) Any proposed rider that succeeds in getting two thirds concurrence by each house of Congress officially attaches with the provision that the president has the right to line-item veto that rider proposal.
5) If the president vetoes such rider proposal but signs the main funding bill to which it was attached, Congress can override and perminently attach said rider to the main funding bill with the concurrence of seventy-five percent of both houses of Congress. If said seventy-five percent concurrence of both houses of Congress cannot be mustered for an override, the override fails and the rider is officially declared dead.
6) And of course the rider proposals -pass or fail- must all be entered into the record for perusal of the people under the 1978 Freedom of Information Act along with (i) the names of the proposers and subsequent sponsors of said rider (ii) their party affiliation and (iii) the state which they represent. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]
I have also noted on numerous occasions the idea of sunsetting the federal budget in toto.{5} I explained that principle in greater detail in a late 2005 weblog posting in these words:
The one area that the Republicans have long run on is being more fiscally sound than the Democrats but those of Us who have been paying close attention to their performance since President Bush won the 2000 election are not impressed. It is not that difficult to balance the budget -indeed in a 2.6 trillion budget, We could find at least 1.6 trillion in unconstitutional pork spending.
For the sake of being nice, let Us propose a 1 trillion cut in the budget from all unconstitutional spending programs and a bill that would sunset every spending provision in the next five years. Obviously it would not help to sunset them all at once but it should be staggered so that every item is sunsetted within a six year election cycle. That way, even senators (who do not control the purse strings but who do play a role in the budgeting) are not exempt from being held accountable on these matters. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 29, 2005)]
In summary, yes the Congress is continuing to be irresponsible in their spending. However, just because the Senate is putting a few things in that the House is not does not mean the House's omission of those items is laudatory by any stretch. No my friends, the Congress of the United States is a disgrace and has been for a long time. Putting the Democrats back into power will not improve matters in the slightest -if anything they would probably be worse. And since there is no viable third party at the moment to go to, all we can try and do is educate these "public servants" on what the Constitution allows for and what it does not allow for. And with the latter, it is 3/4ths of the annual budget (possibly more) which is patently unconstitutional and this crap needed to stop yesterday.
Notes:
{1} With such manifest illogic is it any wonder we have a nearly six trillion dollar debt??? (The enemy is "base-line budgeting" my friends.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 9, 2002)]
{2} Here are the only public weblog bits on this subject that I can find on short notice:
[T]hose who know their history are aware that President Reagan proposed a combination of across the board tax cuts. However, that was intended merely to spur on the economy in the short term and not as a long-term proposition in and of itself. The long term proposition for handling the deficit was raising taxes and cutting spending simultaneously -indeed President Reagan got Congress to agree to $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in taxes raised in 1982. Of course the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives never followed through with the promised spending cuts. This caused no shortage of problems because when taxes are cut and spending is not reduced at the same time. For even when the dynamic (as opposed to static) effects that tax cuts have on an economy are considered, with evils such as "base line budgeting" in place long-term deficits are an inevitability.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 8, 2005)]
A Congress which cannot put together a budget that balances[...] does not deserve a pay increase. PERIOD. This is not rocket science folks. If the federal government got its nose out of the areas which it does not have Constitutionally delegated authority to intervene in, the budget could easily be balanced. Heck, at the current rate of taxation, the debt itself could be paid off in about seven years or less.[...] But there are too many selfish people out there who prefer their own isolated self-interests to the common good. There is also the issue of baseline budgeting which no one wants to honestly face[...] but that is to open another tangent I do not have the time to delve into at the moment. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 10, 2005)]
{3} And that is not an exaggeration my friends.
{4} Miscellaneous Musings on the State of the Union Address (circa January 20, 2004)
{5} What problems do we have when government views our money as theirs and them returning to us what is ours as some "benevolent gesture"??? We need to educate these people on the truth of the fact that federal government delegated powers are limited and we need to start respecting the Constitution in reality and not just the abstract. I have a few quick proposals for going a significant way towards doing this...
---Enact a law that inserts into every budget proposal and program a sunset provision. The points of sunset can be staggered to some extent so the entire wheel is not reinvented at once. However, in every presidential cycle all budget items or federal programs should have to come up for renewal at least once. My proposed point for this is of course the midterm elections. (That way, turnout will be higher and of course it will keep our officials honest.)
And if the representatives do not do the latter, then we the people need to start the Constitutional Amendment process. In fact, maybe we need to start it from the ground up here. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Friday, May 05, 2006
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On Hypocrisy and Liberal Behaviour)
John [Underhill] wrote me last week to call me a “hypocrite” because I, a) criticized gay activists for putting swastikas on a conservative student’s picture and posting it on the internet, and b) called them the “Georgia Tech Gay Gestapo” for doing so. John said that was an example of a “hypocritical double standard” because I called liberals “Nazis” for calling conservatives “Nazis.” But I respectfully dissent.
It was wrong for the gay activists to compare the conservative student to the Nazis because she had never placed swastikas on the internet. In other words, I was really applying the following standard to everyone: If you don’t put swastikas on stuff, I won’t call you a “Nazi.” If you do put swastikas on stuff, I will.
This all leads to a simple life lesson: If you don’t want people to call you a “Nazi,” don’t put swastikas on stuff. Or alternately stated: Liberals are victims of their own behavior more often than they are victims of conservative hypocrisy. [Mike S. Adams (circa May 3, 2006)]
(On Hypocrisy and Liberal Behaviour)
John [Underhill] wrote me last week to call me a “hypocrite” because I, a) criticized gay activists for putting swastikas on a conservative student’s picture and posting it on the internet, and b) called them the “Georgia Tech Gay Gestapo” for doing so. John said that was an example of a “hypocritical double standard” because I called liberals “Nazis” for calling conservatives “Nazis.” But I respectfully dissent.
It was wrong for the gay activists to compare the conservative student to the Nazis because she had never placed swastikas on the internet. In other words, I was really applying the following standard to everyone: If you don’t put swastikas on stuff, I won’t call you a “Nazi.” If you do put swastikas on stuff, I will.
This all leads to a simple life lesson: If you don’t want people to call you a “Nazi,” don’t put swastikas on stuff. Or alternately stated: Liberals are victims of their own behavior more often than they are victims of conservative hypocrisy. [Mike S. Adams (circa May 3, 2006)]
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
More on Third Parties and the 2008 Presidential Election:
The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE.
I have heard a lot of people talk on this issue saying that the Constitution party doesn't stand a chance in 08 and that if we vote for them, we would only being helping the democrats by taking votes from the Republican candidate. Well, no one thought the 'immgration' issue would fire up so quickly either. It took a few minutemen to light the fires, and look at it now! I am a firm believer in fighting for what's right. I think we can accomplish more than most people think.
Hello SSSS:
Historically third parties have lacked traction because they are focused on a few passionate issues and then (when those issues fade) they sink into irrelevancy.
A third party that could succeed would need to have a much more solid foundation than that. Certainly the Constitution Party has a good platform. However, then there is the issue of running every election cycle and depleting funds rather than saving up for a few cycles and putting oneself into a position to have a greater influence long term. Furthermore, there is running with no established trackrecord on an "anyone but the big two" pitch which is not how one will succeed at this.
Of course if the Constitution Party can do what they can to structure a promotional juggernaut and sit out elections for about four years to save up cash, and then try to win some smaller seats (mayorships of cities, state legislatures/senate seats, potentially a governorship or more, etc) and show by example a model of governance in those positions which is true to the ideals that their party espouses, that will provide motives of credibility for voting for the Constitution Party rather than against the Evil Party (Democrats) and the Stupid Party (Republicans) respectively.
Remember, the big two parties get a ton of federal monies and no third party does...this is why the constant running every two years is madness for the smaller party: they have no chance to get the exposure they need.
Any national elections to have a viable chance need to be in the future -say 16-20 years. Otherwise, we will have Libertarianism redux: a party that for thirty years has gotten nowhere because they run every election instead of picking their spots with greater care. I do not want to see the Constitution Party go the way of the Libertarians but that is the pattern that third parties inexorably take: which is why I propose a reworking of the third party concept as noted in my earlier posting to these comments boxes.
The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE.
I have heard a lot of people talk on this issue saying that the Constitution party doesn't stand a chance in 08 and that if we vote for them, we would only being helping the democrats by taking votes from the Republican candidate. Well, no one thought the 'immgration' issue would fire up so quickly either. It took a few minutemen to light the fires, and look at it now! I am a firm believer in fighting for what's right. I think we can accomplish more than most people think.
Hello SSSS:
Historically third parties have lacked traction because they are focused on a few passionate issues and then (when those issues fade) they sink into irrelevancy.
A third party that could succeed would need to have a much more solid foundation than that. Certainly the Constitution Party has a good platform. However, then there is the issue of running every election cycle and depleting funds rather than saving up for a few cycles and putting oneself into a position to have a greater influence long term. Furthermore, there is running with no established trackrecord on an "anyone but the big two" pitch which is not how one will succeed at this.
Of course if the Constitution Party can do what they can to structure a promotional juggernaut and sit out elections for about four years to save up cash, and then try to win some smaller seats (mayorships of cities, state legislatures/senate seats, potentially a governorship or more, etc) and show by example a model of governance in those positions which is true to the ideals that their party espouses, that will provide motives of credibility for voting for the Constitution Party rather than against the Evil Party (Democrats) and the Stupid Party (Republicans) respectively.
Remember, the big two parties get a ton of federal monies and no third party does...this is why the constant running every two years is madness for the smaller party: they have no chance to get the exposure they need.
Any national elections to have a viable chance need to be in the future -say 16-20 years. Otherwise, we will have Libertarianism redux: a party that for thirty years has gotten nowhere because they run every election instead of picking their spots with greater care. I do not want to see the Constitution Party go the way of the Libertarians but that is the pattern that third parties inexorably take: which is why I propose a reworking of the third party concept as noted in my earlier posting to these comments boxes.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Briefly on Third Parties and the 2008 Presidential Election:
[Prefatory Note: I originally posted this material in the comments boxes at Texas Fred's weblog.-ISM]
As one who has sought to reconsitute the third party principle into a workable mould{1}, I do not see The Constitution Party as doing anything different than third parties have historically done. For that reason, they will not succeed anymore than doing the same thing over and over again expecting each time a different result will achieve the hoped-for different result.
Do not misunderstand me here: I want a viable third party and have for a long time...indeed ever since I voted for Perot in 1992 and shed myself of the Republican Party label back in late 1996. But I cannot see how 2008 will be the year this will happen at the federal level or even the state level...however much the others on this list (and yes, even myself) would want it to happen.
Basically we are in a quandry since if we throw the election to the Democrats, they will gerrymander the districts in a way that virtually guarantees them re-election in 2008 and for years afterwards. But if we vote for the Republicans then we are probably gonna get what we have gotten up to this point.
To be Continued...
Note:
{1} "My Kingdom for a Viable Third Party" Dept. (circa November 6, 2004)
"My Kingdom For a Viable Third Party" Dept. Redux (circa November 11, 2004)
[Prefatory Note: I originally posted this material in the comments boxes at Texas Fred's weblog.-ISM]
As one who has sought to reconsitute the third party principle into a workable mould{1}, I do not see The Constitution Party as doing anything different than third parties have historically done. For that reason, they will not succeed anymore than doing the same thing over and over again expecting each time a different result will achieve the hoped-for different result.
Do not misunderstand me here: I want a viable third party and have for a long time...indeed ever since I voted for Perot in 1992 and shed myself of the Republican Party label back in late 1996. But I cannot see how 2008 will be the year this will happen at the federal level or even the state level...however much the others on this list (and yes, even myself) would want it to happen.
Basically we are in a quandry since if we throw the election to the Democrats, they will gerrymander the districts in a way that virtually guarantees them re-election in 2008 and for years afterwards. But if we vote for the Republicans then we are probably gonna get what we have gotten up to this point.
To be Continued...
Note:
{1} "My Kingdom for a Viable Third Party" Dept. (circa November 6, 2004)
"My Kingdom For a Viable Third Party" Dept. Redux (circa November 11, 2004)
Monday, May 01, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On Texas Music and the Blues)
Even though Texas music in a lot of ways is rough-and-tumble, it also seems to me to be about feeling better. Like there's always a good time in it. Even if it's a real down blues tune. Albert King described something to me one time that really made a lot of sense: No matter whether it's a real down song about everything going wrong or whether it's the upside of it-found something new or got it together with my woman, or whatever it's all to soothe, the blues is all to soothe. Whether you got to get mad first or you've already been mad, it's all to soothe. And I think that's one thing that a lot of people miss about blues. [Stevie Ray Vaughan (circa October 1989)]
(On Texas Music and the Blues)
Even though Texas music in a lot of ways is rough-and-tumble, it also seems to me to be about feeling better. Like there's always a good time in it. Even if it's a real down blues tune. Albert King described something to me one time that really made a lot of sense: No matter whether it's a real down song about everything going wrong or whether it's the upside of it-found something new or got it together with my woman, or whatever it's all to soothe, the blues is all to soothe. Whether you got to get mad first or you've already been mad, it's all to soothe. And I think that's one thing that a lot of people miss about blues. [Stevie Ray Vaughan (circa October 1989)]
Revisiting the Flawed "Chickenhawk" Argument:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The material in this posting was originally blogged back in October as a birthday fisking under the title Another Flawed Argument From Pseudo "Peacemakers" Bites the Dust. Without wanting to reconstitute the entire post at this time, I nonetheless want to remind readers of why this kind of argumentation is so flawed. For that reason, a truncated version of the earlier posting will suffice to avoid reinventing the wheel unnecessarily. Without further ado, here goes...
To show just how prescient your host actually is --and how utterly predictable certain critics often are-- the following was written in response to a thread your host had not actually read. Originally circulated on a private thread (and the content of the thread later confirmed by those on the email circular), let this serve as an example of why it is a waste of time to interact with most critics. We are interested in ideas here at Rerum Novarum not mindless babbling by those who are not interested in actual dialogue and prove this continually by their words as well as their actions.
First of all, the title of the thread to be responded to here had the word "chickenhawk" in it which is a codeword which tipped me off immediately as to what the subject would be about...[S]ince the critic in question raised a common (and pathetic) objection by partisans of their particular war weltanschauung, it is for that reason that We will demonstrate the fallacies in this kind of argumentation.
This whole situation began as We knew it would with the person in question making the argument that your host knew they were making: essentially the old "if you support the Iraq war, why have you not enlisted by now"??? chestnut. By doing this, they were being both inconsistent as well as hypocritical themselves. For in defending themselves against the notion that they are daisy chain-wearing pacifists, some of them have asserted that they supported a military intervention in Bosnia in the 1990's under the rubric of "preventing ethnic cleansing." Correct Us if We are wrong but We highly doubt (to put it mildly) that the critic in question and the lions share of their allies were rushing to enlist at that time.
Furthermore, there is the issue of what would happen if everyone who supported the war went to enlist. To start with, the economy would go in the toilet faster than you could say "most pseudo-'peacemakers' are red diaper doper babies." In fact, we probably would not have an economy since a large proportion of those who support the war are those of the more technically skilled jobs, computer technicians, engineers, business owners, enterpreneurs, etc. Meanwhile, most of those who bitch about these things either are unemployed or contribute nothing to the economy except being a worker.{1} But then again, marxists love indescriminately tearing down existing structures to begin anew so maybe that is the modus opperandi of the critic in question and most of their allies.
There is also the fact that not everyone has the physical tools to be a soldier. In the case of your host, there are particular afflictions which have either impeded his mobility in a military context or his eyesight which to some extent affects vision for things such as precision shooting. He is okay on the rifle range but rather hit and miss with accuracy. This is fine in civilian situations but certainly not up to the qualifications of a professional soldier. As for the rest, there are also these factors to consider -taken from an email sent to someone on a discussion list regarding knee injuries:
I hyperextended my right knee very badly in late 1997...was shoveling snow next to a vehicle and my foot slid under it partway. I am sure it did not help that I weighed about 230 at the time...the knee was subsequently hyperextended several more times in later years along with the left knee a time or two. In mid 1999, I was lifting a bunch of carpet from the floor of my grandmother's home and tore cartilege on the side of the right knee. As a result of the two traumas (I never had surgery for them), my right knee bothers me a lot at times...particularly when my water consumption falls below a gallon a day for more than a few days at a time. (I then am in the position of playing "catch-up" and have to drink even more to compensate.) I mention this because water is wonderful for the joints...when my consumption is where it should be (which is most of the time), there is only (at most) minor aches and pains but when it is not, the knees creak and crack particularly the right one...
If your son's knee problem is anything like mine, it can (but not always) be aggravated by jolting movements like running. It is also likely aggravated by cycling or any kind of repetitive motion where there is knee trauma but it would not be affected by lifting things. (Hard to explain but I can lift a lot of weight and it does not bother my knees.) [Excerpts from an Email Correspondence (circa September 20, 2005)]
In early 2002, a friend of your host's who is in sports medicine examined both knees and concluded that your host has a stretched ACL in his right knee. That explains why at times if the right foot gets stuck even for a moment in a pothole or some other surface indentation (if outside for example) that it can hyperextend a bit whereas with the left foot this rarely happens.
Now, lest this be misunderstood, your host is by no means lame in his knees...The problem is not one of functional knee strength but instead of having a significantly stretched ACL in the knees particularly the right one. Because of this, one wrong step into a pothole when on a patrol and the right knee would with the greatest likelihood be hyperextended (and possibly the left one if misstepping with that leg: not as certain as with the right knee). And if running with a pack on in the war zone and that happened, with the greatest of likelihood there would be incapacitation and thus your host would be a sitting duck. But that is neither here nor there, the argument itself is fallacious and shows what happens with those who [fail] to utilize a very elementary exercise of the thinking mechanism to avoid such irrational arguments. But this goes beyond the actual example noted above in the case of your host.
For those who make such arguments as the sorts of people who have recourse to the "chickenhawk" schtick inexorably spring a logical trap unless it can be shown that they have enlisted whenever they have supported military intervention at any time.{2} And as not a few of them favoured military intervention in Bosnia in the 1990's, you can judge them by their failure to enlist at that time to see how hypocritical they really are by making military enlistment a requirement for anyone who has supported the present military involvement in Iraq.
The bottom line is, those who are in the military enlisted with an awareness of the risks involved. They were not forced to enlist via the draft so this whole argument is absurd.{3} And further still, to Our knowledge, most of those who have served in Afghanistan or Iraq are (and were) supportive of those interventions!!! Ergo, We fail to see what these kinds of arguments serve except as crutches for moonbats who are incapable (or unwilling) to exercise their gray matter a bit and make actual substantive arguments. But then, these guys are (as a rule) professional dodgers it seems: dodging the draft back in the Vietnam days (if they were alive and of age) and dodging rational argumentation ever since. Finally, there is one more argument that undermines the argument that all supporters of wars should enlist and it is this:
If everyone in support of the war went to Iraq, other than the serious overcrowding that would be involved among the other things already noted, there would also be a surrendering of the homefront to every kind of seditious specimen imaginable!!!
If Vietnam taught us anything, military superiority is not adequate by itself, there must be moral fortitude on the homefront as well. And if all that was left in America were either those agnostic on the war situation or in varying degrees opposed to it, the ultimate result would be our defeat if we were not out to completely wipe the country off the map. (And of course we would not seek to do that at all.)
In summary, the argument that those who support a war are hypocrites if they do not enlist militarily has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese. And those who make this argument are irrational for making it for reasons noted above.{4} But there are many ways to support a war effort -one of which is to keep the homefront adequately secure from those who would undermine the war effort from within in true termite-like fashion. And whether such people do these things because of an illogical solipsistic situation, because they are marxists posing under the mask of being "peacemakers", or whatever else: such people are what the Framers meant when they referred to enemies "both foreign and domestic." And leaving such people unopposed on the homefront would be both suicidal for the nation as well as monumentally stupid. That is another reason why there needs to be on the homefront in a war people willing (as well as able) to combat such people and their propaganda.
Notes:
{1} This is a role which is not to be disparaged of course. Nonetheless, in truth it is easier to fill this position than that of the enterpreneur who creates jobs for others, etc.
{2} Obviously this would not apply to those who made these arguments who were in the military already or who have served: those people avoid the charges of blatant inconsistency and hypocrisy in making such arguments and only have to deal with the fact that the argument itself is a weak one.
{3} If they were forced to enlist, then the "why do you not enlist" argument would have some legs to it.
{4} They are also hypocrites if they have not enlisted themselves for military operations which they have claimed to support for various reasons (i.e "ethnic cleansing", etc.).
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The material in this posting was originally blogged back in October as a birthday fisking under the title Another Flawed Argument From Pseudo "Peacemakers" Bites the Dust. Without wanting to reconstitute the entire post at this time, I nonetheless want to remind readers of why this kind of argumentation is so flawed. For that reason, a truncated version of the earlier posting will suffice to avoid reinventing the wheel unnecessarily. Without further ado, here goes...
To show just how prescient your host actually is --and how utterly predictable certain critics often are-- the following was written in response to a thread your host had not actually read. Originally circulated on a private thread (and the content of the thread later confirmed by those on the email circular), let this serve as an example of why it is a waste of time to interact with most critics. We are interested in ideas here at Rerum Novarum not mindless babbling by those who are not interested in actual dialogue and prove this continually by their words as well as their actions.
First of all, the title of the thread to be responded to here had the word "chickenhawk" in it which is a codeword which tipped me off immediately as to what the subject would be about...[S]ince the critic in question raised a common (and pathetic) objection by partisans of their particular war weltanschauung, it is for that reason that We will demonstrate the fallacies in this kind of argumentation.
This whole situation began as We knew it would with the person in question making the argument that your host knew they were making: essentially the old "if you support the Iraq war, why have you not enlisted by now"??? chestnut. By doing this, they were being both inconsistent as well as hypocritical themselves. For in defending themselves against the notion that they are daisy chain-wearing pacifists, some of them have asserted that they supported a military intervention in Bosnia in the 1990's under the rubric of "preventing ethnic cleansing." Correct Us if We are wrong but We highly doubt (to put it mildly) that the critic in question and the lions share of their allies were rushing to enlist at that time.
Furthermore, there is the issue of what would happen if everyone who supported the war went to enlist. To start with, the economy would go in the toilet faster than you could say "most pseudo-'peacemakers' are red diaper doper babies." In fact, we probably would not have an economy since a large proportion of those who support the war are those of the more technically skilled jobs, computer technicians, engineers, business owners, enterpreneurs, etc. Meanwhile, most of those who bitch about these things either are unemployed or contribute nothing to the economy except being a worker.{1} But then again, marxists love indescriminately tearing down existing structures to begin anew so maybe that is the modus opperandi of the critic in question and most of their allies.
There is also the fact that not everyone has the physical tools to be a soldier. In the case of your host, there are particular afflictions which have either impeded his mobility in a military context or his eyesight which to some extent affects vision for things such as precision shooting. He is okay on the rifle range but rather hit and miss with accuracy. This is fine in civilian situations but certainly not up to the qualifications of a professional soldier. As for the rest, there are also these factors to consider -taken from an email sent to someone on a discussion list regarding knee injuries:
I hyperextended my right knee very badly in late 1997...was shoveling snow next to a vehicle and my foot slid under it partway. I am sure it did not help that I weighed about 230 at the time...the knee was subsequently hyperextended several more times in later years along with the left knee a time or two. In mid 1999, I was lifting a bunch of carpet from the floor of my grandmother's home and tore cartilege on the side of the right knee. As a result of the two traumas (I never had surgery for them), my right knee bothers me a lot at times...particularly when my water consumption falls below a gallon a day for more than a few days at a time. (I then am in the position of playing "catch-up" and have to drink even more to compensate.) I mention this because water is wonderful for the joints...when my consumption is where it should be (which is most of the time), there is only (at most) minor aches and pains but when it is not, the knees creak and crack particularly the right one...
If your son's knee problem is anything like mine, it can (but not always) be aggravated by jolting movements like running. It is also likely aggravated by cycling or any kind of repetitive motion where there is knee trauma but it would not be affected by lifting things. (Hard to explain but I can lift a lot of weight and it does not bother my knees.) [Excerpts from an Email Correspondence (circa September 20, 2005)]
In early 2002, a friend of your host's who is in sports medicine examined both knees and concluded that your host has a stretched ACL in his right knee. That explains why at times if the right foot gets stuck even for a moment in a pothole or some other surface indentation (if outside for example) that it can hyperextend a bit whereas with the left foot this rarely happens.
Now, lest this be misunderstood, your host is by no means lame in his knees...The problem is not one of functional knee strength but instead of having a significantly stretched ACL in the knees particularly the right one. Because of this, one wrong step into a pothole when on a patrol and the right knee would with the greatest likelihood be hyperextended (and possibly the left one if misstepping with that leg: not as certain as with the right knee). And if running with a pack on in the war zone and that happened, with the greatest of likelihood there would be incapacitation and thus your host would be a sitting duck. But that is neither here nor there, the argument itself is fallacious and shows what happens with those who [fail] to utilize a very elementary exercise of the thinking mechanism to avoid such irrational arguments. But this goes beyond the actual example noted above in the case of your host.
For those who make such arguments as the sorts of people who have recourse to the "chickenhawk" schtick inexorably spring a logical trap unless it can be shown that they have enlisted whenever they have supported military intervention at any time.{2} And as not a few of them favoured military intervention in Bosnia in the 1990's, you can judge them by their failure to enlist at that time to see how hypocritical they really are by making military enlistment a requirement for anyone who has supported the present military involvement in Iraq.
The bottom line is, those who are in the military enlisted with an awareness of the risks involved. They were not forced to enlist via the draft so this whole argument is absurd.{3} And further still, to Our knowledge, most of those who have served in Afghanistan or Iraq are (and were) supportive of those interventions!!! Ergo, We fail to see what these kinds of arguments serve except as crutches for moonbats who are incapable (or unwilling) to exercise their gray matter a bit and make actual substantive arguments. But then, these guys are (as a rule) professional dodgers it seems: dodging the draft back in the Vietnam days (if they were alive and of age) and dodging rational argumentation ever since. Finally, there is one more argument that undermines the argument that all supporters of wars should enlist and it is this:
If everyone in support of the war went to Iraq, other than the serious overcrowding that would be involved among the other things already noted, there would also be a surrendering of the homefront to every kind of seditious specimen imaginable!!!
If Vietnam taught us anything, military superiority is not adequate by itself, there must be moral fortitude on the homefront as well. And if all that was left in America were either those agnostic on the war situation or in varying degrees opposed to it, the ultimate result would be our defeat if we were not out to completely wipe the country off the map. (And of course we would not seek to do that at all.)
In summary, the argument that those who support a war are hypocrites if they do not enlist militarily has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese. And those who make this argument are irrational for making it for reasons noted above.{4} But there are many ways to support a war effort -one of which is to keep the homefront adequately secure from those who would undermine the war effort from within in true termite-like fashion. And whether such people do these things because of an illogical solipsistic situation, because they are marxists posing under the mask of being "peacemakers", or whatever else: such people are what the Framers meant when they referred to enemies "both foreign and domestic." And leaving such people unopposed on the homefront would be both suicidal for the nation as well as monumentally stupid. That is another reason why there needs to be on the homefront in a war people willing (as well as able) to combat such people and their propaganda.
Notes:
{1} This is a role which is not to be disparaged of course. Nonetheless, in truth it is easier to fill this position than that of the enterpreneur who creates jobs for others, etc.
{2} Obviously this would not apply to those who made these arguments who were in the military already or who have served: those people avoid the charges of blatant inconsistency and hypocrisy in making such arguments and only have to deal with the fact that the argument itself is a weak one.
{3} If they were forced to enlist, then the "why do you not enlist" argument would have some legs to it.
{4} They are also hypocrites if they have not enlisted themselves for military operations which they have claimed to support for various reasons (i.e "ethnic cleansing", etc.).
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On the Citing of Polls or Statistics to Buttress Argumentation)
Readers who wonder why those of Us at Rerum Novarum are not so quick to jump into the citing of polls or statistics to buttress Our arguments do well to remember Mark Twain's dictum about the three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Well, We are sure that if Mr. Twain was alive today, he would say there are four kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, statistics, and polling data. [I. Shawn McElhinney (circa August 25, 2004)]
For additional and more recent mutterings on polling from your blog host, see the audiopost located HERE and the post located HERE. -ISM
(On the Citing of Polls or Statistics to Buttress Argumentation)
Readers who wonder why those of Us at Rerum Novarum are not so quick to jump into the citing of polls or statistics to buttress Our arguments do well to remember Mark Twain's dictum about the three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Well, We are sure that if Mr. Twain was alive today, he would say there are four kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, statistics, and polling data. [I. Shawn McElhinney (circa August 25, 2004)]
For additional and more recent mutterings on polling from your blog host, see the audiopost located HERE and the post located HERE. -ISM
Saturday, April 29, 2006
"One From the Vault" Dept.
(With Albert Cipriani)
This is actually something I dug up in the Internet Archive from nearly five and a half years ago. The subject at the time was abortion and in true illustrating absurdity by being absurd fashion, here was my proposed "fair solution" on the matter (followed by my friend Albert's "fair" rejoinders)...
A 'fair' solution on abortion
[ Jan-2001 Archive ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Shawn on January 17, 2001 at 13:46:16:
I do not support the moral angle of the solution I am about to propose but consider the absurdity of the current law:
A woman who chooses to not kill her child sticks the father of the baby with child support for 18 years.
Meanwhile if she chose to kill her child, the father has no say whatsoever in the matter.
How ridiculously unfair can this be???
To even things out the father should not be required to pay child support as long as abortion is legal and utilized.
That is the only way to be 'fair' about it. The woman 'chooses' abortion; well the father should be able to be 'pro choice' when it comes to supporting their children.
Follow Ups:
...
Posted by Albert Cipriani on January 17, 2001 at 14:28:41:
In Reply to: A 'fair' solution on abortion posted by Shawn on January 17, 2001 at 13:46:16:
1) Suicidal children who were not aborted ought to have the “right” to sue their pro-choice mothers for not making the wrong choice in the first place.
2) A father who wants to abort his child ought to be able to over the objections of the mother because we already allow children to abort their children over the objections of both father and mother.
3) Any mother who squanders her constitutional pro-choice rights is constitutionally unfit to be a mother and so ought to be forced to wear a scarlet “B” for breeder and have her child become a ward of the state.
The list could go on and on. Cheers, Albert 1/17/00
(With Albert Cipriani)
This is actually something I dug up in the Internet Archive from nearly five and a half years ago. The subject at the time was abortion and in true illustrating absurdity by being absurd fashion, here was my proposed "fair solution" on the matter (followed by my friend Albert's "fair" rejoinders)...
A 'fair' solution on abortion
[ Jan-2001 Archive ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Shawn on January 17, 2001 at 13:46:16:
I do not support the moral angle of the solution I am about to propose but consider the absurdity of the current law:
A woman who chooses to not kill her child sticks the father of the baby with child support for 18 years.
Meanwhile if she chose to kill her child, the father has no say whatsoever in the matter.
How ridiculously unfair can this be???
To even things out the father should not be required to pay child support as long as abortion is legal and utilized.
That is the only way to be 'fair' about it. The woman 'chooses' abortion; well the father should be able to be 'pro choice' when it comes to supporting their children.
Follow Ups:
...
Posted by Albert Cipriani on January 17, 2001 at 14:28:41:
In Reply to: A 'fair' solution on abortion posted by Shawn on January 17, 2001 at 13:46:16:
1) Suicidal children who were not aborted ought to have the “right” to sue their pro-choice mothers for not making the wrong choice in the first place.
2) A father who wants to abort his child ought to be able to over the objections of the mother because we already allow children to abort their children over the objections of both father and mother.
3) Any mother who squanders her constitutional pro-choice rights is constitutionally unfit to be a mother and so ought to be forced to wear a scarlet “B” for breeder and have her child become a ward of the state.
The list could go on and on. Cheers, Albert 1/17/00
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting:
Our comments where applicable will be interspersed...
[Update: The first thread (with its accompanying footnote) was added earlier today to this list while the second one with its accompanying footnote) was added a few minutes ago. - ISM 4/27/06 2:25pm]
Immigrant Boycott Aims To "Close" US Cities (Texas Fred)
Of course the date for this attempted "closure" could not be more of a giveaway to your host: May 1st. For those who have forgotten, "May Day" was a day appropriated for parades and protests by communists. But then again, it should not surprise anyone that these latest rounds of "protests" have settled on May Day for their movement. Or as We have written in the past on these matters:
There is a parallel not often recognized in the modern attempts to manufacture (i) racial strife, (ii) class envy (iii) a war between the genders, (iv) so-called "multiculturalism", (v) certain forms of so-called "sexual orientation" elevated to a so-called "civil right", (vi) so-called "environmentalism", (vii) the attempts to abolish God from the public square under the rubric of a perverted understanding of the first amendment, and (viii) not a few varieties of so-called "social justice" and so-called "peacemaking." The aforementioned parallel is that these are all movements where post-communists have sought to find ways of continuing the marxist weltanschauung under different banners to hide their true intentions. And frankly, anyone who does not realize these facts remains blind to reality.
The marxist in reality does not concern themselves with such "causes" and their feigned "compassion" only fools those who are naive. The only purpose that those "causes" have for the marxist is as tools to subvert the social order of society without concern for just public order or the true common good of society. Indeed, if you strip down any of the above advocacy movements beyond the surface self-platitudes and the incendiary rhetoric of so-called "activists", you will find the beating heart of marxism.[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 3, 2005)]
That is what is present in the aforementioned "immigration boycott"{1} in a nutshell and it should not be forgotten. Moving on...
Goodnight and Good Riddance (Kevin Tierney)
A solid defense of the theory that Tom DeLay -despite being the receipent of a major screwjob by Ronnie Earle and others{2}- nonetheless was not as clean as partisan Republicans would like to (in the interest of putting ideology over principles) claim. Furthermore, his advancement of the very kind of unconstitutional programs under the mantle of so-called "conservatism" is something that needs to be stopped asap.
Society That Thinks Pope Pius XII Rules
This is an interesting weblog from "Piusites" or those who are sick of seeing this "Righteous Gentile" (as he was called by Golda Meir, Pinchas Lapide, Ronald J. Rychlak, and Rabbi David Dalin) get libeled by the MSM. Indeed, the most recent article on the above weblog deals with this subject and is worth reading for those who are interested in actual history and not the stuff revised for the purpose of advancing an ideology in opposition ot the truth.
Sheehan Lies Out Of Habit (Bryan Preston)
The unsavoury character of Cindy Sheehan is documented in part by Bryan Preston in the thread above.{3}
"Smart Fence" (Bryan Preston)
Bryan outlines the obvious inconsistency of those who would favour a wall on the US-Mexican border yet who would oppose the Israeli wall. As far as her motivations, We suspect with the same degree of cynicism her reasons for favouring a "smart wall" on the southern border is because of the unlikeliness that it would be built: thus she can take all sides on this issue in the true tradition of the gutless-politician. As Peter Brown noted in an old Cream song titled Politician:
I support the left, though I’m leaning, leaning to the right.
I support the left, though I’m leaning to the right.
But I’m just not there when it’s coming to a fight.
And do not bank on Mrs. Clinton fighting for this "smart wall" idea...unless you want to make a friendly wager. If the latter is the case, contact Us for the address to mail your money to in advance because you will lose and lose bigtime. Moving on...
Of Pulitzers and Treason (Patrick J. Buchanan)
Pat Buchanan is on target with the above article -and this is said not just because he mirrors a lot of what has been said by Us on the MSM and sedition about three years ago. Whatever one thinks of some of the half-baked geopolitical stances that Mr. Buchanan has taken, he is at the very least a patriot in the proper sense of the term.
Minimum Wage, Maximum Folly (Walter E. Williams)
Once again, Dr. Williams provides an important lesson in economics.
Law or Lynch Law? (Thomas Sowell)
A fine article by Thomas Sowell on the rape allegations of the Duke lacrosse team. The gist of what he wrote can be summed up in a pithy phrase from early in the article that reads as follows:
Apparently we dare not question accusations of rape when it involves the new sacred trinity of race, class, and gender.
Precisely.
Why No Special Prosecutor for the Latest CIA Leak Case? (Christopher Hitchens)
Of course Mr. Hitchens knows the answer to this question and it will be supplied it here for those who do not know: because there is a double standard in how these matters are handled when the one so accused takes the "politically correct" approach as Mary McCarthy has done. In the words of that great western philosopher James Hetfield "sad but true."
WH Press Secretary–Tony Snow? (Beth Cleaver)
Beth asked at the time if this was true and we know now that it is. Our views on this appointment can be read HERE for those who have not seen them yet.
Update on Andrea Clarke (Beth Cleaver)
For Our part, We at Rerum Novarum concur with Beth's assessment on the above subject matter.
The Check Is Not In The Mail (Captain Ed)
For Our part, We at Rerum Novarum concur with Captain Ed's assessment on the above subject matter.
President James Madison's Veto
Those who think that the approach to constitutional matters taken at this humble weblog{4} is too restrictive should consider what the "Father of the Constitution" thought on these matters and see that We are in very good company indeed viz. how these matters are properly understood.
Notes:
{1} There is also the issue of President Bush trying to have it both ways in how this issue is dealt with. And for those who place principles above party loyalty (ala Texas Fred and a growing number of people who are generally sympathetic to Republicans), it could have serious repercussions for The Stupid Party (Republicans) in the elections of 2006 and 2008 without The Evil Party (Democrats) having to do anything at all.
{2} On the DeLay "Indictment" (circa October 1, 2005)
{3} Your host may have to reassess his previous comments on Cindy Sheehan in light of this new information.
{4} Here is a sampling of threads where the unconstitutionality of a lot of what the federal government has done has been discussed at Rerum Novarum (listed from newest to oldest):
Briefly on Claude Frederic Bastiat, the US Constitution, and Socialism (circa December 29, 2005)
Miscellaneous Threads for Reviewing (circa September 29, 2005)
On the High Gas Prices and the Economics Involved Therein (circa September 10, 2005)
A Review of Senator Barry Goldwater's Book The Conscience of a Conservative (circa March 8, 2005)
"My Kingdom For a Viable Third Party" Dept. (circa November 11, 2004)
On Marriage, the Supreme Court, Law in General, Etc. -Dialogue With Charles de Nunzio (circa June 2, 2004)
A Brief Digression on the "Scylla/Charybdis" Conundrum of American Political Parties, Etc. (circa May 24, 2004)
A Rider Reform Proposal (circa January 22, 2004)
Miscellaneous Mutterings (circa October 31, 2003)
"Us and Them" Dept. (circa June 27, 2003)
Weighing in on Sen. Trent Lott's Comments (circa December 12, 2002)
Our comments where applicable will be interspersed...
[Update: The first thread (with its accompanying footnote) was added earlier today to this list while the second one with its accompanying footnote) was added a few minutes ago. - ISM 4/27/06 2:25pm]
Immigrant Boycott Aims To "Close" US Cities (Texas Fred)
Of course the date for this attempted "closure" could not be more of a giveaway to your host: May 1st. For those who have forgotten, "May Day" was a day appropriated for parades and protests by communists. But then again, it should not surprise anyone that these latest rounds of "protests" have settled on May Day for their movement. Or as We have written in the past on these matters:
There is a parallel not often recognized in the modern attempts to manufacture (i) racial strife, (ii) class envy (iii) a war between the genders, (iv) so-called "multiculturalism", (v) certain forms of so-called "sexual orientation" elevated to a so-called "civil right", (vi) so-called "environmentalism", (vii) the attempts to abolish God from the public square under the rubric of a perverted understanding of the first amendment, and (viii) not a few varieties of so-called "social justice" and so-called "peacemaking." The aforementioned parallel is that these are all movements where post-communists have sought to find ways of continuing the marxist weltanschauung under different banners to hide their true intentions. And frankly, anyone who does not realize these facts remains blind to reality.
The marxist in reality does not concern themselves with such "causes" and their feigned "compassion" only fools those who are naive. The only purpose that those "causes" have for the marxist is as tools to subvert the social order of society without concern for just public order or the true common good of society. Indeed, if you strip down any of the above advocacy movements beyond the surface self-platitudes and the incendiary rhetoric of so-called "activists", you will find the beating heart of marxism.[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 3, 2005)]
That is what is present in the aforementioned "immigration boycott"{1} in a nutshell and it should not be forgotten. Moving on...
Goodnight and Good Riddance (Kevin Tierney)
A solid defense of the theory that Tom DeLay -despite being the receipent of a major screwjob by Ronnie Earle and others{2}- nonetheless was not as clean as partisan Republicans would like to (in the interest of putting ideology over principles) claim. Furthermore, his advancement of the very kind of unconstitutional programs under the mantle of so-called "conservatism" is something that needs to be stopped asap.
Society That Thinks Pope Pius XII Rules
This is an interesting weblog from "Piusites" or those who are sick of seeing this "Righteous Gentile" (as he was called by Golda Meir, Pinchas Lapide, Ronald J. Rychlak, and Rabbi David Dalin) get libeled by the MSM. Indeed, the most recent article on the above weblog deals with this subject and is worth reading for those who are interested in actual history and not the stuff revised for the purpose of advancing an ideology in opposition ot the truth.
Sheehan Lies Out Of Habit (Bryan Preston)
The unsavoury character of Cindy Sheehan is documented in part by Bryan Preston in the thread above.{3}
"Smart Fence" (Bryan Preston)
Bryan outlines the obvious inconsistency of those who would favour a wall on the US-Mexican border yet who would oppose the Israeli wall. As far as her motivations, We suspect with the same degree of cynicism her reasons for favouring a "smart wall" on the southern border is because of the unlikeliness that it would be built: thus she can take all sides on this issue in the true tradition of the gutless-politician. As Peter Brown noted in an old Cream song titled Politician:
I support the left, though I’m leaning, leaning to the right.
I support the left, though I’m leaning to the right.
But I’m just not there when it’s coming to a fight.
And do not bank on Mrs. Clinton fighting for this "smart wall" idea...unless you want to make a friendly wager. If the latter is the case, contact Us for the address to mail your money to in advance because you will lose and lose bigtime. Moving on...
Of Pulitzers and Treason (Patrick J. Buchanan)
Pat Buchanan is on target with the above article -and this is said not just because he mirrors a lot of what has been said by Us on the MSM and sedition about three years ago. Whatever one thinks of some of the half-baked geopolitical stances that Mr. Buchanan has taken, he is at the very least a patriot in the proper sense of the term.
Minimum Wage, Maximum Folly (Walter E. Williams)
Once again, Dr. Williams provides an important lesson in economics.
Law or Lynch Law? (Thomas Sowell)
A fine article by Thomas Sowell on the rape allegations of the Duke lacrosse team. The gist of what he wrote can be summed up in a pithy phrase from early in the article that reads as follows:
Apparently we dare not question accusations of rape when it involves the new sacred trinity of race, class, and gender.
Precisely.
Why No Special Prosecutor for the Latest CIA Leak Case? (Christopher Hitchens)
Of course Mr. Hitchens knows the answer to this question and it will be supplied it here for those who do not know: because there is a double standard in how these matters are handled when the one so accused takes the "politically correct" approach as Mary McCarthy has done. In the words of that great western philosopher James Hetfield "sad but true."
WH Press Secretary–Tony Snow? (Beth Cleaver)
Beth asked at the time if this was true and we know now that it is. Our views on this appointment can be read HERE for those who have not seen them yet.
Update on Andrea Clarke (Beth Cleaver)
For Our part, We at Rerum Novarum concur with Beth's assessment on the above subject matter.
The Check Is Not In The Mail (Captain Ed)
For Our part, We at Rerum Novarum concur with Captain Ed's assessment on the above subject matter.
President James Madison's Veto
Those who think that the approach to constitutional matters taken at this humble weblog{4} is too restrictive should consider what the "Father of the Constitution" thought on these matters and see that We are in very good company indeed viz. how these matters are properly understood.
Notes:
{1} There is also the issue of President Bush trying to have it both ways in how this issue is dealt with. And for those who place principles above party loyalty (ala Texas Fred and a growing number of people who are generally sympathetic to Republicans), it could have serious repercussions for The Stupid Party (Republicans) in the elections of 2006 and 2008 without The Evil Party (Democrats) having to do anything at all.
{2} On the DeLay "Indictment" (circa October 1, 2005)
{3} Your host may have to reassess his previous comments on Cindy Sheehan in light of this new information.
{4} Here is a sampling of threads where the unconstitutionality of a lot of what the federal government has done has been discussed at Rerum Novarum (listed from newest to oldest):
Briefly on Claude Frederic Bastiat, the US Constitution, and Socialism (circa December 29, 2005)
Miscellaneous Threads for Reviewing (circa September 29, 2005)
On the High Gas Prices and the Economics Involved Therein (circa September 10, 2005)
A Review of Senator Barry Goldwater's Book The Conscience of a Conservative (circa March 8, 2005)
"My Kingdom For a Viable Third Party" Dept. (circa November 11, 2004)
On Marriage, the Supreme Court, Law in General, Etc. -Dialogue With Charles de Nunzio (circa June 2, 2004)
A Brief Digression on the "Scylla/Charybdis" Conundrum of American Political Parties, Etc. (circa May 24, 2004)
A Rider Reform Proposal (circa January 22, 2004)
Miscellaneous Mutterings (circa October 31, 2003)
"Us and Them" Dept. (circa June 27, 2003)
Weighing in on Sen. Trent Lott's Comments (circa December 12, 2002)
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
If I criticize President Bush when he has done badly (and I certainly do that) then when he does something right, fairness dictates that I note the good things too and appointing Tony Snow as his new press secretary is a shrewd move. Parting note to McClellen: hope the door hitting you on the arse on the way out does not leave too much of a bruise...
Points to Ponder:
(On Illegal Immigration and Government Regulation)
Your points are well taken Jen but you are undoubtedly aware that a lot of things that stick small businesses and those who are not of the upper income bracket are brought into being by mantras of "tax the rich", etc.
Most people have no idea that the idea behind the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution was sold as a way of collecting from only the top tier incomes. Adjusted for inflation, everyone making $80,000 and less today would be exempt under the formula as put into place in 1913.
The problem is what happens once a program is in place and how it is fiddled with...Ronaldus Magnus' once said that the closest thing to eternity on earth is a government program and history has shown the truth in that dictum over and over again. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Posted to Fetching Jen's Weblog (circa April 18, 2006)]
(On Illegal Immigration and Government Regulation)
Your points are well taken Jen but you are undoubtedly aware that a lot of things that stick small businesses and those who are not of the upper income bracket are brought into being by mantras of "tax the rich", etc.
Most people have no idea that the idea behind the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution was sold as a way of collecting from only the top tier incomes. Adjusted for inflation, everyone making $80,000 and less today would be exempt under the formula as put into place in 1913.
The problem is what happens once a program is in place and how it is fiddled with...Ronaldus Magnus' once said that the closest thing to eternity on earth is a government program and history has shown the truth in that dictum over and over again. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Posted to Fetching Jen's Weblog (circa April 18, 2006)]
Monday, April 24, 2006
On Public vs. Private Standards:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The following article was sent to your host by Kevin Tierney:
Lie Down With Strippers, Wake Up With Pleas (Ann Coulter)
Certainly Ann's piece is on target and I recall noting after receiving it the problem we have in society today. And while I could write a post of decent length the matter (or record a five minute audioblog posting on it), sometimes I actually have pithy thoughts in writing and (when I do) it is best to go with them as they are.
Ann's article outlines a core problem that seems to be more prevalent viz. how victims of tragedies are dealt with. They both revolve around an argumentation fallacy I defined last month{1} and are essentially two forms of this kind of problem. I call the fallacy involved argumentum ad eventus. Depending on the approach taken, this could involve asserting that either (i) someone who has not experienced something cannot talk credibly about it{2} or (ii) someone who has done something cannot later on criticize others for doing the same thing.{3}
I am not about to try and make the argument that people are at all perfectly consistent in the views they espouse and those that they follow because we all know that is not the case with any of us. But should the fact that we all fall short of the mark in some form or another mean that we move the mark itself??? Or would it not be better for society as a whole if the mark stays where it is as a rule and we strive to conform ourselves to the mark???
I noted in responding to that mailing was that there seems to be a problem with people recognizing that public standards are important even if individuals do not meet them. As Ann noted, we have no problem recognizing by logical extension this application to non-moral matters. Therefore, consistency would require that we recognize this with moral issues too.
If instead of being recognized for what they are, violations of a recognized standard are ipso facto seen as calling into account the standard{5} rather than trying to conform themselves to the aforesaid standard, then we are in serious trouble as a society. We risk in a situation such as that becoming a civilization of the least common denominator: hardly anything that could be logically viewed as either "progressive" or "enlightened" whatsoever the promoters of such a society would label it as. And that is the bottom line really.
Notes:
{1} Defining Some Argumentation Fallacies--A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Post (circa March 7, 2006)
{2} See footnote one.
{3} In no area except morality would a sane person believe he can't criticize something stupid because he's done it. How about: If you've ever forgotten to fill up your car and run out of gas, you must forevermore defend a person's right to ignore the gas gauge. Or if you've ever forgotten to wear a coat in cold weather and caught a cold, henceforth you are obliged to encourage others not to dress appropriately in the winter.
This deep-seated societal fear of being accused of "hypocrisy" applies only to behavior touching on morals. [Ann Coulter: Excerpt from Lie Down With Strippers, Wake Up With Pleas (circa April 19, 2006)]
{4} See footnote three.
{5} And it cannot be credibly argued that this approach has become more and more frequent for some time now.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The following article was sent to your host by Kevin Tierney:
Lie Down With Strippers, Wake Up With Pleas (Ann Coulter)
Certainly Ann's piece is on target and I recall noting after receiving it the problem we have in society today. And while I could write a post of decent length the matter (or record a five minute audioblog posting on it), sometimes I actually have pithy thoughts in writing and (when I do) it is best to go with them as they are.
Ann's article outlines a core problem that seems to be more prevalent viz. how victims of tragedies are dealt with. They both revolve around an argumentation fallacy I defined last month{1} and are essentially two forms of this kind of problem. I call the fallacy involved argumentum ad eventus. Depending on the approach taken, this could involve asserting that either (i) someone who has not experienced something cannot talk credibly about it{2} or (ii) someone who has done something cannot later on criticize others for doing the same thing.{3}
I am not about to try and make the argument that people are at all perfectly consistent in the views they espouse and those that they follow because we all know that is not the case with any of us. But should the fact that we all fall short of the mark in some form or another mean that we move the mark itself??? Or would it not be better for society as a whole if the mark stays where it is as a rule and we strive to conform ourselves to the mark???
I noted in responding to that mailing was that there seems to be a problem with people recognizing that public standards are important even if individuals do not meet them. As Ann noted, we have no problem recognizing by logical extension this application to non-moral matters. Therefore, consistency would require that we recognize this with moral issues too.
If instead of being recognized for what they are, violations of a recognized standard are ipso facto seen as calling into account the standard{5} rather than trying to conform themselves to the aforesaid standard, then we are in serious trouble as a society. We risk in a situation such as that becoming a civilization of the least common denominator: hardly anything that could be logically viewed as either "progressive" or "enlightened" whatsoever the promoters of such a society would label it as. And that is the bottom line really.
Notes:
{1} Defining Some Argumentation Fallacies--A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Post (circa March 7, 2006)
{2} See footnote one.
{3} In no area except morality would a sane person believe he can't criticize something stupid because he's done it. How about: If you've ever forgotten to fill up your car and run out of gas, you must forevermore defend a person's right to ignore the gas gauge. Or if you've ever forgotten to wear a coat in cold weather and caught a cold, henceforth you are obliged to encourage others not to dress appropriately in the winter.
This deep-seated societal fear of being accused of "hypocrisy" applies only to behavior touching on morals. [Ann Coulter: Excerpt from Lie Down With Strippers, Wake Up With Pleas (circa April 19, 2006)]
{4} See footnote three.
{5} And it cannot be credibly argued that this approach has become more and more frequent for some time now.
On the History of Beer:
As I close in on my pre-summer weight loss goal, I find myself again thinking of beer...something I have not consumed any of since my trip to California back in mid-January. Anyway, with that in mind, the following is a history written by someone else. And though I obviously take issue with some of what they say{1}; nonetheless, this chronicling is hilarious and I felt like blogging it so here goes...
---- For centuries humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in winter.
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of the wheel and the invention of beer. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered, it required grain, and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as "the Conservative movement." Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQs and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as 'girliemen.'
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and the concept of democratic voting to
decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass. Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish, but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu and French food are standard liberal fare.
Another interesting revolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, Marines, Air Force pilots, athletes and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to "govern" the producers and decide how to redistribute the production. Liberals believe Europeans
are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in later, after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get MORE for nothing.
Here ends today's lesson in world history and anthropology:
It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to respond to the above before simply laughing and forwarding it. A Conservative will be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately.
Note:
{1} Particularly the notion that conservatives drink domestic beer and that beer should be drunk out of a can. I explain the correct understanding of these notions (and other beer-related ones) HERE and am not about to reiterate them anew at this time.
As I close in on my pre-summer weight loss goal, I find myself again thinking of beer...something I have not consumed any of since my trip to California back in mid-January. Anyway, with that in mind, the following is a history written by someone else. And though I obviously take issue with some of what they say{1}; nonetheless, this chronicling is hilarious and I felt like blogging it so here goes...
---- For centuries humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in winter.
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of the wheel and the invention of beer. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered, it required grain, and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as "the Conservative movement." Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQs and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as 'girliemen.'
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and the concept of democratic voting to
decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass. Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish, but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu and French food are standard liberal fare.
Another interesting revolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, Marines, Air Force pilots, athletes and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to "govern" the producers and decide how to redistribute the production. Liberals believe Europeans
are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in later, after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get MORE for nothing.
Here ends today's lesson in world history and anthropology:
It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to respond to the above before simply laughing and forwarding it. A Conservative will be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately.
Note:
{1} Particularly the notion that conservatives drink domestic beer and that beer should be drunk out of a can. I explain the correct understanding of these notions (and other beer-related ones) HERE and am not about to reiterate them anew at this time.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
"I'll Play the Blues for You" Dept. -A Tribute to Albert King:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: Much of the material in this posting was taken from the archives of Rerum Novarum circa October 7, 2002 and reworked a bit to accommodate the present circumstance. -ISM]
If your down and out
And you feel real hurt
Come on oooover....
To the place where I work
And allll your loneliness
I'll try to soothe...
I'll play the blues for you..
True fans of the blues know that the essence of blues is human emotion. They can be happy, sad, funny, seductive, or any other emotion though it is the feeling down element that is most commonly known. When this element is in effect it serves as a catharsis if you will - particularly the soulful wailing of a vocal-like instrument such as the electric guitar.
There are a lot of guitar players out there but far too many of them simply play fast but do not focus on the little things which separate a good player from a master. Albert King was a master of the first rank in blues -arguably the master of electric blues. I say this not because he developed his own unique style as that is hardly unique to him: all true stylists do this. No, I say that because not only did he develop his own style of playing but his influence stretched across musical genres (i.e. blues, funk, country, rock, jazz). It would take too long to note the countless players who were influenced by him but I will make a short list here which will be far from complete but here goes:
Jimi Hendrix, Jimmy Page (Lez Zeppelin), Paul Kossoff (Free), Gary Moore (Thin Lizzy), Leslie West (Mountain), Rory Gallagher, Robben Ford, Robert Cray, Stevie Ray Vaughan, and Jimmy Vaughan (to a lessor extent). I could also mention Lynyrd Skynyrd's Gary Rossington and Allen Collins who were influenced via Paul Kossoff and Eric Clapton respectively -particularly Rossington's "less is more style".
Pink Floyd's David Gilmour epitomized Albert King's economy of prose approach with the emphasis on vibrato though he did not (from what I can detect) cop too many of King's licks into his repertoire. I mentioned Eric Clapton earlier and in doing that I refer to his earlier stuff such as the lead guitar work on the Beatles song While My Guitar Gently Weeps and his work with Cream, Blind Faith, and Derek and the Dominoes. Also, Robbie Robertson (the Band), Joe Walsh (James Gang, the Eagles), and Billy Gibbons (ZZ Top) could be mentioned too. At some point a list like this needs to be ended so I will do that now even though it is far from complete.
Not only did Albert influence those who were descended from him in the guitar family but he also influenced some of his contemporaries who were already distinctive stylists in their own right (i.e. the bluesmen Albert Collins, Buddy Guy, and Otis Rush -particularly Collins and Rush). And that Albert King was one of the most imitated players in history despite the fact that no one could completely duplicate his deceptively simple style of play (Stevie Ray Vaughan probably came the closest) is also interesting.
In truth, probably every player I noted above could play faster than Albert could but he could intimidate any of them on the stage -probably due as much to his physical size (6'4", 250 lbs) as the depth of his torrid tone, incisive phrasing, precision string bends, and spine-chilling vibrato. And it is quite ironic that we speak here of a former sharecropper/bulldozer operator who had to teach himself to play guitar in a very unorthodox manner{1} as one who would be the object of such adoration amongst his peers.
Today, not a few who study the instrument marvel over what this illiterate{2} former sharecropper could do and no guitar instructional is complete without discussing his contributions to how the instrument is played. Today would have been the eighty-third birthday of the one man whom Jimi Hendrix was (by his own admission) intimidated by{3} and the favourite blues player of the grandfather of the blues himself{4}: the blues master Albert King who passed away on December 21, 1992 at the age of 69.{5} God rest his soul.
I ain't got no big name
Ooooo Lord and I ain't no big star
But I'll play the bluuues for you
On my gui-tar
Allll your lone-li-ness
I'll try to soothe
I'll play the blues for you
(Scuse me)
Notes:
{1} As a left handed person, Albert King learned to play a right handed guitar with the strings reversed. Thus, he would pull the strings down instead of pushing them up as is the common way of playing lead. He also tended to play less vertically and more horizontally across the strings which explains in part the smoothness of his solos. He also did not use a pick (his hands were too big) and this is a key part of the tonality he achieved because picks on strings are more hollow sounding than picking the strings with a thumb or other fingers. (In Albert's case, his main picking digit was his thumb.)
{2} Musically as well as literally: he did not learn to read and write until very late in his life and he did not know music theory except what he learned through some time as a drummer early in his career and also from some degree of intuition. (His solos were never off the groove which is something that can be said of very few guitarists.)
{3} Jimi was also so fascinated by Albert that when they were together, Jimi would at times offer to play bass behind him just so he could watch Albert's technique more closely.
{4} I refer here to the Delta bluesmaster John Lee Hooker (RIP).
{5} He continued to perform for audiences all the way to the end of his life.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: Much of the material in this posting was taken from the archives of Rerum Novarum circa October 7, 2002 and reworked a bit to accommodate the present circumstance. -ISM]
If your down and out
And you feel real hurt
Come on oooover....
To the place where I work
And allll your loneliness
I'll try to soothe...
I'll play the blues for you..
True fans of the blues know that the essence of blues is human emotion. They can be happy, sad, funny, seductive, or any other emotion though it is the feeling down element that is most commonly known. When this element is in effect it serves as a catharsis if you will - particularly the soulful wailing of a vocal-like instrument such as the electric guitar.
There are a lot of guitar players out there but far too many of them simply play fast but do not focus on the little things which separate a good player from a master. Albert King was a master of the first rank in blues -arguably the master of electric blues. I say this not because he developed his own unique style as that is hardly unique to him: all true stylists do this. No, I say that because not only did he develop his own style of playing but his influence stretched across musical genres (i.e. blues, funk, country, rock, jazz). It would take too long to note the countless players who were influenced by him but I will make a short list here which will be far from complete but here goes:
Jimi Hendrix, Jimmy Page (Lez Zeppelin), Paul Kossoff (Free), Gary Moore (Thin Lizzy), Leslie West (Mountain), Rory Gallagher, Robben Ford, Robert Cray, Stevie Ray Vaughan, and Jimmy Vaughan (to a lessor extent). I could also mention Lynyrd Skynyrd's Gary Rossington and Allen Collins who were influenced via Paul Kossoff and Eric Clapton respectively -particularly Rossington's "less is more style".
Pink Floyd's David Gilmour epitomized Albert King's economy of prose approach with the emphasis on vibrato though he did not (from what I can detect) cop too many of King's licks into his repertoire. I mentioned Eric Clapton earlier and in doing that I refer to his earlier stuff such as the lead guitar work on the Beatles song While My Guitar Gently Weeps and his work with Cream, Blind Faith, and Derek and the Dominoes. Also, Robbie Robertson (the Band), Joe Walsh (James Gang, the Eagles), and Billy Gibbons (ZZ Top) could be mentioned too. At some point a list like this needs to be ended so I will do that now even though it is far from complete.
Not only did Albert influence those who were descended from him in the guitar family but he also influenced some of his contemporaries who were already distinctive stylists in their own right (i.e. the bluesmen Albert Collins, Buddy Guy, and Otis Rush -particularly Collins and Rush). And that Albert King was one of the most imitated players in history despite the fact that no one could completely duplicate his deceptively simple style of play (Stevie Ray Vaughan probably came the closest) is also interesting.
In truth, probably every player I noted above could play faster than Albert could but he could intimidate any of them on the stage -probably due as much to his physical size (6'4", 250 lbs) as the depth of his torrid tone, incisive phrasing, precision string bends, and spine-chilling vibrato. And it is quite ironic that we speak here of a former sharecropper/bulldozer operator who had to teach himself to play guitar in a very unorthodox manner{1} as one who would be the object of such adoration amongst his peers.
Today, not a few who study the instrument marvel over what this illiterate{2} former sharecropper could do and no guitar instructional is complete without discussing his contributions to how the instrument is played. Today would have been the eighty-third birthday of the one man whom Jimi Hendrix was (by his own admission) intimidated by{3} and the favourite blues player of the grandfather of the blues himself{4}: the blues master Albert King who passed away on December 21, 1992 at the age of 69.{5} God rest his soul.
I ain't got no big name
Ooooo Lord and I ain't no big star
But I'll play the bluuues for you
On my gui-tar
Allll your lone-li-ness
I'll try to soothe
I'll play the blues for you
(Scuse me)
Notes:
{1} As a left handed person, Albert King learned to play a right handed guitar with the strings reversed. Thus, he would pull the strings down instead of pushing them up as is the common way of playing lead. He also tended to play less vertically and more horizontally across the strings which explains in part the smoothness of his solos. He also did not use a pick (his hands were too big) and this is a key part of the tonality he achieved because picks on strings are more hollow sounding than picking the strings with a thumb or other fingers. (In Albert's case, his main picking digit was his thumb.)
{2} Musically as well as literally: he did not learn to read and write until very late in his life and he did not know music theory except what he learned through some time as a drummer early in his career and also from some degree of intuition. (His solos were never off the groove which is something that can be said of very few guitarists.)
{3} Jimi was also so fascinated by Albert that when they were together, Jimi would at times offer to play bass behind him just so he could watch Albert's technique more closely.
{4} I refer here to the Delta bluesmaster John Lee Hooker (RIP).
{5} He continued to perform for audiences all the way to the end of his life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)