Very Briefly on the Invasion of Lebanon By Israel:
This is a subject I will almost certainly write more on as I have time to but briefly:
I have a very close friend whose family is from Lebanon. (They came to the States when she was a kid during the original occupation.) In two weeks time, her mother was scheduled to return to stay with relatives for about two months but after Beirut International was shelled, that trip has been cancelled.
More will be noted later on but I need to be in a proper frame of mind to handle this with the detachment it will require. (At the moment I am not capable of that so what is noted here is all I will say on the matter at the present time.)
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On Irrational Approaches to Gain Self-Esteem)
[A] lot of people like to see celebrated figures come down a notch or two because their own self-esteem is not very high. They gain a sense of self-esteem when they can say, Look, I'm not like that; that person has shortcomings. And that's not the proper way to gain self-esteem. That's irrational. [Mike Mentzer]
(On Irrational Approaches to Gain Self-Esteem)
[A] lot of people like to see celebrated figures come down a notch or two because their own self-esteem is not very high. They gain a sense of self-esteem when they can say, Look, I'm not like that; that person has shortcomings. And that's not the proper way to gain self-esteem. That's irrational. [Mike Mentzer]
Health Tip: Can Beer Be Good for You? (Forbes.Com)
A wonderful piece of news received via fellow beer connoisseur Greg Krehbiel. For position papers of sorts on beer from this humble weblog, some links will be provided below{1} and there are others in the archives. I recall reading once that beer can be good for bones...if memory serves it was Greg Krehbiel who found that thread too.
Note:
{1} Though there is a lot more that has been noted on this weblog over the years than the link I am about to provide; nonetheless, some of my observations on the subject can be seen in the thread located HERE.
A wonderful piece of news received via fellow beer connoisseur Greg Krehbiel. For position papers of sorts on beer from this humble weblog, some links will be provided below{1} and there are others in the archives. I recall reading once that beer can be good for bones...if memory serves it was Greg Krehbiel who found that thread too.
Note:
{1} Though there is a lot more that has been noted on this weblog over the years than the link I am about to provide; nonetheless, some of my observations on the subject can be seen in the thread located HERE.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Points to Ponder:
Individuals who have spent enormous amounts of time, energy, and money selling a particular idea or product often become so intent on seeing their [idea/creation] accepted by others that they tend to lose their objectivity...the stakes [involved] are in some manner intellectual/philosophical. [Mike Mentzer]
Individuals who have spent enormous amounts of time, energy, and money selling a particular idea or product often become so intent on seeing their [idea/creation] accepted by others that they tend to lose their objectivity...the stakes [involved] are in some manner intellectual/philosophical. [Mike Mentzer]
On Miscellanous Matters:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Note: I originally planned to post the first part of this note on July 6, 2006 with the working title "Damn Kim Jong II" Dept. but decided against it. -ISM]
---Right when I plan to not comment for five days or so, North Korea goes and tests some missiles. I was sorely tempted to write on this matter but to do so would have been to let that little twerp of a dictator interfere with my downtime so I said "sod it" and kept quiet. Thanks are in order to my amigos at the American Conservative Blogroll and The Alliance for dealing more than adequately with this issue. Having noted that, I want to expand on comments I made on Texas Fred's weblog on some other subjects (along with a couple other bits) so here goes...
---With regards to the whole slavery reparations issue, I personally have no sympathy whatsoever for those who whine about wanting "reparations"{1} because my ancestors were also slaves economically{2} or otherwise{3} which is part of the reason they immigrated to this country. They also either arrived here legally or they quickly made themselves legal citizens. If not for the fact that there is no evidence of the Mexican immigrants who arrive here illegally to become legal of their own accord{4}, I would hardly take the stance I do on these matters. But enough on that for now.
---As far as the Congress and being trusted, I do not need to remind those with longer memories that it was the Dems on Congress who cozied up to Commandante Ortega in the 1980’s when the Soviet Union was still around and taking territory like the Cornhusker offense on a Saturday in the fall. They cannot be trusted and should not be trusted with information that is intended to be kept quiet…too many seditionists in that batch along with some of the Republicans who are essentially ”me-too” sorts and thus are not better.
---It was brought to my attention a little while ago that Mark Shea took issue at being called a "distributivst" by yours truly a couple months ago. This stumped me as I could not recall making the assertion -indeed I checked the postings where I wrote/spoke on this matter{5} and gave them a read/listen. Having found nothing in them to substantiate this point, I was wondering where on earth Mark got this idea when I remembered a private email exchange I had with Greg Krehbiel where I wrote him pertaining to the subject of Catholic Church teaching. It was in that note that the assertion of distributivism was made pertaining to Mark Shea.
The purpose of my note to Greg was to point out in a discussion he and Mark were having, areas where each was right and wrong. Or to quote my own words on the matter:
You and Mark [Shea]'s disagreement is more interesting to me because (as I see it) each of you gets part of it right and part of it wrong.
In your case, you [Greg] are correct that on particulars the magisterium has not bound people to much in the way of specifics. However, it appears based on what I read (and I may have misinterpreted your view) that you do not think there is anything the magisterium has said on these matters that is requiring of assent. That would be incorrect. Mark is right that there are general principles that are bound viz. how we need to approach these matters. He errs however in presuming (as he seems to) that the magisterium has bound people to particular economic theories when in fact this has not happened at all.
The problem as I see it with many who would argue as Mark and company do is that they are adherents to an economic theory (distributivism) that is internally contradictory. They are right that one cannot dismiss wholeheartedly the magisterium’s interventions in economic matters; however, they are wrong to presume that said interventions are at all crystal-clear and precise and not admitting of a variation of applications depending on particular circumstances.
There are certain theories which we cannot accept of course (i.e. communism/socialism, forms of capitalism which are utilitarian and shorn of moral proinciples, etc.) but other than that, there is a broad spectrum of acceptable approaches to these matters.
Furthermore, Mark Shea’s assertion that your argument is no different than those who would question the church’s stand on bioethical matters is context-switching since bioethics involves matters which are not contingent ( i.e. when life begins, what is life, etc.) whereas economic theory is admitting of varying interpretations many of them which are contingent. But the thread above touches on these matters adequately for the present time -though I may develop parts of it later on if it seems appropriate or necessary (time-willing of course). [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence With Greg Krehbiel (circa April of 2006)]
For those who wonder how this note made it into the public forum, Greg asked me if he could blog that email and I said he could. Now then, if what I wrote is looked at carefully, the distributivist comment was a side issue to the broader subject matter of discussion. My main criticism was that Mark was not making proper differentiations between matters of teaching and matters of prudential judgment on some issues.{6} Another way of saying it was that Mark was in seeking to affirm that there are certain general principles which Catholics must give assent to was extending this to particular applications. Nonetheless, I did appear to call Mark a distributivist and he is right that in part I did this based on his esteem for G K Chesterton. The latter was a distributivist but it was not for that reason alone that I claimed that Mark was a distributivist.
My comment was based on the latter in part but also on observing that Mark seems to have a definition of capitalism that mirrors the caricatured one that the distributivists use. The rest of what I noted in that email remains intact though and I do believe that Mark and Greg each get certain parts right and certain parts wrong in their dispute.{7} Nonetheless, if Mark claims he is not a distributivist{8}, then I take him at his word, retract the assertion, and with this public notation, apologize to him for it.
---On the World Cup, I was so supportive of Italy in this final that I practically acquired an Italian flag to fly and took on a paizano accent. Anything to see the French go down to a crushing defeat yet again...they are cowards militarily and otherwise and now have been denied the World Cup. Aaaah how I love the smell of raviolli in the morning ;-)
Notes:
{1} Unless they either have actual family members who are slaves or have living relatives who were slaves of course.
{2} My father's ancestors were treated like subhuman crap by the British in the Potato Famine which was pretty much a creation of the British who let Irish who refused to convert to the Anglican religion to starve.
{3} My mother's ancestors (including her grandmother) were either serfs under the Tzar in the Ukraine or perished in the Terror Famine of the 1930's.
{4} In a fashion that respects the role of law in a just society of course -something that the proposed "amnesty" programs do not do. Oh and before I hear any of the "but they cannot speak English" schtick, that will not fly with me cause my ancestors could not speak the language initially either.
{5} On the Acton Institutes' Critique of Distributivism (circa March 27, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings on Illegal Immigration, Voting Issues, Audioblogger, Fundamental Rights, Activism, Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Etc.--An Audiopost (circa April 8, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings on Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Illegal Immigration, Activism, Fundamental Rights, Etc.: A Continuation Audiopost (circa April 8, 2006)
{6} This is a subject well worth writing on at some point IMHO -not specifically aimed at Mark but to the problem as it exists in general.
{7} In Greg's defense though, I believe his approach is more common to the general Catholic approach of wanting to live one's life as a Catholic and not wanting to delve too deeply into these kinds of more intricate matters. Let us face it: there is a lot of depth to those waters and no one can successfully navigate them all.
For that reason, those who would rather focus on living the faith instead of trying to understand everything, I can respect that certainly. I am also well aware of the way not a few who call themselves "apologists" overemphasize certain applications of principles and place the latter on a par with the principles themselves. I think part of the reason Greg approaches things as he does is in reaction to what not a few who call themselves "apologists" do either in general or (on certain issues) from time to time. But that is enough on the matter for now.
{8} Distributivist and distributist are two different terms used to explain that economics pseudo-"theory." (And that is what it is: see the threads in footnote five for more than ample substantiation of this assertion if you are interested.)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Note: I originally planned to post the first part of this note on July 6, 2006 with the working title "Damn Kim Jong II" Dept. but decided against it. -ISM]
---Right when I plan to not comment for five days or so, North Korea goes and tests some missiles. I was sorely tempted to write on this matter but to do so would have been to let that little twerp of a dictator interfere with my downtime so I said "sod it" and kept quiet. Thanks are in order to my amigos at the American Conservative Blogroll and The Alliance for dealing more than adequately with this issue. Having noted that, I want to expand on comments I made on Texas Fred's weblog on some other subjects (along with a couple other bits) so here goes...
---With regards to the whole slavery reparations issue, I personally have no sympathy whatsoever for those who whine about wanting "reparations"{1} because my ancestors were also slaves economically{2} or otherwise{3} which is part of the reason they immigrated to this country. They also either arrived here legally or they quickly made themselves legal citizens. If not for the fact that there is no evidence of the Mexican immigrants who arrive here illegally to become legal of their own accord{4}, I would hardly take the stance I do on these matters. But enough on that for now.
---As far as the Congress and being trusted, I do not need to remind those with longer memories that it was the Dems on Congress who cozied up to Commandante Ortega in the 1980’s when the Soviet Union was still around and taking territory like the Cornhusker offense on a Saturday in the fall. They cannot be trusted and should not be trusted with information that is intended to be kept quiet…too many seditionists in that batch along with some of the Republicans who are essentially ”me-too” sorts and thus are not better.
---It was brought to my attention a little while ago that Mark Shea took issue at being called a "distributivst" by yours truly a couple months ago. This stumped me as I could not recall making the assertion -indeed I checked the postings where I wrote/spoke on this matter{5} and gave them a read/listen. Having found nothing in them to substantiate this point, I was wondering where on earth Mark got this idea when I remembered a private email exchange I had with Greg Krehbiel where I wrote him pertaining to the subject of Catholic Church teaching. It was in that note that the assertion of distributivism was made pertaining to Mark Shea.
The purpose of my note to Greg was to point out in a discussion he and Mark were having, areas where each was right and wrong. Or to quote my own words on the matter:
You and Mark [Shea]'s disagreement is more interesting to me because (as I see it) each of you gets part of it right and part of it wrong.
In your case, you [Greg] are correct that on particulars the magisterium has not bound people to much in the way of specifics. However, it appears based on what I read (and I may have misinterpreted your view) that you do not think there is anything the magisterium has said on these matters that is requiring of assent. That would be incorrect. Mark is right that there are general principles that are bound viz. how we need to approach these matters. He errs however in presuming (as he seems to) that the magisterium has bound people to particular economic theories when in fact this has not happened at all.
The problem as I see it with many who would argue as Mark and company do is that they are adherents to an economic theory (distributivism) that is internally contradictory. They are right that one cannot dismiss wholeheartedly the magisterium’s interventions in economic matters; however, they are wrong to presume that said interventions are at all crystal-clear and precise and not admitting of a variation of applications depending on particular circumstances.
There are certain theories which we cannot accept of course (i.e. communism/socialism, forms of capitalism which are utilitarian and shorn of moral proinciples, etc.) but other than that, there is a broad spectrum of acceptable approaches to these matters.
Furthermore, Mark Shea’s assertion that your argument is no different than those who would question the church’s stand on bioethical matters is context-switching since bioethics involves matters which are not contingent ( i.e. when life begins, what is life, etc.) whereas economic theory is admitting of varying interpretations many of them which are contingent. But the thread above touches on these matters adequately for the present time -though I may develop parts of it later on if it seems appropriate or necessary (time-willing of course). [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence With Greg Krehbiel (circa April of 2006)]
For those who wonder how this note made it into the public forum, Greg asked me if he could blog that email and I said he could. Now then, if what I wrote is looked at carefully, the distributivist comment was a side issue to the broader subject matter of discussion. My main criticism was that Mark was not making proper differentiations between matters of teaching and matters of prudential judgment on some issues.{6} Another way of saying it was that Mark was in seeking to affirm that there are certain general principles which Catholics must give assent to was extending this to particular applications. Nonetheless, I did appear to call Mark a distributivist and he is right that in part I did this based on his esteem for G K Chesterton. The latter was a distributivist but it was not for that reason alone that I claimed that Mark was a distributivist.
My comment was based on the latter in part but also on observing that Mark seems to have a definition of capitalism that mirrors the caricatured one that the distributivists use. The rest of what I noted in that email remains intact though and I do believe that Mark and Greg each get certain parts right and certain parts wrong in their dispute.{7} Nonetheless, if Mark claims he is not a distributivist{8}, then I take him at his word, retract the assertion, and with this public notation, apologize to him for it.
---On the World Cup, I was so supportive of Italy in this final that I practically acquired an Italian flag to fly and took on a paizano accent. Anything to see the French go down to a crushing defeat yet again...they are cowards militarily and otherwise and now have been denied the World Cup. Aaaah how I love the smell of raviolli in the morning ;-)
Notes:
{1} Unless they either have actual family members who are slaves or have living relatives who were slaves of course.
{2} My father's ancestors were treated like subhuman crap by the British in the Potato Famine which was pretty much a creation of the British who let Irish who refused to convert to the Anglican religion to starve.
{3} My mother's ancestors (including her grandmother) were either serfs under the Tzar in the Ukraine or perished in the Terror Famine of the 1930's.
{4} In a fashion that respects the role of law in a just society of course -something that the proposed "amnesty" programs do not do. Oh and before I hear any of the "but they cannot speak English" schtick, that will not fly with me cause my ancestors could not speak the language initially either.
{5} On the Acton Institutes' Critique of Distributivism (circa March 27, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings on Illegal Immigration, Voting Issues, Audioblogger, Fundamental Rights, Activism, Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Etc.--An Audiopost (circa April 8, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings on Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Illegal Immigration, Activism, Fundamental Rights, Etc.: A Continuation Audiopost (circa April 8, 2006)
{6} This is a subject well worth writing on at some point IMHO -not specifically aimed at Mark but to the problem as it exists in general.
{7} In Greg's defense though, I believe his approach is more common to the general Catholic approach of wanting to live one's life as a Catholic and not wanting to delve too deeply into these kinds of more intricate matters. Let us face it: there is a lot of depth to those waters and no one can successfully navigate them all.
For that reason, those who would rather focus on living the faith instead of trying to understand everything, I can respect that certainly. I am also well aware of the way not a few who call themselves "apologists" overemphasize certain applications of principles and place the latter on a par with the principles themselves. I think part of the reason Greg approaches things as he does is in reaction to what not a few who call themselves "apologists" do either in general or (on certain issues) from time to time. But that is enough on the matter for now.
{8} Distributivist and distributist are two different terms used to explain that economics pseudo-"theory." (And that is what it is: see the threads in footnote five for more than ample substantiation of this assertion if you are interested.)
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
To add a thread to the miscellaneous thread installment posted back on the third...
Culture Wars' Troubling Praise of Israel Shamir (Christopher Blosser)
I have spoken before on the importance of properly vetting one's sources.{1} The reason should be obvious but unfortunately it often is overlooked. Essentially, there is a connection between those who are not inclined to want to reassess their foundational presuppositions on a reasonable basis and an inability on their part to maintain a sense of perspective. The latter results oftentimes in some pretty glaring blindspots on the part of such ideologues where they accept any argument they can find without concern for either (i) the solidity of the argument itself or (ii) the particular source they get it from. This is an example of the argumentation fallacy of provincialism in a nutshell.
Christopher's article outlines the latter problem with the magazine called Culture Wars which I subscribed to about six years ago (for about a year).{2} Anyway, give the above a read if you want to see a snapshot of what is wrong with ideological approaches to issues and what such persons and groups inexorably have to resort to when they refuse to call into question their operative presuppositions from time to time. But enough on that subject for now as it is brief sabbatical time now...should be back on Monday or so...same Bat time...same Bat blog ;-)
Notes:
{1} This is an important area to consider when seeking to viably advance one's views in the arena of ideas.
{2} One of the reasons I let the subscription expire without renewing it was because of traces of this problem. However, the primary reason at the time involved an even greater problem which I will not go into at the moment except to note that it has been commented upon by various personages in recent years.
Culture Wars' Troubling Praise of Israel Shamir (Christopher Blosser)
I have spoken before on the importance of properly vetting one's sources.{1} The reason should be obvious but unfortunately it often is overlooked. Essentially, there is a connection between those who are not inclined to want to reassess their foundational presuppositions on a reasonable basis and an inability on their part to maintain a sense of perspective. The latter results oftentimes in some pretty glaring blindspots on the part of such ideologues where they accept any argument they can find without concern for either (i) the solidity of the argument itself or (ii) the particular source they get it from. This is an example of the argumentation fallacy of provincialism in a nutshell.
Christopher's article outlines the latter problem with the magazine called Culture Wars which I subscribed to about six years ago (for about a year).{2} Anyway, give the above a read if you want to see a snapshot of what is wrong with ideological approaches to issues and what such persons and groups inexorably have to resort to when they refuse to call into question their operative presuppositions from time to time. But enough on that subject for now as it is brief sabbatical time now...should be back on Monday or so...same Bat time...same Bat blog ;-)
Notes:
{1} This is an important area to consider when seeking to viably advance one's views in the arena of ideas.
{2} One of the reasons I let the subscription expire without renewing it was because of traces of this problem. However, the primary reason at the time involved an even greater problem which I will not go into at the moment except to note that it has been commented upon by various personages in recent years.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:
[Update: See this thread for an addition to the material below which was deemed appropriate to cover briefly in a followup thread. -ISM 7/05/06 3:00pm]
Lots of stuff to touch on briefly before taking a sabbatical for at least a few days if not more...
Was the Pope a Nazi? (Mark Riebling)
Yeah, this subject has been done to death but to his credit, Mark Riebling has some original contributions to this subject matter. Those who are not Catholic but who at the very least have a respect for both history as well as truh will find Mark's piece to contribute in this area quite nicely.
Murtha's Charade! (The Dumb Ox)
A brief snippet if I may{1}:
The Dumb Ox revealed back in early DECEMBER 2005 Murtha's troop withdrawal antics as part of his scheme to avoid ethics and criminal corruption charges...
Now those of us manning Rerum Novarum were hardly completely ignorant on this matter though it did not seem appropriate to comment on at the time. However, with an election coming up soon and with a lot of skeletons on the closet of John Murtha{2}, we are at the point now where it helps to remind people of the kinds of double standards involved viz. the whole "ethics" issues with government officials. But enough on that for now.
Iraq and the WOT - A Roundup (Christopher Blosser)
A good collection of threads on the subjects covered on Iraq and the War on Terror courtesy of Chris' Catholic Just War BLOG.
WMD's? What WMDs? (Greg Mockeridge)
Readers are advised to consider what your humble servant has said all along on the subject of WMD's -recently recapitulated to some extent in an audioposting for your convenience.{4}
Bush Goes Jogging With Iraqi Amputee (Christopher Blosser)
A minor bit this is true but it is nice to see a politician follow through on the kinds of "lets do lunch" offhand comments made to people they visit in hospitals or whatever.
Oh, lest we forget to note it publicly, a happy Blogiversary is extended to Frank Trainor from Franktalk. For those who do not know, Frank is a genuine songwriter who has written for (and personally met) many of the greats out of Nashville and elsewhere. Certainly this interests your host for many reasons and (perhaps) we can get Frank's take on some of those persons in the coming weeks and months.
Mark Shea's "Torture Poll"
This whole scenario is reminding us of something spoken of last year pertaining to those who use terms they do not bother to define or who otherwise shirk from doing so when challenged to do so.{5} But enough on that matter for now.
And finally, among the threads from this weblog which I want to revisit for inclusion in this posting are two from last year at this time:
Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Modern Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)
America the Beautiful Revisited (circa July 3, 2005)
As the fourth of July is tomorrow, I would like to wish readers and listeners of this humble weblog a most happy and blessed Independence Day.
Notes:
{1} And since it is my weblog, I will do as I like on this matter of course :)
{2} It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable actions. Or maybe it isn't. Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings, scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator." [The Washington Times: The real Jack Murtha (via Dumb Ox News)]
{3} Anyone who is surprised at the double standard here email me and I will sell you my shares in the Hope Diamond real cheap...
{4} Miscellaneous Musings on the Death of Zarqawi and the Presence of WMD's in Iraq--An Audio Post (circa June 23, 2006)
Greg also makes mention in his article of the Syria Hypothesis which is something your host has opined about for a few years now at sundry times and in diverse places (including on occasion at this very weblog believe it or not).
{5} [W]atch those who are incapable of giving a reasonable working definition of "rights" to claim that there is one. Definitions are the tools of thought and frankly, those who are not willing to define their terms do not deserve to be taken seriously...whether they are misappropriating the term "rights", "neo cons", or whatever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005)]
The request here is for a "working definition" and that is what one should strive for in my view: something that gives at least a reasonable approximation of what a term means if one insists on raising it as a kind of shibboleth in disputations. Or as your host noted in an email correspondence from June of this year:
One of the problems I have with most bloggers or commentators in any genre is their frequent unwillingness to define their terms. Failure in this area is both dishonest as well as lazy. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa June 23, 2006)]
The above thread was sent in a private email shortly after this post was published earlier in that day. Oh and the request for people to define their terms is far from being an unreasonable one. Instead, it is the minimum that any commentator should do if they expect people to take them seriously in the arena of ideas. And that is the bottom line really.
[Update: See this thread for an addition to the material below which was deemed appropriate to cover briefly in a followup thread. -ISM 7/05/06 3:00pm]
Lots of stuff to touch on briefly before taking a sabbatical for at least a few days if not more...
Was the Pope a Nazi? (Mark Riebling)
Yeah, this subject has been done to death but to his credit, Mark Riebling has some original contributions to this subject matter. Those who are not Catholic but who at the very least have a respect for both history as well as truh will find Mark's piece to contribute in this area quite nicely.
Murtha's Charade! (The Dumb Ox)
A brief snippet if I may{1}:
The Dumb Ox revealed back in early DECEMBER 2005 Murtha's troop withdrawal antics as part of his scheme to avoid ethics and criminal corruption charges...
Now those of us manning Rerum Novarum were hardly completely ignorant on this matter though it did not seem appropriate to comment on at the time. However, with an election coming up soon and with a lot of skeletons on the closet of John Murtha{2}, we are at the point now where it helps to remind people of the kinds of double standards involved viz. the whole "ethics" issues with government officials. But enough on that for now.
Iraq and the WOT - A Roundup (Christopher Blosser)
A good collection of threads on the subjects covered on Iraq and the War on Terror courtesy of Chris' Catholic Just War BLOG.
WMD's? What WMDs? (Greg Mockeridge)
Readers are advised to consider what your humble servant has said all along on the subject of WMD's -recently recapitulated to some extent in an audioposting for your convenience.{4}
Bush Goes Jogging With Iraqi Amputee (Christopher Blosser)
A minor bit this is true but it is nice to see a politician follow through on the kinds of "lets do lunch" offhand comments made to people they visit in hospitals or whatever.
Oh, lest we forget to note it publicly, a happy Blogiversary is extended to Frank Trainor from Franktalk. For those who do not know, Frank is a genuine songwriter who has written for (and personally met) many of the greats out of Nashville and elsewhere. Certainly this interests your host for many reasons and (perhaps) we can get Frank's take on some of those persons in the coming weeks and months.
Mark Shea's "Torture Poll"
This whole scenario is reminding us of something spoken of last year pertaining to those who use terms they do not bother to define or who otherwise shirk from doing so when challenged to do so.{5} But enough on that matter for now.
And finally, among the threads from this weblog which I want to revisit for inclusion in this posting are two from last year at this time:
Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Modern Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)
America the Beautiful Revisited (circa July 3, 2005)
As the fourth of July is tomorrow, I would like to wish readers and listeners of this humble weblog a most happy and blessed Independence Day.
Notes:
{1} And since it is my weblog, I will do as I like on this matter of course :)
{2} It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable actions. Or maybe it isn't. Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings, scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator." [The Washington Times: The real Jack Murtha (via Dumb Ox News)]
{3} Anyone who is surprised at the double standard here email me and I will sell you my shares in the Hope Diamond real cheap...
{4} Miscellaneous Musings on the Death of Zarqawi and the Presence of WMD's in Iraq--An Audio Post (circa June 23, 2006)
Greg also makes mention in his article of the Syria Hypothesis which is something your host has opined about for a few years now at sundry times and in diverse places (including on occasion at this very weblog believe it or not).
{5} [W]atch those who are incapable of giving a reasonable working definition of "rights" to claim that there is one. Definitions are the tools of thought and frankly, those who are not willing to define their terms do not deserve to be taken seriously...whether they are misappropriating the term "rights", "neo cons", or whatever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005)]
The request here is for a "working definition" and that is what one should strive for in my view: something that gives at least a reasonable approximation of what a term means if one insists on raising it as a kind of shibboleth in disputations. Or as your host noted in an email correspondence from June of this year:
One of the problems I have with most bloggers or commentators in any genre is their frequent unwillingness to define their terms. Failure in this area is both dishonest as well as lazy. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa June 23, 2006)]
The above thread was sent in a private email shortly after this post was published earlier in that day. Oh and the request for people to define their terms is far from being an unreasonable one. Instead, it is the minimum that any commentator should do if they expect people to take them seriously in the arena of ideas. And that is the bottom line really.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Briefly on the New Holy See Secretary of State Appointment:
(With Kevin Tierney)
Kevin's words will be in light red font.
So Cardinal berton is the new secretary of state
Pitty it wasn't Ruini. :) Now I don't know much about Bertone. I know the Fatima types hate his guts. About the most I know is that the man has never been a diplomat, and as far as I'm aware, has never been that active on the geopolitical sphere. Could it be Benedict is changing the Secretary of State, so it isn't the "true pope" office that it was under Sodano? (Sodano wielded more power as Secretary of State than most before him, and was joked to be the real "man in charge" in the Vatican.)
Maybe he wants Cardinal Ruini closer to home for consulting with instead of travelling all over as Secretary of State. Bertone is doctrinally shrewd and he did serve at the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) for a number of years. It seems probable to me that Papa Benedict wants to make sure his Secretary of State does not muddle doctrinal matters with geopolitical/prudential ones the way Sodano at times did (among other personages like Cardinal Martino, Cardinal Laghi, Archbishop Tauran, etc). Either way, I think this is a solid B+ pick starting out...only time will tell the real tale of course.
(With Kevin Tierney)
Kevin's words will be in light red font.
So Cardinal berton is the new secretary of state
Pitty it wasn't Ruini. :) Now I don't know much about Bertone. I know the Fatima types hate his guts. About the most I know is that the man has never been a diplomat, and as far as I'm aware, has never been that active on the geopolitical sphere. Could it be Benedict is changing the Secretary of State, so it isn't the "true pope" office that it was under Sodano? (Sodano wielded more power as Secretary of State than most before him, and was joked to be the real "man in charge" in the Vatican.)
Maybe he wants Cardinal Ruini closer to home for consulting with instead of travelling all over as Secretary of State. Bertone is doctrinally shrewd and he did serve at the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) for a number of years. It seems probable to me that Papa Benedict wants to make sure his Secretary of State does not muddle doctrinal matters with geopolitical/prudential ones the way Sodano at times did (among other personages like Cardinal Martino, Cardinal Laghi, Archbishop Tauran, etc). Either way, I think this is a solid B+ pick starting out...only time will tell the real tale of course.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Points to Ponder:
[I]t ain't the time
To learn how to swim
When the tide comes rushin' in. [Frank Trainor]
[I]t ain't the time
To learn how to swim
When the tide comes rushin' in. [Frank Trainor]
Responding to Another Accusation of Being "Afraid of Debate":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I'm gonna say this once and because you are outta Littleton, Massachusetts I'm gonna say it all r-e-a-l s-l-o-w. [What Terry Funk would say to Stephen Hand if he was writing this post]
As was expected, Stephen Hand did not react kindly to my public resumption of the Chronicles of Hand weblog. What I found rather amusing though is the extent to which he thinks other focus on him when (in reality) the purpose behind the weblog was to categorize some of the threads I am occasionally sent from others of Mr. Hand's exaggerations, errors, and downright disingenuous statements.{1} However, before readers think I have taken time to write this post to respond to one person, I want to make it clear that it goes much further and deeper than that: getting to the root and matrix of what is wrong with our society generally speaking.
Mr. Hand you see is merely a poster child (emphasis on child) for what is wrong with our society. He epitomizes the ever-increasing unwillingness or inability of people generally speaking to utilize the natural God-given lights of reason and logic --their ornamental paens to those disciplines notwithstanding. It is by their failure to do this that they make a mockery of reason and logic and by demonstration espouse (i) a rational sophism, (ii) a theological fideism, and (iii) a general solipsistic approach to reality which permeates their discourse. People such as your humble servant are an annoyance for these kinds of people because we refuse to play this game out of a respect for the aforementioned God-given faculties. But before this gets too far offtrack, I want to return to the purpose of this posting and also an explanation for why the Chronicles of Hand (C of H) weblog was founded and what it was (and is) intended to demonstrate.
After one too many wasted go-arounds with Mr. Hand, the idea of keeping a small archive of some of the more libelous assertions he has made against myself and friends/associates of mine{2} came to me in a flash and I ran with it (as is my wont with these kinds of things). The project was undertaken earlier this year and christened The Chronicles of Hand. though some parties thought The Chronicles of Handia would be more appropriate. The latter was envisioned essentially as a kind of hedge against Mr. Hand's continual attempts to claim innocence in the ad hominem department{3} and was a project worth doing for a while. The investment of time was miniscule and basically it would involve whatever readers of my weblog (who knew of Mr. Hand's animus against me and some of my friends/associates) happened to draw my attention to.
The aforementioned point seems appropriate to note at this time since I never once have gone to TCR to look for stuff to include on the C of H and do not envision ever doing that. However, the unfortunate circumstances from March of this year{4} made such an exercise in my mind absurd since there were greater (and more supernatural) factors that entered into the matrix of issues and which were far more deserving of the investment of one's time on. But that is neither here nor there.
I have said it before on more than one occasion{5} and I will say it again at this time: I can defend any position I have taken on any issue whatsoever. These are not merely words on my part but they have been backed up with actions which is a hell of a lot more than many people can say. However, just because I can defend any position taken does not mean that I will. There are time factors to consider of course as well as what issues are of greater importance than others in the hierarchy of disputation if you will. And as far as I am concerned, arguing for a position on its intrinsic merits or lack thereof utilizing the tools of reason and logic is a serious business and far too many of a sophistic bent either do not realize this or they fail to take seriously the principle that ideas are serious things.
People have fought for ideas, they have died for ideas, and this has not only not changed in the present but these things still occur. Therefore, what someone is willing to involve themselves in (should they set foot into the arena of ideas) should be focused on primary or serious matters and not secondary or ancillary griping. What interests me is the discipline of the dialogue.
I am willing to consider for engagement on various and sundry issues anyone else who shows a similar concern for what that entails. I am also interested in productive dialogue which means getting beyond the useless back and forth exchanges{6} where no one is willing to put their foundational presuppositions on the line and reapprise them at regular intervals. The latter is a process that by its very nature must involve respecting the faculties of reason and logic. That means one has to consider from time to time not only if the arguments they use to advance their position are good ones or not but even if their position itself is actually correct. As all of this probably sounds more complicated than it actually is, I will use the analogy of stocks and options to explain it in brief.
Those who are familiar with how stocks and options have a symbiotic relationship know that one of the reasons many investors like options{7} is because a small movement in the stock results in a magnified movement in the underlying option. This is the potential power inherent in dealing with foundational presuppositions of an individual: small shifts there can result in magnified movements in the individual's weltanschauung though sometimes it takes a bit of time for working out the ramifications of such shifts.
Mr. Hand is not interested in the slightest in wading into those waters. Instead, he wants to snipe at me for not allowing him to fill comments boxes at the C of H with ancillary drivel to waste both my time as well as that of others. He considers my refusal to play this game to be "censorship" on my part rather than an expedient attempt to keep focus on the actual issues and avoid distractions. I will however reverse my policy on the comments thread at the C of H if Mr. Hand is willing to take this request seriously. As it has been a while since I publicly said anything on this at Rerum Novarum, pardon the brief reiteration at this time if you have seen this stuff before:
Essentially, I took a look at the back and forth threads between Mr. Hand and his positional adversaries (including myself) and boiled it down to four points on which clarification was requested from him back in October of this year. Those points fell under the following headings:
Issue 1 - Magisterial vs. Non-Magisterial
Issue 2 - Recourse to Statistics Which Have Been Either Debunked or (At a Minimum) Have Been Challenged As To Their Veracity
Issue 3 - Use of Divisive Epithets by Mr. Hand to Distinguish Various Catholics Contrary to Explicit Magisterial Teachings Proscribing This Conduct
Issue 4 - Confusion on the Issue of Just War, Whose Authority The Criteria is Ascertained, Whose Authority a Just War is Levied, Etc. by Mr. Hand
I summarized the points covered under each heading in these words at the end of the posting (all footnotes excised):
--Viz. Issue 1, there are several points which need a response from Mr. Hand. They can all be summarized in Greg's recent question to Mr. Hand[...]. However, for the sake of greater exactness, I want to note the others which pertain to the latter. They are (i) a public request from me for Mr. Hand to clarify once and for all if Pope John Paul II's position on the war -which seems to be mirrored by his successor Pope Benedict XVI- constitutes Church teaching or not and (ii) should he answer in the negative on the matter, Mr. Hand needs to make it clear that he accepts the position on the matter that the Church does with the proper disposition of mind and in the future reflect this realization accordingly in his writings and statements on the subject in question.
If Mr. Hand responds to my request in the affirmative, he is called upon to produce the magisterial texts to support to support his usage of authoritative language and also to support his reference to the war issue as "grave" and justify this usage in light of the doctrinal clarifications of the present pope on these matters when he was chief theologian for the previous pope.
---Viz. Issue 2, Mr. Hand needs to explain (i) why he continues to parrot discredited statistics as he does and (ii) why anyone should take him seriously as a credible commentator on these issues in light of his continual parrotting of said discredited statistics.
---Viz. Issue 3, Mr. Hand also has to explain why he continues for ideological reasons to flout the teachings of Pope Benedict XV on the use of derisive labels as he does.
---Viz. Issue 4, Mr. Hand needs to explain why he reads into the words of Cardinal Ratzinger (on Pope John Paul II's view being one "of conscience enlightened by faith") sentiments not expressed by him. Furthermore, it would be nice if Mr. Hand could explain to us in light of what I have noted in this posting from Catholic sources[...] how his manifested views on just war (viz. who is the competent authority to assess the evidences and ultimately levy such a war) are at all congruent with the totality of the Catholic just war tradition.
While more could be noted, I think this suffices. One of the roles of dialogue is clarification and I have not been hesitant to clarify my positions over the years when others have questioned me on them. Mr. Hand mentioned having a debate but in truth, a dialogue is potentially far more productive than a debate. Mr. Hand has claimed I and others have misrepresented him on various issues. I have chosen these four issues to request from him further clarifications. In the interest of facilitating dialogue on these issues in accordance with the minds of the recent (and present) pope,[...] I humbly request of Mr. Hand clarifications on the points noted above. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa October 6, 2005)]
After eight months of Mr. Hand dodging the above requests for clarification --and I have reiterated this request about a dozen times in that span albeit none of them were in the past three months prior to this point-- any assertions that I "fear open debate" from him can easily be seen for what it is by those with eyes to see. But that is not all.
For I also have issued a challenge with him and several other persons in mind{8} but I do not want to touch on it until the above challenge is met first. (At least not with Mr. Hand.) Readers can judge from Mr. Hand's refusal to engage these issues who among the two of us is really afraid of engaging the issues publicly but for the sake of the slower sorts in Littleton, MA I will give a final hint: it is certainly not any of Us at Rerum Novarum.
Notes:
{1} Generally pertaining either to me or to others I happen to know. I explained the reason for the weblog in these message box comments to Mr. Hand (who chalked the existence of the weblog up to some strange attempt to "flatter" him) in this manner:
The original idea of this weblog was to archive some of your more egregious public statements before you decided to airbrush them from your site. If you think categorizing a handful of your gaffes (and there is not enough time in the day to deal with them all even if we wanted to) constitutes "flattery" than you have a strange understanding of that term.
Unlike Mr. Hand, my archives are an open book whereas he does not maintain a public archive. He claims to archive stuff on his computer but that is essentially leaving the fox in charge of the henhouse for reasons I have outlined in the past on this very weblog -particularly HERE, HERE, and HERE.
{2} The difference between you and I with the ad hominem Stephen is that I make actual arguments and you make insulting insinuations and throw around terms you do not bother defining. Then when you are asked to define them, you ignore such requests. I fail to see how you think people should take you seriously when you do that. [I. Shawn McElhinney to Stephen Hand Via The Chronicles of Hand Comments Box (circa June 26, 2006)]
{3} In light of how he and not a few others like to try and revise the historical record by removing in various ways public statements they have made --and almost always without apology-- this seemed an interesting project for a while. And though I am hesitant to quote Ann Coulter; nonetheless, an observation she made about Al Franken is particularly applicable to this situation so here goes:
It's interesting that the most devastating examples of my alleged "lies" keep changing. As soon as one is disproved, I'm asked to respond to another. This is behavior normally associated with conspiracy theorists in tinfoil hats. One crackpot argument after another is shot down - but the conspiracy theorists just move on to the next crackpot argument without pause or reconsideration. Certainly without apology.
Those who wonder why I have not the slightest interest in entertaining a similar approach by Mr. Hand in the comments threads of the Chronicles of Hand now have your answer...well most of it anyway.
{4} See the thread located HERE for details.
{5} Miscellaneous Musings on Reason, Logic, and Their Proper Application Thereof--An Audio Post (circa June 8, 2006)
{6} I am interested in dialogue not mindless debate and certainly not with those who are serially prone to shunning actual arguments in favour of normative public whining and handwringing.
Oh and see the postings in footnotes one and two for ample evidence of this assertion on my part. Unlike Mr. Hand, I prefer to provide evidences for my assertions and not just talk since we all know talk is cheap. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 22, 2005)]
{7} I am of the view that options are like lemon juice when cooking up a portfolio: a little can go a long way and should not be overdone. (More on this subject in the future if I feel inclined to want to discuss it again on my own volition or if someone emails me on it, etc.)
{8} The threads from where this idea took root and has developed in subsequent postings can be reviewed in the following posts (listed from oldest to newest):
Miscellaneous Morning Musings on Blogging, the So-Called "Neo-Cons", and the Miers Nomination--An Audio Post (circa October 27, 2005)
Briefly Revisiting the Term "Neo-Con" and its Usage With Christopher Blosser (circa November 9, 2005)
"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept. -A Continuing Series (circa December 4, 2005-March 6, 2006)
I note through March 6, 2006 not because the series is over yet but instead because I have simply not added to it since posting a thread on Dale Vree from New Oxford Review back in early March of this year where (despite everything else said about him in that thread) Dale at least comes the closest. (Essentially he defines it and then seeks to label with the term those who do not fit his definition: a subject for another time perhaps.)
Until there is an answer by those who frequently throw around the term "neo-con" without bothering to define it, the series will remain unfinished and ever-susceptible to my addition of yet more installments depending on time, circumstances, my mood to talk about it, etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I'm gonna say this once and because you are outta Littleton, Massachusetts I'm gonna say it all r-e-a-l s-l-o-w. [What Terry Funk would say to Stephen Hand if he was writing this post]
As was expected, Stephen Hand did not react kindly to my public resumption of the Chronicles of Hand weblog. What I found rather amusing though is the extent to which he thinks other focus on him when (in reality) the purpose behind the weblog was to categorize some of the threads I am occasionally sent from others of Mr. Hand's exaggerations, errors, and downright disingenuous statements.{1} However, before readers think I have taken time to write this post to respond to one person, I want to make it clear that it goes much further and deeper than that: getting to the root and matrix of what is wrong with our society generally speaking.
Mr. Hand you see is merely a poster child (emphasis on child) for what is wrong with our society. He epitomizes the ever-increasing unwillingness or inability of people generally speaking to utilize the natural God-given lights of reason and logic --their ornamental paens to those disciplines notwithstanding. It is by their failure to do this that they make a mockery of reason and logic and by demonstration espouse (i) a rational sophism, (ii) a theological fideism, and (iii) a general solipsistic approach to reality which permeates their discourse. People such as your humble servant are an annoyance for these kinds of people because we refuse to play this game out of a respect for the aforementioned God-given faculties. But before this gets too far offtrack, I want to return to the purpose of this posting and also an explanation for why the Chronicles of Hand (C of H) weblog was founded and what it was (and is) intended to demonstrate.
After one too many wasted go-arounds with Mr. Hand, the idea of keeping a small archive of some of the more libelous assertions he has made against myself and friends/associates of mine{2} came to me in a flash and I ran with it (as is my wont with these kinds of things). The project was undertaken earlier this year and christened The Chronicles of Hand. though some parties thought The Chronicles of Handia would be more appropriate. The latter was envisioned essentially as a kind of hedge against Mr. Hand's continual attempts to claim innocence in the ad hominem department{3} and was a project worth doing for a while. The investment of time was miniscule and basically it would involve whatever readers of my weblog (who knew of Mr. Hand's animus against me and some of my friends/associates) happened to draw my attention to.
The aforementioned point seems appropriate to note at this time since I never once have gone to TCR to look for stuff to include on the C of H and do not envision ever doing that. However, the unfortunate circumstances from March of this year{4} made such an exercise in my mind absurd since there were greater (and more supernatural) factors that entered into the matrix of issues and which were far more deserving of the investment of one's time on. But that is neither here nor there.
I have said it before on more than one occasion{5} and I will say it again at this time: I can defend any position I have taken on any issue whatsoever. These are not merely words on my part but they have been backed up with actions which is a hell of a lot more than many people can say. However, just because I can defend any position taken does not mean that I will. There are time factors to consider of course as well as what issues are of greater importance than others in the hierarchy of disputation if you will. And as far as I am concerned, arguing for a position on its intrinsic merits or lack thereof utilizing the tools of reason and logic is a serious business and far too many of a sophistic bent either do not realize this or they fail to take seriously the principle that ideas are serious things.
People have fought for ideas, they have died for ideas, and this has not only not changed in the present but these things still occur. Therefore, what someone is willing to involve themselves in (should they set foot into the arena of ideas) should be focused on primary or serious matters and not secondary or ancillary griping. What interests me is the discipline of the dialogue.
I am willing to consider for engagement on various and sundry issues anyone else who shows a similar concern for what that entails. I am also interested in productive dialogue which means getting beyond the useless back and forth exchanges{6} where no one is willing to put their foundational presuppositions on the line and reapprise them at regular intervals. The latter is a process that by its very nature must involve respecting the faculties of reason and logic. That means one has to consider from time to time not only if the arguments they use to advance their position are good ones or not but even if their position itself is actually correct. As all of this probably sounds more complicated than it actually is, I will use the analogy of stocks and options to explain it in brief.
Those who are familiar with how stocks and options have a symbiotic relationship know that one of the reasons many investors like options{7} is because a small movement in the stock results in a magnified movement in the underlying option. This is the potential power inherent in dealing with foundational presuppositions of an individual: small shifts there can result in magnified movements in the individual's weltanschauung though sometimes it takes a bit of time for working out the ramifications of such shifts.
Mr. Hand is not interested in the slightest in wading into those waters. Instead, he wants to snipe at me for not allowing him to fill comments boxes at the C of H with ancillary drivel to waste both my time as well as that of others. He considers my refusal to play this game to be "censorship" on my part rather than an expedient attempt to keep focus on the actual issues and avoid distractions. I will however reverse my policy on the comments thread at the C of H if Mr. Hand is willing to take this request seriously. As it has been a while since I publicly said anything on this at Rerum Novarum, pardon the brief reiteration at this time if you have seen this stuff before:
Essentially, I took a look at the back and forth threads between Mr. Hand and his positional adversaries (including myself) and boiled it down to four points on which clarification was requested from him back in October of this year. Those points fell under the following headings:
Issue 1 - Magisterial vs. Non-Magisterial
Issue 2 - Recourse to Statistics Which Have Been Either Debunked or (At a Minimum) Have Been Challenged As To Their Veracity
Issue 3 - Use of Divisive Epithets by Mr. Hand to Distinguish Various Catholics Contrary to Explicit Magisterial Teachings Proscribing This Conduct
Issue 4 - Confusion on the Issue of Just War, Whose Authority The Criteria is Ascertained, Whose Authority a Just War is Levied, Etc. by Mr. Hand
I summarized the points covered under each heading in these words at the end of the posting (all footnotes excised):
--Viz. Issue 1, there are several points which need a response from Mr. Hand. They can all be summarized in Greg's recent question to Mr. Hand[...]. However, for the sake of greater exactness, I want to note the others which pertain to the latter. They are (i) a public request from me for Mr. Hand to clarify once and for all if Pope John Paul II's position on the war -which seems to be mirrored by his successor Pope Benedict XVI- constitutes Church teaching or not and (ii) should he answer in the negative on the matter, Mr. Hand needs to make it clear that he accepts the position on the matter that the Church does with the proper disposition of mind and in the future reflect this realization accordingly in his writings and statements on the subject in question.
If Mr. Hand responds to my request in the affirmative, he is called upon to produce the magisterial texts to support to support his usage of authoritative language and also to support his reference to the war issue as "grave" and justify this usage in light of the doctrinal clarifications of the present pope on these matters when he was chief theologian for the previous pope.
---Viz. Issue 2, Mr. Hand needs to explain (i) why he continues to parrot discredited statistics as he does and (ii) why anyone should take him seriously as a credible commentator on these issues in light of his continual parrotting of said discredited statistics.
---Viz. Issue 3, Mr. Hand also has to explain why he continues for ideological reasons to flout the teachings of Pope Benedict XV on the use of derisive labels as he does.
---Viz. Issue 4, Mr. Hand needs to explain why he reads into the words of Cardinal Ratzinger (on Pope John Paul II's view being one "of conscience enlightened by faith") sentiments not expressed by him. Furthermore, it would be nice if Mr. Hand could explain to us in light of what I have noted in this posting from Catholic sources[...] how his manifested views on just war (viz. who is the competent authority to assess the evidences and ultimately levy such a war) are at all congruent with the totality of the Catholic just war tradition.
While more could be noted, I think this suffices. One of the roles of dialogue is clarification and I have not been hesitant to clarify my positions over the years when others have questioned me on them. Mr. Hand mentioned having a debate but in truth, a dialogue is potentially far more productive than a debate. Mr. Hand has claimed I and others have misrepresented him on various issues. I have chosen these four issues to request from him further clarifications. In the interest of facilitating dialogue on these issues in accordance with the minds of the recent (and present) pope,[...] I humbly request of Mr. Hand clarifications on the points noted above. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa October 6, 2005)]
After eight months of Mr. Hand dodging the above requests for clarification --and I have reiterated this request about a dozen times in that span albeit none of them were in the past three months prior to this point-- any assertions that I "fear open debate" from him can easily be seen for what it is by those with eyes to see. But that is not all.
For I also have issued a challenge with him and several other persons in mind{8} but I do not want to touch on it until the above challenge is met first. (At least not with Mr. Hand.) Readers can judge from Mr. Hand's refusal to engage these issues who among the two of us is really afraid of engaging the issues publicly but for the sake of the slower sorts in Littleton, MA I will give a final hint: it is certainly not any of Us at Rerum Novarum.
Notes:
{1} Generally pertaining either to me or to others I happen to know. I explained the reason for the weblog in these message box comments to Mr. Hand (who chalked the existence of the weblog up to some strange attempt to "flatter" him) in this manner:
The original idea of this weblog was to archive some of your more egregious public statements before you decided to airbrush them from your site. If you think categorizing a handful of your gaffes (and there is not enough time in the day to deal with them all even if we wanted to) constitutes "flattery" than you have a strange understanding of that term.
Unlike Mr. Hand, my archives are an open book whereas he does not maintain a public archive. He claims to archive stuff on his computer but that is essentially leaving the fox in charge of the henhouse for reasons I have outlined in the past on this very weblog -particularly HERE, HERE, and HERE.
{2} The difference between you and I with the ad hominem Stephen is that I make actual arguments and you make insulting insinuations and throw around terms you do not bother defining. Then when you are asked to define them, you ignore such requests. I fail to see how you think people should take you seriously when you do that. [I. Shawn McElhinney to Stephen Hand Via The Chronicles of Hand Comments Box (circa June 26, 2006)]
{3} In light of how he and not a few others like to try and revise the historical record by removing in various ways public statements they have made --and almost always without apology-- this seemed an interesting project for a while. And though I am hesitant to quote Ann Coulter; nonetheless, an observation she made about Al Franken is particularly applicable to this situation so here goes:
It's interesting that the most devastating examples of my alleged "lies" keep changing. As soon as one is disproved, I'm asked to respond to another. This is behavior normally associated with conspiracy theorists in tinfoil hats. One crackpot argument after another is shot down - but the conspiracy theorists just move on to the next crackpot argument without pause or reconsideration. Certainly without apology.
Those who wonder why I have not the slightest interest in entertaining a similar approach by Mr. Hand in the comments threads of the Chronicles of Hand now have your answer...well most of it anyway.
{4} See the thread located HERE for details.
{5} Miscellaneous Musings on Reason, Logic, and Their Proper Application Thereof--An Audio Post (circa June 8, 2006)
{6} I am interested in dialogue not mindless debate and certainly not with those who are serially prone to shunning actual arguments in favour of normative public whining and handwringing.
Oh and see the postings in footnotes one and two for ample evidence of this assertion on my part. Unlike Mr. Hand, I prefer to provide evidences for my assertions and not just talk since we all know talk is cheap. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 22, 2005)]
{7} I am of the view that options are like lemon juice when cooking up a portfolio: a little can go a long way and should not be overdone. (More on this subject in the future if I feel inclined to want to discuss it again on my own volition or if someone emails me on it, etc.)
{8} The threads from where this idea took root and has developed in subsequent postings can be reviewed in the following posts (listed from oldest to newest):
Miscellaneous Morning Musings on Blogging, the So-Called "Neo-Cons", and the Miers Nomination--An Audio Post (circa October 27, 2005)
Briefly Revisiting the Term "Neo-Con" and its Usage With Christopher Blosser (circa November 9, 2005)
"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept. -A Continuing Series (circa December 4, 2005-March 6, 2006)
I note through March 6, 2006 not because the series is over yet but instead because I have simply not added to it since posting a thread on Dale Vree from New Oxford Review back in early March of this year where (despite everything else said about him in that thread) Dale at least comes the closest. (Essentially he defines it and then seeks to label with the term those who do not fit his definition: a subject for another time perhaps.)
Until there is an answer by those who frequently throw around the term "neo-con" without bothering to define it, the series will remain unfinished and ever-susceptible to my addition of yet more installments depending on time, circumstances, my mood to talk about it, etc.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Briefly on the Resumption of The Chronicles of Hand Weblog:
[Update: I tweaked this posting a bit so it reads less cluttered than it did when I threw it up in a matter of minutes yesterday. -ISM 6/26/06 1:30pm]
I was frankly quite content to let the Chronicles of Hand weblog be mothballed and remain in that state in perpetuity. Indeed, readers of Rerum Novarum who are familiar with what transpired in March of this year are aware that Mr. Hand had a family tragedy with his son of which I was sympathetic to for reasons too numerous to go over here in brief. I also had hoped that the situation would produce in him the kind of changes that can happen when people are drawn out of their own little worlds and into reality the way family deaths and/or sicknesses, etc can but obviously that did not happen. And while more could be noted on the matter than that, I do not intend at the present time to say anything else and instead move onto the reason for resuming the activity of the aforementioned weblog.
Essentially, the latest ignorant vitriol against yours truly was deserving of comment if only because of the common stereotypes that Mr. Hand is espousing. Without further ado, one can read HERE my interaction with some of the material he posted on 6/22/06 as sent to me via email.{1} For the time being, that is all that will be noted here except to remind readers of my previous request to not speculate on this matter and how once again your host's predictions were accurate as they usually are in non-sports related subject matters.
Note:
{1} I am not about to check to see if he has changed it since then but knowing his trackrecord, it is even money that he may well have done so. This is touched upon briefly in both the recent Chronicles posting and also in a recent audioposting where I discussed this problem that certain critics -Mr. Hand among them- have demonstrated in spades over the years on various and sundry subjects of disputation. The aforementioned audioposting can be listened to here:
Miscellaneous Musings on Reason, Logic, and Their Proper Application Thereof--An Audio Post (circa June 8, 2006)
[Update: I tweaked this posting a bit so it reads less cluttered than it did when I threw it up in a matter of minutes yesterday. -ISM 6/26/06 1:30pm]
I was frankly quite content to let the Chronicles of Hand weblog be mothballed and remain in that state in perpetuity. Indeed, readers of Rerum Novarum who are familiar with what transpired in March of this year are aware that Mr. Hand had a family tragedy with his son of which I was sympathetic to for reasons too numerous to go over here in brief. I also had hoped that the situation would produce in him the kind of changes that can happen when people are drawn out of their own little worlds and into reality the way family deaths and/or sicknesses, etc can but obviously that did not happen. And while more could be noted on the matter than that, I do not intend at the present time to say anything else and instead move onto the reason for resuming the activity of the aforementioned weblog.
Essentially, the latest ignorant vitriol against yours truly was deserving of comment if only because of the common stereotypes that Mr. Hand is espousing. Without further ado, one can read HERE my interaction with some of the material he posted on 6/22/06 as sent to me via email.{1} For the time being, that is all that will be noted here except to remind readers of my previous request to not speculate on this matter and how once again your host's predictions were accurate as they usually are in non-sports related subject matters.
Note:
{1} I am not about to check to see if he has changed it since then but knowing his trackrecord, it is even money that he may well have done so. This is touched upon briefly in both the recent Chronicles posting and also in a recent audioposting where I discussed this problem that certain critics -Mr. Hand among them- have demonstrated in spades over the years on various and sundry subjects of disputation. The aforementioned audioposting can be listened to here:
Miscellaneous Musings on Reason, Logic, and Their Proper Application Thereof--An Audio Post (circa June 8, 2006)
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Friday, June 23, 2006
Some Recent and Future Weblog Additions, A Reappraisal of Site Principles, Reapplying Said Principles, and Other Applicable Tidbits:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The fee-ling is gone
I won't be your fool again...
The feel-ing is gonnne away...
I won't be your fool again...
What you have in front of you is the thread spoken of earlier this week. And as was predicted by us last week, some unsavoury sorts took a "ready, fire, aim" approach to some of the side margin additions without giving us the opportunity we requested to explain their inclusion here first. Coincidentally (perhaps), these are the same sorts of people who try to claim they model themselves after Jesus Christ and Saint Paul. That such people often fall into the "ready fire, aim" category and (just as concidentally perhaps) they will at some point go back and either delete their comments or revise them to remove the more odious parts should someone bring it to their attention.
Indeed, the above scenario was already anticipated (and briefly explained) by us in a recent audioposting along with the kind of challenge these sorts of people shirk from in true yellowbelly fashion ala a vampire fleeing from a crucifix. But enough noting on noting predictions on our part which have either already been vindicated or at some point will be in the future and onto the promised explanation at hand for the various changes that have been made already (or remain to be made in the future) at this weblog.
Now readers of (and listeners to) this humble weblog have probably noticed some new additions to the side margin in the blogroll department. As your host has started the laborious nature of preparing a weblog update (the first since February of this year), it seems appropriate to note briefly what these webroll additions are for and why they were added particularly since it is not often that structural adjustments are made to the weblog akin to what will be done in a peacemeal fashion in the coming days and weeks ahead.
To start with, there has been a longtime tiring on our part of certain typecasting tendencies that are common amongst certain kinds of people that have been applied to the present writer (and by logical extension, this weblog) over the years.{1} This element of the equation may be touched on more in detail later on when an email correspondence from last year is blogged where the subject was dealt with to some extent.{2} The bottom line though is that there are and have been interests that significantly exceed what has been written on thus far either in this weblog or in past essay or message board formats by us. After all, your host is reasonably well read on more subjects than can be casually listed but the problem is, this does not often translate well in a society of soundbytes where people seek to label others{3} in various ways to try and "categorize" them. However, as that is something that the present writer has bitched on a few occasions in the past, there is no desire at the present time to delve anew into that subject.{4}
Part and parcel to the latter circumstance is the recognition that certain circles that your host had afflilated with over time had little if any interest in considering some of the creative ways put forth on this weblog for dealing with problems in society which were not only logical and rational but also consistent. One can only watch the same people miss the boat over and over again before realizing that they are either unwilling or unable to think beyond whatever their chosen masters happen to be. Or to quote from the late great Mike Mentzer who long ago (in your host's younger days) influenced our intellectual cultivation:
[W]hat I observed [with other people] was abject conformity and the desperate desire for the safety of will-less passivity. Not passivity of the body, but passivity of the mind…They were either unwilling or unable to think beyond the confines established by the pack…They lead blighted lives, bereft of any interest in science, philosophy, morality or art… They were merely passing through existence, as cultural ballast, individuals that never looked up, held nothing sacred; while I and others seeking to achieve the ideal were righteously doing what truly, in logic and reality, was of fundamental importance.
Whatever differences exist between this writer and those whose webrolls he has affiliated with in recent months,{5} at least there seems to be as a rule a similarity in looking for viable solutions to problems rather than regurgitating tired old formularies in a blind and uncritical fashion. The latter tiring and predictable pattern was recognized a long time ago by us but frankly it did not seem worth noting at the time publicly. However, the season has arrived to note it since we do not intend any longer to entertain such people here at Rerum Novarum either explicitly or by implication.
Admittedly, the present writer was maybe a bit naive in presuming that good ideas which were presented logically would appeal to a cross-section of those who were of good will amongst those with whom we were affiliated.{6} Nonetheless, we harbour no such illusions anymore and therefore have decided to focus elsewhere where potentially these kinds of ideas may find an audience willing to assimilate them and (perhaps) contribute to their further elucidation and propagation amongst the populace at large.{7} Basically, the blogroll the present writer had occasionally toyed with in years past on a private weblog{8} will be installed here soon...it is currently being built in spare moments and should be ready for unveiling over the weekend if not sooner to facilitate easier monitoring by us in the months ahead. Rather than viewing what will transpire as a definitive burning of bridges, longtime readers should see this as a separation of certain allegiences that are no longer viewed as adequate.
For one can be critical of systems or structures without being critical of people who operate within them -either out of habit or otherwise. And those who have been closest to the present writer in recent years need not think that what is in the works at this weblog will in any way detract from either that or their friendship with us. After all, your host has never made personal differences a reason for breaking up friendships however much others may have done this either in the past or at the present time.{9} And while for a long time we viewed this as adequately implied in everything we have done at this humble weblog, in light of the permutations currently taking place or which are in the works, perhaps no time like the present is more appropriate to explicitly state this to remove any doubt whatsoever on this matter.{10}
Now regular readers are hardly unaware that Rerum Novarum was enrolled in the American Conservative Blogroll a while back.{11} Of more recent vintage was our inclusion in the Children of the Confederacy Blogroll as well as a pending application for involvement in two other webrolls. In light of these activities, it seems appropriate to briefly note what the intentions of the above involvements on our part involve.
The reason for involvement in the American Conservative Blogroll is for networking purposes with a group who share general principles (if not how said principles are to be applied) in actively engaging the culture wars. The reason for involvement in the other two affiliations (not named as of this writing) are for similar reasons as the affiliation with the American Conservative Blogroll. The Children of the Confederacy involvement was more a whim on the present writer's part after considering how southern in many ways he is for one not born or raised in Dixie.{12} Basically, a long-sensed need for proactive approaches to make the present writer's ideas for fruitfully combatting the problems in society today reached the point of no return recently. It therefore seemed appropriate to us to write the present posting to explain some of the factors involved. And while more could be noted on this subject,{13} at the present time that is all your humble servant intends to say on it.
If anything, the aforementioned upcoming posting of an email from last year will point out how this decision is actually one of being true to the present writer's long-held principles. For much as Ronald Reagan once said that he never left the Democratic Party but the Democratic Party left him, the present writer has not changed either in his core principles or on any other subject of a significant nature over the years. What has changed though is the surrounding landscape and certain intuitions that your host had from time to time{14} being manifested with greater clarity by various parties to an appalling degree.
In summary, the mask was removed and what was revealed was what was truly underneath it all along. And while the latter is something the present writer may touch on if he feels inclined to in the future, that is all that will be noted at the present time except (of course) that we at Rerum Novarum want no part anymore be it explicitly or tacitly in giving support to reactionary, blind, and unthinking sophistic timewasters.
Notes:
{1} Certain episodes --both already past and also to some extent ongoing and/or unresolved as of this writing-- essentially made this decision on our part inevitable as we consider it now in retrospect.
{2} Some additional situations and circumstances since that text was written will probably be touched upon in a subsequent posting should your host be inclined to deal with those subjects.
{3} That is not to say that labels on occasion cannot be qpplied of course; however accuracy should be the goal in that endeavour whenever it is utilized: something your host does with care unlike the vast majority of people out there regardless of their particular socio/political/religious operative presuppositions.
{4} We may write or contribute to writings from friends and associates on some of these matters in the coming months depending on the present writer's available time for such things as well as our mood for discussing those subjects. (Suffice to say, this writer is aware of certain projects from other parties currently in draft form which would adequately address some of these problems when completed but enough on that for now.)
{5} Even if the latter affiliation was (and is) more of a loose confederation than a coordinated effort.
{6} Certainly there are a few differences though noting what has been discerned thus far is not necessary as it does not detract from the general rule we noted in the posting above.
{7} Some of this was noted in a weblog posting from last year titled On "Social Commentary" and St. Blog's "Awards" posted on February 7, 2005. The parts particularly germane to the context of this posting are the following ones:
[L]et us get real: if we really want to get technical about it, (and modesty aside for the duration of this note) this category should be a three blog race between Rerum Novarum, Southern Appeal, and Dust in the Light. No one else who is nominated in that category of the "big five" finalists has anything particularly original to offer in these areas. All of which (thus far) confirms my long-viewed assessment about the "worth" of these kinds of awards: the predictable ones win and those who are truly creative in their analysis and suggestions (as in the three noted above are to some extent) tend to be more marginalized. But of course as assertions by themselves are cheap, here are several examples which pertain to the subject of social commentary as dealt with at Rerum Novarum --all of which are to some degree original (either in and of themselves) or in my development/refining of the underlying concepts involved.[...]...
I should note that it is my concern for ideas such as those noted above reaching a broader audience that I have made any issue out of this "award." It is certainly not for the sake of the "award" itself -heck, I am frankly surprised that anyone would nominate this weblog for a specialized kind of category when it does not categorize well by my own admission. But at the very least, if Rerum Novarum is nominated for this category, then it deserves to be in there with weblogs which actually fit the category itself...This proves that the so-called "award" process in general is merely an exercise of nominating people for the sake of nominating them -not because they actually fit into the category to which they are being nominated. I need not explain further why this cheapens any pretense of a genuine "award" being offered here presumably; ergo I will not belabour this point further.
In closing, the "award" in and of itself is something that I frankly could care less about if not for the ideas I have worked on at this weblog over the years and crystallized into viable policies and principled arguments. It is with an eye towards reaching that broader audience with these concepts which is why I raise these issues at all at the present time. For that reason, "social commentary" nominees should be able to make a case for similar contributions[...] and not merely be there because they were nominated in every category under the sun regardless of their qualifications to be in a respective category thereof. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa February 7, 2005)]
Thankfully, Southern Appeal won the category for 2004 and some of those who had no business being nominated did not. Unfortunately, that cannot be said for 2005 where at least two of my three pre-voting predictions came to pass and in not a few places, people "won" for categories they had no business being nominated for. In the meantime, banners are posted, people "campaign" for this stuff, and serious and principled ideas that (if considered and promoted) could create a seismic shift in the foundational presuppositions of many who are on the wrong side of the culture wars get ignored. Pardon those of us who think the latter is inexcusable and refuse in the future to in any fashion whatsoever contribute to such negligence either explicitly or (as occasionally was the case in the past) tacitly via our silence on the matters in question.
{8} Briefly on Blogrolling Formats (circa April 22, 2003)
{9} The names of the parties we have in mind will not be mentioned in order to protect the guilty and avoid making this a matter of personalities rather than the principles that are involved here.
{10} We do not after all want friends being at a loss as to how to interpret what has taken place and is in the process of taking place; ergo this clarification is being supplied by us at the present time.
{11} On the American Conservative Webring and Our Involvement Therein (circa April 19, 2006)
{12} And whose ancestors during the War Between the States fought for the west ;-)
{13} Other facets will be covered in the posting of an email from last year which will highlight other elements and explain why this realignment is not as much of a break as longtime casual readers may presume.
{14} But the present writer generally did not speak about these matters publicly.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The fee-ling is gone
I won't be your fool again...
The feel-ing is gonnne away...
I won't be your fool again...
What you have in front of you is the thread spoken of earlier this week. And as was predicted by us last week, some unsavoury sorts took a "ready, fire, aim" approach to some of the side margin additions without giving us the opportunity we requested to explain their inclusion here first. Coincidentally (perhaps), these are the same sorts of people who try to claim they model themselves after Jesus Christ and Saint Paul. That such people often fall into the "ready fire, aim" category and (just as concidentally perhaps) they will at some point go back and either delete their comments or revise them to remove the more odious parts should someone bring it to their attention.
Indeed, the above scenario was already anticipated (and briefly explained) by us in a recent audioposting along with the kind of challenge these sorts of people shirk from in true yellowbelly fashion ala a vampire fleeing from a crucifix. But enough noting on noting predictions on our part which have either already been vindicated or at some point will be in the future and onto the promised explanation at hand for the various changes that have been made already (or remain to be made in the future) at this weblog.
Now readers of (and listeners to) this humble weblog have probably noticed some new additions to the side margin in the blogroll department. As your host has started the laborious nature of preparing a weblog update (the first since February of this year), it seems appropriate to note briefly what these webroll additions are for and why they were added particularly since it is not often that structural adjustments are made to the weblog akin to what will be done in a peacemeal fashion in the coming days and weeks ahead.
To start with, there has been a longtime tiring on our part of certain typecasting tendencies that are common amongst certain kinds of people that have been applied to the present writer (and by logical extension, this weblog) over the years.{1} This element of the equation may be touched on more in detail later on when an email correspondence from last year is blogged where the subject was dealt with to some extent.{2} The bottom line though is that there are and have been interests that significantly exceed what has been written on thus far either in this weblog or in past essay or message board formats by us. After all, your host is reasonably well read on more subjects than can be casually listed but the problem is, this does not often translate well in a society of soundbytes where people seek to label others{3} in various ways to try and "categorize" them. However, as that is something that the present writer has bitched on a few occasions in the past, there is no desire at the present time to delve anew into that subject.{4}
Part and parcel to the latter circumstance is the recognition that certain circles that your host had afflilated with over time had little if any interest in considering some of the creative ways put forth on this weblog for dealing with problems in society which were not only logical and rational but also consistent. One can only watch the same people miss the boat over and over again before realizing that they are either unwilling or unable to think beyond whatever their chosen masters happen to be. Or to quote from the late great Mike Mentzer who long ago (in your host's younger days) influenced our intellectual cultivation:
[W]hat I observed [with other people] was abject conformity and the desperate desire for the safety of will-less passivity. Not passivity of the body, but passivity of the mind…They were either unwilling or unable to think beyond the confines established by the pack…They lead blighted lives, bereft of any interest in science, philosophy, morality or art… They were merely passing through existence, as cultural ballast, individuals that never looked up, held nothing sacred; while I and others seeking to achieve the ideal were righteously doing what truly, in logic and reality, was of fundamental importance.
Whatever differences exist between this writer and those whose webrolls he has affiliated with in recent months,{5} at least there seems to be as a rule a similarity in looking for viable solutions to problems rather than regurgitating tired old formularies in a blind and uncritical fashion. The latter tiring and predictable pattern was recognized a long time ago by us but frankly it did not seem worth noting at the time publicly. However, the season has arrived to note it since we do not intend any longer to entertain such people here at Rerum Novarum either explicitly or by implication.
Admittedly, the present writer was maybe a bit naive in presuming that good ideas which were presented logically would appeal to a cross-section of those who were of good will amongst those with whom we were affiliated.{6} Nonetheless, we harbour no such illusions anymore and therefore have decided to focus elsewhere where potentially these kinds of ideas may find an audience willing to assimilate them and (perhaps) contribute to their further elucidation and propagation amongst the populace at large.{7} Basically, the blogroll the present writer had occasionally toyed with in years past on a private weblog{8} will be installed here soon...it is currently being built in spare moments and should be ready for unveiling over the weekend if not sooner to facilitate easier monitoring by us in the months ahead. Rather than viewing what will transpire as a definitive burning of bridges, longtime readers should see this as a separation of certain allegiences that are no longer viewed as adequate.
For one can be critical of systems or structures without being critical of people who operate within them -either out of habit or otherwise. And those who have been closest to the present writer in recent years need not think that what is in the works at this weblog will in any way detract from either that or their friendship with us. After all, your host has never made personal differences a reason for breaking up friendships however much others may have done this either in the past or at the present time.{9} And while for a long time we viewed this as adequately implied in everything we have done at this humble weblog, in light of the permutations currently taking place or which are in the works, perhaps no time like the present is more appropriate to explicitly state this to remove any doubt whatsoever on this matter.{10}
Now regular readers are hardly unaware that Rerum Novarum was enrolled in the American Conservative Blogroll a while back.{11} Of more recent vintage was our inclusion in the Children of the Confederacy Blogroll as well as a pending application for involvement in two other webrolls. In light of these activities, it seems appropriate to briefly note what the intentions of the above involvements on our part involve.
The reason for involvement in the American Conservative Blogroll is for networking purposes with a group who share general principles (if not how said principles are to be applied) in actively engaging the culture wars. The reason for involvement in the other two affiliations (not named as of this writing) are for similar reasons as the affiliation with the American Conservative Blogroll. The Children of the Confederacy involvement was more a whim on the present writer's part after considering how southern in many ways he is for one not born or raised in Dixie.{12} Basically, a long-sensed need for proactive approaches to make the present writer's ideas for fruitfully combatting the problems in society today reached the point of no return recently. It therefore seemed appropriate to us to write the present posting to explain some of the factors involved. And while more could be noted on this subject,{13} at the present time that is all your humble servant intends to say on it.
If anything, the aforementioned upcoming posting of an email from last year will point out how this decision is actually one of being true to the present writer's long-held principles. For much as Ronald Reagan once said that he never left the Democratic Party but the Democratic Party left him, the present writer has not changed either in his core principles or on any other subject of a significant nature over the years. What has changed though is the surrounding landscape and certain intuitions that your host had from time to time{14} being manifested with greater clarity by various parties to an appalling degree.
In summary, the mask was removed and what was revealed was what was truly underneath it all along. And while the latter is something the present writer may touch on if he feels inclined to in the future, that is all that will be noted at the present time except (of course) that we at Rerum Novarum want no part anymore be it explicitly or tacitly in giving support to reactionary, blind, and unthinking sophistic timewasters.
Notes:
{1} Certain episodes --both already past and also to some extent ongoing and/or unresolved as of this writing-- essentially made this decision on our part inevitable as we consider it now in retrospect.
{2} Some additional situations and circumstances since that text was written will probably be touched upon in a subsequent posting should your host be inclined to deal with those subjects.
{3} That is not to say that labels on occasion cannot be qpplied of course; however accuracy should be the goal in that endeavour whenever it is utilized: something your host does with care unlike the vast majority of people out there regardless of their particular socio/political/religious operative presuppositions.
{4} We may write or contribute to writings from friends and associates on some of these matters in the coming months depending on the present writer's available time for such things as well as our mood for discussing those subjects. (Suffice to say, this writer is aware of certain projects from other parties currently in draft form which would adequately address some of these problems when completed but enough on that for now.)
{5} Even if the latter affiliation was (and is) more of a loose confederation than a coordinated effort.
{6} Certainly there are a few differences though noting what has been discerned thus far is not necessary as it does not detract from the general rule we noted in the posting above.
{7} Some of this was noted in a weblog posting from last year titled On "Social Commentary" and St. Blog's "Awards" posted on February 7, 2005. The parts particularly germane to the context of this posting are the following ones:
[L]et us get real: if we really want to get technical about it, (and modesty aside for the duration of this note) this category should be a three blog race between Rerum Novarum, Southern Appeal, and Dust in the Light. No one else who is nominated in that category of the "big five" finalists has anything particularly original to offer in these areas. All of which (thus far) confirms my long-viewed assessment about the "worth" of these kinds of awards: the predictable ones win and those who are truly creative in their analysis and suggestions (as in the three noted above are to some extent) tend to be more marginalized. But of course as assertions by themselves are cheap, here are several examples which pertain to the subject of social commentary as dealt with at Rerum Novarum --all of which are to some degree original (either in and of themselves) or in my development/refining of the underlying concepts involved.[...]...
I should note that it is my concern for ideas such as those noted above reaching a broader audience that I have made any issue out of this "award." It is certainly not for the sake of the "award" itself -heck, I am frankly surprised that anyone would nominate this weblog for a specialized kind of category when it does not categorize well by my own admission. But at the very least, if Rerum Novarum is nominated for this category, then it deserves to be in there with weblogs which actually fit the category itself...This proves that the so-called "award" process in general is merely an exercise of nominating people for the sake of nominating them -not because they actually fit into the category to which they are being nominated. I need not explain further why this cheapens any pretense of a genuine "award" being offered here presumably; ergo I will not belabour this point further.
In closing, the "award" in and of itself is something that I frankly could care less about if not for the ideas I have worked on at this weblog over the years and crystallized into viable policies and principled arguments. It is with an eye towards reaching that broader audience with these concepts which is why I raise these issues at all at the present time. For that reason, "social commentary" nominees should be able to make a case for similar contributions[...] and not merely be there because they were nominated in every category under the sun regardless of their qualifications to be in a respective category thereof. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa February 7, 2005)]
Thankfully, Southern Appeal won the category for 2004 and some of those who had no business being nominated did not. Unfortunately, that cannot be said for 2005 where at least two of my three pre-voting predictions came to pass and in not a few places, people "won" for categories they had no business being nominated for. In the meantime, banners are posted, people "campaign" for this stuff, and serious and principled ideas that (if considered and promoted) could create a seismic shift in the foundational presuppositions of many who are on the wrong side of the culture wars get ignored. Pardon those of us who think the latter is inexcusable and refuse in the future to in any fashion whatsoever contribute to such negligence either explicitly or (as occasionally was the case in the past) tacitly via our silence on the matters in question.
{8} Briefly on Blogrolling Formats (circa April 22, 2003)
{9} The names of the parties we have in mind will not be mentioned in order to protect the guilty and avoid making this a matter of personalities rather than the principles that are involved here.
{10} We do not after all want friends being at a loss as to how to interpret what has taken place and is in the process of taking place; ergo this clarification is being supplied by us at the present time.
{11} On the American Conservative Webring and Our Involvement Therein (circa April 19, 2006)
{12} And whose ancestors during the War Between the States fought for the west ;-)
{13} Other facets will be covered in the posting of an email from last year which will highlight other elements and explain why this realignment is not as much of a break as longtime casual readers may presume.
{14} But the present writer generally did not speak about these matters publicly.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On the Violent Death Rate in Iraq Compared to Many US Cities)
According to [Rep. Steve King of Iowa], the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000. That may sound high, but not when you compare it to places like Colombia 61.7" per 100,000 death rate, violent death rate. South Africa, has a higher violent death rate per 100,000: 49.6 per 100,000. Even Jamaica has a higher violent death rate than does Iraq: 32.4, and Venezuela comes in at 31.6 violent deaths per 100,000. "How about the violent death rates in American cities? New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina was 53.1," violent death rate per 100,000. "FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington" DC's violent death rate at 45.9 per 100,000; Baltimore at 37.7 per 100,000, and Atlanta at 34.9 per 100,000. The figure again from Iraq, 25.71 per 100,000, and that includes the war. [Rush Limbaugh]
(On the Violent Death Rate in Iraq Compared to Many US Cities)
According to [Rep. Steve King of Iowa], the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000. That may sound high, but not when you compare it to places like Colombia 61.7" per 100,000 death rate, violent death rate. South Africa, has a higher violent death rate per 100,000: 49.6 per 100,000. Even Jamaica has a higher violent death rate than does Iraq: 32.4, and Venezuela comes in at 31.6 violent deaths per 100,000. "How about the violent death rates in American cities? New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina was 53.1," violent death rate per 100,000. "FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington" DC's violent death rate at 45.9 per 100,000; Baltimore at 37.7 per 100,000, and Atlanta at 34.9 per 100,000. The figure again from Iraq, 25.71 per 100,000, and that includes the war. [Rush Limbaugh]
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Saturday, June 17, 2006
It has just dawned on your weblog host that some of the webroll additions to the weblog margin in the past day or so may be misunderstood by some of you readers. For this reason, I will endeavour tomorrow or on Monday to explain the reasons for their additions. In the meantime, I ask those who are predisposed to take a "ready, fire, aim" approach to commentary generally speaking (and you know whom you are){1} to kindly cease and desist until the time that my reasons for those additions are explained to the readers of this humble weblog by yours truly. (At which time, this temporary posting will be deleted forthwith.)
[Update: The promised thread is about 65% done as of this moment and should be ready for blogging sometime tomorrow. -ISM 6/18/06 7:55pm]
Note:
{1} Indeed you sorts were primarily the ones I had in mind when recording this audioposting earlier in the month:
Miscellaneous Musings on Reason, Logic, and Their Proper Application Thereof--An Audio Post (circa June 8, 2006)
[Update: The promised thread is about 65% done as of this moment and should be ready for blogging sometime tomorrow. -ISM 6/18/06 7:55pm]
Note:
{1} Indeed you sorts were primarily the ones I had in mind when recording this audioposting earlier in the month:
Miscellaneous Musings on Reason, Logic, and Their Proper Application Thereof--An Audio Post (circa June 8, 2006)
Points to Ponder:
Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is "The Road to Serfdom."[...] He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens. [Janice Rogers Brown (circa April 20, 2000)]
Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is "The Road to Serfdom."[...] He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens. [Janice Rogers Brown (circa April 20, 2000)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)