As tomorrow will be the sixty-sixth anniversary of the birth of my late father Richard Dunn McElhinney (March 4, 1941), prayers for the eternal repose of his soul would be most appreciated.



Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed. Amen.

Points to Ponder:
(On the Real Legacy of Pope Pius XII -Born 131 Years Ago Today)

Jews, whatever their feeling about the Catholic Church, have a duty to reject any attempt to usurp the Holocaust and use it for partisan purposes in such a debate – particularly when the attempt disparages the testimony of Holocaust survivors and spreads to inappropriate figures the condemnation that belongs to Hitler and the Nazis.... "The Talmud teaches that whosoever preserves one life, it is accounted to him by scripture as if he had preserved the whole world." More than any other twentieth century leader, Pius fulfilled the Talmudic dictum when the fate of European Jewry was at stake. No other pope has been so widely praised by Jews – and they were not mistaken. Their gratitude, as well as that of the entire generation of the Holocaust survivors, testifies that Pius XII was genuinely and profoundly a righteous gentile. [Rabbi David Dalin]

Points to Ponder:

When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. [Schenck v. United States (circa 1919)]

"A Convenient Hypocrite" Dept.

To reiterate something noted on this weblog recently, is asking for people to not engage in double standards simply too much to ask for anymore??? Apparently not as the former "Number 2" of the nation has won Oscar awards for a "documentary"{1} where he encourages everyone to act in a fashion that he himself does not act in. Or as World Net Daily noted when quoting the acceptance speech of the former Vice-President of the United States from Sunday evening:

"My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis," Gore said after taking the stage. "It's not a political issue, it's a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act. That's a renewable resource. Let's renew it."

The problem with Mr. Gore publicly making such requests of other people is that he does not practice what he preaches. Or as the above WND article noted when it comes to Gore's actions as opposed to his statements on these matters:

Al Gore deserves an Oscar for hypocrisy to go along with the two Academy Awards his movie won last night, contends a think tank from his home state Tennessee.

The former vice president's mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, says the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, citing data from the Nashville Electric Service...

[A]ccording to the Tennessee think tank, while the average American household consumed 10,656 kilowatt-hours last year, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 – more than 20 times the national average.

Oh but there is more since at the very least if there was a decrease in Gore's usage then it would at least give the appearance that he is trying to curb his own usage to follow his own advice to others.{2}

Since the release of Gore's film, the former vice president and presidential candidate's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006.

In other words, do as Mr. Gore says, not as he does. Those who wonder why the present writer does not take him seriously need not consider anything more than that really -and that is the bottom line.


Notes:

{1} Do not get me started on the problems with the "facts" Gore presented except to say that he was very Michael Mooreish in his manipulation of the data to reach a pre-conceived conclusion.

{2} As habits can take a while to break, evidence of movement in the direction of his advice could be presumed to be an objective manifestation

Points to Ponder

People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. [Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan]

Miscellaneous Musings:

---I wonder when there will be some consistency from the crowd which was all up in hackles over the supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame's supposed "covert" CIA status by either Karl "Darth" Rove or one of his supporters.{1} Right now Lewis "Scooter" Libby is on trial accused of perjury. Here is what he is facing according to the above link:

Mr Libby is charged with two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements and one count of obstruction of justice. He faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines if found guilty.

Imagine that folks, 30 years in prison and a million quart all for mere perjury!!! I thought perjury was no big deal -indeed that is what certain nattering nabobs of the "anybody but Bush" contingent were saying back in 1999. Do we need to remind readers that back in 1999 President Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice??? And the consensus of those who opposed impeachment at the time{2} was that lying under oath was "no big deal." Now these same people want to approach Lewis Libby as if perjury in his case was somehow "a big deal." The reason that they do this of course should be obvious: perjury is "no big deal" when one of their people does it but when it is not one of their people then it is a problem. How about merely recognizing that perjury is wrong period. Or is asking for people to not engage in double standards simply too much to ask for anymore???

---Those who remember your host's contemplations of possible support for a Lieberman campaign in early 2004 and wondered what would bring that about, the reason is simple folks: he has principles.{3} And on the crucial issue of national security and recognizing the nature of the threat we face, Senator Lieberman has stood firm writing a very good Op-Ed piece for The Wall Street Journal this morning which includes this encapsulation of what we are facing right now in Iraq:

Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq--or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here? [Senator Joseph Lieberman: From The Choice on Iraq (circa February 26, 2007)]

In other words, are those who make a cottage industry out of bitching and moaning about the war interested in the real war or the political one??? More could be said by us but Sen. Lieberman sums it up well in the article above. It really is annoying at times that so many people are obtuse to what we are really facing in the world today threat-wise. There is a serious problem with modern people lacking historical perspective when it comes to matters of war.{4} For all of the Keystone Kops problems that have attended this war, it has still been remarkably successful if you gauge it to other wars in American history.

This writer for one does not write much on the war subject and the everyday flotsam and jetsam that the msm puts together because he took a well-reasoned consistent position on this back in 2003 which remains as valid as it was when it was first written.{5} Your host certainly never took his position based on the case made for war publicly made by the Bush Administration. And it would be pointless to note the areas where things could have been done better as that would cover the lions share of the post-war stability element of the equation.

The approach in the post-war stabilization area has changed in the past month as President Bush noted it would after the election of 2006. It seems appropriate therefore in light of a different approach being taken in Iraq in recent weeks -and judging from what we have seen so far, it is working- to at the very least take a "wait and see" approach. That is all your host plans to say on the matter at the present time.

---There is also a recent attempted Taliban assassination of Vice President Dick Cheney which is is now in the news. On that matter, it is summed up so well by Powerline that I will defer to what they have to say on the matter for now.

Notes:

{1} Briefly on the Karl Rove Situation (circa July 14, 2005)

{2} Your host thought then and thinks today that Kenneth Starr made a serious tactical blunder here when there were two other areas where far stronger cases for impeachment could have been made.

{3} The present writer has some serious issues with not a few of those principles but considering the flim flam nature of the present Administration at times, we were well within our rights to consider other feaasible options if they were presented to us. (Ultimately of course, they were not but that is another subject altogether.)

{4} [O]nly a military blow to the insurgency will allow the necessary window for the government to gain time, trust, and confidence to press ahead with reform and services. And this is as it always has been in wars. [Victor David Hanson: Give Petraeus a Chance (circa February 6, 2007)]

{5} Nothing of a significant nature since that time has happened to warrant a revision of the position as taken at that time -one which it should be noted was arrived at at a fairly slow and deliberative pace.

On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

As readers for some time are not unaware, the subject of problems that impede a proper understanding in dialogue have been written on before at this weblog at sundry times and in diverse manners.{1} However, there is one factor that while perhaps touched on in spots nonetheless has never been publicly developed before by the present writer in and of itself. What the present writer refers to here is something that has no small degree of confusion by many people is the confusion of their intentions with reality. One group who historically has made these mistakes are marxist revolutionary sorts. To briefly reference something written on this weblog back in 2005 pertaining to the subject at hand for illustrative purposes:

The marxists --and every promoter of socialism is a defacto marxist in some form or another[...]-- have a notorious double standard from which they operate. Essentially, they judge their own policies not by the uniform and undeniable[...] failure of their policies every time they have been tried. No, with the marxists it is on the intentions behind their policies that they focus on. But they then judge their political enemies -and America is probably first on that list- by the results of their policies. And since America --despite its overall success as a bastion of freedom unlike any nation in history-- is imperfect, then there are always points that can be focused on to America's discredit. But the marxist intentions of a "paradise on earth" are far more idyllic than the even the significant results that America has achieved. For that reason, the results of marxist policies are ignored while the intentions of the marxists are their point of focus.

Now granted, the marxists fabricated a lot of stuff to make things appear even worse than they actually were but that point aside, there is enough in the historical record without fabrications to enable America to always look bad next to the ideal that marxists claim to repine for. And that is the secret essentially to why marxists can lie, cheat, steal, murder, and commit any atrocity and still be held up as icons for the marxist cause ala the near-veneration of predators like Castro, Guevera, Ortega, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Lenin, etc. by not a few who disingenuously claim the mantles of "progressivist" or "peacemakers." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 20, 2005)]

The reason it was noted before that every socialist is a defacto marxist is because socialism is the communist tree in an earlier stage of growth.{2} But that is neither here nor there because the purpose of citing the above material in the present posting is to point out an example of the problems that come from confusing intentions with reality. This is what solipsism is as has been noted before: the self knowing nothing but its own states and their constituent modifications. To such persons, you can reason with them until your hair falls out but they will often not budge. One reason could be because they cannot be reasoned with. Another though can be due to the person confusing reality with their intentions.{3}

If we are dealing with a person's written words, the latter problem can at times make it very difficult to talk with them because while you point out to them what they actually said{4}, they may take issue with this and shift the ground to what they claim to have intended. This is a variation of a fallacy called red herring because it does not pertain to the issue of discussion.{5} In the case of shifting from emperical evidence of what was said to subjective intention of the person saying it is to shift from the non-normative to the normative context. Those terms were defined briefly here and the distinction being made between them is hardly insignificant. Indeed, the difference between what is objectively verifiable and what was subjectively intended is a night and day distinction because one can be verified by empirical evidence objectively and the other cannot.

As time allows for it (and if the mood to discuss them is there), the present writer may cover how certain fallacies of argumentation pertain to the distinction made above and how certain critics of your host involve themselves in these fallacies despite their claims otherwise. But in the meantime, hopefully this brief posting is adequate to point out an important distinction that many who confuse their intentions with reality need to be made aware of.

Notes:

{1} Among other subject matter pertaining to these matters in some fashion or another. (To note a few of them in brief, there are the subjects of how to dialogue, how to identify and avoid a number of basic fallacies of argumentation both in actuality, outlining many of the flaws in various presumed "methodologies" of argumentation, how to cultivate the skills needed for effective reasoning and logic, the importance of vetting the sources one uses, etc.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 20, 2007)]

{2} [W]hether I am believed or not, I declare that I do not mean to attack the intentions or the morality of anyone. Rather, I am attacking an idea which I believe to be false; a system which appears to me to be unjust; an injustice so independent of personal intentions that each of us profits from it without wishing to do so, and suffers from it without knowing the cause of the suffering.

The sincerity of those who advocate protectionism, socialism, and communism is not here questioned. Any writer who would do that must be influenced by a political spirit or a political fear. It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 13, 2002)]


{3} It is not uncommon for these sorts to accuse those who point out what their statements and actions logically involve of being "liars" or of "lying" and often they do this with a degree of personal indignation. The reader should remember that the reason for this is that the person is confusing objective reality with subjective intention. Since these people would claim that their subjective intention is pure, right, or whatever, they view anything that does not support their subjective intention as a misrepresentation of objective reality rather than consider the alternative.

The alternative, of course is that the objective meaning of their statements does not support their later-stated intentions or subjective intentions. When the latter is properly understood, it is evident that those who point these distinctions out (where they are valid) are not "lying" or "slandering" them but instead are correctly describing the situation objectively and apart from the other person's subjective intention.

{4} Assuming for a moment that they even bothered to quote the words in context of course. (This is unfortunately no small assumption to be making oftentimes.)

{5} To take the definition of red herring from the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary for the sake of reader convenience (all emphasis is the present writer's):

Main Entry: red herring
Function: noun
1 : a herring cured by salting and slow smoking to a dark brown color
2 [from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue. [LINK]

Points to Ponder:

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. [Sun Tzu]

On the Subject of Potential Financial Penalties For Libelous Public Conduct:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Having posted material on integrity, basic public and private ethics, and the building of one's character before{1} it seems appropriate to note something additional in light of some circumstances that your host has been privy to in recent weeks.

The reason for this posting is that there are certain parties who have taken a stance that is viewed by us as contradictory in its essence. They would assert that someone who engages in unrepentant libelous behaviour of public and semi-public figures in a fashion that bears false witness against their character should somehow be spared any financial repercussions on the basis of "not wanting to hurt their livelihood" or something of an equivalent nature. This is a position not only that is taken by those who seem to want to defend such persons at all possible costs (read: certain oligarchs) but even some critics who while going after such persons on principle stop short of advocating actions that may "hurt their livelihood" when a good portion of their livelihood is from public speaking, writing books, etc.

Now let me note here that I am neither condoning or condemning any actions of the sort so noted above in what I am saying here but only enunciating a general principle that seems to me to be of reasonable import. And that principle in a nutshell is this:

--Those who rely on a public profile to make a living who use that platform to libel others deserve any repercussions they get in the area of financial hardships as a result of their conduct. PERIOD.

For they should think of such things before the fact and recognize that those whose reputations are smeared by anything that is not of their own doing{2} are justified in seeking compensation. And if that compensation comes at the expense of the offender's livelihood, so be it.

Public figures have a responsibility to think of their family and anyone else who could possibly be hurt by the actions they take, the statements they make, etc if it is possible that such could affect their livelihood. If they are not willing to do this, then they have no grounds for complaint if others seek to have them deprived of income as a result of the actions they take and the statements they make. It is that simple really.

Notes:

{1} Among other subject matter pertaining to these matters in some fashion or another. (To note a few of them in brief, there are the subjects of how to dialogue, how to identify and avoid a number of basic fallacies of argumentation both in actuality, outlining many of the flaws in various presumed "methodologies" of argumentation, how to cultivate the skills needed for effective reasoning and logic, the importance of vetting the sources one uses, etc.)

{2} I say "anything that is not their own doing" because if what is raised is a correct description of what happened objectively speaking, then that is a horse of a different colour altogether. (I plan to write on these matters in the coming months to distinguish between objective manifestation and subjective intention -a distinction that a lot of people fail to make and one that in my mind is of no small importance.)

Revisiting the Subjects of Evolution and the Importance of Rational Thought:
(From the Mailbag)

This was a response on a discussion list to someone who took issue with some books on the subject of evolution that were recommended for their edification. Their words in reply will be in dark red font.

On 2/14/07, XXXXX XXXXXXX wrote:
My friend, I have read these and several other books on evolution. After much research from both sides of this debate I'm afraid I must personally conclude that the theory of evolution is just that - a theory. It is not based on scientific evidence but on speculation and wishful thinking and the part of atheistic scientists.

XXXXX, as I have told many people over the years (including not a few incautious "apologist" sorts), a theory is not a will-o-wisp conjecture. It is instead at the apex of rational inquiry and a solid point of reference for intellectual exposition. Art is correct that your statements show you lack a proper understanding of science or any training which would presume to lend any authority to your opinions provided that the latter were advanced and sustained by rational argumentation. I would like to take the occasion of your note to remind people of the building blocks of rational thought. The first is a thesis which I have defined as follows:

Thesis: An abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument.

A thesis is essentially a position that you assert before it has been substantiated by argument. Scientists who advance theses on evolution and people of your outlook who make statements against it are both on the same playing field. Where it differs is in the realm of the hypothesis. The latter is defined as follows:

Hypothesis: An explanation of a subject, circumstance, or event which is advanced on tentative grounds by a proposed thesis or series of theses and is open to further examination or being potentially disproved before it reaches the stature of a viable theory.

A hypothesis in other words is a thesis or a coordinative series of theses which are set forth in explanatory form for examination, testing, etc. for potential flaws which could invalidate it. Among the flaws in potentia (but by no means the only ones) are errors of fact, errors in logic, formal contradiction, etc. If a hypothesis withstands this kind of scrutiny and remains intact, it can validly be considered a theory. A theory is therefore defined as follows:

Theory: A set of non-contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them, principles) which purports to give either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action.

A theory in other words is a solid point of reference and is not to be dismissed as a mere whim. And that evolution is past the point of a hypothesis has been recognized by major church leaders in recent years including the late pontiff John Paul II.

When Pope John Paul II said in a 1996 Allocution to the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences that evolution was "more than a mere hypothesis", he was by logical extension referring to it as a theory properly understood. To wit:

Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of "evolutionism" as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith—a point to which I shall return.

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. * In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

What is the significance of a theory such as this one? To open this question is to enter into the field of epistemology. A theory is a meta-scientific elaboration, which is distinct from, but in harmony with, the results of observation. With the help of such a theory a group of data and independent facts can be related to one another and interpreted in one comprehensive explanation. The theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified. It is constantly being tested against the facts; when it can no longer explain these facts, it shows its limits and its lack of usefulness, and it must be revised.

Moreover, the elaboration of a theory such as that of evolution, while obedient to the need for consistency with the observed data, must also involve importing some ideas from the philosophy of nature.

And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology. [LINK]

He defines "theory" a bit differently than I do but the gist of it is the same: a theory is validated by study, research, testing, etc. and stands as long as the arguments advanced to sustain it do. There is also the issue of multiple theories on the matter which the pontiff noted above and they are not devoid of scientific evidence as you claim XXXXX. In fact, they are quite well supported by scientific findings in not a few ways because a theory of a scientific nature requires for viability to have consistency with the data observed.{1}

Whether we like it or not the "pseudo-scientific drivel from the so-called "scientific" Creationists" (your words) has a much more robust foundation to the dribble of so many scientist seeking to make a name for themselves by trying to prove something unscientific - Evolution. Why are so many afraid to admit that God spoke and it came to being?

Art is right about this XXXXX, the so-called "Creationist" drivel has so many errors in fact, analysis, and internal contradiction to it that it does not pass muster as a viable theory. And part of the reason for this is that the Creationists themselves do not provide any way for their theses to be rationally disproved. The reason is because they base all of it on their own interpretation of the Bible which they do not even bother to substantiate the viability of. Instead, they claim it and then play cut and paste with the scientific data to try and make it fit their preconceived reading rather than accepting the evidences for what they are and adjusting their interpretation of the text accordingly.

I would suggest that you be a lot more cautious in your attempts to dismiss the theories of evolution and a lot less blindly accepting of the contradictory, factually-challenged pseudo "science" of the Creationist crowd. We are not fundamentalists XXXXX and do not accept the Bible as a science text. That is important to remember also though persons such as DDDDDDDD tend to forget that far too frequently.

Note:

{1} Theories not of a scientific nature but instead of the abstract notion of principles which purport to give a correct description of reality (or a guideline for successful action) have a similar requirement to be consistent with the known facts on which it is constructed.

Points to Ponder:

The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power. [Alexander Hamilton (circa 1775)]

Guest Editorial on the "Zionist Conspiracy" and Your Host's Supposed "Complicity" or "Support" Thereof:
(Written by Henrik Hassen)

While longtime readers are aware that your host does not always agree with the opinions posted in this format, it seems appropriate to note upfront that in the case of what you are about to read, that your host most definitely does not agree with the opinion about to be rendered. For those who wonder why it would be posted, it seems appropriate to remind readers who do not know or may have forgotten that Mr. Hassen first emailed us last November with the accusation of complicity in some grand conspiracy for world Zionism. At first I was hesitant to say anything about what he sent except to (i) correct his misspelling of my last name, (ii) point out that our views here are often caricatured by polemicists, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of varying persuasions, and (iii) to reiterate the consistency of your host's approach over the years to people who make public accusations of others. As Mr. Hassen claimed to have "irrefutable proof" of his assertions, I agreed to play along. He sent another email and I blogged the text figuring the longer things went without him supplying his claimed "proof", the greater the likelihood that this would be another case of someone who was not going to follow through. (A view that was reinforced to some extent when he sent me a mocking email not long after Christmas which I also blogged.) But he recently sent me the text below and presumably it is aforementioned "proof" that I did not have the "guts" to post. So I post it here as a guest editorial and readers can judge for themselves as to the merits or lack thereof of Mr. Hassen's "irrefutable" proof but without further ado, here it is...


#############################

The Zionist Conspiracy Deepens
By Henrik Hassen

After recent reflection and investigation I have come to the disheartening conclusion that the Zionist conspiracy goes far deeper than even I imagined. The Jews have managed to achieve objectives that ought to disturb even the most skeptical among us. In truth, I have reached the point where I am forced to wonder, is there no one we can trust?

My investigations recently took an unexpectedly disturbing turn when I discovered the duplicity of a member of my organization who claimed to be on the side of truth and objectivity in the quest to expose the Zionist agenda. Many of us once unhesitatingly affirmed him as one of our very best but now his duplicity been revealed.

The reality is, this man, who once fearlessly investigated and exposed Zionist conspiracies and plots across the globe by means of such ironclad proof as: Pope Paul VI wearing a Jewish ephod, FDR’s likely Jewish ancestry and Pope John Paul II’s secret love of bagels, is a Zionist himself. This founding member of The National Alliance Against Zionist Imperialism, has betrayed everything in which we believe. I will now offer proof that is as incontrovertible as any offered by the conspirator himself, Robert Hanswurst.

The truth struck me after recently reading a couple of Hanswurst’s myriad exposés on Jewish conspiracies in The Redundant and E. Meschugge Kleinhirn’s Kosher Wars. Here are a few incontrovertible pieces of proof:

First, in order to counter the inevitable objections of Hanswurst’s most ardent supporters, no amount of quoting from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion could dissuade me from reaching the conclusion that he is, in fact, a Zionist. Some of the most damning proof has been right in front of our eyes from the beginning but we were blinded by his anti-Zionist credentials and personal assurances. We all recall when Hanswurst courageously quoted from The Protocols only to eventually distance himself from the document because it had Nazi connections. It was of little solace that he defended and stood by the veracity of the material itself while disclaiming such a venerable source (a tactic we have also seen employed by the Jew, Dan Rather, one might add).

Second, Hanswurst recently wrote in an article that only 95% of Jews despise Christ. This is a monumental slip-up for any member of the National Alliance Against Zionist Imperialism. The figure we decided upon at our very first meeting was 99%. Only one percent of Jews are not Christ-despisers: the ones who become Christian (this much should be obvious). Of course, this is not to suggest that Jewish converts can ever be trusted. Hanswurst was at least not foolish or careless enough to suggest that, rightly exposing the secret Zionist agendas of David Moss and Roy Schoeman. Be that as it may, what I once saw as praiseworthy work in the cause of truth is now revealed as a mere tactic to hide his own Zionist efforts.

Third, Hanswurst consistently used the term “Jews” instead of “Zionists” in his first exposés and responses, even somewhat recently, in spite of direct and repeated warnings he was exposing our true views and aims. While he has most recently avoided these blunders, I believe the reason for these “accidents” has become quite clear. In fact, they were no accidents at all.

Fourth: It is true that Hanswurst publicly exposed the Zionist myth that six million Jews died in the Holocaust. But again, this was another matter of cleverly attempting to maintain credibility. Furthermore, notice that he chose a relatively obvious and innocuous charge in this case, too. Anyone with an ounce of objectivity recognizes that the Holocaust was a miniscule price to pay for what was at that point a sparsely inhabited wasteland of desert and swamp about the size of New Jersey. The Jews, as ingenious and energetic as they are with all things green, knew that this relative wasteland would become fertile, plush and desirable after decades of work there and that they would be able to parlay the convenient threats of immediate annihilation from their peaceful, oppressed Arab neighbors into further concessions and aid from future American presidents. This is, of course, all very obvious to those who are not blinded by Jewish propaganda.

Recall that after hundreds of hours of exhaustive research, pouring over thousands of original documents, Hanswurst personally uncovered the truth that the Jews orchestrated the Holocaust themselves, precisely because no one would expect it. As Hanswurst proved, by attempting to eliminate themselves from the face of the earth (or at least Europe), the Jews were able to slyly garner the worldwide sympathy necessary for them to establish that geo-political entity now commonly known solely by Zionists as the state of “Israel”. Jewish conspirators ingeniously manipulated the oft-maligned Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels and millions of others into doing their will: a frightening testimony to their ingenuity and potency.

The point is simply this: Hanswurst has unwittingly tipped his duplicitous hand to all who were watching closely. Thankfully, this kind of treachery and deception could never continue for long in a group as vigilant as the National Alliance Against Zionist Imperialism.

Who else but Hanswurst is going after the Jews with such sustained intensity and notoriety? Who else but Hanswurst has even managed to elicit sympathy from our ally Louis Farrakhan toward the Jews by his constant, ferocious attacks (“Those poor Jews!” Louis Farrakhan, August 2005)? Who else but Hanswurst has clandestinely tipped the enemy off as to our real views and aims by incredibly damaging “accidents”? The truth is there for the objective to see: Hanswurst is using the same tactics he proved that the Jews used back in the days of the Holocaust: fomenting intense global distrust of and anger against the Jews with the underlying intent of eliciting sympathy which in turn will facilitate the spread of Zionism. The conclusion is thus inescapable: Hanswurst is a Zionist.

For those die-hard skeptics who remain unconvinced, I will offer one last piece of incontrovertible evidence. Hanswurst’s new supposedly anti-Zionist Catholic protégé, Christopher Dunkelhaft (author of The Fake Mirage), dated a girl who once worked next to a kosher deli in Brooklyn. Shocking but true. Anyone who dares to ignore my Revelations is living in a fool’s paradise.

I am sorry to be the bearer of such news, but as you know, we at the National Alliance Against Zionist Imperialism vowed to never be cowed by censors or facts. This is our divinely ordained prophetic call and, God willing, we will follow it faithfully until death. Our director of internal affairs, Lou Cifer, has reminded us of our duty to foment distrust, fear and hatred between Christians and Jews in the service of God.

Next week I will expose Wal-Mart’s plot to sell Christmas tree stars with six points.

Henrik Hassen

National Alliance Against Zionist Imperialism


#############################

As far as your host's opinion of this "irrefutable proof", all he will say is "no comment."

Despite taking a rather cynical approach to the whole St. Blog's "Awards" issue in a posting written in late January and posted earlier this week, I must admit that it appears that there is a greater effort to police abuses that have happened in recent years. And for the sake of a bit of levity, I will register some votes of my own here and also some non-votes and try to explain within reason why I approach this issue as I do.

To start with, some of these categories are far too normative or subjective by nature in the absence of any way to verify emperically the subject matter being "voted" on. I will note those categories and separate them from those which -while admitting of some normative factors nonetheless are more easily able to be assessed by emperical data and thus be considered to a greater degree non-normative - categories with a * include this humble weblog as a nominee:

Smartest Catholic Blog*
Best Overall Catholic Blog*
Best New Catholic Blog
Funniest Catholic Blog

The reason I say they are much more normative is that they have factors that are overall not emperically verifiable. Other than one involving humour (and this is an area where different temperaments find different things funny; ergo non-normative standards do not apply) and the new blog factor (meaning: less than a year), the other factors are not objectively discernable without a degree of personal bias making the matter suspect. Nonetheless, here are my votes and the reasons why I voted as I did:

Smartest Catholic Blog: Sacramentum Vitae

Intelligence requires a degree of manifested learning but there is also the issue of creativity and originality of thought. I always place a high premium on these areas but not in and of themselves. And I have to admit it, by any criteria in which this is judged, most of those in this category did not deserve to be nominated. However, of the few that did I went with Dr. Michael Liccone's blog because (i) I respect his intellectual acumen even when we do not agree, (ii) Dr. Philip Blosser (Pertinacious Papist) somehow was not nominated here, (iii) Ian Mclean (Secret Agent Man's Dossier) did not blog this year enough for consideration, and (iv) I am loathe to vote for myself if that is reasonably feasible. And with all those factors in mind, Sacramentum Vitae stands out in bold relief from the others on this list and therefore gets my vote.

Best Overall Catholic Blog: Eve Tushnet

Chris Blosser's blog has more stuff of a various degree connected with it; ergo if he was nominated here he would get my vote. But as(i) he was not, (ii) I am not familiar with many of these nominees, (iii) as I am not about to vote for myself, (iv) Eve Tushnet's blog deserved to be nominated for stuff a long time ago and was not, and (v) as she covers a lot of subjects on her blog and therefore is to a certain extent eclectic enough to qualify for an overall categorization, she gets my vote for this category.

Best New Catholic Blog: An Examined Life

Determining what is or is not "best" smacks of a normative nature that is undeniable. However, in picking Dr. Scott Carson's blog, I do so for his rounded intellectual acumen. I believe this is an area which does not get enough play in society in general and if I were to base "best" on spirituality factors, it would boil down to individual preferences and I am as susceptible to my own biases colouring my objectivity there as anyone else's. In a non-normative sense, intelligence is capable of to some degree being ascertained and in this area, Dr. Scott Carson's work stands out in several impressive respects. He therefore gets my vote here both for what he writes on and the contributions he makes to improving overall intelligence and understanding: important and often-overlooked assets but ones that your host takes seriously himself and therefore wants to recognize it in others who act in like manner.

Funniest Catholic Blog: The Curt Jester

There are some funny blogs out there but Jeff's stuff is the most original and creative: two important criteria for me when voting in any subject matter whatsoever. Of honourable mention here is Dale Price's Dyspeptic Mutterings.

Best Individual Catholic Blog*: Dyspeptic Musings

This is far too subjective a subject matter. I readily admit that I am not familiar with many of the blogs here and do not have time to inform myself to make the most educated of judgments. I did not want to vote for myself, and I could find no other category where Dale Price was nominated where he was at best not a definite bridesmaid and not the bride (and at worst did not deserve nomination); ergo I voted for Dale Price's blog in this category.

Here are the ones which are more emperically verifiable (read: non-normative) and thus easier to give an emperical assessment thereof.

Best Written Catholic Blog*: No Vote Given

How do we determine a subject matter such as this in an emperically verifiable fashion??? The truth is, we do not unless everyone is subjected to precise analyses and those who do not follow proper diction, grammar, sentence structure, variety of vocabulary utilized, and other factors on a consistent enough basis are eliminated. To do that would be to disqualify a lot of candidates including yours truly as I am unaware of anyone who writes perfectly in the blog format. If Ian Mclean (Secret Agent Man's Dossier) was blogging in 2006 and nominated here, he would get my vote but he was not. In truth, this is generally far too subjective a subject matter, I was not familiar with many of the blogs, and I did not want to vote for myself; ergo in the absence of others I would have voted for if they were nominated, I did not register a vote here.

Best Designed Catholic Blog: Scripture and Catholic Tradition

I know next to nothing about blog design viz. what is the best or not. However, I do know that Dr. Philip Blosser (who should have been nominated in other categories but was not) has a weblog that is well designed. The reason for this is that his son Christopher Blosser designed it -Chris and I have discussed design possibilities for this weblog and I am aware of his talents here which are significant. But much as a leader receives credit for ideas not necessarily their own, in this case Dr. Blosser as owner of the weblog nominated would get the nod.

I do not know about many of the others and out of the ones more easily verifiable emperically I am admittedly on the weakest ground trying to substantiate this selection. I also have a number of personal disagreements with Dr. Blosser on issues despite respecting his brobdingnagian intellectual acumen. But that is not the issue of question here, only the design of the weblog. And certainly his subsidiary weblog (Pertinacious Papist is his main weblog) deserves nomination in a few categories where it was not recognized. For the reasons noted above, it gets my vote however tenuous admittedly in lieu of my general ignorance of more technical design criteria of weblogs.

Best Apologetic Blog: Jimmy Akin

Once again, if we are looking for those who do apologetics at least on a reasonable enough basis to be nominated here, the list of worthies for this subject is small indeed. Out of all of them -and of those I am actually reasonably familiar with- Jimmy Akin, David Armstrong, Jacob Michael, and Al Kimel (Pontifications) are the most obvious ones belonging in this category. I voted for Jimmy Akin even though I have noted some issues I have with him in the past year. I doubt anyone nominated in this category (even those who belong here) could quibble much with that selection so that is all I will say about it.

Best Blog by a Clergy/Religious/Seminarian: Thrown Back

Of those I am familiar with, Fr. Rob Johansen's most impresses me in overall content; ergo he received my vote.

Best Group Blog: Catholic Light

I would have voted for Southern Appeal but they were not nominated again. For that reason, and because I honestly am not familiar with many of these blogs, I voted for Catholic Light.

Best Insider News Catholic Blog: No Vote Given

I was looking for Dumb Ox as my selection in this category but he was not nominated. Of the others, I either do not know enough about them or did not view their nomination in this category as appropriate; ergo, no vote was given.

Most Spiritual Blog: Pontifications

My Dominican biases prevents me from voting for a specific kind of spirituality almost as a kind of self-recusal. Al Kimel's weblog is spiritual as well as intellectual -a kind of bridge if you will of fides et ratio and to a significant enough degree that a vote for him here is one I have no problem making.

Best Social/Political Commentary Catholic Blog*: Rerum Novarum

There were very few nominated here who deserved to be and Southern Appeal (whom I would have voted for if they had been nominated) was not. Therefore, I voted for my own weblog here and objectively would put my contributions in this area in the areas of creativity, originality, prescience on issues, and overall applicability in this category against anyone else's.

Anyway, that is how I voted in these "awards" and why. As usual, comments, criticisms, or whatever are welcome as long as they are reasonably intelligent.

Points to Ponder:
(On The Illogical Approach of Socialists)

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: From The Law (circa 1850)]

On the St. Blogs' "Awards" for 2006:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Jeff Miller of The Curt Jester{1} recently noted that there are some differences in this year's St. Blog's "Awards" event. The question of course is if they are going to have some committee again deciding which of the nominees are "sufficiently Catholic" or not. That is what they did last year and frankly it is absurd: someone either is or is not Catholic. And that is what should be considered, not how many genuflections one makes to various forms of popular piety, how many "atta boys" are given to the Holy Father, how much is focused on any one area of subject matter, or whatever. And if such an idea is again implemented, than what is the use since it is no different than a political intrigue and not a genuine voting process???

There is (of course) a disturbing pattern I have noted in past years of nominating people for categories they have no business being nominated in. I remember in 2004 being nominated for "best social commentary" with two other blogs which were worthy of that ranking and two which had no business being there. I explained this at the time and fortunately one of the others which deserved to be there won -referring to the recently shut down Southern Appeal who would be my vote for the 2006 category{2} if I was going to bother with such things.

As it is, I reiterate last year's predictions (on which I went 3-0) and have no doubts I will be vindicated again on at least two of them. I also harbour no illusions about being nominated for anything this year if I was not last year -particularly with a certain committee presuming to decide on whether my blog is sufficiently "Catholic" or not on normative critieria{3} which is absurd. Social commentary awards should not go to those who involve themselves in boilerplate unspectacular "commentary" as it has in years past or downright shoddy "commentary" absent a proper Catholic sensibility and mindset.{4}

But as I said, I doubt I would be nominated this year if I was not last year{5} and am not sure I want to be anyway. Hopefully though, those who are nominated for categories actually belong in the categories they are nominated in -otherwise this whole thing is a joke. On "social commentary", if Mark Shea wins again, then we know the quality of these "awards" is pretty low fare. At the very least a weblog like Southern Appeal (which won for 2004 and which closed up shop in late 2006) deserves recognition in that area. So too does some kind of "St. Blog's Hall of Fame" where the late Gerard Seraphin (God rest his soul) is recognized for the body of work he contributed over the years he was in cyberspace. I would give the "best blog by a woman" to Amy Welborn. Most humourous belongs as an institution of sorts to Jeff Miller as no one else is so repeatedly hilarious in original ways as he is. "Best apologetics blog" will probably go to Jimmy Akin and if it does, at least he deserves to be in that category.

Now Mark Shea will probably win for "best blog by a man" -and whatever the merits or demerits of that may be, at the very least he could qualify for that category legitimately. But to give his misinformed babblings on social issues a "best social commentary" award would be as silly as giving a non-Catholic a "best theological" award in a Catholic awards show -oh wait, that was done back in 2004.{6} I realize these are a kind of game and that is fine in and of itself but remember folks: people will judge the quality of St. Blogs overall by who wins in these categories. And whatever one thinks of certain parties, there are some categories that different people can fit into and some which they cannot.

Hopefully things will run better this time in many ways if only because it could rehabilitate the process to some extent. But I am not too optimistic{7} that it will avoid the problems in past years.

Notes:

{1} One of the few Catholic blogs which generally deserves the categories in which it is regularly nominated (and wins) in I might add.

{2} By the way, I figured in early 2005 if I lost to either Southern Appeal or Dust in the Light that at least I would have been beaten by a blog that deserved consideration in that category. The same would not have been the case for the others nominated that year which finished ahead of me -nothing against them personally, only that the category of nomination ("best social commentary") they did not have any business being in.

{3} For example, how often do I quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church, how many religious symbols are on my blog page, how often I deal in apologetics-style material, how often I take up for certain committee-approved "causes", etc.

{4} As what happened last year.

{5} Actually I was as the one who nominated me told me. Apparently I did not do enough of what is noted in footnote three to make it to the stage of being considered a "finalist" for voting. (And you can be sure I will do nothing this year differently so there is the answer in a nutshell.)

{6} The winner that year should not have even been nominated in a Catholic award show as he was not at the time Catholic. Though since that time, Alvin Kimel has won the award legitimately (read: after becoming Catholic) and if he were to win it again this time, I would have no objections to it.

{7} Ergo, I renew my predictions from last year and expect to go 2-1 this time instead of 3-0 as I did previously.

On Anna Nicole Smith's Death:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

It probably seems odd at first glance that your host decided to write on this matter rather than numerous other newsbits at the present time. It will also seem odd perhaps that this post will be as short as it will be. Society has had a fascination with the rich and powerful -or those perceived as such- as long as there has been a civilization and that will not change anytime soon. There is also the attraction of people to tragedies of those same people which plays into issues such as class warfare and other such subjects which we may well discuss again in the future as subjects worthy of consideration. But right now, consider if you can the tragedy of Anna Nicole Smith.

I say "tragedy" because by all societal standards, she had it made. She had money and fame, she was physically appealing to look at,{1} -basically you name it and she had it. But she was found dead in a situation where it does not appear to have been foul play. And if not the latter, then suicide is a likely reason. There were probably many contributing factors to this -the loss of her eldest son last year to whom she was apparently close may have had something to do with it. But in her passing, she left another young child who now will be without a mother.

I am sure a lot of people find the focus on this by the present writer to seem odd -after all, people die everyday that do not get a headline in the paper or elsewhere. People a lot poorer than Anna Nicole, a lot less "attractive", a lot less of a lot of things that she had. My point in focusing on her passing right now is to point out the problem with "happiness" as it is commonly perceived in society.

"Happiness" is viewed as an elusive commodity which is "obtained" or "lost" through the acquisition of possessions. Now it is one thing to acquire stuff that one likes but this has to be done with the proper disposition; namely, that happiness cannot be attained from without but must start from within. Possessions, relationships, family, etc. can enhance one's happiness but they are not where happiness is derived.

By all common societal standards, Anna Nicole should have been one of the happiest people on earth, but she was not. Those who heard her in interviews talking about personal demons would have known this{2} The happiness that must exist from within was not there. And if it is not, then no amount of external additions will compensate for it. Oh sure, numerous external additions can act as numbing agents to a degree much as escapes into alcoholic binges or various drugs, etc. can. But none of that is a genuine solution -instead, it is akin to putting a bandaid on a wound gushing with blood.

These sorts of events tend to generate predictable commentary from a lot of people. Of a particular annoyance is those who are poor who use this as an excuse for remaining poor -as if there is some virtue in poverty. But there are also those who are richer who act as if people passing on from this life who are poor somehow could have been "happier" if they had more wealth. In both cases, the core of the issue is missed because the focus is external instead of internal.

A person can be happy in any financial or social state in life. A person can also be miserable in any financial or social situation in life. Happiness is derived intrinsically from a person's security in themselves. Someone who is secure in themselves, who is capable of being rationally and emotionally self-sufficient to a certain extent, is in a much better position to be happy than someone who is not. A person who can think for themselves and does not have to depend on others to think for them will have a security in themselves that those who cannot do this will not have. Someone who has a strong faith in a loving God likewise can have a security in themselves that those who do not have it will not have. It can come from a variety of sources internally but that is my point: it must come from within.

It is unfortunate that Anna Nicole apparently killed herself and had to suffer the kind of dispair that many people do because of looking to the wrong things or people for happiness. More could be said on this and maybe I will in the future. But right now, this is adequate so I will wrap this post up praying that God may rest the soul of Anna Nicole Smith and her son -along with give the strength to her other children to perservere despite this tremendous hardship they are and will be facing. May He lead them to that happiness that can be enhanced from without but must originate from within.

Notes:

{1} Well, for most of the time she was in the public spotlight anyway.

{2} I heard a bit of this both from a little viewing myself but mainly via some friends who are attuned to celebrity stuff.

Remembering a President and Learning From History:

In celebration of the birthday of the late Ronald Wilson Reagan (40th President of the United States), I want to mark the occasion by drawing the reader's attention to two threads. The first is a book review I wrote back in July of 2004 for Dinesh D'Souza's biography of Ronald Reagan. The second is the full text ot a landmark speech delivered by Ronald Reagan on behalf of Barry Goldwater at the Republican Convention of 1964. Titled Rendezvous With Destiny many of its criticisms and forecasts are still applicable today. For example, in today's war on terror, many of the same problems are involved on the side of those who favour appeasement with Islamic fanatics that were around in the days of the Cold War. Consider if you will the following principles from the aforemetioned speech:

Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender.

Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

Those are the same challenges that we face today and which mankind will always face: the question of whether or not there are truths which the defense of is a duty of those who profess them to recognize lines which cannot be crossed. Anyway, I hope you find them to be of some interest today on the anniversary of the birthday of Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Rest in peace Mr. President.

Points to Ponder:
(On Some Limits of Reason and Logic)

For all my focus on the importance of reason and logic for a proper apprehension of what can be called objective reality, there is an important element that may appear to receive short-shrift in this approach and it is something that goes beyond what reason and logic can deduce. Namely, it is the area of faith.
Faith is hardly limited to the religious sphere -indeed people place faith in non-religious persons, ideas, etc. all the time. The root of faith however is the same in all cases though. Theologically, faith involves aspects that are not contrary to reason and logic but to some extent transcend them. On the human level, it involves noting that sometimes a person however they present themselves to others may have a contradiction in how they present themselves and what they feel.
To put it another way, sometimes a person can unknowingly convey a sense or impression towards others that they do not intend to convey. Certainly as a rule one must presume continuity in these areas. Nonetheless, at the same time, there are exceptions whereby the actions and statements of a person do not necessarily correctly reveal their inner intentions. And while one should strive at all times to verify things by objective criteria; at the same time, the evidence does not always point to the reality of something as it subsists in the mind of the other party involved in a dispute.

With that in mind, and however it may appear to contradict objective manifestations, greater care at times needs to be given to what someone says they intend however appearances to the contrary may fail to countenance it. In other words: faith is required to some extent that an individual's assessment of their intentions is correct because by non-normative criteria it cannot be ascertained. This is not always easy to do mind you when there is a history of bad blood between persons. However, whenever an opportunity to put things right presents itself that manifests the possibility of success (however remote), I have always viewed it as something to be seized upon because one never knows when such opportunities may present themselves again if ever. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Notebook Musings (circa February 5, 2007)]

On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Prefatory Note: For a prologue of sorts to the material to be covered in this posting, please see this thread. -ISM]

In the usual round of calls for "celebration" of a legal case that directly violates one of the three fundamental rights of man, the predictable "stare decisis" canard was brought out in some circles to justify the decision of the Supreme Court in 1992's Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision upholding Roe vs. Wade. This is in essence an indirect appeal to common law to justify this stance as that is where stare decisis has its legal foundation. A problem with this premise is that it ignores certain key factors which went into proper common law interpretation. To explain this a bit, a consideration of where common law originated would be a good idea so I will sketch it out briefly before picking up this thread on the other side with the assistance of a short online chronology:

Until the 12th century, law in the western world consisted of written laws, called Civil Laws, all traceable to Roman Law. This basic system still prevails in many countries as well as in the state of Louisiana.

However, after the Norman conquest of Britain in 1066, a legal tradition called the "common law," different from that of civil law, began to develop in England. In the 1100s during the reign of the legal reformer, Henry II, court decisions were written down and catalogued according to the types of cases. When the courts were called on to decide similar issues later, they reviewed the earlier decisions and if one was found that covered the earlier decision, they applied the principle of the earlier decision. They called this doctrine, "stare decisis," a Latin term meaning "to stand by the decision."

Under this rule of stare decisis, once a legal issue has been resolved as it applied to a particular set of facts, a court did not reconsider that legal issue in a later case where the factual circumstances were substantially similar. But this did not mean that every decision stood forever. However, the principle of stare decisis was a strong one, and judges were reluctant to discard well-established rules, and took great pains to explain a significant departure from a precedent.

During America's colonial period, most of the English common law tradition did not change, and the new country continued to follow English common law. When the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789, the Constitution, based upon the common law inherited from England, became the new foundation on which the American legal system was built. [From Understanding Common Law (circa 1994)]

We know of course that the Founding Fathers of America were men of a high degree of education and were thoroughly familiar with common law -most of them either being born in Great Britain or first generation removed from Great Britain. And roughly thirty-five of the fifty-five odd participants of the Constitutional Convention either were experienced barristers or otherwise had training in the law. I outlined some of the more significant figures here and believe me, they are far from the only ones I could mention. And when you consider the predominately English background of so many of the Founding Fathers, it is only logical to conclude that so many educated barristers would have a solid understanding of what common law did and did not involve would it not???

Now then, if stare decisis is a core principle of the common law, than one has to look to how that principle was understood in common law and not merely say it applies without providing any evidences. A good place to start is to ask what the foundational principles that under girded common law actually were. According to a certain Richard J. Maybury, they were as follows:

Do all you have agreed to do;

Do not encroach on other persons or their property. [From Understanding Common Law (circa 1994)]

The first premise would form the fundamental point of reference of what is called "contract law" as that branch of jurisprudence deals with what people have agreed to do amongst one another and the myriad of ways this is signified both explicitly and by logical inference. The second premise ("[d]o not encroach on other persons or their property") is perhaps the fundamental point of reference for all criminal and tort law.

Now then, if the interpretation of the above premises is correct{1}, then common law involves protection of the fundamental rights of man which are life, faculties, and production. Or to quote Claude Frederic Bastiat's magnum opus The Law on these matters:

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life-physical, intellectual, and moral life. But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course. Life, faculties, production-in other words, individuality, liberty, property this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]

Now then, consider the theory{2} of fundamental rights which I have reiterated at this weblog not to mention developed further{3} in light of contemporary realities and applied to a whole plethora of issues in years past. The premise is that there is a gift from God given to us which encompasses the physical (life), intellectual (faculties), and moral (production) spheres of existence. This gift precedes all human laws and was the basis on which all human laws were constructed to begin with -whether those who constructed them realized it or not. From there a need to know what law actually is comes into play since to argue anything on the basis of stare decisis requires knowing what the function of law is. And again, let us consider Bastiat's synthesis on that subject before getting to the whole stare decisis issue:

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force-his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right-its reason for existing, its lawfulness-is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]

Think about that for a moment: the common force of law has the same purpose as the individual one. The logic behind this should be obvious but often it is not. Moving on...

Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force for the same reason-cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]

Those who wonder why true conservatives worthy of the name{4} have an abhorrence of the federal government intervening everywhere and anywhere this is the reason in a nutshell even if those conservatives have never stopped to crystallize their instinct into a coherent principle before. The reason is an instinctive understanding that law is made for man not man for law: the understanding that law's purpose is to protect legitimate rights not to grant them and not to revoke them.{5}

The Founding Fathers had such a fear of putting too much power into the hands of a limited few that they created the "checks and balances" system we are aware of because of their knowledge of history and what power can do when it is abused. They may not have explicitly formulated their understanding in the manner that Bastiat did but certainly Bastiat had as a source of his inspiration the United States as it existed in his day.{6} But to sum up the purpose of law, it can be seen in the following way:

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]

By this understanding, any action by the law that goes beyond these boundaries is a perversion of law. And not only is any law that is contrary to the Constitution invalid but any active resolution taken by the judiciary likewise is invalid. Or as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist #78 on the powers of the judiciary as embodied in the Constitution that at the time of his writing still awaited ratification by a majority of states to become the law of the land:

The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments...

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution...Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. [Alexander Hamilton: Excerpt from Federalist Paper #78 as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa July 1, 2003)]

In other words, the judiciary under the Constitution has the duty to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution as void. That includes so-called "right to privacy" which however nice it would be to have in the federal Constitution{7} nonetheless is not there in any way, shape, matter, or form.

As far as the common law understanding goes, if part of the understanding is not to encroach on persons or their property, than common law statutes such as stare decisis then we have an issue here that touches on the very heart of the issue in question. We need to know where life begins or at least have a consensus on a certain point of origin as the starting point before we can legitimately invoke stare decisis. Consider though what the court itself said in the majority decision handed down on January 22, 1973 on the matter of when life begins:

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [Supreme Court: Roe vs. Wade (circa January 22, 1973)]

In other words, the decision was to be made without concern for a key element of what the common law was intended to do: not encroach on persons or their property. In order to determine whether common law (on which the Constitution is heavily based) is efficaciously fulfilling its role or not means that one has to determine if they are dealing with a life or not because a life is a person and common law is intended to protect persons.

We know of course that there is dispute over when life begins but if we do not try to resolve that inquiry to the best of our knowledge, then common law risks being misapplied. The very Declaration of Independence on which this nation was founded -and on which the Constitution properly understood would have to presume apriori for its own legitimization- had this to say about the issue at hand:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. [Excerpt from The Declaration of Independence (circa July 4, 1776)]

Now is not the time to point out that this principle was not always consistently applied in our Republic -indeed despite the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, there were still some people who were denied the right so outlined. The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment itself was in part to remedy this with regards to persons previously denied these rights for reasons other than disenfranchisement for serious crimes committed against others. But just because a principle is not always applied consistently does not therefore make the principle itself suspect -something I have noted before on a few occasions and which bears recalling whenever issues such as this are discussed.

When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command? [Supreme Court: Roe vs. Wade (circa January 22, 1973)]

This whole supposed "dilemma" is easily overcome by taking into account an ancient moral and ethical principle which the Founding Fathers would have with the greatest of likelihood had some familiarity with if not by virtue of it being a longstanding moral and ethical principle then arguably by virtue of the principles they used in crafting the Constitution itself.{8} I refer here to the moral and ethical principle of double effect.

But even if they were not explicitly familiar with it, it is not debatable that these men of uniformly high intelligence for not only their era but any other era would have the intellectual capabilities of understanding and appreciating the principles involved. As to whether or not the Supreme Court in 1973 would have had these capabilities is (of course) controverted to say the least but they sure betray a lack of familiarity in the words used to formulate the decision of their majority.

If we take seriously (i) Claude Frederic Bastiat's theory on the fundamental rights of man as well as (ii) the words of the Declaration of Independence on which the American Republic was founded on, not to mention (iii) the proper understanding of common law as a check against encroaching upon other persons or their property, then the idea of applying stare decisis to the Roe vs. Wade court interpolation of a presumed "right" to abortion is too ludicrous to be taken seriously.

For one thing, if the matter does involve life -and it seems more than a mere hypothesis to this writer that life is involved at some point between conception and birth- than it is important to ascertain as best we can and apart from personal agendas where we can determine life to begin and at that point, it is inviolable without due process. The question then becomes when does life begin??? Would one say it begins with a heartbeat??? With evidence of brainwave activity??? With the ability to feel pain??? If you have said yes to all three of these things, then we are looking at life beginning before the third month of pregnancy if not earlier.

Think about that for a moment: if the latter is the case, then abortion in at least the time frame where the latter three factors are in effect acts as a death sentence for a life which was denied due process: a violation of a fundamental God-given right (cf. The Law) and a right that the Founders saw as self-evident (cf. Declaration of Independence). On either standard alone it is to be rejected but the idea that the Constitution of the United States could be based on a premise contrary to the Declaration of Independence, and that the aforementioned Constitution could have a presumed "right" to take the life of anyone without the very due process which the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution{9} requires- it does not add up folks.

That is right, Roe vs. Wade is not only unconstitutional but also unconscionable. It does not matter that judicial whores and termites play with words and semantics: the taking of life without due process is not morally acceptable. And that the judges singing onto the majority decision of Roe vs. Wade claimed that it was not necessary to know when life begins in order to make a ruling is itself heinous because one must know when life begins if one is going to avoid taking it without due process. That those judges did not care to try and do this -and furthermore showed that they do not care about ruling in accordance with the Constitution but instead sacrificing lives on the altar of utility- is something that anyone who claims to respect people should find noxious to their very core.

It is illogical to presume that stare decisis as a principle of common law can be wielded to oppose the very intention of common law to begin with. And the idea of that the Founding Fathers who founded this nation and established its rule of law -most of which were well-educated in the field of law including common law- would have provided for such a heinous so-called "right" that contradicted the very foundation of the common law that they took for granted is more than just a little problem that the supporters of Roe vs. Wade have to deal with. They also have to deal with the argument that Roe vs. Wade violates the Constitution's Fifth Amendment right to not be deprived of life without due process,{10} it violates the right to life that the signers of the Declaration of Independence asserted was "self-evident", and it violates one of what Claude Frederic Bastiat called the "three fundamental rights of man."

Those who would take issue with any of these theses and claim that life is not involved have an obligation to provide a hypothesis of their own on when life does begin. Otherwise, they cannot complain when their position is opposed by people who do respect the right to life and who have taken a public stand (rightly or wrongly) on where life does begin -and use that stand as a foundational presupposition for how they approach the issue of abortion and other potentially life-related issues thereof.

Notes:

{1} And for those who would claim it is not, they are challenged to propose a counter-hypothesis or there is no need to take them seriously.

{2} [W]hen one is dealing with a theory, they are dealing with both abstract notions as well as coordinating dynamic principles of action. One of the author's intellectual mentors once defined a theory as "a set of non contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them 'principles') which purports to be either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action."...

Having established a working meaning of the term theory, it is worth noting also that the word thesis according to the Merriam Webster Thesaurus is related to the word theory. (Both of them having a foundation in the term assumption.) A good way of looking at this in the current context is to view a thesis as "an abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument" and a theory as incorporating a thesis -or a series of theses -with a guideline for successful action. The reason for this is because a theory by its nature must involve either (i) a correct description of reality or (ii) a guideline for successful action. For this reason, any viable theory involves several principles if you will which work together.

Or another way of looking at it would be to consider that a theory is being conceived of a series of non contradictory coordinative theses or points of presupposition. When viewed in this light, a theory clearly is only as strong as the theses which support it. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 14, 2004)]

{3} Now is not the time to go into how I did this but basically I explicated a premise that was heavily implied in Bastiat's work and added a non-normative verifying principle to the mix to assist in objective application thereof.

{4} Do not get me started on how few of these there are -particularly in politics.

{5} Part of the reason I developed Bastiat's theory further is to deal with the situations where it can be argued that someone can be deprived of one or more of their fundamental rights -but that is a subject for another time perhaps.

{6} As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose-that it may violate property instead of protecting it-then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the French and English legislatures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer. Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society itself? If such proof is needed, look at the United States [in 1850]. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person's liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the United States, there are two issues-and only two-that have always endangered the public peace. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in aRerum Novarum posting (circa October 24, 2002)]

{7} I actually favour this as a right but as it is not in the Constitution itself, an amendment would have to be proposed and accepted by three quarters of all the states (in this case, 38 states) in order to become a Constitutional provision thereof.

{8} This is a hypothesis admittedly but one which if time allowed for it I believe I could viably argue for the favour of.

{9} The Fourteenth Amendment is not mentioned here because it essentially remedied an inconsistency in the application of the Fifth Amendment clarifying the applicability of the right to due process being one for "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

{10} See footnote nine.