Points to Ponder:
(From John Adams)
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
In politics the middle way is none at all.
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
On the "Catholics Against Rudy" Website:
Steve Dillard (formerly of Southern Appeal) has launched finally his Catholics Against Rudy website and I note it here so that readers of this humble weblog are aware that I support this endeavour. I have noted before that Rudy Guiliani would make a fine attorney general or even director of the FBI but not a good president.{1} The difference in the positions is not insignificant. The presidency is supposed to be a position of national influence and the morality of the officeholder is of no small significance. Rudy claims to be a Catholic and yet his stated positions in not a few areas{2} are contrary to accepted positions for Catholics to hold and profess.
Whatever one wants to say about the other candidates, they do not claim to be Catholic and flout what the Catholic Church teaches on several important issues as Rudy does. That is one argument whereby Catholics can oppose his candidacy at this time. For others who do not find this a convincing argument , try this one: Rudy Guiliani does not deserve support as president as long as there are more qualified people out there than him.
I am aware that there are differences in how some issues are interpreted. For that reason, I want to do my part at this time to ask fellow Catholics to support this venture and leave aside differences on interpretation of broader concepts for another day. The cause of shooting down Rudy Guiliani for the Republican nomination for president is more important than rehashing battles which can be fought another day.
Oh and lest I forget to mention it, after the next posting I am going to take the rest of the "blogging" month off here at Rerum Novarum which means no more postings until the start of the next "blogging month" (July 22, 2007).
Notes:
{1} I like Rudy Guiliani as Director of the FBI or as Attorney General but not as president. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 20, 2007)]
{2} Most notably the subject of abortion. To note two of the several threads written in the past on that subject for this humble weblog:
On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)
A Brief Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread on the Abortion Subject (circa January 25, 2005)
Steve Dillard (formerly of Southern Appeal) has launched finally his Catholics Against Rudy website and I note it here so that readers of this humble weblog are aware that I support this endeavour. I have noted before that Rudy Guiliani would make a fine attorney general or even director of the FBI but not a good president.{1} The difference in the positions is not insignificant. The presidency is supposed to be a position of national influence and the morality of the officeholder is of no small significance. Rudy claims to be a Catholic and yet his stated positions in not a few areas{2} are contrary to accepted positions for Catholics to hold and profess.
Whatever one wants to say about the other candidates, they do not claim to be Catholic and flout what the Catholic Church teaches on several important issues as Rudy does. That is one argument whereby Catholics can oppose his candidacy at this time. For others who do not find this a convincing argument , try this one: Rudy Guiliani does not deserve support as president as long as there are more qualified people out there than him.
I am aware that there are differences in how some issues are interpreted. For that reason, I want to do my part at this time to ask fellow Catholics to support this venture and leave aside differences on interpretation of broader concepts for another day. The cause of shooting down Rudy Guiliani for the Republican nomination for president is more important than rehashing battles which can be fought another day.
Oh and lest I forget to mention it, after the next posting I am going to take the rest of the "blogging" month off here at Rerum Novarum which means no more postings until the start of the next "blogging month" (July 22, 2007).
Notes:
{1} I like Rudy Guiliani as Director of the FBI or as Attorney General but not as president. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 20, 2007)]
{2} Most notably the subject of abortion. To note two of the several threads written in the past on that subject for this humble weblog:
On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)
A Brief Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread on the Abortion Subject (circa January 25, 2005)
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Points to Ponder:
(From George Washington)
(From George Washington)
It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn.
The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.
Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for, I have grown not only gray, but almost blind in the service of my country.
Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.
No morn ever dawned more favorable than ours did; and no day was every more clouded than the present! Wisdom, and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm.
No morn ever dawned more favorable than ours did; and no day was every more clouded than the present! Wisdom, and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm.
There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.
On President Bush and His Administration As of Mid 2007:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
There are a variety of things to point to in mid-2007 with regards to the presidency of George W. Bush. The most obvious ones thus far have to do with the war in Iraq, with the progress of the US Supreme Court, and the illegal amnesty subject. I will touch on these first before getting to other subject starting with the subject of the alien amnesty issue.
I noted a couple of times back in June{1} that I was coming to the conclusion that the immigration approach that President Bush wanted to undertake was potentially an impeachable offense -indeed this was the reason I decided to shelve a project I have worked on intermittently dealing with the whole "impeachment of Bush" issue.{2} However, as we noted the other day, since the illegal immigrant amnesty bill is dead and will not be revivable until the next congress and presidency for various and sundry reasons{3}, essentially President Bush dodged a bullet on this matter and therefore the subject previously noted as being shelved may be revived and completed for posting before the end of the year time and motivation-willing on my part.{4}
With regards to the US Supreme Court, as I noted recently{5},the signs are there that this court will be far more constitutional than many of its predecessors in recent decades. However, as National Review noted in an editorial recently, thus far the moves have been very modest ones despite the hysterical tones of many who view the Constitution not as the law of the land but as some sort of clay lump to mould as they see fit. The offer to play "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em to illustrate the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" crowd is extended once again to those sorts in the same fashion as we outlined it over two years ago:
The writer of this post would like to take this opportunity to to invite anyone who believes in an evolving constitutional interpretation to email him if they are fans of Texas Hold 'Em and are interested in playing for money. For your humble servant is not only a pretty decent poker player but he also has in mind starting a game with people like you for money to illustrate by demonstration the logical absurdity of your positions: Texas Hold 'Em with "evolving rules."[...] Something tells your host that such a game would amply clarify the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" position in precise proportion to the amount of money the promoters of the "evolving constitutional interpretation" theory lost their cash in the aforeproposed card game. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
Gee, thus far none of the readers of this humble weblog who have explicitly or implicitly taken the position of an "evolving Constitution" have taken us up on our challenge. Why is that??? It is because they know damn well they would never win a single hand. And yes I can say that not because I am unbeatable at poker but because of the principle of "evolving hand values."
Rationally, if you do not take a fixed approach to a law, precept, or principle, then they are subject to change. Noting that, it should also be considered that there would be a weird notion in place if such persons were to ascribe some fixed schedule for such evolutions when they do not recognize the concept of fixity to laws, precepts, or principles to begin with. So in the game of "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em", the values of the hands would change often -perhaps even hand to hand at times or intermittently during hands.
After all, no matter what I had in my hand, I could go all in and "win" because the "interpretation" of what hand was higher would change constantly to reflect what I was holding in my own hand.{6} As absurd as this premise may sound, stop and think for a moment what absurdity my proposed game plan is intended to illustrate.
It is impossible for there to be a stable society where the law is so manipulated as these sorts favouring an "evolving Constitution" would like to see. However, at the same time it is important to have some degree of room for revision of the laws of the land if we are to avoid being in the position of advocating that the law is made for man rather than the converse.{7} That is why the Founders put the amendment procedure into the mix at the very beginning: to insure that any adjustments to the Constitution would require effort to undertake and would require a super majority of states to ratify. This was to affirm the important understanding that law was not a minor trifle but instead was to some extent a requirement for societal stability by codifying the natural right of all to defend themselves and their natural God-given rights.
On the war front, the Iraq surge strategery is on the whole going pretty good. The Bush Administration is wisely understating this a bit in the period before a progress report due in September is released. No matter what the report says, it is going to be spun in as negative of a fashion as the msm and its willingseditionist comrades allies in the Democratic party and other places have a vested interest in seeing defeat in Iraq by any means necessary.
The economy is in excellent shape and the Democratic congress is trying desperately to make hay on minutiae issues -spinning irrelevant molehills into mountains. The whole firing of the attorneys "scandal" was touched on by this writer earlier in the year as the whole non-issue it was and the whole "lets defund Cheney's office" schtick is more of the same. As far as those who want to whine about President Bush's commutation of the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, they should consider the various degenerates that President Clinton pardoned{8} and their own silence about them before wasting my time or anyone else's with such gnats at the expense of genuine camels.{9}
Basically, the Dems cannot win on any of the major issues and they know it. Otherwise, they would stick with the significant issues and one issue which is not significant at all is yet another waste of time and ink on studying the "lead up to the war" or whatever. But this is the sort of time-wasting garbage that political losers do and the 20% approval rating Congress has now{10} is only going to go down further still the more they do it.
The more I have mused on their behaviour, the more apparent it is that their entire approach is akin to the old Articles of Confederation where the power was vested solely in a congressional body. For readers who do not know history very well, that is the sort of governmental arrangement that the Founding Fathers sought to do away with in writing the Constitution of the United States which intended to support and sustain a strong and vigorous executive branch. But to say anymore on that at the moment would be to tangent off and I want to wrap this thread up now.
On the whole, the Bush Administration is doing better in 2007 than in 2006 or 2005 but sometimes this is in spite of their intentions on some issues rather than because of them. History will give a better accounting to this administration than the contemporary ahistoric partisan and ignorant sorts currently are. Offhand, my guess is that it will rank about average overall. But right now, things are looking about as good as they probably can for an Administration which is on the verge of getting overall favourable news about the effects of the surge in Iraq come September. After all, we have an economy at very low unemployment, low inflation, a president who cannot run for re-election and who may have another court vacancy to fill. We also have a president who no longer has to worry about committing a kind of political hari-kiri with the illegal immigration issue as they were doing before that issue was rendered politically dead until the next Congress/Administration.
Notes:
{1} I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007) and reiterated in a Rerum Novarum Post (circa June 23, 2007)]
{2} While appearing to not have much to do with the above thread per se, it is interesting that I have had on the drafting table for quite a while a planned post responding to twenty-five so-called "arguments" for impeaching President Bush. Most of those objections have been refuted in the draft as it is written now but the reason I am not likely to finish it anytime soon is this:
--I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!!
I do not intend to set forth the full panopoly of arguments to explain this at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007)]
{3} Namely that most of those nimrod congresspeople who supported this would be defeated if they had to run for re-election after passing such a bill. (Excepting the states and districts where the voters are and have been stupid enough to keep electing the same incompetent incumbent senators and representatives because of the their ability to bring pork home to the district of course.)
{4} Admittedly I have lost any remaining motivation to complete it after the last round of trying to pass the illegal amnesty proposal and make it into law. The reason for lacking the motivation now is not because the arguments of the kooks are difficult to dispatch with. (Quite the contrary actually: the hardest part of it is finding the time to dispatch with them piece by piece in reasonable detail.) The problem is mainly that I have no confidence in President Bush to do much of anything right anymore. And since he has shown a lack of concern for having the back of those who have supported him over the years for the most part -or at the very least defended him from unfair attacks- why should anyone have his back now???
{5} It is about time the Supreme Court got away from activist agendas and got back to doing what it is supposed to do and the latter involves interpreting the Constitution not inventing out of whole cloth penumbra of a penumbra kind of bull crap and passing it off as "constitutional." Or absurd "right to privacy"[...] schtick and claiming that such things are "constitutional." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 29, 2007)]
{6} With the way the latter game is played, it is possible for an ace high to beat three of a kind, two pair to beat a flush, or three of a kind to beat a full house, etc...if the lower hands were held in that round by your weblog host of course :) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
{7} Those who wonder why true conservatives worthy of the name[...] 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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 1, 2007)]
{8} It's about time someone sounded off regarding the hypocrisy surrounding President Bush's commutation of "Scooter" Libby. It took White House spokesman Tony Snow to set the record straight and challenge the Democrats to look at the record of former President Bill Clinton and the numerous pardons he issued. Bush's commutation pales by comparison. It appears the spineless Republican members of Congress don't have the backbone to stand up in defense of President Bush and his decision. Instead they are letting the Democrats berate and undermine the president's authority.
How soon people forget the mass pardons generously handed out during the waning days of the Clinton administration.
Now on the campaign stump Bill and Hillary have the gall to criticize the president for his commutation of Mr. Libby.
Once again, the Clintons show they have no shame or class. [Boyce Clark of Edmonds (WA): Letter to the Editor of The Everett Herald (circa July 9, 2007)]
{9} To use a biblical analogy.
{10} Bush by contrast has to like his roughly 30% rating by comparison.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
There are a variety of things to point to in mid-2007 with regards to the presidency of George W. Bush. The most obvious ones thus far have to do with the war in Iraq, with the progress of the US Supreme Court, and the illegal amnesty subject. I will touch on these first before getting to other subject starting with the subject of the alien amnesty issue.
I noted a couple of times back in June{1} that I was coming to the conclusion that the immigration approach that President Bush wanted to undertake was potentially an impeachable offense -indeed this was the reason I decided to shelve a project I have worked on intermittently dealing with the whole "impeachment of Bush" issue.{2} However, as we noted the other day, since the illegal immigrant amnesty bill is dead and will not be revivable until the next congress and presidency for various and sundry reasons{3}, essentially President Bush dodged a bullet on this matter and therefore the subject previously noted as being shelved may be revived and completed for posting before the end of the year time and motivation-willing on my part.{4}
With regards to the US Supreme Court, as I noted recently{5},the signs are there that this court will be far more constitutional than many of its predecessors in recent decades. However, as National Review noted in an editorial recently, thus far the moves have been very modest ones despite the hysterical tones of many who view the Constitution not as the law of the land but as some sort of clay lump to mould as they see fit. The offer to play "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em to illustrate the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" crowd is extended once again to those sorts in the same fashion as we outlined it over two years ago:
The writer of this post would like to take this opportunity to to invite anyone who believes in an evolving constitutional interpretation to email him if they are fans of Texas Hold 'Em and are interested in playing for money. For your humble servant is not only a pretty decent poker player but he also has in mind starting a game with people like you for money to illustrate by demonstration the logical absurdity of your positions: Texas Hold 'Em with "evolving rules."[...] Something tells your host that such a game would amply clarify the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" position in precise proportion to the amount of money the promoters of the "evolving constitutional interpretation" theory lost their cash in the aforeproposed card game. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
Gee, thus far none of the readers of this humble weblog who have explicitly or implicitly taken the position of an "evolving Constitution" have taken us up on our challenge. Why is that??? It is because they know damn well they would never win a single hand. And yes I can say that not because I am unbeatable at poker but because of the principle of "evolving hand values."
Rationally, if you do not take a fixed approach to a law, precept, or principle, then they are subject to change. Noting that, it should also be considered that there would be a weird notion in place if such persons were to ascribe some fixed schedule for such evolutions when they do not recognize the concept of fixity to laws, precepts, or principles to begin with. So in the game of "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em", the values of the hands would change often -perhaps even hand to hand at times or intermittently during hands.
After all, no matter what I had in my hand, I could go all in and "win" because the "interpretation" of what hand was higher would change constantly to reflect what I was holding in my own hand.{6} As absurd as this premise may sound, stop and think for a moment what absurdity my proposed game plan is intended to illustrate.
It is impossible for there to be a stable society where the law is so manipulated as these sorts favouring an "evolving Constitution" would like to see. However, at the same time it is important to have some degree of room for revision of the laws of the land if we are to avoid being in the position of advocating that the law is made for man rather than the converse.{7} That is why the Founders put the amendment procedure into the mix at the very beginning: to insure that any adjustments to the Constitution would require effort to undertake and would require a super majority of states to ratify. This was to affirm the important understanding that law was not a minor trifle but instead was to some extent a requirement for societal stability by codifying the natural right of all to defend themselves and their natural God-given rights.
On the war front, the Iraq surge strategery is on the whole going pretty good. The Bush Administration is wisely understating this a bit in the period before a progress report due in September is released. No matter what the report says, it is going to be spun in as negative of a fashion as the msm and its willing
The economy is in excellent shape and the Democratic congress is trying desperately to make hay on minutiae issues -spinning irrelevant molehills into mountains. The whole firing of the attorneys "scandal" was touched on by this writer earlier in the year as the whole non-issue it was and the whole "lets defund Cheney's office" schtick is more of the same. As far as those who want to whine about President Bush's commutation of the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, they should consider the various degenerates that President Clinton pardoned{8} and their own silence about them before wasting my time or anyone else's with such gnats at the expense of genuine camels.{9}
Basically, the Dems cannot win on any of the major issues and they know it. Otherwise, they would stick with the significant issues and one issue which is not significant at all is yet another waste of time and ink on studying the "lead up to the war" or whatever. But this is the sort of time-wasting garbage that political losers do and the 20% approval rating Congress has now{10} is only going to go down further still the more they do it.
The more I have mused on their behaviour, the more apparent it is that their entire approach is akin to the old Articles of Confederation where the power was vested solely in a congressional body. For readers who do not know history very well, that is the sort of governmental arrangement that the Founding Fathers sought to do away with in writing the Constitution of the United States which intended to support and sustain a strong and vigorous executive branch. But to say anymore on that at the moment would be to tangent off and I want to wrap this thread up now.
On the whole, the Bush Administration is doing better in 2007 than in 2006 or 2005 but sometimes this is in spite of their intentions on some issues rather than because of them. History will give a better accounting to this administration than the contemporary ahistoric partisan and ignorant sorts currently are. Offhand, my guess is that it will rank about average overall. But right now, things are looking about as good as they probably can for an Administration which is on the verge of getting overall favourable news about the effects of the surge in Iraq come September. After all, we have an economy at very low unemployment, low inflation, a president who cannot run for re-election and who may have another court vacancy to fill. We also have a president who no longer has to worry about committing a kind of political hari-kiri with the illegal immigration issue as they were doing before that issue was rendered politically dead until the next Congress/Administration.
Notes:
{1} I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007) and reiterated in a Rerum Novarum Post (circa June 23, 2007)]
{2} While appearing to not have much to do with the above thread per se, it is interesting that I have had on the drafting table for quite a while a planned post responding to twenty-five so-called "arguments" for impeaching President Bush. Most of those objections have been refuted in the draft as it is written now but the reason I am not likely to finish it anytime soon is this:
--I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!!
I do not intend to set forth the full panopoly of arguments to explain this at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007)]
{3} Namely that most of those nimrod congresspeople who supported this would be defeated if they had to run for re-election after passing such a bill. (Excepting the states and districts where the voters are and have been stupid enough to keep electing the same incompetent incumbent senators and representatives because of the their ability to bring pork home to the district of course.)
{4} Admittedly I have lost any remaining motivation to complete it after the last round of trying to pass the illegal amnesty proposal and make it into law. The reason for lacking the motivation now is not because the arguments of the kooks are difficult to dispatch with. (Quite the contrary actually: the hardest part of it is finding the time to dispatch with them piece by piece in reasonable detail.) The problem is mainly that I have no confidence in President Bush to do much of anything right anymore. And since he has shown a lack of concern for having the back of those who have supported him over the years for the most part -or at the very least defended him from unfair attacks- why should anyone have his back now???
{5} It is about time the Supreme Court got away from activist agendas and got back to doing what it is supposed to do and the latter involves interpreting the Constitution not inventing out of whole cloth penumbra of a penumbra kind of bull crap and passing it off as "constitutional." Or absurd "right to privacy"[...] schtick and claiming that such things are "constitutional." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 29, 2007)]
{6} With the way the latter game is played, it is possible for an ace high to beat three of a kind, two pair to beat a flush, or three of a kind to beat a full house, etc...if the lower hands were held in that round by your weblog host of course :) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
{7} Those who wonder why true conservatives worthy of the name[...] 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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 1, 2007)]
{8} It's about time someone sounded off regarding the hypocrisy surrounding President Bush's commutation of "Scooter" Libby. It took White House spokesman Tony Snow to set the record straight and challenge the Democrats to look at the record of former President Bill Clinton and the numerous pardons he issued. Bush's commutation pales by comparison. It appears the spineless Republican members of Congress don't have the backbone to stand up in defense of President Bush and his decision. Instead they are letting the Democrats berate and undermine the president's authority.
How soon people forget the mass pardons generously handed out during the waning days of the Clinton administration.
Now on the campaign stump Bill and Hillary have the gall to criticize the president for his commutation of Mr. Libby.
Once again, the Clintons show they have no shame or class. [Boyce Clark of Edmonds (WA): Letter to the Editor of The Everett Herald (circa July 9, 2007)]
{9} To use a biblical analogy.
{10} Bush by contrast has to like his roughly 30% rating by comparison.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Guest Editorial Outlining the Importance of Geopolitical Sanity and Knowledge of History Amidst a Sea of Rationally-Challenged Illiterates and the Historically Ignorant:
(By Donald R. McClarey)
I should note at the outset that this material is being posted with permission from the author. Because it was originally put up in a different context, the material may read a bit jagged but I wanted to keep it as close to the original as I could. For the sake of differentiation, I have put the words of the misinformed pseudo-"peacemaker" (or should I say useful idiot for Al Queda???) in red font to highlight the colour of their true sympathies and Donald's words in reply will be in blue font with any sources he quotes in darkblue font. Without further ado...
##########################
For those who wonder why this site is needed, I submit a copy of an e-mail I sent out tonight to a Catholic gentleman who took me to task for my recent comments on Open Book. My responses are underneath each of the quoted sections:
1."Not even the Bush people peddle that line. 93% of the Iraqi's want the American soliders out of the country. The only reason we are there is because the PNAC manifesto was adopted by Bush and others and a bogus war was launched. This was to neutralize Iraq and secure the oil fields, and the all important pipline to Haifa."
PNAC manifesto causing the invasion of Iraq? Please, that is tinfoil hat wearing conspiratorial garbage and unworthy of a response. We went to war against Saddam for numerous reasons, all of which were set forth in the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force. As for the Iraqi people, their freely elected government can ask us to depart at any time and we will. They haven't yet because they realize the blood bath that would ensue if US forces were to depart right now.
2. "Saddam was a dictator but one who allowed Catholics to practice their faith. America has installed more dictators in the world in the past 150 years, than there are states in our union. "
Actually the US has worked with the local governments thrown up by competing factions in other nations. The idea that the US is a malign force preventing people from choosing their own governments is ahistoric. Of course you hold this belief while also condemning the US for toppling a dictator and fostering democracy in Iraq. The US in your eyes is evil if it works with a dictator and evil if it topples a dictator. As to Catholics in Iraq, they made up their fair share of Saddam's victims, and now are under assault from the Jihadists who we are fighting. You of course would like us to withdraw yesterday and leave these fellow Catholics to the tender mercy of the beheaders.
3. "John NegroPonte turned a blind eye to the massacres in Central America in the 1980's.
And he is just one of many with blood soaked hands that helped push this war in Iraq. "
Balderdash. The Reagan policy in Central America prevented the creation of a series of little Cubas where the populations would have to endured the type of tyranny that have caused millions of Cubans to flee their own country. The attitude of the Sandanistas when the Pope visited Nicaragua in the 80s showed the contempt the Marxists had for the Catholic faith.
4. "America was not threatened by Iraq. and if Iraq had WMD's at one time, it is because America sold them to Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld was the salesman in 1983!"
You really don't know your history do you? The US had zero involvement in any chemical weapons produced by Saddam. His arms purchases from the US during 1973-1990 constituted .5% of total arms sales to Iraq. Arms from the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact totaled 68.9%, France 12.7% and mainland China 11.8%. Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. As to Iraq not constituting a threat are you kidding me? In 1990 Saddam attempted to corner the world oil market by seizing Kuwait. He failed to honor any of the terms of the truce which ended the First Gulf War. He was up his eyeballs in the first World Trade Center bombing and an attempt to assassinate Bush 41. Through the oil for food scam he was rapidly rebuilding his military. He had links, and had given funding, to most Arab terrorist groups. He was a clear and present danger.
5. "Israel has 800-2000 nukes, and yet not one American politician calls for inspections. If they have nukes they are not allowed to receive any aid. israel kiiled 34 unarmed americans in 1967. Iraq has killed no Americans, until forced to defend itself."
Got a thing about Jews don't you? It doesn't matter to us if Israel has nukes. They are not a threat to us, just as we do not care that the Brits or the French have nukes. Iraq didn't kill many Americans during the First Gulf War, but it wasn't for want of trying, or do you contend that Iraq was merely defending itself when it invaded Kuwait? As for the attack on the Liberty, Israel instantly apologized and paid compensation to the families of the survivors. In other words it acted like a friendly power that had made a mistake and not an enemy power out to kill Americans.
6. "George Bush is a man who has introduced real WMD's into the nation of Iraq by using depleted Urainium."
You really have got to stop getting your information from Moonbat sites on the net. Depleted uranium rounds pose no health risk except to occupants of an armored vehicle when the rounds slam home.
7. "Any Catholic who supports Bush and his Neo Bolsheviks in their pursuit of plundering other nations is acting in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church ,which has ruled this war
totally unjust. "
The Church hasn't ruled the war unjust, and all the neo-Bolsheviks probably contribute to anti-Bush sites you frequent. You will find a lot of them under a group known as A.N.S.W.E.R
My correspondent came back for more. Interesting how wackdoodle Bush hatred often walks in tandem with Jew hatred. The last comment from my correspondent is classic.
1."Your responses offer a level of obstinate ignorance in the face of indisputable truth."
That statement has as much substance as "No, I'm right, you're wrong."
2."Please look up the definition of delusional."
Why, when I see such a fine example of it in your ravings?
2. "Yes, the good ole USA only acts to do good and help other nations all the time. And Jews are the friends of America."
Yes almost all the time to the first, and most Jews I believe are friends of America due to our lack of persecution of members of their faith, no doubt to your dismay.
3." Do you also believe the Jews who brutally took over Palestine in 1946-1948 did so because God wanted them there."
No, they created Israel by accepting the UN division of Palestine. The Palestinians did not because they thought they could exterminate the Jews with the aid of the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt. Big mistake. To the astonishment of the world, the outnumbered Jews won.
4. "Look, you are 100% wrong on the USS Liberty. Obviously you never served in the military."
Three years in the US Army Reserves 1975-78.
5. "The radar codes that are emitted from ships have a unique fingerprint which identifies them as US. French etc...
The Israel defense forces had to jam our radar in order to prevent the USS Liberty from radioing for help. That means they had to jam USA military codes.
It was not a mistake and our American flag on that ship was 15 x 30. 2 Israeli pilots were punished for refusing to attack the ship becasue they knew it was American. Israel never admitted it was a mistake. "
Too bad every official report has found that the attack was a tragic error caused by the Israeli pilots misidentifying the ship. You can find these reports online:
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, June 18, 1967
" Available evidence combines to indicate the attack on the Liberty on 8 June was in fact a case of mistaken identity."
CIA Report, June 13, 1967
The attack was a mistake. In 1978, in a response to an inquiry, Director of Central Intelligence Stansfield Turner wrote: "It remains our best judgment that the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty was not made in malice toward the United States and was a mistake."
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Russ Report, June 9-20, 1967 General Russ did not make any findings about the actual attack. The report compiled all message traffic and contains no evidence that the attack was not a mistake.
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Clifford Report, July 18, 1967
"The information thus far available does not reflect that the Israeli high command made a premeditated attack on a ship known to be American…. "
National Security Agency, 1981
"Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculation and egregious errors."
Israeli Report
Ram Ron Commission of Inquiry, June 16, 1967
"[T]he attack on the ship by the Israeli Defense Forces was made neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as a result of a bona fide mistake."
6. "You think DU is not toxic? Then why was it banned under international treaties? The known birth defects from its use are well documented."
More Moonbattery. Here are the facts:
"Study Finds Little Risk From Depleted-Uranium Particles
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19, 2004 – A new study finds the health risks from inhaling airborne particles of depleted uranium are very low.
The Capstone Study found that even soldiers in armored vehicles hit by depleted-uranium munitions would still not suffer health risks from inhaling the particles. Of course, officials said, soldiers would certainly have other problems if their tank or armored personnel carrier was hit by a depleted- uranium round.
The U.S. military uses depleted uranium as armor and in munitions. The five- year, $6 million study, analyzed for the Army and the DoD Deployment Health Support Directorate by Batelle Memorial Institute, found that even in extreme cases exposure to "aerosolized" depleted uranium did not pose a health risk.
The study looked at the health risks faced by servicemembers who had been in an armored vehicle that was breached by a depleted-uranium round. It also looked at the exposures mechanics or other maintenance personnel would get from working in such a vehicle. "What we found in this study is the highest-exposed individuals are those that are in, on or near vehicles when they were struck," said Army Lt. Col. Mark Melanson.
"What we found is the radiation doses for people in that situation are below peacetime safety standards," he continued. "We also found that the chemical risks of breathing in uranium dust is so low that it won't cause any long-term health risks."
Melanson, who holds a doctorate in radiation health sciences, is the program manager of the Health Physics Program at the Army's Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.
DoD has been assessing the safety of depleted uranium for more than 30 years. The radiation risk from the rounds and armor is negligible. Melanson pointed out that uranium is a common element. Depleted uranium has most of the U-235 isotope -- the type used to make atomic bombs -- taken out of it, leaving the more stable U-238.
But uranium is a heavy metal and, like lead or mercury, can pose problems if enough is ingested.
Specialists at Aberdeen fired depleted-uranium rounds at the turrets of M-1 tanks and at Bradley fighting vehicles. They measured the concentration of DU inside the turrets and passenger compartments and compared those rates with allowable peacetime standards. The levels were below the standards set for peacetime civilian workers.
"If it's safe for workers in the States to receive these exposures during peacetime, it's definitely safe for our troops to receive them in combat when there are other more dangerous risks out there on the battlefield," Melanson said.
The study is further proof that DU poses little danger. Since 1993, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been assessing the health of American soldiers wounded in 1991's Operation Desert Storm by depleted-uranium rounds. These individuals have particles of depleted uranium remaining inside them.
"There are no health affects attributable to DU," Melanson said. "There are health problems from their wounding, but nothing from depleted uranium."
7. "America sold Iraq its WMD and it was Donald Rumsfeld who was the salesman."
Only in Moonbat land. The US sold no chemical or biological weapons to Iraq.
8. "You forget that John Negroponte helped to organize and fund the death squads in Guatemala under General Martinez, a man responsible for 50,000 deaths in the region. General Martinez was his most frequent lunch guest."
You can't even keep the info you get from kook leftist or paleocon web sites straight. Negroponte was ambassador to Honduras not Guatemala. General Gustavo Alvarez Martinez is probably the man you are attempting to refer to. He was the head of the Honduran military while Negroponte was ambassador. As for the figure of 50,000, here is the reality:
"The human rights situation deteriorated significantly after the return to civilian rule in 1982. Under the new civilian president, the military, under the command of General Gustavo Álvarez Martínez, initiated a campaign against leftists. This campaign allegedly led to the disappearance of more than 100 people. Small insurgent groups also began operating during this period, but the overwhelming majority of political killings were carried out by the military, according to human rights observers. Although this violence paled in comparison to that in neighboring El Salvador and Guatemala, it marked a departure from the relatively tranquil Honduran political environment. " Source: Library of Congress Country Studies.
Where you get the 50,000 figure from, only God and the Moonbats know.
8. "The Downing Street memos prove that Bush had no reason to invade Iraq. He went with WMD because there was no link to Osama or anyone else. The war is all about reordering the Middle east according to the PNAC manifesto which if you ever read it, which you have not, clearly outlines regime change in Iraq, Syria and Iran, as good for the United States"
Actually virtually every intelligence agency on Earth thought that Saddam had WMDs. His own generals were shocked during the war when Saddam did not order the use of chemical weapons because they assumed he had them. The rest of what you say is typical of the type of paranoia common among conspiracy mongers.
9. " As to the Israelis and their illegal nukes, why are you so willing to turn a blind eye to the law?"
Actually, Israel possessing nukes is no more illegal than the US possessing nukes. I assume that your statement is merely rhetorical, and you are not referring to a specific statute of Israel that would prevent it from having nuclear weapons.
10. "I assuem you are a Jewish Zionist. Let me encourage you to convert to the One True Faith soon, as the blood curse your forefathers called down upon you, will remain with you, until you are baptized."
Actually, as you might have guessed from my name, my forebears are Scots and Irish with a few Cherokees tossed in for seasoning. I am a Catholic as you might also have guessed from my frequent posts at Open Book. As for you, you are a deluded anti-Semite. Here is something for you to contemplate. Saint Ignatius of Loyola was warned that one of his novices might have Jewish blood. This was at a time when such a charge was serious business in Spain. The Saint responded how fortunate for the novice in having a blood kinship with Our Lord and His mother.
Free yourself from the foul hatred that obviously has you in its grip, lest it be held against you when your soul comes before Christ.
##########################
Oh and I would be remiss if I did not thank Donald for saving me a lot of time rehashing these subjects myself which I had planned to do around the time I came across this material. And while I do not always agree with the contents of guest editorials, with the above it converges so well with what I would say (if not in how I would say it) that I want to note that here for the benefit of those reading this text.
(By Donald R. McClarey)
I should note at the outset that this material is being posted with permission from the author. Because it was originally put up in a different context, the material may read a bit jagged but I wanted to keep it as close to the original as I could. For the sake of differentiation, I have put the words of the misinformed pseudo-"peacemaker" (or should I say useful idiot for Al Queda???) in red font to highlight the colour of their true sympathies and Donald's words in reply will be in blue font with any sources he quotes in darkblue font. Without further ado...
##########################
For those who wonder why this site is needed, I submit a copy of an e-mail I sent out tonight to a Catholic gentleman who took me to task for my recent comments on Open Book. My responses are underneath each of the quoted sections:
1."Not even the Bush people peddle that line. 93% of the Iraqi's want the American soliders out of the country. The only reason we are there is because the PNAC manifesto was adopted by Bush and others and a bogus war was launched. This was to neutralize Iraq and secure the oil fields, and the all important pipline to Haifa."
PNAC manifesto causing the invasion of Iraq? Please, that is tinfoil hat wearing conspiratorial garbage and unworthy of a response. We went to war against Saddam for numerous reasons, all of which were set forth in the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force. As for the Iraqi people, their freely elected government can ask us to depart at any time and we will. They haven't yet because they realize the blood bath that would ensue if US forces were to depart right now.
2. "Saddam was a dictator but one who allowed Catholics to practice their faith. America has installed more dictators in the world in the past 150 years, than there are states in our union. "
Actually the US has worked with the local governments thrown up by competing factions in other nations. The idea that the US is a malign force preventing people from choosing their own governments is ahistoric. Of course you hold this belief while also condemning the US for toppling a dictator and fostering democracy in Iraq. The US in your eyes is evil if it works with a dictator and evil if it topples a dictator. As to Catholics in Iraq, they made up their fair share of Saddam's victims, and now are under assault from the Jihadists who we are fighting. You of course would like us to withdraw yesterday and leave these fellow Catholics to the tender mercy of the beheaders.
3. "John NegroPonte turned a blind eye to the massacres in Central America in the 1980's.
And he is just one of many with blood soaked hands that helped push this war in Iraq. "
Balderdash. The Reagan policy in Central America prevented the creation of a series of little Cubas where the populations would have to endured the type of tyranny that have caused millions of Cubans to flee their own country. The attitude of the Sandanistas when the Pope visited Nicaragua in the 80s showed the contempt the Marxists had for the Catholic faith.
4. "America was not threatened by Iraq. and if Iraq had WMD's at one time, it is because America sold them to Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld was the salesman in 1983!"
You really don't know your history do you? The US had zero involvement in any chemical weapons produced by Saddam. His arms purchases from the US during 1973-1990 constituted .5% of total arms sales to Iraq. Arms from the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact totaled 68.9%, France 12.7% and mainland China 11.8%. Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. As to Iraq not constituting a threat are you kidding me? In 1990 Saddam attempted to corner the world oil market by seizing Kuwait. He failed to honor any of the terms of the truce which ended the First Gulf War. He was up his eyeballs in the first World Trade Center bombing and an attempt to assassinate Bush 41. Through the oil for food scam he was rapidly rebuilding his military. He had links, and had given funding, to most Arab terrorist groups. He was a clear and present danger.
5. "Israel has 800-2000 nukes, and yet not one American politician calls for inspections. If they have nukes they are not allowed to receive any aid. israel kiiled 34 unarmed americans in 1967. Iraq has killed no Americans, until forced to defend itself."
Got a thing about Jews don't you? It doesn't matter to us if Israel has nukes. They are not a threat to us, just as we do not care that the Brits or the French have nukes. Iraq didn't kill many Americans during the First Gulf War, but it wasn't for want of trying, or do you contend that Iraq was merely defending itself when it invaded Kuwait? As for the attack on the Liberty, Israel instantly apologized and paid compensation to the families of the survivors. In other words it acted like a friendly power that had made a mistake and not an enemy power out to kill Americans.
6. "George Bush is a man who has introduced real WMD's into the nation of Iraq by using depleted Urainium."
You really have got to stop getting your information from Moonbat sites on the net. Depleted uranium rounds pose no health risk except to occupants of an armored vehicle when the rounds slam home.
7. "Any Catholic who supports Bush and his Neo Bolsheviks in their pursuit of plundering other nations is acting in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church ,which has ruled this war
totally unjust. "
The Church hasn't ruled the war unjust, and all the neo-Bolsheviks probably contribute to anti-Bush sites you frequent. You will find a lot of them under a group known as A.N.S.W.E.R
My correspondent came back for more. Interesting how wackdoodle Bush hatred often walks in tandem with Jew hatred. The last comment from my correspondent is classic.
1."Your responses offer a level of obstinate ignorance in the face of indisputable truth."
That statement has as much substance as "No, I'm right, you're wrong."
2."Please look up the definition of delusional."
Why, when I see such a fine example of it in your ravings?
2. "Yes, the good ole USA only acts to do good and help other nations all the time. And Jews are the friends of America."
Yes almost all the time to the first, and most Jews I believe are friends of America due to our lack of persecution of members of their faith, no doubt to your dismay.
3." Do you also believe the Jews who brutally took over Palestine in 1946-1948 did so because God wanted them there."
No, they created Israel by accepting the UN division of Palestine. The Palestinians did not because they thought they could exterminate the Jews with the aid of the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt. Big mistake. To the astonishment of the world, the outnumbered Jews won.
4. "Look, you are 100% wrong on the USS Liberty. Obviously you never served in the military."
Three years in the US Army Reserves 1975-78.
5. "The radar codes that are emitted from ships have a unique fingerprint which identifies them as US. French etc...
The Israel defense forces had to jam our radar in order to prevent the USS Liberty from radioing for help. That means they had to jam USA military codes.
It was not a mistake and our American flag on that ship was 15 x 30. 2 Israeli pilots were punished for refusing to attack the ship becasue they knew it was American. Israel never admitted it was a mistake. "
Too bad every official report has found that the attack was a tragic error caused by the Israeli pilots misidentifying the ship. You can find these reports online:
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, June 18, 1967
" Available evidence combines to indicate the attack on the Liberty on 8 June was in fact a case of mistaken identity."
CIA Report, June 13, 1967
The attack was a mistake. In 1978, in a response to an inquiry, Director of Central Intelligence Stansfield Turner wrote: "It remains our best judgment that the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty was not made in malice toward the United States and was a mistake."
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Russ Report, June 9-20, 1967 General Russ did not make any findings about the actual attack. The report compiled all message traffic and contains no evidence that the attack was not a mistake.
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Clifford Report, July 18, 1967
"The information thus far available does not reflect that the Israeli high command made a premeditated attack on a ship known to be American…. "
National Security Agency, 1981
"Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculation and egregious errors."
Israeli Report
Ram Ron Commission of Inquiry, June 16, 1967
"[T]he attack on the ship by the Israeli Defense Forces was made neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as a result of a bona fide mistake."
6. "You think DU is not toxic? Then why was it banned under international treaties? The known birth defects from its use are well documented."
More Moonbattery. Here are the facts:
"Study Finds Little Risk From Depleted-Uranium Particles
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19, 2004 – A new study finds the health risks from inhaling airborne particles of depleted uranium are very low.
The Capstone Study found that even soldiers in armored vehicles hit by depleted-uranium munitions would still not suffer health risks from inhaling the particles. Of course, officials said, soldiers would certainly have other problems if their tank or armored personnel carrier was hit by a depleted- uranium round.
The U.S. military uses depleted uranium as armor and in munitions. The five- year, $6 million study, analyzed for the Army and the DoD Deployment Health Support Directorate by Batelle Memorial Institute, found that even in extreme cases exposure to "aerosolized" depleted uranium did not pose a health risk.
The study looked at the health risks faced by servicemembers who had been in an armored vehicle that was breached by a depleted-uranium round. It also looked at the exposures mechanics or other maintenance personnel would get from working in such a vehicle. "What we found in this study is the highest-exposed individuals are those that are in, on or near vehicles when they were struck," said Army Lt. Col. Mark Melanson.
"What we found is the radiation doses for people in that situation are below peacetime safety standards," he continued. "We also found that the chemical risks of breathing in uranium dust is so low that it won't cause any long-term health risks."
Melanson, who holds a doctorate in radiation health sciences, is the program manager of the Health Physics Program at the Army's Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.
DoD has been assessing the safety of depleted uranium for more than 30 years. The radiation risk from the rounds and armor is negligible. Melanson pointed out that uranium is a common element. Depleted uranium has most of the U-235 isotope -- the type used to make atomic bombs -- taken out of it, leaving the more stable U-238.
But uranium is a heavy metal and, like lead or mercury, can pose problems if enough is ingested.
Specialists at Aberdeen fired depleted-uranium rounds at the turrets of M-1 tanks and at Bradley fighting vehicles. They measured the concentration of DU inside the turrets and passenger compartments and compared those rates with allowable peacetime standards. The levels were below the standards set for peacetime civilian workers.
"If it's safe for workers in the States to receive these exposures during peacetime, it's definitely safe for our troops to receive them in combat when there are other more dangerous risks out there on the battlefield," Melanson said.
The study is further proof that DU poses little danger. Since 1993, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been assessing the health of American soldiers wounded in 1991's Operation Desert Storm by depleted-uranium rounds. These individuals have particles of depleted uranium remaining inside them.
"There are no health affects attributable to DU," Melanson said. "There are health problems from their wounding, but nothing from depleted uranium."
7. "America sold Iraq its WMD and it was Donald Rumsfeld who was the salesman."
Only in Moonbat land. The US sold no chemical or biological weapons to Iraq.
8. "You forget that John Negroponte helped to organize and fund the death squads in Guatemala under General Martinez, a man responsible for 50,000 deaths in the region. General Martinez was his most frequent lunch guest."
You can't even keep the info you get from kook leftist or paleocon web sites straight. Negroponte was ambassador to Honduras not Guatemala. General Gustavo Alvarez Martinez is probably the man you are attempting to refer to. He was the head of the Honduran military while Negroponte was ambassador. As for the figure of 50,000, here is the reality:
"The human rights situation deteriorated significantly after the return to civilian rule in 1982. Under the new civilian president, the military, under the command of General Gustavo Álvarez Martínez, initiated a campaign against leftists. This campaign allegedly led to the disappearance of more than 100 people. Small insurgent groups also began operating during this period, but the overwhelming majority of political killings were carried out by the military, according to human rights observers. Although this violence paled in comparison to that in neighboring El Salvador and Guatemala, it marked a departure from the relatively tranquil Honduran political environment. " Source: Library of Congress Country Studies.
Where you get the 50,000 figure from, only God and the Moonbats know.
8. "The Downing Street memos prove that Bush had no reason to invade Iraq. He went with WMD because there was no link to Osama or anyone else. The war is all about reordering the Middle east according to the PNAC manifesto which if you ever read it, which you have not, clearly outlines regime change in Iraq, Syria and Iran, as good for the United States"
Actually virtually every intelligence agency on Earth thought that Saddam had WMDs. His own generals were shocked during the war when Saddam did not order the use of chemical weapons because they assumed he had them. The rest of what you say is typical of the type of paranoia common among conspiracy mongers.
9. " As to the Israelis and their illegal nukes, why are you so willing to turn a blind eye to the law?"
Actually, Israel possessing nukes is no more illegal than the US possessing nukes. I assume that your statement is merely rhetorical, and you are not referring to a specific statute of Israel that would prevent it from having nuclear weapons.
10. "I assuem you are a Jewish Zionist. Let me encourage you to convert to the One True Faith soon, as the blood curse your forefathers called down upon you, will remain with you, until you are baptized."
Actually, as you might have guessed from my name, my forebears are Scots and Irish with a few Cherokees tossed in for seasoning. I am a Catholic as you might also have guessed from my frequent posts at Open Book. As for you, you are a deluded anti-Semite. Here is something for you to contemplate. Saint Ignatius of Loyola was warned that one of his novices might have Jewish blood. This was at a time when such a charge was serious business in Spain. The Saint responded how fortunate for the novice in having a blood kinship with Our Lord and His mother.
Free yourself from the foul hatred that obviously has you in its grip, lest it be held against you when your soul comes before Christ.
##########################
Oh and I would be remiss if I did not thank Donald for saving me a lot of time rehashing these subjects myself which I had planned to do around the time I came across this material. And while I do not always agree with the contents of guest editorials, with the above it converges so well with what I would say (if not in how I would say it) that I want to note that here for the benefit of those reading this text.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Points to Ponder:
(From Benjamin Franklin)
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.
As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those disputing, contradicting, and confuting people are generally unfortunate in their affairs. They get victory, sometimes, but they never get good will, which would be of more use to them.
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.
(From Benjamin Franklin)
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.
As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those disputing, contradicting, and confuting people are generally unfortunate in their affairs. They get victory, sometimes, but they never get good will, which would be of more use to them.
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.
Miscellaneous Notes:
Three bits briefly before calling it a night...
--Having tired recently of seeing that stupid "cost of the war in Iraq" price ticker, I am curious to know if any readers of this weblog know where there may be a ticker tallying the cost of the war on poverty. I know it is around seven trillion which dwarfs any cost to the war in Iraq and would like to have a copy of it to put in the side margin of this weblog.
--Apparently a previously posted assumption about audioblogger not having access to previously recorded audioposts was quite possibly wrong. I was unable to make them work for some time but the other day, they worked. So I am not sure if I was mistaken or if it was the technology of the computers I tried them on previously as to what the problem was. Either way, I will assume the worst and make a mea culpa here on the matter.
--I have on the drafting table and about seventy percent done a review of the Bush Administration through the first half of 2007. It should be completed and ready for posting if not this weekend than sometime next week.
Three bits briefly before calling it a night...
--Having tired recently of seeing that stupid "cost of the war in Iraq" price ticker, I am curious to know if any readers of this weblog know where there may be a ticker tallying the cost of the war on poverty. I know it is around seven trillion which dwarfs any cost to the war in Iraq and would like to have a copy of it to put in the side margin of this weblog.
--Apparently a previously posted assumption about audioblogger not having access to previously recorded audioposts was quite possibly wrong. I was unable to make them work for some time but the other day, they worked. So I am not sure if I was mistaken or if it was the technology of the computers I tried them on previously as to what the problem was. Either way, I will assume the worst and make a mea culpa here on the matter.
--I have on the drafting table and about seventy percent done a review of the Bush Administration through the first half of 2007. It should be completed and ready for posting if not this weekend than sometime next week.
Friday, July 06, 2007
What the president ought to have done yesterday (Greg Krehbiel)
I cannot say I disagree with Greg's analysis in the above thread.
I cannot say I disagree with Greg's analysis in the above thread.
Points to Ponder:
(On Conscientious Objectors)
I have no quarrel with men who absent themselves from war, or combat in war, due to reasons of conscience clearly stated so long as they take their lumps in the public arena. That is crucial, for an individual conscience is worthy of respect only to the extent it's honestly directed at the right ordering of society. The acid test of that direction is a man's willingness to suffer at the hands of the community whose right ordering he supposedly desires. Christ took that test, and passed it, not least because He wanted to show us how necessary and expensive a conscience can be. So we should judge Eugene Debs an honorable man, whether or not we think he was right to oppose World War I, because Debs went to jail for opposing it. [Ian Mclean (circa April 26, 2006)]
(On Conscientious Objectors)
I have no quarrel with men who absent themselves from war, or combat in war, due to reasons of conscience clearly stated so long as they take their lumps in the public arena. That is crucial, for an individual conscience is worthy of respect only to the extent it's honestly directed at the right ordering of society. The acid test of that direction is a man's willingness to suffer at the hands of the community whose right ordering he supposedly desires. Christ took that test, and passed it, not least because He wanted to show us how necessary and expensive a conscience can be. So we should judge Eugene Debs an honorable man, whether or not we think he was right to oppose World War I, because Debs went to jail for opposing it. [Ian Mclean (circa April 26, 2006)]
Amnesty’s Fall (National Catholic Register)
I have taken a mixed view of Amnesty International over the years -mainly because it so often comes across as wanting to focus its blame for "human rights violations" on the countries with better overall human rights records and ignore or downplay the actions of the most blatant offenders.{1} This kind of hypocrisy does not sit well with me but recently AI went beyond even this degree of hypocrisy and has moved to endorsing the taking of life: a blatant contradiction of their stated aim.
At least previously, one could point to the mission statement of sorts from AI and note where they were being inconsistent and chalk it up to them simply falling short of their stated intentions. But they have now endorsed murder{2} so they cannot be taken even remotely seriously anymore.
Those who have invested their time and efforts in promoting AI lo these many years now have to wipe a good chunk of egg off of their faces. And while I have not given them much thought of a positive nature over the years, they have now insured that I will think of them only in a negative fashion until they come to see the error of their ways and the absurdity of claiming to speak out for "human rights" when they endorse a violation of one of the most fundamental rights imaginable: the right to life.
Notes:
{1} Or to reference Moynihan's Law codified by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
"The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country."
{2} I go over the issue of abortion most recently as it pertains to the fundamental rights of man in this weblog posting:
On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)
I have taken a mixed view of Amnesty International over the years -mainly because it so often comes across as wanting to focus its blame for "human rights violations" on the countries with better overall human rights records and ignore or downplay the actions of the most blatant offenders.{1} This kind of hypocrisy does not sit well with me but recently AI went beyond even this degree of hypocrisy and has moved to endorsing the taking of life: a blatant contradiction of their stated aim.
At least previously, one could point to the mission statement of sorts from AI and note where they were being inconsistent and chalk it up to them simply falling short of their stated intentions. But they have now endorsed murder{2} so they cannot be taken even remotely seriously anymore.
Those who have invested their time and efforts in promoting AI lo these many years now have to wipe a good chunk of egg off of their faces. And while I have not given them much thought of a positive nature over the years, they have now insured that I will think of them only in a negative fashion until they come to see the error of their ways and the absurdity of claiming to speak out for "human rights" when they endorse a violation of one of the most fundamental rights imaginable: the right to life.
Notes:
{1} Or to reference Moynihan's Law codified by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
"The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country."
{2} I go over the issue of abortion most recently as it pertains to the fundamental rights of man in this weblog posting:
On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
I was going to write on the Founding Fathers and on Claude Frederic Bastiat but as it is, I was made aware of an article on the founders written by Rush Limbaugh. This is not the same Rush Limbaugh who has the radio show but is the latter's father. It is a marvelous speech which outlined just what sacrifices were made so that we could live in a free nation and can serve as a reminder for those who balk at the idea of real sacrifice in pursuit of one's principles -not the rabble of modern day pseudo-"peacemakers" who would trade liberty for the "security" of slavery.{1}
Oh and for those who want to play the "founding fathers were slave owners so nothing they did is worthy of admiration" card, I will link to something written on this weblog which outlines some of the intellectual and ethical bankruptcy of that view with an eye towards the realities of their time.{2} But without further ado, here is the thread on the Founding Fathers noted above followed by the thread by Dr. Walter E. Williams on Claude Frederic Bastiat which we have posted to this site before on more than one occasion. Enjoy them and from all of us here at Rerum Novarum, we wish you all a splendid Fourth of July!!!
Notes:
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Points to Ponder:
(On Perversion of the Law)
Today would have been the birthday of arguably history's greatest advocates of liberty. We at Rerum Novarum will write more on this later on when there is time. In the meantime though, the occasion is commemorated by a "points to ponder" excerpt from his magnum opus The Law -a text which has has no small degree of influence on us over the years. Without further ado:
(On Perversion of the Law)
Today would have been the birthday of arguably history's greatest advocates of liberty. We at Rerum Novarum will write more on this later on when there is time. In the meantime though, the occasion is commemorated by a "points to ponder" excerpt from his magnum opus The Law -a text which has has no small degree of influence on us over the years. Without further ado:
It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.
What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.
In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.
No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: From The Law (circa 1850)]
Miscellaneous Musings:
The first bit to cover is from the war on terror front:
--Two Bombs Were Set To Blow In London (Sky News Courtesy of Drudge)
Here are a few bits from the article:
Police have confirmed that not one, but two massive car bombs were set to explode in the heart of London's West End.
The first, in Haymarket, was defused after police were alerted by an ambulance crew called to an incident at a nearby nightclub.
The second was in a car that was illegally parked nearby and towed to the Park Lane car pound...
The device, which contained 60 litres of petrol, a large amount of nails and several gas canisters, was found in the Mercedes early this morning.
Police had received reports of a suspicious vehicle close to the Tiger Tiger nightclub in Piccadilly shortly before 2am.
An ambulance crew, who treated a person in the club in an unrelated incident, reported that there was smoke inside the car.
The second device is believed to have been found by police in a blue hybrid Mercedes that was illegally parked in the West End and was towed away to the Park Lane car pound in the early hours of the morning.
I hope the British take these matters seriously and do not act like many of the useful idiot sorts for Al Queda. The latter tend towards hyping abstract idealist notions of fighting a casualty-less war where the enemies who want to either convert us to their twisted notion of what "God" is or kill us will somehow magically (without coercion) tell us everything we need to find out about how to stop their plans for our destruction.
Such pseudo-"peacemaker" sorts usually defend their termite-like undermining of just public order and the common good of society (part of which involves the right to self-defense both individually as well as communally) by claiming they are for "human rights" but this is functionally not true. In reality, they favour a kind of anecdotal human rights spiel which by logical extension downplays fundamental God-given rights of man{1} at various points.{2}
Unfortunately, many of these useful idiots will only find out the error of their moronic advocacy when it is their head being sawed off by a dull knife while chants to "God" are uttered in Arabic by turban-wearing cowards who deserve a fate befitting the rabid disease-infested animals they are.{3} But enough on the useful idiots and their anecdotal human rights spiel for now.
--Today would have been the birthday of Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, the sort of journalist we do not have nearly enough of in this world anymore. Tomorrow would be the birthday of arguably history's greatest advocate of liberty Claude Frederic Bastiat. As this posting was started in the morning today and not completed for posting until very late, it is unlikely that I will post anything tomorrow of a significant nature about Bastiat except (perhaps) quote from his magnum opus The Law in a "points to ponder" installment to this humble weblog. I will however do some kind of combined tribute to him and America's founding on or around the Fourth of July this year since the core underlying theme of both is the same. Moving on...
--If the first part of this posting appears to put me in an ornery mood today, the truth is anything but that. I would however be remiss when noting the stupidity of the anecdotal human rights crowd (AHRD for short) just how livid their obtuseness makes me. But enough on that as I noted earlier, today legislatively is a good day so without further ado and as an old BB King song aptly put it:
No matter whether rainy weather
Birds of a feather gotta stick together
So get yourself under control
Go out and get together and let the good times roll
Today after all is the day after the day the immigration bill died. Of course I am not going to presume that this thing will stay dead but it is at the very least dead until after the next presidential election. Readers who were angry that this absurdity was even contemplated should press the presidential candidates on it and refuse to support any presidential candidate that would support amnesty for illegal aliens.
--Court Ruling Likely to Further Segregate Schools, Educators Say (Washington Post)
I of course have no problem with this ruling though I am sure that many of the contemporary ignorant will read into that statement presumptions of my view which are not correct. The bottom line for my stance is a simple one: there is no civil right properly speaking{4} to desegregated schools. It is about time the Supreme Court got away from activist agendas and got back to doing what it is supposed to do and the latter involves interpreting the Constitution not inventing out of whole cloth penumbra of a penumbra kind of bull crap and passing it off as "constitutional." Or absurd "right to privacy"{5} schtick and claiming that such things are "constitutional." But enough on that matter for now.
Notes:
{1} 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: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]
{2} They are so much like marxists methodologically that it is disturbing but that is a subject for another time perhaps.
{3} Wake up you self-anointed "activists" with your blind and irrational hatred of George Walker Bush. Your position is not only illogical but further: it is idiotic and plays Russian roulette with this nation's national security. You would compromise the safety of American citizens for the sake of political advantage in an election. For that, I spit on you!!! ...
[I]f the savage beheading of American civilians by rabid infested subhuman debris is not enough to get self-styled "activists" to wake from their pathetic Vietnam-era pretensions and face reality, I have to wonder what it will take. And if they think people like me will wait around for them to finally "get it", I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell them. That is all for now. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 18, 2004)]
{4} I went over the subject of specifically what is and is not a civil right properly speaking a few times in the past -most recently (to my recollection) here.
{5} I cannot recall if I have said this on the weblog in the past or not (as I cannot find anything in a quick archive search) but I am not opposed in principle to the idea of a federal right to privacy. The problem is, there is no constitutional foundation for such a position; ergo those who want to see one should do what they can to amend the Constitution to reflect that right. Otherwise, they should have the decency to admit that they do not give a damn about the Constitution at all.
I had a few stray minutes here and there throughout the day to compile some tidbits so here goes...
The first bit to cover is from the war on terror front:
--Two Bombs Were Set To Blow In London (Sky News Courtesy of Drudge)
Here are a few bits from the article:
Police have confirmed that not one, but two massive car bombs were set to explode in the heart of London's West End.
The first, in Haymarket, was defused after police were alerted by an ambulance crew called to an incident at a nearby nightclub.
The second was in a car that was illegally parked nearby and towed to the Park Lane car pound...
The device, which contained 60 litres of petrol, a large amount of nails and several gas canisters, was found in the Mercedes early this morning.
Police had received reports of a suspicious vehicle close to the Tiger Tiger nightclub in Piccadilly shortly before 2am.
An ambulance crew, who treated a person in the club in an unrelated incident, reported that there was smoke inside the car.
The second device is believed to have been found by police in a blue hybrid Mercedes that was illegally parked in the West End and was towed away to the Park Lane car pound in the early hours of the morning.
I hope the British take these matters seriously and do not act like many of the useful idiot sorts for Al Queda. The latter tend towards hyping abstract idealist notions of fighting a casualty-less war where the enemies who want to either convert us to their twisted notion of what "God" is or kill us will somehow magically (without coercion) tell us everything we need to find out about how to stop their plans for our destruction.
Such pseudo-"peacemaker" sorts usually defend their termite-like undermining of just public order and the common good of society (part of which involves the right to self-defense both individually as well as communally) by claiming they are for "human rights" but this is functionally not true. In reality, they favour a kind of anecdotal human rights spiel which by logical extension downplays fundamental God-given rights of man{1} at various points.{2}
Unfortunately, many of these useful idiots will only find out the error of their moronic advocacy when it is their head being sawed off by a dull knife while chants to "God" are uttered in Arabic by turban-wearing cowards who deserve a fate befitting the rabid disease-infested animals they are.{3} But enough on the useful idiots and their anecdotal human rights spiel for now.
--Today would have been the birthday of Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, the sort of journalist we do not have nearly enough of in this world anymore. Tomorrow would be the birthday of arguably history's greatest advocate of liberty Claude Frederic Bastiat. As this posting was started in the morning today and not completed for posting until very late, it is unlikely that I will post anything tomorrow of a significant nature about Bastiat except (perhaps) quote from his magnum opus The Law in a "points to ponder" installment to this humble weblog. I will however do some kind of combined tribute to him and America's founding on or around the Fourth of July this year since the core underlying theme of both is the same. Moving on...
--If the first part of this posting appears to put me in an ornery mood today, the truth is anything but that. I would however be remiss when noting the stupidity of the anecdotal human rights crowd (AHRD for short) just how livid their obtuseness makes me. But enough on that as I noted earlier, today legislatively is a good day so without further ado and as an old BB King song aptly put it:
No matter whether rainy weather
Birds of a feather gotta stick together
So get yourself under control
Go out and get together and let the good times roll
Today after all is the day after the day the immigration bill died. Of course I am not going to presume that this thing will stay dead but it is at the very least dead until after the next presidential election. Readers who were angry that this absurdity was even contemplated should press the presidential candidates on it and refuse to support any presidential candidate that would support amnesty for illegal aliens.
--Court Ruling Likely to Further Segregate Schools, Educators Say (Washington Post)
I of course have no problem with this ruling though I am sure that many of the contemporary ignorant will read into that statement presumptions of my view which are not correct. The bottom line for my stance is a simple one: there is no civil right properly speaking{4} to desegregated schools. It is about time the Supreme Court got away from activist agendas and got back to doing what it is supposed to do and the latter involves interpreting the Constitution not inventing out of whole cloth penumbra of a penumbra kind of bull crap and passing it off as "constitutional." Or absurd "right to privacy"{5} schtick and claiming that such things are "constitutional." But enough on that matter for now.
Notes:
{1} 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: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]
{2} They are so much like marxists methodologically that it is disturbing but that is a subject for another time perhaps.
{3} Wake up you self-anointed "activists" with your blind and irrational hatred of George Walker Bush. Your position is not only illogical but further: it is idiotic and plays Russian roulette with this nation's national security. You would compromise the safety of American citizens for the sake of political advantage in an election. For that, I spit on you!!! ...
[I]f the savage beheading of American civilians by rabid infested subhuman debris is not enough to get self-styled "activists" to wake from their pathetic Vietnam-era pretensions and face reality, I have to wonder what it will take. And if they think people like me will wait around for them to finally "get it", I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell them. That is all for now. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 18, 2004)]
{4} I went over the subject of specifically what is and is not a civil right properly speaking a few times in the past -most recently (to my recollection) here.
{5} I cannot recall if I have said this on the weblog in the past or not (as I cannot find anything in a quick archive search) but I am not opposed in principle to the idea of a federal right to privacy. The problem is, there is no constitutional foundation for such a position; ergo those who want to see one should do what they can to amend the Constitution to reflect that right. Otherwise, they should have the decency to admit that they do not give a damn about the Constitution at all.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
On a Tree Fallen Across the Road:
(To hear us talk)
The tree the tempest with a crash of wood
Throws down in front of us is not bar
Our passage to our journey's end for good,
But just to ask us who we think we are
Insisting always on our own way so.
She likes to halt us in our runner tracks,
And make us get down in a foot of snow
Debating what to do without an ax.
And yet she knows obstruction is in vain:
We will not be put off the final goal
We have it hidden in us to attain,
Not though we have to seize earth by the pole
And, tired of aimless circling in one place,
Steer straight off after something into space.
[Robert Frost]
(To hear us talk)
The tree the tempest with a crash of wood
Throws down in front of us is not bar
Our passage to our journey's end for good,
But just to ask us who we think we are
Insisting always on our own way so.
She likes to halt us in our runner tracks,
And make us get down in a foot of snow
Debating what to do without an ax.
And yet she knows obstruction is in vain:
We will not be put off the final goal
We have it hidden in us to attain,
Not though we have to seize earth by the pole
And, tired of aimless circling in one place,
Steer straight off after something into space.
[Robert Frost]
In reviewing some unpublished drafts to this weblog today, I ran across a link to a Crisis Magazine review of a book I noted earlier in the year I was reading: H. W. Crocker III's United States military history Don't Tread On Me. For those interested in what I noted as I was about 60% through the book{1}, my assessment of the book did not change as I finished it. After finishing the work, I found an review of it published in Crisis Magazine and forgot about that thread until now. Here is the aforementioned review:
Soldiering On (Scott Belliveau)
I assessed the contents of that review once again and find my own position on the merits of the book substantially outlined to at least a macro extent. For that reason, I want to at this time note that book for readers of this humble weblog with the recommendation that they obtain and digest its contents. It is not a perfect work and I do not agree with all of the author's views but he makes a compelling case for every position he takes and the work itself reads very smoothly unlike a lot of other military history tomes. (Which is certainly something well worth pointing out for those hesitant to want to read anything pertaining to military history.)
Note:
{1} My Initial Assessment of H. W. Crocker III's Don't Tread On Me (circa May 5, 2007)
Soldiering On (Scott Belliveau)
I assessed the contents of that review once again and find my own position on the merits of the book substantially outlined to at least a macro extent. For that reason, I want to at this time note that book for readers of this humble weblog with the recommendation that they obtain and digest its contents. It is not a perfect work and I do not agree with all of the author's views but he makes a compelling case for every position he takes and the work itself reads very smoothly unlike a lot of other military history tomes. (Which is certainly something well worth pointing out for those hesitant to want to read anything pertaining to military history.)
Note:
{1} My Initial Assessment of H. W. Crocker III's Don't Tread On Me (circa May 5, 2007)
Another solid reason why Justice John Roberts is an excellent Chef Justice of the United States Supreme Court
And also another reason why my friend Kevin Tierney has more crow to eat on that judicial pick -and knowing him he will do so willingly but that is neither here nor there.
I am aware of how some might view the above aside comment which is why I want to take this moment to briefly note my reason for referring to it. The example of Kevin's geopolitical miscue is noted here{1} not to gloat because I was right and he was wrong. The reason I note it is to point out that Kevin has been so forthright in admitting to making a mistake -indeed he was the one this morning who pointed me to this link and reminded me of his miscalculations in 2005 on the Roberts pick.{2}
I just happened to find a bit in the archives after he mentioned it but it goes to show an important element of character that is often lacking today: the willingness to admit to actual mistakes rather than merely make some generalized statement on "everyone makes mistakes" or something akin to it in the absence of particulars. This is what so many people{3} have a very bad habit doing when they are not engaging in an attempt to revise the historical record to appear to be more correct than they really were{4} of course.
Also, before ending this post, I wanted to note that I have with this posting inaugurated another subsidiary category for tagging postings to this weblog; namely the one that reads The John Roberts Court. That subsidiary tag{5} has also been retroactively applied to the posting noted in footnote one.
Notes:
{1} One of the benefits of the old blog being nowhere around, unless I say so, nobody is able to verify me opposing Roberts. :) [Kevin Tierney as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa March 7, 2006)]
{2} While not the only miscalculation Kevin made on the Roberts nomination, this is all I am going to note at the present time about it.
{3} Particularly those of a particular geopolitical weltanschauung but they are not the only apologist sorts to have this problem.
{4} This is the hallmark of apologist sorts of various persuasions -particularly pseudo-"progressivists" or pseudo-"peacemakers" who so often are marxists who do not have the guts to admit to what they really are. (The latter is something I have written on before at sundry times and in divers manners.)
{5} To remind readers of the differences between primary and secondary blog tag categories, the whole subject was covered rather thoroughly in this thread from mid May of this year.
And also another reason why my friend Kevin Tierney has more crow to eat on that judicial pick -and knowing him he will do so willingly but that is neither here nor there.
I am aware of how some might view the above aside comment which is why I want to take this moment to briefly note my reason for referring to it. The example of Kevin's geopolitical miscue is noted here{1} not to gloat because I was right and he was wrong. The reason I note it is to point out that Kevin has been so forthright in admitting to making a mistake -indeed he was the one this morning who pointed me to this link and reminded me of his miscalculations in 2005 on the Roberts pick.{2}
I just happened to find a bit in the archives after he mentioned it but it goes to show an important element of character that is often lacking today: the willingness to admit to actual mistakes rather than merely make some generalized statement on "everyone makes mistakes" or something akin to it in the absence of particulars. This is what so many people{3} have a very bad habit doing when they are not engaging in an attempt to revise the historical record to appear to be more correct than they really were{4} of course.
Also, before ending this post, I wanted to note that I have with this posting inaugurated another subsidiary category for tagging postings to this weblog; namely the one that reads The John Roberts Court. That subsidiary tag{5} has also been retroactively applied to the posting noted in footnote one.
Notes:
{1} One of the benefits of the old blog being nowhere around, unless I say so, nobody is able to verify me opposing Roberts. :) [Kevin Tierney as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa March 7, 2006)]
{2} While not the only miscalculation Kevin made on the Roberts nomination, this is all I am going to note at the present time about it.
{3} Particularly those of a particular geopolitical weltanschauung but they are not the only apologist sorts to have this problem.
{4} This is the hallmark of apologist sorts of various persuasions -particularly pseudo-"progressivists" or pseudo-"peacemakers" who so often are marxists who do not have the guts to admit to what they really are. (The latter is something I have written on before at sundry times and in divers manners.)
{5} To remind readers of the differences between primary and secondary blog tag categories, the whole subject was covered rather thoroughly in this thread from mid May of this year.
Points to Ponder:
(On the Proper Function of the Law)
Can the law — which necessarily requires the use of force — rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution — so long searched for in the area of social relationships — is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: From The Law (circa 1850)]
(On the Proper Function of the Law)
Can the law — which necessarily requires the use of force — rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution — so long searched for in the area of social relationships — is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: From The Law (circa 1850)]
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Briefly on President Bush and the Southern Border:
(Aka "Mexicali Blues" Dept.)
The text below excluding the footnote was part of something I posted during lunch back on June 11, 2007. My interlocuter's words will be in red font.
In 2000 he states the Southwest of the USA belongs to Mexico he said that while speaking to a large group of Latin Americans, I have the audio of it to back it up.
Can you post this please??? We bought portions of the southwest from Mexico and also beat them in a war for the rest. They signed a peace treaty which ceded the southwest to us and we bought a strip closer to the border for building a railroad track through. But as for the southwest portion of the United States, I quote from the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo signed by the Mexican government and by the President of the United States after the Senate ratified it. To wit (all emphasis is mine):
[The boundary line between the two Republics shall commence in the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande, otherwise called Rio Bravo del Norte, or Opposite the mouth of its deepest branch, if it should have more than one branch emptying directly into the sea; from thence up the middle of that river, following the deepest channel, where it has more than one, to the point where it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; thence, westwardly, along the whole southern boundary of New Mexico (which runs north of the town called Paso) to its western termination; thence, northward, along the western line of New Mexico, until it intersects the first branch of the river Gila; (or if it should not intersect any branch of that river, then to the point on the said line nearest to such branch, and thence in a direct line to the same); thence down the middle of the said branch and of the said river, until it empties into the Rio Colorado; thence across the Rio Colorado, following the division line between Upper and Lower California, to the Pacific Ocean.
The southern and western limits of New Mexico, mentioned in the article, are those laid down in the map entitled "Map of the United Mexican States, as organized and defined by various acts of the Congress of said republic, and constructed according to the best authorities. Revised edition. Published at New York, in 1847, by J. Disturnell," of which map a copy is added to this treaty, bearing the signatures and seals of the undersigned Plenipotentiaries,. And, in order to preclude all difficulty in tracing upon the ground the limit separating Upper from Lower California, it is agreed that the said limit shall consist of a straight line drawn from the middle of the Rio Gila, where it unites with the Colorado, to a point on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, distant one marine league due south of the southernmost point of the port of San Diego, according to the plan of said port made in the year 1782 by Don Juan Pantoja, second sailing-master of the Spanish fleet, and published at Madrid in the year 1802, in the atlas to the voyage of the schooners Sutil and Mexicana; of which plan a copy is hereunto added, signed and sealed by the respective Plenipotentiaries.
In order to designate the boundary line with due precision, upon authoritative maps, and to establish upon the ground land-marks which shall show the limits of both republics, as described in the present article, the two Governments shall each appoint a commissioner and a surveyor, who, before the expiration of one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, shall meet at the port of San Diego, and proceed to run and mark the said boundary in its whole course to the mouth of the Rio Bravo del Norte. They shall keep journals and make out plans of their operations; and the result agreed upon by them shall be deemed a part of this treaty, and shall have the same force as if it were inserted therein. The two Governments will amicably agree regarding what may be necessary to these persons, and also as to their respective escorts, should such be necessary.
The boundary line established by this article shall be religiously respected by each of the two republics, and no change shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the General Government of each, in conformity with its own constitution. (LINK)]
That is pretty straight forward stuff really. Frankly, if anything the Mexicans should be fortunate that we did not annex their entire country. But if Bush said what you claim, this may well explain at least part of why he is so lax on the whole border issue.
Addendum:
While I did not note it at the time the text above was first written, if Bush said what this person is claiming, then it makes a good case for the hypothesis that he has been lax on the southern border because he is placing personal interests over and above national security. And as I noted recently, this could well constitute an impeachable offense{1} and that is the bottom line really.
Note:
{1} I have had on the drafting table for quite a while a planned post responding to twenty-five so-called "arguments" for impeaching President Bush. Most of those objections have been refuted in the draft as it is written now but the reason I am not likely to finish it anytime soon is this:
--I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!!
I do not intend to set forth the full panopoly of arguments to explain this at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007)]
(Aka "Mexicali Blues" Dept.)
The text below excluding the footnote was part of something I posted during lunch back on June 11, 2007. My interlocuter's words will be in red font.
In 2000 he states the Southwest of the USA belongs to Mexico he said that while speaking to a large group of Latin Americans, I have the audio of it to back it up.
Can you post this please??? We bought portions of the southwest from Mexico and also beat them in a war for the rest. They signed a peace treaty which ceded the southwest to us and we bought a strip closer to the border for building a railroad track through. But as for the southwest portion of the United States, I quote from the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo signed by the Mexican government and by the President of the United States after the Senate ratified it. To wit (all emphasis is mine):
[The boundary line between the two Republics shall commence in the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande, otherwise called Rio Bravo del Norte, or Opposite the mouth of its deepest branch, if it should have more than one branch emptying directly into the sea; from thence up the middle of that river, following the deepest channel, where it has more than one, to the point where it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; thence, westwardly, along the whole southern boundary of New Mexico (which runs north of the town called Paso) to its western termination; thence, northward, along the western line of New Mexico, until it intersects the first branch of the river Gila; (or if it should not intersect any branch of that river, then to the point on the said line nearest to such branch, and thence in a direct line to the same); thence down the middle of the said branch and of the said river, until it empties into the Rio Colorado; thence across the Rio Colorado, following the division line between Upper and Lower California, to the Pacific Ocean.
The southern and western limits of New Mexico, mentioned in the article, are those laid down in the map entitled "Map of the United Mexican States, as organized and defined by various acts of the Congress of said republic, and constructed according to the best authorities. Revised edition. Published at New York, in 1847, by J. Disturnell," of which map a copy is added to this treaty, bearing the signatures and seals of the undersigned Plenipotentiaries,. And, in order to preclude all difficulty in tracing upon the ground the limit separating Upper from Lower California, it is agreed that the said limit shall consist of a straight line drawn from the middle of the Rio Gila, where it unites with the Colorado, to a point on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, distant one marine league due south of the southernmost point of the port of San Diego, according to the plan of said port made in the year 1782 by Don Juan Pantoja, second sailing-master of the Spanish fleet, and published at Madrid in the year 1802, in the atlas to the voyage of the schooners Sutil and Mexicana; of which plan a copy is hereunto added, signed and sealed by the respective Plenipotentiaries.
In order to designate the boundary line with due precision, upon authoritative maps, and to establish upon the ground land-marks which shall show the limits of both republics, as described in the present article, the two Governments shall each appoint a commissioner and a surveyor, who, before the expiration of one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, shall meet at the port of San Diego, and proceed to run and mark the said boundary in its whole course to the mouth of the Rio Bravo del Norte. They shall keep journals and make out plans of their operations; and the result agreed upon by them shall be deemed a part of this treaty, and shall have the same force as if it were inserted therein. The two Governments will amicably agree regarding what may be necessary to these persons, and also as to their respective escorts, should such be necessary.
The boundary line established by this article shall be religiously respected by each of the two republics, and no change shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the General Government of each, in conformity with its own constitution. (LINK)]
That is pretty straight forward stuff really. Frankly, if anything the Mexicans should be fortunate that we did not annex their entire country. But if Bush said what you claim, this may well explain at least part of why he is so lax on the whole border issue.
Addendum:
While I did not note it at the time the text above was first written, if Bush said what this person is claiming, then it makes a good case for the hypothesis that he has been lax on the southern border because he is placing personal interests over and above national security. And as I noted recently, this could well constitute an impeachable offense{1} and that is the bottom line really.
Note:
{1} I have had on the drafting table for quite a while a planned post responding to twenty-five so-called "arguments" for impeaching President Bush. Most of those objections have been refuted in the draft as it is written now but the reason I am not likely to finish it anytime soon is this:
--I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!!
I do not intend to set forth the full panopoly of arguments to explain this at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007)]
Friday, June 22, 2007
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting:
Briefly on each article...
Creating Effective Incentives (Walter E. Williams)
The article starts off with the following line:
What should our response be if terrorists set off a nuclear explosion, or some other weapon of mass destruction, in one of our cities?
I cannot say I see anything rationally askew in Professor Williams' musings in the article above -it is well worth a read as his stuff so often is. Moving on...
Villains and the Immigration Debate (Jonah Goldberg)
A small taste to whet the appetite:
The beauty of a democratic system is that it depends on democratic arguments. Even if every partisan is a villain, he has to make his case in a way that will convince people. And it's those arguments we're supposed to be dealing with. It's very easy for me to say that while my opponent may say X that he secretly believes Y because he is a member of a supersecret Satanic cabal or because his fern is speaking to him through his dental fillings. But unless I have proof, debate should be confined to X.
The foundation of that position is one that we at Rerum Novarum have applied countless times to a variety of subjects over the years.{1}
And of course I would be remiss if I did not admit that I have used the last line of the article a few times as sarcasm to make a point since I first read it. Moving on...
Allied Angst (Oliver North)
To quote from the first paragraph of the above article:
There was a time when American military leaders worried about whether wobbly allies would rally to us when it came time to stand up to the Soviets. Now it's our allies who worry about us.
Those who approach the US military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq with the idea that we should pull out and go home would do well to review the above thread and think long and hard about the message such an action would send to our allies around the world. And finally...
Schooling Michael Moore (Michelle Malkin/Bryan Preston)
It has been ages since either a Michelle Malkin or Bryan Preston thread graced this humble weblog. In the above thread, Michelle has a YouTube clip on the latest Moore crockumentary{2} and Bryan attended a screening of it and posted his observations in print. Based on their observations, it would appear that Moore has jumped the shark. Say what you will about Fahrenheit 9/11 but at the very least he got a lot of people conned into watching it. The same cannot be said for his latest crapsterpiece.
Notes:
{1} To note a couple of examples that come to mind offhand from the archives:
Unlike the lions share of people from various outlooks who set forth opinions in the public square, the present writer does not expect anyone to accept any of his statements as some kind of arbitrary out of context injunction simply because he says it. This would base the veracity or lack thereof of his statements on a subjectivist context and would imply that truth does not objectively exist.
If you learn to think in principles you learn to think logically. Principles make thinking a lot easier. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 30, 2006)]
And again:
[A] refutation or confutation of an argument must involve objective proof by rational argumentation that said theories or viewpoints or assertions are false or otherwise erroneous. Many who write self-styled "refutations" make references to what they believe to be a refutation or some equivalent which is actually an out of context injunction on their part and properly classified as normative argumentation and thus subjective. This will never do because a refutation properly speaking is non-normative and requires therefore objective criteria for being able to be accurately assessed as to its veracity or lack thereof. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 17, 2006)]
{2} To note a definition of crockumentary, I reference the sometimes-reliable Urban Dictionary which defines it here. For those with a sensitivity to certain words, I will abridge the text at that link and provide the following expletive-free version:
crockumentary
The Michael Moore style of filmmaking.
It involves trying to pass off a complete crock...as the truth. Then brazenly calling it a "documentary" when you know...that it's [not.]
Briefly on each article...
Creating Effective Incentives (Walter E. Williams)
The article starts off with the following line:
What should our response be if terrorists set off a nuclear explosion, or some other weapon of mass destruction, in one of our cities?
I cannot say I see anything rationally askew in Professor Williams' musings in the article above -it is well worth a read as his stuff so often is. Moving on...
Villains and the Immigration Debate (Jonah Goldberg)
A small taste to whet the appetite:
The beauty of a democratic system is that it depends on democratic arguments. Even if every partisan is a villain, he has to make his case in a way that will convince people. And it's those arguments we're supposed to be dealing with. It's very easy for me to say that while my opponent may say X that he secretly believes Y because he is a member of a supersecret Satanic cabal or because his fern is speaking to him through his dental fillings. But unless I have proof, debate should be confined to X.
The foundation of that position is one that we at Rerum Novarum have applied countless times to a variety of subjects over the years.{1}
And of course I would be remiss if I did not admit that I have used the last line of the article a few times as sarcasm to make a point since I first read it. Moving on...
Allied Angst (Oliver North)
To quote from the first paragraph of the above article:
There was a time when American military leaders worried about whether wobbly allies would rally to us when it came time to stand up to the Soviets. Now it's our allies who worry about us.
Those who approach the US military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq with the idea that we should pull out and go home would do well to review the above thread and think long and hard about the message such an action would send to our allies around the world. And finally...
Schooling Michael Moore (Michelle Malkin/Bryan Preston)
It has been ages since either a Michelle Malkin or Bryan Preston thread graced this humble weblog. In the above thread, Michelle has a YouTube clip on the latest Moore crockumentary{2} and Bryan attended a screening of it and posted his observations in print. Based on their observations, it would appear that Moore has jumped the shark. Say what you will about Fahrenheit 9/11 but at the very least he got a lot of people conned into watching it. The same cannot be said for his latest crapsterpiece.
Notes:
{1} To note a couple of examples that come to mind offhand from the archives:
Unlike the lions share of people from various outlooks who set forth opinions in the public square, the present writer does not expect anyone to accept any of his statements as some kind of arbitrary out of context injunction simply because he says it. This would base the veracity or lack thereof of his statements on a subjectivist context and would imply that truth does not objectively exist.
If you learn to think in principles you learn to think logically. Principles make thinking a lot easier. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 30, 2006)]
And again:
[A] refutation or confutation of an argument must involve objective proof by rational argumentation that said theories or viewpoints or assertions are false or otherwise erroneous. Many who write self-styled "refutations" make references to what they believe to be a refutation or some equivalent which is actually an out of context injunction on their part and properly classified as normative argumentation and thus subjective. This will never do because a refutation properly speaking is non-normative and requires therefore objective criteria for being able to be accurately assessed as to its veracity or lack thereof. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 17, 2006)]
{2} To note a definition of crockumentary, I reference the sometimes-reliable Urban Dictionary which defines it here. For those with a sensitivity to certain words, I will abridge the text at that link and provide the following expletive-free version:
crockumentary
The Michael Moore style of filmmaking.
It involves trying to pass off a complete crock...as the truth. Then brazenly calling it a "documentary" when you know...that it's [not.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)