MC Hammer and Bill Cosby's Appearance on Tim Russert

Hammer is right: those who want to be critical of Bill Cosby should check themselves as Mr. Cosby is saying what has needed to be said for a long time. The systematic and institutional racism that Cosby speaks of has more applications than he hints at though -albeit there is only so much one can say in a six minute television clip.

One truth that bears noting is what would happen and has happened to non-blacks who say the same things Mr. Cosby is saying. I have long believed and said that slavery still exists in society that is promoted by many who give the appearance of "caring" for other people. This is a subject I may touch a bit on later but for the time being, it suffices to point to the above thread from Hammer and encourage readers to give it a read and the Russert clip of Bill Cosby a listen.

Holy Souls Masses Registration:

This years scroll of the dearly departed -individuals of note and also family groupings by last name:

Richard Dunn McElhinney f
James Dunn McElhinney u
Teresa Mildred McElhinney gm
Paul Dowd McElhinney gf
McElhinney fam
Dunn fam
Flynn fam
McCann fam
Mark Usher sgf
Virginia Usher sgm
Usher sfam
Brooks fam
Hellstrom sfam
Leta M. Allen sa

David Kanski u
Mary H. Kanski gm
Harry Kanski gf
Harold Kanski u
Kanski fam
Haluk fam
Hruby fam
Duma fam
Rogowski fam
Denny fam
Omafrey fam
Ripplinger fam
Spence fam
Mel Clark sgf
Jane Clark sgm
Clark fam

James Jenner OP p
Joseph Fulton OP p
Blessed Sacrament Parish/Dom. Priory
St. Pius X Parish
Corpus Christi Parish

Jeff Cox cl
Rasmussen ext-fam
Tull ext-fam
Chris DiSomma f ext-fam
Anselmo ext-fam
St. Blogs ext-fam
Mike Mentzer t
Mentzer tfam
Arthur Jones t
Michael Jackson t
Cipriani ffam
O'Grady ffam
Bannon ffam
Ziadeh ffam
Stein ffam
Smith ffam
Tierney ffam
Mockeridge ffam
Blosser ffam
D'Hippolito ffam
Roy Sabin acq
Anne Sabin acq
Tim's friend (cannot recall his name at the present but God knows)
Brittany Salzano

While I am sure more will come to mind than just those later on, they are what will be noted at this time. The link to the Purgatory Project can be found HERE and I encourage my readers to check it out and register the names of family and friends.{1}

Eternal rest grant unto their souls O Lord and let perpetual light shine upon them. May their souls and all the souls of the faithfully departed through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen

The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found [me]. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord on that day (2 Tim i,18).

Note:

{1} One should not presume that my recommendation of the above site constitutes a blanket approval of all or even many (or even most) of the other threads they have posted there. Nonetheless, they do have a good thread on explaining purgatory written by Jimmy Akin which can be read HERE and which I do highly recommend.

Points to Ponder:

[T]he tradition of today is the progress of yesterday and the progress of today is the tradition of tomorrow. [Jean Guitton]

On Being Fair to Historical Figures in General and Revisiting the Subject of Slavery in American History:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Last Minute Addition: In the news not long before the final touches were made to this posting was a story of the Democratic Congress attempting to undermine relations in the Middle East for purely partisan reasons. (It involves a retroactive condemnation of an event that happened nearly a hundred years ago.) This event makes the week-plus-in-the-drafting-post you have before you somewhat prescient as readers will see once they have finished reading it. Your host's low opinion of this stunt may well be dealt with in a later posting but it bears noting here in brief to point out how the principles we outline here at Rerum Novarum have both a contemporary as well as a timeless quality to them. -ISM]

When a man hears himself somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him-at least, I find it so with myself; but when misrepresentation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him. [Abraham Lincoln (circa August 21, 1858)]

I was originally going to post the link at the bottom of this post with the title as follows sans any additional commentary:

--Influential Nineteenth Century Black Intellectual Delivers Memorial Oration To Honour Slain Former White Supremacist President For Freeing The Slaves and Ending an Institution He Actually Wanted To Preserve

The problem with such attempts at sarcasm though is that they are often not seen for what they are -or at the very least run the risk of being seen that way by those who do not take a moment to actually ponder what they read before presuming to form a presumed "informed opinion" on it. And that is how the link would have to be titled if we were to espouse a not-so-uncommon revisionist view of Abraham Lincoln which permeates some circles. Now admittedly some of this revisionism is spun because of the mythology that surrounds Lincoln to some extent. However, I do not see how one sets right a particular set of myths with propagating another.

Essentially there are two extremes here which need to be avoided. The first is those who try to present without spot or wrinkle people from the past. The second consists of the converse; namely, those who try to present people as having nothing but spots and wrinkles. Both approaches are taken by those with agendas to push and the extent to which some persons are given the favourable over the unfavourable treatment depends a lot on the foundational presuppositions of the person in question.

I have found frequently in my life that those who have an agenda explicitly or implicitly of destruction generally go for the approach that presents their perceived "foes" in as flawed a fashion as they can while either ignoring or downplaying the flaws of their "allies" or otherwise extolling them in some form or another.{1}

The second approach noted above is usually done by those who in some form or another make the mistake of failing to assess someone historically within their time of living. They in other words commit the fallacies of the "whig historian" which we have noted a number of times on this very weblog.{2} But that is a complex subject to discuss in and of itself; ergo I want to note it briefly and then move onto additional exposition taking issue with the attempts at revisionism to the person and memory of Abraham Lincoln.

The idea that Abraham Lincoln was not a great man because his motives for freeing the slaves were not 100% pure (or that George Washington was not a great man because he actually owned slaves) shows a remarkable degree of blindness to the complex nature of historical situations. This is particularly problematical because many of those who would take these positions would refuse to turn a similar mirror onto particular favourite persons of theirs. The whole trying to unvarnish one set of heroes and whitewash another set of people to take their place is a classic example in spades of the law of non-contradiction and it highlights a problem many people have with presuppositional favouritism over any attempt at being genuinely and objectively fair to historical figures in general.

I know some of the people who would try to darken Lincoln's historical portrait but would then do everything they could to explain away the pox marks on records of people in history they liked or otherwise had some kind of intellectual dependence on for some issue or another. For example, I know of "distributivists"{3} who feel that America and the capitalist system are possessing of great evils or imbalances; ergo they do not have a problem with trying to combat this by seeking to belittle the giants in American history{4} who do not concur with their presuppositions. They then give a free pass to someone such as Hilaire Belloc who was an exponent of their particular economic weltanschauung which is in and of itself a violation of the law of non-contradiction. As I have both taken significant issue with what I see as logical and ethical flaws in Belloc's preferred system{5} as well as defended Belloc himself from those who try to blacken his memory by judging him by today's standards{6}, I am in the position here of showing consistency on the principle which I am outlining in this posting. And having defended Belloc on this basis previously, I will now do the same with Lincoln but in doing so some basic principles need to be accounted for first.

Ultimately, we should always strive to judge anyone from history equitably and that means not judging them by modern standards but instead in accordance with their own time and the presuppositions involved therein. I say this because views of what is right and what is wrong can change over time and the deeper the wrong, the more difficult it is to remove root and branch from public consciousness. In the case of slavery, as noxious as it is and as opposed to it and its many manifestations{7} by every fiber of my being that I am, I do not fault Americans prior to the Civil War for failing to completely eviscerate slavery. There is an importance to any civilization and society to have order and structure and those matters must come first and foremost. It is from there that movements can be made to seek to amend and put right various societal wrongs.

Those who would favour overturning an entire society to try and eradicate grave wrongs are no different than those whom wise spiritual writers have chastised at sundry times and in divers manners for making bad situations worse through well-intentioned but ultimately imprudent zeal. But that is neither here nor there as to go into that subject would detract from the purpose of this posting so I will note the principle briefly in a footnote{8} and then move on.

It would not have for reasons I have noted before{9} practical or logical to have banned slavery either at the start of the Republic or even during the Constitutional Convention. I also noted previously the fact that there were many Founders who were vehemently opposed to slavery -even some of which owned slaves incidentally- who recognised the need to compromise on the matter for the preservation of the Union.{10} The slavery system was deeply embedded in parts of American life and for a variety of reasons could not have been torn up wholesale at once when the Republic was young and vulnerable.{11} Abraham Lincoln himself explained the matter adequately in an 1854 response to Stephen Douglas on the repeal of the 1820 Missouri Compromise (which itself was intended to limit the expansion of slavery) so we will quote his words at this time on it:

[Slavery] is hid away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time. Less than this our fathers could not do; and more they would not do. Necessity drove them so far, and further, they would not go. But this is not all. The earlier Congress, under the constitution, took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.

In 1794, they prohibited an out-going slave trade--that is, the taking of slaves from the United States to sell.

In 1798, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa into the Mississippi Territory--this territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was ten years before they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the constitution.

In 1800, they prohibited American citizens from trading in slaves between foreign countries--as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil.

In 1803, they passed a law in aid of one or two States laws, in restraint of the internal slave trade.

In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance, to take effect the first day of 1808--the very first day the constitution would permit--prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties.

In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they declared the trade piracy, and annexed to it the extreme penalty of death. While all this was passing in the general government, five or six of the original slave States had adopted systems of gradual emancipation; by which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct within these limits.

Thus we see, the plain unmistakable spirit of that age, towards slavery, was hostility to the principle, and toleration, only by necessity. [Abraham Lincoln (circa October 16, 1854)]

The purpose of the above response on Lincoln's part was to point out to those who opposed the abolition of slavery that the intention of the Founders was to see a toleration of slavery until such a time as it could be eliminated and taking gradual actions to arrest the further development of slavery in new territories to thus pave the way for an eventual extinction of the institution. Having noted those things briefly, let us now consider some of the ways that certain revisionists have sought to sully the historical memory of Abraham Lincoln. To start with, here is one reference to some of what Lincoln noted in one of his seven election debates in late 1858:

In the presidential debates of 1858, Lincoln said, "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races…[I] am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." [LINK]

It is a bit ironic perhaps that the above quotation was taken verbatim from an article talking about the importance of critical thinking skills. But that point aside for a moment, the "presidential debates" were in 1860, not 1858. In 1858, Lincoln was opposing Stephen Douglas for the United States Senate out of Illinois. Furthermore, there is a lot removed from that quote which is obviously fashioned to make Lincoln look as sinister as possible. Here is a broader quote used at times by some who try and make the claim that Lincoln was a "white supremacist." The words in the above quote will be underlined in the one to follow so that readers can see the degree of deception involved in such proof texting:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.” [LINK]

There is of course a greater context still to this phrasing and I will now show the reader what it is -the above paragraph noted by underlining and the first quoting in italics to show the magnitude of the misrepresentation involved. Oh and the points noted as audience laughter were in the text being so referenced and were left in for reasons which will hopefully be evident to the reader:

While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness-and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson. [Laughter.] I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.] I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made except in the State Legislature-not in the Congress of the United States-and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. [Uproarious laughter and applause.] I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject. [LINK]

I want to point the readers to a concept in the above paragraph that they may find odd today: the idea that someone would oppose the federal government being an engine of social manipulation. When you read Lincoln's words about being opposed to "producing a perfect equality between the negros and white people" that is what he is referring to: opposition of using the federal government to attempt to produce it. It may seem odd as well to modern eyes to see a major figure of the nineteenth century espousing the view that they believed that the differences between white and black people would make it not possible for the two races to live together "on terms of political and social equality." There was also some obvious sarcasm in the text as well in a number of spots -most notably the part where Lincoln said that he was not concerned that either he or any of his friends would marry negros even if there was not a law in Illinois against it but apparently Douglas and his supporters are afraid that they would if there was not such a law!!! There are in other words a lot of threads in the mosaic in other words and they all deserve to be carefully considered by someone interested in properly representing the thought of the late Abraham Lincoln.

It also bears recalling that the standing that blacks held in society at that time: in the south they were viewed as property and in the north they were viewed as a lower class of people generally speaking. The northerners opposed slavery but that does not mean that they supported equality of the races across the board. They often did not and this presupposition was itself based on a concoction of facts, presumed "scientific studies", personal observations, and assumptions drawn from those (and probably other) areas.

As unfortunate as we would view this outlook today, we have to remember that this was par for the course in all dealings of one group of people towards another which they were not well familiar. It used to be that people in any given group had a natural distrust of "outsiders" or those viewed as such on the basis of race, religion, creed, nationality, or whatever{12} -certainly such stances were often taken due to ignorance of the unknown. But is it true that such ignorance has itself been overcome even in our more presumably "enlightened" era??? Readers can consider the manner whereby many who are so scathingly critical of Lincoln respond to those they have an aversion towards and find their answer in the actions and statements made therein.

For those who would today berate people in past eras for being xenophobic based on religion, race, presumed "scientific studies", or other categories used in the past would do well to stop and consider if they are not similarly bigoted themselves. All one has to do is take a small tour of the web and they can find no shortage of sites where self-righteous so-called "progressivist" sorts who speak against those who do not agree with them in ways similar to any Klansman in eras past against certain groups the Klan found not to their liking (i.e. Jews, blacks, Catholics, Irish, etc).

In the current climate, animosity about present military involvements have a number of these sorts finding all sorts of ways to tag with intended labels of derision those who do not agree with them. This is why your host continually expects and even (at times) demands that those who attempt such things to explain their use of terms. This principle is at the heart of the ongoing "'neo-con' challenge" which we in recent years have issued a number of times -most recently HERE. Until those who use that term bother to define their terms, we view their derisive use of it no differently than white people who used to refer to blacks as "niggers" and I say that without the slightest hint of exaggeration whatsoever.

Consider furthermore how many of those who have tried overtly or covertly to tar and feather Lincoln as a "racist", those people should stop and ask if they do not themselves with the "welfare" policies they advocate putting the blacks and other minorities into defacto economic slavery which is itself a form of created class inferiority. There is after all more than one way to be a racist or to otherwise advocate "position[s] of superior and inferior." As far as your host is concerned, those who advocate increased welfare programs for minorities out of some misplaced belief that they need to be "taken care of" should consider whether or not their white man's burden approach is not itself a form of subtle racism.

Now I am of course hardly going to claim that the misdirected approach of those who advocate "welfare" for poor people or minorities is inexorably bound up in a form of "subtle racism." However, I do note that interpretation here merely as an instructive for those who would rashly try and discredit people of other time periods for attitudes not in vogue to contemporary sensibilities. But enough on that point and onto the overall impression that the full paragraph of Lincoln's speech above should convey to the reader approaching this matter with the intention of objective fairness. And certainly while more could be said than that, it cannot be denied that no matter how charitable of a construction is placed on the paragraph above, there are still some parts which would trouble many modern readers. But as shocking as some of this may be to read, it bears in mind that we cannot fairly reproach Abraham Lincoln on these matters for how we view them today.

We live in a different time and under different presuppositions. In Lincoln's time, there were few if any black intellectuals, there were few if any truly successful and free blacks. Compare that to today where there are a number of notable black intellectuals, business owners, and the like and the climate is a lot different. It has been that way since 1865 with each generation of blacks being more successful than their predecessors but such things were unheard of in 1858 -the year the above quote was taken from. (Yet another factor that bears careful consideration by those who would deign to speak on these matters with any pretense of both historical sensibility as well as intelligence.)

What was also hampering the contemporary views of the time was a widely held view that the differences in the races were intellectual as well as physical. This view as we understand it now is false but in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it was still a matter of open speculation. Lincoln noted the possibility that it was true which (i) is more than can be said for many who would have claimed that it was a certainty and (ii) also by logical extension included the possibility that it was not. When viewed through the lenses of his time, Lincoln's views while probably not radical were nonetheless quite progressive in the true sense of the term.{13}

Lincoln's opposition to slavery was constant throughout his political life and has earned him the rightful reputation as both The Great Emancipator by his actions as well as through his martyrdom which was a direct result of the cause itself. Many do not know that John Wilkes Booth's anger at President Lincoln and what drove the assassination attempt was Lincoln's more enlightened idea of extending the voting franchise to the educated blacks as well as the blacks who served as soldiers!!! That fact alone should shut the mouths of those who would berate President Lincoln for "not doing enough" as giving one's life for a cause is the most that anyone can do really.

However imperfect by modern standards, if we compare President Lincoln's views in April of 1865 (after General Lee's surrender) to the views expounded by senatorial candidate Lincoln prior to the Civil War, Lincoln showed in his revised position a remarkable capacity for adaptation to changed times and circumstances. There was also with all likelihood the influence of a certain person whom we will get to shortly who may have been the single biggest impression on Lincoln. (Thereby aiding him in making this paradigmatic shift from the outlook enunciated in the 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas.) Yes my friends, it is true that Lincoln did not originally believe that blacks should be in positions of societal responsibility; however, some of this may stem from an outlook coloured by the presuppositions we noted earlier in this posting -and a charitable person would put the best possible construction they could on these sorts of things. Furthermore, if those presuppositions were what Lincoln based his view on, it is obvious that he was willing to challenge his presuppositions and eventually revise to some extent. As the lions share of Lincoln's critics have not shown the same willingness to challenge their foundational presuppositions (instead treating them as defacto infallible), that is all readers of this humble weblog need to consider to understand why your host does not take these critics of Lincoln seriously as a rule.

Again, Lincoln's stature as a top tier abolitionist is clear and unmistakable to anyone who gives an objective reading of all the evidences supplied by history including the very words of President Lincoln himself in speeches spanning the entire length of his public political career. Now the moment those who are critical of Lincoln for not being as "perfect" on this issue as they would like are willing to give their lives for this cause or any other one of significance is the very moment that reasonable people can give some reasonable credence to their criticisms. But enough on that matter for now.

It seems appropriate after noting these things to take into account the assessment of President Lincoln that was given by one of his contemporaries -in this case the nineteenth century black intellectual and former slave Frederick Douglass. Douglass met Lincoln at the White House during the Civil War and would appear to have made quite the impression on him as I noted earlier. Here is the full text of an oration he delivered in memory of the fallen president on the eleventh anniversary of his assassination:

Oration In Memory Of Abraham Lincoln Delivered At The Unveiling Of The Freedmen's Monument In Memory Of Abraham Lincoln In Lincoln Park, Washington, D.C. -Frederick Douglass (April 14, 1876)

Whatever differences people of good will can take with some of the statements or positions of Frederick Douglass (may he rest in peace) in the above oration, one nonetheless cannot fail to appreciate his attempt to do justice to the whole of Abraham Lincoln and the results that came from the great events that Lincoln oversaw both during his presidency and also what was brought about in its aftermath. Would that more people today with biased agendas pertaining to Lincoln{14} and the events of his time would strive to be as equitable in their approach as Douglass was.

This writer asks that readers kindly give the above oration a complete and thorough read when they have the time. With that final note, this post will be ended now with some words from the Second Inaugural Address of the late President Abraham Lincoln (may he rest in peace) roughly five weeks before he was assassinated:

It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him?

Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right--as God gives us to see the right--let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations. [President Abraham Lincoln: Second Inaugural Address (circa March 4, 1865)]

Notes:

{1} It is natural of course to feel an affinity for those we perceive to be our "allies" in a fight and even a kind of operative animosity towards those we believe are opposed to us. These tendencies however should never get in the way of trying as best we can to make as fair an assessment of persons and situations. Otherwise, there is a problem with approaching moral and ethical issues in a uniform standard and more often than not there is the use of double standards. Longtime readers of this weblog are well aware that your host has a serious problem with double standards being employed anywhere and at any time.

{2} Here they are in order from oldest to newest:

Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on How Historians Should Treat Events and Situations of the Past (circa September 12, 2005)

Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on Real Historical Understanding and How to Properly Approach the Past (circa September 20, 2005)

Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on the Role of the Historian (circa October 14, 2005)

Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on the Myopic Vision of the Whig Historian (circa October 17, 2005)

Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on the Difficulty of the General Historian and the Whig Fallacy (circa April 22, 2006)

Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on a Fallacy of the Whig Historian (circa May 30, 2007)

{3} Threads on Distributivism From 2007 (circa September 29, 2007)

{4} On Slavery and the Founding Fathers of America (circa April 17, 2007)

{5} See footnote three.

{6} On Hilaire Belloc and the Problems With Being Fair to Past Generations (circa March 11, 2007)

{7} There are more ways to enslave people than just physically after all but also psychological and economic as well. I am opposed to all forms of enslaving others without just cause -either explicitly or by logical inference as a violation of one of their fundamental rights.

{8} In every home there grows some thorn, something, in other words, that needs correction; for the best soil is seldom without its noxious weed. Imprudent zeal, by seeking awkwardly to pluck out the thorn, often succeeds only in plunging it farther in, thus rendering the wound deeper and more painful. In such a case it is essential to act with reflection and great prudence. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent, says the Holy Spirit. (Ecclesiastes III., 7.) Prudent zeal is silent when it realizes that to be so is less hurtful than to speak. [Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears pgs. 153-158 (c. 1795) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa September 29, 2002)]

{9} See footnote four.

{10} See footnote four.

{11} I do not intend in this posting to go into that matter in any detail; however I probably will at some point down the road.

{12} We who are fortunate to live in a society where communication between people is potentially greater than at any time in history do well to remember that it was not always this way -indeed increases in communications technology has inexorably made it much harder than it once was to be as ignorant of other groups as was the case in past eras.

{13} All I will say here is that most who call themselves "progressivists" do not take positions on a number of their pet issues that actually are an improvement for humanity and society at large; ergo their application of the term "progressive" to themselves is a misnomer.

{14} I refer both to those sorts that (i) would proclaim Lincoln to be either sinless or (ii) without any redeeming qualities to his character whatsoever.

Proposing for Use and Future Definition the Terms "Rational Nominalism" and "Selective Rational Nominalism":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

A post of defined terms or solidified key concepts would ordinarily be posted to my Miscellaneous BLOG where I have come over the years to categorize key concepts that inform my operative presuppositions.{1} The problem is, I have not come up with precise definitions for these words yet. The concepts have been percolating in my mind as I have considered them and the purpose of this posting is to set some of them down in expository format both for later codification and because it is late in the day and it is a birthday indulgence of ours essentially.{2}

One of the reasons we at Rerum Novarum have often emphasized at sundry times and in diverse manners the importance of definitions{3} is because respect for definitions is at its core a respect for reason and logic. Conversely, those who do not take this matter seriously have a corresponding lack of respect for reason and logic{4} regardless of pretentions they might make to the contrary. Ironically, most of those who fall into the latter camp involve themselves in a kind of rational dualism in that they give every appearance of recognizing the importance of definitions in some contexts but not in others.

I have at times thought of them as rational dualists and on rare occasions have thought of using that term as a way of trying to get through to them their inconsistencies so they would be aware of them. But that is neither here nor there, the intention with this posting to sketch the outline of a couple of terms as a kind of shorthand way to explain a phenomenon I have witnessed for years on end.{5}

As often is the case, one can only stand by and watch the same insanity over and over again before sensing the need to define a key concept when so many others show by example that they do not understand it. That is what I intend to do at some point with the post you are reading an outline of key concepts intended to provide the benefit of those who want a ready point of reference for this phenomenon whenever they see it.{6} But before getting to the terms to be defined, I need to explain the root common to both of them and that is the concept of nominalism.

Nominalism is a subject I have discussed explicitly and implicitly many times over the years in a variety of forums and applicable contexts but in nearly all of them, the context was to some respect philosophical in nature. It is indeed through this medium that the outlook in question first became explicitly manifested. Nominalism in philosophy is a foundational presupposition that denies the existence of universal concepts as well as refusing to admit that the intellect is capable of forming and expressing such concepts and words intended to denote such things have no intrinsic meaning in and of themselves but are merely designations of words which could be made anywhere and everywhere.

For example, in the nominalist weltanschauung the word "dog" could apply to a "dog" or we could apply it to a "cat" or a "house" and "person" could be applied to a "goldfish" and vice versa. The underlying result of this outlook is that reasoning and logic are rendered impotent and we are no better than the animals who are incapable of reasoning and logic. All sources of knowledge available to us are immediately rendered worthless by this irrational outlook and it makes sense why those who respect reason and logic would be so merciless in their attack on those who would devalue this important reflection of the image of God within us as well as all things in known existence.

Having noted at the outset the concept of "nominalism" and the staunch opposition of that outlook that every fiber of my being contains, it hopefully makes clear to the reader what is necessary to combat this intrinsic evil: the requirement that terms used to describe something actually be given a meaning so that there is a point of reference common to all. It is a failure to do this which is at the heart of the terms I will now propose for future codification. Here is what I am toying with at the moment as outlines for the terms in question:

Rational Nominalism: A mindset or foundational presupposition which wholeheartedly embraces the nominalist concept of using words in a variety of ways without concern for any universal or underlying coherency across the continuum of words, phrases, subjects, etc.

Selective Rational Nominalism: A mindset or foundational presupposition which selectively embraces the nominalist concept of using words in a variety of ways without concern for any universal or underlying coherency on certain arbitrarily selected words, phrases, subjects, etc.


And of course the derivative terms from the ones so outlined above are "rational nominalists" and "selective rational nominalists."

To use a term is to have a degree of accountability for it and without a proposed meaning, there is no accountability. This enables the "rational nominalist" or the "selective rational nominalist" to hide behind their chosen terms or use them in broadbrush and at times contradictory ways. The easiest way to notice such people are when they throw out terms they do not bother to explain via definition or other means and then are obstinate when challenged to explain their use of terms.

The reason you will know these kinds of people are either fullblown "rational nominalists" or arbitrary "selective rational nominalists" is by their overall actions and statements as patterns of thought provide what can be called motives of credibility for determining which of the above terms is applicable to the person or group in question.

The "rational nominalists" have a defect in ability to utilize reason and logic and will manifest this across a broad continuum of subjects. The "selective rational nominalists" evince in other situations evidence that they possess the ability to properly utilize reason and logic but have a defect in will to on certain select subjects, persons, etc. which they have a partiality towards or against. Your host for one has an easier time tolerating those who fail to manfest the ability to use reason and logic properly than those who manifest the capablity but are instead (on certain pet issues) are intellectually too lazy or disingenuous to.

Unlike with virtually every term{7} your host has used which he has provided a definition for, there is no past usage of the term in question to provide the reader with examples of how the term was applied in actual situations to facilitate a crystallization of the term into a defined form. That is the reason for this posting where the concepts surrounding these terms are explained and tentative meanings proposed -though I may well after more thought and some usage of these terms in actual situations come up with better ways to eventually define them than the meanings tentatively proposed above.

Notes:

{1} From time to time both as the terms take on a discernable shape in how they are used in a series of circumstances and as I judge it as opportune to give them precise meanings.

{2} Though the bulk of this posting was framed in draft form back on the sixteenth of the month we are posting it at the end of the day at it happens close to the very time that we came into this world many years ago today.

{3} This was recently manifested in a Rerum Novarum weblog posting which can be viewed here. There are numerous others in the archives but we are not inclined to do a search for them at the present time.

{4} This is an example of another core principle required for proper reasoning but I do not have time to go over it at the present time -though I am sure in time I will either out of the mood to or the necessity of a given circumstance in the future.

{5} And the older I get, the less tolerance I generally have for obstinate sorts who repeat this defect in their interactions either with myself or others.

{6} And indeed they will not have to look far in the arena of ideas to see it under many forms of dress and manifestations.

{7} The one exception prior to this is the term "Carter Corollary" which had no actual precedent of usage by your host either in the blogosphere or elsewhere before it was defined and (by its nature) does not readily admit of much in the way of actual usage in normal circumtances.

Thumbs up to Rush Limbaugh, thumbs down to Harry Reid and the 40 other signing Democratic Senators.

On Logic, Faith, and "Free Thought":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

What about the Children? — Is Religion Child Abuse?

Just once I would like to see these sorts of atheists admit that it requires faith in order to reason because it does. Seriously.

The ability to reason is either true or false. Logic itself applied as we would say "properly" is either an assemblage of disconnected non-sequiturs which lead us nowhere or else it can lead us to being able to discern if not with certainty what is true than at the very least isolate what is probably and what is most definitely false. The very laws of logic -be they the law of identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle, etc.- themselves are presumed to be valid because without them, there is no capacity for logic to be operative; no frames of reference or foundation from which we can then utilize reason and logic itself.

Another way of saying it is that logic is not possible without recognizing as valid some rules that are required in order to utilize logic and reasoning to begin with. And since it is not possible to prove these rules as true or false without assuming they exist to begin with, there is no way we can empirically demonstrate in a manner that is not circuitous (and thus logically specious) in its approach that it is possible to utilize logic and reason at all.

For that reason, all this talk about "freethought" is an intrinsic charade. Think about it: the very sort of empirical evidence that people like Dawkins say they will accept is predicated upon accepting without scientific evidence that the basic laws universally accepted for being able to utilize logic and be able to reason do in fact exist and are themselves operative. It is unavoidable therefore that we require faith that those laws are true to enable us to try and explain reality, solve problems, discern what is false, etc. And as it requires faith to even reason at all, there cannot be anything intrinsically "irrational" about having faith in other non-emperically verifiable phenomena unless it is also "irrational" to be rational.

This is why I have no problem with non-militant atheists and agnostics but find those who are militant like Dawkins to be a bunch of hypocrites. Dawkins claims that theists are "being irrational" and "believing in something that you cannot subject to scientific scrutiny" and this is at the core of his critique. He therefore should heed the principle of "physician, heal thyself."

After all, people such as him believe that it is possible to be rational beings and utilize logic but they do not subject those presuppositions themselves to scientific scrutiny. Oh yes, they cannot do so because scientific scrutiny itself presupposes that the laws of reason and logic are both true and operative to begin with!!! If they are not, then scientific inquiry is not possible anyway and their precious "empericism" evaporates like dew in the morning sun.

If we really take it to brass tacks, whatever arguments people have about God, what God is like, whose conceptions of God are true, etc. they are no more "irrational" than arguments that are based on reason and logic -as in neither case can you definitively prove the existence of what you are presupposing. However, to presuppose the laws of reason and logic makes it possible to bring order out of what would otherwise be non-sequiturial chaos and this itself makes sense. The same is true for postulating the existence of a First Cause or Primary Mover - a "God" if you will Whom is Reason and Logic personified apart from whatever particular construction of "God" you happen to believe is most probable.

One last word on the idea of "child abuse" seems appropriate and it is on the abuse to the intellect that people like Dawkins inflict with their flawed and rationally specious positions. If there is anything that can be construed as "child abuse", certainly any weltanschauung which criticizes others for the same thing it engages in would be a good candidate as far as I am concerned. That would after all be abuse of a child's natural faculties and intrinsically retarding their mature intellectual development. But those who take the Dawkins school of thought to a militant degree inexorably by logical extension do exactly that -however much they try to pretend otherwise- and that my friends is its own form of child abuse.

Points to Ponder:
(On the Nobel Peace Prize and Contributions to Knowledge in General)

This posting to some extent coheres well with something I noted in a posting from earlier today and highlights a point I noted earlier that it would when posted. Nonetheless...

Winning the Nobel Prize is generally considered the ultimate achievement in any field, but even a casual look at a list of the people who have won that award should make it obvious that the selection of such winners is based primarily upon political factors rather than upon any actual contributions to knowledge. So-called “peer-review” is an oxymoron: if an idea is actually new, then the existence of peers is obviously impossible, which is why almost all of the truly valuable ideas and inventions have come from people who were totally outside the scientific community, people like Edison, Tesla, the Wright Brothers and a long list of others. [Arthur Jones]

"The Drudgeford Files" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Quadruple Subject Thread)

When perusing Drudge back on October 12th (in a coffeeshop while waiting for a repair to the car to be completed), I found through various linkings the following news stories and wrote the following musings on them. Without further ado...

Al Gore and the Mission of the Nobel Prizes (John Berlau)

Though the subject of the Nobel Peace Prize is one that I have generally looked at with some benign "whatever" fashion{1}, there was never a revulsion from me pertaining to the award itself. It stands to reason that any noble intention that the late Alfred Nobel had with this award would not always be realized when there is some secret committee doing the awarding. And whatever problems there are with some of the past recipients of the award, they are to some extent explainable. I will now note my problems with some of the recipients in the 107 year history of this award being given out.

Strangely enough (perhaps), I have no real problem with recipients of the award all the way up to 1987. That is not to say that I would have given the awards as they were given mind you, only that nothing sticks out to me as problematical with the selections up to that point. Beginning in 1988 though, things begin looking dodgy in spots and I will now note the problematical recipients starting at that point in time:

--The United Nations Peacekeeping Forces (1988)

The idea that the UN deserves any awards considering how pathetic their trackrecord of achievement is in this area in recent decades -that explains my reasons for noting the 1988 award as problematical. (This is not the same UN that was around when Dag Hammarsjkold was given the award postumously in 1961.) But I must also confess that I approach this to some extent with the benefit of hindsight; ergo this one could be given less weight than the others I will note which follow it.

--Mikhail Gorbachev (1990)

My only gripe against Mikhail Gorbachev getting the award in 1990 is it is too much like giving the World Series trophy this year to the Chicago Cubs who I remind you all are not currently playing. Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II should have gotten the award that year if it was to be given to those who worked for peace. If Gorbachev was to be included in that grouping then that would be fine as he did play a crucial role in the ending of the Cold War. But to give it to just Gorbachev and not include the other three I mentioned was inexcusable and showed an obvious bias on the part of the nominating committee that year.

--Nelson Mandela (1993)

Nelson Mandala was and is a communist and the atrocities that have taken place during his tenure as head of South Africa -and which the ANC sanctioned prior to his tenure as head of South Africa- made him receiving the award rather dubious at best. However, he also was not the head of South Africa in 1993 so I must confess to approaching this one with some degree of anachronism. Objectively, if the award was going to be given to Frederik DeKlerk who headed South Africa at the time{2}, it is hard to see how someone on the other side of the struggle to end apartheid could not also receive the award and there was no greater symbol of the struggle than Nelson Mandela whose imprisonment for thirty years was to some extent a rallying point of reference for those struggling to achieve basic recognition for their fundamental rights in South Africa. For that reason and also diplomatic ones, the awarding to Mandela could be justified.

--Yasser Arafat (1994)

Yasser Arafat was a terrorist who never did one substantial thing in his whole miserable existence to advance the cause of the Palestinian people or seek real peace. This made the 1994 awarding a laugher. However, it would not have been diplomatically wise to have given it to the Israeli Prime Minister and Foreign Minister that year and not to Arafat since all three parties were involved in the project that was the basis for that year's award being given.

--United Nations and Kofi Annan -Joint Recipients (2001)

See my previous comments about 1988's recipients. Add to it (i) further ineptitude and the corruption of the UN which festered under Annan's watch as well as (ii) their lack of cajones in dealing with Saddam Hussein's constant violation of UN sanctions and the terms of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire and this award can be seen for what it was: an undeserved awarding by any objective standards whatsoever.

--Jimmah Carter (2002)

As strange as it may seem, none of the above awardings (despite the problems noted) gave me reason to loathe the Nobel Peace Prize committee the way the 2002 award did. Even the 2001 award could perhaps be chalked up to not having anyone of note to award it to that year{3} so for that reason some leeway could be granted for the choice made. But not Jimmah Carter in 2002.

Jimmah Carter presided over the explosion of Muslim extremist movements and encouraged them by his ineptitude as president. He made a mess that subsequent presidents had to deal with in a variety of ways and with mixed success thus far. Further still, his negotiating skills with the North Koreans in 1994 could give reasonable people cause to wonder if a trained monkey could not have gotten a better deal than the one he got. And (of course) making a political statement in 2002 with his award was disgraceful and cheapened the award further than anything prior to that time had done.

Having said all of that, Carter did oversee the Camp David Discords in 1978 and both Menachim Begin and Anwar Sadat were given the award that year. All things considered, if Carter had been given the award that year, it is hard to say that such a decision could not be justified in the same fashion awarding Arafat in 1994 and Mandela in 1993 could be. But Carter's star had fallen since 1978 -and any deserved reputation enhancement he received from his work with Habitat for Humanity since leaving the White House in 1981- was reduced by his ineptness as a negotiator in 1994 and his unexcuable public statements attempting to undercut the Commander in Chief in the runup to the war in Iraq.

Basically, I have had a serious lessening of respect for the Nobel Peace Prize particularly since it was used as a political football back in 2002 when Jimmah Carter was given the award. Having noted that however, I also could not see a problem with the recipents of the award since that time so it more or less returned to my status quo "benign whatever" attitude up until the present time. John Berlau sums up what the awarding of the Nobel Prize to Albert Gore Jr. this year really means in this succinct paragraph from the link above:

Al Gore has won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. This choice, more than any other Nobel Committee selection, marks the end of a 105-year era. In direct contradiction of Alfred Nobel's last will and testament, the selection of Gore essentially means the Peace Prize can no longer be said to be an award for improving the condition of humankind. Looking at Gore's writing, it's far from clear that Gore even believes that humanity is his most important priority.

Whatever one wants to say about awarding the UN or its "peacekeeping" forces with the award (1988), or the UN and its General Secretary (2001), at the very least one could make the argument that they meant well despite the mixed record overall where seeking to improve the conditions of humanity are concerned.

Similarly, one could view the end of apartheid in South Africa (the basis for the 1993 awards to deKlerk and Mandela) and the most significant attempt at peace between Israel and the Palestinians (the basis of the 1994 award which Arafat partook of) as grounds for meeting the intentions of the award as envisioned by its founder. And while I personally have lost a lot of respect for Jimmah Carter in the past fifteen odd years{4}, even his ineptitude as a negotiator in North Korea and other such endeavours could (maybe) be chalked up to not deliberate but instead accidental sabotage.{5} But none of these could be brought to bear to attempt to excuse this year's co-recipients. They have instead perpetrated one of the biggest hoaxes since Y2K and what they recommend would be such a striking departure from the stated aims and intentions of the late Alfred Nobel that the award is for all intensive purposes useless now. John Berlau adequately deals with this matter in the above article and comes to the same conclusion on the matter as your humble servant does; namely this:

--If the Nobel Committee goes with the "politically correct" winds, it is incumbent on every Nobel laureate who cares about the legacy of Alfred Nobel to denounce this terrible decision.

Precisely.

The Hamiltonian Ground (David Brooks)

The above article to a macro extent summarizes well your host's view of the Republican candidates at the present time. It also deals to some extent with some of the underlying principles I have been working on for another posting to be completed and blogged soon but that is all I will say for now except to exhort you to give the above article a read.

The genocide vote: Now is not the time (Jane Harman)

I have to admit it: when I heard about the proposed "genocide vote", I was storing away fire for the day of wrath and was preparing to really unload on the craven Democrats for this monument to symbolism over substance and trying to put partisan politics above national security, our military troops overseas, our geopolitical relationship with Turkey during a time of war, etc. But then I was alerted to this article by a former co-sponsor of the resolution who woke up to the very realities I was prepared to outline in detail. I thank her for seeing the delicacy of these matters and how sometimes imprudent zeal can not only fail to achieve anything of significance but can actually make matters significantly worse. (A subject I am covering in more detail in a soon-to-be-finished-and-ready-for-blogging post incidentally enough.)

Big Brother is Watching You (Whittaker Chambers)

Fifty years ago, Atlas Shrugged was published and fifty years ago, Whittaker Chambers wrote this biting critique of the work and some of the foundational presuppositions of its author. Despite some of my early intellectual influences being Objectivists, I find problems with some of the inexorable conclusions that one often draws from an Objectivist approach to reality. Chambers covers some of them in this review and also raises a few other ones that while I would not have been aware of them myself{6} would nonetheless not sit well with me including the caricature approach to different views in general. To quote a snippet of his review where this is touched on:

Since a great many of us dislike much that Miss Rand dislikes, quite as heartily as she does, many incline to take her at her word. It is the more persuasive, in some quarters, because the author deals wholly in the blackest blacks and the whitest whites. In this fiction everything, everybody, is either all good or all bad, without any of those intermediate shades which, in life, complicate reality and perplex the eye that seeks to probe it truly. This kind of simplifying pattern, of course, gives charm to most primitive storyknown as: The War between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness. In modern dress, it is a class war. Both sides to it are caricatures.

Whatever problems I have with people of certain outlooks, I do not buy into the notion that anyone on earth is all white or all black; ergo such an outlook is not one that resonates well with me.

Systems of philosophic materialism, so long as they merely circle outside this world’s atmosphere, matter little to most of us. The trouble is that they keep coming down to earth. It is when a system of materialist ideas presumes to give positive answers to real problems of our real life that mischief starts. In an age like ours, in which a highly complex technological society is everywhere in a high state of instability, such answers, however philosophic, translate quickly into political realities. And in the degree to which problems of complexity and instability are most bewildering to masses of men, a temptation sets in to let some species of Big Brother solve and supervise them.

I concur fully with the above assessment. Any system or application of a system which does not take ethics and morality into account -which includes a recognition and support of the fundamental rights of people properly understood{7}- will inexorably become totalitarianist. And while more could be noted on this matter (and in the future may well be), that is all I have time for now.

Notes:

{1} This view started with the 1990 awarding to Mikhail Gorbachev if I recall correctly.

{2} Rationally, I can see giving the award to the head of an apartheid-supporting nation who dismantled the system of apartheid in his nation; ergo my view of DeKlerk receiving the award in 1993 lest anyone wonder.

{3} I am trying to give a charitable interpretation here lest anyone wonder.

{4} His work with Habitat for Humanity had rehabilitated his reputation in my eyes for some time subsequent to his leaving office though (admittedly) my assessment of him and his time in office was not formed until after he had departed for various reasons -including that I was too focused on playing "Star Wars" and other such games around that time chronologically ;-)

{5} See footnote three and multiply by three.

{6} I say this as I have not read Atlas Shrugged in its totality but only select passages from it here and there over the years. Trusting for a moment the veracity of Chambers' review, he notes several elements to this book which I had only noticed faintly in the parts of it I had read. The overall tone he claims the book possesses is one which (if true) would have probably turned me off from finishing the book had I attempted to read it from start to finish.

{7} Emphasis on the words "properly understood" of course -a distinctionwith a difference and one that not many people try to make nowadays.

As I consider one of the threads to be posted to this weblog shortly upon its completion, it is interesting to have discovered through some web surfing a similar view of ours on the subject of the Nobel Prize as enunciated by the late renaissance man Arthur Jones (RIP). He was one of the notable influences of your host at Rerum Novarum as we have noted on occasion at sundry times and divers manners over the years (most recently here). Anyway, that posting (to be blogged soon) can serve as a bit of a foretaste to something we will be blogging on soon as well as an encapsulation of another principle which we have often enunciated over the years at this humble weblog. But that is all I want to say on the matter at the moment as it is late and I need to get some rest.

In light of summer which has faded, before we start getting really bad weather up here in Seattle, and as another birthday for your weblog host is imminent, it seems appropriate to denote in sonnet form the changes in more ways than one. Without further ado...

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd;

But thy eternal summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou growest:
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this and this gives life to thee.
[William Shakespeare: Sonnet XVIII]

On Blogging in General, My Approaches To It, Remembering Two Musical Legends and Three Major Influences, Etc:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[This thread was predominantly drafted back in early September but due to time constraints was not able to be finished until now. -ISM]

I would be remiss in not mentioning at the start of these musings that September 3rd was the birthday of blues legend Freddy King. I wrote in some length on him last year and encourage readers to review that thread to learn more{1} about the late great "Texas Cannonball" (may he rest in peace).

On the subject of blogging, there are many ways of going about writing on a blog or in other online mediums. I have gone over this a few times in the past and probably will in the future the approaches I use to draw ideas for blogging. One of them is that I am by nature a bit of a contrarian and always have been. That in and of itself is a departure from most people but frankly if you are not to some extent unique -either in your views, your approach to explaining your views, how you go about discussing the subjects you want to discuss, etc.- then it is difficult to be perceived apart from the general mass of those with similarities in their outlooks as yours.

The blogging medium itself is one that I consciously recognized early on{2} had a number of ways to do it and I did not want to approach the way many others do. Or as was noted in a weblog posting within the first year of blogging and when the weblog was still in an early part of its growth:

[Blogging a bunch of links] is not something that interests me for many reasons - though I do have my days on occasion when I am in the mood to mostly post links without much commentary.
...

I can track stuff down with the best of them but my problem is that I cannot simply post a lot of links and not comment on them. And my reason for this is [due to] the tendencies of the media to try and paint people [of a generally conservative disposition] as either criminal or weird. And if I can do my part to make "a dent in public discourse" then I will do that. But one way I cannot do that is to simply be a vending machine of links.

For if I did do that too regularly, why would I provide any incentive to actually read Rerum Novarum and not Instapundit??? And why read Instapundit and not the two columns on the front page of Investors Business Daily??? I could deconstruct this into near-infinity so I will stop at this time as I am sure you get the idea. My goal is simply to muse on whatever strikes my fancy. In short, there is a reason that you will seldom see breaking stories at this humble weblog.[...]

I tend to prefer to let others bring up breaking issues and then I respond to them. There are tactical reasons for this as well as practical ones. Part of the reason is that I am too critical of journalism in general of rushing to print anything they think can make a story and then if they err on A1 - which happens more frequently than most people would believe, they correct themselves on Q14 where no one sees it.[...]

I find if I let others break the story, I can benefit from their efforts and also circumvent the problems that can come with seeking to "break" a story before anyone else. And of course letting others hash out the main points provides an opportunity to approach the subjects in a way that is to some degree different than anyone else.

...

Criticism is sometimes justified but usually those who make a habit of it are incapable of separating legitimate criticism from childlike rantings. I believe we do a reasonable job of that separation here; however that does not mean there is no room for improvement of course. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 11, 2003)]

I should probably note that even early on I was not predisposed to post a lot of links without commentary but I did it to a greater extent early on than I subsequently have. There are a few reasons for this but rather than go into that now, there are many strengths to the approach I take. One is that it makes it easier to focus on the real underlying issues of a subject and not so much of the trivial surface stuff that most people focus on. However, one of the problems with imposing on oneself a degree of contemporary ignorance of media overexposure is that stuff one would be interested in if they heard of it gets lost as well. The strengths I could list for my overall approach to these matters are legion. The weaknesses while few are nonetheless worth noting and I will give three such examples at this time of news stories I did not hear of until weeks after the fact.

The first example is this thread from the New York Times from a couple of weeks two months ago:

Max Roach, a Founder of Modern Jazz, Dies at 83

Now the only reason I know of this link is that I saw on the cover of a jazz periodical at the library an article about the late great Max Roach, God rest his soul. That got me to do a google search and the above article was found on him. I am a music connoisseur of many styles but one style I like where my overall knowledge is not that good is jazz. Having said that though, one cannot be even minimally familiar with jazz and not know about Max Roach. He was unquestionably the greatest jazz drummer ever. Indeed, his influence went beyond jazz with some of the greatest rock and roll drummers of the '60s and '70s being unquestionably influenced by Roach either directly (i.e Ginger Baker and Neil Peart) or indirectly (i.e. John Bonham, Keith Moon).

Within the last couple of days weeks we saw pass on also the greatest tenor since Enrico Caruso, Luciano Pavarotti. As he is much better known than Max Roach, I will not say much on him that has not been said by others far more competent to discuss that genre of music than myself. I refer of course to fellow musicians including his opera peers and fellow Three Tenors performer Jose Carraras and Placido Domingo who were involved in a musical memorial and who (along with numerous others) spoke fondly of him here. And it seems fitting to include a clip of the great Pavarotti (RIP) so here is one of him singing Nessun Dorma. In three words: he was phenomenal.

Also a missed news story in that time span was the death of Michael Jackson (may he rest in peace). Those familiar with your host's love of beer, wine, and other spirits may well know whom I speak of -suffice to say it is not the same fella who owns Neverland Ranch. Lovers of fine beer will hopefully join me in lifting a glass to his memory -if not for Michael Jackson and the world of fine imports he either exposed me to or encouraged me to seek out and try, my knowledge of beer would be so much less than it is to say nothing of my appreciation for the truly good stuff which is most assuredly not made in America.{3}

Finally, there is the passing of Arthur Jones -founder of Nautilus and a certified renaissance man in many respects. The influence he had on my intellectual formation -both directly and particularly by the influence he had on one of my major intellectual mentors- cannot be emphasized enough. He was one of those who taught me and others who fell under the sway of his influence to not passively accept "conventional wisdom" on anything and indeed that lesson (learned at a young age thankfully) has served me well lo these many years later.

It is my hope that these great men (both the recently as well as not-so-recently deceased) will rest peacefully with the souls of the faithfully departed in the bosom of God for their utilization of the tremendous gifts they gave to others. Perhaps if I had been a little less media ignorant than I had been in the past couple of months{4} I would have caught these events sooner. But even if I had been, the possibility of missing them was still a significant one and considering how much garbage one has to sift through to find the wheat amongst the chaff. (Due to the overstressing nature of 24/7 news cycles.)

Notes:

{1} For those interested in more about Freddy King, here and here are a couple links of him playing live.

{2} After I adjusted to it and the degree of freedom here which as I admitted back in May did not happen automatically or without a degree of "growing pains":

[L]ife itself is a process of growth and development across a broad continuum. This includes weblog writing and interests.

We have no problem admitting that it took a bit of time before this weblog really started to take a discernable shape and some of the features and/or principles which have become standard or typical over time were in the "finding their feet" stage early on. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 15, 2007)]

{3} This is not to deprecate some of the microbrews that are made in various locales mind you; only that my operative presupposition with beer is that foreign brews are to be preferred whenever possible except for Japanese beer which has the singular distinction of being the only nation where the mass-produced beers are worse than those made in America.

{4} I have been gradually imposing a greater media ignorance on myself than I normally have and deliberately for reasons I may touch on at some point later on. I have actually explained recently.

Points to Ponder:

The process of establishing precise definitions is rigorously demanding; which is why the mystics and skeptics (most people, today) turn away from the realm of the intellect. Concepts are the tools of thought; the better your tools, the better, i.e., more precise, the closer to the actual facts of reality, will your thinking be. [Mike Mentzer]

On Vilfredo Pareto and Notes on Applying A Basic Economic Principle to Life In General (Including Blogging):
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Sometimes with a weblog such as Rerum Novarum which is not updated daily, the appearance can be given that there is a haitus of sorts when in reality there is not. It bears noting briefly at the start of this posting because in a 24/7 news and media cycle, going days on end without posting anything new is hardly in keeping with the weltanschauung of many who are involved in media endeavours -be they of the msm or alternative media variety. To keep the plate adequately mixed here subjectwise -both for my own interest as well as that of the readers- it requires some degree of pacing. I almost never make a scheduled haitus unless it is absolutely necessary.{1} But I also do not like to rush posts as they are formulated and with more thought out expositions, that can take some time -usually days, sometimes weeks, and in a few cases, months.{2}

Life has a way of not giving enough time to get done everything one wants to do -be that in business, with blogging, whatever- and your host is seeking to reapply a principle he has long believed in but not always observed as faithfully as he should have: namely an old economics principle by the late Italian-French economist Vilfredo Pareto. In all spheres of his life in recent months, your host has been trying to reapply this principle where it had fallen into disuse and that includes with blogging. But before explaining how we intend to apply it, readers should be familiarized with the principle in question first so that they can see where we are going in raising it at the present time.

Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) had come to realize a principle that he first set forth explicitly in 1906{1} pertaining to the issue of economic distribution. He had observed in Italy that 20% of the population owned 80% of the land and resources. Initially he thought that this was due to inequalities of economics but various studies he conducted in nature solidified that hypothesis into a probable theory and it became evident that this is the natural order of things. In other words, whether it is 80-20, 85-15, 90-10, or 95-5 the overwhelming majority of productive results come from a small percentage of outputs.

I discovered this principle years ago with weight training where my training partners and I would through doing a mere fraction of the work that others around us were doing would continue to make progress while they stagnated.{3} And over time I have found that it applies to so many areas but I do not want to get away from the subject in question which is applying Pareto's Principle to all areas of my life -particularly those areas where I have unconsciously let it lapse in recent years.

None of this means I will necessarily blog any more than I do not generally speaking. Well, maybe a bit more if there is more time in the day as a result of getting the other areas of life more thoroughly organized under this principle -a process that is taking a while in lieu of the layers of inefficiency that I had allowed to seep into various aspects of my life.

Oh, I should note before wrapping up this posting that one thing I am considering writing on is the application of this principle to economics and explaining the fallacy behind economic approaches which seek to create equality in outcome as opposed to merely equality in opportunity. But that is a subject for another time.

Notes:

{1} As it was back in July of this year for a couple of weeks.

{2} It seems in the past six months there have been more than the usual number of these kind of endeavours -including about a half dozen which are in various stages of completion as of this posting and the recent posting on baseball milestones. (The bulk of the material of which was composed over two months prior to its posting but required significantly more than the normal rearranging and revising before it was ready to be posted.)

{3} I have since realized through further study and personal experimentation just how little is really required in this area for maximizing results volume-wise. Like everything, it is not how much you do which is the determining factor but doing it precisely right; ergo a ten to fifteen minute weight training routine seven times per month done correctly results in magnified progress far and above ten times the amount of work in the same time period, etc.

Once the tendons in my foot heal enough to allow it (they were severely strained in April of 2006 and only in recent months appear to be close to fully healed) and I shed a few more pounds, it will be time for perfecting these matters further both with my return to training and some friends and associates who have asked for assistance in maximizing their results in minimal time in the coming months and year.

Points to Ponder:

A single idea, if it is right, saves us the labor of an infinity of experiences. [Jacques Maritain]

Ahmadinejad Cements Ties With Venezuela President Chavez (ABC News)

The irony is, these dictators are beloved by not a few who hate President Bush's guts and whine about "suppression of free speech." Of course the people who whine about President Bush are not about to be thrown in jail or executed anytime soon whereas with Ahmadinejad or Chavez, the same assurance cannot be given. This goes to show just how mentally vacant some people can be -notably the sorts who endorse people such as Chavez.{1} To help those who need pictures to put two and two together, let us consider this "socialist summit of 2007" in pictures:

Now consider this in the context of an earlier "socialist summit" from 1934 pictured below:

For those who think this comparison is unfair, it only shows how ignorant of history they really are. For if it was the 1930's the fans of Chavez and Ahmadinejad would be going gaga over socialist Benito Mussolini and socialist Adolph Hitler forming their "alliance" also.

All we need now to have TIME Magazine nominate Ahmadinejad as "Man of the Year" the way they did with Hitler for 1938 and the parallel will be complete. (That rolling you felt was Spanish historian George Santayana rolling in his grave.)

Note:

{1} Those who are shillers for Ahmadinejad are significantly worse in this area.

On Baseball, Recent Milestones, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Note: The bulk of the material in this thread was composed a couple of months ago but remained unfinished until it was reformatted for posting and revised a bit a few days ago. -ISM]

Considering the recent record breaking feat of Barry Bonds, readers of this humble weblog who know of your host's fondness for the "thinking man's game" of baseball may be surprised that we do not view this "feat" as all that impressive. Tom Glavine's 300th win is huge as he will be the last 300 game winner until Randy Johnson and Mike Mussina do it.{1} But we at Rerum Novarum are not too impressed with a juiced up cheater like Bonds and frankly think all players of the past twenty years for whom reasonable certainty can be derived that they used steriods should have their records reduced by 10-20% as punishment for their unethical behaviour. But enough on that point for now, let us focus on what was impressive and did not involve any juicing. I refer of course to the feats of George Herman Ruth aka "Babe Ruth" among other titles given.{2}

Babe Ruth is the greatest player of all time, period this is frankly not even debatable. This is evident in countless ways of which only a few will be touched on here. The title "greatest of all time" has many applications and in Ruth's case it refers both in his prowess as an all-around offensive machine as well as the fact that he was among the most dominant pitchers of his era before becoming a full-time hitter five years into his baseball career. But now that Bonds has the home run "record" and will likely finish in the top three in runs batted in (RBI's), it seems appropriate to remind readers unfamiliar with history some of the feats of the Babe as there has never and will never be another like him.

In a twenty-two year career, Babe Ruth achieved over 90% of his stats for hitting in a sixteen year span from 1919-1934.{3} Consider this for a moment:

2657 of the Babe's 2873 hits (92.4%), 2062 of his 2174 runs scored (94.8%), 458 of his 506 doubles (90.5%), 118 of his 136 triples (86.7%), 688 of his 714 home runs (96.3%), 2085 of his 2213 runs batted in (94.2%),and 1953 of his 2062 walks (94.7%) were in a sixteen year span of his twenty-two year career. In that same span, his batting average was .344, his on base percentage was .477, and his slugging percentage rounded from the nearest thousanth was .700. In that same time period, he led the league in home runs twelve times, in slugging fourteen times, in walks eleven times, in runs batted in six times, and had 100 or more runs batted in thirteen times, and 40 or more home runs eleven times.{4}

One who wants to argue that Bonds achieved more in a four to five year stretch (2000-2004) than anyone else can consider that sustaining the standard of excellence three to four times as long is significantly more remarkable. If the two are compared on the most productive sixteen year stretches of their careers (including the subpar years each had in that span for injuries or other reasons), Ruth edges Bonds even before we get to the question of steroids. In fact, let us consider for a moment how significant Babe Ruth's achievements were when they are compared to Hank Aaron who set the record broken by Bonds this year.

If you compare their stats, you will see that Babe Ruth had nearly 4000 fewer at bats than Hank Aaron. Despite that, Ruth only hit 41 fewer home runs and 80 fewer runs batted in.{5} The only players where one could make an argument for greatest based on the OPS+ statistic (which is arguably the best stat for measuring a player against his contemporaries) and the players closest to Ruth's all time 207 figure (meaning he averaged twice the average player in overall offensive output for his career) was Ted Williams' 190 career mark and Barry Bonds' 182 career mark. (Bonds also has four of the top ten single season OPS+ marks to three for Babe Ruth and two for Ted Williams -three of Barry's four happen to be the first, second, and third most for a single season including 2001 where his single season average was 275.) However, since Bonds had over 700 more at bats and still was behind Ruth in home runs by a small margin (and runs batted in by over 300) and achieved his top three single season marks after 2000 (and when he was obviously on steriods), they are easily dispensible.

And of course Ruth was also cherished for reasons outside of baseball. For this reason, anyone who approached one of his records was going to get grief. Roger Maris was the recipient of it in 1961 when he broke Ruth's record for single season home runs in the first 162 game season.{5} His all-time record for home runs{6} was of course surpassed by Hank Aaron who was among the most disciplined, consistent, and classy players to ever play the game. But the stats themselves{7} do not lie.

Barry Bonds was (and is) talented in his own right -I would say (and did in years past) that he was the best all-around player in the game during the decade of the 1990's before the controversy with steroids. However, he allowed himself to be seduced by the attention being paid to Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa when they challenged the single season record in 1998 (both surpassing it that year). Sosa has since been shown to have used a corked bat which calls a number of his homeruns into question (to say nothing about the bulking up he did) and McGwire at the Senate hearings on steriod use in baseball did not come across well and was rejected overwhelmingly on his first bid for the Hall of Fame.

For those who do not know, 500 home runs for hitting was at one time what 300 wins for pitching is: basically a defacto entry for the Hall of Fame.{8} So for McGwire to lose overwhelmingly in his first bid by 87% -falling 54% short for inclusion- is a significant rebuke considering that he had nearly 600 home runs and is the only player in history to homer in fewer average at bats than the Babe. Sosa who has over 600 home runs thus far is not going to fare much better so that leaves Bonds. Will the new so-called "Home Run King" make it into the Hall of Fame??? Seriously, I am not so sure he will even though before he decided to sully his reputation with steroid bulking up he was well on track to do so as one of the most gifted players ever to play the game.

In short, I am very happy for Glavine who achieved a feat that will in the coming years be rare if not practically non-existent. But as for Bonds, I am not similarly well-wishing. Perhaps a little rhyme I threw together recently on the matter can explain this succinctly so I will end with it now:

The Sultan of Swat did it{9} with hot dogs and pizazz
Hammering Hank did it with consistency and class
Barry Bonds did it with a needle in his ass

And that is the bottom line really.

Notes:

{1} We are confident that Randy Johnson will find a way to nurse his perpetually injured back well aged beyond his 44 years and conjure up the 16 wins needed to make 300 before he wraps up his career. Mike Mussina needs about 53 wins and at 37 years of age should see that achieved within the next four years. Beyond that, we are not sure there will be another 300 game winner for about two decades or more (if ever).

{2} He was also given the following nicknames:

The Big Bam", "The Sultan of Swat," "The Bambino," "The Colossus of Clout," "The Wali of Wallop," "The Wazir of Wham," "The Maharajah of Mash," "The Rajah of Rap," "The Caliph of Clout," and "The Behemoth of Bust."

{3} I picked this span of time because it started with the first year where he was a fulltime hitter (instead of a fulltime pitcher) and left off the last year where he was clearly a shadow of his former self. (In the interest of fairness I included the 1934 season which was the first season where he had a noticeable decline in production in all offensive categories.)

{4} In 1922 he missed a fifth of a season and fell 1 RBI short of 100 and five HR's short of 40. Similarly he missed over a third of the 1925 season due to an illness which left him 34 RBI's short of 100 and 15 HR's short of 40. (His batting average in those two years was a shade under .300 too.) Based on the balance of his career stats, there is no reason to conclude otherwise than he would have hit at least 100 RBI's, 40 HR's, and batted over .300 in those years as he did in every season where he played at least close to a full schedule of games.

{5} As of this writing, Aaron and Ruth are first and second all-time in RBI's or "runs batted in."

{6} The seasons were 154 games up to 1960: one reason Maris' record was astrisked. When Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa broke Maris' record in 1998, they both did it in 154 games or less unlike Maris who tied Ruth and broke the latter's record after the 154 game point of the 1961 season.

{7} Another note: when Ruth hit his 700th home run, there was no one else even half way to that number. Heck, his teammate Lou "Iron Horse" Gehrig was at 347 and Philadelphia Athletics slugger Jimmy "the Beast" Foxx was at 266: their total combined was still almost a hundred homers fewer than Ruth's total. (Jimmy Foxx was second in home runs when he finished his career in 1945 and was not supplanted in that spot until 1965 when he was passed by Willie Mays. Futhermore, when Ruth died, "The Beast" was the only other player in history to have over 500 home runs in his career.)

{8} There are a variety of things to consider and players can get in by other criteria (i.e Ty Cobb as a hitter and Catfish Hunter who had nowhere near 500 HR's and 300 wins respectively) but those have long been viewed as automatic benchmarks for entry into the Hall.

{9} Though if modern rules were applied to Ruth's hits, he would have had at least 765 home runs rather than the 714 to which he is credited. To quote Wikipedia on the matter:

As a sidelight to his prominent role in changing the game to the power-game, the frequency and popularity of Ruth's home runs eventually led to a rule change pertaining to those hit in sudden-death mode (bottom of the ninth or later inning). Prior to 1931, as soon as the first necessary run to win the game scored, the play was over, and the batter was credited only with the number of bases needed to drive in the winning run. Thus, if the score was 3-2 with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth, and the batter smacked an "over the fence home run", the game would end at 4-3, with the batter only allowed a double, and the runners officially stopped on 2nd and 3rd (since they weren't needed to win the game). The new rule allowed the entire play to complete, justified on the grounds that the ball was dead and that all runners could freely advance, thus granting the full allotment of HR and RBI's to the batter, as we know it today. Several players lost home runs that way, including Ruth, whose career total would have been changed to 715 if historians during the 1960s had been successful in pursuing this matter. Major League Baseball elected not to retrofit the records to the modern rules, and Ruth's total stayed at 714.

Another rules change that affected Ruth was the method used by umpires to judge potential home runs when the batted ball left the field near a foul pole. Before 1931, i.e through most of Ruth's most productive years, the umpire called the play based on the ball's final resting place "when last seen". Thus, if a ball went over the fence fair, and curved behind the foul pole, it was ruled foul. Beginning in 1931 and continuing to the present day, the rule was changed to require the umpire to judge based on the point where the ball cleared the fence. Jenkinson's book (p.374-375) lists 78 foul balls near the foul pole in Ruth's career, and the research indicates at least 50 of them were likely to have been home runs under the modern rule.