Miscellaneous Mutterings:
A point that seems to be often overlooked with regards to the recent situation concerning Senator Barack Hussein Obama and the preacher at his church (a Rev. Jeremiah Wright) is that Senator Obama has gone a long way in trying to make excuses for Rev. White while he called for the firing of Don Imus last year from the radio for a stupid offhand comment made by Imus. And of course the msm is fawning over Obama's recent speech on the matter but were out for blood back in 2002 when Senator Trent Lott made a offhand quip at the 100th birthday party of Senator Strom Thurmond which was interpreted in a racist sense.{1} Oh the calls were made for Lott to resign from the Senate over those comments just as calls were made for Imus to be fired over his.
Now I admittedly felt that Lott should have stepped down from his position as then-majority leader but not because of the comments themselves -focusing instead on what they implied in the area of important leadership qualities.{2} But one thing is not deniable and it is this:
Senator Lott's offhand quip at a birthday party and Don Imus' choice of phrasing to describe the Rutgers women's basketball team's black members{3} were minor matters compared to the sorts of vitriol that Rev. Jeremiah Wright has involved himself in. And as Senator Barack Hussein Obama has been attending that church for twenty odd years and only now that he is running for office deigns to try and place some separation between himself and Rev. Wright{4}, consider that the next time someone makes a big deal about something far more minor and insignificant -such as Senator John McCain spending twenty minutes in the presence of some bigoted preacher.
What is twenty minutes versus twenty years??? But (of course) Obama will get another pass from the msm which is precisely the value of having Senator Hillary Clinton still in this race: she will do what the msm would crucify McCain for doing and what the msm does not have the cajones to do; namely, treat Obama with anything but kid gloves. Or as I noted earlier in the month just after Senator Clinton's comeback in three of the four March 4th primaries:
[That is all I plan to say on this for now except to exhort Senator Clinton to continue her fight. After all, if Obama cannot take a punch, he has no business being president of the United States and he is about to find out just how tenacious the Clintons can be when they are fighting for their election lives. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 7, 2008]
So on that score, go Hill go..."all the way to the convention" say I.
Notes:
{1} I am frankly shocked at how many otherwise astute people have termed Sen. Lott's comments about Sen. Strom Thurmond as "racist". Such widescale ignorance is not helped by the revisionist media. Was one element of the Dixiecrat party (of which Thurmond ran for president in 1948 under the banner of) supporting of segregationism??? Yes but that was an ancillary issue in the bigger picture. The primary thrust of the "Dixiecrat" party was one opposing federal intervention in areas which were Constitutionally delegated to the states. They just happened to latch unto the civil rights platform of the Democratic party as their main justifying issue.
By no means was the civil rights platform of the Democratic party - which was an egregious violation of states rights - the only such violation. And while they had the right fundamental principle, it was advanced to defend a fundamental violation of human rights which sadly (on the slavery issue) was not uncommon at one time in the old South. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 12, 2002)]
{2} Was Sen. Lott's comments on the whole correct??? Yes they were. Were they prudent to make??? No they were not, particularly in light of how they would be misinterpreted. Did this show a tremendous lack of insight on Sen. Lott's part??? Yes it did. Should he resign from the Senate??? No he should not. Should he step down from Senate majority leader position??? Yes he should.
If he was not astute enough to recognize that most people would not know where he was coming from, he should not be the leader of the Republican party in the Senate: a party that historically has opposed not only physical slavery but also economic slavery. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 12, 2002)]
{3} Which as tasteless as it was frankly was still a lot tamer than what a lot of rappers refer to black women as in their songs.
{4} To the credit of Oprah Winfrey, she made the separation from Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his ministry over eight years ago because of his stated views.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
I have mentioned before that I was working on draft proposals for a couple of Washington state initiatives intended to control the abuses of the state legislature. (I do not have the time to track the links down from my archives at the moment but I may insert them into the previous sentence, omit this sentence, etc. should I get a bit of time to tend to it today.) Both state initative ideas have both been mentioned before on this weblog -one was even sketched out in some detail back in early 2004. Having noted that, I was reviewing a federal proposal that gets at a lot of what my initiative proposals intend to do which has been presented by a Libertarian group called Downsize DC.
I cannot imagine how someone could be opposed to this kind of legislation but I await to hear of those who are -somewhere there is always someone opposed to everything after all. Anyway, for those not familiar with the Downsize DC proposal here is a preview of it via Wikipedia, here is an outline of the bill at the website of Downsize DC, and here is the actual text of the proposed bill itself. I am not saying that the form they have the proposed bill is in is perfect mind you{1} but the idea is one that is long overdue and one which (as I said already) I cannot imagine anyone with a normal intact functioning brain opposing.
Note:
{1} In a small bit of irony, I have not yet read the full text of the proposed bill myself. (Though I have read the outline from the Downsize DC website.)
I cannot imagine how someone could be opposed to this kind of legislation but I await to hear of those who are -somewhere there is always someone opposed to everything after all. Anyway, for those not familiar with the Downsize DC proposal here is a preview of it via Wikipedia, here is an outline of the bill at the website of Downsize DC, and here is the actual text of the proposed bill itself. I am not saying that the form they have the proposed bill is in is perfect mind you{1} but the idea is one that is long overdue and one which (as I said already) I cannot imagine anyone with a normal intact functioning brain opposing.
Note:
{1} In a small bit of irony, I have not yet read the full text of the proposed bill myself. (Though I have read the outline from the Downsize DC website.)
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:
To briefly cover a few bits in the news in recent days...
Goldman Sachs 1st-Quarter Results Sail Past Wall Street Expectations
The question about whether or not we are in a recession remains a mixed one -Goldman Sachs has a substantially better first quarter than was predicted yet Bear Sterns loses in a year over 80% of its value and is sold on the cheap to J P Morgan, Chase, and Co.
There is nothing definite either way to say whether we are in or bound for a recession or not -though that the economy has slowed from what it was doing for the past five years is undeniable. But watch the msm try to pull the same crap they did in 1992 when -despite the fact that we had been out of a recession for about six months to a year- they continued up to the day of the election claiming we were still in a recession. No matter what happens in the coming months, I predict the msm will not deviate from the template they used in 1992. The question is, will the influence of the alternative media as a check on the msm be able to make a difference??? Only time will tell. Moving on...
How photos support your own "reality" (Farhad Manjoo)
The use of photos in argumentation is problematical because photos so easily play on emotions which tend to override logic and reason with most people. Another problem with them is that they can be used so selectively. This is one reason why photos are key to the most effective of historical propaganda and why I have taken issue with those who try to argue by photograph -and sometimes stridently so.
Calls Mount for an Olympic Ceremony Boycott
I concur with that call by the way.
Supreme Court set to back gun rights (FT.com)
Just a tidbit to whet the appetite...
Hearing the most important gun rights case in nearly 70 years, the justices on Tuesday spent 98 minutes engrossed in a lively debate about British and American legal traditions relating to the right to bear arms, especially in self-defence.
Considering how badly the Rhenquist court botched the whole Kelo case in 2005{1}, let us hope the Roberts court continues to show its remarkable restraint and overall originalist direction.
Wall Street Darts Higher After Three-Quarter-Point Rate Cut From Fed, Investment Bank Profits
Just a taste...click on the link above for more:
Wall Street stormed higher Tuesday as investors, optimistic following stronger-than-expected earnings from two big investment banks, were also galvanized by the Federal Reserve's decision to cut interest rates by three-quarters of a percentage point. The Dow Jones industrial average soared 420 points, its biggest one-day point gain in more than five years.
I noted already this year my view on how Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is handling the economic situation so I will merely reiterate it here in a footnote{2} and move onto the final entry of this thread.
Science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke dies aged 90
Best known for the book that Stanley Kubrick made into the 1968 movie 2001: A Space Odyssey but he did a lot more than that. May he rest in peace.
Notes:
{1} For those who do not know, basically the new ruling would enable a business to steal property from private parties under the rubric that they could provide more property tax revenue to the state than the owner of the property...[A]pparently there are congresspeople in both parties -even those who never seem to see eye to eye like Tom DeLay and Maxine Waters- who supported a House Bill (that passed 231 to 189) which would deny federal funding to any company that tried this tactic...not an ideal result but at the very least it is a step in the right direction. All of this makes the judicial situation I covered above -only judicial constructionists being appointed to the courts- take on the proper sense of urgency that it should have. I mean, what part of nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation applies to the seizing of private property for private usage??? This is not rocket science people. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 2, 2005)]
{2} I must admit that I like the proactive approach that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is taking towards the economy. The three quarter point cut in the funds rate done earlier in the week (and a week in advance of the Fed's director meeting for the month of January) is the largest single cut since President Reagan's first term. At that time, the large Fed cut was to facilitate the economic recovery picking up steam (which certainly happened) and this time it is to approach the matter when the status is uncertain rather than waiting until it is. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 25, 2008)]
To briefly cover a few bits in the news in recent days...
Goldman Sachs 1st-Quarter Results Sail Past Wall Street Expectations
The question about whether or not we are in a recession remains a mixed one -Goldman Sachs has a substantially better first quarter than was predicted yet Bear Sterns loses in a year over 80% of its value and is sold on the cheap to J P Morgan, Chase, and Co.
There is nothing definite either way to say whether we are in or bound for a recession or not -though that the economy has slowed from what it was doing for the past five years is undeniable. But watch the msm try to pull the same crap they did in 1992 when -despite the fact that we had been out of a recession for about six months to a year- they continued up to the day of the election claiming we were still in a recession. No matter what happens in the coming months, I predict the msm will not deviate from the template they used in 1992. The question is, will the influence of the alternative media as a check on the msm be able to make a difference??? Only time will tell. Moving on...
How photos support your own "reality" (Farhad Manjoo)
The use of photos in argumentation is problematical because photos so easily play on emotions which tend to override logic and reason with most people. Another problem with them is that they can be used so selectively. This is one reason why photos are key to the most effective of historical propaganda and why I have taken issue with those who try to argue by photograph -and sometimes stridently so.
Calls Mount for an Olympic Ceremony Boycott
I concur with that call by the way.
Supreme Court set to back gun rights (FT.com)
Just a tidbit to whet the appetite...
Hearing the most important gun rights case in nearly 70 years, the justices on Tuesday spent 98 minutes engrossed in a lively debate about British and American legal traditions relating to the right to bear arms, especially in self-defence.
Considering how badly the Rhenquist court botched the whole Kelo case in 2005{1}, let us hope the Roberts court continues to show its remarkable restraint and overall originalist direction.
Wall Street Darts Higher After Three-Quarter-Point Rate Cut From Fed, Investment Bank Profits
Just a taste...click on the link above for more:
Wall Street stormed higher Tuesday as investors, optimistic following stronger-than-expected earnings from two big investment banks, were also galvanized by the Federal Reserve's decision to cut interest rates by three-quarters of a percentage point. The Dow Jones industrial average soared 420 points, its biggest one-day point gain in more than five years.
I noted already this year my view on how Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is handling the economic situation so I will merely reiterate it here in a footnote{2} and move onto the final entry of this thread.
Science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke dies aged 90
Best known for the book that Stanley Kubrick made into the 1968 movie 2001: A Space Odyssey but he did a lot more than that. May he rest in peace.
Notes:
{1} For those who do not know, basically the new ruling would enable a business to steal property from private parties under the rubric that they could provide more property tax revenue to the state than the owner of the property...[A]pparently there are congresspeople in both parties -even those who never seem to see eye to eye like Tom DeLay and Maxine Waters- who supported a House Bill (that passed 231 to 189) which would deny federal funding to any company that tried this tactic...not an ideal result but at the very least it is a step in the right direction. All of this makes the judicial situation I covered above -only judicial constructionists being appointed to the courts- take on the proper sense of urgency that it should have. I mean, what part of nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation applies to the seizing of private property for private usage??? This is not rocket science people. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 2, 2005)]
{2} I must admit that I like the proactive approach that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is taking towards the economy. The three quarter point cut in the funds rate done earlier in the week (and a week in advance of the Fed's director meeting for the month of January) is the largest single cut since President Reagan's first term. At that time, the large Fed cut was to facilitate the economic recovery picking up steam (which certainly happened) and this time it is to approach the matter when the status is uncertain rather than waiting until it is. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 25, 2008)]
Friday, March 14, 2008
The Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG has been updated!!!
The subject dealt with is a clarification of my usage of a variety of certain terms pertaining to jurisprudence -both in their past usage as well as the long planned and upcoming exposition on a necessary third way in politics. Though more could be noted, that is all I have time for presently.
The subject dealt with is a clarification of my usage of a variety of certain terms pertaining to jurisprudence -both in their past usage as well as the long planned and upcoming exposition on a necessary third way in politics. Though more could be noted, that is all I have time for presently.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
On the Seahawks, What They Need to Do To Get Back to the Superbowl, and Offseason Moves Made Thus Far:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I noted some time ago on various occasions the intention of writing on this subject but time has not allowed for me to do so prior to this time. And as my original template would not completely cohere with what has transpired thus far, I will note briefly what I originally intended to say and follow it up with if the Hawks had or had not followed what I was going to recommend.
To start with, I did not buy the common argument that the decline of Shaun Alexander at running back was irreversible for a variety of reasons. For one thing, the Seahawks offensive line is not the same now as it was when Alexander was a prolific runner. This does not mean that they would not need help in this area but my original focus was rebuilding the offensive line, adding a defensive lineman, drafting a running back in the upcoming draft, and perhaps sign someone to share running back duties in this area with Alexander and consider releasing Maurice Morris.
Specifically, on the offensive line, Chris Gray needed to be retired or kept in a significantly reduced role, Walter Jones needs to heal in the off season as he was hurt all year and a shell of his former self as a result. The loss of Steve Hutchinson to Minnesota after the 2005 season was unfortunate and a player of his caliber needs to be signed for the offensive line along with re-signing offensive tackle Sean Locklear. I viewed it as necessary to re-sign kicker Josh Brown and retain cornerback Marcus Trufant, get a solid guard to help take some of the pressure off of Walter Jones on the left side of the line, and also to get a good tight end who can block and catch passes to give the offensive a dimension it lacked the past couple of years generally speaking. Of course this was my mindset before coach Mike Holmgren announced that this was his final season.
Those were my thoughts before I started putting together the thread you are now reading from this point onward. And since those sketched notes (which I merely assembled into a coherent sequence of paragraphs above), some moves have happened by the Hawks which bear noting here -both of a coaching and a player standpoint.{1} For one thing, they put the franchise tag on Marcus Trufant which was a good move as it basically retains him at the cost of draft picks and other compensation if another team were to try and get him. They lost kicker Josh Brown who signed with St. Louis so they will need to replace him with a similarly quality kicker -someone who can hit clutch 50 yarders in close games. As far as who is available at the moment, I do not know admittedly but they will need to find someone.
The Hawks did re-sign Sean Locklear which is good and they also signed tight end Jeb Putzier so they got a competent tight end which solves the problem at that position which has for a couple of years been problematical. As far as offensive linemen go, I was hoping they would sign guard Alan Faneca of the Pittsburgh Steelers but they did not do that and he was eventually snatched up by the Jets. Nonetheless, they did sign a good Pro Bowl guard in Mike Wahle{2} so that will help in solidifying the left side of the line and giving Jones some much-needed help.
On the running back front, the Hawks signed former Detroit Lion running back T.J. Duckett to a five year contract. This was done presumably for short yardage situations as his 252 pound frame would address an area that the past two years has been a problem: converting on third and fourth down with short yardage when it is probable that the team will try to run the ball. Duckett could also play a bit of fullback as well so he is a good utility acquisition to the team so thank you Kevin Tierney for your Lions letting him go ;-) But that is not all.
The Hawks have also come to an agreement with former Dallas Cowboys running back Julian Jones in a move that shows that they do not intend to address the running back issue through the draft. This unexpected move almost certainly makes Maurice Morris{3} expendable since he was unable to carry the team when Alexander struggled with injuries last year and a championship team needs a potential starter who can do that in the event of injuries to insure that there is not only balance to an offense but also that they can give their defense some rest in a way that a team that relies far too much on the pass cannot effectively do all that often.{4}
The following notes will complete this review of the Hawks moves thus far. It is essentially a thread I threw together the other day on a Seattle Times discussion site when I saw far too much bashing of Shaun Alexander by folks who obviously do not know football all that well.
Notes:
{1} I do not intend to discuss the coaching part of it except to say that I am glad they have a new offensive line coach after the problems of the past couple of years.
{2} After releasing offensive lineman Tom Ashworth who could not make the transition to guard that they had hoped when signing him in 2006.
{3} My guess at this point is that Jones and Alexander will compete for the starting spot.
{4} I say this because a team who can run the ball effectively is capable of eating up time of possession which is beneficial in that (i) it allows your defense to get more rest which keeps them effective in the second half of games most notably in the fourth quarter and (ii) it keeps the other team's offense off the field which limits their ability to score.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I noted some time ago on various occasions the intention of writing on this subject but time has not allowed for me to do so prior to this time. And as my original template would not completely cohere with what has transpired thus far, I will note briefly what I originally intended to say and follow it up with if the Hawks had or had not followed what I was going to recommend.
To start with, I did not buy the common argument that the decline of Shaun Alexander at running back was irreversible for a variety of reasons. For one thing, the Seahawks offensive line is not the same now as it was when Alexander was a prolific runner. This does not mean that they would not need help in this area but my original focus was rebuilding the offensive line, adding a defensive lineman, drafting a running back in the upcoming draft, and perhaps sign someone to share running back duties in this area with Alexander and consider releasing Maurice Morris.
Specifically, on the offensive line, Chris Gray needed to be retired or kept in a significantly reduced role, Walter Jones needs to heal in the off season as he was hurt all year and a shell of his former self as a result. The loss of Steve Hutchinson to Minnesota after the 2005 season was unfortunate and a player of his caliber needs to be signed for the offensive line along with re-signing offensive tackle Sean Locklear. I viewed it as necessary to re-sign kicker Josh Brown and retain cornerback Marcus Trufant, get a solid guard to help take some of the pressure off of Walter Jones on the left side of the line, and also to get a good tight end who can block and catch passes to give the offensive a dimension it lacked the past couple of years generally speaking. Of course this was my mindset before coach Mike Holmgren announced that this was his final season.
Those were my thoughts before I started putting together the thread you are now reading from this point onward. And since those sketched notes (which I merely assembled into a coherent sequence of paragraphs above), some moves have happened by the Hawks which bear noting here -both of a coaching and a player standpoint.{1} For one thing, they put the franchise tag on Marcus Trufant which was a good move as it basically retains him at the cost of draft picks and other compensation if another team were to try and get him. They lost kicker Josh Brown who signed with St. Louis so they will need to replace him with a similarly quality kicker -someone who can hit clutch 50 yarders in close games. As far as who is available at the moment, I do not know admittedly but they will need to find someone.
The Hawks did re-sign Sean Locklear which is good and they also signed tight end Jeb Putzier so they got a competent tight end which solves the problem at that position which has for a couple of years been problematical. As far as offensive linemen go, I was hoping they would sign guard Alan Faneca of the Pittsburgh Steelers but they did not do that and he was eventually snatched up by the Jets. Nonetheless, they did sign a good Pro Bowl guard in Mike Wahle{2} so that will help in solidifying the left side of the line and giving Jones some much-needed help.
On the running back front, the Hawks signed former Detroit Lion running back T.J. Duckett to a five year contract. This was done presumably for short yardage situations as his 252 pound frame would address an area that the past two years has been a problem: converting on third and fourth down with short yardage when it is probable that the team will try to run the ball. Duckett could also play a bit of fullback as well so he is a good utility acquisition to the team so thank you Kevin Tierney for your Lions letting him go ;-) But that is not all.
The Hawks have also come to an agreement with former Dallas Cowboys running back Julian Jones in a move that shows that they do not intend to address the running back issue through the draft. This unexpected move almost certainly makes Maurice Morris{3} expendable since he was unable to carry the team when Alexander struggled with injuries last year and a championship team needs a potential starter who can do that in the event of injuries to insure that there is not only balance to an offense but also that they can give their defense some rest in a way that a team that relies far too much on the pass cannot effectively do all that often.{4}
The following notes will complete this review of the Hawks moves thus far. It is essentially a thread I threw together the other day on a Seattle Times discussion site when I saw far too much bashing of Shaun Alexander by folks who obviously do not know football all that well.
Other than Alexander's getting hurt the past two seasons (which affected his productivity: DUH!!!), what is the single biggest reason the running game has suffered folks??? It is obvious that many of you dumping on Alexander do not get it so I will tell you: the offensive line and the fullback spot.
The offensive line suffered from the loss of Hutch after the 2005 season and the running game in 2006 suffered from Alexander missing a good chunk of the season and Morris showing he was not capable of picking up the slack. Last year Alexander played with a broken wrist and also a sprained knee -as someone who had knee problems myself in years past let me tell you it makes it damn hard to run. And losing Mack Strong at fullback did not help either as Alexander would be the first to tell you that Strong's ability to block was generally under appreciated. (Not to knock Weaver but he is not Strong -though I am sure he will have a better year this year after getting thrown to the wolves when Mack had to retire after the injury in the Steelers game.)
None of this is to say that the other signings of Duckett and Jones are not good -heck with Duckett we have a short yardage specialist which saves on running back wear and tear. And with Jones, we have another solid runner and someone who could compete for the starting job with Alexander. But more importantly are the signings for the offensive line -a Pro Bowl guard to play alongside Walter Jones, re-signing Locklear, and getting a competent tight end in Putzier.
But do not rule out Alexander yet. He was not the league MVP in 2005 by accident and he had a solid offensive line and an experienced fullback which helped him both that year and in previous years where he was highly productive because (guess what???) running backs not named Barry Sanders need that stuff to be good.
The offensive line was lessened in 2006 with the loss of Hutchinson and was weaker still last year due to the retirement of center Robbie Tobeck and injuries to key players (such as left tackle Walter Jones and new center Chris Spenser) and also age (read: 37 year old Chris Gray at right guard). The signing of former two time Pro Bowl guard Mike Wahle will be a marked improvement over what we have had the past two years. The addition of competent tight end Jeb Putzier will also help in an area which has been a problem since Jerramy Stevens forgot how to catch the ball in 2006 and Marcus Pollard did not pan in 2007.
There are a lot of factors here and it is not because Alexander suddenly became crappy. He may not be the player he was in 2005 (age has a way with all of us to some extent) but he can still be plenty good if he can have a productive recovery in the offseason and stay healthy. And with Jones on the team along with Duckett for hard grinding short yardage stuff, we will not have to worry about Alexander having to carry the full load this year if he stays on the team and is given a chance to compete for the starting spot.
I like the idea of Jones pushing Alexander and there are two possibilities here if Alexander stays, either he wins the starting spot and Jones backs him up or Jones starts and Alexander plays backup. If Alexander starts, we have a solid starter at backup in Jones who at 26 has youth on his side. And even if Jones were to earn the starting spot, who would you prefer at backup: a former (and possibly future) monster yardage guy and MVP (Alexander) or a guy who cannot cut it as a starter and anything more than a spot runner (Maurice Morris)???
With Duckett for short yardage situations and some fullback duties, I would say aloha to Morris and give Alexander a chance to prove wrong all the morons who blame him for the non-existing running game last year instead of looking at the big picture. And not just because of the money he will have to be paid anyway. Having Jones there will push Alexander in a way that Morris could not because (unlike Morris) Jones is a quality running back and potential full time starter.
I am liking thus far what I am seeing in the moves made by the Hawks in this off season!!!
And with that note, that concludes this look at what the Hawks have done thus far in positioning themselves for a possible Super Bowl appearance (and victory) next year in what will be Mike Holmgren's swan song as coach. Suffice to say, so far so good but not enough has been done yet for me to make any bold predictions of even getting to the Superbowl let alone actually winning it. But that is all I have time for and plan to say on these matters for now.Notes:
{1} I do not intend to discuss the coaching part of it except to say that I am glad they have a new offensive line coach after the problems of the past couple of years.
{2} After releasing offensive lineman Tom Ashworth who could not make the transition to guard that they had hoped when signing him in 2006.
{3} My guess at this point is that Jones and Alexander will compete for the starting spot.
{4} I say this because a team who can run the ball effectively is capable of eating up time of possession which is beneficial in that (i) it allows your defense to get more rest which keeps them effective in the second half of games most notably in the fourth quarter and (ii) it keeps the other team's offense off the field which limits their ability to score.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:
Here are a few that are of interest to me at the present time...
Chinese Hackers Got into the Pentagon (CNN)
Hopefully if this is true they either (i) did not find anything of particular sensitivity and (ii) if they did that they are freelancers and not working for the Chinese government. What else can I say??? Moving on...
At Charter School, Higher Teacher Pay
I have for years viewed the idea of charter schools with favour and the above article outlines why they could be a possible remedy for not only better education of kids but also for the problem of low teacher salaries. Or to quote a bit from the article:
The school, which will run from fifth to eighth grades, is promising to pay teachers $125,000, plus a potential bonus based on schoolwide performance. That is nearly twice as much as the average New York City public school teacher earns, roughly two and a half times the national average teacher salary and higher than the base salary of all but the most senior teachers in the most generous districts nationwide.
The school’s creator and first principal, Zeke M. Vanderhoek, contends that high salaries will lure the best teachers. He says he wants to put into practice the conclusion reached by a growing body of research: that teacher quality — not star principals, laptop computers or abundant electives — is the crucial ingredient for success.
May their tribe increase is all I can say. And finally...
McCain Clashes With TV Reporter (Breitbart.tv)
Good for him!!! One thing that is really annoying is idiotic journalists who raise issues which were beaten to death in years past over and over again. The proper term for this is "fark" of which I will publish a long-planned "points to ponder" installment on (possibly tomorrow).
Here are a few that are of interest to me at the present time...
Chinese Hackers Got into the Pentagon (CNN)
Hopefully if this is true they either (i) did not find anything of particular sensitivity and (ii) if they did that they are freelancers and not working for the Chinese government. What else can I say??? Moving on...
At Charter School, Higher Teacher Pay
I have for years viewed the idea of charter schools with favour and the above article outlines why they could be a possible remedy for not only better education of kids but also for the problem of low teacher salaries. Or to quote a bit from the article:
The school, which will run from fifth to eighth grades, is promising to pay teachers $125,000, plus a potential bonus based on schoolwide performance. That is nearly twice as much as the average New York City public school teacher earns, roughly two and a half times the national average teacher salary and higher than the base salary of all but the most senior teachers in the most generous districts nationwide.
The school’s creator and first principal, Zeke M. Vanderhoek, contends that high salaries will lure the best teachers. He says he wants to put into practice the conclusion reached by a growing body of research: that teacher quality — not star principals, laptop computers or abundant electives — is the crucial ingredient for success.
May their tribe increase is all I can say. And finally...
McCain Clashes With TV Reporter (Breitbart.tv)
Good for him!!! One thing that is really annoying is idiotic journalists who raise issues which were beaten to death in years past over and over again. The proper term for this is "fark" of which I will publish a long-planned "points to ponder" installment on (possibly tomorrow).
Friday, March 07, 2008
Here comes the story of the Hurricane,
The man the authorities came to blame
For somethin' that he never done.
Put in a prison cell, but one time he could-a been
The champion of the world.
Is it possible that one of my favourite 1970's Bob Dylan songs could be so wrong in the events it presumes to portray??? I saw an article in The Seattle Times earlier this week about someone who was in the situation of being condemned for a crime he did not commit and the paper noted that he had Ruben "Hurricane" Carter in his corner for the fight. In doing a google search to find the article to post to this blog, I ran across a site that takes issue with the commonly-presented hypothesis that Carter was in any sense of the term innocent. That site can be reviewed here for those who are interested.
I was admittedly agnostic on this matter and had no reason to presume the "conventional wisdom" if you will of what is often portrayed in the case of "the Hurricane" was false. (My general disdain for msm "conventional wisdom" notwithstanding.) Nor do I have the time or desire to look into this matter myself. However, at the very least Cal Deal's site in doing a casual review of the contents looks to be as thorough in documenting sources as is my wont when writing on subjects so that fact alone inclines me towards giving what he has to say a fair hearing pending contrary evidences of similar weight to the contrary being presented of course.
Now to some extent this is an old story perhaps but at the time the movie based on Ruban "Hurricane" Carter's autobiography (and starring Denzil Washington) came out, I had a lot of things in my life of far greater importance than considering this issue if I had even known of it which for a variety of reasons{1} I did not. But as Ruban "Hurricane" Carter was in the news again and as I have been made aware of the information on Cal Deal's site, it seems appropriate to note it briefly as well as sketch out my reason for referring to it now.
My interest in these matters is simple really: I value the fundamental rights of man including life, faculties, and production. And in at least two of the three areas, there would be a violation if an innocent man was wrongly convicted.{2} Justice in some sense was not served here basically: either the guilty was set free or the innocent was convicted. And considering that "Hurricane" has been treated in the recent article noted above as defacto and unquestionably innocent with no mention made of the controversy of his case, a bit of remedying the situation to the extent that I can here (to provide both sides of the story) is something that I feel impelled to do.
As far as the song itself goes, I am never one to deny artistic license to any songwriter or artist but presumably the writer or artist worthy of their craft -and Bob Dylan certainly is one of the great songwriters- has a responsibility towards being as accurate as they can when presuming to portray an actual event in song. It would appear from what Cal Deal outlines that the song not only is inaccurate in its portrayal but criminally so.
And while I am not about to avoid watching movies or listening to the music of those whose views differ from mine{3}; nonetheless, I will always suspect with Dylan from here on out that on lyrical matters of a factual or historical basis that he cannot be trusted. But enough on this for now.
Notes:
{1} Too much to go into here even if I was inclined to (which I am not).
{2} Of life because it implies freedom within reason to life without being unduly constrained by society, of production because a man's right to provide for himself and his family would be impaired by his imprisonment.
{3} If I took that approach, it would make for a lot less interesting life that is for sure.
The man the authorities came to blame
For somethin' that he never done.
Put in a prison cell, but one time he could-a been
The champion of the world.
Is it possible that one of my favourite 1970's Bob Dylan songs could be so wrong in the events it presumes to portray??? I saw an article in The Seattle Times earlier this week about someone who was in the situation of being condemned for a crime he did not commit and the paper noted that he had Ruben "Hurricane" Carter in his corner for the fight. In doing a google search to find the article to post to this blog, I ran across a site that takes issue with the commonly-presented hypothesis that Carter was in any sense of the term innocent. That site can be reviewed here for those who are interested.
I was admittedly agnostic on this matter and had no reason to presume the "conventional wisdom" if you will of what is often portrayed in the case of "the Hurricane" was false. (My general disdain for msm "conventional wisdom" notwithstanding.) Nor do I have the time or desire to look into this matter myself. However, at the very least Cal Deal's site in doing a casual review of the contents looks to be as thorough in documenting sources as is my wont when writing on subjects so that fact alone inclines me towards giving what he has to say a fair hearing pending contrary evidences of similar weight to the contrary being presented of course.
Now to some extent this is an old story perhaps but at the time the movie based on Ruban "Hurricane" Carter's autobiography (and starring Denzil Washington) came out, I had a lot of things in my life of far greater importance than considering this issue if I had even known of it which for a variety of reasons{1} I did not. But as Ruban "Hurricane" Carter was in the news again and as I have been made aware of the information on Cal Deal's site, it seems appropriate to note it briefly as well as sketch out my reason for referring to it now.
My interest in these matters is simple really: I value the fundamental rights of man including life, faculties, and production. And in at least two of the three areas, there would be a violation if an innocent man was wrongly convicted.{2} Justice in some sense was not served here basically: either the guilty was set free or the innocent was convicted. And considering that "Hurricane" has been treated in the recent article noted above as defacto and unquestionably innocent with no mention made of the controversy of his case, a bit of remedying the situation to the extent that I can here (to provide both sides of the story) is something that I feel impelled to do.
As far as the song itself goes, I am never one to deny artistic license to any songwriter or artist but presumably the writer or artist worthy of their craft -and Bob Dylan certainly is one of the great songwriters- has a responsibility towards being as accurate as they can when presuming to portray an actual event in song. It would appear from what Cal Deal outlines that the song not only is inaccurate in its portrayal but criminally so.
And while I am not about to avoid watching movies or listening to the music of those whose views differ from mine{3}; nonetheless, I will always suspect with Dylan from here on out that on lyrical matters of a factual or historical basis that he cannot be trusted. But enough on this for now.
Notes:
{1} Too much to go into here even if I was inclined to (which I am not).
{2} Of life because it implies freedom within reason to life without being unduly constrained by society, of production because a man's right to provide for himself and his family would be impaired by his imprisonment.
{3} If I took that approach, it would make for a lot less interesting life that is for sure.
"Everything And the Kitchen Sink" Dept.
(On Senator Hillary Clinton and Her Nomination Chances)
[Prefatory Note: This note was pretty much written on March 5th and did not account for the dropping out of Rep. Ron Paul from the Republican contest which happened subsequently. -ISM]
Two events happenedyesterday recently of signal importance for this election cycle if you exclude Ron Paul increasing the number of delegates he had won by a factor of 30%.{1} They are of course (i) Senator John McCain solidifying the Republican nomination and (ii) Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton after a eleven primary/caucus post Super Tuesday losing streak to Senator Barack Hussein Obama bouncing back and winning three of the four primaries yesterday including the important ones in Ohio and Texas. I will be posting some stuff soon on Senator McCain so the purpose of this posting is to outline the performance of Senator Clinton in the latest round of contests.
On the Obama/Clinton situation, I wrote on her situation last week when things were looking a lot grimmer with these words:
I will go out on a limb and say that the March 4th primaries in Ohio and Texas will prove to be either the turning point for Senator Clinton in the positive sense of putting her back into the race or in solidifying a near-insurmountable mountain for her to climb in order to win the nomination fairly. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 28, 2008)]
And while some try to paint her situation as still mathematically unviable, they are in our view betraying the fact that Senator Clinton with these wins is in it for the long haul. Furthermore, there is the wild card factor of the super delegates which is why we included the reference to winning the nomination "fairly" in our above comments.
If Senator Clinton were to have continued to lose and yet got the nomination by virtue of courting the Democratic "super delegates", that was what we had in mind when we mentioned her possibly not winning it "fairly." But if she continues to win in large states and makes a contest out of it, if she can persuade the so-called "super delegates" to leave Senator Obama and support her, that would be a situation where she indeed won it "fairly" as we see it. This is why those who make the statements about her chances being "mathematically slim" betray either their ignorance on these matters, their bias for Senator Obama, or both.
There is a serious problem with those who do not know how the election machinery functions who pontificate on these matters. We saw this idiocy back in 2000 when those sorts claimed that Senator Al Gore should have won over Governor George Bush by virtue of winning the popular vote when for 211 years this country has elected presidents with the electoral college. It was not by accident that the Founders seized upon that method of election which provided a check and balance on the voting process by the people. This is one of those mechanisms that separates the United States from being a pure democracy and places it properly speaking as a republican form of government. Or as I wrote on the subject in response to an email received about four years ago:
Indeed the best evidence of the fact that we are not a democracy is the manner whereby this country's government was set up. If we were a "democracy" than every position in government would be voted upon by the people. But we have judicial branches which are by appointment of the executive with the legislators acting in the capacity of advisers. We have posts in the president's administration all of which are by appointment. (Again, not very "democratic.") And of course the very election system that saved us from a Gore administration is another example of "non-democracy." For by your logic XXXX, Gore should have won by virtue of having more votes than Bush.[...] But Bush won because of the electoral college: an example of republican-style electing.
Now one could argue that this country is more a democracy now than it was at its founding. This would be true in that the Senator was initially an appointed position contrasted with the House positions which were elected by those in the populace with the right to vote. But the structure is still republican to the core: a nation ruled by law and not by mob rule as in a democracy. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 11, 2004)]
Similarly there is a mechanism in place by the individual parties which regulates these matters. The Republicans have a number of state primaries which are winner take all and some which apportion delegates based on placing. The Democrats by contrast have a closer proportion of delegates in all of their primaries with about 750 odd "super delegates." So all of this talk about Senator Clinton being "out of it" and "desperate" in this race is absurd: she can come close in the earned delegate category and if she persuades enough "super delegates" to support her, she wins the nomination fair and square.
So enough of this crap about "the voters" folks because primaries are not pure democracies nor should they be. And the reason they are not is similar to the reason we have an Electoral College system in this country for general elections and (God-willing) we always will. But that is all I plan to say on this for now except to exhort Senator Clinton to continue her fight. After all, if Obama cannot take a punch, he has no business being president of the United States and he is about to find out just how tenacious the Clintons can be when they are fighting for their election lives.
Note:
{1} No, I am not serious about this one.
(On Senator Hillary Clinton and Her Nomination Chances)
[Prefatory Note: This note was pretty much written on March 5th and did not account for the dropping out of Rep. Ron Paul from the Republican contest which happened subsequently. -ISM]
Two events happened
On the Obama/Clinton situation, I wrote on her situation last week when things were looking a lot grimmer with these words:
I will go out on a limb and say that the March 4th primaries in Ohio and Texas will prove to be either the turning point for Senator Clinton in the positive sense of putting her back into the race or in solidifying a near-insurmountable mountain for her to climb in order to win the nomination fairly. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 28, 2008)]
And while some try to paint her situation as still mathematically unviable, they are in our view betraying the fact that Senator Clinton with these wins is in it for the long haul. Furthermore, there is the wild card factor of the super delegates which is why we included the reference to winning the nomination "fairly" in our above comments.
If Senator Clinton were to have continued to lose and yet got the nomination by virtue of courting the Democratic "super delegates", that was what we had in mind when we mentioned her possibly not winning it "fairly." But if she continues to win in large states and makes a contest out of it, if she can persuade the so-called "super delegates" to leave Senator Obama and support her, that would be a situation where she indeed won it "fairly" as we see it. This is why those who make the statements about her chances being "mathematically slim" betray either their ignorance on these matters, their bias for Senator Obama, or both.
There is a serious problem with those who do not know how the election machinery functions who pontificate on these matters. We saw this idiocy back in 2000 when those sorts claimed that Senator Al Gore should have won over Governor George Bush by virtue of winning the popular vote when for 211 years this country has elected presidents with the electoral college. It was not by accident that the Founders seized upon that method of election which provided a check and balance on the voting process by the people. This is one of those mechanisms that separates the United States from being a pure democracy and places it properly speaking as a republican form of government. Or as I wrote on the subject in response to an email received about four years ago:
Indeed the best evidence of the fact that we are not a democracy is the manner whereby this country's government was set up. If we were a "democracy" than every position in government would be voted upon by the people. But we have judicial branches which are by appointment of the executive with the legislators acting in the capacity of advisers. We have posts in the president's administration all of which are by appointment. (Again, not very "democratic.") And of course the very election system that saved us from a Gore administration is another example of "non-democracy." For by your logic XXXX, Gore should have won by virtue of having more votes than Bush.[...] But Bush won because of the electoral college: an example of republican-style electing.
Now one could argue that this country is more a democracy now than it was at its founding. This would be true in that the Senator was initially an appointed position contrasted with the House positions which were elected by those in the populace with the right to vote. But the structure is still republican to the core: a nation ruled by law and not by mob rule as in a democracy. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 11, 2004)]
Similarly there is a mechanism in place by the individual parties which regulates these matters. The Republicans have a number of state primaries which are winner take all and some which apportion delegates based on placing. The Democrats by contrast have a closer proportion of delegates in all of their primaries with about 750 odd "super delegates." So all of this talk about Senator Clinton being "out of it" and "desperate" in this race is absurd: she can come close in the earned delegate category and if she persuades enough "super delegates" to support her, she wins the nomination fair and square.
So enough of this crap about "the voters" folks because primaries are not pure democracies nor should they be. And the reason they are not is similar to the reason we have an Electoral College system in this country for general elections and (God-willing) we always will. But that is all I plan to say on this for now except to exhort Senator Clinton to continue her fight. After all, if Obama cannot take a punch, he has no business being president of the United States and he is about to find out just how tenacious the Clintons can be when they are fighting for their election lives.
Note:
{1} No, I am not serious about this one.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
One of my favourite weblogs in years past (Southern Appeal) has made a return to publication so it seems appropriate to publicly welcome them back; ergo I have done so.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
As this is a primary day, those who have tuned in expecting our usual unique perspective on these matters are in for a disappointment because frankly, I do not give a damn about any of it...not today folks.
For today is a commemorative day traditionally at this humble weblog: the sixty-seventh anniversary of the birth of my late father Richard Dunn McElhinney (March 4, 1941). As he has passed on from this mortal coil, prayers would be most appreciated. For those who do not believe in prayers for the departed, prayers for the surviving family members on this difficult of days would be most appreciated. For those who do believe in prayers for the dead, please pray for the eternal repose of his soul.
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed. Amen.
May the Lord grant mercy to the family of Onesiphorus because he often gave me new heart and was not ashamed of my chains. But when he came to Rome, he promptly searched for me and found me. May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day. [2 Tim. i,16-18]
For today is a commemorative day traditionally at this humble weblog: the sixty-seventh anniversary of the birth of my late father Richard Dunn McElhinney (March 4, 1941). As he has passed on from this mortal coil, prayers would be most appreciated. For those who do not believe in prayers for the departed, prayers for the surviving family members on this difficult of days would be most appreciated. For those who do believe in prayers for the dead, please pray for the eternal repose of his soul.
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed. Amen.
May the Lord grant mercy to the family of Onesiphorus because he often gave me new heart and was not ashamed of my chains. But when he came to Rome, he promptly searched for me and found me. May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day. [2 Tim. i,16-18]
Monday, March 03, 2008
On Presidential Front Runners and Election History -Plus Some Fresh Musings on Underdog Triumphs Historically:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[The first part of this posting{1} was written in late 2005 and originally intended or a multipart thread dialogue which was eventually blogged in early 2006. When doing the final reviews of that material before it was blogged, it was decided to abridge the texts and removed this material to suit that purpose. While I do not want to link to that material now as it is pretty long and would distract from the subject at hand -the current circumstances (of a near-certain Republican nominee while Democratic senatorial favourite Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are locked in a slugout for the Democratic nomination) seem to warrant reviewing what I wrote then. After all, learning from history is of no small value when it comes to forecasting what the future may well bring.
The newer material is designated as such and was primarily composed on February 18, 2007 -though I did finish it up today for posting.-ISM]
I advise you to take Santayana's dictum to heart on these matters and learn from history. If we look at the past hundred years (a decent slice of the pie considering that America is only 230 years old next year), it is significant that the leading Republican candidate going into the primaries has won twenty-two out of twenty-five times. Furthermore, the leading Republican candidate won the presidency in that span 13 times. And of the ten times they did not, there are extenuating circumstances to explain some of them. For example:
--Taft had to deal with a [former President Theodore Roosevelt] third party challenge in 1912.
--Tom Dewey was too much of a gentleman to run a rough campaign against Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) in 1944 when FDR was vulnerable to such things (much as he was in 1940) because of concern for the country over his own ambitions.
--Tom Dewey would have won in 1948 if he had not slacked up in the final days (believing the election was "in the can").
--Richard Nixon won in 1960 but had the election stolen by the Kennedy political machine.
--Gerald Ford lost a close race as a result of (i) a vigorous primary challenge from Reagan which went all the way to the convention, (ii) performing poorly in the debates, and (iii) the cloud of Nixon's resignation which he was unable to completely avoid.
Really, the only ones the Republicans lost where there were not mitigating factors involved were these:
--Alf Landon in 1936 (he was going up against the institution that was FDR and did not have a prayer).
--Barry Goldwater who was a sacrificial lamb for conservatism in 1964.
--Bill Clinton in 1996.
Now it is true that Clinton had Perot again in 1996 but it is debatable if Perot actually hurt Dole or not. (Unlike in 1992 where he clearly hurt Bush Sr.) Compared to this, the Democrats of whom thirteen of twenty-five nominee favourites actually won their party's nomination. And of that thirteen, the only times their favourite candidate actually won were these:
--Wilson in 1916.
--FDR in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944
--Truman in 1948
--Johnson in 1964
--Clinton in 1996
If you factor in what I noted previously, FDR could have been beaten in 1940 and 1944 if the Republicans back then had the same lack of scruples and failed to value their selfish interests over the common good as today's Democrat scumbags do. Furthermore, Truman would have lost in 1948 if Dewey had not slacked up as he did. So the only truly incontrovertible examples of Democratic favourite candidates triumphing number five (1916, 1932, 1936, 1964, 1996).
By contrast, the Republicans of their thirteen triumphs can point to 1904, 1908, 1924, 1928, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 2004. The only time they cannot claim a clear and uncontroversial triumph of the thirteen times they won was in 2000.
To break it down, the Democratic candidate who was favoured going into the primaries of a presidential election was successfully nominated thirteen times out of twenty-five for a percentage of just over 50%. Of those thirteen nominations, they are credited with winning the election eight times. That is a percentage of 32%.
If we further consider that of those eight elections, three were either stolen (as in 1960), due to the Republican candidate slacking off late (as in 1948) or under circumstances where the Republicans placed the concern of the nation over their political ambitions (as in 1944) then it changes the dynamic even further to their disadvantage. For factoring out those disputed elections for reasons noted, the Democrats can point to five elections where they triumphed unquestionably -a percentage of 20%.
By contrast, the Republicans successfully nominated the favoured candidate prior to the primaries twenty-two times for a percentage of 88%. Of those twenty-two nominations, thirteen of them went onto win the presidency for a percentage of 59%. Factoring out the 2000 election which was controversial, the Republicans can point to twelve elections where they triumphed unquestionably -a percentage of 45%.
Bear in mind, these are only elections where we are talking about the favoured candidate in a party from the very beginning winning the presidency and doing so incontrovertibly. The Republicans in the past hundred years have done so at a 45% rate, the Democrats at a 20% rate.
Furthermore, when you consider that all but the last two elections for president did not have the growing alternative media outside of talk radio on their side, it hopefully gives you reason for cautious optimism that Hillary will not be president in 2008. The odds against it are 80% if not more using history as our guide. And if we want history to repeat itself here (which in Hillary's case, we all do), then we need to take Santayana's dictum seriously.
Addendum Material -Written February 18, 2008:
In light of Senator McCain's virtually certain nomination, it seems appropriate to note the history of the parties of non favourites winning the nomination who then win the presidency. It does not happen often and with the 2008 election being the most wide open contest on both sides of the aisle since 1952, let us review the history of underdog nominees winning the presidency from both parties.
As the modern Democratic party did not really exist until 1824 and the candidacy of Andrew Jackson{2} and the Republican party as we know it now did not come into being until 1854, this means the elections since 1856 are the ones most applicable to the modern situation. When looking at it in this way, the following elections were won by candidates who were not party favourites -party affiliation will be noted after the names for differentiation purposes:
--William Henry Harrison of the Whig party (W) in 1840{3}
--James K. Polk of the Democratic party (D) in 1844{4}
--Zachery Taylor (W) in 1848{5}
--Franklin Pierce (D) in 1852{6}
--James Buchanan (D) in 1856{7}
--Abraham Lincoln of the Republican party (R) in 1860{8}
--Rutherford B. Hayes (R) in 1876{9}
--Warren G. Harding (R) in 1920{10}
--Bill Clinton (D) in 1992{11}
My point in noting these things is historically, no Democratic challenger who was not the favourite won the presidency since 1856 century except Bill Clinton and that was in a three way race. Similarly, no Republican who was not the favourite has won the presidency since 1876 except Warrem Harding in 1920. Another way of saying it is this: we have the possibility this year of two candidates for president from the major parties neither of whom was the favourite going in. Anyway, I am not sure how much that will help but it does point out why I was not as concerned with Senator Clinton as many were all along. However, I for reasons of my own{12} want her to buck the trend here and win big in the March 4th primaries so that is all I will say on the matter for now.
Notes:
{1} This is one of the threads I referred to last month:
In perusing the drafts folder at this humble weblog in late 2007, I realized there are 505 unfinished drafts there with the oldest ones going back about three years. Now many of them are earlier versions of stuff which was eventually finished and blogged but some of them were pieces which were not blogged for a variety of reasons -either because they are not finished yet or once they were finished the circumstances which originated their composition were too particular and not combining of the same degree of general principles and specific applications that I like to utilize when blogging most of the time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 24, 2008)]
The applicable part now being the relevance of the material being different now than prior to Super Tuesday making the posting now more relevant now than even when that posting was written.
{2} The Democratic party today likes to disingenuously claim that their party goes back to Thomas Jefferson but it actually came out of the 1824 election after the Federalist party (the party of George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouvernour Morris) disintegrated after the 1800 election. By 1820, the Democratic-Republican party (called the "Republican party" in Jefferson's time) was the last of the original parties and in 1824, it fractured into two parts. One part consisted of former Federalists represented by John Adams' son John Quincy Adams who was Secretary of State under President Monroe (1817-1825) and another from then-Speaker of the House Henry Clay which coalesced into a group which called itself the National Republican party and later was called the Whig party. Another was General Andrew Jackson who called their followers the Democratic party and first ran a candidate using that title formally in 1828 when Andrew Jackson ran against the incumbent President John Quincy Adams and won in convincing fashion.
This is why I refer to the modern Democratic party starting in 1824 and not 1792. The Republican party grew out of the later disintegration of the Whig party forming in 1854 and fielding their first presidential candidate in 1856. (Finally winning with Abraham Lincoln as their second presidential candidate in the election of 1860.)
{3} Harrison was not the favourite amongst the Whig candidates in the 1840 election but he secured nomination on the fifth ballot (the favourite was Henry Clay who was House Speaker from 1811-1825, ran for president in the deadlocked 1824 election, and was unanimously nominated in 1832 by the Whigs who were routed in President Andrew Jackson's re-election to the presidency. With Jackson out in 1836 following the tradition of not running for third terms, Clay was the favourite amongst the Whigs but he lost at the convention to General William Henry Harrison on the fifth ballot. Harrison won the presidency in 1840 and died a month after inauguration from pneumonia.
{4} The favourite in the 1844 for the Democrats was Martin Van Buren but he lost the nomination to Polk who won the presidency over Henry Clay of the Whigs.
{5} Henry Clay was again the favourite in the 1848 race.
{6} The Democrats nominated a "dark horse" candidate, this time Franklin Pierce. [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1852]
{7} The incumbent President, Franklin Pierce, was defeated in his effort to be renominated by the Democrats, who instead selected James Buchanan of Pennsylvania. [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1856]
{8} The Republican National Convention met in mid-May, after the Democrats had been forced to adjourn their convention in Charleston. With the Democrats in disarray and with a sweep of the Northern states possible, the Republicans were confident going into their convention in Chicago. William H. Seward of New York was considered the front runner, followed by Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, and Missouri's Edward Bates. [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1860]
{9} When the 6th Republican National Convention assembled in Cincinnati on 14 June, 1876, it appeared that James G. Blaine of Maine would be the nominee. [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Elections of 1876]
{10} Others placed in nomination included Senators Warren G. Harding of Ohio, Hiram Johnson of California, and Miles Poindexter of Washington, Governor Calvin Coolidge of Massachusetts, Herbert Hoover, and Columbia University President Nicholas Murray Butler. Senator Robert M. La Follette, Sr. of Wisconsin was not formally placed in nomination but received the votes of his state delegation, nonetheless. Harding was nominated for President on the tenth ballot, after shifts...
Harding's nomination, said to have been secured in negotiations among party bosses in a “smoke-filled room”, was engineered by Harry M. Daugherty, Harding's political manager who, upon Harding's election, became Attorney General. Prior to the convention, Daugherty was quoted as saying, “I don't expect Senator Harding to be nominated on the first, second, or third ballots, but I think we can afford to take chances that about eleven minutes after two, Friday morning of the convention, when fifteen or twenty weary men are sitting around a table, someone will say: ‘Who will we nominate?’ At that decisive time, the friends of Harding will suggest him and we can well afford to abide by the result.” [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1920]
{11} Clinton, meanwhile, was still a relatively unknown national candidate before the primary season.[Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1992]
{12} And no, it is not because I have any intention of actually voting for her should she pull off the nomination.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[The first part of this posting{1} was written in late 2005 and originally intended or a multipart thread dialogue which was eventually blogged in early 2006. When doing the final reviews of that material before it was blogged, it was decided to abridge the texts and removed this material to suit that purpose. While I do not want to link to that material now as it is pretty long and would distract from the subject at hand -the current circumstances (of a near-certain Republican nominee while Democratic senatorial favourite Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are locked in a slugout for the Democratic nomination) seem to warrant reviewing what I wrote then. After all, learning from history is of no small value when it comes to forecasting what the future may well bring.
The newer material is designated as such and was primarily composed on February 18, 2007 -though I did finish it up today for posting.-ISM]
I advise you to take Santayana's dictum to heart on these matters and learn from history. If we look at the past hundred years (a decent slice of the pie considering that America is only 230 years old next year), it is significant that the leading Republican candidate going into the primaries has won twenty-two out of twenty-five times. Furthermore, the leading Republican candidate won the presidency in that span 13 times. And of the ten times they did not, there are extenuating circumstances to explain some of them. For example:
--Taft had to deal with a [former President Theodore Roosevelt] third party challenge in 1912.
--Tom Dewey was too much of a gentleman to run a rough campaign against Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) in 1944 when FDR was vulnerable to such things (much as he was in 1940) because of concern for the country over his own ambitions.
--Tom Dewey would have won in 1948 if he had not slacked up in the final days (believing the election was "in the can").
--Richard Nixon won in 1960 but had the election stolen by the Kennedy political machine.
--Gerald Ford lost a close race as a result of (i) a vigorous primary challenge from Reagan which went all the way to the convention, (ii) performing poorly in the debates, and (iii) the cloud of Nixon's resignation which he was unable to completely avoid.
Really, the only ones the Republicans lost where there were not mitigating factors involved were these:
--Alf Landon in 1936 (he was going up against the institution that was FDR and did not have a prayer).
--Barry Goldwater who was a sacrificial lamb for conservatism in 1964.
--Bill Clinton in 1996.
Now it is true that Clinton had Perot again in 1996 but it is debatable if Perot actually hurt Dole or not. (Unlike in 1992 where he clearly hurt Bush Sr.) Compared to this, the Democrats of whom thirteen of twenty-five nominee favourites actually won their party's nomination. And of that thirteen, the only times their favourite candidate actually won were these:
--Wilson in 1916.
--FDR in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944
--Truman in 1948
--Johnson in 1964
--Clinton in 1996
If you factor in what I noted previously, FDR could have been beaten in 1940 and 1944 if the Republicans back then had the same lack of scruples and failed to value their selfish interests over the common good as today's Democrat scumbags do. Furthermore, Truman would have lost in 1948 if Dewey had not slacked up as he did. So the only truly incontrovertible examples of Democratic favourite candidates triumphing number five (1916, 1932, 1936, 1964, 1996).
By contrast, the Republicans of their thirteen triumphs can point to 1904, 1908, 1924, 1928, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 2004. The only time they cannot claim a clear and uncontroversial triumph of the thirteen times they won was in 2000.
To break it down, the Democratic candidate who was favoured going into the primaries of a presidential election was successfully nominated thirteen times out of twenty-five for a percentage of just over 50%. Of those thirteen nominations, they are credited with winning the election eight times. That is a percentage of 32%.
If we further consider that of those eight elections, three were either stolen (as in 1960), due to the Republican candidate slacking off late (as in 1948) or under circumstances where the Republicans placed the concern of the nation over their political ambitions (as in 1944) then it changes the dynamic even further to their disadvantage. For factoring out those disputed elections for reasons noted, the Democrats can point to five elections where they triumphed unquestionably -a percentage of 20%.
By contrast, the Republicans successfully nominated the favoured candidate prior to the primaries twenty-two times for a percentage of 88%. Of those twenty-two nominations, thirteen of them went onto win the presidency for a percentage of 59%. Factoring out the 2000 election which was controversial, the Republicans can point to twelve elections where they triumphed unquestionably -a percentage of 45%.
Bear in mind, these are only elections where we are talking about the favoured candidate in a party from the very beginning winning the presidency and doing so incontrovertibly. The Republicans in the past hundred years have done so at a 45% rate, the Democrats at a 20% rate.
Furthermore, when you consider that all but the last two elections for president did not have the growing alternative media outside of talk radio on their side, it hopefully gives you reason for cautious optimism that Hillary will not be president in 2008. The odds against it are 80% if not more using history as our guide. And if we want history to repeat itself here (which in Hillary's case, we all do), then we need to take Santayana's dictum seriously.
Addendum Material -Written February 18, 2008:
In light of Senator McCain's virtually certain nomination, it seems appropriate to note the history of the parties of non favourites winning the nomination who then win the presidency. It does not happen often and with the 2008 election being the most wide open contest on both sides of the aisle since 1952, let us review the history of underdog nominees winning the presidency from both parties.
As the modern Democratic party did not really exist until 1824 and the candidacy of Andrew Jackson{2} and the Republican party as we know it now did not come into being until 1854, this means the elections since 1856 are the ones most applicable to the modern situation. When looking at it in this way, the following elections were won by candidates who were not party favourites -party affiliation will be noted after the names for differentiation purposes:
--William Henry Harrison of the Whig party (W) in 1840{3}
--James K. Polk of the Democratic party (D) in 1844{4}
--Zachery Taylor (W) in 1848{5}
--Franklin Pierce (D) in 1852{6}
--James Buchanan (D) in 1856{7}
--Abraham Lincoln of the Republican party (R) in 1860{8}
--Rutherford B. Hayes (R) in 1876{9}
--Warren G. Harding (R) in 1920{10}
--Bill Clinton (D) in 1992{11}
My point in noting these things is historically, no Democratic challenger who was not the favourite won the presidency since 1856 century except Bill Clinton and that was in a three way race. Similarly, no Republican who was not the favourite has won the presidency since 1876 except Warrem Harding in 1920. Another way of saying it is this: we have the possibility this year of two candidates for president from the major parties neither of whom was the favourite going in. Anyway, I am not sure how much that will help but it does point out why I was not as concerned with Senator Clinton as many were all along. However, I for reasons of my own{12} want her to buck the trend here and win big in the March 4th primaries so that is all I will say on the matter for now.
Notes:
{1} This is one of the threads I referred to last month:
In perusing the drafts folder at this humble weblog in late 2007, I realized there are 505 unfinished drafts there with the oldest ones going back about three years. Now many of them are earlier versions of stuff which was eventually finished and blogged but some of them were pieces which were not blogged for a variety of reasons -either because they are not finished yet or once they were finished the circumstances which originated their composition were too particular and not combining of the same degree of general principles and specific applications that I like to utilize when blogging most of the time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 24, 2008)]
The applicable part now being the relevance of the material being different now than prior to Super Tuesday making the posting now more relevant now than even when that posting was written.
{2} The Democratic party today likes to disingenuously claim that their party goes back to Thomas Jefferson but it actually came out of the 1824 election after the Federalist party (the party of George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouvernour Morris) disintegrated after the 1800 election. By 1820, the Democratic-Republican party (called the "Republican party" in Jefferson's time) was the last of the original parties and in 1824, it fractured into two parts. One part consisted of former Federalists represented by John Adams' son John Quincy Adams who was Secretary of State under President Monroe (1817-1825) and another from then-Speaker of the House Henry Clay which coalesced into a group which called itself the National Republican party and later was called the Whig party. Another was General Andrew Jackson who called their followers the Democratic party and first ran a candidate using that title formally in 1828 when Andrew Jackson ran against the incumbent President John Quincy Adams and won in convincing fashion.
This is why I refer to the modern Democratic party starting in 1824 and not 1792. The Republican party grew out of the later disintegration of the Whig party forming in 1854 and fielding their first presidential candidate in 1856. (Finally winning with Abraham Lincoln as their second presidential candidate in the election of 1860.)
{3} Harrison was not the favourite amongst the Whig candidates in the 1840 election but he secured nomination on the fifth ballot (the favourite was Henry Clay who was House Speaker from 1811-1825, ran for president in the deadlocked 1824 election, and was unanimously nominated in 1832 by the Whigs who were routed in President Andrew Jackson's re-election to the presidency. With Jackson out in 1836 following the tradition of not running for third terms, Clay was the favourite amongst the Whigs but he lost at the convention to General William Henry Harrison on the fifth ballot. Harrison won the presidency in 1840 and died a month after inauguration from pneumonia.
{4} The favourite in the 1844 for the Democrats was Martin Van Buren but he lost the nomination to Polk who won the presidency over Henry Clay of the Whigs.
{5} Henry Clay was again the favourite in the 1848 race.
{6} The Democrats nominated a "dark horse" candidate, this time Franklin Pierce. [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1852]
{7} The incumbent President, Franklin Pierce, was defeated in his effort to be renominated by the Democrats, who instead selected James Buchanan of Pennsylvania. [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1856]
{8} The Republican National Convention met in mid-May, after the Democrats had been forced to adjourn their convention in Charleston. With the Democrats in disarray and with a sweep of the Northern states possible, the Republicans were confident going into their convention in Chicago. William H. Seward of New York was considered the front runner, followed by Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, and Missouri's Edward Bates. [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1860]
{9} When the 6th Republican National Convention assembled in Cincinnati on 14 June, 1876, it appeared that James G. Blaine of Maine would be the nominee. [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Elections of 1876]
{10} Others placed in nomination included Senators Warren G. Harding of Ohio, Hiram Johnson of California, and Miles Poindexter of Washington, Governor Calvin Coolidge of Massachusetts, Herbert Hoover, and Columbia University President Nicholas Murray Butler. Senator Robert M. La Follette, Sr. of Wisconsin was not formally placed in nomination but received the votes of his state delegation, nonetheless. Harding was nominated for President on the tenth ballot, after shifts...
Harding's nomination, said to have been secured in negotiations among party bosses in a “smoke-filled room”, was engineered by Harry M. Daugherty, Harding's political manager who, upon Harding's election, became Attorney General. Prior to the convention, Daugherty was quoted as saying, “I don't expect Senator Harding to be nominated on the first, second, or third ballots, but I think we can afford to take chances that about eleven minutes after two, Friday morning of the convention, when fifteen or twenty weary men are sitting around a table, someone will say: ‘Who will we nominate?’ At that decisive time, the friends of Harding will suggest him and we can well afford to abide by the result.” [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1920]
{11} Clinton, meanwhile, was still a relatively unknown national candidate before the primary season.[Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1992]
{12} And no, it is not because I have any intention of actually voting for her should she pull off the nomination.
You’re St. Justin Martyr!
You have a positive and hopeful attitude toward the world. You think that nature, history, and even the pagan philosophers were often guided by God in preparation for the Advent of the Christ. You find “seeds of the Word” in unexpected places. You’re patient and willing to explain the faith to unbelievers.
|
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Points to Ponder:
Every age has its heresies, and the one to watch in the nuclear age is that which ends by venerating life at the expense of all other values. We cannot know whether God plans the end of the earth to synchronize with the discovery of planet-shattering technology, but there is nothing in the advent of nuclear energy that authorizes the new idolatry, which is to love life better than life's meaning. [William F. Buckley Jr.]
Every age has its heresies, and the one to watch in the nuclear age is that which ends by venerating life at the expense of all other values. We cannot know whether God plans the end of the earth to synchronize with the discovery of planet-shattering technology, but there is nothing in the advent of nuclear energy that authorizes the new idolatry, which is to love life better than life's meaning. [William F. Buckley Jr.]
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Diary from the Road (Bob Geldof)
Considering some of what I will be saying about the man in the coming days (possibly tomorrow time-willing) it seems appropriate to note some of what President Bush has done which does not get much press in America for reasons which (to put it nicely) are patently uncharitable.
It is also worth noting that Geldof's approach on this is admirable. He does not agree with the president on some issues -including a few of significant nature- but he does not let this be cause for discord between them sketching a balanced human profile of the President. Anyway, that is all I plan to say for now except to recommend the above article for readers to peruse.
Considering some of what I will be saying about the man in the coming days (possibly tomorrow time-willing) it seems appropriate to note some of what President Bush has done which does not get much press in America for reasons which (to put it nicely) are patently uncharitable.
It is also worth noting that Geldof's approach on this is admirable. He does not agree with the president on some issues -including a few of significant nature- but he does not let this be cause for discord between them sketching a balanced human profile of the President. Anyway, that is all I plan to say for now except to recommend the above article for readers to peruse.
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:
(On Senator Hillary Clinton)
Senator Clinton is reaching an important point in her campaign. As we have noted a few times now the plan to discuss the Senator John McCain nomination subject{1} and also plan to note publicly some of the things we have long said privately about certain political figures{2}, it seems appropriate to touch on the other nomination taking place between rival Democratic party senators.
As many know, Senator Clinton has lost about fourteen primaries in a row since Super Tuesday when she failed to put away Senator Barack Hussein Obama as she presumed she would. The New York Times has an interesting editorial which posits a parallel in Senator Clinton's election approach and the Iraq war strategery of President George W. Bush. Here is the thread in full:
The Audacity of Hopelessness (Frank Rich)
For those who do not know, the title of the article is a paraphrase of the title of a book written by Senator Barak Obama{3} her opponent in the Democratic party race for nomination. The hypothesis of the article is interesting to say the least -here is a key part of the article where it is summarized:
Now those interested in the facts on the ground over abstract activist polemics are aware that there has been a change of direction in Iraq brought on by a variety of factors. I have written in the past eight months on both the fact that the surge strategery is working{4} and also in some detail as to both the politics involved{5} and many of the reasons for why things in Iraq have been going rather well for a while now{6} whereas for some time since the end of the combat operations they were not.{7} But that factor noted, the parallel could be realized if Senator Clinton goes on a "surge" of her own which it would appear she plans on doing. However, there is one significant difference and it is the time factor involved.
For President Bush as a lame duck president despite exiting office on January 20, 2009 will be turning over the Middle East situation to a successor whereas Senator Clinton will either achieve the nomination or not within the next four to five months.{8} Time in other words is not on her side whereas with President Bush in this area time has turned the situation over there in his favour though due to the nature of these matters, it would be naive to say that this is in any sense definitive. (Even if we may in the future look back upon 2007 as akin to 1943 in the Second World War; namely, the point where the tide had turned towards victory.)
I will go out on a limb and say that the March 4th primaries in Ohio and Texas will prove to be either the turning point for Senator Clinton in the positive sense of putting her back into the race or in solidifying a near-insurmountable mountain for her to climb in order to win the nomination fairly.{9} So in a certain sense, Mr. Rich's hypothesis is a good one as far as it goes.
Real 'Work'? Clinton Swipes at Chelsea's Profession (ABC News)
The problem with manufacturing class envy or otherwise seeking to demonize entire classes of people -be they by sex, race, religion, profession, or whatever- is when it comes back to bite you, it can bite quite hard. Besides, for someone who wants to tax every perceived "high earner", it is strange that Senator Clinton herself does not seem to want people to know about her tax returns!!! The reason is almost certainly because we are dealing with a double standard here: one for Senator Clinton and one for the others in her tax bracket. But then again, Senator Clinton's comments show she is not very well versed with the subjects of either taxes or economics...a subject for another time and beyond the scope of this posting though it will be noted here in brief nonetheless.
Notes:
{1} [I]t is just about time to talk about McCain rather than merely the others running against him lest we fall into the same trap as those who for eight years played the pathetic and predictable "anybody but Bush" card. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 24, 2008)]
{2} Yes this is a bit vague but it will clarify itself when the discussion in footnote one is finally tended to on this weblog as it will be in the coming days.
{3} The book title was The Audacity of Hope.
{4} On the war front, the Iraq surge strategery is on the whole going pretty good. The Bush Administration is wisely understating this a bit in the period before a progress report due in September is released. No matter what the report says, it is going to be spun in as negative of a fashion as the msm and its willingseditionist comrades allies in the Democratic party and other places have a vested interest in seeing defeat in Iraq by any means necessary. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2007)]
{5} On the Iraq Situation, the Military Surge, and Playing Politics (circa August 21, 2007)
{6} On the Situation in Iraq as of Early November 2007 (circa November 9, 2007)
{7} One of the reasons I have not reacted to every news story on this subject the way so many do is because the principles whereby I formulated my original position on the military involvement in Iraq nearly five years ago has not changed and will not change. That being said though, it does not mean that I have always liked the way things have been done over there. Now I did not to my knowledge say anything publicly[...] on it but for the better part of two years I was admittedly not happy with what appeared to be our approach to post-war stabilization and development. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 9, 2007)]
{8} There is also the possibility that she may lose in pledged delegates and yet take the nomination at the convention by swaying the "super delegates" to vote for her.
{9} See footnote eight.
(On Senator Hillary Clinton)
Senator Clinton is reaching an important point in her campaign. As we have noted a few times now the plan to discuss the Senator John McCain nomination subject{1} and also plan to note publicly some of the things we have long said privately about certain political figures{2}, it seems appropriate to touch on the other nomination taking place between rival Democratic party senators.
As many know, Senator Clinton has lost about fourteen primaries in a row since Super Tuesday when she failed to put away Senator Barack Hussein Obama as she presumed she would. The New York Times has an interesting editorial which posits a parallel in Senator Clinton's election approach and the Iraq war strategery of President George W. Bush. Here is the thread in full:
The Audacity of Hopelessness (Frank Rich)
For those who do not know, the title of the article is a paraphrase of the title of a book written by Senator Barak Obama{3} her opponent in the Democratic party race for nomination. The hypothesis of the article is interesting to say the least -here is a key part of the article where it is summarized:
It’s not just that her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco. Senator Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — “It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency.
The Clinton camp was certain that its moneyed arsenal of political shock-and-awe would take out Barack Hussein Obama in a flash. The race would “be over by Feb. 5,” Mrs. Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year’s. But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup.
That’s why she has been losing battle after battle by double digits in every corner of the country ever since.Now those interested in the facts on the ground over abstract activist polemics are aware that there has been a change of direction in Iraq brought on by a variety of factors. I have written in the past eight months on both the fact that the surge strategery is working{4} and also in some detail as to both the politics involved{5} and many of the reasons for why things in Iraq have been going rather well for a while now{6} whereas for some time since the end of the combat operations they were not.{7} But that factor noted, the parallel could be realized if Senator Clinton goes on a "surge" of her own which it would appear she plans on doing. However, there is one significant difference and it is the time factor involved.
For President Bush as a lame duck president despite exiting office on January 20, 2009 will be turning over the Middle East situation to a successor whereas Senator Clinton will either achieve the nomination or not within the next four to five months.{8} Time in other words is not on her side whereas with President Bush in this area time has turned the situation over there in his favour though due to the nature of these matters, it would be naive to say that this is in any sense definitive. (Even if we may in the future look back upon 2007 as akin to 1943 in the Second World War; namely, the point where the tide had turned towards victory.)
I will go out on a limb and say that the March 4th primaries in Ohio and Texas will prove to be either the turning point for Senator Clinton in the positive sense of putting her back into the race or in solidifying a near-insurmountable mountain for her to climb in order to win the nomination fairly.{9} So in a certain sense, Mr. Rich's hypothesis is a good one as far as it goes.
Real 'Work'? Clinton Swipes at Chelsea's Profession (ABC News)
The problem with manufacturing class envy or otherwise seeking to demonize entire classes of people -be they by sex, race, religion, profession, or whatever- is when it comes back to bite you, it can bite quite hard. Besides, for someone who wants to tax every perceived "high earner", it is strange that Senator Clinton herself does not seem to want people to know about her tax returns!!! The reason is almost certainly because we are dealing with a double standard here: one for Senator Clinton and one for the others in her tax bracket. But then again, Senator Clinton's comments show she is not very well versed with the subjects of either taxes or economics...a subject for another time and beyond the scope of this posting though it will be noted here in brief nonetheless.
Notes:
{1} [I]t is just about time to talk about McCain rather than merely the others running against him lest we fall into the same trap as those who for eight years played the pathetic and predictable "anybody but Bush" card. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 24, 2008)]
{2} Yes this is a bit vague but it will clarify itself when the discussion in footnote one is finally tended to on this weblog as it will be in the coming days.
{3} The book title was The Audacity of Hope.
{4} On the war front, the Iraq surge strategery is on the whole going pretty good. The Bush Administration is wisely understating this a bit in the period before a progress report due in September is released. No matter what the report says, it is going to be spun in as negative of a fashion as the msm and its willing
{5} On the Iraq Situation, the Military Surge, and Playing Politics (circa August 21, 2007)
{6} On the Situation in Iraq as of Early November 2007 (circa November 9, 2007)
{7} One of the reasons I have not reacted to every news story on this subject the way so many do is because the principles whereby I formulated my original position on the military involvement in Iraq nearly five years ago has not changed and will not change. That being said though, it does not mean that I have always liked the way things have been done over there. Now I did not to my knowledge say anything publicly[...] on it but for the better part of two years I was admittedly not happy with what appeared to be our approach to post-war stabilization and development. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 9, 2007)]
{8} There is also the possibility that she may lose in pledged delegates and yet take the nomination at the convention by swaying the "super delegates" to vote for her.
{9} See footnote eight.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Points to Ponder:
(From William F. Buckley Jr.)
Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.
I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the word 'fair' in connection with income tax policies.
We are so concerned to flatter the majority that we lose sight of how very often it is necessary, in order to preserve freedom for the minority, let alone for the individual, to face that majority down.
I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence.
The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry.
Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people's freedom and security.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.
(From William F. Buckley Jr.)
Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.
I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the word 'fair' in connection with income tax policies.
We are so concerned to flatter the majority that we lose sight of how very often it is necessary, in order to preserve freedom for the minority, let alone for the individual, to face that majority down.
I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence.
The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry.
Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people's freedom and security.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.
William F. Buckley Jr. Dies at 82 (Breitbart)
The above article is a fine retrospective of the life of one of the foundations of the modern conservative movement. All movements of history which seek to gain currency otherwise than through brute force have to start intellectually before they can gain traction politically. Though Senator Barry Goldwater predated William F. Buckley Jr. both in age and also in his involvement in politics, it was the Yale educated William F. Buckley Jr. who put an intellectual face onto conservatism{1} of the sort that for some time had been lacking. And it was from this foundation that the candidacy of Senator Goldwater was able to build and plant the seeds for the future presidency of Ronald Wilson Reagan.
While Buckley was a staunch anti-communist -including his admirable support for the substance if not the exact content of Senator Joseph McCarthy's correct stance on the influence of communists in positions of government and media, etc.{2}- he at the same time played an important role in weeding from the conservative tree the xenophobic extremists of the John Birch Society which was of no small importance for a variety of reasons too numerous to go into here.{3} A lot more could be said about the respectability that William F. Buckley Jr. brought to conservatism but one key element is his humanity: he was not dour but instead of generally good humour. This undoubtedly was another important element of humanizing what was previously viewed as some kind of mechanical socio-political philosophy but I do not want to go too long on this posting both for my limits of time and also because a life is not going to be adequately summed up in a single posting anyway.
WFB was a true renaissance man as that term is properly understood. It is certainly the hope of this writer that his contributions to the conservative cause not be forgotten -particularly in our time where from many appearances conservative principles have been either ignored or otherwise downplayed in the sacrifice of ethics and principles for expediency. And while we may say more on this matter later on, at the present time, that is all we have time for.
Lord please remember William F. Buckley Jr. In baptism he died with Christ: may he also share his resurrection, when Christ will raise our mortal bodies and make them like his own in glory. [Roman Missal: Eucharistic Prayer III From Masses for the Dead]
Notes:
{1} Barry Goldwater was an intelligent man but not an intellectual.
{2} I certainly do not like and would not endorse the manner in which McCarthy went about it even though in fact and principle he was right.
{3} In a nutshell: every movement has its extremists and if the latter cannot be moderated either by exhortations of prudence or otherwise contained, they need to be rooted out lest they become the presumed spokesmen of the movement.
The above article is a fine retrospective of the life of one of the foundations of the modern conservative movement. All movements of history which seek to gain currency otherwise than through brute force have to start intellectually before they can gain traction politically. Though Senator Barry Goldwater predated William F. Buckley Jr. both in age and also in his involvement in politics, it was the Yale educated William F. Buckley Jr. who put an intellectual face onto conservatism{1} of the sort that for some time had been lacking. And it was from this foundation that the candidacy of Senator Goldwater was able to build and plant the seeds for the future presidency of Ronald Wilson Reagan.
While Buckley was a staunch anti-communist -including his admirable support for the substance if not the exact content of Senator Joseph McCarthy's correct stance on the influence of communists in positions of government and media, etc.{2}- he at the same time played an important role in weeding from the conservative tree the xenophobic extremists of the John Birch Society which was of no small importance for a variety of reasons too numerous to go into here.{3} A lot more could be said about the respectability that William F. Buckley Jr. brought to conservatism but one key element is his humanity: he was not dour but instead of generally good humour. This undoubtedly was another important element of humanizing what was previously viewed as some kind of mechanical socio-political philosophy but I do not want to go too long on this posting both for my limits of time and also because a life is not going to be adequately summed up in a single posting anyway.
WFB was a true renaissance man as that term is properly understood. It is certainly the hope of this writer that his contributions to the conservative cause not be forgotten -particularly in our time where from many appearances conservative principles have been either ignored or otherwise downplayed in the sacrifice of ethics and principles for expediency. And while we may say more on this matter later on, at the present time, that is all we have time for.
Lord please remember William F. Buckley Jr. In baptism he died with Christ: may he also share his resurrection, when Christ will raise our mortal bodies and make them like his own in glory. [Roman Missal: Eucharistic Prayer III From Masses for the Dead]
Notes:
{1} Barry Goldwater was an intelligent man but not an intellectual.
{2} I certainly do not like and would not endorse the manner in which McCarthy went about it even though in fact and principle he was right.
{3} In a nutshell: every movement has its extremists and if the latter cannot be moderated either by exhortations of prudence or otherwise contained, they need to be rooted out lest they become the presumed spokesmen of the movement.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Mike Huckabee kills two birds with one stone pointing out here that he is both an opportunist and also that many pro lifers are geopolitically dumb as a sack of hammers precisely as I have said many times over the years -most recently here.
If Hucksterbee thinks he would be a more conservative choice than McCain, he is nuts. I am not about to say that McCain is a conservative of course -at least not yet{1} but Hucksterbee is certainly not. As one friend astutely said back in December "Huck is like Dubya on steroids." I have to say that I concur with that assessment if the record of Hucksterbee as governor of Arkansas is scrutinized in accordance with conservative principles.
More could be noted on this but since McCain is on the verge of officially clinching this anyway{2}, it is just about time to talk about McCain rather than merely the others running against him lest we fall into the same trap as those who for eight years played the pathetic and predictable "anybody but Bush" card. But that is all I have say on this matter at the present time.
Notes:
{1} I am not going to claim that Senator McCain either is or is not a conservative in this posting -only that the last person who is credible on discerning this matter is President George W. Bush for reasons I have delved into in the past and probably will in the future. (When I go into my view on Senator John McCain as both a nominee for and possible future President of the United States in light of recent developments.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 16, 2008)]
{2} As of this writing, John McCain has 918 delegates to 217 by Mike Huckabee. Even Mitt Romney who has suspended his campaign has more delegates (286) than Huckabee so the nominating process is for all intensive purposes over mathematically.
If Hucksterbee thinks he would be a more conservative choice than McCain, he is nuts. I am not about to say that McCain is a conservative of course -at least not yet{1} but Hucksterbee is certainly not. As one friend astutely said back in December "Huck is like Dubya on steroids." I have to say that I concur with that assessment if the record of Hucksterbee as governor of Arkansas is scrutinized in accordance with conservative principles.
More could be noted on this but since McCain is on the verge of officially clinching this anyway{2}, it is just about time to talk about McCain rather than merely the others running against him lest we fall into the same trap as those who for eight years played the pathetic and predictable "anybody but Bush" card. But that is all I have say on this matter at the present time.
Notes:
{1} I am not going to claim that Senator McCain either is or is not a conservative in this posting -only that the last person who is credible on discerning this matter is President George W. Bush for reasons I have delved into in the past and probably will in the future. (When I go into my view on Senator John McCain as both a nominee for and possible future President of the United States in light of recent developments.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 16, 2008)]
{2} As of this writing, John McCain has 918 delegates to 217 by Mike Huckabee. Even Mitt Romney who has suspended his campaign has more delegates (286) than Huckabee so the nominating process is for all intensive purposes over mathematically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)