Miscellaneous Threads and Musings:
To supply a brief reprieve from the subjects of the two most recent threads via the Times Online...
Tribute to Aleksandr Solzhentisyn
Many today may not know about him but he was convicted without a trial of being critical of the Soviet leader Josef Stalin and spent eight years in the Soviet gulags. Upon emerging he wrote in a variety of ways about the experience as well as what it was like to live under a genuine tyrannical regime.{1}
Whatever one wants to say about the complex man that was Aleksandr Solzhentisyn, he was at bottom a man who stood on principles and suffered for them. His Gulag Archipelago should be mandatory reviewing for any naive promoter of communism's lesser-developed cousin socialism in any of its current or past manifestations.
Georgia 'downs two Russian warplanes' as countries move to brink of war (Times Online)
Georgia says Russian tanks mean 'war' in South Ossetia (Times Online)
There is a reason why I started this thing off with the part on Solzhentisyn because it helps those who may have forgotten (or do not know) of the sordid past of the former Soviet Union of which Russia was among the principle parts thereof.
And finally, from the formerly explicitly communist{2} to the still communist, the Olympics have opened in China and I will watch not a single event in a kind of protest against the human rights atrocities committed by China.
Notes:
{1} Briefly to Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers: no, the current presidential administration in no way whatsoever is a tyrannical regime however much you may delude yourselves into thinking it is.
{2} I have never been so sure that there is not an implicit communism involved still in some nations of the former Soviet Union (particularly Russia) but that is perhaps a subject for another time perhaps.
Friday, August 08, 2008
I originally put up a notifications post back on August 4th a variety of posting projects I intended to complete before the end of this current blogging cycle. And as with all intentions, they are sometimes sidelined by events or circumstances that cannot be foreseen at the time they are enunciated.
In the case of the projects noted in that thread, they have had to be sidelined for the next blogging cycle either wholly or in part because one of the very few individuals who contacted me last year possessing both the rational and charitable equipment to be worth dialoguing on the subject of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.{1} They contacted me unexpectedly the following day mentioning that they planned to post what was once going to be their opening statement on that venture to the web on the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing.
Upon their courteous notification of this intention, I did not have time to say much; however saying something seemed appropriate nonetheless. For that reason, I responded to this turn of events publicly except with yesterday's outline posting where this matter was discussed. In the interest of fairness, I wanted to balance my disappointment with the many online Catholics with apologetics pretensions who could not even make it out of the starting blocks to discuss this subject intelligently as well as charitably with the few who in my estimation could -as well as give some props in particular to the individual I chose to pursue that non-realized (at the time, unfortunately) ambition.
So the purpose of this posting is to shelve the projects outlined on August 4th until at least the 22nd and in the meantime to do my part to supply the counter position. I had dismissed from my mind the intention of saying anything on this subject in the current year but then these points were reflected upon which gave me sufficient cause for reconsideration.
--If it is ever to be discussed and be a "live issue" then it is at this time of year.{2}
--Merely cursing the darkness in light of the legions who approach these matters with not only insufficient knowledge but questionable ethics is an inadequate way of seeing such things eventually remedied if there is to be any possibility (however remote) of that happening.
--When someone is willing to go over these matters without the usual hysterics, misplaced accusations of "unorthodoxy" or "disobedience", and overall lack of principles such as charity and ethics, then there is an obligation to do so in the interest of furthering the cause of principled, ethical, charitable, and just downright honourable dialogue.{3}
So for those reasons, I have suspended the previously outlined projects either wholly or in part to tend to this matter and some other ones with the latter being of significantly smaller scale or requiring much less effort and resources than the former.
Notes:
{1} I outlined a format for a possible dialogue back on July 22nd and Mark and numerous others fell so seriously short of qualifying that they almost made a prophet out of me yet again. I say almost because I did actually receive a communique a few days back from someone who has expressed interest in a dialogue on these matters and I am in the process of setting an agreeable parameter down for seeing if this can occur. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 6, 2007)]
{2} Namely, the month of August at least the first half of it anyway.
{3} This is always the hardest to find in direct proportion to either the complexity of the subject in discussion and/or the passions that said subjects can stir up in the people who discuss them as a rule.
In the case of the projects noted in that thread, they have had to be sidelined for the next blogging cycle either wholly or in part because one of the very few individuals who contacted me last year possessing both the rational and charitable equipment to be worth dialoguing on the subject of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.{1} They contacted me unexpectedly the following day mentioning that they planned to post what was once going to be their opening statement on that venture to the web on the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing.
Upon their courteous notification of this intention, I did not have time to say much; however saying something seemed appropriate nonetheless. For that reason, I responded to this turn of events publicly except with yesterday's outline posting where this matter was discussed. In the interest of fairness, I wanted to balance my disappointment with the many online Catholics with apologetics pretensions who could not even make it out of the starting blocks to discuss this subject intelligently as well as charitably with the few who in my estimation could -as well as give some props in particular to the individual I chose to pursue that non-realized (at the time, unfortunately) ambition.
So the purpose of this posting is to shelve the projects outlined on August 4th until at least the 22nd and in the meantime to do my part to supply the counter position. I had dismissed from my mind the intention of saying anything on this subject in the current year but then these points were reflected upon which gave me sufficient cause for reconsideration.
--If it is ever to be discussed and be a "live issue" then it is at this time of year.{2}
--Merely cursing the darkness in light of the legions who approach these matters with not only insufficient knowledge but questionable ethics is an inadequate way of seeing such things eventually remedied if there is to be any possibility (however remote) of that happening.
--When someone is willing to go over these matters without the usual hysterics, misplaced accusations of "unorthodoxy" or "disobedience", and overall lack of principles such as charity and ethics, then there is an obligation to do so in the interest of furthering the cause of principled, ethical, charitable, and just downright honourable dialogue.{3}
So for those reasons, I have suspended the previously outlined projects either wholly or in part to tend to this matter and some other ones with the latter being of significantly smaller scale or requiring much less effort and resources than the former.
Notes:
{1} I outlined a format for a possible dialogue back on July 22nd and Mark and numerous others fell so seriously short of qualifying that they almost made a prophet out of me yet again. I say almost because I did actually receive a communique a few days back from someone who has expressed interest in a dialogue on these matters and I am in the process of setting an agreeable parameter down for seeing if this can occur. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 6, 2007)]
{2} Namely, the month of August at least the first half of it anyway.
{3} This is always the hardest to find in direct proportion to either the complexity of the subject in discussion and/or the passions that said subjects can stir up in the people who discuss them as a rule.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
As today's anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing was fast approaching, it had been brought to my attention by the individual I was going to dialogue on these matters last year{1} that they intended to post what was going to be their opening statement on the matter to another website. I had intended to spend the actual anniversaries of those events this year not commenting on the events until the anniversaries themselves had passed but it seems appropriate to say something at least briefly on this circumstance and the individual involved.
Admittedly after the experience of the two years previous to 2007{2}, I had gotten to the point last year at this time where I had decided that if this issue was going to be discussed by me at all in a public fashion that a serious vetting process was in order to make sure I was not going to waste my time on anyone not worthy of dialogue. As a result, I jadedly posted a challenge to any Catholic who wanted to dialogue on those subjects who could fulfill the most rudimentary of criteria for not only a potentially fruitful endeavour but in doing so actually give me reason to reconsider my reluctance to revisit this subject again in light of the way I had seen some people I once respected disgrace themselves on this subject in past years. Predictably some who were neither ethically nor intellectually equipped to discuss this issue weighed in and they were dispatched with so easily it was not even funny.{3} And the lack of worthy foils was predictable though that some would emerge who were was to these eyes a most pleasant surprise.
For out of the responses I got to that posting with pretensions of accepting the challenge, only two{4} were in my mind both intelligent enough to pique my interest but more importantly{5} possessing of the proper disposition to handle this matter equitably. As one of them happened to be someone who sent me an intelligent and obviously thought out criticism of one of my other weblog postings, I decided to go with the other individual upon whom I want to speak briefly about at the present time.
The individual who passed muster whom I decided to pursue dialogue with goes by the online pseudonym "Blackadder."{6} I proceeded to secure his concurrence on what was to be a joint declaration of dialogual principles preceding the planned dialogue. And in the interest of disclosure, they happen to be someone I have a good deal of respect for. Intellectually he is certainly a worthy foil but even more important is his general approach to subject matters in general. I am going to after this posting put up the first two thirds of the joint declaration from last year which is the part dealing with general dialogual principles. The last third which dealt with particular applications for our once-planned dialogue{7} will be omitted at this time though should he want to respond amicably to what I plan to write in response to his statement, I will supplement that omitted part to this weblog to the extent that it would apply to the matter in question.{8}
Anyway, more could be noted but before I link to where he posted the opening statement, I want to make the contents of that joint declaration known to all so that readers who want to know in advance what I expect of someone who would want to discuss these or any other matters with me. And that posting will be one of the next ones made to this weblog modified in the manner so noted above.
[Update: Some additional reflections were posted subsequent to this entry which can be viewed here. -ISM 8/8/08 12:30pm]
Notes:
{1} Until a variety of outside issues intervened and made the subject no longer of timely significance.
{2} Outlined in a scroll format here for those who are interested.
{3} Though admittedly I had a bit of schadenfraude in even more minutely steamrolling the pretensions of one of them later on.
{4} In the interest of disclosure I should note that I have no doubt that a third individual (someone I have had some challenging and enjoyable dialogues with in the past which are posted to the archives of this weblog) if they had the time and were actively involved in the blogsosphere at this time last year would also have made a worthy foil for this endeavour. I may mention their name at some point but for now this is all I will say on the matter.
{5} I am a realist and not an idealist. I know after years of observation, discussion board stuff, email correspondences, other forms of discussion, etc. that neophytes or those who are less-experienced in the more intricate issues will mess up. Heck, I expect neophytes to mess up!!! What is the indicator to me is what they do when they realize this.
The true mark of someone who is not wedded to their ego is the willingness to recognize and admit to error when they are apprised correctly on these matters. No one will do so perfectly all the time no matter how well they are learned because we all have issues over which we are more passionate about than others. But that does not mean there are lacking certain principles which can assist us on these matters. [Excerpt from a Forum Discussion (circa April 24, 2007)]
{6} Longtime readers probably are aware that Edmund Blackadder is one of my all time favourite characters so their choice of pseudonym was of course of interest to me.
{7} Who knows, we may have that dialogue again albeit in a different way than I originally envisioned it.
{8} As of the present writing, I am not sure on this point.
Admittedly after the experience of the two years previous to 2007{2}, I had gotten to the point last year at this time where I had decided that if this issue was going to be discussed by me at all in a public fashion that a serious vetting process was in order to make sure I was not going to waste my time on anyone not worthy of dialogue. As a result, I jadedly posted a challenge to any Catholic who wanted to dialogue on those subjects who could fulfill the most rudimentary of criteria for not only a potentially fruitful endeavour but in doing so actually give me reason to reconsider my reluctance to revisit this subject again in light of the way I had seen some people I once respected disgrace themselves on this subject in past years. Predictably some who were neither ethically nor intellectually equipped to discuss this issue weighed in and they were dispatched with so easily it was not even funny.{3} And the lack of worthy foils was predictable though that some would emerge who were was to these eyes a most pleasant surprise.
For out of the responses I got to that posting with pretensions of accepting the challenge, only two{4} were in my mind both intelligent enough to pique my interest but more importantly{5} possessing of the proper disposition to handle this matter equitably. As one of them happened to be someone who sent me an intelligent and obviously thought out criticism of one of my other weblog postings, I decided to go with the other individual upon whom I want to speak briefly about at the present time.
The individual who passed muster whom I decided to pursue dialogue with goes by the online pseudonym "Blackadder."{6} I proceeded to secure his concurrence on what was to be a joint declaration of dialogual principles preceding the planned dialogue. And in the interest of disclosure, they happen to be someone I have a good deal of respect for. Intellectually he is certainly a worthy foil but even more important is his general approach to subject matters in general. I am going to after this posting put up the first two thirds of the joint declaration from last year which is the part dealing with general dialogual principles. The last third which dealt with particular applications for our once-planned dialogue{7} will be omitted at this time though should he want to respond amicably to what I plan to write in response to his statement, I will supplement that omitted part to this weblog to the extent that it would apply to the matter in question.{8}
Anyway, more could be noted but before I link to where he posted the opening statement, I want to make the contents of that joint declaration known to all so that readers who want to know in advance what I expect of someone who would want to discuss these or any other matters with me. And that posting will be one of the next ones made to this weblog modified in the manner so noted above.
[Update: Some additional reflections were posted subsequent to this entry which can be viewed here. -ISM 8/8/08 12:30pm]
Notes:
{1} Until a variety of outside issues intervened and made the subject no longer of timely significance.
{2} Outlined in a scroll format here for those who are interested.
{3} Though admittedly I had a bit of schadenfraude in even more minutely steamrolling the pretensions of one of them later on.
{4} In the interest of disclosure I should note that I have no doubt that a third individual (someone I have had some challenging and enjoyable dialogues with in the past which are posted to the archives of this weblog) if they had the time and were actively involved in the blogsosphere at this time last year would also have made a worthy foil for this endeavour. I may mention their name at some point but for now this is all I will say on the matter.
{5} I am a realist and not an idealist. I know after years of observation, discussion board stuff, email correspondences, other forms of discussion, etc. that neophytes or those who are less-experienced in the more intricate issues will mess up. Heck, I expect neophytes to mess up!!! What is the indicator to me is what they do when they realize this.
The true mark of someone who is not wedded to their ego is the willingness to recognize and admit to error when they are apprised correctly on these matters. No one will do so perfectly all the time no matter how well they are learned because we all have issues over which we are more passionate about than others. But that does not mean there are lacking certain principles which can assist us on these matters. [Excerpt from a Forum Discussion (circa April 24, 2007)]
{6} Longtime readers probably are aware that Edmund Blackadder is one of my all time favourite characters so their choice of pseudonym was of course of interest to me.
{7} Who knows, we may have that dialogue again albeit in a different way than I originally envisioned it.
{8} As of the present writing, I am not sure on this point.
Monday, August 04, 2008
[Update: I have supplemented this posting with two additional footnotes (numbers three and four) to provide a bit more information than the post written after midnight last night had time for. -ISM 8/4/08 1:14pm]
Among the stack of books currently being read by your humble servant is one titled The Leaders We Deserve (And A Few We Didn't) about the presidents of the United States. The author has taken the initiative of avoiding the presumption of arbitrarily assigning a rank to various presidents on ideological pretenses as is the wont of most "historians" including some whose methodology this writer intends to post some critical bits on in the coming days.{1}
No, the author of the aforementioned book has sought to approach the subject of presidential rankings by analyzing forty U S Presidents{2} by six criteria{3} to ascertain where he believes they rank.{4} The methodology utilized solidified some traditional rankings (both high and low) but also made for some startling historical reappraisals.{5}
The present writer does not recommend this book simply because its author reaches many of the same conclusions with presidential rankings that your humble servant does -though that does not hurt of course.{6} Instead, it is being recommended despite our not finishing the work yet{7} because the approach to presidential ratings contained therein is so refreshingly original as well as provocative.
Notes:
{1} The bits mentioned here are the ones referred to in a recent notifications posting where I referred to "[a] few pieces on an April article from various historians pertaining to President George W. Bush."
{2} The three presidents excluded in his examination are President William H. Harrison, President James A. Garfield, and President George W. Bush. The reason for their exclusion was either inadequate time in office as in the cases of Harrison and Garfield -the former dying a month into his term and the latter being assassinated and dying less than a year into his term- and in the case of President George W. Bush because he is still in office when the book was published.
{3} The points of scoring are as follows: (i) character, (ii) vision, (iii) competence, (iv) economic policy, (v) defense, national security, foreign policy, (vi) preserving and extending freedom.
{4} As a result of the scoring system he uses, there are several ties (sometimes multiple ties) in the ratings approach.
{5} Both presidents traditionally ranked higher who ended up somewhat or significantly lower as well as the converse phenomenon.
{6} And while overall our views converge, there are some rankings which we take issue with for a variety of reasons.
{7} Something we do not do often but with this book we are far enough along to know it will turn out at least good if not better than that; ergo we recommend it at this time.
Among the stack of books currently being read by your humble servant is one titled The Leaders We Deserve (And A Few We Didn't) about the presidents of the United States. The author has taken the initiative of avoiding the presumption of arbitrarily assigning a rank to various presidents on ideological pretenses as is the wont of most "historians" including some whose methodology this writer intends to post some critical bits on in the coming days.{1}
No, the author of the aforementioned book has sought to approach the subject of presidential rankings by analyzing forty U S Presidents{2} by six criteria{3} to ascertain where he believes they rank.{4} The methodology utilized solidified some traditional rankings (both high and low) but also made for some startling historical reappraisals.{5}
The present writer does not recommend this book simply because its author reaches many of the same conclusions with presidential rankings that your humble servant does -though that does not hurt of course.{6} Instead, it is being recommended despite our not finishing the work yet{7} because the approach to presidential ratings contained therein is so refreshingly original as well as provocative.
Notes:
{1} The bits mentioned here are the ones referred to in a recent notifications posting where I referred to "[a] few pieces on an April article from various historians pertaining to President George W. Bush."
{2} The three presidents excluded in his examination are President William H. Harrison, President James A. Garfield, and President George W. Bush. The reason for their exclusion was either inadequate time in office as in the cases of Harrison and Garfield -the former dying a month into his term and the latter being assassinated and dying less than a year into his term- and in the case of President George W. Bush because he is still in office when the book was published.
{3} The points of scoring are as follows: (i) character, (ii) vision, (iii) competence, (iv) economic policy, (v) defense, national security, foreign policy, (vi) preserving and extending freedom.
{4} As a result of the scoring system he uses, there are several ties (sometimes multiple ties) in the ratings approach.
{5} Both presidents traditionally ranked higher who ended up somewhat or significantly lower as well as the converse phenomenon.
{6} And while overall our views converge, there are some rankings which we take issue with for a variety of reasons.
{7} Something we do not do often but with this book we are far enough along to know it will turn out at least good if not better than that; ergo we recommend it at this time.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Points to Ponder:
With all the mistakes that have been made, political leaders of the United States have done many things right, or we would not have the great country we have. We should not lose sight of this.
It is understandable that people are sometimes turned off by politics and politicians. Nevertheless, presidents and those in places of leadership, make decisions that can have far-reaching implications, for good or evil. No wonder the Scriptures tell us to pray “for kings, and for all who are in authority” (1 Tim. 2:1,2).
When leaders do not hold the highest spiritual standards or may be ungodly, we should still pray for them. Their decisions, despite this, can still turn things around for good. The classic example
is Cyrus. The Lord anointed him, though he did not know the Lord, so that he blessed the people of God, releasing them from slavery in Babylon (Isa. 45:1-4, 13; Ezra 1:1-4). [Ralph Woodrow]
With all the mistakes that have been made, political leaders of the United States have done many things right, or we would not have the great country we have. We should not lose sight of this.
It is understandable that people are sometimes turned off by politics and politicians. Nevertheless, presidents and those in places of leadership, make decisions that can have far-reaching implications, for good or evil. No wonder the Scriptures tell us to pray “for kings, and for all who are in authority” (1 Tim. 2:1,2).
When leaders do not hold the highest spiritual standards or may be ungodly, we should still pray for them. Their decisions, despite this, can still turn things around for good. The classic example
is Cyrus. The Lord anointed him, though he did not know the Lord, so that he blessed the people of God, releasing them from slavery in Babylon (Isa. 45:1-4, 13; Ezra 1:1-4). [Ralph Woodrow]
Notification of Some Upcoming Posts:
There are many projects which are unfinished -some of which have been in that state for some time now. One of the problems of time constraints is finishing in a timely fashion everything we intend to finish but there is also a benefit to the manner in which we approach subjects whereby we utilize timeless principles which accompany contemporary situations.
Among the projects we intend to either finish for posting in this blogging cycle or post{1} are the following:
--A response to an emailer taking issue with something we wrote on the subject of reason, faith, and atheism
--A few pieces on an April article from various historians pertaining to President George W. Bush.{2}
--A posting on the concepts of consequentialism and proportionalism and how they are frequently distorted by not a few who have frequent recourse to them.{3}
--A response to an email criticism of something we wrote in 2005 on the subject of journalism and journalists.{4}
Those are the projects in arrears we intend to get to in this posting cycle.{5} However, if we can find the time to either finish or otherwise get to posting them, here are some other possibilities:
--The long-talked about and finished{6} posting on the necessary third way in politics that is needed between the nonsense approaches of the radical conservatives and the radical liberals which are unworkable and unconstitutional respectively.
--A response to an emailer taking issue with my views on the fundamental rights of man and on Bastiat's overarching theory on which they are heavily based{7} asserting an incompatibility with Catholic moral and philosophical principles. Coupled in this is a challenge to my presentation of the distributivist weltanschauung in postings of the past -particularly a series of them{8} from last year.
Anyway, those are some of the planned and additional possible postings to be completed and/or posted in the current posting cycle.
Notes:
{1} Some of them are already done but for a variety of reasons have not been posted yet.
{2} Who though we are not fond of him we nonetheless in the interest of being fair feel obligated to touch on some matters on the blog from other mediums.
{3} Much along the lines of the oft-reissued "'neo con' challenge" except the terms of obfuscation are different.
{4} Namely this posting:
On the Subject of "Deep Throat", the Correlative Ramifications Thereof, Etc. (circa June 1, 2005)
{5} Which ends on August 21, 2008.
{6} It was completed last year but needs one final review before it can be posted.
{7} Though as we have noted in the past, we have actually developed further some concepts pertaining to Bastiat's theory -one of which was implied in his work but not explicitly stated and one which by logical extension is required to most fruitfully apply the theory to contemporary realities.
{8} Your host may link to the various threads in this footnote (or perhaps list them by name) at some point if he has the time to track them all down for the sake of greater completion.
There are many projects which are unfinished -some of which have been in that state for some time now. One of the problems of time constraints is finishing in a timely fashion everything we intend to finish but there is also a benefit to the manner in which we approach subjects whereby we utilize timeless principles which accompany contemporary situations.
Among the projects we intend to either finish for posting in this blogging cycle or post{1} are the following:
--A response to an emailer taking issue with something we wrote on the subject of reason, faith, and atheism
--A few pieces on an April article from various historians pertaining to President George W. Bush.{2}
--A posting on the concepts of consequentialism and proportionalism and how they are frequently distorted by not a few who have frequent recourse to them.{3}
--A response to an email criticism of something we wrote in 2005 on the subject of journalism and journalists.{4}
Those are the projects in arrears we intend to get to in this posting cycle.{5} However, if we can find the time to either finish or otherwise get to posting them, here are some other possibilities:
--The long-talked about and finished{6} posting on the necessary third way in politics that is needed between the nonsense approaches of the radical conservatives and the radical liberals which are unworkable and unconstitutional respectively.
--A response to an emailer taking issue with my views on the fundamental rights of man and on Bastiat's overarching theory on which they are heavily based{7} asserting an incompatibility with Catholic moral and philosophical principles. Coupled in this is a challenge to my presentation of the distributivist weltanschauung in postings of the past -particularly a series of them{8} from last year.
Anyway, those are some of the planned and additional possible postings to be completed and/or posted in the current posting cycle.
Notes:
{1} Some of them are already done but for a variety of reasons have not been posted yet.
{2} Who though we are not fond of him we nonetheless in the interest of being fair feel obligated to touch on some matters on the blog from other mediums.
{3} Much along the lines of the oft-reissued "'neo con' challenge" except the terms of obfuscation are different.
{4} Namely this posting:
On the Subject of "Deep Throat", the Correlative Ramifications Thereof, Etc. (circa June 1, 2005)
{5} Which ends on August 21, 2008.
{6} It was completed last year but needs one final review before it can be posted.
{7} Though as we have noted in the past, we have actually developed further some concepts pertaining to Bastiat's theory -one of which was implied in his work but not explicitly stated and one which by logical extension is required to most fruitfully apply the theory to contemporary realities.
{8} Your host may link to the various threads in this footnote (or perhaps list them by name) at some point if he has the time to track them all down for the sake of greater completion.
Excerpts from Classic Writings:
Today's sampling is from one of the earliest writings that influenced my overall outlook on politics and geopolitical issues in general.
I have been much concerned that so many people today with Conservative instincts feel compelled to apologize for them. Or if not to apologize directly, to qualify their commitment in a way that amounts to breast-beating. "Republican candidates," Vice President Nixon has said, "should be economic conservatives, but conservatives with a heart." President Eisenhower announced during his first term, "I am conservative when it comes to economic problems but liberal when it comes to human problems." Still other Republican leaders have insisted on calling themselves "progressive" Conservatives. These formulations are tantamount to an admission that Conservatism is a narrow, mechanistic economic theory that may work very well as a bookkeeper's guide, but cannot be relied upon as a comprehensive political philosophy.
The same judgment, though in the form of an attack rather than an admission, is advanced by the radical camp. "We liberals," they say, "are interested in people. Our concern is with human beings, while you Conservatives are preoccupied with the preservation of economic privilege and status." Take them a step further, and the Liberals will turn the accusations into a class argument: it is the little people that concern us, not the "malefactors of great wealth."
Such statements, from friend and foe alike, do great injustice to the Conservative point of view. Conservatism is not an economic theory, though it has economic implications. The shoe is precisely on the other foot: it is Socialism that subordinates all other considerations to man's material well-being. It is Conservatism that puts material things in their proper place-that has a structured view of the human being and of human society, in which economics plays only a subsidiary role.
The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual [p.5] desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand,-in the name of a concern for "human beings"-regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society's political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel "progress." In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.
Surely the first obligation of a political thinker is to understand the nature of man. The Conservative does not claim special powers of perception on this point, but he does claim a familiarity with the accumulated wisdom and experience of history, and he is not too proud to learn from the great minds of the past.
The first thing he has learned about man is that each member of the species is a unique creature. Man's most sacred possession is his individual soul-which has an immortal side, but also a mortal one. The mortal side establishes his absolute differentness from every other human being. Only a philosophy that takes into account the essential differences between men, and, accordingly, makes provision for developing the different potentialities of each man can claim to be in accord with Nature. We have heard much in our time about "the common man." It is a concept that pays little attention to the history of a nation that grew great through the initiative and ambition of uncommon men. The Conservative knows that to regard man as part of an undifferentiated mass is to consign him to ultimate slavery.
Secondly, the Conservative has learned that the economic and spiritual aspects of man's nature are inextricably intertwined. He cannot be economically free, or even economically efficient, if he is enslaved politically; conversely, man's political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State.
The Conservative realizes, thirdly, that man's development, in both its spiritual and material aspects, is not something that can be directed by outside forces. Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development. The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make: they cannot be made by any other human being, or by a collectivity of human beings. If the Conservative is less anxious than his Liberal brethren to increase Social Security "benefits," it is because he is more anxious than his Liberal brethren that people be free throughout their lives to spend their earnings when and as they see fit.
So it is that Conservatism, throughout history, has regarded man neither as a potential pawn of other men, nor as a part of a general collectivity in which the sacredness and the separate identity of individual human beings are ignored. Throughout history, true Conservatism has been at war equally with autocrats and with "democratic" Jacobins. The true Conservative was sympathetic with the plight of the hapless peasant under the tyranny of the French monarchy. And he was equally revolted at the attempt to solve that problem by a mob tyranny that paraded under the banner of egalitarianism. The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being. Today, therefore, he is at odds with dictators who rule by terror, and equally with those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play God with the human race.
With this view of the nature of man, it is understandable that the Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. The Conservative is the first to understand that the practice of freedom requires the establishment of order: it is impossible for one man to be free if another is able to deny him the exercise of his freedom. But the Conservative also recognizes that the political power on which order is based is a self-aggrandizing force; that its appetite grows with eating. He knows that the utmost vigilance and care are required to keep political power within its proper bounds.
Today's sampling is from one of the earliest writings that influenced my overall outlook on politics and geopolitical issues in general.
I have been much concerned that so many people today with Conservative instincts feel compelled to apologize for them. Or if not to apologize directly, to qualify their commitment in a way that amounts to breast-beating. "Republican candidates," Vice President Nixon has said, "should be economic conservatives, but conservatives with a heart." President Eisenhower announced during his first term, "I am conservative when it comes to economic problems but liberal when it comes to human problems." Still other Republican leaders have insisted on calling themselves "progressive" Conservatives. These formulations are tantamount to an admission that Conservatism is a narrow, mechanistic economic theory that may work very well as a bookkeeper's guide, but cannot be relied upon as a comprehensive political philosophy.
The same judgment, though in the form of an attack rather than an admission, is advanced by the radical camp. "We liberals," they say, "are interested in people. Our concern is with human beings, while you Conservatives are preoccupied with the preservation of economic privilege and status." Take them a step further, and the Liberals will turn the accusations into a class argument: it is the little people that concern us, not the "malefactors of great wealth."
Such statements, from friend and foe alike, do great injustice to the Conservative point of view. Conservatism is not an economic theory, though it has economic implications. The shoe is precisely on the other foot: it is Socialism that subordinates all other considerations to man's material well-being. It is Conservatism that puts material things in their proper place-that has a structured view of the human being and of human society, in which economics plays only a subsidiary role.
The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual [p.5] desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand,-in the name of a concern for "human beings"-regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society's political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel "progress." In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.
Surely the first obligation of a political thinker is to understand the nature of man. The Conservative does not claim special powers of perception on this point, but he does claim a familiarity with the accumulated wisdom and experience of history, and he is not too proud to learn from the great minds of the past.
The first thing he has learned about man is that each member of the species is a unique creature. Man's most sacred possession is his individual soul-which has an immortal side, but also a mortal one. The mortal side establishes his absolute differentness from every other human being. Only a philosophy that takes into account the essential differences between men, and, accordingly, makes provision for developing the different potentialities of each man can claim to be in accord with Nature. We have heard much in our time about "the common man." It is a concept that pays little attention to the history of a nation that grew great through the initiative and ambition of uncommon men. The Conservative knows that to regard man as part of an undifferentiated mass is to consign him to ultimate slavery.
Secondly, the Conservative has learned that the economic and spiritual aspects of man's nature are inextricably intertwined. He cannot be economically free, or even economically efficient, if he is enslaved politically; conversely, man's political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State.
The Conservative realizes, thirdly, that man's development, in both its spiritual and material aspects, is not something that can be directed by outside forces. Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development. The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make: they cannot be made by any other human being, or by a collectivity of human beings. If the Conservative is less anxious than his Liberal brethren to increase Social Security "benefits," it is because he is more anxious than his Liberal brethren that people be free throughout their lives to spend their earnings when and as they see fit.
So it is that Conservatism, throughout history, has regarded man neither as a potential pawn of other men, nor as a part of a general collectivity in which the sacredness and the separate identity of individual human beings are ignored. Throughout history, true Conservatism has been at war equally with autocrats and with "democratic" Jacobins. The true Conservative was sympathetic with the plight of the hapless peasant under the tyranny of the French monarchy. And he was equally revolted at the attempt to solve that problem by a mob tyranny that paraded under the banner of egalitarianism. The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being. Today, therefore, he is at odds with dictators who rule by terror, and equally with those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play God with the human race.
With this view of the nature of man, it is understandable that the Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. The Conservative is the first to understand that the practice of freedom requires the establishment of order: it is impossible for one man to be free if another is able to deny him the exercise of his freedom. But the Conservative also recognizes that the political power on which order is based is a self-aggrandizing force; that its appetite grows with eating. He knows that the utmost vigilance and care are required to keep political power within its proper bounds.
In our day, order is pretty well taken care of. The delicate balance that ideally exists between freedom and order has long since tipped against freedom practically everywhere on earth. In some countries, freedom is altogether down and order holds absolute sway. In our country the trend is less far advanced, but it is well along and gathering momentum every day. Thus, for the American Conservative, there is no difficulty in identifying the day's overriding political challenge: it is to preserve and extend freedom. As he surveys the various attitudes and institutions and laws that currently prevail in America, many questions will occur to him, but the Conservative's first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom? [Senator Barry M. Goldwater The Conscience of a Conservative (circa 1960)]
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Points to Ponder:
(On the Passing of Tony Snow and Disgusting Leftists)
It should tell you something, when every time misfortune befalls a conservative, there’s a need to sanitize [the Daily Kos]. And I haven’t even bothered to look at other “liberal” (LOL) sites - there’s really nothing to be learned or gained by reading hateful celebrations over Snow’s tragic death. I find his passing sad enough; no need to add to it by lamenting the evil among our fellow Americans. [Beth Cleaver]
(On the Passing of Tony Snow and Disgusting Leftists)
It should tell you something, when every time misfortune befalls a conservative, there’s a need to sanitize [the Daily Kos]. And I haven’t even bothered to look at other “liberal” (LOL) sites - there’s really nothing to be learned or gained by reading hateful celebrations over Snow’s tragic death. I find his passing sad enough; no need to add to it by lamenting the evil among our fellow Americans. [Beth Cleaver]
Briefly on the Current Real Estate Situation:
I have very little of a positive nature to say about the current president. There, I have said it as succinctly as I can. But at the same time, those under the illusion that the current problems in the real estate sphere of the economy are to be laid primarily at his feet need to have their presuppositions challenged. I have for that reason dug up an old online article dealing with the real estate market from when President Bush was governor of Texas:
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities (City Journal Winter 2000)
Pay particular note to this part of the article:
This policy—"America's best mortgage program for working people," NACA calls it—is an experiment with extraordinarily high risks. There is no surer way to destabilize a neighborhood than for its new generation of home buyers to lack the means to pay their mortgages—which is likely to be the case for a significant percentage of those granted a no-down-payment mortgage based on their low-income classification rather than their good credit history. Even if such buyers do not lose their homes, they are a group more likely to defer maintenance on their properties, creating the problems that lead to streets going bad and neighborhoods going downhill. Stable or increasing property values grow out of the efforts of many; one unpainted house, one sagging porch, one abandoned property is a threat to the work of dozens, because such signs of neglect discourage prospective buyers.
A no-down-payment policy reflects a belief that poor families should qualify for home ownership because they are poor, in contrast to the reality that some poor families are prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to own property, and some are not. Keeping their distance from those unable to save money is a crucial means by which upwardly mobile, self-sacrificing people establish and maintain the value of the homes they buy. If we empower those with bad habits, or those who have made bad decisions, to follow those with good habits to better neighborhoods—thanks to CRA's new emphasis on lending to low-income borrowers no matter where they buy their homes—those neighborhoods will not remain better for long.
Nor for that matter is this the only part of the equation that could be mentioned -indeed the Clinton Administration's justice department threatening lenders with lawsuits for red lining if they did not make risky loans to particular demographics of the population who were serious credit risks is another factor altogether.{1}
When the mafia engages in this sort of thing, it is called "extortion" whereas when the federal government does it somehow these practices are supposed to be moral apparently. Pardon those of us who respect reason and logic and can recognize a violation of the law of non-contradiction when we see it but that is all on this subject for the present time.
Note:
{1} There is a whole can of worms on this subject which I do not have the time or inclination to delve into now but at some point in the future that may change.
I have very little of a positive nature to say about the current president. There, I have said it as succinctly as I can. But at the same time, those under the illusion that the current problems in the real estate sphere of the economy are to be laid primarily at his feet need to have their presuppositions challenged. I have for that reason dug up an old online article dealing with the real estate market from when President Bush was governor of Texas:
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities (City Journal Winter 2000)
Pay particular note to this part of the article:
This policy—"America's best mortgage program for working people," NACA calls it—is an experiment with extraordinarily high risks. There is no surer way to destabilize a neighborhood than for its new generation of home buyers to lack the means to pay their mortgages—which is likely to be the case for a significant percentage of those granted a no-down-payment mortgage based on their low-income classification rather than their good credit history. Even if such buyers do not lose their homes, they are a group more likely to defer maintenance on their properties, creating the problems that lead to streets going bad and neighborhoods going downhill. Stable or increasing property values grow out of the efforts of many; one unpainted house, one sagging porch, one abandoned property is a threat to the work of dozens, because such signs of neglect discourage prospective buyers.
A no-down-payment policy reflects a belief that poor families should qualify for home ownership because they are poor, in contrast to the reality that some poor families are prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to own property, and some are not. Keeping their distance from those unable to save money is a crucial means by which upwardly mobile, self-sacrificing people establish and maintain the value of the homes they buy. If we empower those with bad habits, or those who have made bad decisions, to follow those with good habits to better neighborhoods—thanks to CRA's new emphasis on lending to low-income borrowers no matter where they buy their homes—those neighborhoods will not remain better for long.
Nor for that matter is this the only part of the equation that could be mentioned -indeed the Clinton Administration's justice department threatening lenders with lawsuits for red lining if they did not make risky loans to particular demographics of the population who were serious credit risks is another factor altogether.{1}
When the mafia engages in this sort of thing, it is called "extortion" whereas when the federal government does it somehow these practices are supposed to be moral apparently. Pardon those of us who respect reason and logic and can recognize a violation of the law of non-contradiction when we see it but that is all on this subject for the present time.
Note:
{1} There is a whole can of worms on this subject which I do not have the time or inclination to delve into now but at some point in the future that may change.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Guest Editorial on Senator Barack Obama and His Approach to Iraq:
(By Senator John McCain)
No folks, Senator McCain does not know he is contributing a guest editorial to this humble weblog. However, as for some reason the New York Times would not let this text be published in their op-ed section in response to an earlier op-ed by Senator Obama, I am going to publish it in the same text and formatting as it reads on Drudge's site except with the customary features we use for guest editorials here including font colouring. Without further ado...
######################
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
######################
Oh and lest I forget, Sen. Obama's NYT op-ed can be viewed here. To remind readers of our own view recently reiterated anew, see this thread for details:
Revisiting the Subject of the Surge and the Deafening Silence of the MSM Thereof (circa July 11, 2008)
(By Senator John McCain)
No folks, Senator McCain does not know he is contributing a guest editorial to this humble weblog. However, as for some reason the New York Times would not let this text be published in their op-ed section in response to an earlier op-ed by Senator Obama, I am going to publish it in the same text and formatting as it reads on Drudge's site except with the customary features we use for guest editorials here including font colouring. Without further ado...
######################
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
######################
Oh and lest I forget, Sen. Obama's NYT op-ed can be viewed here. To remind readers of our own view recently reiterated anew, see this thread for details:
Revisiting the Subject of the Surge and the Deafening Silence of the MSM Thereof (circa July 11, 2008)
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Briefly on Democratic Party Complete Control of Goverment:
(Aka "One From the Vault" Dept.)
This is not too deep a dip into the proverbial "vault" of responses written to inquiries on certain issues either personally or generally -actually then main text was written a few days ago. Nonetheless, the questioner's words will be in an appropriately dark green colour with footnotes added mostly on points covered in a more detailed format earlier on this weblog -though advance indulgence is begged for the caustic tonality in some of the McCain dialogual postings referenced in the footnotes. (Your host admittedly was pretty incensed when those words were written and did not conceal it as well as he should have.) Without further ado...
Conservatives: are you going to start switching to Obama now that...?
Obama has been calling for talks with Iran. Bush and McCain were dead set against this. Now we're talking to Iran.
Obama has been calling for pulling out troops from Iraq and putting more in Afghanistan. Bush and McCain were against this: "Afghanistan is doing just fine," they said, even though we've been there since October 7, 2001. Now the White House will be putting more troops in Afghanistan and taking them out of Iraq.
Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and Jeb Bush were all against drilling off the coast. Now Bush Jr. is for it. Bush Jr. even said in a White House press briefing that it won't help our oil supplies in any immediate future but will help our psychology over the economy. This coming from a guy who was surprised to hear that gas could hit $4 a gallon this summer.
If the Republicans couldn't get it write in the 7 years they had both Congress and the White house, why stick with their party? Why not push to try an all Dem Congress plus W.House to see what happens?
We are talking with Iran but not in the way that Obama wants to do. It is one thing to seek diplomatic means to handle something and another to confer legitimacy on a thug like Ahmadinejad who has voiced the notion of wiping Israel off the map.{1} You cannot dialogue with those who want you dead -something Bush and McCain both realize but that Obama evidenylydoes not.
The troops are able now to be scaled down in Iraq because of the surge and the tactics of General Petraeus along with the Iraqi government and military finally getting their act together -fifteen of the eighteen "benchmarks" set a couple years back being met as of two months ago (versus eight last year).{2} Obama would have simply withdrawn the troops before the country was stabilized if we listen to his rhetoric on the matter. But as Iraq has gone from a mess to a success in the past couple of years, Obama will now flip flop a bit on that issue as he will continue to do on other issues.
Drilling will not solve problems overnight but building more refineries could help in the short term.{3} Obama and the Democrats do not favour such things but McCain and the Republicans would be open to the idea.
The all Democrat government has been tried and failed badly over and over. The problem is, the Republican congresses of 1/1995-1/2001 which were among the best series of congresses in ages were succeeded by the Republican congresses from 1/2001-1/2007 which were as bad as any Democrat congresses in recent memory overall. The reason was the executive. President Clinton was not a great president but he showed what could happen when an executive stands up to the congress in some respects.{4} Conversely, the Republicans who opposed him showed what they could do if they had backbone -they balanced the budget together with those tensions: something that has not happened since.{5}
President Bush and the Republican congresses under his first six years do not make a good case for why the Republicans as a party should soon be trusted with total control again. However, the problem is in my view more that of President Bush not showing executive backbone.{6} He could have played hard ball with the Republican congress and been successful. But it took a Democrat congress to get GWB to show backbone and while he has defeated the Democratic congress time and time again, it raises the question of why he could not have been this way the first six years of his term. My guess is he simply was too provincialist{7} and too much of a party man to tell his party when they needed to shape up.
By stark contrast, John McCain has been a fiscal hawk for his entire congressional career.{8} He has also stood up against the Republicans at times (even times where I did not agree with him{9}) which leads me to believe that if he had a Republican congress that he would be a far more effective executive than GWB has been fiscally.{10} He also due to his ability to reach across the aisle could serve as a control on the pretensions of the Democratic congress. I do not see Obama having any similar capabilities here because unlike McCain, Obama is a green senator who has no track record of going against his own party.
Basically I see an Obama presidency with a Democratic congress being fiscally a repeat of the Bush presidency with a Republican congress. And as bad as the latter was, we do not need another round of that kind of fiscal irresponsibility. And I guarantee you that is what would happen with all Democratic congress and presidency and that is why I would never favour pushing for such a thing.
Notes:
{1} On Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's View of Israel (circa June 3, 2008)
{2} Revisiting the Subject of the Surge and the Deafening Silence of the MSM Thereof (circa July 11, 2008)
{3} Revisiting the Subject of High Gas Prices in a Slowing Economy in an Election Year (circa May 31, 2008)
On the High Gas Prices and the Economics Therein (circa September 10, 2005)
{4} I do not buy (at any price) the crap of the Republicans "not being able to govern in the majority" ala what Rush has said for a number of years. That argument may have been valid in the 1990's[...] but not in the twenty-first century and with a Republican president. For crying out loud, these guys were stood down by President William Clinton -a member of the opposing party. Are you telling me that President George W. Bush of the same party (the "party leader") could not have successfully stood up to them??? [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2008)]
{5} And though many of the contemporary sorts ignorant of basic civics like to primarily blame the president for deficits, all bills for spending originate in the congress most specifically the House of Representatives. This is why the lions share of the blame for the deficits during the terms of President Ronald Reagan and President George Bush Sr. go not to those presidents but instead to the Democratic congresses of their tenures. Reagan and Bush Sr. also had promises made by those congresses to cut spending in fixed amounts which they never followed through on. (Reagan can be blamed somewhat for taking those disgraceful congresses at their word and Bush Sr. to some extent for not learning from what happened under Reagan as to how those Democratic congresses could not be trusted to keep their word.)
This is also why the credit for the reduced deficits and eventual balanced budgets during President Clinton's terms go to the Republican congresses of his tenure. But having noted these things, consistency on these scores demands that the Republicans not be allowed to skate on this. For that reason, we place the out of control budgets during Bush's first six years equally on the Republican congresses of that period and also for the same party president for failing to discipline his own party: there is no way around it however much the Republican party loyalists may attempt it.
{6} John McCain has been a senator who has to truck and bargain in the senate to try and get anything done whereas President George W. Bush has been the executive for going on eight years now who was and is in a position of far greater power and capable of getting a lot more done.
Whatever you want to say about McCain he was not a lame executive on numerous important issues as W has been for the first six years of his presidency. McCain did not fail to stand up with the power of the bully pulpit and threaten the veto pen to his own party if they did not govern according to conservative principles including fiscal discipline. The whole "well we are at war" excuse was pathetic...it may account for 2002 and 2003[...] but it would not account for 2004, 2005, or 2006.
And I do not give three shits about the fact that it will be another deficit this year: the Republicans messed up big time and attempts now to claim to have "learned their lesson" or whatever will have a difficult time sticking. The only real hope here is that the progress in Iraq continues to look good as it has been for the past fourteen odd months or so. At least with a Republican presidency in McCain and a Republican congress (if we can get that combination), I trust McCain to wield the veto pen against his own party unlike W who lacked the guts to. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2008)]
{7} Without exhausting much type on the matter at the present time, let it suffice to say that fallacious provincialism is present whenever a party engages in double standards with moral and ethical principles. The most prevalent one is where they give a free pass or promotion of various sorts to those who are their positional allies while either not giving a free pass or condemning the same things in those who are not their positional allies that they let those who agree with them get away with. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 16, 2008)]
{8} On matters of the economy, [McCain] scores a B particularly on matters of taxation having never voted for a tax increase. I know you think he deserves to be flogged for not supporting Bush's tax cuts all along but I remind you that support for broad and deep tax cuts in the absence of definite spending reductions is not a traditional conservative position. If anything, the traditional conservative approach to deficits is to raise taxes not cut them!!! McCain's position on taxes is quite evidently not supply side-based. I am not saying it is wrong mind you, only that supporting tax cuts in the absence of definite (as opposed to future promised) spending reductions is not a position that is required to be a conservative. And I say that as someone who does view tax cuts as important economic stimulator and who defended the hypothesis of supply side economics before a class of liberals back in college.[...]
I note this here so that you understand that I take a different view on this than McCain does in one fundamental respect yet agree with him on another. I do not favour tax cuts without corresponding cuts in spending also -increasing revenue is pointless if that increased revenue is spent and then some- so I in that respect embody in symbiosis two historical conservative positions in one. Prior to Reagan, the mainstream conservative position was one that favoured raising taxes and cutting spending. Even Reagan in cutting taxes wanted corresponding spending reductions so in this respect, my position is solidly in line with Reagan as would appear to be McCain's.
Reagan to some extent though he failed in this area can be given some leeway as he was working with a Democratic congress. Even W's daddy who really messed up by not learning from Reagan's experience in this area again was dealing with a Democratic congress. But W had his guys in control and thus there is no excuse -I do not buy the bullshit of "well we are at war now" as an excuse for a three TRILLION dollar budget and still running a quarter to a half trillion a year deficit. This was pure horseshit and the idea that Bush cares about the budget now when the Democrats have control is "nearly a laugh but [its] really a cry" (cf. R. Waters). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
{9} On immigration, McCain gets a D or worse of that there is no doubt. You know my views on this and my disappointment in his position. But the problem is, his position is not different in substance than the one Reagan had...you know, one of those areas where Reagan made a mistake. But The Gipper for better or worse has framed this issue as an acceptable conservative hypothesis by virtue of his support for the proposal coupled with his status as a great conservative party icon. We would be wise to not forget that however much we view that position of McCain's part as a monumental mistake. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
{10} At least with a Republican presidency in McCain and a Republican congress (if we can get that combination), I trust McCain to wield the veto pen against his own party unlike W who lacked the guts to. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2008)]
(Aka "One From the Vault" Dept.)
This is not too deep a dip into the proverbial "vault" of responses written to inquiries on certain issues either personally or generally -actually then main text was written a few days ago. Nonetheless, the questioner's words will be in an appropriately dark green colour with footnotes added mostly on points covered in a more detailed format earlier on this weblog -though advance indulgence is begged for the caustic tonality in some of the McCain dialogual postings referenced in the footnotes. (Your host admittedly was pretty incensed when those words were written and did not conceal it as well as he should have.) Without further ado...
Conservatives: are you going to start switching to Obama now that...?
Obama has been calling for talks with Iran. Bush and McCain were dead set against this. Now we're talking to Iran.
Obama has been calling for pulling out troops from Iraq and putting more in Afghanistan. Bush and McCain were against this: "Afghanistan is doing just fine," they said, even though we've been there since October 7, 2001. Now the White House will be putting more troops in Afghanistan and taking them out of Iraq.
Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and Jeb Bush were all against drilling off the coast. Now Bush Jr. is for it. Bush Jr. even said in a White House press briefing that it won't help our oil supplies in any immediate future but will help our psychology over the economy. This coming from a guy who was surprised to hear that gas could hit $4 a gallon this summer.
If the Republicans couldn't get it write in the 7 years they had both Congress and the White house, why stick with their party? Why not push to try an all Dem Congress plus W.House to see what happens?
We are talking with Iran but not in the way that Obama wants to do. It is one thing to seek diplomatic means to handle something and another to confer legitimacy on a thug like Ahmadinejad who has voiced the notion of wiping Israel off the map.{1} You cannot dialogue with those who want you dead -something Bush and McCain both realize but that Obama evidenylydoes not.
The troops are able now to be scaled down in Iraq because of the surge and the tactics of General Petraeus along with the Iraqi government and military finally getting their act together -fifteen of the eighteen "benchmarks" set a couple years back being met as of two months ago (versus eight last year).{2} Obama would have simply withdrawn the troops before the country was stabilized if we listen to his rhetoric on the matter. But as Iraq has gone from a mess to a success in the past couple of years, Obama will now flip flop a bit on that issue as he will continue to do on other issues.
Drilling will not solve problems overnight but building more refineries could help in the short term.{3} Obama and the Democrats do not favour such things but McCain and the Republicans would be open to the idea.
The all Democrat government has been tried and failed badly over and over. The problem is, the Republican congresses of 1/1995-1/2001 which were among the best series of congresses in ages were succeeded by the Republican congresses from 1/2001-1/2007 which were as bad as any Democrat congresses in recent memory overall. The reason was the executive. President Clinton was not a great president but he showed what could happen when an executive stands up to the congress in some respects.{4} Conversely, the Republicans who opposed him showed what they could do if they had backbone -they balanced the budget together with those tensions: something that has not happened since.{5}
President Bush and the Republican congresses under his first six years do not make a good case for why the Republicans as a party should soon be trusted with total control again. However, the problem is in my view more that of President Bush not showing executive backbone.{6} He could have played hard ball with the Republican congress and been successful. But it took a Democrat congress to get GWB to show backbone and while he has defeated the Democratic congress time and time again, it raises the question of why he could not have been this way the first six years of his term. My guess is he simply was too provincialist{7} and too much of a party man to tell his party when they needed to shape up.
By stark contrast, John McCain has been a fiscal hawk for his entire congressional career.{8} He has also stood up against the Republicans at times (even times where I did not agree with him{9}) which leads me to believe that if he had a Republican congress that he would be a far more effective executive than GWB has been fiscally.{10} He also due to his ability to reach across the aisle could serve as a control on the pretensions of the Democratic congress. I do not see Obama having any similar capabilities here because unlike McCain, Obama is a green senator who has no track record of going against his own party.
Basically I see an Obama presidency with a Democratic congress being fiscally a repeat of the Bush presidency with a Republican congress. And as bad as the latter was, we do not need another round of that kind of fiscal irresponsibility. And I guarantee you that is what would happen with all Democratic congress and presidency and that is why I would never favour pushing for such a thing.
Notes:
{1} On Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's View of Israel (circa June 3, 2008)
{2} Revisiting the Subject of the Surge and the Deafening Silence of the MSM Thereof (circa July 11, 2008)
{3} Revisiting the Subject of High Gas Prices in a Slowing Economy in an Election Year (circa May 31, 2008)
On the High Gas Prices and the Economics Therein (circa September 10, 2005)
{4} I do not buy (at any price) the crap of the Republicans "not being able to govern in the majority" ala what Rush has said for a number of years. That argument may have been valid in the 1990's[...] but not in the twenty-first century and with a Republican president. For crying out loud, these guys were stood down by President William Clinton -a member of the opposing party. Are you telling me that President George W. Bush of the same party (the "party leader") could not have successfully stood up to them??? [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2008)]
{5} And though many of the contemporary sorts ignorant of basic civics like to primarily blame the president for deficits, all bills for spending originate in the congress most specifically the House of Representatives. This is why the lions share of the blame for the deficits during the terms of President Ronald Reagan and President George Bush Sr. go not to those presidents but instead to the Democratic congresses of their tenures. Reagan and Bush Sr. also had promises made by those congresses to cut spending in fixed amounts which they never followed through on. (Reagan can be blamed somewhat for taking those disgraceful congresses at their word and Bush Sr. to some extent for not learning from what happened under Reagan as to how those Democratic congresses could not be trusted to keep their word.)
This is also why the credit for the reduced deficits and eventual balanced budgets during President Clinton's terms go to the Republican congresses of his tenure. But having noted these things, consistency on these scores demands that the Republicans not be allowed to skate on this. For that reason, we place the out of control budgets during Bush's first six years equally on the Republican congresses of that period and also for the same party president for failing to discipline his own party: there is no way around it however much the Republican party loyalists may attempt it.
{6} John McCain has been a senator who has to truck and bargain in the senate to try and get anything done whereas President George W. Bush has been the executive for going on eight years now who was and is in a position of far greater power and capable of getting a lot more done.
Whatever you want to say about McCain he was not a lame executive on numerous important issues as W has been for the first six years of his presidency. McCain did not fail to stand up with the power of the bully pulpit and threaten the veto pen to his own party if they did not govern according to conservative principles including fiscal discipline. The whole "well we are at war" excuse was pathetic...it may account for 2002 and 2003[...] but it would not account for 2004, 2005, or 2006.
And I do not give three shits about the fact that it will be another deficit this year: the Republicans messed up big time and attempts now to claim to have "learned their lesson" or whatever will have a difficult time sticking. The only real hope here is that the progress in Iraq continues to look good as it has been for the past fourteen odd months or so. At least with a Republican presidency in McCain and a Republican congress (if we can get that combination), I trust McCain to wield the veto pen against his own party unlike W who lacked the guts to. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2008)]
{7} Without exhausting much type on the matter at the present time, let it suffice to say that fallacious provincialism is present whenever a party engages in double standards with moral and ethical principles. The most prevalent one is where they give a free pass or promotion of various sorts to those who are their positional allies while either not giving a free pass or condemning the same things in those who are not their positional allies that they let those who agree with them get away with. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 16, 2008)]
{8} On matters of the economy, [McCain] scores a B particularly on matters of taxation having never voted for a tax increase. I know you think he deserves to be flogged for not supporting Bush's tax cuts all along but I remind you that support for broad and deep tax cuts in the absence of definite spending reductions is not a traditional conservative position. If anything, the traditional conservative approach to deficits is to raise taxes not cut them!!! McCain's position on taxes is quite evidently not supply side-based. I am not saying it is wrong mind you, only that supporting tax cuts in the absence of definite (as opposed to future promised) spending reductions is not a position that is required to be a conservative. And I say that as someone who does view tax cuts as important economic stimulator and who defended the hypothesis of supply side economics before a class of liberals back in college.[...]
I note this here so that you understand that I take a different view on this than McCain does in one fundamental respect yet agree with him on another. I do not favour tax cuts without corresponding cuts in spending also -increasing revenue is pointless if that increased revenue is spent and then some- so I in that respect embody in symbiosis two historical conservative positions in one. Prior to Reagan, the mainstream conservative position was one that favoured raising taxes and cutting spending. Even Reagan in cutting taxes wanted corresponding spending reductions so in this respect, my position is solidly in line with Reagan as would appear to be McCain's.
Reagan to some extent though he failed in this area can be given some leeway as he was working with a Democratic congress. Even W's daddy who really messed up by not learning from Reagan's experience in this area again was dealing with a Democratic congress. But W had his guys in control and thus there is no excuse -I do not buy the bullshit of "well we are at war now" as an excuse for a three TRILLION dollar budget and still running a quarter to a half trillion a year deficit. This was pure horseshit and the idea that Bush cares about the budget now when the Democrats have control is "nearly a laugh but [its] really a cry" (cf. R. Waters). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
{9} On immigration, McCain gets a D or worse of that there is no doubt. You know my views on this and my disappointment in his position. But the problem is, his position is not different in substance than the one Reagan had...you know, one of those areas where Reagan made a mistake. But The Gipper for better or worse has framed this issue as an acceptable conservative hypothesis by virtue of his support for the proposal coupled with his status as a great conservative party icon. We would be wise to not forget that however much we view that position of McCain's part as a monumental mistake. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
{10} At least with a Republican presidency in McCain and a Republican congress (if we can get that combination), I trust McCain to wield the veto pen against his own party unlike W who lacked the guts to. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2008)]
 |
Friday, July 18, 2008
Points to Ponder:
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near...
If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant...[Sun Tzu]
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near...
If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant...[Sun Tzu]
For those who need a bit of a laugh in this election season, there is always the reliable folks at Jibjab our favourite political parody site. Here is their latest on the upcoming 2008 contest...
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:
This installment of the long-running series will comment briefly on a trifecta of recent threads from Charles Krauthammer. Without further ado...
How Hostages, And Nations, Get Liberated (July 11, 2008)
The above thread deals with a bit of reality that many who undoubtedly have good intentions are incapable of understanding.
Make the Election About Iraq (circa July 13, 2008)
Considering how well things are going over there and have been for the past sixteen odd months{1}, this is a wise and winning approach for McCain to take. Even a number of those who do not agree with him on his war position but who respect someone who stands on principle even against the tide of unpopular sentiment may well vote for him. By contrast, if Obama continues to try and pretend that it is 2002 or even 2006 -the former being before the war and the latter being a point when we were doing very poorly in Iraq- it will come back to bite him if he tries to argue for arbitrary troop withdrawals as he has been doing up to now.
Obama's Greatest Admirer (circa July 18, 2008)
Here is a small teaser bit from the above link for you:
[H]as there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
As for the rest, you know what to do.
Note:
{1} Revisiting the Subject of the Surge and the Deafening Silence of the MSM Thereof (circa July 11, 2008)
This installment of the long-running series will comment briefly on a trifecta of recent threads from Charles Krauthammer. Without further ado...
How Hostages, And Nations, Get Liberated (July 11, 2008)
The above thread deals with a bit of reality that many who undoubtedly have good intentions are incapable of understanding.
Make the Election About Iraq (circa July 13, 2008)
Considering how well things are going over there and have been for the past sixteen odd months{1}, this is a wise and winning approach for McCain to take. Even a number of those who do not agree with him on his war position but who respect someone who stands on principle even against the tide of unpopular sentiment may well vote for him. By contrast, if Obama continues to try and pretend that it is 2002 or even 2006 -the former being before the war and the latter being a point when we were doing very poorly in Iraq- it will come back to bite him if he tries to argue for arbitrary troop withdrawals as he has been doing up to now.
Obama's Greatest Admirer (circa July 18, 2008)
Here is a small teaser bit from the above link for you:
[H]as there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
As for the rest, you know what to do.
Note:
{1} Revisiting the Subject of the Surge and the Deafening Silence of the MSM Thereof (circa July 11, 2008)
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
On the Passing of Tony Snow:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: Last night in haste I did not give this posting a final review before it was published; ergo it read more like a rough draft than a finished product. I have gone through it again and refined some points, added a bit more, etc. so it is now much more complete. -ISM 7/15/08 6:20pm]
Though this is coming on the heels of the passing last month of Tim Russert, I am sure Tony Snow would not mind me mentioning him and Russert in the same sentence. And journalism as a profession to which I am usually professing of no small amount of disdain for{1} having seen in the past month two of its finest representatives departing this mortal coil seems to merit another comment from your humble servant particularly due to the circumstances involved in the case of Snow's passing in some quarters.
I should probably start with the good including that Fox News for whom Snow worked for at one point has a good retrospective on his career viewable here. Rush Limbaugh also commented on the passing of his friend and colleague in an audio clip which can be listened to here. And while most of the reports have been positive, there are some which have not been and in lieu of the current circumstances this prevalence by certain sectors deserves to be focused on at least in brief.
Among those who are showing a lack of proper respect, is the following one from AP. I am thinking in reviewing it that the "A" in Associated Press should be changed to read "assholes" after noticing the following uncalled for blurbs in their reporting on the death of Tony Snow. Observe:
With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster's good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook — if not always a command of the facts — he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses...
Snow resigned as Bush's chief spokesman last September, citing not his health but a need to earn more than the $168,000 a year he was paid in the government post...
As press secretary, Snow brought partisan zeal and the skills of a seasoned performer to the task of explaining and defending the president's policies.
Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation. He was the first press secretary, by his own accounting, to travel the country raising money for Republican candidates.
First of all, how is it newsworthy that "critics" suggest anything??? By their very nature they will take a contrary view -that is why they are called "critics" to begin with. This is as nonsensical a news bit as press bits that lead off with the "news story" of the most recent poll on an issue as if a poll is a news story rather than a bunch of fark. But that is neither here nor there.
Secondly, what point comes from mentioning the issue of Snow returning to the private sector when reporting on his death??? Of what value does this serve except to attempt to make Snow somehow appear sinister for leaving to work at another place for more money. Considering that Snow had been ailing for some time, it seems to me to be the responsible thing to do to try and insure that in his absence (should that occur) that his family is better taken care of. But whatever the reason, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with such decisions on Snow's part and discussing such things light of the current circumstances is tacky to no small degree.
Thirdly, whatever problems anyone may have with some of Tony Snow's statements, reporting on his passing is not the time to go into these matters. That Douglass K. Daniels and Jennifer Loven chose in their article to do this is deplorable and shows what happens with those who are so wedded to ideologies that they cannot see the humanity in those who do not agree with them.
Seriously folks, there is evidence here of a kind of mental sickness but strangely enough, it has far more prevalence on the side of those who would call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" than those who would call themselves "conservatives."{2} And whilethe next an up and coming "points to ponder" installment to this weblog will touch on that point a bit, for the time being, I will merely note that Douglass K. Daniels and Jennifer Loven should be ashamed of themselves. I do not know much about Daniels but Loven has a history of this sort of what Powerline calls in an understated fashion "classless reporting."{3}
It is garbage like this which makes the passing of Tony Snow from the standpoint of the state of journalism so unfortunate -his other qualities as a fully rounded human being who treated those who disagreed with him respectfully notwithstanding of course.
[Lord] remember Tony Snow. 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. [Eucharistic Prayer III: From The Roman Missal under Masses for the Dead]
Notes:
{1} Or to quote from a posting referenced in last month's blog entry on Tim Russert's passing:
The depravity to which the journalistic profession has fallen since the days of Watergate can be to some extent pinned on Woodward and Bernstein...not as much them personally as what they ushered in in the aftermath of the Nixon resignation.[...] The journalistic profession has become one where you "make it" by finding someone whose reputation you can destroy. Ethics are often not a factor, indeed morals and ethics often get the screw from journalists who are trying to "make it" and then (for those who "make it") the same tactics are utilized to try and stay "on top." The same is the case with the legal profession and the political profession: oftentimes those who "make it" do so by screwing other people. So the parallel to prostitution is an apt one. The only difference of course is that prostitutes are somewhat honest about it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 1, 2005)]
The above entry of course was not written with journalists like Tony Snow in mind.
{2} I would be less than forthright if I did not acknowledge that there are some liberal journalists who have conducted themselves with class among them one of Fox News' staff liberals Juan Williams who had these gracious words to say when hearing of Snow's passing. (But then again, Juan Williams represents what is best amongst liberal journalists anyway so this does not surprise me except in the detail involved in his tribute.)
{3} I have another word in mind to describe Loven but that is all I will say on the matter at the present time.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: Last night in haste I did not give this posting a final review before it was published; ergo it read more like a rough draft than a finished product. I have gone through it again and refined some points, added a bit more, etc. so it is now much more complete. -ISM 7/15/08 6:20pm]
Though this is coming on the heels of the passing last month of Tim Russert, I am sure Tony Snow would not mind me mentioning him and Russert in the same sentence. And journalism as a profession to which I am usually professing of no small amount of disdain for{1} having seen in the past month two of its finest representatives departing this mortal coil seems to merit another comment from your humble servant particularly due to the circumstances involved in the case of Snow's passing in some quarters.
I should probably start with the good including that Fox News for whom Snow worked for at one point has a good retrospective on his career viewable here. Rush Limbaugh also commented on the passing of his friend and colleague in an audio clip which can be listened to here. And while most of the reports have been positive, there are some which have not been and in lieu of the current circumstances this prevalence by certain sectors deserves to be focused on at least in brief.
Among those who are showing a lack of proper respect, is the following one from AP. I am thinking in reviewing it that the "A" in Associated Press should be changed to read "assholes" after noticing the following uncalled for blurbs in their reporting on the death of Tony Snow. Observe:
With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster's good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook — if not always a command of the facts — he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses...
Snow resigned as Bush's chief spokesman last September, citing not his health but a need to earn more than the $168,000 a year he was paid in the government post...
As press secretary, Snow brought partisan zeal and the skills of a seasoned performer to the task of explaining and defending the president's policies.
Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation. He was the first press secretary, by his own accounting, to travel the country raising money for Republican candidates.
First of all, how is it newsworthy that "critics" suggest anything??? By their very nature they will take a contrary view -that is why they are called "critics" to begin with. This is as nonsensical a news bit as press bits that lead off with the "news story" of the most recent poll on an issue as if a poll is a news story rather than a bunch of fark. But that is neither here nor there.
Secondly, what point comes from mentioning the issue of Snow returning to the private sector when reporting on his death??? Of what value does this serve except to attempt to make Snow somehow appear sinister for leaving to work at another place for more money. Considering that Snow had been ailing for some time, it seems to me to be the responsible thing to do to try and insure that in his absence (should that occur) that his family is better taken care of. But whatever the reason, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with such decisions on Snow's part and discussing such things light of the current circumstances is tacky to no small degree.
Thirdly, whatever problems anyone may have with some of Tony Snow's statements, reporting on his passing is not the time to go into these matters. That Douglass K. Daniels and Jennifer Loven chose in their article to do this is deplorable and shows what happens with those who are so wedded to ideologies that they cannot see the humanity in those who do not agree with them.
Seriously folks, there is evidence here of a kind of mental sickness but strangely enough, it has far more prevalence on the side of those who would call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" than those who would call themselves "conservatives."{2} And while
It is garbage like this which makes the passing of Tony Snow from the standpoint of the state of journalism so unfortunate -his other qualities as a fully rounded human being who treated those who disagreed with him respectfully notwithstanding of course.
[Lord] remember Tony Snow. 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. [Eucharistic Prayer III: From The Roman Missal under Masses for the Dead]
Notes:
{1} Or to quote from a posting referenced in last month's blog entry on Tim Russert's passing:
The depravity to which the journalistic profession has fallen since the days of Watergate can be to some extent pinned on Woodward and Bernstein...not as much them personally as what they ushered in in the aftermath of the Nixon resignation.[...] The journalistic profession has become one where you "make it" by finding someone whose reputation you can destroy. Ethics are often not a factor, indeed morals and ethics often get the screw from journalists who are trying to "make it" and then (for those who "make it") the same tactics are utilized to try and stay "on top." The same is the case with the legal profession and the political profession: oftentimes those who "make it" do so by screwing other people. So the parallel to prostitution is an apt one. The only difference of course is that prostitutes are somewhat honest about it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 1, 2005)]
The above entry of course was not written with journalists like Tony Snow in mind.
{2} I would be less than forthright if I did not acknowledge that there are some liberal journalists who have conducted themselves with class among them one of Fox News' staff liberals Juan Williams who had these gracious words to say when hearing of Snow's passing. (But then again, Juan Williams represents what is best amongst liberal journalists anyway so this does not surprise me except in the detail involved in his tribute.)
{3} I have another word in mind to describe Loven but that is all I will say on the matter at the present time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)