Points to Ponder:

There’s a lot of things I wish McCain would say. As far as this, yes, I would like him to speak. Not so much about small businesses, but just people in general that make this money. It’s not up to them to help America, I mean – let me rephrase that. It’s not – they shouldn’t be taxed more because they’ve succeeded. That’s envy and jealousy. Get off your butt and go work. Don’t sit there and expect the government to give it to you. So I wouldn’t mind him speaking on it like that. I know he couldn’t say it probably like that because that’d turn a lot of people off. But it just – yeah, I guess I would like him to speak about that and a bunch of other things. I’d like to hear him talk about immigration and what he plans on doing about that and with our borders. I mean, there’s a lot of things that haven’t even been addressed in the last two debates. ["Joe the Plumber"]

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Points to Ponder:

Impartial observers from other planets would consider ours an utterly bizarre enclave if it were populated by birds, defined as flying animals, that nevertheless rarely or never actually flew. They would also be perplexed if they encountered in our seas, lakes, rivers, and ponds, creatures defined as swimmers that never did any swimming. But they would be even more surprised to encounter a species defined as a thinking animal if, in fact, the creature very rarely indulged in actual thinking. [Steve Allen]

Remembering Fides et Ratio Ten Years After:

A month ago Wednesday marked the tenth anniversary of the publication of what I believe may be the most significant document of Pope John Paul II's pontificate: the encyclical letter Fides et Ratio. I have written before on how highly I think of this text and want to reiterate that at this time from the archives so without further ado:

Five books that mean a lot to me

Five is too few so I will expand the number a bit. And like...Chris Blosser, I will not include the Bible or the Catechism in this short list. What I will list will be books which would prove to be pivotal to my overall approach to all subject matters. They will be listed in roughly chronological order of what was read first:

...

Pope John Paul II's 1998 Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio should be ranked among the best works on the subject of the relationship between faith and reason. The late pontiff was heavily influenced by St. John of the Cross -indeed his doctoral thesis was on St. John's Dark Night of the Soul. From a Catholic standpoint, this is a highly authoritative magisterial statement on the matter; however that does not mean that non-Catholics cannot benefit as well.

Society today tends towards either overrationalization which disparages spirituality or a kind of mystical fideism which disparages reason. Pope John Paul II's Fides et Ratio is an excellent antidote for these tendencies. Because it is a very philosophically deep work, one should not read it too quickly. But one should give it a read if they are interested in the subjects of faith or reason and do not understand why each needs the other to properly achieve its intended function. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 14, 2005)]

However much I find myself annoyed at the way so many Catholics of a variety of outlooks{1} pay lip service to the concepts of reason and logic, a text such as Fides et Ratio reminds me that the Catholic Church is in principle not opposed to the natural lights of reason and logic and never has been.

So for those whom this posting has piqued their curiosity as to the aforementioned encyclical letter, here is a link to the text itself:

Fides et Ratio

I would advise that those undertaking an examination of said text to pack themselves a couple of meals and have a dictionary nearby. Spread out the study in at least a few sessions and do not try to read it too quickly if you want to really comprehend what the late pontiff was saying about a chief crises of our time that affects to a certain extent virtually everything around us.

I was going to end this posting there but decided to note my opinion that someone should put together a kind of Cliff Notes version of this text. Among those I have in mind for such a project would be Cardinal Avery Dulles or Cardinal Camillo Ruini. Cardinal Dulles is the pre-eminent American Catholic theologian in my view -and not merely because I find out as I have noted before after taking a position on numerous theological issues that our views so often are simpatico.{2} Cardinal Ruini is one of those who contributed to the text of the encyclical itself. Here is some of what Cardinal Dulles has said on the aforementioned encyclical:

Can Philosophy Be Christian (Avery Dulles SJ from First Things circa April 2000)

I am unaware at this time of any commentaries by Cardinal Ruini on the encyclical but will amend this posting at a later date if apprised of any.

Notes:

{1} And I do not exclude in this view members of the clergy -even some whom I ordinarily respect who nonetheless have blind spots in at least a few areas.

{2} To note a few examples from the archives in order from newest to oldest:

I note that this is how you cite Cardinal Dulles, but almost no one else does it correctly.

I appreciate you noticing that actually. It just so happens that on a lot of issues, I realize that Cardinal Dulles agrees with me after the fact meaning after I have pondered an issue and taken a position on it. Almost never has Dulles directly influenced my view on anything with the exception of the subject of church models where he was admittedly the primary influence. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 24, 2007)]

It may help the readers to consider that once again, we have taken a position on an issue and then discovered that Cardinal Avery Dulles has agreed with us[...] -a most pleasing pattern over the years to put it mildly. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 25, 2006)]

Normally Dulles and I are of a like mind on subjects -as I tend to discover after I have formed an opinion on a subject and then read his views on it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 9, 2004)]

Normally Dulles and I are of a like mind on subjects -as I tend to discover after I have formed an opinion on a subject and then read his views on it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 16, 2003)]

I recently heard an excellent program...where Cardinal Avery Dulles so frequently enunciated my views...It is nice to know that my views so closely align with this brilliant man. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 23, 2003)]

Points to Ponder:

Irons rusts from disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold weather becomes frozen; even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind. [Leonardo da Vinci]

Miscellaneous Musings on Threads of Interest:

I intended to post this a few days ago but did not have time to finish it. Nonetheless...

CNN: Obama’s lying about William Ayers (Hot Air)

Here is a bit from the thread:

Obama has lied repeatedly about his relationship with the unrepentant domestic terrorist. He spent years working for Ayers, promoting Ayers’ causes. Even CNN won’t buy the Obama line any longer. Expect John McCain to raise this point tonight in the debate.

Well let us hope so. As I said recently in a chat with a good friend:

McCain had a "Vietnam" kind of debate the first time basically winning on all the points but being perceived as losing he needs to do a lot better this time around and he can start by looking at Obama at times when talking to or about him. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa October 6, 2008)]

Now I have to admit that I am so not thrilled with this election selection that I did not watch the second debate. But my friend Kevin Tierney did; ergo I quote from a chat we had on the matter to give his take:

me: [I] wanted to see if you saw the debate the other night or not I am getting the impression that it was another "Vietnam debate" for Sen. McCain or is it simply the media insisting no matter what that Obama wins? what are your Spidey senses telling you?

Kevin: McCain won on points, but he needs a real knockout...which he isn't getting.

me: so he won another match on points but the unwashed masses think he lost? or is it tricky polling by various places? I mean we know the msm is so in bed with Obama's campaign that he should pay them money for their services. I guess I am starting to get into the mindset that the public at large is stupid and we are about to be snowed. [An] Irish defense mechanism to prepare for the letdown perhaps.

Kevin: well winning on points isn't enough right now he needs to win bigtime. [Excerpt from a Chat With Kevin Tierney (circa October 8, 2008)]

I do not want the reader to think I am somehow being fatalistic about the election situation though on the night I chatted with Kevin I was not feeling too optimistic admittedly. One reason is if the public is so stupid that they think the Fannie and Freddie mess is the fault of President Bush and "the last eight years" then we are in for a snow job worthy of any Alaska blizzard because that is what it would involve. I have gone over this before but right now will relegate those threads to a footnote{1} so I do not get sidetracked and move onto the next thread for this posting.

BLAME BARACK FOR ME$$: MAC (New York Post)

Here is a bit from the thread:

"Whatever the question, whatever the issues, there's always a back story with Senator Obama... Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. The crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them.

"Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread," McCain said during an event in Albuquerque, NM.

"This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama."

Whatever one wants to say about both Sen. John McCain and President George W. Bush{2}, they were stumping for reform of Fannie and Freddie for years before the meltdown -unlike Sen. Obama and the leaders of the current Congressional majority. And that is the bottom line really.

Notes:

{1} To note two recent threads in order from oldest to newest:

Briefly on the Current Real Estate Situation (circa July 26, 2008)

More Brief Bits on the "Bailout" (circa October 5, 2008)

{2} And Lord knows I have said plenty about both over the years -particularly President Bush. (See the tags "Pres. Bush" and "John McCain" for more information on this if you are so inclined.)

On "Consequentialism", "Proportionalism", and a Lesson in General Norms of Interpretation, Theological or Otherwise:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Prefatory Note: This post was drafted late last year and with only the most minor of edits and additions is being posted at this time. -ISM]

There has been in recent years a variety of moral positions which have been ascribed by certain persons of a more polemical nature as being either consequentialist or proportionalist in nature. However, the parties who make these assertions to a near-universal degree do not bother explaining either (i) what those terms mean or (ii) what they mean by those terms. Instead, those sorts involve themselves in applying the term indiscriminately across the board and often to positions which are neither consequentialist or proportionalist as those terms are properly understood. It is a reason I have issued{1} and periodically reissue{2} the "neo-con challenge": the principle is the same regardless of the subject of discussion. The problem is precisely the sort of ethical cowardice that is unfortunately not in short supply in society generally speaking.

Those who refuse to explain their usage of terms soil the ground of potentially productive dialogue and therefore should be deprived of all credibility they have been given either explicitly or tacitly. The reason for this statement on my part is simple: definitions are the tools of thought and those who adamantly refuse to define their terms in any workable sense are either profoundly disingenuous and/or they inexorably prove to be very shoddy thinkers. Having noted those points briefly, let us look at two terms which like the phrase "neo-con" are often used as a lazy expedient to ignore the critiques of others by shoddy thinkers, intellectual and/or ethical cowards, or all of the above.

I should note starting out that though the principles I am about to enunciate in this posting are universal to some extent, with the terms to be addressed in this posting many of those I am critical of are Catholics. For that reason, I will use as one of my sources a writing from Pope John Paul II (Veritatis Splendour) which dealt in a broad panorama with moral theological issues. I will then supplement the words of the late pope with definitions from academic sources and follow it with an important distinction for proper interpretation which is not hard to grasp but is so often either overlooked or ignored by the ethically and/or intellectually challenged. Without further ado:

"[C]onsequentialism" or "proportionalism". The former claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice. The latter, by weighing the various values and goods being sought, focuses rather on the proportion acknowledged between the good and bad effects of that choice, with a view to the "greater good" or "lesser evil" actually possible in a particular situation. [Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendour (circa August 6, 1993)]

The reader is asked to notice that His Holiness said that "consequentialism" claims "to draw the criteria for rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice"!!! This understanding is highlighted in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in the following definition of the concept:

Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is the view that normative properties depend only on consequences. [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Entry on Consequentialism]

The common thread underlying the above two understandings of the term is the idea that consequentialism is concerned only with consequences. That means logically that a position utilizing consequentialist methodology which did not derive its criteria solely from such calculations would not properly be understood as "consequentialist" or as "consequentalism."

Yet notice how some disingenuous pundits will throw into some kind of consequentialism on parade kind of categorization anything that contains a remote echo of consequentialist methodology!!! To highlight briefly the absurdity of such a methodology, the reader is asked to consider if someone is a consequentialist for doing anything that involves in its calculation the consequences of the action to be undertaken. For example, would a surgeon who uses a technique with the consequences of healing their patient for that reason be a consequentialist??? What about a mother who tells her child to not run with scissors lest the child trip and hurt themselves, is she a consequentialist???

All human decisions involve within them an intrinsic desire for particular consequences. For this reason, to make such things a kind of proverbial Rosetta Stone of what constitutes "consequentialism" is to open a huge can of epistemological worms. For a Catholic to do so is to inexorably assert that Catholic theology is undecipherable and completely bereft of congruity with the reality of human existence.

The same problems that plague such applications of the term "consequentialist" or "consequentialism" also apply to the terms proportionalist or proportionalism. Pope John Paul II noted that proportionalism is a focus which is based solely on the proportion of good to evil in an act as the standard that is used. Wikipedia explains the rationale behind proportionalist methodology thusly:

Proportionalist theories like rule utilitarianism, however, says that "it is never right to go against a principle unless there is a proportionate reason which would justify it" (Hoose, 1987). [Wikipedia: Excerpt from the Entry Proportionalism]

In other words, proportionalist theory basically says that principles are subject to proportionality criteria in determining whether or not it needs to be followed. In sales this is utilized in part by what is called the "Ben Franklin close" where lists are made of pros and cons and the decision is made on whether or not to undertake the action of study based solely on whether there are more positives or more negatives. But however valuable such a methodology is to something such as sales, to apply such a concept to ethics is to engage in the logical fallacy of context-switching. It is to make of principles an arbitrary out of context injunction based on personal whims rather than to recognize the concept of there being principles which regardless of circumstances are not admitting of dispensation period.

For the benefit of the readers and also for the sake of restoring some sanity to the use of these words, I have done more now in this one post to explain these terms than many who frequently use them have bothered to do over a span of months or years.{3} But noting that briefly also requires me to point out an additional principle of interpretation of no small importance which applies to every subject under the moon including theological and philosophical ones:

--Similarity of a position is not the same as identity.

Another way of saying it is that there is a distinction with a difference between actual consequentialist positions and those who take into account in an overall analysis (as one factor of many) consequential factors. Similarly, there is a distinction with a difference between those who espouse proportionalist positions and those who take into account in an overall analysis (again, as one factor of many) proportionalist elements.

It has long been and will continue to be the educated assessment of the webmaster at Rerum Novarum that the sort of persons who would make shipwreck of the natural lights of reason and logic in these ways deserve to be given the widest possible berth. Philosophically, they are rational nominalists{4}, theologically they are solipsists.{5} But either way, they contribute directly to the new Dark Ages we are entering into (or are already in) where more and more people do not understand reason and logic or how to properly utilize them. And as should be plenty evident by our track record over the years, the latter is something we have no interest whatsover in contributing to.

Notes:

{1} "Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept. (circa December 5, 2005)

{2} I had to change this footnote since the most recent reissue of the challenge was made subsequent to when the post you are reading was drafted and substantially completed (circa early November to late December a few weeks before Christmas). The latest challenge reissuing can be viewed in the thread below:

Reissuing the "'Neo-Con' Challenge" (circa July 5, 2008)

{3} And with all that, I have rarely prior to this posting mentioned either of those terms except when mentioning the intention to write on this subject in postings from earlier this year.

{4} Proposing for Use and Future Definition the Terms "Rational Nominalism" and "Selective Rational Nominalism" (circa October 21, 2007)

{5} I used the term a couple of times on my main weblog so it seems appropriate to add it to the defined terms if you will. The term being referred to is solipsism and I noted the following in a weblog entry about it:

[The] epistemological theory of solipsism [is one] whereby the self knows nothing but its own states and their constituent modifications if you will. This is a core philosophical flaw of modern day liberal political views.

I had a footnote to this point and fleshed it out with the following text:

This is why certain kinds of people of the extremist liberal mindset such as the Deanings cannot be reasoned with. You can throw all the facts in the world at them and reason until your gray hairs fall out but they will not budge because so much of what you would say does not pertain to them personally.

This problem infects not only people in liberal extreme political viewpoints but also some people of more peripheral theological or philosophical viewpoints as well. Those who follow Rerum Novarum are aware of a couple of these viewpoints to which I refer so I will not belabour this brief weblog entry with examples. [From the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa February 7, 2004)]

And More Brief Bits on the "Bailout":

The following is a follow up to the previous brief comments on this subject and were also written before the proposal passed both houses of congress and signed into law by President Bush.

I am not opposed to a bailout proposal but those who were responsible for this problem do not deserve to benefit from this. One proposal I heard that made sense was to have them pledge every asset they own as collateral on the money to be appropriated for this. If we figure a trillion dollars will be spent on this bailout and if the totality of their assets was five billion, that would be less than 1% collateral pledged but at the very least it would be something. I do not favour the idea of limiting what the executives can be paid who are hired to fix this problem but those who messed it up do not deserve to make a penny off of it. At a minimum they should be fined and they should stand trial for fraud (cause there was a lot of that), gross negligence, and whatever else can be brought against them.

And as someone wary about federal takeovers and how the nearest thing to eternity on earth is a federal program, I think the solution is to put a sunset provision into the legislation for these entities to revert back to private control at some point in time -say five years or whatever. I could say more but you cover it well in [what you wrote] above.

Oh and XXXX, I do not know of many of a conservative view who do not see blame to go around on this -something I thought I made clear in one of my notes to you previously but I would have to go back and check to be sure. (Going off of memory here.)

More Brief Bits on the Once-Proposed "Bailout":

This is a continuation of the thread located here and consists of a follow up to the first thread which was also written on September 24th in another medium and before the "bailout" became official as it did today.{1} Nonetheless...

Kevin is a friend of mine and in reviewing his comments I added a few of my own. (Blame him for it lol.) As far as the idea of supporting "tax cuts and bailouts for the wealthy" I do support tax cuts but not the bailout: those who made this bed as far as I am concerned deserve jail time. But I am used to liberals misrepresenting my view in the name of some caricatured "conservative position" so you need not worry about me taking offense :)

The myth of liberals that FDR's "New Deal" took us out of the Depression continues I see.{2} The truth is, the "New Deal" prolonged the depression as a result of FDR not having a coherent economic plan but instead trying a hodgepodge of things which were often contradictory -this is not difficult to demonstrate if not for wanting to avoid writing a tome on the matter and getting a laugh out of Kevin in the process. (Due to a reputation I have for expository cogitations that he is aware of.){3}

I noticed also that you did not touch what I noted about the polices of the Clinton administration's justice department under Deval Patrick of threatening with lawsuits banks that refused to loan to high credit risks: that is the gist of the problems with housing that we are seeing in a nutshell. Interesting omission by you there I must say!

Kevin touched already on your welfare misunderstandings but that is not all that could be noted. Indeed, the idea that the federal government was required to make the infrastructure improvements you talk about is an example of how you do not understand the strain that the private sector was under in the 1930's because of the economically obtuse federal approach to these matters. (Much more could be noted but there are space limits here so that is all I will say at this time.){4}

As far as being a "kid" goes, I cannot recall the last time someone likely younger than me called me a "kid." I do try to maintain a youthful look to mask my actual chronological age but that is another subject altogether ;-)

Notes:

{1} Though we of course reserve to ourselves the right to weigh in on this matter at a later date, there is (i) no intention at the present time to do so and (ii) what we have noted in brief thus far should give some hints as to how we would approach this in a future musing be it of a more expository or briefer form.

{2} I have rarely written much on this subject but the following multi part thread comes to mind so I will post it here for those who are interested:

On Historical Revisionism Surrounding the New Deal --Parts I-III (circa October 28, 2006)

{3} I am sure at least some of those who are familiar with your host's overall written output over the years (on this blog and elsewhere) view that statement as one of the understatements of the year.

{4} I may develop this point further in the future if in the mood to and as time allows for it.

ACORN, Obama, and the Mortgage Mess (By Mona Charin)

I tip the hat tip to Contra Pauli for alerting me to this thread.

Briefly on the Proposed "Bailout":

This is a text written a few days ago in response to a discussion thread from September 24, 2008 pertaining to the subject in question.

XXXX and Kevin [Tierney] are both correct on this in part. They forgot about the Justice Department under Clinton threatening banks with federal lawsuits for "redlining" if the banks did not make a certain percentage of loans available for those who were very high credit risks. The program was put in place by the Carter administration in 1977 but it was not until 1994 that the Clinton administration started really giving it teeth via that scumbag Deval Patrick at the helm of the Justice Department.{1}

The problem with the Bush administration is that they basically went along with what was in place already when they should not have. Both Bush and the post 2001 Republican congresses are equally at blame for this as far as I am concerned -the 2007-present Democratic congresses for recessing and leaving the mess as it is for political advantage should be taken outside and shot every last one of them for wasting time on stupid "impeachment" crap and other attempts to obstruct the Bush administration instead of focusing on this problem which they knew very well was coming.

I am no congressperson but this problem was one I knew would happen at some point and indeed some such as Sen. McCain warned of it back in 2005 and 2006 when Sen. Obama was supping at the trough of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as one of their three most financed lobbyists.{2}

The solution is not federalizing things as that always has historically made things worse. (Such as the New Deal prolonging the Depression which we only went out of by going to war and ramping up military production.) The solution is letting the market work and not trying to coerce it -including not trying to force banks to lend to people who are high credit risks at the risk of federal lawsuits. That is after all how we got into this mess to begin with.

Notes:

{1} Briefly on the Current Real Estate Situation (circa July 26, 2008)

{2} I meant to say "contributed to politicians" but wrote that text in a hurry without giving it the customary final review before sending it.

Miscellaneous Musings on Threads of Interest:

Two quick subjects for the time being...

The First Presidential Debate Comments Via Little Green Footballs

I watched the debate after the fact on reruns and probably saw about 70% of it. But what I saw was adequate and it really shows that Sen. Obama could practice for days while Sen. McCain was in Washington only to be badly outclassed by Sen. McCain when at the last minute the debate was on again. My view is closely aligned with that of message #346 in the thread above so much so that I could have written most of that comment myself.{1}

Hopefully for round two Sen. McCain will not pull so many punches as he did in the first debate -it is obvious that Sen. Obama without a teleprompter is no better than President Bush oratorically. And his lack of experience was glaringly apparent in the first debate though Sen. McCain would have done better to actually look at Sen. Obama from time to time. Moving on, we come to something else that was pleasing to our eyes and it is trouble for a representative of congress who deserves to be in trouble...

Murtha sued over remarks

It is not the first time this has happened and hopefully it will not be the last time. Whatever you think about the military involvement in Iraq, to ruin someone's good name{2} for attempted political gain is disgusting. Rep. Murtha deserves a heavy financial penalty as well as jail time for what he did (at a minimum). I could say more but that is all I intend to at this time on that matter.

Notes:

{1} Though I did not of course.

{2} I will not go into the theological aspects of the matter at this time.

Paul Newman Passes On

I may talk a bit about this if emailed on the matter but as for now, I am at a loss for words. One of my favourite actors both on and offscreen...may he rest in peace.

Super Briefly on the McCain Campaign Suspension Issue:

I could post articles on Sen. McCain suspending his campaign and then agreeing now to the debate even though there is not an agreed-upon "bailout package" but in substance, I see Sen. McCain's attempt to provide executive style leadership on this matter as a good thing and Sen. Obama's unwillingness to join with Sen. McCain and pursue a genuinely non-partisan solution to this problem to be another example of Sen. Obama not wanting to do anything that does not emphasize him personally rather than placing the common good above personal accolades.

That said, I hope Sen. McCain after showing a willingness to put the good of the economy over his own personal whims really cleans Sen. Obama's clock in tonight's debate.

Miscellaneous Musings on Threads of Interest:

Just a few bits as time allows for it...

Popular anger puts fat cat CEOs on the run (Breitbart.com)

Well let me give a hearty "amen" to that!!! I have said already in places other than this blog{1} that those who are responsible for this mess deserve not financial recompense but jail time. Moving on we come to this tidbit...

Obama campaign cracks down on misleading TV ads

Let me get this straight, the Obama campaign can dish it out but not take it??? This talk of a "Truth Squad" sounds a lot to me like the "Ministry of Truth" from Orwell's 1984. Nice to know "Chancellor Obama" susbscribes to an "all are entitled to free speech but some are more entitled to it than others" outlook. For all the talk of moonbat leftists about so-called "right wing fascism"{2} they sure love to implement such tactics themselves without concern for the blatant hypocrisy involved.

Notes:

{1} I will probably blog some of that stuff in the coming days.

{2} On the Logical Fallacy of the "Communist/Fascist" So-Called "Ideological Spectrum" (circa July 16, 2004)

Miscellaneous Musings on Threads of Interest:

To touch on a few brief bits on stuff from news stories in recent days...

McCain slams Obama 'lack of leadership' on finance, Iraq

Here is a taste...

"Whether it's a reversal in war, or an economic emergency, he reacts as a politician and not as a leader, seeking an advantage for himself instead of a solution for his country," McCain said.

I wish I could say this assessment appeared to be wrong but unfortunately I cannot. It seems to me -and in spite of problems I have with some of his views as enunciated on this weblog over the years{1}- that the only one of the two presidential candidates who is focusing on something bigger than themselves is Sen. McCain. And this next thread gives even more evidence of this -fresh off the presses as of today:

McCain Suspends Campaign To Focus on Economy; Wants Debate Delay

Here is the text of that link:

America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system. We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees. If we do not act, ever corner of our country will be impacted. We cannot allow this to happen.

Last Friday, I laid out my proposal and I have since discussed my priorities and concerns with the bill the Administration has put forward. Senator Obama has expressed his priorities and concerns.This morning, I met with a group of economic advisers to talk about the proposal on the table and the steps that we should take going forward.I have also spoken with members of Congress to hear their perspective.

It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration' proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.

Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved.I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night's debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so.

Following September 11th, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now. Americans across our country lament the fact that partisan divisions in Washington have prevented us from addressing our national challenges. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.

If Sen. Obama is willing to join Sen. McCain on this then I would be willing to reassess my view of him as noted in the previous part of this thread at least somewhat. I would only hope that there are caps of some sort put on executive packages because though I am not begrudging anyone their ability to make money, those who screwed this up do not deserve to go unscathed lest they fail to learn from what happened.{2}

Moving from a presidential candidate to a vice presidential candidate story we have this one:

Did NBC Go Too Far With Todd Palin Incest Jokes

In a word, yes because not only is this beyond tasteless but because if the shoe was on the other foot, NBC would not have done this.{3} What part of leaving the families out of this do many not understand???

Biden Calls Obama Ad Attacking McCain "Terrible"

Having made our views noted on the selection of Sen. Joe Biden already{4}, it would be remiss on our part to not recognize Sen. Biden's initial (and laudable) revulsion with regards to one of the Obama campaign's ads. Or as we noted in a recent blog posting on (among other things) the subject of that ad:

McCain is a war hero. PERIOD. That war wounds prevent him due to injuries from doing some things all that well is a given but to mock that is disgusting. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 15, 2008)]

But then as deserving of thumbs up for that stance as Sen. Biden earned initially, he ruined it by changing his mind and proving that politics trumps conscience in his universe which is one more example of why so many people are sick of this kind of politicing.

Moving on to a much more substantive issue, there is also the subject of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions and an attempt by The New York Times to claim that members of Sen. McCain's campaign were receiving such contributions. As the McCain campaign has responded to these assertions, I direct you to their link below in what would appear to be a very thorough debunking{5}:

A Partisan Paper of Record (www.JohnMcCain.com)

Here is some of that response:

The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times' reporting, Mr. Davis has never -- never -- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

And of course The New York Times does not seem interested in telling people that Sen. Barack Obama has been the recipient of the third highest amount of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since 1989!!! If any more evidence was needed that there is partisanship and not quality journalism taking place at The New York Times then this supplies yet another example in the long scroll of what could be noted if not for lack of time and concern for sanity on our part.

Moving on we come to a piece that I referenced part of a few days ago on the weblog{6} but with more context. For those who were unaware, Ed Morrissey, former captain of Captain's Quarters now writes for the Hot Air site since (I believe) Bryan Preston went to do producing for The Laura Ingraham Show.{7} Nonetheless, he covered something recently which I want to reference at this time; namely the position of Sen. McCain on reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and how he was on board this idea from an early point in time.{8} Here is some of a Senate speech given by Sen. McCain over two years ago:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation. [Sen. John McCain (circa May 25, 2006)]

We at Rerum Novarum are unaware of any similarly pro-active attempts by Sen. Obama to do anything about this problem before the pot boiled over; ergo we wonder how anyone could somehow trust that Sen. Obama who was asleep at the switch on this issue back then can be trusted to be put in a position to try and fix the problem.

Notes:

{1} Heck, the post tag reading "John McCain" on this posting will take the reader to the ones that have been noted on this weblog.

{2} When I blog some of my comments from a previous discussion on these matters it will spell things out a bit more but the bottom line is this: country before politics as far as I am concerned.

{3} Not that a joke about Obama or his family in a similar vein would be acceptable of course. (It would not.)

{4} On Senator Barack Obama's Choice of Joseph Biden For Running Mate (circa August 30, 2008)

{5} The New York Times article is linked to in the McCain response. Since it does not appear that they did much in the way of even elementary research on their article, I do not view them as deserving the credibility of a live link directly.

{6} Points to Ponder (circa September 20, 2008)

{7} It is with regret that I announce that Bryan Preston has left the company. He has chosen to take a position as a producer with the Laura Ingraham radio show. We thank him for all the time and talent he devoted to making Hot Air a success. Please wish him all the best in his new endeavors...

We’ll be announcing an exciting new addition to Hot Air tomorrow morning. Stay tuned. [Excerpt from HotAir (circa February 24, 2008)]

{8} Not that this is the earliest point in time to which Sen. McCain can be shown to have been informed about as well as concerned about the problem of course.

Another Thread on the Upcoming Election:

This is a continuation of sorts from a series of previous threads viewable in a footnote below.{1} It constitutes an email I sent to some friends privately. My words from the note will be in dark blue font.

Obama leads from 0-6 points now depending on which poll you look at...

...probably because of the week's economic news for the most part. I do not expect that to hold. (Would be curious to know how Mason-Dixon Polling has the race but I digress.) Here are the numbers as of yesterday via Real Clear Politics:

RCP Average	09/09 - 09/19	--	47.6	45.3	Obama +2.3
Gallup Tracking	09/17 - 09/19	2756 RV	50	44	Obama +6
Rasmussen Tracking	09/17 - 09/19	3000 LV	48	47	Obama +1
Hotline/FD Tracking	09/17 - 09/19	922 RV	45	44	Obama +1
Battleground Tracking	09/11 - 09/18	800 LV	47	47	Tie
CBS News/NY Times	09/12 - 09/16	LV	49	44	Obama +5
Quinnipiac	09/11 - 09/16	987 LV	49	45	Obama +4
Pew Research	09/09 - 09/14	2307 LV	46	46	Tie
Reuters/Zogby	09/11 - 09/13	1008 LV	47	45	Obama +2

See All General Election: McCain vs. Obama Polling Data

The average of the above polls is Obama by 2.3 points which is not much. It is certainly not boding well for The One if McCain somehow pulls into a tie or slightly leads going into the first debate.

Meanwhile, the McCain camp is starting to focus on foreign policy stuff such as this ad about someone Obama would agree to "meet with no conditions." My Chavez loving [relative] would find that reassuring but I cannot imagine most Americans who are on the fence would.

But it all does not matter because if Obama loses, it is not cause of his quasi-marxism but instead we are racists guys, that has already been decreed. If that proclamation from the msm does not tell you that they are panicking in moonbatville, nothing else will.

Note:

{1} Namely, these threads:

Dialogue on Sen. Obama, Sen. McCain, Basic Economics, and the Upcoming Election With Kevin Tierney (circa September 15, 2008)

On Sen. Hillary Clinton and Her Being "On Board" for Sen. Obama (circa September 14, 2008)

Points to Ponder:

If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. [John McCain (circa May 25, 2006)]

Miscellaneous Musings on Threads of Interest:

Briefly on some stuff of an economic and political nature...

Stubborn Ignorance (Dr. Walter E. Williams)

Some of the common stupidity of political pundits with regards to basic Constitutional budgetary matters is dealt with by Dr. Williams in his usual concise fashion.

McCain aides: Obama 'cheerleading' market crisis

Sen. Obama cannot win with good economic news much as he cannot win with the war in Iraq or Afghanistan not going badly. Things are good in Iraq, mixed in Afghanistan, and the economy has been taking some hits. But Sen. McCain's comment about the "fundamentals of the economy" being "strong" is correct. That the economy has continued to grow despite the problems of the past ten months and we have not have a quarter of negative growth yet{1} points to strong fundamentals indeed.

Furthermore, the way Sen. Obama has tried to disingenuously pin the mess solely on the last eight years shows he is unfit to be president since he does not realize where the root of this problem really lies and which administration deserves a good chunk of the blame for what we are seeing. I will relegate some brief musings I have made on this to a footnote for those who are interested{2} and that is all I will say on this at the moment.

Notes:

{1} Briefly on the Second Quarter Economic Figures and Why We Are Not Yet In A Recession (circa September 9, 2008)

Briefly on the First Quarter Economic Figures and Why We Are Not Yet In A Recession (circa May 1, 2008)

{2} Briefly on the Current Real Estate Situation (circa July 26, 2008)