Politics, Sex, Religion and Money

Growing

2009-03-25T07:00:00.004-06:00

The only thing I've harvested so far is mustard greens. I planted a row about four feet long and we get enough for a side dish (half a grocery bad raw/less than a quart cooked) every 3-4 days. I have to say it is pretty dran good. The two year-old likes it almost as much as pasta (and eats it the same way: shoved by the handfuls into his mouth and hanging off his chin). The way the wife cooked it last night was the best (which she found amusing because this time she tossed the recipes and just threw a bunch of stuff in the pot and cooked it) and I actually drank the juice from leftovers after lunch today.

Potatoes are looking good (I think the ones in pots are doing as well or better than the ones in the raised beds or the ground).

By accident, I solved a problem with growing Strawberries in Louisiana: I have plants in small pots (I'd estimate about a quart to 1/2 gallon size) and plan to catch the runners in other pots (planned). The berries hang over the side, so they don't touch the ground and rot (discovered by accident).

People told me not even to try growing Tomatoes from seed, but my plants from seed have caught up and surpassed the plants I bought. The latest experiment is seeing how I do starting tomatoes in a hole in the ground filled with seed starter.

Heirloom collard greens are coming up one week after planting.

I think the carrots I planted months ago are finally coming up.

Lettuce is growing pretty slow but has a very pretty and health head--I might try this type in the front bed as it could pass for an ornamental.

Not much success with beans or cabbage. Okra still has not come up, so I planted a new area with some native Louisiana Okra seeds.

Urban Homestead

2009-02-23T12:39:00.002-06:00

Here’s the update on vegetable growing. I think I’m going to do a modified version of “square foot gardening.” I measured the sunny part of my backyard and I think I can make 7 or 8 beds that are 4 feet wide and a little less than 20 feet long (walkways in between about 2 feet wide). Then in the back of my driveway I have an 8 ft x 8ft raised bed (in the shape of a parallelogram—best way to maximize space and still be able to open my garage door) with a cinderblock walkway down the middle, a 4x8 bed and an irregular shaped bed roughly a full railroad tie and a half by a half of a railroad tie, then there are the hundreds of pots I’ve picked up from the side of the road in the neighborhood.

In due season, I’m going to try to plant the following this year –planning on planting from tallest to shortest unless somebody knows if any of these plants love or hate each other (I’m doing a little of each at a time so that, with any luck, I’ll have a staggered harvest and will eat fresh and do less preserving):
Eggplant
Tomato (found what is supposedly native La. Heriloom variety, though I didn’t know any tomatoes was native to La.)
Okra (Native heirloom)
Lettuce
Spinach
All kinds of herbs (the wife handles that)
Potatoes
Strawberries
Blueberries (in the front yard as a border shrub)
Figs (in a couple other little sunny pockets)
Cantaloupes
Bell Peppers
Mustard Greens
Collard Greens
Watermelon
Pumpkin (in the front—people will think they are just decorative!)
Carrots (that’s the mysterious border grass along my sidewalk!)
Squash
Onions

In other news, MOTHER EARTH NEWS has a couple of great articles, my favorite is about a man in Pasadena and his three adult children who raise 6,000 pounds of food per year on a lot slightly smaller than mine and in California.
Speaking of Mother Earth, there was an article last month about population control that set some people off—though most apparently agreed. I wish someone would have pointed out that population growth is a problem in some areas, but we have the opposite in other areas. Of course, my take is that there are moral and immoral means to the desired end.

Oh, and Mother Earth is my 32 month old’s favorite magazine. When I pull it out he comes running to look at the pictures. When I sit down with another book he grabs a back issue and hops in my lap. He calls it his “Fwower [flower] book”

Heirloom Seeds

2009-02-11T08:41:00.002-06:00

Following on Leatherneck's comment on my last post, I had no idea you could get heirloom seeds over the net. Do you know if this is a good company? If so, or unless you know of a better, I may order the tomatoes (The 'Caspian Pink' Heirloom Tomato plant has absolute knockout flavor! It has been voted ‘best flavor' by the majority of tasters, even against Brandywine. This was one of our most popular heirloom tomato plants last year.)

SM: since you me and my sister are all small time beginners, it might be interesting to see some stuff we are all interested in (e.g. heirloom tomatoes) and make one order of some stuff and split it three ways.

RSVP

Random Thoughts While Gardening

2009-02-10T12:58:00.003-06:00

I'm interested in a modified form of--I think they call it--microgardening where you maximize use. I'm thinking about growing like 1-3 chickens in the back yard to: a) make eggs b) eat houshold waste c) use droppings for fertilizer. I'd like to learn more about how to use manure to side-dress-fertilize vegetables.I think cow and horse manure used be used for this "back in the day" before chemical fertilizers were developed.

I want to be organic within reason. My main reason for that is not aversion to chemicals, but wanting to be as "do it yourself" as possible.

I need to learn more about harvesting seeds from the things I grow, but right now I'm focusing on just trying to grow things (there is so much to learn, I'm trying to do what I can with the knowledge I have and build on it).

There are 4 places to plant: 1) Area in back yard that gets a fair amount of sun from mid morning to early afternoon (I have not exactly established how many hours--more hours right now because no leaves on the trees) 2) raised beds that get a good bit of sun though not a full day 3) pots in an area along the side of the house that get lots of sun most of the day 4) various areas in the front yard where I can make a vegtable look like an ornamental (e.g. carrots along the sidwalk leading up to the house; I have big beds right in front of my house where I may grow cabbage though it gets no sun till noon and then intense sun till sunset). 5) I could put a few things inside the picket fense if I can find something that will find that amount of light agreeable

May plant a couple blueberry bushes in the front yard along the property live between me and my neighbor. I understand thay have nice white blooms (but I have to crack the code on cross-polinating).

Trying to master a good mix for potting. LSU reccomends a 1-1-1 mix of sand, compost and dirt.

Right now I have the following planted:
a) Fig trees
b) Strawberries (six one-gallon pots surrounded with other pots filled with dirt to catch runners (I hope the plants stay alive and I can multipy the number of plants over several seasons).
c) potatoes
d) Lettuce
e) onions
f) mustard greens [I and trying a little each of c-f in pots, the ground and raised beds]
g) Pole beans
h) Ginger (not sure if it is edible, but want to find out)

And that's no "bull

Being Green--Oh and Blogging Isn't For Me

2008-09-15T16:31:00.004-05:00

What with soaring fuel and food prices, an economy on the brink and the way both the Republicans and Democrats are hell bent on bankrupting this country, I've been taking an increasing interest in going to a simpler, more self sufficient lifestyle. To that end, I've been doing/planning/thinking about the following:

Saving money for land to grow a few things (doing).

Getting a scooter or small motorcyle (thinking about, shopping around)--you can get them for under $2k and they get 90-100 MPG.

Reading FOXFIRE, BACK TO BASICS and MOTHER EARTH NEWS (doing).

Planting a garden (doing).

Making compost (doing)--this has been my most successfull adventure along these lines.

Turning down the thermostat (I can do that now that the wife has given birth and no longer has the pregnancy hot flashes).

Trying to make soap (doing)--without much success.

Trying to make a basket with native materials (doing)--without much success.

Researching to compile a "FOXFIRE" book for South Louisiana (Doing at the library)--so far I can tell you how to make candles with a wax myrtle and how to build a pirougue!

Going to the Lake Charles Farmer's Market (doing)--mostly a rip off. All but one guy buys crap at the grocery store and sells it to unsuspecting folks. You can, in fact, find more locally grown food at Market Basket, a local (LA and TX) grocery store chain.

AND NOW, MY CRUSTY COMMENT ON BLOGGING. I think blogging is a big disappointment. It has so much potential, but it tends to suck up a lot of time and you run into 50 blowhards for every rational person. So, if you are wondering if I'm "blogging again", I'm not. I'll post or comment when the spirit moves me.

Love,
Crusty

Quote of the Day

2008-05-05T07:34:00.002-05:00

"Some people in this chamber love the Constitution more than they love the safety of this nation. We should all send President Bush a letter thanking him for protecting us."

-Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama)

Slowing Down

2008-04-19T08:33:00.002-05:00

I think I'm going to go to "light" blogging for a while.

Should you be in the Public Eye?

2008-04-18T11:13:00.002-05:00

Should a person has been involved in something scandalous be in the public eye talking about religious and moral issues?

What if there are accusations that they have been neither admitted or denied, but sidestepped?

How should we, as people who care about the things this person says, treat such a person?

Would it make a difference if the incident was before they came to their current moral/religious position? If it is after, would it make a difference if the person came clean?

Would it make a difference if it was something totally agregious like taking advantage of someone who is vulnerable (young, drunk, at a low point), or if it was just a moral slip up (like Mitch in The Firm)?

Would it make a difference if the person were totally no judgmental?

Torture

2008-04-17T14:05:00.003-05:00

There is an interesting discussion on torture here. Maybe I ought to lay out my argument against torture.

Renaissance Men Rock!

2008-04-17T06:38:00.004-05:00

If your kids want to make it in the 21st Century, they need to study the liberal arts.

I continue to work my way through The World is Flat. I'm not sure if I can encapsulate the theme of the book, but it is basically about how technology and innovations in the way we do things makes for a more level playing field in many areas, makes outsourcing jobs easier, etc. There are chapters on blogging, and how information is so easily available on the net. etc.

Anyway, he also addresses the problem of jobs since people in India and China can do not only manual labor tasks, but also intellectual and service work much cheaper (and apparently do a better job because these are high prestige jobs for people in India--and for other reasons).

Let me cut to the chase: He argues that if you learn only the nuts and bolts of your field, be it accounting, journalism (yes, even that gets outsourced), law, business, engineering, you are likely to find your self scraping by or completely useless. You need to offer something more be it a personal touch, higher expertise and proficiency, or innovation.

The education he recommends for young people, and the direction he suggests for America if it wants to compete globally is to promote the study of liberal arts.

One concrete reason for this is that (not an exact quote): Since the East can do left brain work cheaper, we must be able to do right brain work better. Innovation and adaptation to changing circumstances (who doesn't need this skill?) is best done by someone who has mastered more than one discipline (case in point, Leonardo Da Vinci) because such a person can take priciples and thinking from one discipline and apply it to the other. A person who has studied, math, music, literature, history, philosophy, foreign languages etc. is better prepared for right brain endeavors--though if you want to be an engineer you still need to study math!

He also has an interesting formula for success: CQ + PQ > IQ (Curiosity Quotient plus Passion [about learning and about your work] Quotient are more important than Intellectual Quotient.

So then all of you "grade grabbers", and utilitarians who were always asking us "what are you going to do with that?", on behalf of all liberal arts majors, let me say: Nanny Nanny boo boo, looks like you'll be the one flipping burgers!

Stand Firm in the Hypocrisy

2008-04-15T06:59:00.001-05:00

I believe in the value of words. We hear it said by politicians that they are persons of deep “faith”, but that they will not let that affect their role as a perfect servant. We also hear people say that, for the individual, “faith” should be kept separated from public life, that it should not influence their politics and that they should not infuse their “faith” into their political efforts.

But this is not faith. The word faith comes from the Latin fides. Fides was the goddess of loyalty in Roman Mythology. Hypocrisy comes from the Greek hupokrinesthai, to play a part or pretend—I might use the word “fake”.

I think it’s time for people, in intellectual honesty, to proclaim that they are men and women of hypocrisy. So hear is a new set of mantras:

“I am a person of deep hypocrisy.”
“My hypocrisy is very important to me.”
“My hypocrisy is a big part of who I am.”
“I’m a man of hypocrisy.”
“My parents taught me the importance of hypocrisy.”
--A much better use of language.

Put Your Money Where your Mouth is or Realeconomik?

2008-04-11T13:23:00.003-05:00

I believe in supporting local business. On the other hand, I have been wondering whether my shopping habits can make a difference, or if it only delays the enevitable. I've been saving my pennies and I want to buy a new canoe. The locally owned shop has the canoe I want. The chain store has the same canoe for $130 cheaper. My wife says I should buy local because of all that I have said in the past. Even if I still felt as strongly about buying local, isn't this making a $130 donation if I go to the local shop? I mean, I don't mind paying slightly higher prices, but is this a business or a charity?

How should I look at this situation? I'd really like to hear thoughts from both sides.

Is that Jesus?

2008-04-11T09:46:00.001-05:00

A Republican in a wheelchair entered a restaurant one afternoon and asked the waitress for a cup of coffee. The Republican looked across the restaurant and asked, 'Is that Jesus sitting over there?' The waitress nodded 'yes,' so the Republican requested that she give Jesus a cup of coffee, on him.

The next patron to come in was a Libertarian with a hunched back. He shuffled over to a booth, painfully sat down, and asked the waitress for a cup of hot tea. He also glanced across the restaurant and asked, 'Is that Jesus over there?' The waitress nodded, so the Libertarian asked her to give Jesus a cup of hot tea, 'My treat.'

The third patron to come into the restaurant was a Democrat on crutches. He hobbled over to a booth, sat down and hollered, 'Hey there, honey! How's about gettin' me a cold glass of Miller Light!' He, too, looked across the restaurant and asked, 'Is that God's boy over there?' The waitress once more nodded, so the Democrat directed her to give Jesus a cold glass of beer. 'On my bill,' he said.

As Jesus got up to leave, he passed by the Republican, touched him and said, 'For your kindness, you are healed.' The Republican felt the strength come back into his legs, got up, and danced a jig out the door.

Jesus also passed by the Libertarian, touched him and said, 'For your kindness, you are healed.' The Libertarian felt his back straightening up, and he raised his hands, praised the Lord and did a series of back flips out the door.

Then Jesus walked towards the Democrat. The Democrat jumped up and yelled, 'Don't touch me! I'm collecting disability.'

Wimpy Catholics

2008-04-10T07:33:00.001-05:00

Tim Shipe made an interesting comment on Inside Blog.

I find the lack of contact between faithful Catholics and the culture, the political structures, the media etc.. absolutely inexusable. The one big glaring virtue to the American system is the ability to get on the horn, get on the ballot, get off your butt, and change the world for Christ.

I have spoken to newspaper editors who have admitted to me that they would like to go to bat on this or that topic- ex. taking the palestinian narrative more seriously- but they are pressured by who calls, how many call, and do they request a sit-down meeting. If a tiny minority of pro-Israeli American Jews can shape our Congress, our Presidency, our Media, so soundly with good old fashonied organizing- what is wrong with us?

I have found most Catholic parishes barely interested in shaping the political landscape of which the pastors and faithful moan and groan about all the time. Minorities have to stand up and be counted or they will be overlooked or oppressed- history shows this over and over. Catholics are so bound by the devil with the Pro-Life camps pitted against the Social Justice camps- it is a clear divide/conquer strategy and most Catholics I know are being played like fiddles- Catholic Left- Catholic Right- how about straight Catholic- Dorothy Day/Mother Teresa- One Church- liberal give the conservative his due, conservative give the liberal his- you both make some sense.

If Catholics had their act together, we wouldn't be the butt of so much unholy humor, we wouldn't be destroying Iraqis and creating enraged jihadists at every turn, we wouldn't be killing our offspring and cheering right to choose death for our kids, we wouldn't be fighting a losing cause in standing up to a divorce/gay oversexualized culture, we wouldn't be calling social programs 'the beast", we wouldn't be questioning the value of faith-based organizations, we wouldn't have a global economy built on the backs of Chinese slave laborers and poor, desperate workers trapped in corrupt/failed nations with border guards keeping everyone and everything just in place so that the elites can keep their station secured, Hollywood wouldn't be making Da Vinci Code movies anymore than they are likely to make a Protocols of Zion film...but alas, American Catholics are either too wimpy, or too caught up in the exciting idiocies of party politics, to be of much service to the world for Christ's poor and vulnerable.

The only reason we are so powerless in America is that we are so clueless as to what freedom we have here in America- we are like the cave-dweller in Plato's parable gazing at shadows, missing out on the direct sunlight so easily found.

"Ten Conservative Books" by Russell Kirk

2008-04-09T23:52:00.000-05:00

Hattip to Tertium Quid

Russell Kirk spoke to the Heritage Foundation on 9/11/86 and gave his reccomendations for Ten Conservative Books worth reading. I think I'll summarize his introduction in a future post, but for now, let me tell you the ten books he reccomends (Methinks it would be more fun that way), and I'll throw in the books and authors that got honorable mention.

THE TEN BOOKS
Reflections on the Revolution in France (Burke)
Democracy in America (Tocqueville)
The American Democrat (James Fenimore Cooper)
The American Republic (Orestes Brownson)
Liberty, Equality and Fraternity (James Fitzjames Stephen)
Is Life Worth Living? (W.H. Mallock)
Democracy and Leadership (Irving Babbit)
The Attack on Leviathan (Donald Davidson)
The Social Crisis of our Times (Wilhelm Ropke)
Notes Toward the Definition of Culture (T.S. Eliot)

HONORABLE MENTION
Conservatism: Dream and Reality (Robert Nisbett)
The Case for Conservatism (Francis Graham Wilson)
The Case for Conservatism (Quintin Hogg)
The Portable Conservative (Kirk, ed.)
The Conservative Mind (Kirk)
The Political Writings of John Adams (George A. Peek, ed.)
A Disquisition on Government (John C. Calhoun)
A Disquistion on the Constitution (John C. Calhoun)

AUTHORS (BESIDES THE ABOVE)
Walter Scott
Nathaniel Hawthorne
Robert Louis Stevenson
Benjamin Disraeli
Joseph Conrad
Rudyard Kipling
Henry St. John Bolingbroke
Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Paul Elmer More
Bernard Iddings Bell
Malcolm Muggeridge
Alexandre Solzhenitsyn

Accurate media coverage of the Pope’s visit and everything else Catholic: Is it a hopeless cause?

2008-04-08T20:20:00.002-05:00

By Maureen Martin,

Over at the Inside Catholic blog, Margaret Cabaniss wrote a good post about flawed media coverage of Pope Benedict XVI’s upcoming visit to the United States. Like most people writing on the subject, I think there is a huge disconnect between what actually occurs within the Catholic Church and what the media is reporting. In addition, like Margaret, I would appreciate seeing someone else beside Fr. McBrien “representing” the Catholic Church.

Why do reporters get the story wrong so often and why do they rely on the same sources again and again?

There is a possible explanation. A number of years ago when I was studying communications, more than one journalism professor told us that reporters cover so many issues and topics, that what they can really know and understand about any given subject, you could basically put in a thimble. That isn't a knock against journalists; it's just the way it is. When you are assigned a story at 10 am, and have a 4 pm deadline, you need don't really have the time to always do the best research or track down the best sources. For the journalist, a lot of times it comes down to who answers the phone and who is willing and available to do the interview. Reporters need someone (an expert in the field, a PR person, etc.) to call and basically make himself available to help, over and over. Although there are people out there giving good, sound advice, most reporters probably won't have the time to go look for it. (Unless an assignment editor gets an itch to do a story on coverage of the coverage.)

So what can you change? You can change the individual perceptions that individual reporters, assignment editors, and news producers have of individual Catholic leaders. When a reporter meets and gets to know a Catholic priest, for better or for worse, he will think, “This priest is the Catholic Church.” The challenge then becomes for a reporter to get to know and develop a relationship with an articulate, personable orthodox priest, rather than an articulate, personable unorthodox one.
As someone who used to work in public relations for several years before she decided to take it easy and raise children, I have a few suggestions (not for reporters, but for Catholics.) The PR person who I considered my mentor used to make herself so useful and helpful to reporters that they were always calling her for quotes and to get quotes from others. She constantly worked at establishing friendships with reporters, so they trusted her and called her when they needed help with stories. She was one of the most ethical and hardworking people I have ever met. She was completely open and honest with reporters and they, in turn, respected her. A few of our orthodox and articulate priests out there are going to have to start putting themselves out there and establishing relationships with some of these managing editors, reporters and editorial boards and act as PR people for the Church. They need to take them out for lunch, for a beer (an advantage we have over Protestants), whatever, and start doing things like that *before* a story needs to be written or a big event takes place or a crisis arises. They need to call them up occasionally and pitch story ideas. They will probably reject 90 percent of them, but at least they will know who these orthodox priests are and that they are available to help (The reporters won't care so much that they are orthodox, but that are available and willing to help). They can guide them to other good sources,as well. Of course, people will say that priests don't have time, and they don't. However, people have more time to establish positive relationships with reporters before a crisis happens than to try to clean up the mess afterward. At some point, the reporters will start calling for help with various stories. A lot of the stories may be negative, but it would be far better to help a reporter with a negative story (and make whatever can't be perfect, be less imperfect...was that Chesterton or St. Thomas More?) than to just let him write it on his own. And never say, "No comment."

As a public relations professional told a group of us once, “Reporters are human. They send their kids to school, they pay bills and taxes, and they worry about the future, just like you. Relate to them like they are human beings.” Along the same lines, no one likes to hear about what a lousy job they are doing, 24/7. This seems to be a trap in which conservatives, particularly conservative bloggers and radio pundits, find themselves. Before I worked in public relations, I worked for a newspaper. Trust me, newspaper editors, reporters and publishers receive a lot more criticisms than they do attaboys. If you want to see more fair coverage, start praising writers when they get something right. It will be much more effective. Frankly, the onus is on us, as Catholics, to present our Church and its teachings in an accurate manner, and more difficult than anything, that involves living out those truths in our daily lives.

Your Opinion Please

2008-04-08T07:14:00.005-05:00

Several people I respect have said that something that has greatly aided their development is, when reading a book, to write a one-paragraph summary. I'd like to develop that habit myself though it's a hard habit to acquire (I tend more toward Augustine's view that "We learn better in a free spirit of curiosity.....").

Anyway, if I can get motivated, I'd like to post my summaries--and with any luck get some feedback and improve them. With any luck other people would see fit to share the fruits of thier study as well. My question is this: would it be better to post them here at PSRM, or just make another blog with a link here? Here are my thoughts on both options:

HERE
1) PRO: More people would see them here.
2) PRO: I have my hands full keeping one blog going.
3) PRO: People only have to go one place

SOMEWHERE ELSE:
1) PRO: It would keep things separate for those who are not interested in my private Cliff's Notes.
2) PRO: It would keep things separate for someone who wanted to search for help on the particular chapter of a book (My frinds and I read a lot of the same books--pretty scarry)
3) CON: I'm probably being unrealistic that I will do that many summaries, so what's the point?
4) PRO: you could go to the list of posts and see a list of the books that have been summarized.
5) PRO: It would force me to make my summaries summaries and not fudge and make it turn into more of my "random thoughts".

Aside, I just started Plato's Republic. I sure hope it picks up. Right now it is grinding on my nerves. I've never read it straight through, but I don't recall what I've read being this dull. Maybe it's the translation.

Why Not?

2008-04-07T19:51:00.003-05:00

If it's okay for two men to get "married", why can't a man do this? or even this? How about this?

A Post on Religion, Politics AND Money together

2008-04-07T17:11:00.003-05:00

[Sorry, this post is longer than I would like. Just read the first paragraph and give me your thoughts, unless you are REALLY interested]

I wonder if the problem with this country is not our prosperity. The good books says "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle..." i.e. wealth is an obstacle to the individual. I think maybe it's an obstacle to a country as well.

I have a lot of, so to speak, "random thoughts while shaving" on this topic (some contining on the line of wondering if the country paralels the individula):

1) Somebody told me they saw a sociological study on how people seem to have increased difficulties if they have either too much or two little money. The problems can be overcome, but "it is easier....". If the phenomenon does not reach to the level of the contry, it reacehes at least to the level of the corporation: The mom and pops company that is not doing so well, has an increades liklihood to engage in unethical practices; the corporation who sees the opportunity to make a lot of money over a short period likewise has an increased liklihood to engage in unethical behavior. It's better to have a healthy steady income. There is the proverb about becoming wealthy suddenly and destroying yourself.

2) As an individual, if you are healthy, wealthy and popular, there is an increased tendency to feel he does not need God or or his fellow. On a personal note, I can be close to intolerable when I taste success. My chances of avoiding damnation are "iffy" at best. Were it not for pain, failure, embarrassment, and the like, I'd be on the highway to hell. Somebody said "I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean."

3) Early Rome, on the path to greatness is full of virtuous men. Note how once Rome became successful, the anecdotes from history turn from examples of virtue and self-sacrifice to examples of greed, backstabbing, orgies and the vomitorium.

4) Other than 911, the last successful attack on the continental U.S. from a foreign army, was some Mexican's thugs that who made a brief foray but ended up being strapped to the hood of Lt. George S. Patton's car. That was pretty minor. Before that, what? the war of 1812? America has not seen the grisly face of war on the home front since the 1860's and America has never suffered a bombing campaign to "break the will of the people."

Abortion is Not Safe

2008-04-05T09:37:00.016-06:00

On another blog, my assertion that “abortion is no safer now that it is legal.” Was labeled as “a ridiculous statement”, my “misguided opinion” and a “ridiculous false statement.” And was informed that “abortion as practiced in the west by experienced medical personnel in a sterile surgical environment is exponentially safer than home/folk remedies being put in the hands of women who might be marginally familiar with their uses at best. If you googled just the one method I mentioned - pennyroyal - I would be willing to bet your search results would include several news items in which pregnant women attempting to end an unwanted pregnancy had fatally overdosed.”

They may think I am crazy, but I’m not. As it happens this is one area where I am pretty well informed. The problem is that the facts that I am about to discuss are never mentioned by the media.

Here is my response in no particular order:
1) Abortion in America is very often not practiced by experienced medical personnel.You do not have to be a doctor to perform an abortion in the U.S.
2) it is often not practiced in a sterile environment in fact, many abortion clinics have been found to merely wipe the blood off and go to the next patient. If you do not believe me, go to your local crisis pregnancy center and ask them how often they help women who have gotten infections and diseases from ana abortion
3) abortion, when performed by a doctor, is rarely performed by a person who is competent. Few doctors want to perform them, and the ones that do are very often forced to do so because they cannot get a job elsewhere because they have malpracticed so often. Abortionists are the scum of the medical profession.
4) The abortionist spends very little time with the patient. The women are prepped in several rooms and the abortionist goesfrom room to room and performs the abortions very quickly. If you have an abortion, this is what you will see of the doctor: You will see him for the first time as he walks quickly into the room, performs the abortion and is out of the room in about six minutes.
5) abortionist when they injure a woman, because they usually have numerous malpractice suits already, and because they are embarrassed to have an ambulance in front of the clinic, try to cover it up and several women have bled to death as a result of not being taken to a hospital quickly enough
6) the type of abortion women have where it is legal is essentially the same as what they had when it was illegal. The horror stories of coat hangers etc. are mere propaganda. The doctors who testified in Roe vs. Wade admitted they lied.
7) more women die of abortion today than they did before it was legal.
8) Compared to other areas of medcine, the abortion industry is virtually unregulated.
9) There is an abundance of former abortionists who say the following: I started doing abortions for two reasons: to help women and to make money. Within two months that became one reason: Money. I found out quickly that abortion does not help anyone.
10) The number of complications from and malpractices in abortion procedures is (I would say "grossly") underreported. Abortion clinics usually do not provide care for complications. Women have to go to other facilities and are embarrasses about the abortion and request the doctor keep it hushed.
11) There is rarely anything approaching informed consent in the abortion industry.
12) In Louisiana during the Clinton administration, the Department of Health and hospitals wanted to shut down a clinic, but as it turns out, abortion clinics are not regulated by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. The only agency that could touch the clinic was OSHA because the unsanitary conditions posed a threat to the employees. There was another agency, a law enforcement agency though I can't recall if it was the FBI or the AG or what, who was about to conduct an investigation of a particular clinic, but the people working the case were told that word came from "very high" to "back off."
13) Making abortion legal did not make it more psychologically safe.
14) Abortion still increases the risk of breast cancer.
15) JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION: "Complications following abortions performed in free-standing clinics is one of the most frequent gynecologic emergencies . . . encountered. Even life-endangering complications rarely come to the attention of the physician who performed the abortion unless the incident entails litigation. The statistics presented by Cates represent substantial under- reporting and disregard women’s reluctance to return to a clinic, where, in their mind, they received inadequate treatment." L. Iffy, "Second Trimester Abortions," JAMA, vol. 249, no. 5, Feb. 4, 1983, p. 588.
16) "One sequel to abortion can be a killer. This is pelvic abscess, almost always from a perforation of the uterus and sometimes also of the bowel," said two professors from UCLA, in reporting on four such cases. C. Gassner & C. Ballard, Amer. Jour. OB/GYN, vol. 48, p. 716 as reported in Emerg. Med. After Abortion-Abscess, vol. 19, no. 4, Apr. 1977
17) The number of women who die from abortion appears to be about the same now, though it is grossly underreported, as it was the year before abortion on demand became legal.

This is what I threw together quickly. I would invite you, whether you agree or disagree, to give me suggestions for improving this post by comment or e-mail

If you are interested in reading more, here you go:

What Former Abortionists Say

WHO Official Admits Legal Abortion is Not "Safe" For Women

Statistics

Lie Admitted

Stories

Department of Labor: Abortion clinics do not comply with OSHA regulations and guidelines.

Lack of Informed Consent

Abortionists Are Not Held Accountable for Mistakes

Lack of Regulation

Victims Speak Out

Why Not My Moral Code?

2008-04-02T13:15:00.008-06:00

"Why are you trying to impose your values on the rest of us?'... [T]he underlying premise is that a democartic society may be constructed upon values and beliefs found in the books of Rachel Carson, Ralph Nader, Betty Friedman, and Alfred Kinsey, but not upon values and belifs [found elsewhere]. To accept that argument is to permit ourselves to be driven permanently from the public square.

Someone's values are going to prevail. Why not ours? Whose country is it, anyway?"

Patrick J. Buchanan, Right From the Beginning, page 342

Disappointment

2008-03-28T14:52:00.001-06:00

I was disapointed to see this.

Relativism II

2008-03-25T20:37:00.002-06:00

Aside from the fact that there is no workable argument for Moral relativism as a viable moral theory, and that Moral Relativism would lead to absurd corollaries with which no one could agree, there is a huge problem with Moral Relativism in the public square:

If, as my friend Rodak insists, the state must maintain an orthodoxy of moral relativism, upon what is the state to base its laws? Law must be based on morality. If it is not, then what is it based on? The tyranny of the majority? Bigotry? Prejudice? Self interest of the powerful? The dictates of the powerful?

No doubt you ask, “But which theory?” That is a good question, and would make for an interesting discussion, but we have to take things one at a time. Before going into that, first we should consider the matter in the abstract.
What do we base out law on if not objective morality.

Is it Wal-Mart's Fault?

2008-03-25T17:56:00.002-06:00

I'm about 1/3 of the way through The World is Flat. One of the chapters is dedicated to Wal-Mart and their system of uberefficiency in logistics and cutting out wholesalers.

The author acknowldges Wal-Mart's failures in providing adequate benefits and, when he interviewed the CEO, so does Wal-Mart to a certain extent, and supposedly they are trying to improve. Anyway, one of the things that Wal-Mart says it is NOT to blame for is the outsourcing.

Apparently they fought to have things manufactured in the U.S.A. rather than abroad. They figured if the factories were in the U.S.A. the workers would have jobs and more money to spend at Wal-Mart. It was the manufacturers who insisted on outsourcing.

The Death Toll

2008-03-24T05:07:00.000-06:00

4,000

And what have we accomplished?

The Devil's Advocate and Natural Law

2008-03-23T08:29:00.002-06:00

Civis has a few nagging issues with traditional Natural Law. First, a gripe: most of the popular literature about Natural Law boils down to what the author thinks just has to be right. That's no help.

My biggest problem is the assertion that you can't have natural law without God. I have no problem with God, but people put forth the "natural law" as a basis for regulating society that is independent of theological strings. It seems to me that either Natural Law as a non-relgions moral basis for regulating society, or God as the foundation of Natural Law has to go. Right?

Second, can you develop moral norms from the natural law? I'm not entirely clear on that. If I want to know whether I would without food and water from my grandfather who is PVS, will the Natural law tell me? If not, what is the purpose of Natural Law.

Bottom line here: I don't see how Natural Law can be a way for Americans to agree on the best way to regulate society.

V.R.,
The Devil's Advocate

Removed

2008-03-22T16:46:00.006-06:00

I've come to the conclusion that poking fun at some "professional liturgists" in such a way was distasteful and thus I've removed the video. Please note, the original post was not addressed to any laity or priests in my diocese in particular. (Apparently more than a couple of people are reading the blog from the diocese I belong to and I don't want to lead anybody into making false judgments or thinking I'm picking on them.)

Collective Religion?

2008-03-21T09:52:00.004-06:00

The following is Rodak's question:

What is the "collectivist" interpretation of this:

"And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it." (Luke 9:23, 24)

Is the collectivist concept that you all share one great big cross, that you all carry together towards salvation, like a group of pall bearers carrying a coffin together, so that no one individual feels the weight of it?

The Jews were a Chosen People. If you read the Old Testament, you will find that the Jews were not particularly happy about having been chosen, much of the time. Consider, for instance, their actions in the wilderness, after the exodus from Egypt. When God tapped some man on the shoulder to make a prophet of him, that man usually tried to avoid the task. The Jews were redeemed by individually keeping the Law, and punished collectively for the failure of individuals to do so.
This is the same Law that St. Paul equated with death. We Christians are saved by faith, and we die only our own death. How can any group have my faith for me, or stand before the Throne for me, after I have died the first death alone?

Relativism

2008-03-21T09:51:00.005-06:00

Rodak said: "[relativism is] not a tyranny, since it's not coercive."

Civis says:

Relativism says "There is no objective truth concerning X". This statement however in fact asserts an objective truth, namely that objective truth does not exist. It is also, coercive. If I say "X is objectively true" and relativism says "X is not objectively true", one statement must be true and one must be false.

Relativism is in fact the most coercive statement of supposed objective truth, because it cannot co-exist with any other objective truth whatsoever. The Church teaches that, while it contains the fullness of truth, we must accept the truth that we find in science and in other religions. There can be common ground. Relativism will allow no such tolerance: everything must bow to it.

Lecture on China

2008-03-18T21:28:00.003-06:00

This evening, James L. Loi, visiting fellow with the Freeman Chair in China Studies, and Foreign Service Officer with the U.S. State department, gave a lecture for the Banners series titled "What in the World Is Happening in China?" Mr. Loi's work has focused on relations with China since 2002.

Mr. Loi is a thoughtful and articulate man, and he gave an enjoyable and enlightening lecture. In light of his position, I understand why he only faintly alluded to human rights violations. Yet he did discuss the yawning gap between the wealthy city dwellers and the poor peasants, and China's pollution problem.

When a questioner highlighted the human rights problem he did address it, and came down on the side of trying to influence China to improve its record.

In the knot of people who gathered around him after the lecture, it was curious to note how many people wanted to talk about China's environmental problem. This seems a bit odd. Why so much concern about smog when there are work camps, executions, torture (well, I guess America is now for torture), and lack of religious freedom? It doesn't add up to me.

Aside, though I have not researched this myself, I understand evidence supports the proposition that economic development often aids environmental conservation and remediation.

I'll be pondering all of this.

As always, the Banners series attracts interesting speakers and does a lot to enrich our little community. It is great to see such an effort work so well. You meet the most interesting people there too. I'm marking my calendar for "Zydeco, Mardi Gras and Trail Rides" (April 1st), "Eisnstein's Jewish Science" (April 15th), and "Inventing Vietnam: Lessons in Nation Building from a Forgotten Example" (April 29th).

Faithful Citizenship

2008-03-18T21:12:00.004-06:00

If you were asked to give a presentation to adults on Catholics in the public square, including voting and citizenship, what sources would you consult? I've been asked to do such a thing and have some sources but wanted some feedback. Right now I am reading through its entirety JPII's Christifideles Laici ("On Christ's Lay Faithful") for an overview of what it means to be a laymen in the Church today. I know that he touches on areas of work and societal responsibilities. I also know there is the new conference of bishops document called Faithful Citizenship and I have read through some of that. I have also read the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics and Bishop Olmstead's short book, Catholics in the Public Square. Archbishop Chaput has a page and one-half summary of what faithful citizenship means compared to the +40 pages given by the US bishops. Chaput's article is here.

Any advice on other books or what to cover. I am open to suggestions.

The Battle of Public Orthodoxies

2008-03-17T17:12:00.002-06:00

A battle is raging for your mind and mind of your child. Shouldn't the state stand on the sidelines? What do you think? Sound off!

Right From The Beginning

2008-03-17T05:42:00.003-06:00

Well, I'm eating my words. I can't remember how many times Jared quoted Pat Buchanan over pizza at Mr. Gattis on Chimes street (or is it State street? It kind of makes a U and I don't know where State ends and Chimes begins) off of LSU and I would make some smart remark like, "Jared, I'm going to be so glad when you grow out of this stage."

I don't agree with PJB on everything, and he makes some comments that make me squirm, but I had to face it, how many conservative thinkers are there out there? The talking heads on the radio are neither conservative nor thinkers. What other conservative voices are there? Besides that, PJB is sharp as a tack. Also, now that, I think, he no longer has plans to run for president, it's easier to identify with him. Brilliant, great speaker, great writer, fierce in debate, but no politicial.

Anywho, he's pretty fun to read, so I'm reading RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, and may read more ( I plan to, but you how it is being an slow-dyslexic-reader-book-enthusiast with ADD) of his stuff after that (maybe his new book?). RFTB is his memoir through 1988. I imagine that it was written as part of his aborted 1988 bid for the White House.

Cerebella, as much as I hate to feed your militancy for the Latin Mass and the church of mid-century, you would love this book, particularly the first 79 pages, which chronicles his childhood in 1940's and 50's Georgetown and Chevy Chase.

R.I.P Bishop Rahho

2008-03-14T15:48:00.003-06:00

Toby Danna at Arrival has some fine words on the death of the Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Mosul in Iraq and for this final week of Lent. You can read his post here.

One major issue that is neglected by the mainstream media and many conservative commentators is that since the Iraq War began we've seen more attacks on the religious liberty of Christians in Iraq than while Iraq was under the control of the dictator Saddam Hussein. I did see where The American Conservative magazine highlighted the persecution of Christians since our occupation. It's certain that Iraq was a better place to live for Christians then than it is now. Should we just chalk this problem up as another one of those unforeseen consequences that was not considered by the advocates of the Iraq War? Maybe some thought about it; perhaps some just didn't care.

Knowing that this war has severely hightened the danger of my brother and sister Christians and their free exercise of the Faith saddens me deeply. With respect to the late Archbishop, what consoles me is the crown he has received from our Blessed Lord and for his ability now to intercede for us here. Like my wife said, "The bishop now can do bigger and better work for Iraq."

Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho, pray for us, especially this sinner.

I am King, Continuing Liberal Arts Education

2008-03-14T05:46:00.006-06:00

(See also, "If I Were King...." below) What should the king (in our case the people) study in order to rule for the common good? Below are some major areas with some specific issues. What needs to be added?

History and historical geography, particularly the progress of civilizations (how they began, major events, how they declined, forms of government and how the form changed).

Philosophy, what are the major areas of study and the schools of thought within each, who founded, which thinkers, what implications, what historical anecdotes.

Current events and geography (esp. beyond our borders)

Science (current issues: global warming and environmentalism, evolution, creationism and intelligent design; theories in support and against).

Economics, micro and macro.

Politics (here and abroad), who controls what where, who is going where with what policy; schools of thought on foreign policy, proponents, implications and current and historical anecdotes; theories of government proponents, implications and current and historical anecdotes.

Specific moral issues: abortion, euthanasia, the family and sex, torture, trade with oppressive regimes, labor standards.

If I Were King…

2008-03-14T05:36:00.004-06:00

…and I were given responsibility to rule for the common good, I would have a duty to learn what is for the common good wouldn't I? Wouldn’t I have a duty to know about political theory, current events, science, history and a host of other things? The answer is clearly yes.

If we are all rulers here in America, don't we all have a certain duty? Or should there be some “golden class” of elites that are responsible for the common good in America? You don’t hear a lot of people debating this much past the eighteenth century in America, but whether it is discussed anymore or not, it remains a vexing question.

Even if we do not believe that all Americans can or will look after the common good, if we love our country, if we want to consider ourselves good people, we need to take up the yoke by at least being informed. We hear a lot of banter right about now about how important it is to vote, but what difference does it really make if all you ever do is vote once or twice a year if you are ignorant? You probably do as much harm as good.

(see also my next post "I am King" above)

Thou Dost Protest Too Much

2008-03-11T18:54:00.002-06:00

Last night Dr. James Sennate (formerly of MSU, now at Brenau University) gave a lecture entitled "An Intelligent Discussion of Intelligent Design" for the Banners Series last night at McNeese. The following is a quote from his lecture that is a good reminder for blog discussion of things such as contraception:

"If you find it difficult to discuss this subject without appealing to predictions of dire consequences for the future...if you find more vitrolics than veracity in your contributions to the debate, then you need to acknowledge that you are driven at least as much by fear and anger as you are by genuine concern for a 'let the chips fall where they may" pursuit of the truth. Anger and fear have never been reliable conduits of verisimilitude."

Myths in Precious Metals

2008-03-08T09:35:00.002-06:00

There's not much doubt that people are turning to gold and silver as investments; I'd love to impress my friends by saying I called my gold broker yesterday but they'd know better. I did, though, bid on a couple of coins on eBay after some self education at the CMI Gold and Silver site. They have a really good post on the "numismatic" myth which is a good read even if you're not interested in or able to invest right now: "Myths, Misunderstandings, and Outright Lies" -- recommended reading to protect yourself, or someone you know, against unscrupulous coin brokers.

And here a certain rural Texas doctor takes on the new Fed Head (linked to the CMI blog):

The Problem is......

2008-03-04T07:19:00.002-06:00

The discussion on Rodak Riffs is up to 100 comments (right now we are talking about contraception). What makes this post of Rodak's so popular? The post was a single sentence: "Ask yourself how this could be.", with a link to a news article about how 1 in 100 Americans goes to prison.

I think the reason the post gets so much discusion is that it asks what is wrong with our country.

I have one observation and two questions:

OBSERVATION: Everyone seems to agree that something is wrong.

Q1: What is it we are all looking for? What are we seeking? What is the goal we have missed?

Q2: How do we fix it?

http://rrrrodak.blogspot.com/2008/02/reflections-something-to-ponder.html

Hot Topic

2008-03-03T17:50:00.002-06:00

Beginning with my comment on 3/2/08 at 10:19 PM, we are discussing contraception at Rodak Riffs.

It promises to be interesting.

I don't know why blogger isn't letting me put links in my posts. Here is the URL:

http://rrrrodak.blogspot.com/2008/02/reflections-something-to-ponder.html

Politics and the Environment

2008-03-02T18:41:00.002-06:00

Congress has mandated that incandescent bulbs be phased out by 2012, to be replaced by compact fluorescent lights (CFLs). Well, the EPA says CFLs should not be used everywhere, specifically not over carpeted areas where they may be susceptible to breakage (you know, like any room in a house with children). CFLs have been shown to release toxic amounts of mercury when they break (reference news links below). If they break over carpet, there is a rather complicated process to clean it up: turn off heating/AC, open windows, use sealable waste containers and duct tape, etc--and whatever you do, don't vacuum it up.

Even if they don't break, they need to be disposed of carefully (ie, not with the kitchen garbage). The ban on incandescent bulbs was supported by environmentalists. This sounds like an environmental disaster in the making to me.

I've seen this info several places on the 'net, but here are a couple specific links:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57426

Also, here is the EPA's own page for how to clean up if one of these bulbs breaks:
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm

Check out Rodak Riffs

2008-03-02T17:03:00.002-06:00

Interesting exchange on crime, poverty, divorce and contraeption http://rrrrodak.blogspot.com/2008/02/reflections-something-to-ponder.html

Racist Abortions

2008-03-02T08:41:00.001-06:00

A Publisher I Recently Discovered

2008-02-29T16:28:00.004-06:00

I ordered a book recently on Marriage edited by Robert P. George from this publisher. I thought I would share the link with you so that you can browse.

Some other authors published by Spence include J. Bud....ski (can't spell it correctly), Michael S. Rose, and Jennifer Roback Morse. Spence publishes books that cover topics such as politics, sex, and philosophy. In other words, things that Civis wants to talk about on his blog.

Biotech Firm To Provide Ethical Alternatives to Aborted Fetal Vaccines

2008-02-29T10:47:00.001-06:00

Press Release from the "Children of God for Life"

For Immediate Release: Feb 29, 2008

(Seattle) In a victory for pro-life families around the world, AVM Biotechnology LLC (AVM Biotech) today announced their decision to provide ethical alternatives in the fields of biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and vaccine development.

Dr Theresa Deisher, AVM Biotech Research and Development Director and founder stated, "We will be working to bring commercially available, morally acceptable, vaccines to the US market and to use existing technology to produce new morally certified vaccines. Revenues from the vaccine business will also further the research, development and commercialization of morally certified therapeutics in other areas of medicine as well."

The announcement was an answer to years of hard work and prayers for Children of God for Life, a pro-life organization that has battled to bring moral alternatives to aborted fetal vaccines to the US market for nearly a decade.

"There are no words sufficient to express our deepest gratitude to Dr Deisher and AVM Biotech", noted the group's Executive Director, Debi Vinnedge, who was also named to AVM Biotech's Advisory Board for vaccine development.

While most vaccines and medicines are produced in an ethical manner, several are manufactured using cell lines derived from aborted fetal tissue with no competing ethical products available. Vinnedge noted this has left concerned pro-life families in both a difficult and unjust position.

"For too long parents who want to protect their children without compromising their deeply held pro-life and religious beliefs have been coerced into an unnecessary and unjust moral dilemma," she stated. "No one should be forced to choose between these two fundamental human rights."

Both organizations hope that the news will spark members of Congress to move forward with their Fair Labeling and Informed Consent legislation, a bill that would require full disclosure from the pharmaceutical industry whenever aborted fetal or embryonic cell lines are used in medical products.

"Every consumer, whether pro-life in philosophy or not, has the right to know if human fetal cell contaminants are present in the drugs they receive", noted Dr Deisher. "Consumers should be informed and empowered to make the best health care choices for themselves and their families. Surely, if we have the right to know what is in our fast food, we should also have the right to know what is in our medicine."

AVM Biotech intends to further assist in this effort by certifying that its therapeutic products are not discovered, screened, evaluated, produced, or tainted in any way by the use of electively aborted human fetal material, human embryonic material, or any other unethically obtained materials.

U.S.: Not Just Morally Bankrupt

2008-02-29T10:29:00.002-06:00

This video is lengthy (9 minutes) but watch it. It shows that we don’t have the money (and never will have enough) to pay for all the things the politicians have promised. We’re bequeathing to the following generations an enormous bill they’ll never be able to pay unless some drastic spending cuts happen. Where are we going to get money for universal healthcare, Obama and Hillary? How are we going to pay for endless war, Mr. McCain?

Social Sciences

2008-02-29T10:22:00.002-06:00

http://www.ipsciences.edu/

Last night we were talking about “penetrating” the professions. Civis brought up the social sciences. Catholics want to go into the social sciences, so let’s give them some good formation to do it. The school’s focus, I believe, is for clinical psychology.

A friend of mine went to IPS’s summer study program at Oxford University. His professors included John Finnis, Roger Scruton, and Aidian Nichols.

Thank God for programs such as these that consider the whole human person when forming future social scientists such as psychologists.

Free Elections, My Ass

2008-02-29T09:40:00.003-06:00

Title of post is a quote from Civis in a private email. Used by permission. Check these videos out if you find your spirits running unexpectedly high and need to find a way to bring them down.

Computer Programmer testifies under oath regarding election rigging in South Florida:

John McCain won New Hampshire, my ass:

Perhaps the scariest of all: when a young father of five, a cool-headed Ron Paul supporter, suggests that we may have nowhere else to go than to the gun cabinet, then Houston, we have a problem.

Is Civis Too Rigid?

2008-02-27T17:40:00.003-06:00

A packet of free information came in the mail from the Constitution Party (not to be confused with the Constitutionalist Party). I liked what I saw as far as their platform went, but only one was irksome: there were a few references to “returning our country to biblically based government” or words to that effect.

a) When did the U.S. have “biblically based government”? I’m not saying the USA defies the good book or anything, but a Biblically based government, in my mind, would indicate a theocracy or a monarchy. I have read about “the Kingdom of Heaven” but never the Republic of heaven.

b) Considering our historical roots and what I know of my fundamentalist friends, I fear that a return to “biblical government” would not be friendly to religious freedom.

c) [Yes, I’m making this argument] Is a rallying cry for “Biblical” government likely to turn the tide or win a national election? Maybe the “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” approach would be preferred to such a rallying cry. I think a lot of people would have second thoughts after hearing about “biblical” government—not that they are anti-Christian.

Is Civis too rigid? Crazy? Paranoid?

Obama's Top Ten

2008-02-26T17:08:00.001-06:00

Check out Obama's Top Ten Reasons to Favor Infanticide

"And What I Have Failed To Do..."

2008-02-25T17:02:00.001-06:00

From Fr. Frank Pavone with a request to disseminate:

What's this I hear from some people that they might "sit out" the Presidential election because they aren't comfortable with the likely choice of candidates?

Since when are elections supposed to make us "comfortable?" Since when do we exercise that right to vote, for which people fought and died, only when it's easy and clear-cut, and our choices are just the way we want them to be?

At Mass we pray, "I confess to Almighty God...that I have sinned...in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do..."
What we fail to do can make us just as guilty as what we do. A sin is a wrong choice, and to decide not to do something is just as much of a choice as to decide to do something.

A sin of omission is still a sin - and we are still responsible for the results.
What, then, makes us think that we are more responsible for the results of voting than for the results of not voting?

A vote is not a philosophical statement. It is a transfer of power. It is a pragmatic act to preserve, as much as possible under the circumstances, the common good, and to limit the evils that threaten it.

And in the pragmatic matter of elections, what matters is not how closely a candidate measures up to my preferences and convictions. Instead, it's a question of who can and will actually get elected. It does little good if the person I felt most comfortable supporting doesn't get to actually govern and implement those positions I like so much.

The vote can be used just as much to keep someone out of office as to put someone in.
If we fail to use that tool, however, and as a result the person who gets elected is far worse and does far more damage than the other person we did not like, then we still share responsibility for the damage that will be done.

Elections have seasons. In the earliest phases, the field is wide open. We can recruit candidates, or decide to run ourselves. We build up the name recognition and base of support for the person or people who would make the best candidate. This takes years of work.

Then the season of primaries arrives, during which voters choose between the candidates who have been recruited and who have been building up their strength.

Then the general election season arrives, and we may find that we don't like any of the names on the ballot. At that point, we have to shift our thinking and focus on "better" rather than "best." The reality usually is that one of several unsatisfactory candidates will in fact be elected. So we use our vote to create the better outcome and to limit the damage. That’s the shift that some fail to make.

And we are still responsible for what we fail to do.

FYI

2008-02-25T08:06:00.001-06:00

The next book on my list (okay, there are two or three I’m about to start, but that is beside the point) is Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800. While reading David McCullough’s description of the correspondence between Adams and Jefferson in John Adams , I got to thinking about how letter writing is a lost art. An old friend of mine—who pretty much worships Jefferson—and I are going to read Adams vs. Jefferson and discuss it by snail mail. As far as I know, this book is outside of the interest of the people who look at PSR&M, but thought I’d tell you in case you wanted to join the fun.

National ID--Who Cares?

2008-02-21T17:20:00.003-06:00

This, like my post on the term "Conservative" ("What's a Conservative Anyway?", below) is for discussion purposes and to gain information, so if I am stupid, dead wrong, or naïve, please don’t "hate" on me, just tell me why I should care and I’ll be happy to care.

Why are people so uptight about the idea of a National ID card? I suspect it has something to do with “The Mark of the Beast” and other bedtime-end-of-the-world horror stories. But anyway, I would be irked about it except for the fact that—don’t we all have Social Security Cards and Social Security numbers? If they put my picture on the card, what difference does it make? What great evil would be achieved by a National ID card that we don’t already have by virtue of the Social Security card?

Maybe some of you think having a Social Security card is a bad thing and think we ought to get rid of them. That’s a rational position.

[Aside: now my conspiracy theorist friends will say I’m a “Change Agent". ]

Rules of the Road Part I

2008-02-18T13:05:00.002-06:00

I find that discussion on blogs generally progresses quite slowly due to the partipants avoiding the issue. If bloggers studied logic, their discussion would be far more productive. As it stands, most discussions are like one Sophist against another. This way of arguing is wonderful if you are wrong, but want to make your opponent look like a fool, but lousy if you seek truth. I think 90% of the problem falls under the non-linguist fallacy of avoiding the issue:

"Ignoring the issue" is evading the topic by, for example, disproving what your opponent never said or proving a point not under discussion. It is also know as the “Straw Man” or “House of cards.” Here is a list of prime examples (there are longer lists, but IMHO the longer list have duplicative items):
a)Argumentum ad hominem (“appeal to the man”)
-ignore the issue by attacking the person.
b) Argumentum ad populum (“appeal to the masses”)
-Appealing to the prejudices and\or biases.
-This is an appeal to mass psychology.
c) Argumentum ad baculum (“appeal to the stick”)
-Intimidation.
-Threats of violence.
-Shouting down your opponent or talking so much he can't talk.
d) Argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity)
-used especially by lawyers to get their client off.
e) Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to reverence)
-invoke authority, uphold tradition.
f) Argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance)
-“Snow Job”
-Use of exaggerated statistics.

What is a Conservative Anyway?

2008-02-15T16:22:00.001-06:00

I’m wondering if I need to come up with a new name for my political philosophy. Being a “Conservative” is amorphous. Paleoconservative is problematic too.

According to the ultimate authority on everything, Wikipedia, paleocons supposedly believe in classical Federalism. What is classical federalism? In the true sense of the word, it would describe what I believe in: power should be held at the lowest level, but in the U.S. “fdederalism usually means “strong central government.” I favor Reagan’s “New Federalism” which gives more power to the states. Is this “classical federalism”? As the ultimate authority goes on to say, even if you specific “paleo”, “Paleoconservativism is not expressed as an ideology and its adherents do not necessarily subscribe to any one party line.”

Here’s what I believe in (or what’s been in my mind lately):

People need to be involved in government if self-government is going to work. “There is no political solution to our trouble evolution”: Good men make a bad system work; opportunists, if not stopped by the citizens, will make a good system fail. That being said….

The rule of law. (I would specify that I believe strongly in the Bill of Rights, but “your rights end where my nose begins.” Thus the state needs to be kept under in its place, but “rights” are not moral absolutes).

Small Government: I have no problem with the government doing things that it can do best (which is a small list of things), but the government should not do things that, states, cities, neighborhoods, families or individuals can do for themselves.

Speak and walk softly but carry a big stick: If our interests are really at issue and we have to use force, use force quickly and decisively. Be willing to facilitate peace, but otherwise, stay out of other people’s business. War is morally, politically and economically hazardous and should be a last recourse.

What am I?

....and Money

2008-02-14T07:41:00.003-06:00

Have long had the intention of expanding the number of taboo topics to be discussed here (See new blog name). Here is my first post on the new topic:

From Pat Buchanan:

"Since it began to give credit ratings to nations in 1917, Moody's has rated the United States triple-A. U.S. Treasury bonds have been seen as the most secure investment on earth. When crises erupt, nervous money seeks out the world's great safe harbor, the United States. That reputation is now in peril.

Last week, Moody's warned that if the United States fails to rein in the soaring cost of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the nation's credit rating will be downgraded within a decade."

Angels

2008-02-12T16:43:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, while reading In Conversation with God, I came accross a passage that said "The devil--and our angels--cannot penetrate our innermost thoughts if we do not want them to. [They] cannot know the nature of our thoughts, they can only conjecture at them from outwardly perceptible indications...what we have chosen not to externalize, so that it remains hidden within our souls, is totally inaccessible to them."

Very interesting, said I.

But then today I read "We only have to speak to our guardian angel in our minds for him to understand and even to deduce from out inward thoughts more than we ourselves are able to express."

Can anybody reconcile these two staments for me? Can anybody provide a basis for either assertion?

Jesus: "No Endorsement for Satan"

2008-02-12T06:54:00.000-06:00

A humorous comment on the Baltimore Tribune's blog post "Ron Paul: No John McCain Endorsement"

The comments include a rather scary one by a computer programmer regarding optical scan voting machines. It's quite a ways down in the comments; you can just do a search on "vote results are produced by software".

Ron Paul's latest update seems to be curing the depression in the camp; big March on Washington being planned and judging from the YouTube comments, it'll be a success in terms of numbers. If an annual march develops from this initial one, that would be good; it would keep the movement's momentum going after the election.

Bye, Bye, Miss Republican Pork

2008-02-11T07:02:00.000-06:00

For better or for worse, Civis has invited me to participate in the Poligion blog and I've accepted. I thought I'd begin by announcing to the world that I have said "Goodbye" to the Republican Party and am registering as a member of the Constitution Party as a matter of conscience. The party's platform is a dream come true. A snippet from the platform on Education: "All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith. The law of our Creator assigns the authority and responsibility of educating children to their parents."

The knee-jerk reaction to "third parties" is "Don't waste your vote" or something similar; well, folks, I've been an active Republican since I was six years old, proudly wearing my "I Like Ike" button and stumping for the Eisenhower-Nixon ticket among my first grade classmates. I can truly say that the only real value returned for my work and financial support was Ronald Reagan. The rest has been a catalog of betrayals. So, if I must "waste" my time, effort, and vote, I will do so for a party in whose platform I believe, and I'll work for that party either until its platform and candidates become as corrupt as the Big Two or until I'm declared incompetent and institutionalized.

Most Americans believe that competition is good; it promotes efficiency, good service, and affordability. But when it comes to politics, the very idea of a "third party" is virtually anathema? If a third party can't win, then why can't it? Why can there be no equivalent to Apple Computer or Google in the political corporation world? These are not rhetorical questions; the answer to both lies in the difficulty of ballot access, supported by the Big Two; get rid of the stranglehold on ballots and watch the competition arise and flourish.

Recommended Reading:

The Ballot Access Hurdle
Ballot Access News
And of COURSE: Platform of the Constitution Party

On another, but related matter - thanks, Jared, for your letter to Right to Life regarding John McCain, who has not only betrayed the pro-life community (repeatedly) but whose military hero myth is being "Swiftboated" (in the conservative sense of the word) by Viet Nam Vets. Talk about wasting a vote! I'm not sure he's the lesser of any two evils after seeing this:

Later,
Cerebella

Excerpt from Jared's Letter to National Right to Life RE McCain

2008-02-06T10:42:00.000-06:00

In 1999 he held that Roe shouldn’t be reversed. Now that’s changed like everything else this “maverick” has previously espoused. I thought that you were for a reversal of Roe. The only way that is going to happen is by nominating Scalia-type judges to the federal bench, especially the Supreme Court. Yet, McCain was one of the famous “gang of fourteen”, the group that prevented Bush’s Scalia-type judges from getting on the bench. (Bush’s judicial nominees have been one of the few things he has done well as president.) McCain has aligned himself with the most liberal of Democrats. With McCain we’ll just have another Souter or Ginsburg.

And shame on the NRL for not mentioning Ron Paul, who was even endorsed by “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade, as being pro-life. He is as pro-life as anyone else running for president. You even praised Thompson, who was even behind Paul in most primaries before he dropped out. Please feel free to let me know why you praise Thompson and totally disregard Paul. The candidate that most resembles John Paul II on life issues is unquestionably Ron Paul. He’s against abortion; against the death penalty; against the preemptive, unnecessary war with Iraq (which, by the way, has killed thousands of innocent civilians, an unforeseen consequences of that ill-advised war); against the destruction of (or at least the taxpayer financing of the destruction of) human embryos.

A Controversial Death

2008-02-03T18:13:00.000-06:00

In William Shakespeare's play, Julius Caesar, it is said that the "evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft inturred with their bones." So should it be with Fr. Maciel?

The founder of the Legionaries of Christ, Father Marcial Maciel, died January 30, 2008. His life was dedicated to Christ. Since he past away I have read several articles about his life. Most have concentrated upon the allegations against him of misconduct.

My questions are:

1. What will Fr. Maciel's legacy be? Will he be remembered for his tremendous work in spreading the Gospel of Christ or for the serious allegations made against him?

2. Is it fair to bring up the allegations since they were never proven? Should Fr. Maciel be considered innocent until proven guilty?

3. If the fruits of a person's life are 95% good and 5% bad, how should we remember them? Should we honor them for the good they have done or abstain from praise so as to not cause scandal?

SELF-IMPROVEMENT: AN END IN ITSELF?

2008-02-03T08:57:00.000-06:00

A friend of mine had an axe to grind with a certain “lay movement.” One of his problems was that they did aggressive recruiting, but they “never did anything.” That was Regnum Christi. Another friend, had no axe to grind, but told me the reason he did not join a certain “lay movement” was that he saw that when a certain country’s government was being taken over by Marxists, the movement’s members would gather in knots and whisper, but never took action. That was Opus Dei.

What if the purpose of a “movement” is to make its members better people and not “conquer kingdoms, administer justice…. escape the edge of the sword…and route foreign enemies”? Is this a worthy end or does there need to be more? Should individual improvement be combined with group action? Is it better to have both or better to have only one?

WHEN THERE ARE NO GOOD CANDIDATES....

2008-01-30T17:51:00.000-06:00

Someone asked me to post on “when there are not any goodcandidates in an election, should you pick the lesser of two evils orabstain from voting?” I responded, “What’s wrong with Ron Paul” and he came back, “The question is a general one. It does not pertain to the presidential election in particular.”

I haven’t read “The Serious Catholic’s Guide to Voting” in a while, so maybe my thoughts here are heresy, but here is my hip pocket answer: It depends, but in general, pick the lesser of two evils.

As the old saying goes, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” In the words of St. Thomas More, “What you cannot make perfect, make as little imperfect as possible.”

On the other hand, a strong argument could be made that there are non-negotiable issues.

But what if everyone in the field has the same bad stance on a nonnegotiable issue? Suppose all the candidates support euthanizing every child with Attention Deficit Disorder. Are you prohibited from voting? What if they all have this stance, but all but one also has the stance that experiments should be done on these children first and without pain killers? Would the principle of double effect come into play (i.e. in voting for the one, you are voting for children not being the subjects of experimentation and not for euthanasia)?

Pope John Paul II

2007-11-28T17:52:00.000-06:00

My wife and I watched the made-for-television movie about Pope John Paul II. It was not bad at all for a made for TV film. As far as I could tell, it was not only historically accurate, it contained a lot of true to life actual events--i.e. the film is actually a good source of information about the pope. The only criticism I have is that the death of his mother then brother then father, from what I understand, made perhaps a bigger impression on him than anything else in his life, but the film doesn't really go there other than portraying sadness at his father's death. Also, there is a quasi-romance in the movie that I don't think ever actually happened.

It did an excellent job of showing his love of Poland. It also hit on his strong beliefs in controversial areas--of course I agree with him on all those areas!

It's a Wonderful Life: Support a Mom and Pop's this Christmas

2007-11-27T18:13:00.000-06:00

Somebody somewhere said that It's a Wonderful Life and The Wizard of Oz were opposites with the former being a pro-capitalist film and the latter being anti-capitalist.

I think that It's a Wonderful Life makes for an anti-capitalist cautionary tale. The way things are with George Bailey never having existed is the world Capitalism creates. Of course, whether you agree with me may depend on your definition of Capitalism.

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." --Edmund Burke

The Summa

2007-10-17T08:18:00.000-05:00

The real world has been kicking my butt keeping me busy, so I haven't had much time for blogging.

As I said before, reading the Summa have been a long time brewing. I bought the 5-volume set about a year or so ago, but I have had Timothy McDermott’s “Concise Translation” for about ten years. If you don’t know already, the full text of the Summa is on the net. I have to tell you, McDermott’s translation makes it a lot more accessible. If you went through the Summa and condensed each article to a paragraph cutting out the “Objection 1….Objection 2…. On the contrary…I answer than…” format and summarizing it as a good student of philosophy would do and cutting out technical terms as much as possible, at the end, you would have McDermott’s Concise Translation. It is marked such that you can easily refer to the full text if you want to see the objections and responses etc, but if you want to cut to the chase, you have McDermott’s translation.

It still requires some straining of the brain, but it makes it much easier for the Peeping Thomist. It is well over my head, but I’m trying to practice what Mortimer J. Adler prescribes: “You do not understand the book perfectly. Let us even assume—what unhappily is not always true—that you understand enough to know that you do not understand it all. You know the book has more to say than you understand and hence that it contains something that can increase your understanding. [Doing the job of reading] is done in only one way. Without external help of an sort, you go to work on the book. With nothing but the power of your own mind, you operate on the symbols before you in such a way that you gradually lift yourself from a state of understanding less to one of understanding more. Such elevation, accomplished by the mind working on a book, is highly skilled reading, the kind of reading that a book which challenges your understanding deserves.”

Like I said, I’m trying. I have no guilt about consulting the glossary in Peter Kreeft’s Shorter Summa and the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy to make sure I understand the symbols. Anyway, all that being said, although I could have easily thrown in the towel already as in the first 90 pages (fifty-something pages of the translator/editor’s introduction and fourty-something pages of the Summa) I found multiple occasions to feel stupid, I keep going. I have four things to say to anyone thinking about reading the Summa: 1) You won’t feel any more stupid than I do reading it, 2) I recommend this translation as a starter—this coming from one who has made multiple attempts at reading the Summa—as it is doable 3) the moments of feeling stupid are balanced with moments when something else makes sense and provides a deeper understanding about something you’ve thought about before, and 4) This book like few others is worth the effort.

If God is Good......?

2007-10-04T17:47:00.000-05:00

Rodak, Paul, Dick, (Just noticed he wasn't on my blogroll) and I have been having a most enjoyable conversation regarding the problem of evil. What is nice is that we have been having a rational exchange of ideas. Although we do not always agree, our minds meet and grasp one another's arguments. I love it! The latest question is the following, posed by Rodak:

"If God is all-good and all-knowing, how can evil exist in a world He created?"

Here is my answer:

We know happens one moment at a time as they occur. Got knows things all at once because he is outside of time. To know something happened, will happen, oris happening, is not to make it happen. I know what happened on September 11, 2001. Does that mean I caused it?

Imagine that I have a time machine and can travel into the future. Imagine also that (as happens in every story involving time travel) time stops when I travel. If I travel all through the future and make video tapes of everything that happens in every place for the rest of time and I create a collection of videos in the present. I know everything that is going to happen and can access any video to see what is going to happen in the future. Do I now control the future—or just know it in advance?

I have gotten to know my friend very well. I have learned how he “ticks,” if you will. When something happens, I know how he will act. He has a girlfriend and I know that he is going to break up with her in the next couple weeks, although he does not. I know that another friend sent him an e-mail which he has not read yet, but when he reads it I know exactly what he is going to do: he is going to fly in to a fit of rage and is going to send a nasty e-mail back. Am I making him break up with his girlfriend? Am I making him write a mean e-mail?

I know that America is going to suffer an economic decline and is going to decline in power and military strength. This knowledge is based on my study of world history and international political trends. Do I control the American economy? Do I control American power?

How Should We Improve Our Minds?

2007-10-03T18:04:00.000-05:00

How does a person best go about improving his mind? That has been on my mind a lot lately. There is so much to know, and so much we need to know, yet so little time. Since everyone in the U.S. is entitled to an education, education is under valued (like the right to vote), and it is dumbed down so that everyone can be crammed through the system regardless of whether their interests and abilities lean toward academics or toward a trade or something else.

But even without a deficient educational system, if we are to have a government by, for and of the people there has to be an informed citizenry. They need have a knowledge of history, philosophy, the social sciences, economics, religion etc. In a truly ideal world everyone would be educated. That exists only in Utopia. But the author of Utopia, who was a practical man, often said, what you can’t make perfect, make as little imperfect as possible. In a somewhat less ideal world there would be at least a few good people who would look out for the others. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in either.

Maybe it’s just our country: we’re all rich by world standards, over weight, we have pill for everything, maybe we think we don’t need our fellow man’s help so we don’t help him; we don’t need the quid pro quo thing so we just look out for ourselves. And because we are rich and fat, and powerful we forget about how our grandfathers worked in the fields and in factories and felt they were doing well if their family didn’t starve to death, and our 6x great grandfather had to come over the mountain and meet the British before the British came over the mountain and raped their wives. Anyway, we are pretty apathetic at this point. So I guess more encouraging that St. Thomas More’s admonition is the one from Mother Theresa: “God doesn’t call me to be successful; he calls me to be faithful.”

But where to start and what course to follow? That has been irking me for a while. Part of me says to recall what St. Augustine said, “We learn better in a free spirit of curiosity than under fear and compulsion.” Part of me says I need to read about things I don’t want to read about like American Foreign Policy and Bioethics, and I need to learn how to best approach such complex issues, not from my gut but to find the right way whether my gut agrees or not. And there are times when a person needs to keep studying a subject even when it becomes tedious
Well, I think I have begun to find some answers….for me. First, I think I learn better in a discussion or debate. For one, sometimes we don’t appreciate an idea unless we have something to compare it to. I think this is one of the reasons that converts whether they be to Capitalism, or communism or to a religion, tend to have so much zeal: because they have seen both sides and struggled through from one to the other. Second, if a person challenges my faith (be it religious of political) it forces me to learn my faith, and to see the gaps in my belief that need to be bridged. As it happens, I started blogging to find people who were interested in discussing the same books and ideas. I’ve met some great people so far.

Second, and this has been a long time coming (over ten years), I’ve decided to read the Summa Theologica. Well, I’m reading a concise translation. Timothy McDermott translated the Summa and reformatted it into a more normal flow of writing than the “Objection 1….Objection 2…. On the contrary…I answer than…” format. It contains the all the meat and cuts out only things that are of only historical interest. I solemnly swear that I will read it once. It’s only 600 pages (In Aquinas’ format it is 3,000 pages). I ought to read it 3-5 times, but we’ll see. It’s not that I don’t want to read the Summa, it’s just that I really have to stretch my brain to follow it.

But the Summa is only half of the story. I am thinking I want to follow what might be called the “Jazz” method of self-improvement. I don’t know if this applies to all Jazz. In fact, what I’m thinking about may actually be better described as Boogie—anyway, on the piano, the left hand plays a steady tune while the right hand goes crazy. With part of my time, the mornings, I’ll try to engage in more steady, determined reading, while in the other part, the evenings, I’ll read whatever piques my interest: worldview, natural law, bioethics foreign policy, something someone tells me I ought to read.

Is X wrong just because God says so?

2007-09-28T08:17:00.000-05:00

This is a continuation of the discussion from the previous post, "Is God Evil?"

There is a lot to discuss under this question. It seems to me that it is a good idea to take things one step at a time and focus first on where right is right and wrong is wrong simply because God says this is right and that is wrong (a.k.a. "The Divine Command Theory").

In discussing this question, Rodak has touched on a number of important points, all of which I would like to discuss. The topic of God's omniscience seems to be a favorite under the previous post, so under the comments to this post I hope to discuss The Divine Command Theory further.

As of uploading this post I am still getting a grip on Rodak's thinking. Rodak asked me to play Socrates. I must say, I'm feeling an awful lot like Socrates must have felt when he talked to Euthyphro--if we take his words at face value. Nevertheless Rodak, unlike Euthyphro, has thought through what he says.

Let me start with this statement of Rodak in response to my question "You say a thing is right because it is good. So then, you would say that God says that Y is immoral because it is immoral?"

"I would say that any act involving a moral choice (i.e. not undertaken out of necessity) is moral if motivated by truth, goodness, and love, all of which are aspects of the One, which alone is Good."

Is God Evil?

2007-09-26T18:49:00.000-05:00

Recently while in a thread at The Dawn Treader we got into a discussion about the problem of evil. I wanted to discuss the issue further but as it wouldn't be nice to start my own off-topic discussion on someone else's blog, I invited my friend Paul to come discuss it here. Here is a synopsis of our discussion:

Paul said: God commanded everything to happen, down to the smallest beat of a fly's wings; being omnipotent, omniscient, and outside time, he could not do otherwise. Hence, you would say, everything is good?

Civis said: When you say “God commanded everything to happen, down to the smallest beat of a fly's wings; being omnipotent, omniscient, and outside time, he could not do otherwise. Hence, you would say, everything is good?” surely you don’t mean that. Do you believe that God commanded the Holocaust? Millions of babies being aborted? The starvation of 11 million people in the Ukraine? Divorce? Fornication? Child molestation?

Paul said: Civis - yes, I mean exactly that, and I don't understand how it is logically possible to think otherwise. If I set a go-cart rolling down a hill, and can see that it's heading towards a car, you would rightly think that I'd meant it to hit that car - if I didn't I could have pointed it in a different direction.

Civis said: If I am showing my son how to ride a bike, at some point I have to stop holding him up. I have to give him a push and let him peddle and balance on his own. When I do this, I know that he is going to fall. He is going to fall a lot. He’ll get cut and bruised. He could even get hit by a car. Does this mean that I want him to fall or get hurt on his bike? No. I would rather that he not hurt himself. I do not directly will for him to get hurt. On the other hand, I want him to be a normal little boy and grow up to be a healthy man, so I permit him the freedom to ride his bike and allow him to be hurt from time to time. I permit it, though I would prefer that it not happen.

Alternatively, I could protect my son from all harm by keeping him in a padded bomb shelter and not let him do anything. I wouldn’t even let him read books because he could get a paper cut, and die of an infection. I also would not let him have any friends, because they would carry germs. The problem with this second plan is that if I followed it, my son would be something a great deal less than what I want him to be: a healthy adult.

I would say that God does not directly will bad things. I would say that he “permits” it. I think I have heard this referred to as his “permissive will.”

Paul said: the flaw in your analogy is that you don't make the 'rules' of cycling. A more appropriate version would be if you were teaching your son chess, and every time he made an illegal rule you stabbed him in the arm. That, as far as I know, would be a rule unique to you. Having settled on that, I don't think you could retain the excuse that you don't really want him to get hurt - you made the rules, knowing that he would fall afoul of them.

Civis said: Paul, it seems to me that you are confusing an arbitrary rule with a natural consequence.

Things work better when they act or are used according to their nature. Let me use another example to illustrate: I make a glass figurine and give it to my son. The purpose of this figurine is to be looked at for its beauty. My son wants to hang a picture in his room but can’t find a hammer. He then decides to use the figurine to drive the nail and it shatters into shards and cuts him. His cut is a natural consequence of the misuse of something.

If God wants to give us free will (for whatever reason), a part of that free will must be the freedom to misuse things and this causes pain. Just because you give someone freedom to make choices, does not mean you desire the choice the person makes or desire the consequences.

Sunday Editorial (From Viewpoint)

2007-09-25T07:46:00.000-05:00

I was invited to join a number of non-journalists in the York area who will be submitting columns to the local Sunday paper over the next year. My first contribution is on the Iraq war and borrowed from a post I had written some time ago for Viewpoint. It appeared in yesterday's paper:

Feb 11, 2007 - President Bush has taken much criticism, some of it deserved, for the way the post-war has played out in Iraq. Disillusionment with the Iraqis and the rules under which we operate there has led many to favor bringing our troops home as soon as logistically possible. The day may come when we decide to do that, but before the American public signs on to such a step we should understand clearly what withdrawal will entail.

One need not be a military expert to anticipate that the aftermath of an American pullout would likely include at least these seven consequences:

1. Sunni and Shia would be at each others' throats in a desperate civil war for political dominance. It would be a fight for survival because whoever prevails would surely oppress, if not utterly eliminate, the loser.

2. Iran would move into Iraq on behalf of the Shia and to settle old scores with the Iraqi Sunnis dating back to the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. They would doubtless annex the oil fields in the south. Meanwhile, pressure would mount on Sunni nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to come to the aid of their beleaguered brethren. Turkey would take advantage of the chaos to settle their chronic Kurdish problem by invading northern Iraq. Syria would be sorely tempted to grab some oil fields wherever it could. Iraq would get carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey among its neighbors and would be almost completely helpless to prevent it.

3. Al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations would exploit Iraq's weakness to establish training areas and safe havens in the country from which to launch terrorist attacks around the world.

4. Anyone who had collaborated with or cooperated with the coalition would be marked for torture and death by insurgent forces. This could amount to perhaps hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis.

5. The chaos of war and the rape of the country's resources would result in severe shortages of food, water, medical care, sanitation and electricity. Refugees would flood into neighboring states and subsist in squalid camps. Perhaps millions of Iraqis would starve or perish from disease if these conditions persisted more than a few months.

6. The United States would be thoroughly discredited and blamed for the misery and strife in Iraq because of our retreat. No nation would ever trust us again to honor a commitment. Pressure from their people would cause governments in Kuwait, Oman and Qatar to insist we abandon our bases there. Other Muslim nations, like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Indonesia, seeing that we are undependable partners in the war on terror, would ratchet back their cooperation. As the last American helicopter flees Baghdad, every Arab nation with enough money will begin looking for nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the Iranians. Nations like Libya, which had given up the quest for nuclear weapons, would feel safe to resume it.

7. Our lack of credibility in the region would embolden Israel's neighbors to settle the "Zionist problem" once and for all. Once we start pulling out of the Middle East, it would be psychologically impossible to reverse course and go back in. The enemies of Israel would see our withdrawal as presenting them with a golden opportunity to wipe Israel from the Earth, and the Israelis would probably resort to nuclear weapons to keep that from happening.
It may be, of course, that none of these things would occur. It may be that in the vacuum created by our absence the Shia and Sunni would turn their swords into plowshares and live amicably with each other.

It may be that other nations would not be at all tempted to grab what they can of Iraq's oil wealth.

It may be that al-Qaida feels content in the hills of Pakistan and wouldn't move in force into Iraq.

It may be that the insurgents would forgive and forget the collaboration of their fellow Iraqis with the infidels.

It may be that Israel's Arab neighbors would feel sorry for Israel in its isolated and vulnerable state and offer to make peace instead of war.

And it may be that the Second Coming will be tomorrow, but all of our experience tells us it probably won't be, and it is our experience which should inform our judgments and policies, especially our foreign policy.

The status quo in Iraq is certainly not acceptable, and we may soon decide that we've done enough there, but, if so, let us not delude ourselves by thinking we are doing something noble or moral by withdrawing. A premature exit would consign hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis to almost certain death and would earn us the contempt of history for our betrayal.

Mounting Fears of Assyrian Genocide in Iraq

2007-09-24T08:20:00.000-05:00

(AINA) -- According to Assyrian Christian leaders in Iraq the future existence of Iraq's dwindling Christian population hangs in the balance as violence continues unabated. Moreover, direct blame has been leveled at Iraqi governmental as well as Coalition forces' inaction in the face of mounting attacks against Christian population centers.

Read the full story.

BACK TO IRAQ

2007-09-21T17:28:00.000-05:00

My friend Dick is a supporter of the war in Iraq. He asked me to take a look at an article he wrote for his local paper (see "Sunday Editorial"). It seems like in the past when I have discussed Iraq with people we have been all over the place and trying to discuss too many things at one time, so I think I'll comment on just one of his comments at a time so that we can discuss them better.

First a preliminary question and an aside.

Question: Dick, maybe you could share with everyone why you were asked to write this and what your qualifications are to comment on this subject.

Aside: I heard a sound bite from Joseph Liberman yesterday that is a good example of the DoubleSpeak of the Chickenhawks. A measure that would have required the military to allow soldiers to have more time in garrison between deployments was defeated. Joe Liberman, praising the defeat of the measure said that he voted against it to "allow our men to keep fighting the war on terror." Bill Mauldin would have a field day. I'm sure there there are thousands of GI's who forgot what their kids look like who are much appreciative!

But now for what Dick said:

"One need not be a military expert to anticipate that the aftermath of an American pullout would likely include at least these seven consequences: 1. Sunni and Shia would be at each others' throats in a desperate civil war for political dominance. It would be a fight for survival because whoever prevails would surely oppress, if not utterly eliminate, the loser."

My Comments:

1) Did you say "would be"?

2) It is amazing how supporters of this ill-thought-out preemptive war against someone who never attacked us and had no plans, ability or desire to attack us, use the mess that the invasion has created as an excuse for continuing our occupation.

3) a) No government we leave behind will remain in existence, so this is the result no matter how long we stay and nurse it b) It is not possible for us to keep order in Iraq. What you suggest is that we do what no Army in Human history has done for the rest of human history

The Disconnect

2007-09-12T08:24:00.000-05:00

What I originally planned for this post was a recap of my questions on worldview, what I have been thinking and where I stand right now with each question. But this turned into ten pages of disjointed ramblings (my wife says this is too much for a blog, that when she started reading it, she got depressed), so I decided maybe it would be best to do one question at a time. I think may be able to break my 10 pages of rambles into about seven posts.

At any rate, I have been picking everyone else’s brain for so long, I thought maybe it was time I shared some of my thoughts.

It started with the following passage from How Should We Then Live:

“People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize. By Presuppositions we mean the basic way an individual looks at life, his basic worldview, the grid through which he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth of what exists. People’s presuppositions lay a grid for all they bring forth in the external world. Their presuppositions also provide the basis for their values and therefore the basis for their decisions.”

QUESTION 1 [“The Disconnect”]: If we assume that what Schaeffer said above is true, why do we so often see such a disconnect between what people say and the way they actually think and live? All of the following are explanations of the disconnect depending on the circumstances, but only some of them are correct when/if Schaeffer is correct on this point.

I have come up with several answers/reasons:

ONE POSSIBILITY: Schaeffer is wrong.

PSEUDO ANSWER 1 (“Hypocrisy”): The first and most obvious reason, one that several people have suggested, for the disconnect is hypocrisy. What Schaeffer says is that people do act consistently with their worldview. So this cannot be an answer if we are assuming that Schaeffer is right, but would mean Schaeffer is wrong.

PSEUDO ANSWER 2 (“It’s difficult”): Living a moral life is hard; through human weakness we fail to live up to our worldview. This is my neighbor’s explanation and is interesting for a couple of reasons.

First, it would seem that the correct worldview would be the best life. It is my belief that God does not simply make up rules, but rather the moral law is a road map for the best life. A thing is wrong/a sin because it hurts us. So I wonder about whether the moral life is really hard, or whether perhaps it isn’t easier than an immoral life. Or maybe the life that cuts corners is easier only in appearance.

Second, I wonder if some worldviews aren’t impossible to live, including what might pass for a Christian worldview, and I wonder if it isn’t sometimes a blessing that some do not live their worldviews consistently. Aren’t there certain things we believe we should do or certain ways we believe we should act, which if laid down as an absolute rule would lead to inhuman and ridiculous results?

Nevertheless, this answer won’t work if we are assuming that Schaeffer is correct, but would mean that Schaeffer is incorrect, since Schaeffer says that in fact people do live in accord with their worldview.

ANSWER 1: (“Fragmentation”): Many people hold fragmented worldview that are pieced together from more than one of the worldviews Sire describes. This answer was suggested by Ron at Universitas Veritas and by David at The Bird Proofer.

ANSWER 2 (“Out of touch”): One’s true worldview may not be what he thinks it is. This answer has been suggested by several people, and is what I read Schaeffer to imply. This happens to be the answer that intrigues me the most and leads to another question, one that will be discussed in a later post.

ANSWER 3 (“Façade”): Sometimes consciously, most of the time subconsciously, a person’s professed worldview is a façade. This is related to Answer 2 (the true worldview is something other than the professed worldview) and Pseudo Answer 1 (it is something like hypocrisy, but I would say it is hypocritical only when it is conscious). There are two ways that this happens that I can think of right now.

The first is the search for identity and meaning in life. We see this especially in youth. In High School we might find identity in being a “skater” or “head banger” or “good ole boy” or a hell raiser. In college we may go through stages where we see ourselves as “a writer” or “a businessman” or whatever (and change our major accordingly). I guess this is due to insecurity. Sometimes we aren’t satisfied with being an ordinary human being, so we look for some label. I think this type of façade is temporary. Maybe we could say it is part of growing up: you have to “find yourself.”

The second reason for a façade is to hide something, like a deeper insecurity or guilt. A person may try to find meaning by being a “philosopher” and may hide their insecurities and their feelings of inadequacy behind their ability to parrot some philosopher or dazzle people with their clever arguments. A person who wants to be better than the next guy, but who is not the best looking, doesn’t have money and isn’t very popular, might resort to trying to be the “better man” and turn to Christianity or Marxism or Atheism or environmentalism or feminism as a means to feel better or more on the ball than everyone else. So also, person who has problems with the moral teachings of the Church, may list theological reasons for having left it.

Just a reminder and a little plug for other blogs who discuss worldview, you can check out the discussion that has taken place at Universitas Veritas, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (note the link "Next" at the bottom), Blah Blah Blah, and Confessions of a Seminarian. In Confessions of a Seminarian see "Dear Legalism", "Extreme Apologetic Approaches" and "Apologetic Approaches".

Misspent Energy

2007-09-11T11:00:00.000-05:00

Someone I've been chatting with said "Your creation story will largely determine the direction of your worldview." Most Evangelicals and Fundamentalists would probably agree with this, but I don't think that it necessarily or even very often affects a person's worldview. I personally don't see that evolution makes a whole lot of sense and I can't really see how anyone could buy into it, but if I belived in evolution my worldview would not change one bit. Further, I don't think that most people who believe in evolution see it as a reason to doubt thier faith.

Another issue that I think gets an inordinant amount of attenton is prayer in school. Kids should be allowed to express thier beliefs, and their freedom of religion should not be infinged, and when it is, I think the affected person should sue for an injuction, but do we really think that our society is going to turned around by changing the government's approach to prayer in school?

I think if we want to make a difference in our society, there are plenty of other areas where our time would be better spent. I think these two areas get more attention than they deserve.

There is an old saying "You have to pick your battles." Is it fitting to spend so much energy on these two issues when we are engaging in preemptive war overseas, mass killing of infants and the elderly and sick here at home, and most everything we buy is made by slave labor in an oppressive communist country with one of the worst records of human rights violations?

Diving into Worldview Studies

2007-08-30T07:50:00.000-05:00

In my odyssey into "worldview studies" I’m finally diving into The Universe Next Door by James Sire.

I have a couple questions for discussion. Some of these questions are specifically about the book, but others are more general. Even if you haven't read the book, I'm interested in your opinion:

1) What is the purpose of studying worldviews? What should I look to get out of it?
2) Sire says, “The gap left by the loss of a center to life is like a chasm in the heart of a child whose father has died. How those who no longer believe in God wish that something could fill the void.” But people who share Sire’s worldview have the same void. In fact, I think it would not be a stretch to say that people who share Sire’s worldview generally have a greater void than atheists and agnostics.
3) Does anybody know what Sire means by saying that man is “self transcendent”?
4) Is it true what Schaeffer and Sire say, that "the world" has no moral absolutes?
5) On the eighth page of Chapter 2 [middle of page 28 in the 3rd edition] Sire says “[W]e participate in part in a transcendence over our environment. Except at the very extremes of existence…a person is not forced to any necessary reaction.” This is a statement against determinism and in support of free will [the question of free will is a “family dispute”]. Even if you believe in free will (which I do), do you think he overstates the point? Are our reactions really so radically free? Aren’t there a number of things that inhibit our free will?
6) Does Sire say that good is good because God says it is good or says it is good because it is good or neither? I’m not real sure how Sire comes down on this. This is something important to answer because it would have a huge impact on one’s worldview. Just reading what he says, it would appear that he thinks good is good because God says so, which is problematic.
7) Is it possible that there may be less of a difference between someone with a Catholic worldview and someone with a materialistic worldview than between a Catholic and one who believes in Sola Fide and predestination?
8) To take another example, it seems clear to me that there will be a greater difference in the way we live between those who do or do not believe in free will and someone who does not than between someone who believes in linear as opposed to cyclical time.

Buy Low, Divorce High.

2007-08-13T07:39:00.000-05:00

“After home prices rise, unhappy couples realize they can afford to split.” This was the subtitle of one of the two top stories on page 1 of the New York Times “SundayLifestyles” section, the “little-noted side effect of the property boom of the past decade [is the] real-estate-enabled divorce.” According to the article, “A spouse who has not worked…might decide that with a divorce settlement enriched by real estate, it is possible to maintain a comfortable standard of living. Or a breadwinning spouse might recognize that even after dividing community property, it will be possible to live well as a single person.”

Now, you are expecting me to bemoan the banality of America’s views of divorce, after all, this is a vow people have taken, most of them before God almighty. But I’m not. I like this article. It’s down to earth. It’s real. Divorce is expensive. Not only does it increase the number of violent crimes, drug use, unwed mothers (not among former spouses, but their children), it is the numero uno cause of poverty in America (ahead of race, lack of education etc.). The divorce itself is often cheap—under $500 depending on where you live—but the after effects, if not the litigation and settlement, are financially crippling. Next time you hear about how hard it is for a two-income family to make ends meet, double their expenses. That’s what divorce means. Two houses, two electric bills, two of everything instead of one.

And who pays for this when it drives someone below the poverty line? We the taxpayers. Historically, the fact that the Government has to foot the bill for so many things has been an excuse to regulate things closely. I say we model regulation of marriage after our regulation of smoking. The cost of caring for smokers is leading us to a smoking ban. And, we had a “War on Poverty”—or do we still have it? (I can’t keep up with all the wars we declare). But anyway, let’s win the war on poverty. Here’s the plan: we begin with heavy taxes. The tobacco in a pack of cigarettes costs $.25 and then there is about $4.75 in taxes. That takes the cost of the tobacco and multiplies it by 20. We’ll do the same with divorce. $500 times 20 equals $100,000. While, like the tax on tobacco, this bit of regulation will not compensate for the financial burden divorcees will put on society, it will save us millions since it will be a significant deterrent. Then we’ll work our way to a ban.

Do We Live What We Think?

2007-08-08T07:34:00.000-05:00

Last night my neighbor came over and we decided to start reading How Should We Then Live: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture. One of my sisters may read along too, though she is in about 47 book clubs herself right now.

Anyway, I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't quote his language, but he said that people's lives are driven by their world view and their preconceptions about the world to an extent even they do not realize. He said that we act according to the way we think both personally and collectively ("politically").

Here is my thorny question: if this is true, why is it that people's actions so often do not match their words? I'm inclined to think that the author is correct. The book of Proverbs says "As a man thinks in his heart so is he." But why is there such a disconnect between words and actions if this is true? Are the things we say just a bunch of empty platitudes that we don't really mean? It seems we say things, and we mean them, but then we often do not act accordingly. Could it be that we often are unaware of our own preconceptions/world views? To quote another scripture that might appear to contradict the proverb, St. Paul talked about the war within his flesh etc. and said "what I want to do I do not do, and what I do not want to do I do."

Are the contradictions only in my head? Am I confusing things? Have I missed the author's true intent?

This is the book:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Should-We-Then-Live/dp/1581345364/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8185209-5766346?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186576621&sr=1-1

Quote of the Day

2007-08-07T07:36:00.000-05:00

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." --Edmund Burke

Okay, book switch. Confero, Qualitas and myself decided Imperial Hubris would be a better book to read. So as soon as they get their copies we'll start.

http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Hubris-West-Losing-Terror/dp/1574888625/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8185209-5766346?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186403052&sr=1-1

A response to Aquila is forthcoming.

A Penny for Your Thoughts

2007-08-06T17:52:00.000-05:00

All,

Below is an excerpt from a Speech by John C. Calhoun. Based on the following argument, he draws a conclusion that I would disagree with (and have edited out), but I think the speech could make for an interesting conversation:

If he should possess a philosophical turn of mind, and be disposed to look to more remote and recondite causes, he will trace it to a proposition which originated in a hypothetical truism, but which, as now expressed and now understood, is the most false and dangerous of all political errors. The proposition to which I allude, has become an axiom in the minds of a vast majority on both sides of the Atlantic, and is repeated daily from tongue to tongue, as an established and incontrovertible truth; it is that "all men are born free and equal." [Quoted from the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.—TGW] I am not afraid to attack error, however deeply it may be entrenched, or however widely extended, whenever it becomes my duty to do so, as I believe it to be on this subject and occasion.

Taking the proposition literally (it is in that sense it is understood), there is not a word of truth in it. It begins with "all men are born," which is utterly untrue. Men are not born. Infants are born. They grow to be men. And concludes with asserting that they are born "free and equal," which is not less false. They are not born free. While infants they are incapable of freedom, being destitute alike of the capacity of thinking and acting, without which there can be no freedom. Besides, they are necessarily born subject to their parents and remain so among all people, savage and civilized until the development of their intellect and physical capacity enables them to take care of themselves. They grow to all the freedom of which the condition in which they were born permits, by growing to be men. Nor is it less false that they are born "equal." They are not so in any sense in which it can be regarded; and thus, as I have asserted, there is not a word of truth in the whole proposition, as expressed and generally understood.

If we trace it back, we shall find the proposition (that "all men are born free and equal") differently expressed in the Declaration of Independence. That asserts that "all men are created equal." The form of expression, though less dangerous, is not less erroneous. All men are not created. According to the Bible, only two, a man and a woman, ever were, and of these one was pronounced subordinate to the other. All others have come into the world by being born, and in no sense, as I have shown, either free or equal. But this form of expression being less striking and popular has given way to the present, and under the authority of a document put forth on so great an occasion, and leading to such important consequences, has spread far and wide, and fixed itself deeply in the public mind. It was inserted in our Declaration of Independence without any necessity. It made no necessary part of our justification in separating from the parent country, and declaring ourselves independent. Breach of our chartered privileges, and lawless encroachment on our acknowledged and well-established rights by the parent country, were the real causes, and of themselves sufficient, without resorting to any other, to justify the step. Nor had it any weight in constructing the governments which were substituted in the place of the colonial. They were formed of the old materials and on practical and well-established principles, borrowed for the most part from our own experience and that of the country from which we sprang.

If the proposition be traced still further back it will be found to have been adopted from certain writers in government who had attained much celebrity in the early settlement of these States, and with whose writings all the prominent actors in our revolution were familiar. Among these, Locke and [Algernon] Sidney were prominent. But they expressed it very differently. According to their expression, "all men in the state of nature were free and equal." From this the others were derived; and it was this to which I referred when I called it a hypothetical truism. To understand why, will require some explanation.

Man, for the purpose of reasoning, may be regarded in three different states: in a state of individuality; that is, living by himself apart from the rest of his species. In the social; that is, living in society, associated with others of his species. And in the political; that is, being under government. We may reason as to what would be his rights and duties in either, without taking into consideration whether he could exist in it or not. It is certain, that in the first, the very supposition that he lived apart and separated from all others, would make him free and equal. No one in such a state could have the right to command or control another. Every man would be his own master, and might do just as he pleased. But it is equally clear, that man cannot exist in such a state; that he is by nature social, and that society is necessary, not only to the proper development of all his faculties, moral and intellectual, but to the very existence of his race. Such being the case, the state is a purely hypothetical one; and when we say all men are free and equal in it, we announce a mere hypothetical truism; that is, a truism resting on a mere supposition that cannot exist, and of course one of little or no practical value….

But to call it a state of nature was a great misnomer, and has led to dangerous errors; for that cannot justly be called a state of nature which is so opposed to the constitution of man as to be inconsistent with the existence of his race and the development of the high faculties, mental and moral, with which he is endowed by his Creator.

Nor is the social state of itself his natural state; for society can no more exist without government, in one form or another, than man without society. It is the political, then, which includes the social, that is his natural state. It is the one for which his Creator formed him, into which he is impelled irresistibly, and in which only his race can exist and all its faculties be fully developed.

Such being the case, it follows that any, the worst form of government, is better than anarchy; and that individual liberty, or freedom, must be subordinate to whatever power may be necessary to protect society against anarchy within or destruction from without; for the safety and well-being of society is as paramount to individual liberty, as the safety and well-being of the race is to that of individuals; and in the same proportion, the power necessary for the safety of society is paramount to individual liberty. On the contrary, government has no right to control individual liberty beyond what is necessary to the safety and well-being of society. Such is the boundary which separates the power of government and the liberty of the citizen or subject in the political state, which, as I have shown, is the natural state of man—the only one in which his race can exist, and the one in which he is born, lives, and dies.

It follows from this that all the quantum of power on the part of the government, and of liberty on that of individuals, instead of being equal in all cases, must necessarily be very unequal among different people, according to their different conditions. For just in proportion as a people are ignorant, stupid, debased, corrupt, exposed to violence within and danger from without, the power necessary for government to possess, in order to preserve society against anarchy and destruction becomes greater and greater, and individual liberty less and less, until the lowest condition is reached, when absolute and despotic power becomes necessary on the part of government, and individual liberty extinct. So, on the contrary, just as a people rise in the scale of intelligence, virtue, and patriotism, and the more perfectly they become acquainted with the nature of government, the ends for which it was ordered, and how it ought to be administered, and the less the tendency to violence and disorder within, and danger from abroad, the power necessary for government becomes less and less, and individual liberty greater and greater. Instead, then, of all men having the same right to liberty and equality, as is claimed by those who hold that they are all born free and equal, liberty is the noble and highest reward bestowed on mental and moral development, combined with favorable circumstances. Instead, then, of liberty and equality being born with man; instead of all men and all classes and descriptions being equally entitled to them, they are prizes to be won, and are in their most perfect state, not only the highest reward that can be bestowed on our race, but the most difficult to be won—and when won, the most difficult to be preserved.

They have been made vastly more so by the dangerous error I have attempted to expose, that all men are born free and equal, as if those high qualities belonged to man without effort to acquire them, and to all equally alike, regardless of their intellectual and moral condition. The attempt to carry into practice this, the most dangerous of all political error, and to bestow on all, without regard to their fitness either to acquire or maintain liberty, that unbounded and individual liberty supposed to belong to man in the hypothetical and misnamed state of nature, has done more to retard the cause of liberty and civilization, and is doing more at present, than all other causes combined. While it is powerful to pull down governments, it is still more powerful to prevent their construction on proper principles. It is the leading cause among those…which have been overthrown, threatening thereby the quarter of the globe most advanced in progress and civilization with hopeless anarchy, to be followed by military despotism. Nor are we exempt from its disorganizing effects. We now begin to experience the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place in the declaration of our independence. For a long time it lay dormant; but in the process of time it began to germinate, and produce its poisonous fruits. It had strong hold on the mind of Mr. Jefferson, the author of that document.

Prologue to Blowback

2007-08-01T17:28:00.000-05:00

An interesting bio covering Mr. Johnson's career studying "Far East" countries. His comment on Japan's unique form of democracy-military, industrial, university complex is very interesting and hopefully he will go into depth about this topic.

On a down note, his information jumped back and forth between China and Japan unexpectedly and without reason. Secondly, he makes statements without justification. For example, on pg. xiv he states he was "appalled by our government's policy of 'sink or swim with Ngo Dinh Diem.'" His basis is his research in "guerrilla war, revolutionary politics, and foreign armies." Is his knowledge based on Vietnam or just China and Japan given they have different histories than Vietnam. Another confusing statement is his suggestion that research is not as accurrate as the Vietnam War protestors intuition about our government(same page). How can he undermind his own credibility and then present himself as an authoritarian on the subject? (NOTE: He cites himself which is a bit of a problem for me.)

I look forward to reading his book about the Far East's government, culture, and economics.

Order your Copy

2007-07-09T17:25:00.000-05:00

We will start reading Blowback (and I'll be back from hiatus) the last week of this month.

Look below

2007-07-03T08:10:00.000-05:00

Well, I did not notice till this weekend that Confero posted on THE CUBE. Please see his questions below.

RE the proofs Confero requested from me: I have some notes, but I'm going to need to to chill for a couple weeks as I prepare for a test. I'll return to the Iraq discussion towards the end of this month. Hopefully by that time Confero will also have responses to my requests for support. Whether you side with him or me, we all think that the fate of the nation's security is at stake, so this is an important issue.

I will try to keep up with THE CUBE discussion though.

ANNOUNCEMENT: We have decided to read BLOWBACK, so I hope some of you will join us. You can get a copy for a couple bucks used on amazon.

Immigration

2007-06-30T10:33:00.000-05:00

I haven't been buying in to the immigration excitment, but I'm cracking.

I was readings something lastnight by someone who is supposedly something close to THE expert on suicide terrorism (Name escapes me; the book is DYING TO WIN) and what we need to do to end terrorism. He said that whatwe are doing in Iraq is about the stupidest thing we could do to stop terror and we need to do one of two things: go back to the our old policy of "off shore" influence on the middle east, (i.e. noboots on the ground in the Middle East but troops ready rearby for rapid deployement to protect our oil interests) which we had until 1991 when we left troops in Saudi after Desert Storm.

The second option, is more difficult but better he claimed: Get away from dependence on foreign oil byd eveloping alternative energy sources such that we no longer give a crap about the Middle East. The former would make terrorism almost go away, the latter he claims, would "suck the oxygen out of the air terrorists breath."

But either plan, he argued, depended on securing our borders.

I'm pondering all of this.

PICKING THE NEXT BOOK

2007-06-29T12:55:00.000-05:00

All,

Anyone who would like to read one of the four foreign policy books proposed previously, please voice your preference. I'm going to call my die-hard companions (Confero and Qualitas) this weekend and try to decide something so we can order through Amazon/interlibrary loan. I propose we shoot for beginning in the last week in July (i.e. spend the next three weeks on THE CUBE), unless we finish early. I don't want the reading of THE CUBE to be rushed for anyone; The less pressure we have, the more likely we can continue to educate ourselves in spite of busy lives.

I have previously described BLOWBACK. I think we all know about the 911 Commission Report (and I don't think anybody is interested plus its long--though thumbing through it, it does look like it might be good).

I've made the case for BLOWBACK, now let me make the case for IMPERIAL HUBRIS:
Like BLOWBACK, it is realtively short (263 pages). This time the author is not a foreign policy expert, but a CIA Agent, the former head of the CIA's "Bin Ladin" unit. It was orginally published anonymously ( and my copy says "anonymous") but the author has revealed himself as Michael Scheuer.

ADVANTAGES: book by someone with first hand knowledge, directly on topic for what we are discussing and what is a burning topic that needs to be decided one way or the other and should inform our decision in the upcoming election.

Do you believe in Santa Clause? Response to Confero

2007-06-28T18:32:00.000-05:00

Made a new post because this is long, but pertains to your response to my last post.

Well, Confero, I like the spiritedness of your reply. I have to say this is stimulating.

Do you believe in Santa Clause? What if I said to someone that in deed Santa Clause is a jolly fellow; he just doesn't exist?

RE question of whether we want stability, see my discussion previously regarding our disbanding of the Iraqi army. This is too stupid to be a mistake. Even in his “March to the Sea” in which he intended to “make Georgia howl” Sherman kept the Confederate leadership in place; see also quote from Michael Ledeen/Jonah Goldberg above. Would you like further support? Let me know. It’s a question of how much time I need to spend to find the proper references, before you believe me. This is not, by the way, a moral argument. It is a suggestion that people are asking the wrong questions. I told you the answer to your moral question is “yes.”

If you doubt point three, you don’t understand the Middle East, but I’ll find support. I will admit also that Israel wants us there, obviously, and that people we put in power will want to keep the power if they can, obviously.

As for point two, it has everything to do with us leaving the region. If you believe, and apparently you do (I have my doubts), that we are trying to set up an independent government, what kind of government are we supposedly setting up? If you run over someone out in the middle of nowhere, what good does it do to give them a bicycle if they don’t know how to ride and have a broken leg?

Trust me, my sympathies lie with Iraq on this. My point, and this is a moral point, I think we have done enough damage over there. Its an old joke, but you know what the most dreaded words in the English language are? “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” I think this whole bit about how we are doing this for the good of the Iraqi people is a sham and an insult. If anybody thinks the Bush Administration gives one hoot in hell about the people of Iraq going in or now, I’m got some solar powered flashlights to sell them.

We have an obligation to see to it that the Iraqis don’t slaughter each other? Have you been watching the news? What do you think they have been doing? We have to stay there to prevent something that we can’t prevent right now?

I’m telling you, it’s going to get worse before it gets better. You didn’t comment on my exit strategy. Do you think we need to stay for the rest of time? At some point the Iraqi people have to decide what they want to do.

Really, I’m not sure I made any moral arguments in my previous post. What I’m saying is you are defending a hypothetical situation; I think we should solve the problems of the real situation. You are defending King Arthur. I don’t doubt that what you have in mind is good and right and just. I’m trying to tell you that Camelot doesn’t exist.

You have asked me to establish a few things. As a matter of fact, I don’t think there is much of anything that I haven’t backed up with hard data. Thus far I have not asked you to support anything you have said. I think there are a lot of contingencies and assumptions in what you have been saying, a bunch of “ifs” if you will. To convince me, change each “if” to an “is it true that”:

If our presence in Iraq is helping us win the war on terror.......; or
If our departure from Iraq will help Al Queda.......
If we are physically capable of carrying out he task that you suggest.....
If other middle eastern countries will be destabilized....
If we are helping the Iraqi people (long and short term).....
If we are not merely setting up puppet regime........
If democracy can take root in Iraq.....
If other countries in the middle east will accept a government we set up........; or
If a democracy that takes root can defend itself against the Arab nations.......

Why are my arguments on shaky grounds?

The Cube (Chapter Three)

2007-06-27T17:41:00.000-05:00

I don't disagree that Europe is secularized.

The third chapter of Weigel's book is a summary of Robert Kagan's Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. To summarize his summary, "on major strategic and and International questions today, Americans are from MArs and Europeans are from Venus". Kagan p. 3. WE have different understandings of how the world works, of the "nature" and "utility" of power and this is before we get to diffrences on the Middle East. Due to its expereince of devistation from war, prominent Europeans are of the mind conviction that "secuirity threats can and should be met, in the main not by traditional applications of military 'hard power' but by the further refinement of international legal and political instruments of conflict resolution...the rule of law had replaced the crude interplay of power...power politics have lost thEIr influence." But Europe think this way only becasue the U.S. keeps the world safe.

COMMENTS:

1) The Middle East Again? Three references to Iraq in five pages. Mighty fishy.
2) That we want peace in the Middle East is questionable [see previous discussion]
3) I wonder if he counts among these "prominent Europeans" men such as Karol Wojtyła and Joseph Ratzinger who, last time I checked, are closely identified with the "culture that built the cathedral." What about Thomas More?
4) If this is the European undersatnding of power, what is America's? Peace through hegemony?
5) Is he implying we have traded the rule of law for the crude interplay of power? I'm not arguing with him--inside the U.S. or in the rest of the world--I'm just asking.
6) Does he forget we won the cold war through not going to war?
7) I see no indication that GW disagrees.

Confero's Questions

2007-06-27T17:39:00.000-05:00

If we assume that The Invasion of Iraq was a mistake, Confero has two questions:

"ONE- Are we morally obligated to help the Iraqis establish a government since WE removed Saddam Hussein?"

Yes, however I think this is the wrong question for a couple reasons and a few comments are called for:
1) We may not be trying to establish a government. For reasons stated previously in this discussion, it appears that we have purposefully tried to ensure that Iraq remains unstable. Further, certain policy makers have indicated our aim should be instability.
2) Iraq is not prepared for our kind of government. See Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France for discussion of the preparation required for a people to govern themselves. See Plato, The Republic for discussion of how tyranny follows from collapsed democracy.
3) No country in the region nor any power within Iraq will allow any government Americans sets up to continue once we leave.
4) No independent government is being set up in Iraq, the only “government” we are setting up is one we control directly.

"TWO- If it is morally permissible to leave, how do we do this without:
A) Letting Iran set up a puppet government, such as Lebannon?
B) Guarantee that other Middle East countries will not be destabilized, since Al-Queda will view this as a victory?
C) How do you contain the Al-Queda threat, since they are growing in numbers?"

Generally: There is a 99.9% chance that there will be a bloodbath when we leave, which is part of why I am livid with the Bush Administration. When you topple a government, you create a power vacuum. We did not only this, but also disbanded their army (criminal for reasons discussed previously in this discussion). But staying does not help either: it increases recruitment for Al Queda and there iff never be peace in Iraq as long as we are there. The question could also be posed, can we stay there morally?

A: defend the border between Iraq and Iran and/or supply and back Iraq (the latter is what we did in the past). Meanwhile divide Iraq in half between Sunni and Shia. Guard the border between them for a time. Then leave and hope for the best.

B: As I mentioned above it appears we want instability over there. Second, our presence is the source of instability. Third, Our presence is a victory for Al Queda; it’s exactly what they want. They and the Neocons want a fight.

C: basically the same comments as B. We are their best recruiters. The best way to prevent the growth of Al Queda? Follow our founders’ advice and stay out of foreign wars.

Chapter Three: Martians and Venusians?

2007-06-27T15:42:00.000-05:00

Weigel devouts an entire chapter to Robert Kagan's examination of the differences between Europe and the U.S. in terms of the use of "Hard Power" and "Soft Power." His premise is that Europe has been devasted by two wold wars thus causing them to have "a different set of perceptions about the threats to peace and freedom..." He underscores Europe's soft power, which is the "further refinement of international legal and political instruments of conflict resolution" approach by suggesting that it can only be soft under the umbrella of the United State's "hard power" protection.

Weigel, in my opinion, fails to clarify Europe's approach to terrorism. In other words, why do they have military stationed at airports in various parts of Europe? Why do they even have a military if they are so focused on "soft power"? Also, he does not clarify the U.S. approach to terrorism such as our negotiations with other countries in trying to deal with North Korea and our current relationship with European countries in the fight against terrorism. He bases everything on our use of force against Iraq, a one time event which is debatable.

A couple questions arise from this chapter:
1) What is the balance between hard and soft power?
2) Does Europe appreciate or even understand that our military provided their protection against the Soviets which ultimately laxed their views on international affairs?
3) Is it safe to suggest that Europe is approaching terrorism as Chamberlain approached the Nazis?

Second chapter ("More Questions")

2007-06-26T17:07:00.000-05:00

AMERICANS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT
George Weigel (GW) says that his questions about the difference between the U.S. and Europe were intensified when "after an initial period of European solidarity" with the U.S. after 9/11 until "fundamental differences arose between the U.S. and its allies on the question of how best to respond."

Later in this short chapter he bemoans "the protrait in the European press of Americans (and especially an American President) as religious fanatics intent on shooting up the world."

On neither count does GW stop to question whether possibly Europe is right on this one, er these two. On the first count, the "initial period of European solidarity" ended because the world recognized that we were attacking someone who did not attack us. The Europeans saw what was going on because they watched the news which reported the facts. In the U.S., although the president proclaimed they hate us for our liberties, the only commentator in our "free press" that saw through the story the administration was feeding and told the truth was an anchor on a cable access, comedy channel show airing late night, : The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. [See Tom Fenton, Bad News: The Decline of Reporting, the Business of News, and the Danger to us all; Frank Rich, The Greatest Story Every Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina].

On the second count, consider that Bush indicated be wanted to invade not only Iraq, but also Syria and Iran and the Administartion repeatedly tested the waters to see what Americans would think if they made either or both moves. He has also indicated the possibility of action against Venezuela, and is currently fanning the flames of the cold war we all thought was over. He established "The Bush Doctrine": it is now U.S. policy to launch pre-emptive war on any rogue regime that seeks weapons of mass destruction, and to go to war to prevent any other nation from acquiring the power to challenge US hegemony anywhere in the world. How dare they call him a religious fanatic!

NON SEQUITUR
After describing Europeans as "cranky" he begins talking about Europe's low birth rate: "western Europe is sommitting a form of demographic suicide." What does this have to do with having a different view of "how best to respond to international terrorism". Smells an awful lot like an argumentum ad hominem.

WHAT LIES AHEAD
GW says the "European problem," which we may ourselves be developing is best understood in moral and cultural terms. What is this "European problem"? I'll have to tune in tommorow for the next chapter. If the "European problem" means we might start thinking it's a bad idea to invade, bomb or threaten everyone in the world, I'd like to see what I can do to exacerbate the problem.

Christians united for Israel (Link sent by Qualitas Loquor)

2007-06-26T12:04:00.000-05:00

Civis,

If you want, let’s talk about this, briefly.

http://www.cufi.org/WA2007_information.aspx

Watch the video at the site.

Qualitas

Quote of the Day

2007-06-26T08:25:00.000-05:00

"Debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open, and that...may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government public officials."

New York Times vs. Sullivan (1964)

The Cube: dust jacket and "Questions Atop the Cube

2007-06-25T17:38:00.000-05:00

The question this book proposes to answer is , or the first chapter leads me to understand it to be, between the culture that built the cathedral of Notre Dame and the culture that built the Cube, "Which culture, I wondered, would better protect human rights? ...would more firmly secure the moral foundations of democracy?" Although I already have an opinion on that subject, thus far the book sounds interesting.

Nevertheless, from the just jacket, I gather that this is book about how Europeans and Americans see the world differently. Is America supposed to have some connection to the culture that built the cathedral? French and American "culture" are both grown from the Enlightenment and political liberalism. I'm suspicious.

As for democracy, that's a concept foreign to the culture that built the cathedral and is in fact at the foundation of the one that built the Cube.

I get the sinking feeling this is going to be another attempt, common amoung contributors to First Things, to link the Vatican with "The American Way." I'm firmly Amrican and firmly Catholic, but I don't think America and the Vatican are hand in glove.

Politics, Sex and Religion

2007-06-24T15:25:00.000-05:00

Jason and I decided to start discussing on a blog rather than e-mail, since a blog is set in a way that better serves our purposes. He came up with the title: the three most taboo topics. Jason wants to talk about something positive and suggested we discuss The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America and Politics without God. by George Weigel. I called him up and agreed to read it with him (and another book of his choosing since The Cube is short) if he would read one of the foreign policy books I suggest. We agreed to read and discuss The Cube then the foreign policy book then Without Roots. So if anyone who wants to read along or comment, please do so. I'll let Jason tell you more about Without Roots.

I would suggest we read Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire . It's short (229 pages), the first chapter is about relations with the middle east and the rest appears to be more about the far east. This would be good, methinks, because it it less controversial and must of us know next to nothing about the far east let alone our foreign policy with that part of the world. One reviewer says "[I]t's probably the best critical introduction to US foreign policy in Asia....he explains America's military and economic policies toward Asia without getting stuck in the stultifying prose of security experts or the bewildering technical jargon of economists."

The other books are:
The 9/11 Commission Report
Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer (the former Chief of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit, Alec Station)
Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Professor Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago

Anyone who wants to read along and/or discuss please express your preference(s).

More on the Middle East

2007-06-24T14:20:00.000-05:00

Jason,
This discussion has given me motivation to learn more about the issues. I hope it continues. If you are getting bored with it, I may have to find some die-hard Sean Hannity fan. Ha! You know there is nothing like a dialog to stimulate thinking. Books on foreign policy will put you to sleep, but I find a discussion like this stimulating. I see now why St. Thomas More and Plato liked dialogs. What’s scarry is that, if you watch the Republican debates, the candidates seem to know less about this stuff than we do. And they want to run the country? That’s real scary. Well, back to the discussion:
I recently made an interesting discovery. If you recall, I was talking about how getting ourselves engaged in a war in Iraq weakened us militarily. Here is an example from recent history of what I am talking about. As it turns out, we have done (and are continuing to do and our leaders want to do more) voluntarily to ourselves what the CIA apparently lured The Soviets into doing in the late 70’s.
Former CIA director Robert Gates in a 1996 interview admitted that America began aiding the mujahideen guerillas in Afganistan six months before the Soviet invasion knowing that the American involvement would provoke the Soviets to invade. When asked in 1998 if he regretted doing this, Carter’s former National Security Adviser said “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afgan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: ‘We now have the opportunity of giving the USSR its Vietnam War.”
We suckered them into a middle east quagmire to speed their demise. The Soviets could beat the mujahedeen on the battle field, but the mujahdeen we trained (and the tactics are now being used on us—talk about blowback, it’s like teaching somebody how to fight and then they kick your butt) fought more like William Wallace (The “highland way” of hit and run) than William of Normandy. Now we are doing the same thing and speeding our demise. Who suckered us?
After the Soviets withdrew and bombed them into the stone age, Osama Bin Ladin didn’t want to be our friend anymore. I guess nobody likes to be a pawn. By the way, in this whole “war on terror” they can’t even find this one guy who is six feet tall and sticks out like a sore thumb. What does that tell you? Either this is a hopeless cause (I mean if they can’t track this guy whose face is known and is easy to spot, how are they going to find people who are terrorists but look like gas station attendants or tourists or exchange students) or they don’t want to catch him because they want to keep up this phony war on terror. “War is peace.”
THE WIDER WAR ON TERROR
I have a bit of a problem with the whole “War on Terror”. First of all, the government declares a lot of “wars”. There is the war on terror, on poverty, on drugs (even a “Drug Czar”). It’s ridiculous. Then in actual fact congress refused to declare war on Iraq—so much for the Constitution, and oh by the way, the president takes an oath to defend the Constitution. And speaking of the Constitution, this “War on Terror” is used as an excuse to trample all over the bill of rights. Tell me if either of these trigger any memories of recent events:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.”
Further, the Botox candidate finds these ideas funny.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=px11095pT6I&mode=related&search=
Watch this video and tell me honestly the American People are not being manipulated:http://youtube.com/watch?v=RMqN0g-cAOU&mode=related&search=
Second, and you are not going to like this, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. How do we define a terrorist? Someone who attacks innocent civilians in order to instill fear and get the civilians to conform to their will out of fear? Please recall that we fire bombed the city of Dresden in Germany during World War II. Dresden was filled with hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing the cruelty of our allies, the Soviets. Dresden had not one single anti-aircraft gun, and was undefended. Fire bombing is a type of attack where you start a chain reaction, and turn a city into a huge torch. I’m not entirely sure how it works, but it creates temperatures over 1,000 degrees which sucks air through the city (actually picking up crowds of people and hurling them through the streets) and makes it one big inferno. Dresden had no military significance whatsoever. 135,000 people were killed. We did the same thing to Tokyo. We also dropped nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—also non strategic targets. In fact I think it was Nagasaki—but maybe it was Hiroshima—actually had the highest concentration of Christians in Japan and the greatest center of resistance to the Emperor. I need to verify this, but I am told that since the classified documents have been released, we now know that the Emperor of Japan actually surrendered before we dropped the Bombs.
We made numerous other attacks on civilian populations in Japan and Europe. Why did we do this? According to the official Air Force history, “...to produce a stupefying effect on morale.” Robert H. McNamara, in a recent interview/documentary that you can rent from the movie store entitled FOG OF WAR: 10 LESSONS FROM THE LIFE OF ROBERT H. McNAMARA, describes his memories as an officer in the pacific theatre. At one point his next in command turned to him and said “I sure hope we win this war because if we don’t we are going to tried for war crimes.” McNamara reflected in the interview, “And he was right. We would have been.”
We don’t call these men terrorists do we? We call them “The Greatest Generation” we call them heroes. I’m not trying to cast aspersions on WWII veterans. Many of them were heroes, but we did some bad things.
Third, we need to consider why these people hate us. You have to know your enemy. Before General Patton met the forces of Rommel in the deserts of North Africa, he read Rommel’s memoir from World War I, INFANTRY ATTACKS. Before Clarence Darrow defended Thomas Scopes, he studied William Jennings Bryant, learned his weaknesses, but also learned how he thought. Before any game, Bear Bryant would study the other coach and watch footage of his team in action (Sorry, shameless attempt to win brownie points with my father-in-law). The point is, you have to get inside the “enemy’s” head.
Bill Maher had a good point. He said after 911 we asked, “Why do they hate us? What did we do?” but after about three days we said “Oh, they’re just evil.” They are not evil any more than we were “evil” for bombing civilian targets in WWII. We took a utilitarian view: the end justifies the means. We were not right. It was not right to do what we did, but we did what we thought would bring about the result we wanted. The “terrorists” are doing the same thing. They are wrong to use the tactics they use, but that is what they have, “the weapon of the weak,” terror. “Before you take the speck out of your brother’s eye, take the log out of your own eye so you can see better.”
There is nothing I would like more than to stop them from committing these acts. My point is that bombing countries into the stone age, sanctions, invasions and all of that is not going to stop terrorists: It makes them multiply. Further, there is no way, regardless of how diligent and brave we are, that we can track these people down who are scattered throughout the world.
Further, this “we all need to be united against the terrorist” thing will not work if the plan we are all behind is making things worse. We have to have some self-criticism. This is what I mean by the Bush administration sounding like 1984. “Ignorance is strength” is the Bush Administration’s message. I say we need to learn about these issues. As the saying goes, “look before you leap.”
You asked for support of the facts I listed. There is a lot of support for these facts. Here is a start:
1. BACKGROUND: Michael Ledeen, a former onetime consultant and special adviser for the U.S. State Department and the National Security Council and former adviser to Karl Rove wrote in THE WAR AGAINST THE TERROR MASTERS: “Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we wants things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize [governments in the middle east]” Maybe this explains why we disbanded the Iraqi army and destroyed all infrastructure. Jonah Goldberg adds “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business.”
2. ADGENDA: In ALL ENEMIES: INSIDE AMERICA’S WAR ON TERROR, Richard Clarke, former member of the Senior Executive Service and advisor to Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush Jr. describes a meeting in the White House on September 12th: “I expected to go back to another round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be …Instead I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq [Clarke had told Wolfowitz in April that it was clear that Al Queda was not backed by Iraq: “We’ve investigated that five ways from Friday and nobody believes that (Iraq was backing Al Queda).”]. I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting Al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq.
3. REAL REASON: Colin Powell, also said it was a mistake to be talking about Iraq rather than Al Qaeda. To which, “Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which at first I thought he was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq.” [Again, this is Richard Clarke].
4. REAL REASON: “Paul Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify an attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan….attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain…[but] Iraq was a brittle oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable.” Bob Woodward, BUSH AT WAR
5. “THE INTELLECTUALS”: General Anthony Zinni, former CENTCOM commander said “The more I saw the more I thought this [war] was the product of the neocons who didn’t understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had an idea that worked on the ground.”
6. “THE INTELLECTUALS”: Chalmers Johnson, President of the Japan Policy Research Institute, refers to the neo conservatives as the “chicken hawk’ war lovers (that is the soi-disant [self-styled] military strategists with no experience of either the armed forces or war) who seized on the national sense of bewilderment after 911 to push the Bush Administration into conflicts that were neither relevant to nor successful in destroying al-Queda.”
To be continued…..
JASON:
I would like to know how much [of Muslim’s increasingly siding with radical Islam] is due to us confronting problems with their culture. For example, when the U.S. govt tried to address problems with Social Security and Immigration everyone was highly upset. Could this be the same as what is going on over there? I'm not sure but it is something to think about. Change angers many people.
ERIK:
Well, like I said, these people are not ready for democracy. You can’t impose a form of government on people. That’s what the French did under Napoleon et al. and it didn’t work. That’s what the Soviets did, and it didn’t work. Our crusade to spread democracy will end up just like all the other movements to spread a form of government, we and our ideas will be on the ash heap of history. Personally, I like the American way, but to continue it requires that we mind our own business and not try to force the American way on everybody else. When Reagan used Jonathan Winthrop’s “City on a Hill” reference to America, he was talking about attracting people to the American way, not impose it on them at the point of a Howitzer. I forget which American President it was that took a Soviet Premier on a tour of our weapons systems. He was unimpressed and said “We have these.” Reagan, took Gorbachev to a shopping mall. Gorbachev said “I want this for my people.”
But the bottom line is not whether we have the best plan for these people or if somebody needs to write a different plan. The bottom line is that we are over there and we are not welcome. Put yourself in their position, imagine China or Russia comes over and invades us and topples our government, or not even us, maybe Canada or a South American country. We would be angry, and not because they didn’t use supply side economics. We’d be mad because they are on our turf.
In actual fact, withdrawing from Iraq might (if it is not already too late) help the war on terror in yet another sense (besides getting out of these people’s country). Other countries were behind our “war on terror” until be invaded Iraq. They helped us in our invasion of Afghanistan, and from what I understand no one but the Taliban had a problem with that invasion. But when we went into Iraq, everybody turned on us. Afghanistan had something to do with 911. Iraq did not. The world saw we were up to something else.