I Need a Badge

I caught some of Mike Farrell's appearance this evening on Hannity & Colmes. A question from Hannity prompted Farrell to reiterate his belief that Saddam Hussein is a war criminal and what we really should be doing is bringing him to trial for that.

At which point I really wanted to be able to say, Okay, Mr. Farrell. I hereby deputize you. Now, go and arrest Mr. Hussein. And thank you for your service.

Hollywood's Self-Righteous Vacuumheads. Geesh.

P.S. Bill O'Reilly interviewed a media consultant yesterday. This guy claimed that the likes of Mike Farrell, Ed Asner, Susan Sarandon, and Martin Sheen are hurting themselves and their cause: the public, he said, has a "visceral negative" reaction when actors take a political stand because they have no "moral authority" in that area.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 02/19/03 10:28:30 PM
Categorized as Political.

Boycott France? Why Bother?

A reader writes:

France's stance on Iraq has to be one of the most hypocritical farces in modern history. Their opposition to a war with Iraq has nothing to do with morality. It's all about (1) France trying to maintain it has some influence in the world, when France matters not a whit anymore and (2) France's extensive business dealings with Iraq. End of story.

As many have said, it's hard to boycott French products because they don't have anything worth buying in the first place. Wine? — forget it. I wouldn't buy a French wine if they DID support us, as they can't touch California wines. Haute couture ("French dressing")? — I shop at Target and thrift shops! And I don't wear berets. French movies? — Have they made a decent one in the last 30 years? I can't think of any. Cars? — oh please. I'd rather drive a Hyundai than a French car. Air France? — never flew it; never will. So that leaves tourism: don't go to Paris or anywhere in France now or ever! (Let 'em eat cake!)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 02/19/03 10:10:23 PM
Categorized as Political.

Just War Links

By Extreme Catholic.

At which we find a link to Just War is an Obligation of Charity.

(Thanks, Karen.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 02/19/03 10:02:44 PM
Categorized as Religious.

A Couple of Pointers

A reader kindly refers me to this.

And I kindly refer you to this and this. We are living in times when every major decision, every minor choice, is fraught with momentous possibilities, for better or for worse. Nothing is guaranteed. I do not forget that. None of us should forget that. That is why circumspection is important. And prayer even more important.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 02/19/03 04:33:49 PM
Categorized as Political.

Out of Iraq

A message published at OpinionJournal.

And some prognostications from your Faithful, Humble Blogster.

From Claudia Rosett today:

From northern Iraq, in the U.S.- and British-protected no-fly zone, a friend sent me a message last weekend. I quote from it here at length because it is a bracing reply to the U.N. charades and the "peace" parades now filling the vacuum while the world waits for President Bush to act. This message comes from someone living on the front line, facing Saddam Hussein's army in the same region where Saddam years ago confirmed his zest for weapons of mass murder by gassing to death thousands of Kurds:

Now, this UN business is really depressing me. Why can't they do the right thing? Many nations contributed to building this monstrous regime. Why not help to undo the damage inflicted on us?

The "No Blood for Oil" signs are particularly galling. Loads of Iraqi blood has already been spilled. At least half a million in the Iraq-Iran war, a couple of hundred thousand are estimated to have died in the Gulf War, a couple of hundred thousand Kurds disappeared in the 1980s, I have no idea how many Shias and Marsh Arabs and other Arabs against the regime have been murdered. Thousands of prisoners have also disappeared or been executed. The list goes on. It is enough.

Please send help. Everyone here wants this to be over. It is hard to imagine anything but celebrations if this monster is overthrown at long last.

My friend adds, in a reference to Saddam's troops: "We hear regularly from the other side that they will not fight. They ask us all the time if the Americans are here already. They plead for us to tell them when the attack is starting so they can give up. They cannot do it until action starts, or they will be murdered." ....

Let me take this occasion to note three things.

First, I am among those who believe that the defeat and destruction of Saddam Hussein's regime will bring rejoicing to the oppressed peoples of Iraq. You could search high and low for days and weeks and months from North to South and East to West to find as much anti-American sentiment in post-Saddam Iraq as you could find in an hour in one city block in Hollywood.

Second, most of those participating in the recent "peace" marches will not care that Iraqis have been freed from the brutal rule of a monstrous tyrant. You got that right: they will not care. Let me say it again: they will not care.

Third, mainstream media will do its best to give as little attention as (in)humanly possible to the real, actual results of the liberation of the Iraqi people. Oh, you'll know all about it — because FNC, and The Washington Times, and Rush Limbaugh, and Jim Quinn, and websites and weblogs galore will be covering the good news as much as possible. (And, maybe, The Washington Post, too.) But Dan, and Tom, and Peter, and The New York Times, and the Associated Press — and everybody in MM who follows their lead — will drop the Iraqi Liberation story as soon as possible. After they have searched high and low from North to South and East to West to find as much anti-American sentiment in post-Saddam Iraq as you could find in one city block in Hollywood.

Can't give that damned Republican George Bush any credit for doing anything good, dontchaknow.

You think I'm wrong? Well, I'm sorry to have to say it. And I hope I'm wrong about it, too.

But you heard it here first.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 02/19/03 03:59:30 PM
Categorized as Most Notable & Political.

"Facing the Facts"

"Some people need to connect each and every dot. May I do it for you in pencil, or in blood?"

I forgot to refer you to this Common Sense commentary from Neil Cavuto, which I caught on FNC, Monday:

.... In July 2001, a commentary in the Iraqi publication Al-Nasiriya praising Usama bin Laden with these words:

"In this man's heart you'll find an insistence, a strange determination that he will reach one day the tunnels of the White House and will bomb it with everything that is in it."

It talks of attacks on the Pentagon, the White House, and offers this suggestion, again only two months before Sept. 11, that the U.S. will curse the memory of "Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs." Is that a reference to Sinatra's "New York, New York?"

Funny what Iraq knew and condoned and when it knew and condoned it. In cover story after cover story, its state-sponsored press praised Bin Laden.

Now ask yourself this: Exactly how did it know so much about Bin Laden?

It's a government that talks of helping the Taliban rebuild in Afghanistan. It talks of emotional help, financial help and political help.

So help me here. What is the difference between "smoking" words and a "smoking" gun?

Some people need to connect each and every dot. May I do it for you in pencil, or in blood?

Which reminds me. Can we please stop the incessant use of the stupid phrase smoking gun?

Tell me, O you Lawyers of St. Blog's Parish, just how many murders by firearm are prosecuted because the gun was found smoking?

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 02/19/03 12:10:10 PM
Categorized as Political.

Bring It On!

Some reading.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 02/19/03 11:51:45 AM
Categorized as Religious.

Comment to Kevin Miller

De Virtutibus has weighed in again on Just War and Iraq Saddam Hussein, specifically replying to Michael Novak's latest at NRO:

.... Furthermore, to the extent that a prudential judgment is indeed called for, the matter is more complex than Novak suggests. Novak goes on: "In republics, these are the elected public authorities, that is, people like Berlusconi, Blair, and Bush, along with their parliaments, according to law."

But again, the Catechism doesn't speak of "authorities." And in republics, all citizens - elected leaders and their constituents - "have responsibility for the common good." Declaration by proper (elected) authorities is necessary for the legitimacy of war, but that doesn't mean that others lack the responsibility to argue for or against war on the basis of the evidence available to them (obviously on the matter of evidence some deference to political leaders' statements and expertise is necessary) and right moral principles, to try to persuade their fellow citizens and elected representatives....

It seemed to me that, in traditional Catholic lingo, those who "have responsibility for the common good" means those with civil authority. I may be mistaken about that; but the Catechism itself gives us pointers to come to that conclusion; thus, I have posted a comment, as follows:

The concluding paragraph of CCC # 2309 is not written with much precision. As you say, it does not mention "authorities". However, it has a cross-reference to CCC # 1897, which begins the section "Authority". Also, CCC # 1897 cross-references CCC # 2234, which begins the section "The Authorities in Civil Society". I think you need to re-think your objection here.

BTW, though we don't agree on everything, Prof. Miller is definitely a man whose thoughts deserve thoughtful attention.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 02/19/03 11:17:20 AM
Categorized as Religious.

"When have millions of Europeans ever been wrong?"

A reader kindly refers me to this Dennis Prager column at TownHall:

.... Just as Europeans were losing faith in their national identities, the United States came to believe even more strongly in its distinct national identity. While Europeans and the American Left have more faith in the moral judgment of the United Nations, where Libya chairs the Human Rights Commission and Syria and China vote in the Security Council, most Americans have more faith in America....

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 02/19/03 10:49:41 AM
Categorized as Social/Cultural.

"Constitutional Confusion"

A very worthy blog from Esquire yesterday.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 02/19/03 08:25:07 AM
Categorized as Political.

Letter to Daniel McCarthy

Re: Lying for Iraq.

I have sent an e-mail to McCarthy, as follows:

Subject: Your understanding of Just War theory is flawed.

Dear Mr. McCarthy:

Re: "Contra Novak".

Contrary to your claim, Catholic Just War tradition allows for "offensive" warfare:

"Catholic Encyclopedia: War: An article by Charles Macksey."
http:// weblog . theviewfromthecore . com / 001293 . html

Unfortunately, you cite the webpage "Christian Theory of Just War", which has a mendacious account of the Catholic position:

"Lying for Iraq: One Catholic writer cites a mendacious webpage."
http:// weblog . theviewfromthecore . com / 001334 . html

Your analysis also completely ignores the traditional understanding that warfare may be undertaken to free an oppressed people "whose unjust suffering is proportionate to the gravity of war and whom it is impossible to rescue in any other way; in this latter case the innocent have the right to resist, charity calls for assistance, and the intervening state may justly assume the communication of the right of the innocent to exercise extreme coercion in their behalf" (1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article by Charles Macksey).

I hope your writing on this subject in the future will incorporate an adequate theoretical foundation.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 02/19/03 08:10:05 AM
Categorized as Religious.

Lying for Iraq

One Catholic writer cites a mendacious webpage.

In response to Michael Novak's Rome Address, Daniel McCarthy writes:

.... This is the heart of Novak’s argument. In more direct language, it is that whether or not Saddam Hussein actually has – or even ever would – work with al Qaeda or some other terrorist organization, is irrelevant. It’s the potential itself that justifies war in Novak’s eyes.

This is not consonant with Just War doctrine, which specifies that war must be undertaken for defensive purposes. While an imminent threat – one that has not yet commenced hostilities but is clearly about to do so – justifies a war, a potential threat does not. After all, there is no end to what might be a potential threat. Certainly the nuclear arms reserves of Russia and China are a potential threat, as are those of France, Pakistan, India and North Korea. By the standards of just war, Novak would have to show both that Saddam Hussein actually has allied with al Qaeda and that he has done so with the intention of attacking the United States. That would constitute an immediate threat....

The webpage cited by McCarthy contains the following mendacious paragraph (emphasis added):

.... What makes a just war? Every Catholic Encyclopedia spells it out. It must be defensive and never aggressive. It must be the last resort, undertaken after all possible means of negotiating a peace have been exhausted. It must be conducted by legitimate civil authority. (And an oppressed lower order may take up arms against a leviathan central power.) The means used must be proportional to the actual threat. There must be a good chance of winning (no sending soldiers to their death for no purpose). After the fighting is over, there may be no acts of vengeance....

As you know already, Faithful Reader, that summary of traditional Just War theory is wrong. Mistaken. Erroneous. Fallacious. Flawed. Erroneous. Fallacious. Mistaken. Wrong. Period.

The verifiable claim that "every Catholic Encyclopedia spells it out" that way is a verifiable lie.

See Catholic Encylcopedia: War: An article by Charles Macksey.

(Thanks, Mark.)

P.S. After reflection, I am coming to think that Novak's Rome Address was rather poorly done.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 02/19/03 07:26:32 AM
Categorized as Religious.