Point taken. 

The fact that the people there were exposed, in the worst way, is itself a glaring failure. That wasn't the result of any one decision, but of a chain of decisions that, each in itself, may have made sense for narrow purposes, but which cumulatively put us in a bad position.

Then again, that's why we have management: to make sure that small decisions don't result in larger problems.

On the night of 9/11/2012, I don't know. It may very well be that a military strike at that point may have been impossible, or even unwise. I don't know, I'm certainly no military expert. 

But we do know one thing for certain: whatever really happened on that night, they lied about it. That immediately raises suspicions about why. What didn't they want to admit? Why was there a collective effort to blur the reality?

And just like a courtroom, if you lie to me about one thing, I'm entitled to suspect you of lying about everything. 

It's funny. I just now finished listening to the Need to Know podcast with Mona Charen, Jay Nordlinger, and their guest James Taranto. Taranto made a fascinating comment about "this is what happens when you have a community organizer as president."

Community organizers apply pressure. They don't bother with persuasion, they simply push. 

If there's one thing that characterizes this president, it's that he isn't willing to do the hard work of actually persuading others. Either he simply makes his wishes known and expects you to follow (pronouncements) or he looks for some backdoor way of forcing you to agree (intimidation, demonization). If worse comes to worse, he looks for some way around your opposition (recess appointments, etc.).

The one thing he won't do is what he's paid to do: persuade.

For all the blather about "compromise," Obama doesn't do it. He doesn't persuade, because usually in the attempt to persuade, you have to give up a little something. He wants to play poker and get the pot, but he doesn't want to ante up. 

Perhaps we could work on your reading skills. 

This is what you said:

 The dishonesty of his words (the global poor are not getting poorer) and their aims (particularly the desire to prevent the rich from getting richer)--

This is what I said:

Again, he didn't say that. He said there was a growing imbalance between rich and poor

You made two accusations here. First, that the poor are getting poorer; but you admit yourself admit that you could be wrong about the quote. But you also conspicuously didn't say anything to back up the (more vicious) accusation that the pope desires to prevent the rich from getting richer.

Now, however, you claim you've been libeled because I said it was deceitful. If the first accusation wasn't deceitful, the second one surely was.

If you can, see if you can prove that the pope believes that we have to prevent the rich from getting richer. 

Red herring. The pope is referring to the Christian obligation to the poor (solidarity), not the locals versus foreigners. 

No. The Irish always argued that there were plenty of edible potatoes during the famine, but that the British landowners kept them for themselves, leaving the peasant Irish to divvy up the inedible remainder. 

Surely you've heard of this before.

Point taken, but the principle is what I'm after.

Is the market "autonomous?"

I'll flatter myself and say that the social justice I believe in ... is pretty standard Catholic thought. Liberation theology is the outlier, and the fringe stuff; it isn't the canonical teaching.

If you ask me what I think about social justice and advocating for the poor, therefore, my first thought isn't about marxist economic systems and leftist agendas. I could rattle on for hours (as I'm sure you'd agree) about "social justice" without ever once saying anything that a conservative wouldn't feel perfectly comfortable with.

Even on Ricochet, the phrase "social justice" has been hijacked as a Leftist ideology. When people hear it, they think "liberals." But I don't have that reaction, and on reflection, I'm not willing to surrender the terminology.

If you argue that it has already been hijacked and it's gone forever, well, maybe you're right. But I still feel that I have an obligation to promote the poor, even if I need different terminology to do it.

Thanks, sawatdeeka.

Yeah - you know how I know that people lie when they don't live up to their own facade? Because I do it. Not very proud of that.

Oh heck, all that reading about social justice causes hypertension, especially when the reading is such drivel.

And DocJay, may I say that I'm privileged to have been the first to Like that comment in #186. Nicely said.

This might prove fruitful.

Suppose, to take a pointed hypothetical, an American oil company built a pipeline that brought in a bazillion barrels of new oil into America ... but for market reasons, that company decided it could make more money selling it to China. While they make a fortune, American oil prices (and gasoline prices, and home heating prices) continue to rise, and local Americans get squeezed, especially the poor.

• Does the pope have a good point if he criticizes the oil company for ignoring the effect their decision has on Americans, especially the poor? (I think so.)
• And the big conflict: Should the government have any say, or even any influence ... or does the oil company have an absolute right to do anything they want with the oil?  That would mean, then, that the oil market has absolute autonomy over the decision.

Does a South American company have the right to sell all of its food to American markets, even if there is a food shortage locally? The British did just that during the potato famine.

Note: this isn't a gotcha hypothetical. I'm open to a legitimate discussion.

I may have you at a disadvantage, because (given my Jesuit background) I've had thousands of hours reading about "social justice"  ... and I am deeply aware of the difference between the amateur, childish, utopian stupidity of tons and tons of Catholic writers ...

... as opposed to the common sense, insightful, and morally enlightening works about social justice from a (sadly) smaller group.

I used to have to read all this stuff for a living. Most of it is crap.

But not all of it. And if we avoid the pitched battles over high-academic theories of "systems," and get down to the real basics, which is where theology ought to come from, we have to ask the most basic question: how do we help the poor? How do we make sure that they aren't crushed by society?

Just because liberation theologians and marxists and activists prattle on about the poor also, doesn't mean that when Catholics talk about social justice, they're talking about the same thing.

So I make a big distinction between social justice and "the social justice movement" you referred to.

And on what religion do we blame the fact that 95% of blacks vote Democratic?

And while we're at it, what religion drives all those Asians to vote Democratic?

Surely, it's their religion that's causing all this.

Thank you. I have spent some time in developing countries.

"the sort of concern" "is almost synonymous" ... these are just vague stretches to make the leap from assumption to conclusion.

I will concede a small point, but only a small one. This is what I actually asserted: "We'll skip over the fact that he wasn't talking to a group of American stockholders, and he wasn't referring to the American economy." You're absolutely right, I should have said that he wasn't referring specifically to the American economy. I just took it for granted that a reader would have understood that. My bad.

Again, he didn't say that. He said there was a growing imbalance between rich and poor.

Who's being deceitful here?

Where did you get the idea (other than merely a knee-jerk assumption) that "his view" is that (a) there is a competition between the market and the state; and (b) that the state must prevail?

Where do you get that? From some other source (please provide) or in some way interpreting the words in that speech?

I confess, I like Philip Glass. Not sure I want to address the eunuch kissing thing, though.

Glass' music builds one step at a time, and I like that. I like the fact that every eighth beat or so, a new sound (instrument or pitch) is introduced, and the interval between that introduction and the next introduction is a chance to ponder why this note, and why now? Instead of all the orchestra assaulting you at once, I enjoy the methodical buildup. He always has one long continual sound going on in the background, coupled with sharp and discrete notes in the foreground. The fun is in imagining how they all work together.

Bach's fugues strike me in the same way. (Yes, I started listening to Bach more intensely after I read Gödel, Escher, Bach. That's when Bach started to make sense to me.)

I also like Michael Nyman these days.