Sunday, September 19, 2010

the GLOB is dead, long live the GLOB

It was recently announced that the print version of the Global Exclaimer is no more. This was (if not noble) a worthwhile experiment and possibly the future - as well as the past - of print journalism. And yet, life gets in the way of some of our more worthy pursuits – print periodicals cost time, effort, creativity and even something others want to hear about, but in the final analysis it costs money… who in these times has a surplus of that?

And so the GLOB is dead, if not for good reasons at least for reasons I can understand. From the ashes of the GLOB may rise another GLOB experiment – GLOB BLOG. Seems ironic somehow (this experiment within an experiment) - will it “take”, will GLOB BLOG soldier on in a different way from print GLOB? “The times they are a changin’” indeed.

I don’t know how GLOB BLOG (or any other BLOG for that matter) works – this is my first GLOB post solo, though I’ve made a comment or two on this BLOG before. Does GLOB BLOG live? Is anyone listening, or do I have to post something really inflammatory to gain notice of this world-wide web?

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

The Winds of Change

Switched to WordPress


By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR
I have been quite busy being laid off, going back to work, trying to mess with Google's Page Creator, since discontinued, then Google Sites which is not a blogging platform. I have tried in vain to recreate on online version of a my episodically printed news paper, The Global Exclaimer.

For various reasons I have simply not worked on this blog and really took it in a direction not really part of it's original purpose, which was to be an online edition of the print edition. For a lot of different reasons I have gone to Word Press for my blogging enjoyment. The address there is http://theglob.globalexclaimer.com which is really just a url redirect to http://globalexclaimer.wordpress.com

I am not sure what to do with this blog. I really like the title "The Glob Blog". As much as I really would like to keep doing a print version of The Glob, it really just isn't feasible, and in fact the last edition printed was like in 2005. Soooooooo -

I purchased globalexclaimer.com through Google, and now am trying to figure out how to wrest control of it from Google and use it as I see fit. It is probable that I will import this blog in some manner to that domain, and continue to have it as the official blog of The Glob. maybe.

Oh, and I have mapped this blog to http://globblog.globalexclaimer.com

Ψ

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Quick Note

Found while doing some research


Mark Connolly

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”

Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519

more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses

quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356



Ψ

Saturday, April 05, 2008

Glob Launches On Line Newspaper!

Announcement Met With Polite Disinterest!!


By Howard Beale - aging UBS news anchor

After several false starts, and late night board room discussions that sometimes ended in fisticuffs, the decision was made to Publish Exclusively Electronically rather than Publish on Paper.

"This decision to PEE rather than PoP was really one of necessity," said Frater Bovious. "We have so much to say. I would characterize it as an urge that could not be denied."

To be underwhelmed go to: The Global Exclaimer Ψ

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Is This Funny or Sad?


The Three Candidates


By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR
Nyuk nyuk yuck. Ψ

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Glob Blog Wins Pulitzer

"It's about time" - Hillary Clinton


By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR
Thanks to Gmail

Introducing Gmail Custom TimeTM

Be on time. Every time.*


The Glob Blog was able to launch an email campaign supporting the cause of The Glob in time for the Pultizer People to revise their awards such that I have already received my notification even though they have not yet been announced in Real TimeTM .

Congrats all around.


(The official announcement is not until April 7th, so keep it on the downlow.) Ψ

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Argument - A Lost Art?

An Hypothesis


By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR
I was listening to some politician or other on the radio when a thought struck me. The person was not arguing about what they were arguing about.

How could this be? My hypothesis is that I think it has something to do with our legal system, and a mindset that has crept into our thought processes as an unintended consequence of our "innocent until proven guilty" criminal justice process. I would like to quickly add that I am not advocating that concept be changed. So, chill.

But, this concept was put in place to protect innocent people from a corrupt or oppressive government. Our founders had come to America partially to escape such forms of government, and fomented rebellion in response to such government. There is a specific intent within a specific context, and I do wholeheartedly agree with the intent.

However, it has caused people to turn their brains off when arguing.

Our legal system is properly described as adversarial. Two lawyers get up and duke it out. One side wins, one loses. There is no room for - I was going to say compromise, but that's not really it; there is no room for one to convince the other in this process. Two lawyers don't get up and try to convince each other of the truth of a situation, and work through the ramifications. They are trying to convince an audience. An audience that is not participating in the conversation.

The innocent until proven guilty part of this means they have to prove by means of presentation of facts whether or not something has or has not happened. Thus, if you and I are in a room with one entrance and no windows, and I leave my pen in there with you, come back in 10 minutes and the pen is gone, well what happens? Obviously you took my pen. But, can I prove it? Did I see it? Can I demonstrate that someone didn't go in the room while I was out and take the pen? Maybe I can state that I was standing by the door the whole time and no one went in or out. Can I prove it? Do I have a witness? Obviously this is an exaggeration of the mindset, but I think it has crept into our everyday world view.

This need to prove your point, or win the argument, means that when someone is talking about something, there is this nagging thing at the back of their mind that they must convince some audience that is not part of the conversation. As if everything that is said is in a trial setting.

Since part of winning a trial is to debunk the other argument, it is much more effective to convince the audience the argument has no merit than it is to actually listen to the argument and assess it's validity. But listening to opposing counsel for any other reason than to find a hole to exploit is not possible because lawyers are not paid to figure out the truth, they are paid to win cases. Consequently, perhaps necessarily, a lawyer, despite their personal characteristics, has to care more about winning than about the truth. Has this attitude crept into our daily discussions? Rather than argue our point, do we instead argue against the other point? Or, rather, against the other person?

Most politicians today are lawyers. Have you noticed the "debates" they have? They are not trying to convince each other of anything. They are not really trying to convince us of whatever their position happens to be. They are really arguing that the other person has no case.

They are not arguing about what they are arguing about.

The innocent until proven guilty mind set is appropriate in the context for which it is intended. Generally, especially in a criminal case, the facts do point to the truth.

But, the issue becomes this: If there are truths that cannot be measured, and if there are truths that are immutable, i.e., not subject to vote or opinion, then we are left with the the ironical fact that we can't prove them with facts. We have to convince or be convinced with reasonable argument.

Does that really happen anymore?
Think about your day to day interactions. Are we more interested in winning than we are in truth? Are we expressing our differences in order to find common ground for agreement? Or, as is often the case when there aren't concrete facts to point to, do we just give up and agree to differ? Accomplishing nothing. Ψ