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

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Nanny Nanny Boo Bobby

The Prescient Nature of The Glob Blog


By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR
This post from 2004, has been vindicated: Surreal Dilemma

Now that a means for reprogramming skin cells into stem cells has been discovered, the ethical questions debated in the linked post appear to have been decided in the favor of The Glob Blog, and the linked post referenced therein. Ψ

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Bit of a Dilemma

Presidential pro-something


By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR
I used to say that I didn't care what the President's position on abortion was, since it's not their job to write legislation. Yes, they do have to sign laws into being, and I do realize that they pick Supreme Court Justices and so do in fact have some impact on The Law. Congress however is the legislative branch. Congress writes laws and can override presidential vetoes, and even with the picking of Justices, Congress has to approve. If you want to have some direct impact on the laws of this land, you need to pay attention to your congressmen.

Consequently, I've never paid any attention to a presidential candidates' position on a topic that I actually care about. Is this wrong?

I am much more concerned about the President's core functions, i.e., Commander in Chief, Defender of the Constitution, and Receiver of Foreign Visitors. Somehow, I feel that if the President takes care of those things, the Laws can be dealt with by the entities entrusted to do so.

In fact, I would feel it irresponsible to vote for a lesser candidate who happens to share my position on abortion for the sole reason they share that position. And yet. Ψ

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Pascua

Easter to you gringos


By guest blast from the past
San Juan de la Cruz

"Should've been dead on a Sunday morning...", goes a song by Creed.

The Spanish verb for "to believe" is creer. "I believe", in Spanish, is Creo. In Latin, Credo.

The word "creed" derives from the Latin: credo for I believe and credimus for we believe, at least according to Wikipedia. It is a formal statement of a belief.

Should've been dead on a Sunday morning. But not. Risen. Against all reason. Against all right to expect. The paschal mystery. Exodus. Passover. Sacrifice. Ransom. Freedom. New Life.

How to respond?
Enter into the mystery.
Contemplate Reality.
Believe.
Ψ

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Remedy

Sometimes, you need some time


By Guest Blogger
Hans Delbrück, Scientist and Saint
When one is overwhelmed by life's events to the point of ennui, and not even Women of Ninja Warrior can capture one's interest, a backyard, a scotch, and a good cigar are just the thing.

OK, that's three things, but not really. Ψ

Friday, March 21, 2008

Chatting across the Pond

Something of a Momorial


By Mark and Claire

me: hey claire. How ya doing?

claire: I'm good you?

me: I'm surprisingly relaxed

claire: got your house back..out of towners gone?
cool

me: Sad but sense of relief

claire: indeed

me: yeah, everyone is gone, but the house looks like a bomb went off.
it will take most of Saturday to get it right.

claire: i feel..well Wednesday was a good day..i thought and i was so happy ..
i started laughing
was odd..but..i feel like..well..there is a weird thing about her body

me: Laughing is good.
Mom liked laughter. Seems she didn't get much chance to indulge.

claire: like..hmm..like not wanting others to touch it..and I'm not one for cremation..don't like to think about that part

me: Yeah. I'm not in favor of the cremation.
Mom's wishes though.

claire: yes

me: I'm really struggling with the scattering part. I really don't want to go to CA and do all that.
Elaine took a bunch of pictures. I think she is sending you the camera.

claire: ok
she wanted to blow in the wind
let all just pass through
painless and easy

me: hmmm

claire: be free
be what she wasn't

me: yeah
Blake said he read a bunch of her journals
Diana and Elaine too.
Erik too

claire: wild even..apart of the nature
oh yes?

me: they all had different reactions.
Blake found it beautiful, the writing and structure.
Elaine said it was a bunch of really bad poetry with some gems and sadness.
Diana said mom was so alone it hurts
Erik said it was depressing and made him sad to think mom was so lonely
I haven't read it

claire: she was a very lonely person

me: Alone, alone. All all alone. Alone on the wide wide sea.

claire: i can see how that happened..i know ..we share some qualities..when i was ill..we spoke..and i have had some of the pain she had
sometimes you cant get out of what is not good...there is no way..i think she felt for a very long time..there was no point
we all know she gave up
but somethings you don't control
it wasn't all her own doing

me: she never went through the whole paschal mystery
except maybe right at the end.
no, it was not all her own doing.
but, she made some decisions that I think held her in stasis.
Like not wanting to risk being hurt again.

claire: aye yes..but my point is..some don't have what you need to move on

me: She never went through the suffering, death and burial of her marriage to dad.
She never let her old self, the married mother of seven, ascend.

claire: sometimes it just doesn't get better..if you start with the premise its pointless..
there you stay

me: She never accepted the new spirit that is that of a middle aged divorced woman.
she was dead but she was still alive. Trying to stay with the dead spirit of a married mother of seven.
You are right. She did not feel she could do anything, it all did seem pointless to her.
it is sad.
it was pointless to try to animate your body with the past life.

claire: yes
so she never moved past what she was no longer

me: exactly
I think I may cut and paste this and put it on my blog. How do you feel about that?

claire:
fine..can you correct the spelling[tongue]

me: what's wrong with it? Teh means Tea in Spanish.

claire: hehe

me: Yeah, I'll correct it.
I love you.

claire: i love you
simple yes?

me: yes

claire:
*grins*

me: say this out loud:
aisle of view

claire: yes..ok..
I'll go look that up now hehe

me: look up what?
you could use "Isle of View"
if you say it out lout, it sounds like I love you.

claire: ones perspective must not become fixed

me: indeed.

claire: hehe its more..i say i love you

me: Or, one could fix one's perspective on something that really does not change. Use it like a navigation resource, like the North Star.

claire: dear lord..had to sneak him in [tongue]

me: Well, now, I never mentioned anybody.

claire: yes BUT...

me: heh heh heh
:0
:-O
[nose smile]
[cool]
claire: [smile]
?

me: B-)

claire: :)

me: On mine it turns into a cool guy with sunglasses.
do you see it?

claire: wellll...hmmm

me: I must actually return to working. I just saw you online and wanted to say HI and Isle of View.

me: See ya
Hugs and kisses all around.
Spank Rose for me.

claire: okay will do
be happy

me: Take care. Call anytime

claire:
alright*nods*

me:
Keep the faith, baby.
[tongue]
claire: peace love and apricots

me: who put the ape in apricots?
Courage.
Be not afraid.

claire: ricots some other ,,you lost me now

me: Lost you?
where are you?
England, right?

claire: here in jolly o'l england
aye that'l be right lad

me:
well, then, toodles.

claire: tra 'lha

Monday, March 10, 2008

On Using Women

Versus Loving Them


By Mark Connolly
The previous post received some comments that required some sort of a response. So, I am quoting and replying like so:

OK, I don’t disagree. And if your aim was to throw out a sound-bite in the name of dialogue you have succeeded, because I think there is a lot to talk about in this. I hereby take the bait!
Yay! This is a topic that is worthy of dialog and argument. Argument that is of a type not seen much today. GK Chesterton noted the purpose of argument is to differ in order to agree. The failure of argument is to agree to differ.

Context: as opposed to “abortion is a female issue”? Redefining abortion as something other than a problem for the woman to deal with (or a right she alone possesses) sounds like a good start.
I am indeed trying to reintroduce into the discussion the fact that it takes two to tango. Women fundamentally don't conceive by themselves.
“If men would stop using women” says to me that women are victims, is this true as a general statement?

Whether women are victims or not was not really the point of the statement you quote. It is however a potential consequence. Men can use a hammer to build a bench, but the hammer is not a victim. The hammer was designed to be used in this manner. It is fulfilling its purpose. Are women designed to be used in some capacity by men? Is that their purpose?

Framing women as victims was not my intent, however. Rather, I want men to think about what they are doing.

“Dumpsters for our lust” is likely true for us guys, but it occurs to me there are motivators on the female side of this equation as well, though they may be different motivators. This might loop me back to the “victim” part, I suppose.
Love and Lust are the concepts being held up for examination, though Love was not specifically mentioned in my original post.

I quote here from a book by Ronald Rolheiser a statement regarding this issue:

"We live in a system, a cultural one, within which it is acceptable for men and women to have sex with each other even though they are in no way committed to each other and do not wish to have children with each other. In such a system, abortion is inevitable and no laws and no law enforcement can stop it because the system will continually keep producing someone (who could be anyone) who finds herself pregnant and isolated in a way that would make the birth of this child from this man at this time an existential impossibility for her." - The Holy Longing, p 170
Men don't want to think about these things in the heat of the moment. But, men are not dogs and women do not go into heat. Dogs are incapable of reasoning through the consequences of their actions to their logical conclusions.
Your statement alone will not eliminate abortion, the human capacity for self-justification runs wide and deep.

Too True.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Why Abortion is a Male Issue

Seriously


By Guest Author
Mark Connolly
If men would stop using women as dumpsters for our lust, there would be no abortion.

Making The Big Bang Theory Accessible to Everyone

In Xtreme White Rap


By Mark Connolly
Dey wus dis being named Yahweh

A Mighty Righteous Dude

Wuz gonna make some people and he knew dey need some food

So, being Omnipotent

And always doin' right

He Spun hisself around and Whoah! dey was Light!