The Glob Blog

the GLOB is dead, long live the GLOB

2010-09-19T20:29:00.002-05:00

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?

The Winds of Change

2009-03-31T08:29:00.004-05:00

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

We Continue, after long hiatus

2008-08-20T07:04:00.004-05:00

Life Interferes - Yet We Press On
By Mark Connolly

First I would like to say I got severely sidetracked by working on the newspaper aspect of the publishing empire that is The Global Exclaimer, of which this is the official blog. As may have been noted by some, the Glob Blog is currently focused on Religious Discussion which many of my readers find less than riveting. Which is too bad. Religion has gotten an undeserved black eye since, oh, the 60's and as I view the wreckage of our current society I can't help but wonder about causes and effects.

Anyway, here we go - As a reminder, I am debating via this blog with Martin Luther regarding his 95 Theses. We last were at his thesis point 11. However, I find I have more to say on this topic, and so here goes:

11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory
is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops
slept.

Again, there seems to be a rather large disconnect between his understanding of the role and function of Purgatory and mine. He presents here Purgatory as a penance, which has been (deliberately?) reserved to after death. The wild card here is that I do not know the historical facts regarding Indulgences, which is where this appears to be heading. Jumping ahead of the argument, if some priests and bishops were in fact not giving full absolution in the confessional, but instead telling people, "Nope, you have to burn this one off in Purgatory", then turning around and selling 'get out of Purgatory free' cards, well, I'd be angry about that also.

Having said that, the Church teaching that I've seen regarding Purgatory and Penance, is that they are linked in some manner, though Purgatory is NOT Penance, and vice versa.

To understand the issue here, we need to take a side trip into the issue of Sin. I take the following from the Catechism of The Catholic Church:

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."¹²¹
1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."¹²² Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"¹²³ knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."¹²⁴ In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.¹²⁵

The Church teaches a double consequence of sin:

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.⁸⁴
1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man."⁸⁵

There is a concept called 'formation' wherein a person learns to be the kind of person that God wants them to be. Necessarily, this entails action. We have to stop doing "this" and start doing "that" as befits our attempts to imitate Christ.

The temporal punishment of sin is the vehicle by which we go through this formation. We are forgiven for our sins, but we still need to grow in faith and Christian charity. Otherwise we are empty Christians.

Hence this approach to Penance:

1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.⁶² Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."
1460 The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent's personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, "provided we suffer with him."⁶³

The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of "him who strengthens" us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ . . . in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth "fruits that befit repentance." These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.⁶⁴

I'm not sure I've clearly made my point, since this is all rather involved, but basically, Purgatory, when necessary, finishes the purification process that a person's Imperfect Penance may not have accomplished. But Purgatory is not Penance.

Note, that all people in Purgatory are going to Heaven. This is why we have the designation between "eternal" punishment and "temporal" punishment. I stress this point because some see Penance as a form of working your way into Heaven which it is not. Penance follows Absolution. Your sins are forgiven. Penance then is like Push-ups. You do it to make you stronger and more able to resist Sin going forward. It is a cooperation with a grace sacramentally bestowed by God through His Church.

It is clear that there is extant no Official Church Teaching regarding reserving a "canonical penalty" to a "penalty of purgatory", so I have to assume Luther is railing against the actions of some rogue bishops. We shall see where Thesis 12 takes us.

Ψ

Quick Note

2008-05-08T18:37:00.001-05:00

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

OK, Here We Go

2008-04-30T21:54:00.007-05:00

Me Thinks We've Come to the Meat
Mark Connolly

10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who,
in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for
purgatory.

I answer that:

I'd like to better understand the genesis of this proposition. The statement, on the face of it, does not make any sense to me at all. Keeping in mind that things may have been very different in the 1500s, here are the issues I have with your point number 10:

Did priests in fact "reserve canonical penance" from the dying? I cannot fathom this.
Do you in fact view purgation and penance as being synonymous? Because they're not.
You seem to be implying that priests refused the sacrament of penance to the dying, forcing them into purgatory, I suppose so that they could then bilk their relatives out of money for indulgences. 1

Having said all that, if in fact anything like this was happening, then you are right, "ignorant and wicked" indeed are these priests. Let's skip ahead to No. 11, and then consider both of these points together:

11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of
purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown
while the bishops slept.

As I've stated earlier, both in this post and in a previous one, penance and purgatory are essentially unrelated. You appear to be stating that they are essentially the same thing. Maybe now is the time to go into this.

I cannot know at this point, definitively, what the understanding of all this was in the 1500s. I also don't know when the doctrine of purgatory was developed.

As I understand the concept of purgatory today, the Church does not 'sentence' anyone to purgatory as penance for the sins they have committed in this life. Your implication is that the Church does just this. Your basis for this is unknown to me. To the best of my knowledge, there is no list of 'penalties' anywhere documented for the commission of sins. When a person goes to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and the priest absolves them of their sins and assigns a penance, it is up to the priest what the penance is. He doesn't look in some Manual of Penance. And, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been told "Your penance is 7 years in Purgatory."

Penance is more along the lines of this example: Your kid breaks a window. You forgive him, but there is still a broken window. The window still needs to be repaired. The kid broke it, the kid has to fix it. Even though you have already forgiven him or her. They have to fix what they broke.

Purgation is a purification. Purification is not Penance. I don't know what else to say at this time.

Continue to the Next Post

Ψ

Quick Aside

2008-04-26T20:18:00.002-05:00

Regarding Google AdSense
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

Some time ago I had decided to see what Google AdSense was all about. So, I signed up, configured stuff, downloaded the code to copy into my blog, etc., and then did nothing. I had configured the ads to show content related to Blog, but had been noticing nothing but really generic ads. And I had a search box, but it wouldn't do anything.

Then I got a message that said I needed to verify my AdSense account. Within about 3 minutes, the ads suddenly began appearing. Since the topic of the last several posts have been about Martin Luther and associated religious discussion, the ads suddenly are all related in some manner to God, prayer, etc.

So, I feel the need to make this disclaimer: The ads that show up on this site are driven by Google Analytics and are not to be taken as representing any view of The Glob Blog, the writers, herein, etc. The ads are the ads, and I don't pick them. But, I've already earned 1 cent!

FB Ψ

Agreement

2008-04-22T12:21:00.007-05:00

But I smell a trap
Mark Connolly

8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and,
according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

Ok, I agree with this. Sins are only forgiven while we are alive in this world.

Since this is an invitation to debate on the power and efficacy of indulgences, I believe you are deliberately setting up a false premise from which to then argue.

Sins are not forgiven in the afterlife. And Purgatory is not involved in the forgiveness of sins. Purgatory and Penance are therefore unrelated. If your coming discussion on the power and efficacy of indulgences relies in some measure on your point No. 8, I will come back as necessary and expand on my response to this point.

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us,
because in his decrees he always makes exception of the
article of death and of necessity.

You know in those old Bugs Bunny cartoons, when someone would get hit on the head and they would wiggle their head back and forth with a sort of aiee yeaiii yeaiii sound? That's what this point 9 made me feel like. I have no response. At the moment this seems like a non-sequitur from point 8. Ψ

Continue to Next Post

Points of Agreement

2008-04-20T18:27:00.009-05:00

I think
Mark Connolly

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that
it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's
remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases
reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in
such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely
unforgiven.

I think I will divide this into 6a and 6b for the sake of clarity.

6a)

The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that
it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's
remission;

My response to point No. 5 seems to have anticipated 6a, and so I will say, I agree.

6b)

though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases
reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in
such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely
unforgiven.

This is the part that confuses me. It is not clear to me whether or not this "pope granted" remission "in cases reserved to his judgment" is something that we would all agree to call 'sin'. It's almost as if you have this image of common society, governed by God and His laws, and then something like The Moose Lodge, or some other fraternal organization with its own bylaws. In such a fraternal organization, a member agrees to adhere to some standards of behavior, and places themselves under authority to the organization, and whoever happens to be the titular head of this organization.

If in fact you actually view the Catholic Church as some sort of fraternal organization with separate bylaws that only apply to its members, then you clearly have a concept of The Universal Church that quite simply fails to meet the requirement of the concept of Universal.

I have to wonder if that is what you thought all along. It would shed some light on your later career. I am going to have to leave this part of the response unfinished until I gain a better understanding of the rest of your theses.

7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same
time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His
vicar, the priest.

Again, I wish I could be sure of what you are saying. It sounds like you are saying God humbles and forgives all at the same time. I don't know what to make of the part that states "...bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest." So, looking up vicar, I found this in the Online Etymology Dictionary:

c.1300, from O.Fr. vicaire, from L. vicarius "substitute, deputy," noun use of adj. vicarius "substituting," from vicis "change, turn, office" (see vicarious). The original notion is of "earthly representative of God or Christ;" but also used in sense of "person acting as parish priest in place of a real parson" (c.1325).

Ok, so you are calling the priest the "earthly representative of God or Christ." In this subjection to the vicar, you are saying the person is brought into subjection to God or Jesus. I know today that the pope is specifically referred to as the vicar of Christ, so I will go with that concept.

So, you posit a three-fold action: being forgiven, being humbled, and being brought in to subjection. Depending on how literally this is all to be taken, this strikes me as a personal viewpoint not immediately gleaned from Scripture. For example:

3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. John 8:1-11 (KJV)

It can be argued that the woman was humbled by God through the actions of the pharisees that brought her before Jesus. It can be argued that this is a special case because this was a test, and so Jesus' actions here are not typical since his actions were in response to a test. It can be argued that she was brought into subjection to Christ.

All these can be argued, and in fact must necessarily be argued, because none of that is implicit in the text. That's simply not what it says. You have to do a lot of work to pull your point No 7 out of that text.

Very explicitly, Jesus does not condemn her. He in fact remits her guilt without humbling her and without bringing her to subjection in himself. This woman makes no profession of faith, did not say she was going to follow Jesus, etc.

I wish I knew what the genesis of this point was. You seem so, I don't know, grim.

Of course, one text in and of itself does not the whole Bible make. And, I do know there are plenty of examples of people being told to repent. And sinners are made miserable throughout the Old Testament. Etc. Still.

There are pieces of what you say that I would agree with. God forgives sins, and a humble and contrite heart is what he wants. The priest/bishop/pope is the vicar of Christ with all that entails. However, Jesus was pretty clear: the apostles were to serve, not lord it over others. He explained this by washing their feet with his own hands. The act of a servant to his master.

I don't agree that anyone is to be brought under subjection to the priest. Or maybe I just don't like the way it sounds. You know. Grim. Where's the joy? Ψ

Continue to Next Post

Papal Intent, Papal Constraint

2008-04-12T11:33:00.023-05:00

Separation of Church and Sin?
Mark Connolly

We continue -

5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any
penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his
own authority or by that of the Canons.

I answer that:

I've had to think about this for a while, and I am still not convinced I understand what you are saying or what your point is. I think you are drawing a distinction between Sin and its penalties and Church Rules and its penalties. I base that assumption on the whole topic of your posted propositions, i.e. "the power and efficacy of indulgences."

One question I have is whether or not some Church Imposed Rule, in your mind, becomes Sin if it is not obeyed. And perhaps that question should be directed to the pope as well. And then of course there is the issue of "penalties". I am not sure what you mean by penalties. What are the penalties that the pope cannot remit, and who imposes those penalties?

I'm concerned about understanding you, because it appears to me that you may be viewing the concept of Purgatory as some kind of Penalty, and therefore Indulgences as some sort of Remission of this Penalty. Since that is not what Purgatory and Indulgences are all about, I am very concerned that I am misreading you this early on. Nevertheless, I shall forge ahead.

If the purpose of your point No. 5 is to point out that the pope cannot forgive sin, well, that is given and understood. The pope, the bishop, the priest, do not forgive sin, God forgives sin. If the pope sets up some kind of rule or policy that carries some sort of penalty if it is disobeyed, then the question comes back to, does this equate to sin? And if so, then does the pope have the authority to forgive sin? I would think the ultimate answer is still no, despite the Bind and Loose quotations in the Bible.

Why would I say that? Jesus states this bind and loose thing twice in Matthew. It appears clear that he wants it understood that there is a certain authority and responsibility being granted. Binding and loosing however don't mean forgiving. I may be splitting hairs here, but while a society's law makers may pass or repeal laws, the assignment of guilt and penalty is made by the Judge or Jury. The judges or juries convict or acquit. They do that within a framework, but they do it, not the lawyers or the persons that passed or repealed the law.

My analogy breaks down, however by virtue of this fact. Judge and Jury determine, essentially, whether or not someone has sinned. They don't forgive someone if they have broken the law. They have the opportunity to show lenience, but that is not the same thing.

The analogy breaks precisely in that we are guilty. It is not a question of whether or not we are guilty and need to be punished. We have been judged and we are guilty. We deserve punishment. The question is one of forgiveness.

If the pope says "Do this," and you don't, and you have sinned, God is the one that forgives, not the pope. If the pope changes this rule or that regulation, and it is no longer a sin, no forgiveness is required. Changing a law, while superficially having the aspect of taking away someone's culpability, is not the same as forgiving someone for breaking a law.

If my understanding of all this is correct, then your point 5 has no relevance to the discussion. Ψ

Addendum: I remembered after I posted this another quote specifically stating something about "whose sins you forgive..." so I looked it up and quote it here:

"And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD.

Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." John 20:20-23(KJV)

So... does this impact my statements above that only God forgives sin? I don't think so. I quoted more than just the last sentence because I like things presented in context. The preceding sentence says "Receive ye the Holy Ghost:" Note the colon. The forgiving sins part follows from the receiving the Holy Spirit part. The apostles, by virtue of receiving the Holy Spirit are saddled with the responsibility (or granted the honor, you pick) of standing in place of the Lord until he returns. In and of themselves, they have no power to remit anything. It is only by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Continue to Next Post

We Continue

2008-04-08T09:33:00.004-05:00

Further Exploration of Penance/Repentance
Mark Connolly

3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no
inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers
mortifications of the flesh.

I answer that:

This seems a bit of a hedge to me. You imply in No. 2 that an outward sign (sacramental action) is not required, but here in No. 3 you say that some outward sign is required. And that (sacramental) "satisfaction" is not required, but that "divers mortifications of the flesh" are required. It appears to me you are laying some groundwork here, but I know not where you go at this time. I shall revisit after considering your subsequent points.

4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as
hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward
repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom
of heaven.

I answer that:

I am going to assume I am missing some fine point of theology here. I can't square hating yourself with the quotation from Jesus in Mark 12:27-34. Specifically, verse Mk 12:31 - "And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." (KJV) Naturally, there are lots and lots of quotations similar to these from Luke and Matthew. But I want to resist the kind of "so there" Bible Proofing that is typically counterproductive to debate.

Perhaps it is a 16th century stylistic issue, or some translation from German or Latin problem. This hatred of self seems, well, wrong. The implication I receive from the above is that we are never forgiven in this life, only when we get to heaven. That on this earth, we must lead lives of "sturm und drang", a continuous penance, as though the reality of Christ never happened, or if it happened, we are to act as if it has not, leaving no place for the joy of being a believer.

I conclude that I find no support for your concept that "hatred of self" is any type of requirement of Our Lord, or a precondition of doing penance. This seems to be a construct of your own, a philosophical development following some obscure line of reasoning not evident thus far in your propositions. Ψ

Continue to Next Post

The Debate Begins

2008-04-07T20:27:00.013-05:00

With a Brief Excursion into Latin
By Mark Connolly

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam
agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be
repentance.

I answer that:

I had no idea what Poenitentiam agite meant, and so had to look it up. The most common translations I have found are "Repent Ye" and "Do Penance". Now that I at least understand the words, if not your full meaning, I can attempt a response.

I wish I could be sure what exactly you are quoting. I assume it is a verse from one of the Gospels. The verse I am familiar with is from Mark 1:15 - And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. (KJV)

It strikes me that Jesus was giving a two part directive, repent and believe the good news. I do not know if you are quoting the above verse or if you are quoting Jesus from some other passage of the Bible. The two concepts do seem bound to one another regardless. Repent and believe. Or, do penance and believe. The question becomes, was Jesus telling us to do penance always? Was it an eternal command? Or, if you did repent, and did believe, and went forth and sinned no more (as he directed several people to do after curing them of some affliction or another) were you still required to do penance? Are we to do penance in Heaven? What do you mean by "the whole life of believers"?

Or, is this a figurative comment, indicating perhaps your understanding that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, such that constant repentance, constant penance is our default state?

But no, your first proposition is that Jesus willed that believers should always be repentant. You imply that if you believe, you should repent. You have reversed the order of His statement.

Your proposition does not seem consistent with the whole of the Gospel Message, which is one of complete Love and the clear desire that mankind would come to know and follow Jesus and be forgiven. He wanted us to believe in the Good News. Repentance is part of the process, and is possibly a means to the end. But it is not the end. As to what Jesus wills, the only exertion of his will that I have found in the Gospels was his complete cooperation with the will of The Father.

I find I cannot agree with this proposition as I understand it from your presentation.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance,
i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by
the priests.

I answer that:

If by "this word" you mean "Poenitentiam" then I have to give a conditional "thumbs up". It is clear that a person can be repentant and do penance without having received the Sacrament of Reconciliation or, as it may have been called in your day, The Sacrament of Penance. My condition is that I don't know where you are going with that, and so I may have to come back and rethink my answer once I understand your point. Ψ

Continue to Next Post

Martin Luther Begins

2008-04-07T10:53:00.006-05:00

Invitation To a Debate
By Mark Connolly

MARTIN LUTHER CONTINUES:

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light,
the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg,
under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther,
Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in
Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that
those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us,
may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

It is clear to me from the above opening statement that Martin Luther had some issues that he felt strongly about, and was wanting to bring into some discourse, and ideally some resolution. I do not know at this point whether or not the above referenced meeting took place. I was unable to be present at the time and debate orally with them, so I now take up his offer of doing so by letter.

Dear Reverend Father Martin Luther, I take up your offer to debate with you by letter. Thank you for your courtesy.

It is my understanding that at the writing of these propositions you were a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church. Consequently, you are no doubt far more familiar with the circumstances leading up to your posting of these propositions than I am, or probably will ever be. A cursory overview of your propositions leads me to believe many of the circumstances of the day are no longer extant. Whether this will bear out will be seen as we go through these one by one. I close now by saying I look forward to the debate. Ψ

disclaimer: I have no doctorate in theology, and no formal training. I do not speak for the Catholic Church, and the subsequent views and opinions expressed here should not be taken as anything other than the musing of someone who is interested in the debate. msc

Continue to Next Post

A Lay Catholic Responds To Luther

2008-04-06T12:27:00.007-05:00

DISPUTATION OF DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER
ON THE POWER AND EFFICACY OF
INDULGENCES

BY REVEREND FATHER MARTIN LUTHER

OCTOBER 31, 1517

Mark Connolly

This is the document which I have heard began the Protestant Reformation. It is my intent to read through the whole thing and respond as best I can with my understanding of things at this point in my life.

The plan is to respond, in subsequent posts, to a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 3 of each of the 95 propositions put forth by Martin Luther. I hope to continue doing so until I have responded to all 95.

I confess to not knowing anything about these propositions at this time. I shall learn as I go. Perhaps others may find this an interesting exercise. Ψ

Continue to Next Post

Glob Launches On Line Newspaper!

2008-04-05T10:00:00.008-05:00

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

Is This Funny or Sad?

2008-04-02T22:15:00.006-05:00

The Three Candidates
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

Nyuk nyuk yuck. Ψ

Glob Blog Wins Pulitzer

2008-04-01T06:24:00.005-05:00

"It's about time" - Hillary Clinton
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

Thanks to Gmail

Introducing Gmail Custom Time^TM

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 Time^TM .

Congrats all around.

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

Argument - A Lost Art?

2008-03-30T13:03:00.002-05:00

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

Nanny Nanny Boo Bobby

2008-03-29T09:02:00.000-05:00

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

Bit of a Dilemma

2008-03-25T20:51:00.006-05:00

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

Pascua

2008-03-23T10:12:00.003-05:00

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

Remedy

2008-03-22T19:00:00.004-05:00

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

Chatting across the Pond

2008-03-21T09:01:00.002-05:00

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

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

me: Well, now, I never mentioned anybody.

claire: yes BUT...

me: heh heh heh

:-O

claire:

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.

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

On Using Women

2008-03-10T11:13:00.010-05:00

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.

Why Abortion is a Male Issue

2008-02-26T21:53:00.001-06:00

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

2008-02-26T15:30:00.004-06:00

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!

Hola!

2006-03-29T21:18:00.000-06:00

Hola again
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

Well now, it's been quite some time. Way too much work, and way too much stuff going on.

Spent too much time with some tests and surveys. From these I have learned that I have an IQ of 136 and that my Myers Briggs Type is INFJ (Introverted iNtuitive Feelling Judger), which supposedly is 2% of the population. This means that I am a counselor idealist. Both of which should be taken with a grain of salt since they amounted to a combined total of maybe 15 minutes of test taking time.

However, my spousal unit says the read out on the INFJ thing was dead on for me. I suspect the IQ score to be more of a function of some natural reading comprehension ability, and exposure to the type of word questions that were used. In other words, if I had not been exposed to this type of testing, I would have scored lower. Some people can pay music, others can play the guitar, and I can read quickly and with good comprehension. Plus my Catholic school education (through the 7th grade) provided me with a sizeable vocabulary.

Other than that, I have no opinions on anything right now, having almost deliberately stuck my head in the sand regarding anything political.

I think I shall attempt to restart some regular ramblings, as an outlet for stress. This then is a rebirth of sorts.

The word for the day is Discernment.

FB
Ψ

Friggin' Spammers

2005-10-13T21:43:00.000-05:00

forcing people to work before commenting
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

This basically chaps me, but there are apparently spam bots that throw random comments everywhere they can. So, now if you want to leave a comment, you have to work for it. Sigh.

Go ahead, give it a whirl.
fb
Ψ

Spirituality Lite

2005-10-12T20:34:00.000-05:00

Stream of Consciousness Blogging
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

The following riveting exchange was posted by Uncle Buck to the wrong article, and consequently did not have the hoped for response from the teeming masses still reading this blog (That being me, my mom, and strange people leaving messages about cigarettes and real estate opportunities, which I have mostly deleted from the comments section, and of course Uncle Buck and Occasionally, Knecht.)

So, here.

Uncle Buck said...: as the Archangel of SouthPark, are you the keeper of the gates of the Vatican? how can i comment on the transitional Pope? am i too stoopid, or do you want no comments?; 11:24 AM
Frater Bovious said...: Why can't you comment? You commented here. Is this some kind of zen koan?; 7:13 PM
Uncle Buck said...: I commented “here”, about something “there”. I didn’t expect “here” and “there” to be the same place, so i suppose there is a zen-like element to this (or do I use “zen-like” inappropriately as a label for an unexpected result?).

I digress…I commented “here”, counting on your comprehensive knowledge of your own blog territory to hear my small voice lost in the wilderness. I expected direction to “there”, imagine my surprise to find out I was “there” in the first place. Now I have to collect my thoughts all over again.; 8:34 AM
Uncle Buck said...: Regarding: “Why is the Pope a Rock Star? I have a theory…”. Well so do I!

“We have a new Pope…”

“Sayings of the Dalai Lama…”

“Good karma/Bad Karma”

“Confucius say…”

These are all a kind of “Spirituality Lite” - The warm fuzzy feeling that comes from thinking about someone or something that represents the sacred, the holy, the divine without investing in any actual spiritual development of your own.

Very popular (tastes great! Less filling!)

I am not being high-and-mighty. I speak from experience.; 4:10 PM

NaNoWriMo 2005

2005-10-05T06:59:00.000-05:00

Finally, I have an excuse for not Blogging
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

Because I will be pounding out another 50,000 word novel this November. The last novel I wrote had rave reviews from my mom and one of my sisters, so I am filled with delightful anticipation. If you wish to track my progress and read snippets of the novel, go HERE after Nov 1.

Wish me luck!!

Ψ

Haiku

2005-09-13T20:04:00.000-05:00

Gesundheit
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

Gulf Coast pounded flat
Disaster fueled by hot air
Politics again.

A Small Tribute

2005-08-19T07:24:00.000-05:00

Antonio Fernandez-Vina
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

For those that know us, you know that Rosie's father passed away last Friday, the 12th. He had Alzheimer's and had been in the memory unit of a managed care facility in Dallas called The Veranda. During one visit I wrote some notes about what I was seeing, and then fleshed it out a bit after another visit. I sat down and wrote this the morning before he died.

Saint Veranda (God's Porch)

Bits of trash. Shiny metal, feathers, discarded wire. Beads, mono-filament line, and patience. Fishing lures. He was keen to try his latest creation, kind of a spoon lure that should have just the right action.

He couldn't quite get it all together just so. Interruptions. Sometimes he could just ignore the nuisance, and keep focused on the task at hand. This time he was mostly successful, and he made his way to the pier. It was a pretty day, no humidity. His spoon lure forgotten, he was going with the ones he seemed to always find. He admired his Abu Garcia rod, and noted the leader he was using, and absentmindedly wended to the pier.

He was there. It always seemed to surprise him. He'd be wandering about, and then, like a trusted friend, it would be there, looking out over the water. He stood on the pier, squinting in the reflected light. His eyes weren't so good anymore, but it didn't really matter. Here was his chair, his personal seat on the veranda, as he came to think of it. Part porch, part pier, part salt sea spray, part chills, part heat; it wasn't home, but it was familiar. And of course, there were the angels.

Bending forward, he looked for the right lure in his tackle box, and began the arduous task of attaching it to his leader.

“Hey Papi!” The voice startled him, and he dropped the lure. Looking around for the source of the voice he noticed how crowded and noisy was the pier. Too many people, too much noise, and no idea if anyone really addressed him. Dismissing it as yet another irritant, best ignored, his fingers stretched to finish some task, and fumbled around in his lap. Looking out over the railing, he lost himself in the rhythm of the sea. In and out, in and out. The familiar swooshing sound retreated in his ears, the susurration taking him back in time. He was quite young, and heading for the water to fish. He cast himself like a lure, a particular memory took the bait and there he was, hip deep in the ocean, where he wanted to be.

With an accomplished flip of the wrist he whipped his line far out beyond the sandbar, out to where the big fish swim. Spanish Mackerel. That's what he was after. Two or three, and dinner would be served. “Hey Papi!”

The pole dropped from his startled hands, and he reached vainly, trying to regain it. It was just out of his reach, and as he strained toward it he was knocked backwards and off his feet by a surge of water. Regaining his footing, he stood in the surf, someone tapping him on the shoulder. He needed that pole. Where was it? Turning toward the tapping, squinting in the tropical sun, he muttered “Eh?” and tried to see who was standing over him. The sun was in his eyes. Always in his eyes.

“Papi! Tu no recuerdas?

He considered that for a moment. Remember what? What remember what? What was he doing? There, the tug, the bait had been taken! He reeled, catching a glimpse of his prize. Oh it was putting up a fight. This was a worthy combatant. He might even land it this time. It was something to do with whoever was tapping him on the shoulder. If he could just get it in. If he could just say what was right there. Ah. Lost it. What was it? Casting, he struggled in the waves and the undertow, striving to re-capture... What what? He cast again. Maybe he could even land it this time...

“He's off somewhere again. God, this is so hard.” The lady stood looking, watching the fumbling hands that used to fix everything. Mr. Fix-it he had been called. With a clever wit, always a laugh, always some pun. One of the staff walked up, the Cuban one named Ana, and asked, “How you doing today?”

“I'm fine – just sad. This just isn't fair.”

The older lady looked up at her. “No dear, it just isn't. He ate real well today though. And I've got him walking some. And we talk and talk. Sometimes he thinks I'm his wife. Sometimes maybe you. He plays his bongos some, and we all dance. It's been a real blessing, him being here.”

The younger lady just looked down at her father. Sadness whelmed her being. “He was a chemist you know,” she said to no one in particular. Leaning down, she hugged the old man. “I miss you Papi.” She blinked against tears.

The nurse patted her shoulder. “I know dear, I know.” Turning to the old man, she said, “Hey, you have a visitor! Let's get up and show her how you can walk.”

Walk. Walk, walk, walk. That angel wanted him up and walking again. She has a sway on him, he owed her some courtesy for some reason, something she did - he needed to get up and get to the pier. He stood, grabbing for his tackle box. The sway, the rhythm took him, and enraptured by the sound of the sea, the pull of the tides, he was there, hip deep, where he wanted to be. (August 11, 2005)

Finding

2005-08-02T20:31:00.000-05:00

By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

“Ernest Hemingway is gay.”

“Ernest Hemingway is dead,” corrected Steve.

“Ernest Hemingway was gay, and is presumed dead,” amended Mark. He was slouched on the couch, watching Luche Libre, his current method of studying Spanish.

Steve looked up from The Half-Blood Prince and considered for a moment. “Whaddya mean 'He's gay?'”

“I just think he was gay, and at this point, I'm fairly certain he's dead.”

Steve closed his book almost sat up in the easy chair. “What do you know about Hemingway?”

“He's gay.”

“Have you even read any Hemingway?”

“I read Hills like White Elephants. It was interesting to me, mostly because it never much mentioned what the story was about, but it was clearly about abortion. I was kind of impressed with how he managed that. But I only read that because I had to for college.”

“You never read anything else?”

“Nope.”

“Why not?”

Mark turned away from the set and looked directly at Steve. “He killed himself.”

“So?”

“Isn't he supposed to be this man's man? This rugged individualist, or some shit like that? Bullfighting in Spain, drinking rum and cokes in Cuba, smoking cigars, The Old Man and the Sea, blah blah?”

Steve looked at him, mouth partially open. “I thought you said you didn't know anything about him!”

“Didn't say that. I said he's gay.” Winking conspiratorially he added, “And when you know a man is gay, that's something.”

“What is with this gay obsession? You homophobic or something?”

“Non sequitur.”

“Huh?”

“Look, so there you are, this manly man, fighting in wars, writing novels of hopelessness and how Men are Men, then BANG! you shoot yourself in the head. What's that all about?” Mark turned back to watch this generation's Mil Mascaras do a flying suplex on his erstwhile opponent. It was his signature closing move, and usually ended the match.

“I don't know why he killed himself. Who can know such a thing?”

“People leave suicide notes. He left novels. It's all there.”

“Novels you never read.”

“Don't have to. He kind of summed himself up, didn't he.”

“How so?”

“He's gay.”

“Godammit, quit saying that!”

“Okay fine.”

Mark became absorbed in the next bout. Steve just looked at him. Finally, “So, you don't read him because he's gay?”

“Never said that. He killed himself. I don't think I want to hear anything he's got to say. People that are tragic can be rather compelling.”

“So, you just decided to not read anything by him?”

“Yeah, BANG! sudden like.”

fb

Transitional Pope?!

2005-04-21T06:36:00.000-05:00

"We Just Need a Breather."
Heard in Conclave
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

We have a new pope. Interesting word 'we'. The pope is the Bishop of Rome, and basically an elected official 'serving' the Catholic Church. But several people that I work with, that are not even overtly religious in any way, told me with a smile that 'we' have a new pope. Why is the Pope a Rock Star? I have a theory, but it is a secret.

fb

The Pope

2005-04-14T21:11:00.000-05:00

Should he be news?
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

A lot of people have asked me why I haven't written anything about the Pope. Naturally, I thought of the Prince song "The Pope" but recently found out that people are actually referring to The Pope of Vatican fame.

So, I shall write about the Pope.

Later.

fb

Me the Archangel

2005-04-08T07:08:00.000-05:00

me the archangel
Originally uploaded by FraterBovious.

Frater Bovious IS the Archangel of SouthPark

Be concerned. Exhibit extreme consternation.

fb

Dallas Wine & Food Festival

2005-04-05T06:45:00.000-05:00

Everyday Wines For Everyday People
April 2, 2005
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

Frater Bovious, Madame Bovarie, along with J & J, family friends, attended this event Saturday morning. 9:30 am to be exact. Tasted six wines, and took notes from various wine judges and wine representatives. It proved to be diverting and educational, and provided some new flavor comparisons to use when out dining. The following bolded comments were all actually heard from these various wine commentators. The rest is just information about the wine, or my own commentary:

Principessa, Gavi DOCG, Gavia 2003, the grape is cortese, a minor grape grown in the Piedmont region of Italy and used to make the "Gavi" - (e.g: Cortese di Gavi), white wines. This feisty little entry won a bronze at some obscure tasting.

Commentator, Fran Baker: Light, honeysuckle note, acidic backbone, great with shell fish, sitting on the patio or beside the pool. The high acid content gives it a cleansing effect. I actually found it somewhat watery, yet a good counterpoint to the morning's Crest Toothpaste. I rated it an "I like it."

Gray Monk, Okanagan Valley, VQA, Pinot Gris 2003, a Canadian offering, the grape is pinot gris, a mutant clone of Pinot Noir. Has several synonym names in France, eg. Fromenteau (Gris) or Fromentot in the Champagne region where it is used in a sparkling wine blend along with Arbane and Petit Meslier wines), Malvoisie (Blanc) in the Loire Ancenis region (an alias not to be confused with the Malvoisie synononym name for the Bourboulenc variety found in the Languedoc), fresh from garnering a silver at the aforementioned obscure tasting event.

Commentator, Larry White: Crisp & clean, citrus - fruity - light finish, good Texas Hot Weather Wine. Don't over think it, just drink it. Does not step on any food, pair with fish, cheese. I found it somewhat more 'there' than the Principessa, really nice, more complex flavor and rated it a "Really Wonderful."

Crios de Susana Balbo, Mendoza, Rose of Malbec 2004, from Argentina, the grape is malbec, a Semi-classic grape grown in the Bordeaux region of France and in other areas under the names Médoc Noir, Côt or Pressac, while in the Alsace it has the local name Auxerrois. This also won a silver, which is a delightful coincidence, as Argentina derives it's name from Argent or Silver.

Commentator, Amy Atwood: New World style - 'fruit forward'. Rose is a year round wine, refreshing & fun. It is what it is. And, it is not a White Zin. Nice acidity on the finish, no Jolly Rancher effect. Argentina, keep your eye on it - affordable quality. Argentina will be next year's South Africa. Picnic fare - sunshine, mid day, good with chocolate mousse. I actually thought of strawberries as I smelled and tasted this wine. I rate it an "I like it."

Graham Beck, Western Cape, Pinno Pinotage 2003, From South Africa, the grape is Pinno Pinotage, Cultivar widely grown and successful in South Africa since its release in in 1925. Also currently grown in Brazil, Canada, California (USA), Virginia (USA) and Zimbabwe. Derived from the crossing of Pinot Noir x Cinsaut. Used to make a popular, hearty red wine that ages well - (and often requires it). By this stage of the tasting I was losing track of what medal which won, but I think this won a silver at whatever tasting had happened sometime previously.

Commentator, James White, Wholesaler: Pinot Noir is a difficult finicky grape, very challenging to wine makers, and there are lots of really bad pinot noir wines out there. Every winery seems to think they will make the 'great pinot noir'. The pinno pinotage grape is a sub species of the pinot noir, crossed with cinsaut, and had only truly been successful in South Africa. They have managed this wine by limiting the yield to 4 tons per acre, and harvesting before the grape is overripe. It is fermented in a stainless steel pump over - well, the important thing, as the vintner from the winery told me, is that he had "learned to take the wet monkey on fire out of the wine." I found it to have a flat start, almost tasteless, but possessing of a very interesting finish. It was a bit of a surprise with smoke notes. I imagine it would go great with a sidecar of Liquid Smoke. Seriously, I want to try this with a nice rib eye. I rated this an "I really like it."

McPherson Cellars, Texas, Tre Colore 2004, I have not a whit of an idea what grape, other than 'red mediterranean blend', disclosed I suppose by the tre color name. I did find this description of a 2002 year Tre Colore, so am assuming the grapes are the same: "a terrific red-wine blend made from syrah, carignan and viognier. The first two provide sturdiness, while the third somehow makes it all work out." - from an Aug 2004 Fort Worth Star Telegram article. This won a bronze.

Commentator, John Bratcher: Going to be visiting wine country? Great, we're in Lubbock, where are you staying? Texas is suited for Italian, Rhone and High Plains wines. Texas and McPherson Cellars have a long wine history, and in fact Communion Wine continued to be made in this region during Prohibition. This is a blended wine, soft, great fruit notes, chill it a bit for a Hot Texas alternative to Pinot Noir. This is a young wine, but you don't want to age it - drink it now! I rated this wine a "pretty good."

Wyndham Estate, South Eastern Australia, Bin 555, Shiraz 2002, the grape is Shiraz, an alternate name for the french Syrah clone grape grown in Australia and responsible for very big red wines that are not quite as intense in flavor as the french Rhone versions. In the past it was also known under the alias name Hermitage. This won a silver at the same wine tasting referenced above, i.e., that one I don't know about, but that happened this year in Dallas.

Commentator Zelijko "Ziggy" Blagojevic: Wine is about enjoying wine & food with good friends. Serious wines are drunk by serious people. Everyday wines by everyday people - great concept. This grape came from the Northern Rhine to Australia in Hunter Valley (Dalwood) in 1830. This area is now known as Wyndham Estate, and consequently we are the birthplace of Australian Shiraz. This is the perfect wine for 'I just want a glass of Red.' It is aged one year in oak barrells used 2-3 times before. This has that Aussie Berry Shiraz Flavor. Nice, warm, inviting. I rated this an "I like Shiraz."

Other interesting things learned or heard that morning:

Flavor note: Sweaty saddle.

Bin numbers: Supposedly, for non-criminals living in Asutralia, someone owning an estate or ranching endeavor had one criminal allotted for every 100 acres of land. Or something like that. Anyway, these folks were educationally challenged, and so could not read. So, someone got the idea of just naming the various wine lots by the bin numbers, i.e., Bin 1 was called Bin 1 etc. They don't have a Bin 666. This story while entertaining is not true.

On Blended Wines: Nothing wrong with blended wines. In fact most bordeauxs are blended, as are all good champagnes.

Pinno Pinotage: Comes alive with veined cheeses. I have experienced this to some degree with Port and Stilton, about which Winston Churchill said, "Port and Stilton are like Man and Wife. What God has joined together let no man put asunder."

On stemware: The finest of glasses, Reidel, is pronounced reedle, not rydel.

On youth: "These wines are like our host, young at heart."

Decanting: Decant wine to add oxygen and add flavor - up to an hour. But in the proper vessel, one that allows for a large surface area. Simply opening a bottle and letting it stand won't do it. Not enough surface area is exposed.

Room Temperature: 63 to 68 degrees. So, on a typical hot Texas day, if you want your red at room temperature, you know that one in the bottle rack over there by the window, pop it in the freeze for 10 minutes. Perfect.

On the whole we all really enjoyed the outing and learned quite a bit. Wine drinking has a certain allure, that is after you've outgrown the 'pound beers until you are snot-slinging incoherent' phase. Once you have a few wines and phrases and grape names under your belt, you can engage in a little tongue-in-cheek snootery with your friends. Nothing like a little faux haughtiness around the pool with family and friends. I highly endorse this type of activity, rating it an "I really like it."

fb

Underinformed Wal*Mart Exec Says"Ooops!", followed closely by "Br-r-r-r."

2005-04-03T06:24:00.000-05:00

Attempted Hostile Buyout Has Serious Repercussions
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

Waldo Marmaduke, a high ranking executive at Wal*Mart suffered a serious career setback recently. The Global Exclaimer caught up with him at his new post, a Neighborhood Store in Yakutsk, Sakha (Yakutia) Republic of Siberia. He agreed to answer a few questions.

Glob: "So, tell us how you got here."

Waldo: "I was just doing my duty, identifying potential revenue streams that it appeared offered Wal*Mart serious penetration opportunities. We sacked and burned the Grocery Industry, effectively owning the stomachs of North America. At first glance, it didn't seem there was much left to acquire. Then it hit me. We owned their stomachs, their hygiene needs, their kitschy crap needs, etc. So, what's left? Exactly. Their souls." Stops talking, stares wistfully out the window at the featureless white snowstorm currently raging.

Glob: "Waldo - Waldo, I have a deadline..."

Waldo: "Oh! Sorry. Well, anyway, Religion seemed an obvious target. Seriously, (eyes glowing) this religion thing had huge potential. I mean, the revenue stream is Tax Free!!! Our survey team then began to look at likely targets, finally narrowing on the Mormons, and Scientologists. We set aside the Mormons for later, as they are rather high profile, and it was not clear that their faithful would swallow this new direction. Ahh, but Scientology looked primed and ready for the picking." Heavy sigh. "No one told me that my target for takeover actually owned Wal*Mart."

Glob: "Yes, that was quite the oversight, wasn't it. So, then?"

Waldo: "So, here I am, Store Manager here in this Godforsaken backwater town. I don't know if this proves there is a God, or disproves it. - Look, I got work to do. I'm done talking. Get out of here."

The Glob next found Security Chief Terl, of The Church of Scientology, for comment.

Glob: "Security Chief Terl, tell us about Waldo."

Terl: (Laughing dismissively) "Stupid human."

The Glob was then hustled out of the room without ceremony.
Ψ

Ignorant and Meaningless Soundbites

2005-03-31T21:53:00.000-06:00

Heard on Fox Just the Other Day
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

"Should we fight to keep her alive, or let her die with dignity?"

What the Hell does that mean?

Now that she is not just merely dead, she is really most sincerely and dignifiedly dead, maybe we can spend a little time reflecting on media manipulation of our emotions, and wonder if we should continue to let our minds rot slowly to death watching TV, or turn the goddam thing off and live with dignity.

Rest in peace Terri.

Ψ

Genius

2005-03-31T21:37:00.000-06:00

As reported by a random 10 questions test. Surely, that is enough.
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

Results of the 10 Puzzle IQ Test

Click here to learn more about this test.

Your score

Number of puzzles solved: 9/10

Puzzles you had wrong: 1

Estimated IQ: 150+

Estimated Percentile Ranking for the General U.S. Population: 99.9+

According to your score, you are GENIUS

Now, here's the deal. The one question I got wrong, was the first question, which should be the easiest one. There was one question where you were supposed to read this paragraph, and then determine what it had to do with Joan Jett. One of the answers was "I love rock n roll" the only song that I know she did. So I guessed. The final question I used a solution that was not general, and would not have worked for a different set of numbers. So, I missed the general rule, that all the numbers were a multiple of some other number. In other words, I guessed.

So, I guess I'm a genius.

fb

Not an Onion Article

2005-03-29T20:54:00.000-06:00

Those Wacky Christian Scientists
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

Sperm donors no longer bank on anonymity screams headline. (Good thing I caught the typo where I left the 's' off of screams before I published this.)

This is an article that I arbitrarily decided to use to discuss some current societal issues in view of "The Law of Unintended Consequences." If you are uninformed regarding such a law, I invite you to peruse this Wikipedia entry.

The law of unintended consequences is interesting to me because I labored under the misconception that I had invented the concept, until I decided to Google it. But it is also interesting to me because it seems that many of these consequences are foreseeable. Others are not, but, in certain areas, the Law should be considered before rushing headlong into acceptance of some new fangled change in society.

For example, I remember as a child watching a made for TV movie about teenage pregnancy. Now, at the time, that was something that we had heard did happen, to certain people in certain parts of the world, but it had not happened in my school, and I did not know anyone who was even having sex. This particular movie showed some really uptight folks dealing poorly with their daughter's pregnancy, and the poor girl being ridiculed etc., by her peers and the school system.

The message was clear. This poor girl was a victim, and was being mistreated, and why can't people care more, and why does everyone have to be so uptight, and why doesn't everyone just be nice? I mean, Gawd, she didn't kill anyone. I remember, at the age of 14 or whatever, thinking what a bunch of small minded people, and if they could only watch this movie they would see how hard they were being on this poor sweet innocent child, and her poor sweet innocent child.

Fast forward to when my daughter was in high school, and her high school had a nursery, and she knows several girls that were nursing while in high school.

And you got to wonder, is it better today, then back when that movie was made? The unintended consequence of trying to take away the stigma of having a baby while you are a teenager has been scads of babies born all over the place into non-stable environments. You go and interview 100 people in prison, and I will wager that the largest single common denominator will be single parent households. Is society better off?

There are a few other things I remember that were thought to be good, but have not had beneficial effect. The concept that manners are somehow 'fake'. Leading to 'honesty' in communication. Or that 'guilt' is a bad thing. "I ain't got no regrets." "No point in feeling guilty about it." "What ever." etc.

Here are some current societal issues that are being argued about which no one (I feel) is interested in reviewing in light of the law of unintended consequences:
Political Correctness. Hyphenated-Americans. Gay Marriage. Violent video games like Grand Theft Auto.

You may look at that list and think WTFO? How can Hyphenated-Americans be a bad thing? Or, "Oh, you're one of those homo-phobic right wing religious wack-os." But I think all the above have or will have consequences that may not be desirable. I can even give some examples, but shan't for now, in the interest of trying to stimulate debate.

Some unintended consequences are good. Like deep sea oil platforms becoming ecosystems. But, we're not really worried about the good things, are we?

Unintended Consequences happen. They are somewhat foreseeable. There should be some social debate, sans emotion when possible, to get a handle on whether or not some things that seem like a good idea at the time, actually are.
fb

Expiation

2005-03-25T21:23:00.000-06:00

I am forgotten like the unremembered dead;
I am like a dish that is broken.

Psychiatry, the Early Years

2005-03-25T06:47:00.000-06:00

Thoughts From 75 Years Ago
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

I've always been a bit skeptical of any psychiatry or psychology espoused in a magazine or in the common press. The field is thought of as science, yet to me it fails the first basic test of science: reproducible experimental results. That and the fact that concepts are extrapolated from 'the lower animals'.

No, I am not trained in these fields, but most people spouting the crap they spout about psychiatry are not either. So, I feel comfortable spouting an attempt at a voice of reason. For example, the simplistic uses of the Skinnerian model of behavior, wherein human reactions are extrapolated from the reactions of poultry will become more valid to me once it can be demonstrated that a chicken will at times just do whatever because it is waiting for that opportunity to peck your eye out.

Regardless, I ran across this quote, which is very interesting for many reasons, not the least of which is how long ago it was said.

A little less worry over the child and a bit more concern about the world we make for the child to live in; an inclusion of the child in a life of which the aim is not merely to earn money so as to become independent of the job; more love for whole-hearted, creative work and progress that will make possible what we all can share in; with these conditions, the adult and the young both will have a better chance. -- Adolf Meyer, What Can the Psychiatrist Contribute to Character Education, May, 1930

Republican Porn Peddler Kicked to the Curb

2005-03-24T21:20:00.000-06:00

Next Stop: Playboy Centerfold
By Frater Bovious
9th Level Adept, THOOTR

(With a hat tip to Ala.) I noted with interest the rather HOT editor of Playgirl, Michelle Zipp (er...) having been term'd apparently for being Repubelickin'. (Sorry.)

Clearly this demonstrates that Republicans are not a protected category, because WE'RE THE MAJORITY! HAH! IN YOUR FACE DEMOCRATS!!

However, after my initial guilty glee over Republican dominance, I must report that my finely tuned BS indicator, set to vibrate and held between my knees, is going off most pleasurably.

See, I find it difficult to believe that a competent magazine editor would be terminated for being a Republican. "Criticism from the liberal left ensued", she states in a reputed email to The Drudge Report. Shortly after, she reports, she was fired.

Hmmm. Does this mean only the liberal left reads Playgirl? Well, if you think about it, think HARD, it does make a kind of sense.

But, I wonder if this just wasn't a convenient way to move Ms. Zipp along. That seems much more likely to me then being ousted for voting Republican.

On a completely different free associative note; speaking of BS detectors, something is just plain strange about the Schiavo case. She is just now 41, and went into this vegetative state, what 15 years ago or so? So, she had a heart attack at the age of 26? Kinda young, don't you think? If this were a made for TV movie, it would be about time for someone to consider the possibility that this heart attack was not a natural phenomenon. I haven't seen any discussion regarding the cause of the heart attack. Could this actually be a case of attempted murder? With the desire to get the job finished? Especially before anyone figures it out while she's alive?

Yeah, I know. Lifetime TV. I just wonder.
fb

Meanwhile, this guy is NOT an Intellectual coward.

2005-03-21T23:25:00.000-06:00

See previous post about IMAX for definition of Intellectual Cowardice.

Go here to learn about Real Ultimate Power!!

Now, this is Intellectual Fortitude!

Imax 'shuns films on evolution'

2005-03-21T06:24:00.000-06:00

Interesting that I didn't see this in any of the local papers.

This is very much not a good thing. The Bible is NOT a science book. I don't recall anywhere in the Old Testament where God says anything about turning off our brains, and ceasing to study and learn what we can about our physical universe. That also seems to be missing from the New Testament. NO, I haven't read the Bible cover to cover. So, I am prepared to stand corrected.

But I am fairly certain the Bible does not teach quantum mechanics, calculus, thermodynamics, or advance any theories on evolution, or lack of evolution.

This all seems to center on the concept of the Universe having been created in 6 days, therefore evolution is non-Biblical.

Somehow, I don't think that is the point of Genesis. I will fault the Scientific Community on one point however. It is in reaction to the charge that 'the Earth was not created in 6 days, therefore the Bible is crap" that has created all these sad efforts to legitimize the Bible through pseudo-science, such as Intelligent Design, etc.

I'm sorry, but you don't look in a calculus book to learn how to bake Irish Soda Bread, and you don't look in The Joy of Cooking to cipher out differential equations.

Meanwhile, the Fort Worth IMAX folks are intellectual cowards.

fb

Who am I?

2005-03-19T18:36:00.000-06:00

Aside from the fact that
I'M A MAN BABY, YEAH!

I'm OK with this:

Which HP Kid Are You?

Death as Rehab

2005-03-12T16:02:00.000-06:00

What is The Age of Reason?
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

On one of the blogs I frequent, I saw a thread on capital punishment, and the recent Supreme Court decision. No more capital punishment for murderous children. There was a pretty strong difference of opinion.

I got the idea somewhere once upon a time that if you could hold two opposing views in your mind at once, somewhere in the resultant mental tension you might glimpse the truth.

Death and Rehab. Two approaches to a problem. The problem of murder.

Children and Culpability. What is the Age of Reason? For the Catholic Church, age 7 is when you are supposed to know right from wrong. Within that context, at that age, you can decide to sin. Prior to that age, your actions are not Sin, as Sin is a conscious decision to do wrong, and separate yourself from God.

So, death penalties for seven year olds? Well, I should hope not. But, if not at age 7, then what about age 10? Or 15? Or 18? Or ever?

And, why is it necessary to even consider such an awful concept?

Some questions worth pondering: At what age should someone know that it is wrong to kill a fellow human being, and what should be done about someone who knows better but does it anyway? And how relevant is age to that question?

I think by the age of 7 you should know that you should not kill people. And you should know there are consequences to the decision to kill. But that means we really aren't talking about crime and punishment, we are talking about raising children. And we are also talking about whether or not there should be a consequence to bad decisions. And we are talking about at what point is an action a bad decision and at what point is it a simple mistake?

If we are talking about how children are raised, and, if it takes a village to raise a child, then is the village culpable? If so, then how do you rehab society? Is capital punishment of the individual an attempt to rehabilitate society as a whole, by teaching in the grimmest of fashions that murder is wrong? And that there are consequences to bad decisions? If so, is it working? If it is not working, then what? A pat on the head and a Snickers bar?

Death as Rehab. Somewhere in the consideration of these opposing concepts there may be a truth worth figuring out.

fb

Stress Relief

2005-03-12T13:17:00.000-06:00

The Use of Recording Random Thoughts as a Front Line Defense to Stressors Elsewhere
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

I am curious to know if this is a random and particular to me, or common. When life is great, and lots of fun things are happening, I am not driven to write anything. When I have had bad jobs, or life sucked for whatever reason, I would scribble notes about the most random crap, and admire any small word smithing success.

I guess that is the root of the tortured artist mythos.

Not that all writing has to be a result of outwardly imposed stress. I wrote that novel in a month thing as a response to the self induced stress of committing to writing a novel in a month. It strikes me that stress can bring out the best in people.

At work, where our company has been sold, I have been too tired at the end of the day to write anything. Hence the long absence from the blogosphere. I didn't even log on for days at a time, and didn't read all my usual favorite blogs or anything. Work is still stressfull, but apparently I've passed some critical point because while I am still stressed at work, I now have the energy and the desire to spew out this crud. And read all my old friends (so to speak) people I don't really know but have communicated with or argued with. They are over there in the list of blogs.

It's been interesting to pick up threads of life again, and see where people are vs then, at least in terms of the blogosphere.

Which takes me to a random follow up to my last random post about Michael Jackson. What would the King Of Pop be like if he had used the science fiction novel Dune as his escape, instead of Peter Pan?

Would he have built a desert land/amusement park named Arrakis? Would he go out in public in a stilsuit? Would he have taken up knife fighting? Would he be more able to deal with the world, or would he be some kind of scary demigod wannabe?

Any thoughts from whoever reads this would probably be quite interesting. So, What Novel Should Michael Jackson have patterned his world view after???

fb

Never Land

2005-03-10T22:04:00.000-06:00

When Fantasy Collides With Reality
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

Disregard the following, as I have nothing to base it on but the zeitgeist that, if nothing else, Michael Jackson is weird.

Who knows if Mr. Jackson is guilty of fondling young boys? I don't. It sure draws a lot of speculation, and would, I believe, crowd out similar accusations against The Pope as far as front page news. After all, the Pope never moon danced. From that respect, he is very boring.

Jackson, on the other hand (the one without a glove) is simply fascinating. The talent, the music, the plastic surgery, the bolt on nose, etc. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion with THX surround sound. But what strikes me, when I do see some glimpse of him on TV, is that he is nearly as fascinated with himself as the rest of the world is. As if he is an actor on a stage, and this is all some sort of adventure, where bad press is good press.

Sadly, I think he may lack the emotional maturity to realize he is in trouble. I'm guessing none of this seems real to him except in some kind of Grand Adventure kind of way. I wonder what will happen when it sinks in that he's in trouble. Sadly, I predict suicide in his future.
Ψ

Über*Mart "settles" with DOL

2005-03-08T22:39:00.000-06:00

As Reported in BrownWatch
- Wal-Mart settles child labor cases
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

I just found this fascinating. Wal-Mart is caught violating child labor laws designed to safeguard folks under the age of 18, and as part of the settlement, they get to have a 15 day advance notice before the Department of Labor investigates any other potential violations.

It seems like an article from The Onion. But, it's not.

Now, I will state for the record that some of these DOL laws seem silly. Basically, anyone under 18 cannot work with any equipment that has a motor on it. That includes floor buffers, bailers, deli slicers, etc. But, the bailer is the thing that really is silly. They don't even want 16 year old people throwing cardboard into the bailer. Granted some 16 and 17 year olds would probably crush themselves in a bailer if allowed within 10 feet of one. So, I can understand not allowing them to push the crush button. Sort of.

Regardless, that is the law, and most companies abide by them. Companies the size of Wal-Mart certainly employ enough lawyers to know better. I guess they just thought they could get away with it. Hmmmm
Ψ

Mass Migration Phenomena

2005-01-20T06:44:00.000-06:00

Where Have All The Homeless Gone?
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

Each year I am fascinated by the sudden arrival of the cold and hungry shortly before the fourth Thursday in November, and their equally precipitous disappearance on the 26th of December. For approximately one month these roving bands move into my city, scarf up on freebies, and then fade away into the collective backgrounds of our minds, like a mist vanishing on a sunny morn. I suppose they return to their vacation homes in Flordia.

How do they travel around? You'd think there would be some kind of reports or something. Hell, they track Santa on the radio on Christmas Eve. Why don't they track the migration of these gypsies that swarm into towns like locusts, living off the good will of the residents, and then, apparently fattened up enough to last a full year, dissappear once again to where ever they came from? You'd think the migration would be tracked on National Geographic TV or something.

In the old days, these folks would have been tagged and tracked by Jim from Mutual of Omaha. "And now Jim, having darted a big male, will install the painless ear tag - Ka-snick. Never mind the reaction of the homeless man. He was not harmed, only alarmed by the sound of the ear clamping device going off so loudly next to his ear. There, now he is running off to join his band."

Those were the days of real science. FB

Hello dere!

2005-01-18T23:16:00.000-06:00

Been away. Back now.
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

S'up my bruthus?

I have been occupied most intensely at mi trabajo. We were sold by the family, and bought by an investment group, and much drama has ensued.

Including a voluntary severance package of most epic proportion, which did'st have me contemplating a change in jobs. However, I most probably shall remain at my current place of work, and see if we can't turn this bitch around.

And of course, I shall divert myself by blogging once again!! yay.

fb

Black on Black

2004-12-12T09:27:00.000-06:00

On White
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

Manning Marable, an African-American historian at Columbia University, summarized the case against (Clarence) Thomas at the outset of his court career: "Even though he is black in terms of his racial identity, Thomas in terms of his political program, in terms of his repudiation of civil rights, is arguably . . . the whitest man in America." . . .

What does that mean?

Is black, or being black, an issue of skin color and genetics, or is it merely defined by a social agenda? Is being white more about what position one takes on an issue, or is it about a lack of melanin? Is being 'black' or being 'white' that simplistic?

Or are 'black' and 'white' politicized concepts that no longer contain meaning beyond opportunistic rhetoric? Where it is actually to the benefit of certain groups or persons to attempt to stabilize and solidify racial disharmony in the interest of their personal agendas and aspirations. Where their personal success is more important than racial harmony. Or, subtly, where their success and livlihood has become dependent on the maintenance of the status quo of racial tension?

I am taking Mr. Marable's comment out of context, and am now running with the ball in that direction. I am not at this point saying this is how Mr. Marable feels. But there are a lot of questions raised in my mind by his comments on Clarence Thomas.

If it is just a matter of social agenda, why do we not ever hear about a white man being the most black man in America? Or can't white people have a social agenda? In terms of actual numbers, there are more downtrodden poor and un or under educated white people in American than any other race.

Why is it that when Black people 'act white' it is generally defined (by blacks) as being successful and having their own opinions that don't toe the race line, but when white people 'act black' it is generally defined (by blacks and whites) as being a rap singer and grabbing your crotch continuously?

And why are 'being white' and 'opposed to affirmative action' two phrases that go together like Ham and Eggs?

Can you not be considered successful by the black community in any fields besides sports/entertainment, religion, education or public service and still be considered black? What does that mean, "to be considered black" and why is it that being downtrodden and unsuccessful, but 'still black' is preferable to 'acting white' as a successful and productive scientist for example?

And why do some black people seem to want it to stay that way? fb

NoWriMoFo

2004-11-30T18:03:00.000-06:00

I be a Novel Writing Mo Fo!
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

Yes, it is true. I have written 50,096 words. However, my opus is not yet completed. I have probably another one or two k worth to write to get to the end.

So, this will end up being about 53,000 words, or so.

It's been... interesting. Frankly, I wondered if I would be able to do it. That is until the first 2000 words of pure literary tripe oozed from my fingers like ripe bananas. Or something. Then I knew I had the gift. Er, curse. You know, that muse thing, ragged little bitch that she was scrabbling over my shoulder.

Anyway, I shall now embark on my next project: Clean up my novel, now titled

At the Sign of the Screaming Monkey's Head - Sylk:Beginnings

and see how many rejection slips I can generate.

Until whenever, fb

Clinton Adult Bookstore Opens To Public

2004-11-21T09:18:00.000-06:00

Palm Harbor Homes Proud of Clinton "Library"
Amid much fanfare, the Clinton Adult Bookstore opened to the Public earlier this week.

Pictured above during construction, a Palm Harbor spokesman commented on Post Modern Trailerhome design used to build the Clinton Adult Bookstore, colloquially called a Library, and defended their design as being consistent with the content of the library, and with the state that bore Clinton.

The spokesman also went on to say that they are very excited about the sales potential to future homeowners, as they do own the full rights to this particular design.

Quick Hits

2004-11-19T08:00:00.000-06:00

1. Enough with the Monday Night Football intro already!! As conservative as I am, I have to say “big freaking deal!” I am quite certain that our country’s morals aren’t going to go down the toilet over this incident. In fact, two weeks from now, we will all be griping about something else.

What we should be complaining about is that the idiots in Arlington, Texas voted to spend shit-loads of money to build a rich-man’s palace for the Dallas Cowboys. They should send some of the money to Nicolette Sheridan so she could afford some clothes! Maybe a box of rubbers would be more appropriate.

2. Another stupid lawsuit. A man in a Lexus SUV doesn’t see his two year old daughter behind him and accidentally kills her when he backs out. What does he do? He files a lawsuit against Lexus. Why? Because the vehicle was too big. Two suggestions for this guy – a) try looking behind you before you back out and b) by a Mini Cooper!

I am deeply saddened by the fact that he lost his daughter, especially by his own doing, but IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE CAR MANUFACTURER!!! This case should be thrown out and he should have to pay the attorney’s fees for LEXUS!

3. The election was over two and a half weeks ago and still the world hasn’t collapsed as some have predicted. Hmm… interesting. Maybe the sky isn’t falling after all?

NaNoWriMo, 29k plus

2004-11-18T23:26:00.000-06:00

58% done. Success Imminent
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

Hola. I no be here long time cause writing novel. bye.
fb

Quote a Blogger

2004-11-06T21:36:00.000-06:00

This will be a sometime feature of The Glob. Aren't you lucky.

Regarding the trumpeted FACT that the NASTY Republicans only won because of the non-reality based method of herding the STUPID Republicans into voting by SCARING them with the issue of Same Sex Marriage:

Do I have have any other offerings of proof? Sure. The measures passed in many states by margins larger than Bush won. In Michigan, for example, the measure passed with 60% of the vote. Bush lost Michigan and Kerry won it with 51%. That means that Kerry voters HAD TO HAVE VOTED FOR THE AMENDMENT.

From The Queen

The New Official Brew of The Global Exclaimer

2004-11-06T13:55:00.000-06:00

Skittlebraü
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

Homer: "Got any of that beer that has candy floating in it? You know, Skittlebrau?"
Apu: "Such a beer does not exist, sir. I think you must have dreamed it."
Homer: "Oh. Well, then just give me a six-pack and a couple of bags of Skittles."
fb

The Electoral College

2004-11-04T06:44:00.000-06:00

Shut Up Already
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

Now that the election is over, and this particular election does not have the ludicrously phrased issue of 'the moral weight' of the popular vote (said phrase used in the 2000 election to indicate Gore should be President) I'd like to point out something.

The Electoral College does register the popular vote -- State by State. We are, after all, The United States. A very deliberate decision was made to allow these sovereign states the ability to retain some impact in National Elections regardless of population. Alaska has like 12 people in it. But it is a huge state, larger than Texas and California combined, with a wealth of natural resources. The 12 people that choose to live there have rights as citizens of the State of Alaska. So, they vote as a STATE for the President. That vote is based on the popular vote IN THAT STATE.

Moral Weight. What a phrase. There is nothing moral about taking the voice of an entire state and simply telling that state they don't have enough people to matter. Who is going to speak for the needs of Alaska? People in New York? People in Texas? Nope. I don't care about Alaska, and neither does Hillary. Alaska people are supposed to care about Alaska, it's their state, not mine.

But if we do go to a nation wide popular vote situation, then the last vestiges of States Rights will soon dissolve. We won't be the United States of America. This is perhaps too subtle a point for many. So look at it this way.

How would you feel about every issue germane to your state being decided by someone in Nevada? Hell, legalized gambling and prostitution are good for Nevada, let's make it a national policy! Or, how about the farmer in Iowa having decisions about crops and farm aid and etc., made by retirees in Florida? Does that make any sense?

The people that choose to live in Nebraska, have rights in their state. And the needs of the people in that state must have some weight in national politics, or they will simply be ignored.

If you think States Rights matters, then you have to be in favor of the Electoral College. Do you think any party would have spent any time in Arkansas otherwise? And for all the people whining in New York about the popular vote in 2000, what they were saying, in a very self-centered manner, is this: "People in New York matter more than people in Nebraska." Hell, the probably believe that.

The people in Nebraska don't feel that way. Don't they have rights as well? Where is the morality in saying "You just don't have enough people to matter?"

Couldn't the same thing be said to African-Americans? They're only 13% of the population, who cares? Ignore them.

Is that what we really want? To ignore people because there just aren't enough of them to qualify as 'moral weight'?
fb

2004-11-02T13:15:00.000-06:00

The Greatest Day
By Daver

In my mind, there is o greater day in

America

than Election Day. Finally, after months of discussion, spinning, arguing, debating, name-calling, mud-slinging, sniping, whining, lying, heritage questioning, etc., we have the right and the duty to select our own leaders peacefully.

Today was even better than usual. As I left my neighborhood on my way to work this morning, I passed my local polling place and saw that there were virtually no parking places left. Now, this was at a fairly large church, so parking should not have been a problem. As I drove by, I was thankful that I had voted early and also mused on the following items:

1. Where else in the world can you be so free and open about your opinion? If you think Kerry would be a failure, say it. If you think the President is a bumbling fool, go a head and say it. You will find some who agree with you and some who think you are the bumbling fool. What you won’t find is a bunch of thugs hired by the President to rub out your children because of your opinion.

2. How wonderful is it that, no matter who wins the election, this is still the greatest country on earth. So what if your guy doesn’t win? Despite what many politicos will have you believe, America will not go to hell in the next 4 years. It didn’t spell doom for us when Nixon disgraced the office in 1974 and it didn’t spell doom when Monica went down on Bill in Oval Office. Thankfully, our founding fathers put a system of checks and balances in place to keep one person from sinking the country.

3. A peaceful transfer of power if Kerry wins, and a peaceful transition into a second term if Bush wins. We have never had bloodshed or a coup in this country.

4. Finally, how great is it to fight, argue, name-call, etc., with fellow citizens over political views? I may be right, you may be right, we both may be wrong on any given subject. However, at the end of the day, we are still Americans and we still live in the most wonderful country on this planet. We will unite when it is needed and we will argue and debate when we can. My view has no more merit on election day than any one else’s opinion.

Thank God for the United States of America! May we all come together after today and work with the President Elect to keep this the greatest country on earth.

Today We Vote

2004-11-02T06:22:00.000-06:00

Tomorrow We Look To The Future
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

Once again, an amazing thing will happen in our country. The people will choose their servant-leaders. I marvel again at the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. We are governed by a document, The Constitution of The United States of America. Our Nation voluntarily subjected itself to a document. Something in writing which remains today as a legacy of our past. The sheer genius astounds those that contemplate it carefully.

We pledge no allegiance to a person, as persons are corruptible. We pledge our allegiance to a flag, and a republic for which it stands. Something thus far incorruptible.

Tomorrow, we are Americans, first, last, always.
fb

An Open Letter Back To Lefty

2004-10-31T15:39:00.000-06:00

Being a promised response to his open letter
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

That small group of relatives and friends that read the Glob Blog have noted with interest the political nature of the blogging going on, and the interesting group of people that stumbled across The Glob and actually came back! And, they even let me post to their blogs and don't erase them or anything!

Even more interesting, and actually invigorating, is the nature of the political debate. It is heated yet mostly courteous. The ones styled as on the left are erudite and more than capable of supporting their arguments. These are Lefty Jones and This We'll Defend, and you can link to their blogs in my blog list yonder.

During these last days before the election, I posted a somewhat whiny comment to one of Lefty's posts. He correctly identified the emotion behind it, and graciously responded with an open letter to me. He then posted specific thoughts regarding the war in Iraq.

I said I would reply, and do so now here in this post. PLEASE NOTE: I have attempted to incorporate a table into this post. For some reason, it doesn't work just right. It's down there somewhere. It is a Point/Counter Point, so, in the spirit of these things, I shall start with "Lefty, you ignorant slut..." (Anyone not old enough to know the Saturday Night Live reference here, please understand, that was a joke. I do not think Lefty is a slut. ;-)

Typos abound. Sorry. Scroll down please. Way down. Keep going... Down down down, to that burning ring of fire...

Lefty's thoughts are here on, well, the left.	Frater's thoughts are here on, the middle of the page. OK, the right side of the table (Nuance, fellas, nuance.)
Bush wants Bin Laden and vows we will get him "Dead or Alive"	I think we can all agree with that
Invasion of Afghanistan- Bush warns that " Bin Laden can run but he can't hide" and "that we will smoke him out of his hole"	I think everyone wanted this to be true.
Bush claims, "you're either with us or you're against us" as a general threat to the countries of the world.	As a general threat, or as a general policy shift? This war against an ideology rather than a state requires different tactics. At the time this was said, I agreed. My interpretation was, if you are housing terrorists, than you are against us, and we are going to do something about it. The problem with that is the very nationalistic/jingoistic mindset that entails. It also limits your diplomatic options, making everything an issue of force.
Fall/Winter of 2002- The build up to war with Iraq	no comment beyond, Hussein had options to prevent this, had he only allowed UN inspections to carry on unimpeded. You can't blame Bushfor the fact Saddam miscalculated.
January 2003- Iraq is a clear and present danger according to the administration	This issue can and will be talked about for years. Personally, I think Iraq was a clear and present beachhead in a strategic war agains terrorism; the only nation we had any pretense of legal recourse to go in and take over. Yes, I know what I just said. I didn't say I agreed with it. The whole WMD thing was a marketing ploy, to put it plainly. Yes, I have huge problems with this. This is not the kind of war we are used to fighting. History will tell if the right decisions were made.
We are warned and shown the locations of the weapons that are known as WMD's and that are a direct threat to our security.	I now make the tired and long expressed argument that everyone thought they were there. Intelligence failures to be addressed below.
America Invades Iraq Occupation begins	true
No WMD's are found	true to date
Bush photo op's onto a plane in flight suit- you know......"Mission Accomplished" and declares the end to major combat.	This was, in my opinion, for the troops, not for you and I sitting in our easy chairs. It had the intended effect on the troops. It was misguided, in my opinion. It was certianly premature, but that is easy to say with our new glasses on.
Still looking for weapons.	yes
Sadaam Hussein found in hole.	yes
Factions of resistance become harder to put down	By this time, I more or less expected this. We are seeing why Hussein ran his country the way he did. I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm saying that it is apparently necessary given the socio/politico/religiotico(?) circumstances. By our standards of evaluation, everyone over there is crazy. Hussein ruled with an Iron Fist in an Admantium Glove. Once his enemies were certain he wasn't coming back, they began their own power plays. This demonstrates a very fundamental misunderstanding of who we are dealing with over there.
hostages being taken by terrorists/resistance groups	Yes. Terror is the primary weapon.
No " 911" link between Iraq and Bin Laden found. Tenuous links between the group are found at all.	I put these two together as they are contradictory. Tenuous is one word. Potential is another. Limited is another. Few is another. Non-existent is another. They all modify 'link'. In this situation, there are either links, or there are not. You can't have a 'tenuous' link without having a link. So, there was a link or two of some sort. The 'evidence' is contradictory. Enough evidence to go to war? I don't think so. Leastways, not by the usual methods of determing whether to go to war or not. But, see above, I don't think that is why we went.
Intelligence flaws are bandied about, smaller players in the administration admit that our intelligence wasn't as good as it should have been.	This is pretty much an accepted fact. This is the result of Clinton's shortsighted administration foreign policy decisions. I make that statement because the decisions of a president that don't clearly focus on 1/3 of his constitutionally defined job (foreign affairs) affects all of us for years to come. Still, it is now an easy target. We can all point and say Bush is an idiot for not having better intelligence before going in.
Terrorism inside Iraq is now flourishing....around 1100 American soldiers are dead, over 7000 wounded and..... uncounted numbers....thousand upon thousand of Iraqi's are dead, maimed, disfigured, charred. Children without hands, legs, parents, homes or a future.	This is a product of going in to Iraq. No doubt. Among Kerry's more interesting statements about how we are in the wrong war, blah blah, and he would have not gone in, but if he did, blah blah, is the IGNORANT assumption that if you are going to fight terrorists, they will not fight back. Let's not all be amazed that they are fighting back, OK? I mean really. The terrorism that is there is not really the issue, is it? Isn't your main point that we should not have gone in when we did, or at all?
Claimed hope that elections will occur after new year.....significant portion of the country is not under coalition control.	This can still happen. Whatever the war situation is over there, you aren't getting enough relevant information from the media to comment.
Skipping a few statements of accepted fact
Against 225 years of history and precedent we attacked a nation, and KILLED a lot of people because we believed that this nation posed a threat.	This is an important statement by you. I was concerned about the concept, and stated to friends and family that I felt this was a bad precedent to set. We had never been in the business of regime change in the past. The long term repercussions are unforseeable. The WTC attacks have changed the face of national defense. The rush to war in Iraq I basically opposed. The concept of Hussein giving WMD to terrorists made me think, well, maybe this one time we need to.
The intelligence was wrong at best. We now use the ends to justify the means.	This is one way of looking at it. The ends justifying the means. I don't believe the ends justify the means, but historically, a lot of people have died for just that reason. The intelligence was wrong. We can talk about whose fault that is, and we can talk about Bush's use of what he had available, etc. But the ends don't justify the means. That does not mean the end may not be a favorable outcome to our nation. It does mean we have blood on our hands.
You're either with us or against us. You don't support the troops Sadaam was a bad man, he gassed his own people It's either over there or it's going to be over here You have to stay on the offensive in terror The most offensive thought out there is that if somehow you don't support this war that you are unpatriotic or a threat to our own country! Maybe the worst of these comments is,: Hey...I agree it's a shame that Iraqi's are dying but you know, freedom comes at a cost, it's not free and besides, imagine living how terrible living under Sadaam Hussein was.	I have heard the democrats say that the Republicans say all these things. I don't say them, and none of my friends or associates say them. Bush said it about countries housing terrorists, not about American citizens. When Kerry says some of the things he says, in his political position, I think it harms the world's perception of the solidarity of our country, and that does affect the war effort. But, he can say what he wants, this is a free country. I don't have to like him for it. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson That is an American viewpoint, and it is assumed that the people yearning for freedom have decided to do something about it. He never said, "Go ye, and find ye the oppressed and kill ye them to set them free." That's kind of their job, not ours. I disagree fundamentally with our role in regime change.
Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials	This is chilling. And used to good effect by you in this context. I'm adding it to my list of quotes on the side.
I added this, Lefty didn't put it in: Therefore Vote Kerry.	Not so fast Lefty! See commentary below.

So, some may be thinking "Well, he kind of mostly agrees with Lefty, it appears, so why is he supporting Bush?" Valid question.

This war is something new. We have never before embarked upon a war of preemption on what amounts to an ideology when said ideology was not attached to a specific State. The closest thing would be Communism. Those were state philosophies. We are dealing with a religion that cuts across political boundaries. There is no State to deal with. There is not clear cut leadership to deal with. All the norms for waging war are suspect. All the norms for protecting your citizenry have been called into question.

But we are treating this war like there is a finite enemy to go after (Osama Bin Laden) and one place to go (Afghanistan) and declaring anything else WRONG. Fine. Except Osama Bin Laden is the flavor of the month in Islamic Terrorism.

Why did he order the attacks on the Pentagon, The WTC, and (probably) the White House? *crickets chirping*

What could we have done to prevent someone from hating us for liberating Kuwait? *crickets chirping*

Some would say, our support of Israel is the cause. So, who believes that Islamic Fundamentalists would not try to kill Americans if we walked away from Israel? Or to put it more succinctly, Is There Anyone That Islamic Fundamentalists Are Not Willing To Kill For Their Obscure Causes? *crickets chirping*

To win a war, you have to know the Climate, if you will. The Terrain. The Opponent.

The fundamental and unappreciated fact is that this war does not share the assumed Climate, Terrain, Opponent, etc., of past conflicts in our recent history. Most commentary and debate about this war is coming from the perspective that this is just another war, like any other in the last 100 years.

That flawed assumption renders all of Lefty's points above as suspect in their inception, and probably irrelevant. We are fighting a religious ideology with no recognizable political identity. There is no head of state to address. No one to demand an accounting of. This is a brand new situation to all of us living today.

Kerry does not understand that his basic assumptions are irrelevant. Therefore, all his thought, nuance, careful consideration, etc., are worse than useless. He is preparing to play a football game. But the game is baseball. The rules are different. The field of play is different. Offense and defense are different. And he has failed to recognize that.

Bush does recognize this, in my opinion. He is not perfect, and he has and will make mistakes. Let's all quit pretending that every war, every conflict, every attempt to safeguard our nation has not had monumental blunders in the past. Let's all quit allowing Kerry to basically state "I will never make a mistake. There will be no blunders on my watch. All is forseeable. All can be planned for." So, the big deal now is that 0.06% of the known Iraqi arsenal was looted. So what. Yes, I said So What. Anyone that thinks that all of the ordnance in Iraq was securable while in the process of invading the country and attempting to take it over is not living in the real world. That is the mindest brought into court by trial lawyers, as they sue some company because someone cuts their own hand off with a chain saw. The fantasy world of Edwards, which Kerry apparently subscribes to, is that there is no such thing as a mistake. There is only incompetence, and someone should pay. Preferably someone with a big bank account.

Well, that may play in the courtroom of today here in the USA, where idiots that cut their hands off are treated as victims. But the rest of the world doesn't care.

Bush is in uncharted territory. Iraq is a strategic outpost in that territory. A beachead in the war on terror. The Native American Indians in the war on Terror, if you want to put it that way. Yes, I know what I am saying. It sounds cold blooded.

It's war. But, it's not your grandfather's war, our your dad's or your's. This is new. To us. The rise of the Nation State is relatively new in human history. This type of war, being waged by barely connected groups tied together solely by religious ideology and family ties is centuries and centuries old, and has been waged on local levels for those thousands of years. Modern technology makes it possible to export this formerly ignorable type of war.

Kerry does not understand. Bush does.

I now go into seclusion to write a science fiction story. Everyone go vote. I don't care who you vote for. Just Go Vote.

Afterward, I will not move to France regardless of who wins. I will not wail and gnash my teeth. I will trust in our Constitution, and our People. God Bless America.
fb

Self Proclaimed President-Elect John KerryHas Cake, Eats It Too!

2004-10-29T06:48:00.000-05:00

"There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, but the ones that were there Bush failed to Secure!"
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

OK. "The Weapons have left the Building", says John Kerry. At times describing these as WMDs. Which is it? Were there WMDs in Iraq, or weren't there? Does it matter? Not to Kerry. He's been saying all along they were never there. Yet, I read one quote where he called them WMD.

Look at what facts and the truth mean to Kerry. He runs his campaign in a fluid shifting foggy world of Drive By Opionating. The Truth May Be Out There, But He Doesn't Care.

What matters to Kerry is whether or not anything, any soundbite, any bit of unsubstantiated random bit of information, will provide him with a WMD* against Bush. Information is sought and evaluated solely on what potential harm it can cause the President's campaign in these last few days. Truth? Careful evaluation? Bah! Who needs it? Not Kerry, who seems convinced the American Public has a combined IQ even lower than GW, and the memory of a gold fish.

At present it appears very likely that large quantities of these munitions were not there when our troops arrived, having been spirited away by the Russians into Syria (or Libya? does it matter?) a month or more before we got there. These things were tagged by UN inspectors. Why? What were they? The types of detonators used to ram two pieces of weapons grade fissionable materials together, creating a nuclear reaction?

Well, I'm going to say that is exactly what they were. I don't need proof. If a man aspiring to be President of the United States of America won't verify something before presenting it to the American People as fact, WHY SHOULD I?

Anyway, if I am proved to be wrong, I'll just change my mind, and explain that I was misquoted, and that my readership failed to understand nuance, or parody, or irony, or whatever the hell else pops out of my mouth.

fb

*Weapon of Mass Disinformation

Classic Global Exclaimer

2004-10-28T13:00:00.000-05:00

or The Glob Re-gurgitated

By Daver
Chief Cynic and Sarcastic Bastard

In an effort to return the Global Exclaimer to its inane roots, we present the first in an occasional series of Global Exclaimer Classics. This is especially important now as Mark has decided to participate in some bizarre Nanu Nanu Rhino thing and may not be posting regularly.

The article below is the original Daver rant, first published (on paper) in December 2002. At the time, we were reading and hearing about the ridiculous possibility that fast food restaurants might be liable for their fat-ass customers inability to mix in a salad every once in a while.

Enjoy!

A poem of a Big Mac, a sandwich so large.
I’ve had so many of them, my friends call me McBarge.
My body is big enough to cruise the Mississip,
because of the burgers that went past my lip.

Who would have known that those twin patties of meat,
would soon cause me to lose sight of my feet.
I have a special craving for that sesame seed bun,
that has pushed my mass up to a quarter ton.

Listen closely now, I don’t want to sound snooty,
but someone’s responsible for the size of my booty.
It’s not my fault that I look like a blimp,
I guess it’s a good thing there is no McShrimp.

Some McDonald named Ronald has created the need,
and provided fatty foods on which I can feed.
They manipulated me into thinking that I,
had to have Big Macs, milkshakes and fries.

I’ll show that McDonald, here’s what I shall do,
I’ll find a scumbag lawyer and together we’ll sue.
This would be sad if it weren’t so freaking funny,
my bulk will soon be buoyed by Ronny Mc’s money!

What has this great country come to? This idea that McDonald’s is responsible for obesity in America’s children is so stinking ridiculous that it sounds like a bad Saturday Night Live sketch, except that Lorne Michaels, producer of such crap such as SNL, Here’s Pat, The Hot Chick, A Night at the Roxbury, etc., would surely pass on an inane sketch about suing a major corporation because of personal stupidity.

Where are the parents in this entire scenario? Were they held at gunpoint by a red-haired clown? I can see it now – Ronald McDonald carjacking a soccer mom and her minivan of preteen girls and forcing them to go to Mickey D’s for a load of fat grams. I think this all comes down to weak parents who are afraid to be parents to their offspring. Instead, they want to be buddies with the kiddies and allow them to eat crappy foods. Heaven forbid that parents might actually see to it that their children get good food to eat!

Really, how responsible is Mickey D’s in this whole thing? I don’t seem to remember seeing any advertising ever that touted ANYTHING on the menu as being good for you. Their sign doesn’t exclaim “Billions of Healthy Burgers Served.” I do remember that they tried once to serve a McLean burger, but it failed miserably. Why did it fail? The McLean failed because of supply and demand (coincidentally, one of the foundations of this great land). Nobody wanted to go to McDonald’s and eat something good for them. The public demands fast, inexpensive, fatty foods and Ron McD is happy to supply it. America, what a country!

The real problem here is that there are lawyers in this country who prey on poor, simple-minded citizens. You see it everywhere – no matter what happens to you, there will be a lawyer ready to convince a jury that it was not your fault. You’ve got cancer because you smoked two cartons a day for twenty years – RJ Reynolds is responsible; you’re as big as a house because you eat fast food for every meal – McDonald’s and Burger King should pay; you’re teenage son goes on a shooting spree because you’re clueless about his life – you should sue Marilyn Manson. The list could go on forever!

If I were in charge (and I should be), I would make these responsibility-dodging parents pay the court costs for McDonald’s and immediately disbar the lawyers involved. Until something like that happens, we are going to continue with these types of lawsuits.

This is just more proof that not everyone should be encouraged to be fruitful and multiply! Maybe lawyers should be spayed and neutered as soon as they pass the bar (hmmmmm?).

That’s it for the rant! I’m off to find someone to sue. God bless America, home of the Oldsmobile 455 cubic inch internal combustion engine!

Public Service Announcement

2004-10-26T11:01:00.001-05:00

From Time to Time all Responsible News Outlets publish free Public Service Announcements (PSA) for various deserving non-profit organizations and/or the public at large.
The Glob is no exception to this fine journalistic tradition. So, our first PSA:

The First Annual
Run For the Cure
For Procrastination

Has Been Postponed

NaNoWriMo - The Gauntlet is Thrown

2004-10-24T08:45:00.000-05:00

NaNoBlogMo - The Glob Editor takes up the Gauntlet
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

I have decided to enter the National Novel Writing Month challenge of writing 50,000 words of drivel during the month of November. And so, since all my creative fires shall be spent at The Forge of Novelty, there may be nought but a spark available for commentating here on The Glob. Until November 1, I shall continue to write something here, possibly daily; commentary and news stories, etc. After Nov 1, I leave it to my fellow Globsters, Uncle Buck, Daver the Raver, and possibly writings from our Interns, Paddy and Chip for the month of November. Mayhaps Madame Bovarie will add something unusual, and Tiffany, the Haikuiste. Or not, they are a fickle crew.

I shall be blogging all or parts of this event. I'm thinking I'll be writing in Word or something, then maybe post word counts and bits and pieces of what I wrote from each day. Or I may be posting the whole thing to the blog. As you can see, my plan of attack is as well developed as the plot and major characters -- hmmmmm

The blog is reachable by clicking on that little brownish button up there that kind of looks like a malformed humanoid. It is in fact the head of a screaming monkey, though that monkey's gene pool appears to be unclean. Or perhaps that monkey is simply of dubious parentage.

Which, a fuller representation of the Sign Of The Screaming Monkey's Head may be better appreciated by clicking on that link. You will see an artist's rendition of the Actual Sign (Yes, it exists). The artist is TeeVee Aguirre, and whenever he gets his web site up, I shall post a link to him that you may admire his handiwork.

So, wish me luck. I'll try to poke my head in from time to time during the month of November, but I shall be attempting to vomit up 2000 words per day. All that may remain for The Glob are pitiful dry heaves void of content.

fb

War and Preemption

2004-10-20T22:29:00.000-05:00

The below linked post is extremely well written and deserves honest review and criticism. I find that I am unable to disagree with anything written. It is very worth reading as it was written before we went into Iraq; much of the noise and hyperbole was still to come.

As I read his post, and thought about what we are doing, I am of the opinion that our current action in Iraq fails the posted standard of the "just war doctrine". (And NO, please God NO, let's not talk about Kerry's 'Global Test' as this point. Let's just drop it, shall we? Please?)

I find I am completely in agreement with the concepts and principles of the Just War Doctrine, for reasons I will address later if it seems relevant. For now, just read his post and see if you agree with the concept.

However, this doctrine does not provide for the option of preemption. And so, I am in a moral quandary as I consider the "rightness" (no pun intended) of preemptive war.

This is something subtle and important, and, of course, totally lost during this political campaign. But, preemption is a potentially dangerous concept. A double edged sword, if you will.

Preemption could be the beginning of Empire. The US thus far has sidestepped overt use of power for the purpose of empire building. Nationally, we have not been interested in Ruling The World. And so, I hoped, we had sidestepped the historical inevitable end of all empires. But, the siren song of preemption would justify all kinds of military action all over the world. In fact, wouldn't the world be safer if the US just ruled the whole world? Hmmmm?

The concept of preemption as the primary standard for going to war needs careful examination. Meanwhile, as a springboard for discussion, I offer, from the loyal opposition, this post:

buggieboy: hapless soldier's sigh

fb

Quote a Blogger

2004-10-19T20:05:00.000-05:00

This will be a sometime feature of The Glob. Aren't you lucky.

On those rare occasions when pressed on what he would do about Iraq, John Kerry says, "I have a plan." He won't disclose what the plan is so he should more accurately say, "I have a secret plan."

From Ronald Watkins

You Know Your Campaign Is In Trouble When...

2004-10-19T07:23:00.000-05:00

You have nothing to offer but lies, even when there is actually an opening.

Bush hasn't said much about how he's going to deal with Social Security. And Social Security needs attention. So, Kerry is going to step up to the plate and hit a home run, outlining Bush's failings with regard to Social Security, and give yet another of his "I have a Plan" speeches, right?

Nope. All he can do is tell lies.

From FactCheck.org: Kerry Falsely Claims Bush Plans To Cut Social Security Benefits

fb

Successes in Afghanistan

2004-10-18T07:26:00.000-05:00

An Excerpt from an article in OpinionJournal:

Meanwhile, the U.S. troops are testing an ingenuous high-tech way to ensure that proper medical care continues even after they're gone:

U.S. Army physicians in Afghanistan will test "talking" prescription bottles to ensure children receive their proper medications after physicians and other humanitarian workers leave a village. The workers typically leave behind a supply of medications with a village elder, who may forget instructions given for specific medicines. The prescription bottles, from Rochester, N.Y.-based MedivoxRx Technologies, are designed for use by blind or illiterate patients. At the press of a button, an embedded computer chip programmed in the local language describes the name, dosage, frequency, warnings and refill instructions for the medication.

These types of things go unheralded. Worth reading.

OpinionJournal - Extra

Surreal Dilemma

2004-10-16T08:36:00.000-05:00

There is the real, and there is the unreal, or surreal.

The extremely bizarre and fanatical desire for embryonic stem cell research to be the cure for everything (thus making abortion something sweet and pure and well, godly) causes people to simply ignore facts. The fact is, adult stem cell research is where all the benefits are coming from, and can continue to come from.

To those who say "Well, we haven't been given the green light to fully utilize the potential of embryonic stem cell research..." I have to ask, "So, are you in favor of giving the green light to using medical research developed by the Nazis from their torture and murder of human beings? Or, do you think there might be other options, other approaches to research, that don't violate human life or our sensibilities or our humanity?"

Wesley J. Smith on Stem-Cell Research on National Review Online

Thanks to Jeff at Dawn Treader for the link. fb

A Cautionary Tale

2004-10-14T20:36:00.000-05:00

Wherein what I thought was an original idea was in fact done before - multiple times
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

OK, I was going to do this whole thing on how following the dark path, and going after the brass ring, or, maybe, the golden ring, was a sure fire way to destroy and waste your life. Then I was going to talk about how a young man, with his life before him, and talents to offer the world, basically became a willing thrall to a power that consumed him, and then tossed him aside, leaving him a broken wastrel; someone barely alive, feeding off his bitter memories of the loss of what was once most precious to himself, namely, himself, though he somehow never figured that out.

And then I was going to show this tremendously funny and hilarious juxtaposition of pictures, and comment on how once he was powerful and the mighty trembled, and now he is simply pathetic, repeating the same nonsense over and over, and the only response is annoyance. Then you were going to follow this link to see outrageously hilarious before and after pictures of:

Wasted

The Price of Surrendering Your Soul to Darkness

However, in my quest for photos (the one above I actually went and found separate pics and joined them together myself) I found three different examples of someone doing the exact same thing, though not with the same story line. They were basically of the "separated at birth" variety.

Anyway, it was funny to me when I started it.
See Wasted on Page C 3

Daver's blood pressure goes up

2004-10-14T08:49:00.000-05:00

Just a few debate quick hits -

I have heard John Kerry mention several times that "This President didn't fund this program... This President didn't fund that program..." Unless I am misinformed, The President needs Congressional approval of his budget. Did John Kerry forget that he is a Senator, and therefore was part of the approval process?

Last night he said that "The President made it illegal to..." Several times. I seem to recall from my studies that Congress makes the laws, that is why it is called the Legislative branch. It seems odd to me that Senator from Massachusetts conveniently skimmed over that fact.

How about the "This President has lost 1.6 million jobs" line again. What exactly has Bush done to lose those jobs? Case in point, my employer has let a lot of people go over the past calendar year, and there is nothing the President did to cause that. There is nothing the President could have done to change it, short of teaching our micro-managing COO how to let his people do their jobs. Of course, it might have helped if Bush made Wal-Mart illegal to give everyone else a fighting chance, but since the President doesn't work in the Legislative branch, I guess he could not have done that. Maybe he should have called William Jefferson Clinton to find out how Clinton "created" so many jobs?

I did like the President's line about Ted Kennedy is known as the Conservative Senator from Massachusetts. Funny.

I thought the President should have reciprocated John Kerry's gracious opening statements, but he didn't. Disappointing.

The debates did nothing to sway my vote one way or the other. About the only thing I learned is that neither candidate is a stand-up comic.

Finally, just once during the debates I would have liked to hear one of them say "This is my position because..." without mentioning what a scumbag their opponent is.

Senator Edwards Reaches Out

2004-10-13T17:11:00.000-05:00

Edwards Reaches Out To The Religious Right
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

During a Political Rally / Tent Revival, newly ordained prophet of Kerry, Reverend John Edwards, exhorted the crowd to vote Kerry because: "When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

He then looked straight into the camera as he held his hand up and intoned, “Put your hand on the TV screen. That’s right”, he said earnestly, a tear glistening in his eye. “Feel that? That e-e-electricity just as your hand touched mine? That was the power of GOD. Yes! YES!! Brothers and Sisters, The Power of GOD - OF GOD - is commanding you to vote Kerry. Feel the power. FEEL THE POWER!! Now, with your right hand on the TV screen, take your left hand and reach around to your back pocket or into your purse, pull out your wallet or check book, and donate to God’s messenger, John The Kerry! Every dollar you donate is a vote CAST IN HEAVEN! A VOTE FOR KERRY!!

After the rally, some reporters quizzed Rev. Edwards regarding Reeve, noting that he was recently deceased. Reverend Edwards exclaimed “Even Better!” and dashed off. "Wooowooo" he said. "WoOOOO--WOOOooowooo!"

We interrupt this article for breaking news:

This afternoon a brief was filed in Reeve’s home state, naming The US Government and George W. Bush as co-defendants in a charge of negligent homicide in the death of Christopher Reeve. “The prevention of stem cell research sentenced that man to death. A sentence with no parole, no reprieve, no trial, and no charges filed. We will have justice in this country” said Senator Edwards, smiling boyishly into the camera. "Someone is going to pay for this. A lot."
Ψ

Quote A Blogger

2004-10-12T10:55:00.000-05:00

This will be a sometime feature of The Glob. Aren't you lucky.

The talk show I watched surveyed people on what they were doing to ensure a long life. I say to hell with LONG life – I want a full life. I want my life to be what it was supposed to be, what it was designed to be. If that means living for another 60 years, or merely another 60 minutes, so be it. I just want to live the way I’m meant to.
From storyteller

Noted Conspiracy Theorist Dismayed, Pensive

2004-10-10T19:41:00.000-05:00

Duelfer Report: No Weapons of Mass Destruction
Conspiracy Theorist Scratching Heads
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

Top Conspiracy Theorist/Blogger, Man Mountain Mike, is at a loss to explain how this story was allowed to 'get out' especially right before the town hall debate.

"Since the Bush Administration covertly took control of The Press as part of the Patriot Act in reponse to the Fiction of 9/11, it is passing strange that this report ever saw the light of day.

"This indicates a major meltdown within the Bush Administration. They are coming apart at the seams. There simply is no other explanation that leaves intact the truth that Bush is altering the environment for Alien takeover. For that to have the success it has had to date, the control of all media outlets has been a pre-requisite. That control precludes any possibility whatsoever for any derogatory or denigrating news to be made available for public consumption. This news leak about no WMD (while we all knew it all along) is very difficult to explain since the aliens MUST have Bush in the White House for 4 more years due to the super nova which imminently threatens their world.

"If the aliens have somehow lost control of the Bush Administration, the consequences are quite seriously earth shaking. Their 'peaceful' takeover will of necessity become violent. You remember the Future Doc, Independence Day*? There you have it. Things are passing strange, my friends, passing strange."

While Mcubed, as he prefers to be called, slowly lost any coherency of narrative, we could not help but observe that he was, shall we say, Corpulently Naked.

His reply: "Bloggin' in pajamas is for wimps."

*A Future Doc is a representation of one of a number of available timelines, used by aliens to plan their actions in advance.
Ψ

"Do monkeys go in 180 or 360?"

2004-10-09T09:45:00.000-05:00

"Huh?"

"Do monkeys go in 180 or 360?"

(pause) "Honey, you're dreaming."

"No! Do monkeys go in 180 or 360?"

"Wha--(pause) you're dreaming."

"Don't you remember the fair?"

"The fair!? What?"

"Do monkeys go in 180 or 360?"

"You're dreaming."

"Don't you remember? Celia got a write up. For not taking care of the monkeys!"

"PuppyCat. You're having a dream."

"Oh."

What I Learned From Tonight's Debate

2004-10-08T21:07:00.000-05:00

Santa Kerry is going to give me everything and it won't cost me anything.

fb

Hours of Grand Diversion!

2004-10-07T23:11:00.000-05:00

Go here and play with an interactive map to see what you need to get your man voted into office: Special: Decision 2004

I've Been Wondering About This

2004-10-07T22:37:00.000-05:00

One of the most confusing things to me about Iraq was this incongruency: If Hussein did not have nuke and bio/chem weapons programs, why wouldn't he just let the inspectors verify that? It is largely because he refused to give them free reign, and generally screwed with them while they were there, that made me think it likely that he had something to hide.

Either that, or he was a sadistic madman, because why would you risk all out war, and the deaths of tens of thousands?

As it turns out, it may simply have been the macho need to be perceived as 'tough'. From The Christian Science Monitor:

The reason Hussein gave up his weapons program, the report concludes, is that the UN-sponsored embargo of oil exports denied him the billions and billions of dollars needed to keep them going. But in order to maintain prestige among Arabs and deter another war with Iran, Hussein kept secret for many years that he had abandoned the programs. (Emphasis mine.)

It also appears that the Sanctions prevented him from moving forward with his weapons program by cutting off necessary funding. Lastly, it appears his regime was able to last for these reasons:

He also tried to undermine the sanctions by exploiting the UN's Oil for Food program. He bribed leading figures in the UN, France, China, Russia and elsewhere with oil-export contracts to earn more than $11 billon to keep his regime afloat.

Follow this link: The Christian Science Monitor

fb

Why I’m Not “feelin’” John Kerry

2004-10-07T01:15:00.000-05:00

By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

A lot is being said, and more is being not said, about the candidates and why you should vote or not vote for one or the other. Unfortunately, a lot of conversation among friends and relatives revolves around what The Media has determined to be the core issues. I’ve been dealing with a huge amount of frustration because of this fact, and after a large Tex Mex lunch, and a 2 hour workout in a martial art called Silat, I drifted off to the sweet sweet oblivion of an apparently dreamless sleep.

And woke to a revelation.

So, I am going to share with anyone that cares, why I am voting for Bush. Most of the reasons have nothing to do with what has been on radio, TV, or in the newspapers. These are just the issues that matter to me.

Feelings
(continued from page 1)

First, I would like to delineate two ‘reasons’ for selecting a president over which people argue and about which I don’t really care. I’ll attempt to be brief.

1. Abortion. I don’t care. The president doesn’t write abortion law; I don’t care what his stance is. Yes, I am a man (thank you for noticing) and so some will think it is not surprising that this issue of a women’s choice means nothing to me.

Au contraire.

Gentlemen, if us men would act responsibly, the abortion issue would go away. I have never put a woman in a position where she might have to choose. And it’s not because it wasn’t hard. (Pun intended.) But it wasn’t right. No woman will ever have to choose because of my actions. That kind of makes it my decision, doesn’t it. My right to choose. I don’t need the US Government to rein in my dick. It goes where I tell it to go. Granted, men are pricks. Almost literally in some cases. And women are put in a position where they have an unwanted pregnancy. And, YES, the President will appoint judges to the Supreme Court. But, those appointees are subject to the approval of Congress. Relevant information about Congress is below. So, guys, stop being pricks, and the abortion issue will go away. And don’t act like it is impossible. Grow Up.

2. Economic policy. I don’t care. That is the job and arena of your local politicians and the Congress. If everyone would vote responsibly in their local elections, the perceived power of the President in these areas would diminish. Put people in the House and the Senate that represent YOU. That is their job.

The President’s job:

A) He is to Defend the Constitution.
B) He is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America.
C) He is to Receive Foreign Visitors.

There is a reason why it is called the Executive Branch. And there is a reason Congress is the called Legislative Branch. And a reason why Congress, NOT THE PRESIDENT, sets the budget. So, if you are worried about economic issues (or abortion issues), look to your Representatives and Senators.

When I vote for President, I look at his job description, listed above. Within that context, I will now delineate problems that I have with George W. Bush. I will write as if I were addressing him, as it suits my megalomaniacal mood right now. You may find this odd. But, the title of my post is Why I’m Not Feelin’ John Kerry. Bush is not perfect, and I’m not going to pretend I don’t see the warts. Let’s discuss them, shall we?

1) Defend the Constitution. Constitutional amendment to define marriage? You would support that? WHAT? Goddammit. You are supposed to defend the Constitution, not make a mockery of it. Besides, that is very arguably a States Rights issue, and not your purview. I’m ashamed of you.

2) Commander in Chief. The war in Iraq. You should tell the people the whole ugly truth. Iraq is strategically located. We are building 6 massive bases there. We will be able to instantaneously affect issues in the Middle East on a scale that strategists haven’t begun to think about. (I think I got that information from Cancer World) Someone in your administration is thinking long term. I am impressed with the fact that when you said War on Terror, you By God Meant WAR ON TERROR. But, that’s all been lost in the political sniping. Just tell the world the Truth: The United States Will Not Be Fucked With.

a) WMD. I don’t know who coined this phrase, but I cringe every time I hear it. I cringe because it is a made up term used to scare people. It lumps Chemical and Biological weapons in with Nuclear Weapons. You, or someone in your administration, knew that the evidence for Saddam having a nuke program was minimal. We also knew that he did have chemical weapons. He’s used them. Oh, and we sold some to him. So we had the bill of sale to prove it. But, militarily, Chemical and Biological weapons are primarily psychological in nature, and easily defended against. They are not capable of Mass Destruction. They just aren’t. It was a marketing term used to help sell a war.

I’m ashamed of you.

Especially since there were a lot of very good reasons for going to war in Iraq which have been shoved aside and not discussed because of the glaring fact that there were no nukes, and no nuke program found in Iraq. All the very good reasons for going to war are impossible to talk about now, you buffoon, because it just looks like an attempt to validate what you are doing there, and you have a credibility issue now.

3) Receive Foreign Visitors. Since (I think) the time of George Washington, this has been interpreted as setting foreign policy. On this issue, despite the whining about “The Coalition, My God the Coalition!!”, I really don’t have a complaint.

I would now like to address “Political side roads and distractions that are really cutting into quality political discussion.”

1. The Swift Boat Vets For Truth. Who cares? I don’t care. John Kerry was given three purple hearts by the military. THE END.

2. Kerry’s Viet Nam service is not an issue any more than Clinton’s dope smoking and draft dodging were. Viet Nam service is not a qualification for President of The United States. There are a lot of Vets from Kerry’s era that are living under bridges (a national shame completely ignored by everyone.) They’re obviously not qualified to be president. So, Who Cares about Kerry’s service? Not me.

3. Bush’s National Guard Service. See above paragraph, substitute Bush for Kerry, reread. Who Cares?

4. The Republican’s are trying to disenfranchise niggers. Oops, does that word offend you? Good. That’s what the Democrats are really saying. That Republicans don’t want no niggers votin’ (insert toothless grin).

Almost as offensive is the Democratic attempt to say that Bush wants to reinstate the draft. Rangel, a Representative from New York (Democrat) introduced HR 163 to reinstate the draft. He has his reasons. He is representing his constituency. Good for him. That is the democratic process.

So, why is the seed planted that Bush wants the draft? To scare voters. And why is the seed planted that Jim Crow is back? To scare voters. And why do they need to scare voters? And why aren’t voters offended by these heavy handed attempts to dupe them?

Don’t we realize the Democrats are calling voters stupid?

5. I have tried to come up with specific similar scare tactics being used by the Republicans, but have not as yet. I’m sure someone will assist me. ;-} But please, be specific, and be able to support it. Don’t say “Bush is trying to scare voters with the specter of terror.” I’m sorry, but the specter of the WTC collapsing still scares me. I don’t need any scaring there. And I have addressed the WMD issue above, so let’s not be repetitive. Well OK, maybe one:

6. Flip Flop. Without looking at the specific bill, you don’t really know what Kerry was voting for or against. I can see a lot of possibilities. For example, maybe the infamous vote regarding funding for the troops was 85 billion dollars for pink fuzzy Q-Tips. Or, maybe, he was in favor of a competing bill. Or, maybe, when he realized that the vote was going to be nearly unanimous, he voted against it as a statement, just so he could say, should it become politically expedient, that he was opposed to it. Regardless, you can’t be a politician without someone being able to pull soundbites that make you sound stupid, especially when taken out of context. This whole flip flop thing pulls minds away from things that matter.

So, what, in my lofty opinion, are issues that matter? Well, to me, it’s about the terrorism; to be specific, it is about the islamofascist brand of terrorism. I don’t use that word loosely. Those guys will detonate a nuke in the United States if they can.

Then what?

They have to be stopped. And I’m sorry, it is not like one of those jigsaw puzzles you got when you were a kid, where the pieces were different colored large identifiable plastic shapes, of which there were about 9. You know, you could almost just fit the pieces together as you picked them up.

No, this is a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle of a cloudless summer sky.

In a lesser sense, it is also about oil. And, for me, it is about the United Nations as well, an organization that I have come to believe is illegitimate by any measure you choose to use, and has squandered it’s potential by choosing greed and vice over it’s lofty founding principles.

Ok, so, why am I not Feelin’ John Kerry? Fair question.

I have to start with an Exclaimer Disclaimer®. I have a sister that said, “I just don’t like Bush. Something about him bothers me, and I can’t vote for him.” And you know what? I’m OK with that. It’s a gut feeling, and she’s going with her gut. Which really means to me that for reasons she really hasn’t explored, and therefore has a hard time articulating, she just can’t vote for Bush.

Of course, I’m OK with that because it’s how I feel about Kerry. But, I will attempt to explain, using the criteria of the job of president, as listed above.

1) Defend the Constitution. I don’t have any specific issues with Kerry here.

2) Commander in Chief. I have a Problem with him here. Based on 20 years of his actions in the Senate.

THE BEST PREDICTOR OF FUTURE BEHAVIOR IS PAST PERFORMANCE.

His past performance scares the bejesus out of me. Political Expedience, thy name is John F. Kerry.

(For those that will say, Look at Bush and Iraq and his performance, all I can say is that Johnson thought we were losing the war in Viet Nam while looking at the three TVs in his office during the Tet Offensive. If you don’t understand the relevance, you’ll have to do some research. Suffice it to say, CNN is not telling me how the war in Iraq is going. And war, goddammit, is war. Anyone that thinks they understand that, that has not been in combat, does not know what they are talking about, and I don’t care what their opinion is. So, whatever their concept is on how things are going, BAH!)

Kerry has said nothing to me that makes me feel he understands the 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, let alone that he can even tell which side is the sky side. Some of his pronouncements on establishing a coalition are just naïve.

For example, the whole issue of the Coalition. It was never ever going to happen as he describes. There was too much self interest at stake on the part of Germany and France. Understand this clearly (and yes, this is my unsupported opinion, but you can’t prove a negative, and they have done nothing to indicate otherwise) Germany and France were never going to join in the Grand Diversion in Iraq.

Not gonna happen.

Kerry says he will not let any country have veto power over his desire to protect our nation. OK, fine. But, how long will you hold yourself in check, pleading with other nations before you decide to act?

This is my non-supportable position: Some people come out of war so horrified by it, that they believe that war is to be avoided AT ALL COSTS. I cannot in good faith elect a person to command our military when I believe he fundamentally disagrees with the very concept and purpose of that military.

3) Receive Foreign Visitors. Kerry has played at foreign policy. I have no doubt that when he says he’s been involved in foreign policy over the last 20 years, that he really believes he has BEEN INVOLVED. Kind of like the girl in the ticket booth is involved in a Broadway musical. She knows all about the musical. Understands how the staging is done. Rubs elbows with the actors. Brings coffee to the directors. Once, she was even asked for her opinion. She knows and understands the play. She even has the lines memorized. And, she believes that she deserves the lead role. She can do it better. She tells her friends she can do it better, and her friends believe her. After all she’s been working with the theatre for 20 years! She must have learned something about the process.

But Kerry’s fundamental misunderstanding, or else his deliberate misstatement, about a coalition and his belief that he could put together a ‘legitimate’ coalition, demonstrates his naïveté regarding foreign policy. He is overly impressed with himself, and would be a foreign relations disaster.

Kerry has also made it clear to me that he finds the United Nations to be a credible organization. I don’t. I find the United Nations to be a sham. Based on things like using ambulances to ferry missiles. Or the Oil for Camembert scandal (that no one seems to care about.) I simply don’t feel Kerry is qualified for the job of setting foreign policy.

So, in two out of three areas that I feel actually matter regarding the highest office in the land, I simply cannot vote for Kerry. And that is why I’m not feelin’ Kerry. Ψ

See Feelings on Page 9

Kerry Caught Playing With Himself

2004-10-05T07:18:00.000-05:00

Candidate Displays Flexibility; Ball Handling Ability

2004-10-04T22:45:00.000-05:00

"You must remember this, a kiss is still a
kiss". Your romance is Casablanca. A
classic story of love in trying times, chock
full of both cynicism and hope. You obviously
believe in true love, but you're also
constantly aware of practicality and societal
expectations. That's not always fun, but at
least it's realistic. Try not to let the Nazis
get you down too much.

What Romance Movie Best Represents Your Love Life?
brought to you by Quizilla

Straight Shooting Cowboy, or Politically Savvy Professional Politician?

2004-10-04T07:10:00.000-05:00

Due to poor intelligence, the CIA and FBI had spent thousands of man-hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars to arrest a taxi driver with a stack of falsified immigration documents. The CIA's fabricating source was imprisoned and Mekki was on his way to being deported.

This excerpt is excerpted from WSJ's OpinionJournal a feature of the Wall Street Journal that is -- opinion. I kind of like that in a paper. That whole clearly presenting opinion as opinion thing. Rather Refreshing®.

The quote excerpted from the OpinionJournal is excerpted from Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror, so, you can guess that it is favorable to the Bush Administration. Those of you pre-disposed against Bush, may find the article interesting to read anyway.

Our country's approach to terrorism has been complicated by expedient decisions made for political purposes. (Or is that political decisions made for expedient reasons?) This article points out (among many other things) how political expediency may save political careers, yet cost lives.

It is very long, but, it's worth a read. fb

Creationists Out Breed Evolutionists

2004-10-03T07:01:00.000-05:00

Evolutionary Theory Proved
By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

In what theologians are saying is proof that God has a sense of humor, evolutionary pressures are self selecting Creationists for evolutionary success, relegating Evolutionists to the back of the gene pool.

"The breeding habits of various religious groups such as Catholics and Mormons results in family counts of 15 or more", says noted evolutionary theorist, Dr. Chuck Derwin.

"Typical Evolutionists, with our non-viable species supporting birth rate of only 1.2 babies per family, are simply being bred out of existence." He stood for a moment, a bemused expression on his face.

"It appears - it appears that... that we're just another evolutionary dead-end", Dr Chuck stammered.

Ψ

Quote a Blogger

2004-10-01T18:15:00.000-05:00

This will be a sometime feature of The Glob. Aren't you lucky.

Also, he wants to give nuclear fuel to Iran to see if they would use it for peaceful purposes.

WTF???

Why not just pass out grenades so we can shove them up our own asses? That would be quicker.
From the Queen

Debate Quick Hits

2004-10-01T04:46:00.000-05:00

For the 2000 election, I felt that Gore had "won" the debate. Just purely from the "If I were judging a debate contest" viewpoint. To me it wasn't even close. But, public opinion seemed to find Bush more approachable, and Gore to be somewhat arrogant and even snippy. The 'sigh' seemed to hurt his image, making people wonder 'what kind of whiny baby is this?'
Last night it appeared a near draw to me, with Kerry looking more relaxed and possibly better prepared, and Bush sometimes looking like a deer caught in the headlights. However, I felt Bush had prepared good answers for some of the topics that Kerry was hoping would paint Bush in a bad light, specifically the issues of North Korea and 'walking away from treaties on the table.'
Where I thought Kerry did poorly (but which may not matter in the public eye) was in response to the question of what he would do with Iraq. He started by saying he had very specific things he would do, and he would list them for us. Then he talked about what he considered as mistakes Bush had made and ended with "I can do better." Which would be an 'F' in a debate, but probably played well to the public.
Kerry's biggest problem seems to be the 20 years in the Senate. 'SenateSpeak' requires you to say things that can be interpreted and re-interpreted as situations dictate. The problem with such a fluid view of what comes out of your mouth is that for the rest of us, it is easy to paint him as a flip-flopper. Glaring example last night: at one point he said Saddam was not a threat, at another he said he clearly was. You have to read the context of the answer to understand why it sounded fine either way. But, it is so easy to pull the soundbite that says "OK, which one is it?"
Bush doesn't speak SenateSpeak. This may hurt him, but I don't think so. When asked if he thought the lives being spent were 'worth it' he ultimately said "yes." SenateSpeak would not allow you to lay down a point that you can't retract. Bush doesn't care. If you disagree with him, vote him out. When asked about N. Korea, he simply stated that what he did was the right thing to do given the circumstances, and he was unapologetic. Kerry could only imply that he would have, again, convened some sort of coalition of some unnamed countries that are somehow more 'coalitionesque' than whoever Bush is dealing with, i.e., China.
The candidates' concepts of what a coalition consists of, are instructional. Bush says we have 30 nations involved, and we do have a coalition. Kerry says we don't have a coalition, or if we do, it is at best nominal and coerced and bribed. Apparently a Francophile, Kerry appears to feel that any coalition without France's support is illegitimate. That will not play well on the world stage, and Kerry may think he can bring people to the table, but that may be wishful thinking on his part. Kerry displays a certain naivete regarding what he can do on the world stage. As a senator, you may dabble in foreign policy, and your grand diversions with world leaders may seem successful, but in reality, you have no actionable clout; your only value is in how you may be curried for favorable votes in the senate. I think Kerry is over-impressed with himself in this area.
I am still left unclear on what Kerry will do about Iraq. If he was supposed to make that clear last night, he failed, notwithstanding his stentorian pronouncements that he will do better. He also made an odd statement regarding Bush's question of "how are you going to pay for all that" implying that it could all be paid for with the "tax cuts for the top 1%". That is an amazing statement, given that his programs have no budget attached at present. Anyone that thinks the 'tax cut for the top 1%' represents enough dollars to fund what Kerry was talking about is basically clueless. So, I'm left with, what is he planning to do, and how does he plan to pay for it?
Having said all that, I'd have to say Kerry came across well. I thought Bush could have done better. But I'm talking about style over substance. In the substance over style arena, Bush has an advantage simply because he can talk about what he has done. And he can talk about things that are being done, or being planned; Kerry only has a wish list at this stage. And when he says Bush is in the wrong place, etc., when what Kerry actually voted for and supported is in the public record, he is left with trying to state that if he were in Bush's position he would have done things differently. That is the problem with SenateSpeak.
And Kerry may have done things differently. He states that he believes in a global consortium, a consortium which apparently has no gravitas without the French. And he seems to believe strongly in the UN. But today, when many are questioning the relevancy of the UN and the oil for food scandal is in the light, his willingness to subject our country to the whim of the UN may not play well.

It will be interesting to see how the domestic debates come across. I have a gut feel that the Bush camp is spending more time on the domestic front, since that is where Bush 41 lost the election. And, the reality is that Bush's domestic agenda is surprisingly forward thinking and supportive of minorities and 'the common man'. We'll have to see how it plays out, and see what the polls are saying a week from now.

fb

Vote With Your Stomach!

2004-09-30T06:58:00.000-05:00

Gallup accused of 'cooking the books' by impartial non-profit non-biased MoveOn.org.

Those damn Gallup Polls run by that damn, Christian, Damn George Gallup.

"Damn It!" says MoveOn. "Just, Damn it."

The Glob asks, in response: What can be more important to the American People than basic needs such as comfort food? How better to gauge the President's true potential for making America better? Of course, by determining which 1st Lady has the greatest Mom potential! So, the highly scientific method below (unlike Gallup's faith based healing approach to polling) will clearly determine the most tasty candidate.

Make both recipes. Take them to work. Register how your co-workers really feel. At least this poll will be unbiased.

Family Circle Food Recipes The 2004 Family Circle Cookie Cook Off

Mmmmm Mmmmm. Taste Victory!!

Ψ

Gender Bender

2004-09-28T10:32:00.000-05:00

Does anyone agree with me that Michael Jackson is probably the ugliest woman on the planet?

Just wondering.

Bias Ply Media Hits the Ditch

2004-09-28T06:48:00.000-05:00

By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

Today's quote ripped from the internet:

If you use the bias type tires and like them, Great ! Just remember to move the car periodically to avoid the annoying flat spot pounding when you go down the road..............Bias belted tires will take a "set" if the weight is kept in one spot for any length of time. (Italics added by The Glob) Source

Ever ask anyone for their opinion on something, and get some mushy non-committal response? "Hey, Bob, whaddya feel like for lunch?" "Oh, whatever." "No, but, really, what do you want?" "Doesn't matter."

Or, "Hey honey, do you like sage or sea foam for the ceiling in the living room?" "Huh?, aren't they both green? Just pick one!"

Sometimes you want an opinion. You may not go with it, but you want one.

Other times you want some kind of fact, like, "What is the address to the hotel?"

Sometimes you want both. "Which hotel do you recommend, and where is it?" Or, "Do you recommend the flat or the glossy in the sea foam? Why?"

And then there is journalism. Sometimes opinions are easily spotted. "This movie is a snoozefest filled with the most strident attempt at relevancy I've ever seen."

Sometimes there are facts. "We had 3 inches of rainfall yesterday."

And sometimes what looks like a perfectly good tire has a flat spot that causes the driver to loose control of the vehicle. Bumped Story

Ψ

Science Explains Things

2004-09-27T22:26:00.000-05:00

It all seems so clear to me now.

What Leader are You

2004-09-24T06:55:00.000-05:00

I was surprised and pleased at the result of this quiz, though, if you think about it, it kind of fits in with me being Spider Man and all:

What Famous Leader Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

Found this over on Paul's blog. fb

Bush's Ownership Society

2004-09-22T20:15:00.000-05:00

No, he's not advocating slave ownership. So, save it.

I am reminded however that the founding fathers originally required that a person own land in order to vote. The idea being that if you had something vested in the process, you were more likely to vote responsibly. There is a certain compelling logic to that.

This seems to be an approach to 'making society better' that taps into that concept. After all, usually, you don't riot and burn down your own house when filled with outrage about some or other issue.

I've not really seen or heard any feedback, aside from the article below. It has the sound of a good idea; not sure how the proposal works. Some interesting thoughts in the link below.

Bush's ownership society: great idea, if low-income families benefit | csmonitor.com

and a followup link is here:

more info

This is one of those things that I think actually matters far more than whether Bush flew all his hours, or Kerry earned his purple hearts. Sadly, such ideas do little to enrage or scandalize the populace, thereby driving up ratings; therefore these concepts are not considered 'news worthy'. Ψ

I think, therefore I feel, I think

2004-09-21T13:45:00.000-05:00

There once was a Senator named Kerry,
A ketchup queen he did marry.
His aspirations were high,
many thoughts he did try,
as his opinions continued to vary.

He continued to preach “I’m for real,
and a vote for me is ideal.
Though my flip-flops may stink,
I care not what you think,
but I truly care how you feel.”

While the limericks above were written in jest, they illustrate a fundamental difference between liberal and conservative attitudes. This difference became crystal clear to me several weeks ago as I sat in church on Sunday morning. For those of you who are offended by the church reference, I am sorry, but there is no separation of church and blog here!

Anyway, the pastor was explaining the different personality types used in the Myers-Briggs personality profile. One of the many things that Myers-Briggs does is to identify you as a thinker or a feeler. He went on to explain that thinkers attempt to analyze issues and make a decision based upon the facts, without necessarily taking emotion into account. Feelers, on the other hand, generally make decisions “because it is the right thing to do.” Neither the thinkers nor the feelers are right all the time, and the world needs a good dose of each type.

Herein lies the fundamental difference in our society. Liberals are feelers and conservatives are thinkers. Just take a listen to talk radio every now and then. It doesn’t matter who you listen to, any conversation between a conservative and a liberal will always disintegrate into one of them quoting facts and the other getting all emotional over everything.

How about prominent liberals and prominent conservatives? Prominent conservatives make their money by making sound business decisions based on thinking the possible scenarios through and making the best business decision, regardless of whether it “feels” like the right thing to do (think big stereotypical white businessman millionaire.) Prominent liberals make their living by making music, television shows, or movies that play on people’s emotions, regardless of if it makes any sense at all (think Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore.)

I could go on and on and on, but finally, the presidential campaign. George Bush is making his case that the world is a safer place because of his administration’s actions in the war on terror. His strategy is to present the facts and let you think about your choices. John Kerry is playing on emotions in trying to make you think that Bush is a lying, incompetent moron. Bush doesn’t rely on your feelings and Kerry doesn’t rely on your thoughts.

Overly simplistic? Maybe so, but just stop and look at the differences between the candidates and the parties and you will see enough examples to fill up a book.

Fundamental Extremism

2004-09-20T20:37:00.000-05:00

Sing if You Have To

By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

It has been said that in polite conversation one must never discuss religion or politics. This has been stated regarding family gatherings as well. Many probably have family anecdotes illustrating the wisdom of this advice.

But what if you are on the subway?

The subway, and similar environments such as elevators, are oddly impersonal arrangements wherein strangers, forced by circumstances to be in extreme proximity to each other, generally act as if they are the only ones in the conveyance.

However, even while maintaing the facade that there is no one else on board, most passengers don't act like they are home alone. Decorum requires, in general, no belching or farting. Generally, passengers have bathed.

Then there are the preachers.

St. Francis is reputed to have said "Preach the Gospel daily. Use words, if you have to." The subtlety of this concept is lost on most self styled Messengers of God.

The following link gives one lady's answer to this modern scourge. Kudos are in order for her unique method of dealing with this type of fundamental extremism. You will note in the attached that no cars were detonated.

Ladies Village Improvement Society

Ψ

Akimota Kazuma

2004-09-19T22:59:00.000-05:00

This is my Japanese Name. Actually, it is the translation of my actual name and it means Autumn Book One Reality. I kind of like it.

However, the translation of Frater Bovious means: Fujiwara Ren, or Wisteria Fields Lotus. Hmmm. I think I prefer Akimota Kazuma.

The Glob Blog is: Sakamoto Ibuki, which kind of sounds like a villain wrestler from WWF. The name means Book of the Hill Mighty Blow.

Anywho, if you wanna know your name, go here:

Your Japanese Name

Almost time to choose!

2004-09-17T15:07:00.000-05:00

A brief and simplistic view of the campaign

Remember the scene towards the end of Rambo when Sly Stallone is stranded in the jungle? He finally reaches Murdoch on the walkie-talkie and Murdoch says “I’m coming to get you.” Remember what happened next? Rambo (Sly Stallone) says “No Murdoch, I’m coming to get you!” I remember seeing that scene in the theater and there were screams of encouragement for Rambo. You know, go get the SOB who did bad things to you.

Fast forward to the 2004 Presidential campaign, where we find Rambo (George W. Bush) running against Gilligan (John Kerry.)

President Bush has made it clear to the world that he will fight back if we are attacked. Any terrorist who tries to mess with us will be trying to outrun a Tomahawk cruise missile or dodge a daisy-cutter bomb. He will do what he can to get the bastards who try to ruin our country!

On the other hand, John Kerry reminds me of Gilligan. He is stranded, knows where he wants to go, can’t seem to figure out how, and keeps changing his methods until he finds something that works. What happen when Gilligan gets in trouble? He needs the Skipper. In Kerry’s case, the Skipper is the United Nations.

So who would you rather have? Rambo or Gilligan? As for me, I would rather see Rambo. Somehow I think that it's not likely I will see a Boeing 767 aimed at my office window with W in charge!

In my view, that is what it is all about. Safety. If we can’t live in freedom without worrying that our kids won’t come home from school, or that it is not safe to watch a Texas Rangers game (wait, bad example, watch out for flying chairs) then nothing else matters.

The economy will ebb and flow, it always does. The President doesn’t lose or create jobs, the economy does. I am not worried about the economy.

I don’t care about swift boats or National Guard memos, real or fabricated. My main concern is who is more qualified to react if and when we are hit again.

Rambo or Gilligan? 45 more days. Make your choice.

Adrift

2004-09-17T06:36:00.000-05:00

Rudderless Kerry Campaign seeks direction

The above rendered graphic was computer generated by The Glob Mainframe when fed information from the latest Gallup Poll

What I like about the above link is that it provides the actual questions used to develop the poll results. You can see the questions and decide for yourself if they were leading in anyway. fb

Campaign Strategy with Terry McAuliffe

2004-09-15T21:52:00.000-05:00

Paddy, one of The Glob's interns, asked in her giggly bouncy way if she could have a real assignment. So, we decided to send her to interview Terry McAuliffe. As Trotter Johnson (writer of The Fishin' Report) is fond of noting, Paddy is "one hot hunk of girl meat." We knew she would find a way to get an interview. And she did.

Paddy caught up with Terry at a swank DC restaurant and made it to his table by bouncing up and down and feigning an orgasm. She was able to ask one question and get a partial response before the interview was abruptly terminated:

The Glob: So, Terry, this campaign seems to have gone somewhat awry. Kerry seems to be his own worst enemy. Why do you suppose he keeps shooting himself in the foot?

TM: Well, it always worked before...
Ψ

The Glob Blog

the GLOB is dead, long live the GLOB

The Winds of Change

We Continue, after long hiatus

Quick Note

OK, Here We Go

Quick Aside

Agreement

Points of Agreement

Papal Intent, Papal Constraint

We Continue

The Debate Begins

Martin Luther Begins

A Lay Catholic Responds To Luther

Glob Launches On Line Newspaper!

Is This Funny or Sad?

Glob Blog Wins Pulitzer

Introducing Gmail Custom TimeTM

Be on time. Every time.*

Argument - A Lost Art?

Nanny Nanny Boo Bobby

Bit of a Dilemma

Pascua

Remedy

Chatting across the Pond

On Using Women

Why Abortion is a Male Issue

Making The Big Bang Theory Accessible to Everyone

Hola!

Friggin' Spammers

Spirituality Lite

NaNoWriMo 2005

Haiku

A Small Tribute

Finding

Transitional Pope?!

The Pope

Me the Archangel

Dallas Wine & Food Festival

Underinformed Wal*Mart Exec Says"Ooops!", followed closely by "Br-r-r-r."

Ignorant and Meaningless Soundbites

Genius

Not an Onion Article

Expiation

Psychiatry, the Early Years

Republican Porn Peddler Kicked to the Curb

Meanwhile, this guy is NOT an Intellectual coward.

Imax 'shuns films on evolution'

Who am I?

Death as Rehab

Stress Relief

Never Land

Über*Mart "settles" with DOL

Mass Migration Phenomena

Hello dere!

Black on Black

NoWriMoFo

Clinton Adult Bookstore Opens To Public

Quick Hits

NaNoWriMo, 29k plus

Quote a Blogger

The New Official Brew of The Global Exclaimer

The Electoral College

Today We Vote

An Open Letter Back To Lefty

Self Proclaimed President-Elect John KerryHas Cake, Eats It Too!

Classic Global Exclaimer

Public Service Announcement

NaNoWriMo - The Gauntlet is Thrown

War and Preemption

Quote a Blogger

You Know Your Campaign Is In Trouble When...

Successes in Afghanistan

Surreal Dilemma

A Cautionary Tale

Daver's blood pressure goes up

Senator Edwards Reaches Out

Quote A Blogger

Noted Conspiracy Theorist Dismayed, Pensive

"Do monkeys go in 180 or 360?"

Introducing Gmail Custom Time^TM

Be on time. Every time.^*