Pages
▼
Saturday, August 17, 2019
While today is an anniversary I have noted in recent years, today I am only going to say that I am working on something pertaining to the themes surrounding that day which I hope to have finished before the end of August. This project was mentioned at the start of the month and I am bit by bit as I have time to do so working on it. My tentative goal is to have it done and published within the next seven days.
Monday, August 12, 2019
"One From the Vault" Dept.
The following is a flashback to the archives of this website from 2005...
Geopolitics is a complex...labrinyth if you will and it is frequently misunderstood, mischaracterized by overly simplistic people....Now, one of your host's intellectual mentors Mike Mentzer used to be fond of saying that definitions are the tools of thought. Now, since definitions are the tools of thought -and we challenge anybody to argue otherwise- then the lack of definitions on the part of those critical of the so-called "neo cons" is basically all we need to know about the quality of their thought. However, your host wants to help these people out. He requests from anyone listening to send to your host...lets see...various points if you will, characteristics, identifying marks of what is a "neo-con." Can someone be a "neo-con" based on one issue??? Or must/is there a panorama of issues if you will that all kinda coalesce and create the/what one might call the "neo-con weltanschauung."...
What constitutes a "neo con"??? Are there certain issues of more weight than others??? Are there certain issues that are dispensible or in other words a "neo-con" may or may not think this??? And are there certain issues that are absolutely indispensible as in "a 'neo-con' definitely thinks this way and anybody who thinks this way has to be a 'neo-con"??? Something, some pointers, a list if you will of identifying marks so that we can at least know who these so-called "neo cons" really are. Your host would be very interested in that so anyone who can help out in that area, drop us a line. [Excerpt from a Rerum Novarum Audio Transcript (circa October 27, 2005)]
The following is a flashback to the archives of this website from 2005...
Geopolitics is a complex...labrinyth if you will and it is frequently misunderstood, mischaracterized by overly simplistic people....Now, one of your host's intellectual mentors Mike Mentzer used to be fond of saying that definitions are the tools of thought. Now, since definitions are the tools of thought -and we challenge anybody to argue otherwise- then the lack of definitions on the part of those critical of the so-called "neo cons" is basically all we need to know about the quality of their thought. However, your host wants to help these people out. He requests from anyone listening to send to your host...lets see...various points if you will, characteristics, identifying marks of what is a "neo-con." Can someone be a "neo-con" based on one issue??? Or must/is there a panorama of issues if you will that all kinda coalesce and create the/what one might call the "neo-con weltanschauung."...
What constitutes a "neo con"??? Are there certain issues of more weight than others??? Are there certain issues that are dispensible or in other words a "neo-con" may or may not think this??? And are there certain issues that are absolutely indispensible as in "a 'neo-con' definitely thinks this way and anybody who thinks this way has to be a 'neo-con"??? Something, some pointers, a list if you will of identifying marks so that we can at least know who these so-called "neo cons" really are. Your host would be very interested in that so anyone who can help out in that area, drop us a line. [Excerpt from a Rerum Novarum Audio Transcript (circa October 27, 2005)]
Sunday, August 11, 2019
Briefly...
I am not one to buy into conspiracy theories as a rule because they are far too often for the weak minded. But the Jeffrey Epstein situation just has too many "coincidences" to it to make me comfortable. We all know Epstein was going to testify and that he was nearly certain to name names of those who were involved with his shady escapades including (most likely) some big names we never would have suspected and would be stunned to have heard had a connection to him and his operations. (Folks so rich and so well connected that they would make the leftists claims it was Trump or the rightist claims it was the Clintons downright laughable!)
We were also told that Epstein attempted suicide in late July and he supposedly said someone tried to kill him. Now we have a prior proven suicide risk not on 24/7 suicide watch being watched apparently by Stevie Wonder, Jeff Healey, and Ray Charles as his guards while occasionally spelled by Sergeant Schultz. There is a camera in cells of those who are considered suicide risks and one source thus far says it was malfunctioning the night he was said to have killed himself. Meanwhile the guards who are supposed to check in every 30 minutes to the cell conveniently did not follow their regular routine the night he was found unresponsive.
Again, I usually laugh at those nutters whose every response to anything is squawking about some stupid conspiracy theory but even a broken clock is right a couple of times a day. On this one, I am tempted to think if everything is as I noted above that the broken clock is having one of its rare moments where its telling the right time.
I am not one to buy into conspiracy theories as a rule because they are far too often for the weak minded. But the Jeffrey Epstein situation just has too many "coincidences" to it to make me comfortable. We all know Epstein was going to testify and that he was nearly certain to name names of those who were involved with his shady escapades including (most likely) some big names we never would have suspected and would be stunned to have heard had a connection to him and his operations. (Folks so rich and so well connected that they would make the leftists claims it was Trump or the rightist claims it was the Clintons downright laughable!)
We were also told that Epstein attempted suicide in late July and he supposedly said someone tried to kill him. Now we have a prior proven suicide risk not on 24/7 suicide watch being watched apparently by Stevie Wonder, Jeff Healey, and Ray Charles as his guards while occasionally spelled by Sergeant Schultz. There is a camera in cells of those who are considered suicide risks and one source thus far says it was malfunctioning the night he was said to have killed himself. Meanwhile the guards who are supposed to check in every 30 minutes to the cell conveniently did not follow their regular routine the night he was found unresponsive.
Again, I usually laugh at those nutters whose every response to anything is squawking about some stupid conspiracy theory but even a broken clock is right a couple of times a day. On this one, I am tempted to think if everything is as I noted above that the broken clock is having one of its rare moments where its telling the right time.
New survey: Only one-third of Catholics believe in Real Presence
This headline is deceptive insofar as the poll was of those who identify as Catholic. Dig a bit deeper and the same poll says six in ten Catholics who attend mass weekly believe in transubstantiation. I am sure we could goose that number higher if we include those who believe in the real presence but do not subscribe to the specific belief of transubstantiation. Certainly the number should be higher but its not anywhere near as bad as the headline suggests.
So cultural Catholics do not believe in the real presence? Wow, big surprise! I suspect if they were polled on any other fundamental Catholic doctrine they would likely not believe it in majority numbers too.
The question should be less on doctrinal stuff with cultural Catholics than asking them why they are not practicing Catholics. If that was the focus, then perhaps things could be done to help more cultural Catholics to enter the door of a church more often. Then at that point, you can give them doctrinal specifics.
So cultural Catholics do not believe in the real presence? Wow, big surprise! I suspect if they were polled on any other fundamental Catholic doctrine they would likely not believe it in majority numbers too.
The question should be less on doctrinal stuff with cultural Catholics than asking them why they are not practicing Catholics. If that was the focus, then perhaps things could be done to help more cultural Catholics to enter the door of a church more often. Then at that point, you can give them doctrinal specifics.