27 November 2016

Sunday evening thoughs

  • If your Faith is based upon the occupant of the chair of Peter, you're doing it wrong. There has been much made about the letter of the 4 Cardinals, and now some more Bishops are coming out in support of the letter. Something that I've made mention of before on this blog is that we have ZERO authority to depose a Pope. For someone in the public office of a Pope a public declaration must be made by the Cardinals of the Church, or in their absence the clergy in the diocese of Rome. My thoughts are as follows: The Church already allows re-married people to receive Communion. Of course there's a proper procedure for this...Oikonomia in the East, Dispensation/Declaration of Nulity in the West. As long as either one of those are followed, it shouldn't be an issue. The Issue with AL is that whether it's referring to couples in this situation I've mentioned above, or allowing this without the proper procedures. The latter, allowing without the proper procedures is heresy and the letter of the 4 Cardinals applies. The former is not as through binding and loosening, the Church while she can't change the teachings of Christ Jesus, she can administrate according to need of each situaton. The real problem is when we take matters into our own hands and not with the guide of the Church. The principle of subsidiarity is wonderful, at the same time it does not mean there must be zero central authority either. I often times feel these problems go back to Vatican I, which set a rather interesting precedent of calling councils when things were not in question (Papal Infalibility wasn't really in question...and one can argue, while what's done is done, hindsight being 6/6 (yes, I use the metric system :p) perhaps the dogma should not have been defined :p)...but that's the professor on his pulpit in me speaking. We must pray and be faithful, and let those ahead of us take care of those things that are out of our control. 

  • I often get asked a few popular questions, so I guess I can answer:
a. How did you become a cat person?

It is said that once one is loved by a cat, one never goes back....This is what happened to me. It also helps that they're very friendly to introverted humans, and if they're good enough for Pope Benedict XVI, they're good enough for me too :p. Of course actually, I've always been a cat person. My favourite animal has always been a panther. 

b. Why is it necessary to laugh at everyone?

I think it's quite important to be able to laugh at ourselves. Things can't always be so serious. One of the best ways to learn things is through humour. However, in order to pull of sarcastic humour, one actually has to be good at it, and know the time and place to do it. Some people in very high places can't pull it off. They ought to try something different. 

c. You don't sound like you're from California, why?

I have a ton of influences, especially of the Russian influence. Hence the partial Russian accent when speaking. I also happen to think color is better with u in it, aka, The British spelling system rocks. 

d. Why do you rarely use the modern buzzwords of the day? 

People are not defined by the stupidity that comes out of their mouths. People are not necessarily the image we project onto them. There's nothing about having a certain amount of melanin in one's skin that makes one better than another person. Everyone has a talent or ability, they should try to cultivate this. We are not defined by our failures, or labels which society tries to place upon us. I do my best to not subject people to these temptations. 

e. How did you become a conservative?

I don't consider myself to be conservative. i consider myself to be correct ;). There's a huge difference. I suppose relatively speaking if we're using scales, I lean much to the right, and tend to strict interpretations of particular concepts. A lot of my viewpoints come from my math and science background and trying to use my skills in these subjects to look at other situations. For example, yes, humans are more than numbers, but socialized care, for the good intention that it is, can't work for very large populations. The government is not superman and can't do everything. 

  • Do you have any advice?
Well, that depends...if you're looking for unsolicited advice. I have plenty. 

24 November 2016

17 November 2016

Thought of the day

It is said that if one has nothing to say, one should say nothing....So many problems are caused by people talking way too much.

09 November 2016

Election 2016: The after thoughts

Reading through my facebook posts and seeing people of all circles commenting, I figured I'd contribute to the love of cats, but I suppose it's proper to use my pulpit here at my own blog to express my thoughts, so I'll tell you mine....

a. People are sick of the Bush/Clinton and their extensions and the lack of consistency of law.

If anyone of us had done the things the Clintons/Bushes have done (it's all documented), we'd be sitting behind bars with a healthy jail sentence for a good amount of years. Yet the Clintons/Bushes keep getting away with these things because they have all their people in place. The vote for Trump is a response to these things happening. We often times hear that justice is for the rich and powerful from liberals or from other people of various circles, law for me, but not for thee kind of thing. The Clintons are the prime example of this exact principle happening in public. No one should be supporting this kind of corruption and placing themselves above the law of the land.

The consistency of law; of course, doesn't just apply to politicians, but to those who break the law, in a particular illegal immigration. Yes, our land was built on immigrants, and those seeking a better life, it was also built before the major advent of immigration law. Something that I've mentioned before, the right to move is conditional to following the laws of wherever one is moving. People are sick of watching people breaking the law taking advantage of our country. It's quite interesting at least in my circles that the majority of people who are against illegal immigration came here legally, waited patiently, dealt with the beauracracy of the government, and rightly feel taken advantage of by these people who are breaking the law. The ends don't justify the means, no matter how wonderful and saintly those intentions may be. Evil can't be done to justify a good. Are there exemptions to the law? Of course!, but it's not up to us as individuals to take those exemptions into our hands. In short exemptions need to be taken on a case by case basis, and not via mass amnesty. Everyone's probably all freaked out that illegals are going to get magically deported, and a big giant wall on the southern border is going to get built. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and people can't be searched unless there's justifiable cause (aka with a warrant) according to law. (Now whether people follow that law is completely different). If an illegal immigrant doesn't do anything stupid, they'll more than likely be left alone. As for that wall...do we not have fences at our own houses? Do we not have doors? But if any of you are familiar with CalTrans and the efficiency (or rather the lack thereof) in the way they deal with projects...you can bet that wall will not be built anytime soon. Of course, if Caltrans isn't helping, it might be built a bit faster. Mexico more than likely will not be paying for the wall. Realistically, the only thing that will likely be happening with immigration is the enforcement of the actual laws that are on the books....which are fairly strict, but not as strict as say.....our sourthern neighbours Mexico.

I'm sure that everyone's also worried about the Muslims, that Trump has proposed a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the country until we figure out who is associated with who. Let's start by understanding that this kind of thing has happened before under Carter's administration, so it's not new. Realistically, what is more likely to happen rather than a ban as such is that people will be vetted more closely and let in on a case by case basis rather than a mass entering as we have it now. It's been playing in our heads by the media that everyone's heads that bad things are going to happen, everyone's going to get deported, the government's going to come with an irn fist....STOP THE FEAR....It's not the end of the world, you can still read this, can't you?

I suppose now would be a good time to synthesise what will not be ending.

1. Muslims, Illegal immigrants, LGBTQ people will NOT be shipped out the country in mass planes.
2. The government is not going to suddenly magically end abortion, and walk in and start canceling them.
3. The rights of everyone are not going anywhere, women will be able to vote, so will minorities, it takes a ton of work to overturn a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (Good luck getting 2/3rds of state legislatures and 3/4ths of the states to agree). Seriously, relax it's not going to change.
4. The means that people have to defend themselves....also not going anywhere....

What people do need to realise is that politicians are not saviours. From their distant porch, they are not going to make any situation better or worse in of themselves, or even through the passing of laws. The way situations get better is through the principle of subsidiarity, individuals working together, not depending on an external source to get things done. This; of course, isn't to say that there isn't a role for the government to play. But the governemnt being super far away from our daily issues, perhaps should be more like a coach rather than a dictator. They can point things out, but ultimately it is up to us as individuals to better situations. It's how we live out the laws and things that ultimmately make things better. A perfect example I can think of is like in education. When I as the teacher point out an error or a mistake that my students did in a problem, they have options: They can learn from the error and do their best not to make it again...or they can continue making the same mistakes. The same ultimately when it comes to law and government. We can learn, or we can continue to wallow in our mistakes....I'd definitely avoid choosing the latter.

b. What about...comment x, shortcoming y, thing z.

Colour me not surprised when I say that people are stupid. say stupid things, have shortcomings, etc. People are not defined by their shortcomings, comments and various other things in both the positive and negative light...(Yet somehow all of us manage to do this to varying degrees: I know I myself do have some people that are defined by something bad even though their dignity in the image of God is much greater than i could express). Are we not supposed to forgive trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us? It's true that being forgiving doesn't mean being stupid, but do we not allow people to grow from their mistakes, and grow from their commentary? More often than not, I feel that there's a ton of projecting onto those that are conservative, or those who disagree with the typical narrative. The thing is most people don't recognize "insert your buzzword here" when it actually is in front of them. For example, it's not homophobic to disagree with the gay lifestyle...however, to kill them and throw them off of a cliff, yes, that is so. It's not xenophobic to want to protect the boarders from those breaking the law. But to say "insert culture here" are "insert insulting word here" definitely would be so. If one's going to throw around words, the least one can do is be accurate with them.

c. The vast majority of Liberals do NOT want to destroy the country

The vast majority of my friends, or people in my circles have liberal points of view, or sympathise with what one would call liberal positions politically. Do they want to destroy the country? No, they simply have a different idea of what means are best for the country to go. And although more often times than not, I think they're wrong, I don't wish evil upon them or think that they're horrible people just because of their viewpoints. Tolerance is a two-way street, we don't have to agree, but we do have to respect one another's opinions and personhood. This the reason that there wasn't a mass deleting spree during this political season. Everyone's opinion has value (even if they're wrong). While yes, there is objective Truth as a whole, this doesn't mean that there aren't things within that can be considered relative, or with prudential judgment that two people can't disagree on. Often times, people try to paint a uniformity where one doesn't exist...It's hard enough to get two people to agree on something....(though if I put a cat picture here, everyone should go awwww :p). There's often from the conservative side people that think that the country will be destroyed because of liberalism....which in of itself isn't true. Ideas if left unchecked of course can go off the rails, but it's important that we're able to have a free exchange of ideas....especially if we disagree with the people involved.

d. Sooo, who did you vote for?

I voted for the mathematically best candidate that I thought would defeat the one I thought was pure evil. It's interesting to me that the two women I think are the most evil in the country start with the same letter in their name, they get prayed for daily of course, but I find it quite interesting. If people didn't figure out who I was against, after I said she who has already been president...I'll let that go :p

e. The inditement against the media et al.

It's hilarious watching the media report back on what has happened. Pretty much any source of information has a liberal bent or leans left...Academia, entertainment, journalism, you name it, everything has been filtered through this lens. The election of Trump is a big fudge you to the media, basically telling them, be objective, keep your opinions to yourself, and tell the facts of the story/news, etc. Which is all that anyone wants. It's not of course that these people can't have opinions...Opinions do need to be substantiated and formed by actual substance, not by reading into different statements and taking various points out of their context. I don't think it's too much to ask, if someone says a quote to give the quote in full, THEN afterward state this is my opinion on the quote instead of making some giant click bait headline, or just report opinion as fact. I hope the media takes their lesson from this and learns.

f. Now what do we do?

Don't blow anything up!, No fear-mongering!, No stupid things! We work with what is given and try to make things better for our society at a local level. Victory alcohol is available downstairs. Sulking alcohol is available upstairs. This post was scheduled to go up as i am at work at present, pray for our country, we still need it, even if a minor battle has been won.

08 November 2016

Finally, back

I know all 2 readers of this blog have probably been wondering where I have been. Well, when the hard drive crashes, t hat kind of pu t s thing s way behind schedule, but I promise much more regular blogging soon, and I'll be covering some huge topics that I hope all will find interesting...

Keeping all of you in my prayers


26 October 2016

Election 2016, Pope Francis, and other events.

Strictly speaking, we’re not as such stuck with Trump or Hilary, insofar as our votes are individual, and we should vote for the person that best represents our values, person being on a ballot or not. But it it is accurate to say that Trump and Hilary have the best chances to win, as both have the major attention of the media and other outlets of information. So with error of being “stuck” with Hilary or Trump now out of the way, we can get to the substance of what actually needs to be said.
There are enough people out there telling you who to vote for, and I’m certainly not going to add my voice to this choir, you’re probably sick of hearing about this election already…but I am going to analyse both candidates, and see what can be done about it.

a.       a. Hilary Clinton:

If there’s any person that represents the establishment, the status quo, or that things shouldn’t change, it’s this person. Or as I’ve affectionately dubbed, her, she who has already been president. We all know while Bill was having his escapades during his time in the oval office, we know who was calling the shots (or told which buttons to push, however one wishes to spin it)
There are some that will say that because we know who she is, and she’s a known quantity, better to work with what we know, rather than what we don’t know. To this I say, not so much. The thing is this time around she’ll have actual power instead of just being a figure head. I don’t need to explain how corrupt Hilary is: from Watergate, to getting a rapist of Scot free, to her hatred of Catholics, setting up fake Catholic organisations, inciting violence through puppets, not to mention the rather infamous kill list, let alone her dealings as secretary of state, mishandling of classified documents (which legally renders someone ineligible to be president, but we all know laws are for poor people ;), and not for the government to actually hold itself accountable), there’s a litany of reasons why dealing with Hilary in the White House would be bad news for America. (Not to mention her thoughts that the government should solve problems, by proceeding to kill its future tax base and then somehow expect money to appear out of thin air after killing off those that would have been paying taxes, but who am I to judge? TM)
But yes, we should toootally trust someone who has made a career out of politics and corruption, and somehow magically expect that she transform into a model of sanity and totally protect the Church and other religious institutions because she’s so willing to cooperate with the graces God has given her :p (And if you believe that….welll……)…dancing with the devil has worked so well for us after-all, what’s a few more years going to do? :p
Since for all intents and purposes she has bought the election from the time her husband was in office, this election is in a way a formality…(save a Divine Miracle)…so I suppose it might be time for everyone to start learning Russian. (classes I teach by the way :p), Arabic or Chinese to prepare for the takeover that’s totally coming after this ;)..

Those of you that have been paying attention to the e-mail scandal, those of us of a Faith background, even more importantly those who aren’t of a faith background of some type. The anti-Catholicism should down right scare you. In spite of how it’s often practiced, tolerance does not mean I only accept you if you agree with the things that I say. For people that often are supposed to represent tolerance, some people can be quite intolerant, especially if they put up an blockage to giant social experiments. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, they’ve been trying at this for years, and many of us have had suspicions of this behaviour for years, the e-mails only confirm what we already knew. (And before anyone goes there, it wasn’t the Russians. For goodness sake, the Russians have better things to do than actually care what goes on here. They have their own interests and their own problems to deal with. The cold war is over. It doesn’t mean things are perfect over there, no one said they were, but to be wasting time with this country, please….come at me with something better than that)….But of course why should all of the anti-Catholicism matter? The Bishops’ helped themselves in on it anyway….with Bishops like these, who needs enemies like Hilary ;)…we do just fine ourselves.

I know at least I’ll be doing my part to hopefully keep her out of the white house (again), here’s           praying….but don’t worry, I’m not done….

b.      Donald Trump

One could argue that his running is a downgrade from positions (who in the world wants to be president in this kind of climate. If I owned a business and wasn’t responsible to anyone other than my family, I certainly wouldn’t want to run a country and actually have to be responsible for the fellow people, it’s hard enough dealing with one.

By running as a republican, he runs as an outsider, although being a business man, he’s very much outside what most of us wuold consider to be normal America :p. Yes, he’s advocated for very liberal positions in the past, and to some degree, if you listen closely there are some points where he’s not exactly the conservative ideal….But unlike his competitor, he is at least hearing the advice of his counsel. For whatever it’s worth. Some may call it flip flopping, it may well be. Some may question his conversion to pro-Life, it may well not be sincere…But it would be pretty darn stupid to say these things with a populace that is angry and not back them up to some degree. Many people fault him for not doing enough to give in to the pro-Life movement….Well, since when is the president supposed to write law? We decry liberals when they appoint activist judges, or when the president does something that is completely outside of his authority as president, should we not hold Trump or anyone else to the same standard? They’re not supposed to be activists, it’s their job to execute the laws of the United States of America, northing more, nothing less. If anything it’s probably more important that the people that he surrounds himself with are pro-Life (which so far he seems to be doing).  He has to know that he’s going to be held accountable for what he says and for what he does.
Realisti cly, the only chance Trump has at being elected is thorugh the electoral college. McMullin (One of the other people running) had an opportunity to run as a republican to oppose Trump but chose not to. The only logical conclusion for his candidacy is that he’s there to split the vote and insure that Trump does not get elected. There is zero way if this election went to the house that career politicians and establishment types would elect someone from outside of their number for president. 
It would contradict the very principle that they’re trying to do…stay in power, they have to elect one of their own to keep themselves on good footing.

The fact that he wants to build a wall does not make him anti-immigrant or someone who hates Latinos. Yes, everyone has a right to move, but that right to move is conditional. The condition being that when one moves that one must obey the laws of where they are going to. (And lest someone compare to the native Americans, we don’t know of their immigration laws (or lack there of, two totally different things) Being able to accommodate this does not mean that one has to be stupid in the process. Why do we have locks and windows in our homes, it’s for protection. It’s not that people can’t visit or come in, it’s just that people need to be known and trusted. We do all kinds of discrimination as a people, knowingly or unknowingly. We don’t let people in we don’t trust, why would not the same standard be applied at a national level? Making sure we know who is coming in is always a good idea. The government has very few jobs (at least listed in the constitution), one of them is to protect the country. This is of course done through a vetting process. Perhaps though the government has gotten so big, that it can’t do what little jobs it is supposed to do effectively.

And yes, I’ve heard the comments that he has said, and doesn’t that make him a horrible person? Let’s be honest, all of us in our private conversations have said things questionable. It doesn’t necessarily have to do with women, it can be on any subject, we’ve all said things that we’d like to take back, or may have said differently. It of course doesn’t excuse the behaviour, no one said that it did, but before we go casting stones, we better look in the mirror. Everyone needs to be given the chance to convert and change their ways if necessary.

It’s quite interesting to watch people jump to conclusions based upon a faulty premise. It’s one of those things neither side really gets it right, but fortunately, there’s people out there to put an end to the craziness.

It’s not just because one holds to position x, that automatically makes them insert your favourite buzzword of the day here. It’s almost as people didn’t take logic. (And at this rate, I doubt people do anymore), whatever happened to arguing a point based upon substance and actually based upon the point. Ultimately, do I believe that Donald will do the things that he says? Of course not, that’d be crazy to trust humans like that (everyone knows that’s what cats are for), I do know that Hilary will do exactly what she says she’s going to do….and that is a major problem, and something that needs to be dealt with.

c.       Pope Francis:

Oh dear, he’s talking again…..this can’t be good. The three most dangerous words in the Church today are “Pope Francis says…” Something bad is bound to follow. Now does this in of itself present a problem, of course not. For 99.999 999 999 999 % of what Popes say isn’t infallible. But as the old saying goes, just because one has a thought doesn’t always mean that one should express it. How do we deal with this? In short, since we’re not the magisterium, nor are we ordained to be able to deal with this, we can point out the errors, but we have zero authority to convict the Pope of formal heresy. Never has it been in Church history that the Sedevacantist or Orthodox positions look to be more correct. (No I have not left Peter). But I see the wisdom in having a recourse for correction. It’s not the councils are more powerful than the pope as such. Rather, it’s a mechanism to be able to deal with someone that’s in heresy formally. A pope with no recourse to correction can absolutely wreck havoc on the Church. This is the problem with untramontanism, authority gone wrong is an absolute disaster. But that said, our salvation should be relationship with the Trinity, not worried about every ism that comes from the Holy Father’s mouth. Just because it comes from the HF, doesn’t mean it’s gospel, the converse is also true that just because it comes from his mouth that it automatically means that we have to dismiss it. All things in due prudence.
d.      The death penalty and the Bishops need to stop
The opinion of Pope John Paul II should have never made it into the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Our Lord himself died, the death penalty can be justified….but this application needs to be prudential and proportional. One obviously does not use the death penalty on someone who stole a pencil. But someone who is an unjust aggressor, or a child rapist, that’s an entirely different judgement call. So, I’m not sorry, the opinion of the Bishops however good it may be, we’re not bounded to agree to their judgement on this issue.

More often times than not, what screws things up is the appeal process. The appeal process should be streamlined, one gets one opportunity to appeal, a fully impartial DNA test, get it done and make sure they weren’t at the crime, if they’re innocent ,great, let them free. If they’re guilty, get rid of them quickly. People might argue this violates the dignity of life. But I argue, that the right to life was taken away by both the crime and due process. The thing is that the death penalty sometimes kills innocent people. This is absolutely wrong and needs to be minimized. It is not anti pro life to be in favour of the death penalty application on various points. Abortion is an evil that out weighs everything. Why? Simple, it always involves the killing of innocent life without due process. There does not exist a right to kill one’s own child on purpose. (Miscarriages are not abortion, that is down right evil to even compare the two). That said, legislation of morality is not usually that effective (That doesn’t mean that laws shouldn’t exist)….the real change has to come from the cultural level to make abortion not even an option in the first place….Then law can be dealt with. Legislation towards effect is always bad law. (That is to say, just because people were doing coat hanger abortions does not imply that there needs to be laws on the books to now make abortion legal.)…..or put another way, just because someone does something stupid doesn’t mean that there needs to be laws always enacted. It’s best to use the principle of subsidiarity to handle most of these problems. It of course doesn’t mean that we can’t try to solve the problem, but legislation doesn’t always solve problems. Often times it makes problems much worse.
  Please keep me in your prayers.

For reasons I can’t go into detail about yet, please do keep me in your prayers, and do pray for this intention. As always everyone here is in my prayers and thoughts.
The culture of whine and complain

It seems rather interesting to me that people will complain about something behind one’s back and fail to actually try and work out full solutions to their problems instead of just dealing with things as they should. Something’s offensive, so what! There does not exist a right to not be offended by something. How we react is something that we can control and do something about. For whatever good intentions some of these various campaigns for various issues do, I think at the end of the day, the actual issue gets undermined and it actually does much to damage society. Transforming things into a social media circus instead of actually dealing with the problem makes everyone look rather stupid. This of course doesn’t mean we shouldn’t bring issues and abuses to light, but rather before doing so, I believe it to be important to understand where everyone is coming from, and not jumping to conclusion before the facts have been found about the situation.

09 August 2016

Thought of the day

There is too much projectivism. People too often times project their own faults onto others, or read the hearts of people they should not be reading.