APPLAUSE? JUST ANOTHER CASE OF THE CLAP

Warning:  This is straight from the Kurmujjin.  Neat.  Straight up. No soda.  No water. It has been clear to me for years, years! that very often, applause is the sound of two hands clapping because their brain doesn't know what else to do with them at the moment.
Applause at the end of a movie?
Applause at the end of a list of announcements communicating the week's schedule?  
Applause at the end of a YouTube.com projection?
Save your applause for when I die.  Then I'll know what it means.
I was about 5 years old when my aunt Pearl took me to the movie, "Dumbo, the Flying Elephant."  It was my first time at the movies, and so I fussed and complained and cried when we had to sit through all the preliminary, incomprehensible [to a five-year old] stuff like the newsreel and the introductory cartoon.  It wasn't Dumbo, so I was grousing.  Finally, Dumbo came on and it was rather nice and I behaved.  In fact, I was so docile that it earned me a trip to see the "Song of the South" a year or so later.  I liked the "Song of the South" better than Dumbo. Don't ask me why.  I don't know, "Why," I just know.
After Dumbo, neither I nor my aunt applauded.  After "Song of the South" we didn't applaud.  Many people did.  I asked, both times, "Why aren't we clapping?"  The response was the same both times, "There's no one to clap for.  It's just a movie."  It made sense to me then.  It made more sense to me as I grew older...and older...and older.  It even made sense to me when I was moved to deep appreciation by the story.  I didn't clap for "Shane."  I didn't even clap for my total favorite, "Shawshank Redemption."  I have NEVER clapped after watching non personal phenomena.  I have never clapped at my computer.  
I think that applause is to show recognition to a live person for work well done.  That means that if you do not do good work, I will not applaud.  Least of all, I will not stand.  I have sat still in an audience that was applauding a piece of crap performance.  The performance was so bad that people were talking to one another as it was unfolding.  Then they gave a standing ovation.  They really did!  This happened to me when I was in my early 30's.  The IQ of the masses has a below freezing chill factor.  Some have the gaul to talk during the performance and then sneer at the person who listened in silence, albeit sacrificial silence, and then refused to congratulate the performer via applause.  
I one time had a conversation in which the participant in the conversation asked, "Aren't you afraid to hurt the performer's feelings?"  Huh?  Hell, no.  I suffered though his incompetence, he can suffer through my silence.  I had to pay for him/her to make me suffer.  He/she can suffer though my silence while he/she pockets my contribution to his/her emolument.
This thought came to me this morning when a congregation of which I was a part applauded at the end of a YouTube.com projection.  I enjoyed the show.  I enjoyed the song that it contained.  Applaud?  Are you kidding me?  
Don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.  I have discussed this with numerous people throughout the years.  Their position is always the same: "I liked it, so I applauded.  If I like something I applaud."  That's fairly highly sophisticated thinking.  I applaud myself for liking something.  I never thought of that.  With my ego, I'd have swollen hands at the end of every day from applauding my admirable successes achieved from morning 'til night.  Come to think of it, I'm glad I don't clap because I like something.  I only clap to congratulate others, who are present and who can actually hear my entousiastic expression of satisfaction for their work.


You all have my permission, nay, my invitation, to applaud my departure from the earthly stage, even in my cold, rigor mortified state, right in front of me.  If you do that, at least you won't be crying.

WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION

I totally do not agree with this poster.  It is because it is too simple.  Simple statements that purport to describe complex realities are untruthful.  Let me tell you about REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN THE USA and its definition of being THEFT.



CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS:  If this is not THEFT, what is?
I want to get elected. I don't have the funds.  So you give your money to me and I use it to denigrate my opponent so that I can get elected.  You have been robbed by way of wealth redistribution.


ONE PERSON,ONE VOTE:  CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS are grand larceny because they redistribute wealth and they buy influence, otherwise known as bribery. We, as citizens, are limited to having one vote.  Campaign contributors get three [at least] votes, a-the support by way of the contribution; b-the influence that the money bought [the fruit of the bribe] c-the vote at the polls.


MEDICARE: The government takes 1.45% of everything I make and applies it to the medicare account of the whole country.  Then, when I finally get to be eligible for medicare, the government makes me pay $94.00 per month for medicare coverage.  So did they steal the original 1.45% or are they stealing the $1,000.00 per year that they are taking from me now? Or is it THEFT X 2?


MERCENARIES:  Paying XE for its services is a redistribution of my "wealth" that I definitely consider to be THEFT.  


RECONSTRUCTION CARPET BAGGERS: Halliburton, Kellogg, et al.  Redistribution of wealth on a grand scale.  Grand Larceny scale.


INCOME TAX ON SERIES E "SAVINGS" BONDS: Here's the deal.  Buy $10,000.00 of series E federal bonds in 2000.  Redeem them for 11,750.00 in 2010.  Pay the IRS capital gains tax on the $ 1,750.00.  The government thrives on the income from stolen money.  You let them use your 10 grand for ten years.  They pay you interest and then take back a portion in income tax.
Bullshit!


PROFESSIONAL SPORTS STADIA: Billionnaire Joe Blow who owns the NFL "Sour Nectar Hummingbirds" wants a new stadium.  Does he invest in it?  Hell no!  He steals the money from the residents of his business hinterland and doesn't improve the quality of the team.  Aggravated Grand Larceny.


MILITARY PARAPHERNALIA:  Proliferation of redundant military hardware. The Air Force has the F-xx.  The Navy is jealous, so it wants the N-xxx[2].  The Marines get their noses out of joint and they demand an extra, super deluxe G-AAAxxx, or else.  This Jesse James and Billy the Kid competition has got to stop. I am sick and tired of being RIPPED OFF.
As a country here's what we do:  3 fighters; 3 transports, three helicopters; three drones.  All of them the same color, take it or leave it.


PORK BARREL:  You want pork?  Go kill your own pig.  Leave mine alone.  Redistribute the wealth in your own district.  If you can't steal their money, you sure as hell ain't gonna get mine.


WAR: pre-emptive:  THEFT OF $; THEFT OF CHILDREN; THEFT OF PARENTS. STOP IT.  GET OUT. 


POST-WAR REPARATIONS:  I didn't ask you to go to war. Don't steal my money to fix your mistake.


SELF-DEFENSE WAR:  They started it.  Part of loosing is rebuilding to repair the arrogance of the invader.


INFRASTRUCTURE: Do I have to pay for a road, bridge or port repair 3,000 miles away? No.  So don't steal it from me.


GASOLINE TAX:  You steal 24.8 cents per gallon from me to spread around to my fellow citizens all around the country.  Then you tell me that you can do nothing about the cost of gasoline.  My roads are still full of pot holes and my bridges are still unsafe.  I can only conclude that this redistribution of wealth is GRAND LARCENY.


Remember:  If you charge me to pay again for something that I have a right to own because you took my money in the first place, you are the criminal, not me.  You owe me, not vice versa.  [Cfr. Social Security; Medicare]


Notice that these are the things that form our accustomed way of life.  Let's be honest with ourselves and examine the ways to change them too.

SECRET SERVICE MADAM RAHAB HELPED CONQUER JERICHO

Rahab the madam, Joshua 2

Let me just say that soldiers, spies, secret service assets and many, many more assets are always on the lookout for female assets, paid or otherwise. What do we expect of our paid, non uniformed, para-military goons when they find themselves in a country with legalized prostitution?  It's so normal and so "natural" that we haven't heard a single syllable about "fire the idiots." Even the president of the country has not come down on these miscreants. Everyone I hear is saying a version of, "We're investigating the situation."  How sweet!  How long do we have to wait until a plot to kill the president of the US comes to light, or God help us, to fruition, thanks to a leak due to an act of intemperance with a paid operative of  a foreign government, paid for by an unpaid idiot from the US?  Oh, wait, I forgot. What these guys were actually doing was pulling a stunt from the Bible. The spies go to the friendly madam who saves them and is converted to the point where she makes it into the genealogy of Jesus Himself.  That's what our guys were doing. They went into this gig with their Bibles and their blessings from Papa Joshua so that the president would be protected.  The "ladies" were insulation against the bad guys.  Our guys just paid them double to keep the bad guys occupied while our Commander-in-Chief was on their soil.  You'll see.  Someone will come up with this defense.  It will go down in the books as the Joshua 2 defense.  No kidding.  You'll see.  Heee.
Enjoy it, this is the only place where you will get this kind of information about this caper.

READING THE BIBLE or READING FROM THE BIBLE

All those tabs don't mean a thing

I had an experience today that lasted one hour.  It featured a young man and his Bible and an empty-handed old man.
I had never met the man and I had made a promise to meet him at the church at a given hour.  We were both on time.  We began by a short prayer moment before retiring to a more private corner and some softer chairs.  This young person was ever so polite and so respectful that it was a pleasure to be in his presence.  He told me his story and I listened.  I introduced myself to him and he listened.  Then he said that he had some things that he wanted to talk about and proceeded to open his Bible at the tab that he evidently wanted to serve as the opening of the discussion.  I told him to put his Bible away.  He said that he had to have it otherwise he couldn't make his point.  I said that reading one verse of two from a random corner of the Bible is not making a point.  He was shocked as I repeated my requirement that he put his Bibe aside.  I asked him point blank how much of the Bible he had read.  He said that he had not really read that much of it because he was still fairly new at this.  So he needed it to make his point.  I then asked him if he had spent time reading the first pages of the Bible.  He said that he had not yet done that.  
"So," says I, "when are you going to get around to reading the Bible from the first page?"  
He replied that what he wanted to know was not on the first page.  
"Ah, so you wanted to know what YOU wanted to know.  Did it ever cross your mind that the Bible is the book that we consult to ascertain what God wants us to know about Him?"
Uh?  Hmmm.  
"Did it ever cross your mind that God might have a system about how to teach us about Himself through the  pages of this Book?"
Uh?  Hmmm.
"When you open your text book in college do you generally hunt and peck for what you want to know or do you try to follow the author's system for developing the truths contained in the text book?"
Uh?  Hmmm.

I let him off the hook when I said, "Leave your Bible on the seat.  If you get stuck, I'll tell you the story and then you'll know what God wants you to know."

I won't bore you too much, but I will give you an example of what happened to this young man about 10 minutes before the end of the conversation.  He complained that the older people in his life did not give him any credit for having some wisdom that they themselves might not have.  He then took up his Bible and quoted from Job, [Eliphaz speaks to Job] thus: "Were you born the first Adam, brought forth before the hills?  Did you listen in God's council: is wisdom limited to you?  What do you know that we don't know; what do you understand that is not with us?" 
[Job, 15; 7 - 9]
He looked at me smugly.  I smiled and asked him, "Do you know how the book ends?"  Uh?  Hmmm.  "No."
"I do.  It does not go well for Eliphaz.  I will spare you the quote since I do not have my Bible with me, but you can look it up, if you want."  I paraphrased the story for him.  He wasn't smiling.

For you, dear reader I quote what God says to Eliphaz:
⁷ After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has. ⁸ So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.”  [Job, 42; 7 - 8]

There was a lot more to the conversation.  My young interlocutor was at a loss to express the lessons that God would no doubt want to teach him.  He will learn just as soon as he accepts the Bible as God's Word.  So far all it is to him is a reference of self-gratifying quotes.

CLERICALISM -- CLERICAL IMPERIALISM -- 1962

Clericalism
The daily topic of "serious" seminarians as they walked home from their classes.  It was also a hot topic discussed by bishops reporting for duty to the opening of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican.  The bishops were walking into the well fortified backyard of one, His Eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, Secretary of the Holy Office, now officially known as the  Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
When I opened my online copy of the NCR this morning I saw the headline of the lead story by John Allen, renowned American Vaticanologist, as follows:  Benedict's gentle debunk of clericalism.
As it turns out Benedict XVI was one of those who, it was said, was a champion of the anti-clericalism faction of bishops and cardinals.  In the parlance of the day, there were the clerical-fascists, the clerical imperialists and maybe even more epithets than that to describe the various political positions of the incoming Council Fathers.  It was great sport for the seminarians to discuss the possibilities of what the downfall of clericalism could bring about.  Every day we looked for quotes from the likes of Ratzinger (he was still only 35 years old), Suenens, Bea, Alfrink, Schillebeeckx and Lustiger.  We were rarely disappointed.  We didn't really know where all this was going, but we were storming heaven with prayers to the Holy Spirit that there would come an end to the "pray, pay and obey" Church.  Well, it didn't work as well as we all hoped.  It takes a long time to change a culture.  
One of main reasons for the slow change, I think, is that a priest spends anywhere from eight to twelve years in formative preparation for the life of ministry.  During those twelve years, a man develops an attitude about his worth to the mission of Jesus.  He knows that no one else in the pews has its equivalent.  Most are people of good faith, but not of faith and  development in a method of formation practiced for centuries.  Not very many lay people have twelve years of intense spiritual and intellectual formation in the discipleship of Jesus.  So naturally, the clergy know that they have a decided advantage over the laity in the area of theology, spirituality, Church life, etc.  Lay people are also aware that they have not achieved the level of personal formation, spirituality and theology that the priests have.  So they are not too uncomfortable in holding their position as good followers.   This basic disconnect between the two has led to the separation that exists between clergy and laity.  There's more, of course, but this is the start, I think. 
Therefore, Benedict XVI can chide gently about clericalism because he knows where he is coming from.  There are many who do not have the experience of the early Vatican II attitudes that were brought there by the bishops and cardinals.  It is because the seed of the thought fell into the ground fifty years ago, before many of today's faithful were a) born, and b) old enough to appreciate what was happening. Don't think that clericalism is going away any day soon.  
I do invite you, in conclusion, to stand your ground and make your contribution to the cause of its diminution.  Make your positions known, intellectual, spiritual, educational, material and fiscal.  Make things happen.  Remember, "It's easier to beg pardon than to ask permission."

WHORE OF BABYLON DEDICATED TO ROBERT JEFFRESS

There are those who claim that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon. They are, for the most part, customers of a competing whore, but of course, they obey the rule of never speaking badly of your own mother. 

The last time I heard this accusation hurled at the Catholic Church was about 2 weeks ago. [Now, slightly more than one month]  At the time,  First Baptist church of Houston Pastor,  Dr. Robert Jeffress was a guest on the Lawrence O’Donnell show, “The Last Word” which airs on MSNBC.  His appearance there [February 21, 2012] was one during which he proclaimed that Mormonism is not a Christian religion and that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon.
This poem is dedicated to him.  
Signed:
One of the Whore’s assiduous and dedicated customers.

Use the "comment" utility to add on what you think is appropriate.
ODE TO THE WHORE OF BABYLON

She is old, but still turning tricks, age after age,
Era after era, forever present on center stage.
To some she should have long ago been dead,
To others her survival and her zeal bring real dread.

I, proud child of this misnamed, renowned mother
Present before you, friend, enemy and even brother,
The munificent generosity with which this universal woman
Has blessed, and blesses the world, material and human.

It is thanks to the Great Whore that the world is blessed indeed
With the integrity of the unbreakable, unshakable creed
Built on the Faith that the crown of King David is Her crown alone
Bequeathed by Her original, foundational lover 


Her gifts to the nations include Alighieri and Buonarrotti,
Chrysostom, Francis, Jerome, Da Vinci, Verdi and Gregory.
She helps our worship along with simple, sweet plainchant sound
Which raises our soul to the heights where God is found. 

From her was born the book that we all treasure
And read every day with devotion and pleasure.
For centuries she has welcomed and housed the poor,
The orphans, the infirm, the sick, anyone who’se at the door.

She has lived in the hottest of the world’s deserts.
She has protected life that was saved in the Ark’s berths.
She has warmly embraced the children of this world,
Keeping them warm in her arms, tight to her bosom curled.

She has been the refuge of soldier and widow alike
Infirm, weak of body and mind she’d never dislike,
She has always bent low and stretched a way up high
in search of the rich, the poor, the brash and the shy.

Imagine the energy that it takes to keep going this long
And still be frowned upon with disdain ever so strong
By those who, rather than enjoy her charms ever divine,
From their cold margins the warmth of her love do malign.

No doubt that the ability to attract this tsunami of vitriol
While remaining attractive, loving, kind and above it all,
Is without a doubt a sign that she is indeed the faithful bride  
Of the God-Son whose Spirit in her great soul doth abide.

It is this accomplishment ever so miraculous
That in their proximity ever so perilous
The gates of Dante’s great inferno quite sulfurous
Will never, ever take Her away from any of us.

SHACKING UP vs TYING THE KNOT -- WHAT'LL YOU HAVE?

Attack against marriage?  Really?  Not mine, for sure.  Those who shack up don't do it in my house, so I'm safe.  What about yours?  Do you feel attacked?  It all depends.
These days the language is not quite so crude as that which appears in the title.  These days we are more evasive with our language if not with our morality.  We rarely use the words "cohabitate"or "concubinage" or even just plain old "shack up."  We hear, "Living together."  "Yeah, she and I decided to move in together."  Actually, they moved in under the sheets.  After all, it was Winter.  98.5 degrees of body heat comes free and you have to pay for gas and electric.  It's cohabitation also when two people of the same sex do it together.  That's always interesting, but believe me, it is not an attack on MY marriage.  Nope.  Not for one single minute.  Better than that though is when you hear that two pages from the grammar book move in together.  You know, you have two same gender beings snuggled together on a cute, quiet library shelf.  I wonder what it feels like to have to iron out the wrinkles from the English feminine page so that the Italian pagina feminina  won't be rubbed the wrong way?  That is not an attack on my marriage because in my house we are hot blooded animals with sex on our minds, not grammar.  Ouch! I forgot to mention, we are married too.  None of that cohabitation stuff for us.  Uh, Unh, we have settled down.  It's nice now too, we have the house all to ourselves.  We don't even have to wrap our towel around our wrinkled bodies on the way to the shower.  That's not cohabitation.  That's not concubinage.  That's pure, outright conjugal community life.  Pure sex.  Devoid of grammar.  Morally acceptable, even according to majority community standards.  Not only that, even Catholics can do it and still not feel guilty.  Now ain't THAT something?  Yep.  No scandal there.  Except, of course, if you're against misogynistic matrimony.
That's what we have.  Big word that only means that I "glow in the dark" and she doesn't.
The point here, boys and girls, feminines and masculines, is that any housing arrangement that is not marriage is immoral.  That means that it is wrong.  In Catholic terms, it is a sin.   It is a habitual sin, so it leaves you out of the church's sacramental life.
The attack on marriage is a myth.  The real attack is on the conscience of the population at large.  So many people of good faith are forced to live in the condition of "loving the sinner and hating the sin" that after a while the moral fabric of the entire world starts to wear thin.  That's the attack.
The attack is not even the government's legalizing same sex [same gender?] marriage.  That's a taxation issue on the one hand, and, as such, innocuous enough.  On the other hand, the vicious and dangerous part of it is that the population then forms a conscience about this legalized cohabitation that confuses the righteousness of real marriage with the insane immorality of legalized cohabitation.  [The technical religious moral word for cohabitation is concubinage.]  So, the attack is not on marriage.  That's the wrong language. The real attack is essentially against the collective conscience of the world.
I know.  I communicate with people in several countries.  Slowly but surely the ability to recognize the difference between right and wrong is weakening.  This is true of the ability to recognize objective right and wrong as well as the ability to recognize and accept community standards of right and wrong and match them up in order to manage human life effectively and stay on the path of justice and righteousness.
So, don't try telling me that as a married guy I cohabitate with my wife.  That is pure bullshit.  I am married to my wife.  Twice.  Once in city hall and once in church.  That's enough to confirm me in my community life and save me from concubinage.  it also is enough to confirm us as male and female, not as masculine and feminine.