Getting published; Situation Normal

So, I got a call from my agent last Wednesday.  He called at 9pm, and we started talking.



At the moment, it looks a  lot like it's Situation Normal.   And, for those who do not know military acronyms, Situation Normal are the first two words of SNAFU.



On the one hand, my agent is having a grand old time selling projects. As long as they're nonfiction.



And, as you might recall, while A Pius Man has historical elements all over the darned place, it's contained within a framework of a thriller. Which puts me in a new acronym: SOL.



However, my agent suggested I try writing something in nonfiction. Maybe even Young Adult nonfiction.  Maybe something in Ethics, or Religion, or something like that. Something that parents would want their kids to read.  And, after all, I have been spending large parts of my time writing religion articles for Examiner.com.



So ... any thoughts?



Seriously, you folks are the most non-partisan observers I know. Do you think I should write more articles on Catholicism, only make it into a non-fiction book? I can call it Snarky Theology, 101.



There's also the wonderful world of IRA songs. I had an entire thesis in graduate school around Irish rebel songs. Between the text and the appendix, that was almost 150 pages. I would only need about 90 more pages to have a full book ready.



And, there's philosophy. Yes, philosophy. I can literally rewrite philosophy for the basic consumption of the general population. I am snarky by nature, after all.



For those of you who think I should be writing a nonfiction book on Pius XII .... no. Because I'd rather write a novel that people would read than be lost in the shuffle of the two dozen books on the subject.



So, what do you think I should try? Irish rebel songs? Snarky theology? Philosophy? Ethics? Something else all together?  Give me a comment with your thoughts on the matter.

Extremists, Atheists, and Jesus Freaks.

In previous articles having to do with politics, I have described myself as apathetic, or left or right depending on where the jury is from. I hate all politics, so I could be summed up as fair and mentally unbalanced.



What about religion? The same rules apply.



If anyone is familiar with the George Carlin routine [link rated R for language] about religion, it involves him talking about the Invisible Man in the Sky, and He Wants MONEY. When I first saw it, I thought it was hilarious. A nice little parody of the Catholic church when he was growing up.



Then I discovered that it's what he believed. Him, Bill Maher, and a whole bunch of other people.



Now, it could be that I'm a snob. My BA in philosophy might as well have been in Catholic philosophy. My father with the PhD in catholic Philosophy taught me more about the faith than my Catholic schools ever did. I get the impression that if my education mirrored George Carlin's, I'd turn out much like him. I would like to think that I could do my own research to learn what was going on, but who knows.



Atheists do not annoy me. Seriously. Two of my friends are atheists. One was my best friend before she went crazy with extremist politics—I was going crazy with PhD studies at the time, so that didn't help either.



My other atheist acquaintance is the primary artist for this website, Matt. He says he's a militant atheist. I disagree. If only because I've met militant atheists, and they have hated my guts for no other reason than I am religious. They couldn't do something reasonable like get to know me and my personality quirks before they hated me.



And I love those hate-filled nutjobs. Truly I do. They're amusing. If only because they spend a lot of them telling me what I think. It's sort of like my political article. I try to tell people what I believe politically, and from one sentence (usually a half sentence) they leap to amazing conclusions about what I think, what I believe, and why I believe it. They're funny as heck.



Then again, I may have a strange sense of humor.



So, what annoys me? If I blame George Carlin on bad education, and Bill Maher on being … himself, really … and I find Anti-Catholic twits a source of amusement, then what exactly would set me off in terms of religion?



1) Anti-Theists: a segment of the population that isn't talked about very often, Anti-Theists are exactly as the title says, they are against believers. My friend Matt may believe that religions are stupid, or that the bulk of religious people are stupid, but he doesn't hate my guts because of my faith. There are folks who have suggested that children should be taken away from believers just because they believe; or that Christians should be charged with child abuse because they tell their children that Jesus Loves Them. Anti-Theists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris believe that those who believe in God are dangerous, even criminal. I congratulate Dawkins, Harris and their ilk on making discrimination and bigotry acceptable.



2) The Politically Correct. The Transportation Safety Authority is on everyone's list recently, so I see no reason to leave them out of my list of irritants. Recently, a front group for the terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood had trained the Transportation Security Officers of Los Angeles International Airport in how to be “sensitive” to members of Islam. I particularly enjoyed where “if a woman wears hijab and needs a secondary screening she should be screened in a private area by a female TSO officer.”

I like the headgear on the TSA offical.

However, they can give patdowns to nuns in public.



My main quibble there is that they can either accommodate all religions equally, or they can leave religion out of the equation. It strikes me as racist and bigoted: Why be sensitive to the religious of Islam and not Christians? Are Muslims somehow more sensitive than Christians or even Jews?



Again, it may just be me, but when I'm told “We have to give Muslims special treatment,” what I hear is: “We're going to patronize the poor sensitive little darlings, pat them on the head, and accommodate their ignorance so we can show how enlightened we are.”



Like I said, I find it demeaning and racist. It could just be me.



3) Anti-Christmas people. Fine, you don't like commercialism, good for you, neither do I. If you actually believe that Christmas is the season for love, peace on Earth, etc, and you dislike the crass commercialism of the season, I'm with you. Let's get together and sing Christmas carols down the street.

If you think that my wishing you “Merry Christmas” somehow means that I am demeaning you, you are an idiot. And you are probably looking to be offended. I say Happy Hannukah, and I say Merry Christmas, and I might even be persuaded to say happy Kwansa if I ever find somebody who follows that particular day. If you do not like it, feel free to complain. The complaint department in on the right



4) People who should know better, but lie. Earlier posts in this blog about the origins of the novel have mentioned how I came across people who researched on the Pius XII situation, noted the books they used, and spun a yawn that directly contradict the facts. Liars with an agenda … they tend to irritate me.



5) Jesus Freaks. You know who I mean. The people I mentioned in a previous post, where they're not interested in what you believe in, or what you have to say, they just wish to talk you to death with whatever rote lines of dialogue they have. They start with “Have you accepted Jay-sus Christ your own personal savior?” And, regardless of what you answer, they will push on as though you haven't spoken. Then we whip out the tazer and make them slightly crispy. I prefer atheists like Daniel Dennett. He's at least reasonable. I prefer atheists like Matt, or like my former friend Colleen; they may not like religion, but they usually point at reasonable problems.



In short, I dislike the willfully-ignorant and the mean-spirited. 



But, I suppose it comes down to "Who doesnt?"

Extremists, Atheists, and Jesus Freaks.

In previous articles having to do with politics, I have described myself as apathetic, or left or right depending on where the jury is from. I hate all politics, so I could be summed up as fair and mentally unbalanced.

What about religion? The same rules apply.

If anyone is familiar with the George Carlin routine [link rated R for language] about religion, it involves him talking about the Invisible Man in the Sky, and He Wants MONEY. When I first saw it, I thought it was hilarious. A nice little parody of the Catholic church when he was growing up.

Then I discovered that it's what he believed. Him, Bill Maher, and a whole bunch of other people.

Now, it could be that I'm a snob. My BA in philosophy might as well have been in Catholic philosophy. My father with the PhD in catholic Philosophy taught me more about the faith than my Catholic schools ever did. I get the impression that if my education mirrored George Carlin's, I'd turn out much like him. I would like to think that I could do my own research to learn what was going on, but who knows.

Atheists do not annoy me. Seriously. Two of my friends are atheists. One was my best friend before she went crazy with extremist politics—I was going crazy with PhD studies at the time, so that didn't help either.

My other atheist acquaintance is the primary artist for this website, Matt. He says he's a militant atheist. I disagree. If only because I've met militant atheists, and they have hated my guts for no other reason than I am religious. They couldn't do something reasonable like get to know me and my personality quirks before they hated me.

And I love those hate-filled nutjobs. Truly I do. They're amusing. If only because they spend a lot of them telling me what I think. It's sort of like my political article. I try to tell people what I believe politically, and from one sentence (usually a half sentence) they leap to amazing conclusions about what I think, what I believe, and why I believe it. They're funny as heck.



Then again, I may have a strange sense of humor.



So, what annoys me? If I blame George Carlin on bad education, and Bill Maher on being … himself, really … and I find Anti-Catholic twits a source of amusement, then what exactly would set me off in terms of religion?

1) Anti-Theists: a segment of the population that isn't talked about very often, Anti-Theists are exactly as the title says, they are against believers. My friend Matt may believe that religions are stupid, or that the bulk of religious people are stupid, but he doesn't hate my guts because of my faith. There are folks who have suggested that children should be taken away from believers just because they believe; or that Christians should be charged with child abuse because they tell their children that Jesus Loves Them. Anti-Theists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris believe that those who believe in God are dangerous, even criminal. I congratulate Dawkins, Harris and their ilk on making discrimination and bigotry acceptable.

2) The Politically Correct. The Transportation Safety Authority is on everyone's list recently, so I see no reason to leave them out of my list of irritants. Recently, a front group for the terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood had trained the Transportation Security Officers of Los Angeles International Airport in how to be “sensitive” to members of Islam. I particularly enjoyed where “if a woman wears hijab and needs a secondary screening she should be screened in a private area by a female TSO officer.”

I like the headgear on the TSA offical.

However, they can give patdowns to nuns in public.

My main quibble there is that they can either accommodate all religions equally, or they can leave religion out of the equation. It strikes me as racist and bigoted: Why be sensitive to the religious of Islam and not Christians? Are Muslims somehow more sensitive than Christians or even Jews?

Again, it may just be me, but when I'm told “We have to give Muslims special treatment,” what I hear is: “We're going to patronize the poor sensitive little darlings, pat them on the head, and accommodate their ignorance so we can show how enlightened we are.”

Like I said, I find it demeaning and racist. It could just be me.

3) Anti-Christmas people. Fine, you don't like commercialism, good for you, neither do I. If you actually believe that Christmas is the season for love, peace on Earth, etc, and you dislike the crass commercialism of the season, I'm with you. Let's get together and sing Christmas carols down the street.

If you think that my wishing you “Merry Christmas” somehow means that I am demeaning you, you are an idiot. And you are probably looking to be offended. I say Happy Hannukah, and I say Merry Christmas, and I might even be persuaded to say happy Kwansa if I ever find somebody who follows that particular day. If you do not like it, feel free to complain. The complaint department in on the right

4) People who should know better, but lie. Earlier posts in this blog about the origins of the novel have mentioned how I came across people who researched on the Pius XII situation, noted the books they used, and spun a yawn that directly contradict the facts. Liars with an agenda … they tend to irritate me.

5) Jesus Freaks. You know who I mean. The people I mentioned in a previous post, where they're not interested in what you believe in, or what you have to say, they just wish to talk you to death with whatever rote lines of dialogue they have. They start with “Have you accepted Jay-sus Christ your own personal savior?” And, regardless of what you answer, they will push on as though you haven't spoken. Then we whip out the tazer and make them slightly crispy. I prefer atheists like Daniel Dennett. He's at least reasonable. I prefer atheists like Matt, or like my former friend Colleen; they may not like religion, but they usually point at reasonable problems.

In short, I dislike the willfully-ignorant and the mean-spirited.

But, I suppose it comes down to "Who doesnt?"

DADT, Gay Marriage: Who cares?

Last week wasn't very good as far as blog posts went. And I'm sorry for that. This week, I've got three posts already written.  This one is considered "timely," as my Examiner.com editors like to say.



A while ago, I wrote an article about gay marriage in New York.  It was entitled: Gay Marriage, so what?  I suspect you can guess what my general conclusions were.



I collect all sorts of weird articles, and magazines.  On the one hand, I could read Guns and Ammo, then the Spring catalog for a major publisher, then Time Magazine (until they went anti-Semite), the list goes on.



One such magazine is Salute, the magazine of the archdiocese for the military services, USA.



Yes, the military has their own archdiocese.



In their Summer, 2011 issue, there was a statement from Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, the Archbishop for USA military services.

His statement was two pages long, and here's an excerpt ...

"The church is unwavering in her commitment to the pastoral care of all persons in need, regardless of sexual inclination or anything else.  All people in need are served by Catholc Chaplains with zeal and passion for bringing the reality of the Risen Lord to all.  Whether Don't ask don't tell persists or not is immaterial to that bedrock principle.  The faithful .... must never forget that those with a homosexual inclination must be treated with the respect worthy of their human dignity."  [Typed by hand, any typos are mine]

In short: that's nice, we don't care if they're outed, it doesn't matter to us.



The message then cited Federal law (1 USC subection 7)... which I believe is commonly known as the defense of marriage act (DOMA).



So, "yes, you have DADT repealed. Who cares? We don't like it, but we're not going to marry gays, and you're not going to make us. We can continue, business as usual."  Everyone can move on.



Which is pretty much what I said the first time about gay marriage.



It's so nice when the Catholic Church listens to me.

[More below the break]



Then, on September 30th, the Pentagon issued an order allowing all military clergy to perform gay marriage ceremonies ....



The response of Broglio?  It's pretty much the same. Not to mention, there is still DOMA.  It's a federal law.  How can a federal agency allow the existence of something that, legally, does not exist at the federal level?



And, come April, 2012, what will happen when all of the gay married couples file joint income tax? The IRS cannot acknowledge them -- the IRS is a federal agency.  Accountant friends (and relative) are already saying that the IRS will not accept joint filings from any of the new marriages from New York (et al) between two men, or two women.



Not to mention .... the military has bases all over the 50 states. Gay marriage is only passed in about ... Five? (CA, VT, MA, NY, HI).  Isn't that a bit of a problem? And arguing that they are federal institutions is a problem, when you consider that, again, DOMA is federal law. State laws do not matter in this instance.



Is it just me, or did someone not think this through?



As I said the first time: I'll start to care about gay marriage when someone comes after religion in its name.



I don't care just yet. Initial reports of this story said that "military chaplains are being forced to marry homosexual couples."  I cared for about five minutes, then I looked for more footnotes.



However, now that I found that it "allowed" gay marriage, instead of "requiring" clergy to perform them, I'm back to not caring. Though the legal situation is going to be hilarious.

Why I hate politics (Cont): Oslo terrorist a "Christian." Not.

Last week, I took a look at the Norway terrorist, and I labeled the article "Nazis, I hate these guys," because everything I had read about this guy meant that he was so far to the right, he was starting to orbit the planet.  And I was waiting for someone credible to label everyone on one side of politics (Republicans) for it.

The New York Times did not fail to disappoint.

This scumbag's name is Anders Behring Breivik.  The New York Times claimed that the Norwegian who staged two deadly attacks in Oslo was a "gun-loving," "right-wing," "fundamentalist Christian," opposed to "multiculturalism."

Well, that didn't take long.

Last week, there were fewer posts. There were no music blogs, and I failed to post on Thursday. Why?  Because I was trying to go through Breivik's gaseous 1,500-page manifesto, "2083: A European Declaration of Independence."

Dear God, this man is a windbag.  And he's about as "Christian" as Richard Dawkins.  Matt is more a Christian that this guy is.  At least in the traditional, American sense. [Read Below the break for more]

Muslims Can't Be Good Americans ..... Huh?

A long while ago, I discussed one Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter. He was, at the very least, one of the candidates most likely to be kicked out of the US Army, having given a June 2007 PowerPoint presentation that discussed “adverse events” that would occur if the Army did not accept the precepts of Islamic Shariah law and grant Muslims serving in the Army conscientious objector status.

I'm sure Maj. Hasan would be quite, quite happy to learn that the US Army has now taken his advise.

Enter Pfc. Naser Abdo, 21, a member of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky. He refused to deploy to Afghanistan, claiming that Sharia law prevented him from killing other Muslims.....

Ahem ....

Let's start with the fact that Sharia is the sort of thing used in Sudan to justify hacking off limbs for theft, stoning for adultery, and crucifying members of other religions.  This is the sort of thing that makes you arch an eyebrow and wonder "What the....?"  

All in all, this is a generally Bad Idea.

Not to mention that it is pure and utter garbage.[More below the break]

Gay Marriage: So What?

Gay marriage was deemed legal in New York State over the past weekend....

As someone who's spent a lot of time on this blog doing Catholicism for dummies, I guess I would be expected to comment on this sort of thing.

To which one part of my says ... "So what?"  My personal politics says who cares. I don't care what anyone else does as long as they don't harm anyone else. I'm a little libertarian that way.  In fact, I had proposed a few times that we just make all "marriages" properly labeled.  Atheists and gays can have civil unions (because, really, marriage should be something religious). and anyone who can get married in a church can get married in any church that will have them. The End.

[More below the break]

"Atheists are Right." or: Jesus Freaks Scare Me.

Atheists have a point … or some of them do, anyway.



When originally looking at Marx, or Nietzsche, I figured that they had no idea what they were talking about. I do not use my Deity as a drug. I don't hold onto an image of someone being tortured to death on a set of 2x4s because I'm afraid of the dark. I don't use my faith as an excuse to not think, in fact, just the opposite.



I can give you reasons for my beliefs. I could tell you I think there's a God because of this thing called causality (IE: cause and effect … what's the cause of the Big Bang?). I can tell you I believe in an historical figure called Jesus, because there are records from that time period. There is more evidence for a carpenter named Jesus from Nazareth than there is for Hannibal of Carthage waging war against the Roman Empire (Hannibal was only written about a hundred years later, Jesus from the same generation, and was noted by Roman authorities).



I can give a bunch of reasons why I believe different elements of my faith, but as I've said before, I'm not here to convert one single person. Educate, sure, convert, no.



I'm relatively certain that I would not change one element of my life if I were an atheist. So, Marx, Nietzsche, sorry if I've disabused you 19th century pinheads of any fantasies you have.



Unfortunately, as I'm exposed to more of the world, I have to admit that atheists have a few points.



Yes, you read the title of the blog correctly. I'm Catholic, and Jesus freaks worry me. Seriously, how many people have had religious folks force their faith on you? There is a difference between someone having a civil conversation with you, and someone abusing you with a bible.



Let me be clear. If someone asks, “Is Jesus your personal savior?” and you say yes, and they leave you alone, that's one thing. I find it strange when anyone actually asks me that sort of thing at all, but if they ask, accept my answer, and leave, great.



If you're an atheist or a non-Christian, you say no, and they start a civil discussion with you, that's also great. Talking and reasoning are good things.



However, if they continue to talk at you as if you hadn't spoken, or they start by narrowing down what church you go to, on which street corner, then, Houston, we have a problem.



When it is no longer a conversation, but someone trying to shove a bible down your throat, it's time to break out the taser.



As I've said before, I'm a little strange. So, I'm going to provide some context.



Growing up, I learned more about religion from the novels of Fr. Andrew Greeley, and from my father the philosophy professor, than I ever did from any Catholic school instructor. In fact, a lot of what they had taught me was either inaccurate, or outright fraudulent. I had always thought it was my school, nothing personal, just a bunch of morons. I could go on, move on, have a nice life.



I figured that my upbringing in Catholic school was an anomaly, and that more people were like me.



Recently, I've gotten the impression that it's not going as well as I would like.



One friend told me about how she was Protestant at a (very) small Catholic college in California, and they considered burning her at the stake as a heretic. Fail.



They also didn't believe in reading the bible, “That's the priest's job.” That wasn't even a position held five hundred years ago.  On the one hand, vernacular translations SUCKED in the middle ages, and on the other-- do you know how expensive it is to write a bible, by hand, on lambskin (vellum)?  The Bible was chained down in church, but if you could read it, knock yourself out.  Here's a hint to these modern fellas, the bible has been revised and translated, if you can read, you're allowed to read an authorized and footnoted copy. You're a few centuries late. Serious fail.



Recently, Matt was told on his Facebook page “My God is better than no God.” Epic fail. (Two words for you, buddy: Allahu Akbar.)



Now, I may be an anomaly. Most of my friends are Jewish. My first ex is a Wiccan who had not yet come out of the broom closet. My best friend for nearly a decade was an atheist. Matt, who has created all of the good artwork around A Pius Man, another atheist. Frankly, I think some of these people are better Catholics than I am, from an ethical viewpoint. As I have explained before, I don't think being an atheist is grounds for you to be in any serious danger of having a crappy afterlife.



Also, religiously, I'm a bit of a libertarian. I don't care if you go to Hell. If you are in serious danger of going to hell, then you're probably not someone I want to be within a ten foot radius of. Being a complete jerk who commits felonies for fun … yeah, I most likely don't want to talk to you.



If you are a different sort of believer, and actually would like to convert people, let's have a conversation, shall we?



Step one: realize that atheists have valid points. For example, Marx made the infamous comment that religion is the opiate of the masses. It's not particularly true for me. I've been to enough masses where I've wanted to throw the books at the priest because his sermon was more about him than about what was in the Gospel.



However, there are people who can read a Bible, and the words go through their eyes and out their mouths without it ever going through their brains. The words become rote, mantras without understanding.



Marx is right, some people use the bible as a drug, to avoid the pressures of THOUGHT. How many? I have no idea. Though they seem to get a lot of the press. (Paging Mr. Phelps.)



And more of us than we would like can see where Nietzsche had a point. His entire “God is dead, you killed him, and you haven't even noticed” riff … I would like a show of hands. How many people have gone to services, listened to a sermon about peace and love, and “everyone get along with each other,” only to go out into the parking lot and see all of the people you attended services with try to commit vehicular manslaughter?  God is dead, they "killed" Him, and no one noticed ... call it a metaphor for our behavior.



Step two: Rodney Stark, who has done a sociology of early Christianity, has come up with various reasons why the faith was such a success even before Constantine made it an official state religion. The number one reason is simple: people saw how Christians treated one another, and they wanted to be a part of that. One big example is that there had been an outbreak of plague during the first few hundred years of Christianity. The major caregivers were Christians. They didn't run, they didn't evacuate the area and save their own behind from the plague. They stayed, and they took care of the sick and the dying, even when doctors had fled. I believe the biblical passages you want involve bushel baskets.



If you are a great big believer in (pick your faith here), live out the principles to the best of your abilities. Set yourself up as an example, and not on a pedestal. If you seriously think that atheists are in danger of going directly to hell, and need to be targeted, can I suggest something?



Be passionate without being insane.



Be reasoned, and educated, and know what the hell you're talking about. Know what the latest counter-arguments are so you're not just yelling at them.



Otherwise, you're just a freak, and not one of the good kind....



And, if they're yelling at you for being reasoned and rational, just run. It'll be easier on everybody.



Anyway, eventually, I will discuss atheists a bit.  Just so I can be fair and mentally unbalanced.  As usual. :)

Rapture: Hawking says there is no Heaven. Good.

Last week, high priest of atheism Stephen Hawking said there was no Heaven. He couldn't find it, and couldn't prove it was there. Therefore, there isn't any.



Good.



Why good? Well, before I answer that, I should point out that Hawking also said that he couldn't prove Heaven wasn't there, which is honest of him. Considering that Heaven, should it exist, is a metaphysical location, should Dr. Hawking find anything resembling Heaven, I would be seriously worried.



It's sort of like if someone could point to a box and say "There's God."



I'm sorry, but for something to claim to be my deity, it would have to be unlimited in scope... ie: God doesn't fit in a box.



Besides, Hawking is not in the religion business, no matter how many ways he tries to interject himself into the matter. Were he to fall back on a supernatural explanation for anything, that would be bad science. God doesn't fit into an equation, can't be experimented on, tested, retested, or submitted to any version of any scientific method.



For example, there's the Big Bang. There is evidence for such an explosion to kick-start the universe. Communications satellites have picked up signals that are, in essence, "echoes" of the Big Bang. However, the amount of things that we know about the big bang aren't accurate; most of what we know about it is supposition. People have theorized about what happened based on the results: as in "in order for X to have happened, Y must have occured at Z seconds within the event itself."



If any scientist says "We think there's a God, because we can't figure it out otherwise," that is a cheat. That isn't science. The best a scientist can get away with is "It looks like a bloody miracle, but give us time, we'll figure it out." Using God as a placeholder in a theory is cheating.



However, in the case of Hawking, I object when he objects his atheism into his science.



Hawking has come up with several theories on how the universe started; from what I can recall, all of them throw out the Big Bang. I think the simplest way for me to explain it would be to say that the universe is a self-sustaining temporal loop where the Universe simply goes and starts itself repeatedly...



I think I heard that theory on Star Trek once, only they made it sound more believable.



Self-sustaining temporal loops? Really? It's a theory that tosses out a basic principle of science, namely "cause and effect." It's a theory that has no evidence, and not even his mechanical voice box can make me believe it. It's bad science. Why would Hawking say something so stupid?



The sad thing is, the only reason I could come up with is that, if there is an effect, like the Big Bang, there must be a cause. And, right now, the best guess could be, hmm, God.



A suggestion to Dr. Hawking: make a better guess. You've thrown out what scant evidence there is that points to the origin of the universe, and you've stolen a plotline from a science fiction show for a replacement theory. Fail.  You're a physicist trying to deal in metaphysics. Major Fail. You should not be able to succeed. If you are honestly putting mental energy into this, you do have better things to do with your life.



Seriously, if a PhD in philosophy tried to pass himself off as an expert in quantum physics, he would be laughed off the stage. Why Hawking thinks he can get away with the reverse is beyond me. Even Hawking's (Catholic) wife told him, "Oh, Stephen, leave God alone."



And, should Hawking find a place and call it Heaven, I'll believe that like I believed the rapture would come last Saturday. And how did that work out for everyone?



Anyway ... I think the below is a better use of science than Hawking wasting his time "disproving God." And, this is a lot cooler. Thanks go out to the lovely and talented Rebekah Hendershot, of Masks for showing me this one.

What Do You Mean There's Philosophy in A Pius Man?

I'm a simple fellow. Simpleminded, at times. Which is why there are a lot of people who know me and say, “I can't really believe you have a degree in philosophy. You don't spout out gibberish about how the table isn't a table..”

Hegel never looked

this good.

I understand that. I do, really. Try to read Hegel, and you get stuff about consciousness-- which is the key turning point of his entire philosophy-- and you basically get gibberish, since his terms are undefined. (If you are a science fiction fan, look up Minbari theology on Babylon 5, Hegel is the same babble, only without the reincarnation bit). Read Descartes, who basically said that you had to look at every little thing with a highly skeptical eye, and start with what you know for absolute certainty, concluding that the only thing you can ever really know for certain is that “I exist,” the rest is negotiable. (Popularly known as “I think therefore I am.” Does not cover instances of drivers during rush hour, who obviously don't think, but are real enough to get you killed.)



I'm sorry, Mr. Descartes, I'm slow and stupid. If I get hit in the head with a rock, I'm going to think that the rock is real. And that someone threw it at me. And that I will have to hurt someone.



Which is why I am a Thomist.



At which point the audience asks, “A what now?”



Short version: you are a follower of the philosophical thought of Thomas Aquinas. A lot of it is rather basic stuff that starts with, “Something is either A or not A. It cannot be both at the same time.” Tom is alive, or Tom is dead .....  or Tom is a zombie, which makes that neither “A” or “not A,” but B. Possible C.



Thomas Aquinas is basically Aristotle, the Catholic version. He's a little dry, and he's not colorful, but he's very straightforward and to the point. Aquinas works through some very common sense ideas, building up to metaphysical conclusions over many many volumes. It's very neat, very orderly, written by someone who reasoned his way up to his faith. He even tries to use the latest in science at the time …



Yes, Thomas Aquinas was a medieval philosopher, so his science kinda sucks at times. A lot of philosophers have come to the same conclusions while updating the science of Aquinas' day, but if I were to base my faith on the latest science, I'd change my faith every other year. (Right now, I think we're on Newton, revised by Einstein, revised by Quantum physics, should we ever fully understand that.)



However, Thomas Aquinas came up with the idea that “the universe is unlimited, but bounded.”



What the hell does that mean?



Simple: there is nothing outside the universe to limit it, but it only goes so far.



But, Thomas Aquinas was jettisoned five hundred years ago, so who cares … ?



Answer: Albert Einstein, who probably never even heard of Aquinas, came up with the same conclusions. About seven hundred years later. And, apparently, we can see the outer limit of the Big Bang, but there is nothing beyond that, so the universe is bounded … huh. Amazing what you toss away when you just ignore everything between Ancient Rome and the Enlightenment, isn't it?



At the end of the day, I think St. Thomas Aquinas should be the patron saint of Nerds, if we ever get a Pope who's been to a science fiction convention.



We have all sorts of oddballs in the rogues gallery of Catholic Saints. St. Augustine, who had a youth that makes Paris Hilton look like a nun; who later seemed to find no joy in anything but the Divine (sort of like a former smoker who has decided to ban smoking … then go after smokers …).



Then there was St. Francis of Assisi, who found joy in nature, and animals, and other people, and who was generally so happy and perky, he'd probably be a morning person, and who needs that, I ask you …?



But, like I said, this is Thomas Aquinas....



No, Charlton Heston did not play him in the movie. That was Thomas More, England, 1500s. A Man for All Seasons. Given the axe because he wouldn't put King Henry VIII before God.



No, Richard Burton didn't play him in the movie. That was Thomas Beckett, England, 1100s. Beckett.[See the sequel film, A Lion in Winter.] Killed because he wouldn't put King Henry II before God.



This is Thomaso di Aquino. Aquinas. He didn't go out and do things. You couldn't make a movie of his life if you wanted to ... unless you wanted a really boring movie.



When Aquinas said he wanted to go into the seminary, his parents locked him in his room and sent in a hooker to loosen him up. He talked one into converting, and, later on, he chased out a second prostitute with a bit of torch wood that he picked up from the lit fireplace. Depending on who you talked to, he was either built like a linebacker, or built like Friar Tuck (there are theories that he started all of the fat jokes about himself, including that the brothers at his residence cut a crescent into the dining table just to seat his stomach.).



He was a saint who would speed-walk around the monastery to think. Some have described his walking patterns as being akin to a train in motion.  Though he did come up with the moral justification of the Belfast Acquittal (also known as a jail break) -- he reasoned that the job of the guards was to keep the convicts in, it was not the job of the convicts to stay put.



And what does any of this have to do with A Pius Man?



Very simple: there won't be any deep, incomprehensible lines of thought. There is philosophy, theology, and history in the novel … but it is all about as deep as “a rock flew at my head. It is real. Someone threw it, and now I have to hurt them.”



I believe in black and white and shades of gray. It's called being a meliorist – which is a fancy way of saying I believe in black and white and shades of gray … theologically, it breaks down into “see everything, overlook much, improve a little.”



Though there are really no shades of gray in the case of Pius XII – the Pope either knew and did nothing, knew and did something, or didn't know. However, if a Pope who had been the former Secretary of State didn't know what was going on in the world at large, something is wrong somewhere. Shades of gray, removed. At some point, Pope Pius XII knew about the Holocaust.



However, I wouldn't even consider trying to compare Pius XII's actions to those of the other world powers of his day. Why? Because no one did anything about the death camps, and these were world leaders with whole armies. By that standard, Pius XII could have slept through the war and still have done more for refugees in Europe. (The United States, like most British properties at the time, closed its borders to new immigrants from Europe during World War II, so they were a negative)



The book has often been described as slipping in history, theology, and philosophy in between the gunshots. I would hate to have anyone put off by that. My philosophy and theology are tightly intertwined. This novel is not so esoteric that you will go cross-eyed reading it. If you fall asleep reading it, that would probably mean that I fell asleep writing it, and I stayed awake through the whole thing. Honest.

The complete stories of A Pius Man.

After trying to keep track of everything on this page, I decided to do a little sorting.  In this blog will be every short story in the canon of A Pius Man.  Every short story, every promotion, and every short story by memo.

And, yes, this will be updated as time goes on.



As of now, this is every single story of A Pius Man.







1. The Secret Service Is Sent to Rome: One of my first promotions, when I wrote "memos of A Pius Man."  The Secret Service is known all over the world as the best protectors the world over. The new, security conscious, Pope wants to have the Secret Service audit his security. How'd you like that assignment?



The Secret Service is Sent to Rome



2.  Another from the memos series.  WE HAVE A POPE! was supposed to be about the dawn of a new age in the Catholic church ... or at least the dawn of a new papacy.  This pope was created because I wanted someone who people at large could look at and wonder: He's as right wing as Attila the Hun, and Fox news loves him, what could he be capable of?



WE HAVE A POPE. The Election of Pope Pius XIII



3. Resumes and Emails.  This is the very first promo of the memos series: The resume of one Sean Ryan.  It was supposed to cast doubts about what was going on at the Vatican.  You'll see that there's good reason for it.



A Pius Man Memos, First Promo -- Resumes and emails.



4. The Mossad in Rome. The memos series has only one more to go after this.  Scott "Mossad" Murphy is in Rome on the trail of a dead terrorist-- if only to find out whether or not his killer was doing everyone a favor, or if they were up to something far more sinister.    This is what happens when you send Mossad To Rome



A Pius Man: Mossad In Rome.





5. The Inside Man.  For any good conspiracy-thriller-mystery, you need a traitor. After all, why make it easy for the heroes to get anything done?  This is a text from a higher up in the conspiracy to the insider. If I'm really good at this, I won't tell you anything that you can't figure out from the first 50 pages of the novel. And if I'm VERY good at this, I'll tell you everything and you won't even know it.





A Pius Man: The Inside Man





6. Erin Go Boom.  This next is a prequel story for A Pius Man, set on St. Patrick's Day. It stars Fr. Francis Williams, a main player in APM -- though as hero or villain, that's a question.  And with a title like Erin Go Boom, you know this will end in gunfire.





Erin Go Boom





7. The Pirate King: Some people are mad, bad, and dangerous to know.  In A Pius Man I have a mercenary who has body counts in the triple digits, and has caused millions in property damage.   This is a tale of what happens when Somali pirates decide to take over the wrong ship.  And The Pirate King faces someone more ruthless than he had ever dreamed.



The Pirate King





8.  Tinker, Tailor, Goyim, Spy. I started a contest in 2010.  When I reached 100 likes, I would post the origin of the character Scott "Mossad" Murphy, an Irish Catholic who works for the Israeli Mossad.  This was how he got in, and how the Mossad's "Goyim Brigade" was born. 



Tinker, Tailor, Goyim, Spy.



9. And last, but not least, the popular "God Hates .... Superman?"  Inspired by my friend R. Hendershot, of Masks.



God Hates... Superman?







More to come.  My next bit of short fiction is my Christmas story .... O Little Town of Bethlehem.  We start with an interrogation at the top of the Empire State Building.  Rope is involved.



UPDATE: I have the "Secret Origins" of my more dangerous characer: Sean A.P. Ryan.  The title is One Way to Stay out of Jail.

John Konecsni likes

A Pius Man: a novel.

Create your Like Badge

Authors I Am Thankful For

Thanksgiving and Black Friday are over. Everyone, welcome back.



This is probably something that should have been posted on Thursday, but everyone was probably busy this weekend.



In my life, few authors have affected me in any way, shape or form. Most of it affected me in a professional manner. From Joseph Garber's Verticle Run, I learned how to start a thriller that didn't stop from start to finish, and while he was recently trumped by Matthew Reilly and James Rollins, Garber is where to start.



Few authors have ever actually had an impact on my life in general. And by few, I mean three. And, technically, I wasn't even the one who really felt the impact for two of the authors … it's a long story.





J. Michael Straczynski.



Way back in the 1990s, there was a television show called Babylon 5. It was a science fiction program that was less about special effects, latex masks and tight body suits, and more an epic about character. It was essentially a filmed novel. Like War and Peace, with one-tenth the cast. It was interesting enough that I would spend time with my family pondering what would happen next.



Along the way, when I was sixteen, I started writing what is unfortunately known as fan fiction. I had written stories based off of throwaway one-liners in the series. And while I touched nothing of the actual series storyline, I had a few concepts that the show didn't expand on, and spun that off into little corners of the universe, and aside from the first two books, it basically became its own series. I started rewriting what was a fan fiction quartet of over two thousand pages, and I'm now on book 6 of a possible 13 that I've outlined...



One of the artifacts I had picked up because of Babylon 5 is a leather bomber jacket. It had a great big gold embroidered 5 on the back, in the style of the show, and the show logo on the front. I have worn it every winter when the temperature dropped below forty, and there was no precipitation. This includes my days in college, when it was just too cold to wear a suit jacket.



One day, in 2001, I walked out of a class called the History of Terrorism, and one classmate had noticed the jacket. We walked and talked across the university's great lawn, past the library, an administrative building, and to the other side of the campus, until my ride literally started the car, pulled up behind me, and flashed his brights at us.



A month ago, I was a groomsman at his wedding.



A few years afterward, during my abortive attempt at a PhD in history, I drove down to a social in Manhattan, wearing the same jacket. Someone behind me said, “Cool jacket, I know that show.” He hasn't stopped talking to me since. Two months ago, I was the best man at his wedding.



Within the past two years, I have been adopted by a fan of Straczynski's comic book work. She was a fellow writer who merely contacted me because she wanted fans for her Myspace page for her own novel. She saw that Straczynski was part of my interests, and thought I might also be interested in her novel, Masks. We're still talking. It's … complicated.







Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman



Once upon a time, I had considered getting a friend of mine a gift for his birthday. The novel was Good Omens, which was essentially Murphy's law as applied to the apocalypse— losing the antichrist, for example. It was fun. Strange as all hell, but fun. Neil Gaiman still insists that he wrote some of the funny parts. I thought my friend would like it.



Meanwhile, in another part of the internet, a woman was trying to remember the title of a novel she had read once upon a time. She signed into her dating website of choice, and came across the novel in my friend's profile. The book was Good Omens.



That relationship culminated in the marriage from two months ago.....



 

I've heard people tell me that reading is an anti-social activity. Obviously, they've been reading the wrong books.

Philosophy, Religion, and Sex.

Dear Pope Benedict, I've been a fan of your career since you worked under John Paul II.  The press hated you because you were hostile to them, and for that I applaud you.  But you have to stop having statements come out so close together, it messes up my schedule.



Last week, I explained why the Catholic Church wanted to hire exorcists.



This week, because no one in the Vatican can shut up, I'm going to try explaining something else that was recently in the news.



The New York Times recently reported that, "Yippie, the Pope is giving in and endorsing condom use."



The old gray hag of The New York Times has, once again, gotten it wrong.  One day, they may actually try to get a theologian to explain theology to them.  Unfortunately, given most theologians, that may not help much.



Let's start at the beginning: Why does the Catholic Church have an issue with condom use?  Or any contraceptives?



It basically involves philosophy ... bare with me a minute, I'll keep it short and comprehensible ... and what is the function of "a thing."  In the case of sex, the mechanism of sex is "insert tab A into slot B."  The "function" of sex is procreation, and a darn good time, if you're doing it correctly.



Contraceptions mess with the natural function of sex by removing elements that are inherent to the act -- procreation comes with sex.  The Vatican position is, that if you mess around with it and start taking out elements, then you are messing around with things that are not yours to mess with.



If you are pondering what the Catholic church's advice is on STD prevention when you have sex with your boy/girlfriend, the Church's position is that you should be having sex with your spouse, only with your spouse, have a nice day, thank you.  Under this rubrick, STDs are not a problem, since if you only ever insert one tab A into one tab B, STDs are not an issue; pregnancy remains in effect, but in the Catholic church, marriage is a contract to have sex, have kids, and spread the spawn around the globe, carrying the faith with it.



You are currently up on previously held positions.



The NY Times said, on November 21st .....

“Pope Benedict XVI has said that condom use can be justified in some cases to help stop the spread of AIDS . . . .”

However, George Wiegel, papal biographer and general Vatican busybody, corrected the Times report.  You can find the full text online, but since that will take forever for you to read, I'm going to translate it for you, gentle reader, into something easily comprehensible.



The pope's actual statement, in context, was during an interview.  The pope mentioned how the Catholic Church runs more AIDS hospitals, and stresses "prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment."  IE: The pope pointed out that, unlike pontificating reporters, the Church actually does something,



The pope even stressed that "we cannot solve the problem [of AIDS] by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease."





The pope continued:

.... people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence–Be Faithful–Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality .... the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

Short version: sex is important, has an effect on a person, and is also for the purpose of expressing love.  Throw in a condom, and you just make it another way to drug yourself into a stupor.




The part where the NYTimes gets confused is probably in the following section:

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

When asked if "the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?"  Pope Benedict XVI answered that "She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality."



Short version: If it's someone infected with AIDS, yes, the Church would rather that they NOT KILL PEOPLE by infecting them further. 



Basically, it's like robbing a bank -- if you rob a bank, the Church would rather have someone use an empty gun; it'll lessen the risk of someone getting their head blown off.



So, despite news reports, the Catholic Church's position hasn't changed.



With luck, we can all move on to something important now.

Terrorists are stupid.

Yes, the title is exaggerated, but you're reading, aren't you?



I must say, though, for the most part, terrorists are not the brightest lights in the night sky.



Think about it. I can plan a better terrorist attack than any of these bozos. So could you.



For example....You want terror? Screw blowing up the World Trade Center—over fifty thousand people worked there, and the WTC could have upwards of 100,000 visitors per day (the magic notebook sees all and retains all). Infect all of them with the bio-weapon of your choice. A little smallpox, for example, maybe plague in the HVAC system. Have it running all day, and you infect both employees and tourists. They, in turn, infect people while going to lunch, on the subway, the ferry, their families, and when tourists go home, they bring it back with them. Being a smart terrorist, you tell the states friendly to you that they should really restrict travel to and from New York, and possibly all of America, period.



By the time the penny drops at the CDC, most of New York City now needs to be quarantined. The economy starts drying up, slowly. Tourism is dead. Fifty thousand jobs in the two buildings are lost, assuming that the employees are not all simply dead.



And I'm not even thinking hard.



Ironically, despite the Wyle E. Coyote explosive in Times Square, the attack itself was the right idea from their point of view. If terrorists want to inspire terror, then small, but frequent, attacks are the way to go. People are scared, frightened, uncertain about what may come around the next corner.



However, a word to al-Qaeda, et al, upon looking at the Time Square incident: when you're acquiring explosives, avoid the ones marked ACME....



As I was saying—thus far, when terrorists can't come up with ideas that I can in my spare time, they should probably reconsider their career goals.



And they are not necessarily uneducated. Osama bin Laden, last I checked, had a degree in engineering—and if I'm mistaken, his family is fill with engineers so he should have some idea. Mohammed Atta, one of the 9-11 pilots, had an upper middle class education in Egypt.



Though it does make me wonder why, thus far, a lot of the terrorists coming our way seemed to have come out of the Wyle E. Coyote school of home explosives.



The Underwear Bomber whose bomb caught fire without going off.



The Times Square bomber, with a Rube Goldberg timer.



The best answer I can come up with is that we're getting all the cannon fodder, who seem as bright as cannonballs. Not to mention that they have few experienced fighters—when you encourage martyrdom in your ranks, you have few people around who can share hard won combat experience. It didn't work well for the kamikaze, I can tell you that.



If I were going to do a terrorist attack....



Before someone freaks out about giving them ideas, the media looked at the Time Square bomb and pointed out EXACTLY what was wrong with it. I'm not coming up with anything new.



As I was saying...



Let's look at Grand Central Station: use a biological weapon in the building. From there, it starts infecting the east coast with the plague of your choice. Or, suicide bombers in the terminal during rush hour would also be effective.



Look at Grant Central for a moment. No security checks in the main portion of the building. No metal detectors, x-rays, nothing. Even I could make an anti-personnel bomb and bring it inside. Bio weapons and suicide bombers would both leave the station itself virtually intact, and the building would eventually be reopened. But in the meantime, traffic would be shot to hell, and once it's reopened... well, would YOU want to go there? The damage would be done. The terminal would be seen by millions of people as a plague-infected site by the ignorant, or it would be seen as a monument of death. It would be a lingering, lasting monument to an attack that would cost hundreds [suicide bomber] if not thousands, or millions of lives [bio weapon].



Traffic would be crippled, either by a lack of people coming in, or by the level of security now required to fully scan everyone coming on or off a train, into or out of the station. It would be a NIGHTMARE, worse than blowing up the 59th street bridge.... then a smart terrorist would blow that up. They've already tried for the Brooklyn Bridge.



But why haven't they? I can make mustard gas, or a bomb, from my kitchen cabinet. My mother is a medical technologist, and she can make a bio weapon in the kitchen. Is it so impossible for al-Qaeda to find five guys to get an associates degree for medical technology, or chemistry? Anyone can come in through the Mexican-US border, so why hasn't a bio weapon attack happened?



It's easy to say “Because they're stupid.” In those cases of allowing cannon fodder to fire cannons, yes.



However, it's mostly because they're fairly undisciplined. Sure, al-Qaeda has training camps, but have have you seen some of the video footage from them? They come into rooms in a perfect shooting posture... for a firing range. Do a quick glance at Youtube with any footage of Jack Bauer (of 24 fame) moving through a room with a gun—gun is close in, both arms are tucked, feet in what look like a combat stance for MMA. This is called a Weaver Stance. Now look at the after terrorist training video, and note how they square their feet, and hold their guns out at arm's length, practically locking their elbows. Get some good recoil, they could break their arms.



It's not even an “ethnic” problem. Most terrorists are similar. The IRA for example. They've blow up the wrong targets, caught more people in the crossfire than some Palestinian terrorists, and the Palestinians are AIMING for the civilians.



Then there was the Japanese Red Army unit brought in to Israel to aid the Palestinians-- they got cut down in the airport because they didn't know the Israelis had security! Yes, and somewhere along the line, SOMEONE thought it was a good idea for Japanese communist terrorists to invade the Middle East. Maybe they thought everyone would think they were tourists...



And one day, I suspect, we will see an attempted nuclear strike on America. They may even make it happen.



Why do I say that would be stupid?



Because they'd be dead.



Mecca, Medina, gone. Saudi Arabia, gone. Oil fields? Saudi Arabia's population is mostly on the shoreline, away from the oil. Syria? Israel can have them, if they want them. Iran will either disarm, or be destroyed. And God help anyone who gives them a nuke in the first place. The party will be over. War on terror would be finished. And would the world protest?



“The world” would probably be the one doing the nuking. Because they know that using a nuke is crossing the line.



The UN would complain, as would all the usual suspects, but would they really do anything? Nope, why would they? Environmental disasters? Not really, the Middle east is a large sandlot, and the populations that aren't nuked can be transplanted [although the winds won't be able to carry the radiation that far east, and remember that OUR nukes come with very little fallout].



Aren't I being callous about this? A nuclear strike would be on either NY or DC, and the Secretary of agriculture would be the head of the country.



Well, if DC, we have elections, and the bureaucracy is really hard to destroy, not to mention the amount of bunkers floating around the politicians. The Pakistani bomb requires a warhead the size of a volleyball, and MAY destroy midtown Manhattan [US warheads are the size of a bottle of Pepsi and can vaporize the 5 boroughs], and I live in Queens, so I should be relatively safe, because I intend to run like hell after the initial explosion, or at least head East, away from the fallout. Or I'll be dead, and I won't have to worry much about it, now would I?



However, would it really come to that? It might. But given the performance thus far, I am reminded of an old joke ....



Q: How can you tell a Soviet nuclear submariners apart from the other members of the fleet?



A: Because they glow in the dark.



If terrorists were smart about attacking the United States, they'd do it. They'd be sending people across the Mexican border daily for the sole purpose of heading directly to a target. Any target.



My father, a professor in Philosophy, came up with the idea of blowing up the New Orleans dams as a terrorist attack in 2000. Now it's a little late for that. Apparently, a family of academics dickering around with this as a mental exercise can come up with a better plan than bin Laden himself.



Ah, but “What about 9-11?”



The only reason they could get away with 9/11 is that the hostage playbook said be calm, you'll be ransomed for later, just play nice with the hostage takers. Not to mention that planes involved in 9-11 came out of Boston. As comedian Carlos Mencia has noted, before 9-11, someone flying Southwest airlines said he would rush the cockpit. When the plane landed, this guy had already been stomped to death.



Not to Osama: please, fly Southwest.



After 9/11, the playbook was rewritten. Even the passengers of Flight 93 knew better. Sneaker-Bomber Boy was nearly torn apart by the passengers around him, so we know the rules have changed. I want to see some terrorists pull box cutters on board a plane coming out of La Guardia and see how long they last.



The terrorist threat to this country remains, but there are days I think it's just a threat. Looking at the genius exhibited thus far by those to have tried to attack the mainland, I'm just glad that either they're stupid, or we're lucky.



Unfortunately, sometimes idiots can get lucky.