On the use of firecrackers

Originally posted in FB, 12-31-2010.

Happy New Year!

-----

Firecrackers are like firearms: You DO NOT dick with them inappropriately unless you're looking to see something or someone (most likely yourself) blown to bits.

I mean, how hard can it be to use these explosive implements RESPONSIBLY? Common sense in using these implements of revelry, tree-and-animal nazis (the tree- and animal-huggers who freak like Hitler on Jews or al-Qaeda on non-Muslims or Jack Chick on Catholics when they see the things) be damned (because they have a mad-on for these explosive devices), can be found in such simple things:

1. Responsible, SOBER adults should light them up. If your kids are that responsible, however... Good for you.

2. When they blow up, keep your distance.

3. When they fail, douse them IMMEDIATELY. With water, unless you want all sorts of hell to break loose.

4. When some idiot (hopefully NOT you) gets himself injured because he went too close or dicked around, have him treated.

5. DO NOT use fireARMS in place of or along with fireCRACKERS. God help you if you do.

6. Buy Legal. It may cost more, but you can enjoy assured that your five-second fuse is five seconds instead of just two or, heaven forbid, a split-second.

Follow these tips, and you need not worry about blowing something or someone up. God help you if that tickles your fancy, you psychotic fuck.

Happy New Year!

CIC Cann. 59-75

CHAPTER III.

RESCRIPTS

Can. 59 §1. A rescript is an administrative act issued in writing by competent executive authority; of its very nature, a rescript grants a privilege, dispensation, or other favor at someone’s request.

§2. The prescripts established for rescripts are valid also for the oral granting of a permission or favors unless it is otherwise evident.

Can. 60 Any rescript can be requested by all those who are not expressly prohibited from doing so.

Can. 61 Unless it is otherwise evident, a rescript can be requested for another even without the person’s assent and has force before the person’s acceptance, without prejudice to contrary clauses.

Can. 62 A rescript in which no executor is given has effect at the moment the letter is given; other rescripts, at the moment of execution.

Can. 63 §1. Subreption, or concealment of the truth, prevents the validity of a rescript if in the request those things were not expressed which according to law, style, and canonical practice must be expressed for validity, unless it is a rescript of favor which is given motu proprio.

§2. Obreption, or a statement of falsehood, also prevents the validity of a rescript if not even one proposed motivating reason is true.

§3. The motivating reason in rescripts for which there is no executor must be true at the time when the rescript is given; in others, at the time of execution.

Can. 64 Without prejudice to the authority of the Penitentiary for the internal forum, a favor denied by any dicastery of the Roman Curia cannot be granted validly by any other dicastery of the same Curia or by another competent authority below the Roman Pontiff without the assent of the dicastery before which the matter was initiated.

Can. 65 §1. Without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2 and 3, no one is to petition from another ordinary a favor denied by one’s own ordinary unless mention of the denial has been made. When this mention has been made, however, the ordinary is not to grant the favor unless he has obtained the reasons for the denial from the prior ordinary.

§2. A favor denied by a vicar general or by an episcopal vicar cannot be granted validly by another vicar of the same bishop even if the reasons for the denial have been obtained from the vicar who denied it.

§3. A favor denied by a vicar general or by an episcopal vicar and afterwards obtained from the diocesan bishop without any mention made of this denial is invalid. A favor denied by a diocesan bishop, however, even if mention is made of the denial, cannot be obtained validly from his vicar general or episcopal vicar without the consent of the bishop.

Can. 66 A rescript does not become invalid due to an error in the name of the person to whom it is given or by whom it is issued, or of the place where the person resides, or in the matter concerned, provided that, in the judgment of the ordinary, there is no doubt about the person or the matter.

Can. 67 §1. If it happens that two contrary rescripts are obtained for one and the same thing, the particular prevails over the general in those matters which are particularly expressed.

§2. If they are equally particular or equally general, the earlier in time prevails over the later unless there is express mention of the earlier one in the later one or unless the person who obtained the earlier one has not used the rescript out of malice or notable negligence.

§3. In a case of doubt whether a rescript is invalid or not, recourse is to be made to the one who issued it.

Can. 68 A rescript of the Apostolic See in which no executor is given must be presented to the ordinary of the one who obtained it only when it is prescribed in the same letter, or it concerns public matters, or it is necessary that conditions be verified.

Can. 69 A rescript for whose presentation no time is specified can be shown to the executor at any time, provided that there is neither fraud nor malice.

Can. 70 If in a rescript the granting of a favor is entrusted to an executor, it is up to the prudent judgment and conscience of the executor to grant or deny the favor.

Can. 71 No one is bound to use a rescript given only in his or her favor unless bound to do so by a canonical obligation from another source.

Can. 72 Rescripts granted by the Apostolic See which have expired can be extended once by the diocesan bishop for a just cause, but not beyond three months.

Can. 73 Rescripts are not revoked by a contrary law unless the law itself provides otherwise.

Can. 74 Although one can use in the internal forum a favor granted orally, the person is bound to prove the favor in the external forum whenever someone legitimately requests it.

Can. 75 If a rescript contains a privilege or dispensation, the prescripts of the following canons are also to be observed.

Libertas!

Injustice demands outrage.

Oppression demands dissent.

Tyranny demands rebellion.

LIBERTAS!

Nos es Legio

Tomorrow, RA 10175 will be implemented in full force.

In less than an hour from this post, all dissent against the current powers shall be treated in the same manner as HERESY! in the Imperium of Man.

We, the denizens of this entity called the Internet, shall NEVER FORGIVE. We shall NEVER FORGET! If we burn for speaking out against the tyrant, so shall it be.

Injustice demands outrage.
Oppression demands dissent.
Tyranny demands rebellion.

Sic semper tyrannis!

Alistair Jephte Cabugsa-Migriño (Pe) Caseñas de Cebu
LIBERTAS!

OPPOSE RA 10175!

First, they came for the bloggers.
You said nothing, for you were not a blogger.

Then, they came for the "likers."
You said nothing, for you did not like indiscriminately.

Then, they came for the retweeters.
You said nothing, because you did not retweet.

When they finally come for you,
Who, pray tell, will speak for you?

Another Niemoller snowclone, this time in opposition to the Philippine Cybercrime Law.

"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."
-- Elie Wiesel

CIC Cann. 48-58

CHAPTER II.

SINGULAR DECREES AND PRECEPTS

Can. 48 A singular decree is an administrative act issued by a competent executive authority in which a decision is given or a provision is made for a particular case according to the norms of law. Of their nature, these decisions or provisions do not presuppose a petition made by someone.

Can. 49 A singular precept is a decree which directly and legitimately enjoins a specific person or persons to do or omit something, especially in order to urge the observance of law.

Can. 50 Before issuing a singular decree, an authority is to seek out the necessary information and proofs and, insofar as possible, to hear those whose rights can be injured.

Can. 51 A decree is to be issued in writing, with the reasons at least summarily expressed if it is a decision.

Can. 52 A singular decree has force only in respect to the matters which it decides and for the persons for whom it was given. It obliges these persons everywhere, however, unless it is otherwise evident.

Can. 53 If decrees are contrary to one another, a particular decree prevails over a general in those matters which are specifically expressed. If they are equally particular or equally general, the decree later in time modifies the earlier to the extent that the later one is contrary to it.

Can. 54 §1. A singular decree whose application is entrusted to an executor takes effect from the moment of execution; otherwise, from the moment it is made known to the person by the authority of the one who issued it.

§2. To be enforced, a singular decree must be made known by a legitimate document according to the norm of law.

Can. 55 Without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. 37 and 51, when a very grave reason prevents the handing over of the written text of a decree, the decree is considered to have been made known if it is read to the person to whom it is destined in the presence of a notary or two witnesses. After a written record of what has occurred has been prepared, all those present must sign it.

Can. 56 A decree is considered to have been made known if the one for whom it is destined has been properly summoned to receive or hear the decree but, without a just cause, did not appear or refused to sign.

Can. 57 §1. Whenever the law orders a decree to be issued or an interested party legitimately proposes a petition or recourse to obtain a decree, the competent authority is to provide for the matter within three months from the receipt of the petition or recourse unless the law prescribes some other time period.

§2. When this time period has passed, if the decree has not yet been given, the response is presumed to be negative with respect to the presentation of further recourse.

§3. A presumed negative response does not exempt the competent authority from the obligation of issuing the decree and even of repairing the damage possibly incurred, according to the norm of can. 128.

Can. 58 §1. A singular decree ceases to have force through legitimate revocation by competent authority as well as through cessation of the law for whose execution it was given.

§2. A singular precept not imposed by a legitimate document ceases when the authority of the one who issued it expires.

Why faith exists amid the nihilistic tide

If, as a certain group posits, there is no reason for faith to exist in a world such as this, what is the point of trust? After all, is not trust an expression of faith?

You trust someone because you have faith in his or her abilities. In other words, you believe that the person you trust is more than capable of something, commonly shown when that person has you covered in many a given context--be it in the battlefield, amid an apathetic crowd, or even in a camp where the victims of intolerance are herded to be destroyed by murderous thugs whose evil can never be forgiven both in this life and in the next.

When you trust someone with your life, it shows that you have absolute faith in that person. The same thing goes with belief in a higher being. You trust that God or Allah or whatever supreme being you profess faith in has your life in mind.

Are you familiar with the term "test of faith?" The world as we know it is an imperfect one. In fact, the imperfections apparently give reason for certain people to deny the existence of a supreme being... Just say it: I'm getting ahead of myself.

Back to the imperfect world... Yes, it is a world where might makes right, where the strong prey upon the weak with utter impunity, a world apparently devoid of any shred of positive energy. Is it not a wonder why man in general has mixed feelings towards the existence of a supreme being?

If, as the nihilist posits, there is no hope for humanity, then the YOLO (You Only Live Once) philosophy applies. Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow, we shall die. Let us try to do everything we can for the sake of pleasure in this nasty, brutish, and short existence those stupid religious dumbfucks who should all be remanded to mental institutions or extermination camps call life, because there is nothing else to it!

If, on the other hand, you believe that there is hope for the human race, you will most certainly understand that life...is worth living, for want of a better term. There is more to living than just waking up every single day to do your part in society and nothing more. There is more to life than the free-flowing booze, the insanely large harem, and the oscenely deep pocket that the hedonist sees as life's only purpose.

There is a reason Faith, Hope, and Charity (the last being the more theological term for Love) are considered theological virtues in the Christian context. Take a look around you. While many are apparently inclined to see the world as it is in the absence of faith (incredulity taken to extremes--trusting no one), hope (despair, cynicism), or love (intolerance, indifference), people embodying these three virtues still exist, extolling God wherever they go, loving one another. How else can one explain the "Faith in Humanity restored" meme?

I'm starting to digress again, am I not?

Faith exists despite the tide of nihilism because it is part and parcel of the human condition. Do you have faith? Don't worry, it's normal. It's something human beings like you and I are inclined towards having. Even if you disavow the existence of a supreme being, you still have faith--how else can it be possible for you to trust your neighbor? How else can it be possible for you to believe that you are loved, that you are not alone in this dark world?

No human race is superior. No religious faith is inferior. All collective judgments are wrong. Only racists make them.

First, they came for the Anglicans.

I said nothing because I wasn't an Anglican.

Then, they came for the Sunnites.

I said nothing because I wasn't a Sunnite.

Then, they came for the Baptists.

I said nothing because I wasn't a Baptist.

Then, they came for the Orthodox Jews.

I said nothing because I wasn't an Orthodox Jew.

Then, they came for the Shiites.

I said nothing because I wasn't a Shiite.

Then, they came for the Daoists.

I said nothing because I wasn't a Daoist.

Then, they came for for the Hindus.

I said nothing because I wasn't Hindu.

Then, they came for the Sikhs.

I said nothing because I wasn't a Sikh.

Then, they came for the Animists.

I said nothing because I wasn't an Animist.

When they finally came for Catholics like me,

none remained to speak for us.

-----

The article is an adaptation of Martin Niemoller's "First They Came..." speech. The title is a quote from Elie Wiesel.

Nie Wieder.

Never Forgive.

There are some evils in this world that are so reprehensible that the perpetrators go down in history as some of the most notorious men and women ever to walk the face of this earth. From the dark days of the Spanish Inquisition to 9/11 and its aftermath, from the government-sponsored genocides (Khmer Rouge) to cases of rampaging individuals going amok with no regard for anything else (Virginia Tech), these people--if one can still call them people--are so reviled that in extreme cases, they are accorded neither mercy nor sympathy when they receive their just penalty. Obvious case in point: The Holocaust. After the Second World War, Nazis were being hunted down like the rats the Soviet Army considered them to be. Even the uninvolved children of Nazi perpetrators are seen as evil, something that a Holocaust survivor named Elie Wiesel said was wrong, for "only the guilty are guilty; their children are not."

Never Forget.

Going back to my case, when the world learned of the systemic genocide perpetrated by the Nazis, it was horrified. Men, women, and children were murdered by the millions because they were mentally infirm, socially awkward, or of ethnic and religious affiliations that the ruling NSDAP loathed to the extreme. In 2001, almost 3000 people died as an immediate consequence of the 9/11 attacks. They were ordinary people: soldiers, office workers, firefighters, policemen, bankers, and the like. Just as the Jews, the Poles, and others were killed by the Nazis for being Jews, Poles, and others who happened to live in Nazi Germany and its occupied locales, these ordinary people were killed by Al-Qaeda for being ordinary people who happened to live, if not work, in the Eastern Coast of America. In both cases, the aftermath was the same: those who understood sought never to forget the evil that happened. In fact, since 2006, January 27 (on that day in 1945 the Soviets liberated Auschwitz-Birkenau) has been commemorated as the International Holocaust Remembrance Day. And of course the United States has Patriot Day in memory of those who died in 9/11.

BUT I DIGRESS.


Never Again.

Determined to ensure that atrocities like the Holocaust were to never again take place, the nations of this earth stood united. Despite this, incidents of scales that vary from Bosnia to Stalin's Russia to even al-Assad's Syria still occur. Is it a pipe dream to still hope that never again will the evil of genocide take place? Perhaps, but it is a noble cause.