Charlie's Blog: November 2025

11.30.2025

Horological Considerations

A gentleman’s choice of timepiece says as much about him as does his Saville Row suit.
IAN FLEMING

I have worn a watch since elementary school. I received watches as Christmas gifts. One of them was a Mickey Mouse watch or a Snoopy watch. I can't remember which one now. Another one was a Bulova. I may have worn some other watches from Timex, but I don't remember any of them. My first serious watch for me came in college when I bought a Timex Ironman watch because I got into running for fitness. I would wear multiple versions of that watch for the next two decades. I will talk about this more later in this post.

Somewhere, people ditched their watches and started looking at their phones to get the time. I never did this. It is more convenient for me to just look at my wrist. I know because people with phones ask me for the time all the time because they are too lazy to look to their phones for the time. I tell them it is time to buy a watch. This causes them some anger, but I don't care. Get a watch, idiot.

This phone as watch thing is the return of the pocket watch in a digital form. I have never been a fan of the pocket watch. People that don't wear watches count as idiots in my world. It is one of the first things I look for when I meet someone. Do they wear a watch? If you don't wear a watch, I cannot take you seriously as a person.

The other sort of idiot is the person who does wear a watch except it costs as much as an automobile. I will never understand how anyone could wear a Rolex or waste money on such a thing. A Rolex might be a good store of wealth if you put it in a safe. Wearing a Rolex invites the world to beat you to death and walk off with your timepiece. That brazen theft would be more lucrative than robbing liquor stores.

When buying a watch, there are certain considerations to make. Here is a short list of those considerations.

1. Mechanical Vs. Quartz Movement

For generations, a watch was a mechanical affair. Watches required winding. Then, there are those self-winding watches that get wound by body movement, or those spinning affairs you can buy to keep the watches wound up. These mechanical watches suffer from a lack of precision. Things like heat and humidity can affect their performance. You forget to wind them. They need an annual service to maintain that accuracy, and this is not cheap.

One day, they came out with watches that had quartz movement. These watches required batteries as they still do today. You didn't have to wind them, but you did have to replace the batteries every so often. This is the downside. The upside is they are more accurate than a mechanical movement watch.

2. Analog Vs. Digital

All mechanical watches are analog. Many quartz watches are analog. Analog is the watch with a dial on the face and moving hands. The digital watch just shows the digits. My personal preference is for a digital watch. You tend to get more functionality with a digital watch like a stop watch, a timer, an alarm that beeps, etc. The digital watch also makes it easier to tell time. But I can tell time on an analog watch the same way that I can drive a stick shift automobile. I prefer an automatic transmission. To be more precise, my left knee prefers an automatic transmission. Likewise, my damaged brain prefers a digital watch over an analog timepiece.

The downside of a digital watch is the aesthetic. Digital watches look like nerd watches like the ones they wore in Napoleon Dynamite. I love the nerd aesthetic. The Ironman and the G-Shock have done much to rebrand the digital watch for athletes and military types. Ultimately, I don't care. What my digital watch says about me is that I care more about function than fashion.

3. Timex Ironman Vs. Casio G-Shock

As I mentioned earlier, I used to wear the Timex Ironman. I cannot throw shade on the Ironman, and I would recommend it to runners, ultrarunners, and triathletes. I am none of those things. I am a fitness walker who refuses to wear a step tracker. This is why I prefer the Casio G-Shock DW5600 as my fitness watch. It is a no-frills timepiece and is as basic as a G-Shock gets. I like the countdown timer and the stopwatch features. It has the EL backlight, so I can see the time in the dark. There is no split timer or any of that. It is rugged enough to endure the rain and yard work. I love the watch. I wish I had bought the G-Shock originally instead of the Timex Ironman.

Your choice on this matter comes down to activities. I am not an athlete, so I love the simplicity of the G-Shock. If I was an athlete, I would go with the Ironman. I got old and dropped the fantasy self of being an athlete. When I am not in exercise mode, I just wear the Casio F-91W as a beater watch because I find it more comfortable than the chunky G-Shock.

4. Smartwatches

Before the Apple Watch, there was the Fitbit. When Apple came out with their smartwatches, I cringed to discover that they needed recharging. These watches are also ridiculously expensive. The Fitbit was cheap relative to the Apple Watch, but these electronic watches must be recharged. I've heard "horror" stories of people who went out without a full charge.

The one smartwatch that does interest me are the Garmin watches because of the navigation features. We already use a Garmin in the car, so I would love to have one on the trail if I ever got to do that again. The problem is the Garmin watches are expensive. Plus, I haven't been on a trail since before my accident. I will probably never get one, or I will choose a handheld device.

A lot of folks have turned to smartwatches as medical monitoring devices. I don't have any conditions that require monitoring like this, but I know my time is coming. This is when I will end up with a smartwatch on my wrist, but it won't be an Apple watch. I despise Apple.

Conclusion

That's all for my viewpoints on watches. If you could only buy one watch, I would tell you to splurge on a G-Shock. It does it all. If money is tight, a cheap Casio is a very good option. If you want a sharp looking watch, I recommend a Timex analog or a Seiko. When I want to look sharp, I wear my metal Casio like the one Uncle Rico wore in Napoleon Dynamite. It is delightfully tacky like bell bottoms, and I like that sort of thing. I am not a watch snob or James Bond.

11.23.2025

The Benevacantist Argument Reconsidered

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
ARISTOTLE

One of the downsides of my writing and publishing schedule is that it makes me unable to respond to things as they happen or in a quick manner. Most of these posts get written and stored for publication at a later time. I decided that the posts that pleased me most had an evergreen quality about them as opposed to the filler posts that had the shelf life of a ripe banana. There is one upside to this slow roll of blogging. It gives me time to think and reflect without jumping to conclusions or making a fool of myself as new information rolls in.

This post is a response to these two items:

Unpublished Letter from Benedict XVI: "My Resignation Is Fully Valid"

Leaked Benedict XVI Letter Ends the Resignation Debate

The gist of this news is that a letter from Ratzinger to Bux puts a dagger into the heart of the argument that Benedict XVI invalidly resigned which made Jorge Bergoglio an antipope. I do not know if the Benevacantist argument is dead, but it would appear to be mortally wounded. I have waited for Ann Barnhardt, the biggest defender of Benevacantism, to issue some sort of response on her blog or on her podcast, but no response exists as I write this. Naturally, this deafening silence delights the popesplainer Michael Lofton who is gloating as hard as he can.

My own position has been the 99% position of agreeing with Ann Barnhardt but reserving final judgment to the Church itself. I have taken a lot of flak for this "wish washy" position, but I have a good reason for being this way. I don't know everything. I don't have all of the information. I also listen to both sides of a debate. I have been wrong before on many issues. I am also a Roman Catholic who has sworn allegiance and obedience to the Church and to the Vicar of Christ. I am with Michael Matt that these final and definitive judgments are above my pay grade. All I have are suspicions and private opinions.

If this leaked letter is genuine and not a forgery, this tilts my opinion on the matter far to the other side of believing that the resignation was valid. Even here, I am not 100% in this position for the same reason I was not 100% on board with the Benevacantist argument. How did we get here? Let's recap:

1. Ratzinger kept wearing a white cassock and doing pope things.

2. Ratzinger is on record as entertaining the idea that the papacy could be split.

3. Bergoglio was a material heretic.

Ultimately, the fault for this confusion lies with Ratzinger. My opinion of the man is greatly diminished, and I agree with Raymond Arroyo that the resignation was a disaster. Ratzinger shouldn't have resigned at all. If a pope does resign, he shouldn't do it the way it was done.

What I can say is that this whole fiasco has done great damage to the papacy and to the faithful. If a true pope, Bergoglio has shown just how bad a pope can be. Ironically, it is only slightly worse than his predecessors. I reject the sedevacantist arguments, but I can agree that every pope since Pius XII has been a bad pope. This includes John Paul the "Great."

Many point to Vatican II as being the dumpster fire, but I think we can go back to Vatican I to see where the initial spark began. Neither council promulgated heresy, but the errors come from how they have been interpreted. With papal infallibility, I think the error comes from a wide and loose interpretation of that infallibility. A tight interpretation would be that the Pope is only infallible when he issues a proclamation ex cathedra. These proclamations have been rare and remain so.

The Pope can only put ditto marks on the Magisterium. Bergoglio has shown that a pope can err in this regard if he was truly Pope. But we can also point to others to get that idea even if Bergoglio gets declared to be an antipope at some future date. The problem we have here is papolatry. We are guilty of giving too much authority and reverence to the man sitting in the chair. The fact is that Peter and all his successors have made messes from time to time. Declaring Bergoglio an antipope is a nice way to keep the papolatry alive. Why not let it die?

I am used to bad bosses and bad political leaders. I am used to bad priests and bad bishops. Why not accept that there are bad popes? Why not check their words against what the Church has always taught? Why not declare what we all know? When the Pope errs, he errs. I write this now as Leo is on record denying the miracles of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. The man gives all indications of being just another bad pope.

I don't know what else will come out concerning the Benevacantist argument. I am just glad that I have the update option. As new information comes in and people respond, I will tag it in future updates to this post. 

Finally, I remain a Roman Catholic and subject to the supreme pontiff. Every so often, we get a good pope, but I am unlikely to live to see one in my lifetime. It doesn't matter to my faith. I will endure the disgrace of it all until it is over. Schism and apostasy are not options for me.

UPDATE #1: Miss Barnhardt published this blog post pertaining to Pope Leo XIV who she declares to be an antipope:

Someone should remind Antipope Prevost that St. Paul explicitly states that the mere TOLERANCE of sodomy is a capital crime. As in, death penalty on the table.

I agree with Miss B. on virtually everything in the post except the declaration of Prevost to be an antipope. Now, she made her case for Bergoglio being an antipope on the basis of an invalid resignation. Yet, Ratzinger and Bergoglio were both deceased upon the election of Prevost to the papacy. This leaves Barnhardt and Co. to confect a new argument arguing for a second antipapacy. At some point, I have to ask a question. What makes Ann Barnhardt not a sedevacantist? Even the sedevacantists are asking that question.

I suspect that Ann is heading down the road to schism much like the sedevacantists have done. I believe that popes can be really bad and still be the Pope. Ultimately, we are being picky over who we will accept as a valid pope as opposed to just calling them bad popes. I suspect Prevost of being an active sodomite, but he wouldn't be the first of those to occupy the chair if we believe the rumors concerning Paul VI.

UPDATE #2: Here's another one from Barnhardt:

Keep talkin’, Bobby. Antipope “FtR” Prevost leaves zero room for doubt. “We have to change attitudes before we even think about changing what the Church says about any given question.”

I am going to make the call. Ann Barnhardt is a sedevacantist. She can mark her papal timeline differently, but she is fundamentally on the same page as the SSPV. I don't dispute the material heresy of Prevost, but this does not make him an antipope. This is because this sort of thing goes back in time before even Vatican II. Prevost's blunder is to give interviews to the press. This was Bergoglio's blunder. Popes should be seen and not heard except for homilies and encyclicals.

When a pope becomes a formal heretic, this is another matter. The problem is that no one is above the Pope except the Lord Jesus Christ. This is why we say that no one can judge the Pope. Basically, a Pope can be in error, but there is no one to make that call except the Pope himself. This is the essence of monarchy. The Roman Catholic Church is a monarchy.

UPDATE #3: Barnhardt has produced another podcast fully explaining why she considers Prevost to be an antipope:

Barnhardt Podcast Episode #235: Prevost is an Antipope. Let’s talk.

Basically, she signs off on the Mazza thesis that a heretic cannot be a Pope. She goes one step further and fundamentally says that anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusion on an antipope is risking eternal damnation. I just have to shake my head on this.

The one guy who gets it right IMHO is Bishop Athanasius Schneider with his "recognize and resist" position which comes from St. Paul's confrontation with Peter. Schneider disagrees with the Benevacantist argument, and I consider him to be a wiser and holier person than Miss Barnhardt. But Schneider doesn't go so far as someone like Michael Matt telling everyone in Traddie Land to "zip it."

The one thing I can say about Prevost is that he has uttered heretical things. We can safely reject those things. This is essentially the recognize and resist position of Bishop Schneider and Saint Paul.

UPDATE #4: Barnhardt answers the question on why she is not a sedevacantist like those other sedevacantists who believe the See to have been vacant since 1958:

Q&A: So why is “FtR” Prevost an Antipope, but John XXIII, Paul VI, JPI, JPII and BXVI were valid popes? In other words, why has the Petrine See been vacant only since 31 December ARSH 2022 and not since ARSH 1958?

The gist of the argument is that "none of the post-conciliar, pre-Bergoglian popes ever denied an infallibly defined dogma of the faith." I find this argument to be a weak one at best. I am not a sede, but I would have to ask what infallibly defined dogmas of the faith that Leo has denied. Until he issues an encyclical, his errors are on par with his predecessors.

******************************

Why the “Bifurcated-Papacy” Still Matters.

Was Benedict's Resignation Invalid? Stephen Kokx with Dr. Edmund Mazza

Nicola Bux’s Eleven-Year Deception

Barnhardt Podcast #232: Comic Bux

Barnhardt Podcast #233: The Surreptitious Social Life of Ann

We now know, unequivocally, that Cardinal Burke and Msgr Bux were informed years ago about the reality and root cause of the Bergoglian Antipapcy

God's Prophecies For Cardinal Burke...

“In this supreme moment of need of the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent”


11.16.2025

Sunday Funday

Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.
EXODUS 20:9-10 DOUAY-RHEIMS

Sunday is my writing day. I am not feeling like writing at the moment. I have ambitious things I can work on, but I don't have the energy for that today. Someone once said that if you are suffering from writer's block then you should write about writer's block. I am going to write about writing. I may write about some other things along the way.

The great mystery of my accident is that God spared my writing ability. He was not so kind to my working ability. I would trade this writing thing for the working thing in a heartbeat. Work puts food on the table. Writing just keeps you from blowing money on frivolous toys, hobbies, and pleasures.

I could write every single day of my life, but it would be the only thing I did with my life. I have to use my energy wisely because I have to keep living and not be a burden on my already overburdened wife. During the week, I do not write except to jot down notes for writing ideas. Before my accident, I would just start writing whenever I had an idea. I tried to do that after the accident and discovered the foolishness of that strategy. Writing is exhausting work, and I have daily chores and errands that need tending. I can barely do those at my present energy levels. A day job is out of the question because I would be wiped out just trying to get to that job.

I hate my life. I can't beat around the bush on that. This is not what I wanted for my life. Work gave me dignity and purpose in my life. Now, the bulk of my day is spent in a dark room with my eyes closed trying to destimulate and build up the energy to do an hour of yard work. I was walking almost daily, but I hurt myself this year because of my poor coordination. Both the walking and the yard work have suffered. I go into screaming fits if I think too much about it.

My priest gave me acceptance as my penance at my last confession. There were no Hail Marys and Our Fathers. He just told me to learn acceptance. My brain damage is my penance in this life. I have to accept it.

I am exhausted now and need to stop writing. I don't know when I will get back to this post. You, Gentle Reader, do not know what is going on behind the scenes. You get a finished product to read with no clue as to what it took to get it written. Many of these posts have taken weeks, months, and even years to complete.

I am now back to this post except I find that I don't have anything to add to what I've already written. I try not to whine about the TBI, but I find that not talking about it leads people to think I am normal or miraculously cured. A few minutes in person with me dispels that pretty quickly. I am exhausted now, and I am abandoning this post where it is now.

11.09.2025

Sartorial Considerations

When a man dresses like a boy on the outside, there’s a chance there’s some stunted development on the inside.
BRETT MCKAY

I do not dress like a boy. I used to dress like a boy until I married a woman who dressed like a woman. I said goodbye to the T-shirt, cargo shorts, and sandals. I am proud to say that I have never owned or worn a pair of Crocs.

I do have issues with those who agree with me that men shouldn't dress like boys but should dress with some sort of finery that doesn't fit with the man. The person that comes to mind is a lunatic woman blogger who claims Catholic conversion but dresses like a total Protestant with a loud hat and all the rest. She somehow didn't get the memo about Catholic modesty. The other people that come to mind are the men on YouTube who dress in three piece suits like some latter day English fops.

I am not terribly interested in how other people dress. Clothes are not my thing. I developed my blue collar fashion strategy years ago, and it is still working for me. But I do want to list the sartorial considerations that go into the decision making of what to wear.

1. Comfort

Comfort is the reason so many men dress like boys now. Athletic wear is the prime component of this trend. Senator Fetterneck is the poster boy for taking this too far. But if you saw the guy at Walmart on a Saturday dressed in shorts and a hoodie, do you even care? I know I don't even if I personally refuse to wear this stuff outside of the house. (I have an ancient Carhartt hoodie that I call the "house hoodie" because I never wear it outside except to the mailbox to check the mail hoping the neighbors don't see me.)

The argument is that this comfort wear is too casual for wearing in the general public. I admit that seeing some hood rat wearing socks and slides in the store is off-putting. But are a pair of camo Crocs on a redneck any better? Or, what about the hippie chick wearing her Birkenstocks?

2. Utility

Utility is the reason I dress like a blue collar worker. Workwear allows you to do physical work. Sad to say, many blue collar workers have taken to wearing comfort clothes for work instead of work clothes. That tells you all you need to know about the work ethic and mindset of that guy. I am a fan of the work uniform. It could be hospital scrubs or a chef's outfit. Just because you work for a living doesn't mean you should dress like a bum. You should dress like a worker.

3. Respect

Respect has to do with modesty and reverence. This is why women shouldn't wear Daisy Dukes to church or to the office. People in office occupations and professional jobs should dress the part. I don't expect the president to dress like a janitor.

4. Vanity

Vanity is where people end up dressing in a costume. They might cite other reasons like the ones already listed, but we know better. If you're wearing a leather jacket without a motorcycle, you are wearing a costume. The same goes if you dress up like Tom Wolfe or Roger Stone. And the lady I mentioned earlier is firmly in this category even if she is in denial over it.

I don't know where the line is between respect and vanity. Show up at a funeral in a baby blue tuxedo with the ruffles in front, and you will find that line exists. You should never wear a costume unless it is on the stage, or you are doing singing telegrams. The problem is that these people have no clue that they are wearing costumes.

The costume wearers love to express shock and disgust at the casual wear of virtually everyone else because they want attention and credit for wearing their costumes. This is not modesty. Modesty doesn't seek to be noticed.

For myself, I seek to dress in a way that does not call attention to myself. I tend to blend in with those around me. I don't want to stand out in any way but dress like an age appropriate normie who knows his place as a member of the working class.

***

Men Don’t Dress Like Boys

Blue Collar Fashion Guide

11.02.2025

The Achilles Heel Of Charlie's Grand Unifying Theory

We often miss opportunity because it's dressed in overalls and looks like work.
THOMAS EDISON

To begin, I must restate my Grand Unifying Theory. There is a simple and effective solution for every endeavor. I have spent a lot of blogging on the GUT because it is my overarching thesis in thought and life. The Gentle Reader should have picked up on the idea that the GUT runs through all of my thoughts and writing. I am a man in search of simple and effective solutions. I am not in search of perfect solutions because I do not believe they exist. I can point to the flaw in every one of my strategies. These flaws do not trouble me because I think they are inescapable. There is one flaw that runs through all of my GUT strategies. This is the requirement for work.

I don't have sophisticated solutions for life. I like to refer to my GUT strategies as "blue collar." This begs a question. What does a white collar solution look like? White collar solutions are where a sophisticated type comes up with complicated schemes of working smarter instead of working harder. Virtually all of these schemes amount to sticking the work to someone else while Mr. Sophisticated takes his cut. I could write volumes about these parasites, but I save that for other posts. The most deleterious effect of the white collar solutions is that they beguile the public into thinking that all problems are complex and require complex solutions. This isn't true.

I do not believe in work purely for the sake of work. I am not going to dig a hole just to fill it in again. This is madness. Everything I do must have a purpose or a telos. Conversely, I do not believe that you can escape work. When you do nothing, nothing is all you get. The secret is to find the golden mean between doing nothing and doing something that is worthless. My blue collar strategies aim for this mean. The way I achieve it is through doing what is simple and effective.

The aggravation of my life today is the chronic exhaustion that comes with being the survivor of a traumatic brain injury. I have found that the first and most important thing is to take as much off of your plate as you can. This is why I don't pursue various hobbies, interests, and ambitions. I don't have the energy for that anymore. Consequently, I don't do anything except what is absolutely and fundamentally necessary. I am used to saying no to everything.

All of those extraneous things belong to what I call "thrive mode." Thrive mode was my lifelong dream that was always thwarted by the lack of time, money, and energy. The loss of my energy has made me accept that the rest of my days will be lived in "survive mode." I don't know how I feel about that. I have had almost seven years to come to terms with that. I wanted to do big things in my life. I am left with doing small things.

A good illustration is the McMansion. Many women dream of having a big home, so they buy one with a hefty mortgage payment. To make those payments, her husband is tasked with working his tail off to afford and maintain her dream. On her end, she is tasked with trying to keep that McMansion clean. The size of the place is tremendous work, so she concludes she needs to hire outside help for the task. This help is not cheap, and the husband is already maxed out with his job. So, the wife ends up taking a job to pay for the work she doesn't want to do. You can see the absurdity here. Why not choose to live in a smaller and simpler home?

For me, a sudden tornado destroyed the McMansion of my life and left me living in an RV camper on the lot of the destroyed home. The disaster is a curse but also a blessing. It is easier to clean an RV camper than a McMansion. My GUT strategies tell me to not wait for tornadoes to simplify my life but to choose simplicity at the outset. I spend my time thinking of ways to save time, money, and energy in the survive mode of my life. Efficiency is of vital importance.

The RV camper is easier to clean, but it still needs cleaning. You can't go smaller than that unless you like sleeping in a tent on the ground. That creates its own hardships. You can only reduce life so far but no farther.

I find that the biggest waste of energy in life is overthinking. People overthink because they want to avoid necessary work. The belief is that if thinking begets efficiency then you can think yourself out of work altogether. This is stupid. There comes a point where you have to stop thinking and start working.

For me, thinking is as exhausting as working. This is why I save the cerebral portions of my recovery program for the margins of my day and my week after completing chores and errands and doing physical exercise. These blog posts are brain busters which is why I save them for Sundays or rainy days stuck inside. I keep writing as a form of therapy for my damaged brain.

Knowing that work is inescapable, I am left with one question. Is this necessary? Do I need to do this? I ask myself this question because of the energy that it will cost me. When the gas tank is almost empty, you're not going to waste what is left on joyrides around town.

Ultimately, the GUT strategies and solutions are about eliminating overthinking and wasteful activities. When you do something, it has to count for something. Survival is success. I survive one day at a time. You can't get any simpler than that.
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)