Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Monday Post

From the shores of Tripoli:

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi fought an increasingly bloody battle to hang on to power on Monday when anti-government protests against his 41-year rule struck the capital Tripoli after days of violence in the east.

Residents reported gunfire in parts of Tripoli and one political activist said warplanes had bombed the city.

Forces loyal to Gaddafi had killed dozens of people across the country, human rights groups and witnesses said, prompting widespread condemnation from foreign governments.

No independent verification of the reports was available and communications with Libya from outside were difficult.

But a picture emerged that suggested the survival of a leader who has loomed large on the world stage for decades and controls vast reserves of oil was in jeopardy.

The popular press and otherwise ill-informed masses might be over the moon about the "wave of democracy" coursing through the Middle East. I'm sure no one remembers- or cares- about the transition from communism to democracy in eastern Europe. It's not an easy transition but, proving you don't have madmen blowing themselves up or raping news reporters, it is achievable. In the Middle East, one can choose a military dictator or a theocratic state based on the words of a seventh century war-monger. Politics abhors a vacuum more so than nature. Who fills that void? This is a logical stumbling block for me.

Related:  a visit to Libya.

We haven't heard from the Korean Peninsula in a while. What the hell are South Koreans doing in Libya, anyway? Their pork-eating, soju-swilling and church-going ways make them the ultra-infidel. I told you we shouldn't trust the North Koreans. Didn't I tell you? From Kim Jong-Il's bodyguard to a duck farm, the stories of a neurotic man "...who is not qualified to be a world leader."  Democritizing North Korea. If one switched South Korean teachers with Wisconsin teachers, would anyone notice? China is blocking a UN report detailing North Korea's violating sanctions on its nuclear program. Surprise, surprise. That's a lot of snow.

Soylent Green is people:

A growing, more affluent population competing for ever scarcer resources could make for an "unrecognizable" world by 2050, researchers warned at a major US science conference Sunday.

The United Nations has predicted the global population will reach seven billion this year, and climb to nine billion by 2050, "with almost all of the growth occurring in poor countries, particularly Africa and South Asia," said John Bongaarts of the non-profit Population Council.

To feed all those mouths, "we will need to produce as much food in the next 40 years as we have in the last 8,000," said Jason Clay of the World Wildlife Fund at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

"By 2050 we will not have a planet left that is recognizable" if current trends continue, Clay said.

We've heard these arguments before and it usually means more padded wallets for "family planning" groups. Determining how bad one is for the planet rests on how Asian or black you are to this heavily white, affluent and liberal community of fear-mongers. The facts are these:

Why the rush to depopulate the planet?

Oh look! Selfish people!

My answer to cultural and moral relativism is cut and pasted here for brevity:

Cultural and moral relativism isn't consistent as scathing attacks on Christian, Jewish or European values is deemed perfectly acceptable.
Just focussing on the qualities of cultural and moral relativism, there is no way these liberal (read: lazy) values can survive given that one culture or group will assert itself over another. In this case, a culture that allows the mistreatment of women and religious minorities will triumph over the culture that says anything goes. That culture will become moot over time. history has show us this.
It is also juvenile to suggest that criticism of a culture is somehow an indictment of that culture as a whole. It suggests a lack of knowledge or a dislike of one's own culture and a fear that a criticism - well-placed or not - means something we've been conditioned to believe is the worst sin or crime one can commit. A discerning mind can point out the admirable and terrible qualities of a culture and point to something that works. That's reason. Clapping one's hands over the mouth or ears is silliness and fear.
If anything, cultural and moral relativism are antithesis of progress. No one in their right mind should embrace them.

What I said.

In case someone didn't get it, this is libel and this is a waste of time.

Libel:  is the written act of defamation. Slander is the oral act of defamation.

What Father Raymond Gravel said: "I am pro-choice and there is not a bishop on earth that will prevent me from receiving Communion, not even the Pope." 

What Lifesite said: 

While he styles himself as "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion" Gravel was, during his stint in politics, rated as "pro-abortion" by the political arm of the pro-life movement in Canada - Campaign Life Coalition.

Gravel attacked LifeSiteNews’s coverage on Development and Peace as "dubious," "hypocritical," and "a false report on the part of these fanatical pro-lifers."  He added: "And the worst of it is that a good number of believers let themselves be influenced by these defamations and fund these extremists who claim to defend the Christian values of life, family and morality."

Gravel concluded his piece in Le Devoir, saying, "We must denounce LifeSiteNews and stop funding it. We can believe in life, defend it and promote it, without supporting these fanatics who call themselves Catholics, but who never stop judging, condemning and excluding all those who do not think like them."

What this idiot said:

LSN did not criticise or demean him as a priest. They slammed and demeaned him as a PERSON. More power to him. I hope he wins!  

He does not stop being a man just because he is also a priest. And he's not suing because he was being criticized. He's suing because he's being slanderd and libeled...as a MAN who is also a priest. 

Actually, you're quite incorrect about libel laws in Canada. Have you not heard the expression that "truth is no defense for libel?" ONLY in Canada is that true. And what he was labelled is inaccurate. He says he is against abortion. How does that translate to your hearing that he supports it? And his being a priest has nothing to do with whether or not he loses money, either. 


We have more than three. I, myself, have several. But don't ever equate the Christians with freedom...it's true for some, but definitely not for all. 

One can see why power shouldn't be put into the hands of idiots. They have thin skins and not enough synapses working.

Have you ever wondered what time it is on other planets? Now you can find out.


No comments: