Inspired by a comment in the "Dorian Red America" thread, I poked around a little bit to find out what happened to Andrew Ridgeley of "Wham!" fame. Turns out that between him and George Michael, he got the better life. I mean, think of it: would you rather spend your middle age living in a Cornish farmhouse in relative anonymity with your common-law wife and children, or pinballing from facelift to drug bust to getting popped by the po-po for cruising for sex in a public toilet?
In defense of Andrew Ridgeley
Saturday November 8, 2008
Categories: Culture
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Rod Dreher's New Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
"...but I don't think many people really accept a thoroughgoing life-begins-at-fertilisation position."
Many people are wrong. It's nothing new.
While Ridgeley's life certainly is well short of ideal, it does seem more ordered to the objective good - and nature - than Michael's.
"People laughed at what I said, but noone gave any rational reason why I was wrong."
Well, given that your question is on of theology, and thus has a theological question, would you consider the answer rational?
Crikey. That should read, "...and thus has a theological answer..." etc.
Rombald: Injustice is not identical to mercy. One has to look not only at the consequence or result, but how it is obtained. The end does not justify the means, and so on.
Anyone know anything about this?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.