In defense of Andrew Ridgeley

And he wound up with a member of Bananarama no less! He did just fine, thank you very much! No cruel, cruel summer for him.

Cornwall is absolutely wonderful. Nothing like seeing a former celebrity slip into normality with such obvious enthusiasm. His priorities seem to be right where they ought to be.

And he wound up with a member of Bananarama no less!

And I always thought Keren Woodward was the cutest one!

"...getting popped by the po-po..."

Oh no, you didn't REALLY say that did you? ;-)

Cornwall, surfing, hobby farming, a beautiful girlfriend, a pub with good beer. It does sound like an ideal lifestyle to me.

Isn't it a bit odd a conservative Christian approving that lifestyle, though? I mean - Ridgley is "living in sin", probably using contraception, and is therefore probably committing more "immoral" sex acts per year than Michael. Of course, you don't actually feel that - you feel that Ridgley is someone you'd get on with, whereas Michael is someone to whom you'd give a wide berth. This seems to me to show that even the most O/orthodox Christians don't entirely accept what they claim to believe. It's a bit like that thing recently about Aquinas saying that masturbation is worse than rape - of course, no-one actually thinks that.

Another example is abortion. I generally put myself on the prolife side of the fence, but I don't think many people really accept a thoroughgoing life-begins-at-fertilisation position - if a woman is on the Pill, she prevents the implantation of numerous fertilised cells, so what she does is morally equivalent to serial murder? Should she be imprisoned with no chance of parole, then?

I recently noted how, from a Christian point of view, about the most merciful act one can perform is to kill someone who is without sin (eg. a foetus or neonate, or someone who has just left confession). People laughed at what I said, but noone gave any rational reason why I was wrong.

In general, not only with respect to religion, I think people do not really believe what they claim to do. I have heard PETA members argue that rights should be extended to insects - OK, what do you do when your pet dog has fleas?? I have heard Marxists complain about justice not having been done - duh, the whole point of Marxism is that justice CANNOT be done under capitalism?

There isn't any current "Peak Oil" thread going on 'above the fold', so I'll post the following here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

Nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale within five years, say scientists at Los Alamos, the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb.

The miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material, have no moving parts and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground.

The US government has licensed the technology to Hyperion, a New Mexico-based company which said last week that it has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. 'Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world,' said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. 'They will cost approximately $25m [£13m] each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $250 per home.'

Deal claims to have more than 100 firm orders, largely from the oil and electricity industries, but says the company is also targeting developing countries and isolated communities. 'It's leapfrog technology,' he said.

The company plans to set up three factories to produce 4,000 plants between 2013 and 2023. 'We already have a pipeline for 100 reactors, and we are taking our time to tool up to mass-produce this reactor.'

The first confirmed order came from TES, a Czech infrastructure company specialising in water plants and power plants. 'They ordered six units and optioned a further 12. We are very sure of their capability to purchase,' said Deal. The first one, he said, would be installed in Romania. 'We now have a six-year waiting list. We are in talks with developers in the Cayman Islands, Panama and the Bahamas.'

The reactors, only a few metres in diameter, will be delivered on the back of a lorry to be buried underground. They must be refuelled every 7 to 10 years. Because the reactor is based on a 50-year-old design that has proved safe for students to use, few countries are expected to object to plants on their territory. An application to build the plants will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission next year.

'You could never have a Chernobyl-type event - there are no moving parts,' said Deal. 'You would need nation-state resources in order to enrich our uranium. Temperature-wise it's too hot to handle. It would be like stealing a barbecue with your bare hands.'

Other companies are known to be designing micro-reactors. Toshiba has been testing 200KW reactors measuring roughly six metres by two metres. Designed to fuel smaller numbers of homes for longer, they could power a single building for up to 40 years.

Rombald, I don't intend to suggest that I "approve" of the way Andrew Ridgeley lives, in the sense that I don't find it morally problematic. I simply think that he's obviously a lot closer to living a morally sane, healthy life than his vastly more successful former collaborator. And believe it or not, I'd say the same thing if George Michael had settled down into cozy gay domesticity and relative anonymity, and Ridgeley was still out living like a dissolute rock star.

Sorry, the last comment but one was mine.

"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?

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.