Podcast: Play in new window | Download (63.7MB) | Embed
Topics:
00:07 Pray For Us: feedback on Rand’s groupies and followers, helping the poor, Ayn Rand in poverty, capitalism, Pope Francis, abstractions vs concretes
14:49 Post Delivery Age: Rob Ford, Ford Vs Blair budget debate, media reaction to Rob Ford, Public Education and Ryan’s Law, Ryan Gibbons, asthma inhaler, loco parentis, Colorado six-year-old kiss = sexual harrassment, Canada Post, elimination of door-to-door service, postal monopoly, privatizing postal delivery, corporation not liable for loss of mail, competition cure
38:02 Almost Robot: TV show recommendation: Almost Human, caller Scott on Canada Post, developers pay for community mail boxes, Karl Urban, Michael Ealy, Mackenzie Crook, 2048 back-drop to stories, good on screen chemistry, sci-fi robots, human-robot TV teams, Almost Human’s potential
42:12 Mislead Millions With Poli-talk: Obamacare so Obama cares, William Safire’s Political Dictionary, language of politics, ideas, the ‘idea of freedom’, ideology, political proverbs and axioms 55:32 END
7 Responses to “330 – Pray for us? / Post delivery age / Almost Human / Political definitions”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I simply did not have the days of time I needed to address this properly. However, I think this should be adequate.
//www.scribd.com/doc/191527880/Reply-to-Robert-and-Robert-of-Just-Right-Media-Re-APOSTOLIC-EXHORTATION-EVANGELII-GAUDIUM
I agree with this author.
//www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/rush-limbaugh-doesnt-get-pope-francis
<a href="//www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/rush-limbaugh-doesnt-get-pope-francis" title="Rush Limbaugh Doesn’t Get Pope Francis“>
Interesting, but far from turning down the heat, I find the very last paragraph of the article (as captured below) actually fires me up even more precisely because the Pope wrote it in advance of the firestorm. It demonstrates that he had an idea of the kind of criticism he might receive even going to the trouble of speaking to those who may feel “offended” by his words. This suggests to me that he made his exhortation knowing that his words might well be “misinterpreted” and used for political reasons which I think we all, including the Pope, agree is not really appropriate for a spiritual leader.
As Raymond Arroyo of EWTN observed, all his comments were essentially a rehash of things he has said since becoming Pope. He had already heard some of these “criticisms”. He did not think he would be “misinterpreted”, he knew what would the criticisms would be.
No conspiracy here.
Besides, he was too busy “railing against” life, science, the media and of course getting fat “feeding off the poor”.
Who said anything about a conspiracy? In no way did I suggest a conspiracy but rather that he said these things with the foreknowledge that he would be criticized for going places he shouldn’t. He’s not an economist and if he was he’d know that there is no “Trickle Down” school of economic thought. The Pope set up a Straw Man by using language that would impugn an incorrect model of capitalism that no serious fiscal conservative would assert.
That’s not a serious discussion about economic systems; that’s politics, in all its meaningless and dangerous emotionalism.
“Who said anything about a conspiracy?” Are you kidding me??? Re-read what you wrote. Was it just subterfuge?
And in the “real world” most people have no idea what these subtleties are about. That’s the flock he tends. It’s his responsibility to represent them.
The term “trickle down” means to most what it means to every man on the street. You cower behind pendancy. You full well know what he is getting at. And he’s right. “Supply side economics” (AKA “trickle down”) is not good enough. Something better is needed. Bush 41 understood it for what is really is – “voodoo economics”.
Check this out. It’s all about the reality of letting the foxes run the henhouse. Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan figure prominently.
The Warning
//www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/
One more thing.
Robert Vaughan also asserted that it is recently coming out that Mother Teresa “got off” on the suffering of the people she cared for. I think Robert was referring to this:
Mother Teresa Humanitarian Image A ‘Myth,’ New Study Says
//www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/mother-teresa-myth_n_2805697.html
As they note, much of this comes from Christopher Hitchens – in 1995. Not recent at all!
Hitchens, who eventually would become, for all intents and purposes, a neo-con, described himself as a “conservative Marxist”. He was simply a Marxist communist. I read his auto biography and it tells the story of a very bright, ideologically driven man who went through many transitions. However his hatred for all religion, especially Christianity, never left him. It does not make him necessarily wrong but clearly his predicate was that the Church needs to be destroyed. So of course he looked for the worst of this woman. Again, maybe he was right, or just partly so, but I can’t put much stock in his credibility when it comes to Mother Teresa.
Mother Teresa was a very controversial character, no doubt. Here are the thoughts of the Canadian Father Brian Kolodiejchuk who was the man charged with the responsibility of the Cause of Beatification and Canonization of Mother Teresa. He speaks of her doubts and the controversies around Mother Teresa.
//www.motherteresa.org/13_anni/Frbrianmcinterrhoreb.html
I suggest considering his thoughts along with those of Hitchens. I am of the opinion Robert threw in his bit of black innuendo as a means to further slag the Church in general, to in some strange fashion buttress his anti Francis tirade – which is also built on very questionable/faulty sources and seems to have the same predicates as comrade Hitchens.