http://e-tau.org/lookoutpost/index.php?blog=1 en-EU hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 ISLAMIC DEMOCRACY http://e-tau.org/lookoutpost/index.php?blog=1&title=islamic_democracy&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 2009-06-17T02:18:00Z raycam lookout post I choose for whom you vote. Not seven hundred. Just four. My men, my choices. No women, please. You vote for anyone of these four. But you elect my choice. I know who is the best for you. No protest, nor demonstration. Just accept my choice. This is Islamic democracy. If you do not like it, Just exile yourself. Come and Nay. I choose for whom you vote.
Not seven hundred.
Just four.
My men, my choices.
No women, please.
You vote for anyone of these four.
But you elect my choice.
I know who is the best for you.
No protest, nor demonstration.
Just accept my choice.
This is Islamic democracy.
If you do not like it,
Just exile yourself.
Come and Nay.

]]> A NEED TO GO http://e-tau.org/lookoutpost/index.php?blog=1&title=a_need_to_go&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 2009-05-23T14:04:16Z raycam lookout post What is the problem with today's world? It is the lack of genuine leaders. The democratic system does not always guarantee leadership. On the contrary, most of the time the system is abused by ambitious men, hankering after power and prestige, not service. I always learnt that a true leader is one who leads whilst forming other leaders to take over after him. Today's leaders want to remain in the driving seat for as long as possible, even changing constitutions to achieve their goals. This does not only happen in politics. It happens everywhere, in all kinds of institutions where there is a voting system. It happens in the Church as well, no doubt. Ambitious people will be trying to make themselves as visible as possible through visits, writings and all other means to enhance their visibility and thence to acquire the office they are hankering for so much. Such occurrences have become common and familiar in our Order as well. The people at the top are not the best people. They are the most visible. Most of them are not there to serve but to satisfy their ambitions. That is one of the main reasons why the Order is in a dangerous slide. During these last fifty years the number of friars has halved, and we are celebrating some sort of festivity for the 800th anniversary of the rule of St Francis instead of tackling the present problems. We are celebrating the past instead of preparing for the future. True leaders need not be saints although sanctity will certainly be a bonus. But they cannot be just ambitious and short-sighted. Every Minister General has six years at least in which to build or continue wrecking the Order. The same can be said for Minister Provincials in their Provinces. In today's world six years is a lot of time, actually too much time. Every time the Order gets stuck with an incompetent leader, his successor will be saddled with a burden which will be very difficult to undo. Imagine having to saddle a twelve-year burden. We need change. At this juncture of history, change is essential: new men, new ideas, new methods, new energy. Some people think they are the new saviours of the world. Why cannot they realise that there are other people out there who can do a better job, and gracefully step aside. That would be their greatest contribution to the Order. What is the problem with today's world? It is the lack of genuine leaders. The democratic system does not always guarantee leadership. On the contrary, most of the time the system is abused by ambitious men, hankering after power and prestige, not service.

I always learnt that a true leader is one who leads whilst forming other leaders to take over after him. Today's leaders want to remain in the driving seat for as long as possible, even changing constitutions to achieve their goals.

This does not only happen in politics. It happens everywhere, in all kinds of institutions where there is a voting system. It happens in the Church as well, no doubt. Ambitious people will be trying to make themselves as visible as possible through visits, writings and all other means to enhance their visibility and thence to acquire the office they are hankering for so much.

Such occurrences have become common and familiar in our Order as well. The people at the top are not the best people. They are the most visible. Most of them are not there to serve but to satisfy their ambitions. That is one of the main reasons why the Order is in a dangerous slide. During these last fifty years the number of friars has halved, and we are celebrating some sort of festivity for the 800th anniversary of the rule of St Francis instead of tackling the present problems. We are celebrating the past instead of preparing for the future.

True leaders need not be saints although sanctity will certainly be a bonus. But they cannot be just ambitious and short-sighted. Every Minister General has six years at least in which to build or continue wrecking the Order. The same can be said for Minister Provincials in their Provinces. In today's world six years is a lot of time, actually too much time. Every time the Order gets stuck with an incompetent leader, his successor will be saddled with a burden which will be very difficult to undo. Imagine having to saddle a twelve-year burden.

We need change. At this juncture of history, change is essential: new men, new ideas, new methods, new energy. Some people think they are the new saviours of the world. Why cannot they realise that there are other people out there who can do a better job, and gracefully step aside. That would be their greatest contribution to the Order.

]]> MINI RESPUBLICA MORTUORUM http://e-tau.org/lookoutpost/index.php?blog=1&title=mini_respublica_mortuorum&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 2009-05-05T15:19:55Z raycam lookout post So there we go again. First there was a Respublica. Now we have a Mini Respublica Mortuorum. Bang goes fraternity again. Up to now all dead friars lived in "fraternity" at the Addolorata Cemetery. No longer. Now we have the privileged types as well, who will have their own depository in the hallowed precincts of Gesu' Habib. When certain families asked for their friar loved ones to be buried with them as a family, the friars did not accept. Friars should be buried together was the answer. Now the remains of certain friars are to be treated differently. Why? God only knows, but perhaps some savvy friars also know. When I was Minister Provincial, I gave permission for the Church at Strada Rosa to be built with funds which came from various sources including the Franciscan Province. I always believed that a good thing needs encouragement, and that it is gentlemanly to carry on the good works done by your predecessors. I supervised all the work that was being done together with the friar involved, and also made my suggestions. I had to make sure, most of all, that all the work and investment being made would not be hijacked at some point in time by the Carmelite parish to which the church belongs. The work was carried out and I am proud to say that the Church of Gesu' Habib is as much my work as it is of the two friars who have been removed from the dust at our Chapel and given privileged burial. May I ask if I will have the honour of being buried alongside my two confreres as well? Hey, I'm joking. I believe in fraternity in life and in death. I want to be buried with the rest of the underprivileged friars at the Addolorata. They have been my brothers in life, and I will not spurn them in death. So there we go again. First there was a Respublica. Now we have a Mini Respublica Mortuorum. Bang goes fraternity again. Up to now all dead friars lived in "fraternity" at the Addolorata Cemetery. No longer. Now we have the privileged types as well, who will have their own depository in the hallowed precincts of Gesu' Habib. When certain families asked for their friar loved ones to be buried with them as a family, the friars did not accept. Friars should be buried together was the answer. Now the remains of certain friars are to be treated differently. Why? God only knows, but perhaps some savvy friars also know.

When I was Minister Provincial, I gave permission for the Church at Strada Rosa to be built with funds which came from various sources including the Franciscan Province. I always believed that a good thing needs encouragement, and that it is gentlemanly to carry on the good works done by your predecessors. I supervised all the work that was being done together with the friar involved, and also made my suggestions. I had to make sure, most of all, that all the work and investment being made would not be hijacked at some point in time by the Carmelite parish to which the church belongs. The work was carried out and I am proud to say that the Church of Gesu' Habib is as much my work as it is of the two friars who have been removed from the dust at our Chapel and given privileged burial. May I ask if I will have the honour of being buried alongside my two confreres as well?

Hey, I'm joking. I believe in fraternity in life and in death. I want to be buried with the rest of the underprivileged friars at the Addolorata. They have been my brothers in life, and I will not spurn them in death.

]]> AMMEN TO AMEN! THE GREAT CONFUSION! http://e-tau.org/lookoutpost/index.php?blog=1&title=ammen_to_amen_the_great_confusion&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 2009-04-15T16:17:45Z raycam lookout post I wonder what is happening to Maltese orthography. Every so often we get new "experts" telling us how Maltese should be written. Rules and rules galore! No wonder the majority of young students of Maltese hate the subject. It is not their fault, but it is a shame. It's the fault of the "experts" who are always changing the rules as to how Maltese should be written. I don't blame the students, but this is also adding up to the vast majority of Maltese people who cannot write decent Maltese. Since the time I was at school rules have come and gone, been changed, been reversed; to the utter consternation of whoever is really interested in the Maltese language. The latest instances I have seen are AMMEN instead of Amen, and SKONT instead of Skond. Are we going to change the whole rules of writing Maltese, and going the way of "write-as-you-please" or "write-as-you-pronounce" or "write-as-you-hear-it-pronounced"? If so, go ahead and just tell us. It would be a pleasure to everyone who does not care about the way Maltese should be written. But if we are setting new rules, please be more careful as to the origins of the words themselves, whether they come through Arabic, or Sicilian or Italian, or English or French. Please remember that our language is made up of a hotchpotch of foreign words, and if we are to be serious about our spelling, we have to refer to these origins all the time. Otherwise we are going to continue confusing the minds of our younger generation especially, who are already not enthusiastic about the Maltese language at all. I wonder what is happening to Maltese orthography. Every so often we get new "experts" telling us how Maltese should be written. Rules and rules galore! No wonder the majority of young students of Maltese hate the subject. It is not their fault, but it is a shame. It's the fault of the "experts" who are always changing the rules as to how Maltese should be written. I don't blame the students, but this is also adding up to the vast majority of Maltese people who cannot write decent Maltese. Since the time I was at school rules have come and gone, been changed, been reversed; to the utter consternation of whoever is really interested in the Maltese language.

The latest instances I have seen are AMMEN instead of Amen, and SKONT instead of Skond. Are we going to change the whole rules of writing Maltese, and going the way of "write-as-you-please" or "write-as-you-pronounce" or "write-as-you-hear-it-pronounced"? If so, go ahead and just tell us. It would be a pleasure to everyone who does not care about the way Maltese should be written. But if we are setting new rules, please be more careful as to the origins of the words themselves, whether they come through Arabic, or Sicilian or Italian, or English or French. Please remember that our language is made up of a hotchpotch of foreign words, and if we are to be serious about our spelling, we have to refer to these origins all the time. Otherwise we are going to continue confusing the minds of our younger generation especially, who are already not enthusiastic about the Maltese language at all.

]]> THE POPE AND THE CONDOM http://e-tau.org/lookoutpost/index.php?blog=1&title=the_pope_and_the_condom&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 2009-04-15T15:50:39Z raycam lookout post There was worldwide outrage when the Pope said that the condom does not solve the Aids problem in Africa, but rather that it makes it worse. People all over the world, especially those distributing these condoms, were shocked at this statement. "Surely the Pope is out of his mind", they exclaimed. And so they poured scorn on him, and ridiculed his ignorance of the facts on the ground. So, what is the surprise? We all know now that the media do not like this Pope, because he is the same cardinal Ratzinger of former days. Not that the media ever like Catholicism under any Pope, but this one is special. They hate him, and do their utmost to ridicule him. Having said that, what exactly was the Pope saying? There's no need for the Vatican to clarify anything the Pope has said. The people at the Vatican should rather defend the Pope and simply ignore these verbal attacks. There's nothing to defend except the truth. And what the Pope said is the truth if it is kept in context. Condoms were not invented to alleviate Aids in Africa. Far from it. They were invented for the prosperous developed countries so that people can have free sex anytime with anybody. Sex has become a game, a leisure, but because of obvious perils in free sex, some protection had to be invented. Not abstinence but indulgence with a condom! Now everybody knows that condoms are not a hundred percent foolproof, but they help avoid many sexually transmitted diseases. However, the real reason for the appearance of the condom - which by the way is as old as the ancient Egyptians - is that it helps to encourage more free-for-all sex, especially outside marriage. Then along came Aids and STD's in developing countries, and it was thought to be a good idea to use the condoms as a precaution against this terrible disease which was wasting the lives of so many people in these poor countries. So the advocates of free sex began using this argument as a justification for the widespread use of condoms. They wanted us to forget why they were in existence in the first place. They want to convince us that condoms are there as a protection for the developing countries from the scourge of Aids. Which is simply not true! And that's what the Pope was saying. He wants to remind the world of the true essence of the condom. The Church does not tolerate free sex, not only because of diseases but because it is against the Law of God. But do these people believe in God? No, they do not. So, for them, that argument is ridiculous, and the Pope is to be ridiculed for reminding us all the time of the Law of God regarding sex. Sex is not a leisure time, but a time of grave responsibility. To learn to abstain would at least bring us to the level of the animal kingdom which regulates sex to a very surprising degree. Therefore, the Pope's message that condoms can be a worse solution to Aids prevention, simply means that condoms encourage more sex, without limitations, and this in turn leads to more instances of transmitted diseases. That's a very logical argument, but not if you are in the condom industry. Yes or no? So the Pope was right in what he said. He is not so stupid as to ignore the statistics. He is talking about the logic of the spread of the condoms. And the logic is simple: in spite of the condom, more condoms equal more sex, and more sex equals more Aids. So who is right, and who is wrong? I leave that to your logical conclusions. There was worldwide outrage when the Pope said that the condom does not solve the Aids problem in Africa, but rather that it makes it worse. People all over the world, especially those distributing these condoms, were shocked at this statement. "Surely the Pope is out of his mind", they exclaimed. And so they poured scorn on him, and ridiculed his ignorance of the facts on the ground.

So, what is the surprise? We all know now that the media do not like this Pope, because he is the same cardinal Ratzinger of former days. Not that the media ever like Catholicism under any Pope, but this one is special. They hate him, and do their utmost to ridicule him.

Having said that, what exactly was the Pope saying? There's no need for the Vatican to clarify anything the Pope has said. The people at the Vatican should rather defend the Pope and simply ignore these verbal attacks. There's nothing to defend except the truth. And what the Pope said is the truth if it is kept in context.

Condoms were not invented to alleviate Aids in Africa. Far from it. They were invented for the prosperous developed countries so that people can have free sex anytime with anybody. Sex has become a game, a leisure, but because of obvious perils in free sex, some protection had to be invented. Not abstinence but indulgence with a condom! Now everybody knows that condoms are not a hundred percent foolproof, but they help avoid many sexually transmitted diseases. However, the real reason for the appearance of the condom - which by the way is as old as the ancient Egyptians - is that it helps to encourage more free-for-all sex, especially outside marriage.

Then along came Aids and STD's in developing countries, and it was thought to be a good idea to use the condoms as a precaution against this terrible disease which was wasting the lives of so many people in these poor countries. So the advocates of free sex began using this argument as a justification for the widespread use of condoms. They wanted us to forget why they were in existence in the first place. They want to convince us that condoms are there as a protection for the developing countries from the scourge of Aids. Which is simply not true!

And that's what the Pope was saying. He wants to remind the world of the true essence of the condom. The Church does not tolerate free sex, not only because of diseases but because it is against the Law of God. But do these people believe in God? No, they do not. So, for them, that argument is ridiculous, and the Pope is to be ridiculed for reminding us all the time of the Law of God regarding sex. Sex is not a leisure time, but a time of grave responsibility. To learn to abstain would at least bring us to the level of the animal kingdom which regulates sex to a very surprising degree. Therefore, the Pope's message that condoms can be a worse solution to Aids prevention, simply means that condoms encourage more sex, without limitations, and this in turn leads to more instances of transmitted diseases. That's a very logical argument, but not if you are in the condom industry. Yes or no?

So the Pope was right in what he said. He is not so stupid as to ignore the statistics. He is talking about the logic of the spread of the condoms. And the logic is simple: in spite of the condom, more condoms equal more sex, and more sex equals more Aids. So who is right, and who is wrong? I leave that to your logical conclusions.

]]>

MySQL error!

Table './lookoutpost/evo_hitlog' is marked as crashed and should be repaired(Errno=145)

Your query:
INSERT INTO evo_hitlog( visitTime, visitURL, hit_ignore, referingURL, baseDomain, hit_blog_ID, hit_remote_addr, hit_user_agent ) VALUES( FROM_UNIXTIME(1283679123), '/lookoutpost/xmlsrv/rdf.php?blog=1', 'rss', '', '', 1, '38.107.191.96', 'CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html)')