The Julia Baird Saga - Domestic Violence in the Church

Julia Baird's report on ABC's The 7.30 Report struck a chord and indeed it is a very important topic. How is it that Domestic Violence even happens but equally worse how is it that people lie to allow it or somehow are complicit in allowing it to happen unchallenged?

Its a horrible issue that needs immediate & ongoing attention. Julia Baird's report may have been a good opportunity to call out organisations that don't do enough to challenge it. Like religious groups.

Trouble was, Baird busted and wasted the opportunity and it's been lessened greatly due to reporting that is either appallingly sloppy & lazy or framed in an additional agenda. Is she Anti- Christian?

It centres around this key point...

 

 

 

Despite slanted replies from Julia Baird the facts as Andrew Bolt stated them are still there.

Her comment quite literally says Evangelical Christians are the worst of all men on the planet for Domestic Violence against women. That's what it says, that's what it means, its wrong and its not helping at all.

Can't say I follow Andrew Bolt, usually see him on The Insiders or when someone assaults him in the street. That's about it. Can't say I agree with him that often but my view is not everyone is wrong ALL the time but guess that's got a few exceptions.

It is the case that domestic violence is to common. One case is one case too many. Its not enough to reduce it, it needs to be eliminated as uphill as that might be in the short term. As her report coincides with the return of George Pell its gather much steam about religious orders that cover up, ignore or equally worse actively enable DV to continue.

The Bible is very clear and there is absolutely no passage of Scripture that allows, condones domestic violence, marital rape or any other act of hate. None.

From the Christian view, anyone thinking that's ok or defendable, they're not Christian. They're pushing falsehood and should be viewed as members of a false church and allowing heresy to flourish. Simple. They need to be shut down or cracked open for the authorities to thoroughly investigate and throw the book at offenders.

 

What Baird did though was misrepresent the study she cited and its author even tweeted that it didn't convey the data properly. Since then a twitter bun fight has rambled on and has done nothing to help stamp out DV or other acts of hate. Her continued dodgeball and repeat tactical replies doesn't do anything except keep the distracting criticism going strong.

Andrew Bolt cited that Domestic Violence is 31 times more likely in Aboriginal communities, not sure where his research comes from and will chase it up, but if that's right then Julia Baird's claim is false & misleading whilst yes, looking rather deliberately Anti-Christianity.

After being asked one of the authors (nt contacted by Baird prior to her report) stated "The religion-is-bad-for-you-and-your-family meme will be more & more common in coming years. This @ABCaustralia is indicative: https://twitter.com/WilcoxNMP/status/888385742069739520 …"

In case it doesn't come through click the author's comments... https://twitter.com/WilcoxNMP/status/888385742069739520

But what did Andrew Bolt say?

Here...
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/abcs-defence-of-bairds-smear-shows-hatred-of-christianity/news-story/7ac2d58fe65e7dc3d5352222902828e2?from=htc_rss

 

and...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/bairds-last-source-complains-doesnt-fully-convey/news-story/0a27b63be8154dc43d186016f63b242e?from=htc_rss

 

Meanwhile tactical replies abound but to be fair, this sort of rigour ought to be regular and ished out without fear or favour. Bolt is no stranger to controversy and probably been on MediaWatch a bit too.

Honesty, Accuracy & Integrity.

That's all that's needed and it had been then would not have detracted from from the very serious complaint of Domestic Violence.

Til then, Baird is likely to continue to be unapologetic...expect her to play the victim card with a bit more twisting of facts.

Late Note - Baird's dodgeball continues...but so too does a stream of actual facts...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/abc-lies-corrects-baird-with-another-antichristian-falsehood/news-story/4041f9c9df054b3b4752681179a6ce28?from=htc_rss

Latest on Live Export & Odd Positions

As I type there's a a legal class action playing out as a result of the mad& overly brutal knee jerk reaction from the then Federal Labor government which resulted in the Live Export Ban.

Now WALabor has an Agriculture Minister who's been on the record as saying she wants Live export banned and shut down, but now she's minister you can expect tactical replies, not answers. Dodgeball has begun its new season in the Labor ranks.

But every now & then cracks appear in the door & we can get a glimpse as to what's the plan behind the closed door.

Now WALabor has for some time, even pre-election said "Transition to processed meat" and here we see in all the morning glory what they really mean.

SHUT DOWN THE LIVE EXPORT TRADE - 100%

Never mind there are not the facilities here or in the north to process the many hundreds of thousands of animals if LiveX was closed down.

Never mind there are not the staff to man the facilities that don't currently exist to kill & process the many hundreds of thousands of animals if LiveX was closed down.

Never mind there aren't enough markets to take all of the meat that would be processed by the facilities that don't exist by all the staff that aren't in this country.

Now if its all about jobs, Australian jobs there's no foreign workers, all Australian citizens?
Wow it just got harder. Not to mention all the investment required to get infrastructure and logistics support going.

All of this and yet either maintain or improve farmgate prices for producers?
I sense that its all achievable if produces diversify into unicorn production to complement the changed to chilled.

Now add onto the top of this mountain of idiocy, aside from some markets (i.e. customers) not wanting anything except live is getting this organised and paid for, that is being profitable. Currently feedlotting overseas, slaughtering & processing delivers a product about half the cost of Australian processed.

But it will all magically work. How?

Well here's one sure fire way of a win win situation. Get some skin in the game.
We can get the government to arrange a PPP.
A "Public Private Partnership" to own & run such a down stream idea. No look its easy. Everyone interested need only contact their Superannuation firm an allocate a portion of say 20-60% of their superannuation into the PPP and get it rolling and running ASAP.

If its such a great profitable idea the government would be made not to invest along with mums & dads and other WA citizens who want to turbo charge their super returns...

So why won't it happen? Simple, its a wallowing money pit of an idea which cannot replace all live markets with chilled or frozen.

But if the TRANSITION side are so adamant they should be pushing this PPP on a small scale and build from there. If they're to be believed, if they have any credibility and any intellectual integrity.

If "transition" is win-win and not just a hollow bout of lip service to attract inner city Greens type voters push the PPP and champion it to benefit the industry, the producers and the customers.

Waiting...waiting...tumbleweeds. Any movement that can be detected will be dodgeball swerves, nothing more.

Meantime I hope the NTC class action is highly successful.

Devid Leyonhjelm's Opinion Piece - Worth a Read

Firing blanks on gun reform

• DAVID LEYONHJELM

The Australian - July 7th 2017

According to popular legend, Hitler’s master of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, said: “A lie told once is still a lie, but a lie told 1000 times becomes the truth.”

The claim that there have been no gun massacres since the introduction of John Howard’s 1996 gun laws has probably been repeated many more than 1000 times, which is perhaps why so many view it as the truth.

In the 20 years following 1996 there were 14 shootings in Australia involving multiple victims. Of these, 12 involved two or three fatalities, one involved four fatalities and one five fatalities. The death toll would have been higher but for some luck and lifesaving medical attention.

In the 20 years before 1996 there were 12 multiple fatality shootings, although there were more deaths in total.

There is no universally accepted definition of a massacre. Some argue that a mass murder can be described as a massacre only if undertaken by groups, not individuals, with a political motivation. Some historians claim that describing small-scale mass murders as massacres diminishes the large-scale mass murders that unquestionably fall within the definition.

Yet others insist a massacre is defined by the number of victims. By a remarkable coincidence, those responsible for the claim that there have been no massacres in Australia since 1996 insist there must be at least five victims.

Following the 2014 Hunt family murder-suicide in which there were five victims, it has even been suggested the minimum should be six.

It is most unlikely that any of those claiming there have been no gun massacres since 1996 have thought much about this. For them, it is sufficient to claim that massacres occurred before the gun laws but not after. They then draw the conclusion that the gun laws made the difference. It may be simplistic, but it clearly sounds compelling.

A better analysis of the impact of the 1996 gun laws would be to look at overall murders attributable to firearms.

By that measure, the laws made no difference.

Firearms death rates were declining in the 20 years before 1996 and continued to fall at precisely the same rate in the two subsequent decades. This occurred despite a substantial increase in licensed firearms ownership.

The “no massacres” claim is also usually accompanied by comparison with the US. Yet even there the facts contradict the claim. Notwithstanding some high-profile mass murders, the rate of US gun deaths during the past three decades has declined faster (albeit from a higher starting point) than in Australia.

And no one bothers to compare us with countries such as New Zealand that continue to have gun laws resembling Australia’s pre-Howard laws and that, like us, continue to see falling gun deaths.

I’m all for debate about gun laws, but let’s stick to incontrovertible facts, not those that become facts because they have been repeated many times.

David Leyonhjelm is a senator for the Liberal Democrats.

Mocking the Death of a Fellow Human Being, Why?

Recently a bull fighter in Spain was killed by the bull he was fighting. The internet response was pretty loud but only from one viewpoint.

Those revelling in the death of the man and the joyous congratulations to the bull.

How on earth did we ever get to this point considering the vast number of contradictions?

I don't support bull fighting, not my thing, but it is a part of their culture and has been for generations as we see it now for nearly 300 years. Is it cruel & barbaric and making no sense? Yep, but it's part of their culture and the economic earnings are huge.

Should it be banned? Yes probably but its their culture, their law and its they that have to change the law, we cannot enforce our standards on them. Will they ban it? I imagine one day it will but no idea when that will be.

In the meantime some of the loud internet social justice warriors are banging their drum loudly.
Many comments about the man's death being "karma"

That's an aspect of karma that has origins in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, and Taoism.
I don't subscribe to those religions but some people do cherry pick aspects of various religions and cling to them because at the ACME BUILD YOUR OWN RELIGION KIT you can pick and choose things you like.

Their basic premise is the matador got what he deserved. I admit, it comes with the territory, if you're a bull fighter you can be killed even with the odds stacked in your favour. To me at least, the death of a fellow human being is sad and tragic.

To some people its funny, worthwhile and overdue. Is a human life worth more than an animal?
 We obviously I think yes, its probably why we eat meat from non human animals and don't bury family members at the bottom of the garden. We are human, the Christians will say we have dominion over the earth's creatures. Atheists should say we're all animals so dog eat dog.
Very odd that some humans decide its karma and sucked in.

Irrespective, revelling and happily rejoicing in the death of a man because he was a participant in a culture activity in a foreign country.

 

Its this post modernist moral relativism that's driving human kind into the dirt and causing a moral decline.

BHP, GST and what the hell's going on?

So NOW we see BHP come alive & push for WA's fairer slice of the GST?

Corporate Social Responsibility is a thing and it affects a share price greatly as well as other things whilst doing business. If your reputation is bent, its pretty hard and very costly to straighten. That could be the case here.

At the centre of this is the dodgeball effect of pushing the GST now so as to build support & credibility in WA, amongst WA citizens whilst hoping to further put the 25 cent Mining Rental Fee in history's dark recesses.

Facts remain...

1. Its only NOW that BHP cranks up about WA's GST.
2. BHP is not an Australian company. Less than 20% of its shareholders are from Australia. The "Big Australian" is not Australian, its foreign owned & it has behaved like a ruthless foreign corporation & may have been hoping to do the mining equivalent of plunder the diamonds and ivory of a poor African nation with stealth & ruthlessness.
3. Why is a foreign and very wealthy mining corporation even telling us & the rest of Australia what to do with our GST allocation? Fiduciary duty. Its in the best interests of their company, their shareholders and their profitable perpetuity. THATS IT, THAT'S ALL
4. The profitable cut off point for ore is apparently under $40/tonne, that's US Dollars by the way. Yet the Mining Rental Fee, set at 1960s levels of 25c would damage their profitability & cost hundreds of jobs if it were raised to $5.00?

Now just stop, profitable at below $40/tonne the current Rental Fee is 25c Australian. That means the fee was waived the first 15 years & since then the Rental Fee is still (US$) 19c a tonne.
And its a tax deductible cost of doing business.
Compare that US$40/tonne vs US$0.19/tonne.

You bet they want to push the GST wagon now. It affects where part of the tax they pay goes, but not how much they pay. It makes no difference whatsoever to BHP's tax bill each year where the GST goes. NONE. So why do it? To reclaim lost reputation and potential share price nervousness.

If the Mining Rent Fee went up to AUS$5.00/tonne just remember that's Australian Dollars. The Iron Ore Price is in US Dollars so in US$ we're talking about a tax deductible rise from 18c/tonne to US$3.80.

As I type, the Iron Ore Price is US$62/tonne. So that'd take them down to That's bring them down to $58/tonne...whilst they'd still be profitable at below $40/tonne.

Want to see some of the figures?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-21/bhp-billiton-returns-to-profit-thanks-to-commodity-price-surge/8290794

So what is fair? Well that varies from day to day if you're a rich foreign mining company.

If you're a sovereign state like Australia its a little simpler, if you're Western Australia its very elusive when the eastern seaboard get the better end of the stick.

For any reputation to be regained, BHP would have to spend dollar for dollar or better on a GST correction campaign as they did opposing the Mining Rental Fee rise. Fact remains, in either case we have a serious case of Sovereign Over Reach by a wealthy foreign company.

We do need an inquiry into the depth & breadth of involvement of all corporates, domestic & foreign who participated in the recent WA State Election by way of funnelling funds to oppose the Mining Rental Fee and the very expensive advertising campaign against the fee and against Brendon Gylls.

Its not about getting Grylls his seat back, that can't happen. Its not about vengeance, that's futile an infantile. Its about establishing if a powerful an rich corporation or corporations did help influence who did and who didn't get into OUR State Parliament.

When 3000 extra voters suddenly enrol in Grylls seat, 16 times higher than the average extra enrolment & neighbouring electorates were on the average around 1%, questions have to be asked without fear or favour if we're to know with certainty our political system is above foul foreign breach.

For more on the facts surrounding the Mining Rental Fee go to...

http://seriouslythinkforaminute.blogspot.com.au/2017/04/raising-rental-fee-from-25c-to-5-myths.html

If you want to see fairness or wonder what I think it looks like, it has to include these.

1. An inquiry into the possible foreign intervention in our electoral system & the result. We are not a corrupt banana republic...or are we?
2. A rise in the Mining Rental Fee to AUS$5.00 (US$3.80)
3. A fairer system for allocation of GST to all states...not all states other than WA.

We need to await results of the inquiry (that we probably won't have) and make recommendations for much harsher penalties for corporations that seek to influence election results.
It may turn out to be that the "Big Australian" is not just "not Australian" but may prove to be very Un-Australian.

Oh we won't forget Rio in all this. BHP & Rio combined are a very rich, foreign owned, highly powerful & influential mining plutocracy. We're ripe for the pickings and the Liberal/Labor Duopoly have to date all the appearance of being most compliant.