Twitter changes - Turning Twitter On Its Head (30th of April 2022)

Roughly 5 days ago, Elon Musk's offer to buy the majority of Twitter was announced as approved.

Its important to note, right now he doesn't own it & unless I'm mistaken he doesn't even sit on the board right now. They have eleven Directors on the Board & one is the CEO.

Any changes currently happening are not of Musk's doings or if they are the current board is failing in its duties. Until Musk's deal is finalised, the board's fiduciary duty is not owed to Elon Musk, its owed to all the shareholder's best interests.

So what changes have happened?
Turns out some things have changed.

Some self confessed members of the leff have announced they're leaving Twitter. 
That's their choice but not a change to Twitter by Twitter.
Also to note, there are no self confessed members of the Left or Progressives or Liberals or "insert whatever name carried by non conservative types" have claimed they were cancelled by the right.

That aside what changes have happened. Well it's possible some people not of the Progressive/Left/Liberal side of things have seen their follower numbers increase over night.

Especially if you're a conservative commentator or a nobody like the rest of us who regulary made comments not supportive of Socialism, Cancel Culture and a number of other ideologies.

If you don't believe me, there's this YouTube video complete with factual stats.
Some leftist posters are seeing big drops in their numbers & conservative twatters are seeing big rises.
This can be caused by one of several things.

1) Someone of the right has taken control of Twitter to reduce the legitimate numbers of those following  Left leaners & increase the fake followers of those on Twitter who lean right.

2) Someone's cleaning up what has been a historical reduction of real follower numbers of Right leaning people & reduced the fake followers of the left

3) Or all of a sudden millions of right leaning people joined Twitter & started following right leaning posters & maybe millions of Left leaning followers de-activated their accounts & in doing so, reduced the left followers en masse.

Now I don't know for sure. I'd guess, stress guess, that if I had to have a bet, someone is cleaning house, covering tracks hoping no one would notice. 
Well people DID NOTICE and I hope Musk & whoever he decides to employ gets to have an accurate, forensic account of any "algorithem" or efforts to ghost people out, delete accounts or false out the projected follower numbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4ymTJUiEcA&t=2s

Now what did I notice, I remember a thought & a conversation a week or two ago about follower numbers
It then led me to go see how many followers my peers had or people I differed from had. How many certain MPs had as well as famous celebrities around Australia & the world.
As it happens one person & their count compared to mine stuck in my head.

The unnamed person is a person I know of but never met. They from WA and I always considered them a bit of a closet lefty. Actually I don't know what an impressive count is for a Western Australian.
But she or he was about 1000 followers more than me. 

As for number of posts per day...yeah I think its fair to say I post a bit too often.
In fact turns out its nearly an average of 16 posts a day. Whereas the he or she I'm comparing with sits nearly 40% lower.

Maybe that means something or completely nothing, maybe we post incredibly different things, move in different circles, I move in a lesser number of circles...in fact I'd guess all of the above.
But to be sensible I'll just say followers mean very little or if it does, I don't know what it is.
To be honest I recall my original account hitting 100 followers and I thought "WOW" because I never expected to get that high. It got quite high by "a nobody in Western Australia" standards. And yes then it got cancelled for reasons I never actually understood nor could find out. Well kinda. A large number complaints were made & it cited violent & harmful content. And it was incorrect & was on contiunal review for several months so I cancelled it and sometime later, just started a new account.

Its fair to say some of the many words I have used in the new account (8 or so years old) have included vegan activist, vegan iedology, socialism, marxism, post modernist Marxism, cancel culture, communism, transgender ideology and we critical or mocking of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, leader of N.Korea, quite a number of faults of WALabor MPs...and some other MPs etc etc.

So by pure chance I knew the rough number of my follower count. I thought, cool...if what the US Conservative commentators are saying is true, if some of them are seeing their follower count jump but massive numbers and spotting prominent Democrat figures in the USA drop by sizeable numbers than mine should have jump by maybe as much as a dozen, maybe nearly 2 dozen...if its just an algorithem someone has set to filter some stats up & other stats down.

However it was a bit of a jolt. In less than a few days, maybe 10 days tops my follower numbers have jumped up as well. My friend the closet lefty...same number. Mine...well I kid you not.
It is just a few followers short of exactly 90% increase.

In less than a week.

I don't care what Elon Musk does with the platform. I'll watch n see, see what its like & decide if I stay or go. I'll probably stay regardless unless it goes to an over priced subscription. 
I small fee, yeah I probably would stay. If anonymous accounts are removed then yes I would stay. If an edit but is introduced I'd happily stay. If it stays free speech but with each poster being legally accountible for their comments...still all good for me.
In any case, it will be his firm, his business, his choice.
It will continue to provide a service & it's a consensual contract, no one is forced to join & use so all good.

I have spoken to others who's account has been pro Conservative and half of them are saying their follower number clocked up rapidly too.

And after all that, I found follower numbers are likely to not mean much when it turns out you can buy followers. 
I went looking and yup, quickly found 5 online services where you can purchase 1000 followers for no more than US$30.00
Both "Real & Active"

So if I were selling a book or some art & starting out...yup you could simply drop US$2000 & pick up over 65,000 followers. Yes people would notice.
Or if you have a good Public Relations Strategy or team, drop $10,000 & rocket to well over 333,000 followers. I think sales could benefit or maybe they wouldn't. One thing for sure, its a distorted system creating a vague result.

Or...

Or I'm 100% wrong & I somehow legitimately picked up a 90% increase in followers in the last week. Interesting also is in the notifications. I had 3 notifications of new followers in the last few days.
No notifications of a 90% jump though...hmmm, let me think, something is fishy or I'm a genius in increasing follower numbers & I don't know it.

Hmmmm?

Sadly, I have to go with fishy.

VOTE COMPASS - The deeper think & the questions that then brings.

In the middle of a short electoral campaign its popular for people to rerach out for something a bit neutral, a seemingly unbias quick survey to dip ones toes in the water & see where you personally fall on the political spectrum.

I get that. But apart from extreme general, to the point of blurry general direction, is it a helpful tool, does it help people think, rethink?
I think it's probably, despite the best efforts of some people with sound University degrees, it might be closer to those social media surveys like "Highly intelligent people see the number 8 in under 8 seconds"

The other thing is, the criteria to set it all up is run by a company. Its a product. You can look up who the people are behind Vox Pop Labs. Its all based at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada. I'm unble to find if its a privately company, a company where the "Our Team" people are shareholders, the only shareholders or just paid employees.
Does it matter? Probably not but its good to know who is what & why.

It appears to be 10 peoples & 5 advisors. I don't know or know of any of them.
https://voxpoplabs.com/about/
Their bios read as very well educated & qualified people. So on face value, all is ok but that is no guarantee although it is easy to dismiss them or be critical of them if we were to read too much into what Vote Compass is, what it actually does do & what it really should be used to do.
That is a little vague & in the Australian context not mentioned at all. Apparently its a great thing, it holds some authority, made by political scientists but no real setting out what it really does well & what it should be used for.

They do set out their methodology & although I don't think its thoroughly flawed, deliberately skewed or intellectually corrupted I think it's not as deep and telling as many think it is.
If its just a bit of fun, yup, go for it but I do think the landscape theor survey is going to drop you on is not really a good representation of the way things are.
I do agree Labor & Liberal do deserve to be close together. They have some big differences & on the social access they probably aren't all that far apart because I think both are overly concerned with the optics, what's trending & fear some of the effect of Virtue Signallers...althought I think that is declining. ( I hope so)

On the Economic, its hard to put them anywhere near each other. One of the big arguments is who delivers surpluses & who delivers deficits. Sadly some deficits are caused by mismanagement, by spending on vital areas to protect the vulnerable, some by economic forces outside anyone's control so the sliding scale of "Economic" is fraught with danger. 

Its a set of questions with broad as a barn door with a set of answer options on topics which are far too deep & wide.

Its the supposed political landscape that is an issue.
Labor is in the dead centre between Progressive & Conservative. That is a stand out oddity.
Remember the Australian Labor Party is a Socialist Party.
I think it might be a lot closer in ideology & dogma to the Greens but what they say they believe & what they actually do is often different. That goes for all parties. I do recall a Liberal leader citing a broken political promise as being "not a core promise" comment.

Vox Pop Labs methodology is, well perhaps not easy to say its flawed but its does have some curious aspects.

The ABC site has a Methodology tab, click it & you will end up on a pop up with this...

Based on your responses to a brief questionnaire, Vote Compass generates an analysis of how your views compare to the positions of the parties in a given election.

This analysis is restricted to the specific issues included in the Vote Compass questionnaire and may not necessarily reflect your perceived political affiliation or intended vote choice.

The analysis generated by Vote Compass contains several different outputs, including a Cartesian plane and a bar graph. Each output measures something different and reflects a practical reality in which people think about politics in multiple ways. Some think in terms of ideology and others in terms of public policy issues. Vote Compass visualizes your results in each of these terms, leaving you free to decide which are most suitable for your purposes.

Party positions in Vote Compass are determined by way of a two-part process. A research team of political scientists analyzes the available data on party positions vis-à-vis the issues reflected in the questionnaire. Based on this analysis, a determination is made as to how each party would respond to each proposition. The research team then initiates a direct dialogue with each of the parties represented in Vote Compass as an additional check as to the accuracy of its calibrations. All parties are provided with an opportunity to review and, if necessary, challenge the calibrations before Vote Compass is launched.

For a full account of the Vote Compass methodology visit https://voxpoplabs.com/votecompass/methodology.pdf.

Interesting parts for me...
1) Party positions in Vote Compass are determined by way of a two-part process. A research team of political scientists analyzes the available data on party positions vis-à-vis the issues reflected in the questionnaire.

Well I expect there's an algorithem at play, set by the "research team of a political scientists..." and that team has set the the parameters. Think that's probably a more accurate way of setting it. How they set the parameters from Canada might be useful too but again, we risk reading far too much into this. Its result is not a bankable thing. Its just a thing. Don't make the thing do things it can't.

2) The research team then initiates a direct dialogue with each of the parties represented in Vote Compass as an additional check as to the accuracy of its calibrations.
As they should, but I hope they did it in review as well & that we could all see what the parties each said in their "direct dialogue"

3) All parties are provided with an opportunity to review and, if necessary, challenge the calibrations before Vote Compass is launched.
Well I would love to see this feedback as well because its not so much where I fell on the landscape provided, its whether or not the landscape, that is where the Parties sit is the real issue.
Confining it to two seperate aspects of Social & Economic isn't entirely kosher.

Would you rate a party that loudly & proudly supports Black Lives Matter as being high on the "Social" axis? I wouldn't, in fact quite the opposite. Its a devilishly anti-social organisation where the leaders of it are self confessed Marxist Organisers who have made millions out of it, bought mansions whilst black neighbourhoods were looted, businesses that employed people where stripped, burnt to the ground & some of those neighbourhoods will be years rebuilding if they can. People were killed, injured, made unemployed, police stations attacked, made police free & gangs had a massive growth spurt.
If as a party you rank BLM as a great thing, the people that supported "defund the police" and you rank that as a socially progressive thing then that party lurks somewhere between pro anarchy & a vile for of Marxism.

If you are a socialist party I think you can & should be found lower on the Social scale. THAT is not good for the economy nor social aspects of society. It also seems to suggest economic advancement as being seperate from social advancement in some parties. I think some use the social aspect as a virtue & guilt hammer to hit people with. But a good economy means more jobs. The greatest form of welfare is employment or running a business. Some have been slotted into high social aspect when its tax more to make more stuff free as their key policy driver. If a party was to tax people off the chart they'd rank lower economic aspect but be enormously socially minded...and strangely not irresponsible.

I expect the ALP & the Liberals are closer than we would/should expect but I think the sad part it is, they're positioned where they are based on what they've said, reviewed by them. Either they have both changed their stripes immensely or they are decidedly not what they say they are & will do (if they form Government) much less than they're promising.

It does strike me as odd the Greens are set as a stand alone party but the Nationals are not.
Greens have 10 federal members of Parliament at present.
The Nats have 19 federal members of Parliament at present.

The "LNP" only exist in Queensland. It is odd that the Greens are set as one of the 3 major parties...and they're the 4th AND the actual 3rd is made part of the 2nd because they're in coalition government...and there are Nationals running against Liberals in quite a few seats,

End thoughts & "thunking"...
In very broad & general terms if might pop you out somewhere on the spectrum & land you broadly in the region you are...its just that the Parties are all over the shop & I would view a party as being less than frank & accurate if they fed any feed back in at all.

The dangerous idea of Transgenderism

You know you're blessed if some of the people who converse with are of a differing view but they still talk to you. People that will challenge your thinking, cause you to challenge your own thinking but don't take issue with you personally because a difference remains,

In this day & age, perhaps like every day of all all history its easier to go to & stick with people of he same thinking. The thing about Canberra Bubble or people being within a bubble is a thing but sometimes that isn't an observation but maybe a snide remark because the other side won't change their mind.

Get over it. You cannot convert everyone to your way of thinking no matter how right you might actually be.

Amingst my friends, everal of us recall being lectured by some friends we were going out on the town with. Because we were kinda seen as a conservative types, so we had to be lectured up on accepting people because one of their transgender friends was coimg along. The way of thinking was very straight forward, I don't get their way of thinking, I don't have to love or hate it, its their business their choice...if its a choice. If its a mental condition thats very unfortunate...I would be polite & respectful regardless but I don't have to applaud them or pander or anything. Largely I was feeling staggering indifference as to what they were or weren't. Just a new person to meet. No big deal.
Hell I knew people who barrack for Collingwood & got along with them & a Transgender person can't be as bad  to get along with like a Magpies supporter could they?

That was many years ago now. Met the person, had a yarn, a joke a beer & had no dramas. They were perfectly polite & respectful to me so why would I have a problem with them? Don't know what became of them. Hope they're living a fulfilling and remarkable life...or perhaps just happily boring life like the rest of us.

Nowadays its a bit different. Indifference isn't really an option anymore. Many are trying to guilt people into accepting, applauding a person who is transgender & if you're not entirely pro Transgender Ideology you are regarded as a bigot.

Trouble is a few glitches pop up & its difficult to get clarity on some aspects of it from some of the people closest to it.

1) Ideology or not. Once it was, I gather it briefly was "Transgender Theory" and that was quickly replaced with Transgender Ideology...which is not not regarded as ideoology by supporters. Its now transgenderism to some. So I don't get involved with it much but I do not the changes & evolution of the way its delivered. I suppose if it was an Ideology, it would have a fairly set structure of definitions, ethos, dogma. Maybe it has but once I was told about Transgender Ideology now I'm told its not a ideology, its just life. I don't care either way, but if I get asked about it, get told about it...it changes a bit.

2) Sex & Gender. Once these were interchanagble things, if you were XX then your gender or sex was female. If you were XY your gender/sex was male. That changed.
Sex refers to your physical state, XX or XY...male or female genitalia. Gender refers to your identity which may or may not correlate with one's sex. Latest I heard, that hasn't swapped around.

3) Intersex relevence to Transgenderism is curious. I think there's intersectionality going on here. An Intersex person. Basically the thought is an intersex individual is simply someone born with sex characteristics that do not allow them to be defined as distinctly male or female. Friend mentioned this & cited a very pro Transgenderism website (which I admit not going to & reading) that Intersex people in "some studies" show that 1 out of 100 babies are born this way. I thought this was incredibly high. I looked it up & no didn't put much effort into it but best I could see it ranged between 0.02% and 0.08%
So with Australia's population being 26 million 0.02-0.08% means 5200-20,800 people whereas the 1% claim is 260,000. So there's quite a stat range with the higher number being 50 times higher than the lower number. I guess at some point someone would have to eliminate "some studies say" and just pick 3 reputable studies & go with an average of the 3 studies.

3b) Why is Intersex at all relevent to Transgenderism? Whilst people both Transgender & Intersex people may have many things in common, may feel common unfair threats or ill feeling they are completely seperate. Intersex is a medical condition, there is no choice nor do they have a choice that is suppressed or with held. Theirs is strictly a medical condition from birth.
Transgender is not a medical abnormality, if its anything its a mental condition or its a chosen ideology.
I think both should be treated with the fullest respect but they are different. Trangenderism will have to do some real reworking of fact & science to make Transgenderism a medical abnormality like Intersex. To be fair & honest. I think it does both a disservice treating them as the same.

4) Gender is a social construct. This confounds me & for a long time I wasn't entirely sure why. I didn't think about it much at all to be honest so when it did come up in conversation it required fast thinking on the run...which is never a good idea. Its only in the last few years of Male Born people saying they're Women and competing in Female/Women's sports that made me think more about the so called "social construct" aspect.
I was told Gender is identity and that it is assigned at birth with your sex is a mistake, is potentially "misgendering" a person and that a male born person has to be a boy & a female person has to be a girl is a "social construct" - My question was is, "Isn't that social construct binding because that's the way its always been, aren't social constructs by nature binding?"
I was told no, absolutely not & that in being a social construct people can decide for themselves and none of us have the authority to impose a social construct upon anyone else
I repeated that key point in a question..."So a social construct is not binding, no one has the authority to enforce it or make anyone agree with it even in principle?"
I was told an emphatic "Correct, 100%. A social construct is not binding on anyone"

It was at that point I felt it might be only me that smelt the incredibly strong & pungent smell of irony, perhaps hypocrisy.

I pointed out that Transgenderism is not science, like all ideologies it is a social construct, therefore its not binding, no one has the authority to enforce it or make anyone agree with it even in principle.

The reburral to that point I made went into shape shifter mode. "Look is doesn't affect you, no one is forcing you to change genders, why don't you just accept it as being natural, why are you being so bigoted?"

I pointed out not affecting me is not a logic point. "We could be sitting on a bus and you go up the front of the bus and shoot some random stranger in the head. That spend anti logic is unless the bus is moving and the person shot is the driver, it doesn't affect me. What I am forced to agree with is the problem. If someone disagrees with it, you have to accept it. Either argue a point but don't play a guilt card that doesn't exist. People can surgucally change themselves, take man made hormones & chemicals to alter their bodily chemistry but my view still is, a Male Born Person shouldn't play female sports or rightfully claim womanhood they do not have."

4) Women in Sport - Now its being done to death but yes I firmly believe born female people are the only ones able to compete in "Women's Sports" - Simple answer is if "Women" are just a social construct (false) then change all Women's Sports to "Female Sports" - Base it on sex not gender. Now when you do this, you soon find out that its not gender identity that's change, their sex & gender have changed, they are inseperable but changeable. It now approaches the absurd.

Now I don't follow MMA Cage Fighting. I think its sanctioned thuggery & should be banned. But its lawful so carry on. In the MMA there were 2 celebrated cases of Transgenders in the ring. In one case the Transgender competing in a women's cometition beat their first 2 matches without declaring they were transgender. That transgender person beat them pretty convincingly. 

The other case was an male born fighter who got in the ring with women. I was told no one would fight this person. True or not I don't know. I was also told that one of these Transgender fighters had fractured the skull of a female/woman opponent. 
Any young girl at school growing up & watching legends like Ash Barty, Layne Beachley or the Williams Sisters...well your dream is now harder. You're going to go up against some boy in your class now as well one day if they transition.
Good luck with that.

It always comes down to the same things.

Which is social construct Sex or Gender?

Someone came up with the idea of that being a social construct so that idea is a social construct so no one can have any problem with anyone else not accepting an ideology, a world view, a social construct can they?

What is a woman?

Is womanhood actually a really a real thing or can anyone decide to be a man or a woman, and then go compete in those sports?

As a conservative its actually pretty clear what I think & believe but it does get twisted to demonise/denigrate/dismiss me/my view.

If someone wants to surgically alter their body, their bodily chemistry with man made chemicals so they more closely resemble the sex/gender they believe they are, but were not born as...that's their business.
Go for it, I don't care. I do think children should not be allowed to "transition" until they're legal adults, over 18. The damage is too great. Its probably too great at any age should they wish to de-transition but as a child, it creates a medical & mental nightmare. Above 18, do what you want although at some point society will have to look at this as a mental condition & assess the risks...like they used to.

What I oppose is anyone saying I have to accept the ideology behind it. I don't. You want to, go for it.
I think you're wrong, you may think I'm wrong...there's where it is, get over it.

If the government legislates how I must address someone, penalise me for "wrong speech" then yes I oppose that too,

I consider gender/sex the same & inseperable. If you're born male or female you should never ever play against people born in the opposing gender/sex.

People have to accept that there are many people who think no man can actually become a woman, no woman can actually become a man. You might live as one, but you are not one. This view is not not evil nor hate speech.

"Yeah but..."

No doubt there'll be plenty of that coming for ages & eons.

What day do you say "Happy Easter" & is there a correct day?

So on which day are you supposed to say "Happy Easter"?

Question popped up listening to 6PR and the short answer might actually be if you're not Christian say it any day I guess. You'll say whatever you want, whenever you like & it won't matter to you if you're neither Jewish nor Christian. But technically, is there a more accurate day?

To be super accurate, you won't find the word Easter in the Scriptures so work out what it is you're trying to mean. If its just you saying have a nice public holiday or have a nice day off work perhaps there is no day more accurate than others.

If it's because you think its to celebrate the most solemn day during the Easter festive break it gets a little trickier. Quite tricky. Or does it?

Fair chance if you're thinking of the most solemn day you're possibly going to think one of two things.
1) One is the more common held view, its the day of Christ's resurrection.
2) The other less common is its the day of His crucifixtion.

Now whilst the latter would have been an immensely sorrow filled day for those then who were there & were close to Him, it was that actual death that according to Scripture leads us away from Judgement.

It was a horrible death, but as horrible as it was, it remains a triumph & many scholars have pointed out Christ was actually in control of all the timing. Another story, another day. Getting back to which day when, here's where it gets tricky irrespective of which, what & when in your mind.

Scripture is very clear, in the ground/buried for 3 days & 3 nights.
Problem is there are not 3 days & 3 nights between Good Friday & Easter Sunday.

Remember another thing, we have 24 hours in a day, our day starts at Midnight & goes through to midnight.
Remember this is a story from the Bible. Its told by Jews about Jews in a Roman territory. To them a Monday starts at 6pm Sunday & goes through until 6pm Monday. Tuesday starts 6pm Monday & finishes 24 hours later at 6pm & so on.

With that in mind, and remember the Scripture quotes Christ as saying "Are there not 12 hours in the day?"
So if he spent 3 days & 3 nights in the grave it couldn't really happen if he died on Friday & rose on Sunday.

So, go to the time he died, then to the time he was buried and estimate a start point of the actual day.
Remember these Jewish story, Jewish days & hours

                                 

Scripture is clear as it can get, Jesus was nailed to the cross between the third and the sixth hour, that is, between 9am & Noon.

And soon after the ninth hour, that is, between three and four o’clock (but closer to 3pm) in the afternoon, he died.

Now that day, the day he died was referred to by Scripture as a Day of Preparation. 
That's the day before every Shabbat which is their day of rest. And this is where people think Shabbat is on Saturday, so Christ must have been Crucified on a Friday, Good Friday.

What many miss is there is a Shabbat once a week but there's also 13 (I think 13) other Special Shabbats or High Shabbats. The week Christ was crucified, there were 2 Shabbats. The one following Christ's death wasn't referred to as Shabbat, it was referred to in John 19:31 as a "Special Shabbat"
or in other translation as a "Special Sabbath" or "High Sabbat".
The KJV clearly says "For that sabbath day was an high day"
There are 2 days as Shabbat that week, 2 days of Preparation that week but only one Special Shabbat or High Shabbat...starting Wednesday 6pm that starts just hours after Jesus dies.

Christ once buried has to be in the ground/buried 3 days & 3 nights (as Scripture says) BEFORE His resurrection.

Remember its a rushed burial, without the usual procedure, they're running out of time for usual ritual. They have to bury him before 6pm or they're defiled for that Sabbath. Clocks ticking.

So for 3 nights in the ground, its Wednesday night, Thursday night & Friday night.
For the 3 full days of 12 hours, its Thursday daytime (High Shabbat) , its Friday daytime (another Day of Preparation) & Saturday daytime (usual Shabbat). At the end of that Saturday daytime, at 6pm Shabbat ends and a new day begins.

So technically Christ could fulfil the 3 days & 3 nights in the ground & be resurrected anytime after 6pm Saturday if he died at the hours Scripture says and it was the Wednesday, as Scripture says.

So he died sometime after 3pm on the Wednesday, was buried sometime before 6pm Wednesday.
Stayed in the ground 3 full days & 3 full nights ending 6pm Saturday which is after Shabbat. And he resurrected sometime on or after 6pm Saturday.

And yes Jesus Christ was actually Jewish and even in death & resurrection He observed the 2 Shabbats that week doing no work on earth. 

We know no one went looking for him until early Sunday morning because Scripture says...
"The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre."

So it was dark, it was the first day of the week. so that means it was before sunrise Sunday morning.
So technically, Mary Magadalene could have left where she was spending Shabbat at 6:01pm Saturday night & gone to the Tomb because THAT is the early hours of Sunday, the first day of the week.

 He might have been resurrected bang the tick of 6pm before she even got there.
We don't know for sure.
Earliest she can get there is after 6pm Saturday night. The earliest He can resurrect is 6pm Saturday

So if you really want to be technical you first have to say which the greeting "Happy Easter" applies to.
The Death by crucifixtion or The Resurrection.

If it's the Death you could celebrate by saying Happy Easter on Wednesday

If it's the Resurrection you celebrate by saying Happy Easter, then its anytime after 6pm Saturday.

If you understand that the death & ressurectioon fell during a week long Jewish festive called Passover, that Christ was predicted to be the Lamb of the Passover & its still a thing for you to say Happy Easter then any day during Passover would be fine. Everyday for the whole week long event.

Now there are reasons the modern church doesn't observe the Wednesday Crucifixtion & the resurrection after the weekly Shabbat...despite the clear words of Scripture.

The early church in the centuries after the Cricifixtion got pretty ugly towards the Jewish people.
Fair to say the early Church became grotequely anti-Simetic. There's much showing Christianity distancing & demonising the Jews and we ended up seeing Replacement Theology which is horribly wrong. Again, another story another day.

The disciples & others Post Resurection probably didn't celebrate "Easter" or "Christmas"...they were too busy , healing, instructing churches, ministering to people & baptising.
Arguably more important than a public holiday that didn't exist for many centuries into the 2nd Millenium.
 
And no Christ could not have been born in December either.
Most likely Autumn 2BC but yet again, anothe story, another day.

Perhaps, if you mean well, say nice things any day you like but knowing a thing with precision is never ever a bad thing. 

Happy Easter...

Footnote - its usually at this point in a verbal discussion that someone without a Bible & possible a non or anti Believer might say "If it's that clear how come its not known by everyone then? Everyone everywhere would know if the Scriptures really say that?"

Disbelief & asking questions is a good thing. I usually say "Can you tell me how many wise men visited Jesus in the manger then?" 
Usually, in fact everytime I've ever asked this the answer is "Three"

That's wrong. None of the wise men met the baby Jesus in the Manger. NONE.
They met Him in a house, he was a toddler and the Scripture says wise men as in plural, never says how many. They brought 3 gifts which symbolised High Priest, Death (Saviour) & King.

Its been in the Scriptures since they were first written down eons ago and people still answer "3 wise men" which is still as always is clearly wrong. So same deal, mainstream don't read or check the Scriptures so the truth, the facts kinda run away from them. 

Funny the information they hide in text in books...who knew?

The Bizarre & Curious Interview with Police Minsiter Paul Papalia

So the WA Police Minsiter sat in on the phone & was interviewed by Gareth Parker on Breakfast with Gareth Parker on 6PR the 13th of April 2022.

It was bizarre & curious. In fact it left many of us with a ton of "what the hell moments"

I think he's went cunning stunt and was trying to deliver a certain type of politically skewed optic and well...it kinda didn't go very well at all. In fact if anything it seemed very John Quigley and in need of a second go over. It seemed more about the National Shooting Council from the Eastern States & then bagging the Upper House.

In regards to the National Shooting Council (NSC), they apprarently wrote to Labor Candidates in the Federal election. So far nearly all WA Shooters I've spoken to haven't heard of the NSC. Well Mr Papalia, they have now & if its part of a national recruitment drive, you've just helped them a lot.

Mr Papalia when speaking of NSC said that they...

Mr Papalia MLA - “...seem to be absolutely opposed to us rewriting our Firearms Act which almost 50 years old. We’re the only jurisdiction in the country that hasn’t rewritten our Act since the National Firearms Agreement in 1996 and um why they think they have, should have a say, but why they think that’s the wrong thing to do is beyond me.”

I am concerned it is actually beyond him.

1) At at this stage, we can only go by the letter WA Federal Labor Candidates recieved that was not made public so, we're going by what Mr Papalia thinks of what apparently was said. Strangely I haven't come across a licenced shooter who didn't have one or many objections with the WA Firearms Legislation. Its just curious that nothign has happened since 1996 or the handing down of the Law Reform Commission report in 2016. He's personally had nearly 5 years.

2) We can't read the letter so who knows what the eastern states group from the east thinks or is about. Mr Papalia made a reference to the US group the NRA which is kinda of strange. They have different laws, constituitional rights & the largest portion of the gun crime is drug & gang related. Plus they have the ability to use firearms for self defence & some places concealed & open carrying of firearms. We have none of these so any comparisons with the US are only any good for pushing a falsely bolstered agenda. 

3) Everyone can have a say, no one gets to say who can & cannot have a say...until its time to open things for public consultation. In this case an Eastern States group can write to political candidates in WA and say whatever they want. It will not affect any re-writing of the Firearms Act that Mr Papalia is noww doing after 5 years, no effect at all...they will be Federal candidates, not state so its very curious & bizarre as to why he is bothered about it at all, going on radio to complain about it or get a bit upset about it. Few of us have made comments about Biden & Trump...no one in the USA cares what we say or think. Honestly they don't.


Mr Papalia MLA - “The primary concern I have about that is the National Firearms Agreement said that public safety should be, should have primacy, it should be the number one consideration in Firearms Legislation and in Western Australia its not. That is what we said is the primary objective of re-writing the Act, is to elevate community safety to the, the number one consideration in the Act and we intend doing that and if they think they are going to have an influence over ah you know stopping us from doing that then they’re really sorely mistaken”

Ahh well...
4) See answer 3 above. 

5) I don't think the Eastern States group will have any influence. Over who? Federal Candidates before and/or after they're elected? No. 

6) We assume there will be a public consultation period. There should be. The current amendments before the Upper House had NO PUBLIC OR STAKE HOLDER CONSULTATION AT ALL PRIOR TO THE BILL'S FORMATION.
But the Minister didn't mention that.

7) The Minister should know that public safety is everyone's primary responsibility. Sadly after Port Arthur no money was spent on serious mental health after a deranged psycopath WITH NO FIREARM'S LICENCE was able to aquire several illegal firearms, one possibly not even legal in Tasmania. Instead, half a billion dollars was spent buying back guns of those people who either thought it was the right thing to do or thought it was an easy way to get paid for old guns. Arguably public safety missed the mark a little.

8) Lawful Firearms Owners are part of the community. It would be wise to apply say a 10-15 year custodial sentence for possession of an illegal firearm...PER FIREARM. Served CONSECUTIVELY and that would fit in with making the public's safety a primary concern. It will make life safer for Lawful Fiream's Owners too Mr Papalia, for they too are members of society & with the strictest jail penalties on the planet, we  would see public safety improved. Lawful Firearms Owners are members of the WA Community aren't Mr Papalia, surely?

Mr Papalia MLA - "In this case we’re just talking about re-writing the Act, um it’s ridiculous that they should be opposing it. There’s another concern Gareth, right now beyond re-writing the Act, I have an amendment to the Firearms Act in the Upper House of State Parliament to target Bikies, terrorists & family and domestic violence offenders and I got an assurance from the opposition that that legislation would go through parliament without any, any problem at all. Ah it passed through the Lower House no problem. The opposition leader & deputy confirmed that they were supporting the legislation and yet last week the ah, the opposition ah people in the Upper House delayed the progress of that Bill and now we’re waiting until the next sitting of Parliament for it to be brought on for debate again. This is necessary legislation. The Police have requested it to take on Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs, to ensure we’ve got powers, ah to prevent terrorists and, and serious family and domestic violence offenders from having guns and its being stopped in the Upper House by the opposition. I think because of these people on the East Coast sending them emails.

9) The Amendment is before the Upper House alright, its the one that was formed behind closed doors & invloved (as best we can know) the minister's office, WAPolice Bureacrats, a Law Firm and possibly the Attorney General but we're only guessing. We do know no one knew about it until the Attorney General slipped up in Parliament & mentioned it and in the Hansard video you can clearly see the shocked look on Mr Papalia's face & hear clearly his comment "Don't tell them that"
No community or industry stakeholders were consulted. None.

10) It has been said many times that it targets Outlaw Motor Cycle Gangs, Terrorists & Family & Domestic Violence Offenders. I know of no law abiding shooters against that. That is a criminal set, not lawful, law abiding WA Citizens. It should not affect anyone who is lawful, firearms owner or not.

11) We don't know what assurance the Opposition gave, but an assurance in supporting it is not a blank cheque, it must go through the full process & I think the small group in the Lower House were not equipped to deal with it at short notice. Thankfully we have a sort of House of Review in the Upper House and thankfully in their number on the Opposition benches are a number of experienced lawyers.

12) So Police requested it. Did not hear before who's idea this was. A little more open transperancy there may have had those details out before.

13) This is a big one. "...and its being stopped in the Upper House by the opposition. I think because of these people on the East Coast sending them emails."

I think the Minister won't repeat that in the Parliament, because as much as there is parliamentary privelege it does not extend to being allowed to "mislead the House" and its quite likely that might qualify as misleading.
Why? Because the minister does not know if the NSC are sending opposition MPs emails let alone did they both opening them after staff ran the reasonable filter over them & logged them as being non Western Australians. Of if then the NSC if they did make it to a Opposition MP desk that the Opposition MP took fright of an interstate group largely unheard of here and did as they thought was asked of them.
The minister does not have covert access to Opposition MPs private correspondance does he?
Does he?
I hope he does not, but he doesn't does he?

I think he isn't running secret surveillance on Opposition MP correspondence, I think these things didn't happen as he suggests & I think he's guessing, suggesting and inferring false actions to demonise the Opposition & the NSC who have debatable interaction. Get him to repeat it in Parliament, get him to prove it. Simple as the logic behind the fork.
Is the Police Minsiter having a Quigley/Biden moment?

Gareth Parker - "Didn’t your shadow Peter Collier try to get a committment that Law Abiding Firearm Owners wouldn’t be affected?"

Mr Papalia MLA - "He, I, every question that was asked in the Upper House last week was answered in the Lower House, ah weeks before, ah in a debate in consideration in detail where they were able to ask questions, all of these questions that were posed by these people on the East Coast who shouldn’t have any say at all in the matter ah were already answered in the Lower House where Government is formed, where normal practises where arrangements between the parties is agreed. The leader of the opposition undertook to support the legislation, gets to the Upper House, ah the guys there in the Liberal & National Parties get emails from people on the East Coast and then start ah delaying the legislation as, is, in response to these people. I don’t know what, what is motivating them”

14) This was simple, he made it complicated & elusive. He spent a long time giving a tactial political reply rather than simply give a simple answer. Like "We've given assurances that no Lawful Firearms Owner will be negatively affected by the current Amendment before the Upper House" but instead clouds of diversionary smoke. Totally unwarranted, totally unhelpful, decidedly slippery & obviously political and deflective for some reason.

15) He said all these questions were posed by the people on the east coast but all he had to do to short circuit those people and genuine WA people's concerns was answer the damn question. 
He also seems to not know what the process of Parliament actually is, somehow he thinks the Upper House must not be seperate from the Lower House & must conform to whatever the Lower Hosue has already predetermined. 
Somehow he thinks the Upper House must conform completely to the Lower House, not  question the Lower House and become a rubber stamp cheer squad.
I remember VERY clearly how the Premier boldly declared 24 September 2019 The WALabor Government's leader, the WA Premier said — "This is good legislation. It is very well drafted and carefully considered. The government has devoted a huge amount of resources to this bill. It does not require amendment".

Let me remind you what the then Health Minsiter Roger Cook said when blasting the opposition...
"The fact they have sought the call, moved so many motions and asked so many often repetitive questions really just shows they’ve got contempt for the public.
There’s no reason they cannot do a solid piece of analysis and scrutiny of the Bill without unduly delaying it … now is the time they get on with it and finish the job.”

55 amendments followed.

25 came from Nick Goiran MLA        (Lib)
18 came from the Government           (ALP)
6 came from Martin Aldridge MLA    (Nats)
4 came from Adele Farina                   (ALP)
1 came from Martin Pritchard             (ALP)
1 came from Alison Xamon                 (Greens)

So the WA Labor Premier has quite a bit of egg on his face. Because of the 55 amendments passed but seemingly were not required, 23 came from Labor Members.
The Upper House must do its job & do it properly without fear or favour and act independently of the Lower House & the Government.
Mr Papalia has a short memory, bad knowledge of how legislation is supposed to progress and be decided or hopes you have none at all.

16) Notice this... "...ah the guys there in the Liberal & National Parties get emails from people on the East Coast and then start ah delaying the legislation as, is, in response to these people. I don’t know what, what is motivating them" How do we know what the Upper House MPs recieved from the NSC, how do we know for sure it prompted them to do anything other than what is the proper independent job as Upper House MPs & how are we ever likely to believe the Minister?

This is not jsut slippery slope stuff, this is half way down at break neck speed.
The Police Minister is seemingly on a new Olympic Event  & trying to win Gold with a stunning performance of Out-Quigleying Mr Quigley. 

Gareth Parker - "Ok, Um I guess all I would say is that without knowing all the details the Upper House has always been the House of Review and that has happened over the journey, anyway, thank you Paul, appreciate your time."

Since the Burke Years I've seen & heard some deplorable efforts by MPs of all stripes. Can't say this one takes the cake, but half the cake tin is empty and Mr Papalia has a mouthful of something and its not succient straight forward answers. I think his aim with this interview was to set up a few villains, demonise them, select some high ground and try to befriend people with bull dust & avoid the question Gareth Parker asked that if answered properly would have settled all critics, got all law abiding people on board with him & devalued anything the largely unknwon NSC has supposedly said. Instead he played another hand of deflection demonising for political gain...and he was cooked by his own hand.

The real worry is which is which. Its clearly & utterly a completely underwhelming effort from Mr Papalia but I'm concerned if he is best suited for the Rewriting of the Firearms Act & is Mr Quigely. 

At present, its looking very bad for WA citizens whether they legally possess firearms or not because Firearms Safety, the Public's Safety is unlikely until this minister embraces point 8) up above.
This is the same minister who put the bullet holes on street maps to represent gun owners in Perth.

I have never seen anything like this. It is a serious concern.

To hear the Minister yourself, click the link below, hit play & scrub forward until the last 10-15 minutes of the show. Listen for the Minsiter's pause after Gareth asked him about Peter Collier's seeking of assurances. Bit awkward perhaps...you decide.

Breakfast with Gareth Parker: Breakfast with Gareth Parker - Full Show Highlights 13th April 2022 on Apple Podcasts

So a funny thing...

1. Do you support good Unions & good companies?
   Y'know fair and reasonable outfits where a fair day's pay for a fair days work is paramount and people always pay what they owe without leaving people in a financial loss?
   
   
2. Are you against bad Unions and bad companies that have money hungry grifters at the top living in Penthouses on over the top exhorbitant salaries strip mining their members & shareholders?
   
   
3. Are you pro Family?
   This is comes from the (somewhat left leaning) Brookings Institute in the US that the 3 most effective things that can get people out of poverty are
   a) Stay in school & graduate
   b) Get a job & stay employed
   c) Get married before having kids and stay married
   Not always possible but those 3 things generate the best probability of lifting yourself out of the "below the poverty line" and rise in economic success.
   This is very old news with mountains of peer reviewed research despite the efforts to dispel it. It gained more support (and yes some stronger opposition) when conservative US Commentator publicised it and he was attacked for it. Interesting, a black US Conservative commentator Larry Elder has been pushing it to raise the heavily weighted black community that is stuck in poverty.
   
   
4. Are you pro Medicare & pro Private Health Insurance and very pro choice on which you have or rely on?
   These are a part of of society, they are not disputed by any political party or political ideology. Its just fair. Medicare is a clearly fair safety net despite the cost blow outs in places, but thats what happens when you support the vulnerable and at risk. Its fair. It isn't socialism or I'd oppose it. Socialism would have the work experience cleaner being paid the same amount as the Neuoro-surgeon regardless of ability, trianing, skill, hours in study or demand. Same hourly rate.
   
   You cannot remove that from "socialism" by putting "democratic" in front of socialism. 
   
   
5. Are you keen to reduce bureaucratic red tape, lessen a Government telling you what to do, how you can or can't do and providing you a complicated application process to get approval before you can do anything on modifying your house, your car, your life?
   Do you want to ask permission for things that should be simple, uncomplicated and easy?
   Perhaps safety requirements yes, but if you go outside the proper procedures you're borderline fool aren't you?
   
   
6. Are you keen to have proper reforms of legislation to give fair, reasonable & proportionate laws & regulations and remove those unfair, unreasonable, non proportionate hoops to jump through that do not add safety, opportunity but add complexity, cost & unreasonable penalties?
   
   
7. Are you keen to choose if you wish to follow a faith or not follow a faith and not have any restricitons in doing so as long as it doesn't break laws that protect people?
   
   
8. Are you keen to support freedom of speech and the freedom to march & protest as long as it's non violent, very peaceful & perhaps works in with police to ensure there's no ill effects on traffic?
   
   
9. Do you oppose people glueing themselves to windows, gate crashing restaraunts yelling, screaming, chanting & generally imposing themselves on others & preventing them from going about their own life peacefully or preventing them from earning a living?
   Thats a simple one.
   
   
10. Are you pro Law & Order and would like to see longer sentences for a variety of serious crimes?
    To be clear, there's also a mountain of research that the biggest deterrant to committing crime is not the penalties of fines & jail terms. Its the higher probability of getting caught. Amongst career criminals there is a psychological trait that means they are emboldened by their own view they're smarter and/or luckier than others and won't get caught. They can get caught & they are the most likely to be repeat offenders or "residivists" 
    
    
11. Do you support your government putting your country first where ever possible, not invading others but having a strong defence presence where needed and a strong, well funded & resourced defence force?
    Another simple one, Australia first or ourseves subserviant to other nations? 
    
    
12. Do you support the idea that the basic fundamentals of the West is best for the progress of a society?
    
    
13. In other words if you're living in a Western Style country would you say its better than non Western Countries, non Free Market countries and as a result you're staying here not emigrating?
    
    
14. That heirarchies of competencies are valid & required. That is if you're the best in your feild you should be paid as such & if going for the job it should be based on your competence...not your gender, weight, race, looks, religion, who you know, who you're related too or it's your turn in the group who's turn it is. Best person based on skill ability, competence & best fit for the position.
    
    
15. That its not only noble its essential to teach and entrench the idea that rights & responsibilites are totally inseperable. 
    
    
16. That its better to do something the way its always been done unless there is a proven way to reasonably do it differently that produces a better outcome or result
    
    
17. Borders are reasonable. Some people have to be kept out. 
    
    
18. Welfare is valid & reasonable part of Western society but it should be the short safety net & its aim is to make it easier for people to return to work, that welfare is perfectly legitimate but the best welfare is a job because honest work is not just income...it provides meaning, personal satisfaction, ability to develop higher aims, promotions etc & gives a well earned feeling of personal achievement.
    
    
19. Do you oppose radical culture ideology like Transgender Ideology?
    Not oppose people who want to be Trans of have become, but oppose the Ideology that is being pushed to trying to replace and erase medical and/or psychological advice, knowledge or disorders & the potential side affects of "transitioning" on younger bodies that are not of mature development. Or that part of the ideology that forces you to accept that which isn't correct & failure to do so renders your a horrible person, a bigot or "Transphobic"

So if you answered yes to all the above or nearly all the above here's the thing...
You might actually be a conservative.

On the answers where you differ, you should talk to others to see what others think what's what in that area.

Albo, Premier McGowan and the "local resident" who wanted to ask a tough question

You've all seen it. A non journalist attended a Press Conference with Albo & Premier McGowan.
The "I've got a tough question for you" guy.

He was heard on 6PR early mornings with Millsy. He was asked what was the tough question but before that we've also learnt...

• His name is Norm
• He is not connected with the Billboard Truck claiming Labor is CCP connected
• He has a tough question for the Prime Minister too
  
• May have said on air that he had a question for the Premier
• He was promised by both the Premier & Mr Albanese that they'd chat with him after the Press Conference
• They didn't see Norm afterwards, he said he waited but they left immediately.
  
• On another interview Mr Albanese that Norm was involved with the CCP Banner truck that was parked outside the Premier's house.
• Norm claimed on air he is not connected with the truck.
• If its true Norm is not connected or involved with the CCP Banner Truck, for Mr Albanese will have to retract the false claim & apologise
• During the Press Conference, Mr Albanese told Norm that the "Media Alliance" would be upset with him if the public began attending & started asking questions. On the radio, the 6PR announcer Millsy said he's been in the press for a while & he doesn't know who the Media Alliance is. That's even more curious if the Media Alliance he mentions doesn't exist & its a deceptive invention
  
  

Norm on the radio, dropped the ball. Millsy too quite some time trying to get that actual "tough question" out of Norm and Norm kept deflecting and dodging. He wouldn't share the question.
Ironically he would not share his question after being repeatedly asked and ended up just like the Politicians. Tactical replies not answers.

I hope people now ignore Norm & that still hidden questions & focus on the other points that were dragged out into the sunlight.

1. Press conferences are highly controlled & staged managed by Political Strategists
   
   
2. You need as many journos as you can so you can have urgency present so you can quickly knock a question & ask for another before giving out too much. Reporters are keen to ask their own question, if the previous question is deflected they won't push for the answer, they're trying to get their question in. It's a perfect Casino Game, the house always wins & journos cannot win therefore the public cannot.
   
   
3. Why can the general public not attend a press conference. Its not a legislated & regulated event. Its held outside in public, in a public place then anyone can come. The politician can refuse to answer questions from anyone without a Press Pass but they won't want to get to that point.
   I expect Security Measures will be ramped to hell to exclude anyone not from the press but it also means that it might one day be, it will be a closed event & selected press might be only ones allowed in. Shouldn't, I hope won't.
   
   
4. Why not spend 50:50 time, Press:Public questions? 
   Simple reasons why not. Public have no personal skin in the game. They're not trying to get ahead in the Media arena & some might be thinking of a well paid appointment as a MPs "Media Advisor" or "Press Strategist" 
   The public however are not thinking of a great gotcha question or soft question to endear to a MP. The public will be honest & in an answer they will expect honest. It is not the scrutiny most Politicians will want plus the public cannot be managed like the Press. they are unpredicatable & yes I know of journos who have asked uncomfortable questions & got quietly black banned, ghosted out, ignored & excluded. That hangs over their head. Try to ask the big questions without ruining your prospects of being able to ask any questions. Its only when a MP is within a scandal or on the nose that the Press take the gloves off or rather feel no inhibition. We often call it a Media Frenzy. I call it the normal, no holding back, no being stage managed & held down by the politicians & their handlers.
   
   
5. There is a "Media Alliance" and its in the USA. "Media Alliance is an American media resource and advocacy center for media workers, non-profit organizations, and social justice activists"
   
   

As for Media Alliance in Australia there is the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance in Australia.
In short, its a Union. If you're an ex Union figure head & you're trying to be PM you'd be thinking why does a Union have any say in what you do in front of cameras & microphones in a public place? There is no legislation stating who can & can't attend or speak so unless you go into a hired venue & control entry (legitimately) then you can't complain. Albo didn't have to answer Norm's questions. But shouldn't had gone all dodgy deflect, make false claims, offer to speak afterwards & then run.

Very dodgy. But then you shouldn't be surprised and if you want to attend a politician's press conference in a public place and try to ask a question, go for it. If more of the public did, the politicians have to get more open & honest with all wanting questions or they will have to exclude the public completely. They'll dearly want to do that without anyone noticing they're doing that.

Stage Managed,

Now this is not Anti Albo, Anti Premier McGowan.

Blatant Staged Management by theatre props is common across all parties. Some politicians will stop, listen and cop the flak. Some...no, not at all.

Democratic Socialism in Australia.

It is interesting how the aims of Democratic Socialist Parties in Australia have very clear Socialist views & aims. Don't believe me, check their Constitutions & their Party aims. You don't get too deep before "means of production" is mentioned and its mentioned where it must be largely owned and shared equally by people. In other words let run loose, no one would own anything beyond their own home & car...but in Nation's where Socialist aims have been met, individual rights are reduced. For example a foreign corporation, even foregin Govt backed can by a farm in Australia. You cannot buy a farm in China. Their ownership is very strictly controlled & managed by foreigners. Citizens can to a poitn own their home but what is their prominent political landscape is such that the individuals serve the Government not the reverse like it supposed to be here.

You will notice that those in the elite political class do personally very well. Without ever having owned a business or large number income streams that build assets, somehow they do.

Were they really serious about their Socialist you'd actually expect them to be consistent & lead by example... 

What if all members of a Democratic Socialist Party actually stick to their ideological world view? How about all party members & all union members pool their entire earnings, no matter how much they earn, then redistribute the funds on a equal split amount.

I think that's a sensible thing, lead by example. 

I think you'll find they're very socialist when it comes to accumulating more money for themselves from others, but when ti comes to sharing a single cent of their own to the "greater cause" then its a no go.

Why would a Labor Party MP be socialist & not be in favour of this even within their own party room. Imagine elected ALP back benchers, 2nd & 3rd stringers MPs, shadow/Cabinet members & Party Leader (either opposition or PM) all pool & split their incomes. On extra committees? Well instead of earning more dollars, put it in the pool & split it.
It makes sense. And yet ALP flee from it. 
Even though the ALP says they're Democratic Socialists.

How exactly does dropping "Democratic" in front of Socialism make socialism ok?

Got medical costs? Don't get private insurance, if you're an ALP member pay for the evenly split cost of all health services amongst all ALP members & affiliated Union members. Easy. Do that & it'll be easy on the public purse. Yeeeeah not happening.

(110) Democratic Socialism is Still Socialism - YouTube

Now there's another option once the Australian Socialist have led by example for a few years...
Copy Venezuela. Now when it comes to natural resources, they are one of the more blessed in the word.
But how are they doing under a Socialist Regime...that was originally "democratically elected" ?
And don't forget to see where they rank in the Freedom Score. It sits worse than Cuba but better than North Korea and out of 32 countries in its region...it ranks at #32.
Socialism, democratically installed Socialism is good right? Or something?