Several points, complexity not needed just everything laid open in bare sight.
1) WALabor Party had everything on their side at the last state election. It resulted in a change of government, it put them in power. Not just in power but they rode a Tsunami red tidal change. Its said they had a plan to win government but really they didn't need much of a plan, all they needed to do was keep their nose clean and gently punch on. This they did and they were rewarded with a handsome majority in the Lower House largely gained at the expense of the Liberal Party (Lacking proper planning and then back flipping later)
2) Point one above needs some further clarification. They had very little of a plan to win Government and it's beginning to appear they have virtually no plan to run Government. The "Urban Medal" saga got deeper by day & more perculiar with each passing week. After 2o odd days, Barry Urban resigned from the Party and went on as an Independent. After being absent from Parliament for an extended period he came back, gave a quick speech which may actually get him into deeper water. Like Dastyari, it was not managed, leadership was absent all along. Dastyari did whatever so bad he could no longer stay in the Senate, but stays in the Labor Party. Urban so on the nose he had to leave the Labor Party but stayed in Parliament. Neither did anything so bad that the respective Labor Leaders saw fit to sack them. (Lacking Leadership)
3) With such a huge margin in the Lower House, Labor never ever needs all its MPs to even show up. Just on half of them will do. With such a huge electoral margin and with WALabor still thinking as if its in Election Mode, they know they only need to placate and ingratiate themselves with a majority of Perth based voters. Some of their MPs still operate as if they're opposition, especially the Regional Labor MPs. Its now the PerthLabor Party the regional MPs are outside the loop completely (City Centric Completely)4) School of the Air - What a debacle. Education is Labor given...until now. Millions of dollars going into metro schools, less so the bush. School of the Air wasn't just axed, it was done so without the PerthLabor Governments regional MPs being consulted or told. Josie Farrer in Broome didn't know. It gets worse, people using the service weren't told nor consulted either.
Now the decision has been made (in Perth by Perth) they will now allow stakeholders & the community to have the opportunity to speak with the Minister's department. Apparently to maybe "help come up with a name, possible name it School of the Air" (No stakeholder consultation at all, no community consultation at all)
So how are we going so far? We have a completely City Centric PerthLabor Government that makes decisions without consultation with the community & stakeholders. Their leadership is as absent as their plans. It is beginning to look like a pay back war against the regions whilst 2 of the biggest richest foreign owned mining companies remain the quarantined protected species when it comes to paying their fair share. Labor slices up regional & remote WA Education whilst pouring it into the metro area.
I'd expect Sue Ellery will be the first minister to lose her head...expect as in ordinarily.
I've not seen a Labor Government this bizarrely cobbled together. They're all over the place like a mad man's spit. Not to mention cut backs everywhere whilst they spend in the Metro Area like a drunken sailor. No pun intended upon the Premier who's ex Navy.
Notable amongst a thousand comparisons I could make...the Premier's own electorate, Rockingham gets $373,000 for local basketball. That's twice as much as the Regional & Labor held seat of Albany gets over 2 years for the Ice/Meth Recovery. Had Albany been Liberal or Nationals held I'd expect all cheques to be torn up.
Interesting that Labor promised the Motorplex Funding in Albany & the Ring Road Project. Might still be the case, but nothing announced yet.
We'll see. Interesting NatsWA spotted the SW Rescue Chopper had no funding at all. Labor decried that was false. It wasn't. The Labor said its normal budgeting process and would have read the same in the Budget were the Liberals in power. No true there was nothing in forward estimates. It was over. After a massive wave of regional anger, PerthLabor found money that apparently didn't exist before & funded it. Just as well, that chopper has been far too busy with search & rescue and car accident attendances.
PerthLabor Government is city centric & election focused whilst being without any real leadership nor desire to engage with stakeholders in the community. If there's light at the end of the tunnel...its a freight train with Mark McGowan as the train driver. Derailment ahead at some point
Sunday, 31 December 2017
2018, The Left, The Progressives, THE Most Likely To...
Left vs Right and a few shades in between. Its been that simple for the casual observer forever but there's always been more complexity, always more devil in the detail.
In the US the progressives had latched onto images of women in a hijab (women choosing to wear the hijab) as an image portraying freedom of speech, religion, expression and even against intolerance & bigotry. It stands in stark contrast to women in Iran on this the first day of 2018 attending protests & taking off their head wear to protest against oppression as they view the hijab to be a symbol of oppression. Why? probably because the "progressives" aren't progressive, they twisted it to oppose everything they think s establishment. White & Christian in the USA.
Some of the US "progressives" fall deathly silent on Iran or claim its a sovereign matter for a foreign country. who knew the morality of women's rights are relative to national borders?
The irony is not lost on people of the right, people who usually take no interest in political matters and really not lost on those who genuinely are "progressives". Its part of the reason there are many progressives around the world who are leaving the left. If I was to have a wishful bet for 2018 I'd hope the Left has a proper ideological reformation and if not perhaps the right could so the real progressives in society have somewhere to actually go.
We're at a cross roads now & we've begun to see a small emerging trend, well I hope its a trend. I hope its a growing trend. I'm not exactly a total fan of Milo Y. but have to say when he first popped onto my own personal radar he'd been a big deal for a very long time in a lot of other places. I didn't know of him until 4 or 5 months prior to his 2017 visit to Australia. Interesting was the contradictions he brought to the front & centre of most people's viewing.
Labelled as an Anti-Semite, a homophobe and a racist. Turns out he didn't possess those facets of bigotry at all. We soon learnt he was gay married to a black man and was of Jewish descent. Turns out the intolerant nature he had was an intolerance for lack of facts or a deliberate depletion of facts when apparently self claiming "progressives" put forward an argument.
He was of course controversial and if you're on the talk circuit you need to be.
Not long after I stumbled upon Ben Shapiro. Ben is an American social commentator, has a show, is a very well educated, well credentialed graduate of Law. Seek him out on YouTube and his many area of controversy is..."facts don't care about feelings, stick with facts".
Neither he nor Milo will be 100% right on 100% of all things 100% of the time.
I am in Ben Shapiro's case having a hard time finding where he's tripped himself up yet.
In fact I haven't yet. Yes, he sticks close to the same areas and the same formula but these are areas which he's researched, grabbed the most centrally relevant facts and drops them as he finds them. They're not massaged, twist or where required omitted.
A full on argument with Ben Shapiro is not an argument with Ben Shaprio.
Its full on argument with facts where he happens to be the delivery guy.
Yes he puts a polished delivery on every nugget he drops but unlike Milo, its not grandiose showmanship to deliver the goods whilst spruiking the deliverer's brand.
Brand Milo is growing.
For 2 different reasons, two very different and at times differing people, Milo & Ben, may turn out to be two of the more influential people in 2018. Yes even though they're not kindred spirits they have commonalities.
They will be regard as being from the right, but because they're fact based genuine "progressives" who really are genuinely progressive will hear the penny drop from these to and leave the left.
Alt-Right, Hard left, Ultra Right, Leftist Progressives...all these shades of the two poles aren't helpful and hopefully we will see more people in Australia and see that the Liberal/Labor Duopoly of today & the last 20 years has been good & bad, but it hasn't been as good as it should be.
Labor Party is a funny outfit. It demonises the Liberals and anyone of the right for being more inclined to like things of an authoritarian nature. Union crushing, destroying anything non white Christian and corporate. Maybe some of that is true. But strangely the Labor party is a mini me of Socialist Russia long gone. In the Labor Party you can argue, but only behind closed doors and even then you better be very sparingly inclined to rock the boat or you'll be replaced. Cross the floor in parliament? Yep you will be expelled from the party & replaced by an approved and anointed devout follower from the coven.
Liberals not so? Well yes, but its less overt. Cross the floor is allowed but you know its career threatening. Not one MP from WA has ever really fought for GST reform in parliament, let alone even mentioned it in the House of Reps or the Senate.
Maybe so in 2018.
But be aware, a growing number of people are sick of political awareness that suppresses facts to protect feelings. Its a threat to both the left and the right.
This growing sentiment has the potential to bring some real reformation to both the left & the right...so it'll have an enormous amount of resistance.
I'm not pro Trump. He's been a buffoon and a clot with alarming regularity. He's created as much fake news & alternative facts as he's complained about. The weirdest thing is, under his watch, the real progressives who have chased facts over feelings have flourished. Its not a credit to him directly nor intentionally. Maybe its coincidental but it could never have happened under Bush, Clinton Obama or here under Turnbull, Abbott, Rudd or Gillard.
Maybe things under all these people just wore things down to where we are now, where people have stopped and looked for facts and they're winning.
Its only day one of the year and if this is a return to a properly real era of progressive thinking, well its day one also. You can expect massive push back from both Left & Right regressives.
Yes here's the oddity, it may not be a fight between Left & Right that is the most important, maybe the most dominant but not the most important.
The real important struggle will most likely be between the Progressives and Regressives.
Where I see personal attacks, comments on corruption without proof, claims of intolerance or being offended I know they're alternatives to facts and tell tale clues we're listening to a regressive.
Feminism, unionism are not dirty words, they good for society. So too is religion, faith & capitalism.
Race relations, feminism, capitalism, religion...all have been hijacked but intellectually bankrupt people and left their causes angered, bitter and hate fuelled in some circles. Good orators have the power to rouse fools to slaughter.
A good statesman however will be a fact based progressive who can lead through good times & dark times. Its been a while since we've seen great statesmen (and I used that term as gender neutral lest anyone be "offended").
The politician who devoutly follows the party dogma is a cult member ministering to the sinners he/she is wishing to convert or rule authority over if they cannot be converted.
Politics in WA & Australia as well as many other countries has Political cults with cult followers.
I'm hoping here on Day 1 of 2018 we may see more true & real Progressives progressive by name, nature & deeds to come to the fore. Real tolerance follows and an intolerance to ideals that are not of our own.
Happy 2018. Lets hope.
In the US the progressives had latched onto images of women in a hijab (women choosing to wear the hijab) as an image portraying freedom of speech, religion, expression and even against intolerance & bigotry. It stands in stark contrast to women in Iran on this the first day of 2018 attending protests & taking off their head wear to protest against oppression as they view the hijab to be a symbol of oppression. Why? probably because the "progressives" aren't progressive, they twisted it to oppose everything they think s establishment. White & Christian in the USA.
Some of the US "progressives" fall deathly silent on Iran or claim its a sovereign matter for a foreign country. who knew the morality of women's rights are relative to national borders?
The irony is not lost on people of the right, people who usually take no interest in political matters and really not lost on those who genuinely are "progressives". Its part of the reason there are many progressives around the world who are leaving the left. If I was to have a wishful bet for 2018 I'd hope the Left has a proper ideological reformation and if not perhaps the right could so the real progressives in society have somewhere to actually go.
We're at a cross roads now & we've begun to see a small emerging trend, well I hope its a trend. I hope its a growing trend. I'm not exactly a total fan of Milo Y. but have to say when he first popped onto my own personal radar he'd been a big deal for a very long time in a lot of other places. I didn't know of him until 4 or 5 months prior to his 2017 visit to Australia. Interesting was the contradictions he brought to the front & centre of most people's viewing.
Labelled as an Anti-Semite, a homophobe and a racist. Turns out he didn't possess those facets of bigotry at all. We soon learnt he was gay married to a black man and was of Jewish descent. Turns out the intolerant nature he had was an intolerance for lack of facts or a deliberate depletion of facts when apparently self claiming "progressives" put forward an argument.
He was of course controversial and if you're on the talk circuit you need to be.
Not long after I stumbled upon Ben Shapiro. Ben is an American social commentator, has a show, is a very well educated, well credentialed graduate of Law. Seek him out on YouTube and his many area of controversy is..."facts don't care about feelings, stick with facts".
Neither he nor Milo will be 100% right on 100% of all things 100% of the time.
I am in Ben Shapiro's case having a hard time finding where he's tripped himself up yet.
In fact I haven't yet. Yes, he sticks close to the same areas and the same formula but these are areas which he's researched, grabbed the most centrally relevant facts and drops them as he finds them. They're not massaged, twist or where required omitted.
A full on argument with Ben Shapiro is not an argument with Ben Shaprio.
Its full on argument with facts where he happens to be the delivery guy.
Yes he puts a polished delivery on every nugget he drops but unlike Milo, its not grandiose showmanship to deliver the goods whilst spruiking the deliverer's brand.
Brand Milo is growing.
For 2 different reasons, two very different and at times differing people, Milo & Ben, may turn out to be two of the more influential people in 2018. Yes even though they're not kindred spirits they have commonalities.
They will be regard as being from the right, but because they're fact based genuine "progressives" who really are genuinely progressive will hear the penny drop from these to and leave the left.
Alt-Right, Hard left, Ultra Right, Leftist Progressives...all these shades of the two poles aren't helpful and hopefully we will see more people in Australia and see that the Liberal/Labor Duopoly of today & the last 20 years has been good & bad, but it hasn't been as good as it should be.
Labor Party is a funny outfit. It demonises the Liberals and anyone of the right for being more inclined to like things of an authoritarian nature. Union crushing, destroying anything non white Christian and corporate. Maybe some of that is true. But strangely the Labor party is a mini me of Socialist Russia long gone. In the Labor Party you can argue, but only behind closed doors and even then you better be very sparingly inclined to rock the boat or you'll be replaced. Cross the floor in parliament? Yep you will be expelled from the party & replaced by an approved and anointed devout follower from the coven.
Liberals not so? Well yes, but its less overt. Cross the floor is allowed but you know its career threatening. Not one MP from WA has ever really fought for GST reform in parliament, let alone even mentioned it in the House of Reps or the Senate.
Maybe so in 2018.
But be aware, a growing number of people are sick of political awareness that suppresses facts to protect feelings. Its a threat to both the left and the right.
This growing sentiment has the potential to bring some real reformation to both the left & the right...so it'll have an enormous amount of resistance.
I'm not pro Trump. He's been a buffoon and a clot with alarming regularity. He's created as much fake news & alternative facts as he's complained about. The weirdest thing is, under his watch, the real progressives who have chased facts over feelings have flourished. Its not a credit to him directly nor intentionally. Maybe its coincidental but it could never have happened under Bush, Clinton Obama or here under Turnbull, Abbott, Rudd or Gillard.
Maybe things under all these people just wore things down to where we are now, where people have stopped and looked for facts and they're winning.
Its only day one of the year and if this is a return to a properly real era of progressive thinking, well its day one also. You can expect massive push back from both Left & Right regressives.
Yes here's the oddity, it may not be a fight between Left & Right that is the most important, maybe the most dominant but not the most important.
The real important struggle will most likely be between the Progressives and Regressives.
Where I see personal attacks, comments on corruption without proof, claims of intolerance or being offended I know they're alternatives to facts and tell tale clues we're listening to a regressive.
Feminism, unionism are not dirty words, they good for society. So too is religion, faith & capitalism.
Race relations, feminism, capitalism, religion...all have been hijacked but intellectually bankrupt people and left their causes angered, bitter and hate fuelled in some circles. Good orators have the power to rouse fools to slaughter.
A good statesman however will be a fact based progressive who can lead through good times & dark times. Its been a while since we've seen great statesmen (and I used that term as gender neutral lest anyone be "offended").
The politician who devoutly follows the party dogma is a cult member ministering to the sinners he/she is wishing to convert or rule authority over if they cannot be converted.
Politics in WA & Australia as well as many other countries has Political cults with cult followers.
I'm hoping here on Day 1 of 2018 we may see more true & real Progressives progressive by name, nature & deeds to come to the fore. Real tolerance follows and an intolerance to ideals that are not of our own.
Happy 2018. Lets hope.
Saturday, 16 December 2017
The blurring of the Left & the Right & expelling poverty from society
What's right & what's wrong, what's right & what's left?
Terribly simple on the face of it however there's blurring everywhere, whether that should be or not is another thing but there is blurring...lots of it.
Recently seen one prominent WALabor MP get stuck into rural & regional voters stating "that was the fault of the previous state coalition government, now Labor has more regional MPs in WA than anyone else"
What was lacking on the end of that state, and for good reason, was "now regional people will see some real progress". It was left off with good reason because the fact is WALabor could have filled every rural seat but nothing will change. They are still going to be in the minority.
Here's a range of possible facts, first one is definite, the WALabor Government is in fact a truer coalition government than the previous Labor/National Government. For one thing, the NatsWA were minority partners and they weren't in coalition, they were in "partnership". With the traditional coalition arrangement, all members of the government despite their party had to fall into line behind the prevailing view of the government. A Nationals minister would be kicked out of cabinet if they crossed the floor. As we saw with the City of Perth Bill NatsWA saw that was going to cause harmful shire amalgamations in the bush they crossed the floor, it was lost. No doubt there was fall out but there's current Libs now see it was a bad bill for the bush. NatsWA refused to support the sale of the Fremantle Port. It will turn out to be a massive financial windfall in decades to come that ths asset was retained. Western Power, well the Nats put restrictions on this sale, most of which would have meant the sale was unlikely.
Now if a Labor Government were in place & was pushing the same government agendas or perhaps other Bills or initiatives that would be damaging to the bush, what happens in a WALabor government camp? Simple. In theory.
They vote behind closed doors and that's the way EVERY Labor MP will vote on the floor of parliament. No crossing the floor allowed. They have borrowed from the catholic church and dissent results in payback in the form of being ex-communicated from the party.
Right now School of the Air in WA is on the chopping block, so too are residential colleges in rural & regional areas. Is there a good result at the end of it that the 15 regional Labor MPs can point to?
No. They just say its regrettable and its the Liberal/National Party's fault. No austerity in Perth with $373,000 going into Basketball in the Premier's electorate (which by the way is more than the Albany Ice Rehab programme in Albany gets OVER 2 YEARS!!!).
A $125,000,000 marina in Labor held Joondalup to service the playground needs of the City's rich & tasteless.
Second fact, the current WALabor Government is actually more of a Coalition Government than the Lib/Nats. Its made up of several factions. There's the "left", there's the "progressives" and then there's the small group who claim to be factionless.
Which ever group rules the day on a particular issue, those of a differing view cannot speak out against the decided stance, they cannot partake in "back bench grumblings" and they certainly cannot cross the floor.
Payback is swift if that happens. EXPULSION FROM THE PARTY and the party labels them a treacherous disgrace of a rat.
Irrespective of the methods, all do as the majority says and dictates, there will be no dissent. They can claim to have fought hard behind closed doors, but there is absolutely no way of knowing and no one within will take efforts to prove it. Its topic avoidance if it is raised.
Tactic 1 to 365...blame the previous government or the current opposition.
Here there is no blurring. Its their way & no other option. Who they are is another murky question but its not regional Labor MPs way & its not regional resident's way either.
Blurring of the left does happen when they pursue the Gold Tax (when they said in opposition they wouldn't) they pursue it twice whilst the massively wealthy foreign owned Rio Tinto & BHP still only 25c a tonne on the special mining rental fee. A fee that's been never been changed since 1963. It was agreed to waive it the first 15 years and later it was forward paid to get infrastructure they were going to use up & running. It can be changed without too much trouble.
Not very left, looks like (and I'll borrow this from the leftist handbook to further underline the irony) "book licking the big end of town bedfellows".
What's this fluid approach do to other issues like poverty that apparently are supposed to be big on Labor's radar? Well nothing its ignored as single pensioners get a 30% increase in their power bill soon ( https://thewest.com.au/politics/state-politics/power-prices-pensioners-hit-hard-by-mcgowan-government-increases-secret-documents-show-ng-b88643505z )
How's that "left thing" going?
Aboriginal poverty line? All cactus with no plan just a steady diet & "look over there" distraction tactics identity politics and previous government is to blame not us tricks.
What could we do to reduce poverty? Push & encourage 3 things and you don't force people you educate them. You show them there is a very simple way to get out of poverty. Just follow 3 very simple rules and your chances are elevated hugely.
1) Finish high school and actually try to do very well (if you can get more education after that that helps all the better, but at the very least get yourself properly through High School
2) Get a job & stay employed. What ever it is really isn't the biggest deal just get employed and stay employed. All honest work is noble, you need to chase & attain noble. Only qualified to do labouring jobs but you want an office job? Well no one is 100% assured of working physically in a labouring job til they're 70. At some point you need to get more part time training to get up the ladder to where you need or want to be. No point sitting on the dole because your garage band can't get a record deal. Go to work.
3) Get married BEFORE you have kids. Its not shaming single mothers or single fathers but the best family unit is two married parents in a stable household. Its very unfortunate then if someone ends up a single parent, but raising kids out of wedlock on your own is incredibly hard and whilst there are success stories, nowhere near as many as strong married households...especially ones that consider Finishing high school and getting a job is an imperative.
"Typical right wing rant from white middle class privilege town" will no doubt be the reply in fact I've heard it. There blurring is odd in that yes US Conservative commentators like Ben Shapiro do quote this & therefore it does trigger some leftists into a hate frenzy.
Odd part is, it comes from a study by the Brookings Institute in the USA which is a very left leaning think tank.
You saw that yeah? Left leaning...not conservative. Brookings institute is left leaning yet its seen that the study produces the facts that prove these conservative values are actually better for people and society by reducing poverty, increasing confidence, self worth and productivity across the board.
How much?
75% of people who do those 3 things will end up in the middle class & only 2% of the people who do those 3 things will end up in staying in poverty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6rYasjPY2U
That's the 3 simple steps that in the vast number of cases.
Edward DeBono coined the phrase "Arrogance Arguing" where a person in a debate will either hide or withhold facts that damage their own argument. Its one of the reasons why I'm not a fan of debating ala "school debate" style. The position is predetermined and then you seek out that which benefits your chance of winning the argument rather than what's best for the majority.
We have a massive tear in the moral fabric of our Australian society. Correcting these problems would far easily be achieved if nearly all of the population adhered to the 3 rules.
"But its not that simple"
No it isn't, its extremely difficult, however that is the best pathway for the majority of society and being difficult should not be a barrier.
It is the thing though. Political parties are school debaters, which is why we've seen so many lawyers in state & federal parliament. They're great performers in debates. If policies were music, these debaters would sell millions of records for their party. But its this convenient dropping of facts & blurring the left/right lines that is the problem. If you're going to blur the lines it should not be to beat the other side, it should be to gain the best outcome for the society.
No seeing eagerness in the WALabor camp here.
Terribly simple on the face of it however there's blurring everywhere, whether that should be or not is another thing but there is blurring...lots of it.
Recently seen one prominent WALabor MP get stuck into rural & regional voters stating "that was the fault of the previous state coalition government, now Labor has more regional MPs in WA than anyone else"
What was lacking on the end of that state, and for good reason, was "now regional people will see some real progress". It was left off with good reason because the fact is WALabor could have filled every rural seat but nothing will change. They are still going to be in the minority.
Here's a range of possible facts, first one is definite, the WALabor Government is in fact a truer coalition government than the previous Labor/National Government. For one thing, the NatsWA were minority partners and they weren't in coalition, they were in "partnership". With the traditional coalition arrangement, all members of the government despite their party had to fall into line behind the prevailing view of the government. A Nationals minister would be kicked out of cabinet if they crossed the floor. As we saw with the City of Perth Bill NatsWA saw that was going to cause harmful shire amalgamations in the bush they crossed the floor, it was lost. No doubt there was fall out but there's current Libs now see it was a bad bill for the bush. NatsWA refused to support the sale of the Fremantle Port. It will turn out to be a massive financial windfall in decades to come that ths asset was retained. Western Power, well the Nats put restrictions on this sale, most of which would have meant the sale was unlikely.
Now if a Labor Government were in place & was pushing the same government agendas or perhaps other Bills or initiatives that would be damaging to the bush, what happens in a WALabor government camp? Simple. In theory.
They vote behind closed doors and that's the way EVERY Labor MP will vote on the floor of parliament. No crossing the floor allowed. They have borrowed from the catholic church and dissent results in payback in the form of being ex-communicated from the party.
Right now School of the Air in WA is on the chopping block, so too are residential colleges in rural & regional areas. Is there a good result at the end of it that the 15 regional Labor MPs can point to?
No. They just say its regrettable and its the Liberal/National Party's fault. No austerity in Perth with $373,000 going into Basketball in the Premier's electorate (which by the way is more than the Albany Ice Rehab programme in Albany gets OVER 2 YEARS!!!).
A $125,000,000 marina in Labor held Joondalup to service the playground needs of the City's rich & tasteless.
Second fact, the current WALabor Government is actually more of a Coalition Government than the Lib/Nats. Its made up of several factions. There's the "left", there's the "progressives" and then there's the small group who claim to be factionless.
Which ever group rules the day on a particular issue, those of a differing view cannot speak out against the decided stance, they cannot partake in "back bench grumblings" and they certainly cannot cross the floor.
Payback is swift if that happens. EXPULSION FROM THE PARTY and the party labels them a treacherous disgrace of a rat.
Irrespective of the methods, all do as the majority says and dictates, there will be no dissent. They can claim to have fought hard behind closed doors, but there is absolutely no way of knowing and no one within will take efforts to prove it. Its topic avoidance if it is raised.
Tactic 1 to 365...blame the previous government or the current opposition.
Here there is no blurring. Its their way & no other option. Who they are is another murky question but its not regional Labor MPs way & its not regional resident's way either.
Blurring of the left does happen when they pursue the Gold Tax (when they said in opposition they wouldn't) they pursue it twice whilst the massively wealthy foreign owned Rio Tinto & BHP still only 25c a tonne on the special mining rental fee. A fee that's been never been changed since 1963. It was agreed to waive it the first 15 years and later it was forward paid to get infrastructure they were going to use up & running. It can be changed without too much trouble.
Not very left, looks like (and I'll borrow this from the leftist handbook to further underline the irony) "book licking the big end of town bedfellows".
What's this fluid approach do to other issues like poverty that apparently are supposed to be big on Labor's radar? Well nothing its ignored as single pensioners get a 30% increase in their power bill soon ( https://thewest.com.au/politics/state-politics/power-prices-pensioners-hit-hard-by-mcgowan-government-increases-secret-documents-show-ng-b88643505z )
How's that "left thing" going?
Aboriginal poverty line? All cactus with no plan just a steady diet & "look over there" distraction tactics identity politics and previous government is to blame not us tricks.
What could we do to reduce poverty? Push & encourage 3 things and you don't force people you educate them. You show them there is a very simple way to get out of poverty. Just follow 3 very simple rules and your chances are elevated hugely.
1) Finish high school and actually try to do very well (if you can get more education after that that helps all the better, but at the very least get yourself properly through High School
2) Get a job & stay employed. What ever it is really isn't the biggest deal just get employed and stay employed. All honest work is noble, you need to chase & attain noble. Only qualified to do labouring jobs but you want an office job? Well no one is 100% assured of working physically in a labouring job til they're 70. At some point you need to get more part time training to get up the ladder to where you need or want to be. No point sitting on the dole because your garage band can't get a record deal. Go to work.
3) Get married BEFORE you have kids. Its not shaming single mothers or single fathers but the best family unit is two married parents in a stable household. Its very unfortunate then if someone ends up a single parent, but raising kids out of wedlock on your own is incredibly hard and whilst there are success stories, nowhere near as many as strong married households...especially ones that consider Finishing high school and getting a job is an imperative.
"Typical right wing rant from white middle class privilege town" will no doubt be the reply in fact I've heard it. There blurring is odd in that yes US Conservative commentators like Ben Shapiro do quote this & therefore it does trigger some leftists into a hate frenzy.
Odd part is, it comes from a study by the Brookings Institute in the USA which is a very left leaning think tank.
You saw that yeah? Left leaning...not conservative. Brookings institute is left leaning yet its seen that the study produces the facts that prove these conservative values are actually better for people and society by reducing poverty, increasing confidence, self worth and productivity across the board.
How much?
75% of people who do those 3 things will end up in the middle class & only 2% of the people who do those 3 things will end up in staying in poverty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6rYasjPY2U
That's the 3 simple steps that in the vast number of cases.
Edward DeBono coined the phrase "Arrogance Arguing" where a person in a debate will either hide or withhold facts that damage their own argument. Its one of the reasons why I'm not a fan of debating ala "school debate" style. The position is predetermined and then you seek out that which benefits your chance of winning the argument rather than what's best for the majority.
We have a massive tear in the moral fabric of our Australian society. Correcting these problems would far easily be achieved if nearly all of the population adhered to the 3 rules.
"But its not that simple"
No it isn't, its extremely difficult, however that is the best pathway for the majority of society and being difficult should not be a barrier.
It is the thing though. Political parties are school debaters, which is why we've seen so many lawyers in state & federal parliament. They're great performers in debates. If policies were music, these debaters would sell millions of records for their party. But its this convenient dropping of facts & blurring the left/right lines that is the problem. If you're going to blur the lines it should not be to beat the other side, it should be to gain the best outcome for the society.
No seeing eagerness in the WALabor camp here.
Monday, 27 November 2017
Good Debt, Bad Debt
Here's some "Bleeding Obvious Hidden In Plain View"
1) Is too much bad for you? Yes that's what too much means.
2) There's good time for borrowing, a bad time for borrowing but there is never ever ever a bad time for paying debt off.
That's the bleeding obvious that's over looked, forgotten or obscured when the market is artificially distorted...such is the case now.
Interest rates have been going down and then frozen for a very long time. Here's an explanatory chart and although you'll see there has been a few spikes since 1989, it has as a trend line been declining since 1989. So what's normal? Well its always going to vary, there is no set normal. There's many influences on the economy and interest rates is only one of them, but the effects of interest rates on the average Australian is probably one of the most prominent.
1989's 17% was not what should be normal but it was what it was and if you had a mortgage then, or a loan as a business some of you were paying 25%. It had to go to that mad extreme but it wasn't sustainable, something had to give. Many did go broke.
If you think the current interest rates are the "new norm" you are very much mistaken and possibly in financial peril as interest rates rise. And they will rise.Whilst we can & have intervened and stall the changes, these artificial stall points are temporary and the longer we stall the changes the worse the transition will be.
At present many people are already suffering mortgage stress and default.
If we get 4 interest rate rises in a row then many economists will claim its the economy growing and in some respects that's right & wrong. They will remain very positive through those first four rises (when they do come) even though its going to wipe some borrowers out, push some close to default & possible bankruptcy.
If your loan cannot survive a 3% rise in interest rates then your loan is probably unsustainable even though you're not in default now. If interest rates rise soon, they will probably only rise .25% in a month. Now when they last dropped banks were very reluctant to pass on savings to lenders. Now when they rise, you can expect them to be passed on in full, probably plus some. They'll be passed on not just swiftly, more likely immediately.
Right now there has never ever been a better time to pay off debt.
Be mindful, interest rates do influence the housing market prices and as interest rates do rise, the housing sales/prices will stall then fall reducing people's equity in their home or investment property and making their loan more unsustainable.
People will either personally know, or know of others that were offered more cheap lending as property prices grew in recent years. As property prices grew banks realised that people's equity grew so more debt could be sold to them...or in other words, more product sold to consumers.
It was fine over the short term but over the long term unsustainable & artificial. It may well curve back sometime soon. Sooner than we think and not doubt harder than we think.
And here we sit, peril is on its way and like every other bubble we've seen before many will be caught unawares. Totally unaware and afterwards many economists caught unaware will say they read the signs before but no one listened.
We've seen busts before and its often come a year or two after the first smart people send up the warning flares. The really smart money will be paying off and/or converting some of it into cash.
So if you have big debt will it survive interest rises?
If it can't survive a rise of 3% now then its definitely time to get your equity up as fast as you possibly can so the bigger rises will be survivable.
It is the problem that people complain that young people's literacy and numeracy is not what it should be, but doing sums is just one part. We rarely see financial literacy taught in schools.
If we're to future proof the nation going forward we have to have greater financial literacy so those least likely to afford losses can avoid them.
The next financial wave is coming. Spot & pick your 5 favourite economists you see on social media or in the media, find their comments on the economy's state of health...and screen shot it.
It'll make a heck of a travelling picture over an extended period leading up to the upcoming "correction"
Interest rates have been manipulated by the reserve bank for good reasons, but holding them down has had the negative side effect that the housing market has been largely distorted into higher unsustainable prices.
In Sydney the stories are rife that investors dominant the housing market and people who want to actually just buy & live in their own home cannot compete.
Nothing stays the same, except the same old changes & the timing of the changes and the severity.
Now is the time to consolidate and position yourself financially in a better place for the impending thud.
There has never been a better time to pay off debt.
The banks won't like it, but your job is to best position yourself, not subsidise banks.
1) Is too much bad for you? Yes that's what too much means.
2) There's good time for borrowing, a bad time for borrowing but there is never ever ever a bad time for paying debt off.
That's the bleeding obvious that's over looked, forgotten or obscured when the market is artificially distorted...such is the case now.
Interest rates have been going down and then frozen for a very long time. Here's an explanatory chart and although you'll see there has been a few spikes since 1989, it has as a trend line been declining since 1989. So what's normal? Well its always going to vary, there is no set normal. There's many influences on the economy and interest rates is only one of them, but the effects of interest rates on the average Australian is probably one of the most prominent.
1989's 17% was not what should be normal but it was what it was and if you had a mortgage then, or a loan as a business some of you were paying 25%. It had to go to that mad extreme but it wasn't sustainable, something had to give. Many did go broke.
If you think the current interest rates are the "new norm" you are very much mistaken and possibly in financial peril as interest rates rise. And they will rise.Whilst we can & have intervened and stall the changes, these artificial stall points are temporary and the longer we stall the changes the worse the transition will be.
At present many people are already suffering mortgage stress and default.
If we get 4 interest rate rises in a row then many economists will claim its the economy growing and in some respects that's right & wrong. They will remain very positive through those first four rises (when they do come) even though its going to wipe some borrowers out, push some close to default & possible bankruptcy.
If your loan cannot survive a 3% rise in interest rates then your loan is probably unsustainable even though you're not in default now. If interest rates rise soon, they will probably only rise .25% in a month. Now when they last dropped banks were very reluctant to pass on savings to lenders. Now when they rise, you can expect them to be passed on in full, probably plus some. They'll be passed on not just swiftly, more likely immediately.
Right now there has never ever been a better time to pay off debt.
Be mindful, interest rates do influence the housing market prices and as interest rates do rise, the housing sales/prices will stall then fall reducing people's equity in their home or investment property and making their loan more unsustainable.
People will either personally know, or know of others that were offered more cheap lending as property prices grew in recent years. As property prices grew banks realised that people's equity grew so more debt could be sold to them...or in other words, more product sold to consumers.
It was fine over the short term but over the long term unsustainable & artificial. It may well curve back sometime soon. Sooner than we think and not doubt harder than we think.
And here we sit, peril is on its way and like every other bubble we've seen before many will be caught unawares. Totally unaware and afterwards many economists caught unaware will say they read the signs before but no one listened.
We've seen busts before and its often come a year or two after the first smart people send up the warning flares. The really smart money will be paying off and/or converting some of it into cash.
So if you have big debt will it survive interest rises?
If it can't survive a rise of 3% now then its definitely time to get your equity up as fast as you possibly can so the bigger rises will be survivable.
It is the problem that people complain that young people's literacy and numeracy is not what it should be, but doing sums is just one part. We rarely see financial literacy taught in schools.
If we're to future proof the nation going forward we have to have greater financial literacy so those least likely to afford losses can avoid them.
The next financial wave is coming. Spot & pick your 5 favourite economists you see on social media or in the media, find their comments on the economy's state of health...and screen shot it.
It'll make a heck of a travelling picture over an extended period leading up to the upcoming "correction"
Interest rates have been manipulated by the reserve bank for good reasons, but holding them down has had the negative side effect that the housing market has been largely distorted into higher unsustainable prices.
In Sydney the stories are rife that investors dominant the housing market and people who want to actually just buy & live in their own home cannot compete.
Nothing stays the same, except the same old changes & the timing of the changes and the severity.
Now is the time to consolidate and position yourself financially in a better place for the impending thud.
There has never been a better time to pay off debt.
The banks won't like it, but your job is to best position yourself, not subsidise banks.
Friday, 24 November 2017
I got called out on Exegesis view...
So a view was expressed on the Twitter-Spitter and I was called out. My view is pretty simple. You're either Christian or you're not & enjoy the privilege of free will and free choice. Thing is changing God's Word so "Christianity" lines up with you and your lifestyle or preferred temporal view isn't very genuine. Its fake and its not Christian.
Its super simple, Scripture interprets Scripture and using out of context false exegesis don't make it so. So a fellow named Stephen called me out said
"Fine. So instead of making general comments, criticise the analysis with alternate facts. You can't, of course, so you won't"
Well it being twitter bit hard to go deeper but seeing he called me out here it is. Below is just some of Stephen's blog titled "Why is the Church Anti-Gay - Well This Is What I Think"
Half right & wrong already. Wrong= The Church is not Anti-Gay, if it follow Scripture properly we're all sinners...all. The Word of God explicitly warns against getting involved with homosexual acts. Bit of a difference. The church is anti drugs, murder, adultery, drunkenness, theft...but its not against those people who have done those sins and have turned away from them (as Scripture instructs).
Sin & Sinner are two different things. As for the half right bit... Right= "Well This Is What I Think"
Yes its what he thinks, not what Scripture actually says.
There's the big mistake. A Christian is supposed to be Berean like, checking the Scriptures daily to see if it is so, Stephen is more concerned with what he thinks. He has used Scripture but sparingly, selectively and even then used out of context exegesis to get the Scripture twisted enough to get it say what he has otherwise decided he wants it too. But anyway in brackets is the entire blog of Stephen's ( https://wellthisiswhatithink.com/2017/04/26/why-is-the-church-anti-gay-if-the-bible-isnt/amp/ )
I'll leave his blog "article" below in black & answer in Red. To be honest be pro Gay or anti gay or Christian or atheist its really up to the individual. You just shouldn't twist a belief system so it fits your own personal needs. That's false church territory and Stephen maybe should do a Bible Study on 7 Letters to 7 Churches. Here Stephen starts...
Many ordinary Christians are deeply conflicted by their desire to embrace homosexual brethren in the fellowship of the church, when some of their leaders are telling them that these people are sinners.
They are sinners. We all are. Bible is very clear it is an abomination. Its a sin and if you continue to practice any sin then you're not really a Christian. Christians are ALL sinners, all. Their real difference is they are Saved. To be saved they have done what they're supposed to do to be saved. Accept Christ as Lord & Saviour, that He died on the cross for our sins, repent of sins and turn away from your sins. That's it in a very small nutshell.
If you're still keen to keep sinning then its not repentant and you're not saved. There are saved sinners and lost sinners. Christian aim is to not be the latter.
Numbers of people feel very discomfited by the current debate.
Pastors are to preach the Good News not change things to make it more comfortable.
So what is the “Biblical” teaching on gays?
Opponents of homosexuality almost always treat scripture as being “literally true” in a historical sense. Certainly, that is the case currently.
And straight away Stephen falls foul of his own thinking. He mentioned he has a Theology Degree. Not sure from where but its not helping. When people ask "Do you read the Bible literally?" my answer is simple "I literally read it seriously"
Some parts are meant to be read literally some aren't. There is over 200 literary devices being used in the Scriptures. Stories, allegories, history, types, shadows, fore shadows...
Read the literal bits literally...read it all properly
It follows, therefore, that any rebuttal of their claims should also adhere to this assumption, if it is to convince them that they are wrong.
God's Word is right and its us that is likely to be wrong. Use Scripture properly and find God's meaning not a pre-decided position. Its not about who of us is right or wrong, its about whether or not we're reading and using God's Word properly
I personally believe the early stories in the Bible are no more “literally” true than ancient Norse myths.
Our personal view isn't using Scripture to prove Scripture. Norse gods are non relevant and non related. If you're supposedly a Christian scholar and you're using false gods to prove the Judaeo-Christian God is what you'd prefer Him to be there's a big problem ahead.
But I am prepared to put that aside for one moment, and consider this issue under the rules that the “literalists” would apply, because many argue that the oft-trotted-out “Biblical” case against homosexuality simply doesn’t appear to “stack up”.
This is going to go from bad to worse I think...
Genesis 19: 1-28
The ancient story of Sodom and Gomorrah has been used throughout the centuries as a condemnation of homosexuality, to the point where anal sex is referred to as “Sodomy”.
And that’s the problem. It’s become a cliché. We assume it’s true, because it’s been around so long.
Check the New Testament 2Peter 2:6 & others. The apostles mention it as was a real event that happen to real cities. According to Scripture it happened.
The verses in this story most commonly referred to as proof that the Sodomites were homosexual are verses 4 and 5: “Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house,from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: ‘Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.”
Examining this scripture, the first thing we see is that all the people, in one mob, demanded that Lot bring out the visitors to them. If we are to believe that the account of Sodom & Gomorrah is a condemnation of homosexuality, then we must also accept the conclusion that the entire city consisted of homosexuals.
What Scripture was clear about was the entire population was depraved, from boy to man they wanted sex with the 2 strangers. Other verses show God's view on homosexual acts. Its not difficult.
Now if Stephen or anyone else wants a short cut go here to get some Bible Study done, read up and go to a Bible Study group instead of making things up https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Testament-homosexuality.html
But if we look in the previous chapter, Genesis 18: 16-33, we see an account of Abraham negotiating with God to spare the people of Sodom, with the final outcome of God promising “I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the ten” (verse 33).
God promised Abraham that Sodom would not be destroyed if only ten “righteous men” could be found I the city.
If we are to accept the previous logic, this would mean that the “righteous men” referred to were, per se, heterosexuals.
No depraved, homosexuality would have been just one of the depraved acts God was against. Were they all homosexual? We don't know, we know they were ALL depraved except Lot & his family. We know all from boy to man gathered at the house to have sex with the 2 strangers. Notice, "BOY" to man...there's children then. All Sodom are not strict homosexuals they are breeding as well...but they are all depraved.
Now it is a matter of Biblical “fact” that God (or rather, his angels) didn’t find anyone at all worth saving. But at this point, we then need to ask ourselves: what would be the odds of less than ten people in the entire region of Sodom & Gomorrah being heterosexual?
The obvious answer is “impossible”, of course.
Well they found Lot & his family...but no not 10 men. Impossible? Ok you know what is and isn't possible with all people from 1000s of years ago and God from all time. Big big call...and false.
If for no other reason than to ask, “where did all the population come from?” They were all gay immigrants, presumably, begat by parents left behind in other places that were heteroesexual? We think not.
Seriously? Depraved committing depraved acts in defiance of God...doesn't exclude breeding.
So if homosexuality was not being referred to in this passage, then what was? Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, we find an interesting usage of a couple of different words.
When the mob cries out “Where are the men who came in to you tonight?”, the Hebrew word that is customarily translated men is actually ‘enowsh which, literally translated, means “mortal” or “human”.
No it doesn't it means "male human being"
This indicates that the mob knew that Lot had visitors, but were unsure of what sex they were.
We can divine this because the Hebrew word for “man” (utilized in this same passage in Genesis 19:8) is entirely different. And one really has to ask: why would homosexuals want to have sex with two strangers if they were unsure of what sex they were?
They knew, just possibly didn't know they were angels. The city was depraved, utterly & totally...that's why it was totally destroyed. You know that right?
Trying hard to disbelieve what the text clearly spells out.
The passage translated as “Bring them out so that we may have intercourse with them” needs further examination as well.
Other Bible translations read “so that we may know them”. The Hebrew word that is commonly translated as “have intercourse”, or “know” is yada.
But this word, yada, appears in the Hebrew Scriptures a total of 943 times. And in all but ten of these usages, the word is used in the context of getting acquainted with someone.
Had the writer intended for his reading audience to believe that the mob wanted to have sexual intercourse with the strangers, he could simply have used the Hebrew word shakab, which vividly denotes sexual activity.
Many people argue, therefore, that the correct translation should be rendered something to the effect of: “Where are the people who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may get acquainted with them.”
So then, if the story of Sodom & Gomorrah was not a condemnation of homosexuality, what was it trying to convey?
It was convicted of vile depravity...that's why it was destroyed, they showed their depravity by wanting to have sex with the 2 strangers...from boy to man from the city.
The denial here is strong...but facts of Scripture is very clear.
Two verses in Exekiel sum up the story this way: “Look! This is what proved to be the error of Sodom your sister: Pride, sufficiency of bread and the carefreeness of keeping undisturbed were what happened to belong to her and her dependent towns, and the hand of the afflicted one and the poor one she did not strengthen. And they continued to be haughty and to carry on a detestable thing before me, and I finally removed them, just as I saw [fit]”. (Ezekiel 16: 49, 50.)
It is commonly assumed, because we’re referring to Sodom, that the “detestable thing” referred to in this passage is homosexuality.
But in fact, the Hebrew word utilized here is tow’ebah, which translated literally means “to commit idol worship”.
No it doesn't - It means detestable things abominations, ( https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/towebah.html )
This is half the problem the view is set before the explanation is deliberately created. In regards to idol worship, remove God and anything that takes up the vacuum is an idol. Idol worship doesn't just mean a carved statue or an obelisk. Its anything that separates you from God or replaces God.
Its beginning to get very sad at this point...
This can be seen in the original Genesis passage, chapter 19, verse 8: “Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man. Please let me bring them out to you. Then do to them as is good in your eyes.”
One has to ask: If Lot’s house was surrounded by homosexuals, which presumably he’d know as everyone in the entire region was gay apart from him and his family, why would he offer the mob women?
They weren't gay they were utterly & completely depraved. Sex is clearly and specifically designed for within the confines of marriage. That's a man and a woman. Anything else is adultery. Having a mistress, a prostitute, a rent boy, a lover of any sort is adultery. 2 men couldn't marry back then so homosexuality is adultery. DeFacto relationships were adultery.
The New Testament is very clear on this and homosexual acts.
Note also that these women were virgins. And that the Sodomites were pagans.
Virgin sacrifices to idols were a common practice in this era. Therefore, it can easily be concluded that Lot was offering his daughters as a virgin sacrifice to appease the mob in an effort to protect the visitors.
Easily concluded if you ignore the Scriptures completely and decided a personal assumption is valid explanation. Sorry duded out again
In the Greek scriptures, the story of Sodom is summed up this way: “and by reducing the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come”.
This corroborates Ezekiel’s summation, once again showing that these were “ungodly persons”; in other words, idolaters, they were not worshippers of the true God.
If we have difficulty with the logic of 100% of any population being gay, can we rather believe in 100% of a population being adherents of a particular pagan cult? Yes, we certainly can. If for no other reason that there was no tolerance of those who didn’t share pagan beliefs in many early societies. Not to agree was to invite exclusion or execution. You were in, or you were out. The Jews themselves exercise this attitude continually throughout the Old Testament.
Utter rubbish twisted like a wet rag. Lot & his family were not depraved like the rest of the city, that's why they were saved. This is a massive and detailed conclusion based on no data or evidence at all.
Dangerous lack of exegesis & personally concocted.
So the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, therefore, is almost certainly intended as a condemnation of idol worshippers, and of a greedy and inhospitable society that sought to treat visitors in a threatening manner – which was also a sin, to the early Jews, by the way.
Many people argue, therefore, that it is perfectly reasonable to propose that this key text on the judgement of this region had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality!
Some people argue the earth is flat but that's a load of rubbish too.
In all these cases verses are selected in isolation and twisted with false premise to provide a false version of what was being said...to suit someone who isn't God but is wanting to modify Him to suit their own view lifestyle.
They could just be honest & say I'm Christian and the Bible is very clear about wanting sinners, all sinners (including homosexuals) to turn from their sin and find salvation through Christ or...
Or perhaps be honest and say they're not Christians, they don't believe in god, they reject the bible and think anyone can do whatever they want to do as long as no one gets hurt or no law is broken.
Changing the Bible to Vers. 2.0 to suit your own pre-suppositional view is appalling.
All the while there's a dozen verses that have been side stepped completely...
1Corinthians 6:9-10.
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: xneither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.Have to confess, there's more to the twisted Scripture filled "article" and I've only brought half of it across. Poor Hebrew transliteration, twisted interpretation with no sola scriptura exegesis...its not going to get any better.
Make up your mind, be a Christian and read, use Scripture properly with proper in context exegesis or go do your own thing away from the Word without twisting it to suit your own idol filled motivations. Stephen may be a top bloke, who knows but he's not just got the wrong end of the stick, the stick is a snake and he's using it to lecture other people about sticks.
I understand he works for an advertising agency.
Somehow I think the claimed theology degree was either lost, non existent or wasted.
Now if Stephen wants to return volley I guess we can deconstruct the rest of the blog.
At that point it'll be the same, God's Word compared to "his" view of what "he" thinks God meant.
If homosexuality is not a sin against God, as Stephen suggests then he needs to do a blog on why it is that God owes Sodom & Gomorrah an apology.
Now if you're gay and you have decided to stay gay, in a gay lifestyle with your gay partner that is entirely up to you. Its not my place to call you a good or bad person because of your choice. But if you alter God's Word to suit your own lifestyle then yes you are pretty bad. The Bible is also pretty clear about false churches and there are many out there. Far too many. Most of them will fail as churches and we should just call them civic clubs.
If a religion cannot properly live by its own teachings then it should be stripped of its "church" status.
Its super simple, Scripture interprets Scripture and using out of context false exegesis don't make it so. So a fellow named Stephen called me out said
"Fine. So instead of making general comments, criticise the analysis with alternate facts. You can't, of course, so you won't"
Well it being twitter bit hard to go deeper but seeing he called me out here it is. Below is just some of Stephen's blog titled "Why is the Church Anti-Gay - Well This Is What I Think"
Half right & wrong already. Wrong= The Church is not Anti-Gay, if it follow Scripture properly we're all sinners...all. The Word of God explicitly warns against getting involved with homosexual acts. Bit of a difference. The church is anti drugs, murder, adultery, drunkenness, theft...but its not against those people who have done those sins and have turned away from them (as Scripture instructs).
Sin & Sinner are two different things. As for the half right bit... Right= "Well This Is What I Think"
Yes its what he thinks, not what Scripture actually says.
There's the big mistake. A Christian is supposed to be Berean like, checking the Scriptures daily to see if it is so, Stephen is more concerned with what he thinks. He has used Scripture but sparingly, selectively and even then used out of context exegesis to get the Scripture twisted enough to get it say what he has otherwise decided he wants it too. But anyway in brackets is the entire blog of Stephen's ( https://wellthisiswhatithink.com/2017/04/26/why-is-the-church-anti-gay-if-the-bible-isnt/amp/ )
I'll leave his blog "article" below in black & answer in Red. To be honest be pro Gay or anti gay or Christian or atheist its really up to the individual. You just shouldn't twist a belief system so it fits your own personal needs. That's false church territory and Stephen maybe should do a Bible Study on 7 Letters to 7 Churches. Here Stephen starts...
Many ordinary Christians are deeply conflicted by their desire to embrace homosexual brethren in the fellowship of the church, when some of their leaders are telling them that these people are sinners.
They are sinners. We all are. Bible is very clear it is an abomination. Its a sin and if you continue to practice any sin then you're not really a Christian. Christians are ALL sinners, all. Their real difference is they are Saved. To be saved they have done what they're supposed to do to be saved. Accept Christ as Lord & Saviour, that He died on the cross for our sins, repent of sins and turn away from your sins. That's it in a very small nutshell.
If you're still keen to keep sinning then its not repentant and you're not saved. There are saved sinners and lost sinners. Christian aim is to not be the latter.
Numbers of people feel very discomfited by the current debate.
Pastors are to preach the Good News not change things to make it more comfortable.
So what is the “Biblical” teaching on gays?
Opponents of homosexuality almost always treat scripture as being “literally true” in a historical sense. Certainly, that is the case currently.
And straight away Stephen falls foul of his own thinking. He mentioned he has a Theology Degree. Not sure from where but its not helping. When people ask "Do you read the Bible literally?" my answer is simple "I literally read it seriously"
Some parts are meant to be read literally some aren't. There is over 200 literary devices being used in the Scriptures. Stories, allegories, history, types, shadows, fore shadows...
Read the literal bits literally...read it all properly
It follows, therefore, that any rebuttal of their claims should also adhere to this assumption, if it is to convince them that they are wrong.
God's Word is right and its us that is likely to be wrong. Use Scripture properly and find God's meaning not a pre-decided position. Its not about who of us is right or wrong, its about whether or not we're reading and using God's Word properly
I personally believe the early stories in the Bible are no more “literally” true than ancient Norse myths.
Our personal view isn't using Scripture to prove Scripture. Norse gods are non relevant and non related. If you're supposedly a Christian scholar and you're using false gods to prove the Judaeo-Christian God is what you'd prefer Him to be there's a big problem ahead.
But I am prepared to put that aside for one moment, and consider this issue under the rules that the “literalists” would apply, because many argue that the oft-trotted-out “Biblical” case against homosexuality simply doesn’t appear to “stack up”.
This is going to go from bad to worse I think...
Genesis 19: 1-28
The ancient story of Sodom and Gomorrah has been used throughout the centuries as a condemnation of homosexuality, to the point where anal sex is referred to as “Sodomy”.
And that’s the problem. It’s become a cliché. We assume it’s true, because it’s been around so long.
Check the New Testament 2Peter 2:6 & others. The apostles mention it as was a real event that happen to real cities. According to Scripture it happened.
The verses in this story most commonly referred to as proof that the Sodomites were homosexual are verses 4 and 5: “Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house,from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: ‘Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.”
Examining this scripture, the first thing we see is that all the people, in one mob, demanded that Lot bring out the visitors to them. If we are to believe that the account of Sodom & Gomorrah is a condemnation of homosexuality, then we must also accept the conclusion that the entire city consisted of homosexuals.
What Scripture was clear about was the entire population was depraved, from boy to man they wanted sex with the 2 strangers. Other verses show God's view on homosexual acts. Its not difficult.
Now if Stephen or anyone else wants a short cut go here to get some Bible Study done, read up and go to a Bible Study group instead of making things up https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Testament-homosexuality.html
But if we look in the previous chapter, Genesis 18: 16-33, we see an account of Abraham negotiating with God to spare the people of Sodom, with the final outcome of God promising “I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the ten” (verse 33).
God promised Abraham that Sodom would not be destroyed if only ten “righteous men” could be found I the city.
If we are to accept the previous logic, this would mean that the “righteous men” referred to were, per se, heterosexuals.
No depraved, homosexuality would have been just one of the depraved acts God was against. Were they all homosexual? We don't know, we know they were ALL depraved except Lot & his family. We know all from boy to man gathered at the house to have sex with the 2 strangers. Notice, "BOY" to man...there's children then. All Sodom are not strict homosexuals they are breeding as well...but they are all depraved.
Now it is a matter of Biblical “fact” that God (or rather, his angels) didn’t find anyone at all worth saving. But at this point, we then need to ask ourselves: what would be the odds of less than ten people in the entire region of Sodom & Gomorrah being heterosexual?
The obvious answer is “impossible”, of course.
Well they found Lot & his family...but no not 10 men. Impossible? Ok you know what is and isn't possible with all people from 1000s of years ago and God from all time. Big big call...and false.
If for no other reason than to ask, “where did all the population come from?” They were all gay immigrants, presumably, begat by parents left behind in other places that were heteroesexual? We think not.
Seriously? Depraved committing depraved acts in defiance of God...doesn't exclude breeding.
So if homosexuality was not being referred to in this passage, then what was? Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, we find an interesting usage of a couple of different words.
When the mob cries out “Where are the men who came in to you tonight?”, the Hebrew word that is customarily translated men is actually ‘enowsh which, literally translated, means “mortal” or “human”.
No it doesn't it means "male human being"
This indicates that the mob knew that Lot had visitors, but were unsure of what sex they were.
We can divine this because the Hebrew word for “man” (utilized in this same passage in Genesis 19:8) is entirely different. And one really has to ask: why would homosexuals want to have sex with two strangers if they were unsure of what sex they were?
They knew, just possibly didn't know they were angels. The city was depraved, utterly & totally...that's why it was totally destroyed. You know that right?
Trying hard to disbelieve what the text clearly spells out.
The passage translated as “Bring them out so that we may have intercourse with them” needs further examination as well.
Other Bible translations read “so that we may know them”. The Hebrew word that is commonly translated as “have intercourse”, or “know” is yada.
But this word, yada, appears in the Hebrew Scriptures a total of 943 times. And in all but ten of these usages, the word is used in the context of getting acquainted with someone.
Had the writer intended for his reading audience to believe that the mob wanted to have sexual intercourse with the strangers, he could simply have used the Hebrew word shakab, which vividly denotes sexual activity.
Many people argue, therefore, that the correct translation should be rendered something to the effect of: “Where are the people who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may get acquainted with them.”
So then, if the story of Sodom & Gomorrah was not a condemnation of homosexuality, what was it trying to convey?
It was convicted of vile depravity...that's why it was destroyed, they showed their depravity by wanting to have sex with the 2 strangers...from boy to man from the city.
The denial here is strong...but facts of Scripture is very clear.
Two verses in Exekiel sum up the story this way: “Look! This is what proved to be the error of Sodom your sister: Pride, sufficiency of bread and the carefreeness of keeping undisturbed were what happened to belong to her and her dependent towns, and the hand of the afflicted one and the poor one she did not strengthen. And they continued to be haughty and to carry on a detestable thing before me, and I finally removed them, just as I saw [fit]”. (Ezekiel 16: 49, 50.)
It is commonly assumed, because we’re referring to Sodom, that the “detestable thing” referred to in this passage is homosexuality.
But in fact, the Hebrew word utilized here is tow’ebah, which translated literally means “to commit idol worship”.
No it doesn't - It means detestable things abominations, ( https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/towebah.html )
This is half the problem the view is set before the explanation is deliberately created. In regards to idol worship, remove God and anything that takes up the vacuum is an idol. Idol worship doesn't just mean a carved statue or an obelisk. Its anything that separates you from God or replaces God.
Its beginning to get very sad at this point...
This can be seen in the original Genesis passage, chapter 19, verse 8: “Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man. Please let me bring them out to you. Then do to them as is good in your eyes.”
One has to ask: If Lot’s house was surrounded by homosexuals, which presumably he’d know as everyone in the entire region was gay apart from him and his family, why would he offer the mob women?
They weren't gay they were utterly & completely depraved. Sex is clearly and specifically designed for within the confines of marriage. That's a man and a woman. Anything else is adultery. Having a mistress, a prostitute, a rent boy, a lover of any sort is adultery. 2 men couldn't marry back then so homosexuality is adultery. DeFacto relationships were adultery.
The New Testament is very clear on this and homosexual acts.
Note also that these women were virgins. And that the Sodomites were pagans.
Virgin sacrifices to idols were a common practice in this era. Therefore, it can easily be concluded that Lot was offering his daughters as a virgin sacrifice to appease the mob in an effort to protect the visitors.
Easily concluded if you ignore the Scriptures completely and decided a personal assumption is valid explanation. Sorry duded out again
In the Greek scriptures, the story of Sodom is summed up this way: “and by reducing the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come”.
This corroborates Ezekiel’s summation, once again showing that these were “ungodly persons”; in other words, idolaters, they were not worshippers of the true God.
If we have difficulty with the logic of 100% of any population being gay, can we rather believe in 100% of a population being adherents of a particular pagan cult? Yes, we certainly can. If for no other reason that there was no tolerance of those who didn’t share pagan beliefs in many early societies. Not to agree was to invite exclusion or execution. You were in, or you were out. The Jews themselves exercise this attitude continually throughout the Old Testament.
Utter rubbish twisted like a wet rag. Lot & his family were not depraved like the rest of the city, that's why they were saved. This is a massive and detailed conclusion based on no data or evidence at all.
Dangerous lack of exegesis & personally concocted.
So the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, therefore, is almost certainly intended as a condemnation of idol worshippers, and of a greedy and inhospitable society that sought to treat visitors in a threatening manner – which was also a sin, to the early Jews, by the way.
Many people argue, therefore, that it is perfectly reasonable to propose that this key text on the judgement of this region had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality!
Some people argue the earth is flat but that's a load of rubbish too.
In all these cases verses are selected in isolation and twisted with false premise to provide a false version of what was being said...to suit someone who isn't God but is wanting to modify Him to suit their own view lifestyle.
They could just be honest & say I'm Christian and the Bible is very clear about wanting sinners, all sinners (including homosexuals) to turn from their sin and find salvation through Christ or...
Or perhaps be honest and say they're not Christians, they don't believe in god, they reject the bible and think anyone can do whatever they want to do as long as no one gets hurt or no law is broken.
Changing the Bible to Vers. 2.0 to suit your own pre-suppositional view is appalling.
All the while there's a dozen verses that have been side stepped completely...
1Corinthians 6:9-10.
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: xneither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.Have to confess, there's more to the twisted Scripture filled "article" and I've only brought half of it across. Poor Hebrew transliteration, twisted interpretation with no sola scriptura exegesis...its not going to get any better.
Make up your mind, be a Christian and read, use Scripture properly with proper in context exegesis or go do your own thing away from the Word without twisting it to suit your own idol filled motivations. Stephen may be a top bloke, who knows but he's not just got the wrong end of the stick, the stick is a snake and he's using it to lecture other people about sticks.
I understand he works for an advertising agency.
Somehow I think the claimed theology degree was either lost, non existent or wasted.
Now if Stephen wants to return volley I guess we can deconstruct the rest of the blog.
At that point it'll be the same, God's Word compared to "his" view of what "he" thinks God meant.
If homosexuality is not a sin against God, as Stephen suggests then he needs to do a blog on why it is that God owes Sodom & Gomorrah an apology.
Now if you're gay and you have decided to stay gay, in a gay lifestyle with your gay partner that is entirely up to you. Its not my place to call you a good or bad person because of your choice. But if you alter God's Word to suit your own lifestyle then yes you are pretty bad. The Bible is also pretty clear about false churches and there are many out there. Far too many. Most of them will fail as churches and we should just call them civic clubs.
If a religion cannot properly live by its own teachings then it should be stripped of its "church" status.
Wednesday, 22 November 2017
The Current Breach of Acts by Senior Bureaucrats
Yep its kinda looking like its happened and if it is as it appears, then we have a very serious legislative breach that undermines our legal & legislative framework. Now this is not Zimbabwe but side stepping the law in the smallest possible manner is just as serious and the worst may be yet to come.
How & what's happened in WA?
Well Australia Post, our official national post entity, has somehow been dropped as an "Official Carrier" by the WAPolice for freighting firearms around Western Australia. Information how this has happened or why is pretty scant to say the least. We're told that the upper ranks of WAPol beaurcracy have claimed that "by post" as set out in Section 30A of the Firearms Act means couriers, not just Australia Post...which they dropped anyway.
That's still very debatable as most people are going to argue quite easily that "by post" is not couriers with the "EXCLUSION OF AUSTRALIA POST"...not in any way, any shape nor form.
Now whilst you're digesting this be aware no other state in Australia has determined Aust Post is not to be an Official Carrier...none. If you have a firearm sent from the eastern states you can post it to WA but you cannot post within WA.
How's that work because a firearm posted in Sydney, Canberra, Brisbane, Melbourne or even anywhere else in other states of territories is 100% legal. A dealer in other states breaks no law in their state nor in WA if they use Australia Post to post to WA.
It is the strangest of situations as WAPol is of a differing view.
However with over 20 LAWFUL gun dealers and even more private gun smiths in REGIONAL WA the financial impost is massive. They cannot get stock delivered as usual by Aust Post and have to use a set group of Approved Couriers. None of which transport to all of WA. Some are without any possible avenue of delivery.
Some of these rural businesses are going to the wall as we speak. If they're within 4 hours of Perth they'll be driving directly to the Perth delivery depot/s, picking up stock and driving directly home. If they're 6 hours from Perth they probably aren't going to risk it with a 13+ hour round trip.
But how is it that the senior bureaucrats in the WA Police can get this so wrong. I'd argue that Aust Post is actually enshrined in the Act whilst WA Police's position is it isn't enshrined in the Act.
This is pretty serious on several fronts. Obvious is we have some rural businesses that are suffering unnecessary financial hardship and even in some cases a complete inability to have any stock delivered. Those that can use the listed couriers are paying far more than Aust Post do...if they can deliver to them that is.
If that's not enough there's another thing...having trade restricted by having the enshrined carrier dropped whilst the Act actually specifies them.
Stop and digest that.
We have some senior bureaucrats who have decided to created baseless reasoning to side step and contravene the Act to the detriment of rural business.
There's something very serious happening here. Bureaucrats are now able to ignore or deliberately contravene the Act. How you going digesting that...if its a precedent.
The minister has no choice whatsoever. Michelle Roberts MLA MUST reinstate Aust Post as a firearms carrier as it was prior to the legislative over reach by the Bureaucrats and identify who made this very serious breach, this Legislative Over Reach.
When? Pretty much immediately.
Acts of Parliament are detailed and set & no officer of the law can contravene them.
The WANationals are onto this as are the other Upper House cross benches but the Labor/Liberal Duopoly are out to lunch entirely.
Direct from the WALabor Twitter page states...
"
Well they appear to be doing little in the way of delivering. They're allowing free contravention of Acts of Parliament to the detriment of rural businesses.
This is not Government. This is very dangerous.
Thursday, 2 November 2017
How's your Constitution?
Organisations generally have similar problems.
Everyone in a Organisation will agree at some point they need a Committee to Review the Constitution. If its bigger than the average club then I firmly believe what they REALLY need is a lot more than just a Constitutional Review Committee. What's more often needed is a full time Governance Committee that when needed, takes submissions from any part of the Organisation and reports directly to what is the Board of Management, the Company Directors.
This means we'd have a mechanism that deals with compliance issue if & when they happen can mitigate & reduce risk and legal exposure to both the Organisation & indiviuduals and officers of the whole organisation.
A constitution or Articles of Association are living documents which need to be in a state of constant or regular review. A constitution is a reflection of what an organsation is and how it does what its supposed to.
Corporate Governance distilled down is nothing more than the systems & processes you have in place to ensure your organisation or company does what it's supposed to do, in the required manner its supposed to do it.
Remember its still possible, even with the new Incorporations Act (in WA) to have a Act compliant & Department approved Constitution and still have serious breaches of Corporate Governance.
In previous times the Incoporations Acts of all states were really only the legislative framework to allow a Not For Profit legal entity to exist. Where there were gaps in the respective state based Acts, the over arching Act was the federal Corporations Act. Its also here that rights roles & repsonsibilities of Company Directors (Management Committee members) were set out and applied to anyone in charge of a For Profit or Not For Profit legal entity. This is still the case but the new WA Act now covers more than it ever did before.
Still we need to know having a good constitution is only part of the remedy for most State Based Not-For-Profit organisations. The Corporate Governance levels need to be addressed and maintained continually. This cannot be done with JUST a constitution review once every 8 or 10 years. Organisations need a governance committee that sees to the maintenance of their Constitution in an ongoing basis and not wait until 6 or 10 years of out of date matters need a massive & critical re-write. A Governance Committee must also over see our operations to make recommendations to reduce our individual and/or combined risks & legal exposure.
Good news is if your group's constitution isn't compliant with the new current Act fear not. You have until July 1st 2019 to get complaint with the Department.
But what will you do to ensure good Corporate Governance in a governance model that suits your organisation?
Also note, having a complaint constitution doesn't mean your management committee is immune from breaching their fiduciary duty or failing in its rights, roles & responsibilities. An ongoing reporting committee of vigilance is essential.
If you have the numbers (and most certainly if you have a number of committees and working groups) get proper charters for each so everyone knows their knitting, safe from legal angst. Remember the Not-For-Profit that's complaint can be sued for what it has, but people in positions of management or decision making can still be personally liable. Get covered, get compliant and get on with the more important things like the aims of your association.
https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumer-protection/associations-new-law
Everyone in a Organisation will agree at some point they need a Committee to Review the Constitution. If its bigger than the average club then I firmly believe what they REALLY need is a lot more than just a Constitutional Review Committee. What's more often needed is a full time Governance Committee that when needed, takes submissions from any part of the Organisation and reports directly to what is the Board of Management, the Company Directors.
This means we'd have a mechanism that deals with compliance issue if & when they happen can mitigate & reduce risk and legal exposure to both the Organisation & indiviuduals and officers of the whole organisation.
A constitution or Articles of Association are living documents which need to be in a state of constant or regular review. A constitution is a reflection of what an organsation is and how it does what its supposed to.
Corporate Governance distilled down is nothing more than the systems & processes you have in place to ensure your organisation or company does what it's supposed to do, in the required manner its supposed to do it.
Remember its still possible, even with the new Incorporations Act (in WA) to have a Act compliant & Department approved Constitution and still have serious breaches of Corporate Governance.
In previous times the Incoporations Acts of all states were really only the legislative framework to allow a Not For Profit legal entity to exist. Where there were gaps in the respective state based Acts, the over arching Act was the federal Corporations Act. Its also here that rights roles & repsonsibilities of Company Directors (Management Committee members) were set out and applied to anyone in charge of a For Profit or Not For Profit legal entity. This is still the case but the new WA Act now covers more than it ever did before.
Still we need to know having a good constitution is only part of the remedy for most State Based Not-For-Profit organisations. The Corporate Governance levels need to be addressed and maintained continually. This cannot be done with JUST a constitution review once every 8 or 10 years. Organisations need a governance committee that sees to the maintenance of their Constitution in an ongoing basis and not wait until 6 or 10 years of out of date matters need a massive & critical re-write. A Governance Committee must also over see our operations to make recommendations to reduce our individual and/or combined risks & legal exposure.
Good news is if your group's constitution isn't compliant with the new current Act fear not. You have until July 1st 2019 to get complaint with the Department.
But what will you do to ensure good Corporate Governance in a governance model that suits your organisation?
Also note, having a complaint constitution doesn't mean your management committee is immune from breaching their fiduciary duty or failing in its rights, roles & responsibilities. An ongoing reporting committee of vigilance is essential.
If you have the numbers (and most certainly if you have a number of committees and working groups) get proper charters for each so everyone knows their knitting, safe from legal angst. Remember the Not-For-Profit that's complaint can be sued for what it has, but people in positions of management or decision making can still be personally liable. Get covered, get compliant and get on with the more important things like the aims of your association.
https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumer-protection/associations-new-law
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)