You choose, you pay, not "you choose & I pay"

If you want to use drugs I'd tell you don't. Its a bad, appallingly bad choice. Using meth/ice, cocaine, heroin, cannabis etc is not a wise choice. Sniffing petrol, glues or acetone products are not wise choices. Despite what anyone tells you they are the worst of bad choices, however good or bad your life is, taking these and any of a much longer list of drugs is going to make your life worse, inextricably worse. Many will eventually will end your life in the worst possible, most undignified manner. Some will turn to crime, theft and/or prostitution to raise funds for their addiction. Others will become dealers and peddle death & misery to others to pay for their addiction.

If you use drugs, go for it. I'll tell you not to, I'll try to talk you into getting smart & clean but if you're determined to stay on drugs I cannot physically force you against your will to get off drugs. If you can take drugs & be of no burden to your loved ones, your family & friends or a cost to the economy, the society, the law & order/health budget then its your choice.

It is undemocratic and ethically unfair for me to pay for your addiction as a tax payer. If you turn to crime or become unproductive as an employer or worse choose to stay on unemployment benefits to keep your addiction going you're unfairly forcing me to be one of your enablers. I do not want to be partly responsible for you staying on drugs. Yes, if there's a good chance rehab will get you clean then as a tax payer I'm willing to pay for that. I am not liable to help you stay on drugs.

Have you seen this person? Here's a parallel. Extreme body modifications. Your choice.

Image: Maria Jose Cristerna, known as 'Vampire Woman', holds the Guinness World Record for being the woman with more changes in her body in America (JOHAN ORDONEZ/AFP/GettyImages)

Now I don't know this person pictured or anything about them but bluntly, what they've done to themselves is their business, their choice. I don't have to be a fan of it, I can be reviled by but its their choice & I won't enforce my thoughts or will upon them.
Similarly I would expect such people to pay for their own life choices. If they can get a job or not be a burden on society that's great, but if they've made themselves unemployable then a full pension to subsidise their "life choice" their cultural creation then its not my responsibility to foot the bill they create. If I go to a pub, have 2 beers and steak sandwich I pay for it. I don't do a runner & make the pub subsidise my nourishment, I don't forward the bill to the government. I pay for my own choices and ensure it doesn't affect others.

If you take drugs, illegal/illicit drugs its a reasonable expectation of a wise society to help you make wiser life decisions & assist you get off drugs. But if you steal, or break any law to fund your addiction you have to go to jail.
Decriminalising drugs won't pay for your drugs so the ill effects on society remain.

Its probably time to build a special drug jail. One that specialises in rehab whilst incarcerated. Where detox & remapping an addicts life with both medical & mental health experts is part of the daily regiment. Where you stay until you're clean and recalibrated or you've served your time for you crimes, whichever comes first. And yes, physical activities like sport, exercise & physical work are a must. Religious instruction to be available to those who choose it.

If you re-offend you should come back for double whatever your sentence is to increase your chances of getting your life in order.

As a member of society I'm happy to be part of the solution and pay for it. The benefits are there for the individual and society as a whole. It is not fair that we as a society pay & suffer for the addiction of others.

Good Advice For Getting Along vs Good Advice For Doing Right

Regarding the title...Yes at times they're different. There are times when standing up for a right thing or a another possibly unpopular person who's right, it can cause you to not get along...but its the right thing to do. Sadly that's life. You have a choice, sell out or do the right thing. I expect no one has a perfect record & expect there's some who's seemingly perfect record is probably just a high percentage score. Even if that is sadly the case, then we're left with the same dilemma, what do you want to do,

I've been lucky, I can think of a number of good people, family & friends that were kind enough to give me some very good advice. Two shearers about 15-18 years old of me gave me a ton I still lean on. A long since passed on gent, who was the town drunk but even at his drunkest he remain a kind, thoughtful gent. He gave advice that stuck. As one other friend said, good advice is there, not always spoken or given, learn or lose.


I recall reading Edward DeBono's books in the 1980s & 90s, some were brilliant & should be required reading. Since then I've leaned more on the Ben Shapiro & Jordan Peterson angles (and no they don't/won't always agree) that go with facts and data. The idea that its about "Facts Not Feelings, Facts Don't Care About Your Feelings" resonates. Its very true. Its why I was good at debating in high school but hated it. It seemed you could be totally wrong & still win the debate. You need skills backed with selective facts and you can win with debating & THAT is the main problem with discourse today. What De Bono called "arrogance arguing".
The example I usually give is imagine a debate where the topic is "That Breathing Oxygen is Bad For You". You're on the negative side & you've come up with a lot of damaging things that can happen breathing the air. Your opposition is doing nearly as good as you, they're definitely trailing but they have missed one crucial point you are very aware of. No oxygen means you'll die so breathing oxygen is very bad for you.

Conundrum - They are missing a fact that is crucial to the debate, but will cause you to lose. Arrogance arguing is the idea that you don't mention it, that you don't help your opposition, that you win.

And that is the sum total of lots of discourse today. Winning & losing.
Shapiro & Peterson, who don't always agree & I might disagree with them at times too have a different approach. Facts, not winning is important. There is no personal victory to be had, there is no threat of personal defeat, its not a competition, it must be what the facts & data present. Nothing wrong with learning you were wrong, the almost morally wrong part is not correcting or change your stance when its shown to be wrong.

Its Not About You. Leave You Out Of It. By all means add your views, that will help drag you and a differing person closer to the point of conclusion but its not a race, its not a competition its dual pursuit, to get what's right.

Be warned, there's side affects of doing this. By sticking to cold facts & being able to give and take as facts emerge & either add to your position or correct your position.
 YOU ARE NOW A DANGEROUS PERSON WITH DANGEROUS IDEAS.

You will cop personal attacks, ignore them.

You will be regarded as a scary person, threatening and aggressive.

You will have people say you're a bully or mean.

If the other/s are leftist or use leftist tactics you will see "triggerings", claims of victimhood, accusations of aggressiveness. These complaints might have some truth to them, you might come across as aggressive but equally possible some feel pressured into a corner by fact, truth & reason where they feel confined with no where to go.

There is the thing, you can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own truth. Truth is not yours & the position you take in a debate is not YOURS, it must be the unowned truth, the unowned facts, the unowned data. It must not ever be about you.
Maintain that & you can still be labeled a bully, a thug, mean, aggressive or unreasonable even if you're quietly, politely spoken, not getting personal, just presenting facts or asking for data to support a claim.

DON'T BE RUDE, STICK TO FACTS NOT FEELING, DON'T GET PERSONAL, STICK WITH DATA & KNOW YOU COULD STILL GET LABELED A BULLY OR AGRESSIVE BY SOME.

In that case, anyone calling you a bully or aggressive the answer is simple. Never ever engage with them in any way alone. Not email, twitter a face to face discussion, phone...nothing. Soon as you hear a person has labelled you, keep witnesses at hand always. We're in an age where people have made allegations about people with views they oppose as a last desperate act of defiance or spite. If you're guilty then you deserve what consequences are due, but if it isn't true protect yourself.

Some people use the tactic of get the person & not the ethical "play the ball not the man"

Facts not feelings, facts don't care about your feelings. Its not about winning, its about what's right.
That's the basis of a dangerous person with dangerous ideas. Doing the right thing with facts.

Current Barnaby Joyce things sparks side debate

...Or does it? It should.

I see Barnaby Joyce has been involved recently on the Abortion Issue in NSW & it's generated some negative feedback online but not the negativity you'd think. Well maybe so.

Many replies online were memes, pictures of beetroot or calling him a hypocrite for some of his actions in his personal life and some even became contradictory.

One was "its not a moral issue, its a health issue so he should stay out of it" then another poster stated that such a moral issue could do with a hypocrite such as Barnaby & leave it to everyone else.
 Now on that space you'd think one might begin discourse on the other as to why it IS or ISN'T a moral issue seeing that's the core basis of their respective argument, but no. Both were 'get Barnaby out of the debate', out of the issue for different reasons...so despite being highly contradictory. I suspect although both find the others concept UNTRUE the truth is not of any importance if its "Get Barnaby"

As for it being a health or moral issue, decide for yourself the problem is due to popularism people have gone after a person or personality not after rigorous objective discourse. The main problem is this, the Bill has been deemed by some as being a ram through process without sufficient public consultation and being rammed through as it has there's been no ability to apply an Amendments.
That, no matter what the legislation is just happens to be bad government.

Some have claimed its able to allow "gender based abortion" where parent or parents could terminate a baby if it's gender isn't that which is preferred by the parent/s and made late term abortions possible.
Others have claimed it does not that it's only regarding 22 weeks and earlier. That Barnaby was wrong in mentioning pregnancies that were 26 weeks or more, that he was lying, that he should stay out.
Again this is popularism driven, it is not "Facts Not Feelings"
The proposed legislation makes it very possible to have an abortion at 26 weeks, you just need 2 doctors to say yes. This means yes with the effort of Doctor Shopping a person can actually terminate an unborn baby at 26 weeks and the reason remains private between the doctor and patient.

So Barnaby has raised his head above the trench line and taken a position. Whether I find him agreeable or not is irrelevant. Whether I like what he says or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is "Facts Not Feelings" - Is he correct in what he's saying.

Now several people have claimed this is issue is being fought against by the Religious Hard Right, or the Religious Right with more than a few stating we must maintain a separation of church & state. Thing is lets apply the "Facts Not Feelings" filter and look again.

We have separation of Church & State now & in this country we always have. Australia is not, nor has it ever been a Theocracy or Caliphate. Every single person in this country whether they're Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Humanist, Agnostic, Nihilist, Utilitarian Atheist or member of the Church of Klingon, everyone has a Worldview. Lets repeat that with context.

1) Everyone without exception has a worldview
2) Our Parliaments and Government Instruments are Secular
3) No one should be exempt from our parliament, our government, our democratic process on the basis of their worldview.
4) The Church is not running the show, not any religion.

Barnaby's view can be accepted or rejected, you have a choice. He's a member of Parliament & if he has a strong view he can take a view, raise his voice & if he chooses make a stand that might help or hurt him politically. I'd rather any MP came out with their view, even if I opposed it, rather than staying silent because they've been told to by some electors or they're thinking about their safest bet of re-election.

Some have entered the fray because they are decidedly ANTI Barnaby Joyce...and in a free country that's their choice, their prerogative. Point is you can have your own stance, your own position, your own view but you cannot have your own facts and your own truth.

If its a moral issue and someone has no ability to comment because of immoral actions in their own life in the past you firstly have to declare which moral standard you're using to make the moral judgement. Secondly you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who is morally perfect so in order to keep one person out, you'll be denying anyone including yourself the moral authority to comment as well.

All this is a bit immaterial when you realise there is such a vastly differing accepted thought on WHEN life begins. For some its at the fertilisation of the egg, for others its an arbitrary time & others its exiting the womb & being slapped on the butt. For some, its when awareness begins and not before. That's the Utilitarian view which is utterly dangerous which then means as soon as someone enters a coma, their can be terminated.

Worldviews guide people but at the end of the day Abortion isn't about health unless it threatens the mothers and/or child's life. That's health issue.

Its not a form of contraception & should be seen as that.

Then there's the heavy version, a termination is the ending, the switching the switch off, its snuffing out the candle, its prevent an unborn from becoming born. You cannot turn it off if it isn't turn on.
When does life start and when are the normally afforded human rights afforded? When personhood is attained? When is that? Many deliberately avoid that altogether.

A golden child of the left who is also a well known ex US President said life begins at conception and seems so when you consider this...

conception

/kənˈsɛpʃ(ə)n/

noun

noun: conception; plural noun: conceptions

1. 
   

   the action of conceiving a child or of one being conceived

contraception

/kɒntrəˈsɛpʃ(ə)n/

noun

noun: contraception

1. the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse. The major forms of artificial contraception are: barrier methods, of which the commonest is the condom or sheath; the contraceptive pill, which contains synthetic sex hormones which prevent ovulation in the female; intrauterine devices, such as the coil, which prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus; and male or female sterilization.

  Note the difference, "Con" and "Contra" are all preventing pregnancy, not terminating one.
And all of this has nothing to do with whether or not you hate Barnaby Joyce or love him.
Its Facts not Feelings and it will draw savage criticism or personal attacks often freely without thought, fact or regard for proper discourse and critical thinking.

Support or oppose whatever position you like on whatever subject or issue arises. Just avoid being intellectually corrupt or deliberately fact free in order to win your point.

Its not about Barnaby. Never was, never will be. Support whichever view or position you like, but the church & state argument doesn't hold up. Morality of any person on either side isn't applicable. Only facts matter.

Facts not Feelings.

Arguing From Authority

Yes its a thing and simply, its this. If you're debating say Voluntary Assisted Dying (insert any issue) and there is a person or persons in the debate who are of a particular faith that is strongly for or against the issue "Arguing from Authority" is an imminent threat.

Is basically that if one argues from a Scripture point of view THAT is arguing from authority and it will not convince other people to change their mind because it comes from an authority that some people won't recognise, respect or follow.

Arguing from Authority cannot convince anyone of thought change unless you first thought change them on their spiritual faith. It is a massive insurmountable discourse barrier. The solution is by all means, if you are a person of faith do not use your faith based arguments, keep it secular. If an issue is damaging to society as a whole you can present that in a secular fashion & you will have a chance of finding a more sensible fact based solution, not disturbed and partitioned by faith or opposition to faith.

Yes, to those who are non and even anti faith they too need to tread carefully and keep it secular, non faith based. Using it as an opportunity to fire pot shots at people of faith is counter productive and again sets up insurmountable barriers to sensible solutions.

To date even amongst varying faiths things are showing disturbing trends. One particular charity for disadvantaged people in our community was shut down from using a Social Media platform that it uses as its prime generator for donations. Why?

Well on the platform they had used an "offensive term or phrase".
The operators of the site went through their entire postings to find an offensive word or phrase and couldn't find one. Then they suspected what might have happened. They replaced the word "Christian" with "Muslim" and the site was reinstalled straight away.
 At present faith is being segregated and weaponised in discourse & political decision making. Both sides are involved but I suspect the more left leaning are more keen on this angle.

Keep your faith, keep adhering to your Scriptures but argue in a totally secular manner.

Keep your non faith, adhere to whatever worldview you choose but argue in a totally secular manner.

I suspect we're beginning to see some weaponizing of worldviews in WA. There are claims that the Liberals are being stacked & run by "far right Christians" which is odd because if you're far right you are not Christian, you can't be. Some might call them that, some might claim that but its not exegesis-wise possible.

The Nats have been labelled by a small few as being strongly anti faith, strongly Christian and also very divided. Those claims didn't come from Nationals or Liberals...came from the left.

Separation of Church & State...we ALREADY HAVE IT. We do not live in a theocracy or caliphate. But we do have to be careful that we keep law making & law keeping totally secular. Sorry Muslim friends, it means that Sharia Law is inconsistent with Australian Society. Same as we do not have Amish enclaves making local laws & penalties.

Secular. In political discourse its the only way to proceed to a solution from discourse.

Australian Politics, The Left, The Right, Conservatives & Donald Trump

Donald Trump & Australian Politics? Yes there looks like a link but its more of an effect than a connection or plan but it may play out in a big way in one particular way. First, lets look at the US scene and crack it open & guess a bit. During the Clinton/Trump US Presidential election a good US friend & I were talking & I asked which candidate would be better for the country, who's the best out of the two of them. The answer I got was "Depends one whether you like to be stabbed or slashed"

Yeah a bit cynical and almost Australian like. His view now is remarkably different. He says as much as he thought Trump was going to be a total cartoon character from The Simpsons he's had to eat humble pie. He's actually done some of the things he said he would & actually tried to do some of the things he's predecessors did. Moving their US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, well his predecessors said they'd do that & didn't, the wall between them & Mexico, same deal. Tightening borders & deporting illegal aliens same too.

His biggest fault is claiming he'd do something and then actually carrying through. No I'm not a Trump fan boy but its hard to dispute the facts as they unfold. Is he a great leader? Maybe and maybe not. Is he a great statesman? No, not even close. He is a great salesman and he knows to close a deal he has to deliver and he's got lots of deals, every decision appears to be a deal. Now he's not the emperor calling all the shots on everything. There'll be a huge number of background briefings, advisors & support staff working different length strategies. But he does put his finger prints over things.

I don't if he'll be impeached over something, I don't know if some new scandal will come out. Fact is no one really notices now. Any other politician that had the amount of scandals he's had would be toast in the bin. Yet he survives & bounces back, often much stronger.

                                   Now how does this an effect on Australian Politics?


Seems odd but bear with me, "The Squad"

A group of 4 left wing Congresswomen who play identity politics, group politics, victim cards and talk in the most profoundly vague generalisms not to mention complete silence when they're asked a question they don't like. Do they support or oppose the fire bombing attacks by Antifa or not? Dead silence, the reporter asks again and a again in a walk presser but they won't answer. One now is possibly going to fact a serious investigation re election fraud & possibly immigration fraud..."did you marry your brother?" and again complete silence.

The Squad have gone after Trump with a vengeance trying to do a Penn & Teller level card trick...and failed. They played the race card over & over. They went after him and possibly they should have just not poked the bear. His race credentials (if there is such a thing) seem to stack up quite well. Black Americans are thought to primarily voted Democrat, thought to be 80% range. I think that's going to change and it may slowly ended up 50:50 eventually.

The Squad went after Trump and its kind of looking like the kayak attacking the battleship.

Interesting is Black American unemployment rate double under Obama's first 2 years in office. Under Trump its currently at an all time record low. The share market has kept travelling on gain cycle too.
Not all attributable to Trump & Trump alone...but it's hard to be critical of a President that isn't playing the Left vs the Right game, is just delivering and delivering well.

The horrible cages at the border the children were placed in, Trumps copped merry hell for them but they were installed during Obama's reign. And he is not deporting refugees or immigrants, he's deporting illegal aliens.

All this has an effect, the left is taking a serious blow, the socialism of Venezuela is failing with catastrophic results for human life. Socialism is being properly outed for what it is. Against individuals going about their daily lives getting ahead without government interference.

THAT effect is going to slowly go worldwide. No it won't lead to the fall of North Korea & China but the Hard Left is going to dwindle & will be less likely to dupe people.

I think we saw in the recent Australian Federal election the exact opposite of what nearly every predicted, it was not the continued Red Tide we saw in the WA State election.
Yes it turned into a Blue vs Red election or perhaps a ScoMo vs Bill dish up but Bill Shorten was outplayed mainly by himself and he did end up losing the unlosable election. There possibly isn't a Blue vs Red tide tussle, its what best for your country, your state that's at play and people are working out what the 2 major parties in Australia are about.

If there's a draining of the swamp in Australia, its red that will likely be drained. The Greens may not win too many more seats in the decades to come, but they might make up a higher percentage of the Left in most parliaments. Further cementing the Blue team in power most likely.

Its no longer mainly Left vs Right. From here on in it'll possibly be Left vs Conservatives vs Right.

It the Left keeps fighting the Right, which is all they know the Conservatives will prevail. The downfall of Conservatives is most likely going to be self inflicted over time.

The Squad, by pursuing Trump have probably damaged their own chances and may well contribute to Trump's re-election greatly. The press is seeing the Squad as the intellectually bankrupt train wreck they are, they will continue to get massive press coverage compared to all other members of Congress and they will further cement Trump & undermine themselves. Where there's a spectacular crash, the press will follow it, nurture it and milk it for all its worth.
They are lawn & Trump is the lawn mower.

And now the age of the internet means more people are closely inspecting what Socialism is, what Neo-Marxist Post Modernism is, how to some truth is whatever you say it is even if its fictional or a deliberate lie.

In WA's upcoming State Election (20 months away) its likely the Red Tide will recede. McGowan could lose power & government. The biggest thing will be whether people vote Liberal or Nationals if they flee Labor at the ballot. Nationals don't run in most seats so metro will not see that Blue vs Green & Gold contest. Might in some country seats.

So yes, Trump may have an effect on Australian politics in the next 12-18 months. I expect & hope it will cause people to less Neo-Marxist. I don't think McGowan will deliver as much as he said he would even by plundering Royalties for Regions to cost shift the financials. Yes, the bush is subsidising MetroDebt and quite a few other projects in Metro Labor held seats.

Yes I do think a reckoning is coming, I think we may see the Federal result replicated in the upcoming WA State Election & I think we might enter a period where Identity Politics, Group Politics, Post Modernist Neo-Marxism and all the Socialist bents will get cracked open like the left will not want. They will be inspected closely & found wanting. The faces will be red too.

What will be funny to watch is how Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau will weigh in and take it to a gob smackingly daft new level. On the world stage he's considered a joke and a fool. I think he'll confirm those views & probably support the anti Semitic Squad at some point. 

WA's Current Political Landscape...

Every political party is going to go through ebbs and flows. WA Lberals did but suffering an electoral defeat that wasn't unfairly referred to as the Red Tide. Now in the Lower House Labor doesn't need a lot of their MPs to be present to run their majority. In the Upper House, not so much. If the flu goes through the chamber some things could go a little pear shaped for the Government.

 WALabor certainly has its ebb & flow dynamic. The recent Federal election was a rejection of all the polls and pretty well all commentators who were expecting another Red Tide or some cases a Red Tsunami came up red faced. Some even predicted Labor would win 86 seats. Yes some commentators were speaking partly in hopes and dreams and their bias slipped out into full view but it wasn't just Shorten who was on the nose.

Yes it was a Red vs Blue battle, yes it was a ScoMo vs Bill tussle but in the West it was Mark McGowan who fronted the hustings and one could be forgiven for thinking the Premier was actually running for a Federal seat. The ballot showed what the ballot showed and Mark McGowan since then has been flat out distancing himself from Federal Labor and flat out throwing distraction grenades out ever since...but it may not be enough.

The next WA State Election is a little way off  (13th of March 2021) but at some point McGowan and WALabor will actually have to cease with the "The Liberals fault..." for everything angle. They've been in power for a while now & you'd expect they'd be on top of their own term in office by now.

Here's the thing, WALabor is in full fright mode. They only have to lose a handful of seats and there's more than a handful of seats that sit on 3-5% swing, which in the scheme of things is a coin toss. They really do know they're on the cusp of "One Term Wonder" status. I suspect this is why you see a big rush of photo ops with international who's who types. Tennis players, actors filming here & then bringing popularist sport stunts like Mixed Martial Arts cage fighting to WA along with Manchester United. These distraction grenades aren't helping the regions who're being stripped of Royalties for Regions to cross subsidise bold election promises in key metro based Labor seats.

McTiernan is still devoutly ANTI LIVE EXPORT despite the industry having a 7+ year descending trendline in Transit Mortality Rate, despite having the best Animal Welfare outcomes across the globe, despite it holding up the entire sheep market & farm gate price, despite it having competitors that have NO Animal Welfare standards or regulations. Despite us having NO ability to process an additional 3 million head of livestock here in Australia, nor having any market to sell them into. Banning Live Export will deliver the worst Animal Welfare Outcomes possible, remove all regulations to keeping it a cruelty free and destroy regional economies in the process.

Despite what you've been told by some, there is no evidence whatsoever that the current Ag Minister has anything on her mind except "Plan B" and "transition". She is an Animal Rights activist, always has been.

Transport Minister...well she can't manage much more than dart throwing across the floor of the chamber. She even had to break off ports from her Transport Portfolio because she's battling to manage METRONET or as many are calling it "MetroDEBT" and just wait til those real numbers fall out of the ether. Its a massive mess & it is going to plunge us into some deep debt.

Education, mess...thankfully School of the Air was saved from being abolished. If you're a minister and think that's a good idea to run with, you're either not telling cabinet or cabinet are all dangerous fools. That should have been enough to remove her from office, along with her already departed confidence from the sector.

Dave Kelly...the minister who was alleged to have feigned a head butt across the chamber at a female MP from the opposition, who was going to expand the Rock Lobster Industry and make the industry subsidise cheap lobsters for the domestic market and wait til you see what he's really been doing & not doing with water.

I'm staggered how bad things are being run, Emergency Services is in a diabolical state, especially in rural areas. Yet to meet anyone with soaring confidence in that area or in that minister. Police are being denied a sensible pay rise & what small gain they will get will be gobbled up by the cost of rent in rural postings, in fact it will only go part way to covering the regional posting rent crisis. For most, a rural posting is effectively going to be a big old pay cut.

You'd think a party with such so called union cred in the ranks would not turn this into something rhyming with "Duster Truck".

Health...well wait n see there. We'll see if all the hospitals & campuses get their promised outlays. Several rural & remote hospitals had their renovations slashed and burned.

Meanwhile one priority was clear in the Labor Government's first budget. Did you know that in the Premier's own electorate of Rockingham the basketball courts had more money poured in by him in ONE YEAR than was spent on 2 years of Ice/Meth rehab in Albany over TWO YEARS? True Story.


Of course Albany got royally shafted. "Only Labor will deliver the Ring Road" and no, they haven't and strangely blame the Federal Government. Albany's MP Peter Watson is over the hill and was relegated to "Speaker of the House".

Happy are you Albany? You now have a representative who has no involvement in Government Business at all, doesn't enter into debate except to umpire and never votes on any legislation before the house at all. Now someone asked me what is the signature project that Peter Watson has delivered for Albany. I can't think of one.

One of Albany's biggest newest highly spouted projects was the Albany Wave Farm. Financially its imploded and all the jobs it was going to bring Albany, all but 2 were in Perth and one of those was in EUROPE!!!

Then there's a bunch of links with the Chinese Communist Government in business equations.


Apparently not just me thinking the red tide will recede like a Tsunami in reverse and possible we may see WA Inc Mark II heading our way. All the while cosily rubbing the chest of Rio & BHP, the 2 biggest foreign owned mining giants who still pay a 1964 rate of pittance for the Special Rental Fee.

The Labor Party is the master of shiny squirrels, distraction grenades, untruth bombs with smoke & mirrors. But to completely butcher the metaphor I'm not sure they can pull a 30 ton rabbit out of miniature hat.

Its a long way from the State Election, no commentators will call a prediction. certainly not since they all got it so horribly wrong at the Federal Election. It certainly was the case Bill Shorten did lose the unlosable election and his front man in WA steering the bulk of the face campaign was Mark McGowan. No doubt he went flat strap distancing himself from Shorten, saying the promises were too grandiose.


Watch this space. WALabor may just turn into a one term wonder. The economy is worse than most are letting on. Fee & charges in WA will rise. I think WALabor will be punished for delivering pain.

20 months out & ticking

What's missing in Joe Hilderbrand's view on Israel Folau

Does Joe get it right all the time? Nope, like me he's afflicted with the ability to be well meaning but not actually 100% correct. No one's perfect. Partly that's what Folau was getting at. Christians are not perfect, they're sinners too. The difference is whist Christians aren't perfect they are saved.

No one gets into Heaven on their own actions, the Bible is abundantly clear on that, that's why a Christ came & replaced the 10 commandments. Well not replaced but strengthened what those laws were saying, you can't make it on your own, you need Christ. That's what Israel Folau said & meant in the meme. Read it again, all the way through.

Couple of things for Joe...

Yes in the Dark Ages you could be put to death for possessing even a part of the Scriptures. An action that is not supported by any part of the Scriptures I should point out.

The church is not, nor has it even been a de facto state but the Roman Catholic Church is a sovereign state & always has been. Again not something encouraged by Scriptures at all. If anything, Scriptures warned us about it.

Joe mentioned "...and hearing first hand about a radical preacher who drank copious amounts of wine, consorted with prostitutes and declared no rich man would get into heaven." I'm not sure who he means. If he means Christ, he's actually set out as the new High Priest, the new King & the Messiah and He never ever  "declared no rich man would get into heaven.". It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Put it this way, its easier for someone to die & be risen or maybe walk on water than a rich man enter the kingdom of God. Point is, as Scripture points out clearly, all things are possible with Christ & God. A rich man can possible enter the Kingdom of God. Money is not a sin, the LOVE of money is. If you love money more than Christ. Just putting that out there Joe. :-)

Contradictory verses? Well no, if you find a contradiction you haven't found the in Context exegesis yet. Scripture is also clear, Scripture proves Scripture. Keep checking, some way to go.

Thousand of unknown authors? No. 66 books by 40 authors and the veracity the further you go back is clear. In fact in Christ & Pre Christ times the scholars and scribes were highly regulated. Every letter and punctuation mark in Hebrew had a numerical value. The scribes wrote under close supervision, each line had to have the exact same numerical value, each line was added up & sections had to arrive at a specific numerical value. If they were out by just one, it was destroyed as it was seen as a travesty against God. It was pretty serious and some of the oldest surviving copies of the Torah don't deviate from modern copies of the Torah. Just saying.

Yes Israel read the Bible and made the comments he did. I'm still waiting for someone to explain, with proper in context Exegesis, why & how, what he said was not in line with Scripture. So far, it lines up very well with Scripture whether you believe in the Scriptures or not.

Yes the media leapt on it. For good reason, it was always going to sell. A clash between the large and influential LBGTI movement of today and the Christian view. And hasn't the media done such a great job at injecting more push in the scrum? It sells, it sells well. Its the old 60 Minutes approach. Polarise 2 sides, sit in the middle and stoke, stoke, stoke them a week later read more polarising letters.

LBGTI movement has been persecuted over the centuries, but that's not why they're raising hell. They're complaining about Folau getting millions to fight a legal battle whilst its impossible to get the same amount for starving or homeless. Its also the case that the LGBTI "movement" (and it is now a political movement) is not pounding the press over gay people being launched off buildings to their deaths. Nor is it, quite noticeably going after any religion except Christianity. Its not pursuing Imams & other Islamic clerics to revise their scriptures to embrace LBGTI. Check the Qaran, Christopher Hitchins tried getting and answer out of Waleed Aly...can someone be a good muslim and gay. Aly went for a watered down dodgeball.

Maybe Madga & others can nail Waleed down in this based on their Scriptures...and other religions too.

Interesting also, if Folau can & should be sacked & it's not unreasonable seeing Qantas is a major sponsor & its CEO is a prominent member of the LBGTI movement...or perceived so. Joyce was employed to be a CEO. Its not his money, its the company's and he works for the company and his fiduciary duty is very clear...he is to work in the best interests of the shareholders & the company. What if the shareholders & the company decide his actions in SSM & the Folau issue are too controversial and anti Christian or just not in the best interests of the company can QATAS sack Alan Joyce? Going by the Folau action of dismissal he can & no one should complain. Madga can have any contract she has cancelled if she strays from what her employers deem is a boundary.
They're not saying that, they're only out to get one guy from one religion that offers a path to salvation. LBGTI people were not singled out, but their movement was keen to take umbrage & single Folau out.

Folau did not ask for gays to be stoned or thrown off buildings. He promoted that we're all sinners and only Christ can save us.

If you disagree with that, ignore it and walk on. Let the man play football and say what he wants as long as its not inciting hate. He aimed squarely at sinners which is all of us, including him. Scripture is clear, Christ is the only one who's getting into Heaven and isn't a sinner. All those who walk into Heaven are sinners, everyone born of man & woman are sinners. Some are going to Heaven, some are going to Hell by the Scriptures and by Scriptures YOU GET TO CHOOSE WHICH PLACE YOU GO. Yes Scripture is pretty clear on Free Will.

Now the argument then comes, 'but times have changed and we're more progressive and we all have to change' well that can only be predicated on you not believing in Scripture...your choice, free will. But if you believe in the Scriptures and believe times have changed and we have to as well...well get your thoughts together and explain to God why He has to now apologise to Sodom & Gomorrah.

Use some in context exegesis of Scripture to prop that up.

As for the Roman Catholic Church it diverges in Scripture often, it changed the 10 Commandments, it ignores the requirements for the office of pastor completely, it offers forgiveness when Scripture is very clear that no person on earth has that Authority & the "Holy Father" name given to the pope is clearly said to be used by no one at all, its God's name & title. That's the tip of the iceberg, the RCC is very non or anti Scripture so for my money its not a Christian church.

Just a few things Joe. Reckon you're close but more closely everyone's missing what this means for contract law. We can outlaw a person expressing political or religious views in their own time. In fact a company can decide what's objectionable and call for someone to be sacked.

Not good Joe. Meanwhile in Iran...