Open letter to Big Brother Steve Jobs

G'day Steve,

I am disgusted to hear Apple has removed the Manhattan Declaration app from the App Store, on purported grounds of it being "offensive".

When it was initially listed, Apple's own review staff gave it a high ranking as non-offensive material.

And a review of the content of the app shows it is simply presenting ideas in a very non-threatening, inoffensive manner.

Apple supports the political rights of homosexuals, and of the abortion lobby. Why is Apple now censoring the political rights of peace-loving Christians?

Has Apple become anti-Christian?

Am I supposed to urge my friends to stop buying Apple, because it uses its funds to thwart legitimate, peaceful, inoffensive Christian activity?

Or are you going to hold to some bizarre line that presenting ideas someone disagrees with is "offensive" and should not be tolerated? If that's your idea of "offensive", then at least be consistent and remove all pro-abortion apps and pro-homosexuality apps.

I love Apple products, and have bought them in the past, but if Apple cannot explain or promptly rectify its extremely offensive anti-Christian actions, here is at least one customer they will lose for sure.

The Big Apple in the Apple State has become Big Brother.

Is that to be your legacy?

I hope not.

The choice is yours.

I await your reply so I will know what recommendations to make to my friends.

Thanks in advance,



Jonathan Field
Australia

---

For those unfamiliar with the hullabaloo, read From Iconic To Ironic - Steve Job's transformation into Big Brother.

Jamie McIntyre's 21st Century Academy, and the art of advertising

Those who've been following my blog for a while will know that I'm not a particularly big fan of B.S. in advertising.

Jamie McIntyre's "21st Century Academy" is the latest example to cross my radar.

In large print, his letter opens "What is the #1 Wealth Creation Strategy?"

Good question. Now, I have in the long distant past spent around $8k-$10k on "wealth creation" seminars he orchestrated. They were interesting. For the right people they might have been worth the money. For most participants is was a waste of money. But one thing for sure : stock market trading, options trading, and property investing were held up as the ultimate wealth creation strategies, with options trading at the top of the pile as a fast and reliable way to make easy money.

So Jamie will still be singing the same tune, right?

Wrong.

"Business is the No. 1 wealth creation strategy and one of the fastest ways to generate serious cash flow."

Wow - ok, that's not what he told me nearly ten years ago when I forked over great gads of thousands of dollars to hear his wisdom. But it gets better :

"Take it from me, over the past 10 years I have personally built over 12 successful companies, 8 of which are million dollar companies in their own right."

Ah, yeah. You mean, the group of companies that ran "wealth education" seminars, at which you told us you were already wealthy and financially independent courtesy of your stock market involvement. You know, the ones you charged each attendee multiple thousands of dollars to attend, so we could learn from you how to live a luxurious lifestyle like yours without needing a real business or a job.

But it gets even better : in a little bio section, we're told that Jamie McIntyre is "Founder of over 12 companies, 8 of which have become million dollar companies in their own right over an array of industries, such as education, trading, accounting, stockbroking, financial services, media and publishing, internet and rural enterprises."

Translation : "education" means "businesses selling Jamie McIntyre's wealth education packages focussed on stock market, options and property investment/trading". His "trading" business mentioned could mean "trading education" (double-dipping on the "education" side of things). "Stockbroking" - I wonder if he recommended his own stockbroking firms to the people who came to his seminars? Great way to earn extra cash on the side. Except that I don't ever remember him disclosing that. And if he did it without disclosing it, that' s a naughty-naughty. (But he didn't necessarily do that - I'm just wondering...) "Financial services" - like maybe "investment advice"?

In short, he's built this beautiful little circle : at the outset, he told people he was an awesome stock market trader and property investor and could teach us his magic. By that means, he made MILLIONS on seminars, whilst many (most?) of his graduates made little from the strategies they learned(*1). Then, having made MILLIONS selling people instructions on how to build the ultimate life through stock market and property investments/trading, he boasts that the best way to make money is in business, and wants us to part with cash for him to spin that spiel to us. His proof that he's great in business? His wealth creation seminars where he told us trading and investments were the way to go!

Now, again, I don't want to be too harsh on the guy, nor too favourable, but I will say that after parting with $15k-$20k on "wealth creation" seminars between him and the lovable Peter Spann, I came firmly to the conclusion myself long ago that in fact business was (for me) the better bet than stock market and property.

I figured that out myself. I didn't need Jamie McIntyre to change his tune and tell me the same thing nearly ten years after taking thousands of my hard-earned dough.

Peter Spann I respect - he never said that options (which he taught) or property (which he also taught) were "the ultimate" way to make money. In fact, one of his seminars I attended was specifically geared to starting profitable businesses. So no gripes there.

But for Jamie McIntyre to turn around nearly ten years later and tell us all - we who provided his millions for him in his "education" business - that actually starting businesses is the best bet, and as proof, he offers the very businesses which raked in our money telling us investments not business was the best bet - that, my friends, is just not right.

But back to picking apart false advertising : there's also a luverly little sheet in here advertising the "21st Century Platinum Club" and a special cruise.

"Imagine being able to take leaps forward in your journey towards a life of abundance... All while cruising the Caribbean!"

Ooooo yeah, baby, I'll take one of them! Sipping margaritas, sunbathing, and effortlessly transforming myself and my business towards abundance. I mean, c'mon, who wouldn't sign up? And it's only a cool $4,995, not even quite $5k. So, who knows, for the right person, might be worth it.

The ad continues :

"In January 2011, 21st Century Members have the opportunity to join Jamie McIntyre for 7 nights cruising the idyllic islands on the world's newest and largest cruise ship, Oasis of the Sea."

Sounds cool.

"With 28 ultra-modern loft suites and 2,700 spacious staterooms, this 16-deck marvel proves that the impossible is possible - 7 distinctly designed neighborhoods including ... Spa & Fitness, Pool & Sports Zone, Entertainment Place, Youth Zone, Central Park Neighborhood and the Boardwalk Neighborhood."

Sorry - you might accuse me of nit-picketing, but I always find it nauseating when someone announces that the "impossible is possible", especially when they announce something so pathetically possible as their proof. I mean, seriously, who could ever possibly have imagined it would be possible to combine a spa, fitness equipment, a pool, some sporting rooms, cinemas, theatres, a graffiti wall, heck, even a small skate park, some central grassed area, and even some nice little boardwalk overlooking decks below - who could possibly have imagined such a thing was possible! The fact that it sounds remarkably similar to most large cruise ships should not trick you into thinking it was possible. It was impossible. After all, Jamie said 'twas so.

Which reminds me of one of the very few really dumb things Peter Spann said during one of his seminars, so many years ago. After getting us all to punch through one-inch-thick wooden boards (kinda cool experience), he intoned dramatically that "if you can punch through that board, you can do anything!". It was a very dramatic moment. I expected people to launch up into the sky, unconstrained by such trivialities as gravity. Maybe whiz around a few times, then shoot up to Neptune, visit Alpha Centauri, come back, turn into an elephant, explode into millions of flowers that gracefully float back down to the ground, then reassemble Terminator style to the original human. Now that would be impressive. But punching a wooden board proves anything's possible? "You know you make me wanna wretch, hurl my foo-ood up and wretch, c'mon now!"

Whether Jamie's magic will work wonders for you or not, I can't say, but I can say that multiple false representations (at least one of which arguably was an outright lie) were made to me by 21st Century Academy, and I can say that other people I know who attended his seminars lost many tens of thousands of dollars trying to diligently apply his "easy to follow" strategies. Fortunately for myself, I only lost the money I spent on the seminars themselves. Would I recommend them to friends? Not in a hurry. But like I said, who knows, maybe you'll be one of the ones to really benefit from it. who knows...

Footnotes :

(*1) Granted, people not making money after attending Jamie's seminars is not necessarily Jamie's fault - anyone can run a seminar and find that no-one applies what they learned. But it was more than that. It was all supposed to be so easy - follow the step-by-step directions, and yet somehow of the seven other people I know who attended 21st Century Academy courses, none seem to have any benefit at all (and some of them certainly have substantial losses) from trying to apply what they learned there. No benefit, of course, except chalking up points to experience. Y'know, lessons of the expensive variety...

When you don't have a leg to stand on...

Your views are offensive

Western second-world countries like Australia and the USA are rapidly inventing idiocy like never before conceived of in 6,000 years of human history.

The problem? Some politically-active groups repeatedly find that the more research mounts up, the more the facts stand against them.

The solution? Stop arguing logically, and lobby parliament for "anti-offense" laws.

That's right : you offended me, therefore you must not speak.

An official government advisory committee on homosexual issues has told the government that they want a law that prohibits people from any conduct that a 'reasonable person' "would have anticipated that the other person would feel offended, humiliated, intimidated, insulted or ridiculed".

Hey - I think anyone whose case is so weak they need to lobby for "don't ever say anything I disagree with or else it'll offend me" laws, is either an idiot, or, to be fair, they actually know exactly what they're doing and think you're an idiot 'coz they're counting on you supporting such a ridiculous law and not complaining too much against any government that brings it in.

So, I'm offended that the homosexual lobbyists think I'm so stupid that anyone would agree with their proposed legislative changes.

And any reasonable person could have anticipated that kind of offence.

Therefore the homosexual lobby has already broken the law they proposed!!!

Idiots.

Except once again that they're not actually idiots - they know exactly what they're doing - and they're counting on you and I, the voting public, to be idiots to get their bill passed.

Of course, the fact that the Labour party is eager to bow to them brings their own collective mental capacity or else deeper agendas straight into the spotlight. But a spotlight that most will unthinkingly ignore. Yup - that's right - it seems we are a great cloud of useful idiots these lobbyists/politicians are relying on to push society further from rationality and deeper into deep irrationality.

So anyway, let's play a game : who'll get to be fined/imprisoned first once the new laws come in?

Homosexuals are nice, loving people and all that - except of course some of the very angry and violent ones evidenced in places like San Fran - and except of course that so many of them (proportionally relative to the rest of the population) wrestle deeply with mental health issues (the which at least one study has clearly shown persist regardless of the degree of societal acceptance of their chosen lifestyle) - but, hey, they're still humans, made in the image of God (an image they choose to mar), and so they still have some of God's characteristics indelibly imprinted in them - e.g. a certain degree of lovingness and niceness - so hey, it's no surprise that I quite enjoy the company of my homosexual friends (nice, friendly, loving people) - but the idea that what offends me or them must not be spoken is ridiculous beyond words.

The world's most ridiculous law

Not only is it ridiculous, but it is completely unimplementable. They'll still be enough Christians left at the passing of said stupid legislative changes that there'll be people offended by the disgusting actions of homo-peddlers in the Sydney "mardi gras". What, shall they be permitted to accuse the soddies for their evident and predictably offensive actions in public during the parade?

"Of course not - they chose to be at the parade!" some angry soddie will cry. Yes, but equally, you soddies could choose not to visit the churches from whose pulpits you might otherwise hear speech that is so hideously and unreasonably "offensive" as to suggest that you shouldn't choose the sexual practices you do.

Yet the same pro-soddie lobbyists aren't into consistency - no, why be logically consistent, when inconsistency and hypocrisy further your aims?

The Advisory group is asking the Labor movement not to give ANY exceptions for RELIGIOUS discussion of homosexuality!

They even go so far as :

They actually mention "calculated sermons" as a specific example of homophobic harassment!

So let's get this straight : I sit down to write a sermon. Now, because I happened to prepare the sermon before I step into the pulpit, this makes it a "calculated sermon". Wow - deep logic, guys. That will make about 100% of sermons in Australia calculated. What - you think e.g. politicians routinely stand up at pre-planned public meetings but have no idea what they intend to say in advance? But you find it so offensive that pastors actually think about what they're going to say in advance? Idiots you are. Oh wait - except that really you're subversive, and think we're all idiots and will go along with you without much of a whimper. Worse yet - you might be proven right. Maybe Australia is full of idiots. Useful ones, of course.

So, well, you tell me : have the laws of logic changed somewhere in the recent history of the universe? Have things like "the law of identity" and "the law of non-contradiction" been supplanted by "the law of non-offense"?

Or if it is all relative - if homosexuality is "right" today because the community supposedly accepts it, then wouldn't it be true to say that homosexuality really was actually wrong back in the 1950s? And if so, at what point did it suddenly magically change? And all those people who campaigned for homosexuality to be "accepted", at a time when it was not, wouldn't it mean that they were actually doing the "wrong" thing if indeed at the time the widespread community was opposed to homosexuality?

See, attempts to defend homosexuality on grounds of it being acceptable to the majority - i.e. on relativistic grounds - simply result in contradictions.

And attempts to defend homosexuality on absolute ground - "homosexuality is and always has been right, because it is simply right" - beg the obvious question "yeah, but who says?".

"Nature" is about the only answer they can give. "Nature" supposedly makes homosexuality right. But then, all these claims that homos are "born" that way have crumbled, living on in the zealous minds of ideologically-driven academics and in the ignorant minds of the populance whose thinking in this regard is informed only by propaganda that deliberately leaves out the strong evidence against the "my genes made me do it" theories.

Australia, 2022

So anyway, where do we get to? We get to a police state, dominated by whoever is both loudest and angriest. Oh - that would be the soddies. But that's what they want, so I suppose they'll be happy. Well, except of course for their statistically much higher rates of depression. But I'm just repeating myself...

In short? Vote no to stupidity. Vote no to political groups that entertain stupidity. If the words "truth" or "reality" or "honest enquiry" mean anything to you, then a legislatively-enforced new rule of logic "thou shalt not offend" is as offensive and obnoxious as anything that can be mentioned. It utterly stinks. It reduces society to a perpetual clash of angry claims and counter-claims, rewarding those who are easily offended and have no control over their own emotions. It punishes anyone who questions the status quo. And it abolishes any concept of legal certainty because in fact anything you do will be able to be proven to be offensive to someone somewhere.

I eat meat - oh, fine me, 'coz I offended (and could easily have predicted I would offend) our moral-crusaders opposed to the eating of meat.

I breath - oh, sorry, my carbon dioxide is contributing to your much-hated "climate change" (just threw that one in for fun :o) ).

I have any children at all - oh sorry, I could easily have seen that the growing tide of human-haters who expressly refer to human babies as "human trash" would have been offended.

In fact, the only way to avoid being able to clearly anticipate that your actions will offend someone is to hide yourself in a cloistered hole, protected from the opinions of groups you are not part of. Oh wait - that's exactly what the media wants to do - provide you that endless stream of "sanctioned" entertainment in which you may protect yourself, and from which you may form your every opinion of societal acceptability. The media, I add, which is dominated by pro-soddie agends.

And now?

Feel free to leave comments, but don't say anything I might disagree with, 'coz it'll deeply offend me and you'll be in court before the ALP even has enough time to create this free pass for soddies!!!

Or read this interesting report by Cameron Spink : Harassing the Truth.

Australian constitution article 116 is also interesting : "The Commonwealth shall not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion". So if I happen to say I believe the Bible is scientifically and historically accurate, and that it portrays homosexuality as unnatural and unhealthful, and that I believe that modern scientific research clearly shows that homosexuals have far higher rates of physical and psychological health issues, and if I happen to say all this in a public seminar, someone will still claim offense. But if it is my sincerely held religious conviction, and I sincerely hold it to be confirmed also by scientific research, and I sincerely hold that part of my religious observance is to discuss topics of interest and relevance rather than just hide in a hole, then why are we entertaining a law by which parliament can prohibit the free exercise of my religion?

As I said on FaceBook regarding the religious protections in the constitution : "You'd think that would settle it. But the Greens and their bedfellows so loathe Christianity that they care not for such trifling restrictions. They've found the perfect way around it : assert a fictitious "right to non-offence" as a human right that supercedes even the constitution itself! Voila! Now we can silence those pesky Christians by requiring that they exercise their intolerable religion, _only so far as we gracious Greens deem their practice 'inoffensive'_. Clearly, giving a Christian school the right to choose Christian teachers is _terribly_ offensive - golly, what _would_ they think of next? - and so the purported "human right" to not be offended trumps the constitutional rights of the citizenry."

Also good is Common misconceptions about homosexuality - especially point six "Gays are born that way?".

Or this excerpt re genetics and homosexuality (from here):

Some assert that a gene triggers homosexuality. This view has several problems. First, the gene has not been identified, so this view is not science, but mere speculation. Secondly, statistical studies give strong evidence that homosexuality is not caused by genetics, but is influenced by environment. For example, research has shown that adoptive brothers are more likely to both be homosexuals than the biological brothers, who share half their genes. In the journal Science it is reported that:

“this ... suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families" (Science, Vol. 262, page 2063, December 24, 1993).”

And as regards the claim that the statistically abysmal mental health statistics for soddies are simply due to discrimination from society, consider :

No evidence that homosexuality has ANY link to suicide rates - "A panel convened by such groups as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Psychological Association, and the American Association of Suicidology made this finding: “There is no population-based evidence that sexual orientation and suicidality are linked in some direct or indirect manner”."

and :

Homosexual suicide rates do not drop even when homosexual marriage is legal and deemed "normal" - "Studies done in the Netherlands and New Zealand, for example, where there is generally high tolerance of sexual ‘diversity,’ found the same high rates of psychological difficulties as those done elsewhere."

or read this interesting article "Just what is behind [homosexual] suicides?"

Frank Turek points out :

Lesbian activist Chai Feldbaum, who is a recess appointment by President Obama to the EEOC, recently said regarding the inevitable conflict between homosexuality and religious liberty, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” So much for tolerance. The people who say they’re fighting for tolerance are the most intolerant, totalitarian people in politics.

The final word? Sanity in the situation is evident, and evidently disregarded. Help your pollie see sense, or a soddie will rule you, and your children will never get to use the classical rules of logic.

Words, in three ideologies

Christianity

In the Christian Bible, words are portrayed as tools for distinction, analysis, communication and precision.

Despite the widespread acceptance of "white lies" amongst Christians, lies are repeatedly and without exception condemned as evil and inherently unacceptable in the canon of Scripture.

In contrast :

Socialism

To the Socialist, words are tools of social re-engineering, constantly redefined in a battle against the purported evils of history and the status quo.

Distinctions are deliberately and repeatedly blurred and new ones invented in a process designed to accomplish only one thing : introduce confusion and a loss of coherence of understanding amongst opponents and the population as a whole, until they are ready to accept the doctrines of Socialism without question.

Islam

To the Muslim, words are tools of imposing Allah's will on every human, and tools for deceiving infidels to gain advantage for Allah's supposedly holy cause.

Distinction, analysis, communication and precision are all lost when outright lies are told and celebrated in the name of taqiyaa and advancing Allah's cause.

Closing remarks

For those serious in their pursuit of Truth, an ideology that treats words with reverence and demands a standard of accuracy and truth in all its communications, is to be preferred over all others. For without clarity in word, how can there be any clarity in thought? And without clarity of thought, investigation and the pursuit of Truth is meaningless.

Moral high-ground for Bob Brown the Atheist

Moral high-ground is of course a very funny thing for an atheist to claim, and yet some do. The Greens, an Australian political party, were founded by avowed atheists, and yet in all their advertising, they claim to be standing up for what's "right".

"Right", by whose measure? It's like bulldozing a pile of dirt into a mound then climbing atop it and claiming you're king. If you invent the mound to favour you, it's easy to claim the "high ground".

But all this talk of "right" is just bovine excrement, as it were. My mound - my moral high-ground - is butchering people just for the sadistic fun of it. My actions are "right" by that standard, and I am the king of that castle.

So long Greens. Intellectually duplicitous. Moral crusaders for their own defined cause, against the obvious principle of nature : atoms have no moral value, and neither do collections of atoms, such as humans, if atheism's materialistic underpinnings are correct.

Of course, if there is a "god", as I maintain is evident, then the Greens are not merely duplicitous (aka hypocrites), but right royally stuffed. But hey - that's their choice, and who am I to deny them their right to choose?

If only they would hold the same in reverse - but they don't.

They are vehemently anti-choice, suggesting that babies be given no choice over whether they live or die, Christian business leaders be given no choice but to register with the government (presumably for "permission" to continue the pernicious pursuit of earning money whilst - horrors - holding different beliefs to the Greens) *1, suggesting that I be given no choice when it comes to questioning the unquestionable virtues of homosexual lifestyles, and the list goes on.

Greens would equal hypocrites, if it weren't for the not-so-subtle socialist undertones that permeate the party. They are, after all, only hypocrites insofar as their actions decry their public platitudes. But their public platitudes are not reflective of their core ideology. As their actions reveal, they are hell-bent on deceiving the public whilst they busily work on promoting their agenda of deep government control over pretty much everything that happens outside the four walls of your house, and much of what happens within.

So, Greens = hypocrites? No, just outright liars with a deadly agenda. So long, Greens, once more...

Footnotes :

*1 Yes, you read that right - Bob Brown issued a press release calling for all businesses owned by members of a particular religious minority to be forced to register. Kinda like forcing Greens supporters to wear a green triangle armband. Reminds me of a German who once forced a religious minority there to wear armbands with stars... And ANYONE takes this Bob Brown nuthead seriously? I'm not a fan of the particular religious group in question, but c'mon, surely requiring them to register - do you not know that that is exactly how the war against Jews started in Nazi Germany - they were merely required to register. It is completely unacceptable to anyone with any sense of decency that this kind of call can be made, when as very ably demonstrated by Senator Abetz in the following linked Hansard record, there are other APPROPRIATE courses available to be followed : Hansard - look for Senator Abetz's comments

Please disengage your brains : The Greens want your vote

I've been surprised and delightfully amused by some nauseatingly MINDLESS ads by the Greens in the leadup to the Victorian state elections.

Utilising the Google ad platform, the Greens so far have brought me two stellar pieces of education :

"Standing up for what's right, not just what's easy. Vote The Greens"

Tell me, how do you know, oh omniscient Greens, what is "right"? Oh, that's right - you were founded by an "ethicist", Peter Singer, who says it's "right" to kill babies after they're born alive and well, and says that humans have no more rights than any other lifeforms (see my satirical article The Truly Green Party).

His entire religio-philosophical system is based on a materialistic assumption that there is no god, but then he makes himself a god by telling the rest of us how to behave.

Tell me, what is "right" about him imposing his sanctimonious and entirely arbitrary views on the rest of the nation?

But the Greens don't want you to think - they just want you to "feel" good 'coz you voted for what's "right" - after all, the Greens told you so, and they would know.

And then, today's doozy :

"The Victorian Greens - My values haven't changed, my vote has. Vote VIC Greens this election."

Um... my values haven't changed? Let's get this straight : you're either insulting the intelligence of the electorate by telling them that they used to vote against their values (neither Labour nor Liberal is pro-infanticide, both of those parties have many committed Christians who cherish the sanctity of human life, and generally members of those parties hold that the individual human is worth more than say a bacterium), OR ELSE you're insulting the intelligence of the electorate by telling them you're really a pretty moderate party, relying on their ignorance of your deeper political agenda to win their vote.

I think the latter - you think the voters are ignorant, and you're happy to exploit that.

A charming thought really, but I don't see any other possibility - "My values haven't changed, my vote has" is an insult to the voting public whichever way you look at it.

So thanks Greens for these tid-bits. Strangely absent from your ads is any detailed appeal to reason. You're soliciting knee-jerk unthinking "feel good" votes. Yup - that's what I like to see. Not. Needless to say, you won't be getting my vote - I actually think about issues. Oh wait - that removes me from your target market. Sorry about that.

It's happening very slowly, but mainstream media and public persons are finally beginning to discuss the bloody red so-called "Green" agendas. Two recent examples :
Read the fine print on the Greens' tin - former Treasurer Peter Costello
Kevin Andrews MP takes a look at the Greens' ideology

The Truly Green Party

PRESS RELEASE

New political party : The Truly Green Party

A party that stands for ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.

No more rhetoric - just real action on real issues.

• Nature and nature's products
• Blenders
• Climate Change

I'm pleased to announce the formation of new political party that gives a real alternative for Australian voters.

The Truly Green party.

A no-nonsense platform that faces the hard issues of justice in our time : legal recognition and protection of the inherent rights of nature and nature's products.

(Note : we haven't quite yet actually completed our registration process with the Australian Electoral Commission, but that's just a simple administrative procedure. The legal requirement for registration is a minimum of 50 registered members, and we have full confidence that once the Australian public has heard our campaign platform, we will amply meet that minimum requirement with ten thousand more beside.)

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE - POLICY THE FIRST - PROTECTION OF NATURE

Legal rights can no longer be recognised as belonging to humans only. In the words of the infamous Australian Peter Singer, this is speciesism.

We must, as humans, do what is best for the greatest number of living organisms sharing with us this fragile eco-system called Earth.

Accordingly, it must be noted that bacteria outnumber humans by many millions to one, and each individual bacterium shares equal rights with our speciesistic race.

Therefore, the only proper solution that promotes the greatest benefit for the greatest number of living organisms is to kill all humans, allowing their carcasses to provide the fertile breeding grounds for tens of trillions more bacteria. By this means, the greatest possible number of living organisms will receive the greatest benefit.

Whilst various means are at our disposal to accomplish this aim, we are strictly anti-nuclear. Other weapons of mass destruction are viable considerations.

The uninformed and speciesistic bigots will decry our humane stand for justice as "extremist", but they are the true extremists, promoting beligerence of our species against those which greatly outnumber us.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE - POLICY THE SECOND - PROTECTION OF NATURE'S PRODUCTS

Within the great scheme of Evolution arose the human mind. Despite it's startling complexity and delusion of self-direction, it's operations are purely deterministic, operating as a magnificent electromechanical machine.

Accordingly, not only the Evolution of the brain, but its operation, is entirely a product of Nature.

And tens of thousands of scientists unanimously agree that the blender is a product of the human brain. Without that ill-named characteristic of the human mind - "inventiveness" (really just a name for such incredibly complex mechanistic processes that we cannot yet fully comprehend) - without this inventiveness characteristic of the human mind, there would be no such thing as a kitchen blender, and since the mind and its operations are but a product of nature, so too is the blender.

And as a product of nature, the blender has inalienable rights.

The Truly Green Party is the only Australian political party which affords Nature's rights with due respect.

Once the Australian public has recognised the justice of our platform and entrusted us with governance of this nation, we will immediately enact laws to protect kitchen blenders from discrimination, harrassment, and abuse. Anyone found overloading their blender will be subject to fines, and those with such reprehensible disregard for nature as to torture their blenders to the point of emitting their blue smoke - that is, the very heart and essence of the blender's soul - will be imprisoned on terms comparable to such violence against fellow humans. That is, of course, until the successful implementation of policy the first.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE - POLICY THE THIRD - REVERSION OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change - don't just stop it, reverse it!

The Truly Green Party takes climate change seriously.

A panel of tens of thousands of international scientists(*1) unanimously agree that Earth's atmosphere was very different only a few tens of hundreds of million years ago, with sulfuric acid, carbon dioxide, and a great many other gasses filling the air.

Evidencing the unacceptable bigotry of our present political parties, such natural gasses are commonly referred to as "noxious", due only to purported ill effects on the human species. The Truly Green Party will promote educational policies which help correct this bigotted speciesistic view of nature. Private schools will be defunded to prevent the further spread of disinformation, as only our public schools are fit for the propogation of knowledge. Rumours of falling academic standards over recent years and decades is entirely false, or if it is true, it is certain evidence that we must take greater state control of education to ensure no-one ends up believing anything with which the Australian Government disagrees.

We have also determined, through extensive scientific research, that the atmosphere and surface of the earth were once much hotter than at present.

In the interests of preserving Nature and thereby protecting its inalienable rights, we propose the following steps to take place via timed bombs and other mechanisms after the death of the last human (vis policy the first) :

• Simultaneous worldwide lighting of all known carbon sources - oilfields, coalfields, etc - to release gasses into the atmosphere which will restore it to its former glorious state.
• Simultaneous worldwide detonation of all mined uranium (having been pre-enriched and prepared for this use). We are anti-nuclear, but in fact detonating all uranium thusly will help prevent it being misused in the hands of whatever other species might evolve in ten trillion years from now and attempt to use it against future as-yet-unimaginable creatures which will then inhabit the earth. But more importantly, the heat released from these simultaneous nuclear detonations will help return the temperature of the atmosphere to its rightful former levels.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE - don't vote for rhetoric, vote for action. Vote #1 the Truly Greens.

(*1) Actually, just some random dude on the internet, but we don't have any policies against outright lies or misrepresentation of facts, as neither does our nearest namesake political party, except insofar as they don't think they'll get away with it.......

Cultural superiority - if your culture ain't superior, why do you subscribe?

Racial superiority vs cultural superiority : there's a vast difference.

Culture can be changed.

Race cannot.

When it comes to cultural superiority, I do happen to hold that a culture which lets widows live is superior to one which burns its widows alive on their husbands' funeral pyres.

I do hold that a culture which celebrates and protects the unborn is superior to one which kills them at a whim.

I do hold that a culture which enjoys the occasional drink is superior to one which celebrates inebriation.

I hold this and much the more.

Your culture cannot be equal to all other cultures, unless you think stupidity is equal to wisdom, ignorance is equal to enquiry, violence is equal to forgiveness, and indolence is equal to diligence.

And if your culture is not equal to all others, then it must be superior and/or inferior to some.

And thus is born the quest for perfection of culture, and a rejection of the blind faith of our age that all cultures are to be equally revered.

My Choice Is No Crime

My Choice Is Not A Crime

I'm pro-choice, you see.

Choices are good.

Y'know - to pick your nose, or wipe your arse with your bare hands.

Even to rub that stuff in someone else's face.

Choices, right? We celebrate 'em, we love 'em.

And according to Aussie pro-death group GitStuffed (not their real name), "My Choice Is No Crime".

That's right.

I chose to burgle your house last night. Oh - thanks for the lingerie - and the jewelery was swisher than I expected - you've got class!

But wait - the moment my choice becomes an action, you think I can be held accountable?

Bullshit!

After all, My Choice Is Not A Crime.

Oh? Sorry - repeat that? Oh - a choice is not a crime if it doesn't affect someone else.

So that would make abortion a crime then, wouldn't it.

I mean - that cute little baby snuggled inside your womb feels pain independently of you - no bodily organs can do that.

And heck - he/she probably has a different blood type to you. Tell me, what bodily organ does THAT!

So without a doubt, little cutesie in your womb is a beautiful baby, distinct from you.

And you just told me that My Choice Is A Crime, if it hurts another.

So what are we arguing about? Sounds like it's case-closed.

A day in the life of the Australian Sex Party : genitals, yes; brains, MIA

It was a beautiful Spring day. The sun shone bright and full. A cool breeze gently caressed our faces.

We thronged the streets of Melbourne - thousands of us, gathered in a peaceful joyful celebration of life.

Passers by wondered at the long procession, and with us being such a peaceful sea of happy faces, we received many kind greetings from those we ambled by.

We had almost finished our walk before I heard the first nay-sayer. I was suprised we got that far with only one, or at least only one I heard. "Go home!' was his intellectually-stimulating shout.

But as we progressed further along those last few hundred metres, I began to hear a rhythmic sound that felt strangely angry. Very angry.

It was confusing and hard to decipher at first. There was music playing - I vaguely recognised the song. But out of sync with the music, there was some other chant. I could not hear the words, but I could immediately feel : whatever it was, it felt wrong. On the inside.

It wasn't a chant of love, of gratitude or thanks. Whatever it was, it was angry.

Was it some of us, having walked so peacefully, now angrily yelling a pro-life message?

I would have been surprised. It seemed so out-of-character with the group and with the lovely spirit of the walk so far!

What then?

Aha! I see now.

Enter stage left: the Australian Sex Party, riding on a pink stallion!

Waving placards advertising themselves as the "Australian Sex Party", a small but angry mob (30 people?) were coordinating their efforts by chanting in unison.

Did I mention they were angry?

Very angry.

And so they graced us as we peacefully gathered at our final meeting place.

We were there, representing those who died without a voice, without a choice.

Those whose lives and every chance of future hopes and choices was snatched from them, by cruel adults in a cruel world, emboldened by cruel legislation.

They were there to, well... it wasn't really that clear what they were there to do.

At one point during our proceedings, they chanted together :

"Not the Church,

"Not the State,

"WOMEN will decide their fate!"

Uh, really?

MORE than half of abortion victims are women.

So let's get this straight : that's a lot of women not getting to decide their fate.

In fact, the Australian Sex Party is anti-choice. If they believed in choice, they'd let the babies be born, and adopted by loving parents, and then let each baby grow up and decide for himself/herself whether they want to commit suicide or continue living.

Don't make that choice for them!

As soon as you choose for someone else that they will die, you are anti-choice.

In contrast, I am stridently _pro_-choice. Let the baby live, and make its own choices as it learns and grows.

On and on they chanted. "Not the Church, not the State. WOMEN will decide their fate!"

Such a ridiculous self-contradiction.

The only thing it seemed anything like was a monstrous four year old, furious at the world when things don't go their way.

What do you do when you're a spoiled brat and you want something to change? You throw a temper tantrum.

Yep - that's the ASP.

But evidently sensing that I detected a lack of intellectual integrity in that chant, they did eventually switch.

"No way, back to the backyard!
"No way, back to the backyard!
"No way, back to the backyard!"

On and on and on for minutes or maybe even tens of minutes.

If you want a political party that is able to coordinate the mindless yelling of short self-contradicatory slogans, the Australian Sex Party has definitely proven their prowess. I'd vote for them anyday. Highly intellectually stimulating.

But hang on a second - oh, yeah, I see.

It actually took me a minute or two before I could even understand their garbled chant - the "no way back to the backyard" one. Yeah, I was at a distance from them at that point.

But right, I get it now : they're saying that the legislative reform of two years past meant late-term abortions could move out of the backyard into the hospitals. You know - those places where the Hippocratic oath is held in reverence and lives are preserved by all possible means.

And they're saying that there is absolutely no way they will accept a re-criminalisation of abortion which would send abortions "back to the backyard".

Right... so now that I understand what they're saying, shall I bother tearing it to shreds?

No?

Ok, let's not bother. It is too pitifully stupid. It really is an insult to the intelligence of every person gathered there on the ASP platform.

I would love to have gone up and talked peacefully and quietly to one of them, and invited them to my house for a coffee. Clearly, when dripping with such extreme anger and seeming hatred towards "us" - "us", the much larger group who had peacefully gathered, and who were the only reason they too were present (i.e. to protest against our presence) - clearly, some of these poor folk had some pretty screwy ideas about "us" and the universe, to hate us so much. I thought a constructive conversation over a coffee - well, obviously we wouldn't leave united in opinion, but they might "discover the other" and feel the love and realise we're not quite as bad as they think...

But alas, perhaps a dozen police officers were standing twixt us and they (or perhaps a good thing? they were so angry - and without a cause - who knows, they would probably have thought themselves to be doing a good thing to physically assault us), and so I decided against visiting them on this occasion.

Back to the... BACKYARD! HILARIOUS!

But wait - writing a blog has proven one thing to me, and that is :

Most people don't think. Whatever is extremely obvious will still be missed by most people.

Need proof? (chuckle) I have loads of comments left by people on this blog, who made idiots of themselves by completely missing both the point and the obvious.

So - please forgive me and bear with me, those for whom this is obvious - please bear with me whilst I momentarily deconstruct the piercing insights of the Australian Sex Party, embodied in their insightful slogan, "No way, back to the backyard!".

For starters : where does crime belong? Does it not belong in the backyard, or elsewhere out of public eye? So, if abortion is a crime, should it not return exactly to that very place?

But abortion is not a crime, you say. Oh? By what standard?

By the standard of Victorian legislation?

Tell me : was abortion a crime 100 years ago?

What about late-term abortion - which was the subject of today's peaceful procession.

Was late-term abortion a crime three years ago?

Yes?

Did you advocate it nonetheless? i.e. was it morally right for a woman to have a late-term abortion, even though it was illegal?

See, the ASPers believe that abortion - at any age - is morally noble. A far better choice than - shock of shocks, horror of horrors - letting an unwanted child be adopted by loving would-be-parents.

So, to them, as far as they're concerned, abortion has always been legal, from a moral perspective. It's the morally right choice to let a woman choose to deny her baby choice.

And legislation is just a pesky thing standing in the way of what is morally right.

Thus sayeth the Australian Sex Party, and they must be right, 'coz no-one would be that angry if they didn't have an irrefutable lucid case to back up their stance... or not.

But hang on a second - the Australian Sex Party claims to be opposed to religion in politics.

But the very claim that a woman has a right to abort her baby - a right that transcends any legislation - is a religious claim.

Either law is determined entirely by humans - majority rule or whatever - or else law has some "transcendental" qualities.

ASP claims on the one hand they don't want religion in politics, and then on the other hand appeals to some nebulous undefined religious-sounding transcendental "right" of a woman to deny another woman the chance to be born and live.

Go figure.

So they're contradictory, once again.

So maybe they'll quickly back-pedal and say that no, abortion isn't "right" for any absolute reasons, but only because it is the will of the people.

Is it the will of the people?

There are plenty of stats that indicate otherwise. Like the flood of pro-life submissions - vastly outweighing the pro-death ones - sent to the Victorian Legislative Council when it proposed "legalising" late-term abortions a few years ago.

But let's grant for a microsecond that "the majority" want abortion to be legal, and let's suppose for a moment that there are no absolutes and the will of the majority makes things "right".

Even if so, what if the will of the people changes?

Clearly, a hundred years ago the "will of the people" was for abortion to be illegal.

In fact, homosexuality and marital infidelity too.

I don't suppose the Australian Sex Party would want that.

But to reject that, they either have to appeal to some indefensible notion of absolute women's rights - in which case they're taking a religious position themselves, the which they explicitly denounce - or they have to appeal to the will of the majority, in which case they have to concede that those laws were good and noble in their time.

And if so, then they also have to concede that if the will of the people is shown to be pro-life, or becomes pro-life in the future, then abortions should indeed go "back to the backyard".

And - yeah, sorry, I apologised in advance about labouring the point, but some people need everything to be shown step-by-step, so bear with me ...

The Australian Sex Party is engaged in lobbying designed to alter the "will of the people". If they think the will of the majority is the only rightful rule, and they think it's fine for them to try to alter the will of the people, then why are they so vehemently and spitefully opposed to us also seeking to alter the "will of the people" through careful research and education about the MANY bad outcomes inherently associated with abortion?

The only possible answer : they're hypocrites. Whatever promotes their cause is good; whatever opposes it is bad. There is no other morality to the ASP. They have a religious commitment to unfettered sex and unfettered murder.

They are a religion.

Their holy book is the ASP manifesto.

Their creed is mindless adherence to the belief that anything goes in sex or baby-killing, just because.

Or if they try to pin their credibility on Atheism and Humanism, they fall into the same trap once again : Atheism is an absolute belief in the absolute non-existence of any God, a belief that is simply unable to be substantiated via the scientific method. Atheism is thus inherently religious in nature, and in fact this is how Humanism has obtained income tax concessions - it is a registered religion.

So whichever way you slice the cake, the Australian Sex Party is full of religious zealots.

"Get religion out of politics" they say, but what they mean is "we will tolerate no religion except our own!".

Their religion, they tell us, must set all the rules, and all other religions must be banished. Hello? That seems fair... lol.

The most striking thing about this lovely day out with the Australian Sex Party was their absolute, total lack of rationality.

Slogans, yes. Anger, yes. Religious fervour and commitment, yes.

We have stats, we have research, we have interviews, we have personal stories, and we have a cogent worldview in which our position makes sense.

But them? All zeal. All unbridled anger. But no substance. Not a single intelligent comment from them, all day. Not that I was privy to.

Self-contradiction - yeah, loads of that. Truckloads.

But sense? Look elsewhere! :o)

But, I haven't finished : "back to the backyard". Bear with me whilst I deconstruct it just a little longer...

Already back in the backyard!

The ASP are hypocrites still further. "No way [will we let abortion go] back to the backyard!"

They yelled it over and over and over again.

But actually, they're already doing that.

The RU486 abortion pill is taken at home. A "backyard abortion" if you will.

And a new phenomenon in the USA, starting here in Australia too, is the abortion-via-internet. Skype or whatever to a trained professional who will guide you through the process of killing that pesky little baby inside.

In fact, it was not the legalisation of abortions and hence access to medical facilities that starting "saving women's lives" through "safe abortions", but the availability of antibiotics.

And do I need to point out the bleeding obvious once again, that when one in two patients die, an abortion can hardly ever be called "safe", and when a woman kills her female baby, it can hardly be called supporting women's choices when that woman-to-be never got a chance.

But I digress.

All I really mean to say is that abortion is already back in the backyard.

So much for "no way, back to the backyard!". Intellectual stimulation to the max, these ASPers. Maybe they really do only think with their genitals?

But hey, I'm sure they're all lovely people, deeeeep down, beneath thick layers of anger and other nasties. Somewhere in there. Surely.

I really would like to meet some of them, one-on-one in person in casual conversation around a coffee.

If they manage to climb out of their self-imposed prison of hate, they might just discover an interesting world of different opinions that aren't quite as wacky - nor quite as screwy - as they clearly believe.

And hey - we can always part friends, even if our ideologies never align. I don't mind having friends who are self-confessed murderers. Murder is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that murderers are precious people who I can love and genuinely care about.

I'm not so sure it goes in the reverse - believing in moral absolutes different to their own is such a hideous crime, I doubt many of them could displace their own prejudices long enough to really get to know me. But hey - their loss.

And so, it was an interesting day, and made all the more interesting by the Australian Sex Party.

Until today, I thought they were weird but I knew little about them.

But thanks to their efforts, I am now much better informed : they are self-contradictory all the way, intellectually destitute and driven by blind anger. Maybe even rage. Kudos, ASP. Kudos.

The better way to argue

In contrast to the total lack of anything intelligent heard from the ASP today, I will end with this :

"Trees aren't the only things worth saving."

That is an intelligent banner - one of many in today's procession.

It leaves open the question : what else is worth saving? Are babies worth saving? It doesn't directly answer the question. It invites intelligent discussion.

ASP, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to grow up beyond your four-year-old temper tantrums and invite discussion around intelligent questions, instead of making your list of hostile demands.

Thanks for a fun day, and hey - if you can bear to put your prejudice aside, let's have a coffee.

Oh - and mindless rants in the comments doesn't exactly constitute a coffee. Thought I'd better throw that one in... :o)

Concluding remarks

If late-term abortion was actually a crime here in the state of Victoria, just three years ago, then re-criminalisation could occur just as soon. If morality is determined by the will of the people, what's wrong with re-criminalising the murder of unprotected babies, if that is the will of the people? And if you can't answer that question, ASPer, you really are as intellectually bankrupt as today made you seem. That's alright - failing to think is not a crime, but your life will be better if you think well instead of not at all. I promise. :o)

But the reality, ASPer, is that you believe abortion is right, not because it is the will of the people, but because it is morally right in some transcendant absolute sense of the word. But you're too much of a coward to attempt to argue it, because you realise that as soon as you start trying to argue for moral absolutes, you're in a losing battle against some pretty strong arguments in favour of theistic morality.

And hence today's demonstration : why engage the intellect if you know you'll lose? And why abandon an indefensible position? Best thing to do is yell and shout angrily and hope people ignore the problems in your beliefs!

Go home - such piercing brilliance

P.S. I would be remiss not to mention : clearly once again detecting that I saw through the intellectual paucity of their second major slogan, the ASPers turned to a final, and most thought-provoking slogan, the which they spent the final ten minutes or so chanting, angrily, repeatedly, loudly : "Go home!". Such piercing insight, as I said before, truly should be enshrined in print, published and distributed throughout the four corners of our land. Such depths of perception caused great lights to awaken within our minds, as we understood life like never before. Ah, no. I mock. But they really did chant that, and really for that long. Based on their intellectual, ummm, lightweightness shall we say, demonstrated today, I can see them boasting "we drove away that crowd of pro-lifers! We told them to go home, and they did!" Uh, yeah. Stand there telling someone to go home for an hour until they finished what they came to do and go home anyway, and hey, if you need that kind of thing to boost your ego and make you think you're having some kind of effect, uh, I have some psychologists I could recommend. So, it'll be very amusing if they do try to make that claim : "Australian Sex Party dismisses pro-life rally" or something equally absurd. Like I said, the intellectual integrity of a four-year-old throwing a temper tantrum. That's about all I saw from them today. Plus anger, to the max and a strong dose of hatred. Nice work, bro, nice...

Abortion : good bu$ine$$, bad ethics

Adiel Hope was murdered by unusual means.

Drowned in a bucket of formaldehyde.

It would sound amusing - wtf - what was a bucket of formaldeyhde doing lying around anyway?

Except that it's true, and Adiel ain't the only one.

She was born alive. Most babies are.

But someone wanted her dead.

Her caretaker took her - immediately after her live birth - and dropped her in the bucket.

Yep. Breathing, squirming and all.

Kinda like you might drown a rat if you didn't care about cruelty to animals.

Except even crueller, 'coz the formaldehyde hurts like heck.

Especially when you breath it.

The trainee nurse was traumatised.

You bet!

I reckon the baby was too.

But according to the Australian Sex Party, and the Victorian government, this is a good thing - or at least much better than the unthinkably horrible outcome of letting the baby live.

I guess they haven't met Melissa Ohden.

Nor would they want to!

Someone who survived an abortion attempt on her own life, grew up with adopted parents and lived a rich and fulfilling life despite a poor medical prognosis and never meeting her blood parents - it proves that every life is worth giving a chance, even if only in the hands of adopted parents.

Life - imagine the potential.

Melissa has gone on to make truckloads of inspiring choices with her life.

Choices that would have been snuffed out of existence had the abortion "succeeded".

Abortion is anti-choice.

But Melissa is pro-choice, in the truest sense of the word.

Giving babies a chance is pro-choice to the max : the mother can still live life they way she wants - just give the baby out for adoption - there are loads of desperate would-be-adoptive-parents denied the chance to ever have a baby to call their own. And of course the baby will face more choices than the mother has remaining in her own life, assuming average lifespans, 'coz the mother has already used up some of her years and opportunities to choose.

Pro-life is pro-choice. Pro-abortion is anti-choice.

It doesn't matter which way you cut the cake - abortion is good bu$ine$$, but bad ethics.

When the government pays, the price goes through the roof

What the Australian Government has recently proven is what thinking people have known for decades :

Any time the government starts paying for something, the costs explode.

Obstetrician fees.

Ceiling insulation.

School buildings.

Computers in schools.

National Broadband Network - if we give 'em the chance.

Just say no.

Disclaimer : I am only discussing payments where the government foots the entire direct bill or almost the entire direct bill.

Discrimination against celery is disallowed

I visited a huge wholesale produce market today. Fascinating place. The biggest in our state.

It's full of forklifts and people busily whizzing here and there.

A wonder to behold.

But dangerous too - so they get you to watch a safety induction video before they let you take to the floor alone.

The video was good, but a few things surprised me.

Under absolutely no circumstances will discrimination be tolerated in the market.

That's what they told me.

Which perplexes me : I thought I would get to choose between different grades of produce.

You know - if I want apples, maybe I chould choose Granny Smith over Fuji, or maybe choose organic over conventional, or maybe look at one set of apples and decide they're not quite as fresh as another.

But apparently, that's not allowed.

You see, identifying differences between two pieces of fruit is discrimination.

We say a wine connoiseur has "discriminating tastes".

And a vegan might too, as regards his fruit & vege.

But nope - not allowed here.

In fact, technically, distinguishing between apples and pears and deciding that you actually want apples, not pears, is another form of discrimination.

Poor pears - feel so dejected.

And one more step of logic if I may - isn't discriminating against my $5 bill when the price is $10 also a form of discrimination?

So it's quite a wonder it's a market at all - you'd think that anyone could come and take anything for any price, what with the absolute rule against all forms of discrimination within the market, but anyway...

I suppose someone will think they're smart and tell me "but what they MEAN, you numbskull [a kindly reference to yours truly] is that discrimination on the basis of gender, belief, or sexual inclination - THAT'S the kind of discrimination that's not allowed. Thickhead!"

Oh, ok. Thanks for filling me in - I didn't realise I was a thickhead until you told me.

So let me get this straight then : if I have a sexual orientation for exhibitiionist fruitiality (sex in public with items of fruit), no-one there will interfere, right? I mean, they're all loving, friendly, non-discriminatory blokes. It's not like I'm forcing my sexual orientation on them - they don't have to participate if they don't want.

Of course there is the issue that I'm into fruitiality, not vegieality, so that's discrimination against vegies - oh, but wait - that's right, discriminating between fruit & vege is ok. Got it.

What's that you said? Sorry? What? Did I hear you right? Hang on a moment, folks, someone's telling me I should probably not try practicing my exhibitionist fruitiality at the market. Why not?

Hang on folks - I'll be right back.

Ok, sorry - I'm being told that practicing my fruitiality in front of non fruitialitists would be discriminating against their sexual preferences. I don't quite understand why, but that's what they tell me, so I'd better play it safe.

So, this "belief" and "gender" bizzo - let me get this straight : if a seller sells something to a woman, he's not allowed to carry the box back to the woman's car, when he doesn't do that for men, 'coz that would be discriminating on the basis gender, right?

So let me get this straight : no discriminating between men and women.

So why do they have separate toilets?

I mean that's a farce if ever I heard one - "no discrimination between the genders" and then they go and force us to use different toilet blocks. Hey, I'm a clean pisser - why should I be forced to use the filthy bloke's block when the femme's is so pristine? Seriously... whoever makes these rules is a loser.

And then that "belief" bizzo. What if I believe this whole load of discrimination against some forms (but not others) of discrimination is a whole load of hogwash?

Y'know, what if I went there and practiced my exhibitionary fruit thingy or used the female loo? I betcha they'd be angry! Hypocrites! Beliefs are sacred, or so they claim, and yet they discriminate against mine.

I dunno... what's the world coming too...

Beers, bars, nuns and suicide bombers

This piece of fiction was inspired by the muslim riots in France several years ago - you know, the ones done in response to the "Danish cartoons". It just took a little while to go from thoughts to fingers... :o)

A nun and a Muslim suicide bomber walked into a bar.

They both ask for water.

A man turns to the nun, sees the cross hanging around her neck, and sneers.

"You Christians are imbeciles! Everyone knows God doesn't exist. You preach a false hope in some fictitious paradise. You're all delusional. And worse - you're an angry, violent mob! Do you know how many wars have been started in the name of your God? You're just a bunch of violent thugs!"

The nun is so surprised and taken aback, she almost laughs.

"Well, my fine sir. I'm sorry to hear that's your impression of us. I'm not quite sure where you get that idea from.

"Yes, I am a Christian, but I go around helping people who are frail or ill.

"You are of course entitled to your opinion on the matter, and I'm glad you took the time to express your thoughts, but I think it would be worth your time investigating more closely.

"We are, or we do try to be, a very loving lot."

Another man wanders over, curious at the sight of the unusual visitors in the bar. He didn't hear the first conversation, but he sees the muslim headdress on the suicide bomber, and he sneers.

"You Muslims are imbeciles!" he says. "Everyone knows there is no God. You preach a false hope in some fictitious paradise. You're all delusional. And worse - you're an angry, violent mob! Do you know how many wars have been started in the name of your God? You're just a bunch of violent thugs!"

The suicide bomber is enraged. His face hardens. His lips turn sinister, and a red flush sweeps his face as rage and adrenalin sweep his body.

"Me, angry?!!!" he yells.

"How DARE you call my religion angry and violent!" he says, stepping back from the bar.

He picks up a glass, and throws it against a wall where it smashes. "I can't BELIEVE you would say such a ridiculous thing!"

He glares menancingly at the patrons, before sending beer and bottles flying as he tips over a table, and storms out the front door.

A few minutes later, loud smashes and bangs are heard on the streets. A few patrons peek out through the windows. The suicide bomber has called on his mates, and together with crowbards and hammers, they are smashing windows, tipping vehicles, and even setting some vehicles on fire.

The marauding mob is occasionally heard to yell things like "We are a religion of PEACE!" and "Stop the discrimination! We have a right to practice our religion in line with our beliefs!"

Eventually the mob passes a bystander, who asks the suicide bomber, "What's happening?"

"It's the fool in the pub" replies the suicide bomber. "He called us Muslims hateful and angry. But we are PEACEFUL."

"But you look pretty violent and angry right now?" suggests the bystander with sincere curiosity.

"We're not angry, and we're not violent. It's that fool in the pub who made us angry right now, but we're not actually angry or violent people in reality" said the suicide bomber.

"Ok, but I was in a pub a little while ago - maybe the same one - and as I was walking out, I heard someone ridiculing a nun. She could have turned angry and nasty, but she responded very kindly to the man. I don't know what happened after that, 'coz I was leaving, but is it possible that the fools in the pub simply showed what was already on the inside?"

So here's the rub : next time you see a violent angry mob of Muslims, claiming to be justified by criticism in the media, ask yourself for that particular mob "would a nun or a priest have responded in the same way?" And if not, then is it possible that the brimming anger and violence was already latent in the mob, just looking for an excuse to spill out? Just some thoughts...

Jesus, Peter, and the "Don't judge me!" brigade

Like Pavlov's dogs, Christians have been well trained by their Humanist overlords.

Simply whisper the word "discrimination", or sigh the word "judgementalism", and Christians the western world around will instantly stop their mouths.

But do these terms make sense? Are they well applied? Consider this imaginary Scripture fragment and compare it to how Humanists around you are getting Christians to dance to their tune by the power of the conditioned response to these words...

Matthew 16:13-23, Really Inspired Version

v 13 Jesus asked His disciples, "Whom do men say I am?"

v 14 and they answered "Some say you are John the Baptist; some say Elijah; and others say Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

v 15 Then he asked them "But whom do you say I am?"

v 16 and Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God!"

v 17 At that moment, an indignant voice rang out.  "YOU'RE JUDGING ME!!!" screamed Mary-Anne, a woman who stood nearby.

v 18 Peter, bewildered, asketh her, "What meanest thou by this manner of words?"

v 19 Mary-Anne answering said unto him, "You're JUDGING me!  How DARE you say Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, when I don't believe a word of it!

v 20 [she continued] "You're telling me that what I believe is WRONG, ALL WRONG!  YOU JUDGEMENTAL PERSON!  I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE YOU CALL YOURSELF A FOLLOWER OF JESUS!!!"

v 21 And having said these words, Mary-Anne turned on her heel and departed thence.

v 22 Peter, bewlidered, turneth to Jesus and asketh, "My Lord, is there error in me?"

v 23 Jesus smiled softly, and spake "Nay Peter, but there are some who cannot stand to hear the sound of a voice with which they disagree.  Their hearts are stubborn, and incline not to learning."

Whatever happened to journalism?

Bill Muehlenberg has a very interesting article on homosexual marriage and the role of the media.

Make WHAT Count 2010?

Make It Count 2010 was on tonight - the two competitors for Australia's top job addressed a Christian audience and responded to questions from our foremost Christian leaders.  What did I learn?  I express my concerns to the man who organised the event...

Dear Brigadier Wallace,

My wife and I were surprised, nay shocked, nay horrified, that there was no mention at "Make It Count 2010" of the greatest social injustice of our time : the summary execution of hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens without due process of law.

In a world where would-be adoptive parents are plentiful, and often resort to international adoptions or give up due to high costs, why is it that we can find no other option for Australia's unwanted children?

Worse yet, how can a hall full of representatives of the Christian faith, clamour about climate and education and supposed "social injustices" evidenced towards some thousands here and some tens of thousands there, without thought of the greater corpus of innocents who have suffered the severest injustice of all?

If the church cares for social justice - as your nominated representatives seem to claim - then why is it silent on the greatest issue of social justice today?

Is it too divisive for Christians to agree on?

Then what exactly is "Christian" about the Christians we heard tonight if they can't make a call on such an obvious violation of human rights?

Is it a settled issue - a battle we've already lost?

But then slavery was a settled issue.

And silent acceptance of this supposedly settled issue makes mockery of our claims to care about the myriad lesser social evils.

Is it too controversial to ask Rudd's and Abbott's views on this in public?

Well hey, the deaths are happening, and if you really don't want to embarass them or cause a ruckuss, you can always ensure the question is worded as amiably as possible, so they can feel perfectly guiltless giving their "we all hate abortion but it's better than the alternatives" pat answer.  At least then their cards will be very visibly on the table, and Christians will be reminded that this is an issue - the worst issue of social injustice today.

Who cares whether they open parliament with the Lord's Prayer, before proceeding to legalise more massacres?

Who cares if they sponsor Christian and Moslem and Atheist chaplains and counsellors in schools, if half the children who would have been in those schools were deprived of life and liberty and forced into a choiceless termination of existence with the blessing of the same government that sponsors the chaplains.

Who cares if they let boat people in, or keep them out, if hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens have died on our very land by preventable causes : abortive surgery and abortifacients.

Who cares what we do to help the Aboriginals help themselves, if we won't even give the unborn a chance to help themselves.

The needless slaughter of the innocents dwarfs all other social concerns by sheer number of victims.

Yet your "Christians" didn't seem to care.

"Make It Count 2010" was informative, but the most surprising learning was not about Abbott or Rudd : it was about the state of the Church.  If these are our leaders, then help us God.

False hypevertising - Apple does it again

"iPhone 4. This changes everything. Again."

Thus saith the latest Apple advert email.

It arrived in my usual email program.

That hasn't changed.

It used the standard HTML email format.

That hasn't changed.

It appeared on my 22" LCD monitor.

That hasn't changed, either.

They want me to buy it in Aussie dollars.

I don't think we've changed currency recently, so I don't think that changed either.

In fact, the iPhone 3.1 SDK still works. That ain't changed.

And whilst there are a bunch of new APIs in the iPhone 4 SDK, it's backwards compatible. So not everything's changed - a bunch of things by definition have stayed the same (or else they wouldn't be backwards-compatible now, would they, eh?).

The phone still supports old 2G and GPRS standards. Have those changed?

The brand name is identical to previous versions - Apple.

I could go on all day - for months or years in fact.

In reality, "a lot" has changed, but nothing compared to everything.

So why do they say "This changes everything"?

If it hasn't changed everything, but they claim it has, then what value is their claim?

Hype.

I guess Apple is good at that.

And hey, I personally think it's a pretty good product.

But if I had to choose between a world of hype and imprecision - where you never know exactly what someone means - or a world of joy and clarity - where precision yields certainty and safety - I'd choose the latter.

"Game changing" is a high-hype phrase, but definitely accurate for the iPhone 4.

"Revolutionise your life" - for many people, the iPhone 4 will revolutionise their life. That's another high-hype phrase they could have used that would also fit in the realm of accurate communications.

But they choose to use words so grossly inaccurate that they are practically meaningless : "This changes everything".

Wow.

I'm still on earth, earth still exists, and if I'm not much mistaken, this is still my blog.

A lot ain't changed.

If you want to communicate with me, Apple, I enjoy hype, but only accurate hype.

Of course, the ad wasn't targetting people like me.

But it raises questions.

What kind of society have we become if we can't say what we mean anymore?

The Blasphemous Apple

I was surprised on the Apple website the other day to see the iPad described as "the greatest gift ever".

Wow! I don't think Jesus knew that He was second-rate as gifts go.

Technically, this means that Apple computer publicly blasphemed, exalting itself as greater than God.

So can we attribute this God-complex to Steve Jobs himself?

Nah - probably not. Probably more to an over-zealous and under-careful marketing staffer.

I notice it's disappeared already. Maybe someone else in the company had the sense to have it pulled? Dunno.

Humour is one thing, but the statement was not intended to be humorous. It truly was a denigration of the gift of Christ, albeit probably unintentionally so.

"Big deal" you say. Well, I'm not so sure.

"Pride cometh before a fall", and exalting oneself above one's station, to proclaim oneself to be greater than the Unchanging One - that certainly falls within the definition of pride - so if it represents a wider attitude within Apple, then yes, perhaps it foretells a pending fall....... Of course, "pending" could be years away yet. And if it was just a blunder at a lower level, not reflective of wider Apple attitudes, then any "fall" would relate to the individual at fault, not to the company as a whole...

In any case, it is the first time I recall seeing such a notable and generally respected company overtly blaspheme. The times, they are a changin'.

Channel Nine News Rants Against Facts

I don't know if Channel Nine News ever thought it could be taken seriously for objective journalism, but if it did, it has made a total mockery of the concept just now.

In headline news entitled "Book of hate : Beauty queen cites Bible for gay death", they allege that "Another US beauty queen has caused controversy with an anti-gay rant - this time citing Bible passages that call for death to homosexuals".

"Rant", "death", "controversy" - it all sounds so exciting.

But look at the facts?

The article cites the controversial statement :

"In Leviticus it says, 'if man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination — they shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them'," she was quoted as saying.

"If (God) says that having sex with someone of the same gender is going to bring death upon you, that's a pretty stern warning ... and he knows more than we do about life."

Um, that's a rant?

Quoting a Bible verse and politely suggesting it might have validity, is a rant?

In fact, the article goes on to say the beauty queen in question has many homosexual friends, and hey, doesn't actually harbour hatred towards them! Well, how about that!

So let's get this straight : quoting a Bible verse and politely suggesting it might still be valid is "ranting", whilst wording headlines to imply a peace-loving person is malicious, angry and hateful, is legitimate?

Two idiotic assumptions underpin the article :

Idiotic assumption 1) It is impossible to believe that a crime should ever be punishable by death, without personally hating everyone who commits the crime.

Ah - no.

Take "Dead Man Walking".

It's possible to forgive, and love criminals, and yet still recognise that the best thing for society as a whole is for people to know that certain crimes are punished by death.

Or let's take their assumption a little bit further : why stop at the arbitrary point they do? Why not assume it's impossible to believe that a crime should be punishable at all, without personally hating everyone who commits the crime?

Crikey, c'mon! Are we supposed to believe that no punishment should ever occur for any crime? Don't we recognise that sometimes punishing a crime is the most loving thing to do, whether for the criminal, or at least for society as a whole?

And if they agree that punishment in general can be meted without hate, then why arbitrarily say the death penalty cannot be meted without hate?

I mean, some people get a "life sentence" - life in jail. That's gotta be pretty bad. Is that really any much better than just getting it over with and letting the criminal cease living?

But if you're gonna say life sentences are likewise evil, well, how is a life sentence of 40 years that much different to say a 35 year prison term?

And if we axe 35 year prison terms, what about 32 year prison terms?

And if 32, what about 30?

And if 30, what about 25?

And ultimately, you realise it's just a matter of degree.

You can't make a conclusive argument that punishment of some kind is permissible, but the death penalty is not - it's just a matter of degree. Where you draw the line will differ from where the next guy draws the line. So who's right?

In other words, Channel Nine News heaps ridicule on a woman who suggests that the death penalty might still apply, but the only absolutely-logically-consistent alternative is to suggest that no punishment should ever occur.

Oh sure, you can mount a somewhat logical argument in favour of drawing the punishment line here or there, but when you see the next guy with a somewhat logical argument draw the same line in a different place, you gotta realise your own case ain't so watertight after all.

But who cares about watertight logic and facts when you can accuse a Bible-believer of hatred? C'mon! Gotta use every chance we can to bash these people who actually believe that the Bible might have some use in the 21st century!

Idiotic assumption 2) Homosexuality is beyond question.

Ah, no.

What kind of race are we if anything becomes "beyond question"?

Surely to retain our self-ascribed title of "homo sapien" (sapien = wise), we must recognise the importance of continuing to allow everything to be questioned.

What's wrong with her raising the possibility that there might be inherent problems with the homosexual lifestyle?

Ask an ex-homosexual like Sy Rogers. It ain't all rosy.

And if there are inherent problems, who's to say they aren't severe problems?

So severe, perhaps, that whilst the individual homosexuals should be loved, their homosexual actions should be curtailed, perhaps even with severe force?

What's wrong with raising the question?

What's wrong with believing it yourself, as obviously this beauty queen is inclined to do?

What if she happens to have seen some of the studies that show the darker side of homosexuality, and concludes that the modern adulation of the practice is insane?

Or is there a deeper issue?

Maybe Channel Nine News believes that no-one should force their moral standards onto anyone else.

But hang on a moment - isn't Channel Nine News berating this beauty queen for believing that homosexuality is bad, and so bad that the death penalty should be considered?

Isn't Channel Nine News forcing its moral standard of not questionning anyone's moral standards?

I mean, if you really believe that the most moral thing to do is not express your moral views to anyone else, lest you be "forcing your morals on them", then at least be consistent enough to live by your own morals and not try to tell me to not talk about my morals!

Channel Nine News, wake up, you idiot. Either don't express your moral views by telling others what to do, or else do allow others to express their moral views.

In short, Channel Nine News is a propaganda machine, not an objective news service, if this is the kind of stuff it publishes.

-

Q&A :

Q : Where is "Book of hate" in the headline?

A : On the ninemsn.com.au homepage, the link to the article was called "book of hate". UPDATE : And now another link on the ninemsn.com.au homepage is called "Hateful beauty : Starlet quotes Bible for gay death". They're obsessed, against the facts, with calling the woman "hateful". That's ranting, if you ask me!

UPDATE : Ironically, one of the news articles sharing the headlines was entitled "Mum who gassed kids jailed for life". Would you know it, Channel Nine seems to think life sentence in prison is ok for some crimes, but death penalty is not for others. So basically, Channel Nine is trying to force ITS morality on US. So why the self-righteous chest-beating when it finds other people also expressing their views on morality?

(update continued) : And note that the beauty queen was ASKED for her opinion on homosexuality - she didn't publish it uninvited as Channel Nine is doing all the time. So in reality, Channel Nine "News" is the one that is constantly ranting and forcing its morality on others, whilst this nice little girl from the US was just politely answering some questions. Shame, Nine News, shame. From now on you can be called the Channel Nine Propaganda Service.

Saturday Morning Mentoring With Geoffrey Botkin (for men)

Verbose philosopher's rating : Highly recommended!

Cost : US$49

More info : http://www.westernconservatory.com/smm

Hey men, I just finished participating in the first of a nine-part webinar led by Geoffrey Botkin.

Today's topic : "How to defend the faith: Love your wife".

I went in, unsure what to expect, and came out feeling inspired. :o)

In short, if you're a man, and you aspire to be a leader in the Church or in your home, and you can spare the US$49, I highly recommend this series.

(If US$49 is too much for you, there are books and blog posts I can point you to which are very valuable, but if the nine hours time commitment is a bigger deal than the US$49, then I'd suggest, join the webinar! :o) )

Wanted : Kingdom-oriented USA host families

This page has been archived.

Discipling Katie

This page has been archived.

He lives!

He lives!

After nine months of silence, a voice is heard - the Verbose Philosopher is still alive!

Since we last spoke, much has happened!

A major house move.

But most notably...

He lives!

... the birth of my first child - my son, Eljireh. ("Eljireh" means "God will provide".)

He was born in our lounge room - a very healthy and happy homebirth.

Unfortunately, the combination of my wife's severe neck & shoulder problems (and hypoglycaemia and etc), plus a baby that was so super energetic that it literally did not sleep more than a few hours per day for the first three days or so, plus colic and wind problems that kept the baby screaming long hours every day for the first two months or so (problems that continued in a milder form for the third and fourth months of his life too), plus the usual pressures of running my own software development business - well, it all added up, along with the other odds & ends with which life is filled, to mean my disappearance for a time.

But for now, I'm back. At least, momentarily.

Christmas came and went - our first Christmas with a baby outside the womb. Christmas day was fun - the grandparents heaped presents on little Eljireh.

And we remembered the birth of Jesus Christ.

Now, it would normally be Easter Sunday we would issue forth the cry, "He lives!". But it seems fitting here, too, in memory of the first Christmas, to send the cry once more.

He lives!

Not only did He live as a human, born in a manger some 2,000 years ago, but He lives. That's what God's own name means - Yahweh - "I am" or "I will be" or, in colloquial speak, "I live".

And so, with these three "He lives" in mind - the Verbose Philosopher lives, the Verbose Philosopher's little boy lives, and Jesus Christ lives - I close with a simple anecdote from the precious moments immediately upon Eljireh's birth :

As we held him there - this precious bundle, already so strong he could hold up his own head without support - we started singing that classic old Christian song :

"Because He lives, I can face tomorrow
"Because He lives, all fear is gone
"Because I know He holds the future
"And life is worth the living just because He lives.

"How sweet to hold a newborn baby
"And feel the love and joy he brings
"But greater still, the calm assurance
"This child can face uncertain days because He lives"