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'.