Not Buying It

We’re told a lot that there is a great divide in health due to a person’s low socioeconomic status (SES).  That is that someone’s low income and education affects their ability to make positive health choices.

This is rubbish and I’m not buying it.  Low SES people can’t avoid the same campaigns as the rest of us.  They are everywhere.  Most low SES people have televisions and watch the ads, they see the billboards, and they see the warning posters that pubs and clubs by law have to display.

Low SES people know that smoking is bad for their lungs.  They see the warnings on every packet they purchase.  But they smoke willingly and expect the health system to fix any health concern.

Low SES people know that fatty foods are bad for their heart.  But they eat it willingly then expect modern pharmaceuticals to keep their heart pumping forever.  Were told that fresh food is expensive, yet I saw broccoli for 99c and a 1kg bag of carrots for $1.49.  Plus there’s an Aldi supermarket everywhere that could help you create dinner for four people for less than $10, probably with leftovers.  That is, if you could be bothered.

You can’t even say that basic dental care isn’t accessible.  Toothbrush and toothpaste available anywhere for less than $3 and would last for a month.

The problem isn’t really education or low SES.  The problem is our lazy culture.  People cry poor yet can spend upwards $20 per week on cigarettes and $40 per week on beer.  There are some major priority issues.

They know better, they just don’t want to.

Our Turn

Further to my post on charities crying poor. 

I received a letter from a charity I support regarding their government grant being cut.  The shortfall in their budget meant that 1 in 4 children could not be assisted by their programs.  This of course is a shame.  But neither individuals, nor organisations, nor corporations ought to become dependent on government handouts.  Their government assistance was called a grant, but it may as well have been called welfare.

It points to the sad truth that our generosity has declined as our government dependence has increased.  This situation was portrayed as a travesty of compassion.  Instead it could be the best thing to happen to the charity.  There will be a financial shortfall, but if their service is considered necessary then the community will step up and contribute greater than the government ever would. 

The financial hole for charities isn’t for the government to fill.  It’s a reality check to us as a community.  It’s our turn to step up.

All Envy

I had a conversation with a colleague about the big banks.

It came up because I mentioned how my wages get paid into my account late in the evening.  My colleague told me that it’s because the banks hold onto the money as long as possible in order to make some money off my wages.

Of course the vibe of his speech was ‘how dare the banks earn a profit from wages’.  I retorted by saying that I don’t begrudge banks earning big profits.  I prefer this to a profitless bank.

If it’s true that banks hold onto my money for profit, then how clever of them.  As long as I get paid the right amount at the end of the day and the bank doesn’t go broke.  I’m not missing it, as long as it comes.

Then his theme turned to the fees charged by banks.  But what do we really want from our banks?  We want them to look after our money.  They are doing that well and truly.  The varying levels of success in achieving this depends on opinion.

Then came the topic of large salaries received by bank executives.  People would say they could do the job.  But really they couldn’t, and wouldn’t.  They earn a lot of money mainly because it’s a hard job and to get the best person the banks need to offer remuneration.  Of course we would all like to earn that money, but it’s pure envy to insult the bank bosses based on their salaries.

We call the banks greedy for earning profits, charging fees and paying executives large salaries.  But we don’t look at ourselves and our greed and envy.

Contrast

Finally watched the episode of 'Q and A' featuring Peter Jenson, Anglican Archbishop of Sydney.  I had been told previously that Jenson performed well particularly as he was under fire frequently from outspoken writer and comedian, Catherine Devany.

Peter Jenson was indeed classy.  He was very considered in his answering of questions on rather touchy topics such as 'marriage equality', meaning of submission, asylum seekers and health of homosexuals.  All he wanted was for people to be able to civilly discuss these issues without being shouted down.  It's a fair request.

But in typical 'Q and A' style there was one who was the antithesis to Jenson's class and respectfulness.  I'm referring to Catherine Devany.  She was classless, brash, disrespectful, discourteous and mannerless.  She has a harsh voice to which it is difficult to listen.  She interrupted frequently, which was just plane rude.

No mention yet about what she actually said.  But if someone is going to behave in such a manner then what she says essentially becomes irrelevant.   Her actions are saying enough.

Although Devany's view on marriage as "a mistake I think everyone should be allowed to make" leads one to wonder who it was who hurt Catherine so much earlier in her life.  She is just so angry, something must have happened.

Jenson stated his view very well.  He was calm and considered, especially when explaining the biblical meaning of submission in marriage.  Yet Devany interrupted rudely and labelled the notion misogynist, archaic and medieval.

On the health of homosexuals, Jenson requested a civil discussion of bringing out facts about the issue.  Facts are in dispute as to whether or not homosexuals have a lower life expectancy, and if so, why?  He was very open though clear on his doctrine.  He welcomed discussion. 

Devany on the other hand is closed minded.  She claimed the church was intolerant.  Yet based on her performance on this night one wonders where the intolerance truly lies.

Niche to Fill

Must have been a slow news day.

Channel 9 News claimed that new retail fashion house, Zara, is missing out on part of the market as they don't stock 'plus size' clothing.

This is a pointless thing to say!!

It's not as if Zara forgot to send the specs for 'plus size' outfits to their manufacturer.  This is not a silly mistake that needs correction from the self-appointed fashion police.  No, this is a deliberate act from the retailer to target a specific part of the market.  They are obviously confident that they can sell a lot of clothes despite the narrow size range.  It's their prerogative and good luck to them.

The 'niche' of 'plus size' women's fashion has largely been filled by other fashion houses such as sixteentwentysix and mysize.  If there is a hole in the market then it will be filled.  For if there is money to be made then there is always someone who will want to make it.  It is one of the joys of the free market.

This news story though was just a chance for 'plus size' women to play the victim-of-discrimination card.  Perhaps the Zara stuff won't suit larger body shapes anyway.

Care Factor

The NSW govt has to cut spending from its budget.  This is largely because it inherited a basket-case courtesy of the previous Labor govt.

So when people from charitable organisations get word that their revenue from the govt is being cut  they immediately go for the heart strings, accusing the govt of not caring.

This was in evidence on the channel 10 news (27/10/12).  A Cystic Fibrosis supporter accused the govt, "they just don't care".

This was music to opposition leader John Robertson's ears.  He in turn amplified the language by calling the govt "maliciously callous".

Some perspective people, please.  They are broke!  Broke because John Robertson's colleagues had spent money recklessly over many years.

John Robertson ought to acknowledge the mess his political party created.  Then it would be nice if he would explain to the people of NSW what he would cut instead.

Of course he doesn't have to do this as he is in opposition.  This is convenient for him.  While he knows cuts must be made he won't admit to anything.

Voting Green

The latest 'Eternity' magazine (October 2012, Number 30) had a special feature titled, "Can Christians Vote Greens?"

This style of question can lead to interesting discussion.  Just replace 'vote Greens' with whatever you like and enjoy the conversation that will ensue. I have found that the common answer is, 'yes……but…..'

For the question 'can Christians vote Greens?' Eternity had a contributor stating 'yes', 'never' and 'his pen hovers'.

All highlighted the good points of the Greens.  They do have good points and if they would stick to these points then they would be more votable.

Arguing 'yes' was Darren Cronshaw, a Baptist pastor of Auburn Life Church in Melbourne.  He liked to point to the Greens' views on social justice issues such as asylum seekers and climate change as their redeemable feature. 

He has jumped right on the emotional bandwagon like many social justice supporters.  A vote for the Greens on social justice issues is to deal with them on a superficial level and not think through each issue or its ramifications.  Then, when ramifications occur they seek band-aid solutions.  All this while continuously tugging at the heart strings.

For the asylum seeker issue the Greens would advocate no detention at all.  They would neglect the issue of where to accommodate them and how they would be integrated into Australian society.  They would suggest that we have plenty of room, infrastructure and resources in Australia.  When in actual fact they are sorely lacking.  It's ironic that resources are something about which I thought the Greens cared so much.

As well as this, there is the problem of not knowing who they are.  Some refugee advocates would state we have a bigger problem with holiday makers overstaying their visa.  If this is the case then they need to be dealt with too.  But this is no justification for allowing a flow of 'asylum seekers' without appropriate checks and limitations.

Now, if there's ever an emotive issue it's climate change.  'Think about future generations' is the repeated bleat of some.  Yes, we ought to look after God's creation.  We are called to do it through the words of Genesis 1:26.  But the Greens don't have God and the creation story in mind when they advocate for the environment.  They are 'earth worshipers', apologising to the planet for raping it of its beauty and integrity merely by existing.  This pushes God out of the picture whilst they consume their time appeasing 'mother earth', the god of the green planet.  The Greens' view of creation and our place in it is very different to the Christian worldview.

Cronshaw does acknowledge that some Christians have "moral reasons" for not voting Greens.   This acknowledgement seems to trivialise these moral concerns, which are pivotal to Christian living.

These moral concerns are major, not trivial, according to Roslyn Phillips, researcher for Family Voice.  She wrote the 'never' answer to the headline question.  In her role she went to the Greens with some fundamental questions, such as

• Would you retain Christian prayers being recited in parliament?
• Would you preserve the Current definition of marriage?
• Do you oppose creation of children as a commodity for same sex couples?
• Do you oppose euthanasia?

All answers came back to Mrs Phillips as an emphatic NO!  What's more, the Greens have also shown their disapproval of Scripture in schools, Chaplains in schools and Christian schools being able to hire teachers based on their faith, as well as their ability.  They appear to be no friend to the average Christian.

David Hastie, an education commentator, answered the headline question with 'his pen hovers'.  There was some balance to the points he made.  He stated that, "for everything I agree with….there is an equal and opposite reaction".  As in, for every policy position of the Greens he liked there is another that ruins their chances of gaining his vote.  Hastie believes that the Greens are a "far cry from the core business of environmentalism".  If they were just about the environment then maybe they would make some sense.

Roslyn Phillips told about how her elderly aunt voted Greens once, after becoming dissatisfied with the two main parties.  She was most distraught when informed of the principles for which they stand.  She's not alone on this.

But the wool is being pulled from peoples' eyes.  The Greens true nature is increasingly on display.

So, can Christians vote Greens?  Of course.  But we can be deceived as easily as anyone else.  To vote Greens as a Christian there is much to consider.

On top of everything Roslyn Phillips and David Hastie mentioned, the Greens are basically atheist, but more than that they are Anti-Christian.  They support so many policies that oppose fundamental Christian doctrine e.g. pro abortion and pro euthanasia (i.e. pro murder).  They aim to eradicate the church at every chance they get.

No friend of the Christian indeed.  Be aware of the wolf in sheep's clothing (Matthew 7:15)

No Excuses

Everyone should read the bible at least once in their lifetime.  Unfortunately most people make up excuses to not read it.  Most excuses are easily refutable.

The bible ought to be read as it is immensely historical.  It is firmly placed in the history of the world.  So much more than any other book on which a faith is based.  It is the best-selling book of all time and will continue to be so.  It’s worthy of a look in.  It also contains a variety of literature that are good for study.

But as for some of the common excuses

Not enough time

Daily reading could take a maximum of 20 minutes.  Even less if you take up the 25 words reading challenge from the Bible Society.

Too long

There are a lot of pages.  This was a reason that held me back as well.  But chapters and verses mean you can start and stop wherever you like.  It may take a long time but that’s ok.

Too boring

There are some that are monotonous, but they are in there for a reason.  Perseverance through the boring parts will build character.  Not all of life is exciting either.  Of course there are plenty of exciting and interesting sections as well.

Don’t understand

Different versions of the bible mean that there will be one that suits you.  Although no matter what version you attain there will be a level of not understanding.  That’s ok too as it gives you are chance to ask questions of that Christian friend.  One should not expect to understand every aspect of such a long book in one reading.  Get what you can, ask questions and then read it again.

Don’t want to

This could be the real reason people don’t read it.  That’s because they don’t want to  respond to the revelation of Jesus through the bible.  Don’t keep running away and hiding from Jesus.

Not Disgraced

Liberal Senator, Cory Bernadi, asked a valid question, “There are even some creepy people out there who say that it’s ok to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals.  Will that be a future step?”

Labor Senator, Helen Polley, made a valid comment, “[Same sex marriage could] create a stolen generation by putting adult desires above the needs of children.”

Both were discussing the legislation before them regarding amending the Marriage Act.

But because they didn’t conform with the vocal minority these people are now “disgraced” according to the Sun Herald (23^rd September).

Bernadi has since had to resign, as parliamentary secretary for no good reason other than it was politically easier to do so rather than defend him.  Haven’t heard anything about discipline for Polley.  Surely if she’s “disgraced” as well then there ought to be similar ramifications.

They don’t deserve their label, and those dishing it out don’t have the right to spew it out.  Having an opinion that is not shared by the noisemakers doesn’t mean the label fits.

Blowing False Trumpet

Greens member of the NSW Legislative Council, David Shoebridge, vented his feelings about the competitive unionism in a recent mass email.  He feels he has saved NSW from a savage beast.  I feel he may have a tendency to exaggerate.

Barry O’Farrell introduced legislation for competitive unionism.  In essence it gives the workers the ability to choose their own union representation.  Shoebridge has labelled this an “attack on working people”.  It’s actually giving workers a freedom they have never had.  Shoebridge feels such legislation will “undermine union solidarity”.  Yet it’s unions that are undermining themselves with their corruption, grooming of Labor MP’s, selfishness, self-righteousness and arrogance.

According to Shoebridge, enterprise bargaining agreements will be a “free for all” as unions go “head to head” against employers.  But if unions actually had the best interests of their members at heart then surely they would be able to work together.  So much member dissatisfaction has stemmed from unions forgetting their actual job and purpose for existing.  Instead of positioning for Labor pre selection they should have been looking after their members’ interests.  If they had done that all along I doubt whether this legislation would have been introduced to parliament.

Shoebridge attacks O’Farrell for reducing the coverage for workers compensation.  What he neglects to mention is that the coverage for workers compensation was far too broad and included much that was unnecessary.  Shoebridge would make out that all of what used to be included was an entitlement when it is nothing but a privilege.  One the state govt can no longer afford due to left wing reckless spending.

According to Shoebridge free market thinkers are blind, dictatorial and divisive.  This is despite much evidence existing that suggests the free market is a very efficient way of improving people’s circumstances.  But Shoebridge doesn’t want you to think for yourself.  He’s more intelligent than you, according to him.  He doesn’t want you choosing your own union.  According to him we don’t know what is best for us. We are apparently lucky to have Greens parliamentarians at various levels of government to tell us what is best for us.

Where do they get off claiming the moral high ground when all they want to do is control our lives and tell us how we ought to be living it.  If anyone is blind it is the left, as they don’t ever see the ramifications of their plans.  They are too idealistic that reality need not enter their thinking.

David Shoebridge, on behalf of the Greens, is claiming to have been part of a successful campaign to amend O’Farrell’s bill to only apply to Paramedics and junior doctors.  Reality is that he has affected a potentially very productive bill.

Shoebridge talks ad nauseum about ‘rights’ of workers, yet he is robbing workers of a very important freedom.  He needs to get out of workers lives, as only we know what is best for us.  David Shoebridge has no idea.

No Freebies

The Project last week featured a story on “Freemium” apps on smartphones and tablets.  Freemium combines the words Free and Premium.  They are so called because they are free to download but to get the most out of the app you have to purchase further items at a premium price.

They are quite a money winner as these apps are usually very addictive and easy to play.  Hence they are very appealing to children.

The panel mentioned examples where children have racked up hundreds or thousands of dollars on their parent’s credit cards after playing these games.  The panel asked their guest how to best avoid this predicament.

There were valid solutions given such as using gift cards instead of credit cards and changing settings to require a password each time a purchase is requested.

I was surprised that no one suggested this: ‘not letting your smartphones or tablets into the hands of your children’.  How about setting some boundaries and saying no to some things?  Why is it considered a given that we will hand our technology indiscriminately to our children?  Is it also considered a given that young children will have their own smartphone or tablet?  I can’t see why this should be.  Parents shouldn’t rely on them as entertainment for their children.

Parents need to grow a backbone and set some rules regarding these devices, then enforce.  It will save a lot of potential problems.

Popcorn Lungs

A random piece of ridiculousness was witnessed on an American breakfast program.  It was the ultimate display of refusing to take responsibility for ones actions.

A man engorged himself on microwave popcorn day after day, year after year.  He ate so much popcorn that he developed a new lung condition nicknamed “popcorn lung”.  It will eventually take his life.

Instead of accepting his fate as completely his own doing he did what some Americans seem to do best, he sued the manufacturer and the retailer.

Apparently it was the manufacturer and retailer’s responsibility to inform this man that eating that much microwave popcorn was not a good idea.  The way the world is these days common sense wasn’t as common as it should have been and he won a massive $7million.

The man is declaring that he will give most to charity.  This does not make him a generous man as he has robbed two businesses of money that belongs to them.

Such behaviour needs to be declared abhorrent whenever it appears.  It needs to be stamped out of society.  Responsibility needs to be taken for your own choices.

Not About The Chocolate

Pro Palestine groups recently marched on a Max Brenner outlet in Parramatta in order to promote their cause.  What doesn’t make sense to most would be their choice of protest venue.

Max Brenner is a fine chocolate house.  His products are amazing.  So what do they have against it?

Is it their products?  Too sweet perhaps?  Too rich?

Perhaps their mugs?  They are odd shapes and sizes.

No, they don’t like Max Brenner because their parent company provides chocolate to the Israeli defence forces.  That’s where their actual protest is directed.  Then why not get on the first flight to the Middle East and join the Palestinian forces.  Surely a much more effective form of venting ones disgust at a perceived enemy.

I would not expect them to do such a thing, as they are too cowardly.  Their alternate form of protest suits this trait well.  Plus they are just plain wrong about their cause.  They will use anything they can to insult Israel.  They abhor its existence, for no particular reason, and will do whatever it takes to eradicate its people.

Daily Bible

It’s always an achievement to read the bible in full.  I recommend everyone do it at least once.  That’s regardless of whatever belief system you follow.  I had done it once using the easy to read “The Message” version of the bible.  Now I’ve finished it again using the ‘Daily Bible’ in NIV.

Firstly some stats.  It took me approximately 15 months to complete from 8^th June 2011 to 19^th September 2012.  This equates to 470 days.  It was read in 278 sessions with an average of 5 pages and 19 minutes per session.  Thanks to the ‘Read More” app of iPhone for statistics and extra motivation to keep reading.

The ‘Daily Bible’ has chunks of around 3 – 4 pages with duel columns that take about 10 – 20 minutes to read.  It is organised to have an Old Testament portion, New Testament portion and a Psalm or Proverb portion per day.

What I liked about the format was accomplishing a book more frequently.  For example while reading a long new testament book you will be finishing a shorter old testament book, or vice versa.  Also if one portion was quite droll then the other portion was usually very interesting.  Don’t forget as well that reading a small chunk of the bible every day is a good habit to forge.

I was surprised at how small the daily chunks were.  I’m not a fast reader and most days only took 10 mins to read.  Meaning that sometimes I read multiple days in one hit.  Sometimes you just have to keep reading while you have the energy. 

Each day was dated, intended for you to read every day starting January 1^st and finishing December 31^st.  I didn’t stick to this however.  I knew my shiftwork would make that impossible.  But I’m rather chuffed at 15 months.

Some of the ordering of the Old Testament was interesting.  It seems that they attempted to be somewhat chronological while breaking up the longer books with shorter books.

Post reading ‘The Message’ I asked, “What next?”  My answer then was to read it in this different format.  So now this effort is completed and I have to ask it again.  As reading the bible is not a once off read and then put it on the shelf to gather dust.

Although as I’m doing some study through Moore College I think I’ll give the daily reading a break and catch up on other books I’ve been wanting to reading.  After study is completed I’m keen to try out Max Lucado’s bible adaptation, ‘The Story’. 

Keeping Right

‘Keep left unless overtaking’ doesn’t seem to exist anymore.  It now appears to be ‘keep right for as long as you deem necessary and do whatever speed you think appropriate.

On occasion it has been the left lane that moves freely while the right remains slow.  This shouldn’t happen.  There’s something lacking, somewhere.  Training? General attitude?  Culture?

It’s a quickly forgotten rule post gaining a licence.  From that point self importance takes over and no other drivers on the road at that moment in time matter.  What they have to do is obviously very important.

People need to get over themselves.  You’re no more important than the next person on the road.  So relax, consider others, and most importantly if you want to go slow then keep left.

Worshipping Gold

The worship and idolisation of gold medallions at Olympic games has probably been going on for as long as the Olympic games.

With the lesser than expected gold haul from the Aussie contingent and the resulting calls for funding inquiries our worship has become more apparent in London.  How else would we get the headline “Salvation” after Sally Pearson’s win in the 100metre hurdles?  Salvation is not gained by winning gold.

Australians seems to think that we ought to win gold.  That we deserve them. That we have an entitlement to them.  When the best medal prospects don’t win the question gets asked, “What went wrong?”  It was asked of the men’s hockey team when they lost their semi final to Germany.  The correct answer should have been, ‘nothing, they were just better’.

We are quick to condemn.  It has happened to our national cricket team in recent years.  If they win they are heroes, if they lose they are no good and never will be.

It seems forgotten that other athletes have been working just as hard if not harder for exactly the same goal.  They also deserve reward for their efforts.  There’s nothing so special about us that makes us more deserving of gold.

Frankly, the Olympics have been very enjoyable because of the international spread of medal winners.  One should just watch and enjoy the athleticism instead of living vicariously through our Olympians.

Arm Raising

I used to make fun of arm raising in church.  I even made up names such as the light bulb, the touchdown, the catch, depending on your arm orientation. 

 It just seemed weird to me, as well as confronting to watch.  To a degree it was intimidating.  My thinking was that they had some sort of spiritual connection to God that I wasn’t getting.  Therefore there must be something wrong with me.

On the flipside I thought it may just be a show.  A way to get noticed and have the appearances of connecting with God.

It took a while to let all that go.  If it’s just for show then what should I care?  They’re lying to God, not me.  And there was nothing wrong with me by not wanting to raise my hands.  Although I needn’t be anti arm raising.

Louie Giglio made the point at the recent Hillsong Conference that we raise our arms in celebration.  I lift my arms at the football all the time so I obviously know how to raise my arms.  One ought to raise their hands to a powerful lyric or a poignant moment of preaching.  It’s for the one who died so we can have freedom in Christ. 

It’s worthy of raising arms in celebration!!

Chef Dreams

Masterchef has been an enjoyable show to watch over many years.  Their culinary achievements as amateur chefs have been spectacular.  As the show continues season after season the boundaries of possibility just keep shifting.  Contestants keep getting better now they know the level of knowledge and skill that will be required to win.

Masterchef has become a platform for people to follow their dreams to have a career in cooking.  Yet it’s interesting to find that none of the contestants had started to pursue this dream outside of masterchef.  This is despite having obvious skill and aptitude to do just that.

Many contestants had been working in different fields of employment for many years.  They’ve had children.  Cooking became their hobby.  A few were just beginning tertiary education and training in alternate professions. 

I understand most situations.  Life takes over and our personal dreams take a back seat.  Hence applying for Masterchef.  But for many other contestants one is left wondering why they began pursuing another career direction when they had this dream for so long.  Surely applying to a hospitality school or an apprentice chef would have been wise.  I wonder whether through Masterchef they are trying to skip the training stage and go straight to celebrity chef or successful business.

Third World?? Hardly!

“It’s like the third world in here,” proclaimed a well dressed random patient relation to by standing nurse and paramedic in an emergency department.  She appeared serious and genuine in her derision.  She had just witnessed a patient have a seizure in the corridor awaiting a bed.

Say what you like about the health system.  We all have our criticisms.  Some have legitimate basis.  But we are lucky and blessed to have our health care.  It’s the furthest thing from the third world you might ever see.

People from the third world would definitely show more gratitude at having such health care.  They would feel privileged, as should we all.

Union Propaganda

Workchoices is a dirty word.  What started as a reform policy that had its good points became fodder for unions to slam any further workplace reform.  Therefore unions are quick to label any new policy as workchoices all over again.

Pauls Howes did, in his recent opinion piece in the Sunday Telegraph (15/7/12).

“Workchoices” was mentioned a total of nine times.  Quite a lot considering the relatively small article.  Perhaps it’s out of desperation.  Unions have become less relevant in the workplace and membership is on the decline.  Perhaps he’s feeling threatened that his power base might be taken away.  So it’s time to bring out the slander.

When it comes to slander Howes goes further than just mentioning ‘workchoices’ ad nauseum.  Howes proclaims the coalition as the enemy of the worker, “there’s nothing they like better than slashing wages and conditions, it’s almost pathological”.  Really Paul?  Really?  I suspect he knows it’s not true but it’s in his best interests to mislead.

Howes wants Abbott to outline his policies instead of giving “coded messages”.  Even though an election hasn’t been called.  Howes definitely wouldn’t advocate an early election, as he can see the writing on the wall.  An opposition leader doesn’t have to outline anything until there is an election. 

Howes talks about “rights” and “entitlements”.  No such thing Paul.  There is no right to employment.  We are privileged to be employed.  Privileged to be earning an income.  Privileged to live in a prosperous, democratic nation.  Describing privileges as rights and entitlements takes away what makes them special.

‘Scare campaign’ is an interesting term.  One thing that is for sure is that Labor and the unions are masters of the scare campaign.  They are good at it. ‘Workchoices’ was a prime example.  So when they claim that the coalition are scare mongering they are in fact doing so themselves but in the name of the opposition.  They are so devilishly clever.

Look into their motives for making such claims against Abbott and see the vested interests they have in keeping things the way they are.  It makes for interesting viewing.

The Boofhead

Ray Hadley called Wayne Swan a boofhead and a liar.  Then Swan demands an apology from Hadley.

How stupid is Wayne Swan?  And he’s in charge of the treasury, you’re money.  He’s just given Hadley more ammunition to call him a boofhead, a liar and probably much worse, until he is long forgotten from parliamentary circles.

Swan can’t even dispute the liar accusation.  Now Hadley will play the lie twice as much on his top rating radio talkback show.  The boofhead tag is just a matter of opinion.  Hadley shouldn’t be required to apologise for an opinion.

If Swan is so concerned about changing Hadley’s opinion of him then the onus is on Swan to act less boofheadish in the eyes of Hadley.

Although it’s instances like this and many others that only go to proving Hadley’s assertion.

Keep Telling Yourself That

Sometimes people lie so much that it becomes reality to them.  Greg Combet seems like one such example in a recent opinion piece for The Daily Telegraph.

In it Combet follows the typical Labor mantra of berating Abbott for doing exactly what they are doing themselves.  That is, pulling stunts in an attempt to score political points.  Ironically, Abbott’s stunts are puny compared to attempts by Labor past and present to score political points.

Combet has the ultimate straw man argument.  He intimates that because the world didn’t end on July 1, when the carbon tax was implemented, that their actions were justified.  Except no one said that the world was going to end on July 1.  The only people who are saying that are doing so to put words in the mouths of their opponents in an effort to make them look stupid.

Meanwhile, Combet will continue to sell the lie now that he believes it not to be a lie even though it is still a lie implemented based on a lie to the Australian people.  No amount of overinflating the carbon tax’s success will change that fact.

Purposeless

The Carbon Tax was originally sold as a method of targeting ‘climate change’.  Now it seems it is driven purely by wealth redistribution.  Temperature has become irrelevant, although it’s doubtful that it ever was relevant in the minds of politicians.

Assistance will now go to where it is needed most they say.  But where is that.  Such a subjective statement.

All that will happen is that more people will be trapped in welfare.  Reliant on the government.  So that when someone dares to mention the scrapping of the flawed policy there will be uproar in the streets because a source of easy income will be shut down.

They don’t realise that they have become slaves to the govt.  Meanwhile the reason for the tax will have been forgotten.

Not His Fault

Criticising Shane Warne for sharing his exploits on the poker tour is just another case of passing the responsibility of individual choices onto someone or something else.

It’s claimed that Warne was using his profile to promote gambling.  They make the presumption that his constant tweets will cause other people to start gambling.  This will lead to problem gambling.

If someone does start gambling because of Shane Warne’s tweets, and this gambling becomes an addiction, then that is the individual’s choice.  It is a stupid decision.  We should support this person if they choose to end their addiction but it has nothing to do with Shane Warne.

It might be wise for Shane to tone done the tweets about whatever chips he has on the table.  Regardless, it’s not his fault if people follow his lead and then lose big.

That was their decision.  They will feel the full ramifications of their actions.  The responsibility falls directly on their shoulders.

Shooters Harpooned

Have you noticed the negative portrayal by the Greens of licensed shooters now that there’s a proposal to allow them into national parks to shoot and kill certain animals?

The greens are up in arms and are cranking the scare machine into top gear referring to shooters as irresponsible, manic, wasteful, barbaric, trigger-happy, amongst many others.  If the Greens are to be believed then these shooters wantonly shoot at hikers.

The reality is quite the opposite.  Licensed shooters are highly skilled, they respect the weapon they are using.  They are sensible, not wasteful, as every bullet costs money and they sometimes like to take the carcus away.  They are respectful of others and the animals they are shooting.  They know how to kill it without undue stress to the animal. Also, lets not forget they are registered, and one false move results in removal of gun licenses forever.  These guys are highly regulated in the storage and use of their weapon, if they want to keep using it they will use it properly.  They are not stupid.

Also the animals they will be allowed to shoot are feral, in plague proportions and usually introduced species reeking havoc on our ecosystem. 

Shooters are better environmentalists that those who claim to be ‘green’.  These ‘do gooders’ don’t see the bigger picture.  An increase in feral animals equals increased damage to environment and therefore endangering native animals.

Fever

I find it embarrassing and amusing watching thousands of young girls screaming for pop singer Justin Bieber.

They share their unyielding devotion.  They ask him to marry them.  Why is it then that they seem oblivious to the fact that he already has a girlfriend?  I bet Selena Gomez doesn’t carry on like these fanatical admirers do.

If one of these fan girls that love him so much actually got to meet him they wouldn’t be able to talk to him.  They would be so taken by his presence that their tongue would be rendered useless and they would look foolish.

They love him, want to marry him, yet they wouldn’t be able to talk to him.  That sounds like a great relationship.

If his career didn’t rely so much on their screaming masses I would like to think that he would abhor such behaviour.  It will be interesting to see what happens as he grows up.  Hopefully these girls grow up to and see the folly of their ways.

Not Right

I don’t mind sounding like a broken record when referring to this pamphlet I found in the Medicare office.  Emblazoned on the cover was “Have a Medicare card – it’s you’re right”.

Please government stop peddling this message.  This is what has led to the demise of the health system.  It’s having people think of health services as rights instead of privileges.  It’s the lack of respect for health services that leads to the endless demands from the masses for government to ‘fix it’. 

Government will never be able to fix anything until there is a collective attitude adjustment, and it starts with how we regard our public services.

Continue to view them as a right then enjoy a health system that will continue to decline.  Adjust the attitude and regard health services as the huge privilege it is and you will see an improvement.

It’s up to you, not the government.

Stubborn or Just Realistic

The older generation, especially those that lived through war times, tend to be stubborn when it comes to the administration of health care.  “I’ll be right”, they say casually.

I like this attitude and more people should adopt it, however it has its flaws.

The elderly tend to only ask for help when they really, really need it.  This can result in the request coming too late for help to be effective.

Younger people need to take a leaf out of the book of the older generations.  Don’t be too proud to ask for help but be realistic.  There’s no need to be impetuous, and get majorly worked up immediately.  Just look at the bigger picture regarding your condition.  Is it really and emergency or can I wait to see my GP?  Sometimes a good sleep works wonders. 

Seems that the further we get away from war times the more spoilt we become and we don’t know how to deal with the smallest amount of suffering.

Here We Go Again

The Project covered a story about the ‘glass ceiling’ women have to break through to climb the corporate ladder. 

Natasha Stott-Despoja was on.  She claimed that we’ve had years to deal with this “problem”.  Really? Problem?  We’re still forgetting that most working women have no intent on climbing the corporate ladder.  Rather they are very willing in sacrificing some career advancement to have children.  It’s only the vocal minority that see this as a “problem”.

Some bozo was calling for quotas of women working in public and private sectors.  As if the current ‘targets’ aren’t bad enough.  Quotas and targets defeat the purpose for which they were intended.  Instead of gaining a job on merit, which is what all the complainers say they want, they will now get it potentially on tokenism.  Or there may be the continual speculation of whether it was gained on tokenism.  This would create immense pressure to perform.

Feminists want a level playing field.  But there never will be.  Men and women are different.  Why is that people continually need to be told that?  We have different aptitudes.  Men have strengths in leadership.  Women have strengths in nurturing.  This isn’t to say that women can’t lead and men aren’t nurturing.  It’s a generalisation, because it’s generally true.

A case study from Norway was shown and it featured some interesting consequences from its policy of quotas.  The policy was bound to all publicly listed companies.  So they found that many publicly listed companies got out of the stock exchange.  They also found that there were boards with women directors but it turned out to be the same women on multiple boards.  So no net gain for women in Norway.

People need to really think about what they aim to achieve by such policies and look at their potential side effects.