by the Department of Evidence For Evicting Rouge Elements Not Submitting. (DEFERENS)
Inter-departmental memo;
RE: Balls
The Victims of Alleged Sedition, Support Group, are planning a Charity Fundraiser to raise money for those who were unfairly, financially destroyed by our department. Now while we are officially denying any wrong doing in these maters, and in many instances the so called victims are unaware of our involvement in their present hardships, it is not wise to attend any balls they may arrange because these 'lefties' can get quite 'testy'.
Our stance on the issue is; just because we didn't manage to get any real evidence on them to get a conviction, doesn't mean they weren't guilty. So while some of you may be feeling sorry for the tragic effect we had on their lives, don't forget which side of the fence you stand on because even though current trends are favouring their views, it doesn't mean that some time in the future we will be empowered to do it all again and you wouldn't want to find yourself in their position.
In times like this we should remind ourselves of the time honoured saying 'charity begins at home' and rather that give some of your hard earned booty back to the ones you screwed it out of, think of your loved ones. We have hard times before us, budgets will be cut, jobs will be sacrificed and in a few instances jail time to be served, so why feel sorry for those who are looking forward to better times?
Your time and money would be better spent propping up your local church because if things go really bad you can always go to them and claim sanctuary. After all they worked with us when we had the upper hand and you can point that out to them if they refuse to help you.
Therefore, if you are approached by the Victims of Alleged Sedition (VAS) and they want to hold you or the department (DEFERENS) responsible for compensation or they are asking awkward questions on how they could refinance themselves, you are authorized to give the official response, BALLS.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Judicial Audio Visual Ammendments (JAVA) Bill;1998
Ms LEE RHIANNON [8.28 p.m.]: The Greens do not support the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Amendment Bill. We recently supported a bill that regulated how child detainees can give evidence via audio and audiovisual links but this bill goes a step too far in dictating evidence procedures to the courts. The Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 has already trampled on the common law and the traditional practices of the court. The common law says that accused people have a right to appear in court to face charges against them, but that was changed by the 1998 Act. Because of that Act, there is now no automatic right to appear in court in preliminary proceedings. In fact, in those cases there is a presumption in favour of using an audiovisual link.With substantial criminal matters the presumption is still in favour of physical appearance, that is, accused people have the right to appear in court. But the bill makes further changes. The new rules would allow the court to use audiovisual links for an accused person if that person's physical attendance might threaten the security of the courtroom. This provision might sound reasonable to many members, but it is unnecessary. The courts are capable of making a decision whether an accused would threaten security, and there is no need for a law to spell that out. The courts are capable of assessing security threats and taking steps to deal with them, including the use of audiovisual links, and they have the authority and power to do so.The bill is not just unnecessary it also creates new problems. Under proposed subsection 5BB (5) (d), one of the factors that might cause the judge to order the use of an audiovisual link is the accused's behaviour in custody. But the accused's behaviour in custody may be no guide to how they will behave in court. And it is not clear who will decide whether that behaviour might recur in court, or might threaten the court. Who will give a judge or a court the evidence about the accused's behaviour in detention and what it means for the courtroom's security? Will it be the Department of Corrective Services? If so, what will the procedures be for this? The Greens are concerned that the bill gives to the Department of Corrective Services considerable power over the rights of accused people to appear in court.The Hon. John Hatzistergos: It is a great thing.Ms LEE RHIANNON: The interjection of the Minister shows that he is one more Minister for Corrective Services who has gone the Woodham way. We urge the Government to remove this provision from the bill. The courts are the best arbiter of when and how audiovisual links should be used, and the matter should remain in their hands. It should not be in legislation, in regulations that we have not seen yet, or in the hands of the Department of Corrective Services.
Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Amendment Bill - 18/11/2003 - 2R - NSW Parliament
The Judicial Audio Visual Amendments (JAVA) Bill is where the chisel of George Bush's intrusive, controversial and potentially illegal Patriots act, meets the coalface of the average Australian's rights. As we are all aware, the November Elections in America will decide between, the more of the same policies of John McCain and the time for change approach of Barrack Obama. If the later manages to pull off the coupe of the century, then the Republican's won't be able to continue stacking the Supreme Court Judiciary and we are likely to see a repeal of the Acts that were ratified under the Bush Regime's. This could lead to Criminal Charges being laid against High Officials in the habit of ignoring peoples Human Rights in their pursuit of "Terrorists" and in Australia we could see a similar flow on effect.
Now it may seem strange to those of us who like to give people the benefit of the doubt but if for whatever reason you found yourself being survailed through the medium we have all come to know and love over the Bush and Howodd years, then wouldn't it be ironic if the tables were turned and the one's that have been ignoring other people's rights suddenly became subject to the same Amendment Bill they used against anyone they deemed to be 'unpatriotic'.
The term 'un-Australian is a subjective one, subject to the currant will of the people; if paranoid behaviour suddenly becomes un -Australian then under the current laws, as they stand now, anyone displaying those tenancies could be removed from the flock, placed under surveillance and tried in Kangaroo Courts without them ever knowing they were under suspicion. If I had of been a rampant Bushite, operating at a Govern-mental level over the last ten years then I would be trying my damndest to have the Judicial Audio Visual Amendment (JAVA) Bill, amended as the Greens have suggested or book my ticket to somewhere else in the world where my unusual skills might be more appreciated.
Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Amendment Bill - 18/11/2003 - 2R - NSW Parliament
The Judicial Audio Visual Amendments (JAVA) Bill is where the chisel of George Bush's intrusive, controversial and potentially illegal Patriots act, meets the coalface of the average Australian's rights. As we are all aware, the November Elections in America will decide between, the more of the same policies of John McCain and the time for change approach of Barrack Obama. If the later manages to pull off the coupe of the century, then the Republican's won't be able to continue stacking the Supreme Court Judiciary and we are likely to see a repeal of the Acts that were ratified under the Bush Regime's. This could lead to Criminal Charges being laid against High Officials in the habit of ignoring peoples Human Rights in their pursuit of "Terrorists" and in Australia we could see a similar flow on effect.
Now it may seem strange to those of us who like to give people the benefit of the doubt but if for whatever reason you found yourself being survailed through the medium we have all come to know and love over the Bush and Howodd years, then wouldn't it be ironic if the tables were turned and the one's that have been ignoring other people's rights suddenly became subject to the same Amendment Bill they used against anyone they deemed to be 'unpatriotic'.
The term 'un-Australian is a subjective one, subject to the currant will of the people; if paranoid behaviour suddenly becomes un -Australian then under the current laws, as they stand now, anyone displaying those tenancies could be removed from the flock, placed under surveillance and tried in Kangaroo Courts without them ever knowing they were under suspicion. If I had of been a rampant Bushite, operating at a Govern-mental level over the last ten years then I would be trying my damndest to have the Judicial Audio Visual Amendment (JAVA) Bill, amended as the Greens have suggested or book my ticket to somewhere else in the world where my unusual skills might be more appreciated.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
FUNDAMENTALY FLOORED!
In Dan Brown's best seller 'The Da Vinci Code', the reclusive author makes a meal out of the 'fact' that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus. My interest in this subject doesn't focus on wether Dan is a great writer or wether Jesus and Mary were married, that is speculative, but in why it upsets the fundamentalists so much. If they say they love the man they call their Lord, why wouldn't it fill their hearts with joy to indulge the concept that it might be true? If one of your dear friends died childless and someone came along with 'proof' of a possible, previously unknown, love affair, marriage or offspring, what sort of friend would you be if you were appalled by that chapter of his life and refused to entertain the idea? So with that in mind, I ask your indulgence to look at what we know and what we should think about, if we are to have a valid opinion on a subject that seems to occupy the thoughts of billions of peoples.
The fundamentalist say the New Testament is the infallible word of God, they quote it regularly and are prepared to ram it down the throats of any unsuspecting heathen they come across. So, no matter what you think of it personally, let's scrutinize it for any references on what it has to say in regards to whether or not we have been sold a pile of horse poo or not. The first thing that occurs to me is that Jesus, as an eligible aged man, doesn't seem to have a problem associating with women, he even seems to to relate to them as human beings worthy of respect and consideration. He doesn't rebuke them for touching the hem of his garment nor condemn them for, so called, illicit behaviour, his travelling companions seemed to have wives and the Rabbis of the day, of which he was one, were expected to be married family men.
When he agrees to attend the wedding at Canna, the place where is said to have turned water into wine, he seems to hold the honoured position of the man in charge of the wine. This is a responsibility usually reserved for the groom and it was then he began to refer to Himself as the Bridegroom. After that he holidays with Mary at the home of a friend on the Sea of Galilee and rebukes the host for not wanting her in their party. She wipes his feet with her hair, anoints his head with oil, runs out to greet him when they were both staying at Martha's place and is predominant at the crucifixion, possibly with child. These are all activities one would normally attribute to a wife, so with absolutely no references in the New Testament to indicate he wasn't married, what possible reason could the fundamentalists have for not wanting us to believe he was?
Could it possibly be that they have an ulterior motive? Would they actually choose lies over truth to promote some secret agenda or is it that they are so deluded by their prejudices against women, that with no evidence what so ever, they could pass judgement on a widow and orphan's claims for legitimacy. Sadly, I must say, after looking at all the evidence and considering their historical record of bad behaviour, that the fundamentalists really don't have a case when it comes to challenging Dan Brown.
The fundamentalist say the New Testament is the infallible word of God, they quote it regularly and are prepared to ram it down the throats of any unsuspecting heathen they come across. So, no matter what you think of it personally, let's scrutinize it for any references on what it has to say in regards to whether or not we have been sold a pile of horse poo or not. The first thing that occurs to me is that Jesus, as an eligible aged man, doesn't seem to have a problem associating with women, he even seems to to relate to them as human beings worthy of respect and consideration. He doesn't rebuke them for touching the hem of his garment nor condemn them for, so called, illicit behaviour, his travelling companions seemed to have wives and the Rabbis of the day, of which he was one, were expected to be married family men.
When he agrees to attend the wedding at Canna, the place where is said to have turned water into wine, he seems to hold the honoured position of the man in charge of the wine. This is a responsibility usually reserved for the groom and it was then he began to refer to Himself as the Bridegroom. After that he holidays with Mary at the home of a friend on the Sea of Galilee and rebukes the host for not wanting her in their party. She wipes his feet with her hair, anoints his head with oil, runs out to greet him when they were both staying at Martha's place and is predominant at the crucifixion, possibly with child. These are all activities one would normally attribute to a wife, so with absolutely no references in the New Testament to indicate he wasn't married, what possible reason could the fundamentalists have for not wanting us to believe he was?
Could it possibly be that they have an ulterior motive? Would they actually choose lies over truth to promote some secret agenda or is it that they are so deluded by their prejudices against women, that with no evidence what so ever, they could pass judgement on a widow and orphan's claims for legitimacy. Sadly, I must say, after looking at all the evidence and considering their historical record of bad behaviour, that the fundamentalists really don't have a case when it comes to challenging Dan Brown.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
JESUS, A NO NONSENSE GUY.
Now I am not trying to evangelise anybody to any particular brand of fundamentalism nor convince anyone about the historical existence of the man whose name has be bandied about more than all others put together, but I would like to analyse what we have been told and what we have been kept in the dark about.
Firstly let's look at the contextual history of the period he is said to have been born in. The Greeks had set the stage with Alexander’s great rampage through long standing Eastern cultures, murdering, raping and generally pillaging their way through ancient cities, rearranging their lives, languages and capital naming programs. They then went on to acquire the rights to claim they created the architecture, political ideas and philosophies of the then known world.
The big one, that went on to affect our story, was the translation of the Hebrew Sacred Texts into the Septuagint, a Greek language version of the Old Testament. This work was mainly done by Maccabean Hebrew scholars working in Egypt’s Alexandria library system under the eyes of the ruling class Ptolemy’s. No other single act could possibly have done more to set the stage for the resurgence of the concept that a messiah was to be born at Bethlehem and be crucified for the salvation of the believers of that ideal.
Needless to say, many Greek speaking peoples converted to Judaism in the hope that they would be partakers of the promised New Zion. So by the time Julius Caesar had almost finished his rampage around the Mediterranean and was favouring joining with the Ptolemy’s to rule the world, Jerusalem became the focus of attention. Up until then the rundown backwater mountain rebel base had been overlooked. With Cleopatra’s connections into the Parthian controlled Aramaic speaking Palestine, the then modern cities of Caesarea and Jerusalem sprung into existence and with her new general Mark Antony by her side and Herod’s Sadducees living well under their protection, they began their campaign for world domination. But as history records, the plan began to unravel with their defeat at Actium.
The Octavian led Romans then moved in to occupy Jerusalem and to settle down what was left of the defeated remains of J.C’s, Cleo’s, Mark Antony’s and Herod the now Great’s shattered followers. Amazingly enough they all claimed to be Jewish. (oh, how history repeats itself). Soon Mary was pregnant and couldn’t name the father and Cleopatra’s mystery cult of Virgin’s didn’t have a benefactor. So our famous donkey led trio, high tail it out of the area and lay low in Egypt while our hero grows into the well educated candidate for King of the Jews.
While Jesus was studying all the teachings of the Mystery Cults as well as the Talmud and the Septuagint: Octavian, now Caesar Augustus, and Herod the Great die. This opened the flood gate for all the illegitimate children of the ex-rules to begin arguing over who was going to be the next Great leader. Herod Archelaus was the first to be installed but didn’t last long and young Tiberius inherited Rome, so by the time Jesus began his run for the job Archelaus was dead and Tiberius, in exile. Herod Antipas and his mate Caligula were running the show and what a mess they were making of it. Saul, the leader of the Sadducees (later Paul author of the New Testament), had thrown his hat into the ring with a direct challenge to Jesus and his Esseanes faction.
This all tells a vastly different story to the one we have been fed down the years and it’s enough for me to ignore the politics of it all and look directly at the teachings of Jesus as an enlightened man of his time. We have in the Q documents an independent, reliable source of what those teachings were because they are backed up with actual fragments of notes that were taken while he was speaking to the masses on the Mount and in the Plains. So independently of Churches, factions and “learned scholars” we can assess him and what he taught for ourselves. If you don’t have a copy of these, any accepted translation of the sermon on the mount is a good guide.(Mathew: 5-8)
Up front I think it is safe to say he was anti-Fascist, anti-establishment, peace loving advocate for the poor and the down and out. His solid body of work indicates he was an intelligent, articulate, moral campaigner for the rights of women and children to live in a world that isn’t dominated by Fundamentalists who would hold the letter of the law over their heads like a sword to slay anyone who disagrees with their interpretation. His no nonsense style convinces me he was a man who was prepared to put his money where his mouth was and that he didn’t suffer hypocrites. I gather his style of government would have been an Ecumenical one incorporating all factions concerned and would include women and gays. He was a man of the people, ready to stick it to the powers that be, in an attempt to attain rights for the underprivileged and marginalized in the mix.
Unfortunately, He was betrayed by all those who went on to become players in the debacle that followed his crucifixion and would have no more agreed to what was done in his name than He would have condoned or endorsed the church authorities of His day. In an attempt to not turn this into a sermon or a long boring story, the point of it is to encourage those who would like to study the mans work without the associated stigma of being a religious nutcase and to call those who have misinterpreted the mans work, into a formula for oppressing those who don’t buy it, to rethink what it is they are preaching.
So rather than dismiss Jesus as a future irrelevance or go on to continue using His name in vain, please consider this a plea for common sense and think well of the man who put his life on the line, when he could of just cashed in like the rest. Don’t ride off His teachings anymore than you would Buddha's or Gandhi’s or John Lennon’s and when you are really peeved at the way Christian’s go about their business don’t blame Him , just think of Jesus, a no nonsense guy.
Firstly let's look at the contextual history of the period he is said to have been born in. The Greeks had set the stage with Alexander’s great rampage through long standing Eastern cultures, murdering, raping and generally pillaging their way through ancient cities, rearranging their lives, languages and capital naming programs. They then went on to acquire the rights to claim they created the architecture, political ideas and philosophies of the then known world.
The big one, that went on to affect our story, was the translation of the Hebrew Sacred Texts into the Septuagint, a Greek language version of the Old Testament. This work was mainly done by Maccabean Hebrew scholars working in Egypt’s Alexandria library system under the eyes of the ruling class Ptolemy’s. No other single act could possibly have done more to set the stage for the resurgence of the concept that a messiah was to be born at Bethlehem and be crucified for the salvation of the believers of that ideal.
Needless to say, many Greek speaking peoples converted to Judaism in the hope that they would be partakers of the promised New Zion. So by the time Julius Caesar had almost finished his rampage around the Mediterranean and was favouring joining with the Ptolemy’s to rule the world, Jerusalem became the focus of attention. Up until then the rundown backwater mountain rebel base had been overlooked. With Cleopatra’s connections into the Parthian controlled Aramaic speaking Palestine, the then modern cities of Caesarea and Jerusalem sprung into existence and with her new general Mark Antony by her side and Herod’s Sadducees living well under their protection, they began their campaign for world domination. But as history records, the plan began to unravel with their defeat at Actium.
The Octavian led Romans then moved in to occupy Jerusalem and to settle down what was left of the defeated remains of J.C’s, Cleo’s, Mark Antony’s and Herod the now Great’s shattered followers. Amazingly enough they all claimed to be Jewish. (oh, how history repeats itself). Soon Mary was pregnant and couldn’t name the father and Cleopatra’s mystery cult of Virgin’s didn’t have a benefactor. So our famous donkey led trio, high tail it out of the area and lay low in Egypt while our hero grows into the well educated candidate for King of the Jews.
While Jesus was studying all the teachings of the Mystery Cults as well as the Talmud and the Septuagint: Octavian, now Caesar Augustus, and Herod the Great die. This opened the flood gate for all the illegitimate children of the ex-rules to begin arguing over who was going to be the next Great leader. Herod Archelaus was the first to be installed but didn’t last long and young Tiberius inherited Rome, so by the time Jesus began his run for the job Archelaus was dead and Tiberius, in exile. Herod Antipas and his mate Caligula were running the show and what a mess they were making of it. Saul, the leader of the Sadducees (later Paul author of the New Testament), had thrown his hat into the ring with a direct challenge to Jesus and his Esseanes faction.
This all tells a vastly different story to the one we have been fed down the years and it’s enough for me to ignore the politics of it all and look directly at the teachings of Jesus as an enlightened man of his time. We have in the Q documents an independent, reliable source of what those teachings were because they are backed up with actual fragments of notes that were taken while he was speaking to the masses on the Mount and in the Plains. So independently of Churches, factions and “learned scholars” we can assess him and what he taught for ourselves. If you don’t have a copy of these, any accepted translation of the sermon on the mount is a good guide.(Mathew: 5-8)
Up front I think it is safe to say he was anti-Fascist, anti-establishment, peace loving advocate for the poor and the down and out. His solid body of work indicates he was an intelligent, articulate, moral campaigner for the rights of women and children to live in a world that isn’t dominated by Fundamentalists who would hold the letter of the law over their heads like a sword to slay anyone who disagrees with their interpretation. His no nonsense style convinces me he was a man who was prepared to put his money where his mouth was and that he didn’t suffer hypocrites. I gather his style of government would have been an Ecumenical one incorporating all factions concerned and would include women and gays. He was a man of the people, ready to stick it to the powers that be, in an attempt to attain rights for the underprivileged and marginalized in the mix.
Unfortunately, He was betrayed by all those who went on to become players in the debacle that followed his crucifixion and would have no more agreed to what was done in his name than He would have condoned or endorsed the church authorities of His day. In an attempt to not turn this into a sermon or a long boring story, the point of it is to encourage those who would like to study the mans work without the associated stigma of being a religious nutcase and to call those who have misinterpreted the mans work, into a formula for oppressing those who don’t buy it, to rethink what it is they are preaching.
So rather than dismiss Jesus as a future irrelevance or go on to continue using His name in vain, please consider this a plea for common sense and think well of the man who put his life on the line, when he could of just cashed in like the rest. Don’t ride off His teachings anymore than you would Buddha's or Gandhi’s or John Lennon’s and when you are really peeved at the way Christian’s go about their business don’t blame Him , just think of Jesus, a no nonsense guy.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
PETER & PAUL: SATANS or SAINTS?
How much do we really know about the founders of fundamental Christianity and the main contributors to the New Testament? Should we unquestionably accept their claims to be "ordained" as to speak to us through documents of uncertain origin, as the "infallible" word of GOD?
Firstly, they use alias's; Peter changed his name from Simon just after Jesus said to him "Get behind me SATAN, you are a ROCK in my path, your thoughts are those of man, not God." (Mathew 16:23) and in (Mathew 26:34) before his LORD noted; when needed the most, PETER, SIMON, SATAN or whatever he wanted to call himself, would deny knowing Him three times in a row. What a sleaze-bag! Paul, on the other hand "real name" Saul, sets himself up in direct opposition to Jesus (the descendant of David) in His quest to become King of the Jews. After Saul and his best mates make sure "the Christ" is nailed to a cross "for your salvation", he then begins a ten year campaign to exterminate every follower of Jesus he could find. This man was a deluded, mass murdering, maniac who was eventually stopped by Jesus' Damascus faction and while he was rotting in jail, decided to write apologetics styled letters which eventually became the main ingredient for the doctrines of the fundamental Christian church of today.
Saul, dressed as a ruling class Sadducee, would have stood out like a sore thumb in a rural setting; Peter, on the other hand dressed as a fisherman, an ideal disguise if you were try to infiltrate a peasant based cult of the day. They are almost indistinguishable in that they always seem to be in the same place, at the same time, right up their deaths in Rome as elderly men.
Satan could not have done a better job in setting up a CHURCH to dominate and rule this world from. What a perfect place for an Evil Dark Lord to preside from, holding the key's that keep people locked into a subservient, judgemental, bigoted and biased, woman suppressing, gay bashing, misogynistic organization with more wealth and power than Caesar, Napoleon or even Hitler could have ever dreamed of.
My opinion ,for what it's worth, is that Jesus, God bless His soul, would have been ap-paul-ed at having his name associated with that style of establishment. If they had of tried to kill Him with a Guillotine or a Gas Chamber, would you walk around with a representation of that around your neck as a sign that you have been saved by it and the actions of a bunch of evil men?
Firstly, they use alias's; Peter changed his name from Simon just after Jesus said to him "Get behind me SATAN, you are a ROCK in my path, your thoughts are those of man, not God." (Mathew 16:23) and in (Mathew 26:34) before his LORD noted; when needed the most, PETER, SIMON, SATAN or whatever he wanted to call himself, would deny knowing Him three times in a row. What a sleaze-bag! Paul, on the other hand "real name" Saul, sets himself up in direct opposition to Jesus (the descendant of David) in His quest to become King of the Jews. After Saul and his best mates make sure "the Christ" is nailed to a cross "for your salvation", he then begins a ten year campaign to exterminate every follower of Jesus he could find. This man was a deluded, mass murdering, maniac who was eventually stopped by Jesus' Damascus faction and while he was rotting in jail, decided to write apologetics styled letters which eventually became the main ingredient for the doctrines of the fundamental Christian church of today.
Saul, dressed as a ruling class Sadducee, would have stood out like a sore thumb in a rural setting; Peter, on the other hand dressed as a fisherman, an ideal disguise if you were try to infiltrate a peasant based cult of the day. They are almost indistinguishable in that they always seem to be in the same place, at the same time, right up their deaths in Rome as elderly men.
Satan could not have done a better job in setting up a CHURCH to dominate and rule this world from. What a perfect place for an Evil Dark Lord to preside from, holding the key's that keep people locked into a subservient, judgemental, bigoted and biased, woman suppressing, gay bashing, misogynistic organization with more wealth and power than Caesar, Napoleon or even Hitler could have ever dreamed of.
My opinion ,for what it's worth, is that Jesus, God bless His soul, would have been ap-paul-ed at having his name associated with that style of establishment. If they had of tried to kill Him with a Guillotine or a Gas Chamber, would you walk around with a representation of that around your neck as a sign that you have been saved by it and the actions of a bunch of evil men?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT:
Way back in the past we used to have a very sensible saying that kept the peace within family units and the wider community. When ever a child was chasing a sibling around with murder on their mind, because of some "wrong" that had been done to them, a wise parental figure would take him or her aside and explain; 'just because Johnny had been naughty it didn't make it O.K to do whatever you want in retaliation'.
Now I think we could do with a resurgence of that type of thinking because it seems to me "responsible" adults have forgotten the basics of the premise. Just because a few of your army buddies get shot up whilst invading a foreign country doesn't mean you have the right to blow away a whole village of women and children; as happened in Vietnam in the 70's. Just because some bunch of crazies drive a plane into a building, doesn't mean you have the right to round up everyone with a tea towel on their head and torture them. Just because somebody kills someone doesn't mean you have the right to kill them. THAT is the way of Anarchy, and inevitably leads to a free for all or all out war.
It's bad enough that peaceful people have to put up with "terrorists" but then we have to put up with the maniacs who want to "retaliate" when the sensible approach would be to investigate before we run off half cocked and commit atrocities in the name of demon-ocracy. On the home front, it's not bad enough that we have to put up with "Serial Maniac's" but we have to put up with the hoards of CSI "Experts" who want to solve the problem by "Psychically Divining" the villain. Before you know it we will have a whole generation of "Freelance Dexters" running our "Justice System" and "Judge Judys" packing heat.
If you are of the mind set who thinks that would be a good idea, then I suggest you take a serious look at yourself and if you happen to get together with others who think the same then for goodness sake remind them of the good old saying that our sensible forbears used to quote 'two wrongs don't make a right
Now I think we could do with a resurgence of that type of thinking because it seems to me "responsible" adults have forgotten the basics of the premise. Just because a few of your army buddies get shot up whilst invading a foreign country doesn't mean you have the right to blow away a whole village of women and children; as happened in Vietnam in the 70's. Just because some bunch of crazies drive a plane into a building, doesn't mean you have the right to round up everyone with a tea towel on their head and torture them. Just because somebody kills someone doesn't mean you have the right to kill them. THAT is the way of Anarchy, and inevitably leads to a free for all or all out war.
It's bad enough that peaceful people have to put up with "terrorists" but then we have to put up with the maniacs who want to "retaliate" when the sensible approach would be to investigate before we run off half cocked and commit atrocities in the name of demon-ocracy. On the home front, it's not bad enough that we have to put up with "Serial Maniac's" but we have to put up with the hoards of CSI "Experts" who want to solve the problem by "Psychically Divining" the villain. Before you know it we will have a whole generation of "Freelance Dexters" running our "Justice System" and "Judge Judys" packing heat.
If you are of the mind set who thinks that would be a good idea, then I suggest you take a serious look at yourself and if you happen to get together with others who think the same then for goodness sake remind them of the good old saying that our sensible forbears used to quote 'two wrongs don't make a right
Sunday, October 12, 2008
DO NOT FUND-A-MENTAL.
Don't you just love it when those who take it upon themselves to lord it over the rest of us, for no other reason than just because they can, insist on having their way irregardless of weather or not what they say makes any sense at all. It must of happened to you at sometime or another, take for instance a "teacher" making the class study John Howodd's version of Australian History. It doesn't matter how ridiculous it is, you are "encouraged" to take it seriously.
I'm sure that's how it was back in Nicaea 325 AD , when the ground work was laid for the mess we have today in the Fund-a-mental Christian Church. What a joke! Talk about arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Who in their right mind could possibly think they could definitively decide on weather or not God was a "Father" before he had Jesus "His Son", the moment they "Big Banged" into existence, simultaneously or not?
Those men did not have the suitable education, qualifications, moral authority or neural capacity to set standards for today's society, irregardless of what the Pope or anyone else says. They were just under orders from the presiding dictator of the time to come up with a politically correct concoction to put an end to any of the then current regime's enemies. Constantine I was, by his own admission, not a religious man but he saw the "necessity" to have a body of men who could lord it over anyone who dared to challenge their ridiculous speculations.
Jesus himself, God bless his soul, would have been appalled by the concept that men He probably would have had no more respect for than the Pharisees and Sadducees of His time, could have had so much say in how His teaching would be presented to the masses. Yet we are coerced into "believing" they spoke as if He had of personally ordained them; what a crock! It's about time decent people everywhere put their foot down, not against sensible spiritual teachings but the incessant raving's of the presiding hierarchy that would have us believing "crap" rather than following sensible teachings.
I'm sure that's how it was back in Nicaea 325 AD , when the ground work was laid for the mess we have today in the Fund-a-mental Christian Church. What a joke! Talk about arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Who in their right mind could possibly think they could definitively decide on weather or not God was a "Father" before he had Jesus "His Son", the moment they "Big Banged" into existence, simultaneously or not?
Those men did not have the suitable education, qualifications, moral authority or neural capacity to set standards for today's society, irregardless of what the Pope or anyone else says. They were just under orders from the presiding dictator of the time to come up with a politically correct concoction to put an end to any of the then current regime's enemies. Constantine I was, by his own admission, not a religious man but he saw the "necessity" to have a body of men who could lord it over anyone who dared to challenge their ridiculous speculations.
Jesus himself, God bless his soul, would have been appalled by the concept that men He probably would have had no more respect for than the Pharisees and Sadducees of His time, could have had so much say in how His teaching would be presented to the masses. Yet we are coerced into "believing" they spoke as if He had of personally ordained them; what a crock! It's about time decent people everywhere put their foot down, not against sensible spiritual teachings but the incessant raving's of the presiding hierarchy that would have us believing "crap" rather than following sensible teachings.
Friday, October 10, 2008
D-coding social programming.
The things we’re not told about, in everyday life, could fill an encyclopedia and probably should although the obvious ones dangle before us like camouflaged dirigibles in a clouded sky. They are there to be seen by the ones who’ve had them pointed out, but to all others totally invisible. Take for instance surveillance cameras; if you happen to be one of the privileged few who know of the location of the said item, then there is no way you would do anything wrong in front of it no mater what your personal habits were, but if you have never had it pointed out then you could become the one caught picking your nose in front of it.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for catching bad guys and putting them out of the way for rehabilitation but don’t you think we have gone totally overboard when it comes to targeting the ones who aren’t in on the secret, and have forgotten about the fact that seasoned criminals would have intimate knowledge of where the cameras were or at least aware of the possibility of their presence. This can lead to the unacceptable situation of unsavoury types masquerading as good guys and end up being in charge of the very cameras surveilling you!
In the interest of common sense and crime prevention, it is my opinion, adequately notifying people about the existence of methods in place to monitor their behaviour is infinitely better than the sneaky approach. If you are concerned about crime in your area, then it is my experience an open approach is the way to go and never trust an organization who wants to protect you via the use of a secret society; not even if they say they are going to keep you informed, because the chances are they will not.
Even though current trends have been towards the largest build up of unscrupulous methods for Law enforcement the world has ever known, there are still those advocating more of the same and until good people, everywhere or anywhere, voice an alternative view on the subject then I am afraid all we will ever get is a polarized society; as was in Europe in the 30’s & 40’s. It is not impossible that you could live to regret over empowering the secret service system, even if you are the best behaved of citizens.
On a lighter note; don’t you just love those Men In Black types driving around in their big, black Hummers with the tinted windows; don’t they make you feel sooo secure? If I had of presented myself on any Australian street, looking like that when I was a budding young Rev Head, they would have locked me up and thrown away the key. Now, for some reason, we equate them with the responsible ones who lock people up and throw away the key. Life’s funny isn’t it?
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for catching bad guys and putting them out of the way for rehabilitation but don’t you think we have gone totally overboard when it comes to targeting the ones who aren’t in on the secret, and have forgotten about the fact that seasoned criminals would have intimate knowledge of where the cameras were or at least aware of the possibility of their presence. This can lead to the unacceptable situation of unsavoury types masquerading as good guys and end up being in charge of the very cameras surveilling you!
In the interest of common sense and crime prevention, it is my opinion, adequately notifying people about the existence of methods in place to monitor their behaviour is infinitely better than the sneaky approach. If you are concerned about crime in your area, then it is my experience an open approach is the way to go and never trust an organization who wants to protect you via the use of a secret society; not even if they say they are going to keep you informed, because the chances are they will not.
Even though current trends have been towards the largest build up of unscrupulous methods for Law enforcement the world has ever known, there are still those advocating more of the same and until good people, everywhere or anywhere, voice an alternative view on the subject then I am afraid all we will ever get is a polarized society; as was in Europe in the 30’s & 40’s. It is not impossible that you could live to regret over empowering the secret service system, even if you are the best behaved of citizens.
On a lighter note; don’t you just love those Men In Black types driving around in their big, black Hummers with the tinted windows; don’t they make you feel sooo secure? If I had of presented myself on any Australian street, looking like that when I was a budding young Rev Head, they would have locked me up and thrown away the key. Now, for some reason, we equate them with the responsible ones who lock people up and throw away the key. Life’s funny isn’t it?
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Check this out!
The Religion Report - 3September2008 - Elite Fundamentism - The Fellowship's gospel of Capitalist Power
Search the ABC
ABC Home Radio Television News Your Local ABC More Subjects… Shop
Religion Report
on ABC Radio National
Search Religion Report
Home Past Programs Have Your Say Subscribe About Us Contact Us
3 September 2008
Elite Fundamentism - The Fellowship's gospel of Capitalist Power
Listen Now - 03092008
Search the ABC
ABC Home Radio Television News Your Local ABC More Subjects… Shop
Religion Report
on ABC Radio National
Search Religion Report
Home Past Programs Have Your Say Subscribe About Us Contact Us
3 September 2008
Elite Fundamentism - The Fellowship's gospel of Capitalist Power
Listen Now - 03092008
Three Quirks Daily
To the Head Priest,
Oxford branch of the Great Church of Reason.
In regards to your supplications to the Omnipresent God of Luck, Pure Chance.
You say there is no proof of intelligent design and natural selection is the alternative.
Natural Selection is proof of intelligent design because if there is something in the simplest of natures cells that allows it to select one way over another (choice) then that becomes the intelligence behind the design.
When you surmise 'there is no God' you ass-u-me that God is not in the Micro, to small for you to observe. The same basic mistake is made by assuming we big banged into existence out of nothing at some particular point in time.
If you were able to create at at a macro or micro level and observed one of your creatures confidently espousing, with much eloquence, there was no creator; how hard would you laugh?
P.S. If you think ridiculing old religious characters is proof of anything or just good fun, where do you stand on ridiculing old scientific has been's?
Oxford branch of the Great Church of Reason.
In regards to your supplications to the Omnipresent God of Luck, Pure Chance.
You say there is no proof of intelligent design and natural selection is the alternative.
Natural Selection is proof of intelligent design because if there is something in the simplest of natures cells that allows it to select one way over another (choice) then that becomes the intelligence behind the design.
When you surmise 'there is no God' you ass-u-me that God is not in the Micro, to small for you to observe. The same basic mistake is made by assuming we big banged into existence out of nothing at some particular point in time.
If you were able to create at at a macro or micro level and observed one of your creatures confidently espousing, with much eloquence, there was no creator; how hard would you laugh?
P.S. If you think ridiculing old religious characters is proof of anything or just good fun, where do you stand on ridiculing old scientific has been's?
COCKROACHES AND CANE TOADS:
I'm not sure if the rest of the world is aware of the problems we face here on the east coast of Australia but I can assure you the war on feral pests has been waged here for longer than I care to remember. At least three times a year large groups of people mobilise to wipe out one or the other of the afore mentioned, non-indigenous nasties of dubious place of origin. Armies of club affiliated vigilantes patrol transport routes, parks and public spaces leaving no stone unturned in their quest to seek out the defeat and humiliation of the creatures they despise. Our national media organizations closely monitor the situation and many of their ranks have risen to the prominent positions they hold by participating in the activity themselves. Heads of government would not last long in their chosen careers if they failed to support one or another of the groups and drunken celebrations usually follow the peaks of activity.
The police forces, paramedics and most other public service organizations tend to turn a blind eye to the violence that quite often erupts right before their eyes, usually leaving it to a group of private citizens to run a makeshift judiciary to preside over the preceding's that frequently take place after some particularly nasty event. More often than not the perpetrators of some of the more serious offences get off with a short suspension from being allowed to participate in planed upcoming events and/or if they are under contract, an amount of their fee withheld. What I have described here is by no means over exaggerated, it goes on year after year as regular as clockwork and shows no sign of changing. You maybe under the misunderstanding that it is just men who participate in this public display of over blown enthusiasm, for what some might call a sport, but hordes of women and children also regularly attend and it is not unheard of for a grandmother to stand at the appropriate moment and hurl abuse at some official that ruled against to the mob.
Now while I'm not particularly fond of cockroaches or cane toads, I can see both sides of the story and from where I stand the whole thing has got way out of hand. What started as a pleasant past past time has deteriorated into a free for all, where the participation of obsessed adults has overridden any sensible approach to the problem. Surely in this day and age when the world is looking towards us as a model for planetary activities that would set standards in developing countries, we could better use our free time and vast resources to devote ourselves to the more important issues that face us and the rest of humanity.
The police forces, paramedics and most other public service organizations tend to turn a blind eye to the violence that quite often erupts right before their eyes, usually leaving it to a group of private citizens to run a makeshift judiciary to preside over the preceding's that frequently take place after some particularly nasty event. More often than not the perpetrators of some of the more serious offences get off with a short suspension from being allowed to participate in planed upcoming events and/or if they are under contract, an amount of their fee withheld. What I have described here is by no means over exaggerated, it goes on year after year as regular as clockwork and shows no sign of changing. You maybe under the misunderstanding that it is just men who participate in this public display of over blown enthusiasm, for what some might call a sport, but hordes of women and children also regularly attend and it is not unheard of for a grandmother to stand at the appropriate moment and hurl abuse at some official that ruled against to the mob.
Now while I'm not particularly fond of cockroaches or cane toads, I can see both sides of the story and from where I stand the whole thing has got way out of hand. What started as a pleasant past past time has deteriorated into a free for all, where the participation of obsessed adults has overridden any sensible approach to the problem. Surely in this day and age when the world is looking towards us as a model for planetary activities that would set standards in developing countries, we could better use our free time and vast resources to devote ourselves to the more important issues that face us and the rest of humanity.
CELIACS DIS-EASE: An intolerance to wheat.
I have had a feeling in my gut like I swallowed something rotten; It's not the type of complaint you would say necessitates an immediate purging, just the sense that some thing's been brewing down there for far to long and that it really should be fixed. It's a bit like the problem with the Australian Wheat Board, you know they gave Saddam Hussein all that money when the rest of the word was trying to bring him to heel by imposing crippling sanctions on his economy and that we spent heaps of money having a Royal Commission but despite all the good efforts towards a remedy, there's still the smell of off fish in the air.
Anyhow it turns out heaps of people have this condition known as Celiacs, it's an intolerance to wheat. You might have noticed the many products appearing on our supermarket shelves with the labelling 'Gluten free', that's the solution to the problem. All you have to do is monitor what goes into your belly and the problem goes away. Strangely enough that how they caught the A.W.B, they just monitored what was going in to Iraq and before you could say 'Johnnie's the rat' the situation started to improve.
Once you have been made aware of this, the ongoing problem requires a constant adherence to seeking out replacements for old habits because of the glutinous nature of anything associated with the offending substance can spark off another vile attack. You must of experienced something like it yourself? In Queensland we had a problem with peanuts, it just took one little crumb in a bakers dozen to infect the whole process, so you really had to watch what was going into your pumpkin scones. Now I find myself buying strange things like Pasta made out of corn, rice crackers without flavouring and when someone asks 'would you like some dressing on your salad?' I reply 'Is it gluten free?'
We really should have the same attitude towards the running of our countries affairs, when somebody asks 'would you like to buy some cars from us?' We should reply 'Are they carbon free?' And if someone wants to shove another single desk down our throat, we should collectively say 'Not if it's as gluttonous as the last one!' Good health doesn't come without a price, my grocery bill has gone up but my meals are staying down and last but not least; everybody loves a clown but you wouldn't want Crusty running your country. Stay vigilant but don't become a vigilante.
Anyhow it turns out heaps of people have this condition known as Celiacs, it's an intolerance to wheat. You might have noticed the many products appearing on our supermarket shelves with the labelling 'Gluten free', that's the solution to the problem. All you have to do is monitor what goes into your belly and the problem goes away. Strangely enough that how they caught the A.W.B, they just monitored what was going in to Iraq and before you could say 'Johnnie's the rat' the situation started to improve.
Once you have been made aware of this, the ongoing problem requires a constant adherence to seeking out replacements for old habits because of the glutinous nature of anything associated with the offending substance can spark off another vile attack. You must of experienced something like it yourself? In Queensland we had a problem with peanuts, it just took one little crumb in a bakers dozen to infect the whole process, so you really had to watch what was going into your pumpkin scones. Now I find myself buying strange things like Pasta made out of corn, rice crackers without flavouring and when someone asks 'would you like some dressing on your salad?' I reply 'Is it gluten free?'
We really should have the same attitude towards the running of our countries affairs, when somebody asks 'would you like to buy some cars from us?' We should reply 'Are they carbon free?' And if someone wants to shove another single desk down our throat, we should collectively say 'Not if it's as gluttonous as the last one!' Good health doesn't come without a price, my grocery bill has gone up but my meals are staying down and last but not least; everybody loves a clown but you wouldn't want Crusty running your country. Stay vigilant but don't become a vigilante.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)