Outback Soapbox - Have your say
What makes you happy, sad or mad?
Share it with us
What makes you happy, sad or mad?
Share it with us
(Home) (Outback kitchen) (outback Kids) (OutbackChristians) (Quorn) (Australian Animals) (Port Augusta)
Submit your say
support (at) vodahost.com
No attachments please just put your submission in body of email
support (at) vodahost.com
No attachments please just put your submission in body of email
| Is the Earth getting less light? |
| By now we have all heard about global warming, and how it is all due to our pollution. As bad as our pollution problem is, I wonder if the Earth getting warmer is all due to this factor alone? It is well known that the earth has suffered many fairly rapid climate changes in the past and not all of these were due to cataclysmic events, such as volcanoes or metoers either. Further more there is proof that the magnetic field and poles has undergone reversal in the past, probably will again soon and that this factor can change the earths weather too. LInk on magnetic field <http://www.raidersnewsnetwork.com/full.php?news=5365> What however has chanced to slip by all of the big voices in the climate change debate is the new evidence that the light reaching the earth's surface is decreasing. This link will take you to an article on the subject. http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1108853,00.html Does this mean it will get colder now? What we hear from the big voices on "Global warming" is only a small part of the scientific story. I suspect there is propaganda appearing in the community who is pushing for a world wide global tax to stop the planet from warming. However what happens if the major reason is not our pollution but our closeness to the sun and the diminishing magnetic field? All this aside I can't help but wonder if some things found in the Bible don't give us a clue to what is going on. I remember reading about the sun loosing a third of its light, ( Rev 8:12 ) What if that is happening now through 'Global dimming'? Was the author of this piece of scripture on to something? We may well be living in a time when this prophecy willl be fulfilled. At the end of the day I am no expert on science, but I do see the 'global warming' issue has more to it than just our filthy pollution. I am suspect that the fear being generated by certian sections of our community will be used for political gains, especially as pertaining to "One world government issues". - by Jacqueline Hancock |
| Cursing Creation? |
I am wondering of late if some of our scientists are bringing a curse on creation itself. I am not talking about 'witchcraft' type curses here but a curse none- the-less as they change the very DNA structure of created things. As a Christian I believe the Earth, even the Universe was created to a plan. This plan has rules, order and structure. Nature has properties set in place to sustain life. Gravity, magnetism, precipitation, transpiration etc. Each living thing has a code that determines its structure, its form and its function. For thousands of years these things have been able to run their course each replicating "after its own kind". In fact in Genesis we find the "law of reproduction" where each brings forth its own kind. This is why hybrids cannot breed, there was a code in the DNA that prevented the cross between the different Genus. Sure people over the centuries have "cross-bred" species but they are still "of the same kind" and so no natural law is broken. Now however we find scientists are being given increasingly free reign to cross anything they like. Animal and human genes into plants, human genes into animals and animal genes into humans. The distinction between one species and another are being blown away. All of this is being done at such an alarming rate we don't even have the time to discover what ramifications will occur from these changes. Just because something seems to have no "toxic effect" in a decade does not mean it will not have this effect in a generation. When you work on the molecular level changes can take a generation or more to show themselves. Think about Nuclear radiation, small doses may show no immediate effects but when you reproduce another generation you may have passed on a defect, as radiation can make changes at RNA, DNA levels. So many people say that what the scientists are doing is great because they are trying to cure disease, but I question this. Why would you change the whole nature of something to cure it. That is no cure at all. A cure is to make something whole again - restore it to its original form and function. Look at someone who has lost a limb. Giving them a fake arm may make them more functional but it is no cure. So by making a person part "pig" by giving them pig genes is not a cure its just a tempory measure to make them more functional. The genes may make that pancreas function for awhile but what about the next generation? Will the diabetic malfunction still be passed on or even worse will the pig genes somehow get into the reproductive system and pass on something else? You see it is no cure it is just a stop-gap measure because basically we don't have the capabilites to restore things to their original perfect form and function. Only God can do that. Scientists may make many so called "moral" claims about the nature of their work, but are the morals of the scientist the same as the morals of everyday people? Is the quest for funding dollars and the quest for making money from scientific discoveries turning the morals of the scientific community into the "the ends justifies the means"? If it is so then maybe someone ought to tell us just where all this genetic manipulation is going to end up. They are taking all of us on a journey to "no-one knows where". Will we be happy when we get there? Looking at what discoveries of the past have given us such as nuclear war, thalidamide and super resistant bugs such as golden staff - Well I think not! But that is just my opinion Jacqueline Hancock |
| Tolerance and our Multicultural society in the West. Does it really exist? |
| Tolerance is a great thing it enables people with different points of view to co-exist peacefully. I am all for tolerance that respects the right for each individual to express their views and live them out as long as it causes no harm to others. Obviously tolerance needs some boundaries, because not all points of view are harmless. Take for example the opinion that it is Ok to take someone elses possessions that they have worked hard for. We don't accept theft because we know it is not right. However I am questioning the boundaries that our pollitically correct society is now starting to errect around "modern tollerance". I am increasingly becoming concerned that they are turning "tolerance" into "intolerance" by supporting special minority groups agendas at the expense of others. How is this so? Well a good example is the current situation we have existing between the homosexual and heterosexual sectors of our community. To balance injustices of the past special predominance has been given to increase the right of the "gay community". While this may have been necessary to make sure they are no longer discriminated against as human beings, it now appears that anyone not in this community is loosing their rights to freedom of speach and freedom to support their different way of life. This is accomplished by using very emotional rhetoric against people who do not have homosexual tendacies. Anything which upsets the "gay community" is now being instantly branded as "hate speach" or an action leading to "hate". I feel this is very judgemental and narrow minded. Another example may be found in some Hindu or Muslim countries where they make it against the law to hold another faith view or to share an opposing faith view.. There is not much tolerance in this, but then they don't make claims to have a diverse multicultural country. They don't fall in the category of hypocracy because they are at least being honest in their stance and even if I don't agree with what they are doing I can admire conviction of belief. ...however in the West we pride ourselves on being tolerant and multicultural, yet we are increasingly failing to achieve this... People who believe in real tolerance and peace know it is possible to agree to disagree, but the immature individual who rushes to be "offended" lacks the ability to hold this wisdom. In America there is a case before the courts in which a group of Christians sought to use the same public bulletin board to promote their group. Their group was aimed at supporing people who have traditional family values and who believe that the current state laws that state "marriage is between a man and a women" are to be valued, explored and promoted. There was nothing on the bulletin that discredited people of other "views". They just stated their beliefs and goals of their group. see <http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon176.htm> by Christian Ryter Someone read it and got "offended". They took it to court and it was labelled as hate speach even though it is in line with the laws of their land. Now if that is how the law courts wish to view it, well so be it. However the same view in my opinion should be then used to jurisdict all groups who wish to promote their group activities in the public sector. This unfortunately is not the case because the "gay community" can, did and will continue to put up their advertising for everyone to come and support their rallies and events. Where is the equity, the equality and the tolerance in this court action. No crimes where commited after the posting of the adverts, no violence, no homophobic activity was recorded. The only thing that happened is that someone chose to be offended because someone had a view opposite to theirs. How often do you hear at the Footy boos and hisses when the Umpire reports one player for 'push in the back' and then 10 seconds later lets the opposition get away with it. We all acknowledg the need for consistancy, we all want a fair and level playing field in sport and in life.....Isn't that why we supported the rights of the gay community to not be made criminals for thier lifestyle. However things have now gone way beyond making them equal..... You see just as being tolerant is a choice so to is being offended. I can choose to let your view upset me or offend me or I can choose to agree to disagree. It's up to me. For example when I worked in the Wineries I would often have to visit maintenance who are well know for their "nude callendars" on their walls. It makes me feel uncomfortable to view this. However it is not up to me to tell them what to display. I would choose each time I went there not to be offended. I chose also not to look at them and not to have to stand next to them, but I never made them pay, or made management remove them to satisfy me. That is because I am tolerant, even though I think pornography is sick and wrong I don't make them pay, I however never let them put one up in my office because that is my "space". I would at the same time support any one of my staff in allowing them to not have to go to maintenance if they found the callanders too confronting, because I would not expect everyone to hold the same position as me. This is maturity and tolerance at work to maintian peace in a diverse workplace. I can also continue to choose what I am going to do about my "offended sensibilities". I can choose to extend to you your right to hold an opposite and percieved offensive view or I can choose to make you pay. Tolerance, real tolerance dedicated to real peace in society does not choose to make people pay a heavy penalty for a stated moral stance. (It does become a different situation where violence and continued persecution prevail, however that is not the case here. We are only talking about the right to hold and express our own "moral world views".) Increasingly we will find that true tolerance will dissappear due to "politically correct thinking" and the immature wailings of minority groups that really don't just want equality, they want it all. They want their way over and above your way. They don't want you to tolerate them at all they want you to be like them. Well we are not a homogenous monoculture. We are diverse by nature and it is time we grew up and spent more energy respecting the diversity that we currently spend on choosing to be "offended". As long as any minority group is intent in redefining the boundaries of someones elses domain they are not looking for equal rights they are persuing making their way right at the expense of someone else. Surley we are all 'big enough' to make room without stealing someone elses room? God extends the right to everybody to choose Him or deny Him. He allows you the choice, and he shows you the consequenses of your choices, but He never forces you to do either. Shouldn't we follow suit. Let the "gay community" have their lifestyle whether we like it or not, but at the same time they should let us have ours, along with the right to freedom of expression of what we are for. Let the centuries old definition of marriage stand, let us have our moral view. Let them invent their own words to describe their moral view. Then everyone has equality. Sad to say however I don't for a minute believe that the same tolerance will be extended back to me, because I belong to the one group that minority groups can be intolerant to. I am a member of the heterosexual Christian worldview and there are no laws that protect my right to have this view on a public platform such as the internet and I just wonder how long it will take for someone to choose to be offended by my view and make me pay. Posted June 21st 2007 how many days until you label me???????J. Hancock |
Pigs must go because they offend someone, eating cows could be outlawed in the west too. What's next? Heterosexuals cuddling on TV programs because it upsets others. Fly spray banned because Hindu Jahnists do not agree with killing any living thing? Would that mean antibiotics could be banned because bacteria is alive? This is not tolerance folks its madness. Lets all grow up and extend some acceptance that it is not healthy to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator. Hide those Whinnie the Pooh videos before someone sees them!
| Western Tolerance going mad? Pigs may fly.... Britain's Disappearing Pigs Human Events </p/articles/mi_qa3827>, Oct 10, 2005 </p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200510> by Spencer, Robert </p/search?tb=art&qt=%22Spencer%2C+Robert%22> |
Pigs are disappearing all over England, but not because of some porcine variant of mad cow disease. Rather, the most implacable foe of the swine is turning out to be multiculturalism. The latest assault came in the benefits department at Dudley Council, West Midlands, where employees were told they were no longer allowed to have any representations of pigs at their desks. Some had little porcine porcelain figurines. Others had toys or calendars of cute little pigs. One had a tissue box depicting Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. . All of this had to go, not because of some new anti-kitsch ordinance, but because Muslims might be offended-particularly now, what with Ramadan beginning. How could a pious Muslim in the Dudley Council, West Midlands, benefits department redouble his efforts to conform his life to the will of Allah with all these pigs staring him in the face? It was an insult! |
Not everyone is convinced that carbon emissions is the cause of global warming it seems. The Lavoisier group of scientists held a conference in Melbourne on June 29th and 30th. The topic "Carbon dioxide and its lack of influence in global warming". Some of the scientists involved were Will Alexander - Prof. Emeritus of Dept. Civil and Biosystems Engineering of the University of Pretoria. David Archibald - Perth based scientist operating in the fields of cancer research, climate science and exploration. Prof. Bob Carter - a research Professor at James Cook Universtiy (Qld.). Tim Curtin - a member of the Emeritus Faculty of the Australian National University and William Kininmonth - a consulting climatologist who worked with the Aust. Bureau of Meterology for 38 years in weather forecasting, for 12 years he was head of the National Climate Centre. Their conclusion is said to be that other factors are causing global warming and the trading of carbon will be an expensive waste of time which wont fix the problem because it is not causing it. Information found Stock journal care of Leon Ashby - chairman of Landholders Institute Mount Gambier. |
| Border control under threat of Global economics |
When traveling around australia you may have discovered that you cannot take your fruit and plants across some borders and rightly so as many growers work hard to keep their produce disease free. If you and I take fruit that has a disease or pest in it over the border we may well risk an entire industry that serves us with fresh produce. By keeping disease and pests out we also ensure that less chemicals are required in the production cycle which is good for everyone. What I want to know though is why the individual is prevented when the Global business community is not. China has proven recently (in the News) that many of their food products are not up to human standard yet they are getting an ever increasing open door to bring their produce to our land. If what they make is not upto world standards how can we be sure their fresh produce is checked properly for disease? Closer to home we find an issue with our ANZUS partner NZ who wish to flood our country with their apples. NZ has fireblight we don't. The powers that be say the risk is very low - yet we have been taught that our one or two pieces of fruit taken over internal borders may risk an entire industry. What is the truth? How can apples en-mass not be a high risk yet our couple of apples in our lunchbox are. Why do I feel like we are being lied to by somebody. Double standards make me sick and if we end up loosing our apple industry or if they have to increase their chemical load because of fireblight then we will all end up sick. City people time to tackle this with your country cousins. Start buying local produce, start demanding that Woolies and Coles etc source local, regional or Australian fruit. Put the pressure on after all they blame you the consumer for placing a demand in the first place. God gave our country natural border protection in the first place - the sea and the dry gaps inbetween the growing areas. Let us use this resource wisely, if we do we could end up with the worlds cleanest, greenest fruit and veg. If we cave into Global governance pressure we will end up with the same chemically burdened diseased fruit like the rest of the world. It's upto you and me by Jacqueline Hancock |
| Sustainability and the hypocray of Global economics |
| We see much today in the news about sustainability, how we should improve our use of natural resources and cut down on pollution. Yes it has all come from a crisis mentality of Global warming and carbon emissions which may not be the cause but even if it isn't it is time to clean up our act. We are far too reliant on petro-chemicals and we need to find other ways to live, especially in the West. Sustainabilty to me is making each local area as self-sufficient as possible. If we can make and grow things locally we don't need to waste fuel to transport it. If we sell local produce in bulk we can reduce packaging which uses petro-chemicals. If we stop importing fresh produce which can bring the threat of disease we can cut our chemical load. If we sink more dollars that are saved from trasport costs back into our agriculture we can then cultivate more indigenous foods which often need less water and chemicals etc etc. All sounds like common sense to me. Yet common sense is not so common amongst the "Global elite" that push continuously for 'global markets' and the increasing 'off-shore' mentality for all industry. Why do they call us to be sustainable but increasingly push our resources off shore? If growing locally, regionally and nationally makes more sense in regards to 'carbon emmissions' and petro-chemical usage why do they continously push to remove our boundaries which protect the local business community? I believe it is greed and you and I have a share in this. The stock market phenonemon is part of the problem. We invest in stocks, gamble on future tradings and create a demand for profits. This in turn creates a "creed of greed' for stock traders, company CEO's etc. Instead of trying to get rich quick and make 'industry monopolies' we should be investing our money back into our local and national community. What will happen 10 years from now when petrol is lacking and we have 'off-shored' our manufacturing industry? We will either go without or have to pay VERY high prices. What happens when most of our growers go out of business and we are then reliant for our food from off-shore. Yes we will go hungry. I can see now why the book of Revelation says a loaf of bread will cost you a bar of gold. Individuals can make a stand, we can make a difference. Start going to your local farmer markets. Make your Sunday drive a fun shopping trip by visiting local growing areas and buy your produce straight from the farm. Then think about what you can grow yourself! Let us show the Global Elite true sustainability they will hate it though because it wont make them rich or powerful. Now that I like! by Jacqueline Hancock |
