Just FYI: Australians don't drink Foster's. I especially don't, being pretty much a teetotaller, but I don't know any Australians who drink Foster's. XXXX ("Four X") or VB ("Victoria Bitters") are what I think of when I think of beer, to such an extent that I assumed that Foster's was an American beer. Afterall I never saw anyone drinking it, never heard anyone mention it, and never noticed it on tap in a bar; the only reason I was aware that it existed was Americans.

Thank you for your attention.

Now that I've got all the lefties upset I suppose I should explain myself. Let's play a little game of "Pick the Racist Statement":

Statement One:

"Let's encourage businesses to employ more white people."

Statement Two:

"Let's encourage businesses to employ more black people."

Why on Earth is one of these statements racist, but the other is the epitome of racial brotherhood? Of course some people, perhaps even most people, would say that it's to make up for all the disadvantages racial minorities suffer from. Well, that may be true*, but it doesn't make it any less racist, or to put it another way, it might be the lesser of two evils, but it's still an evil.

Also, did you ever think about how patronising a lot of forms of affirmative action are? How about scholarships for instance? I'd love to hear some one explain how paying black people money to do something that white people can do without any such reward is not patronising. It reminds me of how when I was a kid, the dentist would give me a sticker when I didn't try and bite his hand of, but doesn't now I'm an adult.

* I wouldn't be surprised if the real reason most people support affirmative action and the like was actually white guilt.

This story of a drunk copper infuriated me. Senior-Constable Adam Reedy pretty much spent the whole day getting drunk, then at the request of some of his fellow cops, he came on duty to perform a breath test! After this already rather serious infraction he then went back of duty, drunk some more, and then put himself back on duty to try and arrest a woman for apparently spitting¹ on him. This arrest attempt apparently escalated into a bar fight that resulted in the copper being hospitalised and eight people being charged, five with grievous bodily harm. Though according too witnesses it looks like the person that needs to be charged was the copper himself:

In court, Crown witnesses backed the defendants' claim that Reedy had directed racial comments at Aborigines in a bar and then dragged Ms Mitchell by her hair, pulling clumps out.

But, at least the they kicked this twit off the police force or at least suspended him temporarily? Right? Apparently not, according to the Courier-Mail, not only hasn't he been disciplined, but his has since been promoted. I can sort-of live with him being promoted, it has after all been three years since these events, and a bit of discipline might have been all that was needed to make him get his act together, but the article quite specifically states that "[Senior-Constable Reedy] has not been disciplined". What should have happened was Reedy and the "colleagues" that asked him to come on duty under the influence should all have been suspended for a fortnight without pay, for the first infraction. The later event should have resulted in a careful investigation of the circumstances and then dependant on the results of the investigation between another fortnight of suspension, up to being kicked of the police force or even criminal charges.

1. From this Article.

     YAMC: Hi, we are such caring and friendly people, therefore you should
           convert to Christianity.
     EST:  But, what if it's not true?
     YAMC: It is true we're really nice and always honest, and we told you that
           it was true, so you should believe.
     EST:  But, what about a serious logical argument for the Bible's historic
           accuracy?
     YAMC: Don't you worry about that, logic and history are subjects for
           scholars, not your every day man (or woman²).
           Anyway arguing with people is rather rude, you need to get beside them
           and be very careful not to offend them.
     EST:  Well I think I can safely say that Christianity is a religion for the
           mentally handicapped and little children. I think I'll stick with atheism.
     YAMC: What? But, we where so kind and friendly and careful not to offend.
 

Plus a caregroup is something you'd expect to find in the timetable of a hippie commune: "... And then every Thursday after tofu burgers we have a Caregroup, where we all get together in the peace hall and show each other how much we care." Don't get me wrong, I'm sure this Church is full of earnest Christians hoping to reach others for Christ, and it's really not too far gone, the teaching if just full of feel-good theology and all too little real spiritual food.

1. OK, I know trying to copy the culture of the time is not really that newer way for a Church to try and increase membership, but any Church that does this doesn't survive that long so it becomes something of a cycle and this is just the newest run of the same basic thing.

2. This is after all a modern, politically correct Church.