By Mario Schiavone
In Proverbs 22:28, God tells us, “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.” A landmark was a visible marker of land ownership. These landmarks were either in the form of wooden posts or rocks piled on top of one another.
Because of the possibility of these landmarks being moved, owners would bury (in a sealed container) the property “Title Deeds” directly below one of the visible landmarks. This secured the true boundaries of a person’s land. We need to be careful lest we move spiritual landmarks from our lives.
Our visible biblical principles should be founded in the Word of God (Title Deed). It is possible to move off the foundation of the Word of God. One area of shifting today among Christians is within our Lord’s charge in Luke 14:27: “And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”
One of the ancient landmarks that God has set for His people is to follow the example of our Lord Jesus, Who was willing to carry His cross (for our sins). The cross speaks of death, sacrifice, surrender, self-denial and selflessness. This is a requirement for the disciple of Jesus Christ.
Christianity today is moving further away from this, into a cross-less life, a life of self-focus and self-centeredness. This is not evident in the lives of mature spiritual Christians. In fact, men like the Apostle Paul echoed the PRINCIPLE of our Lord Jesus Christ in Galatians 2:20 – “I am crucified with Christ…” What about Philippians 1:21? – “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”
Yes, social networking can be “all about you.” This is so contrary to what our Lord demanded of His disciples. “Whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple” – Luke 14:27.
Please consider the following principles when social networking:
1. Who is the focus? Is it you or Jesus Christ? Hebrews 12:2; Colossians 3:1-2.
2. How much time do you spend in social networking compared to your daily walk with God, growing spiritually, church attendance, fulfilling your responsibilities and in Christian service? Ephesians 5:16.
3. What are you communicating? Are you gossiping, lying, exaggerating, critical, carnal, tale bearing or
simply being a busybody? Ephesians 4:29.
4. Friends? Are you building real friendships or are you just collecting ‘’plastic’’ friends? Do you really know these people? Are you building real personal relationships? Proverbs 18:24.
5. Association/company? Do you really know all those that you are identifying with? Are they spiritual? Are they godly? Do they hold your standards on key issues such as music, purity and foundational Bible doctrine? 1 Corinthians 15:33.
6. Addiction/control? Who is in control? Romans 6:11-14.
7. Reality or escape? Is this the real world where you should live, or are you purposely living outside of that? 1 John 2:15-17.
8. Fleshly or spiritual? What are you feeding, your sinful flesh or your spirit? Galatians 5:16-26.
9. Authorities in your life? Would you be ashamed if your parents and spiritual leaders knew what you are
posting and saying? Ephesians 6:1-2; Hebrews 13:7,17.
10. Truth /Accuracy/Privacy? Are these being compromised in some way through what is being portrayed or said? John 8:44; Ephesians 4:25.
11. The Old Life? One of the glaring dangers of social networking is the possibility of being re-connected with sinful people, places and habits from the past. What does the Bible encourage us to do with the sinful
lifestyle of the past? 2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 3:13-14.
Edited from an article in “Heads Up” magazine, originally appearing in the Sharpened Arrows magazine
Social Media Etiquette: 12 Step Checklist
As a communication tool, social media has a key role in society. On one hand, I embrace it. But on the other, I reject it.
I love social media for all the reasons many people do: I can connect with others who would normally be hard to reach, I can communicate quickly and creatively, I can ﬁnd out what others are doing, and I can learn.
But there’s still a lack of etiquette many people possess when using social media. On sites like Twitter and Facebook, do all old-school means of social etiquette get thrown out the window? Or do most people not even know what classiﬁes as proper social etiquette to begin with?
A recent discussion with Lisa Filpi Goeckler, who has a new social media endeavor with ON Food, a startup in Beverly Hills that partners with fitness professionals and real people offering all-in-one food solutions, led me to contemplate this. Lisa’s shared a few stories with me, the first occurring a few months ago when she found out about her good friend and co-worker’s death.
“There I was, sipping coffee one morning, when I saw a post from another former co-worker on Facebook,” Goeckler said. “It read something like, ‘Today, as I ride down the street on my bike, I think about how thankful I am to be alive. It is incidences like what happened to Brad this past weekend that make one stop, reﬂect, and cherish life.’ I thought to myself, ‘That seems odd, what is he referring to? Is this the Brad I know? Did something happen to him?’”
It was quickly confirmed through a string of Facebook messages that Goeckler’s friend died of a major heart attack. “I was not keen on the way I found out about the death,” she said. “It seemed so impersonal.”
A few months later, Goeckler found out–also through social media–that a relative of hers had breast cancer. She says that finding this out via social media–not a phone call–was a disconnected and impersonal way to ﬁnd out such serious news.
Both of the circumstances combined made me reconsider how we use social media. These two incidences were much bigger life events that may not have a place being blasted through with Facebook posts.
I do feel social media is valuable in many ways. But maybe we should teach etiquette to guide people on the best ways to use it as a communication tool. After all, like most technology, social media has been hoisted on our world with little or no instruction.
I encourage everyone to think before communicating through social media. Goeckler says everyone should ask themselves the following 12 questions before posting:
- Should I target a speciﬁc audience with this message?
- Will anyone really care about this content besides me?
- Will I offend anyone with this content? If so, who? Does it matter?
- Is this appropriate for a social portal, or would it best be communicated another way?
- How many times have I already posted something today? (More than three can be excessive.)
- Did I spell check?
- Will I be okay with absolutely anyone seeing this?
- Is this post too vague? Will everyone understand what I’m saying?
- Am I using this as an emotional dumping ground? If so, why? Is a different outlet better for these purposes?
- Am I using too many abbreviations in this post and starting to sound like a teenager?
- Is this reactive communication or is it well thought-out?
- Is this really something I want to share, or is it just me venting?
Run through these 12 questions in your mind–before clicking “post.” Trust me–you’ll be happy you double-checked before sharing with the world.
Original article here
The Hobbit protagonist Bilbo Baggins. JRR Tolkien’s Shire prospered despite having hardly any government. Photograph: Allstar/New line Cinema/SportsPhoto
Those who believe in a small state and self-regulated markets could claim JRR Tolkien and Elinor Ostrom as two of their own.
This year’s Christmas blockbuster looks likely to be the first part of the Hobbit trilogy, which is released this week. JRR Tolkien‘s prequel to the Lord of the Rings follows the story of Bilbo Baggins, plucked from his comfortable life in the Shire to accompany treasure-seeking dwarves on an adventure.
Tolkien became a cult figure among hippies in the 1960s, for whom LOTR worked on a number of levels: peace-lovers versus warmongers; military-industrial complex versus local smallholders; the lust for power versus individual freedom. These days he would have celebrated the victory of the people of Totnes in their campaign to keep a branch of Costa out of their town.
Yet those who believe in a small state and self-regulated markets could also claim Tolkien as one of their own. The Shire had hardly any government: families, for the most part, managed their own affairs and the only real official was the mayor, who oversaw the postal service and the watch.
Hobbits enjoyed a pipe and a mug of ale: it is unlikely Tolkien would have been a fan of smoking bans and minimum unit prices for alcohol. Like Elinor Ostrom, he might even have been invited to deliver the Hayek lecture at the UK’s bastion of free-market thinking, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA).
Ostrom, who died this year, became the first woman to win the Nobel prize for economics in 2009. Her work on the governance of common-pool resources, such as forests and fisheries, was based on studying communities to see what worked rather than on highly complex models. She concluded there was no “one right” way to do things but, in the main, the best solutions were where communities developed their own approach to managing common resources.
This was a message that went down well with those on the left for whom what has become known as the “tragedy of the commons” in the developing world is the result of privatisation, which has allowed companies to deplete resources in pursuit of short-term profitability.
But Ostrom was no great fan of big government either. She considered the EU’s common fisheries policy an unmitigated disaster, viewing with horror the attempt to have one set of rules from the Mediterranean to the Baltic. This went down rather well with economic liberals, and helps explain why the IEA is publishing a monograph based on Ostrom’s Hayek lecture. This explores whether there is a way of managing the commons that avoids the perils of market failure and of government regulation. Interestingly, it contains commentaries both from free-marketeers such as Mark Pennington of King’s College London and from Christina Chang of the Catholic aid agency Cafod.
Ostrom would have been pleased by this rare meeting of minds across the political spectrum. She talked about the “panacea problem” – policymakers’ belief that there was a “best way” of doing things. “For many purposes, if the market was not the best way, people used to think that the government was the best way. We need to get away from thinking about very broad terms that do not give us the specific detail that is needed to really know what we are talking about,” she said.
Governance systems that worked in practice were not those that stemmed from a theory of what ought to work but had, on the contrary, evolved from local conditions. “There is a huge diversity out there, and the range of governance systems that work reflects that diversity. We have found that government-, private- and community-based mechanisms all work in some settings.”
While careful not to fall into the trap of saying community-based systems always work best, Ostrom says there are many examples of local solutions that have husbanded resources carefully and avoided ecological damage. Her work suggests community-based approaches work best when there are clear boundaries to the resource – the pasture contained in a Swiss Alpine valley, for example – and where the local people draw up rules they deem appropriate, police them, and have an accepted mechanism for settling disputes and punishing those who transgress.
Self-organisation tends to work if there is a high level of trust and if the communities are allowed to develop their own rules. They then tend to be concerned about ensuring that the resource still exists for future generations, thus avoiding over-exploitation. Local monitoring is crucial, Ostrom she suggests. “The local people pay attention to what is happening in the forest if they have some rights to collect.”
It is easy to see why Ostrom appeals to those on the left who believe in localism and collective solutions to problems that are not administered by the state. What is less obvious is why a body like the IEA should be excited by her work. The answer, according to the thinktank’s editorial director, Philip Booth, is that “in no sense do Professor Ostrom’s ideas conflict with the idea of a free economy”.
“To the left, perhaps, the community management of a resource is the acceptable face of a free economy like a mutual bank or co-operative retail outlet, but it is no less free for that,” he adds. If there is a congruence of thinking between left and right exemplified by Ostrom, it is in the concern about “bigness” in all its forms. Her message is that policies that go with the grain of local communities tend to work, while those that rely on the restraint of multinational corporations or the wisdom of officials tend not to.
In the question-and-answer session at the end of her lecture, Ostrom was asked whether it was possible to adapt an approach that worked for the management of fisheries and forests to tackling climate change. While the commonly held view is that global warming can only be handled effectively by governments, Ostrom said this was a mistake and it was important to encourage action at the local level. She welcomed the fact that 1,000 mayors in US cities had signed an agreement to start working on ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adding: “I am very nervous about just sitting around and waiting and making the argument that the rest of us can’t do anything at all.”
Let’s be clear. For the most part, the world is not run along the lines suggested by Ostrom. It is overfished, increasingly deforested, ravaged by those who care nothing about resource management and local communities, dominated by dogmatists who think they know best. But there’s something heartening about an economist who doesn’t claim to have all the answers and who suggests there is a different way of doing things.
The Future of the Commons; Elinor Ostrom et al; The Institute of Economic Affairs; iea.org.uk
Original article here
A Robo Fish called McGowan
The West Australian Newspaper 6 December, 2012
Sometimes when you spend too much time inside a fishbowl it pays to ask those peering in how you look to them.
From what Inside State has been able to glean form spectators, Opposition Leader Mark McGowan resembles a Robo Fish, which is a new toy on this year’s Christmas wish list.
They look like a fish and swim like a fish, but there’s no blood and guts inside – just a battery and some wires.
During a honeymoon period bounce in the polls, Labour jumped from 41 per cent of the two party preferred vote to 47 per cent and closed the gap on the Government to just six percentage points.
It was done on the back of Mr McGowan’s “you won’t die wondering what I stand for” mantra in January, a flurry of new policies and a re-energised Opposition.
Since then, the handbrake has faltered and Labour appears to be rolling back down the hill.
Strangely; the problem for Labor and its leader appears to be the glaringly different personality style and delivery of Mr McGowan compared with his foe Colin Barnett.
The Premier gets criticised for being arrogant and saying what he thinks without considering the possible fallout.
Mr Barnett berated a popular school principal for daring to raise concerns about school maintenance. He also agreed that the Police Commissioner deserved a clip around the ears for publicly discussing where budget cuts might be found.
Mr McGowan, on the other hand, is seen as too timid and uncontroversial.
Those points of difference are working in Mr Barnett’s favour because no matter what people thinks of the Premier he is definitely no Robo Fish.
Kids might want the toy for Christmas, but deep down they’d love the real thing.
Right now Mr McGowan is lacking the gravitas, potency and punch to topple Mr Barnett come March 9 and having observed him for almost a year, Inside State can say he only has himself to blame.
The bespectacled former navy lawyer has crafted himself into the smiling, considerate, creative, positive, can-do kind of leader.
Sounds perfectly reasonable and it worked for Kevin Rudd in 2007.
But it hasn’t worked for Mr McGowan and that’s because he’s taken the Mr Nice Guy thing too far, given that Mr Barnett is a first-term premier and not a fourth-term Prime Minister.
The voters aren’t sick of the Liberal-Nationals Government yet and that means the Opposition Leader must fight, scrap and tear down the incumbents with all the vigour of a gladiator needing the thumbs down to avoid execution.
Even Mr McGowan has made it known privately that his view is that he has only one roll of the dice at leading the Labour Party to an election.
His measured and cautious approach doesn’t match with the bravado of an all-or-nothing gambler.
Take his appearance on the WA edition of the ABC’s 7:30 program last Friday.
He must have considered that presenter Andrew O’Connor would play the “what’s gone wrong?” card, but rather than seize the day he came across as insipid.
Instead of using a prime-time current affairs television interview to stamp his mark and reclaim some ground, he went on and on about staying positive and not being negative.
“We have to be a positive alternative with positive policies in the lead-up to the next election,” Mr McGowan said.
O’Connor: But the sort of gaps you’re looking at in the polls place you at a much bigger disadvantage than underdogs, they place you as losers ant the next election, don’t they?
McGowan: Well, we’re certainly behind, you are correct. What do I have to do? Come up with alternative policies, make sure we’re a presentable Opposition and let people decide on the day.
For almost seven minutes, Mr McGowan repeated his “positive, positive, positive” chant.
When he used his “you won’t die wondering” line on this occasion, there was a sense that many people watching in their living rooms had already slipped into a coma.
I’m working on the basis that next year on March 9, people will make a decision and we will continue what we’re doping, which is being a positive Opposition,” Mr McGowan said. His keynote speech to the State’s business leaders on November 22 has been commented on for two reasons – the way it started and the way it was delivered.
“Today, I could stand here and attack the Barnett Government’s failings,” he said. “That’s what would ordinarily happen and that’s possible what many of you are expecting, But I don’t do that. I will not say a negative thing about the Barnett Government or the Premier in my speech.”
If it was an attempt at reverse psychology, it flopped.
Oppositions don’t win government, governments lose. The only way to succeed on that basis is to constantly remind the public of the problems that they face in their daily lives because of the people in power.
The voters can’t begin to feel positive about an alternative government if it can’t clearly see the negatives in keeping the one they have.
During his regular spot with Paul Murray on 6P yesterday, Mr McGowan was asked about his speech and why a Labour MP present commented to a reporter that the delivery was “flat”.
It’s not thing for commentators like Inside Star to observe from the comfort of the office how Mr McGowan might be seen by the community. It’s a different matter entirely when his colleagues start to worry.
There is no denying that Mr McGowan has targeted the Barnett Government’s weaknesses around the cost of living, debt and unfulfilled election promises.
Earlier this year he had breathed life into the Opposition and made the coming election defeat a contest.
But now he needs to find the zeal to prosecute his arguments or risk being the Robo Fish whose battery life expired.
Senator Edgar Prowse
Edgar Wylie Prowse (1905 – 1977)
Senator, WA, 1962-73 (CP)
- Chairman of Committees, 1971-73
- Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, 1962-65
- Joint Standing Committee on Public Works, 1962-71
- Select Committee on the Metric System of Weights and Measures, 1967
- Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, 1968
- Select Committee on Water Pollution, 1968-70
- Estimates Committee D, 1971
- Stand Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, 1971
- Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade, 1971-72
- Estimates Committee A, 1971-72,1972-73
- Standing Orders Committee, 1971-73
- Standing Committee on Industry and Trade, 1972-73
- Joint Committee on Prices, 1973
EDGAR WYLIE PROWSE, farmer and politician, was born at Mount Kokeby in the Western Australian wheat belt on 22 March 1905, one of two surviving sons of the nine children of Albert (‘Ab’) Edward Cornwall Prowse, policeman and farmer, and Maud Helena Grace, nee Quarmby, both from New South Wales. Encouraged by Ab’s brother John Henry (Jack), who had settled in Western Australia, the Prowse family had moved from Mittagong, New South Wales, to mount Kokeby in 1904. Maud and the children lived for a time in Perth suburb of Subiaco before joining
Ab and Jack at Wallatin station at Doodlakine, which they had jointly acquired in 1910. Edgar’s uncle Jack was Mayor of Subiaco in 1905, and of Perth in 1913 and 1914, and a Country Party member of the House of Representatives for Swan (1919-22) and Forrest (1922-43).
Edgar was educated at Subiaco and Doodlakine primary schools. A scholarship took him to Northam Senior High School. In 1923 he attended the University of Western Australia, where he was an active member of the university’s debating and rowing clubs, and was elected as an undergraduate representative to the University guild in 1924. After taking a year off to assist on the family property, Prowse completed a Bachelor of Science (Agriculture) degree in 1927, before returning to Doodlakine to take up farming full-time. On 18 February 1933 Prowse married Lucy Cherry at Claremont Methodist Church, Perth. The couple had six children. Lucy had been an office worker in Perth, and Edgar met her when she was visiting sister at Baandee, near Doodlakine. Edgar and Lucy lived on a part of the family property known as “Omagh”, where they grew wheat and ran sheep, and Edgar developed an interest in horses.
After graduating, Prowse wrote on agro-politics for the Perth Daily News and for the Wheatgrower. In 1931 he declared that ‘the tendency evident in Australian politics to sacrifice principle for the sake of party doctrines is morally wrong’, and criticised those who ‘blindly [followed] party dictation regardless of the common good’. Years later he amplified these views. A strong Methodist, he believed that while the fundamental Christian message, to love your neighbour as yourself, should be ‘the rule of life’, no Christian should push rigid views advocated by any church or religious leader in politics or elsewhere. He emphasised the value of reasoned dissent, the important of perspective, and that ‘judgement and timing are necessary in all political actions’.
His interest in politics had been stimulated by his early liking for history, and by his uncle supplying the family with copies of Hansard covering his twenty-three years in the House of Representatives [Member for Swan].
Founding president of the Doodlakine branch of the Wheatgrower’s Union, Prowse remained an executive member until 1947. He was elected vice-president of the Wheatgrower’s Union (later the Wheat and Woolgrowers Union) of Western Australia in 1931, and served regularly on the state executive. After the union amalgamated with the primary Producers’ Association to form the farmer’s Union in 1946, Prowse was elected a vice-president of the new local branch in January 1947. In common with many farmers, Prowse experienced severe hardship during the depression. An advocate for the orderly marketing of wheat, in 1931-32 he helped to organise a ‘strike’ by farmers when the price of grain dropped to an all-time low.
During World War II, Prowse, who had almost no sight in his right eye, became a lance corporal in the Volunteer Defence Corps. With a severe shortage of farm labour, he was left alone with his father, a cousin and one employee to manage the large wheat, sheep and stud stock farm. In addition he had to maintain his own property. From 1945 until 1949 he served on the Kellerberrin Road Board. He maintained his interest in debating, coaching junior teams and adjudicating at competitions.
In 1949 Prowse purchased “Tachbrook”, a farm at Darkan in lusher country south of Doodlakine, moving his stock and plant to Darkan by train, and a further eleven miles by trucks and horse-drawn transport. There on 600 acres partly cleared and 2000 acres of bushland, he bred shorthorn beef cattle, Corriedale sheep, Welsh Mountain ponies and Arab horses. Fascinated by genetics, Prowse possessed an encyclopaedic knowledge of thoroughbred bloodlines. Wool and beef were the main sources of income, while wheat was sown on land as it cleared. In 1951 he was chairman of the WA branch of the Australian Corriedale Association.
The active member of the Country Party, known in Western Australia as the Country and Democratic League (CDL) from 1944 until the 1960s, in 1944 Prowse was invited by the party to stand for the Legislative Assembly seat of Avon at the next election, but declined, citing family reasons. He was general president of the Western Australian branch from 1957 to 1962, served on the party’s Federal Council from 1957 until at least 1960, and was a member of the Federal Executive from 1958 until 1962. As President of CDL, Prowse tried unsuccessfully to persuade the Western Australian Liberal and Country League (LCL) not to run a separate Senate team to the CDL. He was, however, firm in maintaining its opposition to amalgamation with the LCL. At the Federal election of 9 December 1961, Prowse was placed at the top of the party ticket and won the fifth Western Australian vacancy. Sworn in the Senate on 7 August 1962, he was re-elected in 1967.
Prowse delivered his first speech in the Senate on 22 August 1962. He addressed issues of concern to primary industry: declining wool export prices, the importance of goldmining, the need for greater water resources, and the negative affects of high interest rates on development schemes. He concluded by expressing concern at the gradual erosion of rural representation in some electorates through the incorporation of outer metropolitan areas into those seats.
An issue particularly dear to his heart was the superphosphate bounty, reintroduced by the Menzies Government in 1963. In Prowse’s words, this was ‘not a hand-out to the farmers’ but ‘a national investment that will add greatly to our export income’, and in 1968 he was again effusive in support of an increase in the level of the bounty. On other occasions Prowse argued for drought bonds to enable farmers to receive tax concessions so that ‘instead of buying oats in a period of good income’, they ‘could put by a similar amount as a financial reserve’. He was delighted when a drought bonds scheme was introduced in 1968. In July 1967 Prowse urged the Government to increase overseas borrowing rather than relying solely on private investment flowing into Australia. Five years earlier, he had contended that Australian industry was better served by the use of subsidies than by tariff protection. He argued for the abolition of death duties, ‘one of the most indefensible of all taxes’. In 1970 he joined some Liberal colleagues in crossing the floor in support of a democratic Labour Party amendment to the estate Duty Assessment Bill, which proposed further relief from estate duties. In 1971, after Sydney Negus [q.v. WA] had been elected to the Senate on an anti-probate duties campaign, Prowse proposed the introduction of a capital gains tax as an alternative form of taxation to death duties.
Prowse had become a member of the standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances on first entering Parliament in 1962. In November 1962 the committee considered the removal of regulations prohibiting the importation of literature deemed ‘blasphemous, indecent or obscene’, to be replaced by regulations allowing their importation at the discretion of the minister. The majority of the committee recommended the disallowance of the regulation, starting that it should be the ‘written law’, not ministerial discretion, which controlled the importation of such works. Prowse was a lone dissenting voice, arguing for untrammelled ministerial discretion. He believed that the exercise of ministerial responsibility was at stake. As long as the minister alone had full responsibility, he could call upon a range of advice to make a sound decision, but should the discretion be limited in any way, it might transfer power away from the elected representative ‘to a body which was not responsible to the Parliament’. In the same debate, making reference to the use of a ‘tribunal’ or censorship board, he argued that any outside body ‘with authority to decide what universities should or should not teach, is repugnant to our idea of the way in which universities should function’.
Prowse was a vigorous opponent of the unsuccessful 1967 ‘nexus’ referendum proposal to alter the numerical balance between the Senate and the House of Representatives, appearing on television to argue the ‘no’ case, and declaring that the ‘real purpose’ of the proposal was ‘to denigrate the Senate’.
Prowse was especially interested in legislation designed to facilitate home ownership, speaking regularly in support of home savings grants, and in 1965, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. He was the only Country Party senator to vote for the abolition of the death penalty when the party allowed a free vote on the Opposition’s bill introduced in the Senate. He spoke at length, explaining how his views had changed through careful study of the matter, and examination of his conscience He concluded that: ‘Unless we can achieve a concept of regard for human life that is strong enough to prevent us from adding to violence by committing further violence, there is little hope that civilisation can ever achieve the ultimate abolition of the concentrated violence of work’.
In 1973 he spoke against Prime Minister Whitlam’s decision to abolish tertiary fees as imposing a load on the general taxpayer, advocating scholarships instead. One of his last actions in the Senate was to carry an amendment to a motion proposing a joint sitting of Parliament to consider immediate action to plan a new parliament building on Capital Hill. Prowse’s amendment affirmed his emphatic agreement with the substance of the motion but rejected the mechanism of a sitting to achieve it. He believed that a joint sitting could ‘denigrate the status, significance and role of the Senate’.
Prowse, who served as Chairman of Committees from 1971 to 1973, resigned his Senate seat due to ill health, with effect from 31 December 1973. In a valedictory speech Senator McManus [q.v. Vic.] acknowledged Prowse’s ‘impish sense of humour’. After leaving politics, Prowse, who had been awarded life membership of the Country Party in 1974, resided in Albany and managed a Murray Grey beef cattle stud on 150-acre farm at Elleker. An active member of the Middleton Beach Bowling Club, he sought to establish equal voting rights for women in the club. In the Methodist and later Uniting Church he had served for many years as a parish councillor, lay preacher and circuit steward. He played a prominent role in the construction of the Darkan Methodist Church, including the provision of 19 000 bricks made on the Prowse farm.
Prowse died at Darkan on 2 June 1977, his wife and children surviving him. He was buried in the Allambie Park Cemetery, Albany. Prowse was a reflective man whose values and opinions were carefully considered and rationally argued. He did not approve of parliamentarians who played for safety, avoiding controversy and contributing little to debate. To him, the claims of conscience were paramount, and he was not afraid to deviate from party or majority opinions he regarded as ill-founded.
By David Black
Typed by his great grand-daughters Jessica & Lauren Blizard. Edited by his grandson, Steve Blizard
Senator Edgar Prowse [Western Australia].
First man on the moon, Neil Armstrong discovered the world didn’t revolve around him
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn’t feel like a giant. I felt very, very small. Neil Armstrong
21 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning?Have you not understood since the earth was founded?
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
23 He brings princes to naught and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.
24 No sooner are they planted, no sooner are they sown, no sooner do they take root in the ground, than he blows on them and they wither, and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff.
25 “To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.
26 Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.
A reflection on personal humility
Watch Yourself Go By
By: Strickland Gillilan
Just stand aside and watch yourself go by;
Think of yourself as “he” instead of “I.”
Note, closely as in other men you note
The bag-kneed trousers and the seedy coat.
Pick flaws; find fault; forget the man is you,
And strive to make your estimate ring true.
Confront yourself and look you in the eye-
Just stand aside and watch yourself go by.
Interpret all your motives just as though
You looked on one whose aims you did not know.
Let undisguised contempt surge through you when
You see you shirk, O commonest of men!
Despise your cowardice; condemn whate’er
You note of falseness in you anywhere.
Defend not one defect that shames your eye-
Just stand aside and watch yourself go by.
And then, with eyes unveiled to what you loathe,
To sins that with sweet charity you’d clothe,
Back to your self-walled tenement you’ll go
With tolerance for all who dwell below.
The faults of others then will dwarf and shrink,
Love’s chain grows stronger by one mighty link,
When you, with “he” as substituted for “I,”
Have stood aside and watched yourself go by.
poem sourced here
With thanks to Chris Tan
Benjamin Franklin once said “I have generally found that the man who is good at an excuse is good for nothing else.”
The life of George Washington was characterized by a scrupulous regard for punctuality.
When he asked a man to bring by some horses he was interested in buying at five in the morning, and the man arrived fifteen minutes late, he was told by the stable groom that the general had been waiting there at five, but had now moved on to other business, and that he wouldn’t be able to examine the horses again until the following week.
When he told Congress that he’d meet with them at noon, he could almost always be found striding into the chamber just as the clock was striking twelve.
Washington’s promptness extended to his mealtimes as well. He ate dinner each day at exactly 4 o’clock, and when he invited members of Congress to dine with him, and they arrived late, they were often surprised to find the president halfway done with his meal or even pushing back from the table. To his startled, tardy guest he would say, “We are punctual here. My cook never asks whether the company has arrived, but whether the hour has come.”
And when Washington’s secretary arrived late to a meeting, and blamed his watch for his tardiness, Washington quietly replied, “Then you must get another watch, or I another secretary.”
George Washington’s passion for punctuality was born from his youthful study of “The Rules of Civility” – his repeated copying of maxims like “Undertake not what you cannot Perform but be Careful to keep your Promise.” For Washington, being on time was a way of showing respect to others, and he expected to be treated with the same level of respect in return.
We may no longer live in an age of knickers and powdered wigs, but being punctual is just as important as it ever was. It has been called “a homely, but solid virtue,” and it certainly doesn’t cause one’s breast to swell in the way that pondering courage or resolution does. But related as punctuality is to discipline and self-mastery, to integrity and respect, it is – if not particularly sexy – still an essential component of the character of an upstanding man.
Today we’ll explore why this is so, and then on Wednesday we’ll cover why some men struggle with being on time despite their best efforts, along with tips on how to overcome the habit of always running behind.
Why Is Being Punctual Important?
“The habit of being prompt once formed extends to everything — meeting friends, paying debts, going to church, reaching and leaving place of business, keeping promises, retiring at night and rising in the morning, going to the lecture and town-meeting, and, indeed, to every relation and act, however trivial it may seem to observers.” –William Makepeace Thayer, Tact and Grit, 1882
The importance of punctuality is not universal and varies from culture to culture. In some places like Latin America and the Pacific Islands, life moves at a different pace and meeting times are meant to be fuzzy. But this does not negate the value of punctuality to a man living in a culture that does define being on time more strictly, just as the well-rounded man of the West seeks competence in things like shaking hands, wearing a tie, working out with a kettlebell, and holding open doors for women, even if such things are not practiced the world over.
“I have always been a quarter of an hour before my time, and it has made a man of me.” -Horatio, Lord Nelson
Being punctual strengthens and reveals your integrity. If you tell someone that you will meet them at a certain time, you have essentially made them a promise. And if you say you’ll be there at 8:00, and yet arrive at 8:15, you have essentially broken that promise. Being on time shows others that you are a man of your word.
Being punctual shows you are dependable. A man can always be found at his post, carrying out the duties needful for that time. People know they can rely on such a man – if he says he will be there, he’ll be there. But if a man is not punctual, others cannot depend on him — they do not know where he will be when they need him. His associates will begin to feel he cannot organize his own time, and these doubts will seep into matters beyond the clock, as it naturally raises the question: “If he is careless about time, what else is he careless about?”
Benjamin Franklin once said to an employee who was always late, but always ready with an excuse: “I have generally found that the man who is good at an excuse is good for nothing else.”
Being punctual builds your self-confidence. Showing up on time not only tells other people you are dependable, it teaches you that you can depend on yourself. The more you keep the promises you make, the more your self-confidence will grow. And the more you gain in self-mastery, the less you will be at the mercy of your compulsions and habits, and the more in control of your life you will feel.
Being punctual assures you’re at your best. After riding someone’s bumper, speeding like a maniac, scanning for cops, and cursing at red lights, it’s hard to then turn your focus to making a presentation at a meeting or charming a date – you’re shaky and depleted from the adrenaline and stress. But when you show up on time, better yet a little early, you have a few minutes to collect your thoughts, review your materials, and get your game face on.
“Soldiers should be minutemen. Punctuality is one of the most valuable habits a soldier can possess.” –Christopher Columbus Andrews, Hints to Company Officers on Their Military Duties, 1863
Being punctual builds and reveals your discipline. The punctual man shows that he can organize his time, that he pays attention to details, and that he can put aside this to do that – he can set aside a pleasure to take care of business.
“’There is great dignity in being waited for,’ said one who was in this habit, and who had not much of which he need be vain, unless it was this want of promptness.” –John Todd, The Students Manual, 1854
Being punctual shows your humility. That bumper sticker maxim: “Always late, but worth the wait” shows that tardiness and an overestimation of one’s worth sometimes go hand in hand. People will be glad to see you when you arrive, but they would have been gladder still had you come on time.
Being punctual shows your respect for others. Being late is a selfish act, for it puts your needs above another’s. You want an extra minute to do what you’d like, but in gaining that minute for yourself, you take a minute from another, which is why….
Being late is a form of stealing. That’s a tough truth, but it’s a truth nonetheless. When you make others wait for you, you rob minutes from them that they’ll never get back. Time they could have turned into money, or simply used for the things important to them. In coming to meet you at the agreed upon hour, they may have made sacrifices – woken up early, cut short their workout, told their kid they couldn’t read a story together – and your lateness negates those sacrifices. If you wouldn’t think of taking ten dollars from another man’s wallet, you shouldn’t think of stealing ten minutes from him either. Being punctual shows you value time yourself, and thus wouldn’t think of depriving others of this precious, but limited resource.
“It has been said that time is money. That proverb understates the case. Time is a great deal more than money. If you have time you can obtain money—usually. But though you have the wealth of a cloak-room attendant at the Carlton Hotel, you cannot buy yourself a minute more time than I have, or the cat by the fire has.” –Arnold Bennett, How to Live on Twenty-Four Hours a Day, 1910
Being late disturbs the experiences of other people. Your tardiness not only robs others of their time, but of the fullness of their experiences as well. The student who interrupts a professor in the middle of his lecture; the family which climbs over you to get to their seats at the middle of the row in the theater; the man who opens the creaky door in the middle of a eulogy. When an old man was once asked why he had been so punctual in arriving at his church on time for decades, he replied, “I made it my religion not to disturb the religion of others.”
Being late strains your relationships. When you’re late in meeting other people, it makes them feel under-valued, that whatever you couldn’t pull yourself away from was more important or that they didn’t mean enough to you to warrant allotting sufficient time to arrive on schedule. The guest who flies in to see you feels like a dope standing at the airport alone, your date feels awkward sitting at the restaurant by herself, and your child feels abandoned as she waits with her teacher for you to arrive, all the other children having already been picked up from school.
Being late hurts your professional career. Whether you’re an employee or in business for yourself, being late can hinder your professional success. Many companies have strict policies about punctuality — get a few write-ups and you’re gone. Of course, if you arrive late to the job interview, you probably won’t land the position in the first place. And if you’re trying to win over a new client, arriving ten minutes late isn’t going to get things off on the right foot, in the same way that promising to get something to him by a certain date and then failing to do so, may have him looking elsewhere for your services.
Being late takes a toll on your life. Always running behind simply hurts you in all areas of your life. It results in lost opportunities: missing a plane, missing a meeting, missing an important part of a lecture, missing a wedding. It creates stress and can lead to car accidents and traffic tickets. It results in embarrassment and forces you to come up with excuses for why you’re late, putting a strain on your honesty. Basically, it makes your life more complicated; for men seeking to simplify their lives, cultivating punctuality is an essential part of that path.
Original article here
Unfriendly people care only about themselves; they lash out at common sense. [Proverbs 18:1 NLT]
A man, having separated himself, seeks his own desire, and rages against all sound wisdom. [Proverbs 18:1 NKJV]
Sons seek approval from their fathers
I’ve spent the better part of my adult life looking for the approval of a man who’s been dead for almost two decades. This longing has, at times, led me to replace relationship for career, love with advancement, and attach my self worth and manhood firmly to paychecks and job titles. That hunger has impacted my friendships and my confidence while seeing to it that I spend long hours in therapy.
This confession shouldn’t result in a judgment against the man – my father – as someone inherently cruel or overtly insensitive. No person can give what he or she has never received. I know my dad recognized many of his own father’s shortcomings and made valiant attempts to ‘do things different’. Like many parents he desired more for his children than he was given. And I believe this included bestowing the acceptance and recognition only a father can provide.
But as humans we come with limitations. Often these barriers are self-erected while other times they are placed by providence. And looking back over my youth, no matter how much he may have wished otherwise, those inadequacies were felt. He often told me how proud he was, that I did a good job, and that he loved me. But it was usually only during those times when I actually did a good job he could easily be proud of. If that’s the only time it’s ever offered it will soon begin to feel like the results are getting the credit instead of the one who needs it. I believe it’s because of this, even at 42 years old, I still place far too much weight on accomplishment and material success – the tangible evidence that I’m accepted.
“Should there by any surprise that a boy will ultimately try to leave the shade of his mother for the shadow of his father?”
Something else I’ve realized is this – I’m not alone. Men of every age and walk of life contend with this or very similar wounds – often more severe – inflicted by their father or some other man of significant influence from their childhood. Yet the most unfortunate aspect is how these men rarely ever deal with the damage and soon find themselves passing those same wounds onto the next generation.
I’m convinced the way a father parents should dramatically change the moment his children are the age where his mistakes won’t be easily forgotten and undone with a toy and ice cream. His entire outlook on parenting should shift when he can picture himself – when he was their age – and still feel the pain caused by a father’s actions. If the man fails to do this he is destined to inflict these same wounds he so desperately wants to heal from whether he knows it or not.
I can still recall as vividly as yesterday certain phrases, a handful of words actually, my father said to me that have haunted my spirit for over thirty years and caused me to question above all else my confidence and ability to measure up. And in every case the implications of his words were unintended and done in an air of love and protection. He honestly thought he was doing and saying the right things but was actually breaking me down. And there isn’t a man I know who, when pressed, can’t recount his own moments where the person he saw with wonder and awe brought his world crashing down around him – with a mere expression. In that moment the child, nor the father, could have ever grasped how damaging remarks like “I don’t think you’re good enough yet”, “No you stay home with your mom and sister.”, “You’re not old enough”, “Why can’t you act more like your brother?” would ultimately be on his son in years to follow.
The approval a son receives from his mother is almost guaranteed while that of his father must usually be earned. And the boy desperately wants it. Should there by any surprise that a boy will ultimately try to leave the shade of his mother for the shadow of his father? And if no male is there he will find what he believes is a suitable replacement even though that choice may produce the worst possible outcomes. There comes a time with the boy is inexplicably drawn towards the company of other men – because he wants their approval.
Much like my father I find it hard to give what I never completely received. Yet through my own story, I have become keenly aware of the power my approval and acceptance will have on my children’s futures. My childhood has also made me conscious that my approval should never be solely tied to a game won, grade made, or chore completed. In my mind, if I’m showing appreciation and acceptance for my children only when they do something worthy – I’m better off showing nothing at all.
If I hope to instill in them feelings of confidence that their fathers approves of them no matter I must become conscious of the small ordinary moments in their lives and not just the big game or dance recital. Those times when, if parents aren’t looking, pass by without a second glance. In other words I must show them I accept and approve of them for who they are – that eight-year-old boy who fights dragons, jumps on the furniture, and can’t seem to stop annoying his sister and the ten-year-old daughter who is addicted to tween-aged fantasies, daydreaming, and creating a train wreck in her room – and not just when they score the winning basket or get straight A’s.
Some of my greatest life lessons have come as a consequence of my most significant life challenges. I don’t condemn or hold my father responsible for what he couldn’t give me, in fact, I appreciate what he did – because he showed me the importance of a father’s approval.
Original article here
Olympic snowboarder and contestant on the Amazing Race, Andy Finch talks about the importance of mentoring in his life
Sound track: “Silence” by Fades Away
“You will crash and burn when you put yourself on a pedestal” Pro-Surfer Matt Beacham
Uploaded by IN5tv on Jul 14, 2011
Visit and like @
:: Pro-surfer & TV host Matt Beacham discusses the affect of pride in his life.
Special thanks to Matt Beacham, Jesse Schluntz – DP, Russell Brownley – DP & Josh Garrels for background music: