Leaderboard

I was classified as a missionary, I think, and went to 'missionary school' prior to moving there and so on, but my role was as a teacher educator. Pacific Adventist University (then Pacific Adventist College) draws students from all over the Pacific, not just Papua New Guinea, so I taught Samoan, Fijian and Solomon Islands students as well as Papua New Guineans. My particular field is science education, so I was involved in preparing the Adventist physics and chemistry teachers for the region. It was a great time in our lives: we had a 2 year old daughter when we moved to PNG and our second daughter was born while we lived there. I ended up coming back to Australia sooner than originally planned to start my PhD.

5 Things You Didn't Know About The Movie "Psycho" On June 16, 1960, Alfred Hitchcock‘s legendary movie Psycho had its world premiere at the DeMille Theatre in New York City. Here are five crazy facts you probably didn't know about Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho"... The Shower Scene Was Supposed to Be Silent The shrieking music that will forever accompany Janet Leigh's screams in the shower weren't supposed to be there originally. Hitchcock wanted the scene to be silent except for screams and the stabbing sound (made by stabbing a melon -- and they actually tested stabbing melons until they found the one that had the right sound). However, the film's composer came up with a score anyway, and Hitchcock liked it so much that not only did he use it, but he also doubled the salary for the composer. Major Media Outlets Spoiled the Movie's End Before the Film Was Released And you thought Game of Thrones spoilers discussed after the show ended were bad. Imagine if you had taken every step possible to hide the outcome of your upcoming film only to have major papers spoil everything six months before the film's release! This happened with Psycho — in January 1960, the Hollywood Reporter managed to give away the ending, and five months later, Variety followed suit. All this despite Hitchcock banning reporters, using fake film names, and swearing the cast and crew to secrecy. Norman Bates of Psycho Shares a Common Origin With Other Murder/Slasher Films The movie script for Psycho was based on the novel by Robert Bloch, but the character of Norman Bates was not a complete work of fiction. Bates was based partially on Ed Gein, who confessed to two murders but was suspected of many more, not the least because his house was filled with items like clothes made from human skin. (Bloch later said in an interview that it was more the idea that this gruesome killer could be a neighbor with no one knowing any better that inspired Norman Bates.) Gein was also the influence for the killers in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Silence of the Lambs. Are You Always on Time for a Movie? Thank Alfred Hitchcock and Psycho Because the key murder in the film takes place fairly quickly, Hitchcock knew that anyone arriving very late would end up asking about Janet Leigh and why they didn't see her in the film. To prevent this, he demanded that theaters not let people in after the film started. That sounds pretty normal now, but back then, it was normal to show up at whatever time and just keep watching. Hitchcock's requirement that everyone be seated before the film began changed how people treated filmgoing. Psycho's Use of Black-and-White Film Was a Key Part of the Film's Existence Hitchcock filmed Psycho in black and white for two reasons. One, the film was cheaper to use; while color was prevalent by 1960, it was still more expensive, and Hitchcock needed to lower costs. But the really important reason was that, by making the film and thus the shower scene black and white, the blood in the shower wouldn't be bright red -- and that was a crucial part of getting the film past censors. The scene was already extremely violent for its time (and it remains one of the most violent movie murders), and putting it in color would have made the censors bin the film.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Trevor. My perspective is not especially formed by the fact that I live on the Gold Coast. I've lived here for 7 years, but before that, in reverse chronological order: Brisbane, Australia - 6 years Edmonton, Canada - 5 years Perth, Australia - 6 years Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea - 2 years Sydney, Australia - 1 year Melbourne, Australia - 3 years Cooranbong, Australia - 20 years Sydney, Australia - 6 years Including the excluded is right everywhere, not just in the Gold Coast.

I have just read the long comment as to what a proposed bill would actually do: * To force hospitals and physicians to do sex reassignment surgery against their will is simply false and a failure to understand the present health-care system. Hospitals may limit their services. Some hospitals do not do labor and delivery. Some hospitals do not have an Emergency department. All such is allowed. * I once lived in a culture where males and females freely went into the others bathroom. * I worked my way through the Seminary at Andrews University by cleaning bathrooms in the college. I quickly learned that the female college students were not going to stay out of the bathrooms when I was cleaning them. [NOTE: I normally did my bathroom cleaning in the evening after most classes were finished.] I got used to it. I did not bother the women and they did not bother me. * In commercial activities, one should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. IOW, if you are a photographer who takes wedding photographs, you should not be allowed to discriminate against same sex weddings. If however, you are a photographer who does not do wedding photographs, you should not be required to photograph any wedding.

How did Jesus treat Samaritans who 'worshiped wrong', lepers who were believed to be cursed by God, the lame man at the Pool of Siloam likewise (the disciples' 'who sinned?' question and His answer), the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, prostitutes and publicans?

When people vilify Christians, I challenge that, too. You don't see it, because I do it in other places. But "other people vilify us so it's OK for us to vilify others" is also not an argument. It should be about what is right, not what other people do. It's simple: this law does nothing but stop people from unfairly discriminating against their fellow citizens. Skin colour is not a lawful grounds for discrimination: would you fight for the right for convinced racists to refuse to serve people of a different race, or employ them? And neither is gender or sexual orientation.

I see so much approval of evil under the guise of "love." I think that is very wrong. Problem with that kind of behavior is that is emboldens others in their evildoing and help guarantee their trip to perdition. Those participating in it will be held accountable.

This bill described will put severe limits on a church to promote it beliefs. Kind of a back door in a way never dreamed of to begin persecution of Christians. "We" won't do the Sabbath thing, we will make you become Sodom & Gommorrah! Some of the items may be a bit explicit, but they are teaching this stuff to young children. ******** The Get-the-Homophobic-and-Transphobic-Bigots "(In)Equality Act," passed in the House of Representatives essentially along party lines (with all Democratic representatives voting for it, along with eight RINOs), is the most dangerous bill to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion that has ever been proposed on a national level. The key point to recognize about the bill is that it will codify into law that you are a bigot, the moral equivalent of a racist, tantamount to being a member of the Klu Klux Klan, who must be shut out of society and, wherever possible, harassed and persecuted for your beliefs. Everything else is commentary. Here are just some examples of the draconian outcomes that would result if the (In)Equality Act becomes the law of the land: I. The bill explicitly prohibits use of the the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 as "basis for challenging the application or enforcement" of this (In)Equality Act. You will have no religious liberty defense for not kowtowing to the "LGBTQ" idol at school, at work, or in any other "public accommodation." Areas of "public accommodation" include (but are not limited to): A. Every “stadium or other place of or establishment that provides exhibition, entertainment, recreation, exercise, amusement, public gathering, or public display." B. "Any establishment that provides a good, service, or program, including a store, shopping center, online retailer or service provider, salon, bank, gas station, food bank, service or care center, shelter, travel agency, or funeral parlor, or establishment that provides health care, accounting, or legal services." II. By ensconcing "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" in federal law as a specially protected civil rights categories, the bill will: A. Put men who claim a female "gender identity" (regardless of whether any "sex reassignment surgery" has been had or cross-dressing is used to signal gender shift) in every woman's "restroom, locker room, and dressing room" in the nation (that's the actual language of the bill). Also explicitly included in the bill are women's "shelters." Let's no forget too about incarcerating men in women's prisons. Since too places where "recreation" and "exercise" are included, add women's sports. B. Lead to national mandatory indoctrination by all public schools into the whole homosexual and transgender agenda from pre-school on up. Since "education" is one of the areas impacted by the bill, it will back up every public school's use of "drag queens" in the classroom. It will result in regular mandatory assemblies and classroom instruction that rails again the "hateful and ignorant bigotry" of those who do not sing the praises of unlimited sexualities, including homosexual activity and the right to determine one's own gender (and even "sex") as being different from one's "sex assigned at birth." All teachers in public schools, regardless of conscience, will be forced to promote homosexual practice and transgender identity, finding ways to brainwash children in their respective disciplines. Parents will not be able to opt their children out of such "sex" talks; of course, there will be no parental notification because it is all protected under civil rights law. The school curriculum will also explore how best to engage in anal intercourse and "rimming" the anus with one's tongue; and how to go about changing one's sex. Any suggestion of a sexual binary, "boys and girls," will be strictly forbidden. No teacher or administrator will be able to stop a boy from entering the girl's bathroom. Nor can cross-dressing on the part of students, teachers, and administrators, no matter how outrageous, be prohibited. Rather, it is to be promoted. C. Result in national mandatory speech laws (as already in New York City) requiring people against conscience and reason to use outside the home or church false gender pronouns and gender-specific names for so-called "transgender persons." D. :Punish all persons who own a small business with massive fines and even threat of imprisonment who do not want to be forced to use their talents to promote actively and directly homosexual intercourse and transgenderism, including those who don't want to use their artistic skills to draw or design pictures, or letter cakes and T-shirts, or copy fliers celebrating these immoral manifestations. Wedding planners and photographers will be compelled to render services to "gay weddings." E. Give the federal government the power to withhold monies from any state that does not rigorously promote the "LGBTQ" agenda and punish those who stand in the way of promoting such agendas. State and local governments currently without "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" civil rights special-protection categories will be made to have them. Moreover, "the bill allows the Department of Justice to intervene in equal protection actions in federal court on account of sexual orientation or gender identity." F. Lead to the removal of "federal funding" (research grants, student loans, etc.) and ultimately accreditation from every religious school and college that does not promote "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" diversity. G. Give the state the power to remove your own children from your home and prosecute you for child abuse if you do not affirm your child's wishes to be called by name or pronouns at odds with their sex "assigned" at birth, to have puberty blockers and "sex reassignment" surgery, to date persons of the same sex, or be involved in school-indoctrinating "LGBTQ" clubs. H. Do what the draconian California Assembly bill 2943 would have done in that state if it had passed last year: Ban any sexual orientation change therapy, or indeed any attempt to deter people from engaging in homosexual practice or transgender change, if goods or services involve an exchange of funds. The "Findings and Purpose" section of the bill explicitly lists among the forms of "discrimination" to be prohibited “conversion therapy," which it calls "a form of discrimination that harms LGBTQ people by undermining individuals sense of self worth, increasing suicide ideation and substance abuse, exacerbating family conflict, and contributing to second class status." Since the bill applies to "any establishment that provides a good, service, or program," it arguably wouldn't be limited to just professional mental health providers but would include any Christian church or para-church organization that offered goods, services, or programs to help deter people from transgender conversion or homosexual relations (even in the absence of any claim to orientation change), if any money is charged in connection with such goods, services, or programs. I. Force all businesses and public universities to implement "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" affirmative-action hiring programs and regular "LGBTQ" indoctrination training sessions in order to avoid being sued by the federal government for failure to uphold the civil rights of "gay" and "transgender" employees and applicants for jobs. Employees will be required to report to Human Resources any employees who are overheard speaking negatively about "gay marriage," homosexuality, or transgenderism generally or about "gay" or "transgender" employees specifically, creating a virtual police state in the workplace. Employees who post on social media their own moral or religious reservations about homosexual practice and transgenderism will be subject to immediate dismissal. J. Force doctors and nurses, even at Catholic hospitals, to perform "sex reassignment surgery" even to minors and force all hospital and nursing home staff to refer to "transgender" patients by their preferred pronouns and opposite-sex name (conscience be damned). Health professionals who attempt to warn youth and adults about the damaging effects of puberty blockers, transgender surgery, and practices common to male homosexual behavior (including anal intercourse) will be fired and lose whatever licence they have to practice medicine. K. Put churches in jeopardy of losing their tax-exempt status for opposing the promotion of homosexualism and transgenderism. In addition, churches that allow their buildings to be used by non-church members will be required to make these buildings accessible for functions promoting homosexuality and transgenderism, including "gay weddings." L. Require all charities and adoption agencies, including those of a religious nature, not to practice "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" "discrimination" in their hiring and in their distribution of services (including placing children in the homes of homosexual and transgender parents). M. Compel law enforcement agencies, courts, and medical research studies to categorize "trans-persons" by their pretend sex. In diagnosing how diseases affect men and women, "transgender men" (i.e. women) and "transgender women" (i.e. men) will be classified by their pretend sex. Law enforcement officials in search of criminal suspects will have to identity them by their pretend sex. Judges, members of the jury, and all witnesses under oath will be required to lie about the real sex of individuals who identify as "transgender." N. Exclude from all political, corporate, academic, professional, and judicial hiring and appointments anyone who is not a cheerleader for all things "gay" and "transgender." Grounds for exclusion will include failure to uphold the "civil rights" values of the organization or profession in question, making homosexual and transgender colleagues and subordinates feel "unsafe," and assumed bias against all clients and customers who identify as "gay" and "transgender." Commitment to treat people equally in the performance of one's duties will not be enough. One must declare unequivocal support for the "LGBTQ" agenda and reject association with, and donations to, any churches, para-church organizations, schools, charities, clubs, and social outreach programs that do not support that agenda. Any writings in one's past life history that anything less than full support for that agenda will be deemed sufficient evidence for not being hired or for being fired. This will include quoting any teaching in the Bible critical of homosexual practice and transgenderism. Judicial nominees, membership in the bar, membership in the mental health and medical professions, indeed membership in any profession, will require a full vetting for "LGBTQ" animus that will make the McCarthy anti-Communist Senate hearings look like an exercise in political diversity. O. Reevaluate legal prohibitions and non-recognition of adult-consensual polyamorous or even incestuous sexual relationships, based on the principles that hitherto taboo sexual desires and proclivities deserve civil rights status, that binaries have no value, and that excessive formal sameness (whether in sex or kinship) is no barrier to societal endorsement. III. Under the (In)Equality Act's new civil rights category, "pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition," laws like the Hyde Amendment that ban taxpayer funding for abortion could be eliminated, as well as conscience protections for health care workers who refuse to perform abortions. This is because the phrase "related medical conditions" has been interpreted by the Third Circuit Court and by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as including abortion. All insurances would have to cover abortion and health care providers could not refuse to offer it as one of their pregnancy services. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5

Confused not because you posted this; but because of how shocking and draconian this bill is. Looks like something that Trump would veto; or that the Supreme Court (with its present makeup) would overturn. At least I would hope so.