Thursday, August 17, 2017

Whose the bigot?

A bigot maybe loosely  defined as

Someone who refuses to properly consider the other sides case.: someone who sees things too simply ?   

A"plebiscite" on the incorporation  of  Same sex marriage into the Marriage Act will be put shortly .October 2017,
There are other definitions , but I am listing this one because its not accusatory and I think its close to how many Yes promoters perceive the nature of the problem  in No voters ( see Miriam Webster definition below ). I am happy to add  from the original definition the idea that one's " religious beliefs act as a blind to even considering any logic"- provided that both sides recognise that this blinkeredness can happen to anyone on any group.   

Bigots VS Libertarians ?
The yes case advocates  have been pretty clear so far in making the simple highly personal claim that the no case people are bigots ,  and the yes case people are the libertarians . If only it was true and that simple.
I am suggesting that there are technically bigots and libertarians on both sides and anyone who is not prepared to answer questions is the biggest bigot of all.

I would suggest that the proper status and substance of  Civil Marriage  is a complex response to the variety of risks to children, mothers and widows when men fail to take responsibility for the products of their union  . Civil Marriage is  as much  about framing responsibilities,  as it is about rights.To date yes case advocates have just not answered the unintended consequences  of this major language and law change.

As CM has little to do with the religious or other ceremonies ( which will always be their own )
the  yes case focus so far has a distorted and incomplete focus  - bigoted in the way it has so far framed itself  around procedures in a ceremony  that is not even necessary to have a union certified.

So why so much heat  ?  I suggest it derives from philosophical technical practical  and emotional ( religious) view differences from   two types of libertarians one who care about consequences and ones who don't want to face them .

Have we got enough time and information to make a reasonable decision? 

Many of us think the time will be far too short considering all the real questions that are now coming forward since the decision has been implemented and since the ABC has been told to stop sitting on the case against .
Let me put some of the yes advocates REASONS for the change
Reason 1--- "to make them feel better" (A big reason put forth by one uniting church minister 18th aug)
If the only reason a minority wants us to change the language law and culture is to make them feel better, esp when they go near a church, the yes case are quite directly ignoring all the other reasons why thinking and professional people do not want to change civil marriages specific focus on protecting women and children.

 You now have many doctors and aboriginals rejecting such simplicity and false focus on "the bigots in the church"

Reason 2 -10 ?
for you to add

Those saying we have years to consider this forget the public know that largely only one side has been put  and put in a confusing way about what the LGBTI community want ?

THE  case  for yes case advocates being a little bigoted  ( just a few thought) 
  1. If the yes case advocates are not bigots why would they have not insisted on the questions raised by the  non church groups before August 2017 
  2. the insistence by them that its only a few people in church who are resisting change is clearly not true .there are others 
  3. the failure of the movement to address the address the mental health risk associated with giving people what they want 
  4. the failure of the movement to resist the bullying feeling that many in the australian audience  feel is going on in relation to this issue ' you must decide soon " says Greenlabor 
  5. Maybe the LGBTI community are not unified in what they want ( that they are just as diverse in ambition as any group and ARE not unified )
    )  therefore,  the australian public don't know what this group wants and will spend more than a few more hundreds of millions confusing the next generation about what this civil marriage change  is for

    just to make a few people feel better ?   Can they be expeceted to feel better as a result of this change ? not properly considering the other sides case

Other questions and empty rhetoric areas (this is not a complete list ) 
  1. What is meant by SSM in the LBGTI community ? ( see below) 
  2. Which countries / states have adopted SSM into their marriage acts ( full list ) 
  3. Will SSM breakups go before family court automatically?
  4. Can the impact of changes on surrogacy be anticipated?  
  5. Why would changes to superannuation and some pensions benefits be changed if children were not involved ....or even if they were?  
  6. When will yes case address the questions doctors have about the proposed changes influence 
  7. When will yes case address the questions aboriginals  have about the proposed changes influence on another spate of stolen generation children /
  8. When will yes case stop saying that there are no ( additional ) risks and costs  and address the questions thinking people  have about the real impact in probability terms  on already well known risks like those protecting of women and children from abandonment promiscuity and selef select sexual activities and poligamy  
  9. Should children have a vote . Shorten says they should (Q&A21st Aug)   

What is meant  by Same Sex marriage? .
the LGBTI community have not clearly stated which sex with which sex they want . What would the contract say and what would happen to the contract if one of the Bi partners decided to change either sex or not be monogamous ?   In what court would the names for decisions and status be made ?

From Merriam Webster

The current definition of bigot is “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudicesespecially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.” However, when the word first entered the English language (borrowed from French at the end of the 16th century) it had the meaning of “a superstitious religious hypocrite.”

The only part of the definition below I can accept is in bold , because Jesus Christ , I will assume from his own words actions and acceptance  would not accept as Christ followers anyone who did not repent of the following when it applied    "hypocrite,  superstition , hatred or intolerance", 

Sunday, July 30, 2017

False faith in agreements and law -reviewing MDAgreement

What blinkered Green labor pollies have forgotten is that they are working with human beings  -and that to make an efficient and effective  cultural change,  they can't just rely on the simple tyrannical coercion approach they get  from the Greens .

If you are going to work with human beings you have to have a working hypothesis about how BEST to do that , one that Greenlabor clearly hasn't got its own agreement on
Greenlabor is all confused about a balance that works for cultural change . The fear mongering deterministic idealists ( that action is needed to save the world )  they have become, forces them to be one sided in their politics of action- just completely fantastical and committed to raw power
They don't realise that you can't lead the horses to water if they don't get a drink .  
Hanson Young and ABC are so lost in their own worries and modus operandi that they  don't realise that everyone would agree to prosecuting the  water thieves -- job done. ,

Spending more money on a NEW PLAN  and a new agreement ? , if you put this to a plebiscite the idea would leave the whole Left in the dark .
This false faith in agreements and what they can do is the same sort of desperate high power politics that must be rejected once and for all by the Australian people .is all this work on Climate Change agreements any more effective.??   A new way not jut another agreement .
This latest bit of desperation by Weatherall maybe the tipping point for his lot being tipped out big time ------ we all do hope so!
There is nothing wrong with agreements ,but lets not turn them into the final decisionmaking  tools and numbers when we have a drought.
Lets ALL stop this  feast for lawyers and ignorant pedants - law games for the rich.
lets go back to the idea of law we inherited from our forefathers - minimal as necessary
In a paradox that wouldn't surprise the most religious of us, the Greens are the most talkative about community engagement,  but, in their advocacy of coercion , the least talking to issues of cooperation ( as befits conservation that works) - the least credible

Monday, June 26, 2017

Dreams that can come true

Having worked all my life to improve river and catchment health,  I know that panic attacks don't work and recent ones  by the Wentworth group will not work either  .The contrasting scales of their ambitions  ( large territory - tiny focus - water flora )says everything a decent practical ecologist needs to know ---that they do not know what they are doing. Effective ecological action is system wide and wise which means paradoxically its usually small scale.

Even if Prof Pittock gets another 5 billion he won't make any difference to the on ground situation.
He is a follower not a leader and he's looking after a lot of dumb misled and incompetent followers who are looking into the water but not really into the big picture . . yes it  maybe  in a good cause but we all know about good intentions and where they can lead ;

 I can tell hes not sure where he is going  because he sells survey and stats like it was the be all end all - it is NOT and not enough to spend 5 billion on.
 Pittock effectively says nothing --they will tell you things you want to hear or what we want you to hear - but of course !
 .What desperate drip feeders ( and the press )don't want to hear is that we have (as the MDG chairman said also last night)  - we have been improving things .
The poor old cynics at the ABC and in the Big Green corridor would not have anything to talk about  with such non devastating news.
 So here we get  joint complicity in stupidity ; when both parties believe that stats will lead us to science and nirvana itself. As any good practical scientist knows , stats rightly canvassed  might tell you about a problem or give you insight  ( cf solution ) but only if we are not looking too hard for one existing one.

You see all this attention to so called big problems and big catchments is all wrong , Just as wrong and misguided as  all this monitoring of the complex beast;This  is no way to get a handle on living systems and their complex dealings with dynamic environments without dissecting the substance in a deliberately professional and deep way . see recent book on over prescription in monitoring in medicine  "Snowballs in a blizzard" .
The Opposition could win government by turning OFF all the stupid ignorant and wasteful monitoring surveys that substitute for real professionals who know what health in a living system looks like (usually at a glance )
To be effective in keeping the resilient beast alive you have to UNDERSTAND the beast (eg  soils water, physiology) . Only then do you have some idea of whether the living systems are  interacting in a healthy way --are well on the way or on the edge .
This job is not hard provided government supports proper study of the locally interacting systems and provides application of the study to work together (with say farmers) who are the target of so much patronage and false projection here .
Targeting  effective targeting . You see not everyone in the catchment is behaving badly , When our leaders properly supported conservation,  we would hunt out and find the risk factors and talk to them;   about ways to improve their contribution -- and it worked .
The problem with what followed here , is it doesn't work .Not only doesn't the new coercion focus work, but its falling over big time .
 Conservation costs and only by bringing the payers with us can we continue to win .
The end of popular public conservation pressure in nigh . And you can't just blame Trump . The true cost of all the hypocritical games played in the good name of conservation is coming home to roost in a big way .
If you want to know HOW to make the dream come true,  read more about my experience in river and catchment  management here 

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Great speech Malcolm 1 Feb 2017

Some of the most inspirational speeches in history come NOT from the brilliance of polys minds  but as a result of direct stupidity of the other half . Such was the power driving his speech TODAY .
And not to put polys in a box, the stupidity idealism and ignorance of many people - especially those who claim to know what science says but have no idea of the science .
Labor governments failure to anticipate power failures and talk to careers with their shallow veneer of concern about education has been evident to us for decades, even if its not evident to them  .We are involved in industry.

I don't get their idealism which seems to be quite irrational and illogical
Their idealism would make sense  if hey will get their reward in heaven for atmospheric improvements -
 Yet they are in denial about uncertainties about the damnation that faces the world . To the point to they seem  have insurance policies to protect their reputation on their death but unlike most scientists on the planet  they are not sure Co2 emissions alone are the disastrous evil elements they in particular  imagine they are

 It helps that big elements of this challenge come largely from Greenlabors errors in worry fear and ignorance , ( they are NOT practical)


Greenlabor idealizes technology w/out understanding it or own misanthropy

Friday, December 23, 2016

Many Libs blatantly support exploitation of our primary resources ----incl us

Incompetent meddling in water resources .

Governments around Australia foolishly allowed the traditional water rights of landowners to be compromised a few years ago and they MUST review where they have been and REFORM the system 
so it makes more sense like old water rights did .

The high taxing and incompetent water boards ( they don't know environment) were given too much power in the rush to privatize./ admin the issue of water . The waste on Desal plants might not have happened if these gunghos in power had kept INDEPENDENT advisors of COMPLEX environmental matters .

They MUST return to that and stop the bleeding hearts and pockets of those who have to put up with adviser after advisor , contractor after contractor, rip off investor etc 
The need to regulate irrigation water ( cf stock and domestic) should remain . 
Whats mad is this idea that a market type charge ( maybe cost recovery fee?) should apply and that water licences are a source of equity in the industry .When there is a drought there is little water to share. 
A true water conservation policy is not market driven but people, good resource and need driven. God and simple capability allocation commitments should largely determine when where and whether our highly efficient farmers get water , Not hard and should be done .
Polys should repent at Christmas of their addiction to all things market and the simple bookkeeping approach to resource allocation .

Too many LIbs are just like Scrooge, and about as big thinking

Friday, October 21, 2016

Political Puppets

People who see themselves as Progressives seem to forget that old is new again . People who see themselves as Supremely Rational  seem to forget that sometimes a piece of essential reasoning is missing in their long winded approach to Nirvana  .
Take when it comes to leaders  and the machinery of stupidity that drives them ;

The idealism of the evolutionary determinists forces them to be unwilling to understand the past and how things work,Their failure to study and properly represent scientists is a low light - esp when they speak for us .
Their worship of nature as good forces them to ignore nature as bad .Nature is not moral by nature and to deny that or impose that is to drive everyone mad morally.
 (Especially when people like those at the ABC insist on their view of science history progress and moral noncompass. Lets have a new broom sweep out those old foggies who have had their chance to tell their story .We all know the parasite element in there would not survive under its own steam outside ! )
We need a new conservatism and freedom that works .--  not just talk
Nowhere is this more evident TODAY than in the candidates  for the US election .

CLINTON  What progress throws up is someone who thinks government is by nature good and next to God .   Such tax based stuff cannot work long term - we need a new conservatism that works .
Bracks and Thwaites in Victoria Australia made perfect puppets for GreenLabor; those who  didn't think but filled with fear and arrogance  thought  they could and needed to make water.
TRUMP Not one of us, lets be frank, want to even think about what it would be like to have TRUMP as president . I don't need to expand on the way he symbolizes all that is really  bad about our culture - self centered ,overly confident , arrogant and agents of quick fix .

--Let others remind us of all that is wrong with our leaders.  
-- Let others remind us how much leaders reflect our fears - both real and unreal
--Let others remind us of our greed even though we are some of the richest people ever.

Our teachers taught us that we get the government we deserve ( we can and often do )

Why does it take so long for us to see the reality ?.
This risk is  a the reality that was obvious to our forebears and any of us who ever worked for leaders in government,  

-Anyone who has an eye to see and and an ear to hear about Reagan , Bush  Bush and .......       ------Anyone who thinks by stats and experiment we can discover all that's important is living in darkness with mere words and numbers 
The leaders are puppets
The only way to treat the disease is to face the disease . Even the public are tardy in facing the facts . Its not the leaders idea that are stupid but our very selves- how we think and make excuses for eg  .

If you want some relief on this read GK Chesterton talking about his friend "GB Shaw The Progressive"

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Power or Persuasion

The lights go on  in public discussion about real world issues like energy supply . Insiders 9th Oct
Good to see Chris Ulmann listening to the experts . The woman from the Guardian listens only to the mouth full of rhetoric that media and polys have been forced fed to digest over the years . And she spat it out in droves today . Decarbonizing she said . A chimney sweep might help her overcome her fears and careless demonising.

Tis reasoning that boxes them in in their own reasoning. They claim to talk science but use reasoning only as it suits them to prop up an old reason - Its a form of scientism and of course its doomed to failure once the power supply to it is cut off :

Stop the drip feed Parliament or far far better
ABC - do some house cleaning before the stupid hatchet men cut your legs off !
Cummon ABC - have some credible guests to foil the ignorant chattering classes and raise the dust , We
only half watch the ABC now . Its like tame and fearfilled . Not the fearless dragon we expect