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