So Copenhagen is finally over. Years of wishing and hoping but not much actual effort are to be replaced with a statement which ‘seeks to limit’, ‘promises the most vulnerable’ and ‘hopes for a binding treaty’. Sounds like more wishing and hoping to me or at best, too little, too late.
Why am I suddenly so pessimistic? I have just read the survey of beliefs of Australians in today’s Sydney Morning Herald. It contains many surprising (at least to me) findings but perhaps the most revealing are these two- only 42% of Australians believe in the Theory of Evolution but 63% believe in miracles.
Whilst it would be hard to find a credible scientist who does not believe that Darwin nailed it 200 years ago, the majority of Australians, almost all of who studied Evolution at school, refuse to believe that for which there is ample evidence, even within the DNA of their own bodies. Yet none of us has witnessed a bona fide miracle but the majority believes them to occur. Go figure!
What’s this got to do with climate change? Think about this- very few scientists of note still do not accept man-made climate change as fact, yet many of us with lesser, or no, qualifications to make an informed decision on the matter still refuse to believe the obvious.
If the World is to avoid climate change it will not be because the average Joe and Mary or their representatives, our political leaders, have taken the bull by the horns. It will be up to the scientific community to come up with solutions, largely off their own bat. Hopefully there are nutty professor types out there now, in garages and backyard sheds or grossly underfunded laboratories, working away on new techniques to get us out of this mess.
Or perhaps we are waiting on a miracle or some sort of sign. A partridge in a pear tree?
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Old? Never. Aging? Maybe.
It's my birthday on September 9 and we're having a party at The Chocolate Shop from about 6pm on Saturday 12th September.
If you got an invite I hope to see you there. If you didn't but should of, then please accept my apologies and rock up anyway.
To find out how old Geoff will be on
If you got an invite I hope to see you there. If you didn't but should of, then please accept my apologies and rock up anyway.
To find out how old Geoff will be on
09.09.09
you have to either
- look at this screen while standing on your head or
- turn your monitor upside down or
- use Ctrl+Alt+Down Arrow keys to turn your screen upside-down. (Use Ctrl+Alt+Up Arrow keys to restore screen or, if you prefer, simply stand on your head when operating the computer in future.)
The Chocolate Shop is at the entrance to the carpark behind the IGA Supermarket in Berry.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Stepping over the line.
Performers, artists, writers and even bloggers tend to push the boundaries. That's part of their role in highlighting what they see as important in society. An open, democratic and vibrant society depends on the different viewpoints expressed by our more creative and motivated individuals.
In their zeal to be first to make a point these individuals sometimes overstep the boundaries which society at large deems acceptable. The Chaser's recent 'sick' joke about dying children is a good example.
In many cases this boundary of acceptability is a wide, grey blur rather than a distinct, black line. The position of the blur and the line can change over time as society's attitudes change.
However there are some things that are wrong on a fundamental, instinctive, even biological level. One is the sexual exploitation of children.
Not long ago we had the stir created when 'photographic artist' Bill Henson exhibited a photograph of a naked young teenage girl. As I said in an earlier post, the fact that the girl's misguided parents consented to the photo made it no less exploitative. The fact that many excused the content of the photo in the name of art made it no more acceptable in a society which values the innocence of its children either.
Again this week we have seen another blatant example of child abuse perpetrated in the name of creativity. I refer to the lie detector test on a 14 year old girl about her sexual experiences which 2Day FM's resident grub, Kyle Sandilands and his sidekick, Jackie O performed live on air. Perhaps unknown to them, she has previously been sexallly assaulted once before and broke down on air. But it was not at that point that The Grub and Grubette were at fault. The real offence occurred at the point they conceived of the segment and decided to go ahead with it.
After a week Sandilands and Jackie O are off air and he has lost the gig at Idol. These decisions should have been instantaneous but at least we are rid of them, for the time being.
At some point society and we as individuals must take a stand. If someone says to you that "perhaps" they overstepped the mark or that it was "probably" a bad idea, jump down their throat. Tell them in very clear language that what occurred was an affront to civil society and women and girls in particular and ANY apologetic sentiments are seen as condoning the sexual exploitation of children.
Sometimes stepping over the line of good manners is preferable to allowing these travesties to continue.
In their zeal to be first to make a point these individuals sometimes overstep the boundaries which society at large deems acceptable. The Chaser's recent 'sick' joke about dying children is a good example.
In many cases this boundary of acceptability is a wide, grey blur rather than a distinct, black line. The position of the blur and the line can change over time as society's attitudes change.
However there are some things that are wrong on a fundamental, instinctive, even biological level. One is the sexual exploitation of children.
Not long ago we had the stir created when 'photographic artist' Bill Henson exhibited a photograph of a naked young teenage girl. As I said in an earlier post, the fact that the girl's misguided parents consented to the photo made it no less exploitative. The fact that many excused the content of the photo in the name of art made it no more acceptable in a society which values the innocence of its children either.
Again this week we have seen another blatant example of child abuse perpetrated in the name of creativity. I refer to the lie detector test on a 14 year old girl about her sexual experiences which 2Day FM's resident grub, Kyle Sandilands and his sidekick, Jackie O performed live on air. Perhaps unknown to them, she has previously been sexallly assaulted once before and broke down on air. But it was not at that point that The Grub and Grubette were at fault. The real offence occurred at the point they conceived of the segment and decided to go ahead with it.
After a week Sandilands and Jackie O are off air and he has lost the gig at Idol. These decisions should have been instantaneous but at least we are rid of them, for the time being.
At some point society and we as individuals must take a stand. If someone says to you that "perhaps" they overstepped the mark or that it was "probably" a bad idea, jump down their throat. Tell them in very clear language that what occurred was an affront to civil society and women and girls in particular and ANY apologetic sentiments are seen as condoning the sexual exploitation of children.
Sometimes stepping over the line of good manners is preferable to allowing these travesties to continue.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
What's in a Name?
What's in a name? A lot sometimes, it seems.
I changed my name to Of The Above None before the last Federal election so that I would appear on the ballot paper as NONE, Of The Above.
There were two very good reasons for doing so. Firstly, it gained me a lot of free publicity and as the only Independent candidate in the field I had no party to fund my campaign. Most of my friends, whilst supportive, were rusted-on Greens so most of the funding had to come from my own pocket.
Secondly- and this was the original motivation and more important reason- I wanted to encourage voters to think about the idea that there is more wisdom than that which emanates from the parties. There was, and still is, a message in my silliness.
So it was with this background that while listening to Malcolm Turnbull give this week's excuse for not supporting Climate Change legislation, I suddenly thought that he should follow my lead and change his name also.
Descriptive names from Native American tribes, or those that sound like they could be, were popular at one stage.
"TalkAlotDoNothing" would just about sum Malcolm up.
I changed my name to Of The Above None before the last Federal election so that I would appear on the ballot paper as NONE, Of The Above.
There were two very good reasons for doing so. Firstly, it gained me a lot of free publicity and as the only Independent candidate in the field I had no party to fund my campaign. Most of my friends, whilst supportive, were rusted-on Greens so most of the funding had to come from my own pocket.
Secondly- and this was the original motivation and more important reason- I wanted to encourage voters to think about the idea that there is more wisdom than that which emanates from the parties. There was, and still is, a message in my silliness.
So it was with this background that while listening to Malcolm Turnbull give this week's excuse for not supporting Climate Change legislation, I suddenly thought that he should follow my lead and change his name also.
Descriptive names from Native American tribes, or those that sound like they could be, were popular at one stage.
"TalkAlotDoNothing" would just about sum Malcolm up.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
A Seat at the Table
So the truth is out there. Malcolm Turnbull looks forward to an Australia where everyone has private health insurance. The unambiguous implication of this is that a Government system of universal health cover, paid from taxes, would no longer exist.
I suppose as a squillionaire he can indulge himself in a belief in what I call the Magic Pudding* theory of economics. That is, by skillful economic management it's possible that everyone can be rich, all at the same time. We can continually take from the pudding and it magically regrows for the next meal. I suppose that way it's easier to ingore those who find it hard to get a seat at the table. It's all their own fault, somehow.
We've just had over a decade of relative, though not universal, prosperity but all things come to an end and the current economic circumstance in which our pudding is shrinking bear testimony to the fact that an ever expanding economy is an illusion.
In reality Malcolm's real world view a dressed up version of that old favourite of the elite everywhere, the Rich Man's Table theory of economics. This holds that some individuals are better able or placed to generate economic activity and therefore it is largely due to their enterprise that the economic 'cake' grows. Further they seem to believe that they are therefore entitled to the lion's share of the cake. Of course in their unseemly haste to consume the spoils of their efforts they will invariably cause crumbs to fall from the table. That's where you and I seem to enter the theory.
Perhaps we need to take a long hard look at what we expect from our society. A biologist will tell you that we can achieve our basic goals- food, shelter and a reasonable chance of finding a mate if we were to go back to living in small tribes of tens or hundreds rather than the millions we now find ourselves amongst.
Why did we congregate? Surely it was so that we could achieve economies of scale, especially in the areas of defence, food production, education and health care. Surely it was not so that we could prey more effectively on each other?
We would dismiss in an instant as ridiculous the idea that we should have private defence insurance. That is, one could pay some money each week and in the event of an invasion a highly trained, well armed team of private soldiers (mercenaries) would rush to your defence while the great unwashed sought salvation from an underfunded, underequiped ADF.
Similarly, why should we countenance private health insurance. It's dressed-up, legalised queue jumping.
Take a look at Malcolm (Bill Barnacle) Turnbull's future Australia by reading how the private health insurance lobby has a stranglehold on government in the US. Click here.
* THE MAGIC PUDDING by Norman Lindsay. The story features a walking, talking pudding that likes to be eaten and never runs out. The pudding is owned by three companions: Bill Barnacle the sailor, Bunyip Bluegum the koala, and Sam Sawnoff the penguin, who form the Noble Society of Pudding Owners (aka the Liberal Party?). They engage in various adventures, wandering around the country, happily eating, conversing and singing, except when forced to defend their property from pudding thieves.
I suppose as a squillionaire he can indulge himself in a belief in what I call the Magic Pudding* theory of economics. That is, by skillful economic management it's possible that everyone can be rich, all at the same time. We can continually take from the pudding and it magically regrows for the next meal. I suppose that way it's easier to ingore those who find it hard to get a seat at the table. It's all their own fault, somehow.
We've just had over a decade of relative, though not universal, prosperity but all things come to an end and the current economic circumstance in which our pudding is shrinking bear testimony to the fact that an ever expanding economy is an illusion.
In reality Malcolm's real world view a dressed up version of that old favourite of the elite everywhere, the Rich Man's Table theory of economics. This holds that some individuals are better able or placed to generate economic activity and therefore it is largely due to their enterprise that the economic 'cake' grows. Further they seem to believe that they are therefore entitled to the lion's share of the cake. Of course in their unseemly haste to consume the spoils of their efforts they will invariably cause crumbs to fall from the table. That's where you and I seem to enter the theory.
Perhaps we need to take a long hard look at what we expect from our society. A biologist will tell you that we can achieve our basic goals- food, shelter and a reasonable chance of finding a mate if we were to go back to living in small tribes of tens or hundreds rather than the millions we now find ourselves amongst.
Why did we congregate? Surely it was so that we could achieve economies of scale, especially in the areas of defence, food production, education and health care. Surely it was not so that we could prey more effectively on each other?
We would dismiss in an instant as ridiculous the idea that we should have private defence insurance. That is, one could pay some money each week and in the event of an invasion a highly trained, well armed team of private soldiers (mercenaries) would rush to your defence while the great unwashed sought salvation from an underfunded, underequiped ADF.
Similarly, why should we countenance private health insurance. It's dressed-up, legalised queue jumping.
Take a look at Malcolm (Bill Barnacle) Turnbull's future Australia by reading how the private health insurance lobby has a stranglehold on government in the US. Click here.
* THE MAGIC PUDDING by Norman Lindsay. The story features a walking, talking pudding that likes to be eaten and never runs out. The pudding is owned by three companions: Bill Barnacle the sailor, Bunyip Bluegum the koala, and Sam Sawnoff the penguin, who form the Noble Society of Pudding Owners (aka the Liberal Party?). They engage in various adventures, wandering around the country, happily eating, conversing and singing, except when forced to defend their property from pudding thieves.
Did you see it?
Did you see the counter at right click over $666,666,666,666 ?
Now there's something to tell the grandkids.
Now there's something to tell the grandkids.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Pushing the 666 Button
As I write this at 9pm on Thursday 16/4/09 AEST an amazing figure is about to flash past on the counter to the right. Soon the US will have spent a mind-boggling $666,666,666,666 on the war in Iraq. What an achievement!
I'm not the least superstitious- at least not in my saner moments- but the line up of multiple 666's and the war in Iraq seems to have a certain apocalyptic symmetry.
You could argue that this money would have been far better spent on hospitals, schools, combatting the War on Warming (the real war we need to fight and win) and a myriad of other more socially responsible initiatives but this would deny the Boys with Toys (the military) their once a decade chance to test their new playthings in real life (and death) situations.
There seems to be something about the human psyche that means we feel compelled to hit the destruct/self-destruct button every now and then.
Don't bother reading on if you are expecting me to come up with a rational explanation for this bizarre behaviour. I don't understand it either. All I can do is comment on it and depair over it like many millions of others with a firmer grip on the reality of everyday life than the pollies and Generals who have their fingers on the triggers and red buttons of the World.
Speaking of nutters with their fingers on the trigger, Commodore Frank Bainimarama seems to be following the script in leading his country down the self destruct path. Frank's beef seems to be that the indigenous population have been or are likely to be overun by the Fijian Indian community.
Well Frank it's like this. The Fijian Indians are a hard working, commercially astute people who don't see their prosperity flowing from a life of navel gazing and drinking kava. In a perfect world we'd all like the indulgence of the latter lifestyle but the realities of the 21st Century mean that the only way you are likely to achieve it as a full-time pursuit is at the point of a gun. History shows that this situation will not endure. The pointees resent it and eventually hit back.
So instead of swimming against the tide of history, Frank would be doing his people a bigger favour by attempting to bring the two Fijian communities together, instead of pushing them apart. If not, then as if joined by an invisible elastic band, at some point the tension between them will mean they will be pulled back inwards towards a violent collision.
Perhaps in a decade or so this particlar button will be pushed.
Lest we Forget.
I'm not the least superstitious- at least not in my saner moments- but the line up of multiple 666's and the war in Iraq seems to have a certain apocalyptic symmetry.
You could argue that this money would have been far better spent on hospitals, schools, combatting the War on Warming (the real war we need to fight and win) and a myriad of other more socially responsible initiatives but this would deny the Boys with Toys (the military) their once a decade chance to test their new playthings in real life (and death) situations.
There seems to be something about the human psyche that means we feel compelled to hit the destruct/self-destruct button every now and then.
Don't bother reading on if you are expecting me to come up with a rational explanation for this bizarre behaviour. I don't understand it either. All I can do is comment on it and depair over it like many millions of others with a firmer grip on the reality of everyday life than the pollies and Generals who have their fingers on the triggers and red buttons of the World.
Speaking of nutters with their fingers on the trigger, Commodore Frank Bainimarama seems to be following the script in leading his country down the self destruct path. Frank's beef seems to be that the indigenous population have been or are likely to be overun by the Fijian Indian community.
Well Frank it's like this. The Fijian Indians are a hard working, commercially astute people who don't see their prosperity flowing from a life of navel gazing and drinking kava. In a perfect world we'd all like the indulgence of the latter lifestyle but the realities of the 21st Century mean that the only way you are likely to achieve it as a full-time pursuit is at the point of a gun. History shows that this situation will not endure. The pointees resent it and eventually hit back.
So instead of swimming against the tide of history, Frank would be doing his people a bigger favour by attempting to bring the two Fijian communities together, instead of pushing them apart. If not, then as if joined by an invisible elastic band, at some point the tension between them will mean they will be pulled back inwards towards a violent collision.
Perhaps in a decade or so this particlar button will be pushed.
Lest we Forget.
Friday, January 16, 2009
They have a Dream
I'm told some animals, even non-human animals, dream to some extent. In fact, I've seen a video of a cat chasing an imaginary mouse while sleepwalking. But I think that it would be fair to say that non-humans dream of everyday stuff, like mice or other tasty treats or perhaps being chased by a predator. I doubt they dream of grand ideas like liberty or democracy. Only humans dare to dream beyond their everyday experience.
Take the people of Palestine for instance. They've not experienced real liberty in living memory, yet they dream of one day returning to their homeland that they believe is rightfully theirs. Why? Because it is the land in which their grandfathers, great-grandfathers, etc., were born.
Only one thing prevents their return; the dream of another people who believe that many thousands of years ago their God gave them the very same bit of this Earth.
They took their chance to return to their homeland at the end of the Second World War after two millennia living elsewhere. They organized themselves; they fundraised to buy arms; they formed militant groups which carried out terrorist activities against the Arab population (the Palestinians) and the British, who still had colonial control of Palestine; they mobilized World opinion and eventually the UN ratified their claim to the land of Palestine.
The Palestinians meanwhile were either forced to flee to refugee camps in neighbouring countries or live as second-class citizens in their (old) homeland.
Two peoples; each believing in rightful sole ownership of the same bit of dirt. Each with a dream of living peacefully in their homeland. It’s a real dilemma.
This brings us then to the thing that really sets us apart from the animals. We alone seem to have the ability to believe that our dreams can be authoritative statements of reality even when there is no supporting evidence or even evidence to the contrary. We can cross the line from imagination to delusion.
So let’s look at the Israeli/Palestinian issue. Whose dream is more real? Which is rooted more in reality? Which is more evidence-based and which is more fanciful? Who has more right to the bit of the Earth now comprising the State of Israel and the two Palestinian territories, the West Bank and Gaza.
Are the Palestinians delusional in their claim of ownership based on 2000 years of tenure or are the Israelis even more realistic and righteous in their belief that their God* gave the land to them? Does divine proclamation override legal title based on inheritance?
Well, let's give the issue a contemporary Australian context and see if that helps us decide.
Put simply, if you side with the Palestinians you probably have a right to give short shrift to any Aboriginal person who knocks on your door and claims ownership of your house on the basis that his Dreamtime belief is that his people are the rightful owners of your land.
If you side with the Israelis then you should immediately contact your local Aboriginal Land Council and organize the transfer of ownership of any properties you have title to.
Unless you’re delusional, of course.
*Possibly the same God as the Palestinians’ God and if so this begs the question- Why didn’t he tell the Palestinians he was dispossessing them?
Take the people of Palestine for instance. They've not experienced real liberty in living memory, yet they dream of one day returning to their homeland that they believe is rightfully theirs. Why? Because it is the land in which their grandfathers, great-grandfathers, etc., were born.
Only one thing prevents their return; the dream of another people who believe that many thousands of years ago their God gave them the very same bit of this Earth.
They took their chance to return to their homeland at the end of the Second World War after two millennia living elsewhere. They organized themselves; they fundraised to buy arms; they formed militant groups which carried out terrorist activities against the Arab population (the Palestinians) and the British, who still had colonial control of Palestine; they mobilized World opinion and eventually the UN ratified their claim to the land of Palestine.
The Palestinians meanwhile were either forced to flee to refugee camps in neighbouring countries or live as second-class citizens in their (old) homeland.
Two peoples; each believing in rightful sole ownership of the same bit of dirt. Each with a dream of living peacefully in their homeland. It’s a real dilemma.
This brings us then to the thing that really sets us apart from the animals. We alone seem to have the ability to believe that our dreams can be authoritative statements of reality even when there is no supporting evidence or even evidence to the contrary. We can cross the line from imagination to delusion.
So let’s look at the Israeli/Palestinian issue. Whose dream is more real? Which is rooted more in reality? Which is more evidence-based and which is more fanciful? Who has more right to the bit of the Earth now comprising the State of Israel and the two Palestinian territories, the West Bank and Gaza.
Are the Palestinians delusional in their claim of ownership based on 2000 years of tenure or are the Israelis even more realistic and righteous in their belief that their God* gave the land to them? Does divine proclamation override legal title based on inheritance?
Well, let's give the issue a contemporary Australian context and see if that helps us decide.
Put simply, if you side with the Palestinians you probably have a right to give short shrift to any Aboriginal person who knocks on your door and claims ownership of your house on the basis that his Dreamtime belief is that his people are the rightful owners of your land.
If you side with the Israelis then you should immediately contact your local Aboriginal Land Council and organize the transfer of ownership of any properties you have title to.
Unless you’re delusional, of course.
*Possibly the same God as the Palestinians’ God and if so this begs the question- Why didn’t he tell the Palestinians he was dispossessing them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)