Monday, June 26, 2017

The end of an error - cost of feel good tokens is coming home to roost

The end of the world is not nigh ,
but the end of  the big popular media world of crapping on carelessly about conservation is ,

The left can go on and on about how big business of some careless bastard ( WWLF ads for tigers) does this wrong -  but only for so long ---- before we ALL pay and pay big time-- if they go political .


Should we be worried about the state of the Murray River Basin ? I think not, but I'll tell you why later.













Here' s a clue for later .
The majority of Aussies get off scot free ---- theoretically
Their rivers are on the coast...   Not my problem mate?

Let me remind you of the journey so far
, Lots of great ideas  but great costs that eventually  hit YOUR hip pocket .$1 a litre  for made water and carbon taxes to fund solar and windmills,
Worse -we have pretended collectively that solar and wind will keep us warm in winter. Blind sided twaddle that makes people feel good- at least in the short term,
This thinking is not true conservation at all  True conservation  IS "short term pain long term gain"inspired by the option" short term gain , long term pain" . 
We as a society have collectively been kidding ourselves .
Now that the chickens have come home to roost collectively public political conservation games are going to be sat on . The euphoria of just pretending to do something good will  stop because the costs of the ineffective drugs we are taking to you and me  and our kids is huge  
Did we and our leaders pretend that conservation doesn't cost ? The simple correct answer is that we have.
Our water and electricity costs have got up because someone has to pay and that's us .We must learn to be more realistic about what happens in the real world. Thats a basic restarting point for all who want to still be conservationists in the best sense of the word ( sustainable productive economy ) 

THE TRUTH is that leaders and the media can only get greedy people to vote for a conservation measure  if those people think someone else will pay  . eg   Big business or,  in the case of the river or the reef,   the farmers or the ship  or coal  owners.  
(The wonderful  small group who do conservation by paying for it themselves is small ; They can only do it because THEY manage to keep costs  down ( something Govt isn't so good at) or are prepared to wait for a quality reward.)This group plus professional advisors  is the proper building model for conservation action,  NOT the now more common idea of popular licence  for government coercion ( Ok in those rare moments when danger is unseen)

When this ANU  teacher Pittock wants more money for studies in his area , why does it make news? Why is Pittocks story  news ? I suggest it is "news that is not news"  because the audience like feel good stories and worse :

Internet assent is dangerous because they is no cost for comment 
The audience still don't get it that to agree with him  will cost someone money.
 Its hypocritical assent action news because the Professor wants more money for his cause ( and their are probably equally worthy causes )and WE allowed him time to play the violin in our houses;  Switch em off i say
The reason this issue is  on your screen is because if we have a history of assent to giving the bloke money ( 5 billion in his case )---because it will make us feel good .see Telecom 2000 report on Futures ( 1978)
We should NOT say "its worthy of attention and money" if WE are not prepared to pay (and to weigh up which bucket)
-We should not say YES  just because to say no will make us feel bad .
( This is surely the mistake at the heart of the modern ages messy dealings with morality) 
We should say NO because
-the decision is not ours ( none of our business) and
-there is a high risk that its appearance on the screen has more to do with making someone
 feel better ( by responding in a certain way) and
- our BLINDNESS about the fact that SOMEONE  WILL PAY is still current ( blowing the budget in fact)
 Dairy farmers along the Murray have already paid dearly as a result of  actions dictated , not by sound cost benefit analysis
 but by feel good reactions to press and party predictions of disaster.  Disasters that the WENTWORTH group have NOT identified ,

It is in the nature of catchment development that we reduce the amount of water flowing out of rivers . Sure if there is a species or systems issue lets hear it ---  BUT not guilt trips about the very fact that it happens . The muart river system is highly modified . 

If in doubt say no and spend your conservation dollar locally so government don't charge you so much for US  all giving in to those who don't want to pay a cent for their decisions/goodwill gestures.


Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Call for constitutional documents from the Muslim community

How can we better deal with radical Islam and the fear and support it generates ?
We can  insist  on less confusion about what is taught or can be taught in the name of Islam or its Sects.

Reducing confusion by being more clear –Clear constitutions
So like all institutions, there are variations of opinion about what it is to be a member of a group.

The way the West has resolved this for centuries is to have a constitutional document which the group itself defines what is essential to be in or out of the group.
 It allows freedom but within limits that help both insiders and outsiders to know what they mean.

The constitution is not just binding – it helps us relate to each other better -both insiders and outsiders. New associations, including those who want to call themselves religious ( like Patriots, Non deterministic Atheists) are best to create their very own constitution if they want to avoid unnecessary fear ,ridicule , anger and schism . We the audience can’t know where all new ideas are coming from,  but it helps if left field groups help themselves and make it easier for us to know when or why we might listen-- by constitution connection. 


Australian Christians are and always have been happy to accept the critical role of constitutional documents and specifically lobbied ( eg Fairfax) for the AC to proclaim freedom for all faiths to have their own –even outside Australia. This is the case throughout Western history and reflects the initial first book understanding of Judeo-Christians that all me are born under God to make their own decisions about their lives ; The critical constitutional documents for Christians are well known,  studied and  criticized in and outside institutions ;  for nearly 2  thousand years. To help clarity further Constitutions close to Christian are called Sects.
Why don’t Muslims call ISIS a Sect ?     

Clearly Christians celebrate the separation of church and State .”My kingdom is not of this world “ Jesus said. This means that for most Christians,  political action of the church  must be first and foremost an expression of the work of individuals and they alone should drive any concerted action – not that of the church – His church . 
Would it not be helpful if Muslims too made clear how they understand the way they individually and collectively get involved in the State?
Maybe it’s time for all religious groups to do the same and restate the way they relate to State issues?

The nervous, apparently non-religious public?
What most thinking people are against is confusion of fact and logic about what is religious. We cant do much about the fear of terrorists but we can do something to reduce the fear and ignorance about what its taught.  It’s not just politicians who have a problems here. The majority of the West have lost touch with their religious roots .(their radical elements)  This lost understanding is clear to anyone who studies both the talk and the action of groups like the far right ;  it’s clear their understanding  of what it means to be a real Christian is not clear. Get rid of unnecessary confusion .

New religious groupings
Any parties who want to claim ownership of Christian culture (not so rare in Europe at the moment) must face the dilemma that , true believers  go from extreme right to far left in most countries .Patriots only own the Christian position as far as they themselves individually own the known Christian constitution . In not accepting the separation of church and state it appears some Patriots  cannot represent the Christian constitution.
  When the Patriots, say in Poland at the moment,   speak of being in a Christian country, they are talking much more to culture not constitution. Because they are seeking associations they find it easy not to define their own. They are often not clear whether why are talking culture or constitution.  Like Italian cooking is a cultural thing, its boundaries do not need a constitution. For most Christians the place of culture in their constitution and that of our government is a controversial thing (See Christ and Culture – R Neibuhr;  ) 
What our society needs ( is not more fear and confusion that we are being fed) is to be more reminded of things that are clear;  about SOLID matters of constitution.

It’s the constitutional documents that give us confidence to talk freely and more deeply about our differences. We can do all this as before because Western culture asserts the individual’s freedom with the limits of the words in the appropriate constituting body.    It’s in the constitutional documents that we can talk to real conflict and resolve to agree to disagree or meet and act separately.

 Constitutional documents should interest Patriots, conservative Christians and all thinkers alike—yet we are being denied them – by lack of pressure and focus by politicians like George Brandis. Some conservative Christians don’t want to talk about killing instructions in the Old Testament but we make them. Let’s be fair and expect a minimum level of rational discussion and reduced labeling of religious groups.


It’s in the woof and warp of Western culture at its best
to hold people to account for their words and the words of their constituting groups. According to clear Christian practice for thousands of years we have to be very careful how we speak about individuals but there “all hell “is permissible to throw at institutions. Political animals ( including media) do not generally like this teaching if there is conflict between them and us. The truth can find itself on a very lonely road.

Reducing Confusion  Why we expect more clarity and accuracy from  the Australian  government

It’s  a bad day  for the religious radicals of one group to not answer the tough questions asked of them.

It’s a very much worse day for the whole world when the West hasn’t got the courage to ask the tough questions in the first place – and expect answers or say .as Christians can be expected to in relation to  some Levitical laws )
We expect our leaders to ask Muslims to clarify clearly if there are any matters of conflict with their faith and the Australian constitution . It is NOT enough to just talk of radical and moderate  groups . Constitutional clarification could be expected to make relations between migrants and the people more rational and clear and reduce the tension created by the current unnecessary uncertainty.

In my opinion, many of us who welcome the strong moral focus warm hospitality and hard work of Muslims would want this.  

We don’t expect our leaders to speak for Christians or to assume that Australia is a “ Christian country ( another careless and unacceptable inaccuracy) We do expect and support our  leaders to say  that long time faithful supporters of the Australian constitution are those who publish their constitution.   The Christian constitution fully and clearly upholds the Australian constitution and we expect all other religious groups to say so clearly in theirs. 

Name calling religions is not helping


Some of our Australian leaders have been making basic errors of logic in saying that its only radical forms of religion that are the ones at issue. This cannot be so. Mother Teresa is a radical Christian, just as Francis of Assisi was.
Most Christians would warmly accept the above persons as Christians. What happened to Jesus politically and what he said, testify that he was an earthshaking radical.

To a generation of Westerners who largely denied the power of religion (their own parents faith), this real power of religion comes as surprise. No matter- reactionaries abound but who is sound ?I assert its the sustainable reliable and predictable nature of the Christian constitution that can and should now form a focus of confidence as it has done right through the centuries. You don’t have to agree with it to accept these realities about it.( as TS Eliot says below) At least we know from thousands of years of history what a believer is expected to do to conform and not be punished or excluded.