Friday, August 25, 2017

Ideal Marriage --that's the one without sex in it ?

Marriage without sex ---towards the concept of perfect marriage
Here’s one definition I’d like to focus on
When the whole is , not only much greater than the sum of the parts, but takes us well beyond the parts.
Bob Katter on ABCthedrum said in August 2017 what many of us feel about what we perceive to be an abuse of the term marriage as applied to human beings. His casual honest average bloke style seems to make him a good spokesman for this concept because there is no completely rational way to talk about the subject when we humans talk it. (Enough said)
The bottom line is for me , he was saying what many of us feel-- that the changing of the definition of human marriage to include those who don’t risk the responsibility of  human products (children )would weaken its very high status for the future .
What then is a perfect marriage ?
Here is a perfect marriage of stone and steel
so is Bob right to get all fussed about the loss of meaning for the word marriage?  
I think Bob’s ’s right to get upset because the word is so good it can be used to describe many wonderful things and It should be used to describe the best thingsthe really creative things

This is the way it has been used as it has been for eons (as high ideal binder)- even in the civil marriage ceremony where love is not the issue. The focus of civil marriage can, has been and should be in the context of human beings with the potential for children - its special and specific focus –After all marriage is the stuff that holds us all together ( you me and the government

What’s natural in all this ?
The whole is greater than the sum of the parts is nothing new to nature. Both inorganic and organic processes create new identities that are bigger and different in character from the parts. molecules from atoms, cells from organelles.  Even the most humble things like rocks, water and sun move in predictable way to create the beyond . I would not call their relationship marriage.  

Marriage as unpredictable dangerous creativity

As blokes like Bob might say “ There has to be spark  to get a good marriage”. But are not  the spark and the fire ,  like your faith or worldview , plain dangerous – they press in on practice in the household and if they don’t work --people involved get burned . I will be the first to vote that governments can have a limited role in idealizing marriage,  but because it’s dangerous,  sound governments have to focus firstly on the people who get burned from it   - this is mainly  women and children , The statute for Civil marriage has been and always should be mainly focused on them

The Creative element
Hers my working definition of marriage without sex. It’s when the whole is, not only much greater than the sum of the parts, but takes us well beyond the parts.
No married couple ever knows what they are going to get from being committed to each other. They may have 2 or twenty kids, say 2 really nice ones and one rebel. Either way marriage is the strong frame that holds both them and us (via government) to care for them when the damage from the danger needs repairing .

Can government s have role in encouraging high ideals? Of course, education is more effective than law. The current preoccupation of the left with the law is a sign of widespread despair about how to educate-  watch them; they think coercion and that’s dangerous. No modern western party today can easily countenance education about ideals because there appears to be no consensus over a basis for morality -just tit for tat over items under dispute  

Is there a bottom line for government involvement in ideals?   Yes, there is still a consensus of sort s over some things.  Libertarians AGREE that government should be involved as little as possible in legislating – let alone legislating about love.
Choice options for libertarians when there is diversity --
1 Create uniformity
The pigs in animal farm used a shallow consensus about a lack of equality in decision-making on the farm to tip the government out. It wasn’t a sound revolution but just a grab for power justified in the name of superficial inequity.  
2.  Respect for Authority and authorship
The other ideal of husbandry was thrown out quickly in animal farm, not on the basic of actual abuse but ideal abuse. The super ideal of self-centeredness power and survival of the smartest (well-hidden by the pigs) got its way of doing things for a while. Such simplistic hypocritical moves don’t last long because no one really effectively considered in that mindset, the needs of everyone under such tyranny.  The movers and shakers of change for change sake (the ultimate progressives?) often  turn out to be change for my sake opportunists.
When no one is really serious about the tiring job of restoring some equity in opportunity or distribution, fair governance simply doesn’t happen.
3. Don’t bother to care When the bush lawyers want to find an excuse for not caring, they often make it seem like caring is too hard, Luke 10:25-29    Invoking dog eat dog determinism also needs kid gloves to get a hearing and quietly ignores the idea of parenting and self control etc

We should agree not to be easily persuaded by the use of  that equality
word . We need to use law ONLY to do what government needs to do (and is necessary)  to protect and frame all the marriages in the country, we do this by having a full house debate or plebiscite on this  – to protect women and children and establish the rights and responsibilities of fathers and governments to look after those children and widows or people displaced from its security .

I don’t think anyone should bully us into changing the meaning of the word just because it suits them.
We have a few months to decide whether we are going to water down the explosive potential of a word that captures the wonder of the unknown result of sexual creativity.
In my opinion, we are not that smart that we can say the West, which is following this current noise about widening its definition, really knows what it is doing.  
In fact, it’s clear to me the opposite; the West is lost in a desperate search for goodwill that confuses need with want and sacrifices its commitment to natural diversity with simplistic idealistic clauses about imposed equity.
Our children will pay a huge price for this no sense doctrine in unstable government until they /we re-establish resilience and respectful ( diversity is OK) reason on this  .
Australia will lead the world if it votes No to change

Thursday, June 9, 2016


 A Farmer in Australia is one who grows food for a living. ( more assumptions at end )
Abuse of a tiny minority ?
While they represent only approx 1% of the population,  they get mentioned a lot in political discourse . Because they are widely criticized for their treatment of animals,  native plants and water in particular , it is very serious when this tiny hard working group  are misrepresented , When innuendo , slur and snide dominate in the programming,  it can expected to provide inadequate representation of this very small group   The depression and suicide rate amongst them is high  at least partly because people speak for them , without really knowing their needs, desires and care for their many animals.
While they would refuse to use the term "disadvantaged "they often  pay themselves a very low rate per hour for working through the night on obstetrics duty . They are some of very few people in our community who don't get a reasonable reward for their work ( the main form of cruelty we see out here )   Their financial and relaxation  rewards are so low  that they often find it difficult to find a wife. . They often go unnoticed because they are too busy for emails and FaceBook.
Do you ever misrepresent them,  or use that word "farmer" for yourself when it suits you ?

How about our media ? Do they get careless and admit it ?They outta because if they do in election time the error can become the lie .

Farmers deserve better from ABCTV -----------esp  at election time

 Misrepresenting a profession is a very serious matter at election time.
We treat the qualifications for office as as critical as we do in any job interview.  .

To describe yourself as a farmer when its only a hobby is a very serious misrepresentation
1, ABC 's Lateline Emma Alberici gave a glowing 13min tribute to Greens leader Richard Di Natalie describing him as a farmer , 
The leader of the Greens would clearly not be accepted to that profession as he does  NOT demonstrate anything like a good understanding of how to do that job well .
--To treat the qualification :"farmer "with any less care than we treat "doctor" is to show contempt for the former.
--We know why advocates use the term (for spin ), because they have done it before 
-- no excuses are acceptable for experienced journalists in our public broadcaster.. 
2, ABC ;s Q and A regional program in regional Tamworth did not identify one farmer who asked questions or made points. , The ABC's choice of  people all  mentioned agricultural production  creating totally unacceptable  confusion, doubt and innuendo about who the producers choice might be representing.    This should not happen !
Harsh criticism of government by hobby farmers is not unexpected as many of them move to areas which will aways have  less  service provision,

The thinking audience  might well assume the ABC couldn't find a farmer critical of the NBN service. ( see also below ) The unthinking audience  may well assume that they heard from farmers when they didn't.

SBS (as seen in a program like Insights ) have a much much better ways of introducing the character and qualification of the audience to speak . 
This bad practice at ABCTV has been evident for years . Its time our broadcaster /commentators  fessed up or got Some new young team out ! )  ,and  did the intros properly

Lot of respect missing in the hype and cynical selection of guests and audience going on in this election.

How serious is this  careless labelling or candidates in elections ?
One only has to think what it does to farmers sense of self worth and identity when media do it OUTSIDE election time . Neither time is acceptable for our own ABC .

Even #774melbourne have yet to appear in the farmers end of the marginal Corangamite electorate.  Key question .Q1  "Is there a risk of  a  farmer killing a planner in this area ?"

 ( News of Ian Sinclair in may)Q2 Who would you blame ? 

REFERENCE  - for those who have yet to recognise the profession
Australian Farmers and Modern Farming 
To feed Australians and others,  farmers use high technology , large areas and or largish numbers of animals .They don't generally use large amounts of non natural resources being located in areas where their capability for extensive use is high .
The mild climate limits the need for animal housing with most dairy cows eating and resting in paddocks, Significant quantities of imported rock undergird the now high productivity of Australian cool climate soils.    Leasing of marginal lands provides a suitable means of limiting long term damage to the large area marginal grazing areas where natural erosion rates are also high. As a result of better recycling practice in australian agriculture it  has significantly improved its very old hard setting nutrient leached soils in the southern agricultural areas.Bio diversity has been increased on the many more boundaries  created between native and non natives that we have created . We can sequester carbon better than fire and the ants do - quite easily and quite productively.
It is for the aforementioned reasons that Australian farmers are regarded  as some of the most efficient farmers and resource managers in the world .
Genuine scientific concerns about low sustainability relate to small areas of cash crops and steep area erosion, to generally established but isolated  groundwater pollution and damage to localised soils during droughts , The naturally high surface erosion in many poor soils on  hills is lowered in Agricultural areas by having a decent and deep sward cover of grass that recycles rather than exports nutrients and reduces runoff that would otherwise erode more naturally in high intensity rain periods.

While past animal cruelty concerns have been largely limited  to the intensive poultry industry and individual managers ,  increasing scrutiny  by vets of all industry practices and killing methods are  accepted . Young people have led the way in forging more rigorous reviews  The press need to understand that hard decisions have to made the interest of the animals and their death without cruelty  ( animal liberation candidates in many electorates signify this)

Organic farming - a choice for consumers that is not regulated but differentiates the product in the mind of consumers leading to in most cases , higher prices.  While there is little agreement about was is or isn't "organic" the main  assumption agreed to by outsiders ( who might say all food production is organic)  is a minimal amount of pesticides used.  Production chemists  say that "While regulation limits the life and amounts of pesticides in and on food sold in supermarkets. some people prefer food where a low level of pesticide is used, It would not possible to grow enough food to feed Australia if the current low levels of short lived pesticides were not used.
Continuous research can expected to refine the residual dangers of most of the short lived chemicals.currently used on farms.
Hobby farming - a subsidized industry , While individuals may contribute significantly to food production and use modern technology , any production  costs, by definition , are assumed to be subsidized.. As with organic farming , the food supplied by this origin is not as regulated as that flowing through most retail products.

Saturday, April 23, 2016


If we don't learn from the past we are doomed to repeat its worst mistakes . Until Niall ferguson arrived on the scene of big Ideas ABC last week my generation largely dismissed the idea that we were going to learn much from history . progressives have had their blinkers on and whether they like it not their faith system is quite foolishly simple and inadequate

Progressives amongst us treat us like dinosaurs if we talk of what worked , The assumption is that the future is in innovation (confusing some science with all science) "drop the old  dinosaurs"chatter often mean you ditch the foundations of the future
Such simpletons  fail to recognise that some of our most successful businesses copy others ( Dick Smiths ) AND that much economic and spiritual life is enjoying what works long term ( We will benefit before thinking change when we know why the old stuff works)

The worship of change as the savior is losing its shine as the formative ABC show Utopia shows so well.
The worship of change as the savior is losing its power  because participants , when they are not laughing , are noting that its not working and switching off

No generation has seen the huge number and terror of tyrants who really believe and promote the above "drop the unfit dinosaurs") find that their simple faith doesn't work ( Hitler Ammin , Pol Pot , Stalin etc )  Many who drop the past so quickly do it in faith - a faith that has lots of popular appeal , but doesn't work.

I will let others tell the story, Having rejected the idea of the divine comedy we have no comedy

Then CHESTERTON   "Progress is obviously the antithesis of independent thinking ....everyman starts at the beginning , and goes , in all probability , just as far as his father before him , But if there really be anything of the nature of progress , it must mean , above all things, the careful study and assumptions of the whole of the past. "    Heretics

more recently ELLUL and WHITEHEAD
From a blog entry of mine
J Ellul implies - worship of technique will subsume our ability 2 build on de old , A recipe for throwing away what might have been quite satisfactory

Monday, March 28, 2016


If I as an innovator hear another shallow Ad from Malcolm's  name only solutions bureau I will throw up . No one needs more  paper ply to survive than a politician whose popular for the wrong reason - who looks good , sounds good when really things are not good ; when the rich rip off the poor and pretend to care.
When all you can do is name a problem ( who can't ) - Malcolm T and Donald T are populat  because they focus on it .
When your cut on the truth is as shallow as the public birdbath . When you are as rich as hell but not prepared to share. "you make me fell good about myself  is always the most popular way to go in such circumstances.
When you use all the right words for the day but forget about the lessons traditional meaning and its context in the full year lectionary.  When you live away from the real world and pretend to know it
The real drivers of productivity are in the german genius ( see the book )- respecting everyone's role and rewarding the most productive .
Malcolm Turnbull's policy is much more simple ;ripping off the innovative and respecting those who retail and get high margins for taking what's not theirs and reselling it .

My family are great innovators , but that means they back their own ideas with the little money they have .  They only ever develop and remain innovators if they know there stuff and get it right --over decades. They would join the huge class of hangers on if they , like most , failed to really know how the thing works - to be successful their own way . See my book  "The Australian Genius".    ( About the miner in us) To teach that a job done well is a job done successfully is the key . They don't even teach that in schools these days -- just get high marks like Tumbull gets high margins.

The media ,by contrast,  as representative of the majority who only think they know how the thing works, are agreed - we will tell you how to succeed . ie make a profit a big profit . Like mixing oil with water.
The world is not a monopoly of monoculture of business who know how to get a decent margin year or fie  but a living diversity of symbiotic parts. Heaven too is not everon e doing the same thing and discussing the price of their shares .
Turnbull policies are killing off innovators and he doesn't even know it - let alone why. Success is not indicated by the size of your bank balance but your efforts on the ground
Such is the paradox that real innovators always succeed - its just that they don't get paid in the same way as dummies do.
Blokes like Malcolm Turnbull have got rich , not so much by backing innovators but by asset stripping innovative institutions that build on the hard work of innovators . Its parasites like that who prevent people taking risks because,  in the end,  it only takes a bit of capital the innovator never has to leverage him/her out of his key role in industry .As for taxes!!!
With Malcolm's friends advocating their high margin driven policy of "how to get rich "they forget we can't all get rich that way ; the way of trumping  the real innovators .
For all there bluster we can only hope that they aren't all  Australian versions of  Donald TRUMP . How terrifyingly simple.
The greatest evil is done in the name of the best invention intention.

Tuesday, February 23, 2016


Yes it's a big problem . .
My problem is that no one can expect a new class program to reverse the growth in non coping with anger and assertiveness.
It's a world view problem that will only be better resolved by recognising we have somehow told ourselves,  as a post Christian culture, that  it is right to put the individual ( not the parent or teacher) in charge ..That such rampant individulaism actually works ( those watching our own cultural demose can see it) ..
We must find a way to give authority back to both parties before mere word stating reactions like "this is now a problem " will make a difference .
We now call anger a sin when for thousands of years we were told and trained to call it a risk ; the classical post modern crap of letting correlation be seen as  causation , We weren't taught to sit on it like we are now ; were taught to deal with it .We weren't tutored in the desperate art of denial ( somehow adrenalin is not mentioned) but in the realistic art of expressing yourself . Minister Cash wants men to not be angry and just show respect ( Today ) This is foolish unnatural unworkable blind religious talk  of a new kind
 Calling it a sin means we are tempted  to deny it in ourselves( a simple reality) and then  say the outward expression of it in others is "deeply wrong" . Jesus the master spoke to the inside , most moderns are hopelessly lost trying to read from the outside.
Our post Christian culture has no effective way of dealing with this projection guilt and denial; A program to" fix it " must involve radical surgery of ideas not the patches governments and reactionary medicine men will apply .
Denying that the old way is now wrong is denying history and experience . Denial leads to fanaticism and there is plenty of that in program ideas for schools at the moment. Watch it grow and fester as evidence of the denial it is.

Any wise parent with more than one child learns to deal with bullying before the kids go to school , So why would anyone expect a mere " education program ' at school to really resolve these things?.
I fully accept that school can be the place where modelling how to cope with bullying can occur ( mainly through individual modelling and personal coping strategies )but  only those who have never left school think you can deal with it easily in class .
Attitude standards is a very sensitive issue and hard work driving many teachers away from jobs they once loved - you can also be expected end up ALONE if you try to teach values carelessly making kids feel guilt and shame ; Whatever good you do there is more of the same behind the sheltershed.

It's also wrong to categorize all perceived "bullying "  as wrong .Calling a spade a spade is calling a real sin a real sin and not getting diverted-( precision helps )- that of course was the old way which is the only way it works .( precision a prerequisites= )
Now - people are confused--- is it natural to lie or be aggressive
Yet years ago , telling a lie shouldn't mean you are called a liar - thats the law of lible .To call someone a liar is an offence under the eight commandment.   Getting angry with your partner wasn't considered wrong and now that  it is it means the path to resolution is NOW closed in some households .
The proper dealing of these complex matters is an urgent matter YES

Some people see bullying as assertiveness but we all need to learn assertiveness and whether you want to see it or not , we can learn it in the context of a situation of anger and mostly do.
.What we perceive as someone else's problem may become our problem if we don't see our part in resisting the call .Maybe parent training would help more , but not back door and "out the door with anger" policy .

Advocates of the proposed program in schools think they can run assertiveness training in schools .They are focused on a few things they know and not the full picture which "who knows who really knows" . I don't know many teachers who could do it and parents MUST have a say in the contents as they would have had in methods classes before school. As Neiman might say , its bringing uncertainty into the curriculum which it should not bear to achieve  the great status Fairfax gave it . Keep teachers comfortable in the job by keeping it simple . The ideologues will cause even more  early retirement .
 Integration as a means to effectiveness
Clearly both mentorship and modeling go together with insight on this . I simply don't accept secular schools should teach values unless they get parents approval to run those sorts of classes. As every one knows the system meddles with disintegrated concepts of  "confidence , assertiveness and resilience " and in a fractured and incomplete way that sends thinking parents off to Private schools  where subjects are subject to less pedantry .Humpty dumpty reactionary experimentation( non curriculum or temporary) instead of consistent competency ( known and accepted curriculum)  Training not playing . Pedagogy not pedantry,

Sunday, October 4, 2015

Radicalization -

Politicians and media's current use of the word radicalization show how out of touch they are with the real world . The audience too are confused. Maybe we all need some help to sort this out
Radicalisation is not the problem .

The ideas you radicalize are the problem  .  ( These maybe examples but its the words in their books that you can criticize - not their radicalism )

 If you have
  1. radical peace activists you have nice love ins with no violence expected 
  2. radical secularists you have government keeping us in order - someone has to ?. 
  3. radical materialists you will have constant reminders that only money matters in life 
  4. radical secular materialists think that everyone will be happy if they have enough money and cushions supplied by government . 
  5. radical pragmatists think we should not allow any idealism to enter our heads , we should all do what we like 
  6. radical progressives trust the future to be better whatever the past .
  7. radical anti Christian  says that morality is bunk self justification ; (very closely aligned with reactionary postmodernism which because it reacts to everything that is , doesn't know what is or is not - To be or not to be is not a question - one be's )
     Its says that all this stuff around us is just mind games and therefore we shouldn't think at all - just act on our natural feelings. Its a very quiet life  because as soon as you say something you could be accused , under your own idealism,  of word and value constructing to justify yourself .  
  8. radical optimists usually have a good bank balance 
  9. radical christians support much more grace ,love forgiveness and freedom  for everyone , 
  10. radical greens think nature should rule and we should live in caves and eat berries 
  11. radical racists solve all environmental problems by getting rid of the neighbours.
  12. radical non idealists fit in wherever they like at the time ( read Susan Neiman) They make the false claim that you can still be human even if you do not have ideals.  Not sure I have met anyone who really lives that way - simple and appealing idea when you don't want to think ? . . 
Maybe you can add your own?
So where does all that leave most of us?. Its well known that many of us start radical and end up less so - is that a good thing ?
Would the world be a better place if we  abandoned idealism - If we saw ourselves as pure pragmatists . Would it say something about intellectual confusion ?  If we we were all just nice people , maudlin soft and pliable , forever elastic, if not resilient from home base.
I don't think so .

Let's be really clear about one thing ( the above list is indicative not complete )  . Its not just young people's problem, Older Australians Europeans  and Americans have a problem too in particular  - they may not be radical enough to resist the ideas they don't like  .
Kids just simply do not respect the wishy washy talk that can summarize those who talk radicalization without talking to the substance in each case .

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Secular and secularism - not the same thing

Andrews Labor Victorian government have decided this August 2015 ,  despite one of the most honored social school experiments  and  a full history of over one hundred years of opportunity to engage , to put the subject of faith outside the curriculum and minds  of all state school children, forever.
Mr Daniel Andrews says its simply not important enough . For the first time in Australian schools ,  kids we will be told "its not important enough " to ever get mentioned ever.( spare us the window dressing)  Puts a new meaning to the idea of a dry area .
Most parents who used to send their children to state schools will disagree with him. 

Daniels  must change their minds - for the sake of the kids and the sharing of values and ideas .Elected leaders must face the shallow nonsense of those who advocate these changes - right now !

Confused are you -  well  join the club . Fairfax the man who set up our first papers wasn't confused ( his theology and practice sound) The State School system he helped set up has served Australia to socialize its children very well . So why in the world do we want to change what has worked so well in Australia?  Its probably not perfect  but it has worked well to keep us happy to participate in State Schools - up to now 

Whats the panic ? Islam? Probably ! The scardicats and woort warriors are busy - afraid to play the game in the playground! Why do we so easily take away schools independence and right to decide and give it to the secularist faith alone ? Would it not be better to have this fear dealt with out in the open like it has been for decades ,  A completely secular school would be a school for the mentally handicapped . 

What's the ideologues within the Education Department excuse for this change at this time ? What makes them so wise ?  is Parliament on the ball or just now an old folks home for sleepy sentimental stuff ?

Some dull witted Victorian ideologues think they can remove the old but real tensions, problems and threats  that faith drives , informs and motivates. Their magic wand ministrations is to take the factors out of the formula --  by  physically taking them away . "poof " and they are gone . No more problems
Normal thinking and mentally stable people face their fears and the reality that faith will motivate  ---- let all faiths compete for a space in the curriculum, as they could before. Out in the open

Defining secular
is fine and helpful  but secularism says there is only one category for knowledge .   Secularism  simply limits the scope for knowledge

The result of this major historic change ,( if its not reversed ) The result will not be  a big frame for Victorian State schools but a holy huddle.   You can often tell a religious use of a word by the endearing love and pride with which the authors  entreat its wholeness. Secular helps us define the uncontroversial in education so teachers can get on with the job of training minds around facts and fomulae. When what we know from mere formulate starts to limit our appreciation of the possibility of more we limit our education to the mundane.

One is a category, the latter is a religion .  The former allows us to  argue productively about where the boundary is between the secular and the sacred.   Some think they will abolish the tension by dissolving the distinction in their favor . We all have different opinions about where that boundary is,  so,  how have schools involving a wide range of faith systems worked? On the current well tested principle of separation and respect  for both. The way it should stay
Better to have the boundary  than not having it , Gives us all a starting point for a good debate .

Not , please God , just another holy huddle ! read the lesson woodya