Sunday, December 22, 2013

Funny but really quite serious

What do YOU make of this ? Have we have gone a bit too far  in admiring those who cultivate  the brilliant comeback? When and how can we insist on developing the ability to really listen and learn .
This is really funny , but only for a moment . How can we stop our  kids from being on just another  overloaded boatload of reactionary rich rhetoric comedians who are not competent at anything and have no intention to be so; Good at making excuses but not getting it right .  Good for a laugh.......but whose paying ?

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Maybe we are just like kids? - we think we know

How's this for some confident definitions from Kids
TRUE QUOTES ABOUT SCIENCE FROM KIDS
From Avalon 

~ H2O is hot water, and CO2 is cold water.

~ To collect fumes of sulfur, hold a deacon over a flame in a test tube. When you smell an odorless gas, it is probably carbon monoxide.

~ Water is composed of two gins, Oxygin and Hydrogin. Oxygin is pure gin. Hydrogin is gin and water.

~ Three kinds of blood vessels are arteries, vanes and caterpillars.

~ Blood flows down one leg and up the other.

~ Respiration is composed of two acts, first inspiration, and then expectoration.

~ The moon is a planet, just like the earth, only it is even deader.

~ Dew is formed on leaves when the sun shines down on them and makes them perspire.

~ Mushrooms always grow in damp places so they look like umbrellas.

~ The pistol of a flower is its only protections against insects.

~ The skeleton is what is left after the insides have been taken out and the outsides have been taken off. The purpose of the skeleton is something to hitch meat to.

~ A permanent set of teeth consist of eight canines, eight cuspids, two molars, and eight cuspidors.

~ The tides are a fight between the earth and moon. All water tends towards the moon, because there is no water on the moon and nature abhors a vacuum. I forget where the sun joins in this fight.

~ A fossil is an extinct animal. The older it is, the more extinct it is.

~ Germinate: To become a naturalized German.

~ Liter: A nest of young puppies.

~ Magnet: Something you find crawling all over a dead cat.

~ Momentum: What you give a person when they are going away.

~ Planet: A body of Earth surrounded by sky.

~ Rhubarb: A kind of celery gone bloodshot.

~ Vacuum: A large, empty space where the Pope lives.

~ Before giving a blood transfusion, find out if the blood is affirmative or negative.

~ To remove dust from the eye, pull the eye down over the nose.

~ For a nosebleed, put the nose much lower than the body until the heart stops.

~ For dog bite put the dog away for several days. If he has not recovered, then kill it.

~ For head cold use an agonizer to spray the nose until it drops in your throat.

~ To keep milk from turning sour, keep it in the cow.


In summary 
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think very clearly

Saturday, September 7, 2013

Reactionaries have a credibility problem

Many of us were struck by the difference in the speeches of Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott after the election result on September 7th was announced .
There was a profound difference in time , style and content.
On the surface,  Kevin's speech was welcome and soulful but somehow we , the so called rational secular generation are now talking about "humility" Insiders. Its all pretty predictable of course:, but now the once hidden disease of covering up moral imperatives is breaking out all over even the most rational of forums   If there is no content in  words really-( only DNA) - quantity of words WINS out over quality evidence we saw last night and through the campaign.If the reactionaries were serious they surely must accept the move to conservatism is "progress" and Green labor doesn't know it all ?
True humility (" I need some advice implies brevity - something Rudd is now not noted for . Humility and concrete means I understand that .  The strategy written on the floor of Parliament from Proverbs is brief at to the point of finality - safety .

Advice leads to concise -whereas the old reactionaries paths lead to value free words and long strings of value empty phrases......... and more and more of them
I think the wannabes in the media need to work harder because ,even in football , the people who still talk freely use the words "humility , self centredness and even sin " ( "the sin of hubris ")  The use of such words as those above brings clarity to a world once controlled by reactionaries who are in clear denial of the solid and specific content of such punchy words that remain keys language and moral elements .
Rudd's speech was good but its' long winded and repetitive BECAUSE it fails to get back to the succinct old words so many are trying desperately trying to stop being reinvented for common use .
The new Abbott government will be as welcome for this openness about words and free speech as much as it is welcome rejection of  Labor's  and Greens long winded failure to put words into action .( Great to hear Abbott specifically mention his concern about " offencive words  " not being enough to stop words being spoken )

If you still don't believe me , listen to how Labor and the Greens  fail to use punchy words in speeches to give them more concreteness . What does Shorten mean by " no division " or Rudd by "unity " Combet is a classic because he doesn't understand  how to deal with the disunity he so berates in his party for "it"  -  uses the "mustn't " word shows he still believes in the sin word - just less clear about context and focus
Rudds' loss/ victory speech is full of positive stuff about his approach but SOSO negative projection onto the opposition -suggesting denial and projection . Green labor  are not united because they don't even use the same language and they devalue the potent words they think are " theirs ( tax , market, scarcity skepticism , denial  for eg , copper glass ) paradoxically they know the words only on the surface and not in connection with ecomia 
Green labor want to run their campaigns on market mechanism and deny the moral mechanism . Sure they have  a faith in nature( which is ambiguous -tooth and claw at night , niceness during the day ?) Being ambiguous morally  it adds no clear guts  to the content in their words really ( all DNA is not enough unless you are always " moving on "  )  Isalm Hinduism and  are clearer because they define the terms - a mere faith in progress undermines the use and meaning of language and history including the connections of progress and degradation . Beliberatley blocking the vsiiosn of the old cul desac and degardation events prevents maturity . As Chesterton observed - Fabians stand in the road of their own maturity .

ALL parties work by working through serious division inside  and not by denying its existence as many keep doing by pretending "division" and disunity  is  serious .A sort of internal competition policy ? ( Disunity and diversity can build and make a process more efficient - more deliberate ( anything but the phenotype of fanaticism )
YOu can't exercise discipline or exorcise it  not well if you  don't  stick with  the specific words ( do you mean "tax" or trading scheme ? )
The list goes on . Just think  too of the extensive use of analogy - again symbolizing the confused language of the old reactionaries AND their forced confinement within them; their own very limited weasel words ( a market mechanism cf advice mechanism written on the floor of parliament in the most  livable and workable city in the World .)

Time the ageing reactionaries stood back and learned to appreciate THE BEST of the world of Unity with Disunity/ diversity that has helped generate the deliberate has made this country great - rather than keep trying  desperately to play some immature game of waging a childish war against the foundations.

Sunday, May 12, 2013

The fear of interfering

I remember a friend buying an early integrated circuit block to make up some great electronic device in the 1970's . Cost him $30 and he wired it in and blew it up.After that costly and fruitless investment  in  technology,  we both stuck to simpler circuits  .Our fears with technology running ahead of us were well based and to be taken seriously.
The more we know about nature too it seems the more we need to show caution . Unlike technology , nature is very sensitive and can collapse;  having hard to define limits at  those critical moments .We can waste $30 of hard earned investment in technology but copper silver and gold in circuits can be recycled .
What about ecosystems and agroecosystems Will we lose our investment in Agriculture, forests and fishing ? Is it all on a degraded path ?
Clearly not ; and clearly not easily in the future - the limits to resilience  are hard to define but they are there , elasticity works and boundaries do exist .And the presettlement natural Australian fire dependant ecosystems that some worship are huge monocultures of non divesrity and natural degradation ( look up acidification of soils)
But how do we know where sustainable ecosystem boundaries lie ?  How can we be sure we are working within the elastic limits ? . Can we map the boundaries  ? No we can't map them The boundaries of risk are not fixed by the resources,  but often by the users .
The only way I know to define the boundaries to risk and resilience though  is to know the forces that operate in an area of soil or water. We can try to map some elements of soil  , but risk is really about soil water and technology together .Our soils are not being lost as much as they were and are infact doing more recycling than ever in their history.
The most useful maps for defining possible habitat boundaries are probably soils but even they are only a start . The maps of soils I have seen in my lifetime are just not accurate enough and so provide little concrete guidance for planners. While its useful to map existing vegetation, that too will not define part or future phases of habitat development . Salinity risk too,  is dependent on specific soil and water management in the area . the real element, not mappable in the risk equation is,  as Jung said,  is man himself . If the landholder is prepared to understand and treat his resource well,  then we will all do well - just as we have done better in the last 50 years especially . Hope for the rest of the world if we truly understand the limits .
The fear of interfering is a natural and good thing when you don't live there to see its resilience boundaries ( 99% of Australians) .
What Australia and the developing world needs is people who study the elements and equations well enough on the site to interfere wisely . Not panic but studied caution . The current tendency to close off all agriculture is not warranted .After all , we are part of both degrading and aggradings systems and have a choice when to interfere in both.
Agriculture and forestry on the Australian landscape has probably increased biodiversity overall because the soils recycle nutrients better and mixed landscape elements increase both shelter and feeding potential in the same areas.  Time to train,  not to abstain or avoid the complex risk features , but to face the realities of both resilience and degradation head on again .

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

National Press Club loses its way , Today

If you want to know how to take risks, don't ask an accountant .Yet that what the NPC are doing today by listening to the CPA  . Hoping for some wisdom but happy with the same old platitudes .
If you wanna  picture of why Australia is losing its innovators ( normally risk takers ) just listen to the unending waffle that has come from Alex and many before him . All the same old weasal words but no one noticed .
 Most innovators are not well heeled . Well heeled usually comes in Australia from being competitive with the conventional -any new edge is on the edge of that slow moving substance.
 If you want innovators you have to go find them and interrupt them - they will seldom have time to talk to those who prefer the safety of a sound two column ledger or a press who wanna see you succeed before they will give you a ticket to succeed.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Left is confused about the nature of progress

Ever since Herbert Spencer and GB Shaw,  the reactionaries have been prone to running another series of myths about progress. While it has always been their own special doctrine ; that progress is wonderfully true and predictable stuff , when things fail ( WW's  and a pure secular education ..... you name em yourself ) , they have nowhere to go.
As Chesterton pointed out so well in his biography of Shaw ,  the reactionaries  are prone , not only to make evolution do far more than any mere selection process could ask or think,  they exaggerate the role of technology in solving our societies problems . Why is this so ? - you might well ask ? - Answer : because at the bottom of their series of heresies is despair of man , leaving them no choice (something other than man / that other bloke  must instigate hope ).

So Julia and her crew put money into technology  in schools ( not teacher training and curriculum ) , Conroy insists we must be into fibre because" its the latest thing"  . History will show these desperado's fail not just because their preference is for the quick fix ( see below on Copper, Glass and Rats ) but simply because they ignore their first premise with no promise ; they despair of man ( in contrast to the very very Best of the West , which they are,  like rats chewing on a bone - seeking to reject) They despair of men,  but when in power they believe governments can work miracles - The theology of the left  -

As  Jung   said the only problem in the future is man himself and the Labor party of today are doing all they can to ignore the real problem.

Copper,  Glass, Rats and real scientific discipline and their probable relevance
Having a longer association with copper will probably NOT slow us down in the big picture sense - Using old technology , like drinking milk , is only a threat if we think ourselves threatened;  if we don't run as fast as the other rats in the race.  I am not against technology imperatives but the evidence is that panic driven politics of the last few decades is destroying the science focused problem culture that I grew up in and had a good job in ( that job no longer exists BECAUSE the vision of working scientists on the edge of problem solving  is no longer there ) You tell me why the good jobs are no longer there then!

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Changing your mind

Well trained scientists  should be able to design at least a few productive and predictable result  experiments because they have tested the ideas in their head before they spend time in the lab or before they go looking ( as you can with environment for clues on limits and feedback loops)
The real test of a good scientist might be that he or she knows something for themselves , not just because they are " told its true". They have empirical evidence and empirical confidence; levels of confidence .  Not that such  high "levels of confidence " mean we can't change our minds .

Being able to change our minds might just be one of the greatest tests of someone who is building their knowledge on a solid base .
Margaret Thatcher was a scientist who changed her mind on the significance of Global warming.  What will we make of that in the future? ; One of the few politicians who knew something about verification in science and was therefore not afraid to change her mind on some things . http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/05/13/rsnr.2010.0096.full.pdf+html