meh

Just testing my RSS feed.
Happy Christmas everyone.

In breaking news, Hannah crushed me at TenPin Bowling on the new Wii.
I'm kinda over it already. :)

PS. RSS feeds now working for selected ABC and CFA links. A bit more to do yet. ;]
If anyone's interested, I'm using SlashDock.

PPS. (Sunday) Rather in the spirit of adventure rather than the usual self-indulgence, I've made this blog accessible by most RSS readers. Here's the link:
http://jedsbackyard.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Still trying to get the new Upper Yarra Trading Post RSS feed working … facebook seems to do things a little, well, differently. ;)

direct action (an interlude)

Copenhagen? Pffft.
A monument to profligate overconsumption.
A victory by sectional interests and an outdated economic model.

Tony Abbott and Direct Action©? Pffft.
(And stop stealing our labels, you vacuous sneak.)

Here's some honest, real-world Direct Action: an exciting example of how gardeners can help shape the future.

http://features.csmonitor.com/gardening/2009/08/18/one-town-and-26-public-gardens-free-food/

The community-wide effort began about 18 months ago when Ms. Clear, an energetic woman who works for the town government, sneakily started planting seeds in her spare time with a few friends. Any nook, cranny, and postage-stamp-size bit of land was up for grabs.

The campaign blossomed with the plants, and now the movement operates under the name Incredible Edible Todmorden and receives funding and support from the local council and businesses.

"It makes people interact with their town," said Estelle Brown. a local Web designer, as she snapped a pea from a vine growing next to the town's canal and ate it.

Prompted by my friend K, over the past few weeks I've been (reading and) thinking quite a bit about transition townships:* mostly what's realistically achievable right now (as opposed to exploring, adopting and implementing a documented future vision via differing levels of community engagement, structured or otherwise).
*http://transitiontownkinsale.org/ – the pioneers – worth a look.

While the pollies and their lobbyist mates continue to play their agenda games I plan to spend a bit more time around my town planting out some stuff!!

Cheers
Jed
a.k.a. The Phantom Cosmic Chiver
(With deference to Johnny Appleseed.)

kobenhavn: beyond the smoke and mirrors

Well, I've had my say on the Climate Change Summit – time to move on.

Over the past couple of years I've laboured the point that, given current technologies and resources and population trends, a sustainable planet simply cannot embrace continual economic growth.
That same old Elephant in the Room turned up at Copenhagen – indeed, I saw her lurking in every single telecast – but I've been unable to turn up an interview, nor even a concession that she was there! (Perhaps she fell into the junket.)

In repeatedly and perversely decoupling 'growth' from 'sustainability' our Western 'leaders' are being simply disingenuous. A fairly vicious word, but an accurate one.*

Now, I'm not a specialist in any academic discipline. But I know enough to do my share of damage.
The way I see it, everyone – everywhere – is entitled to a decent standard of living.
They're entitled to eat well, to live in relative comfort and safety, to work productively, to attain their potential, to enjoy friendships and leisure activities, to be looked after by their society in times of need.
Over recent centuries, as Western countries built their nett wealth (by whatever means – some more ethical than others), individual standards of living improved.
In these nations, affluence became the province of the majority.
All good so far?
In getting to this point, however, most of our neighbours have been left behind.
Surely no reasonable individual would deny them the opportunity to catch up, to enjoy similar standards to ours?
More importantly, reasonable individuals might finally agree that we've had it too good for too long: it might be time to wind back our aspirations, our 'standards' – and split the difference.

This nexus, to me, crystallizes the true 'outcome' of the Summit (and – since every debate needs a forum – another justification for it).
The collective WE need to determine the boundary between 'Standard of living' (which drives modern economic systems via the necessity to produce excessively and consume wastefully) and 'Quality of life' (which, however amorphous and fungible, comprises fundamental rights and values above wealth).
The latter state is not only achievable but indefinitely sustainable: for every single one of us.

Supplementary reading (recommended): The exploited and the exploiters

* lacking in frankness; insincere; covertly guileful; crafty.

some reflections on kobenhavn

In the leadup to the 'Climate Change Summit' I envisaged it as a necessary phase of social evolution.
As it draws to a close, my viewpoint remains unchanged (unchallenged).

You could term it a massive waste of resources. You'd be right.
You could label it a bit of a self-indulgent wankfest. You'd be right.
I share your cynicism.
And yet I'll maintain it was necessary – just as Kyoto was.
Some people just won't be told: they need to learn at their own pace – on their own terms!

"So, now that the rest of the class has caught up a little, we can all move to the next chapter."


The nature of politics being what it is, certain people (which we choose to term 'leaders') find it impossible to simply and quietly deliver positive change – despite the fact that this is what we pay them to do!
They need, like Lear, to vainly strut and fret onstage.
They need recognition. Plaudits, of course – but even brickbats will do, if it keeps them in the public gaze. It's their drug of choice.

Kobenhavn reminds me a bit of tending to the needs of spoilt brats, who soak up resources while the other kids just want to get on with it.
Like it or not, however, these 'leaders' – functional and dysfunctional alike – bear the responsibility of re-writing the rules in order to restore our ailing planet.

The Summit, seen in the best possible light, provides us with a new reference point – and could actually prove to be a watershed.
So, although I think he's been a little soft on our Government, I largely agree with Tim Flannery:

"It's only one step on the road but we are now really in the throes of tackling this very difficult problem and this meeting has been a very significant step forward. I wouldn't like anyone to undersell what's been achieved. I think it is very significant."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/19/2776545.htm

Many of us remain unsatisfied – but now that 'the world' has at least started targetting a genuine emissions benchmark (and a 'tolerable' level of global warming), people of goodwill and commonsense (the vast majority) can use this standard as leverage: to reduce our footprint further still and to pressure our notional 'leaders' to become a little more forthright, proactive and accountable.

MEANWHILE, we must not allow ourselves to be distracted by the carnival lights and show-biz gimmickry … by what some psychologists would term displacement activities.
There's work to do.
Let's get on with it!

too feral for facebook? lolz

I've spent roughly 40% of my life alone: let's round that off to 20 years.
Some of this time has elapsed within the protective envelope of a 'relationship'; some on the outside.

Mostly, I celebrate being an outsider: 'a complete unknown'.
This status carries a lot of power!
Not simply independence – to do my own thing in my own time and, yes, to indulge my weaknesses – but the rare opportunity to evolve and live by a unique set of principles, which happen to include loving people and serving them.

Infrequently (perhaps for a nett total of four or five years) I've ached for companionship and intimacy.
These periods are admittedly tough and call on my deepest reserves of strength and, yes, courage.
Everyone needs an anchor.
Being alone and 'ungodly' in the truest sense, one is forced to 'anchor' oneself regardless of circumstances.
(Physician, heal thyself!)

Life's a real trip, isn't it?
After working my way through a very long, dark tunnel I reached a point this year where I got the overwhelming feeling that I'd already met the love of my life – and lost her.
This persistent (and enfeebling) sensation is finally tapering off – she and I have, I suspect, diverged too far on our separate paths – yet it leaves a void that can hopefully can be filled in time (because that old and painful ache is creeping back).

If love can be compared to a structure, acceptance (tolerance?) might be the glue that keeps it together. Once this bond starts to disintegrate, often through natural attrition, it can rarely be restored – weaknesses, for example, become character flaws.

Though I continue my 'journey', I'm more comfortable with 'who I am' than ever before – and my pathway into the future becomes clearer every day – but, seriously, who'd want to share a life with an increasingly feral and feisty post-SNAG like me?

As a part-time marketer I can truly understand and respect buyer resistance to this particular 'product' – myself – but as always it's a two-way deal.
The shelves are stocked with a range of talent but none of it seems to promise what I'm after.
I have my own needs.
Sexual attraction is important (can't help that!) – yet above all I crave the connections of companionship, intellectual empathy and shared values.

Hmmmmm … where do picky people (with a distinct aversion to 'shopping') go shopping?

arse-shifting season

Been a weird and exciting few months here @ jeds backyard.
Lots going on in a variety of spheres, locally and globally … all grist to the mill, as always.
I've lost track of the number of times since June that I made a mental note to 'blog about that' – but then the tide of happenstance invariably swept in and my thoughts became so much flotsam.

Well, anyone who knows me will appreciate I'm a stubborn bastard who keeps his promises.
I've told a few mates that this blog will breathe again – just need to shift my arse! (and the aforementioned 'flotsam' has collected in a convenient wee whirlpool just outside the kitchen window).

But where to start?
Let's start with an email I sent to a mate on Tuesday.
It's been slightly edited for this context.


I got up early today as usual, feeling great, and thought I'd spend a couple of hours 'updating' my long-neglected blog.
Guess what happened? Nothing. I simply didn't know where to start!

There's so much going on in the world at present.
Copenhagen is a multi-layered joke.
Western society has started its traditional Xmas binge as the planet continues to buckle.
Billions still go to bed hungry (if they HAVE a bed), including maybe a couple of hundred thousand in Australia.
The banking system which brought the global economy to its knees a scant 12 months ago - and was bailed out by trillions of taxpayers' dollars - continues to profiteer off working people yet has the sheer audacity to demand 'the market' should never be regulated.
Peace-prize winner (and wannabe saviour of the world) Obama is - like Rudd - showing his true colours.
Locally, the forthcoming bushfire season looks increasingly nasty (see Copenhagen, above).
And so forth.

What's my point?
Well, going back to your original questions, sometimes the challenges appear so huge that we lose perspective and become a little paralyzed.
With so much that needs changing, where does one start?

In my heart, I know what the answer is: it's what I've always done –'start somewhere … anywhere!' - but occasionally we all need to set the 'big tasks' to one side and focus on simpler, more straightforward stuff.

Here's an interesting analogy. Our Conure parrots love fruit, so I put a couple of small green (unripe) apples in their cage the other day.
They were so tough that the poor birds couldn't bite into them and they got really frustrated.
So I went back in and carved a section off the apples, exposing the inside: once someone had 'made a start' they were fine.

More to come … this side of 25 December. Promise!

some reflections on 'the working poor'

What's going on with many of our nuclear families?
Both parents working and still falling behind financially; many using charity to supplement their income / lifestyle.
The gap between income and 'needs', at least for many, increasingly unbreachable.

[H]unger [sic] gnawing away at children and families of the working poor

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25693743-5012465,00.html

McMillan says charities as far away as Hervey Bay are sending someone south weekly to collect food, as a new "working poor" emerges in the long queues.

The "working poor" includes families, he says, where both parents have a job. But after clothing their children, paying a mortgage and filling the family car with fuel, the parents are often caught short on food.

(Do your own search if you like; find your own link/s.
The above is simply an apposite, contemporary report.)

I'm not a nostalgic: the post-War years through the 70s were far from ideal.
Many aspirational 'working-class' families (like mine) went without many 'basic' goods – TVs, certainly, but also appliances like vacuum cleaners and washing machines – we now take for granted;
women were in many ways second-class citizens;
domestic violence and sexual abuse were all too often trivialized or swept under the carpet;
many smart kids missed out on a university education because they couldn't afford it.
Et cetera.

So I'm not suggesting that Then was 'better' than Now.
Yet I'm really curious to find out Why – 30, 40, 50 years ago – most families could survive and pay off a mortgage on a single income when, these days, a combined income is often insufficient.

I've read that the ratio between household income and housing affordability has stretched to breaking point; i.e., property is way over-priced and mortgage repayments are in many cases unsustainable.
I've also read that society's idea of 'essentials' vs 'luxuries' has changed: that our collective addiction to consumption is the culprit, since 'too many' expect to own a McMansion, a widescreen plasma, an X-Box, a boat … three or four cars in the driveway!, the nett effect of which is a shrinking disposable income.
(Begs the question: when did FOOD become a 'luxury'? Well …)
There's also the fact that many parents are so 'time-poor' that they feel compelled to purchase take-away and / or prepare packaged, 'convenience meals' for the family. Quite aside from the health impacts – increasing obesity and diabetes in kids for example – these foods aren't cheap.
'Labour market reform' suggests many people – particularly the unskilled and semi-skilled – simply don't earn enough.
No doubt there is a host of other contributing factors.

I've tried to keep this post apolitical and honest: I really don't have any answers.
I'm starting to conclude that, in an increasingly secular society, consumerism has replaced religion as 'the opiate of the masses'.
And, being addicted to revenues, governments of all persuasions are pushing the 'production–consumption' mantra.

Yet that's only a symptom.
What's the disease?
You tell me.

a letter to the editor; a letter to you

This is an open letter to those who want to support their community but 'don't have time'.
Just shop locally – as often as you can.
Every healthy community needs a healthy local economy.

Here's some context.
I'm convinced that Coles and Woolies/Safeway do indeed practise anti-competitive behaviour and that a grocery duopoly - often spawning local monopolies - is not healthy for the end-user nor for local communities.

The nature of capitalism being what it is, what else can we expect?

If, say, the local Safeway uses its purchasing power and economies of scale to start a price war against an independent supermarket OR greengrocer OR butcher OR service station, the attack can only succeed if consumers support them.

Many of us do indeed transfer our 'spend' away from locally-owned businesses: if these can't 'compete' (in what I consider to be unbalanced fight), they're gone.
Your average small independent greengrocer, for example, normally doesn't buy and sell (frequently export-subsidized) produce from Europe or North America, as the Big Two do.
Nor does your local independent refrigerate its stock for months and market itself as 'The Fresh Food People'.
Nor can a small business exert pressure on (often Australian) suppliers to force shelf prices down, or push a growing range of 'home (generic) brands' - keeping any (arguable) 'competition' within a single store.

That said, an increasing number of us don't jump ship.
We recognise that it's often worth paying an extra 10 or 15% for groceries if it means sustaining a business which, in turn, spends most its money - business inputs, sponsorships and profits - locally, rather than 'exporting' its spend to farmers and factories in Italy or China and profits to shareholders across the globe.

How many of us, driven by the savings, abandon their local hardware or nursery and scurry off to Bunnings every Saturday?
How many get their business stationery and equipment from Officeworks rather than 'the local bloke'?
Similarly, fast food from the corporates? Clothing from Target or DFO? Books from Amazon?

At the end of the day, it's our choice - and that's capitalism; that's 'democracy'.
But we shouldn't complain about the consequences unless we, as consumers, are prepared to do something about it.

'the paradox of choice'

We are spoilt, aren't we?

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html

Why does the multi-billion-dollar 'self-improvement' (self-satisfaction, self-fulfilment … self-gratification!) industry exist?

A few thoughts I recorded earlier this year.
…
To quote the synopsis from the above clip: choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed, not happier but more dissatisfied.

Stretching the topic to a higher level (or lower, depending on your POV) I believe that values transcend choice – or, ideally at least, should.
Why?
Barry made his point very well: a surfeit of choices doesn't necessarily improve our satisfaction levels; indeed, they somehow? frequently increase our dissatisfaction.
Again, why?

Choices in what or how we consume don't essentially improve who we are; that is, our character … OR what we in reality need to lead a contented life.

… So, what's the missing link?

Learned values enable us to judge what really matters.
All too often, the self-styled (all-too-often affluent) 'victims' of our market-driven Western society are increasingly obsessed by (what I consider to be) superficial matters – from 'the burden of choice' and 'the cult of celebrity' to tax-brackets to 'download limits!' – and then all too often piss and moan about what's Missing in their Lives.

WTF? Life-coach, anyone?

I think Barry slipped in the magic word ('values') once or twice but it slipped through the cracks.
Perhaps that's the real missing link in this suitably-named paradox?
Moreover, he also made the point that the 'curse' of choice is - indeed - a product of affluence.
Around three-quarters of the world's population probably crave this affliction!

I think people need to simplify their lives and get a grip on what's really important.
Or at least start thinking about it.

As I mentioned a few days ago, do we - en bloc - really want Freedom any more?

a vignette on the politics of education …

Information is power. Education is power.
(I'll apologise in advance for the forthcoming series of generalisations.)
It's an increasing sign of the times that we proles, collectively, know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
'We' don't want power any more. Too much responsibility. ;)
'Hey, Big Bro, I'm an honest citizen!: absorb all my personal information and stick it on a 'smart'-card; feel free to 'stuff up' (wooops) occasionally and leak it; scrutinise all my financial transactions; monitor me with videocams in every public place.
Because, since I've been so comprehensively pimped, I really don't need to know your agenda.'

In return?
'I just want cheap consumables and plasma bonuses and 10GB downloads; 'economic stimulus' handouts and cheap air-fares and pretend news featuring Brittney and Gordon Ramsay.
But I want 'em NOW, goddamnit!'
(The grandkids? Stuff 'em.)

Inevitably, the ascendancy of 'wants' over 'needs' impacts on the quality of information which is delivered to us.
In the media?
Competition: 'bottom-line'-obsessed shareholders: cost-cutting: shortage of (educated) true professionals who know how to source and write up real news: sectional, dollar-corrupted lobbyists increasingly in control of the public information-stream.
Consequentially, shoddy writing and dubious material rulez.
(The Truth? like whatever, dude.)

A priori, in the classroom? Same deal!
Market economics, craving drones but cloaked in the garb of Political Correctness, for example.
Due to budgetary pressures and inadequate ('flexible' & borderline arbitrary) 'outcomes benchmarks', too few students are allowed to 'Fail' any more.
Hence, in this (education / empowerment) resources void, there is little pressure on students to learn from one's mistakes and get it right next time.
No, the real pressure is on the institution - on the teachers - to achieve (frakkin) 'outcomes' ahead of imparting genuine, lifelong knowledge.
Kids are too often rated 'Competent' with little or no genuine actual proof, then pushed ahead into the next grade.
(Should it prove more expedient to the school, they're simply abandoned: I work with an organization which tries to rescue some of these.)
Those who survive school end up, poorly-equipped, in the workforce (even in tertiary institutions) with their various bits of paper which, quite simply, lie about their accomplishments.
Inevitably, many turn out as reporters and school-teachers. (Most dangerous of all, parents!)
Almost every working day I deal with with 'professionals' holding at least one tertiary qualification who haven't achieved Year 12 literacy standards, who can't do Year 10 maths, who can't sustain a coherent argument, who believe in the 'powers' of 'crystals' … who can't drive a car properly (some even don't know how to lift the bonnet).

And so the wheel keeps turning.
The culture, as I see it, is badly broken.

Without a solid grounding English standards, for example, are mutable … or don't exist at all.
A believer in a truly inclusive society, I can live with (and even accept) the consequences of a widespread decline into vacuity - but that doesn't make it all right.
As a body, Western society has apparently taken the position that the individual's propensity to consume is more important than their personal empowerment – more important, for that matter, than the welfare of future generations.)
This will continue until we collectively cry 'Enough!'
Meanwhile, bullshit rules.
And I'll guarantee it's gonna get a lot worse before it gets any better.

Bob Brown vs the turds

Gunns have an ongoing 'special relationship' with a series of Tassie governments …
/Jed waits for a knock on the door/ ;)
… and nothing the Feds do would surprise me.

I've always been in favour of a sustainable forestry industry - and have earned a living from it.
The way I see this issue, sustainable forestry and Gunns' philosophy - and methodology - are worlds apart.
But, before anyone discounts me as yet another hippie (some of my best friends are damn hippies!), please read this through.

In my experience, a true 'green' has plenty of common sense and knows what s/he's talking about.
Where 'the environment' is concerned, passion is a bonus - not a foundation.
Many, on both sides of the 'debate', really need to do some homework.
(Yeah, I know, you can get a pheromone buzz from hysteria.)

Simply, Bob Brown is an absolute legend.
Australia owes him bigtime: even though half the country still don't realise it, history will provide the proof.
Sooner than most think.

No wonder the bastards at Gunns are trying to ruin him: that's the way they operate.
They're mafiosi; knee-cappers; profit-whores.

Some context for my point of view.
(My experience is exclusively within Victoria but the issue is surely a global one.)
I've worked in two owner-operated sawmills and done marketing work for one.
I lived in a dedicated Timber Town for several years and talked to a few independent millers who lost their allocations (some to corporates) and closed down, due to circumstances beyond their control.
'That's progress,' you might say. Fair enough.
The writing was on the wall for unsustainable logging - in Victoria, at least - well over half a century ago when a future plan was mapped out. This has already expired.
(Joan Kirner explained this to me in 1985 during an extended discussion while she was the responsible minister. Smart woman.)

The savage irony of this 'progress', however, is that these independents largely focussed on value-adding and extracting the maximum from every log. And the few survivors still do.
Sawn F-rated / structural timber for houses. Dressed and moulded timber for architraves, etc. Kiln-dried boutique timbers for furniture, sculpting, woodcraft.
And so forth.
One mill actually specialised in redeeming low-grade logs as fence palings and tomato stakes.
All the legitimate residue became firewood … woodchips … even sawdust, which sustained other small local businesses.
I learnt how they did it. I helped them do it.
Being relatively low-tech, they also employed a lot of people 'per log' (and, incidentally, supported any number of community efforts).
In about 1993 I spent a loooong day walking three coupes (in separate locations) with a contractor as a guide, who explained his practices and accountability in detail - and showed me how these principles were applied.
One of his coupes was adjacent to a property owned by a State MP (at the time) who had flouted any number of codes - without penalty - in clear-felling his 250 hectares within a local catchment.

The wood pulp and woodchip industries have never been about value-adding. They've never been about a sustainable environment. They've never been about empowering communities. (That's us, BTW.)
So, what are they about?
The way I see it: high-volume inputs (regardless of quality);
high volume (low-quality) outputs;
minimum employment;
fat profits (subsidised as required);
'special' favours from their suckhole mates in government;
bashing up their opponents (whom, in due course, will prove to be genuine heroes).

I could go on - about the CFMEU repeatedly betraying its membership base (and the ALP its constituents); about the deliberate downgrading of sawlog for chipping in Gippsland during the 80s (which may still continue) - but I'll pull my head in for now.

Bob Brown. Legend. GO YOU GOOD THING.

[Edits 11/6/09: 'value-adding'!]

Chasers vs mediocrity and bloody hypocrites

I'm a Chasers' War on Everything fan.
I believe it generally offers leading edge comedy during an age of mediocrity, soft targets and cheap laughs.
Indeed, the humour is frequently crude and they fail from time to time - but at least they take risks.

At the same time, I accept that many don't like it.
And choose not to watch it.
(?)Maybe not!


I also realise that the 'Make a Realistic Wish' sketch (broadcast on ABC1 here in Australia last week) was hurtful to many people and, in retrospect, I wish it hadn't been screened.
For their sake, not for mine.
I have a couple of friends who have lost children in heart-breaking circumstances and my own brother died before his time from an incurable disease.

Without defending the skit itself I'm seriously pissed off, however, at the double standards employed by the self-righteous hacks in the commercial media.
And, for that matter, by that terminally righteous arbiter of public conscience, the great rudd hisself.

Like maggots, ACA and TT prey on human frailty (as do the gutter press and the paid fascists of talkback radio).
Always have. Always will.
'Funniest Home Videos' exploits real injury to real people. No, seriously folks, it's a hoot.
Ratings whores, anyone?
Now 7 and 9, plus any number of filthy, bottom-(bogan?)-feeding commercial radio stations, plus the parasitical scum of tabloid 'journalism' (heh: spot the irony) are riding this controversy bandwagon for all it's worth.
Playing both sides as usual.
Re-cycling the less tasteful parts of the sketch for society's vicarious outrage.
Or pain.

Bloody hypocrites!

The great rudd hisself is an admitted sinophile.
Does anyone else find it sickeningly ironic that the little nonce is on the warpath against Chasers just as we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre?
Hundreds - if not thousands - died on that day.
As far as I know, none died during this marginally infamous comedy sketch that so outraged the community.

[Edits 11/6/09: 'value-adding'!]

more light; less heat

We can never protect ourselves from every single scenario.
You 'didn't need to hear this'? Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong.

History has repeatedly taught us how vulnerable we are at times, yet our instinctive reaction to natural disaster is to target a series of scapegoats to focus the blame - since the Causes are too difficult! - and then invest in an exercise to 'ensure it can never happen again.'
Even when we know, deep in our brains, that it probably will.
Much as it's human nature to seek them, there are no easy answers.
Particularly for those of us who choose to live in Paradise … in the middle of one of the most combustible forests in the world.

Blame 'the greenies' all you like if it floats your leaky McBoat.
In joining this tiresome game, I'll take a slightly more rational course: I blame the increasing ascendancy of 'Wants' over 'Needs'.
We stomp across the planet in our quest for repeated self-gratification then wonder why systems start to break down.
It ain't rocket surgery.
Overconsumption: climate change: erratic weather patterns: stuffall rain: drier bush: reduced opportunities for strategic FRBs (… which are, incidentally, endorsed by your 'greenie' scapegoats).

I expect a lot of really useful outcomes from the Royal Commission.
Hundreds of people should never die in vain.
But we'll never be invulnerable.
That's one piece of useful knowledge reaffirmed during my few hours of 'mortality' last Monday.

Something that seems to have gone 'AWOL' over my lifetime is personal autonomy, yet - unless we are prepared to take full responsibility, in every sense, for the consequences: our destiny - we simply don't deserve 'autonomy'!

Invest a few minutes in this article.
Most of the Comments are also worth reading.
(The intro follows. I'd dispute its claim that It is the other side of the story, since the 'story' is way too complex for a dualistic debate, yet it offers a series of valuable insights that need to be brought to the table.)

Hazard Reduction: The Blame Game
February 18th, 2009

…

The Bushfires in Victoria were a paradigm-shifting event - gripping, terrifying and devastating for dozens of communities and hundreds of families…The news was shocking in its magnitude and the disaster will have enormous consequences for land management and housing development across the nation. Professor Poongschtok is an alias for one of Real Dirt’s most informed readers. He knows what he is talking about so his piece may be long but every word is worth reading. It is the other side of the story.

…

Ockham's Razor*: sorting the wheat from the chaff

(Before I start: if any of the following terms are unclear, feel free to look them up in a dictionary or use the 'define' option in Google.)

The best lies are half true.
Compare, for example, the mainstream (official) analyses of '9-11' with the alternative ('truthist') viewpoints.
Both 'sides' have much to gain by obfuscation in serving their respective agendas.
The best way to achieve this level of confusion (disharmony, conflict) is to blend truth and fiction in roughly equal measures, mix well - preferably by the light of the new moon! - and serve: with extreme prejudice.

I had my say on 9-11 several months ago - that the real truth is all there … but isolating it is much like separating egg yolks from an omelette.

Moving on …
I've had a bit of free time over the break and have spent too much of it doing research.
I'm now a lot more savvy about subjects as diverse as glyphosate, passionvine hoppers, the GM food agenda, water ownership …
However, what I'd like to focus on today is Globalism.
From time to time, I've had my say about this too. In fact, the subheading above sums up my world view: '… ACT GLOBALLY'.
This is something I believe in with all my heart: that we can all contribute to our planet in a positive way.
In promoting this ideal, occasionally I've made it clear that I believe all levels of government in Australia have 'lost the plot'.
They've embraced a sectional-interest-and-market-lobby-driven platform - as opposed to one that is people-driven; they buy our compliance with middle-class handouts and hide behind secrecy provisions; they still can't (won't) recognise the all-too-obvious connection between economic 'growth' (consumption) and environmental unsustainability.

Well, yes, everything I've written is (of course) true.
There's more government-bagging to come! And I'll continue to deconstruct The Emperor's New Clothes - in the interests of transparency! - until Conroy's goons (try to) shut me down.

However, today I'm going to switch my focus to the fringe-dwellers who feel compelled to believe in secret or cabalistic conspiracies against us - as opposed to the obvious conspiracy by the mechanics of 'market forces' to disempower us.
I've read a lot about (what I'll arbitrarily term) the New World Order over recent weeks; this reading supplements what I'd already known about exclusive cults (Freemasonry, the Illuminati, etc.), about the UN's Agenda 21, about privatisation of essential services, about debt-for-equity swaps, about corporate welfare, imperialism …
There's literally tens of millions of 'conspiracists' who believe - god bless 'em - that a secret plan has been in place (for up to 2000 years) to control the planet. According to which source you read, this plan is currently being shaped by any combination of the following: Jews, bankers, communists, fascists(!), fabian socialists, the UN, the IMF, environmentalists, green politicians, catholics …
over the past couple of days I've learnt that even shire councils and the feminist movement are complicit!
Yet there's nothing in any of these allegations which can't be explained by the ongoing struggle between capital and labour.

Here's a bonus irony: the anti-NWO movement seems to be a morass of half-informed, fundie christians. Heh … just like the NRA!
I won't charge these 'truthists' with feeble-mindedness, because there is, indeed, too much truth layered between the lies and assumptions. Furthermore, many people have lost what little they have - their jobs, their homes, frequently their self-esteem - due to the behaviour of one or more of the above groups - and it's human nature to blame someone.
No wonder Australia's One Nation party flamed briefly a few years back! It opportunistically rode this tidal wave of resentment and hatred.

No, the biggest problem I have with the Global Paranoia Movement is its lack of integrity: clear analysis and objectivity.
Take Agenda 21 as an isolated example: released by the UN in 1992, A21 offers us (as global citizens) some policies and pathways toward achieving a more sustainable future: protected natural environments, reduced consumption, increased equity, etc.
In order to achieve this, it 'requires' a degree of intervention by governments, worldwide, to secure such a future.
(I term this the Benevolent Big Brother effect; though I'm ambivalent, I concede it has an important role to play.)
As a body, the Conspiracists have selectively cherry-picked elements from A21 to convince the ignorant that it's little more than an attack on personal liberty.
In doing so, they have alienated people like me who believe we can have the best of both worlds - despite the cynicism and opportunism of regulators - by taking ownership of the problem of poor governance! By Acting Globally in our own Backyards!

The nett outcome of these poorly-constructed conspiracy theories is that the baby goes with the bathwater and the real enemy rejoices …
Divide and Conquer!
Patriots vs nationalists! Environmentalists vs trade unions! Social conservatives vs (small L) liberals vs feminists. Low-paid, unskilled workers vs immigrants!
US vs THEM!

In discovering 'who to blame', it's best to put reason ahead of emotion.
Apply Ockham's Razor: shave away the irrelevant and spurious data - if you can - and you'll discover the truth.

Friends! The conspiracy is clear - but it's no secret!
It's simply the ugly face of market economics.
As always, there's a fairly clear solution:
1. the people, united, will never be defeated;
2. know your real enemy: (BTW, who is underwriting the Global Paranoia Movement?).

*Ockham's razor (sometimes spelled Occam's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor