On 29 April I posted about the Geelong footy team; in essence, that they were unbeatable …
I'm unhappy to admit that my analysis was dead wrong.
Look it up if you want to beat me over the head with it.
If Geelong ever did have a magic black bag 'o' tricks, it proved to be empty last weekend.
(It will be fascinating to see how they respond, won't it?)
My pathetic effort just goes to show how much I really know about footy.
But do you know what the great thing is?
I don't care. I'll keep posting (occasionally about sport) until someone shuts me down.
(… and NOTE that my earlier post about 'my team', St Kilda, was deadly accurate! NO guts, NO glory.)
Wednesday, 28 May 2008
Monday, 19 May 2008
I *really* love the interwebz
Forget its efficiency and immediacy for a minute.
Ignore, even, the small and decreasing enviro-footprint of working and communicating online.
In the 'nett return' stakes, the Internet simply rocks - because it empowers people!
Not just you and me, but her and him and them and … an increasing number of global citizens every day.
No matter where you live, or how you live, or how much money you make, OUR Internet is OUR tool.
And WE can use it to shape our future.
No wonder fascist governments hate it.
No wonder the US government, for example, automagically scans our emails. (Sorry, it does. By default, we're all terrorists.)
No wonder the China government and its transnational partners (Google, Yahoo …) have connived to minimise citizens' access to information.
Knowledge is power.
Of course the Internet is abused.
There's perverts and stalkers and child pornography.
There's spam (how big is YOUR penis?!) and viruses and trojans.
There's loony-tunes crypto-fascists and neo-con zionist murderers and vacuous islamist suicide-bombers … and any number of racist, supremacist scum espousing divisiveness and even genocide.
And so forth.
But in the face of all the negatives, I'll continue to argue that our Net can help to liberate us!
A free, open and democratic system will always be abused by sociopaths: it's the price we pay for a defective gene pool!
You've probably noticed this yourself but I'll just confirm that over the past 30 years or so governments and corporations have colluded in using, misusing and abusing their power to collect and abuse our personal data, with the nett outcome of diminishing citizens' autonomy.
They have achieved our collective compliance by using the argument that 'the innocent have nothing to hide'.
So, somehow, we have become guilty of something by default. WTF?
Well, I, for one, have nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of - but I draw the line at governments' right to snoop, to manipulate and try to control my life. (Don't you?)
Furthermore, the 'nothing to hide 'argument cuts both ways.
It's doubly ironic that, as governments' 'rights' to our personal information have increased, citizens' access to governments' operations and culpability has significantly decreased.
Funny about that!
Back to my main point.
I urge you to use the Internet - this amazingly powerful, free tool - to help reclaim our planet.
Be subversive. If necessary, be seditious.*
Discuss. Debate. Research.
Communicate. Join some forums.
Do a few cash deals and don't tell The Man. (Easily justified as 'Commercial-in-Confidence'.)
PS. It's worth noting that the likelihood of US government complicity in the '9-11' attacks is no longer the province of the lunatic fringe but has finally entered the mainstream.
Some of us knew this six years and eight months ago!
*sedition, noun.
1. speech or action causing discontent or rebellion against the government; incitement to discontent or rebellion.
Ex. Sedition against the Federal Government, the Court held, is a field in which Congress alone has jurisdiction to enact laws (Wall Street Journal).
Ignore, even, the small and decreasing enviro-footprint of working and communicating online.
In the 'nett return' stakes, the Internet simply rocks - because it empowers people!
Not just you and me, but her and him and them and … an increasing number of global citizens every day.
No matter where you live, or how you live, or how much money you make, OUR Internet is OUR tool.
And WE can use it to shape our future.
No wonder fascist governments hate it.
No wonder the US government, for example, automagically scans our emails. (Sorry, it does. By default, we're all terrorists.)
No wonder the China government and its transnational partners (Google, Yahoo …) have connived to minimise citizens' access to information.
Knowledge is power.
Of course the Internet is abused.
There's perverts and stalkers and child pornography.
There's spam (how big is YOUR penis?!) and viruses and trojans.
There's loony-tunes crypto-fascists and neo-con zionist murderers and vacuous islamist suicide-bombers … and any number of racist, supremacist scum espousing divisiveness and even genocide.
And so forth.
But in the face of all the negatives, I'll continue to argue that our Net can help to liberate us!
A free, open and democratic system will always be abused by sociopaths: it's the price we pay for a defective gene pool!
You've probably noticed this yourself but I'll just confirm that over the past 30 years or so governments and corporations have colluded in using, misusing and abusing their power to collect and abuse our personal data, with the nett outcome of diminishing citizens' autonomy.
They have achieved our collective compliance by using the argument that 'the innocent have nothing to hide'.
So, somehow, we have become guilty of something by default. WTF?
Well, I, for one, have nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of - but I draw the line at governments' right to snoop, to manipulate and try to control my life. (Don't you?)
Furthermore, the 'nothing to hide 'argument cuts both ways.
It's doubly ironic that, as governments' 'rights' to our personal information have increased, citizens' access to governments' operations and culpability has significantly decreased.
Funny about that!
Back to my main point.
I urge you to use the Internet - this amazingly powerful, free tool - to help reclaim our planet.
Be subversive. If necessary, be seditious.*
Discuss. Debate. Research.
Communicate. Join some forums.
Do a few cash deals and don't tell The Man. (Easily justified as 'Commercial-in-Confidence'.)
PS. It's worth noting that the likelihood of US government complicity in the '9-11' attacks is no longer the province of the lunatic fringe but has finally entered the mainstream.
Some of us knew this six years and eight months ago!
*sedition, noun.
1. speech or action causing discontent or rebellion against the government; incitement to discontent or rebellion.
Ex. Sedition against the Federal Government, the Court held, is a field in which Congress alone has jurisdiction to enact laws (Wall Street Journal).
Friday, 16 May 2008
wanky products
Thanks to 'global thinking' by a series of Australian governments, manufacturing in this country has been declining for 25 years.
RIP John Button. I know your heart was in the right place, but thanks for nothing.
In retail the grocery industry, dominated by the duopoly of Safeway / Woolworths and Coles, the consumer is presented with declining choice between brands, dearer prices and even products of dubious quality, pretty much all imported!!, in the name of 'competition'.
No, really guys, thanks for all that. The bigger the lie, the more believe it.
But that's not why I've dropped in today.
I wanted to 'credit' a few products that society doesn't need, has never needed - but has decided it actually does 'need' - and will continue to pay good money for.
How about the blue liquid that we dump in our toilets?
Nice one. A toxic chemical which interferes with the biological action septic tanks were designed for.
We get away with it because an increasing number of households no longer take responsibility for their waste locally but ship it off 'somewhere else' via sewers.
Congratulations for concealing your culpability and convincing yourself that your excreta is someone else's problem.
How about 'leaf blowers'?
Now that hosing down your driveway (whatta wank) is illegal pretty much everywhere, morons take refuge in a machine which is almost effective as a rake.
Have you useless gimps discovered how a broom works?
Seriously: well done!
How about 'diet dinners'?
For fuck's sake, calories aren't rocket science.
Try eating less or eating better quality food rather than consuming overpackaged, over-processed muck.
How about 'climate control' in cars?
I just love it.
To be continued.
RIP John Button. I know your heart was in the right place, but thanks for nothing.
In retail the grocery industry, dominated by the duopoly of Safeway / Woolworths and Coles, the consumer is presented with declining choice between brands, dearer prices and even products of dubious quality, pretty much all imported!!, in the name of 'competition'.
No, really guys, thanks for all that. The bigger the lie, the more believe it.
But that's not why I've dropped in today.
I wanted to 'credit' a few products that society doesn't need, has never needed - but has decided it actually does 'need' - and will continue to pay good money for.
How about the blue liquid that we dump in our toilets?
Nice one. A toxic chemical which interferes with the biological action septic tanks were designed for.
We get away with it because an increasing number of households no longer take responsibility for their waste locally but ship it off 'somewhere else' via sewers.
Congratulations for concealing your culpability and convincing yourself that your excreta is someone else's problem.
How about 'leaf blowers'?
Now that hosing down your driveway (whatta wank) is illegal pretty much everywhere, morons take refuge in a machine which is almost effective as a rake.
Have you useless gimps discovered how a broom works?
Seriously: well done!
How about 'diet dinners'?
For fuck's sake, calories aren't rocket science.
Try eating less or eating better quality food rather than consuming overpackaged, over-processed muck.
How about 'climate control' in cars?
I just love it.
To be continued.
Friday, 9 May 2008
confessional
Constructive criticism over the months has convinced me that my posts are often impenetrable.
(Say the word 'rant' many times, quickly: it blurs, acoustically, into 'rah-rah-rah'!)
Those of you who know me well enough will understand why I do this.
Whether you do understand or not, here are some reasons.
1. There's so much to say.
2. It's all, in my opinion, urgent.
3. There's always at least two sides to an argument and I find it difficult to summarily dismiss positions I disagree with.
4. Therefore, this internal debate all too often invades my writing, effectively undermining my own platform.
5. The compulsion to integrate every aspect of my complicated life is too often impossible to communicate succinctly.
There's more, but that will do.
Having set up this 'defence', I need to transcend it!
I'm a professional communicator, after all.
No doubt, it's wonderful to vent - I'm all for it! - but the main purpose of a blog, I think?, is to reach out and share ideas.
To do so effectively demands that I express my ideas clearly.
It would be a pretty sad outcome if no one read my posts but me!
Feedback welcome.
(Say the word 'rant' many times, quickly: it blurs, acoustically, into 'rah-rah-rah'!)
Those of you who know me well enough will understand why I do this.
Whether you do understand or not, here are some reasons.
1. There's so much to say.
2. It's all, in my opinion, urgent.
3. There's always at least two sides to an argument and I find it difficult to summarily dismiss positions I disagree with.
4. Therefore, this internal debate all too often invades my writing, effectively undermining my own platform.
5. The compulsion to integrate every aspect of my complicated life is too often impossible to communicate succinctly.
There's more, but that will do.
Having set up this 'defence', I need to transcend it!
I'm a professional communicator, after all.
No doubt, it's wonderful to vent - I'm all for it! - but the main purpose of a blog, I think?, is to reach out and share ideas.
To do so effectively demands that I express my ideas clearly.
It would be a pretty sad outcome if no one read my posts but me!
Feedback welcome.
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
what's the real cost of the mythical 'free' market?
I'd be the first to admit that, as a general rule of thumb, you can't change human nature.
Example. There's nothing wrong with communism in its purest sense but as applied, historically, it has too often brought out the worst in humanity: criminality, genocide, elitism and privilege, incompetence, lack of accountability, exploitation, suppression and repression.
Substitute communism with Catholicism or Islam (or any cult you like) and you'll observe a similar phenomenon: the finest altruistic principles corrupted by human opportunism and manipulation.
Another time, I'll look at this phenomenon a little more closely.
Suffice it to say, most communist states have broken down because the vision, in practice hasn't matched the theory – thanks to human nature.
Why? Too many of us don't really believe, in our hearts, that we are no better than everyone else.
A global economy underpinned by the 'principles' of Supply and Demand is humanity's panacea.
Damn! I didn't vote for it but I'm really impressed!
As with most noble precepts, capitalism works - on paper …
Production and consumption increasing in harmony, in equilibrium.
Innovation, excellence and hard work rewarded: wealth for all!
Mutual obligation - so no free rides at society's expense.
Productivity and Competition keeping prices down; mediocrity and underperformance penalised.
'Just In Time' management offering efficiency gains to benefit the marketplace.
(insert your favourite cliché here)
How much needs to go wrong before our collectively-thick-as-pigshit human nature perceives that the free market is a complete crock?
Six billion of us live in a closed system which can't sustain anything approaching continual growth.
In fact, if we all stopped breeding tomorrow, our manufactured environmental crisis is still inevitable.
When I was in high school 35 years ago, we learnt that a quarter of the world's population lived in poverty.
Thanks to the market, they still do.
As for aspirationalist 'working families' - a favoured tool of the overpaid and largely underworked notional 'left' here in Australia - this term needs to be replaced with 'WORKING POOR'.
REAL workers are being screwed worse than ever.
Example. There's nothing wrong with communism in its purest sense but as applied, historically, it has too often brought out the worst in humanity: criminality, genocide, elitism and privilege, incompetence, lack of accountability, exploitation, suppression and repression.
Substitute communism with Catholicism or Islam (or any cult you like) and you'll observe a similar phenomenon: the finest altruistic principles corrupted by human opportunism and manipulation.
Another time, I'll look at this phenomenon a little more closely.
Suffice it to say, most communist states have broken down because the vision, in practice hasn't matched the theory – thanks to human nature.
Why? Too many of us don't really believe, in our hearts, that we are no better than everyone else.
A global economy underpinned by the 'principles' of Supply and Demand is humanity's panacea.
Damn! I didn't vote for it but I'm really impressed!
As with most noble precepts, capitalism works - on paper …
Production and consumption increasing in harmony, in equilibrium.
Innovation, excellence and hard work rewarded: wealth for all!
Mutual obligation - so no free rides at society's expense.
Productivity and Competition keeping prices down; mediocrity and underperformance penalised.
'Just In Time' management offering efficiency gains to benefit the marketplace.
(insert your favourite cliché here)
How much needs to go wrong before our collectively-thick-as-pigshit human nature perceives that the free market is a complete crock?
Six billion of us live in a closed system which can't sustain anything approaching continual growth.
In fact, if we all stopped breeding tomorrow, our manufactured environmental crisis is still inevitable.
When I was in high school 35 years ago, we learnt that a quarter of the world's population lived in poverty.
Thanks to the market, they still do.
As for aspirationalist 'working families' - a favoured tool of the overpaid and largely underworked notional 'left' here in Australia - this term needs to be replaced with 'WORKING POOR'.
REAL workers are being screwed worse than ever.
Saturday, 3 May 2008
let's shut this arsehole down …
… permanently.
(… and any individual or organisation that underwrites him.)
Guillermo Vargas Habacuc
This piece of scum calls himself an artist. I'll give him 'art'.
Maybe 30 years ago I read a quote from Doris Lessing along the following lines. Unfortunately, despite several searches, I've not been able to properly source and attribute it, but truth transcends 'credit' …
The measure of a civilization is how it cares for its defenceless.
What kind of 'civilization' tolerates and even encourages torturing animals? Darling, how caché!
Guillermo Vargas Habacuc belongs in prison where he should be fed the same diet as his former pet.
(… and any individual or organisation that underwrites him.)
Guillermo Vargas Habacuc
This piece of scum calls himself an artist. I'll give him 'art'.
Maybe 30 years ago I read a quote from Doris Lessing along the following lines. Unfortunately, despite several searches, I've not been able to properly source and attribute it, but truth transcends 'credit' …
The measure of a civilization is how it cares for its defenceless.
What kind of 'civilization' tolerates and even encourages torturing animals? Darling, how caché!
Guillermo Vargas Habacuc belongs in prison where he should be fed the same diet as his former pet.
Friday, 2 May 2008
get with the program … coupla useful links
Regain control: Insight 1
Regain control: Insight 2
quality before quantity … efficiency before 'busyness' … Equity before morbid overconsumption.
Wake up before your bed catches fire.
Regain control: Insight 2
quality before quantity … efficiency before 'busyness' … Equity before morbid overconsumption.
Wake up before your bed catches fire.
Wednesday, 30 April 2008
a joke
I'm rebuilding this from the ground up as I can only remember the theme and the punchline.
A groom and his best man were called upon to sign a document after the wedding service.
The groom, who had never learnt to write, inscribed a large 'X'.
The best man, at his turn, wrote 'XX'.
'What's the second X for?' asked the groom.
'Oh, that's my economics degree.'
A groom and his best man were called upon to sign a document after the wedding service.
The groom, who had never learnt to write, inscribed a large 'X'.
The best man, at his turn, wrote 'XX'.
'What's the second X for?' asked the groom.
'Oh, that's my economics degree.'
Tuesday, 29 April 2008
geelong
Upfront! I'm nowhere near a footy expert.
I know a lot about many sports but AFL isn't one of them.
However, I think that sometimes I notice little things that smarter followers don't.
The Geelong team is playing footy on a different level than other teams and, if their form continues, they'll prove it against all the rest.
This is my contention.
I've listened to maybe 80% of their first six games this year - on the radio - and watched about 15-20% of their total gametime.
It's become increasingly obvious to me that, if a footy team can be compared to a car, Geelong has something like an extra cog, a supercharger, nitrous oxide … a 'blitz factor' they can use for around 15 or 20 minutes per game - and call upon at will.
This sets them apart.
Until the other teams achieve the discipline, intellect and physicality to recognise and effectively respond to this phenomenon, Geelong is unbeatable.
I'm inclined to give most of the credit to their coach, 'Bomber' Thompson.
Case in point: last weekend's encounter with Fremantle.
I reckon Freo matched Geelong for about a third of the game and were actually 'the better team' most of the time.
But, when the Cats really needed points, they collectively reached into this mysterious place and simply overpowered the Dockers.
When the Cats are on song, they can win by 100 points without raising a sweat.
And when they're playing badly, they do enough to win.
They've shown this time and time again.
In due course we'll all find out if their current dominance is sustainable.
In the meantime I'm going to enjoy it!
I know a lot about many sports but AFL isn't one of them.
However, I think that sometimes I notice little things that smarter followers don't.
The Geelong team is playing footy on a different level than other teams and, if their form continues, they'll prove it against all the rest.
This is my contention.
I've listened to maybe 80% of their first six games this year - on the radio - and watched about 15-20% of their total gametime.
It's become increasingly obvious to me that, if a footy team can be compared to a car, Geelong has something like an extra cog, a supercharger, nitrous oxide … a 'blitz factor' they can use for around 15 or 20 minutes per game - and call upon at will.
This sets them apart.
Until the other teams achieve the discipline, intellect and physicality to recognise and effectively respond to this phenomenon, Geelong is unbeatable.
I'm inclined to give most of the credit to their coach, 'Bomber' Thompson.
Case in point: last weekend's encounter with Fremantle.
I reckon Freo matched Geelong for about a third of the game and were actually 'the better team' most of the time.
But, when the Cats really needed points, they collectively reached into this mysterious place and simply overpowered the Dockers.
When the Cats are on song, they can win by 100 points without raising a sweat.
And when they're playing badly, they do enough to win.
They've shown this time and time again.
In due course we'll all find out if their current dominance is sustainable.
In the meantime I'm going to enjoy it!
Saturday, 26 April 2008
shark fin soup II
(Might be helpful if you do a little
Homework
first.)
I'm not a Buddhist. I'm an atheist. (Owned up to that one ages ago.)
But I really like the way Buddhism works, if you know what I mean!
Without getting even slightly mystical about it, I feel compelled and, equally, determined to integrate every element of my life - work, relationships, eating, sleep, leisure - into a single, contiguous and internally consistent philosophy.
Segué …
I'm not an expert on permaculture; I'm not even what you might call an adherent.
But I really like the way it works - and I use bits of it pretty much every day.
Why?
I appreciate efficiency, elegant design, appropriate technology, optimising resources, allowing 'nature' to do its thing … but helping it along if required.
It's an integrated, wholistic, systematic approach to making things work better - both Locally and Globally.
Back to shark fin soup!
The following extract is lifted from the 'homework' link above.
I've deleted a few points to avoid complexity - leaving us with only five (but plan to revisit these principles again).
Selected extracts are in italics; my comments are appended to each in Roman; 'shark fin soup' is abbreviated to 'sfs'.
Holmgren's 12 design principles
These restatements of the principles of permaculture appear in David Holmgren's Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability
…
Apply self-regulation and accept feedback - We need to discourage inappropriate activity to ensure that systems can continue to function well.
Where is the incentive for the sfs industry to 'self-regulate' if consumers don't do anything to 'discourage inappropriate activity'?
The Market God is blind to all evils until the Market God itself - you and I - shoves a red-hot poker up its own backside.
This method shut down the ivory and fur trades so transforming the shark fin trade should be a doddle.
Use and value renewable resources and services - Make the best use of natures abundance to reduce our consumptive behaviour and dependence on non-renewable resources.
Produce no waste - By valuing and making use of all the resources that are available to us, nothing goes to waste.
These two principles, both packed with value, merge.
Rather than controlling nature, we have every 'right' to manage its renewable resources in a genuinely sustainable fashion.
In doing this, we should waste nothing. If killing sharks is sustainable - and, under a quota system, it should be - then we have an an obligation to waste none of it. As matters stand, the market for sfs is anything but sustainable.
As for "our consumptive behaviour and dependence on non-renewable resources": refer to my earlier comments regarding Greenpeace's wasteful and indulgent activities.
It's run by smart, capable people who can and should do better once they get over their addiction to fame.
…
Integrate rather than segregate - By putting the right things in the right place, relationships develop between those things and they work together to support each other.
Refer to my opening statement.
Seriously, the only hope for our planet is "the getting of wisdom".
Every act we undertake as individuals has consequences. Most of them impact on others.
I feel we should seek, at all times, to ensure our actions offer a nett benefit to our fellow six billion "travellers" - even those yet to be born.
Let's make an effort to get these relationships right.
…
Creatively use and respond to change - We can have a positive impact on inevitable change by carefully observing, and then intervening at the right time.
It's great to finish on a positive note!
(I'm the first to admit that my posts contain a lot of criticisms. I use the analogy of "The Emperor's New Clothes": before a problem can be fixed it must be recognised as such.)
Just as the philosophy of Permaculture accepts and even embraces change, we all need to do the same.
Peak Oil has come and gone over the past few years and the reality is finally sinking in.
The knee-jerk reaction was bio-fuels as a solution, but - for a change - the Reality Check kicked in pretty damn quickly!
Dedicating agricultural resources to fuel means less food (and / or dearer food - for those who can still afford it).
Well, sorry, DUH!
It might be an idea to bite the bullet and start weaning ourselves off the teat of self-indulgence (a.k.a. overconsumption).
To close the current discussion for now …
In simple terms: if a large shark fin equates to a single meal for one wealthy, self-indulgent person, how many needy people would the whole animal feed?
Doesn't it make sense to meet the nutritional requirements as many as possible from a decreasing pro rata food supply?
Bottom line: let the tossers have their sfs under a quota system.
But make the bastards pay for it, Bigtime, ensuring the rest of the animal goes to the hungry at a subsidised rate.
(Could the Coalition of the Willing start doing something useful for a change, like maintaining an economic blockade along other than racist, ideological lines? I have my doubts.)
Homework
first.)
I'm not a Buddhist. I'm an atheist. (Owned up to that one ages ago.)
But I really like the way Buddhism works, if you know what I mean!
Without getting even slightly mystical about it, I feel compelled and, equally, determined to integrate every element of my life - work, relationships, eating, sleep, leisure - into a single, contiguous and internally consistent philosophy.
Segué …
I'm not an expert on permaculture; I'm not even what you might call an adherent.
But I really like the way it works - and I use bits of it pretty much every day.
Why?
I appreciate efficiency, elegant design, appropriate technology, optimising resources, allowing 'nature' to do its thing … but helping it along if required.
It's an integrated, wholistic, systematic approach to making things work better - both Locally and Globally.
Back to shark fin soup!
The following extract is lifted from the 'homework' link above.
I've deleted a few points to avoid complexity - leaving us with only five (but plan to revisit these principles again).
Selected extracts are in italics; my comments are appended to each in Roman; 'shark fin soup' is abbreviated to 'sfs'.
Holmgren's 12 design principles
These restatements of the principles of permaculture appear in David Holmgren's Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability
…
Apply self-regulation and accept feedback - We need to discourage inappropriate activity to ensure that systems can continue to function well.
Where is the incentive for the sfs industry to 'self-regulate' if consumers don't do anything to 'discourage inappropriate activity'?
The Market God is blind to all evils until the Market God itself - you and I - shoves a red-hot poker up its own backside.
This method shut down the ivory and fur trades so transforming the shark fin trade should be a doddle.
Use and value renewable resources and services - Make the best use of natures abundance to reduce our consumptive behaviour and dependence on non-renewable resources.
Produce no waste - By valuing and making use of all the resources that are available to us, nothing goes to waste.
These two principles, both packed with value, merge.
Rather than controlling nature, we have every 'right' to manage its renewable resources in a genuinely sustainable fashion.
In doing this, we should waste nothing. If killing sharks is sustainable - and, under a quota system, it should be - then we have an an obligation to waste none of it. As matters stand, the market for sfs is anything but sustainable.
As for "our consumptive behaviour and dependence on non-renewable resources": refer to my earlier comments regarding Greenpeace's wasteful and indulgent activities.
It's run by smart, capable people who can and should do better once they get over their addiction to fame.
…
Integrate rather than segregate - By putting the right things in the right place, relationships develop between those things and they work together to support each other.
Refer to my opening statement.
Seriously, the only hope for our planet is "the getting of wisdom".
Every act we undertake as individuals has consequences. Most of them impact on others.
I feel we should seek, at all times, to ensure our actions offer a nett benefit to our fellow six billion "travellers" - even those yet to be born.
Let's make an effort to get these relationships right.
…
Creatively use and respond to change - We can have a positive impact on inevitable change by carefully observing, and then intervening at the right time.
It's great to finish on a positive note!
(I'm the first to admit that my posts contain a lot of criticisms. I use the analogy of "The Emperor's New Clothes": before a problem can be fixed it must be recognised as such.)
Just as the philosophy of Permaculture accepts and even embraces change, we all need to do the same.
Peak Oil has come and gone over the past few years and the reality is finally sinking in.
The knee-jerk reaction was bio-fuels as a solution, but - for a change - the Reality Check kicked in pretty damn quickly!
Dedicating agricultural resources to fuel means less food (and / or dearer food - for those who can still afford it).
Well, sorry, DUH!
It might be an idea to bite the bullet and start weaning ourselves off the teat of self-indulgence (a.k.a. overconsumption).
To close the current discussion for now …
In simple terms: if a large shark fin equates to a single meal for one wealthy, self-indulgent person, how many needy people would the whole animal feed?
Doesn't it make sense to meet the nutritional requirements as many as possible from a decreasing pro rata food supply?
Bottom line: let the tossers have their sfs under a quota system.
But make the bastards pay for it, Bigtime, ensuring the rest of the animal goes to the hungry at a subsidised rate.
(Could the Coalition of the Willing start doing something useful for a change, like maintaining an economic blockade along other than racist, ideological lines? I have my doubts.)
shark fin soup 1
Background info here:
"ego, pride, exhibitionism, hubris..." a strong case for retrospective abortion.com
As always, never accept my word for it: Google is your friend.
The increasing demand for shark fin soup during an accelerating global food crisis serves, in many ways, to encapsulate the intellectual vacuum manifest between the tokenistic 'sustainability mantra' and a less-than-smug reality.
To supply the decadent demand for a bland and occasionally toxic product, whole dorsal fins are cut from live sharks before the animals are dumped back into the ocean to die slowly or to be torn apart by their cousins.
Now, I'm no fan of Japanese whaling 'research'. Everyone knows this 'research' nothing but a Big Lie.
Governments and diplomats would do well to call Japan's bluff, literally, by 'shirtfronting' the lying, hypocritical bastards and giving them a few smacks for fibbing.
In mitigation, however, at least the whales aren't being mutilated and thrown away. The entire whale is the product, not a tiny piece of it. It's killed; it's used.
Although the jury's still out, whale harvesting may even prove to be sustainable.
Given these two parallel realities, why do people get all warm, fuzzy and concerned about the latter but not the former?
Why are there quotas for whales and not for sharks?
How many sharks are being butchered alive for every whale killed and eaten?
How many tens of millions of dollars, tens of thousands of litres of fuel, thousands of hours of human resources, are invested in the annual Greenpeace Anti-Whaling stunt?*
Is it possible these resources might be invested more wisely?
Perhaps in one of dozens of third-world countries where people are literally starving?
Hmmm, the lying-hypocritical-bastard syndrome is catching on!
Boycott shark fin soup. Boycott restaurants that serve it. Boycott people who eat it.
*In the interests of balance re Greenpeace activities:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4495790a6031.html
(But who died and annointed them cops?! If I wanted another pack of interventionist bully-boys I'd become a US citizen.)
"ego, pride, exhibitionism, hubris..." a strong case for retrospective abortion.com
As always, never accept my word for it: Google is your friend.
The increasing demand for shark fin soup during an accelerating global food crisis serves, in many ways, to encapsulate the intellectual vacuum manifest between the tokenistic 'sustainability mantra' and a less-than-smug reality.
To supply the decadent demand for a bland and occasionally toxic product, whole dorsal fins are cut from live sharks before the animals are dumped back into the ocean to die slowly or to be torn apart by their cousins.
Now, I'm no fan of Japanese whaling 'research'. Everyone knows this 'research' nothing but a Big Lie.
Governments and diplomats would do well to call Japan's bluff, literally, by 'shirtfronting' the lying, hypocritical bastards and giving them a few smacks for fibbing.
In mitigation, however, at least the whales aren't being mutilated and thrown away. The entire whale is the product, not a tiny piece of it. It's killed; it's used.
Although the jury's still out, whale harvesting may even prove to be sustainable.
Given these two parallel realities, why do people get all warm, fuzzy and concerned about the latter but not the former?
Why are there quotas for whales and not for sharks?
How many sharks are being butchered alive for every whale killed and eaten?
How many tens of millions of dollars, tens of thousands of litres of fuel, thousands of hours of human resources, are invested in the annual Greenpeace Anti-Whaling stunt?*
Is it possible these resources might be invested more wisely?
Perhaps in one of dozens of third-world countries where people are literally starving?
Hmmm, the lying-hypocritical-bastard syndrome is catching on!
Boycott shark fin soup. Boycott restaurants that serve it. Boycott people who eat it.
*In the interests of balance re Greenpeace activities:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4495790a6031.html
(But who died and annointed them cops?! If I wanted another pack of interventionist bully-boys I'd become a US citizen.)
Sunday, 6 April 2008
st kilda
I emigrated from Sydney to (far) East Gippsland in 1983.
A few days after I completed the relocation it was made clear to me that, although this wasn't mentioned on the induction paperwork, the choice of a Footy Team had now become mandatory.
At the time violence for non-conformance was colourfully implied (but not, fortunately, ever enforced).
Gotta love those Border Security bogans.
As I had no plans to seriously engage in lemming-like behaviour I chose the team-least-likely-to-ever-win-anything-again - just to shut these wankers up.
Yes, I went with the Saints.
Incidentally, this decision balanced nicely with my League team, St George, who had enjoyed many good years.
(John Howard and me on the same bandwagon: the symmetry is complete!
Moreover, the atheist in me relished the irony.)
Despite myself, over the years I started to engage in the fortunes of St Kilda.
For the remainder of the Twentieth Century, I became increasingly depressed with every thrashing 'WE' received.
I twitched when any of the boys 'got done' for anti-social behaviour. (I shuddered a lot.)
My eyes brimmed when Plugger Lockett, Big Bad Barry Hall and Spider Everett moved on.
Y'know, a fan can only take so much!
Then, at some stage (what? four or five years ago?) the bastards started winning more games than they lost.
It's amazing what a couple of decent coaches, bags of money and a newfound culture of maturity and accountability can do!
Despite myself, I was forced to flirt with the idea that St Kilda could actually become A CONTENDER.
This really messed with my mind for quite a while, especially when they actually 'contended' once or twice.
However, in my heart of hearts, I knew the Sainters wouldn't let me down.
They haven't and they won't. Feel free to bookmark this.
When push comes to shove, St Kilda lack the heart to win a premiership.
PS. Robert Harvey? ABSOLUTE LEGEND, mate.
A few days after I completed the relocation it was made clear to me that, although this wasn't mentioned on the induction paperwork, the choice of a Footy Team had now become mandatory.
At the time violence for non-conformance was colourfully implied (but not, fortunately, ever enforced).
Gotta love those Border Security bogans.
As I had no plans to seriously engage in lemming-like behaviour I chose the team-least-likely-to-ever-win-anything-again - just to shut these wankers up.
Yes, I went with the Saints.
Incidentally, this decision balanced nicely with my League team, St George, who had enjoyed many good years.
(John Howard and me on the same bandwagon: the symmetry is complete!
Moreover, the atheist in me relished the irony.)
Despite myself, over the years I started to engage in the fortunes of St Kilda.
For the remainder of the Twentieth Century, I became increasingly depressed with every thrashing 'WE' received.
I twitched when any of the boys 'got done' for anti-social behaviour. (I shuddered a lot.)
My eyes brimmed when Plugger Lockett, Big Bad Barry Hall and Spider Everett moved on.
Y'know, a fan can only take so much!
Then, at some stage (what? four or five years ago?) the bastards started winning more games than they lost.
It's amazing what a couple of decent coaches, bags of money and a newfound culture of maturity and accountability can do!
Despite myself, I was forced to flirt with the idea that St Kilda could actually become A CONTENDER.
This really messed with my mind for quite a while, especially when they actually 'contended' once or twice.
However, in my heart of hearts, I knew the Sainters wouldn't let me down.
They haven't and they won't. Feel free to bookmark this.
When push comes to shove, St Kilda lack the heart to win a premiership.
PS. Robert Harvey? ABSOLUTE LEGEND, mate.
Saturday, 5 April 2008
more jed stuff
I needed to 'share' an image a while back and set up a Flickr account.
Here's the address:
over yonder, hiding behind the punkins
Have a look.
I'll be updating it from time to time, with a mixture of personal and professional images.
(Uploaded quite a few today; each has its own little editorial.)
Here's the address:
over yonder, hiding behind the punkins
Have a look.
I'll be updating it from time to time, with a mixture of personal and professional images.
(Uploaded quite a few today; each has its own little editorial.)
Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die
Ever since sustainability became 'fashionable' and entered the mainstream - over the past year or two - this song has been kicking around in my head.
What am I getting at?
Most of us have good intentions. Flush once a day. Use more moderate settings on the reverse-cycle. Separate our waste (and maybe even value add it through a compost bin). Minimise using the car. And so forth.
Simple, good, enviro-friendly stuff.
At this level, society has no problem with sustainable practices.
However (and I don't enjoy pointing this out), in the current global context most of this stuff is feelgood tokenism.
Yes, I consciously and actively boycotted 'Turn-Off-Your-Lights-For-An-Hour' Day.
Face facts. None of this micro-behaviour will deliver a more liveable planet - that is, 'heaven' (what it was at some stage and what it still can be) - unless we are prepared to change our MACRO-habits.
Face facts II. OUR beloved market economy is working continually against a sustainable planet by inciting us to spend, consume, replace, upgrade … whatever it takes, including accumulate debt and, yes, fuck up the future.
As a society, what are we doing to resist?
(It's OUR economy at the end of the day, since it couldn't function without us.)
You tell me.
What is sustainable about buying a new car (or computer or TV or whatever) every three years?
Without delving into the issue of increasing fuel prices, I see a nett benefit in the disincentive to consume. HOWEVER, as long as work-related vehicle expenses are tax-deductible there is no real disincentive for many, is there?
Don't get me started on discounted airfares!
Can anyone else see the elephant in the room? (She's wielding a baseball bat.) Where is the disincentive to consume?
Look, I'm not out to spoil the fun - and everyone is entitled to travel now and then - but a single extra flight, created from the demand / supply relationship, probable cancels out dozens of lifetimes of 'micro-improvements'.
Many posts ago I wrote a little on the subject 'governments just don't get it'.
Well, they don't.
As they toy with sustainability - spraying our money around on warm, fuzzy confabs - they remain paralyzed like rabbits in the floodlight of the Future train.
Addicted to revenue, they desire both a boom economy and a green future but can't decide which is more important. WTF??
None of them can get its head around the compelling need to enforce lower consumption … by reducing production first and foremost as well as by implementing genuinely progressive policy and proactive legislation.
Interest rates and the stock market don't exist to serve people; governments do.
The market economy is simply not sustainable. Further, since it's largely managed by profiteers servicing an addiction to overconsumption, it simply can't be trusted.
When the carrot approach doesn't work, get out the stick.
Example: legislate to remove tax-deductibility from all unsustainable business practices.
Example: as with fuel, tobacco and alcohol, apply a massive (non-deductible) 'excise' to airfares and inefficient vehicles.
To get to 'heaven', we all need to 'die' a little.
[Phew! That was exhausting. I wanted to briefly address 'carbon trading' from my Backyard point of view, but that will have to wait for another day.]
What am I getting at?
Most of us have good intentions. Flush once a day. Use more moderate settings on the reverse-cycle. Separate our waste (and maybe even value add it through a compost bin). Minimise using the car. And so forth.
Simple, good, enviro-friendly stuff.
At this level, society has no problem with sustainable practices.
However (and I don't enjoy pointing this out), in the current global context most of this stuff is feelgood tokenism.
Yes, I consciously and actively boycotted 'Turn-Off-Your-Lights-For-An-Hour' Day.
Face facts. None of this micro-behaviour will deliver a more liveable planet - that is, 'heaven' (what it was at some stage and what it still can be) - unless we are prepared to change our MACRO-habits.
Face facts II. OUR beloved market economy is working continually against a sustainable planet by inciting us to spend, consume, replace, upgrade … whatever it takes, including accumulate debt and, yes, fuck up the future.
As a society, what are we doing to resist?
(It's OUR economy at the end of the day, since it couldn't function without us.)
You tell me.
What is sustainable about buying a new car (or computer or TV or whatever) every three years?
Without delving into the issue of increasing fuel prices, I see a nett benefit in the disincentive to consume. HOWEVER, as long as work-related vehicle expenses are tax-deductible there is no real disincentive for many, is there?
Don't get me started on discounted airfares!
Can anyone else see the elephant in the room? (She's wielding a baseball bat.) Where is the disincentive to consume?
Look, I'm not out to spoil the fun - and everyone is entitled to travel now and then - but a single extra flight, created from the demand / supply relationship, probable cancels out dozens of lifetimes of 'micro-improvements'.
Many posts ago I wrote a little on the subject 'governments just don't get it'.
Well, they don't.
As they toy with sustainability - spraying our money around on warm, fuzzy confabs - they remain paralyzed like rabbits in the floodlight of the Future train.
Addicted to revenue, they desire both a boom economy and a green future but can't decide which is more important. WTF??
None of them can get its head around the compelling need to enforce lower consumption … by reducing production first and foremost as well as by implementing genuinely progressive policy and proactive legislation.
Interest rates and the stock market don't exist to serve people; governments do.
The market economy is simply not sustainable. Further, since it's largely managed by profiteers servicing an addiction to overconsumption, it simply can't be trusted.
When the carrot approach doesn't work, get out the stick.
Example: legislate to remove tax-deductibility from all unsustainable business practices.
Example: as with fuel, tobacco and alcohol, apply a massive (non-deductible) 'excise' to airfares and inefficient vehicles.
To get to 'heaven', we all need to 'die' a little.
[Phew! That was exhausting. I wanted to briefly address 'carbon trading' from my Backyard point of view, but that will have to wait for another day.]
Thursday, 3 April 2008
functionality II
Last month I mentioned applying for a few jobs.
As one who treasures autonomy, all I can say is that you do what circumstances dictate.
If any of these applications had been successful I'd be back on the chain-gang, earning up to 300% of my current income, paying my bills comfortably, conquering the mortgage … and probably drifting away from what I really want to do.
Best outcome: one company asked me if I'd consider relocating interstate. I was chuffed but had to decline.
Worst outcome: an employment agency declined to respond to either of my emails.
(I was surprised that they demonstrated such contempt to a job-seeker - but enjoyed the irony.
I'm going to suggest they employ someone with appropriate skills to respond to emails.)
It can be difficult living literally month-to-month, not knowing what's around the corner in terms of income or how to meet that next batch of bills.
I've seen a lot of new grey hairs this year! (And, despite renewed efforts, my business is still far from sustainable.)
Yet, there's a wholly different set of stresses involved when you work for someone else.
You and I both know it, so don't argue. Just don't.
As a realist, I know I'll never be 'master of my destiny' in the purest sense - but working for yourself comes close.
I seriously love hard work.
Yes, I'm actively disengaging from physical hard yakka - I've seen more than my share over the past 35 years - but I'm happy to power away at any 'office' jobs indefinitely.
When I say 'happy', I mean it! I love doing illustration, design, typesetting, copywriting and the rest.
I love my little network of three computers and three printers. I even love the frequent challenge of keeping them functional.
I love turning a job around quickly.
I love looking after my clients - and take a genuine interest in their business operations, as well as in their success.
I love the efficiency and immediacy of modern equipment and telco services, as well as their dwindling enviro-footprints. Appropriate technology at its best!
Fair dinkum, if I had a reliable revenue stream I'd do most of this stuff for free.
As one who treasures autonomy, all I can say is that you do what circumstances dictate.
If any of these applications had been successful I'd be back on the chain-gang, earning up to 300% of my current income, paying my bills comfortably, conquering the mortgage … and probably drifting away from what I really want to do.
Best outcome: one company asked me if I'd consider relocating interstate. I was chuffed but had to decline.
Worst outcome: an employment agency declined to respond to either of my emails.
(I was surprised that they demonstrated such contempt to a job-seeker - but enjoyed the irony.
I'm going to suggest they employ someone with appropriate skills to respond to emails.)
It can be difficult living literally month-to-month, not knowing what's around the corner in terms of income or how to meet that next batch of bills.
I've seen a lot of new grey hairs this year! (And, despite renewed efforts, my business is still far from sustainable.)
Yet, there's a wholly different set of stresses involved when you work for someone else.
You and I both know it, so don't argue. Just don't.
As a realist, I know I'll never be 'master of my destiny' in the purest sense - but working for yourself comes close.
I seriously love hard work.
Yes, I'm actively disengaging from physical hard yakka - I've seen more than my share over the past 35 years - but I'm happy to power away at any 'office' jobs indefinitely.
When I say 'happy', I mean it! I love doing illustration, design, typesetting, copywriting and the rest.
I love my little network of three computers and three printers. I even love the frequent challenge of keeping them functional.
I love turning a job around quickly.
I love looking after my clients - and take a genuine interest in their business operations, as well as in their success.
I love the efficiency and immediacy of modern equipment and telco services, as well as their dwindling enviro-footprints. Appropriate technology at its best!
Fair dinkum, if I had a reliable revenue stream I'd do most of this stuff for free.
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
shopping trolley blues
Well, I'm back after more than a month.
I've spent this time trying to be less introspective and more outgoing, with partial success.
After registering with 'Seek' a few weeks ago I've applied for a few jobs online.
I also applied for a job I found in the local papers.
Modern 'professional' courtesies being what they are, no one notifies you if an application is unsuccessful.
I've also invested a bit of time in building up my business. Handed out a few business cards; made a sign for the road frontage; taken a flier into its final stages … I might even print a few off today.
What else have I been doing?
Well, my 'property caretaking' job has seen me mending the odd fence, slashing a five-acre paddock and doing a couple of hours' brushcutting.
Wearing my pest control hat, I've taken out ten wasp nests: two were European wasps, the rest paper wasps.
I also had a few hours' work repairing a small trailer.
The 'office' stuff has fallen into a deep, dark - hopefully temporary! - hole.
Basically, earning $40 here and $50 there, I've made enough to pay for petrol, smokes and beer!
So it's been a tough few weeks in terms of finances and March is looking pretty bleak as well.
Bills are accumulating; literally no money to pay them.
I'm owed about a grand. If it all came in this week (it won't!) it would just about cover my immediate and upcoming debts.
I had been really looking forward to starting some workplace training in a few days. Only six hours a week but grossing $210, it would have helped a lot.
Unfortunately, due to shortage of enrolments, this course has been deferred for five weeks.
I've discovered an interesting 'barometer' of my disposable income. The humble shopping trolley.
When I'm earning real money, I use a trolley at the supermarket.
When I'm not, I use a basket - or nothing at all.
It's been about six weeks since I used a trolley.
It's great to have reasonably well-stocked freezer and groceries cupboard!
As for fresh produce, February finds my vegetable garden at maximum output.
I've been enjoying fresh corn, beans, tomatoes, chillis, silver beet, cabbages, pumpkins, zucchinis, coriander and other stuff. The passionfruit are cropping three or four months early, possibly due to the mild winter in 2007.
Some beautiful thornless blackberries as well. These are seriously yummy and reminiscent of black mulberries (my favourite fruit) in flavour.
For some reason, it's been a bad year for tomatoes, eggplants and raspberries, with yields down about 80%.
Last Autumn, I cooked up about a kilo of chilli pickle. This is absolutely fabulous in curries and casseroles. I'm down to the last spoonful, BUT this year is looking good for a bumper chilli harvest.
Thanks to Spring's abundant crop, I was able to freeze about 4kg of (shelled) broadbeans. This works out to about 25 generous servings. These might just last until Winter …
I've spent this time trying to be less introspective and more outgoing, with partial success.
After registering with 'Seek' a few weeks ago I've applied for a few jobs online.
I also applied for a job I found in the local papers.
Modern 'professional' courtesies being what they are, no one notifies you if an application is unsuccessful.
I've also invested a bit of time in building up my business. Handed out a few business cards; made a sign for the road frontage; taken a flier into its final stages … I might even print a few off today.
What else have I been doing?
Well, my 'property caretaking' job has seen me mending the odd fence, slashing a five-acre paddock and doing a couple of hours' brushcutting.
Wearing my pest control hat, I've taken out ten wasp nests: two were European wasps, the rest paper wasps.
I also had a few hours' work repairing a small trailer.
The 'office' stuff has fallen into a deep, dark - hopefully temporary! - hole.
Basically, earning $40 here and $50 there, I've made enough to pay for petrol, smokes and beer!
So it's been a tough few weeks in terms of finances and March is looking pretty bleak as well.
Bills are accumulating; literally no money to pay them.
I'm owed about a grand. If it all came in this week (it won't!) it would just about cover my immediate and upcoming debts.
I had been really looking forward to starting some workplace training in a few days. Only six hours a week but grossing $210, it would have helped a lot.
Unfortunately, due to shortage of enrolments, this course has been deferred for five weeks.
I've discovered an interesting 'barometer' of my disposable income. The humble shopping trolley.
When I'm earning real money, I use a trolley at the supermarket.
When I'm not, I use a basket - or nothing at all.
It's been about six weeks since I used a trolley.
It's great to have reasonably well-stocked freezer and groceries cupboard!
As for fresh produce, February finds my vegetable garden at maximum output.
I've been enjoying fresh corn, beans, tomatoes, chillis, silver beet, cabbages, pumpkins, zucchinis, coriander and other stuff. The passionfruit are cropping three or four months early, possibly due to the mild winter in 2007.
Some beautiful thornless blackberries as well. These are seriously yummy and reminiscent of black mulberries (my favourite fruit) in flavour.
For some reason, it's been a bad year for tomatoes, eggplants and raspberries, with yields down about 80%.
Last Autumn, I cooked up about a kilo of chilli pickle. This is absolutely fabulous in curries and casseroles. I'm down to the last spoonful, BUT this year is looking good for a bumper chilli harvest.
Thanks to Spring's abundant crop, I was able to freeze about 4kg of (shelled) broadbeans. This works out to about 25 generous servings. These might just last until Winter …
Sunday, 27 January 2008
dancing in the dark
There's a saying about 'leaving this world a better place than when you entered it.'
I've always instinctively believed this - and probably will until the day I do 'leave'.
Certainly, I'll never know if I've made a real difference overall, but would like to think my personal 'nett input' has been positive.
Among the important things I've learnt, and tried to apply, are 'passion', 'courage', 'honesty', 'loyalty', 'common sense', 'objectivity' and 'compassion' … and I rate them equally highly.
Perhaps the greatest discovery of my entire life is belief in myself, which kinda encompasses the above values. It's never been about 'putting myself first' (see below), but about trusting my own judgement.
Among the notionally important things I've never learnt are faith in a deity … and ambition.
I recognise the widespread craving for a god of some kind. It gives people a reference point or (a term I'm fond of) an anchor.
I also appreciate the positive impact of 'believers' in the real world which, on balance, is greater than the negative.
To generalise for a moment, there are two kinds of believers: (a) those who use their faith for personal aggrandisement (the selfish), and (b) those who obey their god's direction to serve humanity (the selfless).
A subset embracing both kinds? Do me a favour!
Walk your camel through the eye of a needle first, then we'll discuss it.
Alternatively, try shedding your skin, starting anew and standing naked in the face of an infinite cosmos. I did it at 14 and haven't looked back.
I'll have more to say on this from time to time.
Moving on …
'Ambition'. Hmmm. Sorry, I've never understood it. So much so, in fact, that I've started to think I'm missing a gene!
I'll probably die with my working boots on, wondering how to pay the next electricity bill.
In the meantime, I'll continue to count my blessings.
I've always instinctively believed this - and probably will until the day I do 'leave'.
Certainly, I'll never know if I've made a real difference overall, but would like to think my personal 'nett input' has been positive.
Among the important things I've learnt, and tried to apply, are 'passion', 'courage', 'honesty', 'loyalty', 'common sense', 'objectivity' and 'compassion' … and I rate them equally highly.
Perhaps the greatest discovery of my entire life is belief in myself, which kinda encompasses the above values. It's never been about 'putting myself first' (see below), but about trusting my own judgement.
Among the notionally important things I've never learnt are faith in a deity … and ambition.
I recognise the widespread craving for a god of some kind. It gives people a reference point or (a term I'm fond of) an anchor.
I also appreciate the positive impact of 'believers' in the real world which, on balance, is greater than the negative.
To generalise for a moment, there are two kinds of believers: (a) those who use their faith for personal aggrandisement (the selfish), and (b) those who obey their god's direction to serve humanity (the selfless).
A subset embracing both kinds? Do me a favour!
Walk your camel through the eye of a needle first, then we'll discuss it.
Alternatively, try shedding your skin, starting anew and standing naked in the face of an infinite cosmos. I did it at 14 and haven't looked back.
I'll have more to say on this from time to time.
Moving on …
'Ambition'. Hmmm. Sorry, I've never understood it. So much so, in fact, that I've started to think I'm missing a gene!
I'll probably die with my working boots on, wondering how to pay the next electricity bill.
In the meantime, I'll continue to count my blessings.
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Revisiting "IF"
That brilliant (?German-made?) biographical Dennis Hopper movie was on TV the other night [insert name here].
Although I'm not a movie buff, as you can tell!, Dennis is my favourite actor.
At the very end of the film, after the credits, Dennis recites Rudyard Kipling's "IF".
I've copied and pasted it below; and then made some personal observations.
IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!
This verse made an enormous impression on me in the seventies.
I'm not saying it's great as a work of literature … it's not.
However, "IF" says pretty much everything about being true to yourself, regardless of what The Rest of The World is doing … and irrespective of how badly (or well) the World is treating you.
Put more simply, it's a 'call to courage'. Gotta love that!
Pure courage is in short supply these days, probably because there's no dollar profit in it.
My biggest problem with "IF" is that it excludes fifty per cent of the population!
Women are often more capable of sheer courage than men, yet Kipling's last few words effectively dismisses females from 'owning' (or even sharing) the poem.
A smaller quibble, but just as valid, is with this extract:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
OK, fine if you 'have nothing to lose' …
but what about everyone else - especially those closest to you?
An equally valid interpretation of 'risking' your 'heap' is that it's the ultimate act of selfishness, only practised by people who don't give a shit about their loved ones … OR who rate the potential 'return on investment' more highly than their family's wellbeing.
I dunno, Kipling really dropped the ball here; it reads as a bit of a rich boy's wank, which largely detracts from the value of the poem: perhaps it's a stanza too long?!
Although I'm not a movie buff, as you can tell!, Dennis is my favourite actor.
At the very end of the film, after the credits, Dennis recites Rudyard Kipling's "IF".
I've copied and pasted it below; and then made some personal observations.
IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!
This verse made an enormous impression on me in the seventies.
I'm not saying it's great as a work of literature … it's not.
However, "IF" says pretty much everything about being true to yourself, regardless of what The Rest of The World is doing … and irrespective of how badly (or well) the World is treating you.
Put more simply, it's a 'call to courage'. Gotta love that!
Pure courage is in short supply these days, probably because there's no dollar profit in it.
My biggest problem with "IF" is that it excludes fifty per cent of the population!
Women are often more capable of sheer courage than men, yet Kipling's last few words effectively dismisses females from 'owning' (or even sharing) the poem.
A smaller quibble, but just as valid, is with this extract:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
OK, fine if you 'have nothing to lose' …
but what about everyone else - especially those closest to you?
An equally valid interpretation of 'risking' your 'heap' is that it's the ultimate act of selfishness, only practised by people who don't give a shit about their loved ones … OR who rate the potential 'return on investment' more highly than their family's wellbeing.
I dunno, Kipling really dropped the ball here; it reads as a bit of a rich boy's wank, which largely detracts from the value of the poem: perhaps it's a stanza too long?!
Thursday, 17 January 2008
church of garbology
http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress
The net is buzzing with news and views about a Tom Cruise video bite, in which he 'articulates' his beliefs.
[I use that word with extreme prejudice!]
[use the link above, however long it lasts! otherwise, google is your friend]
Over the past 48 hours, give or take, the 'Church' of Scientology has been systematically pursuing any site hosting the video and threatening it with legal action.
Google Video has complied (and, it seems, so has Youtube); it remains to be seen whether or not we bloggers are enmeshed in the same net.
Anyway, here's my (edited) response - posted today - to a thread in my favourite forum …
[Some context for international readers: Kevin Rudd is Australia's new Prime Minister; his informal election slogan was 'Kevin07' - and he's often quoted as saying 'I'm from Queensland and I'm here to help.]
Cruise had nine minutes plus to deliver his message.
I got it: like Kevin07, he's 'here to help'.
However, ignoring the banal 'traffic accident' scenario, what 'help' is he offering?
Now, if you gave Kevin nine minutes of airtime, scripted or not, he'd be able to say what he'd actually done in his first few weeks and what he planned to do in the future.
And whether or not you agreed with him, his policies would be 'out there' for all to see.
OTOH, what concrete policy / reform / vision did Cruise offer?
What has he or his church delivered to real people?
Fer chrissakes, a quarter of the world's population live in poverty and squalor!
How will he or his ridiculous 'philosophy' (a.k.a. indulgent 'gibberish') make our world a better one?
I could only conclude that he was on about 'enlightening' people, not improving their lives.
OK, I'm enlightened: I'm an atheist. Even so, I recognise that most religions and belief systems (warts and all) have some socially useful activities.
Is it just me, or is Scientology-according-to-Cruise a complete wank for rich spoilt brats?
The other thing that's got me baffled is why this 'church' is pursuing and threatening websites who've been hosting the video.
If Tom Cruise Superstar is such a marvellous advocate for the cause, shouldn't they take advantage of the free marketing?
AND spend the LEGAL BUDGET on HELPING REAL PEOPLE?
The net is buzzing with news and views about a Tom Cruise video bite, in which he 'articulates' his beliefs.
[I use that word with extreme prejudice!]
[use the link above, however long it lasts! otherwise, google is your friend]
Over the past 48 hours, give or take, the 'Church' of Scientology has been systematically pursuing any site hosting the video and threatening it with legal action.
Google Video has complied (and, it seems, so has Youtube); it remains to be seen whether or not we bloggers are enmeshed in the same net.
Anyway, here's my (edited) response - posted today - to a thread in my favourite forum …
[Some context for international readers: Kevin Rudd is Australia's new Prime Minister; his informal election slogan was 'Kevin07' - and he's often quoted as saying 'I'm from Queensland and I'm here to help.]
Cruise had nine minutes plus to deliver his message.
I got it: like Kevin07, he's 'here to help'.
However, ignoring the banal 'traffic accident' scenario, what 'help' is he offering?
Now, if you gave Kevin nine minutes of airtime, scripted or not, he'd be able to say what he'd actually done in his first few weeks and what he planned to do in the future.
And whether or not you agreed with him, his policies would be 'out there' for all to see.
OTOH, what concrete policy / reform / vision did Cruise offer?
What has he or his church delivered to real people?
Fer chrissakes, a quarter of the world's population live in poverty and squalor!
How will he or his ridiculous 'philosophy' (a.k.a. indulgent 'gibberish') make our world a better one?
I could only conclude that he was on about 'enlightening' people, not improving their lives.
OK, I'm enlightened: I'm an atheist. Even so, I recognise that most religions and belief systems (warts and all) have some socially useful activities.
Is it just me, or is Scientology-according-to-Cruise a complete wank for rich spoilt brats?
The other thing that's got me baffled is why this 'church' is pursuing and threatening websites who've been hosting the video.
If Tom Cruise Superstar is such a marvellous advocate for the cause, shouldn't they take advantage of the free marketing?
AND spend the LEGAL BUDGET on HELPING REAL PEOPLE?
Monday, 14 January 2008
oh, what a tangled web …
Apologies if you've seen this before; it's a few months old.
Yes, it's a propaganda piece … constructed from real video bites.
All that's missing is a few Australian talking heads!
If you oppose truth in politics - maybe you favour leniency for war criminals? - piss off back to MyFace or share trading.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ&eurl=
Yes, it's a propaganda piece … constructed from real video bites.
All that's missing is a few Australian talking heads!
If you oppose truth in politics - maybe you favour leniency for war criminals? - piss off back to MyFace or share trading.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ&eurl=
Saturday, 12 January 2008
one reason why I grow my own
The following is an edited version of a post I submitted to an online forum earlier today.
I think it's worth repeating …
I'd like to see harvested dates on fruit and veges sold as 'fresh'.
Retailers are now required to state country of origin, at least if it's not Australia: fair enough.
However, this requirement doesn't resolve most QC issues.
How much stuff is being sold as fresh food when it's last season's harvest, or at least several months old and preserved in coldstores?
I've needed to return potatoes, of all things, to my local Fresh Food People because they were rotten. (Gotta love that smell!)
And it's amazing how much 'fresh' produce gives up the ghost within 24 hours of getting it home.
It's not just about perceivable quality either.
Fruit and veg lose nutrients rapidly after they're picked; for this reason canned or frozen groceries are often more nutritious than the unprocessed, unpackaged product.
I think it's worth repeating …
I'd like to see harvested dates on fruit and veges sold as 'fresh'.
Retailers are now required to state country of origin, at least if it's not Australia: fair enough.
However, this requirement doesn't resolve most QC issues.
How much stuff is being sold as fresh food when it's last season's harvest, or at least several months old and preserved in coldstores?
I've needed to return potatoes, of all things, to my local Fresh Food People because they were rotten. (Gotta love that smell!)
And it's amazing how much 'fresh' produce gives up the ghost within 24 hours of getting it home.
It's not just about perceivable quality either.
Fruit and veg lose nutrients rapidly after they're picked; for this reason canned or frozen groceries are often more nutritious than the unprocessed, unpackaged product.
Thursday, 10 January 2008
my pressure cooker
To use a 'kitchen' metaphor, we live in a microwave environment.
I have a microwave. I use it about once a fortnight to partially defrost meat and roughly twice a week to 'steam' some treats (e.g. food scraps, sunflower seeds and a little pasta) for my chooks.
For a short time, around 10 years ago, I used it for cooking but, overall, I found that the flavour and texture of microwaved food was second-rate.
This is a personal opinion and, if you disagree, good luck to you.
Over the past decade or so there's been a quiet debate happening about the quality and nutritional value of the food that comes out of the microwave. I'm not pursuing this debate but, if you wish to, 'Google is your friend'.
Partly due to fond memories of my Mum's pressure cooker (which produced such delicious meals from the cheapest cuts of meat), but mostly due to my personal need to eat quality food, I bought my own pressure cooker in 2004.
It's not huge - maybe six litres - but it's thick-gauge stainless steel with a heavy base.
It has a series of safety features - including an idiot-proof interlock on the handle and a special seal - to ensure it can't explode.
This quality of engineering makes it so much nicer than Mum's aluminium unit, which posed a minor threat to our domestic wellbeing every time it was used.
Alongside my rice-cooker, my pressure cooker takes pride of place in the kitchen. Neither is ever 'put away': what's the point, when both are used six days out of seven?
Making best use of a pressure cooker is fairly straightforward. Yes, you can use it to brown meat and caramelise onions. Yes, you can use it to retain the natural nutrients contained in meat and vegetables, rather than 'cooking them off' by using a standard saucepan or frypan.
But, best of all, a pressure cooker offers not only high-quality, tasty food but also quality time with yourself!
One of their traditional selling points is that they 'halve the time' required for cooking meat and vegetables, but this 'feature' doesn't wash with me. Want speedy meals? Use the bloody microwave!
No, what I really like about my pressure cooker is that we work together as a team - at a similar pace.
Preliminary preparations: if you are using chickpeas and/or dried beans they should be soaked in cold, salted water for 24 hours or simmered for at least an hour.
Phase one: Pressure cooker on the hotplate (medium-high) with two or three tablespoons of olive oil; while it heats up, chop up meat, onions, garlic, ginger, chillis, mushrooms, whatever needs browning. Chuck this stuff in as you go and stir vigorously every minute or two.
Phase two: Add water (according to volume required) and turn hotplate down (medium); add slow-cooking ingredients (e.g. pre-softened dried beans, chickpeas) and herbs, spices and condiments; put the lid on and allow to cook for 45 to 60 minutes. (You might need to reduce the stovetop temperature to medium-low to prevent food sticking to the bottom of the pot and burning.)
Phase three: Prepare your 'fast-cooking' ingredients (e.g. fresh vegetables, lentils); open the blow-off valve on the cooker until the lid can be removed; add these ingredients and continue cooking under pressure for around 20 minutes.
As Mum did, I buy budget meat - and I use my own homegrown vegetables whenever I can.
I reckon I eat as well as anyone, and often better … thanks to my pressure cooker.
And, if I prepare enough for three or four days - and refrigerate in-between - I can enjoy 'fast food' most nights; in fact, at successive meals, the flavour of the food improves.
It would be interesting to know 'average' food preparation times in 2008 compared with 30 or 40 years ago …
Why does genuine restaurant food usually taste better than homemade?
Well, most of it doesn't come out of a packet.
It usually doesn't go anywhere near a microwave.
Maybe it's fair to say that, as a general rule, the quality of the food we eat is directly proportional to the quality time invested in making it?
Man! We so busy being busy, aren't we?
I have a microwave. I use it about once a fortnight to partially defrost meat and roughly twice a week to 'steam' some treats (e.g. food scraps, sunflower seeds and a little pasta) for my chooks.
For a short time, around 10 years ago, I used it for cooking but, overall, I found that the flavour and texture of microwaved food was second-rate.
This is a personal opinion and, if you disagree, good luck to you.
Over the past decade or so there's been a quiet debate happening about the quality and nutritional value of the food that comes out of the microwave. I'm not pursuing this debate but, if you wish to, 'Google is your friend'.
Partly due to fond memories of my Mum's pressure cooker (which produced such delicious meals from the cheapest cuts of meat), but mostly due to my personal need to eat quality food, I bought my own pressure cooker in 2004.
It's not huge - maybe six litres - but it's thick-gauge stainless steel with a heavy base.
It has a series of safety features - including an idiot-proof interlock on the handle and a special seal - to ensure it can't explode.
This quality of engineering makes it so much nicer than Mum's aluminium unit, which posed a minor threat to our domestic wellbeing every time it was used.
Alongside my rice-cooker, my pressure cooker takes pride of place in the kitchen. Neither is ever 'put away': what's the point, when both are used six days out of seven?
Making best use of a pressure cooker is fairly straightforward. Yes, you can use it to brown meat and caramelise onions. Yes, you can use it to retain the natural nutrients contained in meat and vegetables, rather than 'cooking them off' by using a standard saucepan or frypan.
But, best of all, a pressure cooker offers not only high-quality, tasty food but also quality time with yourself!
One of their traditional selling points is that they 'halve the time' required for cooking meat and vegetables, but this 'feature' doesn't wash with me. Want speedy meals? Use the bloody microwave!
No, what I really like about my pressure cooker is that we work together as a team - at a similar pace.
Preliminary preparations: if you are using chickpeas and/or dried beans they should be soaked in cold, salted water for 24 hours or simmered for at least an hour.
Phase one: Pressure cooker on the hotplate (medium-high) with two or three tablespoons of olive oil; while it heats up, chop up meat, onions, garlic, ginger, chillis, mushrooms, whatever needs browning. Chuck this stuff in as you go and stir vigorously every minute or two.
Phase two: Add water (according to volume required) and turn hotplate down (medium); add slow-cooking ingredients (e.g. pre-softened dried beans, chickpeas) and herbs, spices and condiments; put the lid on and allow to cook for 45 to 60 minutes. (You might need to reduce the stovetop temperature to medium-low to prevent food sticking to the bottom of the pot and burning.)
Phase three: Prepare your 'fast-cooking' ingredients (e.g. fresh vegetables, lentils); open the blow-off valve on the cooker until the lid can be removed; add these ingredients and continue cooking under pressure for around 20 minutes.
As Mum did, I buy budget meat - and I use my own homegrown vegetables whenever I can.
I reckon I eat as well as anyone, and often better … thanks to my pressure cooker.
And, if I prepare enough for three or four days - and refrigerate in-between - I can enjoy 'fast food' most nights; in fact, at successive meals, the flavour of the food improves.
It would be interesting to know 'average' food preparation times in 2008 compared with 30 or 40 years ago …
Why does genuine restaurant food usually taste better than homemade?
Well, most of it doesn't come out of a packet.
It usually doesn't go anywhere near a microwave.
Maybe it's fair to say that, as a general rule, the quality of the food we eat is directly proportional to the quality time invested in making it?
Man! We so busy being busy, aren't we?
Monday, 7 January 2008
peripheral vision
(WARNING: this post has no scientific merit)
I want to talk about a phenomenon that, to my knowledge, has never been documented elsewhere.
There is a direct correlation between the quality of an individual's peripheral vision and the quality of their relationships with other human beings.
Of course, anyone can produce exceptions - medical conditions and so forth - but I'm talking about a general principle.
To state it another way: rude, self-centred people are less visually aware of those around them.
You can easily test this theory the next time you go to a supermarket or a party or drive on city streets.
So there's a degree of correlation between an individual's physical attributes and their psychological makeup.
It's all about a quality called perception.
Loud-mouthed barge-arses don't have it.
I want to talk about a phenomenon that, to my knowledge, has never been documented elsewhere.
There is a direct correlation between the quality of an individual's peripheral vision and the quality of their relationships with other human beings.
Of course, anyone can produce exceptions - medical conditions and so forth - but I'm talking about a general principle.
To state it another way: rude, self-centred people are less visually aware of those around them.
You can easily test this theory the next time you go to a supermarket or a party or drive on city streets.
So there's a degree of correlation between an individual's physical attributes and their psychological makeup.
It's all about a quality called perception.
Loud-mouthed barge-arses don't have it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
