Posts
Women's Lib was front and center in the Media when I was a lad. It was the time of Germain Greer's Female Eunuch and a ground swell of interest arose supporting the girls getting a “fair go”.
In those days the girls generally got lower wages for performing the same job and it wasn't until Gough Whitlam became Prime Minister that this anomaly was addressed. Unfortunately this "fair go" didn't extend down to the poor piece workers but at least the top end got a better deal.
These days the fire seems to have gone out of the equal rights argument with most folk happy to just play along but I'm worried things have actually gone backwards rather than simply marking time. I base observation on
- wait for it
- the Big Brother TV program.
Now before you flick to more mainstream comedy hear me out. Love it or loath it, Big Brother does give an insight into how some of our kids think. Regardless of the actual players in the show being representative or not, the show drops out players based on the voting audience. If the pundits are to believed, this is predominantly teenage girls.
Now take a look at who gets the boot. Every year it follows a path of the guys getting their heads together and dominating the game until the Producers modify the rules to evict the worse ones. Early on, the more self assured girls get dumped out and the dizzy ones (often bottle blondes) sail through.
I don't know about your daughters, but the McCarthy girls have been raised to reject the 2nd class citizen role. Dominant males are regarded with the derision they deserve. These blokes are generally not the brightest chaps you are ever going to meet too, so why would you allow them to call the shots? My daughters are smarter than them anyway so by my lights, these mental pygmies should be taking orders not giving them.
Maybe the pundits have it wrong. Maybe the votes are coming from some good old fashioned mothers who cling to the "male as head of the household" dogma. Either way, it's a pretty poor situation whoever is doing the voting and probably time for the Bra Burners to arc up and stop the girls back sliding.
The desperate situation of the Libs continues despite a small blip in Kevin 07's popularity last week. Kevin down to something like 63% while young Brendan was up to somewhere around 14%. If that’s the good news I'd hate to see a bad news day for Dr Nelson.
I believe the cause of the change was the petrol tax attack. Initially I wondered how the Voters might react to the Lib campaign against the tax on petrol. I don't blame them for trying to win some support on the matter, it looked like easy points, but happily it has hardly had a stunning result even though it appealed to our natural greediness.
I think the result is a reflection of why the Libs lost
power last time around and their mishandling of life in Opposition.
Last Election is was bleeding obvious that the Libs had no idea how to deal with Global Warming. For years Howard was a denier of the concept and when he finally realised the Voters were concerned, he had Ministers like Nick Minchin still stuck in the original rut. It also destroyed their claim to be economic masterminds too. If you can't come up with ideas in times of change then you really aren't up to the job and if you can't understand that the changes are going to impact the Economy then you really have lost the plot.
On top of not having any idea of a plan for the future economy, they have been getting strident over things of very little consequence. Kevin's trip to Japan, our requirement to suck up to America by staying in Iraq, even our reaction to Robert Mugabe. Silly things that have no interest to the everyday voter. It makes the Opposition look like folk who have to disagree with everything as a matter of principal. Regardless of the merits of the case.
Labor actually learned about the self-defeating process of always taking the opposite view in Victoria. They had to move John Brumby from the position of Opposition Leader precisely because he came over too negative. Steve Bracks took over and shocked Jeff Kennett at the very next Election. Kevin 07 showed he had learned the lesson when he took over. He earned the label "Me too" by agreeing with some Howard ideas that he actually agreed with.
It's quite amazing to see the party that applied wedge
politics so successfully has forgotten the rules so quickly, especially
considering quite a number of the original crew of the good ship Lost Cause are still warming the Opposition benches. Both Brendan Nelson and Malcolm should both be aware of how to play the game but they seem distracted by their battles.
It should make the next Federal Election a pretty easy for Labor come election time. Unless they come up with some solutions to changing the economy why would anyone even think about putting them back in power? Kevin 07 won by being an ideas man. No one in Opposition can lay claim to that title. Even Malcolm Turnball is bereft of ideas.
As much as I am enjoying the intelligent style of Kevin 07, I must admit to a bit of nervousness when I see the blooming of wowserism of late. Now for those of you overseas I guess I had better explain this excellent piece of Aussie slang. A more recent term that has evolved recently is Fun Police but the original term generally was applied to folk with an inclination towards temperance coupled with the idea that everyone else should be forced to follow their non-drinker lifestyle.
As you can imagine, these busybodies were treated to a good deal of derision by the general populace in the thirsty climate of Oz but persistence they have in spades. Once they realised they couldn't convince folk with the assistance of their Invisible Friend, they resorted to trying to force a change via political pressure.
These things go through cycles of course. We have had anti grog movements before and can expect more over the coming decades, but we still have to deal with these attitudes each time they pop up.
I guess my main complaint is these folk always opt for making it illegal to do something, then start jailing folk when the inevitable happens. The current "war" on alcohol is a case in point. The problem is underage kids getting drunk often. Some of the solutions are bizarre, doomed to failure and encouraging folk to be comfortable with breaking the law.
Worst suggestion so far has to be raising the drinking age to 21. It currently stands at 18 Australia wide. Firstly, how does stopping a 20 year old drinking stop underage kids from breaking the law? The youngsters are already breaking the law. Do they think they will stop if only older folk can drink? All this rule change will produce is a bigger pool of kids breaking the law.
Lately we have had lots of new laws and increases in penalties when something is not deterring bad behavior. This is one of my pet hates. A law is introduced, people ignore it, hardly anyone is prosecuted then they crank up the penalty. Another case in point. Speed limits through road works. I obey these limits but plenty of folk don’t. I never see anyone booked for breaching the limit and I think some folk don't bother because so many other folk ignore them. The Government solution was to bring in hoon laws and impound vehicles. My solution would have been to set up speed cameras and hit the hip pocket.
The result of the new rules is ignorant drivers are being hit with a severe penalty that was supposed to just get the real dummies off the road. On top of that we have another law that weakens the moral authority of the government. And we weaken the social stigma of being classified as a hoon.
Up until my freshman year of college, I had never questioned religion or tradition. All I really did was go with the flow: listen to the preacher, listen to the teacher, listen to my father, etc. I was never very religious, though--I didn't care too much for religion and belief. Nevertheless, after taking a religious studies course in my first year of college, I started to question religion, tradition, and, most important of all, I think, God.
God is no longer a reality to me. But when I first started to question God's meaning, his power, and his reality, I was rather sad. Now the way in which I see the world is false, I thought. Now all that has its foundation in God doesn't work for me. What is the point of being moral? Because God says so? Because you must be a good, moral person in order to get into Heaven? No. There must be some other reason. God is meaningless to me.
So, I became an "atheist." I read Dawkins and Harris and agreed with everything they said. Now that I look back on this time in my life, I was really desperate to find a way to make sense out of the world after having my theistic worldview crushed. But in searching, I became very dogmatic, like the Four Horsemen and most atheists. Once I got out of this intial dogmatic stage--although, I must say I still get back into it from time to time--I was ready to pursue something else, something meaningful and subjective but still in line with my atheistic worldview.
I have found something that works for me--existentialism. But before I discovered existentialism, I found The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by Andre Comte-Sponville. This little book--it is actually little and only 206 pages long--gave me what I was really looking for--a type of atheistic spirituality. If you are an atheist, and are looking for something more than just your typical atheism, I would definitely check out this little book. It is philosophical in nature and very well written. I'm going to post the book's introduction in my next blog post.
Society is a dialectic phenomenon in that it is a human product, and nothing but a human product, that yet continuously acts back upon its producer. Society is a product of man. It has no other being except that which is bestowed upon it by human activity and consciousness. There can be no social reality apart from man. Yet it may also be stated that man is a product of society. Every individual biography is an episode within the history of society, which both precedes and survives it. Society was there before the individual was born and it will be there after he has died. What is more, it is within society, and as a result of social processes, that the individual becomes a person, that he attains and holds onto an identity, and that he carries out the various projects that constitute his life. Man cannot exist apart from society. The two statements, that society is the product of man and that man is the product of society are not contradictory. They rather reflect the inherently dialectic character of the societal phenomenon. Only if his character is recognized will society be understood in terms that are adequate to its empirical reality. Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy Lately, I've been thinking about how society directly influences our worldviews, experiences, and life. My thoughts reminded me of Peter Berger's societal cycle, which I find to be pretty interesting. Berger's cycle consists of three moments: externalization, objectivation, and internalization. Externalization, as defined by Berger, is "the ongoing outpouring of human being into the world, both in the physical and the mental activity of men." Objectivation is "the attainment by the products of this activity (again both physical and mental) of a reality that confronts its original producers as a facticity external to and other than themselves. Further, internalization is "the reappropiation by men of this same reality, transforming it once again from structures of the objective world into structures of the subjective consciousness." After defining these terms, Berger states, "It is through externalization that society is a human product. It is through objectivation that society becomes a reality sui generis. It is through internalization that man is a product of society." Pretty interesting, eh? Essentially, what we do as human beings is create a society in which we can live in, tell everyone what society is, and then have everyone internalize this definition of society. Now, I'm particularly interested in how society shapes our thoughts, particularly our spiritual and religious thought. My thought cycle is basically an adaption of Berger's cycle, but what I'm attempting to describe really isn't a cycle. Instead, it is more of a description of three thought stages: "what is", "this is" and "it is". For the better half of our lives, we are constantly told "what is." With regards to spiritual and religious thought, we are told what God is, what Jesus is, what Truth is, what morality is, what death is, what life is, purpose is. Next, because of our innate tendencies to trust our parents, and our tendencies to submit to religious and non-religious authority, we start to tells ourselves, and others, "this is": This is God, this is Truth, this is life, this is purpose, etc. In this stage, we are simply restating what we have been told. In this stage, we may not even understand what God is, what Truth is, or what purpose is, nevertheless, we still affirm that God is this. This downfall applies to the non-believer as well. We are told by the Four Horsemen in the "what is" stage why God doesn't exist and why religion is utterly evil. We are given arguments upon arguments, whether sound or not, to debate with, even though, arguably, many atheists don't even know what they hell they are talking about: some of us don't care to really think and challenge the Four Horsemen's positions and arguments, some of which are simply dogmatic and close to propaganda. It is in the "this is" stage that the non-believer finds him or her self reciting what he or she has been told. Ultimately, in this stage, the authority of others, "objectivity," in this stage, robs us of our abilities to think and our subjective experiences. Consequentially, this stage is dogmatic. Lastly, the third stage is the "it is" stage. This is the stage in which the individual decides for his or her self what "it" is. In this stage, using our subjective experiences and thoughts, we determine, for ourselves, what God is, what life is, what purpose is, etc. This stage caters to the individual; it is subjective, thus our thoughts are subjective in nature, as all important and meaningful thoughts should be, in my opinion. It is in this stage that the individual takes responsibility for his or her actions, life, purpose, meaning, spirituality, religion, etc. Everything relies on the individual. So, I'm not exactly sure if any of what I just said makes any sense or accurately describes reality. Basically, I was thinking out loud in this one :) I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.
I anyone in Voxland didn't know my belief in Deism is the number one all encompassing driving factor in my life, therefore, I couldn't resist but sharing this very short passage (taken from The World Union of Deists) that outlines the relationship between Deism and Death.
“The fear of death is a big motivator for many people to support a particular religion. We all know, without the possibility of doubt, that a day will come for absolutely all of us when we will die. This realization brings fear to many people. It also brings money to religious charlatans who aren't ashamed to prey on this fear. In fact, it can be truthfully said that the revealed religions of the world all use the fear of death to put cash in their own pockets.
Contrary to this self-serving attitude of the revealed religions, Deism teaches that no one knows for certain what happens after death, if anything at all. It teaches that, based on the creation we are all a part of, we shouldn't worry about it. That instead, we should be concerned for the present and future of planet Earth and humanity. That we should work hard to improve life and also enjoy it here and now. Why should we worry about death when we have so much to do in life? And do we think so little of Nature's God that we don't trust Him with our future?”
Any questions or comment?
I must be losing my edge. I certainly haven’t been keeping up with Plonka’s blog.
I was horrified to discover my patronage of Gloria Jean’s coffees has had me help fund those shifty Hillsong Christians. The very same folk who have resorted to exorcisms for troubled teens and pinched their $200 to boot.
They have also been part of the Howard initiative to bury
Evangelists in Australian schools in preference to qualified social workers.
Something Howard promised to not to do to secure the legislations passage
through the Senate. The plan was supposed to provide priests and no membership drives to be allowed.
To think I have sold my soul to a 5th column Christian organisation for a free coffee every dozen cups is quite depressing.
Aussie company or not. I certainly won’t be funding such a dishonest company in future.
While travelling around Oz we have seen a number of vans with names on them. It’s just a way of marking out your territory and showing your fellow travellers where you are coming from. One such label really impressed me recently.
Free Radicals.
It has a nice ring to it, I think. A little bit of Science, a touch of politics and a mission statement to boot.
Now some folk travel and simply ignore current events which is probably good for the blood pressure but does rather avoid our responsibilities to society. At a meal recently I was hit with that old chestnut “I didn’t vote because both sides are the same”. This is a cheap throwaway line that annoys me no end. It’s thoughtless. It’s lazy. It’s usually meant as the definitive answer. It’s often made by someone whose preferred side lost. And quite simply, wrong.
But more than that. At its hub it holds the death of Democracy as we now practice it. It discourages participation in the political process and ultimately removes performance requirements from your local representatives. No matter who you prefer to be holding the reins of government, you must let them know what you think. To not do this means you agree with the party line. How else is your local pollie going to know what you want?
In Australia under the previous government we had the automatic jailing of the children of folk seeking asylum. It lasted until Liberal members got so wound up that changes were made against the wishes of the Prime Minister himself. But it took time. Had more folk bothered to start writing to their local member earlier, the process would have been defeated earlier. It’s simply a matter of getting the numbers. (and having enough brains to look beyond the spin in the first place)
The same happened with fighting in Vietnam. When the outrage gets loud enough you can get a result but you have to keep your pollies up to the mark or throw them out in a civilised process.
Thankfully this comment was made by an older person rather than a younger one and that usually means that it will be ignored by the kids, but let’s hope our kids don’t fall foul of this cynicism. We need to participate to get a responsive government and our government needs to engage us to keep the interest up.
The alternative is a growing disconnect that eventually leads to revolution when a charismatic leader emerges without the patience to play the game.
So I’ll be sticking with keeping up with current events and letting pollies know how I feel even though I’m on the road. The same goes with the blog and Letters to the Editor. It’s good to discus and revise opinions and hopefully get others motivated too. Either for or against your own view.
I don’t have a name for the van yet and pinching Free Radical seems unethical so I’ll have to come up with something new. In any case I’d be pretty disappointed if participating in the political process is regarded as radical. It should be as normal as the common cold.
" ... No "terrorist" gene is known to exist or is likely to be found... Surely the(y), and their supporters were afflicted by something that caused their metamorphosis from normal human beings capable of gentleness and affection into desperate, maddened, fiends with nothing but murder in their hearts and minds. What was that? Simple logic says that we must go to the roots of terror. Only a fool can believe that the services of a suicidal terrorist can be purchased, or that they can be bred at will anywhere: Ouch Borith: Permanent Representative Of The Kingdom Of Cambodia To The UN: 10/03/2001
The problems of this world are so gigantic that some are paralysed by their own uncertainty. Courage and wisdom are needed to reach out above this sense of helplessness. Desire for vengeance against deeds of hatred offers no solution. An eye for an eye makes the world blind. If we wish to choose the other path, we will have to search for ways to break the spiral of animosity. To fight evil one must also recognize one's own responsibility. The values for which we stand must be expressed in the way we think of, and how we deal with, our fellow humans: - From the Christmas Message 2001 of HM Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
I, for one, am sorry to see him depart and I think if other Democrats had been as media savvy as Andrew, they would still have had a presence in our Senate. But that was not to be.
Not only did the party betray their mantra by accepting the GST, they effectively gutted their final chance when they turfed out the popular Natasha Stott-Despoya a few years later. For an intelligent group of folk, I simply can't understand what they were thinking.
The party ended up so much on the nose that The Greens quickly slipped away when talk of amalgamating raised it's ugly head. Personally, I can understand their reluctance. If a party can't set aside personal ambition in favor of the party then they simply aren't suitable as members of any team.
I can't help feeling sorry about the whole decline though. I was in the Perth Town Hall when founder Don Chipp formed them and what a bright future they had. Sadly, they fell to the sneaky tricks of Little Johnnie Howard and then didn't have the vision to recover.
For all his failures as a visionary, Howard can rightfully claim their demise as one of his most campaigns.
