If you are a regular reader of my blog (and some of you are) you may have noticed that I haven't been posting as often as in the past. There are reasons.....
First and foremost I started a new job a couple of weeks ago in a small local engineering consulting firm. It has turned out to be a good place to work, very challenging and engaging which is a nice change to my last couple of roles. This new job also brings with it longer hours - which of course means less time available researching discussion topics and less time updating my blog. This is both regrettable and unavoidable.
However, I thought that it might benefit people if I dedicate a few posts on the one topic. I see this serves two purposes: 1. it allows me the time to properly research discussion topics and 2. I believe having "themes" that run over a week or so may be a better way to manage things.
There's a great deal happening out there in the real world and so many things that attract my ire. I am approaching 400 visitors to this blog so at least some people believe I have something interesting to say (even if you may not agree with it).
Stay tuned.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Global Warming
Senator Steve Fielding has made up his mind on global warming - there's not enough evidence that it's real.
Wow what a relief! For a moment I thought we would have to stop digging massive, gargantuan holes in and under the ground to extract more coal. I thought we'd have to stop destroying our natural world. I thought we'd have to stop relying on blood stained oil. I thought we'd have to stop using our cars to drive 500m down the road to buy the bread and milk. I thought I'd have to turn off my lights when I didn't need them.
But thanks Steve, now global warming isn't real I can rest easy at night knowing that a couple of temporary jobs in the country's highest polluting industries are now safe, 'cause CO2 pollution doesn't matter.....yippie! I feel better now.
Wow what a relief! For a moment I thought we would have to stop digging massive, gargantuan holes in and under the ground to extract more coal. I thought we'd have to stop destroying our natural world. I thought we'd have to stop relying on blood stained oil. I thought we'd have to stop using our cars to drive 500m down the road to buy the bread and milk. I thought I'd have to turn off my lights when I didn't need them.
But thanks Steve, now global warming isn't real I can rest easy at night knowing that a couple of temporary jobs in the country's highest polluting industries are now safe, 'cause CO2 pollution doesn't matter.....yippie! I feel better now.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Education - change can't wait
I didn't like school, in fact, I struggled most of the time to take even a passing interest. I never wagged a day in my life out of respect for my parents. What didn't I like? I never felt interested in how things were taught, I always felt like my (young) life could be better spent doing things I enjoyed. I liked science, PE and lunch time - I had some pretty good laughs with my friends.
So what's this post all about? Recently on the 7:30 Report (ABC TV) Kerry O'Brien interviewed Sir Ken Robinson, a leading thinker on education, creativity and innovation. Sir Ken has advised various governments and major global corporations and says that most education systems around the world including Australia’s, are still modelled on the needs of the industrial age. You can find the transcript of the intereview here.
One of the things that strikes a chord with me is when Sir Ken said: "people achieve their best when they firstly tune into their natural aptitudes....they've found this thing that they completely get. But the second thing is that they love it. And if you can find that - a talented and a passion - well that's to say you never work again....our current education systems are simply not designed to help people do that. In fact an awful lot of people go through education and never discover anything they're good at at all." he went on to say.....
"we're all born with tremendous creative confidence and abilities....the culture of standardised testing is a blight on the whole of education....we all think and learn differently....getting the best from kids in schools is about understanding the way they think, as well as what it is they're supposed to be thinking about. And I think that's also why some people get through the whole of their education and don't discover themselves at all."
At the end of year 11 my result in Maths was 36%....a few years later I won a merit-based scholarship to study engineering, I went on to gain a Masters and PhD in Biomedical Engineering. So what? Well, I truely believe my progress was hindered by the education system. Engineering is somewhat mathematics related - I didn't even study physics at school! Yet out of the school system I was able to flourish.
I am deeply concerned that my kids are not going to be able to reach their full potential under the current education system. Kids, these days, don't seem to be allowed to be kids....tutoring, coaching, weekend study camps, test preparation....it doesn't seem to end. Gaining close to 1oo% in an exam when you are 16 years old does not mean you are heading down a road that will enable you to attain a fulfilling professional life. Parents (and kids) are being forced into thinking that you will only succeed if you get perfect scores.
Sir Ken has raised some fantastic points about skewed importance of maths, science and languages "at the expense of music and dance and art and poetry and all the things that the arts teach, and humanities and history, and all of those things which speak to the nature of what it is to be a human being and to be able to make your way in the world." Our government needs to reassess this and allow schools and universities the freedom to foster growth in these areas.
So what's this post all about? Recently on the 7:30 Report (ABC TV) Kerry O'Brien interviewed Sir Ken Robinson, a leading thinker on education, creativity and innovation. Sir Ken has advised various governments and major global corporations and says that most education systems around the world including Australia’s, are still modelled on the needs of the industrial age. You can find the transcript of the intereview here.
One of the things that strikes a chord with me is when Sir Ken said: "people achieve their best when they firstly tune into their natural aptitudes....they've found this thing that they completely get. But the second thing is that they love it. And if you can find that - a talented and a passion - well that's to say you never work again....our current education systems are simply not designed to help people do that. In fact an awful lot of people go through education and never discover anything they're good at at all." he went on to say.....
"we're all born with tremendous creative confidence and abilities....the culture of standardised testing is a blight on the whole of education....we all think and learn differently....getting the best from kids in schools is about understanding the way they think, as well as what it is they're supposed to be thinking about. And I think that's also why some people get through the whole of their education and don't discover themselves at all."
At the end of year 11 my result in Maths was 36%....a few years later I won a merit-based scholarship to study engineering, I went on to gain a Masters and PhD in Biomedical Engineering. So what? Well, I truely believe my progress was hindered by the education system. Engineering is somewhat mathematics related - I didn't even study physics at school! Yet out of the school system I was able to flourish.
I am deeply concerned that my kids are not going to be able to reach their full potential under the current education system. Kids, these days, don't seem to be allowed to be kids....tutoring, coaching, weekend study camps, test preparation....it doesn't seem to end. Gaining close to 1oo% in an exam when you are 16 years old does not mean you are heading down a road that will enable you to attain a fulfilling professional life. Parents (and kids) are being forced into thinking that you will only succeed if you get perfect scores.
Sir Ken has raised some fantastic points about skewed importance of maths, science and languages "at the expense of music and dance and art and poetry and all the things that the arts teach, and humanities and history, and all of those things which speak to the nature of what it is to be a human being and to be able to make your way in the world." Our government needs to reassess this and allow schools and universities the freedom to foster growth in these areas.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
My Political Compass
I recently found a website called "The Political Compass". I took the test to see where my compass was pointing. Read below for the result:
Some famous (infamous) people in the chart directly below. Important to note that the 'social dimension' is important in politics. That's the one that the left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So there's a scale ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.
Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period.On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.
The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)
The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.
My political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56
I always thought I was like Ghandi! :-)
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Numbers that matter
K Rudd and his media machine will have us think that all is hunky dory in this "lucky" country of ours. After all, our GDP is one of the best in the developed world. The debt we have got ourselves into for the sake of financial "stimulus" is one of the lowest in the developed world - break out the champagne!
When you scratch the surface things aren't all that they seem (are they ever?). As I have mentioned in a previous post on GDP and well-being, there's more to being considered fortunate than to have a growing GDP. Below is a list of figures that is a reality check on our good fortune, or as I see it, a blight on where and how our government chooses to spend our money. All figures are from the OECD website and publically available.
Our population growth is ranked 6th highest (1.44) is the OECD, just one below India (1.52). What's wrong with this you may ask? Well, considering we live in a country that has a love affair with consumption there's everything wrong with this. Unless we can reduce our consumption (not likely) then a high population growth is something to be concerned about.
Our balance of payments (not something talked about by K Rudd Inc.) is -5.59% of GDP in 2009, OECD average is -1.46% compare this with Mexico who has a balance of payments of just -0.76%. Not pretty.
The not-so-clever country; Expenditure on R&D is just 2% of GDP. The OECD average is 2.26%, with Sweden (number 1) spending 3.5% of GDP on R&D. Related to this is the number of Patent Applications (2005). Australia - 1180, Canada - 2586, Netherlands - 3739, Japan - 21,163, USA - 35,657! Yes the USA and Japan have a much higher population but the Netherlands with more than twice the patent applications and a population of just under 17 million (33 million in Canada).
Public Health Expenditure (2006) was 5.9% of GDP. The OECD average is 6.5% and France spends a whopping 8.8% of GDP on Public Health. If the Health of our population is so important why is so little finance allocated to it? Persons of below average income going without needed Health care due to costs (2007) was 32%; compare with UK - 9% and Netherlands - 6%! Now that's a number worth looking into.
Poverty Rate in Australia is 0.12 compared to OECD average of 0.105! The lucky country?
Social Expediture in Australia - 17.1% of GDP; compared to OECD average of 20.5%. Italy spends 25% of its GDP.
Lastly, Australia is the driest continent on earth yet we consume the 3rd highest amount of water per capita (in the OECD). 930 cubic metres of water per person! Compare this to the UK with 61 million people who average 240 cubic metres. We use more water in total than the UK with three times the amount of people (no jokes about bathing habits please).
So, K Rudd with have us believe we are going great guns and yes in some sense we are. But I personally think that where it REALLY counts we are not even in the same league as those we like to compare ourselves with. The time has come for a paradigm shift in thinking about our society and what constitutes progress.
When you scratch the surface things aren't all that they seem (are they ever?). As I have mentioned in a previous post on GDP and well-being, there's more to being considered fortunate than to have a growing GDP. Below is a list of figures that is a reality check on our good fortune, or as I see it, a blight on where and how our government chooses to spend our money. All figures are from the OECD website and publically available.
Our population growth is ranked 6th highest (1.44) is the OECD, just one below India (1.52). What's wrong with this you may ask? Well, considering we live in a country that has a love affair with consumption there's everything wrong with this. Unless we can reduce our consumption (not likely) then a high population growth is something to be concerned about.
Our balance of payments (not something talked about by K Rudd Inc.) is -5.59% of GDP in 2009, OECD average is -1.46% compare this with Mexico who has a balance of payments of just -0.76%. Not pretty.
The not-so-clever country; Expenditure on R&D is just 2% of GDP. The OECD average is 2.26%, with Sweden (number 1) spending 3.5% of GDP on R&D. Related to this is the number of Patent Applications (2005). Australia - 1180, Canada - 2586, Netherlands - 3739, Japan - 21,163, USA - 35,657! Yes the USA and Japan have a much higher population but the Netherlands with more than twice the patent applications and a population of just under 17 million (33 million in Canada).
Public Health Expenditure (2006) was 5.9% of GDP. The OECD average is 6.5% and France spends a whopping 8.8% of GDP on Public Health. If the Health of our population is so important why is so little finance allocated to it? Persons of below average income going without needed Health care due to costs (2007) was 32%; compare with UK - 9% and Netherlands - 6%! Now that's a number worth looking into.
Poverty Rate in Australia is 0.12 compared to OECD average of 0.105! The lucky country?
Social Expediture in Australia - 17.1% of GDP; compared to OECD average of 20.5%. Italy spends 25% of its GDP.
Lastly, Australia is the driest continent on earth yet we consume the 3rd highest amount of water per capita (in the OECD). 930 cubic metres of water per person! Compare this to the UK with 61 million people who average 240 cubic metres. We use more water in total than the UK with three times the amount of people (no jokes about bathing habits please).
So, K Rudd with have us believe we are going great guns and yes in some sense we are. But I personally think that where it REALLY counts we are not even in the same league as those we like to compare ourselves with. The time has come for a paradigm shift in thinking about our society and what constitutes progress.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Be careful what we ask for
The Australian Government, since before the 1970's, has gleefully jumped on the globalisation bus. The only problem is that the bus didn't tell them where they were going. The push, of course, was led by the big industrial juggernaughts from the USA with vested interests in seeing this form of "economic freedom" expand. The "promise" was that free trade and globalisation is supposed to lift everyone out of poverty. The reality is that in the 50 years since globalisation has become a seemingly unstoppable burden the world has even MORE poverty than ever before, and it is getting worse as I sit here typing away!
The USA has reaped the greatest benefits of globalisation and these benefits are not being shared (as if we didn't already know!). Interestingly, in 2001 the average worker in the US was earning 10% less (adjusting for inflation) than he/she did in the early 1970s (ref: Take it Personally, by Anita Roddick). Globalisation exacerbates this trend by setting workers against each other all over the world to keep wages low. And who wins? Mutli-national companies who are able to pay CEOs 100s times the salary of the workers they employ and still make massive profits!
Late last year I left the company I was working for because they said they couldn't afford to give me a pay rise (even though I saved the company a couple of 100 thousand dollars). "That's fine", I said. The next day I found out that one of the executives recieved a bonus worth more than my annual salary - I put in my resignation. This is not the first time I have done such a thing. People think I am crazy but I am a man of my convictions. I couldn't work for a company who say they value their employees and care for their customers when this is clearly false - the reality is in this world of globalisation - Profits and Share Price are joint Kings. Too many examples in Australia show this to be true and we have federal governments to thank for perpetuating this situation at the expense of the people who elect them.
The USA has reaped the greatest benefits of globalisation and these benefits are not being shared (as if we didn't already know!). Interestingly, in 2001 the average worker in the US was earning 10% less (adjusting for inflation) than he/she did in the early 1970s (ref: Take it Personally, by Anita Roddick). Globalisation exacerbates this trend by setting workers against each other all over the world to keep wages low. And who wins? Mutli-national companies who are able to pay CEOs 100s times the salary of the workers they employ and still make massive profits!
Late last year I left the company I was working for because they said they couldn't afford to give me a pay rise (even though I saved the company a couple of 100 thousand dollars). "That's fine", I said. The next day I found out that one of the executives recieved a bonus worth more than my annual salary - I put in my resignation. This is not the first time I have done such a thing. People think I am crazy but I am a man of my convictions. I couldn't work for a company who say they value their employees and care for their customers when this is clearly false - the reality is in this world of globalisation - Profits and Share Price are joint Kings. Too many examples in Australia show this to be true and we have federal governments to thank for perpetuating this situation at the expense of the people who elect them.
Understanding - the key in discussion
In previous posts I have spoken about the importance of dialogue and how gaining an insight into how and why others think the way they do helps us approach difficult topics (and also may help us reflect on our own thinking and reasoning behind an issue). I believe that even the most unteniable disagreement can be resolved with a little reflection on how to approach the situation.
The single most important thing to remember is that when we are speaking with someone that they are just like you i.e. a human being with emotions. Emotions can get in the way or they can help. What needs to be the first step in any potentially difficult argument is to separate the people from the problem - don't assume that because you have a fear about something that the other side of the debate fears the same thing. Get to the problem not the "effects" of the problem.
One of the other things that is very easy to overlook is not to "bargain" over positions. For example, my wife likes 100 blankets, plus a doona on the bed at any one time - I don't! So the positions are 1. blankets, 2. no blankets. The problem isn't the blankets (or the position of wanting blankets) but that our "interests" are different. It is the interests that need to be the focus. Her interest is to be warm, my interest is not to swelter. So if we focus on the interest it is more likely that we can come to an amicable conclusion. Focusing on interests and not positions allows more efficient and effective deliberation. Taking this even further, one can start to talk about different metabolic rates and the heat generated from that - one of the many factors for me not needing all those blankets.
I don't have a formal education in negotiation, but I have certainly had to negotiate throughout my professional and personal life. It seems to me that if we can just perform the two steps mentioned above then we would be well on our way to being able to come to some sort of mutual agreement in any dicussion, whether it be about temperature control in a matrimonial bed or industrial relations.
The single most important thing to remember is that when we are speaking with someone that they are just like you i.e. a human being with emotions. Emotions can get in the way or they can help. What needs to be the first step in any potentially difficult argument is to separate the people from the problem - don't assume that because you have a fear about something that the other side of the debate fears the same thing. Get to the problem not the "effects" of the problem.
One of the other things that is very easy to overlook is not to "bargain" over positions. For example, my wife likes 100 blankets, plus a doona on the bed at any one time - I don't! So the positions are 1. blankets, 2. no blankets. The problem isn't the blankets (or the position of wanting blankets) but that our "interests" are different. It is the interests that need to be the focus. Her interest is to be warm, my interest is not to swelter. So if we focus on the interest it is more likely that we can come to an amicable conclusion. Focusing on interests and not positions allows more efficient and effective deliberation. Taking this even further, one can start to talk about different metabolic rates and the heat generated from that - one of the many factors for me not needing all those blankets.
I don't have a formal education in negotiation, but I have certainly had to negotiate throughout my professional and personal life. It seems to me that if we can just perform the two steps mentioned above then we would be well on our way to being able to come to some sort of mutual agreement in any dicussion, whether it be about temperature control in a matrimonial bed or industrial relations.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Challenges for ALL sides of politics
On Saturday I went along to the corner of Victoria Rd and Lyons Rd Drummoyne with other hardy souls from my local Greens Group (Inner West). It was an opportunity to chat to passers by and hand out free copies of Green Voice. I was standing on one of the corners (eastern side of Victoria Rd) holding signs for the traffic to see. The signs read (1. Water tanks, not desal 2. Ban developer donations 3. Better Cycleways 4. Services not Tax Cuts). I had a mix of reactions from a few friendly toots to yells of abuse and one driver gave me the finger which I actually thought was pretty funny. Anyway, one of the persons that I chatted with was a mature lady (over 60). She admitted to being a Liberal supported and had some scathing things to say about the State Labor government - I must add that she approached me because she thought there was an election on that she had missed out on - I assured her that we were just here to speak to people and advertise the Greens.
This lady's stance was based around ALL politicians being crooked and in it for themselves - certainly not the first time I have heard such a thing of late. As I tried to assure her that this is the thing that makes the Greens different - that we don't compromise on our principles, she followed it up with, "I wouldn't trust that Bob Brown." So it got me thinking, how do we appeal to the voters who seem fed up with all the nonsense going on in Australian politics (especially in NSW)? Then tonight on the news there was a story on the tiddly winks being played by NSW Labor.....Rees, Stewart, Robertson and their silly buggers. What happened to governing the state for the people? I don't accept the statement, "it's just politics."
Unless there is some sort of miracle the people in NSW are going to be faced with a Liberal Government - maybe the lesser of the two evils in some respects, but certainly not something to be positive about and definitely something to be feared. The best scenario of course is that the Greens end up with the balance of power in the Upper House. If the Greens don't make significant inroads into NSW politics in the next state election then we have only ourselves to blame. We should pull out all stops (which I'm sure we will).
This lady's stance was based around ALL politicians being crooked and in it for themselves - certainly not the first time I have heard such a thing of late. As I tried to assure her that this is the thing that makes the Greens different - that we don't compromise on our principles, she followed it up with, "I wouldn't trust that Bob Brown." So it got me thinking, how do we appeal to the voters who seem fed up with all the nonsense going on in Australian politics (especially in NSW)? Then tonight on the news there was a story on the tiddly winks being played by NSW Labor.....Rees, Stewart, Robertson and their silly buggers. What happened to governing the state for the people? I don't accept the statement, "it's just politics."
Unless there is some sort of miracle the people in NSW are going to be faced with a Liberal Government - maybe the lesser of the two evils in some respects, but certainly not something to be positive about and definitely something to be feared. The best scenario of course is that the Greens end up with the balance of power in the Upper House. If the Greens don't make significant inroads into NSW politics in the next state election then we have only ourselves to blame. We should pull out all stops (which I'm sure we will).
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The end of Medicare
In a recent news article "Medicare may collapse in Five Years: NSW" The Age 3rd June 2009. John Della Bosca - the current (June 2009) NSW Health Minister was reported as saying, "Prof Picone (NSW Health director-general ) and many, many commentators in the medical system ... are telling me that we have a limited window of opportunity to preserve the great public hospital system that we have."
For one, I'd like to know who the "many, many commentators" are? Blind Freddie would be able to tell you that there's something not quite right about the current health system and the funding model it uses. The different tiers of government certainly don't help, along with the associated buck passing that pollies like to engage in.
One phrase/term that I recall hearing time and time again amongst all the rhetoric is "the ageing population" and the associated doomsday scenarios that come hand in hand with that topic. I've never been completely convinced that it is as serious as pollies would have us believe. I recently read an article from The Medical Journal of Australia entitled, "Ageing and health care costs in Australia: a case of policy-based evidence?" by Michael Coory (2004). Here's the abstract (you can read the entire article by following the link above):
For one, I'd like to know who the "many, many commentators" are? Blind Freddie would be able to tell you that there's something not quite right about the current health system and the funding model it uses. The different tiers of government certainly don't help, along with the associated buck passing that pollies like to engage in.
One phrase/term that I recall hearing time and time again amongst all the rhetoric is "the ageing population" and the associated doomsday scenarios that come hand in hand with that topic. I've never been completely convinced that it is as serious as pollies would have us believe. I recently read an article from The Medical Journal of Australia entitled, "Ageing and health care costs in Australia: a case of policy-based evidence?" by Michael Coory (2004). Here's the abstract (you can read the entire article by following the link above):
- There have been dire predictions that population ageing will result in skyrocketing health costs. However, numerous studies have shown that the effect of population ageing on health expenditure is likely to be small and manageable.
- Pessimism about population ageing is popular in policy debates because it fits with ideological positions that favour growth in the private sector and seek to contain health expenditure in the public sector. It might also distract attention from the need to evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of current patterns of care.
- Pessimistic scenarios have stifled debate and limited the number of policy options considered. Policy making in Australia would be improved if we took a more realistic view of the effect of population ageing on health expenditure.
Update
I've been a little busy in recent days and have neglected my blog. Loads of things taking place in my life (changes) that have occupied my time.
Last night I was lucky to be given the chance to visit a local Greens group (Bankstown) and chat to them. This was a visit that I suggested some time ago and other people came along and piggy backed on my pro activeness and desire to speak informally to local groups. I was allocated 20 minutes to speak and re-iterated my main messages of One-dimensionality and Diversity. These are issues I feel very strongly about with regards to the Greens and their future growth and support. I'm not sure how effective this message is but I will soldier on.
Not surprisingly I was quizzed by a member from the same local group as one of the other candidates (there always seemed to be one in an audience?) on my length of time in the Greens and probed about my contribution. My answer went something like this:
Up til now I have preferred to keep my own house in order and lead by example. I can't give a dossier on my activist's accomplishments because there are none. In leading by example I choose not to own a car, I grow my own fruit and veggies and I teach my kids of their responsibilities to the world. I find it ironic that someone can speak at a climate change rally and then hop in their car to drive home. It took me years to join the Greens after much deliberation and thought because I didn't want to join for the sake of it and I also had to be able to give some of my time to the group. In the last month or so I have seen nothing that makes me think I couldn't be a stellar representative for the Greens in parliament and as time goes on I'm even more convinced that I would be a formidable Senator. Yes it is true that my name and face is not familiar but if I didn't think I could do this, and do it well, I wouldn't be here. Furthermore, if the process is some sort of pseudo-promotion scheme for long-termers than someone should have told me so I didn't waste anyone's time.
I would have liked the chat to be longer but because of the other candidates my time was limited. One more meeting to go and the circus will be just about over. But of course if I happen to be highly regarded and gain significant votes then my work would have only just begun.
Last night I was lucky to be given the chance to visit a local Greens group (Bankstown) and chat to them. This was a visit that I suggested some time ago and other people came along and piggy backed on my pro activeness and desire to speak informally to local groups. I was allocated 20 minutes to speak and re-iterated my main messages of One-dimensionality and Diversity. These are issues I feel very strongly about with regards to the Greens and their future growth and support. I'm not sure how effective this message is but I will soldier on.
Not surprisingly I was quizzed by a member from the same local group as one of the other candidates (there always seemed to be one in an audience?) on my length of time in the Greens and probed about my contribution. My answer went something like this:
Up til now I have preferred to keep my own house in order and lead by example. I can't give a dossier on my activist's accomplishments because there are none. In leading by example I choose not to own a car, I grow my own fruit and veggies and I teach my kids of their responsibilities to the world. I find it ironic that someone can speak at a climate change rally and then hop in their car to drive home. It took me years to join the Greens after much deliberation and thought because I didn't want to join for the sake of it and I also had to be able to give some of my time to the group. In the last month or so I have seen nothing that makes me think I couldn't be a stellar representative for the Greens in parliament and as time goes on I'm even more convinced that I would be a formidable Senator. Yes it is true that my name and face is not familiar but if I didn't think I could do this, and do it well, I wouldn't be here. Furthermore, if the process is some sort of pseudo-promotion scheme for long-termers than someone should have told me so I didn't waste anyone's time.
I would have liked the chat to be longer but because of the other candidates my time was limited. One more meeting to go and the circus will be just about over. But of course if I happen to be highly regarded and gain significant votes then my work would have only just begun.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Australian Story ABC TV
On Australian Story tonight was an episode on Dr Maarten Stapper - a former CSIRO scientist - who spoke about "Biological Farming" methods. His crusade is to educate farmers about putting micro-organisms back into the soil in order to negate the need for chemicals, and to increase yields.
Interesting to me was the fact that he was made redundant (i.e. asked to leave) by the CSIRO because he spent too much time on his "hobby". Apparently he was employed to further investigate Gene "therapy" of crops not help to reduce the need for chemicals. Is this a case of the CSIRO silencing ideas or thoughts that don't adhere to their agenda. Perhaps this is still a left over from the Howard years where any free thinking was quashed in order to silence dissent or compromising government policy....that's a discussion for another post.
Anyway, see my post on Bringing Carbon Back to Earth which speaks of the importance of fertility in soils via the introduction of micro-organisms. Not a new idea for back yard gardeners, but to see the method potentially introduced on a massive scale would be fantastic...why? Because anytime we can reduce the need for chemical sprays that kills EVERYHING must be a good thing. I don't use any sprays in my garden (except eco-oil) and so my kids can go out there pick whatever they want and eat straight from the bush, tree or whatever it is, they love it.
Interesting to me was the fact that he was made redundant (i.e. asked to leave) by the CSIRO because he spent too much time on his "hobby". Apparently he was employed to further investigate Gene "therapy" of crops not help to reduce the need for chemicals. Is this a case of the CSIRO silencing ideas or thoughts that don't adhere to their agenda. Perhaps this is still a left over from the Howard years where any free thinking was quashed in order to silence dissent or compromising government policy....that's a discussion for another post.
Anyway, see my post on Bringing Carbon Back to Earth which speaks of the importance of fertility in soils via the introduction of micro-organisms. Not a new idea for back yard gardeners, but to see the method potentially introduced on a massive scale would be fantastic...why? Because anytime we can reduce the need for chemical sprays that kills EVERYHING must be a good thing. I don't use any sprays in my garden (except eco-oil) and so my kids can go out there pick whatever they want and eat straight from the bush, tree or whatever it is, they love it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
