Knutty Environmentalists

Get some perspective. That's all I'm going to say.

Get some perspective.

Wake up to yourselves.

Two different articles in the same SMH bulletin.

The first one speaks for itself. Have a look around, PETA. Get some perspective. What's really important here?



The second one is the same tragic environmental myopia carried through to a sadly enviro-logical end.

A couple in Argentina attempted to kill one of their children, succeeded in murdering the other, then killed themselves and "wrote in a suicide note they were scared about the effects of global warming" (http://www.smh.com.au/world/baby-survives-three-days-with-bullet-in-chest-after-parents-suicide-pact-20100303-pgtm.html)

They don't have to worry about global warming now.

This sad story reveals the stupidity of the extremist end of environmentalism because this is the logical conclusion of the rhetoric.

Get some perspective. Take a breath. Pull your head out of the clouds of rhetoric and propaganda and have a look at the real issues that face the world.

Dream Marriage

Free Trial



Ummm, it doesn't work that way.

Shame Culture and Getting Caught

Is our society moving to a shame culture?

There are several cultures around the world that are driven not by guilt or right or wrong, but by losing face.

Doing the right thing is less important than not losing face. If we can bluff our way out of it, that is better than admitting wrongdoing.

Western culture used not to be driven by this.

But I wonder is the hollow apology syndrome plaguing our politicians and celebrities driving us toward a shame culture. Is it our society's hypocritical double standards that have caused the rise of the spin doctor and moving us toward a losing-face based culture?

North Melbourne chief executive Eugene Arocca reveals a terrible lack of focus when he reveals his concerns over the chicken video, an apparently obscene and debasing video obviously made on the North Melbourne premises. Fairfax Article

I quote the article:

"It then found its way onto YouTube. It's now been removed. I'm furious to say the least that it's gotten out, though I haven't had the advantage of seeing it."

He is not furious it was made on our premises, not furious it was made by one of our players, but furious it got out, furious we got caught.

Can we expect a tightening of the PR rules and no real dealing with the issue, or will they actually discipline the proto-rapist that made the video?

Stooping From The Shoulders of Giants

Listening to the news in the car this afternoon I had two observations about the G20 protesters.

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/am/200904/20090402-am02-kennedy-qanda.mp3
The Global Anti-globalisation Movement

How do protesters get to their protests? Why were there international protesters at the Sydney Summit? How long before the summit did they have to leave on their bark canoes in order to not be part of the global airline network?

I don't like global free trade. I think the little countries are always going to get pushed around by the big countries. But globalisation just is. Television, fibre optics, Internet, satellites these are the things that have made the world "globalised" These will not be wound back by protests. The protesters are completely missing the point, they need to protest outside every home that has Internet, every home that has a television, every city that has an airport.

There is something fundamentally myopic (more blind and stupid than hypocritical) about anti globalisation protesters who catch planes, trains, buses and taxis to protests and use the Internet to organise their protests.

Stooping from the shoulders of giants.

One dopey sounding protester on the news was recorded saying, "We don't need the banks." Utter stupidity. If he had said, "We don't like the banks." or "We don't want the banks." I could actually agree (kinda). But he is dead wrong. If you want to own a home, you need the banks. If you want someone to buy your corner shop which is fro sale, you need the banks.

Banks make a whole lot of things possible for a whole lot of ordinary people. One could argue that without the banks the middle class would not exist and the gap between rich and poor would be even greater. Where do you live for the twenty years it takes you to save the $350,000 under your mattress to buy your first home?

If you just remember banks are a business and are trying to make money out of their financial services you'll do fine. If you don't like banks, you should try some of the non bank lenders. banks like to make their money out of people paying off their home loan. Some other lenders are happy to make a living selling people out of their homes. In finance, by and large, the banks are the nice guys.

The protesters, who live somewhere, and utilise infrastructure, services and business all built on bank credit are like rich wastrels living of the inheritance. The enviro-protester lifestyle is made possible by the foundation of work and build over centuries with the cooperation of the financial sector.

Sure things have got financially wobbly lately. But don't forget that's as much because of the greed of the ordinary family as the greed of the banks. Our society is like the protesters. Living off the rich heritage of ethics, community, character and world view build up by generations of Christian civilisation. But like the protesters, ignorantly chipping away at the foundations as quickly as possible and simultaneously wondering why the system doesn't work like it used to.

Cultural Imperialism

Cultural Imperialism is the accusation often thrown at the missionaries of days gone by.

Today's cultural imperialism, driven by economic imperialism and justified by blind idealism is a rapacious beast devouring millions of lives.

Take the latest pot shots at the pope.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/pope-faces-new-anger-over-condoms-20090330-9ftq.html?sssdmh=dm16.368758

Now there are plenty of things I would take the pope to task over if I were to have a quiet chat with him in the back room. But I would try to get the facts straight. Our secular imperialists don't have to worry about that.

The pope is in trouble for criticising the condom based programs to prevent aids in Africa. Now I haven't read the whole of exactly what he said, but what is borne out by the evidence is this. Abstinence based programs on Africa have worked. Condom based programs have not worked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

But how can this be?

Condoms are a western based solution to the problem of aids. They require reliable infrastructure and a good economy, a reasonable education level, willingness of the participants to use condoms and the effectiveness of the condoms themselves in stopping disease transmission. How many of these exist in Africa? The last two are in doubt even in Western countries.

What good is a condom distribution point 100 km from the man and his temptation? What good is a condom bus every so often? How can these secularists not see that there might be a problem trying to enforce this western secularist program on Africa?

Because it is not about Africa. This issue is not about legitimate concern for the Africans dying of AIDS. This is what it's about:

"About 60 members of gay and lesbian groups staged an anti-Pope demonstration outside the Fourviere basilica in Lyon as the congregation arrived for Sunday mass given by the archbishop of Lyon, Philippe Barbarin. "

This issue is really about the secularist/liberal agenda at home in Western countries.

If it were about the plight of the Africans a little research would force the agitators to support the abstinence based programs. No, this issue is just another gob of mud to throw at the religious bulwark.

It's just a shame the facts won't back up the hype.

PS: a quick look at the level of critique and the research that goes into understanding the pope's comments and countering them logically.

The uninformed backlash:
"To go to Africa and tell people they shouldn't use condoms is criminal," France's education minister, Xavier Darcos, told French broadcaster Radio J. "

The actual comment:
"He said on a plane taking him to Cameroon that AIDS "cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems."

He didn't say don't use them, he said the program doesn't work. It's like taking the neighbour who pointed out the horse is dead up before the RSPCA for cruelty.

I would have expected better than this foggy thinking from a Sydney Morning Herald article:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/mouse-diet-improves-appetite-research-20090323-97go.html?sssdmh=dm16.367804

"The spinifex hopping mouse, which weighs no more than 30 grams, can suppress its appetite for up to six days when not eating in order to survive for long periods without water.

Associate Professor John Donald, from Deakin University's school of life and environmental sciences, said this ability made the mouse an ideal animal to study when trying to better understand appetite control in people."

Could we understand more about human flight by studying the albatross?

Could we understand more about human sleep by studying the hibernation of bears?

We could say, "We might be able to apply some of these studies to human weight loss." (which is inevitably where it will go- some drug to suppress appetite and induce fat burning).

But you can't say that studying, in a rodent, an ability that we do not have will help us understand ourselves.

Unfortunately the paper seems to be quoting the scientist himself and not just misquoting or misapplying his conclusions.

This fuzzy thinking seems to me to be the end result of human inquiry divorced from understanding the human situation, as the Bible shows us.

Propaganda, Polemic and Persuasion

I have learnt the same thing from two different sources in the past week.

Polemic is powerless.

Propaganda does not change the minds of it's readers. If anything, propaganda and polemic harden the resolve of those it targets, for or against. Like a fertiliser, it encourages deeper roots - for both plant and weed.

I read the title story on Stephen Baxter's collection, Traces. I found it shallow and plodding, but it raised some interesting ideas (in me). I found Baxter's characterisation of the religious fundamentalist to be stereotypical. Relying on a stereotyped character to further an argument leaves the author at risk of employing the straw man. I felt that Baxter's portrayal of the religious character betrayed a lack of empathy with believing people and a poor understanding of their views and beliefs. If you want to challenge a person's deeply held beliefs then empathy and understanding are the required preparation of the canvas before the first stroke of the argument is laid.

How many arguments and debates meet at cross purposes because of a lack of empathy and understanding. How often have antagonists argued the same point, only from differing assumptions that leads the discussion to cross purposes.

(Is this why so many debates end with both sides declaring the victory, because neither has addressed the foundational assumptions of the other?)

So two points by way of concrete example.

Baxter neatly outlined the transformation of the fundamentals of the Christian faith to include the anthropic principle and the resultant attractiveness to insecure/shallow people. This completely ignores the Christian faith's self-understanding as revealed and it's consequent resistance to change and innovation (at a core level). It also indicates a cynical and patronising understanding of why people have faith.

Baxter's antagonist has his faith shattered by the revelation that there was intelligent life before the solar system was formed. This is a well worn hypothesis. The arrival of the little green men will shatter the illusions of the feeble religious. It made me laugh (not a happy laugh). The story unfolds with the discovery of images from before the creation of the solar system by projecting images from the electron structures of the core ice in a comet. What amuses me is that this fanciful process in a fictional story to uncover hypothetical extra-terrestrial intelligence is deemed to discredit the historical Christian faith.

What it comes down to is my faith in little green men is more rational than your faith in a metaphysical being.

The confirmation:

I was also sent a pamphlet self styled as a challenge to protestants. It was sent anonymously, in the mail.

Out of interest I started to read. Rome's Challenge: Why Do Protestants Keep Sunday. A collection of editorials from the Catholic Mirror, Baltimore.

What became very evident to me was that this tract, although styled as a challenge to protestants, was written for catholics. Its caustic and self-congratulatory style was offputting to me. Again protestantism was stereotyped. The pamphlet did not interacted with Protestantism in a mature and sincere understanding.

Read by a Roman Catholic, already suspicious of protestants, it might have been convincing. Read by a protestant thinker, it was sadly funny.

So, a challenge for me, and for you.

In what ever I write, particularly when I disagree or interact with other views-

Empathy and Understanding.

In my writing I have set myself a goal of reaching the minds that disagree with me. I am beginning to be aware what a difficult challenge it is.

World's Oldest Person Dies

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/worlds-oldest-person-dies/2008/11/28/1227491773556.html?sssdmh=dm16.348154

Well, it was bound to happen.

Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. Hebrews 9:27-28

Interesting Cultural Taboos

Keep
Your
Pants
On !

That's how you fight cervical cancer. That's the nuclear weapon for cervical cancer, the ultimate solution.

Read what the pamphlet says:

Cervical cancer is caused by infection with certain types of a common virus called Human Papillomavirus (HPV). There are approximately 40 types of HPV that affect the genital areas. Anyone who has had any kind of sexual activity involving genital contact could get genital HPV. In most women the virus is harmless and has no symptoms, but in some women infected with certain types of HPV, the virus may persist and lead to cervical cancer. Abnormal cervical cells including pre-cancerous abnormalities are also caused by certain types of HPV infection and are usually detected during a Pap smear.

The Pamphlet won't say this:

Keep your pants on till you are married.
Marry someone who has kept their pants on.
No HPV
No Cervical Cancer
100%

Why is it that "lifestyle changes" are strictly enforced on asthma and diabetes patients. Why is eating butter denounced as irresponsible if you have high cholesterol. Why do we feel so little compassion for fat people's problems because all they have to do is stop eating and get some exercise.

And yet we cannot, will not, dare not make any suggestion about sensible sexual practices because this is such a cultural taboo. Political correctness and libertarianism gone mad. You cannot tell someone what to do in sexual ethics (unless you are telling them to do more, that's OK of course) even if we are sleeping ourselves to death.