Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Dealing with Misbehavior

Oh yeah ! Not you too . Seems all we grown ups are now experts. Oh yeah  Nuh!
The children are still in charge and its time for confession . None of us know how to deal with some of the most serious bits of bad  behavior around . Even our Creator ( if you acknowledge the One proclaimed in the good book) recognizes there are limits to Almighty Power  when giving us our autonomy.  
Sins are sins according to the good book so we won't dwell on whats worse - just as the good book doesn't .
 The 10 commandments are a good example of good laws : They are more proactive and not as  prescriptive as most reactive modern pedants would produce  them . Read Luther's  explanation of them if you don't believe me .

SENATE - "Please let the government govern --is my advice "The Reps , unlike you,  will probably  pay for their mistakes .
So what advice can we give our senators especially those who waver ( see Neiman) and thereby get confused . When the brief history of current 18C and legislation like it , has proved to do more harm than good . including making people worry about when and where they might be prosecuted . Do you own research - here and overseas ,not counter-intuitive its reactive in the worst sense that it ignores the history of OUR ideas in law ( like common law . presumption of innocence , proscetion of assault - verbal and other being helpful,etc you name it  )

Of course WE should change legislation which doesn't DO what it is intended to do  . The name of the crimes in any legislation are critical as are the Means of dealing with them .
You only have to think of how Voltaire and just about every freethinker since Adam would support the removal of the words "offend ,insult, humiliate "entirely as we are guilty weekly in some hearers view, As yourself who wrote the original legislation and whether they knew what they were doing? 

If you are senate like enough to think prosecuting it in court will stop what happens at home , you only have to think of Alan Bonds big smile when he said " Go see my lawyers" 
We are only ever a free country while the Government stop trying to playing our parent.

 How many times does some smart arsed ignorant politician or group get their way with a few of their inadequate words only to find their chosen words do little but create more lumbering logomachy and laws to beat us (and the free speaking honest poor ) up with . Where is that "Lesslaws Party" when we need em?.
  How many times does some smart arsed ignorant politician or group get their way with a few of their inadequate words only to find their chosen words do little but create more lumbering logomachy and laws to beat us (and the free speaking honest poor ) up with . Where is that "Lesslaws Party" when we need em?.
 I am not saying that careless words about a person isn't very serious- the 9th commandment is there for a reason and is like unto 1st 2nd and 3rd. BUT even Leviticus is only 34 pages long and like most of those books has some really positive logic for the minimum numbers of laws in them.Yes our words can be as a bad as anything we do . Our thoughts too can as bad as anything we say .
Mere laws at the end of the chain won't bring whats needed - inspiration education and discipline 

And what a mockery of true democracy are those Senators who are there , not to express the will of the people and the wisdom of the ages - but to insist on making their own words carry them into history.


 Laws are not eternal - That's the whole idea of Reps being there -to correct unjust use of law and limit the number of frightened Leek admirers and tip toeing honest confronting good people in the country.

Tell me there aren't millions of us huddling in the corner waiting for the next edict from the tyrannical cult of toxic sentimentalists.

"Please let the government govern --is my advice "That's what the people expect

What a better more livable country you might just make it if YOU play YOUR proper part in it .

Sunday, December 04, 2016

We don't wanna go back to being Pharisees --- but we are

"We should never have had a bill of human rights in Canada. That was an import of French Civil Law over top of English Common Law, and it was a mistake. In English Common Law, you have all the rights there are except those that are expressly forbidden by law. In the French system, you enumerate people's rights – that makes it look like rights are granted to you by the government, and that's not true." --Jordan Peterson

Monday, July 13, 2015

Those who liberty is in the law

Holding a balance for freedom takes tension.   Source  :

What if the law was all based on a principle and value - equality . It would get lots of support ( being simple ), easy to understand  but ruthless in its devastation of another valued trait in nature - diversity.  20th century tyrants and the logic they used with the people demonstrate so.

Our own press have , like Orwell finally noted the shallowness of the game going on in their territory ,
"The Australian parliament should not legislate the right to same-sex marriage on the altar of denying institutions and individuals the right to their conscience."

Why are our leaders about to do?

"If the Australian parliament intends to create a legal regime with this consequence then the law-makers must justify this to the ­people and explain how such ­calculated intolerance leads to a better society. The legalisation of same-sex marriage means the laws of the state and the laws of the church will be in conflict over the meaning of the most important institution in society. This conflict between the civil and religious meaning of marriage will probably be untenable and marked by litigation, attempts to use anti-discrimination law and entrenched bitterness. But an effort ought to be made to make it tenable on the basis of mutual tolerance."

Does anyone know what the action is all for ?
"Is it merely to allow gays to marry? Or is its ultimate purpose to impose “marriage equality” across the entire society, civil and religious. Ideologies do not normally stop at the halfway mark. Is “marriage equality”, as designed and evolving by its advocates, an ideology that can live with two different concepts of marriage, civil and religious? The Amici brief makes clear that limiting religious exemptions to just pastors performing wedding ceremonies is completely inadequate. There is a wide range of other issues to be considered. Must religious colleges provide married housing to same-sex couples? Must churches and synagogues employ spouses in same-sex marriages even though this flouts their religious teaching? Must religious social-service agencies place children for adoption with same-sex couples?
Will religious institutions be penalised by losing government contracts, tax exemptions and access to public facilities? Will religious institutions and schools be penalised if they teach their own beliefs about marriage, thereby contradicting the state’s view of marriage? Or will the state laws via anti-discrimination legislation be mobilised to force the state’s view on to religious institutions?"

What of the provision of ser­vices?
" In much of the US a gay publicist can refuse to provide services for an anti-gay event. That is acceptable under the law. Can a person decline to provide services for a gay marriage, not because the person discriminates against gays but because they see the marriage as a religious event and therefore it defies their religious beliefs? The Amici brief argues that it is essential to distinguish the two relationships — protecting the right of same-sex couples to civil marriage and protecting religious actors’ right to uphold their view of religious marriage.
The US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v Hodges is flawed for two reasons. First, as Chief Justice John Roberts said in dissent: “The court is not a legislator. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.”
This decision is an arrogant denial of US democracy and law-making even though it follows a US tradition of law creation by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court pre-empted the process by which state legislature after state legislature was voting on same-sex marriage."

"As Tim Wilson knows, this is not the way to proceed. It only guarantees institutional division and rancour. The core question remains: what is the real ideological objective of the same-sex marriage campaign?"

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Magna Carta

1. When someone stuffs up tell them . Do it in a clear way and focus on important errors  and how to fix em .
2. If the person is in authority and might call for ye head ,write him a letter
3 If you have to sign it , get some friends to do same

Love this well done Radio National Australia

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Shallow and sentimental - we did ONCE know that verbal assault is a very dangerous precursor to violence

Shallow and sentimental  - we did once know that  verbal assault is a very dangerous precursor to violence . We did once know that written incitement to violence was even more dangerous . We did once know that the danger increases because of collective logic agreement ,; because collective faith logic draws more people in and provides quite reasonable people with temptation to participate in bad behavior -to join with others in a chorus - to motivate and keep motivating an action .First  way to tackle such violence is to accept this collective chain and not be distracted by a more sus logic about extremism and individuals .

While it may please the TV audience, the above two realities and focus makes those who hate us hate us even more - when we react carelessly we show ourselves to be stupid and shallow.  Sometimes the problem is best understood by understanding  the audience reaction first -esp if we are to stop it happening again.

Far from being ahead of the issues , those who forget the basis of western concepts of responsibility and respect for individual turn the response to increasing social disorder into a shallow reactionary game .
The system did not adequately deal with this issue but that's not just media or police - it runs much much deeper.  
We need "all tools " is rubbish ;  we need appropriate tools    Picture chooks running in all directions 
"suite of measures" is OK  BUT its  one of the excuses used by intellectual idiots in charge who don't know which ones work . Idiots who could advocate the idea of monitoring bad people  or just locking them up .Idiots who love making lists and waste our time collecting them .

Even  our best reporters play the game( or lose the opportunity to stand in the TV's silly frame- something they can avoid by doing their proper job of letting other people say silly things) .
And its a very serious game because it lacks the patient logic of the past and insists in imposing itself on some present problem'   ( A shooting of innocent people by a mad gunman )
It can be and is so careless that the cure can be worse that the disease - the tyranny more permanent than the particular problem . Was  the solution  a solution ( the assumption that suddenly because we are so clever, we can deal with human behavior with the stroke of a pen )  They focus only on outcomes and seek  to use western law in a way it its never been used before .   The media machine being so powerful that parliamentarians are presumably afraid to properly debate laws that seem to already have common assent - common sentiment perhaps,  but  not the common sense we need from them
T Dalrymple and others like authors of Telecom 2000 social report have rightly pointed all this out.

ABCTV,  like all the cloned victims of the ideal of popular wisdom/simplicity /stupidity  are again calling for more monitoring of mad men . The Authorities  have advised that Man Haron Monis was NOT  on their watchlist because he "did not have a history of violence ". This shallowness goes to the heart our corporate stupidity on the subject.

We deny violence until it kills;  or comes bloody.  Our society is in denial of the violence inside .( depression students know this but few others do or speak up on it ) There is violence inside us all  but we are no longer dealing with it as our forebears did . We see anger as sin and try to sit on it ( leads to worse things bursting forth ) We do not "be angry" as encouraged  with sin but sin not ourselves .Some even accuse God of sinning by being angry , and therefore put themselves as  righteous by trying not to show anger themselves .  Too clever for their own good .We think we are progressing when our thinking is regressing .

Some faiths deal with Anger;  other faiths seem to only promote it,  or leave it unresolved .  The temptation  to move from anger to verbal to physical is real within us all .The apostle Paul  set the scenes  by repeating the mindset  we need 3 times and in 3 different ways towards the end of  Romans 12. If only our citizens would practice it and learn to know that,  impossible as it may sound,  it actually works.

Thankfully our laws are not so shallow , Verbal abuse is considered as dangerous as physical abuse and is rightly prosecuted the same . A faith system that prescribes violence is going to prompt real violence , Anger not confronted , as with Julian Knights and many" lone wolves " can lead to killing and disrespect for the sentimental superficiality of the audience ( who get shot ) The lone wolf is  a dumb myth --------there are whole hoards of them ready to go and ..... ready to stop .... by listening to them .  Few are listening to them and we need to listen to those in our locality. yes  I know a few 
We should  know all this if we dare think about it ; we have families .

Leaders PLEASE  help us to think about ANGER again so we are alert but not alarmed ; that we allow open anger and protest knowing that its in free open dialogue and listening ( which  most people are not doing when a terrorist speaks ; which most guardian media priests think would be too much for THEIR audience -( ignoring their obligation to report the facts )not too see - patronising bullshit 

Friday, October 04, 2013

Left left with nothing but Laws

Maxine McKew and others on the drum  tonight symbolize the fanaticism and desperate cul de sac mentality of trying to rule by laws alone . Too much "talk tough" talk with some "bad group" shifts the context ( need for toughness all over ).

Maxine , typical of this generation of deniers (think that OTHER men need more rules, not a saviour ) uses the nice word "protocol " while the chorus of "tough " talk rattles around in their cage; more like some carcass hunting noisy  bird rather than some animal of true threat and substance ( the lion ) on the ground.Our society was built on the idea of a saviour who helps you budget well  , not the stupid Labor  saviour who just carelessly pays the bills.
Thedrum ,while a great show , needs to have more genuine experts on it - otherwise it will be treated as it often treats itself ----carrion speculation over the entrails .
The "Spectators" treatment of the AWB scandal was so simplistic as to be plain scandalous . OK mate if you are going to talk across everyone -get it right and don't be like everyone else -trite ;Agriculture and environment is a ' special case " a bit of diversity in your myopia. Why market the grand simplicities that don't work .Friedman got the noble prize but Galbraith was the real brains behind growth in a difficult climate - the people want the sort of growth that is unsustainable - we in the country avoid it naturally because we have knowledge , not ust talk of sustainability .
  If Scott's?  paper is just another drone preaching " 2legs bad, market good " we clearly don't need to read it .

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Its all about me politicians

Can't even focus on the effect of supporting legislation to include gays in the Marriage Act
My point is that the history of the best of western ( Christian ) culture is to make an absolutely minimum number of laws to regulate people's choices - for when children are involved and NEED protection .The russians can see it but we can't.
Penny Wong completely misses THIS critical point . I struggle to understand why thinking people and her own party take her seriously. She doesn't even get close to properly considering the critical need for civil marriage in most cultures and most of history .

To quote her 
" To suggest that marriage should be defined only by reference to children would mean marriages in which someone is infertile would not be allowed.Marriages where the couple did not want to have a family wouldn’t be allowed.Marriages where the couple were too old to have children wouldn’t be allowed".

 To me it all seems to be about "what I want " not about "what the law is for ".
I have listened enough to her before to just " switch off "completely .I will do it again.Our kids deserve better