From the category archives:

Soapbox

Sunday Quote - #20

by danu on September 7, 2008

New to my blog? You may want to think about subscribing to be notified of new posts. Thanks for visiting!

It's interesting that chatter about the Iraq war has now made a paradigm shift. Most politicians and commentators (including Bill O'Reilly!) are willing to concede that the original invasion was a misguided strategic blunder, and are instead now focussing on the idea that the 'Surge' strategy worked and the US is 'winning' the war.

On the face of it, sure, the violence has decreased somewhat but that's about all you could call a success. The Iraqis are no closer to gaining control of their own country, the war costs the US 10 billion dollars a MONTH and the fact still remains that the fight in Iraq has nothing to do with what happened on September 11 except to poke the hornets nest even further.

Eventually history will show that the whole thing was total folly, but for now we're stuck with John McCain's version of events.

This week's quote is from none other than Sun Tzu's The Art of War and seems particularly relevant given all the talk we're hearing on the campaign trail at the moment.

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
- Sun-Tzu

Yeah. What he said.

{ 1 comment }

Debating the 10%

by danu on September 3, 2008

There seem to be a lot of casual political observers out there who can't understand why the US presidential race appears to be so close. After 8 years of Bush, most people think it should be a romp for the Democrats. How can McCain, whose policies are 90% the same as Bush's, be doing so well in the polls? How can people not notice?! It looks crazy to an outsider and it's easy to conclude that Americans must just be monumentally stupid. Rather than delve into the intricacies of the US race, I'd like to point out an interesting comparison.

Here in Australia, Rudd Labor's policies are 90% the same as Howard Liberal's but hardly anyone seems to notice or care. In the 9 months since Rudd took office, we've had the symbolic signing of Kyoto, the apology to stolen generations and the end of mandatory detention centres. The first two are welcome changes of pace, but purely symbolic. The latter represents a real change and a welcome one for anyone who believes in basic human decency. But if you're expecting more than symbolism and the odd bit of tinkering around the edges, don't get your hopes up.

Most of the power a government has lies in economic carrots and sticks. If you want people to stop doing something, tax it. If you want to encourage it, cut taxes on it. If something's important fund it, if something's not, cut funding. That's the day-to-day business of government. When it comes to the current government, it's hard to imagine a policy sheet that could be more like the previous Liberal government's if you tried. No wonder the Libs are angry and confused, they've had their space co-opted!

Now you tell me which is more amazing - that the new government is gutless enough to be 90% the same as the old one after being elected on the back of a vote for change, or the fact that nobody seems to notice or be willing to believe it? Except the ones who voted Liberal of course, but no-one listens to them.

What happens when 90% of your platform is the same as the other guy? You make a big noise about the 10%. That's what we get in Australia. That's what we got with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the primaries. That's what we've got with McCain and Bush. People obsess about the details and miss the much bigger picture.

The Republicans know this of course. So did Rudd. People like to be deceived. Sometimes the bigger truths are just too terrible. Much safer to stay in the 10%.

{ 2 comments }

When is it ok to be a tall poppy?

by danu on August 7, 2008

Abetter question would be - when is it NOT ok to be a tall poppy? There is a mentality among some parts of the country, a throwback to the days of class society, that says you shouldn't have ideas above your station. Australia, a nation founded by cast-offs from this section of society, has this idea deeply entrenched in its soul. In Australian culture, heroes are the ones who stay true to their roots, the 'true-blue' Aussies. You can be an actor, war hero, sportsman or murderer - so long as you're true blue, we love ya. The worst thing you can be in Australia is a snob.

At the risk of being called such, I believe that mentality is total ignorant garbage. Seriously. If it's snobbery to think you're better at something than someone else, what are you supposed to do if you actually are? Pretend you're not so you don't offend anybody? Modesty is one thing, but dumbing yourself down to be acceptable is wrong. Acceptable to whom? If it's more important to other people that you fit in than reach your potential, are these the kind of people you need in your life?

From the moment you're born, people are lining up to impress upon you the idea that you can be anything you want. That's nice, and it has the added bonus of being true. But you soon discover that if following your dreams involves something other than sport or one of the few other culturally approved pursuits, you're going to have to go somewhere else to do it. Which means you are confronted with a choice to stay and make the best of it or to go follow your calling. Through the frame of Australian culture as a whole, if you choose to go, but manage to stay 'true blue', you're a hero. If you go and don't look back, you're a snob and good riddance. It doesn't actually matter what you do or whether you succeed or fail, it only matters what you think about Australia.

This represents a deep and abiding cultural insecurity - a nation's need for constant reassurance to help assuage its low self-esteem. This observation will be hotly denied of course by those who choose not to see the problem. For it is a problem, and an absurd one at that. The truth is Australia is an incredibly blessed country full of natural wonders, amazing people and untapped potential. But as anyone who knows a gifted person with low self-esteem can vouch, it doesn't matter how obviously brilliant they are, low self-esteem will somehow sabotage everything they do. In this light, Australia's obsession with cutting down tall poppies is both understandable and tragic.

The truth is - it is ALWAYS ok to be a tall poppy. Tall poppies show strength, possibility and hope. And yet they are still poppies, true to their roots. We should welcome them and appreciate them, not seek to cut them down at the first opportunity. If we were more accepting towards tall poppies perhaps they would be less suspicious and aloof.

It is the right and indeed the duty of each and every one of us to be the tallest, fullest flowers we can be. What good does it serve others or ourselves if we waste potential that could have been used?

Why should following your dreams mean you have to go elsewhere? Why force people to make that choice? For a small country, Australia produces some of the best and brightest leaders in all sorts of fields. Yet they almost always leave to pursue their careers overseas, simply because there is so little opportunity to do so here. Certainly most would stay if they could. Each time we let one go we let go of a chance to pull ourselves higher as a nation, thereby only reinforcing the same problem.

Australia needs to look forwards. Instead of cutting down tall poppies we should grow to meet them.

{ 1 comment }

Is procrastination a bad thing?

by danu on July 17, 2008

Anyone who is used to working with creative people knows that they are often guilty of procrastinating. In fact, the better and more indispensable they are, the more infuriating they can be to work with.

I find myself guilty of procrastinating with a job I have at the moment. I have worked on several other jobs with this client and others before and since with no difficulty, but for some reason I can't seem to get this one done.

Why?

Most people I have spoken to about this and most things I have read have not asked why. They launch right into finding ways of getting the job done, but this is frustrating and pointless. I know how to get the job done. The problem is not that I can't do it or that I don't know how, it's that I don't want to, and I therefore find all manner of excuses and distractions to avoid doing it in the hope that it will simply go away.

The next response from people trying to be helpful is usually to find ways of wanting to do the job, along the lines of trying to make it interesting or doing a really good job I can be proud of. Again, the problem is not that I can't do a really good job, it's that it doesn't matter if I do or not, and therefore it is not interesting to me no matter how much we can argue about it. Nor do I need to go the extra mile and do a really good job for my own satisfaction and feeling of self worth. I am quite certain that I can do a really good job and I don't need an unnecessary outpouring of effort to tell me so. I would rather be pouring effort into something else where it does matter if I do a really good job or not, and I find that is what I have been spending my time doing instead.

I had this problem, if it can be called one, at school. I used to hate doing some assignments because they were boring and pointless and it didn't matter what I did because even the tiniest effort would have been sufficient. My teachers invariably tried to convince me that I should solve the problem of not enjoying my work by doing more of it, thinking that spending 6 hours on a pointless assignment instead of 2 would be somehow more rewarding.

When all arguments fail, the last resort is - 'but you have to do it'. I have always considered this to be weak-minded thinking. Surely no-one has to do anything. Perhaps in an extreme situation you may be killed if you don't do something, but that still doesn't mean you have to do it. In fact, many of the people we remember for their greatness (and are told to write assignments about) are people who stuck to their beliefs no matter who told them they had to do otherwise. Galileo, Sir Thomas More, that Jesus guy. It is harder to recall the names of great people in history who are remembered for doing what they were told with no better explanation than the depressing mediocrity of 'but that's reality'. Kevin Rudd seems to be making a spirited attempt to prove otherwise, but I digress.

Lest I be called a lazy curmudgeon, I should point out that instead of doing the assignments I considered pointless, I would instead devote my time to reading classic literature or writing short stories. Occasionally, if I felt provoked, I would engage my debating skills in writing an essay explaining why the assignment was pointless and handing that in instead.

In all my years of school I rarely did any homework and there were perhaps a dozen assignments I chose not to complete. Despite various threats and much cajoling, I can't remember ever getting into any serious trouble for this and I passed all my subjects with flying colours up until the point where I lost interest in school altogether and stopped going.

My point is this. When people procrastinate, it is sometimes with good reason. Perhaps they are afraid and need reassurance, perhaps they are wary, or even just plain against what is put in front of them. Aside from simple laziness, most forms of procrastination come from the gut, and the gut is usually worth listening to.

I don't want to do this job. It enriches neither me nor my client. The client will be happy with the smallest effort, in which case my creativity and expertise is not necessary, and a larger effort will simply mean I have spent more time on something unnecessary since the difference will not make much difference to what the client needs. My time is valuable, that is why I charge for it, and there are other things I would rather be doing. I could teach the client to do the job themselves, but they are not interested in that, and perhaps that fact most of all is the reason I am so indifferent. Because there is no incentive to learn, I don't have to do the job because if I don't do it, the client will simply keep waiting, get someone else to do it, do it themselves or decide it doesn't need doing. Thus there is nothing forcing me to change my stance.

Ethically, if I really don't want to do the job I should find someone who will, offer to show the client how to do it themselves or at the very least tell them I can't do it, and now I have become aware of the fact that I'm procrastinating and why, that is probably what I will do.

Or I could just stop my whining and do the damn thing. But that would be to miss the broader point about creative freedom, and indeed freedom in general. It was a wise man who said, freedom is not merely the opportunity to do as one pleases; neither is it merely the opportunity to choose between set alternatives. Freedom is, first of all, the chance to formulate the available choices, to argue over them - and then, the opportunity to choose.

It may be easier and provide greater security to simply go along with what's expected, but as another great man, Benjamin Franklin, said famously:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security."

I'll go with my gut thankyou.

{ 1 comment }

Kevin Rudd led his party to victory last year on a platform of change, to industrial relations laws, education, broadband, indigenous affairs and climate change. Since taking office, we have had the symbolic signing of Kyoto and apology to Stolen Generations, all very nice and all but almost meaningless in practical terms.

The approach to all of these areas of policy has been troubling. Sure, they've only had six months in office and they've launched lots of broad reviews which are yet to report back, but for a Government which was elected with such enthusiasm there seems to be a profound lack of leadership or willingness to make tough but important decisions, or at least look at them with some sense of urgency.

Climate change is particularly troubling, if only for the fact that we have the technology, the resources and incredibly, the public will to deal with it right now. But we're not. We're arguing about cutting a few cents off petrol prices, giving $500 million to the coal companies to research 'clean coal' while cutting the solar panel rebate which cost $50 million, and waiting for a climate change review by Professor Garnaut. The review comes out tomorrow, and, now that it has become clear that Garnaut is going to recommend urgent and wide-ranging action on a number of fronts, the erstwhile poster-boy of Labor is now being distanced and almost disowned by Rudd, Garrett and Wong.

John Birmingham has an excellent essay about it all in July's issue of The Monthly. Here are a few choice excerpts:

Despite the most fervent wishes of Bob Brown, coal isn't going anywhere. According to the Australian Coal Association, coal-fired power stations produce 84% of Australia's electricity and 38% of its greenhouse emissions, significantly higher than the global average of one-quarter. In part this is because the nation does not rely on nuclear power. Contrary to popular belief, Australia does not control the world market for coal, but it is the biggest exporter, with nearly a third of the global trade in black coal, and 60% of trade in metallurgical coal, which is used for smelting. Regardless of the Kyoto Protocol or whatever scheme succeeds it, world demand for coal is very conservatively forecast to rise 73% by 2030.

China and India will account for a good deal of that increase. At the moment, for instance, only 3% of our coal exports go to China, which is - according to a New York Times report of 11 June - opening a coal-fired power station every ten days. That is not a typo. "Every week to ten days," the report said, "another coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in China that is big enough to serve all the households in Dallas or San Diego." The People's Republic does have its own vast reserves of coal, but at least half is the dirtier brown variety, unlike our minty-fresh export-quality black stuff. The Australian coal industry is also more mature, efficient and technologically advanced than its competitors in China. As more and more of the hundreds of coal-fired power stations China has planned come online, their appetite for high-quality Australian coal will become more voracious. This is why Kevin Rudd has remarked on the natural congruity of the two nations' interests, the world's largest exporter and the world's largest consumer of coal.

[click to continue...]

{ 0 comments }

How to talk to a climate skeptic

by danu on June 27, 2008

First of all, let's be clear: Global warming is a reality. A reality that humans contribute to significantly and a reality which changes in human behaviour can help avoid.

It's a fairly simple proposition, backed up by an almost inconceivable amount of evidence, and yet we're still stuck discussing whether or not it's happening, what causes it, what we need to do about it and whether we can be bothered before we all start paying the price of greed and arrogance in a couple of decades.

Let's also be clear about this: there is a LOT of FUD out there about global warming (That's Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt for you non-web-literate types). The denials range in sophistication from 'there is no scientific consensus', 'global warming is a hoax' and 'what's wrong with warmer weather anyway?', through cherrypicking arguments such as 'the satellites show cooling', 'Antarctic sea ice is growing', all the way to scientific arguments like 'water vapour accounts for nearly all global warming' and 'what about mid-century cooling?'

Make no mistake: climate science is a complex beast and the level of debate in most circles worldwide reduces almost all of it to simple he said she said stuff, but the information is there for anyone who wants it.

Happily, over at the Gristmill they've made a comprehensive guide to talking to climate skeptics, listing all of their talking points, arguments and concerns by category and level of sophistication, with well-researched answers and rebuttal. For anyone who finds themselves embroiled in debates about global warming, this site is a must in your bookmarks.

And if you're a skeptic yourself, go take a look - you may find your favourite pet peeve has already been taken into account.

{ 1 comment }

The Money Myth - Social Credit

by danu on June 25, 2008

Social Credit

Disclaimer:
The words below are not written by me. They were written, along with the 20-part story I have also posted on this blog, by Louis Even, a French-Canadian, in the 1930s. I have changed his references to Canada to Australia below for better emphasis.
- Danu

Louis Even
Louis Even

Social Credit considers realities. It refuses to be hypnotized by the halo with which finance has been surrounded.

The economic realities are, on one hand, the production; not only the existing production, but the production immediately possible, the production capacity; and they are, on the other hand, the human needs.

Social Credit gives priority to the realities over the financial signs that are not realities, that must simply represent, and faithfully represent, the realities.

Real credit and financial credit

This is why Social Credit makes a distinction between real credit (a reality) and financial credit (a representation).

The word "credit" comes from the Latin word "credere" and bears the idea of confidence. Even in everyday language, to give credit to someone, is it not to indicate that we have confidence in him?
Social Credit calls real credit of a country what really gives confidence in that country, confidence that one can live there without too much difficulty. The real credit of a country is its production capacity. It is its degree of possibility to produce and deliver the goods to the needs.

And Social Credit affirms that financial credit must be the exact representation of the real credit.
It is therefore the production capacity that must determine the movement of finance. It is absolutely not for finance to command, paralyze or limit the production capacity.

This is why Social Credit demands the establishment of a credit office that would keep an account of national (or state) credit. [click to continue...]

{ 1 comment }