Brenton
Dumbing Down By Dr Kevin Donnelly; Introduction
December 24th 2007 10:52
MATURE CONTENT
Tales From The Other Side - Alternative Culture to enlighten a mediocre mood
[ November 2007 ] [ January 2008 ]
Tales From The Other Side - December 2007
Read More
Who Are The Real Junkies?
December 17th 2007 12:06
He hates the junkies. Those scummy bastards. Pathetic worthless piles of shit, can’t help themselves, slaves to drugs. It’s fucking pathetic.
He walks onto the patio. Lights a cigarette and breathes in deeply. Coughs, and spits off the edge.
“Shirl!” he calls. “Would you mind making us a cuppa?”
From in the bedroom, he hears a murmur of agreement.
He slumps at the table. His head is throbbing. He goes to the kitchen and pulls out two panadol, and swallows them down.
Shirl is making him a cup of coffee. He gets out a notepad. State of Origin is on Tonight, and he needs to remember to pick up some beer. Shirl puts his Coffee beside him.
“You’re making a shopping list?”
“Yeah.”
“Could you pick up my prescription for the pill? Saffron, Nutmeg, Lettuce, Grapefruit… Oh, and I wouldn’t mind a Red Bull.”
“Righto”
He gives Shirl a kiss and climbs into his car. He puts on the Radio. It’s triple J. They’re joking about politicians smoking marijuana. He turns it off. Useless lefty junk. How if it funny that there are some people in this world totally dependent of drugs?
Image 1
Image 2
He walks onto the patio. Lights a cigarette and breathes in deeply. Coughs, and spits off the edge.
“Shirl!” he calls. “Would you mind making us a cuppa?”
From in the bedroom, he hears a murmur of agreement.
He slumps at the table. His head is throbbing. He goes to the kitchen and pulls out two panadol, and swallows them down.
Shirl is making him a cup of coffee. He gets out a notepad. State of Origin is on Tonight, and he needs to remember to pick up some beer. Shirl puts his Coffee beside him.
“You’re making a shopping list?”
“Yeah.”
“Could you pick up my prescription for the pill? Saffron, Nutmeg, Lettuce, Grapefruit… Oh, and I wouldn’t mind a Red Bull.”
“Righto”
He gives Shirl a kiss and climbs into his car. He puts on the Radio. It’s triple J. They’re joking about politicians smoking marijuana. He turns it off. Useless lefty junk. How if it funny that there are some people in this world totally dependent of drugs?
=
?
Image 1
Image 2
| 57 |
| Vote |
Comments (1)
Add Comments[ Link ]
Going Gone track being logged in Styx Valley
December 11th 2007 06:10
This message's Origianl Source is the Australain Wilderness society.
Last week Forestry Tasmania started logging coupe SX10F in the Styx Valley. This is fantastic oldgrowth forest through which we established the ‘Going Gone’ walking track. You probably recognise the photo below, which is of two trees near the boundary of this coupe.
Near logging coupe SX 10F, Being logged December 2007. Styx Valley, TasmaniaThousands of people have visited this area using our self-drive guide leaflets, and have marveled at its giant trees, got lost in the mossy undergrowth and been serenaded by the forest’s birdlife.
Now, chainsaws and heavy machinery are carving up this area into a modified clearfell, to be burnt and regrown into an even-aged eucalypt regrowth forest. It would need centuries to return to anywhere near the magnificence of today.
This forest is of recognised World Heritage value and is one of the most carbon-dense forests in the world, storing vast amounts of carbon in branches, trunk, roots and soil. It has taken centuries for the forest to accumulate this carbon. Most will be lost on logging. Remember, the Stern Review on climate change said “curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Action to preserve the remaining areas of natural forest is needed urgently.”
At a time when the new Australian government is ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and claiming to lead the world on solutions to climate change, it is ludicrous that Australia still clearfells and burns carbon-dense oldgrowth forests. The Australian Government is currently in Bali negotiating the new climate protocol.
Contact the following now and tell them to stop turning a blind eye to Tasmania’s climate criminals – the logging industry.
Peter Garrett - Minister for the Environment
T (02) 9349 6007
peter.garrett.mp@aph.gov.au
Penny Wong - Minister for Climate Change
T (08) 8223 3388
senator.wong@aph.gov.au
Tony Burke - Minister for Forestry
T ((02) 6277 7520
tony.burke.mp@aph.gov.au
Kevin Rudd - Prime Minister
T (02) 6277 7700 (Canberra)
T (07) 3899 4031 (Electoral office)
kevin.rudd.mp@aph.gov.au
Last week Forestry Tasmania started logging coupe SX10F in the Styx Valley. This is fantastic oldgrowth forest through which we established the ‘Going Gone’ walking track. You probably recognise the photo below, which is of two trees near the boundary of this coupe.
Near logging coupe SX 10F, Being logged December 2007. Styx Valley, TasmaniaThousands of people have visited this area using our self-drive guide leaflets, and have marveled at its giant trees, got lost in the mossy undergrowth and been serenaded by the forest’s birdlife.
Now, chainsaws and heavy machinery are carving up this area into a modified clearfell, to be burnt and regrown into an even-aged eucalypt regrowth forest. It would need centuries to return to anywhere near the magnificence of today.
This forest is of recognised World Heritage value and is one of the most carbon-dense forests in the world, storing vast amounts of carbon in branches, trunk, roots and soil. It has taken centuries for the forest to accumulate this carbon. Most will be lost on logging. Remember, the Stern Review on climate change said “curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Action to preserve the remaining areas of natural forest is needed urgently.”
At a time when the new Australian government is ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and claiming to lead the world on solutions to climate change, it is ludicrous that Australia still clearfells and burns carbon-dense oldgrowth forests. The Australian Government is currently in Bali negotiating the new climate protocol.
Contact the following now and tell them to stop turning a blind eye to Tasmania’s climate criminals – the logging industry.
Peter Garrett - Minister for the Environment
T (02) 9349 6007
peter.garrett.mp@aph.gov.au
Penny Wong - Minister for Climate Change
T (08) 8223 3388
senator.wong@aph.gov.au
Tony Burke - Minister for Forestry
T ((02) 6277 7520
tony.burke.mp@aph.gov.au
Kevin Rudd - Prime Minister
T (02) 6277 7700 (Canberra)
T (07) 3899 4031 (Electoral office)
kevin.rudd.mp@aph.gov.au
| 68 |
| Vote |
Schools for Learning not Competition
December 6th 2007 14:31
We hear this idea a lot- we need to know if our kids are winning. Winning what? Just winning. Right.
Winning at life, presumably. However, if we need a system where there are winners, then inherently we need losers.
So we produce a system whereby we have to judge our students harshly. And as we do, we send a clear message to our failing students – give up. You have failed. You are a failure. There are two types of people, winners and losers, and you are a loser.
You may think I exaggerate here. I wish I were. However, this is a prevailing attitude in many areas. In ‘Dumbing Down’ Geoffrey Blainey attacks proponents of ‘Outcomes Based Education’ for being suspicious of “Competitive examination,” and for perceiving failing students to be “unfair to the failures.”
While Blainy does explore some reasonable arguments in this introduction, I take issue with his dismissive tone here. Firstly, it sounds all very professional to promote ‘competitive exams’. However, who are the students competing against? Each other? Why? Is there some kind of shortage in Australia of passing marks? The drought means we can’t grow enough A ’s for everyone? If students are competing, it should be against themselves – to try and improve themselves. Otherwise, the suggestion seems to be to make tests just hard enough to make sure we have some students who can be treated as winners, and some treated as losers.
Blainey also demonstrates another all too common attitude. The quote I have used states that he feels it to be problematic the idea that failing students is ‘unfair to the failures’.
I find this problematic, the ease at which one may simply, publicly find fault with a system that does not work on the basis of winners and losers, and criticize systems that seek to give failing students a fighting chance.
Ultimately, it sounds good and noble to complain that schools are wimpy, afraid of competition and mollycoddle failures. However, making students compete against each other is not giving each student the best chance at life. Dividing students into failures and successes while in lower grades, rather then maximizing a students potential for real success does not help anyone.
We win or lose by how we choose. Let's support the idea that each child can be supported enough to make those winning choices.
IMAGE.
Winning at life, presumably. However, if we need a system where there are winners, then inherently we need losers.
So we produce a system whereby we have to judge our students harshly. And as we do, we send a clear message to our failing students – give up. You have failed. You are a failure. There are two types of people, winners and losers, and you are a loser.
You may think I exaggerate here. I wish I were. However, this is a prevailing attitude in many areas. In ‘Dumbing Down’ Geoffrey Blainey attacks proponents of ‘Outcomes Based Education’ for being suspicious of “Competitive examination,” and for perceiving failing students to be “unfair to the failures.”
Is this the message we want to give to kids early on?
While Blainy does explore some reasonable arguments in this introduction, I take issue with his dismissive tone here. Firstly, it sounds all very professional to promote ‘competitive exams’. However, who are the students competing against? Each other? Why? Is there some kind of shortage in Australia of passing marks? The drought means we can’t grow enough A ’s for everyone? If students are competing, it should be against themselves – to try and improve themselves. Otherwise, the suggestion seems to be to make tests just hard enough to make sure we have some students who can be treated as winners, and some treated as losers.
Blainey also demonstrates another all too common attitude. The quote I have used states that he feels it to be problematic the idea that failing students is ‘unfair to the failures’.
I find this problematic, the ease at which one may simply, publicly find fault with a system that does not work on the basis of winners and losers, and criticize systems that seek to give failing students a fighting chance.
Ultimately, it sounds good and noble to complain that schools are wimpy, afraid of competition and mollycoddle failures. However, making students compete against each other is not giving each student the best chance at life. Dividing students into failures and successes while in lower grades, rather then maximizing a students potential for real success does not help anyone.
We win or lose by how we choose. Let's support the idea that each child can be supported enough to make those winning choices.
IMAGE.
| 80 |
| Vote |
[ Link ]
Collective Guilt
December 3rd 2007 12:09
Even an Entire Subculture may be a Candidate for Collective Guilt
Who is responsible? The question that always gets thrown around. Who is responsible for this oil leak? For 9/11? For the hole in my underwear?
The question isn’t a gentle one. Usually the attribution of blame is designed to enable the big flashing arrow that can guide the lynch mob.
When we find out who’s to blame, we can choose the appropriate action to take against the individual responsible.
One complicating factor, is that of the concept of collective guilt.
Let’s have a look at the oil leak scenario. Chance is, there are a number of people whom we could find to pinpoint the blame on.
* The distributor of the material the ship was made from.
* The person responsible for checking the ship was in order.
* The person who failed to appoint a person to check the ship was in order.
* The Company Boss for not putting practices under the appropriate scrutiny.
When it comes to Companies though, the standard practice, and the practice supported by most Left wing activists, is of Collective Guilt. We charge a ‘company’ with pollution, or with a cover up or a scandal. The James Hardy corporation, not an individual, was charged with their use of asbestos, which caused many cases of mesothelioma.
Let’s look at the second example. September 11. Now we can look at blame on a number of levels, each level backed up by an assumption. I’m going to use this example to really deconstruct the levels to which the concept of blame is accepted or rejected by individuals, groups and institutions.
WHO: The Individual Terrorists.
WHY: Individuals are responsible for their own actions. These people had the option of joining a terrorist group or not, had a choice between obeying orders or not, and had a choice of whether the executed the plan or not.
WHO: Bin Laden.
WHY: Manipulators may be held responsible for their actions, especially as they tend to work towards a specific aim. This is how we can absolve Child Soldiers of their murders, and some junkies of the responsibility of their addiction. If you are manipulated into doing something, is it your fault, or your manipulators?
WHO: Al Quaidia.
WHY: Groups that represent larger schools of thought may be held accountable for their much wider impact. The Ku Klux Klan. The Teachers Union. The East India Trading Company. The Socialist Alliance. All of these are groups with a powerful underlying ideological framework determining their actions. Should then, we blame those individuals associated with them for their actions – or blame the larger entity for the influence of their ideological position.
WHO: Islam.
WHY: Radical Islam can be accredited widely with inspiring the actions of Bin Laden, and Al Quaidia in the justification of their actions, and the apparent nobleness of their goal.
WHO: American Foreign Policy.
WHY: If every action has an equal and opposite reaction, then every action is also a reaction. America has had a profoundly brutal and aggressive foreign policy for a long time. It is not like an attack on America could not have been expected for a considerably long time especially when one considers this was not the first attempted terrorist attack targeting the Twin Towers.
The thing about collective guilt is that is can cause too many problems or not enough. There’s no sense in blaming all Muslims for the actions of Islamic militants, or all Christians for the religious shooting of an abortionist. On the other hand though, a total rejection of the idea of collective blame would allow people acting under political or company orders to be used as ‘renegade individuals’ in order to absolve higher ranking persons of wrongdoing.
As most things are, the concept of collective guilt is by far more complicated than we would like to think. The real problem though is that some of us don’t want to think at all – and to ensure a fair world, we REALLY need to.
Image by Technochick used under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike License.
| 71 |
| Vote |
More Posts
1 Posts
1 Posts
3 Posts
179 Posts dating from December 2001
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
[ View Blog Summary ] [ Create A New Post ]
Brenton's Blogs
Moderated by Brenton
