I am the Kat that Walks By Itself

The rise of governments filled with climate-change deniers has led people to complain that governments (and politicians) "shouldn't have ideology-led policies". Which, while I can see where they're coming from, has always niggled at me as not-quite-right. Because every single political party under the sun has an ideology, that's what makes them a political party, not just a bunch of random power-hungry douchebags. (Though many of them are still random power-hungry douchebags.)

One may disagree with a particular ideology, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have one -- because, as I said, everyone has one, so it isn't the fact of having an ideology that leads to nutty decision-making or everyone would be doing it.

So where does the problem lie? Ideology influences policy: that is good, that is its purpose. Ideology, however has no business influencing your science, your engineering, or your maths. That is like putting your cart before your horse and then shooting your horse for being defective because it couldn't push the cart. Science, maths and engineering will no more bow to your ideology than the mountains will bow to a butterfly. To believe otherwise is magical thinking, like a cargo-cult.

Ideology-led mistakes can happen to both the Left-wing and the Right-wing. Yes, the left-wing can ignore science too; or be ignorant of the unintended consequences of their actions. I mean, it's all very well to say "conservation is good", but does that mean one shouldn't do preventative burn-offs? Does it mean one shouldn't uproot the stumps of trees that have fallen? (I can't remember the specifics of that one, I just remember vaguely some farmer complaining about Greenies making it illegal for him to uproot tree stumps that needed uprooting, but I can't remember what the reason for uprooting them was, just that it was apparently a good reason, and that the Greenies policy was a knee-jerk reaction that was impractical and insufficiently pragmatic. I have insufficient data to say whether the farmer was biased, or whether the Greenies were ignorant.)

(This thought is brought to you by the Banqiao Dam Disaster which can partially be laid at the feet of the ideology-led policies of Mao Zedong...)

So, what do you think? Any examples of left-wing stupid decisions that are better than the ones I could not properly remember? Any thoughts on the rise in magical thinking and the denial of science? Thoughts as to why that has been happening? Please chip in with your comments!

So, it's two days before the Federal election. I don't think I've been campaigned at so fiercely in any other election before -- and that's without the TV ads, which I haven't seen because I rarely watch telly (Doctor Who major exception, but not on right now).

(Have been listening to "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" on audiobook. Please excuse if I lapse into Loonie talk.)

For foreigners reading this, must explain Aussie political landscape in brief: ( Aussie politics summary )

Above is broad overview, leaving out some details, such as Nats, Dems, Pauline, Clive etc.

So, campaign-ness:( Read more... )

This election period, have done something have NEVER done before: put up political signs on fence. Not for any party, these are GetUp signs saying "Don't vote Liberal!". GetUp is grassroots non-party group, agitate for fairer Australia.

P.S. Well, that didn't last long. When I went out, I noticed that someone had removed/destroyed/stolen my signs. Bastard, whoever they were. They had no right! I am perfectly at liberty to put signs on my own fence, on my own property, which I own. Grrr. Probably too late to get more signs. Grrrrr.

There's going to be an election this year, probably in November, or earlier. This is a chance to kick out those inhumane bastards in Canberra. Read this! She says it a lot better than I do.

One thing that has baffled me quite a bit in these angry arguments about things like abortion and gay marriage, is the protest "religions shouldn't impose their morals on other people". To me, that has sounded completely unfair, because it's like declaring that anyone who follows a religion shouldn't have a say in a democracy, because obviously their opinions and their votes are going to be informed by their morals, their conscience, their beliefs.

I had an "aha!" moment recently, during a discussion on Twitter. (yes, very unwise to try to discuss anything on Twitter, but it was initially a cordial and respectful discussion, I think.) There are two classes of moral rules: those that apply to everybody, and those that only apply to some people. I think we can agree that things like "don't murder" and "don't steal" apply to everybody. The usual rule of thumb is "if it harms someone else, it applies to everybody". The ones that only apply to some people (I think?) are in the form of a promise made by a person to do or not to do something. Like promising to be faithful to your spouse; doesn't apply to those who don't have a spouse. My "aha" moment was the realisation that non-believers in (Judeo-Christian Abrahamic) religions think that ALL of the religious moral rules ONLY ever apply to followers of that religion; because they're in the form of a promise to obey those rules when they follow that religion, and if you didn't promise to, you don't have to. Whereas followers of Judeo-Christian Abrahamic religions believe that since God/Yahweh/Allah is the ruler/owner of the entire universe, there are some rules that He has laid down which apply to everybody, believer and non-believer alike, and that these rules are self-evident.
( Read more... )
The basis of any cordial discussion of differences is the assumption of good will on the part of the participants. Without it, there is no discussion, just an acrimonious argument.

I'm leaving comments on for the moment, because I am interested in what you think, but the moment someone starts engaging in verbal fisticuffs, I will turn commenting off; I can't deal with the stress.

I would rather be thought of as naive and gullible, than to treat innocent people with suspicion and fear.

Douglas Adams had this to say about war:

Three stages in the history of warfare:
RETRIBUTION: I'm going to kill you because you killed my brother.

ANTICIPATION: I'm going to kill you because I killed your brother.

DIPLOMACY: I'm going to kill my brother and then kill you, on the pretext that your brother did it.

(The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

If he'd been alive today, he might have added another one.

TERRORISM: My brother will martyr himself killing your sister, so that you will martyr his family, so that my cousins will kill you and I'll run away laughing.

In response to this:

Was just saying Liberal party not disclosing plans & here's this zinger: death of bulk billing in Australia? http://t.co/3Trk5PSZsF #ausPol

— Nathan Lee (@NathanLee) December 29, 2013

I decided to write to my MP.
Here is what I wrote:
( Read more... )
Considering that my last letter to a politician was completely ignored and unacknowledged, I expect this is a pointless exercise, but at least I feel a little less like exploding in all directions.

So... those of you who aren't Australians and don't follow me on Twitter, may not even be aware that we're having Federal elections today, or may be confused about strange Australian politics even if you do know.

So in this brief lull, where the polling stations in the eastern states have closed, but those in timezones further west are still open, I shall attempt to explain just a few little quirks we have. (Illustrated with excerpts from Twitter)
( Read more... )

Am currently arranging my Senate preferences as Below The Line, which means I'm reading a lot of minor party policies.

To note: the "Australian Independents" are not independents, they're a party.

Observation: if the front page of a party's site features an old man in a suit, they usually have policies I disagree with.

The "Animal Justice Party" policies are only about the treatment of animals; not a single word about the treatment of human beings.

Amusing thought: if, in a parallel universe, ALL the minor parties got elected:

The "Shooters and Fishers" would form a coalition with "The Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party", the "Country Alliance" party and the "Stop the Greens" party.
The "Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP)" party would form a coalition with the "Drug Law Reform" party.
The "Secular Party of Australia" vote against everything proposed by the "Australian Christians" party, whether or not it made sense. And vice versa.
Joseph Toscano would turn his back on everybody and refuse to participate.
The "Citizens Electoral Council" would be frothing at the mouth in a corner.

Okay, so someone had this idea to boycott the Hollywood moguls who are behind SOPA/PIPA by refusing to buy stuff in March, and decided to call it "Black March".

Really unfortunate name.

Look, folks, this boycott is not going to work. (And I'm not the only one who thinks so)
( there are a lot of reasons )
(Screening comments from folks not on my flist, because I learned my lesson from the last time I voiced an unpopular opinion)