Archive for June, 2013

Yet more cause to yawn . . .
June 26, 2013

So the real misogynist has stood up.  It was never Tony Abbott, whatever Australia’s Labor-crawling media made out (especially the Australian Government’s own media front, the ABC).    No!  Kevin Rudd simply could not abide being second-best to a woman.  ‘Second-best at what?’ you ask.  At being the worst Prime Minister in the history of the federation.  There isn’t much time but I’m sure he’ll devote all his energy to regaining the title of worst Prime Minister heading the worst government in Australian political history. 

Has the Labor party really this little talent?  Apparently so.  Oh dear.



Another referendum (yawn)
June 19, 2013

A typically corrupt campaign by the Australian federal government, this time for so-called consitutional recognition of local government.  And yes, the feds are turning it into yet another auction (all Australian elections are auctions, have been for many years) in which it will fund its favoured side.  We have no want of critics, apparently (thus the IPA here and here, for example).

The weakness of the ‘No’ campaign is that local government no longer exists.  We have ‘councils’ of such a size that there is nothing local about them.  Indeed, their own existence should come under threat.  All that the councils do could be done under the aegis of state governments.  They have almost no democratic credentials, primarily by virtue of their size, that locality is irrelevant.  So, rather than encourage them, abolish the councils now.  (And rid us of the great bulk of libel law!)

Powerline & Ideas having consequences
June 6, 2013

That ideas should have consequences is hardly a matter of controversy.  I have not read Richard Weaver’s book, the title of which gave us the phrase.  The quotations offered on Powerline (see here) provide little encouragement.  They suggest a want of interest in evidence, which, in many instances, can only come form a conisderable degre of specialisation.  Whether that ‘deform[s]’ a man (women not included, lucky them) is no more than mute.  My own research required close analysis of reams of documentation.  Conclusions followed.  Not quess-work.  Not prejudice parading as synthesis; nor do I ‘imagine . . . that fidelity to it exempts him from concern with larger aspects of reality’.  Nor, too I hope, has it deterred me me from weeking wisdom (though the difference between that and prejudice seems ever more moot).

What matters is defensible learning,  not an elegant phrase, I agree, but is to the point.  Information, it seems, and certainly schools make it so, is all.  Information, one should add, is a term that often remains undefined.  If what I hear when visiting various schools (open days, history meetings) is any guide, experts (likewise undefined) provide status.  Conformity associated with status (typically in some context of offialdom), provides the underpinning.

Whether such a conclusion was Weaver’s wish (or of Powerline’s Steven Hayward), I cannot say; it is certainly the impression given by contemporary schooling.