In a word …
Yes, Prime Minister. It’s you.
Tuesday 17 July 2007
Sunday 15 July 2007
Renewable Energy
…and they shall renew the face of the earth…
Remember how people used to do things? Like grow much of their own food, fix their own cars, invent pedal radio – or build them after someone else had invented it, and talk to strangers far away who had done the same thing. Later on pedal radio was replaced by ham radio. Well, I think something like that might be coming back. Despite the treacherous efforts of John Howard to keep us consuming for the sake of the economy, I have a feeling that the engine of Climate Change will drive the emergence of widespread participation in renewables: energy, water, food production – that sort of thing. I can see a whole new generation of people crawling around on their rooves tinkering with connections and adjusting the tilt of solar panels and so on; sharing tips in the pub and generally renewing the face of the Earth. I recently met half a dozen such people when I did a course on Renewable Energy at ACE in Grafton. I was the only one who was a complete novice. All the others had tales of daring do – like the Argonauts who’d found the Golden Fleece and were having rip roaring adventures bringing it home. I’m looking down the barrel of imminent retirement and have been giving some thoughts to how to cut down recurrent expenses – and give myself something more to do that run five ACE courses, write another book, make websites, sing in a choir, play the piano and everything else that one needs to do to keep busy until one’s 100th year. So I’m doing appropriate courses to get myself started, and I thought I’d share something with you. If you’re going to go solar do seriously consider doing such a course if there’s one on offer in a classroom near you. It’s a much more complex undertaking than I imagined – but seriously worth the effort, I hasten to say. There are many critical issues that a supplier might not give you adequate advise on (to cut costs, i.e. increase profit margin) if you’re not aware of them. Do you remember Ohm’s Law from school physics? E = I x R. This and its variants are what you use to determine such things as the cross section of your delivery cables and much, much more. Connect to the Grid is an option worth considering for anyone who can afford it. The disadvantage of this system is that when the grid goes out you go out as well. So why would you bother, I hear you say? Because connecting to the grid means that the power your system supplies reduces your power bill. The most significant point is that you become a producer of green power. Stand Alone systems cost more – much more - because of the need for batteries. And required battery capacity will come as a shock when you hear about it – which you are about to. When you have calculated your energy requirement (not at all a straightforward process), you need to install battery capacity 5 (yes FIVE!) times that amount!! Because you can draw only 20% of your battery capacity on a daily basis. Drawing more will seriously reduce the life of your batteries. Part of the course also looked at wind power. The summary verdict is don’t bother – unless you intend to buy one of those really big industrial strength numbers. I also did a course on Climate Change and Eco-Living. It was interesting but not as informative as I had expected. Soon I will do a course on permaculture. Oh yeah, and I’m growing my hair so that I can have dreadlocks – and brushing up on my hippie lingo: peace man…. Um I mean bro – gotta keep uptdate eh…. and don’t mind the gender problem in the language – hippie blokes were never know for their feminist credentials.
Remember how people used to do things? Like grow much of their own food, fix their own cars, invent pedal radio – or build them after someone else had invented it, and talk to strangers far away who had done the same thing. Later on pedal radio was replaced by ham radio. Well, I think something like that might be coming back. Despite the treacherous efforts of John Howard to keep us consuming for the sake of the economy, I have a feeling that the engine of Climate Change will drive the emergence of widespread participation in renewables: energy, water, food production – that sort of thing. I can see a whole new generation of people crawling around on their rooves tinkering with connections and adjusting the tilt of solar panels and so on; sharing tips in the pub and generally renewing the face of the Earth. I recently met half a dozen such people when I did a course on Renewable Energy at ACE in Grafton. I was the only one who was a complete novice. All the others had tales of daring do – like the Argonauts who’d found the Golden Fleece and were having rip roaring adventures bringing it home. I’m looking down the barrel of imminent retirement and have been giving some thoughts to how to cut down recurrent expenses – and give myself something more to do that run five ACE courses, write another book, make websites, sing in a choir, play the piano and everything else that one needs to do to keep busy until one’s 100th year. So I’m doing appropriate courses to get myself started, and I thought I’d share something with you. If you’re going to go solar do seriously consider doing such a course if there’s one on offer in a classroom near you. It’s a much more complex undertaking than I imagined – but seriously worth the effort, I hasten to say. There are many critical issues that a supplier might not give you adequate advise on (to cut costs, i.e. increase profit margin) if you’re not aware of them. Do you remember Ohm’s Law from school physics? E = I x R. This and its variants are what you use to determine such things as the cross section of your delivery cables and much, much more. Connect to the Grid is an option worth considering for anyone who can afford it. The disadvantage of this system is that when the grid goes out you go out as well. So why would you bother, I hear you say? Because connecting to the grid means that the power your system supplies reduces your power bill. The most significant point is that you become a producer of green power. Stand Alone systems cost more – much more - because of the need for batteries. And required battery capacity will come as a shock when you hear about it – which you are about to. When you have calculated your energy requirement (not at all a straightforward process), you need to install battery capacity 5 (yes FIVE!) times that amount!! Because you can draw only 20% of your battery capacity on a daily basis. Drawing more will seriously reduce the life of your batteries. Part of the course also looked at wind power. The summary verdict is don’t bother – unless you intend to buy one of those really big industrial strength numbers. I also did a course on Climate Change and Eco-Living. It was interesting but not as informative as I had expected. Soon I will do a course on permaculture. Oh yeah, and I’m growing my hair so that I can have dreadlocks – and brushing up on my hippie lingo: peace man…. Um I mean bro – gotta keep uptdate eh…. and don’t mind the gender problem in the language – hippie blokes were never know for their feminist credentials.
Saturday 14 July 2007
Did George Pell Threaten The NSW Parliament?
The case for the affirmative
In the lead up to the vote on therapeutic cloning legislation in the NSW Parliament, George Pell warned Catholic parliamentarians that a vote for the legislation would have consequences they might not like. This was all but universally interpreted as a threat to deny access to the sacraments – the Eucharist, in particular – or even excommunication. This was not an unreasonable inference. Not everyone would remember the confrontation Pell had with the Rainbow Sash movement, but those who do would be forgiven for thinking that Pel was preparing to fry bigger fish.
The case for the negative
As Pell himself has said, he did not explicitly say anything about denying access to the sacraments, much less excommunication, and therefore did not threaten anyone. Warning that consequences would flow from a vote for the legislation is no more than factually correct. For example, other Catholics who oppose the legislation might not vote in future for someone who supports the legislation in parliament. On the face of it supporters of Pell might claim that any threat is in the eye of the beholder, and that he cannot be held responsible for how other people interpret his words.
What’s it about?
Consider the Rainbow Sash issue. For anyone who doesn’t know, a group of gay Catholics in Sydney wanted it to be known that they were Catholic and gay. They wore rainbow sashes to identify themselves and were refused communion when they attended Mass. George Pell’s position was that standards had to be seen to be maintained. Homosexuality is declared by church doctrine to be a sin. Therefore anyone identifying as gay is not in communion with the faithful, and must be made to understand this by denying access to the sacrament of communion. Those who wore the rainbow sash wanted to draw attention to the fact that communion was available to gays who did not publicly acknowledge their sexuality. In their view this was hypocritical and had more to do with the exercise of power than discipleship. It became an issue after a long period of pastoral dialogue with gays, when some Bishops were not afraid to go on record as saying that being gay is like being left handed, and that the conscience of the gay person was the only judge of whether or not s/he was in communion with the faithful. Then, out of the blue, John Paul II declared that one cannot be gay and Catholic. It was at about this time that Pell made a point of saying that the church has never taught the primacy of conscience. This is the critical issue for the vote on therapeutic cloning as well. Pell went on record again with the same assertion, after his statement about the consequences of voting for the legislation. So what it’s about is conscience vs power.
Blind Freddie’s verdict
It should come as no surprise that some, perhaps many, senior clerics don’t like the idea of the primacy of conscience. But lying about it is another matter. And the simple fact is that Pell is lying when he says that the church has never taught the primacy of conscience. As a schoolboy I learned about the primacy of conscience from no less a source than the catechism. Since then there has been a general council of the church that, while not marginalising the clergy, enfranchised the laity in a way that required the proactive exercise of conscience.What is contestable is what the primacy of conscience means in practice. Some bishops have coped with this development in the relationship between clergy and laity. Others haven’t. Pell’s repudiation of gay = left handedness, and his attempt to assert his authority over the NSW parliament are manifestations of the same thing: his refusal to accept that people who do not agree with his views can have a properly formed conscience. He was always going to get away with taking a baseball bat to the Rainbow Sash movement, but throwing his weight around with other people in power was either very brave or very stupid – either way it was very poor leadership. It sets up the confrontation of contrary positions rather than facilitates dialogue between them. In the end whether he threatened the parliament or not will come down to the eye of the beholder. The privileges committee is likely to find itself unaccountably blind.
In the lead up to the vote on therapeutic cloning legislation in the NSW Parliament, George Pell warned Catholic parliamentarians that a vote for the legislation would have consequences they might not like. This was all but universally interpreted as a threat to deny access to the sacraments – the Eucharist, in particular – or even excommunication. This was not an unreasonable inference. Not everyone would remember the confrontation Pell had with the Rainbow Sash movement, but those who do would be forgiven for thinking that Pel was preparing to fry bigger fish.
The case for the negative
As Pell himself has said, he did not explicitly say anything about denying access to the sacraments, much less excommunication, and therefore did not threaten anyone. Warning that consequences would flow from a vote for the legislation is no more than factually correct. For example, other Catholics who oppose the legislation might not vote in future for someone who supports the legislation in parliament. On the face of it supporters of Pell might claim that any threat is in the eye of the beholder, and that he cannot be held responsible for how other people interpret his words.
What’s it about?
Consider the Rainbow Sash issue. For anyone who doesn’t know, a group of gay Catholics in Sydney wanted it to be known that they were Catholic and gay. They wore rainbow sashes to identify themselves and were refused communion when they attended Mass. George Pell’s position was that standards had to be seen to be maintained. Homosexuality is declared by church doctrine to be a sin. Therefore anyone identifying as gay is not in communion with the faithful, and must be made to understand this by denying access to the sacrament of communion. Those who wore the rainbow sash wanted to draw attention to the fact that communion was available to gays who did not publicly acknowledge their sexuality. In their view this was hypocritical and had more to do with the exercise of power than discipleship. It became an issue after a long period of pastoral dialogue with gays, when some Bishops were not afraid to go on record as saying that being gay is like being left handed, and that the conscience of the gay person was the only judge of whether or not s/he was in communion with the faithful. Then, out of the blue, John Paul II declared that one cannot be gay and Catholic. It was at about this time that Pell made a point of saying that the church has never taught the primacy of conscience. This is the critical issue for the vote on therapeutic cloning as well. Pell went on record again with the same assertion, after his statement about the consequences of voting for the legislation. So what it’s about is conscience vs power.
Blind Freddie’s verdict
It should come as no surprise that some, perhaps many, senior clerics don’t like the idea of the primacy of conscience. But lying about it is another matter. And the simple fact is that Pell is lying when he says that the church has never taught the primacy of conscience. As a schoolboy I learned about the primacy of conscience from no less a source than the catechism. Since then there has been a general council of the church that, while not marginalising the clergy, enfranchised the laity in a way that required the proactive exercise of conscience.What is contestable is what the primacy of conscience means in practice. Some bishops have coped with this development in the relationship between clergy and laity. Others haven’t. Pell’s repudiation of gay = left handedness, and his attempt to assert his authority over the NSW parliament are manifestations of the same thing: his refusal to accept that people who do not agree with his views can have a properly formed conscience. He was always going to get away with taking a baseball bat to the Rainbow Sash movement, but throwing his weight around with other people in power was either very brave or very stupid – either way it was very poor leadership. It sets up the confrontation of contrary positions rather than facilitates dialogue between them. In the end whether he threatened the parliament or not will come down to the eye of the beholder. The privileges committee is likely to find itself unaccountably blind.
Quantum Leap in Politics
[Like much of what gets posted this month, this is a bit late. It's a measure of how busy life can be when you are not working for pay.]
The Uncertainty Principal in action
How slow is Kevin Rudd? He’s confused by the discrepancy between what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister say about travel warnings for Indonesia. The PM says the situation hasn’t changed, yet the FM says it has.
C’mon Kevin, it’s not as though this is unprecedented. Wasn’t it only a week ago that Brendan Nelson, the Defence Minister, said we’re in Iraq to secure oil supplies? Yet the PM says oil has nothing to do with it.
Clearly politics has taken a Quantum Leap. Like Schrodinger’s cat which is both alive and not alive, policy issues in Australia are now This and Not This simultaneously. For example, there’s something called Work Choices, but there isn’t (well, not by that name, anyway). And it goes back a long way. We’ll never ever have a GST. But we’ve got it. It’s the Uncertainty Principle in action.
So Kevin, get with the strength. Don’t get bogged down in Green politics. The new wave is … well, Wave politics. No need for explicit promises, core or otherwise. Just give us a range of options on any issue – the more the better – and tell us that the Probability Wave will take care of the outcome according to the dynamics of the universe. But be sure to tell us that we can influence the dynamics of the universe. You know what I mean – the Secret – the Law of Attraction! Just tell us to want something – want something – and expect it to manifest.
No. On second thoughts, just stick to what you’re doing, because you’re doing really well, mate. John Howard is going to lose the next election, because he asked once too often: Who do people trust? The Uncertainty Principle is good in its place – which is the sub-atomic realm: not in politics.
The Uncertainty Principal in action
How slow is Kevin Rudd? He’s confused by the discrepancy between what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister say about travel warnings for Indonesia. The PM says the situation hasn’t changed, yet the FM says it has.
C’mon Kevin, it’s not as though this is unprecedented. Wasn’t it only a week ago that Brendan Nelson, the Defence Minister, said we’re in Iraq to secure oil supplies? Yet the PM says oil has nothing to do with it.
Clearly politics has taken a Quantum Leap. Like Schrodinger’s cat which is both alive and not alive, policy issues in Australia are now This and Not This simultaneously. For example, there’s something called Work Choices, but there isn’t (well, not by that name, anyway). And it goes back a long way. We’ll never ever have a GST. But we’ve got it. It’s the Uncertainty Principle in action.
So Kevin, get with the strength. Don’t get bogged down in Green politics. The new wave is … well, Wave politics. No need for explicit promises, core or otherwise. Just give us a range of options on any issue – the more the better – and tell us that the Probability Wave will take care of the outcome according to the dynamics of the universe. But be sure to tell us that we can influence the dynamics of the universe. You know what I mean – the Secret – the Law of Attraction! Just tell us to want something – want something – and expect it to manifest.
No. On second thoughts, just stick to what you’re doing, because you’re doing really well, mate. John Howard is going to lose the next election, because he asked once too often: Who do people trust? The Uncertainty Principle is good in its place – which is the sub-atomic realm: not in politics.
Friday 13 July 2007
Embarrassing? Get real!
Not even a senior moment
Today John Howard forgot the name of a Liberal candidate in the upcoming election. This is being described in the media as “embarrassing”. And we are being reminded that Kim Beasley used the name of a public figure in the US when referring to an Australian television personality. Much was made of that too. It was even said to be the beginning of the end of Beasley’s leadership. To this is added the fact that Howard refused to hand over to Costello last year, and that as a result of today’s slip up, some people might be regretting he didn’t go when he was at the top of his game. Really! Why don’t people in the media who beat these things up get a real job – not to mention a life? The last thing I want to do here is to barrack for John Howard. But even I can’t stand back and hear such drivel without expressing my contempt for the drivellers. This really is a case of the eye of the beholder at work. Howard’s brief mental block is exactly the kind of thing that happens to everyone (not just seniors) from time to time. I was embarrassed last time it happened to me. I was introducing someone to a friend of long standing whose name escaped me at the exact moment I needed to introduce him to the newcomer. The embarrassment was only momentary, however, because all three of us recognised it for what it was and we all got on with our business. That’s how it should be with Howard’s lapse of memory today. Making it out to be a real embarrassment is what I call journalism, because, regrettably, that is what journalism has become. Oh sure, there’s some integrity around as well, but this sneering misrepresentation events, especially involving people in public life, is what makes the headlines most of the time. And I refuse to believe that it is we, the people, who “demand” such sleaze from the media. We would not complain if we got real reporting and analysis rather than sniping and simpering.
Today John Howard forgot the name of a Liberal candidate in the upcoming election. This is being described in the media as “embarrassing”. And we are being reminded that Kim Beasley used the name of a public figure in the US when referring to an Australian television personality. Much was made of that too. It was even said to be the beginning of the end of Beasley’s leadership. To this is added the fact that Howard refused to hand over to Costello last year, and that as a result of today’s slip up, some people might be regretting he didn’t go when he was at the top of his game. Really! Why don’t people in the media who beat these things up get a real job – not to mention a life? The last thing I want to do here is to barrack for John Howard. But even I can’t stand back and hear such drivel without expressing my contempt for the drivellers. This really is a case of the eye of the beholder at work. Howard’s brief mental block is exactly the kind of thing that happens to everyone (not just seniors) from time to time. I was embarrassed last time it happened to me. I was introducing someone to a friend of long standing whose name escaped me at the exact moment I needed to introduce him to the newcomer. The embarrassment was only momentary, however, because all three of us recognised it for what it was and we all got on with our business. That’s how it should be with Howard’s lapse of memory today. Making it out to be a real embarrassment is what I call journalism, because, regrettably, that is what journalism has become. Oh sure, there’s some integrity around as well, but this sneering misrepresentation events, especially involving people in public life, is what makes the headlines most of the time. And I refuse to believe that it is we, the people, who “demand” such sleaze from the media. We would not complain if we got real reporting and analysis rather than sniping and simpering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)