You will hear a lot about the critical household  word "Resilience" at the moment , but not much about how to assess it and know it . Here's a little contribution from me who was once paid to do it .

Woosy Green stuff

Oh dear . Christine Milne thinks the risk is that the plight of refugees will be ignored ;  that  the issue with the majority of Australians is they don't/won't  care enough ( Her response to the refugee drowning s recommendations ) . Apparently according to her , the risk is that we aren't being kind enough.  
I am sure thinking and non thinking Australians have had enough of this woosy weak, unjustifiable  and pathetic talk .Talk tough and talk kind,  but not tears only please.
Have the greens not heard?  - you "have to be cruel to be kind"  .
Any suggestion that the other parties are not caring enough is an insult to most Australians who have a more realistic view of the sound tensions in oikonomia than she seems to
No one wants the impractical  unworkable household leadership of the overly sentimental  Greens.

What the mirror tells us

Or tries ( like our parents) to-- the whole truth and nothing but the truth .
Same call from Socrates and the Bible!
Emperors in the failing Roman Empire resorted to trying  to reinforce Emperor worship, Fortunately for us there were adults in the audience who called for the mirror of truth as the way to life and .......
children who were prepared to state the obvious "he's wearing no clothes".
Going on all the suspect heroes mentioned by all parties in the last few days , our pollies don't read much  .One might be tempted to think that the only people they really listen to are themselves.

Labor polys trying to lighten up ( their misplaced reaction to being told they were being too religious) is leaving them with no clothes/tattered telltale clothes.

Take Wayne swan speaking to himself this week .
To be fair it was a time in our lives when, up top we thought we were radical (HAIR) when in reality, we were conservative.Not products of our own minds but products of our parents.
Its helpful to recognize this confusion so we can actually mature in truth and grow up.Listening to his speech to the Cotton club , I had the distinct impression he hasn't grown up.Neither it seems have most Fabians  Mind you Hockey talkiing to his heroes ( you can blame the press for misrepresenting you, but when you get a chance to speak directly - not letting some  tired old liberal reactionary represent you is seriuosly dumb)  was showing his age too .Gazumping the kids with a cross reference to Galbraith might have wisely won a few votes! 

Drunk dumb and racist

Joe Hilderbrand's report on the ABC was a welcome and open one . While the whole idea is to exaggerate the problem by using that title ,  the mature and sensible Indians (who can see oursleves as we can't ) weren't to be convinced that we were OK .
We are in trouble even if it doesn't come back to the 3 symbols;  The observers said so in so many ways
They wouldn't join us . And it wouldn't matter which foreigners were chosen .
We are a society in self destruct mode and  without a word to keep order on the streets .
Twenty years ago the ABC journo would be " wanting to do something about it " But we are too accommodating and placid now -- now too far "East"
So despite the tragedy in human indignity  we accept that  instead of substance its OK  to fill the void between young adults with alcohol. . Instead of minds engaging,  minds must go bashing themselves needlessly on the concrete .Anyone would think we were ...well stupid 

The West's failure to act like the West builds contempt for us by outsiders. Its not that Islam is strong,  but that adults in the West are so weak and woosy. Reactionaries at the ABC have been in their jobs long enough to know that celebrating the best of the past is not something you do to keep a job there . 

More Fabianism or more Fanaticism?

The kids of today will reject the woosy weakness of the 60's generation because its in their nature to do so. The only hope of reform ( taking what's good forward ) is if the currently powerful admit to their mistaken reactionary  adventures.
Institutional adherents to an established philosophy often forget the creative tension that caused a movement in the first place - this is particularly true of the children of the 60 ' who think good things flow out of being adaptable and waiting for good to prevail . Most new movements are highly reactionary in origin.    Cultured in cotton wool , Fabianism is a child  and will give in to pressure , as it has done throughout its  history; it will give in to pressure because the woosy ( if perfectly democratic) household  is its theme . More than 2 children in your house,  and the adults don't matter. Tradition provides no tension for the ravages of blind self will and optimism of youth . Fabianism is doing what its always done because its weak  - its giving in to fanaticism.
Bertrand Russell, Chesterton and Orwell could see this  because they were closer to why government worked in the West - Fabians just took it for granted that government worked. .For the radical thinkers  the price of freedom  was never the cooercion of power  but the coercion of ideas - eternal vigilance .Men weren't to be trusted and neither were the institutions of power .  The Fabians faith in the public and the public service is unreasonable and unreliable - change is fine as long as its actually for the better. Shaw's support for the Russian revolution was blinkered stupidity cultivated by popular reactionaries parties . The faith of our forefathers was that the greatest evil was actually done in the name of the best intention:  the intention of giving children in a household  their freedom to rule equally was the biggest act of indiscipline ever possible in a household .  Animal farm advocates are still everywhere - why is this?
Since the West has thrown off the idea that freedom is a state of mind ( Thinkhebrew ) all we have is any number of advocates of animal farm .
Labor leader know the children are in charge  but they don't know what to do about it:  but neither do the Libs or even the IPA ( complete free trade is not economic freedom unless we want the culture of all countries to be the same ) If freedom is to mean something its gotta be more that the press releases of the powerful
Theabove 4 groups  all talk in grand terms of the need for cultural change -but can only talk simplicities when it comes to actions . God help us if Labor think they can master such things with their ads and their educational revolution . To understand why the price of freedom is eternal vigilance you have to be a lot more radical and a lot less reactionary than most parties in our country today .

Takes one to know one

Our PM claims continuously that the Opposition are running a scare campaign against their taxes . They will be good for us, we are told. Parenting may not be popular but its certainly practiced by polys - or is it nannys
These are taxes that are " fundamental "--we are told . We are told that the new bureaucracy will NOT soak up much tax in its attempts to create the parallel taxation system that is more complex and much less clear and predictable ( ever tried to nail down soil carbon credits?)than the current one attempts ( the legislation the CT is many thousands of pages long already )
The CT must be an absolutely wonderful and necessary thing. Its promoters hope its big enough and well targeted enough to be effective in changing behaviour.The veidence is it will affect the poor but unlikly to influence the behaviour of the rich . The popularity of its simplicity with wannabes is completely understandable .
Just how much tax needs to be applied to tobacco or alcohol to change behaviour would prove sobering.
Clearly a new generation of wannabes will go back to using legislation rather than taxes to change behavoiur after the fad is finished?
" WE are NOT running a fear campaign!" BUT " You will ALL cook if YOU don't do exactly as WE say this week"
The problem is that any accusation. unless carefully considered, as we learn in the schoolyard, may well reflect more on us, than it does on those on whom it is projected.

Not safe to be in the public service

One day some smart Aussie journo will realize he /she can get their own scoop. Make their own aussie version of Yes Minister - not hard. As Andrew Bolt /Steve price said this morning noone can keep up with the nonsense.
When the children are in charge, sensible sound people in the public service can't cope ; they can't tell the truth ; the whole truth . The public service becomes a cancerous comfort zone for those seeking to shield themselves from accountability. Acres of yes men . So what would you do ? sack em all ? That doesn't work .
I would get a professional people agency to get PS to each jsutify HOW and why they are qualified for the job , be required to be recorded for their expenditures aagianst projects and for govt to develop professional review groups WITHIN the PS ( esp health and environment) based on mentors with trackj record of consistent effective work in the public interest.

Baillieu and ALL The new broom governments need to kick themselves hard - or they TOO will, like Kennett, get the KICK BACK. The point is Baillieu's CAN'T really WORK out WHAT TO DO unless the admit they need good advice .Stupidly, because they KNOW the problem they think they THINK they can find a solution that works. They have had a year - how are they going ?

The answer - get advice from elsewhere eg NET
All some journo/ sound poly has to is interview some FORMER Public servants who still care and have had to give up their careers because they cared to tell the truth.

But are they too busy thinking they too can change the world - on their very own !

Squealin bad habits - how did they get past the keeper ?

Excessive squealing by Stars at the Australian Open reminded me that we need to say more to each other to help us deal with our bad behaviour. If adults don't stand up and say what's wrong , OR if adults( and the audience )themselves aren't very clear about what sin is ,offensive behaviour gets past the keeper. I could use the term "bad behaviour" here, but as i trust you will see, "bad behaviour" doesn't carry enough weight or clarity to be effective any more( part of the confusion ) ; I am suggesting that the older and clearer term SIN provides the clarity required.
Sin spoils and the image here is of a beautiful thing spoilt. The spoiling concept contrasts with the false and all too easy charge of fully corrupt ( some heretical views of original sin suggest men have nothing good inside them )Sin is about personal choice. The problem is not wholly personal but partly personal and therefore care and clarity are require to avoid confusion . The sin need not be there - by choice ( that's the traditional definition of sin-- that it is not so much bad habit or bad behaviour , but more bad choice and bad attitude)
I feel sad for the young people involved because in many ways Sharapova and Azaranka are not alone amongst generation Y in bearing this unexpected shame ( One of the stars said she "didn't even know that what she as doing, was a problem " .
I have met far too many young people for whom their behaviour/ attitude /sin is not clear to them until they are roundly condemned for showing it - as they did here . In a society which calls itself Christian, this lack of clarity is totally out of order ; The idea is Prechristian in reality and history. Our heritage says a peron is NOT GUILTY if they don't KNOW ( haven't been told ) they are doing the wrong thing.
So how do they KNOW. In a really good game like cricket( excuse me, a little prejudice)where you have a tight sense of order , you still need 2 umpires and 2 recorders to keep some order ( still some questions) In real life we
have neither umpires or policemen. But we do have observers.
Awareness of this truth about our need for honest feedback about sin is still around us ( maybe that's why the star says "noone told me"argument? She could, as most of us know, be just saying that - its hard to believe that her mother wouldn't have told her - but did she listen ? ( we've all been there ! Confusion without clear questioning.
The point is there is real heat ( even anger) confusion and no resolution.
The reason we have confusion and no resolution (real heat is normal and OK if its resolved)is because we have made "sin" a "no talk" word . We know its the subject of substance ( cause WE will get it dumped , whatever it is, heavily on us )Even if we don't believe the preacher we should know from our psychologists that to deny it is to not let it resolve itself.
This spoilt things is ( long term ) ---my reason for trying to provide a very specific ontology here !
Is the superficial problem of annoyance just theirs or our problem as well? Does the traditional view of sin help here ? Yes One can sin by being silent . Its not more police we need but more people prepared to speak up .

When children scream, what logic has caused us post moderns, to stop screaming back.

The idea that kept bad behaviour at bay went like this .
People in Authority used to be allowed to get angry when "the wrong thing" kept on being done .On ontology : The rot seemed to start when God himself/ herself was not allowed to get angry at attitude arrogance about one's behaviour ; Authority came from God and then down to men. Say what you like, such perception set an order for authority when God was powerful and seen as a Creator.
The sinner was not condemned by this old approach,( because the component focus was clear) but the sin. Today a small wiff of "sin" seems to make the sinner feel condemned.
T so it should be as we sin every day so ideally ( to deal with it) we might hear about it/ deal with it everyday .But what if you don't hear about ? You might not deal with it and it can become habitual
Thus, instead of being specific and daily, sins now have seemed to have broad labels like intolerance and uncaring ( words that are totally inadequate as real targets for sin )
Without God or the concept of God , there is a real risk that competition for authority and "what exactly is sinful" about uncaring and intolerance etc ,will lead to great controversy and no clear authority on the subject.No westerner would dare write the book of rules for life (power ,money size, popularity ,,noise, standover can take over preventing,in particular, a proper personal discussion of bad personal behaviour )

In pre modern days, complaints and excuses (even the loud ones )for wrong behaviour were listened to, but rulings made about relevance.( might take days in court but that's how seriously we used to take the evaluation and the specifics) Noise was met with more and bigger noise( where necessary) DIRECTED at shutting down and getting SPECIFIC .Call a holt was the idea - let's get this clear !
Even the excuse of escalation was ignored by firm action on the part of leadership to get down to the finite facts . As we know deep down , giving in to bad behaviour and escalation by noise doesn't work.
None of us "get on with things" and "move on" until we are clear about the specifics about sin . Generalized guilt brings down the sinner ( very poor personal and cultural outcome )and justifies careless treatment of sin -- example of war where people are the targets rather tha the real problem .Things that shouldn't - get past the keeper .
We long for leadership to make a noise when it is fair and right to do so."Sorry STOP lets check that and get to the bottom of that ". Child sinners are not and should not be condemned by the sin - provided it is dealt with and accepted as inconsiderate and wrong.

Sinners should not be condemned by a sin , but they are clearly feeling condemned by the post modern science of morality silence ( we don't want to tell people what they don't want to hear ) . Teenagers/young adults who wake up , as in a silence daze , to realise their behaviour is really offensive to everyone ( not just their parents ) are very prone to giving up on life. This sad reality is my reason for posting this here .
I hope one of the noisy players does the courageuos thing and stops making a noise - then all the children and parents will be reminded that condemnation is avoidable by clearly identifying both the sin and the choices.
How much we all need each others honesty to see and celebrate that we are constrained and potentially condemned by our settled choices.
How much we all need each others honesty to avoid being condemned by our bad choices to making better ones . I truly hope a choice for the better is made by someone this weekend.
Better to be even more noisy if it stops the bad behaviour noise. Questions welcomed posted 8pm 27th January 2012. Modified 30th January