How Honestly Are You Applying Your Analytical Skills?

I've been accused sometimes of "Thinking Too Much". "You think too much" I've been told. And it's rather an odd thing to say.

Imagine not thinking. Your mind would be blank. No memory jog as you hear a song on the radio, no thought process of what to wear, or what's on the all knowing eye. Just total nothingness.

We'd be walking zombies is what we'd be. Susceptible to anyone else's thoughts and opinions as our mind would be blank and ready to allow in almost anything. (Kind of how most people are, isn't it?)

Ok. So what if we just stop thinking a little bit? Same result really.

What these people mean when they accuse me of thinking too much is, usually based on my tendency to wonder about all kinds of things and how they are often connected. If someone doesn't like my conclusions they will either call me a name or tell me I think too much. Because they would rather not be faced with something that might disrupt their view of the cosmos.

And I try to apply the same level of questioning of things, to all areas. Even areas I enjoy. But I wonder how much of that goes on with other people.

Let me give you a brief example and then a more extensive one...

Iraq War. Where the USA invaded IRAQ under the pretence of disarming it of Weapons of Mass Destruction. At this moment those on the right will begin to feel their blood starting to rise in anticipation of me "having a go" at them. Those on the left will begin to smile at where they think I am headed. And yet, all I have done is state a fact. The war was based on the idea that Iraq lied about its weapons of mass destruction and we had to go in and take them away. And we were authorized because the UN resolution breaking allowed it.

Further facts are: This war was called operation Iraqi Freedom. Which is a sly political ploy to name something that doesn't sound so bad.

Since this war began it was found that there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction within Iraq. The left have hounded the right over it. And in response, the right claim that 25 million Iraqis are now free of the murdering Saddam, and isn't that a good thing?

And while I do agree it is a good thing. It doesn't negate that the reason for invading the country in the first place was to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction. But the right wing cannot accept that blunder from their fellows. More on this later.

Onward.

Another example is in the shape of two different online articles and the right-wing view of both of them.

The first is an article about a woman who claims to have been on a flight in which a very scared looking man was brought on. He was apparently gagged with tape around his mouth and was handcuffed and treated with disregard (roughly).

The rightwing was up in arms about this article. It was riddled with inconsistencies. And reeked of the usual leftist "poor innocent criminal" stuff they often write about.

The second article was about a child who was taken from school, driven to an abortion clinic where she underwent an abortion, without consultation with her mother who had found out about it and was yelling inside the clinic for her daughter to come out. The article makes the clinic out to be monsters. And the rightwing jumps up and down at the injustice the left has brought upon us with legal abortion.

And yet, there is something odd going on here. The story from the leftist journalist, which was published in a known leftist publication, is actually full of holes and inconsistencies. Too many to have been an actual event that actually took place.

Upon close inspection of the abortion story - written by a righty - a bunch of holes and inconsistencies are also evident. Too many to have been an actual event.

And it is interesting to note. The righties see the holes in the lefties stories, but the lefties do not. And the lefties see the holes in the righties stories, but the righties do not. It is almost as if both sides are in denial about their own sides shortcomings.

As exemplified by the Iraq War. Excuses are made, from both sides, when valid arguments are put forth concerning the invasion.

The left denies any good has come of it for the Iraqi people. The right denies the original reason for going in has been proven to be wrong. But the facts are clearly this...

The reason for the invasion - and it was an invasion, as going into any country who is sitting doing nothing clearly is an invasion - was to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, coupled with regime change due to the badness of the regime.

No weapons of mass destruction were found, hence evidence of guilt to pin upon the regime to justify its removal is not available.

Attention is quickly drawn away from those bothersome aspects and it is proclaimed that the Iraqi people now enjoy a freedom they could not have enjoyed under Saddam. Silly muslims can now do that long walk while hitting themselves with whips, and other insane things. They can have elections deemed to be valid by our standards. And go through the bullshit appearances of freedom and democracy like we do.

As much as the right will hate to admit it, these are the visible facts. There can be no denying them.

The right will harp on about Saddam being a bad man. And he may well have been. But if that is a reason, why not go into every country in which a bad man is in power and subjecting the country's citizens to all kinds of horrors, and remove them? Who decides what is "bad" anyway? Why not go into Zimbabwe? Congo? North Korea? Iran? Syria?

This is the tangled web of bullshit you enter when using the "he was a bad man" excuse.

On the other hand, the left will not accept that Saddam did anything wrong. Saddam's people starved (or were killed by him) while he lined his pockets with money and built monuments to himself. Mass graves, etc. All undeniable. Yet the left will not acknowledge any of it. And will try to excuse it away in some fashion.

So both sides are guilty of self-denial of reality. Hence my question to start this entry off, "How honestly are you applying your analytical skills?"

Can you see the fault in your side's articles, politics, views and opinions? Can you think independently?

The Results Of Our Wonderful Brainwashing Education System

The left loves a cause. Specially one that ceases progress in any way, shape or form. The anti-progress stances they take are usually based around "saving" the environment in some way. And what's interesting is that their stance is usually hypocritical.

Take the sleepy Brisbane bayside area known as the Redlands Shire. This is made up of some older suburbs and some newer suburbs. With the newer suburbs being your typical housing estate with windy roads and culdesacs - all built on land that was cleared enmass.

In that shire there seems to be a constant battle raging between the land developers and those who do not want the land developed. And the hypocritical part of it is, those who do not want the land developed, are living in houses built on land that was developed only a few years earlier. It's as if they really don't want anyone else to come and enjoy living in the area, or something like that.

You will also notice that those people never volunteer to give up their house so the bush can reclaim it. Nope. They just want to force their views onto other people. And usually in areas that have no effect on them. Such as in developments 20 miles away.

Anyway. In my local paper is the following "Letter to the editor"...

OUR class, 6R at Pacific Pines State School, opposes the building of the proposed cruise ship terminal at The Spit.
We disagree with the need for the terminal for a number of reasons:
Ships would pollute the area around the terminal with grey water, oils and exhaust.
And the terminal would take away public space that is now being used for swimming, fishing, accessing South Stradbroke Island and other activities.
Instead of a cruise ship terminal, why not make the area a place where people can enjoy themselves? Shade, toilets, barbecues and bike paths would be a much better alternative.
CLASS 6R, Pacific Pines State School

This is a sixth grade class - full of eleven year old children, and some 12 year olds. And "The Spit" is the name given for a point of sandy land which juts out from the mainland. It has a road on it and at the end of that road is a sand-pumping jetty which keeps the entranceway into the waterways clear of build up. There are some shops and small shopping centers near the mainland part of it, but for the most part it is barren sand dunes with some sand-growing bushes on it. The area proposed for the terminal use is not used by anyone for any reason, despite what the "children" write in their letter. Also, the suburb of Pacific Pines is a 15 minute drive away (that's driving through 50 mile an hour zones) and is up in the coastal hinterland not anywhere near The Spit.

The reality of the situation is this: The brouhaha was started by a group of residents in a suburb called Paradise Point. These residents have the furthest north livable area in the city - that is, livable and with direct water access. Any further north and they are in the water.

Initially, they were against the terminal being built on a nearby island, or they didn't want the island to be taken away to make way for the terminal. And at first, it sounds like a viable argument. Until you realize, the island is nothing more than a glorified sand bank with some bushes growing on it, and is not used by anyone for any purpose - AND - the suburb in which they live is ALL built on reclaimed land and what used to be small islands similar to the one they want left alone. In fact, if you look at old aerial photographs of the city and new ones, you can see how the vast majority of land and canal-front property used to be small sandbanks and similar.

And what of this Pacific Pines where the school is? Ten years ago it didn't exist. It was pristine hinterland native bush. And the school was only completed two years ago.

So it appears it is alright to strip a thousand acres of natural bushland, but not ok to build on a small nothing sandbank.

The claims of polluting the area around the terminal are somewhat laughable. I'm not disagreeing that some kind of pollution would take place, but at the idea this will make a difference. This city is a water-front and beach-front tourist city. There are canals and boats everywhere. And on the weekend, a flotilla of boats descends on the area to go fishing, skiing and so on. A cruise ship that may dock once or twice a month is hardly going to make a lick of difference to whatever pollution is already in the water due to the existing number of boats.

But my biggest beef with the letter is who it is supposed to have come from... sixth graders.

A sixth grader (11 and 12 year old) does not have the mental faculties to understand what is going on with this development. They have no understanding of economics as they relate to a city, and what certain infrastructure can mean to a city. All that matters to children of that age is whether mom has a Kinder Surprise waiting for them at home after school, or some such thing.

Let's have a closer look at the letter...

"Ships would pollute the area around the terminal with grey water, oils and exhaust."

Exhaust? Hmmm. Maybe we should all move out of the city because there is a LOT of exhaust created in a city. And I don't see these kids complaining about the exhaust fumes which comes from the eight lane highway that runs right past their suburb.

Grey Water? What 11 year old kid knows what grey water is? How many reading this even know what it is? My wife didn't even know. A sixth grader doesn't know about grey water. And grey water is not something that is on their mind, nor is it something a sixth grader has any concern about.

A sixth grader who lives miles away from the site doesn't know what the area is used for. And we come to the most obvious bit that says this letter did not come from the kids...

"...why not make the area a place where people can enjoy themselves? Shade, toilets, barbecues and bike paths would be a much better alternative."

How do I know no kid wanted these things? Because there is no mention of a playground or park with playground equipment in it like swings and slippery slides. It is those things a kids wants. Not toilets and shade.

Imagine if this rosey view of things was applied to all progress. We wouldn't have the world we have today. We would just have a world full of shade and toilets and bike paths. A world where people could have barbecues and do nothing else.

No. Sixth graders did not write this letter. This letter was a creation of their teacher's who has FORCED her views of the matter onto the children. The teacher doesn't want the terminal to go ahead, so convinces and brainwashes the children the same. I can picture it... she talks about doing a class project to help the community. And this is the result.

If I was a parent with children at that school, I would be outraged. I would be questioning WHAT my children are being taught besides the basics, which is all they should be taught. I'd be on the buzzer to the principle, writing letters to the Minister for Education and calling the minister's office. And would pull my children out of the school and begin home schooling them.

Home schooling is no guarantee a child won't be brainwashed either by idiot parents. But at least the parent knows what the child is learning.

Those in favor of stopping the terminal would be glad their child was part of such a project. While those in favor of the terminal being built would be annoyed.

The teacher is an abomination of a human being to use 11 year old school children to push her personal agenda. And she is not fit to teach any young children at all. But the situation will not change. She is a govt employee and govt employees tend never to be fired. Their actions are excused and justified by the other members of the club (govt employees in the same profession who may be slightly higher up). And the worst that will happen is she will be moved to another school - but only if parent outrage is too loud and continuing.

Of this, I am feeling the outrage baby.

Every "K" Over Is A Killer

Every now and then our govt runs TV campaigns trying to get people to slow down. These ads usually depict someone speeding, and then show the results of the speeding. With the tag line, "Every K over is a Killer". Meaning every Kilometer over the speed limit is a killer. We say "K" because that is Aussie short-speak for kilometer. And for those in the US it would be "Every mile over is a killer."

Anyway. The latest ad shows a father going to get gas for the BBQ. He's weaving in an out of traffic. He weaves behind a car which hits the breaks. His is going too fast to stop, swerves onto the sidewalk and collects a mother pushing a pram - the mother turned away as the car hits. The mother is dead in the bushes and the baby, while alive, is covered in blood.

The ad is pointless.

Sure it is designed to get us to think and to graphically show us the results of that speeding. But speeding is NOT to blame for the crash.

Other ads tells us 50% of accidents involve alcohol (which means 50% don't, and thus have no excuse, right?). And other reports talk about "speed" being a factor. But all these ads and reports are missing one vitally important thing that underlies all of it...

Not Paying Attention

Accidents happen because drivers are not paying attention to what is going on, on the road. If they were paying attention, they would know they are approaching traffic too fast, or that the car up ahead has hit the breaks. They would see the tight corner coming, or that bump in the road. They would see the oncoming traffic and not overtake into it and have a head on crash.

All you need to do is watch the other drivers on the road when you are out and about. They take their eyes off the road and look at passengers they talk to; they get rubber necks and watch what is going on on the side of the road - maybe a sexy girl walked by, or they are driving past a car yard that has cars they would like to own, or some construction is going on, or anything; they fiddle with CDs in the car's CD player; fart ass around in the glove compartment; adjust their hair; put on make up; try to write stuff down they are getting over their cell phone; try to write text messages on their cell phone; sit at green traffic signals unaware they changed until someone toots a horn at them; and so on and so forth.

It is not speed that causes crashes. It is not alcohol. It is a lack of attention to what is going on that leads to speeding and bad judgments on the road. Lack of attention to the road conditions, traffic conditions, and anything and everything that a driver needs to be aware of.

Instead of spending millions of dollars telling us to slow down, the govt would be better served telling us to PAY ATTENTION when we drive because we are in control of lethal weapons.