Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Don't talk at us, talk to us
If you wonder what really depresses rural people, its when people talk at them --not to them.
Lots of it about - my thinking friends in the bush have no friends - but they have a lot of people who will tell them how to run their farms . Fairgomate - we are not complete idiots !
The Greens and now Greenlabor can't understand why they are not taken seriously in rural areas but its really quite simple - they think they know when they don't .
Even the Nationals leadership is not ahead of the game thinking that market models will provide a way forward -when markets JUST do they do what they do best ----screw the system. Lovely result for real environmental credibility for both the Nationals and the Libs.
Even the ABC are in a quandry - they run wonderful programs like Landline and New inventors thinking they are encouraging innovation-- and that the problem is backward thinking in the bush - got news for them .Only place for biodiversity talk is on the site and the only ones who can talk about it are those who have been there and done that .
The false views of how to support innovation (lack of investors is as big a problem the ABC has ignored for decades) goes to the heart of political patronage stupidity and simplicities of the moment . You don't support innovators with your own ideas - you pay them to be productive in their own minds-- its far far cheaper to let clever people take risks-- we country people are good at following through provided we are educated not patronised.
The point is rural people practice innovation as long as they get paid a pittance beyond reasonable payment and have good advice ( just like polys need good advice not payments) .
ABC rural journos need to realise that they aren't as good as the DPI/DSE agent, and even he/she isn't ( generally) as good as he thinks he is . Departments of Agriculture have been sending people to the wall for decades --- so why would mere reporting of them be enough in a really clever country - are there only 2 parties and 2 views of objective and intelligent investment paradigms - sadly all major parties think the same on this - simply .Landcare groups look like progress to some but get stuck in another hole of subjectivity that will not lift real producers to the security of objectivity and sustainability. Giving people what they ask for is the new milleneum cul de sac for both purchaser and provider - if people aren't on a sustainable footing Landcare won't help them !!!!.
Simply patronising nonsense too is killing incentive in the bush.
Our Prime Minister can’t believe that some of us who live on the edge of Sherwood Forest do not fully accept her kind offers of farm sequestration incentives , daring to suggest that it is not quite as simple as taking from the “bad guys” and giving to “the good guys”.
It’s not that we disagree with the idea of incentives for better behaviour. It’s just that we don’t trust her committee (MPCCC) to know who “the good guys” really are, or for them to know what a good farmer or conservationist really does when he makes decisions on his own land; let alone write the right cheques to the right people.
Ms Gillard wants us to believe that the MPCCC can now tell farmers when it’s best to harvest their crops and plough their ground ;
Think of it, rows and rows of bureaucrats trying to decide how big the cheque will be to each farmer. Not even a Canberra full of accountants could properly follow the carbon cycle on one farm, let alone the big world in which they presume to try.
We know she and her self select committee think they can do all this, but some of us who study and live in these environments know better; How pathetically patronising, myopic, unscientific and impractical.
To assume a price for carbon will save the world is nice thing for church but we are not obviously going to that simple one you blokes are .
Such patronising leadership is unbelievable and unbelievably out of touch with the real complexities of environmental management : That reality is a real problem to thinking and practical conservationists ; let alone the longsuffering taxpayers of this country.
MPCCC think they can name the innovation - oh dear! we will all see how clever they really are in a week or so . Another dumb and dark moment in Australia , the not so clever history of patronising rather than supporting its innovators with the objective science of sustainability.
Lots of it about - my thinking friends in the bush have no friends - but they have a lot of people who will tell them how to run their farms . Fairgomate - we are not complete idiots !
The Greens and now Greenlabor can't understand why they are not taken seriously in rural areas but its really quite simple - they think they know when they don't .
Even the Nationals leadership is not ahead of the game thinking that market models will provide a way forward -when markets JUST do they do what they do best ----screw the system. Lovely result for real environmental credibility for both the Nationals and the Libs.
Even the ABC are in a quandry - they run wonderful programs like Landline and New inventors thinking they are encouraging innovation-- and that the problem is backward thinking in the bush - got news for them .Only place for biodiversity talk is on the site and the only ones who can talk about it are those who have been there and done that .
The false views of how to support innovation (lack of investors is as big a problem the ABC has ignored for decades) goes to the heart of political patronage stupidity and simplicities of the moment . You don't support innovators with your own ideas - you pay them to be productive in their own minds-- its far far cheaper to let clever people take risks-- we country people are good at following through provided we are educated not patronised.
The point is rural people practice innovation as long as they get paid a pittance beyond reasonable payment and have good advice ( just like polys need good advice not payments) .
ABC rural journos need to realise that they aren't as good as the DPI/DSE agent, and even he/she isn't ( generally) as good as he thinks he is . Departments of Agriculture have been sending people to the wall for decades --- so why would mere reporting of them be enough in a really clever country - are there only 2 parties and 2 views of objective and intelligent investment paradigms - sadly all major parties think the same on this - simply .Landcare groups look like progress to some but get stuck in another hole of subjectivity that will not lift real producers to the security of objectivity and sustainability. Giving people what they ask for is the new milleneum cul de sac for both purchaser and provider - if people aren't on a sustainable footing Landcare won't help them !!!!.
Simply patronising nonsense too is killing incentive in the bush.
Our Prime Minister can’t believe that some of us who live on the edge of Sherwood Forest do not fully accept her kind offers of farm sequestration incentives , daring to suggest that it is not quite as simple as taking from the “bad guys” and giving to “the good guys”.
It’s not that we disagree with the idea of incentives for better behaviour. It’s just that we don’t trust her committee (MPCCC) to know who “the good guys” really are, or for them to know what a good farmer or conservationist really does when he makes decisions on his own land; let alone write the right cheques to the right people.
Ms Gillard wants us to believe that the MPCCC can now tell farmers when it’s best to harvest their crops and plough their ground ;
Think of it, rows and rows of bureaucrats trying to decide how big the cheque will be to each farmer. Not even a Canberra full of accountants could properly follow the carbon cycle on one farm, let alone the big world in which they presume to try.
We know she and her self select committee think they can do all this, but some of us who study and live in these environments know better; How pathetically patronising, myopic, unscientific and impractical.
To assume a price for carbon will save the world is nice thing for church but we are not obviously going to that simple one you blokes are .
Such patronising leadership is unbelievable and unbelievably out of touch with the real complexities of environmental management : That reality is a real problem to thinking and practical conservationists ; let alone the longsuffering taxpayers of this country.
MPCCC think they can name the innovation - oh dear! we will all see how clever they really are in a week or so . Another dumb and dark moment in Australia , the not so clever history of patronising rather than supporting its innovators with the objective science of sustainability.
