ABCTV had a role to play in failure - if only it knew what role

Copenhagen non event - ABCTV will clearly be remembered for being part of the problem - not part of the solution.

On the eve of the greatest moral imperative of the century, the ABC puts a proud blogger up against a highly qualified scientist who lists references on very page of his very big book. 2 nights in a row.
Andrew Revkin doesn't undertstand about deduction, so he is happy to stick pedantically to mere facts ;
No wonder Austrailans are increasingly skeptical of ABCTV -At least a few of them are educated in these matters and can see this is not debate, this is pressure hot air .
Lea Sales tonight asks the dumb question without realising how dumb it is - "Nations have had plenty of time to make sure they would come somewhere near a consensus - why haven't they ?" . The hot air that has driven this debate has run out of hot air.
Obama's speech on the subject was just a lot of hot air and he better hope thinking people don't recognise it as such !
What about us _ Putting on their weekly report from the worried has only increased the doubt about the ABC 's sanity and equity.
The expensive stalemate - the Copenhagen non event - ABCTV will clearly be remembered for being part of the problem - not part of the solution.

Scientists can handle debate; Clearly ABCTV cannot

How does our public broadcaster get away with allowing journos and polys to run the discussions on current affairs ( 7:30 report and latelinetonight ) . Let alone the science ones !!!

Tonight we learn nothing but that those who run these shows are mainly interested in point scoring- not the issues of truth that go beyond the games of those speculators and nonscientists who get to join them to agree to get stuck in some clause of misplaced concreteness that's currently their favourite .
Pity they didn't watch the grumpy old men where the old team were so right about the modern disease of reporters in "me control mode"
Take tonights program on Lateline . Instead of establishing that we can/can't actually measure the temp changes in the atmosphere and interpret their significance ( both are critical to the validity of the numbers) the english journo gets to push the only point he understands -the measurement system .
That Plimer appears to disagree with the authors basic conclusion is common and fair because he's not talking so much about the measure, but the numbers it produces - their interpretation and significance .
Scientists watching can handle debate
Clearly the ABc cannot .ABCTV wouldn't keep letting nonscientists report when the issue in the public mind in december 2009 is clearly " what do scientists really say " ABCTV just don't want to let it happen .
And What a finish too tonight ( after lateline) - signs of desperation. Since when did the church get such authority and respect on scientific matters. Following closely on offering the same status to journos and american polys. The clever country ? no

Ever changing agendas- the proponents are simply unbelievable .

RE lateline with Tony Jones : The man from NASA undermines the super trade talks . The man from NASA is not playing the game, or is he ?.

So now Copenhagen is not trying to do what's needed. If Politics is about compromise, it is also in this case about being totally ineffective - let alone totally incredible .

Like Rudd, these quick fiz merchants and fearmongers are prepared to compromise on what would have cost us the earth, to fix up what they said was fixing the earth . Totally incredible-that's what they are!

How can this be? Tony Jones and our polys take themeselves too seriously - after all, what do they know? . A big picture scientist up the front on Lateline would probably not answer Jones standard repeat question ; "will you please say yes or No " - he would probably take so much time to answer the question that it would be "time to move on "- how convenient, how convenient a truth is the way we talk about the truth ?

Well , we've moved on alright, and current affairs on the ABC have run out of time running the same old same old reactionary agendas .

Did James from NASA deal effectively with any of the questions? ; lets just say without being greek, that he ducked and dived in the same way a man looking to defend misplaced concreteness would be expected to do.
As a scientist I didn't learn a thing, but that NASA are employing scientists , like they do here, to defend the blinkered views they have of how the world works .

The fact that NASA and CSIRO can't be trusted to give us more than what comes from the school of mere description, ( including the now infamous schools of wild speculation and monitoring ) shows just how sorry the state of objective science is in both places in some areas.

To say anymore would be to miss the point of these very words !

Reading the tea leaves

Leigh Sales seemed reluctant to accept tonight that politics can be more than bluff and bluster. Does it come from being in church too often, or is the possibility of some truth telling just too much of a shock.


Fortunately the democratic spokesperson was a little less interested in the tealeaves and like the other guests , made the real position of representatives a lot clearer. The combination of hype ,spin and substance is, like hot air, not subject to experimental observation.


Very interesting that both sides of politics on the ETS are using words like "credibility and effectiveness".
---The ETS could fail simply because the case has not been put very well .
---Has the ABC helped or hindered the debate over an ETS?

---Will the ABC be blamed by both sides of politics for the crisis of confidence that is now widespread.
---Too many tea leaves and not enough quiet and "effective" ( to use Malcolms word) teaching on a subject that takes more than a mere tax grab and a best intention to be effective?

Some good stuff

I wish I could do this more often, ...but the ABC have done very well to bring us LILIES -the reason for this post; its so good because it doesn't make light of personal challenges to change and review and its heroes are young people . Keep up the good work.
While I am at it thanks too for GEORGE GENTLY,COLLECTORS , MIDSOMER,THE WIRE. reruns of old movies on ABC2 and quite a few other things.

When the highest art is really the lowest

Mark Stone might be congratulating his team for being adventurous at the Andrew Olle lecture, but I've seen much better entertainment for YOUNG PEOPLE than the ABC provides at the school concert ( yr 8,9) this week .
Its time Mark Stone got serious about dealing with the cynics and wooses in his highly predicable and reactionary old spaceship I will call RAGE on indefinitely.

The compares on the stage at school were exceptionally original, funny, clever and realistic. The girls danced and sung a treat ,kept their clothes on , and the drama got everyone in to laughing and sharing big time.( nurds, nasties and naughty got to act and laugh at themselves and with the audience together - very therapeutic))
Here was a school where everyone enjoyed being there - wow! When are the ABc going to put that sort of video on?
Mark Stone might be congratulating his team, but many many Australians are looking for something better than they get on Wednesdsy nights. Maybe his staff can't get beyond their own cynicsm- contract some new ones before our young people become completely overwhelmed !

That much more balanced show called the Simpsons has some lessons for ABC management about dealing with the depth of an issue, not just the depression of an issue.
Mark Stone might be congratulating his team for being adventurous, but simply pulling down everything is a dopy dead end strategy . Good Comedy deals with serious concrete contradictions and doesn't live on careless condemnation of the other side . Constant Condemnation , criticism and crucifixion is indeed a dead street with nothing but the Devil to play with at the end of it .

Fence sitters on 4 Corners? Which fence ?

Sarah Ferguson's interviews with the malcontents on FOUR CORNERS on Monday night threw up something quite unexpected; esp to those who fancy themselves as agents of the predictable; the sure bet ,the need for change; the need for hype - the happy hedge merchants of the team. Short term gain mate -long term pain .

Here we have .....a party that THINKS ; now wouldn't that wake up a few marginals who think noone in the party does THAT any more.I for one was quite impressed by the range of views presented and their reasonability . Had a calming effect . Clearly Labor are all sitting quietly and reverently in church. The not so pushy party talk is good .
The 4 corners program was a good program in that respect - more clarity from the 4 corners of the ring ? lots of diversity in both opinion and commitment. We were sharing for a change, rather than sermonizing and point scoring . Sharing the reality that amongst the public and the scientists, there are a wide range of views . Healthy. The big guy might be throwing the punches but he is just warming the air?


Nobody likes to be pushed, but some leaders clearly don't know that - they tend to be the more dangerous sort of leaders ; They can be like some 2nd hand car salesmen, always claiming the vehicle has been "fully checked by those that know - those in our payroll" .
Naturally this bad and suspect behavior by our leaders pushes the not so stupid public to greater and greater doubts about where we are all going in this god forsaken rush to bridge the problem with the solution.
They can't even corner the problem - let alone the solutions!
Wong doesn't know where she is going wrong; her biggest and dumbest contribution on Monday was to fall for the olde " THEY are the ones with the ideological chains on " ;projection at work I suggest

Fighting with bubble bullets
Karoly is silly enough to mention the amount of licenced paper as a litmus test of authority . If you know what you are doing YOU only use ammunition of the right size and target it well. Bring out only big guns mate. Same with lining up the Institute clones ( "institute " is a word in modern use that is highly sus - eg AMI on our TV screens each week) . who knows? the public may well ask - The answer is an interesting one - even the children know . The reason we don't hear the story is because as Barnaby says the left have left off trying to convert us by branch stacking - they've build a bully base in the bureaucracy . Non reactionaries and conservatives ( those quiet achievers who studied and kept studying instead of reacting and reacting) give up trying to get a word in edge ways .like carter and Plimer you have to spend years of your life telling kindergarten stories when fellow geoscientists are too busy working . Unlike Wong's ever searching substance seekers they have found ways that work and were not just researching, but creating sustainable solutions . Who can compete with the media too-- when its on a downer .

Wong should give up selling - at least a 2nd car salesman would know --never ever change the car you first hit on . If Wong keeps "researching solutions" ( her words) we will all leave the car yard and wonder whether any of the cars have wheels on them . The children in the street have spoken, the cars have no wheels and many of the drivers want to hide their bodies from the shame .

Captain Tony - mutiny is always a risk

On a day when Ray Martin has followed George Negus into rejecting much that Current affairs so called " problem solving" has done, Tony Jones keeps alive the old format; hunting the poly/bad guy with pay up now questions.

At 9:30pm he would do better to try something new, He'd have some chance of getting to a decent subject and some "drawing out" time before time is up. Instead he wastes 30 minutes on old boat stories . Questions that drag out old predjudices just drag the program out . Maybe the questions could only be about non news issues- for a change at least ?
Very few insights into the public interests of politicians were gained. - largely only points to those who want to poke fun at them .
Sure we get to see some new sides to our leaders, but the guests would be much more interesting ( love to hear more of bertina )if the subjects were of actual interest to them . Why weren't they asked questions of genuine public interest -" Are you concerned about porn on the net and are we doing enough to limit it" . " What do women really want (Bertina) and rest of you - secret ballot before the show and then discuss it" ?

Does the ABC believe a bit more consensus might be nice at 10;30pm? No wonder our kids don't take politics seriously - when the HOST's "moving around" is only to ensure ringside entertainment for those who want yet another chance to beat up the other side with a lot of predictable old taunts.
as jonathon hinted, the real problem is often not "out there" , but in the room. Maybe many are just saying what they think they should say .
A CONSENSUS of sorts ( took a while- too long -as usual it was at the end )
Bertina, Jonathan and the "where's the motivational speech man " said it all - you've overplayed your hand, you spin merchants .
Even Bill Shorten chimed in, in a sort of a way, by overplaying the number ( rather than the quality) of the REAL things the government are doing.
Bill was sounding a bit like Father christmas Kevin i thought - maybe its Worse than father christmas -offering gifts before he asks us to pay a huge new tax in the new year ? -

Maybe labor is not seriuos; just doing what the program guests are doing - just talking about it ; talk just makes the leaders sound good; maybe the public are not seriuos either ; talking about it just makes them sound good. Lights and mirrors ?

One good gift ,like one good reason, is all we need to follow. If an ETS is so good for us - where's the speech Kevin or Peter or Penny ! Like Q&A maybe, its nearly all just talk.

Slick but not satisfying.

LATELINE can be good. On Thursday last they reported a range of views at Ryde protests over having a convicted man living in the neighbourhood. What commercial media would let the man be properly heard ?
Letting the "exterminate" advocate speak is part of recognising what starts trouble and exactly where it starts . As a result, Australians are reminded that we do have people( incl non muslim's and those in living rooms ) who use a genuine threat as their excuse to throw in a truly terrorist type one. Predjudice about the non human nature of other people isn't always reinforced and thats to the ABC's credit. The Eugenics societies of the 1930's were not only popular in Germany - they were big in England . Simple predjudices are dangerous in trying times .Safety is not in the facts ( there are too many of them ); the safety is in hearing both sides of the argument.
The home grown nature of terrorism and politicization of science (interpreting gene mechanics to promote eugenics) must be faced - if we are to stay out of wars we can't win and effectively target a tougher change in attitude that would go beyond quick fix. We have choices and we must not use nature as an excuse to deny them or to justify cheap tricks on the way . That would be to make all of us less than human .
George Gentlys (ABCTV that night )great final words to his apprentice also reflect on this truth that we are talking about a call beyond nature -not a call to just "come under nature". His question -why did the young man learn to hate? Good science is only good when it talks possibilities and is not stuck or conveniently lost in some soup of mixed recipe facts.

The Lateline team can do a good job - But science talk is not ABCTV 's strong point. They still think that Barry Jones is the archtypal scientist when he's really the achetypal priest of the school of mere description - the ideal agent for those who insist the part is the whole. We will do better using wikipedia .
If presenters and their guests are to stay out of naive discussions that go nowhere they need to see the danger of the dialogue being held within the walls of misplaced concreteness. ABCTV won't win any hearts against blind predjudice in one night by talking facts ; They won't establish confidence in a situation of no confidence using that tired old cringe culture recipe : a new book and a new foreign expert
A change in attitude is always beyond science, The breath of fresh air the ABC needs is where the various sides of an argumnet can be properly heard . ( Where too is the respect for home grown science? ).

For example , Lea Sales was very competent in asking some really good questions on climate change's credibility problems ...But they went nowhere ..the well groomed respondent was there to defend a position - not the policisation of science in general .
Lea was asking the wrong person - A good book/ author on the real problem of disinterest in objective science- the title (and its politicisation ) WOULD not have made the mistake of playing the political hot football issues of evolution and climate change ;Such a person would have actually talked the physics through in a way that no ABCTV guest has done to date .YHIFOB
Someone who didn't want to join the political confusion would have drawn the audiences attention to the billions going to fad science research over the last twenty years ( salinity , ozone ) Such an independant scientist/author would have gone to the lessons of history and the technological fix that has eaten the heart of sound pure science research for the last twenty years.

If the book says something new, I will eat my hat;
If this is news to you - well you just aren't hearing from the right people- when will the ABC realise they are letting SBS run rings around them by letting the people who know talk, rather than controlling the discussion.
The wastage is evident. ABCTV allow themselves ( and the long suffering ABC audiences) to be further confused by letting the pedants close off while the reality of real life mirror moving politics moves onto yet another fiddle ( art /science , predjudice and practice, media manipulation by those desperate to maintain power and avoid any hint of their own confusion).

The good life isn't about heavy hearted stoicism

COMPASS -so disappointing and so distracted. Same old same old, 30yrs of reactionary medicine that has no balm.
Nothing proves that going back some new version of the Platonic is dead, than when some reactionaries try to revive it. Typical reactionaries - don't know the difference between a long term good idea and one that's come around again, but is just old and inadequate
For those who , like Peter Singer, think Peter Singer is ahead of his time , its paradoxical to find him trying to revive something from the past ;something from the past that doesn't work .
I say, leave the technologically ineffective optimism of the past where it belongs - a relic of history and rich people's rhetoric .
Dostyevsky was right - if there is no God , there is no need to think beyond yourself. Kick against the pricks as much as you like Peter, but you will need more than your predjudices to get beyond a failed logic system . You can't put wheels on a car that confuses guilt offerings , absolution and righteousness, and then gives no logical context to any of them .
Does Singer believe he can do what Emperor Julian could not ?
The only thing that works is not a natural optimism, but a supernatural optimism . Lets see guests with that sort of attitude do the talking in that time slot .That would make a welcome change thanks .

Like many Australians, I wait up sometimes on Sunday night in the hope of meeting a mature person with something deep to share.
THE PROGRAM IDEA IS GOOD
Geraldines new COMPASS program promises much, but offers little ( I assume the ABC are putting the best foot forward) - she's not asking the right people -
Geraldines idea of whose interesting is just Geraldines a idea of whose interesting; Why do the ABC continue to let her do it? ABCchurch is boring and predictable . Geraldine knows the majority of her audience are cyncial about overt spirituality , but her alternative of passionless morality preaching is plain obnoxoius - as it always has been.
No more so than Peter Singer who seems to have changed little from his early days looking for a place on the screen; he still seems preoccupied to find that place.
How else do you explain him going where naturalism has gone before and not realizing it ; an old cul de sac he's driving us all down-
Peter's staid stoic stuff has about as much long term appeal as it did in Platos time and since.
Geraldine too , appears afraid to ask the obviuos - "what's happened to that strong preacher of highly deterministic doctrines" ......that have little public appeal. "Have you changed?"( might be a standard question on such a program) After all , at the end of the show its " you appear to line up with the religious"? A new age priest or just a new angle?
Geraldine didn't see the point that the Jewish concept of justice is much more powerful, practical, dynamic and life affirming than Pete's tired old 60's accounting rhetoric -The antipharisee has become the new age pharisee?
Peter probably used the same lines when he was 25 . The point is that, like so much of that token interest in poverty reduction, its just not well targeted and therefore not convicting , and just not effective . A religion without a clear vision of what works never works . Why suffer the tax of 5% when its so badly targeted? The test results of 50yrs are there to be seen ; For all the talk over those years , there has been scarce little light added. Even the .3% my generation have done little but offer old tokens to poverty reduction .
As they hinted , maybe industry and trade have done more - this need not/ should not be so .
To treat Povert Reduction as if ecomia is a accountancy problem might suit the PCorrect of the moment , but it is totally unconvincing from someone who promotes himself as a leading philosopher. Good philosophy is effective at dealing pointedly with practical issues. including clearly identifying both tokens and targets !

If Peter was going to win more comittment from thinking people, he needs to be convincing about how we should use such a tax ;
A working model and grown up view of dealing with poverty issues labels the issues properly and effectively. Like Rudd's energy tax , the tax idea runs a real risk of being just terribly ineffective; a temple tax
In this context of wishy washy wanderings it needs to be said to those who really care that much of the intransigent poverty of the world is clearly in rural areas and can be dealt with . A lot can be done about building resiliance - but not in the old half baked ways the pied Peter was suggesting ( eg NGO's are best ) .
Playing a old version of a durge Peter didn't name the structural solutions that exist , or give the better targeting of private and public tax one mention- the really big known issues of targeting poverty .His durge is just trite old 60's stuff that has done little to change poverty and solution perceptions for 50yrs - even at .3%.

The trouble with a purely rational view of the world is that its not big enough; It doesn't believe the impossible is possible . As a priest of "the new order of natural optimists ", Peter is happy to limit his modus operandi to an overindulgence tax of 5%.
The problem is, as Julian found out , all the money in the world is not enough to motivate the people to be pious. Only an effective form of absolution can get the people to do the absolutely impossible, and impossibly - enjoy it . (Copyright EA Sept 12th 2009)

The questions and answers must link together

Tony Jones is unaware that all his efforts at control tonight on Q&A gave the people's vote to Christopher Pyne and Piers Ackerman and those who would never get to speak on his shallow, overcontrolled show.
He was also clearly unaware of the answer to his own question - why this alignment between the radical elements should occur .Maybe it has something to do with the churchiness of the ABC ?
This unstable moment in the control of hot air is at least partly because ABCTV and abcchurch generally is not a vehicle for generating the confidence needed to carry a sound science and practice debate forward. It's a big task for any media organistion - point is ----its not the job of the presenter: its the job of the ABC to put scientists up front and they haven't been doing it . Indira is not a scientist - where are the scientists whose expertise in in sustainability ??? Tell me one that's been on the ABC! I know one and he won't need 5 years to work out some biosequestration targets!
This control thing was always going to end this way. While welcome, Tony's pursuit of the farmers questions was appreciated, but we shouldn't be relying on him to cut to the quick .Despite his interest, he predictably didn't get anywhere near the crux of the matter and neither did Sharon -point is why didn't others note this!
In history, the politicitization and dumbing down of science on ABCTV will greatly tarnish its once good reputation. There is nothing more absurd than having Sharon Burrows talk about sustainabaility jobs when the people who trained to advance that cause are increasingly unemployed. So predicatably of course, Tony didn't notice that Burrows vain hope of sequestration was just another distraction into vanity and hot air . Why do i say this cause i know biossequestration very well - apparently Labor are going to give someone like me 3-5 years to sort out what I already know - sounds normal for those who can't admit their ignorance but would rather be seen to be gadflies than dinasaurs . Sharon - get it right ; the issue is not technology jobs, but science jobs . You fail to put first things first and millions of jobs won't do more than create waste .The right investment at the right time will help carbon dependance move well -never "the right politics"

Interestingly , the conspiracy ghostbusters ( almost filling the hall) turn out to to be the biggest conspiracy agents (Pyne did very well to remind them so) Clearly Tony has been standing in the road of progress by ignoring Peirs Akermans major point - you have too many polys and not enough scientist on the panel to make this grand design credible. If I was Tony I would be wooried that in my selection of audience/clips I was doing little more than breed the sort of cynicsm and ignorance ( eg Thatchers game as mentioned but not recognised in its real identity )that focuses on others ( "the right" ,"america and industry" ) rather than the grand potential for change that exits by following cuttingedgescience and thereby ensuring we all share in looking after the earth
The discussion result shows how all Tony and his producers effort were unable to disguise the total incompetence of Labors position on ETS. The more Craig and Sharon said , the more we all lost confidence in their grand new tax.
One suspects that this major leakage from the temple of grand intentions may well be noted by many ---before the next election.

Refreshing exposure of real authors on QandA

Attempts by non ABCchurch members to gain a credible hit on ABCTV have in large measure been comfortably dealt with by carefully editing after interview, or discrete painting of portraits with out of place mouth actions.
This is news to the high priests - what opposition is there?
The ABC doesn't need a war on everything program because it largely runs a war on everything nonchurch .
Not so QandA Thursday when it allowed and encouraged exposure to unbelievers --the young people were great and the tension allowed US to get to know Julia Gillard and Malcolm Turnbull in a way which was at least, helpful .
How much more helpful though would it have been if the audience had time to hit home their scathing critique of labors education revolution and the liberals pay the teacher better birdbath song . We might have heard them say some real good stuff on how to keep teachers teaching .
Even some of us oldies know the fabians revolutionary talk to be largely the noise and signage outfront of the revolving door building of their highly reactive and non revolutionary style of politics.
"Revolutions we can handle" all the young people(YPs) said, but yours is not one of them. How right they are!

The classic outcome of the evening was our shared joy at the young person's humorous pulling down of this heavy stone idol of revolution and direct targeting post modernism - the real legacy of the left ;- As both YP on the panel said - "Your god is not real - we know where real revolutions occur, and even if we didn't we know, we know your focus to be what it is , superficial. Your actions speak louder than your words !

Like abcchurch, the old reactionaries on the panel had fully fallen for the appearance of revolution ( the monuments ,the gymnasiasms, the computers ) and forgotten about the kernel and more importantly , YP love of the kernel ( people and the ideas who make it happen ) .- The old leaders, if they were thinking, would have been talking to that audience about ideals, not images !
Lets hope Malcolm's mates ( after he clearly made the most of the awakened elephant/ empty chair in the room) wake up to the Libs new opportunity to make the most of labors worship of dumb and expensive idols- idols that even young people can see. Go deeper please- everyone of the older audience .
In a typical post modern page ,the man who did a very good job generally on the night,(MR Tony JONES ) let the talk wander so widely "that time ran out"..... again - its always doing that!!!!!- If Tony wants to avoid it happening too easily yet again ,why didn't he ask the audience beforehand "Ok - I am aware of your heart felt concern about adults behaving like children - So how about we quarantine playing petty games over Malcolms recent failures OK ????/ "- what happened? He didn't and we wasted half the program on it .
So, we the patient audience are tempted to believe that maybe the children were in charge --preferring the petty after all?
Are the children in charge ? Not much fun to watch MR JONES! Same old sermon material and foraging faults again
"We have run out of time again -we have got no more time for real and new authors; we here at ABCTV have more important things to do ,like hearing yet again 7:30 report host talk Kerry O Brien talk about his own authorship and what a great experience it is for him .3 minutes of same old same old

3min to introduce new authors like the young panel guests would give ABCTV the edge over SBS in their runaway success with storytelling .
.

Depressing determinism

Got to hand it to Jennifer Byrne( Bookclub intro this week ) - her honesty is refreshing .
Why? The mood is one of , if not paranoia , depression? Someone has to say it - "we're stuck !" Depression is hard to admit, but if you are in a cul de sac , maybe just maybe , there is a way out ! Logically though , you have to acknowledge what signposts you were ignoring on the way in !!!

Like Emperor Julian , there are always those who think Plato and the old Greeks knew it all . "That those Christians are rejecting the rational in favour of .???? the truly unbelievable " .....some other time! Like a broken record -----prove what ? I do not care to prove everything !

The point is ---Its not very exciting for those of us who enjoy our daily speculation beyond the material, to see the Julian type Emperors at ABCchurch still thousands of years later grieving for a system of thinking that is not scientific but stultifying, circular and clearly stuck in the earths' own mud.
As One old Roman convert of the time put it when he started reading into the signposts - you know - point TO counterpoint is OK , even for a scientist, but its tiring and its not everything ---there is a great enjoyable space beyond such things !)

Totally Unconvincing

The most ridiculous thing about the ABC's over promotion of the grand agendas is that they don't realise, if SCIENTISTS were really seriuos about influencing any needed change debate - they most certainaly wouldn't do it in the same old ways that they have been led to do it by the new damnation and salvation sellers - for what is now 4 or so years?
The fearmongers haven't got it have they - a scientific way to be convincing!
The " new " whole long speech from london school of whatevers trick isn't working and just because the man has learnt a few things about the campaigns mistakes, doesn't mean he's not still making them . Calling greens black is careless talk too!. The science of education calls for consensus across the board ----dummies !

What does clive hamilton know about motivation? Giddens, when pushed by Sales about targets ,talked about schools - well; have we got time to wait for education campaigns in schools? - I thought we left teachers the task of teaching . Oh dear, what a mess ! Are we teaching science in schools ?

Lee Sales asked some good questions tonight, but they went absolutely nowhere because the ABC is not really interested in debate ( only the appearance of it ). Lee will wonder why clive hamilton got another guernsey when his own defence of the fear cul de sac is the same as all these salvation advocates have driven themsleves into . Just like Gore, giddens is trying to play the media game (get a new angle) .
The more Giddens spoke on yet another of the ABC's free to hot air ads, the more it was clear he wasn't ready to fight - Mr gore is right about one thing - you aren't convincing if you aren't convincing. You aren't serious or scientific if don't identify the enemy and the means of warfare . Giddens ended his puff of wind with a call to more patchwork - maybe he's more suited to craft work?

So yet another ABC lateline program dedicated to let the new saviours put their point of view - The idea that we need to change is Ok, but what absolution do we get from responding to this new gospel .Its not gospel perhaps?

Pity too ( if he was seriuos about science based extension solutions) that Giddens is not urgent about one critical method (accepted widely but not used_) ; a scientific way to address the cynics - have a debate .
Until the ABC do debate properly ( don't they realise journos are under threat?) the ABC heads too will be part of the problem rather than part of the solution to being convincing about difficult issues of resource use . Standing in the road of a bigger discussion .

Spicks and specks

When you are on a good thing ( as S&S and rockwiz is), find out where the good bits come from- otherwise it tends to be inflated rhetoric from inside yourself ( ask anyone who knew the real Michael jackson.etc...)
The holey infatuation that went on last night ,spoils the spicks and specks that we try to enjoy. When Its often not much beyond fart jokes for adults ,its weak as piss and just as desperate. Alan brough's failure to agnowledge where his talent probably comes from, is my case in point.
The challenge too for "Thank God He's not there" will revolve around the same paradox about real entertainment and the dangers of soft sell.
Because guests on TGYH are clearly not warned about the dangers of promoting lifestyle choice under the guise of bottom line gags, the characterization is lost to cheap lifestyle gags and we wonder if adam hills is too seriuos about promoting something commonly sold cheap ( relationships and respect ) Such poor aim maybe currently popular but it won't last ( esp by those who use it) because its like the bloke you meet at a party who goes down to that level all the time - he's depserate to gain an audience and prove his funnyness.
I Don't mind an "in character sexual proccupation" , but the lack of head room in the innuedo departmnet was rather obvious amongst the leaders last night. Aim higher and we'll all be happier.

Comedy festival QANDA

Jones may not be aware of it yet, but the genre of his high brow conversation starter is all the more entertaining than its relation (the footy show) because of where it starts ......and where it finishes. The structure means the audience gets a look in and the truth, sometimes, comes out . The idea is great especially because Jones is not really in charge and those in the chairs are nervous and vulnerable - unable always to hold onto that persona that makes CurrentAffairs on the ABCTV so predictable .
for eg noone wanted to hear " what did you learn about death " but it yielded the peaceable fruit of reality therapy on the board . The girl was serious - why is the ABC unable to put anything seriuos on - (And while talking about overplayed records , why stuff up some good stuff on ABC2 in evening with repeats of the NIGHT before - are you seriously in the death throws ;Nothing else to show us than repeats of gruelling gruen . Does no one review your tenure ? - we nearly watch more SBS and ABC2 than boring old ABCchurch .
Adam Hills doesn't know how to be serious, so he's seldom funny. He could learn, like a lot of the immature men on the screen a lot from about being sexy ( eg host of Rockwiz) by not always talking about sex .
David Marr is so seriuos he's hard to take seriuosly. Whose liberated and whose not? ? Big questions for those who hate to see anyone put something unreactionary on their little screens . Take it from us, we old ABC soaks have found other things to do than watch you lot all the time.

I said as I said so many times before on your program ---nothing

Sycophantic old Jones spends YET another half hour asking Ms WONG another set of SOSO questions he's asked many times before - not a single answer worth listening for . " I said as I said before" she said - nothing , but that we are masters of naming the best intentions.
Mistaken value systems are the depression pills of the modern west. depressingly real nonsense that bears no real connection with ecology or economy.