Me disagreeing with Jane Marwick

I get crabby with new buzzwords that pop up from time to time. Probably more peeved because at the time they begin as good words to use when describing things even though they get over used. Here's a few... drill down, narrative, optic, paradigm. And now here's me using them.

I really enjoy listening to the podcast called The Jane Marwick Show. Yes its great for long car trips but try as I do to save a few up for the 4 hour drive to Perth I generally end up listening to them long before a car trip. Why is it a good podcast. (enter catchy buzzwords)

Its due to the length of the show.  Which although it varies greatly its generally way longer than a radio show or TV slot, there's no adverts. That and (brace yourself...) because it's got little in the way of time constraints it has the ability to drill down past the usual sell optics, past everyone's own personal bias or narrative and crack open the shell to see the real contents.

The podcast with Jacinta Price was Walkley Award winning stuff. It was real, raw, confronting, challenging but it had to be said & done. Without full rigour in a debate, without all the facts no matter how shocking they are, without this we lose to a better prepared argument that might actually be hiding facts.
Its tough to be fair. But its right.

Now where do I disagree with Jane, well 2 places. 
Firstly, Beverley is better than York.

Secondly, debating is a great learning tool. Why did I disagree with her? 
(And yes I have changed my mind).

Well firstly, yes I did debating in school. I kind of liked it but the thing that stunned me was you could win the argument even when you were wrong, very wrong. That began my dislike of debating.

I remember the completely one sided argument of "Is breathing oxygen bad for you"
The affirmative won. Amongst it was cited research of a mouse being kept alive breathing nitrogen...not for long I suspect. A liquid nitrogen which contained just enough oxygen from memory. Then the angle of how many carcigenes are in the air, acid rain, radioactivity and on it goes. Slim pickings but the affimative won. I became very cynical. It was wrong I thought that the right premise didn't win.

I could have studied law or become a police officer. I still maintain they were two of the biggest mistakes I NEVER made. As much as they can do good, I probably wouldn't have been flexible enough in my thinking as a young person to cope with good people losing and bad people getting off.
That wiring I had meant the right & correct has to prevail, always. 
Which is not how life works sadly & I too have been as wrong & incorrect as anyone.

The English teachers back then I thought were brilliant...except for their love of debating.

On her Podcast I heard Jane speak highly of debating in school and whilst I didn't cringe I was having a real "Yeah nup" moment with Jane. 

Then I accidently drilled down as I heard why it was a good thing in her mind.
Its not that people lose because some other people are bad or compromised...well not always. Debating teaches you to prepare very well and to do that you have to find all the facts..WITHOUT FEAR NOR FAVOUR.

Now debating does mean you have 2 sides with predetermined positions and they respectively THEN have to find the facts, but whilst that happens in life a BIt, that's NOT how life is supposed to work.
To counter that interllectual bankruptcy we have to be prepared very well when making decisions, get all the facts we can and never rely solely of debating or oratory skills to outspeak the opposing view...OR OUTDO US.

It is still only about the facts, the facts and nothing but the facts...in proper context.

The penny dropped. Those brilliant teachers I had that craftily taught us how to learn and not what to think just went up even higher on taller pedestals. In my 50s I now look back & think they really were the teachers in every sense I thought they were & then some. I learnt how to learn with them & I'll stop demonising debating now.

Debating is a learning tool, it teaches what mechanisms you must use in discourse and discussion but you will never actually discuss things in real life in a debate format.

The mechanisms are all about finding the fullest facts, the proper context and extinguishing ego. Edward De Bono wrote that there was arrogance arguing, where one side will not bring up facts that will destroy their argument and that was my real problem with debating. That is what many employed.
But the way to head that off at the pass we have to be very prepared, gather all the facts we can, apply them in proper context, don't let it get personal and find what determination the facts point to. Its not my position, its just facts & truth.

So Jane unknowingly caused me to see a school activity from 30+ years ago in a different light and yes now we agree on debating.

However Beverley is decidedly the better town because home pride can be excused for over looking facts a little...so I respect her decision to wrongly choose the wrong town to love :-) 

Quite rightly, out of this whole blurb, I'm only going to get into trouble for that last sentence...fair bump, play on.

Twitter Court - Online Version of Angry Mob Rule

So a WA Government employee, in his own time went overseas and paid to take part in a Safari Shoot. The ABC in its wisdom spotted the Twitter Mob go ape over it and sought out some extra facts. The result was "All Rise, Twitter Court is Now In Session" and it got quite ugly.

Facts we do know that the mob don't like is there are probably good Trophy Hunting operations and bad, but no one bothered to check which is which or explore what each do really well or really bad. Basic mob line is, "All Trophy Hunting is Evil"

Anyone supporting it, asking for more facts, cutting the guy some slack because facts are few or even being reasonable with the small amount of facts presented is intolerable, evil, disgusting, immoral and on goes a list of emotional personal attacks.

Many overseas Torphy Hunting operations operate, mainly on the African Continent. No I've never been on one, not going to go on one because whilst its not my thing they exist for a reason and each to their own.

The contention is they're evil and villagers suffer but no one says where NOR how widespread that actually is if that claim is at all correct. There are a number of hunting outfits & the ones I could find were heavily government regulated. They provided jobs for people who otherwise had little or no job opportunities. The meat is distributed to local villages. Taxidemists find a market. Local accomodation and transport have a new market. Poachers have no market because poaching is opposed by locals & officials. The animals targeted for destruction are not Alpha males but generally outcast bulls or rogue bulls & sometimes others to keep herd numbers within the determined sustainable numbers.

By applying a legal market value, the herd is managed, its part paid for, in places fully paid for by the Hunter Tourists, jobs and small satelitte industries pop up & poachers have no market at all. Local villagers can still hunt, their life isn't changed because they generally aren't hunting rogue bull elephants, lions, big cats etc. It means though that the rest of the animal food chain slips into sustainable numbers & populations roam less. The boom bust population numbers becomes far less common.

Present those views in Twitter Court and you will be attacked, mocked & vilified. Indeed many shouting Karma will have its day, others saying the person should be hunted & killed in the same fashion. I mean how the hell have humans descended to this point of vile moral superioirity that they wish others dead who partake in a legal, lawful, government regulated activity...in a foreign country?

No the mob rule slipped into action. The person at the centre didn't lose his job but he was demoted & then he was described by the WALabor Premier Mark McGowan as "depraved, disgusting and disgraceful" which really sounds like a very personal attack.

Lesst han 240 days to the next State Election and of course the Premier is quickly trying to politically weaponise everything possible. The minister of the environment said he was physically sick. Really? Then clealry he hasn't seen or heard of the pastoral stations that Alannah McTeirnan doesn't want to talk about with masses of dead livestock. There are some brilliant Aboriginal stock operators, station operators but these 2 were mind blowing bad & for the most part absent causing death by starvation & no water. Grab a bucket Minister Dawson sit down with the Premier and see if it is "depraved, disgusting and disgraceful" & what is to be done, who is to be held to account, charged etc.

I think in the meantime the WA Government employee who went on the legal, lawful overseas paid hunting trip has a very good chance of an appeal for his demotion. He has a very good case for damages & the Premier has opened up a big can of worms which for him probably won't go through the courts until after March if it goes to court which is after the election. It's a calculated move but in the meantime someone's life & career is destroyed.

Cancel Culture, Post Modernist Marxism on display...all for political votes.
But go view the ABC Post, then go to the Twitter post on it & see the angry mob.
It's quite ugly, it doesn't ask for facts & it attacks anyone asking for any or offering a differing view.
The Mob Rule thing is now in Australia. Its growing and its a very worrying sign when Feelings crush Facts.

Twitter post on the article - https://twitter.com/abcnews/status/1283498717044043777?s=20

ABC Article - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-16/trophy-hunting-esperance-wildlife-officer-fair-south-africa/12457884

What the...

Bit blown away. I ocassionally post on FaceBook something that peeves me and it'll usually be something that has added absurdity of being a problem easily avoided.
I did this on July 1st and its a bit...WOW

It caused a little stir & surprised me in that so many folk I know got in touch by messaging, posting, ringing, emailing...because they saw a similar problem but worse, a good number thought I was talking about the club, group, board they're on. Think as of last night we're up to 11 different groups that have problems according to those who got in touch.

But it brings on a common problem I've seen with several large groups with boards/management committees. They have unknowingly formed factions & power bases and it's holding them all back.

Some of the common things they have in common, not all but most common...

1. Dry Powder - Not fully sharing all the information BEFORE a board/committee meeting & keeping information aside ready to blindside others or ambush motion where the opponents have to make a decision on the spot without prior knowledge of all the information or knowledge of any other relevent knowledge they may need.
2. Probably before the Dry Powder point should be, who is the board. Yes even if you don't use that term those running the organisation in the best interests of the organisation ARE the board. You have your AGM, your BOARD meetings and underlying committees & executives. That's the rough outline of the line of authority, all reporting back up eventually to the AGM, the members. Know who the board actually is, know your legal rights & responsibilities, exercise them fully & don't let anyone silo information or decisions away from anyone or you lose transperancy, accountibility and have installed a wrong & distorted governance model that suits the crafy and/or corrupt.
3. Personally undermining - Getting personal. Logging others as aggressive or untrustworthy behind the scenes to try & undermine their credibility without touching facts or core central elements of a debate.
4. Silo formations - Locking up information within hard to access cells. If a serious decision is required ALL must have what is reasonably all the information. If you cannot ask questions or information is hidden you have a problem..Remember the Corporations Act is very clear on this, a director has the right to be heard, the right to information & the right to ask questions. If anyone hampers or denies you the ability to exercise these rights they are breaking the rules. If you yourself fail to exercise these rights YOU are failing in your responsibilities.
5. Play well with others - It doesn't matter if you hate someone or they hate you or both. If you're on a board or management committee you must work well with others no matter what your personal view of them is. You must have their back, they must have yours because its in the best interests of the organisation & thats what your fiduciary duty is. Keep it.
6. More to come no doubt... 3rd of July as I type, no doubt over the next few days more "things" will cross my mind that are things holding groups back. Future edits to come
7. 7th of July as I type, Board Culture. It needs to be healthy, non toxic and collaborative. To get there you must have a good board structure. A widely known understanding of the rules, everyone's role, their rights & responsibilities. No over reach or micro managing. Work together no over one another. Some outfits have a toxic and/or inefficient workspace, it'll often stems back to poor knowledge, understanding of the rules. Some outfits will need tighter fitting rules. As per the old saying "The Easiest Way To Do Anything Is To Do It Properly"
8. 9th of July Addition - If you or you & a group of others try to implement change, those previously at fault may not agree with you trying to install proper due diligence, good goverance and some tighter fitting rules. You may end up solidifying 2 (or more) factions within. Key points here...stick to the plan that promotes good rules & sticking to them without fear nor favour...good corporate governance. Let those who oppose do & say whatever they want. Then you end up with 2 factions all right, one that's trying to install proper good governance without fear nor favour & those who oppose it but at least you don't have one rule dodging faction replaced by another rule dodging faction. YOU DO NOT NEED AN ANIMAL FARM SCENARIO WITH ONE GROUP OF PERSON INTERESTS REPLACED BY A DIFFERENT GROUP OF SELF INTERESTS.
   Go for change to proper good goverance and let critics do & say whatever they want, they have a right to. Do not hamper their rights as directors or part of your board. Let them argue their case for less rules, for lesser rules, higher legal exposure & low levels of compliance, fiduciary duty & new efficiencies. Go to the rules that protect you & everyone and avoid the sieges that prevent compliance.