The Yield Point - Have We Passed The Point Of No Return

It's easy to condemn but not so easy at times to control.

Many parents in western societies struggle daily with children who are habitual drug takers. I know from personal experience, having a nephew who has battled drug addiction for many years just how powerless parents can be. Many of these kids come from good homes, have great parents but they have an addiction that is more powerful. 

This got me thinking about the parents of kids and young men who are seduced by radical Islam. They also often have no control over the lives of their kids. They aren't necessarily all bad parents, but their children are seduced by a different drug, the drug of hate. The drug of religious ideology. Like drug addicts, hate often takes time to fully take hold, but once you are conditioned breaking away is almost impossible.

Jafar "Jeff" Siddiqui is an American Muslim blogger. He wrote an article recently From Kuffar To Slaughters where he mentioned the science of something known as Yield Point. After a certain amount of stress is applied to an object, it loses the resilience to return to its original shape and becomes more and more deformed on a permanent basis.

He goes on to say this is true for the environment as well and for communities of people too. I would add, individuals to the mix as well.

This theory is particularly interesting when applied to the 'brainwashing' or the changing of Muslim youth by the teachings of hatred by radical Muslim imams.

I have posted the link to this article here.  It's a very interesting read and it's a message that I hope many; Muslim parents and us non-Muslims read.

 

http://penjihad.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/from-kuffar-to-slaughters/

Yes, it is easy to condemn those we perceive as weak (or worse complicit) who we 'believe' are part of the problem (without any proof mind you), when in reality often they are not. I learnt that lesson when the drug problem impacted on my family. Up to that point I had been critical of parents for letting their children 'fall by the wayside' so to speak. I couldn't understand why they didn't control them.  I understand now why they often can't. 

For that reason I'm not so swift to just automatically brand everyone whose families are impacted by their children becoming radicalised.  As we found out recently from a couple of incidents in the UK, the parents had no idea their sons were off fighting in the ME. Just like parents of drug users often have no idea where their children are.  Sadly, both a very likely to receive a knock on the door at some time with the news their children have been killed or indeed harmed others.

Lastly we have those on social media who openly state we should kill all Muslims. They are suggesting we wipe out 23% of the world's population; every man, woman and child.  That is 1.6billion people.  Unbelievable. 

So yes to condemn is easy but to control is at times very, very hard, if not impossible.  By all means we should be alarmed over what we see happening. And certainly over what we see happening on our own doorstep. But let's be fair. Let's not brand everyone. I believe to hate everyone based on the behaviour of some makes us no better than those we criticise. Perhaps it signifies we also have surpassed our own Yield Point.  I do hope not.

 

 

Calling Out Twitter Bullies

I committed to speaking out against twitter bullying and journalists. Having been on the receiving end of a bizarre assault by @vanonselenp last night, I'm doing just that. I apologise if this is a bit long but context is important. If you take the time to read this, thank you. I appreciate your interest.

I responded to a tweet posted by someone I follow that was directed to van Onselen. It read.

"You can't be serious, means testing Dr visits > @vanOnselenP
It's none of the doctor's business how much the patient does or doesn't earn!"

I replied. "@AyesHavit @vanOnselenP That has to rank amongst the 'dumbest' suggestions of all time. True, not their business & how do you administer it".

Now, in the context of doctors doing this which is how it read, it is a dumb suggestion. That's my opinion. Note I didn't call Mr van Onselen dumb, merely the suggestion.

That in turn generated at a reply from Mr van Onselen. "@Kate3015 @AyesHavit it was a reference to who would qualify for a Medicare card. Pretty simple really, not done by doctors individually. @Kate3015 @AyesHavit ...and it was the Drs suggestion anyway, not mine. It would be no different to any other means testing Coalition wants"

Fine. Clarification. But then he went on. "@Kate3015 @AyesHavit but agree or disagree with it, that's fine. Calling his idea dumb is knee jerk thoughtless frankly."

OK. I concede it was perhaps a tad knee jerk but thoughtless? Remember I was addressing the idea, not the person. We are adults, or so I thought. But I did reply.

"@vanOnselenP @AyesHavit If people pay for Medicare &; have private insurance as well why should they be penalised? @vanOnselenP @AyesHavit I'm over the 'assaults' on certain groups. So if you think that's knee jerk thoughtlessness fine. It's how I feel."

It could have ended there, but that in response I received this.  "@Kate3015 @AyesHavit exactly what I said to him...the levy would need to be baked into the tax system. Now u are debating like an adult. @Kate3015 @AyesHavit sadly I won't see further adult tweets bc I've blocked so as not to read your other rubbish, sorry. Bye." .. 

What an attempt to belittle that is. "Now U are debating like an adult." Hopefully I always try and debate like an adult. Blocking me so as not to read "my other rubbish!!!" 

I should have left it that point, told him to take a flying leap and just walked away. I didn't.....I replied.
"@vanOnselenP @AyesHavit Oh dear Peter you R a bit sensitive &; a tad pompous to block me for what I said. lol hopefully someone will RT 2him."

Well some people did defend me & RT'd. They were also threatened with blocking. Sad.

If Mr van Onselen blocks me. I'm can live with that lol.  I'm not a follower, I don't regularly watch his show & I occasionally read his column. But Mr vP didn't block me.  But he went on to label me a 'nut-job', accused me of constantly demeaning him (that one stumped me), of belittling journalists (didn't say who) and even condemning JG (not sure where that came from)..my last post on JG referred to whether she'll regret her verbal assault on Ralph Blewitt given the RC. He labelled me a troll and even mentioned to some else who spoke up for me (when he blocked them) that associating with xyz (referring to me I assume) you pick up their bile. Now this is pretty nasty stuff.

I did suggest he had me confused with someone else.  You see the last three exchanges I've had with Mr vP were. One earlier this month in response to a question he asked about that vile Abbott T-shirt.  Only picked that because of @WDallasBrooks.  Unfortunately as a part of that reply I picked up a rather nasty little individual ASSASSINS. Despite the foul language directed at me I thought my replies were fair. They were directed at ASSASSINS not vanOnselen. 

They read: 

"A comment like that is not worthy of a reply"

"If you are going to comment at least try to sound intelligent. Is that to mush to ask"

 

• 

  Kate3015 @ASSASSINS_OY @vanOnselenP If you are going to comment at least try to sound intelligent. Is that too much to ask..9 Jun from TweetCaster for iOS
• 

  Kate3015 @ASSASSINS_OY @vanOnselenP A comment like that is not worthy of a reply. Goodbye9 Jun from TweetCaster for iOS

I tweeted when Will was on vP's show, in fact my tweet was read out (all positive) & I acknowledged a column written by vP I think around April.  

So there you have it.  People do object to what I say at times. That's to be expected. I have strong opinions on many things. However, I try to be professional when expressing them. I wasn't the one labelling people 'nut-jobs'etc. Thank you for reading if you made it this far.  As far as Mr vanOnselen goes, I suggest he takes a good look in the mirror. But he's blocked me so he won't get to read this. Please don't copy to him with this or like others he'll probably block you as well. 

Now it's time for me to move on. 

Work Related Payments vs Welfare Payments

I find it fascinating that those so resoundingly condemning the PPL which is a work related payment, aimed at getting experienced women back into the workforce, are generally those who are most vocal about maintaining unsustainable levels of welfare which contribute nothing to the ongoing betterment of the country. 

It's important that our population grows. Particularly so with an ageing population. We want women to have the opportunity to have children and to contribute to society through workplace participation. We also want them to have the security of knowing they have jobs to go back to. Often jobs that many love. And we must not overlook the fact that as employers we have often made substantial investments in these people; training, education, coaching and development. We don't want to lose that investment in having them leave, have their children and then go work for someone else. 

I haven't always be a fan of PPL. Heading up a large workforce with young executives off on maternity leave can be difficult under existing arrangements. Particularly so if the person in question works in a specialist area or is exceedingly good at their job. However, in my experience the people in question never completely 'deserted' their post. I found that my female executives still actively participated in many ways. They would call in for strategic meetings, review proposals along with my management team (their colleagues). They often came into the office (baby in tow) to complete performance reviews and the like. I would be surprised if most women in management level positions didn't do this. 

The only question that I have with regards to Tony Abbott's proposal is, can we afford NOW. If not when can we. Let's be more accommodating of proposals that are work related and perhaps a bit less accommodating of ones that are just simply about handouts. And let's stop the 'welfare' for the rich bull. Women at all levels will benefit not just the so called rich..

It's Called Context - Rather Than Using Edits To Support Your Political Agenda

TONY JONES: OK, we have another question in the audience that comes from Melissa Rann.

MELISSA RANN: Hi, my question is directed at Bettina. In a media article reporting on your new book, The Sex Diaries...

BETTINA ARNDT: Thank you.

MELISSA RANN: So I did it for you. Yes, they tend to report that you summarise the general advice for women who are experiencing low sex drive to just do it even if they don't feel like it, or don't want to. Doesn't that sound particularly controversial to you, particularly the suggestion that somehow women should force themselves to have sex seems like it's their duty if they want to save their marriage.

BETTINA ARNDT: No, I am not suggesting women lie back and think of England and suffer through it, I'm suggesting that the person with the low sex drive, who is less interested and is constantly rejecting their partner, has an obligation to just do it, to incorporate sex in their loving relationship, and it should be one of the obligations you have in a relationship, and it doesn't matter if it's the man or the woman, but I am not saying it's about suffering, I'm saying often women can in fact, if they put the canoe in the water and start paddling...

(LAUGHTER)

BETTINA ARNDT: ..they will even though they didn't feel like having sex to start off with, they will find that they can enjoy it. That's only one of the things that we've learnt recently through new sex research, that there are many women who don't need desire in order to enjoy sex, so it's a very important I mean, you have to get your head in the right place, and you have to be with the right man who does the right thing, but then you may actually enjoy it and that's a really important thing to leave open as a possibility that your relationship that's what I'm saying, not just to women, but to men.

TONY JONES: Let's hear from another woman, Kate Ellis. Just do it is what Bettina Arndt is suggesting to married women. Good advice, bad advice, what do you think?

KATE ELLIS: Clearly I am not a sex therapist as Bettina is, but I think that you have to be really careful about generalising, and I think that it's different people put the canoe in the water as a result of different circumstances, and there might be, you know, different blockages on the boat ramp I am not sure how long I can go with this for. I think that in relationships, they differ very much from one relationship to another, what's going on, what are the underlying factors, and they need to be explored as an individual relationship, which I am sure Bettina would argue, but I just would be very hesitant to say, "Just do it" and say that it was as simple as that.

TONY JONES: Tony Abbott?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, I am not sure that's what Bettina did say.

KATE ELLIS: I am not suggesting that. That was my question, though.

TONY ABBOTT: Look, this is an extraordinarily difficult area and, you know, I just I'm just trying to write an obituary of Ron Conway the psychologist and social critic who's just died, and Ron said, in his autobiography, that, you know, after thousands and thousands of counselling sessions with people, the two subjects which seemed to most concern people, and I suppose most trouble their psyches are basically sex and god - religion, and intimate relationships, and they carry so much weight, and I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman's right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man's right to demand I think they are both they both need to be moderated, so to speak.

TONY JONES: Bruce Wolpe.

BRUCE WOLPE: I think anything that I admire what you do a lot. Anything that helps readdress a balance between love and work - somehow we can't live without work, but we can sometimes live without love for too long is good, but to have a discussion and have people think about the balance in their lives, and how to pursue it better. The Pursuit Of Happiness was a great American revolution, and this is what it's all about.

Hilter Was Not A Conservative

Some people on social media, are very fond of trying to compare Tony Abbott, as a conservative Prime Minister, to Hitler.

The only possible conservative parts would be Hitler's encouragement of allegiance to and pride for your country. Something that appears to be sadly lacking in some quarters within our political establishment on the far left.

Nazism and other Fascist movements in fact borrowed a lot from the Left; they were about mass movements, they were undeniably socialist, most adopted social Darwinism to varying degrees.  All in all they were radical movements that were in no way conservative. Whilst Hitler and his regime 'borrowed' some liberal (meaning our Labor) beliefs it would not be fair to liberals to accuse him of being a total liberal either, at least not in a classical sense.

As for the comparison to Tony Abbott, you may not like what Mr Abbott stands for, that's OK. But to  compare Tony Abbott to Hilter, a man who presided over the murder of millions of Jews is not only unbelievably offensive (insensitive and disrespectful) it's political ideologically wrong.