Hi Foxy,

Studies have shown that conservative thinking people have a greater fear factor built into their brains than liberal progressive thinkers. This may explain why they only digest the opinions of conservative writers, and dismiss the views put forward by liberal progressives such as those found in 'New Matilda'. To read any contrary opinion causes the conservative to suffer a biological reaction resulting in an uncomfortable arousal of fear within their body chemistry, something liberal progressives do not suffer when subjected to alternate opinion. Unfortunate this uncomfortable feeling of fear suffered by the conservative cannot be relieved with a simple dose of 'Alka-Seltzer'. Therefore they find it best to avoid upsetting publications like 'New Matilda' and rely on the tried and true opinions of the Andrew Bolt's and Piers Akerman's of this world .

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

Foxy,

I looked again at NM and unsurprisingly saw not one piece of news or investigative journalism,and only a collection of far left whinge pieces.

If you choose to inhabit this narrow little echo chamber then it is no wonder that you are continually mugged by reality.

A classic reaction from the rabid conservative, is when presented with reasonable, even centralist views, he or she will over react. Often, the rabid conservative will claim that those moderate views and opinions are a collection of far left whinge pieces, accusing others of inhabiting a narrow little echo chamber and being mugged by reality. Unfortunately these rabid conservatives will reach for the 'Alka-Seltzer', but alas no relief is forthcoming.

My old Granny who subscribed to the philosophy of "no news is good news", also recommended in these situations, "a Bex, a cuppa tea, and a good lie down," Shadow you may want to countenance Granny's remedy for what ails you.

http://medicalsciences.med.unsw.edu.au/node/302500715

Dearest Foxy,

I'm still digesting that brilliant story about Aboriginal people being farmers. The article talks about yam fields 'right to the horizon'. But no workers beavering away out there ? If it were rice fields 'right to the horizon, you would expect to see many people out there, planting padi or regulating the irrigation or harvesting, etc., all day, sun-up to sun-down. I wonder if Mitchell noticed people tending their yam crop ? Or their grain crop ?

That grain crop: nine miles long, and say, a mile wide ? That would be six thousand acres, a big farm in today's standards. You would need a bloody big tractor to plant it these days, and a number of harvesters. So if it was planted and reaped by hand, it would need perhaps a thousand people going flat-out. Even kangaroo-grass would yield maybe a thousand tonnes of seed. No fences to keep the animals out ? So people patrolling and repairing the twenty miles of fences ? I wonder how the work-force was organised, and where they stored that much, and who gave it out. Oh, of course, it was shared equally.

Thanks, NM, for provoking new thinking: it's a pity NM readers don't do much of that and realise what a crock this story is. And don't get me started on the yams 'right to the horizon'. Oh, all right: 'To the horizon' would mean many more thousands of acres, at about a tonne of yams per acre. Who dug them up ? Where were they stored ? Who planted them out in the first place, and worked on regulating the water supply, 'right to the horizon' ? Who organised the thousands of workers to do it ?

Do NM readers ever ask questions ? Do they just accept whatever is pushed at them ? I can't believe it, surely nobody is that stupid.

But thanks anyway, Foxy.

Lots of love,

Joe

Dear SM,

What you saw does not surprise me.
People from different walks of life
may interpret the same phenomenon - whether it
is a president's or prime minister's policies,
a religious doctrine, or anything else, in very
different ways. If the world consisted simply
of self-evident reality that everyone perceived
in exactly the same way, there might be no
disagreement among observers. But the truth of the
matter is that what we see is not determined by what
exists "out there." It's shaped by what our past
experience has prepared us to see and by what we
consciously or unconsciously want to see. Each of us is
inclined to perceive facts selectively and to
interpret them accordingly.

Dear Joe,

I am so pleased that you are questioning the
objectivity of what you read. History books
are written by historians, and historians are
human beings. Their words are often wise, but
never "gospel." It's great that you tend to
ask questions all the time and don't accept
and reference as if it could not be wrong.
Therefore just as with primary sources, we
need to consult as many history books as possible
on issues to get a really fair picture of the
past. Not only is it necessary to question the
objectivity of what we study (that is, how fair
is it to all sides) but we must be able to use the
different theories put forward.
Well done and keep up the good work.