Peter Garrett Online Forum

Naomi

At first blush, I would say that not being involved in the sciences, I have no opinion on the matter; but that is not really an adequate response. In short, however, I am not certain that I do want science in the hands of Government. Historically, it has been disastrous, and given the awful mixture of truths, half-truths and outright falsities that have risen up as the 'Climate Change' issue, history seems about to repeat itself.

More prosaically, science is not something that is done as part of ordinary life, but art is. The creation of a special cultural elite which can only exist because it is supported by Government erodes the arts by falsifying the larger culture of a nation. Worse than that, it makes art part of the function of Government and fosters the illusion that Government is central to our culture.

I am not prepared at this point (I mean intellectually, not emotionally) to argue civics at this level, (although I am happy to participate in a long discursive dialogue on the subject), so it might be simplest to say that it is Government itself that I disapprove of.

Given a hierarchy, I belief that the ward is more important than the shire, the shire than the region, the region than the state, and the state than the commonwealth. I would gladly see the Federal Government reduced in its powers to no more than border protection, defence, Treasury, the High Court and the management of standard weights and measures. Nothing else. 

I, too, have applied for and managed grants when it has been my duty to do so for others. I have done so against my personal ethics, but that is sometimes the nature of duty.

We don't have to agree on everything, only on the value of the dialogue. And on that, we are not at odds.  

Noël Christian

homestead:Theatre of Words

http://www.facebook.com/pages/homestead-Theatre-of-Words/195922452014?ref=ts

http://www.myspace.com/homesteadtheatre

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListA