Contribution to wit

It took me many years to make my contribution to the wit of the 20th Century (No! It's not the rice pudding joke!..or even how you get down off an elephant). But in the late 1990s I discovered it:

Anglicans like to be told what to do so that they can go ahead and not do it!

However my contribution to the wit of the 21st century has fallen into my lap courtesy of my youngest dauighter who emailed me yesterday to ask:

On Palm Sunday, why did Jesus ride into Jerusalem? We have an assignment and we can't find the answer anywhere. Thanks

And I replied:

To get to the other side

Well, I think it's funny!

Liberal Factionalism

Our local State MP, Iain Evans, is now the leader of the State Opposition. A good choice. A personable chap. The issue? Will he be able to galvanise his colleagues to get over the factionalism which has been their major characteristic in the last two decades.
Political parties need to realise that, however important they think that internal factional struggles are, by and large the general community couldn't give a hoot.
It is true of churches too. We often think that the stuff we spend endless hours debating is vitally important. And it is not unimportant, but by and large the wider constituency is not interested. If we reflected either as a party or a church for more than 30 seconds on these realities it might help us to get certain perspectives straight.

Wealth growth

The Prime Minister seemd to suggest in Parliament today that the new IR laws would bring unparalleled wealth. It does not take a genius to ask the obvious question.

For whom?

No doubt those sitting at home tonight without the jobs they once had will not be convinced that they have unparalleled opportunity for wealth!!

Compliancy

We will no doubt continue to hear about curious workplace dismissals for the next fortnight, and then we (fickle as we are) will grow tired of this and forget.
While the Unions are blaming absolutely every dismissal on the new workplace laws (and there is no doubt a truth in that for some of them) it would be a long bow indeed to place every dismissal at the doorstep of industrial reform.
A relative told me yesterday, for example, that someone was "escorted from the premises" at her work during the day. I immediately wondered if this was opportunistic behavior on behalf of the particular employer. More than 30 seconds of thought led me to dismiss that conclusion, but there is here a warning about how easily we can accept simplistic conclusions. We just as easily get over them.
This, to me, seems the dangerous dynamic about not being as careful as possible about workplace conditions. People become frightened, compliant and silent.
Unsure about whether or not there will be recourse available, people simply capitulate. Knowing that legal action is expensive it simply doesn't become an option for most people (even with an alleged government system of aid...$4000 won't go very far) .
The net effect is that the work force becomes more compliant. Which is obviously desirable on some fronts. But when "compliancy" means pressure to decrease work place benefits (we don't have people on $4/hour...but our great ally the US does!). While we are complaining about the great dilemma that the employed, far from working less in the 21st century, are now working extraordinary hours. This too becomes a matter for compliancy. Will society tolerate people being dismissed because they will not sacrifice their family life by consistently working 60 or more hours a week?
Of course the fear mechanism will cut in and mean that people will just comply. We will only see in 50 and 100 years time what has been the social effect of these phenomena. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose!!

Bread and circuses and Blair

We could reflect whether our political leaders think we are more in love with bread and circuses than with issues. (There actually seems little doubt...we love a good firework).
Is Prime Minister Blair's visit also a seeming firework...whilst looking like something of serious intent? People on both side acknowledged his speech in the High Court of Parliament was pretty damn good....but what did he actually say?
"Ra Ra let's stick together!...Ra Ra. Saddam is pretty noxious. The world is better off without him."
Well I think most of us probably thought he would say that any way. It's just that he says it rather well.
He is in fact a travelling circus. Sent here to rally the troops.
But probably also to get out of the kitchen for a while. Maybe he is a breadbaker too!

Degrees of Separation

When I'm feeling sad and lonely I can always cheer myself up with the Kevin Bacon numbers. This requires a modest knoweldge of 20th century film. You have to link actors to Kevin Bacon (pictured), almost everyone can be which is largely due to Bacon's prolific body of work and that of some of his counterparts..eg. Eli Wallach.
Try for example Julie Andrews:

Julie Andrews was in Relative Values (2000) with Colin Firth
Colin Firth was in Where the Truth Lies (2005) with Kevin Bacon
So she has a Bacon number of 2, Firth has a Bacon number of 1.

What, I hear you ask, of more obscure stars like Carmen Miranda.
What is surprising is how small their Bacon numbers are...hers is 2 also

Carmen Miranda was in Scared Stiff (1953) with Tony Barr
Tony Barr was in Murder in the First (1995) with Kevin Bacon.

This principle is also the ridiculous idea of the Davinci Code.Though in that movie it is not Bacon but Christ who is the focus, and the link that seeks to be proved is the dubious claim of the so called Merovingian dynasty. They claim to be descended from the offspring of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, it is of course rubbish. But whimsical rubbish!
Try also to work out your own connection to The Queen or Mao. I have four degrees of separation to both.
The notion is that everyone on the planet is linked by no more than six degrees of separation. A mind blowing thought.
My own Bacon number? 2....but I think it's a different Stephen Clark!!
More on the Bacon Oracle here

Things haven't been the same

I often remark that banking hasn't been the same since the Bank of Adelaide closed its doors. That convenient little bank on the corner of Gawler Place and North Terrace which is now a gentleman's outfitters. (Things haven't been the same since they started calling gentleman's outfitters men's clothes shops!)
Now, by the 'Bank of Adelaide' I do not mean the 'Adelaide Bank', which is what you get pictures of if you type Bank of Adelaide into Google. Indeed, you get pictures of the banks of the Torrens but no 'Bank of Adelaide'. Nor do I mean the State Bank which is now called BankSA and is really a front for St George Bank in SA. Indeed there are no pictures of the Bank of Adelaide at all in the Google system, it is pre-internet...even I think pre-desktop.
Replacing such banks is a system of processing money which involves encouraging people to not use face-to-face banking (it costs more if you do), of setting up fee systems to encourage you to bank at home and then when you have set all that up, of upping the fees so that it is at least as expensive to have no service as it was to have the very human contact that was outlawed. On top of this if you actually need to speak to anyone it is almost impossible to directly dial the branch where your account is, you almost always get diverted to a central switch or call centre. You have to wait in queues for ten minutes before you even begin to get served, and you can never speak to the same person twice, which puts a lottery into any encounter desperately hoping that you get someone who knows something about the system and not simply an operator following a systems' sheet. I think those people have a helluva job which I don't want.
But it's not like it was when there was a Bank of Adelaide!

Constituting masculinity

What constitutes masculinity? I have four sisters (one brother) 3 daughters, one wife...I have remarked elsewhere (here) about how my family of origin worked to bump off men over the age of 60....so I grew up surrounded by women. I don't feel that this has affected my designation of self particularly. I feel male, masculine, a man.
Indeed the women who surrounded me would, I think, have had it no other way. But why is it that so many popular conceptions of masculinity have to do with

a) muscles
b) sex
c)violence
d)power
e)'success'

Only one of these particularly interests me!

The men I admire are not the physically powerful, or socially successful they are the ones who are free to transcend stereotype and intelligent enough to change, to admit mistakes and to know when to keep quiet.

These are also characteristics I admire in women! Though the manifestations may be some what different. So as I have thought about issues to do with masculinity this week, I recognise there is a lot of confusion about what it is...though a certainty that it does exist... but it seems far removed from the stereotyping that goes on.

Shall we not love thee Mother dear?

Click here to Wachet Auf!!
My immediate task is to either find the words of the famous Mothering Sunday hymn I wrote some years ago or write another one before Sunday!!!
Youngest daughter, S, & I often talk about Johann Sebastian with whom she is rather taken ; we are overwhelmed about what he used to churn out week by week for his choirs. Not only did he write wonderfully original music, but also had to copy the music out by hand and candlelight. And he just used to do it week after week.
I have had full flights of poetry, which usually means one poem per week. I try to write words for one hymn a year, and occasionally manage two. So I take my hat off to JSB because I can't just churn it out week after week with any quality

Men's initiation

Went to an interesting seminar today which discussed appropriate processes of men's initiation. This is both a social and a church issue and raises the question (for me) of how so many aspects of men's life remains unspoken in Australian culture. Part of the question is even just having dialogue about the question.Where men have traditionally not spoken about their feelings at all, it is difficult to imagine them considering issues of separation from their childhood, initiation into adulthood and subsequent recognition of adult status by the community.
We often muse, (and I think that is the right word rather than "think") about brash rites of passage...pub crawls were mentioned during our discussion and trips to brothels spring to mind...but are these boorish outings anything more than self-indulgence and not particularly reflective at all. One of the problems would seem to be that those who talk most about these sorts of rite are not exactly what you would call "men's men" at all. I well remember Bishop Bruce Wilson reminding a clergy gathering discussing his watershed book "Can God survive in Australia?" that one reason we find an absence of men in the pews is that most clergy are not what you would typify as "men's men". He was not being pejorative, it is perhaps a bit much to expect those interested in spirituality to also appeal on a more macho front! It may even be that the popular male stereotypes do not necessarily speak the best about masculinity....the drunk, the slugger, the loud mouth, the arrogant....often seem to me to be poor examples of what a mature man should be.
It is an interesting question. How do we get our young boys to graduate to manhood. As a father of daughters I am interested in the feminine version of this question too.

Swings and roundabouts

There will be a diminution in the Liberal membership of the State Parliament, Opposition Leader Kerin is conceding as I write.
No mention has been made in the coverage of the success of Nick Xenophon in getting what looks like 2 quotas in the Legislative Council. Education Minister Jane Lomax-Smith observed that obviously the electorate find a person with passion very attractive (she rather exploits this herself). An imaginative third voice in the Upper House is critical. Whether the Family First party will succeed in getting a quota remains to be seen. They look as though they may get up on the basis of one of the Liberal's lost quotas....though it will be hard...so be it. That is (whether they admit it or not) where they draw their natural constituency. The Democrats are dead.
What a difference a day makes!

Fiddley diddley dee...potatoes

Happy St Pat's Day

Big bang theory

I am writing this before I have read or listened to any accounts of the opening of the Commonwealth Games (which I dutifully sat through).
Bearing in mind that it clashed with Spicks and Specks and Little Britain...the only "must see" television of the week...the question might be whether it was worth watching the ceremony instead of the programs of choice.
My answer is no! Apart from the inevitable boredom of watching hundreds of athletes doing nothing in particular other than walking, which was at least done at a mercifully hectic pace, there was so much of a clash of images and ideas as to designate a ramble rather than an "artistic masterpiece".
Some of my reservations are:

• Did I hear them say it cost $56 million to stage that particular event? Not the whole games, but just the opening ceremony. It seems an obscene amount when we are in the midst of a state election when we are talking about 3 million here for hospitals, 2 million there for teachers, a few million for roads and so on.
• I am sure in the mind of the powers who "are" there is some sense of showing off Melbourne to the world...but one can't imagine how dark pictures punctured with fireworks is an investment drawcard.
• Indeed, unlike the Sydney Olympics, the camera process often seemed poor and unhelpful in determining just what went on. (see for example the picture above).
• By contrast everything about Torino seemed perfectly framed.
• Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl.....but couldn't she smile or look vaguely interested. Do you think she wants us to become a republic and will be glad to get rid of us. She looked rather like an aged relative who has tired of her colonial relatives and just wishes she go back to Blackpool for a week's holiday.
• It was faintly bemusing to watch Dame Kiri sing "Happy Birthday" and then make the Queen have to stand up because she melded it into "Send her victorious" ...and the Queer old Dean...(well those of you who know Mr Spooner will understand)...looked faintly embarassed .
• I thought the Duck idea was brilliant...but frittered away. For a moment it seemed that Melbourne poeople may have understood that Michael Leunig's critique of Australian Society was the most distinctive and attractive thing about Melbourne...but alas no!!

Ah well I hope the weightlifting and shooting will all be worth it

Sanctuary

A parishioner involved with refugees asked the other day if the laws in relation to "Sanctuary" still prevailed. I am not sure if they ever did in Australia. And in fact I wonder if Magna Carta p ended all that in the 13th century.
The idea nevertheless is intriguing. With many refugees in our community can they turn to the Church for refuge, and will governments respect the sanctuary of church...whether physical or moral. I think the answer is no! (on both counts).
The church is not a particularly safe place for those in need or for those seeking refuge. It is fairly impotent, and in some ways proactively dangerous. Government has got our number. It is easy to discredit any outspoken voice when the community does not want to hear it. It is easy to ignore the voice of conscience when the conscience is stained. It is easy to point to disunity and disagreement when so much of the church seems like the most right wing extremity of government.
This is a sadness to me.
What is also a sadness is the stories that I hear, which I intend to pursue that:

• Refugees who appeal to the Department of Immigration are being hit with enormous court costs...one law for the rich prevails again
• The scandalous rumour that former residents of refugee detention facilities are now being billed for accommodation cost while they were resident there.

If these (and other) stories are true then what does this say about the oft-trumpeted myth of "fair go" which is heard from the lips of our PM and his team. It doesn't sound like a fair go to me. It sounds like the rich grinding the faces of the poorest of the poor with the heel of their boot.
Forgive me if I suggest that this sounds exactly like what the Hebrew prophets were asked by God to condemn.

God help Australia in the face of such lack of compassion

send her victorious

The arrival of our gracious sovereign lady today will give a few moments of reflection for us all on the question of whether or not we should be a republic.
As a Head of State there is no doubt we should welcome her, as the Head of the Commonwealth even more so as these moderately exciting games begin. But I for one hope that this may be one of the last times that she arrives here as the Queen of Australia.
Although, by and large, the prevailing reason for Australians seeming to vote in favour of retaining a monarchy(is that what we did?...probably not, it was more likely we voted against a particular model of republicanism...another story...) any way our reasoning seems to have been along the lines of ...if it ain't broke don't fix it. I am not really happy with the idea that it "ain't broke"!
In the modern world surely the least we can expect is to officially live in a society that says that everyone is to be regarded as being on an equal footing. Our fundamental institutions should declare what we believe...and as the monarchists keep reminding us ...it is not about the persons but about the institution of the monarchy. Indeed there is not much that is more fundamental, and yet it is essentially flawed. That is it is broke.
If the current arrangement says nothing else it says that leadership is an inherited privilege, that being wealthy and historical are the key characteristics that we think are important.
And of course no one is suggesting for a moment thast we do actually believe this. The symbol, the powerful and dramatic symbol, is broke.
Much of the debate has centred around the singing of God save the Queen. In my opinion it has all sorts of contradictions for those of us who are not citizens of the UK (in fact the Scottish may well feel more aligned to us thant to England).
Send her victorious... there are many forums where the interests of the UK and other parts of the Commonwealth are conflicted. Which side do we we want top prevail?
Long to reign over us.... the truth is the language oif "reign" is not the language of democracy. Does it matter? Symbolically, certainly.
Given that the end is (hopefully) in sight...we hypocritically join the prayer for a long reign in Australia. I think we should sing
Not so 'victorious' ,be less notorious, and not reign over us God save the Queen.
Good luck to her!!

Whose family?

That Family First will attract significant support at the next State election seems without doubt.

I will find myself unable to vote for them. Despite the fact that I am myself a religious person I find I am some what at odds with their policy focus which is narrowly to the social and moral right and clearly dominated by a religious framework, which they have steadfastly denied though surely no one believes this ingenuous spin.

As a leader of a local church I get a stream of unsolicited emails from them and the last is clearly appealing to me to support fellow Christians. I shall come to that in a moment.

There is a certain naïveté about some of their promotions….."Family First is against killing old people”.

As far as I know, about 99.9% of us feel likewise. While you can no doubt imagine what was being promoted here…the spectre of euthanasia…what I find disturbing about their stance is that they seem to preclude the possibility of constructive debate in this area. We will just say NO! is their policy. I think that is not helpful, and is in a way dishonest.

Their latest polemic contains a number of gems which should dispel any notion that they are not simply a front for various Pentecostal churches

They write: Family First will oppose any legislation that is ‘anti-church.’ I would feel happier if they were supporting everyone’s religious rights …I don’t hear them asserting the rights of Moslems

Family First will vehemently oppose and vote against any legislation that seeks to weaken the status of marriage. I don’t disagree with the sentiment, though it is rather a “carte blanche”. Banning passive smoking would seem to support marriage; encouraging safe driving likewise. Since marital law lies firmly within the Federal sphere I am not sure what it has to do with this State election unless of course it is about

Family First will also oppose any legislation which seeks to recognise homosexual relationships and grant rights to such relationships. I don’t quite understand why Pentecostals and other fundamentalists seem to hate homosexual people more than anything else. I personally want to live in a society where all members are free from persecution and injustice. We might not like people’s chosen lifestyles but we do not live in a narrow society where everyone is required to conform to Pastor Evans peculiar view of what family relationships should be like. I despise the tactic which names those who voted for the earlier readings of the Relationships Bill as though they some how are dishonourable. Not all Christians, myself included, support this narrow view of human sexuality which seems to be filled with a hatred that is far removed from the love of our Lord Jesus..

They go on Family First will fight for increased funding from the State Government for Independent, Catholic and Christian schools. and

We will also strongly oppose the intentions of the Minister for Education, The Hon. Jane Lomax-Smith, to substitute the name ‘chaplain’ for an alternative (sic)

I don’t disagree with either of these positions but am interested that for an allegedly broad-based party they have more than their fair share of interest in the peculiar interests of right wing churches.

I don’t think this is good. I am happy for churches to have their say and contribute to the debate but it is undesirable, I suggest, for churches to masquerade as political parties.

International Women's Day

I have often remarked that I come from a family that bumps its men off when they get into their late 50s and early 60s...it is something of an exaggeration...with, of course, an element of truth. Because we lived in a coal mining town many of my male relations simply died of things we are all too well aware of these days. And, even though neither of them were miners, both my grandfathers had died when my parents were quite young.
It meant that I grew up in an environment that was strong, and strong because the women who survived needed to keep their families together. And did this rather well. So I never quite understood (from a practical viewpoint) what many women were talking about in terms of being disempowered; though intellectually I recognise that my powerful, competent matriarchal ancestors worked very much within the parameters that a biassed society gave them. They were not, I think, feminists; but they certainly were strong women.
I have been blessed with three daughters. And as I reflect on what I as a parent have done for them, I am thankful that they are strong, articulate and assertive. At the same time they are deeply feminine and will all be good women. They are worthy successors to our female ancestors.

Oh! right!

The re-establishment of Simon Crean in his "safe seat" (though the argy bargy is not over) seems to say that the rank and file don't like the factional wheeling and dealing that the pollies get up to. It is interesting that that is also the message that SA Liberals need to hear.
While our beloved PM may go on ad-nauseam about "AUSTRALIAN VALUES" of mateship and the fair go, I think the electorate are saying to our pollies that we don't believe that pollies practice these core Australian values!!

Speaks for itself really

Botox Society

We all went to see Adam Hills tonight (star of ABC's "Spicks & Specks").Very perceptivecomedy with a number of highlights.

• he had a translator signing for deaf people in the audience.He rightly observed that watching the interpreter was a distraction that was well-worth engaging with.
• his optimism is infectious and brings a light touch to his thought which is so much better thanb the smut peddling cynics who just seek to be totally crude and offensively suggestive
• his obvious social conscience is not just anti-government whining but a clear concern for those who need our support...orphans homeless, differently abled
• Hills himself has an artificial foot!

He prattled on about the joy of being a godparent and asked fellow godparents in the audience....Did you have to renounce Satan? I often cringe at this question, though Hills clearly sees the challenge that it presents.
He also asked godparents....What have you taught your godchild? There was not much reply, but Hills has obviously spotted something that the liturgy contains: that being a godparent is about sharing something with your godchild. What, I wonder, do most of us think we should share.
Hills adds that he want to teach his godson what it means to "Tummy thump" (to slap your stomach with uproarious laughter). To live life so that the lines on your face will show that you knew how to live (a comment on the sterility of Botox Society). And to help them understand the real meaning of the English language and what "surreal" really means.
It doesn't mean, he says, being so drunk at 2 in the morning that when you get to the bar and find there is already a drink there poured for you that you say "That's surreal"
It's not.It may be coincidental, even a little bizarre. But it's not surreal.
Surreal is so twisted and surprising that when you encounter it it plays with your mind and you look at the world differently....
...if when you arrive at the bar you find a hippopotamus eating custard and making vodka martinis whilst paintin pictures of butterflies which turn into pyramids...Now that, Hills says, is surreal! And I agree. Very funny. Excitingly challenging, intelligent and great fun.

Passing the baton

Today I baptised my great niece. I am feeling these days as though I am now the older generation! I took my diary with me because I knew too that I would have to make arrangements with two different sets of couples (a niece and a nephew and their respective partners) to meet with them to discuss their forthcoming weddings. Their younger sister arrived with a new boyfriend in tow. And yet another nephew (different family) arrived with his partner and you wonder why they are not getting married.
Crikey Moshe! I must be getting old.
Earlier in the week I was with another (non-related) family as they prepared for their son's funeral. He died tragically. And I have still to understand what that really means. Maybe we will never know.
The real shudder came for me when I wrote his birthdate down and realised he was born in the same year as my eldest. No parent should have to bury their child.
Life is hard, life is full, life is happy and life is sad.
It is no longer in my hands. The baton, I think, has already been passed to a new set of runners. Good luck to you all.

Gospel truth

I received an advert today inviting me to buy various books...The Gospel according to....
and these included

• Disney
• Harry Potter
• Tolkein
• Oprah

It is an interesting idea which sets you thinking...

According to JW Howard
It doesn't matter what you do as long as you remain popular with the electorate
The main aim in life is to appeal to as many people as possible
Never take any resposibility for anything
and under no circumstances resign if you are wrong or if you lie

According to the AFL
All morality (good or bad) takes second place to winning
All footballers sin, but their sin is excusable in direct proportion to the number of goals they facilitate
Everything we do in life is supported by advertising. We should therefore be adorned with logos, and our life should be broken up into 13 min segments and we break and don't resume again until the flashing light tells us everyone is now back with a cup of tea

According to Rob Kerin and Mike Rann
Anything you can do I can do better ( also known as the "Annie Get your gun" principle)
I will be harsher on criminals than my opponent and I will test my schoolkids more than the next guy....neither of these will be based on policy or philosophy but rather on the idea of popular appeal...which is the main aim of life per se

And so it might go on...any suggestions?

Decade of fun

I have either had too much or too little stimulation this week to be able to think very straight and so blogging themes are not gelling in a cohesive way...I am resistant to do what everyone else is doing, and that is reflect on the Howard decade. But perhaps I should....
My problem with the last decade of politics is that it has been a decade of "politics" and not of vision or idealism.
Howard and his team are so responsive to public opinion that they change policy in order to ensure the survival of their government. This is good for the party not good for long-term policy.
I wonder what judgment history will make of the Prime Ministership of JW Howard. Apart from the introduction of GST it is difficult to pinpoint a long term contribution (this current term may offer something). But there is no Land Rights policy, no Global Warming policy. There is little that could be called innovative about Health or Education....there is plenty that could be called reactive but little that could be seen as innovative. This does not make for good history...I suggest that in 20 years JW Howard will be as well-known and understood as Arty Fadden--- Who? I hear you ask. I suspect the awareness of Howard will be similar.
I have had a decade in this current job....maybe much the same could be said for me. But then I am not PM and do not want to be.
In the same decade my youngest child has gone from being 2 to being 12...a huge and exciting change, but JWH seems same, same but different! (see here)

Remembering the dust

Today is Ash Wednesday, during the worship today a sign of the Cross is made on the head with ashes and the words "Remember that you are dust; and to dust you will return"
I always find these words deeply confronting, they are meant to speak about our fragility and our mortality.
Many years ago, on the day when the Ash Wednesday bushfires were happening in South Australia, S & I were driving back up Eyre Peninsula and the dust was incredible. The locals used to say that a lot of land changed hands that day but none of it was paid for..
The typically Australian red bull-dust was so thick that visibility was less than a metre, and the air we were breathing (pre-air conditioners) was dust-laden that you could taste it. Every Ash Wednesday I am inevitably drawn back to that trip.
In Adelaide and other parts a fire had begun to rage which would take life and property, the largest theological library in the State went up in smoke when St Michael's House, the home of The Society of the Sacred Mission, was destroyed. The ashes that day were hot and aflame and all too real. The effects of those fires went on for years. In a way they revolutionised the local understanding of post-traumatic stress disorder and put local experts in that field at the top of the tree of knowledge in that field.
We arrogantly think we rule the world. If you do nothing else today, whether religious or not, remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.