Changing attitudes

There's been a lot in the national press this week aboiut changing attitudes to nuclear energy. I even heard the argument trotted out that thousands of people die as a result of coal mining. This warmed my heart because it was something my father used to often say, a man who had grown up aware of both ongoing coal mining disasters and of the nearby presence of a nuclear reactor (Sellafield, Windscales or what ever it called these days).
The two things are related though not interdependent. It does not make sense to say we should embrace a bad thing (if that's what nuclear power is) because an alternative is worse.
What I am waiting for with regard to nuclear energy is for someone to show me (not just assert) that there is proper accountability of the fissile material....do we know what happens to the uranium at all stages of the process.... I want to know for certain that there is no chance that radioactive accidents will occur. Coal does have its share of woes but unlike uranium, although the accidents are appalling they do not last for hundreds of years.
I do understand the imperative to do something about coal-produced power from the global warming perspective, but I don't understand why we as a world are not throwing billions of dollars at solar power, wind power and other potential sources.
Nuclear energy (at this stage) does not seem like the best solution, it seems like a stop gap. A stop gap with potentially disastrous side-effects. Side effects which will keep on keeping on.
It is a narrow and short term economic solution and therein lies its flawed destiny.

Da Vinci Sminchy

Saw the Davinci Code yesterday. I wasn't terribly impressed. I am not offended by the doctrinal rubbish in any way (it is so shallow that you must be able to see through it), I just don't think it was a particularly good murder-mystery-whodunnit-thriller or what ever.
However, I must say that my wife thought it was OK. (I only fell asleep twice!!)
I wouldn't be advising you to go out of your way to see (and it's long) but not so bad

More fundamentals

Liberal christians (a terminology I could apply to myself in some respects and not others) can find themselves perplexed by the whole idea of fundamentalism.
Some commentators observe that the term "fundamentalist" was applied at first to those who adhered to the fundamentals of the faith. In particular the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. I am in this sense a fundamentalist.
But we know too well that for most of the 20th century the term "fundamentalist" has referred to a narrow type of literalism applied to the Bible which seems to suggest that every single word of the text has a literal and fixed meaning. This view (of any text) is simply unsustainable.
A cartoon I found yesterday has a tub thumping literalist saying "The Bible is the sole authority on all matters" and an argumentitive bystander saying "Then shut up Mr Fundamentalist because you ain't no authority on anything"
The point is well made; the problem with objective literalism is that it requires someone to tell us about it and as soon as that happens it is no longer 'objective'!
It is evident that fundamentalist literalists pick and choose what they focus on; they go into paroxysms about homosexuality and creationism whilst often ignoring the preponderance of Biblical teaching about justice for the poor.
There is also the seeming failure to realise that the Bible is a translated text and that words do not have exact counterparts in one language and then another. So why do so many individuals seem to think the English (and often King James) text is the definitive source for this curious literalism.
I just don't get it.

Fundamentally speaking

Accusations of "fundamentalism" are breaking out all over the place today. The PM (in Dublin) says of same-sex marriage advocates "I think it is a form of minority fundamentalism to say that you have to, in every aspect of one's institutions and one's arrangements in society, have technical equivalence,"
Mr Brough (Indigenous Affairs Minister) says that "law and order is the fundamental basis of all society"
And both sides of the Nuclear debate are accusing the other side of "fundamentalism"

Reflecting a change

You may have sat glued last night to Tracy Grimshaw's interview with Brant Webb and Todd Russell (here) about their entrapment in the mine at Beaconsfield.
All credit to Grimshaw for an unhurried interview, something that is all too absent from TV these days. Both Webb and particularly Russell displayed an anecdotal finesse which showed insight and care, and Grimshaw had the wisdom to let them get on with it.
What impressed me (because I am interested in that sort of thing) was the level of ongoing introspection that both men were capable of. Often you get a rehearsed patter (and there was something of the story that had been many-times-told) but there was also a sense of the change that occurred each time the story was told anew.
The two men, not particularly well-known to each other before the events in question, have developed an ability to comment upon and critique each other's statements which was intelligent and perceptive. One wonders if, and hopes that, it will continue to grow.
I was impressed by the men's realisation of the shallowness of some of their previous values, and their movement beyond the glib. Russell, who wrote his final words on his clothing so that when his body was found so would his letters to his loved ones, was able to tell us too of the immense loss that was felt when those garments had to be cut from him and left behind.
Webbs jocular style also impressed me as a matter-of-fact man who realised that social intimacies between men (so rigid in such a hard society) had bounds, limits and flexibilities which radically expose what is and what is not important between human beings.
It was worth the 2 hours...and I am sure Eddie would have thought it was well-worth the 3 or 4 million. Indeed it was worth much, much more.

Reality TV

Perhaps one day someone will explain to me why Reality TV seems anything but real. What seems to me as the obvious realities....people's pain, depression and suffering...largely go unnoticed on Big Brother and Australia's Biggest Loser... though they are no doubt one of the many sub-texts of what is going on.
The latest cavortings in the BB Brother household expose a degree of manipulation of people's most sensitive feelings. Is this "reality"? maybe it is. maybe the reality is that we couldn't care less about people's feelings...only ratings!

Not exactly new

The attention recently given to the issue of violence in Aboriginal communities (see here for example) will shock many people. Though it is often referred to and people wonder about what to do and then shake their heads and walk away from it.
There is a variety of issues. The safety of children must be paramount, and blow all the stuff we might say about preservation of indigenous culture, we cannot use that sort of argument to avoid responsibility. The integrity of people is also at stake here. We cannot simply say we will come in and impose solutions without reference to individual freedom. (The stolen generation solution) The fear of this sort of paternalism is, I suspect, the key dynamic that grinds this issue to the inevitable standstill.
Frightened that we might be accused of all sorts of things from jingoism to nazism,perpetrating a new 'stolen generation', we have chosen to do nothing. Worse than this we close our eyes and refuse even to discuss it. For a few days we are being forced to discuss it again.
There is no easy solution.
All these serious social issues do raise the question about why governments choose to return their taxation windfall to the wealthy and not to resourcing solutions for the most pitiful in our society.
There are of course no votes in aboriginal people.
One would think that ear-marking, say, an additional one billion dollars towards aboriginal health, policing and education, the roll-out of Opal (non-sniffable) petrol in the NT must all surely go a long way towards alleviating some of the circumstances that drive these issues.

Incredulity

I am sure that you will continue to be incredulous that the phone is not yet reconnected (4 and half weeks!!)
I oscillate between a certain delight at being so confronted with a society's frailty, and enjoy being able to say 'you can't reach us on the phone'. [There is a certain reminiscence of days gone by when phones were few and far betwen]
The Generation X-Boxers have never been without them. Indeed many of them have never been without a mobile let alone a landline.
So there is something disturbing about it all.
My delight is tempered by the uncertainty of not actually knowing whetheranyone or who is trying to ring and about what.
Add to this my ongoing whinge about modern day appliances. I find it disturbing that in a technologically advanced country I now assume that all items should be checked on the eve of warranty expiration. In the last year two cameras, and ipod, a laptop and a number of other items have failed that test and been repaired under warranty.
The not so great Brave New World

Telstra ----twinkly twinkle

I often misspell Telstra as Telstar....those who were around at the time (late 50s?) will remember the excitement at the launching of Telstar...the first satellite...or was it a sputnik?
Any way....I often chuckle that Telstra floats above the real world oblivious of what is going on below.
It seems unbelievable in modern Australia, in one of the 5 major cities, you have to spend 90 mins at a time to discuss phone installation and maintenance. I have probably had six such phone calls!!
It is incredible that the government believes that Telstra is ready to be sold when a disconnected phone line cannot be reconnected in a week (it has now been three...and did I hear them say 30th May on the phone today....aaaagh).
In creating an economy (the call centre) there is also a nightmare....circular systems which go round and round and no one takes responsibility. You can hear the huge sigh of relief when an operator can pass the phone call off to someone else.....and the sigh of despair from the caller.
No one cares, I am aware that when you even begin to explain to a possibly interested onlooker that they tire and begin to desperately pray that this might never happen to them. They then sink, trance-like into a glazed look of feigned interest.
So I apologise to all who I have bored so far with our tale of woe..but I guess you stopped reading a few sentences ago......!!!!

An Absolute Miracle

We have been gobsmacked by miracles this week. The straight forward people of Beaconsfield Northern Tasmania have steadfastly declared that the discovery of two miners alive after an earth tremor was indeed a miracle. (see here for a recent update).
The use of this sort of language is common, though I find myself wondering what it means. And more importantly, what it might say about God. Do we believe that God has intervened in this 'natural disaster' so that 2 men who would most certainly have died will now (hopefully) be rescued? At the very least we wonder about why one man died and the two others survived. This is one of the abiding problems with 'miracle' language, and miracle processes.
Do we really believe in a God who deals with us in what is such an unfair way...some are saved, others are not?
Do we want to believe in a God who can overrule the laws of the very universe that God established and created?
This is too heavy a framework to put on the language of the good people of Beaconsfield. Their language expresses a heartfelt thanks that at least some have been saved...and we take what we can get.
In another direction, the rose pictured above is called "A Blooming Miracle" and is a project to raise funds for Anglican Board of Mission-Australia (see here). There is no doubt in my mind that each flower from gum tree to caltrop is a "miracle"....the sort of God who makes this kind of miracle...complex development and subtlety, fine tuned through centuries of evolution, uniqueness and complementarity. To bring all this together in not just one, but millions of plants is indeed a "blooming miracle"

Because I can

Still no phone, and I am at the Apple shop in the mall, making this entry because I can!!

Anniversaries

In my first sole charge I had a big party to celebrate some anniversary or other. It was a good time and we enjoyed it.
I noticed some years later that my "equally wet behind the ears" predecessor had also had a party some years before. {Many years later the present incumbent is having a year of parties}
I have reflected some times that what I was doing (can't speak for the others) was reaching out into the beyond. The principle was probably: when in doubt have a party. Not a bad idea, and I have observed various anniversary celebrations and noted that this often seems to be what is happening.
But I have resisted the temptation to celebrate curious anniversaries (110ths and so on) because I think that it so often shows we have run out of ideas.
There is a time to celebrate no doubt, we had a 21st almost 12 months ago; and will have another one next year {but those two people also had 18th's....surely you can't have both...but they did}
Then next year will also be our 25th Wedding anniversary.
I reckon that the whole point of that is that by then you should at least have one child who is capable of organising a party for you. I will sit back and resist the temptation to organise yet another party.