Virtual reality

As I type words into the air (almost) every day I have no idea where they might end up.
The site-count meter clicks over every day, and occasionally I get comments from people I don't know and sometimes from I don't know where. What all this means is a difficult issue to get a handle on.
Is it the extreme manifestation of the alienation that we read about in the novels of the 40s and the 50s? Have we preferred to create for ourselves little cocoons of 'reality' which are no more real than Donald Duck, and is this the biggest survival mechanism of all. Faced with the truth would we all go mad, and so we create a virtual reality which works in a shallow sort of way, but really serves to protect us and our delicate sensibilities.
I often hear Christians talking about a God they seem to have created who bears little resemblance to my God. A God they wish might exist, who has multiple magic wands to wave over any situation.
In so doing they direct all their energies at trying to get this God to wave the wretched thing, largely it seems to me to no avail.
And yet there are other times when it ius all too clear that God does break in, not I think to wave a wand but rather to connect us with truth and genuine reality.
Death is a point where this often seems to happen. Crisis often engenders the need to confront reality. Where it is too callous to play the sort of wand-waving game (we don't mind doing it at marriage or at birth, but at death the stakes are a bit higher, and in a crisis we need to shape up).
I need to stop spending so much time creating a virtual world ...not the blogging...but my life!

Stroke of genius or absolute folly?

We have all been greatly intrigued by the candidacy of Maxine McKew in the forthcoming Federal Election, standing against the toughest of the tough himself.
I was intrigued by how in announcing her candidature she refused to be drawn into the personality denigration of which politics is so often guilty.
The plan looks like an altogether more subtle opertaion than simple setting big gun against big gun.
By pulling an entirely out of left field candidate, McKew will make sure that in any election campaign attention will constantly focus on Howard's electorate of Bennelong. There is no doubt that a PM can probably not carry out the work of a local member with any sophistication for either (as the good book saith...)... he will love the one and despise the other or he will despise the one and love the other... So if nothing else there will be a constant attention to the electorate of Bennelong when Howard would no doubt prefer that he is judged solely on his role as PM.
The Liberal Party has also been masterly (and I use that gender oriented word advisedly) at getting the electorate to focus on emotive issues...we do not forget the Tampa. This has meant that they have been able to turn attention away from themselves. Ms McKew's presence will mean that we will be constantly drawn back to the microscopic view of Bennelong which is not what Howard can possibly want. It will considerably weaken what ever sensationalist diversionary tactics we have in store for us.
On top of all this she is is a quality candidate, we like her not just because she is gorgeous...and I am not being sexist in any way.,..but I like her because in the best tradition of ABC journalists she is dogged in pursuit of her prey, she is mentally acute. She laughs occasionally, and this probably means that she doesn't take herself too seriously (the flaw of the Latham's of this world). One does not imagine that she will be destroyed by failure to be elected, we are in for an interesting little ride

testing times

Its worth listening to the recent Background Briefing about the issues of paying teachers for results. It does indeed beg all sorts of questions, not the least of which is the degree of objectivity that might be brought to assessing the idea of "success".
Does Mathematics success mean that a Year 12 student can accurately reproduce the Sum and Difference Formulae (this is the point at which Maths and I parted company...why learn stuff that you can reference more easily in a book) or that they are able to amortise a housing loan, or accurately cost a building project?
More seriously is the issue of how teachers start to "Teach the Test". We all know the problem. If your pay begins to depend on how your charges perform under a certain style of assessment then your method begins to reflect the process which will maximise the results under that method of assessment. Certain schools have masterd this art for years.
More seriously are other incontrovertible truths like parental educational levels influence performance at least as much as teachers. Middle class children with well-educated parents are likely to do well in our system. There are exceptions, bright working class kids who float to the top, but having worked in a number of educational environments where kids do not start with the advantage of having tertiary educated parents it is all too evident that these kids begin at something of a disadvantage.
Some might say this doesn't matter...they are the cannon fodder. But I would want to reward the teachers who struggle with the most disadvantaged and get them to take a few steps forward rather than the "successful" socially advantaged kids who have everything goign for them.
It is a very dangerous game that we play!!

Feeling beastly

There are times when I understand my vocation better than others. Having been rocked by a murder on the beach near our house at Port Elliot (here) I knew that when I went there yesterday it was incumbent upon me to be a priest. So I prayed for the dear young thing whose troubled life (which 15 year old is not troubled) ended by floating in the shallows on our favourite beach.Whether it meant anything for her, her family, the universe or the community....it was the right things for me to do as a priest.
I often solemenly pray the Lord's Prayer whilst floating in the water. I use ritual actions which my youngest daughter once observed..."I know what you were doing" she said. Not a bad thing for her to know that her dad was saying the Lord's Prayer!

Trainers by any other name

The news that PM Howard will be sending 70 more "trainers" to Iraq is a gauntlet down-throwing exercise. Equally well Mr Rudd's declaration that the Labor party's position is now the opposite, and that no more troops should go to Iraq is no surprise. The 70 trainers are a drop in the bucket in the scheme of things, but the amount of heat that this discussion generates indicates one unfortunate feature and that is that this is not about Iraq but about votes and the posturing is about creating a sense of political difference rather than about solving the problem. In realityt they could do this by saying "I say black" and the other could then say "White!" and the same dynamics would be playing out.
It is sad to say that this opportunism, rather than problem solving, will only be resolved when something truly awful happens. When 10 Australians are killed and their bodies brought home in coffins, the debate will be galvanised in an astonishing way that we should be smart enough to envision before it actually takes place.
Each day the Jim Lehrer Newshour from American public broadcasting play back photos in silence of American soldiers killed in Iraq. They do this in silence and it is deeply moving.
As their names, ranks, places of origin and ages flash by it is the ages that impact.
Marine Joseph Cruz-22, Corporal Terry Blenh-25, Captain Mark Harris-28, Private Louis Ouinh-19 (not their real names)...and so it goes on.
Last week Senator Kate Ellis asked ...Why do we persist in sending our finest and our best to theatres of war?
There is a sad, sad answer: It is the political game that old men play with our children.
I want better from both of our parties and our leaders. But I don't hold out much hope.

Brutal Humour

Humour is a powerful tool and we do well to not underestimate it. Adelaide has just been blitzed by the Little Britain phenomenon and anyone who knows their work will apreciate that no humour is more brutal than that of Matt (only gay in the village) Lucas and Mark (computer says no) Walliams. Remarkably perceptive but unremittingly brutal.
They line up in their sites: the hidden but definite racism of solidly middle class society, the awfulness of incontinence, the impersonal stupidity of the computer-driven service industry, the unsuccessful socially doomed young who have been failed by the education system, and of course the acceptance of gay sexual identity and then the 21st century obsession with weight and weight loss.
It is this latter theme that brings the condemnation of local commentator Amanda Blair (see here) who witnessed a youngish audience member being brought up on stage and being humiliated by Lucas's alter-ego Fat Fighter Marjorie Dawes.
Now Amanda you can be a little precious, and while (as a person who struggles with weight issues) I know the awfulness of the hidden pain we fatties feel, it seems to me that Ms Blair can also be a little ruthless.
She wrote a beautiful critique of happy-clappy church some months ago (and every priest or minister who presumesd to officiate at worship should read it). That is par for the course and I think she did well.
What happens in public can be treated publicly, so the young Belinda who faced the brunt of Marjorie Dawes has learnt an important lesson. We maybe wish she hadn't.
But she now knows that you don't sit up the front at comedy!!
On at least one occasion I have chosen not to sit up the front at a Barry Humphries' show, and everyone knows that you set off at least an hour earlier than you normally would, so that under no circumstances will you be that person who arrives after Edna has hit the stage.
One wonders if we are so well-trained about this now that people have to be planted in order to provide targets for the comedian. (Was the young Belinda a plant?....Certainly Walliams and Lucas have never resiled from making the awful more awful and I wouldn't put it past them to deliberately use a young person because it exaggerates Marjorie Dawes even more than is possible on TV and maybe stage requires it).
If we go to see awful humour then we shoudl expect it to be awful!!
Computer says YES!

We are the ODD people!

Not the funny or strange people. I am an odd person.
Late last night out in the garden (still 37 degrees at 10 p.m.) setting up hose and sprinkler so that at 5 a.m. I could get up and turn it on. Odd indeed. We live at no. 35 (here)

Trial by media

The recent media frenzy spurred on by one of the Corby camp insinuating in a paid interview that all is not quite as straight forward as the recent book, or the endless television coverage would have us believe, has rapidly descended into an unseemly debacle.
Not particularly because (as one might expect) accusations are made and then the family defends itself, but because Channel 7 aired the original interview and then Channel 9 dutifully responded with the "other side"
But the other side seemed more intent on showing that the original report was sensationalist reporting and shoddy journalism than in getting to the bottom of the matter. That is they were reporting about their rival and not about the case.
Pleeeeeease!!!!
If that ain't pots calling kettle black then I don't know what is.
Now I happen to believe that Ms Corby is probably guilty, my sister-in-law read the book and believes she is probably innocent. As we batted this around over the Christmas hols and as we once or twice drove past Kerobokan jail recently, it was apparent to anyone that there is no way of solving this intractable dilemma. Someone must be lying. But lie detectors will not settle this; they are notoriously unreliable. [It's interesting for example that Channel 9 spent a good deal of its report debunking the lie detectors, which had been a a substantial basis of 7's report...and then without batting an eyelid offered to submit Mercedes Corby ...where do they get these names.. to the same lie detector test that their former ally Jodi Power had undertaken]
What ever else is happening here, I don't believe that that the TV stations are doing more than trying to improve their ratings.
They are not interested in truth, they are interested in stirring the pot. And guilty or not the Corby's, or anyone else, should be cautious about thinking that media coverage is likely tohelp the cause.

Working from home

While there have been a number of debates around recently about education, no aspect is more interesting than whether or not kids should be doing homework.
We have already had at least one bout of tears and the "I don't feel well enough to go to school" routine once this year (3rd week of school).
The naked facts are that our school age daughter is at school by 8 a.m. on 3 or 4 mornings a week. She doesn't get off the bus until 4.15. She plays the piano, and the cello....wants to do softball and netball .... and needs time just to chill.
Why is it reasonable to assume that with 8 hours spent at school something will be achieved by having 1-2 hours more. I fail to be convinced.
At some point I just want her to play, to ring her friends and feel that she has some areas of her life that her under her control.
Others argue that it is a lesson in what the real world is like. It may indeed be like that for some folk. But most ordinary people I know don't come home from work to be told they have to do two hours more...some do, but is that desirable. I don't think so.
Too many families suffer because too many people go to work and then crowd their together time out.

And after all, does a 13 year old need two hours a night extra work.
I am not convinced that this does anything more than encourage children to detest self-driven education.

Let the games commence

Some will groan at the sparring that has begun between Messrs Howard and Rudd, like some macho show of strength.
It does seem to me that the quality of debate has lifted, and we are witnessing what happens when an Opposition works in some way appraching the way it should.
We have for too long had such weak opposition that the PM has said and done what he liked and (by and large) not had to answer for any of the more outrageous things he has said.
Part of the purpose of adversarial politics is to demand that leaders should have to justify everything. And that in so doing there is a considerable process of refinement and strengthening. While that could be perceived as tiresome for a sitting power broker ny and large (an I think we are witnessing it now) it is not just nit-picking it is for the good of all concerned.
That Messrs Howard and Co have not had satisfactory opposition for the last two or three years (at least) shows, and so he has become rather used to acting autocratically and has gone unchallenged. There was in the Parliament yesterday something of a sugegstion that he didn't like being questioned over and over again and became rather patronising and peremptory with his answers. It is not a good look, and could I suggest ultimately be his downfall as he is perecived by the electorate to be arrogant and unaccountable.
Ultimately politicians pay the price for that sort of hubris.

love that city

Have you noticed my eyes lately...a blog for later in the week.

But...I love February. Tomorrow 33, Wednesday 32 then 37, & 38 then wait for it wait for it.....40 and then 40 agin' truly SA February

When I was ordained to the priesthood at 4 p.m. on Sunday 8th February 1981 it was 42 degrees. Eucharistic vestments and all. Love the summer!!!

In looking for a picture of the cathedral I found St Peter's Belfast...don't you think they look the same.

Ma bella Marguerita

We had a "rite of passage" on Saturday when Sarah -the middle child of two middle children...what hope is there for her sanity...had her 21st. Clearly she has been an "adult" for some time as is represented by this sophisticated juxtaposition of ideas...a Marguerita in one hand, a pool cue in the other, as we wait to be seated at the hot Bali restaurant Kori on our recent holiday.. There are many things that could be said about her, and I said a few. But my major insistence is going to be that if you have both an 18th party and a 21st then after the 21st you are going to have to behave as if you are an adult.
Sarah, who was the family baby for many years, and the youngest grandchild for 9 then had what every middle child had to contend with...a sinking into oblivion as your star status is taken by one and then another and then another.
It creates interesting dynamics and conflicts in your life, some of which she has embraced and others of which have just been plain difficult. One of the key responses has been to revert to type and be a petulant child. Hence my insistent refrain...You became an adult legally when you were 18, you've had 3 years of practice. Now you are 21 and we have thrown the "Sarah - the child" name badge out . You are an adult and only adult behaviour will now be accepted.
God bless you darling!!

After the event

The conference referred to below was quite demanding but probably quite good. We were told that he wanted to love us, it was good to be so told. And I believe it.
Our facilitator mused about how she worked with many ages but often these sorts of consultations in the church were more torrid. One would hope that it is not because we are worse but because we are more vulnerable. But it would be presumptuous of me to say so.
I did determine that I would write a letter to the former Gorgonzola, (not that I would send it to him, but I need to write it for my own integrity)
God bless us all!

Embarassment , the Elephant of Truth and the Big Cheese

Commenting on someone else's blog in which they ask the question posed by Jack Spong...Why the Church should change or die...and trying to be too cryptic for my own good, I said

Maybe we shouldn't be so embarassed to die.

As I think about it there may be more than an "elephant of truth " in that little insight. Not that we should be careless or reckless with what has been committed to us, but we are awfully reluctant to let stuff go. While this is understandable it is not necessarily or particularly commendable.
Even if we think about someone dying (Jeff of a previous post died earlier this week...one of his fundamentalist daughters abused the good Archdeacon who had tried to minister to the family in their grief...but I digress).
Today we have to endure a "clergy conference". The last one we had on this subject really got to the Big Cheese as he copped a fair bit of flak for his non- consultative style. I imagine today we will see a wresting back of authority, comforted now with an episcopal ally of his own making, and months of consolidation of his position he is in a much firmer place. But he is, for all his rhetoric, I suspect too embarassed to let things die.

No clue about education

I was vaguely horrifed to hear Education Minister Julie Bishop pontificating about what education ought to be at the National Press Club today. I only caught the last few minutes (so maybe I do her an injustice) she seemed to be saying something like......Schools ought to be consulting with employers so that they can find out what parents want children to learn at school, and so that we may continue to have economic propsperity and they can share in it
Now I don't have much problem with that bald statement as a part of the vocational function that schools should see as theirs to address. But Minister Bishop seemed to be suggesting that this was the main function of education.
Here we have a travesty of educational philosophy, I suggest; and more than that a profound denigration of the role education should play in a civilised society.
If all it is meant to do is to provide fodder for the economic machine then God help us all.
Such a philosophy would spell the death of history, literature, pure maths, research science, music and anything that does not "upskill" the average participant.
We already see the narrowness that is engendered by those who, like Ms Bishop's Prime Ministerial colleague, have the narrowest of narrow views of what education in history is about, and who bandy the word "values" around and yet have no idea of the complexity of that sociological concept.
Contrast this with avid blog reader W who is a gifted educator (even if self-doubting) presently involved in helping immigrants to learn English. Earning a quarter of what Minister Bishop is reaping from the communal coffers, and struggling with a government that seems to think that 100 hours/student (or less) is all that they are prepared to fund; she has thrown herself into this work with gusto.
Ever looking for ways to engage her charges she tried to boil a potato in a classroom and set the fire alarms off, she is now confined to only using a microwave if she intends to teach English in such a challenging way.
To hear her talk about education is to hear one speak about a process which is immensely practical, and yet which is also mind-blowing. It is setting people free to live life.
She needs to talk to the good Minister and excite her too about the fact that education is more than just preparation for participation in the economy it is about engagement with the profundity of life, its challenges and its excitement...which, I suggest, is more than just being able to fill in a Centrelink form.
W's charges will remember her, I suggest, long after we have forgotten the narrow opportunistic philosophy of Julie Bishop and her boss....Julie who? I hear you ask

Curiouser & Curiouser

It is curious to receive communication from the Family First Party about maintaining Eccelsiastical privilege in legislation.
Belonging to a denomination which has often been accused of exercising undue influence in the Parliaments of this land in a quasi-established-church way I sometimes detect from some of these newer groups a sort of influence envy. Indeed this would seem to be a major dynamic in the formation of Family First...a wish to influence the politcial process. This is so obvious that it doesn't need to be spelled out.
The Anglican Church should remind these folk of that which it needs to periodically remind itself, something to do with cutlery required for supping with the devil (hence the cartoon).
The particular matter that the Honourables Evans & Hood put before us is the seeming removal of the church's right to vilify whomsoever it likes in the name of preaching and "Biblical" teaching.
To be sure they name these issues rather differently "REMOVING" the right to preach and the right to counsel.; which is I sufggest something of a furphy.
There is a real question to be asked here of whether anyone should be allowed to say anything they like in the name of religious faith. I just think this is not on.
While they are particularly citing (surprise, surprise) the right to call a spade a sodomite; if this is to be taken to its logical conclusion then would they be so keen to allow a Calathumpian to say that Pentecostals are narrow-minded bigots, or that Christians in general are polytheistic cannibals, or that Jews add the blood of children to the Passover loaf. [Students of history will note that I use those examples because they represent real accusations of the past]
My problems is that I think it is a very selective exegesis of how Christians are supposed to practise their faith and live as responsible citizens. My reading of (particularly Paul's) teaching about citizenship is that we should be exemplary in complying to the laws of the State, and require at least as much, and probably more, compliance and obedience as the general populace.
Surely when it comes to decrying vilification we shouldn't be reserving the right to vilify who we like, we should be at the forefront of compliance.
I do not want to stifle public debate, or give permission for the sermon police to be formed. But being religious does not give me, or anyone else the right to insult, demean or diminish the rights of anyone else.

Spectres of Rectors

Yesterday we had a bumper of a service when we met to give thanks for the life of Bill Bennetts who was the Rector of this parish more than twenty years ago (the last incumbent but one). He served also as parish priest of Kilburn where I had my first sole charge. (Here is a link to what I said in my sermon at the service).
As I said in that service, Rectors lurk in their parishes after they have gone, and Bill did. His predecessor but one (GFH) does also. I wonder if I will.
There was a curious array of feelings. He died some months ago, so in a way it was all over bar the shouting but all sorts of people gathered together to say goodbye. The principal mourner was his second-wife, who was not his wife when he was Rector of this parish and so was curiously not known to most of us. His two adult children were there and they had the confrontation of having to revisit the home of their childhood as well as everything else.
We sang the Office of Evening Prayer from the book of 1662, and his daughter found some of it rather alienating. Ah well we have all strayed like lost sheep from the devices and desires of our own hearts. But she wondered how I had chosen all his favourite hymns. The answer is I don't know! When I looked the other day at what exactly I had chosen I was surprised at the choice myself. I suppose part of it was that for one of his generation most of the hymns were favourites, but it also speaks volumes about the power and sustainability of 18th and 19th Century verse.

Blest are the pure in heart
for they shall see our God
the secret of the Lord is theirs
their soul is Christ's abode

Those damned hats

There might just be some hope for us given that when our new bishop was consecrated today there was a great gail of laughter. It seemed thatt he might have been trying to put it on the wrong way.(Yes there is a "right way"...the wretched thing has tails on it and they have to hang down the back of your head or they block your eyes!)The good bishop (for such he then was) seemed to think this was a huge joke. Good to laugh at the hat, as the hat seems to be a symbol of hierarchy and "boys' club"

Medical science

 I have been saying for some time that the difference between being in your 50s rather than your 40s is that you go to the Dr and you don't expect to be cured.  You are "managed" in your decline.I am in the middle of such a process. My haemoglobin levels are slowly declining and the cause is not immediately apparent.
Good on Dr Dave for persisting with me every six weeks or so for 30 mins (I was the first appointment and made him run late so early in the day). There are spectres that loom. Veiled references in conversation....if we don't find anything, don't imagine there is anything sinister (he said)....but then he doesn't say anything more and there is a sense that you feel he chose not to. Nothing sinister though.