Gobbledegook

The Greens are accusing Peter Garrett of talking gobbledegook over the Tasmanian Pulp Mill (here). Now this is going to happen to him increasingly up and until his party gets into power.
So two predictions are:

1. That if (by some slim chance) Labor don't win then Garrett will jump ship because he won't really be able to bring any real influence to bear from long-term Opposition. (It will be interesting to see what Turnbull does if he is consigned to Opposition for similar sorts of reasons).
   
2. If he gets into a Government, then he had better start effecting some real political clout in the environmental debate or the Greens' critique will indeed be seen to be true. I would imagine if he just becomes a stooge then (again) he will jump ship because his whole raison-d'-etre will collapse underneath him...and I would like to think that his integrity won't be able to bear that

So, to the Greens it needs to be said, you need to be patient with Garrett.
The sad reality of politics is that not every battle can be fought at each and every opportunity. If, however, when he gets some real power he then doesn't do anything...then he should be hammered

Last night---I didn't get to sleep at all

There are no doubt many photos but this particularly fine example was taken by Alison of last night's spectacular lunar eclipse. Passed on to me by my little mate!!

My little mate

Lionel Murphy (pictured)was hoisted on his own (or someone else's) petard for inaccurately defining his "little mate"; or perhaps for presuming on the relationship of mateship. So it is with some caution that I approach the question of whether or not new citizens should have to sign up to the concept of 'mateship' as a key Australian value.
The truth is we use the word 'mate' to cover a multitude of sins. And like all such blanket uses do, so this begs all sorts of questions.
I had a superior not so very long ago who came from the East (but it is probably not true to say he was a wise man) and used to like to call everyone 'mate'. Being a reverential sort of person I found this uncomfortable, and indeed it became a cause for raucous amusement. Whenever you wanted to feign intimacy or be sarcastic you would simply add the word 'mate' to your sentence and we would all fall about laughing.
I fear that we don't have the faintest clue what the word 'mate' means. We take it to mean what ever we want to promote.
So Murphy was taken to mean 'his little mate' was someone who needed to be sneakily looked after. Howard pretends to understand the psyche of the soldier mate, without ever having been close to having had the commitment that one soldier has to have to another in order to keep alive.
Others, like my former boss, just splash it around like confetti. So its meaning becomes ridiculous.
All this suggests to me that we should be very cautious about asking people to ascribe to something that is so ill, and indeed variously, defined

Loyal Citizenry

I was interested to catch a story on the ABC's Landline yesterday (coming here soon)about helping Zimbabwean farmers to come to Australia. It was a good story about positive immigration, and did not pretend to be easy.
At the conclusion of the story one of the English, (I think) commentators made the observation about receiving Australian citizenship that "An Australian born here will never understand how wonderful it is to have a piece of paper that says "Australian Citizenship". I know this feeling well, and have sometimes voiced similar sentiments to all the members of my family who (unlike me) happen to have had the good fortune to have been born here. Mrs C being a fourth generation Australian, and the little Cs therefore being fifth.
We take so much for granted. Our recent jaunt overseas, as enjoyable and wonderful as it was , did not diminish our delight at coming back to Australia. And I have no doubt that I am an Australian, and I am pleased to be able to say it is not just an accident of my birth.
It was interesting to read a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald by Richard Ackland (here) about the Haniff affair. Interesting because, in a way, everything has quieted down.
But he notes (amongst other things) how protagonists of tighter immigration laws, indeed the present Minister, wear the paraphernalia of citizenship...lapel badges and the like, almost in inverse proportion to their proclivity to breach values like the rule of law, freedom, and the right to a fair go. He has a point. Even if it is a little far-fetched to blame the lowly lapel badge for so much.
But at a time when we are talking about what sort of statements new citizens will have to sign up to...we should perhaps be prepared to seriously address the issues of what words and expressions like "the rule of law", "fair go", and "mateship" mean.
Personally if I was a Digger of the First War I would laugh every time the PM declares mateship to be one key value. While one can see how the filth of the trenches and the camraderie of war may indeed breed something so powerful called "mateship" that it can almost not be defined, but what suffering have Howard and Andrews endured that is anything like that supreme bonding experience.
From the comfort of the Parliament, and the bastion of power it is easy to call everyone your mate; and bear none of the consequences.
My piece of paper is worth more to me than that!

Not entirely getting the logic

I was interested to watch the youngest SC's reaction to the recurrence of the drug advertising this week. We sat quietly as we took in the theme.
"I wanted to be a fireman!" said the child voice of the desperate boy ravaging some woman's bag for credit cards or money. "I want to be a chef" said the girl who was screaming in an uncontrollable rage at her mother,. the mother who she had just confessed had given her the love of cooking in the first place.
The voice of the seven year old boy told about being a professional footballer, as his 17 year old body was zipped into a body bag.
Big SC and little SC watched quietly as the punchline was delivered. "Drugs cost lives"
They are a very powerful and good series of adverts.
Yesterday the mandatory government packet arrived in the post with the same message, being print it's a bit boring. And in fact still sits sealed in its plastic bag.
Am I too cynical to think that this latter piece of information is not about drugs at all, it is about election? It is a government who fears that it is perceived as doing nothing about issues that really hurt, and so wheels out the icing just to remind us that they are the source of this strong stuff.
It is not surprising either that the terrorism ads have also reappeared don't you think? Nor that the State Opposition has announced a policy about exposing police corruption if it gets elected.
It seems to me that it is not about any of this stuff. It is about wanting to be seen to be hard.
Unfortunately too many electors are appeased by this, when we should be saying...."I see the advertising, but are you actually doing anything?"

On demand

The Victorian Parliament plans to put the question of decriminalising abortion to the Parliament in order to remove it from the area of Common Law to Statute Law. One of the interesting facts about the discussion is that the assertion is frequently made that there are no accurate statistics of how many abortions are performed in Australia.
This seems incredible in a country which works well bureaucratically and has a sophisticated health system.
Only in our own state of South Australia are providers required to report abortions, and by projecting these to a national level the extrapolation is that there are about 50 to 80 thousand each year. [Though some more conservative groups quote figures in excess of 100,000...]
What this exposes, I suspect, is that it serves the purposes of certain interests to not accurately report abortion.
One can speculate why this might be so; but given that these sort of approximations indicate that abortion is the most commonly performed medical procedure surely there needs to be some accurate information gathering . Then certain other questions might be more accurately answered like:

• is 'proper counselling' actually being offered to those who seek abortion? Given that this is a major premise on which abortion-on-demand is offered, surely we need to know whether it is taking place effectively
• is there good follow-up to those who have had to endure the trauma of abortion? There is a lot of evidence to suggest that abortion is simply not the sort of thing where you pop into the surgery one day in between the other events in your rather hectic life
• do we know how many people have multiple abortions? And what that means for an individual, but also for social health.

Hmmmmm! yes these questions (and others) are rather hard. One might begin to see why it is easier not to ask them!

Worth asking

Are you lonesome tonight?

I was struck some years ago by the apposite title of the play about the life of Elvis...Are you lonesome tonight?

In one of those great theatre moments I remember experience catharsis at Martin Shaw's portrayal of the King. I wonder if he(Elvis) knew that this archetypal song was actually about himself. (which was the whole premise of Shaw's take on his life)
I found myself wondering about the great outpouring of grief last week on the 30th anniversary of his death. Somewhere thousands of people still resonate with the tragedy and I think wonder of Elvis's life.
Destroyed, it would seem, by the image of himself that was created by the media.
The thing I wondered about was whether he would actually survive in the world of today. There was about him a certain naïveté which was a feature of the age but is now just regarded as a thing of the past.
The young and the restless, take for example the innocents who have thrown in their lot with the lastest round of Australian Idol, just assume these days that they will be exploited and damaged. They are few and far between who survive the ravages of fame, which for all itsexposure and reward still would seem to be frought with loneliness and broken relationships.
If you don;';t believe me then check out the front of the New Idea!

Reverse psychology

The question of the day is whether or not the startling revelation that Kevin Rudd had a naughty night out will work for him or against him. My immediate reaction, far too cynical to be true I suppose, is that this is probably a reverse psychology leak by the Labor Party. The electorate will be so outraged by this leak that they will deem it dirty politics, and it will end up working in Rudd's favour.
It was noticeable that key players were remarkably silent, Abbot Abbott (not known for his caution when bad-mouthing people) declared himself to be a Trappist monk (here)and implemented a self-imposed vow of silence.
The reason?
Well it has long since been understood that once the sexual immorality card is played there is no stopping the flood of damaging revelations to both sides of politrics. It will be interesting to see how this reverse/reverse/reverse psychology plays itself out. Though I would much prefer to get on with the election and just simply get it out of the way.

Trouble posting

I have tried to be considerate this week and have known that if I posted either about the current round of Jungian analysis (which appears to be going well), or the debacles of the Federal Parliament (which have just been beeezaaaar) that I would have carped on and on and on.
So suffice to just make a couple of observations (without much comment) about things that have hit me this week:

• I have been interested that looking at dreams doesn't just appear to have been a fruitcake type of activity, but (as predicted by reputable authority) it does indeed begin to shed constructive light on the unconscious
• I have noted that the Treasurer said he didn't make comments to three journalists, and then admitted he did; but he declined to name the former comment as alie.
• I have noted that senior ministers, Abbott and Downer, and even the Prime Minister have made the observation that what you say doesn't matter as long as you deliver results.

As you can see there is plenty of opportunity for carping!

It's a bit of a worry!

George on YOUTUBE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa3J-L29iT8

What's all this then?

I had a conversation yesterday with an older friend who has identified herself to me before as a Liberal voter, she simply said....I hear all this talk about how good the economy is, I just don't know who gets the benefit of it. It's certainly not me.

She is a person of very modest income, whose husband died a few years ago after quite a long period of sickness. She has not lived a lavish lifestyle, and has a nice but modest house. She drives a car. I imagine that is what kills her!

I am (just) old enough to remember the foolishness of British PM, Harold Macmillan, who in the 60s insisted on telling the public in that pompous accent of the old Etonian"Let's face it most people have never had it so good!"

The public however didn't believe him and voted him out at the next possible opportunity.

I think wee Johnny would do better to look at that example rather than to his idol Mr Bush.

Union slams Trujillo’s ‘obscene’ pay rise

Press release from CPSU
The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) has slammed the latest pay increase for Telstra CEO Sol Trujillo following the company's latest profit announcement.
CPSU Deputy Secretary Louise Persse said:
"Sol Trujillo's total package of $11 million plus a year is obscene. Coming after another interest rate hike, most Australians would view this kind of increase as offensive and out of step with wider community standards.
“There will be no cheering about Sol’s bonus in regional communities such as Cairns, Maroochydore, Newcastle, Wollongong, Moe, Ballarat and Launceston, where hundreds of Telstra jobs have been cut recently.
“More than 6,000 staff have been cut over the last two years and 4,000 more jobs are set to go. The average new Telstra employee is employed on a take-it-or-leave-it Australian Workplace Agreement and earns around $42,000 a year. But even then, up to 20-30% of that base salary can be at risk unless tough performance and sales targets are met.
“While many Telstra staff on AWAs have no guaranteed annual pay rise, Sol’s remuneration has
grown by more than 21% over the last year.
"Sol Trujillo now earns more 250 times the average Telstra workers salary. Or to put it another way, it takes Sol Trujillo less than a day and a half to earn what an average Telstra staff member earns in a year,” said Ms Persse.
For comment:
Louise Persse - Deputy Secretary 0408 346 917
Paul Girdler – National Organiser 0418 331 369

Waste of Question Time

Yesterday, as I quite often do, I sat down with my sandwich and watched the beginning of Question Time. A couple of things of interest... I will not say interesting things....happened.
First, the broadcast began about thirty seconds after the first question had been asked. (This didn't actually matter as it turned out that the same question was to be asked over and over again).
This caused the PM about three or four minutes in to actually deliberately recap on his opening remarks...ie. let's not talk about what our government has done but about what the Hawke-Keating did.
This interested me because the recap was obviously done because somehow the PM must have found out his introductory remarks had not been broadcast, and he actually said something like ...For the benefit of those who may have missed it and for the broader audience...and then repeated his opening statement.
I didn't see anyone giving him any note to tell him that his opening marks had been missed. And I wondered whether he was wired so that someone was speaking into an earpiece (this would be the most satisfactory explanation of his seamless segue (pron: sɛgweɪ), but if it was so then it is a little sinister. To be fair I couldn't detect any such device. But it does make you wonder who this 'broader audience' is and why this was necessary.
Any way the second thing of interest, or disinterest really, was that Rudd just kept asking the same question about Howard's promises about not allowing interest rates to rise. Howard just refused to admit that he had made such a promise and deflected everything to talk about the Hawke-Keating government.
Rudd kept asking the same question. Howard gave the same answer.
It does make you ask: what is the point?
I know there is an argument that asking government questions is a democratic freedom we should treasure, but it has become so stylistic and predictable that a pretty good argument can also be made for the fact that it is simply a waste of time. Even if you add the paid time of Rudd and Howard together it seems something of a waste. Pity really!

Robust conversation

Yesterday was a day of robust conversation. And I wondered about a lot of it. I have always been one who has tended to jump in and say what I think needs to be said. This is a great act of hope and sometimes, even often, unfounded hope. Because I assume that others want to do this too, but so often they don't.
My youngest daughter and I waged a war in which she continually questioned everything I was saying. On the face of it this is a good thing. But part of what was happening is that she would not enter into the substance, and so just challenging became the name of the game. At this point I asserted that there is indeed a power and indeed authority imbalance between father and daughter, which she would not acknowledge. And so the content of what we were talking about became irrelevant and she moved (in my opinion) into the area of wilfull disobedience.
She failed to understand that it was for disobedience that she ended up being punished and not for disagreement! Still doesn't.
Then there was the pastoral encounter in which a person decided to tell me (again and again) a few home truths! And when that was over when I invited her to look more honestly at herself she found that outrageous. So often we give it out but we can't take it.
And the regular meeting of quite a lot of local Christians, once again concerns were not heard and put to one side. Inconvenient truths were swept to one side, and more importantly our stupid politeness meant that many things just simple went unsaid...and grumbles went on over coffee or as people drove home.
On one level it would be nice to think that people are sufficiently mature to listen to difficult stuff, and indeed to invite it. But, increasingly, experience suggests that we don't do this.

What passes for journalism

I am still waiting to see if The Messenger interview happens. I suppose something is likely to happen since they came and took my photograph.
All this begs the question about what passes for journalism. I was rung up for probably less than five minutes about decline in church attendances. Poorly formed questions, and even more poorly formed (very off the cuff) answers.
While the electric telephone is a great blessing it is also a liability. Once upon a time a reporter would actually have physically fronted you and would have had to spend 10 or 15 minutes engaging you in some face to face struggle. Now they can(and obviously do) sit at their desk and wonder who they can ring up.
I was interested because I was at a seminar yesterday when someone else referred to having been rung up for the same interview though for a different Messenger region. And I had been at something else a few days ago when a similar thing happened.
I had qualms at the time about what I was saying and what was being heard. They spent more time taking my photograph (what does that mean?) than getting my interview straight.

The foggy foggy foggy dew

Pretty foggy today! I was interested to be at Crafers at 5 p.m. when the fog descended, by the time I had driven the 5 minutes to Upper Sturt it had cleared, and then another 5 minutes further down it had collected again.
It's cold and wet...so be careful!

A solitary lot

Today (August 4) is kept in the Roman Church as the feast of John Vianney, often called the Curé d'Ars, he was the Parish Priest (Curé) of the small French Village of Ars from 1818 until 1859. His ministry there was small, but it attracted enormous numbers of people as part of that curious reaction in the French Church to the bitter anti-clericalism that was spawned in the wake of the revolution.
We see it also in Lourdes and in the devotion to the Little Flower, St Therese of Lisieux. While much of the society hated the church for what it had been and the privilege it had represented, there was also an almost extreme enthusiasm for ordinary spirituality and the lot of day to day Christianity.
The tussle in France (it seems to me from my recent trip) is evident to this day. It is wildly anti-church and yet there are pockets of great devotion. One Sunday night S and I went to the Basilica of Sacre Coeur to see the lights of Paris. At 10 p.m. at night there was a sort of boozy concert happening on the steps outside, it was almost profane. About 100 young people drinking, singing and generally carrying on. I don't mind such things, I like it when the prissy nature of the church is confronted by the stark reality of the world. (More homeless people should sleep on the cathedral steps!!)

We were surprised when we realised that the basilica was still open. Inside there was a Mass going on, about 400 people! It was a truly profound spiritual experience for me.
This tension is there between the Church and the Spirit.
What attracts me to Vianney is his simplicity. It is interesting that the official biographies always seem to focus on the supernatural aspects of his ministry. (Like the story that he used to tell people what they were about to confess!!) Personally, I suspect, that what drew people to him was the fact that he stayed put for forty years.
One thing I do know about simple folk in the parishes is that they are more than a bit suspicious of clergy, and it takes them a while to believe that we are actually going to try and journey with them. (I was involved in a conversation with some colleagues the other day and was noting that a priest who was moving hadn't (in my opinion) "been there very long". One of my wiser younger brethren observed "Oh he's been there 4½ years" and I was supposed to believe that was a long time!)
My first parish (4 years) taught me that despite the fact that I thought my two 2 year stints as a curate in the parishes in which I served taught me heaps. I actually knew nothing because I had barely been there before I left.
My second parish (6 years) told me that although I patted myself on the back for being four years in my first sole charge, I had only just begun to get people to believe that I may be committed to them...and then I left!
My next job (2 years) told me that I had moved too quickly out of my previous parish, and so had not confronted a whole range of things both personal and professional issues which needed to be dealt with. And so I was desperately ill formed and unready to move on!
So I have been in this parish 12 years. I will not be here as long as Fr Vianney was at Ars. I still puzzle about what I do and do not know.
But short appointments are not the way forward, by and large, if we are to build trust and co-operation.
(Unfortunately we have a king at the moment who only seems to have reigned for about two or three years over any of his kingdoms!)
I was greatly heartened (once) by former Primate John Grindrod (pictured left) who on his retirement noted that it was the parish clergy who are the backbone of our church's ordained ministry. This is what I think Vianney's life celebrates. And I believe it not just because I am a parish priest, and likely to remain so, but because it seems to be true.
In the end we have committed ourselves to plodding along together and grappling with trying to be meaningful community.
We are easily seduced these days by 'entrepreneurism' or 'church growth systems', by 'success theology' and any number of other things; but let us hear today the challenge of a simple French priest.

Don't expect me just to roll over!

If we had thought that Howard was just going to fatalistically accept polls and roll over and over and then acquiesce to the will of a disgruntled electorate, resign and force Costello to become a leader of the Opposition (surely he would resign rather than do this?) then signs are that this is not going to happen.
Let us not forget that this man, whether we agree with his policies or not, is one of the finest political animals that we have ever seen. He will play his cards like the champion he is and not go out without a fight.
As I watched crowds in Devonport yesterday enthusiastically cheer him (here) there could be little doubt that they appreciated the fact that he was going to intervene to ensure that they would not lose medical facilities. In a marginal seat it will make a difference.
Prediction: We will see the most strategically placed 'cherry picking ' (as Rudd so aptly named it) of projects in marginal electorates that we have ever seen. Will it work?...well we shall see. The voice of opposition in the Cabinet, Costello, to this sort of pre-election-spending has been effectively silenced in the last fortnight.
You can just hear his protestations. This is inflationary. And little Johnny's response...I know we can't afford it but if we don't buy it then we will be out of government, and if we are out of government then we won't be buying anything.

More sinister I fear is the fact that we actually may be about to witness something far more exploitative and cynical than the Tampa with regard to Dr Haniff. The trickle of dubious information that Andrews blessed us with yesterday, may just be the beginning of the political round to end all rounds.
Already (if talk radio is anything to go by) the public voices are changing...Well we have to err on the side of caution, so the PM was right. A News Poll yesterday firmly agreed with the way the Government had dealt with the issue...Yikes!!
There is now a slow flow of information from India which is, I suggest, exactly where the Government wants him to be...Haniff must have known about Terrorist Organizations...and of course he does have a beard and dark skin. And being on the subcontinent he is far away and unable to effectively access any real media presence. But then it's not really about him.

Amidst all this, I suspect Rudd has just to keep his cool; which will be easier said than done.
But let's not just expect fatalistic acquiescence from the PM

Not quite convinced - but open

I hear what Minister Andrews offered us last night by way of explanation, and I am not quite convinced but am open to see what transpires today.
What might be of concern is just how fairly innocuous conversation which may be overheard or monitored might be open to multiple interpretation. The Minister argues that he should act on the side of conservatism in regard to the safety of the general populace, and no one should have any truck with that.
When I cast my mind back to recent conversations that I have had with my siblings I am sure that they are unguarded and that I have shared things with them which would be capable of gross misinterpretation outside the parameters of that relationship. After all we go back a long way and we play games both negative and positive with each other. A bland reading of our conversations would no doubt be open to misinterpretation by those who don't know us, and let's face it when others are around sisters and brothers probably don't carry on in the same way as they might when they are alone. So I am guarded about what Andrews is offering us.
I am, today, content to wait for another 24 hours and see what else might happen.