B is for

BARRY who just goes on and on. And who seems to be getting a little less serious. He actually packed up laughing on the Einstein factor the other day

A is for

ALEXANDER who has yet to make up his mind

Capital time

The strange tale is told of Dr Jung advising someone who was in deep poo to spend an hour a day just doing nothing. They reluctantly agreed to do this.
When Jung talked to them about it next, it appeared to have had no effect. If anything thing were rather worse.
"What have you been doing?" asks Jung, and the client says, "Well I really looked forward to this hour off each day, and I chose half a dozen of my favourite CDs and went through them methodically. And I decided not to read, but got a couple of good art books out the library and just looked carefully at some of the pictures."
Of course (we can see where this is going) Jung said
"But I told you to do NOTHING!"
Inactivity frightens the pants off us. Mostly because it is one of the most significant things we can do.

The other day a colleague told us how a 'coach' had advised him to spend some time each day as 'capital time'. By this he meant that it was important to allocate time in intellectual and spiritual capital. Thinking about issues, life, and processing the important stuff.
Not quite the absolute 'nothing' that Herr Docktor Jung was on about, but in the same ball park.
I have also been convinced in the last few weeks of the primacy of another 'nothing'...prayer...and of making sure that I do that particular form of nothing. At times it is hard. Always it is essential, improving, and 'value adding'.
I can but commend it. We neglect it at our peril

Ongoing concern

I am still worried about this censorship business (here).
My concern is not, I think, that there should be absolutely no censorship. It is rather that if art is to be deliberatedf upon then I don't think the police are the ones who shoudl be doing the deliberating.
They may be the ones who need to go in and turn off the lights, but I don't think that in the end Superintendent Plod shoudl be the one deciding what is good and bad art.
Nor do artists need to be quite so precious and get all thingy because something called 'art' is critiqued as being exploitative.
I had a look at what is left of the said photos (which bizarrely have been made quite obscene by the imposition of censorial bars across various parts of various anatomies....another point altogether) and my impression is that they are not neutral, they are over the line.
Of course as a society we can say it is inappropriate, and even illegal for children to be treated in such a way. But maybe there is a case for any nude art being 'classified' (as films are) before they are put on display.
Then it is OK for police to act appropriately, but they should not be deciding what is and what is not art.

Confidentiality

I think most people haven't got a clue about confidentiality. We used to have an Archbishop who thought that everything could be called 'confidential'.
He used to label his monthly letter to clergy "Confidential"; one of these contained the number of monks and nuns in the Anglican Communion. So, I have never revealed that piece of information to anyone, and will go to my death bed before I betray that confidence.
Today the third S Clark went to one of our chatty GPs (he drives us to distraction with hius endless chatter, just give us drugs and let us go!). Any way he starts chatting to Ms S abotu her particular issue and then starts talking about a particular family who he saw once abotu a certain issue...half way through the conversation S realises that the particular family he is alluding to is us!
Stupid goose.
It's all well and good to be 'hypothetcial' and 'confidential' but in a small town like this people can put two and two together.
Doctors (and Archbishops) should do better!

A bit worrying

It's always a bit worrying when you cut the top of your thumb, and it still hurts 15 mins later. Ouch!

The Ascendant Star

The idea that Alexander will gravitate back to the front bench of the Liberal Party is a fascinating one. There is, after all, a precedent for an old leader being recycled in that party...and to great effect.
Whether the electorate will buy it remians to be seen.
I personally doubt it.
When Howard came back there was the need to re-establish confidence in the faithful.
Now there is the need to move, I suggest, to show that the party is capable of moving into the future not merely re-establishing the glory of the past.
It is an ever-abiding dilemma for organisations (churches not excluded); however glorious the halcyon days may seem it is the present and then the future that has to be realised, not merely the re-creation of the past.
Surely Downer must realise this. Or is the seduction of power so great that even one so politicially astute is blinded.

Ipso facto

Censorship makes me nervous.
It is even controversial to discuss it in relation to images of children. The latest row over a photographic exhibition in Sydney which, it now appears, police have closed down is the case in point.(here)
Naked photographs of children and teenagers.
The complaints are that they are sexual, and they may well be I don't know as I haven't seen them.
But not all naked pictures are necessarily sexual.
Anne Geddes has made a fortune out of delightful photos of cute babies. And we have on our wall at home one of our children in a giant plant pot after her style.
Whilst we are all so frightened to discuss this stuff, lest we be branded paedophilic, it would be a pity if we weren't able to have any more cutesy photographs.

Opening night

The third S Clark had her opening night last night...and apparently it was AMAZING.
Pity for all of you who haven't got tickets because it's sold out!!!

The price of petrol war

As we watch the price of petrol escalate we should not forget that this is also the price of war.

A war which, as ever, old men decided would happen despite the protestations of their nations. A war which would be paid for not by the rich and powerful but by the sons and daughters of those who protested.

Such foolishness, such waste!

History in the making

Today Kay Goldsworthy will be consecrated a bishop in Perth.(here)
Non-Anglicans will think this non-remarkable, some Anglicans will be cross, others of us will just praise the Lord. As I do!
The ordained ministry of women is not flawless, but then neither is that of men.
I am still of the belief that an ordered ministry that is not discriminated on the basis of gender is better for the Church and, so far as I can discern, more in accord with God's design.
There are those who say that the ordered ministry is not the possession of the Anglican Church but of the church universal. They have a point. They would conclude that therefore we are not at liberty to do anything with the practice of Order that is not in accord with the worldwide Church, particularly in its Roman Catholic and various Orthodox manifestations.
To my mind that just does not hold water, throughout history from the earliest days of moving beyond the original group of nominees (apostles) that Christ personally chose, the community has had to develop and grow.
If you read Acts 1 this momentous decision was made by tossing a dice.."And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles"
Since then, we've wised up and realised that the Holy Spirit might be available to guide us.
Bishops have not been perfect throughout history. We could mention one word...Borgia...and that argument is sealed.
The Church has had to grow, change and correct. Some times dragging and screaming!
Hopefully more postively than just growing out of evil and excess.
I give unashamed and unabashed thanks that this move looks Spirit-filled and in accord with the movement of God.
Hallelujah!

Time to read

It is worth noting today that Ecclesiastes 3 is set to remind us of some of life's truth. I print it here to giev you pause for thought:

There is a season for everything, a time for every occupation under heaven:
A time for giving birth,
a time for dying;
a time for planting,
a time for uprooting what has been planted.

A time for killing,
a time for healing;
a time for knocking down,
a time for building.

A time for tears,
a time for laughter;
a time for mourning,
a time for dancing.

A time for throwing stones away,
a time for gathering them up;
a time for embracing,
a time to refrain from embracing.

A time for searching,
a time for losing;
a time for keeping,
a time for throwing away.

A time for tearing,
a time for sewing;
a time for keeping silent,
a time for speaking.

A time for loving,
a time for hating;
a time for war,
a time for peace.

Thespians

Two of our number are in theatrical productions at the moment so it is not without its trials. Little do most attendees at theatre note what performers go through in the weeks prior to performance.
Long hours standing around while others do what they might have to do.
Families have to hear the songs over and over again... you hairy bunch of Ishmaelites (here)
And to put up with trying to run cars in four different directions whilst building a barricade (here...incidentally if you haven't got your ticket for les miserables then it's too late...sold out...fantastic)

Tension in the camp

As we reflect on the Howard-Costello years we see there was this tension between the economic discipline of Peter Costello, and the pragmatism of the successful Mr Howard.
Howard's genius was, I suppose, to be able to persuade Costello when it was OK to loosen the belt in order to buy the votes of the electorate. And to do this without fuelling inflation.
I think voters saw through this at the last election.
But it would appear that present leader Brendan Nelson is trying the populist Howard strategy, whilst his Opposition Treasurer Turnbull is at least as, if not more, fiscally restrained than Costello.
So it comes as no surprise that there was an "exchange of emails" (is this the 21st century equivalent of 'pistols at dawn'?). It also is not surprising that Nelson the present leader won, and I use that description advisedly.
It is, however, disconcerting for the poor dears when it all comes out in the public arena, and Turnbull is exposed as believeing one thing but having to say the opposite.
This is of course the nature of politics. Mr Downer did not bat an eyelid on Lateline last night, (false I hear you cry...but I resist the temptation to comment on Alexander's eyelashes...he was looking quite old last night)...back to to the plot. He said quite clearly that we may believe in one point of view but after the argument is over we tow the party line, even if we are fundamentally opposed. He said this is the nature of the Westminster system. I don't believe that is so, I think the Westminster system is about free and open debate...but he's a politician and I am not.
Of course he did point out that from Opposition fiscal promises are all hypothetical any way.
And we might also point out that the fiscal conservatism versus vote buying strategy is going to be the same issue for the present Government; though we are yet to see if there is the same sort of political opportunism in Rudd's heart as there was in Howard's. I suspect not.
But what would I know?

What gives you the right?

I don't know why people think they have the right to dismiss people on grounds of sexuality.
A perfectly normal conversation with a person about a pastoral situation...they then said "Oh I don't really like that N, you know the gay one!" and then flopped their wrist as if that some how clinched the argument "He's a bit emotional!"
The fact that his father had just died seemed to have escaped the commenators limited critical faculties, the fact that his (perfectly heterosexual) brother had also been crying remained unnoticed.
I mean if the comments had gone
"Oh I don't really like that N, you know the black one"...then the prejudice would not have gone unnoticed...or if it had been a comment made about a woman or a Jew, or a handicapped person, or a tall person.
Am I just getting too sensitive about gay issues?

Still don't get it

The opening words of Dr Nelson's address in reply remind us that they still don't get it.
"Australians should ask themselves what's in it for me?"
The government (it seems to me) is talking about what's in it for US ...nation building...working together.
Dr Nelson et al just don't get that ME is opposed to US!

Foxes find holes

A story doing the rounds in the US press (here) about the erstwhile Iraqi veteran who, in declaring himself to be atheistic, finds himself under attack from his alleged comrades (perhaps not a word you would use in the Amercian military).
Having to be put under protection because of his open atheism, there are huge questions here about what sort of society America actually promotes when it can't even tolerate a modicum of difference amongst its own.
We are not talking here apparently about a couple of fundies from the wild hills of Kentucky..or is that Dakota...or are they Black Hills...but you get the point. But ranking officers who tell an atheist who doesn't want to pray that he is some how threatening the glorious constitution, or that when a couple of them want to meet together to discuss their common plight they are some how threatening the war effort.
It makes the Australian Christian Lobby (here) look positively smart by comparison.
More significantly it suggests how ill-founded this particular Iraqi war is.
In the minds of many in power not about democracy at all, but about some curious religious view which doesn't tolerate difference even amongst its own.
The problem is not that people shoudn't be allowed to hold whacky or inconsistent views; the problem is that when it is officers who hold people's lives in the palms of their hands, and they are manifestly confused about what they are on about.
Here for example

in July, while still in Iraq, Hall organized a meeting of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers. According to Hall, after things began, Maj. Freddy Welborn disrupted the meeting with threats saying he might bring charges against Hall for conduct detrimental to good order and discipline, and that Hall was disgracing the Constitution. (Err, I think the major has that backward.) Welborn has denied the allegations, but the New York Times reports that another soldier at the meeting said that Hall's account was accurate.

What sort of democracy, freedom, religion, tolerance etc.etc is being promoted?
This stuff, to my mind, is slippery.....and really really scary!

The Hectic Life

There is always one week a month (at least) when life is really hectic and I am in the middle of it.
It is in the midst of these weeks that funerals often seem to occur, or maybe I just notice them more.
A funeral is an engrossing experience, even low key funerals demand of those of us who take them and of those attend a degree of participation that is significantly above our normal attention. I suppose it must be so.
What does it mean? I think it partly suggests that we pay less atention to our day to day life than we should, and we all intuitively know that we can't do that in the presence of one of us who is dead.
It may also mean that death awakens an innate fear in us, and we must not sleep lest the Grim Reaper some how catch us napping.
Any how, I am glad I don't have funerals every day

Pain and gain

I don't hold out much hope that the selfish electorate will actually understand that the Budget must address inflation. Or that they will understand that inflation is about people having too much money for their own good, and so the price goes up because the highest bidder will win.
We don't understand that credit is its own worst enemy, and only fuels inflation so that we end up paying a fortune for necessities whilst buying luxuries on credit.
Governments (like the Howard government) which poured useless cash into all too willing pockets only fuelled this process, and so whilst helping people to meet increasing prices actually drove priices up by giving people more money to spend.....
Labor governments have habitually inherited this sort of idiocy.
At some point this has to stop, and a first Budget will be an obvious opportunity.
I don't understand why we don't get that controlling inflation is actually better than pouring extra cash into outr pockets, but we don't.

New Republic

The paper today tells us that the unwashed masses are now in favour of a republic.
Well, surprise surprise my letter to the Editor goes:

No one is surely surprised that the republic tide has 'turned'.

What ever else the last so-called referendum was designed to do it was not designed to tell us whether Australians wanted to become a republic or not. By clever politicking on the part of the incumbent government that fundamental question was side-stepped in favour of bickering over the style of republic we might have. Well, the rest is history!

Let us now have a proper vote on the fundamental question.

As long as you call it Today

Some will recognise the quote!
To the last prizewinner, I will provide you with the free luxury coffee...and don't count the one yesterday which you provided as your prize.
Today....yes!
2 of us have gone interstate because 1 of us has to get an American visa and can't get it without fronting up in either Melbourne or Sydney. There is a certain arrogance about it, but they allhold the cards.
Another 1 of us went to see one of the flock who is dying in hospital, and had an unexpectedly good chat with two of the sisters who were at their brother's bedside waiting for him to die. He wondered who would fly from interstate to be at his bedside as one of the sisters had done.
She had been rung saying time is short and had left almost instantly, her husband was out playing golf or something...so when he returned home there was a note sayingn his beloved was now 2000 kms away...all within the space of a few hours
1 of us got up and then had to go back to bed as the rigours of the season ground her down.
Ah yes ...today!

The price of progress

I have watched in the last few days what are really sad tales of our world. While we bemoan the price of petrol and the cost of food in Australia, there should be no reason why anyone in this land should not be able to access at least one and probably three square meals tomorrow.
It is not so fortunate elsewhere. Last night's Dateline highlighted the shortage of bread in Cairo.
Now Cairo is not Zimbabwe or Mali, it is relatively affluent and people are without staples.
Tonight's Insight was frighteningly close to home.The story of families trying to make it on $400-$500 a week...with mortages, petrol, health and children.
The all too common story of families not having enough money to meet crisis needs.
Having grown up in an household with one income, many children and no capital to fall back on I am all too well aware that many of the middle-class just don't get this. They do not understand how a family can simply not have enough money to put petrol in the car, or to replace clothing.
They do not understand how the poor do not insure their houses and cars not because they are stupid, but because there is simply not money to do it.
There are always those ready to moralise about the way those who try to live on tiny incomes spend their money. I just don't think they get the reality of poverty means not that the poor choose foolishly but that they have no choice.
I am drawn to one banking advert which says...Every generation should live better than the one that went before...and I think we should be ashamed that too many people, certainly in the developing world, but also in our midst can't actually relaise that goal.

Happily married

In the way of these things I am inclined to think that the road towards same-sex marriages is one of inevitability. That is, I think we will all look round in a hundred years time and wonder what the fuss was about.
For the life of me I cannot understand why some people seem to think that gay-marriage will bring about the end of civilisation as we know it. I do have some sympathy with the argument that what ever else a committed same-sex relationship might be it is not marriage.
I have sympathy with that argument but in the end I am les and less persuaded by it.
Even if I were to accept the view that sectional interest groups, like churches, are at liberty to define marriage theologically as they see fit...I do not think that idea should go uncritiqued by rational thought and by sociological change.
The key dynamic that has changed in society in the last fifty years is our understanding of the nature and origin of homosexuality. Most would accept that homosexuality is not a choice but an orientation. We do not choose to be homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual rather we are as we are.
Most of those who speak out against homosexuality seem to do so out of a sense that some how a person has to apologise for being as they are.
There is logically no difference between that state of affairs and requiring people to apologise for their racial origins or their gender.
There are two things that are offensive about such an idea. First is the offensiveness that we recognise of assuming that race, gender, or sexual orientation renders us superior or inferior. Second is the offensiveness that people should be impugned for something that lies outside their control. There can be no moral responsibility for that which we cannot freely change.
I want, and I have said before, people to live in responsible relationships with each other. I think it is preferable that we not treat sexual relationships as though they were of no value, and just some sort of recreation. To my mind, sex is so powerful a human motivator that it cannot have no meaning.
Even 'consenting adults' who conspire together to say this is 'just sex' are I think kidding themselves. We don't like it when our partners sleep around!
So I think taking this important stuff, sex, seriously means it should happen in the context of the committed relationship.
I want to do what ever I can to encourage commitment. It seems better to me that sexually active people should be committed to each other. If for same sex couples that commitment can be marriage-like (monogamous, exclusive, life-long) then why can that commitment not be honoured.
Is it not better to have commitment than promiscuity? I would have thought so.
I am not against chastity, I am against people being forced to be celibate who don't believe that is their particular vocation.
We need, I suggest, to encourage mature relationships. Not discourage them.