What are the poor people doing...?

I have a very good dentist (see here) but I've seen him 3 times in the last fortnight. The last time today...and my teeth feel great.
Now we are fortunate to have Extras Cover (at a cost) and I've still shelled out over $1000 excess in this short space of time.
It is (of course) worth it...but what do the poor people do?

The difficulty of China

It is worth reading A. Downer's article about Australia's foreign policy towards China(unfortunately haven't been able to get the link off the net yet). Not surprisingly he is critical (again) of the present government's performance. This is not really surprising since he was the minister responsible in a previous government of a different persuasion.
He does rightly make the point that foreign policy should be about pursuing the national interest and not about pleasing the Canberra Press gallery. It is good to be reminded that the situation in Tibet is more complex than most imagine. But perhaps a bit ingenuous to suggest that recent crackdowns are more the fault of the Tibetan resistance's agression than the Chinese military's disproportionate response.
There is no doubt that we need to be diplomatic in all our foreign relationships. But many of us feel particularly uncomfortable, when diplomatic seems to mean...if China doesn't like it then we capitulate, or keep quiet.
If nothing else diplomacy is surely not about allowing one side...no matter how large...to dominate.

Choice and anti choice

The great difficulty for those of us who were born in the 50s is that on Friday nights on TV we are face with that woman...what is her name...you know who I mean she is the epitome of the lost 40s and 50s ...the one who was in Ab Fab ,,,after I Google I remember she is Joanna Lumley...she must be sad because now she is typecast as the lovely who grows old .
Well that's the ABC, but on SBS we are to pretend that we remember what it was actually like in the 70s....but I don't really
It is a bit of a tyranny, and I just wish we could get on with living in the present day

Death of a prince

Perhaps the most shocking thing about the death of Edward Kennedy is not the end of a dynasty but the fact that his vacancy in the US Senate will leave the Obama Health reforms one vote short.
These reforms which aim at trying to provide universal health coverage for everyone seem, perhaps, pedestrian to Australians. Though our system is no doubt deeply flawed, by and large we cover the ground...and though there are obvious gaps (in indigenous health delivery for example) we would hope that the system improves as time goes on. And all sides of politics agree that no one should be denied health care because they can't afford it.
It is bizarre that the richest country in the world has not only a system which denies many of the poorest of the poor basic healthcare.
It is bizarre that the voices of conservative Christianity are often the ones that are adding their number to the chorus of those who say that universal healthcare at government expense is in fact "socialist"...and therefore repugnant (in their eyes) [see this for example which is repeated many times o'er].
Kennedy, though in reality a New World prince, has spent his politcial career arguing many a cause of the underprivileged...and I guess he didn't need to... his forthright advocacy will be missed

Vegas Baby!

K is in Vegas today. She seems to think it is the best thing since sliced bread. A good way to relax after three months of hard work looking after rich people's kids.
Fortunately she thinks gambling is stupid, but is enjoying the fact that really this curious city is basically just a big theme park in the middle of nowhere.
She said..."Dad you wouldlove it!" The problem is I most likely would

back to the past

The curiously named "Back to Church Sunday" will be held on September 13, and it was quite heartening to see that driving up Unley Road this morning a huge banner was being put up stretching across the road advertising the fact.


The single mosty frequent comment from church people is that they don't like the name. And perhaps its subtitle "come as you are" is a happier concatenation of ideas.
I have some mixed feeling about it. Theer are after all a lot of people who don't come to church who did come ten, twenty, thirty years ago. We sometimes talk about these people as though they stopped coming to church yesterday. When I came here I was told that E was 'the hall booking lady'. As far as I could tell she had moved out of the parish some years before, but still continued with her mundane task. There are many curiosities like this
I have long felt that we are misguided if we think that trying to encourage those who no longer come is the best way to go, many of those people for example have stopped comign to church by choice not be accident. It is part of the way we don't take responsibility for what happens in our churches. How many times have I sat in a discussion about outreach and evangelism only to hear it turn to blaming those who don't come for their failure to respond.
Any way, we are accepting this opportunity for what it is. It may allow some people to join us for worship on 13th September (contact me if you would like to)

And I am sorry for all those who still feel hurt by events of the past, or the cliquish nature of the church, or who just think church has lost the (Christian) plot.

You are welcome. And just come as you are!

On death and dying...on sin and sinning

One of the things I have been doing is tidying up an educational program we are preparing to help people new to Christianity understand soime of the basic ideas. Today I discussed one of the sessions with one of our parish groups the session about Jesus.

Part of the focus of that session is about what it means to say Jesus has died for our sin. It was (as is the nature of such discussions) 'robust'and at times 'deep'. We touched a few raw nerves. And I think there were more than a few insights. So that is good.

The conversation wandered a bit and some of my observations are:

• Most of us can't countenance the fact that we can resist sin!


• We condemn sin in other people


• More than a few of us have been touched by suicide


• We play games and avoid confronting ourselves


• Most of us have either totally excused ourselves because of Calvary, or failed to think that it even applies to me

So, on the whole, I think the study is pitched at a good level.

Transport failure

One of the great delights of living in the so-called "Mitcham Hills" is that we are serviced by one of Adelaide's few rail services. And indeed our line is more picturesque than most.
The train has actually been out of commission for the last few months while wooden sleepers have been being replaced with concrete ones. It's apparently an alleged preparation for an electification.
Well, it's been b*&^%y annoying! But, I guess, necessary. I have not caught the bus-alternative, but give her her due the medium sized S Clark has dutifully goine to work and Uni on the bus.
We all heaved a huge sigh of relief that last Sunday (23rd August) saw the reintroduction of the train.
Indeed I guess we were all a bit gobsmacked on the Friday before to hear the announcement that the timetables were also being revamped. A huge sigh of 'and not before b*&^%y time' could be heard echoing from Belair to Clapham.
Alack alas it is not to be. Our timetable will still be the same crappy weekend timetable it has always been.
The very-same medium sized S C dutifully starts work at 7.30 in the City of Adelaide each Saturday. But even if she started at 8, the first train from Belair does not leave until 7.30 arriving in Adelaide at 8.05.
In these days of deregularised trading and working hours we need a transport system that can respond.
At other times on Saturday and Sunday the train goes only hourly. I suppose it's inevitable that frequency diminishes. But you do have to wonder at what point the infrequency of services actually discourages people from using transport. I suspect that all but the hardened train traveller can submit to the possibility that if they miss their Sunday train they will have to wait in the inglorious Adelaide Railway precinct for an hour...quite different from a 30 or even 40 minute wait.
My impression from our brief sojourn in Europe two years ago (see here for example) is that Adelaide could really improve it's transport if it wanted to. In a way that Europe seems to have done. We simply have to decide that cities are served by public rather than private transport.
But few have the political nerve I suspect.
I have include Derek Scrafton's name in the tags, becuase it seems to me that from my very brief but much appreciated association with him he knows more about public transport than anyone else in this State.

Let's confess!

A very nasty case that is before the courts at the moment of alleged sexual abuse by a former Anglican priest (see here for The Australian's report) reminds us all that the ground has shifted in the reporting of these matters.
There is a bizarre caricature that alleged perpetrators might "confess" their sins to an authority figure and thus render the matter confidential. In an Adelaide court 'Archbishop' John Hepworth, a former Roman Catholic priest, and then Anglican priest...but now the leader of one of the many splinter groups (see here for a former blog about this) formed in the reaction to a whole range of issues...particularly the ordination fo women to the priesthood...
Any way Hepworth gave testimony at the trial revealing details of a phone conversation which once upon a time might have been considered privileged. I do not need to go into the nastiness of it here.
What is now the case is that people (by and large) cannot now claim that any conversation with a priest is 'confession' by definition.
To be covered under 'the seal of the confessional' the matter must be a deliberate and intentional confession, stated to be so before the event and not afterwards.
Some of the Anglican Church's guidelines (I don't know about Hepworth's mob...) suggest that in matters to do with child abuse that the 'seal' no longer holds any way. This has yet to be tested, but there is some sympathy with the idea that mandatory notification now extends into the confessional. (I would find this idea difficult and hope personally that I never have to test it)
This stuff is awful. But I think weare trying to take it seriously.

When, I ask, will the State actually adopt the same scrutiny to schools and institutions that it demands (and rightly) of the Churches.

On death and dying (iii)

I did say I would review My Sister's Keeper (especially I think for you Vicky!).
I dislike the novels of Jodi Picoult the more I read them, sentimental and mawkish and not very complex.
Now, one thing I know about death is that it is complex. And this may seem trite, but it is also important.
My Facebook review is here (I think if you click it it shoudl take you to my Flixtster page, but this may only work if you are on Facebook)
The plot has been modified so it is a bit better than the book, and the acting is great.
The basic tenet of the plot is a girl dying of cancer has a sister who was probably conceived so that there might be " compatible genetic material" . Anyway at age twelve, or so, that child petitions the court (it could only happen in America) to prevent her parents using her body any more.
It is a good twisty plot.
The question that might well be asked is do parents have the right to continue to save their children when their children have had enough!! Ms C Diaz is forceful as the mother, and leaves you without a doubt that parents will, can and should prevail. But fails to see that this is not onlky killing her daughter(s) but also her family. (Not too subtle...but a not unimportant point about what can happen during grieving)
In the midst of this a dying person has had enough.
It's worth a look.

One thing I know after 30 odd years of helping people with death, is that most people chew it up. And come out of the experience of grieving, as difficult as it is for anyone, better people.
We were warned in our early training that some people who "get stuck" need help...and that's true. But most people don't get stuck and can process it.
The worst thing, it seems to me, that you can do is to refuse to engage with it.
This is probably because death and grief are likely to be the most authentic experiences we will ever have.

In the midst of this my brother-in-law's Mama, Teresa, (who has been declining for some weeks now) died last night. She made the tenderest calamari in the world!

Right to die (ii)

A quadraplegic man this week "won the right to starve himself to death" (here). It begs all sorts of questions. The case was not so much about this man's rights as clearing any palliative care agency of negligence if they decide to agree with his wishes not to accept food....and that they should respect his wishes not to be force-fed.
A correspondent to The Advertiser yesterday rightly asks the question whether this decision is actually 'civilised', as many claim. Not because it allows a person to suicide by starvation, but because by allowing in principle a person's right to determine whether they should not be treated, the person then has to go through a slow but excruciating process of dying by starvation.
I think this is a good point.
Whilst I personally believe we should not go down the track of allowing active euthanasia (that is, doctor's should not be allowed to inject people with drugs the sole purpose of which is to take away their life) there are going to be dilemmas like this which need better solutions.
Incidentally, last night S and I went to see My Sister's Keeper, which is also about death...but I will blog about that later

The right to die properly

Death is an amazing thing. I did a funeral last week of a man who was 90 and family flew from the other end of the world to be here. His wife of some years unfortunately has Alzheimer's and one can only hope she took in some of what was going on. They had had a couple of tender moments in the days leading up to the death, but in such circumstances...one mentally diminished and the other under a great deal of end-of-life stress...you just trust that we do what we can.
It always seems to me that if we overcome our fear of the process then it is open to rich possibilities.

Blog drought

I apologise for the total dearth of blogging in the last fortnight. And will try to do better.
If you have any things you would particularly like me to blog about then let me know

More about marriage

One correspondent writes about the previous post below.

The big problem I see is that there are two clearly different 'types' of
marriage - yet are still tightly entangled in the minds of the public.

The marriage as a religious/personal/ideal belief

and marriage as a legal contract.

Now the second, marriage as a legal thing is now so far separate from the marriage ideal that, in my opinion, makes religion completely meaningless when it weighs into the debate
...with the changes to laws regarding people
living together - de facto relationships and what centerlink considers a
relationship to be (now including homosexual relationships) completely separates
a civil union from a religious one - you can effectively be legally married without being married at all!
if the religious zealots were really concerned about protecting the sanctity of marriage then same sex unions is the LEAST of their concerns !
Civil unions should be open to all, the Church can but (sic) out - I don't know how true it is but someone told me that people having 'religious marriages' were declining.

I don't agree with all of the comments made but there are 'elephants' of truth in all this.
The religious ideal of marriage is a "high" view of marriage. It is not arbitrary, is says that marraige is serious and should be taken seriously by all society (The Anglican service actually says this).
What I think this correspondent does recognise is that the practice of marriage has changed in a way that no one woiuld probably have predicted before WWII.
Although the Soviets tried to change the nature of marriage with their infamous postcard divorce reforms it did not last and caused such social disorientation that it was not alloowed to continue.
There would seem to be little doubt that the single most significant factor has been the advent since the mid 60s of effective contraceptive practice.
Is it too bland to say that once people could have sex without necessarily having to conceive they did not need and oir want to get married.
Society has accepted the phenomenon of 'living together' with such a vengeance that it will probably take another century to fully understand just why this is so.
So Kordos is right to make the observation that people can now live together as if they were married without the actual legal commitment.
I think we pay an enormous legal (and actual financial) cost for this and a lot of the 'defacto' stuff looks like game playing....claiming the privilege of being married but not the responsibility of making a legal commitment.
I guess the social cost will work itself out and will be better understood in 2059 than in 2009

Same sex Marriage

We seem to have been totally underwhelmed by the discussion at the ALP national conference about whether or not to permit people to enter into marriage relationships with a person of the same sex.
This is not a straight forward discussion. There are all sorts of questions that have yet to be answered.
What is it really about? Is it about ensuring the not unimportant right for people to be allowed to enter into committed realtionship, and to not arbitrarily deny to some what we would advocate for others.
Or is it about who might, or might not be allowed to adopt children.
There are for the Churches, theological issues; but these are of little or no concern to the Parliament. The great religious traditions (by and large) have not seriously addressed the question of how they might honour faithful same-sex relationships. All of them more intent on demonising homosexual people.
A couple of things appear clear to me: and they are that in a world where people are fickle and exploitative it surely behoves us all to encourage commitment rather than promiscuity; and that in a compassionate world we should not arbitrarily prevent people in ordering their lives in the way that they see fit.
I may not agree with or approve of anyone's particular choices; but that doesn't give me the right to impose my world view on anyone else. Particularly when my world view doesn't seem to have genmeral acceptance any way, and I have not been able to implement it terribly well myself!

Death by essay

One can only imagine that Malcolm Turnbull has a death wish. After pouring scorn at Rudd for being out of touch by writing an essay on economics he responds how?.............................by writing an essay!!!!

Who does he think the electorate is?

He needs to be assured that most of us struggle to read two turgid paragraphs, let alone a diatribe in response. (Mr Rudd could well take note too!)

As far as I can tell...and I used my rapid reading skills to read the idiocy this afternoon...Turnbull's essay is nothing of the sort!

It is a political diatribe which begins by regurgitating the nonsensical garbage that is transparently political rather than analytical...

He begins his essay with the catchcry of the last few months

"So far, all the Prime Minister has built is a mountain of debt.

We are heading for $315 billion of total debt, the largest increase by far in borrowings by any government in peacetime.

This debt represents about $13,000 for every Australian man, woman and child, and never has so much public debt been accumulated with so little to show for it.

There has been $23bn in cash handouts; borrowed, then given away"

All I can say is blah blah blah!!

His essay is an exercise in name calling and suggestion hinting...labelling Rudd as "the philosopher king" and as delivering a "sermon" he is using the language of slur rather than that of analysis.

If, Mr T, you are going to use the language of slur then let us not pretend this serious essay .

In reality it is an exercise in desperation.,

The only saving grace for the flailing leader of the Opposition is that the average voter is not going to read this any way.