Electioneering

Good articles in the Sunday Mail today. Senator X tells us that being an independent is akin to being a virgin....and you shouldn't give it away for nothing....I like this (and agree)

We should not be surprised that the two big parties don't like this...they like to be in TOTAL control.

So they wouldn't like Mr T who writes to the Advertiser advocating (as I do) that Senate voting needs to include the option of PREFERENTIAL-ABOVE THE LINE - that is not just vote 1...and then allow the parties to decide where our preferences go...but rather to vote what ever preferences we want. Good idea.(see my previous blog)

And the opinionated David Penberthy tells us that if the big parties give in to the gang of three or four (depending on your inclination) and their demands to be transparent and to actually be allowed access to accurate information (like costings)...then all hell will break loose.

It's interesting that Steve Bracks, one of the few Premiers to actually have experience of minority Government seesm to extol the need to be more transparent as a big pluss!!!!!

I suppose we shall just have to wait and see.

Hurtling water

With all this water hurtling toward the sea I find myself wondering why there is no discussion about constructing one or two new reservoirs.
One would think that desalination is a much more expensive option than this most obvious of solutions.

The Afghan War

While, by and large, I am convinced by the argument that the presence of Australian troops in Afghanistan is part of (and probably necessary for) the 'war against terrorism'; the question that keeps being asked and seldom (if ever) answered is:when we will know that it is time to withdraw our troops?
Clearly there is a range of indicators that could, and perhaps should, be adopted. Not the least of which is the question of the cost in human life.
Let us also not forget that this cost is on both sides.
I do not pretend that there is any easy answer to this question. I would, however, like some assurance that this question is being grappled with. I am not always convinced that this is so.

What are the indicators?

While, by and large, I am convinced by the argument that the presence of Australian troops in Afghanistan is part of (and probably necessary for) the 'war against terrorism'; the question that keeps being asked and seldom (if ever) answered is:when we will know that it is time to withdraw our troops?

Clearly there is a range of indicators that could, and perhaps should, be adopted. Not the least of which is the question of the cost in human life.

Let us also not forget that this cost is on both sides.

I do not pretend that there is any easy answer to this question. I would, however, like some assurance that this question is being grappled with.

I am not always convinced that this is so.

Almost killing me

I vowed at the beginning of this week that I was not going to blog about the election for a week.
It is almost killing me. But I think it was a good thing to do.

So, this blog about "not blogging about the election" is not a blog about the election, it is a blog about blog content; if you get my drift.

I almost survived the whole of yesterday without deliberately listening to the news or current affairs discussion. I say 'deliberately', because it was impossible to not hear anything as almost every other second comment had something to do with the events of last weekend.

This, too, is not a comment about the election but about the paucity of variation available on talk-radio.

If you think this is a poor excuse for a blog...then you will understand something of my dilemma.

The definitive version

This is the Adelaide Diocese you Tube for Sunday September 12 when everyone is invited to "Come as you are!!"
Any Church near you!

The Tower of Babel

As I reflected on the events of the weekend my mind went to the story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 . While it may seem to some a little too religious as a reflection on politics it is an archetypal story about what humanity does when words become shallow and vacuous and leaders begin to think they are in control of the universe and can promise anything

The Tower of Babel

Did we just witness

Babel's tower

and the damage it has done

to public confidence

to those whose voice is never heard

Did we hear

women and men,

as they strove to touch the sky,

promise to give

what they can

never deliver?

And caring less

than they have cared before

to gain a moment's approval?

Do I make

a bold assumption

that my words are

any less of a Babel

as I write, and speak,

and chit and chat

and not listen to others,

to myself

or to God?

Marketing opportunities

Always thought Holy Water was undermarketed.

But here is a simple schemata for a readily accessible stream of income.

Or is it just that the election of such a government as we now have--or don't have (Lord help us!) has driven me quite barmy.

Ever since I went to Lourdes in 1976 I was struck by the use of the plastic container.

I quite like gaudy...but I admit it is not everyone's cup of tea, or glass of Holy Water.

When we first visited the Shrine of Yankalilla I was interested that our children (who were very much younger and much less Protestant in those days) were quite fascinated by the bottles of water that were readily available for people to take away.

They took several!

I wonder what they thought it was all about. Indeed, I wonder myself!

Whilst searching for more devout things I came across this!!!!

When to vote!

The whimsical comment...vote early and vote often...amuses us all. (It begs the question about whether or not there are adequate identity checks at the polling places....I note we haven't been given little identification cards this time). [A person I used to be related to is not in the country and suggested to someone else that they might vote on their behalf!!!]

Last time I voted at 30 second past 8...and spent the rest of the day anxiously waiting that happy time when (like the true tragic I am) I could be bored for several hours on end (it only seemed to take abut 30-45 minutes in the event).

So today, I am going to spread it out a bit...and perhaps vote at 10. Or if I am really risqué perhaps I'll wait until 3!!!

Oh dear...I need to get a life!

Looking forward to seeing you

This is the promotional ad for Sunday 12th September- Come As You Are-Back to Church Sunday 2010

The point

Hugh Mackay's analysis of the election is that it is not so much a choice between Abbott and Gillard, as giving Gillard the chance to be PM.(see some of Mackay's wisdom here)

I think this is correct, and it perhaps explains some of the frustration in the electorate about being unable to discriminate between two parties.

I think this analysis holds water. Because of the manner by which she came into the leadership she has not really had the chance to put much of her stamp on anything. Unlike, for example, Abbott who was an ongoing and frequent performer in the Government of John Howard.

So I guess, in a way, we are judging them both on an equal footing...not as Prime Ministers...but on their performance as ministers in former governments. We shall see what it all means tomorrow.

Preferential treatment

Despite my previous claim that most people in the electorate of Boothby can probably manage the preferences for the Lower House on Saturday, I was a bit shocked to arrive at our "Town Hall Meeting" at the local Uniting Church and find we actually have 9....yes 9!!! !!....candidates. So some will find it hard.

However I do still claim that it is the Senate that frustrates most people and there appears to be in excess of 40 candidates.

Faced with this most people will give in to the temptation to vote "above the line".

This means ( and the only way of validly voting above the line) they will have to put a 1 against only one group....the preferences will then be allocated as that one group have decided. in other words if you vote above the line you allow a party machine to decide where your preferences will go.

Thus (if you are really lazy...and in my opinion particularly silly....) and donkey vote in SA...and place your 1 against the first party. You will vote for the Climate Sceptics.

If you look at the group voting tickets (here page ii) you will note that there second preference will go to One Nation. Assuming that the Sceptics will be eliminated fairly early on and probably ahead of One Nation...you have actually given your vote to One Nation!

You may be a Climate Sceptic but do you really want to vote for One Nation?

More complex is a vote for the DLP or the CDP...both of whom preference Family First before the Liberals before the ALP before the Greens....given the reality that thy will be the 4 left standing at the end...you have probably given your vote to the Liberals.

My solution

We should be allowed to vote preferentially above the line. That is we don't have to vote for each individual but we could vote for each group. It, of course, suits the big parties to have us vote 1...they can then wheel and deal with our preferences. But I am perfectly capable of allocating my own preferences...and so are you

The Big Con

The con trick with preferences is not in the Lower House. Most of us can mange to preference three or four people properly. But in the Senate do not be fooled into thinking that voting above the line puts your vote where you really want it to go. It suits the two major parties to trade our preferences if we only vote 1 above the line. True democracy means that we make our own decisions and not delegate them to other powerful interests. I will choose to vote below the line and urge othgers to do so...no matter how tedious.

And did those feet

The Church of England is revamping its "Wedding Project" site. It is an interesting venture, particularly aimed at the community (I suppose) that does not go to Church, but because the C of E is 'established' ... that is, it is the State religion of England .... such people have a sense of ownership in a way that is probably not true in Australia.

One of the interesting questions addressed on this hotch potch of a site is whether or not you should sing "Jerusalem" at a wedding (see a sort of answer here) it's a popular song, with a stirring tune which is well-known at a time when not much religious music is. But the words are about something totally unrelated to getting married (debatable I suppose).

One can only imagine why such an issue has such prominence It's to do, I suspect, with a bit of conflict on a whole range of different levels (eg. Churches only allowing certain sorts of music, clergy being dogmatic about what is and what is not acceptable, and couples not really having a clue about what is and what is not appropriate......). One can only imagine.

My policy (which I think has worked quite well) is to be as open as possible. I don't need to inflict my musical taste on people, whilst also remembering I am a guardian of the sacred.

I always begin my spiel with "The church is not hired in the way a secular venue is hired."

Part of the trouble is that people seem to assume that if they pay for something then they should be able to do what they like.

Of course this is not even true of a secular venue, they are often very restrictive in terms of what you can and can't do; where you can sit and what you can throw at the B & G; and certainly you have to drink and eat their products!

Beside all this I am curious given the picture above (taken from the sit) as to how Whoopi Goldberg has apparently become a Vicar in the C of E.

The appalling choice in the week of the election

Despite the fact that 60 minutes was offering the appalling Mark Latham (here). I couldn't bear to watch the buffoon and watched Talking bout your generation (which was almost as bad)

Doing the maths

Probably the only good thing about this election campaign is the emergence of the population debate in a serious sort of way.

If the recent Q&A showed anything, it showed that the unthinking and unintelligent commentary of those who advocate growth at any cost (see my recent blog here) just will not do any longer.

I have been particularly impressed by the discussion that says that we now have to work out the specifics.

It does not seem to me that this is impossible. It may be complex...but life is complex...but the sums just require imagination and some forethought.

It might include:

• An accurate accounting of the amount of water that is required per head of population. This will include such issues as personal hygiene, food production, industrial needs, agricultural requirements...and so on.
• The second half of this sum (which needs to balance) is where can this come from...both natural and industrial sources. This also is not impossible to calculate, though again it is important to be realistic and not just wishful (rather the problem of the 'growth at any cost' devotees...or the "climate science is crap" group. If we are realistic then
• the cost of water begins to emerge in a realistic sense. The truth is, as we have been told for a decade, is that we are addicted to cheap water...indeed most of us think water should be free...but there is no such thing as a free lunch or free water!
• the cost of energy has parallel questions
• there needs to be serious analysis of age profiles and their trends and movements None of this is rocket science, even if it does require careful thought. What it probably requires more than anything else is that we are serious and frank. We are not always good at this!
• what sort of services, and standard of living can we realistically expect in (say) 2050, 2100, 2200. Not an exercise in 'wishful thinking' but a balance between how much this costs and what we can afford to pay and where this comes from
• From the interplay of these (and other) questions the issue about how these variables influence outcomes we can begin to discern the key issue...what sort of population can we afford. And what price is too high...for energy, for water, for housing...indeed for wages

I am not suggesting that these questions have never been asked. They are often ignored! I heard Elliott say the other night that "This was just rubbish!" when Bob Brown was raising these very questions.

While we maybe need to not be unduly pessimistic. We also need to be sensible. Good stewardship demands such.

There is more, much more to come in this debate.

A laughing stock

I have frequently admired Tony Jones' ardour in refusing to allow individuals on the Q & A panel to filibuster and/or bully. However, John Elliott was appalling last night.(here) To be fair Tony and the other panelists looked increasingly disgusted. Elliott was dogmatic and loud (always a guide, you would have to think, about how much actual substance is going to be there). It seemed to me that if Elliott has any claim to be a legitimate commentator on issues that they evaporated last night. While he might be an amusing distraction on Q&A from time to time I, for one, would be happy if they didn't waste the spot on the panel. A Dick Smith or a Tim Flannery, Joan Kirner or Isabel Redmond would be much better value.

Saying what you mean...meaning what you say

Perhaps one of the more horrifying election stories is about Queensland Family First Candidate Wendy Francis who, in the best tradition of Family First has tweeted her foot into her mouth.

She is (of course!!!) not homophobic even if she did Tweet...that allowing same-sex couples to have children is like 'legalising child abuse'.

I have only one comment to make which is that forcing people to deny their sexuality, and therefore requiring them to live the life of a lie is also abuse.

We need to recognise that there are many thousands of gay people who have children, there are many who have managed to live relatively happy lives whilst not being allowed to admit to their sexuality.

There are also thousands of people for whom this sort of deception has ruined their lives. There are many, many people who have suicided ; and speaking as a person who has experienced two suicides in their family, the victims of suicide are not just the deceased.

I just don't get Family First. Many of whom are allegedly Christian. They seem to lack the very compassion that our God calls us to have. (see the SMH's version of the story here)

I say again...we should do what ever we can to allow all people to develop stable committed relationships...it is stable committed relationships that are the best environment for the nurture of children.

Up for grabs

I would have to say that, by and large, there is nothing in it for me...so my vote is up for sale!

While those who know me will also know I am joking, it would seem that our politicians seem to think that this is what they should be doing...ie trying to bribe the voters with bigger and better what evers.

This is so transparent that it has become laughable. As far as I can tell a couple of things are happening:

• A whole lot of people like me know more about who they are not going to vote for rather than who they are going to end up voting for. At a lunch yesterday, in a lull in the conversation I (perhaps foolishly) threw in "Well have we decided who we are going to vote for?" I was not quite prepared for the tirade that followed against our local member. Though I think it's entirely justified.
• So, a lot of people I know who think the humane treatment of refugees is important find themselves looking for an alternative way through the major party hypocrisy. They will obviously vote Green or (maybe) Democrat.
• Yes, that's another interesting thing. Suddenly Democrats have begun to appear again.
• Others who are perhaps less inclined to focus on the refugee issue seem to be gravitating back to their traditional party (I was conscious that at least one person at the above mentioned lunch who is a traditional Liberal voter would have found the vitriol against our sitting member..AS...pretty hard to cope with...she will never vote Labor, finds it hard to vote Green because they are even more pinko than than Labor.) Such folk whether Labor or Liberal traditionally will gravitate back to their comfort zone
• As one who thinks that it's quite good to have no one party having an absolute right to rule, I would like to think that the Greens will actually get enough votes to win a couple of lower house seats. I think it's unlikely, but we will see.

Julia! Julia!

Thought Julia did well on Q&A last night. And the audience was well behaved!!

For the first time it seemed there was addressing of issues and moving beyond set-performances (see the whole episode here). I was bemused by how deeply respectful the audience was.

Not surprisingly they announced that Abbott will be next week's guest...I guess trying to be the last cab off the rank. This could of course backfire.

The last thing they want is to expose him for what he is in the week before the election.

I guess that's the last thing he wants too, which is why he seems to be frightened to actually meet the one person who is likely to expose him...Julia Gillard.

The time is short

Went to to see Fugitive on Saturday. A 'sort of' contemporaneous retelling of Robin Hood

Full house or so it seemed. Very energetic and stunning performance.
Sound cues spot on...very important for the kicking and thumping!!! Thought all the actors were great. Particularly Sherrif Marty (Carmel)...she was just amazing...had the audience in the palm of her hand which gave such impetus to the tragedy that was happening on the other side of the stage . Geoff Revell was good. Indeed all were good. What a find young actor Danielle is....I was stunned, particularly by her performance in the last scene which left the audience dangling.
Thought the end was just wonderful half the audience didn’t seem to get it, which is as it should be. But it was profound!! Well done to all of them.

Finishes this weekend (14/8)

Off to see Midsummer Night's Dream tonight. Perhaps the most trivial of the Shakespeare plays, and yet the most difficult to make work well. Have seen it a number of times, but really only once done well!!! (Read this review of the NY performance which was repeated at the 1972 Adelaide Festival....40 years ago nearly...how can it be?)

Nauru

I had a friend who spent an interesting couple of years in Nauru in the 80s. By and large he was bored out of his mind. He used to crudely (but perhaps accurately) refer to it as a pile of bird sh*t. Referring to the fact that it is essentially a block of phosphate rock in the near Pacific...or I should say was.(see what the CIA tells us about Nauru here)

It is now mined out, and its income stream severely diminished.

We forget (or perhaps never knew) that though Nauru is a "republic" it has less than 10,000 inhabitants. It is one tenth the area of Kangaroo Island...though admittedly Kangaroo Island has only half the population of Nauru!

What really worries me about the Liberal's Pacific solution is that the Liberals shift the responsibility of our modestly sized nation, to an economically vulnerable island with little or no natural resources (I note that they have 0% arable land!). And who have no real political clout in the scheme of the world or the region.

Assuming also that power is likely to be concentrated in the hands of a few privileged individuals who have benefited from the former largesse it is nonsense to suggest that the "President" is anything more than the equivalent of a small town country mayor. (He represents less than the Mayor of Mitcham!)

This is nothing less than using money to attempt to bribe those who can exercise disproportionate influence in what, despite the nomenclature, is not really a nation at all!

what should be of concern

What should be of concern to the electorate at this time is that:

1. The format of the campaigns is more interesting than the content
2. It doesn't matter what is promised by whom as the electorate seems to have doubts that either side will or can deliver
3. I have seen my local MP at least once every Saturday, sometimes twice...but for the last three years I haven't seen him at all
4. Of even more serious concern is that we, the electors, apart from being bored by this actually seem to tolerate this total and utter bastardisation of democracy
5. We are hard-pressed to articulate what either of the main-stream parties actually stands for.

Transfiguring

By curious coincidence August 6th is the day the Church remembers the Transfiguration of Jesus (see Mark's account here). It is an event where three of the disciples see Jesus as he really is. This experience transfigured their understanding, and indeed their relationship with Jesus.

It is also the 45th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. I often make the association that we are equally well transfigured by that event.

That awful event set before humanity the possibility of us being able to destroy ourselves. In a real sense it probably coloured the perceptions of baby-boomers for good or ill, and we were told in the last decade that the Generation X/Y kids found the likelihood of total human destruction all too likely.

It's worth giving a thought to both events today.

What is perhaps more amazing is that we have actually survived 45 years without blowing up the world.

The hermeneutics of politics

(This article could be subtitled "If you aren't bored enough by the electioneering then here's another boring article")

It is disturbing to us all, I suspect, that there is more discussion about the hermeneutic (here) of the election campaigns, than the policy content.

That is, how the plans are structured, composed, written...and by whom...and to whom they are directed...is actually proving to be more interesting than the policy itself. (see this cartoon)

When you think about it this is not really surprising.

When 'opposing' parties actually seek to ensure they are keeping up with the other in the bidding war then we see (as is clearly observable) that policy looks remarkably similar. It gravitates to a centre of mediocrity.

It is differentiated not by substance, but by degree. It is not (if you like) 'this is my ideology' that drives policy but "anything you can do I can do better".

So we look rather at the (only slightly) more interesting campaign structure and hermeneutics.

"Who is making the decisions?", and "What is the process (eg focus groups) that is used?". "What role does media play in driving the campaign?"

But, in the end, we all realise that this is not what the real game is about.

So we will content ourselves with deciding on whether we think Abbott is more of a bastard than Gillard is a bitch!

God help us!

The real Ms Gillard & the real Mr Abbot

One has to laugh at Abbot';s cheek in standing up saying "Will the real Julia Gillard please stand up?" and then following up with "If you elect Tony Abbott then you will get Tony Abbott!"

Hugh Mackay rightly remarks that 'we haven't seen the real Tony Abbott'

Abbott has been so totally under control...he has curbed his loose lip, but this is not his usual modus operandi. he is usually a loose cannon who doesn't claim to speak the absolute truth on the run....to be fair which of us does?....but this lip-pursing Abbott never seems to me like 'the real Tony Abbott'!

Petrol Prices

The new roller coaster of petrol prices rather gives the lie to the fact that this happens because of international oil price fluctuations.
One vox pop from the RAA on local talk radio tells us how it really is when it says that the petrol companies are competing with each other for custom. This is not surprising, and not unreasonable; but let’s name it like it is. Petrol companies manipulating their customers.