Julia versus God

I have no problem saying "Hooray!" that our PM told the truth about her belief in God. It would be ludicrous and total lies to do otherwise. It was a Roman coin question (here)no one was interested in the answer (we all knew already) they weer trying to trap her.

I make two points:

1. Just because she doesn't believe in God doesn't mean that we who do are absolved of our responsibility to pray for our leader.
2. There have been many who called themselves Anglicans who embarrass me more by their hardness of heart towards refugees. A Prime Minister, a Foreign Minister, two Immigration Ministers and an Attorney General in the last government were outspoken protagonists of some of the cruellest policies I believe this country has ever known.

Can I also just observe (as I have before) that too much is made of the fact that Rudd used to do doorstops outside St John's Canberra week by week.

It seems to me that he is not the one who engineered this. The reality is that he was a weekly church attender and the press quickly realised that if they wanted to catch him Sundays, even if they wanted to try and "catch him out" or catch him "unawares" (see the aforementioned Roman coin story) then all they had to do was be outside the Church at about 10.30 and he would always be there.

Good on him that he didn't say 'I don't want to be seen to be enthusiastic about being an Anglican and so I'll stop going to church lest they think I'm too pious'.

A true victim of damned if you do and.....

Ageing politics

I was rather taken aback by commentary that Malcolm Fraser's departure from the Liberal Party (see an interesting British commentary here) would not be terribly consequential as most voters wouldn't even remember the Fraser years.

To me the heady events of 1975 seem like yesterday. But, I suppose it was 35 years ago. And he was replaced by Hawke in 1983. (27 years ago!!)

If I had nothing better to do then I would look up the age composition of the electorate, but I suspect that the observation is probably true...that many many people do not register Malcolm as a political figure of any moment any more.

However, it is laughable to read the Guardian begin its little piece by saying "Fraser has been slowly sliding to the left for the last twenty years!!"...if Malcolm is left then Gough Whitlam is more to the left than Lenin..(some people would believe this!)

No, I think it is much more that the Liberal Party under Howard, and it looks even more so under Abbott, has lurched to the right and then some. Followed not far behind by the Labor Party.

Fraser's obvious disgust with this has been apparent for years. It is clear he held Howard in disdain, and it's noteworthy that Howard only ever came into his own after Fraser had well and truly left the scene. The days of the small 'l' liberal are well and truly over.

Religion and the polls (i)

I am personally pleased that the leaders of both major political parties in the Federal Parliament appear to be serious and practising Christians.
This is a change from the sort of wishy-washy tokenism that we appear to have had (which, by the way, Anglicans are used to) of leaders who say they are Christian but who are at pains to show that they do not have any meaningful attachment. Sadly they have most often called themselves "Anglican" as a sort of establishment stamp. But their analysis of matters religious and how this might affect day to day life is often simplistic and dismissive. John Howard was a classic example of this sort of Anglicanism.
So in comes Ruddy who not only seems to be an Anglican, but seems to know about it, and takes it seriously. He is often pictured going to Church and seemed to even smile when he came out as if he might have actually enjoyed it. Most un-Australian!
My impression of what really happens is that the Canberra gallery knowing where he would be at 10.30 on a Sunday morning habitually lined up for a door-stop outside St John's Church and Kev obliged.
Then the Opposition began to feed into our Australian wariness of anything pious and started suggesting that this was staged and, indeed, not what ordinary Australians do.

I am, of course, pleased that Kev has stuck to his guns. Which is what you would expect if he does indeed take his Christianity seriously.

Tony Abbott, too, has made no secret of the fact that he is a serious Catholic. Though he constantly equivocates (as in the Murdoch press today...."I do not regard myself as a Christian. I regard myself as a politician who just happens to think religion matters.") lest we think some how his Catholicism informs his conscience! I think this is bizarre.

He is, perhaps a little unfairly, constantly asked about the issue of abortion and whether he accepts contemporary social attitude or enforces catholic social teaching. There has of course been reason to explore this since he has made no secret of his anti-abortion stance and the fact that he is clearly at one with Roman Catholic teaching about matters such as the 'morning after pill'. This seems to me to be a much more potentially explosive matter than Rudd's attendance at the Eucharist Sunday by Sunday.

....more coming

Kev and Bazz

I suppose it's good for us that the Pres and the PM seem to have hit it off so well. But the thought of another love story to rival George and John seems sickening!!

Disingenuous

Kerry O' Brien accused Malcolm Turnbull of being disingenuous, (elsewhere defined as lacking candor) when he said that Treasurer Swan had declared on Sunday a 51 billion dollar shortfall, and today the PM talked of 150 billion. Turnbull could not resist saying "At this rate by tomorrow..."
Now, he is not given to taking such cheap shots, so, O'Brien rightly called him out. (you can chase it down here). I think Kerry the Red delighted in making dear Malcolm squirm, (it was his first program back for 2009).
Turnbull, who has rightly declared that a principal crisis strategy is bi-partisanship, likes (I suspect) economic management and dislikes political gameplaying. Because he doesn't like it he is uncomfortable and more importantly unconvincing. He doesn't seem like a political leader, it was interesting to hear Chris Pyne's faint praise ..."no leadership challenge from me" [anyone who has watched 'Yes Minister!' chuckles at such words. And leadership wrangling will not draw the public to support the Liberal Party.
Unless Turnbull looks like becoming PM he will no doubt lose interest in playing politics.....so I suspect unless there is some significant victory soon he will get out.
Not so disingenuous is dear Alexander who pontificated (yet again) on who is and who is not Australia's worst PM. (He chose Chifley and and Whitlam). A correspondent this morning rightly wonders why he overlooked Billy McMahon, and of course seriously questions Howard's record.
What is disingenuous is Downer's warning to Rudd;

He should not even dream of using a crisis for political advantage

What gall! Try telling the captain of the Tampa that or any of those who have been dragged into the war that Howard needed to bolster his own view of himself as an international player.

Pineapple Fritter

One commentator notes on one of my recent posts that "Grace doesn't appear to have lasted the week!"
Cryptic...but this could mean many things
I guess it flows from my original post about various small graces (here); though it is posted against my comments about Howard receiving the medal of "Freedom" from that great Freedom Fighter...George Bush...(here) or maybe it's just a reflection on the hideous state of affairs in Gaza.
So I just make my response a bit more obvious.....I think that part of the issue for the spiritual person is not that we should think that "grace" is an invitation to be pathetic, and to overlook the faults of others; to demur and be sweetly nice in the face of other people's appalling garbage, (like ranking Howard alongside Nelson Mandela) . But rather that we should recognise that (like a baby born) God touches our world more profoundly than we think...but goes unnoticed, and/or that we fritter away God's abundant life.
But I do say....
1. I am not gracious to JH... true I have found it difficult for some time to see him as anything other than the supreme political opportunist. The victim of his own hubris. Who would do anything to stay in power, and bend in any direction if it would get him re-elected.
2. The Gaza situation. There is always a deep sadness about the sort of gross abuse that is war (on both sides)
3. On a smaller scale our life fritters the grace away so easily, I guess the call to the spiritual person is to try and hang on to this and to recognise it in our midst. The message of Christmas

No surprise

I don't know why we should be surprised by such things...but news that John Howard will receive the US Medal of Freedom from outgoing President Bush seems some what indecent.
You could think that David Hicks doesn't really have the right to complain, but Mohammed Hanif certainly does. The Captain of the "Tampa" could be forgiven for being outraged, anyone who has been interned on Christmas Island, or Nauru could certainly make the case for being annoyed.
Perhaps, more importantly, any indigenous Australian who had to suffer the bitter stubborness of an arrogant little man who, despite his desire to be seen as an international statesman, could not be seen to utter one little word of apology...well they could eb rightly outraged.
But it rather gives the lie to the quality of such awards.
I always feel disappointed with our national honours to see that so many of those who are given AC and AM are already rewarded with power and wealth, one hope this year it may be different...but it probably won't

W is for

WINSTON. Someone once said that true fame was when people knew you by your first name. I am sure you all know who Winston is.
I was always intrigued by how many venerated him for his wartime leadership, and yet he was voted out after the war. True Labour voters detested his arrogance.
Always bemused by little Johnnie's middle name. He is/was no Churchill!

H is for

HOWARD, like Gough, was hated and adored . I have written too much about him in the last two years so follow the Tag and here if you want to see it through.
Unlike Gough, I think he lacked imagination, was a political opportunist who saw his role as to stay in power and therefore was poll driven rather than ideal driven. History will give us a better perspective, but I am interested how he seems to have fallen almost completely out of public view. One cannot see him having the same sort of humanitarian profile as a Malcolm Fraser, for example; I just think he could (and should) have been so much better.

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.

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?

The story goes on

As part of GetUp's Reconciliation meetings tonight (see details of ours here) participants will be asked to share any stories.
Hopefully this is an exercise in listening rather than grandstanding, which would seem to me to be part of the fundamental principles of reconciliation, something I think John Howard didn't get easily. The image, that stays imprinted with many of us, of him thumping the lectern at the Melbourne reconciliation conferenece (see a YouTube reflection on it here) is hideous. And gave a defiunitive meaning to the idea of 'tub thumping'.
So today I have been thinking how scant my 'story' is:

• The only Australian my father knew when we came here 40 years ago was an aboriginal manwho had played rugby with a local English league team, he was working quietly in the town of Whyalla where we came to live
• I am totally unaware of any aboriginal kids who were in the post year 10 classes at Whyalla High School...that may be because I was streamed academically ...but even that speaks
• In the early 70s I didn't come across any aboriginal students at eitherAdelaide University, or Adelaide CAE and certainly not at that bastion of elitism, St Mark's College
• There were no aboriginal teachers or aides at any of the large high schools in which I taught.
• There were a few students, but, I suspect, they were less represented than they should have been
• None of this says anything other than what I might have observed, and therefore says as much about me as anyone else.

I am afraid my time at theological college is not much better. I don't ever recall ministry with aboriginal people being discussed, let alone presented.
There was one Torres Strait Islander student and I was pleased to help him with some language development. In reality we had more exposure to the South Pacific and Asia than to local indigenous culture.Neither of my training parishes had any contact with indigenous people
In my first parish there were aboriginal people, but they had little to do with Church. One Ngarriendjeri woman in our small congregation.
I then didn't have much to do with aboriginal issues until I worked at St Paul's Centre where part of our watching was to promote aboriginal interests in all the fields of interest we were operating.
So I met some good people working with aboriginal social issues, promoting aboriginal interests in finance and small business, and in trying to address some fo the issues of homelessness and dispossession in the city.
My current parish has the dubious honour of having one of those places of shame in its midst, yet it has become a focus for galvanising community spirit and hopefully moving middle-class endearment and apathy to something like social action. That place, Colebrook Home, (something of the story here) is a mixed blessing. Whilst, no doubt, saving the lives of some it destroyed others. I remember the chilling photograph the day the memorial was opened and hearing one of the fine women saying of a photographic display....."None of the men in those photos are still alive!"
How little I have done, and how much I could have done. Perhaps I can try a little harder

Surprise! Surprise!

So John Howard thinks the Australian public made a mistake electing a government to undo reforms that he had no mandate to implement.(here)
He still doesn't get it does he?

Winner and Loser

I feel faintly, but not very, sorry for our former Prime Minister, John Howard. When the apology is played out tomorrow it looks like he won't be there. He will be roundly (and rightly) condemned if that is so.

Were he to resile, he would also be criticised for leaving it so long.

It rather exemplifies what the nature of saying "sorry" is all about.

You cannot do it genuinely without confronting yourself. I would maintain that men in particular are not very good at this sort of confrontation.

Howard has often expemplified this sort of intransigence. We could say he is a product of his cultural heritage, but that is no excuse. He was also our Prime Minister and we should expect something better than he offered.

History will assess this better than we will now, but I think we will look back in 10 or 20 years time and realsie that John Howard did this country no service by his bloody-mindedness. And he shoudl ahve done better!

The incredible benefit of backstabbing

Will we ever understand the election process of the US? I doubt it. What we're witnessing at the moment is virtually the parties selecting their candidates, not the voting of the people for a new president. Commentary is both effulgent and effusive (see here for example) and we are warned that the dirty tricks have only just begun.
In Oz this takes place out of public view, what ever Howard said about Costello and vice versa, was firmly kept behind locked doors. What Clinton and Obama say about each other, or McCain and Romney will be said out in the open.
This public backstabbing is riveting stuff, even from the Antipodes. It has the advantage of ( win lose or draw) knowing what your "friends" can say about you in the event that you become your party's anointed. This is a benefit in a way that Howard and Costello must attest to, part (at least) of what caused their downfall was the electorate's uncertainty about them. What did they really think about each other?
Had there been blindingly open critique in the selection process, the whispering campaign would have been sliced into tiny little pieces. But it was not to be
It is always faintly amusing to watch the way the Democrats and Republican get behind their chose candidate eventually. Obama or Clinton will stand side by side and attest that the other was the best thing since Drive In Movies, despite the fact that this week she called him a hypocrite and a liar.
The big mistake (of course ) that the Democrats have made is in wanting either the first woman or the first black person, they should have concatenated the two. But I suppose Dr Rice is a Republican!

Media Blackout

A recent email sent to me (no reason to disbelieve it) told of an event in Adelaide on Sunday 25th November, the day after the Federal election.

Approximately 75 people attended an Aboriginal smoking ceremony in Hindmarsh Square to observe John Howard’s “political funeral”.

John Howard’s coffin was bathed in smoke as Aboriginal Kaurna elder Uncle Lewis O’Brien performed a funeral rite in the Kaurna language.
Niwili White Forrest held the bowl of smoking leaves as they circled the coffin together.

Members of the audience placed “detention centre” barbed wire wreaths, WMDs, and flowers for those who have suffered under his regime, on the coffin.
MC Tauto Sansbury addressed the crowd, explaining how John Howard’s evil spirit was being cleansed from the country after 11 bad years.

BUT NOTE THIS
Channel 7, 9, and 10 cameras filmed the ceremony, but did not carry it in their TV news that night – Costello’s “resignation” took pride of place…

Klynton Wanganeen from the local community addressed the crowd.

Professor Peter Buckskin gave a powerful speech that outlined Howard’s impact on Aboriginal communities.

Pilawuk White, from the Ngangiwumerri people of the NT, said, “We now consider the country to be finally rid of John Howard’s evil spirit, and are celebrating the birth of a new era.”


She took the audience through a water cleansing ceremony from her country in which water is placed on the forehead and then on the navel

The mainstream media ignored this important event that symbolises the burying of the Howard era and the subsequent moving on.

No one belonging to a sectional group like a church or minor political interest group will be surprised about the neglect of the media. We can all lament that such a symbolic event was not given the media exposure it should have been. Hopefully, though, we can move on.
Surely the much awaited apology must not be far off.

Political Legacy

I suppose that one of the mercies of politics is that history tends to remember people for what they have done and not for what they have NOT DONE.
This is no doubt a huge relief to Mr Howard, though no doubt it will take him a wee while to note it.
What exactly did he do?
We know what he did not do. He did not say sorry! He did not capitalise on the opportunity the Keating Government left him to advance the cause of aboriginal people through Mabo and Wik, it was only in the death throes that he discovered aboriginal issues and 'invaded' the Northern Territory. God save us all from paternalistic politics. Very interesting analysis on ABC today (here) of the significance of Keating's Redfern speech the 10th anniversary of which falls on Monday. It reminds us that it heralded a change. No longer could aboriginal people just be ignored, but rather when they were engaged with it was discovered they were mighty powerful folk.
Don Watson, amongst others, argues that this empowering deeply threatened Tory politics. Chief amongst these was the former PM.
The very fact that aboriginal people could and should be heeded was deeply threatening to those whose view of "history" was that European settlement brought nothing to apologise for. It was as recalled by various noteworthies in the broadcast a mythical view of history not based on the facts.
Key amongst these proponents was one JW Howard, whose constant declamation of "black arm band history" was roundly dealt with as being an unsophisticated approach which fails to allow the real facts to be dealt with.
This is logical if you think about it, if all you can do is say that any criticism is "black arm band" then it sets up a scenario in which no genuine critique can be offered. Watson and others note that this is exactly what JWH and others wanted; any suggestion of anything else threatened their (mythical) view of themselves. Only the passage of the years will, I suggest, properly expose how fully pathetic little politicians were.
So what did he do...well I suppose he introduced the GST, probably good.
He tagged along behind Dubbya into Iraq. No doubt catastrophic.
He failed to sign Kyoto...well Kev will be remembered for the ratification being first thing he did.
Can't remember much else he did....ohh yes there was Workchoices...and that cost him the election.
Ohh and he wouldn't resign because people would think he was a coward...and that also cost him the election.
It's a pity I suppose....but what was his name again?

Picking it

Lest anyone think I am a wimp I do intend to call the election NOW! This is Friday, 8.30 p.m.
My prediction: that it will be Labor by a landslide of 20 or more That the result will be known by 7.30 p.m. CST.
I would further suggest that should John Howard lose, then he will resign. But he may well lose his seat, so it could be academic!
Peter Costello will never be PM. Poor old Petie!

Falling on your sword

What a good book the present electoral campaign will make in 12 months time!
Chief amongst the observations will be the analysis of how seasoned political players, the PM included, could so badly misjudge electoral intelligence. Evidence for this might be:

• How foolish is it for JH to tell the electorate who the next leader of the parliamentary Liberal will be, breaching all notions of democracy; as if it is some sort of patronage gift!
• The real hubris of out-of-control Liberals in NSW who, in becoming more and more desperate, should finally play the disgusting race-religion card
• The bizarre commentary (equally desperate) of Jackie Kelly that this is a joke.
• The waste of the ante-penultimate day (the day before-the day before) to this side issue
• Pleased to see the absolute disgust of the most senior TV commentator, Laurie Oakes, as he displayed his incredulity at how Kelly could be so stupid!
• Good to see the PM repudiate the trick, but what else could he do.

All in all, it is surely all over bar the shouting!

skirting the issue

AAP reports (here)

There are some policy places even Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd won't go.

One is whether his deputy owns a skirt.This "vital" election issue was raised by Bob, a farmer and talkback caller who preceded Mr Rudd in a long interview on the John Laws program on Southern Cross radio on Thursday.

Bob, a professed Liberal voter, said Julia Gillard was a communist, claiming he read that in the rural newspaper The Land, and queried whether she actually owned a skirt.

He also said she would end up running the country while Mr Rudd was off in China jabbering in Mandarin and asked why no Australian flag featured on stage during the Labor campaign launch on Wednesday.

What ever side of politics you are on you should be a little scared to realise that there are people, perhaps a lot of them, who just completely disregard the facts when making up their mind about who to vote for. Worse than this, they don't even begin to realise when they are talking insane rubbish.
It also goes on

Bob also wondered where was the Labor frontbench in place of former Labor prime ministers Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating who were all present at the launch.

This at least made me think that there are heroes on the "left" in the way that there are not (currently) on the right. We all know that Malcolm is not a fan of little Johnny, but it is worth opining that John cannot muster the Frasers, the Peacocks, the et al (admittedly some are dead...but even the grand dames (their widows) didn't appear to be present) What this means I am not quite sure.
It is both a plus and a minus, as while Hawke , Keating and Whitlam are indeed significant figures they inspire not only admiration and dignity but also hatred and loathing. Have you ever stood next to a Liberal voter who speaks the word Keating!
To Rudd's credit his response to 'Bob' showed that he is good in choosing not to exploit this sort of meaningless rubbish, in a way that most others would not be able to resist

On the issue of the Labor frontbench, Mr Rudd said he believed it important to show proper respect to the former PMs, adding that all his frontbench were in attendance.

He said he believed it also important to be able to speak to a major trading partner.

"This is really important for Australia.

"If I can use whatever language skills I have go to boost the exports of Australian farmers to major emerging markets like China, let me tell you, I will yabber my way through any lunch speaking whatever language I can," he said.