THE PERILS OF BLACK & WHITE JOURNALISM

I'm not a fan of Andrew Bolt. His willingness to take a stand based on nothing but his own prejudices, and his propensity to denigrate anyone who disagrees with him make his articles depressing reading. Most of the time, even just the title of his articles are enough for me to say, "no thank you, not this time". You know exactly what he's going to say, and it won't be put in terms that encourage discussion, but in terms that say, "if you disagree with me, you're a fool", (or worse). But he attracts his own coterie of bigoted rednecks, and presumably the Murdoch press is sufficiently misguided to believe that that sort of garbage sells papers.

The problem is that once in a (very long) while, he says something that has a grain of commonsense in it. On 23 March, he wrote an article in the Melbourne Herald Sun with the title, "Police Blame Game in Wake of Crash a Cop-Out", in which he poured a savage vitriol on the mother of the girlfriend of the driver killed in the crash following a high-speed police chase, and who was herself seriously injured. She is reported to have said, "I blame the police totally ... I want the police to pay for what happened". Now this is hardly unexpected, even if it is misguided, but Bolt's rancid sarcasm achieves nothing and makes you wonder what he hopes to achieve, apart from revving up the Boltophiles (apparently, this article generated 624 responses, most of them supportive). So, for example:

Oh, you poor dear Mrs Webbe (the mother of the injured girl). So let's not ask this tattooed lady in her moment of grief why she let her daughter go out with a twice jailed 23 year old father of three who'd been stealing cars since he was eight.

Let's not ask this poor sniffing mum how she raised a daughter who'd admired a man with 37 convictions - a man Webbe in one interview said she knew had tried to outrun the police just last year, and who nearly killed himself in a car crash then, too.

Let's not ask what values she passes on to her children when even now she claims Williams (the deceased driver) was "not a bad kid", "OK" and guilty only of a "petty little crime" after getting "a bit mixed up in the criminal world".

If you're not going to ask, Andrew, don't ask! The whole article is replete with concepts of blame - let's find someone to blame and then ladle it on so thickly that it is impossible to see the underlying message. And there is an important message buried somewhere inside all this hate, that is that everyone, yes, everyone is responsible for their own behaviour. No exceptions - Williams was responsible for driving in such a way that he not only killed himself but two innocent bystanders, well driver and passenger of another car. And, yes, they were innocent, notwithstanding that Bolt makes much of the fact that:

one final detail of Saturday's smash sealed the grim deal for me. Guess who Williams killed on Saturday, scything through their car at 200 km/h?

Friends of his, actually, both with criminal records themselves for offences involving drugs, and with eight children from previous relationships.

So what, Andrew? They're both just as dead as if they had been wholly without the slightest stain on their characters.

It is this need to blame, to find fault, and then set himself up as a paragon of all the virtues, this smug hypocrisy that sticks in my craw. And it's a pity, because this arrogance obscures the central theme of individual responsibility, which is the flip side of the licence that he abhors so loudly and so publicly. Yes, Williams clearly had a wholly deprived childhood, and had never had the opportunity to learn some of the hard lessons of being a socially accountable individual. And much of the responsibility for that rests with his parents. That message needs to be brought home clearly and without providing avenues for excuses. But the arrogant, toxic and vitriolic rantings of Andrew Bolt (and his ilk) won't achieve that. They're much more likely to achieve the opposite result, and further alienate those who are already alienated.

So, once again, my decision to not take any notice of Bolt has been vindicated; on this occasion, I can say, however, unfortunately so.

WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

I am not enthusiastic about the term "domestic violence" because it places undue emphasis on physical assault. Please don't think that I am minimising the importance of this; assault is a criminal act, and needs to be treated as such. But there are other aspects of so-called domestic violence that are not.

I have talked to many people on the receiving end who have said that a punch, a slap or a shove are easier to deal with than other, non-criminal activities. Clearly, serious assault resulting in substantial physical damage is in a class of its own and needs to be dealt with as such. But continual verbal/psychological abuse including put downs ("you're fat", "you're useless", you're a slut", "you're stupid" and so on, ad nauseam) repeated over months and years can cause substantial long-term damage. Similarly, multiple phone calls each day to check on activity, keeping someone chronically short of money and demanding an accounting for every cent spent, ridiculing deeply held spiritual beliefs, preventing contact with friends and family and so on are equally harmful, but fall outside the boundaries of the criminal justice system. So too, generally, does verbal abuse, although loud abusive shouting and screaming may attract the attention of the authorities. May.

Domestic violence, in all its aspects, is about power. No, that's not quite right. It is about the need to control another person, and the power to do so. Frequently, where males are the perpetrators, that power is exercised through greater physical strength. But can also be exercised through financial control or superior language skills - or plain bloody-minded persistence.

If these manifestations of domestic violence fall outside the criminal justice system, then behaviour change groups have an important role to play. But there are issues around such groups that need to be looked at in a lot more detail. For instance, mandating people to attend would seem to have limited value unless the attendee is motivated to change. If not, then all the groups in the world will not create change. Unfortunately, there have been insufficient longitudinal studies of sufficient size to generate any worthwhile data about success rates.

Another problem arises from the idea that domestic violence is really only a sub-set of a more general problem with violence per se. Statistics show that most violence is perpetrated by men - against men. We live in an institutionally violent society; the Iraq war is a perfect example of this, and you only have to watch any of the major football codes to see evidence of that. And question time in the federal parliament can frequently be described as verbally violent. Behaviour change groups are aimed at individuals. There is little or no attention paid to the more pervasive but equally important issue of addressing violence at a societal/community level.

The other issue that needs to be recognised is the problem of perceived entitlement - the idea of male dominance, and the false beliefs that flow from that. It is not true to say, of male violence, that if a child is brought up in a violent home, they will be violent themselves. But too often, this turns out to be the case. Parental violence is not an excuse for violence by the child. But it is often the reason, and a reason that needs to be addressed.

On the subject of addressing violence, it seems to me that incarceration within the prison system is a wholly inadequate response. By its very nature, the correctional system is another excellent example of institutionalised violence. It teaches perpetrators how to be more effective in their violent behaviour. An increasing interest in restorative justice would seem to have a valuable application here, and responses by the criminal justice system other than incarceration would seem to be needed.

There is no question but that the safety of the abused person and any children need to be the first, over-riding priority. On that subject, the criminal justice system could well look at changes to the law that where there is abuse, particularly where children are involved, it should be mandatory for the abuser to leave the family home. Police should have the capacity to require the perpetrator to leave the premises under their scrutiny, and issue an interim Restraining Order (in South Australia; local equivalents elsewhere) preventing the abuser from returning to the family home, or being within, say 200 metres of the building. There should, however be some form of action available to find the perpetrator a bed rather than have them roaming the streets or sleeping in a car.

Domestic violence is a plague, but it needs to be seen in context. In a context of family violence generally, and violence as such, overall. This is a battle that needs to be fought on many fronts; that metaphor is unfortunate, and illustrates just how pervasive institutional violence is. This is a journey that leads down many roads. The criminal justice system is a road that we need to travel, but it is not the only one. There are many other directions that need to be taken to contain, reduce and eliminate all forms of domestic violence. And, in a seemingly Utopian future, all forms of violence, full stop.

WHAT IS HAPPENING TO AUSTRALIAN CRICKET?

I love cricket; it’s a wonderful game, particularly at test level, but the crass stupidity that has been generated over the second Test against India in Sydney has turned my stomach. No one has come out of this with any honour and everyone involved looks stupid, and/or arrogant and/or petty.

In my opinion, the following actions ought to be taken:

• The three match ban on Harbajan Singh ought immediately to be overturned. There is obviously no independent evidence about what he said to Andrew Symonds; it’s one man’s word against another.
• And Mike Procter should never again be allowed to be a match referee.
• The ICC should advise the BCCI, firmly, that who umpires test matches is their decision, not the Indian Board’s. And Steve Bucknor should stand in the Perth test. If the Indians don’t like that, they can pack their bags and go home. Even so, someone from the ICC should have a quiet word to Bucknor about his performance in the second Test.
• Ricky Ponting should be publicly censured by Cricket Australia over his putrid attitude to this whole issue, in particular for being the person who demanded a hearing into the allegations about what Harbajan Singh may or may not have said to Andrew Symonds. Ponting may be a brilliant bat and a strategically excellent captain, but as a representative of Australian cricket on and off the field, he’s no better than second rate. (Bring back Steve Waugh). And Ponting should be in no doubt that, if he doesn’t buck his ideas up, he’ll be stripped of the captaincy. He is supposed to lead by example, not make a mockery of Australian cricket.
• Ponting and Anil Kumble should be told to sit down over a beer, a coffee or whatever, and told to sort out their differences, to make a press statement about that process, and make damned sure that they abide by whatever agreement they reach. So should Andrew Symonds and Harbajan Singh.
• The practice of “walking” should be outlawed. It’s divisive, and can’t possibly be kept up consistently. Everyone applauded Adam Gilchrist for walking – but would he always walk? And does that mean that Andrew Symonds should have walked, even though he acknowledged that he was out? The rule needs to be that the umpire’s decision is the ONLY one that counts, and if you don’t like it, tough.
• Cricketers should be banned from commenting on whether they thought they were out or not. Andrew Symonds did neither himself, the Australian team or cricket in general any favours by saying publicly that he knew he was out after scoring 30. Technically, he’s incorrect; he wasn’t out because the umpire didn’t say so. Making indiscreet comments like that helps no one. And here’s another reason for Ponting to be censured. He was “given a life” by the umpire early in his innings and was happy to accept that. But when he was given out lbw in questionable circumstances, he spat the dummy. You can’t have it both ways, particularly if you’re the captain.

As to the criticism that the Australians went way over the top in their celebration at winning the test, well, that’s probably a bit harsh. Given that “Pup” Clarke had taken 3 wickets in 5 balls with only minutes remaining, it’s hard to be too critical. And I don’t think it was substantially further over the top than Harbajan Singh’s celebration when he took Ponting’s wicket in the second innings.

And Kumble didn’t help by levelling counter-accusations of racism against Brad Hogg. The cricket authorities ought to take a deep breath and look seriously at this whole issue of racism. Does calling someone a few, perhaps questionable names justify the epithet, “racist”? I doubt it; it really just shows a degree of ignorance and childishness. Racism is a deeper, darker, more pervasive process rooted in social and structural attitudes. These incidents sound much more like schoolyard spats to me, and should be treated accordingly.

In general, this whole business has left a very unpleasant taste and has left Australian cricket (and, by extension, Australians generally) looking shoddy and petulant. Mind you, it’s also leaving the Indians, through the BCCI looking distinctly bullying as to the appointment of umpires, and, perhaps, showing more than a touch of sour grapes over losing the test.

THE THINGS PEOPLE DO IN THE NAME OF RELIGION

The Adelaide Sunday Mail of 11 November 2007 carried an article headlined “Died For Her Faith”, reporting the death of a 22 year old English woman, a Jehovah’s Witness, who refused a life-saving blood transfusion after the birth of a twin son and daughter. It was written almost as if this woman was some sort of hero whereas I would say that this was one of the most selfish acts it is possible to imagine. To wilfully allow yourself to die when the means of living are immediately available, and thus knowingly derive two children of their mother can only be an act of supreme selfishness.

And once again, it is done in the name of some warped “religion” that claims that having a blood transfusion is the equivalent of adultery or sexual immorality. Apart from the fact that that is simply nonsense, even if it were supportable, neither adultery or sexual immorality would deny the children access to their mother. In circumstances such as this, the claim that religious faith should take precedence over the most precious right of a child, to receive the love of a caring mother, is some sort of sick joke.

The law should be clear and unambiguous. Refusal of a lifesaving transfusion on the grounds of religious faith should be made illegal. Full stop. And just in case anyone is foolish enough to try to extend this principle to euthanasia, I need to be very clear – euthanasia ought to be available under closely controlled conditions. This action by Emma Gough was not taken to end intolerable and unrelievable pain. It was based on a stomach churning distortion labelled “religious faith”. It is hardly any wonder that opponents of organised religion are gaining so much ground when this type of bias and bigotry can be allowed to flourish, and reported as some sort of brave, self-denying sacrifice.

Oh yes, it was a sacrifice all right. Two wholly innocent babies were sacrificed in the name of “religion”. In circumstances like this, I find it sad that there is no god to judge their actions. For if this was the case, any half-way just god would damn all adherents of such a principle to the deepest and darkest available hell. Perhaps these people should read and reflect on their own holy book, Matthew Chapter 18, Verse 6, “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

GAY MARRIAGE

The religious right mafia continues to express its opposition to gay marriage, and in this, the major political parties follow along, docile and compliant. I probably need to make my position perfectly clear. I am a practising heterosexual (if I practice for long enough, I might just get it right) and I have no affiliation with any gay lobby organisation. I am simply a bystander who feels that there is a substantial injustice at work here. Edmund Burke, the Irish philosopher and statesman famously said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Whether I qualify as “good” and how much impact this will have are open questions. But it needs to be said. I should also say that I am using the term gay as “code” for the whole range of sexual preferences, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, and same sex attracted.

The crucial point about marriage is not that it conforms to some religious dogma but that it is a public statement by two people who are committing their lives to each other. The key issue is the commitment; the content, not the form. So there is absolutely no reason why it should not be equally as valid for a gay couple as for a heterosexual couple. The problem with far too many “Christian” apologists (and, regrettably, both the major political parties) is their emphasis on so-called “family values” (worse, “traditional family values”).

It is very difficult to pin down precisely what is meant by “family values”, but the reactionary lobby would have us believe in a family as a married heterosexual couple with two children living in some mythical form of domestic bliss. Even if this ever did exist, it is clearly not the case today; Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that, in 2003, 46% of families were couple families with dependent or non-dependent children, 38% were couples with no children and 15% were single parent families. In passing, in 2006, 76% of couples who contracted a marriage said that they had lived together before the marriage and, interestingly, 61% of those marriages were contracted by a civil celebrant, further indication of the lessening of the religious influence.

Given this background, it is difficult to understand the entrenched antipathy towards gay marriage. It is even more difficult to understand or accept the proposition that the “gay lobby” is out to destabilise the institution of marriage, particularly given that rough estimates place the proportion of gay people in our community at no more than 10%. In other words, the 90% heterosexual majority have nothing to fear from the claims of the gay community for equality before the law.

Heterosexuals are clearly destabilising the institution of marriage all by themselves. And the fact that close to 50% of all marriages ends in divorce suggests that “’til death us do part” and government registration is no guarantee of an enduring relationship. It is surely preferable that we recognise, support and celebrate two people who love each other putting this commitment into practice rather than deny some of them that acknowledgement. All the bigotry and discrimination in the world cannot disguise the fact that, if gay couples wish to make a commitment to each other, in private or in a public ceremony, they can and will do so. It doesn’t need the presence of a priest or registration with a government authority to make that commitment binding. What it takes is willingness and determination to make it work, qualities that are clearly not the sole preserve of the heterosexual majority.

The outrageous hypocrisy of those who choose to discriminate in this way but who then claim to be Christian is deplorable in its pretension. They might do well to read the 13th chapter of the first epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, which is unequivocal about the value of love. And if they’re still undecided, check out the parable of the good Samaritan.

PRIVATE AFFLUENCE AND PUBLIC SQUALOR

The recent death of J K Galbraith reminded me of his comment about "private affluence and public squalor"; this is happening right now with the continuing reduction in and decline of public services in Australia. So long as Liberal governments keep pouring money into the pockets of those that already have it, and choking off support for those that don't, we'll continue to face the degradation of the public realm.

And it doesn't really matter where you slice it, the picture looks bleak. Health services generally, but particularly services for people with mental health issues and with other disabilities are scandalously under-resourced - but then, there are no votes in mental health, are there? Not even when an Australian citizen is locked up in a internment camp in the bizarre belief that she was a non-person (sorry, enemy alien, sorry, illegal, sorry - oh well, add your own label). Nor are there votes in Aboriginal issues, where family violence, housing, health, education are at something like fifth world standards.

You can go on. Huge subsidies to private schools, and the brazen support for private health insurance to the detriment of the public systems in both cases, are two other indicators. The so-called "user pays" philosophy has become grotesquely distorted by the idea that, where users pay, they should also be subsidised.

Another point occurs to me in the light of the recent media frenzy over family violence in indigenous communities. There is no question that this is a dreadful situation which needs action - fast. But, looked at from another viewpoint, it is hardly surprising, given that Aboriginal culture has largely been destroyed by the invasion of a more powerful and more ruthless Anglo culture. This has led, too often, to a sense of hopelessness, despair, misery and withdrawal. And then a sense that, because nobody else cares, why should I? Put slightly differently, when you got nothin', you got nothin' to lose. The response of Howard/Costello, that more money won't help - what is needed is more law enforcement, just shows the total lack of understanding by our so-called "leaders".

But this is not my point, important though it may be. I wonder if this is not, in microcosm, what is waiting for the broader Australian community as the politics of division become more entrenched, and the gulf between the "haves" and "have nots" widens. Poverty, disillusionment, despair and a sense that society has abandoned me/us has the potential to create the sort of violence that we are now seeing in our Indigenous people. What then, John - send in the troops?

We need action to kick-start change. In broad terms, we need a parliamentary opposition with a clear sense of an enlightened direction, driven by people committed to change for the benefit of ALL Australians. We also need an independent media, not dominated by mates of the Liberal party, staffed by journalists who are prepared to do the hard yards and tell it like it really is.

And if more Australians got off their butts and made their concerns clear to their so-called representatives, then maybe (just maybe) we might see the beginnings of some change.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE RT. HON. JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA

Dear Prime Minister

Although I was not born in this country, I count myself an Australian, and am an Australian citizen. My children and grandchildren are Australians, too. I want them to be proud of their country and what it stands for and to be able to respect its politicians as honourable and concerned for the well-being of all its people. All of them, not just a minority. I want them to be encouraged to show compassion and forbearance for the less fortunate. And to have a vision of a positive future for Australia that we can all share and embrace.

I have always believed in the fair go, in supporting the less fortunate and in having a sense of pride in what Australia does. I am sure these are what you would include within the idea of “traditional Australian values”. Prime Minister, I must ask why it is that you seem so determined to alienate substantial groups within our country, and why your government seems so determined to create fear, suspicion and division?

I see children incarcerated in concentration camps, cover ups such as the children overboard case, total incompetence bordering on criminality in DMIA going unpunished (Cornelia Rau and Vivienne Solon to name but two), the invasion of Iraq on totally spurious grounds, and a willingness to sacrifice Iraqi citizens to support the US adventure, a stubborn refusal to say "sorry" to Aboriginal Australians and a total failure to establish any sort of workable Aboriginal policy, IR laws that will inevitably disadvantage the most vulnerable workers, a determination to sell off public assets regardless of the consequences, nonsensical laws relating to “sedition”, the determination to create fear and uncertainty about new arrivals because they may look different and worship God differently and much more. This is an Australia that I don’t like, and one that I fear will leave my children and grandchildren worse off in all respects. The “new Australia” looks hard, limited, inward-looking, fearful, lacking in compassion and driven by blind obeisance to globalisation and US hegemony. To hell with the market – what about the people its manipulation and corruption affects?

Will you read this? Almost certainly not. Will you care? Again almost certainly not. Will what I have said cause you to change? Of course not. But I am a voter; a swinging voter, and I voted for the Liberals in 1996, but which I now see as a shameful act. Will I do so again? Almost certainly not.

Please remember, Prime Minister, that the greatest rock can be worn away by continuing drips of water. This is but one drip; I am hopeful of a torrent, and will do what I can to encourage and stimulate the flow.

Link

The first rule of holes: when you're in one, stop digging

Molly Ivins

HOW CAN WE CONTEND WITH THE LEGACY OF KAROL WOTYLA?

I have no hesitation in identifying myself as a secular humanist, with all that implies. As such, the uncritical adulation heaped on Karol Wotyla (aka John Paul II) is a much needed reminder for us to look closely at what is happening in our world(s). There is no doubt that Wotyla was steadfastly opposed to modernism, secular humanism and liberalism. He used his power to unite and cleanse the catholic hierarchy, and then sought to refound the church in Africa, Asia and Latin America. In this way, he sought to counterbalance any perceived threat from what he saw as European liberal heresy.

Worse, in many respects, was the unholy alliance that he created with evangelical protestantism in the USA. As usual in such situations, this bizarre coalition aimed at opposing rather than supporting. In other words, it was an expedient process, aimed at excluding the democrats under the catholic John Kerry. This was to allow George W Bush to continue his conservative, freedom denying rule to the satisfaction of reactionary catholics and evangelists. And to the frustration of life enhancing liberal secular humanists.

All cannot be joy for the catholic hierarchy. Empty pews, a seemingly unstoppable reduction in candidates for the priesthood and the knowledge that many catholics are prepared to think for themselves ought to give pause to the power brokers of the Vatican. But maybe this is just a Euro-centric view. I think perhaps not. If those in Asia, Africa and Latin America come to realise that much that the church claims cannot be turned into reality, the euphoria following Wotyla’s death may well turn out to be mistaken. I certainly hope so.

The absolutism inherent in religious dogma far from supports a culture of life. It is more aimed at a culture of obedience. It turns, “I believe” into “you should”, then “you should not”, then yet worse, “you must”. Adamant opposition by Wotyla and his acolytes to contraception, gay marriage (or gay anything), abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia, to say nothing of married priests or the whole issue of women in the church, highlights a culture of obedience. That this is a life denying culture rather than a culture of life is well observed in the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa where Catholic dogma has denied the opportunity for prevention through the use of condoms. And the new Benedict XVI is unlikely to be in the forefront of significant change.

There seems to be a supreme irony in suggestions that John Paul was at the forefront of the war against communism and its ultimate downfall. Everything we read about Joshua ben Joseph (aka Jesus Christ) suggests that he was truly the first communist. So is it too much to suggest that Wotyla set out to destroy that which the founder of his religion believed in and preached?

Religious, and particularly Catholic belief, has one huge and extraordinarily powerful value. It provides a security for believers that, by its very nature, secular humanism can’t. If you believe, confess your sins and show contrition, all will be well and you will go to heaven when you die. Secular humanism doesn’t offer this comforting myth, but requires that we do the best we can for ourselves – and for everyone else - while we’re here. Because nobody, but nobody knows, as a matter of fact, what happens after we leave. And to seek the mystery, spirituality and beauty in our world, doing all we can to make it better and to save it from the predations of those who demand, “we know best”.

And it's also worth remembering that, the most delusional fantasies can be made to masquerade as sanity if you've got the political power to reinforce them (Penny Skillman). If the Roman Catholic church isn't a living, breathing definition of political power, I'd like to know what is.

A SONG OF TIME

Take up a pen for the time has come
After years of change and pain
Your shadow falls across my soul
In a world beyond time.
Do not fear the merciless discord
But seek your rhythms once again
For God's voice sings faintly on a distant breeze
In a song that has not changed itself

Music holds the message of the final mystery;
The eternity from which all being comes.
Completed melodies don't belong in an incomplete world.
Our songs have always changed themselves
And lyrics gather in the corners of my mind.
Even dim and dusty harmonies,
Contain all the wisdom we can ever need.
They give me the liberty to be
Or not to be, if that is my question.

FLYING THE FRIENDLY SKIES!

Fly often? All too rarely, airline attendants make an effort to make the in-flight "safety lecture" and their other announcements a bit more entertaining. Here are some real (?) examples that have been heard or reported:

1. On a Qantas Flight with a very "senior" flight attendant crew, the pilot said, "Ladies and gentlemen, we've reached cruising altitude and will be turning down the cabin lights. This is for your comfort and to enhance the appearance of your flight attendants."
2. On landing the hostess said, "Please be sure to take all your belongings. If you're going to leave anything, please make sure it's something we'd like to have."
3. "Thank you for flying Qantas. We hope you enjoyed giving us the business as much as we enjoyed taking you for a ride."
4. As the plane landed and was coming to a stop at Canberra, a lone voice came over the loudspeaker: "Whoa, big fella. WHOA!"
5. After a particularly rough landing during thunderstorms in Adelaide, a flight attendant on a Qantas flight announced, "Please take care when opening the overhead compartments because, after a landing like that, sure as f#&% everything has shifted."
6. From a Qantas employee: "Welcome aboard Qantas Flight XXX to YYY. To operate your seat belt, insert the metal tab into the buckle, and pull tight. It works just like every other seat belt; and, if you don't know how to operate one, you probably shouldn't be out in public unsupervised."
7. In the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure, masks will descend from the ceiling. Stop screaming, grab the mask, and pull it over your face. If you have a small child travelling with you, secure your mask before assisting with theirs. If you are travelling with more than one small child, pick your favourite.
8. “Weather at our destination is 50 degrees with some broken clouds, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive. Thank you, and remember, nobody loves you, or your money, more than Qantas Airlines."
9. "Your seat cushions can be used for flotation; and in the event of an emergency water landing, please paddle to shore and take them with our compliments."
10. "Should the cabin lose pressure, oxygen masks will drop from the overhead area. Please place the bag over your own mouth and nose before assisting children... or other adults acting like children."
11. "As you exit the plane, make sure to gather all of your belongings. Anything left behind will be distributed evenly among the flight attendants. Please do not leave children or spouses."
12. And from the pilot during his welcome message: "Qantas airlines is pleased to have some of the best flight attendants in the industry. Unfortunately, none of them are on this flight!"
13. Heard on Qantas Airlines just after a very hard landing in Hobart: The flight attendant came on the intercom and said, "That was quite a bump, and I know what you are all thinking. I'm here to tell you it wasn't the airline's fault, it wasn't the pilot's fault, it wasn't the flight attendant's fault... it was the asphalt!"
14. Overheard on a Qantas flight into Perth, on a particularly windy and bumpy day: During the final approach, the Captain was really having to fight it. After an extremely hard landing, the Flight Attendant said, "Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Perth. Please remain in your seats with your seat belts fastened while the Captain taxis what's left of our airplane to the gate!"
15. Another flight attendant's comment on a less than perfect landing: "We ask you to please remain seated as Captain Kangaroo bounces us to the terminal."
16. An airline pilot wrote that on this particular flight he had hammered his ship into the runway really hard. The airline had a policy which required the first officer to stand at the door while the passengers exited, smile, and give them a "Thanks for flying Qantas." He said that, in light of his bad landing, he had a hard time looking the passengers in the eye, thinking that someone would have a smart comment. Finally everyone had got off except for a little old lady walking with a cane. She said, "Sonny, mind if I ask you a question?" "Why no, Ma'am," said the pilot. "What is it?" The little old lady said, "Did we land or were we shot down?"
17. After a real crusher of a landing in Sydney, the Flight Attendant came on with, "Ladies and Gentlemen, please remain in your seats until Capt. Crash and the Crew have brought the aircraft to a screeching halt against the gate. And, once the tire smoke has cleared and the warning bells are silenced, we'll open the door and you can pick your way through the wreckage to the terminal."
18. Part of a flight attendant's arrival announcement: "We'd like to thank you folks for flying with us today. And, the next time you get the insane urge to go blasting through the skies in a pressurized metal tube, we hope you'll think of Qantas."
    

Source: Anonymous

AUTOBIOGRAPHY IN FIVE CHAPTERS

from The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying by Rinpoche Sogyal

1. I walk down the street.
   There is a deep hole in the road.
   I fall in.
   I am lost...I am hopeless.
   It isn’t my fault.
   It takes forever to find a way out.
2. I walk down the same street.
   There is a deep hole in the road.
   I pretend I don’t see it.
   I fall in again.
   I can’t believe I’m in the same place.
   But it isn’t my fault.
   It still takes a long time to get out.
3. I walk down the same street.
   There is a deep hole in the road.
   I see it there.
   I still fall in...it’s habit.
   My eyes are open.
   I know where I am.
   It is MY fault.
   I get out immediately.
4. I walk down the same street.
   There is a deep hole in the road.
   I walk around it.
5. I walk down a different street.
   

DEAR DR LAURA

Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality. Recently, she said that, according to Leviticus 18:22, homosexuality is an abomination and cannot be condoned in any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet:

Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell ? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some room for negotiation here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

It’s a tragedy that we continue to need to be reminded about the reality of domestic violence. But until men take responsibility for their actions, domestic violence will continue. That’s right, guys, it’s up to us. We can’t expect women to take responsibility for the bashing, abuse and manipulation that we hand out. Domestic violence is overwhelmingly an issue of men abusing women. Of men attempting to control women by using whatever power they have – physical, verbal, emotional, financial. And don't give me that "she hit me first" crap. It's about power, not about who hit who first.

Listen, blokes, and I don’t care whether this is addressed to a battler doing it hard on a pension, or to our political leaders, the only person we can control is ourself. And we’d better start doing that. If we abuse women, we’re gutless wimps. And that goes double for men who doubly abuse women, whether it’s indifferent police officers politicians who aren’t prepared to put up real money for real answers, or any of us guys who turn our backs when we could help.

POWER WITHOUT GLORY

Last Saturday's federal election has proven to be a triumph of political expediency over genuine principle. Not that the ALP is necessarily a party of principle - it is almost as expedient as the Coalition. However, John Howard has again demonstrated that the need to be re-elected has over-ridden the deeper and more urgent need to act for the long-term benefit of Australia.

What we have seen is a cynical exploitation of a "better the devil you know that the devil you don't know" view in the electorate. This has been reinforced by manifestly false claims such as that the Coalition is the only party that can control interest rates. That this is an obvious and flagrant lie has been masked by Howard's attempt at a warm and fuzzy "trust me - I've been successful for eight years" line. And, as a result, we're stuck with another three years of Liberal/National coalition government - whether we like it or not.

What is worse, it looks almost certain that Howard will also have effective control of the Senate - perhaps not in his own right but almost certainly through a deal with Family First, which are even more conservative than the Coalition. My views on Family First are a separate subject, but suffice it to say, I don't agree with political parties that are based on, and draw their policies from, church groups. In this case, the Assemblies of God.

The only hint of a silver lining among all these clouds is that Howard will have no-one but himself to blame if (when) things go wrong. No doubt he will attempt to blame the ALP state governments (all of them), but hopefully, this will be seen for what it is - an attempt to pass the buck. The Coalition, effectively one man, John Howard, now has what he will claim to be a mandate to continue to push Australia in the direction of so-called economic rationalist, "free" market, user-pays conservatism , and away from any real concern for people. Particularly people who have been hurt by eight years of "me first" and to hell with anyone else; Aboriginal Australians, asylum seekers, mandatory detainees, people with mental health problems, pensioners - all the disadvantaged and socially excluded.

John Howard had better remember that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Link

The most delusional fantasies can be made to masquerade as sanity if you've got the political power to reinforce them.

Penny Skillman

TASTE - GOOD OR BAD

I was idly listening to the radio while I was driving today. A theatrical producer, whose name I didn't hear, said, in the context of producing Mozart operas in modern settings, "I don't care what Mozart would have thought. What would Mozart think a bout a tram, about underwear, about the Internet? Nobody can possibly know, so it's a pointless question." Fair enough, I suppose, although at a fairly superficial level.

Then he went on to say, "Of course, Shakespeare is in dreadfully bad taste." What? WHAT? WHAT? What the hell is that all about? How can anyone possibly make a comment like that? OK, I suppose it is possible to say that something is in extremely bad taste, but even that is a matter of context. White western middle class society (see, I'm already defining the context) regards spitting in public as bad taste. Most of the crude pornography that infests the 'net is in bad taste. But Shakespeare? I don't think so.

Can a genuine work of art ever be in bad taste? It may go out of fashion, but that's an entirely different thing. And I'm not going to join in a post-modern deconstructionist frenzy. I don't even understand what "taste" means - if anyone in the blogosphere happens upon this post and has any ideas, I'd love to know.

NOW, THEN, FOREVER

Half-remembered promises
Sink into the past.
Moments in eternal silence
Float by on the breeze.
And every moment is part of the larger meaning.

My friends forsake me like a lost moment.
We swore this would never happen
For the tender grace of a day that is gone.
But this may be the way it was meant to be.
Shame and pride come in no order,
So I become a keeper of the flame
As a form of self-discipline,
Attaining that state of being,
While memory whispers to itself
As if this were the last hour of life.

Reality
Has nothing to say.
It calls this beginning the end.
The real end is the journey.

HEROIN OR SPEED - NAME YOUR POISON

I was browsing through the 20 September edition of Time with my morning coffee (double strength latte with a shot of hazelnut syrup) when I came upon an article by Lisa Clausen titled Smacking Down. This started by commenting on the recent heroin drought in Australia, and how this was probably due to the diligence of the Australian Federal Police in strangling supply.

Hmm, yes; maybe. But it then went on to comment on the rise in use of amphetamines with the reduced supply of heroin. At first thought, that might be unlikely - heroin is a "downer" and speed is an "upper". But there was a very insightful quote, "It doesn't matter what the effect is, so long as it takes them away from what they were feeling." In other words, some (many?) people use drugs to hide deeper seated and more intractable problems, and it doesn't matter what the effect of the drug is if it hides the hurt for a while.

But the switch from heroin to speed represents a real problem. Being a "downer", a heroin overdose leaves the user comatose, but a speed psychosis leaves a user aggressive and possibly in need of restraint before any help can be given. But, what help? At least with heroin, there is methadone, or perhaps better, bupenorphine with naltrexone for immediate action. So far as I know, there is no pharmacological agent to assist with amphetamine withdrawal.

The other problem with speed is that it can be, usually is, manufactured locally, where heroin is imported. So strong supply side action can put a significant brake on heroin supply. But speed is another story; apart from anything else, it is almost invariably made in Australia - import is unnecessary. Statistics suggest a substantial increase in the clamp down on clandestine laboratories, but that probably means that there are a lot more of them to find. Manufacturing speed is a backyard operation that can be carried out in small areas quite quickly. In addition, however, it is extremely dangerous physically, and it is a wonder that there haven't been more explosions as uncontrolled speed manufacture goes out of control.

The point about this is to wonder whether any reduction in the availability of heroin is really a Pyrrhic victory. If this means that more people are using speed, the cost in supply side operations and overdose treatment could significantly outweigh the equivalent costs for heroin use.

It also suggests that we need to devote a lot more time, effort and resources to demand side reduction and harm minimisation. Education at all levels is essential, otherwise we're just trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. And, moreover, the Augean Stable!

DO UNTO OTHERS - BEFORE THEY DO UNTO YOU!

Dr Paul Vout, a Melbourne barrister and theatre producer, recently made the following comments in newMatilda (www.newmatilda.com/home/default.asp). I believe they are worth repeating because they state clearly and unambiguously the type of prejudice and narrow-mindedness that too often passes for Christianity.

Brigadier Jim Wallace AM is executive chairman of an organisation called the Australian Christian Lobby. The moniker 'Christian soldier' seems to aptly describe him. Brigadier Wallace was active in the recent campaign to ensure that the Marriage Act 1958 was amended - not only to expressly define 'marriage' as being between a man and a woman, but to dictate that marriages of same-sex couples under the laws of countries such as Canada and the Netherlands must not be recognised under Australian law. Brigadier Wallace said, inter alia:

I'm sure you will be aware of the push by the homosexual lobby for marriage. We had hoped this would be thwarted by an amendment to the Marriage Act that would have, as much as is legislatively possible, defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

However as we always knew, this group was not just after equality in social benefits and entitlements, they are without doubt aiming to remove every vestige of our Christian heritage which they find so offensive.

We cannot sit by this time on an issue as crucial as marriage and live to regret our inactivity later.

We have the leverage now, in the lead up to an inevitably close Federal Election, to force the parties to come clean on their intentions for marriage and so make it an election issue. If we do we can draw the line in the sand that will stop the encroachment of the homosexual lobby on Christian values.

A large minority of Australians will continue to be denied access to one of the fundamental legal institutions in our society. Marriage is certainly a religious institution (one central to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and many faiths other than Christianity). But is also arguably as important a legal institution as constitutional democracy, liberty, due process, and rights over property. Should one person's religious beliefs be the basis upon which another should be excluded from such an important bundle of legal rights and obligations?

In short, a second class of citizenry has been clearly delineated, the separation of church and state has been blurred, and the due process of law has been interfered with. Something to be proud of, Brigadier. But was this a war worth fighting?

Absolutely not. Brigadier Wallace, 'They' were not just after equality in social benefit and entitlements. 'They' were after equality before the law. You were also wrong, Brigadier. 'They' were not 'aiming to remove every vestige' of your Christian heritage. 'They' were aiming to remove every vestige of legal discrimination. 'They' do not find your 'Christian heritage' offensive - only those who claim to march behind Christ, yet ignore his instruction to treat others as they would wish to be treated themselves.

All the Christian soldiers who fought alongside Brigadier Wallace to achieve this particular 'victory' should go back to their Bibles, and read well the accounts of Christ's teachings given to us by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They will find no references whatsoever to homosexuality or same-sex relationships. They will, however, find a powerful message of love, respect and dignity for all of God's children, by all of God's children.

As I see it, those who fight for anything else are not Christians worthy of the name.

Absolutely. I feel sad and frustrated that people can display such bigotry in the name of Christianity. True Christian values are those expressed in the parable of the good Samaritan or Chapter 13 of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians and have nothing to do with exclusion on the grounds of some perceived lack of qualification. The idea of Christianity is inclusive, and Jesus didn’t say that you will be saved if you believe in me, unless you are gay or …… . I fail to understand the need to treat some groups and individuals as second rate, as undesirable or as less than deserving of God’s grace.

G K Chesterton said, “It is not that the Christian ideal has been tried and found wanting; it is that the Christian ideal has been found too hard and not tried.” This is exactly the point. Start with the “Golden Rule” repeated as nauseam, but seldom lived. But you can bet your bottom dollar that if members of the so‑called Australian Christian Lobby were to be treated by others in the way that they want to treat homosexuals, they would be the first to complain. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Don’t just say it, live it.

ABSOLUTELY USELESS INFORMATION
(Not my own work, I regret to say, but, hey, we've got to share this sort of thing around)

If you yelled for 8 years, 7 months and 6 days you would have produced enough sound energy to heat one cup of coffee. (Hardly seems worth it.)

If you farted consistently for 6 years and 9 months, enough gas is produced to create the energy of an atomic bomb. (Now that's more like it!)

The human heart creates enough pressure when it pumps out to the body to squirt blood 30 feet. (O.M.G.!)

A pig's orgasm lasts 30 minutes.
(In my next life, I want to be a pig.)

A cockroach will live nine days without its head before it starves to death.
(Creepy.) (I'm still not over the pig.)

Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories an hour.
(Do not try this at home... maybe at work.)

The male praying mantis cannot copulate while its head is attached to its body. The female initiates sex by ripping the male's head off.
("Honey, I'm home. What the....?!")

The flea can jump 350 times its body length. It's like a human jumping the length of a football field.
(30 minutes... lucky pig... can you imagine??)

The catfish has over 27,000 taste buds.
(What could be so tasty on the bottom of a pond?)

Some lions mate over 50 times a day.
(I still want to be a pig in my next life...quality over quantity)

Butterflies taste with their feet.
(Something I always wanted to know.)

The strongest muscle in the body is the tongue.

Right-handed people live, on average, nine years longer than left-handed people.
(If you're ambidextrous, do you split the difference?)

Elephants are the only animals that cannot jump.
(OK, so that would be a good thing....)

A cat's urine glows under a black light.
(I wonder who was paid to figure that out?)

An ostrich's eye is bigger than its brain.
(I know some people like that.)

Starfish have no brains.
(I know some people like that too.)

Polar bears are left-handed.
(If they switch, they'll live a lot longer.)

Humans and dolphins are the only species that have sex for pleasure.
(What about that pig??)

I suspect that blogging is a bit like taking pictures of your first grandchild. You just about have a camera welded to your fingers for the first couple of years. Then the passion gets slowly less, and you take rather fewer photos, until, by the time you get to my age (62), you can go 10 years and never have your photo taken. So, in my initial enthusiasm for blogging, all sorts of stuff is likely to get recorded, but eventually, it might be refined into something a bit more coherent.

If you ask a kid what colour the sky is, they'll look at you as if you're crazy, and say something like, "duh; blue". And they'd be right - most of the time. But not this evening, when the sun went down, and the sky in the east faded to a pale, pale blue, and then into apricot. And floating in the middle of it was a big fat full moon. Now, that's eternity - people saw that beauty and mystery 10,000 years ago, and they'll do the same in 10,000 years time - that is, if we don't do something fundamentally insane in the meantime. Which is all too likely - are you reading this, Dubya?

Haiku No. 1

A moment of joy.
I can hear my friend calling
From behind the golden sunset.

Awake! for Morning in the Bowl of Night
Has flung the Stone that puts the Stars to Flight:
And Lo! the Hunter of the East has caught
The Sultan's Turret in a Noose of Light.

Sometimes I need some inspiration for my thoughts, so if I use a stanza from the Rubbaiyat, it will (should) at least keep me going for 75 posts.

I'm a morning person myself, and can function almost immediately after waking up - although I do better after the first cup of coffee. Mornings aren't the problem but sleep is. At least, getting enough so that I don't feel like a zombie by 7.30 in the evening is. And playing catch-up sleep is no great fun.

I love that idea of the sultan's turret being caught in "a noose of light". Can't you just see the sun rising behind the dome of some eatern palace with a shining halo all around a gilded turret? Beautiful.

"Truth is beauty, beauty truth. Tis all ye know on earth and all ye need to know".