Red vs Blue was a cool machinima production featuring Halo characters.
If you haven’t discovered it – you should.
Today is all about this Red v Blue (a map of election results) – I want to be able to say “I told you so” my first endorsement of Obama was in March 2007 – right here. I really want to say I told you so in particular to Ben who tried his hardest to pick candidates nobody had heard of and assure me they would do well.
Tag: Ben
Red vs Blue
Fully sick
Is there anything worse than being at work sick?
Yes, there is, being at work sick on a deadline for your most important project of the year.
At least I have Ben, James and Paul’s emails to keep me company. Today we’re talking about the falling Aussie dollar and how it has ruined Paul’s Christmas because importing his presents is now prohibitively expensive. Good times.
Yesterday we talked about Ben’s inability to write analogies. Paul and James mostly talk about computer games. Which only mildly interests me because they’re not talking about the Nintendo 64 – which is the only console I’m currently playing. Just to keep you in the loop – I only have three 00 Agent levels to go. 1337 – is that how you write “leet” – I’m sure James will correct me.
Yes, there is, being at work sick on a deadline for your most important project of the year.
At least I have Ben, James and Paul’s emails to keep me company. Today we’re talking about the falling Aussie dollar and how it has ruined Paul’s Christmas because importing his presents is now prohibitively expensive. Good times.
Yesterday we talked about Ben’s inability to write analogies. Paul and James mostly talk about computer games. Which only mildly interests me because they’re not talking about the Nintendo 64 – which is the only console I’m currently playing. Just to keep you in the loop – I only have three 00 Agent levels to go. 1337 – is that how you write “leet” – I’m sure James will correct me.
My friend Ben.
My friend Ben hates puns, analogies, arguments by example, hypotheticals or in fact anything he can’t taste, touch or hold – and he doesn’t like most of those things. He’s a very rational person. But I’ve decided he pretty much hates everything I stand for… oh, and the point of this whole post is to direct your attention to his answers to my questions on the bail out that I have posted in the comments – and to alert him to the fact that I’ve done that. He’ll probably hate this post.
On Russia – for Ben
Russia is a strange and mystical country full of socialists and iron-fisted military types. It surprises me they can see through the vodka induced stupor to bomb the crap out of a neighbouring country – let alone do so in defiance of a brokered peace deal.
In all seriousness this conflict – and its timing (while the world is at play at the Olympics) worries me. Russia and China need an opportunity to flex their military might in the face of the US. This looks like a chance for them to do that. The US is stuffed – if they bite, they’ll probably either lose or have to nuke the crap out of Russia – neither seems like a wise move. The bearing it will have on the current presidential campaign will also be interesting – if McCain takes a strong stance it leaves Obama having to make an awkward decision.
The only easy solution I can see is for the US to topple Hugo Chavez in response – strike a blow against socialism and one for market based democracy. The analogies there are pretty endless – they’re similarly geographically remote from philosophical allies, they both influence the natural resource security of the larger country – and both have heads of state unpopular with the local neighbours but popular with the military superpower at the other corner of the globe.
That’s not really a solution – more a pointer to how complex this whole resource based empire game is. To quote the West Wing – “Free trade stops wars”.
Oil should be decommodified and used up as fast as possilbe. For free. By the masses. Then we’d have to use some initiative to wean ourselves off this dependency on a finite resource. Cost of living would stop growing astronomically and we’d all be happy.
On dialogue with atheists
I have some friends who are atheists – not just soft agnostics like most of society – but reasoned, secular humanists who think Dawkins lacks objectivity and is a rabid fundamentalist. You know, the logical type of atheists who have thought through life and made their own conclusions on the basis of the evidence they see around them. The type who make “moral judgements” based on empathy and reason. I’ve spent the last couple of weeks in pretty intense debate with them via email. The discussion has been protracted and mostly frustrating. I’ve also been feeling pretty outnumbered – it was three to one and then they introduced these two guys I’ve never met into the email circle. One of them is pretty much the only person who now reads this blog – so hi. I actually don’t know where he sits on the issue because he just commentates on the debate – and how much he hates analogies.
This debate has made me question – not my beliefs – but my response to having them attacked. Pride is something I struggle with. I want to be right, I want to engage in the debate in an intellectual sense and essentially prove my faith* and convince these guys they should convert – and be just like me. Which again, kind of misses the point of Christianity – because I should be trying to convince people to be just like Christ. Here’s the rub – the Bible promises that the world’s wisdom will see Christianity and its message of a capitally punished God as foolishness (1 Corinthians) – so I can’t expect to be convincing, nor can I mention this in some kind of argumentative context – because to argue the veracity of something using that thing doesn’t really stack up. I can’t say “the Bible is true because it says it is.” Nor can I say “the Bible is true because I have experienced that it is” – because that is subjective. I also can’t say – “the Bible is true because all the observable evidence (ie pain and suffering) suggest it is” – because all the observable evidence is observed, and compartmentalised based on the starting hypothesis – ie if God is not there it’s all just chance and coincidence. My basic instinct in this debate is to debate. To apologise (in the “mount a defence for” sense) for my beliefs. Is this the right way to respond? I’m not convinced that it is – not in the frames of science and philosophy.
Science is limited. Science has merit, and a place in the world. Science answers questions of cause and effect, and makes observations to test and demonstrate hypotheses – science is good at what it does. What it can’t do is test that which can not be observed – and it is limited to the theories and subjective whims of those testing them through hypothesis. I can observe “facts” and essentially plug them into my frame of reference to demonstrate a theory. The theory always comes first.
History also has limits – postmodern criticism has merit – but to rob any text of the chance of being true and accurate objective history does a disservice to our understanding of human history and anthropology. Why can’t we trust the accounts of a number of people recorded in the one book – from very separate original documents – to reveal truth? This exercise also taught me that those who are passionately disinterested – or dispassionately interested – in Christianity have very little knowledge of the actual text of the Bible – and its history. Instead relying on years of inaccuracies and insipid, purposeful lies. “The bible has been changed over time” is one of those half truths that misses the point – it hasn’t been changed by whim – but by desire to bring it closer to the original text based on rigourous academic scholarship. It has been used as a political tool in the past – and those who most stridently opposed that were the Christian church – and these men were martyred for the cause. This sort of shoddy criticism has no grounding in anything but what my atheist friend told me in primary school so I believed it.
I think it’s unhelpful to present this debate (theism v atheism) in the sphere of the rational, observable or philosophical. To do so puts the existence of God on our terms – a God by nature transcends the rational and observable. God sets the rules for this debate – not humans. To move God into these realms, and into our terms is not rational or reasonable – if God exists then there is no reason for him to conform to our experience of the world – or human conventions of understanding – anymore than there is reason for us to bark when communicating to dogs. We do not do this when interacting with our subordinates (the animal kingdom).
Thanks to Dawkins, Atheists now tackle these arguments by realigning the burden of proof and changing the terminology – now we, “theists” have to demonstrate why God must exist – before even tackling which God they should believe in. Therefore the Bible is dismissed as an authority (partly because post-modern literary criticism means nothing can be trusted as true anymore), Christians can’t claim any unique authority on the debate on the basis of the historicity of Jesus – particularly because any of the eye-witness accounts to his life must now be ignored or disputed, any third party accounts of Christianity – and the leaders of the early church – are not as valuable as “modern science” and observation – and the default position is now that the complexity of life is a product of randomness and an infinite spectrum of time. I don’t really understand that being the default. Atheists are now critical of the “watchmaker” assumption – ie when you see a wristwatch in a field you assume based on complexity the watch was designed and placed there. I think that’s something that’s been slowly indoctrinated. Atheists are now taught to proselytize in the same way they accuse Christians of brainwashing their children and others.
One of these guys scoffed at my suggestion that his lifestyle is the result of his atheism – and vice versa. He suggested the two were not linked. The atheist point of view by definition dismisses the idea of God – and hence questions regarding whether their atheism influences the way they live are flawed – theism v atheism is still the fundamental question that ultimately shapes the worldview of the individual – morals, ethics, philosophy and conduct all stem from this fundamental position – whether we (or they) like it or not.
The “church” has been responsible for some terrible injustices over time – or at least these have been conducted in the name of the church – ignoring the wildly publicised misdemeanours and wars, in a broader sense the church has failed to adequately educate casual church attendees. Both these atheists had backgrounds including church attendance. Both had strong – and in my opinion inaccurate – understandings of the “teachings of the church” and felt adequately qualified to make assessments on the basis of their childhood experiences. This may be unfairly representing their opinions and positions – but in my opinion something as serious as religion – and the underlying foundation we build our lives on – should be considered by adult minds. Both in the case of people who have always been Christians – and in the case of people who have chosen not to be. In either case I’d hate to think this is the kind of decision you make at 10 and never revisit.
It’s been a pretty interesting discussion all told – and I’d love any readers input on the issue. This post ended up being much longer than I planned.
*Not technically scientifically possible because faith is the belief in something that can’t be observed.
Contractual Obligation
I was going to write something a while back on the Cristiano Ronaldo saga at Manchester United. For those of you who aren’t fans of the “Red Devils” or the “Beautiful Game” – so aren’t au fait with the situation – Cristiano Ronaldo is the biggest, brightest, best superstar playing for arguably the biggest, brightest, best club in the world (well they’re European Champions, and back-to-back winners of the world’s best football league). The problem is, Cristiano doesn’t see things this way – he’d rather play for glamour club Real Madrid. Real pay their stars exorbitant wages and don’t really win anything – but they go into massive debt to buy players and mercilessly exploit their image rights to pay the interest. But I digress. Cristiano’s problem is that he signed a five year contract with Manchester United pretty recently. In the murky world of Football politics and contractual law – clubs can sell contracted players for “transfer fees” – essentially the longer the contract the higher the fee the club can receive. In fact, players can move clubs for free at the end of contracts (and sign with new clubs on free transfers in the final year of their contract with the transfer taking place upon expiry). It’s in the best interest of the club to sign players up for long term deals. Wage structures in these contracts often reflect “potential value” rather than actual. So a young player is offered a contract with a lot of zeros because the club wants to keep them for a long time – and if they see a chance to sell their star they get the best possible price.
The integrity of contracts is fundamentally important to the commercial survival of clubs. Some clubs in England survive, financially and competitively, by buying and developing young talent and onselling them to the top clubs at a profit. Sonny Bill Williams decision to disregard his contract with the Bulldogs has brought the contractual argument into the world of Rugby League. His case is distinct from the round ball game, and from Cristiano Ronaldo’s situation – in that he is switching across codes – rather than within a code. League also doesn’t have a transfer fee system, and it has a salary cap – which football (in the literary and global sense) doesn’t.
My take on both situations is that these players are being led astray by greedy “sports agents” – the antithesis to Jerry McGuire. Agents benefit greatly when their charges sign new contracts – they get massive commissions – 10% in the case of Cristiano Ronaldo’s proposed deal. They’re like leeches. They also are the ones that broker the legal side of sport’s contracts – and they advise their clients to sign on when perhaps it’s not in their best interest to do so.
A contract is a contract – and, sports clubs, and governing body such as the NRL – have every right to expect they be honoured. The FIFA (the global football body) President, who nobody really likes, came out and basically said Ronaldo (who is on millions of pounds per year) is essentially being treated as a slave – not particularly helpful (or politically correct) stuff from someone who is meant to be the game’s senior figure. NRL CEO David Gallop has been much more statesmanlike in his handling of the SBW situation. Although Gus Gould gave him a bit of a roasting for pretty much overseeing the death of Rugby League as we know it. I’d be interested to hear other people’s thoughts on what this means for the game.
My friend Ben seems pretty convinced that the NRL needs to shrink (number of clubs) and expand (nationwide) which has been one option suggested by a few people. That’s probably an unfair summary of his argument – but I think he’ll email me to clarify when he’s read this, so I’ll leave it as is.
Election 2.0
Ben has been persistent in his insistence that I be more consistent with my election ramblings – which currently number a couple of references to YouTube. So here goes. This election campaign is being hailed by members of the “new media”* as being Election 2.0 – the rise of the interwebs (Sequel to Election – The worm has (re)turned) – note that only those with a vested interest in promoting online content to boost advertising revenue streams are pointing people away from the traditional media. I’m not sure I buy this whole interweb campaign – ironic really, given that in posting this blog I’m contributing in a very small form to the debate…
But I digress… Kevin07 – Licence to ill (AKA the earwax video) is now a matter of international significance. The sequel to this episode could well have been Kevin goes to School (and gets mobbed by cheering children – note to K-Rudd – children can’t actually vote…) – however, in a priceless piece of electioneering – Kevin managed to get an old man from a retiree’s choir to swear at him… in front of the cameras (note to K-Rudd – old people can vote – even when senility sets in…). Rudd was obviously pandering to an audience that J-Ho has been traditionally popular with and boy, did it backfire.
Meanwhile the incumbent PM has been busy being heckled on his morning strolls canters – all while trying to lay down the law to a bunch of petulant bankers – warning them that there’ll be hell to pay if they raise rates and he’s re-elected… way to antagonise your core constituency J-Ho. The cynic in me thinks this is all a rouse designed by the PM to keep Costello away from the top job. Call it petty, call it what you will, but I’m fairly sure supporting the guy who’s constantly trying to stab you in the back and take your job is a tough ask – the idea that Howard is throwing the election because he’d prefer Rudd as PM over Cossie is pure, baseless, speculation.
In other news – a faceless caricature has emerged as the leading suspect in the case of the missing British girl Madeleine McCann. In a case that’s going from bizarre to more bizarre one of the McCann’s friends has only now come forward with a story about a man striding away from the hotel on the night…
It turns out the Scud, the Poo, the artist formerly known as Mark Philippousis is now ranked a stunning 1,109 in the world at tennis – his croquet ranking is a marginally better – 1,093 – which is a good thing because he can still enter Wimbledon (which is of course played at the All England Tennis and Croquet Club). The Scud attempted to make another comeback from another knee injury against a bunch of tennis grandpas (over 30s) and lost to John McEnroe. He’s now officially worse than when he started – his ranking then was a respectable 1,072.
A long time between drinks
Dear Blog Reader – after a month of silence it may be time for me to resurrect this ‘ere little piece of ego stroking personal indulgence I like to call my “Blog”. I call it my blog largely because that’s what it is – a blog pertaining to me and things that I want to write about. I’d like to be able to catch you up on the last month of happenings – but due to the constraints of time and the like I’ll give you the “nutshell” version. It was good. For those wanting a more extended analysis of the wedding, honeymoon, return to work and the normality of married life please call me on the phone – or maybe check out some photos here, and here.
Orpheus Island photos will be put online when we get our home internet connection working. It seems that in my hiatus some kerfuffle has kicked up over the future governance of the nation. Bring it on, I say. We spent some time over the last couple of weeks powering through series 7 of the West Wing. We were wondering what to fill our lives with now that we’ve watched all seven seasons (approximately a full week’s worth of viewing… which is pretty impressive) and the real thing pops up to occupy our screens. Elections are fun. Expect me to write a lot about them in coming posts.
This’ll be a short one – it’s mainly designed to let Leah know that my blog’s not dead – and let Ben know that I am paying attention to the election.
God will be God and you will know it
God has been getting a bit of publicity lately – and not much of it is good. This is likely to continue as long as his representatives (the church) keep screwing up their key messages. Public Relations strategy centres on sticking to a key message – and not straying to the peripherals. Andrew Denton’s balanced “God on My Side” was screened on the ABC last night and showed the American Religious Right for what it is – a mixture of crazy zealots hoping to bring about Armageddon through war in Israel and a group of well intentioned Christians keen to spread the gospel through whatever mean necessary. As Christians we are called to preach Christ crucified. To proclaim the “good news” that Jesus is the key to forgiveness for our inability and refusal to live life God’s way, using puppets is fine for that. We are not called to get on TV and promise new pancreases to diabetics. While the concept of judgement is a pillar of Christianity there is no biblical text to support the idea that we should be acting to hasten judgement – instead we’re called to make hay while the sun shines (John 4:35). The church’s inability to stay on message sees it getting bogged down in debates it doesn’t belong in. Obscure theological debates (premillenialism v postmillenialism etc) should be played out in bible colleges and published journals – not fought out in public between churches or Christians. The issues of sexuality and sin – which the bible is quite clear on – need to be presented in the light of the gospel – yes, the bible clearly says God is against homosexuality, but he’s also against lying, any sex outside of marriage, pornography and any form of theft. People who indulge in any of these areas are unfit for ministry – but are more than acceptable to God if they repent. There is no sin that God won’t forgive (except final and absolute rejection of him). When the church publicly condemns sexual sin it opens itself up for accusations of hypocrisy. It is not the church’s place to judge – or condemn anyone – there but for the grace of God we all go. While a belief in Christianity fundamentally (and logically) renders every other religion false – that does not mean that we should hate – or want to nuke – followers of other religions.
The intersection of Christianity and politics is one that has raised the ire of many over the years – and interestingly the separation of church and state is not really constitutionally enshrined – the role of Christians in parliament is something Ben and I have fiercely debated all year. Non-Christians should not be worried that Christians will impose their system of morals and beliefs onto everybody as law – Christians are called to be counter cultural – not to set the culture. We should be lights to the world – we can’t do that if everybody is doing the same thing.
The scary reality is that God is real, he’s in control. If God is God – we can not dictate how he should rule, or make him in our own image. We can’t stand here and shake our fists at perceived injustices.That’s not how the philosophical concept of God works – nor is it how the God of the Bible works. People who have problems with God have a problem. People who have a problem with the behaviour of the church I can sympathise with. There have been terrible atrocities committed in God’s name. There are people around with a terrible understanding of how the Bible fits together. But I can’t help but lack tolerance for this guy. Dawkins is the pin up boy for atheists. He has written a number of books criticising belief in God. He is to atheism what terrorists are to Islam and what the crazy eyed fundamentalists from the American far right are to Christianity. But he’s also widely respected as a scholar and an intellectual. Dawkin’s extremes make his fellow atheists so uncomfortable they feel compelled to explain his statements – in the same way that Muslims dealt with the uncovered meat statements from Hilaly. While I’m not sure I completely agree with the idea of persuading people based on the odds – Pascal had a logical argument or wager supporting belief in God.
Being a Christian isn’t the latest intellectual trend – but the church does itself a disservice whenever it strays from its calling and into the murk and mire of stupid debates. Let God worry about when the world is going to end. Let God worry about bringing punishment to sinners. The more we focus on what divides the church, and what divides society, the less people are inclined to listen to what we’re saying and the more likely we are to do something stupid like invading the Middle East under the pretext of a holy war. In conclusion – Dawkins is an idiot but then the wider church is full of them.
Think of the children…
So what about the children
Remember when we were children
And if not for those who loved us and who cared enough to show us
Where would we be today – What about the Children, Yolanda Adams
Benny has real problems with childcare – more specifically problems with funding for childcare – problems that I must admit I don’t really care about. Well I didn’t. But he makes a valid point. There’s a range of factors playing behind the scenes in the childcare debate – the economic argument – childcare encourages parents back into the workforce, the social argument – are children are better off raised by their parents than being pushed through ABC learning centres, and the political argument – should childcare be a political issue.
The economic argument seems simple on the surface – if parents can put their young children into affordable childcare they can return to the workforce and a household becomes a double income household contributing more to the economy via tax. The argument is pretty simple when it comes to single parents needing subsidised childcare – but in this double income situation it’s a different question. The politically correct brigade who want to argue that having children is a choice and society shouldn’t be burdened by those who make that choice are kind of missing the point – they can all die out. Their estates can be held in trust distributing to whatever crazy social cause they want to and this selfish ideology should hopefully die out with them. Both religion and Darwinism would argue that a primary function of human life is to recreate – or procreate – or have children. These evolutionary throwbacks are probably doing their bit by not spawning offspring with the same intolerable world view. But that’s a tangent. The reality is our society needs children. Economists would argue that if we stopped having children we could rely on migrants to pick up the population slack – but economists are often restricted to thinking within the square and forget about human issues. If we were all robots that would work – but while there are people like Pauline Hanson – who suggests that anyone who is offended by the Australian flag should leave the country – I think we need to realise that the human condition involves placing value in intangibles. That’s another tangent – and here’s another one – someone today wrote a letter to the editor in the Townsville Bulletin that suggested that the budget was simply the Liberal’s attempt to grab votes. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what politics is about – providing a legislative framework that is the most popular within the electorate. So excuse me if I don’t share the cynicism of this particular letter writer – I thought all politicing was overt vote grabbing. Now that the tangents are over I’ll resume the point on childcare – at the moment there is barely an economic argument for single mothers to re-enter the workforce after childbirth. The government provides important family payments to ensure children don’t die of malnutrition and that sort of thing – if a mother returns to work she is entitled to less money from centrelink and has to pay more tax, plus childcare – it just doesn’t add up. I think, at this point, the government should be subsidising child care – or publicising it (making it a public service) – which they already do for education. The current situation of unregulated privatised childcare is only great for the owners who are out buying private jets and stuff. Which is where Benny’s argument starts to make sense:
“Government is subsidising childcare to the point where the industry is built on profitably exploiting the subsidy. If it is continued to be subsidised in this way, we will be paying excessive amounts for childcare through both direct payments and taxes, whilst the childcare owners will be dancing around on piles of money.”
Which is true. Ben thinks the Government’s willingness to extensively subsidise childcare is creating a viscious cycle where private businesses are jumping on the childcare bandwagon and charging more than they have to because of the subsidy.
“What are people asking for when they complain about expensive childcare? Is it an arguement that the government is failing or an arguement that they dont like paying free-market childcare rates? If the government is to subsidise childcare in this way, it isnt going to make childcare cheaper, it is going to make it more expensive. It is going to increase childcare demand, increase the already extensively profitable childcare rates, and result in more profits to private childcare. Basically, the current state of childcare is basically a goldmine to private firms who get it organised. The belief in society that childcare should be cheap and readily available has created this incredibly inefficient market that is costing a fortune.”
Ben suggests that there’s a belief in the inherent right to childcare – a belief that the Government should be providing care for its youngest citizens. It seems to me that this belief comes from a variety of factors – there’s an economic argument for getting parents into the workforce and providing further stimulus to the economy through high employment. But there’s a social cost to having children essentially raised by the state, or by a corporate body designed solely to make money from the commodity of children. Parental responsibility should extend past choosing the most beneficial child care centre – regardless of the criteria used to assess each centre. I’d like to think that parents will choose the best option for their kids, not the cheapest. But the fact is one on one parenting is a better relational model than putting kids in the daycare environment where they are spending time divided amongst a number of carers who are spread across every child’s needs. I can’t help but think that childcare is a bad model encouraged by purely economic factors. There’s a reason school doesn’t start until a kid is 5 – parents can’t abdicate every responsibility to either the state or a third party. That’s not what parenting is about.
On the political front – looking after the “family” is smart politics – the family remains the dominant social unit despite the growing trend for remaining single or childless – no one wants to be seen to be against the family – except militant vegan lesbians who want everything to be geared towards their impact free life choices. The “for the children” mentality is safe political territory operating on the following syllogism:
P is good for children
Children are good
Therefore, anything related to children is good
Therefore, P is good
Which doesn’t quite work – but it’s the way people think. It’s manipulative, it’s good for gaining votes and that’s politics. Without winning votes you don’t win. Ben made this interesting point:
“I have this theory because before you have a family, you have higher free income and can afford more and have more time to display personal principles, and argue about the economics and social justices regarding issues. However, families just want to get by, get more money to put away for kids, and somehow get through their childrens education. to them, childcare rebates sound like a win.”
One other thing
I forgot to mention the budget. Consider it mentioned. I thought it was interesting to see the budget dealt with Climate Change in exactly the way Ben and I thought it should – it ignored it. Climate Change is an issue overheated by overzealous scaremongering from the latte left. It seems logical to me that the ice caps have been gradually melting for a long time – why we’ve suddenly decided that our carbon emissions are responsible for environmental change is beyond me – other than the fact that there are elections coming up in the US and Australia – and a potential Presidential candidate made a propaganda filled movie the likes of which have not been seen since Michael Moore trotted out his award winning anti-Bush tripe a few years ago. In real terms the new IR laws have created jobs, kept inflation down and kept productivity stable – while the unions would have us believe that we’re all one contract away from the sweatshops. The unions of course have nothing to gain from convincing the public that workplace agreements are bad… oh that’s right – collective bargaining is their bread and butter. Union membership in Australia is steadily on the decline because we’ve never had it so good. K-Rudd should spend his time picking the real issues with the Howard government rather than trying to box shadows (in the pugilistic sense). It’s time for them to stop attacking Howard’s age (and implying he’s out of touch) and to start making suggestions of real policy – something last night’s budget seemed short of. The government has obviously overtaxed us for years – a surplus of $13.6 billion is not a sign of fiscal responsibility but an indication that they’ve taken too much money from the electorate. Although any public servant expecting to be paid superannuation when they retire would probably suggest that we need more money in the surplus – not less.
The hows and whys of communication
Sometimes I start writing these blog entries with no actual idea what I’m going to write about… I find it makes for an interesting writing experience – that’s not necessarily duplicated for the reader. Today I thought I’d share a little bit about “the writing process” – or at least, my writing process. This was a decision I made just then. And by just then I mean half way through writing the sentence “Today I thought I’d share…” I decided I’d write about the writing process. I often wonder how other people frame their thoughts – I frame mine as written text – or at least, as text that I would then be able to reproduce in written form. Sometimes as I’m framing these thoughts I rewrite them – but once they’re down on paper I find it very hard to express them in any other manner – this makes me a terrible editor of my own work (except for spelling or grammatical errors – then it’s only pride that gets in the way). There are a number of “stream of consciousness” artists out there – Darren Hanlon, The Streets and others who simply record their thoughts about a particular issue – I would define myself as a stream of consciousness writer – what you see and read is what I think. And how I think. I would say I have a fairly fluent internal monologue which means I’m able to get my thoughts onto paper in written form fairly quickly. I’ve explored the topic of how I think before – this is the applied version – so it’s not completely unoriginal. I’ve been told by some people that they think in numbers and others that they think in images. I think thinking about how people think is essential for good communication – be it in the media, in politics, in teaching or preaching – any communication needs to be focused at the audience at hand – this means a publication for a mixed readership will need to use different language to a specialised niche magazine – this may be obvious, but I think a lot of communicators have missed the point. Based on recent speeches and media interviews I’d say the left is cottoning on to the necessity of clear communication much faster than the right – K-Rudd , Paul Keating, and Barack Obama in the US have all put in sterling communication performances – they all have the ability to articulate a point without resorting to jargon. Since taking on the leadership K-Rudd has demonstrated an improvement in this area – check out this extract from an interview in 2002…
“We are not even to the first stage of UN Security Council resolution setting a deadline for the readmission of inspectors let alone a subsequent resolution, which would then make a determination about whether free and unfettered access had been given.And, furthermore, that article 42 of the council, collective action by the council, would have to be exhausted as well.”
Or this one from 2005:
“In the case of Annette Hurley, the person who has come into the Parliament from South Australia has enormous experience in the South Australian Parliament before coming to Canberra. It’s not as if this person arrives as some sort of neophyte with no experience at all.”
Rudd has to work hard not to isolate the electorate with his prim and proper vocab and it looks like his image consultants are working overtime.
The Coalition have had a few stumbles in the campaign to date with John Howard a notably dismal performer – their star has always been Peter Costello – a few viewings of parliamentary question time will demonstrate his capabilities as an orator – this interview is a classic example of his ability to simplify the complex – and his ability to retort and riposte in the face of the most vitriolic barbs.
At the end of the day – as Benny so clearly points out – while how you say things is important – it’s what you say that really counts…
“I dont like the way Rudd talks. I watch him on umm whats that abc show on at night at 10:30ish…Lateline? But yeh I dont like the way he talks at all. I have grown to hate the word “folly”. To me, yeh he talks smart and proper and all (i meant to sound hicklike then), but to me he almost seems to do it without conviction. To me he still hasnt reached far enough with setting and talking about policy.”
An Inconvenient Truth
K-Rudd has been caught with his proverbial pants down on Burkegate. This is an event clearly worthy of “gate” status. More details about MPs from both sides of the fence meeting with the shady former WA premier (and convicted felon) turned lobbyist will probably come to light this week and I’m tipping more casualties following the resignation of Ian Campbell. John Howard wants to make distinctions between ministers and MPs, and leaders and followers – which is fair enough to an extent, but there’s really no need to be meeting with someone like Burke. Lobbying is an interesting kettle of fish. It’s where politicians get their lurks and perks. Doctors get their fancy meals from pharmaceutical companies eager to secure future business – politicians get theirs from representatives of industries, interest groups and professional power brokers who are likewise eager to secure something for nothing (or for a meal – politicians are expected to sing for their supper). Benny reckons lobbying is an essential part of the democratic process –
“I love lobbying. i think its how things should work. lobbying and interest
groups should demonstrate the facts, views and opinions. the members of
parliament should act as mediators and decision makers. the MPs should take in
all the information to make rational and logical decisions. lobbying is part of
this process.”
I agree to an extent but I think professional lobbying probably circumvents the political process and ties up access to politicians from the run of the mill members of their electorate – the fact that my employers work as a lobby group backed by the collective might of our members from the North Queensland business community doesn’t bother me – but when you’ve got a disproportionate amount of funding (lobbying) poured into the exercise by an unpopular lobby group (say advocates for nuclear power) might have a disproportionate impact on the political process.
The political machinations behind Burkegate are fascinating – Ian Campbell’s decision to resign – or the decision for him to resign – was a masterful manoeuvre from Howard. Finding the moral high ground in the murky realm of politics will be an important step in the upcoming elections. If it’s going to be a “morals” debate the Coalition need to have their position on issues like AWB, the Iraq conflict and Hicks firmly entrenched on the “right” side (as opposed to wrong, rather than left) – Rudd probably has the advantage in terms of positioning because it’s much easier to criticise government than to govern. This scandal could go a long way towards undermining his integrity – but it could also burn the government if it comes out that more coalition MPs have met with Burke in the past.
It’s an interesting time in politics with the battle of who cares raging in New South Wales and Debnam resorting to physical comparisons with James Bond. The US race for preselection (it’s not even the real thing yet) is heating up with candidates from both major parties vying to outdo their own colleagues (with the amount of muck they spend throwing around within the parties it’s a wonder that any new stuff comes up in the actual campaign) – my early favourite Barack Obama is polling well and catching up to the “impossible to like even though she stood by her husband in America’s largest sex scandal” Hillary Clinton. The Democrats have the opportunity to make history with their leading candidates a female and an African American male – Joe says the Republicans should kill two birds with one stone by endorsing Condoleezza Rice.
In other news – I tried the spectacular “cat poo” coffee last week, I’m not sure I’d pay $50 a cup, but it’s an amazing brew, so smooth and sweet – without the standard bitter bite of a regular cuppa.
LarkNews – a good source for “Christian News” has been updated – my favourite story for this edition is the debate on whether the word “sucks” is appropriate for church – for those of you who have trouble differentiating between fact and fiction, please note that this is parody.
Chain mail
Television tabloid journalism sank to an all new low this week – if that’s possible – with Today Tonight chaining a granny to her retirement home cupboard for the sake of a dramatic story. It’s a new low in a series of lows stretching for as long as the ratings war between Nine’s A Current Affair and Seven’s Today Tonight. It’s a battle for the hearts and minds of Australia’s gullible majority who rely on the program to keep informed and educated.
Tabloid programs traditionally rotate about seven stories – the neighbour from hell dispute, dodgy brothers traders being hunted down, consumer protection, how to save money (bargain hunting), shameless network cross promotion, dieting tips, and the emotionally charged plight of a disadvantaged entity who needs “your” help. There’s a Venn like overlap between the categories – but that’s the way they like it.
My friend Benny hates these shows, which regularly compete for story fodder (ala the tit-for-tat Corby drama from the last few weeks), blaming them for all manner of societal malaise. It’s been a bad year for Today Tonight who have managed to sully their already scurilous reputation with a number of well publiscised mishaps on and off camera.
Naomi Robson was at the heart of a number of controversies prior to her decision to hand the hosting duties on to anti chequebook journalism crusader Anna Coren.
The first famous mishap came when Naomi was caught swearing at her producer – the clip made its way to commercial radio and was widely circulated online – causing this apology…
Her horror year is documented here.
This story seems to be an all new low for any “current affairs” programming and the journalist in question should get the boot for being reprehensibly stupid.
Programs like this should not be allowed to wield the influence they do on public debate. They rate through the roof so there’s no real chance of the pin ever being pulled which is a tragedy for the country’s intellectual standards.
Speaking of intellectual standards… English Football demonstrated its capacity to churn out boorish louts incapable of human interaction – Craig Bellamy and John Arne Riise look to have been to the same school of ettiquette as Penrith’s newly appointed co-captain Craig Gower. Apparently Bellamy took to Riise’s legs with a golf club following his refusal to take part in a training camp karaoke competition. It seems that’s just what the doctor ordered with both players on the score sheet in their upset away win over Barcelona. The coach was apparently ready to give Bellamy the flick if he’d put in a sub-par performance – boom-boom-tish.
Only a little bit left
Climate Change is a buzz issue. The opinion pages of Australia’s leading newspapers have been filled with claims, ripostes and counter-ripostes as the debate on the changing climate, humanities contribution to the change in climate and whether climatic change is a change at all rages with no set end in sight. This media coverage and debates over Australia’s reluctance to sign the Kyoto protocol, the release of the Stern Report, and Peter Garrett’s appointment as Shadow Minister for Climate Change have all positioned climate change as a central issue in the upcoming Australian Federal Election.
That the climate is changing is undeniable – just like it’s undeniable that a large portion of Australia is in the throes of a long running drought. I’m not going to argue with that. However, I may have been miseducated but I thought we expected the climate to change from time to time. We have these things called seasons, we have meteorologists who forecast changes in weather – We’ve been taught that an ice age wiped out dinosaurs. If the world was once covered in ice, and now is not, it makes sense that the ice caps continue to melt rather than stagnate. The world’s climate is so finely balanced that the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in China is said to cause a hurricane in Australia (ok so that’s just poetic hyperbole but it makes the point). What I will argue, along with my friend Benny, is that climate change should not be an election issue.
Ben’s analogy when arguing about why policy on climate change should not be a central election campaign issue related it to running an election campaign based on which party had the best plan to defend against alien and UFO attacks. Not because the issue isn’t real but because the issue isn’t an election issue. If the planets climate is changing there is very little that our country of 20 million people can do. While our fossil fuel emissions are fairly high per capita we’ve got nothing on the US or other “developing” first world markets. Our emissions are a small drop in the global bucket. Climate change is not a local issue, it’s a global issue. Campaigning on Climate Change is easy point scoring for any opposition party who can easily take the moral high ground and point fingers at all the areas that can be improved. It’s a popular issue thanks to the left wing media’s desire to pander to the stupidity and gullibility of the average consumer and it allows the opposition to be lazy. If climate change wins the next election for either party the electorate will have been dealt a disservice when other issues like education, health, roads and the strength of the economy should be firmly on the agenda. Sure, we could all be looking after the environment better – and we all should be. But go plant a tree or do your bit individually. Culturally Australian’s have a habit of bignoting our global importance based on our performances in the scientific and sporting arenas. We’re better educated than most countries and we tend to punch above our weight – but we’re small potatoes when it comes to population and associated issues. The election should be about the goverment which will best manage the country – not who will blow the climate change trumpet the loudest. If we educate our people better individuals will be better positioned to think about climate change and other issues. If we have better infrastructure our industry will be able to consider better environmental practices. Climate change is a spin off issue – not a root cause. Having a minister for climate change is like having a Minister for Philosophy or a Minister for the Ocean. Dumb.