...well almost.

Like thousands of women in Australia and possibly millions world wide, I've jumped on the band wagon with those bead-charm bracelets (aka Pandora, Biagi, Lovelinks, etc).  I've also moved into selling compatible beads.  At the moment I only have glass ones, and some pewter-alloy gemstone ones, but I will get more.  I am a hop, skip and a jump away from setting up my eBay shop (read I need to sort out packaging), but if any one is interested, send me an email or PM and we can sort something out.

AJ

Some one just sent me Seek's salary survey.  It was interesting from the perspective that I realised how many "extra" benefits I don't get, however I was able to tick off all the boxes in terms of career development.  A nice little reminer of why I'm in my job!

http://salarysurvey.seek.com.au/

I've just read an article abou the opening ceremony, which  I didn't watch.  And it's made me realise my gripe with the Olympics this year (including all the publicity which I wrote about yesterday).

This year's Olympics seem to be more about China than about Internationalism and the spirit of sporting competition.  That's what it is!  Usually the Olympics a celebration of all nations coming together, not just the host nation!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-hidary/beijing-olympics---the-op_b_117688.html

I'm sitting here flipping through the channels tonight and there is yet another documentary on China.  I'm yet to figure out if this one is like the SBS stuff which seems to marvel at the country through it’s less recent history or something that explores the darker side of the dictatorship (which could take decades really).  They have briefly mentioned the genocide of the Cultural Revolution, to their credit.   It's suddenly occurred to me that every station has been flooding our screens with various forms of infotainment about China.  The stations did not show the same level of interest in other recent hosts of the games - Spain, America and Greece (I'll skip Australia as we need no introduction to ourselves).

Whilst China is a controversial at the moment, I'm not entirely sure the publicity is all made up of critical exposes.  I think that some of it is buying just a little bit into the propaganda that China is a fascinating, misunderstood place.  Whilst I am all for learning as much as possible about other cultures, it is important to maintain a critical view.  Other cultures, like our own, are not neutral and not without ideology, politics and agendas.  Equally, just because something is not the same as the way we do it, does not mean that it is naturally fascinating or better.  There are dangerous, perverse, subversive and destructive elements to all cultures.  I say this not in criticism of China, but also as someone who has lived in Japan.  Japan is a wonderful country and completely alien to everything in our culture.  And whilst it is fascinating, I could not throw myself into the culture the way others I knew over there did.  The culture is still rampantly misogynistic, somewhat racist and embraces some values which I do not.

As I have already mentioned, I don't really intend to embrace anything about this Olympics.   I think that the IOC has made a controversial and possibly damaging choice.  China is not a democracy, it is not a free country, it is not an open economy.  It is a dictatorship which centrally controls some things, and gives totalitarian power to regional bureaucrats, giving no power to the people or the workers.  China has grown rich off the open economies of the West, whilst remaining closed and failing to reduce the central command of the economy.  I am not saying that there is not good in the country and I am certainly mean no disrespect to the people.  However we do need to approach our media with cynicism at present, as there does seem to be an awful lot of propaganda out there at the moment.

This week I’ve had the privilege of working with some auditors from Italy.  Any one who knows me knows I love and hate this particular job.  I hate it because it seems to be the case that any Italian who is not a blue collar worker seems to think themselves obliged to spend a minimum of 10 hours a day at work, regardless of how much work they actually do.  I love it because the people are lovely, welcoming, interesting people.

So one of these fellows is a little older than me and we were discussing how it’s wonderful to not have to wear a suit on the weekend.  Italy is a little more formal in their professional standards than Australia, however as a consultant I should generally be wearing a suit at all times when I am or could potentially be in contact with clients.  We’re in the same boat.  I'm lucky, however, instead of wearing a tie and a buttoned shirt I get to wear more colourful tops and fabulous jewellery.  Needless to say during the course of this conversation I taught my colleague the correct use of the term “thongs” when in Australia (which is the incorrect use in the UK).  I think it all leads back to my university days, where being a member of the Arts faculty meant that I could pretty much what ever the heck I wanted.  Pyjamas were dressed up for some classes, ironed clothes were a rarity.  My staple clothing was pretty much jeans or army fatigues and t-shirts (yes you heard me right, I wore combat pants consistently or at least two years I can remember).  In my final year I started to get buttoned shirts as I thought I may need a professional wardrobe at some point and didn’t want to have to fork out for it all at once.  I loved it.  I’d love it even more now as I can actually afford decent clothes.

Which made me wonder, who on earth wears a suit outside business hours anyway?  The only time I would do this is if I’m going to something after work and don’t have time to change.  Although if it’s a professional function I wouldn’t change even if I had time to do so.

Personal dress sense, in situations where there is not a uniform (I include suits in this as even though they are not homogenous, are all essentially uniform) is generally meant to say something about you.  It’s a form of personal expression and also a way to belong to a group.  Really, to be voluntarily wearing a suit after hours or on the weekend, you pretty much have to be selling something or have absolutely no creativity or individuality what so ever.  The third option is that you don’t have a regular desk job and for some reason you think it’s cool to wear a suit, but I won’t go there.

For my case in point my mind goes back to a fellow I knew a few years ago who I had only ever seen in a suit, a tux and the generic jeans, polo and leather jacket (none of the items were fashion items, they were all rather generic, “I have no idea what to wear when I’m not wearing a suit” type items).  I think he thought he was creating a good impression or giving a sense of authority.  He was doing quite the opposite.  The suit was so often out of place that it immediately put people off side and seemed to mark him out as someone who did not know what was contextually appropriate.  It was on par with turning up to the church for your grandfather’s funeral in a fuchsia emblazoned Hawaiian shirt.  Possibly a Hawaiian shirt with “thank goodness the old bastard is gone” embroidered on the back as well. 

The other thing about my case and others I can think of as well, is that the suit was usually fairly new and worn with gaudy cuff links.  I put this sort of dressing on par with girls who update their Cue collection every 6 weeks.  Whilst moderately fashionable (for the middle class) and up to date.  It screams lower level customer or client facing staff.  It readily identifies the wearer as young, generally childless and having few financial commitments.  

Let me elaborate.  People who are able to update their wardrobe regularly, and even seek out fashion finds, are people with time.  They also don’t have to spend their cash on things like feeding, clothing or educating children, housing and in most cases that come to mind, transportation.  Their budget is pretty much divided into clothing money and drinking money.  And it really does show.  People who spend their time seeking fashion finds on work clothing, also place a high degree of importance on the front that they present at work.  They feel insecure enough to have to have something newer or sharper than most of the people they deal with.  And more often than not, they do not have sufficient experience or ranking to assert their authority without resorting to Donald Trump brand suits and Italian cufflinks.

These are probably people who also base their ideas of what it’s like at the top on television and the movies.

I have been in board rooms, worked with executives of a variety of companies from small to large, from listed, to private to partnerships.  The one thing I have noticed is that people with real power and authority do not have to be suited up in order to be in command of a situation.  One female banking executive I worked with in a previous role looked to me, like she did most of her clothes shopping at Kmart when she was picking up toys for her children (don’t ask me how a woman gets that high in a company and still looks after the children as I have no idea).  If she didn’t have the authoritative dignity which she has, the unsuspecting could have easily mistaken her for one of the EA’s.  The same goes for a CFO I have worked with recently.  She generally walks around the office in a knitted top and slacks and you need to watch closely to notice she’s wearing expensive shoes!  Other than that, it is her knowledge and her people handling skills that set her apart as someone who leads the company.  I have come across one CEO who I always see in a jacket and often in a tie, but his work does involve a meeting with clients regularly.  However, he is quick to shed his jacket and isn’t nearly as fashion conscious as most of the external auditors I have met in the firm.  I’ve also found the heads of the medical firms that I have worked with surprisingly unassuming and unpretentious as well.

So this is my very long winded way of saying that nothing seems more clueless, socially inappropriate and less authoritative than some one in a suit at 8:30pm at night or on the weekend.  I’ll generally want to know what’s wrong with you or what you’re selling!

And for those not convinced, I will show you a picture of a very undesirable public servant that came up on my hits when I googled, "bland suit."

My other point is, a suit is also the resort of someone who does just not have a clue about what to wear.  Perhaps they’re too scared to say something personal about themselves, or living in fear that they have got the dress code wrong.  But by the same token, sometimes wearing a suit does actually say something, it says, “I’m bland.”  And from time to time it is also inappropriate in many social situations.  At school, self expression through clothing is inappropriate; hence school uniforms are selected for students.  However if by the time you’re 17, have finished school, and feel the need to wear something uniform like, you obviously needed to spend more time in Art class, or with your friends.

And as much as I could have something to say about all of these things, it makes me wonder, when did government become so trivial?  And when did government decide that they are serving the public interest best by arranging all the intimate details of how people live, how they do their work and even, if things keep going the way they do, what they put in their mouths.

When you think about it, there are some significant changes that have been introduced through law.  Most criminal codes go a long way to ensuring the rights of the citizens in most countries.  Allowing women to vote, work, own property and be the partner who initiates marital separation again springs to mind as fairly significant advances.  The abolition of slavery in both the US and UK, and the abolition of apartheid in South Africa, all are historically significant.  Even in Australia, the referendum to give Aboriginal people equal rights to those of other Australian’s is  a history defining moment.  (Along with the blocking of supply to Whitlam, but that wasn’t so much legislation as the blocking of it.  However it has been a long time since we have had something truly history defining go through our parliaments.

When you think about it, things may have not been that much better during the middle ages, because of social restrictions and power structures, but at least people were much more free.  I’m not entirely sure that most of the legislation we have has made life safer, easier, or human interactions more pleasant because of it.  In fact quite the opposite.  The best thing it’s probably achieved is keeping a lot of mediocre people in employment in the civil service, in an environment that frustrates the few good people it manages to attract.  I’m tempted to go into a little rant about over legislation, but really I just mean to say, I think the government should stick to the history shaping decisions, and leave the trivial ones to the communities, rather than trying to control people too much.

Why not Qld too?!?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24120589-2702,00.html

When people first started asking me where my boyfriend was when I turned up to functions with our mutual friends, I use to worry that I should know where he was all the time.  I soon managed to ensure I didn’t go insane by reassuring myself that I trusted him and I have better things to worry about than where my boyfriend is 24-7.  After all, he’s a grown man, he can look after himself.  That and why should any one but me worry about it?  Last night I realised there may be another reason why people were asking, when some one told me she though we lived together.  Call me old fashioned, but I’ve resolved to never live with someone I’m not married to and I’m still surprised when people as for some reason.

In the past the distinction between couples that were married and an not was pretty cut and dry – if you were married you lived together, slept together, were able to have children, were entitled to each others property in the even of a partner passing or if the union split and were generally recognised as a couple socially.  If you weren’t married, unless you were prepared to live on the outside of society, you were none of those things.

Even though I’m a Christian, I’m well aware of the fact that those things are not necessarily set in stone now.  People sleep with and even have children with people they’ve met once.  De facto partners are entitled to settlements after splitting and couples who have been together for a long time are recognised in most circles.  And as much as I’m not an example of Christian purity, I still hold marriage in esteem and may even consider joining the ranks of the married one day.  I think that because of it, there still need to be boundaries between the relationships you have before and after you’re married.  That’s why I don’t like the idea of living with someone before I’m married, having children before I’m married and having completely identical social groups and lives.  Perhaps it’s just a shoe that fits me, I know it’s not for every one.  But it’s also why I’m always surprised when people expect me to be knowing every move or be living with someone who’s very special to me, but has not asked to be my life partner yet.

For some strange reason the word bombastic has been stuck in my head.  It's a good word.  It describes a lot of people I know.  If you know any politicians, lawyers or doctors (and perhaps teachers) it will describe a lot of people you know.  I particularly like the part of the definition which says, "user of language more elaborate than is justified by or appropriate to the content being expressed."

I heard it used on some awful English sit come where Penelope Keith's character was describing her husband.  Apparently she still loved him anyway, as I do with most of the people I know. 

Bombastic bom·bas·tic

adjective

(of speech, writing, etc.) high-sounding; high-flown; inflated; pretentious.

Also, bom·bas·ti·cal.

[Origin: 1695–1705; bombast + -ic]

—Related forms

bom·bas·ti·cal·ly, adverb

—Synonyms pompous, grandiloquent, turgid, florid, grandiose. Bombastic, flowery, pretentious, verbose all describe a use or a user of language more elaborate than is justified by or appropriate to the content being expressed. Bombastic suggests language with a theatricality or staginess of style far too powerful or declamatory for the meaning or sentiment being expressed: a bombastic sermon on the evils of cardplaying. Flowery describes language filled with extravagant images and ornate expressions: a flowery eulogy. Pretentious refers specifically to language that is purposely inflated in an effort to impress: a pretentious essay designed to demonstrate one's sophistication. Verbose characterizes utterances or speakers that use more words than necessary to express an idea: a verbose speech, speaker.

So much for coming up with the witty, "Kicked out, voted out, snuffed out..."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24087888-2702,00.html

Needless I am sure that I am not the only one who thinks that this man is possibly the worst PM in the history of Australia and hopes that his passing will not continue to encourage the culture of misinformation surrounding his time as PM, leading him to be a Labor hero.

One interesting issue I’ve been thinking about over the weekend, is when does an invite to a social gathering include both the person invited and any partner they may have?

I half wonder if the question maybe answered in different ways depending on the context.  Although on further reflection, it may not.  For example an invite to a formal function or dinner party, should include a partner, but if it doesn’t it would definitely be rude to bring them along.  I would also say it is the same case with weddings.  Whilst it is polite to invite a spouse, de facto or long term partner, I have known people to extend wedding invites to just one partner because of a poor relationship with the other.  I’ve also know partners to be excluded from invites to more formal settings on the grounds that the relationship has not been going long enough to be considered well established.

There are also some contexts where partners are generally excluded, things like business and industry networking, work functions, and special interest groups.  In fact it’s often poor form to bring your partner as it is contrary to the nature of the function - you don’t go to a finance industry breakfast to spend time with your partner, you do it to make business contacts.

In more causal circumstances, parties, gatherings at pubs and the like, the rule is usually the more the merrier.  However if the gathering is at someone’s’ house it always serves to check if you can bring a guest at the very least for the purposes of catering and also in some of my circles this pays to ensure that there won’t be any personality clashes.  In fact all in all there are very few circumstances where it could be considered appropriate to bring  guest, or that your guests know they can bring a friend, partner or other person.

But the other thing to bear in mind, if you’re doing the inviting, is that the more social the occasion, the more offense you will give for not inviting a partner.  For example – formal meeting of a social club or organisation = members only, backyard drinks = people bring guests.

Also the tricky thing these days, is to know when to invite people separately and when to invite them as a couple.

When a couple first starts going out, then it’s good to include the new partner in less formal functions.  Especially if both belong to the same organisation or circle.  However in the even that both are known to a host, it’s important that both are invited separately as well.  This I would say is not the case for more formal occasions.  For example, about four months after I started dating my boyfriend, two mutual friends were married.  They had invited my boyfriend, but not me, which I thought was fair as we had not publically aired that we were going out for very long and my bf was quite close friends with the groom where as both were acquaintances to me.  Perhaps if the same thing happened now, about 8 months later, then I might be a bit annoyed about it.  However if this did happen 8 months later, I would still prefer to be invited in my own right.  This is because whilst I like spending time with my boyfriend and I like it even more when we get to circulate in the same spheres, we are also only boyfriend and girlfriend.  We are not engaged, we are not de facto partners living together (nor will we ever be!) and we’re definitely not married.  Because of this we can still be considered very much two individuals with separate but closely linked lives rather than a couple who are entitled to always be together and know each other’s affairs.  There is no assumption that we know of each other’s engagements or that we will attend each others functions.  This isn’t just a matter of status as a couple, but it’s also a matter of having boundaries in line with the nature of your relationship.

That being said as a general rule, it is good to state explicitly who is welcome to a function you are hosting, to avoid any misunderstanding.  This is always done for more formal functions.  However I find it’s a good idea for more casual get togethers as well.  Generally I’ll say to people, let’s do drinks or dinner, feel free to bring a guest.  Or if it’s something like my birthday and I just want people I know and like there I’ll say let me know if there’s anyone who’s been left out.  Again like my friend’s wedding, there aer some people that I may have deliberately left out.  This came about when one of my friends bought his boyfriend (who was also a mutual friend of a few others there) to a get together for my birthday.  This guy had spend most of the weekend on party drugs and spent the whole time at lunch pretty much comatose, and had made no effort to conceal the fact that he had not washed or changed his clothes all weekend.  Most of my other friends were not impressed.  I seem to remember using the phrase, “not my friend…” a number of times as well.

Actually it all comes back to what my mother taught me when I was younger.  When you’re hosting a party you invite your friend and any one else in the social circle.  Excluding others is rude and often it’s best to just not have a gathering or restrict the guest list further so as not to cause offense.  If you want to invite someone but not their partner or their best friend who goes to everything with them, then it’s best not to invite anyone.  I know to mention every one included in an invite, for example if you’re inviting a couple you name both rather than one and if their children are welcome it is acceptable to put ‘and family’ rather than listing them all.  This can be done for adult children, but in the modern context I find it best to invite them each in their own right.  Also I know that if some one invites you somewhere, even if informally, it’s best to respond (it’s amazing how many people these days don’t) even if to decline, and if you feel that there is someone you really want to bring, you ask.  You never ever just bring some one to any occasion unless it’s said that guests are welcome.  And you never ever go with some one to an even someone else is hosting purely on the advice of a mutual friend, when they have not invited you.  

So at the end of the day, try not to exclude people from your get togethers unless you want to send a strong message and never assume that an invite to you or your partner means both of you are welcome!

As an Arts (English, Communications and Cultural Studies) graduate, this article about how Rudd uses language was interesting.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24067445-7583,00.html

It’s an easy train of thought to slip in to.  Our TV programming is full of loud, idiotic morons big noting themselves, fighting in public and proudly confessing to or performing acts that some of us wouldn’t even dream of mentioning.  E-mail has meant that our society has become the most prolific letter writers since the Victorian era, however we do not have the eloquence to match.  However it, along with mobile telephony and other digital media, has also been used to bully, incite hatred and humiliate.  Even IRL, I feel like people are getting pushier and ruder.  I couldn’t believe that last week, catching the train for the first time in ages, how my ears were constantly assaulted by the noise of people’s iPods.  Quite frankly I’m not going to worry about the sound making people deaf, I wish it would so they stop using the bloody things in public.  One young fellow standing quite near me was listening to some fairly offensive death metal.  I had to address him twice before he took his ear phones out and obliged me by turning his music down so I could just hear a blearing sound rather than every single lyric and guitar chord.  I hate being a Nazi like that, but I also don’t like tolerating other people being rude!

It is easy to despair at our future, which inevitably seems to be a worse state rather than a more advanced one, but I think perhaps there is a simpler explanation.

The cultural texts that we have from our past were produced by a small group of people.  Depending on how far you want to go back we have had eras where only the clergy, the aristocracy and men were educated enough to read and write.  They were the ones who recorded our history and also fed popular discourse through plays, songs, stories and artwork.  It was the most cultivated and learned people who were producing these things.  Even as recently as 150 years ago, the majority of texts were still produced by the well educated and relatively well breed (I’ll use this term loosely to include the middle class).  The people with the money were the gatekeepers and things were tailored to their tastes rather than that of the crass, uncouth, unwashed masses.  And whilst people like Charles Dickens would have written about the lower classes, they certainly wouldn’t have been given a voice for themselves.

Technology has changed this.  Photography meant that every one could have portraits and family pictures, where previously they had to be painted and were restricted to the wealthy.  And now we have digital photography and are not restricted by what we put on precious film and development costs, people will take photos of virtually anything or anyone doing everything.  Mass media has become cheaper and cheaper, meaning that newspapers have expanded to include items of human interest and trivial matters and magazines are no longer restricted to just in depth articles but also include the most trivial matters and are full of pictures rather than text.  And we have one of the highest literacy rates ever, meaning that any one no matter how eloquent or cultured, can pick up a pen or sit down at a computer and write their story, what’s happening in their lives or whatever thoughts are running through their head no matter how trivial, illogical or dangerous.  We have democratised the ability to create cultural texts and now almost every one produces them.  As a result we have gone from having only the most refined, beautiful or intelligent discourse to having every sort of discourse preserved.  We live in one of the most documented eras ever.

Also the people who are able to consume media and texts has changed.  In Australia there are 1.5 televisions per household.  In fact a house without a television is less likely to be a deprived one as home to a family with at least one person who is so despairing of the content that they have chosen to not have it in their home.  Every one has a radio, CD’s, goes to the moves, reads the news, magazines and websites.  Every one consumes media no matter what their social status.  This is a sharp contrast to eras when books and newspapers were only available to the middle class, gentry and aristocracy.  Where only the relatively wealthy viewed and collected artwork and whilst there may have been some popular theatre and even music, the type of place you went to see it and the frequency you accessed it was directly related to your status in life.

All in all I have come to the conclusion that the decline in quality of content of popular texts is not actually a reflection on a decline in society.  Whilst our communities seem to be filled with more and more pushy and rude people than ever before, I’m hard pressed to say that it is an increase disproportionate to the rest of the population.  I think all we have seen is a change in the power of who produces and publishes the texts that we come across every day and who consumes them.  It now reflects and is accessed by all of society and unfortunately there are more dregs than good elixir in it.  I suspect that this has always been the case, but in the past, without technology we have been more successful at silencing the voices of those who are counter-cultural, crass, rude, offensive, uneducated, illogical or dangerous.  We didn’t educate those sorts of people and it was too expensive for them to produce or purchase texts of any sort.

At the end of the day there are still good quality, intelligent, entertaining texts out there.  They can be submerged by a deluge of rubbish, but they are still there.  I think that society has not become worse, so much as the worst parts become louder.  But I will also finish by saying that I am always disappointed by people who are capable of producing and understanding quality, giving in and producing and immersing themselves in morass.  Especially if it's in the mistaken belief that there is nothing else out there or that they will not otherwise be understood.

For some inexplicable reason I put the radio on whilst I was driving to the city cat stop to get to work.  I almost never do that because I hate radio.  Actually not so much what they play as the people who are employed to dribble a lot of rubbish which is, we are told, entertaining talk and commentary.  I was disappointed to learn that the BB winner this year was Terri.

Now I don’t claim to have watched the show that much.  Some of the ‘housemates’ I still couldn’t pick in a line up, but this woman seems to have seared her presence into my, and indeed most of Australia’s minds.  To be perfectly honest, I think that she is classless, rude, white trash at worst, annoying at best (and that's the scrubbed version of what I originally thought).  It was clear from the outset that she and the other old bloke on the show were merely there to prove a point – the BB production crew was caving in to criticism that their show was mostly full of young white people.  Not that the other people I saw this year delivered a viewing experience that should be rewarded with a quarter of a million either.  (As an aside, what is with having such a small prize, you can’t even get a house for that these days, just a very nice car.)

To my way of thinking, this woman winning the show is akin to Casey Donovan winning Australian Idol.  Anthony Callea was clearly the more talented singer and has had more career success since finishing the show.  It seemed more of a political choice to promote Donovan and crown her the victor.  (I’m not advocating the voting was rigged, but the footage we see on TV is definitely edited to bias our preferences).

But all in all, I’m not sure why I’m even bothering to vent.  The first series of BB was interesting and innovative.  It’s since been over taken by increasingly attention whoring, trashy contestants who are far from engaging (imho).  So eh, if that’s who you wanted Australia, so be it, but I think less of those who supported or participated in the decision this year!

I just got a call and the news is now that the show will probably go to air in September and the series will screen until the end of the year before finishing up.  I am still bound by an NDA, however I have written up my blog entries so that when it does screen you can find out about what was going on behind the scenes when it does go to air.

Well I must say all the press regarding World Youth Day is bringing out my rather fiercely Protestant side.  This however, is amusing.  The link below is about how anti-WYD protesters will be handing out condoms to pilgrims.  As much as I think the pope and the idea of the pope is wrong, I’m not about to go out and protest people exercising their freedom to practice a religion (and there are other places I’d start first if I did give up on this belief).

The thing I find most amusing about the whole condom thing is how much many Roman Catholics have taken to heart that wearing one is a sin.  In the context of marriage then yes, there is some grounds for saying that you should love and cherish each little bundle of joy the Lord decides to bestow upon you.  Personally though, I’ll be taking the pill faithfully until I know I’m in a financial position to hire a nanny.  However, if you are having sex with someone that you are not married to, it’s already a sin.  Is it that much worse to wear a condom as well to ensure that you don’t suffer punishment here on earth in the form of STD’s.  Not believing in purgatory (because it’s not in the Bible), I have no idea how it works, and if you’ll be there for that much longer just for making your illicit sex safe as well, but it is a rather amusing thought. 

The thing that I find less amusing, is what I have been told about the situation in East Timor.  Not only does it have a very high birth rate, I have been told that there are quite a few pregnancies directly attributable to Australia’s military presence there, if you get my drift.  The solution being touted by the government at the moment is to fund abortions.  An insider tells me that this is being done because East Timor is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic and would find sending boat loads of condoms to the nation offensive.  Great logic, when you consider that the Roman Catholic Church is one of the most vocal campaigners against abortion.  Also fails to address the spread of disease and the lack of healthcare for women before and after pregnancy.

The issue does create some amusing and also tragic hypocrisies, but I think it will remain until there is a pope who says, “look if you’re married you’re going to have to use the rhythm method, but if you’re not, for Pete’s sake, wear a condom.”  And that’s about as likely as Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilay becoming the next Dali Lama.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23994331-953,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23859123-7583,00.html

I was a little concerned to read today in the Brisbane times that the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans is being described as a breakaway or splinter group in the media.  As an Anglican of somewhat non-liberal tendencies, it’s more than a little annoying.  Actually just generally as a Christian it’s annoying because most people in the press reporting on churches and issues of faith seem to have absolutely no idea about most things.  I’m actually fairly convinced that most of them would have trouble naming more than two differences between a Protestant and a Roman Catholic or even what a Muslim believes other than that infidels should die.  But back to my topic.  The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans seems to be, for all intents and purposes, merely an alliance within the Anglican Church.  And I have, for your enlightenment, even pasted the link to their statement and the section where they say they are not breaking away.

http://acl.asn.au/reference-documents/gafcon-final-statement/

Our fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion. We, together with many other faithful Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans, is expressed in these words: The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We intend to remain faithful to this standard, and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and return to it. While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Building on the above doctrinal foundation of Anglican identity, we hereby publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of our fellowship.

Further reading through their statements (there are some bullet points further down the page of the statement, for those who struggle with large chunks of prose), they aren’t that controversial.  They’re just reaffirming what the Anglican Church believes – the articles of religion, that the church should proselytize those who are not Christian, etc.  Although the big one is that they don’t believe that marriage can be between any one but a man and a woman.  Which is fair enough.  That is in the Bible after all.  One of the big issues that the Anglican church has struggled with of late is that the Archbishop of Canterbury is a horrid, weasely, dolt who seems to have no idea what the Bible or even the Anglican Church is and seems to enjoy making flagrantly unchristian statements in the misguided belief that they are popular or modern.  When considering that people are leaving the more liberal Anglican churches in droves, shows that they are neither popular or modern.

So by now some of you will have realized that I am in fact and evangelical.  Mostly.  Whilst I sympathize with the more conservative elements in the church who say we shouldn’t ordain people who are attracted to people of the same sex, and we certainly shouldn’t marry some one to someone of the same sex, I’m not so sure about this not ordaining women as bishops thing.  One of the reasons why I left the Presbyterian church after going there for 11 years, was that they didn’t have a very good perception of women.  They wouldn’t let them be elders, there was one on the committee of management at my church, but she seemed to be there to take the minutes of the meeting, and they certainly wouldn’t let a woman teach in the church.  They made a concession that women were allowed to teach other women and also children, but that’s far from being in any sort of position of power.  They also rather hypocritically sponsored women missionaries who were teaching men in other countries.  I hope that it is because they just hadn’t through about it, rather than they thought that men in foreign countries were lesser than Australians.

Needless to say I went back to the denomination I grew up in.  The church I go to now is still an evangelical church, encouraging out reach (practicing it more than the Presbyterian church) and having a thorough, Bible-based teaching.  It also has a female minister and women get elected to the parish council.  In fact there were women on the committee selecting our new minister who started earlier this year.  Whilst there are still some in the congregation who may thing that this is not ideal, they are far from vocal.  The other reason why I think that some one could not attend an Anglican Church and be opposed to women being in positions of power and leadership, is because of who our figurehead is.  You see the Archbishop of Canterbury is equivalent to the role of Prime Minister in the Australian government (but with significantly less power).  But the head of the church is actually the head of our government – the monarch.  So at the moment our ultimate head of the church is a woman.  Additionally the church was well built up and firmly entrenched, not by Henry VIII, but by his daughter Elizabeth I, who introduced things like the common prayer book.  So I do not support Anglicans who oppose women being in positions of power and authority in the church.  They are hypocrites or do not understand the church, its beliefs, structures and history.

Again, it is a divisive issue in the church, and I doubt the issue will ever be resolved but I don’t think that it can be lumped with other more controversial positions held by the more liberal factions in the church.

For those actually interested I have added a couple of links from Anglican sites and also one from the UK, which is a little more accurate than the ones in Australia.  I’ve also pasted the link to the 39 Articles of Religion, which is what Anglicans believe.  It is written in middle-English so may sound a little old fashioned, which is fair enough as it was written around 400 years ago (I love the use of the term Romish Church!)

Announcement of FOCA

Sydney Anglican Announcement

Guardian Article

What Anglicans Believe – 39 Articles of Religion

The recent reports on convicted paedophile Denis Ferguson has had some interesting repercussions. Whilst I think that every parent would want to know what was going on in their community, especially if there children were at risk of being interfered with, there comes a time when media reporting can actually prejudice a trial.  We have seen that with the most recent charges concerning this man being appealed on the grounds that the man could not get a fair trial.  And now, we see that other magistrates are suppressing the names of those who are going to trial.  Which on one hand seems fair as you are innocent until proven guilty in our justice system, however also means that people are not informed that they are in contact with some one potentially dangerous.  For example, I think every woman in Brisbane would want to know when the man attacking women on Northside walking tracks is found.  To extend this further, some friends and I were shocked one day to see in the news a woman who had left the Commonwealth Bank because she was facing fraud and embezzlement charges was turning up to court in the uniform of the bank we worked for.  We never figured out if the paper got it wrong or if our company had employed her.  Even if a new organisation did a police check, it would come back with nothing as she was yet to be convicted (again innocent until proven guilty) and it would be unlikely that she would have given referees who knew or would be willing to reveal what had gone on.  In fact if she had not yet been convicted would mentioning why she was facing trial be slander?

The other case which, I hope will go to court, that has been getting a lot of attention is the Belinda Neal incident at Iguanas “Nightclub.”  There have been some fairly detailed reports and interviews of what was supposed to have happened and also how she allegedly forced a staffer to change her stat dec.  That coupled with some general character assassination that has been going on, has made me wonder if this case could also be tried in a fair manner (assuming it goes before a jury, which it may not, I’m not an expert in those sorts of things).  I don’t doubt that Belinda Neal is a royal mother b!tch.  I’ve met enough politicians to know that whilst many are generally approachable and endearing (and the ones you really want to hate are actually usually quite charismatic), there are also some that seem to be rather self important because they managed to get more votes than someone else in an election.  Obviously it would be easier for some one in a fairly safe seat to do this (which I assume Neal’s is) and it would be easier again if you constituency were so deeply entrenched in their voting for a particular party that most of the person in questions time could be put towards improving their profile in the party.  I don’t doubt that Neal has lost touch with reality, and as you all know, I hate socialists.  But she and her husband are both still entitled to a fair trial, should it go that far.  And whilst I don’t have a lot of faith in our court system, being too expensive to be readily accessible, and too many laws being produced by a bunch of morons for any real sense of justice or fairness to shine through, I still think that the process is meaningful and should be followed to the letter.  Regardless of who is before the court.

A couple of Belinda Neal articles:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/06/17/1213468454572.html

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=589204

As you could guess, given my physique, sport was not my forte at school.  When I was about 8, I was put on a course of medication which increased my appetite and I’ve just never got my figure back (as if I’d ever look like a 7 year old again).  So from that point on my life was one of being picked last for the cricket team in Primary School and being rather forgetful when it came to bringing my sports uniform or swimmers during high school.

My one memory of primary school sport was getting hit in the neck with a cricket ball.  Usually I’d stand fairly far back when fielding and hope to avoid having to do anything.  Catching and throwing was not my strong point.  Although in terms of my sporting skills it was neck and neck with running and swimming.  I could whack the ball pretty well for t-ball on occasion, so I’m not a complete loss.  But I got hit with the ball twice, the first time I collapsed in shock.  The second time I managed to cup my arms, and be the only one to catch one of the guys that were good at sport out.  In retrospect if they were so good, I half wonder if it was deliberate…  who knows.  In year 7 I was almost at risk of enjoying archery, but got annoyed that the girl I was sharing a target with kept missing, but then took my arrow from the target, leaving me to run up the oval to retrieve hers.  Cow.

In year 11 I changed schools and thought I’d give the team sport thing a go again.  Unlike most Australian girls, I have a passionate hate for netball.  Most of the girls who where good at it were b!tches and/or extremely aggressive.  By then I’d given up on swimming as I hated my body shape (although I hear this is common amongst most teenage girls regardless of size).  I also discovered that I can not get a volleyball to go in the right direction and was hopeless at all forms of track and field sports (including ones that required a bit more weight and strength).  One sport I had enjoyed was hockey.  And much to my mother’s horror I signed up for the team, which also meant 7am winter training sessions and being driven to my game anywhere from St Hilda’s to our home field in Chermside on a Saturday morning.  I often reminded her that I had wanted to do rowing, which had 5am training sessions, which seemed to be a good tactic.

At this school I also got over the not wanting to swim thing and just enjoyed it for the good work out it is, and also it meant I got to do snorkelling lessons.  AND in year 12 we got to actually do some fun stuff like self-defence lessons and finally, for the first time ever tennis.  My mother had forced me to do tennis since I was 8.  I sucked at it, but she persisted as she thought it was quite a social sport and you only needed one other person to play rather than a whole team.  Possibly, if I had played more team sports as a child I would be less individualistic, but that’s neither here nor there.  I had tried out for the tennis team at my first high school only to find that there was only one team, not one for each year level, and that it was already filled with fanatics who played every day and could serve faster than I could see.  It was no place for intermediate players with low fitness levels like me.  However, when it was played with every one in my class in year 12, I could kick the butts of most girls including the ones who were actually quite good at sports, based on skill alone.  It was a minor victory until I only scored a B.  I suspect my teacher may have just assigned marks on some sort of preconceived idea of how good we were at sports or it was like the time that I went from a D to an A in Word Processing because our teacher actually had no idea who any one was and just seemed to randomly choose marks and comments.

Since I left school I’ve dabbled from time to time in other sports.  I tried to go to the guy and aerobics classes at uni, and my Christian group had Friday arvo sports.  Friday arvo sports, however, mostly consisted of the guys playing touch and me and the other girls gossiping on the sidelines.  I think I played once, but didn’t enjoy it.  I also played tennis on occasion with one of my best friends, but again shied away when it came to Christian camps etc as it was mostly boys playing.  Their idea of a game was hitting the ball as hard as possible with no regards for it being in or out.  I think points were awarded on how many balls got stuck in the fence.

When I went to Japan I also had the opportunity to try kendo, a sport which I can’t find practiced in Australia, and I have been told may be illegal as the point of it is to strike your opponent on the head with a big stick and fend them off with a small wooden sword.  It was fun!

Since then I have finally found two activities which I enjoy – yoga and golf.  (I've also learned that watching Union is fun, but that's a whole different topic).  Yoga is awesome in that it is energising and relaxing at the same time.  There is none of the aggression and competitiveness of the sort of sport you learn at school.  If I had know sports could be like that at a younger age, I would have stuck with it and I may have even been a happier person.  Golf I got into a few years back as I figured it was pretty much compulsory being in finance.  So I took a few lessons and found that it was rather therapeutic trying to hit that little white ball as far as it will go.  I wasn’t too good initially, but I have improved after about 3 years of play.  There are times when my faith has not been strong, usually after episodes of seeing that 10 year olds can out-drive me, but I’ve stuck with it for the most part.  I also enjoy the fact that I can do something active with my boyfriend without forcing him to go for long walks on the beach or through national parks.

But I guess this is a very lengthy way of saying that school sports suck.  I don’t know why we aren’t exposed to games that are social, popular with adults and actually enjoyable from a young age.  I have a sneaking suspicion that most sports teachers are highly fit and highly competitive and have never struggled to enjoy sports, but that’s far from the majority of the population.  And they are disenfranchising the vast majority of students from forming good, lifelong habits of engaging in physical activities which they enjoy.  I’ve been appalled to learn in recent years that sport is not compulsory in all schools any more – at all my schools there were a minimum of 2 PE lessons a week and after year 8 we could choose to do HPE (health and physical education) as an elective and get an extra 4 lessons of it per week.  I hated it but it kept me fit.  If I’d had a choice, I wouldn’t have done it at all.  Most kids wouldn’t because most school sports are hard, unfair and embarrassing to all but the fittest.  I am kind of disappointed that I didn’t get to do fun stuff like golf or yoga at school, but I’ve found them now and one day I may even do them often enough to have an average level of fitness.

If you’ve dabbled in Christianity at any point (or even attended school in Qld where RE is still compulsory), you’ve probably come across the idea that some of the guys written about in the history sections of the Bible had more than one wife.  Which begs the question, why do Christians have a problem with it?  Some of the wisest guys in the Old Testament like David and Solomon had more than one wife.

The first guy in the Bible to have more than one wife, was called Lamech, he was the great great great grandson of Cain, the dude who committed the first murder.  The point of what is written between Cain’s murder of his brother until the flood, was to show that the world was growing further and further away from God and the state of perfection (aka sinlessness or innocence) that existed when the world was first created.  Lamech is the first person who has any sort of narrative in the genealogy, and the first, and therefore most significant thing mentioned is that he had two wives.  I’ve pasted a copy of the text from the NKJV:

Genesis 4.16-24

16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad; and Irad begot Mehujael, and Mehujael begot Methushael, and Methushael begot Lamech.
19 Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah. 20 And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. 22 And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah.
23 Then Lamech said to his wives:
      “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
      Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech!
      For I have killed a man for wounding me,
      Even a young man for hurting me.

 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
      Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

Obviously the dude was not a nice guy, and one of the issues with him was one too many wives.

More important, to Christians than the OT is the NT, and the message is pretty clear, although it is important to note some cultural changes.  Israel had been conquered by Greece and then Rome before Jesus arrived on the scene.  The Greeks treated monogamy as a rule, as did the Romans, and this influenced the people living in Israel/Judea as well.  Whilst the only instance that I can think of where Jesus deals with some one being married multiple times is when he is asked about a woman who was married to several brothers, with the question being who’s wife will she be in heaven.  However in that example they aren’t all married at the same time.  The other instance is when Jesus meets a woman at a well and when he asks her to go and get her husband and she replies that she has none, he observes that she has had several, and was living with a man at the time.  Again, the writing seems to indicate that she was not married to them at the same time.  Generally the text quoted to support the Christian idea of only being married to one person comes from Paul’s first letter to Timothy, when he describes the requirements (for a man) to be a bishop or elder.

1 Tim 3.2-6

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,^[b] but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil.

I’ve bolded the important bit, but left the rest of it in as it puts it in context (and is imho relevant to choosing leaders and people in positions of responsibility in a variety of fields).  So with this in mind, most countries which have had a Christian influence have forbidden polygamy, in the few instances it was actually practiced before hand.  But it is a fairly primitive practice, and as in my previous blog, and generally associated with societies which have a