Zara's Zen

The Temptation Experience – On the Way

 I thought I'd let you all know how my Temptation experience went.  It was filme in March and I will warn you that I can not divulge how the actual show went until after it goes to air, so I will stick to the experience of the day for now and the rest will come later.  There's lot's to tell and it was quite exciting, so I'll do more than on entry.  I know one of the grand champions wrote about his experience in the Sydney Morning Herald recently, and was fairly accurate, but obviously every one's experience of the show is different.

The shows in question go to air this week.

On Monday morning I left work a little early to catch a plane to Melbourne.  Not a highlight of my year as I seem to average about 26 flights a year for work (probably 30 by the end of this year), but I will say I was delighted to go through security and not have a laptop to take out of my bag or a weeks worth of clothes to check in.  

In fact all I had was 3 outfits as per the Temptation email, which is to ensure any successful contestants didn’t look like complete dags if they were successful and appeared on more than one night.  A whole week of shows is filmed in one day.  It felt like too much for a night, but my thoughts were just preoccupied by the fact that if I embarrassed myself the next day, it wasn’t just in front of an audience, like when I public speak, it was in front of 1 million prime-time viewers.  And also I’d told most of my friends that I would be on the show so there was no escape!

After a fairly uneventful flight, R and I were picked up from the airport by a car, which for a few brief moments on the walk to the car park, I thought might be a Chrysler (was the very plush Holden next to it).  And then we checked into the Crown Promenade Hotel in Melbourne’s Southbank.  To our good fortune we were upgraded two levels from the room booked by the production company to a Studio room, which was spacious and overlooked the city.  It also had some of the comfiest pillows I’d slept on.

I didn’t actually sleep very deeply and woke up a bit tired from that and having to get up in the dark at 6:30am – 5:30am Qld time (damn daylight savings).  Even though I didn’t have to do my hair or make up I still took half an hour to get ready and had to rush down to the hotel restaurant for a buffet breakfast before checking out and being ready for pick up at 7:30am.  Being more nervous than I thought I was, I didn’t eat quite so well as I usually do when I have breakfast in a hotel.

After 15 minutes of waiting in the foyer, treating every passing person destined for a tour bus with suspicion in case they were a fellow contestant, I finally found my car in the car park.  There were 7 of us – 4 contestants and 2 supporters.  One contestant was from Sydney, one from Hobart and two of us from Queensland.  All fairly full of energy and excitement that we had been chosen to appear on the show.  I found out that my fellow contestants had been asked the same question I had by their friends, “What if it doesn’t go to air?”  This is a bit of a hot topic at the moment, because I know some bingo show did not air all of it’s episodes and did not pay any prizes to the people who were in the axed episodes.  Apparently there is a lawsuit in the works.  From what I have heard about this story, they had actually signed an agreement as such, which seems fairly logical.  It’s commercial television, they’re only going to give you something if they get their advertising revenue!  Just another reason to read every contract you sign carefully.  Most of us had dismissed this concern because unlike other shows, Temptation requires continuity, champions carry over from one show to the next and it would not only be confusing for viewers if a show was left out, but they may have to re-film several episodes.  Also having started as The Great Temptation, transforming into it’s best known form Sale of the Century and after a few years off becoming it’s present show Temptation, I’d be surprised if it was axed suddenly.  They’d probably also annoy a lot of very generous sponsors.

Arriving at the studio was amusing as our South African driver dropped us off on the pavement after refusing to go into the gated area of the studio as he didn’t trust anywhere he couldn’t get out of.  Logic that would be useful in ZA but not really warranted in Australia…  …unless he gets some dodgy clients.

Share on Facebook

I <3 The borg - grrrrr

I’m pretty sure that we will have a change of government here in Queensland at the next state election, and I’m pretty sure that the LNP will win office.  I’m just concerned that a lot of the campaign is about Lawrence Springborg – or “The Borg” as he has managed to convince some immature people to call him.  It has really grated on my sensibilities and has put me off somewhat for the campaign this time.  I do find him to be something of a hick but more importantly the LNP campaign is not about him, it’s about the LNP being able to serve Queensland better than the ALP.  We can’t put all our hopes on one person.  First of all because people fail and secondly it’s one of the biggest criticisms we’ve had of the Beattie and now the Rudd governments.  There seems to be no room for the team in the face of the giant ego of the “leader.”  The Liberals and Nationals aren’t meant to be like that, we’re meant to be a bit more about the team, the people and also have some decent policies rather than just relying on the charisma (or perhaps the hubris) of one person.  I also find all the ridiculous photos of him over everything and with people happy to promote 'the borg' campaign (asopposed to the LNP campaign) is kind of nauseating and juvenile.

The other thing that I’m slightly concerned about is that we seem to be launching small policies – travel subsidies, public transport discounts etc – without looking at the bigger issues such as transport infrastructure and increasing rural access to government services.  There are a couple of other parties that I have noticed dwell on the small policies and they are far from successful – ONP, Family First and to some extent the Democrats.  It usually shows that people aren’t really thinking from an ideological base as well.

Perhaps I’m just in a bad mood and perhaps I’m just over cautious as Springborg as he has led the side through more than one unsuccessful campaign.  And it may also just be that I despise the term “The Borg” being used anywhere out side of that famous bastion of the geeky – Star Trek.

Me and the CEO of World Vision

Just to show that I do occasionally do things that have nothing to do with politics, I got a photo with Tim Costello who spoke at the 130th Anniversary Dinner for St Andrews at South Brisbane.  I'm working on a write up of the event.

Robbed Twice

One of the principles fundamental to society working in harmony and growing in prosperity is a solid system for the upholding of property rights. As a small ‘l’ liberal this is something that should not be compromised upon.  And one the keys to making the system work is that people are entitled to the property they earn – ie a worker is entitled to their wages.  Liberal or not I don’t see how any society can function well without this principle.

From time to time, our society has given workers something of a raw deal.  In Victorian England, for example, even though slavery had been abolished, most of the working poor were little better than slaves.  They were essentially owned by their bosses who were responsible for them and their behaviour as well as feeding and clothing them.  Very few were paid much of a wage and had to engage in backbreaking labour for the term of their contract with their master.  It was still a step up from the poor house as often workers were taught skills in trades, but not always as was the case with factory workers who also worked in circumstances that were dangerous to their safety.

It would be nice to think that we moved on from this and that sort of thing hasn’t happened in Australia.  Sadly it’s not true.

In the Australian series of “Who do you think you are?” I saw a fascinating episode where Cathy Freeman traced her ancestry – it was varied and intriguing.  One of the sad things I learned was that one of her grandfathers or great grandfathers was fighting in one of the wars.  His wage was being used by his wife to support the family back in Australia.  However the government actually stopped most of the payment, as they were allowed to back then, if they thought an Aboriginal was at risk of squandering their money.  There were records of the wife writing to the government pleading for the pay not to be withheld so that the family could be supported.  It was quite angering as really, people can do what they like with the money that they earn.  Taking payment off people just because they’re from a particular ethnic or racial background is nothing short of racist and completely immoral.

The sad thing is, the more I look at it, it’s not just enlisted personnel that were affected.

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/economy/stolen-wages-timeline.html

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/economy/stolen-wages.html

Underpaying or not paying Indigenous workers was actually widespread in a number of states, largely in pastoral settings by private organizations and the government and it occurred as late as the 1960’s.  It gets worse as well.  Like Victorian era apprentices and factory hands, the right to leave for not being paid was also taken away from Indigenous workers, as they were rounded up and returned to their bosses if they decided to leave.  It was nothing short of slavery.  No wonder there is so much resentment and mistrust between black and white Australians.  I’d be surprised if any Aboriginal Australian was ever willing to work for a white Australian again!

This week Aunty Jean from my church was pictured in The Courier Mail as part of a protest.  The Queensland government, instead of paying the people or the ancestors who did unpaid work for them that they owe money to, initiated and now went back on setting up an Indigenous Education Fund.  The fund was apparently aimed at improving the numbers of Aboriginal young people finishing schools.  Again this is just as racist and just as wrong as not paying workers.  First of all it denies workers their property rights.  The people that did the work are owed their wages.  It doesn’t matter who they were they are owed that money and if they have passed away their families could quite reasonably be said to be entitled to their wages.  Not paying people now because they were Aboriginal is just as racist as not paying them in the first place.  Also using the millions that are owed to individuals for an Indigenous Education fund is also addressing the issue of the poor education retention rates of Aboriginal students.  If more money need to be put towards the issue, then that money should come from the money set aside for Education by the state government.  It should not be used as a premise to redistribute wealth.  Being in the same ethnic group as someone does not entitle them to any of the property earned by another member of the same ethnic group.

All in all it shows that people in authority not only are not sorry for what has happened in the past but are willing to commit the same mistakes again and again, approaching Indigenous Australians with mistrust and suspicion.

It also brings me back to one issue in our society that has really bugged me lately and that is that there seems to be recurring themes in the media that people’s entitlement to their money and their property seem to be dependent on their morality.  It is not.  If someone works or invests they are entitled to their money and their return on their investment.

It really does make my blood boil and it really does give me complete sympathy to the arguments that Aboriginal Australians have been robbed of their wages twice – once when they earned it and then again when the government finally set the money aside and was set to give it to those who are entitled to it.

Some links and extracts…

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24706984-3102,00.html

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004-07/stolen_wages/submissions/sub23.pdf

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/13/2333462.htm

A north Queensland Indigenous rights campaigner has welcomed the State Government's decision to reopen the stolen wages fund, but says the payments are still too small.

Aborigines and Torres Straight Islanders whose wages and savings were controlled under previous government schemes, and who have not already made claims, can now do so.

Those eligible will get payments of either $3,500 or $7,000, depending on when they were born.

Townsville stolen wages campaigner Florence Onus says the compensation on offer is nowhere near enough.

"No, according to all the records and family records of what was owed to them, the $7,000 is just a drop in the ocean compared to what should have been paid back to them," she said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/01/2232193.htm

During the 20th century, workers won continued improvements to their wages and conditions, including in the pastoral industry. Yet one group of pastoral workers, despite being continuously described as essential to the survival of the industry in rural Australia, were kept in conditions of virtual servitude and abject poverty. These were the Aboriginal men and women who, in their thousands, provided the unpaid and underpaid labour upon which pastoral profits depended.

Their conditions, again to quote officials in various states and the Northern Territory, were analogous to slavery. Physical abuse, starvation, sickness, injury and overwork were constantly charted on official files. In the 1920s Queensland officials said many pastoralists provided better amenities for pet horses than for Aboriginal workers. In the 1930s South Australian officials wrote of the practice of 'breaking in' Aboriginal workers like 'taming wild animals'. In 1940 Western Australian officials conceded the shortage of Aboriginal labour was due to widespread injuring and maiming of workers.

In the NT and WA women, children and the elderly were all forced to work for their rations which were commonly so meagre malnutrition was said to by 'destroying the race'. In these two jurisdictions many workers received no cash wage at all until the 1960s. In Queensland, WA and the NT workers who deserted this regime during the 20th century were hunted by police and brought back in chains.

In Queensland, where Aboriginal workers were often described as more skilled than their white counterparts, the duplicity of a two-thirds wage parity struck in 1919 deteriorated to outright robbery as the government indentured Aboriginal men and women at rates as low as 30 per cent of the white rate. Mandated minimal conditions counted for nothing because no systematic inspections were ever made to enforce them. Exploitation of this captive labour force fractured families as men and women were contracted to remote stations for 51 weeks a year. This system continued in Queensland into the late 1960s.

The pastoralists profited from cut-price labour and the Queensland government profited by taking direct control of up to 80 per cent of the wage through their agents, the police protectors. Large amounts of these private earnings were lost or stolen under the government's watch, despite countless warnings from auditors and public service inspectors. For more than 40 years after 1933, to increase government profit, most of these private earnings were sidelined in investments. Meanwhile workers and their families struggled, and died, in poverty.

Governments around Australia gave themselves power to seize Aboriginal earnings and control Aboriginal spending. They also intercepted child endowment, inheritances, workers' compensation and pensions.

Battle of the Sexes

It put me to mind of another friend from my post-grad study who always, always came to my birthday parties until this year.  I especially needed him as I had 4 single girls attending and only one single guy.

R informed me that it may have something to do with bringing along a wonderful boyfriend to the party last year.  They were probably interested and got scared off.

I’m still not quite accepting of that theory.

Perhaps I’m in denial, because I actually enjoyed many of the friendships I have with these guys!  That and I still have a lot of single gal friends so it’s kind of useful to have even numbers on the few occasions I ask every one to come out for dinner (I will clear myself of any attempts at matchmaking here as I know that most of my friends don’t get along with/like each other so I don’t even try).

Anyhow, I shall have to find out if this is a universal principle or it’s just coincidence that I seem to be hearing from my friends less.  If it is true, it’s also very confusing as I really got the impression that most of my male friends weren’t interested in that way.  Is it really true that men and women can't be friends?

Does Liberty Lead to Decadence

I recently entered an essay competition where the topic was "Does Liberty Lead to Decadence?"

Sadly I didn't win, but I've pasted my effort in here as I was quite proud of it.  It's 2000 words so it will be a long entry!

"Decadence is a difficult word to use since it has become little more than a term of abuse applied by critics to anything they do not yet understand or which seems to differ from their moral concepts." - Ernest Hemingway

The concept of liberty applies to societies rather than individuals in isolation or even communities within a sovereign state. It means that a society or an is free from excessive interference both from the government but also other organisations and individuals.  Broadly it applies to social interactions and economic activities, but does have other facets.  Liberty is supported by a legal framework that includes property rights for individuals, universal suffrage and transparency of government.  The concept of liberty in reality is not an absolute, but generally relative to other societies at the time.  Essentially liberty means that all members of a society enjoy the freedom to make their own choices about their lives and their property with little restriction.

Decadence is, for all intents and purposes, a moral judgment, often used to condemn those that have an opposing way of life, particularly if the individual or society in question engages in frivolous or undesirable behaviours.  It implies moral corruption and degenerate conduct.  It is also associated with vast social inequality.  It is quite hard to evaluate any particular society or even person in terms of decadence with any degree of objectivity, as what is undesirable or degenerate is actually particular to the point of view of the one making the judgement.

Hence to assess if liberty leads to decadence it must be established that in all or most cases the freedom of choice and undue interference from external parties in society or the market leads to frivolous, degenerate or corrupt social and economic practices.

Rather than immediately seeing if societies that embrace liberty are decadent it is valuable to look at the underlying ideas as to why people and societies are called decadent.  Today and for much of the past 90 years since the Russian Revolution, Australia is considered part of the decadent West.  Although the claim by Lenin that the West is decadent, in decline and capitalism will fail is now very much empty rhetoric given the fall of the Communist regime.  The criticism continues to live on in the present through radical Islamic understanding of the outside world[1].  The description of liberty and capitalism (which can be considered a form of economic liberty, synonymous with the free market) is described as decadent only by those who are looking for a binary opposite for the rhetoric of more authoritarian societies.  It is not practical to go into a full definition of binary opposites as expounded by Ferdinand de Saussure or différance which has been written about extensively by Jaques Derrida, however the concept of the binary opposite – defining a concept by what it is not – is a particularly useful one in this case.  To quote Derrida, “différance is the name we might give to the "active," moving discord of different forces, and of differences of forces, that Nietzsche sets up against the entire system of metaphysical grammar, wherever this system governs culture, philosophy, and science[2].”

Countries like the United States of America and Australia are labelled as decadent by Communists and Socialists because they want to create a stark contrast, appearing to treat each member as equal, efficient and functioning for the advancement of the whole society.  Radical Islam is quite political in the ends it seeks but uses religious discourses rather than political arguments.  Decadent refers to the fact that the West is generally more affluent than most Islamic countries and that it is morally permissive.  Australia does not discriminate against homosexuals, supports single unmarried women and does not restrict access to alcohol or pornography.  Religious ends are not the concern of the government – in fact France, for example, is committed to being secular[3] – instead pluralism, social and economic freedom are the primary ends. These things are degenerate and decadent, as opposed to Islam, which by contrast submits to the way of Allah and is morally upright.  As is shown, more liberal societies provide convenient contrasts for more restrictive societies to not only demonstrate that they have the moral high ground, but that they are in discord to the society making the judgement.  However the difference comes about purely because of discourse and social constructions, not because there is anything fundamental about liberty implying decadence, any more than having a beard implies an affinity with Osama bin Laden.

Decadence often linked to great social inequality in a society, where the gulf between the wealthy and the poor is insurmountably wide and mechanisms exist to protect this gap.  Corruption of the market such as cartels, monopolies and manipulation of prices in the market place are often perceived to be the vehicles to protect the market of organisations that are linked to economic inequality.  “Decadent societies are often prosperous but usually have severe social and economic inequality, to such a degree that the upper class becomes either complacent or greedy, while the lower classes become hopeless and apathetic[4].”  Logically, these concepts are not ones that are in the spirit of the free market and countries like Australia and the United States have a system of laws in place to uphold this commitment to competition and market mechanisms.  Whilst the extreme argument is that these laws themselves represent government interference in society, not having them provides a mechanism for other agents wishing to exert undue interference in the market place – it is not just government that interferes with liberty and the law supports this. 

One organisation that springs to mind in manipulating prices through manipulating supply to maintain market position is OPEC.  Until very recently global oil prices in the market rose rapidly and to highs never before imagined.  On more than one occasion when prices, were set to go down based on demand, OPEC announced that they would reduce output[5].  This is an action that represents corruption and decadence in the market.  It highlights that OPEC does not embrace the free market and aims to manipulate prices to their own ends.  Upon closer examination, it is quite clear why the organisation wants to control the market – OPEC countries are amongst the least free in the world (see Table 1.0).  It is possible to speculate at this point that the reason these countries work together to manipulate the market is because they are less free and potentially believe that market manipulation, government intervention and extensive legislation is needed to provide an equal footing for all players in the market and protect the interests of the otherwise disadvantaged, however extensive analysis of the market and government of all 13 countries would be needed to establish this, which is not the intention of this paper.  However almost 50 years of working together to control the market has not actually resulted in wealthier or more modernised countries for many of the member states of OPEC – in fact their members in Asia and South America still have some of the most economically disadvantaged people in the world.  And as for the member states in the Middle East, Francis Fukushima notes, “Islam is the one major world culture that arguably does have some very basic problems with modernity. For all the sophistication of Muslim societies, they can boast only one working democracy (Turkey), and have not seen any economic breakthroughs like Korea or Singapore.”  Hence this goes to show that the corruption and decadence that is perceived to go hand in hand with liberal economies and supposed to create social inequity, comes not from liberty, but attempts to command and unduly influence the market.

Table 1.0

Sources: http://www.opec.org/library/FAQs/aboutOPEC/q3.htm http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=351&ana_page=341&year=2008

Social patterns also need to be gauged as part of an assessment of decadence in liberal societies.  As covered before, behaviour that can be labelled as socially degenerate is impossible to argue objectively.  What is and is not acceptable between individual members of a society is governed by moral codes that are not universal and often in pluralistic societies these codes are conflicting.  In this instance the law can not be relied upon as a measure of what is acceptable and unacceptable because complex social norms govern the behaviour of individuals in most societies, just as much as legal requirements.  In some instances socially normal behaviour can operate without government interference.  For example, it is a summary offence in Queensland to be drunk and disorderly in public[6], however travelling along Anne St in Fortitude Valley on any given Friday or Saturday night would clearly leave an observer convinced otherwise.  A liberal society does not provide any clear enforcement of moral, social behaviour patterns by the government and in isolation, that is enough to say that an individual can engage in whatever behaviour they choose, regardless of how wonton and corrupt.  They may be free to pursue a life guided solely by hedonism, lack of respect for other individuals in society and complete moral depravity, however they may also choose not to do so.  Liberty presents a choice, but it does not enforce, require or even imply moral corruption or even a lack of discipline.  Because of this choice, it can not be said to categorically lead to decadence.  Liberty may be used to pursue intellectual or market goals with discipline, it may even be used to practice a strict moral code without interference by the government or other codes of conduct.  One of the greatest examples of this is the men and women who left England on the Mayflower to establish a colonies in America.  Freedom was a guiding principle for the society[7] they established as the group consisted of Puritans, who were persecuted and socially excluded in England at the time[8].  Puritanism is a strict adherence to Christian codes of behaviour, which could be called anything but decadence.  Also day to day realities such as the need to interact with other members of society, the need to hold a job in order to survive and the basic inability of an individual to provide for all of their needs in isolation, means that social norms can not be drastically deviated from even in a liberal society.  On the other hand, authoritarian societies (the binary opposite of liberal societies) can actually be used to enforce corrupt undisciplined behaviour.  Sharia Lawhttp://www.ruddshop.com/

Tourist Map for visitors to Oz.

Early Christmas Greeting

A New Style of James Bond

Quantum of Solace explodes onto the screen with an amazing car chase between Bond and an unknown pursuer, and from there launches into some of the most amazing action sequences Bond has experienced yet.  The new movie undeniably borrows it’s camera work and extreme action scenes from recent movies like the Bourne Ultimatum, and continues with the very physical and rough around the edges Bond that Daniel Craig introduced us to in Casino Royale.  Bond just keeps going and going and going in this one, adding an amazing boat chase and aerial cat fight to the usual high speed car chases.  The character also has a bit more depth than his usual character, playing on unfinished business from the last film.  Judy Dench also features quite prominently in this film as the buffer between MI-6 and the corridors of Parliament, a relationship made tense by the new bad guy Dominic Greene, who has far reaching power and “people everywhere.”  Green’s organization – the Quantum of Solace or perhaps a modern interpretation of Smersh/Shape – has infiltrated not only MI-6 itself but also many influencers in the major governments of the world.  Because of this Bond does not know who he can trust and who he can not.  And caught up Greene, the CIA becomes something of an adversary as well.  Much of the action centres on Bolivia, where Greene controls a very precious resource and is artificially causing a shortage.  The character also spends much time campaigning in favour of environmentalism, but at the same time is happy to be an agitator as far as environmental catastrophes go.  The character is strange and intense, paranoid and brutal, and makes a very devious villain for Bond, he also is not taken out in usual Bond style, but I will leave that for you to discover.  Maithas features once again to help Bond along his way, along with charmingly named Strawberry Fields (her parents must have been rock stars).  Bond is accompanied along his way by Camille Montes, a revenge drivine ex-Bolivian secret service agent.  As mentioned in other reviews, she is a little bit wooden and does not have the charm of other Bond girls.  It is also strange to have a Russian play a Bolivian character (there are more than enough Latina actresses that could have been cast in the part!)  The only other down point was the opening credits.  Usually this sequence is an opportunity for the directors to show off in spectacular cinematic style with surreal but tantalising sequences set to a popular track.  The film utterly fails on this front.  The track by Alicia Keys and Jack White (of the White Stripes) is poorly crafted and annoying, not setting the scene or even being pleasant to listen to.  The opening sequence is also all done in vector graphics with very little real camerawork or images.  I am completely over vector graphics, in fact if I could figure out how to use Gimp I’d do some for you now just to show how any mug can create them.  MK12 disappointed with this, however I did think that the user graphical interface that they designed for the sequences in MI-6 HQ was quite impressive – I want the system!

Disappointingly there were no tricky gadgets and no Q in this movie, however it would have spoiled the plot somewhat.  This James Bond is gritty and physical rather than techy and suave.  And unlike other Bond films there is very little time for womanising, and the martini becomes something of a crutch rather than a cue for the usual “shaken but not stirred” cliché.

All in all this was a wonderful film and well worth seeing!