No Sex Please, We're Fruitloops

Well I am bit behind the eight ball in getting the next post up, and as it happens plenty of news worthy of comment has happened. One of these days I will find time to catch up on them all, but until then I am at the mercy of my other commitments.

I was left scratching my head at the story of Storm, a four month old baby whose parents are not disclosing the sex of as “a tribute to freedom and choice in a place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...).” In effect, they seek to raise a genderless baby and allow the choice of gender to fall upon the child. The parents, Kathy Witterick and David Stocker have been labelled the most politically correct in the world.

At first glance, the whole thing is a ridiculous notion. At a second glance, not much changes and it remains a ridiculous notion. ‘Political correctness’ is such an inaccurate term. Not only do most politically minded people not think this way, it clearly is not correct. Perhaps ‘socially stupid’ is a more fitting label. The parents believe they are freeing Storm from the societally imposed constraints on males and females. They claim children can make meaningful decisions for themselves from a very young age and have told their children to challenge how they're expected to look and act based on their sex. In addition, they call parents who make choices for their children 'obnoxious', an interesting turn of phrase given the choice they have made for theirs.

What these parents fail to realise is that the feminist ideology that drives their little experiment fails to allow for the vast number of differences that exist between males and females beyond the sexual organs. When God said “Male and female He created them”, He was referring to the entire person. Each of the sexes is hardwired due to differences in hormones, how they respond emotionally, sexually, and physically to a variety of stimuli. Even before a baby is born, prenatal hormones developed in the second trimester of pregnancy affect the behaviour and emotions of the foetus in the womb. Research has shown that after learning to speak, male children tell aggressive stories 87% of the time and females only 17%. In group tasks for children under four, boys will use physical tactics 50 times more than girls. Shifting the whole shebang to gender neutrality will not stop Storm from seeking out children of the same sex to play with in a social setting. It will not stop Storm from displaying certain types of behaviours common to boys or girls down through the ages.

Most disturbing is the freedom of choice given to Storm’s older brothers, Jazz and Kio. From the age of 18 months, these boys have been permitted to choose their own clothes from the store and make decisions about their appearance, again with the parents idea of dismantling gender social constructs. Five year old Jazz, for example, wears a pink dress that he loves because it 'really poofs out at the bottom' and 'feels so nice'. He also wears his hair long and in three braids. Two year old Kio loves purple and keeps his curly blond hair just below his chin. Consequently, most people believe the boys are girls, an assumption the parents do not correct. Instead, they leave that up to the discretion of the boys. Already, other children are keeping their distance, not wanting to play with a “girl-boy”, and Jazz confirms that others reaction over his appearance does upset him. So why inflict this upon the child? Is this not abuse to allow this situation to continue? Set appropriate boundaries along gender lines, allow the boys to be comfortable being boys, and nip the socially isolating discomfort of other children in the bud.

Diane Ehrensaft, a Californian psychologist believes parents should support gender-creative children, but said this case is disturbing. These children "will be unable to position his or herself in a world where you are either male, female or in between,” she said, arguing that they have created another category entirely. Susan Pinker, a psychologist and author of The Sexual Paradox says, “Ignoring children's natures simply doesn’t work. Child-rearing should not be about providing an opportunity to prove an ideological point, but about responding to each child’s needs as an individual.” Quite right, and it is more than obvious that those needs are not being met. Too much responsibility is falling onto the children at an age when they should not be making such decisions. Pinker adds, “Children are curious about their own identity, and are likely to gravitate towards others of the same sex during free play time in early childhood.”

Clearly these fruitloops are attempting to change society and using their children as their instruments. They don’t want to impose the limitations of society on the children, but happily impose their own limitations to prevent them identifying with who they are. The reality is that society has gender roles ingrained in every culture in the world and it is not changing any time soon. Men are the hunters, women the gatherers. Men are the warriors, women the nurturers. Occasionally there are exceptions to the recognised gender roles, but for the most part they are well defined. These children are being set up for failure and I would hope the child protection authorities in Canada are onto this one like a rash.

Biting The Hand That Feeds You

Did you hear it? The ping, ping, ping sound of copper on concrete. It was accompanied by a spike in electricity use and it occurred at much the same time. About 11:30am on Thursday. It was the moment that the penny dropped and the lights started going on for the members of the Canberra Press Gallery.

Senator Bob Brown, the leader of the Australian Greens, stood before a group of journalists and in avoiding some questions about his stance on some key carbon policy issues, launched an attack on the Murdoch press. “I think it's very essential to take that on at the moment because I think the Murdoch media is doing a great disservice to this nation in perhaps the most important debate of the century so far, which is how we tackle climate change,” he said. “And its negativity and its scepticism does need to be tackled because, you know, we need news in our papers but we're getting opinion far too much.”

In an extraordinary exchange, three journalists from other news organisations took him to task. Fairfax radio reporter Michael Pachi challenged Senator Brown, saying: “You just come out here every day and you just bag out the Murdoch press or any media you don't like and you call them the hate press.” To which Senator Brown replied: “Don't get too upset, this is just part of the democratic discourse.” Pachi responded by saying “Most polls would suggest that people don't want the carbon tax and you are on the wrong foot on this issue, and (that's) across the media, not just the Murdoch press”. Brown retorted that the Greens vote was growing faster than the circulation of News Limited newspapers.

Bob Brown explained his rant in response to Ten’s Hugh Riminton. “Yes, I'm being very much on the front foot here because I think the media, with some very good exceptions, can at times lose track of the fact that it's part of the process of moving Australia into a much more secure future with a more secure lifestyle, economy and job creation prospects.” Senator Brown described newspapers' front pages as unbalanced, opinionated and “not news in terms of having both sides”.

To some degree, Senator Brown does have a point. Certain news organisations have been noted to pursue particular agendas or lean favourably to one side of a debate. The climate change debate is a prime example where for so long the media pushed the claims as fact to the extent that dissenters were ridiculed and portrayed as a lunatic fringe. Tony Abbott certainly felt the effects of this prevailing media mindset at the time of his “Climate change is crap” comment, and for a long time afterward.

The irony though, is that in this environment, Bob Brown and the Greens got a free pass to express themselves on this and many other issues without challenge. They were able to stand up in front of a camera or microphone and call to account any political opponent for their position with the presumption that the Green position was understood and accepted without question. As recently as Tuesday, Brown called on Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet to explain why the carbon price should start well south of $40 a tonne, but at the same time sidestepped questions about the level he thought the carbon price should be. Providing the media is there to aid the Green machine, there is no issue. When the hard the questions start coming, the organisation asking them is attacked and labelled as haters.

The Greens are no longer on the fringes of politics in Australia. They are in the thick of it as a powerful part of a centre-left and left wing coalition government. The government hinges on their one lower house vote and as such have a lot of clout when it comes to advancing their own agenda. We are also just weeks away from the Greens assuming the balance of power in the Senate. Consequently, their policies are now under the microscope. The questions that should have been asked a decade ago are now being asked and the good Senator is finding the blowtorch a bit hot.

The ABC’s Chris Uhlman is credited with starting the ball rolling on Tuesday night during an interview with Bob Brown on the 7:30 program:

BROWN: We are going to compensate households but Tony Abbott will not. He's going to put all the money in from households into the big polluters, estimate $720 per household by the end of this decade and - either that or reduce 100,000 jobs in the country or start closing hospital wards and schools to fund the big polluters. We will not do that.

UHLMAN: That $11 billion that you're talking about is money that he would forego in the mining tax, and I noticed you started your budget and reply speech just there. How would you replace the $50 billion a year in export income which comes by way of coal - an industry that you'd shut down?

BROWN: Well, a lot of that money is bouncing straight back out to shareholders overseas. Now what we're...

UHLMAN: A lot of that money is circulating in the economy. It's creating jobs, Senator, it's bouncing through to our cities.

BROWN: Yes, Chris, and what we would do is take the advice of the Treasury of this nation and recoup the $145 billion over the next 10 years through a super profits tax. Tony Abbott says...

UHLMAN: But you can't recoup it if you shut the industry down.

BROWN: Treasury...

UHLMAN: If you shut the coal industry down there won't be that money...

BROWN: I'm sorry...

UHLMAN: ..available to you.

BROWN: I'm sorry, Chris, Treasury has no intention to shut the industry down. it tends to- it tends...

UHLMAN: No, but you do.

BROWN: No, I'm not.

UHLMAN: Didn't you say back in 2007 that we had to kick the coal habit?

BROWN: No, I did not. You're looking at the Murdoch press, where I said back in 2007 we should look at coal exports with a view to phasing them out down the line.

UHLMAN: It wasn't the Murdoch press, it was a comment piece that you wrote. So you want to phase out the coal industry?

BROWN: The world is going to do that because it is causing massive economic damage down the line through the impact of climate change.

UHLMAN: But the question-

BROWN: No, let me...

UHLMAN: The simple question is how do you replace $50 billion worth of export income?

BROWN: You go to renewables over the coming decades and you do that by exporting... Look, Germany did this. It's closed its coal mine. It's closing its nuclear power stations. It's gone into exporting renewables - including using Australian technology...

But the more insightful journalists and ex-politicians have been onto him well before this. In the days following the installation of the Gillard government by Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, former Democrats leader Natasha Stott-Despoja predicted that the Greens would implode when their policies and positions were scrutinised. Former ALP Senator Graham Richardson on his Sky News program ridiculed Bob Brown’s response to his question on what he would do for mining companies affected by the carbon tax.

The Murdoch press have been onto him for some time. In September last year, the Australian responded to a previous Brown criticism in an editorial: “We wear Senator Brown’s criticism with pride. We believe he and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box.” In some ways, this quote justifies Senator Brown’s latest outburst, but by the same token it is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from any research of Green policy.

I for one am looking forward to seeing the blowtorch applied with greater frequency and higher temperatures. Popcorn anyone?

When The Wicked Perish

“”I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure. ”
– Mark Twain

As expected, Osama bin Laden hasn’t exactly gone quietly. The reaction to his death can been measured all across the spectrum from vows of bloody revenge to apathy and cynicism to hysterical celebration. The debate has certainly been interesting. Was the actions of the US Navy Seals a swift execution of justice? Was it extrajudicial killing? Premeditated murder even? Is the United States no better than the terrorists they are eliminating? So many questions, no single or correct answer. Some are able to meaningfully argue a position one way or the other, and others are so out of the ball park wrong that their assertions are laughable. I’ll put my position up, right or wrong, for the entire world to see, and you can pass your judgement accordingly.

Osama bin Laden was without doubt a bloodthirsty, murdering scumbag who needed to face justice for his crimes against humanity. Since 1988 when he founded al-Qaeda, bin Laden’s rap sheet has far exceeded the length of his arms. Of course, we all know about the attack on the Twin Towers back in 2001 in which over 3000 innocent people died. Perhaps you might like to know about his other activities. A bomb intended for US servicemen in Yemen in 1992 killed two Austrian tourists. The next year he authorized the first World Trade Centre attack that killed six and injured thousands. In 1998, the simultaneous bombings of US embassies across Africa killed 223 and injured over 4000. Two years later, the USS Cole was attacked while refuelling in port in Yemen. Seventeen US sailors died and 39 were injured. If that wasn’t enough, he was also directly funding the mujahideen in Chechnya, who conducted a dozen terror attacks against Russian citizens between 1995 and 2009. The total body count is upwards of 1200 people, including the 150 children at school in Beslan. It is said that he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. This has certainly played out in the case of bin Laden. Regrettably for all those families who lost relatives and friends to his blood crazed agenda, US forces could only kill him once.

But what about forgiveness I read one commentator write. Forgiveness is noble and necessary, but it does not exonerate him from his deeds. Justice must still be served. The notion that forgiveness equates to acquittal is unjust. There must be restitution. When a sinner comes to Jesus and repents, what happens? Jesus forgives the sinner and forgets the sin thereafter, but justice still has to be served. The wages of sin is death, and by the grace of God, He asked Jesus to willingly die on the cross for the sin of the world. It is here that justice is served. Jesus takes the penalty of death on behalf of the sinner. For those who don’t sort it out with God, the penalty is on you. Osama bin Laden was certainly not repentant of his crimes, as evidenced by his remaining in hiding, his continual participation in terrorism, and regular video and audio releases threatening the nations of the world.

Another commentator writes how the United States murdered bin Laden and that he should have been taken alive and put on trial. I am certain the US government would much rather have been able to parade bin Laden before the cameras and show him off to the world in exactly the way they did with Saddam Hussein. But the world is not an ideal place and criminals have a habit of resisting arrest. Osama bin Laden died in the firefight that took place inside his hideaway mansion. Seemingly, bin Laden himself may not have been armed at the time if his teenage daughter is to be believed, but others in the house were. It is not outside the realms of possibility that he was shot by one of his henchmen to prevent his capture.

Was it murder? I say no. The Legal Dictionary applies this definition to the word “murder”:

the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances defined by statute (as with premeditation); especially: such a crime committed purposely, knowingly, and recklessly with extreme indifference to human life or during the course of a serious felony (as robbery or rape).

The US government had declared war on al-Qaeda in 2001, so the operation that saw bin Laden’s demise was a military one, subject to the rules of warfare, not domestic statute. Being the commander of an enemy force, Osama bin Laden was an enemy combatant and a legitimate military target. As such his elimination during the course of a military operation was neither unlawful nor unjustified. He remained a threat to western interests and ordinary citizens all over the world. His death was not reckless with regard to human life. Indeed, preventing this man killing and injuring thousands more innocent people has shown the dignity and value for human life that is part and parcel of a civilised society.

The announcement by US President Barack Obama that Osama bin Laden was dead saw a spontaneous gathering of a crowd at the gates of the White House to celebrate that the world was now a better place. Critics responded by saying that people should not be celebrating anybody’s death in such a fashion, and that these made them look no different to the Arabs who celebrate a successful terror strike. Apparently, we should be saddened by his untimely passing and acknowledge the occasion more solemnly. Really? Have a look at the demise of any tyrant at any time in history and note what happens among those who were subject to their iron fist. Europe celebrated the end of Hitler. Afghanistan took to the streets in jubilation when Mullah Omar and his mates took off with their tails between their legs. Yugoslavia partied when Slobodan Milosevic fled the country. And we’ve seen it several times in recent months in North Africa with the regime changes in Tunisia and Egypt. Ordinary people need not fear Osama bin Laden any longer as he can no longer harm us. When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy!

Of course, terror alerts have gone up a notch or three since Osama bit the dust. There is no doubting that others will be willing to step into the void. Those who do will do so with the knowledge that we have long memories and that we will leave no stone unturned in our pursuit of you. If it takes ten years, then so be it, as long as we get you one way or the other in the end.

The Royal Wedding

As I write, the Royal Wedding is going on and from my point of view my only curiousity is "Who is going to be wearing menopause blue?" This is the colour of the blue dress that is worn by the mother of either the bride or the groom. Usually only one of the two wears it, and of course we all know that Diana is currently dressed in wooden overcoat brown with earthy tones. Accordingly, Kate Middleton's mum arrived dressed in what the fashionistas called sky blue, but what the cynics like me call menopause blue.

Historically I have never been a fan of the Royal family. My republican leanings have been inspired by my long held desire to one day overthrow the government, something that would be much easier to achieve legally without the protections that the monarchy provides. As such, my television is on in the background with the live telecast screening exclusively for my wife who is doing a great job of providing her own commentary soundtrack.

As for William and Kate, they both appear to be thoroughly decent people and I wish them very well for their future together. Unlike most married couples, they will have exceptional pressures upon them from an adoring public, a protocol driven palace, and an intrusive media. The fact that these pressures occur on top of the usual ones that occur in marriage puts them on the back foot. The fairytale weddings of Charles and Diana in 1981 and Andrew and Sarah in 1986 both became nightmares amid these issues and I can only hope that William and Kate have learned the lessons from both of those disasters enough to be able to rise above the pressures and triumph in their own marriage.

If that wasn't enough, an occasion such as a royal wedding becomes a very large advertisement for traditional marriage. With so many people openly attacking the institution of marriage as outdated and unnecessary, and even advocating alternative definitions of marriage, every failure of a marriage, particularly a high profile marriage, lowers the bar and becomes fodder for those pushing that agenda. Consequently, William and Kate carry the expectations of the holders of traditional values who are relying on them to counter those so-called progressive views.

It is my prayer that both William and Kate focus on establishing their marriage before taking on too much duty. They need to remember that a three-cord rope is not easily broken and that there is more to the pomp and ceremony overseen by the Archbishop of Canterbury. One day, William is likely to be the head of the Church of England, so having a personal relationship with the God of that church will benefit his marriage if he allows the source of all wisdom to play His part in growing and strengthening their union.

Terminal Velocity

Like many others, I have marvelled at the viral video of Casey Heynes responding to the latest episode of bullying that he has allegedly been experiencing for over a year. After being on the receiving end of several blows and repeated taunts by the younger and smaller aggressor, Casey lunges forward and grabs him in a front face lock before lifting him into the air and slamming him face down into the concrete. A classic case of reaping what you sow.

As a community, we have an expectation that justice will prevail. The public’s response to the video has been of overwhelming support for Casey, more so because the school suspended him and not the bully. It wasn’t until the mainstream media picked up the story that the bully was also suspended. Many approved of the retaliation as natural justice.

An expert on bullying, Professor Kenneth Rigby of the University of South Australia, said he was worried about the possible effect of this incident in terms of thinking that the only way to deal with bullying is to come down very heavily on everybody involved. He said suspending the youth who had reacted to the bullying was the wrong course of action because it risked punishing the victim and feeding the unwillingness of victims to come forward. “He should have gone for help - told a teacher. The problem is that about half of those who do that end up feeling that the situation has been made worse, not better. People don’t tell because they’re not confident that the school will do something.”

A wise man once said that evil prospers when good men do nothing. Notwithstanding the complexities of the case at hand, clearly there has been a failure in the school to appropriately deal with this particular situation from the outset. For an issue to go so long without action is an obvious failing of the policies of the Education Department of NSW, the school administration, and the staff employed there. There is only so long that the victim can be expected to turn the other cheek or to report the incident to teachers. The video shows that the bullying incident was premeditated and co-ordinated with a number of students. They just did not expect the outcome that followed.

Of course, there has also been plenty of PC crap that has been splashed about in response to the video. John Dalgleish, head of research at Kids Helpline and Boys Town, said, "We don’t believe that violence is ever the answer. We believe there are other ways that children can manage this." He went on to say, "The longer term way is about developing better relationships between kids in the school, that will then empower young people to not be passive bystanders when these acts occur but to stand up and say this is wrong. The short term solution is to have individual counselling with each of the children." Inspector Jason Green from NSW Police said posting the video had the effect of glorifying violence in schools. "Whether it causes other incidents or not I don’t know but it seems to be a trend of late," he said. "It may incite other violence but that’s something that we can’t comment on." A NSW Department of Education and Training spokeswoman said the school "does not tolerate any violence and deals with all cases according to its community-agreed discipline code."

I found a rather interesting definition of “violence” in the online dictionary I consulted. It defined “violence” as, among other things, “an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws.” The video showed the bully use an illegal, unjust and unwarranted exertion of force several times. The victim, acting in self defence, used an act of force sufficient to end the assault on his person, a seemingly just and warranted exertion of force, which I understand is defensible in the court. Casey certainly had the opportunity to stick the boot in while the bully was trying to extricate himself from the pavement, but chose to leave it at that, giving further creedence to his actions being of self defence.

Putting this debate to one side and looking at it in its most appropriate context raises one simple question. Why is this news? This is basically an event that takes place in schoolyards all over the world every day. I was party to a number of schoolyard brawls during my school years, some spontaneous and some organised. Those I wasn’t in, I watched and cheered the participants on. Bullying wasn’t a major issue where I went to school and perhaps this was because we were quick to sort it out. Nowadays, it seems the gentle touchy, feely approach of pacifist do-gooder social work types is the accepted method. Perhaps this is why bullying is so rife today. This is not to make light of bullying in any way. Yes, bullying is a major issue in schools and one hopes that the situation is appropriately managed in the vast majority of them. Anecdotally, one does wonder though.

Sometimes, the bully gets what is coming and natural justice prevails. The bully rarely, it seems, comes back for round two. I do not think that Casey will have any more problems with his particular bully. Even if he returned with reinforcements, the bully would be uneasy in the knowledge that his mates would not be around 24/7. As it is, Casey no doubt has newfound self esteem and a whole lot of respect.

Taking The Sheen Off

They will be unloving and unforgiving; they will slander others and have no self-control. They will be cruel and hate what is good. --2Timothy 3:3

Charlie Sheen has been a permanent fixture in the news in recent weeks. It seems that every police visit, every court appearance, each trip to rehab, and now every rant is a headline creating event requiring the attention of every news outlet in the western world. Clearly, the 45 year old actor has some serious issues in his life that he needs to address if he is to have any chance of a future in Hollywood, or indeed anywhere.

As I write, Warner Brothers have announced that they are terminating Charlie Sheen from the hit series “Two And A Half Men” after an anti-semetic outburst directed at the shows producer, Chuck Lorre. A letter from law firm Munger, Tolles and Olson, Warner Brothers lawyers, published by celebrity website TMZ said: "Let us state the obvious: (Sheen) has been engaged in dangerously self-destructive conduct and appears to be very ill. For months before the suspension of production, Mr Sheen's erratic behavior escalated while his condition deteriorated. His declining condition undermined the production in numerous and significant ways. Now, the entire world knows Mr Sheen's condition from his alarming outbursts over just the last few weeks," it said, lamenting "the public spectacle of his self-inflicted disintegration."

And self-inflicted it appears to be. While his addiction to drugs and alcohol is well documented, it is only now that we are beginning to see his carefree attitude to the situation that he finds himself in. "It's like, I heal really quickly. But I unravel pretty quickly. So get me right now, guys," Sheen said, suggesting he should return to work while he still could. A fortnight ago, he lamented, "I was sober for five years a long time ago and was just bored out of my tree. It's inauthentic - it's not who I am.”

Sheen went on to say that crack cocaine was bad, but not for everyone. "I said stay off the crack, and I still think that's pretty good advice, unless you can manage it socially. If you can manage it socially, then go for it, but not a lot of people can, you know?" He was unapologetic about his drug use, calling his parties "epic.'' The last time he took drugs, he stated he had probably taken "more than anybody could survive.'' Sheen earlier claimed that he had cured himself of his addiction. "I closed my eyes and made it so with the power of my mind."

Even more painful is the toll that his behaviour is taking on his family. Just days ago, his father Martin and brother Emilio Estevez appeared in an interview where clearly they are distraught at having to watch Charlie Sheen’s televised destructive ways. Martin Sheen stated, “If he had cancer, how would we treat him, you know? The disease of addiction is a form of cancer and you have to have an equal measure of concern and love and lift them up, so that’s what we did for him.” Charlie Sheen called his fathers prayers “the gibberish of fools”.

Then there is the children who have been exposed to alcohol and drug fuelled violence directed at their mother, the bedhopping by the porn star girlfriends that Charlie Sheen has stated he wants a polygamous marriage arrangement with, and of course the upheaval of having child protection authorities forcibly removing them to a safer situation. In defending his living arrangements, he stated, "There is more love, compassion, support, child care and everything else you could possibly want for a child in this lovely home. It's not a house. It's a home."

His estranged wife in her court brief claimed, "I am very concerned that (Sheen) is currently insane. I am in great fear that he will find me and attack me and I am in great fear for the children's safety while in his care." She further alleged that on a previous occasion, she had been threatened by Sheen, who allegedy said, "I will cut your head off, put it in a box and send it to your mom."

There is no doubt that there is a lot more heartbreak to come in this situation. In a business where all publicity is good publicity, how much to blame for this situation are we who readily consume celebrity gossip? The media is having a feeding frenzy because there is value in them covering this story and the public is proving insatiable for the next morsel. The proof is in the 2.1 million followers that Charlie Sheen amassed inside a matter of days from launching his twitter account.

Clearly, Charlie Sheen needs immediate help. Whilst he denies this obvious fact, one wonders if he would reassess his situation if the publicity wagon were to come to a halt. As long as his every move is published and he is paid by the tweet, there is no incentive to turn his life around. Many of his adoring fans want to see him come back better and stronger than ever. Unfortunately, that is simply not going to happen while the monster is being fed. The best thing that could happen is for the media spotlight to switch off completely, ignore all the rants and goings on, and let the medical professionals do their thing when he decides that it has to happen for his star to shine again.

The True Wilderness

After reaching the end of a long email about the aftermath of the floods in Queensland, the seriousness of occasion was broken by the signature file that was found at the bottom. It read “The only true wilderness is between the ears of a Green.” Needless to say the acronym ROFL applied here and it took sometime for the muscles in my face to return to normal.

When we think of the Greens, we generally think of party leader Bob Brown. He is not one of my favourite people in the world and I look forward to the day that he and his party disappears from our parliaments for good. That said, good on him for stepping up, having a go, and participating in our democracy. He has been a very successful politician for a long time and the good people of Tasmania are obviously very satisfied with his performance to keep returning him to Canberra.

But what of the true wilderness? We have heard the mantra from Bob Brown for several years now. Climate change. Climate change. The drought was caused by climate change. Climate change. Climate change. The Black Saturday bushfires were a direct result of climate change. Flooding on an unprecedented scale since 1974 was caused by climate change. And don’t forget the cyclones, climate change again. It matters not what the situation is, climate change is responsible. Or so he would have you believe.

If one was to take a non-refundable hour to peruse the website of the Australian Greens, we can see a number of policies that they support that is devoid of any sanity and reason. Banning live exports of cattle, sheep, and pigs would kill off 13,000 jobs and wipe $1.8 billion from the economy. Closing coal fired power stations and relying on wind and solar power for our future energy needs is a major problem when the population is increasing and renewable energy sources are only a fraction of the capacity and efficency of coal. The banning of political donations is interesting given that the Greens gratefully received $1.6 million from wotif.com director, Graeme Wood. Then we have the usual no nuclear position, with no nuclear power stations or uranium mining. That’s another $900 million gone, which if added to the closure of the coal export industry will total around $56 billion and the unemployment that goes with it. The Lucas Heights OPAL nuclear reactor in Sydney has long been a target for closure by the Greens, a move that would leave hundreds of thousands of cancer sufferers without treatment.

The latest escapade of the Greens has been a dip into the flood levy that Prime Minister Julia Gillard has proposed to pay for infrastructure repair and replacement in Queensland. A fortnight ago, Ms Gillard announced that she was cutting a number of programs to find $2.8 billion in funding for the rebuilding effort. On the chopping block were the Cleaner Car Rebate Scheme, the Green Car Innovation Fund, the Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships and Solar Flagships programs, the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, the National Rent Affordability Scheme, and the Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

As you could no doubt imagine, the Greens were not happy with this announcement since it ran a scalpel through what are significant environmentally friendly programs. The problem with them, as the Prime Minister rightly alluded, was the fact that they are outrageously expensive. A good PM weighs up the costs and benefits of each program to ensure the taxpayer gets value for money. Ms Gillard herself stated prior to the election that she does just that. The evidence was slashing $100 million from the solar flagship scheme on the grounds that it was money wasted. “Cash For Clunkers” and the “Green Car Fund” went the way of the dodo because there were far cheaper ways of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

However, good governance disappeared out the window when Senator Bob came knocking…. The Greens would not support any moves to cut wasteful green programs and threatened to scuttle any legislation to impose the flood levy unless the Prime Minister agreed to reinstate the funds. Rather than telling Senator Brown where the exit was, Ms Gillard rolled over, forgoing an opportunity to paint the Greens as the treacherous opponents of flood victims everywhere. Given that a significant number of Green supporters are disaffected ALP voters, she missed a chance to bring those votes home.

So the Greens sold their vote on the flood levy for $100 million to restore the cuts to the solar flagships program, and another $264 million for the national rental affordability scheme. Just like that, one fifth of the levy’s revenue base went into inefficient Green programs in preference to infrastructure rebuilding and repairs. If that wasn’t bad enough, ex-Green Independent Andrew Wilkie siphoned off another $88 million for the Australian Learning and Teaching Fund. That totals $452 million spent by the Prime Minister just to win votes for a levy to raise $1.8 billion. Others might point out that Senator Steve Fielding exchanged his vote for $500 million for infrastructure repairs to Victorian flood effected communities. At least he remained within the spirit of the proposed levy to ensure that not only Queensland benefitted from the proceeds of the levy.

It seems to me that the Prime Minister is desperate for this bill to successfully pass through the parliament. In her quest for a significant political victory, Ms Gillard has left her brain in a jar on the desk. Identifying and cutting waste is the role of any government employee and she did it well, only to backflip and restore the funding at the first sign of pressure. Some would call that negligent. This lunacy makes me question the true wilderness further. Maybe it is not just between the ears of a Green that it is found…

No Love Lost For Julia Gillard

There appears to be no middle ground with Mark Latham. You either love him or you hate him. The former ALP leader has never been a stranger to controversy after a number of incidents that occurred during his federal parliamentary career. His unconventional approach won him a lot of support particularly as Opposition Leader, but there was always a niggling doubt that bugged the electorate as to whether this bloke was a suitable alternative Prime Minister. Although the electorate was tiring of John Howard’s government, the 2004 federal election proved that he was seen as a safer pair of hands than Mr Latham to guide the wheels of government.

To his credit, Mark Latham was not a political clone and he remained his own man. Following the 1998 federal election, he butted heads with leader Kim Beazley over policy and resigned from the shadow cabinet, leaving a political enmity that continues to this day. Add to that some widely publicised comments referring to then Prime Minister John Howard as an “arselicker”, the Liberal Party front bench as “a conga line of suckholes”, and US President George W. Bush as incompetent and dangerous. To top it all off, there was an accusation by a taxi driver that Mark Latham had broken his arm in a dispute over a fare.

Since his departure from public office, Mark Latham has popped up periodically to create some news headlines and some major headaches for his former party. During the 2010 federal election campaign, he emerged from the press pack as a guest reporter for Channel 9’s Sixty Minutes program and confronted Julia Gillard over a complaint she had allegedly made about his current assignment. He went on to demonstrate the power of one by urging people to leave their ballots blank on election day, a move that may have contributed to a slightly higher than usual informal vote count, and a pivotal point in the outcome of the election.

Last week, Mr Latham stuck his head up again as the media picked up on an opinion piece he had written for The Spectator Australia. In the article, Mark Latham observed of Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s performance during the flood crisis: “She is not a naturally empathetic person - displaying, for instance, noticeable discomfort around infant children.” He was not the only person to remark upon her cold, distant, clinical interaction with flood victims, a demeanour that was magnified by the outpouring of compassion and emotion from Queensland Premier Anna Bligh.

Mr Latham went on to stick the boot into Ms Gillard by stating: “the femocrats will not like this statement, but I believe it to be true: anyone who chooses a life without children, as Gillard has, cannot have much love in them.” Current and former politicians from both sides of the political divide rightly condemned the remarks, with the office of the Prime Minister refusing to comment.

Like it or not, Mark Latham does raise an interesting aspect of Ms Gillard that has largely been ignored, that of her childlessness. In 2007, Senator Bill Heffernan was forced to apologise when he questioned Ms Gillard’s leadership credentials because she was “deliberately barren.” He said a politician needed to understand “family and the relationship between mums, dads and a bucket of nappies.” In 2010, following Tony Abbott’s “virginity is a gift” interview with the Australian Women’s Weekly, Senator George Brandis hit out at Ms Gillard’s understanding of parenting by saying: “I think that although Julia Gillard is a very clever politician, she is very much a one-dimensional person and I do think her reaction, her over-reaction to the, in my view, quite unexceptionable remarks Tony Abbott made as the father of daughters, is not something she would have said if she were herself the mother of teenage daughters.”

So, is Mark Latham right? Does Julia Gillard have no capacity to love because she has no children? Interestingly, it was Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce, who made the best defence case. He said, “It is absurd and cruel in the extreme to think that a person who doesn't have kids is a less deserving human being or has less of a capacity to love. I can assure you there are an abundance of people in this world without children - and for that matter with - who are caring and loving.” Think Mother Theresa. Think Florence Nightingale. Minister for Human Services, Tanya Plibersek added, “Julia Gillard is a fine leader and she demonstrates that every day, both as Prime Minister and when she was minister of education when she worked tirelessly for the benefit of millions of Australian children.”

The Prime Minister has been forthright throughout her political career about her decision to not have children. On the ABC’s Australian Story program in 2006, Ms Gillard recalled: “And so in my head when I was, when I thought about these things I guess I thought either-or. You're working at this intense high level or you're having kids.” She went on to say, “I've certainly watched some of my Labor colleagues in Parliament who have had children, and you just, you know you've got to be full of admiration. …You just look at that and say "I mean how does anybody ever make that add up" …but the pressure of that is obviously very, very acute …a lot of emotional pressure, a lot of juggling and it's very tough. So when you watch the women around you, there are a number who are just putting together looking after kids and having great Parliamentary careers. I'm in awe of it, but for me I don't think I could have done it like that. I can understand it all at an intellectual level and I do admire it but I think I just emotionally would have found that all very tough.”

Despite the reasons for her decision, Ms Gillard has been criticised as being selfish to seek the trappings of high office over having children. For some, it was felt that she was unelectable because she could not identify with the issues of working families. Her response was quite dignified, “No one person can encapsulate everyone's life experience. A man doesn't know what it's like to be a woman, a person with children doesn't know what it's like to be a person without children, a person from a wealthy background doesn't know what it's like to grow up on a housing estate.” She also pointed out that no-one seemed to question the leadership credentials of former US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, who is also unwed and childless.

Ultimately, our parliament is meant to be representative of the people. We need talented people from all walks of life and from all sorts of backgrounds to participate in our democracy. Julia Gillard has made the sacrifice of family to devote her energies completely to the causes that are important to her. She recognises the toll that public office takes on those MP’s with children and appears to understand the commitment that having children requires. There is plenty of issues that I don’t agree with the Prime Minister on, but I accept her decision in this instance. There are many children in our society who are neglected because their parents are pursuing their own interests. It is a responsible choice to not have children if one knows that you are unable to devote your resources to properly raising that child. Which brings us back to Mark Latham. When Mr Latham resigned as Opposition Leader and as MP for Werriwa, he cited a desire to devote himself to his family. One can’t help but draw the conclusion from his words that balancing the demands of being Labor leader with the demands of raising young children was too hard.

The Phantom Farters of Malawi

Some years ago during my education, a paragon of enlightenment in an attempt to have me contribute more to class discussion told me that there was no such thing as a bad idea, just a poorly executed one. In the moments afterward as the teacher let that enormity of wisdom sink into my skull, I processed the words of this oracle and had thoughts to myself of the byproducts of the gastrointestinal system of the male bovine animal. If ever I needed proof of both a bad idea and a poorly executed one, it was given to me this week by, of all people, the President of Malawi.

Forget about multiple cyclones bearing down on the Queensland coast, and put the uprising in Egypt out of your mind because the years’ most earth shattering news came out of Africa with Malawian President Bingu wa Mutharika declaring that farting would be made a crime. Naturally and most deservedly, he became the subject of ridicule all over the world. Like most people, I figured that if I was subject to a law like that, I would be on first name terms with the magistrate very rapidly.

It was not only internationally that the President was ridiculed. His own citizens questioned the workability of a law where the burden of proof would be so difficult to carry. After all, the evidence disperses after a short period and there is not always a sound to enable a finger to be pointed in the direction of. Often all that remains is a skidmark on the undies and the benefit of the doubt goes to the person who had an itch in that department.

Can you imagine the court system and the volume of cases this would generate? Mind you, each trial would be very short. The defense lawyer would address the judge by saying, "M'lud, my client is innocent of the charge. Bring his accuser before the court. It is a long standing legal principle that 'He who smelt it, dealt it'." The prosecution leaps to his feet and cries, "Objection! He who denied it supplied it, M’lud! I rest my case." The judge would then say “Guilty as charged! Fined the same amount as yesterday!” after which the defendant would say “Righto. Same time tomorrow?”

Seriously though. Is this effort by President Mutharika a case of too much sun or is he laying the foundation for something bigger, like a descent into despotism? Is this an attempt by the government of Malawi to exercise control over the individual on a very personal level and the beginning of things to come? Whilst despots and dictators are not an uncommon thing in Africa, Malawi appears to be in pretty good shape constitutionally after reforms in the 1990’s saw their self-declared “president for life” Dr Banda shown the door. Elections for the parliament and president are held regularly, with the current president emerging victorious with a solid majority. That said, there is a long memory on the part of millions of Malawians who lived under the oppressive Dr Banda and a great deal of suspicion about whether the current incumbent is setting himself to override the will of the people.

In announcing the Local Courts Bill, which contains the anti-farting law, it was said that the reason behind the statute was to "mould responsible and disciplined citizens". In and of itself, moulding responsible and disciplined citizens is a noble ideal that sets a course to build a strong society for future generations of Malawians. Like many African nations, Malawi has internal challenges including corruption, the HIV/AIDS epidemic, limited natural resources, and significant poverty (Malawi is the fourth poorest nation in the world). By attempting to address issues of personal conduct, some of the challenges that face Malawi such as corruption and HIV will be reduced and those resources diverted to the bigger problems of building the economy and national infrastructure.

The Local Courts Bill seeks to establish a local court system with powers to handle civil cases under the penal code and limited criminal cases including importation of prohibited publications, publication of false news, fighting in public, insulting the modesty of a woman, common nuisance, idle and disorderly persons, conduct likely to cause breach of peace, use of insulting language, common assault and, of course, farting in public. Whilst there is a lot of opposition to the bill due to concerns over government interference and impartiality, I cannot fault the apparent desire by the President to see a more moral society. The Ten Commandments similarly addressed the personal conduct of the Israelites and this underpinned the establishment of the nation of Israel. Such was its success, that it has been replicated many times throughout the world down through history. Maybe the President needed to start here as well.

It is obvious that President Mutharika needs to rethink some of the practical implications of his bill and address the concerns of the people on the street, especially those who had cabbage and beans for lunch. Banning farting is a bad idea and a poorly executed one. And while we might laugh and poke fun at the flag of Malawi in the context of this story as well as his rather dodgy proposal, perhaps we should not talk too loudly. This little gem can be found in Section 245 of the Queensland Criminal Code…

(1) A person who strikes, touches, or moves, or otherwise applies force of any kind to, the person of another, either directly or indirectly, without the other person's consent, or with the other person's consent if the consent is obtained by fraud, or who by any bodily act or gesture attempts or threatens to apply force of any kind to the person of another without the other person's consent, under such circumstances that the person making the attempt or threat has actually or apparently a present ability to effect the person's purpose, is said to assault that other person, and the act is called an assault.

(2) In this section-- applies force includes the case of applying heat, light, electrical force, gas, odour, or any other substance or thing whatever if applied in such a degree as to cause injury or personal discomfort.

Yep. Pulling one’s finger can land you in the clink in Queensland. In case those of you who know me well are thinking that this might slow me down a bit, think again. Getting locked up for farting might be just the touching human interest story that the chequebook journalists at A Current Affair and Today Tonight are looking for!

Would You Accept A Gift From This Woman?

For many people, the subject of charitable giving is a rather touchy one. We saw the ire of the general public squared at both Queensland Premier Anna Bligh and Prime Minister Julia Gillard when they announced their matching $1 million gifts to the Queensland Flood Appeal. Surely, this was a paltry sum compared to what was given for overseas disasters, such as the Boxing Day Tsunami. Doesn’t charity begin at home?

For charity organisations, they each scramble for a slice of the limited charity dollar, taking any opportunity they can to stick their hands out for their cause. I recall a television report a couple of years ago that told how Australians waste millions of dollars each year on food they don’t eat, clothes they don’t wear, books they don’t read, etc. The high profile CEO of a high profile charity indignantly remarked that if Australians couldn’t spend their money properly, then we should give it to his charity to ensure that it is spent properly. How to win friends and influence people…

Then there is the super wealthy who many people believe should share their vast fortunes with those less fortunate. Multi-millionaire Jamie McIntyre in the days when he wasn’t so well off researched the financial habits of the mega-rich and found that the vast majority donated a percentage of their income to charitable causes. Today, he teaches the Biblical principle of tithing as a fundamental of wealth creation.

Which brings me to Oprah. Oprah Winfrey is one of the wealthiest women on the planet, with a personal fortune of $US2.7 billion and earnings of $US315 million in 2010 alone. She is also very famous for her philanthropy. Between 1998 and 2007, she gave $US230 million to her Oprah Winfrey Foundation for distribution to over 170 projects throughout the world. She also established the Angel Network, a charity for Oprah’s viewers to partner with her in these many projects.

Oprah’s most famous acts of giving have come on her own program. In 2004, she gave away a car to all 286 members of her hand-picked audience in a gesture valued at $US7.8 million. Her annual “favourite things” episode is one of the most sought after tickets in the world because every member of the audience gets all ten products that Oprah lists on her top ten favourite items of the year. Recently, all 302 members of her studio audience received airline tickets to Australia for a recording of some shows down under. While here, Oprah gave away $1 million worth of computer gear to a needy school, $250,000 to a cancer sufferer and his family, 6000 pearl necklaces, and 6000 diamond pendants. For these acts of kindness and charity, Oprah is lauded and revered the world over.

So is there anything wrong with this picture? Let’s face it, Oprah is a woman with serious clout. One word from Oprah can take an author from struggle street to the top of the best sellers list overnight. A product endorsement from her means serious dollars for the manufacturer in question. Company chiefs know that giving Oprah an item for each member of the studio audience is a small seed that grows to a rich harvest in a short space of time. Oprah’s acclaim grows with each gift, the audience are thrilled, and the company chiefs count the cash. Everyone is happy.

Well, not always. The car giveaway in 2004 generated unprecedented publicity for the Oprah Winfrey Show, its host, and General Motors. Nothing like it had ever been seen before on US television. The hand-picked studio audience were all worthy recipients on the grounds of poverty, need, or good works done for others. The recipients wept with joy, the television audience rode the wave of emotion, the cash cow at General Motors mooed, and Oprah basked in the glory of it all. Lost in all the publicity was the $7,000 tax bill the US government imposed on the recipients that caused many of them to have to return the car because they didn’t have the means to pay. Oprah inexplicably refused to come to the party to pay the shortfall, as did General Motors. The stark reality of trash consumerism raised its ugly head, and nobody noticed as the adulation continued unabated.

So is Oprah the philanthropist she makes out to be? She publicly gives away stuff that doesn’t belong to her and reaps the benefit of an enhanced reputation through greater fame, higher ratings, and increased bargaining power. The companies who supply the goodies achieve prominent product placement, an Oprah endorsement, and a substantial boost to sales. The marketing and PR people on both sides do the rest, and the audience again is most satisfied. Purely a commercial transaction.

But it must be said in Oprah’s defense that she does not make the claim that she gives the products out of her own resource. The manufacturer is appropriately credited as supplying the goods, with Oprah acting as the conduit between the seller and the consumer, a connection that otherwise might not have been made. It is a classic win-win situation.

There is no doubt that Oprah Winfrey is a giver. She has gone to great lengths to document her charitable acts either as the primary giver or as the go-between. For some people, Oprah’s publicising her donations is distasteful in the extreme. This is curiously at odds with the desire of the community to see the mega-rich give more. However distasteful one may find Oprah’s public show of giving, one has to consider whether or not her ambassadorship for philanthropy inspires similar behaviour in others. The Bible tells us that the giver’s reward is in heaven if they give on the quiet, but have already received their reward if they make a show of it. As an ex-Baptist, Oprah doesn’t appear too concerned with heavenly rewards. Still, true religion is looking after widows and orphans, and Oprah can teach us all plenty on the subject.



Breaking The Unbreakable?

In a week dominated by wall to wall coverage of the flood crisis in Queensland, one could not help but feel for those who lost loved ones, homes, possessions, and livelihoods due to this epic natural disaster. It was, for me, a bit much seeing such widespread devastation on the television, then stepping outside my front door to see more of the same live in person. I had reached, for want of a better term, saturation point, and struggled to look for other news items not related to the flood crisis.

A most interesting but obscure report came from the West Australian’s Alana Buckley-Carr who reported the outcome of a case in the Family Court of Western Australia. Hers was the only account of this case that concluded late last year.  She raises an interesting question about the extent that the law can inject itself into our lives and circumstances.  The case is tragic in its circumstances on a number of levels and is not an impossible occurrence in our own or our friend’s families.

The case in question involved an elderly couple, pseudonymously named Charles and Beryl to protect their identities.  Charles, 86, and Beryl, 88,  were married for nearly 40 years and was a devoted couple. Both Charles and Beryl had children from previous marriages, and each parent in later life appointed their birth children to act as enduring powers of attorney. In December 2008, Beryl suffered a severe and incapacitating stroke requiring admission to a care facility for ongoing care and rehabilitation. Charles would visit his wife in this facility three times a week and he was satisfied that Beryl’s Department of Veterans Affairs pension was covering her accommodation and care expenses. Beryl’s daughters, her enduring powers of attorney, believed that their mother’s level of care and privacy could be higher and sought $300,000 from Charles to pay for the bond for admittance to a higher standard care facility. The money, they claimed, could be sourced by the sale of the $1.3 million matrimonial home, which was purchased by Charles in 1962, prior to the marriage. Charles, however, still lived there and did not wish to move.  The resulting impasse between their respective powers of attorney resulted in the matter being heard in the Family Court of Western Australia. The court ruled that Charles and Beryl be legally separated and that Charles pay Beryl $600,000.

On the surface, this verdict appears to be an incredible injustice where a loving couple that had no intention of separating has had their relationship status decreed by the court to be that of separated. It appears to endorse what many would claim is a cash grab on the part of some relatives who are seeking to sure up their inheritance.  Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that greed causes much division in families where estates are concerned. Sadly, some dissension starts before the testator leaves the earth. Whatever the motives are behind this case, nobody can dispute that it is very sad and not the way that either Charles or Beryl would have envisioned occurring.

Even for a black and white fundamentalist that some would say I am, this is a Biblically complex case. The presiding magistrate, Susan Duncanson, was always going to be on the prickly side of this pineapple no matter how she ruled. Let’s face it, the Family Court doesn’t have a job that wins it a lot of friends. After reading the formal judgement, I commend her on her attempt to rule with both compassion and consideration for all parties.

At the centre of the case was the question of whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to intervene in the financial arrangements of Charles and Beryl.  The Family Law Act 1975 is an extensive document that empowers the court to do just that. Clearly, at some point mediation was required to break the stalemate that had occurred between the parties and their powers of attorney.  The Public Advocate of Western Australia states that enduring powers of attorney must in the case of conflict with other stakeholders ensure“that all efforts be made to resolve the issues in the best interests of the donor and with as little disruption as possible to his or her lifestyle.” When one party is seeking the sale of the matrimonial home to free up funds to pay for health care and accommodation and the other is seeking to prevent the health costs that comes with involuntarily selling and moving from half a century of memories, each fulfilling their requirements as a power of attorney, there is very little option but to petition the court for a ruling.

From a Biblical viewpoint, there are some who would say that one shouldn’t go to court if at all possible. However, appointing an arbitrator is not an unbiblical thing.  Moses sat in judgement of the cases that people brought to him to settle their disputes, as did David. Solomon was also a dab hand as a child custody ombudsman. It is of course preferred that the mediator be a godly person, but that is not always possible.

Then there is the bits about honouring fathers and mothers, bearing the infirmities of the weak, and doing justice to the afflicted and needy that also create a stalemate in their fulfillment by the respective parties.

As for the big question, can the court legally separate two people who had no intention to part and who are still in regular contact? We need to remember that laws come from two sources, from God to man and from man to man. God’s standard is for enduring covenant relationship and a hatred of divorce. Let the Biblically literate shout “What God has joined together let no man put asunder!” But… we are not talking about divorce. We are talking about separation, and in the context of a law made by man to man.  The covenant relationship is still intact. God joined them together in holy matrimony, and before God they have not been severed. Functioning as a married couple has become extremely difficult due to the health care requirements of Beryl, but legally they are still hitched.

It is this point, however, that the court drew upon to legally separate Charles and Beryl. The Full Court of the Family Court in 1976 defined separation in part as “one or other of the spouses form the intention to sever or not to resume the marital relationship and act on that intention, or alternatively act as if the marital relationship has been severed.” Whilst they did not agree to separate, health reasons have caused Charles and Beryl to live in separate places, live separate lives for four days out of seven, and to interact differently on a number of levels than they did previously.  In a way, Beryl’s stroke has severed the marital relationship although the covenant remains. All that remained was for the court to arrive at an appropriate decision regarding the financial value of martimonial assets and intangible contributions to arrive at a settlement figure.

Once again, this was a sad and tragic case that some, including myself in the beginning, have speculated wrongly on. In reading the judgement, I was able to see some of the legal framework that supported the decision. I could see that the magistrate had a colossal task in cutting through the fat to get to the meat of the case. Digging below the surface revealed a different picture than that which appeared at the outset.  For me there only remains one unanswered question… how does an aged care facility justify a $300,000 bond? I’ll try to answer that another day…

Not So Straight Shooting

Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

It goes without saying that the Arizona shooting was a shocking tragedy. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head at point blank range by a lone gunman intent on causing as much harm as possible. Six people died and 14 were injured before the heroic efforts of ordinary citizens brought the carnage to a halt. Jared Loughnane was arrested and charged with numerous US federal and state crimes including murder and manslaughter. Justice will no doubt follow its due process with hopefully an appropriate outcome at its conclusion. Meanwhile, we will pray for the speedy recovery of all who survived this shocking outrage.

Now I am not a journalist, nor am I a trained wordsmith in any way. At best, I can be described as a two bit blogger whose influence is really rather limited in the grand scheme of things. What I am, though, is a news consumer. I read news and analysis online and in print, I watch television news from here and abroad, and I listen to the odd radio newscast as well. As one who readily consumes news, I think I am a more than reasonable judge of the quality of reporting, both excellent and not so excellent. Sadly, I feel the Arizona shooting reporting left a lot to be desired.

Thinking back as far as primary school, I can recall my teacher telling the class that writing a composition is a matter of telling the reader the answer to a number of basic questions – who, what, when, where, how, and why. For the journalist, this should be second nature. Ask the questions, dig a little deeper, ask them again, and get to the heart of the story recording and reporting only the facts. Where there is no answer forthcoming at the time, report that lack of information and keep asking the questions until there is an answer. Instead, what we got from many sources was a mixture of fact and speculation with intent to blame.

The Arizona shooting story should have been factual and apolitical, but some journalists took it upon themselves to point the finger of blame at… Sarah Palin. How on earth did they draw that conclusion? By not asking the basic questions, using presumption to build a framework for a questionable conclusion, then working backwards to fill in the gaps with or without evidence to support. Just like this – a crazed shooter who guns down a Democrat congresswoman at a civic rally must logically be ideologically and politically opposed the victim, therefore can only be a radical conservative. All the radical conservatives are collected together under the banner of the Tea Party movement, which happens to have Sarah Palin as a figurehead. Conveniently, it had been noted that Sarah Palin had used crosshairs on an electoral map to target particular seats that were winnable in the 2010 mid term elections. Lo and behold, the state of Arizona was lined up in the scope in what these journalists would have you believe is an incitement to violence, evidenced by one of Palin’s followers accomplishing the mission. All of this reported as fact with only the electoral map as concrete evidence. Nauseating stuff…

I was appalled at the narrow mindedness of these journalists. There were other far more plausible possibilities that absolutely nobody discussed. Nobody speculated that the Jewish congresswoman could have been shot by a supremacist. Nobody asserted that this crime could have been a copycat of the assassination of Salman Taseer, the governor of Pakistan’s Punjab province days before. Even the basic random slaying by a nutcase was barely touched upon. Instead, it fell to Sarah Palin.

Meanwhile, responsible journalists were doing the right thing in determining the facts about not only the event itself, but the accused gunman Jared Loughnane. They trawled his various websites and spoke to those who knew him to build a picture of who this young man was and what his motivations may have been. The picture that emerged was that of a mentally unstable and irrational person who had some significant political obsessions and more than a little angst. Nothing could be found of any link with Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement, his online writings revealed that his political leanings were not aligned with conservative views, and he had had limited association with Congresswoman Giffords in the past. All of these facts were not enough to slow the “Blame Palin” juggernaut that was reported all over the world.

Those journalists accusing Palin are saying that the crosshair target motif (above) used by Sarah Palin was irresponsible and it would be fair to say that it was unwise. Others are saying that the vitriol and minacity of certain groups (read conservatives) is raising the stakes to bring violence to the fore in politics. Those voices are indeed loud but I question their partisanship on the issue. It seems that only conservatives are accused of this sort of conduct. While censuring fingers point at Sarah Palin and her electoral map, memories are conveniently erased concerning the Democratic Party’s bullseye electoral map (below), targeting the states that Senator John Kerry had to win to take the White House in 2004. Nobody declared that map to be irresponsible. In the same way, nobody accused President Obama of inciting violence when he said that Democrats would bring a gun to the fight with Republicans.

As for Sarah Palin, she has been hung as an effigy, threatened with gang rape, and had her children held up as objects of scorn and derision, yet her protests were brushed off as freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The same journalists making such a fuss now failed to give attention to this very issue when it was at its most virulent during the 2008 Presidential campaign. The meticulous detail of reporting one side of politics with an unhealthy cynicism versus a softly, softly approach to reporting the other leaves the casual news consumer with the impression that all the ratbags are only on one side. The reality is that there are ratbags on both sides of politics, and some of them work in the media.

How Do You Socialise Your Children?

It logically follows that as one’s children approach school age, people begin to ask questions about your choice of school. Our oldest, Eddie, is entering his prep year and as such, the questions have been coming with increased frequency. I always find their reaction to our response rather uncomfortable. For some reason, our decision to homeschool puts us on dubious ground in their eyes.

The first reaction is always about “socialisation” and the concern that our children will be unable to cope with life in modern society because of our “cutting them off” from the outside world. “They need to interact with kids their own age in order to be socialised.” Collins English Dictionary defines socialisation as: 1. the modification from infancy of an individual's behaviour to conform with the demands of social life; and 2. the act of socialising or the state of being socialised. The first definition is interesting in that it implies a guiding hand from an older person from the outset. The school system is the only place where a child exclusively interacts with peers their own age. Higher education and the workplace have a mix of ages of the participants from same age and younger to significantly older. Are we to believe that children interacting only with others of their own age and maturity level prepares them fully to deal with the range of ages of people in the outside world? Socialisation is not age level dependent. The best way for a child to learn to talk to adults is for the child to interact with adults. The best way for a child to learn to interact with other children is to put them in that setting with other children, older, younger, and same age. It’s the act of socialising not pigeon-holing that is the key.

Research is now beginning to comprehensively disprove the myth that homeschooled kids are not adequately socialised. Although the body of research is to date small, the early results are giving substantial support to that which so many homeschooling parents already know is true but could only argue anecdotally. The Canadian study entitled “Fifteen Years Later: Home Educated Canadian Adults” (van Pelt, Allison, & Allison: 2009) followed up home-schooled students whose parents participated in a comprehensive study on home education in 1994. The study compared home-schoolers who are now adults with their peers. The study found:

• Young adults who had been home educated had a higher academic education than similarly aged Canadians, particularly with respect to post-secondary education, where greater proportions of home education graduates had attained Bachelors’ and graduate degrees.
• Home-educated adults were more likely to be engaged in health sector or social support occupations, such as education or religion, and more likely to be occupied in trades or performing arts than were the general population. They were less likely to be engaged in sales, or in processing and manufacturing.
• The majority (74%) reported attending religious services at least once a week, compared with 13% of the population. Religious observance in the home was even more frequent with 84% participating in religious activities at home at least once a week.
• The majority of respondents (69%) participated in organised activities at least once a week, compared with 48% of the comparable population. Home education graduates were most frequently (82%) involved in religiously-related groups, compared with only 13% of young Canadian adults in general. They were also more active in sports-related groups (48% compared with 36%). They were more active in cultural groups, educational groups, and political parties, but somewhat less active in unions or professional associations. They were also twice as likely to have voted in a federal election, and much more likely to have voted in a provincial election.
• Income for the past year ranged from nothing to $160,000, with a median of $20,000 and a mean of $27,534. In comparison, 15- to 34-year-olds in the general population reported a median income of $18,335 and a mean of $22,117.
• The home-educated adults were more likely to be married than was the comparable population of the same age. They were less likely to have children early, but tended to have larger than average families when they did have children.

The Canadian Survey of Giving, Volunteering, and Participating 2004 also reveals that their small sample of young adults surveyed showed that those who were home educated volunteer at significantly higher rates (82% vs 54%) than those educated in public school. 46% of these were in leadership positions.

Clearly, homeschooled children are turning out to be well balanced individuals who are making a significant contribution to society across a broad field of endeavour. To me it makes perfect sense that this would happen. Proverbs 22:6 tells us to “train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.” It is the role of the parent to socialise the child, not the role of same aged peers or teachers. Humans are the only creatures who turn their offspring over to others to prepare them for life in the wild. By controlling and mixing their interaction with others, a parent sets the child up for life.

The decision we have made to homeschool was not arrived at lightly. We have challenges to overcome for sure, but we made our decision with the best interests of our children at the forefront. There are factors at play that are unique to our circumstances so I am not being as arrogant to say that our way is the only way. If you think public school is the way to go for you, then I am not going to try to talk you out of it. I would hope that you would extend to us homeschooling types the same courtesy.