Bmag 21st August 2012 - Childhood mementos

I have just taken possession of an envelope full of my very own ginger baby curls from 1974. I’m not entirely sure what to do with them – reaction from friends ranged from “ewww” and “spooky” to “that’s disgusting and sweet at the same time” – but I am thankful to my Aunty Margaret for keeping them all these years. (Hey, I know someone who’s kept every toe nail he’s clipped and someone else who has both of his sons’ foreskins to present to them at their 21st birthday parties. Now that’s disgusting!)

Back to the suddenly-far-more-savoury envelope of 40-year-old Spencer hair. This, combined with moving back into our home post-renovations, has seen me contemplating the treasures we keep, and those we throw out or misplace, especially from childhood. I have shoe-boxes full of theme park and special event (think Commonwealth Games, Expo 88) souvenirs, medals, report cards, love letters, vinyl records, books, model trains and other toys dating back to the ’70s and ’80s. Even my high school blazer!

But you can’t hold on to everything forever. And eventually, if you don’t do it yourself, your own children will have to deal with these trinkets. That’s why Claudette Prince recently put her Sydney 2000 Olympic Games torch on the market. Claudette told me: “No-one in the family knows I’m doing it. They’d tell me not to. I’ve got a fairly large family and when I leave this mortal coil they’re going to be saying ‘what are we going to do with all this stuff of Mum’s? Do you want this?’ It doesn’t mean anything to anyone else.”

So what do you keep and what do you cull? You’ve heard the expression: “What you haven’t used for 18 months, you don’t need.” Well here’s a new one for you, one of the dads at Jack’s school offered me the following advice for not cluttering the house: “When we moved, we only brought half the things back into the house.” Wow! Half?! There’s a challenge! So I’ve taken this on as my new philosophy. But how do you know what to keep? I asked on Twitter – what do you treasure most from your childhood?

Stuffed toys featured prominently in the replies. I still have Pussy, a well-loved cat given to me by my Great Aunty Minnie the day I was born. I used to “smoke” Pussy, which involved breathing through her ears. Did I just reveal that publicly?! Yes I think I did… For @KimmerLions, it’s her plush purple poodle which she’s had for about 50 years; @Polikat2 still has Big Ted; @Monkylicious treasures “a teddy bear and blankie I’ve had since I was one”; and @TheJenHansen holds on to Puppy: “He was my stuffed dog I slept with. He’s a bit bald. When I was two, I pulled his fur off while sleeping.”

Meanwhile @BrizzieBlog still has the first story she wrote when she was just five, @Kin_ has her dance costumes – “my children get such joy from them” – and @Simonwf is holding onto a one-piece baby jumpsuit that he wore, his son wore, “and I’m saving for his child if it lasts that long!”

Of course, we don’t all have the luxury of deciding what to keep. For some, it’s already too late or the decision’s been made for us. For example, @Dellvink says she “was devastated my mum threw out a stuffed sock with eyes called Oogly. I still wish I had him.” And therein lies a lesson for anyone thinking of clearing out their children’s things – check with them first! But @Dellvink may yet be reunited with her Oogly; @Psephy regretted discarding a toy guitar but in a remarkable twist “recovered it some 30 years later at an antique sale!”

Have we learned anything from all this talk of long-loved toys and teddy bears? I think I have. Among all the replies to my Twitter question about what we still treasure from childhood was this one from the – how shall I describe him? – shiny-topped @Debritz: “Sadly not my hair!”

And as I read those four words, I know why this envelope-full of 1970s Howson locks has found its way back to me. One day soon, I may need them again on my head! I am definitely not throwing them away!

Bmag August 7th 2012 - Holiday in our street

One of the little luxuries Nikki and I (and our 12-year-old son Jack) enjoy is treating ourselves to a weekend in the city, being a tourist in our own town. We do this about three times a year, always in a different hotel and always eating at different cafés and restaurants. If pressed for my favourite location, I’d have to say I am partial to a view of the city from South Bank but, wherever we stay, I just love the extravagance and slight ludicrousness of being half-an-hour from home yet mentally a million miles away!

Well, now the Howsons have taken the ‘tourist in our own town’ concept to a new extreme! We’re currently spending two weeks staying in our own street in Indooroopilly – literally 200 metres from home – and paying $950 a week for the privilege! Let me explain. Every day for the past three years, I’ve driven past this gated community of serviced apartments with a sign on the gate spruiking “weekly relocation accommodation”. Being a curious chap, I’ve often wondered who would stay here in the ’burbs, rather than in town. I imagined folk who had just moved to Brisbane, but beyond that I was stuck.

And so, when we came to having some renovations done at home, and with the builder suggesting he could work faster without us being there, I knew exactly where I wanted to bring the family for a couple of weeks! It would be close to home in case the builder had questions for me, but mainly I would get to find out who has a holiday in Indooroopilly! Yes, the managers told me on day one, folk moving to Brisbane rent here until they’re familiar with the city. Often they book in for three months to give themselves time to have a good look around. So who else?

Well, the families of several overseas students have arrived while we’ve been staying. I guess that makes sense when you consider the university is just a stone’s throw away. But what’s completely surprised me is the number of other families here from Indooroopilly and neighbouring Chapel Hill, all doing exactly the same as us – yes, they too are reno refugees! Looks like the people who built this complex knew exactly what they were doing. There certainly is a market for accommodation in the ’burbs!

And you know what? Whilst we don’t have a view of the CBD and we’ve still had to go to school or work each day, it truly has felt like we’ve been on holiday. Luxurious long deep baths (knowing you’ve already paid for the water), no chores other than cooking and washing, beds and towels are changed every few days and unlimited, free use of the pool and gym – it almost makes me want to come back here sometime!

Only one thing has caused us distress, a moral dilemma on the first night. Our internet devices all picked up unsecured wi-fi, presumably from a nearby house. Knowing we were going to be here for a couple of weeks, it was tempting to leech away. But was it safe and was it right? I turned to my Twitter followers for advice and here are some of the responses...

@mjcj1971 said: “Just do it”. @Karawr agreed: “If there’s no password, go for it!” @Fionawb went further, egging me on: “Do it. Do it. Do it. (Consider me a little devil on your shoulder)”. @Australianne responded with: “Wrong. You could take someone over their data allowance and it’s very expensive after that. It’s stealing.” @Amy_Remeikis suggested it was probably unlocked deliberately: “If you haven’t locked your wi-fi in 2012, you are okay with people using it”. @Ricky_Elias has an open-door policy at his place: “I have an unlocked wi-fi with ‘guest’ in the name and don’t mind our neighbours using it”. What would you have done?

In the end, this comment from @EvanontheGC decided it: “It’s always fun to see what files I can find on other computers on an unsecured network”. Click [disconnect wi-fi]. With that moral burden lifted and with only a few days left in our suburban holiday home, I shall channel the Golgafrincham Ark-B Captain from The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and declare: “Just time for another bath!”

Bmag July 24th 2012 - Marriage feedback

Last issue, I suggested a possible compromise and way forward on the stalemate that is same-sex marriage, namely having two different types of marriage – a church marriage and civil marriage. The latter would allow for same-sex couples to be married and to use the word “married”, which I argue is not owned by the church. I’m enjoying reading all your emails and tweets on the subject, which continue to fill my inbox. I’ve decided to devote this issue’s column to a cross-section of responses.

Pose Tafa writes: “I agree we need two types of marriage. The church does not have sole rights to marriage.” Florence Day says: “What a sane, practical and non-confrontational concept. The only downside is – when have we ever managed to convince our government to do anything sane or practical?” And from Kerry Read: “At last! Someone else shares my view on the marriage debate. The dual marriage idea sounds like a good compromise although I would call it a faith marriage to encompass all faiths and denominations. Let each religion determine their requirements for a faith marriage.” Chris Hassall agrees: “Up there for thinking, you! All couples should be able to say ‘we’re getting married’”. Harriett Russ says it’s “a great and fair idea”, Kathryn Britt, Laurence Barber and Natalie Bochenski all use the word “sensible”, Dale Napier says “this is the best outcome”, Carmen Anderson “would vote for this option” and Sal Piracha applauds “someone looking for a solution, not just hating the problem”. Kathy Schirmer says “I congratulate you for your suggestion to have church marriage and civil marriage. Seems so logical and I hope the community supports this too.” Matthew Orbit likes it but fears “further dividing Christian homosexuals from the church when there is a support/family there” and says “the zealots on both sides won’t go for it”.

That’s the trouble with compromise. No-one gets everything they want. Everyone has to give a little. But there are bmag readers not willing to budge, like Nathan Thomas who argues that “the church fights all kinds of social change – the right to vote for women, for example. They just need to adapt and learn to accept gay people as equal citizens”. Also not willing to compromise is Rob Roy: “If you accept same-sex unions as ‘marriage’, I assume you accept the manifesto that marriage can be defined as polygamy, polyandry and even bestiality as long as the animal is not harmed. The proposed brave new world interfering with the basis of our society is far from brave. Indeed it is very foolish and shortsighted.” Bill McCormack goes further, cautioning: “Unbelievers have their worldly opinion and that is OK but one day you will have to take account. Once you have been warned you have no excuse. At the day of judgement you won’t be able to call on theory, logic, mates’ views, etc. You are on your own.” Allan Templeton tells me his “ideal solution” bears similarities to my own and that “many of my Christian friends disagree with me, thinking I am a bit too liberal”. The only trouble is, Bill then goes on to argue that while he supports same-sex “civil unions”, only church marriages can truly be “marriages” because “the oldest recorded mention of ‘marriage’ is in the book of Genesis where it reports that marriage was instituted by God”. And there you have the church’s claim on the word “marriage” yet again. Echoing my words in the last issue of bmag, Maria Frangos writes: “The church should not force its beliefs on people who are not members.” That said, many will agree with Heath Goddard when he says: “I do not like the aggression that I observe in the stridency of the gay community in foisting their preferences on the majority.”

Mel Kettle points out that “in France, only the civil marriage ceremony is legal. Any religious ceremony must be after the civil and is not legally recognised”. So there is a precedent. I’ll leave the final word to Paul Rigby, who writes: “I suspect that in 50 years, people will look back at this debate and wonder what the fuss was all about.” Wouldn’t we all love to travel into the future to find out?!

Bmag July 10th 2012 - Definition of marriage

What I don’t understand about the gay marriage debate is the claim the church has on the concept of marriage.

When Nikki and I were planning our 1996 wedding, there appeared to be two clear choices – a religion-free declaration of love and commitment before a celebrant, or a wedding under God in a place of worship. We opted for the former and were married at Mt Coot-tha Lookout, witnessed by friends and family and, to add to the atmosphere and our memories, a dozen or so happy-snapping tourists!

I’ve never considered that our marriage has anything to do with God. It’s a contract between Nikki, me and the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Yet, those in the church who are arguing against same-sex marriage insist that marriage is and must remain between a man and a woman because the Bible says so. In other words, whether you choose a church wedding or not, you are still agreeing to religious terms and conditions.

This fundamental point has been going round and round in my head for months, driving me to come up with a new way forward on the issue of same-sex marriage. My first idea was to get rid of marriage completely. We would just have civil partnerships or registered relationships, whatever you want to call them. No religion, no arguments. Man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, everyone could enter a legal partnership with whomever they loved. We would no longer have to agree or disagree with the church-argued concept of ‘the devaluing of marriage’ because there would be no more ‘marriage’.

However, I can see how it wouldn’t exactly be a compromise. If the church feels such a strong connection to marriage, it’s not something that can be just taken away from it. So here’s what I’ve come up with. We need two different types of marriage, to be known as a Church Marriage and a Civil Marriage. A Church Marriage would remain between a man and a woman – unless religious leaders one day decided otherwise. A Civil Marriage would include same-sex couples.

If we’d had the option back in 1996, Nikki and I would have chosen a Civil Marriage. Simple as that. The wedding would still have taken place atop Mt Coot-tha, the tourists would still have snapped photographs of our happy day, and we would still have been happily married for 16 years and counting. Admittedly, there is a non-religious option available to couples, both gay and straight. And I hear that scores of heterosexual couples have indeed entered these civil partnerships (recently renamed registered relationships) since their introduction this year. But I think most couples would still rather be ‘married’ and I don’t see how the church can continue to claim exclusive ownership of that seven-letter word.

Of course, this would still leave out gay couples hoping for a church-sanctioned marriage. But you have to concede that membership of a club – and that’s what church is – means adhering to the rules of that club. And, for now at least, church leaders seem quite happy with the ‘marriage is between a man and a woman’ rule. What do you think of my idea of having Church Marriage and Civil Marriage? What other way forward can you see? I’ll include some of your suggestions in my next column in a fortnight.

As a nation, we have to find the answer because the question isn’t going away. The ABC’s Head of Religion and Ethics, Scott Stephens, recently told my 612 ABC Brisbane Breakfast audience: “Increasingly you’re hearing political leaders being addressed quite forthrightly with ‘Where do you stand on gay marriage?’. For many people this is a political and even moral litmus test.” Even businesses are being forced to take sides, as we saw with the boycott of Gloria Jeans over its links to the Hillsong Church and the Australian Christian Lobby.

Says Scott Stephens: “Because of the feverishness of the debate, because there’s so much moral and political investment in it, it does mean there’s going to be collateral damage and anybody who’s associated with whichever is regarded as being the wrong side of the debate can get so easily caught up within it.” Email me your comments about the marriage debate at the address below.

Bmag June 19th 2012 - Shortest day

It’s not going to make you any warmer knowing this, but we are about to head back towards summer! The Winter Solstice – where the midday sun appears directly above the Tropic of Cancer – occurs at 9.09am AEST on Thursday 21 June, making that our shortest day. After 21 June, you can start looking forward to your beach holiday at Noosa, Christmas prawns, backyard cricket and what you’re doing for New Year’s Eve! Okay, enough with the summery daydreaming. Let’s get back to mid-winter.

Allow me to point out some fascinating curiosities surrounding the solstice. For instance, you would expect sunset to be getting later from this week. In fact, our earliest sunset, 5pm, has already come and gone (from 6 to12 June). At the other end of the day, sunrise continues to get later until it reaches 6.39am between 27 June and 6 July. A commonly asked question at this time of year is “why don’t our latest sunrise and earliest sunset coincide with our shortest day?”

Rebecca Jenkins, a writer with the ABC’s Health and Wellbeing website, explains: “This phenomenon is created by a combination of the Earth’s oval-shaped orbit and its tilt of 23.5 degrees. The Earth orbits the sun in an elliptical pattern, running faster when it is closest to the sun [during the winter and summer solstices]. This quirk means that the length of a solar day — the time between two solar noons (when the sun is at the highest point in the sky) — is not always the 24 hours we measure on a clock.

“At the same time, the Earth’s axial tilt means we are getting a few seconds less daylight every day in the lead up to solstice, but this has a small effect on the sunset and sunrise times compared with the much larger difference between solar time and clock time. It is this effect that leads to the staggering of the latest sunrise, the solstice and the earliest sunset.”

Another question that always arises at this time of year is “why is 1 June considered the beginning of winter when Britons, for example, have always used the winter solstice?” Well, it seems Australia has led the way here, with the UK’s Met Office moving to align its seasons with calendar months. So now the UK winter officially starts on 1 December, spring on 1 March and so on. You can imagine the uproar! Labour MP for Middlesborough Stuart Bell told BBC News at the time: “Spring starts on 20/21 March and if the Met Office is not aware of this simple fact, it reflects a casual approach to facts, which is all too inherent today!”

As for our Bureau of Meteorology, I have only two relatively minor gripes. And no, I’m not talking about its actual forecasts, which I find impressively accurate.

Firstly, it’s time the Bureau launched itself on social media so that forecasts and warnings can be delivered to you. I’m encouraged by an online survey by the Bureau, in which respondents are repeatedly asked (in subtly different ways) whether they would like to receive their weather information via social media. Here in Brisbane, a couple of individual forecasters, namely Rick Threlfall (@ RickThrelfall) and Tony Auden (@TonyAuden) have started the ball rolling via their personal Twitter accounts. It can’t be too long before we see an official Bureau presence.

My only other quibble is how the Bureau determines whether the current temperature is above or below average. I would have thought it logical to compare the temperature with the long-term average for that time of day and for that date. Instead, the Bureau uses the average for that time of day over the entire month. This means 16 degrees at 9am on 31 May is described as “2 below average” (the 9am average for May being 18 degrees), whilst the same temperature at the same time the very next day is “1 above average” (the 9am average for June being 15 degrees). Obviously the 9am temperature is lower at the end of May than at the beginning, and continues to slide during June. Therefore, at the beginning and end of each month, statements like “we’re experiencing above/below average temperatures” can be useless and misleading.

Again, minor quibbles, and none of this is going to keep you warm tonight. For that, I suggest wearing slippers around the house and taking a hot water bottle to bed!

Bmag June 5th 2012 - Swap-It!

Until recently, I hadn’t seen a doctor in about 15 years. I know you’re meant to develop a ‘relationship’ with your GP so that you’re comfortable baring all when health issues do inevitably arise, but (as is typical for blokes) it just hasn’t happened. The other things I’ve never concentrated too hard on are eating healthily and exercising. Heck, one of my first jobs was mystery-shopping and taste-testing for McDonalds. What hope was there for me? My addiction to fast food started there and then!

But, not so long ago, three influential women in my life (independently of each other) hit me over the head with the same message. My wife Nikki started making comments about my “unsexy” belly (ouch!). My radio producer Anne Debert said: “One day you will realise you need to start exercising.” And, finally, my mum gave me the clear and simple instruction: “Now that you’re 40, go to the doctor for a check-up!”

All of this coincided with 612 ABC Brisbane and Diabetes Queensland putting me, my fellow ABC radio presenters and 60 listeners on a 12-week Swap It, Don’t Stop It program. The timing couldn’t have been better.

So I went to the doctor. Relationship established – tick! But Nikki was right – I do need to lose some weight. The doctor wants me to get from 95kg to 85kg over two years. And so began Swap-It, Don’t Stop It.

Olympic gold medallist Duncan Armstrong is our chief motivator. Duncan recalls getting out of the pool at 25 and putting on 2kg a week for eight months: “My race-weight was about 82kg and I hit 123kg within eight months! People would look at me and say `I think that guy ate Duncan Armstrong and he hasn’t finished!’ I was that weight for about four or five years and it took me another two or three years to get it off.

“[The trouble is] our food is too good. Our lifestyle is too good. And so we partake in both. We need to change and tweak and swap one little thing at a time that will lead to big changes down the track.”

612 ABC Brisbane afternoon presenter Kelly Higgins-Devine says she’s been trying to reduce her waistline since 1983. From experience, she’s learned: “One step at a time. You’re not going to lose 30kg in a day, so don’t even think about it. It’ll be day by day by day and some days you’ll lie in bed and think `I’m not doing it today. I’m having a croissant.’ Have that croissant. But then get up the next day and go back, because we all fall over at some point.”

We’re now six weeks into the 12-week challenge and guess what? It’s working! My waist is down from 107cm to 99cm and I’ve lost 5kg. Doc, that 85kg is looking good! Here are some ideas to get you started on your own Swap It program.

Diabetes Queensland has a staff policy that if you can walk to your meeting within half an hour, you don’t get a cab voucher. Says CEO Michelle Trute: “All my staff have their sandshoes under their desks!” And Michelle has this advice for dog owners: “If you’re staring at your puppy and he’s looking a bit chunky, it might be better than a mirror! I know that when my labrador is looking heavy, so am I! Swap feed for lead. If your dog wants to be fed, get it on the lead and make it walk first!”

Here are some more swaps for you to consider: • Hang washing on the line ins tead of using the drier • Have rice-crackers instead of potato chips • Have soda water instead of s oft drink • Choose brown rice instead of white • Use a w ooden spoon, rather than an electric beater • Pace, don’t sit, whilst making a phone c all • Instead of emailing someone in the nex t office, go and see them.

Will I keep it up once the 12-week program is over? Perhaps I won’t be so obsessive (inevitable when you’re doing something so publicly and the pressure is on to show results), but there’s no doubt I’ve made changes that will stick. After six weeks, I don’t crave fast food. I’m barely eating chocolate. I’m walking much more. I’m eating much less. And I am seeing results. You should try it!

Bmag May 8th 2012 - Why so nasty?

When did we all become so nasty? I’ve repeatedly expressed my enthusiasm for social media, especially Twitter. But in the last couple of weeks, it’s really bugged me. I know how to handle criticism. I wouldn’t have survived two decades on radio without learning how to listen to those who I respect and ignore those who are just baiting for a reaction. But last week, someone made it through the armour. Why? Because Ben Limmer (real name? Who knows? Who can tell on Twitter?) wasn’t attacking me. He was cutting down the hopes and dreams of an 11-year-old girl. Here’s what happened.

Saturday night at 9.52pm, I tweeted: “Lemonade stall, you’ve been replaced! Eleven-year-old girl has dropped home-made pizza menu in our letterbox! Have ordered for next weekend! :)”And Ben’s reaction (I’ve fixed his spelling):“Hope she has a BCC (Brisbane City Council) food licence”.I replied: “Hope you have tongue in cheek”.He continued: “No, if you are paying money for her food it would be illegal.”I told him that I had no doubt how the court of public opinion would find this girl’s business get-up-and-go, to which he responded: “If your whole street got food poisoning where would public opinion be then?”

At this point, other Twitter users or tweeps added their two cents worth. There was Lyndon, who showed support by asking: “Does she offer a blue cheese and pear pizza?” (For the record, she’s kicking off with Supreme, Hawaiian and Vegetarian). Nathan, who co-owns a café, suggested there was a higher risk at “most Saturday barbecues”.Zsa Zsa described the girl’s pizza business as “wonderful” and Elizabeth simply tweeted“Awww…”Glenny chimed in from Melbourne with: “It’s just a young girl making a little pocket money. Good luck to her. People just read too much into a girl getting off her butt to make a few bob”.

So yes, there were those who jumped to defend my neighbour, but it was Ben Limmer who scored a victory by getting to me. On the Monday, I asked my radio listeners why we’re so quick to judge nowadays. Stan said: “The girl was just getting off her posterior and doing something for herself. She deserves praise not negative comment. But I am afraid I fall into that category from time to time. I blame it on the pressures of living.”From Deb: “I don’t know why but crankiness seems to kick in a lot earlier. It used to be the domain of the older people but the young’uns seem to get really cranky these days. Maybe it’s impatience?”Christina offered: “It’s stress, trying to keep a husband and five kids happy, juggle the little money we have and all for very little thanks. Some days it’s not too easy to pull out a smile, a laugh or even a smirk.”Paul’s response was simple: “There are too many people!”Linda took aim squarely at Twitter: “It’s a platform for uninformed and uneducated morons to vent about anything and everything without thinking about the impact their sometimes poisonous words have on innocent individuals”.

And finally, Patty suggested it’s because we can, now that social media has given everyone a voice. There’s something in all of the above but I think Patty’s nailed it. Social media sites don’t have a gatekeeper. Where newspapers have always been able to select which letters they publish, and radio producers have enjoyed similar control over which talkback callers get to air, Twitter, Facebook and the internet in general have given everyone the ability to publish whatever they like.

This whole experience has really affected me and I’m going to do what I can to change the tone. I’m as guilty as the next person when it comes to watching TV and live-tweeting comments about what a newsreader or reality contestant is saying or wearing. It’s keyboard road rage. And it has to stop. Here and now, I’m taking a vow of social media positivity.

And for those who are wondering, no we didn’t all die of food poisoning. The pizzas were delivered piping hot and perfectly on time, packed high with toppings, exceeding all our expectations! And they earned our young neighbour both a handsome tip and another order for this weekend! Who’s joining us?