As you read this, I’m on a year seven
school trip to the nation’s capital. No,
I’m not looking for sympathy. I’ve
been looking forward to this week for six and
a half years and I’ll tell you why.
As a really young fella growing up in the
north-west of England, London was the
most exciting place you could ever hope to
visit. To do so was rare and it was special.
With Buckingham Palace, the Houses of
Parliament, black taxis and red doubledecker
buses, London was the Land of Oz and
the train line from Preston to Euston was the
yellow brick road!
Then in 1981, just before my ninth
birthday, we moved to Australia.
Of course,
London retained its magical status and I
still pinch myself whenever I’m there, but I
soon found myself looking up to Canberra in
exactly the same way.
I first made it to Australia’s capital
city when I was 13, part of the formative
experience that was a driving holiday down
the New England Highway, across to Broken
Hill, then down to Adelaide and Melbourne,
and finally up to Canberra and the Snowy
Mountains. Road trips have been in my
blood ever since. But I digress.
What I’ve never understood is why we in
Australia make such a sport out of hating
Canberra. It’s packed with sites of national
significance, yet people laugh if you tell
them you’re going there. Sure, it might not
have the most exciting nightlife in Australia
but it is our capital city and the thought of
flying down with Jack’s year seven class is
bringing back all those tingly thoughts of a
childhood trip to London.
So keen am I on Canberra that when
Nikki fell pregnant in 1999 and we were
looking for a special somewhere for our
final childless holiday, that’s where we
went. We could have chosen a tropical
island somewhere, or the hustle and bustle
of Sydney, but instead we had a week in
Canberra. And now I’m dying to get there
to share my love of the capital with my son.
And that brings me to the other reason I’m
chuffed to be heading down.
We’ve known about the year seven
Canberra trip since Jack started primary
school in 2006. For all these years, we’ve
plotted for me to go as one of the parenthelpers,
so that Jack and I can have a boys’
bonding week. You may have noticed I’m not
on the radio this week. Now you know why.
I’m also taking next week off!
I have a
feeling I’m going to need an extra week
just to get over the excitement of a trip to
Canberra! And that’s my excitement I’m
talking about!
Gift vouchers
On a completely unrelated topic, why must
shops impose expiry dates on gift vouchers?
I recently found in my wallet a voucher
for a coffee shop that was given to me a year
ago. It literally was one day from expiring.
If I hadn’t used it, that $30 would have
just evaporated.
Only, it wouldn’t have disappeared,
would it? In reality, the coffee shop would
have kept it.
Why can’t shops just hold the money
(which they receive when they sell the
voucher) and allow you to use your voucher
at any time, forever?
With complimentary or discount
vouchers, there is an argument for shops
spreading out redemption. They can’t afford
to have everyone claiming their free or
discounted goods or services on the one day.
That, I understand.
But when it comes to gift vouchers, the
shops are sitting on the cash, not to mention
the interest it’s earning them.
Then, of
course, you get the situation where shops
go into administration and won’t redeem
vouchers or they have rules stating you must
spend a certain amount in order to use your
voucher. Again, they have the cash! What
happened to it?
It’s worth noting that some shops don’t
have expiry dates.
And yes, I acknowledge
that ABC Shops are among those that have
expiry dates, so I’m certainly not claiming
the moral high ground for the ABC here.
It all makes me think the best gift voucher
around is cold, hard cash. It’s the gift
voucher you can spend anywhere, anytime!
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Bmag Sept 4th 2012 - Public service job cuts
With the state budget looming, we should soon see an end to the uncertainty hanging over our public servants. It’s three months since we were first warned as many as 20,000 could lose their jobs. Thousands already have. Not frontline staff, we’ve been assured. But then Glen Elmes, Minister Assisting the Premier, admitted on my radio show that “frontline” had been redefined, making thousands more public servants potentially disposable. To be “frontline” under the LNP, you must spend 75 per cent of your time dealing directly with the public. Under Labor, it was just over 50 per cent.
I’m a public servant (albeit Commonwealth) so I decided to apply the 75 per cent test to what I do. Despite hosting Brisbane’s top-rating breakfast radio show with around 200,000 listeners every week, I’m not sure I would qualify as “frontline” under Campbell Newman. Yes, I’m on air three hours a day, and yes I regularly speak at service clubs, but what about the hours where I’m not in direct contact with listeners? Reading books and news articles, watching news programs, sniffing around for stories, auditioning new music, surveying outside broadcast locations, generally absorbing popular culture in order to inform my radio show, the list goes on. Is all that being a frontline public servant? It wouldn’t be in the Queensland Public Service. But would anyone notice if the federal government decided the ABC didn’t need radio announcers? Just between me and you, I think that they would.
My point is this – I can understand how Queensland public servants are nervous right now. I can also see how nebulous it can be to just pick a number like 75 per cent to define “frontline”.
Premier Campbell Newman repeatedly says that everywhere he goes he is thanked for cutting the public service, that it’s only public servants and the unions who are angry. For example, he told 612 ABC Brisbane’s Steve Austin: “I spent seven hours at the Exhibition (Ekka) and I can tell you that I had one person come up to me and express some negativity. For the rest of the seven hours, I had people coming up, shaking my hand saying ‘we know it’s tough, please keep doing what you’re doing’.”
I don’t dispute the Premier has his supporters. But maybe it would be healthy for him to be exposed to what others are saying. And so I asked my radio listeners to imagine bumping into Campbell Newman. What would they tell him? We received 58 calls, 24 of which were supportive of the Premier’s actions. Just under half. Fifty-eight might seem a small sample but, for radio talkback on one specific question, it’s actually a decent number. Think of it as more qualitative than quantitative, more focus group than phone poll.
You (and the Premier) can listen to all the calls at http://www.tinyurl.com/messages4cn but here’s a selection:
“Well done Campbell. Mate, it’s about time those blokes got out and got a real job. Save that money. Make the state proud again,” says Corey, from Coolum Beach.
“Campbell Newman is doing a good job taking away a lot of the public servants’ jobs. They’ve been superfluous for a long, long time. We’ve had a lot of friends in the public service and they’ve had RDOs and sick days and extended leave on our taxpayers’ money and I don’t think this is very fair,” says Cheryl, from Ipswich.
“Thanks very much Campbell for what you’re doing. Don’t worry mate, there’s a very large silent majority who are also very pleased with the way you are handling this state,” says Trevor, from Birkdale.
“If I saw the Premier in a public place, I’d tell him well done, keep going,” says Kevin, from Macdowall.
“You have no idea how much damage you’re doing. Someone needs to stop you before it’s too late,” says Mary, from Goodna.
“There are a lot of people feeling bruised right now. Compassion please,” says Jenny, from East Brisbane.
“There was never any hint of this in your campaign. It’s not what we voted for,” says Dylan, from Kenmore.
“Belt tightening is all very well but such severe cuts could actually drive Queensland into recession with so many public servants losing their jobs and the rest looking over their shoulders and unwilling to spend,” says Karen, from Wavell Heights.
I’m a public servant (albeit Commonwealth) so I decided to apply the 75 per cent test to what I do. Despite hosting Brisbane’s top-rating breakfast radio show with around 200,000 listeners every week, I’m not sure I would qualify as “frontline” under Campbell Newman. Yes, I’m on air three hours a day, and yes I regularly speak at service clubs, but what about the hours where I’m not in direct contact with listeners? Reading books and news articles, watching news programs, sniffing around for stories, auditioning new music, surveying outside broadcast locations, generally absorbing popular culture in order to inform my radio show, the list goes on. Is all that being a frontline public servant? It wouldn’t be in the Queensland Public Service. But would anyone notice if the federal government decided the ABC didn’t need radio announcers? Just between me and you, I think that they would.
My point is this – I can understand how Queensland public servants are nervous right now. I can also see how nebulous it can be to just pick a number like 75 per cent to define “frontline”.
Premier Campbell Newman repeatedly says that everywhere he goes he is thanked for cutting the public service, that it’s only public servants and the unions who are angry. For example, he told 612 ABC Brisbane’s Steve Austin: “I spent seven hours at the Exhibition (Ekka) and I can tell you that I had one person come up to me and express some negativity. For the rest of the seven hours, I had people coming up, shaking my hand saying ‘we know it’s tough, please keep doing what you’re doing’.”
I don’t dispute the Premier has his supporters. But maybe it would be healthy for him to be exposed to what others are saying. And so I asked my radio listeners to imagine bumping into Campbell Newman. What would they tell him? We received 58 calls, 24 of which were supportive of the Premier’s actions. Just under half. Fifty-eight might seem a small sample but, for radio talkback on one specific question, it’s actually a decent number. Think of it as more qualitative than quantitative, more focus group than phone poll.
You (and the Premier) can listen to all the calls at http://www.tinyurl.com/messages4cn but here’s a selection:
“Well done Campbell. Mate, it’s about time those blokes got out and got a real job. Save that money. Make the state proud again,” says Corey, from Coolum Beach.
“Campbell Newman is doing a good job taking away a lot of the public servants’ jobs. They’ve been superfluous for a long, long time. We’ve had a lot of friends in the public service and they’ve had RDOs and sick days and extended leave on our taxpayers’ money and I don’t think this is very fair,” says Cheryl, from Ipswich.
“Thanks very much Campbell for what you’re doing. Don’t worry mate, there’s a very large silent majority who are also very pleased with the way you are handling this state,” says Trevor, from Birkdale.
“If I saw the Premier in a public place, I’d tell him well done, keep going,” says Kevin, from Macdowall.
“You have no idea how much damage you’re doing. Someone needs to stop you before it’s too late,” says Mary, from Goodna.
“There are a lot of people feeling bruised right now. Compassion please,” says Jenny, from East Brisbane.
“There was never any hint of this in your campaign. It’s not what we voted for,” says Dylan, from Kenmore.
“Belt tightening is all very well but such severe cuts could actually drive Queensland into recession with so many public servants losing their jobs and the rest looking over their shoulders and unwilling to spend,” says Karen, from Wavell Heights.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
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!
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!
Saturday, August 11, 2012
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!”
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!”
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
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?!
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?!
Friday, July 13, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)