 |
| Jack Styring where he seemed most at home - behind the microphone at a race meeting. |
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Little in common, but a lot which was similar
Monday, April 25, 2011
Considering the intrigue of Easter and Anzac Day
Intrigue, be it conspiracy, a scheme or just rude trickery, has been the essence of the energy on whichmankind has drawn to cement its place in earth’s ecological hierarchy.
That has worked, and worked well as man is now at the top of the food chain with its only challenger seemingly being itself.
Immediacy has always had priority, and that is understandable as it is the way of all living things, but in focusing on pressing issues we ignore, with decided peril, that which is distant.
In concert with that we also have misguided habit of spending too much time looking at, thinking about, and therefore wasting psychic energy on, things long gone, rather than assembling today’s activities in a way that will enable tomorrow’s events to unfold positively.
Nothing, or course, is ever certain, but each of us has a role to play, no matter how small, to successfully shape today in the hope that tomorrow will be okay.
I watched with interest as two events recently flooded our local and national media – Easter and Anzac Day – the first being based on a myth and the second, while a reality, is an historical calamity that we should simply consider and move on.
 |
| Issabella Doughty courtesy of the Melbourne Age, April 26. |
That has worked, and worked well as man is now at the top of the food chain with its only challenger seemingly being itself.
Immediacy has always had priority, and that is understandable as it is the way of all living things, but in focusing on pressing issues we ignore, with decided peril, that which is distant.
In concert with that we also have misguided habit of spending too much time looking at, thinking about, and therefore wasting psychic energy on, things long gone, rather than assembling today’s activities in a way that will enable tomorrow’s events to unfold positively.
Nothing, or course, is ever certain, but each of us has a role to play, no matter how small, to successfully shape today in the hope that tomorrow will be okay.
I watched with interest as two events recently flooded our local and national media – Easter and Anzac Day – the first being based on a myth and the second, while a reality, is an historical calamity that we should simply consider and move on.
The ideological storms of both those events have anchored us to annual moments in which we recognize what once was and despite the protestations many, do little, or nothing, about engaging with today and therefore tomorrow.
People of all stripes declare that what they want most is world peace, but then those same people, turn out for events at which war is acknowledged and recognized, and people carrying violent and deadly weapons head the parade – it is a strange juxtaposition I don’t understand.
Some will argue that such events don’t glorify war rather; they remind us of the sacrifice that those who died made, and while maybe true, but they do not help us understand the true terror of war - that moment when your life is ripped apart as bullets tear through your chest or the so-called “collateral damage” that leaves a young, innocent girl with a smashed life and bloodied body.
Thinking about the challenges society faces in extricating itself from the intrigues of Easter or Anzac Day, I was confronted by a front page picture in the Melbourne Age on April 26 showing a small girl wearing army clothes, including a slouch hat, and her great-grandfather’s war medals, reminding me of the observation attributed to the co-founder of the Jesuit order, Francis Xavier, said: “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man”.Whatever life path Issabella Doughty takes, she has already had her first lesson in the violent and perverse mysteries of war.(April 26, 2011)
Monday, April 18, 2011
The mistake that was Anzac should help shape the future
Australians today recognize and acknowledge a significant day in our country’s history.
Mesmerized and excited by the values of the day, the men of four infantry battalions of the 3rd Brigade, First Australian Division, stormed into a foreign country in the name of ideas still debated today.
With the Great Britain umbilical cord still attached, young men from Australia and New Zealand, to become known as ANZACS, rushed onto the beach of Turkey’s Gallipoli Peninsula.
The landing, it is argued by some, should have been just south on far friendlier topography, but the dawn attackers found themselves on rugged terrain and facing determined resistance and, subsequently, thousands died or were injured.
The idea that became Anzac has, in 86 years, become mythologized and so elevated in populous thinking to become the essence of what it means to be Australian.
That makes me somewhat nervous as we seem unable to psychologically escape from the dynamic that has us acknowledge, and some would say “celebrate”, the denial of authority as in Ned Kelly’s murderous antics, and mistakes worsened by the confusion of values, as with the ongoing annual highlighting of the Anzac calamity.
Interestingly, Australians face another Anzac-like dilemma peppered with the Kelly-like questioning of authority.
Although our umbilical cord still draws from its original source, it appears now to also elicit sustenance from the modernity of the Western World and so as our values were somewhat askew in 1915, they are still questionable today.
Much has happened in nearly 100 years, but it seems will still have difficulty in determining what we want as opposed to what we really need.
It was oil that made Anzac possible, was the same finite resource that powered the many
bloody conflicts of the 20st century and just a decade into the new millennium, little has changed.
The scramble for the last of the world’s easily accessible energy is already unsightly with nations driven by values embedded after two centuries of energy-rich luxury appearing prepared to kill under the cover of rhetoric about the protection of democracy.
Time is short and rather than waste it, along with effort, energy and money to look back at that 86-year-old mistake, we need to get beyond that emotional hurdle and look forward, consolidating what exists and, as custodians, leave the ecology of the planet intact for our grandchildren.
We stand at a fork in the road: the obvious and apparently easier way is really the highway to hell, but the more obscure and bumpy track is the appropriate route and although the destination is not apparent, the awaiting bounty is humane and sustainable.
Travelling the track means using human muscle, human resourcefulness as machines fail and our intelligence to avoid another Anzac “moment”.
(April 19, 2011)
 |
| Mass grave sites remind us of the calamity of Anzac. |
The landing, it is argued by some, should have been just south on far friendlier topography, but the dawn attackers found themselves on rugged terrain and facing determined resistance and, subsequently, thousands died or were injured.
The idea that became Anzac has, in 86 years, become mythologized and so elevated in populous thinking to become the essence of what it means to be Australian.
That makes me somewhat nervous as we seem unable to psychologically escape from the dynamic that has us acknowledge, and some would say “celebrate”, the denial of authority as in Ned Kelly’s murderous antics, and mistakes worsened by the confusion of values, as with the ongoing annual highlighting of the Anzac calamity.
Interestingly, Australians face another Anzac-like dilemma peppered with the Kelly-like questioning of authority.
Although our umbilical cord still draws from its original source, it appears now to also elicit sustenance from the modernity of the Western World and so as our values were somewhat askew in 1915, they are still questionable today.
Much has happened in nearly 100 years, but it seems will still have difficulty in determining what we want as opposed to what we really need.
It was oil that made Anzac possible, was the same finite resource that powered the many
bloody conflicts of the 20st century and just a decade into the new millennium, little has changed.
The scramble for the last of the world’s easily accessible energy is already unsightly with nations driven by values embedded after two centuries of energy-rich luxury appearing prepared to kill under the cover of rhetoric about the protection of democracy.
Time is short and rather than waste it, along with effort, energy and money to look back at that 86-year-old mistake, we need to get beyond that emotional hurdle and look forward, consolidating what exists and, as custodians, leave the ecology of the planet intact for our grandchildren.
We stand at a fork in the road: the obvious and apparently easier way is really the highway to hell, but the more obscure and bumpy track is the appropriate route and although the destination is not apparent, the awaiting bounty is humane and sustainable.
Travelling the track means using human muscle, human resourcefulness as machines fail and our intelligence to avoid another Anzac “moment”.
(April 19, 2011)
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Rich deposit brings Australians rich responsibilities
Australians were recently warned that in having one of the world’s richest deposits of uranium meant we also had equally rich responsibilities.
Although the uranium, coal, gas, or what little there is of oil, leaves our shores it is still, in a disconnected but serious sense, Prof Batterham said, our responsibility.
The ultimate use, or misuse, of that uranium, coal or gas is critical as the residues of its application can come back through our water, food supplies or the atmosphere to damage our health.
Of course there is the further complication in that whatever finite resource it is we are exploiting, we are using another irreplaceable resource to recover it.
Considered in isolation, uranium power may well be emission free, but the reality is that it is not as massive amounts of fossil fuel is needed to mine, transport and finally safely store the waste and, importantly, build the power station itself.
Gross energy costs, and the resultant damage to our atmosphere, might be less than coal, but the costs are more than society should be prepared to pay.
Arguments that liquefied natural gas (LNG) should be excluded from Australia’s proposed carbon tax have been raised by the Australian-owned oil and gas producer, Woodside.
The company’s claims LNG will help deliver a "better world" and so should be excluded from the carbon tax.
At 16, I worked in Bass Strait with an oil survey company and fellow who understood the implications of our work urged me to buy shares in the then fledgling Woodside company.
Knowing nothing of the share market, I didn’t, but I should have taken his advice as those shares that then cost about five cents are closing on $50.
With our blessing, Woodside have plundered our resources for decades and it is time they paid some tax.
True, gas is less polluting, but recovering and distributing it is energy intensive and in gross terms is a massive contributor to our nation’s carbon dioxide emissions.
The broader welfare of our world should not be sacrificed to the short-term profits of one corporation.
(April 13, 2011)
 |
| Prof Robin Batterham |
Our former chief scientist, Professor Robin Batterham, now with the University of Melbourne’s Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, reminded us of that challenge while summarizing a panel discussion entitled: “Fukushima: The Facts and the Fallout”.
The Japanese nuclear power plant was irreparably damaged in Japan’s earthquake and tsunami early in March this year and late last week the situation at Fukushima was upgraded to a level equivalent with damage at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986.
With about 30 per cent of the world’s uranium, Prof Batterham said all Australians needed to take an active interest into whom the ore was sold and, subsequently, the intended use of that same uranium.Although the uranium, coal, gas, or what little there is of oil, leaves our shores it is still, in a disconnected but serious sense, Prof Batterham said, our responsibility.
The ultimate use, or misuse, of that uranium, coal or gas is critical as the residues of its application can come back through our water, food supplies or the atmosphere to damage our health.
Of course there is the further complication in that whatever finite resource it is we are exploiting, we are using another irreplaceable resource to recover it.
Considered in isolation, uranium power may well be emission free, but the reality is that it is not as massive amounts of fossil fuel is needed to mine, transport and finally safely store the waste and, importantly, build the power station itself.
Gross energy costs, and the resultant damage to our atmosphere, might be less than coal, but the costs are more than society should be prepared to pay.
Arguments that liquefied natural gas (LNG) should be excluded from Australia’s proposed carbon tax have been raised by the Australian-owned oil and gas producer, Woodside.
The company’s claims LNG will help deliver a "better world" and so should be excluded from the carbon tax.
At 16, I worked in Bass Strait with an oil survey company and fellow who understood the implications of our work urged me to buy shares in the then fledgling Woodside company.
Knowing nothing of the share market, I didn’t, but I should have taken his advice as those shares that then cost about five cents are closing on $50.
With our blessing, Woodside have plundered our resources for decades and it is time they paid some tax.
True, gas is less polluting, but recovering and distributing it is energy intensive and in gross terms is a massive contributor to our nation’s carbon dioxide emissions.
The broader welfare of our world should not be sacrificed to the short-term profits of one corporation.
(April 13, 2011)
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Confusion over traffic lights raises many questions
The inability of many adults to understand the sequential operation of traffic lights leaves me wondering.
Those same people are, I assume, literate and numerate, intelligent and allowed to vote for our government, and so are intimately involved with our civil society.
However, despite their engagement with society, an everyday occurrence, such as the fundamentals of traffic lights, seems to escape their capacities.
Some would argue that such matters are trivial and so in the greater scheme of things unimportant; I see it differently.
Each of us, whether we like it or not, has a responsibility to have an understanding of society’s infrastructure and although dealing with traffic lights might appear near the bottom of the hierarchy, having a grasp of their operation reflects a person’s mindful role in their community.
Our communities urgently need thoughtful people who care about what it is that underpins our society and an aware appreciation of something that appears as basic as traffic lights suggests that same person would have an intelligent opinion about more abstract matters such as equality, fairness, justice and decency.
Traffic lights are relatively simple things, but they introduce us to complex human traits such as respect and giving the other person a fair go and, critically, patience; something on which all the good things in life hinge.
Looked at from afar, a traffic light is just that, but looked at somewhat more closely it becomes something of a metaphor, at least for the modern life it symbolises.
Traffic lights are about control and within that offer us a structure for living in an ordered manner, ensuring that we cause no harm to others, or ourselves.
Obedience is prominent in the proper use of traffic lights and considered in that metaphorical sense decent societal behaviour is about doing no harm, something of which all of us are guilty just by being alive and living in modern society.
However, it is dangerous to deconstruct life so much and instead we should see traffic lights as a pointer urging respect, patience, sharing and, beyond that, a red light should be a welcome intrusion, demanding we slow down.
(April 13, 2011)
 |
| Traffic lights, or rather in this instance, a traffic clock, should be a welcome intrusion to our lives. |
However, despite their engagement with society, an everyday occurrence, such as the fundamentals of traffic lights, seems to escape their capacities.
Some would argue that such matters are trivial and so in the greater scheme of things unimportant; I see it differently.
Each of us, whether we like it or not, has a responsibility to have an understanding of society’s infrastructure and although dealing with traffic lights might appear near the bottom of the hierarchy, having a grasp of their operation reflects a person’s mindful role in their community.
Our communities urgently need thoughtful people who care about what it is that underpins our society and an aware appreciation of something that appears as basic as traffic lights suggests that same person would have an intelligent opinion about more abstract matters such as equality, fairness, justice and decency.
Traffic lights are relatively simple things, but they introduce us to complex human traits such as respect and giving the other person a fair go and, critically, patience; something on which all the good things in life hinge.
Looked at from afar, a traffic light is just that, but looked at somewhat more closely it becomes something of a metaphor, at least for the modern life it symbolises.
Traffic lights are about control and within that offer us a structure for living in an ordered manner, ensuring that we cause no harm to others, or ourselves.
Obedience is prominent in the proper use of traffic lights and considered in that metaphorical sense decent societal behaviour is about doing no harm, something of which all of us are guilty just by being alive and living in modern society.
However, it is dangerous to deconstruct life so much and instead we should see traffic lights as a pointer urging respect, patience, sharing and, beyond that, a red light should be a welcome intrusion, demanding we slow down.
(April 13, 2011)
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Tasmania has an early pock-marked history, but let's make it refreshingly better
Tasmania seems to be intricately implicated in the incarceration of people from other countries.
To begin with, England dumped unwanted souls in Tasmania from the late 18th century and now the Federal Government has announced plans to house asylum seekers at a defence site on the island state.
This new jail, or officially a “detention centre” will be at Pontville near Hobart, while the English convicts were first sent to Sarah Island in Macquarie Habour on Tasmania’s remote west coast and then later to Port Arthur, also near Hobart.
The difference is large or little depending on your view – the convicts didn’t want to come here and nor did they know where it was they were going; the asylum seekers, wanted just that and what they have got is jail – they knew where they were going and wanted to come here.
Interestingly, from the chaos that was the early dumping grounds for convicts has emerged a nation that has respect of and has gained traction in the international community.
The wounds, however, have been deep and in many instances continue to weep, troubling many, particularly our indigenous people who, outside some, have found the white fellas’ way mysterious and fundamentally opposed to working in concert with nature to build a good life.
That said, and again I note it hasn’t always been smooth sailing, and still often isn’t, for indigenous people, we have cobbled together a pretty good structure from somewhat troublesome foundations.
Those original convicts came with considerable baggage, some warranted and some not, but beyond anything else the dislocation they experienced was sufficient to make anyone somewhat bitter and twisted. Despite that, the nation survived and subsequently burgeoned.
Since the arrival of the first convicts in 1788, the idea of a “fair go” took root and its legacy now demands we extend that same generousity to those arriving here as asylum seekers.
Rather than jail them, we need to treat them with respect and always assume they came with good intentions and so work at assimilation, rather than simply jailing them.
Tasmania’s early history is pock-marked with troubles, so let’s make its contemporary history refreshingly better.
 |
| Convicts who endured to become Australians. |
This new jail, or officially a “detention centre” will be at Pontville near Hobart, while the English convicts were first sent to Sarah Island in Macquarie Habour on Tasmania’s remote west coast and then later to Port Arthur, also near Hobart.
The difference is large or little depending on your view – the convicts didn’t want to come here and nor did they know where it was they were going; the asylum seekers, wanted just that and what they have got is jail – they knew where they were going and wanted to come here.
Interestingly, from the chaos that was the early dumping grounds for convicts has emerged a nation that has respect of and has gained traction in the international community.
The wounds, however, have been deep and in many instances continue to weep, troubling many, particularly our indigenous people who, outside some, have found the white fellas’ way mysterious and fundamentally opposed to working in concert with nature to build a good life.
That said, and again I note it hasn’t always been smooth sailing, and still often isn’t, for indigenous people, we have cobbled together a pretty good structure from somewhat troublesome foundations.
Those original convicts came with considerable baggage, some warranted and some not, but beyond anything else the dislocation they experienced was sufficient to make anyone somewhat bitter and twisted. Despite that, the nation survived and subsequently burgeoned.
Since the arrival of the first convicts in 1788, the idea of a “fair go” took root and its legacy now demands we extend that same generousity to those arriving here as asylum seekers.
Rather than jail them, we need to treat them with respect and always assume they came with good intentions and so work at assimilation, rather than simply jailing them.
Tasmania’s early history is pock-marked with troubles, so let’s make its contemporary history refreshingly better.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Arguments for mall's return to cars seriously dated
Arguments behind calls for the re-opening of Shepparton’s Maude St Mall to cars are understandable, but are well past their use-by date.
Reliable research illustrates that the world’s oil reservoirs will be empty in about 30 years and as oil is the foundation upon which everything else stands – from beer to beans and clothes pegs to communication – we need to be creating a built-environment, and that includes our mall that will serve the city in a low-energy future.
Considering that, the debate is not in essence about the commercial realities of doing business in the mall today, rather it’s about doing business in the mall as we head down that bumpy road to the end of oil.
This, however, poses a rather pressing, and understandable, dilemma as those businesses already in our mall want to be profitable, and successful, right now.
Business plans do not allow for an income hiatus as Shepparton abandons what once worked and then moves to embrace what will work in the evolving 21st century.
Considering that, it seems that any workable financial panacea will only emerge from a city-wide social change orchestrated by a City of Greater Shepparton Council that rigidly controls the placement and development of infrastructure within the city to ensure walkability and, more extensively, our public bus services.
Curitiba, with its 1.6 million residents, provides the world with a model in how to integrate sustainable transport considerations into business development, road infrastructure development, and local community development. Shepparton could learn from the success of this burgeoning Brazilian city.
Our mall needs people who live there; above and behind the businesses, and in going about their daily lives they inadvertently become the passive eyes that deter anti-social behaviour.
We need people to build a civil society, not cars.
 |
| Shepparton's Maude St Mall |
The city we enjoy today will be vastly different from the Shepparton of tomorrow and so everything we do should be aimed at creating an infrastructure that is more, rather than less, walkable.
Armed with the misleading belief that the world’s finite supply of oil is inexhaustible, towns and cities are being created and structured to answer the wants and needs of car-bound communities.Reliable research illustrates that the world’s oil reservoirs will be empty in about 30 years and as oil is the foundation upon which everything else stands – from beer to beans and clothes pegs to communication – we need to be creating a built-environment, and that includes our mall that will serve the city in a low-energy future.
Considering that, the debate is not in essence about the commercial realities of doing business in the mall today, rather it’s about doing business in the mall as we head down that bumpy road to the end of oil.
This, however, poses a rather pressing, and understandable, dilemma as those businesses already in our mall want to be profitable, and successful, right now.
Business plans do not allow for an income hiatus as Shepparton abandons what once worked and then moves to embrace what will work in the evolving 21st century.
Considering that, it seems that any workable financial panacea will only emerge from a city-wide social change orchestrated by a City of Greater Shepparton Council that rigidly controls the placement and development of infrastructure within the city to ensure walkability and, more extensively, our public bus services.
Curitiba, with its 1.6 million residents, provides the world with a model in how to integrate sustainable transport considerations into business development, road infrastructure development, and local community development. Shepparton could learn from the success of this burgeoning Brazilian city.
Our mall needs people who live there; above and behind the businesses, and in going about their daily lives they inadvertently become the passive eyes that deter anti-social behaviour.
We need people to build a civil society, not cars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)