The Chronicles Of…

I’m not exactly a screaming lefty, nor am I an uber conservative. I’d like to think that my political views are somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. I often agree with some arguments used by the various parties and factions, while disagreeing entirely with the next thing that the same party says. I have voted at one time or another for most of the major parties, and a few of the smaller ones. I try to listen to each group’s views, and make my own decisions based upon the information that I have been presented with, rather than just agreeing with my favourite group at the time.

Having said all of that, it’s very rare that I can hear a Bob Brown quote in the news without feeling frustrated and annoyed. It’s nothing personal. I’ve never met the man, and for all I know he could be a lovely bloke who saves orphans from burning buildings in his spare time. He just seems to be a professional whinger, and it’s very tiring. The quotes I read are almost always complaints against some policy or other, and over-the-top claims of how this particular decision is going to be the end of the world. Again.

Take this story for example. It’s quite possible that Mr Brown has a point, that hosting a(nother) large and (semi) permanent US military group on our shores might annoy some other nations in the world. Mr Brown suggests that the issue should be debated before the policy is announced publicly. If he stopped there, I might think “gee, that’s a point, maybe the matter should be discussed in parliament, rather than a decision being made in isolation.” The initial statement seems to suggest that Mr Brown would prefer not to upset our nation’s neighbours, especially the ones who are most influential on a global scale (e.g. China).

But then Mr Brown does his usual trick of making his sensible argument fade away into a rant with this quote:

”China has nuclear weapons that can be lobbed on Australia.”

Yep. That’s a helpful statement to keep things sensible and peaceful.

That’s my issue with the man. He’s a politician. He’s been elected on a number of occasions, to represent a portion of our society. A lot of people have placed significant trust in him. He’s speaking to journalists, with the intent to use the broadcasted words to influence official national policies. And yet, he just throws around statements like that, seemingly without recognising that this sort of quote is also unhelpful at keeping international peace. I’m not saying his speeches are equally upsetting to a foreign nation as allowing American troops to be based in our country (assuming that the military presence affects our relationship in a negative way at all – I don’t know if it does). I’m just saying that for a man who claims to be all about peace and mung beans*, he also seems to be slightly inconsistent.

I also know that he’s not the only annoying/inconsistent/hypocritical politician/person around. He’s just someone who sets my teeth on edge for some reason. He has the ‘fingernails on chalkboard’ effect on me, the way I’m sure I do upon many people also.

I’m assuming he’ll be able to sleep at night perfectly well despite this fact, and I certainly don’t begrudge him that. I just wish I was able to agree with him more, because I really don’t enjoy the current two-party system, that seems to be a choice between two very similar viewpoints, disguised as opposing forces. The major party politicians seem much more interested in getting re-elected (and ensuring their pension plans are safe) than actually helping their society. Of course, that’s just my ill-informed opinion, and I really don’t count for very much at all.

In any case, it’s almost day time, and I should be off to bed so that I can go back to work again this evening.

* I have no evidence that Mr Brown has ever claimed to be all about beans of any sort, especially not of the Mung variety.

Since I turned 18 I have participated in democracy quite a number of times. As of this weekend, I still have not accepted a single “how to vote” card from any of the people outside the polling venues.

You’re welcome.

I’m going through the who to vote for thoughts again, as with my NRL followings I’m not completely loyal to any team so I’m not going to vote for the safe party by default each time.

Here are some thoughts which I’m not blaming on one party in particular but things I might consider:

1) I’m still annoyed that electricity prices have been allowed to go the way they have, it’s a necessity and usually the less money you earn or have the more costly a house you need to live in because it’s not energy efficient at all.

The solar idea may have been a good one, the government would have basically put in another power station with all these installations but probably at the cost to those who can’t afford to own a house and therefore have to pay higher bills and not benefit from rebates. I know people getting credits on their bills but these are only really available to home owners. So it’s almost like those worse off are paying for those better off to have cheaper bills.

It doesn’t seem right.

But if you are a home owner I totally don’t blame you for getting it, it’s either get it and reduce your bill or do nothing and increase it.

2) Carbon tax. Another tricky debate. I don’t think it’s anywhere near as simple as saying we’ll start with something like cars. If you drive a car you should pay a carbon tax, if you drive an older car you should pay more.

This will hit exactly the same people as above, especially those who must have a car to get to their job that isn’t accessible by public transport and are struggling to make ends meet anyway.

3) Boat people. Don’t get me started on boat people!! No that’s a total joke. I’m not sure where I stand on this, which may sound stupid, but there are a lot of people who need our help and it needs to be handled better, I just don’t know where you draw the line… If that sounds harsh it’s not meant to be, I just don’t know if you put limitations on it, with exceptions of course, or what…

I’m the first to admit though that I probably don’t know enough about these issues yet so will continue to check them out.

Just some thoughts…

So the whole gay marriage debate seems to be centre stage at the moment with the Get-Up campaign to promote gay marriage kicking off today, the gay & lesbian mardi gras coming soon, and the Fred Nile group organising themselves for a protest against gay marriage. I’ve noticed a few twitters on the subject and received a few emails from both sides…

At the risk of displaying my ignorance, I have a 2 questions:

1. Do homosexuals have full legal entitlements in a civil union?
2. If so, what are the other reasons they want to have marriage over civil union?

To my mind if homosexual people do not have the same legal entitlements as married people then it is probably our job as christians to fight for their right to those entitlements – that is, if we are serious about loving all people regardless of race, colour, creed or sexuality. The gay couple who live together in de-facto and then split are as much entitled to equal super, and equal ownership of shared material possessions as the heterosexual de-facto couple who split.

This is not a question of Christian faith but a question of justice and upholding the rights of the vulnerable.

If we want to make this an issue of christian principle then we should also deny the marriage of pagan heterosexuals. If we are serious in saying (as the bible does) that homosexuality is no worse a sin than heterosexual immorality (sleeping around, unfaithfulness, promiscuity etc) then we need to be consistent with our stand across the board. Homosexuals who are denying the lordship of Jesus are as much entitled to marriage as Heterosexuals who are denying the lordship of Jesus.

If you’re going to make a stand for one or the other, just be consistent in applying your theology – if Jesus gets angry about anything, it’s hypocrisy and double standards.

Personally, if homosexuals get married or not, what difference does it make? They still need to hear the gospel and be radically transformed by it.

I’m confused and annoyed.

We’re about to have a Federal election, and I honestly have no idea who to vote for. Both of the major parties are fairly disappointing to say the least, and the smaller parties have been getting on my nerves for a while now as well. I don’t want to make some statement like “all pollies are liars, so what does it matter who you vote for anyway”, but at the moment I feel a bit like that.

Labor started out so strong in 2007, and I actually felt like there was a bit of hope after the Evil Empire had been defeated. But how was I to know that we were actually only at a bit of an ‘Empire Strikes Back’ moment, where everything was about to come crashing down, and all that good work was being undone by internal conflict? I should have guessed, I suppose. The Unions were never going to stand for being shoved back into the industrial realm, and then we had Kev backpedalling on climate change, and the Peter Garrett roof insulation fiasco.

…and then we got our first female PM! Which was exciting, even if she wasn’t a smooth media (“moooodia?”) type. I’m all for substance over style, policies over personality, and statements over soundbytes, but you have to admit she’s a bit embarrassing. I mean, I suppose she’s representing a large portion of our community (tuck shop ladies in outer suburban primary schools?), but on the international stage..? Kev could speak Chinese (although sometimes it was just as hard to understand him when he spoke English), so at least he had something to work with when it came to regional powerhouses. I’m just worried that on her first overseas trip to somewhere in Asia, the local government will mistake her for that other red-headed female of Australian politics over the last few years, and think that we’ve finally voted in One Nation. We’ll be at war before she gets out of the airport.

And then we’ve got big Tony over on the other side of the fence. By all accounts (in last weekend’s Herald), he’s quite a nice bloke in person, and has friends from all sides of politics. But again, I’m not certain that I want him representing me. So far he seems to be doing his best to start up “The Australian John Howard Show” tribute act, which might be popular in some circles, but doesn’t fill me with confidence. The man lied repeatedly about fairly significant issues, and used those lies to build fear which in turn won elections (yay Australia!). I don’t want to vote Liberal just to ‘punish Labor’, if it means we get three more years of the Howard legacy.

The Greens seem to have a few things going well for them, but they’re not going to actually win, and giving them more seats will just mean Bob Brown gets even more smug. If smugness was radioactive, no one would ever be able to go to Tasmania again without all their hair falling out. Bob Brown has a halflife of about 200,000 years. It’s gotten to the point where I just cannot listen to him without screaming abuse at the radio/tv/internet. It wouldn’t matter if he was promising to give me bags of cash if I could just agree with him that the sky is blue, I would have to disagree out of sheer stubbornness. Which I recognise is why I’m also a massive hypocrite, and should never nominate for public office.

The Democrats were going to “keep the bastards honest”, then had the world’s most public domestic and killed each other off before they actually achieved very much at all. Thanks folks. At least Natasha Stott Despoja wore Doc Martin boots in parliament. That showed ‘em.

In any case, I live in a safe Liberal seat, so it’s not like my vote is going to actually mean all that much. I just like the idea that I’m participating in a genuinely important act by voting. Maybe I should just vote for one of the ‘little guys’, like the “Three Day Weekend Party”. That way I could be certain that some public funds would end up in the hands of a person who doesn’t really take the whole process too seriously… oh wait, hang on…

Why can’t we just have independant candidates, who say what they actually mean, and who genuinely want to help their nation, rather than set themselves up for a great superannuation plan? Is that really too much to ask? Really?

There were some there who wanted to stop the boats of refugees coming in Australia so Jesus told them this parable:

Jesus said “There was once an orphanage that housed many children. Some orphans would find a new family in a new place if they went through the official adoption process that took many years.”

Jesus continued “One day the orphanage came under new management by evil men. One night the new managers set fire to the orphanage saying ‘we will destroy the building, kill the children and rebuild’. And there was a great and terrible fire. That night the children tried to flee the flames and seek shelter with a new family in a new place. Many children perished but some managed to escape and reached a new place of shelter that was open and spacious with many empty rooms, but the people who lived in that place said to themselves ‘Who are all these children? They have not come to us through the official adoption process. Surely they will fill up our empty rooms and spacious grounds! We must turn them back from here and ill treat them that they may warn others not to come to our land.’

So the people of that place turned some of the children around and sent them back into the fire where they perished. Others they locked in small cages for many years before also sending them back into the great fire where they too perished.”

Those standing near by were outraged by this and said “Teacher, why tell us this parable? This is a terrible and monstrous act! May the Lord bring judgment upon those wicked men and the people of that land for this injustice!”

Jesus said “Truly I tell you, you are the people of that land! You brood of vipers, you evil snakes! You enjoy this spacious land with many empty rooms!”

If you like this parable why not email it to Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au and Julia.Gillard.MP@aph.gov.au