I've been found speechless with regards the drama & political fall-out surrounding the parliamentary dual-citizenship debacle that might finally be coming to a close after months of stuffing about.
I think it's all over now, so I am less likely to stick my foot in my mouth as I pass comment on the shambolic sham that we occasionally refer to as the bicameral system of government.
I am politically biased - I dislike most politicians.
The problem is not just the politicking as each side has denounced the other's members, pursued their opposition whilst sheltering their own, making excuses or accommodations whilst exposing their own hypocrisy.
It's that we allow it.
I realise that an ability to attack someone with a differently-coloured tie (or dress) is not the key attribute I look for in my local representative, but the major parties only offer those skills, so we've become quite used to the circus that happens in the Canberra Big-Top.
However, it now appears that the Federal Court has been secretly wishing for its moment in the spotlight all these years.
Let's ignore the way in which government members' by-elections were rushed in, whilst opposition members' representatives were left dangling without the support of their constituents.
That's just the kind of thing one expects from party politics.
I want to get to the heart of the matter - the blanket ruling that anyone who may conceivably have been or become a dual citizen should have known & therefore should have known better than to go into politics in the first place.
Yes, there were quite a few who simply didn't know the law (& whose party had forgotten to remind them), but there were several who were genuinely surprised (& not delighted) to discover that they had acquired dual citizenship during their lives without having even gotten a hand-shake from the mayor.
In the worst of cases, some people had become citizens of countries that they had had no affiliation with, hadn't needed to visit, & were honestly mystified at how it was possible that such things could occur.
The most bizarre case, in my mind, was that of John Alexander.
Someone born here, whose father just happened to have been born in England & was therefore a British Subject resident in Australia before the concept of an Australian citizen even existed, found himself to have inherited British Citizenship, even having been born after the concept of Australian citizenship became possible.
In fact, his father could have sat in parliament without an eyebrow ever rising (as was fashionable before botox).
It could have been worse - John could have been born two years earlier as a British Subject at birth (not inheritance) - & still had no idea that he "gained" Australian citizenship.
My own father, born before the act, automatically became an Australian Citizen (only), & his English mother (& her father) unwittingly became a dual citizen ... but let's not get into gender politics here as well.
Oh let's ... my father therefore has cousins who have no idea that they are the only living dual-citizens in the family because their father (born here) inherited the dual-citizenship right & passed it on to his children.
I think I'm right here - it gets confusing - a man born in Australia to an English father can have British children, but his sister, born in England, has Australian children.
I am not concerned that people were taken by surprise at their new-found citizenship, it's more that the Fed Court has decided to interpret the law by the letter rather than the intent.
At the time of writing, the constitution was intended to preclude those whose allegiance was not to the British Empire (or the King/Queen) from sitting in parliament.
Foreign was a much broader concept in those days - & was never truly tested.
When the act of Australian Citizenship finally came about, some fifty years later, nobody was in the mood to shake the tree & see which members fell out of parliament - as I'm sure quite a few (if not most) would have.
It's a matter of history that most of our PMs had recent British ancestry.
If we start to "question" members who sat illegally & without their knowledge today, & the decisions of ministers who have since been designated illegally holding office, then we should go back in time to dismiss all of the decisions of all of the parliaments where the majority was held only with the help of those who were technically dual citizens, & any minister's actions where their allegiance could be brought into question.
Crazy talk.
To take this to the absurd, an act of parliament that effectively makes the passing of that act itself impossible through the ineligibility of the members in the majority to actually be present, never existed.
This means that the act of Australian Citizenship itself (1949), having just disappeared, could not have caused the chaos that this Super Saturday has become - with no appreciable change to the parliament - & we'll all accept that the whole thing is just politics.
29 July 2018
28 June 2018
Shoes Your Illusion
It was nearly end-of-financial-year sales time, & I had a split in my sneakers. Normally, this would mean a quick trip to my favourite supplier, but they had temporarily disgraced themselves because this pair weren't very old when they came apart at the seams.
Under duress (that is, with Mrs Unwisdom), I was escorted into a well-known high-end sports-oriented, shoe-specialist shop claiming to have 50% off. You can probably tell from that sentence that the likelihood of me entering said shop would approximate zero without such an enticement - & even then, only when accompanied by an adult (Mrs Unwisdom).
I shall set the scene - it's a very ordinary, large, popular, outer suburban shopping centre on a Saturday morning. I'm wearing the fore-mentioned sneakers, plus a jacket that I've just discovered from my fatter days that I used to love (& Mrs Unwisdom hates), with the expectation that I will also purchase its replacement. As a side note, the last time I bought sneakers with the better half in tow (more likely vice versa), she made me change in the shop & asked them politely if they had a bin behind the counter.
Back to "Expensive Shoe Store" (because I don't want to use a brand name).
After picking through the shoes placed thoughtfully outside the shop, like a tramp looking for the least grotty-looking leavings behind a restaurant, I had come up with a likely candidate that did not look as though someone had already thrown up over it. You can guess from that statement that I wasn't looking for anything so lurid that it would scare small animals (even colour blind ones).
They just weren't right - they were priced above what my critical brain tells me a shoe made in a child-labour sweat shop in name-your-favourite-third-world-country should be, & they were certainly no more comfortable than my favourite brand (made in the same factory by the siblings). I was turning somewhat donkey (Mrs Unwisdom may have used a less kind equine reference), when helpful-shop-assistant burst upon the scene in her cleverly contrived sports-reference uniform & probably overly-spongy joggers designed specifically for wearing whilst selling overly-spongy joggers to overly-spongy joggers.
"FIND ANYTHING YOU LIKE?" she politely shouted at us, managing to maintain a rising inflection.
"Not really - have you got anything ... less colourful?"
"THERE ARE SOME MORE SHOES AT THE BACK ON SALE!" she burbled, still managing to emphasise "at the back" in the way that a drunk might try to slyly wink at the barmaid.
When I looked non-plussed, she continued her tirade.
"OR IF YOU TELL ME YOUR BUDGET, I CAN SEE IF WE'VE GOT SOMETHING ELSE!"
Ah. I see.
My intentionally understated dress-sense has finally been noticed by the eyes that seem to slip past me to categorise everyone who enters the joint as potential thief or customer.
I am assured that her IQ exceeded her shoe size, but I suspect that her realm of social acquaintance rarely got beyond the pub about 500 metres distant on a Friday night. My lips parted in anticipation of telling her that I was quite capable of buying footwear if only for my sense of taste.
Mrs Unwisdom hustled me out before I could formulate a sufficiently low-brow retort for the young "lady" to fully comprehend, but I got my way, partially. We did end up buying shoes at my favourite shop: not quite what I was looking for, but different enough that I can still enjoy that slightly shabby sense of coming apart at the seams.
Under duress (that is, with Mrs Unwisdom), I was escorted into a well-known high-end sports-oriented, shoe-specialist shop claiming to have 50% off. You can probably tell from that sentence that the likelihood of me entering said shop would approximate zero without such an enticement - & even then, only when accompanied by an adult (Mrs Unwisdom).
I shall set the scene - it's a very ordinary, large, popular, outer suburban shopping centre on a Saturday morning. I'm wearing the fore-mentioned sneakers, plus a jacket that I've just discovered from my fatter days that I used to love (& Mrs Unwisdom hates), with the expectation that I will also purchase its replacement. As a side note, the last time I bought sneakers with the better half in tow (more likely vice versa), she made me change in the shop & asked them politely if they had a bin behind the counter.
Back to "Expensive Shoe Store" (because I don't want to use a brand name).
After picking through the shoes placed thoughtfully outside the shop, like a tramp looking for the least grotty-looking leavings behind a restaurant, I had come up with a likely candidate that did not look as though someone had already thrown up over it. You can guess from that statement that I wasn't looking for anything so lurid that it would scare small animals (even colour blind ones).
They just weren't right - they were priced above what my critical brain tells me a shoe made in a child-labour sweat shop in name-your-favourite-third-world-country should be, & they were certainly no more comfortable than my favourite brand (made in the same factory by the siblings). I was turning somewhat donkey (Mrs Unwisdom may have used a less kind equine reference), when helpful-shop-assistant burst upon the scene in her cleverly contrived sports-reference uniform & probably overly-spongy joggers designed specifically for wearing whilst selling overly-spongy joggers to overly-spongy joggers.
"FIND ANYTHING YOU LIKE?" she politely shouted at us, managing to maintain a rising inflection.
"Not really - have you got anything ... less colourful?"
"THERE ARE SOME MORE SHOES AT THE BACK ON SALE!" she burbled, still managing to emphasise "at the back" in the way that a drunk might try to slyly wink at the barmaid.
When I looked non-plussed, she continued her tirade.
"OR IF YOU TELL ME YOUR BUDGET, I CAN SEE IF WE'VE GOT SOMETHING ELSE!"
Ah. I see.
My intentionally understated dress-sense has finally been noticed by the eyes that seem to slip past me to categorise everyone who enters the joint as potential thief or customer.
I am assured that her IQ exceeded her shoe size, but I suspect that her realm of social acquaintance rarely got beyond the pub about 500 metres distant on a Friday night. My lips parted in anticipation of telling her that I was quite capable of buying footwear if only for my sense of taste.
Mrs Unwisdom hustled me out before I could formulate a sufficiently low-brow retort for the young "lady" to fully comprehend, but I got my way, partially. We did end up buying shoes at my favourite shop: not quite what I was looking for, but different enough that I can still enjoy that slightly shabby sense of coming apart at the seams.
19 January 2017
Into Politics
I've avoided talking about politics for some time, just sitting back to watch the US primaries & then the election. They do spend a lot of time & energy campaigning in the US, given that the presidential election comes down to two candidates & the voters (who bother to turn up) are already committed.
The dust has settled, the chicken will be strangled & Trump will be inaugurated.
The only surprise to me is the number of people who were at all surprised by this result. I wouldn't have predicted a Trump win, but it didn't surprise me. I can shake my head from this distance, point at donald & laugh, but it's in a resigned way of indicating that, as an Australian, I will never understand Americans (which is probably why I don't watch many TV shows from the US).
Having said that, this is exactly the situation we found ourselves in not that long ago, when Abbott took power. Sure, the options are limited, but just take a good long look at yourselves & ask "was he the right man to lead the majority party in the lower house of the parliament?" In the populist sense, did we allow him to run the country? Someone within the Liberal party finally got their act together & fixed the problem, but it was still a "what-the?" period of Australian history to cap off the farce that Labor had given us in revolving leaders.
We are, thankfully, still some time from the next federal election, but I can already predict the rhetoric, & I will not be surprised by the outcome.
The left wing will trot out slogans about needing to make this a better world for our children. The right will claim that everything is terrible & needs to be fixed. Trump had such success with "terrible" that it's bound to be recycled.
These are not the only alternatives - & I don't mean politically. Other parties will also pull their vision out of their anterior & try to engage the voting public with the expectation that, even with a small voice, they can change the world to how their minority sees an ideal - or an idyll - or even an idol.
I look forward to a time when there is a political party that has no vision. It just has competence in governing. Governing, by the way, is a matter of safeguarding the people through a set of necessary laws, & overseeing their implementation by the public service.
As far as I know, posturing is not required, nor is grabbing media attention either in defence or attack.
We should not be electing representatives on the basis of their ability to produce sufficient sound bites for always-on media outlets. We should be basing our decisions on the substance of those politicians. If we prick them, do they simply look surprised, or else provoked? Or do they shoot off on an indeterminate tangent gushing hot air?
We don't get the politicians we can afford, or the ones we deserve, but the ones we allow. The onus is still on the individual to accept the candidates set up before them, or else decide to do something about it & put their own hand up.
Ask yourself - could you possibly do worse?
The dust has settled, the chicken will be strangled & Trump will be inaugurated.
The only surprise to me is the number of people who were at all surprised by this result. I wouldn't have predicted a Trump win, but it didn't surprise me. I can shake my head from this distance, point at donald & laugh, but it's in a resigned way of indicating that, as an Australian, I will never understand Americans (which is probably why I don't watch many TV shows from the US).
Having said that, this is exactly the situation we found ourselves in not that long ago, when Abbott took power. Sure, the options are limited, but just take a good long look at yourselves & ask "was he the right man to lead the majority party in the lower house of the parliament?" In the populist sense, did we allow him to run the country? Someone within the Liberal party finally got their act together & fixed the problem, but it was still a "what-the?" period of Australian history to cap off the farce that Labor had given us in revolving leaders.
We are, thankfully, still some time from the next federal election, but I can already predict the rhetoric, & I will not be surprised by the outcome.
The left wing will trot out slogans about needing to make this a better world for our children. The right will claim that everything is terrible & needs to be fixed. Trump had such success with "terrible" that it's bound to be recycled.
These are not the only alternatives - & I don't mean politically. Other parties will also pull their vision out of their anterior & try to engage the voting public with the expectation that, even with a small voice, they can change the world to how their minority sees an ideal - or an idyll - or even an idol.
I look forward to a time when there is a political party that has no vision. It just has competence in governing. Governing, by the way, is a matter of safeguarding the people through a set of necessary laws, & overseeing their implementation by the public service.
As far as I know, posturing is not required, nor is grabbing media attention either in defence or attack.
We should not be electing representatives on the basis of their ability to produce sufficient sound bites for always-on media outlets. We should be basing our decisions on the substance of those politicians. If we prick them, do they simply look surprised, or else provoked? Or do they shoot off on an indeterminate tangent gushing hot air?
We don't get the politicians we can afford, or the ones we deserve, but the ones we allow. The onus is still on the individual to accept the candidates set up before them, or else decide to do something about it & put their own hand up.
Ask yourself - could you possibly do worse?
03 July 2016
At the End of the Great Campaign
The eight-week campaign is over. It's been all-out war. By that, I mean a game of politics.
It doesn't matter what part of the political spectrum you favour, the fundamental truth is that we live in a representational democracy, where people within a region defined by an independent & heavily scrutinised authority get to elect their representative in the national parliament.
Invariably, this comes down to a war between two sides, because the average person is not capable of envisaging war as having any more than two sides to any issue.
Because of that limitation of the human brain - or our lack of training in being able to think outside of such a limiting way of thinking - the war is either won or lost, there is a winner & a loser, & you either supported the winning or the losing side.
People often correlate politics to sport, which is no better. Although there are more than two teams playing, they are not doing so on the same field at the same time, so you can only watch one contest. When our ability to think outside of this simple paradigm allows us to invent games where there are multiple independent teams competing on the same field for some prize that does not necessarily require a single winner, then we will have taken a great leap forward in the way we view the world.
Until that time, Australian politics (US as well, UK to a large extent) is two sided, & then there are other parties who correlate more to unofficial referees or pitch invaders, dependent upon the respect shown by the general populace.
Like every war, this campaign has come to an end, although not to a conclusion at the time of writing, because there is no clear winner, even if the game has ended. This particular bout will be decided on points, & the judges are still in conference.
While the coaches berate their teams in the dressing sheds in the post-match warm-down & the media frenzy looking for a man of the match to lionise before the crowds that have been disappointedly baying for blood, some of the players have been asked for their thoughts.
"It's such a shame we lost bluey so early in the match - he's been a strong campaigner for several seasons, but they just cut his margin."
"I lost some good mates out there. They gave their all, & now they've gone - never to be seen in the house again."
War, sport, politics. It's a matter of scale, I guess.
In politics, no-one is injured - ever! No-one dies under enemy fire. People just retire from political life & either live off their parliamentary pension or take up charity chairmanships.
In a true democracy, those who were not re-elected should simply be seen as no longer being representative of the region for which they stood. If they belong to a party, then it's not even personal - it's the relevance of the party to that area. If they are an independent, then it's a lack of ability to communicate with (listen to as well as talk to) their neighbours.
Nothing more. There is no God-given right to be elected to parliament or even to stand for election. Anyone can stand. Anyone can be elected. Anyone can fail. Anyone can be defeated. That's democracy.
There'll be another game all too soon. The same team colours will come out in the reserve grade under a different coach (same club management), & we'll go through the same routine of feeling sorry for the 300-game player stretchered off the field with a career-ending slice to his margin.
I, however, will be cheering on the replacement who brings fresh legs, new ideas, & a passion to do better & show that they deserve to be a part of the run-on team in the next game. I will also appreciate the skills of the legendary player who saved their side from defeat yet-again.
I will forget the fallen. This is just politics, not war.
In war, nobody ever wins, & all of the fallen should be remembered.
It doesn't matter what part of the political spectrum you favour, the fundamental truth is that we live in a representational democracy, where people within a region defined by an independent & heavily scrutinised authority get to elect their representative in the national parliament.
Invariably, this comes down to a war between two sides, because the average person is not capable of envisaging war as having any more than two sides to any issue.
Because of that limitation of the human brain - or our lack of training in being able to think outside of such a limiting way of thinking - the war is either won or lost, there is a winner & a loser, & you either supported the winning or the losing side.
People often correlate politics to sport, which is no better. Although there are more than two teams playing, they are not doing so on the same field at the same time, so you can only watch one contest. When our ability to think outside of this simple paradigm allows us to invent games where there are multiple independent teams competing on the same field for some prize that does not necessarily require a single winner, then we will have taken a great leap forward in the way we view the world.
Until that time, Australian politics (US as well, UK to a large extent) is two sided, & then there are other parties who correlate more to unofficial referees or pitch invaders, dependent upon the respect shown by the general populace.
Like every war, this campaign has come to an end, although not to a conclusion at the time of writing, because there is no clear winner, even if the game has ended. This particular bout will be decided on points, & the judges are still in conference.
While the coaches berate their teams in the dressing sheds in the post-match warm-down & the media frenzy looking for a man of the match to lionise before the crowds that have been disappointedly baying for blood, some of the players have been asked for their thoughts.
"It's such a shame we lost bluey so early in the match - he's been a strong campaigner for several seasons, but they just cut his margin."
"I lost some good mates out there. They gave their all, & now they've gone - never to be seen in the house again."
War, sport, politics. It's a matter of scale, I guess.
In politics, no-one is injured - ever! No-one dies under enemy fire. People just retire from political life & either live off their parliamentary pension or take up charity chairmanships.
In a true democracy, those who were not re-elected should simply be seen as no longer being representative of the region for which they stood. If they belong to a party, then it's not even personal - it's the relevance of the party to that area. If they are an independent, then it's a lack of ability to communicate with (listen to as well as talk to) their neighbours.
Nothing more. There is no God-given right to be elected to parliament or even to stand for election. Anyone can stand. Anyone can be elected. Anyone can fail. Anyone can be defeated. That's democracy.
There'll be another game all too soon. The same team colours will come out in the reserve grade under a different coach (same club management), & we'll go through the same routine of feeling sorry for the 300-game player stretchered off the field with a career-ending slice to his margin.
I, however, will be cheering on the replacement who brings fresh legs, new ideas, & a passion to do better & show that they deserve to be a part of the run-on team in the next game. I will also appreciate the skills of the legendary player who saved their side from defeat yet-again.
I will forget the fallen. This is just politics, not war.
In war, nobody ever wins, & all of the fallen should be remembered.
25 May 2016
Grapes of Strewth!
(Note - this is quite explicit.)
Hemorrhoids.
I had absolutely no idea what they were except as the butt of a joke from Austen Tayshus a very long time ago. It turns out that the slight lump in my bum was indeed the grapes of wrath (so called because the swelling going down looks like a bunch of grapes). Until I got up the courage to have my wife look up my back passage (standing in the front passage), I didn't realise that said lump was pressing on a nerve & was the cause of my sudden back pain.
Time to visit the doctor - preferably one I won't have to face again (& won't be facing this time).
A quick dose of embarrassment at the end of a rubber-gloved finger gave me the news: "You, sir, have piles!" He wasn't quite that chipper or polite, but I had to make allowances under the circumstances. He wrote down a cream named after my arse - easier to remember - & a letter of recommendation to a specialist ("patient has piles; your area of expertise, I believe").
It took two weeks to get into the consulting surgeon's offices, by which time my grapes had shrivelled down to sultanas under the brilliance of where the sun shines out.
It was a busy office. I was the last patient for the day, apparently, & had to wait more than hour for my appointment to be fulfilled, by which time I had noticed the misspelling of the surgeon's qualifications etched into the door, & discovered enough history to realise that I was not going to be dealing with a doctor, but a researcher who had decided to career change to surgery. Being South African, it would appear, a bedside manner was something for which my new rubber-glove-friend was neither qualified or trained.
I had prepared myself for someone tall, fair of hair & skin, & abrupt. I realised that I was still underprepared when I met her & remembered that I was soon to be her glove puppet.
She confirmed that things were "going along nicely" - although thankfully her practiced investigation while I was turned to the wall was even briefer than the GP's. She did however, suggest that "given my age" I should have a colonoscopy "just in case".
I made a booking as far away as I thought polite.
Unfortunately, even two months can skip past when you're ignoring the inevitability of people probing your nether regions while you're unconscious. You'll be asleep when they stick a tube up there, but you can well imagine just how long that thing is & how far up it's going.
I did not read the provided documentation until the last minute - that is, when I should have been putting things in play, like pre-admission for the hospital. The diet changes were minor - not even mildly annoying - but then there's the medicinal end of the procedural preparation.
MoviPrep.
It's as dramatic as hemorrhoids. A sentence in itself - in both the grammatical & sense of injustice.
The directions are almost threatening in their understatement - prepare the solution & chill for two hours. Chilling was the last thing on my mind as I'd already read humorous blogs relating the effects of this "solution". However, forewarned is ... simply another way to build up panic.
My first mouthful - & indeed hurried glassful - reminded me of L&P, that classic Kiwi drink. The second, not so. Successive glasses were increasingly more difficult to swallow between the effects
the product was having. One could say that the gap of thirty minutes between my first two visits to the bathroom was relaxing, but also not indicative of the power of this liquid to "cleanse the intestines".
I made a game of it - checking to see just how cleansed I was becoming, from passing a normally-brown-coloured wet stool, through to pissing out a stream of yellowish-not-quite-clear liquid through my mildly surprised sphincter.
It's not like diarrhea at all. It's very, very different. Diarrhea has your stomach behind it trying to get rid of stuff that could be bad for you. This is an indiscriminate eviction of all intestinal tenants.
In effect, I ingested two litres of "stuff", at least half a litre of water (to ensure non-dehydration?), plus my "meal" of (clear) chicken soup, over a period of less than five hours. My wife suggested it was so much liquid that I shouldn't rush it. My bladder was the least of my concerns.
Like contractions, the pain & exertion came more frequently until my labour was finally & suddenly over & I felt optimistic enough to sleep.
I went to bed in fear. I woke up in annoyance. Mostly, I was annoyed that I would have gotten up in half an hour anyway, so why my intestines decided that I needed one more burst of expulsion at that time was beyond me.
By comparison, the procedure itself was a dream.
Hemorrhoids.
I had absolutely no idea what they were except as the butt of a joke from Austen Tayshus a very long time ago. It turns out that the slight lump in my bum was indeed the grapes of wrath (so called because the swelling going down looks like a bunch of grapes). Until I got up the courage to have my wife look up my back passage (standing in the front passage), I didn't realise that said lump was pressing on a nerve & was the cause of my sudden back pain.
Time to visit the doctor - preferably one I won't have to face again (& won't be facing this time).
A quick dose of embarrassment at the end of a rubber-gloved finger gave me the news: "You, sir, have piles!" He wasn't quite that chipper or polite, but I had to make allowances under the circumstances. He wrote down a cream named after my arse - easier to remember - & a letter of recommendation to a specialist ("patient has piles; your area of expertise, I believe").
It took two weeks to get into the consulting surgeon's offices, by which time my grapes had shrivelled down to sultanas under the brilliance of where the sun shines out.
It was a busy office. I was the last patient for the day, apparently, & had to wait more than hour for my appointment to be fulfilled, by which time I had noticed the misspelling of the surgeon's qualifications etched into the door, & discovered enough history to realise that I was not going to be dealing with a doctor, but a researcher who had decided to career change to surgery. Being South African, it would appear, a bedside manner was something for which my new rubber-glove-friend was neither qualified or trained.
I had prepared myself for someone tall, fair of hair & skin, & abrupt. I realised that I was still underprepared when I met her & remembered that I was soon to be her glove puppet.
She confirmed that things were "going along nicely" - although thankfully her practiced investigation while I was turned to the wall was even briefer than the GP's. She did however, suggest that "given my age" I should have a colonoscopy "just in case".
I made a booking as far away as I thought polite.
Unfortunately, even two months can skip past when you're ignoring the inevitability of people probing your nether regions while you're unconscious. You'll be asleep when they stick a tube up there, but you can well imagine just how long that thing is & how far up it's going.
I did not read the provided documentation until the last minute - that is, when I should have been putting things in play, like pre-admission for the hospital. The diet changes were minor - not even mildly annoying - but then there's the medicinal end of the procedural preparation.
MoviPrep.
It's as dramatic as hemorrhoids. A sentence in itself - in both the grammatical & sense of injustice.
The directions are almost threatening in their understatement - prepare the solution & chill for two hours. Chilling was the last thing on my mind as I'd already read humorous blogs relating the effects of this "solution". However, forewarned is ... simply another way to build up panic.
My first mouthful - & indeed hurried glassful - reminded me of L&P, that classic Kiwi drink. The second, not so. Successive glasses were increasingly more difficult to swallow between the effects
the product was having. One could say that the gap of thirty minutes between my first two visits to the bathroom was relaxing, but also not indicative of the power of this liquid to "cleanse the intestines".
I made a game of it - checking to see just how cleansed I was becoming, from passing a normally-brown-coloured wet stool, through to pissing out a stream of yellowish-not-quite-clear liquid through my mildly surprised sphincter.
It's not like diarrhea at all. It's very, very different. Diarrhea has your stomach behind it trying to get rid of stuff that could be bad for you. This is an indiscriminate eviction of all intestinal tenants.
In effect, I ingested two litres of "stuff", at least half a litre of water (to ensure non-dehydration?), plus my "meal" of (clear) chicken soup, over a period of less than five hours. My wife suggested it was so much liquid that I shouldn't rush it. My bladder was the least of my concerns.
Like contractions, the pain & exertion came more frequently until my labour was finally & suddenly over & I felt optimistic enough to sleep.
I went to bed in fear. I woke up in annoyance. Mostly, I was annoyed that I would have gotten up in half an hour anyway, so why my intestines decided that I needed one more burst of expulsion at that time was beyond me.
By comparison, the procedure itself was a dream.
22 May 2016
Bicameral Vision
We lose sight of the origins & intentions of our democratic system to the point where, not only do we forget its advantages, we get distracted by those who intentionally want to subvert good process.
The number of times I have heard whinging about how the upper house (state or federal) "gets in the way" of law-making has even brought me to a point of tuning out & not responding with my old tune of " ... but that's their job!" Indeed, the whole point of having two houses of parliament is for one to set the laws & the other - having no part in the setting - ensuring that those laws make sense within themselves & for the people - a house of review.
We have muddied this for so long, where the "power" in the lower house - those who can control enough votes to set whatever laws they want to the exclusion of any good ideas coming from the other side of the house - will complain bitterly if they don't have the power in the upper house to steamroll whatever they want. They will use words like "mandate" or "trigger for a double dissolution" to imply that they are hard done by because the people did not trust them enough to review their own decisions (strangely).
Admittedly, the parliamentary system is far from perfect - & how people are elected to the two houses is constantly a matter of abuse & review in itself (by another party entirely, made up of public servants) - but to understand how it works best, you need to understand how it was meant to work when it was developed, & the years of changes in the English system from which ours was born.
My inspiration for beginning this blog, however, was not parliamentary decision making, but decisions for all social things. We still have a monarchical view of our democracy - someone comes into power, & they should be allowed to do what they want. This is tyrannical at the least, & we should have come a long way beyond that. It happens in government, in enterprises (Board Chairpersons or CEOs), & the public service (government-backed flunkeys placed in high positions).
What if, however, laws, rules, procedures & practices were developed in a bicameral way - one group to debate & propose changes, & another group to review & approve them (with limited ability to make changes)?
In a previous blog, I mentioned that education is a problem that no government can 'fix' because they just don't have the background or the desire to do anything socially useful to 'fix' the way in which non-voters (primarily) are educated.
What if, instead, educators were elected to a committee to investigate & propose laws, & a group of other interested parties - community representatives, administrators, parents, etc - were empowered to review & accept recommendations?
I know that sounds radical. It would also solve another of education's little problems - how do you get more out of the teachers who are skilled & knowledgeable & want to put back into the system without being administrators? You put them on committees of change, or involve them in reviewing changes - as professional & current teachers.
That way, you don't lose their interest, you gain from their experience, you give them something to aim for (a prestigious position on a committee), & you keep them engaged in the challenges that they themselves face in their day-to-day workplace.
Education is one such example. I don't want to list others, because the reality is that a bicameral vision could be applied to anything from the running of a public company to a charity. Looking at things differently, to see that rule by committee is possible, is one thing. Realising that any activity could benefit from the social experience of the members of any community is the big leap forward that democracy needs.
The number of times I have heard whinging about how the upper house (state or federal) "gets in the way" of law-making has even brought me to a point of tuning out & not responding with my old tune of " ... but that's their job!" Indeed, the whole point of having two houses of parliament is for one to set the laws & the other - having no part in the setting - ensuring that those laws make sense within themselves & for the people - a house of review.
We have muddied this for so long, where the "power" in the lower house - those who can control enough votes to set whatever laws they want to the exclusion of any good ideas coming from the other side of the house - will complain bitterly if they don't have the power in the upper house to steamroll whatever they want. They will use words like "mandate" or "trigger for a double dissolution" to imply that they are hard done by because the people did not trust them enough to review their own decisions (strangely).
Admittedly, the parliamentary system is far from perfect - & how people are elected to the two houses is constantly a matter of abuse & review in itself (by another party entirely, made up of public servants) - but to understand how it works best, you need to understand how it was meant to work when it was developed, & the years of changes in the English system from which ours was born.
My inspiration for beginning this blog, however, was not parliamentary decision making, but decisions for all social things. We still have a monarchical view of our democracy - someone comes into power, & they should be allowed to do what they want. This is tyrannical at the least, & we should have come a long way beyond that. It happens in government, in enterprises (Board Chairpersons or CEOs), & the public service (government-backed flunkeys placed in high positions).
What if, however, laws, rules, procedures & practices were developed in a bicameral way - one group to debate & propose changes, & another group to review & approve them (with limited ability to make changes)?
In a previous blog, I mentioned that education is a problem that no government can 'fix' because they just don't have the background or the desire to do anything socially useful to 'fix' the way in which non-voters (primarily) are educated.
What if, instead, educators were elected to a committee to investigate & propose laws, & a group of other interested parties - community representatives, administrators, parents, etc - were empowered to review & accept recommendations?
I know that sounds radical. It would also solve another of education's little problems - how do you get more out of the teachers who are skilled & knowledgeable & want to put back into the system without being administrators? You put them on committees of change, or involve them in reviewing changes - as professional & current teachers.
That way, you don't lose their interest, you gain from their experience, you give them something to aim for (a prestigious position on a committee), & you keep them engaged in the challenges that they themselves face in their day-to-day workplace.
Education is one such example. I don't want to list others, because the reality is that a bicameral vision could be applied to anything from the running of a public company to a charity. Looking at things differently, to see that rule by committee is possible, is one thing. Realising that any activity could benefit from the social experience of the members of any community is the big leap forward that democracy needs.
01 May 2016
We'll Never 'Fix' the Education System
We don't have the ability or will to 'fix' anything as complex as education.
A bold statement, but if anyone had said it twenty, or fifty years ago, people would have pooh-poohed them; & yet we've gotten nowhere over that time. I don't think I'm going out on a limb in saying what people have been thinking for a long time, & I won't have to wait twenty years to be "proven right".
The reason we won't fix the system is because those empowered to do so - those holding the purse strings - can't. They are the wrong people to see what the problems are, & they have the wrong reasons for applying fixes.
I am, of course, talking about politicians. They are not professional educators, they are not administrators of education systems, they have no skills in business transformation, they are not even employers of the newly educated. They have no vested interest in fixing education. They have no notion of the problems actually within the system. Their only goal is to appear to be doing something in the eyes of their electoral base.
Let's be cynical (of politicians - I'd like you to be quite open to my suggestions) for a moment. One side of politics claims that the best education is acquired in the private system, therefore the closer the public system can get to that, the more likely it will be 'fixed'. This is anathema to their opposition, who would take the first opportunity to reverse any policies put in place along those lines. That second unnamed political party would claim that encouraging the best teachers to stay in the public system (by offering better wages) would improve the general level of education. This, of course, smacks of unionism, which could not be supported by the first side.
What if they're both right? Neither side could possibly support or encourage the others' position. Worse - what if they're both wrong & we just don't have enough parties to offer policies that fly in the face of these dogmatic approaches & be aired & discussed before the general populace - not the voters, but the parents & teachers.
Education is big (number of people involved, number of stakeholders - kids, budget, time - thirteen-plus years of a person's life), & yet policies are squeezed into five-second sound-bites - preferably by a minister & two cronies with good haircuts & an ability to smile & nod without looking like axe murderers.
This is insane. This - & only this - is why the education system cannot be fixed. We - as a society - must treat education with respect & ask more of those placed (by us) in positions of power (government), so that they, in turn, are compelled to add a touch of professionalism to parliament & policy making that achieves real outcomes when the cameras & microphones are switched off.
A bold statement, but if anyone had said it twenty, or fifty years ago, people would have pooh-poohed them; & yet we've gotten nowhere over that time. I don't think I'm going out on a limb in saying what people have been thinking for a long time, & I won't have to wait twenty years to be "proven right".
The reason we won't fix the system is because those empowered to do so - those holding the purse strings - can't. They are the wrong people to see what the problems are, & they have the wrong reasons for applying fixes.
I am, of course, talking about politicians. They are not professional educators, they are not administrators of education systems, they have no skills in business transformation, they are not even employers of the newly educated. They have no vested interest in fixing education. They have no notion of the problems actually within the system. Their only goal is to appear to be doing something in the eyes of their electoral base.
Let's be cynical (of politicians - I'd like you to be quite open to my suggestions) for a moment. One side of politics claims that the best education is acquired in the private system, therefore the closer the public system can get to that, the more likely it will be 'fixed'. This is anathema to their opposition, who would take the first opportunity to reverse any policies put in place along those lines. That second unnamed political party would claim that encouraging the best teachers to stay in the public system (by offering better wages) would improve the general level of education. This, of course, smacks of unionism, which could not be supported by the first side.
What if they're both right? Neither side could possibly support or encourage the others' position. Worse - what if they're both wrong & we just don't have enough parties to offer policies that fly in the face of these dogmatic approaches & be aired & discussed before the general populace - not the voters, but the parents & teachers.
Education is big (number of people involved, number of stakeholders - kids, budget, time - thirteen-plus years of a person's life), & yet policies are squeezed into five-second sound-bites - preferably by a minister & two cronies with good haircuts & an ability to smile & nod without looking like axe murderers.
This is insane. This - & only this - is why the education system cannot be fixed. We - as a society - must treat education with respect & ask more of those placed (by us) in positions of power (government), so that they, in turn, are compelled to add a touch of professionalism to parliament & policy making that achieves real outcomes when the cameras & microphones are switched off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)