Archive for category Politics and society
Trying to look annoyed
Posted by eN0ch in Politics and society on 4 February 2012
Until recently I thought the hardest thing about being snapped (by a camera) was putting on a smile that actually lasted, looked sublime, didn’t make me look a dork, and ticked all the above boxes while looking “natural” (whatever that is). But now I know differently. Yesterday I spent about 30 minutes at the local Werribee Train Station, trying to look annoyed to the satisfaction of a local newspaper photographer and her (future) consumers. At least with smiling, I do actually do it now and then, like those times when no one but me got my joke. So my face is accustomed to the required muscular contortions, even if my teeth aren’t quite Hollywood standard. However looking annoyed, facially and staturely (made up word, there) and doing so for 30 minutes, in numerous poses, on a (stationary) train, off the train, in front of the slowly moving train, and all to the entertainment of bemused onlookers … ’twas nothing if not challenging.
Fellow Wyndhamites will shortly be treated to the spectacle of my severely misshapen face, torso and spindly legs somewhere in the vicinity of an article in one of our local rags about the delights of public transport in our fair city. (Just watch the “Wyndham Weekly”, formerly “the Banner”). Please don’t let your children or grandchildren see it, however. Anyone looking as mad as I apparently succeeded in doing on this occasion would produce nightmares aplenty, I’m sure.
What was that you asked? …. Oh, you’re wondering as to the cause of my time in the sun? Well it all started the day I contributed to a smartphone-based survey of travelling on Melbourne trains during peak hour. You know, the great waltz of the sweating sardines … One thing led to another, climaxing with a recent e-mail submission to a local journo. It went like this:-
Hi Grant,
Photos at train stations are fine, if desired.
My main passions on the subject are more directly about local buses, but rail infrastructure is a major feature in the equation. I’ll raise a smaller (relatively) issue first, followed by a more ‘macro’ one.
Bus service
Until sometime in the past maybe 2 years, our local bus route (443) ran services 40 minutes apart, meaning a bus for every second train. We all thought that was lousy and couldn’t imagine it getting any worse. Even with the services at that level, we generally needed to drive our children to the station for their train journeys to school, despite the presence of a bus stop a few hundred metres away at the end of our street.
Now the bus services are hourly, whilst train services have actually increased (during peak). So you might strike it lucky if the train you want happens to connect to a bus, but usually not.
Then you add to the mix the low level of patronage on the bus service, which I’m sure is directly linked to its infrequency. i.e. you can’t factor the buses into your commuting routines or strategies, so the few buses that come are an irrelevance, so no one rides on them. And partly because so few people catch the buses, we frequently have buses running early (yes, that’s right). I’m told this happens due to the drivers not noticing that they’ve reached point ‘X’ on the route 2 minutes ahead of schedule. That presumably happens because the scheduling has been calculated on the assumption of stopping ‘Y’ times. But with so few patrons to pick up or let off, there are hardly any stops made. So then the few intending passengers miss their bus as it sails past the stop in the distance, 2 minutes ahead of schedule.
So the end result: our local bus route is functionally irrelevant to our lives and routines, so may as well not run at all. (And btw – we live 5 minutes from the Werribee train station.) So whenever we or any of our neighbours catch a train (our adult children do so most week days for work; my wife and I do so occasionally), we have no option but to drive … which leads to my second point:
Rail commuter parking
With no effective / reliable bus service, commuters in our neighbourhood have to drive themselves to catch a train. But where do they park? Well if they’re an early bird, then no worries – they park in the train station carpark. But the carpark, despite being one of the biggest station carparks I’m aware of anywhere, is full by about 7:30am. Any one of the hundreds (more?) wanting a train after that has to fight for a kerbside parking space in one of the residential streets around. We’ve watched over the past few years as parked cars have taken over suburbia like a hungry and growing metallic blob emanating out from the station and local CBD. Our kids used to park in a street a minute’s walk from the station carpark, which is on the opposite side of both the station and the CBD from the side we live in. But that was before the local residents, quite understandably, rose up in arms about their constantly congested street. So the council installed 2 hour parking signs, meaning the day-long commuters have to park in other streets further out.
So our kids (and their peer hordes) now park in streets this side of both the station and the CBD. That’s where I also park if needing a train. I have long legs and a swift walk, and can get to the station from my car in maybe 5 minutes (depending on traffic at the two sets of pedestrian lights in between). I reckon it would take many people closer to 10 minutes. With Wyndham’s rate of growth, it can only be a matter of time before large swathes of our neighbourhood have become an extension of the station carpark, due to a combination of more cars needing to be parked and more streets out from the CBD getting parking signs.
In short – it’s clear to me that some combination of multi-level parking at the train station and a major funding increase for local bus services is essential to prevent inner Werribee from becoming a congestion nightmare in the next decade. But I doubt that any such investment is even on the state government’s radar.
Train carriage crowding
All of that, of course is before one even gets to the station to catch a crowded train. I have less personal testimony on the train carriages themselves. But I can comment from a handful of experiences where I’ve found myself on an evening peak train returning to Werribee from the city. I’m likely to start my journey at Flinders Street or Southern Cross, meaning I’ll usually get a seat. But I’ve observed fellow travellers in my own carriage, also bound for Werribee, actually standing sometimes right through as far as Hoppers Crossing (the last station before Werribee, which is the end of the line).
Ticket to ride, and ride, and ride, and ….
Posted by eN0ch in Letters, Politics and society, The Age on 7 January 2012
Those folks who say Melbourne’s Skybus isn’t good value just haven’t considered the technology. Granted the tickets have barcodes. But from my experience yesterday, the limited barcode scanning capacities of the nineteenth century holepunch used on my ticket offer excellent value for minimum enterprise.
Runs and rupees
Posted by eN0ch in Letters, Politics and society, The Age, World on 6 January 2012
“Should Australia continue to increase its economic ties with India?” (The Age, Reader poll, 5/1) Well absolutely, if Clarke keeps batting like this.
A bigger vision
Posted by eN0ch in Faith, Letters, Politics and society, The Age on 5 January 2012
Australian Marriage Equality convener, Alex Greenwich (The Age, 5/1), needs to listen a little more to religious community concerns on gay marriage. Proposed legislation “assur(ing) churches they would not be forced to marry gay couples” may offer some consolation. (Although overseas experience suggests such protection may be temporary anyway.) However for those people of faith who oppose the redefinition of marriage, the central concerns are broader and deeper than the impact of gay marriage on the church itself or it’s ministers. We believe such a change would be to the profound detriment of future generations and of our whole society, not just ourselves. Others are fully entitled to disagree with our worldview. But any serious discussion of this vexed subject must reckon with the scope of our unease, which will not be assuaged by some self-directed political deal.
Generally speaking, the more profound the proposed cultural change the longer and more patient the debate required, if trust is not to be a casualty. This national conversation has barely begun. Now is not the time for legislative haste.
The voice of experience
Posted by eN0ch in Letters, Politics and society, The Age, World on 15 December 2011
Two PMs? We know all about it. But how many independents?
Don’t thank us
Posted by eN0ch in Letters, Politics and society, The Age on 4 November 2011
If you’re one of our customers directly affected by the grounding, you can look forward to a special thank-you … (Fullpage Qantas ad, The Age, 4/11)
Don’t tell me; let me guess. “Thank you for not flying Qantas”?
An uglier game
Posted by eN0ch in Letters, Politics and society, The Age on 27 September 2011
The race to the moral bottom has gone viral, it seems. No longer confined to our major politics, it now infects our major religions too. The next time you put on your football scarf, there’s more to worry about than who’s out injured. Now you can ponder what proportion of your membership dues or gate takings is being invested off the field, in protecting your club’s pecuniary interest in the shattered lives of problem gamblers and their loved ones, whose finals will be anything but grand.
Let’s have a real debate
Posted by eN0ch in Faith, Politics and society on 30 May 2011
The recent publication of Lindsay Tanner’s “Sideshow” has in some sense given us all permission to question the health of politics in Australia, and especially of political coverage by media outlets. Tanner’s very valid concerns have a much wider application, however, than politics itself. The age of instant global communications – with it’s doorstop interviews, sound bites, tweets, banal slogans, character attacks and spin, is fast altering the complexion of public discourse on all manner of subjects. It’s largely not for the better, and intelligent debate is one major casualty.
The present assault on religious education and chaplaincy in state schools is but one example, and part of a wider media phenomenon. In a free, democratic and diverse society it’s only to be expected that the place of religious belief in public life will be debated. This is as it should be, and neither Christians nor other faith believers should fear such engagement in the public square. However in the interests of balanced and informed dialogue a bit of common wisdom in how the debate is conducted might go a long way, if it is to merit the term “debate”.
The basics of constructive debate include inter alia caution with hearsay, resisting conspiracy theories, attention to the meaning of language peculiar to certain groups, and great care when quoting phrases without a context. What is frustrating about much of the coverage thus far in the print media generally, and The Age in particular, is the singular lack of attention to such values, even by seasoned commentators. It shows in some of the alarmist and polarised language now being used by columnists and taken up by some among their consumers. The subject is too important, however, to be reduced to trite sloganeering or half-baked analysis.
Recent reporting, for instance, has rendered famous the use of the phrase “make disciples” in connection with the work of Access Ministries in Victorian state schools. Fuelled apparently by apocalyptic visions of defenceless children before an invading force, armed to the teeth with black bibles, handcuffs and mobile pulpits, angst rages through letters columns and talkback radio segments. Digital space is all abuzz with lines like “Lie to kids”, “Out to convert” and “Caught lying again.” Not so very different from the political headlines we see these days, and hardly more sophisticated. What’s also in common is the creeping replacement of thoughtful social analysis with sound bites targeting people and denigrating characters, but yielding little actual insight.
Like any organisation or professional circle, the Christian community uses peculiar sets of words, phrases, images and metaphors, some drawn from the Bible itself, others from a variety of contexts in Christian history. Just as it would be unwise for a layman to draw conclusions from language used in a medical conference, a constitutional debate or a sci-fi chatroom (among an endless list), so it serves none of us well to lift an evocative phrase from a very specific faith context, and broadcast it in the public domain without the most careful of research. Doing so may make for arresting headlines, but it too rarely serves the cause of truth. Without truth, trust diminishes and constructive debate becomes impossible.
Slogans commonly represent a rejection of historical context as something that matters for current application. If a phrase is deemed useful as an ideological mantra, then no one wants to know where it came from or how closely the new usage resembles the original. If one wants to rid the world of the scourge of religion in the quest for some global atheist Utopia, then “secular” makes a great mantra, especially when combined with the words “education” and “free”. It doesn’t matter that the drafters of Victoria’s model for state education had neither faith nor ‘un-faith’ in mind when they envisioned a system “free and secular”. What matters rather is the usefulness of “secularism” to the cause of messianic atheism. Atheism per se is politically naked; secularism, which essentially means plain boring impartiality, provides it a fine respectable suit of clothes to wear to the public square.
Nor is the religion in schools “debate” the only context in which today’s beloved sloganeering style of journalism puts a damper on intelligent dialogue about religion. The phrase that’s really had the fourth estate all agog in the past decade is “separation of church and state”. It’s become as irresistible to crusading social commentators as a solitary bush dunny to a swarm of blowflies. It’s so exquisitely utilitarian to the pursuit of blessedly God-free public discourse. Pertinent facts include: (1) that no such phrase appears in the Australian Constitution which in fact protects religious expression;1 and (2) that it’s US origins have to do with keeping the government and any religious group organically distinct from eachother, particularly in contrast with the British model of an ‘established’ church. None of this is any challenge at all, however, to members of today’s commentariat for whom the only history that isn’t all ‘crap’ anyway is the convenient kind.
The socio-political landscape of today’s Australia is perhaps more complex than it has ever been, and this will hardly diminish with time. In the interests of harmony and cohesion, we all need and deserve the kind of public discourse that arises more naturally from even-handed research and careful scrutiny, than from two-second quotes and endless tweets. Only then can we have public dialogue with substance. Let’s have the real debate we need about religion in schools specifically, and public institutions generally.
One thing’s for sure. When words like “preacher” start to be applied to the Grade 1 religious education class at the local primary school, it’s time we all asked questions.
- The Constitution enshrines a “principle of state neutrality” as distinct from “separation of church and state”. Reference: Ch 5 § 116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Australia
Published today at onlineopinion.com.au
Words and conspiracies
Posted by eN0ch in Faith, Letters, Politics and society, The Age on 16 May 2011
In a free, democratic and diverse society it’s only to be expected that the place of religious belief in public life will be debated. This is as it should be. However in the interests of balanced and informed dialogue a bit of common wisdom in how the debate is conducted goes a long way. Respected organs of media should set the standard.
The basics of constructive debate include caution with hearsay, resisting conspiracy theories, attention to the meaning of language peculiar to certain groups, and great care when quoting phrases without a context. The present debate about Christian teaching in schools has too often lacked attention to such concerns, and it shows in some of the alarmist and polarised language now being used. This will serve none of us, our children included.
Like any organisation or professional circle, the Christian community uses peculiar sets of words, phrases, images and metaphors, some drawn from the Bible itself, others from a variety of contexts in Christian history. The world could not contain the conspiracy theories that might arise from a layman’s hearing of language used in a medical conference, courtroom or mechanical workshop (among an endless list).
When words like “preacher” start to be applied to the religious education class at the local primary school, it’s time we all asked questions.
The silence of the plods
Posted by eN0ch in Letters, Politics and society, The Age on 9 May 2011
I would love to know what really went on between Mr Overland and his former deputy, Sir Ken Jones – just as between Nixon and Ashby, Rudd and Gillard, Turnbull and Abbott, Howard and Costello, Hawke and Keating … and a horde of other leadership intrigues if I’d only known about them. And if starved of facts, then I have sufficient time, intelligence, imagination- and Twitter – to feed an exhaustive cache of urban myths, innuendo and conspiracy theory.
But then would we really want to live in a world of unconstrained accountability? Anyone who’s been an executive leader of just about anything, has dealt with the sometimes daily necessity of keeping certain information restricted to a very few. The absence of such constraints could be a recipe for anarchy – or worse. This is precisely because we humans love to know and love to tell. When the organisation in question is the one chiefly responsible for keeping all of us safe from the darkest of human intent, we might just be especially glad that some files stay locked and some lips stay sealed.
I still wish I knew. But I like being safe.
