Qohel

Make a Difference

Page 9 of 107

COVID-19: Health Matters. Life Matters

If one million people are vaccinated with the new COVID-19 vaccine over the next year, this is what we can expect:

4500 will develop an invasive cancer. 1600 will die from cancer.

About 250 will develop Bell’s Palsy (facial paralysis).

1,000 will be diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis.

About 500 will suffer from Encephalitis (brain inflammation).

1700 will have strokes.

Almost 5,000 will die from heart disease.

In total, of that million who were vaccinated, 15,000 will be dead a year later. More than 280 every week. 40 people every day.

Do you still want to take the risk?

You should, because that is how many people will contract and die of those illnesses in any case. Every year, of every million people in peaceful, prosperous nations, about 15,000 will die, about one third of them from some form of heart disease.

Given that the vaccine will be administered first to people in vulnerable groups; older people and people with pre-existing conditions, the death rate may be even higher in that group. As it would be for people in that group in any case.

Incidentally, over any given year, for every million people, about 120 will die in motor vehicle accidents, about 40 from drowning, about 200 from poisoning, accidental or otherwise, and about 50 will be murdered. Having the COVID-19 vaccine won’t change those figures either.

So when you see alarmist headlines about someone dying two weeks after getting the vaccine, remember you could have a headline every week screeching that another person who recently had the vaccine had been stabbed, shot, strangled or poisoned. Or one hundred headlines every week about someone who was recently vaccinated getting divorced.

For every million people, about 6,000 get divorced each year. So for every million people who receive the COVID-19 vaccine in any given year over one hundred will get divorced every week.

Anti-vaxxers see these headlines and ask “How many times does this have to happen before we realise it is not a coincidence?”

That is because they have no understanding of either health or mathematics. That is not so bad. Lots of people don’t. What is bad is that they don’t want to know, but pretend they do. They prefer to read Robert Kennedy Jnr, Sherri Tenpenny, Joseph Mercola, Andrew Wakefield and other scammers, and pass on the “information” they receive from those sources without stopping and thinking, and without checking with reputable science and evidence based sources.

Is dangerous and dishonest to the point of being evil to try to convince people not to be vaccinated against childhood diseases or a dangerous virus like COVID-19 on the basis of nonsense being passed around Facebook. Anti-vaxxers suggest to people that protective actions against disease are in fact some sort of plot to depopulate the world. People who make such claims and try to stop widespread vaccination are under an absolute moral obligation to check their facts, and to read and consider sources which challenge their assumptions.

They don’t. That is what makes them dangerous.

My suggestions: Don’t engage with people who post anti-vax propaganda. That just promotes them and their posts. Report false information. Look up quality evidence and research based websites like https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ and https://stronger.org/ and repost interesting, and more importantly, truthful, evidence based articles from there. Swamp out the pro-disease, pro-childhood illness, pro-death activists with reality.

Because health matters, and life matters.

Christine Holgate and the Righteous Fury of the Mediocre

Christine Holgate is the CEO of Australia Post. She has been in the news for the last couple of days after harsh criticism from Australian politicians and being told by the Prime Minister to stand down.

Christine is from the North of England. She is not from a privileged background. When she was fifteen she started a small business cleaning windows, and then purchased an ice cream van. She completed studies in business at the University of North London, working as a Christmas postie during her student years.

After various jobs in marketing and management, she became JP Morgan’s Managing Director of Marketing in Europe. She was the only female member of JP Morgan’s European executive team. She was head-hunted for Telstra in 2002, moved to Australia, and worked for Telstra as head of the mobile marketing team. Later her role was expanded to include leadership of business sales and marketing.

In 2008 she was appointed CEO of Blackmore’s, the Australian health and pharmaceutical company. This move was personal for her because her sister had recently died from cancer. While at Blackmore’s she focused on developing export markets, and among other achievements grew Blackmore’s sales in China from $1 million to $50 million per year.

She was one of only twenty world business leaders to be invited to the 2014 G20 summit. In 2015 she was listed as one of Australia’s top 100 most influential women by Australian Financial Review, and in 2015, she became the first woman to be awarded CEO of the year by CEO magazine.

In 2017 she was appointed CEO of Australia Post, on a salary half that of her predecessor. She immediately began visiting ordinary Post Offices and talking with staff. She focused on improving Australia Post’s relations in the community, and with staff and licensees. At the same time, she re-structured the entire logistical operations of APO, and introduced new technology and services. One of the key improvements, during her time, for both communities and licensees, has been the development of Bank@Post.

I have met Christine. She came to Kangaroo Island after the bushfires at the end of last year, and visited the Post Offices on the Island. She listened to concerns we had about service delivery, and talked about family, work, and plans for continued improvement in postal services and care for staff.

Australia Post faces some ongoing challenges in service delivery. It services a relatively small population in a very large and isolated country. Some of its communities are very widespread, and very remote. In many small rural communities, Australia Post is the only provider of banking and government services. Many of those smaller service centres are uneconomical, and would have disappeared under an “economic rationalist” regime. In spite of these issues, Australia Post is almost unique among national postal services in that instead of costing tax-payers money, it returns a dividend to the Federal government each year.

Then came Coronavirus. This impacted Australia Post in multiple ways. First, people stayed at home and ordered online. Within weeks of the first few cases in Australia, the volume of parcels began to grow, and continued to grow, until every day we received a similar number of parcels as had been normal only for a week or two at peak Christmas time. No system could have been prepared for such a massive, sustained increase in workload. New sorting facilities were rapidly developed, new staff employed, and others re-directed from letters to parcels.

At the same time as this massive increase in demand for parcel delivery, borders began to close, and planes stopped flying. This meant mail delivery to and from overseas countries became impossible in some cases, and difficult in others. Travel and transport within Australia was and is restricted. A farmer on the border of Victoria and New South Wales was told he couldn’t truck hay from a property on one side of the border to another, and he should just put it on a plane. Families were stopped from travelling for important occasions and even for medical emergencies.

Everyone has some sort of horror story about a failed or delayed mail delivery. I sent an express post letter from Adelaide to Sydney that should have taken wo days and took nearly three weeks. But those stories are the exception, not the rule.

Following high-speed re-organisation of resources and logistics, and recruiting and re-allocation of staff, Australia Post, again, unlike many other national postal services, has continued to provide reliable, cost-effective, and mostly timely delivery services around the country. This is an almost miraculous result in the face of both massively increased demand, and massively increased barriers to service.

There have been some plainly silly stories about Australia Post during this time. “They have told contractors they have to use their own vehicles!” Yes, that is how contracting works. “They have been calling for volunteers to work for free.” No, they have been advertising for new casual staff to meet increased demand.

The recent storm of self-righteous fury from some of our elected leaders is pure hypocrisy. It centres on gifts of Cartier watches from Australia Post to some of the key executives involved in negotiating and delivering Bank@Post services. This was a major accomplishment, and deserved to be recognised and rewarded. $20,000 for bonuses/gifts to executives who have achieved such an important goal, delivering massively improved services not only in cities but to some of our most remote communities, and improving Australia Post’s profitability at the same time (that profit is paid back to the government, saving taxpayers money) is nothing by comparison to other commercial gifts and bonuses.

You may think that the salaries paid to some CEOs and executives are ridiculous, even wrong. You are entitled to that view. But the reality is that there is a high and competitive demand for skilled, proven leaders like Christine. She could easily be earning more elsewhere. But she believes in Australia and in Australia Post, and in the services it and its thousands of staff and licensees provide to Australian communities.

Is it simply that someone is out to get her? She was not the recipient of one the watches. There was no personal benefit to her in those gifts. “But she has a nice watch!” was one of the media complaints. Yes. She has a nice watch that was a gift from her husband – so? “She has personalised number plates!” So do several people living in my mostly housing commission neighbourhood. Most of these complaints sound like spite and jealously. Some arise simply from a complete failure to understand how corporate remuneration works. All are petty.

Christine Holgate is a perfect role model. She is a decent, kind-hearted, intelligent woman, who through sheer hard work, insight and determination has gone from being a lower-class Northerner with the accent to match, to one of Australia’s most admired and formidable business leaders. We are lucky to have her.

Antivaccination Hysteria – Dangerous Evangelising Ignorance

I have always regarded the anti-vax movement as either bafflingly stupid or deliberately malicious. Perhaps that is not entirely fair.
Some parents genuinely believe their children suffered serious adverse effects as a consequence of being vaccinated. In vanishingly rare instances they may be right. And some anti-vax propaganda is glossy and convincing. I remember the first time I encountered the argument that Japan had reduced its incidence of SIDS to zero by stopping early childhood vaccinations. It was well-presented and convincing, with carefully laid out photos, graphs and tables.
Of course it only took about ten minutes to confirm that the claim was completely false. During the couple of years in which Japan reduced its childhood vaccination programme, the number of children dying from SIDS increased, not decreased. What changed was that none of these deaths could be blamed on vaccines.
I understand parents whose children become ill a few hours, days, weeks or even years, after being vaccinated, wondering whether that illness was in some way connected. Some time ago I posted the story of a child taken to a paediatric practice in Perth for a routine vaccination. While the practice nurse was drawing the vaccine into the syringe, the child began to convulse. If this had happened a few minutes later, no one would have been able to convince the parents that the convulsions and the vaccine were not connected.
But children (and adults for that matter) get sick all the time, and sudden infant deaths occur during the period when most children receive their first batch of vaccinations, so it is natural that some parents will make a connection between the two. In the same way, no blame attaches to people who are initially taken in by glossy and apparently detailed anti-vax websites and publications. People are entitled to ask questions.
But it only takes a little effort to go to genuinely science-based websites or publications, or to talk to a paediatrician, and get factual answers. What people are not entitled to do is to pass on dangerously misleading and counter-factual propaganda.
I have a rule that I try to behave in online conversations as in real life conversations; to be careful and polite in all interactions. Anti-semites and anti-vaxxers are the two exceptions, both online and face to face. Both of those philosophies are so false, so dangerously false, and so easily checkably false, that anyone who contributes to their spread is either irretrievably stupid, lazy to the point of being maliciously careless with the well-being of others, or deliberately vicious.
If you have no medical or scientific expertise (and even if you do) you have an absolute moral obligation to check carefully, and ensure that you are not passing on falsehoods which will endanger the lives and health of other people. If you continue to forward information which is out of context, misleading, or deliberately false, as all anti-vax information is, then you forfeit any right to be considered a truthful or decent person.
One of the regulars in the anti-vax line-up is the argument that you can’t trust big pharma – just follow the money! But big pharma have been forced to admit their products are harmful in an insert to vaccine packaging. They just do it in a way that makes sure no-one reads it because it is in such tiny print. In fact, anti-vaxxers say, most doctors have never read a vaccine insert, or if they have and keep giving them, they are just in it for the money, so you can’t trust what they say either. Sometimes you will read a story of a brave mother who insisted on her rights, and demented, sorry demanded, the doctor read the vaccine insert before giving the vaccine to her child. At which point the astonished doctor realised the error of his ways, and vowed never to give another vaccine again. I’ll take things that never happened for $500, please Alex.
Another is the argument that vaccines are full of poisons. Anyone who makes this claim might as well put a big sign on their head saying “I know nothing about science and can’t be bothered learning.”
If you are interested in reality, as opposed to dark fantasies and conspiracy theories, here are a couple of science and research based web pages about vaccine inserts and “poisonous ingredients” to read through. Of course the anti-vaxxers won’t because 1. They don’t care, and 2. They prefer their loony Facebook posts to reality.
If you want the world to be a better place, reality is better.
And finally, I am pleased to be able to report that I have discovered the actual source of most Facebook anti-vax material. See photo below.
The stinky sewer of antivax propaganda

Black Lives Matter. Just not to BLM.

Sometimes it is not only reasonable, but morally imperative, to point out that the lives of a particular group of people matter. It would have been right in Turkey in 1915 to shout as loudly as possible that Armenian lives mattered. In Germany in 1944 that Jewish lives mattered. Or today in South Africa that white farmers’ lives matter, or in Indonesia that Papuan lives matter.

Wherever a particular ethnic or cultural group is being treated as less than human, anyone with integrity should not hesitate to say “These people are human too. Their lives matter.”

That is the claim that is being made now in relation to black people in the USA, and aboriginal people in Australia. That the way they are treated by police and prison guards demonstrates that they are considered less than human. A cartoon panel circulating on Facebook makes this claim: Black people are considered expendable by police and the governments that employ them.

If this claim is true, then we all ought to be horrified. If people in the US are stopped and murdered by police simply because they are black, and the police involved routinely face no meaningful consequences, and if 434 aboriginal people have been killed by prison guards in Australia since 1991 with not a single criminal charge being laid against those responsible, then we should all be on the streets shouting “Black lives matter!” and demanding change right now.

If this claim is not true, however, then we should be almost as horrified, because it is a vicious and dangerous libel against our government, our society, and the prison and police officers who work to protect us, often at considerable risk to their own safety. Dangerous because repeating those claims, as much of the media and many politicians and celebrities have done, leads not to hope and healing, but to hatred and division. It creates a view that our police and prison guards behave exactly like Nazi concentration camp guards, and that if the government won’t take action, then perhaps a violent response is justified in order to bring about real change.

Are black lives endangered by police and prison guard brutality, and white people who are either complicit or simply don’t care?

In the USA, black men comprise less than 7% of the population, but they commit 52% of murders, 38% of other violent crime including bashings and rape, and 60% of all robberies. They are also more likely to resist arrest and to respond to police with violence. In any encounter between a police officer and a black suspect in a violent crime, the police officer is 18 times more likely to die during that event than the black perpetrator. You might think that this would make police more apprehensive, and more likely to respond with fatal force. Although regrettable, that might be understandable. But it is not the case.

In 2019 US police shot and killed 1004 people. All of these were armed or posed a threat to police or members of the public. 235 of those, about a quarter of the total, were black. This is a far lower proportion than would be expected based upon the number of police interactions with violent criminals or suspects. Black and hispanic police officers were more willing to use the same levels of force against black offenders as they would with white offenders than white police officers, suggesting white officers hesitate for fear of being denounced as racists.

On October 5 2019 a female police officer in Chicago was beaten unconscious by a suspect in a car crash, who repeatedly bashed her face into the concrete and tore out chunks of her hair. She survived and said later that she refrained from using her gun because she didn’t want to become the next viral video in the Black Lives Matter narrative. Police officers are at far greater risk from black offenders than black offenders are from the police.

If anything, this disparity is even greater in Australia. Although aboriginal males make up just over 1% of the Australian population, they account for 15.1% of homicide victims, and 15.7% of perpetrators. Black Americans commit seven times as many murders as might be expected from their numbers in the population. Aboriginal Australians commit more than 15 times as many. Aboriginal women are 25 times more likely than women of other races to need hospital treatment for domestic violence, and in some aboriginal communities, 90% of children are reported as victims of neglect, or of physical or sexual abuse.

In Australia, as in the US, the rate of lethal force used against aboriginal offenders is lower than would be expected from the number of interactions with police. The main cause of complaint in Australia, however, is the number of aboriginal deaths in custody. Since 1991, 434 aboriginal people have died in prison or in police custody. It is often assumed by protestors that this means 434 aboriginal people have been beaten to death by psychopathic racist police and prison guards, and they point to the fact that no one has ever been convicted in relation to any of these deaths as proof that there is systemic racism in Australia, from the government down.

Quite frankly, that claim is simply silly. People do not stop suffering from heart disease or diabetes or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as soon as they get into prison. They are not suddenly immune to cancer or strokes. People in custody mostly die from the same things that would have killed them if they been outside. They just don’t die as much. The death rate in the general Australian population is about seven people per thousand per year. In the prison population it is 1.7 per thousand for aboriginal prisoners, and 1.8 per thousand for prisoners of other races.

The difference between 1.7 deaths in custody per year for aboriginal prisoners and 1.8 per thousand for other races is hardly significant. But when you take into account that aboriginal prisoners have lower general and mental health, are more likely to be suffering the effects of long-term drug and alcohol abuse, and are more likely to become involved in violent altercations with other prisoners, it is clear that far from carelessness or targeting aboriginal prisoners for racism and violence, prison officers take extra care to protect and support them.

Part of the explanation for the difference in mortality rates in prison and out is age. The older you are, the more likely you are to die, and there are few prisoners over seventy years of age. Also, far fewer prisoners die from road or sporting accidents or drowning than the outside population. But two more factors are required to explain the lower death rate for people in custody.

For members of some demographic groups, the mortality rate declines while in custody because in prison they have good nutrition and good medical care. Many in those same demographic groups are more likely to survive in prison because prison is far safer than their home communities.

In 1999 the Guinness Book of Records named Palm Island as the most violent place in the world, outside of actual war zones. Nothing much has changed in the last twenty years, despite vast expenditures of money, including, for example, the announcement last year by the Queensland government of expenditure of $893,000 (for a community of 3000 people) on new domestic violence support services.

Are black lives in the US and aboriginal lives in Australia in danger? Definitely. Everyone who cares about black lives wants that to change. Policies to bring about positive change are only effective to the extent they are based on reality. The empowering reality for black Americans and Australian aboriginals is that that danger comes from within their own communities, and consequently, that they have the power to stop it.

COVID19, Wuhan, Coronavirus, the Chinese Virus – the case for a Lockdown

As at this morning, 1st April, there have been 855,941 cases of novel Coronavirus around the world. Of those, 636,964 are still active, and 218,977 have run their course either to recovery or death. Of these, 42,069 (19%) ended with the death of the patient.

The infectiousness of this disease, combined with this frighteningly high mortality rate for known cases, is what has convinced me that a tighter lock-down, though horrifying costly (more on that later), is the most responsible course of action.

However, there is a large and possibly growing body of thought that very restrictive government actions are not necessary, and even that those so far implemented are doing more harm than good to overall health and well-being.

For example, over the last few days:

Associate Professor of Medicine Eran Bendavid, and Professor Jay Bhattacharya  of Stanford University:

https://fsi.stanford.edu/news/coronavirus-deadly-they-say

Oxford Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology Sunetra Gupta:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.24.20042291v1

Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, infectious medicine specialist, former head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz:

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/03/an-expert-says-the-current-response-to-the-coronavirus-is-grotesque-absurd-and-very-dangerous.html

And just yesterday, a more cautious article in The Lancet:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30257-7/fulltext

Those who claim immediate shutdowns are necessary need to acknowledge these variations of opinion, and the widely varying advice being given to politicians.

It is not good enough simply to snipe from Facebook, calling politicians names, or suggesting a lack of integrity, or repeating slogans. Doing so convinces no one, especially decision-makers, and begins to make it look like those in favour of a shutdown have no real case for their point of view. Otherwise, why not make that case instead of throwing insults?

There also needs to be acknowledgement of the horrific cost of restrictions implemented to this point, and a genuine accounting and balancing of the cost of further restrictions.

Simply repeating “Health not wealth” will not wash. The huge improvement in lifespan over the last century, and our amazing good health into much older age, are a product of our prosperity as a nation, and the benefits that flow from that; the ready availability of fresh food, easy access to good medical services, improved working conditions, etc, etc. Undermine the nation’s wealth, and you undermine the nation’s health.

To give just one example of how this works in practice, the latest astonishing cash splurge sees income support for a broad range of workers to the extent of $130 billion. This would be enough to build and staff 200 new regional hospitals in Australia, or to renew and re-equip 300.

It is not only the loss of massive amounts of cash for crucially important infrastructure which needs to be considered, but the impact on business. Again, to give just one example, two days ago the government decreed that no one, and no business, could be evicted for the next six months for non-payment of rent. For businesses, rent can be deferred. But the income from which that rent needs to be paid has not been deferred, it has been lost. It is not recoverable. Even large businesses like Westfield, with billions of dollars invested in shopping centres, do not have large cash reserves. If rent is not paid over an extended period, they will fail. Repeat this a few times, and superannuation funds will collapse, leaving another massive hole government will be expected to fill.

On a more personal level, retail rents are not trivial amounts. The rent on the business Kathy and I have purchased in Townsville is $84,000 per year. Rents in higher traffic shopping centres can be much higher. Businesses will go bankrupt. This ripples out causing further, sometimes breaking point, difficulties to other businesses. There will be massive unemployment and all the evils that go with it; reduced general health, increased domestic violence, family breakdowns and suicide. And of course, further demands on a now massively under-resourced government. Then there is the fact that much of our self-esteem and energy comes from feeling useful. The long term mental health impacts of an extended lockdown/extended period of unemployment are potentially disastrous even without considering other factors.

People in favour of a complete lock-down, which would be even more costly in all these ways than measures so far implemented, also need to recognise and factor into their explanations the fact that a lock-down is not a solution. The virus will not magically disappear. Infection will reoccur and spread, and further lock-downs and restrictions will need to be enforced.

If, on the other hand, if it can be demonstrated by reference to policies and outcomes elsewhere, and known data about infection rates and mortality, that this draconian course of action with no clear end in sight will result in significantly better outcomes for most people than less costly and less disruptive options, then it should be implemented.

Despite everything above, this is still the view I hold.

All of the four articles linked above have one key flaw. They assert mortality rates in some cases more than an order of magnitude lower than the figure for known cases so far. They do this on the assumption that for every one case that has been diagnosed, there are ten or more which have not been. But this is simply a guess, with modelling based on that guess. Just as it is not good enough for people in favour of a complete shutdown simply to assert that a shutdown is required and expect national leaders to fall in line, it is not good enough for researchers with a different view to ask leaders to base life and death policy suggestions on guesses with no discernible basis in reality.

There are no answers. We are in for a long, depressing haul no matter who is right, and no matter which course is decided upon. The best we can do is listen, put our views as clearly and with as much evidence as we can, and be respectful, caring and supportive of people around us, including our leaders.

On the Vilification of Prime Minister Scott Morrison

There has always been an unpleasant edge to public discussion of politics. It is much easier to vilify people who see things differently from you, than to engage with them and to see this engagement as an opportunity to learn.

The rise of Facebook and Twitter have exacerbated this tendency to personal insult and hasty dismissal instead of reasoned discussion. It is not uncommon for posts on political issues to be met with one word responses: “Fascist!” “Racist!” “Redneck!” “x, y, or z Phobe!”

It is just as common to find these words used to describe politicians or other public figures, as if screeching names or slogans said anything about the person referred to or issues at stake.

One of the most obvious recent examples is the media’s calling down of a rain of fury on the Prime Minister, because he took a short break with his family.

Fire and emergency management are, of course, the responsibility of the states. Despite this, the Prime Minister met with state leaders to talk about strategies and resources, and offered them everything they said they needed. He has visited affected communities, and talked with families, farmers, and firefighters.

So why should he not take a break with his family, his first since becoming Prime Minister, during school holidays when he can spend time with his children? There is no reason at all.
“But it’s a bad look! He doesn’t care!”

Rubbish. It is only a bad look because the media says it is a bad look. The Premier of Victoria, Dan Andrews was on a longer holiday, while the Premier of Queensland, Anna Palaszczuk, decided to pack up and go on a cruise. But fire and emergency management are their responsibility, not Scott Morrison’s.

I couldn’t care less about Andrews or Palaszczuk having a holiday. What is alarming is the hypocrisy, and the extent to which people are willing to be outraged simply because the media tells them they should be.

Scott Morrison recognised that volunteers are not in it for money but because they care about their communities. He is also the first political leader to recognise that while small businesses want to support, they cannot pay wages indefinitely to people who are not working, and volunteers need to pay bills and buy food for their families. Consequently he has offered the states money to compensate fire-fighters and others who are off work for extended periods of time.

Again, it is worth noting that this is despite the fact emergency services are a state responsibility.

It is interesting to look back on the media reaction to former PM Tony Abbott’s actually being on the frontline of fire-fighting. See the article from The Guardian below. There is no pleasing some people. Because for some people the issues are not the issue, it is about the tribe.

The Guardian berates PM Tony Abbott

The Guardian berates PM Tony Abbott

Should Tony have stopped volunteering and focussed on running the country? Should Scott never go on holidays, and stop eating and talking to people and focus on running the country?

He seems to be doing a pretty good job of that.

Australia faces economic challenges, including high energy prices, global trade tensions and a devastating drought. Yet Australia has maintained its AAA credit rating.

Australia has first current account surplus in 40 years, and the lowest welfare dependency in 30 years.

The budget is in balance for the first time in 11 years. Inherited debt is being paid off. Over four years, this will mean $13.5 billion that no longer needs to be spent on debt interest.
More than 1.4 million new jobs have been created in the last five years. Record amounts are being invested in schools, hospitals, aged care and disability support.

Following the biggest tax cuts in twenty years, household disposable incomes have had the fastest increase in a decade. This means more money can be put into building a strong future, and caring for Australians in need. This includes $4.2 billion in accelerated infrastructure projects, $1.3 billion in increased support for drought relief and 10,000 more home care packages for older Australians.

Is everything perfect? Of course not. I still have major issues with some government policies, including the absurd decision to buy slow, noisy submarines which are not only untested but will be out of date before the first one is delivered. Our defence forces deserve the best equipment we can afford, and for resources to be allocated according to an evidence-based, long term strategic plan.

But it is also important to recognise what is being done well, and to acknowledge that most politicians on all sides are decent, hard-working people, who want to make Australia and the world a better place.

Outer Worlds Review – Tips

Woah, woah, woah! It’s Rizzo’s!

That is stuck in my brain now, along with “Fruity oaty bars, they make a man out of a mou-ouse!”

Never mind.

I started playing Outer Worlds on the day of its release. I finished it last night.

Outer Worlds

Outer Worlds

By “finished” I mean I got all the companions, completed all the companion quests, got all the science weapons, got warring factions talking to each other, rescued runaways (or reported back that they were dead), talked to the mad scientist (who wasn’t so mad after all), starred in a movie, killed Akande (she started it), and saved the galaxy. Or one little bit of it anyway.

I don’t have much time to play, and this took about thirty hours to complete. I got it on xbox gamepass. I would have been annoyed if I had paid full price (about $80) for it. It is fun, great, even, but just too short to justify that kind of price.

Character development is good, quests are not grindy, graphics are good if not dazzling (it uses the Unreal engine). The dialogue is very good, brilliant in places, and often funny or insightful.

The designers say you can develop your character and play any way you want. That is another way of saying that how you develop your character makes no real difference. Essentially you can put points anywhere and the game will still play out identically. The only exception is that to achieve the best outcome (getting different sides to talk to one another) in one particular scenario on Monarch, the second world you visit (not counting Groundbreaker), you must have a persuade skill of 55. Other than that, do what you want.

On the other hand, points into stealth/hack are pretty much wasted. There is always a way forward that does not require those skills. Put a few points into defence and whatever weapon group you prefer. Points in leadership raise your companions’ health and damage, but I think there is a better way to do this, and that is to raise science skills.

Science enables you to tinker with your and your companions’ armour and weapons, massively raising their damage and protection, and directly raising the damage of any science weapons you use. My weapons of choice were the prismatic hammer and the euthanasia kit, until I got Phin’s Phorce in Phineas Welles’ lab right at the end. That is one good gun.

The basic rule is, “Do the right thing.” Don’t steal, don’t kill anyone you don’t have to. Don’t kill anyone just because someone else tells you to. You can accept those quests, but talk to the intended victim first. In the case of Akande, when you get to her, just say no. She will attack you. Do what you need to do. Even though this is the right thing to do, this means you have no choice but to fight what is effectively the final boss, RAM, a well-amoured robot. This is the only fight in the game where you will need to think ahead.

Unless there was some reason not to (eg a companion quest that belonged to another companion) I used Sam and Felix for most missions. But when you get to Tartarus, take Parvati and Felix. This is because Parvati has a very useful knockdown effect which enables you to get past RAM’s armour. You can alternate her knockdown with using your own tactical time dilation to cripple him briefly, each time whacking at him with your plasma based weapon.

Equip Felix and Parvati with plasma weapons too. Kill the drones first if you can, so you can concentrate on RAM. Keep your companions alive for as long as you can. If you have taken one of the perks that enables you to revive them during a fight that will help, but the chances are you will have to finish the fight on your own.

You beat RAM by crippling him, whacking him, and then running away until your tactical time dilation has recharged. Using foods that boost health or health regeneration will help, but once I understood the mechanics, it was no problem at all.

Then you rescue Phineas Welles, he makes a speech about how wonderful you are, and there is a nice slide-show previewing a hope-filled future in which the remaining colonists on the colony ship Hope are revived and Halcyon moves ahead.

It is engaging and well-written, but is too short for the price, and has little (none, really) replay value. Don’t pay full price for it.

Australia, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press

The free flow of information is a vital characteristic of a free society. There is a strong correlation between freedom of speech and a free press, and individual freedom and prosperity.

But the “public’s right to know” has never been without limits.

For example, the public has no right to know the content of your private conversations with family and friends.

It may not be in the public interest for the public to be fully aware of matters relating to national security. Not every member of the public, nor every member of the press, has Australia’s best interests at heart.

Where there are sensitive negotiations with foreign powers over trade or border issues, it may seriously undermine those efforts, and the welfare of all Australians, if details of Australia’s strategies and bargaining positions are made known.

Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade routinely prepares reports on foreign leaders and governments, which may list personal interests and weaknesses, and potential risks. It is important that these reports be fact-based and forthright. But it may damage relationships if they were to be made public.

Matters which are commercial-in-confidence are also protected. Like governments, businesses must make assessments of competing interests, and develop acquisition and marketing strategies. It would undermine their future viability, their ability to provide employment to Australian men and women, and their returns to shareholders (in many cases superannuation funds providing support and security to ordinary working people) if those confidences were to be betrayed.

As one further example, it is well-established that the public’s right to know does not extend to personal details, names and addresses of victims and witnesses in some criminal trials.

Being a journalist does not mean an exemption from rules which protect Australia’s national security. Nor does it mean journalists are exempt from laws relating to defamation, trespass, contempt of court or border violations.

Cardinal Pell. The Appeal.

I have so far refrained from any comment on the outcome of Cardinal Pell’s appeal. To say I was disappointed with the outcome would be an understatement.

I have written extensively about this case here:

and here:

The prosecution case was based entirely on the evidence of a single person, some twenty years after the events.

The fact that it was a single person, and the delay, do not in themselves mean the complaint has no foundation. But those factors make both prosecution and defense more difficult. That is part of the reason the Victorian DPP decided not to proceed with prosecution, leaving (highly usually) the Victorian Police to prosecute the matter.

It has been suggested that the existence of a single witness/complainant should not be a barrier to a finding of guilty, and that in some instances, murder and sexual assault, for example, there may be only one witness, or none.

That is correct. But in the case of murder, there is no doubt that a crime has occurred. There is a body, blood, at least a missing person with additional evidence of criminal activity.

In the case of allegations of rape or sexual abuse, the prosecution normally requires some additional evidence besides the word of a single complainant; bruising, semen, witnesses who can corroborate at least part of the complainant’s story.

It was unremarkable, though sad and disappointing for her, that Victorian Police did not prosecute Kathy Sherif’s long-standing allegation of rape against Bill Shorten, an assault she alleges occurred at a Labor Party function in 1986 when she was sixteen. Kathy was able to produce witnesses who corroborated many aspects of her story.

The case against Cardinal Pell was far weaker: A single complainant who came forward only in response to public requests for complaints, who offered changing and inconsistent evidence, no corroborating witnesses, no forensic evidence of any sort, and multiple witnesses who gave evidence that they were with the then Archbishop throughout Mass and while he greeted parishioners immediately after, when the offences were alleged to have occurred. For details and more information about the background of the case, read my two articles linked above.

The first trial ended in a mistrial, with jurors reportedly voting ten to two in favour of a not guilty finding. The second trial took place after months of inflammatory reporting, especially in the Guardian, on the ABC, and in Louise Milligan’s scurrilous book, Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell.

There was a carnival atmosphere in the press, a feeding frenzy of malice and bigotry, the like of which we have not seen since the Chamberlain case. John Bryson’s book on that case was titled “Evil Angels” the evil angels being the Australian media.

Some of the comment on social media has likewise been almost demonic in its hatred and disregard for truth. If people have not carefully examined the evidence and the background, then their comments say nothing about Cardinal Pell and his guilt or otherwise, but say a great deal about themselves.

Like the media-driven guilty findings in the Chamberlain case, the guilty finding in the Pell case is an indictment, not of Cardinal Pell, but of the Australian media, and to some extent, the Australian judiciary.

The dissenting judge in the Appeal, Justice Weinberg, was the only judge of the three with any history and significant experience of criminal cases. Part of his opinion can be found here:

Cardinal Pell – The Media and Judiciary’s Disgrace

I have been frustrated by news stories today suggesting that “disgraced” Cardinal George Pell has broken the law by posting material to social media.

Firstly, Cardinal Pell is not “disgraced.” It is the media and the Australian judicial system which are disgraced by the verdict against him, which was based on the evidence of a single witness, a person of zero credibility, whose testimony was inconsistent, and in several places demonstrably false. I have written about this before and will not repeat those discussions here. If you are interested you can find the relevant articles and others by me at this link.

Secondly, and obviously, Cardinal Pell did not post anything to social media, because he has no access to social media. He wrote a letter to a group of people who have supported him in prayer and fellowship. They posted a scanned copy of his letter in on Twitter.

Is there a law against publicising correspondence received from prisoners?

I hope not, because I have transcribed it and copied it below. It does not reference his alleged offences, or the accuser, or anyone involved in that sorry excuse for a trial. It is simply a pastoral letter from a minister of the Gospel to a group of friends.
……………………………..
Melbourne Assessment Prison
1/8/19

Dear Kathy and brothers and sisters in Christ of the Support Cardinal Pell group.

First of all let me thank you for your prayers and messages of support, these being immense consolation, humanly and spiritually.

A word of explanation. I have received between 1500 – 2000 letters and all will be answered. So far I have only responded to letters from my fellow prisoners (to nearly all of those who wrote) and a few other special cases. Your kindness is not forgotten and will always be fondly remembered.

My faith in our Lord, like yours, is a source of strength. The knowledge that my small suffering can be used for good purposes through being joined to Jesus’s suffering gives me purpose and direction. Challenges and problems in Church life should be confronted in a similar spirit of faith.

We must always remember that the Catholic Church is one, not just in the sense that good families stick together whatever their differences, but because the Church of Christ is based in the Catholic Church, which constitutes the Body of Christ. One ancient saying teaches that there must be unity in essentials (Jesus’s essentials) but there can be diversity in non-essentials. But everywhere and in everything we must have charity.

I agree that we have reasons to be disturbed by the Instrumentum Laboris of the Amazonia Synod. This is not the first low quality document the Synod secretariat has produced. Cardinal G. Müller, formerly of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has written an excellent critique. I am no expert in the region but I have been to Ecuador and Amazonian Peru, where a Sydney priest Fr John Anderson runs a parish of exemplary piety, pastoral activity and orthodoxy. As in the Amazon a lot of water has yet to run before the end of the Synod.

One point is fundamental. The Apostles’ Tradition, the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, taken from the New Testament and taught by Popes and councils, by the magisterium, is the only criterion doctrinally for all teaching on doctrine and practice. Amazon or no Amazon, in every land, the Church cannot allow any confusion, much less any contrary teaching, to damage the Apostolic Tradition.

The Spirit continues to be with the Church. You have every right to make your voices heard, reasonably and in charity. We need not expect the worst.

Yours in the Lord,
Your grateful brother
+George Card. Pell
……………………………

Fear, Faith and Folau

Freedom of speech is an essential characteristic of any successful society. If people are not free to say what they believe, there can be no testing of ideas against each other and against reality. Without that, there can be no progress in science, in art, in literature, in education, in society and policy.

But the fact that freedom of speech is essential does not mean there are no limits. Famously, freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Unless, of course, there is a fire. Speech that would cause grave harm by generating panic is rightly proscribed.

A just society is also right to place limits on hate speech, where hate speech is words intended to generate hatred against an individual or group, and to cause deliberate harm. Words which demand actions which are proven to be harmful to individuals or groups may also be restricted. For example, persons purporting to be health professionals should not be able to suggest to worried parents that bleach enemas will cure their child’s autism.

Beyond these extreme examples, a free and open society should be willing to tolerate a wide range of views, even when those views make some groups or individuals distressed or angry.

On social media I will unfriend and even block people who repeatedly post holocaust-denying material, or anti-semitic news or cartoons, including claims Israel has no right to exist or to defend its borders, or who post anti-vaccination propaganda. All of those views are dangerous, and misinformed if not deliberately ignorant. I want no part in sharing them or passing them on. But I would not want the government or employers to enforce rules which meant those people could not express their views without risk of fines, imprisonment or loss of employment.

There are some obvious exceptions. You should not expect to be able to work for the Salvation Army, for example, while publicly expressing the view that the Salvation Army is stupid, and its views on drugs and alcohol are oppressive. You cannot expect to work in a paediatrician’s practice while publicly maintaining that childhood vaccinations are a dangerous scam designed to make doctors more money.

Holocaust denial is simply silly, and is almost always based in malice. But making the expression of such views illegal creates the impression there is something to hide, or of fear of the truth. As far as possible, where it does not cause grave and immediate harm, the expression of any opinion should be permitted.

But being entitled to express your views does not mean anyone is obliged to listen to them. Nor is any person or business obliged to give you a platform for your views. When social media giants like Twitter, Facebook and Google shut down conservative writers, they are not impinging on anyone’s freedom of speech. They are sovereign companies and can enforce whatever rules and policies they like. No one forces you to use them. If your views are not welcome there, find somewhere else.

Nor does freedom of speech mean you are free from the natural consequences of what you say. If you are free to say what you wish, people are free to respond as they wish. They may decide they don’t like you, or that you are stupid or a bigot. They may decline to invite you to their home or to events, they may block you on social media. They may decide not to do business with you.

At what point does government or an employer have the right to demand someone keep their views to themselves? Most people would say when there is clear danger of grave and immediate harm. Israel Folau’s Instagram post a few weeks ago, and his comments at church, caused deep offence in some circles. Do they cross that line?

Taking offense is not always an unreasonable or juvenile reaction. There are ideas and graphics on social media I find offensive. When they appear I either ignore them, or if the person who posted them seems open to reason and discussion, I may try to engage in some fact-based discussion. What is juvenile is demanding that someone else take action because you are offended. Especially when, as in Israel Folau’s case, people appear to have gone out of their way to find something to be offended about.

No one is obliged to follow Israel Folau on any social media platform. I don’t. Nor is anyone obliged to go the church he goes to. If you don’t like something someone says on Facebook or Instagram, either engage with them and show them where they are wrong, or ignore the post, or unfriend or unfollow them.

But wait just a gol-darned minute.

If someone is whipping up hatred against another person or group, it does not matter whether that takes place in an auditorium or a phone booth. If speech is intended to cause deliberate harm to others, and is foreseeably likely to do so, then society not only has a reasonable interest in imposing restrictions, but a responsibility to do so.

I have gay friends. The best man at my wedding, my best friend at the time, is gay and is a supporter of the re-definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. I have gay family members. I would be distressed and angered if anyone suggested they were less worthy than others, or somehow less human, and that it was therefore appropriate to hate or exclude them.

Is that what Israel Folau was doing? If you follow only the mainstream media you might have got that impression. His post on Instagram and subsequent comments in church have been framed as a deliberate and malicious campaign against gay people and their rights by a militant homophobe. But media and corporate lobbyists are often wrong, so if we want to arrive at a fair appraisal, we need to look at what Israel Folau actually posted and said.

The Instagram post that started the furore was a quote from chapter six of St Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians.

The focus of this passage of scripture is twofold. First, sin separates us from God. When we choose to step outside God’s perfect will for us, we turn away from what gives us life. It is as if a plant decided it no longer needed sunlight and water and was going to go its own way. The results of our choosing to do it our way are all around us – loneliness, frustration, anger, despair. The ultimate result for us as individuals if we continue to choose our own path rather than God’s, is eternal separation from Him, not by His will but ours.

Paul tells us that we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All of us. That is the point of the list quoted by Folau. It is the opposite of singling out any group for derision. I am on the list at least twice. Everyone is on the list. We have all turned aside, we are all lost, none is better than any other. Incidentally, although it often goes unmentioned, this is the reason homosexual persons male or female are safer and more respected in predominantly Christian countries, or countries with a long history of Christian influence, than anywhere else. Yes, homosexual acts are sinful, and so is lying, disrespect for parents, drunkenness, laziness, etc, etc. To homosexual persons who say “But you are saying we are sinners and will go to hell” St Paul, Israel Folau, and other Christians reply “Yes, exactly like all the rest of us.”

The second focus of St Paul’s list, and its ultimate purpose, is to let people know that whatever the nature of their particular temptations and sinfulness, no matter how far they have turned off the path, it is always only one step back. St Paul’s list, shared by Israel Folau, is an invitation to everyone to return home, to find life, light, hope, and peace again, and most importantly, an eternal life of joy. Again, this is the opposite of singling out a group for hatred and exclusion. It is a universal invitation to love and fellowship.

“Well, OK,” some might say. “But what about his targeting of trans-gender kids? There can be no excuse for that.” And that would be right, if that were what had happened.

But it wasn’t. Folau said that children needed to be protected against early sexualisation. It didn’t matter whether gay or straight. Just let children be children. That is a long way from attacking children.

He also suggested children needed to be protected against activist practitioners and bureaucrats and misguided parents into being pressured to make decisions they could not understand, which would cause them serious harm, and which they would later regret. There is a large body of experience and evidence to support this point of view.

Johns Hopkins Hospital was one of the pioneers of sex-change surgery. It no longer performs sex-change operations because it found a high level of profound regret post-surgery, higher levels of depression, and far higher levels of suicide. Its psychiatrists and surgeons formed the view that gender dysmorphia is a psychological problem that needed psychological solutions, and that attempts at surgical intervention were counter-productive, even destructive.

You may disagree, and you are free to quote other studies or experiences to support your point of view. But that does not mean that Israel Folau’s views are hateful or malicious.

As I write, today’s news reports that Maria Folau, a Silver Fern, a member of New Zealand’s national netball team, has been targeted by the ANZ and another corporate sponsor, and her dismissal from the team demanded, because she has not publicly rebuked her husband or distanced herself from him. The ANZ, for heaven’s sake, that champion of social justice and paragon of corporate responsibility.

You have to wonder whether in omitting the context of Folau’s views and the passage of scripture he shared, and the distortion of his comments, and now the targeting of his family, his accusers are not doing exactly what they indict him of; singling out an individual or group for exclusion and hatred.

There has also been ridicule and hatred directed at the Folau family because they asked for support in meeting legal costs. But here too, there are other things to keep in mind. Israel Folau has already put over $100,000 of his own money into paying legal bills and countering persecution neither he nor any member of a free society should have to face. He has assets, but that does not mean he has large amounts of cash. Footballers have a short career, generally no more than fifteen years to build up assets to provide for their families for a lifetime. Folau has done this responsibly and carefully.

My wife and I give over $400 per month to various church groups and charities. If I choose to give $20 to Folau’s defence fund this is in addition to, not instead of anything else. I suspect this is the case for most who have contributed. It is interesting that so many people seem to have discovered an interest in sick children over the last few days, and are suddenly inspired to claim loudly that sick children are more important than justice. Both are important.

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with Israel Folau or not. If you have ever posted anything on social media anyone could disagree with or find offensive, or ever said anything in any gathering that an over-zealous employer could claim had potential to bring his or her business into disrepute, eventually the mob will come for you.

Who will stand with you then?

ITP, Parkinsons, Levodopa

A friend in her late fifties developed Parkinson’s type symptoms; bradykinesia, rest tremor, forward falls, speech difficulties, some twelve months ago. The disease progressed rapidly to the point she is no longer able to work. Difficulties in accessing good neurological services mean that she has not yet had a full diagnostic review.

Her GP prescribed Levodopa, which even though it has been in use for forty years is still the treatment of choice for Parkinson’s. A positive response to Levodopa was supportive of the diagnosis of Parkinson’s.

She had a splenectomy in her early teens as a treatment for ITP (Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura), and had been symptom-free since that time. Shortly after commencing Levodopa, she began to notice a recurrence of symptoms of thrombocytopenia including spontaneous skin bruises and petechiae.

There have been multiple reports of the spontaneous development of thrombocytopenia in patients treated with Levodopa, but these have not been common, and tend to occur after an extended period of treatment.

As at June 2019, no research has been conducted on the possibility of increased risk of recurrence of thrombocytopenia symptoms for patients with ITP following treatment with Levodopa.

Thrombocytopenia is not trivial. Although symptoms are most commonly spontaneous bruising and petechiae, there is also increased risk of internal bleeding and cerebral haemorrhage.

Pending research, practitioners treating patients with Parkinson who have a history of ITP should consult with a haematologist prior to prescribing Levodopa. If Levodopa is appropriate, they may wish to consider prescribing in conjunction with Prednisone to reduce the risk of recurrence of symptoms of thrombocytopenia.

Keywords: ITP, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, thrombocytopenia, parkinsons, parkinson’s, levodopa, prednisone, levadopa, dopamine, dopamine agonists

 

The Deletion of Faith

I was very pleased today to see the Google doodle commemorating the life and achievements of Elena Cornaro Piscopia, who lived from 1646 to 1684, and who in 1678 was the first woman in the world to receive a PhD from any university.

Google doodle of Elena Cornaro Piscopia

Google doodle of Elena Cornaro Piscopia

I was less pleased to see no reference in the doodle to Elena’s faith as a Catholic Christian, which was her guide and her motivation throughout her studies and her life. So deep was her faith and commitment that at age eleven she took a vow of chastity, and in 1665 at age nineteen became a Benedictine Oblate.

She was guided and encouraged through her academic career by priests who were both friends and tutors.

This is part of her Wikipedia entry:
“As a young girl, Lady Elena was seen as a prodigy. By the advice from Giovanni Fabris, a priest who was a friend of the family, she began a classical education. She studied Latin and Greek under distinguished instructors, and became proficient in these languages, as well as French and Spanish, by the age of seven. She also mastered Hebrew and Arabic, earning the title of “Oraculum Septilingue”. Her later studies included mathematics, philosophy and theology.

Elena came to be an expert musician. She mastered the harpsichord, the clavichord, the harp and the violin. Her skills were shown by the music that she composed in her lifetime. In her late teens and early twenties she became interested in physics, astronomy and linguistics.

In 1669, she translated the Colloquy of Christ by Carthusian monk Giovanni Lanspergio from Spanish into Italian. The translation was dedicated to her close friend and confessor, Fr. Gianpaolo Oliva. The volume was issued in five editions in the Republic from 1669 to 1672. She was invited to be a part of many scholarly societies when her fame spread and in 1670 she became president of the Venetian society Accademia dei Pacifici (The Academy of the Peaceful).

Her PhD was conferred on 25 June 1678, in Padua Cathedral in the presence of the University authorities, the professors of all the faculties, the students, and most of the Venetian Senators, together with many invited guests from the Universities of Bologna, Perugia, Rome, and Naples.

The Lady Elena spoke for an hour in classical Latin, explaining difficult passages selected at random from the works of Aristotle. She was listened to with great attention and when she had finished, she received plaudits as Professor Rinaldini proceeded to award her the insignia of the laurea, the book of philosophy, placing the wreath of laurel on her head, the ring on her finger, and over her shoulders the ermine mozetta.”

Elena is not alone in having her firmly and repeatedly expressed views of what guided her work and gave it value, deleted without mention from secular re-tellings of her story.

The latest example is the film biography of JRR Tolkien, which somehow manages to get through two hours of story-telling without even a passing reference to the fact that Tolkien was a Catholic Christian, who was vocal throughout his life about the fact that his faith was his light, his guide and his motivation.

If you leave out the central motivation and guiding principle in someone’s life, you are not leaving something out, you are simply not telling the story.

This deletion of any references to faith in the lives of Christian artists and scholars extends into their work. Peter Jackson’s shallow but commercially successful parody of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings is a perfect example.

Tolkien described The Lord of the Rings as a work of Catholic theology, and it is. But any references to faith, to providence, the nature of sacrifice, service and leadership, the structure and meaning of the universe, to sacraments; for example the baptismal saving of the company from the servants of death through the wild waters of the Bruinen, the Lembas or waybread given to sustain the hobbits on their journey, and the absolution of Boromir, are carefully skirted around or left unmentioned.

I won’t even start on Disney’s appalling mockery of the Narnia stories. If you take out the heart of a story, there is no story left, only cheap thrills and silliness.

Perhaps the most egregious omission from Peter Jackson’s movies was the huge gap in the story where Tom Bombadil should be. A casual watcher of the movies, someone unfamiliar with the books, would probably not notice the absence. But Tom Bombadil and Goldberry tell us half of the purpose of the quest.

Defeating evil is not just about destroying evil in the form of Sauron (sauros, Greek, means lizard or dragon) and the ring. It is about restoring the good.

In Bombadil and Goldberry, in their laughter and song and dancing, in their imperviousness to evil, and in Bombadil’s naming of animals, Tolkien paints a picture of Adam and Eve before the fall, and therefore of God’s original plan for humanity – a life of joy, of laughter and dancing and song, of bliss in the little things, without fear or sickness or knowledge of death, or the possibility of using others or being used by them.

The quest is not simply the destruction of an evil object, but the restoration of hope, of love and truth and joy and peace. Bombadil and Goldberry show us what that can mean; the end point and purpose. The Lord of the Rings is not the story Tolkien told without them.

Faith is essential to Narnia, to the Lord of the Rings, and to making sense of the lives of Tolkien and of Elena Cornaro Piscopia. Our understanding of them, of their work, and of the meaning and purpose of our own lives, are very much poorer without it.

Israel Folau and the Hateful Intolerance of the Lovingly Inclusive

A few days ago, rugby player and Wallabies team member Israel Folau posted a quote from 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 10 on Twitter and Instagram.

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce immediately claimed this was homophobic, and threatened to withdraw Qantas’s sponsorship of the ARU unless Folau’s contract was terminated.

The ARU caved instantly: “We want to make it clear that he does not speak for the game with his recent social media posts.” Well, no. He never claimed he did.

“In the absence of compelling mitigating factors, it is our intention to terminate his contract.” In other words, unless Israel Folau is willing to grovel, apologise for offending Mr Joyce, and promise never to quote the Bible again, he will be fired.

Chairman of the Australian Rugby League, Peter Beattie, has already announced that Folau will be excluded from any future NRL team.

These actions are grossly hypocritical for two reasons. I will explain why in a second.

But first, let’s note that in his letters to the church in Corinth, Paul is addressing Christians. Some people in that congregation, despite claiming to be saved and living in the grace of God, continued to act in ways which were not compatible with the Gospel.

Paul goes on to say in the next verse “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” In other words, you are a new creation. You are no longer to think or act in the ways you did.

There are plenty of things in his list to be offended about, if you are inclined to take offence. Paul mentions drunks, adulterers, liars, thieves… He is not targeting any particular group of people. He is challenging all Christians to live in accordance with the commitment and promises they have made, and the grace they have been given.

If they don’t, then as much as they persist in actions which are contrary to the teachings and example of Jesus, to that same extent, they reject the love of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul is not condemning anyone.

Nor was Israel Folau when he repeated Paul’s words. He is noting that their actions and attitudes condemn them, and calls them (us!) to repentance, so they (we!) might find and continue in abundant and eternal life. Paul and Israel Folau are not homophobic, liar-o-phobic, or thief-o-phobic. If they are phobic about anything, they are phobic about sin itself, as every Christian should be.

If you are a Christian this should not be a source of anger and offence, but of reflection and thankfulness.

If you are not a Christian it does not relate to you at all, so why would you be offended by it? People in other religions believe lots of things I don’t believe. Hindus think it is terribly wrong to eat beef. Muslims think it is an abomination to eat bacon and that anyone who wilfully does so will end in the fires of hell. Buddhists believe that if you were born disabled or caught some dreadful disease or suffered some tragedy, it is because you deserve it, and there is no point in trying to help you. I might think these beliefs are regrettable, but why should I be offended by them? They don’t apply to me.

Even more, why would I try to stop people who hold those beliefs from expressing them? To do so would be unkind, exclusive, and judgemental.

It is just as unkind, exclusive, and judgemental when Alan Joyce uses his considerable financial power to stop Israel Folau from expressing his beliefs.

This is the first point of hypocrisy. That in the name of inclusiveness and diversity, Joyce uses his power to bully, silence and exclude someone who sees things differently from him. Unless Folau recants (he won’t) he will be fired. This will affect not only him, but his family. Who is really being hateful and exclusive here?

The second is that while condemning Israel Folau, Qantas under Alan Joyce’s leadership continues to partner with the national airlines of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Public flogging, stoning, crucifixion and amputation are all accepted and practised punishments under their Islamic law. In 2014 an Asian housemaid was stoned to death in Abu Dhabi. In 2010 an 18 year old woman who had been gang raped by a police officer and five other men withdrew her complaint after the courts threatened her with flogging and a lengthy jail sentence for extra-marital sex. She was still required to serve a year in jail. Homosexual acts are capital crimes in both Qatar and the Emirates.

None of this seems to be of any concern to Alan Joyce and Qantas executives. But when a hardworking and talented young Australian of Tongan extraction quotes the Bible to call other Christians to repentance, they publicly vilify him and demand he be forced out of his job.

Fair enough? I don’t think so.

Christchurch Terror

It is important to try to understand the mass murder in Christchurch, but it is just too early to make any sound or meaningful assessment. Despite the manifesto, we do not know enough about Tarrant’s background and thoughts, and we know nothing about any of the others who may have been involved. That hasn’t stopped the mainstream media with its screeching headlines. More on that in a minute.

I know Christchurch a little. My mother was born at Lyttleton, Christchurch’s port and a very pretty place, and I have spent time in Christchurch and worshipped at the cathedral. That poor city has had more than its share of troubles.

Christchurch Cathedral

Christchurch Cathedral

Lyttleton Harbour, Christchurch

Lyttleton Harbour, Christchurch

What we can say, and the first thing we must say, is this. There is no excuse, ever, for religious or political violence against ordinary people. Whatever their background, the victims thought they had found a home in New Zealand, and were entitled to feel safe and welcome.

What we cannot justifiably do, at least yet, is make the judgments about Tarrant’s views some media organisations have made.

Someone who hates capitalism, corporatism, and conservatism, who despises President Trump’s economic and foreign policies, who describes himself as a former communist, now an eco-fascist, who recently visited Pakistan and said he liked and respected the people there, and whose most admired country is communist China, is neither a white supremacist, nor right wing.

If he wrote the manifesto in his name, he is highly intelligent, and thoroughly evil.

To repeat, there is no excuse, ever, anywhere, for acts of terror against civilians. All such acts, wherever they occur, and by whoever they are committed, must be condemned, and every step taken to stop them recurring.

Tarrant suggested he was trying to defend the West and its traditions. The opposite is true. He has comprehensively betrayed our values and our history.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 Qohel