Young Roodolf Iced in a Christmas Drive-by

In the Christmas season of 2004 Santa made his usual worldwide journey, distributing toys and lumps of coal, to those who had been naughty, nice, or affected by the fiscal austerity measures in his budget allocation.

On a pit-stop through Canberra, the reindeer found themselves drawn to a venue which, from the exterior, appeared  for all intents and purposes to cater for species similar to themselves (physically speaking; not phylogenetically): Mooseheads.

Several reindeer embibed liquid refreshments with labels which again were somewhat deceptive, such as “Little Creatures”, and subsequently felt themselves inspired to join in with the animal-themed song “Eagle rock” to which the local patrons demonstrated that the accepted dance move was to remove clothing garments below the waist.

Prancer busted out some fully sick dance moves and drew much applause (or as much as you could manage with cloven hooves), and Blitzen found himself eyeing off an intriguing young lass in the corner who stood on two legs. When he sidled over she introduced herself as Skippy, and he winked “Want to shout out with glee?”, and they soon adjourned to the sleigh parked out back, until Santa busted in, with accusations of “Ho! Ho! Ho!”.

The rest of the eve was a blur, with a somewhat haphazard route around the world crashing at one point near Bandah Aceh (which some news media have attributed to the earthquake, tsunami and mass devastation- a claim Mr Claus’ lawyers are calling slanderous and speculative; and will soon be lodging a counter-suit for defamation for photo-shopping Mr Claus’ head on a picture of a politician’s, albeit Christmassy coloured, solely speedo-clad physique).

Fast forward to November 2013; in fair Pialligo, where we lay our scene: from ancient grudge break to new mutiny; a pair of star-crossed lovers had once created a new life- for Skippy had found such a surprise some weeks later in her pouch, and named the child after both their houses: Roo-dolf.

Born not with the great power or knowledge of others of the house Baratheon, just the obvious physical traits of the crest of their house, poor Roodolf was vulnerable… and, tragically, assassinated.

….And so we investigate this calamity….

Was it the result of Satan Santa’s attempts to thwart all those who would defame his reputation?

 Was it the Lannister’s trying to eliminate all traces of any potential Baratheon heir to the Iron throne?

Or are the elves at the North-pole (or really Pyong-Yang?) master-minds running a sinister eugenics campaign… those without the powers of Wolverine only too obvious a target? 

Secrecy and Diversion Tactics: the Politics of Pregnancy

 I was very surprised the other day to hear a woman I know talking very openly about her recent absence from work by going into the following detail “I left work and went to hospital because I had a miscarriage that day”.

My surprise was two-fold:

Firstly, how often do you actually hear people saying they had a miscarriage, unless it is following the announcement of their pregnancy, ie “we’re so happy to be having this baby; especially after we had two miscarriages last year…”.

On the whole this reluctance to share the news with the world is very understandable; it was likely an upsetting experience if they wanted a child, and then had a miscarriage. A sense of loss, bereavement for some, or failure as it is sometimes described.

For all those who do share the news of their miscarriage there is likely to be ten who do not, which may be what fosters a sense of “failure” – not having an awareness of how many people do have difficulty falling pregnant and/ or carrying a pregnancy to term, and only having the “successful” ones as a point of comparison.

The second thing that surprised me about her sharing the news was that only a few weeks prior she was relating a story about her toddler to me, and asked if I had children; when I said no, I do not, she said “Smart woman; don’t have them- I wouldn’t recommend it!”. I had awkwardly laughed at her comment, fighting a lump rising in my throat and thinking how much I would love to have children, but am not likely to be able to, and responded with “So, no more planned for you then?”; “Definitely not!” she stated.

I’ve been through a mix of reactions with this one- from thinking “well screw you, ungrateful person!” in that she can get pregnant, and has a lovely child already which she doesn’t appreciate, when other people are not so fortunate; to thinking I wonder if she also puts on a certain bravado at her reproductive difficulties. In her 40s, she is perhaps experiencing difficulty in getting and staying pregnant, so stating to the world that she “Definitely does not want more children!!!” is a defence to the people who ask if she wants more.

This is a defence I have used, and still do in many situations. It diffuses the “…you’re in your 30s… no children… don’t you want any?!” *insert worried tone* type of questions quite well- even better if you add a callous or flippant tone “F ck no! Why would I want kids?!?”. 

The apparent need or desire to conceal an early stage pregnancy has a whole range of politics attached- the fear of misscarrying, of having to arrange workplace leave/ plans, all while running a gauntlet of other people's opinions about what you should or shouldn't be doing (including questions around should you be having a child at all in your 40s- another loud criticism I once heard in a workplace!) or eating. Since the dawn of humanity people have been having children, so why haven't we learned to accept the inevitable losses or challenges that our friends, family or co-workers will experience and become better at supporting them, rather than judging or criticising? 

At a party recently I heard some people discussing a surprise pregnancy: a woman arrived, visibly at least 6 months pregnant, with no known partner in the last year. The conversation started around the surprise of the situation “no, haven’t seen Amy* in months…”; “…I don’t think she’s seeing anyone… she certainly wasn’t earlier in the year when I saw her…”, and then turned to her first child “… apparently she threatened Andrew* that if he didn’t have a baby with her she’d leave him… then they broke up when the baby was four months old anyway.”. I found it an interesting choice of language, saying that she threatened her partner into having a child, and one that is not infrequent.

What we do know- Amy was about 38 years old, and had been dating Andrew for about 2 years. They had a conversation which involved the topic of having children; a child resulted some time later. Where the “threats” came from is likely to be either Andrew’s perspective, or that of people outside the relationship. Perhaps Amy did state that she wanted a child or she would end the relationship, which, as a 38 year old woman is a real choice some have to make, as if Andrew did not want children, by staying with him another few years a child would not magically appear in her life, and her fertility would likely disappear entirely. I would argue that in stating her desire to have children, and acknowledging she had limited time, she was being realistic about the situation and acting with self-respect. Any further inference to the tone of the conversation that occurred between them is speculative, yet such salacious speculation people love to make… 

What is it that drives people to judge Amy so much? Envy? That she doesn't conform to their sense of social norms? I wonder if anyone was saying "congratulations- as a single Mum, is there anything I can do to help?", or is that also seen as interfering or insulting her capacity to make this decision to have a second child by herself and cope with it?

It would seem we are a long way from being able to openly and honestly discuss our reproductive fears, desires and issues associated with having children.

*names have been changed

Paul Walker demonstrates how little we care about Typhoon Haiyan

Earlier this week the death of Paul Walker, actor of the Fast and the Furious films.

Aside from the irony in that Walker died in a car crash, which many thought was initially a joke given that his career was built on films celebrating dangerous driving and street racing there is also a sad irony in the reporting of Walker’s death, which has been protracted in the US, with coverage extending across most networks, newspapers and online for a week now. Repeating of twitter posts, facebook tributes, interviews and everyone vaguely famous who ever heard of him is plastered across the media. Even in Australia it has reached most outlets, although I’m sure I wasn’t alone in thinking “Paul who?”

Although it received brief mention, what has been largely overlooked is that Walker was an advocate for and co-founder of the charity Reach Out World Wide “ROWW is a network of professionals with first responder skill-sets who augment local expertise when natural disasters strike in order to accelerate relief efforts.” (http://www.roww.org/ ).

To compound the irony in that while you may have finally received one message you completely missed another, there is a planned fund raising drive to raise money for his charity. Fingers crossed there’s no vehicular-related injuries in this one…

(http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/car-enthusiasts-to-remember-paul-walker-with-charity-drive-20131203-2yooc.html)

… but I digress.

Typhoon Haiyan/ Yolanda has so far resulted in over 5700 deaths confirmed in the Philippines alone. With little fresh water, sanitation facilities and treatment of wounds available, that death toll is likely to rise significantly. Yet it did not receive even half of the media coverage that Paul Walker’s death did. I wonder if Walker would have screamed at the press and said you’re missing the point!

Is the reporting of some deaths and not others reflecting society’s apathy towards international tragedies, or is it the other way around- we don’t care because we don’t know? Presumably the latter was the logic in the stop the boats, turn back the boats, hide the boats approach to asylum seekers; if people don’t know about them, they won’t care.

Similarly, over 110,000 men women and children have been killed in the conflict in Syria this year, but it rarely receives a snippet.  Perhaps blame is attributed to these individuals because it’s a war, so the deaths of thousands of children are excusable?

The recent plane crash in Laos killed 49 people in being reported had a certain emphasis supporting this theory… 6 OF WHOM WERE AUSTRALIAN. These 6 people were… their lives… their families… their pictures… but what of the other 43?

Perhaps it’s because Walker was a “good guy” who tried to help others through his work with ROWW, but then what of the medical practitioners who were murdered in Somalia while doing aid work? Where were their stories?(http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/allcontent.cfm?id=68)

I think it’s more to do with compassion fatigue: there is so much going on in the world that people find it too overwhelming to care about everything. We package our lives into manageable portions, and only allow ourselves a certain amount of feeling that we perceive we have some control over to be able to cope with reality.

Last week when I met up with some friends for dinner, and they asked if I enjoyed my recent visit to my family interstate- among other accounts, I told them my stepmother’s cancer was noticeable, and that her incontinence meant there was a nappy to clean up; I was abruptly interrupted with “well that’s bloody depressing, I don’t want to think about that- can we talk about something else?!”. While my initial reaction was to think bitterly “Oh I do apologise if someone’s terminal illness and reality of slowly rotting in a demented near-quadriplegic state affected your enjoyment of dinner!”, but later I thought more about how avoidant so many people are, and I wonder how they’ll cope when their parents, friends and others get old and/ or sick. 

So I encourage those who find it difficult to package their hopelessness into financial dismissals they feel appease their first world problem of experiencing discomfort at having to hear about these issues: each time it arises, make a $20 donation to MSF; ROWW; Red Cross or whatever charitable organisation you feel will do some good, and say “There, I fixed it.”, tweet, facebook post or tell everyone about your altruism, tie a ribbon on your upper-middle-class white guilt, and close it until the next tragedy arises.

I'm Not Biased- You're Biased!

Accusations of bias are often thrown around when there is a perception of a difference of opinion. Throughout the election period, I was quite often met with some very scathing remarks and accusations of being a “raging leftie” or similar if I stated any disagreement with the conservative Coalition’s policies, even where my own views would be moderate, or not stating an alternative, but merely that I didn’t think it was ideal.

One such example was with the self-education expenses issue: a friend who is a medical professional stated that they did not wish for the self-education expense amount that can be claimed to be capped. I saw it as an interesting point, and asked who he believed should pay for their continuing education in an already high-income position as being a doctor (rhetorically, as obviously if not the self, then the taxpayer pays)? I also acknowledged that if the taxpayer did not pay there, then doctors were more likely to increase their fees to compensate for the “loss” of funds, and either way the affordability of health care and/ or gap between rich and poor was likely to take a hit, unless the Medicare rebate was increased.

I got ripped apart by respondents, who inferred that I was implying that a medical practitioner had no right to make a living, that everyone should be paid the same regardless of skills, and that I was an advocate for a communist society.

I pointed out that requesting a government rebate for education, rather than self-funding under a true capitalist fee-for-education model, was also a communist style approach, and asked how it was any different to the points I raised; I was met with a deafening silence.

“Even when we confess to (say) a Conservative or an economic bias we don’t mean that we think it a bias; we only mean that a supposed norm of social opinion might consider it a deviation from its orthodoxy, or that our hearer or hearers (constituting our immediate social milieu) might consider it as such.”(1) 

Possible conclusions:

1-    People are not receptive to open debate about issues, but will more likely perceive any difference of opinion as an affront to their beliefs

2-    People do not have a great level of awareness of their own biases.

Around the time of the election, there was also talk by the Coalition of changing the national history curriculum in schools as they perceived it to be too “left-leaning”, and that it needed "to give appropriate weight to our western and judeo-Christian heritage as a nation" (2) 

I write this not to *wait while the Coalition supporters take a deep inhalation, preparing themselves to berate this hippy as I undoubtedly must be about to spew forth some left-leaning diatribe about how wonderous the history curriculum is* talk about the success or failure of whatever content is in the system of education, but to consider the rationale behind its development, and how we learn to apply it. 

History is often referred to as being written by the victors- ie those who either survive it or hold power at the time write information imparting their own biases on it, or version of events from their perspective. Take the Vietnam war as much of the world call it, for example, or the American war, as it is thought of in Vietnam- who initiated the conflict? Do you perceive initiation as instigation or provocative actions? Intolerance of human rights violations as a justifiable means to send in the troops?

A more recent example perhaps: the war in Iraq. Was America within its rights or even its moral obligations to enter into that conflict? What of Australia’s place in it- did we have an obligation to support our ally, USA? Some would say yes (although as you may have guessed, I am not one of them), and yet Canada chose not to do so in the same position. All of these circumstances require the application of a set of values, influenced by culture, positioning in time, and other influences, such as the political desire to persuade others of a certain “truth”.

Considering "party x said *something provocative* about party b, who responded by firing rockets on the Nth day of J-tober 19whatever" - and regurgitating a string of dates from rote memory proves only that someone has the capacity to remember certain chunks of information, not how they are able to apply this information to their life and how it informs their future decisions. Adding value statements such as "x bombed y... and it was good for everyone." does not promote much further thought, but subtly institutes layer on layer of bias which, as I gave an example of earlier, does not promote open debate and the assessment of all merits or drawbacks. 

I suggest that we should not be teaching people WHAT to think, but HOW to think.  

"What is history but a fable agreed upon?" - Napoleon Bonaparte

1- http://www.kosmoid.net/roots/BIAS%20IN%20HISTORY%20TEACHING

2- http://www.news.com.au/national/coalition-government-to-review-unions-and-alp-presence-in-history-curriculum/story-fnho52ip-1226709301143