The Devil You Say

A short story

The Devil You Say

The clubhouse was rapidly filling, and perhaps becoming noisy. For the old greybeard at a corner table it was simply part of the great continuum.

He existed in a secure bubble, fairly impervious to the vagaries of his rowdy surroundings. He kept glancing at the door as he sipped slowly on his tall glass of ambrosia.

Suddenly the activity stopped as his voice boomed through the  universe; "Gabriel, Michael! Here, now!" The two angels were already on their way to his table, and simply continued their journey without concern.

As they sat a waiter, with eight arms, placed a bubbling black storm in a shot glass before the greybeard, along with another ambrosia, it just served the other pair with the latter.

They sat and watched as the old one threw back the stormy shot, then sipped his cooling chaser. 

Then Gabriel said, "we were on our way, why the impatience?"

"I have a problem. I need your help", he said stiffly. "But where have you pair been?"

Gabriel looked at his associate then took the lead, "Out on the links God, not here but an even better course."

"What are you taking about? I created golf as a punishing pastime for stupid mortals and you have become besotted with it. Even after I created the clubhouse for the likes of us you have still been drawn to this punishment?"

"You said you have a problem Lord, what is it we might help with?" Michael asked, hoping to divert the boss. 

The greybeard indicated back over his shoulder with his thumb. 

The pair needed to look past, around or through the freaks at the bar. Multi limbed, headed or simply slimy blocks, they all blocked an easy view of the target.

It didn't matter, in fact, because the target known to them, since the beginning of time. They had watched as the former angelic visage of this one time Special Prosecutor For God; indeed officially he still was. 

But everyone knew the ravages of idleness, abundant ambrosia and unrestrained anger at the old man had devastating consequences.

The svelte charm of the angel had turned dark and musty. The white robes had faded to near black and eruptions on his skin from an excess of ambrosia, and too little manna, gave off effects like the horn looking lumps on his brow. 

"He just sits their sucking ambrosia, day and night. The bar staff are constantly complaining about it. I need to do something about it or I'll have no peace for eternity."

"Satan?" Gabriel asked. "He's been there since the last task you set for him. You were happy about him then, maybe you should just give him another task. That was a few millennia ago after all."

"Satan? I mean Ha Shaitan," the old guy looked at them quizzically.

"That is what people have called him for ages Lord. Satan, the old Hebrew name isn't very popular now but for that one old job, no pun intended, his reputation has been working overtime for you."

"Whatever," the old one blasted, "What are we going to do about him now?"

The two archangels sipped quietly on their ambrosia as long as they dared, then Gabriel said; "Lord, there is a descendent of old Job who is causing us a bit of bother. Declares, even shows his devotion to you. 

"But all along he's just a bleeding heart lawyer who is screwing up many of our, errr your, better plans to have fun with mortals."

"Job? Haven't thought about him for eons. Is this fellow as devout as the forebear?"

"God Almighty, if anything he is worse." Michael winced. "As hard as we try to sow despair among your god fearing Christians Job busily works at undoing our efforts, all in the name of God it seems.

"Of course, he can't possibly stop everything we do, and he does constantly go on about Satan, which helps us a little."

"Soooo," God mused to himself, then out loud, well no universe loud!

 "Do you think this Job can hold out like the last one? Might be a bit more fun for us all, sent Satan as you call him, down for another run. 

" I'm sure he is still capable of ruining, destroying anything he comes in contact with. Perhaps your lawyerly friend might be partial to a little personal destruction; or better perhaps he won't be." It was here the universe had a good dose of God, or at least his manic laugh.

The three sat and talked for a bit, not so much hatching a plan as simply putting the pieces in place. 

"So take him off now, get this thing started. You know well just how quickly an infinity can pass."

As they sauntered off to collect Satan each was rueing how long an infinity really is. They felt an hour with God was like six infinities rolled into one. At least they knew how to handle Satan, it was a topic they had planned and discussed often.

The effects of the Ambrosia were short lived, took an age to develop and a day or two to wear off. They'd both been through the routine in their various efforts to emulate the fellow angel for the sake of humans.

The wretched gown was another thing. Science had not yet discovered a material which might just withstand contact with the sulphurous, indestructible fabric.  Nothing would destroy it of course, that would be impossible. But after they badly fitted Satan with a cheap suit, sort of lawyer suit, one of them would carefully transport the terrible outfit to a volcano which was threatening to erupt. It wouldn't destroy the robe, but no one would find it for several eons.

It didn't take infinities, just several Earth days to have Satin, ensconced at a bar stool where Job's lawyer friends liked to relax. 

They thought it might take a while for their god fearing target to appear, but to their amazement he showed up within minutes.

To their further amazement he walked straight over to Satan. 

"There you are," the effervescent character greeted. "Where have you been? I've been waiting forever for you to get out of his clutches."

From the bewildered and bemused look on Satan's face the Archangels knew this wasn't about to go as they planned. 

They could hear Job offering Satan a way out and they could hear that devil wanting out but finding excuses. He surely wouldn't. But Ha Shaitan didn't last long in the hands of a trained evangelist. They winced as the final block fell:

"Of course you aren't an Ambosiaholic Satan, can't possibly be. You don't have the genetic disposition. In fact you don't have genes.

"Look, I'm not asking you to be a double agent, make a clean break. I want to pay the old bastard back too, and I need more help defending against human rights abuses. You'd be great at it..."

We can't tell how long it was before our fearless archangels sat before God Almighty again; minutes, days, years, eons or infinities were all a blur.

"So report!" He demanded.

"the good news or the bad news?" Michael asked.

Just tell me about Ha Shaitan and that Job."

"Oh that, Gabriel passed off airily, he's out of your hair now, sort of." Michael winced at the sort of and added;

"Well that's the bad news. He's an associate with Job Legal. Joined the other side you might say."

"I thought Job was devoted to me!" God roared.

"Ummm perhaps we misunderstood the nature of the devotion Lord. You know how you keep making enemies."

God Almighty stared at them with fury in his eyes, then said;

"You will go straight back, fetch Satan out of there and kill Job!"

"No can do,"  Michael said, without any hint of apology. I'm going right back, but I have a room full of gorgeous women to visit."

God simply glared the question at Gabriel.

"I'm on the pro golf circuit now God, too busy to worry about that stuff. But you are fine here. You never go anywhere or do anything, and no one really cares much for you anyway. Just enjoy existence." He could not keep a nervous giggle from bubbling out.

"GOLF" roared God, you know I hate that game.

As they started to leave a slightly petulant Michael turned back;

"You see God, we have found out a resurrected golf champion is far more loved than a resurrected god. Lots more gorgeous women too. Seeya!"

Falling Between two Stools

I have just posted a set of articles on MagusInk, celebrating the creative genius born out of the Dust Bowl phenomenon in the USA during the 1930s - The Muse does some hardtravelin This set of stories looks at the contributions of writer John Steinbeck, photographer Dorothea Lange, and ‘The Dust Bowl troubadour’ Woody Guthrie.

Two aspects really struck me out of my research, first was the difference a little dignity can make to the degradations of poverty. It is bad enough to be cold, hungry and homeless, but adding social pariah status and blaming the victim  makes breaking the cycle nearly impossible. The voices and images of this trio at least gave a human face to these victims.

The other revelation, to me at least, is that I’m not the only one to constantly fall between two stools, and into an odious pile of shit. Perhaps the only thing I have in common with Guthrie and Steinbeck, and it did help to relate better to them. Both had a strong social conscience, and  neither was comfortable with aligning that with any particular fixed and organised group thinking.

Steinbeck in particular was reviled by the political right and left in the USA. On the other hand he attacked capital and labour organisations with equal intensity. If  he, or Guthrie dallied with socialism and communism at times but was clearly incapable of becoming embedded with organisations. 

Both he and Guthrie were really only at home with their subjects, the dispossessed and the grafters and showed little interest in ideologies and dogmas. Having to compromise or stay quiet for the sake of being part of a group was simply not in their DNA. Not that that stopped the right from labelling and attacking, especially during the McCarthy Era. However both seemed to take those attacks in stride and often somewhat humorously.  

I guess the real point is that they could have made their lives a good deal easier in some respects, no doubt at the cost of being able to live comfortably with their deep passions. Sometimes the trade off is not worth it and thankfully that pair were never really tempted by it. Instead, along with Lange, they have left a valuable and instructive legacy.

Questioning the dominant paradigm

Where is that thin line between considered and gratuitous commentary? Is it appropriate to question the veracity of Islamic, Jewish or Christian belief?

Recent violent protest in Sydney, while lamentable, occur more often than we like to recognise.
In recent times we have seen confrontations between unions and authorities in Melbourne and earlier in the year the 'occupy' confrontations in both cities.
At the same time we have seen a range of violent protests in refugee detention centres throughout the country.
The reality is that Australia is part of a wider global community, we are subject to the same troubles and responses as the rest of the world.

To that Question
When is it wrong, despite research support and reasoned argument,
to actually present a potentially contentious position?
For some time now I have been researching what has evolved as the reality of religion per se.
It didn't begin that way, it began as an effort to focus on the positive message of our historically sandaled sages; Jesus et al.
My background and a degree of previous training was within the Judeo/Christian sphere, so it was reasonable that my focus should begin there.
The methodology has been somewhat broader than that if my previous church based training.
Certainly the Bible was a central reference point, but as an overview rather than the church preferred study of 'biblical bubbles' in isolation of the broader context.
Now clearly, as a former Christian, that training had not sufficiently captured me. Yet emotional ties to other peoples beliefs, or my own reticence, had captured me.

The Hard Part

"While I can recognise that religion has a broader role, often defining cultural and individual identities, it is in the end an empty vessel."

I placed that statement in quotes because it represents a fair summary of where my research has brought me.
I broadcast it realising that it will appear offensive to many, but with the equal understanding that I take offense at the strictures put on society by many religious adherents.
Is my expression valid or gratuitous? Just because I know it will upset some should that stop me from making it known?

As it is, I believe I have accrued sufficient evidence to claim the 'emperor has no clothes'. The vessel is empty, but do I have the right to actually say it?
I think I should have and do have, but suspect that I might just be out-numbered in that belief.

Take your partners for the next dance

The political dance has long held a fascination for me. I can’t really jig, but then I am fairly inept at real politics. I guess the problem is that I take it too seriously, expect better performances than seem to be humanly possible.

We don’t have a federal election due in Australia soon, but we have a ballroom full of willing competitors. The USA are having their preliminarily heats providing dance floor spills and thrills aplenty. Both offer a sad, disenchanting view of political life and aspirants.

Prime Minister Gillard should be sitting on top of the glittering ball, being generally successful at delivering worthy performances in most sections of the comp. Her biggest skill though seems to be the one that will see her limp off the floor, missing one shoe perhaps. Our Julia at deflecting the failings of opposition leader Abbott back onto herself.

Time and again Abbott should be hoist on his own petard, and the chivalrous Julia steps in to take the blow. It is breathtaking to watch the incredible transformation, the shift of focus, a foot gently removed from Abbott's mouth and planted solidly in her own. I wouldn’t really mind, except for a morbid fear of an Abbott lead government in this country.

Circular Firing Squad
A shift of focus to the USA GOP primaries race could probably rate as a displacement activity, although it should concern Aussies who is in the White House. We do tend to become tangled in US policy, at all its extremes.

This race has been characterised as a ‘circular firing squad’. Front runners Romney and Gingrich have inflicted such serious electoral damage on each other there is talk at this late stage of introducing a new, electable candidate. What has been fascinating, like Abbott these aspirants are adept at shooting themselves in the foot, without suffering any harm.

A long held dream has been to see a credible, capable set of opponents, showing the positive skills which might thrill us with the spectre of the political tango. They need not be boring. They need not ape each other’s steps and routines. Diversity provides powerful benefits in any field of endeavour. My dream is for solid performances, the sort which serve to grow the confidence of nations, not constantly drain it away.

Experiencing a wilderness

WOW!!! A keyboard under the fingertips again. Eons in the wilderness, with only an antediluvian cell phone at hand blogging gave way to contemplation and the odd tweet. That plus reams of hand written notes for an ongoing wilderness inspired project.

Limitations on commenting are possibly just as well, given the strange behaviour of supposedly progressive politicians; so strange the conservative side are in danger of self-harm. As WSJ recently noted, the Congressional GOP appeared to be forming a circular firing squad trying to find their new place in the political landscape.

 In Australian the conservative opposition are so intent on opposing they have become typecast as ‘The NO Team’, giving the minority government more than a little hope of survival. Like elsewhere the parties are in disarray.

My old ‘Aunt Sally’, Silvio Berluscone is gone – hoist on his own petard. The Middle East despotic regimes are imploding one by one, without outside assistance. There is still injustice aplenty, still regrettable laws, often backed by ‘progressive’ leaders. All of this happened without the benefit of my input. Amazing!

Good old economics is behind a lot of this fascinating political/social behaviour. Certainly in conventional terms Obama would be toast with the current US economic dynamic, but his opponents are intent on showing they would be far more destructive. Economic ructions might  have changed expectations.

The increased spread of social media is informing unrest around the world, spreading quickly to those who might never known they had alternatives. More power to them. To be sure, those unused to being challenged react harshly. But their very actions, the violence and bloodshed, are fuelling the resolve of emerging revolutionaries.

It would be remiss not to mention the Occupy Movement, though apart from the catchy 99% there seems to be a lack of handles to grab. I think I understand the reasoning behind the movement, or at least the desire to find their voice. Unfortunately poor articulation of the economic arguments underlying the movement, the lack of cohesive target demands, has so far negated their real potential.

Still, it is wonderful that all this goes on, for better or worse in my absence. Even better to know that my humble opinion is neither needed or missed. That revelation probably won’t change my readiness to comment. I blog, therefore I am? The truth, as I found, is that I am even in the silent wilderness.

Bigger profits make everyone happy? Pigs might fly

Australia’s Fairfax Media have been running a story over the weekend - Capitalism is ruining the planet, and pigs might fly – by Chris Berg is a research fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs and editor of the IPA Review.

I suspect Mr Berg might take issue with the hype created by headline, subhead and outtakes, but his own argument reeks of poorly target information to prove a dubious case. The Sunday Age ran the subhead – Less waste means bigger profits, and that should make everybody happy. Either Mr Berg or the sub-editor live in cuckoo land if they believe that.

The argument is predicated on a research pig, Pig 05049, and seeks to prove that because all of the parts of this butchered pig were utilized in various ways. The suggestion is that tracking the afterlife of one single pig can be extrapolated across the corporate world. That would suggest that industrial waste is no longer an issue, indeed does not exist at all. We all know the truth of that, business will only expend resources to the degree that they will get a maximum return.

As to the joys of profit motive, surely that exists for those who directly benefit. With the announcement of increased taxes on our mining companies we are now hearing more of this lame justification, an incredible range of claims supporting the widely discredited ‘trickle down’ theory. The mining companies are claiming responsibility for Australia’s economic strength, despite the fact that the mineral wealth rightly belongs to the country as a whole. As to any altruistic motive, the new provision was announced on Sunday and mining shares took a dive on Monday.

I would suggest that it is not bigger profits that gain wide approval, rather it is a more equitable distribution of available wealth. I’m not being ‘bolshie’ here, not claiming business should not make profits, but equally they should not make extravagant, unsupportable claims, even if they do really believe them. I am sure Mr Berg did not achieve his exalted position through ignorance, sure that he knows the difference between a credible and a fallacious argument. I would hope so anyway. This article is shallow and misleading, and I hope it’s author feels at least a little guilt.

Democratic conventions

Australia is well into election season, with two states down and more to come, including a federal election. Predictably we are also flooded with nonsense statements as the jockeying for power heats up. Out here in my rural retreat, with limited power and access, I manage a great deal of time to muse on the political dynamics. One of the issues which both amuses and annoys is claims of breaches of the ‘Westminster System’.

There are many variants of democracy, officially Australia, and the states, are considered part of a ‘constitutional monarchy’. In reality we are constitutional/parliamentary democracies. The Westminster System is a set of conventions or behaviours accepted by the various parliaments and clearly subject to ‘common usage’. The fact that the ‘system’ is clearly evolutionary, subject to perceived political need at any given time.

Even so our politicians, especially on the conservative side, like to claim breaches of the system, forgetting they were most likely the ones to change the base dynamic. Probably the best known convention was ministerial responsibility. That means that the elected minister must take responsibility for any faults in the department’s they administer.

Here in Victoria the conservative opposition, with an election in sight, are making a mockery of the convention which their previous governments managed to sideline. In an attack aimed at the state’s planning minister the opposition have been demanding that public servants should face a parliamentary inquiry.

Following last years bush fires and with a Royal Commission currently underway the opposition are after the scalp of the former police commissioner and current head of the fire reconstruction effort, Christine Nixon. At the same time various of the conservative members, including the opposition leader have bemoaned breaches of the Westminster System.

I expect it makes good copy, and good politicking, as few in the wider community have any real concept of what these people are referring to. Another current issue relating to the Westminster System of government is unfolding in Tasmania, the smallest and arguably most over governed state of Australia.

The issue of ‘cabinet solidarity’ faces a severe test in that state following their recent inconclusive election. Well inconclusive in that neither major party managed to gain enough seats to govern in their own right. The Tasmanian lower house is elected on the basis of five multi member electorates of five members each.

The major parties only managed ten seats each, with the Greens taking up the other five. You could say the majors were hoist on their own petard, having reduced the parliament by ten seats some years ago in an attempt to lock the Greens out. Both Labor and Liberals could probably work together quite happily, egos apart, as both are supported equally by the state’s dominant timber industry leaders.

The odd part is that they chose not to, and it is highly unlikely the Greens will allow Gunns Ltd and other forest companies to have free reign on any government involving them. In fact they have gone further and said they will only support the Labor government if there in the absence of the sort of corruption that has been evident over the years.

Premier David Bartlett has suggested a formula whereby a Greens minister could excuse himself from discussions with which he cannot entertain. That would suggest a sort of optional cabinet solidarity, and once the convention is tampered with, even with a clearly expressed alternative, that old evolution comes into play again.

I suppose, in some ways all this is healthy for democracy. Like a lot of words there is really no clear concrete definition, it is simply a set of conventions again that we are willing to accept. Of added interest is the British election, which could also deliver a minority government with the centre left Liberal Democrats holding the balance. Still, the Brits have a few more than 25 members in their parliament.

Online from the bush

Living back of beyond has it’s issues, like power supplies and internet access. Both are now sort of sorted and I can post from a fly spot called Mia Mia in northern Victoria. Being on a wireless modem is great, albeit subject to the power sources I am using. Not being on the grid is fine, but balancing a solar/generator mix is difficult.

It becomes frustrating listening to the ‘news’, and occasionally there is news, and not being able to respond. Two issues of particular note just now are climate change and health care.

Climate Change

“Two of the nation's top research bodies - the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO - have come out strongly in defence of the science behind global warming.

The leading research bodies say the evidence is irrefutable: climate change is real and the link with human activity is beyond doubt.”. ABC

What concerns me is that ‘Blind Freddy’ could attest to climate change. Assigning blame is another issue, which the “irrefutable” aspect of human causality is not being clearly articulated. The trenchant skeptics will continue to deny evidence, but the fence sitters are not being convinced as yet.

It seems logical tome that regardless of cause we must do whatever is needed to mitigate those issues we understand. That means accepting the need for sacrifices, which in turn requires clearly articulating the irrefutable evidence. I’m a believer, but I don’t feel I have the information to even begin to convince doubters.

Health

If Kevin Rudd is going to win backing for health reform in this country he needs to tie his various arguments together in a cogent form. That he is now talking about funding more front line health practitioners, GPs, he has failed to tie that into hospital funding reform. This argument is vital. Hospitals will never be cost efficient unless we have an early detection, and dare I say mitigation regime, in place.

Hospital care is increasingly a challenging economic item. The advances in science and technology are mind blowing, and budget blowing, but too many people end up in hospital with conditions which should have been detected and treated before becoming a crisis. Hospitals are never a great place to be and front line care makes them a last resort.

Of course, without the front line doctors in place there is still a huge gap to fill, even without the mindless incidents putting pressure on basic emergency services. I suspect health issues require focusing resources on a wide range of social issues.

Standing in the way of any real reform is the federal/state divide, or politics. If the states continue to push responsibility to the Feds then they are writing their own obituary. The issues are all politics in the end, and the state parliaments seem to have lost sight of their reason for being. I still oppose centralizing government, if only because I don’t want to see the state corruption placed in more able hands. Surely it is time the corruption went and ‘commomweal’ took its proper place.

History hazards of the countryside

I’m reminded of the old Punch cartoon with two city gentlemen in a coach on the way to a country weekend. One fop is saying: “The countryside is truly rural hereabouts.” And so it is in my Mia Mia retreat, and there is something about country people I really connect with; not well mind you, but I enjoy it.

Part of the secret is not to be a city smartarse, don’t be telling the locals how they should do things or what they should think. Oh! and it helps to keep yourself to yourself and not be nosy. I generally fail miserably at all those things. Despite the failings I seem to have connected remarkably well in this community of 400 or so people.

I ask a lot of questions about the area and its history, just occasionally being asked why I want to know. That one I fouled up last week with the response: I just like to know the ins and outs of a duck’s bum! I suspect from the look I received word will be out this week that I am a government spy or worse. It was ever thus.

In fact these people have been living their myths for generations and resent being called to account for consistency of detail. Indeed, the issue I was addressing was the identification of remains of an old brick hut on our property. The city owners insist it was an exotic tale of land claim jumping by a Henry Munro, the locals say it was a bloke named Harrison or Thompson… the names go on, in the 1940s or 50s.

The city folk are less than delighted when I show Munro was not the occupant, the locals are cautious to stick with a broad suggestion and avoid actual detail. With all that, my nosy probing and other misdemeanors, it seems I am accepted. Having walked to the pub (above) on Saturday, a good uphill hike, I sat with my paper and was reading about the late JD Salinger. I will copy in part the comment I posted on Ragebot in response to Kvatch’s post:

“You read, did you read Salinger?” Well yes, but I thought it was pretty ordinary. Now Kerouak… “Who?” The thing about Salinger is that his name and the book are known – vaguely. One of the bar supports said, “of course he was involved in killing Kennedy – that bloke had his book!” In fact it was the bloke who killed John Lennon was carrying the book. Another corner of the bar offered that he, JDS, was only a Pom after all. It turned out he was confusing another ‘seminal’ text and author, Lady Chatterley’s Lover – D. H. Lawrence.

I forget that oral history is still alive and well, along with it’s social taboos like insisting on consistency and specifics. It is more about keeping the local myths alive and presumably they have their own point for the initiated. So now I’m nervous of asking questions about the photo of the rail. Well I should ask in Kyneton anyway, it is their railway station..

Kyneton is about 25 Km up the Campaspe River which flows, or puddles, near my abode. The town began before the gold rush and became a sort of staging post and supply depot, and rail was part of infrastructure expansion in the fledgling colony. What fascinated me was the well picked section of railway line carrying the mark – V.R. KRUPP 1889. The VR is clearly Victorian Railways, and the KRUPP that German steel maker famous for armaments through many conflicts up to WWII.

The Kyneton – Redesdale area were not big producers of gold as their neighbouring districts were, and have been largely ignored by researchers. I suspect that is changing on some fronts. Aspects like the railways, including the one which used to run to Redesdale, will be well recorded, but I wish them well on collecting the real local history.

Can’t escape bureaucratic bungling

With only a cell (mobile) phone and small radio to keep me in touch I thought I might become less of a carping critic of issues concerning poor governance. No so when you live in a sparsely populated region still in trauma from the bushfires of last February.

I thought heading into the wilderness, beyond the communications systems we now take for granted, would at least shield me from the knowledge of political and bureaucratic. That was a vain hope.

With high temperatures and strong winds hitting my wilderness I am receiving a stream of confusing warnings on fire dangers. The warnings are so confusing the ABC (radio) presenters are constantly seeking clarifications from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), the Country Fire Authority (CFA) and the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE).

Given the tragic circumstances of previous bushfire seasons, and the pasting authorities have endured through various hearings and inquiries, there is enormous pressure to solve problems of mitigating disasters. Unfortunately it falls to the wrong people in the case of CFA and DSE. Rather than look to the local knowledge of a committed volunteer base it is those who only know the assurance of a pay packet who are dealing with this.

The major issue, in the restructuring of a fire response system, is basic communications. CFA and DSE seem so tied up in their own entrenched language and systems they seem unable to put together A simple set of plans which will work across this relatively small Australian state. Part of the problem is their refusal to listen to those who really understand the territory.

Mapping the issues

BOM has a great reputation with weather districts based on consistently similar patterns. There accuracy, while largely speculative or ‘educated guess’, is well respected. The fire authorities base their maps on multiple municipal boundaries, which are large areas with some dramatic climactic variations.

In my case it is doubly confusing because I live on the edge of the North Eastern Fire District, which extends from central Victoria to the Pacific Ocean. Across the road (pictured above) is the North Western District extending across to South Australia. All last week my district was on the edge of ‘code red’ fire danger, we will get to the various codes, then Saturday the danger swung to the North Western district.

The crazy part of that is where this apparent barrier has been created both sides of the road are tinder dry and any activity likely to set of a fire would only be undertaken by a malicious individual or a dullard unaware of the danger. The problem for my neighbours, and more so for my radio presenters, is the difficulty in focusing in on potential crisis points. As some commentators have noted, there is a danger, after a few panics, of the ‘boy who cried wolf’ syndrome.

Confusing codes

So the CFA and DSE bureaucracies went further than ignoring the well established district regimes of BOM, but also decided to change the old, and understood, fire rating system for a new and confusing model. (see pic) They probably only need low – high – code red, but even with that they have communications problems. It will not be code red across the massive area they are reporting it.

The trouble Coupled with those unwieldy fire reporting districts the new codes simply deepen the confusion on the ground. Now on the ground is just where the local volunteer fire fighters are and there workload is already heavy from using their local knowledge and concern to spot real problems before they happen. That isn’t always possible, but we would already be in deep trouble without their efforts.

So each time code reds have been declared and the worst outcome wasn’t achieved did the authorities clap and cheer a successful operation? No, they blamed BOM who they rely on for their weather predictions. They are bloody crazy. A code red is a message to take special care about fire risk, if people listened then it achieved it’s purpose. But the bureaucrats are obviously focused on a different reality to the rest of us.

Perspectives on racism

The issue of racism has come to the fore again in Australia after another senseless murder of an India student in Melbourne, scene of an increasing number of such incidents. The issue has been exacerbated by State and Federal governments going into denial about the race aspects; rather they claim that it really is just senseless violence.

Indians are 2½ times more at risk of attack than other Melburnians, but the reasons are complicated, writes Dylan Welch SMH. Barkly Street stretches long and dark in both directions. On a quiet Wednesday evening, several pairs of Indian men confer in Hindi under the neon lights of half-empty Indian restaurants. In a nearby side street in the western Melbourne suburb of Footscray West, unsmiling African teenagers mill about a darkened bus shelter.

Not denying racism and other bigotry, I would argue that in itself these unworthy notions are not often translated to violence; at least not violence against those hated. But yes, it does happen. My own father, like many of his contemporaries bought up under the strict ‘white Australia’ policy was a rabid racist. As with many bullies, for his targets he reserved verbal abuse, the frustrated violence was more likely visited on his family.

I could never understand his attitude. My school mates and indeed some memorable ‘crushes’ were generally from strange countries, strange to me at that time, with a kaleidoscope of languages and accents thrown in. The irony with my father, who had very few friends in his life, was a late devotion to a Korean family to whom he became a loving, surrogate grandfather figure.

What I did observe, growing up and later, is that these immigrant folk would often be the most vocal in their racial hatred. Having gained their safe place in a new society it seemed right to attack the next wave. It is difficult to ignore a violent push in Sydney by young Lebanese, intent on taking over the low level criminal activities. That is not racist, but simple fact. It is a fact which tends to drive bigotry.

IN BC Canada, home to a swelling population of Indian and Chinese immigrants, the story is much the same. Ethnic criminal activity drives some of the problem; a culture of very low paid farm workers finishes it off. It is not uncommon for Europeans locals to cheer each time an overloaded ‘Paki bus’ turns over in a ditch killing workers on board. And this from some of the kindest folk I’ve ever met.

India itself is rife with racial and sectarian violence according to news headlines, though often vehemently denied. There was recent talk of Britain pulling out of the Commonwealth Games in Delhi later this year over security threats. The reality clearly shows numerous sectarian and racial tensions through that vast population, but equally a majority who crave peaceful coexistence; as is the case in Australia and Canada.

Great for grandstanding; but understanding?

Indian students are ''soft targets''. They are ''walking ATMs'' carrying mobile phones, iPods and jewellery as they travel on public transport between university and late-night work shifts. SMH

Yet in all of this verbal shorthand becomes a real issues, whole societies become labeled because the real issues a rarely defined accurately. Put another, worst social responses are generally encouraged, unwittingly perhaps, by the perceived needs of politicians and media to make a quick impact. Immediacy driven comment is clearly an inadequate way of dealing with complex social issues.

In Australia the vast over-reaction by politicians and media to ‘boat people’ and a nebulous ‘war on terror’ drives a distrust of any different looking or speaking people. But that over-reaction is typified by three second sound bites and shock jock media responses; great for grandstanding, not so great for understanding.

Prejudice is alive and well, and generally encouraged. It might simply be city Vs city, or country and city, even suburb to suburb, town to town. Partly that reflects a competitive spirit, but can easily fall over into an ignorant, unthinking reaction. The violence is real enough in our societies an always has been; but is it really about bigotry or is it about a relative few insecure, angry, hateful people who want to lash out?

Footnote: I have often wondered if the epithet ‘Whitey’ used against Australians by Asians is not a product of the old White Australia policy. That is long gone now, but prejudice tends to have a long memory. Regardless of historical relevance the mindless name calling is sure to fuel continuing antagonism.