Ping-Off Buggerlugs!

AS I was walking up the stairs, I met a man who wasn’t there, he wasn’t there again today, I wonder why he went away?

It would seem that all too often in Australian politics, we are witness to the rise and fall of some truly talented and visionary politicians. Luckily for us though, there are those genuinely liberating moments in Australian history when the voters simply say, “Ping off buggerlugs, I’m over the bullshit, sorry. It is no longer funny!”

I can’t help but think that this is what really happened on Federal Election day 2007 and to be absolutely honest I was so totally cool with the result I surprised even myself. Did I predict it? No way. Did I vote for Rudd? No, I did not. Am I disappointed with the outcome? Nope, not at all. Welcome to democracy.

Let’s face it, the election was not entirely judged on the performances of the candidates alone, and sorry, nor was it all about the unions dominating government or Work Choices paranoia. It was not about global warming, health, aged care or the war on stagnant economies. The 2007 Australian Federal election fell rather befittingly into the circa 1972 category: It’s time.

And ‘time’ it was. It was not necessarily John Howard. It was not the fact that Peter Costello actually has a rather wonderful wit, as most previous former federal treasurers seem to have had. It was not even the fact that Tony Abbott lacks a somewhat sincere humanity.

It was time. Time to change; and good on you all for politically edjimacating me. I really needed to be pushed from my comfort zone this time, I really did.

Hey, talk about the really young Libs, I grew up in the Queensland Liberal Party. It was all around me back in the seventies. As you get wiser, though, you start to swing with your vote. Like Dad does nowadays.

But wait, there’s more. When I was only six years old, I remember going to a Liberal function at a truly magnificent home at New Farm on the banks of the Brisbane River and I sat on the knee of a really wonderful man whom I have fondly quoted in the first paragraph of this story, (go back and read it again).

I remember his smile and I remember asking what it was that he meant by this and he replied, “That’s politics, Brendan. When you’re needing a politician most, they’re never around, and when you vote them out they wonder why.”

The man’s name was Senator Neville Bonner. (R.I.P.)

Tastes Like Chicken

Being the right raving lefty of which I am often accused, I would like to raise two very relevant questions and then possibly offer you some plausible answers. I will then give you some Re:Port homework to complete in your own time.

Here Goes…

Question One: Will the amalgamation of the Douglas Shire Council and Cairns City Council put our local community at risk of becoming just another congruous and politically compatible society, with no real local identity or spirit?

Question Two: What is the difference between a heterogeneous and homogeneous society?

Just for fun, I’ll start with the second question first. If you took the time to look up the meaning of the words in the dictionary you will find that the word heterogeneous (pronounced hetero-genius) means either different in kind or unlike in genes, ultimately making reference to differences celebrated.

In contrast, the word homogeneous (pronounced homo-genius) means a part or elements (plural) that are all of the same kind; not heterogeneous: an homogeneous population.

Now one could argue that the Cairns and Douglas communities are infact both heterogeneous and homogeneous societies; in other words, some things that are different within our communities will remain so and others will become similar. Moreover, some things that are inherently similar between our two communities will no doubt change.

Now here’s your homework, read a book that deals with the issue of conformity like Orwell’s ‘1984’ or De Lillo’s ‘White Noise’, as you read the book, start to observe people as they go about their daily lives. Jot down your observations of both individuals and society in general.

Then read something by Charles Dickens or Toni Morrison that concentrates on celebrating individuality and the richness in cultural difference.

Once again, go through your day observing. After reading Dickens, you will find that you start noticing how individual everybody is. In contrast, after reading Orwell, you will notice how pathologically conformist everyone is.

It is the nature by which we humans perceive the world. In our daily lives we are constantly bombarded with way too much information, we can only focus on a portion of it at once. In order to get through our daily lives, we take our world and we map it onto our consciousness in a way in which all but a very small amount of information is completely ignored.

Now, what was the question?

Who ate the chocolate Jesus?

Before you all start getting uppity about my choice of title, I can assure you it is very pertinent. I am of course referring to the un-clad and anatomically correct sculpture of a life-sized Cadbury Christ that was created for display at the swank Lab Gallery in Manhattan earlier this year.

This very controversially unique and culturally brave piece of confectious Choco L'Art entitled ‘My Sweet Lord’ by artist Cosimo Cavallaro, depicted an au naturel representation of Jesus Christ likeness complete with arms outstretched as if cruelly fastened to a visually impalpable crucifix.

Reaction to this sweetest of heavenly creations by America’s fanatical-right religious sector was nothing short of utter horror. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights spokesman Bill Donohue said, "They wouldn't show a depiction of Martin Luther King with his genitals exposed on Martin Luther King Day, and they wouldn't show the Prophet Muhammad depicted this way during Ramadan.”

However, some people like Manhattan’s Reverend Jonathon Edwards aren't as bothered, he just would have preferred that the Mars bar messiah not be nude so as the artistic celebrations could have been shared at many different social levels.

“As a pastor, what I find far more offensive than a chocolate Jesus with an impressive 400gm bonus block is the fact that a few self-righteous Christians are intolerant enough to get upset about it.”

Although unintentional, the artist had unwittingly sculptured a somewhat ironic critique of mainstream Christianity that could only have been better delivered if it were wrapped in colourful tinfoil and placed in a giant Easter basket.

So what defines art and what are (if any) the limits to good taste?

Wikipedia states that “Art is a product of human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; thus art is an action, an object, or a collection of actions and objects created with the intention of transmitting emotions and or ideas.”

As a young musician, I grew up believing that taste is personal preference. Different people have different likes and dislikes and no one personal preference is any more relevant than anyone else's. Now I am a little older and wiser I believe otherwise.

The problem with the claim that there is no such thing as good taste is that it also implies that there is no such thing as good art. If you remove personal taste from the equation, you would have to discard the idea of art being good and artists being good at making it.
The idea that you can make a piece of art great is not just an egotistical manifestation, it is truth. If an artist believes there is such a thing as good art then he or she will be free to try and create it.

In the past, vulgar art was never such a problem. Some of the great works of western culture were filled with slapstick humor, violence and sex. Homer, Chaucer and Shakespeare are riddled with vulgarity. Chaucer, for instance, loved a fart joke even more than your average aussie male if that’s possible.

When artist Robert Fawcett decided to abandon culturally acceptable ‘fine art’ for illustration his peers claimed that illustration is a tasteless endeavour, to which Fawcett responded; “Good taste is often the enemy of creativity.”I believe that there is such a thing as good art, good art creates the benchmark that becomes good taste. If an artist strives to create good art, people with good taste will notice.

That leaves us with just one unanswered question, if the luscious Choco-lord was never displayed, what became of him and who in fact got to eat the bonus 400 grams?

The endless not knowing

As life’s runes are drawn one at a time and the endless confusion over interpretation begins, I feel at ease.

I sense the knowing of my path and where I shall strive, I bare witness to the course that lay in the shadow of the moon as it teases in and out of its sanctuary deep within the cloud.

You need not me but your own path, I need not you but my faith, we need not each other but ourselves.

The reality is, I am here alone. Still, I remain unperturbed, I shall walk until I can no more, I must thirst until I can no longer, I will as thy will.

When the light fades and I can no longer see, I will not lie down. I may fumble, but I shall not fall, for something calls me. I don’t know where or what it is but still it calls.

One day I shall reach this calling and know it, I may not see it at first and walk on by, I may not know it and walk on through, but one day I will see it, I will see it, know it and be of it, best of all when I find it, I will know I belong.

For this is my destiny, and it calls me day after day after day.

Getting Laid for Chickens 1:01

I truly doubt that I am the only reader to find this insightful avian conundrum to be at the utmost provocateur eggstreme. The chicken or the egg theory has most certainly ruffled a perpetual feather or two over the generations however, did you know that the quandary itself can actually be quite easily eggsplained?

These day’s, there is resounding scientific evidence that modern birds have evolved from the small predatory dinosaurs of the Mesozoic era. Most paleontologists will agree that modern birds are direct descendents of the Jurassic Period from the Mesozoic era dinosaurs.

Many inhabitants of the Jurassic period including the dinosaur were egg layers. In nature, the laying of external eggs allowed for a large number of offspring without having to carry around the additional weight.

According to archaeological theory, modern chickens evolved from Mesozoic dinosaurs, which in turn have evolved over millions of years from oceanic primordial goo that produced the very first unicellular organisms.

Therefore, chickens are the direct ancestors of prehistoric amphibious reptiles that have evolved from an aquatic existence to later inhabit the terra firma during the warmer ‘Permian’ era. So there, the Egg was first.

These early reptiles were generally small with a longer backside. Species continuity via external egg laying were present in both amphibians and reptiles during this period and these traits continued during the next evolutionary period in which the Reptilian variants became warm-blooded, developed feathers and began to fly.

The ‘chicken or the egg’ theory though has more recently manifested itself as a metaphor for a circumstance in which no clear ordering can be determined, known as cyclical cause-and-effect.

There are many real world examples of the Chicken or the Egg theory, in which the question helps to identify the analytical problem at hand for instance, the fear of economic downturn will cause people to spend less which reduces demand thus causing economic downturn.

Another is, ‘more jobs causes more consumption which inturn requires more production and thus more jobs create more housing which leads to increasing credit card debit and rising interest rates due to increased inflation’.

Last but not least, a personal favourite, the fear of war can make people more violent; the resulting violence causes more fear, the rest is documented history.
The moral of this story could infact be that getting laid stops unemployment, economic downturns and wars.