In my employer's shiny nearly-new building, the facilities on each of the sixteen floors are boldy marked MENS and WOMENS. I wince every time I walk by. So would Lynn Truss, author of the wonderful 2003 book Eats, shoots & leaves: the zero tolerance approach to punctuation. She advocates carrying a marker pen at all times in order to correct grammatically incorrect signs.

Accountant Stefan Gatward has become known in England for correcting the grammar of a street sign in Royal Tunbridge Wells, from St Johns Close to St John's Close. All power to him, I say.

Apostrophes in street signs have been banned by Birmingham City Council because its staff spend too much time dealing with complaints about grammar.
The Telegraph quotes John Richards, the founding (and only?) member of the Apostrophe Protection Society as saying that the decision was "absolute defeatism". Just so.

Frenchs Forest is in Sydney. I wonder what sort of quality "frenchs" is. (The forest is named after one John ffrench a nineteen century landholder, who possessed it, so surely a possessive would apply, making it Ffrench's Forest.

There were rush cutters in Sydney's Rushcutters Bay? So why isn't it Rushcutters' Bay?

The United Arab Emirates has reported to the United Nations sanctions committee on North Korea that on 14 August it seized a cargo of North Korean weapons being shipped to Iran in violation of Security Council resolution 1874, which bans arms exports from North Korea and authorises states to search suspicious ships and seize and destroy banned items. The UN committee has sent 'please explain' letters to Tehran and Pyongyang but is not hopeful of a proper response.

The seized ship, ANL-Australia, is Australian-owned but controlled by a French conglomerate and Bahamas registered. ANL is a subsidiary of CMA CGM, a global container ship firm headquartered in Marseilles. (The export was arranged by the Shanghai office of an Italian company.) The UAE seizure is an important success, but it is slightly embarrassing that an Australian-owned ship is implicated, even though it is controlled by a French company. Australian Transport Minister Anthony Albanese, says Australian authorities are now investigating whether ANL broke Australian laws.

In the Indianapolis Star (8 Aug 09) Tom Ehrich an Episcopal priest criticises the Archbishop of Canterbury's response to recent decisions by the Episcopal Church. I’m not sure that Dr Williams is deserving of criticism as Ehrich expresses it, but along the way, Ehrich says some important things.

"There's nothing we do in our congregations that depends on the Anglican Communion," Ehric says.

"[T]he anti-change position has steadily lost ground. Not because the church came under an evil spell, but because people's minds and hearts shifted and their understandings of God and mission changed. That happens."

"The battle isn't about God. It's about fear, control and property."

"I think we have rewarded institutional tinkering and stopped dreaming. We depend on style and not substance. We worry about inherited property and not about the world outside our doors. We fuss about who is ordained when we should be nurturing healthy congregations. Fear abounds. Fear of offending longtime members and deep-pocket givers. Fear of speaking freely and dreaming grandly. Fear of trying hard and maybe failing. Fear of preaching a Gospel more radical than anything we've said. But many are determined to get beyond fear—by taking one brave step at a time, learning to be nimble and to listen, learning from our failures, taking risks."

"I think our best days lie ahead. I doubt that our future will bear much resemblance to our past. But we will discover, once the burden of inherited overhead is lifted, that we have much to give. And so [. . .] rather than try to stir even more fear in a church struggling with fear, I suggest you join Jesus in the commandment he actually did give: "Do not be afraid.""

To Twitter or not to Twitter? A report from media consultants Pearl Analytics has categorised a sample of 2,000 Tweets into six buckets (news, spam, self-promotion, pointless babble, conversational, and pass-along value) and found that about half was pointless babble, spam, or self promotion and about half was of some value to someone. Social media analytics firm Sysmos listed the most prolific Tweeters that actually have an audience—marketers of something or someone, including themselves.

Michael Hickins at Information week quotes the two surveys and says that

If you hold the conclusions of these vastly different surveys simultaneously in your mind, you get the idea that Tweeting is like electronic tent preaching to a congregation of like-minded preachers. If that sounds tiresome, it's because it probably is. My own experience, though, is that it's worth putting up with the predictable river of babble for the sake of an occasional gem.

Sometimes statistics and analysis run counter to everything we know in our bones about something, and sometimes they confirm what we suspected all along. In this case, at least for me, I was amused to see confirmed something I suspected about Twitter, which is that it's the most valuable waste of time I've ever come across.

I've succumbed to posting some Twitter myself, but have yet to find any that is useful to me, apart from (a very few) Tweets by personal friends.

In an Editorial (17 Aug 09) on "The Climate and National Security" the New York Times laments that Congress has thus far not legislated for "a plausible strategy" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The problem, when it comes to motivating politicians, is that the dangers from global warming—drought, famine, rising seas—appear to be decades off. But the only way to prevent them is with sacrifices in the here and now: with smaller cars, bigger investments in new energy sources, higher electricity bills that will inevitably result once we put a price on carbon.

Mainstream scientists warn that the longer the world waits, the sooner it will reach a tipping point beyond which even draconian measures may not be enough. [. . .] That is why Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—no alarmist—has warned that "what we do in the next two or three years will determine our future." And he said that two years ago.

This much we know. The NYT goes on to note that all the arguments about green jobs and the damage likely from climate change "have not been enough to fully engage the public, or overcome the lobbying efforts of the fossil fuel industry." Perhaps Australians are more attentive to the threat of climate change than Americans, but not enough to persuade the political conservatives.

Proponents of climate change legislation have now settled on a new strategy: warning that global warming poses a serious threat to national security. Climate-induced crises like drought, starvation, disease and mass migration, they argue, could unleash regional conflicts and draw in America' armed forces, either to help keep the peace or to defend allies or supply routes. This is increasingly the accepted wisdom among the national security establishment. A 2007 report published by the CNA Corporation, a Pentagon-funded think tank, spoke ominously of climate change as a "threat multiplier" that could lead to wide conflict over resources.

This line of argument could also be pretty good politics—especially on Capitol Hill, where many politicians will do anything for the Pentagon. [. . .] National security is hardly the only reason to address global warming, but at this point anything that advances the cause is welcome.

Australians are not overly worried about national security, but such an argument might tip the balance here. Certainly we are at least as much at risk as the United States.

The Modern Churchpeople's Union has published strongly critical reply, Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future, to the papers, written by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Durham respectively, in response to the decision by the Episcopal Church to abandon its earlier moratoria on same-sex blessings and openly homosexual bishops. The MCU concludes that "Both Williams and Wright show themselves to be dogmatic authoritarians.",

I do not want to enter into that debate, but I would like to quote the MCU's conclusions as to better way of doing our thinking.

If there is a theology of the church which is distinctively Anglican, it is without doubt the tradition which traces its roots to Richard Hooker's writings and expects to hold a balance between scripture, reason and tradition. The interaction between the three, all playing a part because none is infallible, means that in ever-changing situations new judgements need to be made. While holding fast to tradition is sometimes the right thing to do, at other times we are called to welcome new developments and insights. . . . It is a tragedy that this more open, tolerant, creative Anglican ecclesiology has gone too far in tolerating the intolerant and including the excluders. They have now taken many of the senior posts in the church, and seek to turn Anglicanism into an intolerant and exclusive sect.

Historians reviewing the church's past history often distinguish between times of decline and times of revival. Each has its own unique qualities, but there are common themes. Periods of decline usually contain two. One is the failure to communicate the faith in a way which helps people to make sense of their lives and develop a constructive sense of their spiritual nature. Teachings which once had provided this help become, in a later age, meaningless or oppressive dogmas. The other is an inward-looking mood in the church's leadership. Instead of paying attention to the society around them, and considering what kinds of spiritual help they need, church leaders busy themselves justifying and defending the institutions, teachings and practices they have inherited, thereby making it even harder for ordinary people to find any help in their teachings.

On both these counts we are now in a period of decline. These papers [by Williams and Wright], like the whole anti-homosexual campaign, are a sign of it. They are not about helping homosexuals to live better lives: they are parts of an elitist power game for control of the Anglican Communion.

If there is to be a revival, the church must move in exactly the opposite direction. It must return once again to that balance of scripture, reason and tradition in which there are no infallibilities but there are countless opportunities for new life and insight. The church must be less obsessed with itself, more concerned with the society in which it is set; less determined to defend everything it has inherited, more open to discoveries from elsewhere; less threatened by new challenges, more excited by new possibilities.

Just so.

Polish up your G & S!
a Gilbert & Sullivan workshop with
Stephen Anthony Brown
23rd to 25th October 2009
St. Philip's Church, Macpherson St., O'Connor A.C.T.

Serious about your G & S? Here's a unique opportunity to work with distinguished English tenor, Stephen Anthony Brown, formerly of the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company. Stephen will visit Canberra from the UK to present G & S masterclasses and workshops.

Work with Stephen in a masterclass, in an ensemble to prepare scenes for a public concert, or just join in the Singalong chorus and public concert Sunday 25 October
Full 3-day workshop $180 Singalong chorus $30 Concert tickets $20
Some part-time enrolment is possible

• More information
• Download a brochure [pdf]

Stephen will also give a recital of English art songs on Tuesday 27 October, accompanied by Colin Forbes; more details soon.

This from Get Religion.org:

First, simple gratitude: Thank you, Vice President Gore, for founding Current and employing such inspiring journalists as Laura Ling and Euna Lee. Thank you, President Clinton, for securing their safe return.

Ever since Ling and Lee were first detained in North Korea, I kept thinking there was a largely untold religion angle to their story. I did not presume this was for any sinister reasons, but because journalists were more focused on other details, such as whether the two young women would ever be free again.

Well, there is a religion angle. In the weeks ahead, remember the name of the Rev. Chun Ki Won. He appeared in the occasional news story as the man who helped arrange the journalists' investigation into human trafficking, and advised them on the risks they were taking. For a good introduction to the work of this South Korean missionary, watch the embedded video from the PBS series Wide Angle. In July that series devoted an episode, Crossing Heaven's Border to the plight of North Koreans trying to escape their country.

Until Laura Ling and Euna Lee are ready to tell their stories, this PBS report is a good primer in the horrors that attracted their journalistic interest.

I value the Sabbath principle. By which I mean not Sabbatarianism, but simply the discipline of regular rest, quiet and retreat from the daily round. Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, has written that Sabbath—whether Saturday or Sunday—is our counterweight to the pressures and values of the market (Times Online, 24 Apr 09). The deregulation of Sunday, he says,

was probably inevitable given the secularisation of society. But from a Jewish perspective I doubt whether Judaism would have survived, let alone thrived, without the Sabbath. It is our counterweight to the pressures and values of the market. It is our oasis of rest in a world that seems as if it is moving too fast for anyone to know where it is going. It is our sanctuary in time, when we celebrate the things that have value but no price.

The Sabbath is dedicated family time. We sit around the table, sing a song of praise to the "woman of worth", bless our children and extend hospitality to others. We go to the synagogue and renew the bonds of community and friendship. We study our sacred texts and reorient ourselves in the light of their timeless values. We pray, thanking God for what we have instead of envying others for what they have. It is when we rediscover the real roots of happiness.

That is what the Sabbath was at its best, whether on Saturday or Sunday. It was a collective statement of values that said there are limits to our striving. There are things you can buy, but there are others, no less valuable, that we can only make for ourselves: relationships of love and generosity, a feeling for the rhythms and adagios of time, a sense of the spectacular beauty of the created world that we fully experience only when we stop and inhale the fragrance of things.

Because of that, British culture once had an inner poise and balance. [Did this Australia ever have such a balance? Perhaps this is too long ago for that.] Families had time to eat a meal together, to converse and share, not sit watching a screen at one remove from reality. The Sabbath was a day on which money did not matter, when we each had equal dignity whatever we earned or could afford. It was to time what a public park is to space: something we can all enjoy on equal terms. On the good days, it made us glad to be alive, singing, with Gerard Manley Hopkins, "Glory be to God for dappled things".

. . . Twenty years of a seven-day-a-week consumer culture has not made Britons [or Australians] measurably happier. Not surprisingly, because the world of salvation-by-shopping depends on advertising making us all too conscious of what we lack. If only we had this watch, that suit, this car, that mobile phone, our pleasure would be complete, at least until tomorrow, when we discover the next thing we do not yet have. The financial meltdown was caused, at least in part, by people spending money they did not have to buy things they did not need to find a happiness that does not last. The consumer culture is, in fact, a remarkably efficient system for the production and distribution of discontent.

We cannot bring back the Sabbath to the public domain, but we can bring it back to our private lives. We need to because neither the environment nor the economy can be predicated on limitless growth, fed by artificial desire. One day in seven we should give thanks for what we have and open our eyes to the radiance of the world.

In "Alice's addiction in Cyberland" (Eureka Street, 27 Jul 09) Adam McKenna worries about addiction to Second Life (SL), describing it not as an MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game), but a "MUSH (Multi-user Shared Hallucination) — a journey down the rabbit hole in which deep vein thrombosis is not the only travail that may await the unwary."

It seems inconceivable, but while for many users, virtual worlds — or 'metaverses' — are merely something to dip their toes into, others fall in head first, to the extent that it pervades their waking thoughts even when they are not logged in." SL addiction has resulted in "a frightening catalogue of neglect and self-neglect, of disintegrating families, foreclosures, relationships ruined, and businesses going belly up as a result of individuals diving too deeply into this online realm. . . .

[T]he fact that so many adults find themselves lost in here is perhaps more testimony to the power of the human mind, than the medium itself — after all, although in some ways is is an extraordinary creative platform, Second Life is only a kind of advanced 3D chat.

SL merely reflects forces at work in the wider developed world — the corporeal one, of flesh and bone, where time ravages our envelope of flesh, and society worships the unravaged. The tweaking of the avatar is cosmetic surgery. The lack of standard game elements such as level progression or any guiding principle becomes a void in which endless consumption becomes the goal — virtual items paid for with real money — mirroring the endless dissatisfaction coded into us by a culture predicated on instant gratification.

Just so. I experimented with SL for a while and designed this avatar/alter ego (Aelred's his name). But then there was little to do but spend money (which I didn't beyond a few dollars) or move around the virtual space looking at the buildings and other often ingenious objects that people had built or made.

To build for oneself requires 'land'—which costs real money—and lots and lots of time.

Chatting or socialising was difficult from Australia. Most of the SL denizens are from other time zones, asleep or at work when I was free. Vast spaces of the Second Life simulation are empty when can I visit them.

Very few SL people really wanted conversation, it seemed, just chat.

I also found that SL gobbled expensive bandwidth. So, after some interesting experimentation, and after meeting just one truly interesting person, I'm giving it the big miss. Meanwhile, there are McKenna's worries.

In the course of my own investigations — and like a cop infiltrating a bikie gang, at times I wasn't sure if I was investigating or participating — I encountered a circle of avatars dancing in synch beside a blazing pixel fire at a simulated beach on an actual weekend, expressing their dismay that their teenage children were addicted to World of Warcraft (another, and even more popular MMO game). . . . The irony was perhaps lost on them.

As we continue to become 'tools of our tools', as Henry David Thoreau warned long ago, we risk mistaking online social networking for social capital (real 'meatspace' connections between people and groups of people). If this phenomenon is widespread it's because humans are essentially social animals, and technology has changed the way we live, interact and seek to interact. It manipulates us, as much as we manipulate it.

Richard Dawkins has pointed out that Moore's Law, which dictates that computer processing power effectively doubles every 18 months, means it is almost inevitable that coming virtual worlds will contain avatars that look like real people. This does not bode well for the future.

And in the present, sharp increases in user hours and economic activity [in SL] in the first quarter of 2009 (up 42 per cent and 65 per cent respectively over the corresponding quarter last year) perhaps indicate an influx of cyber refugees, sheltering in imaginary worlds from economic storms.

The concept of a digital life is indeed troubling, but there may be a positive side to all of this in that people seem prepared to bare their souls, safely hidden behind a pixel doll. Even if they do wear a mask, to some extent this creates an atmosphere ripe for reasoning about how to live. 'You level-up when you quit the game', a European legal professional and resident told me in-game, 'by realising what you have to fix in your real life.'

Intriguingly, virtual worlds may be a means of reasoning about what is worth doing, by doing something that is perhaps not. Even so, in other cases Alice may need some help in finding her way back from Cyberland.

It's official, Australians work too much—or, rather, rest and play too little. The Federal Government began a campaign in April, "No Leave, No Life", to encourage people to convert their "stockpiled" leave into real time off at Australian tourist destinations.

More than $33 billion worth of employees' annual leave is sitting, unused, on the books of Australian businesses — an average of four weeks off for every permanent employee in the country. Australian workers have 123 million annual leave days up their sleeves, and that number is increasing. Almost three-quarters of those who stockpile their entitlements are male, and very often they are among the best-paid, including managers earning more than $70,000 a year.

The director of the Centre for Work + Life, Barbara Pocock, said "We used to consider this country the land of the long weekend, but, increasingly it's the land of long hours," Professor Pocock said. "We've slipped in the last 20 years into an overemphasis on paid work, accompanied by a nervousness about employment security . . . and having a Prime Minister saying that 24/7 is the way to work or live is not a good signal."

This is Ariel Michelle Doyle, born 2nd July 2009, daughter of Tracy and Marty Doyle and my great niece. Tracy sent me some pictures today.
Isn't she a delight?

Marty and Tracy watch over their little one

My brother Robin with Ariel, his first grandchild.

Today is the fifth anniversary of the death of my mother June Norton McKinlay on 2 August 2004. This is from a picture my father gave me not long after.

How often do we look at the pictures on book covers? They can be rather ordinary, but not always. This is from the cover of my rather battered Penguin paperback copy of the PD James mystery Original Sin