Roads will be blocked, airspace restricted, bus services limited and Parliament House closed to the public. If the leader of the free world comes to town, Canberra will effectively be under the control of the United States Secret Service for the duration.

The Obamas' itinerary . . . has not been finalised. . . . While the president and his wife, Michelle, will captivate Australia with the keenly awaited visit [really?], there can be no such thing as a casual drop in by POTUS and FLOTUS (President of the United States and First Lady of the United States). The official visit will demand enormous logistical arrangements and Canberrans can expect to see their city noticeably transformed while hosting the world's highest-profile couple.

Arrangements are already in train, the US embassy confirming yesterday that any presidential visit to any city in the world is always preceded by "advance teams and pre-advance teams". Security will be the first priority. The Australian Federal Police will be called on to boost their presence and add to the security contingent.

But make no mistake; the Americans will be in charge of the show.

They were wise men, who scrutinized the stars and knew the history of peoples. They were men of science in a broad sense, who observed the cosmos regarding it almost as a great book full of divine signs and messages for man. Their learning, however, far from making them self-sufficient, was open to further divine revelations and appeals. In fact, they were not ashamed to ask for instructions from the religious leaders of the Jews. They could have said: We can do it alone, we have no need of anyone, avoiding, according to our mentality today, every "contamination" between science and the Word of God.

Instead, the Magi listened to the prophecies and welcomed them and, no sooner were they on the way to Bethlehem, than they again saw the star, almost as a confirmation of the perfect harmony between human seeking and divine Truth, a harmony that filled the hearts of these genuine wise men with joy (cf. Matthew 2:10). The culmination of their search was when they found themselves before "the Child with Mary, his Mother" (Matthew 2:11).

committed a vast amount of time and resources into the search for covenantal wording that would be acceptable to the whole Church and yet it has not addressed the insurmountable problem of the complete intransigence of some Dioceses to any process that would accept certain 'debated categories' of people as full members of the Church. These categories might be episcopally ordained women or people of differing sexual orientation. (In a footnote the New Zealand church commented that, "An interesting test case would be if a question was raised suggesting that the failure of a Church / Province to episcopally ordain women was ‘a controversial action'.")
It is feared that those opposed will not proceed on any Covenant, regardless of wording, which remotely allows for inclusion of such groups. This type of response could lead to theological retrenchment. If a policing group were to insist on inclusion of a 'debated category', the concern is that dissenting groups will either disobey the finding of the policing group or argue that the decision is an innovation that should not be accepted across the Communion. Further faction is likely to be the result.
—The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia. A submission on the Ridley Cambridge Draft.

There are three synodical processes by which the Anglican Church of Australia could, in the fullness of time, adopt the Anglican Communion covenant.
(i) Constitutional amendment
The covenant could be adopted by amendment of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia. It is anticipated, however, that any attempt to adopt the covenant through this process would be likely to fail because of the onerous requirements for constitutional amendment.
(ii) Adoption by canon
The covenant could be adopted by canon of the General Synod. However, it is anticipated that an attempt to adopt the covenant by this method would also be likely to fail because of the constitutional requirements for making certain types of canon.
(iii) Adoption by Resolution
The covenant could be adopted by resolution of the General Synod. Unlike adoption by constitutional amendment or by canon, adoption of the covenant by this means would not have the effect of incorporating the text of the covenant into the law of the Anglican Church of Australia. However, the prospects of success by this method are greater than those for adoption by either of the methods outlined above.

Health boss calls for end to smokos

A senior public servant has urged the federal bureaucracy to crack down on smokos after her department announced a complete ban on cigarette breaks. Health Department secretary Jane Halton encouraged all agencies yesterday to adopt similar bans to improve staff health and the public service's "professional reputation"'. From February 1, Health employees will not be allowed to smoke during work hours or "when representing the department in any capacity".

Australia's chief medical officer, Professor Jim Bishop, backed Ms Halton's call to outlaw cigarette breaks, saying it was the ''next major step" needed to further cut the nation's smoking rates. Professor Bishop said most Health staff supported the initiative, including smokers. "To help people who are trying to quit, you have to reduce their opportunity to maintain the habit," he said yesterday. "There's a camaraderie among smokers outside buildings, and to some extent you could look at that as an anti-quitting support network." He said a bureaucracy-wide ban on smokos would be a similar breakthrough to efforts in the 1970s to end smoking inside offices.

But Civil Liberties Australia's chief executive, Bill Rowling, said the policy was a "completely over-the-top intrusion into people's private lives"'.

If Kevin Rudd made a New Year's resolution he could have done worse than vow in 2010 to only say something is his number one priority if indeed he really means it. But to do so would throw a spanner in the works of the Labor spin machine, which remains obsessed with the 24-hour news cycle and opinion polls. A quick search reveals that Mr Rudd has nominated more than half a dozen issues as his supposed number one priority over the past two years and there are probably more. This tally does not include climate change which he of course described as "the great moral challenge of our generation".

It would seem Mr Rudd's top priority changes according to the issue of the day that is running in the media, or the audience he is addressing. It is an extremely cynical practice and the most absurd thing is he must think nobody notices.

What Mr Rudd's ever-changing feast of top priorities demonstrates is that saying anything in a bid to remain popular is the real number one issue on this Prime Minister's list. This approach is simply not sustainable over the longer term and for Mr Rudd the cracks continue to appear as he gains a reputation for all talk and no action.

His discredited Grocery Watch and Fuel Watch schemes are symbolic of the Rudd style as are his wars on everything from binge drinking and homelessness to gambling. Generating cheap slogans which attract headlines, but lead to no actual outcomes are hallmarks of this Government. Some footage surfaced on Melbourne Cup Day which perfectly illustrated Mr Rudd's cynical attempts to take advantage of the day's story to guarantee a run on the nightly news. The Prime Minister is filmed waving his betting ticket around and yelling out to be certain that everybody knew he was on the Cup winner. He then swigs from his stubby of XXXX, but only when he is certain the moment is captured by the cameras. On a different day drinking and gambling are vices to be condemned by a self-righteous Mr Rudd, but during the 'race that stops a nation' they become handy props when there is a picture opportunity too good to miss.

The fatal flaw with Labor's brand of retail politics is the way it unravels at the seams when tough decisions have to be made and the time comes when the thought bubbles have to be converted into workable policy. We have seen this in the Government's policy-on-the run approach to broadband, its weakening of border protection, including its chaotic handling of the Oceanic Viking episode and the failure of its deeply flawed CPRS, which appeased nobody and has been exposed as the giant tax that it is. [. . . ] Despite having been elected more than two years ago, many Australians remain unclear about what our chameleon of a Prime Minister really stands for and with so many supposed number one priorities and a short-term political strategy to try and please everybody, he has only himself to blame.

Jesus said that when you face rival claims of Scripture, test each part against the first and second commandments. All law and all prophecy hang on those two.

For example, those proposing an Anglican Covenant purport to promote unity, but do so at the expense of homosexual persons and their friends. Scripture can seem on their side: Scripture tells us to value unity. But not above all else. First you must love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Yoo-hoo. Hi there! Yes, us, your Queer neighbors, and with you joint heirs of Jesus Christ.

Scripture tempted Jesus to hurl himself from a cliff to reveal his power, because Scripture promised that he would be rescued by angels. Given his own struggle—unable to be taken seriously by any but Samaritans, tax-collectors, and drunkards—he found that prospect very tempting. " That would show them who I am!," Jesus thought, but then he rejected that use of Scripture as satanic, and trumped it with another, "It is written, do not put the Lord to the test." That is, he followed the first commandment: he loved God with all his mind.

Sola scriptura? Yes, if you test all scripture against the first and second commandments. That requires reason, tradition, and experience.

But love does not come by Scripture, reason, tradition, or experience. To be able to love, you must be born again. You must get a life—a life of the spirit.

Louie

December 26th — if you have the day off —is the one day in the calendar when there is nothing you are obliged to do. It's a delightful switch-off from the outside world—Ireland's unofficial mental health day. In the dark week between Christmas and New Year, all of Ireland catches its breath. You don't have to be Christian to enjoy the mood.

In the past, we used to feel so sorry for the gardaí, fireman and nurses who worked that day. There was always a newspaper article interviewing them about what it was like.

They're not alone any more. Now the 26th is just another day.

While I've worked my share of St Stephen's Days, since we publish on the 27th if it isn't a Sunday, I still think that the only paid work on Christmas Day and St Stephen's Day should be absolutely necessary work. While I've heard it said that the shops opening on the 26th is yet further encroachment of godless UK and US values, that's not what makes me disapprove. My reason is that we need a rest this year more than ever, and on top of that we're learning to live within our means.

[Some] may still be getting a kick out of shopping, but the rest of us have reassessed our priorities and found better things to do.

The traffic jams of yore are gone, and you can nearly see the tumbleweed blowing down the thoroughfares and through the huge open-plan retail spaces of the nougthies' temples, while bored shop assistants practically beg to be of assistance and even the mannequins look disgruntled.

On St Stephen's Day, the shops will be trying to lure us in with what they promise will be extravagant discounts, but if the item that is on sale on St Stephen's Day for half the price it was fewer than 48 hours before, then why wasn't the shop selling it for 50 per cent less in the first place if it could still make a profit? . . .

"Save 50 per cent!" You're not saving anything. The only way to save money is to keep it in your wallet.

So on St Stephen's Day, let's stay home by the fire. There can hardly be anything so life-enhancing on sale on St Stephen's Day that it can't be bought on the 27th or the 28th, if it is to be bought at all.

My solution to winter travel chaos? Don't travel. Stay indoors. Build a fire. Live and shop within walking distance of civilisation. Associate with neighbours. See distant relatives some other time of the year.

Above all, do not complain if you insist on laying siege to motorways, stations and airports and the weather or the labour force let you down, as they do every year. It is not their fault, it is yours for being there.

Of all human activities that bring out the selfish in mankind, nothing compares with travel. [. . .] I am a free and independent spirit innocently enjoying the right to roam; you are a travel-mad lemming who thinks he has a God-given right to tarmac, train or plane just when I am there. Get out of my way.

[The Copenhagen Conference] illustrates the problem rather than the solution. The craving to move and to congregate [. . .] has been the greatest contributor to CO2 emissions over the past half century, above all from the internal combustion of carbon. [. . .] Traveling does as much damage to the earth's atmosphere as all other domestic activities put together. Yet powered movement is a craving no government is willing to curb. Hypermobility is the totem of personal liberty. [. . .]

Meanwhile the government pursues a policy of closing such local institutions as primary schools, cottage hospitals and post offices and encouraging out of town shopping and rural housing estates. All lead to an increase in the need for motor travel. If a hospital visit requires a drive of 50 rather than five miles, the NHS does not pay but someone does; indeed everyone does.

As the geographer, John Adams, points out, mobility may seem "liberating and empowering for individuals", but it also destroys the propinquity essential to more efficient living and to community and civic cohesion. Like the internet, which paradoxically appears to boost travel by making it more efficient, hypermobility has replaced real neighbourhoods with pseudo ones.

People rush anywhere that delivers a new experience, from a weekend break to a global warming conference. Hypermobility is the opium of the people. It panders to instant gratification while dulling a sense of community.

Since hypermobility both dilutes a sense of place and (mostly) increases carbon emissions, governments should be charged with curbing or at least not promoting it. This means planning the town and country so as to minimise the need for ever longer journeys. It means rationing travel capacity by congestion or by price. Since governments are scared of price, most choose to ration by congestion. Summer and winter "road and rail chaos" is the result, with blame conveniently attaching to operators. Everybody thinks it is cars, trains and planes that cause gridlock—when in reality it is people.

There is no absolute right to roam. There is no free trip. We must initiate the rebirth of domestic space.

This is like writing a letter to Santa! Resisting with all my might the temptation to ask for the extermination of certain people who get on my nerves my mind wonders around to the big and worthy issues. Should I ask for the end of war or global warming or poverty or homelessness or child abuse? Well, yes, I should [. . .]

I am going to ask for the end of something that is making me really angry right now. Like most Guardian readers (I hope), I am very angry and upset about Uganda's proposed anti-homosexuality legislation. But my wrath is not directed at Uganda or even its government especially. A little knowledge of the history of Uganda helps one realise that this is too complicated just to be angry with the people who will pass this law.

No, my anger is directed at those Western Christians who feed the bigotry. I can just about understand that Christians might regard homosexual acts as sinful but what I completely fail to understand is why they get so worked up about it. I just wish that churchmen (yes, I do mean that) who get so upset about what they regard as sexual sins would get just as worked up about illegal wars, the greed that leads to global warming, or the violence done to women in the name of Christian marriage. I wish were as vociferous in their campaigning against world poverty, against nuclear weapons or the appalling treatment of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK. Why do they seem to get more upset about people trying to love than they do about poverty, the penal system, or the exploitation of women?

So, dear Santa, please get rid of all talk from churchmen about sex unless it is a celebration of God's wonderful gift. [. . .] Come to think about it, though, it might be more realistic to hope for the end of poverty.