Author: tim

It has just occurred to me that the latest Dr Who series may be using the same plot device that was brilliantly used by the Star Trek franchise to “reset” their world so that future programs didn’t have to be consistent with all the old stuff.

In Dr Who the “crack in the wall” has messed about with time so that the people on Earth have forgotten everything they ever knew about the Daleks who have returned bigger, better and now in a range of friendly colours… like iPods… only they want to rule the Universe… possibly also like iPods.

It is no longer an acceptable shorthand to refer to the period between the fall of the Roman Empire in the west and the rise of Charlemagne, as the Dark Ages. That is, it is only acceptable as long as you make it clear that you are well aware that life went on in the west and that… stuff happened. There was comparatively little writing; the buildings constructed were much simpler, more transient and smaller and the quantity and sophistication of the pottery was enormously reduced. Oh! and the roads! Not only were no more roads of the Roman type constructed but those in existence were not maintained. There was still a lot of people going about their daily lives though, as the remnants of the Roman world decayed about them.

The problem here is the word “Dark”. Some people don’t like it. It sounds negative, prejudicial. With the Renaissance and the reacquaintance of the West with its Classical past, it was clear to the people in the 15th century that the Romans and Greeks had been able to do things that they would like to do. They were the ones who first referred to the Dark Ages. In the last hundred years or so we have begun to get a much better picture of what happened during the Dark Ages and so, well, they aren’t so Dark.

As you might have guessed, I am reluctant to let the phrase go. Can’t we just agree that we don’t mean anything nasty by it? The issue I guess, is that people are quite twitchy about making value judgments about different cultures. It could be argued that the removal of the exploitative Roman regime and the reversion to an agrarian economy was a Good Thing. It is easy to imagine being a high ranking person living in a Roman villa with plentiful food, reading material and a bathhouse but it is more sobering to imagine being a slave working in a tin mine in Wales until you die very young. However, I can’t help but feel that the collective happiness may have been greater in Britain in 250 AD than it was in 550 AD.

The Grey Ages perhaps?

There are new episodes of Foyle’s War! (Series 7)

It is something of a novelty to watch a series about an incorruptible policeman who can be relied upon to do the right thing always. Our society has given way to easy cynicism concerning the motives of any of the people who enter public service. This cynicism is no longer a matter of prudence, it is a destructive nihilism that can prevent good people from doing good things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foyle’s_War

And for those in Australia:

http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/drama/crime

I found a golf ball on the course this morning… called Aqua. It floats. It was about 10% lighter than a normal ball and I lost it almost immediately. It got me thinking though; how infuriated would you have to get, about hitting into the lakes, before you decided that all the balls you hit would have to be floating? Someone is prepared to screw up the rest of their game because they can’t face the prospect of losing a ball in the lake…

Bear in mind that, if you hit it more than about 10 feet from the edge you have lost it anyway, you just have the added frustration of seeing it floating there…

I think these folks need to think the whole matter through again.

I would like Australia to be a Republic, but I haven’t been offered a version I can accept yet. I have two lines of thought on the topic that I haven’t come across elsewhere.

The Nature of the Presidency – The “One Big Red Button” Option
Our politicians are keen on the idea that they should choose the President. They choose the Governor General so it is not such an odd suggestion on their part. I am not keen on the idea though. I think the President should be elected separately by all the people. The pollies are afraid that this would set up the President as a separate power base; that the President would be meddling in policy continually. It doesn’t have to be so. We simply change the Constitution to limit the powers of the President so that it is not so.
What if the President had only a single Power? To dissolve Parliament – a double Dissolution – whenever the President wishes. Whenever the President exercises this power there is a simultaneous Presidential election. A further protection, allowing for mental incapacity, would be that Parliament can vote (perhaps needing a 60% majority over both Houses) to trigger the same process.
Contemplating how such a system might work, imagine the dismissal of Gough Whitlam. Kerr exercises his power. He is not subject to Gough’s advice. During the automatic campaign for President that follows, he can make his case for his actions. I suspect that the Australian people would have voted in Fraser, as they did, and voted out Kerr – pure speculation I know but I think that result might have been best for everyone and better than what actually occurred. There would even have been an element of vindication for Gough in seeing Kerr personally rejected as well. Alternatively, Kerr may have been given pause knowing that his decision would be subject to immediate review by the nation. I think Australians were not thrilled by the dismissal but took advantage of the opportunity for practical economic reasons.
So, if the people are with the President, the President can dismiss the Government over and over. If they are with the Government, they can change the President the first time he or she “pulls the trigger”.

The Nature of the Monarchy – Think of poor Betty Windsor… really.
Many years ago it occurred to me to look at the whole matter of the Monarchy from a different angle. It was during one of the frequent episodes where the Windsors were under intense scrutiny for something, I forget what and it doesn’t actually matter, it happens regularly. The spotlight is turned on the Gilded Cage and we watch as a small group of people are skewered on a set of standards that apply only to them.
I take it as self-evident that these are simply normal people who have been placed in abnormal circumstances by pure chance. By what right do we keep them in what, from time to time, looks like a living hell? Surely the fact that they are given money and large, draughty, gilt houses is really irrelevant. They can’t spend the money as they wish. They can’t live their lives as they choose. The fact that they have been brought up in these circumstances and, by and large, accept them is also not relevant. Many slaves were used to being slaves. It is a variant of the Stockholm Syndrome. We have enslaved these people and brainwash them from birth. The fact that they accept it and live in luxury does not change the fundamental truths.
I don’t believe Australia needs to be a party to their continued oppression.

We live in an age of incivility. I suspect it will only end with the onset of some all-consuming catastrophe which requires the arming of all. In days gone by, civility was the order of the day among people who went about heavily armed. Hmm, perhaps one should be careful what one wishes for.

In any case, this incivility is exacerbated by the anonymity of the web. If I was confident that there had been a corresponding reduction in falsehood and hypocrisy I would be mollified. People feel free to say what they think. Why must they say everything they think?

Can’t think of anything else to say at the moment.