I caught up with the end of The Kennedy's last night, the double-whammy episode in which both Jack and Bobby are assassinated. I have to say I felt a bit emotional. I know it's only a TV program, but these are historical figures who still loom large in the consciousness of many people. Because they both died we are left with a legend of who they were and what might have been. Perhaps a lot of it is hyperbole, and perhaps they have been sanctified beyond all reasonable limits. I suspect that's true - but, the fact is they remain important figures in the western culture.
Leading up to the assassination of JFK in the episode last night I felt a kind of dread knowing what was coming up. For all his foibles I was genuinely fond of the figure portrayed on screen. I thought he was a genuinely good man, and in some ways a great man; and that Bobby, less charismatic, more doggedly idealistic, might even have been better.
I recall stories told of the moment when people heard that JFK had been murdered. It's one of the seminal moments of our society in the last 50 years, and watching last night I understood way. Jack and Bobby represented something good. They were real people who just so happened to be driven to do the right thing. They were easy to like, easy to admire, easy to believe in. In many ways and for many around the world they represented the hope for a better society.
With the death of one after another, bang, bang, much of that hope died with them. I'm not sure if it has ever returned. In place of it we have been left with a succession of leaders who could be called pragmatic at best. No wonder the Kennedy era is termed as Camelot, because it seems from afar to be wreathed in a fairy tale mist, a time of hope and idealism and the possibility of universal good, tragically dashed.
Afterwards a few questions through my head. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I'm unconvinced that Oswald killed JFK, and it's nothing to do with the grassy knoll. It's quite a shot to head-shoot a man travelling in the back of a moving car below where you're standing and at a distance, and over open sights. I used to be a hunter. I was a reasonable shot, but then I had a scope. I hit a kangaroo on the bounce one day, but I knew my limitations. Far as I know Oswald was no marksman. And the fact that he was murdered so soon after by Jack Ruby lends credence to the mystery as far as I'm concerned.
I wondered too at the terrible history of the Kennedy family. So many have died prematurely, much more than the odds would suggest. It's awful that one family should have been made to bear so much heartbreak.
Finally I wondered why so many politicians today choose to be mediocre, at best.
Well justified outrage this week after a 4 Corners report into the treatment of Australian cattle exported to Indonesia. Putting aside the irony that these cattle are heading for the cooking pot regardless, as a so-called 'civilised' nation we should demand better treatment, or refuse to do business with the Indonesians.
It's nice to see pretty much the whole country up in arms about this - no-one likes cruelty to animals - but there is a bitter irony wonderfully expressed by Tandberg in one of his cartoons during the week.
Sad. Quite happy, the rank and file, to either refuse entry to asylum seekers, lock them up, or to ship them off elsewhere, while they wring their hands over livestock exported for slaughter elsewhere. I don't mean to belittle the cause of animal rights; it just seems a tad perverse when human rights - actual people without home and generally fleeing a miserable existence - get very short thrift.
Interesting to see the Liberal immigration minister, Scott Morrison, come late to the party. Pity he has the credibilty of a snake oil salesman, and the morality. He's the sort of low-life opportunist typical of the Libs today. It's not about the refugees - he's already proved he cares nothing for them. They're a political football that he, and too many of his colleagues, like to kick around. They're not people, they're headlines. We have tabloid journalism; we also have tabloid politics.
I've been watching the mini-series on the Kennedy's and enjoying it more than I expected. I'm a history buff and it's a fascinating time socially as well as historically. And JFK is one of the most significant figures of the last century, charismatic and symbolic. He, and the Kennedy's as a whole, have come to embody different things, aspirations and a kind of nobility of purpose, as well as wistful could-have-beens and tragedy.
Watching it last night two questions stirred in my head:
How is that such good, noble men like JFK and his brother Bobby could have come from the one family, led as they were by the opportunistic, self-aggrandising Joseph Kennedy?
What's the American obsession with Cuba all about?
To the first question first. JFK had very human flaws and was certainly no saint, but there was also in him much that was authentically good. Arguably Bobby was even better. Both believed passionately in a better world and strived for it without exemptions. They were idealists. I have a recording of a very emotional Teddy Kennedy eloquently eulogising Bobby Kennedy at his funeral. He quotes his brother:
Some men see things as they are and ask why? I dream things that never where and wonder, why not?
It seems to me that is a philosophy both JFK and Bobby lived by in office and out of it. They achieved some great things, were capable of much greater had they survived longer, but left a legacy of hope and the belief that we can do better. They were great humanitarians in the truest sense of the word.
Joseph Kennedy can be described as many things, but humanitarian isn't among them. Disgraced and seen by many as a traitor, he famously sought to appease Hitler and keep America out of the war when ambassador to England. Ruthlessly and obsessively ambitious for himself first, then his boys, he would do anything to achieve it. Obviously very capable, he seemed to possess few real scruples in how he did his business.The ends justifies the means seems to sum up much of his philosophy.
How did two such noble idealists like John and Robert Kennedy emerge from such a family? Have we got Joseph wrong? The boys loved him clearly, and there was an uncommon relationship between father and sons right till the end. For all his faults loyalty was not one of them.
I figure he was a man impatient of the usual ways. If there was a quicker, more direct way between A and Z then he was going to take it. There was no doubt he was awful keen to get to Z no matter what it took. It led to misjudgement on occasion and misunderstanding of how it should be played. It was that which blinded him to Hitler, and which ended his ambitions for the top job - which he then transferred to his progeny.
I don't know if he was a bad man, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't a good one. Still, he must have done something right. His sons were peaches. Somewhere along the line they learned the virtue of doing right by others. And somewhere along the line they refined their father's pragmatic ways into something generally more charming - certainly in Jack's case - and very effective. It remains a mystery, but it's a good one.
So, what's with Cuba then? Even today, more than 50 years after the Cuban revolution, there is no bigger bogy in American political perspective than lil' old Cuba.
It was strange watching last night as the Bay of Pigs played out and wondering how in the world they ever thought it might be different? The invasion was always going to fail, as clear in hindsight as it should have been then. Poor intelligence, shoddy planning and a big pair of rose coloured glasses guaranteed failure. Strange to consider that in JFK's cabinet he had some of the smartest people going around, particularly Robert McNamara and McGeorge Bundy.
Why did they have to invade Cuba though? What's the big deal now?
Freedom, that was the deal I think, though freedom is a pretty rubbery concept depending on which side of the wall you look at it from. It was only a few years before that Battista (in America's pocket) had been overthrown by Castro, Guevara and an oppressed people. They thought they were fighting for freedom - and they probably were.
There's always going to be someone disappointed. In this case it was a bunch of Cuban 'patriots' exiled to the States and supported as the anti-communist vanguard for the 'liberation' of Cuba. That was the thing - Castro and his government were communist, and they were on America's doorstep.
Does being communist make you evil? Certainly for a time that was the perception and the law. The darkest days of the McCarthy witch hunts passed, but the stain lingered. Russia and the eastern bloc weren't great adverts for it, but that was less aboput ideology than the corruption of it. I'm certainly no advocate for communism - I don't think it works - but I don't believe it's any more evil than capitalism is.
The evil was Stalinism. The evil was oppressing your own people, locking them up in the dead of night or torturing them till they owned up to acts of betrayal they never committed. Certainly that happened in Stalin's Russia, much of the eastern bloc, and in Mao's China. But it also happened in alleged capitalist 'democracies', and still does. The evil is not the ideology but in those who corrupt it for their purposes.
The difference is, as always, whether the despots are on our side, or on theirs.
As it happened back then a bearded Castro and his communist cohorts enraged America simply by existing, and by thumbing his nose at the Americans from spitting distance away. Did the exiled Cuban 'liberators' deserve to succeed at the Bay of Pigs? Deserved is a word looking for a subjective answer, but the reality is they probably didn't. The Cuban people had spoken and overthrown their brothers just a few years before.
We've come a long way since then I think. The Berlin wall has come down, the communist bloc dissolved. Cuba remains, as does Castro, a bit of an anochronism both, but probably not deserving of the ongoing American isolation. I still don't get it entirely, but I doubt anything is going to change until Castro finally passes on.
For a political animal I write little on political affairs. In large part that can be attributed to the sour taste political discourse has left me with. I hate to be cynical, but find it hard not to be in these very calculating days. It's a cop-out, but it's enough that I have to live with it - and so, by and large, I choose not to write about it, and even consider it if at all possible.
That's not possible. I may be disenchanted but I'm no less idealistic. I continue to read the newspapers cover to cover, continue to dip my toe into more intelligent political discussion, continue, as ever, to hold strong opinions. And I continue to think deeply about all that happens around me. If I write less then it is often because I am taking time to process the variety of inputs; to formulate end of day my own opinion on events rather than accepting the pre-digested perspectives on offer from tabloids and popular media commentators.
This is important to me. Though I incline in one direction I don't want to be defined by that. I take each issue on its merits and run it through the experience and knowledge and undeniable bias I have accumulated. I aim to be rational and objective, and achieve some measure of that. I am not immune to the personal, but that's what makes us human. Overall I think I have a set of pretty well-balanced opinions that are unique to me: they are mine, and not the words of others.
Still, with the modern propensity to labels I am said to be part of the left-wing intelligentsia. I belong to the vocal minority - apparently - that holds humanistic values to be precious, whether they apply to people, social policy, the environment, etc. It's a vague, amorphous school of thought that reluctantly and with some reservations I accede to. Mea culpa.
I am not shoulder to shoulder though. I believe in general, but disagree often on nuance and emphasis, and occasionally on fundamental principles. It's because I think for myself and have not accepted the primacy of official dogma.
This is preamble to a slightly adjusted perspective on the asylum seeker question here in Oz. Like my comrades I have been vocal in decrying the injustice and mistreatment of these poor souls seeking a better life in Australia. As a general view I have always held to a vaguely Christian premise that the strong should help the weak. The determination of these people arriving in rickety boats not long from sinking has always impressed me. If they are so desperate to risk the life of their families then how bad must life have been where they came from?
Countering this has been a number of fatuous arguments trotted out by the government of the day - Howard mainly, but taken up by the weak Labor government since. Their mantra has been protecting our borders, as if we were subject to invasion by thousands of undesirable foreigners, and "we'll choose who comes to our country". It's been a blatantly political line not far short of being racist which, skilfully played, has resonated with much of the Australian electorate. I believe it's called dog whistling, which has become a staple of Australian politics since.
This has been the excuse to pack these unwanted immigrants into detention camps where they may fester for years waiting to be processed. This is in fact what prompts my post today.
Recently at the detention centre at Villawood, in Sydney, a number of these asylum seekers revolted against the system. They set things alight and a bunch of them clambered onto the roof refusing to eat until they gained asylum. One can imagine the desperation that led to this, but it has been a public relations disaster for the detainees. And it made me think further.
I was surprised to find that I too frowned upon these actions. I dismissed the small voices of public service minions speaking against the detainees as being irrelevant. I had no doubt that the detainees had perfectly reasonable complaints against the system, which is an abomination. Yet in the pit of my stomach where you live it felt somehow wrong.
There is much more than justice and mercy to be considered when looking upon this situation. It is too simple, too formulaic, to view it through such a narrow perspective. As I well understand it is easy to use angry and emotive terms when describing the events and the causes leading to them. Many are justified. But it is not anger or emotion that will resolve the impasse we have lived with for many years. And the situation is much more complex than that.
The one really good argument against taking in asylum seekers was the 'queue jumpers' label oft-used by the government. If we let in these people, they claimed, then others who have legitimately applied to enter the country will be denied. The other argument, again with some sense to it, that is if we accept illegal immigration then we validate the illegality, we encourage the mercenary interests of people smugglers, and run the risk of being inundated. We need to oppose if only to be seen to oppose.
Then there is the complexity which comes in the shape of culture. There is much to admire in such determined people. With such qualities they would likely be vital and industrious citizens. It is other aspects which are more troubling. When some detainees sewed their lips shut in protest against government policy it is was horrifying. When they did it to some of their own children it was barbaric. While we accept diversity, that behaviour is foreign to our culture, as it should be. Is this what we want?
Ultimately it is our culture to which if granted they will enter. We welcome the diversity of views and vibrancy of their customs, which have made Australia a greater place. I don't ask for complete assimilation, but there must be some understanding of the culture they have entered, and respect for what they have been given.
Government policy is clumsy and often inhumanely enacted. The immigration process seems bureaucratic to almost Kafka-esque proportions. We can do much better. Yet we are a democratic country. We will give shelter - even if it is not as friendly or openly granted as the likes of me would like. People come to us because we have what they don't have at home. I think that's what I felt in my stomach as I saw these detainees set alight their quarters. Hello I thought, I understand your frustration, but at least you are safe here, protected by law and likely to find a future. We may be clumsy, but, notwithstanding government rhetoric, are not without decency. It is our culture to take you in, to give you the opportunity to thrive in safety and without persecution. We are good people. Hard as it may be, meet us half way, understand and appreciate the promise of what we have to offer you.
We do have to find a better way, and have to divorce the question of asylum seekers from political rhetoric.That conversation needs to be changed and some common-sense introduced. Australia gets a fraction of the illegal immigrants Europe gets, and the 5-7,000 annually aren't really a lot. Certainly not an invasion as the likes of Tony Abbott and other low-lives like to portray it.
I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I often wonder why the Australian government does not set up processing centres abroad, in the hotspots of Asia. Everyone then can be legal, no queue is jumped, and the need for people smugglers eliminated. Do foreign governments object? I would have thought it would work to their benefit.
Osama bin Laden, you might have heard, is finally dead. The news was excuse enough for headlines and news stories for days after, as well as much rejoicing and not a little self-congratulation. All very natural really, and reasonable, though the death of bin Laden is nothing more than symbolic these days.
For a long time now bin Laden has been the most wanted, and most hated man in the world. There have been a long list of tyrants through the last century who deserved such a description even if it never actually applied to them: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, even Robert Mugabe right now, amongst countless others. Bin Laden deserved his place among them even if he believed his actions were in a noble cause, as he seems to have done (and millions more have agreed), the inspiration for a Muslim crusade against western hegemony.
Having travelled far and through societies unknown and barely considered by the 'western' world it is easy to understand how such resentment may brew. Western culture - everything from coca cola, Dallas and Facebook - has a way of usurping and overwhelming native cultures. It is a consequence of the global village that barriers that once kept cultures reasonably pure have come crashing down. It is economic nature that with barriers dismantled that what rushes in is what was lacking.
This is not the fault of western society or culture, much as some fanatics blame. Western culture may be fatuous often - hard to deny - but it is democratic, an unthinking beast that travels in the minds who belong to it and infects those looking to be infected. These hardline Muslim clerics may claim this as a kind of curtural corruption, and once more it easy to see that point of view, but it is not the fault of the west, nor of the cultures it finds it's way into. It is human nature and economics, and the power of 21st century media.
One can't really blame people for seeking to preserve their cultural integrity. We may universally condemn terrorists for their acts these days, but wars have been fought on similar motives. What has changed is that the west - and the US particularly, standard-bearer for what the 'west' represents - has become so omnipotent, so powerful, that conventional war is no longer feasible. Instead desperate fanatics use what they have and conduct a guerrilla war with terror at it's core. The events of 9/11 are horrifying, and the prospects of terrorism are truly, well, terrible, but despite the occasional act of terror and the press it receives the war is futile, the occasional victories pyrrhic. Taking on the west is like taking on tanks with bow and arrows.
I suspect many in terrorist organisations understand that, but I suspect also that acceptance of the fact is beyond them. To strive even if futilely is their reason, especially given a glorious heaven awaits on the martyrs death.
It is for this reason that the death of Osama bin Laden is no more than symbolic - though it is powerful, cathartic, symbolism. In practical terms the war he began had moved far beyond him. His 'contribution' is historical - with that one bold act upon the US he proved that the powerful can be made to feel pain. He gave hope and inspiration to the millions who to that point had little idea that they were disaffected. He was the spiritual progenitor of the war that came to be; he set them buzzing, but it was Bush who kicked the hornets over, Bush in his clumsy overkill who gave cause ultimately to that disaffection.
The death of bin Laden is no more than a great headline in the war on terror. It won't stop anything, and may even be the cause for an upsurge. Still, it can't be denied as some kind of just act. That's reason enough; and reason enough that a people might be given some solace knowing the man who cause so much misery and grief is now punished for it. None of that can be denied, though celebrations, natural as they are, may be premature and just a little tacky.
As a footnote it's interesting to read how some are claiming the legality of killing bin Laden. I always find arguments such as these amusing and just a little ridiculous. It is a mark of our society that we ask these questions, but it seems a little specious. I understand how in a civilised society we need boundaries and be governed by the rule of law if we are not to descend into barbarism. Applying such standards of decency to war however seems a grey area at best. Something like the Geneva Convention is perfectly necessary, even if it seemingly contravened with impunity, but any state of affairs where one group of people shoot at another group of people with intent to kill seems almost outside of civilisation even given it has been such a historical constant.
The death of bin Laden appears unseemly by the reports I read - unarmed, as was his wife, but deemed a threat and so killed. If it happened on the streets of Melbourne there would be an inquiry. It didn't happen here though, and bin Laden was no drug crazed desperado. If it counts for anything I'm sure he'd prefer death to imprisonment. Politically his death was the only real option for the west also. And ultimately he died in the midst of battle, the man responsible for the deaths of countless thousands is gone. Who can reasonably mourn that?
Has there been a less credible opposition leader than Tony Abbott? God knows I'm no great fan of Julia Gillard, but she's way ahead of Abbot. You could pretty well train a parrot to do the job Abbott's doing.
Have to seriously question his judgement also.The government may be unpopular, but Gillard is still the preferred PM by quite a margin. The Libs may wake up to the fact one day (though I doubt it), that if they had a reasonable and thoughtful leader they would be way out in front. Abbott has his rusted-on, blindly unconsidered supporters, but he continues to alienate the more reasonable members of the electorate by his hard core opposition, stupid comments and silly actions.
In short Tony Abbott is the best thing the Labor party has going for it. Drop Malcolm Turnbull into the role and it's a totally different ball-game. I'd certainly vote for him, as would thousands and thousands more of the generally disenfranchised electorate.
Yesterday's performance by Abbott was pretty typical. After putting the frights into everyone about the so-called carbon tax - his standard gambit - and calling for a 'people's revolution' - once more pretty typical - he then was obliged to front up to the very motley bunch of protesters landing on Canberra's doorstop.
You really have to wonder why the Lib powerbrokers continue to support him; or at least don't try to moderate him a little. He has hits, but also has a lot of misses - and the misses are ugly. Yesterday was the essence of ugly.
Whipped up by the right-wing shock jocks across the land a bunch of misinformed bigots rolled up to Canberra in their chartered busses and began wielding placards abusing Gillard - often on grounds of gender - Bob Brown, and others generally seen to be of liberal (not Liberal) bent. It was an embarassing, cringeworthy backdrop to which Tony Abbott was forced to appear.
Flanking Tony were the parties ritual fascists Brownwyn Bishop, faced forever frozen into the mask of an evil grandmother, her body preserved in formadelhyde and stuffed full of horse hair; and Sophie Mirabella, the parties frantic attack dog, the cocker spaniel nipping at your heels with the surprisingly vicious teeth.
There it was then, Tony Abbott amid a crowd of bogan extremists accompanied by the Liberal party's SD members. If it's true that you get judged by your friends then this is the final, damning indictment of Tony Abbott as leader - and as a man.
Reading the newspaper these days is mostly a depressing experience. There is the odd feel-good story, but for the most part it is a litany of human and natural catastrophe's that get the headlines. It's pretty bleak, but looking around the world it's easy to understand why.
This morning read about the man who threw his young daughter off the Westgate Bridge a couple of years ago. The mother was in the dock explaining how she had been waiting to see her daughter off on her first day of school, a happy event. Instead her ex-husband told her to say "goodbye to your children" before he dropped his daughter over the railing to and into the water far below. Terrible srtory.
Then of course there is Libya. What started with so-much hope and promise is now turning nasty as Gaddafi fights back and the international community dilly-dallies wondering what it ought do. Something fellas, that's the tip. It's a complex and tricky situation, but can we, as citizens of the world stand-by and watch this? In Bahrain the rebellion seems to be fizzling out also.
Then of course there is the big story, the story I've been avoiding: the Japanese earthquake.
I was out on a sunny Friday afternoon when I heard the first sketchy news of the quake. I was early in a bar and with a beer in front of me killed time by catching up with the news on my iPhone. At that point it was very unclear as to the scale of the disaster, though the tsunami was being reported on.
We now know what it's like. Pictures of the devasted areas show a wasteland similar to that after the atomic blasts at Horoshima and Nagasaki. Almost everything is flattened, houses turned to matchsticks but for the old erection still standing amid the carnage. Cars are piled up like driftwood by the force of the tsunami, with the odd vehicle stranded atop a building by the retreating waters, as if parked there. Fishing trawlers when not smashed by the water are stranded deep inland. Somewhere in all of this are the people.
The footage of the actual tsunami was mesmerising, as so much of this is. The water raced in, smashing homes and lifting others off their stumps and carrying them forward like houseboats. The water surged and tumbled, smashing over sea barriers and seeking the low lying areas. Belatedly cars and trucks sped away to elude it, trying to find higher ground, a way out, as to did the odd speck on the film, a desperate person running from destruction. Some are successful, some not. In the wake of it there two towns virtually wiped out with many of their inhabitants. The cost is huge, in human life, and economically. The scale of almost complete destruction is almost beyond belief.
For all this destruction the greatest danger was ahead. Even as I write we are poised not knowing what is to happen with the nuclear power stations damaged in the quake. There have been explosions in some, and fears of a meltdown and the absolute catastrophe that would be. Radiation levels are manageable for now, but for how long? And what next?
This is another in a series of natural disasters over the last 6 months. I exclaimed over the Christchurch quake, only for it to be topped by this. They both sit on the same fault line, which curls around and returns through southern California. It's not hard to believe that the next stop in this train of catastrophe might be where it's been dreaded for so long: the San Andreas fault
The last few months have been one disaster story after another. It is probably coincidence, but it seems odd that there have been so many so-called 'natural' disasters in such a short space of time. Australia has been victim to a few of these, and diuring the week it was New Zealand's turn.
I went to lunch Tuesday and had returned to catch up for a coffee with a friend midway through the afternoon. On my way home I dropped by the cobblers to collect a couple of pairs of shoes I'd left with him when he told me about Christchurch: "Pretty bad in New Zealand, eh?" he said in passing.
I'd heard nothing and told him so, whereupon he stopped what he was doing to explain a earthquake had hit Christchurch devastating the city centre. Back home I turned on the radio. That night I watched the extended news bulletin feeling the usual combination of fascination and sorrow.
There have been many eartquakes across the world that have claimed more lives than his and left more devastation. This is closer though, more real if you like, because New Zealand is so close to us, just over the ditch as they say. For all the rivalry and friendly ribbing between nations there is a close bond between peoples that have shared so much together. As so many commentators and editorials have stated, we are like brothers.
To see downtown Christchurch in ruins and to see on screen shocked and despairing Kiwi's - just like us but with a funny accent - made it seem almost as if this was happening in Australia.
Like most Aussies I know a shitload of Kiwi's. Half a million of them live over here. By and large I like them. They're a people I respect, a strong, adventurous nation, perhaps the people I see as being most like us - though perhaps quieter and more humble than what we are.
It goes without saying that our thoughts are with Kiwi's all over the world right now, and especially those in Christchurch right now.
On a pretty tacky sidenote, this tragedy is the excuse for some Christian lowlives to come out and claim it is basically God's doing - man, he get's blamed, or is justification for too much. Apparently their was a gay parade in Christchurch a few days before - ergo, God strikes as if Christchirch is a modern day Sodom. It amazes me how so-called good christians are so often unchristian in word and deed. If that's your God then I want nothing to do with him.
It was an odd night last night. I sat down early to watch the cricket and what turned out to be a great match from the SCG. Set a huge target Australia responded with a controlled and ultimately record breaking fun chase. Nothing can make up for losing the Ashes, but the Australian cricket team has bounced back well since. We're a resilient bunch, that's one of our key strengths as we see all over now. With the win last night Australia now leads that contest 5-1, and worth a sneaky punt come the World Cup later this month.
With that done I turned my attention to Cyclone Yasi. It dominated the news services yesterday as it approached the Queensland coast and residents braced themselves. I watched as rain soaked correspondents reported in from the scene. The winds were whipping up, gusting along the coast bringing driving tain along with it. Online I watched with a morbid fascination a garishly coloured graphic of Yasi, huge and swirling with a tail extending into the mid-pacific over the Solomon Islands. It was amazing to look at, to consider, to imagine the sheer breadth of it, and be reminded of the destructive power of nature.
Very much in tune with the times I watched and contributed to twitter and facebook. It seemed that thousands of other Australians were similarly mesemerised by the events unfolding, and fearful of the worst possibilities. There was a common sense of - not dread - but something close to it, a fearful expectation perhaps. It was like standing in the way of a runaway train unable to do anything about it. From far away in Melbourne watching the news reports and the images, reading the comments and wishes of good luck and support it was like watching a disaster movie in slow-motion.
I finally went to bed near one, wondering what news I would wake up to. I genuinely feared the worst. For all the preparations and precautions I thought there would be fatalities as well as ruin. If was of that mind I might have murmured a prayer for the residents of FNQ before geting into bed.
The good news this morning is that there appear to have been no fatalities, at least none reported to this point. There is widespread damage and reports of devastation, but overall the fall-out seems less than it might have been. It's not over yet, the cyclone, weakened, continues inland, storm surges are reported and flooding is likely to be considerable. It is not good by any means, and it may yet get worse, but for now there seems reason to be grateful.
If this is as bad as it gets - and I need to be cautious here - then we've been lucky. The cyclone was just about the size of continental US, and twice the size of Katrina. It is a big mother.
We'll see how it plays out, but there is one last thing to reflect on. In Victoria the one area of the country not flooded recently is now being ravaged by bushfires. Far north Queensland escaped the worst of the floods there, but now cops Yasi. It almost seems deliberate, as if we don't get you this time we'll get you next time.
I keep thinking, and writing, how strange times are. Strange they are because so many extraordinary things seem to be occurring in close succession. That poses the question then: at what point does 'strange' become normal? If these events are so frequent and regular, no matter how extreme, does that not then become the new normal?
It would be fool who does not wonder at the increased frequency of untoward events. Most are weather or climate related, and it's natural to think that it is no coincidence. Most of us now, I think, have a deep seated sense that something's amiss, and if it's not climate change then what is it?
The sceptics will claim that the events we are experiencing have ever been, and this is just part of the usual cycle of the earth. I haven't lived half a century yet so my experience is abbreviated, yet I have lived long enough to see and experience large shifts. More than that, while nothing is new as they say, the regularity of these events and the violence of them is new to me.
It's not all about the climate. These are tumultuous times. Shifts in global power and economic might are ongoing. The internet and the easy access to communication and information have opened up societies and brought governments to their knees. Wikileaks has been profound in cracking the official wall of disinformation like a nut. In so doing there seems a liberating sense of expectation. The power of this is evidenced by the Egyptian government cutting internet access to its people in a futile attempt to limit the damage.
Strange times all round. Birds fall from the air and floods leave baby elephants stranded high in the treetops in Sri Lanka. Catastrophic floods cripple Queensland and then Victoria, while in Brazil mudslides kill near 500. The big freeze settles over much of the northern hemisphere while here in Australia bushfires flare up once again.We even had a locust plague.
In Tunisia the people rebel and topple their dictator; in Egypt as we speak the downtrodden people have risen en masse demanding the resignation of Mubarak. He hangs on, but think he must step down. These at least are positive, and who knows what dictator is next?
Back in Oz poor old Queensland is battening down the hatches for the impending arrival of Cyclone Yasi. Overnight it was upgraded to a category five cyclone, the highest, worst category. They say from edge to edge the cyclone is as big as the entire state, and the vortex a hundred kilometres across. It is due to hit the coast tonight near Cairns at high tide, the worst possible timing. It is rated the most dangerous ever cyclone ever to hit our shores, higher than Tracy which left 70 odd people dead in 1974, a minnow in comparison to this.
There is uncertainty about the impact of this. You feel for the Queenslanders: they must wonder what they have done to endure such a biblical train of events. You fear the worse though. In the face of such brutal power their is little you can do but prepare for it and cross your fingers. In my mind I expect this to be very bad.
Strange times? So they seem, but now becoming normal.
Image via Wikipedia
Recent Comments