Confessions (and dilemmas) of a "Clickactivist"

I've become somthing of a "Clickactivist" - yes, one of those who sits in the comfort of his livingroom and enters his email address and "click" - hey presto (or press-to) - off goes my "signature" on this petition or that. Sometime ago, I joined an organisation called "Avaaz" (you may have heard of it - if not, well "Google it"). I also joined an American organisation called "Jewish Voice for Peace". There are others, too, but these two will do for now. That's largely because it is they that have both sparked these musings. Both are assiduous in promoting the causes they believe in: and don't get me wrong, the causes they promote are, for the most part, very worthy.

     Let's begin with Jewish Voice for Peace. Recently, they sent out a petition (to go to the Israeli Ambassador to the US) about something called the Prawer Plan. This according to JVP is designed to remove 40,000 Bedouin from the ancestral homeland. So I signed the petiton, and posted an appeal for others to consider signing to Facebook (some of my FB friends may have seen this: in fact, I've just revisited the post to check on some details, and I see at the bottom of the JVP post a note asking those not in the US to sign a petition put up by Avaaz - oh, well - so the two organisations are together on this).

     Anyway, I mention this because my action prompted a reply from an Israeli source - a newsletter called Israel Hayom (dated Sunday, June 30th) in which a David M. Weinberg defends the Prawer Plan. The article is headed "A win-win for Bedouin and the Negev". He writes:
"In the coming years, the Negev Desert is expected to enjoy great growth and prosperity, and the Negev Bedouin should be part of that bonanza. Indeed, the government plans to invest more than 10 billion shekels ($2.75 billion) over the next 10 years upgrading Bedouin communities in the Negev, including magnanimous settlements of Bedouin land claims. So what could be bad about this?" Nothing that Mr Weinberg can find: and it seems, according to him, to have cross party support in the Knesset.

      However, Mr. Weinberg reports that this government "blueprint for Bedouin life in the Negev has set off a firestorm..." He goes on: "Some feverish contraption called 'Rabbis for Human Rights' has circulated across North America a wildly over-the-top attack video called 'It Hurts'. Actor Theodore Bikel (who starred as Tevye in the 'Fiddler on the Roof' stage show more that 2,000 times) complains in the nasty video that 'it hurts that the descendant of Anatevka may expel 40,000 Bedouin, just as the czar did to the Jews of Russia". I watched that video: it was very moving. It helped persuade me to sign the petiton. But who is right?

     Mr. Weinberg's next paragraph made somewhat ironic reading, I thought. He says, "About 200,000 Bedouin live in Israel's south, making up 30 percent of the Negev's populaton, sprawling uncontrollably and illegally across ever-greater tracts of land in the northern Negev. Every year, 2,000 illegal structures go up."  Hmm... I think elsewhere in the Palestinian territories they're called "Settlements", and are complicitly if not actively supported by the Israelis Government. But that's another story.

     Mr. Weinberg's piece garnered a riposte from JVP. Sydney Levy, the Director of Advocacy, who noted the article's reference to "the well-respected NGO Rabbis for Human Rights" as "'some feverish contraption'" and stated that the article "falsely calls the Prawer Plan 'magnanimous'". Ms Levy goes on, "It is nothing of the kind. Bedouins are not asking for Israel's charity. They are demanding what is rightfully theirs." She calls for us to keep on going with the petition: the Israeli ambassador she  opines "doesn't think the catastrophic transfer of tens of thousands of Bedouin people is worth more than right-wing talking points". Who is right?

     You might guess that my sympathies are with the opinions of JVP. But hearing the opinion of the other side does give one pause. Though the track-record of the Israeli Government on rights for the Arabs does not inspire confidence. But let's turn to Avaaz. Its latest petition is to ask us to "Stand with Democracy" and send a message to Obama and others to oppose the recent military coup. "President Morsi was [after all] elected in a free and fair election...Democracy has spoken in Egypt--it chose President Morsi, knowing the moderately religious nature of his political party, and it has called on Morsi to govern inclusively."

     Should one sign the petition? I confess to being confused on this one, and so far have avoided clicking. Morsi appears to be very unpopular with a large number of Egyptians. Morsi and his government, it seems, bungled the process of governing. They have not helped the economy improve, and Morsi has failed to be inclusive. But one of the fears is that having been ousted as a democratically elected government, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Islamists, will conclude that taking the democratic route is not for them: and, indeed, will be denied them.

      Being a "clickactivist" is not easy.










 

Armed and Dangerous in "Walter Mitty" Land

There is little that could have been done, I suppose, to anticipate and prevent what happened in the Denver cinema complex when James Holmes opened fire and killed twelve people, and injured many more. Where guns are easily available, it is always on the cards that someone mad or bad will put one to use in an ugly, dangerous, and random killing spree.


Could this have been different had Holmes' access to weaponry been more restricted? It seems incredible that he was able to amass a small arsenal, a Glock pistol, a shotgun, an AR-15 rifle, and, oh yes, another pistol, together with 6000 rounds of ammo, bought over the internet, without anyone, it seems, being aware of able to monitor this. For some of us who live outside the US, the love affair of many of its citizens with guns, and the strength of the pro-gun lobby, is bewildering.


The appeal to the Second Amendment as a way of legitimizing allowing citizens to be armed like modern combat troops is a case of poor "exegesis" and wildly mistaken interpretation, surely? The basis of that addition to the Constitution was the need for "a well-regulated Militia", and drafted when the US had no standing army to speak of, and citizens were armed with muskets and flintlocks, not the semi-automatic and assault rifles available today.


But it is the idea that more guns are needed for "self-defence" that is the most incredibly illogical of all. How often have guns been used in "self-defence" as compared with occasions when they have been used for criminal activity and random violence. The most recent case in which "self-defence" was trotted out, as I recall, was the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in Florida in February. It does seem that Zimmerman was being beaten up by Trayvon, when he shot the unarmed young man. But this was a situation entirely of his own making. When he reported his suspicions to his 911 dispatcher, he was told to stop following Trayvon. He ignored this advice, and provoked an altercation. And who's is to say that the young black man, who had no idea I guess what Zimmerman was about, was not just as panicked. The case caused an uproar, fueled partly no doubt by Zimmerman's claim of "self-defence", as well as the suggestion that he had "racially profiled" Trayvon.


Nevertheless, in the case of this latest massacre, gun lobby supporters have energetically opposed tighter restrictions. As reported in The New Zealand Herald (26/07/2012; A17), when Colorado Congressman Ed Perlmutter pushed for tighter restrictions, "he received invective on his Facebook page from gun lobby supporters. One post read, 'If ONE person inside that theatre was armed, this situation would NOT have been as bad as it is'." And it is reported in today's paper (The New Zealand Herald, 28/07/2012) in an "opinion piece" by Paul Thomas, that "[t]here are influential voices arguing that the massacre whould have been curtailed if not for the ban on guns in film theatres. 'Had someone been prepared and armed', said a former Arizona state senator, 'they could've stopped this bad man.'"


"This assumes", goes on Thomas, "that when people used to shooting holes in cardboard cut-outs come under live fire, they will react like a SWAT team veteran." Indeed. And let's run the scenario as it is equally likely to turn out:
"My client, Mr. Walter Mitty, maintains, your Honour, that he intended to get a clean shot at the shooter. Unfortunately, it seems, it was at that moment that Johnny Appleseed chose to try and make his escape from the theatre, and he got in the line of fire."
Or, perhaps this: "After about 30 seconds after the gunman opened up," the witness said, "this other guy got out a gun and fired at the shooter. Unfortunately, his first shot wasn't on target and he hit Johnny Appleseed instead". And what, I ask, were the panicked cinema-goers to have thought when a second gunman started firing: that a hero had come to their rescue, or that the first gunman had an accomplice, or there was another madman in the house? And, if an armed policeman had been nearby and burst in, who would he shoot first?


Nonetheless, in "Walter Mitty" Land, people are queuing up to buy themselves a weapon. "At Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo", reports the first of the Herald articles mentioned above, "there was a queue of more than 15 people outside the store when it opened on Saturday, and sales have since been brisk. 'It's been insane,' store employee Jake Meyers told the Denver newspaper, 'A lot of people are saying, "I didn't think I needed a gun, but now I do." When it happens in your backyard, people start reassessing - "Hey, I go to the movies" '."


Insane, indeed. Surely to goodness, a safe society is one in which there are fewer guns not more? What is needed is regulation of gun sales, and better monitoring systems. There ought to be ways, in this modern age of sophisticated weaponry, of devising sophisticated ways of recording who has guns, how many and what type. A requirement that gun owners, and purchasers, carry a card that has their photo on it and a swipe system that registers in a central database when they purchase from a store (rather like EFTPOS). Internet sales ought also to be logged. Anyone who is not up to mischief ought not to mind this "invasion of privacy": after all, we allow it for much else. But, above all, there is no need for ordinary Joe citizens to be buying semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 and AK47. When it comes to the Second Amendment, more attention ought to be paid to the phrase "a well regulated Militia", than "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". If people now feel unsafe in shopping malls and cinema complexes, rather than rush out and buy guns, lobby and push for there to be more well-trained and prepared security personnel, ready and readily available to respond to such crises as happened in Denver. Yes, Mr. Senator, someone who is not only armed, but prepared, ready for such eventualities.


But better, by far, is to create a society less armed and dangerous. Less in love with the gun. Less "Walter Mitty"ish: bewitched by ideas of "heroes" who will be able to react coolly and calmly, instincts honed and quick, like the Hollywood heroes from Batman to Captain America, able to act in "self-defence" and in defence of the other innocents. But, it is only in Hollywood's Wild West (of yesteryear) where White Hat and Black Hat faced off and stared each other down for several minutes.

In the real "Wild West" it soon became apparent that the best recourse was to call in the Sherriff.

Postscript: For those who may not know, "Walter Mitty" is a mild-mannered man in one of James Thurber's tales who daydreams and fantasizes that he is the hero in several dangerous or challenging situations. In one of his fantasies, if I recall correctly, he is in a battle..."pockata-pockata..."

Reflections on Suffering

This Lent I decided that I would read two books, both written by people known personally to me, on their experiences of adversity and suffering. Here is a brief description of each book.

Rosella and Don Kvernen, Stroke Survivor: A Story of Hope (Minneapolis: Two Harbors Press, 2012).

This is a book about the process of rehabilitation and adjustment to life by a man and his wife after he suffers a “life-changing” and debilitating stroke at the age of forty. The stroke has left him with one side (arm and leg) permanently disabled, and inability to read, and speech and cognitive difficulties. Don had lived a full and active life, had gained a PhD in Psychology and practiced as a psychologist in his own business until his stroke in 1991.

As Don’s wife, Rosella, explains in the Introduction, the impetus to write the book came from him, but “[b]ecause Don cannot tell things exactly the way he thinks them in his mind, I have composed quotes for him with his approval and tell our story primarily from my perspective” (p. xvii). Rosella writes in a plain, straightforward manner: it is a style that is almost understated, which adds to the book’s impact. As it is a collaborative venture between Don and herself, she writes about how they both want to be transparent about the trials and frustrations that “life after stroke” has brought them.

Rosella shares honestly about her fears and pain, and also the adjustments that have been made, the learning that had to be done, and the professional help required. One has the sense that one reads the reflections of an essentially private person who nevertheless wishes to be helpful, especially to others who have suffered a stroke, or who care for one who has had one.

The book details the steps to such recovery as Don has been able to achieve. As they wish the book to be both an encouragement and a help to other survivors of stroke, the book provides quite detailed descriptions of some of the therapies undertaken to help Don, one such being the system used to help Don regain some facility with word recognition and numbers.

The book provides an insight into the struggles, the hopes and fears of someone who has suffered a stroke, and of those who care for such a one. It covers some of the mundane issues such as eating and dressing, through to issues such as concerns over finance, Rosella’s desire to help Don maintain his dignity and his embarrassment at not being able to do some things, the tensions that can arise between them, and the need each has for their own “space” and interests.

Rosella writes with honesty, but also humour. I laughed out loud at the story of Don waking one night in search of his paralyzed arm; he had been told by his therapists that he should protect it. ‘“If you lie on your arm or if it gets caught in something, you could develop serious troubles. You need to always know where your arm is and keep it safe.” One night not long after he came home from the hospital, Don suddenly woke me from a deep sleep, uttering, “Where’s my arm?!” At the same moment, I felt his left hand reach over to me, grab my left arm, and plop it on his chest. He found an arm; it just was not his’ (p. 40).

There are a host of anecdotes that give a very good insight and understanding of what it means to live with a stroke or to care for someone who has suffered a stroke. Each chapter ends with a check list of “what helps us cope and gives us hope”. These are practical and down-to-earth actions, or attitudes that build optimism and hope. Both Don and Rosella have chosen consciously not to allow the fact of Don’s stroke and what has entailed from that to make them bitter, but rather have chosen to take positive steps to address each challenge, and also to focus on other people. Moreover, while the book does not say a great deal about faith and God, they make clear that they know in this experience God’s peace, and that God loves them and will not abandon them.

Jeff Wisdom, Through the Valley: Biblical-Theological Reflections on Suffering (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011).

This book is an honest reflection upon a time of intense spiritual, emotional and physical turmoil and difficulty. Jeff Wisdom, in July 2005, was diagnosed with a stage four cancer, Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. This entailed about six months of regular chemotherapy, a couple of bone-marrow biopsys, and a cocktail of drugs: it brought on many side-effects, some of the worst of which were pain, debilitating tiredness and weakness in his legs.

He writes about the experiences he went through, from the pain experienced in treatment, to the fears he had for his family’s future should he die, to his struggle with trust in the face of God’s seeming absence and the reasons for suffering. He also writes of the support and encouragement he received from friends, family, and especially Chris, his wife, and in some cases fellow cancer sufferers. As a record of a sufferer’s struggles, it is a rich and moving account. The book is further enriched by the inclusion, at the beginning and end of each chapter, of extracts from Chris’s journal, very personal and honest cries from the heart to God, and expressing her fears and struggles as she walks with Jeff through his valley.

Jeff writes “biblical-theological reflections on suffering” out of his experiences, and because they are not written in the abstract, they are most helpful and telling. Jeff honestly admits that he still continues to struggle with issues, and that he is less certain about some things than he once was. I found his writing about his sense of loneliness and abandonment by God at times during his illness to be very helpful. His reflections on the lament psalms are most perceptive and surprising. The fact that they provide a way of being brutally honest before God was not an unexpected insight, but a surprise was that Jeff speaks of his reticence in expressing his real feelings for fear of hurting those he loves. He wonders whether he refrains from an “honest expression of lament, because whether I admit it or not, I am afraid that this honesty would be too much to bear, even for God?” (p. 25). He affirms that God is fully able to bear our anguished articulation of pain and a sense of abandonment.

A challenging aspect of the book was Jeff’s sharing of his struggle to fully trust God, his desire to be in control of his life (though he also writes of the deep theological truth that we are not, cannot be, and that God is omniscient), and the “breaking point” when he released to God his family. He came to the point where he knew he must “simply and directly, but most importantly verbally, profess to God that I trusted him to care for my family if I were no longer here on this earth to provide for them” (p. 134).

Through his suffering, Jeff has learned to leave the “why” question with God. But he has observed many ways in which God has been at work in the experience, both in the way circumstances have come about, and in the support and encouragement received (sometimes very tangibly through financial support, or in the songs composed by a friend). He has also observed how God has worked through his experience of cancer in the lives of family and others.

Jeff writes that he would rather not have written this book. If it had been his choice, he would have rather not gone through this particular “valley”. But it has provided him with the impetus and the occasion to make a contribution to a biblical theology of suffering. He acknowledges it is not the last word. And he states that it is a personal word, refracted through his own particular experience of suffering. I think that it has the greater impact because of that.

I am grateful to these friends for writing these books. Although I feel as though I have been able to go through life with scarcely a "bump in the road" (as Rosella puts it on one occasion), the books deal with challenges that we all face: how to learn to trust God, how to cope with frustrations and set-backs, how to relate to others, especially those we love, and the challenge of being open and honest (as may be appropriate) about our fears and anxieties. These books also enable us to emphathise with those going through suffering or living with pain and disability with perhaps more understanding than might otherwise be the case.

MMP - Two Ticks! Too Easy?

The results of the referendum on our voting system are now in, and we have decided to retain MMP. Now we turn our attention to how this system might be adapted to better serve the interests of the electorate and the principle of proportionality.

As an ordinary voter who is in favour of MMP, I want nevertheless to write about an aspect of the political discourse around MMP to which I object. I also want to make a suggestion about a feature that I think we might change.

Political commentators often talk about “wasted votes”. These votes are, of course, those cast for minor parties that fail to cross the 5% threshold, and fail to win an electorate seat. They are discounted when determining the allocation of parliamentary seats.

In a democracy the only votes that are truly “wasted” are those that are never cast in the first place. Of votes cast, “wasted votes” are those that are classed as “informal votes”. Most voters vote with the intention of achieving some effect, though the system renders some of these intentions ineffectual.

Let me illustrate from my own voting habits. In the 2008 election, my party vote went to the Progressive Party. I voted this way because I wanted to see Jim Anderton’s colleague, Matt Robson, whom I regarded as an effective politician, returned to Parliament. I knew that Anderton was almost certain to retain his electorate seat (which, of course, he did). This meant that the Progressives did not need to receive 5% of the party vote to get another candidate in (something around 1.5%, I think, would have done it). As it happened, not enough of my fellow voters also cast their votes for the Progressives. My “strategic vote” was ineffective, and hence “wasted”.

In my opinion, to call these votes “wasted” is not only insulting, but it is inherently anti-democratic if it operates to dissuade voters from following their inclinations. Moreover, these votes are, in effect, not so much “wasted” as disregarded. And in a sense, they are also “diverted” or “transferred” to other successful parties.

This is because when MMP was devised, Parliament decided that it is the proportion of party votes a party receives that decides the number of seats allocated to that party. But when a proportion of the party votes are removed from the equation, the allocation of seats is adjusted to allow for that. Hence, party votes do not translate into seats on a “strictly” proportional basis.
Rather a mathematical formula called the Sainte-Laguë allocation formula is used. I don’t fully understand this: could we have one of our political commentators, or political science experts explain it in plain English, please? But the effect of it appears to advantage the parties that are left in the pool, as it were: particularly the parties that poll the higher percentages of party votes.

To illustrate: in this election, National got just on 48% of the party vote, which on strictly proportional terms would give it 58 seats in a 120 seat Parliament. Instead, if it retains Waitakere (at the moment this seems likely), it gets 60 seats, which is 50% of the seats. In 2008, with 45.5% of the votes, National received 58 seats (55 seats would have more closely represented their “percentage share”).

MMP as it currently operates also allows for parties that gain one electorate seat to have their share of the party vote counted: so that, for instance, in 2008 the Act Party by winning Epsom and getting 3.65% of the party vote, was allocated five seats. NZ First, of course, polled 4.07% of the party vote, but did not win an electorate seat, so that their share of the party votes was discounted.

In my opinion, the Electoral Commission’s website is misleading when it states that “a party vote cast for a party that does not cross the threshold has no impact on the number of seats other parties receive”; or that these party votes “are not in any way reallocated to other parties”. The effect of the formula is that they are. To “sell” MMP as a system whereby the percentage of seats a party receives is “roughly equivalent” to the percentage of its party vote, is “false advertising” to say the least.

I believe that the number of seats a party receives under MMP should more straightforwardly reflect the percentage of party votes it gets. This will be achieved, I think, by lowering the 5% threshold so that allocation of seats more closely reflects the party vote percentages. On current polling figures, this should also do away with the need for “overhang” seats.

At any rate, the system should also be adjusted so that the number of seats in Parliament is capped at 120. Any party that gains only an electorate seat should be allocated only that seat, unless it is also able to cross the (lowered) threshold. This would move the MMP system closer to a Supplementary Member style Parliament, but would retain sufficient “list seats” to retain the proportionality of MMP.

Finally, as MMP comes under review, could we please have some good education about the system, and a decent debate, in the pages of the Herald? What are the merits and demerits of the opinions expressed above? Some, like me, will favour lowering the 5% threshold, others will want to see it raised. What are the pros and cons of lowering it? What are the pros and cons of raising it? And by how much should it go up or down? There are other elements of the system that need review. What are they, and what changes will deliver the best outcomes?

Do the polls predict or produce the outcome?

I suppose we are stuck with incessant opinion polls, especially before an election. For a long time, I've wondered how much the polling affects the way people vote when they get to the ballot box. I have suspected that oftentimes they can produce "self-fulfilling prophecies" of the outcome. In fact, one political commentator was quoted in The New Zealand Herald as saying that one reason for the low turnout this election was the fact that the polls had persuaded many that the result that eventuated on the day was a "foregone conclusion". Sometimes, of course, the polls can get it very wrong. This election they seem to have got in pretty right.

 In recent days, I've been wondering whether anyone has done any analysis of the effect that polls have on voting decisions and outcomes. As it turns out, someone has. On Radio New Zealand's Sunday morning "Media Watch" today (5th December), the topic of the influence of polls on voting was discussed (Google "Radio New Zealand", look for the link to Chris Laidlaw's "Sunday" programme, and you find there a link to the programme).

A PhD student at the University of Otago, her name is Michelle Nichol (if I caught it correctly), has studied this question, and the answer is that, yes, polls definitely affect the outcome. But just to back up a minute, I should say that the discussion began with the presenter saying that there had been a record number of polls this election. And they had come "thicker and faster", partly because of the shortened period of the campaign preceding polling day. These polls, he opined, had been "partly to inform the public, but mostly to give the media something to report on in their own news outlets".

Michelle's study has shown, as I said above, that polls definitely affect the outcome of elections. She offered the opinion that Parliament would have looked different without them. There are three ways in which polls have an influence. These have to do with "the bandwagon effect", "the underdog effect", and the effect polls have on "strategic voting".

The "bandwagon effect" refers to the way in which a popular party (as shown in the polls) attracts votes to that party. Her research has shown that this effect dominates over "the underdog effect". There can be a six percent to ten percent movement towards a party in the ballot on account of the "bandwagon effect". This is especially the case if one party is well out in front, as was the case this time. The more popular the party the more strongly the "bandwagon effect" operates. So in this case, the polls do have a very strong tendency to act as "self-fulfilling" prophecies.

The "underdog effect", as the name suggests, has the result of boosting votes for a party that is perceived to be the "underdog", to be receiving a poor showing (perhaps in the public mind, an unfair showing?) in the polls. But in this case, the effect is likely to produce only a two to three percent gain in a party's share of the vote. You can listen to the broadcast for interesting commentary on how the "underdog" effect (and to a degree the "bandwagon effect") influenced the fortunes of both Act and NZ First. It seems that polling is likely to be more inaccurate in the case of minor parties, and to that extent perhaps more damaging to their fortunes.

 Should polls be banned for a period (say a week or two) before an election? Michelle was inclined to think not. For one thing, it is likely to drive polling "underground", with the result that misleading polls may circulate, or that (even if the polls are a reasonably accurate reflection of public opinion) certain groups will learn of the results and others will not. Besides that, she said, democratic societies consider that one cannot ban the taking of polls, though some may wish to ban the publishing of them. But in this internet age that is pretty well impossible. Some countries, however, do ban the publishing of polls before an election: many Eastern European countries do, she said, but also Greece, Switzerland (interesting this), and Spain.

One effect of the media's delight in running polls, research has shown, is that often the media gives more space, or attention, to polls rather than the issues. Someone has done a study, and has discovered that in this election (or it may have been an earlier one) ten percent of coverage relating to the election was given to the poll results, while a further 23% was devoted to discussion of coalition possibilities based on the polling.

 So, are polls a good thing or a bad thing? These are my reflections, now: as I said at the outset, they are probably inevitable, and perhaps they are helpful to a degree in helping the electorate make up its mind. I tend to agree with Michelle that it is not wise to ban polls. But what is required is to educate voters to be "critically aware" of the influence of polls; and also to be thoughtful about making up their minds, and try to arrive at educated decisions. Perhaps, cumulatively and over time, polls give a good indication of the way in which voters are likely to vote. But on individual polls, people should consider this: the sample in relation to the overall number of voters is extremely small, miniscule, almost to the point of vanishing in percentage terms. In this latest pre-election round of polling, I noticed that a number of the polls were based on a sample of 750 voters (and the margin of error posted was usually +/- 3.5% or thereabouts). Against the total number of people on the electoral roll, a sample of 750 voters works out at about 0.00002289% of the electorate. Or, if you prefer, of the 2,254,581 people who actually cast their vote on November 26th, the sample represents 0.00003326% of those who voted. Over against the other percentages that are thrown around in an election e.g. the 5% of total votes required for a party to enter Parliament (short of winning an electorate, some of which were won in marginal seats in this election on about 12,000 to 15,000 votes), those are pretty small percentages.

Simple Simon Economics

Sometimes I think that I'll write a book with the title, "Simple Simon Economics". You know the rhyme: Simple Simon met a Pieman going to the fair; said Simple Simon to the Pieman, "Let me taste your wares". Said the Pieman to Simple Simon, "Show me first your penny." Said Simple Simon to the Pieman, "Sir, I have not any".

Let me rewrite it: "Simple Simon met a Piechartman detailing economic affairs; said Simple Simon to the Piechartman, "Let me try your theories". Said the Piechartman to Simple Simon, "Show me first your savvy". Said Simple Simon to the Piechartman, "Sir, I have not any."

Indeed, I'm not much up with economics; pie charts, and theories I don't savvy. So I'm a "Simple Simon" when it comes to such matters. However, I observe and try to understand how the world works, and this is some of what I notice.

- Tax cuts put more money back into consumers' pockets, money sloshes around the economy so that it picks up: this is a good thing.

- Wage rises for lower paid workers puts more money back into consumers' pockets, money sloshes around the economy so that the economy picks up: this is a bad thing.

- Directors and shareholders believe that to attract the top talent required to run a company, high salaries must be paid, and must be competitive with the international market, this is a good thing.

- Workers (often supported by unions) believe that their skills and effort deserve more reward and higher wages: this is a bad thing.

-If a company is successful and makes good profits, and returns good dividends to shareholders, this is generally thought to be due to the good management and work of the CEO and directors, who deserve a reward.

- If a company is successful and makes good profits, and returns good dividends to shareholders, it does not seem to occur to "the powers that be" that loyal staff and hardworking employees should share in the rewards as well as the directors and the CEO, and, of course, the shareholders.

As a society thinks, so will it be (to paraphrase loosely Proverbs 23:7, KJV). What we need is not new economic policies, whether of the right or the left. We need a new way of thinking. It's not about "the politics of envy" or "the economics of greed". It's about recognizing that the success of any economy rests on the input and the hard work of many people in all strata of society. It's about recapturing the sense of society and a social compact.

The Challenge of Ministry in Post-Christendom Australasia

Last Sunday (26/06/2011), while on an ashcloud enforced stopover in Brisbane, I went to an inner city church. It was an 11 a.m. service (there had earlier been a 9.30 a.m. service, which may have been the main service). I arrived there at about 5 minutes before the service was due to begin. There were not many people there at that point: the woman minister, one or two people on the door, and two or three others in the pews. There was also a young couple there, with a new baby, and a couple of young boys. They were there for the baptism of their baby boy. Another young woman stood nearby: it transpired that she was the godparent, and, if I recall correctly, was a sister of the baby's mother. In the next few minutes other members of the baptismal family arrived: perhaps about eight or nine adults, and three children (ranging in age from about six to nine). One set, a couple with the three children - two boys and a girl - sat in the pew in front of me. The adults were in their early to mid-thirties.

As the service began, the man got out an electronic gadget and began fiddling with it. He brought up a game and passed the device to one of the boys. Meanwhile the service got under way with a "Call to Worship", followed by a hymn. The minister led off valiantly, and we sang along, though the father of the boys made no attempt to sing, nor even to stand. It soon became obvious that, whatever the commitment of the parents bringing their baby for baptism (and they'd had their two older boys baptised as well), their friends and family had little connection with the church.

(As we were singing the hymn, I became aware of a woman's voice, with an American accent, singing strongly. I discovered at the end of the service, that a number of people had joined the congregation (and had been sitting in the pews behind me) swelling the numbers to perhaps about 25-30 persons, including the children).

The minister had a nice easy style, and did a very good job in the lead up to the baptism. There was a slot for a talk to the children, and she explained the meaning of baptism. The main message was that it stood for the fact of God's love for us. The baptism was conducted in a relaxed manner: and the father of the baby, at least, spoke out the promises reasonably strongly. A member of the congregation was called up to present the family with a baptismal candle, the certificate, a card (which members of the baptismal party were invited to sign and write comments for the child to read as it grew up), and a children's book of Bible stories.

The children went off to a transcept to one side of the sanctuary with an older woman in the congregation to engage in various "craft-type" activities, while we adults listened to the reading. There were, in fact, two printed in the order of service (Romans 6:12-23 and Matt. 10:40-42), but the minister, perhaps wisely, decided to read only the reading from Matthew. This was followed by a "Reflection" on the reading in which the minister spoke of what we receive in "welcoming a child" (the example of humility, for one). It was at this point that a woman (perhaps in her late thirties) got up from the pew two in front of me, and came to sit next to the mother of the children sitting in the pew in front of me. They proceeded to carry on a conversation (reasonably discreetly: I was intent on listening to the "reflection", so I don't know whether I could have followed the conversation had I concentrated on that instead). Meanwhile, a man who was sharing the pew with the woman who had moved (perhaps her husband/partner?) was sitting slant-wise in the pew reading the Bible. I do not know whether the minister noticed the semi-disrespectful inattention of a portion of her congregation, but if she did, she did not show it.

Once the "reflection" finished (and after an offering) we had some prayers during which the women continued their conversation...At some point during the service (perhaps during the sermon?; after the prayers?) an older man, who several times looked around towards the back of the church, got up and walked to the back. In a few moments, he returned carrying a child (perhaps a grandchild?).

As I left the service, I commended the minister on having taken the service very nicely. But I also left with a sense of having been reminded of the challenges of ministry today, especially to those with little connection with the church. Whatever the motivations of the couple who brought their child to be baptised, it seemed obvious to me that their friends were there not entirely willingly. They came out of a desire to support their friends perhaps, but they had little interest in the service and were enduring it.

Currently, I am a bit removed from the "frontline" of ministry. My experience last Sunday was a salutary reminder that we need in the church to be alive and open to the situation of many in society today who know little of church culture, let alone the message of the gospel. I don't doubt that the scenario I encountered last Sunday could well be replicated, in one form or another, on this side of the Tasman. I don't mean to be judgmental of the non-churched participants in that service (leaving aside, perhaps, a certain expectation of an attempt at common courtesy, and some attempt to adapt to the situation). I write this as a reminder that ministry today must be carried out with grace, imagination, and a lively sense of how to connect with people whereever they are coming from, and whatever their understanding of "church". All things considered, I thought that that church (its minister and the few "regulars" who assisted her) did well in that respect.