According to the Anangu traditional landowners of Uluru, the world was once a featureless place. None of the places we know existed until creator beings, in the forms of people, plants and animals, traveled widely across the land. Then, in a process of creation and destruction, they formed the landscape as we know it today. Anangu land is still inhabited by the spirits of dozens of these ancestral creator beings which are referred to as Tjukuritja or Waparitja.”
One account has Uluru built up during the creation period by two boys who played in the mud after rain. When they had finished their game they travelled south to Wiput. Another tells of serpent beings who waged many wars around Uluru, scarring the rock. A third tells of two tribes of ancestral spirits who were invited to a feast, but were distracted by the beautiful Sleepy Lizard Women and did not show up. In response, the angry hosts sang evil into a mud sculpture that came to life as the dingo. There followed a great battle, which ended in the deaths of the leaders of both tribes. The earth itself rose up in grief at the bloodshed, becoming Uluru. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru
Climate Change
I have just searched this weblog for ‘Climate change’ and recent postings show substantial confusion. When I read back over these comments and quotes, I can see a lobbying pattern emerging where the participants are:
Climate Change caused by CO2 emissions
- Science activists
- Green activists
- Politicians
- Coal activists
- The esoteric – Lovelock
- Affected industry spokespeople – insurance
CO2 Skeptics
- Science activists
- Politicians
- The esoteric – Sunspots
- Affected industry spokespeople — resource extraction, electricity generation, et al.
- The public
It would be foolish to attempt any predictions for the 2010 so I will continue watching and accumulating information that may eventually clarify the debate.
This article caught my attention:
“John Prescott defends China’s role at Copenhagen climate summit”, guardian.com.uk, 28 December, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/28/john-prescott-defends-china-copenhagen
John Prescott has defended China’s role in the climate change summit, saying the blame for its flawed outcome must lie with the United States and Barack Obama. The former deputy prime minister helped negotiate the Kyoto protocol in 1997, and was in Copenhagen acting as an informal bridge between the Chinese delegation and others.
In a letter to the Guardian, Prescott criticises the US climate change special envoy, Todd Stern, who “said at Copenhagen emissions weren’t about ‘morality or politics’, they were ‘just maths’, with China projected to emit 60% more CO2 than the US by 2030″.
… Prescott claims that Stern’s arguments “ignored the more transparent measure of pollution per capita, which shows the US emits 20 tonnes per person every year, compared to China’s six tonnes, whilst America’s GDP per person is almost eight times greater than the Chinese”. He also attacks President Barack Obama for suggesting there had been a period of “two decades of talking and no action. That might have been true in America, which refused to sign up to Kyoto, but not in the case of China or Europe, who followed a lot of that protocol’s policies. … Prescott is climate change convenor for the Council of Europe, with the role of exploring how to keep the talks on the road.
According to the lengthy defence of China’s actions, European nations repeatedly tried to impose secret drafts, unscheduled meetings and a hidden agenda on China and other developing nations.
Social Media
James Harkin, “Going Tweet and saying nothing”, SMH, 31 December, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/going-tweet-and-saying-nothing-20091230-ljtm.html
Far from delivering a ”wisdom of crowds”, social networking sites create only a deafening banality, writes James Harkin.
In 2003, in an elaborate joke on New York’s media-savvy, empty-headed hipsters, a journalist called Bill Wasik sent around an anonymous email suggesting that they congregate at a department store at the same time and stare at a rug. The event was an enormous success, and became the world’s first documented example of a ”flash mob”. By the end of the decade, however, the joke was on all of us. Faced with any kind of group activity, our first response is: do any of them know how to use Twitter?
How did we get here? In the past decade, ideas about how society works have been treated to a glamorous new outing. It all began in 2000 with the publication of Malcolm Gladwell’s beautifully crafted bestseller The Tipping Point. Gladwell argued that, given the right kind of push, ideas or products can suddenly gain traction and pass around from person to person like a virus. In its wake came a slew of new thinking about how information and ideas cascade around the place and gather momentum. Then there was the influential idea that we can raise ourselves to a kind of collective intelligence – the so-called ”wisdom of crowds” – by arriving at our decisions independently and punching our best guesses into a computer.
Most of these new ideas took their cue from the time we’ve been spending online. In an age of rapid change in the way we’re communicating, that’s hardly surprising. It helped that many of these new ideas-entrepreneurs made excellent writers and talkers, capable of expressing their theories with more flair and less pomposity than the traditional homme serieux (Comment: Google has let me down – I cannot get a translation for this phrase). It would be churlish not to admit that there was something in their ideas, too. Online is a fantastically efficient way of sending a message out, and taking a pop at established industry authorities.
But the hard part is to find a message worth sending – it’s not good enough, as the internet gurus do, just to blow hard about the joys of a new medium. A succession of breathless internet evangelists have told weird and wonderful stories about young people who were using Facebook and Twitter to organise a whole new kind of politics. From Iran to Moldova, it was claimed, a new generation of activists had armed themselves with Twitter and were using it to fight political repression. ”You cannot have Rwanda again,” argued Gordon Brown in June, referring to the ”Twitter revolution” in Iran. ”This week’s events in Iran are a reminder of the way that people are using new technology to come together in new ways to make their views known.”
It all turned out to be wildly overcooked. Among activists and dissidents, Twitter and other social networking sites were useful in getting messages out of the country, but they turned out to be just as handy for the authorities who were trying to track them down. In any case, since only a tiny number of Iranians use Twitter – a mere 0.027 per cent, according to a forthcoming report from the British Council – it was never going to be much use in organising demonstrations.
I access Facebook several times a day, more in wonderment at the postings than for seeking the goings-on of ‘friends’. Here are some of my ‘friends’ postings:
- SPA reunion lunch tomm. (Dec. 31) at Clay Oven, Green Park, New Delhi @ 2PM. Everyone’s welcome – please spread the message and join us
- xxxxxx was tagged in a photo.
- xxxxxx and yyyyyy are now friends.
- My friend xxxxxx & yyyyyy have a baby girl .All ar well.
- xxxxxx and yyyyyy are now friends (these two people have been in a rich partnership so becoming ’friends’ is a revelation).
- xxxxxx Going to Perth shortly. Looks like another beautiful sunny day ahead (I have no idea how I became friends with this person).
- xxxxxx must…discipline myself…write…WRITE!!! WRITE!!!!!!!!!!!!.
- xxxxxx Just finished his … film treatment…last minute much!!?
- yyyyyy YAY YOU. Hey I’m editing mine this week…you never told me what you thought of the script
Methinks it may be time to look further into this new English that is developing.
Today’s Podcast
Unfortunately no longer downloadable but the transcript is available. I have often labeled Ramona Koval as an ill-disciplined blabber-mouth but her choice of guests over this holiday period has been exceptional; to the point where I need to relax my commentary.
“In conversation with Richard Holloway”, TheBookShow, 21 December, http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bookshow/stories/2009/2570367.htm
Richard Holloway is the controversial former bishop of Edinburgh and author of 25 books. In 2000 he resigned as bishop of Edinburgh in the Scottish Episcopal Church and now describes himself as a ‘Christian agnostic’. He was Gresham Professor of Divinity in the City of London and remains a Fellow of the Royal Society. Now in his mid-70s, Richard Holloway has written on morality and religion for many newspapers in Britain and is a mainstay on BBC Radio Scotland and BBC TV.
His many, many books include On Forgiveness (2002), Looking in the Distance (2004), Godless Morality (1999) and Doubts and Loves (2001). His latest book is Between the Monster and the Saint. Ramona Koval interviewed Richard Holloway at the Sydney Writer’s Festival.










