Joel Fitzgibbon

This is the last post I write before I go on a short holiday.

The funny thing is by the time I post this I shall be home from the holiday.

I hope we had fun.

I know who Joel Fitzgibbon is because I wrote a description by his name. Defense Minister. I think though I might have remembered anyway. Maybe? Who knows. It's really not something I can prove or disprove.

Speaking of the list, I'm starting to believe it's all fate. I know some of you don't believe in that stuff, and you're probably rolling your eyes at me. But it just feels to me that the person I end up getting each morning fits perfectly into my life. It's like the issues they're dealing with are exactly what I need to be reading and thinking about at that particular time. I can't say it works that way every single day, but a lot of times it does.

I don't know.

I believe.

As for Fitzgibbon....

Let's begin.

Baby Joel was born on 16 January 1962. He's too early to be an Aquarius I suppose. He'd be a Capricorn, right?

Birthday Website time!

He's an 8 in numerology like the guy I wrote about yesterday. Who was that? Ah, the architect. Francis Greenway. I can't believe I almost forgot him.

Yesterday was a very weird day for me. Someone found my blog while searching for Germaine Greer. They told me about this Facebook group they have. I looked at it, and one of the administrators was this woman named Fi. I knew of her because she was Facebook friends with my Facebook friend Dave. I had noticed her for some reason. She always looked kind of cool to me--like someone I'd want to be friends with. I'm not sure why I never added her as a friend. Maybe I was shy. Anyway, I thought it was one of those wow-it-sure-is-a-small-world coincidences.

What makes it even stranger is my friend Fe was REALLY on my mind yesterday. I know Fe and Fi aren't the same name. Or are they? Are they pronounced the same? I have no idea. But even if they're not..... I mean the names ARE very much alike. Before the Fi thing happened, I was doing research on Greenway. And there were things in the post that reminded me of our visit with Fe. It's like the universe was saying Hey, we know you'll probably be thinking about Fe all day, but just in case you don't...we're sending you some reminders.

I really should get back to Greenway.

He IS a Capricorn. I forgot what that is exactly, but I'm not caring at the moment.

Oh! Wow. I just saw that Fitzgibbon is NOT the defense minister anymore. He resigned...this month. Interesting.

Let's look at his childhood.

He was born in Bellingen New South Wales. It's about thirty minutes south of Coffs Harbour. Thank you, Google Maps. The town is a bit inland. Well, it's actually closer to the beach than I thought--about twenty minutes.

Google Maps is one of the best toys ever invented.

Daddy Fitzgibbon was in politics. He was the MP for Hunter from 1984 until 1996. Who took over when he left? His son.

Lord Wiki lists some of Fitzgibbon's pre-political jobs. He did some work with electric stuff. I guess he was a electrician. I don't see any colleges mentioned. Maybe he didn't go? That would be different.

There's confusing information coming from Lord Wiki. On the box off to the side, it says Fitzgibbon became a Member of Parliament in 2006. But then within the text stuff, it says Fitzgibbon was elected to the Opposition Shadow Ministry in October 1998 and was Shadow Minister for Mining, Energy and Forestry in 2003-05. Maybe from 2006 until 2008 he was an MP, but not a show Ministry MP? Am I getting it right? Totally wrong?

Anyway, Fitzgibbon was shadow this and that for awhile. Then when Kevin Rudd became Leader of the Opposition, he ended up being Shadow Minister For Defense. That is such a cool title. It really does sound so Harry Potter.

The problem with me doing this post is I don't really understand defense stuff.

Lord Wiki says Fitzgibbon was unhappy with a briefing involving a Joint Strike Fighter. What is a Joint Strike Fighter? I don't know. I don't care. But I feel I must go see.

It's a fighting airplane type thing. Anyway, I think Fitzgibbon had concerns. These were addressed, and then he felt better about the whole thing.

It's so depressing reading about all these war planes. Why can't all the countries say we don't want them. Let's fight with water balloons instead. When countries get mad at each other they should use water balloons and snowballs. Farting contests might work. Whoever farts the loudest....their people get to keep the country. If it smells bad enough, the other people will want to leave anyway.

Fitzgibbon was in some incident involving the Australian Federal Police. They did a raid on a journalist named Philip Dorling. Fitzgibbon claims not to have been involved. I guess he was suspected to be involved because Dorling may have got his hands on documents that were meant for Fitzgibbon. Fitzgibbon does not deny that maybe someone in his apartment contacted the police.

Would it be bad if Fitzgibbon was involved? If someone has stolen documents that belong to you, shouldn't you fight that. Maybe?

Okay, now the BIG scandals.

In March controversy began regarding Fitzgibbon's friendship with a Chinese-Australian woman. Some people in the defense department believed this friendship was a security risk. Huh? Why? Anyway, they launched a covert and unauthorized investigation into it all. This MIGHT have included obtaining the woman's bank details.

Fitzgibbon was furious about it all.

I don't think that's why he resigned though.

Lord Wiki says on 4 June he resigned because he held meetings with his brother, head of the health fund, and some defense people. It seems these meetings breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct. Why? Lord Wiki doesn't say. Lord Wiki is trying to be mysterious.

Well, I'm done with Mr. Mystery for now. I'm going to go to the official website of Joel Fitzgibbon.

I guess he's still the Federal Member for Hunter.

Here's a profile page. Ah, I guess it hasn't been updated. Fitzgibbon is still listed as Defense Minister.

Fitzgibbon has lived his whole life in Cessnock. Is that near where Lord Wiki said he was born? Nope, not at all. They're five hours away from each other. Cessnock is in the Hunter Valley area which explains why Fitzgibbon is the Member for Hunter.

So is Lord Wiki wrong? Or did Fitzgibbon move to Cessnock after being born in Bellingen?

Does it even matter? Probably not.

It seems Fitzgibbon DID go to university, but not right away. First he got an apprenticeship as an automotive electrician. He then spent ten years running his own business. That's pretty cool.

Later in 2004 he returned to school at the University of Newcastle and got a graduate certificate in Business Administration. What's the difference between a degree and certificate? From what Lord Wiki says, I'm gathering that it's faster and easier to get the certificate.

Prior to all this in 2004, Fitzgibbon also did some university work towards a degree in arts and law.

I personally think it's neat that he didn't do the traditional thing of rushing to university right after high school. I like that he got an apprenticeship, had his own business, and then later went to university. I think that's probably the best way to do things. What do we really know and understand after graduating high school? I think ten years of working and/or exploring the world would give us a better idea of what we want to study.

Fitzgibbon is married. His wife's name is Dianne. They have three kids. They have a Jack like us! They also have a Grace. Grace was the name of one of my Sims. She died recently, but had a nice long life.

Fitzgibbon loves sport. I think that might be a requirement for Australian politicians--probably American ones too.

Here's his Parliament page. I can read his first speech. I like those.

This one was done on 2 May 2006. I'm trying to think of where I was at that time. I think I had recently moved to NYC. I lived on 40th street at second avenue. Apartment 24a. If any of you have a time machine you can now go back and stalk me.

Fitzgibbon begins his speech by talking about his dad--the one he replaced.

He then talks about his mom and his wife.

His three kids were young when he got this Parliament job. Caitlin the oldest was six. The youngest was four. I can imagine it's hard being a politician and having young kids--probably harder when you're the primary caregiver. I'm guessing that role went to the mom. Still, I can imagine Fitzgibbon might have missed out on a lot. It doesn't have to be that way though. My dad had very intensive jobs. I DO remember him being gone a lot, but I also remember him being there a lot. I mean I don't look back at my childhood and teen years thinking my dad was never around.

Maybe it's all about perception. I don't know.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's very hard to be a parent AND have a intense career. But it IS possible.

Fitzgibbon says, Having read a number of first speeches, I note that it is traditional for a new member to make some reference to the history and geography of his electorate, its main industries and areas of employment and, of course, its main attributes. I do not want to spend too much time on this, because I think we should all spend a little less time talking about our individual electorates and more time talking about the regions of which they form a part.

The funny thing is yeah, most MP's make reference to their electorate. Fitzgibbon goes on for paragraphs about it! Actually, I think most of his speech is about Hunter.

I'm going to look at Google News now--try to get some ideas about these recent scandals.

Here's something from ABC--a transcript of a recent show about the scandals.

Fitzgibbon's brother had business meetings with defense officials in Fitzgibbon's office. I guess you're not supposed to do stuff like that.

Fitzgibbon says It is obvious, and it has been obvious over the course of the last few months at least, that I have at least two or three Judases in my midst.

Betrayal is quite complex. If we're the "good" guys and we're betrayed, than betrayal is a bad thing. But if someone is a Judas for the bad people, than it's probably a good thing.

The reporter of the show says Mr Fitzgibbon tendered his resignation as defence minister yesterday after revelations on Wednesday night that his brother who runs a private health insurance company, met an American health company boss in Mr Fitzgibbon's ministerial office.

I'm too ignorant of politics to understand why that isn't Kosher.

Fitzgibbon is asked to name his betrayers. He replies that if he knew who they were he wouldn't feel the need to resign. It's scary to feel you're friends with, or working with, someone you can't trust. It's even worse if you don't know which person is being distrustful. That's where paranoia enters.

Malcolm Turnbull says It says a lot about the culture of the Labor Party that the finger of blame is being pointed not at the minister that did the wrong thing, but at people who the minister says exposed him. He's blaming the whistleblower.

I have to wonder....Would the Liberal party act any differently? I kind of doubt it.

That's the problem when you have two opposing groups. People become extremely hypocritical. It's like election campaigns. If a candidate makes a grammatical error, the opposing party will ridicule him to no end. But if their candidate makes an error, it's excused or glossed over.

I'm avoiding the issue though. I'd say no matter which party it is, it's not right to blame the whistleblower. I was going to say it might depend on how the whistleblowers went about getting their information. Now that I think of though....I'm not sure.

Let's say a woman suspects her husband is cheating on her. She has reason to be suspicious. She asks him several times if he is cheating. He angrily denies it.

She's still suspicious so she sneaks a look at his mobile phone bill. Then she reads his email. Her suspicions are confirmed. What she did is not very ethical. But what were her choices? Should she just wait until her husband came forward? Should she let him continue to lie?

The wife approaches the husband about the cheating. Instead of apologizing, he attacks her for going through his email. If he had been honest, she wouldn't have had to gone through his email.

People do that when they're cornered. They try to deflect the blame.

Did Fitzgibbon do something really bad. I honestly don't know. This stuff goes over my head.

Did he resign because he feels guilty? Or did he resign because he feels there's no point in him having the job--he's going to be too busy fighting his Judases?

Here's an editorial about Fitzgibbon.

It says after Fitzgibbon found out he had been investigated he started borrowing his wife's phone. I guess he felt more safe doing things that way.

The editorial asks....was Fitzgibbon the first victim of a new kind of McCarthyism where any official was immediately under suspicion if he had connections with ethnic Chinese people, Australian citizens or not?

What about this Chinese woman made people suspicious?

Okay. The editorial names some of the issues.

She (Helen Liu) knows a lot of high ranking Chinese military officials.

Fitzgibbon rented an apartment from Liu.

She made lots of donations to his campaign.

I think one thing we're all learning from this post is that I do not know a lot about government/business ethics.

I understand some stuff. I understand it's unethical to donate to a campaign and then expect the elected official to vote in a way that will benefit you or your organization. THAT I get. To me, that's fairly basic. It's bribing basically.

I'm less clear about these unethical associations. So, if you're in government you shouldn't be friends with, or do business with, people who are high up in other governments?

I'm also confused about the stuff with Fitzgibbon's brother. He's in health and he met with health officials. Now I can sort of understand if he worked with Australian health officials, but why would it matter if he worked with American ones?

I just don't get it.

I hope some of you explain this to me. I hope to get both sides of the story--those of you who are on Fitzgibbon's side, and those of you on the whistleblower's side.

I'm not too happy with this post. It's making me feel dumb. It's eroding my fragile self-esteem.

I'm going to stop reading the news.

I think I'll look on YouTube and watch some fun videos. Maybe I can find some parliament stuff.

Here's a video about the China connection thing. It looks like a YouTube user put it together. I'm trying to understand their angle. The title of the video is How Close is Too Close To China. Attack on Joel Fitzgibbon. It's subtitled in Chinese. I'm wondering if a Chinese person made it--trying to blow the whistle on anti-Chinese racism.

I guess I should watch the whole thing before making a judgment.

It's pretty much a montage of news clips. It's emphasized that this Chinese woman is AUSTRALIAN. She's an Australian citizen. On one hand, being Australian doesn't exclude you from being a security risk. Any Australian whether white, black, yellow, or turquoise could be a security risk to the country.

On the other hand, there COULD be something racist or xenophobic about the whole thing.

Here's a video of Fitzgibbon being interviewed by ABC about his resigning.

He's asked why he resigned. He said he did it because he felt the attacks on him were hurting the government.

So is that the true story? Is Fitzgibbon an innocent man who resigned to be noble? Or is he a guilty man trying to look noble?

I truly do not know.

Ah, they ask him a good question. How much was the resignation his idea, and how much of it came from advisers?

He said it was entirely his decision. But he does say if he hadn't resigned and the attacks continue, eventually Rudd would have to sack him. Fitzgibbon says he didn't want to put Rudd into that decision.

Fitzgibbon says he didn't know about a meeting held in his office until he saw some transcripts. I'm guessing maybe that was the meeting that involved his brother.

Okay, I'm gaining a little understanding now. Maybe.

I guess the accusation is that brother Fitzgibbon and the American health company might have gained advantage from their connection to Fitzgibbon. Fitzgibbon says this is not the case. It was more like they were trying to learn from each other.

I think I'm getting this. It's kind of like someone being friends with someone who is a CEO of a corporation. If the CEO gives his friend insider trading information, THAT is bad. It's illegal. But if the CEO gives his friend friendly advice on starting up a company, that's not bad or unethical.

Am I getting this at all?

The problem seems to be that the meeting was held in Fitzgibbon's office. If I was Fitzgibbon, I'd be pretty angry with my brother. He's be getting a very small present for his next birthday. I guess the big question is did the meeting really take place without Fitzgibbon's knowledge.

Fitzgibbon talks about being guilty until proven innocent. He says this is the reason why he's resigning. I understand that. But what if every innocent person resigned from government when they were accused of something? What would happen to a country? I mean I DO understand that all the accusations and fighting can cause problems. But it wouldn't be good if everyone walked away once things became difficult.

Fitzgibbon says he believes the people betraying him are those that are close to him. I think that might give better insight into why he quit. It's really hard to work if you can't trust the people who you're working with. However, then the question is if you're innocent do you need to worry about people betraying you? I mean you DO have to worry because some people lie and plant false evidence. But then that goes beyond betrayal. That's something much worse.

Fitzgibbon says there were people who didn't like him because he was making aggressive reforms. He talks about being unpopular saying that Paul Keating said if you don't have enemies, you're not achieving much. I think that's true. If we don't have people who dislike us, or oppose us, is it because we're so good or is it because we're too careful?

I'm looking at Twitter now. Dilekk says, Anyone know what people thought joel fitzgibbon was up to, when he failed to declare gifts, n his relation wif Ms Liu?? For assignment.

Well, that brings me new insight. Did he really fail to declare gifts? Because with THAT, I do understand why and how it's wrong. I think anyone in government should have to declare gifts--at least within a certain minimum. I mean I don't think you need to declare a pack of gum......

Thank you, Dilekk for pointing that out. And I'm sorry you lost your wallet. That sucks.

Here's an article about it...not the wallet, but the declaring gifts. Liu bought Fitzgibbon a suit and paid for him to stay in a hotel. Yeah. I do think stuff like that should be declared. I guess it depends on what her influence is in terms of government and business. Could the gifts have influenced any of Fitzgibbon's decisions? Maybe. Maybe not. Still. I think being upfront and honest is the best policy in all of this.

Fitzgibbon is trying to paint himself as an innocent man persecuted and then noble enough to step down to protect his government.

I'm not sure if that's the story I would paint.

I can't say Fitzgibbon is a BAD man. He might be good for the most part. I just have a feeling that the suspicions of his betrayers were probably somewhat warranted.

Francis Greenway

Francis Greenway is the last name I added to the list while we were in Australia.

I have no idea who he or she is.

I guess I shall go find out.

He's an architect....a longtime dead architect.

I have no idea why I added him to the list. Maybe he was another person that Birmingham mentioned in Leviathan?

I can't say I'm really into architectural history, so I'm guessing there was something unique about him that excited me. Although it could be that I felt I wasn't adding enough people. I might have said next name I see...I'm adding them!

Anyway, I'll begin.

Baby Francis was born 20 November 1777. His birthday is two days before mine.

I'm not sure if the birthday website goes back that far. I'll have to see.

Nope. The farthest they go back in 1809.

It doesn't matter. I can find out the information on my own.

First I'm pretty sure he's a Scorpio. I'm on the cusp of Scorpio and Sagittarius. I can conclude then that Greenway was a Scorpio.

Now I'll get out my calculator to do the numerology stuff.

1777 is 1+7+7+7=22 and that would be reduced to 2+2=4
November is 11 and that's reduced to 1+1=2
20 is 2+0=2
Then we go 4+2+2=8

8.

I hope I did the math right.

I'd be embarrassed if I didn't.

Anyway, 8 is about financial success and stuff like that.

Oh! I'm going to go back to that cool numerology website I found the other day.

They say this about the 8: You have the potential for enormous success and the possibility to accumulate great wealth. You are also a good judge of character a natural leader and a survivor.

That's some of the positive.

Here's some of the negative: You might be stubborn, intolerant, impatient, stressed, materialistic, impatient with people, arrogant and reckless. You have the power to accumulate great wealth, but you also susceptible to loosing everything.

I wonder if any of that resembles Francis Greenway.

Greenway was born near Bristol England. In college I had a crush on this guy from Bristol. Jesse Woodward. We hung out sometimes. He sadly left after my freshman year. Years later I was walking home from the subway station when I heard a British person calling out to me. This is horrible to say but I thought he was trying to sell me shampoo or something. In NYC at the time, British people would stop woman to talk to them about their hair products. I think they were doing surveys or trying to sell something. I ignored him for a bit, but then finally stopped and turned around. It was Jesse from college. It's funny running into people like that. The last time I had seen him was in Tennessee. And then we both end up in NYC....

You know I used to think that story was so much more amazing. Now it's kind of lost its thrill. I think maybe it's because we're so much more likely to be reunited with old schoolmates via the Internet. Although I personally HAVEN'T found that many people. That's why I put their full names on my blog. I'm hoping someone will google themselves. So far no one has done it--or at least they haven't landed on my blog. I guess I somehow ended up befriending people who are all technophobes.

I should probably get back to Greenway.

He did work in both Bristol and Bath. I went to Bath with my family in the 1990's. I don't really remember much though.

There's one Greenway building left in England. It's the Clifton Club in Bristol. The building took five years to complete and opened on November 1811. I guess that would have made Greenway thirty-four at the time.

According to Lord Wiki, before the building opened Greenway became bankrupt. Ouch.

In 1812 Greenway forged a document. He got in big trouble for that. He was sentenced to death.

Oh wait. He might not have forged the document. He pleaded guilty to forging the document. That's a big difference.

I guess he was told his best chance was in pleading guilty. That happened in an episode of Medium we watched a few weeks ago. An innocent man was told by his lawyer to plead guilty.

Was Greenway innocent?

I don't know.

Fortunately for him, his sentence was changed from death to Australia.

Greenway was somewhat friends with Arthur Phillip who had since retired to Bath. Philip sent Macquarie a message on Facebook, putting a good word in for Greenway. He also sent Macquarie a virtual snow globe and a virtual ice-cream sundae.

Greenway came to Sydney in February 1814. His ship was the General Hewitt.

This website has some information about the ship. I'm going to read it.

It talks about a journey that left England in August of 1814. I'm guessing Greenway was on this ride.

The ship had 515 people. Conditions were not pleasant on the ship. People got dirty. People got sick....dysentery and Typhus. Yuck.

This has information too. I think it confirms that this was the passage Greenway was on. It says they arrived in Sydney on 7th February 1814. And Lord Wiki does say that's when Greenway appeared in Sydney. The information matches.

Because the passengers were in such a bad state, Macquarie ordered an enquiry. It was determined that the commander had been negligent.

Greenway was lucky enough to be allowed to go back to doing his architecture stuff. Lord Wiki says he designed a geometric stair for Ultimo House. I have no idea what that means.

This website has photos of geometric stairs. I guess they're stairs that curve in a fancy way rather than just going straight up and down.

I've forgotten where Ultimo is. I need to look at Google Maps.

It's right near Darling Harbour. I'm ashamed of myself for forgetting that. It's not that I expect myself to know every little thing about Sydney. It's more the fact that we were in that area at least twice. I should have remembered it!

Greenway met Macquarie in July of 1814--that's five months after he arrived. Macquarie asked Greenway to build a town hall. He gave Greenway an instruction book to follow. Greenway was offended by this. He felt he was above merely copying a building. And I think also Greenway wasn't impressed with the building he was supposed to copy.

Lord Wiki doesn't really say whether he did the building or not. Maybe I'll find out later. Do you guys notice that whenever I say that I DON'T end up finding out. I've noticed that phenomena when I've gone back to proofread my entries. I say I might find out later and then I never do. Oh well. Who knows. Maybe this time things will be different.

Between 1816 and 1818, Greenway did the Macquarie Lighthouse.

This website has a photo of the lighthouse and information about it. I think Fe pointed this landmark out to us from her amazing balcony view.

The lighthouse was made from Sandstone. Macquarie liked it. He liked it so much that he granted Greenway his freedom. If you build a baseball field in America, ghosts come and become your friends. If you build a lighthouse in Australia you become a free man.

Oh! It seems I might NOT have seen the Lighthouse from Fe's balcony. It seems the lighthouse deteriorated. Greenway warned the governor that this might happen because of the sandstone. His predictions came true. They had to build a new lighthouse.

Here's something interesting on the site. Australia's first lighthouse keeper was Robert Watson. Watson Bay is named after him.

I love this stuff.

I just read the website more closely. The new lighthouse is a replica of Greenway's. So although I didn't see Greenway's lighthouse, I saw one that looked like Greenway's. Although honestly we were very far away. I probably just saw an obscure white thing. And maybe that wasn't even the lighthouse Fe was pointing to. Maybe we didn't even see a lighthouse. My memory may be playing tricks on me.

Greenway went on to build famous buildings in Sydney.

He's responsible for the Hyde Park Barracks, St. James Church, and the new government house.

We went to Hyde Park Barracks. That was the same day I met Fe for the first time. This is turning into a Fe post. It's funny because Fe is strongly on my mind this morning for reasons beyond Greenway and this post.

I might have gone to St. James Church. I walked up the steps of some church and peered inside. Was that St. James? Let me go see if I can do a blog search and check.....

I can't find it.

I'm going to see if I can find it on Google Maps. That might give me a clue.

It's right above Hyde Park--near St. James station. Ah! St. James Station and St. James Church. Who is James anyway?

I just looked in my notebook filled with the notes I took in Sydney. It was St. Mary's I visited, not St. James.

Now I'm looking for information on who St. James is. I guess he's one of the twelve apostles. That's pretty damn significant.

I'm guessing St. Mary is named after THE Mary.

Back to Greenway.

Macquarie developed some issues with the guy. He felt Greenway charged too high of a fee. The next Governor, Brisbane, dismissed Greenway. Ouch.

Things didn't go quite well for Greenway after that. At one point, it seems, he sent out an advertisement begging for money. Poor guy.

He died of Typhoid in 1837. He was 59.

From 1966 to 1993 Greenway's face was featured on the ten dollar note. Lord Wiki remarks that he may be the only man convicted of forgery to be honored on money. Yes, the irony is very cute.

Oh! Cool! Lord Wiki has a list of Greenway's buildings and photographs of some of them.

He did Sydney Government House. Yeah, I know I mentioned that above. But is that the building in the Royal Botanical Gardens?

Okay. Yeah. It is.

If I'm understanding Lord Wiki right though, Greenway designed only part of the house.

There's a suburb of Canberra named after Greenway. I don't think we saw it.

Well, I'm done with Lord Wiki. I shall go and try to find other websites.

I have to admit I'm having more fun with this than I thought I would.

I think I know why I added Greenway to my list. I'm intrigued by convict success stories. I think it's so awesome that people were on death row. Then they get sent to Australia and become highly successful. It IS quite unfortunate though that Greenway didn't stay successful.

I think stories like this are very inspiring. You can hit rock bottom and still have hopes of rising to the top.

On the other hand, you can rise to the top and then die of Typhoid.

Life is a rollercoaster. It has its ups and downs. I hope all of you who are reading this have more ups than downs. That's my little prayer for you.

I'm looking at the Greenway entry on the Australian biography website.

Greenway had a wife...Mary. They had three kids. The children and their mother came to Sydney after Greenway did. Their ship was the Broxbornebury.

Immediately after arrival to Sydney, Greenway had a private practice. The website says his office was at 84 George Street. I wonder if that's near the Passionflower Ice Cream place we went to.

I'm looking at Google Maps. 84 George Street is in The Rocks.

The biography website says Greenway was self-confident, temperamental, and quick to take offense.

Governor Macquarie asked Greenway to do a critique of the Rum Hospital. Greenway didn't give it rave reviews. He gave it quite awful reviews. Expensive changes had to be made. People were not happy with Greenway. The experience gained him enemies.

I wonder.....

Was he overly harsh--like nasty Simon Cowell and other famous critics of today? Or were people overly sensitive?

I have very low tolerance for nasty critics. It seems a lot of people criticize just to be mean. They're not helping anyone really. To me, it's just a form of bullying.

But I also have low tolerance for people who can't handle CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. I mean it IS hard to take sometime. We all want to believe our work is perfect and 100% lovable. But often there is room for us to grow.

I've received a lot of criticism for my writing. I joined critique websites and all that. Most of the people who commented on my work were very nice and fair--sometimes I agreed with what they said and sometimes they didn't.

A few years ago I got involved with some writers on Livejournal. They did this thing where they shared a piece of their work and people would make comments. One time a young woman shared revisions of part of her novel. I told her I liked it, but I was honest and said I personally preferred the earlier version. She was furious and fairly nasty. I then took a closer look at these writings that people shared. I noticed that the comments for the most part were all positive. Whenever these people shared their writings, their followers patted them on the back with flowery praise. I really do NOT understand what the point of that is.

It reminds me of something I read a few weeks ago regarding blog cliques. The author says, I hate PR blog cliques. I find them to be pathetically juvenile. You know the bloggers I mean: the ones that constantly link within their little circles; the ones that feel the need to shower their buddies with praise and thanks for even mentioning them; the ones that can’t post an original thought without being assured that their clique-mates will back them up if anyone dares to speak out against them or their opinions.

I think that's the danger of too much praise. It makes us feel we we should be immune to criticism or disagreement.

I'll admit that at times I've wished I had loyal followers. I've wished to be one of those bloggers who ends up with at least ten comments on each post. I've wished to have my own cheerleading squad. But if that happened, the sad truth is I might become as nasty as some of the other people who have been bestowed with such a gift. The sad thing is I just thought to myself Well, so and so have tons of comments on their blogs. And they're so sweet and nice! They're not mean at all! You know what though....with these particular people, I've never said anything to disagree with them. It's not that I've been afraid to. It's just they haven't said anything I've had issues with. What if I did disagree with them? Would they accept that and be civil? Or would their number of faithful followers make them feel they are undeserving of disagreement? I honestly have no idea.

And what would I turn into if it happened to me? Is it inevitable that someone with too many fans (or a small number of zealous fans) will turn into some kind of monster? Can we be adored without getting a swell head? And if we get a swell head, can we still manage to be kind to the people who don't act like they worship the ground we walk on?

I need to get back to Greenway.

He was arrogant.

He had his talents, but was disliked by some people.

His wife was the opposite of Greenway--self-effacing. I wonder if they got along well or not.

Greenway had some fights with Macquaire about land. Greenway was granted pastoral land, but he wanted town land.

Greenway struggled as Lord Wiki said. He got a small amount of private business. He did some writing. He tried to make something of his land, but it was marshy and yucky. Poor guy.

I guess in the end his arrogance was his downfall. At least that's the impression I'm getting. He kind of reminds me of Gordon Ramsey.

I think when you're great at something but an asshole, at first people will love your work so much they'll forgive your personality. But then after awhile they realize your work isn't THAT great. And it's not worth it.

That's a lot like how I felt about the Passionflower ice-cream place. I can't deny it. That ice-cream was the best we ate in Australia. But the attitude of the place was very arrogant. To me, it's not worth going back there. I'd rather eat at a place staffed by nice people...even if the ice-cream is a little less great.

I wish though that Greenway hadn't died so poor and lonely. I wish he could have changed. I wish he could have become less arrogant. And I wish the same for Passionflower. I don't wish it to burn to to ground or go out of business. I wish eventually they'll realize it doesn't matter how great their ice-cream is. They can still be more pleasant to their customers.

We ate at Scoops in the South Coast. The ice-cream wasn't out of this world. It was fairly nice. But the people working there were SO incredibly friendly to us. Because of that, we have very fond memories of the place.

Anyway, I think I'm going to stop here. I have a feeling most websites are going to give the same information. And besides that....I'm ready to quit and do other things.

Tim Flannery

I read one of Flannery's books. It was about kangaroos.

I added him to the list while we were in Sydney. He was mentioned in John Birmingham's Leviathan which I had been reading there.

I remember people, in comments, saying that Flannery is controversial because some of his climate change predictions failed to come true...or something like that.

I shall go talk to Lord Wiki and learn more.

Baby Tim was born on 28 January 1956.

His birthday is close to my brother-in-law's.

Flannery is an Aquarius.

The birthday website says in numerology he's a 5. 5 is about freedom.

This numerology website says this about the 5. You are an explorer and adventurer who wants to experience all of life. That probably fits Flannery. And scientist is one of the careers suggested for the 5. Flannery is a scientist.

I like that numerology website. I don't think I've seen it before. Maybe it's new? Or maybe it just climbed up in Google rank. Anyway, I'm bookmarking it.

Lord Wiki doesn't talk much about Flannery's beginnings. He talks more about his career. I'll start reading....

Flannery is a mammalogist and a paleontologist. Wow. He's also an environmental activist.

In 2007, he was the Australian of the Year. That's quite an honor, I'm sure.

He's a professor at Macquarie University. That's the same school The Wiggles went to.

I wonder what courses Flannery teaches.

Well, it looks like he's in the Division of Environmental and Life Sciences. It's interesting. Most of all the other professors have a link to their biography next to their name. Flannery does not. What's up with that?

Flannery is the chairman of Copenhagen Climate Council. It's basically a group of scientists and businesses trying to fight climate change. Unlike one of their opposing organizations, Copenhagen Climate Council DOES reveal who their sponsors are.

Flannery's early academic life is quite impressive. He's definitely well-educated--or at least HIGHLY educated.

In the late 1970's he did a Bachelor of Arts Degree at La Trobe University. I wonder if he knew back then that he wanted to be a scientist. Wait. Lord Wiki says he has bachelor degrees in English and Earth Science. Is that what he got at La Trobe? Did he get a Bachelor of Arts in a science degree? Can you do that? I'm doubting it.

Anyway, after La Trobe it seems he went to Monash University. He got himself a Master Degree in Earth Science. Then he went and got his Doctorate at the University of New South Wales.

The guy sure jumps around from university to university. Does he do this because each place is the best for what degree he is wanting? Does he feel it's best to experience a variety of learning environments? Or is he just the type of person who doesn't want to say in one place for too long?

Flannery has had various science jobs since finishing his degrees.

He was a professor at the University of Adelaide.
He was the director of the South Australian Museum.
He was a research scientist at one of Jack's favorite places...The Australia Museum.

Lord Wiki says that Flannery was also the visiting chair in Australia studies at Harvard! There's Australia studies in America? Really! That's so awesome. I didn't know that.

It doesn't seem like there's an actual degree in Australia studies. It's more like they have a program where they bring in Australians as professors, and they provide grants to people who want to study Australia. That's pretty cool.

Flannery is part of a group called Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. It's an Australian organization.

One of the ideas this group pushes is that farmers should be paid extra for using good environmental practices. That makes sense to me.

Flannery's early main interest was the evolution of mammals in Australia. He did a lot of work with finding new kangaroo species.

In 1985 Flannery was part of a big discovery--mammals bones from the Cretaceous period. Lord Wiki says this helped prove that mammals have been in Australia for at least eighty million years. Wow.

Flannery has done a lot of mammal naming and discovering, but most people don't pay too much attention to that. He gets more attention for his feelings about climate and population control.

In 1994 Flannery published a book I need to read someday. It's called The Future Eaters: An Ecological History of the Australasian Lands and People. In the book, Flannery pushes the idea that Aboriginal firestick farming had a drastic influence on Australia's ecology. Then the white people came and made things even worse. That was seen as controversial. Even more controversial is Flannery's idea that the population of Australia should be less than six million. Does he have hopes the Swine Flu will eventually help with this?

Flannery believes European livestock should be phased out and replaced with native species. Eat more kangaroos and Emus. Jack did his part when we visited. He bought kangaroo jerky.

In the book (which sounds incredibly interesting and entertaining) Flannery pushed idea of introducing non-native animals into Australia to replace the now gone mega fauna. He thinks the Komodo Dragon could replace this guy called the Megalania. That would be kind of cool. I think it would be even cooler if they played Jurassic Park and cloned the Megalenia back to life.

A few years later, Flannery wrote a book called The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change. Bill Bryson liked the book. I'm guessing the book is probably awesome then. Well, I don't know. If you admire someone and they like something, does that automatically mean you'll like it to?

Probably not.

And Bryson didn't like Canberra much. I loved it.

So, I probably can't take Bryson's opinions as gospel.

It seems the opinion of Flannery that has caused the most...I can't think of the right word. I don't think it's controversy necessarily. Maybe hesitation?

Anyway, Flannery is against coal-fired power generation in Australia. It seems this is the source of most of Australia's electricity. Flannery believes one day people will see coal-fired power in the way today people see asbestos.

Flannery is not totally against nuclear power.

Here's something interesting....He believes sulfur should be released into the atmosphere. He believes that will help block the sun.

It might. It also might make the world smell really bad. But I guess that's a small price to pay.

Flannery is not anti-whaling. Interesting. He infers that it's more ethical to eat a whale than be vegetarian. Is it more moral to kill and consume a whale, without cost to the environment, than to live as a vegetarian in Australia, destroying seven kilograms of irreplaceable soil?

Why is the soil irreplaceable? That I don't get. It goes way over my head.

I do agree with him about whale-eating though. If it's sustainable, I think it's totally fine. I don't understand people who eat hamburgers for lunch and then protest whale hunting. It's horrible if the whales are endangered. Yes. But if there's enough of them, I say make them dinner.

There was one of those Gruen Transfer commercials trying to push eating whale meat. They talked about how it's better to eat one whale then a bunch of cows. I'm going to see if I can find the commercial. Hold on. Here it is.

Flannery does want whales to be killed as humanely as possible. That's good.

I think we're all incredibly blind and hypocritical when it comes to animals. Someone will cry and protest when they hear a story of an animal being abused on the evening news. Yet for dinner they had a cow raised in a factory farm. That cow was probably treated no better than the abused animals on the news.

I'm bad myself. I refrain from meat because I don't want to contribute to the harm of animals in factory farm. Yet I go and eat dairy and eggs from animals that are probably equally mistreated. At home, we buy what SEEMS to be ethical. I never know what information to trust with these things. But when I go out I forget and order unethical crap.

Humans are a dumb species sometimes. And I definitely include myself in the mix.

I'm done with Lord Wiki. I'm going to take a break because my eyes are bothering me a bit. I'll come back soon and return to work.

Here's a website for Flannery's global warming book.

The website says this about climate change: It is a difficult subject and hard for people to evaluate dispassionately because it entails deep political and industrial implications, and because it arises from the very core processes of our civilisation's success. Right now our fate is in our hands, for we are the weather makers and we already possess the tools required to avoid catastrophic climate change.

I think that's very well said. It IS a hard topic to face. The implications of global warming are scary. Sometimes it's easier to deny it or play skeptic. It's easier to make jokes about it or have an attitude of apathy.

There are book reviews on the website. One comes from one of my favorite Australians...Peter Singer. Singer says At last, a book that sets out, for the general public, the irrefutable evidence that climate change is already happening, and we need to become very serious about it – fast.

This page gives ideas of how individuals can help prevent climate change. It makes me feel guilty because we don't do all the stuff. But we do some.

The Sydney Morning Herald has excerpts from the book. Flannery pushes the idea that as individuals we don't have to wait for government to step in and do something. If we all work together we can make a change ourselves. He says You can, in a few months rather than the 50 years allowed by some governments, easily attain the 70 per cent reduction in emissions required to stabilise the Earth's climate. All it takes are a few changes to your personal life, none of which requires serious sacrifice.

I guess it all depends on what your definition of personal sacrifice is.

I think for me it's easier to make small lifestyle changes. I recycle. I stopped taking daily showers. Yeah, I know some people might find that gross. I try not to go out driving just for the fun of it. We keep our driving outings to a minimum--at least Jack and I do. Tim is a different story--DEFINITELY a different story. We don't ever heat our pool. We endure the cold water. I don't eat meat which I do feel is significant in terms of the environment. I try to keep lights off when we're not in the room. In the daytime, we don't use lights if the room is naturally light enough. Right now I am working in the office with no lights. When we holiday in big cities we use mostly buses and trains rather than cabs. I don't buy a lot of new stuff. I'm not sure if that helps with global warming specifically. But it does help with the environment--wasting natural resources and all that.

Anyway, I think all that is easy.

I find it harder to make changes to our actual house. I do think we have green energy or whatever. Or at least we had it for awhile. We have some good light bulbs. But we don't have solar this and that. Maybe one day we'll get it.

This is a pretty cool idea. Flannery says It can be difficult to get children to turn off appliances when they are finished with them. One way to teach them is to examine the power bill with them and set a target for reduction. When it's met, give the kids the savings.

Maybe I'll try that with Jack. He understands that there's a global warming issues and WANTS to do the right thing. But he very often forgets to turn off the lights.

Walking instead of driving is something that Flannery suggests. I think walking is GREAT. If more people did it, we'd have less obesity issues and we'd help the environment. I think it's sad when people get in their cars and drive to a fitness center. If they just ran around the neighborhood they'd save gas money, membership money, and they'd be doing their part for the environment. I do understand the benefits of membership though. I guess there's a community atmosphere and you can use equipment you don't have at home. Plus, in Texas right now it's way too hot to take walks. Although the summer of my eating disorder, I'd wake up very early each morning, put Jack in a stroller, and take a long walk.

I don't do that anymore. Instead I play on my Bosu. I love it. It's easy to move from room to room. It gives me a great work out in little time. I know this because I end up quickly sweating and hurting. It's not electric so I don't waste electricity. I highly recommend this over treadmills and stuff like that. I actually hate treadmills though. To me they're total torture. It's so BORING. Even if I have a TV on, I'm bored.

I wish I lived in a big city where walking was the custom.

Fort Worth is not meant for walking. I mean people walk, but it's to walk their dog or exercise. They don't usually use walking as a means of transport. It's more like people get in their car, drive to a park, and then take a walk. And I'll admit it. We do that too sometimes. But I also try to walk to destinations. Jack and I will walk to the nearby shopping center sometimes.

It's hard for me to write this post without thinking of Steve Fielding and his I'm-not-a-skeptic promise. I'm wondering if he read Flannery's book in his quest to seek out the truth.

I'm going to look at book reviews for The Weather Makers on Amazon. I like seeing the variety of opinions. I'll look at one 5 star review, one 3 star review, and one 1 star review. I usually pay most attention to the 2-4 star reviews because I think they're more balanced. I feel the 1 and 5 star reviews are often from fanatic fans or people who are completely anti.

Stephen Haines from Canada loved the book. He says, Flannery's presentation is that of the convinced scientist and caring individual. His abilities as a science writer provide us with clearly spelled out conditions and solutions. He is an ardent supporter of personal steps to be taken to reduce that rate of change underway around us. He also shows how industries and governments can contribute to slowing the threat to our biosphere and thus, our children's future.

Bob from South Carolina thinks the book is mediocre. He says, the writing is engaging in this first part of the book, and Flannery's love of the interconnectedness of Earth's environments sets a fine tone. However, the last third of the book is a political polemic against "big oil" and "big coal," and a confusing call for governments to band together to do something immediately to regulate CO2 emissions, while somehow trying to distinguish this from Orwellian, alarmist responses. Flannery goes from a sensible scientist to an extreme scenarioist (if there is such a word).

I find I often have that feeling when reading a nonfiction book. I'll love the first part. Then when it gets to the end, I feel the author has gotten boring or is too dogmatic. I'll think yikes. Shut up already.

That's probably the same thing people say when reading my posts. What can I say for myself?

PHd G hated the book. He says, Tim Flannery is a paleontologist and mammologist. And a good one. He is also an environmental activist. As an activist, he has no background in climatology, meteorology or any subject even vaguely related to anthropogenic GW. Sorry.

I strongly disagree with this guy. Flannery has no background in climatology? I'm guessing what PHd G means by this is he never got a degree in Climatology. Who cares? He obviously got enough degrees in science to prove he's an intelligent and educated individual. Is it not possible that he couldn't educate himself on climatology? I'm educating myself about Australia. I don't need a degree and/or a university to do so. There's the Internet. There are books. There are museums.

Flannery has an Andrew Denton interview. I'll read that next.

It was aired in September 2008.

Climate change became a big issue for Flannery in the late 1990's.

Flannery believes we are in big trouble--deep shit. We need to get our act together.

Denton and Flannery talk about how people avoid the subject because the earth changing is unimaginable for them.

Flannery says And it’s also hard for people to imagine the sea being six metres higher if that Greenland ice cap collapses. Six metres higher that’s a lot of coastal cities will be in serious trouble if that sort of thing happens.

That's the part in Al Gore's slide show that scared me the most...all these great cities going underwater.

Flannery and Denton talk about how Earth will become scary and horrible if Global Warming happens the way Flannery predicts. There will be chaos and scare resources. There will be fighting. Life will kind of suck.

Flannery talks about the rainforest. He says And all of that carbon is stored in them, otherwise it would be out there in the atmosphere heating our planet, so incredibly important. And also they create rain. Rainforests create their own rain and cool the planet in the process. So we cannot remove one of the most important organs in the Gaian system without profound consequences. It’ll be like taking out your pancreas and saying “we’ll get by without it.”

I have to say it again.

We humans are dumb.

Maybe it would be better if we all died. No. Don't worry. I'm not planning anything scary or drastic.

Flannery is nicer than me. He thinks we're smart enough and good enough to make a change and save the world.

I should try to be more optimistic like him.

Flannery and Denton talk about how cities keep all these lights on.

Denton says Wouldn’t that be the simplest symbolic statement for a State Government to make to say we’re turning off the lights in our cities because they’re just showing off, we don’t need them?

Not only would that save a lot of electricity, but as Flannery says we'll also be able to see the stars again.

In a big city, I wonder how many lights are essential and how many are there just to make the city twinkle with excitement?

Denton talks about the climate skeptics. He asks Flannery if it's possible that he's wrong. Flannery says, It’s possible that I’m wrong, and I would be so relieved if I was wrong. Because we wouldn’t be looking at such a depressing few decades. But when I look at the science, the science that’s published, we go back to the projections of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change in 2001, they presented a pretty wide range of projections from modest warming through to very alarming warming. What we’re seeing in the real world is that we’re tracking the upper level of those projections; we’re tracking the worst case scenario, you know. I suppose I’d ask people like Andrew Bolt who given all of that information would you be happy for your Government to do nothing and risk your future and your family’s future on the hope that you’re right.

I think the point is there very well may be a problem. Really. What scenario would be worse?

1. There is no global warming. We save the rainforest. We take shorter showers. We use solar energy. We drive less. We walk more. We reduce, reuse, and recycle. Then it turns out we weren't responsible for global warming in the first place. There was nothing to worry about. We wasted our time and energy making those changes.

2. We decide the skeptics are right. We take long car rides just for the fun of it. When we stop off to shop we leave our spouse in the car with the ignition on. We buy. We waste. We throw away. We blast the air conditioner. We turn the heat on high. Then global warming happens. Cities are destroyed. Our grandchildren have horrible futures.

You know thinking about what I just wrote....I'm getting a bit pissed off.

Maybe Flannery is a bit of an alarmist. Who knows. It might not be as bad as he believes. I pretty much DO believe it's probably as bad as he believes. But let's say it's not. I think we can agree that it's at least a little bad. And even if it's not at all bad, the changes Flannery asks for should probably be made anyway. We shouldn't be cutting down trees left and right. We shouldn't be buying stuff just to throw it away a year later. We shouldn't be driving so much just for the hell of it. We SHOULD be walking more. I don't think it's just about global warming and the environment. I think it's about being decent and not wasteful.

Denton asks Flannery if he misses hanging out with dinosaur bones. Flannery says Yeah I do, I do. I mean, I enjoyed it, you know the, I suppose in a way that pre-prepared me for the climate stuff, because you can’t pick up a fossil without seeing evidence of the past climate, it’s changed through time.

So Flannery might not have a degree in climatology, but his degrees related to animals are strongly connected to what he's learning now.

I'm going to end soon, but first I want to see if I can find any good stuff on Youtube. Here's an interview. Flannery is asked about skeptics. He says there will always be people who don't believe. There's always going to be people that no matter what you do they won't budge. They won't change. But on the bright side, there ARE people who will listen, read, and open their mind.

This is scary and depressing. I can see why people want to believe Flannery has it all wrong. It's so much easier to be lazy and ignorant rather than knowledgeable and responsible for making changes.

Flannery says Australia is like the Middle East of renewable energy. That's a cute analogy.

Flannery is asked how Australia will be affected by global warming. He says anyone with a nice ocean view out their window will probably end up losing their house. In other words, they'll be underwater.

The great thing about Flannery is he's able to be an alarmist, but at the same time have hope. He talks about how people have changed the world in the past. He uses the example of slavery. Past economies were dependent on it. The slave owners probably used the same argument that people use today about energy. Yes, it's not right. But our economy will collapse if we demand too many changes too soon. There were probably people who said Think of how families will starve and be destroyed if we get rid of slavery.

Unfortunately though....slavery in some forms still exists.

Despite Flannery's attempts at optimism, all this makes me feel a bit hopeless. But I'll try to be more like Flannery. Sometimes I think the best we can do is just make changes in our own life. We can't wait for other people to agree with us and make the changes. Maybe there's enough people out there who will do the right thing. I hope.

I'm going to quit now because my eyes are still bothering me.

Peter Kennedy

Peter Kennedy is another name I added to the list while we were in Australia.

He's a part of a church, I think.

I don't think he's that huge of a deal yet, so I'm wondering if Lord Wiki even knows about him.

I'll go check.

Ah! He is there. It's a very short entry though.

I'll read it.

He was in Brisbane. I wrongly assumed he was in Sydney.

Kennedy is a Roman Catholic priest. He served at St. Mary's parish church for twenty-eight years. Then recently he was removed by Archbishop John Bathersby. His last service was done on 19 April 2009.

Lord Wiki has a copy of the letter that was sent from the Archbishop to Kennedy. It makes my skin crawl a bit. Well, the letter itself is not so bad. What's upsetting is the reason behind the letter. Apparently Kennedy's evil crime was blessing gay couples. Oh no! How could he do such a thing?!

It gets worse though. He also allowed women to preach.

Now I know religions have their sexism and homophobia. That's their business. But it's the way the letter is worded.....

Here we have, Because there is doubt about the validity of the many baptisms performed at St Mary's, I will nominate a special day in the near future when baptisms can be performed at St Stephen's Cathedral and certificates issued to parents concerned about validity, or those who are adult converts. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made it clear in March 2008 that invalid baptisms cannot be dismissed and forgotten. They must be corrected.

Yes, of course. We can't have babies baptized by the same priest who blessed gay people.

The Archbishop also says, Peter, making these decisions gives me no satisfaction whatsoever. The separation of Christians is contrary to all that Christ prayed for. Nor does such division promote the Kingdom of God. You have had ample time to make a considered decision. Please God the division that exists at the present time will be healed in the future, probably not in my time.

Yes, but it's okay to divide and exclude homosexuals?

Anyway, that's about it for Lord Wiki.

I shall seek more information elsewhere.

Here's a news article from 22 February 2009. That's when we were in Australia. I saw it on the news and added Kennedy to the list.

Sixteen hundred people attended a service on a Sunday morning (probably around 22 February) led by Kennedy. I think it was a protest service. The parishioners gave Kennedy a standing ovation and then sang the song "We Shall Not be Moved".

That morning there was supposed to be a service done by Kennedy's replacement. The police suggested that the replacement not do this speech. There were concerns for his safety.

Archbishop Bathersby was the subject of a bomb threat. That's very unfortunate. It just totally taints any message when people use terrorism.

This article says Kennedy was fired because of his use of lay people and politically correct language in his services.

The article also says Kennedy refused mediation talks with Bathersby. Why? I can't imagine it hurting to talk to someone. It's better than bomb threats.

Well, I need to read more about this.

Here's a much more recent article. This one is from June.

Kennedy formed his own church group called St. Mary's in Exile. The Catholic Church has suspended him from his priestly duties. So, anyone who joins his church can't call themselves a Catholic.

Well, they can't OFFICIALLY call themselves a Catholic. Because ANYONE can call themselves a Catholic.

Hi! I'm Catholic.

See? I did it.

Hi! I'm an astronaut.

See? I did that too.

This article agrees with Lord Wiki. What got Kennedy into trouble is he blessed openly gay people.

The article says the Catholic Church is trying to bully the exiles into not wanting to follow Kennedy. I hope those people put their desire to stand by their principles ahead of their desire to stand by their religious label.

It seems a lot of bloggers are talking about Kennedy.

Ozsoapbox had an entry about it in May.

Oh no! Kennedy did even more horrible things. He allowed a Buddhist statue in the church. What is this world coming to? He also let people sit instead of stand during the reading of the gospels.

I like this Kennedy guy. If more churches were this cool, I might actually want to be Christian. Well, no....probably not. But it still would be nice to know churches like this are out there.

I like what the blogger says here. Religion, like anything else in this world should be evolutionary (no pun intended), and instead of stifling slightly different interpretations of the same ideas and ideologies the church should be embracing them. After all, aren’t the gospels themselves four slightly different interpretations of the same series of events?

Amen to that.

The blogger also says, Last I checked the church is supposed to work for the benefit of the people, not declare them spiritually invalid Sadly, in a sea of pedophiles and pope scandal, one of the few positives to shine through the fabric of Catholic religion over the last few decades seems to be all but extinguished.

Amen to that as well.

The first commenter defends the Catholic Church. Such a priest is a serious danger to the catholic faithful who depend on their priests to convey to them the truths of their religion and not some half-boiled personal opinion. When such a pries refuses to mend his ways the Catholic church has no option but to remove his priestly powers until he sees the error of his ways.

I don't think Kennedy has made any errors. I think he's awesome. But I can agree with the commenter in some ways. What I'm wondering is why does Kennedy need to be a CATHOLIC priest? Why does he need their validation? Why can't he just be done with them and start his own branch of Christianity?

Let Roman Catholicism have their old-fashioned ways. Why try to fight them? Why not instead officially break away from them?

There's that saying, If you can't beat them, join them. How about instead of that we say If you can't beat them and you don't want to join them....start your own group.

There's an argument from the blogger and some commenters that the Catholic Church is losing followers. I guess the question is do you adjust your religion to keep the people, or do you stick by what you believe in? I kind of feel it should be the latter...even though I don't like what they believe in. I feel they should keep their Catholic church the way they want it. I feel people who don't like it should leave it and start their own new Church.

So the Catholic Church becomes very small. Is that so bad? Maybe in the end it becomes so small that it practically disappears. So be it. We'll just then know that the world has become more open-minded and tolerant. We'll know more people prefer the NEW church.

I guess I just don't see the point of trying to fight the Catholic Church.

This article says that a church community leader believes that Kennedy was treated more harshly than a priest convicted of child molestation.

That's sad. But again. Who wants to be part of that kind of church anyway?

I really feel they should stop fighting, say good riddance, and form a new religion.

Here's an interview on ABC.

Kennedy says It was fine in the medieval times to believe in heaven, earth and hell and purgatory. But see I think that is too simple, too facile, too easy. But if you're a Catholic theologian and you try to talk about these issues, immediately you will be placed under suspicion.

See, I think of heaven, hell, and purgatory as being kind of important to Catholicism. Why be Catholic if you don't believe in those things? Is it because you're afraid of going to hell if you're NOT Catholic? But if you don't believe in hell, then no worries!

Another priest named Terry Fitzpatrick says I think the church central has become much more conservative, and we've seen that under Benedict even more. He has a phrase that he uses “Klein aber Fein” you know like "Small but pure", which is a German saying, so it doesn't matter if the church gets smaller, but it will be much more pure, and it's a scary, almost Nazi thing you know.

I don't get that. How does being small and "pure" make something Nazi-like? Are they saying that because the saying is a German one? So all German things must be Nazi?

Fitzpatrick fathered a child. Catholic Priests are not supposed to have sex.

See, I don't agree with really anything that Catholic Church believes in. I'm pro-choice. I'm not anti-homosexual. I don't believe in Jesus. I don't believe in heaven and hell. I don't believe in purgatory. I think religious leaders should have sex and get married. But I don't try to fight the Catholic Church. I just don't join them. It's that simple.

At one point, someone came into the church to take pictures of Kennedy performing a Baptism. It was believed the pictures would be used to get Kennedy is trouble. There was audio taken of the event as well. On the tape, Kennedy is accused of hurting the guy's camera. Kennedy responds Good I hope I have! If you don't get out I'll damage you. You have no right to be here.

Yikes. Although I admire Kennedy for some of his political and spiritual beliefs, I'm not sure I'd want someone like him as my religious leader. Something about this guy is rubbing me the wrong way. I have an uneasy feeling.

Peter Kennedy's sister says, haven’t they got a life? Can't they be out there helping someone? Isn't there something they could be doing in the community instead of going into a church and spying? And if it's not their cup of tea, if they don't like it, they don't have to go there.

Yes! Exactly. So, why doesn't Kennedy take his sister's advice? If he doesn't like the Catholic Church, he does NOT have to be a part of it.

If you don't like Catholicism, you don't have to be Catholic.
If you don't like homosexuality, you don't have to be gay.
If you don't like Homeschooling, you don't have to homeschool.

An Archbishop says, When you look at some of the things that Peter says he believes in, or perhaps doesn't believe in anymore, heaven, hell, the Virgin Mary, whether Jesus existed, the divinity of Jesus, that's a jarring note when you hear them coming from the mouth of someone who is a Catholic priest.

Yeah, that's just too much in my book.

I mean I DO think religions should change with the times. And I think most of them do--or they break up into different sects. But I think Kennedy is going way too far. Why not make little changes gradually? How about a Catholic Priest that blesses homosexuals but still believes in Jesus, purgatory, heaven, and hell? What about Kennedy is still Catholic?

Kennedy says God is such a mystery. That it's so easy to fall into literalism and fundamentalism in religion. What can we know about Jesus? Basically there's nothing to corroborate his existence even.

Why is he even a priest?

Now in Judaism, there ARE Atheist and Agnostic rabbis. But what we do is divide ourselves into different groups. People call themselves Jewish, but they're not religious. They may be political or cultural Jews. There are Jews who celebrate holidays and do some of the rituals, but they don't believe in God.

One of my aunts belongs to a synagogue that is secular humanist.

In Chattanooga, I went weekly to a reform Synagogue. I'm pretty sure the rabbi was atheist--or at least agnostic.

I guess that's one of the good things about Judaism. There's flexibility. There's congregations that welcome homosexuals. There are congregations where women can be rabbis. If you don't like the way a congregation works, you can find a new one. Or you can be like me and just stop participating in congregational stuff.

Now I can't say there's total peace among Jews. We do fight with each other. We do question what other congregations are doing. But there's the idea that if your mom is a Jew, you are a Jew. That is that. It doesn't matter what you do or don't do, you're still Jewish. It's not a matter of being Jewish or not being Jewish. It's a matter of being a good Jew vs. a bad Jew.

I'm a bad Jew....well, according to people who follow a strict orthodox form of Judaism. Other Jews would say I'm a fine Jew.

Can Catholicism follow in the footsteps of Judaism--have different sects? Maybe. But the religions differ in that Catholicism has a hierarchy. They have a pope. I'm not sure why and how that makes a difference, but I think it does.

A guy in the interview says, If you belong to a club you value, what you do, what anyone does, is you stay in it and you do your level best to improve it so that you don’t take your bat and ball and go home or go somewhere else and play.

I think that's a good statement. But my question is what do Kennedy and his people value about the Catholic Church anyway? From what I'm reading they don't seem to value that much about it.

Kennedy says The most important thing about the Christian gospel is to try to stand in solidarity with those who are excluded, now we've been excluded. Because as a community we've stood with the excluded and the homeless and the broken, we are now homeless and excluded and broken. Maybe we're on the right track, because this is exactly what happened to Jesus. It's the Jesus story. But it's happened to a community.

Yes and Jesus was JEWISH. He wasn't Catholic. A new religion was formed. That's how life works.

Kennedy says We're quite Catholic and we'll go on saying that, and the Archbishop will have to deal with his bloody mindedness, in my mind, just a bloody mindedness.

But how are they Catholic? Is it because they still perform some Catholic rituals? So be it. Why can't they form a new religion and do the same rituals? A lot of religions borrow from each other. How many rituals of Judaism and Christianity are originally Pagan in nature?

Here's a MySpace for one of the members of St. Mary's in Exile.

The MySpace links to a poll on St. Mary's website. Where will you worship after April 19? 50% of the people said they'll join Kennedy. 28% of the people say they're going to stay at the church.

Wait. I think the St. Mary's Website is done by the exiles. They don't call themselves the exiles on the website though.

The website has a link to a group called FutureChurch. They're motto is we love the church. We're working to make it better.

I guess we can compare it to people who are not happy with their country. Some people say what I'm saying. Love it or leave it!

The thing is it's much easier to start a new religion than it is to start a new country...or move to another country. In terms of nationality, it makes more sense to try to fix your country rather than change it. For religions, I think it's easier to just leave and find something better.

I guess an argument would be that Catholics believe Catholicism is the one and only way to God. Maybe some of them believe that if they leave the Church, they'll lose their chance of going to heaven. So instead of leaving you try to change things.

I'm not quite buying that though. I'm doubting there are many exiles out there who truly believe they're not going to get the ticket to heaven because they're not sanctioned by the pope and his gang.

My feeling generally is that the Catholic Church is VERY rigid. But I think the exiles are being rigid as well. They want to be part of something they just don't fit into. It seems there are exiles and/or lapsed Catholics all over the world. From what I'm reading they might even outnumber the traditional Catholics. There's enough people to form a new religion. No one can stop them from doing the rituals of Catholicism. They can still do all the fun stuff--mass, baptism, hail Mary's, Rosary Beads, exorcisms, sing spooky songs in Latin, etc.

If you go to a shoe store and try on a shoe that doesn't fit, you can sit there and try to get the shoe store to change the shoe so it fits you. You can sit there all day working hard to make the change. Or you can realize Hey there are a LOT of shoes in this store. I can just find one that fits better. Or I can even design and create my own shoes!

Really. It's not always so bad to be an outcast. Sometimes it opens up wonderful new opportunities.

John Kerr

I know who John Kerr is, and I have to admit I'm not too excited to write about him. I'm tired of the dismissal.

People say it's my blog, and I don't have to write about what I don't want to write about. Actually, I think it's just Tim who said that.

I still feel obligated to write this post though. But maybe I don't have to talk about the dismissal so much. Maybe I can talk about other stuff. Yeah, that's like ignoring the big elephant in the room.

I'm sure I'll have to talk about the dismissal at least a little. Maybe I just won't DWELL on it.

I'll go and start my meeting with Lord Wiki.

Baby John was born on 24 September 1914. That would make him a Libra like my younger sister.

Birthday website time.

Kerr is a 3 in numerology. That's the number that's social and expressive.

So here we have a 3 Libra. I picture that person being outgoing and romantic--the type who'd write poetry and sing songs under your window.

Is Kerr that person?

I sort of doubt it.

But he could surprise us.

Kerr shares a birthday with Jim Henson and Phil Hartman. I liked both of those guys, and I was sad when they died.

Oh, here's something fun on the birthday website. If Kerr was still alive, and if he were a dog...he'd be thirteen years old. That's a cool piece of trivia there.

In the year Kerr was born, the population of Australia was only about five million.

All right. Let's move on.....

Kerr was born in Balmain.

We went to Balmain. That was the place where we had the "energy" mango smoothie that made Tim and I totally lethargic.

Today Balmain is cute and expensive looking. Back in Kerr's day it was working class.

Daddy Kerr was a boilermaker. Lord Wiki says that's a craftsman who works with steel.

Kerr went to Fort Street High School. Lord Wiki says it was selective and prestigious. I'm doubting the family had money, so I'm guessing Kerr had some smarts.

The school is actually a government school.

I'm looking at other famous people who have gone there.....

Edmund Barton
Michael Kirby

That's all the names I recognize. But there are TONS of names.

I don't remember talking about this school before, but I did a post on Kirby. I guess I've just forgotten.

Lord Wiki says Kerr won scholarships to the University of Sydney. He graduated in law with honors. Impressive. I'm getting the point here. The guy did well in school.

He was called to the bar in 1938.

Lord Wiki says Kerr met a guy named H.V Evatt when he was at the Fort Street school. Evatt did go to Fort Street, but he was twenty years older than Kerr. Maybe he became a teacher there? Lord Wiki doesn't mention him being a teacher though. Maybe he did some kind of alumni volunteer work in the school.

Anyway. He was there somehow when Kerr was there. It seems Kerr saw him a sort of mentor. Evatt became a judge in in the High Court of Australia. I guess maybe that's what inspired Kerr to get into law?

In the same year Kerr was called to the bar, he got married. He and his wife Alison ended up having three kids. I wonder if any of them are still alive.

During World War II, Kerr worked for an intelligence agency--Directorate of Research and Civil Affairs. Lord Wiki says this group is somewhat mysterious, and Kerr's involvement has inspired conspiracy theories. Fun!

In the late 1940's, Kerr became principal of the Australian School of Public Administration. This was basically a training facility for teachers who'd be sent to Papa New Guinea. The school was located in Mosman Sydney. Interesting.....

Around this time, Kerr was also the secretary-general of The South Pacific Commission. What the hell is that? I shall go read and see.

Well, it was founded in 1947. Kerr was the FIRST secretary-general. That's a pretty big honor, I think.

Lord Wiki says it's a group of countries who got together to protect the Pacific area. It's a political military type thing. In the beginning the participating countries were Australia, France, The Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and France.

The United Kingdom and The Netherlands eventually dropped out.

Today other countries have joined in the game--a lot of the small island countries.

In 1948, Kerr went back to doing law stuff. He represented trade union clients.

He joined the Labor Party. I wonder why he ended up causing the dismissal of a Labor Prime Minister. And why did he allow a Liberal PM to take his place?

Well, I guess Kerr didn't really stay Labor. Lord Wiki says he became disillusioned from it all when the party split in 1955. Ah, I guess what happened is it split into the Labor Party and Democratic Labor Party. The former was too leftie for Kerr. And for some reason he didn't like the latter party either. Maybe Kerr is just too picky.

In the 1960's Kerr was a big time lawyer.

Oh this is so boring.

I feel like I'm writing this guy's resume.

I'm just going to try to skip all that.

I'm going to read through and find the important interesting stuff.

For example, in the late 1960's, Kerr started becoming more conservative. He joined a group called Association for Cultural Freedom. It was eventually revealed that it received funding from the CIA. Wow, there's a conspiracy theory for you.

The Association for Cultural Freedom was an anti-communist organization.

In 1972, Kerr was appointed Chief Justice of New South Wales. Yeah, more resume stuff. I hope someone out there is finding this interesting because I'm sure not.

In 1974, the current Governor-General retired. Whitlam offered Kerr the job. The two didn't know each other that well. They weren't buddies. But Kerr was friends with people in Whitlam's Ministry. I think? I may be reading this wrong. I guess it was a friend of a friend type thing.

Wife Alison had also been a school peer of Margaret Whitlam.

I guess all these things made Whitlam feel he could trust Kerr.

Whitlam thought Kerr was Laborish. He didn't quite realize that Kerr had crossed over to the other side. Oops.

Ah! Here's some soap opera stuff.

Shortly after Kerr became Governor General, his wife died. I sort of remember reading that in Whitlam's book. Anyway, shortly after his wife died, Kerr found himself a new wife. He married her six months after his wife died. In situations like that, I often wonder if the new lovebirds had something going on BEFORE the death of the first spouse. I'm not saying they were engaged in adultery. It could have been PG-rated, and then moved up a rating when the other spouse was out of the way. Who knows......

Lord Wiki says that in those days, the role of the Governor-General was seen as mostly being just ceremonial. And that's how Whitlam saw it. You know, it's something you put on your resume or your headstone. It makes you look cool. Kerr saw things differently. He didn't care what the current beliefs were. He cared what the constitution said. And the constitution says the Governor-General has POWER. He can wave his wand and do all type of wicked things.

The Whitlam government won the election for their second term. They had one itsy bitsy problem. They didn't have control of the senate. Uh oh! The senate blocked the budget. Ouch.

There's tons of stuff on the dismissal. I'm skimming over it. I'd tired of it. Sorry.

I'll skip to the after effects.

Kerr became super popular. People threw parties in his honor. At bakeries, his face on the cake was the most popular pastry purchased for children's birthday parties.

No, I'm joking...of course.

Kerr became a much hated man. Lord Wiki says he couldn't go out in public without facing angry demonstrations.

All the hatred towards Kerr was hard on him. It's believed he turned to alcohol.

I do feel sorry for the guy. But I feel sorry for anyone who's hated that much....even when they do something very wrong.

Kerr eventually moved to Europe with his wife. He died in 1991. That's the year I graduated from high school.

I'm done with Lord Wiki.

Now I'll look elsewhere.

This dismissal website says this about Kerr. The man appointed by Whitlam to the position of Governor-General in 1974 is variously portrayed as a man of principle, a deceiver, an insecure man desperate to make his mark on history, a drunk.

It's funny how each of us is perceived in different ways.

We're all complicated human beings. Each one of us is liked by some and despised by others. I guess the better situation would be to be loved by those who know us well and despised by the people who hardly know us. If it's reverse....well, that's sad.

I guess what I'm saying is I think it would be better to be a man despised by a nation, but loved and trusted by his family, than a man celebrated by a nation and feared and despised by his family. I guess there are exceptions of course...like if you're a mass murderer, but your family supports it because they don't like the people you're killing. That wouldn't be good at all!

Here's an article about the dismissal.

It says that Kerr went behind Whitlam's back and talked to a Liberal High Court chief justice...Garfield Barwick. I'm getting that this guy told Kerr he could do the whole dismissal thing.

The article has a excerpt from The Age in 1975. It says, Yesterday was the most extraordinary in the political life of this nation. It was also one of the most regrettable. The decision of the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, to dismiss the Whitlam Government was, we believe, a triumph of narrow legalism over common sense and popular feeling.

Narrow legalism. It reminds me of when horrible criminals don't get punished because they get off on some trivial legality.

Here's something that might be interesting. It's on that dismissal site again. It's Paul Keating's condolence speech after Kerr died.

Keating says, Sir John Kerr was a person of substance. He was very interested in public affairs and public life. He is like a lot of frustrated people of quality: they want to be in public life, but never ever make the jump; they never quite take the chance. He was such a person.

I can't say I understand that very much. He's quality. I got that. He wants to be in public life. I got that. I just don't get the part about him not making a jump. He jumped into the role of Governor-General. And then later he jumped into the whole dismissal mess.

Yeah, I don't get it.

I like this quote better. He was a person of substance. But, in the end, one has to follow that substance with integrity. He lacked the integrity in dealing politically with the Prime Minister and he has suffered history's admonition as a result.

I like Keating's speech. I think it's fairly balanced in terms of talking about the recently deceased. It's not all flowery--making the dead person seem like a saint. That's annoying. But he doesn't cruelly trash Kerr as Germaine Greer did to Steve Irwin.

I think I'm going to quit. I've been playing on Google for the last ten minutes and haven't found anything that really catches my interest. I was kind of hoping to find some more early biographical stuff about the guy. I'm not finding much.

I'll try one more time. I don't like giving up.

There's an autobiography book about the guy. Maybe I should read it someday....

Well, I'm still not finding anything.

I'm going to say good-bye, and go eat lunch with my family.