Haters gonna hate ... because they care

I tried to keep my footing on the high ground.

I've never been publicly vilified before. I'm not thin-skinned, I just want everyone to like me. And it's also a little unpleasant reading inaccurate personal smears about yourself on a "news" website.  Not one many people read or take very seriously though, so it's okay.

Long story short, a young journalism student - one with good intentions, from up here on the moral path - wrote a scathing article for a student paper criticising the culture at one of Australia's most influential newsrooms. She raised some important issues but probably undermined them a little by being too passionate and making a couple of silly comments - oh well, she's a student, she's learning.

And what a lesson. The angry mob of haters down on the low road saw her slip and went after her without pause. She got on the wrong side of some of the loudest, haters. (I'm not linking to any of it because I don't think it deserves any more attention, but it's easy enough found)

One group in particular, a small wagon of trolls who go by the name Vexnews, accused her of bullying and backed it up by launched a shameful character assassination in the most irrelevant, personal manner. I thought it was pretty disgusting, and ventured over to Twitter, where the higher road is so narrow its almost impossible to keep your balance, to make a point to the group's leader:

"Andrew Landeryou pretty much declared fair game for personalised hate & humiliation on himself. But I’d rather forget he exists #huntern"

I was trying to encourage some reflection without sinking to his level. It was condemnation of that bullying, not a rallying cry for revenge. Hence the comment was made and I moved on.

Until the next day when I heard I'd been quoted on the website, and was initially somewhat pleased that one small comment from a nobody like me had drawn a reaction. I'd gotten under their skin.

Being presented as the face of a group of  "winged monkeys" displaying "strident inner-urban leftist intolerance and viciousness", many of whom did actually make quite abusive, counter-productive comments, was unsettling. Seeing a photo and information they'd obtained by trawling through my Twitter feed and blog gave me the creeps. Being a diligent investigative journalist reporting in the public interest, I had been "closely examined".

Of course, expressing my displeasure only made it worse. His eyes lit up like Gollum's and he pounced at me. I was now accused of violent tweets and being a "yoga practitioner". Good grief!

Fortunately, I have a common name. It's highly unlikely that a potential employer, partner or stalker will come across this slander through a simple Google search. And I didn't cop anything like what the student did, and many many others have across all forms of media. Still, it's true, I'm not comfortable with the existence of this inaccurate portrayal of me out there on the internet. 

To the editor's credit, I do appreciate that he didn't publish my Twitter handle or blog address. Not that I think the site's horde of haters have any interest in me, which is exactly why I don't understand the whole response.

What do you do though. Until this post, nothing. And this is less a vengeful spiel as a consideration of how to handle these situations without stumbling down from the high ground.

No one ever convinced anyone of anything through aggression, anger, shouting, bullying or swearing. Which is a shame because it's so much fucking easier.

It's just likely to encourage a person to bunker down in their beliefs and more vigorously defend them; they become more concerned with defending themselves than listening to you. Unless they are a supremely calm, awesome person. I'm not, I regularly find myself frustrated and angrily stumbling down the rocky path down to the low road, usually on a Monday night, around 9.30pm. I like to think I avoid anything personal or vicious, but you have to keep your passion in check when it gets counter-productive. Slip ups and falls are inevitable, especially when you feel strongly about something, as the student did.

Are always going to yell and throw shit at you. It can be pretty hard to ignore once you start paying attention so it's best not to look down at them for too long, and the best response is a polite one. It's hard not to hate what Andrew Bolt writes most of the time, because so many people are misinformed by it, but there's no point taking him on or even engaging with someone so self-confident who thrives in confrontation. It makes them stronger. Sometimes you just can't defend yourself against a rampaging snowball of hate - getting caught up in it just makes it bigger. I don't understand what drives Bolt's personal attacks though, he doesn't seem to really care about much at all. Maybe he's just a professional shit-stirrer, and he is damn good at it.

On the other side of the debate, Catherine Deveny is someone with whom I share many views, but I can't bear her attitude and tone. It doesn't get us anywhere, just gives people a simple, flawed justification of their dislike for "lefties". Frankly, I think the whole 'left vs right' way of framing political and social 'battles' is lazy and distracting.

There's always a reason someone invests their time and energy into hateful attacks. For whatever reason, they care. Every spitball of spite they shoot up at you just shows they care, sometimes to the point of obsession. If they didn't care they'd be indifferent - indifference is the real opposite of hate.

They're loud because they need to be. Its easier than actually coming up here and talking to us. And this road is difficult enough to hold without looking down. Actions are more potent than words. It's better,  if much more difficult, to let it go and keep the high ground. If they want to engage, they can put their energy into climbing up a little and seeing how much better the view is up here.

And I ought carry on trying to make my way up a little further, so I can do something good with my time and energy.

I'm sure you lose points for assuming to have the high ground in the first place!

Comrade Ryan out, with a song that always gives me a boost above the shit flying everywhere, and a better outlook on life.

Short story - 'The Other Woman'

Below is a story written for the Stringybark Short Story Award, themed 'Seven Deadly Sins'. It appears, slightly edited (more on that later) in their eBook compilation of Highly Commended entries.


The Other Woman

A heart stimulated by restless yearning can send delusion coursing through the bloodstream. It usually subsided after climax, but recently it seemed to have increasingly infected his mind.

We’d become so familiar, I knew his signals. His chest expanded and deflated rapidly and the ecstatic contortions of his face read like a map. One push, then another, and a long, drawn-out sigh, during which he would seek to lock eyes. I arched my back and dropped my head, letting long, chestnut strands of hair brush over his face. And with closed eyes, I lowered my naked body onto his.

My heart-rate slowed. Feelings passed and thoughts closed in. Everything mattered again as I plummeted from the heights of an all-encompassing climactic moment towards concrete reality. Actually, I rolled off an admirable male specimen and landed gently on what could just be the most comfortable bed ever made. I gave him my back and curled up into a semi-fetal position. The softness of the mattress was conducive to dreams. For a moment I pretended this was my bed, my ‘McMansion,’ my husband lying behind me breathing soft warm breaths on the back of my neck and sending chills down to my toes. Childish dreams of an innocence long since abandoned.

Then I noticed her staring down at me. She had the saddest eyes I had seen in a long time. Her mouth smiled but the eyes, heavy with burden, couldn’t lift. Her hands clutched one shoulder of each of the young boys standing in front of her and there he was, just behind to her right, arm around her waist, smiling with subtly clenched lips.

Family in frame only, I thought, congratulating myself on my wit.

“Do you like it here?” he asked, flashing his confident, whitened teeth and breaking the unprofessional silence.

“I prefer the hotels,” was my retort. It was a rude abuse of his patience but put him on the back foot and gave me moment longer to compose myself.

Withdrawal moved through my veins now, accelerated by the physical activity. The dull throbbing of confusion arrived in party with a light nausea, as my brain buzzed like electricity without the shock; like a shiver without the chill. It felt like I was being dragged out of my body, a strange combination of déjà vu and some kind of profound revelation I could feel but not articulate. The sensation crashed over me like a six-foot wave, overwhelming me for several seconds before gently washing away as expected. I needed my pills and couldn’t believe I’d forgotten the morning dose again.

This was definitely her side of the bed — the bedside table held a trashy romance novel and a copy of Women’s Weekly; his side possessed an iPad and a drawer full of condoms. I could sense the imprint of her body. His hand was crept over my waist. I met it there and sighed approvingly, interlocking with his fingers but ensuring they moved no further.

“You are something else.” He kissed me on the neck and squeezed my hand while I resisted the urge to pull away, even sociably shifting onto my back.

“I earn my money,” I smiled, placing our relationship firmly back into proper context.

More photos straight ahead. Was he getting off on her watching us?

As if reading my thoughts, he tried reassurance. “It’s okay, she’s not here.”

“Wouldn’t know it,” I replied with a surprisingly jealous tone.

His hand now stroked hair over my ear. “It’s not like you didn’t know about her.”

“I know. It’s just strange.” Her eyes were full of beaten life, except in an old wedding photo — perhaps twenty years old — which showed a glorious, faultless bride; a loving, happy couple.

He looked up, briefly forlorn. “We barely talk. If it wasn’t for the kids…” he trailed off as I squeezed my insides.

“I have to pay for good company!” He smiled. I didn’t reciprocate.

“What?” he asked.

“Nothing…”

Something. I just couldn’t quite figure out what. Of course I knew some of my clients had partners — it wasn’t my business and treating it as such would be bad for business. That’s what I liked hotels: each party stepped out of the real world for an hour (or more). I wasn’t a counsellor.

He nuzzled in close. “Between a train-wreck marriage and a life-consuming job, I look forward to seeing you so much.”

I smiled awkwardly, missing the days when we’d enjoy meaningless post-sex chatter rather than fully loaded sweet nothings. Nothing scared me more than sweet nothings.

Leaning over his charming face, I kissed him on the forehead. “I need to use the bathroom.”

“That’s hardly earning your money, babe,” he chuckled.

With a batted eyelids and a nonchalant smile I turned to grab my bag and headed for the ensuite thinking about the money. It was funny that thinking about the money eased my anxiety somewhat, even if it was only a distraction. Half the reason I’d started this work four years earlier was to fund the psychologist consultations, medication and study — all necessary for a happier life. Now the money was far too good to give up.

But, even though I still couldn’t bare the idea of dating again, I also needed intimacy; in a form that was non-threatening and disconnected.

I pushed the door behind me and considered vomiting. The little bottle of pills was buried deep in my bag.

With a slight tremor I clasped the bottle. The door swung open. Startled, I fumbled the half opened bottled, which fell onto the tiles scattering little pale-blue pills across the floor.

“Fuck! Don’t you knock?!”

“Sorry babe, the door was open, I thought…”

I gathered myself. “Sorry, it’s okay, don’t worry.” I was too embarrassed to be angry. I hit the floor to recover the pills.

“She always leaves them lying around,’ he said picking up the bottle before I could get to it.

It had my name on it – my real name, and address – but he didn’t look, just placed it down next to another, almost identical bottle beneath the cabinet. He looked at me staring dumbfounded at the twin bottles.

“Is she okay?” I asked, forgetting myself.

“She’s fine.” His eyes rolled at the thought. “I don’t know what those are but the bottle’s pop up everywhere.”

“Maybe you should ask?”

“Don’t you listen to anything I say either? She won’t talk to me! Whose side are you on anyway!”

I don’t need this. “Sorry, no, I didn’t mean it like that. I just …” That’s all I had.

“You what? You a marriage counsellor as well as an escort now? Well there’s a fucking interesting mix!”

Stunned, I could only look at him.

“Sorry,” he said with the immediate regret of a man pulled in all directions by misplaced desires.

“I’m going to shower,” I said, making it clear I would do so alone. As he stepped out I swallowed the pill in my hand.

When I returned to the bedroom he sat on the bed in a towel, pouting like a needy pup. For a moment it felt nice to effortlessly wield such emotional power. And then it didn’t.

“It’s okay,” I said to clear the air, and looked towards the two large walk-in wardrobes either side of the ensuite. “Which is yours?”

He showered while I replaced all my clothes except the G-string. Stepping out of his wardrobe, I looked again at her image. Whose side was I on? How did this even happen?

I felt like I’d been asleep at the wheel and woken up on the wrong side of the road just before hitting an oncoming car — too late to avoid it, but with horns and lights and screaming that stimulated every nerve in my body, urging me to do something. She was urging me.

I wandered across the room, slid open the door to the other wardrobe and threw the g-string onto the floor. It was a self-indulgent act of sheer and helpless bloody-mindedness. I hoped to spark her voice, so she might confront him and help herself.

Ten minutes later he was in his business suit, ready to return to work from his ‘important meeting’. We walked out together and I let him put his arm around me.

“Got everything?” he asked at the front door.

“Yep.”

He kissed me on the cheek and I walked to my car.

At the bottom of the long driveway, I pulled away from the house for the first and last time. Doubt started to overwhelm the short-lived sense of victory.

You just killed your career, I thought. He would be understandably furious. I had retrieved the bottle, but he could find me professionally even if I changed my number. If he pursued me, my alias would have to cease existence.

But worse, what if all I sparked was the full blown explosion of that train-wreck marriage. What if I’d killed it once and for all?

What if she was surviving on the delusion?

I wept.

***

Postscript: For the published version the editors removed the second last line (which I, admittedly have amended now myself). I can understand why, but reckon it's removal significantly altered (and softened) the story's ending, so was a little disappointed. Ah well, published at least! 

Why so serious about Batman?

Indulge me, while I ponder my obsession with a character that dresses up like a bat.

It seems a little childish, but I actively embrace my inner child - keep it locked up so it doesn't escape. And I love Batman.

Have done for 20 years, inheriting my eldest brother's fanatacism around the time of the Tim Burton movie - which finally returned the character to his natural habitat of darkness - and the return to TV of the campy, colourful Adam West series, which was more age-appropriate for me at the time. But everyone was jumping on the Bat-wagon in the early '90s until Burton and Joel Schumacher produced increasingly silly films. But my fascination with the character himself endured.

It seems ridiculous to be drawn to a a comic character. I'm not even a comic geek. I don't like many non-Batman superhero films.

But Batman's not really a 'super' hero, is he? I always liked him best of the lot because he's an ordinary guy. He didn't come from another planet with super-powers, wasn't a nerdy kid bitten by a radioactive spider, or a nerdy scientist who somehow survived a radioactive blast or some other ordinary/arbitary person-turned-instant-superhero/villain by some kind of freak event. In Batman's world radiation is bad for you.

Then Christopher Nolan came along. Batman Begins smashed my previous imaginings of what the character could be.

He did something with the characters, and their world, no one had ever dared with a comic adaption on-screen. He took them seriously and grounded it in reality. I think 'gritty' is the word commonly used.

Finally I could legitimately appreciate the character as a relatively mature adult. Relative, of course, to my maturity as a child.

Unlike many other comic heroes and villains, Batman is an organic persona, born of tortured but determined mind, trying to reconcile his demons and fix things in a corrupt, crumbling world (well, city). He's a deeply flawed hero and not always one to be admired. Indeed, he has many shades of grey. He is more.

Nolan explored the psychology of Bruce Wayne. I'm surprised no one had really done it before. There's plenty to work with - the guy has issues. He's not a clean hero (or 'white knight'), he's conflicted and complicated. But that makes him one that's easier to relate to (aside from the whole vigilante thing), right?

Nolan even took the time to necessarily explain the some of the generally sillier elements - like the cape, the ears, where he gets his wonderful toys and why someone might dress up like a bat and become a vigilante in the first place.

Threats and adversaries in Nolan's trilogy don't coincidentally pop up in the same town and the same time - due to exposure with radiation or falling into a vat of chemicals - they are closely tied to Batman's own story, feeding off each other with a complex and fascinating mutual causality.

All of this allowed the movies to explore real-world questions of justice (vs revenge), morality, violence, corruption, and the ripple effect of Batman's very presence. Nolan delved into broader themes like fear, duality, chaos, socioeconomics, social order and politics. He posed questions like what it takes for people to abandon civility, how easily that might fall apart in an age where fear is everywhere, and whether the not being afraid of death is a strength or a weakness, just to name a few.

The discussion of escalation at the end of Batman Begins was beautifully pertinent to the politics of our world, as well as an example of how Nolan wanted to explore the grey areas of the character. He's the hero, no doubt, but not without complication.

The world's just not that simple, even if the a lot of people want it to be, but maybe that's why we get so many dumb films from Hollywood and an intelligent blockbuster is so rare. 'Ambiguity' is a dirty word in Hollywood these days.

Lots of the criticism, particularly of The Dark Knight Rises is of the various characters 'speechifying', but the dialogue in the film - while not always perfectly written - was critical to the exploration of those themes and character development.

The proof of how strong Nolan's story is, how rich the films are with layers and thought-provoking questions, is in how much has been written about them.

Even serious conservative commentators got on board, although I think they completely missed the point. Andrew Bolt claimed the interrogation scene (one of the trilogy's best) from The Dark Knight, and the film as a whole was a supportive nod to George. W. Bush's 'War on Terror'. I read the scene in the opposite way - torture is futile, Batman has "nothing to do with all your strength", and he loses this one depsite his aggression. It's actually my favourite scene of all three movies and has so much going on and is so well written, that it's sad seeing it cherry-picked, and so badly.

Again recently, upon viewing TDKR, Bolt was one of many conservatives - and even some concerned progressives - to taint Batman with the dirty brush of hasty misunderstanding, claiming TDKR was an anti-'Occupy', among other things (some on the left called it pro-facist!). Aside from the fact the script was written long before the Occupy movement, you only need to listen to realise that the leader of Gotham's 'revolution', Bane, actually has no interest in revolution. He's using it as a ruse to rally people and cause chaos before destroying the city. It's the social inequities and political injustices that allow him to do so, by plying the gaps in society. What does that say about conservative values, Mr Bolt?

I don't know Nolan's politics, but, if anything, I read the movies as being critical of Republican-style conservatism in many ways.

After all, the hero of the film has a blatant 'no guns' policy (other than on his vehicles) and his main virtue is his explicit refusal to kill. He may be part of the '1%', but he seems pretty ambivalent towards his wealth, other that using it to help others. Brooding as he is, Batman is an idealist with an unshakable belief in the people; he's a lone rebel trying to take down the corrupt elements of the city. That's something to identify with, right? A brooding, rebellious idealist - what more do you want?!

I could go on about for ages about the themes and interpretations, so I won't - there are plenty of articles arguing all sorts of angles online already and I don't need to say more about that. But, in the end, I don't think Nolan was making any specific statements (especially political). Rather, like most good art, the films merely pose some deep and pertinent questions.

And any film that affects you so much they leaves you reading, talking and contemplating their world, characters and meanings for a few days - like all three did me, and I'm writing this almost two weeks after seeing TDKR, so... - is likely to endure regardless of box office takings.

That is, basically, why I love these films so so much. That and I think Batman is pretty cool, and I'll always appreciate a dark, brooding hero fighting for the everyman/woman. I also kinda like Catwoman.

So, just as Joel Schumacher killed off the initial Batman movie franchise with the horrendous Batman & Robin, Nolan has pretty much ruined the two I did still like - Burton's Batman and Schumacher's Batman Forever. They are still good films for what they are (simple fun) - Batman in particular - but, to the disgust of a few Bat-friends, I am going to struggle to appreciate this character now without the depth and story Nolan gave us. Batman is more, and I just can't watch them without wanting that now.

Nolan also - to my knowledge - has provided the first comic book adaption with an actual ending, which must have irked the studio, but it's just another thing about the man to admire. It's all about the story.

It still feels a bit silly talking about Batman like this, but I don't care. These three films are visually stunning, thought-provoking, thrilling, and explore intriguing characters and themes through a fantastic story from start to finish. And I'm going to come back to them many times over the years.

Yes, I am a Bat-geek.

But maybe I'm taking this all too seriously...

"Foreign Aid Is A Waste Of Money" - IQ2 Debate review

Article written for Right Now, and appears on the website with other human rights reviews here.


Foreign aid is a waste of money.

That was the proposition put forward at the IQ² Debate, hosted by the Wheeler Centre, at the Melbourne Town Hall on Wednesday 4 July.

Arguing for the proposition were The Australian’s Foreign Editor, Greg Sheridan, member of the Management Committee of Aid/Watch, James Goodman, and Director of the Intellectual Property and Free Trade Unit at the Institute of Public Affairs, Tim Wilson.

Defending the use of foreign aid were World Vision Australia’s Head of Public Affairs and External Relations, Martin Thomas, National Director of the Global Povety Project, Samah Hadid, and Executive Director of Oxfam Australia, Andrew Hewett.

Firstly, a summary of the arguments put forward in support of the proposition.

Greg Sheridan opened by acknowledging the difficulty that lay ahead: “Ladies and gentlemen, I stand before you a man in desperate need of aid, foreign or domestic, for I fear I am destined to lose this debate,” he said.

He didn’t know it yet, but a pre-poll of the audience revealed that just ten per cent supported the proposition, while 67 per cent opposed it and 23 per cent were undecided.

While acknowledging that most who enter the aid industry are motivated by “altruism and a desire to better the lot of humanity”, he implored the audience to extend the same sense of goodwill to critics – people who simply believe there are better ways to alleviate poverty that don’t waste billions of dollars.

Sheridan conceded that aid is not entirely unworkable, expressing support in situations such as natural disaster or where a society is attempting to recover from civil or international conflict.

But in general, he believes aid merely takes money from one nation’s taxpayers and puts it into the hands of another’s corrupt officials. After 35 years working as a journalist in the field in many poor nations, his conclusion is that aid is “next to useless in combating poverty, and infinitely less effective than foreign investment or free trade.”

He cited US aid in Afghanistan being paid to members of the Taliban to provide security for aid workers; the US$3.5 trillion the Chinese government holds in international currency reserves while Australian taxpayers still provide it with aid; and the “massive imbalance” of Australia’s foreign affairs and trade budget, where $800 million is spent per year on our diplomatic network and $5.2 billion on aid.

James Goodman may have been a little out of step with Sheridan and Wilson’s free-market ideology, but he outlined many problems with aid, which backed up Sheridan’s claim that foreign aid needs much greater outside scrutiny. He did so through the context of what he says are the three main causes of poverty: debt, the cost of food and climate change.

Goodman believes that aid simply deepens the problem of debt. It is loaned, via agencies like the World Bank, for projects that fit their agenda rather than the developing country’s needs, and when the project fails the developing country is left with the debt.

The developing world produces two-thirds of the world’s food and prices are rising because it cannot keep up with demand. Goodman was critical of free trade moves in agriculture by the World Trade Organisation that have enriched agribusiness while decimating small farms. He argues that this has been compounded by programs like Aid for Trade have, which have locked developing countries into agreements that are not necessarily in their interests, and can leave them more reliant on agribusiness and less able to feed themselves.

Climate change is a problem largely caused by the developed world but felt most severely by the world’s poor – ninety per cent of people displaced by climate change live in developing countries. Goodman said that, in this regard, rich countries owe a debt that is not being repaid. Rather, many continue polluting while using aid to finance projects that produce carbon credits.

While Goodman listed many legitimate problems with aid, he failed to offer solutions or alternatives.

Tim Wilson did, if from a different ideological perspective. He believes that to promote development institutional problems in developing countries need to be fixed – problems perpetuated by foreign aid’s largely top-down approach.

He also acknowledged that aid can play a role, but believes it is mostly a waste of money and misallocation of resources that has “almost universally failed as a policy mechanism to promote development. No country on earth has foreign-aided its way out of poverty, but hundreds of millions of people have traded their way out of poverty,” he said.

After all, the countries with the most economic freedom are also the wealthiest.

Wilson promoted the role migration can play in alleviating poverty, saying that working migrants send home around $440 billion each year. But he thinks the enormous potential of this policy is being missed because unions oppose it, though it would cut out aid agencies, allowing money to go directly to where it’s needed.

We should be giving people opportunities, not foreign aid, Wilson summed up.

But the question is whether these opportunities are available without aid?

The first speaker in support of foreign aid, Martin Thomas, suggested that, having been born in a land of plenty in a world that spends three times more money on diet products and services than it does on foreign aid for the hungry, we have a moral obligation to help those born into extreme poverty.

Despite many grim statistics, he believes “we are winning the war on poverty.” For example, 12,000 less children under five die each day compared to 1990 thanks to the provision of vaccinations, vitamin supplements and mosquito nets.

Thomas said that aid should not take the place of improved trade and other policy measures, but that it “has a role in reaching the very poorest.”

Samah Hadid picked up on this theme, saying: “Aid is a crucial part of a set of measures that help people escape poverty … so that they don’t need aid in the future.” Combined with things like trade, good governance and debt forgiveness, it can offer people born into broken systems the opportunity to escape extreme poverty.

Without basic literacy and numeracy skills, for example, a person’s ability to work and participate in the market is limited. Aid can foster trade by facilitating a better-educated, healthier population, and help guard against corruption by educating citizens, allowing them to hold government to account.

“Aid helps create the crucial pre-conditions for communities escaping poverty,” Hadid said, “it is not a silver bullet, but there is no simple solution to such a complex issue.”

Andrew Hewett was a fitting final speaker, summing up the issues through a discussion of good and bad aid.

“Essentially, bad aid is that aid which is motivated by the interests of the donor, rather than that of people living in poverty,” he said.

Good programs are accountable and owned by the people they are directed at. They strengthen the capacity of individuals and organisations, locally and nationally, as well as the capacity for communities to hold their governments accountable for delivery of basic services and the impacts of their decisions.

Hewett agreed that foreign investment and fair trade are important but, like bad aid, bad quality foreign investment and bad trade policies hurt people. What really makes a difference, he argued, is good quality investment and trade, side-by-side with aid policies.

The result of the vote after the debate was, predictably, a resounding defeat of the proposition. Though there was a small, but not insignificant, shift in voting, with 27 per cent now supporting the proposition (up 17 per cent), 60 per cent opposing it (down seven per cent) and 13 per cent still undecided (down ten per cent).

In the end the numbers matter little, and don’t offer much insight into the general view of the audience. Such a complex issue cannot be easily framed around a simple, and absolute, proposition, but that is the nature of debates.

Andrew Hewett perhaps summed it up best: “Aid is important, but it’s not sufficient.”

Song - 'Blackburn'

Housesitting and dog-sitting in Blackburn. My brother left me a guitar, a keyboard, beer and a Mac with GarageBand. So I mucked around with them.

Inspired by late nights in warm houses with cold beers and good friends, and thoughts of the moon over Blackburn Lake.

What's more harmful - Xanax or Channel 7's coverage of mental health?

I'm angry with you, Channel 7. Yesterday I ran my first half-marathon and was on a high. I wanted to write about it - the pain, the achievement, the music, the reasons for and against doing it again. But then I watched Sunday Night's alarmist story on the anti-anxiety drug Xanax. A drug I take.

I don't like being angry, so I'm furious that this trash tabloid journalism made me mad.

I knew as soon as I saw the promo it would rile me and I'd tweet frustratedly, but I couldn't ignore it. I guess Channel 7 will count that as a win.

The premise was, basically, Xanax is more addictive than Heroin, it destroys lives and should be banned. Oh, and traces of it were found in the blood of Heath Ledger, Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson when they died! (Well yes, among various other things, but let's not mention that)

It was an irresistable hook and seemed to shock a few people judging by responses on Twitter. Fear-based outrage sells almost as well as sex. The more - dare I say - irrational responses to the show's question of whether Xanax should be banned were comments like: "yep! aniety (sic) can be helped if people were allowed to relax and people showed care and concern more.", "Xanax is scary! Doctors should be held responsible for giving out a drug that is known to be more addictive that heroin", and my favourite "yes! We lost Michael Jackson from it".

Fortunately, just as many tweeters defended rational consideration of the issue, many of whom had actually dealt with anxiety. It was a pleasant irony for us to be the (at least relatively) rational ones.

The misleading emotional use of dead celebrities, was just the first giveaway of a rubbish story. At no point did it address the dangers of mixing drugs without medical advice, which happened in each of those cases. I suppose truthful (respectful?) representation of those tragic deaths, rather than insinuating one drug's responsibility, would lessen the emotional affect of mentioning them.

They also spoke of side-effects like blackouts in absolute terms as though they happen to everyone who takes it. I've never had a blackout in four years on a relatively high dosage. Maybe I'm on the placebo.

Not only was there no test of the premise (just run with it), there was no acknowledement of the many lives Xanax has undoubtedly saved from suicide, or helped get back on track from various levels of anxiety. Nope, not even considered. Has that actually happened ever? You wouldn't have thought so.

There's no doubt we need to monitor the use of medications. And I don't doubt the genuine suffering those interviewed have experienced. Some drugs are addictive and can have serious side-effects, which is why you need to take them responsibly under professional advice (and I'm not suggesting these people didn't).

But if you are going to call for a ban on a product that manages the suffereing of severe anxiety, you should at least explore some alternative treatments. The report didn't even look properly at why people are prescribed Xanax, other than bandying about the word anxiety.

How many people today will be fearful of the drug and consider stopping usage (a very dangerous course of action)? How many will resist advice from doctors to take it as a result of this unbalanced reporting, possibly preventing recovery? How many unqualified people will advise family or friends to stop taking this "horrendous drug", out of concern but based on ill-informed fear? That could be dangerous.

This was not a story for public interest or information, but a grab for ratings.This kind of sensationalist reporting just fuels hysteria or makes thinking people dismissive, it serves no real purpose. Which is sad, whether or not there is any validity in the concerns raised.

I am not here to defend Xanax. It's worked for me, but I had a period of trial-and-error with other anti-depressants first. I value how it helped me recover from a pretty dark period and start to manage severe anxiety, but feel like cognitive therapies and activities like yoga and running have been the things that really changed the way I think. So I'm hopeful of coming off it sooner than later. I never really liked the idea of a drug that affected my brain, though it hasn't stopped me consuming alcohol.

We should look at the role of medication in various areas. I personally tend to agree that we live in an age of over-prescription, but I'm not an expert, and many people need these drugs to live a normal life.

As a comsumer, I want the media and government to hold the pharmaceutical industry to account. Just as much as I want to see responsible reporting on mental health that doesn't induce irrational fear or reinforce stigma. I don't want to see reporting that prevents people getting the help they need.

Xanax is potent. It works fast. Am I addicted? Well I've never craved it (like I crave yoga after a few days) and I'd deal better going without it for a day than Facebook or Twitter, but if I miss a few doses I do experience physiological side-effects that are not fun, as well as an increase in anxiety. Is it more addictive than Heroin? I don't know, I've never had reason to take Heroin. I do know that when I come off Xanax, it will be very slowly and under the supervision of my GP and psychologist.

I'd rather see Channels 7 and 9 banned from covering mental health issues until they can drag themselves from reporting on extremes and cover them in a fair, considered way, than have Xanax banned. They've demonstrated that they either do not care or do not understand the serious and complex nature of mental illness.

Nobody will avoid depression or anxiety as a result of last night's shameful current affairs story. Hopefully not too many are thrown into mental chaos by it.

But well done Sunday Night, you have set us back some way. I hope you made some money from it.

The best advice is: be sensible. That goes for people taking Xanax as well as media talking about it.

Marriage is so gay

Marriage is so gay.

It's interesting that we struggle so much to bring the words 'gay' and 'marriage' together, given how much the word 'gay' and concept of marriage have both changed over time.

So many words have already been spent on this topic, but still the debate goes round in circles. It's damn frustrating because there doesn't seem to be a single argument against equal marriage that isn't misguided, prejudicial and/or fear-based.

Marriage has changed significantly over thousands of years as society evolved, and it ought to reflect our social values and human rights. Currently, it does not.

Why do I, as a heterosexual. care so much? Not just because many of the far-fetched arguments are an abuse of creativity, but also because of my interest in mental health.

By denying equal marriage we are essentially saying non-heterosexual relationships are inferior, less legitimate and/or less natural, which reinforces prejudice. Young people, in particular, are vulnerable to mental health consequences, including suicide. And it is completely unnecessary.

By embracing equal marriage we would embrace tolerance and maybe encourage greater acceptance and understanding across the community. Rather than being a threat to impressionable children, legalising same-sex marriage may just help some of them feel accepted and comfortable in who they are - possibly saving lives.

I like equal marriage and Jen Hawkins

Like many other issues of progress (such as Australia becoming a republic) that are bogged down in the irrational fear of change, equal marriage will happen eventually and already has popular support, so we're wasting time by getting bogged down in a nonsense debate.

Let's just do it and move on, as a more tolerant nation, to other issues. Even the angry bigots left behind can enjoy relief, no longer having to hear about it.

Taking just a quick look at the most common arguments highlights that it is fear, rather than values, that underpin them:

Marriage is about starting a family
That may partly explain why the ritual originated thousands of years ago, but it's clearly not a key criteria any longer, given the number - and our acceptance - of married heterosexual couples who cannot have, or do not want, children.

A child needs a mother and a father

To my mind this is the only argument that deserves to be taken seriously; and I think it does, because as shit as it is to tell a gay couple they are an inferior parenting option, I can see the flicker of logic through the dense fog of bigotry.

In fact, I agree that ideally a child has a mother and a father - in circumstances where all else was exactly equal - simply because men and women are different and I think it's a good thing to be exposed to life lessons from both sides of the human race. 

But all things are rarely, if ever, equal. Not all  fathers are 'manly men', not all mothers are 'traditionally effeminate'. We're all different, but that's a strength. The parents will not be the only influences in the child's life. And there are too many other variables that could indicate how good a parent someone will be - health, education, wealth, ability to care for the child and spend time with them, etc - to discriminate on sexuality. Many children have only one parent - surely a second is beneficial regardless of gender?

Anyone who saw Penny Wong speak about her family on QandA would be hard pressed to credibly argue that her child will have an inferior upbringing to the children of Joe Hockey, who had just insinuated as such in his defence of the 'traditional' family - whatever that is. 

It's a moot point anyway when discussing same-sex marriage because same-sex couples, such as Senator Wong and her partner, can already adopt and raise children. Although perhaps not for much longer in Queensland.

The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, that's just what it is
Well, unless you believe Adam and Eve were the first married couple, you would probably accept the anthropological view that marriage has been around in some form for at least 4000 years.

It has changed dramatically over the centuries, as it should as we as a society change. Initially it was about protecting blood lines and had nothing to do with love. Ancient Hebrew law required a widow to marry her deceased husband's brother.

In fact, we wouldn't even be breaking new ground by allowing same-sex marriage - the Romans were doing it in the 4th century. So who's definition exactly are we going by?

This argument is nothing more than a cop-out from a fearful, closed mind, refusing to have their view of the world challenged.

They can have a Civil Union, why isn't that good enough?
Because it is condescending and says reinforces negative perceptions of homosexuality.

The Bible says...

Ok, no. 

The Bible says a lot of shit. It advocates stoning a woman to death if she falsely claims to be a virgin when she marries. Few Christians - hopefully none - would hold this view now because society has progressed.

Also, we live in a secular society where marriage is presided over primarily by government. 

Jesus never condemned homosexuality, but did preach tolerance and love. 

The Church are welcome to hold onto prejudice, but in secular society we have to champion non-discrimination.

If we legalise marriage between homosexuals, what's to stop people wanting to marry their daughters, brothers or pets? Or all of them!

Now the conservative is just yelling gibberish while blocking their ears to stop the infectious truth.

The slippery slope. Letting homosexuals marry will open the door to the all sorts of unions and the breakdown of society. Au contraire. By legalising same-sex marriage we continue to put misguided injustices behind us.

This argument is the true measure of fear. The fanciful, irrelevant 'what if's. It's not even an argument against same-sex marriage itself anymore. I'm familiar with the anxiety-inducing effect of baseless 'what if's; letting them go is liberating experience.

And, not that it really needs addressing, but the fear is baseless. Not only is there no actual push for the right to marry within family, including the pet, but there are sound reasons not to allow it. Simply, the illegality of incest and bestiality is firmly grounded in biological and ethical reasoning. So no, that won't be happening.

As for polygamy, that's more of a grey area but there's no reason to believe group marriages would be legalised in our lifetime. It's an entirely different situation. Maybe someday it will be legal, who knows what society will be like in a few hundred years (if we make it that long), but massive shifts would need to take place first, and it would need popular support, so who cares if that happens one day? Hell, we can't even get legal same-sex marriage with majority community support.


From the first marriages thousands of years ago, the purpose and meaning of the ritual has changed dramatically. We should define for what marriage means for us as Australians in 2012. I think most people would say it's primarily about the love and commitment between a couple. That's good progress from the original purpose, I think, so embrace it. Although, we can't really stop people who don't love each other from doing it too.

Same-sex couples are fighting to have their love recognised equally. Jesus taught love and tolerance, yet supposed followers of his, like the Australian Christian Lobby are fighting against both. I know which side I want to be on, and which side Jesus would probably support.

Heterosexuals haven't been doing a great job of respecting marriage in recent decades, so who are we to deny homosexuals a chance?

It's a chance to celebrate more love, and God knows we need as much in the world as we can get these days.