Tuesday, 13 May 2003

So I'm at the doctor's office getting poked and prodded and examined, as part of my application for an Australian Permanent Resident visa (my three-year work visa is expiring), and this battleaxe of a nurse is preparing to jab a needle into my arm. As she's doing her thing with the cotton-ball and messing with my arm to make the veins pop out, she says, in a scornful tone, "You don't exercise at all, do you?"

Now, I'll be the first to admit that a little more exercise wouldn't kill me. I've adopted quite the sedentary lifestyle as of late, where both work and play involve me sitting behind a desk at a keyboard; I hop on the treadmill every so often and climb the occasional Ayers Rock, but not as often as I should. If the nurse had smiled and gently suggested that I get a little more exercise, I'd have nodded and said it was good advice. Besides, if I exercised more the veins in my arm would stick out more prominently, making them easier to find and jab with needles— and wouldn't that be a good thing for nurses everywhere?

Instead, I thought to myself that the nurse was a rude, bitter, self-righteous person whose only job satisfaction came from talking down to patients. I smiled politely and said nothing, this being the most civil reply I could muster.

"It's your heart attack," she harrumphed, and went about the business of drawing blood from my arm. She was professional in that brisk, harsh way that minimizes human contact. As she drew blood, she lectured, "You don't have to be fanatical about exercise, but once a week makes a difference."

To myself, I thought You are never going to be anything more than what you are today. I could come back to this office ten years from now, and you'd still be stuck in the same empty, meaningless rut that your life is; you don't know how to deal with people, and without that skill you'll never go anywhere. To her I made some noncommittal noises, acknowledging that she'd spoken but not agreeing to anything.

"I'm not saying this for my sake, I'm saying it for yours," she concluded. In the interests of keeping this a family forum, I'll omit part of what I thought in response… but the gist of it was You arrogant fool! Do you even realize the resentment and resistance that your petty scoldings cause? How many people leave this office each day thinking "well, maybe I should take better care of myself—but if that so-and-so thinks she can tell me off and boss me around like that, she's sadly mistaken!" Saying it for my sake, indeed. Your ego needs to find a source of validation besides lecturing other people about their shortcomings. I can only imagine how your co-workers and family must suffer.

Oddly enough my blood pressure was a bit higher than usual when the doctor got around to checking it a few minutes later. Maybe I should get more exercise.

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 7:00 am. comments.

Tuesday, 13 May 2003

I am the very model of a modern Governor-General: From what I can piece together, the Governor-General is some sort of anachronism from the days when Queen Victoria's government administered the Australia colony. He's the ceremonial Head of State and the Queen's representative in Australia, although he's appointed by the Australian Prime Minister… and (this is where it gets interesting) the Governor-General and the Prime Minister both have the sole power to remove each other. He's sort of like "Bones" McCoy on Star Trek, in that (under certain circumstances) he can relieve Captain Kirk of command—except that, in this case, the "certain circumstances" are not well defined at all. Likewise, the circumstances that call for a Governor-General to be removed from office are equally vague and confusing; since the G-G's only duties are to represent the Queen and dissolve the government if it goes insane, it's hard to say why and when the G-G should be found unfit for duty.

On the other hand, if your appointed Governor-General is the Australian answer to Boston's Cardinal Bernard Law… then things get really interesting. The current G-G, Peter Hollingsworth, was previously an archbishop in the Anglican Church, which is sort of a state religion in Australia and throughout the British Commonwealth (it was founded by King Henry VIII when the Pope refused to give him a divorce; Americans call it the Episcopalian church), and he has been accused of, well, spending the entire Sixties covering up and abetting pedophile priests. The initial accusations led to an investigation, which led to a government report, which was sharply critical of the G-G, and led to calls for from the opposition parties for Prime Minister John Howard to remove him. Howard didn't want to remove him, because that would mean admitting it was a mistake to appoint him in the first place, and so Hollingsworth remained in office.

And then, about a week ago, while the Prime Minister was off on his Iraq victory tour (his trip to the ranch with Dubya, his photo op with Tony Blair, et cetera), it was revealed that the G-G has been accused of rape by a woman who, two weeks before the accusation became public, committed suicide. She had claimed she'd been raped at a church-sponsored youth camp in the Sixties, and identified her assailant as the G-G from a photograph of him taken around that time. She filed suit in December, but the court records were sealed to protect both her identity and his—and then a Member of Parliament got wind of the suit, and asked a pointed question that the G-G was obligated to answer. (Apparently it would be illegal for an MP to reveal the contents of a sealed lawsuit, but while Parliament is in session he can ask "is the G-G involved in a sealed lawsuit, and if so what does it contain?", and the G-G has to answer. Tricky.)

In light of that bombshell, the Governor-General has now stepped aside "temporarily" (ahem) while an inquiry attempts to clear his name. With the only witness to the alleged crime (the victim) now dead, the statute of limitations long expired, and her identification of Hollingsworth as her assailant so tenuous, it's unlikely that a court case will proceed against him—but he can't represent the Queen with any semblance of dignity any longer, and the most recent polls say 83% of Australians think he should go. Australia is still technically a monarchy, with the Queen of England on all her coins and historical oddities like the governor-general; there was a recent referendum on whether to end the Australian monarchy and make the country a republic, which failed by a narrow margin on the strength of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" vote (and because Australian veterans feared it would mean changing the design of the national flag, which has the Union Jack in the corner). But the republicans are now renewing the debate over the monarchy and why Australia has governor-generals, since that part of the government appears to be broken after all.

Again with the glossary: Republicans in Australia are not like the American political party of the same name, but rather are a broad political movement to abolish the monarchy. There is an Australian political party called the Republicans, but it's a single-issue fringe group. The Australian political party that most resembles America's Republicans is called the Liberal Party, just to confuse you, and Australia's answer to the Democrats is spread across several parties, including Labour, the Greens (which are stronger here than in the States), the Australian Democrats, and maybe a few others. Australian PM John Howard is a Liberal, and his party has a majority in one house of Parliament and a plurality (I think) in the other. My understanding of Australian politics may not be 100% accurate, should not be read while operating heavy machinery, etc.

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 3:53 am. comments.