How do you sleep?

I have been away from this site too long... a statement proved by the fact that I had forgotten my password!!

But I am back, for better or for worse, and I have something to say.

I ran for election... I lost.

I can live with that. I know I can, because I just wrote over one hundred words about what happened, and then deleted them, so you will never know what really happened...because that is not important.

What is important is what comes next... what comes after..

Local Government, (or Local Council) elections do not loom large on the political radar. They are, by definition, local affairs about local issues.

They are also incredibly important. To You.

It is your local authority that decides whether High-Rise buildings, Night-Clubs, Brothels, Live-music, Public concerts, Street-parties, Road-maintenance, Disabled access, Parking fines, or even Public Libraries, are supported or opposed. It is Local Government that controls your garbage pick-up... but 90% of the public don't care.

And that led me to a very important discovery...

I ran for local council in Noosa Shire, where I have lived for over twenty years.
I knew I was an outside chance of winning, but I also knew that much of what I was saying was supported by decent working folks like me. I wanted to get out there and say the things that many people were thinking, but no-one was saying.

That was the first sign of my naivete'. Because if so many people thought it, then why wasn't there a representative on Council espousing these beliefs already??
Here is why...the decent working folks (like me), don't follow local politics. They are too busy making a living, and when work is over, they aren't going to political meetings at night. They are taking their kids to soccer/tennis/football/ ballet, and then they are asleep in front of the television because they are tired. They are too tired from making a living to care!

The second sign of my ignorance was the background of my fellow Candidates...everyone had a backer... either financial or ideological.... and those of us that didn't...well we can always write Blogs.

The bottom line is this... if you are on Council already, you will stay, because everyone knows your name. If you are running for a vacant seat, (and ten of us were chasing three vacant seats), then the prize goes to the biggest cheque-books in the race. If you can afford the money, and can take the time off work to simply campaign, then the seat is yours to grab.

So the winners didn't need to make a difference. They simply needed to reassure the right people that they would not rock the boat, and have enough money to ensure their face was well known, and tiredness, apathy, and a desire for the status-quo would ensure that the result would take care of itself.

I am not bitter, or resentful about this, (okay, maybe a little resentful..). but that is how the game is played, and has been for thousands of years...

Except...

Except... if A Candidate, An honest, fair-minded Candidate, sees things that are wrong, sees unfairness, and decides to speak up, then maybe something can be changed.

I was raised to be fair, and that the rules were there to make it so everyone had a chance to win, with the best person for the job becoming victor on the day.

I didn't see that, I saw unfairness, and I decided I would not let it pass. I do not think that the perpetrator intended to disadvantage a Candidate for Councillor, I just think they were so intent on winning the vote for Mayor, that they did not consider the repercussions of their actions. But I saw an injustice in what they did.

I know I will not be on Council, but I feel someone else may have (or may not have) missed their chance. So I spoke up on their behalf... and I pushed, and pushed some more, and I am still pushing now... but at least the State Electoral Commission has agreed to investigate my claims.

Nothing may come of it, I don't know. But I do know that at least I have not remained silent when I saw an injustice to another human being.

I can sleep easy...and I do...

I'm Beginning To See A Pattern

I am running for local government in my town.. Local Council, we call it in the Land Of Oz...

Anyway, beyond the Bull and the Blandishments. After the Answer-Avoiding and A**-Licking, we get down to what it's all about. And I'm beginning to see a pattern....

The pattern is about Movie Stars...
Don't worry, the candidates don't see it, because they are in the picture...you have to be OUTSIDE the frame, to see it.. and it works like this...

When Robert De Niro cracked the big time, (and Jodie Foster, but more on her later...), he did it in "Raging Bull", and "Taxi Driver".
When Leonardo Di Caprio cracked it, it was for "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?"
Tom Cruise did it in "Risky Business"
Nicole Kidman in "Dead Calm", an Australian low-budget thriller.
And of course, Jodie Foster.." Taxi Driver" as well.

Now let's talk about where they went;

De Niro went on and up.. He has played a succession of roles as diverse as a  gangster in "Dick Tracy", to a gangster in "The Untouchables", to a gangster in "Anger Management" (1 &2)
To an ex FBI (now THERE"S a change-up) in "Meet the Fokkers" et al, and most recently, an ex-Vice-President of a company in "The Intern"

De Caprio has gone from "Gilbert" to "Titanic", to "The Beach" to "Great Gatsby", admittedly with side-trips but still consistently upward.

Cruise is now a staple as the high-class detective,/futuristic/ know-it -all rich guy.

Kidman went from working class sailor to World-renowned author (The Hours), to Princess Grace of Monaco...

And Jodie Foster is well-known for making it from teenage hooker to working single- parent (Safe-Room, North), to Corporate anything (check her last few films...)

The point I am making here is that most actors start out making films about the poor people, the workers, because that's where they are.

As their success grows, so do the kind of parts they have in movies they make. They get richer, more luxurious, and more removed from you and me.

I don't begrudge them their success, they earned it, and if they can make big bucks, then good for them....

But why do they do it?

Well, I think that they make films about real life. THEIR real lives.

The more successful you are, the more you get paid. That means your reality changes too.

So, De Niro started out poor, his movies were about his recognition of real life. As he got older, and richer, Real Life changed for him. Now wealth is the Norm, and it is taken for granted. Which is why I have trouble identifying with many modern movies.

Apply the same rule to the rest.

Except Paul Newman. Newman played the part, not the setting. He played Losers and Drunks just as much as Businessmen and Family men, until his dying day.

I never thought of myself as an actor.

But I wouldn't mind trying to be Paul Newman,...

As a Candidate of course...

After all, the rest of them are trying to be Di Caprio...

Vote 1 Ken Coleman

Smokin', Tokin' Chokin', and Quality of Life?

Once upon a time, Western Society was faced with a crisis. It was so concerning that the leading societies of the day considered taking legal action, and wanted to pass laws making it illegal for citizens of their nations to use a certain drug. Governments Of The Day said that the large number of people using this drug had caused a breakdown in the fabric of society, and threatened the productivity of their nations, not to mention the detrimental effect being placed on family life.

The laws were never passed, but the debate did happen, and the arguments were sincere. If it had not been for the pressure applied to the law-makers by a certain sector of society, perhaps the laws may have taken effect, and our society would have been vastly different.

The drug? Tea.

When tea first arrived in Europe, tea-houses sprang up everywhere, and were so popular, and so all-consuming, that the scenarios described above really did occur. It was only the pressure applied by the wealthy tea merchants that prevented the stimulant being outlawed.

Later, of course, came coffee,  with similar effects.

Both of which have nothing to do with Marijuana, except in one respect. It has also changed the societies into which it has been introduced.

Tea, Coffee and dope are all recreational drugs which are derived from plants. They are not particularly powerful in their natural form, but Marijuana is becoming more potent as hydroponic and genetic mutations appear in the product being sold. Potency is terrific if you want a quicker high, or a longer high, but these effects are not really useful when it comes to paying the mortgage...

Unfortunately, many people regard dope as a great way of coping with Real World problems. Let's face it, as progressive as we want to be, smoking dope will not fix your relationship, pay your debts, or bring you closer to God.

It is also worlds away from being effective in controlling strong symptoms of serious diseases, and this is where the current medical confusion lies.

There are certain natural therapies that recommend the use of herbal infusions to alleviate symptoms; Chamomile tea, Mint tea, etc., and they can be very therapeutic....BUT...

 You wouldn't treat cancer with a cup of tea.

OK, maybe some people would, but the success/failure rate never seems to be publicised as a percentage for some reason...

Which means that the use of the natural product in its natural state (steeped or smoked...), is probably not such a great idea when treating serious illness.

And this is where the Real World comes crashing into the realms of Bureaucracy...

You see, Bureaucrats and Lawmakers have a problem with the Real World, and the problem is simple;
The Real World doesn't follow the rules that Bureaucrats make... it's really irresponsible of the Real World, but they're working on fixing that, don't worry.

The Bureaucrats have decided that all drugs need regulation, and the Lawmakers have been employed to make sure this happens. Now the use of Marijuana has a long history, and it has always been associated with working class people. Rich people tended to use Opium, Laudanum, or Opera, (depending on their taste), mainly because they were more expensive, and because everybody else was doing it.

Marijuana came from the hemp growers who used it to make rope (remember hemp rope? I do, you probably don't..). In the days of sailing ships, hemp was the biggest market in the world, even bigger than canvas for sails. Really.

So, when the slaves of Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia, and the rest were planting/picking tobacco or cotton, the slaves of Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma and the rest of the Mid-West were planting or harvesting hemp. And yes... I realise that most people forget that almost ALL states of the Union had slaves until just before the Civil War. (Let's save that for another blog post, ok?)

Anyway, after the harvest, it is well documented that, right up until the 1930's, when most farm labour was still Black (or Coloured, or Afro-American... I genuinely mean no offence), the workers would gather the leaves of hemp left over from the harvest and make fires in the fields, and sit around them till late at night, laughing and singing.

Rope hemp is not very strong as a drug, but its effect is an indication of where the drug could go... and so the Jazz era discovered Indian Hemp...and away we go!!
Where would Jazz, Blues, Folk, Rock and Roll, and the entire 1960's be without Dope?? Nowhere, Man!!

The thing that puzzles me most about this whole thing is: Why do Advocates find it so hard to understand the resistance that The Establishment has to Marijuana?
We have spent 3 (THREE... 1 PLUS 1 PLUS 1) Generations telling society that dope is the drug of Rebellion. This is our way of telling them that we are going to screw their values. We don't care. It's all about smoking shit and getting wasted, and you can't stop us... You Bastards!! We'll rebel by getting stoned and doing nothing!!

Until someone discovered that dope might be good for treating disease.

So now we are all wondering why Society isn't saying "WOW! HOW GREAT!! LET'S GIVE EVERYONE DOPE FOR FREE"

Hmmm...

Now let's face it; no-one is saying that Marijuana is a cure-all that will end Man-kinds suffering. It can be used as a pain relief for certain conditions, when inhaled as a smoke, in its dried, leaf state. It is no good as a long-term cure when used in this way.

The educated among you (if you have come this far), will realise that what the experts are talking about is...Medical dope oil.

Marijuana oil, when properly produced and applied as a tincture (NOT smoked.. and look up the word "tincture", I am not your Year 6 teacher), can actually relieve certain symptoms of certain diseases, Cancer being one of them. I have seen this for myself. Unfortunately Society as a whole, Bureaucracy and Lawmakers in particular, have made it their business to make sure this drug is illegal, and punishable in the courts.
The truth of the matter is; we, the public, have made it our business to reinforce that perception.

Marijuana has been the drug of rebellion and resistance for generations. We have continually thrown it in the face of the Establishment as a symbol of our refusal to do things by the book. Wild parties, alcohol and dope during Prohibition. Free love and dope in the 1960's. teenage rebellion and dope in the 70's.

Now we wonder why governments won't legalise medicinal marijuana, just because we have finally found a way to help mankind.

Like your morning cup of tea,(or coffee), Dope will need to overcome the stigma we have placed on it ourselves, before we can be relaxed about how we use it.

You can toke that any way you like....

Shaving

I own a beard
I do not "have" a beard...
There is a fashion at this point in time, for young men to grow beards. These beards are a serious commitment to the young men who grow them. Beards are a sign of masculinity, to them, and must be cultivated, groomed, fashioned, and  sculpted. The presence of a Barber, or at least a Hairdresser, (note the capitals), is required to ensure that the necessary care is taken of the facial growth, in order to ensure the maximum effect of a fashion accessory which, by it's very nature, is designed to obscure your attractiveness to the opposite (or same, I don't give a stuff), sex.

I own my beard.
It is mine.
It has been my beard since 1983.
My wife and all my children have never seen me without my beard.

Note that I do not say "A beard", but "MY beard".
My beard has been short, long, scruffy, unkempt, tidy, tiny, and has gone from almost black to almost grey, but it has never been gone. It has remained, because it is part of who I am.

My beard is an integral part of my persona. I cannot imagine being without it.

Now here's the kicker. Something as precious to me as my beard must surely require my attention, right?
Wrong.

I brush my beard morning and night, when I brush my hair. I wash it when I wash the rest of me. Rarely does a hairdresser touch my beard. My Wife and kids give me a set of hair clippers for Father's Day every now and then, when my old ones give up. I maintain my beard myself.

Perhaps a lot of young men with beards treat theirs as I treat mine. That's great.
Many do not.

I have no right to judge, and I am just an aging guy with what I like to believe is a modicum of taste, but to the seriously beard-centric guys out there, I would like to offer a few words of insight:

A beard is a commitment. You grow a beard to see how it suits you. You keep a beard because it adds to who you are.
If the beard you grow requires you to change your hairstyle, fashion sense, lifestyle, or hair-care options, then it is probably wrong for you.
If the beard you grow causes people to respect you more, to compliment your looks, or to want to be seen with you, then you may have struck a winner.
I have been told that people cannot imagine me without a beard... That's good, because I can't either.

I regard that as fair indication that a beard is right for me.
My father only grew a beard once in his life, to the best of my knowledge. I was about 15 years old, and the centenary celebrations of his home town included a beard growing competition, which he duly entered. He did not win, but it was an impressive effort, and I could see how it would suit him.

He didn't keep the beard. My Mother didn't like it, for one thing, but the other, more important reason was that he did not feel it suited him. I understood his reasoning completely.
My Father was a clean-cut man, physically and in personality. He had nothing to hide, nothing that required any kind of screen, and so a beard didn't suit him. He wasn't completely comfortable with a beard.

This is not to say that people with beards are hiding something. My Father was over fifty when he first grew a beard. It just didn't suit the man he had become.

I own a beard. It is part of me. When you meet me, what you see is what you get. A good beard ADDS to your personality, emphasises who you are, and makes you more confident.
A bad beard hides your personality, detracts from who you are, and gives you something to hide behind. It can back-fire on you.
Be strong, not fashionable. Look at yourself and ask;"Do I really need a beard?"
If you think you do; try it, but be honest with yourself. There are so many men sporting great big lumberjack beards today, who will be scouring the internet in 25 years  time, trying to find the photographs that show them to be the pale-skinned, heavy-bearded fashionistas that they wish they never were.
I made my fashion mistakes, and I know they will haunt me, but at least I do not still wear those mistakes. When you grow a beard, it becomes part of you, and it remains part of you even after you shave it off.
I made mistakes with my beard. I didn't look after it, I grew it too long at times, and I hid behind it.
A beard cannot be your shield. A beard is a sign of your confidence in yourself.

If a beard suits you, then keep it. Make your beard a part of what you show the world.

If your beard doesn't suit you, then admit it. This is not Ancient Gaul, not having a beard is no shame. In fact, not having a beard makes you braver than the guy who keeps a bad beard. It means you tried it and were strong enough to admit it didn't suit you.

Many fine young men that I know have decided that a beard is not for them. That makes me proud.

So, just because I look fantastic owning a beard, that doesn't mean you do. Be honest with yourself.

And don't even start me on the "Top-knots", or "Man Buns" thing....

Uncomfortable Conversations

We all have them, at one point or another. These are the conversations we would rather not have to have, but are necessary. Personally, I hate them, and like most people, work so hard at avoiding them that it would often be easier to just get it over and done.
Uncomfortable conversations come in many guises. They occur at different times in our lives, for different reasons, and are almost always about the things we think about least... because those things make us uncomfortable. Occasionally, they are about the things we think about constantly, (like that nasty hoarding habit which is growing slowly.... you know who you are!), but mostly it is the things that we push away because it is just too hard to deal with, like Gay rights, or refugees, or why you don't recycle as much as you could, despite that Greenpeace membership you took, ( insert Sea Shepherd, World Wildlife Fund, PETA, Save the Animals, Green Party, etc, etc.).

Sometimes, though, it's impossible to avoid, and we have to have the conversation we don't want to have, the "little chat" in which we feel cornered, trapped, and forced to face the fact that we have to justify ignoring something on which we should have a position. It could be that someone has deliberately button-holed us and forced the subject to the surface, so there is nowhere to hide, or perhaps it is a social situation in which the conversation gradually circles around, before zeroing in on the one subject you try to avoid, and someone turns to you and says, "So what do YOU think...".

In both situations, you can choose your course of action; you can bluff and prevaricate, which invariably makes you look weak, and leaves you open to attack. You can retreat and pretend ignorance, which will immediately destroy your credibility with your audience. Or you can plunge ahead, admit your uncertainties, your prejudices, fears and preconceptions, which will immediately alienate at least some of your audience, especially if they are part of the group under discussion.

Which is why we don't want uncomfortable conversations in the first place.

But how about this...

If we were to confront our fears, our prejudices and preconceptions, if we were to learn as much as we can, from unbiased sources, about all the things we don't like to talk about, and sift the information through our minds as we go about our daily life, then perhaps the "uncomfortable" part of the conversation may not be there. The embarrassment of our opinion might disappear, because we are informed, and can justify our opposition, or because we have learned, and can admit that once we didn't agree, but now we do. We may also learn to appreciate the position of those we do not agree with, and no longer fear them as aggressors and as being argumentative.

Which leaves one problem.

Sooner or later, we are going to have to admit that uncomfortable conversations start with us. We are the ones that set the parameters for these conversations, and it is US that actually make the conversations "uncomfortable" because of our own attitudes. In fact, if we are honest, each of us has, as individuals, many conversations inside ourselves which we do not want to have, because of the truths about ourselves which we need to face, but do not want to.

This is where the conversations need to start.
The most difficult conversations are those we need to have with ourselves.

Are We All the Same In the Dead of Night?

I wonder sometimes, as I lay awake in the darkness, if the Great Ones ever feel the way we do. Do they ever consider the actions they have taken, seeing the unexpected outcomes, and despair that what they worked so hard to achieve, is collapsing before their eyes.
I'm not talking about the madmen like Hitler, who built dreams on selfish motives, but then despaired when their greedy desires were brought undone. No, I am talking about our icons, our beacons of light, who achieved impossible dreams for the good of their fellow man. Did these giants ever look at what they were doing, or had done, and thought; "This is terrible. I should never have started"
Had Martin Luther King Jr, survived into old age, would he have looked at the Los Angeles riots in the 1980's, and  felt despair at how little progress had been made?
If John F Kennedy had not died on that day in Dallas, I wonder if he would have thought that his efforts to remove the troops from Vietnam, should have brought better outcomes than the mess that remained in Laos, Cambodia,and of course, Vietnam.
I feel despair. I feel a tremendous sense of helplessness, and hopelessness when something I have worked so hard on, something I have poured love and effort into, is falling into chaotic fragments before my eyes. Surely the Great Ones have experienced this too.
Or are they certain, so certain of their mission, their goal, their destiny, that they have no doubt of their success? Perhaps this confidence is what makes them Great. They know they are born to this success, and so they go on, against all the obstacles, and achieve those things which only the select few can achieve.
Perhaps, though, in the early hours of the day, when the darkness wraps itself around our minds, and we look at our endeavours without the optimism that daylight can lend to our ideas, perhaps then, the Mighty among us look at themselves and despair, and wonder if all their efforts are for nothing.
If they do this, then I hope they take some small comfort in knowing that, sometimes I am awake too; despairing.
Are you?

Stirring the Pot.

So, as of late 2015, processed meat, beef, lamb, and pork are the new things to fear.
I'm not surprised, to be honest. We have known for ages that processed meat is not good for us, and we have also been told that too much red meat is bad for us.... but Cancer???

The World Health Organisation (W.H.O.) is a very respectable institution. These are the people that oversaw and monitored the eradication of Smallpox, and they have been warning of the resurgence of Polio and Tuberculosis, so they are working for the good of Mankind, but I wonder if they are becoming a part of the problem. Which problem? The problem that is infecting Western civilization; the problem of Attitude towards Life.

We, in the First World, have a very unique approach to Life. We regard long life as a great reward and almost a Right, these days. We are living longer than at any other time in history, and we are doing it in better health, too. We live our working lives planning for a retirement in which we can (hopefully) enjoy unlimited leisure time, with a pleasant outlook for many years to come. Living to age 85 these days is not uncommon, and if you are fortunate enough to retire at 65, then almost 30% of your life-span is theoretically yours to enjoy as you wish.

Unfortunately, this scenario is not universal in our elderly. Many older people are in nursing facilities, with failing health, little opportunity to get around, and with few visitors. Instead of living long, happy lives, they are just living long.

We have another problem which seems unrelated to the elderly, but it is even more devastating. The suicide rate among the young people of the First World nations is growing alarmingly. More people under the age of 25 are committing suicide than at any time in recorded history. Why? We have a good society, with reasonably fair laws, education and opportunity is provided to the vast majority, and our medical research is keeping us safer from diseases than ever before. What then, is driving a sense of hopelessness among our Youth?

Putting these two problems into the pot, adding the latest W.H.O. findings, and giving it a good stir, has made me wonder about something.What if we, as a society, are looking at Life the wrong way, and what if it doesn't really matter that things are Bad For Us?

There are many people who do not eat red, or processed meat, or any meat at all, in some cases, and they have a range of reasons for not doing so. I think that is great, if it works for them. Health reasons are as good as any reason to not eat animal protein, if that suits you. The evidence shows that these people are more likely to live healthier trouble free lives for a few years longer than the omnivores among us. Good for them. Of all the other reasons not to eat meat, I don't understand a few of them, but that's just my opinion, and if they are happy, then also; Good for them.

What I have a problem with is the "blanket" attitude toward red and processed meat. Has it been proven that processed meat can cause cancer? Yes. Is it as bad as tobacco, or radiation exposure? The answer is no. Can red meat cause cancer? Yes. Is it as bad as processed meat? No. If processed meat is as bad as the media reports, then Colo-rectal cancer would be the leading cancer among Italians, Greeks, Germans, and most Slavic people. It's not.

The knee-jerk reaction from the general media, and certain interest groups fails to take these subtle inferences into consideration when they report this story, and I think this harms society in the long run. If people are continually told that a long life is better, when there is nothing to fill that life in the later years, then aren't we doing ourselves a disservice? I have no desire to be trapped in a wheelchair in a home for the frail, simply because a lifetime of manual labour has left me too poor to afford to travel, and too crippled with injury and arthritis to move around as I wish.

The young are being told constantly that their world is being destroyed, polluted and corrupted. they see that every food group can be a detriment to their health if they do not treat it correctly, or if they over-indulge. Sugar is bad, Fat is bad, too much eating is bad, too little is worse. Everything is dangerous, unless it is sterile and completely organic.

Does it have to be this way? Can't we look at things a little differently? Wouldn't it be a more positive approach if we allowed people to have a few bad things without making them pariahs, or at least guilt-ridden? You've made it to 75? Good on you! Eat and drink what you like! You've earned the privilege of letting loose! If you want to continue to live healthily, well that's okay too. You can enjoy life however you choose. Perhaps we can tell the young that Life is Good, rather than Life is Scary. Perhaps they will see the joy in the little evils, rather than the Evil in the little joys.

I have eaten some truly memorable steaks, and my list of favourite meals is red meat heavy. I love Chorizo, Kransky and ham. I would hate to lose my enjoyment (and occasional over-indulgence), of them through a sense of guilt. Don't let Not Dying replace Living.