Eurovision a Quick Primer

Having been invited to my first Eurovision Song Contest Party I thought I'd do some quick research.

Apparently it all started in the 1950s. As part of rebuilding war-torn Europe the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), based in Switzerland, set up an ad-hoc committee to search for ways of bringing together the countries of the EBU around a "light entertainment program". At a committee meeting held in Monaco in January 1955, director general of Swiss television and committee chairman Marcel Bezençon conceived the idea of an international song contest where countries would participate in one television programme, to be transmitted simultaneously to all countries of the union.

The competition was to be similar to the existing Sanremo Music Festival held in Italy. It was seen also as a technological experiment in live television. In those days it was a very ambitious project to join many countries together in a wide-area international network. 

The concept, then known as originally as the "Eurovision Grand Prix", was approved by the EBU General Assembly in at a meeting held in Rome on 19 October 1955.

The first contest took place in spring 1956 in Lugano, Switzerland.

The current name "Eurovision" was first used in relation to the EBU's network by British journalist George Campey in the London Evening Standard in 1951.

As to who has won it the most? Surprisingly Ireland holds the record for the highest number of wins, having won the contest seven times—including three times in a row in 1992, 1993 and 1994.

France, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom are joint second with five wins.

Now that give me a little insight.

One way all men are Created Equal

Hearing and seeing the events that transpired in Federal Parliament the other day as the Member for Dobell stood up to speak for his political existence it was interesting to be a fly on the wall watching from a comfy spot in front of a television. It was worrying to realise during the speech how flimsy and lightly held the key principles on which our free society is based are are and how poorly defended they are by those charged with the responsibility of rising above their own base ambitions for power and success.

Regardless of how much or how little you may agree or disagree with Mr Thomson's defence, allegations or reason given in his explanation, one basic point was made and made quite validly, in the opinion of this writer and that is, the point that neither Parliament or the Media are the place for anyone to be tried, convicted and indeed found guilty. 


As the quote from Harper Lee's book To Kill a Mockingbird used by Mr Thomson states ". . . there is one way in this country in which all men are created equal – there is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller, the stupid man the equal of an Einstein, and the ignorant man the equal of any college president. That institution, gentlemen, is a court. […] Our courts have their faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal". 


In the case of Mr Thomson there has been:

Book Cover To Kill a Mockingbird

• no court involved, 
• no testing of evidence to any acceptable legal standard, 
• no judgement before an untainted open minded jury of reasonable men. 

There has only been a Fair Work report which has been criticised by all  for the time it took to produce, its quality and the many ways it leaves more questions open then it resolves. There have been no charges laid by any police authority and no charges based on any civil law or legislation. What has in fact come to pass is an almost unanimous taint of guilt liberally smeared by an opposition's belief  that its their best chance of bringing down a minority government;  a view supported by an equally self interested media wanting an early election because it's good for business.


From this has flowed an almost constant leaking of information to all corners of the media, information that is as yet unproven, unauthenticated information, documents and allegations by interested parties to a point where a fair defence for Mr Thomson in a proper legal sense has been rendered almost impossible. 


From this comes my view that basic rights like "habeas corpus", "the presumption of innocence" "equality before the law"  are from the situation of Mr Thomson shown to be  fragile and poorly defended as key concepts on which or legal system and free society are based. Like the treatment dealt out to certain Australians like those held as terror suspects by the US it seems that - how much our legal system is allowed to work for you - is more to do with the political ends of certain political parties and the media who support them than the notion that such concepts are not negotiable if democracy is to function properly. To quote Harper Lee again - "I'm no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and in the jury system – that is no ideal to me, it is a living, working reality."

Why Mining Magnates Should not have Political Power

Black Orchids

An Australian Associated Press (AAP) report of 18 May 2012 reports that botanists say that a flora survey of the Bimblebox nature reserve near Alpha in Queensland is worthy of preservation. That is contrary to the view of mining magnate Clive Palmer who wants to develop the area for mining. In Mr Palmer's view the "former grazing property that's been degraded by cattle over 40 years [is] not worth preserving".

Bimblebox Tree

Mr Palmer, AAP reports, plans to develop his multi-billion dollar China First coal mine on the nature refuge, near Alpha in central Queensland. The National Parks Association of Queensland on the other hand says it has completed a flora survey of the refuge and that the opposite is true. The association, a non-government organisation that promotes the preservation and expansion of national parks, says the survey found more than 220 different types of plants in two days.

Bimblebox Forrest

It will be interesting to see if this will be another case of mining winning over conservation, of non-science over science. No doubt Mr Palmer will be calling to mind his large contributions and support he has already made to the ruling Government of Queensland?

Provocative Time Cover: Hugo is not Alone

Here I am thinking that the four year old Hugo as was portrayed in the television series The Slap was an unusually different concept designed to shock by the author of the novel upon which the program was based. Then I see the cover of Time Magazine featuring a three year old still feeding from mum and discover how wrong I am in what I have thought.

Picture of Time Cover

Reading further I discover that this is part of a 20 year old notion called "attached parenting" which in addition to prolonged mammary based feeding encourages parents to attach themselves to their children in all manner of ways, for example, with slings, carry packs and like apparatus all in the name of bringing children closer to their parents, making them more entwined with them. This it is said will encourage more peaceful and more tranquil children, kids that are unlikely to be bullies at school or in latter life. This if true has great merit and should be encouraged but I would worry about the down side of the equation which may be more docile and dependant children who may lack a little in the areas of passion and ambition. Lack some of the things that make us strong and able to deal with life.

To quote the ABC article on Times Cover those for attached parenting say:
"There is almost no tantrum that I have not been able to soothe and calm down by holding my child in my arms and by breastfeeding them." - OR - "That's what it looks like; it's loving and it's beautiful and there's nothing creepy or weird about it."

But other American mothers who are not convinced say:
"My approach to parenting is surviving. Making it through every day with nobody hurt and everybody fed; maybe bathed if we're lucky..."

Time says "the very debate is proof the cover did its job" and I agree. It would be interesting to do one of those documentaries where they revisit these children in latter years to see how these kids grew up and whether the claims made for attached parenting panned out. Perhaps a scary thought is that one day we may see experts trained to detach an attached generation of pucker lipped children?

Political Correctness and other Verbage

Sometimes I am amused how people think that turning a well understood term or phrase into a sentence aids communication. Nor is it clear why such a process is believed to make harsh words easier to take. The very notion of "Political Correctness" is a misconception implying for example that it is some how wrong to tell a blind person he is blind and can't see but ok to be inaccurate and call them "visually challenged". Fact is blind people can't see and their real challenge is that and not anything visual, just coping with the darkness of being unable to see.

It seems to me if we paid more attention to being correct and less to being "politically correct" there'd be better communication and understanding.

This prompted by the following humorous PC list of possible alternate terms -

He does not have a FAT BEER GUT but has developed a LIQUID GRAIN STORAGE FACILITY.

He is not a CRAP DANCER but he is RHYTHMICALLY UNDER RESOURCED

The Librarian did not GET LOST IN HER OWN LIBRARY ALL THE TIME but she INVESTIGATES ALTERNATIVE DESTINATIONS.

He does not SLEEP AROUND its just that he is HORIZONTALLY OVER-GENEROUS.

He is not BALDING just in a state of FOLLICLE REGRESSION.

She is not a CRADLE SNATCHER she just prefers GENERATIONALLY DIFFERENTIAL. RELATIONSHIPS.

He does not get FALLING-DOWN DRUNK but he becomes ACCIDENTALLY HORIZONTAL.

He is not a MALE CHAUVINIST PIG but he is a SWINE EMPATHIZING BIGOT.

He is not afraid of COMMITMENT but he is MONOGAMOUSLY CHALLENGED.

He does not STINK but he has HYGIENE AVERSION SYNDROME.

He was not a GROPING PERVERT but suffers from COMPULSIVE HAND MOVEMENT DISORDER.

He is not OBSESSED WITH TELEVISED SPORTS but has AN ATHLETIC TELEVISUAL ADDICTION.

She does not IGNORE YOU but has ATTENTION SPAN DEFICIT DISORDER.

They are not a LAZY, MESSY SLOB they just LACK HAND-VACUUM COORDINATION.

He does not tell ENDLESS, BORING, UNFUNNY JOKES - He is HUMORLY OVER-CONFIDENT.

Its not not that they act like a TOTAL ASS they just developed a case of RECTAL-CRANIAL INVERSION.

"Premier State" or "State of Fear"

Once upon a time NSW use to be called the "Premier State" but if Channel Seven Sydney's "Today Tonight" is to believed it should be restyled the "State of Fear".

My goodness their main story tonight (30/4/2012) was that there are green fluorescent germ things lingering on every train door handle, train seat etc.

A germ fest waiting to kill you - or - more likely is it just more rabid paranoia being promoted by News Ltd favorite TV network?

Why has keeping people informed become an excuse for keeping us all in a constant "State of fear". It is almost like the people programing for these television stations have taken their strategy from the novel 1984.

Writing Tips of the Fun Kind

The following is a humorous list of writing tips:
1. Avoid alliteration. Always.
2. Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.
3. Employ the vernacular.
4. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
5. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are unnecessary.
6. Remember to never split an infinitive.
7. Contractions aren't necessary.
8. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
9. One should never generalize.
10. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know. "
11. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
12. Don't be redundant; don't use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.
13. Be more or less specific.
14. Understatement is always best.
15. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
16. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
17. The passive voice is to be avoided.
18. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
19. Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
20. Who needs rhetorical questions?
21. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
22. Don't never use a double negation.
23. capitalize every sentence and remember always end it with point
24. Do not put statements in the negative form.
25. Verbs have to agree with their subjects.
26. Proofread carefully to see if you words out.
27. If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.
28. A writer must not shift your point of view.
29. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction. (Remember, too, a preposition is a terrible word to end a sentence with.)
30. Don't overuse exclamation marks!!
31. Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences, as of 10 or more words, to the irantecedents.
32. Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.
33. If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
34. Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixing metaphors.
35. Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
36. Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing.
37. Always pick on the correct idiom.
38. The adverb always follows the verb.
39. Last but not least, avoid cliches like the plague; They're old hat; seek viable alternatives."