The end, for now

I have decided to hang up the boots in this blogging game, for the time being at least. There's a couple of reasons behind this decision.

• I have started a blog for my area of responsibility at work, unimaginatively called the Online Services blog. I've been reaching my aim of two posts per week, but the amount of creative energy leftover for non-work blog pursuits has been very limited!
  
• The reason I started blogging was not because I thought I had anything in particular worth saying, but because I saw blogging as an outlet for expressing my thoughts and ideas. However, I am unconvinced about the value of half-formed ideas being thrust into the public domain - see next point.
  
• I have become very aware of the power of the written word for good, but also the potential for misinterpretation, confusion and ultimately discouragement. The disconnect between the blog author and the audience is dangerous, because the author cannot gauge the impact of what has been said. Unlike other forms of written communication, bloggers often don't spend as much time as they should considering how their words might be perceived by their readers. It's far too easy to press 'publish'. In this way, I have found some blogs to be quite unhelpful, and realised the potential for the same in posts I've written too.
  
• Finally, and most importantly, I would like to spend more time with God and the time I have been spending on the computer has taken away from this. I became convicted yesterday when I read the article Unplugging the God of Information Technology and realised just how much time I waste online, and how I would really like to spend more time with God.
  

I certainly don't think this is the final stop in my blogging adventure. I have some ideas for different ways of using blogs to communicate, and I'm really keen to explore these in future.

Thanks to all my readers for joining me on this journey - I'll keep you posted on any future adventures!

When is a bribe not a bribe?

Today, two gambling stories featured in the Sydney Morning Herald:

1. Russell Crowe proposes the new South Sydney Leagues club be a pokie-free zone.
2. NSW Premier Iemma allows Keno to be played in hundreds of pubs.

Here's some gambling statistics courtesy of the Herald:

• The revenue received by the NSW government from gambling is $7 billion.
• The average Fairfield (Western Sydney) resident loses $1793 on gambling per year.
  
• That loss equates to 5% of the average income ($35k) of Fairfield residents.
  
• The average Ku-ring-gai resident loses $50 on gambling per year, where their average income is $66k.
  
• From 1998-2006, over $4.3 million has been received in 'political donations' to the NSW Labor Party from hotels, the Australian Hotels Association, clubs, Clubs NSW and Star City Casino.

The Chair of the South Sydney board "believed the club would go broke within 12 months without the $150,000 per month from its 60 pokies...The board will make its decision [on the Crowe proposal] on sound business and economical fundamentals." The news today is filled with clubs defending gambling, claiming that without poker machines, clubs could not support community activities.

Here's some questions:

• why should the state's poorest support 'community development' for the rest of the population?
• why must community development come at the cost of the health of the most vulnerable in our community?
• why will only business and economic, not social considerations, be taken into account by the South Sydney board?
  
• what would the actual cost be to the community if gambling was banned?

Finally, what is the difference between a political donation and a bribe? Donations to political parties tread a very fine line. Sure, these donations come with no guarantee of preferential treatment, but can you imagine a government taking steps that would upset one of their core sources of income? Ban donations to political parties and we will experience greater chance of policies based on the well-being of society, not on the preservation of a political party.

Why should I be good?

I have spoken with a number of people recently who have no relationship with Jesus, yet keenly desire to be a good person, and live a good life. Of course, each person has their own definition of what is good, and what isn't. The common thread is that each person desires to treat others in the same way that they would like to be treated.

This sounds like good news, afterall, it was Jesus who first said "Do to others as you would have them do to you" (Luke 6:31). Yet there can be very different motives for aiming to do good to others. The people I have been speaking with desire to live this way because by treating other people well, there is a greater likelihood they in turn will be treated well. It stands to reason that if you are nice to me, I will probably be nice to you. For them, it is essentially an insurance policy - some kind of guarantee of receiving good treatment from other people.

For this reason, I can understand why people might want to live this way. However, this approach fails as a 'game plan' for life when we examine the everyday (and not so everyday) injustices we all experience. The 6 million Jews who were murdered by Hitler may have been very good to those around them, but that did not improve the quality or length of their lives. Similarly, the more than 200,000 victims of genocide in Sudan are not helped in anyway by the good things that they do or have done in their lives, not to mention those who continue to be raped, go hungry, or have their land removed.

I'm sure you are acutely aware of the injustices that you have experienced, not to mention those close to you. These injustices - at work, in health, in relationships etc will happen to you regardless of how 'good' you might consider yourself to be.

Being good is an insurance policy that only covers you for very specific circumstances. Don't get me wrong - the world is certainly a much better place for us all to live when we are good to each other. However, being good is a strategy that provides no guarantees for this life, and no hope for the life to come.