Monthly Archive for June, 2006

Three months out

Published
by
Simon
on 30/6/2006
in Friends, Joy, Laura, Music and Wedding
. 1 Comment

The ProposalToday is exactly three months out from the big day. It seems barely a few weeks since I wrote the six months out post, and it sure doesn’t seem like we’re that much more prepared. The only big thing we’ve accomplished is booking a celebrant, which basically means all the big things are sorted. A large percentage of the people I talk to about how the preparations are going seem to ask me if I’m nervous. I’m not. I don’t know why I would be. If I were I think it would probably indicate some level of uncertainty about the decision, but there isn’t any. Sure there will be nerves on the day, because I want it to go well, but not because of the ‘getting married’ bit.

I started writing my speech today and I’m thinking already that I may have left my run a little late, especially since my usual public speaking advisor probably doesn’t want help out with the speech this time. The groomsmen are locked in as Aidan, Nathan, Tony and Nathan and I’ve established the Groomsmen’s Mailing List. Aidan, Tony and I are hitting the suit hire places tomorrow morning.

Lydia (who is getting married herself in just 30 days) has agreed kindly to make our cake and we’re very happy she has. We are putting together the ceremony next week while Laura has holidays and I’ve started collecting ideas for the invitations (although I know Laura started doing this months ago. Maybe we should attempt to reconcile our ideas soon).

So what’s left? Well, heaps really and I’m sure I’ve forgotten something but these things, at least, are still to be done:

  • Buck’s[1] party
  • Hen’s party[2]
  • Ceremony
  • Guest list
  • Invitations
  • Music
  • Cake design
  • Suits
  • Table settings
  • Menu
  • Seating arrangements
  • Arranging an MC (but we have one of you in mind so watch out)
  • Website (yep, I really am a geek), and
  • All the stuff I’ve forgotten.

Speaking of music (and I’m getting slightly side tracked here), we asked my probably soon to be cousin in law Bec (no pressure Dan) who is an exceptionally talented and credentialed violinist to play at the ceremony, and she was kind enough to agree. We haven’t decided what we’d like her to play yet, but we’ve been looking so we can give her plenty of notice. One of the pieces of music Laura has mentioned that she likes is Pachelbel’s Canon. I did a quick bit of research into Pachelbel’s Canon and my findings are presented below.

Interestingly, it’s not actually a canon[3], but even more interestingly, it could be considered the very first one hit wonder of all time. I’m amazed at just how many times and in how many different ways it has been covered, adapted and rearranged. Some notable artists who have incorporated or been influenced by the cord progression presented in Pachelbel’s Cannon include: Bee Gees, Fleetwood Mac, Kylie Minogue[4], Pet Shop Boys, Green Day, Oasis, Coolio, Back Street Boys/N Sync, Vitamin C[5], Phil Collins, The Polyphonic Spree, Britney Spears, Mattafix, and more.

That concludes the side track and this post (which, in itself was a side track from all the other, more important things I was doing).

  1. There was an argument around here some time back about whether the apostrophe should be before or after the s in Buck’s party. I think I was arguing for after the s, though if that’s the case I’ve now amended my opinion. And we didn’t even start on whether Buck should be considered a proper noun in this context and therefore deserve a capital, but I think I’ve probably got it wrong again. [↩]
  2. But that’s obviously not for me to worry about and I’m going to do my very best to avoid running into Laura on hers the way Tony ran into Jiselle. [↩]
  3. A contrapuntal composition that employs a melody with one or more imitations of the melody played after a given duration (e.g. quarter rest, one measure, etc.). Thanks again Wikipedia. [↩]
  4. Believe it or not, probably one of my top five favourite pop artists. I’ve been tempted many times to buy that big glossy Kylie book I see occasionally (and usually discounted) while loitering in the music section of book stores. [↩]
  5. With Graduation (Friends Forever), which was released in our final year of high school making it the played to death song of choice for our graduation. [↩]

Happy 26th week of the year!!!

Published
by
Simon
on 27/6/2006
in Business, General and Music
. 1 Comment

Yep, it’s the last week in June and my life is getting very interesting; I’m about to go part time at my current job and start building a mighty cool business. I was in Melbourne for work last week where I was lucky enough to catch the Australia v. Croatia World Cup match. The tension throughout the game and the celebrations at the end at Federation Square were pretty damn fantastic. Pitty about the poor result in the early hours of this morning (but we still love you Socceroos!).

We (that’s Laura, Jiselle, Tony and I) saw Coldplay on Saturday night. In short, they were awesome Ooze[1] has a better account of the evening.

Meanwhile, the music is just starting for me. Eels await on 20th July quickly followed by a week of ear drum busting goodness at Splendour in the Grass!

Bring it on.

  1. Who is picking up the spell checking slack around here while Laura is away on ski trip. [↩]

Wait, George, wait! My tongue is caught in your arse!

Published
by
Simon
on 16/6/2006
in Politics
. 0 Comments

I meant to post this about a week ago, but got totally side tracked with something (possibly network neutrality) and the issue has moved on a little since then. Here’s the original post with an update at the end.

I’m starting to get really sick of the Howard government’s[1] undeniable, relentless and detrimental participation in George W. Bush’s game of follow the stupid leader. Johnny, it’s ok if you don’t play. The other kids won’t make fun of you, in fact they might even be impressed.

The latest episode in this game[2] of follow the leader is this week’s battle between the Federal and ACT governments on the issue of same-sex marriages. The federal Marriage Act in Australia already defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman but the ACT government, in a valiant attempt to give same-sex couples something which at least approximates the same civil rights which are afforded to heterosexual couples, has passed an act in their parliament which provides for civil unions which would recognise same-sex unions under the law.

This week, not more than a couple of days after the US Senate debate on a proposed constitutional amendment that would make same-sex marriages illegal hit the front pages again, the Howard government has announced that it will move to overturn the ACT’s new laws which make same-sex civil unions a possibility. The State and Territory governments have the power to legislate on relationships other than marriage (such as same-sex unions) and the ACT government is being steadfast in its opposition of the federal government’s interference, with the support of at least one Federal Liberal Senator. This quote comes from Senator Gary Humphries[3] in The Age:

I want to be very clear - the ACT parliament does have the power to legislate for relationships other than marriage, and if they exercise that power and that power alone, they should be allowed to do that regardless of whether other people or individual politicians happen to agree with the way that they do that.

It is being reported all over the place today that Senator Humphries may go against his Liberal Party colleagues and vote against the federal attempt to overrule the ACT’s law. I hope he does and the ACT can continue providing same-sex couples the opportunity to have their union recognised under law.

—UPDATE—

Gary Humphries did end up crossing the floor, becoming the first Liberal MP to do so in a decade, but it wasn’t enough. The vote on the motion of disallowance lost by two votes (30-32). Even though he crossed the floor, he was still towing the Liberal party line by supporting the disallowance motion based on the fact that this issue is the ACT legislature’s turf and the Federal Government shouldn’t be getting involved. He also indicated he does not support the ACT’s legislation in this quote from today’s Herald Sun:

“We may not agree with the ACT’s legislative choices but we have an obligation to respect them,” he said.

So there you have it. Homophobia won the day, but the ACT is now looking to reintroduce a new bill to their parliament, let see how it goes.

  1. I suspect, more specifically, Howard himself and a few others sitting atop the “Liberal” Party hierarchy who he has managed to convince or were just stupid or. [↩]
  2. The word game, of course, makes it feel far more trivial than it really is. Although, it would be funny if the running of a country wasn’t such an important thing. [↩]
  3. Who, it seems, may have the worst website I’ve seen in a while. [↩]

Network Neutrality: The “Third” Approach

Published
by
Simon
on 13/6/2006
in General
. 0 Comments

One of the biggest problems I see with many political activists and lobby groups is that in order to get their point across they are excessively critical of the ‘opposing’ argument and routinely exaggerate issue after issue in an (often misguided) attempt to make their point of view more attractive[1]. As with most emerging political debates the debate surrounding the concept of Network Neutrality currently has the two ’sides’ sprouting more and more diametrically opposed arguments. I was very pleased today to find (via VoIP News) a paper published by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) which presents a balanced and well thought out discussion of Network Neutrality issues(PDF).

If you’re interested in the Network Neutrality debate (and if you value the internet in at all you should be) it’s well worth reading their paper. I know it’s a little long for many of you short attention spanned internet freaks out there (16 pages), but it’s worth it, trust me.

It’s difficult for me to form an opinion on the suggestions made by the authors of the paper because I don’t know enough about the FCC, its ideologies, and consumer protection record. Their whole suggested course of action hinges entirely (as they freely admit) on the FCC, its policy position and how willing and able it is to enforce its policies in this ‘new’ area of regulatory authority.

  1. I see this kind of activism most regularly practiced by environmental groups. Groups like Greenpeace regularly step beyond what should be considered a reasoned argument and produce all kinds of material which more closely resembles propaganda. [↩]