When was the world created?

The Jews believe that the world was created on March 29th, 3760 B.C. Were they even close?

Chronicles of the Kings- Lynn Austin

My wife has convinced me to read some of the books she has been reading. Normally I don't read a lot of novels from the Christian book market. I usually find them too tame. The truth is that the evangelical market can be easily offended and therefore the content often strays from the depths of reality.
Anyway, the books that were put into my hand were a series called "Chronicles of the Kings." The author, Lynn Austin has chosen to portray the life of King Hezekiah in fiction. Hezekiah was one of the few kings in the history of Judah to truly honour God and his law. As far as the novels have been concerned (I am reading the third book in a five part series), the over all enjoyment factor for a good read has been reasonable. I guess I would give them a score of 7/10. A couple of things have annoyed me though. The prophets seem rather weak. When Micah came to Hezekiah at the start of his reign he "prophesied" on his academic knowledge of the Torah, rather than by a burning of the Holy Spirit inside of him. This seems to all to easily fit in with an evangelical stream that would rather have the Father, Son and Holy Book, rather than the Holy Spirit. So many evangelicals seem to be afraid of the power of the Holy Spirit, and it certainly comes through in Lynn Austin's books. Secondly, there is no doubting that these books are written for women, as much of the Christian fiction market is (perhaps why it is seen as impotent by people like me). There are far too many times when the heroine of the story dreams of her love for her man, and of being held in his arms etc. Now this is all very good when these books are mostly read by women, but when is someone going to have the courage to write something a little more palatable for both genders?
Aside from the fictionalisation of the story (which I will not spoil for you) one of Lynn Austin's obvious goals was to get people to pick up their bible's and read the stories of the kings in a new light. This is something I am greatly appreciative to her for. She has put faces on the characters of the bible. This is necessary because the biblical stories are set so far in the past and in such different cultures, that it is often difficult to relate to them. It certainly encouraged me to read the stories of the kings again to get a better context for the story I was reading in a novel.
Lynn Austin manages to make the Assyrians seem rather mean, but not as ghastly as a writer like John Grisham or Steven Lawhead would have the guts to do. But then those writers (Christians as they are) have been given the cold shoulder by much of the evangelical world for publishing in the secular market. It does give the reader a better impression of why Jonah wanted to disobey God when he was called to prophesy to Nineveh, the capital city of the Assyrians.
So, I read the books of 1st and 2nd Kings. I decided to skip Samuel on this occasion, as I know the stories of King David better. A few things stood out to me as I read these books. (I calculated that they would be about 250 pages in normal paper back spacing, but the bible pages are rather thin with tiny type on them.) Firstly, Solomon was at once the biggest success and biggest failure that Israel ever had. It would be fair to say that God has accommodated our mistakes many times in his plans. Solomon is a big example of God doing this.
Let me digress. God never intended for sin to be in the world. But he lovingly decided to give us free choice. When sin entered the garden of Eden, God decided to come up with a salvation plan. Very early on God promised he would send a Saviour, who was yet unnamed. Later on, after many more human mistakes God let the Israelites know that it was his preference for them to not have a king like the other nations, because he wanted to be their King. Yet God showed grace to the Israelites and allowed them to have a king, even though it would be their down fall in the end.
Saul may have been Israel's first king, but David was God's choice for Israel's king. David was a man after God's own heart, yet even he had a lot to learn about God's will. Israel prospered under David. Israel began to fulfil its purpose as a light among the nations. Under Solomon, Israel prospered beyond imagination. Gold was so plentiful in his kingdom, that silver was considered worthless. He kingdom stretched up to the Euphrates river, just as God had promised Abraham. Kings and queens from all over the known world came to Solomon to seek his wisdom and hear where his wealth had come from. Israel was the most prosperous nation in the world under King Solomon.
But Solomon had a fateful flaw. He took on foreign wives. In fact the Torah already gave instructions that a king should not have many wives. It seems that Solomon did not know the law well enough. As Solomon took on 700 wives, many of them to form alliances with other nations, they also brought their foreign demigods. Solomon was tempted into worship of gods other than the true Creator God Yahweh. As he was tempted, he led his nation into the same sins. It was as a direct result of Solomon's sin of idol worship that Israel was split under his son Rehaboam. Rehaboam remained the king of Judah, and Jeroboam (not in the line of King David) became the king of Israel.
So many of the kings of Israel and Judah worshipped idols because Solomon led them into sin. So much of the old testament story is about Israel's struggle with temptation and God's desire for them to be a light to the world. Imagine if Solomon had remained a godly man and had not taken on extra wives. Imagine if his son had been a godly man too. It would stand to reason that a godly son would have inherited his kingdom and not only maintained it, but would have seen it prosper even more. The fame of Israel would have spread even further through out the world. Israel would truly have been a light to the nations. A succession of godly kings that did not take on idol worshipping wives would have made for a very different history.

The second thing that stood out to me, was that God promised that there would also be a son of David sitting on the throne of Judah. God promised that he would reserve a remnant for himself in the nation of Judah for "the sake of David." David is a "type" or a foreshadow of the Messiah Jesus. When God promised that he would do this "for the sake of David" he was in many ways saying he would do this for the sake of his Son, the coming Messiah.
When Jesus was born, he was the last King in the line of David to be born. He inherited the "throne" of Judah. This was declared to the world as he hung dying on the cross under the sign "King of the Jews" (Jew, being a derivative of Judah). Since Jesus rose from the dead, and lives for evermore, he continues to be the King of Judah, of the new spiritual Israel. No nation of Israel or Judah can exist without God's king in place.
Many believed that Israel being established in 1948 was a fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecies that the Jews would return to Judah. But it would pay to read the return to Jerusalem in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra as a fulfillment of these prophecies. The modern nation of Israel does not pay any attention to the King in the line of David, therefore they are not the biblical nation of Judah. They are not some special fulfillment of prophecy. They need a saviour just like the rest of us, they need to call on King Jesus.
Reading 1st and 2nd Kings also helped me realise that I have both an earthly and a heavenly King in Jesus. He will return to establish his reign on earth some day. It is clear though, that Israel failed in being the light to the nations that God desired. The nation of Judah was destroyed in AD 70. His plan now is for the spiritual nation of Israel with Jesus as King to be his Light to the nations. But I do not buy into some notion in the middle east having a special part to play in that plan.

iPod touch- no pairing record (welcome confused iPod users)

I have been quite surprised by the number of people who have come to my blog in the last few days because of the problem they have been having with their iPod. There are LOTS of people out there with the same problem. I think it may be a problem with software update 1.1.3. If you are able to get it working and update to 1.1.4 then the problem should hopefully go away. Read the post below for the story. If my experience does not help you, call the technical assistance line and make sure they help you, don't let them get away with anything. (Number in post below).

I have a new gripe now. I can only charge the iPod touch through iTunes on my computer. I have a separate usb hub and can not charge it there. That does not make logical sense to me. If electricity is all that is needed to charge then it should work through the usb hub overnight when the computer is off. I don't want to have spend extra money to buy a special charger just so I can use my iPod on a trip when I don't want to take my computer. I'm kind of annoyed now. Does anyone have any advice on this matter.

Since you have arrived at my blog, please feel free to look around. There may be some other topics that interest you. Just have a look at the labels in the side column. Good luck with your iPod. You'll get it working eventually.

iPod touch- no pairing record

When I knew a friend was going to the States, I decided I would buy a new iPod. For the last two years I have had a 512mb shuffle. Some people I know have even made fun of me, but I am secure in my iDentity. I have wanted an iPod for a long time. It's my birthday this month. My wife kindly let me have the iPod touch as an early birthday present. I refrained from getting the iPhone for a number of reasons, not the least that the ongoing expense would currently be quite high. I guess I will upgrade to an iPhone within a couple of years.

The retail price in the States was $299. Plus tax it was $307. I forked out 7500 rubles (conversion based on date of internet purchase) which worked out to be $339 AUD, a $60 saving on the Australian retail price of $399.

My friend arrived yesterday and I picked up the package this morning. The presentation was classy.

The box was small and shiny. Although, I would rather have had U2 on the front than John Lennon. He's never gettin' in to my iTunes.

I calmly walked home and even picked up some groceries on the way.

Out it came from the box.

Still shiny, still happy.


It's really thin too- 8mm x 61mm x 110mm.

Next came the exciting moment, plugging the usb cable into the computer. iTunes did not open by itself. I waited a while. I opened iTunes manually. "iTunes is unable to connect the iPod "iPOd" because the pairing record is missing." Arrrrgh!! What could be wrong. I wasn't happy. I disconnected and tried again. Still the "pairing record" was missing. I was beginning to freak out. $340 and all I had was a shiny looking (albeit wafer thin) brick. After four tries I was dismayed and ringing friends. I found out I could call Apple Customer Service (US) 1800 MYAPPLE. When I did get through, I was told that I could call technical support when they open, but was shown very little sympathy. The shine was really beginning to wear off.

Some forums spoke of other people having the same problem. I stumbled upon one person saying that it worked for them on the sixth try. Another person said to try a different usb port. I tried the all faithful restart on the computer. My wife sat down to have a go, I suggested trying a different port, and thankfully it worked that time. I still think I will ring Apple Technical support. If you have found my blog and you want to speak with them their number is (US) 1800 275 2273. If you are calling outside the US, use your international code first. I called on Skype and it was still a free call.

I intend to call them now, and ask them what the situation is......

As far as the iPod is concerned, I am still very happy. Unfortunately, my internet provider has me set up on VPN. I will have to install Leopard before I can do VPN sharing and be able to use my iPod online. It will still work in wireless cafes though.

..... I'm on hold right now, while the consultant checks with the "product specialist".

....."It was a problem with the Apple ID"

....."excuse me, I don't understand, could you explain that to me"

....."I will transfer you to the product specialist."

On hold again.


The product itself is extremely intuitive. Even my 2 1/2 year old daughter could work it. I showed it to her and she immediately said "clock!" and pressed the clock button. She also found it very easy to scroll through photos.

I have my "answer" from Apple technical support. It was rather vague. There was possibly some confusion with the Apple ID (the one I use to log in to the iTunes store). I don't believe the explanation. It would explain the problem if the ipod was already connected, but not the very first time I took it out of the box. Apparently restarting the computer was the right thing to do.

God help you if restarting the computer does not help.

And God help you, if it doesn't work and you live in a place a loooong way from Apple support.

P.S (Since you have taken the time to read my blog, please feel free to have a look around if anything else interests you. The labels in the side column are a good starting point.)

Creation Day

March 1st 2009 is to be celebrated as "Creation Day."

World Cup Soccer (Football) 2018 bid

I hate soccer.

It is lauded as the "world game." So often in Australia people cringe at the dominance of American culture and resist it as strongly as possible. So why then are people falling so madly in love with the dull round ball game? To do so is as much an abandonment of Australian culture as pursuing American culture is.

Kevin Rudd has announced that Australia will bid for the 2018 soccer world cup. Arguments are always made about the economic advantages of large events. No doubt that is true. But arguments have also been made that a world cup would help "social cohesion" for Australia with the rest of the world.

Australia needs to be secure in its own identity. The Australian populace right now thinks that we need to get with the rest of the world and join in the "world game". As an Aussie living in Russia I feel I have something to say about the "world game". Russia is another country that is often insecure in its identity and wants to be like the rest of the world. Russia used to be a champion nation at ice hockey. Canadians remember the glory of defeating the Soviet Union at ice hockey in the early 70s because the Soviet Union ice hockey team was a force to be reckoned with. There are still Russian players in the NHL, but I think that will decline in the future.
Ice hockey is dropping in popularity in Russia because of soccer. There are outdoor ice hockey rinks in neighbourhoods all over Russia, but they don't get used any more. People play soccer on them, all year round. I have often marvelled at the craziness of people running around playing soccer at -20 degrees. Russians are now mad about soccer. They want to be like Europe. Young people want the money that soccer offers in Europe. But somehow they have forgotten that the NHL also pay big money in ice hockey. Soccer is killing Russian culture. Russians do ice hockey well, but not soccer.
The Russian national team can not even qualify for the world cup. Russia is the most populated country in Europe. Europe have more seeds at the world cup than any other region. All of Russia's sporting muscle is being poured into soccer these days and yet they still can not qualify for the world cup. They have thrown their ice hockey legacy away for the dull round ball game.



If Australia insists on pursuing this love affair with soccer we will also throw away much of our heritage. We actually already have two world games that we are very good at. Cricket is a world game. No one can dispute this. Cricket is only growing in popularity in the world. It may not be as big as soccer, but it is actually second. There is more and more money in cricket all the time, due to the booming Indian economy. We have a world game that we are champions at, why do we need to pursue soccer at the expense of other sports?
Rugby Union is another world game that Australia is good at. Rugby is also growing in popularity in Europe. The Rugby Union world cup was held last year in France. France won the Rugby world cup in 1999. Italy are also pursuing the game of Rugby. Australians feel we should pursue soccer because it is big in Europe. But this is simply an attitude of following. If we want to be leaders then we should continue to lead in the sports we are good at.

If Australia is to host the 2018 soccer world cup then the AFL and NRL will have to suspend their seasons in the middle of the year in June and July. This is because the soccer world cup has to be held during the European off season. It seems ludicrous that Aussie Rules and Rugby should have to shut down so that Australia can watch soccer. This is a bit strangulating and arrogant of soccer. They would have to take over all of the large stadiums in Australia to make the world cup happen.
The AFL and NRL have legal rights to the stadiums during the winter. So legally they should have the power to stop the world cup from coming to Australia. The AFL were pressured by the government to accept an international drug code that they were not keen to sign for various reasons. It would be a shame and disgrace if the governments of Australia pressure the AFL and NRL into suspending their 2018 seasons.

Aussie Rules football is the only truly Australian game. It was invented in rural Victoria in the 1850s. It has its roots in three sports- an Australian Aboriginal ball game played with a ball made of possum hide and certain aspects of Gaelic Football and Rugby. Tom Wills is credited with the invention of the game in 1858, Wills grew up playing the Aboriginal game with Aboriginal children in western Victoria during the 1840s.
If social cohesion is something we desire in Australia then Aussie Rules Football is well qualified to do this. Aussie Rules is the most popular sport in indigenous Australia. Recent programs in South Africa have seen white and black children playing Aussie Rules together. It is viewed as the sport of reconciliation in South Africa, as soccer is the sport for black people and rugby for white people. Soccer however in Europe has a long history of racially motivated violence. How is this good for social cohesion?

Of course the biggest indictment against soccer is that it is boring. Many of the games end in 0-0 or 1-1 draws. Many soccer world cups have been decided on penalty shoot outs. Cricket has been accused of being boring in the past. But draws are almost non existent in test cricket these days. In limited overs cricket a tie is extremely rare. Draws proliferate in soccer.
Soccer scores are always low. Even in professional ice hockey, scores are regularly 6-5 or 4-3 etc. Scores in Rugby usually get up to 20 or 30 points. Scores in Aussie Rules football usually get up to 100 points. An Aussie rules game will usually see around 10 or more goals per team.

Soccer is boring and a dull cancer on the cultural heritage of Australia. Soccer is greedy and wants to crush all other sports in its wake including ice hockey and Aussie rules football.

I hate soccer and hope it never succeeds in Australia.

Indian Premier League- Revolution by design?

Well the storm in the cricket world has not calmed down. In many ways it is only getting hotter. There are so many opinions flying around at the moment that it is hard to get a grasp on them all and condense them in to any sort of neat conclusion. I have a few theories of my own that I would like to develop.

I have been saying for a little while that cricket needs a revolution. The ICC hold a very tight reign on the game and there is little room to budge outside of their boundaries. Cricket has long been seen as the gentleman's game, but there really aren't too many walking around in top hats and coats with canes anymore.

But is the impending revolution good for cricket? This is yet to be seen and could supposedly go either way.
An examination of the facts is in order. Cricket is an ancient game and it has a lot of traditions. Coming into the 1960s the English were experimenting with the game. As often as the English get accused of being slow to accept change, they are the ones who have often brought in new innovations. The English developed the 60 over per side game in the 1960s. The original concept was to give each team one innings to bat. A test match lasts five days. On average one innings takes one day. The fifth day is supposed to help encourage a result. A days play usually lasts 90 overs. So the 60 over concept was to give each team a full innings to bat, as much as could be squashed into one day. When these games originally began people did not think about scoring runs fast, they were still trying to protect their wickets.

The game then evolved. It was decided that 60 overs per side was too much to squeeze into one day. Fifty overs per side was a more manageable amount. The early world cups were played with 55 overs per side. Scoring was not high.

A young Dennis Lillee.


The next big change was the World Series revolution brought on by Kerry Packer in Australia in the late 70s. He wanted to wrestle the tv rights away from ABC to his network GTV 9. The conservative approach of the Australian Cricket Board (A.C.B) meant that they would not negotiate with Kerry Packer, so he made his own money do the talking. What followed was very successful for him. Super Tests, Australia vs a World XI and the first World Series Cup limited overs games (until that point the only limited overs games were at the world cup and English county level) proved to be popular among the Australian public. The money that Packer offered was significantly more than the A.C.B could pay players. His revolution was successful. Within a few years A.C.B rewarded the tv rights to Packer and a new World Series Cup (tri-nations tournaments) was played every Summer in Australia. This was indeed a revolution in cricket. Coloured clothing and day-night matches came in through Australia. Now they are common place. England started the limited overs concept, Australia delivered the revolution.



When the World Series revolution came in the late 70s, everybody thought that the death of test cricket was imminent. (A little like people said VCRs would kill the cinema, or how people today say that downloading will kill the music industry.) Everybody was wrong (apart from those that disagreed!) One day cricket has only strengthened the game of cricket. Players over the years learnt to score faster. This eventually transferred to test cricket. In the early days of World Series cricket, a run rate of 4 an over was considered acceptable and 5 an over was high. Today in one day cricket a run rate of 6 an over is more acceptable. A run rate of 4 or 5 is normal in test cricket, where as 2 or per over was once normal in test cricket. One Day cricket has in turn made test cricket exciting.

But, let's not forget why One Day cricket was invented in the first place, for mass entertainment and profitability. These values seem to be so normal these days. Values of honour and loyalty are almost a thing of the past. This makes Justin Langer's decision to honour his County Cricket commitments and not play in the Indian Premier League, all the more remarkable.

One Day cricket was developed for fast entertainment, as has Twenty20 cricket. The unititiated may think that Twenty20 has been invented because test cricket is boring. This is a lack of understanding. Test cricket is like a mature wine. Twenty20 is like a can of coke. There is some overlap between the two markets, but they are actually separate markets. The reality is that Twenty20 does not threaten test cricket, but 50 overs cricket. Within five to ten years Twenty20 will be thriving and 50 overs cricket will be fading out. Test cricket will stay strong and even grow stronger as the run rates continue to rise off the back of Twenty20. Once again it has been England who have delivered the concept, this time it is India delivering the revolution.

Cricket has been at a low point internationally for at least a few years now. The Australian team have been so strong, which while it is a lot of fun for Australians, is not much fun for anyone else. The ICC have been weak in so many areas of managing the game. (I have written about this on other occasions, you can read these examples by clicking the "cricket" label in the side bar.) The World Cup in 2007 was a low point. Shortly following India's exit from the World Cup, the owner of Zee Tv announced he would set up a rebel competition, the "Indian Cricket League." He had an idea to carry out a revolution and could have been successful. Perhaps the BCCI learnt from the ACB's mistakes in the 70s. They did not let the ICL and Zee TV win the day. The Indian Premier League has been a reaction to the ICL.



The IPL is a successful concept because it is approved by the BCCI. The most popular Indian players can continue to play test cricket while playing in the IPL. Had they played for the ICL they would have forfeited their international careers. The IPL is also successful because there is a LOT of money being thrown at it. Each of the 8 franchises were sold by BCCI for $700 million. The TV rights were sold for $800 million. That is a total of US $6.4 billion. No other cricket board in the world can ever dream of such money. The ICC can never dream of such money. Overnight the BCCI have become the most dominant force in cricket. Their pulling and pushing power now outweighs all cricket boards and the ICC combined.

This is a coup in world cricket, Just exactly what will result remains to be seen. The old guard are not happy though. The ECB have not allowed any English cricketers to play in the IPL. The county clubs are insisting that all contracts be honoured. Meanwhile the BCCI and IPL are putting pressure on the ICC to create an official six week window for the tournament every year and pressure on the ECB to change the county calendar.

Could Australia or England or South Africa come up with a competition to actually rival the IPL? That is highly doubtful. India has the world's biggest booming economy now. Growth is outstripping China. The middle class in India outnumber the population of the USA. Everybody wants a slice of the Indian market. For the first time there is now an Indian owned Formula 1 team this year named "Force India." (Since when have Indians ever been in to Formula 1 and motor racing?) Cricket is big in India, very big. If any marketer wants to be successful in India, then they would do well to have a cricketer market their product. There is just no way to compete with the economic force of India.

There might not be enough money for a direct rival competition, but there is still money elsewhere apart from India. Cricket Australia and the ECB should fast rethink their strategy. It is agreed by all cricket lovers that test cricket must survive. But why hold on tightly to 50 overs cricket? It should be scrapped at the nearest opportunity from the Summer calendar. International games do not need to be played often at either the Twenty20 or 50 over level. These can be reserved for the odd "friendly" game, World Cup tournaments and World Cup qualifiers, much like in soccer. The calendar should be divided between Twenty 20 Super Leagues and test cricket. Take the example of Rugby Union in the southern hemisphere. The first three months of the rugby season are played out in a "Super 14" by professional teams from South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. The second three months of the rugby season are reserved for international test matches.

Australia, New Zealand and South Africa would be wise to act soon and set up a southern hemisphere Twenty 20 Super League. England and the Carribean countries can do the same in the northern Summer. Pakistan, Sri Lankan and Bangladesh teams and players can join in an expanded Indian Premier League. So long as enough room is left in the calendar for test matches and world cups, such a plan will work.

If a workable compromise in not sought soon with the money makers of the game, then they will continue to advance their take over bid. Where that will end is anybody's guess.

I'm just a proud Dad

When I was a kid playing with Lego was my favourite indoor activity. So as a parent I have wasted no time in introducing my child to the joys of Lego. Abigail and I often build things together. It is more often I than her that does the building and Abigail likes to add pieces and animals on top. Often, if she is playing alone she will come up to me with something small she has built (often an animal on top of a couple blocks) and say "show Daddy, show Daddy."
Normally, when Abigail does something it will appear on her blog. Abigail is also an accomplished blogger. If you want to view it, then ask me for directions via email. But on this occasion Abigail did not "show Daddy." I simply discovered her construction later in the evening. For a 2 1/2 year old, I like to think that she has done an excellent job. So today, I am showing off the lego skills of my daughter. To those of you who don't have kids, you probably think "big deal!" But, hey, I'm just a proud Dad.

Indian Premier League

Andrew Symonds will be paid AUD $1.47 to play in the new Indian Premier League.

The cricket world is a buzz at the moment. Today the world's leading players have been auctioned to the 8 Indian franchises in the new Twenty20 competition to start in April. It will run for 6 weeks with the final on June 1st.
MS Dhoni is the highest paid Indian player at USD $1.5 million. Andrew Symonds is the highest paid Australian at USD $1.35 million. It is exciting to see cricket players get paid more than ever before in their careers. There is a lot of money for cricket in India, most of it coming from television rights.
I have long argued that a Super League is needed in cricket. I actually wrote to Cricket Australia about this a few years back, but they never replied to my letter. An Indian Premier League does not mean such a concept is not possible in Australia, but since there is talk of future competitions being officially scheduled into the ICC schedule, there may not be a lot of room in the calendar. Considering that a maximum of 16 Australians can play in the competition, Australians may become hungry for similar entertainment on home soil.
All of the teams will be quite multicultural in nature. This should hopefully go a long way to mending some of the racial controversies of the Australian Summer.
It seems the revolution in cricket has begun, albeit tightly controlled by the ICC.

I can't fill in the gaps

Living in another culture does funny things to you. I enjoy living in Russia. I have adjusted a lot over the last couple years to life in Russia. While I still have a long way to go, a lot of it feels normal. One of the things that happen when one lives some where else is that the lives of people back home go on separately. In fact the life of the whole country goes on without me. I try to take the time to keep up with what is going on in Australia, so that I will not be ignorant when I am there. But, the reality is that I can read all of the headlines and understand all the issues. But I can't seem to fill in the gaps.
The formal apology to the stolen generations is the perfect example. As much as it was very special to see, and even declare my agreement, I still did not feel a part of it. I was unable to stand in Federation Square with other Aussies and corporately apologise together. I was unable to gauge the emotion of people on the streets. These things can simply not be done from a distance.
The Bali bombing happened on October 12th, 2002. I saw reports of it for the first time on the plane in Canada when my new wife and I were on our honey moon. It was shocking and I felt moved by it. A couple years later, when I was back in Australia, a friend told me that the climate in Australia changed after that event. I could see it in his eyes and hear it in the tone of his voice. Some how, I did not feel as deeply affected though. I was not in Australia at the time, or even shortly afterwards, and I did not corporately take part in the grief Australia shared at the time. I realised that it was something about Australia that I would never properly understand.
I think these are the roots of reverse culture shock. There are certain things, that happen, that no matter how much I hear about them, I am still not a participant in, but merely a spectator. Then when I return to Australia, I will never be able to completely relate to people on certain things, because I will not have experienced it. At least I have been to Gallipoli, an experience that many Australians have never had, but that made me feel more Australian than ever.
I guess I am changing. I will always love my country, and I will always be an Australian. But I will always be an expatriate too, and will always have something in me that is different from the average Aussie.