I saw something this evening that was really nice, in fact it was sweet. A young woman, I suppose about 18 or 20 years old, holding a mobile phone to her ear and, oblivious of every one or anything, apart from her very apparent happiness, was hopping, skipping, spinning around and just gracefully ‘cavorting’ as she made her way down the side walk. She was very happy. I just caught a fleeting glimpse of her as I drove past on the way home but just seeing that she was happy, lifted my spirits.
Then after I got home I walked to our local post office to post a letter. On the way there I was greeted by another very pleasant sight that lifted my spirits even further. My daughter and son-in-law, who live quite close by, were out riding their bicycles, each with a baby seat on the back, and in each seat was one of their daughters, my little grand-daughters. The little ones were in their PJs; had been bathed and fed and were just being taken on an ‘after supper ride’. They are only just 26 months and 12 months old, so they are still little.
The older one has the curious habit of turning her dummy so that the cut out, which is supposed to fit under the nose, is to one side. It looks wrong, but if you turn it so that it is ‘right’ she turns it straight back. Strange little thing! Still with her dummy in her mouth she said a very distorted, “See ya!” as they rode away.
Walking back home after all this I reflected on what makes us happy. It is just the little things, isn’t it? Seeing someone who is obviously happy; seeing my daughter, happy, with her family, happy and enjoying themselves; it is feeling the evenings drawing in and becoming cooler as autumn descends; it is walking home to where my wife is (this year will be our 30th anniversary); it is recalling things which please me, poetry and music – all simple things. These simple things bring contentment from which fleeting moments of happiness and joy seem to spring. We cannot force it. These special moments just seem to arrive, uncalled.
One of my favourite poems is “The day is done,” by the American poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. He was a very fine man and the last two verses of this poem go like this:
Then read from the treasured volume
The poem of thy choice,
And lend to the rhyme of the poet
The beauty of thy voice.
And the night shall be filled with music,
And the cares that infest the day,
Shall fold their tents, like the Arabs,
And as silently steal away.
All this contrasts so much with what transpired at work today – it is like a different world!!
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Bryan Pape and the law
Bryan Pape is not going to be a very popular man if he gets his way. He is challenging, in High Court of Australia, the legality of the $900 payment to 8.7 million Australians, as part of the Governments economic stimulus package.
If he wins then the payments will be delayed until the Government works out the “correct” way to make the payments.
One wonders about Mr Pape’s motives. He is obviously a stickler for the law – he is after all a law lecturer at the University of New England at Armidale in NSW. But has he become so bound up with his “law” that he misses the whole point of “law”? He contends that the payments are unconstitutional. So? He should look instead at what the payments are supposed to do – to help stimulate a sick economy, by helping to maintain employment and helping cash flows across the country. Get that done, then, if he so desires and feels that deeply about it, challenge the way it was done. But don’t stop the package, don’t stop the payments rolling through the economy because it might have come out of the wrong “bucket”.
To my, admittedly non-legal, way of looking at things is that the “Law”, at its core, provides guide lines for the orderly conduct of human affairs. Laws are not perfect which is why they are occasionally “bent” to facilitate an ethically good motive; something that will benefit society. What I am talking about, in this instance, is not criminal in intent, but for the good of the population or a targeted section of the population.
In this case what good would it be to “uphold” whatever law he feels has been broken only to have the economy collapse (admittedly an extreme and possibly unlikely situation)?
To me, in this instance, the Government is doing the correct thing – consciously or unconsciously - by abiding to the ethical ‘golden rule’ of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Everything is secondary to that rule, including the law as codified by human beings.
As I say, if his challenge succeeds, Bryan Pape will not be a popular man. He may be ‘right’ in law, but then he will have to live with the human consequences.
If he wins then the payments will be delayed until the Government works out the “correct” way to make the payments.
One wonders about Mr Pape’s motives. He is obviously a stickler for the law – he is after all a law lecturer at the University of New England at Armidale in NSW. But has he become so bound up with his “law” that he misses the whole point of “law”? He contends that the payments are unconstitutional. So? He should look instead at what the payments are supposed to do – to help stimulate a sick economy, by helping to maintain employment and helping cash flows across the country. Get that done, then, if he so desires and feels that deeply about it, challenge the way it was done. But don’t stop the package, don’t stop the payments rolling through the economy because it might have come out of the wrong “bucket”.
To my, admittedly non-legal, way of looking at things is that the “Law”, at its core, provides guide lines for the orderly conduct of human affairs. Laws are not perfect which is why they are occasionally “bent” to facilitate an ethically good motive; something that will benefit society. What I am talking about, in this instance, is not criminal in intent, but for the good of the population or a targeted section of the population.
In this case what good would it be to “uphold” whatever law he feels has been broken only to have the economy collapse (admittedly an extreme and possibly unlikely situation)?
To me, in this instance, the Government is doing the correct thing – consciously or unconsciously - by abiding to the ethical ‘golden rule’ of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Everything is secondary to that rule, including the law as codified by human beings.
As I say, if his challenge succeeds, Bryan Pape will not be a popular man. He may be ‘right’ in law, but then he will have to live with the human consequences.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Why accept the bait?
We really are puzzling and in many ways, rather strange creatures – I speak for myself of course, but I believe that many people are in this situation.
For instance, why take offence, or be upset or in any way be disturbed by what someone thinks of us or says about us? What they see in us is their problem, not ours. We cannot control what people think – about us, or about anything. They happen to view the world in a certain way and if, for some reason, we don’t happen to fit into that view, into what they think we should be or do, is it really our problem? Of course not! It is their problem.
When we hear that someone has said or written something about us, to a third party, we, for some reason get upset. Why? Is it because we have our views about ourselves and anything we hear or see that is contrary to our own opinion of ourselves must jar somewhat and be unsettling?
It is almost as if someone has dangled some bait in front of us and we, without sufficient forethought, take a bite and are caught. We then cannot see anything except the bait and we cannot feel anything except the pain of the hook that we have swallowed. We then get upset and often get angry, lash out in our anguish and hurt people in what we would describe as ‘retaliation’ or ‘self-defence’. Retaliation against whom? Self defence against what? Who accepted the bait? We did! Why then get upset with ‘them’ (whoever they are) when we accepted the bait, hook, line and sinker?
Public figures have to develop thick skins and learn to accept, without significant concern, what others say about them, even though I am sure that not many really succeed in this.
We have two alternatives – accept the bait and suffer the consequences or reject the bait, turn our backs and walk away.
I am learning to use the second alternative. It is much less painful and causes me a lot less grief.
As I said at the start, we are rather strange aren’t we!
It is quite a different matter when we are treated in a certain manner, which causes physical grief and pain. That is not on and is unethical. In these cases, more often than not, we neither asked for it nor ‘accepted’ it, but had it forced on us – in a work or a domestic situation. This is then a case of violence, bullying, or other uncalled for activity and may in fact be criminal in intent.
For instance, why take offence, or be upset or in any way be disturbed by what someone thinks of us or says about us? What they see in us is their problem, not ours. We cannot control what people think – about us, or about anything. They happen to view the world in a certain way and if, for some reason, we don’t happen to fit into that view, into what they think we should be or do, is it really our problem? Of course not! It is their problem.
When we hear that someone has said or written something about us, to a third party, we, for some reason get upset. Why? Is it because we have our views about ourselves and anything we hear or see that is contrary to our own opinion of ourselves must jar somewhat and be unsettling?
It is almost as if someone has dangled some bait in front of us and we, without sufficient forethought, take a bite and are caught. We then cannot see anything except the bait and we cannot feel anything except the pain of the hook that we have swallowed. We then get upset and often get angry, lash out in our anguish and hurt people in what we would describe as ‘retaliation’ or ‘self-defence’. Retaliation against whom? Self defence against what? Who accepted the bait? We did! Why then get upset with ‘them’ (whoever they are) when we accepted the bait, hook, line and sinker?
Public figures have to develop thick skins and learn to accept, without significant concern, what others say about them, even though I am sure that not many really succeed in this.
We have two alternatives – accept the bait and suffer the consequences or reject the bait, turn our backs and walk away.
I am learning to use the second alternative. It is much less painful and causes me a lot less grief.
As I said at the start, we are rather strange aren’t we!
It is quite a different matter when we are treated in a certain manner, which causes physical grief and pain. That is not on and is unethical. In these cases, more often than not, we neither asked for it nor ‘accepted’ it, but had it forced on us – in a work or a domestic situation. This is then a case of violence, bullying, or other uncalled for activity and may in fact be criminal in intent.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Pacific Brands - Einfeld - Israel, quite a mix!
The only things that really get up my nose are injustice and cruelty. Incidents of injustice and cruelty are generally the result of hubris – of thinking “I am above the law. I am better than they are. Look at me I am important.”
Three cases of hubris and the after effects have been reported in the last few days. The law of cause and effect cannot be denied or avoided no matter how much people duck and weave – hubris invites Nemesis – and the Goddess Nemesis is implacable in the pursuit of the cause, to track every wrong back to its doer.
Firstly there is the tawdry case of Justice Einfeld’s prison sentence for perjury and perverting the course of justice. It is now reported that he has lied to police on more than one occasion about who was driving his car, after being caught speeding, on camera. He now says he is not a dishonest man. I am sorry, anyone who lies is a liar, and anyone who lies is dishonest. Anyone, particularly in his position, who perverts the course of justice and lies, does it to save himself an ‘embarrassment’; to save seeing himself for what he is. If the ‘surface’ is unblemished he thinks he is unblemished. No matter that internally, mentally, Justice Einfeld is anything but the ‘clean skin’ he thinks he is. Remember, as I have said before, each of us is three people, firstly, the person we think we are, secondly, the person other people think we are, and thirdly, the person we really are.
Einfeld is now seeing himself for what he really is and does not like it, so to try and keep up the illusion, and to boost his severely dented ego, he still says he is not a dishonest man.
He is still in a state of denial.
The second case refers to an earlier statement by an Israeli Army spokesman, who said that the Israeli Army is the most ‘moral army in the world’. Well it now transpires that that individual Israeli soldiers have gone to the press to divulge instances of ‘excesses’ (I can think of no other word for it) by other members of the Israeli Army and of the, shall we say, uneven level of communication between the hierarchy and the men on the ground. Instances in Gaza, of unarmed and totally innocent women and children shot and killed because they turned left instead of right; a tank shell killing a Palestinian doctor’s three daughters in their apartment, because of ‘movement’ in the apartment; the use of certain armaments – phosphorous shells and cluster bombs, in civilian areas (illegal under the Geneva Convention) ; bombing hospitals and clinics; shooting and killing medical staff – etc, etc.
The Israeli Army is ‘spinning’ as hard as it can but when someone claims to be ‘moral’ they had better make sure they are, otherwise, as stated above, hubris invites Nemesis with the inevitable result – normally a very hard fall.
The third case involves Pacific Brands – the makers of popular underwear and workers clothing. Their move to close Australian manufacturing and move it off shore have raised some serious issues – I am not going to buy into the ethics of this matter at this time (that is for later, when I have researched it more). The issues I raise now are the ones about sweat shop labour in China and Hong Kong that now make Pacific Brands products. They, that is Pacific Brands, are now saying that they are doing what they can to ensure ‘sweat shops’ are not used by engaging auditors to check on the worker’s conditions in these ‘off shore’ factories. This is a fudge. If they are that concerned they should send senior management to vet these factories and if necessary cancel orders. But of course they do not wish to witness, first hand, the result of their actions; they do not want to feel guilty. Also this costs money and the bottom line is sacrosanct and the shareholders interests must be protected at all costs. They, that is Pacific Brands, also stress that the jobs of 8000 Australians depend on the production moving off shore. What they really mean is that the only way of protecting shareholders interests is the move off shore.
Again I say, you initiate a course of action so be prepared for anything, for any consequences – because you have no means of knowing what they will be. But be sure there will be consequences.
Always, always treat other people the way you would like to be treated. There is no viable option. It is the old story if you ignore humanity by ignoring ethics, ignoring morals, ignoring virtues and ignoring values, watch for the consequences and don’t be surprised if they are rather unpleasant.
Three cases of hubris and the after effects have been reported in the last few days. The law of cause and effect cannot be denied or avoided no matter how much people duck and weave – hubris invites Nemesis – and the Goddess Nemesis is implacable in the pursuit of the cause, to track every wrong back to its doer.
Firstly there is the tawdry case of Justice Einfeld’s prison sentence for perjury and perverting the course of justice. It is now reported that he has lied to police on more than one occasion about who was driving his car, after being caught speeding, on camera. He now says he is not a dishonest man. I am sorry, anyone who lies is a liar, and anyone who lies is dishonest. Anyone, particularly in his position, who perverts the course of justice and lies, does it to save himself an ‘embarrassment’; to save seeing himself for what he is. If the ‘surface’ is unblemished he thinks he is unblemished. No matter that internally, mentally, Justice Einfeld is anything but the ‘clean skin’ he thinks he is. Remember, as I have said before, each of us is three people, firstly, the person we think we are, secondly, the person other people think we are, and thirdly, the person we really are.
Einfeld is now seeing himself for what he really is and does not like it, so to try and keep up the illusion, and to boost his severely dented ego, he still says he is not a dishonest man.
He is still in a state of denial.
The second case refers to an earlier statement by an Israeli Army spokesman, who said that the Israeli Army is the most ‘moral army in the world’. Well it now transpires that that individual Israeli soldiers have gone to the press to divulge instances of ‘excesses’ (I can think of no other word for it) by other members of the Israeli Army and of the, shall we say, uneven level of communication between the hierarchy and the men on the ground. Instances in Gaza, of unarmed and totally innocent women and children shot and killed because they turned left instead of right; a tank shell killing a Palestinian doctor’s three daughters in their apartment, because of ‘movement’ in the apartment; the use of certain armaments – phosphorous shells and cluster bombs, in civilian areas (illegal under the Geneva Convention) ; bombing hospitals and clinics; shooting and killing medical staff – etc, etc.
The Israeli Army is ‘spinning’ as hard as it can but when someone claims to be ‘moral’ they had better make sure they are, otherwise, as stated above, hubris invites Nemesis with the inevitable result – normally a very hard fall.
The third case involves Pacific Brands – the makers of popular underwear and workers clothing. Their move to close Australian manufacturing and move it off shore have raised some serious issues – I am not going to buy into the ethics of this matter at this time (that is for later, when I have researched it more). The issues I raise now are the ones about sweat shop labour in China and Hong Kong that now make Pacific Brands products. They, that is Pacific Brands, are now saying that they are doing what they can to ensure ‘sweat shops’ are not used by engaging auditors to check on the worker’s conditions in these ‘off shore’ factories. This is a fudge. If they are that concerned they should send senior management to vet these factories and if necessary cancel orders. But of course they do not wish to witness, first hand, the result of their actions; they do not want to feel guilty. Also this costs money and the bottom line is sacrosanct and the shareholders interests must be protected at all costs. They, that is Pacific Brands, also stress that the jobs of 8000 Australians depend on the production moving off shore. What they really mean is that the only way of protecting shareholders interests is the move off shore.
Again I say, you initiate a course of action so be prepared for anything, for any consequences – because you have no means of knowing what they will be. But be sure there will be consequences.
Always, always treat other people the way you would like to be treated. There is no viable option. It is the old story if you ignore humanity by ignoring ethics, ignoring morals, ignoring virtues and ignoring values, watch for the consequences and don’t be surprised if they are rather unpleasant.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
A never to be forgotten Christmas lunch
One never knows what triggers memories – some sound, some scent, the shape of a tree or the curve of a path, noticed while walking.
For no reason that I could discern a long forgotten memory of a certain Christmas lunch, in what was then Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) came to mind the other day. My grandmother was still alive, so this lunch would have been over forty years ago. She lived in a cottage about fifty metres away from the “main house” on my parent’s farm, which my brother used as a poultry farm – he sold eggs, and to grow feed for the thousands of chickens he had.
Now my grandmother had a very large dog, a German shepherd called Toby. This “new” Toby replaced a similar dog of the same name that had died of old age some years before. My grandmother at this time would have been over eighty years old and to have a young dog of this breed at her time of life was not a wise move. But she was stubborn. As a result the dog was totally undisciplined and became very possessive and protective. After a few years it refused to leave her side.
To cut a long story short, on this memorable Christmas my father went to the cottage to help his mother walk to the main house for lunch with the family and as he reached forward to help her out of her chair Toby bit his hand. This greatly distressed both, but particularly my grandmother. After some drama everyone arrived at the festive table with Toby whining and barking outside at the front door.
The fact that Toby had bitten her son made my grandmother realise that having an untrained and undisciplined dog was not a good idea and that it was now too late to do anything about it. So she made the momentous decision to have the dog destroyed – for this she looked to my brother and I to do the deed. Being on a farm, particularly a poultry farm, we had a twelve gauge shotgun to kill the snakes (particularly cobras) and jackals attracted by the chickens.
My brother and I proceeded to carry out my grandmother’s wishes. I don’t know if you have ever seen the results of a shotgun blast on an animal – believe me it is a very distressing sight. My brother actually pulled the trigger, twice, because the first shot only injured the poor creature.
It was bad enough for us outside but just imagine the effect on those inside the house listening to all this - Toby’s whining and barking, then the thunderclap of the buck-shot hitting both the dog and the solid teak, front door. Then the sounds of the injured dog (I can hear them still), then the second shot – and then silence. And the silence that accompanies death is always a profound silence.
I volunteered to clean up the mess and bury Toby – which took quite a while. In mid-summer it was necessary to do it straight away.
After all this I had to rejoin the ‘festivities’. That was a Christmas I will never forget.
For no reason that I could discern a long forgotten memory of a certain Christmas lunch, in what was then Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) came to mind the other day. My grandmother was still alive, so this lunch would have been over forty years ago. She lived in a cottage about fifty metres away from the “main house” on my parent’s farm, which my brother used as a poultry farm – he sold eggs, and to grow feed for the thousands of chickens he had.
Now my grandmother had a very large dog, a German shepherd called Toby. This “new” Toby replaced a similar dog of the same name that had died of old age some years before. My grandmother at this time would have been over eighty years old and to have a young dog of this breed at her time of life was not a wise move. But she was stubborn. As a result the dog was totally undisciplined and became very possessive and protective. After a few years it refused to leave her side.
To cut a long story short, on this memorable Christmas my father went to the cottage to help his mother walk to the main house for lunch with the family and as he reached forward to help her out of her chair Toby bit his hand. This greatly distressed both, but particularly my grandmother. After some drama everyone arrived at the festive table with Toby whining and barking outside at the front door.
The fact that Toby had bitten her son made my grandmother realise that having an untrained and undisciplined dog was not a good idea and that it was now too late to do anything about it. So she made the momentous decision to have the dog destroyed – for this she looked to my brother and I to do the deed. Being on a farm, particularly a poultry farm, we had a twelve gauge shotgun to kill the snakes (particularly cobras) and jackals attracted by the chickens.
My brother and I proceeded to carry out my grandmother’s wishes. I don’t know if you have ever seen the results of a shotgun blast on an animal – believe me it is a very distressing sight. My brother actually pulled the trigger, twice, because the first shot only injured the poor creature.
It was bad enough for us outside but just imagine the effect on those inside the house listening to all this - Toby’s whining and barking, then the thunderclap of the buck-shot hitting both the dog and the solid teak, front door. Then the sounds of the injured dog (I can hear them still), then the second shot – and then silence. And the silence that accompanies death is always a profound silence.
I volunteered to clean up the mess and bury Toby – which took quite a while. In mid-summer it was necessary to do it straight away.
After all this I had to rejoin the ‘festivities’. That was a Christmas I will never forget.
Friday, March 20, 2009
How are the mighty fallen!
Well, I never thought I would ever see (or read about) an Australian High Court Judge going to jail.
Justice Marcus Einfeld is now in jail over a $77.00 speeding fine! Unbelievable. How can a man of integrity, as a judge needs to be, lie and attempt to pervert the course of justice is beyond me. Surely, surely he must have been aware of the need for honesty – I mean he is a judge!! He is supposed to uphold the law and punish those who break the law. How many times would he have heard people in court requested to “swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God?” Yet he could not do it.
While I can feel sympathy for him in his current situation, I feel saddened, let down, disappointed and, frankly puzzled, at the hubris of the man. Did he think he was above the law? Did he think that he could use his (former and previously highly regarded) position as a judge to avoid the penalty for what is really a very petty crime – reflected in the amount of the fine?
The people I feel really sorry for are his family. They must be devastated.
Also it must have been a very difficult moment for the presiding Judge, who would surely have known Marcus Einfeld socially, when he had to actually pass sentence and send a former ‘co-worker’ to jail.
Einfeld has been described as a ‘man of honour’. Sad, very sad. It is true isn’t it – the higher you climb, the further you fall.
PS. I have just re-read my last post – I did not realize how apposite it was(is) – Einfeld “feared the truth lest it denounce him!!”
Justice Marcus Einfeld is now in jail over a $77.00 speeding fine! Unbelievable. How can a man of integrity, as a judge needs to be, lie and attempt to pervert the course of justice is beyond me. Surely, surely he must have been aware of the need for honesty – I mean he is a judge!! He is supposed to uphold the law and punish those who break the law. How many times would he have heard people in court requested to “swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God?” Yet he could not do it.
While I can feel sympathy for him in his current situation, I feel saddened, let down, disappointed and, frankly puzzled, at the hubris of the man. Did he think he was above the law? Did he think that he could use his (former and previously highly regarded) position as a judge to avoid the penalty for what is really a very petty crime – reflected in the amount of the fine?
The people I feel really sorry for are his family. They must be devastated.
Also it must have been a very difficult moment for the presiding Judge, who would surely have known Marcus Einfeld socially, when he had to actually pass sentence and send a former ‘co-worker’ to jail.
Einfeld has been described as a ‘man of honour’. Sad, very sad. It is true isn’t it – the higher you climb, the further you fall.
PS. I have just re-read my last post – I did not realize how apposite it was(is) – Einfeld “feared the truth lest it denounce him!!”
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The truth - always the truth
I am amending this old post as I have had another look in Pascal’s “Pensees” and I cannot find the reference. What I can find is that Leo Tolstoy quotes the saying as by Pascal, buts that’s as far as it goes.
The sentiments expressed, I will admit, sounds like something Pascal would write – very pithy and very apt. So I have kept it.
How about this for as true an observation as you will ever read:
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) in his ‘Pensees’, it is here assumed that he wrote:-
“There is no greater unhappiness than when a person starts to fear the truth lest it denounce him.”
I wonder if any politician; any businessmen; any cheating husband or cheating wife; any schoolyard or office bully is prepared to stand up and be counted?
And likewise how about this one – again quoted by Tolstoy. And again, something that Pascal would write I believe:-
‘Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.’
Tolstoy also wrote, in about 1880, that:-
"Men of our times believe that none of the absurdity and cruelty of our lives, with the ridiculous wealth of a few and the embittered poverty of the majority, and the arms and wars, is seen by anyone and that nothing prevents them from continuing such a life."
You see, Justice and Ethics have been a passion of mine for as long as I can remember. And I will fight injustice when and wherever I see it.
Tolstoy also wrote, in about 1880, that:-
"Men of our times believe that none of the absurdity and cruelty of our lives, with the ridiculous wealth of a few and the embittered poverty of the majority, and the arms and wars, is seen by anyone and that nothing prevents them from continuing such a life."
You see, Justice and Ethics have been a passion of mine for as long as I can remember. And I will fight injustice when and wherever I see it.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Global economic conflict of interest
Amid all the financial chaos in today’s Global Economy it may be well to look at a conflict of interest that is always overlooked, or ignored. This is the conflict that must inevitably arise between a shareholder as an individual participating in the broader economy and that same shareholder with the expectation of adequate (or ever increasing) returns on their investment(s). In this type of situation the danger is that ethics, morality, the virtues and personal values will be ignored or over ridden.
As an individual and as a customer in the broader economy, a shareholder will naturally wish to pay as low a price as possible for the items purchased; the customer may bargain; the customer will almost certainly ask for a ‘cash’ discount. If the customer is a large, or bulk purchaser a ‘trade’ discount will be sought. This desire to pay as little as possible is the very reason why “Discount Warehouse” type stores are increasingly popular – world-wide.
Now those “Discount Warehouse” type stores and the very large supermarket chains exert enormous purchasing power and obtain their stock at the lowest price possible. This is all reasonable and understandable. Money and financial products are no less susceptible to these pressures that any other product supplied.
Competition between the various supermarket chains, discount warehouses and financial institutions means that profit margins are razor thin, hence all the advertising to attract customers to increase (or at least maintain) market share.
The same principle applies to the manufacturers of the goods sold by the large chain stores. Their gross profit margins are kept very low by competition and the large chains requirement to purchase their supplies at the lowest possible price – likewise with banks and other financial institutions that sell financial products.
You see the conflict of interest and the paradox? The purchaser (a shareholder) wishes to pay as little as possible for the items purchased – yet at the same time the CEO and the board of directors of any listed company, or bank, you care to name is under pressure to maintain (and increase) share value and dividends for that same shareholder. How can this happen if the shareholder (as a purchaser) and all other purchasers are trying to keep costs down by spending less?
This is when CEOs try to cut costs by – the old standby – reducing the cost of labour, which normally results in staff lay-offs. This further exacerbates the problem because fewer people are now able to purchase the goods or products sold, which in turn puts more pressure on the manufacturers and the suppliers, and so on, in a vicious downward spiral until something gives – as it has now with the World economy in turmoil.
This is also where the story becomes murky. To maintain the company's share value some CEOs resort to all sorts of stratagems to firstly, prop up their own position, and secondly, to increase profit margins. This is when you get melamine in milk products (China) and other short cuts taken with foods and food products (also principally China); this is when you get shonky financial ‘products’ (i.e. sub-prime mortgages) sold by banks and other financial institutions (USA); this is when you get ‘ponzi’ schemes (Bernard Madoff and others in the USA, Antigua, Belgium, the Channel Islands etc, etc); this is when you get companies moving their production ‘off shore’ – often a euphemism for using ‘sweat shop labour’ in third world countries (sports goods, shoes, underwear, electronics – you name the product and you choose the name of the company involved, situated in any developed country you care to name from Australia to the USA).
In the name of ‘good business’ and ‘sound management principles’ greed, corruption, fraud and anything else that will provide personal gain takes over. Any thoughts about ethics; any thoughts about morality; any thoughts about the importance of virtue; any thoughts about holding fast to one’s values are trashed in the headlong rush for “the money” - often as a 'reward' for being the CEO!
You understand now what I am getting at, and how the conflict of interest arises? I have no answer except to urge, beg, advise all to be moderate, to show measure in their business dealings and/or as shareholders – accept that enough is enough and don’t push for more – be reasonable with your expectations. To urge, beg and advise all to be ethical in their every day dealings with others – their relationships and, at all times, to treat others the way they would like to be treated.
There is also wisdom in the old saying that one should pay workers enough to buy the products they make.
As an individual and as a customer in the broader economy, a shareholder will naturally wish to pay as low a price as possible for the items purchased; the customer may bargain; the customer will almost certainly ask for a ‘cash’ discount. If the customer is a large, or bulk purchaser a ‘trade’ discount will be sought. This desire to pay as little as possible is the very reason why “Discount Warehouse” type stores are increasingly popular – world-wide.
Now those “Discount Warehouse” type stores and the very large supermarket chains exert enormous purchasing power and obtain their stock at the lowest price possible. This is all reasonable and understandable. Money and financial products are no less susceptible to these pressures that any other product supplied.
Competition between the various supermarket chains, discount warehouses and financial institutions means that profit margins are razor thin, hence all the advertising to attract customers to increase (or at least maintain) market share.
The same principle applies to the manufacturers of the goods sold by the large chain stores. Their gross profit margins are kept very low by competition and the large chains requirement to purchase their supplies at the lowest possible price – likewise with banks and other financial institutions that sell financial products.
You see the conflict of interest and the paradox? The purchaser (a shareholder) wishes to pay as little as possible for the items purchased – yet at the same time the CEO and the board of directors of any listed company, or bank, you care to name is under pressure to maintain (and increase) share value and dividends for that same shareholder. How can this happen if the shareholder (as a purchaser) and all other purchasers are trying to keep costs down by spending less?
This is when CEOs try to cut costs by – the old standby – reducing the cost of labour, which normally results in staff lay-offs. This further exacerbates the problem because fewer people are now able to purchase the goods or products sold, which in turn puts more pressure on the manufacturers and the suppliers, and so on, in a vicious downward spiral until something gives – as it has now with the World economy in turmoil.
This is also where the story becomes murky. To maintain the company's share value some CEOs resort to all sorts of stratagems to firstly, prop up their own position, and secondly, to increase profit margins. This is when you get melamine in milk products (China) and other short cuts taken with foods and food products (also principally China); this is when you get shonky financial ‘products’ (i.e. sub-prime mortgages) sold by banks and other financial institutions (USA); this is when you get ‘ponzi’ schemes (Bernard Madoff and others in the USA, Antigua, Belgium, the Channel Islands etc, etc); this is when you get companies moving their production ‘off shore’ – often a euphemism for using ‘sweat shop labour’ in third world countries (sports goods, shoes, underwear, electronics – you name the product and you choose the name of the company involved, situated in any developed country you care to name from Australia to the USA).
In the name of ‘good business’ and ‘sound management principles’ greed, corruption, fraud and anything else that will provide personal gain takes over. Any thoughts about ethics; any thoughts about morality; any thoughts about the importance of virtue; any thoughts about holding fast to one’s values are trashed in the headlong rush for “the money” - often as a 'reward' for being the CEO!
You understand now what I am getting at, and how the conflict of interest arises? I have no answer except to urge, beg, advise all to be moderate, to show measure in their business dealings and/or as shareholders – accept that enough is enough and don’t push for more – be reasonable with your expectations. To urge, beg and advise all to be ethical in their every day dealings with others – their relationships and, at all times, to treat others the way they would like to be treated.
There is also wisdom in the old saying that one should pay workers enough to buy the products they make.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Anger resolves nothing
Why get angry? Is it because someone has a view of the world that differs from yours or mine? Someone wants you (or me) to do something ‘their way’ because it is the way they want it done and if it is not done that way I (or you) am ‘wrong’ and they get angry. Does that solve the ‘problem’? Has the issue been resolved? Has the matter been laid to rest?
Often, in anger, words are said that would be best left unsaid. Often, in anger, actions are taken that, on reflection, would be best not done. Often, in anger, behaviour is indulged in that, on reflection, would be considered unwise.
So why get angry?
As a defence, to conjure up courage – to get the adrenaline pumping – anger, if it is directed in a ‘correct’ course of action, has its uses I suppose. But, as is often the case, there are ‘spin off’ effects that are harmful. Someone who is always angry, who always expects to get things done their way because they threaten anger (and the implied violence) if it is not done as they wish, is really guilty of anti-social behaviour. And we have enough examples of that – from politicians to racists to sports men and everywhere in between. Examples of road rage and ‘one punch’ injuries and even deaths are unfortunately all too common. National anger whipped up by articulate (and not so articulate) national leaders, building upon some emotion that has gripped the nation’s interest often leads to war – Hitler in Nazi Germany; Serbia and the Balkans; George W Bush and Iraq; Israel and Gaza – to name but a few in a long and tragic list. All for what? Have any of the issues that ‘aroused’ the original high emotion or anger been resolved?
So again I pose the question, why get angry?
We are all human beings. Isn’t it much better to talk to people; to reason with them – they have their points of view, which are as valid as anyone else’s? Isn’t it much better to listen to their ‘problems’? Isn’t it much better to treat people as you would like to be treated? Remember they have hopes and aspirations just like you and I – they may be different but they are still valid. Getting angry and threatening violence, or actually taking violent action, will not remove their hopes or in any way alter their aspirations – if you can (or have) achieved yours why can’t they achieve theirs? They have their way of going about their lives which may differ from yours (or mine) – but it is their life; not mine; not yours – it is theirs.
So why get angry?
Often, in anger, words are said that would be best left unsaid. Often, in anger, actions are taken that, on reflection, would be best not done. Often, in anger, behaviour is indulged in that, on reflection, would be considered unwise.
So why get angry?
As a defence, to conjure up courage – to get the adrenaline pumping – anger, if it is directed in a ‘correct’ course of action, has its uses I suppose. But, as is often the case, there are ‘spin off’ effects that are harmful. Someone who is always angry, who always expects to get things done their way because they threaten anger (and the implied violence) if it is not done as they wish, is really guilty of anti-social behaviour. And we have enough examples of that – from politicians to racists to sports men and everywhere in between. Examples of road rage and ‘one punch’ injuries and even deaths are unfortunately all too common. National anger whipped up by articulate (and not so articulate) national leaders, building upon some emotion that has gripped the nation’s interest often leads to war – Hitler in Nazi Germany; Serbia and the Balkans; George W Bush and Iraq; Israel and Gaza – to name but a few in a long and tragic list. All for what? Have any of the issues that ‘aroused’ the original high emotion or anger been resolved?
So again I pose the question, why get angry?
We are all human beings. Isn’t it much better to talk to people; to reason with them – they have their points of view, which are as valid as anyone else’s? Isn’t it much better to listen to their ‘problems’? Isn’t it much better to treat people as you would like to be treated? Remember they have hopes and aspirations just like you and I – they may be different but they are still valid. Getting angry and threatening violence, or actually taking violent action, will not remove their hopes or in any way alter their aspirations – if you can (or have) achieved yours why can’t they achieve theirs? They have their way of going about their lives which may differ from yours (or mine) – but it is their life; not mine; not yours – it is theirs.
So why get angry?
Thursday, March 12, 2009
A thank you to Scott
There are some really good, decent, honest people around. Take Scott (his real first name). Yesterday I sold him a product and due to a moment of aberration on my part charged him $200.00 less than I should have. He paid cash. I realised my error a few moments after he had driven away. I had his mobile phone number so gave him a call to explain the situation. He agreed to come back and pay later that day.
Late in the afternoon he called to say that he could not make it but would be in early the next morning. I had no trouble with this because I knew, I just knew, with a gut certainty, that he would keep his word and come back and pay me.
I was quite busy in the morning but in came Scott, slapped $200 on my desk with the words, “This is for you” and left before I could thank him. I did send a text message, via his mobile, to thank him, which he acknowledged with a “No problems. Cheers” reply.
I do not even know his full name or where he lives. His honesty is an example of what one always hopes to experience but unfortunately seldom does today. So Scott, where ever and whoever you are, thanks mate, you are a star. You have confirmed my faith in human nature and I am sure your clear conscience will let you sleep well tonight.
Cheers.
Late in the afternoon he called to say that he could not make it but would be in early the next morning. I had no trouble with this because I knew, I just knew, with a gut certainty, that he would keep his word and come back and pay me.
I was quite busy in the morning but in came Scott, slapped $200 on my desk with the words, “This is for you” and left before I could thank him. I did send a text message, via his mobile, to thank him, which he acknowledged with a “No problems. Cheers” reply.
I do not even know his full name or where he lives. His honesty is an example of what one always hopes to experience but unfortunately seldom does today. So Scott, where ever and whoever you are, thanks mate, you are a star. You have confirmed my faith in human nature and I am sure your clear conscience will let you sleep well tonight.
Cheers.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Down with financial doomsayers
We are now told what to think by the media (what is new?). I have one word for this – codswallop! They are not soothsayers nor are they experts. They never saw this financial crisis coming. How can we now look to these same ‘experts’ and believe what they now say? They got it wrong once, just maybe they got it wrong again.
There is no need for us all to think the same way – we are not lemmings; we are not clones to all turn left on an order and head for the cliff’- “Last one over is a sucker.” Come on, get real!
All it takes is one person to say “Boo”, to stand up and say “Enough is enough.” Two like minded people can change the world.
The human spirit is invincible; it is unconquerable; it is indomitable! The human spirit embodies all that is noble, courageous and has all that we need to triumph over adversity. Everything ‘comes to pass’ and we WILL overcome this present malaise and emerge stronger and more resilient from the experience.
Where there is a will there is a way.
Life is too short to dwell on the negative. The light of positivity will always illuminate and dissipate the darkness our worst imaginings dream up. Remember that nothing is beyond human ingenuity.
Much of what the ‘experts’ forecast may well eventuate because dwelling on the negative gives it legs and the power to run – it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
The reverse is also true. Write and think positively and the positive will eventuate. The positive also has legs and dwelling on the positive gives it the power to run – another self fulfilling prophecy.
Which one would you prefer?
Be strong and of good cheer. I promise you the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning.
Just a little anecdote from ancient history which is apposite today. When Philip II of Macedonia (Alexander the Great's father) sent a threatening message to the Spartans, saying "If I ever enter Laconia, I will level Sparta to the ground." The Spartans responded with the now famous Laconic reply: "If".
There is no need for us all to think the same way – we are not lemmings; we are not clones to all turn left on an order and head for the cliff’- “Last one over is a sucker.” Come on, get real!
All it takes is one person to say “Boo”, to stand up and say “Enough is enough.” Two like minded people can change the world.
The human spirit is invincible; it is unconquerable; it is indomitable! The human spirit embodies all that is noble, courageous and has all that we need to triumph over adversity. Everything ‘comes to pass’ and we WILL overcome this present malaise and emerge stronger and more resilient from the experience.
Where there is a will there is a way.
Life is too short to dwell on the negative. The light of positivity will always illuminate and dissipate the darkness our worst imaginings dream up. Remember that nothing is beyond human ingenuity.
Much of what the ‘experts’ forecast may well eventuate because dwelling on the negative gives it legs and the power to run – it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
The reverse is also true. Write and think positively and the positive will eventuate. The positive also has legs and dwelling on the positive gives it the power to run – another self fulfilling prophecy.
Which one would you prefer?
Be strong and of good cheer. I promise you the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning.
Just a little anecdote from ancient history which is apposite today. When Philip II of Macedonia (Alexander the Great's father) sent a threatening message to the Spartans, saying "If I ever enter Laconia, I will level Sparta to the ground." The Spartans responded with the now famous Laconic reply: "If".
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Love of money - it can be dangerous
Sometimes it is both interesting and instructive to read what the ancients had to say about life in general and in particular about money and wealth. Plato (427 – 347 BC) in his Dialogues, particularly the Republic (Jowett translation) writes about Oligarchy as:-
“A government resting on the valuation of property, in which the rich have power and the poor man is deprived of it.
“The accumulation of gold in the treasury of private individuals is the ruin of Timocracy (for definition of Timocracy, see below); for first they invent for themselves new models of expenditure and wrest the laws to allow of these; for what do they or their wives care about the law? Seeking to rival rich men, the great mass of citizens become lovers of money. The more they think of money the less they honour virtue. At last instead of loving contention and glory, men became lovers of money and money-making; they honour and look up to the rich man and promote him to high office and dishonour the poor man. A law is passed which fixes a sum of money as qualification of citizenship.....
.... There is a further defect, its division. The State is not one but two States, the one of the poor, the other of rich men, living in the same spot and always conspiring against one another....
.... At the same time their fondness of money makes them unwilling to pay taxes. And perhaps the greatest evil of all, a man may sell all that he has and live without participating in any way (the drone); thus poverty arises, and with that arise thieves and cut-purses.”
All this sounds distressingly familiar, doesn’t it? We can all relate to Plato’s comments, which show that human nature hasn’t changed in twenty five centuries (at least)! (refer ‘Republic’ paragraphs 550 c and d, 551 c and d)
Timocracy:-
Plato defines this as, “An intermediate state between Oligarchy and Aristocracy (Aristocracy according to Plato is a state ruled by philosopher kings – rule by the wise) ... unique in the fear of philosophers as rulers (preferring passionate, less complex characters more fitted to war than peace) and on the value placed on military stratagems and contrivances, and in the waging of everlasting wars. Like the Oligarchy in the covetousness of money.... They will spend large sums of money on women, and other others who please them .... they will spend that which is another man’s on the gratification of their desires, stealing their pleasures and running away like children from the law...” (‘Republic’, para. 547c)
Oh dear; Oh deary me!! I wonder where I have heard all this before – it seems that we never learn! There are ways of escaping the maelstrom that we are descending into, but I don’t know how many times I have to repeat it; – have some sort of moral compass, establish your values, connect with and honour the universal virtues and live an ethical life. It cannot be that difficult surely? Unless of course you love money more, in which case the status quo remains.
“A government resting on the valuation of property, in which the rich have power and the poor man is deprived of it.
“The accumulation of gold in the treasury of private individuals is the ruin of Timocracy (for definition of Timocracy, see below); for first they invent for themselves new models of expenditure and wrest the laws to allow of these; for what do they or their wives care about the law? Seeking to rival rich men, the great mass of citizens become lovers of money. The more they think of money the less they honour virtue. At last instead of loving contention and glory, men became lovers of money and money-making; they honour and look up to the rich man and promote him to high office and dishonour the poor man. A law is passed which fixes a sum of money as qualification of citizenship.....
.... There is a further defect, its division. The State is not one but two States, the one of the poor, the other of rich men, living in the same spot and always conspiring against one another....
.... At the same time their fondness of money makes them unwilling to pay taxes. And perhaps the greatest evil of all, a man may sell all that he has and live without participating in any way (the drone); thus poverty arises, and with that arise thieves and cut-purses.”
All this sounds distressingly familiar, doesn’t it? We can all relate to Plato’s comments, which show that human nature hasn’t changed in twenty five centuries (at least)! (refer ‘Republic’ paragraphs 550 c and d, 551 c and d)
Timocracy:-
Plato defines this as, “An intermediate state between Oligarchy and Aristocracy (Aristocracy according to Plato is a state ruled by philosopher kings – rule by the wise) ... unique in the fear of philosophers as rulers (preferring passionate, less complex characters more fitted to war than peace) and on the value placed on military stratagems and contrivances, and in the waging of everlasting wars. Like the Oligarchy in the covetousness of money.... They will spend large sums of money on women, and other others who please them .... they will spend that which is another man’s on the gratification of their desires, stealing their pleasures and running away like children from the law...” (‘Republic’, para. 547c)
Oh dear; Oh deary me!! I wonder where I have heard all this before – it seems that we never learn! There are ways of escaping the maelstrom that we are descending into, but I don’t know how many times I have to repeat it; – have some sort of moral compass, establish your values, connect with and honour the universal virtues and live an ethical life. It cannot be that difficult surely? Unless of course you love money more, in which case the status quo remains.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Ethics and globalisation
Now that we are all in this together – the world crisis I mean, isn’t it time that we recognized the close interrelationship of all peoples? Rather glibly we speak of the ‘global village’ and of the benefits of ‘globalisation’ but do we really know what we are talking about? As an example of what I mean let me relate the following:
Some years ago now I listened to a radio programme (ABC National) about the changes that had taken place on a Pacific island (I cannot now remember which one). The speaker, an Islander, told of how, until only a few years previously there had been no unemployment, no starvation and no crime (except the occasional ‘crime of passion’ and some ‘domestics’) and that there had been a general sense of well being and of belonging to a community and of a long continuum in that community – going back generations. Each knew their place. Everyone was educated in the traditions of the community, their complex (and very accurate) system of navigation and the various skills of canoe building, weaving and such like. Everyone did what they could – they planted their taro, they fished, collected coconuts or whatever and they continued a simple barter trade with neighbouring islands – sometimes many days away in their out-rigger canoes. While they had never known any other way of living they were content.
Then all of a sudden some developer thought it would be a good idea to open a supermarket and associated infrastructure on the island. This brought about an abrupt change in their way of living. Now all of a sudden they had to have money to purchase the many desirable items in the shop and they quickly acquired a taste for the different foods on offer.
This brought massive disruption to their previously ordered society. Families were split up when some members had to travel to either Australia or New Zealand to find work to send back money to their families ‘back home’ so they could purchase ‘stuff’ from the supermarket. Previously unknown health issues arose (from the changes in diet and alcohol intake), previously unknown types of crime occurred – theft and violence. There was now greed, unemployment, poverty, exploitation and the occasional case of starvation.
The Islander asked the plaintive question, “Are we better off entering the Global Economy?”
I know things never stay the same and that longing for the past is a fruitless exercise, but I again ask the question do we really know what we are doing?
I have often wondered about the ethics of globalisation and whether it really has brought the benefits to ALL that its promoters trumpeted that it would.
What do you think?
Some years ago now I listened to a radio programme (ABC National) about the changes that had taken place on a Pacific island (I cannot now remember which one). The speaker, an Islander, told of how, until only a few years previously there had been no unemployment, no starvation and no crime (except the occasional ‘crime of passion’ and some ‘domestics’) and that there had been a general sense of well being and of belonging to a community and of a long continuum in that community – going back generations. Each knew their place. Everyone was educated in the traditions of the community, their complex (and very accurate) system of navigation and the various skills of canoe building, weaving and such like. Everyone did what they could – they planted their taro, they fished, collected coconuts or whatever and they continued a simple barter trade with neighbouring islands – sometimes many days away in their out-rigger canoes. While they had never known any other way of living they were content.
Then all of a sudden some developer thought it would be a good idea to open a supermarket and associated infrastructure on the island. This brought about an abrupt change in their way of living. Now all of a sudden they had to have money to purchase the many desirable items in the shop and they quickly acquired a taste for the different foods on offer.
This brought massive disruption to their previously ordered society. Families were split up when some members had to travel to either Australia or New Zealand to find work to send back money to their families ‘back home’ so they could purchase ‘stuff’ from the supermarket. Previously unknown health issues arose (from the changes in diet and alcohol intake), previously unknown types of crime occurred – theft and violence. There was now greed, unemployment, poverty, exploitation and the occasional case of starvation.
The Islander asked the plaintive question, “Are we better off entering the Global Economy?”
I know things never stay the same and that longing for the past is a fruitless exercise, but I again ask the question do we really know what we are doing?
I have often wondered about the ethics of globalisation and whether it really has brought the benefits to ALL that its promoters trumpeted that it would.
What do you think?
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Israel and Gaza again
The scale of the destruction in Gaza, from all reports, is almost incomprehensible. I have written about this before but it still both irritates and distresses me. It irritates me because of the seeming inability or unwillingness of the parties to resolve the matter and allowing it to fester, apparently, indefinitely. I am distressed by the senselessness of the destruction and the appalling loss of innocent lives – some Hamas operatives were certainly killed but so also were hundreds of innocent men, women and children. What for? What have the Israelis achieved? Rockets are still being fired into Israel on a daily basis; the Israelis are still bombing tunnels and other targets; the Palestinians in Gaza are still without housing, water, sewage, electricity, means of employment or adequate supplies of food and medicine – and Hamas is still the elected government of the people of Gaza.
I am also amazed at the Israelis apparent lack of understanding of human nature. As I have said before many times, Jews have been persecuted for millennia; has this altered or affected their determination to once again have and preserve their own ‘homeland’ of Israel? Why do they think that the Palestinians will be any less determined or show any less fortitude in their desire to return to their own homeland of Palestine?
Again, so that no one can misunderstand the situation, the Palestinians will be satisfied with nothing less than justice. Every person’s birthright is to have somewhere to call home. The Palestinians were deprived of that right in 1947 (the birth of the State of Israel) by the international community – principally Britain, France and America.
What the Palestinians have been trying to do for more than sixty years is to draw attention to their plight and to get some redress. I disapprove of the methods they use (or have used) but then neither do I agree with the eye for an eye methods used by the Israelis – God knows how many thousands of people have been killed or injured in the fighting between these two Semitic ‘tribes’. They both worship God and a basic tenet of both their faiths is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” – or words expressing a similar sentiment. Yet after some sixty years nothing has been achieved!
I would remind all my readers that the Palestinians are using terrorist tactics first developed by the Israelis and used against the British with the destruction of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22nd July 1946 when a bomb placed in the basement by a specially trained team, from the right-wing Zionist underground movement, the Irgun, demolished part of the hotel, killing 91 and injuring a further 46 people. (Israelis celebrated the 60th anniversary of this event!)
The Israelis blew up the hotel to draw attention to their plight. Sound distressingly familiar? Injustice is the root cause of all the present problems in the Middle East. Using force of arms instead of reason is no way to arrive at a just solution.
I am also amazed at the Israelis apparent lack of understanding of human nature. As I have said before many times, Jews have been persecuted for millennia; has this altered or affected their determination to once again have and preserve their own ‘homeland’ of Israel? Why do they think that the Palestinians will be any less determined or show any less fortitude in their desire to return to their own homeland of Palestine?
Again, so that no one can misunderstand the situation, the Palestinians will be satisfied with nothing less than justice. Every person’s birthright is to have somewhere to call home. The Palestinians were deprived of that right in 1947 (the birth of the State of Israel) by the international community – principally Britain, France and America.
What the Palestinians have been trying to do for more than sixty years is to draw attention to their plight and to get some redress. I disapprove of the methods they use (or have used) but then neither do I agree with the eye for an eye methods used by the Israelis – God knows how many thousands of people have been killed or injured in the fighting between these two Semitic ‘tribes’. They both worship God and a basic tenet of both their faiths is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” – or words expressing a similar sentiment. Yet after some sixty years nothing has been achieved!
I would remind all my readers that the Palestinians are using terrorist tactics first developed by the Israelis and used against the British with the destruction of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22nd July 1946 when a bomb placed in the basement by a specially trained team, from the right-wing Zionist underground movement, the Irgun, demolished part of the hotel, killing 91 and injuring a further 46 people. (Israelis celebrated the 60th anniversary of this event!)
The Israelis blew up the hotel to draw attention to their plight. Sound distressingly familiar? Injustice is the root cause of all the present problems in the Middle East. Using force of arms instead of reason is no way to arrive at a just solution.
Is it the singer or the song?
Here is a curious thought and a whimsical reflection on singing.
With singing and sentient beings - is it the singer or the song? Does a bird suddenly take thought and decide to sing or does the song ‘sing’ the bird? Does a happy little child, singing as it plays know what it sings or is it happy and the ‘song’ just arises from within?
Is the song always there and just needs an outlet? Is the ‘song’ happiness and contentment; is the ‘song’ part of the psyche of all sentient beings – birds, whales and other aquatic mammals, some forest dwelling mammals and human beings (I am sure there are other sentient beings which ‘sing’ in one form or another that I have missed – frogs and crickets maybe?). I don’t know – maybe the ‘song’ is part of the ‘collective unconscious’ that (possibly) is behind all the activities of all sentient beings.
Just a thought.
With singing and sentient beings - is it the singer or the song? Does a bird suddenly take thought and decide to sing or does the song ‘sing’ the bird? Does a happy little child, singing as it plays know what it sings or is it happy and the ‘song’ just arises from within?
Is the song always there and just needs an outlet? Is the ‘song’ happiness and contentment; is the ‘song’ part of the psyche of all sentient beings – birds, whales and other aquatic mammals, some forest dwelling mammals and human beings (I am sure there are other sentient beings which ‘sing’ in one form or another that I have missed – frogs and crickets maybe?). I don’t know – maybe the ‘song’ is part of the ‘collective unconscious’ that (possibly) is behind all the activities of all sentient beings.
Just a thought.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
When lizards scream
We are amazingly complex beings – complex yet in a strange way quite simple in our needs. We actually only need sufficient food, shelter, clothing, close contact with a chosen few others of our kind, a modicum of comfort and a ‘space’ or time for ourselves to do our own thing to be happy and have peace of mind.
Yet somehow in the mix we seem to get it wrong. We complicate life by introducing desires – now some desires are good; the desire to better oneself; the desire for a mate and for children; the desire to help others. These are admirable desires; these are humble desires.
My concern is what happens when our ego kicks in. Our ego ‘tells’ us we are better than the next person; our ego tells us that we are hard done by and that we ‘deserve’ better or deserve more. These are not humble desires. These are the desires that give rise to corruption and fraud, to criminal activities, to categorizing people by race, colour or creed; to cruelty and abusive behaviour, to wars and death and destruction. These desires start us on the slippery slope of apartheid, of ethnic cleansing and generally deeming some people to be less than human – e.g. South Africa, Nazi Germany, Bosnia, Rwanda/Burundi, the Israel - Gaza problem and unfortunately many, many other examples in every country, including Australia (the aboriginal question).
On the issue of cruelty we humans are I believe the ‘caretakers’ of all sentient beings – all life forms (by sentient beings I mean all creatures that have nerve ends that can feel pain and use their senses). We are all on this earth together and as humans (at the top of the ‘food chain’) it is our duty, one of the reasons for our existence, to care for and preserve all life forms. Some we eat, some we use for other purposes – personal transport and to carry our burdens, some provide us with material for clothing. Bountiful nature has provided us with all we need. We might not appreciate it but all life forms have their purpose. So when my son (a lawyer) told me, some years ago now, that a female articled clerk told of how she used to spray geckos with insecticide to hear them scream, I was left speechless. I have no idea if geckos can scream and I have no desire to test it out – but I have no reason to doubt my son’s word – he was as shocked as I was. How anyone could even contemplate doing what this girl (allegedly) confessed to doing is quite beyond me. If it is true this is a sad example of a manifestly deviant ego and some warped desires completely over shadowing reason, compassion and basic decency.
On a less violent and more topical vein the entire Wall Street fiasco was brought about entirely by ego – the vastly inflated ego’s of many people for whom enough was never enough.
Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with having an ego. It is necessary to have one, to identify our individuality. I AM different from you – I have a different outlook on life and I have had different experiences and I am a male. Females have a different viewpoint again. This is as it should be. It is when we start making a virtue of our differences that problems arise.
We have to be very careful. We have to use reason. Of course the best way of avoiding the entire issue is to be ethical and treat EVERYONE (and all sentient beings), all together now – one, two, three – “As we would like to be treated.” Simple isn’t it?
Yet somehow in the mix we seem to get it wrong. We complicate life by introducing desires – now some desires are good; the desire to better oneself; the desire for a mate and for children; the desire to help others. These are admirable desires; these are humble desires.
My concern is what happens when our ego kicks in. Our ego ‘tells’ us we are better than the next person; our ego tells us that we are hard done by and that we ‘deserve’ better or deserve more. These are not humble desires. These are the desires that give rise to corruption and fraud, to criminal activities, to categorizing people by race, colour or creed; to cruelty and abusive behaviour, to wars and death and destruction. These desires start us on the slippery slope of apartheid, of ethnic cleansing and generally deeming some people to be less than human – e.g. South Africa, Nazi Germany, Bosnia, Rwanda/Burundi, the Israel - Gaza problem and unfortunately many, many other examples in every country, including Australia (the aboriginal question).
On the issue of cruelty we humans are I believe the ‘caretakers’ of all sentient beings – all life forms (by sentient beings I mean all creatures that have nerve ends that can feel pain and use their senses). We are all on this earth together and as humans (at the top of the ‘food chain’) it is our duty, one of the reasons for our existence, to care for and preserve all life forms. Some we eat, some we use for other purposes – personal transport and to carry our burdens, some provide us with material for clothing. Bountiful nature has provided us with all we need. We might not appreciate it but all life forms have their purpose. So when my son (a lawyer) told me, some years ago now, that a female articled clerk told of how she used to spray geckos with insecticide to hear them scream, I was left speechless. I have no idea if geckos can scream and I have no desire to test it out – but I have no reason to doubt my son’s word – he was as shocked as I was. How anyone could even contemplate doing what this girl (allegedly) confessed to doing is quite beyond me. If it is true this is a sad example of a manifestly deviant ego and some warped desires completely over shadowing reason, compassion and basic decency.
On a less violent and more topical vein the entire Wall Street fiasco was brought about entirely by ego – the vastly inflated ego’s of many people for whom enough was never enough.
Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with having an ego. It is necessary to have one, to identify our individuality. I AM different from you – I have a different outlook on life and I have had different experiences and I am a male. Females have a different viewpoint again. This is as it should be. It is when we start making a virtue of our differences that problems arise.
We have to be very careful. We have to use reason. Of course the best way of avoiding the entire issue is to be ethical and treat EVERYONE (and all sentient beings), all together now – one, two, three – “As we would like to be treated.” Simple isn’t it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)