Sunday, May 31, 2009

Moral high ground

The moral high ground is when you think you are better than anyone else, or from a national point of view, believing that your country is guided by something higher than mere people and that all others are lesser beings because of this.

Problems are inevitable when this thinking prevails. This is pride, this is hubris to a high degree, and a fall is inevitable – such a high ‘standard’ can never be sustained. We have seen quite a lot of this recently.

There have been the Rugby League shenanigans – excessive alcohol consumption and sexual misconduct; British politicians rorting their allowances; former US President George Bush and his very ill advised invasion of Iraq; US policy of ‘rendition’; prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison; the on-going saga of incarcerating prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (‘Gitmo’); the Israeli treatment of the inhabitants of Gaza (attacks and sixty years of blockades); the shocking treatment of the harmless minority ‘Falang Gong’ by the Chinese Government, and of course their treatment of Tibetans; and then of there have the various reports in Australia and elsewhere on paedophilia, sadistic physical, sexual, emotional abuse, neglect and brutalisation of children, perpetrated by priests and nuns from various Catholic Church orders and organizations culmination in the recent Irish, Ryan Report about similar abuse in Ireland’s industrial school system (run mainly by the Catholic Church, particularly the Christian Brothers and the Sisters of Mercy).

It is a massive report – five volumes with a total of about 5 000 pages. I have not read the entire report, and I do not suppose I ever will because it is very distressing (it is available, in full, on the internet). Apart from the incalculable physical and mental harm to the children all the reported abuse diminishes the perpetrators and reduces them from being the upholders of a noble Christian ideal – care for and provide succour to the distressed, the lonely and those in need - to being criminals who used and abused those most vulnerable in our society, our children and who need to be brought to justice. These people and the institutions they represent have lost all moral authority to tell anyone, anywhere, what to do and how to behave. For them it is obviously a case of ‘do as I say, not as I do.’ This is hypocrisy on a grand scale.

I think President Obama has got the message and is doing his best to restore some semblance of moral authority to the US Government’s activities.

I am not sure the Israeli’s have learned anything and still follow their rather primitive Old Testament dictum of an ‘eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’

Rugby League and British politicians are cleaning up their acts purely and simply because it hurts their wallets, not because they actually believe they have behaved in an antisocial or unethical manner. Their standard response is ‘but I have done nothing wrong’ or ‘but she asked me up to her room.’

The Ryan Report highlights the truly astonishing level of abuse that some 800 priests and nuns are accused of perpetrating over a period of about 70 years in Ireland, UK, Australia, Canada, Gibraltar, India and the United States to many thousands of unfortunate children, now men and women. I am not at all sure that the Catholic Church has the inclination to really change.

You can lose a reputation in a second – and it will take a very long time indeed to restore.

“Indeed the Idols I have loved so long
Have done my Credit in Men’s Eye much wrong:
Have drown’d my Honour in a shallow Cup,
And sold my Reputation for a song.”

(Quatrain 69, Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, Edward FitzGerald translation)

Sunday, May 24, 2009

The word "Help"

The word ‘help’ is a short four letter word with a wide range of meanings – it can be a verb or a noun. Its meanings range from a scream for assistance, or offering succour to those in need, to being a servant (a ‘help’ around the house). The word comes from Old English, Old Frisian (helpe), Old Saxon (helpa), Old High German (Helfa) and Old Norse (hjalp), so the word has obviously been around for quite a while.

What brought this to my attention is the crying need for more help (in the sense of succour) for many people in all walks of life and in many countries. What particularly bothers me is the plight of so many children – on the streets (any city you care to name), malnourishment (Sudan, Ethiopia and even in Australia and the USA), abused (any society anywhere), injured in wars (ie Tamil Tigers 27 year insurgency - and now the terrible aftermath of the conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Myanmar) – these are the most defenceless and vulnerable in our society.

Regarding this subject (which is actually about injustice) I remembered reading something which took me quite a while to find. It is a little story written by someone who has faded from view in recent years – Sir Rabindranath Tagore (1861 – 1941). He was a Bengali and the first Asian to receive the Nobel Prize – in his case for Literature. He was also Knighted by the King in 1914 (I think). He was what is called a polymath (a man of knowledge) - a poet, visual artist, playwright, novelist, educationist, social reformer, nationalist, business-manager and composer whose works reshaped Bengali literature and music. He was also fluent in English.

In a little book he wrote called “Fruit Gathering” is a short piece titled ‘XXXI’. This piece shows how even the most humble of us, given the will, can change society by helping, one small piece at a time:

“Who among you will take up the duty of feeding the hungry?” Lord Buddha asked his followers when famine raged at Shravastri.

Ratnakar, the banker, hung his head and said, “Much more is needed than all my wealth to feed the hungry.”

Jaysen, the chief of the King’s army, said, “I would gladly give all my life’s blood, but there is not enough food in my house.”

Dharmapal, who owned broad acres of land, said with a sigh, “The drought demon has sucked my fields dry. I know not how to pay King’s dues.”

Then rose Supriya, the mendicant’s daughter. She bowed to all and meekly said, “I will feed the hungry.”

“How!” they cried in surprise. “How can you hope to fulfil that vow?”
“I am the poorest of you all,” said Supriya, “that is my strength. I have my coffer and my store at each of your houses.”

Such is the will and power to help that even just one can offer!

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Culture

‘Culture’ is a funny thing isn’t it? It means many things to many people. I am thinking of the ‘big picture’ culture – the way people live and interact in different countries. Not the more refined ‘fine arts’ opera going, cocktail party type of culture. As an example I give you the following – this is an actual (but slightly amended to avoid any identification) ethical case that was presented to me some years ago:

Imagine you are a manager in an organization with strong Middle Eastern connections.
You learn that the CEO has been requested to instruct the Human Resources Manager to endorse a senior staff appointment that would satisfy the Middle Eastern Connection.
You also learn that the person to be appointed is a locally born relative of the Middle Eastern Connection. The concern is that this is blatant nepotism, and that a person with better qualifications and experience (from within the organization) will be overlooked.

A number of management and staff members come to you to express their dissatisfaction with the proposed appointment. You are asked to approach the CEO to point out that what is happening will cause resentment, may even cause resignations and will have a negative impact on staff morale, and to find out what action could be taken to stop the appointment.

The CEO makes you aware that in the culture of the Middle Eastern Connection no ‘family’ member would ever do anything to dishonour the family name – particularly so in this case, as the appointee would ‘owe’ a favour. This appointment would therefore be considered as something of an ‘insurance’, to ensure that the Middle Eastern Connection’s local interests are protected and as such they would not think of it as being unethical.

You are told that there is nothing that can be done about the appointment.
What should you do? What are your options? Does it really matter?

While the ‘locally born relative’ had some experience in the industry concerned, being parachuted in at the top, as it were, would not have been condoned in a purely Australian context. I know that many sons of owners are employed in senior positions but they generally had to work their way up through the ranks. Think of James Packer or the Murdoch children.

I suppose it is a case of different horses for courses, but it is odd how different people can observe the same problem and come up with a totally different solution – based on their cultural back ground. It just shows that there is not just one ‘correct’ way of doing anything.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Some people can be very unkind

Some people can be very unkind and uncaring. I remember when, quite a few years ago now, I was accountant for a small franchise pharmaceutical company. A new shopping centre had been opened and one of the shops was taken up by this franchisor.

After some searching a ‘suitable’ pharmacist was found who offered to buy into the franchise and to take up the lease for the vacant shop. The contract was duly prepared and all the necessary financial arrangements were in place – all that was required was for the gentleman to turn up on a particular day and sign up.

A few days earlier this pharmacist had phoned me to ask how thing were progressing and I gave him the latest info. He told me that his elderly mother was very sick and on their farm in a district some considerable distance from Perth. He said that she was gravely ill and not expected to last out the week and that this put him on a spot and he doubted whether he would be present on the day required to sign the franchise documents.

I told the business owner, my boss, the news from this rather distressed man and was rather shaken by his demeanour and his reply. His words were (and I clearly remember them after all these years), “Tough. Tell him to be there or the whole deal falls through and he loses his deposit.”

The new pharmacist was not a wealthy man and losing a $10 000 deposit was something he could ill afford. When I phoned him and gave the news his anguish was palpable. His mother was dying, he had to travel hundreds of kilometres to and from the farm, and now he had this added problem because of the intransigence of my boss.

This put me in a very difficult position as it was my job to liaise between the pharmacists and my boss, the franchisor. I thought he was being overly harsh and I told him so and that under the circumstances I was sure the bank would allow a few days grace. I also indicated that his approach was not the ideal way to start a business relationship. He fired me on the spot.

The gentleman’s mother did die and her funeral had been arranged for the ‘signing day’ so he had to drive in, on the day of the funeral, sign the documents and return to the farm to sort out his mother’s affairs. He was not very happy and I discovered later that he transferred the franchise to someone else as soon as he could.

As I have said before, treating money as more important than people is a recipe for trouble and causes a great deal of unnecessary hardship, as in this case. It is also unethical.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Some thoughts on God

I have always been hesitant about mentioning God in my posts. I certainly believe in an ‘essence’, in a ‘something’ which is above and beyond us all (certainly me) and yet of which we are a part. Call this the ‘Absolute’, God, Allah – ‘It/He/She’ is all the same thing so a name is not really that important.

The struggle I have is to introduce the subject without getting people offside, because one’s beliefs are so personal. I follow no particular brand of religion – I prefer the more philosophical side of things – principally because I have never liked the idea of being ‘boxed in’ by the dogma and ideology of any particular religion.

Now I am certainly not out to try to convince anyone that my concept of God is the best or the only concept – I stress that this is my concept, seen through my eyes, coloured with my interpretation of my experiences of my life.

Some might not believe in God at all. I am comfortable with that – that is their call. In my case I seem always to have had an ‘understanding’ (the best word I can think of) that God exists. In my understanding God is not a fearsome being ‘up there’ that I must abase myself before. Not at all. ‘My’ God is supportive, omnipotent, all encompassing and one that gave me free will to do as I please, with the proviso that I need to be aware that each and every action, thought and deed of mine will have a consequence – positive, negative, good, bad or neutral. Therefore I ‘create’ my own world, the world I live in with my values and my understanding. This means that it is not God who brings me happiness or unhappiness or suffering. No! I attract or draw these to me by my actions (or inaction) – the Law of Cause and Effect deals justly and follows its course to the end. I am responsible –“I am the Master of my Fate; I am the Captain of my Soul” (from ‘Invictus’, by W.E. Henley).

I ask myself, “Where is God?” If God is omnipotent then there can be no place where God is not present; God must be everywhere. Therefore He must be in me, in you, in birds, in fish, in plants, in fact in all living things. Now I have witnessed death and seen the light of Life slowly fade from the eyes of the being that is dying and I have wondered what it was that withdraws its essence, its energy from the body lying there – that was animated and warm and which is now still and growing cold. Has Life, God, the essence – whatever name It is given, cast off that particular manifestation, like an old coat, because it no longer serves a useful purpose in the great scheme of things?

I don’t know and I will never know. But it is worth thinking about because my beliefs colour my everyday thoughts and actions and make me the person I am, doing what I do and the manner of the doing.

It is all me – I have the free will to do as I please, but I can never forget that I am responsible for my actions and the consequences that inevitably flow from them. Remember the old proverb (Spanish I believe), “Take what you want from life,” says God, “Take it, and pay.”

Saturday, May 9, 2009

My freedom stops where yours begins

I wonder if you have ever thought about the true importance of the rather glib saying, “Your freedom stops where mine begins?” It is so simple yet it is actually quite profound and has equally profound implications.

It is at the same time rather vague and yet very definite. To me, this statement has relationships at the core of its meaning. By relationships I am never just referring to intimate relationships but to the broader meaning – our relationship with the world around us; how we deal with our fellow beings.

We all understand this statement and its implications and in our own way we follow it. While I am no lawyer, it seems that this statement is the basis of all laws; it is at the core of our understanding of ‘justice’ – what applies to me must of necessity also apply to you. It is at the core of our understanding of the term ‘criminal’ – someone who by their actions has, by deception or other means, wrongfully deprived me of something which belonged to me, which is rightfully mine or for which I had had a duty of care to protect (this, of course also includes the ‘worst’ crime of all, murder - depriving another of their life). It is at the core of the word ‘cruelty’ – wilfully causing pain and suffering to another being.

I cannot think of anything else because ‘justice’, ‘criminal’ and ‘cruelty’ covers just about everything. The Laws we enact are supposed to help the practitioners of the Law to draw the line at the point where my ‘freedom’ (to do what I like) stops and your ‘freedom’ (to do what you like) begins. This is not always an easy task, hence the plethora of laws, rules regulations and other constraints placed on our ‘freedom’ to live our lives as we see fit.

To understand the statement it may help to recall what Confucius had to say about justice and laws some twenty-seven centuries ago:

“If you govern the people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties, yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard.”

So should this standard of ‘moral excellence’ come from the top down – from those who govern us, or from the bottom up – we tell those who govern us what to do? Or should we all do the ‘right’ thing?

Interesting.

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

UN report on Israel’s attacks on their buildings in Gaza

I suppose we can be thankful that this is now a war of words and for a change it looks as if the Israelis have come off second best. At least their moral standing and their ego seems to have been dented somewhat.

The United Nations has just produced a report on the damage inflicted on various UN building in Gaza by the Israeli during their incursion into Gaza in December 08 and continuing into January 09.

Ehud Barak, Israel’s Minister of Defence repudiates the UN’s report. He says it is biased because it does not give enough weight to the restraint the Israeli’s have shown while under attack from thousands of rockets fired by Hamas, into Israel, over a number of years.

This is a valid statement.

But how about the restraint shown by the Palestinians after some sixty years of being landless people – remember that Israel was formed from land taken from the Palestinians in 1946, without compensation? Many were forced to live in that sliver of land called the Gaza Strip, without adequate facilities, shortages of all supplies (because of the Israeli blockades) and desperate overcrowding.

Whatever the Palestinians – through the agency of Hamas and others – do to Israel and the Israelis (and I do not condone it at all) is born out of frustration and anger at the injustice of the whole Israel/Palestine/Middle East saga.

The Israelis are not doing themselves any favours by trying to maintain their high moral tone, claiming that their army is the most moral in the world, against a mounting body of evidence that this is not so.

As in any institution which relies on extreme discipline to ensure its orders are carried out to the letter, the Israeli army leaders (and their masters, the Israeli politicians) must always be guided by the highest moral imperatives. I do not believe this was the case.

There are grounds for believing that the Israeli politicians were thinking about the benefits to be gained, politically in Israel, by appearing to be strong and determined against the ‘enemy’ (Hamas and the Palestinians) just before their forth-coming elections. Remember that the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert was at the time considered a lame duck PM, who was allegedly involved in a corruption scandal. He would have wanted to hand over the reins with his party in the best possible political condition.

It is recorded that the great teacher, Hillel (who died in 10 C.E.) summarized the essence of Judaism by saying: “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow humans; this is the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary. Now go and learn.” Another central premise of the Torah (the moral code of Judaism) is the command to “Love your neighbour as yourself.”

I wonder if they told that to the Palestinians? Imagine saying, “We love you and we hate what we are going to do to you – but we will do it anyway.” That is the height of hypocrisy. The Israeli’s know this, which is why they are so upset with this report. It shows them up and they have to see themselves for what they are and how the rest of the world sees them. Very confronting!!

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Depression

The other night, ABC television, on ‘Australian Story’ detailed the sad case of a young, attractive and obviously very talented TV journalist, who through a tragic (yet avoidable) set of circumstances, ended up by taking her own life. I am talking about Charmaine Dragun, a Perth girl, who worked for Channel 10.

Now as I see it there are three parts to this unhappy event.

Firstly: it was her choice to take her own life – tragic though it was, no one forced her to. As she saw her life, where she was at that moment, her circumstances and what she saw as her future was all too much for her to bear. That is the really sad part because for every (perceived) problem there is a solution. Life has its ups and downs. That is life, but it is how you perceive the ups or downs, that creates the problem for you. The same or similar circumstances may be a problem for you but not even a minor irritation me – we all have a different outlook on the world and different hopes and aspirations. All Miss Dragun needed was someone to talk to; someone she could trust and who she knew would not judge her one way or the other, to let her unburden her soul.

Secondly: The psychologist who persuaded her to stop all medication has a great deal to answer for. The drugs usually prescribed are powerful and have varying long term effects. To stop taking them suddenly is asking for trouble. If someone feels they must, by all means reduce the intake of the drugs over a period of weeks – but not over-night.

Thirdly: My pet subject – drugs for (what is wrongly called) mental ‘illness’. There is no biological test for depression. A blood sample from a depressed person, when analysed, will not reveal ‘depression’ – there is no such animal. Drugs may help alleviate the immediate effects of depression, but long term use causes another set of problems – principally because psychiatrists have no idea why people get depressed, nor do they know why drugs work the way they do. In this case the girl in question was twenty-nine years old, so she had that period of time to get her mind (note I do not use the word brain) and her thoughts to view the world in a way that caused her to have a negative outlook and so she became ‘depressed’. She could see no light, no joy and for her, no future.

Psychiatrists confuse the brain with the mind and yet the ‘mind’ (or consciousness) is not the brain. The brain is made up from cells and the cells perform functions in the brain. The cells apparently co-operate to enable us to operate our body, to memorise, and generally pass messages around. This is basically a biological function. It is not possible for the ‘brain’ to tell itself what to do, for the individual cells (that make up the brain) to tell themselves which functions they are to perform. This is the ‘mind’ (or consciousness) in operation. We can ‘transform’ ourselves and become a better (or worse) person. This cannot be measured! The ‘mind’ is creative; the brain is a ‘processor’.

The point is that depression has no known biological or organic basis for diagnosis. It is not a medical “disease” and it is not proven to have a genetic basis (see Myers D.G. “Psychology”, 2008; Dr. Craig Hassed, “New Frontiers in Medicine”, 2000; Dr Terry Lynch, “Beyond Prozac” 2nd edition, 2004; Dr Dorothy Lowe, “Depression” 3rd edition 2006; and also Wikipedia). Diagnosis is based on self reported experiences and observed behaviour (American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-IV-TR lists the various criteria). On what scientific basis therefore were the drugs prescribed?

Psychiatrists just do not know! They are trying to do the impossible, to integrate subjectivity (what is in the mind, or consciousness) which objectivity (what can be seen and measured), then prescribe drugs based on their diagnosis. Is this right and is it ethical?

It seems to me and I, very obviously, do not have all the details of this case, that this unfortunate girl was treated rather shabbily by those who should have known better. The mind is a fragile instrument and I for one, am awestruck by this wonderful instrument that we all have. Pumping drugs into it is never going to provide a long term solution to depression.

Thinking a certain way gets a person into a depressed state, so thinking in a different way will get them out of that depressed state.

I know because I have done it – without any drugs. And I am just a very ordinary bloke.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Are you half asleep?

I bet you are asleep!! We are really creatures of habit.

Just to see whether you are actually awake and not just going around in a kind of dazed, half asleep state, like most of us, most of the time. Try what follows.

Which arm do you use first when you are putting on a shirt, or a blouse, if you are female? The next time you get dressed, try using the other arm first.

Now your underpants, trousers or shorts, which leg do you first use? Try using the other one and see what happens.

Now, and this is a big one, believe me because I have tried it. If you are a man, which pockets do you put your wallet, or car keys, your mobile phone, your handkerchief and other things you carry around? Try putting them in different pockets and observe the confusion that results.

If you are female, try using different parts of your handbag to put things and then try to sling the bag on the other shoulder. It doesn’t feel right does it?

Now your shoes and socks (or for a woman, her pantyhose). Which foot do you normally use first? Try using the other one.

With which hand do you hold your tooth-brush to clean your teeth? – for a change, try using the other one. And combing your hair?

There are many other little changes that you can make and the results can be quite surprising. You really have to think – “now how do I do this?” It has the effect of bringing you into this moment. You actually have to think about what you are doing, not thinking of something else while doing what you usually do by habit.

Interesting. Let me know what happens.