Wikileaks again

This wikileaks saga is getting out of hand. As I understand the situation, the only ‘crime’ committed has been by someone in the American armed forces who wishes to make a point and cause maximum embarrassment – in this they have succeeded, I am sure, beyond their expectations. Now that Julian Assange has handed himself in the British Police (in response to an Interpol “red note”), the American wolf pack is salivating at the prospect of getting their hands on him. This response from those whom wikileaks has exposed is what one has come to expect – outrage and a thirst for revenge.

The Americans are calling him a terrorist – how far out is that! To me wikileaks is definitely worthwhile as it exposes murder, deception, underhand activities and the general ineptitude of many in positions of influence. How can the Americans say Assange is a terrorist? He has killed no one; has no plans to. His only rationale, as far as I can make out is to expose injustice in any shape or form. Now THAT is a good idea and needs to be supported by all fair minded people.

At least Julian Assange is doing something to clean up the world and he needs all the support we can give him. Remember it was the British statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke (1729-1797) who said, “All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.”

Everyday life

It is strange how different cultures have developed differing ways of looking at life and the world about them. This difference also affects behaviour and emotions. For instance it is well known that someone from the “West” or brought up in the “West” will have a more individualistic approach – “me, I am the important one.” By “West” I mean the more industrialised countries that have been influenced by European standards. On the other hand someone from the “East” or brought up in the “East” is more likely to have a collectivist approach – “us; the group is the important one.” By “East” I mean those countries in the Middle East, Asia and South East Asia; in other words those not having had a historically long European influence.

This “division” between Individualistic and Collective cultures would appear to be a remnant from the older less industrialised days when peoples were grouped by tribal or village affiliation. This affiliation and the small numbers of people concerned encouraged a “one for all and all for one” attitude. This was as defence or survival mechanism that developed to keep the village or tribe as a viable unit. Once industry and a “cash” economy developed then the situation changed and it became more of a individualistic “free-for-all” wherein people sought to get as much of the cash and what the cash would buy as possible. Thus there was no longer a pressing, defence or survival, need for the support of the group, village or tribe. People could go it alone and support themselves.

This means that when someone in the “West” is discomforted by, say a Wikileaks disclosure, they tend (and in using this word I am cautious as I am against categorising people) to take it personally – unless of course they speak for a government in which case the government and the political party concerned would be exceedingly discomforted. This discomfort would not necessarily flow on to the entire country – if people felt strongly enough about the matter they would, most probably, vote the government out at the next election and be done with it.
In an “Eastern” collectivist culture, on the other hand there is a tendency (again I use this word with caution) to take any discomforting disclosure not only as a personal affront – loss of face or a feeling of shame – but this feeling often flows on to the entire country which now “feels” the shame and considers itself diminished thereby.

While this division between “East” and “West” is (thankfully) no longer what it was because of the rapid industrialisation of the “East”, this “collectivist” attitude may still give rise to expressions of outrage and accusations that the international community is interfering in the internal affairs of their country, be it China, Serbia, Israel, Iran, Turkey or Burma or whatever.

What is affected may not be the image of the country so much as the ego of the country’s leader – this is what gives rise to international tensions and aggression.

Wikileaks.

I have generally applauded the efforts of the Wikileaks team in trying to show up unethical conduct and to bring pretentious people down a peg or two. I just love that – when tall poppies are chopped down!! I have always believed that as humans we are all, basically, the same. We all have hopes and aspirations; we all have relatively fragile emotions and we all bleed when hurt; that, at the core of their being, no-one is better or worse than anyone else – just some have bigger egos!!

The previous Wikileaks exposure of documents relating to the war in Iraq I thought was excellent as it highlighted some very shady dealings and cover-ups. This was, I believe, a “correct” use of whistle-blowing. But I am not so sure about this time, with about 400 000 diplomatic documents having the light of public scrutiny directed at them. I ask for what purpose? Surely governments, like individuals, should be afforded some privacy; some “space” in which they may speak their minds without fear or favour?

Now I have no real issue with Wikileaks itself or the idea behind it, but I think reason must have a part, somewhere, in their “mission statement” otherwise it may be considered they have gone a step too far this time and possibly lost some of their moral high-ground. Exposing the actions of banks, telecommunication companies or other commercial organisations, I have no trouble with. Be that as it may I believe the Americans must look to their own before trying to arrest and charge Julian Assange and his Wikileaks team for criminal activities. Someone in the American administration is very frustrated or very angry and is trying to seek “revenge” by wreaking havoc in the diplomatic field – and by all accounts succeeding.

I do acknowledge that I have not had time to read any documents in the current “crop” so I am writing with information based on what others, possibly biased, have said. I await further details on this “case” with great interest!

Love is everywhere

Well, after a month of very heavy studying followed by exams, I am back. I am sure my one reader will be as pleased as I am. Strange though it may seem I enjoy academic work – it seems to satisfy something and gives me a sense of fulfilment.

But what I really wanted to write about was something I saw the other day while driving to work. What caught my eye, on the road ahead of me, was a group of three black crows on the road trying to get at something, which I guessed was some “road kill”. What they were trying to pick up was very small and I immediately thought it might be a small bird killed by a passing motor car. Then my attention was drawn to a small shape – a sparrow – attacking the crows and trying to drive them away. They were ducking and weaving to avoid the little “dive bomber”. This was a contest the sparrow could not win – one against three was not a fair contest. Sure enough the sparrow was diverted by one crow and one of the other two immediately scooped up the little carcass and flew off followed by the other crows. I saw the sparrow fly back to where, presumably its mate, had been killed and then commence a fruitless pursuit of the crows.

The whole episode was over in a minute or so. I know it was a sparrow that was killed because as I drove passed I looked down as saw a few feathers marking the spot. It is difficult for me not to assume that the surviving sparrow was trying to defend the body of its mate from being eaten by the crows.

We are told never to anthropomorphise the lives of animals – never to assume that human like attributes are present in animals – you see to do so is not “scientific”. But to me it makes perfect sense to do it, after all we are animals too, aren’t we?

I like to think that love IS actually everywhere, even in a bird. Swans are known to mate for life and to grieve over the loss of a mate. If a swan can why can’t a sparrow?

Chinese ethics and plagiarism

It is interesting – I have just finished a month of intense studying and writing to lodge two psychology assignments within the due time. This is why I did not “blog” for the whole month of September. Actually I missed the opportunity of writing my thoughts that some, maybe a few, possibly only one may actually read!! I find writing a good outlet for my frustrations and any tensions.

What is really interesting and what I want to write about is ethics and the pernicious and apparently increasing academic crime of plagiarism. One of my recently completed assignments had to be submitted to the ‘anti-plagiarism’ process using the very useful web site called “Turnitin”. This checks the submitted work against a massive data base of previously published journals and books and tells you how much of the work submitted is original or plagiarised. Anything over 10% plagiarism is not acceptable and must be reworked and resubmitted. Mine rated at 5% without reworking, which I was quite pleased with.

This reworking is actually not that difficult it means that the original work that you have referred to must be reworded, in your own words (with appropriate citation or reference). This is as it should be and shows that you understand the topic sufficiently well to be able to write about it without using the original author’s actual words. Again, this is as it should be. Imagine if you were the original author and you read about your ideas and original work, in your words, but claimed as original by someone else? How would you feel? Very annoyed I suggest. Again, imagine, if you will, the consequences of plagiarism and academic cheating if you were treated by an alleged medical doctor who had fake qualifications? How would you feel? Apart from showing a lack of respect, it is cheating and considered to be intellectual theft and is rightly condemned by all.

What brought about this train of thought was an article on the very subject, in the Friday 8th October edition of the Australian Financial Review (AFR), entitled “China fails to rein in fakes”. This is an interesting article because it highlights what seems to be a growing trend in China, something being encouraged by the government there, the feeling, “I must get ahead at any cost.” This attitude applies to individuals, businesses and the government as well. There is a tragic incident, quoted in the AFR, about Chinese airline pilots who faked their flying hours and experience which resulted in an accident in which 26 people lost their lives. I can understand that the Chinese Government wants to trumpet the greatness of China and believe me somewhere in the vast throng of 1.2 billion people there will be some really great and noble individuals. But they will not become great by cheating.

Then there is the statement made by a masters student from Tsinghua University, Lu Xiaoda, that plagiarism is ok and that it is not that students are incapable of the work – copying someone else’s work saves time!! How does he know they can do the work unless they actually do it? Take also the reported case of Xiao Chuanguo a well known Chinese urologist. He was so incensed that two investigative journalists found out that he had been cheating about his skills that he arranged for them to be savagely attacked and beaten up. When confronted by the police he confessed. His reason for this attack was vengeance for the revelations which blocked his appointment to the prestigious Chinese Academy of Social Science! (What a nice man he must be). Yet his university employer, Huazhong University, has not removed him from his position. This case I find quite astonishing. To me both the man himself and his university are worthless.

With greatness comes power and with power comes responsibility – this is something the Chinese have to learn and learn quickly. Responsibility means owning up to ones obligations, accepting ones faults (no one is without faults!) and dealing fairly with all. This is where ethics comes in. A country, a business or an individual must treat others as they would like to be treated. To do otherwise is to attract consequences that may not be pleasant. It is the same as making a cane for others to use to beat you with. And given the opportunity they will, Oh, they will.

The article in the AFR states quite correctly that unless this practice of plagiarism in China is stamped out, Chinese academics will be marginalised by the rest of the world, and their work considered as worthless because no one will be sure of its accuracy or its true worth. So who suffers? China! Its reputation will be in tatters and its people diminished. That is no way to greatness!!

The electrical age – no Plan B

It is my view that we should call this “age”, the age we are currently living in, the “electrical age”. Everything that we do today seems to be governed by the use of electricity – from either mains or a battery. Just think how much we rely on electricity - if there was a major power cut or an “outage”- nothing would work. We couldn’t cook; couldn’t read (no lighting); couldn’t use a computer (even lap-tops need to be recharged at some stage); couldn’t travel (electrical suburban trains or trams); couldn’t use telephones (unless it is an old land line handset - which uses the electricity in the line itself) and cell phones need to be recharged; couldn’t use any bank cards.

Seriously if there was NO electricity then we would be in real trouble. What drew this to my attention is the fact that my employer banks with one of the four major banks in Australia and this afternoon, “all the lines are down” to that bank. Meaning we could not process any payments using a card. So any customer had to pay cash or there was no sale! But then if they used the particular bank concerned they could still not withdraw any cash because “all the lines are down”.

If there was a major catastrophe, God forbid, a major earthquake or something that affected the entire nation and ALL electricity was cut off or all generating capacity had to be shut down, what would happen? While fuel in vehicle tanks or immediate storage tanks remained then some movement or some power could be generated for emergencies – hospitals and the like. But as soon as that fuel ran out they could not be refilled – no electricity at the service stations to pump fuel. All refining capacity would be reduced to zero – again no electricity to run equipment. There would be no water – no refining and no pumping to give pressure. Abattoirs and dairies would cease operating – no refrigeration and no power to run equipment. Even gas needs electricity to pressurise and pump it.

When you think about it, our total reliance on electricity is a major weakness in our society. We have no “Plan B” to fall back on if anything happened. I am not sure what can be done about it except build as many safeguards and duplicate “fail safe” systems into the electrical grids as possible. The internet is a weakness - all the “fire walls” built into the system will not stop a determined person (or persons) with malicious intent from causing serious delays and damage by feeding virus’ into the electrical process.

Our only real fall back, Plan B, is to revert to a manual system using minimal electricity but I cannot imagine that anyone would choose this course of action – unless we were forced to.

More on whistleblowers!

You may have read about the latest twist in the WikiLeaks saga. Julian Assange (the WikiLeaks founder and principle operator) had been accused by someone, unnamed, of rape, in Sweden. Swedish prosecutors have now said that Julian Assange was not suspected of rape in Sweden and was no longer wanted for questioning.

It seems a bit of a co-incidence that this charge should suddenly appear at the same time the American’s are very anxious to shut down the WikiLeaks site as it is drawing unwelcome attention, shall we say, to a few moral shortcomings in the American intelligence and armed forces. I wonder which CIA backroom boy thought up this latest ploy?

The American’s cannot say, from any moral “high ground”, that Wikileaks disclosures may possibly cause the loss of life of supporters of the USA when, because of the invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent breakdown of law and order, an unknown number (but believed to be greater than 600 000) people, many innocent, have been killed in factional fighting and suicide bomb blasts. Similarly in Afghanistan, where a desperately dysfunctional and possibly corrupt government is in “control” and where many thousand s of people, (many innocent) have been killed.

Go back a few years – who financed, trained and armed the Taliban? The Americans in the guise of the CIA. I know that the American’s chose to do this to cause maximum problems for the Soviets who were then trying to occupy and subdue Afghanistan. In this they succeeded but at what cost?? Did anyone think the whole thing through to any possible end-game? The Afghani are a tough and resilient people. They resent and have fought off ALL invaders – from Alexander the Great to the Russians. What did the American’s expect, an open arm welcome? Why should the Afghani react any differently now?

Historically many (if not all) wars have been determined to be nothing but pointless exercises in self aggrandisement of some leader somewhere and at sometime. No one “wins” a war – all participants are “losers”. Everyone suffers and humanity is diminished in the prosecution of the war. Any exposure of illegal, immoral and exploitative behaviour needs to be supported and encouraged. Such activities can never be justified. They are always wrong.

Think of any war you care to name, led by any general or national leader you can think of –First World War or the Second World War; and the wars in Korea: Vietnam; India and Pakistan; Israel and the Arab countries in the Middle East; Iraq’s invasion of Iran; the invasion of Iraq; and then some of the famous/infamous people who initiated conflicts - Alexander the Great; Napoleon; Hitler; Tojo (Japan) – is the world better off and a safer place because these people, as leaders of the various countries, engaged in war? I don’t think so. So why fight at all?

What makes the current situation ethically more problematical, in Afghanistan, is the American’s widespread use of what they call “private contractors”. I would call them mercenaries, or in old fashioned terms “soldiers of fortune”. They are not accountable to anyone. Remember the Blackwater fiasco in Iraq when a number of these “private contractors” shot and killed innocent civilians? As far as I can establish none of those involved was ever brought to justice.

A war cannot be fought in secret. A war affects millions of people and those people have a right to know, and the governments concerned an obligation to explain, what they are doing and why. Trying to avoid the issue or to lie about what is going only causes confusion and distrust. This is why we need whistleblowers and why I believe that those sources of information, such as Wikileaks, and others, are essential if the world is not to descend into anarchy. People, leaders, must be made accountable for their actions. If they will not come clean about what they are doing and why, then exposure through whistle blowing is the only way.

The trouble is leaders (and people in general) do not like being exposed and shown, for all to see, what they have been up to. This is why whistleblowers are condemned by governments and big business rather than supported. The condemnation of whistleblowers may take the form of the false accusations that lead this article. This may quite easily lead to the bizarre situation where we would need a whistleblower to expose the government that is accusing whistleblowers of making false accusations!! But if whistleblowers did not exist how would we find out what the issues are that affect us all (as in a global sense) and what we should do about them?

It would be much better for all concerned if people and governments just told the truth!

Israel’s “Moral” Army – again!!

I was as shocked as many were by the actions of a former Israeli female soldier when she published photographs (on 18th August 2010) of her posing in front of a group of bound and blindfold Palestinian prisoners.

This is the latest manifestation of a culture which treats “others” as inferior and not worthy of any humanitarian consideration and compassion. The ‘culture’ seems to believe that because these people are not Jews they are therefore not human. To compound the issue the woman concerned, Eden Abargil, denies she has done anything wrong. She says there is no “violence” in the photographs and that she is surprised at the world wide reaction of outrage. What she fails to accept is that there is something beyond physical violence which offends and diminishes people - that is to treat them as of no account and less than human.

Earlier this year (in February) I published an article about the morals of Israel’s attack on the people in Gaza and another in May about Israeli commandos attacking an aid convoy of ships with food and supplies for Gaza. The Israeli’s continue to boast that their Army is the most “ethical” army in the world. What they forget or ignore is that an organisation, such as an army, cannot be ethical or moral. Only individuals are ethical or moral. Unless those at the top – the Commander in Chief and the Generals are moral and ethically upright people then they cannot hope to inculcate an ethical culture in those they command.

This latest episode goes to show that the Israeli’s army is still an arrogant army – and this sticks in the craw of many. They lack humility. They have no grounds on which to tell others how to treat them (the Jews) when they have done and are doing things which, if perpetrated against them (the Jews), would raise howls of anger and accusations of being anti-Jewish.

The woman concerned needs to reflect on a reverse situation and she was a prisoner, bound and blindfold, how would she feel - diminished and humiliated? I am sure she would. Certainly the publication of the photographs and the former soldier’s comments will do nothing to lessen the tensions in the Middle East and will do nothing to further Israel’s desire for a peaceful existence.

Taliban - Death by stoning!

The Taliban recently (Sunday 15th August 2010) killed two young people (a 23 year old girl and a 28 year old boy) by stoning them to death because they “had an affair”. What do the Taliban think they are doing? How unjust; how primitive; how tribal; how barbaric!! This just shows the mentality of the Taliban ‘leaders’. I have said it before, and I will say it again, that violence is the last resort of the morally bankrupt. In this case it is certainly true.

I cannot remember where in the Bible, which chapter or verse, but somewhere Jesus said, “Let he who has not sinned – let him cast the first stone.” This is so true. No one has the right to assume that they are guiltless, ‘immune’ and above the law. We have all ‘sinned’ in one way or another at some time.

Is anyone naive enough to believe that the Taliban followers are all guiltless people? Are we to believe that none of them ever had an affair? Are we to believe that none of them has ever been involved in the murder and rape of innocent people, and committed these crimes (real crimes) simply because the victims opposed the policies of the Taliban?

Not only are the Taliban a bunch of fanatical criminals but they are also hypocrites. They tell people what to do without doing it themselves. For instance, they do not allow the populous to watch TV and yet the Taliban leaders themselves watch TV, and so it goes on. I know why they commit these horrendous acts – it is just to cause fear and to show that they are in charge and the force to be reckoned with. Causing fear and injustice, however, are not good indicators of an ability to run a country – which is presumably what they hope to achieve. Fortunately there is a “Law” which is above manipulation by humans and it is inescapable. It is the law of Cause and Effect. The Taliban have committed shocking acts of brutality and cruelty on innocent people – that is the Cause. Now the Effect has yet to play out, but play out it will and the reckoning may not be what the Taliban hoped for – it may be unpleasant.

May God (Allah) rest the souls of those two young innocent persons. Justice will prevail in the end – it always does.

Chinese (In)justice

The following quote from an article on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s website today, 5th August 2010, concerns me greatly. This sort of secret justice is not justice; it is not even a parody of justice; it is plain simple injustice. What have the Chinese officials got to hide? Why the secrecy? Why can’t Chinese citizens and others for that matter, read or hear what was said by whom and what the people concerned actually did and why and how it harmed the Chinese people – if it harmed them at all? I am particularly concerned about the last sentence with the Court official requesting anonymity. Poor man – he must be terrified but of what? Being attacked by family members, or by the companies concerned?

“By ABC China correspondent Stephen McDonell
Chinese steel company executives have been jailed for leaking sensitive information to Stern Hu and other Rio Tinto staff. Hu and three other Rio Tinto executives were given hefty jail sentences earlier this year in part for bribing local steel company officials.

In return the Chinese executives handed Rio Tinto sensitive information said to have given the mining company an unfair advantage in price negotiations. Tan Yixin from Shougang has received a three-and-a-half-year sentence for leaking secrets to Rio Tinto.

Wang Hongjiu from Laiwu Steel was given four years. Both men were also hit with large fines.

Their hearings were held in secret and an official from Shanghai No 1 Intermediate People's Court passed on the sentencing information to news agencies, requesting anonymity.”

If this is the “justice” that I could expect in China why would I want to deal with anyone in China? If I was a visitor to China and something happened which involved the police, how would I expect to be treated – in secret? Would I be able to argue my case in court and be heard by an impartial judge whose only concern is the rule of law? Or would the court proceedings be a political charade purporting to be justice? Would there be any possibility of an appeal to determine if a miscarriage of justice had occurred?

The Chinese authorities must determine what system of ‘Justice’ they wish to impose. To me justice is justice. There cannot be a Chinese Justice and an Australian Justice and an American Justice and some other country’s determination of justice. Surely anywhere in the world “right’ is “right” and “wrong” is “wrong”?. Or is Chinese ‘right” better than English “right”?

The great English jurist Justice William Blackstone (1723 – 1780) who wrote the famous ‘Commentaries on the Laws of England’, said, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffers.”

I wonder if anyone would, today, write a ‘Commentary of the Laws of China’ and say the same thing?

Injustice is always wrong

I have written about this before – and I do so to relieve my own anger and frustration with those who exploit others for their own (usually financial) benefit. This exploitation and injustice is widespread – it happens everywhere. This apparent universality does not detract from the fact that any and all injustice is wrong. In fact I would go so far as to say that injustice is the cause of most of the social ills that beset the world today.

Injustice is everywhere, in Brazil with the Indians living in the Amazon rain forest; in Australia regarding the plight of the Aboriginals; in the USA and Canada regarding the North American Indians and the Inuit (Eskimos); the Israelis demolishing ‘illegal’ housing and regarding the expropriation of Palestine with no compensation paid to the Palestinians. Then there is the injustice prevalent in China. It seems that property developers are trying to take advantage of the current housing boom in much of China, by forcing out those in poorer areas by bulldozing their houses and claiming the land, while providing no compensation.

Nothing, but nothing irritates, annoys, infuriates and aggravates people as much as injustice. Victims of injustice have a very long memory and can recall in great detail the cause and effect of any injustice they have ever experienced. Right from early childhood a person knows if something is “fair” or not. I am a grandfather and my grandchildren know when something is unfair and tell me “That is not fair.” They are always right. When that “fairness” is breached or overturned, trouble brews. It festers like an infected wound, in the mind, and will burst out in an unexpected way at some indeterminate time in the future.

Unless institutionalised unfairness is acknowledged and clearly and openly corrected it builds up until enough individuals are so upset that a ‘tipping point’ is reached and by some strange telepathy they band together and openly defy the authorities and demand justice. That is what the law is about – justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.

I suggest that the Chinese authorities are creating a great well of discontent by not having an open and fair judicial system where individual grievances can be openly discussed by both parties to any dispute and corrected in a ‘just’ manner. Trying to hide these matters will not make them go away – they are still there festering away and making a great many people unhappy.

The Catholic Church and women priests

What do they think they are doing? Isn’t it extraordinary that the Catholic Church, in the 21st century, is apparently treating the ‘elevation’ – if that is the term – of women to the priesthood by ordaining them as a “grave delict” that can lead to the immediate excommunication of the people involved. In other words, in the eyes of the Catholic Church this is a ‘wrong’ that ranks with paedophilia and sexual abuse! Really? As far as I know, all priests and Popes, past and present, were all born of a woman in the normal manner. Even Jesus was born of a woman. Most men have a very soft spot and a great affection for their mother and most people had their first life experiences and basic education from their mother. In fact there is an old Roman saying “educate a woman and you educate a family, educate a man and you educate an individual.” All the men in the Catholic Church, including the Pope, as with all men everywhere learned from their mother. So why the antagonism against women as priests? They would just be carrying on where they left off, as it were, and instructing and helping people generally.

The Catholics say that because Jesus had only male apostles, only men can become priests. But then no one knows what was in the mind of Jesus when he chose his apostles or what criteria he used for the choices he made. The present church authorities have no idea what the actual, day by day, social situation was, in Palestine, when Jesus is supposed to have started his ministry in, about, the year 30 of the current era. It was after all a very turbulent time in that part of the world. Possibly the situation was too dangerous for women to travel on missions, as the apostles had to do. I know that men (and male children) traditionally tended the flocks of sheep and goats because, I suppose, they were better equipped – physically stronger – to protect the animals from predators. Maybe women had not the time – looking after children and keeping the home for their menfolk as they did.

Women (and the female of the species everywhere) are the traditional nurturers and carers of the young and are better equipped physically and emotionally for the role, than men. After all God created men and women didn’t He? The Catholic Church cannot ignore 50% of the population because of something that is supposed to have happened two thousand years ago. Men and women together would give a far better balance to the priesthood and, I suggest, make it a better organisation. It would also alleviate the current shortage of priests if women were ordained. I also suggest that it is because of this very bias towards males in the Church that the present problems – sexual abuses – are so prevalent. And who knows what happened in the cloisters and monasteries in past centuries before the age of mass media and the internet – men are men and have sexual urges regardless of wherever they are and in what age they lived. Celibacy is unnatural and the effects of trying to enforce it are now very evident.

And what about Mary Magdalene? What was her position in the early Church? She was, after all, very close to Jesus. The Catholic Church needs to rethink its position on women very carefully. Their recently affirmed attitude has certainly upset many women, including my wife.

Never look back

The other day I had occasion to re-acquaint myself with the Biblical story of Lot and his wife (Genesis: 19). Because the Lord was about to destroy the city, Lot was told by angels to immediately leave Sodom, with his family and go to the mountains. Furthermore the angels told them not to look back to witness the destruction of the city (and also Gomorrah). We are told that Lot’s wife could not restrain her curiosity, looked back and was immediately turned into a pillar of salt.

This is a good analogy. It is an encouragement never to look back on past achievements (or failures). One can never live in the past. The past is history; it has gone never to return. The future has yet to dawn but it offers promise and unlimited opportunity. Trying to live in the past is impossible and any attempt to do so just leads to frustration. Referring to past glories and achievements as if they are a justification to expect and seek current, present day honour and respect is nonsense and meaningless. It is as if the adherents to past glories and past heroes do not believe that the present (or unknown future) will ever give rise to other glories and new heroes.

We all like to look back at times, to happy periods of our life; nations look back to their ‘golden years’ – the Arabs to the time of the various Caliphates from the 7th to 12th centuries; Portuguese to their age of discovery in the 13th and 14th centuries; the Spaniards in the 15th and 16th centuries; the British to the days of empire in the 18th and 19th centuries – all countries have their “glorious” past. But always referring to the past is sterile and atrophying – like Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt. Nothing grows in salt and a pillar cannot move. Similarly the human spirit cannot be constrained without some negative effect; it cannot be constrained, for long, either physically or by beliefs. It needs to grow and the only way it can grow is through meeting and overcoming challenges.

In this manner and only in this manner will an individual’s potential be achieved and personal fulfilment be gained. We need to grow as human beings and we need to move forward in our quest for knowledge and wisdom which brings peace of mind. We cannot remain static or tied to the past. To do so is a death warrant to any growth and future development of an individual. People, organisations and nations that do just this are doomed to feed off thoughts that have no nutrition for the human spirit and will wither away. Someone who lives only for past glories is not living, they are merely existing.

Let this be your life’s motto: “Never look back – ever onward and upward.”

Why whistleblowers are so important

To my way of thinking whistleblowers need to be encouraged. If someone is guilty of corrupt, illicit, negligent, abusive or exploitative activities they need to be brought to account for their actions. If a person is not brought to account then they will forever be looking over their shoulder wondering when they will be found out and when the axe will fall. They will carry a burden of guilt which will weigh heavily upon them, leading to increasing stress and isolation from their fellow beings. No one who exploits others in any way feels comfortable and at ease in the company of those they have hurt or negatively affected – this is a natural consequence of guilt. As the French mathematician and humanist, Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) wrote in his ‘Pensees’, “There is no greater unhappiness than when a person starts to fear the truth lest it denounce him.”

This is the reason why whistleblowers often fear for their lives. They have ‘exposed’ someone’s deepest secrets that they never expected would see the light of day – secrets that are dark and were hidden. Such exposure presents the perpetrator with an image of themselves which differs from their own, internal, picture of whom or what they think they are – everyone likes to think of themselves as a ‘good person’. When someone is caught out and exposed by a whistleblower they are forced to see themselves, as it were, in their ‘true colours’ and they are shocked and enter a state of denial and their inevitable initial response is “I have done nothing wrong”.

They will fight tooth and nail to preserve their image of themselves and to avoid appearing diminished in their own eyes or in the eyes of others. They try to pass the blame to others or to accuse the whistleblower of being untrustworthy and of lying. They fight to maintain a level of trust because everyone, particularly in business or government, must be seen as trustworthy. All worthwhile relationships are built on trust. If a person knows (deep down and because of their actions) that they are not trust worthy, they will not trust others either. Not to trust anyone is to have no meaningful relationships, which in turn isolates them from others. It must never be forgotten, however, that Man, as in Mankind, is a highly social being and is unable to live successfully or for long without some social contact, which is why the most severe punishment that can be imposed on anyone is solitary confinement (think of the self-imposed isolation by the North Korean government and the effect this has had on the unfortunate people of that impoverished country or the Chinese government’s persecution of dissidents and members of the Falun Gong).

To expose a person’s (or a government’s or businesses’) corrupt, illegal or exploitative activities is necessary, not only for society but also for those individuals engaged in such activities. It is as if something secret and unseen has now seen the light of day, which has a cathartic effect by lifting a burden and ‘cleansing’ a person (or organisation) of their guilt. The alternative is fear, and fear begets anger and hatred, and those who are fearful and consumed by hate lose their powers of reason and in such a state seldom exercise sound judgement. A person’s ability to determine ‘right’ from ‘wrong’ is suspended and everything and anything is considered acceptable, which defers the moment of exposure. Again think of North Korea; also BP and their problems in the Gulf; the Chinese government and dispossessed landowners; the Catholic Church and their paedophile priests; the Australian regulatory authorities and highly toxic pesticides banned elsewhere but still used in Australia and so the list goes on. Consider also the many other less than charitable activities exposed by that very useful website at http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks.

What cannot be forgotten in today’s unedifying stampede for money and positions of influence is that men (as in mankind) have done these things and that we are all of mankind, furthermore we all share in the multi-various proclivities of mankind. Even if, from a purely legal stand point, any one individual may not be an accessory to any particular questionable activity or behaviour, because of our human nature and the consciousness that binds us all to each other, we are all guilty – we are all of mankind. We are all diminished by such unwarranted behaviour. This is why whistleblowers are so important.

“All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.”
Edmund Burke (British Statesman and Philosopher, 1729-1797)

Western Australia and Public utilities.

It is a sad reflection on the modern Australian Society that in the State with the strongest economy – Western Australia – there are elderly people, reportedly dying from cold during the current unprecedented spell of cold weather. Certainly there are many people unable to afford their utility bills. Any why is this? – because some years ago, the then government, saw fit to sell its gas and electricity production and supply capabilities to private enterprise to raise money. This in itself is no bad thing. All governments need money to operate but when money is considered pre-eminent and more important than people, we have a real problem. It must be remembered, at all times, that money and commercial enterprise (and governments) are tools for the benefit of Man (as in human beings) and not Man as pieces on some economic game board to be moved at will for the benefit of money, governments and commercial enterprise.

Public utilities are just that – they are essential ‘public utilities’ for the well being of the community as a whole. They supply essentials – water, electricity and gas. Without these modern society as we know it would not exist. The present owners of the utilities have been placed, by successive governments, in a monopolistic situation. They can basically charge what they like and their various stakeholders want to see a return on their investments. So what happens? The obvious – prices go up to meet the expectations of the stakeholders. The corollary is that someone – the government or more likely the various welfare agencies - have to step in and subsidise the poor and disadvantaged who can no longer afford the increasing costs imposed by the utility providers. This means that the government and private enterprise has to step in and provide funds to support these unfortunate people.

There is a certain (I am sure unintentional) irony in this whole process. We have now travelled a full circle to be back where we started from! The State Government, to raise money, sold the utilities to private enterprise – who, to please their stakeholders, increased prices which the poor and disadvantaged cannot now afford - so the State Government will be required to step in and subsidise the low income earners (through the welfare system) to help them pay for the utility services the State Government sold to private enterprise so as to raise money.

Can you see the sense in all this? This is bureaurocracy and capitalism gone mad. Unfortunately Nature did not see fit to always combine intelligence with a compassionate heart.

In Praise of Tolerance.

There is a disturbing article by Sally Neighbour in the Enquirer section of the Weekend Australian newspaper, July 3-4, 2010 headlined, “Extremists with caliphate on their minds, not bombs in their belts”. It is about the Islamist organisation – Hizb ut-Tahrir.

While I have heard of it I will admit that I know nothing about this organisation other than what has been written at various times in the press. Their expressed desire is to return, apparently, to the (presumably) golden years of Islam when the Islamic Empire – if that is the correct term – stretched from the Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula (what is now Portugal and Spain), across the whole of North Africa, the Middle East and as far as India. The armies of Islam invaded and subjugated the original inhabitants of those countries by force of arms and driven by a religious belief (remember this when they condemn Israel for the same thing).

Underlying the expansion of Islam was a spiritual core and a deep learning which gave the world Algebra and a great deal of medical knowledge. It is from the ancient Arab and Muslim scholars that today we have our numerical system including the figure Zero and the decimal system (knowledge they gained from their contacts with India). They understood the principles of gravity and the relationship between weight, speed and distance severa1 centuries before Newton; they measured the speed of light and computed the circumference of the earth to a surprising degree of accuracy. They invented astronomical instruments, navigated the high seas and laid down the foundations of modern chemistry. This was all during the European “dark age”. We all owe the ‘classical’ Arabs a great deal.

But what have we learned since those times from the Arab (Islamic) world? I am prepared to listen and learn but, me-thinks, it is not very much!

The followers of Hizb ut-Tahrir aim to re-establish a caliphate which would include what they naively determine as all Muslim majority countries “including lands previously under Muslim rule, such as Spain and the Philippines”. This is all to be achieved by “grass roots support and military might.” It is also stated that “Christians and Jews will be welcome as long as they submit to Islamic law.” This from a faith that allowed an army lead by Mohammed himself, in 627AD to raid the Jewish tribe of Qurayza and behead 800 men and sell all the women and children into slavery! While this took place some 14 centuries ago if this is what living under sharia law in a caliphate means then they have some convincing to do! And what in God’s (or Allah’s) name is such a caliphate supposed to accomplish? Would mankind be better off – would there be less conflict? The various sects of Islam cannot even agree between themselves - note the continuing conflict between Shia and Sunni.

This very organisation, Hizb ut-Tahrir, according to the article, is banned in the following Muslim/Arabic countries – Egypt, Jordan, much of the Middle East and Central Asia and also in China. This in itself tells a story about the organisation. It does not sound very spiritual to me. It may be religious but it is not spiritual and there is a world of difference between the two – a “religious” priest is not spiritual when he sexually molests children and a religious Islamic leader is not very spiritual when he tells his followers to kill “unbelievers.”

My understanding of Islam – and it is one of the great religions of the world - is that it tolerates all people because all people and all things are from Allah. Nothing can exist without Allah. Now in my English language version of the Koran (Penguin Classic, 1968, translated by N.A Dawood) there is a chapter (No. 35) entitled “The Creator” the last paragraph of which states:

“If it was Allah’s wish to punish men for their misdeeds, not one creature would be left alive on earth’s surface. He respites them till an appointed time. And when their hour comes, they shall know that Allah has been watching over all His servants.”

He “respites them”. This sounds remarkably like tolerance and compassion, references to which can be found in any number of verses in the Bible, in the Bhagavad-Gita and in the Dhamapada (the sayings of Budda). This is Love, unconditional Love for the, so far uncounted, examples of the manifestation of Life that He has seen fit to create on this infinitesimally small planet in an unimaginably large universe. So who or what gives a group of people the right or the power to dictate how anyone should (or should not) worship at the feet of the Almighty if they desire to do so?

The Koran is a book – so is the Bible – so is the Bhagavad-Gita and all books are actually written by human beings (no matter how inspired) with all their faults and hang-ups. Remember that neither Jesus nor Muhammad ever wrote anything themselves.

The whole point of a book – a scripture – is to guide the reader to a higher level of consciousness; to reach their own fulfilment as a Human Being. I am not you – and you are not me. My beliefs come from my heart because I have resolved the issues in my life my way and I have derived a great deal of comfort and inner strength from my readings of the various scriptures – including the Koran. I do not need someone, however noble, however inspired that person may be to tell me how to live my life. That person does not know the troubles I have seen – they may offer advice – but they cannot direct me to live and love in a certain way. That is my problem and I have to live my life my way, not theirs. I am me, not them!

He “respites them”. This is tolerance. This is living and letting live. This is inclusion. This follows the “Golden Rule” to always treat others the way you would like to be treated. Remember He “respites” us all and we are all children of Abraham. We do not need another organisation preaching divisiveness, intolerance and a “them or us” attitude.

The poets often get it right. John Donne, the 16th Century poet and sermonist, penned the famous lines:

“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

Tolerance is the only way - Hizb ut-Tahrir want, indeed demand, that we tolerate them but they do not tolerate us. The followers of Hizb ut-Tahrir need to closely attend the words – “any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

Fetus’ don’t feel pain?

A recent article in the Weekend Australian (26-27 June 2010) reports on an extraordinary ‘claim ‘ by Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that a fetus feels no pain prior to twenty-four weeks old. How can they possibly believe what they report when there are ultra-sound images on record (just look on the internet) of fetal thumb-sucking at the age of about 14 weeks. It is also reported (again see the internet) that a fetus can hear from around 23 weeks. This means it HAS senses – if it can hear, if it can feel its thumb then surely, in spite of what the ‘experts’ say a baby has senses and it can feel things like pleasure and pain. I copied and pasted a section of an article by Dr JC Becher, Specialist Registrar in Neonatology, Department of Neonatology, Simpson Centre for Reproductive Health, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, which is of interest -

• Ultrasound provides remarkable pictures of the fetus allowing the study of early development as well as diagnosis of congenital abnormalities.
• Fetal movement begins about 7.5 weeks after conception and by 14 weeks flexion, extension, rotation, thumb sucking and yawning occur.
• Even when seemingly purposeful, early movements are due to reflexes occurring at spinal cord level.
• Purposive movement depends on brain maturation. This begins at about 18 weeks and progressively replaces reflex movements, which disappear by about 8 months after birth. Persistence of reflex activity is common when brain damage has occurred.
• The fetus can hear from around 23 weeks, and shows response to maternal speech. Fetal learning has been shown in response to sound.
• Most cerebral palsy is due to brain injury acquired in the womb. Ultrasound study of fetal behaviour may identify such abnormal neurological development before birth.
Sensory development in the fetus has been studied mostly in response to sound, and hearing can be shown as early as 23 weeks’ gestation. Fetuses respond with a slowing of the heart rate during maternal speech. There is evidence to suggest that fetuses can differentiate between different speech sounds and show preference for the maternal native language. It may be that experience of speech prenatally begins the process of acquiring language postnatally.”


It was not that many years ago the male babies were circumcised without anaesthetics because ‘experts’ said that babies did not feel pain. How wrong they were. Common sense has prevailed and this barbaric practice has ceased – at least in Australia. Any parent can tell an ‘expert’ that babies feel pain, feel discomfort and feel hunger. Aren’t these sensory perceptions? Isn’t that what feeling are?

Experts – Ha!! They cause more trouble than they are worth.

Hope!

Hope is both a word and a symbol, yet it is a highly subjective term, which everyone thinks they know what it means but yet cannot define. In fact it is best defined by its opposite, by its antonym – despair. Hope is the antithesis of despair. As a symbol it stands for something, an intrinsic essence, which we all understand but cannot explain. Hope is more than a belief, though it is often defined as such – a belief that the situation will get better. Similarly hope is much more than a wish, even though it is often used in this way. It is more a combination of a judgement, an optimistic outlook and an ‘inner knowledge’ that everything comes to pass and all will be well. What ‘inner knowledge’ means is, of course, something else again though those who have experienced it (and most of us have at some stage of our lives) know that it is somewhat akin to a conviction.

Hope is not dependent on some future event - this is a wish. It is a present experience dependent on nothing but itself. Furthermore hope never comes suddenly but always results, if at all, from a gradual, and almost certainly an unconscious, reappraisal of the current (and generally calamitous) situation and based on this a judgement is made – either hope or despair. It has in it an element almost of faith, which is defined most elegantly in the King James Bible (Heb 11:1) – “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” - but it is more than faith.

Hope is a very important ‘element’ of life and has been so since the beginning. In many instances life would not be worth living if not for hope. If hope is lost, individuals, groups and whole societies can be doomed. Destroying hope is a ruthless tool used by autocratic, dictatorial and oppressive regimes wherever they are found. Just think of Hitler and Jews; Pol Pot and the intellectuals of Cambodia; Stalin and anyone who disagreed with his beliefs; the Israeli’s and Palestinians; the current Iranian government and those imprisoned for wanting a more liberal society; the current Chinese government and Tibetans, Uighurs and Falun Gong. In fact anyone who does not willingly conform to any ruler or government’s current way of thinking is in danger of being constrained and placed in a situation which destroys hope. This is the ultimate punishment.

Hope features in myth and legend. Most of us have heard the term ‘Pandora’s Box’ (or more correctly it should be a jar) – but may not know the story behind the term. It is a story worth repeating.

In the ancient Greek legend about the beginning of mankind and how the travails that beset human beings came into being, Pandora (meaning the ‘all gifted’) was the first woman sent by Zeus to earth. Typical of all Greek legends it is complex and multi-layered, with many possible meanings.

In the beginning when the world was new and man (as in male) had just been created by Zeus (according to the legend), Prometheus stole fire from heaven, for the benefit and comfort of man. Zeus was extremely angry at this and took revenge by presenting Pandora to man. As part of her outfit, Pandora had a jar (sometimes described as a box) which she was told never to open under any circumstance. Driven by her natural curiosity, Pandora opened the container and all the evils and travails that now beset mankind escaped and spread over the earth. In shock she quickly closed the jar (or dropped the lid of the box), but the whole contents of the container had escaped, except for one thing, Hope.

It has been said (by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, I think) that Hope was at the bottom of the container and remained there because it was the most dangerous and injurious element for Mankind. He maintained that people will persevere with, or seemingly accept, the most severe physical and emotional pain and suffering if they have Hope.This is a very negative view of Hope.

Despair is dark whereas Hope is light and as moths to a candle humans are attracted by the light of Hope and repelled by the darkness of Despair. It is the proverbial “light at the end of the tunnel.”

In the darkest hours and when confronted by the most severe calamities of life, never give up Hope. Remember everything comes to pass and there will be the light of a new dawn.

Israel's piracy

Oh boy! Israel has again misjudged the issue and caused havoc when compassion and kindness (and ethics) would have been a great deal better. Then there is the small matter of piracy on the high seas – boarding a ship in international water is piracy, pure and simple. This is something that the world condemns the Somali pirates for doing - attacking and boarding ships in international waters (hi-jacking them?) and then escorting them to their own base.

No matter how they justify their actions and however the Israelis “spin” the issue they are no better than the Somali pirates regarding this matter. They deserve to be pilloried.

No one would choose to live as the Palestinians are living in Gaza. No one would naturally choose to do what the Palestinians are doing without (in their eyes) a just cause. Can’t the Israelis see that all the Palestinians want is some recognition and recompense for land unjustly taken from them in 1947? The Palestinians want to get on with their lives in peace – but peace with justice.

From an ethical point of view the Israelis need to ask themselves two questions, “Are we treating the Palestinians the way we would like to be treated?” And secondly, “If everyone did what we are doing would the world be a better place?” If the answer to either question is “No” and I suspect it would be then why, Oh why are they doing it? Can’t they see that violence just begets violence and that the use of force is the last resort of the morally bankrupt?

The Catholic Church

The Roman Catholic Church is instituting an old/new form of liturgy. It is old because it seems to revert to the ‘old fashioned’ form emphasising sin and redemption and less of the softer tones of forgiveness and mercy but it is new in that it is a change from the immediate past. It appears as if the Church is trying to revert back to the old days and ‘scare’ people into being ‘good’ – the Pope says people need to be ‘woken up’ – whatever that means. The trouble is that reverting back to the ‘old days’ will give the church hierarchy more power and control.

Isn’t it this power and control that got the church into the trouble it’s in now? What with paedophile priests being exposed seemingly everywhere surely they (the hierarchy) should learn from experience and accept that it was the ‘old’ form of the church that gave rise to these abhorrent practices.

Changing the form of the liturgy will not achieve anything. A much deeper and more fundamental change in the hierarchy is needed.

Tragedy of the commons

I came across a very interesting phrase the other day – ‘tragedy of the commons’. I had never heard it before but apparently it refers to situations in which people, acting in their individual short term interests, make choices that are detrimental to society as a whole.

Referring to Wikipedia, which reads, inter alia: “The metaphor illustrates the argument that free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately reduces the resource through over-exploitation, temporarily or permanently. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals or groups, each of whom is motivated to maximize use of the resource to the point in which they become reliant on it, while the costs of the exploitation are borne by all those to whom the resource is available (which may be a wider class of individuals than those who are exploiting it).”

Now who doesn’t this statement apply to? Not many I suspect! How many people in influential positions such politicians; many bureaucrats; many investment bankers, quite a few businessmen and many others would have been, or are, involved in situations which could be termed ‘tragedies of the commons’?

This “tragedy of the commons’, could refer to the misuse of the public purse (a ‘common’ in that it belongs to us all) which is a finite resource. It could also refer to trust.

The first of two issues (totally divergent) in the Australian context which immediately spring to mind is the case of the misuse of public funds by the (now former) Western Australian Treasurer, Troy Buswell. He admitted to using public funds (the ‘common’) to finance an affair – for which offence he has been sacked as minister. He misused a ‘common’, exploited it, for his own benefit. For this we all suffer because of the loss of funds (apparently re-paid) and also for the loss of trust that results from this ‘tragedy of the commons’. It raises the question, “What else has happened that we have not been told about?” This is a both a matter of ethics and morals or, as in this case, a lack thereof.

Secondly, in the Australian context, is the even worse situation relating to the postponement (cancellation?) of the much touted Emissions Trading Scheme. I suspect that vested (big business at the ‘top-end’ of town) were behind this tragedy. Australia (and the World) has finite resources in that potable water, good quality soil, creatures in the sea (and the quality of sea water itself) and forested areas (commons) are all at such low levels that any further diminution will seriously affect our quality of life. More of the same, without some concerted action, will cost us all a great deal more at some future date than any current implementation would ever cost.

This is, again, a matter of ethics and morals – or the lack thereof. Vested interests and short term financial and political expediency have resulted in this loss (hopefully only temporarily) of any carbon emissions control. Surely something is better than nothing? No one will ever get the perfect mix of controls, with such a massively complex matter as carbon reduction, at the first attempt. I believe it would be best to implement a reasonably well thought out scheme, acknowledge that it may have failings and leave sufficient ‘wriggle room’ to implement changes as they are seen to be necessary. This is indeed a ‘tragedy of the commons’ and again, we are all likely to suffer and to lose more than we currently contemplate.

Google and Australian censorship

I read in today’s media reports that Senator Stephen Conroy has an issue with Google over what can and cannot be shown over the internet. Apparently he wants Google and other search engine operators to introduce an ‘internet filter’ to limit access to certain sites.

He in reported to have said some of the material available (that he wants to be ‘filtered out’) “includes child sexual abuse material, bestiality, sexual violence including rape, instruction in crime and terrorist acts."

Now, personally, I would never choose to view such material – but that is my choice. If someone else chooses otherwise, even though I might question their moral compass, I respect their choice.

For the Australian Government, in the guise of Senator Conroy, to dictate what can or cannot be accessed on the internet is censorship – pure and simple censorship. This is just the thin edge of a very big wedge. Where will it end - don't want you to view an anti-governmet rally? Or how about reports unfavourable to the incumbent leader? Who decides what can and cannot be viewed and what redress is there?

The irony is that the Australian Government has commented (unfavourably) on the Chinese Government’s attempts to limit the access that Chinese citizens have on the internet using Google. Isn’t this precisely what Senator Conroy is trying to do to the citizen’s of this country??

He can't have it both ways. Talk about ethics!! Think about it.

Lies, damned lies and statistics!

To me the world has gone too far in requiring everything to be statistically proven before it is accepted as ‘true’. In this regard I would like to make a few general comments about statistics, particularly as applied and used in psychology.

I am studying statistics, via a subject called Research Methods 2, because I did Research Methods 1 and because the Psychology degree I am working towards demands that I should at least understand and be able to use some basic statistics. But I am a sceptic – I use statistics but I don’t really believe in them. You could say that I am an ‘agnostic’ when it comes to statistics. As a (hopefully) future worker in the field I swallow my agnosticism and constantly remind myself that the first responsibility of psychologists and people working in any of the social sciences or humanities is not to statistical accuracy but the well being of mankind - to happiness and health.

But then I need to consider the strong possibility (dare I use the word ‘probability’?) that my ‘agnosticism’ reflects the fact that I just do not enjoy the subject of statistics! I mean statistical reports give the impression of accuracy, of absolute fact, yet in reality there are phrases such as ‘differences may be due to sampling errors’ or ‘this cannot be answered definitively, but it can be evaluated in a statistical way’. This is short-hand for ‘what are the relative likelihoods of the opposing scenarios being important factors?” Or even mind bending statements that go like this: ‘Statistical decision making involves inductive inference. Based on a sample, we draw a conclusion about the population we think it was drawn from’ - if you get my drift! In reality, are statistics that important in the great scheme of things? Some people obviously believe in them but I don’t. Statistics may be useful indicators of something or pointers towards a solution but that is about as far as they (should) go.

While I have commented on this before, some repetition may be worthwhile. Statisticians tell me that it is a statistical probability that, being a male in a certain age group and with certain racial and physical characteristics and with certain religious beliefs, I will have certain likes and dislikes, be of a certain height, be overweight (even obese) and have this or that medical problem and that when presented with an ethical dilemma I will answer in this or that way. But I am not a ‘probability’ – I am a human being.

No doubt it is a great nuisance to statisticians and those who use their figures that mankind is not uniform but compounded of individuals with their own likes and dislikes and their own interpretation of events and situations. Statisticians (and others – politicians and such like) would like humanity to ‘conform’ to some easily defined standard or ‘norm’ but we don’t and pretending that we do is plain wrong – even a waste of time.

It must never be forgotten that the essence of every life is the fulfilment of the potential each is born with. All human life is bound to individuals who manifest it, and it is simply inconceivable without them. But every human is charged with an individual destiny and destination, and the journey to that destination or the fulfilment of that destiny is the only thing that makes sense of life.

To me there is a profound social process behind the figures used in the construction and evaluation of ‘scientific’ (read statistical) psychological data and that much of what we are ‘guided’ to do, as a consequence of an uncritical approach to statistics, relies on an ingenuous (mis)use of words that considers ‘facts’ as absolute certainty, as ‘true knowledge’, as ‘objective things’ beyond inference, question or reproach, and when information becomes ‘scientific’ merely because it is arranged and presented in a form that follows the APA (American Psychological Association) guidelines, we are in deep trouble.

As to the constant push by many aspects of our society to conform, how about (a repeat)of the wonderful quote from the Indian sage, Krishnamurti, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” (from ‘All in the Mind’ by Merlin Donald)

Think about it.

What price freedom?

Injustice is just about the most corrosive effect known to man. That and hatred. These combined, as they often are, are a deadly cocktail. Injustice is the effect of hubris – someone, or a group of people thinking (believing) they are better than someone else (or another group) and using this “knowledge” to gain some unfair advantage or to exploit others for personal gain.

But then there is another kind which is more invasive and possibly more general, in that it is beginning to affect many more people. What I am talking about is the apparent injustice of so many rules, regulations and laws introduced to (allegedly) reduce crime and apprehend offenders.

We, as a Society, have got things all mixed up and up-side down. What got me thinking about this are the ‘safety features’ introduced at all ATMs. There are warnings to users to make sure there is no one looking on; to ensure they cover the key-pad with one hand while keying in their PIN and such like. I have nothing against these warnings but who are the people most affected and inconvenienced? We are! Normal people going about their lawful business.

The other side to these warnings are the extra security measures that are invading every aspect of our society. We have CCTV cameras all over the place in our cities (and sometimes in our offices and even, God forbid, in our homes); we are told (if we want our insurance premiums to be kept low) to have window locks; to have burglar proof screens on our windows; deadlocks on our doors; a home alarm system; to have alarms and immobilising devices fitted to our cars. We need personal identification numbers to access everything (or so it seems). Bus and taxi drivers are caged in to prevent attacks from drugged, drunk, angry or otherwise less than charitable passengers. Then think of all the checks that are imposed on us at airports nowadays – they have introduced full body x-ray ‘searches’ to see what (if anything) is hidden under clothing, at some airports. Our bags are inspected at supermarkets and police have the powers to (apparently) stop and search whom-so-ever they please. Again, who are the people most inconvenienced? We are!

Some cities have ‘no go’ areas where ‘normal’ people are discouraged from visiting. Then there are those walled and guarded estates with remote controlled gates and motion activated flood-lights that some of us like to live in.

Who is being inconvenienced? We are! Where is the privacy? Where is the freedom? It is almost as if the ‘good guys’ are in prison, or at least some claim to feel safe only when they are heavily guarded, gated compound, but yet the ‘bad guys’ are out there roaming free!

Something is really wrong here. We have lost that wonderful feeling of being carefree. Yes that is right – being free of care. Where now is the charm of a walk in the city, late on a cold moonlit night, when all is quiet (maybe!) and to see the world, quite literally in a different light – by moonlight, knowing that you may be considered a vagrant and be issued with a ‘move on’ notice? Where now is the pleasure of sleeping with the widows open on a balmy summer’s night and being cooled by the breeze, knowing that there is a possibility you may be burgled? Where now is the pleasure of smiling at a child and having the smile returned, without having the child’s mother look at you suspiciously as a possible paedophile?

I could go on in this vein for a long time but I am sure you get the idea. We are being pushed and pulled and squeezed into a box that is ‘safe’, always under observation, always under guard or being guarded against. How much more of this must we put up with? I am sure it is not doing anything to improve our ‘collective’ mental health – according the Australian Bureau of Statistics approximately one in five (yes 1 in 5) people will have some sort of mental health issue during their life! That is an astonishing figure but I am not sure what the solution is.

This is the injustice I am talking about.

As I said before I am not sure what the solution is because as the Indian sage Krishnamurti once said, 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society'.

Israels Moral Army

There was a report the other day about why the Israelis rejected the UN report into their ‘invasion’ of Gaza last year. They are alleged to have said that because Israel has the most ‘moral’ army in the world, what others stated were ‘war crimes’ committed by the Israeli Army could not and would not have happened. They have also stated before that they have the most ‘ethical’ army in the world.

Now one thing I have learned in life is that as soon as anyone starts making presumptuous or sanctimonious statements indicating a belief that they are ‘better’ or as in this case (presumably more) ‘moral’ that anyone else they are inviting Nemeses to cut them back down to size. There is one thing that Nemeses dislikes more than anything else and that is ‘hubris’. I have written about this before and risking accusations of repetition I restate the following:-

“So whole-hearted is the faith in technological idols that it is very hard to discover, in the popular thoughts of our time, any trace of the ancient and profoundly realistic doctrine of Hubris and Nemesis. To the (Ancient) Greeks, Hubris meant any kind of over-weening and excess. When men or societies went too far, either in dominating other men and societies, or in exploiting the resources of nature to their own advantage, this over-weening exhibition of pride had to be paid for. In a word, Hubris invited Nemesis.” (Aldous Huxley - Essay on ‘New Forms of Idolatry’ 1945).

This still rings true today, from its ancient classical, origins. [‘hubris’ … Presumption; insolence (originally towards the Gods); pride; excessive self confidence. ‘Nemesis’ …The Goddess of retribution and vengeance]. Nemesis was perceived to be the personification of the retribution which appears to overtake every wrong. She was conceived as a mysterious power, watching over the propriety of life, shaping the demeanour of men in times of prosperity, punishing crime, taking luck away from the unworthy, tracking every wrong to its doer, and keeping society in equipoise. Nemesis was/is said to be implacable in the pursuit of her cause.

If the Israelis (or the Americans or anyone else for that matter) think for a moment that force of arms on its own solves problems they are sadly mistaken. It never has and it never will. Any force has to be accompanied by magnanimity to the ‘defeated’. I am not sure that the Israelis understand the meaning of the word ‘magnanimity’. They have done nothing to help the unfortunate inhabitants of Gaza – in fact they are just keeping up the unequal pressure.

It has to be remembered that only a person can be moral or ethical. Morals and ethics have to do with the interrelationships between human beings. An army, on the other hand, cannot be moral or ethical. An army being an organisation of people who are trained to kill, does not have a life of its own. Ethical conduct can only take place between humans and other sentient beings. The Israeli army may have a code of ethics and instruct its soldiers about moral conduct but under the pressure of war, when it is a case of kill or be killed, anything can and does happen. In any case I am not sure that anyone can be killed in a morally ‘correct’ manner or killed ‘ethically.’

Nothing the Israeli’s have done addresses the original cause of the ‘Palestinian problem’ – injustice; the injustice of having their hereditary land expropriated (without consultation or compensation) to create the State of Israel in 1946. Building a wall dividing Palestine from Israel; having state of the art weaponry does nothing if the original injustice and the sense of injustice is not addressed in a meaningful manner – not just talking about talking. The Israelis will never feel secure while the Palestinians feel deprived, humiliated and treated as second class citizens.

The Israelis (and the Palestinians) must learn, or remember, that violence is the last resort of the morally bankrupt. So where does that place the Israeli army or Hamas?

Think about it.

Selling the Factory

It seems almost impossible to buy something nowadays that is NOT made in China. This may or may not be a good thing – depending on one’s point of view. It is certainly beneficial to China but how about the rest of us? There are inherent dangers in just looking at the ‘bottom line’, being influenced solely by the profit motive.
To me there are a number of problems that arise by sending all manufacturing off shore (to China):

• Loss of control. This loss is really a quality matter, certainly from a consumers point of view. For instance I, personally, would never knowingly buy anything from China which contains any milk products (after the melamine contamination scandal). Now there is Google’s controversy with the Chinese authorities.

• Confusion. As a consumer I am sometimes confused when I reach to purchase an item (principally a food item) which has a familiar ‘Australian’ name, only to find that it is either ‘Made in China’ or ‘Packed in Australia from imported products’. This last piece of information means ‘China’ as far as I am concerned.

• Wariness. I am very wary of Chinese assurances (or the assurances of Australian companies operating in China) that ‘wrong doers’ will be brought to justice and any lapses in quality will be dealt with accordingly. We all know that the Chinese judiciary is not independent but is State controlled (vide the Rio Tinto imbroglio with their Head of Operations in China being held in jail on charges of ‘industrial espionage’ and bribery). We all know that there are major issues with endemic corruption in all level of Chinese Government and business. These facts do not inspire my confidence in any degree.

• The other problem I have with the Chinese is that China is not a ‘friendly’ nation. By this I mean that they are not (yet) willing participants in World Events without throwing their (new found) weight around; that they are not an ‘open’ people but are actually very secretive; that they are ‘different’ and must be treated as such.

• Also, would China ever hold the rest of the world to ransom?

Much of what I say is, I know, a result of history. China, in the 18th and 19th Centuries, was treated very badly by the ‘West’, Britain in particular. There were the ‘opium wars’ and in general trade the Chinese were screwed by the Brits and other nations who wanted their tea, jade, silk and other products. Also as a colonial power the Brits took Hong Kong (ostensibly it was ‘ceded’) after the Chinese defeat in the ‘Opium Wars. Then of course there was the ferocious and unnecessarily barbaric invasion of what was then called Manchuria by the Japanese in 1931 and the infamous ‘Rape of Nanking’. The effects of all this still rankle and certainly influences the Chinese view of the ‘West’ (including Japan).

The Chinese have a point. They have been treated unjustly in the past and nothing festers as much as an unresolved injustice – no matter when it happened (I have written before about the injustice relating to Palestine and Israel). I suppose it could be said that they have learned from ‘us’ – and learned very well!

To get back to my original reason for writing this – by giving the Chinese the industrial muscle that is now evident (and the accompanying financial ‘muscle’) are we in danger of being held to ransom? Would China ever try to control events or countries by parcelling out favours, as it were – a little bit of money here a few goods there – to those who toed the line? They could but would they? Some countries would say the same about America – they would (with some justification) say that the Americans have done just that for generations. I suppose the Brits did it before the Americans and the Romans and Greeks before them even. But then these are (or were) all from Hellenic/Roman/Judeo/Christian heritage, which we sort of understand.

Is it really worthwhile selling the ‘factory’ to the Chinese (or any other ‘stranger’ nation) rather than trying to keep it at home where everyone knows everyone and things are familiar? Or does it all come down to ‘money’ and how much more profit would be made by transferring operations ‘off-shore’?

Now that there is a shift in the World Power dynamics I suppose I have to get used to the change and like it or lump it. But is will not be easy and I reserve the right to be wary about the quality of some products made in China (or elsewhere for that matter). The other side of this is to ask yourself the question, “Would the Chinese like it (or allow) others to take over their industries, to buy their factories?” Somehow I don’t think so.

I know that I am going to be accused of racism – but I actually have a great deal of respect and liking for the Chinese – believe it or not!!

Mental illness - barking (mad) up the wrong tree

This is a new one for me! Not a thought in my head (worth writing about, that is) but I am writing all the same.

Take the way most of us look at life! A great deal of disharmony and general unhappiness in life generally arises because we, again generally, don’t understand how life works. Taking a ‘mechanistic’ view of life gives rise to many misconceptions. We buy things and do things because they bring us comfort or pleasure. We then take this same thought process and apply it to all aspects of our lives. We have this belief that buying something new will make us happy. We tend to use ‘retail therapy’ to solve our problems, or try to solve them. There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach to life – in fact it is a necessary facet of life in the 21st Century. Trouble is, this approach is not always as effective as we would hope or expect, is it?

We are a whole lot more than the molecules that constitute the 50 billion or so cells that make up each of our bodies. We have sense impressions; we have thoughts and ideas; we have emotions that somehow are all derived from these self same molecules and cells. Now, I cannot believe that a bunch of (originally) inanimate substances, which I might add will return to their inanimate state at the time of my (hopefully lamented) death, constitute all that I call ‘Life’ and ‘Living’. There is something else, something that animates the collection of cells. This of course applies to all things that we observe to be ‘alive’, be it a plant, an animal, insect, amoeba or any other form of ‘life’.

This ‘matter’ of ‘Life’ gets even more confusing if we delve deeper and enter the realm of quantum physics (about which I know very, very little) which states that matter = energy and that energy = matter (remember E=MC2?). If this is true where does this leave ‘life’? How can energy be animated? What is ‘dead’ energy (i.e. some matter which was alive and is now dead) compared to ‘live’ energy (i.e. some matter which is animated and alive)? Nobody knows.

In all this the human brain remains a lump of gray matter, alive but without any sense of touch (it has no pain receptors so feels no pain) it is a processor - like the mother board in a computer. Basically it processes the information it receives from the body’s senses – it cannot do things for itself; it cannot tell itself what to think.

"As the scientist Gerald Edelman has pointed out, the human cortex alone has 30 billion neurons and is capable of making 1 billion synaptic connections. Edelman writes, 'if we consider the number of possible neural circuits, we would be dealing with hyper-astronomical numbers: 10 followed by at least a million zeros, (there are 10 followed by 79 zeros, give or take a few, of particles in the known universe).' These staggering numbers explain why the human brain can be described as the most complex known object in the universe, and why it is capable of ongoing, massive microconstructural change, and capable of performing so many different mental functions and behaviours, including our different cultural activities." (Norman Doige, 2007, “The brain that changes itself” p294).

Wonderful as the brain is, it is not the ‘mind’. As I have said on other occasions there seems to be something ‘behind’ or ‘above’ or ‘superior’ to the brain that promotes thoughts, ideas, emotions and concepts – call it ‘Life’, or ‘Consciousness’ or whatever – something exists to make something ‘alive’.

All this gets me to where I was going when I started writing – that we are more than the body; that our mind is more than the brain. So it worries me when people either pump themselves full or are pumped full of ‘mind altering’ drugs to ‘cure’ a mental illness (this is the ‘mechanistic’ approach). To me an illness is something which affects the body in a manner which can be verified – such as measles, Aids or cancer or a diseased organ (liver, kidney etc). An illness is something that happens to a person which can be tested pathologically. What is called a ‘mental illness’, to me, is something which is judged or assumed to be as such, because of what people do – there is no known pathological test for a ‘mental illness’. This is a big difference. So it worries me when I read in various documents published by the Western Australian Government’s Chief Psychiatrist regarding ‘treatment for this supposed ‘mental illness’ that:

“The psychiatrist’s decision to make you an involuntary patient will be based on his or her opinion of whether or not you have a mental illness. A Mental Illness is defined in the Western Australian Mental Health Act (1996) as:

‘a disturbance of thought, mood, volition, perception, orientation or memory that impairs judgement or behaviour to a significant extent’.”

My comment:

How in God's name can this 'definition' be described as defining an illness and from who's view point? That of the psychiatrist? How does he/she know WHY a person may think the way he or she does?

What is a disturbance of thought? And what is a 'disturbance ... to a significant extent? How much is significant? Who decides this? What is normal and who determines any variance from ‘normal’?

Many of us have moments of impaired judgement - no one is perfect!

The ‘treatment’ for this so called ‘mental illness’ may involve the voluntary (or involuntary) consumption of brain altering drugs. This really bothers me particularly when the following warning is thoughtfully provided by the Chief Psychiatrist at the end of his various publications (remember the treatment is supposed to cure the ‘illness!!):

“ FDA Product Information Warning
Patients with major depressive disorder, both adult and pediatric, may experience worsening of their depression and/or the emergence of suicidal ideation and behavior (suicidality), whether or not they are taking antidepressant medications, and this risk may persist until significant remission occurs. Although there has been a long-standing concern that antidepressants may have a role in inducing worsening of depression and the emergence of suicidality in certain patients, a causal role for antidepressants in inducing such behaviors has not been established. Nevertheless, patients being treated with antidepressants should be observed closely for clinical worsening and suicidality, especially at the beginning of a course of drug therapy, or at the time of dose changes, either increases or decreases.

Consideration should be given to changing the therapeutic regimen, including possibly discontinuing the medication, in patients whose depression is persistently worse or whose emergent suicidality is severe, abrupt in onset, or was not part of the patient’s presenting symptoms.”

I really don’t think they know what they are doing and I don't believe this is ethical! Being an ‘involuntary’ patient must be an awful experience – worse than jail – and to have brain altering drugs forced down ones throat!