Monday, August 30, 2010

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.

Monday, August 23, 2010

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!

Friday, August 20, 2010

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.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

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.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

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?