'Twas a famous victory!

December 31, 2018 - added: - Well it seems as if Assad has really won this time! But at what cost in human lives and materiel? With the Americans deciding to pull out of Syria and Iraq, this gives free reign to Assad's allies, Iran and and Russia. Good luck to the Kurds and any others in opposition to Assad, still in Syria! Assad will have a field day with any opposition still in the country.

If you thought his father, Hafez al-Assad was bad - who killed 20 000 opposition countrymen and women - I'm thinkin you ain't seen nothing yet! Son of Hafez, one Bashar al-Assad, has presided over at least 200 000 deaths, millions displaced and the cities and infrastructure destroyed. Now there is no one to stop him!

And in spite of various claims to the contrary, ISIS, that murderous fundamentalist Islamic group has not been defeated or destroyed. Weakened? Yes. Destroyed? No.

March, 15. 2018 - added:- According to the latest news with the assistance of both Russia and Iran the "rebels" who have been fighting to free Syria from the murderous regime or Bashar al-Assad have been all but driven out of Syria. Likewise the ISIS, at least what is left of them have also, more or less, been defeated. So, shortly, there will be proud proclamations that Syria is free!

The trouble will be rebuilding a shattered country. Aleppo - formerly a large thriving city - is now absolutely devastated. And there are many similar situations. And what about the people - homeless, injured, refugees in their own country?

This will be no "victory"; this will be an example of brute force applied indiscriminately to prove a point.

Sept, 15. 2017  - added:- According to the latest news what I have written below is coming to pass. The Russians are now in control of much of what was ISIS controlled Syria. So be it.

I wonder at the “victory” the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad will inherit after his "civil war" is over. He will win but he does not have the ability to do it his own.

With Russian help he will win. But at what cost?

What I fear is that what was a country with an ancient history – stretching back thousands of years – I fear it will be in ruins. My concern is what will remain after the “victory”?

Cities devastated; infrastructure in ruins; half the population (about 12 million out of a total of about 24 million people) either dead, injured, displaced or homeless. For what? So Bashar al-Assad can claim “victory” and satisfy his ego and support the legacy of his megalomaniac father?

As my one loyal reader knows I like poetry. Now there is a poem by Robert Southey (1774-1843) called “After Blenheim”, which satirizes the concept of “victory”, which I believe is very appropriate in this situation. I won’t burden my reader with the whole poem – just the last three verses. They will give some idea of the gist:-

…..

‘They say it was a shocking sight

            After the field was won;

For many a thousand bodies here

            Lay rotting in the sun;

But things like that, you know, must be

After a famous victory.’

‘Great praise for the Duke of Marlboro’ won

            And our good Prince Eugene.’

“Why ‘twas a very wicked thing!”

            Said little Willelmine;

“Nay …. Nay … my little girl”, quoth he,

“It was a famous victory.”

‘And everybody praised the Duke

            Who this great fight did win.’

“But what good came of it at last?”

            Quoth little Peterkin:-

‘Why that I cannot tell,’ said he,

‘But ‘twas a famous victory.’

As always in war it is the innocent, the women and children, who suffer the most.

What a "famous victory" Bashar al-Assad will have won!

The dangers of simplistic slogans

It seems to be fashionable, or the cool thing, to reduce complex issues to simplistic 3 or 4 word slogans.

If history is any guide slogans repeated often enough, are assumed as truths. Belief in these slogans leads to a steep inclined plane which propels all involved lower and lower into ever more harsh and deplorable policies. Apathy by the educated and predominantly self proclaimed elites in any country you care to name, who conflate identity with skin colour; skin colour with ethnicity; ethnicity with criminality (drug dealers and rapists); and ethnicity with religion (“they worship a different God”); religion with a need to compile a register, to make a list of all such people the easier for them to be kept under surveillance – such conflation is self destructive. It will lead very quickly to concepts of national and racial purity, and is only a short step from barbarism.

What follows is a damning statement about the dangers of apathy in the face of slogans and propaganda, by the German theologian Martin Neimöller, who had been imprisoned by the Nazis:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out –

            Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out –

            Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –

            Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

If, today, now, the words Mexicans, Blacks, Muslims, “illegal immigrants”, Afghanis, Syrians or whatever are substituted with any of the above, the picture presented would be a bleak one indeed.

Euthanasia? All life is terminal!

While I appreciate that the Hippocratic Oath in effect stipulates physicians should  “do no harm”, this is not the end of the matter.

To only allow (or disallow) a “terminally” ill person to decide when they wish to end their life is looking at this problem from the wrong end. It is not if they are ill, terminally or otherwise, but a person’s quality of life – their perception of that quality, which should be the main issue.

Recall and understand that all life, repeat ALL life, is terminal – we cannot escape the end. It is terminal! Sooner or later we all die – ill or not. Palliative care, however well administered, will not halt this process. Furthermore it is impossible to accurately determine the exact time or date in the future as to when a person will die. So to stipulate a time or date (following the Victorian “model”, six months is suggested), sometime in the future which may determine whether or not a person is “allowed to die” is regrettable, to say the least. 

Furthermore, why should anyone have to “live” according to another person’s expectations? We have no “right” to interfere. It is not our life; it is not our choice.

We, and by “we” I include all humans, were presumably born to live in the world. Now if a human being decides, because of the status of their health, that the life he or she is currently experiencing in the world is not a “quality life”, who is to say they are wrong? We, you or I, cannot experience that person’s view with all the emotional, stressful or painful events they may have suffered or endured during their life to date. How can anyone, other than the person concerned, determine what level of “quality” is acceptable or unacceptable? 

We can have no idea how this expression of life plays out; or how life events (particularly their health) affect a person’s outlook, towards themselves or others – no one can “know” this except the person concerned. They make a choice based on such experience – good, bad or indifferent. It is their decision. You or I are in no position to say they are wrong. 

Similarly, what evidence, what insight do we have such that we can proclaim that a particular person’s view or expression of life (as currently experienced) is wrong and that we (or at least the “experts”) alone know better? We may not like or approve of their view but - so what! 

Likewise, what evidence is there for the “experts” to state that those who wish to end their life may be suffering from a “mental disorder” (hence the proposed requirement - for a totally subjective - psychiatric assessment on any person wishing to end their life). Disordered from what? From “normal”? As far as I can determine there is no accepted definition of “normal”. Possibly those considered “mentally disordered” react to life’s trials and tribulations differently from those around them. Are they “wrong”? Or are those who condemn euthanasia just being intolerant and lacking in understanding, compassion or empathy? 

Then there is widespread over prescription of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications (remember that, allegedly, one in five people (1 in 5) will, allegedly, suffer from a “mental illness” in their lifetime). There are many reasons why all concerned should be critical about psycho-pharmaceutical drug treatment, such as uncertainty regarding the causes of mental disorders, the problematic accuracy of the few diagnostic tools available, poor understanding regarding the mechanism of drug actions and their many side-effects together with the related problem of publication bias. Then there is commercial conflict of interest, [Note:The reanalysis of the – originally ghost written - GlaxoSmithKline Study 329 relating totheir antidepressant drug formulation paroxetine,Paxil, (also known as Serotax or Aropax) provides an illuminating, if unfortunate, example of these issues]. 

Also there is extreme pain. Anything that results in an actual or perceived loss of personal control will (possibly) bring about a loss of dignity and of “hope” - those most subjective attitudes of mind.

Furthermore for some to say that only God can decide when any person dies is surely a gross over assumption – how do they know? What special insight do they possess? Is it not possible, because (I assume) God gave us free will, that God may have already decided to allow a person who wants to die, to die?

Then what about those who say that the legalization of euthanasia would see the end of compassion? Surely it would be more compassionate to allow someone who wishes to end their life to do so in a private setting of their choice, with (possibly) family and friends in attendance?

Far rather this than, to get their way, forcing a person to take extreme actions – starving, drinking or drugging themselves to death; shooting themselves; jumping off a high rise building or cliff; driving at high speed into the support column of a freeway overpass or into a tree on a country road; consume rat poison or drink some corrosive liquid (such as ammonia) and take four days, in agony, to die.

Recall also that the British philosopher David Hume (1711 –1776) said, “I believe that no man ever threw away Life while it was worth keeping.” 

Finally I will repeat a quote, from the Indian sageJiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986), who said, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society”. 

There we have it – in a nutshell! 

Perfect verbal abuse? Try Shakespeare

If you think you may have heard some good verbal abuse or takedowns recently (relating to certain politicians) it may be good to brush up on your Shakespeare.

For instance how about this one from King Lear (Act II Scene II):-

Earl of Kent. Fellow I know thee.

Oswald. What dost thou know me for?

Earl of Kent. A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass gazing, super serviceable, finical rogue; one trunk inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd, in a way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar, and son and heir of a mongrel bitch; one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition.

Oswald. Why, what a monstrous fellow are thou, thus to rail on one that is neither known to thee or knows thee.

Earl of Kent. What a brazen-faced varlet art thou, to deny thou knowest me! Is it two days ago since I tripped up thy heels, and beat thee before the king? Draw you rogue: for though it be night, yet the moon shines; I’ll make a sop o’ the moonshine of you: draw you whoreson cullionly barber-monger, draw. (Drawing his sword).

Politicians take note!!

A masterful use of English and without vulgarity or a four-letter  “f” word anywhere.

NOTE: Definition of a pandar = a pimp.

            Definition of cullionly = mean or base.

Never touch save out of love.

In today's world with many people, who should know better, being accused of domestic violence and inappropriate sexual behavior it maybe worthwhile to take some time and read what follows:-

Some of my readers may know that I find solace in poetry. Some time ago I “discovered” the American poet Max Ehrmann. He wrote with great depth, pathos and understanding of the human condition.

For instance, take the lines of the title of this post – from a poem called “Her Acceptance” – the last two lines are:

“Still let us both be owners of ourselves,

And never touch save out of love. – Kiss me.”

Those last words are so, so important – “never touch save out of love”. Here a woman accepts a proposal of marriage from a man – but she comes with nothing. No inheritance; nothing except her love (these line were written I think in the early 1900s). And she warns him that there has to be more that attracts him than her youth, which will fade with the years and she reminds him that with young children she will be a burden on him. Seeing him work long hours in sad drudgery will “pierce me to the soul”, and that she will suffer with him because she knows that she “Shall be a weight upon his back”.

Even with all this she understands that love is what will hold them together and advocates that they “never touch save out of love”.

These are wonderful words with a sentiment that, while many adhere to, quite a few, unfortunately and tragically, do not.

.

Robots revisited - a "Workless" future

Now that driverless cars are a reality and the US Air Force has pilotless planes – not just drones or UAVs – but unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), I’m sure the armament industries around the world will soon produce driverless tanks, driverless self-propelled automatic radar controlled self loading artillery, armed robots to replace foot soldiers and who knows what else is on the artificial intelligence (AI) robotic horizon.

Anything to save the cost of people – soldiers needing to be trained, uniformed, fed, housed, then possibly injured or killed.

But then we need to ask the question – who will these robots be trying to kill?

This robot and AI problem applies also, of course, to commerce and industry. Many of the jobs that American politicians want to bring back to America will never eventuate. The days of the old unskilled, labour intensive jobs are numbered. We are told that within 10-20 years many, if not most, of the unskilled laboring will be gone. As an example there is a giant 3D printer in China that can “print out ten houses on a block of land in 24 hours - the houses were built in Shanghai by WinSun Decoration Design Engineering. Each house was 10 metres wide (about 33ft) and 6.6 metres high (about 20ft) using a mix of cement and construction waste, with walls being constructed layer by layer, like making a cake.” This construction can be seen at work on a YouTube video and refers only to the walls. The roof is a separate construction by men. Also on YouTube is a video of the Tiger Stone Paving Robot that lays a road at four times the speed of a team of human workers. (These quotes are from book called ‘Why the Future is Workless’ by Tim Dunlop). I’ve seen the videos – amazing!

So the world is changing – what was will no longer be – the status quo has evaporated.

So what is the solution? Certainly some “service” jobs will still need individuals – cleaning, cooking, nursing, teaching, child-care and such like – but many others will be automated or performed by robots.

Just consider the impact on the poor and middle class in the USA. Even now, with the globalization of work, there are more workers than there is work for them to do (i.e. the “rust belt” in the USA). In a report by Carl B Frey and Michael A Osborne from the Oxford Martin School at Oxford University (full report is available free on line - Google it) they examined 702 jobs in the USA and determined that 47% are vulnerable to automation within the next twenty years. The main finding is that “algorithms for big data are now rapidly entering domains reliant upon pattern recognition and can readily substitute for labour in a wide range of non-routine cognitive tasks.”

A similar conclusion was arrived at by MIT scholars, Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee in their research paper, “The Second Machine Age”.

Basically these reports say that the only “safe” jobs will be those that require social intelligence – the ability to interact with other humans in an intuitive way; those that require creativity – a deep understanding of what humans want from their creative tasks to be effective; and, surprisingly, the ability to manipulate objects in unstructured and cluttered environments (i.e cleaning jobs).

Many, if not most politicians, and the “ruling class”, may be horrified at the obvious solution – give everyone, and I mean everyone – employed or unemployed – give everyone a “Universal Basic Income”. This universal basic income is already in place in the city of Utrecht (Netherlands) and is being actively considered by the Governments of Finland, Switzerland, India, Canada, New Zealand and, as mentioned, the Netherlands.

A world that no longer revolves around full time paid employment, one underpinned by a universal basic income, opens up the possibility of a life of, for instance, more civic, social and community engagements – using our skills for personal satisfaction and free exchange rather than channeling them into the need to earn income or profit.

This is no joke! If a large percentage of people in the USA – or any country for that matter – are unemployed and are unable to see any possibility of future employment, what are they supposed to do?

Anger and frustration will consume many people, especially when they are made aware that currently (2016) the inequality gap between the wages of the typical worker and that of the typical CEO is 200 times. That is right  - the typical CEO in the USA earns 200 times the wage of the average worker!! In Japan it is 16 times.

To me it is a no brainer that people – millions of people – will swamp their governments for assistance. If all Governments adapt and are proactive they will plan for this eventuality and the only option is to pay everyone, repeat, everyone a “Universal Basic Income”.

Many right wing politicians and those in the “ruling class” will fight such a policy but they will be outnumbered by the millions of unemployed, destitute, poor, frustrated and angry people clamoring at their doors, clamoring for assistance.  

This is the future  - and it’s coming soon – get used to it.