Ethics and Life

Hoist by one’s own petard!

2012-02-10T05:02:00.000-08:00

There must be a perverse streak in me! I can’t say I enjoy it but I will admit to deriving some satisfaction in seeing someone get their “come-uppance”; in the squirming embarrassment not to say humiliation of the high and mighty forced to acknowledge their own failings. In this case it will be the Animal Rights Activists and the Australian Government regarding the appalling treatment of animals, in their own back yard, at the Hawkesbury Valley Abattoir in New South Wales. Rather than offending others by telling them how to behave or what they should do, we need to get our own house in order first – to lead by example – from the front. And what an example we have shown to the world!!!! I am sure those involved will duck and weave and deny that it is a widespread practice – but isn’t this what the Indonesians said in 2010 when we complained about some of their abattoirs?

I bet the Indonesians are chortling into their beers or glasses of rice wine, or whatever they drink there, over the revelations that the “do good” Australians have been “hoist by their own petard”. That their own abattoirs are far from “clean” that there are practices in Australia that are in clear breach of any concept of what may be considered the “humane” treatment of animals.

While I have nothing but utter contempt for the abattoir workers, the management and the owners of the Hawkesbury Valley Abattoir, for allowing such cruel practices to take place, we Australians need to be careful and to learn to practice what we preach. We need to be sure that the moral high ground we try to talk from is not actually quicksand.

Note: For those not familiar with the term “Hoist by one’s own petard” it refers to being injured by a device intended to injure others. A petard was an explosive device on the end of a pole used during the Middle Ages for attacking fortified positions. The explosives used at the time were very unstable and unpredictable and tended to detonate unexpectedly – injuring or killing the unfortunate user. Hence the term hoist (blown up) by one’s own petard (device).

In this case there is a pleasing element of poetic justice in the phrase.

Distant Death

2012-01-25T06:56:00.000-08:00

I wonder what it must be like sitting in a chair in front of a large computer screen handling the controls of a Predator drone unmanned aircraft flying 12000 km away? I wonder especially how I would feel at the moment I saw a “target” individual appear on the screen and was authorised to press the “fire’ button sending a missile to destroy that target person? I wonder how I would feel after I witnessed the resulting explosion, knowing that the target individual was now dead or at least very seriously injured? I wonder how I would feel when I went home that night and spoke to my wife and children knowing that, through my actions, I had denied someone the ability to do the very things that I was doing?

Would I be glad that I had rid the Earth of a bad person? Would I be jubilant I had struck a blow for peace? Would I be aware of the irony in what I had done? Would I be interested in hearing the reasons why the person I has just killed – from my desk 12000 km distant – was deemed by my superiors to be a worthy target? Would I care that he had a family and that he loved his wife and children – and that they loved him? Would I care that some injustice, actual or perceived, suffered by this person was blamed on the “Great Satan” America. Would I be interested in hearing that this injustice (actual or perceived) had so affected him that he tried to redress the affects of the injustice in the only effective way he knew – violence against “The West”?

What would I have done differently if I had actually been on the ground seeking this individual? What would have done if I actually confronted him? What would I have done in the heat of the moment amid the flies and dust and heat and the smell of perspiration and fear – his and my own? What would I have done when I saw the expression in his eyes – the surprise; or the determination to kill or be killed; or the fear or pleading for life? What would I have done if I noticed he was unarmed?

In these circumstances would I be chivalrous and ask him to surrender? In these circumstances would I shoot first and damn the consequences?

Maybe, if I was still at my desk, I would compare notes with those at other controls at other desks flying other drones. Maybe I would be competitive and strive to “shoot and outscore” the others. Maybe, just maybe, I might experience a pang of guilt that someone I never knew, but was instructed to kill, died as a result of my actions; someone I knew only from a foreshortened aerial image taken from an altitude of 10 000 metres some 12 000 km from my computer screen.

Surely everyone has a right to live? Who am I to judge otherwise? Who are those unworthy of life? Am I? I wonder.

I wonder too, if at any stage of my day, the sentiments expressed by the famous lines written by John Donne, (1572 – 1631) would cross my mind:

“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.”

I just wonder at the psychological effects this distant death may have if I had to do this day after day? I wonder.

What is the bottom line to you?

2012-01-14T18:39:00.000-08:00

Those who believe that the financial bottom line is the be all and end all of commerce and industry are wrong. As has been repeatedly pointed out in these posts, money is useful but without human beings, people, individuals, you and I, there would be no money. So to me it is a blinding glimpse of the obvious to realise that human beings, people, individuals must be considered more important than money!! Look after people, customers, patients – whomsoever, and the money will flow.

This is ‘service’. The core, the prime purpose of every business is to provide a service. Think about it. I need a jacket – I can’t make one so I go to someone, a shop for example, that provides them. They are servicing my needs. The shop purchases the jacket from a tailor – the tailor services the needs of the shop; the tailor buys the jacket material from the weaver – the weaver services the needs of the tailor – and so on right back to the farmer who breeds sheep and has them sheared for the wool. Each is servicing the needs of the other. Likewise if I need coal or iron ore for my factory I approach an organisation that provides these minerals – they too are servicing my needs. So by default all commerce and industry is ultimately providing a service – but to whom? To human beings, people, individuals – you and I!!

The jacket or the coal or iron ore does not make money; it is the people who require the products that pay for the goods or materials (the service) provided that “make” the money. So, once more (it is worth repeating again and again), take care of the ultimate source of the money you are seeking - provide a service to human beings; care for people, and the money will flow. It is really very simple.

This is the ideal and the ultimate “win – win” situation. Commerce and industry win and people win, each get what they want. Greed, hubris, inflated egos and plain old selfishness, however, are all too common human attributes that need to be accounted for when the subject of money is mentioned. Enough, seemingly, is never enough.

But the truth remains – provide a service and money will flow.

Why Fundamentalism holds people back.

2011-12-28T19:49:00.000-08:00

Any individual, group, society or culture that claims to be the sole protector of the “truth”, be that truth Scientific, Statistical, Christian, Muslim, Communist or whatever – holds a fundamentalist view. In fact anyone with a fixed belief, is Fundamentalist. Fundamentalism constrains human innovation; fundamentalists want to revert to what the purveyors of the ideology consider a “cleaner’ more “pure” past. Or in the case of science (and my pet aversion, statistics) if it can’t be “proved” it doesn’t exist, it can’t work or else it is a figment of someone’s overactive imagination.

Fundamentalist either forget or ignore the human spirit, which cannot be constrained. The human spirit (however defined) needs to be free to seek, to strive and to find, in its own way - and not everyone is the same or wants the same things. Anyone who tries to hold back the human spirit, or attempts to direct it into one particular path is doomed to ultimate failure. To prove this point just take a look at what is happening in the Middle East and the hundreds of thousands demonstrating against the practices of financial institutions in American cities and it other cities around the world.

The possible exception here, to returning to the past, is the Scientific Fundamentalist who believes totally in the power and purity of scientific exposition and innovation – and there have been some wonderful inventions and discoveries. But the Scientific True Believer, in whatever field of science, has an absolute conviction that scientific “knowledge” is the basis for everything including Life itself. This scientific evidence, it is often claimed, can be proved statistically; that Statistical “facts” trump all else; that scientific concepts which are supported by statistical “proof” must therefore be true, and anyone who does not see this or who voices any opposition, is worthy of nothing but contempt.

Just recall the years of ridicule and isolation suffered by two Australian scientists, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall who in 1982 discovered that the main cause of stomach ulcers is the bacteria Heliobacter pylori. In their original paper, Warren and Marshall contended that most stomach ulcers and gastritis were caused by colonization with this bacterium, not by stress or spicy food as had been assumed before. They did not conform to current scientific thinking and were pilloried for their stand. Had they been scientific fundamentalist they would never have made this discovery and those suffering from stomach ulcers and medicine would have been the poorer. Stomach ulcers are now cured with a short course of antibiotics.

When the subject turns to Religious (or Political) Fundamentalism we delve into murky waters indeed. To my way of thinking religious or political fundamentalism (often considered one and the same when there is no division between “Church” and State) also holds back innovation by demanding (often on pain of death) that all people believe that they (the Leaders) alone know what is best for them – the populace – and that they (the fundamentalist leaders) are following God’s will. And generally fundamentalists of this ilk try to reduce the role of women to virtual slavery and to being totally dependent on the males in the family. Again, look at the Christian fundamentalists in America, the Jewish fundamentalists in Israel and the Islamic fundamentalists in many Muslim countries, particularly Iran and Saudi Arabia and then of course there is the basket case of North Korea.

I may be wrong (the favoured expression always used by someone who believes they are right!!), but by restricting education to learning the Koran and Sharia Law, or applying a strict interpretation of the Torah or the Bible, and by not educating women, these fundamentalists are holding back their citizens.

One needs to ask how fundamentalism, in any form, adds to the material or spiritual well-being of Mankind?

I did it!

2011-12-18T05:40:00.000-08:00

This post is to inform my one loyal reader that I have just received the glad tidings that I satisfied the requirements for a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology at Edith Cowan University (Perth, Western Australia). I will admit to some pride in this achievement. It has taken me a while, with many days of labour and nights devoid of ease. But I did it. If I may say so myself this is not a bad achievement for someone who is 71 years old!

More on refugees, asylum seekers - whatever.

2011-12-10T18:49:00.000-08:00

Much of the discussion in Australia, and I presume other countries with similar problems, has been on how to “stop the boats” from arriving. Short of the drastic step of blowing them out of the water there is no short term solution. People have migrated, gone to what they perceive are “greener pastures”, for thousands of years; in fact we are all, in effect, “migrants” out of Africa!

I am sure that many intelligent people have spent a great deal of time thinking about various solutions to this perceived problem but I have not seen much in the media about the actual causes – why these people take the tremendous risk of a precarious land and sea journey to Australia. For instance just reflect for a moment on where these “boat people” originate – generally Afghanistan, Iran or Iraq – not particularly pleasant places to live at the present time. In none of these countries is anyone “free” as we here in Australia would perceive it; all have corrupt or repressive governments; all are consumed by violence of one sort or another; all have a low standard of living for the general populace; all, with the possible exception of Iraq are culturally bound by a strict interpretation of Islamic law. Quite reasonably many people in these countries want to leave for a “better” future and prospects in Australia. If I was in their shoes, I would too – in fact I did. I left Zimbabwe for Australia, with my family, over 30 years ago. But I arrived in an aircraft.

The solution – long term – is to improve conditions in the countries concerned to the extent that their citizens are not tempted to leave. If this is not possible, and being realistic it is probably not possible, then we have to expect people to move - move to what they believe is a better place. Trying to stop them coming is like putting a finger in the leak in a dike – it may work for a while but long term the pressure will build up to a point when it will be impossible to stop.

A few points to consider:-

• After the necessary health and security checks - welcome them as new migrants and put them to work.
• These are generally industrious, intelligent and resourceful people who have suffered as we have not. There is a shortage of labour in the resource States of Western Australia and Queensland. And some, if not most, have skills we need.
• Give them a welcome; give them succour; allow them to work for a better life than the one they have known – give them a future.
• Be charitable and give them an Australian “fair go”.

Refugees are people too.

2011-12-06T05:08:00.000-08:00

First up I would like to state, as boldly as I can, that refugees – however they are portrayed – are actually PEOPLE. Never forget they are people, as I am a person; as are you, the reader. As people, individuals, we all suffer – physical and emotional pain, stress, anguish and anxiety and we all have a desire to be treated justly and without prejudice. This is as it should be and this has been recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948. It is a noble document and Australia (rightly so) is a signatory to this Declaration.

When some people, citizens of Australia, denigrate and demonise refugees as “boat people”, as “illegal immigrants” or as “queue jumpers” I wonder just how many of them have actually put themselves in the position of these “refugees” and have reflected on what they, the Australians, would do had they experienced a similar background of poverty, injustice and discrimination. And I wonder, also, how many Australians have actually read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Some Australians (the Federal Government included) in violation of the Declaration actually do nothing to prevent prejudice and discrimination, not to say violence against these individuals, ignoring the fact that, for instance:-

Article 7 states that,
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

And Article 9 seeks to ensure that,
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

And then Article 14 which rightfully proclaims,
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

By keeping the refugees/boat people/illegals – whatever – in detention for years Australia is, I believe, in breach of the very Declaration they signed and are hypocritical when they castigate others for not upholding the same Declaration.

And what about charity? This is a quality which is woven into the fabric of every culture and society. In terms of Christianity (and Australia is nominally a Christian country) charity implies love of one’s fellow men (from the Oxford English Dictionary – OED). It means love; kindness; natural affection; spontaneous goodness; a disposition to think favourably of others and to make allowances for their shortcomings; beneficence; liberality to or the provision for those in need or distress.

Is this how we are treating these people who are desperate and in need of succour?

Then there is the adverb charitable which, again in Christian terms, means charity or the love of God and man; tender hearted; loving; benevolent; generous in giving to the poor.

Again I ask are we, as Australians, displaying these virtues and giving assistance to those who ask for our help?

There should be no need for a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If we treat people as we would like to be treated we are applying the universal principles so powerfully declared. We don’t do this because politicians – for political reasons and a few mischievous individuals – for personal reasons, use terms which try to portray these refugees as “different” – they are illegal immigrants; they are queue jumpers; they are disparaged as ‘boat people’ as if this is something to be despised. Once these terms enter the public consciousness it is easy to assume that because they are considered “different” it doesn’t matter if they are treated differently. This is a dangerous step which leads inevitably to the slippery slope of persecution – and history has provided many unfortunate examples of what this means.

To avoid the accusation of breaching the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights all applications for refugee status should be processed IN AUSTRALIA; not “off shore” in Malaysia or anywhere else but here within the safety of this great country.

Nearly there!!

2011-11-30T05:37:00.000-08:00

I should feel guilty about not keeping my one loyal reader informed regarding my academic progress. My excuse is that I have already written about this in the past, and as I know that the one reader who follows my posts is no fool he/she will know that I am approaching the end of my university studies.

In fact I trust that I have written my last exam – ever! The month of November has been distinctly stressful. Three exams in 10 days to, hopefully, complete my degree. It will be so good. But, and it is a big but, I have learned over the many years that I have been studying never to count my chickens before they have hatched. So I now wait – wait for the examining powers that be to mark all the papers and post the results.

Patience is the order of the day.

QANTAS – where is the humanity?

2011-10-31T06:34:00.000-07:00

Many people forget that a company – in fact any organisation is only as good as the people in it and in fact would not exist without people. A company is a human construct without a life of its own.

Now I last wrote about QANTAS with a bit of ‘tongue in cheek’ as it were. But the overall sentiment expressed is quite valid. Wreck a company’s name and it may be gone forever. What CEO Alan Joyce has to remember is that while the QANTAS Board may have agreed with him and with the views of various financial and legal advisors, the World has looked on in amazement. This action cannot be compared to the Waterside dispute decades ago – who in the world cared about Patricks? Only Australia! QANTAS is an entirely different situation. It is a company with a worldwide reputation for safety and reliability. It is an Australian brand.

Because of the action taken by the CEO a few thousand shareholders may applaud the improved value of their share portfolio but who else does? The passengers stranded in airports around the world and Australia? People forget – wrong – EVERYBODY forgets that a company is a service organisation. No matter what the company does it serves someone. A mining company serves the purchaser of the ore; a shipping company serves whoever entrusts them to transport their goods and an airline company serves the travelling public. These are PEOPLE.

The service aspect MUST come first. Provide the best possible service and people will pay. Therefore money follows service. It always has and it always will – not the other way around. Service does not and cannot follow money. Service means serving people. A machine, an aircraft, cannot provide a service, only a person can. This is where humanity comes in. Money serves no one – it is a medium of exchange – made of plastic, paper, or whatever. The number one priority is (or should be) people not money.

I am not going to buy into the dispute QANTAS has with the various unions – all I know is that every problem has a solution. Holding a gun to anyone’s head is not negotiating; grounding 108 planes is not negotiating; withholding maintenance labour is not negotiating. Sitting around a table and TALKING – expressing views – listening – compromising is negotiating. Not an all or nothing approach. Everyone will have to change their position.

I await the outcome of the Fair Work Australia process with great interest. I just hope that wise heads will prevail and that a way forward is delineated not a path back. Nothing stays still and only a forwards thinking and progressive resolution will survive into the future and benefit the service QANTAS is trying to provide – in spite of Alan Joyce. I still believe he was wrong to do what he did.

QANTAS – conspiracy theory?

2011-10-30T02:00:00.000-07:00

Is Alan Joyce a “sleeper”? I wonder if the CEO of QANTAS is a spy? Has he been planted by rivals to reduce the famous airline (slowly) to nothing? Otherwise why should he take the unprecedented step of shutting down the airline – basically until further notice? No businessman worth his salt would consider such an action without some sort of plan and without a time line. Without this timeline the crisis could (and most probably will) reduce the airline and the name QANTAS to a shell – something of no substance. Why?

Sure QANTAS has problems – all airlines have problems but why wreck it? Unions have their own agenda (I am not defending unions) and they have a right to attend to the needs and wishes of their members. This will almost certainly clash with the QANTAS management’s ideas of how the airline should be run. But isn’t that how democracy works? And aren't we members of the species Homo Sapiens (reasoning man)? Talk it over; reason with people; this is not a war to be won or lost! Remember history tells us that no one wins a war. In a war everybody suffers to a greater or lesser degree. Joyce is not suffering – not with a 70% increase in salary! And if he feels he is suffering - well it is entirely self inflicted.

For God’s sake TALK (I think it was Churchill who said that we need, "more jaw, jaw, and less war, war").

Pharma-psychology – is it faith based medicine?

2011-09-27T05:37:00.000-07:00

I know this is an inflammatory question – but it still needs an answer, is pharma-psychology, the treatment of mental problems by drugs alone - based on faith – pharmaceutical faith? The medicines, the pharmaceutical drugs that have been developed for use in situations when a person’s mind is deemed to be unhinged or they are behaving in a manner considered to be “abnormal”, work up to a point. But no one (psychiatrists, psychologists, neuro-scientists, pharmacologists et al) knows WHY or HOW they work or what the long-term effects of continuous use are. They are adopting a “suck it and see” approach with people’s brains (and minds) – they are in effect using the affected people as guinea-pigs - which I think is both appalling and unethical.

While I have no faith (that word again) in statistics they are useful up to a point, in generalisations. So, generally, if one considers the commonly used Prozac - the results, compared to a placebo (a “sugar pill”), show that only about 50% of people who take the drug appear to benefit. Up to 33% suffer side effects – ranging from insomnia to reduced libido – that is 33 people out of every 100 who take Prozac. This is an astonishing result – so why use them?

In spite of what the pharmaceutical companies would like us to believe, while antidepressants such as Prozac do increase serotonin levels in the brain, this doesn’t mean that depression is caused by a shortage of serotonin. After all, paracetamol may reduce the unpleasant effects of a headache, but this doesn’t mean that a headache is caused by a deficiency of paracetamol!

The truth is that researchers know very little about how antidepressants work. A test that can measure the amount of serotonin in the living brain has yet to be developed. There is no way to even know what a “normal” level of serotonin is, let alone a low level, and it has yet to be shown if or how medication corrects these levels.

Many studies contradict the chemical imbalance theory of depression. Experiments have shown that lowering people’s serotonin levels doesn’t always lower mood, or worsen symptoms for those already depressed. And, furthermore, while some types of antidepressants may raise serotonin levels within hours, it takes weeks before the medication is able to (apparently) relieve depression. If a deficiency in serotonin actually causes depression, this time lag would not exist.

Also it is essential to be aware that the side effects of these drugs, without exception, are unpleasant – in fact some drugs (i.e. lithium) are positively lethal. It is very important to first read the warnings printed on the document inside every box of any medication.

It may be hard to believe but with some people there is the danger that a total reliance on antidepressant medication may cause an increase, rather than a decrease, in depression and with it, an increased risk of suicide. While this is particularly true of children and young adults on antidepressant medication, anyone taking antidepressants should be closely watched for suicidal thoughts and associated behaviour. The suicide risk is particularly great during the first few months of antidepressant treatment.

So, again, why use the stuff in the first place? It is important to recall the fact that no behaviour or misbehaviour (however aberrant - Alzheimer’s and Huntingdon’s accepted) can be categorised as a disease – in spite of the fact that many people now use the term “mental illness”. If you’re suffering from depression, antidepressant medication, used under the guidance of a mental health professional, may relieve, temporarily, some of your symptoms. But antidepressants aren’t a silver bullet for depression. Medication doesn’t cure the underlying problem and is rarely a long-term solution. As mentioned above there are real questions about their effectiveness and the many profound and disturbing side effects.

So to get back to my original question – is the exclusive use of medication to treat mental disturbances based on a faith in pharma-psychology? I believe it is. I also believe this faith is based on a flawed interpretation of the causes and the many issues associated with mental health. It is a false faith and is doing incalculable long term harm to many people.

Facing one’s mortality.

2011-08-30T07:48:00.000-07:00

Please don’t think that I am ill – terminal or otherwise! I would hate to shock my one loyal reader. No. I am speaking more generally about mortality. In my case I know that I am much closer to the end than the beginning of my life so I suppose that sub-consciously I have mellowed and adopted a more philosophical approach to Life and the various travails encountered on my journey along Life’s road.

What actually suggested this post is a change in attitude noticed in a person known to me. Others too have noticed a substantial mellowing in attitude toward relationships – at least in the work-place – now taken by this person. It is surmised that this mellowing and gentler approach results from being diagnosed with a severe illness and the associated suffering which always accompanies such an illness. It is cancer, which is (assumed) to be of a serious type, that unless treated early is always terminal.

Now, because this person is always reticent and seemingly unable to form appropriate work place relationships – normally seeing the inevitable work place problems in strict black or white terms – no one is certain about the actual illness, except to note the obvious, that this person is ill. Unfortunately no one has ever wanted to be close enough to either ask or to be told what the matter is. This is a rather sad situation don’t you think? Not to be close enough to the people you work with to be able to share your joys or your troubles.

Everyone has their problems and everyone has their joys and one of the comforts of being human is to share these with others. It helps to realise that others have had similar experiences – that one is not alone. Being human means we are all members of Humanity; we are all of one blood; we all share the same range and intensity of emotions; we all accept, to differing degrees, the challengers presented to us on our life’s journey. With help from others – or providing help to others – the challengers met and the burdens we all carry are somehow lightened, because they are now shared.

This should be one of the great comforts of life; to know that whatever happens there will be a welcoming smile and a friendly shoulder to lean on. Better still - show a welcoming smile and offer a friendly shoulder to others. I just hope that the person I have been talking about may now have realised these truths about living. That by helping others one is, in turn, helped. My hope is that whatever the outcome of the illness this person will attain peace of mind.

I cannot imagine anything worse than to leave this life knowing that some people are glad to know that you are no longer a burden to them; that your negativity will no longer blight their lives; that there will be some who are actually glad you are no longer alive. This would be a very sad end to anyone’s life. Everyone likes to believe that they are a worthy human being and that others think the same.

Remember that a person’s worth is not how much they have, or what they have made or done but who they are!

Who are you?

Sell your reputation for a song

2011-08-16T07:43:00.000-07:00

People have idols; things they value above all others; even, unfortunately more than they value themselves – their self-worth, their honour and their reputation. There has been a spate of media reports about people who have indulged in, shall we say, less than charitable behaviour – I refer particularly to Mark Standen, the former deputy director of the New South Wales Crime Commission who has been convicted of drugs charges and perverting the course of justice. But there are others – lawyers, doctors and civil servants who have been found guilty of malpractice of one type or another.

I have said before that poets can often say in a few words what it takes others, like me, many words to express. There is a very appropriate verse in the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (an 11th Century Persian mathematician, astronomer and poet) - which goes as follows (verse 69):

Indeed the Idols I have loved so long
Have done my Credit in Men’s Eyes much wrong:
Have drown’d my Honour in a shallow cup,
And sold my Reputation for a Song.

For many people their idols are money (or the “stuff’ that money can buy); or prestige and the power that comes with the position. If you “love” something above all others – an idol - this will soon be apparent to all who know you. You will have removed yourself from the rest of humanity; you will be using people as a means to an end; you will be using people to acquire more of what you “love”. They will sense this and you will have done your “credit in Men’s eyes much wrong”.

To get your idol you will cheat, you will lie, you will become untrustworthy, you will be immoral, you will not be ethical in your activities. You will have drowned your honour in a shallow cup – lost your honour for something of little value – a “shallow cup”.

Your love for, your fixation to, your worship of your idol means that you have lost all sense of proportion or reason and are prepared to sell your self-worth – who you are – for something of no substance, a “song”. You will have diminished yourself as a human being.

No one will ever trust you again – your self-worth, your reputation, your honour will have been damaged almost beyond repair.

The Australian Carbon Tax Debate

2011-07-31T02:54:00.000-07:00

I really don’t know what the fuss is about! Doing the same as we have always done may have been the only course of action when the world was younger and the population a great deal less than today, but this is far from the ideal today.

The three imperatives for sustainable life (of any type) are clean air, clean soil and clean water. Without these three – all three at the same time – life as we know it could not exist. It is much cheaper and easier to be proactive and prevent a dire situation rather than be reactive and try to correct an already dire situation.

I know that there have been hotter and colder periods of the Earth’s geological history and that these episodes may be cyclical. But I also know that at no time in our geological history have there been so many humans on earth pumping out so much pollution whilst simultaneously plundering the very means whereby the Earth regenerates itself. The chemicals, the toxic waste – air borne, water borne and lodged in the soil - that we human’s generate reduces the earth’s capacity to absorb the pollutants. These pollutants also have a deleterious effect on the life of us humans – the very people who are causing the problem in the first place by affecting our own health (lung cancer for one) the food we eat (the animals and plants) in ways yet to be determined. I suppose there is some poetic justice in this, unpleasant though idea may be.

This plundering of the Earth’s resources (in the name of economic necessity) and this continual generating pollution (also in the name of economic necessity) must be reduced. It cannot continue unabated. People will never do this voluntarily (there is too much money involved) so they have to be forced to change their ways, and taxation is the most effective way of doing this.

I for one have no objection in paying this tax. For those that may be interested I also support the so called “Mining Tax” as a means of providing a fund to keep Australia going when we have no more iron ore, or oil, or rare earth minerals to sustain our, expected, standard of living (and to pay for filling in the huge holes left in the ground by the miners).

The status quo is not a viable option. The Earth will still be around for millions of years – I am not sure about us, at least not in the form we are familiar with.

Reflections

2011-07-26T06:25:00.001-07:00

When I look in a mirror I see a white haired man with a somewhat time-worn face. But I am not old, at least I do not feel old. I know – rather, let me say, I have knowledge of the fact that, on my Life’s journey I am nearer the end than the beginning. Sometimes I almost feel as if I am taking a pleasant gentle stroll towards a still to be determined sunset.

Even though my muscles may not have the strength they once had, my step is still firm; my eyesight is ok but needs some optical assistance; my hearing is somewhat impaired (a bad right ear as a result of military gunfire – a .303 Lee-Enfield makes one helluva noise); my heart, lungs and other internal organs are sound (I take no prescription medications); I am just within my correct Body Mass Index (BMI) at 24.5 (even if this is at the upper end of normal); I don’t smoke (never have); I don’t drink alcohol; so, generally, I think I am good for a few more years yet.

This got me reflecting on my heart and hearts in general. What incredible organs they are. Mine has been pumping blood tirelessly for over 70 years – I have a slow pulse rate, at about 60 per minute:-

Now at 60 beats per minute this
= 3 600 beats per hour
= 86 400 beats per day
= 604 800 beats per week
= 31 449 600 beats per year

And in my case, so far in my life = 2 201 472 000 beats - over 2 thousand million times without faltering or complaining!! What makes this figure even more astonishing is that, so I understand, while every other cell in our bodies is replaced many times over, the cells comprising the “pumping muscles” of the heart are never replaced. They actually start beating 3 weeks after conception and just keep on going. They can never rest. So these same cells in the same muscles in my heart have been expanding and contracting in a seemingly tireless rhythm – squeeze-release, squeeze-release - since before I was born!! This is a prodigious feat worthy of some high order of wonder.

Just think about it – my “heart” started beating before my brain was formed – as did yours! This means – which is quite true – that heart muscles have been found to be independent from the brain and, in some manner, seem to communicate between themselves to synchronise their movements. This is an astonishing finding which, I might add, applies to anything – reptile, fish, animal, human or whatever, that has a heart. If these cells communicate between themselves (however “communication” is determined) this would indicate that they have some degree of intelligence. Without a measure of intelligence how can anything “communicate” and understand what is being communicated? This must be why the heart has always been considered the central organ and the centre of the emotions – “she has a heart of gold”; “he is a big hearted man” and so on.

If cells are intelligent where or how does this intelligence arise? Something cannot come from nothing. To me this reinforces my belief that that there is a “collective unconscious” (as proposed by C.G. Jung) which I equate with the essence of “Life” that animates all cellular life. Something “out there” that is greater than any of us; something that is the reason why we are born at all; something that, we may assume, had a plan which may be a work in progress that commenced with the “Big Bang”, some billions of years ago. All life forms are not just an agglomeration of matter; there is something above and beyond the observable Universe which affects all sentient beings in different ways according to their kind. I cannot prove this of course – but then no one can disprove it either!

Regardless of one’s viewpoint on this matter – a heart is still a wondrous organ and worthy of a great deal more care and attention than we normally give it.

Mental health, surveillance, controls and us.

2011-07-04T06:37:00.000-07:00

Today, when we are deluged with advertising exhorting us to buy this or that product, to follow this or that cause, to do this or that because “you deserve it”, how many of us actually know what we like or even who we are? Certainly advertising is useful – in its place. But when we reach a stage of believing everything we are told – by someone who certainly does not have our best interests in mind – I think we are in trouble. How can anyone know what I need, or want, or should do? They (whoever “they” may be) may generalise and say that statistically most people do this or that or the other thing. But when “they” try to apply their generalisations to me (or you) it becomes an opinion, because they don’t know my (or your) specific attributes and needs.

The thing is that it is so easy to follow what others do. There is comfort in knowing that we conform to what the group or society is doing (whether this is right or wrong). I suppose it is that same sort of comfort afforded to a herd of gazelles about to be attacked by a lion. There is comfort in numbers – an individual gazelle’s chance of being eaten by the lion is in inverse proportion to the size of the herd – a relatively small chance. Many of us may unconsciously try to comply with the same herd instinct. I am not sure that this is, generally, in our best interests. To revert to the example of the gazelles, each gazelle conforms to the characteristics of their kind – all are of a similar colour and size. Human beings, on the other hand, are not all of one colour or one size, and what are are the characteristics of our kind? We have attributes and characteristics derived from ALL animals – we live, survive and seem to thrive in every climatic and environmental condition.

So where does this leave us human beings? We have a propensity to conform – it is so easy to do so. There is no need for us to think for ourselves. Someone (who we presume must know better than us) tells us what to do because it is deemed to be best for us (as individuals). On the other hand it is a human requirement that we each grow and develop in our own individual way for our own individual purposes. We each learn from and react to experiences and circumstances in our own unique way. We are not clones. We each, in our own way on our journey through life, add to the sum of human knowledge. This is as it should be because in this way humanity benefits. There will certainly be ups and downs, positives and negatives in this journey and with the knowledge we gain in this process. But again this is as it should be. How else can we learn?

This gets me back to where I started from – other people telling me (or us) what to do. Rather than being told what to do, there is I believe a (possibly unconscious) covert move to influence us in other ways. Why are there so many surveillance cameras in most major cities? I believe it is because the authorities (whoever they are) want us to believe that we are under constant surveillance by some unseen authority. In this way it is hoped that we “internalise” this sense of being observed and alter our behaviour. This is a form of power whereby physical control is switched from chains to self control through the fear of not knowing for certain whether or not we are being observed. This uncertainty changes the way we think of ourselves as citizens by introducing the element of fear which leads us to “conform” to some vague, undefined, pattern of behaviour.

Ostensibly the surveillance is to identify criminals, and one has to admit it is useful in this regard. However are we to submit to some ill defined “greater good”, which limits individual freedoms? By freedoms I do not in any way suggest that we can or should do what we like. Not at all. Paradoxically, because we, as individuals, always hold to the core belief that we are good, any attempt to expose activity to the contrary (i.e. by surveillance cameras) is met with an element of anxiety – no one wants to be shown up to be less than their own idea of who they are. This aside, any constraint on our ability as individuals to express ourselves as we see fit has, I am sure, unforeseen consequences. The fundamental law of life – the law of cause and effect, may be forgotten but can never be avoided. Ethics, morality and values (both personal and cultural) must be adhered to.

Stress and anxiety are known to be precursors of a variety of mental problems as defined by the Psychologists “Bible” – the American Psychological Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (version IV) – DSM IV. It is possible, even probable, that the elements of stress and anxiety brought about by this background of constant surveillance is instrumental in the, verified, higher incidence of schizophrenia in cities as compared to rural areas.

In high density urban environments we are constantly pulled and pushed by conflicting demands – we need to maintain certain standards of behaviour (on the surface at least) to keep peace with neighbours; we have a desire to maintain living standards and to have certain material goods to satisfy our children and to “keep up with the Jones’”; we are aware that we are constantly being observed by our neighbours for any transgressions. Thus we are forced to conform to standards that are not of our making and which may conflict with our individual values and moral standards. To have added to this the knowledge that we are under constant CCTV surveillance is an additional level of stress.

This does bode well for our peace of mind.

Gentle people

2011-05-28T19:36:00.000-07:00

My one reader will know that I have a great liking for poetry (I like to think that I do actually have one reader who follows my mental perambulations through my writing, even though I have no idea who this long suffering person might be). I find solace and inspiration in poetry. The gentle rhythm of the metre and words I find peaceful and have a calming effect on me.

The particular poem I am writing about is just part of “Twilight” by John Masefield. Thinking of friends who have died the words of the last line of the poem are:

“Beautiful souls who were gentle when I was a child.”

It was the words “who were gentle when I was a child” that struck home to me. Now I had a wonderful childhood – with gentle people – so I have no direct experience of a childhood without gentle people but there seems to be a great deal of press coverage about people who would seem to have souls that are neither beautiful nor gentle and I wonder about the effect this has on the general public. This constant bombardment of negativity about paedophilia, child abduction, physical and sexual abuse perpetrated by people who should know better must give rise to emotions of resignation and helplessness – “there is not much I can do about it” and “if everyone is doing it why can’t I” sort of thing. Individuals who think like this have lost their moral compass and need some help and guidance

I fully appreciate that (fortunately) there is still a majority of “beautiful souls” who, in their roles as parents, as teachers, carers and mentors are doing a wonderful job with children. However, when one reads that about 1 in 4 or 5 women have suffered some sort of abuse by the time they are adults I am appalled and I am left wondering why this should be.

Alcohol and drug abuse are often raised as reasons for physical and sexual abuse but are no excuse – even when drunk one should still have a semblance of self control. I have been drunk in the past so I know - but I have no experience with drugs, never having taken any non-medicinal drugs in my life.

It is not the drugs or the alcohol that are the problem it is what caused the user (or abuser) of these substances to start using them in the first place; what emotional pain are they trying to dull; what anguish are they trying to hide; what memories are they trying to extinguish; what unbearable stress are they experiencing?

Answer these questions and half the problem will be solved.

Sharia Law in Australia

2011-05-17T08:00:00.000-07:00

I know very little about the finer points of sharia law. I am certain about one thing however and that is, like oil and water, Religion and the Law don’t mix. Sharia Law is not codified, in fact, as I understand it Muslim clergy are the ones who interpret Sharia Law from their understanding of the Koran.

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils wants a parallel system of Law in Australia whereby Muslims can marry, divorce and conduct business under Sharia Law. Why? Is Sharia Law better? Does it provide a “better” form of justice? Don’t they like “our” system of law? I mean we don’t stone women to death for adultery, do we? We don’t condone gang rape girls for the social “crime” of being seen with a non-Christian, do we? I would remind Muslims that “our” law is based on Christian principles (Love thy neighbour as thyself) and dates back to Roman times, which predates Sharia Law by some 600 years.

To submit to such requests is to, eventually, have a country – Australia –governed by Sharia Law, like Iran. God (or Allah) forbid!!!

Let me ask a question of the Muslims. If the situation was reversed and a whole boatload of Christians ended up in a Muslim country and demanded that they be allowed to marry, divorce and carry business under “Western” non-Sharia based law, would they be allowed to?

Stupid question!!

What is Schizophrenia?

2011-05-15T02:43:00.000-07:00

What is schizophrenia? The short answer is that no one knows. The effects are well documented even though they are not necessarily unique to schizophrenia. Since the term was first used by Eugen Bleuler in 1911, intense research has so far failed to identify the condition’s causes though it is thought to be a combination, in varying degrees, of genetic, environmental and neurological factors. This debilitating mental disorder is believed to affect about 1% of the World’s population and is generally first diagnosed in late teenage and early adulthood. For reasons not yet established more males than females are affected.

Not only is schizophrenia difficult to define but is without any confirmed pathological, molecular or genetic origin – it has no confirmed biological basis. Diagnosis is made from observed behaviours meeting the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-V Axis 1) criteria. These criteria relate principally to the determination of an afflicted individual’s mental state, from their speech patterns and perceptions which may indicate possible hallucinations and/or delusions. This is supported by observed unusual behaviour which may affect the afflicted person’s ability to function effectively in the broader community. Therefore any diagnosis cannot be objectively “scientifically” proven, it is subjective - someone’s opinion and interpretation of behaviour. Furthermore it is not an illness which prescription medication can cure. It is certainly an unfortunate and debilitating condition but it is not an illness – and to call it such is misleading and wrong.

There appear to be many factors involved in the causes of schizophrenia. Obstetric complications, such as foetal hypoxia (foetus deprived of oxygen); viral infections the mother may have experienced during pregnancy; even the season of the year when giving birth, (winter being statistically the least favourable); the patient’s social status; even where the patient resides - in an urban or rural locality (urban being the least favourable), all appear to have a bearing on the incidence of this condition.

While not one single factor has been identified as common to all patients with the condition researchers are working on some evidence that schizophrenia may be a polygenic disorder (influenced by many genes) which is further influenced by environmental factors and a person’s emotional vulnerability while developing in teenage years. Stress appears also to be a factor in the development of schizophrenia as it is recognised in playing a significant role in many medical conditions. It is now thought, with some individuals, that certain levels of stress experienced may exceed their adaptive capacity and thus compound the vulnerabilities of the person concerned. Comments critical of the patient’s demeanour and behaviour together with the alternative of an over-protective relationship have a significant bearing on the course of schizophrenia – this is called a high level of Expressed Emotion. Some patient’s may suffer a relapse from a relatively stable condition which allowed for their discharge from a treatment centre. There is, however, no agreement on the meaning of relapse.

It is now known that people suffering schizophrenia are more likely to recover and less likely to suffer a relapse if they live in a calm, non-critical, non-overprotective environment – a low level of Expressed Emotion. It is well documented that early intervention programmes are of vital importance in determining a favourable outcome for schizophrenia patients but there appears to be no agreement on what recovery actually means. Recovery varies considerably in effect from individual to individual – is it a “clinical” objective recovery (decided by using DSM V criteria) or an individual’s subjective assessment of their quality of life? It was believed that, once diagnosed with schizophrenia, there was no chance of recovery. There is now, however, a body of evidence suggesting that the situation, for many sufferers, may not be quite so dire, particularly with those individuals not using street drugs and not drinking to excess. With a correct balance between antipsychotic drug treatments and other psychosocial and psychological interventions it is now known that between 20% to 30% recover sufficiently to lead relatively normal lives, with a further 20% to 30% manifesting continuing moderate symptoms. Other reports show that the recovery rate is actually quite high though generally under-reported and is actually somewhere between 50% and 60%. All this shows that the “experts” still don’t really know.

Given the astonishing lack of knowledge about what causes schizophrenia, expressed emotion, relapse and recovery together with the limited understanding of how they relate to one another, how scientists can claim statistical “evidence” and validity proves anything is really surprising. Research is consistent in reporting that high levels of expressed emotion are likely lead to a relapse by patients with schizophrenia. Why this should be, however, is not fully understood. The many factors involved may possibly be partly genetic but certainly involve subjective elements which are difficult to define and measure. No one knows what it really means to recover or relapse nor is it understood from “what” a recovery or relapse is occurring! Also no one knows why high levels of expressed emotion (an “un-calm” environment) may be a predictor of a patient’s relapse.

A mental condition as complex as schizophrenia cannot be artificially restricted to fit the requirements of the DSM-V. Nature will not be governed by man-made conditions which attempt to force it to answer questions required for statistical analysis to satisfy the ideals of “scientific research”. Statistics are unable to adequately assess the nuances and subtleties of words, gestures, feelings, imaginings, desires and beliefs that, in varying degrees, are so tied to and characteristic of each individual and which are known to have an effect on the outcome of schizophrenia and any relapse or recovery.

To force a patient suffering from schizophrenia to take medication – without knowing what the medication actually does or how it works (and with significant side effects) – is ethically questionable and quite wrong in my opinion. The better way is to look at the physical and emotional environment and conditions which spawned the patient’s affliction. It is necessary to find out what all this means to the patient – their interpretation of the events and how it has affected his or her thinking.

Schizophrenia is as much a mysterious condition as it was 100 years ago, certainly the "experts" have no idea what it really is or how to "cure" the condition.

Revenge and Injustice

2011-05-12T06:58:00.000-07:00

No matter which way you look at it revenge is not a form of justice. Revenge is always personal – normally to seek retribution for some imagined wrong or perceived damage to someone’s ego (“loss of face”). Justice, to be true justice must be provided according to the law and be seen to be done – in other words justice must be a public affair. All trials and judgements must be made in public. No secret trials, no ‘kangaroo courts’, no ‘renditions’ to secret locations, no private ‘extra-judicial’ killings or assassinations.

Take the recent Osama bin Laden event in Pakistan. Whatever his crimes (and they were many), as a human being, he rightfully deserved his day in court. No matter the feelings of anger, hatred or fear and loathing engendered by his name and activities, he was entitled to a fair trial. To believe otherwise is to sink to his level, to a level of barbarism that does not sit well with any professed civilised society.

The law is based on trust and ethics. The great Confucius said some 2500 years ago, “What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others” - (the Bible says this and the Koran also expresses this guiding principle). This common sense principle is the foundation of all laws, of ethics, of compassion and of the general process of living. This is where the trust element resides – in the sure knowledge that you will be treated the same way that you would treat others. Any country that professes to abide by the law but, when convenient, flouts this principle loses all moral authority - read the USA, Sweden, Israel, China, Iran, Australia (and unfortunately many others).

When trust falters and people are unsure about how they will be treated, problems arise. Citizens will either live in fear, or will flout the law with a ‘damned if I do, damned if I don’t’ attitude. Neither bodes well for peace and prosperity in any country.

No matter how much "spin" the Americans use to dress up the killing of bin Laden; no matter how much the Swedes approve their closed trials for sexual crimes; no matter what the Chinese say about their secret trials, imprisonment and execution of people for spurious violations of their laws; no matter what the Israeli’s call their killing of Palestinians; no matter how the USA describes their treatment of prisoners in Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay; no matter how Australian police justify their treatment of the original inhabitants of Australia, such activities cannot be justified and are wrong – plain and simply wrong.

Think of it like this – if the positions were reversed, the people imposing these penalties would not like to be treated this way, would they? Remember that violence - in any form - is the last resort of the morally bankrupt.

Mental health issues - again!

2011-04-16T02:10:00.000-07:00

What is it with this (mental “health”) subject, this “condition” that so confuses people? First off, let’s be clear on this, it is NOT an illness, as in measles, or diabetes which have well defined pathological markers and have well documented developmental stages and certain, scientifically proven medical cures or control measures. Mental health, on the other hand, has been closely examined for over 100 years and yet the questions relating to the various “conditions” described in the psychological and psychiatric “Bible” – the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual version V (DSM V) produced by the American Psychological Association (APA) are no nearer being answered. Why or how some people suffer from “mental health problems” is unknown.

To me an illness is something defined, medically, by the affect it has on the human body – high temperature, skin eruptions and possible damage to organs leading to their possible failure and such like. This scientific knowledge allows physicians to specifically treat the condition presented and to either prevent it occurring in the first place (preventative medicine) or to either cure it (measles) or control it (diabetes). Thus an illness is something people HAVE – a medical, pathological condition. There is no known pathological test for mental health that will determine whether a person is depressed, schizophrenic or bi-polar (some mental health issues may be the result of the after affects of excessive drug or alcohol intake). There is no proven genetic component. Furthermore no one knows exactly how or why certain pharmaceutical drugs seem to have a beneficial effect.

Anything affecting a person’s mind, on the other hand, may result in behaviour not generally considered as normal. Again, referring to the DSM V this altered behaviour, observed by others, checked against certain criteria listed in the DSM V determines if a person is “diagnosed” as depressed, schizophrenic, bi-polar or whatever. Thus there is nothing objectively “scientific” about any “diagnosis”. Any “diagnosis” is subjective and based on the opinion of the observer (however well trained they may be). Then there is the claim that some “mental illnesses” may be genetic in origin (ie schizophrenia) but this is a long way from being proven. Anyway even if genes are involved genes are not “self emergent” – they are “switches” that need to be turned “on” or “off”. In other words they do not operate on their own accord. They need a “trigger” to operate – always something in the environment.

If the environment is the culprit this would mean that something witnessed or experienced by the sufferer has affected them to such an extent that they now view the world from a different perspective. Does this make them “sick”? It has been admirably stated by others that, “If you talk to God you are praying. If God talks to you, you are schizophrenic.” A “mental illness” may affect a person’s behaviour - something that they DO. How can anyone, except the person concerned, determine if such behaviour is “wrong” or “abnormal”? Anyway there is no known, universally accepted, definition of “normal” – what is “normal” for me may not necessarily be “normal for you. Is it not conceivable that certain behaviour be just considered as eccentric?

Consider Moses (Exodus 3.2) - he heard the voice of the Lord coming from a burning bush but no one thinks that is odd. Now if I presented myself to a hospital and said that I heard the voice of the Lord coming from a burning bush I know that I would be considered mentally ill and most probably medicated to calm me down!! Surely there are enough “odd-ball” and eccentric people in the broader community to allow for the odd extremes without hospitalising and forcing pharmaceutical drugs on them against their will?

Why must we (and I include myself in this “we’ as I am part of the Australian society) force our views on what “we” consider to be right or wrong on to others who may hold quite valid but different views?

If (according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics) one in four people in Australia either has suffered, is suffering or will suffer from a mental “illness” (as defined by DSM V) then surely there is something dramatically wrong with the way we currently live our lives? Just read any daily news paper, or tune in to any radio or TV news programme and all you read or hear about is Man’s inhumanity to Man – the cruelty, the injustice, the manifest unkindness, general lack of consideration and want of compassion is quite extraordinary. All this is bound to affect people in one way or another. Is it not possible that people who are diagnosed as “mentally ill” are just trying to adjust to a way of life that appals them, that may be too much for them to accept and they are just trying to escape to a “safe” place? Medicating such people to the point of stupefaction is no answer and certainly not the correct solution. Nor is incarcerating them in mental institutions.

To conclude maybe I should, once again, repeat the words of the Indian sage Krishnamurti who once said, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society”.

Howling Dog

2011-03-31T06:52:00.000-07:00

Most people will know this story – or at least some variation of it. It is a simple tale of a man who visits a friend who he finds on the back porch sitting on a chair, idling away the time by whittling on a piece of wood. He strikes up a conversation with his friend but is constantly interrupted by a dog lying next to the chair, who, every now and again whines then emits a howl. Somewhat alarmed he asks his friend if the dog shouldn’t be taken to a vet and treated for an obviously painful ailment.

The friend says, “No. He is lying on a nail but it is not hurting enough for him to get up and move. So he just lies there whining and howling.”

Now how many of us are in a situation, domestically or at work, which gives us grief in that it is emotionally draining, stressful and generally unpleasant? If this is your situation (and I believe that many people find themselves in this situation) which, to put it plainly, is not conducive to peace of mind, what are you doing about it? Are you just accepting the emotional pain without getting up and moving and just like the dog in the tale above, complaining about your situation but remaining where you are? Why? In the name of all that is wonderful, why?

In our society it is a criminal offence to physically restrain someone against their will - unless of course you are already in prison, which is a different story entirely. I am talking about voluntary situations where you made a choice which turned out to have been not very good. We all make bad decisions at times. If you made a bad choice, take a deep breath, choose again and move on with your life.

Remember, without chains, you are only held against your will if you have, (even subconsciously), given someone permission to hold you. Move on – withdraw that “permission” and live the life you choose to live. Live your life, not the life someone else want you to live.

Now choose and move on! Don’t whine and howl and do nothing!

Why is suicide considered a bad thing?

2011-03-05T08:55:00.000-08:00

I ask the question – why is suicide considered such a bad thing? Now I am not advocating that anyone should commit suicide. I am just trying to pick apart the emotional clutter that accompanies this very personal and private act. The only answers I get are that it is a waste of a (usually) young person’s life; that they had unlimited potential, now never to be realised; that they had a future to live for – etc., etc.

This is partially correct but is not a real answer. The person concerned – the person now deceased – obviously had a different view of life. Their view, which I am not discussing (I have no idea what that was) is of no real concern; I am discussing our view; that of the outsider; the ones left behind.

Why do we “outsiders” (I deliberately use this word because we are “outside’ that person’s inner world) consider suicide to be such a bad thing? Are we affronted because someone considers living – in their current situation – to be so bad, so threatening, so limiting as to be not worthwhile continuing? Are we discomforted because this rejection, this dismissal of all we has striven for (in “our” world), may reflect poorly on us, those left behind, regarding the way we have organised the world? Are we disturbed by the confronting prospect of having to admit that we make mistakes and that the way in which the economy, our legal and welfare systems are set up may actually cause distress, that we are not always fair or just in our dealings? Do we feel guilty that we have developed a financial system which promotes the massive imbalance between the very wealthy and the very poor and disadvantaged?

Is this why we consider suicide a “bad thing” and are so shocked when it occurs?

It is needful to remember that we, each one of us, have our own experiences of life. These are our own. No one can see the world through our eyes with the same imagery and emotional response. No one can see the world through our eyes with our life experiences and our interpretations of those experiences – these are our own.

So I ask the question again – why is suicide considered such a bad thing? Obviously for the person concerned the prospect of death is more alluring than continuing living as currently experienced. What is “wrong” with that? It is their choice; they are exercising their free will.

Furthermore to declare (as some authority figures do) that most people who commit suicide suffer from a mental disease or disorder is plain wrong. It is also highly presumptuous on the part of the person making the declaration – how do they ACTUALLY know! This is categorising a person, who now has no recourse or ability to refute the presumption. This is putting a label on someone. And then what about those “outsiders” left behind to live with the event – the family and friends? Are they to be made to suffer further pain with the stigma provided by so called experts who provide the “knowledge” that their son, daughter, friend, brother, sister “must have been mentally deranged” to have committed such an act . This implies that no “normal” person would ever do such a thing! How dare these “experts” make such a presumption and make such a claim! What about self-sacrifice when there is loss of life? Isn’t this an act of suicide? But if it saves the life of others it is considered “noble”!!

Research on suicide is notoriously difficult. It is always referring to an historic act – something that has already happened. Police, coronial, autopsy, psychiatric and psychological and counselling reports are analysed and carefully combed to try and establish some reason or motive for the suicide. This is fraught as it is impossible to know what was actually going through the person’s mind at the precise moment in time when they took their own life. At that moment they made a choice. Why? We can never know.

Shall we now look at what suicide actually is! Someone taking their own life – right? It seems that the “act” is only considered suicide if it results in the quick death of the person concerned. But what about those who commit suicide in the “long term”? Those who drink or drug themselves to death over a number of years, what about them? They may suffer from abuse, or from unbearable pressures associated with their domestic arrangements or at work. They may determine that the easiest and most “socially acceptable” way of easing this pressure or pain, is to get drunk or to get “stoned” on a regular basis. It may take some time but in possibly ten or twenty years they will be dead. The emotional (and economic) “cost” of this (“long term suicide”) far exceeds that of any number of “quick” suicides.

To get back to the “mental disorder” bit. Disordered from what? What are these people supposed to be disordered from? From “normal”? What is “normal” – as far as I can discover there is no accepted definition of “normal”. Possibly those considered “disordered” react to life’s trials and tribulations differently from those around them. Are they wrong? Or are we “outsiders” just being intolerant and lacking in understanding or compassion? Maybe these people are just eccentric – God knows there are enough odd ball people in the community!! Some behaviour may be considered mal-adaptive or possibly anti-social by “outsiders” but not by the people concerned – otherwise they wouldn’t act the way they do!

What follows below is a warning on documents from the West Australian Chief Psychiatrist relating to anti-depressant drugs. (This confirms that "Mental Health Experts" don't really know what they are doing):-

"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."

Finally I will repeat a quote I read somewhere, from the Indian sage Krishnamurti, who is reputed to have said, “It is no measure of mental health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society”. There we have it – in a nutshell!

Please talk to me!

2011-02-21T06:28:00.000-08:00

What do you do – or what can you do, at work, when your superior cuts you out of the loop of information and limits the control you have over your life? I guess that you would have an argument and then walk out and find another job. But what happens when a country's leader does the equivalent of the same thing?

With all the modern means of communication, why is it that people don’t talk to each other? Governments communicating with their citizens; firms communicating with the workforce, down to an individual level, to let them know what is going on and how they are tracking and the importance of their contribution is vital for harmonious relationships and an individual’s general well being. Yet this is a significant failing with most governments and in many organisations.

To me this is a classic example of any organisations indifference, down-right bad “people management” and very poor communications. It is also an example of the (unfortunately common) attitude that the only thing governments care about is power (and money) and that the only thing firms care about is money – their citizens or staff, their morale, work-life balance, welfare and well-being come a long way second.

I believe that poor communications is at the core of what is happening in the Muslim world at present – the current “popular” uprisings against oppressive regimes. People are getting tired of continually being told what they can and cannot do by an elite class or group who consider themselves better than others and above the law (rule by edict). Part of the problem is that Muslim law and religious practices are so intertwined that the State, religion and the law courts are one and the same.
This leads to massive conflicts of interest. Similar problems were recognised in England over 1000 years ago when the King (John) was forced to step back from actually ruling the country and to agree to the separation of powers – that the State, the Law courts and elected Parliament (the Government) should be independent from each other.

Muslim (Sharia)law does not operate in this way. But I really think that something similar will have to occur in countries where Koranic Law prevails. Currently the Mullahs are both the lawyers and the enforcers of the law – in effect they are the law makers, judges and ‘executioners’ of the law. They are not, however, trained in law – they are trained in the Islamic religion. This is not necessarily the same thing. The Koran, as I understand it, suggests a code of conduct, which if followed should lead to peace and harmony between all peoples. The same applies to Christianity and Judaism – we are all ‘children’ of Abraham after all. The trouble is no one follows the code of conduct – everyone has their own interpretation – just look at the problems between Shia and Sunni Muslims - both followers of the same faith.

I suggest that until there is a separation of powers in the Muslim world these uprising will continue for some time yet. People need some personal control over their lives – an elected parliament gives this element of control. If this separation of powers actually happens then there will be a long overdue renaissance in the Muslim world.

Dog Hanging

2011-01-27T05:33:00.000-08:00

The other day I came across a bizarre news item. Some woman, in America, had apparently become so upset that a dog had chewed her Bible that she hanged the dog and then burned it! She apparently said that God had told her to!

Now I know that God can and does do many wonderful things but I cannot believe that He instructed this woman to torture and kill one of His creatures because it chewed a book! - even a sacred book, such as a Bible.

A fine Christian attitude this woman has! In her heart there does not seem to be much compassion or the ‘milk of human kindness’ does there? If found guilty of animal cruelty she faces about four years in prison. What she needs is treatment and also, even if she has never read it, she needs to understand the sentiment expressed in the lines from the “Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner” by Samuel Taylor Coleridge -

“He prayeth best, who loveth best
All things both great and small;
For the dear God who loveth us,
He made and loveth all.”

Wikileaks, Injustice and Peace

2011-01-20T05:17:00.000-08:00

I have said this before and I will keep saying it till the day I die – injustice is the cause of most of the human induced misery on this planet we call Earth. Injustice is the most important factor in most of the troubles we have in the world at this time.

This is true of those who are trying to prevent details of their questionable activities being disclosed by Wikileaks; it is true of the Chinese authorities imprisoning a man (a Nobel Peace award winner) for daring to expose corruption and human rights abuse in China; it is true of any corrupt and dictatorial government or regime anywhere in the world; it is true of any organisation or company that has a “money at all costs and damn the consequences” culture; it is true of any family suffering from the ministrations of an abusive adult; it is true of any gang or group that consider themselves “different” or “better” or “exclusive”; it is true of any individual who harbours the notion that others owe him (or her) a living and that they are somehow privileged above all others.

There is no way of avoiding it – injustice in THE problem. There is also no avoiding the fact that we – collectively – have created the social and economic conditions we – collectively - find ourselves in. We have done it – there is no one else!

It is evident, everywhere, that despite the centuries of moral and ethical teachings, people have only imperfectly learned that it is in their own interests to consider the needs of their ‘neighbour’ and to treat others as they, themselves, would like to be treated. To fail to do so and to fail to recognise the needs of the society to which they belong, is to invite disaster – both individually and collectively.

I am going to quote from an old book by Carl Gustav Jung, the great Swiss Psychologist, the 1916 publication “Psychology of the Unconscious”. It is a bit long winded and the language used may be unfamiliar to modern ears, but what he says is true none-the-less. I quote from the introduction to the work:

“Life itself has needs and imperiously demands expression through the forms created. All nature answers to this freely and simply, except man. His failure to recognise himself as an instrument through which the life energy is coursing and the demands of which must be obeyed, is the cause of his misery. Despite his possession of intellect and self consciousness, he cannot without disaster to himself refuse the tasks of life and the fulfilment of his own needs. Man’s great task is the adaption of himself to reality and the recognition of himself as an instrument for the expression of life according to his individual possibilities.”

This is so true. While we are part of Humanity and share many common characteristics, none-the-less, we need to express our selves each in our own unique way. While we are about it why not aim for the highest form of contribution we can make – the highest ‘common denominator’ not the lowest?

By helping others reach their full potential we help ourselves to reach our own potential. This is just the way it is. Imprisoning, torturing and generally being less than generous to others not only diminishes the perpetrators but also diminishes us as human beings – because we are all members of the human race. By trying to diminish others and trying to ‘prove’ that we are better than those ‘others’ we are contributing to the unhappiness in the world and reducing the likelihood of peace.

Chinese Characters

2011-01-08T18:13:00.000-08:00

There was a local news item the other day regarding Chinese authorities concern about the “purity” of the Chinese language. They are apparently contemplating means to prevent the popularization of non-Chinese words (mainly English) together with the use of non-Chinese letters and characters.

Let me admit first up that I have no knowledge at all of Chinese – I can neither read, write nor speak any words in that language, so what I am saying now is based on my general knowledge, not on specifics. But I understand that Chinese is not a phonetic language, in that a Chinese “word” cannot be broken down into individual vowels and consonants, like words based on the Indo-Persian–Greek-Latin languages (ie English!). I am hoping that someone, with knowledge of Chinese, will correct me if I am wrong!

Be that as it may, how the Chinese authorities are going to enforce the “purity” of their language is difficult to imagine. Being an authoritarian government I suppose they could employ undercover “word police” arresting people who dare to use non-Chinese words in their speech. The trouble with this approach is that it poses two problems for the “language purity” authorities and the Chinese people in general:-

a. As soon as authorities “ban” the use of a word the message has to be disseminated somehow. The media generally – posters, the press, TV, the internet and cell phone SMS would all need to be employed to spread the message. Immediately many millions of people who had never heard of the “undesirable” word would now know what it was! So rather than curtailing the spread, the consequence would be to spread it even further – albeit, with a warning.

b. The world is a dynamic place and language follows. Many “new” words would represent new ideas, technology, inventions and concepts and “slang”, which may have no equivalent in Chinese characters or sounds. If the authorities wish to prevent these “new” words from entering and “polluting” their language they will need to employ an army of linguists to study every and all publications and the social media so as to constantly devise new characters or combinations of existing characters to equate to the new “sounds” and meanings.

The French tried this (to prevent the encroachment of English into French) and I believe that they have given up a battle they discovered they would never win. Society changes faster than any government authority can hope to emulate and as I said before language follows a similar course. This is the “advantage” of English – it is so adaptable – it absorbs and incorporates any new, useful word, from whatever language and then “adopts” it as its own – and nobody cares one way or another.

English (simply put) is based on three principal languages – Latin, Germanic (Saxon) and French, but has incorporated words (at least the sound but with Anglicized spelling) from Scandinavia (Norse), Holland (Dutch), Greece, the Middle East (Arabic), India, Australian Aboriginal, North American Indian, many other countries and yes, even Chinese.

Remember that a language is purely a means of communication, so it does not really matter which language is used as long as people understand the message! English has now been adopted as the “official” language of air and marine safety and many other international organizations. This came about, through a process of “soft power” – admiration, striving to emulate the activities of successful people, in music, in literature and a general accessibility. Authoritarian rule will never stop a “natural” process.

Wikileaks again

2010-12-09T06:29:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-08T06:06:00.000-08:00

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.

2010-11-30T06:52:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-28T06:13:00.000-08:00

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

2010-10-10T05:32:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-30T06:20:00.000-07:00

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!

2010-08-23T07:53:00.000-07:00

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!!

2010-08-20T02:47:00.000-07:00

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!

2010-08-19T07:06:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-05T08:22:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-24T19:53:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-20T05:48:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-17T09:37:00.000-07:00

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 existing.

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

Why whistleblowers are so important

2010-07-15T07:34:00.000-07:00

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.

2010-07-08T03:51:00.000-07:00

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.

2010-07-04T01:01:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-06-28T07:03:00.000-07:00

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!

2010-06-24T07:25:00.000-07:00

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 the 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

2010-05-31T07:01:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-23T00:51:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-30T05:12:00.000-07:00

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 there-of.

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

2010-03-30T07:05:00.000-07:00

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!

2010-03-24T07:08:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-03-08T05:54:00.000-08:00

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 some ‘safety features’ recently introduced to the ATM of my local bank. There are bright orange stickers warning 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 even 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, in Western Australia, 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, 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' (quoted from 'All in the mind' by Merlin Donald).

Israels Moral Army

2010-02-03T06:11:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-27T06:01:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-21T06:26:00.000-08:00

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!

Grieving

2009-12-29T23:56:00.000-08:00

We all need to grieve – not just over the death of someone we love – but for other things as well. Obviously to lose a pet is a cause for grief as is the loss of a friend. In these cases we need to grieve, to gather our strength, to re-assess our new situation without that person or pet. What I am talking about here is the loss of something close to each of us, something that we hold dear, something that has been a constant, that we have taken for granted, at least in our own mind.

I am talking about something which we may have considered as part of us, our make-up, our psyche, some characteristic, some trait which makes us, us. If this particular trait or characteristic is criticised or diminished in any way, or if it is realized to be, or pointed out to be, somewhat inappropriate and we recognize the truth of the matter then a change takes place, whether we want it or not. It is an immediate change and comes as a shock to the system. We immediately feel we have lost something – something we had previously considered as important.

Take my case for instance. I recently became very angry with someone I love dearly and who is my best friend. There had been some disagreement over a relatively trivial matter (as is usual in life’s relationships). This gradually, over the course of a few days, grew into something far greater than it really was. As I say I became very angry and it was not entirely what I said but the manner in which it was said, that has caused the repercussions.

As has been repeatedly stated in what I write, for every effect there was somewhere a cause. We can never know what string has been pulled or what thread has been severed and where the effect of the pulling or the severing will be felt. But felt it will be – somewhere and at sometime. There have been so far two repercussions that I have keenly felt. One and by far the most important one is that I sense the relationship with my friend has grown slightly more distant – still friendly and a loving relationship but not quite so warm. There is a lack of spontaneity and a slightly more cautious approach – from both my friend and myself.

The other repercussion is one that is of lesser importance but keenly felt none-the-less. It is about my temper. I have always striven, generally successfully, to control my temper. I am a human being and have always known that I had a temper and that if I let slip the leash, it will become a very bad temper. Now I may be exaggerating, but I don’t believe I have lost my temper more that about three or four times in my life. One of the reasons I try to control it is because when I really loose it and see red (and I do actually see red – my attention is totally focused by what appears to be a narrow tunnel, with the object of my anger at the other end) I feel physically ill for some time afterwards. The other, and more important point, is that I am afraid of what I might do to the person I am angry with – if I totally lose control, what will (or what can) I do? I don’t know.

I have written about the pointless of anger many time – it never solves a problem – only causes more! So now I have not only hurt a friend, which grieves me, but I have also, finally and at last, recognized the foolishness of getting angry – anger is toxic (to me at least) and has severe repercussions on innocent parties to the detriment of all.

The realization that control over my anger was always merely a front, to appear to be calm and in control, is difficult for me to appreciate and to learn. Yet the only thing that I have damaged in myself is my ego. I am now, in some small way, not what I thought I was. I am not diminished in any way – in fact I may now be a better person. But I feel the loss. This is where the grieving comes in.

I will grieve about, and do my best to repair, the relationship with my friend, and over time I feel sure that a new and stronger relationship, based on a new understanding and stronger ties will eventuate. That is what grief is for – to grow and become stronger from the grief.

My ego? Oh well I am sure it will recover fairly quickly as ego’s tend to do. I will justify the “loss” in whatever way seems appropriate and again, I am sure, I will be a better person from the loss!!

Dangers of using FENAC

2009-12-21T17:03:00.000-08:00

Gee! One has to be so careful about what drugs you take and be self aware – know yourself – to see what side effects they may have.

Take my case for instance. I have been taking FENAC, a widely diagnosed anti- inflammatory, for a month or two, to control the pain in my arthritic left shoulder. There are thirty (yes, 30) listed side-effects. The ones that I noticed on myself where a bit of confusion and some disorientation with a change of mood – I felt a bit depressed. So I read the information from the Alphapharm Pty Limited website (the makers of FENEC) and there it was, and I quote, “If you are over 65 years of age, you may have an increased chance of getting side effects. .......

• confusion, disorientation

• change in mood such as feeling depressed, anxious or irritable.”

The Chemist never told me about these side effects – nor did my Doctor. LESSON ONE – never just accept what a doctor or a chemist tells you. Learn to read your body. It is your body so don’t give control over it to some stranger.

So now you know – be warned. I have now thrown away the FENAC tablets I had not used and will now use nothing some milder substance such as (occasional) use of paracetamol.

Consequences.

2009-12-19T22:18:00.000-08:00

There are always consequences for anything we do. These consequences cannot be avoided or limited in any way – each one of us feels the effect of these, both negative and positive, on a daily basis. We do ‘good’ things and good things happen; we do ‘bad’ things and bad things happen.

The thing is that we can never, or at best very seldom, tie any specific action or behaviour or sequences of actions or behaviours, to any particular consequence or sequence of consequences. There are some obvious ones certainly – aim a gun at someone and pull the trigger and there is a very good likelihood of injuring or killing them; spend more money than you earn and you end up in debt. These are brutal, up front, in your face type consequences. What I am talking about are the subtle ones that are not immediately obvious; the ones that may take years to work their way through the ‘system’ as it were.

Take two current problems the World is facing at the moment, which are consequences of activities, actions, behaviours and thought patterns that go back many years – generations in fact. The first one is ‘climate change’ and the second is the Middle East (Israel, Gaza, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan).

Now whatever you think about the science behind the various claims and counter claims supporting or denying Man’s involvement in this debate one fact (to me) is obvious. We CANNOT continue to despoil, pillage and exploit the resources of the world as we are doing at the present moment. We cannot continue doing what we are now without suffering consequences of some sort. More of the same will be disastrous – there will be consequences we cannot predict but only sense.

I know that climate change – natural change – has always been a feature of geological time; ice-ages, extreme volcanic activity playing havoc with weather patterns and such like. This is natural and I have no argument with this – we can’t do anything about it anyway – it just happens and we (here we go) have to live with the consequences. My point is that by doing nothing we are not HELPING nature, the World, the Gaia, or whatever you call it, to recover naturally. And it will recover naturally – with time but we are not giving it that time.

Exploitative human activity is damaging the Nation and ‘our’ World to the detriment of all.

• Soil degradation. Much of our precious topsoils is either blown away (dust storms) or washed away (soil erosion) each year. Poor environmental planning and farming practices are the cause.

• Excessive use of chemical fertilizers. Because of the soil degradation more and more chemicals are being used which produce foods that are not as nutritious as they should be. They are deficient in essential minerals.

• Water. The essential element for life on earth. In the case of fresh water, in quantity, storage and quality, improvements are vital for the future health of the Nation and the World.

• Industrial activity. In the quest for ever increasing profits enormous quantities of toxic and polluting substances are being pumped into the atmosphere, the soil and water (both fresh and salt) of our Nation and the World. Huge tracts of land are being cleared of trees and other vegetation for what – profit?

These are just a few aspects of the immensely complex and interwoven matrix which I consider comes under the umbrella of ‘climate change’. We are in a position to do SOMETHING (my preferred option) rather than NOTHING (as advocated by the sceptics). Just think about it, even if, as some of the sceptics believe, the world is getting colder, not hotter, how will this help? It will just herald a new dark-age with shorter growing seasons.

From an economic point of view I suspect we are going to suffer, one way or another. This will be the consequence of thoughtlessness, of greed and the extreme capitalistic ideal of ‘profit’, no matter the cost (in the lives of all flora and fauna and economic cost).

Now for the second big problem – the conflict in the Middle East. This goes back a long time. Without going into a detailed history of the region one could really consider the problem as being the consequence of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (after the First World War) and the British withdrawal from India (and Pakistan) and Iraq and the West’s interference in Iran and Palestine. The immediate cause, I suspect, is the false idea that the ‘West’ can impose its will, its ideas and its manner of living on peoples who trying to work out their own responses to their environment and to world events.

To think, even for a moment, that peace will be established by the production of greater numbers of ever more complex weapons is madness. Most of us have still to learn that peace is not external, but an internal state, that then translates to all things external. How can there ever be peace if nations or groups of people are constantly thinking about and preparing for war? How can there ever be peace if people are constantly thinking violent and warlike thoughts? It is never going to happen.

A cessation of violence or truce may be established if someone or some nation subdues another by being stronger or having a bigger and better army. But that is not peace. Think of the Korean conflict in the 1950s and how about the various Israeli/Palestinian conflicts. There has never been peace in these areas. We need to think ‘outside the box’ and use our accumulated wisdom in a rational, measured and reasonable manner.

There is no peace because the underlying problem has never been addressed – injustice, perceived or actual, is at the root of most conflicts and will be the root of the Middle East and the Korean problems. Sort out the injustices (perceived or otherwise) and the reason for the violence is removed. There is nothing that rankles and festers in the mind as much as injustice. If individuals have a feeling they have been hard done by and bear a grudge because of this then, rightly or wrongly, they will justified in fighting (as they may think) to redress the injustice.

In praise of praise

2009-11-30T04:50:00.000-08:00

We all need praise at some time in our life – which is in effect recognition that we are worthy, creative human beings. For someone who has never been praised; someone who has never had a loving hug and a kiss; someone who has been institutionalised, either as an orphan or for some other reason, this lack of recognition will have severe long term ramifications. All of us will acknowledge the devastating emotional effect that may result from being ignored, rejected or given the ‘cold shoulder’ by someone we admire or would like to make friends with.

In any relationship – at work, family or friends – we need recognition as someone worthwhile, in our own right as a human being. This is why the worst punishment for any person is to be placed in solitary confinement (‘time out’ for a young child has a similar effect). This is to be isolated and have no meaningful contact with anyone. People may be driven insane by such treatment. Lacking meaningful contact and relationships with others of our kind is it any wonder that some, in this situation, resort to alcohol and drugs to dull the pain of non-existent or fractured associations or friendships.

Praise not only recognises us as human beings but also recognises some special feature or behaviour, which shows and others acknowledge, that we, as individuals have risen above the ‘norm’ and done or said something creditable and worthy.

While it is necessary for us to belong in a general sense, and to have a place in society – hence the intense feelings and emotional support given by members to their chosen sports team, their club, gang, tribe or clan - it has to be acknowledged that we are individuals, not clones. We normally conform to our society’s (often unwritten) rules and regulations for security and for general acceptance purposes. Why else do we follow the dictates of fashion; why else do we try to ‘keep up with the Joneses’; why else do we follow society’s mores and moral guidelines, or those of our club or gang?

This ‘requirement’ to conform and to be accepted cannot be carried too far in that anyone who does not conform may be considered eccentric and either ostracized as ‘strange’ or forced to conform, with dire effects on an individual’s psyche. It is a fine balancing act to find the point where one may safely exercise one’s individuality yet at the same time be seen to conform to societies expectations.

This is where praise or some form of acknowledgement is so valuable, and for two reasons. Firstly, it takes someone with courage to stand up for themselves and their individuality against the expectations of their society – this is praiseworthy. Secondly, only a few in the general populace have the insight to recognise the worth and the creativity of someone who is prepared to be different, and, as it were to thumb their nose at convention.

Think about it. Without some praise of individuality, some recognition of a person’s worth, and, most importantly the expression of that praise by way of emotional support (a hug and a kiss) or financial reward or public honour, there would be no inventions; no progress (in a material sense); no innovation in the arts.

Without recognition and praise the substance of human creativity would be still-born. It is really important to praise – judiciously praise – the deserving and the worthy.

Refugees or queue jumpers? Where is our compassion?

2009-11-07T05:29:00.000-08:00

I know that many items of news have been reported as important over the past few weeks but none seem to have touched me, and obviously many others, as much as the plight of those who are variously described as refugees, asylum seekers or even as ‘queue jumpers’.

This matter, the refugees etc, is both an ethical and a political issue. The politics of this I will avoid because I really believe that any resolution MUST be based on ethics. The unfortunate people involved have, for a variety of reasons, left their home country and faced severe difficulties in attempting to reach Australia.

It is worth looking at what many of these people are running from. Think of what life would be like in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Sri Lanka, in Burma or Somalia. These are war torn countries, many with oppressive governments or, in the case of Somalia, no effective government at all. What does life hold for those in these counties, what quality of life, what hope for the future? If I lived in any of these places I would want to leave! In fact I did. Nearly thirty years ago I brought my wife and family to Australia from Zimbabwe – we were, I suppose, what would now be called economic refugees. There were other issues as well of course, the main ones being health and education. I had a wife who needed medical treatment unavailable in Zimbabwe and two young children that I wanted educated in a civilised country. Australia accepted us and as the saying goes the ‘rest is history.’

To get back to the refugees, or whatever you choose to call them, holed up in various boats, ships and islands there is:

Issue number one: If Australia does not want these people to even leave their home country then Australia and the world must ensure that conditions are made pleasant enough, at home, such that they have no real desire to leave.

Issue number two: If conditions at home cannot be made more pleasant then for God’s sake accept them as refugees. Treat these unfortunates as we would like to be treated, with compassion, consideration and kindness.

Think about it. Many countries, over the years have benefited by accepting immigrants. Even Australia!! America accepted, with open arms, all those who were in need – Irish (from the ‘great famine’ days) – and others from all over the world. And America is now the greatest country in the world (I am no great ‘lover’ of America and things American but I must give credit where it is due). Sure it has suffered a few setbacks and has more than a few shortcomings but then which country hasn’t? It is this diversity of peoples that gives America a vibrancy and an energy which is palpable.

We Australians seem to have lost sight of something – that Humanity is paramount. Being human is what binds us together. We are all human and should treat others the way we would like to be treated - with compassion, consideration, kindness and understanding. This is ethical way. This is the only way. What can be more important than having a good relationship with our fellow beings?

We are, after all, supposed to be a civilised, Christian country, living and upholding Christian ideals, morals and values. I wonder if we are?

Having some spare time.

2009-11-03T01:42:00.000-08:00

Now that I have completed the first part of my exams, (for a BSc. in Psychology – still only first year!) I feel more at ease and under less pressure. I still have another in about two weeks but I do now have some spare time. This means I can now re-commence my writing and committing my thoughts to ‘paper’, as it were. It is actually a relief – I enjoy writing! It seems to have a calming effect on me. I get quite anxious if I don’t manage to find some time to write at least a few words. With writing I can collect my thoughts, express my ideas and hopefully, sometimes be creative and thought provoking.

The fields I prefer to write about, ‘Ethics and Life’, cover just about anything you can think of – so I have plenty of scope. There is always some ethical or life matter that needs to be written about.

Father Time - On growing old (or older).

2009-10-19T07:14:00.000-07:00

Some people have a fear about growing old. They try to ignore it or fight it with every means at their disposal. We can see this in the plethora of programmes on TV showing how people go about getting a personal ‘make-over’ and teams given seven days to get someone to look ten years younger, and such like. The only ones who really benefit from all this are the medicos, advertisers and the TV stations.

The trouble is this is a losing battle and a ‘fight’ that can never be won! We all grow old. This is just an inescapable fact of nature. Some, particularly women it seems to me, may find this difficult to accept but inevitably they will grow old – and, with time, they will show it. Why not just accept the inexorable passage of Time? It was not called Father Time for nothing. Time has to be respected, in fact respect is demanded on pain of death!

We all have a mental image of what we look like; possibly how we would like to appear, to both ourselves and others. We all try to look our best - for us. But it is how we feel that makes the difference, and is what really counts in the long run.

I have found that the older I become, my expectations alter accordingly. I know there are certain activities I am no longer capable of doing, at least not to the same level of enthusiasm and ability as before. I know that I no longer have that grace and fluidity of movement that is part of being young. My muscles, certainly, are not as strong as they used to be; my tendons have lost much of their elasticity and my joints have stiffened somewhat and now I have my recently replaced knee joint – made from titanium. But I certainly do not feel ‘old’ – whatever that is supposed to feel like. My mind is still quite active and I hope to keep it that way by studying (psychology in my case) and writing as much as I can.

Age also has the benefit of allowing hindsight – I have nearly seven decades of experience to draw upon. Age also mellows expectations; life no longer has that intensity and urgency of youth. In the great scheme of things, if something does not happen today, or tomorrow, does it really matter?

There is another benefit that comes with age; age, in most cases, brings with it some wisdom; some ability to see further into life’s situations and to accept them for what they are. One learns to understand that everything has its place in the creation and what is more important, everything comes to pass; even life itself.

Peace of mind comes with this acceptance.

To me a good life consists of living for each day, being content with my lot (whatever ‘hand of cards fate has dealt’ me), not trying to change the world to suite my reduced capabilities but to adapt to the situation or circumstance as it is presented.

Most important of all time must be spent in developing and maintaining good relationships with family and friends – what and where would we be without them! It goes without saying that part of building and maintaining relationships is helping others, as best one can, to understand what life means, particularly children, because they are the future.

It would be a pleasing and satisfying thought, for me, if my life’s work may have contributed, in some small way, to my leaving this world a better place than I found it when I was born – right in the early years of the Second World War! But I am not building up my hopes too high!!

Studying

2009-10-18T06:32:00.000-07:00

The past few weeks have been quite difficult. I am studying for my end of year exams and I have had a particularly onerous assignment to write. Never having written ‘academically’ before I find the constant need to make sure that everything I write has a citation and that I make sure it is properly referenced, rather irksome.

Please don’t think that I am not against plagiarism. I think plagiarising someone else’s work is abhorrent. The trouble is that I have read so many books on so many subjects over the years that when I write it just comes tumbling out. Most times I can remember where I first read something important; I can remember the book and sometimes even the part of the page that it appeared on (left hand page or right hand page) – it is WHERE in the book that I find difficult to remember. Also, over the years I seem to have assimilated by osmosis, or something, a great deal of information. After many years have passed, having to source the original can be very trying, to say the least.

In this regard I admit that I find Google Scholar very useful. It is amazing what information is on the web and how easily and quickly Google Scholar can find it. I am not talking about general stuff but scholarly, research type information.

But to get back to my point about finding that everything needs to be cited. This is a good discipline, I suppose, but very irksome and, quite frankly frustrating. It is certainly a challenge and inhibits the free flow of my thoughts. From an academic point of view it is important that I get used to it and learn to keep notes (with references!) for every topic or subject I feel is important or that may be useful.

It is still a pain!!

Promoting Jesus?

2009-09-27T20:41:00.000-07:00

I was staggered to read in the Weekend Australian (26/27 September 2009) that a group of fifteen Christian denominations are about to launch a $1.5 million campaign to ‘promote’ Jesus.

Isn’t Jesus the ‘Son of God’, the creator of all that exists? Why does he need to be promoted? It seems a bit presumptuous – for us, human beings that God created, to ‘promote’ our creator. Anyway Jesus is not a ‘commodity’; Jesus is not a product. Jesus does not sell anything. Neither should Christianity. Didn’t Jesus condemn the money changers operating out of the synagogues (the ‘churches’ of his time)? So what are these people trying to do? Are their congregations diminishing; are their church coffers nearly empty and they are tired of scraping the barrel and need to recruit more members? The trouble is a belief, a faith, cannot be ‘sold’. It is not a one size fits all thing. The very fact that there are fifteen, out of God knows how many Christian denominations and faith based groups, emphasises my point. Everyone has their own interpretation of the central message that Jesus tried to pass on to his followers.

Now I have no desire to become involved in any discussions about religion (they inevitably become acrimonious) because as I said before, it is a very personal thing, and we all have our own interpretations on what it all means and how it affects us. But to me, and this is my own interpretation of what the central message is, has been quite plainly given to us by Jesus (and I paraphrase here using language from the King James translation):

• Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind and with all thy soul.

• Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

• Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If one could follow and live by those three basic tenets or ‘commandments’ then I believe one would lead a ‘good’ life and die a contented and peaceful person. Apart from this I have never understood one of Christianity’s beliefs – that we should put all our individual problems on to the shoulders of one ‘person’ – Jesus.

To me Jesus is the intermediary between us humans and God. As humans, with our mental cognitive limitations, we are incapable of comprehending the total Majesty of the Creator of all. I think the best ‘description’ I have ever read of this Majesty is in the Bhagavad-Gita (I quote from Chapter 10, and selectively from verses 20 to 34):

“... I am the Self, seated in the hearts of all beings; I am the beginning and the life, and am the end of them all.

Of all creative Powers I am the Creator, of luminaries the Sun; the Whirlwind among the winds, and the Moon among planets....

I am the King-python among snakes, I am the Aqueous Principle among those that live in water, I am the Father of fathers, and among rulers I am Death....

I am the Beginning, the Middle and the End in creation; among sciences I am the science of Spirituality; I am the Discussion among disputants....

Of letters I am A; I am the copulative in compound words; I am Time inexhaustible; I am the all-pervading Preserver.

I am all-devouring Death; I am the Origin of all that shall happen; I am Fame, Fortune, Speech , Memory, Intellect, Constancy and Forgiveness...

I am the Seed of all being; ... no creature moving or unmoving can live without Me.
Whatever is glorious, excellent, beautiful and mighty, be assured that it comes from a fragment of my Splendour.

... I sustain this universe with only a small part of Myself.”

We just cannot comprehend all this so we need someone, a figure, an intermediary between God and us; we need something to focus on; that we can look up to and aspire to emulate, such as Jesus, or Mohamed, or Krishna, or the Buddha that will show us the path to follow.

Does this need promoting? I don’t think so.

Suicide!

2009-09-22T03:47:00.000-07:00

Why is it that in all western countries suicide is considered either as a crime or that the person concerned is mentally deranged? Suicide is the result of a choice someone has made. Now I am neither promoting suicide, nor do I personally agree that is ever necessary to take your own life – but then I have never found myself in a situation which would lead me to believe that continued living was not worth while. I have never been in a situation where I had to make a choice between possibly stark alternatives; living under what are perceived to be intolerable conditions or taking my own life. Maybe if I was I would think differently.

Regardless, however, of a person’s views on life, why is suicide considered a crime or as the result of a mental problem? First up I believe many Christians will say it is selfish and against God’s will. How do they know this for a fact? Didn’t God give us free will? Free will, as I understand it, means that we can make up our own minds. Surely God would not, on one hand, give us free will and then on the other hand restrict our free will by ‘saying’ that we can’t do this or that? That is being hypocritical and I cannot believe that God is a hypocrite.

Anyway, how do we know what God actually said? Or how he said it? I believe the religious argument goes something like this – God gave us life, it is therefore not up to us to end it as we can have no idea, in the big picture, of the consequences or outcomes of someone ‘prematurely’ taking their own life. We are not supposed to try to double guess God’s plan.

I would counter this argument by saying that, if it is agreed that God did give us free will, is it not possible that someone’s suicide may be part of His plan? We just don’t know and I believe that continued discussion, based on religious ideals is fraught and likely never to be resolved.

Also it is a matter of degree, even semantics. I am not sure of the chapter or verse in the Bible, but somewhere it says (more or less), “Greater love hath no man than this; that he should lay down his life for another”. In English folk lore the self-sacrifice of Capt. ‘Titus’ Oates (a member of Capt Scott’s ill-fated1912 Antarctic expedition), when he walked out into a blizzard after uttering the famous words, ‘I may be some time’, is considered a ‘noble’, selfless act. He laid down his life so that the others might have a better chance of surviving. It may have been a ‘noble’ act yet it was still suicide!

And then how about those who cannot face life and get drunk every night, to hide their pain and anguish, thus drinking themselves to death. Their death might take 10 or 20 years to accomplish, so it is slow – but surely this is still suicide? This slow death is tolerated by our society even though those concerned (rather obviously) may have no real desire to live.

Then there is the argument that those who either attempt suicide or are actually successful must be mentally deranged. Those who follow this line of thought suggest that anyone who cannot appreciate the beauty of the world and cannot see their individual purpose in the great scheme of things must be mentally unstable. Well I have news for them! The last figures I saw, from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, suggest that about 1 in 5 Australians (19% actually) suffers some degree of mental instability sometime in their life. These figures are similar to those for most Western, developed countries.

So either the diagnosis of ‘mental’ problems is suspect or there are a great many very unhappy people in the world. I suspect that the diagnosis of ‘mental’ problems is the ‘problem’. This is why I am studying psychology – I want to find out for myself where the ‘problem’ lies.

Of course there is another view (the sociological view) that goes something like this; that suicide represents a loosening of social bonding; that suicide is an indicator of society’s potential disintegration and therefore must be prevented, opposed and resisted at all costs. This where I believe the criminal element has come from.

To get back to my original proposition – that suicide is a choice – and no one, repeat, no one, can tell a person how they should react to an event or circumstance in their life. I personally don’t think I would ever commit suicide (famous last words!!) because I firmly believe that every problem has a solution; maybe not the solution, or outcome that is wished for or desired, but a solution none-the-less. To me someone who either commits suicide or tries to is neither a criminal nor mentally deranged, but just someone who is finding it difficult to cope with their present circumstances and is crying out for help.

All suicide is neither a criminal act nor is it the result of mental derangement and all ‘prevention’ efforts should be directed at alleviating and addressing this cry for help.

The word 'gay'

2009-09-17T06:51:00.000-07:00

The word ‘gay’ is a perfectly good English word meaning a person who is carefree, happy and light-hearted and has been used in poetry and song. In earlier days it has no connection at all with homosexuality or lesbianism. I will admit it is an irritation to me that I can no longer use the word ‘gay’ in its original sense (I would not use it very often, but it is a useful word to have around). I mean if I had to say to my wife or friends that “Today I am feeling gay”, they would make some rude or disparaging comment about my sexual orientation. And yet I could quite legitimately say that – meaning I am feeling carefree, happy and light-hearted - which is a wonderful feeling.

Apparently round about the 1950s (according to my ‘ word bible’ the Oxford English Dictionary) things changed and the word ‘morphed’ into meaning what it does now – with homosexual connotations. The way these things happen is very mysterious.

This all came to my mind as, out of the blue (which frequently happens to me), I recalled that the British Royal Navy, in the 1950s, named some experimental Motor Gun Boats with the word ‘Gay’ as part of their name. One I seem to remember was called the “Gay Bombardier”. These were experimental in that they were the first (and possibly the last) boats to run entirely with gas turbine engines. They were very fast and, before the age of guided missiles, relatively heavily armed.

How things have changed! No one, today, would dream of calling a war ship ‘gay’ would they? I mean, Jeez, what is the world coming too?

Charity begins at home!

2009-09-05T01:22:00.000-07:00

Charity, they tell us, begins at home. This is the Christian ideal and the various religious institutions promote this. For instance the church my wife attends has recently asked for contributions from the congregation to fill shoe boxes for needy children in Africa. A splendid cause you say, and so it is. The idea is to give a Christmas present to some child in Somalia, or wherever, and to give them some hope that someone, somewhere, actually cares about them.

But how about the ‘needy’ children in our own backyard? In Australia, a very wealthy country, we are in the midst of a highly controversial ‘intervention’ programme designed with the aim of improving the health and social well being of the Aboriginal communities in the outback – principally in the Northern Territory.(Even the word ‘intervention’ smacks of paternalism, doesn’t it?). By any measure the Aboriginal has been poorly treated over the generations of ‘white’ rule from Canberra. Their health standards are Third World as are their living conditions and, almost without exception, the communities they live in are dependent on government welfare payments. Yet they have no running water, limited access to electricity and no sewage and waste facilities, very limited health services and no education facilities to speak of. How can there be any confidence, from anyone, that without consultation with those concerned (i.e. the communities themselves) that their lot will ‘improve’ and to redress many of the wrongs, both actual and perceived, that occurred in the past, some of which are still occurring now?

No wonder the incidence of substance abuse, violence, self harm and suicide are amongst the worst in the world – and this in a developed G20 country. There are variously considered to be about 400 000 Aboriginals in Australia out of a total population of some 21 million. And yet to help these people – our people, who have live here for over 40 000 years – requires ‘intervention’ from all the Federal Governments agencies even including the military!

An ‘intervention’ is all very well in principle but what is it actually doing to ‘help’ the people involved? Many questions remain unanswered. For instance will the intervention restore confidence and self esteem? Will it promote acceptance by mainstream Australia or does it further relegate them to continuing marginalisation? Will it help to restore some semblance of pride in tribal culture, language, oral history, traditions and their association with the land and their place in the world? Above all does give it give individuals any hope for the future? Will the intervention bring about any sense of ‘belonging’ so essential for general wellbeing? Will it alleviate the feeling of rejection from main stream Australia?

Bureaucrats, divorced as they are from people in general and from the land, do not have a good record in this area, so I have grave doubts that any lasting good will come from this intervention.

And yet my wife’s church leaders are asking for contributions to bring cheer to the ‘underprivileged’ in other countries?

As I said at the beginning, charity begins at home.

Paying the Ferryman

2009-08-25T06:36:00.000-07:00

What is the cost of ‘life’ to high achievers? What is the cost of ‘life’ to those who strive to reach their self appointed goals? What is the cost of ‘life’ to those women who opt for a career before all else?

I do not decry nor am I judgemental about their choice. That is their call and good luck to them. But they must never forget that to get to where they want to go they will have to pay a price – they will have to pay the ferryman (fate?). And the ferryman will demand recompense – this payment cannot be avoided and it is always paid in kind – they will reap their crop, like it or not. They will have to accept the consequences – and there are always consequences for everything we do or think or plan.

If you disregard your well being (body and soul) or someone else's well being, in fact if you disregard anything, to satisfy your own selfish ends the threads that entangle us all in the web of life will, eventually trip you up and bring you down. That is unless you conduct yourself in an ethical manner.

I know that you have heard this all before somewhere in this blog but it astounds me that some people always forget and try and please themselves at someone else’s cost. I have been thinking about this quite a bit recently after seeing the ABC’s 4 Corners programme on TV about Bilal Skaf and his younger brother who, some years ago now, by mobile telephone, organised the pack rapes of some unfortunate girls in various Sydney suburbs. Eventually caught, Bilal seems, on the face of it, to be in a state of denial. He seems to think that he is above any need to be held accountable for anything he does. He can’t understand all the bother about raping these girls. They were white trash - sluts, and deserved what they got. He has done nothing ‘wrong’ in his eyes.

The Skaf’s mother seems also to be in a state of denial – in her eyes it is all an anti-Muslim conspiracy and her two boys would never do anything that they have been accused of doing. The father was away much of the time working to support the growing family so could not give his guidance and emotional support to the boys. So it must have been her who filled Bilal’s mind with stories about the lax morals of Australian girls – no one else was there to do it. And like many strong willed mothers she wanted the best for her sons and did not want them mixed up with such ‘trash’.

No one ‘deserves’ anything of this nature. This case was an absolute tragedy for all concerned. The Skaf brothers and their accomplices have got their just deserts and the victims and their families can now move on in the knowledge that for at least another twenty-five years the Skafs will no longer be a danger to the public.

It is so sad. The victims will need all the support the community can give for many years to come. Likewise the actions of this boy – he was just a boy at the time – have tarnished the image of Islam and the Lebanese community. It is necessary to distinguish between the fact that he came from a Muslim tradition (which is a noble tradition) and the fact that he organised and was a participant in pack rapes. There is no correlation between the two. Certainly there are good and bad Muslims, just as there are good and bad Christians, but because Bilal is a Muslim this did not cause him commit rape. Christians have been involved in pack rapes as well.

He is a human being who needs a great deal of help – I firmly believe that no one is beyond help or is too depraved ever to feel remorse and try to redeem themselves. But at the moment he is paying the ferryman good and proper.

Alzheimer’s disease

2009-08-20T06:50:00.000-07:00

Husband and wife have been to see a doctor about their apparent loss of memory. The doctor suggests they start writing things down.

Back home wife says to husband, “Will you get me some ice-cream? You had better write it down.”

Husband, “No need to write it down – some ice cream.”

Wife, “Yes but I also want it with strawberries. Write it down.”

Husband, “No need to write it down – ice cream and strawberries.”

Wife, “Better write it down because I also want it with cream.”

Husband, now getting cross, “I don’t need to write it down – I can remember, you want some ice-cream with strawberries and cream.”

Husband comes back with bacon and eggs.

Wife to husband, “Where’s the toast?”

ESP

2009-08-18T03:34:00.000-07:00

Most people, I believe, will have an opinion about extra- sensory perception (ESP) or psychic phenomena. I also believe that a person’s views will be either a ‘Yes. I believe’ or a ‘No. I don’t believe.’ It would be difficult to be in a ‘maybe’ position.

Most of the ‘no's’ would be of the opinion that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of ESP and would take a 'You can’t prove it, therefore it doesn’t exist,’ type approach. I understand this but because many scientists have a silo mentality regarding their particular discipline they are unable, or unwilling to see outside their particular box and therefore miss or overlook the signals from other disciplines.

Think of it this way - we have all heard of the famous Einstein equation E=MC2, which I understand means that ultimately, matter and energy are the same – matter is energy and energy is matter. Now energy can be measured (I think), by an oscilloscope in a wave form. If this is correct then everything, all matter, including humans, is giving out energy waves all the time. We humans then are transmitting these waves even now – thoughts, bodily heat and (I am sure) other forms of energy that I know nothing about.

If energy waves can be measured by a machine then why is it not possible to contemplate that human beings (and other life forms) could equally ‘receive’ this energy and ‘measure’ it by way of Extra-Sensory Perception – I mean it is the same energy after all? We casually use the phrases like “I picked up his vibes” or “I had bad vibes about that,” or “She is a good person to be around – she makes me happy”, so we all actually have a sense of this ‘energy’. There are many stories about domestic animals being ‘aware’ and sensitive to ESP and there are many people who at least claim to have this ability.

I have written before that I had an ESP experience, many years ago now, which is still vivid and comforting. The trouble is it would be impossible to recreate, in a laboratory, the exact situation, circumstance, mood and emotion that ‘created’ the ambience which ‘allowed’ the psychic event to occur.

This is the ‘scientific’ problem but it does not mean that ESP does NOT exist.

Injustice revisited

2009-08-05T08:19:00.000-07:00

I am going to start with a quote from Leo Tolstoy’s book “A confession”, wherein he said, “The least productive attitude is that by which a person regards themselves as being a self motivated being, who exists in the world solely for the purpose of attaining the greatest possible personal well being, irrespective of the degree of suffering this may cause to others.”

How true this is. And it doesn’t matter if this attitude is adopted by individuals, companies and organizations, groups, religions, societies or by countries – the effect and the distress caused is the same. This attitude breeds arrogance, injustice, lack of compassion, racism and a general intolerance.

Tolstoy was writing in the 1870s and particularly about conditions in the Tsarist Russia of his generation but his comments fit perfectly many of the conditions experienced today by a significant number of people - just think of the conflicts and injustices between Christians and Muslims, Christians and Jews, Catholics and Protestants, Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims, white and black peoples, Israel and Palestine, the ‘big four’ banks in Australia and the rest of the population, the Tamils and the government of Sri Lanka, the Chinese Government and the Tibetans, the minority Muslims the Uyghur people and then the Falun Gong religious sect, etc, etc, etc.

And then think of us individuals. I mean how many times have I spoken to someone in a totally uncalled for manner and said thoughtless and hurtful things? Many more times than I like to remember I’m afraid, and all to what purpose? To ‘please my ego? To save ‘face’? How puerile. But I suppose that is life – we have all done and said things we later regret all because we ignore or have forgotten the Golden Rule “Treat others the way you would like to be treated.”

What we share with a banana

2009-07-31T06:08:00.000-07:00

My many avid readers please note: I have now recommenced my studies in Psychology at Curtin University (as an external student). This means that I may, repeat may, be writing fewer posts that I normally do.

I will have to see what the workload is like.

My study of psychology, to date, has not convinced me that it is anything other than a pseudo-science. Shoot me if you like but as far as I am concerned trying to reconcile the objective, the human body (which is just a bundle of atoms and molecules) – with the subjective, the life essence itself, thoughts and emotions (which can only be guessed at) is fraught. To me such a reconciliation cannot be done. To do so you will have to convince me that the brain and the mind are one and the same thing (as far as I am concerned they are not).

The body is a physical entity that can be touched and measured whereas thoughts and emotions and the very essence of life itself are but ‘objects’ of pure speculation. They cannot be seen, touched or measured in any way.

To emphasise what I mean I have learned, from my text book, that we share half our genes with the humble banana. Where does that place psychology!!

Pre-what?

2009-07-28T06:29:00.000-07:00

There seems to be a wide use of the term ‘pre-warned’ in Australian English. This, I assume, means to warn someone BEFORE they are warned! With normal English usage someone is ‘warned’ that an event or situation may arise – this is perfectly understandable and to my way of thinking a ‘correct’ use of language. But to ‘pre-warn’ them? This makes no sense at all.

I am no Latin scholar but I do think that I have a reasonable grasp of the English language. Now as far as I know ‘pre’ is from Latin meaning ‘before’ or something that comes in ‘front’ of a word to give that word a different meaning and has come into the English language with the same meaning. Hence the words ‘prefix’ (ie. in front of a word), ‘pre-empt’, ‘precursor’, ‘pre-adult’ etc. So to place the prefix “pre’ before the word ‘warning’ is, I don’t know – an oxymoron maybe? It is certainly superfluous and unnecessary.

So why use it? I will refer to my dictionary to confirm all this.

I stand corrected after referring to my English Language bible!! I will always admit an error (see my halo?)

The Oxford English Dictionary (henceforth the OED) states under ‘pre’ that ‘pre-warn’ is a rare usage and means to give advance warning of an event. Of course there is the perfectly good term ‘forewarned’!!

But I still stand by my original comment that ‘pre-warn’ is not good English (hence the ‘rare’ comment by the OED). And I stand by my comment that a warning is a warning and that an advance warning or to be forewarned is still a warning – that however one is warned a warning is a warning. Also that pre- or advance- or fore- are all superfluous. A warning is sufficient. No?

What do you think?

The Goose with the golden eggs

2009-07-27T07:37:00.000-07:00

I have said this before, but I wonder at the fact that people never seem to learn from the past. We seem to have to re-invent the wheel when it comes to our relationships with others and our ethical conduct.

I am particularly commenting on the ABC TV Four Corners programme screen this evening (27th July) about the education college scam.

Some 3000 years ago in Greece a freed slave called Aesop collated hundreds of wise and pithy comments saying and stories which have come down to us as Aesop's Fables. They are as true today as they were then - human nature does not seem to have changed a bit does it?

Aesop’s fable (CIV)

The goose with the golden eggs

Their was once a man who was lucky enough to own a goose that laid him a golden egg every day. However, since the process was so slow and since he wanted the entire treasure at once, he became dissatisfied and eventually killed the goose. After cutting her open, he found her to be just what any other goose would be.

The more you want the more you stand to lose

Be suspicious of what you want

2009-07-25T20:57:00.000-07:00

Many non-Muslims (like me) may have never heard of Rumi. He was a poet and a mystic in the Sufi tradition. He was born 30th September 1207 in Balkh, Afghanistan and died on 17th December 1273 (I think in Konya, Turkey).

Rumi must have been a great man – many people, and not just Sufi Muslims, read his works today. Some of his poems are great fun. He obviously had a great irreverence for life and his union with God – life was fun and there to be enjoyed!

I think this quote is worthy of repeating (I am using a translation of his poems by Coleman Barks called ‘The essential Rumi’):

From something called ‘On Resurrection Day’ –

On Resurrection Day your body testifies against you.
You hand says, “I stole money.”
Your lips, “I said meanness.”
Your feet, “I went were I shouldn’t.”
Your genitals, “Me too.”

That is so good! I wonder how many of us can relate to that verse?

In another poem he writes:-

I plot to get what I want
And end up in prison.

I dig pits to trap others
And fall in.

I should be suspicious
of what I want.

How very true! To me this just shows that no matter who we are and what culture we were born into we are basically the same – members of the species Homo Sapiens. Those born centuries ago had more time to observe human nature and the think about why we get into trouble we often find ourselves in.

Today we are rushed and have little time for contemplation; little time to read the lessons learned by others – more is the pity.

Our ego and us

2009-07-21T03:37:00.000-07:00

We all know an Autocrat, the ‘controller’. We all know a person who is always right, who knows everything, who has an opinion on everything and who’s way of doing things is always the best and only way. But I wonder if such a person is ever at peace within him/her self? To be constantly aware of what others are doing – so that they may be corrected, because you are sure they will inevitably do something wrong – must be very tiring. It must wear the person down.

There will never be peace, anywhere, until people have ‘peaceful’ minds and ‘peaceful’ thoughts. How can it be otherwise? Peace will never eventuate from warlike and violent thoughts or actions. Look, I don’t just mean international peace. I include in this term peace from ALL violence – domestic, civil, social, sectarian and international and I would include in this our predilection to anger when crossed or thwarted. We are all of us guilty of this one at times.

I know that it would be naive to believe that there will ever be a time when everyone has ‘peaceful’ thoughts – it will never happen, the human condition being what it is. But why should we accept this deplorable state of affairs? Why SHOULD there be violence; why SHOULD there be so much anger? What is the purpose and what does it serve? So what if we are thwarted in our endeavours; so what if others don’t have the same goals in life as we do – why get angry or violent about it? I do not believe that there can ever be any ‘benefit’ from anger or from violence – that these two are a complete waste of time and energy, both of which would be better spent elsewhere.

Is it possible for most of us to have peaceful thoughts? I am sure it is.

It maybe that there is a ‘tipping point’ such that when the majority of people have ‘peaceful’ thoughts then there is more likely to be peace than otherwise (which is logical I suppose - and somewhat of a blinding glimpse of the obvious). So what does it say about the general thought content of the average person that there is so much violence and lack of ‘peace’ in the world? It would appear, that as a world, we are some distance away from that ‘tipping point’!!

Anger I believe arises from our egos. When our ego (our idea of who we are) tells us that it has been diminished in some way – that we have been shown up as a lesser person than our ego allows for – then anger may arise. A very typical example is road rage – say someone cuts in a queue of cars and immediately pushes us one vehicle further from the ‘feeder’ arrow at the intersection. Our immediate reaction is to think “Who does she think she is pushing in like that? I am just as important as she is – bloody female driver!” (Or whoever – I am NOT anti-female please believe me!). Anger arises and we activate the horn in no uncertain manner and also give the finger and generally show that we are extremely displeased.

Can you relate to this? But does it really matter? Maybe the woman is an unemployed single mother who has an urgent appointment to meet with a potential new employer – a reasonable enough excuse, don’t you think? But no! Our ego tells us that it has been diminished and slighted and that this slight must be redressed in some way. Less than charitable thoughts arise and anger and violence, that inevitably accompany such thoughts, always intervene and turn a tricky situation into a possibly violent one. All for what – just to please the ego?

In a perverse way lack of peace may be considered as a positive! Having an ‘unpeaceful’ mind may lead someone to re-appraise their perceptions and ideas which may lead to innovations in human relations or helping those less fortunate or in medicine or to innovations in any field of human endeavour.

There is always a positive to be found somewhere – even when the ego is involved!

Tall Poppy Syndrome

2009-07-15T06:50:00.000-07:00

We never seem to learn do we – as in the human race I mean. Something like 2500 years ago Herodotus, the Greek historian (born c 484 BC and who died sometime between 421 and 415 BC) stated in his famous “The Histories” that:

“It is always great buildings and the tall trees which are struck by lightning. It is God’s way to bring the lofty low.... For God tolerates pride in none but Himself.”

He was referring to humans and how we try to gain some, often unfair, advantage over our fellow being. This is of course usually in the context of money (what’s new?). Herodotus also recorded the Greeks had astutely observed the fact that:

“Human prosperity never abides long in the same place.”

To my way of thinking all human life has one purpose and one only – the well being of humanity. And I wonder whether all the technological advances we have made, and continue to make, on an exponential growth pattern, actually do HELP humanity. Money is very useful in this regard if used to assist those in need – to purchase their requirements. But do we need huge arsenals of weapons; do we need to spend countless billions on developing new or more ‘refined’ ways of killing each other? Wouldn’t it be much better to spend this money trying to right some of the wrongs and injustices of the past, to the extent that those who may have felt they had been treated unjustly or in some other way wronged, feel compensated and have no need to take further action?

The three basic requirements of humanity seem to be slipping further out of the reach of many – adequate food, shelter and personal security. These still seem to elude the one billion people (according to the World Health Organization) currently at the point of starvation, who often live in the most hazardous regions – particularly Africa and the Indian sub-continent. So what are the wealthy doing about it?

As I said before the purpose of human life is to help humanity. Why aren’t we doing it? There is enough food thrown away in the developed countries (so I have read somewhere) to feed all those in need. Are we those “great buildings and the tall trees” to be laid low by God because He “tolerates pride in none but Himself?” To consider oneself ‘above’ or ‘better’ than others, who are starving with lack of shelter and without any personal security, is surely ‘pride’; is surely ‘hubris’.

This, surely, is pride asking for a fall?

Also consider the observation that “Human prosperity never abides long in the same place.” It would seem that not many in Wall Street read Herodotus or if they did they didn’t think it would apply to them – they cared for no one but themselves and the money they were ‘making’ through their obscene commissions. Certainly, I would guess, the despicable Bernie Madoff thought he was above all this ‘nonsense’ – how wrong he was (I doubt that he ever read Herodotus). Madoff seems never to have cared about the well being of anyone other than himself – and look where it got him.

If you follow my thinking that as humans our main purpose in life is to help our fellow beings you will understand my continual reference to the Law of Cause and Effect and to the importance of ethics in our relationships. It is needful to be always fair, honest, kind, compassionate, empathetic, moderate and just in all our dealing. To be anything else is to invite the Gods to cut you down to size and to ‘bring the lofty low’.

In colloquial English call this the ‘tall poppy’ syndrome – in Australia at least we seem to take a perverse pleasure in seeing the ‘self promoted mighty’ laid low and cut down to the size of normal human beings.

Injustice revisited

2009-07-14T05:33:00.000-07:00

I have previously written about the injustices perpetuated by the Israeli’s against the Palestinians and particularly those in Gaza. These continue and the recent change of Government in Israel will not, I fear, alter this deplorable situation a great deal. Again this is autocratic governance and tyranny to maintain the status quo, to the ‘benefit’ of the Israelis. Again all in the name of God, (Yahweh) – all above board, apparently, because the Israeli’s use their army to enforce their autocratic rules and because we have been told, by the Israeli’s or course, that the Israeli army is the most moral (and presumably ethical) army in the world.

While I certainly abhor the terror tactics used by Hamas and others of that ilk, I also strongly believe that Israel is wrong to use the methods they do.

Then there is North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe and of course China, to name but a few of the current countries with dubious records, all tyrannies and in the case of North Korea, Burma and Zimbabwe, basket cases as well.

But there is no need to look far afield. We have injustice at home. The Aborigine has been shockingly treated – the history of abuse (shot, chained and flogged), neglected (health and education) with virtually no representation (the Australian constitution was changed only in 1967 to allow full citizens rights) suffered by the original inhabitants of Australia is appalling. And don’t forget that the Aborigines in Tasmania were exterminated with official sanction. In Tasmania they had survived 12500 years isolation (since the melting of the last ice age inundated Bass Straight) to the 18th Century, but were all dead within about 200 years – how is that for injustice.

Also don’t forget the abuse of women and children in Australia – those who are most vulnerable. The Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes figures measuring the extent of violence (physical and sexual) against women which is quite shocking (the figures do NOT show other forms of abuse – emotional, social, financial etc). Would you believe that 23% of women who have ever been in a long term relationship have experienced violence at some time during the relationship? Or that 42% who had been in a previous relationship had suffered violence from that previous partner? And so it goes on.

Now why? Why would any sensible person want to commit a violent act, of any sort, against someone they purport to love? And someone who, to boot, is weaker and more vulnerable than they are?

I have been looking for any statistics (which I have yet to find - which i will soon) to prove it, but I feel sure that much of this violence is alcohol induced. This of course is a whole new subject of its own – I mean excessive consumption of alcohol.

Alcohol, as with all things, in moderation is ok. But when one drink leads to another and another, and there is a predisposition to anger or violence then the can of worms is exposed and innocent people suffer.

All this injustice, both national and individual, for what – pleasure? An ego trip? Control and/or ‘power’? Human nature is fascinating isn’t it, though sometimes for all the wrong reasons.

The Chinese Take Over

2009-07-06T07:13:00.000-07:00

What will happen when China recovers from this current economic malaise first and overtakes the US as the largest functioning economy in the world? I make a prediction (based on nothing but a gut feeling) that by 2030 China will surpass the US as the largest economy in the world.

I know that this is a bold prediction. But I was correct about a much easier one – the US invasion of Iraq. At that time I wrote to the US Embassy and asked them to pass on a message to Bush that he would live to regret his invasion, that it was wrong – whatever the motives. I never got a reply - which I never expected anyway.

This time I base my prediction on trade and population. The US has about 305 million people and China about 1.3 billion. Much of the US’ previously unassailable position was based on intellectual property, manufacturing and exports. Now their exports are declining – they have ceded much of their manufacturing might to the Chinese – who make most of the world’s electronic and white goods and clothing. And the Chinese are learning fast so their intellectual capabilities are expanding rapidly. The Chinese also control much of the worlds cash reserves (the US has none!) and cash, as always, is king. In fact the Chinese are bolstering the US economy by holding trillions of dollars worth of US Treasury bonds.

No one likes what the Chinese have done to Tibet, nor how the communist regime tries to control the general population – it tries to control access to the internet, it controls the number of children any family may have (which is causing a huge gender imbalance). But the Chinese Government does have an agenda – they wish to raise the standard of living of their people as quickly as possible.

I also base my prediction partly on an article written many years ago now by Lt General John Glubb, known also as “Glubb Pasha” (a British general who commanded the Arab Legion before and after the Second World War) for Blackwood, an British monthly magazine. He called his article “The Fate of Empires” in which he determined that the average empire survived for 250 years. He went back in time to the ancients and followed the creation and fate of empires through to the 20th Century.

Generalising a great deal one could say that the British Empire lasted from about 1750 to about 1950 – say 200 years. Glubb stated that the Americans were slightly different in that they never had much of an ‘external’ empire and that theirs was rather an ‘internal’ empire. The American continent was so rich in resources, internally, that they never (until recent times) had to look abroad for resources to feed their economic growth. So now taking 1776 as the start of the American ‘empire’ and, while they are obviously not finished yet, taking my, predicted, date of 2030 as a cut-off, that makes 254 years.

No matter when the American’s lose their control of the world economy – and they will eventually, they will find it difficult to play second fiddle to anyone. Particularly if they are treated the way they have treated others over the years.

More on Injustice

2009-07-06T06:47:00.000-07:00

I have written before on this but I want to say some more about injustice. Injustice is a pervasive cancer and a blight on the lives of many and a major impediment to peace in the world. Wherever there is autocratic governance, wherever there is tyranny and terror, wherever there in uncertainty - whatever generates fear - there you will find injustice.

Why and for what?

It is all about “power”. It is all about the “prestige” that accompanies power, and of course it is all about ego. Power gives the impression that the powerful are “better”, are “different” from the rest of society and therefore “deserve” the panoply that goes with the power and the position.

But as the Romans said two thousand years ago “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. So power leads to corruption, which cascades down the line to injustice, to uncertainties and because no one knows what to expect next – this leads to fear. And fear gives the “powerful” a greater sense of their power which leads to more injustice, more fear and ultimately to terror and tyranny, in a fairly predictable sequence of events.

Those who are autocratic, those who terrorize and create an atmosphere of fear have the most to lose and they know it – think Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and currently the Burmese Junta and Mugabe (just to name a few). States ruled by terror never last. Those in ‘control’ live increasingly isolated lives for fear that their own lives may be cut down in one way or another - the immutable law of cause and effect will always prevail – they will reap what they sowed. It has always been this way and can be no other. This is justice balancing out the injustice by taking out the instigators of the original injustice – even though it may take a significant period of time – justice will prevail.

The recent tragic events still unfolding in Iran are a case in point. The Iranian ‘Guardian Council’ is there, principally, to ensure that those in power remain there. It is also there to, presumably, keep the Islamic faith intact and pure. But who determines what ‘purity’ means? So to keep themselves safe and to maintain the faith this Guardian Council pays a militia (which is above the law) to kill, maim and create fear – all presumably in the name of God, of Allah the Merciful.

One can only wonder at the mentality of these people and despair.

The natural order of things

2009-06-30T05:46:00.000-07:00

It is sometimes worth considering the natural order of things and why we do the things we do.

One does not do something to be happy – one IS happy and does something to express it. One does not do something to be ethical – one IS ethical and does something to express those ethical ideals. We don’t need someone else to tell us – this is just part of the natural order of things.

Just take what I heard today. I heard that the owner and founder of the company I work for, an old man, had died. I only met him once and he seemed nice enough but there has been no ‘official’ communication. There was a rumour which a friend of a friend ‘confirmed’. This is just not good enough. While I appreciate the privacy, the grief and the sensitivities of the family, surely there is a responsibility to the employees to keep them in the ‘loop’ as it were, and to keep them informed? I would not have expected a ‘daily bulletin’, or anything of that nature, but something to let me know would have been welcome. I mean I am supposed to be part of a ‘team’ – or so I am told. Not much evidence of this now, is there? But they obviously have their reasons.

Enough of this negativity! I need to move on and thinking of this man’s death leads me to the subject of symbols and rituals. We use them all the time. A symbol is something we use to explain the inexplicable. It is something which our family, or group, or society use to mean something that everyone in the family, group or society understands but cannot really explain. Seeing that a death initiated all this lets use a flame by way of example. Most Western cultures have a ‘Tomb to the Unknown Warrior’ with the symbol of an ‘eternal flame’. To me this symbolises the sacrifice that soldiers make; it symbolises the ‘eternal’ life that can never be fully extinguished while there are people to remember; it symbolises the funeral pyre and is of really ancient origin; it also symbolises the ‘unity’ of Man – that we are all the same – all part of the human race – that the ‘unknown warrior’ is a part of us all.

A ritual on the other hand is used to express the inexpressible and may be a physical event or something we may verbalise – “I wash my hands of you!”- I am no longer concerned about you. Then there are the well known ‘universal’ rituals of Easter and Christmas – the Easter bunny - the hoped for fertility in the growing season of Spring (Northern Hemisphere) and the giving of presents – celebrating the birth of the new year and the return of the sun (again originally a Northern Hemisphere ritual) now taken over by Christianity.

These are just some of the things we find difficult to explain or express and yet they are part of our lives and some are remnants of a half remembered ancient past when Nature, the ebb and flow of the tides and the cycle of the seasons had a deeper meaning than it does for us city dwellers of today. I know there are many other examples of symbols and rituals used by many people around the world.

This is all as it should be and is part of the natural order of things, at least I consider it so. Symbols and rituals help us make sense of the world in our own way.

Ethics and Trust

2009-06-24T03:18:00.000-07:00

I wonder what it is about politicians. I certainly don’t trust them a great deal (pollies of either persuasion) and it seems I am not alone in my feelings. The politician’s antics in the Federal Parliament on the hill in Canberra, over the last few days have not shown any of them in a particularly favourable light.

The last Roy Morgan poll (April 2008) rating various professions and occupations for ‘Trust’ and ‘Ethics’ ranks Federal politician (at 17 out of 29) above Directors of public companies, Business executives, State MPs and Talk back radio announcers.

But it ranks them below Bank managers, Public servants and Public Opinion Pollsters.

Nurses, Pharmacist and Doctors are still at the top of the ranking.

These are the people who are supposed to be running our country, policing our borders, sending soldiers to war and maintain the value of the coin of the realm.

It makes you wonder doesn’t it!

Ordinary things

2009-06-21T01:25:00.000-07:00

When I write, which I enjoy, I write mainly for myself. I write to clarify my thoughts about something I have read, that I heard about or something I was told.
Often what people tell me – particularly my wife – may turn out to be a ‘home truth’. Now a ‘home truth’, like all of what people say about someone else, is just an opinion or a judgement, often based on limited information.

Some people are greatly offended by ‘home truths’, and yet, apart from an opinion a home truth may be nothing but a self evident fact or a trait, or something else that in some way irritates the observer, the teller of the ‘home truth’. But it is their ‘truth’, not yours.

One partner in a marriage, or someone at work may say to the other, “you are always so untidy,” or “once you start something you never seem to finish it.” This may, or may not be a fact – as the observer sees it. Yet there is always a reason – either the person complained about has different priorities, lacks the necessary skills and does not want to admit it, or has been distracted. There is always a reason which is why a ‘home truth’ is not always valid.

If a ‘home truth’ does hurt it may well draw attention to something which you acknowledge in yourself – for instance that you lack consideration for others (your untidiness), or that you have never been persistent in your endeavours and have never finished anything you started (laziness??). You may acknowledge the veracity of the ‘truth’ but be unwilling to accept it because it does not match your idea about yourself and the image you seek to portray to the world. That is why it is uncomfortable or why it hurts.

The other thing about ‘home truths’ is that they are just opinions and opinions are notoriously unreliable. They depend on the mood, at the time, of the opinionated; on that person’s outlook on life; their education, life experience and so on – generally not reliable indicators of a ‘truth’, home or otherwise.

We make judgements and assumptions based on sometimes very limited information.

Winter Solstice

2009-06-20T03:23:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow, 21st June, is the winter solstice – the shortest day in the year. In historic times it used to be a day of significance, particularly in the northern hemisphere, when the solstice is 21st December. It meant the beginning of the ‘return’ of the sun; the beginning of a new year; a renewal; the coming of a new season – hence the celebration of Christmas and the giving of gifts (not called Christmas in those days of course – this was long before Christianity was thought of).

No one today cares and most would not even know the day’s significance, more is the pity. Once we lose our connection with the natural world we lose something precious; that is part of us and what made us what we are; it is part of our heritage.
Of course in ancient times people had time and the inclination (no TV, radio, CDs or DVDs) to really observe nature and the ebb and flow of the tides and changing seasons. It was of vital importance to their supply of food and their well being.

We city dwellers are seldom able to see, with any clarity, the night sky, because of the ‘loom’ of the city lights. We have no time to sit under the stars and contemplate nature and what it means to us. We are diminished as human being by the loss of this vital connection.

Have a happy winter solstice.

More on my new knee

2009-06-18T06:33:00.000-07:00

For those of my many readers who are interested in my personal life history I am pleased to announce that my replaced left knee joint is doing well ( you will recall that I had an operation on 2nd November 2008 to replace an arthritic left knee).

I had a check-up earlier this week and everyone was impressed with my progress. The physio was pleased that I am extending my range of movement to around 116 degrees from a straight leg – I believe that most people, with the knee they were born with, have between 127 and 133 degrees of movement. With a replacement knee they are generally happy if the patient has anything over 90 degrees.

The surgeon was happy. He always admires his handiwork and says that I have a very straight scar, which is true. He suggested that he next sees me in about 6 months time – just past the anniversary.

I just thought you would like to share the good news.

“But he is a good boy.”

2009-06-17T06:31:00.000-07:00

Have you ever wondered how it is that a mother of a boy, or a man, who has committed a serious crime and been convicted and sentenced, can still say of her son “but he is a good boy?” (I speak here of sons as they are far more likely to commit serious crimes than daughters).

I believe that a woman’s insight, or intuition, (and I have a great deal of respect for female intuition), especially if that woman is a mother, is more often than not proved right. Women, in my experience, are more likely to see the ‘essence’ of someone, particularly someone they love. They have an intuitive ‘knowledge’ that their son – no matter what he has or has not done – is still in his deep hearts core a ‘good person’ – still a ‘good boy’!

And this I believe.

I think I can safely say that we all do (or have done) strange, dangerous, even criminal things at times – things which at the time seemed ‘logical’ or ‘fun’ or that were instigated by peer pressure or to gain the ‘respect’ of someone we admire – which we may later regret. Things done, which on reflection may be seen to be foolish or ill judged. Even so our mother’s still love us (I hope).
This is not just a case of a mother being blinded from the truth by love – I sincerely believe that mothers in this regard are correct.

At their core all people are ‘good’; we all want to be liked; to be respected and to be loved. No one ever (and I mean ever) sets out to do something ‘bad’. There is always some perceived advantage, gain or benefit to the perpetrator (even if it is ‘anti-social’ as in theft, physical violence, fraud etc) – otherwise why do it?

As I say all people are basically good. It is just that this basic ‘goodness’ gets overlaid by their ego, by their ideas and especially by their perception of the world as influenced by their education, their upbringing and their life experience. If this is all negative and the person concerned, the son, is becoming anti-social and their ideas about what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ are different from yours or mine, or what is considered ‘normal’, then steps need to be taken to correct this and to make them aware of the consequences. This is a case for education not necessarily prison.

But the mother is still correct - it is just that her boy got mixed up with the wrong crowd and has been influenced by the wrong person – but he is still a ‘good boy’.

Why we do things

2009-06-13T19:23:00.000-07:00

We all want to be liked don’t we? We like to ‘get on’ with our fellow beings. Particularly close relations. Sometimes though we seem to take a perverse delight in annoying or disagreeing with one particular person – shall we pick on mothers-in-law? Now I get on quite well with mine, actually. If she has a go at me I have learned over the years to just switch off and peace, or at least some sort of truce, is maintained this way.

Now, as I was saying (before I got diverted by thoughts of my mother-in-law) we all liked to be liked or respected or admired in one way or another. No one likes to be ‘put down’ all the time. There may however be a conflict of interest at times. Take this morning for instance. In Perth it was a very cold if brilliantly clear 4 or 5 deg C, and there was I, at 8.30am on a Sunday morning, hanging out my grand-daughters clothes to dry on the line – and there seemed a mountain of them. My hands were freezing from handling the wet material. This was not what I would have chosen to do so why was I there? Was it because of a sense of duty? – my wife had arranged to go to church with a friend and was away from the house. Was it because I wanted to be liked by my daughter and to help her? – we are very close as it is and I have no need to ‘prove’ my love for her or to do anything to gain her love. Was it because I seek my grand-daughters love? – not at all, I love them regardless and they are too young to be able to express such fine emotional concepts but they seem to like me anyway.

So why was I there when I would rather be doing my own thing? After some thought about it (and partly because while writing this piece ideas arise) I think it is because I want to feel good about myself. Of course I love my daughter and grand-daughters; of course I have a sense of duty; but more than anything I want to like myself and do the ‘right thing’. That is what is ‘right’ for me. If I had not hung the clothes I would have felt uncomfortable all day – knowing that there was something that had to be done and I ‘failed’ in acknowledging my inner ‘urging’ to do what was necessary and so feel good within myself.

I suppose it is also an ethical thing – helping someone as I would (in similar circumstances) like to be helped (my son-in-law is in the process of repairing their washing-machine). But it is also because of love for my daughter and her family; and love for my wife – saving her from the task when she returned from church.

So there you have it – my good deed for the day! Now I must go and hang our washing (out of necessity) – because my wife has not yet returned from church.

A man’s work is never done!!

By our own authority

2009-06-09T06:26:00.000-07:00

How many of us do things, have beliefs or have interpretations of events which we never thought of ourselves – ones accepted by us even though they were given to us by others? This means accepting someone else’s decisions, someone who came before and who, presumably, knows better. Otherwise why accept their decision?

To accept someone else’s decision is to accept their view of what they think our lives should be and how we should live it. In other words (whether we actually like it or not) we conform to someone else’s set of values, someone else’s views of life, not our own. We are not living by our own authority.

Very few of the judgements we make on a daily basis, about what is “right” or “wrong” are made by us, based on our true understanding of the situation as presented. It often seems that the more important the decision, the less likely we are to use our own thoughts and ideas, based on our own experiences. This is particularly so if we, now no longer children, were brought up to always do what we were told by someone we hold as an authority figure – this is denying our own authority. Other people may offer advice, they will certainly have their opinions. But they do not know our problems, they do not know the troubles we have seen nor do they know the effects that our life experience has had on our outlook on life.

When all is said and done we are all Human Beings not just Human Doers. Just doing what others tell us to do, or to think, has not got us very far – in fact it has got us into a great deal of trouble! We are all members of the species ‘Homo Sapiens’ (reasoning man) why not try to live up to the promise of that?

Borrowing strengths builds weakness – we must grow strong ourselves. This means experiencing Life in all its wonder and glory. It means making mistakes; it means failing sometimes; it means falling down; it means getting up and trying again. Remember, we are all wayfarers on the journey along the Road of Life. And we all stumble on the Road. Those who stumble a lot we tend to call bad; those who stumble less we call good. But we all stumble.

This also means that we MUST accept responsibility for our own actions. To do otherwise is a) not honest and b) trying to see ourselves as others see us, or more to the point, as we THINK others see us - the image we think other have of us, which we feel we must live up to, to keep our place in the world. This is a recipe for personal disaster and great anguish.

Living under such mental conditions can only produce a person who is but a ‘shadow’ of themselves; incapable of choosing for themselves; incapable of spontaneous, self directed activities; at best patient, docile, disciplined to an almost pathetic degree, but increasingly irresponsible as their ability to use reason is diminished; finally such a person becomes but a creature governed mainly by their conditioned reflexes. Such a person is not living by their own authority.

Any human beings who have been forced to conform and have accepted a life devoid of thinking, who have been constrained in their ambitions, pride and personal achievements, have resigned themselves to the constriction, even the slow death of the attributes which are the distinctive elements of human life. Applying physical strength, or intellectual energies to please others and to fulfil their ideals, does nothing except reduce us to being a commodity, reducing our scope for happiness and increasing the likelihood of stress and lack of harmony in our lives. It reduces the ability, so needed today to dream of things that never were and ask, “Why not?”

This form of existence is an affront to the human spirit. It offends. This is deeply felt by many and the inevitable reaction to it is rebellion in some form or another. This form of existence is unnecessary and is the cause for much of the mental distress so increasingly evident in our society today.

Anyone in this situation needs the courage, the strength of character to actually look at what they are doing through their own eyes, to see what is actually there, not the view that they have been conditioned to see (by those deemed to be authority figures, or what the political or corporate ‘spin doctors’ want them to see).

To do this we need clear vision and an understanding of our true humanity, our true potential. No one can tell us who we are or what to see and how we should react. We must live by our own authority.

Being a manager

2009-06-06T19:55:00.000-07:00

Why is it that so many people are promoted to the role of ‘manager’ without the least experience in managing? Just because you may be a good salesman (or woman) does not necessarily mean you will be a good manager.

Just think about it, being a ‘manager’ requires someone to manage people. This is not easy and requires many skills not the least of which are communications and empathy. A technician ‘manages’ technical matters – equipment and such like; an accountant ‘manages’ the finances and assets of an organization; a chemist may be involved in the chemical constituents of the products manufactured – but who manages the people? It may that a technician or accountant may, with experience, become an excellent manager of people, but this is not a certainty.

Products or services are manufactured or provided by people for other people – the equipment or devices used are there to ease the process of manufacture or to improve the products or services. Man has been making things and providing services for thousands of years with very simple tools, considerable skill and a great deal of patience. Equipment and machinery are not the be all and end all of managing. People are.

It is many years since I went to a ‘show’ – I mean a Royal Show – an agricultural and industrial show. But I do remember buying ‘show bags’ for my children (now parents in their own right) and in those show bags was a strange plasticky stuff. You squeezed it in your hand and it squelched out between your fingers like a soft plasticine or play-dough. Kids loved it. Anyway this stuff is a good analogy for what happens when a person is employed in a position which is uninteresting, mundane, unfulfilling and maybe not very well paid. What happens in many instances is that the essence of who they are, their inner being is stifled and constrained and required to conform to the requirements of the job – hours employed during the day (or night), at a desk or in a position not of their normal choosing staring at a screen – they are squeezed into a position, one they would not normally take, and expected to fulfil the organizations wishes, promote their products or services and, most probably, service the public with a smile. They may be ok in the position for a while but then the pressures get to them and like the ‘show bag’ plasticky stuff there has to be an outlet somewhere, somehow. Otherwise it just pops out in the most unexpected way – anger, frustration, alcohol, substance abuse, general ill health and the big one - depression.

A manager (of people) must learn to see the signs, talk to those concerned and, if the firm is large enough, suggest they move to a more suitable position. If the organization is small, then just knowing that the ‘boss’ understands and is prepared for a little ‘give and take’ makes an enormous difference and makes for a much pleasanter work place.

Not many managers do this; not many are good communicators; not many empathise with their staff, more is the pity.

Moral high ground

2009-05-31T07:05:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The word "Help"

2009-05-24T03:42:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such is the will and power of one!

Culture

2009-05-20T04:50:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some people can be very unkind

2009-05-17T06:22:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some thoughts on God

2009-05-13T08:09:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where my freedom stops and your begins

2009-05-09T18:54:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting.

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

2009-05-06T07:11:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

This is a valid statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Depression

2009-05-05T06:23:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you half asleep?

2009-05-03T04:47:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting. Let me know what happens.

Violence

2009-04-30T07:30:00.000-07:00

I am writing this post in a warm sunlit room, on a coolish autumn morning (14 C, or so), drinking my morning cup of coffee and listening to a radio broadcast of a Mozart violin concerto. I am doing what I enjoy doing and am at peace, both with myself and with the world - my world. Now my world consists of me and my wife of thirty years, our two children and our four grand children. As far as I know there is nothing untoward going on, each of them is getting on with their lives, husbands working, wives either at (paid) work or at home (working) looking after young children, and children, doing what children do best – growing, learning and playing.

In complete contrast to this I recognise that there is an amazing amount of violence everywhere, in every town, city and country, as is reported in the media on a daily basis. I am sure that it has been going on all the time, it is just that the violence seems to be getting, well, more violent. And I wonder why?

There is certainly less self-discipline evident, there certainly seems to be less empathy with our fellow beings, there seems to be more selfishness, more greed and less patience in every day affairs. There is certainly less willingness to accept responsibility for ones actions – particularly when the results are injurious to others; the obvious corollary is that whatever happens is always someone else’s fault and responsibility.

Now the flow on from this blaming someone else is that ‘they’, (the others), are considered ‘different’ from me, because ‘they’ have made the mistakes which result in the injuries, of whatever sort. They are therefore lesser beings – they make mistakes and I don’t, I am therefore better than they are.

Because I am better than they are (and they are obviously lesser beings than I am) they don’t matter. I therefore have a licence to do whatever I like to them – because they are lesser human beings they deserve what they get – it is their fault – they should not have be there, doing what they were doing, at that time.

This is a very dangerous thought process. This is a ‘gang’ mentality (you are not part of the gang – you are ‘outside – you are different); this is ‘class’ mentality (you are not of my class – by birth, by social standing, by value of possessions etc); this is racism (you are not of my skin colour, you don’t speak my language, you don’t eat my kind of food, you don’t dress the way I do and you, most probably, worship a lesser God than mine).

Not only is there the tendency to violence against such people, there is also the defence, born from desperation, put up by the victims of this indiscriminate and often impersonal violence, perpetrated by unidentifiable individuals or groups. They often decide to attack, before they are attacked – a sort of pre-emptive raid, as it were. Often, however, these victims have no real idea who their attackers were so they lash out and this is when innocent people get hurt and things spiral out of control, with gang warfare, vigilante groups, a call for individuals to be permitted to carry guns and so on. This is a steep slippery slope to anarchy.

The only answer to this is education – it is always better to be pro-active rather than re-active. It means educating people in how to deal with others, in relationships and we all have relationships with someone, and because we are all the same. We all bleed when hurt, we all suffer emotional pain, we all have hopes and aspirations, we all wish to live in peace and to be happy. All this, believe it or not, means understanding the importance of ethics, and the inevitable consequences that will follow, if ethics is ignored.

So like an old refrain, a familiar song, re-sung, I repeat my mantra:- Ask yourself “am I treating others the way I would like to be treated?” Also, ask yourself the question, “if everyone, (yes, I mean everyone), did what I am doing, or propose to do, would the world be a better place?” If the answer to either question is no, then don’t do it.

The solution to violence will not happen overnight, of course, and not everyone will listen, or accept what is said. But a start must be made and ethics really is that simple.

Tanita - the classic cat.

2009-04-28T06:40:00.000-07:00

Our family has had some amazing cats over the years, but I think Tanita takes pride of place. The name Tanita is an abbreviation of the Portuguese words taõ bonita – meaning ‘so pretty’. And she was a very pretty short haired tabby. However, as will be revealed she was, shall we say, rather eccentric. Whether she was slightly deranged I am not sure but she had two aversions – dogs and visitors at night. In this regard she was a wonderful ‘watch cat’.

As soon as darkness descended her defence mechanism would click in. If she heard someone approaching the house she would emit a ferocious growl, almost a snarl, an astonishingly loud noise from such a relatively small animal. She would approach the window or the door, from which she had first heard the sound, with hackles raised and measured step. In 99% of cases it was someone we knew. Even so she would approach the person very cautiously before returning to her resting place.

Dogs, on the other hand, she considered fair game, and it didn’t matter the size of the dog.

We had, at this time, a house with a driveway that dipped quite steeply down from the initial road access. Tanita’s favourite place was to position herself just below the point where the driveway started to dip. She positioned herself there because she could lie in the sun on the warm concrete, not in mid-summer of course, but at most times of the year and it was a good vantage place. It was also a perfect ambush position – just like anti-tank gunners position their weapons just over the brow of a rise in the terrain, waiting for an enemy tank.

Local dogs, painfully aware of her capabilities always gave our property a wide birth. It was the odd, unattached, strange dog that drew her ire.

I have seen Tanita raise her head, ears flattened, so she could just peep over the lip of the driveway, without being seen herself. She would wait until her target had just passed directly in front of her. She would change position, tense up and then launch herself at the unsuspecting animal and latch herself onto its hind quarters with all claws extended.

The poor creatures never knew what hit them. They would take off down the road, at full stretch, yelping all the while. A few minutes later Tanita would be seen back at her post, as if nothing had happened.

The absolute classic occasion was one my wife witnessed, while I was at work. She had asked a tradesman for a quote to do some repair work to our pergola. Tanita had been disturbed by the arrival of the tradesman’s van and had retreated to another favourite spot – on top of the pergola. Now this tradesman had a dog, a fox terrier type mongrel, smallish, but much bigger than Tanita.

As this man was walking around, inspecting the work to be done, his dog walked with him. My wife warned him that he should be careful as we had a cat. Without a glance, he gave an obviously standard response, “Its ok. My dog doesn’t chase cats.” Well, my wife had seen Tanita, on the pergola, staring down at this interloper, invading her carefully guarded premises, and sensed that some untoward event was about to unfold.

Before she could explain to the tradesman that it was actually his dog that was in danger, Tanita dropped with perfect precision, like an avenging angel, on to the back of the hapless hound. Quite a commotion ensued.

The dog was eventually found hiding under the tradesman’s van, from which place of refuge he refused to budge, until the engine was started and the vehicle began to move.

What capped off the whole incident, as far as my wife was concerned, was the tradesman’s outrage and offended sense of propriety, “Bloody stupid dog – being chased by a cat!!!”

He had been warned.

Trust

2009-04-23T07:02:00.000-07:00

What is so important about trust? Just think about it – without trust society as we know it would disintegrate. And the core of trust is love; love for one’s fellow beings – all fellow travellers on the road of life.

Without it the situation would arise where trust between child and parent would be absent. Domestic animals trust that we will care for them. What about trust between partners – husbands and wives? I remember reading somewhere, Time magazine most probably, about an English couple, newly married – both lawyers of course – who drew up a bizarre ‘contract’ between themselves wherein everything they did had to be compensated for. If one made the breakfast the other had to do the dinner, if one washed the car the other had to do something to ‘balance’ things, and so it went on. There was obviously absolutely no trust between them, and I can’t believe there was any love either. I have no idea whether the union lasted, but I can’t see how it would.

Of course in business trust is paramount. When trust fails chaos reigns as is currently very evident. Banks don’t trust anyone at present, so credit dries up – and business relies on credit.

Trust also depends on people’s ethical conduct and behaviour. Unethical behaviour is the antithesis of trust. I mean, who would trust someone who lies, who is dishonest, whose behaviour belies all that most people consider to be good and decent? No one does – we use the rather disparaging phrase “honour among thieves” to express our distrust of those who we have categorised as untrustworthy, but who deal between themselves. As an example, who trusts the wiz-kids in Wall Street now-a-days? Who trusts the rating agencies that gave AAA ratings to very dubious CDOs and sub-prime mortgages? Who trusts the banks? But they all deal, or dealt, between themselves didn’t they? They all dreamed up the (basically unethical) schemes which have brought the world economy to its knees.

Now, to regain trust, people, particularly business people, must be ethical. They must remember, or re-learn, or be taught, what ethics means and why it is so important. They must be made aware of the importance of morality, of the virtues and of holding fast to values which support their moral precept and virtues, which are only evident by their behaviour (ethical, or unethical).

We cannot see into someone’s mind, so how they think, (and thoughts governs their morality, their understanding of virtue and what they value) can only be evidenced by their actions, which, of course result from their ethics.

I consider ethics to be the glue that holds societies and groups of people together. That is why it is so important, why trust is so important.