Left or Right?

Years ago my father posed the question, “If one day something happened to make me turn left to go to work instead of my usual turning right – what would happen? Who would I meet? What new course would my life take?”

I’ve always remembered him saying this and have always wondered what events would unfold on the “Road less travelled”.

This is of course the ultimate hypothetical question. There can never be a definitive answer – anything could happen and there is no way of knowing if the same event would have taken place, regardless; that Fate has determined that whatever happens had to happen. 

Quatrain 51 (From the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam)

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,

Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit

Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,

Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

This notion of Fate or the Fates, the Moirai in Greek mythology, the three sister Goddesses, incarnations of destiny and life has always fascinated me. There is Clotho, the one who spins the thread of life; Lachesis, the one who draws lots to determine how long one lives, by measuring the thread of life; and Atropos, the inevitable, is the one who chooses the moment and method of death by cutting the thread of life with her shears. 

Now this, death, happens and will happen to us all however we might try and avoid the subject. So I ask the question – would it not be better to prepare ourselves for this inevitable end by living as best we can, by our lights? But it is so hard to accept death, particularly when it affects someone close, someone one loves. I know it is pointless to ask the question -Why? There is no answer. It just is – the Fates have made their determination.

But it is very hard.There is a poem, a tragic poem, which expresses this in words that I totally understand but with feelings almost beyond my comprehension. But, Oh the pathos!

Were You But Here!

Were you but here!

No more with tears the dreadful Night

Would in my soul her sorrows pour;

And through the curtained door

The groaning of the Earth

I’d hear no more;

Were you but here.

Were you but here!

O, high in Heaven the pulsing stars,

Your gracious way to greet,

Would scatter all their jewelled dust

In joyance at your feet,

And through the shadows, soft and low,

The happy laughter of the Wind would go;

Were you but here!

                                    Eugene Marais (9 January 1871 – 29 March 1936)

Probably written after the death (in South Africa) of his wife in 1895. She died from puerperal fever (eight days after the birth of their son) and after just one year of marriage.

Marais, trained in Law, was a well-known naturalist, poet and writer who was best known for his seminal works published as “The Soul of the white ant” and “The Soul of Ape”. Because he wrote initially in Afrikaans his works were not widely read outside South Africa and also because of this, unfortunately, were heavily plagiarised - stolen - by American and European naturalists in their own published research.

He never fully recovered from these hammer blows dealt him and finally committed suicide.

The Fates indeed – Left or Right – who knows!

I know that I nearly wept when I first read this poem, shortly after the death of my wife, Magucha.

Oh dear! Israel’s “moral” army – again.

It is very unfortunate that it is necessary to question, again, the Israeli Government’s assertion that it has the “most moral army in the world”.

Recently an Israeli Court has convicted Israeli Army reservist, Sgt. Elor Azaria, of manslaughter for shooting dead a severely wounded Palestinian attacker. Now, it has been reported, that the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will call for him to be pardoned for this cowardly and totally unprovoked attack - by an army medic – no less.

The question that should be asked is, to be ethically and morally unbiased, what would have happened if the situation had been reversed and the (now dead) Palestinian had been accused of killing a wounded Israeli soldier (the said Sgt. Elor Azaria)?

I know the answer, and so do you.

I suggest that no quarter, no mercy would have been extended to the Palestinian. He would have been shot in retaliation – or at best, if captured alive – would have been condemned as a “terrorist” and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Israel cannot claim that history, the admittedly appalling treatment that has been meted to Jews since time immemorial, gives them licence to claim the “moral” high ground while still indulging in self pity and making excuses for blatantly racial acts such as that carried out by Sgt. Elor Azaria.

Sgt. Elor Azaria should be condemned and serve out the sentence the court decides. To do otherwise will just enflame the Palestinians and push any “peace” even further into the future.

The Israeli’s have to understand and accept the hard truth that every action has a cause – and an effect. The to me (admittedly an outsider and a non-Jew) unfair occupation of Palestinian land is the primary cause of the “unrest” between the Israelis and Palestinians. No compensation is, or has ever been offered – merely the reference to the “God given” Biblical historic “right” of Israel to the land.

This is an entirely spurious argument. Should Japan be given back to the original Ainu? Should the Iberian peninsular be returned to the Celts? And then should America be returned to the original inhabitants – the North American “Indians”? What about handing Australia back to the “first people” the Aborigines?

Come on! Get real. Everyone, yes everyone, is a descendent of an immigrant – we all came out of Africa. We all have traces of Neanderthal genes.

No one has any God given or Biblical or any “right” to any land anywhere. But it is only fair, the ethical and moral thing to do, to offer compensation or reparation for land and houses “commandeered” from Palestinians.

Hasn’t Israel been given billions of Euros as “reparation” for the properties, in Germany and other countries, confiscated by the Nazis?

What is the difference, morally and ethically, between what the Israeli’s are doing and what the Nazis did? Both actions are actions on a spectrum – the Nazis at the appalling extreme end (10) with the Israelis round about the middle (say 4 or 5 out of 10).

Both are wrong.

It just is a matter of degree. A pardon for Sgt. Elor Azaria – would be wrong. Totally, morally and ethically, wrong.

Amended Feb 21, 2017:-

Sgt. Elor Azaria was found guilty of manslaughter for shooting dead 21-year-old Abdul Fatah al-Sharif in Hebron, in the occupied West Bank, last March and jailed for 18 months.

Amended Nov 21, 2017:-
The Israeli courts have rejected a plea for this man's pardon! Pardon! Thank God someone in Israel has the moral understanding to see that a wrong is still a wrong.

Azaria had told a colleague that Sharif, who had stabbed another soldier, "deserved to die".

An alternative view of capitalism.

Having grown up and lived all my life within a Democratic, Capitalist System I know no other and am the beneficiary of the System in many respects but this does not mean that I am blind to its faults. Not at all! As my one loyal reader has pointed out there is much in a capitalist system that creates injustice – great disparities in income between the “rich” and “poor”, for instance. And greed. While greed is certainly not confined to the capitalist system it seems to offer greater opportunities – just recall the antics of Wall Street brokers and financiers in 2008. This was just pure greed – and look what happened! Millions of people forced out of work; millions of people forced out of their homes as (greedy) banks and mortgage providers foreclosed loans.

Then there is the globalisation of Capitalism. This is where my one loyal reader is greatly puzzled. Why, he asks, should Australians, as an example, be paying more for their bread just because there have been poor wheat harvests in Russia, Ukraine and the USA forcing world wheat prices to record levels? There is (currently) no shortage of wheat in Australia. There is (currently) no drought in Australia.

I agree. Our Australian (domestic) wheat price should not be set by financiers in Chicago or where-ever.

I know I will be told that the “free market” will set the price and that it will all balance out in the end. But the thing is that the market is not “free” and it never has been. Many American farmers receive subsidies; French farmers are paid not to plant crops; the Chinese Government keeps the value of the Yuan artificially low to encourage exports; God knows what the Russians and Ukrainians do but I am sure it is not strictly legal; dumping products (selling produce at below cost) happens world-wide; subsidies and other currency manipulations are common throughout the world and distort the “free” market. So the “free market” is not free at all.  

The same argument applies to the general price of any food product. It is never that there is an actual world-wide shortage of food. It is just that we waste so much and store so much that food is not available where it is needed most – mainly sub-Saharan Africa.

Food is often stored – removed from sale – by unscrupulous (greedy) “free-marketers” who will keep the food until the price has increased to a level that they feel is appropriate. This is wrong! To withhold food from starving people because the price is not high enough is immoral, appalling and plain wrong! Food is a basic human right and should never be withheld. To withhold food because some poor people cannot pay the price demanded is obscene.

This happens in a “free market”. This is “allowed” by the Capitalist system but still does not make it “right”.

Our ego and us

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!

My freedom stops where yours begins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting.