What is God?

It's a little annoying at the beginning, but if you make it to the end it is really worth it.

The pathway to understanding

To understand any subject, one must gain the necessary breadth and depth of knowledge that usually leads to a simple, yet unfaltering conclusion - the truth.>

But there are very few absolute truths known to humanity, and so the pathway to understanding can only be obtained through the accumulation of experience derived from many a life's daily experiments, either directly or through the work of others handed down through the ages. As we progress we edge measurably closer to the truth.

The traveller on this path will naturally have an inquisitive mind. They must care deeply about the subject to set out on such an arduous journey of research. In fact, they must care so deeply that they are willing to delve into the darkest places and are prepared to discover the most shocking of truths. What if the world is not flat or riding on the back of a giant turtle?

Yet, all the while the inquirer must remain coldly objective and aware of the numerous distractions, tangents and falsehoods that will throw them off the trail and risk losing sight of the truth.

This is the essence of the pathway to understanding; to care so deeply that the desire to understand allows for the objective process of questioning/researching/knowledge to ultimately lead to new understanding.

This is what we know as empathy.

On the other hand, sympathy is the irrational attraction of two like-minded beliefs drawn together as anecdotes in a falsehood dressed up as proof; a self-destructive co-dependency of propaganda.

For you to sympathise with my experience is to merely unveil your self-indulgence or servility by attempting to relate only to some peripheral similarities between our unique and separate circumstances. Our experience is more distinctly different than your simple desire for fraternity will allow you to believe.

To show me empathy displays your humanitarian character. It respects the simple truth that you do not (and probably cannot) have the complete knowledge to understand and fully comprehend my circumstances, that you are only an observer.

Yet it also demonstrates that you care enough to seek a level of understanding, rather than assume it's ownership through some inferior thread of connectivity.

The pathway to understanding is empathy; and the truth usually resides somewhere between at least two plausible perspectives.

A New World Religion Backed by the United Nations

This article was subsequently published at Online Opinion 
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12002


The world is going barking mad with religiosity! While many of us feel that we have known this for a long time, it has always been difficult to find substantial evidence that wasn't countered by arguments of religious vilification.

However, I’m not talking about Islamic suicide bombers, Protestants vs Catholics in Ireland, the abhorrent members of Westboro Baptist Church, ‘pro-life’ radicals bombing abortion clinics, or any of the other examples of minority groups being less than good examples of the faiths they follow.

Instead, I would like to open your eyes to a new pervasive religion that is steadily growing and insidiously lurking in your community. If successful it will have a terrifying impact on the existence of life as we know it.

Regardless of your political views, spiritual beliefs, faith or lack thereof, please bear with me for a moment while I tell you a short story. Even if it sounds a bit familiar, please persevere.

This story is set on a unique world; a smallish blue-green environment with abundant vegetation and teeming with wondrous life forms on land, air and water. In this world, there is a sentient humanoid species who believe that their world has an undefinable, immeasurable and yet omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent energy force that interacts with all life forms.

This force gives them life, nourishes, teaches and provides them with all that is needed to live well and, as if they were its own children, they call this force "Mother".

They recognise that Mother is an indivisible community of diverse and interdependent beings with whom they share a common destiny and to whom they must relate in ways that benefit Mother.

However, their world is confronted by an evil that is attempting to dominate and exploit Mother and other beings. This evil is causing severe destruction, degradation and disruption of the life-sustaining communities, processes and balances of Mother which now threatens the wellbeing and existence of many beings.

They are conscious that this destruction is also harmful to their own inner wellbeing and is offensive to the many faiths, wisdom traditions and indigenous cultures for whom Mother is sacred. These clans are acutely conscious of the critical importance and urgency of taking decisive, collective action to prevent the evil enemy causing impacts on Mother that threaten the wellbeing and survival of all species.

Sound familiar? No, it isn't the plot from James Cameron's blockbuster, Avatar - but the resemblance is not a mere coincidence. While Avatar has been justifiably compared to the historical and current issues of our own world, it now seems that the lines between fantasy and reality have blurred even further.

Apart from a few tweaks for syntax, everything above in italics is a direct quote from the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, which was passed in Bolivia on 22 April 2010 at the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth and has since made its way to the plenary floor (here and here) of the United Nations.

'Mother Earth' has been transformed from a metaphoric and mythical euphemism into pseudo-scientific woo! You have not entered the Twilight Zone; you are not watching a CGI enhanced movie; this is reality and the world is about to enshrine the beliefs of a new-age religion (or a revival of ancient mysticism) into legal rights on par with those of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Now, before you retort with “it's all about protecting the environment” or label me a shill for capitalism and corporate world domination, let me correct you. For the record, I am a staunch environmentalist. I believe in, and promote the protection of landscapes, habitats and species. I readily acknowledge that human activity is essentially bad for this world and that we need to curb our greed and consumerism. You will hear no argument from me on those facts.

But, that is NOT the point of this rant. What I object to is the use of pantheistic and Gaia inspired language that, if adopted on an international level in a legal treaty, will have the effect of making "Mother Earth" the new deity of a green-religion forced onto all of Earth's citizens.

No, I am not being overly dramatic. Read the details for yourself so that you can fully comprehend the implications. It is littered with religious undertones and metaphors that have enormous legal repercussions on every human being:

"we must establish systems for governing human behavior that recognize the inalienable rights of Mother Earth and of all beings that are part of her" and

"the fundamental freedoms and rights of Mother Earth and of all beings should be protected by the rule of law, and that the corresponding duties of human beings to respect and defend these rights and freedoms should be enforced by law"

Such statements, when taken to their natural conclusion, imply that you and I cannot even dig a hole in the ground or kill a cockroach for fear of prosecution under some future law. Even cleaning your house might become illegal because of the bacterial colonies that you would destroy in the process!

This is not merely a feel-good unifying statement of our inarguable environmental responsibility as custodians of the Earth. It is a deliberately transformational credo that redefines our very existence and our relationship with all life on this planet.

All of this poppycock has stemmed from the rising groundswell of support for an environmental movement that has ceased to function as a sensible social and political force. It is now, undeniably, a zealous quasi-religious cult that wishes to impose a narrow-minded and anti-scientific view that all life is part of one universal ‘energy force’, which we are now obliged to pay homage to, for all that 'she' has done for us.

This is nothing short of irrational pandering to the fantasies of earth-worshipping, crystal-healing, indigo children. Human beings are now eagerly lining up to be the sacrificial lambs at the altar of Gaia.

This type of international politicking and pseudo law-making will do very little to improve our relationship with the environment or save many species from extinction, but it will make some people feel good as they run naked through the forest with blue birds on their shoulders and rabbits bounding at their feet singing some Disney inspired anthem. Except that the forest is likely to become a restricted area - after all, animals and plants will have a right to exist without any human interference.

This is not an isolated event to be ignored or passed off as the random act of a fringe third world nation. This has been decades in the planning and follows the inclusion of Rights for Nature into the Ecuadorian Constitution in 2008 and the United Nations' proclamation of April 22 as International Mother Earth Day, distinct from Earth Day on March 22 each year.

The UN's own website for Mother Earth Day states:

In 2009, at its Eighth Session, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues requested special rapporteurs to prepare a Study on the need to recognize and respect the rights of Mother Earth. At its Ninth Session, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues will discuss the findings of the study, as well as works toward establishing a Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.

Please note that the United Nations did not act out of mere tokenism. This is a predetermined action to meet a predefined goal and it is sanctioned and supported by the member nations of the UN. Conspiracy theories aside, there is a real agenda in play and it is supported by:

Agenda 21: an initiative of the United Nations that seeks to create a world bound by the principles of sustainable development; and

Codex Alimentarius the UN global strategy to manipulate and control agriculture, food and supplements devised in 1963 and guided by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and World Health Organisation (WHO) with the support of 184 member nations.

All of this is pointing to a future where your current life and lifestyle is marked for demolition as unreasonable restrictions are inevitably placed on the energy you consume, the food you eat, the materials you buy and even the places you are allowed to visit.

The reality for the 7 billion human inhabitants of Earth is that something needs to change; to continue on a destructive path is certainly unsustainable. On that we can agree.

But the answer is not to anthropomorphise the environment, to give rise to a crass spirituality or empower the most weirdly radical movement of the modern era. Nor is it to throw the human race into an era of reliance upon heavily regulated food production by profit-driven corporations reminiscent of the science fiction classic, Soylent Green.

The answer lies in education and self-regulation of our own consumerism. We may not be doing enough in a timely manner, but we are making changes, slowly and surely.

Faith in our ability to succeed on that pathway is far more palatable than faith in Gaia and the religiosity that surely follows.

  

A new creed

Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici

By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.

Pride risks nationalism

Something I came up with today in a discussion about national pride and nationalism:

A preoccupation with the colours, emblems or subjective values of a nation instead of the beauty of the peoples and cultures that inhabit it, is pure nationalism and we should despise it before we learn to fear it.

There's a fine line between pride and nationalism and I choose to stand as far away from that line as possible. To that end, I don't like:

• vehicles adorned with flags (as if we don't know what it looks like)
• tattoos of flags or other nationalist symbols (as if you need proof of where you were born)
• objections to the burning of flags as a valid form of protest
• anything that promotes bigotry or vilification of any kind

What do you think?

Not recommended for vegans!

Following on from my posts about killing day old chickens and the dolphin for food campaign I thought I would share this enlightening fictional perspective written by Terry Bisson.

The title is also the first line; it thus commences:


"They're made out of meat."

"Meat?"

"Meat. They're made out of meat."

"Meat?"

"There's no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."

"That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"

"They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."

"So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."

"They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."

"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."

"I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat."

Full story here

Dolphin Dilemma

Simultaneously published at Online Opinion

It is both intriguing and bewildering watching the fallout and resulting hype over the documentary The Cove which portrays animal activists, led by Flipper trainer Ric O’Barry, outing the not-so “secret” practice of dolphin fishing in Japan.

At the heart of this political campaign is the emotional bond that we have been conditioned to believe exists between dolphin and human; that somehow dolphins are more human than other animals and thus deserving of something more than what we give to other animals. On the other side is a tradition spanning thousands of years across many cultures all around the world; that dolphins are a genuine food source.

According to the campaign material on various websites in support of or directly related to the movie, the purpose of the film is to alert people to the “heinous” activity and gain support in demanding that the Japanese government ban the practice. They raise only the following few points:

• 20,000 dolphins and porpoises are killed each year in Japan;
• the way in which the dolphins are killed is "brutal";
• Japanese consumers are being sold dolphin meat;
• the meat can contain high levels of mercury; and
• the meat is often labelled as whale meat.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the aim is to prevent dolphins and porpoises from being killed (full stop) and that the other issues (the horror of death; that Japanese people are barbaric for eating dolphin meat; health and safety of consumers is at risk due to toxins; and illegal trading practices include mislabelling of seafood) are merely designed to attract a sympathetic audience from as far and wide as possible.

Subsequently, I’m not going to be drawn on debating some of these points in detail as they are simply red herrings, which I will explain shortly. My intention herein is to play Devil’s advocate by taking a philosophical look at each of the other points raised by the filmmakers to determine whether the practice of dolphin fishing is indeed as bad as they suggest.

Ultimately the question open for debate is whether dolphin meat should be available for consumption. Individual moral values aside, there are only three points to logically consider when determining whether we should eat a particular food (be it beast or plant):

1. Is the food fit for human consumption? It must be nutritious, palatable and have no ill side effects.
2. Will consumption hasten the extinction of that species or be detrimental to the population in a particular area?
3. Are the practices of bringing the food to the table the best available? Are they environmentally sound, humane, hygienic, efficient, competitive and honest?

Let’s look at these in detail for the example of dolphins and porpoises in light of the movie, The Cove. First, dolphins, whales and other cetaceans have been an integral part of the diet of numerous cultures for many thousands of years. Technically it is a nutritious and pleasant food to consume if you don't draw any conscious familiarity to Flipper. Those that are squeamish about the concept are likely to have similar issues with eating Bambi or Thumper.

Concerns about toxins, such as cadmium or mercury, are justified but are equally applicable to other seafood caught from the same waters as the dolphins. All pollution eventually reaches the oceans, so seafood has experienced increased levels of toxicity in recent decades and the developing nations of Asia are the leading culprits.

Similarly, we have examples in Australia where a cheap fish is substituted for an expensive one, such as barramundi. Labelling and toxicity are matters for the relevant agencies to address and most consumers are right to expect their food to be labelled correctly and to know that it meets health guidelines, no matter whether it was chicken or whale.

These are not issues unique to Japan or the dolphin trade and both arguments are simply red herrings. Thus, there is no gastronomic or biological reason for banning dolphin as a food item. Let’s move on.

As to the second question of extinction, my research indicates that this isn't a critical issue for dolphins like it is with, say, whales, the great cats or the orang-utans. With the exception of a few localised problems (e.g. Solomon Islands dolphin population being relatively small), global dolphin populations are quite safe. 20,000 per year may seem like a large number, but it represents about one third of a per cent (0.0033 per cent) of the world dolphin population.

“According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, there are likely more than six million dolphins worldwide. A few species are at risk of extinction, but most number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.” (National Geographic, August 2009)

In comparison, it is estimated that there are fewer than 5,000 blue whales, no more than 8,000 right whales, less than 50,000 fin whales and about only 60,000 humpback whales in existence (International Whaling Commission). But even these represent high populations when you look at the plight of the tigers with less than 7,500 worldwide with three of the eight sub-species already declared extinct (The Global Tiger Forum).

On the flipside chickens are almost exclusively farmed to meet human food needs and rarely exist in the wild. According to data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) “The world population of domestic chickens increased by 160%, from 13.5 billion in 1998 to 35 billion in 2006” (Assist America). The vast majority of these birds are killed for food every year and our growing demand ironically ensures the survival of that species, as they almost certainly could not survive in the wild. Modern cattle, swine and sheep also enjoy high populations almost exclusively to serve human needs.

It’s important to highlight some points about farming. Apart from the fact that it would be extremely difficult and expensive to "farm" dolphins, captive breeding (modern farming) isn't always good for the animal, the species or the consumer. It requires more intensive land use and is often reliant on antibiotics, pesticides and nutritional supplements. Additionally, pollutants are a common issue across most Asian seafood so if a dolphin farm was developed (like a tuna farm) it would probably exist in the same polluted waters.

To argue, as I have heard some do, that dolphins are somehow different to other animals because they are not farmed is once again another red herring. If we were to farm dolphins in the same way that we farm tuna or salmon would that make the practice more acceptable? Perhaps not for those who are deep in the heart of the moral campaign. That makes it merely a straw man argument.

So now we come to the issue of herding and culling. Is it an unavoidable fact or an inhumane brutality? Again, let’s look at it from an objective perspective. Humans are predominantly omnivores. We eat meat, therefore we must kill animals. Killing involves shock, pain and bloodshed as anyone would expect. Unfortunately it is not efficient to put every animal “to sleep” with a chemical before slaughtering it. What we all would hope is that we engage best practice in our methodology. If we discover a better way to kill a cow that doesn’t drastically increase the costs, we should employ it.

The question therefore, is not about whether the practice of herding dolphins into coves for slaughter is barbaric, brutal or inhumane. Instead it is about whether a suitable alternative exists. I have found none, but I’m open to being educated on the subject and will gladly campaign for the worldwide introduction of such methods if they exist.

DO NOT WATCH IF SQUEAMISH! - Dolphin slaughter in Japan

Currently it can take a few minutes for a dolphin to die after it is cut open and bleeds to death - the same method is used to slaughter pigs, albeit after they receive an electric shock and they are hung upside down to hasten the bloodletting. I have a feeling that electricity and water would not be a good recipe for dolphin fishing, but perhaps the hanging of the carcass would make the event swifter and ease any suffering.

There is a distinct similarity between herding cetaceans and trawling for fish, however the trawl is less efficient due to the large amount of by-catch taken. Additionally, fish can take much longer to “suffocate” out of the water, resulting in higher levels of stress than other produce.

The only other difference is the cuteness and human-like qualities we observe in the prey. Anyone who has owned pet fish, mice, birds, cats or dogs and studied their behaviour might see that dolphins are hardly unique and that it is we humans instead who have the cute animal-like qualities. Cuteness is hardly a rational argument for deciding what to eat.

In conclusion, if we have a food that is palatable, fit for consumption, honestly labelled and reaches our plate in a manner equal to that of other produce, as long as that food is from a sustainable population and not at risk of future extinction then there is no argument against it continuing to be available. Whether you choose to buy or consume it is entirely up to you.

Certainly, no adult should be forced to eat kangaroo if they don’t want to, but please don’t argue that I shouldn’t eat it because it’s cute, has feelings, isn’t humanely killed or simply because it happens to be on our coat of arms. Similarly, the arguments don’t stack up with dolphin!

At the current levels of dolphin fishing, matched against wild populations there is nothing to suggest we should stop the practice of dolphin fishing. It is simply not in the same league as whaling. However, there is clear evidence that we could improve the method of culling and that we should proceed with haste in that direction.

To those readers who might like to jump in and claim that I have skirted around or ignored the moral issues, please feel free to do so now. Your morals are your own and they should direct your life, not anyone else’s and least of all mine.

All I'm asking is that people understand why they are reacting in horror upon watching The Cove - ultimately because it’s a cute dolphin and not an ugly pig.

Ask yourself “if a dolphin farm existed (like a tuna farm), that was free from pollutants and they were slaughtered as humanely as possible - would you allow dolphin meat to be sold?” If not, why not? Can you find a single reason that isn’t purely emotional and tied to your programmed conditioning of what a cute dolphin represents?

For the record, I eat meat - I know how it gets to my plate and I'm OK with it. Most people don't want to know because knowledge means accepting responsibility.

A Brave New World

A simple, thought provoking quote from Aldous Huxley's dystopian novel, Brave New World:

"Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child's mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult's mind too - all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides - made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions... Suggestions from the State."

And one from George Orwell's 1984:

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?... Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

You can stick to your daily routine and believe that everything is under control, or you can read, think and decide otherwise!

Spiralling inwards, together

I've been intrigued by my observations as I attempt to objectively watch myself and my friends over the last few months traversing this strange existence we call life. The turmoil of love and love lost, of work and career, hefty responsibilities and high expectations.

The insurmountable pressure we place upon ourselves in order to fit into the mould that society has shaped for us is often a crazy and illogical cacophony of irrelevance and distraction.

Until today, it simply felt that we were all caught in a dark and dangerous whirlpool; a vortex that was swirling around and drawing us closer to the centre of inevitability to be engulfed and taken to oblivion ... and so we fight and struggle to move away from its awesome power.

But my realisation today is that we are fearful of a force that we do not properly understand. Instead of a foe it is, perhaps, simply trying to bring us together.

By allowing ourselves to be taken on this ride we share our vulnerability with each other and highlight that our basic desire to maintain control is unnecessary. It is not only a less strenuous pathway, it is actually enjoyable and worthwhile in developing the strong bonds of lifelong friendships.

Another valuable lesson that living in the moment and allowing oneself to simply 'be' is a very liberating and exciting state of existence.

An Obituary

Received the following in an email. The source is attributed as being an obituary published in the London Times, although the BBC attributes it to Lori Borgman. There are also a few different versions across the Internet including this more parochial one.


Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, 'Common Sense', who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouth wash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement .

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife, Discretion, his daughter, Responsibility, his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights; I Want It Now; Someone Else Is To Blame; I'm A Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realised he was gone.

If you still remember him, pass this on.

If not, join the majority and do nothing.

I am always right. Almost always

I came across a post titled I am always right. Almost always and I loved reading it because it brought home some dark truths that I grapple with consistently.

Unanswered questions like:

• When does my opposition to fundamentalism become, in itself, a form of fundamentalism?
• Can someone's freedom of expression impinge on my freedom from oppression?
• Can I maintain my integrity by compromising my position in a negotiation or debate?
  

The latter was beautifully summed up in a previous post in 2006 which quoted Liberal Democrats (UK political party) leader, Charles Kennedy as saying:

"In politics you should position yourself behind what you believe in and articulate it. Then see if that's what the voters want, and if it's not what they want, well, that's democracy."

I think we can adapt to this to a broader philosophy on life.

I have always maintained that I will never compromise my principles - my integrity is my self. Without it I am lost in a sea of expressionless and unconscious beings in a "follow me" world.

That does not mean I am fixed and rigid in my opinions and perspectives, though it may appear that way. I know that I must be open to new information and willing to adapt to the truth when it is discovered, for my principles are based solely on my knowledge and experience to date, which may well be flawed or lacking the right perspective.

One exercise that I regularly undertake, and highly recommend to everyone, is to take your beliefs, one at a time, and ask yourself simply "why do I believe this?".

Often you will find the root of your beliefs in some distant childhood memory that, when given an adult perspective, seems ludicrous, illogical or irrelevant. At that point it is time to reassess that belief in light of the present information and understanding.

Only at that moment of extraordinary capitulation can we say we have grown wiser. I look for those moments daily and embrace them with joy.

The journey of life

Human existence is such that we are forever seeking that which we do not have. This desire for a more decadent lifestyle is defined as materialism and capitalism and it is the fuel that drives our economy, pollutes our lives and is destroying the environment in which we coexist with more than 6 billion people and a billion other species.

This competitive race for greater wealth, or perceived ownership value, leaves us with a continual yearning for more. We can, therefore, never be truly happy following that spiral pathway of unfulfilled satisfaction.

It is not until we give up all such desire, to focus only on what we are and what we have within our being, that we will find true happiness. And it comes freely, at no cost to anyone, but with great benefit to ourselves and to the greater world around us.

This doesn't mean that we need to give up on our material life, our possessions or career; it means that by finding and focussing on the inner peace we will become less reliant on drawing happiness from the physical world.

As an Agnostic I'm not religious in the slightest, but a Jewish philosopher once claimed that "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven".

The truth from that analogy is that the journey to physical wealth can cloud all that which offers real happiness in the journey of life.

Clarke won't be stoppedr

Anyone willing to take an award from Fred Nile and his cronies can't expect anything but to be labelled as an extremist. Clarke is either very naive or he believes the public are stupid. Perhaps there's a bit of truth in both explanations.

Conservative MP vows not to be silenced
NineMSN/AAP, 15 Sep 2005

Conservative NSW powerbroker David Clarke has hit back at media criticism of his views on abortion and homosexuality, saying he is not going to be silenced by his critics.

Mr Clarke has also been accused in recent times by some members of his own party of being an extremist and a religious zealot.

On Wednesday night, he received an award for "Parliamentary Service" from Christian Democrat MP and morals crusader Fred Nile's Festival of Light Organisation.

Mr Clarke, a Liberal member of the NSW upper house, played a key role in Peter Debnam's rise to the NSW Liberal leadership following the resignation and subsequent apparent suicide bid by former leader John Brogden.

Mr Clarke, a supporter of the Catholic Opus Dei movement, attacked the media for reporting what he said were anonymous and false claims about him, including that he had said women who have abortions should be charged with murder and that homosexuality should be outlawed.

He said he would continue to argue for the values he believed in.

"I want to tell you good people that I'm not going to be cowed by these types," he told about 100 Festival of Light Members at Parliament House in Sydney.

"I came into parliament to speak out on issues and that's what I'm going to continue to do.

"I'm not going to be stopped, I'm not going to be slowed down, I'm just going to continue to keep going on."

Some members of the audience, which included Nationals leader Andrew Stoner and Liberal MP Malcolm Kerr, responded with comments such as "That's right," and "Amen".

Mr Clarke praised the Festival of Light, which has staged protests against the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in recent years.

"I'm going to try and live up to the good values for which the Festival of Light stands," he said.

Mr Clarke outlined his political philosophy, saying he was a conservative, pro-life and supports the Christian constitutional monarchy and Australia's current flag, but rejected claims he was an extremist.

"I find myself in the mainstream," he said.

"There's nothing extreme about that."

He also supported the rights of non-Christians and people who did not believe in God.

Anti-gay Gympie Goon

Owen ‘on his own’ on gays
07.09.2005
The Gympie Times
Story: Arthur Gorrie

RON Owen was on his own at yesterday’s weekly council meeting, quoting ancient scripture to condemn homosexuality.

He referred to Leviticus, in the Old Testament, which rails against male homosexuality, commands the faithful to wash their hands before eating, instructs on how to make a proper sacrifice (including preparation of the burnt offering), bans all statues and recommends death by stoning for anyone who swears.

Silenced several times as he tried to expand on his views, Cr Owen also was blocked from reading a prayer in which it was claimed that legislators had “ridiculed the word of God and called it pluralism”.

Councillors backed away from a motion by Mayor Mick Venardos to refer Cr Owen’s remarks to the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commission, but adopted one to disassociate council from the comments.

Cr Owen made headlines last month with his claims that gays are not human and have only the right to die.

Unrepentent yesterday, he said he had been telling the truth about his views and stood by them.

He claimed the support of ancient texts underlying Christianity, saying the same
religious laws had supported Judaism for 3500 years and applied within Islam.

Supported by Cr Bill McIntyre, Mayor Mick Venardos told the meeting that Cr Owen’s remarks were so offensive they should be referred to the Anti-Discrimination Commission.

Cr Owen responded: “If you don’t stand for something, you fall for everything.

“I presume I am at liberty to complain also,” he said.

“Do we throw away the Christian philosophy that has enlightened continents from tribalism to modern civilisation?

“Do we condemn the Torah, which has sustained the Jewish religion for 3500 years?

“Do we denounce the Koran which informs the Muslim faith? “If I am to be condemned for the crime of telling the truth then I am guilty,” he said.

Accusing Cr Owen of selective quoting, Cr Ian Petersen referred to an anonymous scholar who said: “The Devil himself can quote Scripture to his advantage.”

Calling Cr Owen’s opinions “jaundiced and intolerant,” he said: “This raving brings council into disrepute.

“I’m not about to sit here and be smote about the head by scripture,” he said.

Cr Wayne Sachs short-circuited the complaint motion, persuading several councillors that this was not a necessary part of council disassociating itself from Cr Owen’s views.

“We should move on. This does not have to go anywhere,” he said.

Cr Petersen said he took that point but thought the authors of two protest letters to the council probably would make complaints.

Priorities

I've been taking care of some important stuff in my life. Unfortunately, this blog wasn't on that list. Thanks to those who have enquired as where I've been and even "demanded" (or else!!) that I get back on here :-)

Here's something that I found in my inbox recently - it pretty much sums up what I've been working with lately. I hope you get something out of it too.

A professor stood before his philosophy class and had some items in front of him. When the class began, wordlessly, he picked up a very large and empty mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with golf balls.

He then asked the students if the jar was full. They agreed that it was.

The professor then picked up a box of pebbles and poured them into the jar. He shook the jar lightly. The pebbles rolled into the open areas between the golf balls. He then asked the students again if the jar was full. They agreed it was.

The professor next picked up a box of sand and poured it into the jar.

Of course, the sand filled up everything else. He asked once more if the jar was full. The students responded with a unanimous "yes."

The professor then produced two cups of coffee from under the table and poured the entire contents into the jar, effectively filling the empty space between the sand. The students laughed.

"Now," said the professor, as the laughter subsided, "I want you to recognize that this jar represents your life. The golf balls are the important things -- your God, your family, your children, your health, your friends, and your favorite passions -- things that if everything else was lost and only they remained, your life would still be full.

The pebbles are the other things that matter like your job, your house, and your car. The sand is everything else -- the small stuff. "If you put the sand into the jar first," he continued, "there is no room for the pebbles or the golf balls. The same goes for life. If you spend all your time and energy on the small stuff, you will never have room for the things that are important to you. Pay attention to the things that are critical to your happiness. Play with your children. Take time to get medical checkups. Take your partner out to dinner. Play another 18.

There will always be time to clean the house and fix the disposal.

Take care of the golf balls first -- the things that really matter. Set your priorities. The rest is just sand."

One of the students raised her hand and inquired what the coffee represented. The professor smiled. "I'm glad you asked. It just goes to show you that no matter how full your life may seem, there's always room for a couple of cups of coffee with a friend."

It's Maslow, stupid!

It takes a rare piece of journalism or opinion to make me stand back, reassess my own attitudes and finally to change my stance.

This piece in The Age today, does just that.

What Australian and US voters now crave

The Age - November 11, 2004

The left has failed to recognise society's need for a sense of social and moral order, writes Gregory Hywood.

But I'm going to take it further than the author does. It is more than just morality being sought, it is the wider umbrella of safety and security - the need to be protected.

It is clear to me now that we (the libertarian progressive left) have been going about the last few months (years even) with our heads stuck so far up our arse that we couldn't see what was really changing in Australia, let alone the rest of the world.

I'm not saying that we are wrong, just that we need to rethink the issues that are important to voters. I think Abraham Maslow might have the answer.

When an economy is doing well (as has the USA and Australia) basic needs, such as food, water, sleep etc, are mostly met and few want for much. Such is the first level of Maslow's "hierarchy of needs" - the physiological.

The next concern is that of safety. We desire the need for a secure home and a family. Refugees stuck in a detention centre are clear examples of those who desire this basic need. But middle Australia also, in its own way are being failed at this basic level, because national security and moral grounding are also tenets of safety.

When both physiological and safety needs are met, we tend to aim for love or inclusion - we need to feel we belong. That is part of the reason for creating a family. It is also why people joing sports clubs, community organisations and churches.

After that is met we focus on our esteem and we seek to improve this by the clothes we wear, the car we drive, the house we live in, the job we have. The luxuries in life that tell society "what and who we are". We give ourselves status.

Finally, if we can ever fulfil those four needs we can then seek 'self-actualisation'. We seek to improve ourselves, not by physical stuff but mentally and spiritually. Self-fulfilment, peace, knowledge etc.

It is becoming clear to me that the stereotypical "leftie" is predominantly coming from a higher level on Maslow's hierarchy. We are campaigning for how WE want the world to be by fighting for human rights and debating high-brow issues like stem-cell research and the war in Iraq. We are the Chardonnay set.

However, middle-Australia (as with the majority middle in the USA) are still scrambling to meet their needs for safety and belongingness. Quite often they are trying to aim for esteem needs (by purchasing plasma screens with surround sound) in the hope that it will fill the other hole in their life. But they are ahead of themselves. They turn to materialism because they cannot answer the need for safety and security for their family.

They are so hocked up (average debt is 140% of the average Australian's income compared with 50% two decades ago) that if interest rates rise by 1/4 of a point they will need to work an extra shift to pay for it.

These people, the majority of voters, do not care that Howard lies, as long as he keeps the economy safe. They've had enough of saving the trees and the rivers, they want someone to keep interest rates low and employment high. They have no need to understand the plight of refugees or the Sudanese because they are rightly concerned about their own plight. Charity must begin at home.

So how do we, the high and mighty lefties turn the focus from our pet projects (war, free trade agreements, old growth forests, medicare gold, gay rights, Telstra, ABC funding, etc) and towards the things that matter to THEM?

It's their sense of security, stupid!

Until all those millions of middle-Australia voters feel secure enough with their lot to comfortably move onto the esteem train, or even the self-actualization shuttle, we will be fighting a lost cause campaigning for the esoteric, the altruistic and the utopian.

The reason that we had the human rights boom of the 50's and 60's is precisely because the economy was sound and families were not under financial pressure. They had the time, the money and the desire to move past esteem-building and into promoting self-actualisation.

At the moment we are trying to pull down the upper-class in order to
haul the lower class up Maslow's ladder - over top of the middle
class, even! If instead we choose to help middle-Australia to move
beyond their safety-net concerns, they will undoubtedly turn around
and assist the lower class to move up.

How do we do it? I'm honestly not sure. But sitting in our ivory towers drinking Chardonnay and discussing the rights and wrongs of the world ain't cuttin' the mustard.

We need to be forming progressive economic policy that can be implemented step by step. E.g. While a Tobin tax is a great idea we need to realise that it isn't going to happen soon. However, income splitting is plausible and possible. An overhaul of the tax brackets to link them with CPI is a valid proposal. But these are just some of the ideas that need to be promoted and they require strong campaigns.

As much as I despise the religious right, I must admit that Family First seem to be on the right track. Their policies are in line with the strategy I've outlined above. They are off the blocks and racing ahead while we are left scratching our heads and wondering why everyone has shifted to the right.

They haven't! They've just voted for the people that are listening. We've stopped listening because we are spending too much time preaching about the things that DON'T matter (at the moment) to the average Australian. Us lefties are simply ahead of schedule in being too progressive for the issues that are not high priority and we've forgotten what really matters to the voters that count.

It reminds me of a human resource philosophy I learned many years ago ... a happy employee is an effective employee. If an employee is having trouble paying the mortgage, it will reflect in their work and they are less likely to be enthusiastic, effective or charitable to colleagues that may need help.

The same goes for voters - the Australian public. A happy Australian will be more enthusiastic, more effective in their work and home life and more likely to take an interest in current affairs, social issues and the plight of those less fortunate.

To that end, I'm making a big commitment to focus my energies on assisting the necessary reforms to shift mainstream Australia out of the safety mindset and into the esteem and self-actualisation phases. That can only be achieved by focussing my energy on domestic issues, especially pertaining to the economy.

I'm basing that strategy on the hope that once in these higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy, Australians will be content to support the greater causes in life. I could be wrong, but I'm hoping I'm right.




[+/-] show/hide this post

Family First success rests with Democrats and ALP

It is no shock or surprise to many people (other than the Democrats and ALP) that Family First are close to winning at least one seat.

I hope that I will lose my bet with WA Democrats Senator, Brian Greig, and that FF do not obtain a single seat. But regardless of the outcome I believe that the fears that I, and many others, raised have rung too true. We are, unfortunately, vindicated.

The Democrats and the ALP should be suitably ashamed. I note that many ALP members have noted their mistake. The Democrats, especially Andrew Bartlett, remain ludicrously defiant.

It is all well and good to preference minor parties ahead of the ALP and Libs for the sake of self-preservation and support for democracy (in encouraging wider representation), but a degree of sensibility should have prevailed. It didn't.

The only way that One Nation were thwarted was through preferences. The only way that Family First can be defeated is by the same mechanism.

The Democrats and ALP were caught up in their own self-interest and refused to heed the many warnings that Family First would be a significant force. The Democrats clearly were ignorant of their own political demise (something I have been warning about for more than three years, and fighting against up until the end of last year) and the abilities of Family First.

However, I am also beginning to see the silver lining on these dark clouds.

With the conservatives having control of both houses Australia will face a certain political shift away from small 'l' liberal philosophy. I hope that, in turn, it results in the true liberals and lefties combining forces to oppose the conservatives.

That means nothing less than a multitude of miracles.

1. The Dems and Greens cease their idiotic divisiveness and tit-for-tat rivalry.
   
2. The Dems can regroup and, after much soul-searching, return to its strong principles and re-engage with its disaffected membership and supporters. (I'm ready if they are)
   
3. The ALP realise the better judgement of supporting a left-leaning base, rather than flirting with religion for short-term benefits.
   
4. All three parties learn and commit to support each other over the next three years with the express purpose of regaining control of at least one house of parliament, if not two.
   

These minor miracles are going to rest heavily on the Democrats. They need to shape up or face being shipped out, in 3 years time, to a desert island by way of a political 'Pacific solution'.

It isn't too late for the Democrats and it isn't too late for our community to fix the problems that have led to this predictable disaster.

I'm predicting a massive grass-roots revolution on the left to counter Australia's flirt with a conservative theocracy. Which party(ies) will be the beacon(s) of light through this new political phase? I dare say the Greens will be one. I hope that the Democrats and ALP will also heed this new call.

[+/-] show/hide this post

Societal or Legislative Change?

THE FOLLOWING WAS FIRST PUBLISHED IN A EMAIL DISCUSSION FORUM AND PICKED UP BY VICTORIA'S "BNEWS" MAGAZINE

CHANGE in societal attitude vs CHANGE in legislation ... the question of the chicken or the egg?


by Collin Mullane

I could write a thesis on the principle of change. It is something we mortals are faced with repetitively and yet most of us cannot easily cope with its process. Many of us despise it, while at the same time desiring its benefits.

The change in attitude we seek from society needs to start with ourselves. Charity (and change) as they say, begins at home.

If the G&L community continues to discriminate, ignore or even ostracise bisexual, transgender, transsexual or intersex people then how is it possible for those groups to gain respect and visibility within the wider society.

I can cite many examples where the G&L community has done the above either accidentally or deliberately. It still does. And it isn't just non-G&L people that get the brunt of the attack. I am floored at the number of times I have heard gay men (some well respected community leaders too) say hateful or disrespectful things about lesbians and vice versa. A few years ago I may have been one of the guilty. Undoubtedly, this attitude is caused by ignorance or insecurity (of what I'm not sure).

The bickering and in-fighting that I have witnessed within the GLBTIQ community in the last 12 months, at least here in WA, is atrocious. The gay vs lesbian debates over the collapse of Mardi Gras (not to mention their anti-bisexual policies) were not pleasant either.

If there is one thing of which I am certain, it is that we do not (and will not) have a "community" until such time as we accept and completely adopt the three principles of diversity, respect and equality.

No exceptions. No Exclusions. No disclaimers.

Any argument against this philosophy is just bigotry in one form or another.

"Change will only occur when the pain of change is less than the pain of staying the same."

[+/-] show/hide this post

Glass - half full or half empty?

I was thinking about the glass half-full or half-empty paradigm. It occurred to me that perhaps it doesn't matter whether one sees it as half-full or half-empty. The key is in the choice we make in dealing with that situation.

Some people will feel the need to conserve and protect the status quo to minimise further loss. i.e. this is the glass we have, its our glass and regardless of whether the liquid is no longer at optimum temperature, has lost its fizz, gone stale or otherwise tastes awful it is still half a glass and its our glass!

I'm inclined to realise the limitations of a half-full (or half-empty) glass and take action to replenish the glass - i.e. change must occur by topping up the current glass or getting a new full glass to replace it - perhaps even a bigger glass, or one that is better designed for our purpose.

I have a favourite saying that I live by - "Change will only occur when the pain of change is less than than the pain of staying the same."

That is my philosophy lesson for today.

Cheers! *hic*

Gender Wars & Myths

I understand the Black-shirts "moral" (not that I think it warrants being called moral in my books) stance on the preservation of the family. But even though I understand it, I do not agree with it, hence my reason for stating that I abhor their philosophy.

I also understand the stereotypes of the 'bad husband' and the perpetuation of that myth, when it may be a 'bad wife' but in all reality is usually just a bad marriage. I will add that I am not in anyway saying that there are not spouses that abuse their partners - but women can be just as abusive in a relationship. Emotional abuse is not so easily spotted as a broken bone or bruises, but is just as evil.

Myths: If a man leaves his family he was probably a bad father, couldn't produce kids, wouldn't support the family (after all - that's a man's purpose in life!), had an affair or bashed his wife. If a woman leaves her family, she must have had a horrendous experience (especially to leave her kids behind), was bashed by the husband, found true love elsewhere or realised the terrible mistake she made by marrying 'that man'. Quite frankly there is more empathy given to women in a separation/divorce than is given to the men.

The Family Court process has a history of being more beneficial to the female partner, although this is changing significantly as more men decide to challenge for access, custody or property distribution.

So ... the scales are weighted differently depending upon the nature of the issue, whether you are male or female, and which perspective you take at the time.

[+/-] show/hide this post