SATURDAY 31st MAY 2014 [daily snapshots]
ON DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE END OF LIFE
These are indeed difficult situations. Rebecca Ley’s view, contrasting with Ian Botham’s view.
First, full marks to those who choose caring as a career and are able to do it with the professional competence we believe we are paying for, when we are not there to objectively observe. I know it is not something I could do.
Second, all three have perfectly valid viewpoints. [the third viewpoint is quoted from an Fb page: “Vàna Rúndóttir Moving. But not very helpful. Such cases as this can change the lives of those who love the dementia sufferers in terrible and perhaps unimaginable ways. I think it is wrong to say that someone is a coward for not being able to face the agony of seeing someone you love like that. Perhaps those who have lost their minds suffer less, if their memory has deteriorated so much that perhaps they can't even remember their own suffering, whereas the visitors may be constantly preoccupied with the loss and discomfort and pain suffered by their beloved. Everyone has to get on with their own lives in the best way they can, and ultimately everyone is alone in their journey to death. People do what they can, and cope however they are able. We should not judge anyone for being less 'strong', more 'cowardly', more or less 'loving' than we can be ourselves, because we don't know what goes on in anyone's minds, not only those suffering from forms of dementia.” The original posted by Ali Beauchamp]
My viewpoint is going to come over as crass by comparison but I make it in the context of the wider whole and that wider whole includes the sweep of history. Historically, people simply would not have lasted so long and although there would have been similar scenes but for not so long, they could not have been coped with as well as they, on average, are coped with today, nor as pleasantly.
The reality is that many of us are lasting longer than our allotted time and we are simply not built physically or mentally to cope with the extended period. The brutal fact is that we treat our animals with a greater sense of dignity than we do our own human kind. Think of the early developments with poliomyelitis; of thalidomide; of those devastated by war injuries; then think of the paralympics. Triumph over disaster: people, half of what I am, proving themselves more capable than I have ever been. Think of children who do and do not overcome the seemingly impossible.
There are two reasons. The mental make-up that simply says, "sod it I WILL.": the physical composition of the biochemistry contained within the bag that is a body; from which, arguably, the spirit to fight is or is not derived. See then in the, "years completed", life in the context of expectation of length of life and in what condition.
Turn then to religion. Let us take 2,000 years. No religion actually believes in what it claims to believe in, that life is a God created world and the world God created is in a continual state of change. That last bit, religion chooses to ignore. This is not the same world that manifested itself 2,000 years ago, either in fact or our understanding of it. Our knowledge of that world and the present day is seen through gained knowledge; more perceptive understanding; realisation of an even greater responsibility; faced with confidence gained to accept and handle the world He created with an added sense of responsibility and accountability.
It is time to be responsible and accept accountability. Less than half UK adults have not made a will. An elementary basic essential requirement for anyone over 18. Part of that Will must be (and English law must change to accommodate these things): how you wish your body to be disposed off; how you want your life to be led should you be placed in a position when you can no longer control your own management of it, or manage those forced to manage it for you; what criteria should determine if you are no longer going to improve or manage a life-style you determine is acceptable; how, when and by what criteria, you wish your life to be ended.
In determining these "end of life" criteria you must not place any obligation upon anyone, save those professional services that would expect to be called in and are there for those purposes. In this and ONLY IN these ways, do you comply with the obligation you took upon yourself, when you chose to be born into this continuum of time. This Creation in which we find ourselves includes: conscience; rationality; objectivity as well as the other recognised attributes of human living. These are the aspects of a God-created universe religion chooses to ignore. Religions' concepts MUST be challenged. There is no excuse for a male only God. There is no reason a woman may not be a priest. There is no rationality in today's state of God's Creation, as religion would determine, for men to be in charge rather than working in harness with women as equal partners.
Any argument contradicting this "thesis" has but one answer. It is a simple one word answer but through politeness I will express that one word as two: spherical objects!
FRIDAY 30th MAY 2014 [daily snapshots]
The smugness of a treacherous, self-congratulatory traitor to his people and his country, freely broadcast across the world's media is both a triumpoh of what the free world is all about but also an example of how great an institution can be so easily foiled through its complete openness. This continual self-criticism in the modern secular world is akin to past religious concepts of public confession, contrition and redemption. Snowden, who deliberately set himself upon his own path of ego has yet to show any sign of contrition and clearly lacks the manhood to face his sentence.
THURSDAY 29th MAY 2014 [daily snapshots]
MURDER IS THE PUBLIC DECLARATION OF A DISHONOURABLE FAMILY, DISGRACEFUL AND INADEQUATE MEN AND THE WILFUL IRRESPONSIBILITY OF RELIGION
There is not any circumstance of "honour killing". It is appalling that without the protection of English law Pakistan has made such a pig's ear of public order. The stoning to death of a 25 years old woman and her unborn child is wilful incitement to world public disorder. There is NO reason ever for murder. Apparently it is because the daughter upset her father. A matter of complete irrelevance. She was a mature person and fully entitled to her own opinion in all matters relating to her life.
The complexity of world opinions complicated by irresponsible interpretations of diverse religions means we have now reached that point when secularity must rule supreme and bring religions to heel. All religions must be made to recognise the reality of the plane of existence in which we are currently encased and apply laws of sense and sensibility applicable to that state of physical reality. Religions of various sorts do nothing but cause mayhem by their adherents being unable to agree amongst themselves what it is they believe in. Until then, secularism and elementary common sense and common decency for all living creatures must hold sway and over-rule all.
WEDNESDAY 28th MAY 2014 [daily snapshots]
IRRESPONSIBILITY OF RELIGION
WILL EUROPE AT LAST WAKE UP?
Miliband floundering in Thurrock. "No" to Europe is NOT being insular or running away it is dealing with the reality into which Europe has sucked us. Being as we were is a global entity, the centre hub of a commonwealth of 53 nations across the world. Europe is Euro-centric, bothered about bits of paper instead of simply and straight forwardly getting on with the job in hand and looking outwards. That is our style, getting on with living and working, not waffling and putting up reasons why something can't be done. We get on and do, globally and it is globally we have to look at all our futures.
Baroness Williams so correctly laid out why the LibDems are being as daft as the proverbial lavatory brush in pushing Nick Clegg out. He is the one man who ensured we had sound government in the face of Labour's sheer turmoil and bankruptcy with which they left us. LibDem females have been a travesty of the abilities of real women elsewhere in the political world, they just can't hack it so they whine... and whine against the very man who got the LibDems established in government. Such ingratitude, such witlessness. It is the same witlessness that determines the LibDems will only see their view of the world and totally discount anything contradictory to their own interpretation of how things should be. In this, Clegg has a grasp of the situation but evades the immediacy of the moment by insisting things stay as they are rather than saying the EU must change. In this Farage, with others in Europe may provide the background before which such change may happen--or show the EU's intransigence, demanding our withdrawal.
Cameron is what we should be: flexible, adaptable, malleable. More importantly, he remembers Churchill, who insisted on presenting the British people with the stark truth in a moment of crisis: "We have experienced an absolutely catastrophic defeat." From that point on we went on to win WWII.
Until now every politician has gone out of their way to tell us "You're a bunch of no bodies to whom we will not trust the future of your own nation. Why has Labour lost its confidence in the British people. Why have they all failed to present us with both sides of the argument, necessary to present a referendum? What is it we still don't know and they don't want to tell us? Clearly, something does not add up.
All religions are sequential methods of mind control and man management.
TUESDAY 27th MAY 2014 [daily snapshots]
THE RIGHT TO FREE LEGAL AID
It was interesting finding an article in the London Evening Standard by Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court that the use of "hourly cost rates" encouraged inefficiency or worse and was having a malign impact, with some lawyers stringing out work to a surprising extent.
So we now know the government's determination to reduce legal costs is founded on sound business competence. These comments concur with the recommendations of Lord Justice Jackson who reported in 2010 that a "costs council" should be established to recommend appropriate charging levels. Now apparently in hand. This raises the question as to the correctness of various recent "strikes" of lawyers to raise awareness of their exorbitant and often unjustifiable costs. When this country starts to earn its keep the first thing to spend our money on is to support those forced into using lawyers to defend themselves, unless they are accused of criminal acts against the public good. There must be equality of finance before the law as urgently as possible.
A woman, forced into prostitution and managing to lead police into successfully prosecuting three women who had abused her to more than three years in prison is being forced into deportation, whilst the convicted women, now having served their sentences are to be allowed to stay! This clearly is wrong.
THIS EU THING
Boris believes the UK should go it alone if EU talks with China breakdown. The EU wants to place tariffs on China products. Ridiculous. Free trade always. There seems confidence in financial markets that we can cope in or out but 'yes' there would be a disappointment in having to say we must do without Europe.
Meanwhile, the LibDems persist in further confirming the complete and utter muddle they are in. The other night a LibDem MP declared he had no opinion of his own until he had consulted with others to know what his opinion was. Nick Clegg is advised members want him to resign but he will not take notice of other people's opinions, so he will exercise his own judgement and carry on. So much for democracy, a democracy they believe in for themselves (but ignore when the answer is inconvenient) but which they are determined NOT to offer the British people. "We are right" that's why we will not support a referendum. That's why they have lost so much over the last few days: it is everyone else's fault but theirs. This is sheer witlessness.
It is the EU that has problems with globalisation not the UK, that has always been global.
MONDAY 26th MAY 2014 [daily snapshots]
THE MESSAGE STILL NOT GETTING THROUGH
I am a palled that even now those who don't want to get it still don't get it. LibDems don't think their message is being heard. It is we the people who are giving the message to the LibDems and it is the LibDems who are refusing to hear it. The message is that we, the people will not allow our permanent submission to the authoritarian arrogance of sheer incompetence that is the European Union as currently and utterly irresponsibly created. These "average" LibDems are so incredibly stupid they cannot see beyond the twaddle they have been perpetuating through all these past years in direct defiance of the message people wish to hear, that we in England WILL, WILL, WILL run England, not a bunch of foreign fools who simply do not understand the nature of basic government. The turning onto Nick Clegg is solely because they cannot stomach the reality that all this time they have all been so utterly wrong.
Ed Miliband is simply foxed, he hasn't a clue as to what to do and as a result he suggests he goes back to what Labour did: created the very situation in which the Tories are trying to dig us out, attempting to divert attention to Britain, away from the disaster that is the EU.
The sheer banality of the LibDems is exemplified in their behaviours. Last night one of their MPs said he did not know what his view was until he had heard the opinions of his constituency party and only then would he know what to think. This determination to hear all views before forming a view is specifically what the LibDems denied the British people, determinedly pushing their interpretation of things regardless of the opinions given to them from outside the party. That is the fundamental trap the LibDems have set for themselves and are so bewildered now things are not going their way, they really are totally lost in a world they did not create—the world of reality as life actually is!
SUNDAY 25th MAY 2014 [daily snapshots]
ON CRITICISM AND "AUTHORITY"
I am absolutely astounded that major, national UK broadsheets (even if they do provide tabloid versions) are so tight on budget that they cannot afford to pay proper rates to accomplished and knowledgeable arts critics: or that purported qualified opera critics are so arrogant in thrusting their opinions they wish to draw particular attention to themselves, rather than the production they have been paid by their newspapers to cast judgement upon, eagerly demonstrating they do not understand the basis of the very art on which they are there to sit in judgment.
I recall an absolute furore being created in New Zealand by a Professor of Music at one of New Zealand's universities, slamming one of New Zealand's most famous singers for the concert on which he had been paid to sit in judgment. He may not have liked the singer. He may not have liked her performance (his main complaint being that she delivered as she usually did), fine. He is entitled to rubbish her performance with justification but he is not entitled to rubbish her performance without objective reasoning and to then leave out the fact that the entire audience, which had paid premium prices had three times given that artist a standing ovation! That is how you recoup the cost of a performance, you deliver what the public want to hear. His asininity was so declaimed by both islands of New Zealand that the newspaper actually had to apologise for creating such mayhem! If he had only reported that the audience that had paid had loved the whole evening but to have reported that truth would immediately have completely invalidated everything he wrote, to simply saying, "I don't like it but the audience did. That would have been professionally qualified honest criticism. It would also have shown him up for the absolute idiot he clearly is.
This is apposite on a personal level. I recently congratulated a family member on achieving their doctorate in their speciality. Jokingly he said, "From now on I shall expect greater respect." Of course, a higher degree is always indicative of a greater authority but doctors and professors have been known to argue with one another. In religion, Islam is riddled with divergent "authoritative" opinions, as has Christendom been so riddled and divided. Politics bring in their divergent specialists. Medical doctors have been known to kill their patients: through carelessness; damned fool pigheaded stupidity; or themselves being mentally ill on which their own practice partners have failed to notice the symptoms.
Unless backed by the validity of the argument a higher degree in itself is meaningless. In the current furore it appears that critics published in authoritative newspapers thought an actress wasn't the right shape to be convincing as passing herself off as a man, which is what Der Rosenkavalier requires (amongst other things but lets keep it simple)!
appears that it has never occurred to any of these critics that opera has never been kitchen sink drama, intending to portray realism. People are there to hear music and song in the context of a contrived artifice to express musical art. In order to sing opera the singer does not have a microphone, unlike many concert delivery singers. In opera, the orchestra is in front of them creating a volume of sound between them and the audience over which or through, a singer has to project their voice.
This requires one damned fine set of bellows, requiring not only the ability to deliver volume but also the ability to store air for prolonged passages of music and to control the output through fine diaphram control of well developed chest muscles. Rarely is this achieved in a body of slender finesse. More significantly, if the argument (which in my view is completely irrelevant to the artist's ability to sing) is for reality, then the reality is that there is a large number of short, squat, fat men who are simply repulsive. Where on earth is the problem? Sheer witlessness.
FRIDAY 23rd MAY 2014 [daily snapshots]
THE AFTERMATH: THEN WHAT?
Interesting early responses. Sir Malcolm Bruce, deputy Leader of the LibDems and Michael Gove (Tory) have made sensible responses to interviews I've watched. For the first time for a long time, established parties responded seriously and rationally, accepting their defeats as matters highlighting their need to take the arguments behind UKIP seriously. Graham Skinner (Labour, Salford) hit the nail firmly on the head, Miliband and leadership generally had been caught floundering out of their depth.
I had earlier declared my intention to vote UKIP but then, as the morning approached, the thought "Do not cut off your nose to spite your face." was prominent, the argument for UKIP is by no means as simple as it simplistically seems. I really did not know which way I was going to vote until I was in the booth. The list was interesting and one or two entries made me chuckle out loud. Tory, LibDems, Labour. Not one of those three had made any attempt to advise me of a member of which I was already aware. Apart from UKIP I did not recall a single piece of paper from any of them and not one of them had advised me of what they had actually done regarding Europe. Even now, they are all retrospectively waffling about immigration: what the UKIP declaration is all about is bringing the EU to heel and they all know it, which is why they are talking about anything OTHER than that. They still haven't got it. Understandably, my cross was by UKIP.
Talking of fruitcakes, Labour apparently ran round the town chanting "We'll keep the red flag flying here.." having won control of Amber Valley council for the first time in forty years. That is the reality of the Labour Party, as daft as when they supported Scargill and the miners. Totally out of touch with any form of reality.
Balls floundering hopelessly out of his depth advising what Labour will do in the future, countering exactly what they did in the past. So they are now accepting they were wrong, where is their claim as to what they intend to get right this time?
However, in Walsall a UKIP voter interviewed, inadvertently, by stating why he voted UKIP, actually stated the failure of all three established parties. He felt immigrants were taking 'our' jobs. Unless there is a specific reason, the logical reason is that our own people are not up to the standard required to fill them. That would imply a failing of our state education system, highlighting how wrong the teaching unions are to oppose government changes geared to improving education's ability to deliver employable people. Jobs to foreigners can only be because our own people are simply not up to the job. Who taught them? Labour/socialist-orientated teachers who believe striking is a good way to teach pupils how to conduct themselves and for heaven's sake don't take part in competitive sports, that's disruptive and means someone has to win and others lose. We are automatically all winners by not competing, I wonder if that is why our own workers have difficulty in displacing foreigners from taking their potential jobs.
On removing factual history from the internet
The same principles apply to secularism as to any form of religion: one is and if one conducts oneself as one wishes one had not, who's to blame? Always behave in a manner that will not shame you (in the context in which whatever it was was committed) so where could history be a problem?
Claiming to be a Christian is to acknowledge one's accountability for being who one is, where's the problem?
Should assisted dying be legal
Of course assisted dying should be legal. Allowing for due care that the individual is compos mentis, or has signed an assurance to that effect when they were compos mentis, why keep them living when they are no longer medically capable of living the life to which they are accustomed or wish to maintain were they able so to do?
Fracking is a very difficult problem in land that is without question beautiful and the essence of what England is all about. However, we had the same problems with the Acts to get the canals duPolics the on g and then the railways laid. Despite these fights, Tring is just one of several places where the town's station is specifically located to be inconvenient to the town and its people--it is in the middle of fields a mile and a half outside the town. Why? Because Lord Brownlow, who owned the land around the town would not allow the railway on his land. He did, however, defer to local opinion sufficiently to sell off a corner of his estate on the road to the station to a certain Mr Williams, ancestor to Dorian Williams OBE, which became Pendley Manor.
Today, much of Beeching's decimisation of the rail network is being deplored because of the extraordinary short-sightedness of Beeching's era to understand how transport needs would change and the railways would need to be turned into tramways, now made impossible. To fight fracking without serious and careful consideration would be a most singular folly.
THE POLICE FEDERATION
This supporter in the BBC Herbert and Kirkham debate on the Police Federation most emphatically explains, by just being there, why the Home Secretary Teresa May is absolutely right. Only the dead ends are union officials and union officials in normal unions can only claim expenses incurred: not a salary and certainly not paid by us taxpayers.
It is just typical of the Labour Party that it chose to give over £3million during its term in office to the Police Federation and then borrow money from international capitalists, paying them interest rather than giving money in an organised manner to the country's poor who needed the handouts. Mostly because the Labour party did not understand basic economics.
The Police Federation NEVER deserved the handouts, in view of the exorbitant resources they fleeced from their members who were forced to be members rather than membership being their choice, as to whether or not they wished to belong, let alone needing handouts from the taxpayer. That is the reality of Labour's idea of social justice.
EU ELECTIONS THURSDAY 22ND
Clegg missing the point again saying it isn't unpatriotic to be pro-european. I wasn't aware anyone had said it was. What is unpatriotic is not allowing the voters to vote on whether they wish to be ruled by an entity outside their own country and which should be allowed to tax us without our control over the purpose or amount.
Tuesday's Daily Mail's Littlejohn holds the same opinion I do, VOTE UKIP.
WEDNESDAY 21st MAY 2014 [daily snapshots]
RELIGION IS NO LONGER PERSONAL: INDIVIDUAL PROCLIVITIES MUST BE SEEN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE OF SECULAR LAW
FGM is currently being debated on Channel 4 but it is only one aspect of the wilful arrogance of religionists' belief in their particular concepts of the nature of an entity called "God",
through which they must thrust their opinions on everyone else. There is only one possible response and that unequivocally must be "up yours, no way!" Three aspects of Creation are inviable and they over-ride all else. Creation is in a continual state of change, to deny that fact is simply asinine; rationality is a part of Creation; we are in a physical biochemical world; that spirituality exists is a presumption that history and diverse reportage lends sufficient evidence as to be regarded seriously.
For whatever reason, we are in this physical reality and we have a duty of care, through elementary common sense, to make our state of living as practical and pleasant as we can. This means there is no rational argument about bringing to heel certain attitudes and practices that are without equivocation unacceptable. These are such issues as: unequivocal social equality across the sexes; governments that respect the rights of the individual and that they are servants to the taxpayer, something of which the EU is in wilful direct defiance.
The issue for now is the EU. All UK political parties have directly and deliberately decided we should not be asked if we want to be governed by an entity outside of the UK but for which the UK is expected to pay the costs without the power to alter the annual financial demands. That is that time NOW. Get as many parties unequivocally anti-the EU into the EU now, so it is without question we will not any longer tolerate this unacceptable form of diktat. Then we can review what needs to be done.
Papers are clearly empty for news. Prince Charles is still heir apparent, so his role is precisely to comment as he considers appropriate. Only as king does he have the burden of watching what he says to whom. In any case this situation was clearly a private not a public conversation. Regarding the accuracy of his comment that Putin was Hitlerian there is no denial the observation is valid. Where's the problem?
In the statements that Putin lost family through Hitler, one needs to remember that the Royal Family lost members due to the Russian Revolution, wilfully executed. Keep it balanced.
TUESDAY 20th MAY 2014 [daily snapshots]
From my Facebook page at breakfast this morning
Good morning world. One P Such Esq of the town of Great Berkhamsted, in the shire of Hertford (at the other end of the county), in the realm of England, whose natural influence by default is worldwide, is in one of his "Oh Sod it!" modes, in which contradictions and irrelevancies float in the sweet harmony of total discordance. Who was that who mumbled, "all as per usual then!"?
It is routine "annual check up time", requiring a fasting blood leach. Consequently, a pleasant meander further up the hill between multimillion pound homes, onto the by-pass; out across the fields to a full English breakfast at the Crow's Nest, where I was seated with an uninterrupted view across the Aylesbury Vale, where the late May sunshine of summer intensity opened the eyes to the detailed richness around me.
I had collected only two newspapers at the petrol station on my way to the surgery, as they seemed to contain the diversity of this morning's (Tuesday 20th May 2014 (I'm bearing in mind posterity, subject to the follow-up of the recent European court ruling on the electronic retention of historical factual reality)!) which would seem to imply that history and facts are no longer relevant but then, with politicians burbling more than usual twaddle (Cameron this morning in "The Daily Mail"), are what we treat as facts actually facts, or warped interpretations of someone's nightmare/dreams, i.e. a half full or half empty bottle with half-baked morsels, as the "true" outlook on the world?
Following on, morning coffee
Cameron's rant in The Daily Mail has been caused entirely by his own party's damned fool stupidity. Had his party taken seriously the cause of The Referendum Party in 1997, for which I stood as a candidate in the Hemel Hempstead constituency, UKIP would not have arisen. Now, he and other politicians are admitting the EU is the disaster we said at that time it was going to be, except they are admitting only to "deficiencies", not the fact that with so many other countries having to agree to our requirements, it is never going to happen.
He rants "that we have heard enough of UKIP". Clearly the Tories haven't as they still are not taking any notice. It is no use repeating the same argument they used against the Referendum Party because it honestly stood for one purpose only and was a reasonably co-ordinated and centrally managed party.
As a direct result of Conservative policy the purpose of UKIP, in cohorts with other parties elsewhere in the Union (by default not deliberate intent)
is to take a clear message to Europe as a whole that we will no longer tolerate the stupidity and sheer witlessness of an organisation run on rules and regulations utterly unrelated to the simplicity of "getting up off our over-ample seated, complacent arses and recognising our collective responsibility for the the whole world and its future.
What David Cameron is promising is what the Referendum Party asked for twenty years ago, which his party then denied but is now, twenty years too late, offering in a manner in which he hopes will fail. That is today's Conservative reality.
When I was in local politics as a leading member of a gaggle of independents, most of whom were self-employed business people and whose approach to local government was that all governance should be based on business principles and the validity of the argument, sod the politics, the then leader of the local LibDems was determined to sell me the rationality of deferring to Brussels. I simply could not get over to him that if Brussels was so keen to have control, then clearly it was something of which we should not let go in the first place. He countered this by saying we could always claim it back! If the terms are there to claim back without penalty, why on earth let go of it in the first place and why let got at all? This simplicity seemed totally to fox him as it has outfoxed the entire LibDem party whose sole purpose in life is to sell this entire country and its heritage to European idiots whose own heritage is a history of continuous failure. Europe today is nothing but a gathering of past failed empires. What are we doing immersing ourselves in a culture of failed empires who have proven they simply haven't got it?
It is irrational!
LABOUR IN A TIME WARP
Labour are now saying they will end the deficit during the next parliament but are NOT saying why they incurred the deficit in the first place. If they want to pay it off, why incur it?
Miliband wittering twaddle again. The way the country is being run is due to the necessity to counter the way the Labour party ran the country for the previous nearly fifteen years! It takes time to undo so much appalling damage. Why pay interest rates (however low) to rich fat cats for borrowing their money because your party didn't understand cost-effective government during those years? Why pay benefits at a higher rate than a working person would receive were they working and paying tax? Why give benefit to people who wish to abuse that help by claiming the right to stay in a tax payers' provided property larger than they need, thus depriving under-resourced families that much needed accommodation? Why raise these local issues nationally when local elections are only part of the country and when none of these issues are remotely relevant to the relationship of this country with Europe? It simply is not rational.
As I was saying to a specialist nurse this morning: they suggest 5 a day; they suggest 10 a day; they now say a glass of water and a good sleep; detox diets a waste of time and money. Why don't we just get on with basic living and an annual check up, instead of leaving the annual check up until we are nearly dead from old age--if we've managed to get that far!
INTRODUCING MAY 2014
This commentary continues from my holiday break started on my birthday (29th April 2014).
It is astounding how much happens in the world without one really being aware, when one is wrapped up in family pursuits. One understands why some people take the attitude "it has nothing to do with me". Yet, being involved in the collective whole by ignoring it does not ensure one is not ultimately affected and if so, why not contribute? Is opting "out" at any time ever really effective? Does one really want to commit suicide, which would be the logical act if one does not wish to be involved in life? The world will continue to turn and life will go on, so why hang around unless one is going to contribute to the collective whole in a positive manner, especially in the electronic age. One never knows when an expressed thought is picked up by a passing stranger, who applies their thought to yours, broadcasts within their circle and suddenly, the whole idea goes viral. The parable of the sower remains valid and simply sifting one's thoughts gleans the chaff out of the way.
So, I find myself with a diversity of papers and multitudinous ideas to sift, glean, then throw away. When you do that in bulk it is indeed frightening the amount we discard. At least paper is recyclable! Is that another argument for being more electronic?
What was the world saying while I meandered in my own world? Anything not already hinted in anticipation?
JUST SNAPSHOTS for the first half of May [Part 1]
All would be so much easier for all if only we were open and up front. Religious concepts of contrition, penance and forgiveness are not meaningless in a secular concept. Psychology tells us that. So why must matters not be brought up front and spoken of openly from the beginning in open debate?
Why do we learn so long after the event that Tony Blair's government agreed to secret amnesties for Catholic perpetrators of Northern Ireland atrocities? Fairness immediately brings into question the role of British Army troops' integrity in protecting the innocent, their duty to the people and before the law; that Blair is a Catholic convert, is that relevant? The question should never have been forced to be raised were it not for the secrecy but it immediately clouds the situation.
Historically, it is religion itself that has led the way with false presentation and wilful skulduggery in political argument as to whose view should hold sway, hence the diversity of interpretations in Christianity alone. A state of argument in which Islam is now indulging itself several centuries too late.
Keeping within the secular, that Putin is playing politics, to sort out a mess his own country's previous government created, merely demonstrates the degree of distrust that is still evident. A chaotic situation brought to a head simply because all involved failed, for whatever reason, to be pro-actively involved at the outset, years back. Consequently, until now, everyone believed in their perception of reality, rather than being involved and facing the issues that are actually there. The same fudge that ended in meaningless Munich before World War II.
Early on in my holiday, the Archbishop of Canterbury heralded it was twenty years since women were first ordained into the ministry. This was regarded as a celebration. What? Acknowledging the church had wasted four centuries not ordaining women? Where is there any achievement in that? Four centuries ago the Church of England led the way for Christianity, then tripped over its own vestments and has been dithering in the background ever since. It still does not have a woman bishop because of asinine dithering... and the churches wonder why they are apparently derided.
Church attendance is NOT an acknowledgement of how fewer Christian souls there are. While the faith encourages public announcement, that really is not the style of today's manner, except amongst the eccentric. We do not wear our badge upon our sleeve but it remains in the heart and soul. "Onwards Christian soldiers, marching as to war..." is hardly following Jesus in his style of reported ministry. Yet that is how I was brought up under the influence of war patriotism. The Crusaders were only the Protestant youth movement's answer to Catholic popes literally charging into war wearing full breast armour. That really was hamming up Jesus' ministry by Middle Ages Pythonism masquerades.
Only the Church of England's determination to hang on to male supremacy in wilful contradiction of sense and sensibility lent the impression of desertion. The people were still there and the country's attitude and style were still there: it was the Church of England that abandoned the cause. For me, personally, rather than seek alternatives I followed my own investigations and through a personal journey arrived at a satisfactory settlement for me, which will suffice for now, fluidity in diversity.
What is surprising is that we have Clegg, reportedly an atheist, leading the Liberal party. What a contradiction. Being Liberal one would expect him to be open-minded, not closing his mind to the potentiality of spiritual values. No wonder the LibDems seem not to have a clue as to whether they are coming or going, other than to welcome the EU (which they themselves now admit has serious failings) thundering across our realm without us being asked if we want them to!
Having established the principle that so serious a decision as to whether we accept a trading agreement was sufficiently controversial as to require a referendum, deciding on ceding political control was clearly even more major, so we weren't asked. How more stupid and provocative can politicians be? If there was a clear case to agree closer political union, then the failure to ask us at the time is well likely to direct the wrong answer this time and yes, if we can get some rationality and basic British common sense into the over-priced nut heads our own politicians think are better at running us than they are, what ever "proper" agreement may or may not be derived, the answer may well be "no", when on that occasion the answer should possibly be "yes". Perhaps it would turn out to be a saving grace. Had we been asked and said "yes" we would not have experienced the reality, from which experience it would seem we should now be priming the opportunity to say "no".
Directly, or indirectly a chap called Piketty caught various papers' attention (at least the ones with more words than pictures in them). It is nearly one and a half centuries since Marx published Das Kapital, so perhaps it is time another version came along. The Daily Telegraph advises the book is flawed while The Guardian affirms the timing is apposite. Certainly I sense we are entering a period of major change but not all of it is to do with economics. Picketty himself claims his purpose is only to make people think and if he is adding fuel to ensure the debate opens up, that may be no bad thing. As Edward the VIII once said "something must be done".
The Gerry Adams arrest opens up the conflict of emotions, genuine hurt, wilful lawlessness and the concept that "justice will not be done." The Guardian's conclusion (Jonathan Freedland) is hat the best that can be hoped for for those still suffering emotional hurt is that they can arrive at THE truth and to do so may of necessity deny justice. More or less the South African situation and the Pistorius trial does seem to indicate that Truth and Reconciliation (without Justice) has worked there.