"Childen today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food and tyrannize their teachers". Socrates, Greek philosopher, 470-399BC
So often we hear older people complaining about "kids of today" having no respect. However, respect is a two way street. If we treat people like they are fools and speak to them that way, is it any wonder that they respond in kind?
Children of today are no different to children of previous generations in terms of behaviour or attitudes. Forget this rubbish about "gen X", "gen Y". People are people and they don't change. This includes the propensity for adults to believe that things were better back in the day!
Rather than me expound on this, I'll leave this to some of the world's greatest philosophers to make the point that this criticism of the young has been the habit of older people for millenia:
"We live in a decaying age. Young people no longer respect their parents. They are rude and impatient. They frequently inhabit taverns and have no self-control" - Inscription on 6,000 year old Egyptian tomb
"Our earth is degenerate in these latter days; bribery and corruption are common; children no longer obey their parents; every man wants to write a book, and the end of the world is evidently approaching" - Assyrian stone tablet, circa 2000-2800BC
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependant on the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words ... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly disrespectful and impatient of restraint" - Hesiod, 8th century BC
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect to their elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannise their teachers" - attributed to Socrates by Plato - 4th Century BC.
"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?" - Plato, 4th century BC
"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint... As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress". - Attributed to Peter the Hermit, 1274AD.
"The most aggravating thing about the younger generation is that I no longer belong to it" John Dryden 1631-1700.
"The humour of blaming the present, and admiring the past, is strongly rooted in human nature, and has an influence even on persons endued with the profoundest judgement and most extensive learning" - David Hume, Scottish philospher, 1754
"The denunciation of the young is a necessary part of the hygiene of older people, and greatly assists in the circulation of their blood". Logan Pearsall Smith 1865-1946
"I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid" - G.K. Chesterton, 1874-1936
"Juvenile delinquency has increased at an alarming rate and is eating at the heart of America". - United States juvenile court judge, 1946.
"When I was young there was no respect for the young, and now that I am old, there is no respect for the old. I missed out coming and going". JB Priestley 1894-1984.
"Anything invented before your 15th birthday is the order of nature. That's how it should be. Anything invented between your 15th and 35th birthday is new and exciting, and you might get a career there. Anything invented after that day, however, is against nature and should be prohibited". Douglas Adams 1952-2001.
People who complain about children of today, need to remember the role they play in shaping children (and remember this is the same development that they went through when growing up):
"In the life of children there are two very clear-cut phases, before and after puberty. Before puberty the child's personality has not yet formed and it is easier to guide its life and make it acquire specific habits of order, discipline and work. After puberty the personality develops impetuously and all extraneous intervention becomes odious, tyrannical, insufferable. Now it so happens that parents feel the responsibility towards their children precisely during this second period, when it is too late, then of course the stick and violence enter the scene and yield very few results indeed. Why not instead take an interest in the child during the first period" - Antonio Gramsci, 1891-1937.
As mentioned at the beginning, respect is a two way street. Joseph Addison provides pertinent advice for those who wish to be respected, whether young or old:
"He who would pass his declining years with honor and comfort, should when young, consider that he may one day become old, and when he is old, that he has once been young". Joseph Addison, 1672-1719.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
America is not a Democracy
The United States is believed by many to be the world's greatest example of democracy. Yet, it was not founded as a democracy. It was founded as a Constitutional Republic on principles of liberty and fairness for the individual which is very different from a democracy where the will of the majority rules.
Politicians may be elected freely, but the implementation of legislation and policies is not undertaken by election. A Constitutional Republic is constitutional because the government's powers are limited by the laws in the Constitution and it is a republic because the Head of State is appointed by election rather than inheritance (as in a monarchy) or by force (as in a dictatorship).
John Adams, second President of the United States, described the constitutional republic as being a "government of laws, not of men" and enshrined this in the Constitution of Massachussets in 1780.
Unlike democracy, a Constitutional Republic is designed to control the excesses of mobocracy or the "tryanny of majority". The founding fathers of the United States warned against the "excesses of democracy" in the Framing Convention. The debate surrounding the Constitution was detailed in the Federalist Papers. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison noted:
"Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals."
Democracy literally translates from the Greek as "rule of the people". It generally means that the majority rule. The will of the majority of people in a society is appeased and has its way. The problem with democracy is that it is great for the majority, but means that minority groups and individuals can be marginalised, forgotten, down trodden, victimised or persecuted.
The founding fathers of the United States realised this when they wrote in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
America certainly has an appearance of democracy in that people vote in free and fair elections, but that is as far as democracy goes for the USA. In his book entitled "The American Legal System", John Scheb states that "the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not simply a representative democracy but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered".
The Constitution puts the power of legislation and regulation firmly in the hands of Congress. Whilst representatives are elected by the people, the bicameral system of government ensures that legislation and policies are not driven by opinion polls, public emotion or the will of the majority.
The problem with democracies is that people will always want what is in their own best interests, such as lower taxes and they will vote for politicians who give them what they want, not what is in the best interests of the economy or of society. Government needs to ensure that the best interests of everyone in society are looked after, not just those of the majority. The United State Constitution enshrined liberty, not democracy as the corner stone of government.
Liberty means that people have the freedom to live their lives as they wish without fear of persecution, it does not mean that they are given everything on a silver platter. If a person aspires to buy a house, then they have the liberty to do so and can work towards ensuring they can afford one. If they can't afford it, then it is not in their best interest to load them up with a mortgage that will ultimately cripple them. If a person aspires to be a doctor, then they have the liberty to do so and can study and work towards that, they are not just given a medical degree because they want one. Liberty ensure that everyone, from every walk of life, has the opportunity to study medicine, to buy a house, to achieve their desires without being unfairly restrained.
There are many legitimate forms of government. Democracy is but one. Certainly democracy has its benefits, but as we have seen with the United States, so does a Constitutional Republic.
Republican Congressman, Ron Paul succinctly stated "Our country's fathers cherished liberty, not democracy".
HL Menckin bluntly stated "Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance".
Democracy has been labelled as "mobocracy" as it responds to the wishes of the mob sometimes to the detriment of the good of the country and the neglect of the individual. The US Constitution counters this by truly valuing all individuals.
If we are to encourage nations to embrace any US value, it is liberty which is enshrined in the United States Constitution. Over the years, this value has been forgotten and trampled on by various governments using fear to justify wars, to justify invading other nations, to justify locking up their own citizens. One only has to review the "reds under the bed" fiasco or the so called "War on Terror" which gave rise to the secretive and fascist "Patriot Act" which limits liberty in the name of combatting an ill-defined terrorism.
Liberty is the greatest virtue of the United States Constitution. It should not be forgotten or misunderstood. Liberty should be valued and appreciated. Regardless of the system of government, liberty is what matters most to all people and makes life worthwhile and fulfilling. It is liberty that has made America more appealing than the USSR, China, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Afghanistan under the Taliban. Those countries had no liberty. Had their citizens had liberty: liberty to leave or return, liberty to criticise and question, liberty to worship (or not worship), liberty to pursue their dreams; then those countries may have been more appealing and achieved the levels of greatness and respect that the United States has.
Liberty is more precious than democracy.
Politicians may be elected freely, but the implementation of legislation and policies is not undertaken by election. A Constitutional Republic is constitutional because the government's powers are limited by the laws in the Constitution and it is a republic because the Head of State is appointed by election rather than inheritance (as in a monarchy) or by force (as in a dictatorship).
John Adams, second President of the United States, described the constitutional republic as being a "government of laws, not of men" and enshrined this in the Constitution of Massachussets in 1780.
Unlike democracy, a Constitutional Republic is designed to control the excesses of mobocracy or the "tryanny of majority". The founding fathers of the United States warned against the "excesses of democracy" in the Framing Convention. The debate surrounding the Constitution was detailed in the Federalist Papers. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison noted:
"Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals."
Democracy literally translates from the Greek as "rule of the people". It generally means that the majority rule. The will of the majority of people in a society is appeased and has its way. The problem with democracy is that it is great for the majority, but means that minority groups and individuals can be marginalised, forgotten, down trodden, victimised or persecuted.
The founding fathers of the United States realised this when they wrote in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
America certainly has an appearance of democracy in that people vote in free and fair elections, but that is as far as democracy goes for the USA. In his book entitled "The American Legal System", John Scheb states that "the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not simply a representative democracy but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered".
The Constitution puts the power of legislation and regulation firmly in the hands of Congress. Whilst representatives are elected by the people, the bicameral system of government ensures that legislation and policies are not driven by opinion polls, public emotion or the will of the majority.
The problem with democracies is that people will always want what is in their own best interests, such as lower taxes and they will vote for politicians who give them what they want, not what is in the best interests of the economy or of society. Government needs to ensure that the best interests of everyone in society are looked after, not just those of the majority. The United State Constitution enshrined liberty, not democracy as the corner stone of government.
Liberty means that people have the freedom to live their lives as they wish without fear of persecution, it does not mean that they are given everything on a silver platter. If a person aspires to buy a house, then they have the liberty to do so and can work towards ensuring they can afford one. If they can't afford it, then it is not in their best interest to load them up with a mortgage that will ultimately cripple them. If a person aspires to be a doctor, then they have the liberty to do so and can study and work towards that, they are not just given a medical degree because they want one. Liberty ensure that everyone, from every walk of life, has the opportunity to study medicine, to buy a house, to achieve their desires without being unfairly restrained.
There are many legitimate forms of government. Democracy is but one. Certainly democracy has its benefits, but as we have seen with the United States, so does a Constitutional Republic.
Republican Congressman, Ron Paul succinctly stated "Our country's fathers cherished liberty, not democracy".
HL Menckin bluntly stated "Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance".
Democracy has been labelled as "mobocracy" as it responds to the wishes of the mob sometimes to the detriment of the good of the country and the neglect of the individual. The US Constitution counters this by truly valuing all individuals.
If we are to encourage nations to embrace any US value, it is liberty which is enshrined in the United States Constitution. Over the years, this value has been forgotten and trampled on by various governments using fear to justify wars, to justify invading other nations, to justify locking up their own citizens. One only has to review the "reds under the bed" fiasco or the so called "War on Terror" which gave rise to the secretive and fascist "Patriot Act" which limits liberty in the name of combatting an ill-defined terrorism.
Liberty is the greatest virtue of the United States Constitution. It should not be forgotten or misunderstood. Liberty should be valued and appreciated. Regardless of the system of government, liberty is what matters most to all people and makes life worthwhile and fulfilling. It is liberty that has made America more appealing than the USSR, China, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Afghanistan under the Taliban. Those countries had no liberty. Had their citizens had liberty: liberty to leave or return, liberty to criticise and question, liberty to worship (or not worship), liberty to pursue their dreams; then those countries may have been more appealing and achieved the levels of greatness and respect that the United States has.
Liberty is more precious than democracy.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Rediscovering the Labor Heartland
The NSW Labor party was crushed in the state election held on 26 March 2011 after 16 years of leading the State. Ten of those years were under the leadership of Bob Carr who had greatly improved New South Wales through infrastructure spending, environment and reduction of state debt. Infrastructure expenditure included roads such as the M5 Extension, Eastern Distributor, M7 Westlink, Lanecove tunnel and the Cross City tunnel. Carr had reduced NSW net debt from 7.4% of gross product to zero. In terms of environment, he opened 100 new state parks in his first term, he stopped logging north of Coonabarabran and negotiated the restructure of mills which rather than kill the surrounding towns, now sees them thriving. Carr established the building sustainability index which required new housing developments to achieve targets for reduced water and energy consumption. Every Premier, every Prime Minister can be criticised and there will always be people who didn't like them, but overall, Carr was a good Premier who achieved many benefits for the people, economy and environment of New South Wales.
Prior to this, at the federal election in 2010, the Gillard led ALP squandered the significant majority that the Rudd led ALP had won in 2007 when Liberal Prime Minister John Howard lost his own seat. Gillard was only able to form government by entering into a deal with Greens and Independents.
So why is the electorate abandoning the Labor Party? What has gone so wrong?
The Australian Labor Party was formed out of union movements representing the rights of workers. Considering that the majority of the Australian electorate are workers, surely the ALP is the party to support. One only has to see the lack of rights that the Australian worker was presented with when Howard rolled out Workchoices. This was an industrial relations policy that was great for employers but left workers to negotiate their own agreements, ensuring the rights of the worker were firmly at the mercy of the employer. For those employers who were enlightened enough to realise the reciprocal value of their employees this was good. For those who didn't, this meant a loss of rights and a workplace without security. If anything, Workchoices demonstrated exactly why the union movement is still relevant to modern society.
Workchoices did not happen overnight. It was, ironically, Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke who revolutionised industrial relations by trying to find a balance between workers and business. Hawke introduced Enterprise Bargaining which highlighted the importance of union membership although during this time, the compulsion to join a union was removed. The undermining of union power was off-set by the consolidated power of a union membership in negotiating better wages and conditions.
Successive Labor governments have moved further and further to the right, ignoring their left wing origins. For instance, the Labor government has embraced capitalist policies such as the privatisation or corporatisation of government services including rail, electricity, gas and water to the detriment of the consumer through higher costs and lower service delivery.
We live in a world where corporations have their hand in the pocket of consumers shaking them down for money even when there has been no true consideration given in the economic sense of quid pro quo. The consumer often pays for price increases or non-existent services justified by such nebulous claims as "the fear of a mineral resources rent tax" or the "fear of a carbon tax", surcharges for using credit cards even when there is no other payment option, such as the $25 cost to book an airfare with a credit card.
Corporations are in the business of making money - the service or product that they provide is of little consequence. Governments are in the business of delivering services to the electorate and implementing policies to benefit the country. Either way, the consumer pays. In general though the consumer pays more for the service to be delivered privately than publicly. It is a matter of priority. For government the priority is the service or the benefit of the community. For corporations the priority is earning money for benefit of share-holders.
When public services are privatised, the result is often higher costs and less service. When government is responsible for the service, it is done with a priority on delivering the service, not on making money from it. Labor has the opportunity to reduce the impact on the earnings of every person by not privatising or corporatising services. In New South Wales, Labor privatised the electricity industry which will cost jobs and increase electricity bills whilst ignoring issues that matter more to the electorate, such as public health and public transport.
It is no surprise that the so-called Labor heartland, the grass-roots supporters, the workers have abandoned Labor. There is a disconnect in which Labor is seen as little different to the Liberal party with their focus on strengthening big business at the expense of the Aussie battler.
Where is the Labor heartland? It is every worker and the community to which they belong. Globalisation and corporatisation has converted almost all of us into a worker whether we are a receptionist, carpenter, miner, CEO or doctor. Many of us now work for a conglomerate owned by a large corporation. Often times the corporation has bought out a number of small businesses with no concern for the rights of the small business owner or of those working there.
For Labor to again be successful and relevant, they need to value their heartland and rediscover their roots. Respect the community, respect the individual and listen to the heartbeat of the nation, not just the balance sheet of big business.
Prior to this, at the federal election in 2010, the Gillard led ALP squandered the significant majority that the Rudd led ALP had won in 2007 when Liberal Prime Minister John Howard lost his own seat. Gillard was only able to form government by entering into a deal with Greens and Independents.
So why is the electorate abandoning the Labor Party? What has gone so wrong?
The Australian Labor Party was formed out of union movements representing the rights of workers. Considering that the majority of the Australian electorate are workers, surely the ALP is the party to support. One only has to see the lack of rights that the Australian worker was presented with when Howard rolled out Workchoices. This was an industrial relations policy that was great for employers but left workers to negotiate their own agreements, ensuring the rights of the worker were firmly at the mercy of the employer. For those employers who were enlightened enough to realise the reciprocal value of their employees this was good. For those who didn't, this meant a loss of rights and a workplace without security. If anything, Workchoices demonstrated exactly why the union movement is still relevant to modern society.
Workchoices did not happen overnight. It was, ironically, Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke who revolutionised industrial relations by trying to find a balance between workers and business. Hawke introduced Enterprise Bargaining which highlighted the importance of union membership although during this time, the compulsion to join a union was removed. The undermining of union power was off-set by the consolidated power of a union membership in negotiating better wages and conditions.
Successive Labor governments have moved further and further to the right, ignoring their left wing origins. For instance, the Labor government has embraced capitalist policies such as the privatisation or corporatisation of government services including rail, electricity, gas and water to the detriment of the consumer through higher costs and lower service delivery.
We live in a world where corporations have their hand in the pocket of consumers shaking them down for money even when there has been no true consideration given in the economic sense of quid pro quo. The consumer often pays for price increases or non-existent services justified by such nebulous claims as "the fear of a mineral resources rent tax" or the "fear of a carbon tax", surcharges for using credit cards even when there is no other payment option, such as the $25 cost to book an airfare with a credit card.
Corporations are in the business of making money - the service or product that they provide is of little consequence. Governments are in the business of delivering services to the electorate and implementing policies to benefit the country. Either way, the consumer pays. In general though the consumer pays more for the service to be delivered privately than publicly. It is a matter of priority. For government the priority is the service or the benefit of the community. For corporations the priority is earning money for benefit of share-holders.
When public services are privatised, the result is often higher costs and less service. When government is responsible for the service, it is done with a priority on delivering the service, not on making money from it. Labor has the opportunity to reduce the impact on the earnings of every person by not privatising or corporatising services. In New South Wales, Labor privatised the electricity industry which will cost jobs and increase electricity bills whilst ignoring issues that matter more to the electorate, such as public health and public transport.
It is no surprise that the so-called Labor heartland, the grass-roots supporters, the workers have abandoned Labor. There is a disconnect in which Labor is seen as little different to the Liberal party with their focus on strengthening big business at the expense of the Aussie battler.
Where is the Labor heartland? It is every worker and the community to which they belong. Globalisation and corporatisation has converted almost all of us into a worker whether we are a receptionist, carpenter, miner, CEO or doctor. Many of us now work for a conglomerate owned by a large corporation. Often times the corporation has bought out a number of small businesses with no concern for the rights of the small business owner or of those working there.
For Labor to again be successful and relevant, they need to value their heartland and rediscover their roots. Respect the community, respect the individual and listen to the heartbeat of the nation, not just the balance sheet of big business.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
From Vegemite to Football - the Missing Link
Men face a quandary! Women accuse us of:
Let's face it: men suffer domestic blindness! It doesn't matter how many times we go to the pantry we will NOT see the vegemite. The final ignominy is when we tell our wife we are out of vegemite and she magically finds it within seconds. Domestic blindness.
Whilst men like to hunt, we do not like to hunt in the lounge room! So we ask our beautiful partner if she knows where the remote control is and the forth-coming answer is invariably: "have you had a good look?"
So here is the contradiction that men live with day in and day out: if we ask for directions we are accused of not looking hard enough, if we look harder and harder we are accused of being too macho to ask for directions.
Maybe that is why men like to watch football - the goal-posts never change! Of course this then raises a new criticism of us veging out on the couch watching Friday Night Football. Veging in front of the footy is a response to the afore-mentioned ever changing playing field that has been the lot of men for centuries.
No wonder men have a shorter life expectancy.
- not looking hard enough
- not asking for directions
Let's face it: men suffer domestic blindness! It doesn't matter how many times we go to the pantry we will NOT see the vegemite. The final ignominy is when we tell our wife we are out of vegemite and she magically finds it within seconds. Domestic blindness.
Whilst men like to hunt, we do not like to hunt in the lounge room! So we ask our beautiful partner if she knows where the remote control is and the forth-coming answer is invariably: "have you had a good look?"
So here is the contradiction that men live with day in and day out: if we ask for directions we are accused of not looking hard enough, if we look harder and harder we are accused of being too macho to ask for directions.
Maybe that is why men like to watch football - the goal-posts never change! Of course this then raises a new criticism of us veging out on the couch watching Friday Night Football. Veging in front of the footy is a response to the afore-mentioned ever changing playing field that has been the lot of men for centuries.
No wonder men have a shorter life expectancy.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Chicken Little and the Apocalypse
A number of Christians believe that we are now living in the "end times" and that recent natural disasters and upheaval in the Middle East are fulfilment of biblical prophecy. Similarly, many people believe that recent natural disasters are evidence of the Earth suffering a potentially terminal condition called "global warming". However, for centuries people have been claiming that the "end is nigh".
This article is not seeking to diminish the impact and tragedy associated with any disaster but is written to put these disasters into context given the sheer volume and magnitude of them over millenia. The terrible fact is that disasters have happened before and will happen again. Our reaction should not be consumed with sensationalist "Chicken Little and the sky is falling" propaganda either from Christian zealots who believe it signifies the Second Coming of Christ or by environmental zealots who believe that these disasters prove the apocolyptic nature of global warming and climate change.
I will be addressing climate change and global warming in a separate article but I want to state briefly that whilst I don't ascribe to the current theory about the human cause of climate change and global warming, I sincerely believe that we do need to address the issues of pollution, sustainable living, logging, protection of our land, forests, oceans, water-ways and wildlife. Natural disasters, wars and disease have killed millions of people over thousands of years. What we are seeing now is nothing new, including the reaction of doom-sayers.
The earthquake and tsunamis that hit Japan on 11 March 2011 have been described as the worst in 100 years, indicating that this is not the first time that Japan has suffered earthquake and tsunami. This quake recorded 8.9 on the richter scale. In 1923 a earthquake in Japan registered 7.9 and killed 142,000.
Similarly, when category 5 Cyclone Yasi struck North Queensland in February 2011, it was the strongest cyclone to hit since 1918 when two category five cyclones struck that area within 5 weeks of each other. The January 2011 floods in South East Queensland saw the Brisbane River peak at 4.5m, in the 1974 floods the Brisbane River peaked at 5.5m and during the 19th century, the Brisbane River peaked over 8m on two occasions.
In 1883 an Indonesian volcano, Krakatoa, erupted with such force that it was heard 5,000km away. It is regarded as the loudest noise ever heard in the world. The shock wave was recorded on barographs across the globe and allegedly travelled around the world seven times. The volcano shot debris 80km into the air and the dust cloud carried as far as New York City. Krakatoa was the most violent volcanic eruption in recorded history and killed over 40,000 people. The resultant tsunami was 40m high and killed 36,000 people on the Java and Sundra Islands. Tsunamis were experienced across the Indian and Pacific Oceans, affecting the west coast of North and South America and even the English Channel. The temperature of the world dropped by 1.2 degrees and did not return to normal until 1888. This was truly a catastrophe of epic proportions felt across the entire globe.
The world's worst natural disaster in terms of lives lost is the Chinese floods of 1931 which killed up to 2.5 million people. In 1887, the Yellow River flood in China killed up to 2 million people. In 1556 the Shaanxi earthquake killed 830,000 people in China and in 526AD an earthquake in Turkey killed 300,000 people.
The Earth survived.
Regarding disease, in the 14th century the Bubonic Plague (or Black Death) killed up to 100 million people - in excess of one third of Europe's population. In fact, some estimates state that up to 60% of Europe's population were killed. The Book of Revelation, verse 9:15 states that "the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released to kill a third of mankind" and Revelations 9:18 goes on to say "by these three plagues a third of mankind was killed - by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which came out of their mouths". With over a third of the population killed there were many who thought that this was the end of the world as prophesied in the Book of Revelation.
In the 6th century the Plague of Justinian, thought to be bubonic plague, killed between 40 and 100 million people throughout Asia, Africa and Europe; this is up to half of the world's estimated population in 600AD of 200 million. More recently, 100 million people were killed between 1918 to 1920 from the Spanish Flu.
And then there are wars. Many people thought that the anti-christ as prophesied in Revelation was personified in Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin. The Second World War resulted in the deaths of around 70 million people, around 3% of the world's population. The 8th century An Shi Rebellion in China resulted in 36 million deaths, roughly 15% of the world's known population. The Thirty Years War of the 17th century killed up to 11 million people. The wars of the Holy Crusades which were fought in the Middle East and Europe killed up to 9 million people between the 11th and 13th century. There were some who saw the terrible tragedy of these events as fulfilment of biblical prophecy and a sign of the end times.
Most recently there are people who view the recent upheaval in the Middle East as a fulfilment of biblical prophecy and an augury of end times. The Middle East has a long history (as do other parts of the world) of kingdoms rising and falling, of wars and rebellions. The prophet Mohammed turned the Middle East around as he conquered one city and country after another. The rise of various Islamic empires and finally the downfall of the last great Islamic Empire, the Ottoman Empire in the 20th century were all major events for their time; events that we feel the affects of today. Refer to the Islamic influence on Spain and other parts of Europe, on the Middle East and across the globe in India, Indonesia, Phillipines and many other countries, on politics and language, science and mathematics. Current rebellions and over-throws are but one more chapter in the rich tapestry of the Middle East.
History has shown that natural disasters, wars, famine, pestilence have affected the world for millenia and will continue to affect the world. Whilst many people have been killed, maimed or disabled through these tragedies, the Earth goes on, people go on.
A bad year of natural disasters across the globe or upheaval in the Middle East does not indicate a fulfilment of biblical prophecy of the apocalypse, it does not mean that the "end is nigh" and it is not signalling the imminent return of Christ or the end of the world as we know it through a changing climate and global warming.
We should not live in fear of the world ending, we should not put our lives on hold, but instead continue living each day as though it matters, living each moment to its fullest.
This article is not seeking to diminish the impact and tragedy associated with any disaster but is written to put these disasters into context given the sheer volume and magnitude of them over millenia. The terrible fact is that disasters have happened before and will happen again. Our reaction should not be consumed with sensationalist "Chicken Little and the sky is falling" propaganda either from Christian zealots who believe it signifies the Second Coming of Christ or by environmental zealots who believe that these disasters prove the apocolyptic nature of global warming and climate change.
I will be addressing climate change and global warming in a separate article but I want to state briefly that whilst I don't ascribe to the current theory about the human cause of climate change and global warming, I sincerely believe that we do need to address the issues of pollution, sustainable living, logging, protection of our land, forests, oceans, water-ways and wildlife. Natural disasters, wars and disease have killed millions of people over thousands of years. What we are seeing now is nothing new, including the reaction of doom-sayers.
The earthquake and tsunamis that hit Japan on 11 March 2011 have been described as the worst in 100 years, indicating that this is not the first time that Japan has suffered earthquake and tsunami. This quake recorded 8.9 on the richter scale. In 1923 a earthquake in Japan registered 7.9 and killed 142,000.
Similarly, when category 5 Cyclone Yasi struck North Queensland in February 2011, it was the strongest cyclone to hit since 1918 when two category five cyclones struck that area within 5 weeks of each other. The January 2011 floods in South East Queensland saw the Brisbane River peak at 4.5m, in the 1974 floods the Brisbane River peaked at 5.5m and during the 19th century, the Brisbane River peaked over 8m on two occasions.
In 1883 an Indonesian volcano, Krakatoa, erupted with such force that it was heard 5,000km away. It is regarded as the loudest noise ever heard in the world. The shock wave was recorded on barographs across the globe and allegedly travelled around the world seven times. The volcano shot debris 80km into the air and the dust cloud carried as far as New York City. Krakatoa was the most violent volcanic eruption in recorded history and killed over 40,000 people. The resultant tsunami was 40m high and killed 36,000 people on the Java and Sundra Islands. Tsunamis were experienced across the Indian and Pacific Oceans, affecting the west coast of North and South America and even the English Channel. The temperature of the world dropped by 1.2 degrees and did not return to normal until 1888. This was truly a catastrophe of epic proportions felt across the entire globe.
The world's worst natural disaster in terms of lives lost is the Chinese floods of 1931 which killed up to 2.5 million people. In 1887, the Yellow River flood in China killed up to 2 million people. In 1556 the Shaanxi earthquake killed 830,000 people in China and in 526AD an earthquake in Turkey killed 300,000 people.
The Earth survived.
Regarding disease, in the 14th century the Bubonic Plague (or Black Death) killed up to 100 million people - in excess of one third of Europe's population. In fact, some estimates state that up to 60% of Europe's population were killed. The Book of Revelation, verse 9:15 states that "the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released to kill a third of mankind" and Revelations 9:18 goes on to say "by these three plagues a third of mankind was killed - by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which came out of their mouths". With over a third of the population killed there were many who thought that this was the end of the world as prophesied in the Book of Revelation.
In the 6th century the Plague of Justinian, thought to be bubonic plague, killed between 40 and 100 million people throughout Asia, Africa and Europe; this is up to half of the world's estimated population in 600AD of 200 million. More recently, 100 million people were killed between 1918 to 1920 from the Spanish Flu.
And then there are wars. Many people thought that the anti-christ as prophesied in Revelation was personified in Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin. The Second World War resulted in the deaths of around 70 million people, around 3% of the world's population. The 8th century An Shi Rebellion in China resulted in 36 million deaths, roughly 15% of the world's known population. The Thirty Years War of the 17th century killed up to 11 million people. The wars of the Holy Crusades which were fought in the Middle East and Europe killed up to 9 million people between the 11th and 13th century. There were some who saw the terrible tragedy of these events as fulfilment of biblical prophecy and a sign of the end times.
Most recently there are people who view the recent upheaval in the Middle East as a fulfilment of biblical prophecy and an augury of end times. The Middle East has a long history (as do other parts of the world) of kingdoms rising and falling, of wars and rebellions. The prophet Mohammed turned the Middle East around as he conquered one city and country after another. The rise of various Islamic empires and finally the downfall of the last great Islamic Empire, the Ottoman Empire in the 20th century were all major events for their time; events that we feel the affects of today. Refer to the Islamic influence on Spain and other parts of Europe, on the Middle East and across the globe in India, Indonesia, Phillipines and many other countries, on politics and language, science and mathematics. Current rebellions and over-throws are but one more chapter in the rich tapestry of the Middle East.
History has shown that natural disasters, wars, famine, pestilence have affected the world for millenia and will continue to affect the world. Whilst many people have been killed, maimed or disabled through these tragedies, the Earth goes on, people go on.
A bad year of natural disasters across the globe or upheaval in the Middle East does not indicate a fulfilment of biblical prophecy of the apocalypse, it does not mean that the "end is nigh" and it is not signalling the imminent return of Christ or the end of the world as we know it through a changing climate and global warming.
We should not live in fear of the world ending, we should not put our lives on hold, but instead continue living each day as though it matters, living each moment to its fullest.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
The capitalist call for communism
An overheated market let to a global financial melt-down, affectionately known as the GFC (Global Financial Crisis). As the market crashed the major US banks turned to the government to rescue them. The US government provided the largest "bail-out" in history because of the fear that the banks were "too big to fail". However, this resulted in the US government becoming the largest share-holder for many of the banks and of the US banking industry being nationalised. This was described in an article by the New York Times published on 16 January 2009:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/business/worldbusiness/16iht-16banking.19415086.html
As stated in the NY Times article, the $700 billion bail-out called for the government to take control of the banks' investments, executive wages and share-holder dividends. Since that article was written, it has been revealed that the Federal Reserve bail-out was worth $9 trillion:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/01/news/economy/fed_reserve_data_release/index.htm
Of course a country such as the United States, which has so vociferously opposed communism would never allow the nationalisation of free market institutions such as banks... would they?
The lesson from the GFC is that unrestrained capitalism will result in disaster. Globalised companies are only interested in profit, they are not interested in the service or product that they are supposed to deliver. When globalised companies crash, they do so with global consequences.
Yet, capitalists are constantly campaigning for the privatisation of traditional government services. The GFC and the general increase in costs and decrease in services from profit driven companies show that there is a need for government control of essential services such as health, education, police, defence and public housing Governments are less concerned with profit and are committed to delivering the service for the good of society.
Obviously there is a place for capitalism, but it must be tempered by responsible government controls in order to protect society in general.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/business/worldbusiness/16iht-16banking.19415086.html
As stated in the NY Times article, the $700 billion bail-out called for the government to take control of the banks' investments, executive wages and share-holder dividends. Since that article was written, it has been revealed that the Federal Reserve bail-out was worth $9 trillion:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/01/news/economy/fed_reserve_data_release/index.htm
Of course a country such as the United States, which has so vociferously opposed communism would never allow the nationalisation of free market institutions such as banks... would they?
The lesson from the GFC is that unrestrained capitalism will result in disaster. Globalised companies are only interested in profit, they are not interested in the service or product that they are supposed to deliver. When globalised companies crash, they do so with global consequences.
Yet, capitalists are constantly campaigning for the privatisation of traditional government services. The GFC and the general increase in costs and decrease in services from profit driven companies show that there is a need for government control of essential services such as health, education, police, defence and public housing Governments are less concerned with profit and are committed to delivering the service for the good of society.
Obviously there is a place for capitalism, but it must be tempered by responsible government controls in order to protect society in general.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Multi-culturalism: Tolerance, Acceptance or Integration?
Multi-culturalism has been criticised with claims that it doesn't work because of the intolerance of different races, nationalities and religions. Opponents of multi-culturalism go on to state that we should embrace integration instead. Most people who ascribe to this opinion do so because of their own intolerance. Their idea of integration is for all other races, religions and nationalities to become the same as the host culture - namely theirs.
There are aspects of the host culture which will always be there and which everyone does integrate with. These aspects include protocols when shopping, working, catching public transport, obeying laws, interacting with each other in public places, enjoying national and local public holidays and so on. That is as far as integration needs to go. As a society we should be not criticising people for their cultural choices of clothes, food, worship, language.
The problem with integration is that it fails to accept the differences between other cultures. The integration argument reduced Christmas to a season of generic greetings and phrases. For instance, in Toronto a Christmas tree was described by the city council as a "holiday tree", other Councils replaced "Merry Christmas" signs with "Seasons Greetings" and used secular phrases rather than mention anything "Christian" in Christmas. This was done because of a lack of acceptance of the differences between Christianity and other religions. This secularisation of Christmas was seen as political correctness and was aimed at not offending other religions. Yet, most people from other religions have no problem with Christian celebrations and will often join in.
True political correctness would accept and celebrate the unique festivals and practices of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and so on. This is why it is so important to protect and embrace multi-culturalism, not reduce it to a generic "integration" in which the distinctions and characteristics of cultures are ignored and not accepted.
Some critics of multi-culturalism claim that other cultures do not assimilate well and that they have different values and morals. From the outset this argument is flawed. All races, cultures and religions have high moral standards. Every nation has laws to protect those standards. There is not a religion or race today that condones violence or abuse. On the other hand, every religion, including Christianity, every nation, including Australia, has individuals who violate the law. It must be kept in mind that these are individuals and they are not indicative of any race, religion or nation. The behaviour of individuals should not be used to judge the behaviour of all.
Multi-culturalism is not to be feared, it is to be protected and valued. Instead we should fear any society or government which attacks multi-culturalism as they are the ones on the path to an intolerant, totalitarian state such as we saw under Hitler or the Taliban. Multi-culturalism is not about establishing an "us and them" society. Multi-culturalism is not about creating multiple societies, it is about accepting that society is comprised of people from various cultures and that those cultures do have unique characteristics. We should not just tolerate those differences but acknowledge, accept and celebrate them.
There are aspects of the host culture which will always be there and which everyone does integrate with. These aspects include protocols when shopping, working, catching public transport, obeying laws, interacting with each other in public places, enjoying national and local public holidays and so on. That is as far as integration needs to go. As a society we should be not criticising people for their cultural choices of clothes, food, worship, language.
The problem with integration is that it fails to accept the differences between other cultures. The integration argument reduced Christmas to a season of generic greetings and phrases. For instance, in Toronto a Christmas tree was described by the city council as a "holiday tree", other Councils replaced "Merry Christmas" signs with "Seasons Greetings" and used secular phrases rather than mention anything "Christian" in Christmas. This was done because of a lack of acceptance of the differences between Christianity and other religions. This secularisation of Christmas was seen as political correctness and was aimed at not offending other religions. Yet, most people from other religions have no problem with Christian celebrations and will often join in.
True political correctness would accept and celebrate the unique festivals and practices of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and so on. This is why it is so important to protect and embrace multi-culturalism, not reduce it to a generic "integration" in which the distinctions and characteristics of cultures are ignored and not accepted.
Some critics of multi-culturalism claim that other cultures do not assimilate well and that they have different values and morals. From the outset this argument is flawed. All races, cultures and religions have high moral standards. Every nation has laws to protect those standards. There is not a religion or race today that condones violence or abuse. On the other hand, every religion, including Christianity, every nation, including Australia, has individuals who violate the law. It must be kept in mind that these are individuals and they are not indicative of any race, religion or nation. The behaviour of individuals should not be used to judge the behaviour of all.
Multi-culturalism is not to be feared, it is to be protected and valued. Instead we should fear any society or government which attacks multi-culturalism as they are the ones on the path to an intolerant, totalitarian state such as we saw under Hitler or the Taliban. Multi-culturalism is not about establishing an "us and them" society. Multi-culturalism is not about creating multiple societies, it is about accepting that society is comprised of people from various cultures and that those cultures do have unique characteristics. We should not just tolerate those differences but acknowledge, accept and celebrate them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)