Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Australia's Gulag Archipelago
The first bi-partisan 'solution' to the stopping the arrival of asylum seekers by boat appears to have been reached through Labor agreeing to re-open the detention centres on Nauru and Manus Island: Australia's Gulag Archipelago. It is a victory for fear and hatred.
Tony Abbott must be feeling quite chuffed right about now with Labor's capitulation over off-shore processing at Nauru and Manus Island. And last night Julie Bishop's crowing stooped further by using the deaths of 1,000 people at sea for political points scoring. Yet, since Rudd swept to power in 2007, the Liberals have been playing politics with the lives of asylum seekers by refusing to negotiate or compromise with the ALP in order to actually find a solution.
Just a side issue: note the grandiose claims of 'solutions' with the naming of the inhumane policies for processing of asylum seekers. Policies such as the 'Malaysia Solution' and the 'Pacific Solution' were rolled out with great hubris by both major parties. What were they solutions to? Certainly not the humane treatment of asylum seekers, more likely a solution to poor electoral polls.
Anyway, back to the issue of the day. As Howard was unceremoniously evicted as Prime Minister, his chair in the House of Reps had barely had time to cool before the Libs announced to the world that Australia was now soft on refugees and that the Labor Party would welcome the boats into the country. And the boats came. Awesome stuff, Libs! Great.
Both sides have played politics over an issue that has cost a lot of lives. The issue was exacerbated under former Prime Minister Howard who ran campaigns based on fear, hatred and lies. Remember the rubbish he told about the 'children overboard' affair, Tampa and Siev-X? And then there was the edict reminscent of the 'White Australia' policy, when Howard proudly and loudly announced, 'we'll decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come'. The 'patriotic' flag wavers leapt to their feet cheering the arrival of the Messiah who would protect us from the flood of boat people (all 10,000 or so per year ... if that). The Australian Gulags (or detention centres for the politically sensitive) were suddenly filled with people who had lost everything, risked their lives for security and had not committed a crime.
So as boat arrivals increased following the election of Rudd, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party became deadlocked on how best to deal with the issue. Nay! It wasn't a deadlock over how best to deal with the issue. It was a deadlock over how best to shore up political popularity while appearing tough on 'border security', the Orwellian euphemism used with the dexterity of a sledge hammer by John Howard to pound fear and hatred into the hearts of every red-blooded, dinki-di Aussie whenever a victim of a despotic regime dared to attempt to find security in Australia, the land of the 'fair-go'.
Sadly, the Labor Party has not had the guts to tackle these fears head on and actually try to put some truth and compassion into the processing of asylum seekers. Well, that's not quite true. Labor has introduced community detention and is sponsoring the accommodation of asylum seeker families in the community, which is a great alternative to the Gulags. However, the ALP is walking with a foot in each camp; at once trying to appear compassionate AND tough on 'border security'. This attempt to appear tough has shown their unwillingness to address the fears and hatred dominating community attitudes.
Now, following a review by an expert panel led by Angus Houston, the Labor Party is set to re-open the off-shore processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island, Australia's Gulag Archipelago, which had been set up as part of Howard's Pacific Solution. Under Howard, many asylum seekers suffered psychological trauma because of indefinite detention, the separation of family and lack of activities. Apparently, the operation of the Gulags under Labor will differ to that under Howard because the asylum seekers will be given meaningful activities and opportunity for greater participation.
The priority for the both major parties is to 'slow' or 'stop' the boats, whether it be the ridiculous Malaysia Solution or the callous Pacific Solution. The drownings are not the priority of the government or the opposition, other than the negative publicity they generate for the Labor Party and the political points that Abbott and his team aim to score from them. Neither party is interested in the welfare of the asylum seekers for fear of being seen as soft on border security.
Both parties are acting like petulant brats while lacking the mettle to challenge the fear and hatred behind the attitudes of many people. Australia should be taking care of the issue in our own country, not pushing these issues on to our neighbours.
Both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party should show humility and compassion to truly achieve a humane, bipartisan solution that does not use people as pawns in a pathetic game of political point-scoring.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
The 'emerging and evolving' threat to privacy and civil liberties in Australia
The 'emerging and evolving' threat to privacy and civil liberties in Australia
I have never been a fan of invasion of privacy, so I have been concerned greatly with the Australian government's current review of intelligence gathering laws.
I recently received an email from GetUp! which has summarised the threat posed by the proposed changes to these laws, essentially that the Australian government is considering significant changes to surveillance and intelligence gathering laws, which represent a major threat to the privacy and civil liberties of every Australian citizen. These changes include:
A Parliamentary Review Committee will be considering a discussion paper entitled 'Equipping Australia against emerging and evolving threats'. Whilst we want the country to be as safe as possible, it should not come at the expense of our civil liberties. Some of the changes being considered are themselves an 'emerging and evolving threat' to the privacy and civil liberties of all Australians.
If you wish to read the government's discussion paper regarding these changes, please click here: http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/privacy/protect-us-but-respect-us/discussion-paper
We need to speak up and tell the government that these changes are unacceptable in an open democracy such as Australia's.
GetUp! is running a petition which you can sign to oppose these changes. The petition will be delivered to Attorney-General Nicola Roxon.
To sign the petition, please click here: http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/privacy/protect-us-but-respect-us/your-privacy-at-risk?t=dXNlcmlkPTY1NzI2NCxlbWFpbGlkPTkxNA==
GetUp! has also prepared the following video which explains the effect these changes will have:
I urge you to sign the petition and to encourage everyone you know to also sign it.
I have never been a fan of invasion of privacy, so I have been concerned greatly with the Australian government's current review of intelligence gathering laws.
I recently received an email from GetUp! which has summarised the threat posed by the proposed changes to these laws, essentially that the Australian government is considering significant changes to surveillance and intelligence gathering laws, which represent a major threat to the privacy and civil liberties of every Australian citizen. These changes include:
- forcing companies such as ISPs and social networking sites to store our online movements, which includes every message sent, every website visited and every product bought,
- increasing the power of ASIO while reducing its accountability. For instance, ASIO will have the power to remotely access your computer without your knowledge, even if you have not committed a crime and they will have be allowed to modify, delete or add files on your computer.
A Parliamentary Review Committee will be considering a discussion paper entitled 'Equipping Australia against emerging and evolving threats'. Whilst we want the country to be as safe as possible, it should not come at the expense of our civil liberties. Some of the changes being considered are themselves an 'emerging and evolving threat' to the privacy and civil liberties of all Australians.
If you wish to read the government's discussion paper regarding these changes, please click here: http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/privacy/protect-us-but-respect-us/discussion-paper
We need to speak up and tell the government that these changes are unacceptable in an open democracy such as Australia's.
GetUp! is running a petition which you can sign to oppose these changes. The petition will be delivered to Attorney-General Nicola Roxon.
To sign the petition, please click here: http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/privacy/protect-us-but-respect-us/your-privacy-at-risk?t=dXNlcmlkPTY1NzI2NCxlbWFpbGlkPTkxNA==
GetUp! has also prepared the following video which explains the effect these changes will have:
I urge you to sign the petition and to encourage everyone you know to also sign it.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
The fruit of capitalism - rotten to the core.
Capitalism redistributes wealth from the majority to the bank accounts of the few.
Many people believe that if they are earning a living then they are enjoying the fruits of capitalism and should therefore support right-wing organisations and political parties. They continue their support for capitalism even as workers rights are eroded by these same capitalists. Workers rights that were fought for by left-wing organisations to end exploitation and ensure the needs of society were met. What workers should realise is that they are being thrown the crumbs of capitalism by the rich who build their personal wealth through exploiting workers.
Wealth is unevenly distributed in capitalist nations, not because some people have a better education or more drive than others, but because of greed and an unwillingness by many to contribute to society in order to meet the basic needs of us all, such as health, shelter, education and security.
Capitalists promote the idea that the richer they become, the more people they can afford to employ and the better wages and conditions they can afford to provide. This is a falsehood. The idea of 'trickle down economics' is misleading. The mega-rich are always looking for ways to increase their profits, which means lowering their costs and increasing prices. Reduced costs can be achieved through a smaller work force with fewer entitlements and lower real wages.
Capitalists will often refer to the Soviet Union or other despotic and repressive regimes as being the hallmark of socialism. Yet, they fail to mention right-wing despots who were often sponsored by capitalists and right-wing governments, particularly the USA, UK, France and Germany. This support was based on nothing more than greed for power and wealth with no concern for the human rights abuses being committed. It resulted in economic and military support for tyrants such as Nazi Germany's Adolf Hitler, Fascist Italy's Benito Mussolini, Indonesia's Suharto, Cambodia's Pol Pot, Chile's Augusto Pinochet, Uganda's Idi Amin, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe and apartheid regimes of South Africa and Israel, to name a few.
True socialism does not require repression, it does not require censorship, it does not require pogroms against dissenters or racial and religious groups. Those regimes claiming to be socialist or communist, but which relied on repression, did so in order to protect the power and wealth of the leadership, not to protect or provide for the needs of the community. Protection of power and wealth for the individual is the domain of capitalism.
True socialism ensures that the needs of the community are met before the wants of the individual are. True socialism tempers the greedy, individualistic exploitation of capitalism, in order to ensure that all people in society are looked after and benefit from the national wealth.
American author, Fran Lebowitz said, 'In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country (USA), capitalism triumphed over democracy'.
Capitalism triumphed over communism in the Soviet Union, long before perestroika and glasnost brought an end to it. Even under Stalin, extortion masqueraded as 'wealth redistribution' to shore up the power and wealth of the Politburo. Money extorted from workers under pain of imprisonment, torture and death, was spent on military technology and conquest, rather than on the people of the Soviet Union and their basic needs.
Capitalism usurped democracy long ago. This is particularly evident in the United States where only the wealthiest can afford to conduct an election campaign. Throughout the world, big business and the richest few have more say over government policy than the voters, ensuring the interests of the wealthy are protected while the ordinary citizen struggles to meet the growing cost of living. A cost that redistributes wealth from the majority to the bank accounts of the few.
The failure of capitalism is that we are seeing the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. There is an increasing gulf between the rich and the poor. There is more money spent on the military in order to defend capitalist interests than on the poor. Money that could save lives by being spent on health, housing and education is directed to fund wars against the poor.
Capitalistic greed only benefits a few individuals while exploiting, and even killing, the poor. This is the fruit of capitalism and it is rotten to the core. It doesn't nourish, it doesn't fulfil. Instead it feeds greed and an insatiable hunger for more, while lessening the appreciation of what we already have. It focuses on wants, not needs.
We should stand up against it.
We should defend the interests of all over the interests of a few.
Don't be deceived by the greed.
Many people believe that if they are earning a living then they are enjoying the fruits of capitalism and should therefore support right-wing organisations and political parties. They continue their support for capitalism even as workers rights are eroded by these same capitalists. Workers rights that were fought for by left-wing organisations to end exploitation and ensure the needs of society were met. What workers should realise is that they are being thrown the crumbs of capitalism by the rich who build their personal wealth through exploiting workers.
Wealth is unevenly distributed in capitalist nations, not because some people have a better education or more drive than others, but because of greed and an unwillingness by many to contribute to society in order to meet the basic needs of us all, such as health, shelter, education and security.
Capitalists promote the idea that the richer they become, the more people they can afford to employ and the better wages and conditions they can afford to provide. This is a falsehood. The idea of 'trickle down economics' is misleading. The mega-rich are always looking for ways to increase their profits, which means lowering their costs and increasing prices. Reduced costs can be achieved through a smaller work force with fewer entitlements and lower real wages.
Capitalists will often refer to the Soviet Union or other despotic and repressive regimes as being the hallmark of socialism. Yet, they fail to mention right-wing despots who were often sponsored by capitalists and right-wing governments, particularly the USA, UK, France and Germany. This support was based on nothing more than greed for power and wealth with no concern for the human rights abuses being committed. It resulted in economic and military support for tyrants such as Nazi Germany's Adolf Hitler, Fascist Italy's Benito Mussolini, Indonesia's Suharto, Cambodia's Pol Pot, Chile's Augusto Pinochet, Uganda's Idi Amin, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe and apartheid regimes of South Africa and Israel, to name a few.
True socialism does not require repression, it does not require censorship, it does not require pogroms against dissenters or racial and religious groups. Those regimes claiming to be socialist or communist, but which relied on repression, did so in order to protect the power and wealth of the leadership, not to protect or provide for the needs of the community. Protection of power and wealth for the individual is the domain of capitalism.
True socialism ensures that the needs of the community are met before the wants of the individual are. True socialism tempers the greedy, individualistic exploitation of capitalism, in order to ensure that all people in society are looked after and benefit from the national wealth.
American author, Fran Lebowitz said, 'In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country (USA), capitalism triumphed over democracy'.
Capitalism triumphed over communism in the Soviet Union, long before perestroika and glasnost brought an end to it. Even under Stalin, extortion masqueraded as 'wealth redistribution' to shore up the power and wealth of the Politburo. Money extorted from workers under pain of imprisonment, torture and death, was spent on military technology and conquest, rather than on the people of the Soviet Union and their basic needs.
Capitalism usurped democracy long ago. This is particularly evident in the United States where only the wealthiest can afford to conduct an election campaign. Throughout the world, big business and the richest few have more say over government policy than the voters, ensuring the interests of the wealthy are protected while the ordinary citizen struggles to meet the growing cost of living. A cost that redistributes wealth from the majority to the bank accounts of the few.
The failure of capitalism is that we are seeing the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. There is an increasing gulf between the rich and the poor. There is more money spent on the military in order to defend capitalist interests than on the poor. Money that could save lives by being spent on health, housing and education is directed to fund wars against the poor.
Capitalistic greed only benefits a few individuals while exploiting, and even killing, the poor. This is the fruit of capitalism and it is rotten to the core. It doesn't nourish, it doesn't fulfil. Instead it feeds greed and an insatiable hunger for more, while lessening the appreciation of what we already have. It focuses on wants, not needs.
We should stand up against it.
We should defend the interests of all over the interests of a few.
Don't be deceived by the greed.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Scientists find the God Particle ... and it's in Queensland.
On the day that Queensland wins its seventh consecutive State of Origin series, scientists announce the discovery of the God Particle ... and it's in Queensland!
Scientists from the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) arrived at this momentous conclusion after smashing two protons together in the Hadron Collider in Switzerland and producing the Higgs Boson, which they believe 'may' be the God Particle; an elementary particle which gives mass to other elementary particles.
On the day of the announcement, two warrior teams in Australia went to battle in the ancient stadium of Lang Park. The subsequent brutal clash of these fierce fighters smashing each other resulted in Queensland securing a 1 point victory and a record breaking 7th consecutive State of Origin series. Some say that 7 is God's own number ... the scientists realised that the Hadron Collider was redundant when pitted against the primeval ferocity of State of Origin waged on the ground that is the origin of Origin.
The fall-out from these historic series as seen the likes of heroes who have become the building blocks of Queenslanders' basic 'never die' nature - they are the elementary particles that give mass, life & character to Queensland!. These heroes are of almost mythical proportions, such as Origin's 'first man', or the 'Adam' of Origin, namely the mighty Artie Beetson, followed by Gods and Kings such as Wally Lewis, Alfie Langer, Darren Lockyer and today's team of heroes, including Petero 'This is Sparta' Civoniceva who just played his 300th NRL campaign and his final State of Origin series.
Forget CERN, forget the Hadron Collider ...
Photo: Getty Images
Scientists from the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) arrived at this momentous conclusion after smashing two protons together in the Hadron Collider in Switzerland and producing the Higgs Boson, which they believe 'may' be the God Particle; an elementary particle which gives mass to other elementary particles.
On the day of the announcement, two warrior teams in Australia went to battle in the ancient stadium of Lang Park. The subsequent brutal clash of these fierce fighters smashing each other resulted in Queensland securing a 1 point victory and a record breaking 7th consecutive State of Origin series. Some say that 7 is God's own number ... the scientists realised that the Hadron Collider was redundant when pitted against the primeval ferocity of State of Origin waged on the ground that is the origin of Origin.
The fall-out from these historic series as seen the likes of heroes who have become the building blocks of Queenslanders' basic 'never die' nature - they are the elementary particles that give mass, life & character to Queensland!. These heroes are of almost mythical proportions, such as Origin's 'first man', or the 'Adam' of Origin, namely the mighty Artie Beetson, followed by Gods and Kings such as Wally Lewis, Alfie Langer, Darren Lockyer and today's team of heroes, including Petero 'This is Sparta' Civoniceva who just played his 300th NRL campaign and his final State of Origin series.
Forget CERN, forget the Hadron Collider ...
Photo: Getty Images
Friday, June 22, 2012
The War against Christianity's fundamentals
Today's church is going medieval on society through legalism and its insistence that government legislate biblical law. When they don't get their way, they scream 'War against Christianity' and 'War against Faith'. Yet, the real 'War against Christianity' is the one in which 'fundamentalist' churches have hijacked the message of Jesus and turned him into a selfish, money-hungry bigot.
These sensationalist allegations of 'war against the church' are being made by fundamentalist Christian groups and aimed squarely at President Obama and others who dare to have the temerity to allow for diversity in our society.
Below is a short summary of some of the issues and quick response to each:
Of course these are just a few of the issues that some Christian groups claim are undermining the church and are part of the 'War against Christianity'. Yet, not one of these issues directly affects Christianity, nor weakens the church as a religious organisation. The church's priority should be salvation, not enforcing rules. Religious groups have taken a retrograde step through such legalistic positions. Today's church is going medieval. As with the medieval church, the legalism is not about salvation or helping society, but about political power, and this we see with the rise of religious political parties.
If fundamentalist churches and religious groups wish to engage in political activity, then they should pay tax. At the moment, they do not contribute financially to government through taxes, but want to dictate how government is run and the decisions it makes.
Fundamentalist Christians fervently supported the invasion of Iraq regardless of the illegality of it, regardless of the fact that Iraq had been the playground of the United States for years and its people suffered, as did many others around the world, as the USA spread its evil, capitalistic greed and power-hungry hegemony over the globe. Hussein was funded by the USA. As was Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahideen during the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, resulting in Al Qaeda and the Taliban respectively.
Yet some Christian groups expect us to continue to support this war-mongering in the name of Christ because the USA is seen as some sort of bastion of Christianity. These people seem to not understand that the founding fathers took pains to ensure that the USA was a secular nation by separating church and state. God is not mentioned in the Constitution and the First Amendment specifically states that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...'.
Remember, Jesus telling us to 'turn the other cheek'? We wouldn't have to turn any cheek if it wasn't for the aggression of the USA and blood-thirsty screams for vengeance from 'fundamentalist' Christians every time someone dares to question or fight against US aggression.
War against Christianity? War against Faith? Damn, right there is a war.
It is the War against Truth, the War against Love, the War against the Beatitudes, the War against the Poor, the War being waged by the those who have reinvented Jesus as a war-mongering, homophobic, capitalist bigot. The war is against fundamentalism, not the right-wing reinvention of fundamentalism, but the true fundamentals of Christianity, namely the messages of love, grace and forgiveness which Jesus preached and which Christianity is founded on.
That is the real War against Christianity.
These sensationalist allegations of 'war against the church' are being made by fundamentalist Christian groups and aimed squarely at President Obama and others who dare to have the temerity to allow for diversity in our society.
Below is a short summary of some of the issues and quick response to each:
- welfare
to deny welfare or sharing of wealth, some Christians focus on the verse in Matthew 26:11, in which Jesus says 'For you have the poor will you always ... '. However, this verse is out of context because the second part of it reads '... but Me you do not always have'. Jesus was telling the disciples that He, as the Son of God, should be their priority; He wasn't saying to ignore the poor. There are over 2,000 scriptures saying to care for the poor unconditionally, including the original scripture that Jesus was referencing, which is found in Deuteronomy 15:11, 'for the poor will never cease from the land; therefore, I command you, saying 'You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land' '. None of this 'give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a life time' maxim which is not biblical and is often used to justify not giving to the poor at all. God commands us to give food, drink, clothes, shelter and money to the poor and needy. If we can help the poor by giving them jobs and careers that is good, but don't ignore their immediate needs with misquoted scripture and clever sayings. - refugees and asylum seekers
the media reports the constant attack by conservatives and the religious right on asylum seekers, refugees and most often on the 'queue jumper' - boat people - those who decide that their lives are more important than protocol. Yet Christians want to crucify them. The bible tells us to care for the stranger. For instance, Matthew 25:34-35, ' ... for I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you visited me; I was in prison and you came to Me.' Ironically, Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt in order to save the life of the baby Jesus. If Joseph and Mary weren't 'queue jumpers', then Jesus wouldn't have lived and there would be no Christianity. - multiculturalism
(importantly, non-Christians) since when is western society the exclusive domain of white Christians? - removal of military insignia from bibles sold to US servicemen bibles are still available, just not with an insignia.
- universal health-care
why shouldn't everyone be entitled to access free health care. It works fine in countries such as Australia, so why isn't it good enough for the USA? Oh, that's right. It is part of an evil Socialist Agenda! - big government
read 'big government' to mean any government that taxes people, provides welfare and tries to govern for the betterment of society. Of course, if the government is giving tax concessions and hand-outs to big business then that is ok! Ironically, these same Christian groups wants the government to enforce their religious rules through legislation, but don't want to pay tax to fund their increasingly political activities. - war
apparently, the church is quite happy to wage war, but then again it does have a history of it. Crusades anyone? Matthew 5:9, ' blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God '. - same sex marriage
any relationship is the business of the two people concerned. It is not the business of the church to say who can or cannot marry. Yet some Christian groups and churches have campaigned for legislation against, or preventing legislating of, same sex marriage. The argument that gay people are just indulging in their lusts shows a complete lack of understanding of the basic building block of a long-term, committed relationship: love. It is most convenient for some Christians to ignore the basic biological fact that people are born gay. For an in-depth study of biblical scripture regarding homosexuality, refer to this article: 'Adam & Eve meet Adam & Steve' - abortion
regardless of the moral argument over this, some groups use the issue to vehemently, and sometimes violently, promote a religious agenda. Forcing Christianity onto non-Christians and telling them what to do is not acceptable. Additionally, many of those same groups cease to care about people once they are born, instead they condemn welfare for the poor. If human life is so sacred to them, then they should be caring for people from conception to the grave.
Of course these are just a few of the issues that some Christian groups claim are undermining the church and are part of the 'War against Christianity'. Yet, not one of these issues directly affects Christianity, nor weakens the church as a religious organisation. The church's priority should be salvation, not enforcing rules. Religious groups have taken a retrograde step through such legalistic positions. Today's church is going medieval. As with the medieval church, the legalism is not about salvation or helping society, but about political power, and this we see with the rise of religious political parties.
If fundamentalist churches and religious groups wish to engage in political activity, then they should pay tax. At the moment, they do not contribute financially to government through taxes, but want to dictate how government is run and the decisions it makes.
The true 'war against faith' is that in which Christianity is being hijacked and it's faithful being manipulated into believing that 'real' Christians support right-wing parties, support war, support capitalist greed while opposing 'socialist' initiatives such as assistance for the poor, the down-trodden, the widow, the refugee.
Any attempt by government to assist the poor, or for that matter everyone, through the provision of universal health-care, welfare, jobs programs and daring to suggest that the wealthy pay more tax, results in the rabid religious right screaming that it is a 'war on faith', a 'war on Christianity', that it is 'socialism'.
Well, guess what? Jesus was a socialist AND he told us to pay our taxes. But, I guess we shouldn't say that too loud, it might upset those Christians who are chasing the great American Dream: to get as wealthy as possible with the blessing of God (I'm not sure what scripture actually says that God wants us to accumulate wealth at the expense of others - I can name a few that say to get rid of your wealth and share it with the poor - but that would be socialism!).
Just a few scriptures:
Any attempt by government to assist the poor, or for that matter everyone, through the provision of universal health-care, welfare, jobs programs and daring to suggest that the wealthy pay more tax, results in the rabid religious right screaming that it is a 'war on faith', a 'war on Christianity', that it is 'socialism'.
Well, guess what? Jesus was a socialist AND he told us to pay our taxes. But, I guess we shouldn't say that too loud, it might upset those Christians who are chasing the great American Dream: to get as wealthy as possible with the blessing of God (I'm not sure what scripture actually says that God wants us to accumulate wealth at the expense of others - I can name a few that say to get rid of your wealth and share it with the poor - but that would be socialism!).
Just a few scriptures:
- Matthew 25:34-36 'for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you took me in, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to Me'
- Matthew 25:45 'inasmuch as you did not do it to the least of these, you did not do it to me'
- Acts 4:34-35 'Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need'
Fundamentalist Christians fervently supported the invasion of Iraq regardless of the illegality of it, regardless of the fact that Iraq had been the playground of the United States for years and its people suffered, as did many others around the world, as the USA spread its evil, capitalistic greed and power-hungry hegemony over the globe. Hussein was funded by the USA. As was Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahideen during the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, resulting in Al Qaeda and the Taliban respectively.
Yet some Christian groups expect us to continue to support this war-mongering in the name of Christ because the USA is seen as some sort of bastion of Christianity. These people seem to not understand that the founding fathers took pains to ensure that the USA was a secular nation by separating church and state. God is not mentioned in the Constitution and the First Amendment specifically states that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...'.
Remember, Jesus telling us to 'turn the other cheek'? We wouldn't have to turn any cheek if it wasn't for the aggression of the USA and blood-thirsty screams for vengeance from 'fundamentalist' Christians every time someone dares to question or fight against US aggression.
War against Christianity? War against Faith? Damn, right there is a war.
It is the War against Truth, the War against Love, the War against the Beatitudes, the War against the Poor, the War being waged by the those who have reinvented Jesus as a war-mongering, homophobic, capitalist bigot. The war is against fundamentalism, not the right-wing reinvention of fundamentalism, but the true fundamentals of Christianity, namely the messages of love, grace and forgiveness which Jesus preached and which Christianity is founded on.
That is the real War against Christianity.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Praxis of Evil - SMS, telegrams & linguistic evolution
Language is under threat from SMS, Twitter and other social media which require users to abbreviate words ... or so we are told. Yet English today is almost unrecognisable to what it was 1,000 years ago ... and the apocalyptic SMS wasn't responsible for that. Given the linguistic evolution of English, who are we to whinge if some enterprising pundit of modern technology uses common sense in spelling a text, Twitter or Facebook update?
SMS and social media have certainly introduced their own sub-culture language, even hijacking numbers in their quest to subvert the laws of linguistics. The number '8' is certainly a prime offender, being used to overthrow the suffix '-ate'. Some common social media abbreviations include:
- 'r' for are
- 'L8R' for later
- '2moro' for tomorrow
And then there are the initialisms:
- 'ROTFLMAO' for 'rolling on the floor laughing my ass off'
- 'LOL' for 'laugh out loud'
- 'TTL' for 'talk to you later'
- 'BBL' for 'be back later'
Is language truly under threat though? Yes and no.
'No' ... no, it is not under threat from social media. No more so at least, than it was threatened by telegrams. Remember them? Telegrams were a fore-runner of SMS and far more costly. Telegrams were usually charged by the word, so senders would leave words such as 'a' and 'the' and abbreviate phrases to save money. Admittedly, people didn't send telegrams as often as people send SMSs today.
But 'Yes', the english language as we know it is is under threat. Not from social media, but quite simply for linguistic evolution. The english that we speak today has borrowed heavily from numerous languages, including latin, greek, french and arabic, amongst others. It has also been influenced by people who couldn't spell or who thought the previous spelling conventions (if they ever existed) required a good tune-up.
Does it really matter if English changes? Or should I say, 'if it continues to change'?
The below bible verse (John 3:16) is copied from various versions of the bible and shows the evolution of the language since the 14th century. Thank God, that English has evolved:
Although English has improved throughout the centuries, it still has so many quirks in spelling, sounds and grammatical rules as to make it a difficult language to learn - particularly if learning it as a second language. There are so many changes that could be made to the language to make it easier. For instance, would it kill us if the following changes were accepted as correct:
Back in the day, most silent letters were pronounced. These days, silent letters are a nightmare. In fact, 'nightmare' is a nightmare. It has a 'gh' in it, which is usually pronounced 'f', yet is silent. 'Mare' rhymes with 'air', but is spelt with an 'are'. By itself, 'are' is pronounced 'ar' not 'air'. So who are we to whinge if some enterprising pundit of modern technology decides to use some common sense in spelling when sending a text or facebook update?
In some words, there are different letters which are pronounced the same! Why? What is their purpose other than to confuse? Why isn't 'confuse' spelt 'confuze', or 'confyuz', or 'konfyuz'? What about words that are spelt differently, sound the same and have contradictory meanings? For example, 'raise' and 'raze': 'raise' means to elevate, erect or increase, while 'raze' means to tear down, demolish or destroy. It's easy to see the difference between homonyms while reading, but try seeing the difference while speaking without the letters psychedelically appearing before your eyes like a grammatical acid trip.
Then there are some words which have at least two contradictory meanings. For example, dust can mean to remove dust from or to cover in dust, cleave means to tear apart or join together.
I could go on and on about duplication and contradictions in the English language with letters, words and grammar.
Now, I'm not advocating the wholesale, over-night decimation of the alphabet and immediate reconstruction of the rules of grammar. I am saying that the English language has a lot of wriggle room for improvement, some of which will come to fruition along its evolutionary path.
Feel threatened by SMS? Like the telegram, SMS is not going to redefine the English language, it is merely a blip on the grammatical radar. However, the English language is evolving, as it has always done. The language in 100 years will be as strange to us as the language of 100 years ago is. In 500 years, our language of today will be as antiquated as the language of Shakespeare and King James. It will be comprehensible for the most part, but will have phrases, words and terminologies that we just won't have a clue about.
Rather than being precious about our language changing, rather than demonising elements of its usage, we should study it, master it and accept that change is natural.
CUL8R!
SMS and social media have certainly introduced their own sub-culture language, even hijacking numbers in their quest to subvert the laws of linguistics. The number '8' is certainly a prime offender, being used to overthrow the suffix '-ate'. Some common social media abbreviations include:
- 'r' for are
- 'L8R' for later
- '2moro' for tomorrow
And then there are the initialisms:
- 'ROTFLMAO' for 'rolling on the floor laughing my ass off'
- 'LOL' for 'laugh out loud'
- 'TTL' for 'talk to you later'
- 'BBL' for 'be back later'
Is language truly under threat though? Yes and no.
'No' ... no, it is not under threat from social media. No more so at least, than it was threatened by telegrams. Remember them? Telegrams were a fore-runner of SMS and far more costly. Telegrams were usually charged by the word, so senders would leave words such as 'a' and 'the' and abbreviate phrases to save money. Admittedly, people didn't send telegrams as often as people send SMSs today.
But 'Yes', the english language as we know it is is under threat. Not from social media, but quite simply for linguistic evolution. The english that we speak today has borrowed heavily from numerous languages, including latin, greek, french and arabic, amongst others. It has also been influenced by people who couldn't spell or who thought the previous spelling conventions (if they ever existed) required a good tune-up.
Does it really matter if English changes? Or should I say, 'if it continues to change'?
The below bible verse (John 3:16) is copied from various versions of the bible and shows the evolution of the language since the 14th century. Thank God, that English has evolved:
- Wycliffe (1385) - note that verses were not numbered in this translation: 'Forsothe God so louede the world, that he 3af his oon bigetun sone, the ech man that bileueth in to him perische not, but haue euere lasting lyf.' (http://www.biblesofthepast.com/Texts/1380-1385/_File.htm)
- Tyndale (early-mid 16th century): 'For God so lovethe the world yt he hath geven his only sonne that none that beleve in him shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyf.' (http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/tyndale/joh.txt)
- King James Version (1611): 'For God so loued the world pe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whoseuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.'
(http://www.biblesofthepast.com/Texts/1611-1611/_File.htm) - King James Version (1769): 'For God so love the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.' (http://www.biblesofthepast.com/Texts/1611-1769/_File.htm)
- New King James Version (1979): 'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.' (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203:16&version=NKJV)
Although English has improved throughout the centuries, it still has so many quirks in spelling, sounds and grammatical rules as to make it a difficult language to learn - particularly if learning it as a second language. There are so many changes that could be made to the language to make it easier. For instance, would it kill us if the following changes were accepted as correct:
- 'f' instead of 'gh'
- 'f ' instead of 'ph'
- 'k' instead of 'ch'
- 'ch' has a couple of personalities as a 'k' and a 'sh', for instance, 'school', 'machine'
- 'z' instead of a hard sounding 's'
- for that matter, 's' having a consistent sound, instead of doubling as an 's' and a 'z', e.g. 'terse' and 'tease'
- why does 'c' masquerade as both a 'k' and an 's', e.g. 'cool', 'lettuce' (why not spell them, 'kool', 'letus'). I propose that the letter 'c' is redundant and should be dismissed from the alphabet!
- on the subject of redundancy, what is with the letter 'q'? It can't go anywhere without a 'u', so why not ditch it and use the versatile letter 'k'?
- why do we use double letters when single ones will do nicely?
Back in the day, most silent letters were pronounced. These days, silent letters are a nightmare. In fact, 'nightmare' is a nightmare. It has a 'gh' in it, which is usually pronounced 'f', yet is silent. 'Mare' rhymes with 'air', but is spelt with an 'are'. By itself, 'are' is pronounced 'ar' not 'air'. So who are we to whinge if some enterprising pundit of modern technology decides to use some common sense in spelling when sending a text or facebook update?
In some words, there are different letters which are pronounced the same! Why? What is their purpose other than to confuse? Why isn't 'confuse' spelt 'confuze', or 'confyuz', or 'konfyuz'? What about words that are spelt differently, sound the same and have contradictory meanings? For example, 'raise' and 'raze': 'raise' means to elevate, erect or increase, while 'raze' means to tear down, demolish or destroy. It's easy to see the difference between homonyms while reading, but try seeing the difference while speaking without the letters psychedelically appearing before your eyes like a grammatical acid trip.
Then there are some words which have at least two contradictory meanings. For example, dust can mean to remove dust from or to cover in dust, cleave means to tear apart or join together.
I could go on and on about duplication and contradictions in the English language with letters, words and grammar.
Now, I'm not advocating the wholesale, over-night decimation of the alphabet and immediate reconstruction of the rules of grammar. I am saying that the English language has a lot of wriggle room for improvement, some of which will come to fruition along its evolutionary path.
Feel threatened by SMS? Like the telegram, SMS is not going to redefine the English language, it is merely a blip on the grammatical radar. However, the English language is evolving, as it has always done. The language in 100 years will be as strange to us as the language of 100 years ago is. In 500 years, our language of today will be as antiquated as the language of Shakespeare and King James. It will be comprehensible for the most part, but will have phrases, words and terminologies that we just won't have a clue about.
Rather than being precious about our language changing, rather than demonising elements of its usage, we should study it, master it and accept that change is natural.
CUL8R!
Monday, June 4, 2012
Eddie Koiki Mabo - Hero!
Eddie Mabo is one of Australia's greatest heroes. The man who single-handedly (well, with the help of family, other Islanders & a talented legal team) overturned 200 years of legitimised theft of indigenous land by colonial powers.
The pilfering was legitimised in Latin. Now, it is common knowledge that if you use a latin phrase then you must be right. After all, those Latins knew what they were talking about. Terra nullius! oooooohhhh ... Latin ... therefore it must right. What does it mean? Well, it means 'empty land' 'uninhabited land', 'no-man's land'. That was the description ascribed to Australia and it's islands by Captain James Cook as he landed on Cape York Peninsula, in the area that was to become known as Cooktown.
To claim land, the British Empire had three options. They could purchase the land, they could conquer the land or they could deem the land uninhabited. Under international law, to purchase or conquer land required the Empire to respect the rights of people from whom it was being purchased or conquered. This was unacceptable, so Captain Cook claimed the land for the British Empire and deemed it uninhabited - terra nullius.
With the pronouncement of terra nullius, the colonial invaders began settling the continent as there was obviously no-one else settled here, well, apart from around a million aborigines and Islanders. Today there are around 500,000. Settlement was not their friend. Many died from disease, many were murdered. The colonial government classified aborigines and Islanders under the Flora and Fauna Act, which may help explain why shooting them was considered a sport.
Eddie Mabo discovered just how insidious one little Latin phrase could be when he learnt that his family's traditional tribal lands actually belonged to the Crown and not to them.
Eddie was from Mer (Murray) Island in the beautiful Torres Strait. He was born on 29 June1936. In 1959 he married Bonita Neehow and their fruitful marriage produced 10 children. After a stint of pearling, Eddie ended up working as a gardener at James Cook University (JCU) in Townsville. It was here that he met the esteemed historian, Professor Henry Reynolds*, with whom he struck up a friendship. While Eddie was reminiscing about his homelands, Reynolds broke the news to him that the Crown actually owned the land, not Eddie or his family. Eddie was introduced to terra nullius and it came as a shock.
In 1982, Eddie was invited to speak at a Land Rights Conference at JCU, where he explained land inheritance. After hearing Eddie's speech, a lawyer encouraged him to sue the government for land rights and to have terra nullius overturned. Reynolds supported and encouraged Eddie to pursue this.
When I think of this law-suit I can't help but think of Dennis Denuto, the fictional lawyer in the classic Australian movie, The Castle, who sued the government for reclaiming land that belonged to the Kerrigans, in the Melbourne suburb of Coolaroo. Denuto, trying to explain why the dispossession was wrong in light of the Australian Constitution, stated poetically and rather aptly, 'but it's the vibe of the thing, your Honour'.
Eddie and Bonita Mabo, other representatives and their legal team, were tenacious in pursuing justice. Eddie knew that the dispossession of his land was wrong, even though the law said that it was right. Regardless of what was in the Constitution or in the law, terra nullius was wrong. It was just the vibe of the thing!
Ten years after Eddie Koiki Mabo, a humble man from Mer Island, took on the might of the Australian government and 200 years of tradition, the High Court handed down it's historic decision: terra nullius was overturned and native title was recognised. It was a landmark decision, a turning point in indigenous affairs and Australian history.
Unfortunately, Eddie Mabo did not live to see this decision. The stress of 10 years of legal struggle affected his health. On 21 January 1992, five months before the decision was handed down, Eddie died of cancer.
Eddie's name is synonymous with land rights and social justice. He was a man who stood up for what was right, and challenged the law when it was wrong.
Eddie was given a traditional burial ceremony on Murray Island - a traditional ceremony for the burial of a King!
In 1992, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission posthumously awarded the Human Rights Medal to Eddie. The Medal was also awarded Barbara Hocking, a barrister with the legal team, and the other Islanders participating in the case, namely Sam Passi, Reverend Dave Passi, James Rice and Celuia Mapo Salee.
Eddie Mabo is a true hero; an inspiration for his people, an inspiration for all Australians.
--0--
* Henry Reynolds is another Australian hero who has written substantially about indigenous history, including his seminal work 'Why Weren't We Told', in which he details indigenous dispossession, and in particular, his discussions with Eddie Mabo. His books are available from most book stores.
The pilfering was legitimised in Latin. Now, it is common knowledge that if you use a latin phrase then you must be right. After all, those Latins knew what they were talking about. Terra nullius! oooooohhhh ... Latin ... therefore it must right. What does it mean? Well, it means 'empty land' 'uninhabited land', 'no-man's land'. That was the description ascribed to Australia and it's islands by Captain James Cook as he landed on Cape York Peninsula, in the area that was to become known as Cooktown.
To claim land, the British Empire had three options. They could purchase the land, they could conquer the land or they could deem the land uninhabited. Under international law, to purchase or conquer land required the Empire to respect the rights of people from whom it was being purchased or conquered. This was unacceptable, so Captain Cook claimed the land for the British Empire and deemed it uninhabited - terra nullius.
With the pronouncement of terra nullius, the colonial invaders began settling the continent as there was obviously no-one else settled here, well, apart from around a million aborigines and Islanders. Today there are around 500,000. Settlement was not their friend. Many died from disease, many were murdered. The colonial government classified aborigines and Islanders under the Flora and Fauna Act, which may help explain why shooting them was considered a sport.
Eddie Mabo discovered just how insidious one little Latin phrase could be when he learnt that his family's traditional tribal lands actually belonged to the Crown and not to them.
Eddie was from Mer (Murray) Island in the beautiful Torres Strait. He was born on 29 June1936. In 1959 he married Bonita Neehow and their fruitful marriage produced 10 children. After a stint of pearling, Eddie ended up working as a gardener at James Cook University (JCU) in Townsville. It was here that he met the esteemed historian, Professor Henry Reynolds*, with whom he struck up a friendship. While Eddie was reminiscing about his homelands, Reynolds broke the news to him that the Crown actually owned the land, not Eddie or his family. Eddie was introduced to terra nullius and it came as a shock.
In 1982, Eddie was invited to speak at a Land Rights Conference at JCU, where he explained land inheritance. After hearing Eddie's speech, a lawyer encouraged him to sue the government for land rights and to have terra nullius overturned. Reynolds supported and encouraged Eddie to pursue this.
When I think of this law-suit I can't help but think of Dennis Denuto, the fictional lawyer in the classic Australian movie, The Castle, who sued the government for reclaiming land that belonged to the Kerrigans, in the Melbourne suburb of Coolaroo. Denuto, trying to explain why the dispossession was wrong in light of the Australian Constitution, stated poetically and rather aptly, 'but it's the vibe of the thing, your Honour'.
Eddie and Bonita Mabo, other representatives and their legal team, were tenacious in pursuing justice. Eddie knew that the dispossession of his land was wrong, even though the law said that it was right. Regardless of what was in the Constitution or in the law, terra nullius was wrong. It was just the vibe of the thing!
Ten years after Eddie Koiki Mabo, a humble man from Mer Island, took on the might of the Australian government and 200 years of tradition, the High Court handed down it's historic decision: terra nullius was overturned and native title was recognised. It was a landmark decision, a turning point in indigenous affairs and Australian history.
Unfortunately, Eddie Mabo did not live to see this decision. The stress of 10 years of legal struggle affected his health. On 21 January 1992, five months before the decision was handed down, Eddie died of cancer.
Eddie's name is synonymous with land rights and social justice. He was a man who stood up for what was right, and challenged the law when it was wrong.
Eddie was given a traditional burial ceremony on Murray Island - a traditional ceremony for the burial of a King!
In 1992, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission posthumously awarded the Human Rights Medal to Eddie. The Medal was also awarded Barbara Hocking, a barrister with the legal team, and the other Islanders participating in the case, namely Sam Passi, Reverend Dave Passi, James Rice and Celuia Mapo Salee.
Eddie Mabo is a true hero; an inspiration for his people, an inspiration for all Australians.
--0--
* Henry Reynolds is another Australian hero who has written substantially about indigenous history, including his seminal work 'Why Weren't We Told', in which he details indigenous dispossession, and in particular, his discussions with Eddie Mabo. His books are available from most book stores.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)