Jack Of Clubs

I was just reading the blog of JackofClubs, someone I've had many heated but interesting debates with in the past. I came across his entry called With Friends Like These... . It is the type of post I can't read without responding to it.

In my opinion, posts like this are extremely dangerous, and are the cause of much of the problems we have today, certainly not the solution.

First of all I think this type of post is completely single sided. Extreme intolerance or agression is a serious problem in the world today. it exists and it should be countered and eradicated. But the suggestion by examples like this that the problem is an exponent of a single cultural or religious group is absolutely ridiculous. Too easily do we forget similar tendensies that exist in our own culture, or that of our other neighbours. Have we forgotten the crimes of Nazi and KKK sympathisers? Of extreme black power groups? of violence between Sikhs and Hindus or the aggression that is displayed by Zionist militants? Furthermore, are we forgetting that even in the case of looking at Muslim fundamentalism, that there is no such thing as Islam versus Christianity? There are similar problems between Islam and Hindus, or even within Islam (Shia and Sunni for instance). This whole construct of "them versus us" with "them" as the evil aggressor just does not exist.

Even worse it is the exact same type of propaganda tat is used by extremists in the Islam camps or elsewhere to incite hatred to other groups. If you want an example of Christians abusing a Muslim, or any other combination of ethnic groups, you will have no problem in finding it. And that is the second major problem. Incidents like this do not even have a proper reference or clear link to facts or truth. Did this happen? Was this the whole story? We don't know. Even if it happened exactly like this, then the question of how representative of a whole culture / religion or ethnic group this is still remains.

In my opinion posting this post contributes to the same problem that it tries to identify and condemn: The aggression of one ethnic group to another. It puts the poster on a same level as the extremist imams that try to convince their followers that Christians are evil, or the Zionist calling for the eradication of Palestinians. As long as we keep hating people, and condemning their beliefs and values, we cannot expect anything else in return.

On a side note: I do agree with the comments made here about the European Union. It is far too eager to expand, and in doing so compromises the values it claims to stand for. until the EU manages to sort out it's decision making structure no one should be allowed to join. After that only when there is a sufficient equity in the values and morals that are displayed by its people and government.

Just semantics

More and more we live in a virtual world. I’m not talking about the virtual reality of computers and the internet; I’m talking about the virtual world of language and semantics. No longer do the mental constructs with which we judge the world around us come primarily from our own experience. It’s the subtle semantics of the media, politicians and other public broadcasters that build our moral views by associating words with certain connotations to events in the world in order for us to perceive them in a certain light.

Terrorists murder soldiers, Suicide bombers kill bystanders, and the Israeli army liquidates a senior Hamas operative. We’re talking about 3 more or less similar events here, which is taking the live(s) of someone outside of any possible lawful context. Still no western media would accuse the Israeli government of murdering Hamas operatives, nor would they say terrorists have liquidated our soldiers. Why?

Prisoners in Guantanamo are detained, the CIA uses extraordinary rendition when dealing with certain prisoners, Hamas have kidnapped an Israeli soldier, and the Israeli have captured senior officials in the Hamas government. Again we are talking about comparable events; impairing someone’s freedom outside of any lawful context. And again no one reports the capture of an Israeli soldier by Hamas. Why not?

While this may all seem very futile, I think it is tremendously important. And although in general people tend to say “it’s just semantics” I think semantics is really nothing trivial at all. Have we liberated Iraq, or are we occupying it? Is Hamas a terrorist organization, or are they freedom fighters? Is there an axis of evil, and does that imply that whoever is fighting the axis of evil is good? Is George Bush a religious fundamentalist when he asks god to bless America?

I think it’s time we become more aware of the little word games that are played by the powers that be. Subconsciously they are dividing the world in to good and bad, black and white simply by finding different labels for similar events. In stead of being able to use our own subjective judgment on an objective experience, we are now reduced to consuming someone else’s predefined subjective classification of events. You could wonder if we even have an opinion, or if we merely pick one from the opinions on offer. And with the single sidedness of the opinions on offer, I think that is a worrying possibility.

Human rights?

On the surface, human rights are something we all intuitively agree with. Or maybe we feel we have to, as it tends to one of those dogmas that you are not even allowed to review critically. I’m inclined to believe though that the whole concept of it is fundamentally flawed in a way that is closely interlinked with our own selfish nature.

My main problem centres on the word “rights”. Where did we get the ridiculous notion that someone owes us something, that we are entitled to anything? Yes, our conscious existence is a valuable gift. Maybe it’s a gift from god, or maybe just from extremely rare chemical circumstances. Where we got it doesn’t really matter for this discussion, as long as we can agree that it is a very valuable gift. But does this mean that because of this gift, we are entitled to more?

Let’s say we got another really valuable gift, maybe a big nice sparkly sports car. What would the appropriate response be? I would say you’d be thankful and feel obligated to take real good care of your car and show you appreciate it by putting it to good use. What certainly would not be appropriate is to start demanding fuel and roads to be built, as you are entitled to them because you have a car. That’s just ridiculous. Receiving a valuable gift should make you thankful and humble, not demanding and haughty.

So then do I suggest that human misery doesn’t matter, that people should just be happy to be alive and shut up? No certainly not! I think human life should thrive in a situation where it is given the opportunities and freedom to do so. And this brings us to the second problem with the word “rights”, a problem more to do with our unwillingness to take responsibility ourselves.

How useful is it to define a right? Let’s say I did have the right to have roads for my sports car. Until you tell me who is going to give them to me we’re not going to get anywhere with this are we? It’s all very easy to agree that people in Sudan have a right to have sufficient food, security and education, but if we stop there and then wait for someone else to fix the problem they will never get it. And that’s exactly where we are today. We all agree on human rights, but no one wants to pick up the bill.

It would be more appropriate, and more productive I think, if we would define our behavioural responsibilities in terms of duties. It would mean everyone is charged with some form of action, and not just waiting around for their piece of the pie to be delivered. In stead of a right to food, maybe we should have the duty to feed. Maybe in stead of the right to medical treatment, we should have a duty to care. In stead of the right to live in freedom, we should have the duty to defend each others life and freedoms etc.

It is time for an attitude change. Being human does not mean the world is there to fulfil your needs and desires. Being human means having an obligation to live your life in a worthy way, and contribute to that of others in order to maximise their chances of doing the same. And maybe when we finally realise that we are here to contribute to that joint potential, in stead of trying to rake in whatever we can to fulfil our own, will we find a way to live together in relative harmony.

Shut up and listen

One of the big topics in the news this morning, was our governments plan to counter terrorism in Britain. Obviously it had shocked a lot of people that the 7/7 bombers were home-grown British citizens. The problem, the government reasoned, was that there was not enough social cohesion, and these young men had felt alienated from society which had enabled them to attain a mindset that would lead to this gruesome deed. So far I completely support the analysis. Unfortunately that’s where the good news ended. Because how were we going to remedy this sense of alienation? Schools were going to have to teach children about what it means to be British: values, and an understanding of modern society in the light of its history.

There’s a fundamental misconception underlying this approach. It’s the same misconception that underlies the whole problem of global terrorism if you ask me. For some inexplicable reason we always think that our point of view is the only right point of view. And if people do not warm to our point of view, then that is probably because we haven’t explained ourselves well enough or perhaps because they are just plain stupid. And from this perspective, the proposed solution makes perfect sense. So what then is the problem? The answer I think is twofold.

First of all I don’t think the best way to let people warm to you, is to overwhelm them with your point of view. I don’t think the 7/7 bombers did what they did because they did not feel they understood Britain. I think they did it because they felt Britain did not understand them, of not respecting their values, their world view. And so once more overwhelming them with our point of view is only going to be counterproductive. Maybe we should consider the possibility that it is not them who need to listen, maybe it is us.

Secondly, if we really want to explain what it is to be British, then maybe we should try and present a more fair view of what we really are, and especially what historic role Britain has played in world events. Maybe in stead of painting a picture of the gallant knights of the west, we should be more honest about the exploitation that took place in imperial Britain, and about the mess created by the parts of WWII that we always conveniently forget to mention: The oil battles in the Middle East. And yes of course Britain has done a lot of good things, and is certainly not some evil empire. But some recognition of past mistakes would go a long way. It would give certain ethnic groups a sense that they are being done some justice.

But most of all it would educate the white British population on what it means to be British, and to take responsibility for the fact that alongside many good and positive aspects, there are darker sides as well. And maybe when white British people finally understand what it has meant to others that they are British, will they finally appreciate how they are perceived in the current era. So yes, let’s have compulsory lessons on what it means to be British. But let’s invite others to tell us what it means to be British, in stead of us telling others. Let’s just shut up and listen, in stead of talk.

Has Blair finally lost it?

Being in power distorts a mans perception. It makes them think they are more important then they really are. Less harmless is that it also tends to create an obsession with certain goals, with leaving a mark. And this obsession clouds all judgement on what means are justifyable towards these ends.

An article in the Guardian today confirmed for me that Tony Blair has now definetly entered the stage of deranged leader who has been in power for to long. A lot of people, including myself, were already strongly suspicious of the self proclaimed messiah of New Labour, but todays revelations close the case as far as I am concerned. As most people from the UK will know, Tony has been getting more and more upset about certain court rulings that he does not agree with. In itself it is not very elegant to publicly vent your anger on this as a prime minister. The foundation of any democracy is the separation of the legaslative, executive and judicial powers. To try and exert pressure from one to the iother, is undermining democracy.

This weekend though, Tony has taken it just one step beyond. My eyes nearly popped out of their sockets when I read that "the Prime Minister wants the government to have the power to override court rulings". Yes that's right, Tony wants to be above the law. I'm sorry folks, I don't care how left, right or center wing you are, but this man needs to go. Anyone having the austerity to propose he be put above, and in control of, the law is a danger to society, and if the UN woudl like to pass a resolution to invade no. 10 Downing street (or actually no. 11 as Gordon is already hogging no. 10) then I would gladly support it.

Slipknot

The United States likes oil. Oil is what keeps the Dollar strong (as long as oil is traded in Dollars), and oil is what drives the economy. I think though that the US might actually be poisoning itself even faster then it is poisoning the rest of the world with this addiction. And I'm not even talking about the enviroment really.

The US used to have a lot of Oil. Even then (way back in the sixties and seventies) it still needed to complement it's own production with about 30% imports. The US oil reserves have long since been plundered though, and are almost depleted. In the nineties the US was already 60% dependend on foreign oil, and this will only increase as we move further into the 21st century. The only regions that seem to have a strong sustainable oil reserve are the Middle East (about 75% of proven long term reserves) and Venezuela (but only if you count the more expensive heavy oil supply in the Orinoco belt).

Neither regions have much love for the US unfortunately. On top of this, new upcomming economies such as China and India are requiring more and more oil. These regimes have a much better relation with the owners of the oil reserves, and thus seem to be in a better position to secure these for the future. It's not surprising then, that the US is looking desperately for a foothold in the Middle East.

Unfortunately this singleminded approach seems to be nothing short of suicide. The increasing dependency on imported oil strain the US economy very badly. But what is worse is where this money is eventually ending up. All those billions of dollars that the US pays, and will increasingly pay, to satisfy their addiction, funds the very regimes that they perceive to be a threat to their security. Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, and even Osama Bin Laden all thrive on their petrodollars. The very money used to finance the 9/11 attacks, the ongoing insurgency in Iraq and the defiancy of Iran. The US seems to be stuck in a slipknot, and in stead of stepping back and undoing the rope, it rushes forward untill it will eventually suffocate and die.

Why doesn't the US use their warmonies to invest in durable and renewable fuels? Even if they do not care for the enviroment enough to make the effort, then at least let them consider it for the sake of their own long term economic prosperity, and your national security.

Passed

Since January I've been doing a postgraduate certificate in Education. It's been a while since I have done any formal training, and I've never actually experienced the UK education system from the learners perspective. I'm happy to say though, that I just passed my first exam with flying colours :)

A Just punishement

As I assume most of you know, The September 11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui is on trail. His lawyers have made a very interesting plea: They asked jurors to sentence his client to life imprisonment rather than give him the martyrdom he seeks through execution.

Now I just want to avoid the question on the validity of the death penalty istelf as a punishment for now, as that's not what interests me about this. I'm not in favor of the death penalty, but that's not really the point I want to make.

What I'm wondering is: How do you punish someone if they actually seek that punishment as a reward? Secondly, and perhaps even weirder, shouldn't a defence lawyer act in the best interest of his client? And if that interest is genuinly to die that martyrs death, then should the lawyer not serve that cause?

I mean the plea in itself isn't strange, if it would have been made by the prosecution. They afterall are seeking a maximum punishment, which in terms of the defendant would probably not be the death penalty. But for the defence council to make this plea... Does that mean it's a trick? Does the client not want to die at all and is this just a tactic to achieve that goal? Or are the lawyers actually working against the clients wishes here, and what implications does this have.

I'm not sure what my opinion on this is yet, but I would welcome any ideas or comments you might have as a consideration.

Sympathy for the devil

I find myself in the awkward position of being sympathetic to Iran when it comes the the issue of enriching uranium. Don't get me wrong, I would not be happy with a regime that threatens to wipe other nations of the face of the earth (Israel) having the capabilities to do so. But lets just try and look at the wider picture here.

Having nuclear capabilities military puts you in the league of most powerful nations. Suddenly your opinion matters and others cannot very easily impose their opinions on you. It is the key to adulthood among nations. The 5 permanent members of the Security Council are the first five countries to have developed nuclear capabilities. In itself this is not very controversial. These 5 nations were the most powerful, and military advanced and so they were awarded this position, that's how things work in the world.

Then in 1968 the non proliferation treaty was proposed (and signed by 188 states in subsequent years). This is a very dodgy treaty if you ask me. It basically states that the pursuit of nuclear military capabilities is not allowed, except for those 5 countries who already have them (US, USSR, China, France and the UK). That doesn't sound very fair now does it? It leaves both the US and USSR (at that time) free to develop close to 6 million nuclear warheads, but slaps the wrist of any nation outside the 5 named earlier that even dream of researching the same capabilities.

When it comes to responsible use, there does also not seem to be any logic to this treaty. Of course we do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons, because we are afraid they might use them! Well... the only nation that has a proven track record of deploying nuclear weapons is actually the US. And this is not just ancient history, as the US have already declared that they would be perfectly happy to deploy nuclear warheads in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states". France also has stated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centres. So our 5 legal nuclear powers are not more responsible, or more trustworthy, they just happened to get there first. And not they are desperately trying to prohibit anyone else getting there as well.

This is why India, Pakistan and Israel never signed the treaty. All 3 are now known to have nuclear capabilities (although Israel has not publicly admitted the fact). Many countries are very close to nuclear capabilities, including Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia even stated that due to the worsening relations with the US, it was forced to consider developing their program further, which they have rumoured to have done with the aid of Pakistan.

So what then is all the upheaval about Iran’s nuclear program? Of course the west doesn't like Iran, but that is not an objective legal reason. Iran at least has signed the non proliferation treaty, and has allowed a degree of openness and inspections with regards to its programs, unlike Israel, India and Pakistan. I think the only difference is that Iran and North Korea are the only 2 countries developing nuclear capabilities that do not pay hommage to the western powers. Pakistan and the Saudies have bought of their disobedience with intense cooperation with the US in the war against terrorism, we all know Isreal will never be reprimanded, and India is simply to big a piece for anyone to chew.

This being the case, I think Iran has as much right to pursue a nuclear agenda as Israel or Pakistan (or Canada and the Netherlands for that matter). I hold little sympathy for the regime, but I must side with them on this particular matter.

By George, I think I've got it!!!

You can have your cake AND eat it!

While I prefer the flexibility of the blogger site, I know a lot of my friends and family would have easier access to my scribblings via MSN-spaces. Luckilly the great blogger allows you to publish to e-mail, and while MSN does not, it does allow you to publish from e-mail. Soooo....

Whenever I post an entry to my blogger site now, it should automatically e-mail it to MSN and publish it on my blog there as well. Maybe I'll set up an entire empire of blogs now, flooding the world with my opinions untill they succumb to the overpowering force of my arguments!!!!!

MUAHAHAhahahahaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!

Or maybe I'll just find it within myself to post to this damn thing on a regular basis first.. that's probably a better place to start this actually.

I'll see you all soon!

Being right

I remember in school there was this fantastic possibility of being right. Questions would have correct answers, and you could look in the back of the book on the answer sheet to see if you were right. I never really got why they printed the answers upside down in some of those actually. It's not like anyone is not going to figure out how to turn the book upside down?

This monstrous flaw in our education system has scarred me deeply. for years I have actually believed that someone could actually be right. That somewhere there was justice, and if you were right then in the end that would be confirmed, and you would be redeemed, all in the back of the big book of life. After a good 31 years on this little blue ball though, I think I'm ready to admit I was wrong. There is no such thing as being right. (In a way that in itself makes the admission a little less painful, because it also means I can't be wrong... but let’s not go there).

There is no right, no wrong. There is no good, no evil. There is only accepted an unaccepted. What we accept is right, and what we don't is wrong. If something happens that we do not accept it is evil. If life confirms what we like, that is good. It is all very simple really. And so, since there is no textbook in life that has upside down answers in the back, the only way for us to be good and right, is to be accepted. We either conform to the ideas of other, that are already accepted, or we sell our own. The keyword her being 'sell'. Because the acceptability of an idea has little to do with it's content. It is the packaging that does the trick.

Luckily I'm not the only one that has been holding this naive belief. In a way I think most people do especially religious people. It is why they desperately want there to be a god, and a judgement day, because that is the day that we will be allowed to turn the book upside down and look at the answers in the back!

I'd hate to see them proven wrong, but I fear the worst.....

Back

It's been a while since I've been here. I was surprised in fact, to see that it was still there.

A lot has changed since the last time I was here, in fact pretty much everything has. I've lost a lot of loved ones, gained a lot of new ones, moved jobs and even countries! Still despite all that change, much remains the same. One of those things being my desire to write down the things I think about. Now that things have settled down a bit, hopefully that is something I will be taking up regularly again.

I'll see you soon!