COMPARISON OF DEMOCRACIES
A passing thought. The situation in Egypt is parallel to the UK's positon in Europe. Both are elected governments. The British governmentS (both parties) have deliberately refused to give us a vote on whether or not we want political Europe because the politicians, who determine they know better than the mass of people, have decided we should be there.
In Egypt, the mob is trying to change the government but the government (in Egypt's case) is legitimately there and without just cause to be criticised. In the UK, the government is arguably not in the right, by being party to an arrangement with Europe on which our position has not been asked. The present situation has been deliberately manipulated over years by our politicianse to a position where we will be bored stiff with the argument and no longer bother.
For the moment, Cameron is right, in that this is not the time to do anything but the mess is almost a direct parallel. Egypt needs to become accustomed to the change implemented and needs to give more time to the further changes intended but not implemented.
Morsi is right to stay firm, Cameron is both wrong and right: right that now is not the time to do but wrong in that it is his party that failed to bring the question. Hence the Referendum Party and now UKIP, all created by Labour and Conservative determination not to ask us. Centuries of experience allow us the peace and patience in which we fume: Egypt has yet to acquire that confidence and peace of mind.
FRIDAY 28th JUNE 2013
IMMIGRATION
MP Nadhim Zahawi has called for a one-off amnesty for illegal immigrants in the UK to improve relations between the Conservatives and ethnic minorities. Codswallop, condoning individual illegality, committed solely for personal self-interest is never the correct way to proceed unless, possibly, one addresses the wider issue as to why they are entering illegally and insist that qualification requires a competent mastery of English.
The wider issue is that illegal immigrants are here because their natural country has failed to provide the living conditions they consider acceptable. They are also stating they are not adequate persons to put right their own country's ills. If they are not able, or prepared, to put their own country right, of what advantage to us is their presence here, at our cost, by default of any financial inadequacy on their part?
This brings us immediately to Iraq, Syria and Iran, to mention just some countries. While access to oil has to be seriously considered and in that consideration it is not unreasonable to say that the world need over-rides the right to territorial unilateralism, then the question arises as to the nature of world government.
The nearest thing we had to that was the British Empire. Not perfect but it was at least co-ordinated. The Hague failed to prevent the Second World War and the United Nations has done nothing but co-ordinate clouds of hot air around present problems. The US tries to behave like the British Empire but lacks the stability of that history and authority (British authority being in relation to the conventions at the time of acquisition).
Nonetheless, the argument remains that those citizens leaving their natural homes in an illegal manner is a statement their countries have failed in good governance and it is those governments that should either foot the bills, or move aside for more mature countries to run their affairs for them. Sort that issue out first Mr Zahawi, do not burble for the sake of a cheap political thrill.
ADVERTISING AND PORTRAYING PROPER RELATIONSHIPS
Unlike Mr Zahawi, Ed Miliband bursts forth with a flurry of down-right common sense about the sheer incompetence of some advertising firms. He praised Sainsbury's ads for portraying men doing the shopping. Even some of the great internationally known advertising companies can employ complete idiots, as I have myself experienced in the past.
Mr Miliband is quite right to criticise adverts portraying girls playing with dolls and boys wishing to ape super-heroes. In my day, girls didn't wear jeans so being the polite little boy I was, I always let the girl go up a tree first. One never forgets one's first flash of the seat of navy blue knickers climbing high above one. Perversely I found convent grey most attractive, probably because she was a convent girl and there seemed to be that excitement of extra wickedness in watching.
Surprisingly, seeing my father was a military man, he did not approve of girls in uniform, not appreciating that his wife's younger sister was a Wren. I recall having my sister being dumped on me and then being told "You can't do that as your sister's with you." "Why not?" "Because she's a girl?" "What's that got to do with it?" "Oh don't be so damned stupid my boy!"
Miliband is quite right. We must stop inculcating this perception that there are certain things each sex does which the other doesn't. It wasn't my intention but thinking on the hoof, one should also consider those who choose to decide their "sex" role, rather than simply have it thrust upon them. For now, the flamboyant display of some tennis players' knickers at Wimbledon puts my schoolboy excitement into the vestibule of historical irrelevance and one concentrates on the dexterity of attractive and very able women, for whose company I am totally unfit. Bully for them.
IS ETHICS A MATTER OF CONSIDERING GOD'S VIEW?
Fears that interfering with the mitochondria will lead to later and more drastic interference with wider aspects of human DNA, affecting the character and nature of the resultant baby, is not greatly different in principle to the argument over GM crops. In principle both intentions are good but we are playing with the natural order.
Whether or not one accepts there is a God concept behind the creation of life, the nature of that creation is factual: the body is nothing more than an encapsulation of biochemistry and has its own way of going haywire, without cause or reason, save its own nature. Part of that nature is the creation of a brain which raises the concept of a mind (soul) separate from the organic substance.
I
recall being in hospital at 13 with a potential need for an appendectomy and saying to one of the patients (they found I was too long for the beds in the children's ward, so I was moved to the men's ward) that I had deliberately done what I had been told not to do, in order to get the operation over and done with, so it did not affect my playing in my first serious (but amateur) public play. "My mind is the interpreter of my soul, my body the servant of my will. It's duty is to do what I require of it. It is my mind that will determine the timing of my appendectomy, not my body."
This story was obviously recounted to Matron and shortly afterwards the surgeon came down to do a detailed all over examination, finally concluding an operation wasn't necessary. Fifty plus years on I still have my appendix!
The point is that we have always interfered with the "natural" order. Even religious entities, both historically and still today in many aspects, refuse to acknowledge the reality of their believed Creator's creation: that it is in a continual state of change; as are its social mores, as knowledge broadens the mind and intellectual awareness opens up the previously hidden aspects of the mind provided by the organic substance of brain.
In their refusal to properly acknowledge the reality of their concept of their God's Creation, they have betrayed themselves, their disciples and their own concept of God. The "ethics" of the argument in both cases therefore, is purely the ethics of who is scientifically correct, according to orthodox and ethical procedures by which thay have arrived at their conclusions and recommendations.
In this, mitochondria interference would appear to be proper. On GM, for the moment, I sit on the fence as I have studied the subject insufficiently. As is the case on fracking, save to observe that the "balance of needs" is within the authority the Christian interpretation of God gave man at the beginning.
OTHER MORAL ASPECTS
Purportedly the CofE, which declared its determination to be extraordinarily irrelevant in its refusal to accept women bishops, may invest in its second bank. Good for it. It is good to see it understands what Christ said: "Render under Caesar that which is Caesar's; render under God that which is God's. Coin of the Realm is material matter essential to the sound management of (on behalf of) God's bounty on earth. The CofE has a duty of care to makethe most of its resources and unlike the Catholic church's bank, I am wholly confident in the CofE's ethics and managerial competence.
That the Islamic community has decided to declare its abhorrence of paedophilia is a very positive message and congratulations for at last giving the indication they understand basic moral values. The problem arising is the message's limitation. What would have been more meaningful would have been a clear declaration that not only do children have rights but so too do women: equal rights with all Islamic men. Were that to have been included we might start getting somewhere towards a reasonable state of society.
MONDAY 24th JUNE 2013
Now the truth is out: socialism is geared to reducing all to the level of the most inept and unfit. The NUTs are marching against the idea that head teachers could reward more competent teacherrs for their ability. That is publicity parlance. What it actually means is that teachers of competence should be rewarded and the NUTs are insisting that the ineptitude and unfitness of the rest should not be noticed. Competent management would remove them entirely.
MONDAY 24th JUNE 2013
Full marks to BT for consistency—it continues to be completely and utterly incompetent. EXCEPT when you finally get through to an actual person, in my case Bernadette, who mollified me completely and managed to knock my bill down slightly for an increased performance, although it entails receiving one of their engineers! Oh God!
To get to her however entailed another ramble on the web site going round in circles. Then a cessation of service completely, this time of both telephone and broadband. It made me think they had again failed to use the new card and had not taken their payment. I tried the mobile telephone electronically, then three-quarters of an hour wait but they had a recall system, supposedly workable on mobile but didn't, although that could be my unfamiliarity with the mobile, it's only used for emergencies out (should I break a leg walking over Ashridge or have the car break down).
Suddenly a telephone call comes through, perhaps it was a technical breakdown not due to failing to manage my account properly. Nonetheless I decided to do a one-off transfer on my card as an assurance and still going round in circles on their web site rang another number. Again automated but in fact the automation directed me elsewhere which allowed me to handle my account relationship change completely... until the end when it said there was a technical difficulty. I rang again and again three-quarters of an hour wait but this time the remote call back worked and about ten minutes later I was in contact with Bernadette, who patiently heard out my historical rant and managed to talk me into allowing an upgrade from 14Mbpersec to 60-80 odd and since I am only a mile form the source, it seemed silly not to. It was the default option, I simply could not cope with the fuss and palaver of changing to an unknown quantity at the moment, so the devil you know, I guess, won the day, despite pinching several hours (including precursor history) out of my life, through pure administrative inefficiency.
Technology is fine, if used correctly. Too few people recognise technology as being no more than a servant and like all staff it requires competent and intelligent management. The problems caused by BT, started
by administrative failure of the person sending me the advice, that they had acknowledged I had changed my charge card and therefore AUTOMATICALLY checking, as was their obvious duty, that nothing in the pipeline needed redirection. Or, when the first charge bounced, checking back to see if any changes had been made during the process, before simply disconnecting my line. Sheer, downright rank incompetence. The people themselves aping technology and becoming mere automatons, forgetting automation is the purpose of technology NOT human beings and as human beings their duty was to oversee and manage the circumstances.
MORE ON SNOWDEN
Love it! Love it! Love it! A mess of journalists stuck on an Earoflot plane without liquor, to nowhere special, for no purpose whatever, because Edward Snowden wasn’t on it! The times the press has so wilfully messed up normal innocent (often but not always) people’s lives has at last been brought to book… unfortunately, for only a very short period of time!
SUNDAY 23rd JUNE 2013
ON BRADY: SUICIDE, EUTHANASIA, LIFE IMPRISONMENT OR DEATH SENTENCES
Suicide is a personal decision between the suicidee and their God. Knowing a person's intention to commit the act, it is the responsibility of all persons within reasonable chance of preventing the action to so do.
Regarding Brady, his intention is to avert his punishment (as in all prisoner cases). He is making a clear statement that life in prison is intolerable and he can't take his punishment. It is a clear statement that the death penalty is inappropriate, it should be life imprisonment because Brady is clearly stating it is an effective punishment.
No prisoner should be allowed to starve themselves to death. Suicide is the voluntary choice of free people, not people suffering punishment, the purpose of which is to deprive them of their freedom and free choice. It is ridiculous for the state to allow prisoners to starve to death. It is precisely the same as if they left the cell door unlocked and let the prisoner go, that is what starving to death achieves.
As regards the induced starving of cancer patients through the NHS this is the NHS’ double standards: they are actually operating euthanasia without the honesty of asking the patient’s permission and without doing so in a humane way. Deal with the issue of euthanasia openly and up front.
ON GAMBLING
All gambling opportunities should clearly display the sign, Gambling can seriously damage the value of your wealth.
ON RELIGION
Religion is merely a specific area of philosophy and all religions are divided within themselves. Since God created Life and since Darwin clearly illustrated that Life is in a continual state of change it is illogical for religion not to be likewise developing and changing in its interpretations and understanding.
There are as many paths to God as there are people to tread them!
SATURDAY 21st JUNE 2013
ON GAY TIMES!
Wakey wakey!! Calls to mind... for those of UK origin and of years as to know where that comes from! It applies today to the homophobic community. Their key lynchpin "Exodus International" has suddenly decided it was indeed talking an arrant load of utter cobblers, that gay people could be persuaded, through prayer and psychotherapy, to be straight!
Exodus International is a collection of odd knobs meeting in California, where I always thought everything simply "hung out". Perhaps being anti is as much hanging out as those promoting something on the fringes. Its president and key motivator even went so far as to apologise for the arrogance with which he has promoted his ridiculous idea, that homosexuality is not a normal mode of being for a large number of people. He formally recognised the appalling misery he has heaped upon so many. That I suppose is an achievement of the prayers of the gay community! So his thoughts that prayer would be helpful was right after all! Welcome to the real world Mr Alan Chambers and the rest of the homophobic community.
WEDNESDAY 19th JUNE 2013
THE SHEER INCOMPETENCE OF OUR MODERN WORLD AND ITS IMMORALITY
We are in the crisis of a depression. The fact that word is specifically not used is yet another example of our inability to face reality. Moral turpitude is unquestionably the state of our nation, despite the magnificent example of correctness set by our Queen.
The NHS is a vast edifice and cannot be expected, on grounds of pure statistics, to be always perfect, or even right, everywhere. It is now reported that not only was there incompetence in one hospital but that incompetence was deliberately hushed up, in order to present an entirely false state of affairs and to ensure those responsible for the first failing got a way with it. We all make mistakes. What is unforgiveable is failing to own up to them and put matters right.
We now have a report out that says that on the basis of history, certain executive conduct should be liable for prison sentences. Nothing new. At the time of the banking crisis we all know it was entirely due to criminal incompetence. Yet no one brought charges at the time. Iinstead, they ensured the defaulters were paid excessive sums, for failing in the required and expected competence of carrying out their highly paid duties, to appropriate levels of care.
It is not just at the most senior levels of management that incompetence runs riot but throughout the structure. Due entirely to the inability of Amazon to run a competent accounting administration, its handling of my account caused Mastercard to perceive someone was misusing my card and advised it be cancelled. This affected my account with BT. They went to the trouble of advising me they had noted my change of card; then they refused to use it; then they claimed I had not paid and without any forewarning cut off my internet when I was due to order some more medication. Apparently BT does not understand that modern society runs on the internet with the active participation of Her Majesty's Government. The internet therefore becomes an invaluable life-line on medical matters, not to say anything else. BT then had the temerity to charge me £12 to reconnect me, a charge which they have now agreed to reimburse.
This hiatus caused me to review my charge card use and to take up BT's offer of paying monthly by direct debit as a further easing of my finances. In following the links on their web site all I do is go round in circles! They can't even get that right!
One of the programs I am using is Quark Express. I am thinking of updating it. For various reasons I have not had to communicate with Quark since my last update. They refuse to acknowledge that I exist, despite using the information they gave me to maintain contact with them!
Let's take the opportunity to be positive. I have just ordered a walking stick seat. The carrier used emailed me the day before intended delivery to advise anticipated delivery times. This was exceedingly useful, since I had planned to be out that day. All worked superbly well. So some people can get it right. Why can't everyone else?
As for the moral aspects of all this, it comes down to personal accountability and the Queen's example: "Duty first, then self." Our accountability to God was religion's hold on a moral compass. Unfortunately, many of its priests abused their position (as many Islamists are doing today) and rendered religion not fit for the modern age.
As Darwin clearly illustrated, God's Creation of Life is in a continual state of change. This means the social mechanism that makes the collective whole work is also in a continual state of change. In that failure to adequately change, religion failed us but secularism has failed to provide the moral compass religion lost for us. That is where the faults lie.
MONDAY 17th JUNE 2013
TAXATION
We really must clarify the moral indignation over tax avoidance, which is perfectly legal and tax evasion, which is wilful falsification of the accounting procedures. We must also stop getting excited over moral obligations to pay more tax than is required. The duty of business managers is to protect the interests of those who have invested in the business and own its capital, which includes people who trade with it and to whom the business owe money, as well as those people to whom they have sold goods, especially vouchers, to ensure they are to standard and can be honoured. Such people are liable to criminal charges of irresponsibility or failing in their duty of care and competence if they do not conduct themselves according to procedures and pay only that amount of tax that is due under the law.
The supposed problem of international switching of tax liabilities is surely a question of defining the law within each country? As regards the international tax market, it is just that, a market, so market rules apply. The UK recently re-implemented a previous decision to allow reduced tax liability to attract the film industry. The same principle applies to all trade, you use the tax levels as a means of encouraging further investment and trade. The level at which this is manipulated is all to do with the competition of the market between countries and setting out one's stall.
Unfortunately, we are not operating in a free market. Europe doesn't like free markets, which is why we should not be part of its political entanglement. We only went in, as a people, agreeing to the trade relations. Now, the same politicians who forced on us a political entanglement, on which they deliberately denied us the chance to express our opinions, have entangled us with a whole lot of irrelevant bureaucratic twaddle, the sole purpose of which is to minimise market opportunities and to encourage the very tax manipulation about which they are making such a song and dance. Clear out the bureaucrats, make free markets free and therefore simple and straight forward and we will go a long way to making the tax system simple and straight forward. We will all have to pay less tax, since the cost of avoiding it will be reduced or eliminated, more revenue will come from tax—provided they more rationally look at the tax system overall. It is the Exchequer's problem, not the problem of international businesses.
ON RELIGION AND "GAY MARRIAGE"
Marriage is for heterosexuals in a religious context. What should have happened is that heterosexual couples should have been given the choice of civil partnerships in a secular context.
However, if religions want to preserve the semantics of "marriage" they must also accept the equality of women within their churches, which many do not and in that they have invalidated their arguments.
For once, progress has swamped religion when religion for far too long has held back progress. Yet most religions promote God's Creation and His Creation, being life and life, as Darwin clearly illustrated, is in a continual state of change. Therefore, for religion to claim its relevance it too must change in parallel with life's changes.
FRIDAY 14th JUNE 2013
SYRIAN CONFLICT
Usual US cock-up. The Iraq war is the war we should not have had. The Syrian war we should be involved in—two years ago. Going in now is too late and we've already lost. Russia, moving earlier behind the scenes when we should have been involved up front and openly means Russian interests have already won. Islam is paralleling the Protestant revolution of Christianity but unlike the Protestants leading the way, both sides of Islam still haven't got the hang of the argument—both sides denying women their absolute rights of equality with men. Without that recognition, no religion has any value or authority what so ever. Few religions have grasped that God's Creation of life is that life is in a continual state of change and development. Without recognising that reality of God's Creation in the reality of life as it is today no religion is remotely relevant.
THURSDAY 13th JUNE 2013
OBESITY
I was surprised to learn there is an increase in the number of children requiring medical attention for obesity. I'm horrified to find that my own BMI tips me into the lower quartile of overweight. Eating with regard to weight and waistline has never been a concern until now, when various aspects of my health require me to take note of what previously took place automatically without thought.
EDUCATION
I pity teachers, the way they seem to have been continually messed about by politicians for the last ten years but I blame the trades unions for their utter irresponsibility in seeming to support people who give the impression of being unfit to teach. Encouraging disruption to pupils' learning and organising cavalcades through the streets is not the way to uphold the dignity that should be an inherent attribute of educationalists.
This morning's news tells us the education system is failing brighter pupils in nonstreamed schools. This is not new. When the comprehensives came into being this was the very charge that was made against the concept. Competent schools streamed but this was discouraged and grammar schools were phased out, utterly ludicrous. It was socialist claptrap about equality that loaded the bias towards private education, further amplifying the divisions. There is only one way to lose private education and that is to ensure all state education runs on the principles of public schools and at their standards. It is not rich parents who want their children in private education, it is parents who are involved in reality and scrimp and scrape to afford the fees because socialism, in its effect on state education has so devalued it.
With the arguments on the GCSE
standards, I think a mix of course work and exam is the better option but the bias against final exam conditions is irrational. The reality of the work place is that you have to think on your feet and make decisions of the moment. That is best experienced by the "end of year exam" for real life requires that all awareness upon the instant. There is not time to look back to one's course
work to know the instantaneous answer.
WILFUL SQUANDERING OF RESOURCE—A "DESPERATE" FATHER DECLARES HIS UNFITNESS TO BE IN DECENT SOCIETY
Let us be quite clear, the wilful destruction of any property of value is a declaration of the perpetrator's unfitness to be in decent society. No other interpretation is remotely rational. For every father who claims he has been wrongly declared by a court to be unfit to be near his children, there are many more mothers terrified, bullied, or for whom a man has made her life a misery, desperate to bring basic common decency of life to herself and her children. Hence the court proceedings.
Religion has a lot for which to answer. Too many religions perpetrate the ludicrous concept that men are all powerful and should run things. Throughout the ages men have been over zealous in demonstrating their complete unfitness for rational thought and competent management. Even the CofE cannot stomach women bishops, despite having been created by, and is currently being run by, a woman! The CofE is the religion that has shaped Great Britain and made a major contribution to the greatness of this country. It is disappointing that at a time when the moral values of properly presented religion is most needed, religion continues to fail.
On this particular occasion a superb item of art, depicting a woman, representing all the best of society, in her rendering of service to her people and the unfettered execution of the true meaning of duty has been wilfully desecrated, by one inadequate man's spite, because he cannot have his own way. People have described the incident as the act of a "desperate" man. Codswallop. It is the worst demonstration of one man's ego in direct defiance of everyone else.
While there are some women who make a man's life hell, through no failing of the man, the truth is there is a far greater number of men, who not only wilfully fail to meet their duties as a husband and father but deliberately harass the woman, in her endeavours to hold the family together and bring the children up in an atmosphere best geared to their learning their proper responsibilities in society. Let us make it quite clear, that if the claimed "Fathers4Justice" wish to associate themselves with this outrage, then they declare themselves unfit persons and confirm the correctness of the court judgements made against them.
WEDNESDAY 12th JUNE 2013
THE CHAOS OF SIMPLE INCOMPETENCE
I was telephoned, completely out of the blue, by Mastercard who were concerned that my card might have been compromised. They quoted a firm "UK Prime" which meant nothing to me and which had rejected my card, yet they saw no reason why it should have been rejected and wondered if someone else was using my details. They then elicited that it was "Prime.Amazon", which likewise meant nothing to me. Amazon do act as agent for other suppliers but I could not think of a recent Amazon purchase and certainly not one that would have gone through another supplier. It was decided they should replace my card. They also picked up that this would affect an imminent automatic request from BT. They agreed they would ensure it went through on the old card or would be re-directed to the new one.
Twenty-four hours after this conversation I received an email from Amazon telling me it had declined my card quoting: "A charge can be declined for a variety of reasons, some of which may not be related to the validity of the credit card. In many cases you simply need to update the expiration date. For more information on why the charge may have been declined, please contact the bank that issued your card."
Why was Mastercard not advised of this? Why was I not advised within 24hrs of the purchase ordered, which was three weeks previously and had been delivered within 24hrs without problem? How is it that Amazon's internal accounting can throw up a wobbly to Mastercard? How come, they advise me not to be alarmed twenty-four hours after Mastercard had sufficient information as to be concerned and then ring me out of the blue, when I hadn't a clue as to what they might be talking about?
The saga does not stop there. On receipt of my new card I went through the rigmarole of updating related accounts. On 1st June BT emailed an acknowledgement of my account change. This morning BT decide to disconnect my broadband and after an extended rigmarole I am told the account has not been settled. There can only be two possibilities, that I misentered my new card number, or that Mastercard did not make the appropriate cover for the payment . Either way, one would have expected an email advising me of the problem, not a sudden service switch out without prior warning, on the very morning I needed to order some medication on the NHS national system. No thought what ever has been given to the fact that through government encouragement everything has moved or is moving electronically, so medical matters are handled routinely on line. This is an act of wilful irresponsibility.
So utterly unfit for purpose is BT's administration that not only can I not access my own account, the BT employee with whom I am dealing is unable to access it too. So no one knows what went wrong or why someone chose to pull the plug!
Too many people are employed in over-paid jobs who are not fit for purpose and this is morally wrong when we have so many unemployed desperate to work. We must demand and expect to get better performance from those privileged to have a job. Now, four hours later, I still do not have an internet connection. They can switch it out quickly enough but in providing a service and getting it back on again BT just haven't got it.
About a week ago my brother-in-law was taking me over to one of my hospital visits as my health at that time made me unsafe to drive myself. The BT engineer was supposed to turn up between 8:00 and 13:00. He turned up at 14:00 when my brother-in-law was setting out to pick me up. I had to ring the hospital to warn them and fortunately they were able to accommodate my lateness by nearly an hour. Such is the confusion caused by Amazon's internal accounting inadequacies!
TUESDAY 11th JUNE 2013
FURTHER ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF SNOWDEN/PRISM
Transferring my Facebook interactions. Delighted we are discussing the issues raised. Martin, since we are all creatures of God and through that Creation a part of one another, were before birth and will be following death, is it not advisable that we should inter-relate more openly during the current phase of our existence? Instead, our individual ego and over-anxiousness for privacy over-rides and counters our wider and longer term interests.
Julie. On matters of the 4th Amendment, it is not my place to comment but accept your American stance as stated. The failure of governments to hold the trust of their people's comes back to my point on the openness of interactive personal relations. Governments are no more than being some of us, the people, they are not an entity separate from us. They are us.
I'm glad you acknowledge the co-dependence of society, Eleanor but you are deviating from the issue which relates to matters that effect all of us: your bank details bear no relevance to the security of the collective whole but the relevance of money laundering and manipulation of funds for criminal purposes does. In those activities particular individual egos have decided they will set themselves in deliberate opposition to the perceived interests of the majority of us, without asking us through the ballot box if we want their terrorism in our society.
I agree, Julie, that religion, as a general concept has failed society. Allowing for the excuse of the limited knowledge and understanding of the time of their conception, ignorance of that which the leaders claimed was their authority--the nature of life and living--damns their successors, as abusers of the resultant power and influence they amassed and their lack of humility. Here, I relate specifically to the Christian church's real desire to render service.
Christianity is somewhat different to other religions. There is a concept of religion through the structural edifice but the key is the specific message of Christ's life directly. Those who adhere closest to His message are the Protestant ones. It is they who counter the crazed egoism of power-hungry priests, eager to abuse their position for political self-importance.
It was expressing this political self-interest that inspired the crusades, the effects of which affect us today. The purely ludicrous position of the Vatican being acknowledged as a state is nothing more than extreme Fascism, set up by Mussolini and Hitler in connivance with the pope of the day (I think it was a Pius).
That is why the Catholic church has done absolutely nothing what ever about paedophilic priests. They are all part of a closed society for the perpetuation of their self-interests. Whether the present pope, purportedly a believer in the original Christian concepts of rendering service to God the Father's Creation will have any effect I doubt very much. The Roman Church is only a powerful cabal of vested self-interest,they are not servants of God.
Likewise with Islam, it's (who ever actually represents Muhammad) desire to bring religion into secular matters is one of its main failings to claim a relevance to modern western society and ultimately the east. It entrenches the concepts on which Christianity got hung up half a millennium years ago and on which the Church of England still has a hang up: its complete inability to understand that there is not and never has been a problem with women running the church, or any religion. Ellizabeth II is currently its supreme governor and has ruled in conjunction with modern society brilliantly. As did Elizabeth I in even more tricky times.
That, neatly, brings us back to my original starting point. Elizabeth I was superbly backed by Lord Walsingham, who created the British Secret Service of, ultimately, James Bond. In the historical facts of those times lies the current need of the state, ultimately representing all of us, to do what those in the know deem appropriate. The techniques used today are parallel with those used four hundred years ago. The only differences are those that are commensurate with their respective times.
MONDAY 10th JUNE 2013
ON SNOWDEN/PRISM
I'm going to be really provocative. Why all this fuss and palaver over US's Prism software reading everyone's emails? God knows everything. Being created by Him we are all part of Him. So why should we not know too? What's the need for privacy? There is no privacy but total openness with God.
The above was issued on my personal Facebook page which so far has provoked two responses, the nature of which can be gleaned by my answers. I think watching in the bath, in this context, would be regarded as bordering upon pornography. After all, we all have our particular turn-ons and as long as both parties are adult and willing I can't see that is likely to be of any relevance to any but the puerile.
I think we can, someone else implies, disregard God in relation to the puerile and mundane. However, I don't see what selling products has to do with intelligence gathering and knowledge acquisition for the security of the main corpus of a free society which wishes to remain free and ensure that freedom from attack.
The other issue that Snowden raises is the balance of ego versus society and in this case, why should God promote your self interest as opposed to anyone else's? Surely His interest is everyone and the benefit of the collective whole of His Creation? In this, how does Snowden justify that his opinion over-rides those who society, directly or indirectly has determined should protect its interests?
We have yet to learn if Snowden went through any formal channels to raise his concerns to the authorities directly. He would appear simply to have made his own unilateral decisions for no other reason than the arrogance of his ego, in direct disregard of security contracts he willingly signed. Why should we therefore take seriously any pronouncements by a man who clearly has described himself through his own free actions as a liar and a cheat? It is not rational to treat him as speaking truth, is it?
MONDAY 3rd JUNE 2013
Ed Balls once more charging in to talk a lot of balls. I cannot recall which party introduced winter fuel payments but I think it was Labour, so Balls is actually saying Labour mishandled its implementation by making it available across the board in the first place. I thought it had reasonably been proved that to administer a system other than "across the board" was not worth the cost. So, what actually is Balls saying, that he wants to be even more uneconomical in any future administration? Labour seem to be as much at sixes and sevens and declaring their total failure to understand the enormous damage they last caused the economy, to have any convincing argument as to what they would do better next time. Mostly, it seems, they would do what the Tories are doing, while at the same time criticising them for doing just that!
On the Boston attack there seems some extraordinary goings on, begging the question who is motivating whom for what purpose? The family in Russia, broadcasting the defence of the accused without a shred of rationality. Who has put them up to it and of what relevance could their biased opinions be?
Meanwhile the USA seem to be in something of a quandary on several fronts. My present concern is Bradley Edward Manning, on 22 charges, including communicating national defence information to an unauthorised source and aiding the enemy. It raises issues of the individual conscience, inflamed with a most extraordinary arrogance that he considers himself above the public consensus, represented by the government of the day, that he should determine the standards of national security. It is the same argument that brought us the cold war, by individuals determining Russia should parallel the USA in terms of nuclear knowledge. On the other hand could we have trusted America with the status of being the sole nuclear power? All power corrupts... .
Then there is the ego with his concept of God. Modern society must regard all religions as having failed both society and all concepts of God. If God created Man and through Man society, then God has basically made one hell of a mess of getting His message across. The reality of society is that it is a mechanism that is in a continual state of growth and therefore of change. All concepts of God have woefully failed to understand the reality of His creation: that it is in a continual state of change and religion has completely failed in its interpretation of the nature of God, unless one looks to shared commonality of the underlying philosophies. That then raises the question of a common morality and with morality, loyalty: to what and to whom?
The only logical conclusion is that secular society must rule and bring all religions to heel.
