A hospital visit to a neighbour proved interesting. When we got to the ward we found and an empty bed. Enquiring of the nursing staff where the patient might be we were informed that disclosure of the patient’s whereabouts was forbidden by the privacy laws. What could we do?
We were lucky. Down the corridor we examined the trinkets for sale and taking advantage of another browser we voiced our complaint about the nonsensical application of privacy laws. As we voiced our frustration an older staff member overheard and furtively murmured the name of another hospital, to which we gratefully repaired and completed our visit.
The blind obedience of the ward staff to obligatory rules and our complete inability to challenge the senseless of it, is just part of a much wider problem. No matter what our frustration and helplessness with the actions of government and the powerlessness of ‘representatives’, nothing can be done unless public anger swells to the point of exasperation and people take to the streets in protest on one troubling issue. But to deal with all our dissatisfactions we would all have to be fulltime activists!
A serving politician in the Victorian Parliament was asked the question: ‘What would happen if parliaments made all decisions by a ballot of the members?’ The terse reply – ‘It would make MPs accountable’. A young government whip once said: ‘It would make my job hard’. No, impossible!
Picture this! Each MP (after the adoption of the ballot) would have no party feathers to fly with. (I recently asked my (party) representative, if he would have been elected if he stood as an independent. He instantly acknowledged: ‘NO’!) It is quite evident that MPs would then be vulnerable (and accountable) because they would have to convene regular local meetings, and face frequent penetrating questions from the gathering of citizens. Certainly, an early question would highlight the public dissatisfaction with the excessive restrictive powers of the privacy laws, and a demand for their amelioration.
With parties excluded from parliament by the ballot, the people would be free to press for immediate action, and every MP would have the power to take personal and prompt responsibility for the woes of his/her electorate. !
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
A Republic? Once more!
Someone has pressed the button again. Fair enough, it had to come. But are we simply seeing a rerun of the blame game and empty clichés?
The monarchy is favoured by conservative interests and the ‘It ain't broke’ syndrome, while the republican advocates merely insist that we must have a popular election model and that a president’s powers could be well codified to protect our parliamentary system. That must be explained - in the detail that we need to know.
The desire for an elected president evolves, I suspect, from the dissatisfaction of the people with the power and confusion of party politics. But this will not be changed by an elected president who is isolated from political power.
Anyway, the need for a figure head rather smacks of introspection and nationalism, which is really getting to be dated, in view of our growing involvement with global problems, reluctant though we may be.
The world, is riddled with problems, from the top (corruption) to the bottom (poverty and despair), despite one hundred and fifty years of Western democracy, because the people are too isolated from the process, without the power to move governments to effect change, and (consequently) a diminished sense of responsibility.
John Pilger, 2009 recipient of the Sydney Peace prize, in his speech, ’Breaking the Australian Silence’ (The Age, 6/11) laments the ‘carefully calibrated illusion’ of national pride in "flags and war’" while we look at injustice with the "silence" of the uninvolved.'
I suspect that our isolation from the decision-making process is at the root of our silence, and the impression that politics has nothing to do with morality.
The monarchy is favoured by conservative interests and the ‘It ain't broke’ syndrome, while the republican advocates merely insist that we must have a popular election model and that a president’s powers could be well codified to protect our parliamentary system. That must be explained - in the detail that we need to know.
The desire for an elected president evolves, I suspect, from the dissatisfaction of the people with the power and confusion of party politics. But this will not be changed by an elected president who is isolated from political power.
Anyway, the need for a figure head rather smacks of introspection and nationalism, which is really getting to be dated, in view of our growing involvement with global problems, reluctant though we may be.
The world, is riddled with problems, from the top (corruption) to the bottom (poverty and despair), despite one hundred and fifty years of Western democracy, because the people are too isolated from the process, without the power to move governments to effect change, and (consequently) a diminished sense of responsibility.
John Pilger, 2009 recipient of the Sydney Peace prize, in his speech, ’Breaking the Australian Silence’ (The Age, 6/11) laments the ‘carefully calibrated illusion’ of national pride in "flags and war’" while we look at injustice with the "silence" of the uninvolved.'
I suspect that our isolation from the decision-making process is at the root of our silence, and the impression that politics has nothing to do with morality.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Palestine - fond hopes dashed.
Any fond hopes, we might have had, that Barack Obama’s America could set to rights the ‘peace process’ in Palestine, have been swiftly dashed today by Jason Katsoukis’ Analysis. (The Age 5/10, p11).
Katsoukis comments that ‘Netanyahu is emerging as the region’s most skilled political player’, ‘outfoxing Obama on settlements (they will not cease), and forcing ‘the US to adopt his own approach of emphasising improved ... security conditions’, (no doubt continued freedom of operation of the Israeli Defence Force in the West Bank) instead of peace talks without preconditions, as President Obama had called for, before the United Nations.
Israel has already made it clear that it will never agree to a sovereign state of Palestine - with a military capacity.
Meanwhile, President Abbas, refusing talks without a freeze of new settlements (on US advice), has been comprehensively humiliated, causing understandable Arab 'outrage'.
Israeli defiance, and American weakness, with respect to spreading settlements in the West Bank, goes far back. No US president has succeeded in attempts to persuade Israel to desist due, perhaps, to concern over the Holocaust, and the power of the Jewish lobby. Nor has the UN any useful handle on power to successfully intervene -- with its rulings ignored.
We should ask ourselves: Can the threat of ‘terrorism’ ever be resolved by force of arms, without a solution to this outstanding injustice, causing the hatred at its root?
Katsoukis comments that ‘Netanyahu is emerging as the region’s most skilled political player’, ‘outfoxing Obama on settlements (they will not cease), and forcing ‘the US to adopt his own approach of emphasising improved ... security conditions’, (no doubt continued freedom of operation of the Israeli Defence Force in the West Bank) instead of peace talks without preconditions, as President Obama had called for, before the United Nations.
Israel has already made it clear that it will never agree to a sovereign state of Palestine - with a military capacity.
Meanwhile, President Abbas, refusing talks without a freeze of new settlements (on US advice), has been comprehensively humiliated, causing understandable Arab 'outrage'.
Israeli defiance, and American weakness, with respect to spreading settlements in the West Bank, goes far back. No US president has succeeded in attempts to persuade Israel to desist due, perhaps, to concern over the Holocaust, and the power of the Jewish lobby. Nor has the UN any useful handle on power to successfully intervene -- with its rulings ignored.
We should ask ourselves: Can the threat of ‘terrorism’ ever be resolved by force of arms, without a solution to this outstanding injustice, causing the hatred at its root?
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
'United we stand, divided we fall'
'United we stand, divided we fall'*. The government is now tied in knots
over its endeavour to treat the Sri Lanka asylum seekers with
compassion. It will probably have to revise its stance, to the delight
of its critics.
Clearly, our adversarial system of government is stupid.
The ballot solves elections with a minimum of fuss. Applied in
parliament, the ballot would repeat that success with all issues,
improving decisions at all levels, calming useless conflict and
eliciting respect for our government here and across the world. Just do
it.
'United we stand, divided we fall'.
*Aesop, of Aesop's Fables
over its endeavour to treat the Sri Lanka asylum seekers with
compassion. It will probably have to revise its stance, to the delight
of its critics.
Clearly, our adversarial system of government is stupid.
The ballot solves elections with a minimum of fuss. Applied in
parliament, the ballot would repeat that success with all issues,
improving decisions at all levels, calming useless conflict and
eliciting respect for our government here and across the world. Just do
it.
'United we stand, divided we fall'.
*Aesop, of Aesop's Fables
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Decisions, decisions!!!
Decisions, decisions, representing both the problem and the opportunity of mankind, are the unavoidable precursors to effective action, in both personal and communal life, to produce the results desired and guard against the troubles to be avoided.
That’s politics in all its dimensions, from the curse of bad decisions to the euphoria of sweet success. But, do the sufferings and the rewards descend equally on all. That too is politics. Is it good enough?
I have just finished reading Taylor Branch’s masterly coverage of the Negro search for freedom and dignity in America, from the Civil War to the march on Washington that concluded a long series of struggles against the political segregation which, along with the deeply manifested hate, lay so disastrously heavy on the Negroes, in the South especially.
But this detailed history covering some nine hundred pages also revealed the dysfunction of the separate government institutions which so effectively stood in the way of righting widespread, severe wrongs. Clearly, America is still in turmoil today, with high aims for itself and the world, but enormous dissent. Has the ‘democracy’, which she seeks to implant in the East, real credibility?
But where do we stand? We are quite different and it has been said that our Prime Minister has more power than an American President. But both are at odds with the varied manifestations of representative government – small parties and state powers. Difficulties abound and critically question the reality of the democracy so often claimed. There are many who are worried – how can the many problems of the present – and the future - be resolved in a desirable climate of peace? Our democracy needs reform. The ballot in parliament is sound but has appealed to few. Where else can we look?
A Queensland group, The Foundation for National Renewal, have conceived an entirely new basis of democratic government, in which fifty representatives of quite small electorates (5000) would meet in regional parliaments (covering 250000), which would each send a representative to the National Parliament. These representatives would rejoin their regional parliaments on the Friday of each sitting week, thus enabling cross conferencing and integrating government of all levels automatically. So, what do you think of that?
Check http://www.national-renewal.org.au/ for more detail.
That’s politics in all its dimensions, from the curse of bad decisions to the euphoria of sweet success. But, do the sufferings and the rewards descend equally on all. That too is politics. Is it good enough?
I have just finished reading Taylor Branch’s masterly coverage of the Negro search for freedom and dignity in America, from the Civil War to the march on Washington that concluded a long series of struggles against the political segregation which, along with the deeply manifested hate, lay so disastrously heavy on the Negroes, in the South especially.
But this detailed history covering some nine hundred pages also revealed the dysfunction of the separate government institutions which so effectively stood in the way of righting widespread, severe wrongs. Clearly, America is still in turmoil today, with high aims for itself and the world, but enormous dissent. Has the ‘democracy’, which she seeks to implant in the East, real credibility?
But where do we stand? We are quite different and it has been said that our Prime Minister has more power than an American President. But both are at odds with the varied manifestations of representative government – small parties and state powers. Difficulties abound and critically question the reality of the democracy so often claimed. There are many who are worried – how can the many problems of the present – and the future - be resolved in a desirable climate of peace? Our democracy needs reform. The ballot in parliament is sound but has appealed to few. Where else can we look?
A Queensland group, The Foundation for National Renewal, have conceived an entirely new basis of democratic government, in which fifty representatives of quite small electorates (5000) would meet in regional parliaments (covering 250000), which would each send a representative to the National Parliament. These representatives would rejoin their regional parliaments on the Friday of each sitting week, thus enabling cross conferencing and integrating government of all levels automatically. So, what do you think of that?
Check http://www.national-renewal.org.au/ for more detail.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Symposium again!
A VIP at the Symposium (self-defined 'Very Irish Person'), complained volubly about 'Compulsory Voting'.
1. Barry Jones explained that it is not compulsory voting, only compulsory attendance at the polling booth, (with your use of the secret vote or not being up to you). The aim is to make parliament, as much as possible, truly representative of the whole secretly-voting population. But does this democratic correctness maximise popular support of the government?
2. By a further requirement, all squares on the voting paper must be correctly completed, enabling the two leading contenders to share all transferred preferences, giving the winner over 50% of the vote, invulnerability in the Lower House, and the Prime Minister nearly dictatorial power - to the frustration of the Opposition and many of the people!
3. In other countries the percentage of people voting is often quite low. Britain, for example, has first-past-the-post voting, and government is won without preferences, and less than 50% of the vote. There the party government's rule is more flexible, except where a policy is determined by a 'three-line whip' making member conformance mandatory.
4. The real point of course is that the ruling party power derives its undemocratic power by its control of parliamentary voting in the absence of secret voting in the House. The cure is dead easy for a populace which might become inclined to take an elementary interest in the government of their country.
1. Barry Jones explained that it is not compulsory voting, only compulsory attendance at the polling booth, (with your use of the secret vote or not being up to you). The aim is to make parliament, as much as possible, truly representative of the whole secretly-voting population. But does this democratic correctness maximise popular support of the government?
2. By a further requirement, all squares on the voting paper must be correctly completed, enabling the two leading contenders to share all transferred preferences, giving the winner over 50% of the vote, invulnerability in the Lower House, and the Prime Minister nearly dictatorial power - to the frustration of the Opposition and many of the people!
3. In other countries the percentage of people voting is often quite low. Britain, for example, has first-past-the-post voting, and government is won without preferences, and less than 50% of the vote. There the party government's rule is more flexible, except where a policy is determined by a 'three-line whip' making member conformance mandatory.
4. The real point of course is that the ruling party power derives its undemocratic power by its control of parliamentary voting in the absence of secret voting in the House. The cure is dead easy for a populace which might become inclined to take an elementary interest in the government of their country.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Democracy’s Failure
As I ‘look’ around the world, I see nothing but trouble, and the more trouble I see the more I think to myself: ‘Wouldn’t it be good if only we had democracy – instead of power politics from shire councils up. At every level, from local to global, policies and decisions are determined in the adversarial context created by the virtually unhindered acquisition of political power and consequent advantage – the so frequent failing of mankind in matching greed and a disrespect for the second commandment – ‘to love thy neighbour as thyself.’.
While experimental models abound, serious flaws prevail. Democracy suffers from the lack of a true model anywhere, in place or time. Even the Athenian democracy from whence the dream of democracy sprang, is picked over by the cynics, to ‘prove’ that it can never be achieved, so why bother. Certainly, slaves had no vote but, throughout the people generally there must have been a remarkable generosity of spirit amongst the people, even for the dream to be born, and also lived for a time.
Their decisions were simply reached in open meetings of the people, with opinions of all freely expressed, until desirable solutions became obvious, and no longer challenged. Thus the people made the rules by which they were governed. Quaker meetings today betray a similar principle of operation, reflecting the regard that they have for each other. It is apparent that mutual respect is encouraged in this context and tends towards becoming the norm in a climate of trust.
Thus the genius of theoretical democracy lies in its design that no one might dominate another. But, what has happened to sabotage the theory, to the serious disadvantage, and risk, to us all?
Principles of peaceful governance fail us from the local level, to the state, nation and the world. Leaders are treated with contumely and even their lives sometimes threatened by individuals and groups who are dissatisfied with current trends in policy. It is reported that the net is alive with threats to the life of President Obama, in ‘the world’s greatest democracy’.
At present I am reading the story of Afghan independent MP, Malalai Joya whose life is under continual threat, and before her expulsion from parliament her microphone was cut off if she dared to speak, because she would not refrain from exposing the criminality of the warlords who control Afghanistan with the support of America and its allies, including Australia.
The world is struggling uphill with mounting problems, with its peoples’ ideal of self-government wrecked on the rocky shores of ideology and religion. Democracy, which belongs to the people, is secular, standing for the public interest, the wellbeing of the people, but it has lost the battle with the self-interest of the people. Is that the way we really want it to be? There are some ‘stirrings in the tree tops’, but a national revival of the will of the people is essential.
While experimental models abound, serious flaws prevail. Democracy suffers from the lack of a true model anywhere, in place or time. Even the Athenian democracy from whence the dream of democracy sprang, is picked over by the cynics, to ‘prove’ that it can never be achieved, so why bother. Certainly, slaves had no vote but, throughout the people generally there must have been a remarkable generosity of spirit amongst the people, even for the dream to be born, and also lived for a time.
Their decisions were simply reached in open meetings of the people, with opinions of all freely expressed, until desirable solutions became obvious, and no longer challenged. Thus the people made the rules by which they were governed. Quaker meetings today betray a similar principle of operation, reflecting the regard that they have for each other. It is apparent that mutual respect is encouraged in this context and tends towards becoming the norm in a climate of trust.
Thus the genius of theoretical democracy lies in its design that no one might dominate another. But, what has happened to sabotage the theory, to the serious disadvantage, and risk, to us all?
Principles of peaceful governance fail us from the local level, to the state, nation and the world. Leaders are treated with contumely and even their lives sometimes threatened by individuals and groups who are dissatisfied with current trends in policy. It is reported that the net is alive with threats to the life of President Obama, in ‘the world’s greatest democracy’.
At present I am reading the story of Afghan independent MP, Malalai Joya whose life is under continual threat, and before her expulsion from parliament her microphone was cut off if she dared to speak, because she would not refrain from exposing the criminality of the warlords who control Afghanistan with the support of America and its allies, including Australia.
The world is struggling uphill with mounting problems, with its peoples’ ideal of self-government wrecked on the rocky shores of ideology and religion. Democracy, which belongs to the people, is secular, standing for the public interest, the wellbeing of the people, but it has lost the battle with the self-interest of the people. Is that the way we really want it to be? There are some ‘stirrings in the tree tops’, but a national revival of the will of the people is essential.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
‘Israel, US toil to break impasse.’
This Age heading (16/9) implies that both are agreed on a desired outcome. That could be true were it a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians they were seeking together. However, the ‘impasse’ referred to, concerns the basic stumbling block in the long-running attempts at peace negotiations between Israel and the leaders of the Palestinians, whose aspiration for a national identity has being steadily demolished, by the settler ‘invasion’ of the West Bank.
The article clearly indicates that: ‘Israeli president, Mr. Netanyahu, told members of the Israeli parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee that he had defied American requests to stop construction completely’. US presidents, from Ronald Reagan on, acting on behalf of an ineffective UN, have been unable to secure the necessary cooperation of Israeli governments.
Settlement continues unabated, with Israeli settlers in the West bank constantly growing in numbers supported by the IDF.
The whole tenor of the article denies the impression given by the article’s headline, which I find puzzling, to say the least. The world has waited since 1948 for this standoff to be resolved and the plight of the Palestinians to be respected.
The article clearly indicates that: ‘Israeli president, Mr. Netanyahu, told members of the Israeli parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee that he had defied American requests to stop construction completely’. US presidents, from Ronald Reagan on, acting on behalf of an ineffective UN, have been unable to secure the necessary cooperation of Israeli governments.
Settlement continues unabated, with Israeli settlers in the West bank constantly growing in numbers supported by the IDF.
The whole tenor of the article denies the impression given by the article’s headline, which I find puzzling, to say the least. The world has waited since 1948 for this standoff to be resolved and the plight of the Palestinians to be respected.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Palestinian peace talks
The Age today (27/8) published an article: 'Truth
is the way to peace' by Jonathan Freedland from the English 'Guardian',
in which he writes: 'Peace may have stayed out of reach because for too
long we refused to confront the true causes of this war', which are more
than a century old, even then ignoring such reasons for hatred as the
favoured son dispute between Ishmael and Isaac the favoured son and
ancestor of a 'chosen' people. It is worth noting that both Judaism and
Islam have long rejected Jesus as the promised Messiah, Prince of Peace,
as well as rejecting the second commandment: 'to love thy neighbour'at.
For the history of this conflict, reference may be made to:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html and
http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm.
While Palestinians, and Israelis generally, want to live in peace, the
sticking points are numerous.
Most Palestinians would accept Israel just as Israelis generally would
accept a Palestinian state, but Israel will not accept a Palestine with
any military capacity, which would seem to mean they would live under
Israeli rule - hardly a happy result for Palestinians.
On a different tack, Israel has the serious demographic problem of the
Israeli Arabs, with their large families, fearing Jewish minority
status. Israel proposes to make these Arabs swear allegiance to a Jewish
state, or have no vote. Palestinian prospects of freedom look dim.
In fact, the very strength of the Palestinian resistance, the
willingness of martyrs to die, now proves a substantial hindrance to an
honourable outcome to the peace process. Arab aggression, in war or
with rockets and suicide bombers, has solved nothing, only prolonging
the agony, with Palestinian losses, whether fighters or civilians,
always being far in excess of the enemy losses; as for example in the
recent Gaza Strip conflict, where rockets killed hundreds, but the IDF
killed some 3 1/2 thousand.
However, the major problem may turn out to be, again, that American
presidents' power to secure an answer to this problem is seriously
compromised by the strength of the Jewish lobby in America. The
Spooner cartoon accompanying the above article shows an uncertain Barack
Obama, with a huge 'rock' to roll away. The rock is labelled MIDDLE
EATERN/ ANTI - SEMITISM. That's wierd! In 1948 most of the Arab
population fled in terror to refugee camps. Is that any basis for
believing in a satisfactory answer at this stage without a truly
powerful peacemaker - and a really fair answer?
is the way to peace' by Jonathan Freedland from the English 'Guardian',
in which he writes: 'Peace may have stayed out of reach because for too
long we refused to confront the true causes of this war', which are more
than a century old, even then ignoring such reasons for hatred as the
favoured son dispute between Ishmael and Isaac the favoured son and
ancestor of a 'chosen' people. It is worth noting that both Judaism and
Islam have long rejected Jesus as the promised Messiah, Prince of Peace,
as well as rejecting the second commandment: 'to love thy neighbour'at.
For the history of this conflict, reference may be made to:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html and
http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm.
While Palestinians, and Israelis generally, want to live in peace, the
sticking points are numerous.
Most Palestinians would accept Israel just as Israelis generally would
accept a Palestinian state, but Israel will not accept a Palestine with
any military capacity, which would seem to mean they would live under
Israeli rule - hardly a happy result for Palestinians.
On a different tack, Israel has the serious demographic problem of the
Israeli Arabs, with their large families, fearing Jewish minority
status. Israel proposes to make these Arabs swear allegiance to a Jewish
state, or have no vote. Palestinian prospects of freedom look dim.
In fact, the very strength of the Palestinian resistance, the
willingness of martyrs to die, now proves a substantial hindrance to an
honourable outcome to the peace process. Arab aggression, in war or
with rockets and suicide bombers, has solved nothing, only prolonging
the agony, with Palestinian losses, whether fighters or civilians,
always being far in excess of the enemy losses; as for example in the
recent Gaza Strip conflict, where rockets killed hundreds, but the IDF
killed some 3 1/2 thousand.
However, the major problem may turn out to be, again, that American
presidents' power to secure an answer to this problem is seriously
compromised by the strength of the Jewish lobby in America. The
Spooner cartoon accompanying the above article shows an uncertain Barack
Obama, with a huge 'rock' to roll away. The rock is labelled MIDDLE
EATERN/ ANTI - SEMITISM. That's wierd! In 1948 most of the Arab
population fled in terror to refugee camps. Is that any basis for
believing in a satisfactory answer at this stage without a truly
powerful peacemaker - and a really fair answer?
Underdogs – Part I
Football
Martin Flanagan (The Age 31/8) gives a history of the fluctuating fortunes of Melbourne’s various football teams over the last seventy five years. In all sports there are winners and losers. The question: ‘Which team will be premiers?’ occupies many minds over the football season, not least those of the players themselves, and not forgetting those who tip the weekly.
However, in competitive sports, what makes some winners, and others losers, is not easy to assess the possible outcome attracts much interest, analysis – and guesswork. For many, quite a bit is at stake, and consequently the interest of the public is presently heading for the crescendo of a close final game
Captains, coaches, and of course the players, are all important but, often teams are favoured with the support of backers, wealthy or otherwise influential, which can tip the balance with an important moral support, rescuing the team from its underdog status.
Palestine – ‘Farmers’ struggle to harvest beset by a faceless menace’ (The Age 31/8).
There are places where the unfairness of the ‘competition’ is so entrenched that the underdogs have so little chance of escape that there is virtually no hope for a reasonable future. The above story – on page eight – does not appear in the Online Age, which means that, as papers disappear, underdogs’ troubles will be less and less visible for a concerned public to see.
The fact is that there are Palestinian farmers who suffer attacks form masked settlers whose homes adjoin their farms, with crops and buildings burnt, orchards surrounded by encroaching settler homes and poisoned, without any chance of protection or redress. Put simply, the Israeli settlers do as they please, with a mere token response from the IDF (Israel Defence Force, apparently there to defend the settlers!) and no settler in danger of being punished.
The settlements, without official approval, but the effective support of the Israeli government, occupy much of the Palestinian West Bank, making it virtually impossible for there ever to be a Palestinian homeland, despite the repeated efforts of America, and others over many years to make this happen.
The Palestinians are truly underdogs - a case of a religion creating a virtually insoluble problem and democracy not finding a solution.
History
For the history of this conflict, reference may be made to:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html and
http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm.
Martin Flanagan (The Age 31/8) gives a history of the fluctuating fortunes of Melbourne’s various football teams over the last seventy five years. In all sports there are winners and losers. The question: ‘Which team will be premiers?’ occupies many minds over the football season, not least those of the players themselves, and not forgetting those who tip the weekly.
However, in competitive sports, what makes some winners, and others losers, is not easy to assess the possible outcome attracts much interest, analysis – and guesswork. For many, quite a bit is at stake, and consequently the interest of the public is presently heading for the crescendo of a close final game
Captains, coaches, and of course the players, are all important but, often teams are favoured with the support of backers, wealthy or otherwise influential, which can tip the balance with an important moral support, rescuing the team from its underdog status.
Palestine – ‘Farmers’ struggle to harvest beset by a faceless menace’ (The Age 31/8).
There are places where the unfairness of the ‘competition’ is so entrenched that the underdogs have so little chance of escape that there is virtually no hope for a reasonable future. The above story – on page eight – does not appear in the Online Age, which means that, as papers disappear, underdogs’ troubles will be less and less visible for a concerned public to see.
The fact is that there are Palestinian farmers who suffer attacks form masked settlers whose homes adjoin their farms, with crops and buildings burnt, orchards surrounded by encroaching settler homes and poisoned, without any chance of protection or redress. Put simply, the Israeli settlers do as they please, with a mere token response from the IDF (Israel Defence Force, apparently there to defend the settlers!) and no settler in danger of being punished.
The settlements, without official approval, but the effective support of the Israeli government, occupy much of the Palestinian West Bank, making it virtually impossible for there ever to be a Palestinian homeland, despite the repeated efforts of America, and others over many years to make this happen.
The Palestinians are truly underdogs - a case of a religion creating a virtually insoluble problem and democracy not finding a solution.
History
For the history of this conflict, reference may be made to:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html and
http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Political shambles.
'With governments like this in charge'. So runs the heading over the Age letter of 7/8 by John Gemmell,
as he fumes about government approaches to political campaign funding, stumbling water policy, public fear mongering, secrecy, and dismissal of expert opinion. (continue at http://secretballot.blogspot.com/)
Indeed, as we see the fruitless confrontation in Canberra over climate change, with personal pride being the dominant factor hindering the kind of intelligent interaction that a believer in democracy might hope for, is it any wonder that we see discouragement rampant in the community?
We are assured in the Bible that 'the powers that be are ordained by God'. Well, that leaves us in a bit of a quandary. The comment: 'Why do we do it?' rings a tiny bell somewhere. Yes, why? In fact we do do it - we vote them in and we vote them out. That's it! That's the extent of our political engagement!
Shaun Carney writes, (The Age 12/8): 'What we're seeing is the failure of the established political parties and the political system itself to generate a discussion, a revolt - anything at all - on one of the great issues of our time.' Where is the public engagement? Indeed, where is it? That is apart from the media, which does nothing to bring opposed view together where a synthesis can operate.
The same thing applies to the experts. We get scattered views but no resolution, enabling one 'expert' (The Age 13/8) such as Dr Gordon Cheyne (Dr. of what?) to assert confidently that there is no such thing as dangerous climate change.
We need a political process that resolves problems, quickly, securely, eliminating political heat (which achieves nothing at all).
Meanwhile, suggestions are made that party campaigns should be publicly funded, so the totally corrupt practice of allowing the flow of vested interest funds to the parties (cash for a chat to a minister), can be arrested. Isn't it quite ludicrous that we should even consider lavishing public money on the parties to enlarge the very campaigns they use to fight for power, while doing nothing to increase opportunities for our involvement as intelligent participants? They just don't care about political reform, do they?
Our political process needs modernising, but not in a manner that might suit the powers-that-be. As Alfred E. Smith (a former governor of New York) once said: 'All the evils of democracy can be cured by more democracy'.
as he fumes about government approaches to political campaign funding, stumbling water policy, public fear mongering, secrecy, and dismissal of expert opinion. (continue at http://secretballot.blogspot.com/)
Indeed, as we see the fruitless confrontation in Canberra over climate change, with personal pride being the dominant factor hindering the kind of intelligent interaction that a believer in democracy might hope for, is it any wonder that we see discouragement rampant in the community?
We are assured in the Bible that 'the powers that be are ordained by God'. Well, that leaves us in a bit of a quandary. The comment: 'Why do we do it?' rings a tiny bell somewhere. Yes, why? In fact we do do it - we vote them in and we vote them out. That's it! That's the extent of our political engagement!
Shaun Carney writes, (The Age 12/8): 'What we're seeing is the failure of the established political parties and the political system itself to generate a discussion, a revolt - anything at all - on one of the great issues of our time.' Where is the public engagement? Indeed, where is it? That is apart from the media, which does nothing to bring opposed view together where a synthesis can operate.
The same thing applies to the experts. We get scattered views but no resolution, enabling one 'expert' (The Age 13/8) such as Dr Gordon Cheyne (Dr. of what?) to assert confidently that there is no such thing as dangerous climate change.
We need a political process that resolves problems, quickly, securely, eliminating political heat (which achieves nothing at all).
Meanwhile, suggestions are made that party campaigns should be publicly funded, so the totally corrupt practice of allowing the flow of vested interest funds to the parties (cash for a chat to a minister), can be arrested. Isn't it quite ludicrous that we should even consider lavishing public money on the parties to enlarge the very campaigns they use to fight for power, while doing nothing to increase opportunities for our involvement as intelligent participants? They just don't care about political reform, do they?
Our political process needs modernising, but not in a manner that might suit the powers-that-be. As Alfred E. Smith (a former governor of New York) once said: 'All the evils of democracy can be cured by more democracy'.
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Human Beings are created equal !
Human Beings are indeed created equal Vincent Zankin (The Age 7/8), but in another sense, are made equal, before the law, by the law of the land.
Thus the refusal of terrorism suspect Nayef El Sayed to stand before the magistrate, in court, constitutes a punishable charge of contempt of court - a breach of the rule of law.
Australian law prevails throughout this land with no ifs or buts. Minority views or beliefs, religious or otherwise, contrary to existing law, cannot prevail against the Australian law.
The beliefs and practises of religions are individual but, ideally, have a separate, public role to play, assisting and encouraging believers in the growth of citizen and leadership qualities, as an outcome of their faith.
Thus the refusal of terrorism suspect Nayef El Sayed to stand before the magistrate, in court, constitutes a punishable charge of contempt of court - a breach of the rule of law.
Australian law prevails throughout this land with no ifs or buts. Minority views or beliefs, religious or otherwise, contrary to existing law, cannot prevail against the Australian law.
The beliefs and practises of religions are individual but, ideally, have a separate, public role to play, assisting and encouraging believers in the growth of citizen and leadership qualities, as an outcome of their faith.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Two Kinds of People
There are two kinds of people in this world - the strong and the weak. Democracy, the brainchild of the Athenians, was conceived as a way for the latter to keep the former in order.
How is it working out? It’s not.
Our media is full of the struggles of minorities for justice, or even a real hearing. This is the constant story, throughout the whole spectrum of society, both national and international. Examples are legion.
Take economics. In 2006 Nouriel Roubini was contemptuously labelled Dr. Doom for predicting in detail the process which resulted in the global financial crisis. He is now (for a brief time) famous, with David Hirst (The Age 6/8) noting his Australian visit ‘from Cassandra to super star’. His fame will, no doubt, soon be brushed aside by the ‘wisdom’ of the gung-ho ‘experts’, whose hubris caused the problem in the first place.
The work of Jimmy Carter in easing US relations with North Korea was wrecked by the aggressive George Bush, resulting in the acute nuclear weapons stand-off, which was behind the arrest of two US journalists. Now we see Bill Clinton, after a ‘soft’ independent visit to North Korea, returning with both of them.
A very real issue is that party governments of all kinds are practically impervious to the wisdom of the people amongst whom are very often those who can see the imminent danger, but live with the frustration (and helpless fury?) of being steadfastly ignored. (The policies on ‘water’ and climate change come immediately to mind.) Meanwhile the juggernaut of partisan government rolls on, arrogant, tone deaf, too weak to do what is necessary, but strong enough to juggle experimental responses to vital issues, afraid to listen.
The Godwin Grech affair is another casualty of our partisan style power structure. As a public servant, his responsibility was unquestionably to serve the new government, but the length of stay of the coalition government made him a Liberal convert with an attitude which should have disqualified him as a public servant.
(That Turnbull was willing to take advantage of his inappropriate illegal loyalties casts a long shadow over his democratic character.) None of this would have been remotely possible within a ballot parliament.
The home-birth issue is another case of threatening government dismissal of the importance of minority values. It maybe that the risks to mother and child are too great to accept. But where is the forum for all sides to be adequately heard. For a minority to lose the argument can be accepted if the process fully and fairly canvasses all the facts, without government or other dominance, and the process will permit a rerun of the issue, after an interval, if fresh facts indicate that it should be.
As I write, i have a visit from a builder. He tells me of nine months delay to get the building permits from the Council for three verandah roofs (for which he already has the deposits).
The point is that minorities make a lot of noise because they fear that without that they will never be heard. Then governments resist with more or less force out of fear.
Nothing can really be final in the affairs of the nation, other than declaring war – in which case a very large percentage free vote (90%?) ) in parliament would be essential.
We are not children, or sheep. We are not ignorant, we can think, although, by having the opportunity available to take part in active participation, we could think better and more deeply.
When will we learn that pure democracy is needed to dissipate all this fear, frustration, and anger. In view of government resistance to reasonable change, many are convinced that we should have a ‘bill of rights’ to let the courts have the government on a leash. But control could be, and should be, by the people - not the courts. Rights merely set the people against government, whereas government should be in a realistic way answerable to a confident people, with a confident voice.
Without this advance (to non-partisan government (via the ballot in parliaments), there is no chance of a successful world government. If we don’t wake up to the absolute need for change, Armageddon is a very real possibility. We are the best people to get this ball rolling, if we will only believe - and take appropriate action. Join the Secret Ballot Party - for free.
basilsmith@sfastmail.fm
How is it working out? It’s not.
Our media is full of the struggles of minorities for justice, or even a real hearing. This is the constant story, throughout the whole spectrum of society, both national and international. Examples are legion.
Take economics. In 2006 Nouriel Roubini was contemptuously labelled Dr. Doom for predicting in detail the process which resulted in the global financial crisis. He is now (for a brief time) famous, with David Hirst (The Age 6/8) noting his Australian visit ‘from Cassandra to super star’. His fame will, no doubt, soon be brushed aside by the ‘wisdom’ of the gung-ho ‘experts’, whose hubris caused the problem in the first place.
The work of Jimmy Carter in easing US relations with North Korea was wrecked by the aggressive George Bush, resulting in the acute nuclear weapons stand-off, which was behind the arrest of two US journalists. Now we see Bill Clinton, after a ‘soft’ independent visit to North Korea, returning with both of them.
A very real issue is that party governments of all kinds are practically impervious to the wisdom of the people amongst whom are very often those who can see the imminent danger, but live with the frustration (and helpless fury?) of being steadfastly ignored. (The policies on ‘water’ and climate change come immediately to mind.) Meanwhile the juggernaut of partisan government rolls on, arrogant, tone deaf, too weak to do what is necessary, but strong enough to juggle experimental responses to vital issues, afraid to listen.
The Godwin Grech affair is another casualty of our partisan style power structure. As a public servant, his responsibility was unquestionably to serve the new government, but the length of stay of the coalition government made him a Liberal convert with an attitude which should have disqualified him as a public servant.
(That Turnbull was willing to take advantage of his inappropriate illegal loyalties casts a long shadow over his democratic character.) None of this would have been remotely possible within a ballot parliament.
The home-birth issue is another case of threatening government dismissal of the importance of minority values. It maybe that the risks to mother and child are too great to accept. But where is the forum for all sides to be adequately heard. For a minority to lose the argument can be accepted if the process fully and fairly canvasses all the facts, without government or other dominance, and the process will permit a rerun of the issue, after an interval, if fresh facts indicate that it should be.
As I write, i have a visit from a builder. He tells me of nine months delay to get the building permits from the Council for three verandah roofs (for which he already has the deposits).
The point is that minorities make a lot of noise because they fear that without that they will never be heard. Then governments resist with more or less force out of fear.
Nothing can really be final in the affairs of the nation, other than declaring war – in which case a very large percentage free vote (90%?) ) in parliament would be essential.
We are not children, or sheep. We are not ignorant, we can think, although, by having the opportunity available to take part in active participation, we could think better and more deeply.
When will we learn that pure democracy is needed to dissipate all this fear, frustration, and anger. In view of government resistance to reasonable change, many are convinced that we should have a ‘bill of rights’ to let the courts have the government on a leash. But control could be, and should be, by the people - not the courts. Rights merely set the people against government, whereas government should be in a realistic way answerable to a confident people, with a confident voice.
Without this advance (to non-partisan government (via the ballot in parliaments), there is no chance of a successful world government. If we don’t wake up to the absolute need for change, Armageddon is a very real possibility. We are the best people to get this ball rolling, if we will only believe - and take appropriate action. Join the Secret Ballot Party - for free.
basilsmith@sfastmail.fm
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Ethics etc
Dr. Lindy Edwards writes (The Age 3/ 8) ‘Ethical behaviour, it seems, is a core input for thriving economies.' In other words, community ethics must replace greed and self-interest as the foundation for economic efficiency and progress. This is not exactly surprising. The need for right living or, in other words, the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would that they should do unto you), obviously has universal application, whether in the home, at work, or, surprise surprise! - in the world of politics.
There is no doubt that private enterprise, as an important aspect of individual liberty, has an important role in the vitality of business, and society generally. But to equate greed and self-interest with 'private enterprise' is a serious mistake. They can, in no wise, be regarded as synonymous or congruent, and this misunderstanding has obviously been at the root of the recent global financial crisis, with rash investment strategies encouraged by governments, by deregulation of the financial markets.
There can be no doubt that appropriate regulation is an essential safeguard for the liberty and well-being of all, within the framework of a democracy. But parliaments are pretty much infected by partisan interests, absorbing and adopting some of their less than desirable principles and beliefs.
It is certainly clear that the behaviour in our parliaments would also benefit considerably by a more diligent understanding and application of the Golden Rule.
There is no doubt that private enterprise, as an important aspect of individual liberty, has an important role in the vitality of business, and society generally. But to equate greed and self-interest with 'private enterprise' is a serious mistake. They can, in no wise, be regarded as synonymous or congruent, and this misunderstanding has obviously been at the root of the recent global financial crisis, with rash investment strategies encouraged by governments, by deregulation of the financial markets.
There can be no doubt that appropriate regulation is an essential safeguard for the liberty and well-being of all, within the framework of a democracy. But parliaments are pretty much infected by partisan interests, absorbing and adopting some of their less than desirable principles and beliefs.
It is certainly clear that the behaviour in our parliaments would also benefit considerably by a more diligent understanding and application of the Golden Rule.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
A Bill of Rights
.
There are many at present striving to have a Federal ‘bill of rights’ giving our courts a power of review of parliamentary decisions. This view is driven by a limited concept of democracy, seeking an alternative answer in legal provisions to control parliament, overlooking the real cause of the problem, the corruption of party politics, which messes up parliament as a clean-cut decision-making body, and precludes the people from their vital role. Ideologies and the interests of various minorities dominate parliament as a result. A better democracy requires much more ‘say’ for the people. The radical change needed to restore democracy is the adoption of the ballot in parliament for all decisions. Without this simple but far-reaching reform, the mess will continue, with a bill of rights muddying the water, solving little and contributing to a further complication of the already complicated task of government.
Where people in power are able to act with hubris, their decisions fail to reflect the wisdom of the people which the system excludes. Their decisions are essentially unsatisfactory, and deservedly at the mercy of the dissident criticism of the people, with the often urgent need for strong, sensible action repeatedly frustrated.
Antagonism towards government is a primary evidence of a failure in democracy, not proof of its health. A public company could never survive with a board in the constant, deliberate conflict of power politics, like our parliaments.
With independent representatives linking the people to a balloting parliament, which able to appoint and direct the executive, a thorough examination of important far-reaching matters would precede critical decisions, integrating the people in the decision-making process to the degree necessitated by the issues involved. A world-respected democracy would quickly ensue.
There are many at present striving to have a Federal ‘bill of rights’ giving our courts a power of review of parliamentary decisions. This view is driven by a limited concept of democracy, seeking an alternative answer in legal provisions to control parliament, overlooking the real cause of the problem, the corruption of party politics, which messes up parliament as a clean-cut decision-making body, and precludes the people from their vital role. Ideologies and the interests of various minorities dominate parliament as a result. A better democracy requires much more ‘say’ for the people. The radical change needed to restore democracy is the adoption of the ballot in parliament for all decisions. Without this simple but far-reaching reform, the mess will continue, with a bill of rights muddying the water, solving little and contributing to a further complication of the already complicated task of government.
Where people in power are able to act with hubris, their decisions fail to reflect the wisdom of the people which the system excludes. Their decisions are essentially unsatisfactory, and deservedly at the mercy of the dissident criticism of the people, with the often urgent need for strong, sensible action repeatedly frustrated.
Antagonism towards government is a primary evidence of a failure in democracy, not proof of its health. A public company could never survive with a board in the constant, deliberate conflict of power politics, like our parliaments.
With independent representatives linking the people to a balloting parliament, which able to appoint and direct the executive, a thorough examination of important far-reaching matters would precede critical decisions, integrating the people in the decision-making process to the degree necessitated by the issues involved. A world-respected democracy would quickly ensue.
Keep God out of our democracy!
In an excellent article, Professor Carmen Lawrence (self-confessed unbeliever), writes (The Age July 2), ‘I listened with alarm as MPs lined up to claim Christian identity while seeking to justify George Bush in the attack on Iraq.’ I share her concern.
We may think that a Christian MP could guarantee honesty, Jim Wallace, CEO of the Australian Christian Lobby, has testified that a Christian MP confessed to him, with tears, how his loyalty to party interests could override and violate his conscience.
Even if religious MPs believe they have access to Superior Wisdom, history does not concur. We know now that the preemptive war in Iraq, insisted on by confessed-evangelical Christian, George Bush, was quite unjustified, almost certainly hypocritically conceived, and was mainly and wrongly supported by our government. Surely, it must lie heavily on the conscience of all its supporters.
Professor Lawrence concludes: ‘Often the very same people who bowed their heads in prayer (to “Almighty God”), were the ones who appeared least constrained by Christian charity. There’s the rub.’ If that be true there’s something radically amiss.
In any case, with this ‘mistake’ thousands of Americans died - with far more in Iraq. Who is accepting responsibility? Politicians retire and walk away apparently untroubled. Meanwhile, those who encouraged them and those who support them bear no responsibility either.
We need to realise that in a democracy we are all responsible for what government does. Avoiding this responsibility only multiplies the problems. Fair and effective democratic government needs the involvement of the people. To this end, an early revision of our parliamentary system is essential, to be based on the ballot, with party rule replaced by parliamentary government and independent representation, so that we can participate and be responsible.
We may think that a Christian MP could guarantee honesty, Jim Wallace, CEO of the Australian Christian Lobby, has testified that a Christian MP confessed to him, with tears, how his loyalty to party interests could override and violate his conscience.
Even if religious MPs believe they have access to Superior Wisdom, history does not concur. We know now that the preemptive war in Iraq, insisted on by confessed-evangelical Christian, George Bush, was quite unjustified, almost certainly hypocritically conceived, and was mainly and wrongly supported by our government. Surely, it must lie heavily on the conscience of all its supporters.
Professor Lawrence concludes: ‘Often the very same people who bowed their heads in prayer (to “Almighty God”), were the ones who appeared least constrained by Christian charity. There’s the rub.’ If that be true there’s something radically amiss.
In any case, with this ‘mistake’ thousands of Americans died - with far more in Iraq. Who is accepting responsibility? Politicians retire and walk away apparently untroubled. Meanwhile, those who encouraged them and those who support them bear no responsibility either.
We need to realise that in a democracy we are all responsible for what government does. Avoiding this responsibility only multiplies the problems. Fair and effective democratic government needs the involvement of the people. To this end, an early revision of our parliamentary system is essential, to be based on the ballot, with party rule replaced by parliamentary government and independent representation, so that we can participate and be responsible.
Rearmament - Defence White Paper
The government’s defence White Paper has advocated rearmament, of the navy - doubling of our submarines from eight to twelve, more and bigger warships with missile capacity; and our air force with more powerful planes. Previously we reequipped our army with the latest battle tanks, ‘to deal with terror’! Will this ‘waving of the fist’ make us safer in today’s realities? Surely an aggressive attitude breeds aggression.
We might be an ever-ready partner for America, as these policies strongly suggest, but of the reverse we can not be so certain. The world’s relationships have changed.
We cannot stand tall as a military power, nor should we ever want to, but we can stand tall as a peace-loving nation advancing the cause of democracy, by reforming our own. For example, our constitution could require an eighty to ninety percent free vote in parliament before deploying any military force beyond our shores! Australians could very well vote that in—if we were asked!
Militant attitudes are very easy for government to sell to the public, fear being an easy public button to push, as seen in the ‘communist threat’, and our involvement in Vietnam (and now North Korea), and the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ with our encouragement of America’s pre-emptive strike in Iraq. How easy it is to blunder on, with hawks in our back room and fear haunting our counsels of state. Fear makes intelligent, restrained policies difficult, requiring faith in the virtue of a people-centred stance of helpful, peaceful intention.
It is encouraging that two ex prime ministers have been moved by concern at the aggressive implications of the defence white paper. Both Malcolm Fraser and Paul Keating have embraced these issues from a non-partisan point of view, highlighting the importance of peaceful intention and goodwill respectively. We surely echo their concern.
We might be an ever-ready partner for America, as these policies strongly suggest, but of the reverse we can not be so certain. The world’s relationships have changed.
We cannot stand tall as a military power, nor should we ever want to, but we can stand tall as a peace-loving nation advancing the cause of democracy, by reforming our own. For example, our constitution could require an eighty to ninety percent free vote in parliament before deploying any military force beyond our shores! Australians could very well vote that in—if we were asked!
Militant attitudes are very easy for government to sell to the public, fear being an easy public button to push, as seen in the ‘communist threat’, and our involvement in Vietnam (and now North Korea), and the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ with our encouragement of America’s pre-emptive strike in Iraq. How easy it is to blunder on, with hawks in our back room and fear haunting our counsels of state. Fear makes intelligent, restrained policies difficult, requiring faith in the virtue of a people-centred stance of helpful, peaceful intention.
It is encouraging that two ex prime ministers have been moved by concern at the aggressive implications of the defence white paper. Both Malcolm Fraser and Paul Keating have embraced these issues from a non-partisan point of view, highlighting the importance of peaceful intention and goodwill respectively. We surely echo their concern.
Superior Merits of the Ballot parliament
It seems all are not convinced of the superior merits of a ballot parliament.
The term ‘ballot’ is taken to mean a ‘secret vote’ by all the members sitting in parliament, a democratic mode far superior to that which prevails, having far better democratic credentials. Why so?
Firstly, we are talking about political power. Who wields it - and who should?
Democracy is government BY the people, OF the people, FOR the people, which means that we, as individuals, are entitled, and have a responsibility, to participate in forming the decisions on matters of public interest and concern. But clearly this means working with others, to arrive at sensible decisions.
Issues can have long term affects on our lives and it is clearly important that facts should govern decisions. But our present system of open voting and party control in parliament results in see-saw governments with important decisions often more influenced by ideology than factual considerations.
Only by a freedom for equality of public input, at all levels, can important decisions be properly subjected to new facts, new thinking and new research.
The term ‘ballot’ is taken to mean a ‘secret vote’ by all the members sitting in parliament, a democratic mode far superior to that which prevails, having far better democratic credentials. Why so?
Firstly, we are talking about political power. Who wields it - and who should?
Democracy is government BY the people, OF the people, FOR the people, which means that we, as individuals, are entitled, and have a responsibility, to participate in forming the decisions on matters of public interest and concern. But clearly this means working with others, to arrive at sensible decisions.
Issues can have long term affects on our lives and it is clearly important that facts should govern decisions. But our present system of open voting and party control in parliament results in see-saw governments with important decisions often more influenced by ideology than factual considerations.
Only by a freedom for equality of public input, at all levels, can important decisions be properly subjected to new facts, new thinking and new research.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Mission Impossible?
Can President Obama persuade the Jews and Arabs, combatants in Palestine, to ‘kiss’ and make up a quarrel that started when Hagar, Sarai’s Egyptian maid, bore Abraham a son, Ishmael. But Isaac, born subsequently to Abraham’s wife, Sarai, was deemed to be Abraham’s real heir and Ishmael was cast out.
The Israelite history in the ‘promised land’ over the centuries was chequered to say the least. That history, in the Old Testament, shows they were victors or vanquished in relation to surrounding kingdoms, as they worshipped, or ignored God. Ever longing for a Messiah, to be successful in war like David, whose kingdom extended from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, they misunderstood the nature of their true Messiah, Jesus.
False messiahs arose and challenged the Roman rule, so that the Romans fulfilled Jesus’ prophesy, destroying the temple and ejecting the Jews, who fled to many countries. Maintaining their separateness as God’s chosen people, they became offside in Russia and Europe.
The Jewish desperation for a separate state, after the Hitler’s ‘final solution’ and its Holocaust, persuaded the UN to allow the Zionists their wish to form the nation of Israel in Palestine. A wise decision?
Some six hundred thousand Palestinians deserted their homes in fear, fleeing to refuge camps around Gaza and in neighbouring states, where Muslim resentment nurtured the new guerrilla war of the suicide bomber. And now the impasse.
Israel, militarily very strong, with American arms, financial support, and by repute, nuclear weapons, cannot be defeated. Nor can they be secure against the Muslim-fed hatred and the fearless antagonism within the Arab nation, the descendants of Ishmael.
Israel, constantly threatened is scared of the threat posed by any rise in Arab power, such as the current threat posed by Pakistan’s nuclear intentions.
Meanwhile, the possibility of a separate Palestinian state in the West Bank, assigned by the UN as Palestinian land, has been ‘scotched’ by orthodox-religious Jewish view the God ‘promised’ it all to Abraham and his descendants. Their many settlements have the tacit approval, and defence, of Israel’s government. This, together with the high separation wall, wandering through the West bank, even separating Palestinian villagers from their farms, and dividing families, effectively renders a separate Palestinian state unviable.
Can Obama, with the best will in the world, succeed in pursuing a separate Palestinian state? Consider the vehement response to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s ‘openness’ to a two state solution – the right wing cry: ‘traitor’.
But, consider Netanyahu’s preconditions: the Palestine state ‘must be demilitarised and be unable to control its borders or airspace, and must recognise Israel as a Jewish state,’ (the Age 17/6).
And Arabs resident in Israel can only ever expect to be second-class citizens, without the vote, unless they agree Israel is a Jewish state, because Israel fears an indigenous Arab demographic victory.
Jewish minority power in America virtually ensures that Obama, with the best will in the world, cannot resolve this standoff, which ensures that the ‘war’ of Islam against the Western world could last a very long time.
The Israelite history in the ‘promised land’ over the centuries was chequered to say the least. That history, in the Old Testament, shows they were victors or vanquished in relation to surrounding kingdoms, as they worshipped, or ignored God. Ever longing for a Messiah, to be successful in war like David, whose kingdom extended from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, they misunderstood the nature of their true Messiah, Jesus.
False messiahs arose and challenged the Roman rule, so that the Romans fulfilled Jesus’ prophesy, destroying the temple and ejecting the Jews, who fled to many countries. Maintaining their separateness as God’s chosen people, they became offside in Russia and Europe.
The Jewish desperation for a separate state, after the Hitler’s ‘final solution’ and its Holocaust, persuaded the UN to allow the Zionists their wish to form the nation of Israel in Palestine. A wise decision?
Some six hundred thousand Palestinians deserted their homes in fear, fleeing to refuge camps around Gaza and in neighbouring states, where Muslim resentment nurtured the new guerrilla war of the suicide bomber. And now the impasse.
Israel, militarily very strong, with American arms, financial support, and by repute, nuclear weapons, cannot be defeated. Nor can they be secure against the Muslim-fed hatred and the fearless antagonism within the Arab nation, the descendants of Ishmael.
Israel, constantly threatened is scared of the threat posed by any rise in Arab power, such as the current threat posed by Pakistan’s nuclear intentions.
Meanwhile, the possibility of a separate Palestinian state in the West Bank, assigned by the UN as Palestinian land, has been ‘scotched’ by orthodox-religious Jewish view the God ‘promised’ it all to Abraham and his descendants. Their many settlements have the tacit approval, and defence, of Israel’s government. This, together with the high separation wall, wandering through the West bank, even separating Palestinian villagers from their farms, and dividing families, effectively renders a separate Palestinian state unviable.
Can Obama, with the best will in the world, succeed in pursuing a separate Palestinian state? Consider the vehement response to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s ‘openness’ to a two state solution – the right wing cry: ‘traitor’.
But, consider Netanyahu’s preconditions: the Palestine state ‘must be demilitarised and be unable to control its borders or airspace, and must recognise Israel as a Jewish state,’ (the Age 17/6).
And Arabs resident in Israel can only ever expect to be second-class citizens, without the vote, unless they agree Israel is a Jewish state, because Israel fears an indigenous Arab demographic victory.
Jewish minority power in America virtually ensures that Obama, with the best will in the world, cannot resolve this standoff, which ensures that the ‘war’ of Islam against the Western world could last a very long time.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Ballots IN Parliament - realistic?
My friends,
I am continually saddened by the fruitless argumentation and sterile
conflict in our government circles - (and media). Sound, constructive
decision-making is hamstrung by bitter and pointless disputation. I note
that in Britain they achieved unity of purpose in WWII with coalition
government, after a terrible start without unity. In the beginning of
the present crisis I recall there was talk of a coordinated approach but
it quickly withered through the pressures and pride of partisan
interests.
Watching the children singing with enthusiasm at Grandparents' Day,
today, and admiring their excellent work, in classrooms proclaiming the
highest life values, I came to reflect - do our leaders uphold these
values? Does our style of conflict-based democracy support these values?
Will life beyond school cherish, or dash, their enthusiasm and hope?
They certainly deserve better - much better.
Why should we continue with the present divisive, partisan style of
politics when a simple change to an electronic secret voting system in
our parliaments would quickly result in independent representation, with
ongoing, effective, popular involvement, and a growing confidence in the
possibilities of sensible government, to plan well for a secure and
sustainable future.
What do you think?
I am continually saddened by the fruitless argumentation and sterile
conflict in our government circles - (and media). Sound, constructive
decision-making is hamstrung by bitter and pointless disputation. I note
that in Britain they achieved unity of purpose in WWII with coalition
government, after a terrible start without unity. In the beginning of
the present crisis I recall there was talk of a coordinated approach but
it quickly withered through the pressures and pride of partisan
interests.
Watching the children singing with enthusiasm at Grandparents' Day,
today, and admiring their excellent work, in classrooms proclaiming the
highest life values, I came to reflect - do our leaders uphold these
values? Does our style of conflict-based democracy support these values?
Will life beyond school cherish, or dash, their enthusiasm and hope?
They certainly deserve better - much better.
Why should we continue with the present divisive, partisan style of
politics when a simple change to an electronic secret voting system in
our parliaments would quickly result in independent representation, with
ongoing, effective, popular involvement, and a growing confidence in the
possibilities of sensible government, to plan well for a secure and
sustainable future.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)