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.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
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?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Ethnics & Branch Stacking – a part of political life
Dick Gross (The Age Comment & Debate 12th May) comments: “It is legitimate to organise to increase a group’s political power. Stacking (is) just part of political life.
“It is a story about how all tiers of government operate to secure power bases that go right to the top of the political food chain.” Speaking for himself (as a Jew) Gross says: “we, and every other grouping, need it.”
It is clear enough that migrants from non-European countries are ethnic minorities, with their consequent difficulties and frustrations. Without seeking to pillory them (Gross notes that ‘anglo’ political manipulation tends to excite less criticism) we should realise the extent to which these so common attitudes diverge from the very central principle of democracy – the right to an equality of political power for every one of us.
Throughout the ages there have been the struggles to bring societies nearer to that philosophical ideal, (which possibly echoes the Jewish injunction to ‘Love Thy Neighbour’), to the Greek recognition of the Demos (the individual people who comprise ‘the people’), through Magna Carta, the French Revolution, British parliamentary reforms, the ‘Australian Ballot’ for elections and the Swiss ‘Initiative’ (giving their people the right to initiate referenda).
But we are still stuck with our wretched ‘representative’ system, which hands power to the powerful – and entrenched conflict. And in the middle of all this we note that as long ago as 1911, English writers Belloc & Chesterton recognised that those whom parliament should rule are the main forces in our parliaments, to the detriment of the people. In this winner-take-all world minorities struggle. Is this a good enough ‘democracy’? I, and many others, think not.
“It is a story about how all tiers of government operate to secure power bases that go right to the top of the political food chain.” Speaking for himself (as a Jew) Gross says: “we, and every other grouping, need it.”
It is clear enough that migrants from non-European countries are ethnic minorities, with their consequent difficulties and frustrations. Without seeking to pillory them (Gross notes that ‘anglo’ political manipulation tends to excite less criticism) we should realise the extent to which these so common attitudes diverge from the very central principle of democracy – the right to an equality of political power for every one of us.
Throughout the ages there have been the struggles to bring societies nearer to that philosophical ideal, (which possibly echoes the Jewish injunction to ‘Love Thy Neighbour’), to the Greek recognition of the Demos (the individual people who comprise ‘the people’), through Magna Carta, the French Revolution, British parliamentary reforms, the ‘Australian Ballot’ for elections and the Swiss ‘Initiative’ (giving their people the right to initiate referenda).
But we are still stuck with our wretched ‘representative’ system, which hands power to the powerful – and entrenched conflict. And in the middle of all this we note that as long ago as 1911, English writers Belloc & Chesterton recognised that those whom parliament should rule are the main forces in our parliaments, to the detriment of the people. In this winner-take-all world minorities struggle. Is this a good enough ‘democracy’? I, and many others, think not.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Shariah Law
The video below reports that an Islamic shariah court has been allowed independence from British law - to operate in Britain.
This weak acquiessence to Muslim extremist pressure is extremely dangerous and is in absolute contradiction to democratic principle.
The law is much worse than an ass to allow this invasion of the rights of all Britons to the full protection of British law and government, from any religious dictatorial principles insidiously creeping in to Western society under cover of more moderate Islam.
It simply cannot be permitted.
Welcome to Saudi Britain
This weak acquiessence to Muslim extremist pressure is extremely dangerous and is in absolute contradiction to democratic principle.
The law is much worse than an ass to allow this invasion of the rights of all Britons to the full protection of British law and government, from any religious dictatorial principles insidiously creeping in to Western society under cover of more moderate Islam.
It simply cannot be permitted.
Joining the 'dots'
The Sustainability Commissioner, Dr McPhail, in tabling the Victorian State of the Environment Report, (The Age editorial, Friday Dec 5th) reveals an environment in ‘dangerous decline’, and ‘laments the failure to join the dots between issues … such as climate change and water supply’.
Similarly, ‘Planning Minister Justin McFadden dared lament the environmentally unsustainable trend to McMansions. The report observes that “community support for government leadership is needed”’.
There are plenty of others, in which the solution of one aggravates the problem in another, without adequate consideration of other associated matters.
Examples include:
1. The expansion of bio-fuel production, requiring agricultural land, when a growing world population will need ever more food.
2. Then there is the electric car which will help with the oil crisis. But have governments really got the will to develop the renewable energy needed to supply the extra electricity required, or will we simply burn more coal.
3. Last year a prize for the best and brightest Christmas lights, promoted by Melbourne commercial interests, ignoring the need to cut emissions from coal powered electricity, has passed by, virtually free of comment.
So much for government 'joining the dots'.
Similarly, ‘Planning Minister Justin McFadden dared lament the environmentally unsustainable trend to McMansions. The report observes that “community support for government leadership is needed”’.
There are plenty of others, in which the solution of one aggravates the problem in another, without adequate consideration of other associated matters.
Examples include:
1. The expansion of bio-fuel production, requiring agricultural land, when a growing world population will need ever more food.
2. Then there is the electric car which will help with the oil crisis. But have governments really got the will to develop the renewable energy needed to supply the extra electricity required, or will we simply burn more coal.
3. Last year a prize for the best and brightest Christmas lights, promoted by Melbourne commercial interests, ignoring the need to cut emissions from coal powered electricity, has passed by, virtually free of comment.
So much for government 'joining the dots'.
World government
The ideal of world government is gaining some attention, a reflection of the serious concern at the multiple conflicts in the world today. The ‘gun’ and the ‘bomb’ still hold sway, while the poorest of the world, especially their children, continue to suffer and die.
No country has yet mastered the secret of government without the corrupting control of minority interests. So what hope can there be for world democracy where the veto still rules in the Security Council? As in Ancient Greece, ‘decisions (would be) made by the many rather than the few’ in a real world democracy. A ‘pipedream’?
I have elsewhere postulated a world parliament based on a valid democracy.
It might be roughly as follows: China 1250, India 1000, USA 300, Indonesia 220, Brazil 175, Russia 150, Pakistan 140, UK 60 and, Australia 20.
If we have come some way in peacefully integrating many different cultures over the years, that owes much to our rather stable political system, largely because so many years ago we were granted the ‘fair go’ of a secret ballot for the election of our representatives.
But is that all we can do? Democracy is still weak and struggling convulsively with the several hefty world problems which cannot be avoided. Is it so impossible, to have the people govern instead of minority interests?
We ourselves need the last neglected step of democratic reform—the secret ballot to rule in our parliaments, conferring independence on all our representatives, restoring parliamentary government—by the people.
Now that would give us the world’s respect, with an image to lead the world to a genuine democracy within and among all the nations. Must it be only a ‘pipedream’?
.
No country has yet mastered the secret of government without the corrupting control of minority interests. So what hope can there be for world democracy where the veto still rules in the Security Council? As in Ancient Greece, ‘decisions (would be) made by the many rather than the few’ in a real world democracy. A ‘pipedream’?
I have elsewhere postulated a world parliament based on a valid democracy.
It might be roughly as follows: China 1250, India 1000, USA 300, Indonesia 220, Brazil 175, Russia 150, Pakistan 140, UK 60 and, Australia 20.
If we have come some way in peacefully integrating many different cultures over the years, that owes much to our rather stable political system, largely because so many years ago we were granted the ‘fair go’ of a secret ballot for the election of our representatives.
But is that all we can do? Democracy is still weak and struggling convulsively with the several hefty world problems which cannot be avoided. Is it so impossible, to have the people govern instead of minority interests?
We ourselves need the last neglected step of democratic reform—the secret ballot to rule in our parliaments, conferring independence on all our representatives, restoring parliamentary government—by the people.
Now that would give us the world’s respect, with an image to lead the world to a genuine democracy within and among all the nations. Must it be only a ‘pipedream’?
.
A nervous electorate
A nervous electorate awaits the outcome of desperate efforts by our governments to contain the financial/job crises, while environmentalists despair of ever seeing an effective program to solve the dangers of climate change.
Meanwhile, the success of stimulus and infrastructure spending being uncertain in the short term, maybe better, maybe worse, in the longer term, Dr. Lindy Edwards, (Age Comment & Debate Tues. May 5) ponders whether Prime Minister Rudd will turn out to be ‘Hero, or villain’, depending on which point of time judgement is involved and whether success is a rain shower or failure becomes a hailstorm.
In the midst of innumerable commentators with widely varying views, and political parties at war in parliament, we have Tony Cutcliffe of the Eureka Project proclaiming our leaders need a ‘two-way flow on decisions’ (Age Business, Opinion May 6).
Cutcliffe claims: ‘most senior decision-makers (have) become isolated from the lives of ordinary Australians’…and ’rather than uniting the community to fight our biggest known threat, Australia’s key decision-makers are leading the community to division, fatalism and fear.’ We need, he says: ‘a structured conversation with Australians—with information flowing both ways’, to take advantage of ‘the highly influential knowledge and skills among staff and constituencies now consigned to irrelevance’. He has a point.
I have long maintained that ordinary people are a resource, neglected by party governments which, being engrossed with the exercise of power, have neither the time nor the will for the profitable interchange with the community which could improve the clarity of decisions and achieve a fully supportive public.
A structured involvement of the people could vastly improve the practice of government, with better decisions and a lot less public frustration. This highlights an elementary aspect of democracy which is missing—to our shame and possible peril.
Meanwhile, the success of stimulus and infrastructure spending being uncertain in the short term, maybe better, maybe worse, in the longer term, Dr. Lindy Edwards, (Age Comment & Debate Tues. May 5) ponders whether Prime Minister Rudd will turn out to be ‘Hero, or villain’, depending on which point of time judgement is involved and whether success is a rain shower or failure becomes a hailstorm.
In the midst of innumerable commentators with widely varying views, and political parties at war in parliament, we have Tony Cutcliffe of the Eureka Project proclaiming our leaders need a ‘two-way flow on decisions’ (Age Business, Opinion May 6).
Cutcliffe claims: ‘most senior decision-makers (have) become isolated from the lives of ordinary Australians’…and ’rather than uniting the community to fight our biggest known threat, Australia’s key decision-makers are leading the community to division, fatalism and fear.’ We need, he says: ‘a structured conversation with Australians—with information flowing both ways’, to take advantage of ‘the highly influential knowledge and skills among staff and constituencies now consigned to irrelevance’. He has a point.
I have long maintained that ordinary people are a resource, neglected by party governments which, being engrossed with the exercise of power, have neither the time nor the will for the profitable interchange with the community which could improve the clarity of decisions and achieve a fully supportive public.
A structured involvement of the people could vastly improve the practice of government, with better decisions and a lot less public frustration. This highlights an elementary aspect of democracy which is missing—to our shame and possible peril.
Guilt, fear and hope
Fear, both real and imagined, has a cause - guilt. Fear reigns in the world today because of the multitude of wrongs. And no wonder. Amongst other things, ‘big boys’ not content with their toys are chasing still bigger and ‘better’ toys, with military robotics—to make war more safely!
Meanwhile our troops are quietly evacuating Iraq, having been in meek support of America for some years. Increasing numbers of troops are going into Afghanistan, to fight the Taliban. How respected are these ventures in the Arab world? And what is our reputation in the eyes of these people? We don’t want to lose any soldiers over there - standing up for the cause of freedom. But we have and we will. Is there an end which is worth it - and can it be achieved? Is what we are doing right?
The growth of China’s economic power is now being followed by an increase in China’s military spending. Does China threaten us? Hardly! What is the point? They like, and receive, large supplies of minerals from Australia – notably steel, coal and gas. Seemingly in fear of China, our bureaucrats have devised plans for the purchase of more dangerous aircraft and new submarines with missile capacity. This has not gone down well with China, and we should not be surprised. Personally, I am staggered! Who do we think we are? Do we think we should do this to help (encourage) America to ‘have a go’ at China? China?
Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. Euripides - Wikiquote
We have already gone down that path with President Bush’s pre-emptive strike on Iraq - a proper mess - and to what purpose? We know of China’s latent tension with the USA, over the old issue of Taiwan’s independence. But this issue has been bubbling away for decades with no foreseeable likelihood of escalation.
Now we are in Afghanistan - another murky spot - achieving what? The sensitivity of our presence is marked by attempts to hide our troops killing half a civilian family. In this confused land, avoiding such a tragedy is no doubt easier said than done. And winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans seems to verge on the impossible, with us carrying so much American baggage, with Iraq, Palestine and who knows what else. It is far easier to acquire guilt than their confidence, as the invader.
We must look to our ways - and sensible reform of our decision-making processes - to safeguard us from a national foolishness which would ignore the many wise injunctions of the past, leading us in fear, further and further from a healthy respect for the Golden Rule. Building on the Rock of righteousness will always be much better than the sand of pragmatism, guilt and fear. ‘Righteousness alone exalts a nation’ – the way of hope. ‘When a man's ways are pleasing to the LORD, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.’ Proverbs16:7
Meanwhile our troops are quietly evacuating Iraq, having been in meek support of America for some years. Increasing numbers of troops are going into Afghanistan, to fight the Taliban. How respected are these ventures in the Arab world? And what is our reputation in the eyes of these people? We don’t want to lose any soldiers over there - standing up for the cause of freedom. But we have and we will. Is there an end which is worth it - and can it be achieved? Is what we are doing right?
The growth of China’s economic power is now being followed by an increase in China’s military spending. Does China threaten us? Hardly! What is the point? They like, and receive, large supplies of minerals from Australia – notably steel, coal and gas. Seemingly in fear of China, our bureaucrats have devised plans for the purchase of more dangerous aircraft and new submarines with missile capacity. This has not gone down well with China, and we should not be surprised. Personally, I am staggered! Who do we think we are? Do we think we should do this to help (encourage) America to ‘have a go’ at China? China?
Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. Euripides - Wikiquote
We have already gone down that path with President Bush’s pre-emptive strike on Iraq - a proper mess - and to what purpose? We know of China’s latent tension with the USA, over the old issue of Taiwan’s independence. But this issue has been bubbling away for decades with no foreseeable likelihood of escalation.
Now we are in Afghanistan - another murky spot - achieving what? The sensitivity of our presence is marked by attempts to hide our troops killing half a civilian family. In this confused land, avoiding such a tragedy is no doubt easier said than done. And winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans seems to verge on the impossible, with us carrying so much American baggage, with Iraq, Palestine and who knows what else. It is far easier to acquire guilt than their confidence, as the invader.
We must look to our ways - and sensible reform of our decision-making processes - to safeguard us from a national foolishness which would ignore the many wise injunctions of the past, leading us in fear, further and further from a healthy respect for the Golden Rule. Building on the Rock of righteousness will always be much better than the sand of pragmatism, guilt and fear. ‘Righteousness alone exalts a nation’ – the way of hope. ‘When a man's ways are pleasing to the LORD, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.’ Proverbs16:7
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Free Forum Report
Free Forum Report.
I have to advise that the attempt at a free forum failed miserably on the 22nd. No one came, despite the significant interest shown in the concept beforehand. Never mind, we'll try again soon—a bit harder. On with the job of democratic reform!
To refresh; in seeking a meeting of ordinary people to discuss the issues in local forum, it was sort to initiate an important move forward in democratic reform.
The two things missing in our democracy which have permitted the slide into the dictatorial government of the party system are:
1. The open system of voting in our parliaments, which denies our representatives the freedom to function truly and fully as our representatives,
2. The absence of local forums, which must be convened by all representatives, to give a significant, effective community involvement in the decision-making process.
We thus have a stalemate. MPs think the people are not interested enough to attend. And they are right, because the people think that MPs are not interested in listening, and they are right, so what's the point—there is none.
So people are troubled and unhappy, with no power to influence important, far-reaching decisions, when the future is clearly going down the gurgler. We face the looming chaos of climate change, resource exhaustion, and world population explosion, with a monumental incompetence in the world’s democracies generally, to govern adequately, with institutionalised conflict throughout the community.
But now, massive problems of starvation and disease threaten the world’s future, with little or no prospect of competent world government to secure world order. These pressures are likely to lead to an exponential growth in world migration and a growing danger of nations seeking military solutions.
Dr Lindy Edwards, political scientist, speaking of the need to reinvent our social democracy, says: The Battle of ideas has never been more important, because where the future leads is up to us’.
So, back to the main problem—without the direct involvement of the people, we have government and people at enmity with each other. The people are encouraged by power-hungry-party-governments to be self-centred and demanding, whereas effective democratic government, in the future, will need the willing cooperation of the people to cope with decisions substantially more difficult than has been required to date.
There is thus a critical need to take the initiative in developing local forums, firstly where concerned citizens can have their ‘say’, and where ultimately, the people and their representatives can meet in friendly cooperation, to resolve the best approach to each and every problem.
We can't change a governing party's viewpoint in local forum, but the people will be able to have a very significant influence on government decisions when all the representatives become independent by a permanent move to fully balloting parliaments.
I have to advise that the attempt at a free forum failed miserably on the 22nd. No one came, despite the significant interest shown in the concept beforehand. Never mind, we'll try again soon—a bit harder. On with the job of democratic reform!
To refresh; in seeking a meeting of ordinary people to discuss the issues in local forum, it was sort to initiate an important move forward in democratic reform.
The two things missing in our democracy which have permitted the slide into the dictatorial government of the party system are:
1. The open system of voting in our parliaments, which denies our representatives the freedom to function truly and fully as our representatives,
2. The absence of local forums, which must be convened by all representatives, to give a significant, effective community involvement in the decision-making process.
We thus have a stalemate. MPs think the people are not interested enough to attend. And they are right, because the people think that MPs are not interested in listening, and they are right, so what's the point—there is none.
So people are troubled and unhappy, with no power to influence important, far-reaching decisions, when the future is clearly going down the gurgler. We face the looming chaos of climate change, resource exhaustion, and world population explosion, with a monumental incompetence in the world’s democracies generally, to govern adequately, with institutionalised conflict throughout the community.
But now, massive problems of starvation and disease threaten the world’s future, with little or no prospect of competent world government to secure world order. These pressures are likely to lead to an exponential growth in world migration and a growing danger of nations seeking military solutions.
Dr Lindy Edwards, political scientist, speaking of the need to reinvent our social democracy, says: The Battle of ideas has never been more important, because where the future leads is up to us’.
So, back to the main problem—without the direct involvement of the people, we have government and people at enmity with each other. The people are encouraged by power-hungry-party-governments to be self-centred and demanding, whereas effective democratic government, in the future, will need the willing cooperation of the people to cope with decisions substantially more difficult than has been required to date.
There is thus a critical need to take the initiative in developing local forums, firstly where concerned citizens can have their ‘say’, and where ultimately, the people and their representatives can meet in friendly cooperation, to resolve the best approach to each and every problem.
We can't change a governing party's viewpoint in local forum, but the people will be able to have a very significant influence on government decisions when all the representatives become independent by a permanent move to fully balloting parliaments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)