In the words of Pink Floyd: "Time to go!" Mr Blair, it is time to go now isn't it. You and your party has become rotten to the core. All that remains is the smooth varnish that you have in such copious amounts. And even that is showing the strain of time and abuse with cracks all over the surface.
The Peerage for Money scandal has become the latest nail in your coffin and I dearly hope, with many British and other people, that it would be the final nail. What leaves me staggering are the claims from both the deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott and the treasurer of the party, Jack Dromey, now suddenly quite unfamiliar with the loans from wealthy benefactors to fund the last election. Let us just get a sense of perspective here: These loans under discussion were not small loans. These were loans to the amount of 14 million British pounds - more than half the budget of the Labour election campaign.
If the treasurer of the party did not know of the source of this money, where did he think this huge sum of money had come from? He must have known these amounts were loans - because he had to show that in the party's financial books. He had to know from whom the funds arrived, because he was supposed to ensure the loans would be repaid. That is what treasurers do, not so? Had this man taken leave of his faculties while those inscriptions were being made in Labour's financial books?
How could the deputy Prime Ministor not have known about the sources of these loans? Did not the party meet to discuss funding before the campaign? Did Mr Blair lie to the deputy Prime Minister and treasurer? Did he launder the money? Chaps, we are older than two around here. Kindly do not insult the common sense of your audience.
Mr Blair and Co, I can suggest a few suitable retirement spots in the warmer and drier parts of the world, where you would have a splendid time indeed. There are many rotten kinds hanging out there, enjoyings their spoils. You'd be quite at home.
Just get out of 10 Downing Street, would you?
19 March 2006
16 March 2006
Is there absolute good and evil?
The short answer to the question "Is there absolute good or bad?" is "no". The argument why absolute good or bad are untenable concepts is rather straight-forward with a twist in the tail. It goes like this.
Absolute good or bad requires a centre of good or bad. Traditionally, cultures entertained a concept of God, which served as a centre of good. God blesses, watches over his/her creation. Likewise, the antithesis of good is a centre of evil, such as the Devil. A post-modern framework of logic, leaving God aside, leaves one in a void as to the centre of absolute good or evil. The only plausible alternative is some intrinsic sense in humans of absolute good and evil. Again, no go. Enter Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins, his protagonist.
We are governed by our genes' singular motive to propagate unchanged, if one is to believe Dawkins. This fine gentleman convincingly argues that the evolution of a species is not driven by the survival of the group, but the survival of the gene in competing over resources. The human body, as a perfectly suitable example of a species, is a mere vessel to carry genes. Each of us is programmed by our genes to be selfish.
Humans evolved an elaborate brain with extraordinary intellectual capacity. Part of this capacity is used to develop frameworks of principles to govern groups of humans. The sole purpose of such frameworks is to improve the probability of the individual to survive and thrive, thereby enhancing the chances of the genes to propagate. There is no intrinsic good or evil at hand here. We merely depict as good such behaviour as conforms to the framework and as evil such behaviour as strikes out against the framework.
Substantiated by extensive practical observation, Steven Pinker argues that humans are hardly noble and to the contrary rather selfish. There is no evidence in history of a universal sense of goodness or evil. At best one can argue that humans have displayed some notion of the sanctity of human life, although there are many exceptions to this notion. Some exceptions are somewhat frivolous. In recent France, a man could flaunt the gauntlet over rather petty grievances to fight until death in a dual, with little consequence for the winner other than some battle scars for the less nimble.
The Incas had quite dire rituals of offering humans to appease their gods. More recently, some countries have cynically construed good vs evil for own political gains by vilifying a suitable candidate and mobilise the local population to go to war against that unfortunate candidate. Iraq springs to mind. In South Africa, the once evil resistance movement, the ANC, came good and to power in 1994 in the first elections under universal suffrage.
Good and evil require a context to exist. This context is drifting with the age of Mankind. We will have to concede that we are not so wise as to know the absolute of good and evil. Rather, good and evil are the folly of Man who has dared to stand upright.
Absolute good or bad requires a centre of good or bad. Traditionally, cultures entertained a concept of God, which served as a centre of good. God blesses, watches over his/her creation. Likewise, the antithesis of good is a centre of evil, such as the Devil. A post-modern framework of logic, leaving God aside, leaves one in a void as to the centre of absolute good or evil. The only plausible alternative is some intrinsic sense in humans of absolute good and evil. Again, no go. Enter Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins, his protagonist.
We are governed by our genes' singular motive to propagate unchanged, if one is to believe Dawkins. This fine gentleman convincingly argues that the evolution of a species is not driven by the survival of the group, but the survival of the gene in competing over resources. The human body, as a perfectly suitable example of a species, is a mere vessel to carry genes. Each of us is programmed by our genes to be selfish.
Humans evolved an elaborate brain with extraordinary intellectual capacity. Part of this capacity is used to develop frameworks of principles to govern groups of humans. The sole purpose of such frameworks is to improve the probability of the individual to survive and thrive, thereby enhancing the chances of the genes to propagate. There is no intrinsic good or evil at hand here. We merely depict as good such behaviour as conforms to the framework and as evil such behaviour as strikes out against the framework.
Substantiated by extensive practical observation, Steven Pinker argues that humans are hardly noble and to the contrary rather selfish. There is no evidence in history of a universal sense of goodness or evil. At best one can argue that humans have displayed some notion of the sanctity of human life, although there are many exceptions to this notion. Some exceptions are somewhat frivolous. In recent France, a man could flaunt the gauntlet over rather petty grievances to fight until death in a dual, with little consequence for the winner other than some battle scars for the less nimble.
The Incas had quite dire rituals of offering humans to appease their gods. More recently, some countries have cynically construed good vs evil for own political gains by vilifying a suitable candidate and mobilise the local population to go to war against that unfortunate candidate. Iraq springs to mind. In South Africa, the once evil resistance movement, the ANC, came good and to power in 1994 in the first elections under universal suffrage.
Good and evil require a context to exist. This context is drifting with the age of Mankind. We will have to concede that we are not so wise as to know the absolute of good and evil. Rather, good and evil are the folly of Man who has dared to stand upright.
11 March 2006
The terror of absolutism
An article in the latest New York Times online prompted this posting:
"For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats"
One of the darkest elements of the human condition is seated in the folly of absolutism. No other conceptual premise holds more ultimate fatality for humankind than absolutism. And religion has always been the cohort of choice for absolutism. We know it all too well: My God is the true God.
Religion has always been a key element of culture and ethnic identity. Religion is both a combining influence and a personal conviction. Cultural leaders can play on religion to combine individuals into a clan, exploiting religion as a strong element of group identity. Religion can also be very divisive as in the Middle East, Northern Ireland and Indonesia for example. Beyond greed, religion has been the fire that burnt many a civilization to ashes. Religion is power and power feeds greed. Why humans are so susceptible to religious manipulation is a matter for another discussion.
But a religion that is not absolutely true is open to opinion and opinion leads to dissidence and dissidence dilutes power, which alas, limits the exploits of greed. So, those most hungry for power need absolute truths more than they need air.
When the German tribes first got their eyes on a German Bible, courtesy of the brave and single-minded Martin Luther, it changed everything for them and ultimately broke the stronghold of Rome on the German society. But then, sadly, Protestantism descended into absolutism again with the Heidelberg Catechism.
It was the great Christian evangelical theologist, Karl Barth, that very clearly and eloquently explained how our insight and knowledge are only partial and only our interpretation of a deeper truth that may lie beneath our understanding. Quoting the Wikipedia, "Barth argued that the God who is revealed in the cross of Jesus challenges and overthrows any attempt to ally God with human cultures, achievements, or possessions. "
The essence of Barth's theology is in direct opposition to absolutism. Since we cannot rightfully tie God to our culture, we have to leave room for God to be also applicable in another cultural interpretation of God. No single culture can lay claim to absolute knowledge of God. Of course, the atheist might have excluded himself from this argument by virtue of the null hypothesis - there is no God.
Once absolutism has been negated, opinion becomes the basis for consensus on a believe structure. But the believe structure is only a partial understanding based upon premises that are only interpretations of a deeper conviction. We cannot sensibly prove or disprove God at this point in time, let alone go to war over our interpretation of God and God's guidance to Mankind. Who can rightfully claim that God is on "our" side. Why should he be not on the "other's" side? Because "our" interpretation of him is better?
The article referenced at the top speaks of a deep truth: We are dealing in the world today with a conflict between civilization and barbarism. But, it is not necessarily a Western civilization against a barbaric Middle East. Rather it is a civilization of universal freedoms and respect, as first demonstrated by the Greek and the Persians of 2000 years ago and affirmed in some modern democratic establishments, against a barbarism of manipulation; nepotism; lies; distortions; exploitation; corruption and oppression of opinion as demonstrated in the West; Middle East and Far East alike.
We need to seriously revisit our value systems in every culture of the world lest our homegrown versions of absolutism overcome us before daybreak.
"For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats"
One of the darkest elements of the human condition is seated in the folly of absolutism. No other conceptual premise holds more ultimate fatality for humankind than absolutism. And religion has always been the cohort of choice for absolutism. We know it all too well: My God is the true God.
Religion has always been a key element of culture and ethnic identity. Religion is both a combining influence and a personal conviction. Cultural leaders can play on religion to combine individuals into a clan, exploiting religion as a strong element of group identity. Religion can also be very divisive as in the Middle East, Northern Ireland and Indonesia for example. Beyond greed, religion has been the fire that burnt many a civilization to ashes. Religion is power and power feeds greed. Why humans are so susceptible to religious manipulation is a matter for another discussion.
But a religion that is not absolutely true is open to opinion and opinion leads to dissidence and dissidence dilutes power, which alas, limits the exploits of greed. So, those most hungry for power need absolute truths more than they need air.
When the German tribes first got their eyes on a German Bible, courtesy of the brave and single-minded Martin Luther, it changed everything for them and ultimately broke the stronghold of Rome on the German society. But then, sadly, Protestantism descended into absolutism again with the Heidelberg Catechism.
It was the great Christian evangelical theologist, Karl Barth, that very clearly and eloquently explained how our insight and knowledge are only partial and only our interpretation of a deeper truth that may lie beneath our understanding. Quoting the Wikipedia, "Barth argued that the God who is revealed in the cross of Jesus challenges and overthrows any attempt to ally God with human cultures, achievements, or possessions. "
The essence of Barth's theology is in direct opposition to absolutism. Since we cannot rightfully tie God to our culture, we have to leave room for God to be also applicable in another cultural interpretation of God. No single culture can lay claim to absolute knowledge of God. Of course, the atheist might have excluded himself from this argument by virtue of the null hypothesis - there is no God.
Once absolutism has been negated, opinion becomes the basis for consensus on a believe structure. But the believe structure is only a partial understanding based upon premises that are only interpretations of a deeper conviction. We cannot sensibly prove or disprove God at this point in time, let alone go to war over our interpretation of God and God's guidance to Mankind. Who can rightfully claim that God is on "our" side. Why should he be not on the "other's" side? Because "our" interpretation of him is better?
The article referenced at the top speaks of a deep truth: We are dealing in the world today with a conflict between civilization and barbarism. But, it is not necessarily a Western civilization against a barbaric Middle East. Rather it is a civilization of universal freedoms and respect, as first demonstrated by the Greek and the Persians of 2000 years ago and affirmed in some modern democratic establishments, against a barbarism of manipulation; nepotism; lies; distortions; exploitation; corruption and oppression of opinion as demonstrated in the West; Middle East and Far East alike.
We need to seriously revisit our value systems in every culture of the world lest our homegrown versions of absolutism overcome us before daybreak.
05 March 2006
Tony puts his foot in it
Oh dear, Mr Blair, you have truly put your foot in that smooth-talking mouth of yours, haven't you?[1,2,3,4] In a modern state in the 21st century, we tend to keep religion out of politics. In fact, in the West we have been inclined to do so for the past 230 years, although seldom with much success. And since Britain does not have a formal constitution and does pose a state church, perhaps we should have expected some mixing of religion and politics.
So, on who's side is God now, Mr Blair? And which God are we referring to here? The very white, Western God of the Church of England as represented by the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the God of Islam as represented by imams of all kinds. Quite a dilemma, I would say. So, Mr Blair, when you pray, is God more likely to listen than to the Muslim 5000 km away, where your aeroplanes and tanks and men are occupying foreign, sovereign territory on your wild goose chase after phantom weapons of mass destruction? Who makes that decision, Mr Blair? Who calls the tune; who pays the piper? You, your cabinet, your Archbishop or your Queen? Oh dear, Mr Blair, which way shall He look? Your way, or their way?
In a parliamentarian democracy, leaders are judged by the voters and the elected parliament. When a leader has run out of room to maneuver, it is all too easy to fall back on absolutisms such as God shall be my judge. I am afraid, here on earth, the courts, the parliament and the electorate shall have first call. And after all, according to Christian believe, these powers are there by the power of God, Mr Blair.
After the last election in Britain, last year, when Labour was beaten back decisively to win by a much reduced majority, Mr Blair declared that he had listened; learned and thought people wanted to "move on" with regard to the Iraq war. Well, not quite so fast, Mr Blair.
There have been calls for impeachment and a parliamentary inquiry into the case made by the Prime Minister for commiting Britain to war in Iraq.
Shortly before the outbreak of war in Iraq, a top British weapons advisor, Dr David Kelly, died in an apparant suicide following pressure on him for disclosing inside information on the Iraq weapons dosier to the BBC. Dr Kelly alleged in the interview with the BBC that the potential threat to the world posed by Iraq had been souped up by Tony Blair.
Three ministers resigned on principle before the war.
The Law Lords of Britain have heard that there should be a court decision on the legality of going to war in Iraq.
A human rights lawyer has claimed that Mr Blair and Mr Bush made a pact before the UN resolution to go to war in Iraq.
This ghost is not going away, Mr Blair. It is returning to haunt you. Sleep well, if you will, Mr Blair.
So, on who's side is God now, Mr Blair? And which God are we referring to here? The very white, Western God of the Church of England as represented by the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the God of Islam as represented by imams of all kinds. Quite a dilemma, I would say. So, Mr Blair, when you pray, is God more likely to listen than to the Muslim 5000 km away, where your aeroplanes and tanks and men are occupying foreign, sovereign territory on your wild goose chase after phantom weapons of mass destruction? Who makes that decision, Mr Blair? Who calls the tune; who pays the piper? You, your cabinet, your Archbishop or your Queen? Oh dear, Mr Blair, which way shall He look? Your way, or their way?
In a parliamentarian democracy, leaders are judged by the voters and the elected parliament. When a leader has run out of room to maneuver, it is all too easy to fall back on absolutisms such as God shall be my judge. I am afraid, here on earth, the courts, the parliament and the electorate shall have first call. And after all, according to Christian believe, these powers are there by the power of God, Mr Blair.
After the last election in Britain, last year, when Labour was beaten back decisively to win by a much reduced majority, Mr Blair declared that he had listened; learned and thought people wanted to "move on" with regard to the Iraq war. Well, not quite so fast, Mr Blair.
There have been calls for impeachment and a parliamentary inquiry into the case made by the Prime Minister for commiting Britain to war in Iraq.
Shortly before the outbreak of war in Iraq, a top British weapons advisor, Dr David Kelly, died in an apparant suicide following pressure on him for disclosing inside information on the Iraq weapons dosier to the BBC. Dr Kelly alleged in the interview with the BBC that the potential threat to the world posed by Iraq had been souped up by Tony Blair.
Three ministers resigned on principle before the war.
The Law Lords of Britain have heard that there should be a court decision on the legality of going to war in Iraq.
A human rights lawyer has claimed that Mr Blair and Mr Bush made a pact before the UN resolution to go to war in Iraq.
This ghost is not going away, Mr Blair. It is returning to haunt you. Sleep well, if you will, Mr Blair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)