Yani's Blog

There has been a lot of hoo har in the last few years over the threatened climate change, but nothing compared to the kerfuffle in the last few weeks over the British Chanel 4 documentary attempting to refute the whole climate change hypothesis.

Who is right? Are we being swindled? What is the man in the street who knows little of these weighty matters to think? How can we decide intelligently when so many knowledgeable scientists are apparently in violent disagreement?

Whether man’s activity is causing climate change one thing they all agree on is that there is climate change. I can remember a time when the gainsayers were even dismissing the evidence indicating climate change, however the evidence is now too compelling. What they do say however is that the changes are a part of the ever occurring cycle and point to changes in the recent past (100 – 1000 years) for support.

So the only common ground is that climate change exists, but that is where it ends. Caused by man or part of the periodic cycle?

There are two possible scenarios. It is naturally occurring. If this is the case and the “greenhousers” have their way what is the outcome. More effective methods of generating energy. Less dependence on fossil fuels. Far more efficient tools. By tool I mean mechanisms to make our life easier. Transport, houses, etc…. In short we will begin to live in a far more green manner. And how is this a bad thing? There are many reasons for doing this even taking climate change out of the equation completely. And what have we lost? Well…nothing from what I can see. We will live far cleaner and more efficiently and have gained some significant advances in technology. And as for the scientists who supported the theory? Well they will be hailed for the advances in whatever field in which they worked and all will be forgiven because they would have contributed significantly to research and technology. So they made a mistake – we all make mistakes and they did their best.
What if it does transpire that climate change is man made? Then those supporting the swindle scenario are going to look pretty stupid, as well as appearing churlish. And it will be universally agreed that we were right not to listen to them.

Quite frankly – although I do have a background in science – I am not enough of a scientist to pick through the minefield, although at this stage the man made scenario has the weightier arguments and the magazine style doco with half expressed and emotive arguments is unlikely to score high on my credibility scale.

So given all of that I think I will stick to the majority opinion for several reasons. We do have clear evidence of climate change. The majority of scientists adhere to the view that it is the result of human activity (BTW this is not a new phenomenon but just on a new scale). I do not find the arguments of the gainsayers at all compelling (or perhaps just poorly presented). But finally I would rather be safe (appear a fool) than sorry (be proven to be both willfully ignorant and stupid and in the event commit to an irreversible global change).

Today I received a flier in the post from a mailing list I belong to inviting me to a conversation with an “ethicist”. In the flier there were a number of “tough moral questions” that I suppose she is coning to converse about. In the next few days I would like to consider some of those questions.

I often think about what constitutes morality and I have touched on this subject in this blog before. Anybody who knows me knows that I am a committed Christian. I make no secret of that although I like to think I am civilised about it. There is nothing worse that being trapped in a one sided conversation with someone preaching a moral position, however justified that moral position may be. However, I love a good debate and am eager to discuss these things intelligently with a willing party.
Morality comes from our paradigm – or our foundational philosophy of life or as some people put it, our world view. From this stems our belief system or religion, and from this our morality. It appears to me to be a layered system where at the base is our paradigm, above that our religion, or our belief system – above that our morality – then above that our behaviour. Many people I know claim that they do not have a religion – in face unless we are totally a-moral – and I have not met anyone yet who is – then we all have a religion, but do not label it as such. In fact one thing I find interesting about many people and their morality is that their behaviour often does not correspond with their paradigm. In other words they state a set of beliefs and behave completely contrary to those stated beliefs. This is so of many Christians I have met. They espouse the Christian religion yet behave in a completely different way and see no contradiction here. In fact their behaviour illustrates their true paradigm, not their stated paradigm. In other words they are what they do, not what they say. This is true right across the spectrum of beliefs, in fact many people are really unaware of their true beliefs and completely oblivious of tis apparent contradiction.

A good example of non-religious religion (if you will) is humanism. Top put it very crudely humanists have as their underlying philosophy “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. (This reminds me of an amusing interview I saw on TV many years ago. The journalist was talking to a union official and was asking the official if the strike action he was supporting was justified in the circumstances. The union official replied that ‘as the good book says “do others before they do you”‘. No ambiguity there.) This is just as much a religious belief as a belief in a divine creator benefactor.

Before I get onto the actual questions I would like to explore the two different types of paradigm, the dependent and independent belief systems. That is for next time.

In His Name

When people talk about Christianity they often criticise (if not overtly then implicitly) the Christian religion for actions that range from overtly evil to highly questionable. The common examples are bombings of abortion clinics and the crusades. In the case of the crusades they often ask how a religion can call itself just if they slaughter people merely because they adhere to a different religion. How the “church” could sanction, even encourage such behaviour. I recently saw a TV program presented by a person who was otherwise intelligent and astute repeating these ideas. I found this a little surprising because this is based on bad logic and a careful analysis of the arguments clearly displays the fallacy.

To put it into context we need to examine the meaning of the word Christian. This was actually a derogatory term coined during the first century to describe the followers of Christ’s teachings. Literally it means “Christ’s little ones”. What he taught was love for all, even our enemies, tolerance of those who are different, grace for those in difficult moral positions, forgiveness, patience, the freedom to allow people to make their own decision, respect for authority, intolerance of abusive power and personal holiness. In fact Jesus himself said they will know you by your love for one another. So in effect a Christian is one who adheres to these principles, not perfect since we all fail in the perfect stakes, but full of grace and forgiveness. So if this defines a Christian then for someone to be a follower of Christ they must necessarily adhere to these principles. As for the “Church” it is an organic group of people who have joined together to mutually encourage one another to follow these principles. Note that a Church is not an institution or an organisation or a man made structure with an organisational structure. These things may co-exist with the organic community but they do not define it or supplant it.

Now let me illustrate the problem. Let us say for example I claim to be a follower of the Liberal party (the right wing political party in Australia). I then proceed to criticise their immigration policy, then criticise their industrial relations policy, criticise their policy in Iraq, oppose their monetarist  policy, I become an active member of the union movement, in fact I oppose every policy the Liberal party has ever proposed and to openly support the opposite party – the Labour party. I make contributions to the Labour party but not to the Liberal party, I hand out how to vote cards for the Labour candidate, and I encourage people to vote for Labour. Am I a liberal, I have done all of this in the name of the Liberal party. Of course not – an absurd notion, no one would for a minute seriously consider me to be a Liberal. Why then do people assume then that people are Christians merely because they claim to be? Someone who slaughters men women and children, or terrorises abortion clinics can in no way of fashion be called a follower of Christ – however much they claim to be. People are not known by their labels but by their actions and as Jesus said to the people of his time who claimed to be doing God’s will – they are known by their father who is not God but Satan. Jesus himself saw through the labels and claims into their hearts, why do we then fall into the trap of accepting the label and fail to see the truth. Doing something in the name of Christ does not make Christ responsible. Does the fact that I hand out how to vote papers for the Labour candidate in the name of the Liberal party Now let me illustrate the problem.  To call an organisation a Christian Church does not make it one any more than calling my house a Mosque make it one.

I think it was Shakespeare who said that “A Rose by any other name still smells the same”. Most of us would recognise a Rose if we saw it and would not call a Lilly a Rose, so why do we call terrorists, rapists, murders, and such like Christians when their actions are totally opposed to anything Christ taught?

It is with great sadness that I read tonight of the passing of another wonderful cartoonist, Johnny Hart. He was the creator of my long time favourites BC and The Wizard of Id. It appears that he died in the saddle so to speak.
The good news is that his cartoons will continue. As with many artists maybe his best work will be created posthumously.

We have quite a complex system of justice with many checks and balances. Often we get it wrong but far more often we get it right. Often those who are victims or the innocent are upset with the outcome, but far more often it is the guilty are upset that justice has been one. Not only should justice be done but it should also seen to be done, which are not necessarily the same thing.

Some of the rules cover evidence, the way the guilty is treated, witnesses, the conduct of the advocates and the prosecution, even the conduct of the state. All of these rules apply equally to those accused of petty theft and to those accused of serial murder. It makes no difference in law – the rules of the court must be adhered to to ensure a balanced and fair trial. There are very good reasons for all of these rules and we weaken them to our peril. One of the wise men of the ancient world, the king Solomon said that it was a wise king that brought justice to those who could not defend themselves, and over many hundreds of years out system of justice has striven to do just that. We are right to be proud of the system that we have inherited from our forebears and it is beholden to every generation to uphold the time worn principles on which our justice system is founded.

It is easy to pass judgment in the media, or with whispered half truths. How easy it is for a state to slander and undermine the truth with the resources available to it. This is why the Westminster principle of the separation of powers is so important. Legislature, Judiciary and law enforcement should be independent so that evidence can he tested impartially and independently to see if has any veracity. Every accusation should be tested in the court to establish the truth.

Evidence obtained under duress is inadmissible. It is considered as unreliable and not allowed to be heard. The accused is permitted to hear and challenge any evidence that comes before the court. The accused must not be held without charge and that charge, when made, can be challenged to prevent abuse by the state.
But what of the plea bargain? Obviously the idea is that it saves the cost and burden of a lengthy trial where the accused admits their guilt and thereby demonstrates remorse and in return accepts a lighter penalty. There is however a fundamental flaw with the plea bargain. The evidence is not brought before the court. It is assumed that the person offering the plea is indeed guilty and not coerced. One would hope that the system of justice in the west is such that one pleading guilty is not doing so out of fear that there may be a perversion of justice and that they are indeed innocent. I am sure that the movie type scenario is the exception rather than the rule. However the recent challenges to old convictions by reason of the new science of DNA testing makes one wonder how many innocent people were executed or are still incarcerated.

But what of a system where even these protection I spoke about are suspended. Where there is no appeal process as we have in civil courts. Where the rules of evidence have been weakened to allow evidence obtained by coercion. Where the accused does not have the right to challenge certain evidence due to its “sensitive” nature. What if the accused had been held for over five years without charge, where they allegedly had evidence obtained from them and others using coercion? What if they were offered a way out – merely by agreeing with their accusers?

What do we know of David Hicks’ guilt? I contend that we know absolutely nothing. We have heard innuendo and rumour but none of this innuendo has been tested. We do not “know” that he is a terrorist, whatever that means. We do not “know” that he was a member of Al Qaeda. And his admissions mean nothing. The statements of a person under duress are worthless. I am not saying he was not a terrorist, but neither does anyone have the right to accuse him of being a terrorist. Nothing is proven and we will never know.

What this whole exercise demonstrates is that the protections from state abuse are precious and we erode them at our peril.

Born to Dave and Joy a little boy – 7lb 4oz. Both Mother and baby are well. She had an easy labour I believe. They have not announced the name as yet – I vote for little Dave but I suspect I am going to be over ruled!

The Mirriam Webster’s dictionary amongst its definitions of the word resource has the phrase “computable wealth”.

There is a common practice today of referring to people as resources. This sounds like a lovely professional term but what are we implying here? In business I often hear the phrases “We need more resources”, or “We are under resourced”, or “Resource allocation”. When I first heard the term I was rather confused because I had always thought of a “resource” as a consumable or disposable and variable commodity. It took me a while to come to terms with the fact that the business was referring to people in this way.

Over the years the English speaking peoples have hijacked a number of words and altered or narrowed their use such that they have been lost to general conversation. Such words as Chauvinist, nigger and gay spring to mind. Use the word Chauvinist in general conversation and people stare at you blankly with no idea what you mean. In this instance however the opposite has happened. That which is being defined has altered and a word chosen to match that altered definition.

When the industrial revolution began one of the major commodities was the people. As long as the factory owners had a sufficient supply of people and power they could continue to accumulate their fortune. People were just another disposable input to their business.

Fast forward to the post war economy where business began to thrive with most white collar employers looking on their employees as a valuable part of their organization with benefits and conditions indicative of the esteem in which the employees were held. Generous superannuation schemes, generous bonuses, and incentives for company loyalty. The relationship was almost paternalistic where employees were encouraged to see their relationship with the company as being life long. There was still an unsettled relationship between many blue collar workers and their employers such there was the whole gamut of managerial approaches from the commodity view through to the familial type relationship.

In the 80s this was all about to change. The world wide recession enabled the Keynesian’s and those advocating micro economic reform to rule the shop. Do not get me wrong, we do need to change our approach to cater for technological and economic change but the problem is we tend to throw out the baby with the bath water. One of the most socially destructive changes is to take the most de-humanising aspects of the industrial revolution and apply it to modern business practice.

Business practicioners  have been trying to “deregulate the labour market” for a long time. What they mean is convert their employees to a disposable resource, hence the “resource” monika.

Just for the record I resent the term “resource” when applied to people. I think it is an indication of a morally vacuous business model that treats their employees like pens or writing pads that can be cast aside when they are no longer useful. I find it hypocritical to say that “people are our most precious resource”. As son as the term resource is applied to people it makes them no more important any any other consumable that that business requires.

People are more than an offset against the bottom line, a tax deductible commodity that can be cast aside like yesterday’s pencil shavings. It is an indication of moral bankruptcy that we not only allow this concept to flourish but build a business infrastructure on this evil concept.

In our increasingly globalised society we increasingly deal with people for whom English is not their first language. We have all laughed over the “chinglish” that we often see in the operating instructions for our domestic equipment. The following email appeared addressed to a colleague who was leaving the organisation. The author was clearly trying to express his thoughts in English for which he has a less than perfect grasp. How well he expresses those sentiments I leave to you. I have only removed the names.
Hi *****,

Last few days it is that our friendship has been established but I did not know who are you. But you know, in our journey very few people are there who can get a good friend like you. It is true that, I miss u a lot but, hope and pray to god, one day you will touch the sky.
So, I don’t want to drop my tears for you now bcoz I am confident that one day will come  when two good  friends will kiss there hearts again. Keep in touch and wishing u a very happy journey.

Thanx & Regards

*****

There has been a plethora of requests from various “owners” of video material that the hosting sites such as Yo Toob remove material which the “owner” claims ownership to. This being the latest.

Now I have a question. What or who is being hurt by the presence of these videos? Is taking them down going to stop their promulgation? Are these people removing the head of the goose laying the golden egg?

Scenario one.  The videos stay. They are small, low resolution highlights of already past matches where people can highlight various aspects of the game that appeal to them. They are in fact promoting the game and indeed the tournaments. They can indeed be considered as free advertising.
And I cannot for the life of me how they could impact negatively the game or anybody involved in the game.  And they provide access to games that would otherwise be completely inaccessible.

Scenario two. The videos are removed. The complainants appear disingenuous to the point of stupidity. They loose a major source of promotion. The public are deprived of seeing their favourite tennis players strut their credentials. In fact the game is diminished by making it more elite. IMHO this helps nobody.

Of course there are many other instances of material being removed that is more or less harmless. But there are many more outlets for this material. Yet another King Canute.

This item in the New Scientist highlights the plight that Australia is facing at the moment. Even with the torrential rain we have received early this month has only given us a respite from, not an elimination of the threat.

One lonely voice in Australia is saying that this is not an effect of climate change. I am not so sure…