This is my reply to Trevor Phillips' article "Why be ashamed to celebrate Christmas", 10th December 2007, page 13.
There's nothing wrong with celebrating anything on principle, but it helps if you know on what basis you are celebrating it. There is actually not a single word, anywhere in the Christian New Testament, about celebrating Jesus's birth. Two out of the four Gospels (Mark and John) don't so much as mention the birth: they just have Jesus appearing out of nowhere, being baptized by John the Baptist, and getting on with his mission.
To my knowledge the only birthday in the New Testament is found in the 14th chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew. The birthday concerned was that of Herod, and according to the story on that day he gave orders for the execution of John the Baptist. Immediately thereafter follows the story of the feeding of the five thousand, which is meant to contrast the spiritual kingdom of Jesus with the earthly kingdom of Herod.
According to Christian tradition, there are twelve days of Christmas, and they start on Christmas Eve, when you put your decorations up, and finish on Twelfth Night, when you take them down. According to the way that Christmas is celebrated in my neighbourhood, you have a seasonal bad taste competition, which begins in early December. The object is to erect the ugliest possible effigies of Santa Claus, reindeer, and snowmen in front of your house, and to decorate its exterior with the most garish flashing lights that money can buy. The winner is the householder whose seasonal display afflicts the most passers-by with a migraine. There's a consolation prize for the size of your carbon footprint.
If you take out of Christmas all the commercial elements, you would have very little left. It's essentially a secular festival. That doesn't make it wrong. But if you are looking for a way to celebrate your Christian beliefs, there are other ways of so doing that could work better.
When I was a Christian, I used to organise Passover (Pesach, for my Jewish readers) celebrations. I reasoned that Passover was in the Bible, unlike Christmas, and that it can carry a Christian message of redemption from spiritual bondage, as well as a Jewish one. It also seemed a bit odd to me that the Church didn't make more of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection and the ascension, or indeed of Pentecost, which is the day, it is said, that the Holy Spirit was given to the Church. They are no less important in Christianity than the birth of Jesus, are they not?
Alternatively, you could perhaps celebrate Jesus's first miracle, which according to John's gospel was turning water into wine, although some may suggest it would encourage drinking to excess (and Christmas doesn't, I suppose?) or else that he withstood Satan. This last is reminiscent of both Moses and Buddha, in that they are said to have gone into the desert in order to deal with their strongest illusions.
Alternatively again, there's always Harvest Festival. This encompasses thanksgiving to God for the food, and beside that the harvest is seen as a synonym for the Last Judgement: there's plenty about that in the Gospels. It could also be seen as about generosity, kindness, and benevolence in general: doesn't it teach us that God is good to all, whatever we may think about Him, and that is how we are meant to be?
If we can get that last point across to the world in general, it would take a lot of the fear and misunderstanding out of religious discussions.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Monday, 10 December 2007
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
Ken and the trees
You couldn't make this up: 20th November 2007 (page 24 of the Standard), Ken Livingstone says we should plant more trees, fruit trees in particular. 21st November 2007 (page 17 of the Standard) Islington Council wants to chop down some pear trees because of "dangerous fruit".
This autumn, I have noticed that there are dozens of homes around where I live that have fruit trees in their gardens, and the home owners clearly haven't got the first idea what to do with them. For the most part, the trees have not been pruned. The fruit is therefore too high up to be picked without a great deal of effort, and it just hits the deck every September.
I expect that many years ago, before London expanded so much, this was fruit-growing land, and what we see is the last remnant of the apple and pear trees that used to form part of someone's farm. They probably include species that have long vanished from the shops because they can't be grown in industrial quantities, wrapped in plastic, and shipped all round the globe. For example, I've got a pear tree which must be at least as old as my house, I prune it each year, and I get large green and yellow pears. They seem to be an early variety, and the shelf life is measured in minutes, so you've got to do something with them right away. I expect in the old days they were either fermented into perry or else jammed. I make compote from them and freeze it. In any case, they clearly aren't commercially viable today: they'd be dead on their feet before you could get them to the supermarket. When it's a contest between shelf life and taste, shelf life seems to win, and as a result we have food that tastes of nothing much.
It seems an awful shame to have something growing on a tree in your own garden that you never use. It's been suggested to me that we could start a "back yard gardeners' co-operative" to make creative use of the fruit. Let's suppose you have got an apple tree that you have no idea how to look after: you don't want to destroy it, but you don't have the time for its maintenance. Why not get someone else in the co-operative, who does know about trees, to keep it in trim for you? You can then decide if you want the fruit or not. If not, it can go to someone else in the co-operative. At the very least, it won't end up as a rats' banquet.
This doesn't apply only to edibles: if you've got a bush of some kind that seems to grow very vigorously, you could offer cuttings from the bush via the co-operative. I've got bay tree twigs that I am attempting to root at the moment, if they give rise to viable tree seedlings then you would be able to get from me what would, over time, grow into a very beautiful evergreen for the garden. And, if Ken Livingstone is right in his predictions of climate change, it would be a good choice of tree: the bay is native to the Mediterranean.
Any constructive comments on this will be greatly appreciated.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
This autumn, I have noticed that there are dozens of homes around where I live that have fruit trees in their gardens, and the home owners clearly haven't got the first idea what to do with them. For the most part, the trees have not been pruned. The fruit is therefore too high up to be picked without a great deal of effort, and it just hits the deck every September.
I expect that many years ago, before London expanded so much, this was fruit-growing land, and what we see is the last remnant of the apple and pear trees that used to form part of someone's farm. They probably include species that have long vanished from the shops because they can't be grown in industrial quantities, wrapped in plastic, and shipped all round the globe. For example, I've got a pear tree which must be at least as old as my house, I prune it each year, and I get large green and yellow pears. They seem to be an early variety, and the shelf life is measured in minutes, so you've got to do something with them right away. I expect in the old days they were either fermented into perry or else jammed. I make compote from them and freeze it. In any case, they clearly aren't commercially viable today: they'd be dead on their feet before you could get them to the supermarket. When it's a contest between shelf life and taste, shelf life seems to win, and as a result we have food that tastes of nothing much.
It seems an awful shame to have something growing on a tree in your own garden that you never use. It's been suggested to me that we could start a "back yard gardeners' co-operative" to make creative use of the fruit. Let's suppose you have got an apple tree that you have no idea how to look after: you don't want to destroy it, but you don't have the time for its maintenance. Why not get someone else in the co-operative, who does know about trees, to keep it in trim for you? You can then decide if you want the fruit or not. If not, it can go to someone else in the co-operative. At the very least, it won't end up as a rats' banquet.
This doesn't apply only to edibles: if you've got a bush of some kind that seems to grow very vigorously, you could offer cuttings from the bush via the co-operative. I've got bay tree twigs that I am attempting to root at the moment, if they give rise to viable tree seedlings then you would be able to get from me what would, over time, grow into a very beautiful evergreen for the garden. And, if Ken Livingstone is right in his predictions of climate change, it would be a good choice of tree: the bay is native to the Mediterranean.
Any constructive comments on this will be greatly appreciated.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Limits to religion and culture
These are my views on the YouGov poll (13th November issue of The Standard).
Firstly, I find it rather perverse that in a poll of supposedly "influential" people on the subject of Islam, only one per cent of those questioned was a Muslim.
Secondly, the questions seemed to have been worded as if all Muslims were a homogenous mass. That isn't the case. There is as much disagreement, and difference of opinion, within Islam as there is in any other religion. The fact that there is disagreement doesn't make it a bad religion. Disagreement is essential for the world to function: if we all thought the same, there would be no new ideas, no inventions, and no progress. The question is how we are to manage the differences in viewpoint.
I believe that all religions and cultures are valid as long as they are prepared to keep within certain boundaries which have to exist for a democratic society to function. The structures of democracy are also the limits to religious belief and practice.
All civilisations nowadays are beginning to agree that some kind of democratic rule is the method of government that works the best. The damage done to the world at certain times in history by various dictators is too well known to require comment. It is seen as essential to limit the power of the government to do just what it likes. But although democratic principles have been discussed for milennia, it is only in very recent times that they have been fully put into practice.
Two conditions seem essential for a democracy to exist. One of these is that those who offer themselves as candidates for office have to be committed to govern in such a manner as to serve the best interests of all the citizens, or if that isn't practicable then at the very least to serve the best interests of as many as possible. The other condition is that all adults should normally be able to vote. Therefore, the U.K. has in fact been a democracy only since 1928, which was when all adult women were able to vote.
Democracy, by its nature, implies that all citizens are equal before the law, and equally subject to the rule of law. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religious belief are also necessary elements of the system. Equality of opportunity, regardless of gender, is implied in the principle of democracy. An educated and informed electorate is also essential. These governing principles serve as the limit to how far culture can go.
Therefore, if any religious belief or cultural norm negates democratic principles, those who practice it may have to live with Government restraints on how far they can go in observing their traditions. I have written this last sentence with great reluctance and a heavy heart, because as a general rule I'm not at all in favour of more Government rules. I would be far happier if we could tear up the rule-book and empower people to take charge of their own lives. In this instance, however, we are dealing with people who intend to do far worse than to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. We have to take action as a nation to protect ourselves and our freedoms, until it becomes unnecessary.
Take, for example, freedom of religion. I do not think that in the Western world we have real freedom of religion. This is because all major Western religions - Christianity, Islam, and Judaism - teach to a greater or lesser extent that you risk going to Hell if you break their rules. There can be no freedom if your fear of the unknown is being exploited by your belief system. In order to function as part of a properly democratic nation, all religions must commit themselves to stop frightening their followers with horror stories of torture beyond the grave.
Another issue is that of womens' dress. The fundmentalist Islamic dress code is eminently sensible if you live in a country where there are sandstorms. Under such circumstances, men, women, and children would have to be veiled from head to foot for protection. However, in the U.K. even in today's globally warmed times it is highly improbable we shall ever see a sandstorm. No Muslim man would tolerate being made to dress in such a way that only his eyes could be seen.
Similarly, when my wife and I were living in Stamford Hill and trying to fit in to a Chareidi Jewish lifestyle, she had to wear a sheitel: that is to say, a wig that covers all your own hair. Almost all married Chareidi women wear them. Many actually shave off their own hair. The rationale for this is that it is immodest for married women to have their hair uncovered. But there is no similar rule for married men. Granted, we almost always wear a hat, but no Jewish man would dream of shaving off his hair and putting on a wig. It would be unheard of.
The reason why religious dress codes always come down more heavily on women in the Western world is that we have the Biblical myth of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden in which the woman is cast as the temptress-in-chief. But these customs are incompatible with the democratic principle of equality of the sexes. A woman isn't a vagina and a womb on two legs, no matter what some religious people seem to think.
I'm not against anyone's freedom to wear whatever (s)he wants. I am simply asking the religious leaders of the world to cease from making certain modes of dress compulsory. If you are making women adhere to a certain dress code but not men, then as far as I am concerned you have gone too far.
I would say the same about faith schools. If I were the government, I wouldn't place any restrictions on what you can teach your kids any more than there are now. It is perfectly legal not to send your children to school at all, I know someone who educates hers at home. But I wouldn't give any money to any school for children of one faith alone, or indeed any "religious" school - Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, or what you will. You want any Government money? You follow a completely secular programme of education. If you want to teach religion, you do it in your own time, and with your own resources.
Finally, as regards public holidays, it has been suggested to make Eid a public holiday. I believe it makes more sense for public holidays not to be religious at all. To replace the U.K. public holidays we have now, I suggest six special days as follows: (1) Last Monday in August, Carnival. Speaking as a Londoner, it would take the pressure off Notting Hill. Speaking as a normal bloke who enjoys life, it would be great fun to have a once a year celebration in every street. God help us, the neighbours might actually start talking to each other! (2) Nearest Monday to 11th November, Remembrance Day. I would put the emphasis here on peace and reconciliation, as well as honouring the fallen. It could be a day in which we are encouraged to forgive one another and settle disputes, as we do in the Jewish world before Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. (3) January 1st or nearest working day thereafter, New Year's Day. (4) May 1st or nearest working day thereafter, May Day, in honour of the workers. (5) June 21st or nearest working day thereafter, Midsummer's Day, in which we emphasise care of the environment. (6) Some time late February or early March, National Day, in which we celebrate what is good about our country.
This would distribute Bank Holidays evenly in the year: it would not favour any religion over another: and it would mean something to everyone, religious or otherwise. If you want to have other days off in honour of your religious holidays, you take it as part of your annual leave.
My opinions on everything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Firstly, I find it rather perverse that in a poll of supposedly "influential" people on the subject of Islam, only one per cent of those questioned was a Muslim.
Secondly, the questions seemed to have been worded as if all Muslims were a homogenous mass. That isn't the case. There is as much disagreement, and difference of opinion, within Islam as there is in any other religion. The fact that there is disagreement doesn't make it a bad religion. Disagreement is essential for the world to function: if we all thought the same, there would be no new ideas, no inventions, and no progress. The question is how we are to manage the differences in viewpoint.
I believe that all religions and cultures are valid as long as they are prepared to keep within certain boundaries which have to exist for a democratic society to function. The structures of democracy are also the limits to religious belief and practice.
All civilisations nowadays are beginning to agree that some kind of democratic rule is the method of government that works the best. The damage done to the world at certain times in history by various dictators is too well known to require comment. It is seen as essential to limit the power of the government to do just what it likes. But although democratic principles have been discussed for milennia, it is only in very recent times that they have been fully put into practice.
Two conditions seem essential for a democracy to exist. One of these is that those who offer themselves as candidates for office have to be committed to govern in such a manner as to serve the best interests of all the citizens, or if that isn't practicable then at the very least to serve the best interests of as many as possible. The other condition is that all adults should normally be able to vote. Therefore, the U.K. has in fact been a democracy only since 1928, which was when all adult women were able to vote.
Democracy, by its nature, implies that all citizens are equal before the law, and equally subject to the rule of law. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religious belief are also necessary elements of the system. Equality of opportunity, regardless of gender, is implied in the principle of democracy. An educated and informed electorate is also essential. These governing principles serve as the limit to how far culture can go.
Therefore, if any religious belief or cultural norm negates democratic principles, those who practice it may have to live with Government restraints on how far they can go in observing their traditions. I have written this last sentence with great reluctance and a heavy heart, because as a general rule I'm not at all in favour of more Government rules. I would be far happier if we could tear up the rule-book and empower people to take charge of their own lives. In this instance, however, we are dealing with people who intend to do far worse than to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. We have to take action as a nation to protect ourselves and our freedoms, until it becomes unnecessary.
Take, for example, freedom of religion. I do not think that in the Western world we have real freedom of religion. This is because all major Western religions - Christianity, Islam, and Judaism - teach to a greater or lesser extent that you risk going to Hell if you break their rules. There can be no freedom if your fear of the unknown is being exploited by your belief system. In order to function as part of a properly democratic nation, all religions must commit themselves to stop frightening their followers with horror stories of torture beyond the grave.
Another issue is that of womens' dress. The fundmentalist Islamic dress code is eminently sensible if you live in a country where there are sandstorms. Under such circumstances, men, women, and children would have to be veiled from head to foot for protection. However, in the U.K. even in today's globally warmed times it is highly improbable we shall ever see a sandstorm. No Muslim man would tolerate being made to dress in such a way that only his eyes could be seen.
Similarly, when my wife and I were living in Stamford Hill and trying to fit in to a Chareidi Jewish lifestyle, she had to wear a sheitel: that is to say, a wig that covers all your own hair. Almost all married Chareidi women wear them. Many actually shave off their own hair. The rationale for this is that it is immodest for married women to have their hair uncovered. But there is no similar rule for married men. Granted, we almost always wear a hat, but no Jewish man would dream of shaving off his hair and putting on a wig. It would be unheard of.
The reason why religious dress codes always come down more heavily on women in the Western world is that we have the Biblical myth of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden in which the woman is cast as the temptress-in-chief. But these customs are incompatible with the democratic principle of equality of the sexes. A woman isn't a vagina and a womb on two legs, no matter what some religious people seem to think.
I'm not against anyone's freedom to wear whatever (s)he wants. I am simply asking the religious leaders of the world to cease from making certain modes of dress compulsory. If you are making women adhere to a certain dress code but not men, then as far as I am concerned you have gone too far.
I would say the same about faith schools. If I were the government, I wouldn't place any restrictions on what you can teach your kids any more than there are now. It is perfectly legal not to send your children to school at all, I know someone who educates hers at home. But I wouldn't give any money to any school for children of one faith alone, or indeed any "religious" school - Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, or what you will. You want any Government money? You follow a completely secular programme of education. If you want to teach religion, you do it in your own time, and with your own resources.
Finally, as regards public holidays, it has been suggested to make Eid a public holiday. I believe it makes more sense for public holidays not to be religious at all. To replace the U.K. public holidays we have now, I suggest six special days as follows: (1) Last Monday in August, Carnival. Speaking as a Londoner, it would take the pressure off Notting Hill. Speaking as a normal bloke who enjoys life, it would be great fun to have a once a year celebration in every street. God help us, the neighbours might actually start talking to each other! (2) Nearest Monday to 11th November, Remembrance Day. I would put the emphasis here on peace and reconciliation, as well as honouring the fallen. It could be a day in which we are encouraged to forgive one another and settle disputes, as we do in the Jewish world before Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. (3) January 1st or nearest working day thereafter, New Year's Day. (4) May 1st or nearest working day thereafter, May Day, in honour of the workers. (5) June 21st or nearest working day thereafter, Midsummer's Day, in which we emphasise care of the environment. (6) Some time late February or early March, National Day, in which we celebrate what is good about our country.
This would distribute Bank Holidays evenly in the year: it would not favour any religion over another: and it would mean something to everyone, religious or otherwise. If you want to have other days off in honour of your religious holidays, you take it as part of your annual leave.
My opinions on everything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Monday, 29 October 2007
The Stam and the scam
Today's piece is my take on the theft of designer handbags (29th October, "Handbagged", page 3). It also has a bearing on consumerism in general.
It appears that designer handbags are becoming increasingly attractive to thieves, in that they are small, light, readily portable, easy to sell and worth vast sums of money on the black market. Indeed, they raise huge sums on any market. As Laura Craik put it in the article: "Fashion brands have become more savvy about marketing, using engineered scarcity to create a 'waiting list' culture in order to push up the desirability...of these items".
In other words, the designers are deliberately limiting the supply of desirable items in order for the price to go up, and they will then make monster profits. Under these circumstances, I must ask, who are the real thieves? We can see how the law of attraction works. The people who produce the bags are robbing their customers. The goods are thus tainted with theft from beginning to end, and we should not therefore be surprised they are being stolen. What, objectively, is any bag really worth? You can only carry things in it.
On the appearance front, I've just ordered a new suit. I bought it from Roth Clothing in Stamford Hill. It's where the Chasidim buy their clothes. For those who don't know, Chasidim are the Jewish gentlemen in long black coats, fur hats and beards: a familiar sight in Stamford Hill. I'm not a Chasid by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm enough of an Orthodox Jew to have a deep distaste for spending my money on advertising campaigns, window displays, shop fittings that change every week, and planet-cooking lighting systems. I just want a suit, and Roth Clothing have suits like a monkey has fleas. Of course, they are all either black or dark blue, but that doesn't bother me: I have plenty of colourful ties to cheer them up.
People think, if I have some fashion accessory or other, I can make an image for myself, and I can be the thing called cool. It doesn't work like that. You begin by working on a cool state of being, and if you are genuine about it, your actions will follow, and you will end up having an air of elegance about you that goes beyond fashion. I knew Chasidic women who could make a plastic rain hat look sexy.
Regarding consumer goods in general, I was once asked a challenging question. Do I need a vacuum cleaner? The considered answer has to be, no. If all of a sudden my vacuum cleaner disappeared and I couldn't get a new one, I could choose to research pre World War 2 methods of cleaning my carpets. Alternatively, I could rip up all my carpets and have wooden floors at home from top to bottom. So, no, I don't need a vacuum cleaner. In which case, what am I doing owning one?
Consider the current state of affairs: in my street, there are over 50 households, almost all of whom own a vacuum cleaner. Think of the environmental impact of manufacturing 50 vacuum cleaners, and of disposing of them when they fail to function. It isn't very environmentally friendly, is it? Now consider what may happen if all 50 households had a vacuum cleaner between them, and organised a rota, so that you could designate one or two hours per week in which you would do your hoovering, and then pass the appliance on to the next person. Would your carpets still be regularly cleaned? Yes, of course. You get the same solution to your cleaning problems for one fiftieth of the environmental impact.
The way vacuum cleaners are made today, they would not last very long if used so intensively. Therefore, when vacuum cleaner "pools" become popular, the makers will say, "We had better start making machines that last twenty years!" The environmental impact goes down further, and better quality goods begin to be made. Everyone wins.
The other issue is, who will offer his/her vacuum cleaner first to be pooled in such a fashion? Few people would, at least at present. So, if I were the Council, I would organise a network of domestic appliance pools in local neighbourhoods. Membership could be free or subsidised, because everything would be paid for out of council taxes. We might even be able to get EU funding for such a project. We would then begin to understand what it is to be wealthy, as opposed to being rich. Rich means, you own lots of things. Wealthy means, you have access to lots of things. Even the poor can be wealthy if you get the system to work.
This kind of principle is called Conscious Commerce. For more on it, I invite you to e-mail jjsleeman@aol.com.
If it works for vacuum cleaners, it could work for handbags. So if we must get ourselves into a hot sweat about a designer handbag, let the Council buy one of them, and any local resident can have it for one, or more, evening of her choice. Then we can all be highly fashionable for one day every now and then. I've already seen that Richard Branson's Virgin Group has a very similar scheme for luxury cars.
If we know that we will get the chance to access whatever it is we like and when we like (within reason) then I dare say the desire to steal may be much diminished as a result.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
It appears that designer handbags are becoming increasingly attractive to thieves, in that they are small, light, readily portable, easy to sell and worth vast sums of money on the black market. Indeed, they raise huge sums on any market. As Laura Craik put it in the article: "Fashion brands have become more savvy about marketing, using engineered scarcity to create a 'waiting list' culture in order to push up the desirability...of these items".
In other words, the designers are deliberately limiting the supply of desirable items in order for the price to go up, and they will then make monster profits. Under these circumstances, I must ask, who are the real thieves? We can see how the law of attraction works. The people who produce the bags are robbing their customers. The goods are thus tainted with theft from beginning to end, and we should not therefore be surprised they are being stolen. What, objectively, is any bag really worth? You can only carry things in it.
On the appearance front, I've just ordered a new suit. I bought it from Roth Clothing in Stamford Hill. It's where the Chasidim buy their clothes. For those who don't know, Chasidim are the Jewish gentlemen in long black coats, fur hats and beards: a familiar sight in Stamford Hill. I'm not a Chasid by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm enough of an Orthodox Jew to have a deep distaste for spending my money on advertising campaigns, window displays, shop fittings that change every week, and planet-cooking lighting systems. I just want a suit, and Roth Clothing have suits like a monkey has fleas. Of course, they are all either black or dark blue, but that doesn't bother me: I have plenty of colourful ties to cheer them up.
People think, if I have some fashion accessory or other, I can make an image for myself, and I can be the thing called cool. It doesn't work like that. You begin by working on a cool state of being, and if you are genuine about it, your actions will follow, and you will end up having an air of elegance about you that goes beyond fashion. I knew Chasidic women who could make a plastic rain hat look sexy.
Regarding consumer goods in general, I was once asked a challenging question. Do I need a vacuum cleaner? The considered answer has to be, no. If all of a sudden my vacuum cleaner disappeared and I couldn't get a new one, I could choose to research pre World War 2 methods of cleaning my carpets. Alternatively, I could rip up all my carpets and have wooden floors at home from top to bottom. So, no, I don't need a vacuum cleaner. In which case, what am I doing owning one?
Consider the current state of affairs: in my street, there are over 50 households, almost all of whom own a vacuum cleaner. Think of the environmental impact of manufacturing 50 vacuum cleaners, and of disposing of them when they fail to function. It isn't very environmentally friendly, is it? Now consider what may happen if all 50 households had a vacuum cleaner between them, and organised a rota, so that you could designate one or two hours per week in which you would do your hoovering, and then pass the appliance on to the next person. Would your carpets still be regularly cleaned? Yes, of course. You get the same solution to your cleaning problems for one fiftieth of the environmental impact.
The way vacuum cleaners are made today, they would not last very long if used so intensively. Therefore, when vacuum cleaner "pools" become popular, the makers will say, "We had better start making machines that last twenty years!" The environmental impact goes down further, and better quality goods begin to be made. Everyone wins.
The other issue is, who will offer his/her vacuum cleaner first to be pooled in such a fashion? Few people would, at least at present. So, if I were the Council, I would organise a network of domestic appliance pools in local neighbourhoods. Membership could be free or subsidised, because everything would be paid for out of council taxes. We might even be able to get EU funding for such a project. We would then begin to understand what it is to be wealthy, as opposed to being rich. Rich means, you own lots of things. Wealthy means, you have access to lots of things. Even the poor can be wealthy if you get the system to work.
This kind of principle is called Conscious Commerce. For more on it, I invite you to e-mail jjsleeman@aol.com.
If it works for vacuum cleaners, it could work for handbags. So if we must get ourselves into a hot sweat about a designer handbag, let the Council buy one of them, and any local resident can have it for one, or more, evening of her choice. Then we can all be highly fashionable for one day every now and then. I've already seen that Richard Branson's Virgin Group has a very similar scheme for luxury cars.
If we know that we will get the chance to access whatever it is we like and when we like (within reason) then I dare say the desire to steal may be much diminished as a result.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
Class
This piece is inspired, if that's the right word, by Andrew Gilligan's article "To fight the class divide" on page 12 of the Standard of 22nd October.
Firstly, it is well known that most of the people who get to the top of British society have attended certain public schools and universities, and this has been the case for several centuries. None of the social policy initiatives of modern times has done anything significant to change this. It's often remarked how people of that background seem to have an air of confidence about them, that their contemporaries from other backgrounds do not. This is most clearly noticed in the university setting. Bright children from working class families can be overwhelmed by it, and can be made to feel very inferior.
This is because the education system that most of us experience is of no value when it comes to learning "people skills". As Matt Morris put it: "I studied English, math, history, grammar, science and geography, but I was never offered classes in confidence, self-esteem, leadership, motivation, communication skills, how to build quality relationships, how to create wealth, or enjoy physical well-being or spiritual growth....As a result I entered the world with big goals, big dreams, but no real-world tools to achieve what I wanted. So like many people I struggled as an adult in the workforce." Mr. Morris now teaches personal development classes, but don't let that put you off. If the National Curriculum offered lessons to all children in such things as confidence and self-esteem, that would go a long way towards removing the class barriers.
I've no objection to private education as long as it is made genuinely available to everybody. Thus, if I were the government, I would want all children to have the opportunity to take an entrance exam for Eton, Harrow, Rugby or wherever. If they were from a poor family who couldn't afford the fees, the Government would pay the fees for them.
In one of my earlier pieces, I said that I would not take any education system seriously unless it taught kids how to meditate. It seems that David Lynch and Donovan have been putting this idea forward, to predictably dismissive comments in today's "Readers' Views". Transcendental meditation (TM), it appears, leads to "pre-medieval notions" and is at best "Californian mush". We forget that every belief system in the world, including those of James Randi and Richard D. North who wrote on the "dangers of TM", has its fair share of apparent absurdities.
To illustrate, in my religious system (Judaism) I perform a ritual on Friday night and Saturday called "making Kiddush" in which I hold a cup of wine aloft and recite a number of verses from the Scriptures stating that God made the world in six days, and rested on the seventh. I don't for a moment think that God really did make the world in six days, or indeed that He rested on the seventh. What I do think those verses mean is beyond the scope of this blog. I could cite similar examples from other religions. The point is that all beliefs, not just TM, are to a greater or lesser extent harking back to a pre-scientific view of the world.
The very fact that we think a week has seven days is only because early man observed that besides the stars, which seem not to move, there are seven heavenly bodies that appear to be in motion. These are the sun, the moon, and the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. We decided that each of them had a special influence on a particular day: hence Sunday, Monday (the day of the moon) Tuesday (Mardi in French, the day of Mars) Wednesday (Mercredi in French, the day of Mercury) Thursday (Jeudi in French, Jupiter's day) Friday (in French Vendredi, the day for Venus) and Saturday (Saturn's day). We all accept this without thinking about it, even though there isn't a scrap of logic to any of it. All we can say for sure is that a week of seven days seems to work, so we have stuck to it. The French tried to introduce a new calendar including a ten-day week after the Revolution, and nobody could live with it, so they went back to the traditional calendar.
The reason I think meditation is so important is that it works. There's nothing particularly esoteric about it. It simply involves deciding what you want to think, and then thinking it, to the exclusion of all else, for a given amount of time. In this world we are bombarded with all kind of images that tell us what we should think, and they form a distraction from life at best and an incentive for us to harm ourselves at worst. You have to develop the skills to keep on course, and the earlier you begin to do it, the easier it will be when you are an adult. We are back to the importance of learning self-confidence and inner peace as an essential tool for life.
When we get into the habit of thinking that in the ultimate reality we are all one, which is what we are, and that there is no such thing as superiority, questions of social class will not matter.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Firstly, it is well known that most of the people who get to the top of British society have attended certain public schools and universities, and this has been the case for several centuries. None of the social policy initiatives of modern times has done anything significant to change this. It's often remarked how people of that background seem to have an air of confidence about them, that their contemporaries from other backgrounds do not. This is most clearly noticed in the university setting. Bright children from working class families can be overwhelmed by it, and can be made to feel very inferior.
This is because the education system that most of us experience is of no value when it comes to learning "people skills". As Matt Morris put it: "I studied English, math, history, grammar, science and geography, but I was never offered classes in confidence, self-esteem, leadership, motivation, communication skills, how to build quality relationships, how to create wealth, or enjoy physical well-being or spiritual growth....As a result I entered the world with big goals, big dreams, but no real-world tools to achieve what I wanted. So like many people I struggled as an adult in the workforce." Mr. Morris now teaches personal development classes, but don't let that put you off. If the National Curriculum offered lessons to all children in such things as confidence and self-esteem, that would go a long way towards removing the class barriers.
I've no objection to private education as long as it is made genuinely available to everybody. Thus, if I were the government, I would want all children to have the opportunity to take an entrance exam for Eton, Harrow, Rugby or wherever. If they were from a poor family who couldn't afford the fees, the Government would pay the fees for them.
In one of my earlier pieces, I said that I would not take any education system seriously unless it taught kids how to meditate. It seems that David Lynch and Donovan have been putting this idea forward, to predictably dismissive comments in today's "Readers' Views". Transcendental meditation (TM), it appears, leads to "pre-medieval notions" and is at best "Californian mush". We forget that every belief system in the world, including those of James Randi and Richard D. North who wrote on the "dangers of TM", has its fair share of apparent absurdities.
To illustrate, in my religious system (Judaism) I perform a ritual on Friday night and Saturday called "making Kiddush" in which I hold a cup of wine aloft and recite a number of verses from the Scriptures stating that God made the world in six days, and rested on the seventh. I don't for a moment think that God really did make the world in six days, or indeed that He rested on the seventh. What I do think those verses mean is beyond the scope of this blog. I could cite similar examples from other religions. The point is that all beliefs, not just TM, are to a greater or lesser extent harking back to a pre-scientific view of the world.
The very fact that we think a week has seven days is only because early man observed that besides the stars, which seem not to move, there are seven heavenly bodies that appear to be in motion. These are the sun, the moon, and the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. We decided that each of them had a special influence on a particular day: hence Sunday, Monday (the day of the moon) Tuesday (Mardi in French, the day of Mars) Wednesday (Mercredi in French, the day of Mercury) Thursday (Jeudi in French, Jupiter's day) Friday (in French Vendredi, the day for Venus) and Saturday (Saturn's day). We all accept this without thinking about it, even though there isn't a scrap of logic to any of it. All we can say for sure is that a week of seven days seems to work, so we have stuck to it. The French tried to introduce a new calendar including a ten-day week after the Revolution, and nobody could live with it, so they went back to the traditional calendar.
The reason I think meditation is so important is that it works. There's nothing particularly esoteric about it. It simply involves deciding what you want to think, and then thinking it, to the exclusion of all else, for a given amount of time. In this world we are bombarded with all kind of images that tell us what we should think, and they form a distraction from life at best and an incentive for us to harm ourselves at worst. You have to develop the skills to keep on course, and the earlier you begin to do it, the easier it will be when you are an adult. We are back to the importance of learning self-confidence and inner peace as an essential tool for life.
When we get into the habit of thinking that in the ultimate reality we are all one, which is what we are, and that there is no such thing as superiority, questions of social class will not matter.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Saturday, 20 October 2007
Bread and Media Circuses
Once upon a time, there was an Australian Seventh Day Adventist minister called Stephen Chamberlain, who decided that he would take his wife Lindy and their children on a camping trip to Ayers Rock in the Outback. While they were there, it appeared that a dingo took their baby, who was never seen again.
At first, it was accepted that the Chamberlain family were the victims of a tragic accident. As time went on, people started to doubt their story. Some genuinely believed that it was impossible for a dingo to steal a human baby. Others thought there was something strange about the Chamberlain family. Rumours began to multiply. It was even suggested that their youngest child had been done away with in some occult ritual, and that her name, Azaria, had a secret meaning indicating that she was to be offered up to God in some way or another. In the end, the weight of media pressure proved irresistible, and Lindy Chamberlain appeared in court charged with her daughter's murder, in what came to be known as the Dingo Trial.
As you can imagine, the world's press was full of speculation about the case, and all manner of pundits on subjects from anthropology to zoology had something to say to the journalists covering the story. In the end, Mrs. Chamberlain, who by now was pregnant again, was found guilty, and taken away from the rest of her family to have her baby in prison. Most people thought justice had been done.
Some time later, a hiker who was going for a walk in the area happened upon a bloodstained scrap of fabric, which upon closer inspection turned out to be Azaria Chamberlain's matinee jacket. Apparently, it was a crucial part of the prosecution case that the garment concerned did not exist. Now that it had been found, the case had to be heard all over again, but this time we had all calmed down a bit, and could think more rationally about the evidence. As a result, the courts decided that Lindy Chamberlain was not guilty after all.
This is characteristic of legal cases that are tried in circumstances where there is a lot of media excitement. The wrong verdict is reached, and it is only by sheer chance (or, if you will, an act of Divine providence) that we find out what really happened. Ask the "Birmingham Six", the "Guildford Four", Judith Ward, and many others like them.
It will be the same with the McCann family, if the matter of their lost daughter ever gets to a trial. The police enquiry, no matter which national police force does it, will be sidetracked by pressure from the media for a conclusion. The chances of the police finding out what really happened to Madeleine, or who was behind her disappearance, by means of the enquiry currently in progress are precisely zero. The only hope for the truth to be known will be if someone stumbles upon it "by chance".
I have no children, so I cannot imagine what I would do if I lost a child. I have thought about what I might do if, perish the thought, my wife vanished without trace. I would report her missing to the police. I would not breathe a word to the papers or to anybody in the media. Indeed, I would do my very best to ensure that only those who needed to know, would be told. Wild horses wouldn't be able to persuade me to appear on the news and make an appeal for her to come back, or anything of that kind. I would not give anyone in the press the chance to think that I could possibly have been responsible for her disappearance.
The opposite of life is not death. It is television. In life, you have the opportunity to look at something from all angles, and to question. In television, all you see is what the camera is pointing at, or more accurately what some bigwig in charge of the programme will allow the camera to point at. Television trivialises everything it touches, including the loss of a loved one. I would choose not to have my life trivialised. Matters of life and death are too important to be made into a media circus.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
At first, it was accepted that the Chamberlain family were the victims of a tragic accident. As time went on, people started to doubt their story. Some genuinely believed that it was impossible for a dingo to steal a human baby. Others thought there was something strange about the Chamberlain family. Rumours began to multiply. It was even suggested that their youngest child had been done away with in some occult ritual, and that her name, Azaria, had a secret meaning indicating that she was to be offered up to God in some way or another. In the end, the weight of media pressure proved irresistible, and Lindy Chamberlain appeared in court charged with her daughter's murder, in what came to be known as the Dingo Trial.
As you can imagine, the world's press was full of speculation about the case, and all manner of pundits on subjects from anthropology to zoology had something to say to the journalists covering the story. In the end, Mrs. Chamberlain, who by now was pregnant again, was found guilty, and taken away from the rest of her family to have her baby in prison. Most people thought justice had been done.
Some time later, a hiker who was going for a walk in the area happened upon a bloodstained scrap of fabric, which upon closer inspection turned out to be Azaria Chamberlain's matinee jacket. Apparently, it was a crucial part of the prosecution case that the garment concerned did not exist. Now that it had been found, the case had to be heard all over again, but this time we had all calmed down a bit, and could think more rationally about the evidence. As a result, the courts decided that Lindy Chamberlain was not guilty after all.
This is characteristic of legal cases that are tried in circumstances where there is a lot of media excitement. The wrong verdict is reached, and it is only by sheer chance (or, if you will, an act of Divine providence) that we find out what really happened. Ask the "Birmingham Six", the "Guildford Four", Judith Ward, and many others like them.
It will be the same with the McCann family, if the matter of their lost daughter ever gets to a trial. The police enquiry, no matter which national police force does it, will be sidetracked by pressure from the media for a conclusion. The chances of the police finding out what really happened to Madeleine, or who was behind her disappearance, by means of the enquiry currently in progress are precisely zero. The only hope for the truth to be known will be if someone stumbles upon it "by chance".
I have no children, so I cannot imagine what I would do if I lost a child. I have thought about what I might do if, perish the thought, my wife vanished without trace. I would report her missing to the police. I would not breathe a word to the papers or to anybody in the media. Indeed, I would do my very best to ensure that only those who needed to know, would be told. Wild horses wouldn't be able to persuade me to appear on the news and make an appeal for her to come back, or anything of that kind. I would not give anyone in the press the chance to think that I could possibly have been responsible for her disappearance.
The opposite of life is not death. It is television. In life, you have the opportunity to look at something from all angles, and to question. In television, all you see is what the camera is pointing at, or more accurately what some bigwig in charge of the programme will allow the camera to point at. Television trivialises everything it touches, including the loss of a loved one. I would choose not to have my life trivialised. Matters of life and death are too important to be made into a media circus.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Sunday, 7 October 2007
A Republican Manifesto
I haven't been reading the Standard a great deal lately due to religious holidays, but I guess it is full to overflowing with the inquest on Princess Diana. This has prompted me to publish my Republican Manifesto.
In so doing, I do not hold any grudge or feeling of ill-will against any of the Royal Family. I'm not against anyone. Nor have I any views on the personality or character of any of them. I have never met anybody Royal, but if I had done so it would make no difference. If you are a member of a Royal Family, you are schooled from your earliest years in the art of making a good impression to the public. None of us knows what the Queen or any of her relatives are really like, because we do not see them at home. Nor do I intend to join in any kind of a debate as to whether the Royal Family do their job properly. The facts are that in today's world, there is no job for a Royal Family to do. They are figureheads of ceremonial importance only, producing nothing, except for lots of column inches in newspapers together with an image of the United Kingdom (U.K.) as some kind of a medieval theme park rather than that of a modern country. It was to counteract this image, I believe, that New Labour in their early days in office started their ill-judged talk about "Cool Britannia".
It isn't enough for the U.K. simply not to have a monarchy. I see the conversion of the U.K. into a republic as a small but integral part of the process of the modernisation of all our governmental institutions, and of the production of a proper constitution for the country. It is beyond absurdity that a one-person limited company turning over a few thousand pounds per annum has got to have a constitution (called in the case of a company the Memorandum and Articles of Association), but the nation as a whole has not.
To begin with, I envisage the peaceful transformation of the U.K. into the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, henceforth abbreviated as the U.R. As part of this process, all hereditary titles will also be peacefully abolished, so there will be no more Dukes, Earls, Viscounts and so on. The House of Lords will be abolished, and replaced by an upper chamber of Parliament consisting of representatives from the regional assemblies of the U.R.
It will be a fundamental principle of the U.R. that all political offices must be filled by a process of election. By way of contrast, not many of us know that at the time of writing this piece the most powerful woman in the country at present is Baroness Amos, the New Labour leader of the House of Lords, who also has a seat in the Cabinet. I am not saying there is anything wrong with her. I am saying that we have had no opportunity to vote on her competence for office. She has never fought any kind of election. She is what she is because Tony Blair took a shine to her. Under the constitution of the U.R., that would be impossible.
I would also propose that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man will come under the ambit of the constitution of the U.R., and that they should lose their favoured tax status. We would want to co-operate fully with the United Nations on the matter of abolition of tax havens all round the world, so that every nation has a fair and transparent tax and finance system.
As a national Head of State, I would propose an elected President. The President would have to resign from all political affiliations as a condition of standing for election. He/she would be entitled to attend, speak, and vote, at all meetings of the Cabinet. The primary role of the President would be to assess the impact of legislation on the spiritual well-being of the nation. Civil service staff will be given to him for that purpose of a comparable number and rank to those working with a member of the Cabinet.
I would envisage that there should be no state religion, and that the advancement of religion should not be a charitable purpose under the legislation.
I would also wish to write into the constitution certain core values, which all civilised societies have agreed upon. Included in these are the right to free speech, the right to freedom of association, the right to freedom of religion, the equality of all citizens before the law, and the equality of the sexes. Included also would be the obligation to respect the lives, dignity, and property of others, and not to incite religious or racial hatred.
Most importantly, I would intend the constitution to make it clear that the objectives of Government should be to make the lives of the people more simple and straightforward. At the present we have a government that makes life more and more complicated every day. The policies of whoever is in government should be directed towards empowering the people to take charge of their own affairs so that we live fully functional and satisfying lives without the requirement for layers of regulation. That has to be the prime objective.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
In so doing, I do not hold any grudge or feeling of ill-will against any of the Royal Family. I'm not against anyone. Nor have I any views on the personality or character of any of them. I have never met anybody Royal, but if I had done so it would make no difference. If you are a member of a Royal Family, you are schooled from your earliest years in the art of making a good impression to the public. None of us knows what the Queen or any of her relatives are really like, because we do not see them at home. Nor do I intend to join in any kind of a debate as to whether the Royal Family do their job properly. The facts are that in today's world, there is no job for a Royal Family to do. They are figureheads of ceremonial importance only, producing nothing, except for lots of column inches in newspapers together with an image of the United Kingdom (U.K.) as some kind of a medieval theme park rather than that of a modern country. It was to counteract this image, I believe, that New Labour in their early days in office started their ill-judged talk about "Cool Britannia".
It isn't enough for the U.K. simply not to have a monarchy. I see the conversion of the U.K. into a republic as a small but integral part of the process of the modernisation of all our governmental institutions, and of the production of a proper constitution for the country. It is beyond absurdity that a one-person limited company turning over a few thousand pounds per annum has got to have a constitution (called in the case of a company the Memorandum and Articles of Association), but the nation as a whole has not.
To begin with, I envisage the peaceful transformation of the U.K. into the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, henceforth abbreviated as the U.R. As part of this process, all hereditary titles will also be peacefully abolished, so there will be no more Dukes, Earls, Viscounts and so on. The House of Lords will be abolished, and replaced by an upper chamber of Parliament consisting of representatives from the regional assemblies of the U.R.
It will be a fundamental principle of the U.R. that all political offices must be filled by a process of election. By way of contrast, not many of us know that at the time of writing this piece the most powerful woman in the country at present is Baroness Amos, the New Labour leader of the House of Lords, who also has a seat in the Cabinet. I am not saying there is anything wrong with her. I am saying that we have had no opportunity to vote on her competence for office. She has never fought any kind of election. She is what she is because Tony Blair took a shine to her. Under the constitution of the U.R., that would be impossible.
I would also propose that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man will come under the ambit of the constitution of the U.R., and that they should lose their favoured tax status. We would want to co-operate fully with the United Nations on the matter of abolition of tax havens all round the world, so that every nation has a fair and transparent tax and finance system.
As a national Head of State, I would propose an elected President. The President would have to resign from all political affiliations as a condition of standing for election. He/she would be entitled to attend, speak, and vote, at all meetings of the Cabinet. The primary role of the President would be to assess the impact of legislation on the spiritual well-being of the nation. Civil service staff will be given to him for that purpose of a comparable number and rank to those working with a member of the Cabinet.
I would envisage that there should be no state religion, and that the advancement of religion should not be a charitable purpose under the legislation.
I would also wish to write into the constitution certain core values, which all civilised societies have agreed upon. Included in these are the right to free speech, the right to freedom of association, the right to freedom of religion, the equality of all citizens before the law, and the equality of the sexes. Included also would be the obligation to respect the lives, dignity, and property of others, and not to incite religious or racial hatred.
Most importantly, I would intend the constitution to make it clear that the objectives of Government should be to make the lives of the people more simple and straightforward. At the present we have a government that makes life more and more complicated every day. The policies of whoever is in government should be directed towards empowering the people to take charge of their own affairs so that we live fully functional and satisfying lives without the requirement for layers of regulation. That has to be the prime objective.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Monday, 24 September 2007
The limits of Government intervention - 24th Sept
In politics, it isn't so much whether you are on the left or on the right. Whether you are an interventionist, or a libertarian, is more important.
You don't have to be on the Left to be a meddler or a "Nanny Stateist". The Conservative "Clause 28" which banned local authorities from promoting homosexuality, was an example of right-wing meddling.
As a general rule, people enter politics because they think that Something Should Be Done. The trend is for more and more people to be employed by government for the purpose of Doing Something, they are paid a lot of money that is taken away from us in taxes, and they create ever more layers of rules and regulations. But an objective survey of whether we are happier or more fufilled people as a result of these rules would conclude that we are anything but happy.
It's a basic principle of life that when something happens that you don't like, you should ask yourself what you are doing to perpetuate it. Just the other day, I began to realise how I myself had fallen into the political trap of wanting Something To Be Done, and it also came clear to me how there could be another way.
It was when I heard that a very rich individual had recently died. In case her lawyers are reading this, I will not name her. She had a reputation for being not only extremely rich, but extremely mean. She had had a number of relationships: mostly, as she got richer, with very wealthy men, as she did not want the sort of man who would marry her for her money. As a result, she had children, all of whom she had quarrelled with. Most of her fortune, which was numbered in the billions of pounds, had been left for the upkeep of family pets.
When I heard this, I said, "It should be the law that domestic pets cannot benefit from legacies". Then I realised what I had said. I had just advocated adding to our legislation, creating more rules for legal brains to find ways of circumventing, and not dealing with the root of the problem. That problem is that people don't have family harmony.
The rich, as well as the poor, would have happier lives if they were truly empowered to build fulfilling relationships. In the case of this woman who had just died, she was a business genius, a giant in the field of commerce, but a pygmy in the field of family life. For people like that, making money is an addiction and a way of escape. If you are beavering away creating a huge fortune and seeing nothing else, you can thereby become oblivious of the fact that your family hates you. Also, it's much more socially acceptable than turning to drink or drugs. The effect, however, is very much the same.
But when we empower ourselves to get to grips with family issues properly, then we won't need rules specifying to what we can and can't leave our money. We will all want to ensure that however little or much we die with, it will be fairly distributed.
Therefore, it will work better if the Government rowed back on making more rules, and concentrated its mind on making life easier for people.
Take cycling as an example: on page 39 of today's Standard, Andrew Neather explains that as more of us have taken up cycling, the cycle shops are seizing on the opportunity to sell us a whole lot of clutter as "must-have" cycling accessories. At the moment, every time we decide to change our way of life towards greater environmental harmony, the business world tries to make it into a chance to make more money. This is in part because, for many, cycling is impratical for the less well-off. For example, it's very difficult to find somewhere safe to leave your bike at work, unless you are the business owner, in which case you simply wheel it inside your office.
The role of the Government in such circumstances would not be to make more rules. Rather, it could build a bicycle factory somewhere, and offer everybody a free bike every so many years. Then, everyone would have the incentive to cycle. We would all be on at the local authorities to construct secure bike storage areas. The health, and reduced congestion, benefits would be obvious.
Similarly, if the Government is concerned about fossil fuel depletion, it would be much easier to offer grants and incentives for people to have solar panels, or indeed just give everyone a solar panel, than it would be to pass a lot more laws.
Government by empowerment is what I am searching for.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
You don't have to be on the Left to be a meddler or a "Nanny Stateist". The Conservative "Clause 28" which banned local authorities from promoting homosexuality, was an example of right-wing meddling.
As a general rule, people enter politics because they think that Something Should Be Done. The trend is for more and more people to be employed by government for the purpose of Doing Something, they are paid a lot of money that is taken away from us in taxes, and they create ever more layers of rules and regulations. But an objective survey of whether we are happier or more fufilled people as a result of these rules would conclude that we are anything but happy.
It's a basic principle of life that when something happens that you don't like, you should ask yourself what you are doing to perpetuate it. Just the other day, I began to realise how I myself had fallen into the political trap of wanting Something To Be Done, and it also came clear to me how there could be another way.
It was when I heard that a very rich individual had recently died. In case her lawyers are reading this, I will not name her. She had a reputation for being not only extremely rich, but extremely mean. She had had a number of relationships: mostly, as she got richer, with very wealthy men, as she did not want the sort of man who would marry her for her money. As a result, she had children, all of whom she had quarrelled with. Most of her fortune, which was numbered in the billions of pounds, had been left for the upkeep of family pets.
When I heard this, I said, "It should be the law that domestic pets cannot benefit from legacies". Then I realised what I had said. I had just advocated adding to our legislation, creating more rules for legal brains to find ways of circumventing, and not dealing with the root of the problem. That problem is that people don't have family harmony.
The rich, as well as the poor, would have happier lives if they were truly empowered to build fulfilling relationships. In the case of this woman who had just died, she was a business genius, a giant in the field of commerce, but a pygmy in the field of family life. For people like that, making money is an addiction and a way of escape. If you are beavering away creating a huge fortune and seeing nothing else, you can thereby become oblivious of the fact that your family hates you. Also, it's much more socially acceptable than turning to drink or drugs. The effect, however, is very much the same.
But when we empower ourselves to get to grips with family issues properly, then we won't need rules specifying to what we can and can't leave our money. We will all want to ensure that however little or much we die with, it will be fairly distributed.
Therefore, it will work better if the Government rowed back on making more rules, and concentrated its mind on making life easier for people.
Take cycling as an example: on page 39 of today's Standard, Andrew Neather explains that as more of us have taken up cycling, the cycle shops are seizing on the opportunity to sell us a whole lot of clutter as "must-have" cycling accessories. At the moment, every time we decide to change our way of life towards greater environmental harmony, the business world tries to make it into a chance to make more money. This is in part because, for many, cycling is impratical for the less well-off. For example, it's very difficult to find somewhere safe to leave your bike at work, unless you are the business owner, in which case you simply wheel it inside your office.
The role of the Government in such circumstances would not be to make more rules. Rather, it could build a bicycle factory somewhere, and offer everybody a free bike every so many years. Then, everyone would have the incentive to cycle. We would all be on at the local authorities to construct secure bike storage areas. The health, and reduced congestion, benefits would be obvious.
Similarly, if the Government is concerned about fossil fuel depletion, it would be much easier to offer grants and incentives for people to have solar panels, or indeed just give everyone a solar panel, than it would be to pass a lot more laws.
Government by empowerment is what I am searching for.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Saturday, 8 September 2007
The lost children - 4th Sept 07
It's a basic principle of spirituality that you get, in life, exactly what you want. If you wanted something other than what you receive now, you would do whatever it takes to obtain it. You may say that you want peace, love, a quiet life, a healthy environment or what you will, but if your actions aren't uncompromisingly directed towards it, then nothing will happen. It's like the old joke about the man who prayed to God that he'd win the lottery but never bought a ticket.
Linked to that is the principle that life is not about big bad corporations, governments, or armies versus innocent little people. Because of the religious ideas that underpin our culture, we are accustomed to see the world as a battleground between God and Satan. Those of us who don't believe in God or Satan usually devise some kind of dualistic theology, so to speak, around such issues as the Middle East, animal rights, nuclear power, or the environment.
In either case, we are prepared to give our favourite knights in shining armour, or avenging angels, any amount of power to do whatever they like to bring about what we see as justice. We don't ask ourselves the obvious question: given there is something going on that I don't like, what am I doing to perpetuate it?
This blog is called Spirituality and the Standard because it seeks to pick up on something the London Evening Standard wrote about in the week just gone, and examine it. I'm a Londoner first and foremost, and most people who live here read the Standard, if only to have something to do when public transport breaks down. So I'm starting with what Camila Batmanghelidjh wrote on 4th September 2007 about her work with vulnerable kids, and what it says about us. More can be found about her on http://www.kidsco.org.uk/.
The first thing to say is that the problems she describes are completely within our power to deal with. Her organisation is in danger of being unable to continue because she cannot get funding of £3 million from the Government. It costs up to £190,000 per annum for one child in youth custody. In the context of what we are spending on prisons, courts, lawyers, probation officers, and police, £3 million is a few crumbs from the Home Office budget. In the meantime, we are happy to support, and vote for, politicians who promise ever more punitive measures. To what end? No punishment is as severe as an abusive upbringing or indeed as what gang members will do to each other for not showing enough "respect".
She tells a disturbing tale of drug-addled parents, and the effect that their way of life has on their children. Most people think when reading this kind of thing, oh well, that's somebody else's problem, not mine, but that is a fallacy. It is everybody's problem. Every joint you smoke is putting money into the hands of criminals.
It isn't only illegal drugs that are the problem. I have worked with people who, quite literally, cannot sleep without sleeping pills. We used to have a secretary who looked fine on the surface, but she was held together with anti-depressants, and collapsed into a tearful heap when they were withdrawn. Add to that the statistics for alcohol consumption these days, and I think you'd be hard put it to find anyone who isn't chemically dependent.
This, again, is a completely avoidable situation. If you enquire into the reason why you took whatever substance it was, the answer is going to be a combination of two things. One, life didn't seem to be enough fun, or enough exitement, or enough peace, or enough anything else. Two, everybody else was doing the same. This is because we are conditioned to think that we need something from without to be happy. We don't, in fact. We have everything within us, including the power to choose to be happy. We just haven't, for the most part, been shown how to tap into our inner resources.
That is why I would not take any education system seriously unless it taught children how to meditate. There is no limit to what the human mind can visualise, and therefore to how exciting the world can be, if you take time to go within. It is easier to do this when you have been practising it since you were a small child, than it is to turn your thinking round, like a rather unwieldy tanker, and start a meditative discipline in your late forties.
Once you've made the choice to do so, it will make a difference. You will know it has made a difference when those closest to you remark how much more at peace you are than you were before.
The principle is the same in other life relationships. If men and women really loved their partners, demand for sex workers and pornography would dry up in no time. It is within the power of anyone to drop the expectations and the demands, and to choose to love.
If we carry into our politics a dualistic view of the world, we will divide it arbitrarily into goodies and baddies, and we will punish the bad guys and put them into prison. And if there isn't enough prison space, why, we will just build some more. We are at present taking our liberty away from ourselves at a bewildering rate, and it isn't working.
If our politics were based on a view of the world as an integrated whole, in which we seriously consider how the behaviour of all of us affects life around us, it is much more likely to work.
Linked to that is the principle that life is not about big bad corporations, governments, or armies versus innocent little people. Because of the religious ideas that underpin our culture, we are accustomed to see the world as a battleground between God and Satan. Those of us who don't believe in God or Satan usually devise some kind of dualistic theology, so to speak, around such issues as the Middle East, animal rights, nuclear power, or the environment.
In either case, we are prepared to give our favourite knights in shining armour, or avenging angels, any amount of power to do whatever they like to bring about what we see as justice. We don't ask ourselves the obvious question: given there is something going on that I don't like, what am I doing to perpetuate it?
This blog is called Spirituality and the Standard because it seeks to pick up on something the London Evening Standard wrote about in the week just gone, and examine it. I'm a Londoner first and foremost, and most people who live here read the Standard, if only to have something to do when public transport breaks down. So I'm starting with what Camila Batmanghelidjh wrote on 4th September 2007 about her work with vulnerable kids, and what it says about us. More can be found about her on http://www.kidsco.org.uk/.
The first thing to say is that the problems she describes are completely within our power to deal with. Her organisation is in danger of being unable to continue because she cannot get funding of £3 million from the Government. It costs up to £190,000 per annum for one child in youth custody. In the context of what we are spending on prisons, courts, lawyers, probation officers, and police, £3 million is a few crumbs from the Home Office budget. In the meantime, we are happy to support, and vote for, politicians who promise ever more punitive measures. To what end? No punishment is as severe as an abusive upbringing or indeed as what gang members will do to each other for not showing enough "respect".
She tells a disturbing tale of drug-addled parents, and the effect that their way of life has on their children. Most people think when reading this kind of thing, oh well, that's somebody else's problem, not mine, but that is a fallacy. It is everybody's problem. Every joint you smoke is putting money into the hands of criminals.
It isn't only illegal drugs that are the problem. I have worked with people who, quite literally, cannot sleep without sleeping pills. We used to have a secretary who looked fine on the surface, but she was held together with anti-depressants, and collapsed into a tearful heap when they were withdrawn. Add to that the statistics for alcohol consumption these days, and I think you'd be hard put it to find anyone who isn't chemically dependent.
This, again, is a completely avoidable situation. If you enquire into the reason why you took whatever substance it was, the answer is going to be a combination of two things. One, life didn't seem to be enough fun, or enough exitement, or enough peace, or enough anything else. Two, everybody else was doing the same. This is because we are conditioned to think that we need something from without to be happy. We don't, in fact. We have everything within us, including the power to choose to be happy. We just haven't, for the most part, been shown how to tap into our inner resources.
That is why I would not take any education system seriously unless it taught children how to meditate. There is no limit to what the human mind can visualise, and therefore to how exciting the world can be, if you take time to go within. It is easier to do this when you have been practising it since you were a small child, than it is to turn your thinking round, like a rather unwieldy tanker, and start a meditative discipline in your late forties.
Once you've made the choice to do so, it will make a difference. You will know it has made a difference when those closest to you remark how much more at peace you are than you were before.
The principle is the same in other life relationships. If men and women really loved their partners, demand for sex workers and pornography would dry up in no time. It is within the power of anyone to drop the expectations and the demands, and to choose to love.
If we carry into our politics a dualistic view of the world, we will divide it arbitrarily into goodies and baddies, and we will punish the bad guys and put them into prison. And if there isn't enough prison space, why, we will just build some more. We are at present taking our liberty away from ourselves at a bewildering rate, and it isn't working.
If our politics were based on a view of the world as an integrated whole, in which we seriously consider how the behaviour of all of us affects life around us, it is much more likely to work.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Wednesday, 29 August 2007
What is spirituality?
Hello everyone!
You might think this is all about religion, but it is much more than that.
Spirituality is the relationship that you have, firstly as an individual and secondly as part of a community, with God, the universe, and other people. If you do not believe in God, please feel free to substitute the word Life for God. For all practical purposes, it is the same thing.
The raw material of spirituality is composed of ideas, beliefs and opinions. The manner in which you behave in your daily life is conditioned by your belief system, whatever that may be. Politics is spirituality expressed in government. Business is spirituality expressed in the provision of goods and services. All problems that we have are spiritual problems, and answers to them can be found by examining our belief systems. When I say belief, I don't mean a set of ideas about God. We can, and do, create belief systems about animal rights, the environment, nuclear power, and much else that are, effectively, secular theologies.
There are two core principles that I base my spirituality on. The first one is, we are all one. It may not seem that way, because we look different from each other and are walking around in physical bodies. But it is true even in biological terms. On average, our skin cells are renewed completely over the course of a year. Other cells in our body, for example the stomach lining, are renewed far more frequently than that. We are exchanging atoms of carbon, oxygen, and other substances necessary to maintain life, with the rest of the world all the time. If we look further and observe how what we do affects life elsewhere on the planet, it becomes even clearer. Ask yourself what had to happen, and where, so that you could eat a banana or a pineapple.
The second principle is, this is not the only way, it is just another way. We have to have differences of opinion. If we all agreed with one another, there would be no new ideas, no discoveries and no progress. The question is how to manage the differences. The answer that many people have come up with in history is to try to persuade, enforce, and bully others into conforming with one particular way, and therefore any amount of energy has been wasted by people fighting each other. And in any case, which way is right, and how are we to know? Who has read all the texts of all the religions on earth in all the languages in which they were written in order to decide what is the "true" faith, and who could do so and remain sane?
It would be more constructive to ask, given what we want to achieve, will it work? The answer to that question will of course change according to the circumstances. But it's a far more sensible question to ask than whether something is right or wrong. There is no such thing as an objective standard of right and wrong. Right and wrong are human constructs that can be, and are, altered arbitrarily. Whether a course of action will work or not is susceptible to enquiry and scientific measurement.
I'm not advocating any form of "one world religion". We have at present a one world food, the hamburger, and a one world drink, Coca Cola, and I don't find either very inspiring. I am advocating that you can have as many different cultures as you like, as long as they conform to principles of human conduct that can be seen in all world religions if you look in the right place, without which you could not have social cohesion.
My intentions in creating this blog are to engage with the London "Evening Standard" on cultural and spiritual issues, and to make a forum for the exchange of ideas. I intend to, over the course of each week, select items published in that paper which I feel to be worth commenting on, and post my comments on them at the end of the week. I hope to hear from you so as to get a dialogue going.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
You might think this is all about religion, but it is much more than that.
Spirituality is the relationship that you have, firstly as an individual and secondly as part of a community, with God, the universe, and other people. If you do not believe in God, please feel free to substitute the word Life for God. For all practical purposes, it is the same thing.
The raw material of spirituality is composed of ideas, beliefs and opinions. The manner in which you behave in your daily life is conditioned by your belief system, whatever that may be. Politics is spirituality expressed in government. Business is spirituality expressed in the provision of goods and services. All problems that we have are spiritual problems, and answers to them can be found by examining our belief systems. When I say belief, I don't mean a set of ideas about God. We can, and do, create belief systems about animal rights, the environment, nuclear power, and much else that are, effectively, secular theologies.
There are two core principles that I base my spirituality on. The first one is, we are all one. It may not seem that way, because we look different from each other and are walking around in physical bodies. But it is true even in biological terms. On average, our skin cells are renewed completely over the course of a year. Other cells in our body, for example the stomach lining, are renewed far more frequently than that. We are exchanging atoms of carbon, oxygen, and other substances necessary to maintain life, with the rest of the world all the time. If we look further and observe how what we do affects life elsewhere on the planet, it becomes even clearer. Ask yourself what had to happen, and where, so that you could eat a banana or a pineapple.
The second principle is, this is not the only way, it is just another way. We have to have differences of opinion. If we all agreed with one another, there would be no new ideas, no discoveries and no progress. The question is how to manage the differences. The answer that many people have come up with in history is to try to persuade, enforce, and bully others into conforming with one particular way, and therefore any amount of energy has been wasted by people fighting each other. And in any case, which way is right, and how are we to know? Who has read all the texts of all the religions on earth in all the languages in which they were written in order to decide what is the "true" faith, and who could do so and remain sane?
It would be more constructive to ask, given what we want to achieve, will it work? The answer to that question will of course change according to the circumstances. But it's a far more sensible question to ask than whether something is right or wrong. There is no such thing as an objective standard of right and wrong. Right and wrong are human constructs that can be, and are, altered arbitrarily. Whether a course of action will work or not is susceptible to enquiry and scientific measurement.
I'm not advocating any form of "one world religion". We have at present a one world food, the hamburger, and a one world drink, Coca Cola, and I don't find either very inspiring. I am advocating that you can have as many different cultures as you like, as long as they conform to principles of human conduct that can be seen in all world religions if you look in the right place, without which you could not have social cohesion.
My intentions in creating this blog are to engage with the London "Evening Standard" on cultural and spiritual issues, and to make a forum for the exchange of ideas. I intend to, over the course of each week, select items published in that paper which I feel to be worth commenting on, and post my comments on them at the end of the week. I hope to hear from you so as to get a dialogue going.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)