Autumn is just around the corner and another phase of the year is about to begin.
Autumn is the start of that part of the year least appreciated signalling long dark days and cold weather but as with all matters effecting change there is the pleasure of reflecting on the change its self and the effect it has on much we take for granted.
Lucky are we who have a house and a heating system to blunt the cold weather, a roof to secure ourselves from the rain, a solid enough door to prevent access from those wishing to do harm.
If as we peer out from the security of our home we lend a thought to the seasonal change going on around us, to the preparation for winter of the animals storing food and making their nests habitable and able to withstand anything winter can throw at them to the birds who vacate these shores for warmer lands. The plants who hunker down to out last the frost and prepare for the birth of Spring the fish who adapt themselves by slowing down their metabolism to cope with a water environment that will freeze over.
Mankind has placed himself above and beyond these concerns, one season is much like another, work is non stop and the need to get out modified by a heated motor car and thermal boots. To us the seasons are more symbolic, Summer for holidays, Winter for traditional festivals and a coming together as the weather draws us closer to the hearth and home and instinctively to family. 
But there is a change in our temperament we instinctively fear the onset of Winter, not for the damage it can do to us individually but for the weight it brings on life around us. We sense the struggle our genetic coding reminds us of our past and of days when we would also suffer the harsh Northern Winter when the ice cap enclosed us and we knew real hardship.
Today we have other worries as the ice cap shrinks and climate alters the options open for the seasons to carry on as before.
Perhaps we are not as secure as we would wish and "mother nature" has a lesson or two to teach us and shake our confidence in our invincibility.    

http://twocents2012.blogspot.com.au/          

Where does your loyalty lie.

As we are fed a diet of information on all aspects of a society, one often hears the attempt by the Establishment to brush real issues aside in the concern that the so called homogeneity they struggle to establish, is based on shifting sand.
As individuals, we are not a group but a separate identity . We chose to join what ever seems interesting, what ever catches our eye. We evaluate our choice, over time, with perhaps an eye to becoming more   involved in the future.
The only situation where this is not the case is when we concern ourselves with religious matters.
Religion is taught from a very early age and the seeds of its message and the ramifications of rejection make a big impact on the developing mind.
In the latest thrust from the intellectual, moderate, side of British Muslim Society there has been a shift of emphasis, from a reticent "unknowing", to a more aggressive "you have brought this on your own head" dialogue. 
The argument put forward is that the young "Jihadists" are the result of British/American Foreign Policy towards Muslim countries and that it is natural for those of their faith to wish to respond to the evils done to the Muslim people anywhere on the globe.
There you have it in a nutshell.
The National convent is trumped by a religious belief and whilst we tie ourselves in knots regarding citizenship and the European Conventions which we are signed for but count for nothing when the religious ties are in contention. The term "brotherhood" binds people, irrespective of the birth right.
To the Parliamentarians and Legislators who are faced with a religious layer of on top of any Monarchy/ Presidential hierarchy, and have to deal with people who have little allegiance to "earth bound" concepts of democracy or representation through the ballot box. Who now face a more geographically divergent people ruled by rules laid down in the Quran.
Lay your hand on one Muslim believer and you lay your hand on all those who follow the Prophet.
It is this frightening prospect with the exponential growth of people choosing an affirmation revealed through faith to the dissembling prospect of any sort of collective humanitarianism in a world governed by American hegemony  based on, winner takes all !!!               

In an age of global communications we are in a unique position to watch the rival powers, claim and counter claim their part or their position on events around the world..
During the Second World War, Herr Gobbles one of the original spin doctors, crafted his mis-information and doctored  the news in an attempt to influence the population. How he must be turning in his grave today as all the players and nations distort, as a matter of course any information that is out there. Be it in the fighting in the Ukraine or the Gaza Strip, in attempting to build a fast railway between London and the North of England or revealing the down side to any exploitation of natural resources anywhere in the world.
Part of the dis-information, "the lobby industry" is a powerful force in any democratic society simply because, the amount of money and the time and effort needed to persuade a course of action places an enormous bias in favour of those with deep pockets.
Crony capitalism where the factors of choice are skewed by the integration of big business and government, one influencing the other to obtain profit rather than the structural improvement for society as a whole which should be the aim of government.
Listening to the claim and counter claim of Sky/BBC v  Russian Television one is struck by the similarity of the tools used to persuade us.  Hi tech televisual production methods of selective film footage and interviews, experts brought on to reaffirm the bias and above all the fluent, leggy dolly birds to make us feel that the studio is just down our street and therefore authentic.
The West of course is full of descenting voices, its the price we pay for our freedom of expression and they queue up to condemn the system which gave them that freedom.
The Russians are far more taciturn when it comes discussing their own short comings since they are not given the freedom to stray far from the official line but that doesn't answer the question, is their official line much nearer the truth or has our truth become mired in the persuasive arguments which surround any profit motivated agenda ?        

Watching the debate on Scottish Independence the other night it struck me that we see the same dilemma acted out in all families at a certain stage in their evolution. One day one of the kids comes to you and says they want to move out.
Why would anyone want to move away from the security of a fully paid environment, one where the washing gets done and the dishes cleared away as if by magic. Why would anyone wish to expose themselves to the strain of finding, probably sub standard accommodation for which they pay a very large proportion of their earnings just for the freedom of going your own way.
Parents often bend over backwards to ensure they don't step on toes, learn to bite their tongue when their own conventions are trashed. Confused yet trying to accept new norms of conduct, the rejection of conformity, a dress code that baffles and a host of issues that are not up for discussion.
One could equally ask the question why would anyone wish to sustain the situation but of course we do. The union to many is a measure of our maturity, of our history and to see it dissolve strikes at our self assurance. There is something of "better the devil you know" and a fear of the unknown, a fear of change, and also a suggestion that without us things will be better, which inherently  means you have in some way failed. 
The debate this time around went Alex Salmond way with his much more upbeat view of the future as Alistair Darling tried to dampen the Nationalism with practical reality.  What the electorate will make of it in the ballot box is the question but one should realise just as when the kids fly the nest adjustments are made and we carry on.
Hopefully a new relationships is forged, a better more rounded, richer understanding of each other is created and we all benefit.      

The plight of the infidel.

How do we come to terms with the incomprehensible. Its incomprehensible that in this day and age we are being confronted by people who, raised in the UK, hate the country they grew up in and classify the people they grew with as infidels who need to be killed all in the name of a religious belief that is extremely  tenuous, given that much of the hatred is based on an earthly schism between the followers of The Prophet Mohamed 1500 years ago. The rift which grew between the Abu Bakr followers, the Sunni and the Ali followers, the Shia has dogged the Muslim religion for centuries.
That segment of Sunnis which represent the extremist faction ISIS, and its attempt to create an Islamic Caliphate in Syria and Iraq is a human political anomaly dressed up in a historical event regarding who would carry on the work of the Prophet on his death.
Hubris is the term which, down through the ages has dammed mankind's intentions.  If you add the enmity which is taught regarding the "other group", identifying all but "your own group" as the enemy, not even "your enemy" but, by twisted logic, "everyone" other than Abu Bakr's followers are "gods enemy" and deserve to die the infidels death.
How do we cope with such a tendentious bias for a raison d'etre that seems so alien.
How can we create a reasonable co-operative  attitude towards something which seems so over the top. How can religion have drowned common sense or our innate belief that it is of enormous importance to consider all of mankind as fellow human-beings.          

Define primitive.

Why must we concern ourself with the trauma that seems to be springing up all over the world, why should we concern ourself with other peoples suffering, of societies in other corners of the world who have little in common with us other than the nebulous concept of being fellow human beings.
This term fellow "human beings" belongs to a philosophical suggestion that, because we are all born in the eyes of God that there is a fellowship of men and women which joins us, as if we were brothers and sisters. Of course if we were all raised in the same environment with the same parents we could be classed as brothers and sisters but even then there are major differences, even then there is a measure of hostility given the best of environments.
To see the old babushkas in the Ukraine in obvious distress struggling as they try to come to terms with the hostility unfolding in the Ukraine. Old women with a lifetime of care and hardship, people rich in symbolic strength and importance to the social structure, of course we recognise some commonality. But what of other societies, some vastly different from our own, do we owe them the same brotherhood, do we spill blood on their behalf or should we have a rethink on the uniformity of humankind. Has the world shrunk to such an extent, with the aeroplane, the internet, the minimising of boarder control, the advent of the global economy where we have had to accept the multicultural mix of our cities to be educated to learn and accept cultures that 50 years ago we would have disparaged as primitive.
But that word "primitive", a dismissive word a cruel word which denotes such a divergence, a hierarchy, a supremacy of people born to dictate their specific concept of what is right and what is wrong. They set the bench mark they write the rule book and therefore they get to describe who is primitive and who is not. Does our lax promiscuity, our binge drinking, our coarse manners, our disregard for family and the responsibility towards our parents when they get old and weak, does this give us the high ground when so many "primitive" societies seem to have some of these basics worked out.                        

What is the mind.

If we are not attached to anything other than through our consciousness and our consciences is a thought process of the mind which in its self does not physically exist other than we think it exists, are we not in a double blind since the existence we see and measure ourselves and others by has no substance other than what our conscience, which its self has no substance holds as fact.
What do we make of such a conundrum as we battle to differentiate the mind from the mechanism of the brain. As we discover the brains system of electrically stimulated chemical triggers which effect certain areas in the brain to produce preprogrammed reactions to these stimuli. Its a mechanism, it works in a way we can understand but what of the mind.
What is the mind, is it a part of us, does it lie outside of us, are we in charge of it or is it on another plane, a sort of a metaphysical extension to our earthly comprehension of who we believe we are ?
Answers on a postcard please.       

The preacher man.

Watching and listening to an American evangelical preacher standing on a stage in London calling the people in the audience to come forward and be healed and watching people rush forward to fulfil their belief was scary.
The Evangelical Preacher was not an impressive person. Over weight. speaking in cliques, he drew the people out by confirming their hopes with a promise of merciful fulfilment, his rhetoric was emotional and to my ears deeply irrational depending, as it did, on faith to over-ride the medical / mental problems that his congregation suffered. It was simply a mental contrivance to suggest that a great power in the sky will heal a person because of a connection between the self proclaimed religious impresario on stage and the faithful who are more than willing to be convinced that they are part of a special religious event. It was deceitful in the extreme but of course the believer, be it of a religious nature or a political one is not rational they want something to happen which is itself a contrivance of their own desire and has little to do with reality.          

Our parochiality made me cringe.

Watching the Commonwealth Marathon on the TV one is struck not only by the attributes of the athletes but by the pre proposition of the commentary as to which athlete is worthy of mention. The men's event like the women's is unique in that there are no pacemakers and no big monetary incentive other than the record book as a winner of a Commonwealth Gold. The pace of the race is tactical and one had the sight of a couple of English athletes at the start actually leading the race. The commentators made hay whilst the sun metaphorically shone but it was soon business as usual as the black runners sped off and  the commentators went back to their script talking about the Kenyans and the other African runners ignoring the only two white runners in the lead pack, both from Australia. It was if they didn't exist perhaps the commentators hadn't done their homework and had left the info sheet at home.
As the race unfolded the Africans folded and the commentators woke up and had to notice that the Aussies were still there and running well. They continued to consider why this or that African athlete had failed to deliver until as the lead Australian runner forged into the lead they were left with no alternative but tear up their pre race notes and actually commentate on the race.
Great day for Australia winning the men's marathon and coming third in the women's race.
To crown a day of blunders and inept commentary, as the winning Australian, Michael .Shelley was being interviewed the stupid English guy interviewing said " I suppose the rain and the overcast day suited you and played a part in your win", to which the Aussie graciously reminded him the Australia is equally as blessed with sun as is Africa and could see no advantage gained by the conditions.
We are so parochial it makes me cringe !!                      

http://twocents2012.blogspot.com.au/