A friend posted this on FaceBook.
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome will become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance."
Cicero, 55 BC.
So, evidently we've learnt bugger all over the past 2,068 years!
I think he has that absolutely right.
Sunday, 9 June 2013
Saturday, 8 June 2013
Apocalypse now ...
Apocalypse seems to hold a permanent fascination for a large section of the western population as I've commented before this. Some folk seem to thrive on being afraid of everything from the earth being hit by a stray asteroid, an 'invisible' planet, or an alien plague. Then there are the conspiracy theorists who can't accept anything from an official and usually pretty well documented source, and must invent a whole range of extreme scenarios around it, often turning the whole thing around. The Twin Towers is a case in point, some folk are absolutely convinced that the buildings were blown up by President Bush - or at least on his orders.
The strange thing is, that no matter how often these folk are proved wrong on any of the popular doomsday scenarios, they keep coming back with a "yes, but ..." and carry right on believing their pet theory. Often it boils down to 'presentation' rather than 'fact' and sometimes this is exploited by those with an agenda aimed at getting money for some pet theory, or to maintain a 'power base' they've benefited from. A case in point is the discredited "97% of scientists agree Global Warming is man made." A new paper purports to "prove" that 97% of CLIMATE scientists agree on this. Their methodology appears to be a little on the loose side, and it probably would not stand up if it were examined in a criminal court, since it involved a simple trawl of one website that collects and lists scientific papers published everywhere.
Their search parameters included "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" and, not surprisingly, they got a few over 12,000 hits. Some they then discarded, a small number of around 200, and the rest were assessed as being supportive or 'denialist' - but here's the bit it goes a bit wobbly. They didn't read each paper in its entirety. They only scanned the Abstracts and used a "Key Word" search to do that and "categorise" each one. Bingo, the result desired! The problem is that many of their "key words" appear in papers which do NOT support the AGW/Human Caused Climate Change theories. In fact there are a very large number of scientists now demanding their papers be reclassified or removed from the study. Oops.
But not to worry! The authors have already found a solution. Play down the controversy and the content, play up the "consensus" and go for it in a "marketing campaign". The sheer arrogance of this approach is breathtaking - especially as they have published in full their plan of campaign on a supportive website which sets out, step by step, how they plan to push this "proof of consensus" onto a gullible media and the public. Cynical exploitation? Probably, but then, in a war of ideology, anything is permissible - even blatant deceit.
In the meantime, unfortunately for the "Global Catastrophe is happening now!" fans of the various "green" organisations, the temperatures being recorded now are not conforming to the "models" and are certainly not consistent with the favoured theory. The Northern Hemisphere is slightly warmer, but the Southern Hemisphere is cooler. The Arctic ice is shrinking, but Antarctic ice is spreading, weather patterns are changing, but observational records show that this may be cyclic, and so do the ice cores taken from many different places around the world. Yet the clamour for governments to "ban" hydrocarbons, coal, nuclear and almost everything to do with our current industrial and economic activity to "save the planet" continues to grow.
The only plausible explanation for this is that the supporters of the "Green" agenda are absolutely in love with the "End of the World Is Nigh!" message, presumably it gives them some frisson of an adrenalin rush thinking about it, and don't want to look at the wider picture and the consequences of their favoured alternative society.
Personally I plan to continue as I am, doing a little bit to be "greener" as I was before it became a fetish, because I like a clean and unspoiled world. But I'm also a pragmatist. I can't control the climate, I can't turn the clock back, and I rely on electricity, clean water and food, clothing, and so on from the local shop. I don't plan to return to growing flax, weaving my own linen shirts and making my own shoes or slaughtering my own livestock.
The sky isn't falling, the oceans aren't rising dramatically, the continents will continue to drift, floods happen and droughts arise. I can't change any of it, any more than I can create the elixir of eternal youth. So, today, I shall take Harry, my fabulous little Sheltie, for a meeting with other Shelties and enjoy watching a pack of some twenty or so Shelties of all ages and colours have a ball playing together while their owners chat, swap stories and sup the odd beer.
Life is for living and enjoying, not worrying about how to spin out some new dire doomsday scenario.
The strange thing is, that no matter how often these folk are proved wrong on any of the popular doomsday scenarios, they keep coming back with a "yes, but ..." and carry right on believing their pet theory. Often it boils down to 'presentation' rather than 'fact' and sometimes this is exploited by those with an agenda aimed at getting money for some pet theory, or to maintain a 'power base' they've benefited from. A case in point is the discredited "97% of scientists agree Global Warming is man made." A new paper purports to "prove" that 97% of CLIMATE scientists agree on this. Their methodology appears to be a little on the loose side, and it probably would not stand up if it were examined in a criminal court, since it involved a simple trawl of one website that collects and lists scientific papers published everywhere.
Their search parameters included "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" and, not surprisingly, they got a few over 12,000 hits. Some they then discarded, a small number of around 200, and the rest were assessed as being supportive or 'denialist' - but here's the bit it goes a bit wobbly. They didn't read each paper in its entirety. They only scanned the Abstracts and used a "Key Word" search to do that and "categorise" each one. Bingo, the result desired! The problem is that many of their "key words" appear in papers which do NOT support the AGW/Human Caused Climate Change theories. In fact there are a very large number of scientists now demanding their papers be reclassified or removed from the study. Oops.
But not to worry! The authors have already found a solution. Play down the controversy and the content, play up the "consensus" and go for it in a "marketing campaign". The sheer arrogance of this approach is breathtaking - especially as they have published in full their plan of campaign on a supportive website which sets out, step by step, how they plan to push this "proof of consensus" onto a gullible media and the public. Cynical exploitation? Probably, but then, in a war of ideology, anything is permissible - even blatant deceit.
In the meantime, unfortunately for the "Global Catastrophe is happening now!" fans of the various "green" organisations, the temperatures being recorded now are not conforming to the "models" and are certainly not consistent with the favoured theory. The Northern Hemisphere is slightly warmer, but the Southern Hemisphere is cooler. The Arctic ice is shrinking, but Antarctic ice is spreading, weather patterns are changing, but observational records show that this may be cyclic, and so do the ice cores taken from many different places around the world. Yet the clamour for governments to "ban" hydrocarbons, coal, nuclear and almost everything to do with our current industrial and economic activity to "save the planet" continues to grow.
The only plausible explanation for this is that the supporters of the "Green" agenda are absolutely in love with the "End of the World Is Nigh!" message, presumably it gives them some frisson of an adrenalin rush thinking about it, and don't want to look at the wider picture and the consequences of their favoured alternative society.
Personally I plan to continue as I am, doing a little bit to be "greener" as I was before it became a fetish, because I like a clean and unspoiled world. But I'm also a pragmatist. I can't control the climate, I can't turn the clock back, and I rely on electricity, clean water and food, clothing, and so on from the local shop. I don't plan to return to growing flax, weaving my own linen shirts and making my own shoes or slaughtering my own livestock.
The sky isn't falling, the oceans aren't rising dramatically, the continents will continue to drift, floods happen and droughts arise. I can't change any of it, any more than I can create the elixir of eternal youth. So, today, I shall take Harry, my fabulous little Sheltie, for a meeting with other Shelties and enjoy watching a pack of some twenty or so Shelties of all ages and colours have a ball playing together while their owners chat, swap stories and sup the odd beer.
Life is for living and enjoying, not worrying about how to spin out some new dire doomsday scenario.
Thursday, 6 June 2013
I wonder what happens if ...
Sometimes the old joke of the guy who pushes a button, pulls a thread or opens a door/cupboard/trapdoor with the words "I wonder what will happen ..." and releases something completely unstoppable and unintended, has a counterpart in real life. I can think of plenty of occasions where I have touched something, pulled something, or opened something only to find myself waist deep in trouble, and it seems that as a species we simply can't resist this particular urge to "try something". The good ol' law of unintended consequences can really bite sometimes. Often leaving you in a far worse situation than you started with.
When you start to mess around with a very complex natural system you really don't fully understand, then the potential for the law of unintended consequences to kick in really takes off. I was reminded of this yesterday when I came across a new "paper" on increased rainfall in industrialised areas. The researchers have found a link to the reduction of pollutants in the atmosphere. Yup, cleaner air means more rain falling over cities and towns. But another paper, published a year or so ago, identified that places where the roofs of buildings had been painted white - to reflect the sunlight back and increase 'reflectance of Infrared radiation' had also caused rainfalls in this cities to decrease.
When you think back to the 1970s, the problem then being attacked vigorously by the same group of activists and scientists was 'acid rain'. Now that was a very real problem, although, in reality, the changes of the "ph" values involved were small, it affected tree growth, aquatic life in streams and lakes and eroded buildings. So various "Clean Air" laws were rushed into place to reduce the Sulphur Dioxide emissions from industry commerce and transport. Great, acid rain was brought under control, but it changed the clouds being formed in the atmosphere ever so slightly as well. Instead of the shiny 'white' and highly reflective clouds the SO2 created, we got slightly less reflective and more heat absorbent cloud formations. Oops. I've often wondered whether that is really what triggered the "Global Warming" we've seen (according to some) since 1979.
As some of my readers know, I'm a lover of science fiction, and particularly enjoyed reading Robert Heinlein, Arthur C Clark and Isaac Asimov. One story that recently came to mind as I listened to yet another debate about "Klimawandel" on the television between earnest Greens and supporters and a group of scientists who were trying to explain the extent of mankind's ignorance of the complexities of the global ecosystem (without actually admitting they don't know ...) concerned interstellar travel. I think it was by Clark, and it concerned a lone spaceman coping with a voyage on an old freighter spaceship. His problems with the ship's systems were magnified by the fact that the "environmental system" was an old one that relied on carrying around a small "greensward" with plants supposed to purify the atmosphere.
At various times it had been found necessary to introduce various insects to pollinate the plants or control their proliferation and spread, then it had become necessary to introduce birds to control the insects, then animals to control the birds and ... Finally one is reading of the intrepid spaceman dealing with animals swanning about in zero-gravity in pursuit of birds now with the ability to make sudden and violent changes of direction in flight, insects that sting, bite and can get into places they shouldn't - and of course things dying in unlikely places, chewing equipment and so on. And, in spite of all this, the ecosystem still goes a little crazy from time to time and does its own thing.
I think of this story every time I hear, or read, of some new "initiative" to "reduce carbon" or "stop glaciers melting" or some other - to the utterer - vitally important "thing" we absolutely have to do to "stop catastrophic climate change". My problem with that is that we don't know what the ramifications of any of these schemes really are. The one thing we can definitely identify is that cutting out all hydrocarbon fuels will mean some severe restrictions on private transport, which will return us to restricted travel and limitations on opportunity in terms of career choices, living conditions and much more. It will also impact on the production of all the synthetic materials currently so much a part of our lives. Wind energy will never produce the sort of electricity levels we currently need and probably never meet the growth in demand, and nor will solar energy.
More recently I have seen articles saying that we need to adapt what we have, improve it certainly, but adapt, rather than change. It makes sense, because at least we know what the impact of most of that will be, whereas we haven't a clue about some of the things being demanded by the "Green" lobbies. There is always a danger, thanks to that law of unintended consequences, that if we mess with "this little bit here" we will destabilise something much more dangerous "over there" which will, in its turn, drop on our heads like a proverbial ton of bricks.
When you start to mess around with a very complex natural system you really don't fully understand, then the potential for the law of unintended consequences to kick in really takes off. I was reminded of this yesterday when I came across a new "paper" on increased rainfall in industrialised areas. The researchers have found a link to the reduction of pollutants in the atmosphere. Yup, cleaner air means more rain falling over cities and towns. But another paper, published a year or so ago, identified that places where the roofs of buildings had been painted white - to reflect the sunlight back and increase 'reflectance of Infrared radiation' had also caused rainfalls in this cities to decrease.
When you think back to the 1970s, the problem then being attacked vigorously by the same group of activists and scientists was 'acid rain'. Now that was a very real problem, although, in reality, the changes of the "ph" values involved were small, it affected tree growth, aquatic life in streams and lakes and eroded buildings. So various "Clean Air" laws were rushed into place to reduce the Sulphur Dioxide emissions from industry commerce and transport. Great, acid rain was brought under control, but it changed the clouds being formed in the atmosphere ever so slightly as well. Instead of the shiny 'white' and highly reflective clouds the SO2 created, we got slightly less reflective and more heat absorbent cloud formations. Oops. I've often wondered whether that is really what triggered the "Global Warming" we've seen (according to some) since 1979.
As some of my readers know, I'm a lover of science fiction, and particularly enjoyed reading Robert Heinlein, Arthur C Clark and Isaac Asimov. One story that recently came to mind as I listened to yet another debate about "Klimawandel" on the television between earnest Greens and supporters and a group of scientists who were trying to explain the extent of mankind's ignorance of the complexities of the global ecosystem (without actually admitting they don't know ...) concerned interstellar travel. I think it was by Clark, and it concerned a lone spaceman coping with a voyage on an old freighter spaceship. His problems with the ship's systems were magnified by the fact that the "environmental system" was an old one that relied on carrying around a small "greensward" with plants supposed to purify the atmosphere.
At various times it had been found necessary to introduce various insects to pollinate the plants or control their proliferation and spread, then it had become necessary to introduce birds to control the insects, then animals to control the birds and ... Finally one is reading of the intrepid spaceman dealing with animals swanning about in zero-gravity in pursuit of birds now with the ability to make sudden and violent changes of direction in flight, insects that sting, bite and can get into places they shouldn't - and of course things dying in unlikely places, chewing equipment and so on. And, in spite of all this, the ecosystem still goes a little crazy from time to time and does its own thing.
I think of this story every time I hear, or read, of some new "initiative" to "reduce carbon" or "stop glaciers melting" or some other - to the utterer - vitally important "thing" we absolutely have to do to "stop catastrophic climate change". My problem with that is that we don't know what the ramifications of any of these schemes really are. The one thing we can definitely identify is that cutting out all hydrocarbon fuels will mean some severe restrictions on private transport, which will return us to restricted travel and limitations on opportunity in terms of career choices, living conditions and much more. It will also impact on the production of all the synthetic materials currently so much a part of our lives. Wind energy will never produce the sort of electricity levels we currently need and probably never meet the growth in demand, and nor will solar energy.
More recently I have seen articles saying that we need to adapt what we have, improve it certainly, but adapt, rather than change. It makes sense, because at least we know what the impact of most of that will be, whereas we haven't a clue about some of the things being demanded by the "Green" lobbies. There is always a danger, thanks to that law of unintended consequences, that if we mess with "this little bit here" we will destabilise something much more dangerous "over there" which will, in its turn, drop on our heads like a proverbial ton of bricks.
Tuesday, 4 June 2013
Inclusive salvation ...
Recently Pope Francis made a statement on 'salvation' which included the idea that even an atheist is 'saved' by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Probably predictably, this made headlines in a lot of newspapers, though some managed to do it in a rather sneering fashion. Equally predicatbly, the Vatican was quick to "qualify" the Pontiff's remark, part of a midweek Mass Homily.
The fact is that this concept of the sacrifice Christ made on the Cross is not something stunningly new. It is stated in the Gospels themselves, and repeated in the "Letters" in various forms. It even forms a part of the Creeds we recite from time to time. The idea that 'salvation' is restricted only to those who attend church, adhere to a particular set of theological doctrines or dogmas or to a particular 'Brand' of Christianity is false. It stems from the statement that we must 'accept' Christ's gift of the hope of eternal life in order to be saved. Many interpret that as meaning the 'acceptance' means belonging to this or that church, and adhering to its teachings. I suspect this is why the Vatican was so quick to issue its 'qualification'.
Reading the Gospels and the other scriptures carefully and in context with their time, the culture and the understanding that many things the writers considered the reader "would know" and were not therefore necessary to spell out (papyrus was expnsive so you didn't waste it on unnecessary details) you quickly discover that the message is very "inclusive" - at times the disciples found that hard to accept. The clearest message of that 'inclusion' is in the fact that Jesus often went out of his way to find and associate with people shunned by the religious and very self-righteous members of the communities He worked in. Hence his sitting down to eat with tax gatherers, prostitutes, Samaritans and other 'unclean' members of society. Even with Gentiles - at that time pagan, and definitely not welcome in most Jewish homes.
We do not know who God includes or who He excludes. We cannot know this, nor should we attempt to make that call. To do so puts us in the same league as the Pharisees who thought they could earn God's approval by their strict adherence to the "Law of Moses" - in fact a massively complex set of "laws" evolved over several centuries from the Ten Commandments. Under their idea of faith and salvation, very few would make it to heaven. The key words on "salvation" come from Christ Himself at the Last Supper -
"... take and eat; for this is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me." Followed by "... He gave it (the cup) to them saying: drink this all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many (some translations make that the more accurate "everyone") for the forgiveness of sins."
None of the gospels add a qualification of exclusion of anyone not a follower of the disciples or not present at this meal. In fact there is a very strong theme of inclusion in the Gospels which suggests that even those guilty of the most heinous crimes against their fellows could be 'included' in salvation if - and here there is a 'qualifier' - they 'turn to Christ' and 'repent' of their crimes. In most cases only God the Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit can know who has and has not 'repented'. It simply is not for us to know.
So Pope Francis I is stating nothing radical in saying that Christ included even those who do not 'believe' in God in salvation. Only He can know what passes between Him and the person in those final hours of this life, and it is for us to accept - whether we like it or not. As Jonah discovered when having his monumental sulk because God chose not to destroy Nineveh when the people repented. It is not for us to question our Creator and Saviour - He is who He is, what He is, and where He is and we are His creation ...
The fact is that this concept of the sacrifice Christ made on the Cross is not something stunningly new. It is stated in the Gospels themselves, and repeated in the "Letters" in various forms. It even forms a part of the Creeds we recite from time to time. The idea that 'salvation' is restricted only to those who attend church, adhere to a particular set of theological doctrines or dogmas or to a particular 'Brand' of Christianity is false. It stems from the statement that we must 'accept' Christ's gift of the hope of eternal life in order to be saved. Many interpret that as meaning the 'acceptance' means belonging to this or that church, and adhering to its teachings. I suspect this is why the Vatican was so quick to issue its 'qualification'.
Reading the Gospels and the other scriptures carefully and in context with their time, the culture and the understanding that many things the writers considered the reader "would know" and were not therefore necessary to spell out (papyrus was expnsive so you didn't waste it on unnecessary details) you quickly discover that the message is very "inclusive" - at times the disciples found that hard to accept. The clearest message of that 'inclusion' is in the fact that Jesus often went out of his way to find and associate with people shunned by the religious and very self-righteous members of the communities He worked in. Hence his sitting down to eat with tax gatherers, prostitutes, Samaritans and other 'unclean' members of society. Even with Gentiles - at that time pagan, and definitely not welcome in most Jewish homes.
We do not know who God includes or who He excludes. We cannot know this, nor should we attempt to make that call. To do so puts us in the same league as the Pharisees who thought they could earn God's approval by their strict adherence to the "Law of Moses" - in fact a massively complex set of "laws" evolved over several centuries from the Ten Commandments. Under their idea of faith and salvation, very few would make it to heaven. The key words on "salvation" come from Christ Himself at the Last Supper -
"... take and eat; for this is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me." Followed by "... He gave it (the cup) to them saying: drink this all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many (some translations make that the more accurate "everyone") for the forgiveness of sins."
None of the gospels add a qualification of exclusion of anyone not a follower of the disciples or not present at this meal. In fact there is a very strong theme of inclusion in the Gospels which suggests that even those guilty of the most heinous crimes against their fellows could be 'included' in salvation if - and here there is a 'qualifier' - they 'turn to Christ' and 'repent' of their crimes. In most cases only God the Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit can know who has and has not 'repented'. It simply is not for us to know.
So Pope Francis I is stating nothing radical in saying that Christ included even those who do not 'believe' in God in salvation. Only He can know what passes between Him and the person in those final hours of this life, and it is for us to accept - whether we like it or not. As Jonah discovered when having his monumental sulk because God chose not to destroy Nineveh when the people repented. It is not for us to question our Creator and Saviour - He is who He is, what He is, and where He is and we are His creation ...
Monday, 3 June 2013
A wet start ...
The heavy rains of the last few weeks are now causing floods across Southern and Eastern Germany. The water will eventually - and by all accounts quite quickly - reach everywhere else, since the geographic features of the country means most of the flood water will run north and west. The Rhine, Weser, Elbe, Main and Donau are already rising in their lower reaches, while the upper reaches are flooding towns and cities in Bavaria, Thuringen, Sachsen and Baden-Wurtemburg. The ancient city of Passau is badly hit, Dresden has its flood barriers up and even the lower lying areas of Mainz, Biebrich and Schierstein (the latter pair now suburbs of Weisbaden) have spent the weekend preparing for the 'Hochwasser'.
What I find interesting is that the Fire Brigades, the Police and other voluntary organisations have swung into high gear and, with the Bundeswehr troops are engaging in erecting barriers, pumping operations and sandbagging dykes. People are being evacuated and their possessions salvaged and stored, and the press is full of accounts of how people are affected and what wonderful efforts are being made to defend them. It struck me that I haven't yet heard anyone complaining about it or demanding to know "who is the blame." The Greens have, as you would expect, muttered about "Klimawandel", but were quickly silenced when it was pointed out that these extreme weather events have been known to occur at regular intervals for centuries.
One of the fascinating aspects of living in Germany is discovering just how much I either didn't know, or had never really considered about the history of these nations. Modern Germany is only about two thirds of the nation 'unified' by Bismarck in the 19th Century. It lost about a fifth of its territory in 1919 and a further bigger chunk in 1945. Since the fall of the Kaiser, it has developed into a much more egalitarian society, perhaps the most notable feature of life here is the absence of 'class barriers' such as one still sees in the UK. That is not to say there are no barriers, just that they are not quite as clearly defined or 'enforced' as in the UK. The other aspect is the richness of the history.
The 'German Prinicipalities' have a very long, and perhaps most importantly, settled, history. There have been wars, squabbles and invasions - most notably the Mongol Hordes and the Turkish incursions - but they have all been repelled, eventually, and the wealth of the people restored through their trade and their willingness to adapt. In World War 1, someone came up with the term "Huns" as an insulting name for the Germans, and it has stuck in the public mind in the English speaking world. It is a misnomer, since the "Huns" are actually the Hungarian people to the east and they are Slavic, not Germanic. Most of the cities now affected by the floods have a history stretching back to at least the Roman conquest of the Southern German provinces and many have their origins even earlier than that.
I live just within the 'Limes' a Roman 'Wall' that started at Koblenz and stretches to Regensburg, then continues to the Danube (Donau in German). For most of its length it was a simple ditch and pallisade affair, but at intervals there are guard towers, several of which have been reconstructed and can be visited. One of the major fortresses has been rebuilt at Saarberg and makes a fascinating visit in itself. When visiting any of the historical towns and sites one quickly learns that these are a people and lands that have been forged by history. They know who they are, they know what nature produces by way of bounties and tribulations and they have the records to prove it.
Living in a 'Naturschutzgebiet' we are surrounded by forests, and the road to Wiesbaden takes us over a mountain and through the forests. Yesterday we found ourselves dodging the fire brigade at work clearing a fallen tree, and then being diverted by a police block because other trees lower down were threatening to topple as well. Everyone is good natured about these 'inconveniences' and the services involved are greeted with smiles, waves and relief. Still, the road gets cleared, the trees removed and the traffic is able to flow. Yes, there are breakdowns and sometimes failures, but the majority here just shrug and get on with it. There is a 'find a solution' approach by most that is refreshing, since it means things get done fairly quickly and life can get back to something like normal.
Perhaps this is why when someone from a flooded town or city is interviewed they tend to be philosophical about it. Some even point to markers for worse floods, or recall worse. Perhaps it is also why their emergency organisations are so ready to invoke emergency assistance from the public and from voluntary groups. They know their history and they know what is needed in certain events - and they get on with it.
What I find interesting is that the Fire Brigades, the Police and other voluntary organisations have swung into high gear and, with the Bundeswehr troops are engaging in erecting barriers, pumping operations and sandbagging dykes. People are being evacuated and their possessions salvaged and stored, and the press is full of accounts of how people are affected and what wonderful efforts are being made to defend them. It struck me that I haven't yet heard anyone complaining about it or demanding to know "who is the blame." The Greens have, as you would expect, muttered about "Klimawandel", but were quickly silenced when it was pointed out that these extreme weather events have been known to occur at regular intervals for centuries.
One of the fascinating aspects of living in Germany is discovering just how much I either didn't know, or had never really considered about the history of these nations. Modern Germany is only about two thirds of the nation 'unified' by Bismarck in the 19th Century. It lost about a fifth of its territory in 1919 and a further bigger chunk in 1945. Since the fall of the Kaiser, it has developed into a much more egalitarian society, perhaps the most notable feature of life here is the absence of 'class barriers' such as one still sees in the UK. That is not to say there are no barriers, just that they are not quite as clearly defined or 'enforced' as in the UK. The other aspect is the richness of the history.
The 'German Prinicipalities' have a very long, and perhaps most importantly, settled, history. There have been wars, squabbles and invasions - most notably the Mongol Hordes and the Turkish incursions - but they have all been repelled, eventually, and the wealth of the people restored through their trade and their willingness to adapt. In World War 1, someone came up with the term "Huns" as an insulting name for the Germans, and it has stuck in the public mind in the English speaking world. It is a misnomer, since the "Huns" are actually the Hungarian people to the east and they are Slavic, not Germanic. Most of the cities now affected by the floods have a history stretching back to at least the Roman conquest of the Southern German provinces and many have their origins even earlier than that.
I live just within the 'Limes' a Roman 'Wall' that started at Koblenz and stretches to Regensburg, then continues to the Danube (Donau in German). For most of its length it was a simple ditch and pallisade affair, but at intervals there are guard towers, several of which have been reconstructed and can be visited. One of the major fortresses has been rebuilt at Saarberg and makes a fascinating visit in itself. When visiting any of the historical towns and sites one quickly learns that these are a people and lands that have been forged by history. They know who they are, they know what nature produces by way of bounties and tribulations and they have the records to prove it.
Living in a 'Naturschutzgebiet' we are surrounded by forests, and the road to Wiesbaden takes us over a mountain and through the forests. Yesterday we found ourselves dodging the fire brigade at work clearing a fallen tree, and then being diverted by a police block because other trees lower down were threatening to topple as well. Everyone is good natured about these 'inconveniences' and the services involved are greeted with smiles, waves and relief. Still, the road gets cleared, the trees removed and the traffic is able to flow. Yes, there are breakdowns and sometimes failures, but the majority here just shrug and get on with it. There is a 'find a solution' approach by most that is refreshing, since it means things get done fairly quickly and life can get back to something like normal.
Perhaps this is why when someone from a flooded town or city is interviewed they tend to be philosophical about it. Some even point to markers for worse floods, or recall worse. Perhaps it is also why their emergency organisations are so ready to invoke emergency assistance from the public and from voluntary groups. They know their history and they know what is needed in certain events - and they get on with it.
Sunday, 2 June 2013
Congratulations
Sixty years ago today, Her Majesty was crowned as our Sovereign in Westminster Abbey. As a seven year old half way through my second year of primary school, I have vivid memories of the local fire station decorated with garlands and a replica of the St Edward's Crown on its Drill Tower. There were flags in the main street, bunting everywhere and at school we got a half day and a commeorative medal. A few weeks later we were even able to see snatches of the actual event on the Movietone News in the local cinemas.
As you may have guessed, I'm a Royalist. Even though the scenes and memories I have described are from South Africa, and the small coastal city of East London, we were then a part of the great family of dominions and colonies that made up "the Empire" and she was "our" Sovereign as well as Queen of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Her Governor-General represented her in the official opening of Parliament and signed all the legislation passed by it in her name. I am still a Royalist. It has been my privilege to meet and speak too several of her family members over the years, and each time I have been impressed by their ability to treat everyone presented to them as important. Nor do they forget you. I have met the same members of the Royal Family a second time in a different place and a different context - and been remembered. I cannot say the same of the many politicians I have had to deal with.
Today Her Majesty celebrates her 60th anniversary of her coronation, though she has, in fact, been the Queen since the moment of her father's death. Only Queen Victoria, her great-great-grandmother, reigned for longer in the entire history of British Monarchs. The first Elizabeth to rule as Queen of England, Wales and Ireland, reigned for a total of 44 years 127 days and ushered in the age of British expansion. Long may Her Majesty, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, continue to reign over us.
God save the Queen.
As you may have guessed, I'm a Royalist. Even though the scenes and memories I have described are from South Africa, and the small coastal city of East London, we were then a part of the great family of dominions and colonies that made up "the Empire" and she was "our" Sovereign as well as Queen of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Her Governor-General represented her in the official opening of Parliament and signed all the legislation passed by it in her name. I am still a Royalist. It has been my privilege to meet and speak too several of her family members over the years, and each time I have been impressed by their ability to treat everyone presented to them as important. Nor do they forget you. I have met the same members of the Royal Family a second time in a different place and a different context - and been remembered. I cannot say the same of the many politicians I have had to deal with.
Today Her Majesty celebrates her 60th anniversary of her coronation, though she has, in fact, been the Queen since the moment of her father's death. Only Queen Victoria, her great-great-grandmother, reigned for longer in the entire history of British Monarchs. The first Elizabeth to rule as Queen of England, Wales and Ireland, reigned for a total of 44 years 127 days and ushered in the age of British expansion. Long may Her Majesty, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, continue to reign over us.
God save the Queen.
Saturday, 1 June 2013
Cause and Effect ...
There is, in medicine, a well known problem where a prescribed 'treatment' is focused on the symptoms the patient suffers, and does nothing at all for the actual condition. So it is in politics, when a Minister chooses to address the symptom and not the cause. "Islamaphobia" is a symptom of perceived threat to our lifestyle, our heritage and culture and - as graphically illustrated last week by the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby - to our lives as well. So announcing that 'measures are being put in place to deal with the problem of Islamaphobia' is a case of treating the symptom and not the cause. This article in The Commentator came to my attention yesterday, and sums up the problem very well.
Why are people concerned about the Islamification of our cities and the increasing sense of being under seige to surrender our culture and our legal system to "Islamists"? In part it is the manner in which the media presents certain events and discussions - or doesn't. There was wide coverage of the two murderers and their (garbled) rationale for their actions. Clearly they believe that their actions were an appropriate response to what they see as 'war on Islam'. The rest of us don't share that view, and nor do most Muslims, but there has been a blatant attempt by the media to downplay the religious aspect - in some instances a deathly silence about their faith - and yet it is well known that had this involved a "Christian on Muslim" or a "Jew on Muslim" attack, the "religious" aspect would have been headlines. That makes people wonder who is covering something up.
The problem is not people's "fear" of Islam, but their dislike and, yes, fear of the ever increasing number of angry bearded young Muslims brandishing placards proclaiming their intent to overthrow English law and culture and replace it with Sharia Law and "Islamic Culture". The fear is promoted by the sight of entire streets in the Capital that are now the almost exclusive preserve of people in Arab dress, of whole sections that resemble a Far Eastern city rather than the familiar English pattern. Parts of our cities where English is hardly heard, and where young English girls and boys fear to tread unless in groups - and even then they don't always feel safe. The fear is further heightened when they see councils increasingly promoting "Islamic values" and "Islamic dress", or sending out notices to school children, parents, householders and tenants in every language except English.
People are not, I would suggest, "phobic" about the religion, or their colour, or even their desire to preserve aspects of their culture or heritage. What makes people afraid is the threat of extremist behaviour, the demonstrations at the funerals of soldiers, the burning of poppies at Remembrance Sunday parades - or, as recently, the suspension of employees by a supermarket chain for daring to wear a poppy in memory of Lee Rigby. The root cause of this fear is in the perception that our nation is slowly being taken from us by those with a "politically correct" agenda, who seem to admire anyone else's culture, and value the rights of minorities far more highly than those of the native English. "Integration" is now regarded by the political classes as a dirty word, to be equated with National Socialism or "Apartheid" so they address the incorrectly named symptom of their own failure to address the real issue, the rampant spread of the influence of extremists in the name of Islam in our cities and towns.
"Islamaphobia" is a buzzword, and like most buzzwords, it is a false premise. A "phobia" is an irrational fear, a groundless one with no foundation in reality. The fear people are afraid to express, least they be accused of racism or hatred of a religion, is not irrational, nor is it groundless, it is based in the actions and attitudes of a few Islamists who are a very real threat to our society and our peace - but who, for reasons only they can know, our political classes refuse to deal with.
It is far easier to accuse the rest of us of being "Islamaphobic".
Why are people concerned about the Islamification of our cities and the increasing sense of being under seige to surrender our culture and our legal system to "Islamists"? In part it is the manner in which the media presents certain events and discussions - or doesn't. There was wide coverage of the two murderers and their (garbled) rationale for their actions. Clearly they believe that their actions were an appropriate response to what they see as 'war on Islam'. The rest of us don't share that view, and nor do most Muslims, but there has been a blatant attempt by the media to downplay the religious aspect - in some instances a deathly silence about their faith - and yet it is well known that had this involved a "Christian on Muslim" or a "Jew on Muslim" attack, the "religious" aspect would have been headlines. That makes people wonder who is covering something up.
The problem is not people's "fear" of Islam, but their dislike and, yes, fear of the ever increasing number of angry bearded young Muslims brandishing placards proclaiming their intent to overthrow English law and culture and replace it with Sharia Law and "Islamic Culture". The fear is promoted by the sight of entire streets in the Capital that are now the almost exclusive preserve of people in Arab dress, of whole sections that resemble a Far Eastern city rather than the familiar English pattern. Parts of our cities where English is hardly heard, and where young English girls and boys fear to tread unless in groups - and even then they don't always feel safe. The fear is further heightened when they see councils increasingly promoting "Islamic values" and "Islamic dress", or sending out notices to school children, parents, householders and tenants in every language except English.
People are not, I would suggest, "phobic" about the religion, or their colour, or even their desire to preserve aspects of their culture or heritage. What makes people afraid is the threat of extremist behaviour, the demonstrations at the funerals of soldiers, the burning of poppies at Remembrance Sunday parades - or, as recently, the suspension of employees by a supermarket chain for daring to wear a poppy in memory of Lee Rigby. The root cause of this fear is in the perception that our nation is slowly being taken from us by those with a "politically correct" agenda, who seem to admire anyone else's culture, and value the rights of minorities far more highly than those of the native English. "Integration" is now regarded by the political classes as a dirty word, to be equated with National Socialism or "Apartheid" so they address the incorrectly named symptom of their own failure to address the real issue, the rampant spread of the influence of extremists in the name of Islam in our cities and towns.
"Islamaphobia" is a buzzword, and like most buzzwords, it is a false premise. A "phobia" is an irrational fear, a groundless one with no foundation in reality. The fear people are afraid to express, least they be accused of racism or hatred of a religion, is not irrational, nor is it groundless, it is based in the actions and attitudes of a few Islamists who are a very real threat to our society and our peace - but who, for reasons only they can know, our political classes refuse to deal with.
It is far easier to accuse the rest of us of being "Islamaphobic".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
