BLOG POSTS

The leader of Britain’s Roman Catholics, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor has appealed to his flock to treat atheists and agnostics with “deep esteem”, according to a recent BBC report.^[1] He then goes on to accuse believers of being:

“…partly responsible for the decline in faith by losing sense of the mystery and treating God as a ‘fact in the world’.”

I think, for once, I’m in agreement with him.

Asked to comment on the Cardinal’s assertions, that other high priest Richard Dawkins, who is to Atheism as O’Connor is to Christianity, responded:

“There’s absolutely no reason to take seriously someone who says, ‘I believe it because I believe it.’ God either exists or he doesn’t. It’s a matter of the truth.”

Strangely, I’m in agreement with Dawkins also.

Where both these fine gentlemen go astray is in assuming an intransigence towards their beliefs that forces others to take sides. Dawkins talks of “truth”, but neither he nor O’Connor have the intellect, wisdom, or knowledge to make any decision on whether that known colloquially as “GOD” is a reality or not, and it’s the egotistical opinions of both that form the driving force of their opposing arguments.

The core of any religion is its belief in the existence of a supernatural entity, or entities. Given the vastness of the Universe, our total ignorance of its conception or what may lie beyond it, and the unlikelihood of us ever being in a position to find out due to the mind-boggling distances and time-spans involved, to deny the possibility of some divine intelligence is as patently stupid as insisting one exists. In fact, both stances are so crazy that only the human ego could ever conceive of such a reality.

A wise person would accept that the humble human brain, coupled to a mere five basic senses, is incapable of considering, let alone answering, questions surrounding the reality of a God-presence. Neither O’Connor nor Dawkins has anymore ability to form such a conclusion than a daisy growing in a meadow, or a cow about to eat the daisy. In fact, both bovine and compositae are probably better off for not contemplating the matter. After all, neither cows nor daisies slaughter their own kind en masse in the pursuit of persuading others to adopt their ideals.

At this point, Dawkins may well jump from his chair and accuse the religious of fostering wars, but neither Stalin nor Hitler were men of God. It is Homo sapiens who wages war, and whether he chooses to call it ‘Holy’, or not, war is one of the more irreligious and unholy of man’s activities, even when waged under the convenience of a God-banner.

It would seem that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor wishes to retain the ‘sense of mystery’ surrounding God, rather than accepting the Being as a fact of life. One has to wonder, given this admission, how someone of such stature within his church can continue to dredge the bowels of humanity in search of converts to his faith? If he prefers God as a mystery, rather than a ‘fact of life’, perhaps his faith is less firm than he would have us believe?

Of itself, that’s not a problem. Neither would it be a criticism, were he to contain his beliefs within the confines of his own thoughts. It becomes a problem when his office dictates how others should live their lives; employing itself as the foundation-layer of our universal morality.

Similarly so with Richard Dawkins. The media have set him up as a scientific cult figure, a position he seems happy to occupy, arrogantly denouncing the religious and holy as stupid and simplistic.

Dawkins is entitled to his opinions, as is O’Connor. Neither has the right to force their beliefs into the social framework of our societies.

To suggest we should all conform to an atheistic ideal on the basis that it is right, is no more excusable than the suggestion that non-belief in a God will result in an eternity of damnation.

Each may have its place. After all, as thinking beings, albeit of a primitive and unevolved form, we are right to ponder the unanswerable.

But, to unerringly believe we’ve discovered the answer is simply to defer to our own egotistical crassitude.

^{[1] ” ‘Respect atheists’, says cardinal”, BBC, May 9th 2008}

Filed under: Belief systems

“Up and down like a whore’s knickers” could be the phrase used to describe the British government’s pathetic attempts to regulate cannabis use, or ‘abuse’, as some prefer to call it.

Originally a “Class B” drug, in 2004 the government of Tony Blair downgraded it to “Class C”, at the behest of most experts and senior police officers, meaning less severe penalties for possession.

Now, prime minister Gordon Brown has decided to up it again to “Class B”, presumably as the only means open to him of proving he can think for himself and not just mirror Tony Blair’s old policies.

There are numerous ways he may have achieved that goal – pulling all British troops out of Iraq, is the most obvious to come to mind – but this is undoubtedly one of the most stupid. Flip-flopping over the question of illegal recreational drugs merely proves the government doesn’t know its own mind and succumbs to the whim of whichever pressure group shouts the loudest.

The excuse for this back-tracking hangs around the potency of “skunk”, a hybrid marijuana plant bred for its superior quality. Critics say it’s much stronger than “ordinary” pot, intensifying the possible ill-effects that are rumored to occur from consistently smoking twenty or more joints a day.

Investigation of the spin surrounding cannabis use reveals a hotch-potch of pressure groups from the Christian Mother’s Union to DrugScope, the UK’s leading independent center of expertise on drugs, whose chief executive Martin Barnes said recently:

“There is no evidence that reclassifying cannabis to Class B will reduce levels of use, levels of harm or the availability of the drug.”

Which begs the question, why then are they doing it?

The sudden political panic over skunk marijuana merely focuses on the ineptitude of the politicians expressing alarm about it. Skunk has been around for years and is widely used throughout Europe (and probably the US). It’s been available in Amsterdam coffee shops for nigh on twenty years, to my knowledge.

Britain’s home secretary, Jacqui Smith – a woman I find particularly unappealing in every way, not least because she bears the same maiden name as my second wife – says she’s not prepared to risk the future health of young people because of “uncertainty” over its impact on mental health.^[1]

Or, to put it another way: as there’s no evidence of any impact on mental health, except possibly to those already sufficiently gullible and retarded as to consider smoking twenty or more cannabis joints every day perfectly acceptable, we, the government, are prepared to imprison normal adult people for five years for daring to partake of a substance certainly no more dangerous than nicotine, a freely available drug from which we, the government, make millions of pounds in taxation every year.

Recently, Gordon Brown commissioned an Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs’ review to assess this very issue. The review advised keeping marijuana classified “C”, stating that there was a “probable, but weak, causal link between psychotic illness, including schizophrenia, and cannabis use”, but in the population as a whole it played only a “modest role” in the development of these conditions.

One reason it’s so difficult to ascertain any ill-effects from cannabis use is because no-one admits to using it. It took years before scientists firmly established the ill-effects of nicotine, a freely available substance. How can they possibly determine the consequences of using an illegal substance that no-one dare admit to? The only studies are on already psychologically disturbed individuals usually hauled before the courts for petty crime and found to be users. Just how scientific is that? Yet, it’s apparently perfectly acceptable to our political leaders, looking for an excuse to bolster their flagging popularity.

How sensible it would be to decriminalize all drugs, fund research into the true benefits and drawbacks, then apply sensible logic to dealing with any problems encountered.

In this instance, “sensible logic” does not include incarcerating people for exercising the right to do what they wish in the privacy of their own home.

Of course, no government anywhere has ever been held in esteem for its ability to display sensible logic.

Truly, nothing’s really changed since 1936:

^{[1] “Cannabis laws to be strengthened”, BBC, May 7th 2008}

Filed under: Drug the government

Has your boss become more demanding of late? Have you noticed how business management tries to wring every last ounce from its employees? Perhaps, you may ponder, it’s because of the slowing economy, the need to squeeze more productivity?

Not a bit of it. It’s been going on for much longer than the dwindling economy. It began with the advent of computers in the workplace. Slowly, over time, the employee has shrunk in the mind’s eye of management, until now he or she is just another form of computer.

Only, the human employee is nothing like as efficient as an electronic computer. A human employee has to take meal breaks, go to the bathroom, spend time away from work with family, and to sleep. A computer functions twenty-four seven, has no family ties, and permanent insomnia.

In fact, apart from the energy needed to power its innards, a computer is only reliant on one other piece of equipment: the employee who utilizes it.

Herein lies the great dilemma presently gripping the capitalist world, or at least, the very top bit of it.

Computers can now do so many things a human employee can’t do, or if they could it would take them three years to complete a task done in seconds by the superior electronic version, that employers are desperately working out ways to rid themselves of the less efficient, and infinitely more expensive, inferior model.

Here is just one of myriad examples, noted recently in central Illinois.

A few months ago, the management of a local bus company announced to its employees that all buses were to be fitted with GPS equipment. It was put in such a way that the employees, or at least those more gullible, assumed it was for their benefit.

Of course, nothing was further from the truth. The drivers had nothing to fear as they were union members in a closed shop situation, but recently four lower management employees were told they were being ‘let go’. The company would have GPS equipment to monitor the position of every bus in the fleet at any given time, doing away with the need for those four employees. One had eighteen years service with the company. She was told she will receive $3,000 in severance pay.

This is just one example of what is happening, not only throughout America, but over much of the western world.

How many readers are due to retire in the near future? When you do, instead of visiting your local SSA office and talking to an experienced member of staff, you’ll be asked to file your claim online, from your home computer. If you don’t have one, you’ll be directed to the local public library.

The Social Security Administration has undertaken a mind-bogglingly huge program of automation, designed to achieve one goal: the eradication of the expensive human employee. It’s already begun. Staff levels are falling quickly; it’s one of the main reasons disability claimants wait two years and more for their hearings.

Employers are quick to hone down their workforce once a longterm strategy has been devised. It takes time to surreptitiously cut employee numbers, but the resultant savings in salaries, healthcare payments, etc., help fund the planned automation strategies. Computers are improving in leaps and bounds. The number of human employees required to service and program these electronic brains is dropping almost daily. It is expected that within a few years computers will take over the job of maintaining and programming other computers, or to put it another way, they’ll be self-repairing and self-programming.

It begs the brief question: where will all the jobs go?

The answer is equally concise: there won’t be any. Except for lowly service industry jobs – it’s not expected McDonalds will be serving computerized French Fries in the foreseeable future – and a few specialist occupations, much of the work done in offices, business houses, and government departments will no longer be the province of the human employee.

In a relatively short period of time, much of the monies paid out today in salaries will be siphoned back into the coffers of the corporates, as profit. Computers don’t require an income.

Of course, it would be inhumane to allow middle class America to starve to death. The Social Security system would have to be expanded and a new system of hand-outs devised. It will all have to be paid for out of corporate profit, for the income from taxes is bound to decrease drastically with so many out of work.

What then, you may ask, is the benefit to corporations if the additional profit is to be used to fund social services?

The answer is: control.

At present, the corporations pay wages, of which a percentage goes to the government in taxes, and the government decides how it is best spent. While corporate America has a hand in government, it is restricted by the election process. The people still have a say, albeit a somewhat feeble one.

Under the new automated system, corporate America will be the government. It will have total financial control. Without taxes a government cannot function, and will be taken over by whatever institution is holding the power of money.

He who has wealth holds power, and he who has power wields control. Total control is the great ambition of corporate America. It’s the reason one hundred and fifty thousand US troops squat in Iraq. Oil is now secondary in the great plan for the Middle East. Control of that region is number one on the agenda.

Corporate America is becoming the Great Dictator.

A fanciful idea? It’s happening already.

Has your boss become more demanding of late? Have you noticed how business management tries to wring every last ounce from its employees?

SSA employees are working themselves into the ground right now. Staffing has been cut so drastically each employee is forced to handle the work of two, or sometimes three. Added to the problem are constantly changing computer programs, new “improved” versions rushed out and full of bugs, but all designed to one day replace the employees desperately trying to make them work, against a backlog of mounting social security claims.

It’s chaos, but out of chaos comes control.

It will come to pass, if the workers don’t do something to stop it. Loyalty to the company has been a slogan rammed down the throats of employees for years, but where has the company’s loyalty to its workers gone?

Once, workers controlled the power. Now the tide has turned and computerization means workers will one day have to beg for a job. The bosses are regaining control. They have the power.

If you want to know how they will use it, just ask four bus company employees from central Illinois.

Filed under: 1984, or 2054?