It seems that all peace efforts are doomed to failure and that Gaza will continue to be attacked. I cannot understand why Israel does not show some sort of mercy if not magnanimity.
The Palestinians are defeated and Israel will continue to be dominant for the foreseeable future. The Palestinians have had to suffer exclusion from their original homeland and occupation and victor settlement on the West Bank.
The Gaza strip is blockaded by both Israel and Egypt and this is causing misery for the Palestinians that live there. The inhabitants of Gaza probably feel that they have little to live for. In reality they are almost powerless to improve their living conditions. It is no wonder that there is resentment and resistance.
The Palestinians are behaving in exactly the same way as any other country would behave. They are trying to repel their adversaries as best they can.
During the second Word War, France was invaded by a superior military power and the Maquis used unconventional war to try and defend their nation. Did that make the Maquis terrorists? In the eyes of the invaders - yes. In the eyes of the British and the French it made them heroes.
Of course, it is wrong for Hamas to fire missiles into to Israel to try to kill civilians. However, Israel can defend itself quite well against such attacks. If it is wrong for Hamas to fire missiles into Israel then it is equally as wrong for Israel to counter attack in such a disproportionate manner, so as to kill upwards of a thousand Palestinian civilians.
Israel claims the moral high ground but surely it is time for it to relent and allow the Palestinians to live in some form of dignity and peace.
It is time to lift the blockade of Gaza and negotiate a peace settlement. It is time to withdraw the troops from the West Bank and negotiate further peace. Someone must break the cycle of attack and counterattack and revenge killings. What is wrong with the most powerful combatant doing this? Their security is guaranteed but not their peace of mind.
Unfortunately, the status quo is set to continue and the Palestinians will suffer more and more.
Wednesday, 20 August 2014
Thursday, 24 July 2014
European Beavers and Devon's River Otter
Why not leave the three beavers, who have settled on the river Otter in Devon, alone. Beavers became extinct in England some 500 years ago. And what made them go extinct? It was Homo Sapiens of course and this was not so wise of our species. I cannot think why we should have named ourselves Homo Sapiens.
It seems that the accidental re-introduction of the European Beaver is a matter of worry to farmers, anglers and the Department of Health who fear that our friendly rodents may introduce new diseases.
Why should farmers worry? Beavers are natural flood control experts and maintain healthy water courses.
Why should anglers worry if a beaver dams a stream. European beavers and most species of fish were extant in the UK well before man arrived on the scene and they lived in harmony with one another. Most river systems supported healthy populations of both beavers and fish. The depopulation of our rivers has not been caused by beavers, birds or indigenous (non-human) mammals. It is human beings who have caused widespread death in our river ecosystems.
Farmed animals are more of a danger to human health: how many of us have caught salmonella poisoning from a factory farmed chicken and its products?
European beavers should be part of our natural fauna why should we frightened of them? They are of real economic value to help protect our river systems and to control floods. We should recognise this as they provide their services for free.
Pheasants are of economic value and are left to roam freely but they are an introduced species who would probably never gained access to the UK without help from humans . Why can't beavers be afforded the same consideration?
Perhaps the beavers are in danger because no-one can make a direct profit out of their ecological services - so it is time for the trap or the shotgun.
Just leave them alone please.
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Removal-beavers-Devon-s-River-Otter-senseless/story-21328623-detail/story.html
http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/wildlife/homesforwildlife/f/905/p/15790/114176.aspx
It seems that the accidental re-introduction of the European Beaver is a matter of worry to farmers, anglers and the Department of Health who fear that our friendly rodents may introduce new diseases.
Why should farmers worry? Beavers are natural flood control experts and maintain healthy water courses.
Why should anglers worry if a beaver dams a stream. European beavers and most species of fish were extant in the UK well before man arrived on the scene and they lived in harmony with one another. Most river systems supported healthy populations of both beavers and fish. The depopulation of our rivers has not been caused by beavers, birds or indigenous (non-human) mammals. It is human beings who have caused widespread death in our river ecosystems.
Farmed animals are more of a danger to human health: how many of us have caught salmonella poisoning from a factory farmed chicken and its products?
European beavers should be part of our natural fauna why should we frightened of them? They are of real economic value to help protect our river systems and to control floods. We should recognise this as they provide their services for free.
Pheasants are of economic value and are left to roam freely but they are an introduced species who would probably never gained access to the UK without help from humans . Why can't beavers be afforded the same consideration?
Perhaps the beavers are in danger because no-one can make a direct profit out of their ecological services - so it is time for the trap or the shotgun.
Just leave them alone please.
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Removal-beavers-Devon-s-River-Otter-senseless/story-21328623-detail/story.html
http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/wildlife/homesforwildlife/f/905/p/15790/114176.aspx
Monday, 23 June 2014
Is anyone out there?
With the discovery of more and more earth like extra-solar planets many newspapers and magazines are musing whether there is life on other planets within our galaxy or even life on Mars or satellites within our own solar system.
http://press.nationalgeographic.com/files/2014/06/July-2014-Highlights_final.pdf
It is worth reading this article in the National Geographic magazine. According to the Drake equations there are probably many planets which are inhabited by civilised beings who are capable of thought and making advanced tools.
I agree that there are probably thousands if not millions of planets and satellites which support life. However, being intelligent is probably a rare phenomenon. Of the millions of species which have inhabited our own planet few of have developed any form of intelligence: primates are classic examples but whales and related species show some signs of intelligence as do elephants.
The only species which have shown any form of advanced intelligence, communication and forward planning are members of the Homo genus.
The survival of most species on our planet does not depend upon intelligence at all. Most animals can rely upon instinct or autonomic behaviour to survive. Plants, fungi and microbes can survive even without a nervous system. Viruses, if they are alive, can survive perfectly well by using other organisms to ensure their longevity.
It can be argued that human beings are not the most successful creatures on the planet at all and that in terms of numbers and distribution, cockroaches, rats, grass and microbes are much more successful.
In terms of longevity, Homo Sapiens Sapiens has only been on the planet for around 250,00 years and we were preceded by Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis who originated perhaps 250,000 years earlier if only to die out 30,000 years ago.
It is quite possible that advanced intelligence does not supply the gift of longevity: Homo Erectus and Homo Heidelbergensis died out long ago and their obvious mental capabilities did nothing to help them survive in the long run.
Our own survival might possibly be at stake if we do not learn to use our intelligence wisely. We could quite easily destroy ourselves or our civilisation as the result of nuclear or biological warfare, pollution and climate change. If "advanced beings" on other planets behave like us there could be very few civilisations who have survived long enough to develop the ability to communicate with us.
We could be one of the few species which is capable of thought within a galaxy which is probably teeming with life. It looks as if we shall have to go out and actively find extra terrestrial life rather than wait for it to come to us. It would be a shame if we became extinct as a result of our own actions before we could "shake hands" with a fellow intelligent being from another planet.
http://press.nationalgeographic.com/files/2014/06/July-2014-Highlights_final.pdf
It is worth reading this article in the National Geographic magazine. According to the Drake equations there are probably many planets which are inhabited by civilised beings who are capable of thought and making advanced tools.
I agree that there are probably thousands if not millions of planets and satellites which support life. However, being intelligent is probably a rare phenomenon. Of the millions of species which have inhabited our own planet few of have developed any form of intelligence: primates are classic examples but whales and related species show some signs of intelligence as do elephants.
The only species which have shown any form of advanced intelligence, communication and forward planning are members of the Homo genus.
The survival of most species on our planet does not depend upon intelligence at all. Most animals can rely upon instinct or autonomic behaviour to survive. Plants, fungi and microbes can survive even without a nervous system. Viruses, if they are alive, can survive perfectly well by using other organisms to ensure their longevity.
It can be argued that human beings are not the most successful creatures on the planet at all and that in terms of numbers and distribution, cockroaches, rats, grass and microbes are much more successful.
In terms of longevity, Homo Sapiens Sapiens has only been on the planet for around 250,00 years and we were preceded by Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis who originated perhaps 250,000 years earlier if only to die out 30,000 years ago.
It is quite possible that advanced intelligence does not supply the gift of longevity: Homo Erectus and Homo Heidelbergensis died out long ago and their obvious mental capabilities did nothing to help them survive in the long run.
Our own survival might possibly be at stake if we do not learn to use our intelligence wisely. We could quite easily destroy ourselves or our civilisation as the result of nuclear or biological warfare, pollution and climate change. If "advanced beings" on other planets behave like us there could be very few civilisations who have survived long enough to develop the ability to communicate with us.
We could be one of the few species which is capable of thought within a galaxy which is probably teeming with life. It looks as if we shall have to go out and actively find extra terrestrial life rather than wait for it to come to us. It would be a shame if we became extinct as a result of our own actions before we could "shake hands" with a fellow intelligent being from another planet.
Wednesday, 18 June 2014
Pope Francis and Atheists
Pope Francis has stated that atheists who do good can be redeemed but they may not be granted salvation. What does this mean? It means nothing. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a God who is a supernatural being.
I have many friends who are Christian and I was brought up in a Christian family. Many of my friends who are religious can understand perfectly why I would think that this article in the Roman Catholic press is completely irrational and is incoherent gibberish.
http://www.catholicvote.org/what-pope-francis-really-said-about-atheists/
Of course there are many Roman Catholics, Baptists, Calvinists and even Church of England fundamentalists who do believe this nonsense. They would be the dangerous ones if ever Britain were to become a theocratic state again. Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Druids, Witches and Wizards would then suffer from discrimination and possibly persecution at their hands.
Unfortunately the same thing would happen if fundamentalists of any religion were to gain theocratic power. I only feel qualified to comment on this matter because I am an apostate Christian. Whilst I find the non-scientific writings of Richard Dawkins rather tedious and I stopped reading "The God Delusion" on page 10, I would rather have an Atheist in control than a priest.
We are lucky in Europe that the age of reason has produced a liberal secular society which tries to defend the rights of everyone including the religious and which seeks to persecute no-one.
I have many friends who are Christian and I was brought up in a Christian family. Many of my friends who are religious can understand perfectly why I would think that this article in the Roman Catholic press is completely irrational and is incoherent gibberish.
http://www.catholicvote.org/what-pope-francis-really-said-about-atheists/
Of course there are many Roman Catholics, Baptists, Calvinists and even Church of England fundamentalists who do believe this nonsense. They would be the dangerous ones if ever Britain were to become a theocratic state again. Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Druids, Witches and Wizards would then suffer from discrimination and possibly persecution at their hands.
Unfortunately the same thing would happen if fundamentalists of any religion were to gain theocratic power. I only feel qualified to comment on this matter because I am an apostate Christian. Whilst I find the non-scientific writings of Richard Dawkins rather tedious and I stopped reading "The God Delusion" on page 10, I would rather have an Atheist in control than a priest.
We are lucky in Europe that the age of reason has produced a liberal secular society which tries to defend the rights of everyone including the religious and which seeks to persecute no-one.
Tuesday, 10 June 2014
"Trojan Horses" and schools
All the political fuss and agonising about some UK schools and their governance could have been avoided if the state did not fund faith schools. It is the purpose of a school to educate young people to think for themselves not to indoctrinate them with religious or political beliefs. Religious education should be reserved for the private sector where, even there, minimum curriculum standards should be maintained.
No-one should be prevented from sending their children to a synagogue, church or mosque or any other religious place of worship and "Sunday, Saturday and Friday school " activities should not be controlled by the state. Religious practise, however, is best left to the home and the place of worship.
School governors and teachers in state schools should not be selected on the basis of faith or the lack of it but they should be selected on the basis of whether they are qualified to run an educational establishment or teach in one.
School governors and teachers should keep their religious and political views to themselves in state funded schools. Young people should not be subjected to any form of indoctrination.
If someone wishes to pray at school they should be allowed to do so. No young person, however, should be coerced into praying and teachers should not be allowed to inform on pupils who do not wish to pray or wear religious symbols etc.
It is difficult to define British values; some values have been fought for by generations of Britons and these are: the right to have freedom of conscience, the right to free speech, the right to be a member of a religion or to become an apostate without sanction. These values are not unique to Britain.
British society is in the main secular even if the official religion is the Church of England. Contrary to the belief of some religious leaders most secularists do not want to impose restrictions upon religious belief or the right of people to worship. We believe that there is a time and place for everything within the law. The time and place for religion is not in state funded schools.
The best way to defend the interests of the religious and non-religious alike is to support secular state funded schools and a secular society in general. How else can we all live together in peace? Let everyone have equal human rights and obligations with regard to their conscience, freedom of thought and speech. Let us all play by the same rules and then there will be no need for the unfair "Trojan Horse" accusations.
No-one should be prevented from sending their children to a synagogue, church or mosque or any other religious place of worship and "Sunday, Saturday and Friday school " activities should not be controlled by the state. Religious practise, however, is best left to the home and the place of worship.
School governors and teachers in state schools should not be selected on the basis of faith or the lack of it but they should be selected on the basis of whether they are qualified to run an educational establishment or teach in one.
School governors and teachers should keep their religious and political views to themselves in state funded schools. Young people should not be subjected to any form of indoctrination.
If someone wishes to pray at school they should be allowed to do so. No young person, however, should be coerced into praying and teachers should not be allowed to inform on pupils who do not wish to pray or wear religious symbols etc.
It is difficult to define British values; some values have been fought for by generations of Britons and these are: the right to have freedom of conscience, the right to free speech, the right to be a member of a religion or to become an apostate without sanction. These values are not unique to Britain.
British society is in the main secular even if the official religion is the Church of England. Contrary to the belief of some religious leaders most secularists do not want to impose restrictions upon religious belief or the right of people to worship. We believe that there is a time and place for everything within the law. The time and place for religion is not in state funded schools.
The best way to defend the interests of the religious and non-religious alike is to support secular state funded schools and a secular society in general. How else can we all live together in peace? Let everyone have equal human rights and obligations with regard to their conscience, freedom of thought and speech. Let us all play by the same rules and then there will be no need for the unfair "Trojan Horse" accusations.
Friday, 30 May 2014
European War
It is hard to believe that 100 years after the start of World War 1 and 70 years after the D-Day landings , Europe is still at war.
There is the potential for the Ukraine to descend into a full civil war. We Europeans still organise our politics at the point of the gun. Civilians still have to suffer as a direct result of the conflict or because their loved ones choose to fight. There is no need for the killing of either soldiers or civilians a negotiated solution can still be found for the Ukraine. The superpowers have a responsibility to organise this.
Of course there is a lot of discussion about the justification for World War 1 and whether the sacrifice was worthwhile.
From a purely nationalistic point of view, Britain and France and their allies had to fight to defend themselves and their neighbours. Many brave men died or were injured under the most dire of circumstances. Many brave men from the US fought and died for the freedom of France, Belgium and Britain. Russia fought in vain.
My own family lost uncles in the British Army and the Royal Navy. Most families in Britain and France were touched by the War. We must not forget that most families in Germany and Austria were also touched.
Millions of young men from both sides died fighting for their countries.
From a supranational point of view World War 1 was a disaster. The "colonies" of Britain and France were expected to contribute both men and material. Thousands of Australians and Canadians died to defend colonialism.
War became industrialised and mass slaughter became institutionalised. We also saw the beginning of the institutionalised killing of civilians. This led to the industrialised murder of civilians in World War 2.
World War 1 did little to resolve European conflict and this led directly to World War 2 where the carnage was even greater.
The human species has shown itself to be unable control the direction of its ingenuity. We do not have the emotional ability to either stop the killing or limit the means by which we conduct war. Killing has now descended into a type of push button frenzy. We can kill millions by the use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and we can kill individuals by using a drone. We cannot avoid mistakes so civilians and non-combatants have to suffer too.
From a nationalistic point of view war has winners and losers and can be justified from the standpoint of defending the homeland. I ask all readers, however, to look at a bigger picture. From the point of view of our species in general war runs the risk of being a complete disaster which could destroy all of us. We should make every effort to prevent war wherever it might arise - in the Ukraine, in Syria, in Afghanistan, the Sudan, Central Africa, Nigeria .......
There is the potential for the Ukraine to descend into a full civil war. We Europeans still organise our politics at the point of the gun. Civilians still have to suffer as a direct result of the conflict or because their loved ones choose to fight. There is no need for the killing of either soldiers or civilians a negotiated solution can still be found for the Ukraine. The superpowers have a responsibility to organise this.
Of course there is a lot of discussion about the justification for World War 1 and whether the sacrifice was worthwhile.
From a purely nationalistic point of view, Britain and France and their allies had to fight to defend themselves and their neighbours. Many brave men died or were injured under the most dire of circumstances. Many brave men from the US fought and died for the freedom of France, Belgium and Britain. Russia fought in vain.
My own family lost uncles in the British Army and the Royal Navy. Most families in Britain and France were touched by the War. We must not forget that most families in Germany and Austria were also touched.
Millions of young men from both sides died fighting for their countries.
From a supranational point of view World War 1 was a disaster. The "colonies" of Britain and France were expected to contribute both men and material. Thousands of Australians and Canadians died to defend colonialism.
War became industrialised and mass slaughter became institutionalised. We also saw the beginning of the institutionalised killing of civilians. This led to the industrialised murder of civilians in World War 2.
World War 1 did little to resolve European conflict and this led directly to World War 2 where the carnage was even greater.
The human species has shown itself to be unable control the direction of its ingenuity. We do not have the emotional ability to either stop the killing or limit the means by which we conduct war. Killing has now descended into a type of push button frenzy. We can kill millions by the use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and we can kill individuals by using a drone. We cannot avoid mistakes so civilians and non-combatants have to suffer too.
From a nationalistic point of view war has winners and losers and can be justified from the standpoint of defending the homeland. I ask all readers, however, to look at a bigger picture. From the point of view of our species in general war runs the risk of being a complete disaster which could destroy all of us. We should make every effort to prevent war wherever it might arise - in the Ukraine, in Syria, in Afghanistan, the Sudan, Central Africa, Nigeria .......
Friday, 16 May 2014
Poking the Russian Bear
I have been to Russia and I have worked with many Russian people and some of them are now my friends. I have had many conversations about Russian politics and the relationship of Russia with the West.
Russian people want to be treated with respect and to be treated as equals; they expect nothing more or nothing less. The have an ingrained fear of war. They lost 20 million people in the second world war. They also have a fear of extreme right wing politicians.
The siege of St Petersburgh, or Leningrad as it was called in the the second world war, and the battle of Volograd, formerly Stalingrad, proved that the Russian people would tolerate the most extreme privation to defend their Motherland. During the second world war the Russian people were also prepared to support a tyrant, Stalin, to defend their nation.
The battles of Stalingrad (August 1942 to February 1943) and Kursk in July1943 saw the complete defeat of Hitler's armies in Russia. They were the turning point of the war in Europe. Without Russia's defeat of Germany in these battles the outcome of the war could have been completely different.
Of course, we should not denigrate the war efforts of the Western nations to create second fronts in both Italy and France. But we should understand why the Russian people expect to be treated with respect by its former allies. We should also understand that the Russians are a formidable enemy and in a war it would better to have them on our side than against us. Roosevelt, Churchill and De Gaulle understood the "realpolitik" of this and were prepared to respect Stalin as a result.
Against this back drop, Western politicians should think again about what is happening in the Ukraine as they have badly miscalculated. They will not admit to this in public but behind the scenes they are probably looking for a way out.
The new government in the Ukraine is really not up to the task of handling the crisis that they have created for themselves with Western help. It looks as though the people of Western Ukraine have no more stomach for a fight with Russia than the people of Britain, France and Germany or the US for that matter. If the Russians wanted to they could invade the whole of the Ukraine and takeover almost unopposed.
The quicker a negotiated solution is concluded the better. It looks as though Eastern Ukraine is lost to the West just like the Crimea. Why not try a confederation like Denmark and Greenland. Denmark is in the EU but Greenland, which is officially part of Denmark, is not. The people of Greenland have political autonomy but they are happy, in the main, with their confederal relationship with Denmark.
The rest of the Ukraine does not have to be broken up after the secession of the Crimea but the Russians in Eastern Ukraine will need to be given cast iron guarantees for the security of their budding new "nations". This looks like the best that Western diplomacy can now achieve as there is no military option available and economic sanctions are considered to be an irritation rather than a deterrent.
It might be better to deal with a happy bear than to poke it with sticks which will be useless for defence if it decides to fight back.
Russian people want to be treated with respect and to be treated as equals; they expect nothing more or nothing less. The have an ingrained fear of war. They lost 20 million people in the second world war. They also have a fear of extreme right wing politicians.
The siege of St Petersburgh, or Leningrad as it was called in the the second world war, and the battle of Volograd, formerly Stalingrad, proved that the Russian people would tolerate the most extreme privation to defend their Motherland. During the second world war the Russian people were also prepared to support a tyrant, Stalin, to defend their nation.
The battles of Stalingrad (August 1942 to February 1943) and Kursk in July1943 saw the complete defeat of Hitler's armies in Russia. They were the turning point of the war in Europe. Without Russia's defeat of Germany in these battles the outcome of the war could have been completely different.
Of course, we should not denigrate the war efforts of the Western nations to create second fronts in both Italy and France. But we should understand why the Russian people expect to be treated with respect by its former allies. We should also understand that the Russians are a formidable enemy and in a war it would better to have them on our side than against us. Roosevelt, Churchill and De Gaulle understood the "realpolitik" of this and were prepared to respect Stalin as a result.
Against this back drop, Western politicians should think again about what is happening in the Ukraine as they have badly miscalculated. They will not admit to this in public but behind the scenes they are probably looking for a way out.
The new government in the Ukraine is really not up to the task of handling the crisis that they have created for themselves with Western help. It looks as though the people of Western Ukraine have no more stomach for a fight with Russia than the people of Britain, France and Germany or the US for that matter. If the Russians wanted to they could invade the whole of the Ukraine and takeover almost unopposed.
The quicker a negotiated solution is concluded the better. It looks as though Eastern Ukraine is lost to the West just like the Crimea. Why not try a confederation like Denmark and Greenland. Denmark is in the EU but Greenland, which is officially part of Denmark, is not. The people of Greenland have political autonomy but they are happy, in the main, with their confederal relationship with Denmark.
The rest of the Ukraine does not have to be broken up after the secession of the Crimea but the Russians in Eastern Ukraine will need to be given cast iron guarantees for the security of their budding new "nations". This looks like the best that Western diplomacy can now achieve as there is no military option available and economic sanctions are considered to be an irritation rather than a deterrent.
It might be better to deal with a happy bear than to poke it with sticks which will be useless for defence if it decides to fight back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
