Is the News Media Honourable!?

I often wonder at the senselessness of the whole news media scenario. I mean, what does it mean when the news media advocate the hosting of truthful and transparent public debates or, it is the public interest? According to whose truth? Define transparent? Public Interest?

Yet, as they are part of the whole capitalist for-profit business amalgam, I can fully understand why they say what they say – having a curious voyeuristic and engaging public ensures a steady flow of income.

But, do we, as the paying public, not deserve proper news, devoid of sensationalism, covert editorial agendas and journalistic vitriol?

I guess that the above questions answer themselves but that does not change the realities at hand viz. of the way the news media paints a picture or expands on a story line by using innuendo, by associative insinuation and by the use of flowery adjectives? 

The problem as I perceive it stems from the power base that the news media have guaranteed for themselves by making freedom of the media and expression part of a country’s constitution and thus, a reality that cannot be touched or done away with ease.., and ensuring them of a long fiduciary future.

What other private institution can claim that they have institutionalized protection as part of the Countries constitution?

I guess when all is said and done, especially in a democracy; it all comes down to the exercise of one’s choice: that is to say to form one’s educated (hopefully) opinion or to reject what is being published as just another ho-hum viewpoint?

In the end, neither option brings anyone closer to the actual truth behind the public narrative.

It is said that we the public deserve what we get for fickleness and general distrust rules human nature - Instead of seeing a political narrative for what it is and questioning it thoroughly, we the public rely on others, whom we perceive to have honourable clout, to do the dissemination of information on our behalf.

Maybe the solution lies by the public insisting on the news being proclaimed without the use of adjectives!?

hashtagmustfall#

The Truth Shall Set You Free

In our media rich world, the truth is no longer a sacred entity but rather a sellable precept. And by sellable it is meant that the truth is malleable and pliable enough to attract flies and dung beetles to it in swarms and hordes.

We the people mostly live by our understanding of that much maligned word. It is that understanding that makes whatever is being sold by the media, a living sensational entity that can incite rage, rabble-rouse, and excite the masses to the point of anarchy. This anarchy, in turn, of course, will be vilified and morally opposed by the same media pundits i.e. moral indignation. This self-proclaimed moral indignation is such a beautiful and attractive concept that we buy into it with open ears and minds without question.

Somewhere at the centre of the whole caboodle lies the truth; or rather, a version of the truth that is so veiled in euphemisms, rhetoric and commonplace platitudes that it is no longer recognizable but the truth nonetheless.

And given that our understanding of the truth is skewed in one bias or another, the propagation of what is real becomes easy to manipulate and concoct. Point in question: Take any news report and read the attached public commentaries. It is said that the truth is stranger than fiction, well, the a foregoing will highlight that quickly enough.

Not that the political fraternity is far behind their sensationalist media brethren. As a matter of fact, it is postulated that the media learnt their trade by watching and listening to the political society at large.

Whether we the people will ever know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is up for grabs. We need to learn to constantly question what we hear and read, to understand that what we are bombarded with is at best plausible fact, and to search for corroborating evidence amongst the maelstrom of out-there information.

The one infallible truthiness is that “Television is the first truly democratic culture - the first culture available to everybody and entirely governed by what the people want. The most terrifying thing is what people do want” - Clive Barnes.”

And therein lays the rub of it all!

Let's Revolt: The system is broken

While listening to the musical Les Misérables for the umpteenth time, my mind ran wild contemplating the pros-and-cons behind the revolutionary mindset so prevalent in our modern times.

Historically, revolution, although heavily romanticised, has mainly meant the exchanging of one set of flawed values for another set of flawed values. And this is not forgetting the loss-of-life (the ultimate sacrifice) and incarceration (causal consequence) associated with this accepted ‘noble’ mindset.

Needless to say, I found myself at odds with the whole causality of insurrections.

In a democracy, compromise is a given. As a matter of fact, it is not only a given but a necessity. So much so, that in a democracy very little would work if it were not for the mores of compromise: compromise is the understanding that most viewpoints are postulations on perceived rationalisations and personal experiences, thus the quest for a negotiated deal (middle ground, win-win scenarios, etc) is the primary mover of all thing democratic.

Revolution on the other hand, is the diametrical opposite of democracy. Revolutionary tenets or emotive aphorisms (catchy sound-bytes) rely on democratic philosophies to propagate its drives and ambitions. In revolution there is no compromise. It is an all or nothing attitude using the human emotion of ‘hope’ (a better tomorrow) as its key driver.

Yet, life in itself is all about change and change dynamics. Progress relies on change. Evolution relies on change. Cognitive ascension relies on change. The list is endless and ever changing: as Heraclitus so aptly stated: Nothing endures but change.

The natural propensity of life to change has brought with it limitless avenues of development and evolvement. If it were not for change, the human animal would still be roaming the earth as hunter-gatherers rather than the technological wizards it is today. Space exploration, mathematics, communications and medical advancements, would be mythological ideologies or superstitious maxims were it not for change.

The positives of change cannot be ignored. “Change has a considerable psychological impact on the human mind. To the fearful it is threatening because it means that things may get worse. To the hopeful it is encouraging because things may get better. To the confident it is inspiring because the challenge exists to make things better.” ~ King Whitney Jr.

But therein ends the lesson. Modern change where human nature is concerned has not always been for the better or for-the-good-of-all. Wars, political indifference, ideological cleansing and the pursuit of self-centered insensitivity have intensified, and are mostly driven along by ‘technology’ and greed i.e. The internet came to life as a first world evolution, a boon to the quest for information, a decentralization of human demographics and a noble depiction of the human spirit. Today, that dream is littered with disinformation, plagiarized articles, Trojan type viruses, degradation information, and pirated entertainment clips. One has to check and verify every piece of online-information just to ensure that what is being portrayed and or displayed in correct and safe to use.

It is this very change-ethics that has me perplexed: One, change is a requirement to human development and two, that chance is not always good.

Does one accept a bad action as long as the end-product delivers on an ideal quickly? Does one wage peaceful war (non-threatening, sit-around-the-table engagements, etc) on a moral standing knowing that the desired outcome will take years to achieve? Is collateral damage i.e. loss of human life, destruction of property, causal incarceration, etc, an acceptable risk on the path to achieving an ideological outcome? Is long-term suffering acceptable in the struggle to a peaceful negotiated change? In the end, are there any guarantees in life?

Over the past while, there have been many violent uprisings that have led to a ‘regime’ change. The human fallout in the process has been high and damage to property just as heavy. The final results have shown that the means to an end did not deliver the expected results for the people are generally not happy, and life did not return to the ‘new’ normal. Dissidence rules, inequality rules and criminality rules. Even the ‘new’ rulers are not enjoying the projected peaceful after effects.

Not that I am a true believer in the whole democracy-is-great ethos, for in my experience, if it is a capitalist based democracy, it delivers to the few while keeping the rest in a state of ‘hungry’ ignorance. If it is a socialist based democracy, it proposes to deliver to the many whilst keeping the few in ‘blinkered’ ignorance.

The problem is that violence is not endemic to insurrections: “Politics presupposes violence. Violence, or the threat of it, is one of the principal concerns that motivates people to form societies in which government is entrusted to a central authority – the state. And it is for this reason that the state claims a ‘monopoly on the legitimate use of violence’ – an exclusive right to exercise force against external enemies and its own citizens, when they break the rules.” Ben Dupré.

Let’s not forget that the state is all-pervasive: we are born and die in its embrace, and it extends into every aspect of our lives. And being of human construct, it is susceptible to corruption, greed and power quibbles.

In returning to my original thoughts on the futility of revolutions, I find myself in agreement with Hannah Arendt (Political Theorist) when she said that “The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative on the day after the revolution.” Karl Marx himself was reluctant to draw up blueprints for post-revolution societies: it is not our task to write recipes for the kitchens of the future.

Yes, many regimes and despots have been brought to their knees by the force of the ‘annoyed’ masses but, was it all worth it: the death, the beatings, the bloodshed, and the incarcerations? Are the post-revolution living conditions better than the original pre-revolution conditions? Were the changes significant enough to make the vile displays of human nature at its worse acceptable?

Although I am against the whole violence mindset in all its forms, I cannot discard the studied tendencies of the human propensity to solve problems by force. Round-table talking has only served as a ‘deflectionary’ pacifier and not as a solution.

Thus, alas, my turmoil on the whole revolution as an end to a means continues. To my mind the ideal of a better-life-for-all (what an emotive beautiful aphorism, so fitting of our modern sound-byte loving society) will remain elusive for years to come.

In the meanwhile I’ll continue to enjoy the music of Les Misérables to its fullest.

Money: Is it fait accompli?

It is done, finished, dusted. Or that is what is the seemingly future of capitalism is heading towards.

With so much debt being accumulated by the worlds governments, the future of money as we know it, is staring down a bleak future. I mean, why else would the worlds leading economies spend much money on hiring spin doctors (marketing drives, public motivational initiatives, yes-you-can propagandas,) who make use of emotive euphemisms encouraging us to tighten our belts (for our own good of course,) until the present-day depressive economic cycle is overcome and put to bed?

We, the people, are encouraged on a daily basis to save, to be frugal and to service our debts responsibly. We are also told that the world is facing an economic double-dip recession and that we must remain positive until such times as our leaders have debated, discussed and argued a viable solution that will ensure our future prosperity and affluence; all for our own good of course!?

I for one become paranoid when governmental types start pushing blame onto us ‘wicked’ people (wastage, lack of frugality, irresponsible spending, not saving, etc) for the monetary problems being experienced around the world. Not only do I become paranoid but also extremely cagey of verbiage and clever manipulation of words by leaders, politicos and corporate chiefs, when they expound the evils and consequences of the ‘debt’ crisis, for it mostly becomes our doing and our responsibility to fix.

Caveat: there is a reason why the rich get richer and the poor poorer!?

As Bertrand Russell so aptly stated “advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.”

The one solution is to learn to read between the lines and not be sucked in by the propaganda of deflected blame and implied guilt.

The problem is that we have become so reliant on money in all its glory that changes to capitalism does not sit well with us. We are locked and loaded into the barrel chamber of capitalism. The only way out is by pulling the trigger of change. Yes!?

Climate Change versus Employment

Climate change is not a new phenomenon. It is a weather condition that has been hapening in cycles over the past millennia; and by all accounts, the next cycle has been 50 thousand years in the making.

The bottom line is that climate change is a natural ecological event that is going to happen irrespective of humanity’s effort to stave it off; stave being the operative word.

Global-warming is another kettle of fish altogether: besides it being a natural ecological occurrence that takes place every-so years, it is also an occurrence that is aggravated by human consumption and industrial activity.

On the natural side, volcanic activity, solar radiation and the earth’s cyclic movement through the Universe, et al, all play a role in keeping the environmental scales in fine equilibrium, or not.

On the human side, industrial growth, human green-house gas generation and fossil fuel usage all contribute to upsetting the fragile balance that encompasses the environment, atmosphere and the way the eco system deals with these eventualities.

Although the Industrial Age is lauded and praised for much of the technological development that is being experienced today, it has brought with it unforeseen (maybe) side-effects; side-effects that have malignantly contributed to the many environmental problem and human enslavement being experienced today.

Yes, medically, technologically and financially, humanity finds itself riding the waves of success and development (although the last one is debatable.) Humanity is at an all time high: lofty life-spans, healthy bank balances and prosperity. And now that the ‘east’ has caught up and surpassed western developments, life has accelerated to the next level faster than anticipated.

Humanity has become technologically and information hungry. It has huge wants-and-needs that are being met by extravagant usage of natural recourses and over capitalisation of available real estate, all drawing upon the human propensity for avarice to drive those wants-and-needs along.

The main challenge facing modern Governments is employment: how to create avenues that help foster employment versus creating avenues that produce profits, thus keeping the economic status-quo fresh, is the quandary? It may be argued that other systemic life issues are of more importance but without employment, the system will consume itself to the overall detriment of humanity – the money energy cycle needs to be maintained.

To my mind, all the talk of climate change and or global warming will come to naught if the employment factor is not fixed. A hungry person does not care about the environment. A dejected unemployed person does not care about the environment. As a matter of fact, both types of people are more given to fits of pack-rage and destructive tendencies than those that are gainfully employed.

The South African Minister of Energy Affairs recently stated that renewable energy initiatives will cut employment as renewable-energy power generating plants, besides being more energy efficient, are also human real-estate efficient e.g. wind farms require less human-power to keep the equipment operational than that of a coal fired power station. Solar farms face the same employment dilemma.

With the growth in the human population expected to reach nine billion by the year 2030 (by recent extrapolations,) the employment quandary increases with each passing year. A prospect that is going to place even greater stresses on the environment due to the logarithmic growth in energy demand, food requirements, and other natural resources. A prospect that is neither positive nor captivating for the coming generations of humans.

I am of the opinion that the existing democratic (or whatever other forms of Government there are around the world) and capitalistic energies are in dire need of an overall. These energies worked well during the birth of the Industrialisation age to about 20 years ago. Since then, they have been faltering and overwhelming humanity at a dizzying pace of consumption. Changes to both systemic energies will not be easy, but the alternatives are worse.

Carl Sagan once said that if humanity can survive past its puberty stage (speaking of human development in the greater scheme-of-time,) the future will be humanity’s oyster. Unfortunately, very little positivity is pointing in that direction.

“The needs and wants of the people need to be addressed and pacified. Workable solutions have to be constructed in such a way that either gainful employment is generally guaranteed or alternatively, that a new means of income generation is implemented i.e. doing away with the traditional capitalist way of doing things.” ~ Global Warming: A Growing Woe

But of course, it is always easier to talk about the positives of life and to talk about climate change when one is gainfully employed!?

Menial Work is Dignified

The below mentioned piece of counsel was caught transversing the ethereal space of the internet at the speed of light.

It relates to a point by point speech purportedly made by the multi-billionaire Bill Gates to a bunch of high school kids. He talks about how feel-good, politically correct teachings created (and continues to create) a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world.

The 11 Reality Checks are:


Reality 1:
Life is not fair - get used to it!

Reality 2:
The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.

Reality 3:
You will NOT make vast amounts of money right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a company car until you earn both.

Reality 4:
If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.

Reality 5:
Menial work is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for menial work: they called it opportunity.

Reality 6:
If you mess up, it’s not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.

Reality 7:
Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.

Reality 8:
Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.

Reality 9:
Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.

Reality 10:
Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to go to the office.

Reality 11:
Be nice to people. Chances are you'll end up working for one.


Interesting reality checks that are not in keeping with the new-age mentality of positive self esteem and constructive approbation. Yet, all real and glaringly hard.

To my mind, the stated reality checks should be read by all who perceive the democratic processes as being one where ‘take take take’ is the rule of thumb.

Global Warming: A Growing Woe

I am of the opinion that the whole so called global warming/climate change issue is too complex a subject to just apportion blame willy-nilly onto the veritable human being, especially as no real workable solutions are put forward by the activists and pundits of global warming/climate change theories.

We live in a self perpetuated and accepted way of life that puts much emphasis on finances and wealth. We mostly all work for a living because of that culture: Those that sponge of the system are looked upon as just that; spongers (why don’t you get a job, you lazy good-for-nothing so-and-so.)

The accepted capitalist system is devoid of emotion and empathy: two human qualities that make life liveable and mostly comfortable. We are becoming automaton of technology and convenience while overlooking the consequences of those actions (I have money, why should I care.) Anyway there are enough charities to contribute too to pacify that nagging conscience.

I am also of the opinion that the capitalist system as we know it is long overdue for a makeover. The fact that the living-wage gap (rich vs. poor) is getting larger by the moment, is enough of an indication that all is not well in the land of finances.

Add to the above equation an emotional subject such as global warming/climate change and a calamity is created at the forefront of the human perception and psyche. The situation is mostly aggravated by the fact that traditional means of incomes are threatened by the call for closure/minimalisation of factories, manufacturing plants and energy utilities – oil is bad, coal is bad, CO² is bad, methane is bad, flatulence is bad, meat is bad, mercury is bad, sugar is bad, cholesterol is bad, obesity is bad, paper is bad, planes are bad, motor vehicles are bad, smoking is bad, fertiliser is bad, et al.

The above-mentioned commodities supply a large percentage of workers with employment/wages on a global basis.

The call for cleaner and renewable energy utilities is adding to this woe for most of the proposed renewable energy generating theories require little human intervention and hands-on skills (not labour intensive); and are expensive to boot.

Developed countries are being asked to provide assistance (money) to developing countries so that they too can implement ‘earth saving’ initiatives. This in itself is seemingly the-proper-thing-to-do, but the underlying catch is that it’s the tax-payers living in the developed countries that will have to foot this noble expense. It must be said that altruism and charity, although seemingly noble, do not fix the underlying problem(s).

So yes, global warming and climate change is a reality of life on earth. It has been for countless of centuries and nothing we do will stave off that inevitably. And yes, our contribution to that ‘inevitably’ can also be counted and measured. And yes, many proposals have been put forward by pundits and activists alike – some more aggressively than others, to what needs and must be done to put off that ‘inevitably.’

What most do not want to take-in is that the problem is not that simple to solve. Those that are at the forefront of the war for change, are mostly gainfully employed or living of the welfare of others, or living on some plot of land (usually wrongly occupied or left behind as an inheritance) growing their own meagre crops feeding themselves and their offspring: close to nature, so to speak.

What most also do not take in is that there are factors outside the control of the veritable human being viz. Volcanic eruptions, solar flare-ups, earth’s passage through the galaxy/universe, moving tectonic plates, etc, that add to the ‘inevitably’ equation.

The ‘legacy’ issue also plays an emotive role in the whole cry for survival i.e. what of the future of my children, what about the poor animals, etc.

And then there is technology; another detractor.

Technology has provided a portion of the human race with tools that have made the acquisition of knowledge easier and cheaper. Technology has also provided a portion of the human race with powers that were previously not easily enacted i.e. freedom of expression (good and bad,) global empathy (good and bad,) power to circumvent despotism, cyber anarchy, etc.

Technology has also provided a portion of the human race with feelings on invincibility and immortality i.e. blogs will live long after one has expired, I can say what I like to whom I like without fear of physical consequence, the power of anonymity, governmental/corporate feel-good marketing campaigns, etc.

And not forgetting the power that technology has granted the giants of human-thought-manipulation i.e. the media, the swaying of public opinion, bending of outcomes to suit a given objective, popularising a certain way of life, sensationalising a happening for the sake of profit, etc.

I have over the past years made it my business to follow the reasoning behind the global warming malady by reading, watching, researching and pensively thinking about the issue at hand (from both sides of the spectrum.) I have also, in view of the few points mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, tried to formulate an opinion that encompasses the problem as a whole, without going off the activist deep-end.

My take on the problems facing the required ‘global warming’ mindset change always comes back to one glaring point: economics. What happens to the petrol industry workers when the petrol plants are done away with? What happens to the meat farmers when people minimalise eating meat? What happens to the livestock when people discontinue feeding on them? What happens to the pilots when people minimise flying? What happens to the motor vehicle industry workers when motor vehicle manufacture is minimised or done away with?

Thus in essence, solve the economics of living and the problem at hand is minimised!

Although the predicament of the human-inflicted global warming danger is a growing one, being self-centred and antagonistic in forcing people to change their sceptical fearful mindsets will not change the internal motivational drives of the human being.

The needs and wants of the people need to be addressed and pacified. Workable solutions have to be constructed in such a way that either alternative gainful employment is generally guaranteed or, that a new means of income generation is devised i.e. doing away with the traditional capitalist way of doing business.

Irrespective of what is said and done, my overriding opinion is that the inevitable will happen and that no amount of political posturing and or activist will and or new-age bluster will change that ‘inevitably.’

It is the now-or-later scenario that remains on the table.

What is in your tog-bag?

Modern life is about the accumulation of material goods which translates into the precept of being well-off or of being seen as someone of means. In other words: material possessions, lots of them.

The challenge with the precept in question is that it is a precept rather than a tangible event. It relies on the visual appearance rather than the actual state of affairs. The challenge also relies on others falling for the illusion rather than accepting the actual reality.

The theory behind ‘what is in your tog bag’ is about unpacking the so-called tog bag until one is freed up from all the self-imposed material constraints that limit one’s ability to live and function as a human being.

The theory also relies on one’s ability to step-away from being a wage-slave; which is quite contrary to that which the fiduciary system calls for. What the theory does not call for is irresponsible reactive action while in the pursuit of unpacking the proverbial ‘tog bag.’

The ability to step-away from being a wage slave implies a pro-active action that will gradually lead to one being able to step-away from being caught up in a world where material possessions and living-the-high-life illusion reigns supreme.

Thus walking away from one’s self imposed fiduciary responsibilities is not what the theory calls for. Quite the contrary. One needs to step-away from the real world without the worry that debt-hounds will eventually rob one of the sought-after freedoms.

The first step towards understanding the ‘what is in your tog bag’ theory is to visualise an empty ‘tog bag’ lying on the floor full of emptiness. This visualisation process is an important one as the picture of an empty ‘tog bag’ must be fully understood and felt by the mind. If the visualisation process is executed correctly, one must be able to touch and smell the empty ‘tog bag’ lying on the floor.

The ensuing steps revolve around picking up the ‘tog bag’ and beginning to slowly start filling it with ‘stuff’ that one uses on a daily basis i.e. toothpaste, toothbrush, clothes, shoes, wallet, briefcase, etc. Feeling the weight of the ‘tog bag’ increasing becomes the paramount sensation in the continuing visualisation process.

Once all the ‘stuff’ that one uses on a daily basis are packed, one can progress to filling the ‘tog bag’ with electrical utensils i.e. kettle, microwave oven, coffee percolator, etc. Once all the utensils have been packed in the ‘tog bag,’ start filling it up with the rest of the possessions one has in the home i.e. bed, bed linen, desks, couches, TV, computers, etc.

When all these have been packed in the ‘tog bag,’ one can now place the last remaining items in the ‘tog bag’ i.e. car, bicycle, gym equipment, workshop tools, garden tools and equipment, etc.

Finally one can add the ‘home’ to the bag.

It must be ensured that after each step, the incremental weight increase is felt by the mind’s eye. Even if one understands that one cannot lift said bag from the floor, ensure that the exertion required is felt to its fullest extent. Again, the sensation of weight to the mind’s eye is of paramount importance.

To the final sensation, start asking the question: What can I do without and still retain the lifestyle that I want to live? Do not rush this step. Think about it carefully over the span of a few days, all-the-while recalling the weight-sensation of the full ‘tog bag’ every time the question is asked (recalled.)

Once one is comfortable with the realistic answer, visualise the items being removed from the ‘tog bag’ and the sensation of relief evident from the reduction in weight of the ‘tog bag.’ Feel this sensation to its fullest extent. Again, the relief must be felt by the mind’s eye.

The items in question must at first only be those items that are dragging one down or are of unnecessary bulk.

Once the items have been identified and accepted by the mind from amongst all the rationale imposed on the question asked, bit-by-bit, one can start implementing a physical plan-of-action with the view to getting rid of said items or reducing the obligatory debt associated with said items i.e. credit card debt, unused gym equipment, etc.

It must be emphasised that throughout the continuing process, the sensation of ‘weight’ must be visualised and fully felt by the mind’s eye. This includes the ‘relief’ felt when items are removed from the ‘tog bag.’

The whole exercise uses left vs. right brain activation processes as the means to achieving a goal. Being able to just positively think about overcoming a problem does not instinctively instigate the required actions for lightening of one’s material life burden.

The Poor be Damned!?

The other day while listening to another well-meaning politician sprout foibles on the eradication of poverty, I was struck by the lack of solutions in his speech. This phenomenon is common whenever politicians or people get-together to source solutions to an ever-present, and growing, social ailment.

This lack of presentable solutions is more of an ill than the whole poverty paradox. Poverty is solvable. The problem arises mostly from the reality that solutions are money based and that in itself, will require a mindset change by the way many think about money.

Money or even the mention thereof is a taboo in most languages. Yes, most will talk freely about other peoples money, but their own is a guarded secret.

Many, when confronted by poverty, will jump on the get-a-job horse. Others will look the other way. Some will put some pennies into the begging-tin and drive off in a rush. Few will attempt to come up with short term solutions (meals-on-wheels, shelters, charity drives, etc) but find themselves alone in the fight-to-eradicate-poverty.

There have been many workable solutions put forward by thinking individuals on changing the way society views and thinks about money:

1) The National Dividend. This was invented by engineer C. H. Douglas and has been revived by Ezra Pound and designer Buckminster Fuller. The basic idea is that every citizen should be declared a shareholder in the nation, and should receive dividends on the Gross National Product for the year.

2) The Guaranteed Annual Income. This has been encouraged by economist Robert Theobald and others. The government would simply establish an income level above the poverty line and guarantee that no citizen would receive less. This plan would cost the government less than the present welfare systems, with all its bureaucratic red tape and redundancy factors.

3) The Negative Income Tax. This was first devised by Nobel economist Milton Friedman. The Negative Income Tax would establish a minimum income for every citizen; anyone whose income fell below that level would receive the amount necessary to bring them up to that standard. Again this would cost "the government" less than the present welfare systems. It would also dispense with the last tinge of humiliation associated with government "charity," since when you cashed a check from IRS nobody would know if it was supplementary income or a refund.

My take on the whole eradication of poverty is a simple one.

In South Africa we have a Lotto entity that pays out huge amounts of money in a given year (In excess of 50 Million Rand.) With an estimated population of 50 million persons, a conservative disbursement of 250 thousand Rand per person would elevate all to a liveable economic level and rid the SA society of the terms poverty, poor and the-poor-of-the-poor in an instant

.
From the outset, my avaricious money-based common-sense screamed louder than a wailing ambulance siren: the rich would get richer, many would stop working thus creating economic chaos, employers would loose their power over their remaining employees, politicians would not be happy, inflation would shoot sky high, the money markets would suffer, what about the work ethic (did not the ancients say that one needs to work to acquire wealth,) how would the disbursement work, who would oversee the disbursement process, etc, etc, etc.

On the other hand, would people not revert to doing what they enjoy doing, would not their creative potential rise to the fore collectively, etc?

As the global situation stands, the human race future looks bleak. To survive longer than its nose, it needs to elevate itself above clichés of old, do away with wage slavery, embrace humanity and move forward to a co-operative mind-set for the good of all.

Alas, I feel that humanity will remain doomed.

(with thanks to Robert Anton Wilson)

Online Shopping: The New Cup of Tea

During the past holiday season, my fancy took me to surfing online shopping sites. A form of consumerism that is becoming popular in leaps and bounds.

All at once I could view, compare and critique items across a wide spectrum of commodities and articles and suppliers; all from the security of my home PC. It was like entering a new world. One where fancies, likes and imagination could be satisfied on the spot. Of course, the money issue did put a damper on the googly eyed adventure. In essence, a reality very much like the traditional way of shopping; except for the armchair bit.

In between the hours spent online, I kept thinking as to the popularity of the medium at hand: Is the South African populace in tune with this medium? Which population demographic finds this electronic shopping experience attractive? What is popular? What about the legal paperwork? Probability of scam attacks and phishing expeditions?

To the first and second question, in speaking to friends and acquaintances, I derived that generally middle to high income households have shopped online: be it tickets to a movie, to a motor car. Most also tried their hand at grocery shopping. Thus the appeal is there.

What was fascinating is how members of the lower income demographic made use of internet cafes (the least of all secure sites) to carry out their order of business (The numbers in question were few but growing.)

The interesting bit came in the guise of some using the information at hand to do comparisons, then going to a physical shop to purchase the selected item in question. Fear of Credit Card information theft and of the faceless entity behind the online façade were the greatest deterrents to actually buying online; specially when substantial payment had to be made (I use one dedicated credit card with low limits to transact across the world wide web.)

Thus more questions came to mind: What would make the online experience more palatable and attractive? What would make the existing system more secure? What would quell the fears a consumer has about shopping online? What impact would the incoming consumer protection act have on the online shopping fraternity (would online service providers have to be RICA’ed or FICA’ed?) Would this action put to the inherent consumer fear of shopping online? Would a ‘comment box’ assist the consumer in voicing their opinions on the service, articles, etc?

The one avenue I found in my searches relates to the commonality of after-sales support more so than the offering of an online shopping portal. In the whole, retail companies offer online after-sales support structures: An operator will contact a consumer after a certain lapse in time to find out about the satisfaction perception. If positive, then all is well, if negative, then how can they assist!?

The above process tends to mostly placate and pacify consumers to the inferred ethos that the company cares.

As a whole, those that can, make use of online shopping to buy low to mid-priced items. The caution factor kicks in where huge payments have to be made. Here the consumer will go to the physical shop and pay there.

The lower income groups use the net more for comparison and availability purposes rather than outright online buying. The picture with the lower income groups is that the mindset is changing as the costs of internet hosting are dropping. The advent of intelligent mobile phones is also helping to change the mindset.

Personally I found the whole exercise insightful and calming: the threats are there, but with a small amount of internet savvy, threats can be managed and overcome.

Will I continue to buy online? Yes! Sensibly so.

I Am In Love With Me (or why narcissists always rise to positions of power?)

In this world of new age philosophies, gobbledegook optimism, politically correct challenges, the glass is half full euphemisms and there-are-no-problems syndrome, Narcissism rules supreme.

What used to be viewed as a non-curable character flaw is now viewed as something to strive for or to live by. The media live by it, marketing strives on it and the corporate spaces abound with it. The megalomaniac philanthropist, Mr. Bill Gates, called it ‘tough love.’

During the sixties, the ‘I’ philosophy raised its ugly head in the shape of a smiley face. All the sudden it was not on to think of family or society as a comforting safe space. The ‘I’ was elevated beyond all hereto known values. Suddenly it was cool to claim; I am worth it, it is my life, what is in it for me, I am numero uno, greed is king, et al.

It is understood that human beings are social creatures that require frequent validation of their self worth. Social interactions usually take care of this need through normal everyday dialogue, debate, interchange of ideas, creative processes and the like.

Unfortunately, these so called normal processes, do not suffice in a narcissist world. The need to be superior is the primary force; a force that involves the covering up of feelings (a sign of weakness) while fostering feelings of self-importance and self-appeasement (a sign of grandiosity.) In other words, I am, I can…when I was …, I, I, I.

The plus side of narcissism is that it is an energetic, motivated, assertive and competitive condition. All who suffer from narcissism are individuals (a very important asset) who value creativity, who strive to always improve on themselves and who constantly view mistakes as non-entities. They also value intellectual performance above all else.

No that bad, one would think. The down side is that a narcissist will internalise failure to the extent of hostility towards others who are perceived to be their betters and thus will externalise blame on all negative events.

In other words, a narcissist will rationalise or rewrite history in their favour: “ They freely transform failures into successes, and construct lengthy and intricate rationalisations that inflate their self-worth or justify what they believe is their right.” Dr Theodore Milton. Dr. Roger Davis further pointed out that narcissists, “remember the past as they would have wanted it to occur, not as it actually happened.”

When confronted, narcissist will overtly express themselves in a self-justificating rage, character assassination and projection or deflection e.g. you are just envious.

They also exhibit traits such as; self-focus in interpersonal exchanges, difficulty with empathy, hypersensitivity to any perceived insults, a vulnerability to shame rather than guilt, subtle but persistent bragging, expert claims to most things, denials of remorse and gratitude, etc, etc.

All in all, not a nice condition at all.



Yet, this is what is being projected and inferred as to what one must aspire to.

The sixties ‘smiley face’ was an icon to the art of positive thought given the wars that were being fought at the time, and the impact they were having on society at large. Narcissism was never the intended outcome.

But as usual, the human condition will rise to the occasion and turn all good intentions to hell.

Food for Thought: The strange thing about narcissism is that it needs enablers to feed its need for attention and feeling of superiority. One craves power the other, security.

For me, give me a juicy portion of t-bone and chips, crème brûlée, and all is well with me.

Mwah!

Healthy Ignorance

If a high intelligence quotient as an ideal equates to the ultimate desire, then the ‘majority’ have much to aspire to. In statistical circles, 2% of the population (exceptionals) have IQ levels of 120 points or more while the ‘minorities’ (100 to 120 IQ points) account for around 15% of the population leaving the ‘mediocre’ and ‘majorities’ to account for the rest.

Putting the whole IQ world in perspective is a tricky exercise, but one which I believe to be of vital importance if one is to understand how the world of IQ levels is perceived. It is supposed that persons with IQ levels below 20 IQ points cannot be toilet trained while those with around 40 IQ points, although they may be able to attain grade 4 by ages 18, cannot look after themselves, and those with IQ points of 70 and lower cannot differentiate between right or wrong.

The ‘mediocre’ (90 to 100 IQ points) fare no better. Although they can do all the above with closed-eyes proficiency, they are not University material, their reading material is, at best, news stories (the reading of Editorials not included,) popular magazines and novels. Their morality is formed around executing what Authorities expects from them; be it work, religious, governmental or scholastic.

It must be understood that an IQ result is a statistically derived number which indicates relative and comparative abilities that can be used to obtain academic skills and knowledge. An individual has many specific mental abilities of which some can be measured accurately while others can only be used as indicators (or predictors) of academic abilities.

(Note: An IQ test does not measure most kinds of human abilities such as musical talent, artistic flair, emotional stability, physical co-ordination, or spiritual level.)

Thus it is left to the ‘minorities’ --

Actually, the ‘minority’ prospects are rather gloomy. Research at a Swedish University has scantly indicated that ‘minorities’ tend to suffer from one or other form of physiological malady when exposed to prolonged periods in the company of mediocrity. The results were obtained by randomly questioning ill people whose IQ levels fell within the prescribed range, specially those in corporate environments, as to what brought on the infirmity. All persons questioned replied that prior to the attack, or closely thereafter, they had to endure some or other act of stupidity by one of their fellow work mates; who were subsequently tested and found to have IQ levels below 100 IQ points.

-- and the ‘exceptionals’ to rule the roost, as these are individuals that can reason abstractly, postulate logic and solve what-if situations: exactly what is expected from leaders, politicians and decision makers!?

If the world is indeed ruled by the ‘brilliant,’ why is it in such a mess? Surely the intellectually superior can, by way of reason, foresee the outcome of a given action? And maybe they too suffer, like everyone else, from attacks of megalomania, from desires of grandeur and from blatant power mongery.

Consider; (all below mentioned are claimed to have an IQ above 100 points)

Hitler; an intelligent man who used reason as a means. Yet, his noble pursuits lost their benevolence as his insolence grew. Why should he who gained knowledge through reading implement a draconian rule like book-burning? Surely his common sense should have kicked in and told him that he was being a fool? Why the abnormal abhorrence of a people when intelligence, through reason, dictates that, in life, its not about absolutes but temperance?

Sister Theresa; a well-to-do woman who revelled in altruist pursuits. There was nothing that this women would not do for others; as long as their suffering met with her expectations.

Einstein; a confirmed logical thinker of high acclaim. Yet he believed in God; a subject that has no logical substance except through the eyes of faith. And his domestic life left a lot to be desired; just ask his wife’s.

Margaret Thatcher; highly respected for her powers of rationale and astuteness in negotiations. Yet she had no qualms about condemning (indirectly) a portion of the British population to death (starvation, exposure, war, etc) just because her pride could not be blackmailed.

What about persons who head reputable institutions, that are loved by their employees and partners alike, that are known for their powers of reason while behind closed doors, abuse their loved ones, and comit other atrocities.

What about a less known factor that most shakers-and-movers sufferer from one or other form of schizophrenia - Not a duality of character but of psychotic mania.

In the world of politics, we are all equal, but by all reasoning, an exaggerated misnomer:

Fact; In the world of IQ testing, we are not equal.

Fact; In the world of anthropomorphic measurements, we are not equal: That verbal inabilities are vast. That musculature variations are many. Even our powers of reason are dissimilar; and the list goes on.

Given all of the a foregoing reckonings, are IQ results of any use to anyone or to life in general?

As a means to an end, let me simplify the inadequacies of IQ testing by means of a true story: There was a murder case where this person, with an IQ below 70 points, could not be executed for his crime as he was deemed not to be able to distinguish between right or wrong, yet, because of his shrewd dedication in the pursuit of justice, the jury ruled that he was intelligent enough to die.

But it must be bliss to live in ignorance. It is postulated that higher intelligence may not be favoured by selection. The history of life on earth, contests the claim that ‘it is better to be smart than to be stupid,’ at least judging by biological success: beetles and bacteria, for example, are far more successful than primates in these terms, and that is generally true of creatures that fill a specific niche or can undergo rapid genetic change.

Intelligence versus inanity will remain a bone of contention with much time being dedicated by pundits in the pursuit of answers. In the end, what will it all mean? I do believe that, in the greater scheme of things, not much. Life will continue its ineffable journey with us as passengers, whether we like it or not.

Healthy ignorance must be bliss, as no time is wasted on profound thought processes, in life analysis, or in elucidation. Life is lived as it comes and the rest will take care of itself; what joy, what bliss…what a waste.

2009 and Beyond

Usually at this time of the year, I tend to take a step backwards to gaze upon life in all its glory and craziness.

I once read that not a shred of evidence exists in favour of the idea that life is serious. A tenet that, after much thought, compelled me to re-think my priorities and concerns. And given all the pessimism permeating our air-waves, printed media and the populace in general, a tenet that has helped me develop an optimistic view of life, but an optimism that remains grounded in reality and hard-learnt life experiences – whether one sees a half-full glass or a half-empty glass, one still only gets a half glass of whatever.

Overall, 2008 was a year of note. It was a year where many opportunities came-a-knocking, where many initiatives were completed to their logical conclusions and where many disappointments were contended with. It was also a year where many lessons were learnt, where problems were faced, where frustrations were tempered and where challenges were defeated.

When all is said and done, here I stand, knowing that irrespective of what was thrown my way by the machinations of life, I surmounted all obstacles standing tall…and with a smile on my face.

As for 2009, who knows, but given my record at surmounting impossible odds, I am confident that the future will find me at the helm of my life, pedal to the metal.

Here’s to a kick-ass 2009 and beyond.

Avarice and the Human Psyche

Avarice, the one defining human trait that continues to defy reason and understanding. It is, above all other frailties, the single most destructive force ever conjured by creatures of intellect. And it never fails to deliver.

But avarice does not work alone. It shares the same haunts as covetousness and patriotism. It sleeps with propaganda and altruism. It gives power to greed, war-mongering and bigotry. It is a beast of burden that serves unconditionally and omni-potently. It is omnipresent and resolute. It lives cosily encased in contrived rationale and statistical ambiguities. Winning at all costs, its endearing mantra.

In the Technocratic world, avarice regulates human governance with an iron fist - By subtly playing to one’s guilt about being selfish and or being self-absorbed i.e. perceived peer pressure, technocrats maintain their much sought after mass control. Control of the environment will also ensure that freedom-of-choice is controllably managed.

Generals, in much the same way as Technocrats, achieve similar end-results from the available troop-mass. The only difference are the methods employed: army life existing in a more restrictive atmosphere means that mind-washing techniques are used with subtle impunity i.e. for the good of national security.

At work, in the hands of clever manipulators, it works wonders at keeping the paid-for throngs under control. Implied fear being the most commonly used tool in work circumstances i.e. you’re not a team player, others are happy with the situation, not pulling your weight, possible downsizing in the offing, etc.

Capitalism is its great advocator. Capitalism survives on greed and in ‘keeping up with the Jones’s.’ And greed begets greed begets greed begets greed. An unending voracious cycle that does not care for individuals, masses, religious backgrounds, upbringings or caste. A true vice.

Over the years, many ‘ocracies’ and ‘isms’ have being devised, all with noble intentions and doable goals, only to be deposed soon after its birth - nothing laced with avarice is noble or just, for it serves its own purposes, its own agendas, its own meritocracy.

So, where to from here? Is there an Achilles heel to all this, or is the light at the end of the tunnel that of an oncoming train? In reality, it’s the latter that bears fruit: while the human psyche exists, so too will its propensity for avarice. Irrespective of how it is rationalised, the human spirit will always be self-serving and self-justifying.

Why Can't Life be Simple

Why can’t life be simple? It just seems that the harder one tries to simplify things, the more complicated life becomes. And believe you me, I’ve tried and tried only to meet with disastrous consequences, that bear no relationship to what has gone before.

Being a proponent of ‘what is’ denotes that I should have a deeper understanding of the inner working of life, the universe and everything else (apologies to Douglas Adams,) but invariably, it turns out that I do not.

Being worse than a cat when it comes to the pursuit of comfort, I spend much time in evaluating what is non-sense and inconsequential. I also spend effort in searching for ways to do tasks simpler and with the least amount of effort. And in creating an environment where I reign supreme. But like they say in the classics: bah humbug!

Everyday I wake up to a new sunrise full of expectations that all will run according to plan, only to find that its all for nought – an eventuality will interfere, direct and command what was a peaceful existence - it appears that personal ideals are not deserving and should be disrupted and thrown out of tilt.

Now the above may sound far fetched and out of synch with what the rest of the world are busy with, but considering that death is the ultimate judge, does it not stand to reason that living life is more important than just living, and that all else is just conversation?

Have people forgotten what it is like to be human?

Have we become so caught up in the pursuit of opinions and in the pursuit of being right, that life has lost all meaning. Do we really believe that something or someone ethereal will save us from the undeniable fact that death lurks and that eventually, it will consume all corporeal existence.

We have devised belief systems that provide well rationalised answers to questions of mystery, to questions of wonderment and to inquiries of bafflement, yet, in-between all the brouhaha of information, we remain frail pathetic humans. The only difference is that we suffer from dementia of ‘there must be more to life’ rather than looking at ourselves and realising that power is within each one of us and that collectively, we can achieve whatever we set out minds to.

Our relationships have become tainted with postulated dreams of romance, have become tainted with conjured visions of a what a soul mate is and have become tainted with viewpoints that subvert what it means to be human. We like to be told that we are exceptional, we like to be told that we are good looking and we like that others see us for what we are. Yet we run around blaspheming the good names of others, we run around gossiping about the doings of others and we run around passing judgment on what others deem to be normal

Life is not personal, it is aloof, unemotional and damn frustrating. It is not an anomaly that purports to support life in all its guises. It is what it is. It is an ever changing condition that has allowed species to develop and then to die off without any rational reason. It is a condition that allowed a species to develop congealed grey matter into monstrous complex creatures that kill, maim and destroys one another for the sake of an opinion, territory and just for just.

Life also does not care for the individual, it is not so devised and it does not operate in that way. The death or life of an individual does not life make. Yet, it is all we crave: the will to be ourselves, the vehemence to be different to others, the glorification of self.
But knowing that life will be life is not enough. Humans need more. They need acceptance, they need the human touch and they need the assertion that a life has not been in vain. They also need diplomacy for anything else is deemed as abhorrent.

And then there are emotions: a bunch of irrational deep down unexplainable feelings that are bundled together in a flesh-and-bone upright walking-talking Homo Sapiens. They mean nothing at the best of times and at the worst of times, they get in the way of what should be a clear logical explanation to existence. Yet, one can hate them or love them, the fact remains that they are a reality of life and will continue to be so long after the surcease of breath.

The expectations behind the veil of life are cumbersome at best. They are mostly construed, connived and full of rationalized good will and intentions. Yet they pale into insignificance when confronted by vanity, emotions and simplicity.

In the end, maybe its all about denial. A condition that transcends all cultural barriers, gender backgrounds and social standings. A condition that affects all and spares none. The great aunt to vanity, and the main culprit behind bigotry, elitism and the human suffering.

Out of the Mouth of Babes

"All kids are born: self-centred, solipsistic little sewage machines who would happily snatch the last sliver of your will to live for half a teaspoon of prune puree.

Children are not born pure and good and then become tainted by their environment, as victims of sentiment will have you believe. Actually, they’re born malicious little douche bags, who’s parents must then teach to become respectable members of society" - Chris McEvoy

Of Angels and Demons: A Da Vincian free-for-all

In view of all the paranoia, commotion and sensationalism surrounding a certain modern-day conspirational work-of-fiction, the tomes of retorts that have followed, and the movie that it spawned, I say let the people have what they want. I say lets wipe the slate clean, lets abolish all known religious ethos and holy tenets, and go back to a time when humanity ruled, when nature was the supreme educator, when the genders knew their rightful places and the infatuation with a God like entity was but a faint glimmer in a far away imagination.

Yet I cannot but ask a few Da Vincian type questions pertaining to the whole can of worms: If it is widely accepted that a God like entity exists, why the obsession on changing what is? If all holy writings are inspired of God, when did the message change? When did God become democratic? Is God real? The whole illogicality reminds me of a certain statement by Voltaire: "Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world." This was of course said before certain Eastern Religions became the headlined scourge of mankind.

The interesting issue at this juncture lies in the fact that, as much as people want to do away with prescriptive religion, as much as they need to worship something. Wendy Kaminer in her work Sleeping with Extra-Terrestrials wrote, “Ours is an evangelical culture. So many people convinced that they’ve been saved by Jesus, cured by homeopathy or the laying on of hands, abducted by aliens or protected by angels seek public acknowledgement that their convictions are true. Imbued with messianic fervour, or simply seeking ‘validation,’ they are not content to hoard the truth; they are compelled to share it and convert the unenlightened, relying on the force of their own intense emotions. Generally, the only proof offered for a fantastic belief is the passion it inspires.”

Given the above, I feel that something is amiss for Religion has never been about the rights of the people (It is not democratic.) Religion does not have the keys to salvation (God is the supreme Judge.) Religion also does not have the answers to mankind’s woes (It can only comfort and support - All are born sinners thus must suffer the woes of their actions): did not Karl Marx assert that Religion is the opiate of the people?

Personally, I find the whole obsession interesting and laughable, for here is a work-of-fiction being hailed as the best thing since sliced bread. The interesting portion stems from the fact that it is people with set believe-structures that are the ardent pursuers of said literary work - Is the disappointment in structured religion that evident, or are the religious followers easily sidetracked by plausible assertions and postulations? The fun thing is that Atheists, Agnostics, Secularists and Enlightened-thinkers are having a good giggle at the whole gum-shoot (not to mention the Author who is coining a pretty penny.)

What irks me no end, are the actions by religious leaders who will voice their opinions elatedly and arrogantly in the face of popular acceptance. Shouldn’t they rather be looking inwards and investigating why the people are so easily diverted from a supposedly path to salvation? Surely something is amiss with their teachings, dogmas and assertions? The down side the aforementioned conjecture is that, in life, human beings are generally known to be fickle, therefore in need of guidance and support when making decisions on matters of faith.

It is a well known fact that humans have a propensity towards conspiracies, cover-ups and obscure cults. Robert Anton Wilson in Everything is Under Control, asserts that “ We live in an age in which humans distrust other humans more than ever before.” He further states that “ Men and Women indeed become strange when seeking gods…they become even stranger when seeking devils.”
Thus, it is fair to state that people do not believe in conspiracies for logical or scientific reasons, but for emotional reasons; it’s the not knowing what comes next that drives the whole caboose. The one question that answers all questions must surely be: Do you trust your Government? The ensuing answer will undoubtedly provide a likewise rationale reason to the paranoia that surrounds The Da Vinci Code.

In asserting that Dan Brown did a brilliant job in researching the material for his Novel is stating the obvious. Its even more obvious that he was aware that conspiracies are gobbled up vigorously by the masses at large; especially where it concerns secular religion. For that he deserve an applause and a congratulations on a job well done.

In the meanwhile, I will find solace in a chalice of well-aged Cabernet Sauvignon and leave all Grail quests to the sacred feminine.