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.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The Power of the Written Word
I finally sat down to watch a ‘Ronge’ critiqued movie by the title of Freedom Writers. A frank story about a young idealistic teacher, played by Hilary Swank, who started off her teaching career at an experimental volunteer-integration high school situated in a much racially maligned area of America (Long Beach.)
The story is not new and it does end in true American tradition of happy-endings. But the refreshing part is that it highlights what the world is about and what can be achieved if people learn to accept responsibility for their own actions.
The story mostly tries to disentangle some of the intricacies of racial tensions, of abject bigotry by those who should know better and the awkwardness of the establishment in dealing with matters of race, quality of life and what is – Bureaucracy, veiled objections riding the skirts of good-intentions, divorce, self-worth and of doing what has been done before because it is comfortable to do so.
The story also attempts to unravel the age old paradox of ‘worshiping two gods,’ choice and the causality of both actions.
Personally I felt moved by the movie for its frankness of subject. It never tries to be what it is not. It rather focuses on the trials and tribulations of young teenage kids who, through no choice of their own, have to live in areas where open warfare is common, where racial wars are fought for no rhyme or reason other than skin colour, and where the consequences of living in a world where nationalism (family) is used as a tool of subterfuge.
The kick for me came at the conclusion where I realised that the movie was based on a true story of a teacher (Erin Gruwell) who pushed her students past their perceived abilities, never judged them for whom they were, and used her intellect to push past red-tape, negative experiences and personal hardships.
The slight negative was when the Holocaust was used as a simile to what was happening to the kids: the Anne Frank Diaries was one of the books that the kids had to read.
In the end, the movie was all about Democracy, its effects and perceived entitlements e.g. freedom without responsibility does not work. The movie also showed up that westernised Pollyanna euphemisms mean nothing to other national groups.
As a reminder to the insanity of life, the movie worked wonders. As a reminder to the power of the human spirit; frailties and all, the movie worked wonders. As a reminder to the fact that the paternalistic axiom of ‘for the good of all’ is a polished emblem of mumbo-jumbo, the movie worked wonders. And as a reminder that to overcome our present destructive situation we, the people, need to stand together, the movie worked wonders.
The high point of the movie was the big picture inference to the power of the written word, for it is a medium that remains as a testimony to existence long after the candle of life has been blown out.
*The ‘Freedom Writers Diaries’ was published in 1999*
The story is not new and it does end in true American tradition of happy-endings. But the refreshing part is that it highlights what the world is about and what can be achieved if people learn to accept responsibility for their own actions.
The story mostly tries to disentangle some of the intricacies of racial tensions, of abject bigotry by those who should know better and the awkwardness of the establishment in dealing with matters of race, quality of life and what is – Bureaucracy, veiled objections riding the skirts of good-intentions, divorce, self-worth and of doing what has been done before because it is comfortable to do so.
The story also attempts to unravel the age old paradox of ‘worshiping two gods,’ choice and the causality of both actions.
Personally I felt moved by the movie for its frankness of subject. It never tries to be what it is not. It rather focuses on the trials and tribulations of young teenage kids who, through no choice of their own, have to live in areas where open warfare is common, where racial wars are fought for no rhyme or reason other than skin colour, and where the consequences of living in a world where nationalism (family) is used as a tool of subterfuge.
The kick for me came at the conclusion where I realised that the movie was based on a true story of a teacher (Erin Gruwell) who pushed her students past their perceived abilities, never judged them for whom they were, and used her intellect to push past red-tape, negative experiences and personal hardships.
The slight negative was when the Holocaust was used as a simile to what was happening to the kids: the Anne Frank Diaries was one of the books that the kids had to read.
In the end, the movie was all about Democracy, its effects and perceived entitlements e.g. freedom without responsibility does not work. The movie also showed up that westernised Pollyanna euphemisms mean nothing to other national groups.
As a reminder to the insanity of life, the movie worked wonders. As a reminder to the power of the human spirit; frailties and all, the movie worked wonders. As a reminder to the fact that the paternalistic axiom of ‘for the good of all’ is a polished emblem of mumbo-jumbo, the movie worked wonders. And as a reminder that to overcome our present destructive situation we, the people, need to stand together, the movie worked wonders.
The high point of the movie was the big picture inference to the power of the written word, for it is a medium that remains as a testimony to existence long after the candle of life has been blown out.
*The ‘Freedom Writers Diaries’ was published in 1999*
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Atheism does not Negate Spiritual Belief
Is it not amusing how all debates, blogs and or discussions on religion (whether new age, esoteric or traditional) all revolve around circular reasonings!? And the more an explanation to a given position is proffered, the more extensively monologous the whole debacle becomes.
The one interesting supposition that struck a chord with me of late, is the use of the term atheism as meaning non-believer. I mean, in philosophical terms and by their very nature, they are two miles-apart ideologies.
The dictionary defines atheism as: disbelief in the existence of a god or gods (Oxford).
The word ‘disbelief,’ as used in the definition, does not imply non-belief but rather a choice not to believe in something due to some or other reason – inability or refusal to accept something is true or real (Oxford.) This precept is not to be confused with agnosticism: a person who believes that it is not possible to know whether or not God exists (Oxford.) One relates to choice, the other to lack of ‘empirical’ proof or substantiation.
Enter on stage, the non-believer. Here is a sentiate that does not believe in anything esoteric, new age, religious or even remotely spiritual. A being that accepts as true the power of the human animal, with all its imperfections, grand-narratives and mysteries. A being that understands and pursues secular cognitive reason as its primary source of wisdom and understanding.
The commonality to any non-believer lies in the deduction that everything humans do, they do out of their own volition and not because of some unexplainable pretext that requires faith (to believe without reason) to make it all plausible – why must unexplainable phenomena be attributed to something ethereal just because it is, given present understandings or knowledge, …unexplainable.
As can be deduced, atheism is a rather different approach to the world of the non-believer – even Richard Dawkins believes in something, just not in the concept of a god: “Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakeable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time.”
Experience tells me that, irrespective of what anyone says or relates concerning religious tenets and dogmas, the debate will continue ad infinitum. To a non-believer, given all the trouble, toil and strife saturating planet earth, all ponderings on where-we-come-from, life-out-there, god and spirituality, is a senseless waste of time.
Maybe we just came to be, to create the one thing that nature could not: Plastic!
The one interesting supposition that struck a chord with me of late, is the use of the term atheism as meaning non-believer. I mean, in philosophical terms and by their very nature, they are two miles-apart ideologies.
The dictionary defines atheism as: disbelief in the existence of a god or gods (Oxford).
The word ‘disbelief,’ as used in the definition, does not imply non-belief but rather a choice not to believe in something due to some or other reason – inability or refusal to accept something is true or real (Oxford.) This precept is not to be confused with agnosticism: a person who believes that it is not possible to know whether or not God exists (Oxford.) One relates to choice, the other to lack of ‘empirical’ proof or substantiation.
Enter on stage, the non-believer. Here is a sentiate that does not believe in anything esoteric, new age, religious or even remotely spiritual. A being that accepts as true the power of the human animal, with all its imperfections, grand-narratives and mysteries. A being that understands and pursues secular cognitive reason as its primary source of wisdom and understanding.
The commonality to any non-believer lies in the deduction that everything humans do, they do out of their own volition and not because of some unexplainable pretext that requires faith (to believe without reason) to make it all plausible – why must unexplainable phenomena be attributed to something ethereal just because it is, given present understandings or knowledge, …unexplainable.
As can be deduced, atheism is a rather different approach to the world of the non-believer – even Richard Dawkins believes in something, just not in the concept of a god: “Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakeable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time.”
Experience tells me that, irrespective of what anyone says or relates concerning religious tenets and dogmas, the debate will continue ad infinitum. To a non-believer, given all the trouble, toil and strife saturating planet earth, all ponderings on where-we-come-from, life-out-there, god and spirituality, is a senseless waste of time.
Maybe we just came to be, to create the one thing that nature could not: Plastic!
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Is Freedom of Speech even Debatable
Why is it that we are so adept at proclaiming freedom-of-speech while, back at the ranch, running it down when that freedom asserts an ideal opposed to our own way of thinking? If reason be what makes us human, why the inconsistency? And maybe the fault is mine for “How ridiculous and what a stranger he is who is surprised at anything which happens in life.” – Marcus Aurelius
Democracy is about freedom of choice, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of actions; of course all tempered by liberal doses of moderation i.e. consideration for the wellbeing of others, consideration for the beliefs of others, consideration for the lives of others. As a matter of fact, consideration and moderation, besides the aforementioned freedoms, are the prime words by which democracy was devised (reminds me of the age old inconsistency: Look but don’t touch, Touch but don’t bite, Bite but don’t swallow…)
To the lob-sided equation, human-rights (human rights refers to the concept of human beings as having universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction, and likewise other localizing
factors, such as ethnicity and nationality,) was added as a condiment. These rights and freedoms likewise include the rights to due process, private ownership of property, privacy, and equality before the law, and freedoms of speech, assembly and religion. (In liberal democracies, such as that found in South Africa, these rights are generally constitutionally guaranteed.)
In contrast, Conflict, by characterization, refers to any quarrel between persons, regions, national districts or world powers. Conflict further refers to mental-states of unreasonableness, of stroppiness and of perverseness: arrogance, avarice, despotism, bigotry, absolutism. Qualities that not only subverts the human spirit but also relegates it to the annals of depravity - Ayn Rand in her gothic work entitled ‘Anthem’ expounded on what a world ruled by oppressive ideologies would be like: in one instance, she elucidates the arrogance of the ruling elite when it discards electricity in favour of candles for the concept was not developed by the masses for the good of the masses.
When Emmanuel Kant was asked to characterize Enlightenment (defined as the insistence on intellectual autonomy, a rejection of tradition and authority as the infallible sources of truth, a loathing for bigotry and persecution, a commitment to free inquiry, a belief that knowledge is indeed power,) his vigour and clarity rose to the occasion: “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity.” Unlike his other long-winded works of philosophy, this was direct, to the point and sacrosanct.
In simple words, it is decisive forbearance towards all things that challenge and seemingly subvert ideals long held as truths, that determines enlightenment. Not an impossibility or a stretch of the imagination but a tortuous request nonetheless, for the general human propensity towards self-emulation will, if not checked, rise to the top: usually under the guises of nationalism, patriotism and eloquently-worded self-centred crowd-pleasing despotic monologues.
Therefore, as with enlightenment, freedom-of-speech, being a sub-set of enlightenment, must be conceived as an attitude in which the critique of what we are, be accepted as an historical analysis of the limits that are imposed on us, and a testing with the prospect of going beyond them.
To all intents and purposes, there should be no debate pertaining to whether or not freedom-of-speech should ever be sacrificed, irrespective of circumstances i.e. noble intentions - history is full of noble intentions that did nothing but to propagate the will of those who proclaimed those very intentions.
Its for the above reasons that freedom-of-speech should be encouraged and cultivated at all levels of human interactions. It should never be allowed to wane or to be repressed irrespective of how much it condemns or criticises. It must be allowed to assert conjectures, contentions and what-ifs. It must be given free reign, for only then can life evolve beyond its self imposed immaturity - the world used to be considered flat. It was only by the covert persistence (an unfortunate system-induced malaise of the time) of a few heretics that the truth was eventually revealed.
Dare to speak. Dare to know!
Democracy is about freedom of choice, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of actions; of course all tempered by liberal doses of moderation i.e. consideration for the wellbeing of others, consideration for the beliefs of others, consideration for the lives of others. As a matter of fact, consideration and moderation, besides the aforementioned freedoms, are the prime words by which democracy was devised (reminds me of the age old inconsistency: Look but don’t touch, Touch but don’t bite, Bite but don’t swallow…)
To the lob-sided equation, human-rights (human rights refers to the concept of human beings as having universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction, and likewise other localizing
factors, such as ethnicity and nationality,) was added as a condiment. These rights and freedoms likewise include the rights to due process, private ownership of property, privacy, and equality before the law, and freedoms of speech, assembly and religion. (In liberal democracies, such as that found in South Africa, these rights are generally constitutionally guaranteed.)
In contrast, Conflict, by characterization, refers to any quarrel between persons, regions, national districts or world powers. Conflict further refers to mental-states of unreasonableness, of stroppiness and of perverseness: arrogance, avarice, despotism, bigotry, absolutism. Qualities that not only subverts the human spirit but also relegates it to the annals of depravity - Ayn Rand in her gothic work entitled ‘Anthem’ expounded on what a world ruled by oppressive ideologies would be like: in one instance, she elucidates the arrogance of the ruling elite when it discards electricity in favour of candles for the concept was not developed by the masses for the good of the masses.
When Emmanuel Kant was asked to characterize Enlightenment (defined as the insistence on intellectual autonomy, a rejection of tradition and authority as the infallible sources of truth, a loathing for bigotry and persecution, a commitment to free inquiry, a belief that knowledge is indeed power,) his vigour and clarity rose to the occasion: “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity.” Unlike his other long-winded works of philosophy, this was direct, to the point and sacrosanct.
In simple words, it is decisive forbearance towards all things that challenge and seemingly subvert ideals long held as truths, that determines enlightenment. Not an impossibility or a stretch of the imagination but a tortuous request nonetheless, for the general human propensity towards self-emulation will, if not checked, rise to the top: usually under the guises of nationalism, patriotism and eloquently-worded self-centred crowd-pleasing despotic monologues.
Therefore, as with enlightenment, freedom-of-speech, being a sub-set of enlightenment, must be conceived as an attitude in which the critique of what we are, be accepted as an historical analysis of the limits that are imposed on us, and a testing with the prospect of going beyond them.
To all intents and purposes, there should be no debate pertaining to whether or not freedom-of-speech should ever be sacrificed, irrespective of circumstances i.e. noble intentions - history is full of noble intentions that did nothing but to propagate the will of those who proclaimed those very intentions.
Its for the above reasons that freedom-of-speech should be encouraged and cultivated at all levels of human interactions. It should never be allowed to wane or to be repressed irrespective of how much it condemns or criticises. It must be allowed to assert conjectures, contentions and what-ifs. It must be given free reign, for only then can life evolve beyond its self imposed immaturity - the world used to be considered flat. It was only by the covert persistence (an unfortunate system-induced malaise of the time) of a few heretics that the truth was eventually revealed.
Dare to speak. Dare to know!
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Expedition Facebook
Over the past while, my exploratory excursions have taken me into a world known as Facebook. A virtual meeting place of friends, acquaintances and of like-minded hopefuls. A world where banalities and make-believe are tendered as gospel, where friends rediscover each other; and where discussion threads are viewed as the alma mater of free speech.
Must admit that my travels through Facebook have been interesting and stimulating. Yet, it remains a cold and impersonal medium. One that panders friendship but delivers pretence, abject derision and emptiness.
When travelling amongst the numerous ‘discussion threads,’ one will run across racism, sex, presidential candidates, sex, conspiracies, sex, philosophies and more sex. Some threads carry emotional baggage from lonely hearts who want solace and possibly a shoulder to cry on. Other threads are filled with good intentions, but are continuously jacked (a Facebook term for hijacking/taking over) by users who see the whole issue as irrelevant, thus an object of ridicule.
Amongst some of the trivialities of Facebook is the ability to create an awesome individualist profile that can be linked to all friends and individuals. This profile can include items such as rate-me, how-sexy-am-I, how-alike-are-we and plagiarised famous quotes.
There is also one section that allows users to describe themselves. At face value, there is nothing wrong in the idea, but it’s the varied but similar descriptions that are interesting. The majority of users claim description like what-you-see-is-what-you-get, an-individual-that-loves-life, the real-cerebral-icon and say-it-like-it-is person.
Interestingly, in amongst the maelstrom of likeness and characters, some have taken to imitating others in the hope of creating consternation and so called fun e.g. South African Minister of Health.
The above notwithstanding, I find Facebook an enthralling study into the human psyche. In my wanderings through Facebook space, I have read how the Facebook population feels about the death-sentence, abortions, religion and the next presidential candidate. To my dismay, I have also learnt that size-does-matter, that one’s abilities on the dance floor relates to how one performs in bed and that any thread is open to being jacked, taken ‘off’ course and insulted.
The South African Network statistics page presents some facts that left me wondering as to the honesty of all who partake of Facebook: Firstly, most users class themselves as non-religious. This surprised me the most considering the discussions being tendered on subjects of abortion, love, sex before marriage and the death penalty. Secondly, most users rate themselves as not having a political identity or even affiliation, yet, once again, the verbiage being openly sprouted contradicts that statistic. Thirdly, being single is proffered as the title most go by – only six percent are married.
The other attention-grabbing statistic relates to the gender usage: 45% male and 40% female.
To my mind, what makes Facebook so derisive remains seated in the fact that there is no accountability or responsibility for actions or insurgent contradictions to social harmony. It is as if hiding behind one’s avatar (a graphic representation of one’s likeness) renders one omnipotent and immortal. Similarly for those who hide behind public personages: it’s as if they know that verification is difficult and downright improbable.
Myself I have found Facebook a good diversion for those periods in time when running-away seems most attractive and when there is nothing else on TV. I have also found it a valuable pool of information where it pertains to the gathering of human thoughts, human actions and human tendencies.
At the end of my explorations, I believe that I will continue to use the medium on offer. As long as I apply thoughtful restrictive measures, it is a fine medium. But like all things human; it is what it is.
Must admit that my travels through Facebook have been interesting and stimulating. Yet, it remains a cold and impersonal medium. One that panders friendship but delivers pretence, abject derision and emptiness.
When travelling amongst the numerous ‘discussion threads,’ one will run across racism, sex, presidential candidates, sex, conspiracies, sex, philosophies and more sex. Some threads carry emotional baggage from lonely hearts who want solace and possibly a shoulder to cry on. Other threads are filled with good intentions, but are continuously jacked (a Facebook term for hijacking/taking over) by users who see the whole issue as irrelevant, thus an object of ridicule.
Amongst some of the trivialities of Facebook is the ability to create an awesome individualist profile that can be linked to all friends and individuals. This profile can include items such as rate-me, how-sexy-am-I, how-alike-are-we and plagiarised famous quotes.
There is also one section that allows users to describe themselves. At face value, there is nothing wrong in the idea, but it’s the varied but similar descriptions that are interesting. The majority of users claim description like what-you-see-is-what-you-get, an-individual-that-loves-life, the real-cerebral-icon and say-it-like-it-is person.
Interestingly, in amongst the maelstrom of likeness and characters, some have taken to imitating others in the hope of creating consternation and so called fun e.g. South African Minister of Health.
The above notwithstanding, I find Facebook an enthralling study into the human psyche. In my wanderings through Facebook space, I have read how the Facebook population feels about the death-sentence, abortions, religion and the next presidential candidate. To my dismay, I have also learnt that size-does-matter, that one’s abilities on the dance floor relates to how one performs in bed and that any thread is open to being jacked, taken ‘off’ course and insulted.
The South African Network statistics page presents some facts that left me wondering as to the honesty of all who partake of Facebook: Firstly, most users class themselves as non-religious. This surprised me the most considering the discussions being tendered on subjects of abortion, love, sex before marriage and the death penalty. Secondly, most users rate themselves as not having a political identity or even affiliation, yet, once again, the verbiage being openly sprouted contradicts that statistic. Thirdly, being single is proffered as the title most go by – only six percent are married.
The other attention-grabbing statistic relates to the gender usage: 45% male and 40% female.
To my mind, what makes Facebook so derisive remains seated in the fact that there is no accountability or responsibility for actions or insurgent contradictions to social harmony. It is as if hiding behind one’s avatar (a graphic representation of one’s likeness) renders one omnipotent and immortal. Similarly for those who hide behind public personages: it’s as if they know that verification is difficult and downright improbable.
Myself I have found Facebook a good diversion for those periods in time when running-away seems most attractive and when there is nothing else on TV. I have also found it a valuable pool of information where it pertains to the gathering of human thoughts, human actions and human tendencies.
At the end of my explorations, I believe that I will continue to use the medium on offer. As long as I apply thoughtful restrictive measures, it is a fine medium. But like all things human; it is what it is.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Armageddon, Apocalypse or an Incontinent Truth?
Are we facing a melt-down of gigantic proportions? And I’m not talking about the usual gumph of global-warming, save-the-planet and other woe-paranoia (all the usual suspects that tend to occupy much time in media spewings and other human interactions.) What is at hand will have a greater impact on the everyday decisions of your average jack-and-jill, for it impacts on the corporeal.
A report by Ruthie Ackerman of the Sentinel Management Group states that “When money market funds, which are typically thought of as ‘safe,’ show strain, investors worry that the credit problems have begun to spread to the broader market.” Ruthie further attests: “As the Federal Reserve and foreign central banks funnel money into their respective markets to squelch liquidity issues, problems such as Sentinel’s continue to arise, unnerving investors who are left to wonder how deep the tentacles of the subprime fallout reach.”
It must be noted that the above report followed on the heels of the $64 billion bailout of the U.S stock market by the Federal Reserve.
Further to the above, Peter Dunay of Leeb Capital Management, goes on to say “As the European Central bank and other financial banks continue to add additional funds investors get concerned that they’ll have to do more and that the problem is bigger than currently though.”
Sarel Oberholster of CCPT, in his e-newsletter asserts: “I have warned over the weekend that economic conditions have become perilous. I have described the economic problems in “The Strategist” but in short, interest rates dropped too much and people borrowed too much easy money all over the world. The debts are now falling apart as people are unable to pay on a large scale. It is causing a sort of “run on the banks” similar to that which happened before the crash of 1929. In our modern world the “run” is on investment funds and hedge funds.”
Now if the above does not put the fear of god into one’s financial perspective, then nothing barring a ground zero nuclear explosion will.
It is understood that the powers that be cannot afford to have the masses running around in a state of panic, withdrawing vast amounts of hard currency, causing greater pandemonium and consternation. That is why huge amounts of money are spent by the powers that be on ‘happy’ propaganda which is designed to keep the populous happy, content and under control; all under the paternalist rite of ‘for your own good.’
Having said that, it is by no means asserted that keeping a positive outlook is bad. Life in all its guises needs to be lived, and lived it shall be. But a little wariness will go a long way to fortifying one’s resolve when the financial walls do come tumbling down.
What is worrying about the stated economic situation is that it affects the tangible, unlike the emotional inconvenient truths that might affect the globe in years to come. Going hungry and or loosing a home and or a mode of transport and and, is not only detrimental to one’s mental health, but also very debilitating i.e. loss of self-esteem and self-worth.
I know that for years, the financial markets have suffered major upheavals and many disconcerting storms, which have all been circumvented by nifty footwork on the part of the banks, governments and other financial institutions. The quandary being that mostly the problems have been overcome by throwing money at it. Now reason dictates that sooner or later the seemingly endless pot of money will run dry for there are only so many resources available on the globe. What then?
The situation is dire but, for the moment, manageable; hopefully.
In view of the above, the desire for ‘wanton’ buying, should be more circumspect, more penny wise, more prudent. Getting rid of debt (more like minimising it if one is up to ones eyebrows in debt) should take top priority when considering future financial options. Not that any of the aforementioned will help if the bottom falls out of the market.
Then again, living off the bank’s money might just be the way to go!?
A report by Ruthie Ackerman of the Sentinel Management Group states that “When money market funds, which are typically thought of as ‘safe,’ show strain, investors worry that the credit problems have begun to spread to the broader market.” Ruthie further attests: “As the Federal Reserve and foreign central banks funnel money into their respective markets to squelch liquidity issues, problems such as Sentinel’s continue to arise, unnerving investors who are left to wonder how deep the tentacles of the subprime fallout reach.”
It must be noted that the above report followed on the heels of the $64 billion bailout of the U.S stock market by the Federal Reserve.
Further to the above, Peter Dunay of Leeb Capital Management, goes on to say “As the European Central bank and other financial banks continue to add additional funds investors get concerned that they’ll have to do more and that the problem is bigger than currently though.”
Sarel Oberholster of CCPT, in his e-newsletter asserts: “I have warned over the weekend that economic conditions have become perilous. I have described the economic problems in “The Strategist” but in short, interest rates dropped too much and people borrowed too much easy money all over the world. The debts are now falling apart as people are unable to pay on a large scale. It is causing a sort of “run on the banks” similar to that which happened before the crash of 1929. In our modern world the “run” is on investment funds and hedge funds.”
Now if the above does not put the fear of god into one’s financial perspective, then nothing barring a ground zero nuclear explosion will.
It is understood that the powers that be cannot afford to have the masses running around in a state of panic, withdrawing vast amounts of hard currency, causing greater pandemonium and consternation. That is why huge amounts of money are spent by the powers that be on ‘happy’ propaganda which is designed to keep the populous happy, content and under control; all under the paternalist rite of ‘for your own good.’
Having said that, it is by no means asserted that keeping a positive outlook is bad. Life in all its guises needs to be lived, and lived it shall be. But a little wariness will go a long way to fortifying one’s resolve when the financial walls do come tumbling down.
What is worrying about the stated economic situation is that it affects the tangible, unlike the emotional inconvenient truths that might affect the globe in years to come. Going hungry and or loosing a home and or a mode of transport and and, is not only detrimental to one’s mental health, but also very debilitating i.e. loss of self-esteem and self-worth.
I know that for years, the financial markets have suffered major upheavals and many disconcerting storms, which have all been circumvented by nifty footwork on the part of the banks, governments and other financial institutions. The quandary being that mostly the problems have been overcome by throwing money at it. Now reason dictates that sooner or later the seemingly endless pot of money will run dry for there are only so many resources available on the globe. What then?
The situation is dire but, for the moment, manageable; hopefully.
In view of the above, the desire for ‘wanton’ buying, should be more circumspect, more penny wise, more prudent. Getting rid of debt (more like minimising it if one is up to ones eyebrows in debt) should take top priority when considering future financial options. Not that any of the aforementioned will help if the bottom falls out of the market.
Then again, living off the bank’s money might just be the way to go!?
Friday, August 3, 2007
Blogging. Freedom of Expression or Just another Fashion Statement?
In between Women’s Rights, Bra Straps, How to tell that a Lady has feelings for you, to Wear or not to Wear Pants, Zimbabwe and other angst ridden articles occupying much space on the internet, there is very little of value for one to sink one’s teeth into. I understand that blogging and or Citizen Reporting is all about giving voice to the masses, making them feel involved, wanted and empowered.
There is an advert on the goggle box that advertises an easy-too-use goo, that supposedly simplifies one’s cooking, while the well-coiffured housewife prattles on how blogging has brought meaning to her veiled-downtrodden life.
The subject of blogging was thrown into disarray a while back by a certain article written by a well known media personality, which led to many how-dare-you blogs and the birth of a Blog site in reverence to said well known Media personality.
Many a sci-fi writer has elucidated the future as a place filled with most citizens running around trying to film or record life-as-it-happens, all putting their slant on happening, in the hope that the media moguls will buy the information from them.
What is worrying about this behaviourship is the tendency by the majority to judge life through the pretext of civilisation; a concept that was only introduced by a French philosopher during the 18th century. This pretext uses the assumption that having the capabilities of reason, animalistic instincts should be trashed for the sake of presupposed higher ethics and morals. The Human Rights Charter is predominantly based on the philosophy of civilised living.
Now while civilised living might be a praiseworthy aspiration (a derivative of having an emotional brain,) it is in no way a true representation of what human beings are all about. Self interest is the way of human and as such, having the freedom to express at will, other forms of wanton and self-aggrandizement will rise to the top.
“Its as if the human animal does not know what to do with it’s perception of freedom that it relegates itself to commonplace arguments for the sake of affirmation, reason and entitlements.” – Bite Size Expressions
Which brings me back to blogging. A veritable art form that uses the human capacity for self-interest to propagate itself. For now, it seems to be working, yet, I cannot but wonder if its not all a case of … the more things change, the more they stay the same!?
Ends
There is an advert on the goggle box that advertises an easy-too-use goo, that supposedly simplifies one’s cooking, while the well-coiffured housewife prattles on how blogging has brought meaning to her veiled-downtrodden life.
The subject of blogging was thrown into disarray a while back by a certain article written by a well known media personality, which led to many how-dare-you blogs and the birth of a Blog site in reverence to said well known Media personality.
Many a sci-fi writer has elucidated the future as a place filled with most citizens running around trying to film or record life-as-it-happens, all putting their slant on happening, in the hope that the media moguls will buy the information from them.
What is worrying about this behaviourship is the tendency by the majority to judge life through the pretext of civilisation; a concept that was only introduced by a French philosopher during the 18th century. This pretext uses the assumption that having the capabilities of reason, animalistic instincts should be trashed for the sake of presupposed higher ethics and morals. The Human Rights Charter is predominantly based on the philosophy of civilised living.
Now while civilised living might be a praiseworthy aspiration (a derivative of having an emotional brain,) it is in no way a true representation of what human beings are all about. Self interest is the way of human and as such, having the freedom to express at will, other forms of wanton and self-aggrandizement will rise to the top.
“Its as if the human animal does not know what to do with it’s perception of freedom that it relegates itself to commonplace arguments for the sake of affirmation, reason and entitlements.” – Bite Size Expressions
Which brings me back to blogging. A veritable art form that uses the human capacity for self-interest to propagate itself. For now, it seems to be working, yet, I cannot but wonder if its not all a case of … the more things change, the more they stay the same!?
Ends
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
