Revenue-generation or revenge?
I was most interested by an early morning news item regarding the proposed transaction tax. Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the EU Commission, urged a 'yes' in the vote today in the German parliament regarding the bailout of Greece. Where Merkel sees the opportunity for German to accentuate its control and supremacy within Europe (a growing trend perhaps, I understand that conquest by finance is the preferred means of conquest these days?) others merely see more of Germany's being thrown down the drain trying to support 'waster nations' like Greece.
Barroso accentuated the need for the transaction tax (and Eurobonds) as a means of generating something in excess of fifty billion Euros, money that could be used to bail out faltering economies. Of course, those EU members who do not subscribe to the Euro are less inclined to see themselves paying out money when when they know there's nothing in it for them (prudent thinking or a lack of generosity? Then again we'd only probably be expecting generosity in Christian circles.).
One financial expert calculated that the money raised by a transaction tax would be nearer ten billion Euros and estimated the cost of collecting the money to be around twelve! When this was pointed out, the response was that it was more about 'making a statement' and 'making the bankers pay' than just bringing in money! The revenge issue is something the mindless moronic readership of some of the British rags will applaud when they read it this morning, after all it's revenge and that has to be good, doesn't it?
So we have Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal all swaying in the breeze and whilst we read about powerplays and posturing across the board there are people in Greece who have to choose whether they eat or buy essential medicines. There are blind and otherwise disadvantaged people who have lost benefits and now struggle to exist and we are looking more like the third world in the West.
We have truly lost our way and have let our possessions, the culture of self and the desire for revenge rule us and in return have seen any sense of equity, justice and mercy depart.
Pax
Thursday, 29 September 2011
Wednesday, 28 September 2011
Amnesia - a political necessity
Listening to the other Milliband yesterday I found myself wondering just how fast John Smith, Kier Hardie and William Beveridge were spinning in their graves. I also had a fleeting question over whether Ed was merely acting as warm-up man for David, an apparently better choice for leader than him (wonder if the unions are thinking that too. Always a problem when the block vote brings in the man you later realise you didn't want.)
I was amazed to discover that Labour are the panacea to all our financial ills, especially as it was the same Labour government that Mr Milliband was part of, whose financial mismanagement brought us to the place where many BaE employees lost their jobs as he was preparing to speak.
I was stunned to hear that we were going to reward the 'right people'. I really enjoyed the bit about, "An economy and a society too often rewarding not the right people with the right values, but the wrong people with the wrong values." and wondered where all those, excessively expensive PFI projects and the many Quangos and the like that came into being under Labour fitted in this assessment.
Mind you, those who wish to emulate Peter Rachman (for those of you who aren't familiar with the name, he was the king of the slum landlord with menaces business in the fifties and early sixties) will be taking heart as the threat of social housing only being given to 'approved' people. Always good when we can marginalise and people group, helps when we want to dehumanise them and later take them off to places from whence they never return (Holocaust Memorial Day 27th January).
I did agree that we are in the midst of a crisis that results from the promises made over the past thirty years and see the problems as a combination of greed, self coupled with the decline of the religious moral codes that previously shaped our nation.
Still, if we ignore everything about Labour's last go at governing and if Billy and Johnny (AKA David and Nick) can do enough wrong things, Labour might just get in next time around.
Now that's as frightening a thought as either of the present incumbents in government winning, isn't it?
Happy Wednesday.
I was amazed to discover that Labour are the panacea to all our financial ills, especially as it was the same Labour government that Mr Milliband was part of, whose financial mismanagement brought us to the place where many BaE employees lost their jobs as he was preparing to speak.
I was stunned to hear that we were going to reward the 'right people'. I really enjoyed the bit about, "An economy and a society too often rewarding not the right people with the right values, but the wrong people with the wrong values." and wondered where all those, excessively expensive PFI projects and the many Quangos and the like that came into being under Labour fitted in this assessment.
Mind you, those who wish to emulate Peter Rachman (for those of you who aren't familiar with the name, he was the king of the slum landlord with menaces business in the fifties and early sixties) will be taking heart as the threat of social housing only being given to 'approved' people. Always good when we can marginalise and people group, helps when we want to dehumanise them and later take them off to places from whence they never return (Holocaust Memorial Day 27th January).
I did agree that we are in the midst of a crisis that results from the promises made over the past thirty years and see the problems as a combination of greed, self coupled with the decline of the religious moral codes that previously shaped our nation.
Still, if we ignore everything about Labour's last go at governing and if Billy and Johnny (AKA David and Nick) can do enough wrong things, Labour might just get in next time around.
Now that's as frightening a thought as either of the present incumbents in government winning, isn't it?
Happy Wednesday.
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
Off the boots of babes and sucklings
One of the most rewarding (and exhausting) things that I get to do as a dogcollar is that of being involved in our Kid's Club. Pretty much every Monday and Friday finds us engaged in a variety of activities ranging from console games through to craft, cooking, snooker (extremely popular!) and football. It is in the football that we get to see society's values most clearly demonstrated. Here are three of the most common:
1. The culture of self.
Give a kid a football and he will set off for goal. There's no passing or awareness of anyone else on their side, it's them and the goal and no one else matters. They can have people in open spaces (kid's football is great you can fit everyone (apart from the keepers) into a five foot square) but they continue through the melee to consistently lose the ball! It is all about them.
2. The end justifies the means.
Watching the kids play, I am amazed at the blatant fouling, the use of the hand to control the ball and just about anything else that contravenes the laws of the game. When asked about the infringement, their responses can be summed up by this, "Anything goes as long as it brings about the desired result." Yes indeedy - the end justifies the means, one of the key mantras of our society today.
3. Always get even!
The tackles (often off the ball) almost always result in the acted against player seeking to 'settle accounts' and this usually means that there will be at least one full-on punch-up during the game. There's nothing about turning the other cheek in today's society, we live on a rich diet of revenge, retribution and a skewed form of rough 'natural justice'. What we see in the adults, we see sown at an early age in their children and the shoots of the same escalations that so beset our adult society are on display in the very youngest among us.
Want to see where our society is having problems? Take a look at kids playing football.
Hey Ho!
1. The culture of self.
Give a kid a football and he will set off for goal. There's no passing or awareness of anyone else on their side, it's them and the goal and no one else matters. They can have people in open spaces (kid's football is great you can fit everyone (apart from the keepers) into a five foot square) but they continue through the melee to consistently lose the ball! It is all about them.
2. The end justifies the means.
Watching the kids play, I am amazed at the blatant fouling, the use of the hand to control the ball and just about anything else that contravenes the laws of the game. When asked about the infringement, their responses can be summed up by this, "Anything goes as long as it brings about the desired result." Yes indeedy - the end justifies the means, one of the key mantras of our society today.
3. Always get even!
The tackles (often off the ball) almost always result in the acted against player seeking to 'settle accounts' and this usually means that there will be at least one full-on punch-up during the game. There's nothing about turning the other cheek in today's society, we live on a rich diet of revenge, retribution and a skewed form of rough 'natural justice'. What we see in the adults, we see sown at an early age in their children and the shoots of the same escalations that so beset our adult society are on display in the very youngest among us.
Want to see where our society is having problems? Take a look at kids playing football.
Hey Ho!
Sunday, 25 September 2011
Milliband says, "Go for broke."
Labour leader, Ed Milliband (or is it David?) urges the government to 'Go for broke'.
Amazing advice, after all, isn't that what Lanour did when they were in power and isn't this what contributed to draw us into the current austerity measures?
But at least Labour are consistent. What we need (apparently) is some advice from their finance chap, Yes indeedy - next on the agenda? It's Balls ;-)
Happy Sunday (unless you're Scottish and like Rugger).
Pax
Amazing advice, after all, isn't that what Lanour did when they were in power and isn't this what contributed to draw us into the current austerity measures?
But at least Labour are consistent. What we need (apparently) is some advice from their finance chap, Yes indeedy - next on the agenda? It's Balls ;-)
Happy Sunday (unless you're Scottish and like Rugger).
Pax
Friday, 23 September 2011
The Beauty of nature
One of the things that amazes me is the number of people who talk to me about nature and how they love sunrises and sunsets. I'm often moved to remark that the only people who truly see such wonders of nature are farmers and soldiers. One of the best times to see a sunset or sunrise is when stuck somewhere on sentry duty. Not only do you see those wonders of God's handiwork but you see various animals and other bits of beauty in ways that others just don't.
As a 'for instance' here's a rainbow as presented to the privileged few on Salisbury Plain last week) I'll let you have a dawn when I can get the camera downloaded!):
Pax
As a 'for instance' here's a rainbow as presented to the privileged few on Salisbury Plain last week) I'll let you have a dawn when I can get the camera downloaded!):
Pax
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Self - I, me, another?
Here are some scribblings from the shallows of the Vicar brain regarding my dealings with someone struggling with who they are. Our conversations are bringing me into a place where I am challenged to think about those two age old questions, "Who am I and why am I here?" Do I define myself by my otherness or by my sameness ("I'm a . . . " or "I'm not a . . ")? Do I reduce it to the Cartesian statement, "I think therefore I am," and be happy at that?
Who I am appears to be made firm through the reflection of self in something or someone else. I cannot be me in isolation and yet all too often the 'me' I am is defined by others and it is here we find the big problem. In the situation before my friend there is the overarching question, "Who am I?" screaming from the rooftops.
I may be who I am, but that I is shaped by my familial situation, my schooling, the cultures that have embraced, and been embraced by, me. The expectation of following in the family traditions in terms of schooling, career, lifestyles are as marked and potent regardless of where you find yourself. Many will think of public school, a career in the Army, Medicine, Church or City and the like and a 'good' marriage bringing the continuance of the pattern in the genrations to come. But, the patterns are as strong and well defined in every stratum of our society. State school, minimal qualifications, blue-collar job, social housing and all the trappings are as much a tradition and shape many people into thinking they know who they are.
What shapes us and helps define who we are is a knowledge of what we really believe, what moves us, the places where we are passionate and the places where we can find peace and an internal stillness. Belief is a big part, not just in a creator or someone to ask for things or seek forgiveness from but in self and others too.
As I have discussed I have come to the opinion that being oneself is very much an issue of sameness rather than individuality. That said, as we compile a photofit made up of those who have moved us or been admired by us because we wish to find the same in us. So it is that 'I', as an individual, become a person made up of the attributes and characteristics of others. Our otherness is the result of our sameness and herein lies the rub!
If we base 'I' on just one person or people group there is the problem that we might become a parody or imitator of our focus and this results in the faux characters and their pastiche, almost parody, lives that we encounter. This, taken to it's extremes ends up with those people who live like their heroes, dressing, speaking and acting like them such that they become absurd.
If we base 'I' on many people we find ourselves faced with the danger of appearing to be a grasshopper, self-contradictory and rather haphazard person. If the things that we take upon ourselves or seek to emulate are coherent then we too will be coherent.
Now one of the problems is that as people are developing the 'I' that they are going to be there are people feeding in information, images, attitudes and views that lead the embryonic 'I' becoming malformed and confused. This can be clearly demonstrated in areas of morality, gender, politics, societal and social values and in the area of belief.
Not being the same as others does not always confer individuality any more than sameness does because we are one of many (and yet still different!) for we are dealing with more than a mere numerical consideration (although many still try to place such value on numbers on the basis that they confer a rightness. "Look how many people do . . . "). The problem comes from the fact that we have led our young people into a world of complementary states (black, white and grey?). Being 'us', taking upon ourselves an understand of who we are is the realisation that even when within a clearly defined group we are individuals. Who we are is us and no one else. We may be the same as others and yet will still be different and thus, I find, we may be different from others and yet find within that state, that we are also the same!
Sameness and difference are held in tension and who we are is, for all of us, a continuously evolving state. What we do and how we do it is underpinned by our ability, and obligation, to do it and this is where opportunity and the demands of society and a God come in. the person with whom I am engaged find themselves able to engage in something and yet prohibited from doing it because of their beliefs. Society is screaming 'Whatever floats your boat, get on and do it!" whilst God is apparently looking over His glasses and, Dumbledore like, calling upon them to, "do what is right rather than what is easy!" This bring us into the area of prescription and description (see, did listen to the lectures and even read the books!).
As a Christian we create an 'I' which is made in the image of God (F,S & HS) and of heroes of the faith and in our lives we might describe what we have before us, but prescription designs what we take up and act upon and we do this by living 'rightly' (we'll call this, 'ethically') with an eye on the 'rightness and desires' of our society (which we'll call 'morality'). The problem is that increasingly we find our society's morality becoming looser and more vague. Pleasure, self and 'rights' come to the fore and service, sacrifice, 'being right' fall into the background and neglect. The call of the faith group, of a God who seeks justice, mercy, humility, respect for others and self contrasts and collides greatly with this and the issue of self and individuality versus sameness is a battlefield.
Responsibility is diminished, for it is NEVER 'my' fault, it is how I am made, how my parents brought me up, what I learned at school and so on. But this is of course wrong. For instance a starving man may steal to feed himself (makes a good musical too!) but the fact is that he chose to steal. The argument that he was hungry does not change the fact that at some stage the man decided to engage in the act of stealing. That he was hungry does not cause the stealing to become something else, does it?
Every day we find ourselves faced with choices, even when we don't choose to recognise them as such. The alarm goes off and we make the choice - roll over or get up? Later at the train station we look at the crowded train and decide to push our way on but we could decide to wait for an emptier train or merely pop over the café and throw a sicky! (now some will say that we have no choice because we have to go to work, but although that pressure is upon us, we still have a coice before us). Throughout the day we are faced with choices (we sometimes call this prioritising) and then it all begins again within other frames of reference - lunch, after work, home, evenings, weekends, etc.
Where we find our conversation coming to rest is that, in the task of constructing self, whilst we garner material from our life thus far, we also add material from many other places and the requirement to live as we believe we are called to live in secular or religious ways (or more accurately for many - both) and the sameness that we possess is actually a very different 'same' from the next person.
Everything we do is the result of choice and to plead that we have no choice is merely to embark along, and embrace, another choice.
We need to love the 'I' that we live with and where we can't we need to address that. We need to live with respect, justice, mercy and humility and this means living with, for and because of God. We need to accept that we are never prisoners of other forces or our own desires, ambitions and the like. If they influence us, challenge our thinking and call us to act in ways that stand opposed to the call of God or act against the good of our society, then we need to realise that we have another choice to make - and this, busy crossroads, is where the guilt, the striving for self and the demands of God meet.
What's your choice today?
Pax
ps. Sorry this is so long, found this to be a helpful scratchpad for me, let's hope it doesn't damage too many heads out there!
Who I am appears to be made firm through the reflection of self in something or someone else. I cannot be me in isolation and yet all too often the 'me' I am is defined by others and it is here we find the big problem. In the situation before my friend there is the overarching question, "Who am I?" screaming from the rooftops.
I may be who I am, but that I is shaped by my familial situation, my schooling, the cultures that have embraced, and been embraced by, me. The expectation of following in the family traditions in terms of schooling, career, lifestyles are as marked and potent regardless of where you find yourself. Many will think of public school, a career in the Army, Medicine, Church or City and the like and a 'good' marriage bringing the continuance of the pattern in the genrations to come. But, the patterns are as strong and well defined in every stratum of our society. State school, minimal qualifications, blue-collar job, social housing and all the trappings are as much a tradition and shape many people into thinking they know who they are.
What shapes us and helps define who we are is a knowledge of what we really believe, what moves us, the places where we are passionate and the places where we can find peace and an internal stillness. Belief is a big part, not just in a creator or someone to ask for things or seek forgiveness from but in self and others too.
As I have discussed I have come to the opinion that being oneself is very much an issue of sameness rather than individuality. That said, as we compile a photofit made up of those who have moved us or been admired by us because we wish to find the same in us. So it is that 'I', as an individual, become a person made up of the attributes and characteristics of others. Our otherness is the result of our sameness and herein lies the rub!
If we base 'I' on just one person or people group there is the problem that we might become a parody or imitator of our focus and this results in the faux characters and their pastiche, almost parody, lives that we encounter. This, taken to it's extremes ends up with those people who live like their heroes, dressing, speaking and acting like them such that they become absurd.
If we base 'I' on many people we find ourselves faced with the danger of appearing to be a grasshopper, self-contradictory and rather haphazard person. If the things that we take upon ourselves or seek to emulate are coherent then we too will be coherent.
Now one of the problems is that as people are developing the 'I' that they are going to be there are people feeding in information, images, attitudes and views that lead the embryonic 'I' becoming malformed and confused. This can be clearly demonstrated in areas of morality, gender, politics, societal and social values and in the area of belief.
Not being the same as others does not always confer individuality any more than sameness does because we are one of many (and yet still different!) for we are dealing with more than a mere numerical consideration (although many still try to place such value on numbers on the basis that they confer a rightness. "Look how many people do . . . "). The problem comes from the fact that we have led our young people into a world of complementary states (black, white and grey?). Being 'us', taking upon ourselves an understand of who we are is the realisation that even when within a clearly defined group we are individuals. Who we are is us and no one else. We may be the same as others and yet will still be different and thus, I find, we may be different from others and yet find within that state, that we are also the same!
Sameness and difference are held in tension and who we are is, for all of us, a continuously evolving state. What we do and how we do it is underpinned by our ability, and obligation, to do it and this is where opportunity and the demands of society and a God come in. the person with whom I am engaged find themselves able to engage in something and yet prohibited from doing it because of their beliefs. Society is screaming 'Whatever floats your boat, get on and do it!" whilst God is apparently looking over His glasses and, Dumbledore like, calling upon them to, "do what is right rather than what is easy!" This bring us into the area of prescription and description (see, did listen to the lectures and even read the books!).
As a Christian we create an 'I' which is made in the image of God (F,S & HS) and of heroes of the faith and in our lives we might describe what we have before us, but prescription designs what we take up and act upon and we do this by living 'rightly' (we'll call this, 'ethically') with an eye on the 'rightness and desires' of our society (which we'll call 'morality'). The problem is that increasingly we find our society's morality becoming looser and more vague. Pleasure, self and 'rights' come to the fore and service, sacrifice, 'being right' fall into the background and neglect. The call of the faith group, of a God who seeks justice, mercy, humility, respect for others and self contrasts and collides greatly with this and the issue of self and individuality versus sameness is a battlefield.
Responsibility is diminished, for it is NEVER 'my' fault, it is how I am made, how my parents brought me up, what I learned at school and so on. But this is of course wrong. For instance a starving man may steal to feed himself (makes a good musical too!) but the fact is that he chose to steal. The argument that he was hungry does not change the fact that at some stage the man decided to engage in the act of stealing. That he was hungry does not cause the stealing to become something else, does it?
Every day we find ourselves faced with choices, even when we don't choose to recognise them as such. The alarm goes off and we make the choice - roll over or get up? Later at the train station we look at the crowded train and decide to push our way on but we could decide to wait for an emptier train or merely pop over the café and throw a sicky! (now some will say that we have no choice because we have to go to work, but although that pressure is upon us, we still have a coice before us). Throughout the day we are faced with choices (we sometimes call this prioritising) and then it all begins again within other frames of reference - lunch, after work, home, evenings, weekends, etc.
Where we find our conversation coming to rest is that, in the task of constructing self, whilst we garner material from our life thus far, we also add material from many other places and the requirement to live as we believe we are called to live in secular or religious ways (or more accurately for many - both) and the sameness that we possess is actually a very different 'same' from the next person.
Everything we do is the result of choice and to plead that we have no choice is merely to embark along, and embrace, another choice.
We need to love the 'I' that we live with and where we can't we need to address that. We need to live with respect, justice, mercy and humility and this means living with, for and because of God. We need to accept that we are never prisoners of other forces or our own desires, ambitions and the like. If they influence us, challenge our thinking and call us to act in ways that stand opposed to the call of God or act against the good of our society, then we need to realise that we have another choice to make - and this, busy crossroads, is where the guilt, the striving for self and the demands of God meet.
What's your choice today?
Pax
ps. Sorry this is so long, found this to be a helpful scratchpad for me, let's hope it doesn't damage too many heads out there!
Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Sporting Integrity
Living in a world where we see foul language, diving and many other forms of cheating form a big part of our national sport, football (which Americans weirdly call 'soccer' leaving 'football to be used with an flawed form of rugger) it is so refreshing to see an example of sporting behaviour on any playing field.
The example here is that of softball and the scenario is that of a player in their last year hitting their first, and destined to be last, home run. Take a look:
The team that acted so nobly went on to lose the game 4-2 and the home run hitter bowed out with a home run and as part of a very special event. The act cost them the game but their selfless commitment won them much more.
Let's hope we make the difference to whatever and wherever we are today.
Pax
The example here is that of softball and the scenario is that of a player in their last year hitting their first, and destined to be last, home run. Take a look:
The team that acted so nobly went on to lose the game 4-2 and the home run hitter bowed out with a home run and as part of a very special event. The act cost them the game but their selfless commitment won them much more.
Let's hope we make the difference to whatever and wherever we are today.
Pax
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)