RSS Feed (xml)
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
In some respects the topic-statement is true. Modern transport, especially by air, allows people to circle the globe in a few days, or hours, if an aircraft such as Concorde is used. Thus we have learnt to look upon distance as nothing. I can get to Paris from south-east England quicker than I can get to central London. So, the world has become a village? If so, the comparison ends there. In no respect does the world resemble a village community. Those who support the one-world movement no doubt share a great ideal but are, in fact, flying in the face of history, of present facts, and of any likelihood in the near future. Modern travel merely underlines the differences between races and nations. Rather than broaden the mind, travel confirms national prejudices. It may well lead to a greater international understanding, but to understand does not mean to agree, or to forgive. Modern travel may allow great athletes to meet every four years in friendship to discover the medal winners, but it would be naive to suppose that the Olympic Spirit had anything to do with the reality of international affairs or could possibly have any effect on them.
Of course modern transport cannot be blamed for the state of today's world. Like atomic energy, it is neutral, and the blessing or the curse results from the way in which it is used.
First, the benefits. Before the invention of the electric telegraph, news of a natural disaster in, say, an eastern country could only reach the west by steamship, so that by the time help reached a stricken area, it was too late to be of much use. Today, information by satellite, both in reports and pictures, is instantaneous. Response time is correspondingly quick. Modern transport planes can carry food, water and medical supplies to where they are needed in a matter of hours.
So the modern jet aircraft can help enormously in relief work. It has also proved of great benefit both to the business world and to tourism. Within certain weight-limits, it can be used for overseas trade worldwide, and the vast extension of available markets is largely due to the modern aircraft. And where business has to be done in person there are no real delays.
The aircraft has extended foreign travel, once the prerogative of the rich, to those of average income levels in most countries, and tourism has become a major world industry. The aircraft and the helicopter both have important search and rescue roles. Ships in distress can be readily located and given help. The helicopter has several roles, apart from its use by the police for searches and traffic control. Many lives have been saved in mountainous areas and at sea by speedy removal to hospital, by immediate attention by paramedics; a jet plane can carry a suitable human organ half across the world when a transplant is urgently needed.
Modernized and high-speed rail systems are likely to prove of benefit to many countries from the travel and trade points of view. To take Europe as an example. Tariff barriers in the EEC have now come down, and Europe, including Britain, has become a free-market area. In 1994, England will be linked to Europe by a channel tunnel, and Paris or Brussels will be reached as quickly as by air. Already, goods to and from Europe, and indeed worldwide, are transported in standardized containers, which are picked up and moved rapidly in heavy lorries to their destinations along new networks of motorways. The motorways also greatly ease long-distance car travel. At sea, modern oil tankers carry their vast burdens worldwide.
Yet as with any other advance, all is not sweetness and light. In the case of the jet aircraft, one needs only to mention the spy-plane, the bomber, the fighter, the assault helicopter, all of them potent war weapons, and a curse to millions of helpless people worldwide. The potential for nuclear, nerve gas, chemical and HE bombing is a curse which hangs over all our heads. The need for ever larger airfields means the destruction of tracts of countryside. Noise and oil-pollution make life a burden to those living nearby. In some countries, over-concentration on high-speed and inter-city trains has led to the severe neglect of existing networks and ordinary passenger rolling stock. In smaller countries such as England, there are now far too many cars and traffic jams in the large urban areas, providing an almost unsolveable problem. Ease of travel allows football hooligans and other undesirables to cause trouble overseas. Every improvement in transport facilities helps the criminal as well as the bona-fide traveler, particularly where immigration controls are relaxed. Immigration itself becomes an increasing problem. And at sea? All is well with the oil-tanker until it runs aground in a storm and deposits thousands of tons of oil along the shore-line.
So there is a case to be made of the more leisurely times, to some, the good old days . Modern transport has reduced the world if not to a village, at least relatively to village size. Whether the village will ever become a happy community is another matter.
Sunday, 14 June 2009
E59:Science can never provide a final answer or things, it is only a way of studying them. Do you agree?
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
It is somewhat rash to assume that the only role of science is to answer the question 'How?'. That was true in the days of Newton, when an educated person could have a grasp in outline of all human knowledge. Science then filled some of the gaps left by the deliberations of the philosopher and the theologian. Since then, it has far outstripped the contributions of both. Philosophy has degenerated into historical study, and has no modern contribution to make. Theology has made no advance since the Middle Ages. The mantle of seeking answers to man's most fundamental questions has fallen on science. Whether these questions will ever be answered is an entirely different matter, but there is no other way ahead. So the topic-statement is fundamentally wrong.
By science, of course, is meant physics, which is fundamental to all studies - chemistry, biology, astronomy, indeed all macro and micro investigation. Physics has identified the laws which keep the universe in a state of equilibrium, and today seeks a unified theory to account for the space-time continuum necessary to the existence of that equilibrium, and the various other dimensions beyond the four known which are postulated. So science moves towards the first philosophical question, Is there a unified theory, or are events ultimately random? The answer to this question, if ever found, leads to the far more fundamental question, To what extent, if any, is God (the Creator) limited by his own creation? The determinism of Laplace is now seen to be totally beside the point, and belongs to a mechanistic view of the universe which can no longer be sustained. today, science is moving rapidly towards a chaos theory which takes into account God's freedom of action plus the predictable results of laws already known to us, and also unpredictable events.
It is interesting that whereas the old scientific determinism either limited to the Creator's function or precluded the necessity of a Creator, or saw the Creator as totally detached from his creation, science today is begin forced into a belief in God. It also moves towards an acceptance that the scientifically unknown area, the God - mankind personal relationship, is not only feasible, but likely. So science has become much more than a way of studying things. Whether science can get beyond this point is a matter of conjecture. At a shrewd guess, science may well establish the possibility of eternal life , without being able to advance any more proof than could the old-time theologian. World religions have always said that such a belief depends on revelation and personal faith, and it may well be the Creator's intention to keep it that way. Faith, at least, would be greatly devalued if it could ever become the subject of scientific proof, whatever that may be.
Another answer, again stemming from the chaos theory, is to the co-existence of good and evil. If there is a Creator, it follows that evil, at least as understood by humanity, must have been allowed to enter the world-scene at some point, but deliberately. Redemption from its consequences is another result, and history is the record of the struggle between the two forces. This, says science, although leading to apparently random results, such as the little child stepping under the bus, or a death from cancer, is not random at all. All the same, it may stem from 'chaos', if this is seen in conjunction with a belief in the indestructibility of the human personality. So, say the faithful, 'God not only creates, He cares', and science today is not disposed to reject this possibility, the two approaches may converge on the same point. The processes of the universe are incredibly diverse and complicated, so why should the possibility of life after death be ruled out?
Such a belief is an essential corollary to any concept of justice in the Creator's character. This is not justice merely in the sense of retribution. The early Jews believed the Creator got so fed up with humanity that He destroyed them in the Flood, but made a fresh start with Noah's family and the paired livestock! Divine Justice is part of the concept of Divine Love, which postulated creation, with mankind as it's highest sentient form, as an expression of that love.
So the great world religions have this at least in common with modern science; there is a benevolent Creator who offers post-earthly life in some other dimension in exchange for the human response of kindness and observance of a revealed moral law. Justice, therefore, moves into an eternal setting.
A religious scientist will find no essential disharmony between his or her faith and the scientific outlook. The great questions of life have satisfying, if unprovable answers. Some of the inadequacies of religion, such as early church doctrines of the cosmos, and strictly Bible-based theories of the origin of species, have been corrected by scientific investigation without detriment to the central core of belief.
Where science, or more precisely the scientist, inevitably falls short is in the application of an essentially simple moral code to the complex issues raised by scientific advance. Genetic manipulation is a case in point. The whole question of in-vitro fertilization is highly controversial.
All that is on the local scale. On the grand scale the Creator may, or may not allow the discovery of a unified theory of the universe which will provide answers to supplement, rather than displace the answers already provided by the higher religions.
It is somewhat rash to assume that the only role of science is to answer the question 'How?'. That was true in the days of Newton, when an educated person could have a grasp in outline of all human knowledge. Science then filled some of the gaps left by the deliberations of the philosopher and the theologian. Since then, it has far outstripped the contributions of both. Philosophy has degenerated into historical study, and has no modern contribution to make. Theology has made no advance since the Middle Ages. The mantle of seeking answers to man's most fundamental questions has fallen on science. Whether these questions will ever be answered is an entirely different matter, but there is no other way ahead. So the topic-statement is fundamentally wrong.
By science, of course, is meant physics, which is fundamental to all studies - chemistry, biology, astronomy, indeed all macro and micro investigation. Physics has identified the laws which keep the universe in a state of equilibrium, and today seeks a unified theory to account for the space-time continuum necessary to the existence of that equilibrium, and the various other dimensions beyond the four known which are postulated. So science moves towards the first philosophical question, Is there a unified theory, or are events ultimately random? The answer to this question, if ever found, leads to the far more fundamental question, To what extent, if any, is God (the Creator) limited by his own creation? The determinism of Laplace is now seen to be totally beside the point, and belongs to a mechanistic view of the universe which can no longer be sustained. today, science is moving rapidly towards a chaos theory which takes into account God's freedom of action plus the predictable results of laws already known to us, and also unpredictable events.
It is interesting that whereas the old scientific determinism either limited to the Creator's function or precluded the necessity of a Creator, or saw the Creator as totally detached from his creation, science today is begin forced into a belief in God. It also moves towards an acceptance that the scientifically unknown area, the God - mankind personal relationship, is not only feasible, but likely. So science has become much more than a way of studying things. Whether science can get beyond this point is a matter of conjecture. At a shrewd guess, science may well establish the possibility of eternal life , without being able to advance any more proof than could the old-time theologian. World religions have always said that such a belief depends on revelation and personal faith, and it may well be the Creator's intention to keep it that way. Faith, at least, would be greatly devalued if it could ever become the subject of scientific proof, whatever that may be.
Another answer, again stemming from the chaos theory, is to the co-existence of good and evil. If there is a Creator, it follows that evil, at least as understood by humanity, must have been allowed to enter the world-scene at some point, but deliberately. Redemption from its consequences is another result, and history is the record of the struggle between the two forces. This, says science, although leading to apparently random results, such as the little child stepping under the bus, or a death from cancer, is not random at all. All the same, it may stem from 'chaos', if this is seen in conjunction with a belief in the indestructibility of the human personality. So, say the faithful, 'God not only creates, He cares', and science today is not disposed to reject this possibility, the two approaches may converge on the same point. The processes of the universe are incredibly diverse and complicated, so why should the possibility of life after death be ruled out?
Such a belief is an essential corollary to any concept of justice in the Creator's character. This is not justice merely in the sense of retribution. The early Jews believed the Creator got so fed up with humanity that He destroyed them in the Flood, but made a fresh start with Noah's family and the paired livestock! Divine Justice is part of the concept of Divine Love, which postulated creation, with mankind as it's highest sentient form, as an expression of that love.
So the great world religions have this at least in common with modern science; there is a benevolent Creator who offers post-earthly life in some other dimension in exchange for the human response of kindness and observance of a revealed moral law. Justice, therefore, moves into an eternal setting.
A religious scientist will find no essential disharmony between his or her faith and the scientific outlook. The great questions of life have satisfying, if unprovable answers. Some of the inadequacies of religion, such as early church doctrines of the cosmos, and strictly Bible-based theories of the origin of species, have been corrected by scientific investigation without detriment to the central core of belief.
Where science, or more precisely the scientist, inevitably falls short is in the application of an essentially simple moral code to the complex issues raised by scientific advance. Genetic manipulation is a case in point. The whole question of in-vitro fertilization is highly controversial.
All that is on the local scale. On the grand scale the Creator may, or may not allow the discovery of a unified theory of the universe which will provide answers to supplement, rather than displace the answers already provided by the higher religions.
E58:Can telling lies ever be justified?
The old admonition to children, 'speak the truth and shame the devil', runs contrary to what is called the schoolboy's eleventh commandment; 'tell a lie, and stick to it'. The one adage advocates honesty at whatever personal cost. When charged with some illicit tree-felling, the young George Washington is said to have said 'I cannot tell a lie'. Those who advocate moral rectitude always argue that honesty is the best policy. Those who do not say 'get away with wrong-doing if you can'. Thus, as a child you avoid punishment. As an adult, you hope to avoid the consequences of your actions. The one is the result of a strong sense of morality. The other stems from self-interest and indifference to the fate of other people. Silence itself may amount to a lie, particularly when it is meant to shift blame from oneself. Cicero said it is the nature of a scoundrel to deceive by lying , and it may well be argued that truth is an integral factor in the health of society. Justice itself depends on witnesses pledging themselves to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . The law has severe penalties for those who perjure themselves after taking this oath.
So logically there should be no circumstances in which lying can ever be justified. Yet, we can all think of occasions when to tell the truth would be a very mixed blessing.
This applies especially to those who have access to secrets of national importance, particularly in wartime, or when there is danger of war. In these circumstances another moral issue is raised, and that is where personal loyalty lies. Most would say to one's own country. For others, a strong political belief, based on conviction, is more cogent. So, during the 'Cold War' between NATO and the Communist bloc, people on both sides were prepared to betray their country's secrets. This was generally out of conviction rather than for money, though the spy was usually rewarded in some way, sometimes by asylum and the conferring of honors and position. Such men and women would argue, and some still do, that the ultimate end justifies the means, if the means included lying and deception, so be it.
The same principle applied particularly in the 1939 - 45 war. The allies relied heavily on agents, and the lies which were part of their stock-in-trade. Disinformation was born and played a prominent role on both sides. Some of the deception was very elaborate indeed. Hitler's forces in France were tricked into believing that the invasion would be at the Pas de Calais rather than along the Normandy coast. England created a wholly fictitious army in the wrong place by setting up a subtle system of signaling, designed to be picked up across the channel. German doubts were settled by the planting of spurious invasion plans by agents in France. As a result, the invasion was given a good start. Every patriotic Englishman would say that all the lies and deception were amply justified both by the motivation and in the event. In much the same way, the British Ministry of Information concealed some failures and exaggerated some successes for the sake of morale. It was morale which enabled Britain to counter what seemed to be inevitable defeat.
So, the good of others seems to go a long way towards justifying the lie, and this applies in some personal as well as national concerns. Nobody would applaud the man or woman who lied about extra-marital relations. The more honorable course is not to have any. Yet, it is not always kind to tell the brutal truth about a severe illness such as a cancer to a patient or to his or her relations just as soon as the illness is diagnosed. Treatment may be successful, so unnecessary sadness has been caused. Yet if not, there must come a time when the facts are disclosed. Not to do so prevents the patient from making testatory provisions. It also increases the shock to the family and friends when death actually occurs.
Kindness may be a good reason, if not to tell a lie, at least to be economical with the truth . Another is tact. These two virtues oil the wheels of all social relationships. A lady may have chosen a hat which she obviously loves dearly, but you think it is hideous. Never tell her, even if you cannot bring yourself to say 'Wonderful! Super!' There are ways of side-stepping the issue. Anyway, dress is a matter of opinion rather than of fact, and what does it matter? No good at all could be done by telling the truth , and absolutely no harm done by withholding it.
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
So logically there should be no circumstances in which lying can ever be justified. Yet, we can all think of occasions when to tell the truth would be a very mixed blessing.
This applies especially to those who have access to secrets of national importance, particularly in wartime, or when there is danger of war. In these circumstances another moral issue is raised, and that is where personal loyalty lies. Most would say to one's own country. For others, a strong political belief, based on conviction, is more cogent. So, during the 'Cold War' between NATO and the Communist bloc, people on both sides were prepared to betray their country's secrets. This was generally out of conviction rather than for money, though the spy was usually rewarded in some way, sometimes by asylum and the conferring of honors and position. Such men and women would argue, and some still do, that the ultimate end justifies the means, if the means included lying and deception, so be it.
The same principle applied particularly in the 1939 - 45 war. The allies relied heavily on agents, and the lies which were part of their stock-in-trade. Disinformation was born and played a prominent role on both sides. Some of the deception was very elaborate indeed. Hitler's forces in France were tricked into believing that the invasion would be at the Pas de Calais rather than along the Normandy coast. England created a wholly fictitious army in the wrong place by setting up a subtle system of signaling, designed to be picked up across the channel. German doubts were settled by the planting of spurious invasion plans by agents in France. As a result, the invasion was given a good start. Every patriotic Englishman would say that all the lies and deception were amply justified both by the motivation and in the event. In much the same way, the British Ministry of Information concealed some failures and exaggerated some successes for the sake of morale. It was morale which enabled Britain to counter what seemed to be inevitable defeat.
So, the good of others seems to go a long way towards justifying the lie, and this applies in some personal as well as national concerns. Nobody would applaud the man or woman who lied about extra-marital relations. The more honorable course is not to have any. Yet, it is not always kind to tell the brutal truth about a severe illness such as a cancer to a patient or to his or her relations just as soon as the illness is diagnosed. Treatment may be successful, so unnecessary sadness has been caused. Yet if not, there must come a time when the facts are disclosed. Not to do so prevents the patient from making testatory provisions. It also increases the shock to the family and friends when death actually occurs.
Kindness may be a good reason, if not to tell a lie, at least to be economical with the truth . Another is tact. These two virtues oil the wheels of all social relationships. A lady may have chosen a hat which she obviously loves dearly, but you think it is hideous. Never tell her, even if you cannot bring yourself to say 'Wonderful! Super!' There are ways of side-stepping the issue. Anyway, dress is a matter of opinion rather than of fact, and what does it matter? No good at all could be done by telling the truth , and absolutely no harm done by withholding it.
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
E57:What changes would you like to see in today's society?
Source: www.englishdaily626.comThe term society has no general application. Every country differs from every other, however subtly, so answers must relate to a particular country. This answer relates to England, not even the whole of Britain.
Perhaps the first point to acknowledge is that in comparison with many other countries, England has an overwhelming number of good features. Yet there are several aspects of our society which I would like to see changed. Some of these changes could be effected immediately. Others would take longer. Society does not exist, said Mrs. Thatcher. She was wrong. Society consists of an aggregate of families. The first change I would like to see is the reversal of the current steady breakdown of family life. In Britain, the monarch stands at the head of the state and of the Established Church. In return for the privileges of their position, it has been generally expected of the Royal Family that they set an example to the country, and in the case of the Queen this example has undoubtedly been set. Not so, in the case of most of the other royals. In 1992 the so-called example set by this family has been appalling. This need not be spelled out. The world media have done this very effectively. The Queen herself described last year as an 'annus horribilis'. Many responsible people rightly wonder about the future of the monarchy, and their thinking tends to move in the direction of a republic. In the modern world, there is a strong case to be made for the abolition of hereditary privilege. However, the breakdown of family life cannot be attributed to the poor example of the minor royals. It actually stems from the permissiveness of the 1960s. The result is much suffering caused to children and young people, some of whom leave, or are virtually forced out of their homes, only to live in one of the cardboard cities , or to be put into care, or to join the drug scene and commit crime.
Unemployment, currently standing at 3m plus, is another aggravating factor. The present government has no policy to deal with this, and gives every indication of being quite indifferent to the problem. Interim measures could be taken until the world trade recession eases. Much work is needed on local environmental projects and on the updating of the country's infrastructure, which has been grossly neglected for decades. This could be financed by a modest increase in income tax, a measure which I believe would be generally acceptable. We have an uncaring government, the result being that many once prosperous areas are now centers of poverty and despair. Throughout the country, small businesses are being forced to close at the rate of hundreds per day. This is because the government refuses to impose controls over rent and leasehold increases and to reduce the swinging industrial rate. The net result of all this is that people are reluctant to spend, because they live in fear of redundancy or unemployment and, even worse, house repossession, in cases where heavy mortgages were taken on in better times. The house market is a good indicator of confidence in the future. It has now been at a virtual standstill for five years.
Thirdly, crime, especially violence. Due to the decline in religious faith and the consequent lack of moral training in home and school, crime levels have become appallingly high over the past few decades. Bad social conditions in many areas exacerbate the problem. Prisons are overcrowded, so the judiciary is encouraged to minimize custodial sentences. The fundamental remedy is a return to Christian moral standards, or those of the other great religions, now represented among the large immigrant population. Many of them are setting the native English a good example. The latter offer young people little help, and certainly little discipline at home, and the reputation of teachers in the state sector has never been lower.
Much is being done to stamp out the evils of hallucinatory drugs in Britain. This country would do well to adopt some of the draconian measures which are proving successful in some Far Eastern countries.
In the case of child sexual abuse and violence occasioning actual bodily harm, custodial sentences are now mandatory. This is justified, since such offences have greatly increased in recent decades. At one time, children were safe to roam their own areas without fear of molestation. Today, this is impossible.
Next, housing. Good neighborliness was the prime feature of pre-war terraced housing, now replaced in many cities by tower blocks and complexes of maisonettes. These concrete monstrosities eliminate family identity and encourage crime and vandalism. This is now realized. Much of this post-war building is now being demolished, and domestic architecture is reverting to old patterns. More low-cost or rentable accommodation would ease several social problems.
England welcomes immigrants, and laws have been passed to outlaw discrimination. Most immigrants provide an enriching contribution. Their churches, mosques and temples are acceptable to most people. However, there is a down side. Numbers have to be controlled, and this leads to disputes. A bad mistake was to allow 'ghettoes' to be formed in the early post- war days. An even distribution of this influx should have been made mandatory in the early days. The basis of that is the immigrants, while preserving their social and religious identities, must also accept and respect British traditions. Agitators operate much more easily in areas of dense population, often inciting violence between groups in the wake of violence overseas.
To believe that all these defects in English society can be changed is to live in cloud cuckoo land. All the same, these are the objectives which we must all work for.
Perhaps the first point to acknowledge is that in comparison with many other countries, England has an overwhelming number of good features. Yet there are several aspects of our society which I would like to see changed. Some of these changes could be effected immediately. Others would take longer. Society does not exist, said Mrs. Thatcher. She was wrong. Society consists of an aggregate of families. The first change I would like to see is the reversal of the current steady breakdown of family life. In Britain, the monarch stands at the head of the state and of the Established Church. In return for the privileges of their position, it has been generally expected of the Royal Family that they set an example to the country, and in the case of the Queen this example has undoubtedly been set. Not so, in the case of most of the other royals. In 1992 the so-called example set by this family has been appalling. This need not be spelled out. The world media have done this very effectively. The Queen herself described last year as an 'annus horribilis'. Many responsible people rightly wonder about the future of the monarchy, and their thinking tends to move in the direction of a republic. In the modern world, there is a strong case to be made for the abolition of hereditary privilege. However, the breakdown of family life cannot be attributed to the poor example of the minor royals. It actually stems from the permissiveness of the 1960s. The result is much suffering caused to children and young people, some of whom leave, or are virtually forced out of their homes, only to live in one of the cardboard cities , or to be put into care, or to join the drug scene and commit crime.
Unemployment, currently standing at 3m plus, is another aggravating factor. The present government has no policy to deal with this, and gives every indication of being quite indifferent to the problem. Interim measures could be taken until the world trade recession eases. Much work is needed on local environmental projects and on the updating of the country's infrastructure, which has been grossly neglected for decades. This could be financed by a modest increase in income tax, a measure which I believe would be generally acceptable. We have an uncaring government, the result being that many once prosperous areas are now centers of poverty and despair. Throughout the country, small businesses are being forced to close at the rate of hundreds per day. This is because the government refuses to impose controls over rent and leasehold increases and to reduce the swinging industrial rate. The net result of all this is that people are reluctant to spend, because they live in fear of redundancy or unemployment and, even worse, house repossession, in cases where heavy mortgages were taken on in better times. The house market is a good indicator of confidence in the future. It has now been at a virtual standstill for five years.
Thirdly, crime, especially violence. Due to the decline in religious faith and the consequent lack of moral training in home and school, crime levels have become appallingly high over the past few decades. Bad social conditions in many areas exacerbate the problem. Prisons are overcrowded, so the judiciary is encouraged to minimize custodial sentences. The fundamental remedy is a return to Christian moral standards, or those of the other great religions, now represented among the large immigrant population. Many of them are setting the native English a good example. The latter offer young people little help, and certainly little discipline at home, and the reputation of teachers in the state sector has never been lower.
Much is being done to stamp out the evils of hallucinatory drugs in Britain. This country would do well to adopt some of the draconian measures which are proving successful in some Far Eastern countries.
In the case of child sexual abuse and violence occasioning actual bodily harm, custodial sentences are now mandatory. This is justified, since such offences have greatly increased in recent decades. At one time, children were safe to roam their own areas without fear of molestation. Today, this is impossible.
Next, housing. Good neighborliness was the prime feature of pre-war terraced housing, now replaced in many cities by tower blocks and complexes of maisonettes. These concrete monstrosities eliminate family identity and encourage crime and vandalism. This is now realized. Much of this post-war building is now being demolished, and domestic architecture is reverting to old patterns. More low-cost or rentable accommodation would ease several social problems.
England welcomes immigrants, and laws have been passed to outlaw discrimination. Most immigrants provide an enriching contribution. Their churches, mosques and temples are acceptable to most people. However, there is a down side. Numbers have to be controlled, and this leads to disputes. A bad mistake was to allow 'ghettoes' to be formed in the early post- war days. An even distribution of this influx should have been made mandatory in the early days. The basis of that is the immigrants, while preserving their social and religious identities, must also accept and respect British traditions. Agitators operate much more easily in areas of dense population, often inciting violence between groups in the wake of violence overseas.
To believe that all these defects in English society can be changed is to live in cloud cuckoo land. All the same, these are the objectives which we must all work for.
E56:Those who have no knowledge of the past are condemned to repeat it. Is a knowledge of history important?
Historical knowledge is not only important. It is a crucial requirement in all who carry any kind of responsibility, whether in social, industrial, political or international affairs. In all these spheres, a knowledge of the past enables countries and individuals to sidestep old problem and to avoid the mistakes of the past.
Whether peoples and countries actually do learn from past experience is a wholly different matter. During this century, Prussian aggression plunged Europe into two major wars. Basically, Germany never existed, any more than does Italy, or did the Soviet Union . The amalgamation of their constituent states is of quite recent origin. The break-up of the Soviet Union was due to the irrelevance of Communism in the modern world. This has done much for world peace, though there are still nuclear dangers. The case of Germany and Italy is quite different. National Socialism never sat easily on the Italians, so in 1945 there was no point in occupying Italy and regionalizing her government. She never had any real ambition to do more than unify her own states, and colonialism began to die a natural death in all European countries from 1946 onwards. In all this, the Allies showed wisdom based on the lessons of history. In their dealings with Germany, however, the story is different. The USA, with little personal history and less expertise in foreign affairs, put pressure on the Allies to re-unify Western Germany and to negotiate the existence of East
Germany with Stalin. In the form of Marshall Aid, the USA poured money into West Germany, established a central government in Bonn, put industry back on a good footing, created a hard currency, reorganized their unions, and let them rebuild a massive army, albeit without nuclear armaments. For years Germany has kept quiet, awaiting her opportunity. The outcome is that in 1992, the whole of Germany had reunited, the power-base had shifted back to Berlin, and the country had achieved political, industrial and fiscal domination in Europe once again. The old enmity with France and England lies just beneath the surface. Zenophobia is again becoming rampant, and may develop into ethnic cleansing , that modern euphemism. The first danger in Europe will again be Germany. Their national anthem 'Deutschland uber Alles' sums up the national ideal, which is unlimited territorial expansion. The lesson of the past was there, and it was ignored.
A knowledge of the past is also important socially, and governments, whether of Eastern or Western countries, ignore social history at their peril. One success in Britain post-Second World War was the establishment of the Welfare State. This was a humane and far-reaching concept designed to keep the whole population up to a basic living standard, to give free or subsidized medical care on demand, and to provide realistic state pensions for the elderly. It still exists in a modified form, and no government would dare to abolish it. The idea was to rid society of poverty, sickness and insecurity. The lessons of the past had been well learnt. Throughout English history, and especially in Victorian times, grinding poverty was the norm for the masses, both urban and rural. Laws against petty theft were brutal. Matters scarcely improved after the First World War. Unemployment in the 1920s was widespread. The dole was pitiful. So there was a general strike, street rioting, and near-revolution. This was in line with many minor revolutions which have occurred throughout English history. The Second World War provided not only a diversion from social failure but also an opportunity of uniting Britain to resist a serious threat from outside. From 1945 onwards, the old mistake of neglecting the working class was not repeated. Yet despite history, England perpetuates her ancient errors in respect of Ireland. Partition has never worked anywhere in the world. The Protestant north is in perpetual enmity with the Catholic south. So much dirty water has passed under the bridge form Cromwellian days onwards that peace can never be achieved. Neither can it be imposed, short of mounting a military campaign. In times of national crisis, Eire has proved ambivalent and treacherous. The harsh, but pragmatic answer is to pull our forces out, and allow the Irish problem to sort itself out. That means allowing civil war, but since both sides are permanently entrenched in mutual opposition and hatred, there may well be no realistic alternative.
A second disastrous mistake in recent English governmental policy was the imposition of the poll tax, known euphemistically as the Community Charge. This was meant to be a replacement for the old property rating system, which was admittedly in need of revision. The poll tax led to financial injustices which exceeded the tolerance level of the British people. So Mrs. Thatcher had to go, and the government climbed down. English history records many attempts to impose a poll tax. None succeeded, and all ended in riot and bloodshed.
Yet perhaps England's most serious recent mistake is the headlong rush into membership of a federal Europe, dominated by Germany, controlled from Strassburg and administered in Brussels. France and Germany will vie for control of this monstrosity. British internal sovereignty is already severely eroded, and will finally disappear unless some future government comes to its senses. The Council of Europe has made participation in free trade dependent on membership. The sacrifice of principle to financial advantage has never worked in the past. Why should it in the future?
The past holds countless examples of the failure of most of the policies Britain currently follows. Their lessons are rarely learnt. A knowledge of history is important, of course, but such knowledge is of little use if the old mistakes are persistently repeated.
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
Whether peoples and countries actually do learn from past experience is a wholly different matter. During this century, Prussian aggression plunged Europe into two major wars. Basically, Germany never existed, any more than does Italy, or did the Soviet Union . The amalgamation of their constituent states is of quite recent origin. The break-up of the Soviet Union was due to the irrelevance of Communism in the modern world. This has done much for world peace, though there are still nuclear dangers. The case of Germany and Italy is quite different. National Socialism never sat easily on the Italians, so in 1945 there was no point in occupying Italy and regionalizing her government. She never had any real ambition to do more than unify her own states, and colonialism began to die a natural death in all European countries from 1946 onwards. In all this, the Allies showed wisdom based on the lessons of history. In their dealings with Germany, however, the story is different. The USA, with little personal history and less expertise in foreign affairs, put pressure on the Allies to re-unify Western Germany and to negotiate the existence of East
Germany with Stalin. In the form of Marshall Aid, the USA poured money into West Germany, established a central government in Bonn, put industry back on a good footing, created a hard currency, reorganized their unions, and let them rebuild a massive army, albeit without nuclear armaments. For years Germany has kept quiet, awaiting her opportunity. The outcome is that in 1992, the whole of Germany had reunited, the power-base had shifted back to Berlin, and the country had achieved political, industrial and fiscal domination in Europe once again. The old enmity with France and England lies just beneath the surface. Zenophobia is again becoming rampant, and may develop into ethnic cleansing , that modern euphemism. The first danger in Europe will again be Germany. Their national anthem 'Deutschland uber Alles' sums up the national ideal, which is unlimited territorial expansion. The lesson of the past was there, and it was ignored.
A knowledge of the past is also important socially, and governments, whether of Eastern or Western countries, ignore social history at their peril. One success in Britain post-Second World War was the establishment of the Welfare State. This was a humane and far-reaching concept designed to keep the whole population up to a basic living standard, to give free or subsidized medical care on demand, and to provide realistic state pensions for the elderly. It still exists in a modified form, and no government would dare to abolish it. The idea was to rid society of poverty, sickness and insecurity. The lessons of the past had been well learnt. Throughout English history, and especially in Victorian times, grinding poverty was the norm for the masses, both urban and rural. Laws against petty theft were brutal. Matters scarcely improved after the First World War. Unemployment in the 1920s was widespread. The dole was pitiful. So there was a general strike, street rioting, and near-revolution. This was in line with many minor revolutions which have occurred throughout English history. The Second World War provided not only a diversion from social failure but also an opportunity of uniting Britain to resist a serious threat from outside. From 1945 onwards, the old mistake of neglecting the working class was not repeated. Yet despite history, England perpetuates her ancient errors in respect of Ireland. Partition has never worked anywhere in the world. The Protestant north is in perpetual enmity with the Catholic south. So much dirty water has passed under the bridge form Cromwellian days onwards that peace can never be achieved. Neither can it be imposed, short of mounting a military campaign. In times of national crisis, Eire has proved ambivalent and treacherous. The harsh, but pragmatic answer is to pull our forces out, and allow the Irish problem to sort itself out. That means allowing civil war, but since both sides are permanently entrenched in mutual opposition and hatred, there may well be no realistic alternative.
A second disastrous mistake in recent English governmental policy was the imposition of the poll tax, known euphemistically as the Community Charge. This was meant to be a replacement for the old property rating system, which was admittedly in need of revision. The poll tax led to financial injustices which exceeded the tolerance level of the British people. So Mrs. Thatcher had to go, and the government climbed down. English history records many attempts to impose a poll tax. None succeeded, and all ended in riot and bloodshed.
Yet perhaps England's most serious recent mistake is the headlong rush into membership of a federal Europe, dominated by Germany, controlled from Strassburg and administered in Brussels. France and Germany will vie for control of this monstrosity. British internal sovereignty is already severely eroded, and will finally disappear unless some future government comes to its senses. The Council of Europe has made participation in free trade dependent on membership. The sacrifice of principle to financial advantage has never worked in the past. Why should it in the future?
The past holds countless examples of the failure of most of the policies Britain currently follows. Their lessons are rarely learnt. A knowledge of history is important, of course, but such knowledge is of little use if the old mistakes are persistently repeated.
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
E55: It is a sweet and honorable thing to die for one's country. The poet Wilfred Owen described this saying as 'the old lie'. Do you agree?
This is a very old saying. Whether it is the old lie is arguable. In his odes, the Roman poet Horace wrote this no less than three times: 'dulce et decorum est pro patria mori'. He lived from 65 to 8 B.C., was also a soldier, fought at Philippi, afterwards lost his estate, and was reduced to poverty. He remained a patriot. The poet Wilfred Owen, a resident of France, returned to England to enlist in the First World War at the age of 22, fought in the trenches, and was killed at age 25, a week before the Armistice in 1918.
The most prominent war poet, Owen's verse expresses his hatred of war. How much of his virulence was due to the emotional instability caused by his homosexuality is a moot point. The fact remains that he fought. Why?
The intervening two thousand years have polarized the divide between the patriot and the pacifist. Any book of quotations offers scores of examples of quotations supporting both sides; Samuel Johnson described patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel ; Thomas Campbell wrote 'The patriot's blood's the seed of Freedom's tree'.
For various reasons, the modern pacifist's case is perhaps stronger than of his predecessors. Firstly, because the 20th century, in two major wars, made civilian enlistment compulsory on the part of the countries involved. In the UK in the First World War, extreme moral pressure was brought to bear. Any man not seen in uniform was in danger of being given a white feather by the women - for cowardice. The actual reasons for opting out varied; it could be cowardice, it could be a different form of national service, it could be a lifelong and previously stated total rejection of violence in any circumstances. In the latter case, such views were generally respected, providing some other contribution to the war effort was made. The Society of Friends (the 'Quakers') provides a good example in the Second World War. These men and women were prepared to risk their lives, and many lost their lives, in some form of national service; medical work, ambulance driving, merchant shipping crews, etc. One Christian school of thought rejects any kind of participation in war, arguing that aggressors should not be resisted, that tyranny, carrying as it does the seeds of its own eventual downfall, should be accepted. Their case has been greatly strengthened by the fundamental difference between earlier wars and those of this century. In the two wars 1914 - 18 and 1939 - 45, civilian populations were involved, like it or not, because of bombing raids, and ultimately the use of the atom bomb against Japan. Nothing, they argue, can justify what happened to London, Coventry, Dresden, Wuppertal, Cologne, Berlin, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nothing justifies mass slaughter. The future use of the hydrogen bomb would be even more horrific.
And now the case for patriotism. Like it or not, the citizens of all civilized countries owe an incalculable debt to their homelands; protection from foreign aggression, from internal crime, from disease, from penury. They receive education, a minimum standard of living, an old-age pension; complete personal freedom, in keeping with law, freedom of religious worship, freedom of movement, every opportunity for self-advancement, at least in the democracies. In such countries, everybody is born under an obligation to the state, and if that obligation is rejected, so also should be the benefits mentioned. Perhaps even more fundamental is a built-in affection for the distinctive characteristics of one's own country, its history, traditions, folk-ethic, literature, music, human relationships. An aggressor such as Hitler would wipe out all these things, as he almost wiped out the Jewish population of Europe. He would replace freedom with tyranny, he would consign dissidents to concentration camps. So not only is force of arms justified in a defensive role, it is also justified in some categories of offence; e.g. intervention in foreign countries where populations are threatened with genocide, as currently in Yugoslavia and Ethiopia. This type of intervention is rightly carried out by professional armed service members at the instigation of the United Nations.
What cannot be justified on patriotic grounds is expansionist aggression as is favored by certain leaders or, as in the past, by the empire-building countries of Europe, whether or not their rule imparted freedom, stability, enlightenment and prosperity.
None of us can accept what our own country has given us and still remain, morally, totally free agents. So given the provisos mentioned, and with every respect to the best kind of pacifist, I believe that the true patriot wins the argument.
The most prominent war poet, Owen's verse expresses his hatred of war. How much of his virulence was due to the emotional instability caused by his homosexuality is a moot point. The fact remains that he fought. Why?
The intervening two thousand years have polarized the divide between the patriot and the pacifist. Any book of quotations offers scores of examples of quotations supporting both sides; Samuel Johnson described patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel ; Thomas Campbell wrote 'The patriot's blood's the seed of Freedom's tree'.
For various reasons, the modern pacifist's case is perhaps stronger than of his predecessors. Firstly, because the 20th century, in two major wars, made civilian enlistment compulsory on the part of the countries involved. In the UK in the First World War, extreme moral pressure was brought to bear. Any man not seen in uniform was in danger of being given a white feather by the women - for cowardice. The actual reasons for opting out varied; it could be cowardice, it could be a different form of national service, it could be a lifelong and previously stated total rejection of violence in any circumstances. In the latter case, such views were generally respected, providing some other contribution to the war effort was made. The Society of Friends (the 'Quakers') provides a good example in the Second World War. These men and women were prepared to risk their lives, and many lost their lives, in some form of national service; medical work, ambulance driving, merchant shipping crews, etc. One Christian school of thought rejects any kind of participation in war, arguing that aggressors should not be resisted, that tyranny, carrying as it does the seeds of its own eventual downfall, should be accepted. Their case has been greatly strengthened by the fundamental difference between earlier wars and those of this century. In the two wars 1914 - 18 and 1939 - 45, civilian populations were involved, like it or not, because of bombing raids, and ultimately the use of the atom bomb against Japan. Nothing, they argue, can justify what happened to London, Coventry, Dresden, Wuppertal, Cologne, Berlin, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nothing justifies mass slaughter. The future use of the hydrogen bomb would be even more horrific.
And now the case for patriotism. Like it or not, the citizens of all civilized countries owe an incalculable debt to their homelands; protection from foreign aggression, from internal crime, from disease, from penury. They receive education, a minimum standard of living, an old-age pension; complete personal freedom, in keeping with law, freedom of religious worship, freedom of movement, every opportunity for self-advancement, at least in the democracies. In such countries, everybody is born under an obligation to the state, and if that obligation is rejected, so also should be the benefits mentioned. Perhaps even more fundamental is a built-in affection for the distinctive characteristics of one's own country, its history, traditions, folk-ethic, literature, music, human relationships. An aggressor such as Hitler would wipe out all these things, as he almost wiped out the Jewish population of Europe. He would replace freedom with tyranny, he would consign dissidents to concentration camps. So not only is force of arms justified in a defensive role, it is also justified in some categories of offence; e.g. intervention in foreign countries where populations are threatened with genocide, as currently in Yugoslavia and Ethiopia. This type of intervention is rightly carried out by professional armed service members at the instigation of the United Nations.
What cannot be justified on patriotic grounds is expansionist aggression as is favored by certain leaders or, as in the past, by the empire-building countries of Europe, whether or not their rule imparted freedom, stability, enlightenment and prosperity.
None of us can accept what our own country has given us and still remain, morally, totally free agents. So given the provisos mentioned, and with every respect to the best kind of pacifist, I believe that the true patriot wins the argument.
E54:If one could choose to be endowed with a great gift or talent, which one would you choose, and why?
I would certainly choose to be a concert-standard pianist, but please don't misunderstand. I have no desire to hear the thunderous applause, to be taken by the hand as the conductor and I acknowledge the standing ovation, to receive the bouquet, to come back on stage four times, to play a brilliant encore, to read the glowing press notices at the end of a late-night party.
All that is best left to the people who like that sort of thing. I merely want to match the professionals, to play as fluently, to memorize as completely, to express the composer's intentions as deeply.
You may have gathered that I am a competent pianist. I know that I shall never get much better. I need the music in front of me. I do not own a Steinway grand, but a gallant old Brinsmead upright, now in its eightieth year. One plays - and one dreams!
So what about the 'great gift or talent'? Is one born with it, or can it be developed? The answers are yes and no. Occasionally, in a televised piano competition, one sees a young boy or girl, say aged thirteen or fourteen, sit down and play a Chopin ballade or a devilishly difficult piece of Liszt with consummate, almost contemptuous ease. That has to be talent. I could never do it in a thousand years. I used to tell myself that I could if I practiced more. Now I merely recognize that gift in others. I would never deny that to flower into perfection, the gift must be complemented by hours of practice, daily. Yet without the gift, no amount of practice will achieve the result. The word 'practice' implies a chore, the kind of mental resolution which says 'I will do half an hour a day'. Well, yes, that will improve the muscles and therefore the performance. Yet, the talented youngster is content to live at the keyboard, with a short break every few hours for a sausage roll and a coca-cola. And in turn this implies a musical background - since I believe that such people are favored genetically - encouragement, a good piano, and above all opportunity. The development of a great gift has to be at the expense of a good general education. My late wife used to teach maths to Toots Lockwood, and grumble because Margaret's young daughter made little progress. Toots, a budding actress herself, once made the precocious remark 'Mummy didn't need maths to become a star, did she?'
There are various reasons why I would like to have been a gifted pianist. Firstly, for my own satisfaction, since I enjoy playing a wide variety of composers and would dearly love to extend my repertoire. Secondly, I would like to be able to hold each piece, however long, in my memory, and to be able to think exclusively of the interpretation as my fingers automatically translated the score into sound.
Also, I would like to be confident about entertaining my friends, and this demands not only memory but the ability to improvise. Fluent improvisation is a gift not possessed by all great pianists. The story goes that the jazz pianist Art Tatum once challenged the great Solomon to improvise on the tune 'Lady be good' for as long as he could. Solomon gave up after ten minutes. Tatum manipulated the tune for half an hour without repeating himself. So, my guilty secret is that I enjoy playing jazz music as much as classical. Certainly not the modern variety of the Dave Brubeck school, with its unrhythmic runs and depressingly awful harmonies. But give me Duke Ellington, Earl Hines, Teddy Wilson, Fats Waller - especially Waller - and I am happy. If I had Waller's rhythm and Tatum's ingenuity, life would be a rich thing!
So, personal satisfaction, giving pleasure to my family and a few friends, and helping my grandchildren, all of whom play the piano at varying levels consonant with their ages. None is likely to show a great gift or talent, but they will all become competent, like me. There is no greater satisfaction than giving them a hand with their scales, their theory, their pieces at Grades 3, 4 or 5.
One of them is likely to become a better pianist than me. She may even become very good, but like the rest of us, she will never be a virtuoso. I am rather thankful for this, because life is tough at the top, and there are many drawbacks to a concert pianist's life: jet-lag, bad hotels, the envy of one's peers, an unbalanced life, perhaps a marital breakdown.
I prefer to have my cake and eat it. I would like the talent, but none of the pizzazz which always seems to go with it.
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
All that is best left to the people who like that sort of thing. I merely want to match the professionals, to play as fluently, to memorize as completely, to express the composer's intentions as deeply.
You may have gathered that I am a competent pianist. I know that I shall never get much better. I need the music in front of me. I do not own a Steinway grand, but a gallant old Brinsmead upright, now in its eightieth year. One plays - and one dreams!
So what about the 'great gift or talent'? Is one born with it, or can it be developed? The answers are yes and no. Occasionally, in a televised piano competition, one sees a young boy or girl, say aged thirteen or fourteen, sit down and play a Chopin ballade or a devilishly difficult piece of Liszt with consummate, almost contemptuous ease. That has to be talent. I could never do it in a thousand years. I used to tell myself that I could if I practiced more. Now I merely recognize that gift in others. I would never deny that to flower into perfection, the gift must be complemented by hours of practice, daily. Yet without the gift, no amount of practice will achieve the result. The word 'practice' implies a chore, the kind of mental resolution which says 'I will do half an hour a day'. Well, yes, that will improve the muscles and therefore the performance. Yet, the talented youngster is content to live at the keyboard, with a short break every few hours for a sausage roll and a coca-cola. And in turn this implies a musical background - since I believe that such people are favored genetically - encouragement, a good piano, and above all opportunity. The development of a great gift has to be at the expense of a good general education. My late wife used to teach maths to Toots Lockwood, and grumble because Margaret's young daughter made little progress. Toots, a budding actress herself, once made the precocious remark 'Mummy didn't need maths to become a star, did she?'
There are various reasons why I would like to have been a gifted pianist. Firstly, for my own satisfaction, since I enjoy playing a wide variety of composers and would dearly love to extend my repertoire. Secondly, I would like to be able to hold each piece, however long, in my memory, and to be able to think exclusively of the interpretation as my fingers automatically translated the score into sound.
Also, I would like to be confident about entertaining my friends, and this demands not only memory but the ability to improvise. Fluent improvisation is a gift not possessed by all great pianists. The story goes that the jazz pianist Art Tatum once challenged the great Solomon to improvise on the tune 'Lady be good' for as long as he could. Solomon gave up after ten minutes. Tatum manipulated the tune for half an hour without repeating himself. So, my guilty secret is that I enjoy playing jazz music as much as classical. Certainly not the modern variety of the Dave Brubeck school, with its unrhythmic runs and depressingly awful harmonies. But give me Duke Ellington, Earl Hines, Teddy Wilson, Fats Waller - especially Waller - and I am happy. If I had Waller's rhythm and Tatum's ingenuity, life would be a rich thing!
So, personal satisfaction, giving pleasure to my family and a few friends, and helping my grandchildren, all of whom play the piano at varying levels consonant with their ages. None is likely to show a great gift or talent, but they will all become competent, like me. There is no greater satisfaction than giving them a hand with their scales, their theory, their pieces at Grades 3, 4 or 5.
One of them is likely to become a better pianist than me. She may even become very good, but like the rest of us, she will never be a virtuoso. I am rather thankful for this, because life is tough at the top, and there are many drawbacks to a concert pianist's life: jet-lag, bad hotels, the envy of one's peers, an unbalanced life, perhaps a marital breakdown.
I prefer to have my cake and eat it. I would like the talent, but none of the pizzazz which always seems to go with it.
Source: www.englishdaily626.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
