Knowledge & Wisdom

Once upon a time, great sages would sit on mountain tops or in caves, contemplating the secrets of the universe. People would come to them seeking their advice, or to find out what knowledge they had acquired, what wisdom they could impart. Students needed a master scholar to gain the basic understanding of their world. Leaders needed guidance. People needed reassurance that answers were out there.
Eventually, some structure was put in place - the caves became artificial stone edifices that we now refer to as Universities. The scholars dress in a manner that is a little more socially acceptable, although their other manners may not have gone through that transformation. This state of affairs did us well for a very long time.
However, the times have changed. The new oracles of knowledge are machines which gather more information & knowledge quickly & easily & make it accessible to the masses with little sacrifice on their behalf. The scholars still delve into the unknown, but they are less likely to be consulted directly. They are networked into the consciousness of humanity.
With knowledge so easily available, it makes it too easy to forget that knowledge is useless without the wisdom to apply it appropriately. Ethics cannot be explained in a web page. It cannot be provided by a search of the internet. I needs someone who has already mastered the topic - gained wisdom - to share their experience.
To the modern mind, this seems to be a bit of a waste of effort - talking to actual people, etc, but it is still necessary. Just as time is still necessary to gain experience - for anything truly worthwhile, there are no short cuts.
The problem is that it takes wisdom to realise this in the first place, & that is something - a little bit of wisdom, enough to know how much you don't know - that is often severely lacking in the young & impatient. Self-reflection is a skill that is not natural, is not easy to learn, cannot be assumed, but is essential for personal growth.
Thus, with time & effort, we can achieve the wisdom we need to use the knowledge that we gain.

Riding it Out

I'm sure everyone knows someone that they would refer to as a Cyclist. This is a very important distinction - these are the people who think that cars are a nuisance clogging up their roads, & they are downright dangerous (dangling modifier left to the reader to appropriate).

I've never been a cyclist. I've ridden my bike - often stupidly down narrow edges on the side of a fast open highway - but not to the point of being an enthusiast, rather as a dare-devil.

When I got a motorbike licence, things changed. The first thing you notice is that there's next-to-nothing between you & the road. Once you get over that, you realise that what every motorbike rider has told you is true - car drivers are out to kill you, & it's your task to determine which of them is most likely to succeed. Please only laugh if you ride on two wheels regularly.

I believe it comes down to this: car drivers have stepped outside of the real world when they step into their tonne-of-steel death machine.They no longer have control of their destiny, because they don't have a clue how a vehicle works, & therefore it must be someone else's fault if the brakes aren't applied quickly enough, or the vehicle is moving too fast. They couldn't possibly be in control of such a behemoth. It defies logic to believe that they have the nous to direct such advanced machinery's destiny. People abrogate all responsibility when faced with the use of a technology they do not understand.

Road rules don't apply. Every driver knows the rules, but the cars don't. It must be the car's fault that it drifted into the other lane, because the driver wanted it to go straight. That's a shame. The car might even get damaged if it does that again.

This is quite different from what goes through the mind of a rider - I must take that next corner at such-&-such a speed, tilting the bike to such-&-such angle at approximately such-&-such position within the lane - or else I will probably die.

Interestingly, I was putting these ideas together while I was walking - reminded of a Piers Anthony novel about Satan... That's what I do when I've got lots of time on my hands - go for long walks to do things that might take only a few minutes if I was driving. The thoughts that go through your head are along the lines of "What a lovely hot day - look, some shade to walk through!", "I wonder if I'll get to the next street in one change of lights or two?", "I wonder what time it is?"
These are the thoughts of someone on holidays, admittedly - someone who doesn't have to be somewhere right now & can't blame anyone else if they're not.

I was walking at my own pace. I was using my own legs. I had total responsibility for where I was, how fast I was going, where I was going to, how, & whether I could just stop for a second in the middle of the footpath to see what the next tune on my mp3 player might be.

Thoreau had it right a long time ago - being in complete control of your own destiny, & having responsibility for what you do, & how you do it, is truly liberating, from a spiritual point of view, even if it puts the onus for everything back on you. That, in itself, makes you re-evaluate everything to determine how much of it is actually necessary or useful, & how much of it is simply the guff that society expects of us with no return.

We've lost our way, my fellow bipeds. We've all become users of technology - drivers of cars - machines we don't understand & don't believe that we can control. That vehicle is a metaphor for what I will now laughing call "lifestyle". We need to get back on two wheels to understand the environment that we're whizzing through thoughtlessly otherwise, & then we need to get back on our own two feet & just enjoy the journey of life at a pace far more natural.

In the Name of Service

I’ve had a little holiday - nothing much, but it might staying in hotels & dining out & doing some touristy things.

I don’t want to sound like I didn’t have a good time, but I couldn’t help noticing - or being reminded that I always notice - the little things that make being away from home such a drag. Staying in a hotel should be fun. It should be full of little (nice) surprises, like a particularly nice bathroom with gold taps or a forceful shower that makes you want to luxuriate under it for just that little bit longer.

What I found, however, was a small bar of soap hidden in a box next to a “sanitary pack” (don’t ask). The shower had the kind of half-heartedness displayed by the night-staff - as if it didn’t want to be there either.
The temperature controls took a day to work properly - or perhaps when my cousin visited, he managed to jog it back into life. I froze on the first night, with the heat on maximum. Speaking of cold comfort - what’s the point of having a fridge in the room if it’s filled with things you know are exorbitantly priced? Can’t I have the option of getting an empty fridge?

In the next hotel, the fridge had some room, but there was no bottle opener or wine glasses once I got to use it!

I am not talking about cheap or low-star hotels, either - one has an undeservedly good name, & the other was considered excellent in a highly competitive area. Its decor was classic & stylish - the staff were uncouth & inexperienced.

Two incidents come to mind. My good lady left her phone charger at home, so all we had left was the car charger with no intention of driving around in circles. I rang reception to ask if we could borrow a charger & they said that they had lots, but I’d best come around with the phone, just to be sure. I should point out that the phone in question has one of the most common mini-USB charger ports currently available. Out of a box full of chargers, not one was less than five years old. My guess is that they had been discarded by previous guests over the years as being useless. The staff were unapologetic. When I later asked in passing the front desk if I would find a corkscrew in my room (we were in a wine district), the desk attendant had to shout out to a duty manager to ask if that was a normal item provided, & the shout back was an assurance it was. Fortunately, I ignored them & took one from the bar.

The restaurant in that establishment offered fusion cuisine, which I usually would avoid, but I was so inebriated from a day tour of wineries that I felt compelled to give it a try. Again, the converted sprawling estate provided a wonderful atmosphere for the food to be served into. However, the staff took an approach to the clientelle that reflected their collective training at the local burger emporium.

The perky words “How is your meal?” sounded so much like “Would you like fries with that?” Believe me, fries would have been quite inappropriate for the whole menu. They would have looked about as in place as the “Australian Menu” section in a country town Chinese restaurant (where you find the fish & chips offering).

I was tempted to take the express check-out (on both occasions), & I resisted writing comments on those nasty little feedback forms (OK, so I did do it at the restaurant, but I was drunk - so they’ll never understand it). I would love to know if anyone reads those things, or whether they at least take the time to look at the statistics of how little actual feedback they get.

What happened to the good old days where the differentiation between stars was noticeable in the free stuff - the quality of the shampoo, the robe in the cupboard, the view over the pool (or ocean), people to carry your bags - all of the things you see in old movies. Now, everyone who is no-one goes to a hotel for a night with no expectations (always fulfilled), just for the branding, rather than the experience.

I want to be pampered. I want to feel as if I am getting “something” for my money beyond four walls, a mediocre shower, & a nicely made bed. Is that really too much to ask? I want  some service from someone who may be surly but is at least professional. I want to feel as though I am special - a guest - not a customer.
Yes, I know, you can’t go to a prostitute & complain about not feeling loved, but I would at least like to think that one of us is faking it.

Democracy - What is it good for?

If you ask the average punter on the street what democracy means to them, it probably would be one of:

• a right to vote
• representation

In Australia, we have compulsory voting, with a very high rate of formal votes. In other Western democracies, that ‘right’ to vote is not exercised by a large proportion of the population.

As for representation, what is being represented? Whose interests? In many systems that have inherited the English parliament, there are effectively only two parties vying for power. These don’t represent anyone but themselves. They try to attract the votes of the people (voters). In some countries, the voters are representatives of the parties!

Under these circumstances, it is very hard for anyone outside of the two parties to get a chance - with some exceptions. We always talk in terms of two-party preferred polling (that is, the last two candidates standing when all others’ votes are exhausted). This is an essentially meaningless number because it ignores what people actually voted for. If the two parties represent only 70% of the primary vote, say, then that’s a lot of discontent with the two-party system.

It doesn’t take much to work out that those being elected do not represent those doing the voting. Therefore, you need to either change the pool from which those being elected arise (that is, remove the parties), or else change who (or what) gets to vote.

In a country where a third of the population weren’t born here, it seems strange that there is no political force that represents migrants. It makes more sense for a community-based voting mechanism. New Zealand’s parliament, for example, has a guaranteed native representation. Australia’s native population is quite small (relatively), but representation is almost accidental.

This would provide for large blocs of people - communities - get representation, without having to live in neighbouring streets.

Going beyond people, should corporations or charities, or organisations that represent special interest groups get representation within government, rather than being lobbyists? If they have any influence over politicians, then surely they should be a direct part of the policy-making process & skip the wasted effort of creating media attention to get their cause at the forefront of the elected officials’ minds.

I’m not talking about having all corporations or groups represented ‘democratically’, but bodies could be formed that allow for a different type of representation that has a different type of input into the parliamentary system, in the way that representatives of the people are supposed to bring the concerns of their constituents, & likewise the representatives of the states in the upper house.

In a two-party system where both of these houses are dominated by party politics, then it would have to be more effective to remove the one-up-man-ship & introduce issues as the primary focus of the agenda.
Are we mature enough to evolve our parliamentary system with the changing needs & advances in technology that allow us to be finer grained about the demographics within the electorate? Could we not add more dimensions to the governmental body that provides for people’s interests (vested interests, not past-times)?

We don’t need multiple houses, but we need collegiate discussion of policies for the good of the country - all of it. This can only occur when the elected do represent the people (however they arrive there). Otherwise, we get stuck in the past, fighting the same irrelevant idealisms from centuries long gone.

Left & right? It’s time we left it all behind & got on the right track for a truly democratic future.

Political Commitment

In politics, there’s a big difference between a promise (even a “core promise”) & a commitment. It’s somewhat like the joke that Peter Fitzsimons claims Alan Jones told the Australian Rugby dressing room about the difference between making a contribution & making a commitment. When you have bacon & eggs for breakfast, the chicken has made a contribution. Too often, the pigs we elect have their snouts in the trough.

Political commitment means actually putting your neck on the line for what you believe in, rather than dithering about wondering if the electorate (or media) will crucify you for your convictions (there’s an interesting mixed metaphor). There’s no point in trying to save your bacon. This is why people don’t trust politicians - the ones we have now just won’t do this. This is also why such politicians who would do it don’t exist - because the political parties that select candidates don’t trust exactly the type of politician that the people would!

There are exceptions. We call them independents.

Every so often, such a politician will pull a stunt to draw attention to their cause, but without the backing of a large political party, the media is unlikely to get too interested *unless* there’s an interesting element to the story. If the media don’t cover the story, then people won’t hear about it. Let’s face it, an independent is not in any position to churn out reams of propaganda for the masses. They rely on their convictions to generate the stories & to show their electorate just how independent in thought & deed they are.

Strangely, if you try to build a party around an independent thinker, then you are destined for failure - eventually. One or two elections down the track, that maverick streak that people loved in one person becomes a party line that “the establishment” (where did they come from??) insists is followed. This, of course, both demeans the initiator, & pushes away the public following that loved the maverickness. In Australia, in particular, this has happened in several instances - Democrats & One Nation.

True independence of political party politics means being able to commit to what you, the person elected, believe in. It would be great if this could also mean having the support of an infrastructure that generated interest in your views, helped to disseminate the truth (as opposed the hype), & took away some of the mundaneity of the electoral process, but that would require a kind of altruism usually lacking in those involved in politics across most countries.

As long as politics equates to “power” in one way or another, then some will be political for the sake of being in or near that power. Let’s face it, otherwise there’s nothing “in it” for them. They want their team to win - which is an interesting way of thinking about it in itself, that there is only one winner, & therefore several losers. I don’t want to hark back to the “up to half of the voters don’t like their representative” discussion, but if there were more winners, then there would have to be fewer losers (representatives & voters).
*I just thought of a great way to elect a government, but I’ll have to wait until later, otherwise I’ll muddy this blog entry.*

I want my government representative to commit - to both make promises that are followed through, & show a history of doing so. I want a politician who has no fear, but has some consistency that I can trust over the period of entrenchment. If they showed that mettle, then they’re more likely to be re-elected than someone of whom I know nothing more than that they pay their dues to a particular political party that had once espoused views so diametrically opposed to another politcal party that they had to be at constant war with them.

I don’t want a battlefield for government. That makes no sense. There’s no war to win.There is no being on the side of right (or might).

I want debate. I want policies. I want decisions. I want progress. But most of all, I want my representative to show some political commitment.

In exchange, I promise to commit my vote to them next time.

On Your Bike

Good government needs democracy likes a fish needs a bicycle.

There are many instances of good governments - despotisms, monarchies - without democracy, & plenty of examples of bad democracy. Any scientific examination would show that there is no statistical correlation between the two. Any attempt at a double blind trial would be interesting, to say the least.

Most people want democracy because they think it empowers them - that is, they feel as if they have input into the system, & that they are clever enough to contribute. Note that their contribution is not to actually do anything within the running of the government, but to bitch & moan about what the government isn’t doing for them. “Ask not what your country can do for you …”

Middle class voters in a democracy think that they know better than those they elect to represent them. I make this distinction because anywhere that has a distinct upper class knows that the government doesn’t affect them, & the lower classes never get any real social change out of a government.

The vocal middle class, which forms the majority in western democracies (by definition, I suspect) expects that the government does its bidding, but in doing so, they put their direct faith in political parties making a land grab for the middle ground to represent them. You can’t be too conservative (seen to bolster the entrenched money & big business at the expense of the average punter), nor too radical (introduce social change that diminishes the differentiation from the disenfranchised).

It would seem that politics has no place for rerpesenting those two groups, no matter how small, & they are therefore unlikely to play an overt or direct part in government. A classic example in Australia is a quite competent self-made millionaire who was constantly referred to as silver-tailed, so had to step down from party leadership, no matter how clever & energetic he was. At the other end of the scale, how likely is it that a homeless or disabled person will be elected? Even a long-term unemployed person?

Very occasionally, someone under thirty is elected, almost by accident.

Strangely, when we create plebiscites, we ‘ensure’ representation from a broad range of demographics. For something serious, like policy-making within the government, that is not deemed to be appropriate.
One of the problems with a democracy is how the electorate is structured. If we assume an homogenous voting population, there is no issue - all voters would be like all candidates, & there would be some ‘fairness’ such that representation would be based on an individual’s ability to sell themselves & their policies. However, the population is not homogenous (thankfully), & voters are a large cross-section of the population. Even in Australia, with compulsory voting, those who aren’t citizens (regardless of length of residency) or old enough are not represented.

Within any given electorate, a minority is likely to be represented by their candidature. Minorities include non-European, under twenty-five, over sixty, unemployed. In some cases, each ‘minority’ might be significant, but they won’t band together - the young & old won’t join forces to topple the middle ground. If this happens in each electorate, then the total parliament is always likely to be a collection of the least offensive candidates across the electorates.

In fact, it’s almost as if the major parties, whose sole purpose is to fill the parliament with their trustworthy members, seeks out ‘sound’ non-confrontational voter-friendly puppets to dance in front of the electorate & smile sweetly for the (local) media to garner votes from the new disenfranchised - those without proper representation. The race is on to get a second preference, for example (in a preferential voting system).

It doesn’t matter if your primary vote is ‘wasted’ on a candidate who stands for something that can be believed in. If only ten percent of the electorate agree with you, your vote goes on to your second choice - someone who you didn’t believe in as much. Your principles have been compromised. As counting continues & candidates are discarded, it may come down to the order in which your last two choices were made - or else your vote has expired & been disregarded - your opinion is no longer represented.

This is an implementation of democracy. I don’t feel empowered. I don’t feel represented. I don’t feel as though it can guarantee me a good government. I see no evidence of it.

A good government is one that makes good decisions for the good of the country - the people within it, not necessarily the people it represents.

If the two functions of government in a western democracy are to create policy & oversee its implementation, then neither of these are going to be done well if the policy makers are chosen from a select group of middle ground people.

There has to be a way to ensure representation of the elctorate, but not necessarily within electorates. By that, I mean that there is something fundamentally wrong with forming a government from a majority within one group of elected officials, where each is the least worst representative of a geographically-defined cross-section of the otherwise heterogeneous population, having been selected by organisations who represent little more than themselves.

As tortuous as that paragraph was, it’s probably the only answer to the question I ask nearly any time I see a politician on the television - “How on earth did that idiot ever get into parliament?”

Politics & Government

In an ideal world, everyone would be social enough to rule themselves with absolute respect for their neighbours. They would make decisions collectively when necessary (for infrastructure) that would seamlessly integrate with other communities’ decisions, with an eye to future generations’ needs & expectations.

That ideal being far from likely, we have governments consisting of the few to make decisions that affect the many.

There are many different types of government, but fundamentally they perform the same task - put people who are supposed to be more clever than the most stupid person in a position to make decisions in their (the stupid people’s) place. This usually takes the form of producing policies to be implemented by something the equivalent of the public service.

In a democratic system, this body of government is elected in some manner to represent some qualified element of the population (by birth-place, age, gender, nationality, etc). Under these circumstances (people’s representatives) it often has the role of overseeing the public service (rarely controlling it). In a more autocratic system (monarchy, despotism), the government may be a part of a hierarchy that manages the implementation of policies.

My interest is in elected representation - what is euphemistically referred to as democracy. Because it is ‘expected’ that an elected official represents their constituency, there are all sorts of pitfalls in the system. For any voting system, no representative actually has the full support of those who elected them. By definition, unless they were the only candidate & anyone could qualify to stand, then *someone* wanted someone else in the role.

Even those who voted for the elected official don’t necessarily support them - they could be the best of a bad bunch, the devil they know, a party hack, a donkey vote, blind luck, a mistake, or any of a number of other unfortunate side-effects of the system. In Australia, for example, where voting is compulsory, *someone* has to get the vote - or else you vote informal (invalid) - in which case, your opinion is ignored.
This is the root of the problem with democracy in general. It produces people who are by definition disliked by some percentage of the population that they represent. It also makes that person elected dependent upon the favour of voters to retain their position if they want to remain within the government. This rather ties their hands in terms of being effective. Nobody elected agrees whole-heartedly with the people who elect them - because of misinformation, mistaken identity, party affiliation, propaganda, the quality of the opposition, etc.
Now I’ve brought politics into the fold. Political parties like to hold power. I’m not sure what they do with it, but they are greedy & like to hold it - or at least ensure that no other party holds it. That’s what they do. It’s their sole purpose. People join political parties to be a part of that success, to feel the warmth of the power in the party, to share in the reflected light. A party makes them larger than they are themselves.

It doesn’t matter what the policies of that party are, the fact of the matter is that the party itself has a self-preservation built into it to ensure that it gets power - re-election of its representatives - regardless of its idealisms or the people that it is supposed to represent on the ground level.

On this basis, a party will never be too controversial. This is a given. This means it will never intentionally introduce policies that - no matter how good they are for the population, society, country, world - will upset the electorate. But isn’t that exactly why we need elected officials - to make the decisions subjectively that we wouldn’t make subjectively? Don’t we abregate our responsibility by putting our trust in the democratic representative?

I have always said that we get the politicians that we can afford - that is, if smart people can get a better livelihood & satisfaction out of not being in politics, then only extreme altruism could draw them to it.
Similarly, political parties can only allow those who toe the party line into the upper echelons of representativeness. Any official who is a danger to the party’s electability cannot be allowed to voice their concerns or make public statements that might be embarrassing to the party, no matter how well-intentioned.
The system does not work.

I have no choice in the collection of people from whom I have to choose a representative - unless I stand for election myself. If I am lucky enough that the person for whom I vote is popular with my neighbours, & I agree whole-heartedly with them & the party that they represent, then I may otherwise be happy, or blissfully ignorant of what I lack - true representation.

What’s the alternative - allow everyone direct input on every governmental decision? Worse than anarchy. That gives people all the more reason to bitch & moan about their opinion not being carried through to policy - or else policy-making stagnates to general popularism.

A better thing is that people who want to be representatives be trained as such - have to pass some sort of civics course that includes an understanding of the workings of government & an appreciation of how the system works. In my heart, I think that all voters should need a qualification, but then the uneducated have no representation.

From those who are qualified, all should stand for election. The election should then be random, across reasonable lines of geographic, demographic, ethnic, gender & age spread. The terms of reasonableness would have to change over time from its current randomness which we shall call a baseline of incorrectness, towards some form of ideal (more young people, more women, whatever) until a happy balance is achieved. These random people are given a fixed term.

Those willing & who qualify during that term as being most active & effective are thrown into a pool from which returning representatives are randomly chosen (again, the number can slowly change from whatever the average is now). The rest are still qualified for general election, if they so wish to stand after their experience.

The only politics left are around issues, rather than around re-election. That is something I could stomach as healthy debate, & keeps the politics out of the government.

Unfortunately, the only way I can get these changes in place would be to sneakily be elected under the wing of a political party & work against them, or else become so popular a solitary figure that people listen. I could also campaign from outside of the elective system, but that means no practicing what I preach.

Let me think more on the subject …