Evening glory

Have you ever watched
The suset across the bay
As the evening glory spreads its arms
Joining sea and sky
In its fiery grasp
Like an ill fated love
It burns but for an instanst
Before the encroaching night
Extinguishes the last embers
Of a dying fire

Make poverty history

Is it too idealistic to believe that poverty could be defeated? After all, the poor have always been with us. And many of the poorest live in nations where civil war is endemic and corruption is a way of life. I can sponsor a child or two or three. But what differences will that make. Nations way have their national debt cancelled, but in the absence of good government, will they end up get back in debt? So why should I care. After all I have my own problems to solve. And they are not going to go away just because I am concerned about the poor in Africa or Asia.

We should try because the poor are human beings like us. They could be my father, my brother, my friend. They could be me. They are, in many cases innocent victims, not only of war, but also of unjust trade policies. The cheap jeans I buy at the warehouse are cheap because the factory worker is paid only a few cents an hour and work inhumane hours in sweatshops. My decisions contribute to poverty and exploitation. I try not to think about it. I mean it is so much easier to believe that I am a good person, who believes in truth, justice and freedom. I pay my taxes. I don’t steal. To my knowledge I’ve never taken advantage of anyone.

But by looking the other way I am supporting injustice. So what can I do? How can I change the world and make the world a more caring and compassionate place? My wallet is my main source of power. Therefore one way I can make the world better is by being more informed about the labour practices of the organisations that I buy my clothes from. Based on this knowledge I could then choose to only buy clothes from ethical manufacturers. Ethical consumerism is a small step, but like with fair trade coffee it has to start somewhere.

He haunts me still

He haunts me still
This man without a name
With downcast eyes full of sorrow and pain
Telling his story
Of his fight to survive

His room invades my senses
Its decrepit and crumbling walls
Enter into the depths of my soul

He is a part of me
Though he doesn’t know that I exist
And I didn’t know of him
Until his image was beamed into my room

I don’t know where he was born
Or who gave birth to him
And guided him through his early years
I don’t know the name of his children
And the hopes that he carries for them

How I wish I could forget about him
When I complain about the price of milk
Or the rising cost of petrol for my car
But his face returns to me

How much easier life would be
If I had never seen him
I could live a life of comfortable ignorance
But no more

Because of him I hear
God’s tears falling on a broken world
And I ask what can I do?
It seems too much
There are too many problems to fix
Too many mouths to feed
I am just one man – how can I change the world?

It seems like the conservative party in the USA may be balking at the president’s latest attempt to circumscribe international law. The crux of the issue is whether the Geneva Convention, and article three in particular, applies to prisoners captured in the so called War on Terror.

One of the things that have served to ameliorate the worst aspects of war over the last century has been compliance with the Geneva Convention. This convention protected the rights of prisoners of war enabling them to be treated humanely while incarcerated.

By declaring all detainees caught in his War on Terror as enemy combatants the Bush administration had hoped that it had side stepped Geneva Convention, particularly article three’s prohibition against inhumane treatment of prisoners. But a declaration by the Supreme Court that the Geneva Convention is still binding left this strategy in tatters.

It had seemed, early in the month, that they Bush administration had grudgingly admitted defeat. The release of a new set of manuals requiring that all prisoners be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention had just been released; a total u-turn on the previous policy.

However the Bush administration has returned with a new set of proposals recommending that Article Three be interpreted in a much narrower sense. The administration’s justification for this policy is that the War on Terror is a totally new type of war not envisaged by the architects of original convention, and the wording of article three is too vague. As a result, the interrogation techniques used by the CIA puts CIA staff at risk of criminal charges. In Bush's view, the safety and security of the American people required a tighter interpretation of Article Three, allowing a certain degree of mistreatment, as long as it fell short of actual torture.

The proposals, if approved will set a dangerous precedent, further eroding the rule of law. Fortunately the proposal is being strongly opposed in both Congress and the Senate by Republicans as well as Democrats. Former Secretary of State, Colin Powell is also strongly opposed. I hope that Congress and Senate hold their nerve and the rule of law prevails.

Sadly, the latest proposal is but a continuation of a policy trend that sees human rights as negotiable. Yet it is upholding those basic rights, even when it is not convenient, that separates the free from the despotic. George Bush claims to be a Christian who guided by higher moral principles. Yet his watch as president of the United States has been marked by some of the worst abuses at any time in the history of the United States. It seems that Bush’s view of morality is limited only to sexual behaviour and preferences. Such a view might win votes from religious conservatives, but is an overly narrow view of morality.

Conflict is an inevitable part of the human condition. That I accept. But to justify immoral behaviour on the basis of some ill defined War on Terror is, in my view, evidence of a moral vacuum that will cause major damage to the US and make the world less safe.

Where where you when . . . ?

There are some events that seem frozen in time. Like the assassination of JFK, or Martin Luther King; or watching Nelson Mandela’s long walk to freedom after 27 years imprisonment. I‘ve heard friends and strangers say that they remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news of such events. I’ve witnessed some world changing events in my short time on earth. I’ve seen my nation torn apart over a simple game – rugby – with blood on the streets and a near state of civil war. I’ve seen the collapse of communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall. I’ve seen events that brought life, and events that took life away. But nothing could beat 9/11 for its surreal intensity.

Where you when . . . ? One of those evocative questions that brings back memories. Memories seared into the consciousness. Memories of a time when time stood still.

Where were you when . . . ?

I was in Melbourne. It had been a lovely day exploring the city. Then I caught up with my niece for a nice meal at a local Italian restaurant. I had retired to my hotel room and was unwinding. My thoughts were on the next day, of flying out to Perth to spend some time with my brother and his family. I was watching a late night documentary of the classic Foreman-Ali boxing match – the rumble in the jungle. Then a strange message appeared on the screen about an aircraft flying into the World Trade Centre. At first I thought, like most I suspect, that it was a light aircraft. A tragic accident that I’d read about in tomorrow’s paper.




But then we were transferred across to a live telecast from New York. And for the next few hours I was transfixed. I saw two icons of America burning. I saw replays of one plane crashing into one tower, then a second plane into the second tower. Reports came in of a plane crashing into the pentagon, and another that crashed on route to who knows where. I watched people hurl themselves out of windows, knowing that it was a case of fry or die. I watched first one tower, then another collapse under its own weight.

There is no justification for bringing such death and carnage on the innocent. Evil is evil, no matter what purported grievance motivates the action. For the perpetrators, their victory was shorted lived. Believing that paradise awaits them they will spend eternity in Hell. That is the truth, but it will bring no comfort to those who lost a loved one that day. To them I say I remember you, and I am at one with your grief and pain. May you find peace and acceptance.

It's my b'day?

I’ve just realized that today was my birthday. It’s a strange thing to forget your birthday. Another year older. Something to celebrate, if I was so inclined, but at the moment I’m not that motivated. There are other things to focus on, like assignments, and placements, and getting through to the end of the year.

What is about birthdays in our culture? What do they represent? Apart from providing markers about when I can legally go for my license, vote, serve on a jury or enter a pub they have no functional value. I grew up in an environment where birthdays were not celebrated, so celebrating a birthday is still an odd thing for me.

On the other hand I’ve been to celebrate the birthdays of friends which were a nice occasion to get together with friends and family. Maybe that is their function – an excuse to get tother with those whome you value. Something to think about.

A musical journey

This weekend has been a touch of culture for me. I went to a concert given by a friend of mine who is the principle oboist for the NZSO. It was a varied evening with composers from four different centuries, each influenced by the prevailing styles of their time. While I am no music critic, and my attempts at learning the violin lasted a mere year before I realized the limitations of my musical talents, I still enjoy going to concerts whenever I can.

As I said the programme was varied including composers I was four composers I was familiar with: Schumann, Chopin, Britten and Saint-Saens. There were also a couple of new composers, The Frenchman Marin Marais who performed and composed for Louis the XIV and the contemporary composer, Witold Lutoslawski whose epitaph for piano and oboe was written in 1979.

Having grown up on the romantic composers my favourite for the evening were Schumann’s three romances. Each romance had a magical lyrical character, particularly nicht schnell, which were beautifully expressed by Robert Orr’s oboe and John Mapp’s piano. The most interesting piece was the temporal variations of Britten. This due to the interplay between piano and oboe creating a sense of what one critic described as harmonic ambiguity where the listener is never quite sure as to when resolution has been reached.

While I’ve heard Robert a few times with the NZSO, this was the first time I’ve been able to hear him as a soloist and performing with piano. It allowed me to appreciate all the more his musical breadth, and virtuosity.