Drowned Out!

Have you ever felt that your opinion or voice in matters which you think are important, gets drowned out by the bigger voices? Might be on the subject of church, or politics, or what's on TV. The point is we can get to thinking our voice doesn't matter, because no one takes notice because they can't hear you for the other, louder din.


Another way of saying it is 'a voice crying in the wilderness'. This was the biblical description of John the Baptist. A strange person if ever there was one, and sometimes he must have thought his voice was not being heard because the 'big guns' in the established church thought he was 'out of his tree' to use a more modern turn of phrase. What happened? It seemed to take a while, but his voice was eventually heard, and not only that, was recorded in the bible for us to read. Not bad for someone who felt 'drowned out', eh?


Life can be a bit like an orchestra too, lots of instruments, all trying to fit in with the right balance of sounds, to make the final result just right. When done properly, each instrument can be heard when it supposed to be heard, where all the hard work practising that particular phrase or section of music really pays off. When the balance of the orchestra isn't quite right, we lose the whole sense of music that the composer intended. That's where the conductor comes in, making sure each part has its place and in its proper time, so that the whole piece can be enjoyed.


Sorry to be so obvious about this, but we have a conductor in life too, but we have to keep our eyes on Him to make sure we get to enjoy the whole production of our life, and not be drowned out by others who think themselves more important than they actually are!! We ALL have our place, and we will ALL have our time... just keep your eye on the Conductor.  

Second Chances

Second chances are hard to come by in this life. The fact is that we could all do with the odd 'second chance' or two when we think about some of the decisions we have made over the years. Some good, some not so good, and these are the ones I mean about wishing we had another chance at it!


Anyone who has been around church, and sermons, will be well aware that we all get a second chance with God, and sometimes a third, and a fourth and so on. How we need those extra chances in life! But a second chance here? In this life? Not usually, and not likely. They are like hens teeth, few and far between. In fact when we really need them, we don't usually get them.


So what's brought this about then? Well, even if we can't succeed, and take up the second chance fully, there is always the great benefit that 1- it was offered, and 2- whether we made a success of the chance, or not, we have had the opportunity to test ourselves to see if we were up to it. Now the real risk in second chances isn't the person getting it. It lies with the person who is prepared to put their own thoughts to one side and give you the chance again. You know, the chance you failed with previously. And probably with the same person you failed with before. That is what takes the courage.


I have had the benefit of a friend giving me the 'second chance' at something which I had wondered about. Was I up to the job? Would I hack it? Would I fail, yet again? My friend let me try, and no, I wasn't up to the mark, but did he tell me off for the risk he took with me? NO! On the contrary, I learned from my experience, and he let me. He was gracious, and understanding. Hey isn't that a bit like our God who gives us those 'second chances' we all need, and doesn't keep a score of the number of times He lifts us back up to our feet? Yes, I thought you would agree!!

When is a Homeless person NOT Homeless?

There has been some concern aired recently, by the homeless charities, that there are a lot of folks living on the streets, forced to beg for money to let them buy basics like food, and ease their plight of not having a roof over their heads, especially in this cold wintry weather. Let me say on record, I fully sympathise with these genuine people, who find themselves begging, instead of working. They deserve help, but are very few in number.


But I have to ask the obvious question, 'when is a homeless person, not really homeless?' Not all the folks who beg, are homeless. I will go a stage further, not all beggars are poor. And yet again not all people on the streets are there against their will. They are there by choice. It is a lifestyle choice. So we are left with a problem. Who, if anyone, do we give money to on the street? And even more important, are we helping them?


I do not include those tabard wearing, highly visible, charities who ask for support, and are up front about their intentions. They get money for their charity, the seller gets commission. But what about the poor soul, sitting in rags, with a cup and a sign saying something like, 'no home, no food, please donate?' 


I had always been led to believe that people who sold the 'Big Issue' were homeless, and this was their way of getting out of the problem, and onto their own feet. Hmmmm. Not so sure about that now. Fact- Big Issue vendors are NOT necessarily homeless. Oh as far as the DSS is concerned, they are classed as homeless, but some live in very nice homes, courtesy of the same DSS, who class them as homeless, and pay them accordingly. So they are NOT homeless. The clue is in the word 'homeless'. It means, without a home. Simple! We may even know someone who is earning this way, living in a nice free flat, while having loud drunken parties with their mates most weekends, and keeping other families awake where the adults really do have to go to work and earn a living for their family. 


Another fact- most beggars on the streets are using their donations to feed a drug or alcohol habit, and have no interest in using the social welfare program to improve. When their day is over, they will count their takings, feed their habit, get drunk, stay 'invisible' and pitch themselves on the pavement again next day, looking for more unsuspecting donors.


Yet another fact- some of these poor souls on the pavements in rags, at the end of their 'shift' will roll up their stuff, and money, shuffle off to a quiet place, maybe a public toilet, get changed into their other, better clothes, give themselves a wash, and go home! How do I know? Just call it being an eye witness. This is their job. This is how they get their income. It is actually quite a nice little earner, and tax free. 


So, who do we give to? My suggestion, is to bypass these street beggars, all of them, and give directly to the charity of your choice. We have all been affected by some kind of situation which makes us lean towards a charity. Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Disadvantaged Children, Natural Disaster Appeals. And now the real reason for my rant. The people in Haiti did not ask for their situation. They are certainly poor. They are not using, or abusing, the system to feed a habit. They really are starving and homeless. Yes, really HOMELESS! So don't feel bad as you pass by the very poor looking beggar on the streets here. We have a system which will help them if they want help, but the people in Haiti don't have a DSS to bale them out. So give to them, or one of the other charities of your own choosing. A place where you know how the money is used, and not being squandered.  

Assisted Suicide Scottish Parliament Bill Debate

The topic of assisted suicide is an emotive one, and any decision should not be taken lightly, or on the wishes of a very vocal minority group. This Bill has a champion in Margo McDonald MSP, herself a Parkinsons Disease sufferer, so it already has a well educated, experienced spokesperson. She does a magnificent job in putting her own, and others who feel like her, opinions across. Margo is the best argument that particular lobby has, and without her the subject would have stumbled and faltered long ago. 


However, and it is a big however, this subject has to be bigger than one person, and not only that, it should be bigger than any single, though very vocal, minority. There is another, strong view that goes in the opposite direction. Somehow, I believe this view to be in the majority of thinking. I believe Assisted Suicide is a bad Bill, and would be a bad law, for the following reasons.


1. There are some people who want the right to end their lives at the point of their choosing. Not now, but at some time in the future. All of these people have serious health problems, which cannot be minimised. We didn't choose the time of our entry into this world, should we have the right to choose the time of our departure? Not everyone believes in God, but I do, and if there IS a God, should we not at least give Him some thought?


2. If we give the right to end life as chosen by law, and by that vocal minority, what does that say to our other ill, or diseased elderly people who could then feel unwanted, or a burden on family or society? Anyone who has been around an ill elderly person, would have come across the words, 'but I don't want to be a burden'! Does that mean they want to bring forward the time of their death? Absolutely not! BUT, they might feel it is something they should be thinking about, due to unspoken pressure. If a law is passed to allow assisted suicide, it will be in older folks thinking, even if we do not speak it out loud. Do we want to unsettle our already frail elders?


3. This bill, and this debate is being conducted by people who want someone else to step in, on their behalf, when they can no longer commit suicide by their own hand. There is an underlying, but very obvious almost unspoken element to this. People (yes who have serious illnesses) want to put the onus and responsibility on another to kill them. It isn't a government who would do this, it would be a person whether they knew it or not. This then becomes not assisted suicide, but assisted murder, because it is premeditated (by the victim!). 


4. If we take step 3 a stage further in our thinking, why do the people who advocate this type of 'mercy killing' (killing is a better word than suicide) not do it themselves, while they can? This sounds cruel and unfeeling, but what is really being proposed, is the act of suicide being changed into an act of murder, by person or persons unknown. If we really think we want to end our own lives, while we have the ability, why put that awful responsibility on someone else? Why not do it yourself while you can? Suicide is not illegal, but murder is!


5. What kind of pressure are we putting our young up and coming student doctors, under? They take a 'hypocratic oath' to help save life, and in fact the opening words contain the statement, 'first do no harm'. How does that square with the training of our doctors in the NHS? At this point we can get into the argument of the practice of 'withholding treatment' to allow a dying patient to pass away peacefully. This passive kind of treatment and choice should never be confused with the active decision of doing something, not in the attitude of 'doing no harm' but totally against that commitment. All doctors, do not believe in God, but they ALL take the hypocratic oath.


6. What kind of NHS do we end up with? That depends entirely on the success or otherwise of the 'assisted suicide' bill.


Yes, as I said at the start, this is an emotive issue, and you now know where I stand. If you feel differently, or if you agree, I would urge you to tell your MSP. At least then, they will know what the real people think, not just a few who make their voices heard in the debating chamber. Oh by the way, I speak from the experience of losing both parents and a wife to diseases which would qualify for assisted suicide under this proposed bill, so I know what I am saying. The biggest difference in my experience is that at no time did any one who was suffering say the words, 'I'ts about me' or 'I want', or acted in a selfish way, which you would think would be their right. When I listen to the debates, I often hear words like, 'this is my right', or 'my basic human right' or 'I want'. There is a great big difference between the base attitude of the very vocal minority, and the selfless, silent majority, and how good it is to be with them, and share their LIFE. All of it!!

The Acceptable Face of Evil.

As a father and granda, I watched and listened with some unease and disbelief at the reports on the 10 and 11 year old boys who unleashed a vile and vicious 90 minute attack on two similarly aged boys! The actions of these young offenders beggars belief as it contains violence on a major scale, sustained for a long hour and a half on two unsuspecting victims who were lured to their place of intended execution on the pretext of being shown a dead fox. The young boys were very fortunate to escape with their lives. When asked why they did this, the attackers said, they were bored! When they were asked why they stopped after 90 minutes, they said, because their arms ached. It is significant that they didn't say they felt sorry for their actions, and regretted it. What would have been the outcome if their arms hadn't been sore? This is hard to take in, considering the young age of the boys involved.


Remember the 'Bulger' case a few years ago? A young boy died in circumstances not unlike this one. There are common threads, like, a very broken home where parents constantly fought and argued, and violence was normal between the adults, and to the children. Violent 18 rated horror videos were watched by parents and children alike. The neighbourhood was well aware of the family, and their anti social behaviour. (The parents in this case put a sign on their gate which read, 'beware of the children', and the neighbours lived in a fear of their lives and property). The attacks were premeditated, even at such early ages, and their victims were taken to a secluded spot to be attacked mercilessly and ruthlessly.


Politicians at the time of the Jamie Bulger case, made all sorts of statements and promises, and said things like, 'we have to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen again'. Well it has. In this case, I sympathise with any person or agency who has to deal with anyone who has this kind of unacceptable behaviour, and I think we would do well to remember that there is something else we should take note of, which in our advanced and progressive society, we tend to ignore. Evil! We shy away from it because we think we are above that, and anyway how can we label two young mistreated children as evil. Why are we afraid to recognise this word anymore? It goes straight to the heart, yes the heart, of the problem. 


These children were never shown, or taught, right from wrong. We are sometimes frowned on for speaking about morality, but it does play a part in our everyday lives. I am reminded of my own obligations to my family to show a good life, lived with high morals, and maybe help to instill such a sense of good, that they will know what evil is, and how to avoid it. I don't think it is a difficult thing to do, and after all its what most of us want for our children, but as demonstrated in this case, most is not good enough! It didn't help our two young victims. 


We have wrongly labelled our social services as 'do gooders'. They are more like 'allow harmers' and then we might step in. After all, these bad people have rights too! I link this story in my mind to another smaller story today, where the Glasgow Education department (who probably sit very close to the Social Work Department) will issue a letter to all teachers with instructions NOT to step in and stop a playground fight, or argument. Presumably, the teachers will then go in when and if there is a casualty, but NOT to prevent it. The link? We are afraid of stepping on too many toes by encroaching into other people's lives. After all aren't children just little adults?


There will always be bad behaviour, there will always be evil, and we have to accept that as fact. We try to deal with bad behaviour, but it will only be when we start to deal with the other side of the problem, evil, that we will get somewhere as individuals, and as a society. Are we going to be grown up enough to admit the present 'acceptable face of evil', and try to do something about it at our level?   

Donkeys and Dogs

The following article has been seen in a local village news sheet, and I must say I sympathise with the writer. What do you think??

Like many others, I have had to walk the gauntlet of dog poo along most of my road when going to school to collect my grandchildren. I know you have championed this cause before, but I believe there to be two animals involved. The dog who has poor bowel control, and the donkey who walks the dog, who has no brain control. I am not sure which is worse! Actually I do. The donkey or ass is worse because he or she knows full well the effect their animal has on the pavement, and also that children will walk through it, and carry the mess, the smell, and the disease home. These people don't need a poop scoop, they need a navvies shovel and a brain replacement. 

I am sick and tired of seeing the end result (pun intended) but never clapping eyes on the beasts who walk the dogs. My conclusion is this: there are worse animals in our village than the dogs! Even worse still, these animals will not take any responsibility, or care what their dog does, so it will continue. Are we prepared to live in a place with more than our share of 'village idiots'?

In the unlikely event that one of these animals (not the dog) is reading this, then 'get your act together'!!

Submitted by 'Pavement Dancer'.

Strange isn't it that dog owners don't really see themselves as culprits? How many of this kind of dog owner do you know, who do not pick up after their dog? Answer, none, because they are all very careful with their pets. It's a bit like an obese person saying they don't really eat much, or a chain smoker who says they don't really spend a whole lot on cigarettes, or an alcoholic who could stop drinking anytime! As our Scottish bard said so well, 'ah wid some power the Giftie gie us, to see oorselves as ithers see us'!

On another point, I was walking down the street recently, and an adult man took a run at a stranger and stood in front of him shouting abuse in a very agitated way. He then ran round the very frightened victim, up close and yelling all the while. The adult man's elderly mum stepped in and said to the now shaking man, 'don't worry, he won't touch you. He's really a big softy'!! Wow...

Sound familiar? What about the dog owner who lets their 'wee pet' run up to an unsuspecting stranger, bark wildly at him or her, maybe a child, almost causing a coronary visit, and says in a very unsympathetic manner, 'he'll no touch you, you know. He's a big softy'. All as if to say, that it was your own fault he did that. You obviously did something to agitate him. Oh dear, tell that to the gran in NE England who lost their grandchild to a wild family pet, who never did anything like that before. Or how about the family pet on the Isle of Wight who mauled a young baby to death in the family home? Do dog owners not know about these things, or do they just ignore them? After all, isn't their dog just like their own child, or maybe even more important than their own children?

The obvious exceptions to this kind of problem are professionally trained dogs, like dogs for the blind or deaf, or police rescue dogs. To me, a dog is a dog, so the difference obviously isn't in the animal, it's in the owner, or as the writer of the article above says, if there is a problem, it lies with 'the donkey'. Aptly said!!   

Turkeys Don't Vote for Christmas

A report out today suggests that alcohol abuse costs each adult in Scotland £900 each year! That's each adult, whether they are heavy or light drinkers, or who take no alcohol at all. Staggering isn't it? I could think of many good ways that money could be used in the NHS. This is sometimes referred to in the media as 'Scotland's shame'.

This abuse takes the form of domestic violence by a usually tanked up father on his children after their team loses a match, and also husband to his wife. This can happen without the man going out of the house! It will be the effects of an argument which could not be defused outside the pub, because all and any reason is lost. These again, usually young people, find themselves in the local A&E department with injuries of their own making, causing even more trouble for the staff and other 'normal' people who need urgent medical attention- which is not of their own making. We all have experience of people coming to work still 'under the influence' of the night before, and his or even her workmates having to cover for them. 

The services who have to deal with the many ways alcohol abuse affects folks, are people like, doctors, nurses, police, fire crews, ministers, priests, husbands, wives, children and the list could go on. Ask any of these abused people if something should be done and they will shout, YES!

Governments in Scotland and Westminster have looked at the problem seriously, and have suggested a 'minimum pricing policy' be brought in as soon as possible. Independent sources say there is a clear link between the price of alcohol and the abuse suffered by innocent people.

Now for the turkeys. No harm to the real turkey, but they are not the brightest animal in the kingdom, and are seen to be slow and an easy mark for someone looking for a nice meal at Christmas and Easter. However, there are other turkeys out there who obviously would not vote for Christmas, or in this case vote for a curtailment of their lifestyle or profits. People like the supermarket who might make a small reduction in profit. The publican who sees his customer base (and then his profit) drop. The brewery that sees its production affected. Do you see the common theme? It's not the harm alcohol does, or the innocents who suffer, its the profit and loss accounts... oh diddums.... Like you, I have seen some of these 'good' people in the news saying (in the best accents, and trying to look educated beyond the many clever people who conducted the study) '.. look here, there is no scientific evidence that raising the base price of alcohol will help these unfortunate people'! Eh?? What??? I remember the same arguments being raised when there was the prospect that smoking might be banned in public places. History tells its own story on that one. 

Obviously, turkeys don't vote for Christmas, so I don't really expect anything less from the supermarkets, publicans or brewerys, but please, please don't make the mistake of thinking we are ALL turkeys. Oh, there is another big bird who is probably just as daft as a turkey, and that's the 'let's bury our head in the sand', Ostrich!! I wonder if the ostrich has a vote?

Stones and Rocks

There have been a couple of stories in the press in the past days and months, and I can't help but make a connection between them. Westminster MPs expenses, and an Irish politician's indiscretions, which has affected her health, party, husband and family.


In the case of the MPs expenses, bad as it was, there was little element of the human drama or suffering behind it. Sure, some lost their jobs, but generally we felt they deserved it. Not so with the Irish member. This is a purely human drama, played out in the glare of open publicity. There can be no other result when you are in public office, and I don't think those involved would expect anything else to be the case. A sad and mentally ill lady has brought down her house of cards, and the debris lies all around her. Debris which is being picked up and used by others to their own advantage, either politically or personally. This event is even being used to bring down her husband, who, it can be argued has no part to play in his wife's personal behaviour, and bears a very heavy national burden on his shoulders. The end result in the Irish political scene cannot easily be guessed. It may be massive, but there are those who will play politics with this personal tragedy.


Where do the Stones and Rocks come into this, I hear you ask? What makes you think that people in public life are different from you or me? They have the same feelings, emotions and drives. Some extreme. Why are we so quick to judge them, when we are no different. In fact, if you go back to the MPs expenses scandal, some of the most vocal people were only silenced when their own expenses came to light! Then, and only then, they fell silent. We are prone to shout loudest when we think we are safe from judgement. I fear some of the people who are making the most noise over a personal tragedy, would be quietened if their own failings were known and broadcast nationally.


Why have we lost the ability to see that in some areas, 'there but for the grace of God, go I'? None of us are perfect, and some are less perfect than others. Now for the 'Stones and Rocks' as titled. How about, 'People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'? Or better still, a very famous and world changing person said when faced with people holding stones to throw at a woman who needed help, 'let him that is without sin cast the first stone'! There are times when bad people doing bad things need to be punished, but there are other times when good people do bad things and need to be helped, and yes even forgiven. 


Are we so bad ourselves that forgiving is beyond us?  

General Election- Glossary of Terms!

2010 will see a General Election in the UK, and as a non party political person, I felt it would be helpful to provide a set of words used by all politicians of all parties, and a guide to what they really mean! Here are a few. You will have your own, which you are welcome to add.....


'Clearly'. ...as clear as mud but I will dress it up in jargon so that you have no excuse but to know what I mean.


'I have always been clear about this'. ...still clear as mud, but the politician will now make you feel (without actually saying so) a numpty for not seeing it in the first place. Don't feel bad. The thing being clarified will still not be clear, as this word can be replaced by another simpler word, 'waffle'!


'We have to ensure'. A great way to make you think they will do something about the problem being talked about. It's a great and vague way of seeming to address something important, but not actually having any solution. In other words, they know as much as you. Actually, you will know more than them, but they will find this hard to accept.


'I have always said'. Probably said to the dog while out walking, or in the shower where no one else listens, or to the yes-men and yes-women who surround them and bask in their presence.


'I am calling for'. Sounds like a yodel from a high hill or mountain. All politicians will call for something in their career, but we all know (they don't) it's who will listen that's important, and even more important, who will do something about it! Anyone can 'call' but it takes someone special to 'do', and they are few and far between in the ranks of Westminster, or even any government body... including the Scottish Government.


'We will set up a committee to look at this'. A good way to put off making any decisions right now, while making it look like the obvious solution (which will be hard to implement) might not be the right one.


'Let's be careful not to offend'. Wow, this is one of the best ones. They will hide behind the PC flag, which allows the minority groups to take cover while the majority view is ignored. What is democracy if not the wishes of the majority(?)... except when we might offend someone, or a group. Now run over in your mind the types of people or groups who get most protection from this? Certainly not the mainstream voting majority.


'We will make the difficult decisions'. No they won't! These decisions are difficult, and therefore political suicide. So there is talk about decisions being difficult, but little or no action. Difficult solutions are needed for difficult decisions, and that is why there is no action taken.


'Manifesto promise'. This is different from all other promises. When other mortals make a promise, your word is your bond and can be counted on. Not so for the politician. As long as it is written in a manifesto document, it is open to being broken at will, because you can count on them saying 'but the situation has changed since the intention (it's not a promise at this point) was made'.


So what method can we use to help us decide which party to vote for? How about things like....
Has a nice face
Eyes are not too close together
Colour of eyes
Doesn't resort to insults
Stays calm under pressure
Not arrogant
Not ashamed of their roots or faith
Defends the underdog at the expense of the wealthy
Stays faithful to their spouse and family
Honest with expenses and allowances.


Another look at that list tells you that there is not a party political element to it. There is, however, something about honesty and integrity which should be the bedrock of anyone serving the public in office. Let's go for a choice along those lines, then whoever it may be, male or female, from whatever party, we are best placed to get a good return on our vote. Oh yes, and of course the eyes!!

Happy New Year 2010

And I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year:

"Give me a light, that I may tread safely into the unknown!"

And he replied:

"Go out into the darkness and put your hand into the Hand of God.

That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way."

It seems to me that these old words are wise words. Like all New Years, they are just that, 'New' and therefore unknown. Little did we know as we stepped into last year, what lay ahead. We were each met with joy and sorrow, laughter and tears, but we made it to this time. Now we look ahead into 2010, unsure of ourselves, or our future, so what better way, or Guide, to lead us through the shadowy year which is in front of us all.


Resolutions are good, but not always dependable. We can be strong when we make them, but weak when it comes time to 'do' them. So, how about the simple solution and decide just to 'put your hand into the hand of God' as the poem advises, and let Him lead the way. After all, He already knows the path, and better still He knows our weaknesses.


...so to my readers, and all those we love and care about:
Here's to a brand new dawn. HAPPY NEW YEAR 2010!