Orca Kills!

Something very sad happened at Seaworld, Florida this week. A very experienced trainer was killed by the very being she had devoted her studies, and life to understand. She had worked with these magnificent creatures for many years and knew their habits and instincts completely. She knew the risks and dangers, but was willing to take those risks, even at the expense of her own life. I feel very sorry for the family and friends and colleagues she leaves behind. She was obviously dedicated to her work, indeed her vocation in life.


On the other hand, we know that these Orcas are also known as Killer Whales. They do not earn that title casually. It has a background. These are predators, and have swam our oceans for millions of years, unchanged. They were created that way. Yes I said 'created' not evolved. This has become a news item because the whale killed the trainer, and perhaps because we believed that the whale had been trained out of its nature! We should not be surprised that lions maul their trainers, as Orcas kill theirs, and even our pet domesticated dogs will occasionally maul a child to death. We capture the animals, but we do not captivate their instincts, no matter how well we learn to train them to jump and leap so gracefully. They are killers at heart.


Isn't that part of the reason we are fascinated by them? The risk? The danger element? The possibility that as we watch, something might go wrong? Is there something of the gladiatorial spectacle in this? I have to admit to seeing these shows at Seaworld more than once, and being fascinated at the trainer's ability to swim with them, jump on top of them, stroke their tongue, and even let these magnificent animals push them high into the air, out of the water, and on its snout! Amazing, but for my part, I certainly had come to think that the trainer was in charge of the animal, and they are... but only to the degree that the animal's basic instinct allows. In this case, the animal's instinct came through, and a life was ended. 


The chief of Seaworld was visibly shaken and affected by this disaster, as he gave his interview, and said that every safety procedure would be re investigated! I think this is a bit naive. You may be able to retrain a trainer, but you cannot retrain the killer instinct out of a killer whale, no matter what steps you take. And in the meantime, thousands of people will flock to see the 'show' this year, unaffected by the death of a Seaworld employee. I wonder again, what really makes the performances so memorable? The music? The grace of the Orca? The command of the trainer? Or maybe the thought deep down that 'something might happen this time'?


Just my thoughts, but what do you think?

Gordon Brown gets angry... Shock, Horror!!

So, the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown has a temper. Add this to the fact that he lost the use of an eye in his youth, and is known to cry over his lost baby daughter, and what do you have? Answer, journalistic fodder!


Since when are any of these things news worthy? Since when do we pick on people who show human characteristics? Impatience leading to frustration, or bad writing because of poor sight, or an expression of deep personal grief? Politicians are not my favourite people, but guess which profession(?) has just knocked them off their perch? Yes, the journalists. The past few days have seen an endless stream of interviews with anyone who has been near the Prime Minister when anything like an outburst has been seen or heard. People have reported him thumping his papers on his desk in exasperation, and oh yes, he has been impatient with staff for not doing as he had asked. He even shouted... wow! What happened to the basic tenet of British law that you were innocent until proven guilty. We usually go out of our way to show this to the most undeserving criminal, but not to the PM! Seems he is an easy target. Even the helpline who helped break the story has now lost two of its sponsors, and the position of the chief of staff is in doubt, because they broke their fundamental rule of privacy and confidentiality. Can they be trusted now with YOUR call if you felt you were being bullied? I thought not! I would find another helpline!!


Perhaps at this point it would be wise to mention that the whole reason this has come up is because someone has written a book with unfounded allegations of fits of temper, coming from Gordon Brown. Aaahhhhh yes, now I get it! Someone wants to sell more books, and make more money, but it is more sinister than that. The opposition parties (all of them) are baying for blood. They see a man down, and instead of helping him to his feet, they sink the boot in while he is down. Have they never heard of the old wise saying, 'there but for the grace of God go I'? It seems not. Instead they talk piously as though they have never raised their voice at their staff, or lost their temper temporarily in frustration. I think it's this hypocrisy that really gets to me. Not the temper. It's the wide eyed innocence of the politicians who throw stones in the face of being reminded, 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone'. If you would prefer a non biblical phrase, then how about 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'. Yes, we are back to throwing stones again. As Shakespeare said, 'methinks he protesteth too much'.


It will not have escaped your attention that there will be a UK General Election before May, and if this strikes you as being an example of the type of opening salvo, you will be right. This will be a dirty election campaign. The opposition parties have seen to that already. Whatever happened to discussing the real things that affect us all, like health, education, crime, unemployment, and yes, of course the basic morality of our country (and why not start with our politicians)?   

Conservative Schools Minister Michael Gove against Creationism

Michael Gove Conservative MP, shadow minister for schools said on the Andrew Marr Show, 14 Feb 2010, that 'we cannot allow creationist schools' in our society. He said it was 'at odds with all the known science'! I take it he is now a scientist, and that he has polled all scientists, and he knows more than them? In fact he puts this view in the same conversation, and almost the same breath as being against Muslim fundamentalism.


I always thought politicians were politicians. Not scientists, and not religious leaders either. Should they not speak having taken in the expert's views in their fields? I take it he has read Dawkins and shares his beliefs on evolution. But has he read other creationist contemporaries views like Anthony Flew? How about CS Lewis? And what about Colson and Keller? I think Gove is picking and choosing his sources, and forming conclusions with little care.


Scientists DO believe in creation. It is wrong to say that 'ALL the known science' is against it. It is NOT, and to say so shows a blatant disregard for the Christian base of our country. Scientists are divided on the subject. They do not speak with one voice. I smell danger ahead. Science is a fine way of examining 'physical things' but cannot be used in matters of faith, beliefs, emotions, feelings, love. You know the kind of real stuff that we are all made of. We spend most of our day in relationships of one kind or another, and these relationships and emotions cannot be dissected or explained by science!


I am alarmed at the offhand dismissal of the creationist view, when evolution is still a THEORY! This view is expressed by a potential next Schools Minister after the next General Election. Christians, be afraid, be very afraid!  

Prime Minister Weeps! News!!!

The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and his wife Sarah are seen to weep during a TV interview as he recalls the pain of losing his 10 day old daughter, and the press seem to have a field day! What's wrong with us as a nation, and as individual people? Do we really think that we are the only ones who weep, and that those in high position have no right to cry, or express their feelings, whether in private or in public?


Before the interview was even screened, the papers (or at least some of them) weighed in with tackity boots and said it was all politically motivated. They said it was all a stunt for the media to get people to see the 'softer side' of the one time 'Iron Chancellor'. Do these people really forget that he is, after all, human? And while we are at it, what thoughts do some of these sub-human commentators have of his wife, the mother of that little life? Obviously not a lot either. Here are parents who have had the tragedy of laying to rest their baby, and all that can be heard from the editorial rooms is the sound of baying for blood. It is said that there is no greater grief than that of a parent who buries their child!


I remember it wasn't so long ago that David and Samantha Cameron buried their very young handicapped son. I don't recall there being a press 'break/tear down' of their sorrow or tears in the way that has followed the Brown's personal tragedy. What does that tell me anyway? Firstly, there are newspapers and TV programs who see this kind of thing as 'open game' and they pursue their quarry in the cause of more sales, or viewers. Secondly, these same people are below humanity, and certainly have no moral scruples. Thirdly, this is the media we deserve, because we buy their drivel, and accept their thinking. 


I have no allegiance to any political party, and am not a member of any either, so I am not motivated from that direction. I am however, a supporter of human life and dignity, at all levels. This is a clear case of 'selective journalism' and 'targeted character assassination'. Can we not allow them to grieve, and forgive them if they are caught on camera shedding a tear for their 'beautiful daughter'? If that is too much to ask, then we as a nation are further down the drain than I had previously thought.


(Related blog posted on 9 Nov 09)    

Secret (or not) Service!

The British Secret Service, MI5 and MI6, seem to be in a spot of bother because they have been very secretive! Naughty, naughty, those people keeping secrets from us, eh? Imagine a Secret Service having the cheek, the audacity, to be secret. Ok I am going on a bit, but isn't the clue in the name? Secret! That must have something to do with it.


I thought we were in a war against terror, and that includes those who would want to harm us in this country, and that includes the terrorists. It may be an obvious point (well obvious to ordinary people, but not to the authorities) but don't the Secret Services have to be kept secret, so that they can protect us? The terrorists must be laughing all the way to their bombs, as we argue about how secret the secret service should be. As I recall, the last war had a saying, "careless talk costs lives". They couldn't have known what we know. They didn't have our well honed skills in security, where we don't have to worry about the enemy having to work at breaking our country, we do it for them! We tell them our secrets. After all that saves a lot of effort all round, and that way we help our nice terrorist neighbours.


Pardon me if I put another hat on. Hypothetically, would I would be too concerned that some dodgy wannabe terrorist is held in a camp for a few years.... I think not! Hypothetically again, would I be too concerned if our Secret Service questioned our nice terrorist wannabe friends, long and hard, and kept them from sleep? ... I think not! And yet again, hypothetically of course, would those nice wannabe terrorists be kind to any of their victims before they chop their heads off, or fly planes into skyscrapers full of innocent 'victims'? Maybe as many as 3,000 at a time?... again, I think not! 


Seems we have it backwards. The Secret Service is set up as a necessary safeguard for our good. Our country is free, but every freedom has a price, including our security as a nation. Others are not so keen that we keep it that way. They are the terrorists. So why are we so intent on protecting them? I can't help but think those nice wannabe terrorists are still laughing at the antics of our government officials, at the very highest level, protecting their interests instead of our national security.


Can we please let our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Secret Services do their job uninterrupted by politicians who can't tell a terrorist from the tooth fairy!!

Contagious Grins!

You can't tell a child when to smile, no matter their age. You can say the words 'smile please' and mean them, but if the child (of ANY age) doesn't want to smile, well, they won't!! But when that same wee person decides they are enjoying the whole lot of attention, and they want to smile, well then it just bursts forth like a well or a fountain. 

The smile on these young subjects became contagious as the night went on, and they realised that they were enjoying themselves and having fun!! These are portraits of a family of sisters with their 'baby' cousin, and boy did they look after each other that night. 

A family is a wonderful thing. A God given institution of visible love, protection, happiness and unity. Just like my young subjects that night. I was allowed to be a part of their family fun, and in return, I think you will agree, the images portray that whole protective and happy family feeling. We owe it to ourselves to enjoy our children while they are young, and if like me, you get the chance to be allowed into their private world, take it! There is no safer, more wonderful place.

For more of this photo shoot, go to my gallery website at http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/dmmclean1.

Buckfast and Caffeine

The news has carried a story that the Labour government is proposing to cut the amount of caffeine (yes, you heard, caffeine) in strong alcoholic drinks, like Buckfast.


It seems that these turkeys (there I go again) need something to hang on to, to make it look like they are doing something about the boozed up, binge drinking culture of the UK. Since minimum pricing for alcohol isn't favoured by the Labour Party, they have latched onto the amount of caffeine in the alcoholic drinks! More turkeys, and they are all over the place, even in government. 


As far as I know, the Emergency Rooms in our hospitals at the weekends are not filled with people with too much caffeine! If that was the case, then most coffee drinkers would be there. It's a well known fact that turkeys don't think, they scramble about in their pens looking for food. Hey, that's good... our elected representatives don't think, they just scramble about looking for something to make them appear to be doing something.


One of the biggest problems in the boozy and binge drinking culture is Buckfast. So the independent experts say. These expert people are not in someone else's pocket. They don't answer to government or the drinks industry, and they say there is a link between the amount of alcohol (no, not caffeine in products like Buckfast), and violence. All sorts of violence which leads the victims, and sometimes these victims have a self inflicted injury, to the hospital Emergency Room, again usually at the weekend. What is it that the ordinary, modestly educated man or woman in the street, can see that the so called clever government representatives can't? And guess who is laughing? Yep, you got it in one! It's the drinks industry again, not the hospitals, not the affected wives and children, not the workplace. 


We are becoming so clever we are no good to anyone. Whatever happened to good old common sense, and morality? I think there is a moral question to be answered here too. For me, it is immoral to pretend to be addressing a serious problem like alcohol and violence, while doing nothing about it. It's even worse to turn the spotlight on something else and say it will help us. Are we serious about protecting the vulnerable and doing the right thing? That's morality, and it means taking on the tough questions which our leaders often say they are doing, but don't! All of them lack moral judgement, because it's not popular and certainly isn't a vote winner!


Oh yes, we can't forget that Buckfast is a strong drink made by monks, and they are not changing their product to suit anyone. Does that tell you something about common sense and morality on their part? Hmmmmm....... 

Parliamentary Priviledge... eh??

I am not the only one to have been paying more than a passing interest in the shenanigans of our elected Parliamentarians, you know those clever people who pass those complicated laws, and are our guardians of peace, law and order! It seems that 3 MPs and a Lord, no less, will be brought to court and justice for fraud. Fiddling expenses! 


If a really dodgy person wants to be found 'not guilty' then he or she gets the best lawyer, not to find them innocent, but to make sure they cannot be proven to be guilty. There is a difference. A nice wee loophole is just the ticket, and the 'best' criminal lawyers will find one if they look hard enough. The result is that the 'baddie' is found without a case to answer, or the case is dropped due to a 'technicality of the law'... yes that loophole again!


It seems our 'good' MPs, now found out in their expense fraud, and knowing that criminal charges will follow, don't act in honesty and say 'sorry gov, it's a fair cop, I'll come quietly', and face the penalty like a big boy. No, they look for a loophole, and this 'Parliamentary Priviledge' is it! Apparently this law was introduced a long time ago (when MPs were honourable) to allow them to always get access to the Parliament building, and also to allow them to say what they wanted in chamber, without libel laws being brought against them. It wasn't brought in to protect MPs against the law of fraud, but that's exactly what they are asking their lawyers to pursue.


Now, if a criminal gets off on a technicality, we all know what has happened. He got off scot free, perhaps even without a trial, but we all know he is guilty. Otherwise why look for a loophole? It's the same with these MP criminals. They did the crime, but don't want to do the time, and know that the evidence is overwhelming against them... so they look for a loophole. 


I hope the 'loophole' is tested in court, and found not to apply in their cases, and as a result of wasting taxpayers money, and police time, they all go down for the maximum period which I believe is 7 years. Mind you with time off for good behaviour, and all the other stuff the lawyers will do on their behalf, they won't even get their socks off on the first night, and will be released before they have their first prison shower in the morning anyway. Oh well, such is our legal system. Fair? You decide! 

Turkeys Found at Rangers and Celtic FC.

Just found another two major turkeys out! Why not take a look at my 12 Jan blog? I was actually beginning to think the major Scottish football bodies had turned the corner in their support of the drink industry. Not so! They have both now been paid handsomely to be sponsored by Tennents Brewery. In case you don't know, that's a drinks company!


Yes, I am disappointed. I am disappointed at the forked tongues of the boards who seem to agree that drink is a major problem with the disruptions at the games, home and away. They also seem to concede that the 'old firm' games foster domestic violence at the hands of men (usually) who take out their frustrations of defeat (one of the teams has to be beaten, or play badly, or was robbed) on their unsuspecting wives, partners and children. It's not the football clubs who pick up the pieces, it's the hospital and maybe the family.


Oh, I forgot. Maybe the big 'T' on the strips means 'afternoon Tea', or 'cream Tea' or 'Tea time'! Silly me..... Give us a break, we all know better than that, but knowing better doesn't seem to stretch to the Rangers and Celtic board rooms. I now have a mental picture of turkeys sitting around the big boardroom table putting their money where their cheque book is. It might even, truly, be where their heart is. Because when all is said and done, sponsorships are done for a business reason. They are not done in this case to help the violence problem, or the domestic problem, or the child afraid to learn the result of the game, for what it might mean to him (or her) and their mum.


In the words of the old Sinatra song, '.. and then they go and spoil it all by saying something stupid, like.... I love you.. (drinks industry)'! Too strong? I don't think so. The next time I see a board room official, or manager, of either Rangers or Celtic FC spouting about how they will deal with the drunken, violent behaviour of their fans, forgive me for thinking it's all lies and deceit, and switching off. They had their chance to be taken seriously, and they blew it! All I will see is a talking turkey (again)!     

Deep Inside

Another lovely evening winter sky over the town of Port Glasgow, the town where I was born, and grew up. Nothing special you think, but take another moment to follow my reasoning. This is not one of my photos. It was given me by a very good family member, who thought it worth while to run outside with her camera, to take this scene.

Why would anyone feel anything about a sky scene? Why do we mostly love sunsets? Why does music stir the senses to the point that we have our own special 'memory' tunes, and we call them 'our songs'? Why is it when you look across at the Argyle Hills, covered in snow, we gasp at the beauty? Why is art (because these are all pieces of art) so important to humans?

Animals have no concept of beauty. They live on base instincts. An animal of any kind will not lift its head to take in the beauty of a sunset, or the rolling waves. Have you ever wondered why?

How about the thought that we really are so fundamentally different, that we just cannot be part of the same evolving species? How about the thought that we are not animals after all? How about the possibility, maybe in your own mind just a faint possibility, that the difference is that there actually is a God, and the thing that makes us different is that part of us that responds to beauty, love, feelings, emotions, and not just instincts? Science cannot test for beauty or feelings, just tangible things. There is a place for science and the study of knowledge, but let's not close our minds to the feelings which stir inside us when we are affected and touched by our emotions, feelings, beauty, and especially love. Science cannot deal with these things, and rightly so. They are intangible. 

For my part, I don't think these feelings are borne of the chemical make up of our bodies, or minds. I think it goes further. We have become good at being a 'God-Free' society, and very secular in our outlook. Isn't it time to at least be open to the possibility that there might just be that superior creator God after all? What is there to lose? The lady who took this photo just recognised the beauty. It was deep inside, and didn't have to be proven scientifically. She just knew it was 'good'!