Tiarnan coins a neologism

Yesterday, Tiarnan faced me, whilst in my arms. He was, therefore, quite close to me. I spoke, though, as I usually did.

He looked at me with an appraising focus.

"Daddy, today you are very soundy."

Soundy, he had said - a word I had never heard before, but the meaning of which was instantly clear: LOUD. I was speaking too loudly for one so close.

"I am too loud.", I said, giving the words another might use. However, I must say, I much prefer his own word: it is new, fresh and altogether meaningful.

Hearing him invent this word, reminded me of how creative some young children are. Here, Tiarnan solved the problem of communicating exactly what he meant, by inventing the word that perfectly expressed it. An older child, or an adult, most probably would not do that: they would use a combination of words known to all. Thus, in a way, growing up could be seen as becoming less creative, in communication, at least - and more likely to go with conventional ways of expressing oneself. I rather hope, though, that Tiarnan retains his creative ways, and makes a habit of inventing his own words, just when he needs them. It is both sweet and endearing, and altogether more interesting than just using the same tired old words everyone else uses.

So, Tiarnan, carry on neologizing. As for you, my boy, you are pretty soundy, yourself, much of the time. (cue screeching kid.)

Here's a thought, though: if the word "soundy" catches on, it would be strange to realize that it had been coined by a four year old, to describe the effect of his dad speaking whilst being too close for comfort. How funny!

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 6 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, please go to:
http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/
Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/
Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Of responsibility and humanity.

The level of a civilization may be determined by the degree of care people have for each other. By that measure, Great Britain is in severe decline.

Last night, Scotland was hailing three 18 year old students as heroes, for saving the life of a drowning woman. Graham McGrath, Rosie Lucey and Rhys Black spotted a 37 year old woman in the water near the Albert Bridge in Glasgow. She was crying out for help and getting lower and lower in the water. She was obviously drowning. Lifebelts had been thrown towards her, but she was too far from them, to reach them. This lady had mere moments to live.

Luckily, one would have thought, the police had reached the scene. I say "would have thought" for a reason. What do you think the Strathclyde police did when faced with a drowning woman? Have a good think.

Well, they decided to hold back the crowd. Apparently, saving a drowning woman is "not our responsibility...it is for the fire and rescue service to go into the water."

Wonderful. So, what do we have here? A variation on: "That is not my department".

So, the Strathclyde police force think that because jumping into the water to rescue drowning people doesn't fall into their job description, but is the job of "fire and rescue" that they should stand idly by and watch a woman drown? The fire and rescue service had not reached the scene. By the time they did, this woman would be dead. But what did the police force do? Control the crowd (because that IS in their job description).

Fortunately, three students, who didn't have jobs or job descriptions to limit their behavioural choices, decided that, since no-one else was doing anything to help her, that they would save her. Graham McGrath and Rosie Lucey, jumped into the water, swam out to the lady and pulled her back to the bank, as far as they could. Mr. Rhys Black then waded in to help them pull her out.

Now, the formerly drowning lady's lips were blue and her tongue was white. This is not surprising since, according to Mr. Rhys Black, she had been under the water for two minutes. She was in dire need of CPR.

Who do you think stepped forward, at that moment, to save this woman's life? Was it the policemen, all of whom were, no doubt, trained in CPR? No. The students set about performing CPR on the woman. At first they could find no pulse, no sign that she still lived - but they persisted. After a few minutes of CPR, she gurgled and a large amount of water came out of her mouth. She was alive.

The lady was taken to hospital where she is now recovering. Throughout all of this, the policemen took no steps to save her life.

Please reflect on that. Reflect on what it says Britain has become. Somewhere, along the way, it has lost its soul. Once upon a time, the lowest policeman would have done his utmost to save that woman. Indeed, once upon a time, anyone in the land, would have jumped in, to stop her from dying, unaided. Not anymore...now, several members of the police force and a WHOLE CROWD of onlookers, can stand idly by, curious to see, perhaps, what a drowning person looks like - but NONE of them tried to help - until three young students, perhaps too young to have been indoctrinated by the national indifference, jumped in to save her life.

Once people were guided by their basic humanity, in their conduct with others. They made moral choices, based on moral centres, built up through a life's experience of what is good and right and moral. Now, however, we have "public servants" without any heart or soul at all. They are guided, not by a common inner morality, but by RULES and REGULATIONS and JOB DESCRIPTIONS. They are no longer human. They have become a variety of fleshy automata.

Any policeman who can stand by and watch someone drown just because it is not in his "job description" and is not his "responsibility" therefore, is inhuman. Life is the most precious gift any of us have. To stand by and watch someone lose that...lose EVERYTHING, just because nothing in their job description says they have to save her, is beyond belief. Those policemen have forgotten the most basic ideal of their profession "to serve and protect". To stand by, whilst a lady drowns, neither serves nor protects. It, in fact, shows an indifference to the value of human life, an attitude of cold uncaring for one's fellow humans, that is quite beyond belief.

When I was younger, the news papers were filled with stories of the heroism of police officers, fire officers and other public servants in the course of their duties. Remarkable acts of courage were quite commonplace. Now, we have, in their stead, a regulated indifference to human life - a police force that will first check its rule book, it regulations and its job descriptions, before intervening on the behalf of another human life imperilled. This just cannot be right. Worse, perhaps, than active evil, is passive indifference. At least the evil man acts out of some kind of inner principle, or motive force - all those policemen were acting out of, was a self-justified cowardice. The most likely underlying truth of the situation is that not a one of those policemen wanted to jump into the water, to save her, lest they might endanger themselves. So, what did they do? Checked their rule books for a reason to GET OUT OF DOING SO. Their job description didn't include such tasks - so they wouldn't do it, even though a woman was busily dying whilst they discovered that they didn't have a conscience to argue with.

I don't know why those policemen became policemen. I know this, though: it cannot have been for the reasons that policemen, of the past, used to do so. Policemen of earlier generations, genuinely seemed to have a certain nobility about their role in society: they were there to fight crime, protect and serve the people - and generally do what good they could, to ensure that the nation was safe to live in. Any policeman of earlier generations would, most definitely, have jumped in to save her. Not now...now they would rather not get their clothes wet: after all what does the life of some stranger matter to them?

Technically, it may not have been their "responsibility" in terms of job description and division of labour, to have jumped in to save that woman. Technically, it may, indeed, have been the "responsibility" of the fire and rescue service. However, MORALLY, it WAS their responsibility to save her. It was essentially wrong for them to do nothing to help her, when not doing so would mean her death, when they were, quite clearly, in a position to help: they were standing by the body of water, in which was drowning. Basic humanity, and concern for our fellow human beings, should have guided them to save her. Yet, they had neither responsibility, nor humanity. They did not feel bound either by the rules under which they worked, or any sense of the value of human life. These policemen lack basic humanity.

It concerns me that they felt their job descriptions took precedence over their humanity. No job description should take precedence over humanity. That is the route on which the Nazis trod. They justified their inhumanity, by their job descriptions. So, too, were these policemen. Their indifference to that woman's life, was just as much a crime, as anything Germans managed to do a few generations before. The same thought process is at work: they justified their lack of action to save a life, based on their job descriptions and the division of labour in the emergency services. The value of a life, had no value for them. Only the rules under which they operate had value. There is something profoundly disturbing about that.

No rule should take precedence over human life. No job description should ever lead to inhuman acts. Yet, for the British police, rules do take precedence over life - and they do lead to inhuman acts, or inhuman inaction.

I must say, I don't recognize what Britain has become since I left it, in 1999. The place has been transformed into something I do not know, anymore. I feel the country of my birth has died, since I left it. It is no more. In its place we have something rather disturbing, if you care to look at it, with any perception.

I hope the publicity attached to this near drowning leads to a change in the rules that govern police action and inaction. Those rules cannot be allowed to stand unchanged if they lead, directly, to an indifference to basic humanity and the value of human life.

All Britain has to do, is to remind its public servants, that humanity should take precedence over any rule or regulation that has been, is, or shall be ever invented. Call that Rule No. 1.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 6 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, please go to:
http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/
Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/
Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

The David Cameron Conservative-Liberal Coalition.

So, Clegg's big decision has been made. He has decided to form a coalition with the Conservatives, to rule Britain. Now, I like to refer to this as a Conservative-Liberal coalition, though most commentators, oddly, say Lib-Con. I think their version is peculiar, because they are putting the smaller party first.

Anyway, with reference to my last post, I can only say that the DEMOCRATIC choice has been made. Had a Lib-Lab pact formed instead, it would have meant the end of democracy in the UK. So, this alliance, unusual though it is as an alliance of right and left, in politics is, at least, the only democratic choice, available. It is what more people in the UK would have wanted.

I am relieved, therefore, from purely the point of view of one who likes to see the democratic choice of the people enacted, that this is the result. I do not, however, know whether this can work out. I hope it does, for the sake of the UK, for it faces many dire, primarily economic, problems.

As for Nick Clegg, well, my former contemporary at Robinson College, Cambridge is now the Deputy Prime Minister of the UK. That seems a rather surreal and unexpected result. The only sign of this present when he was in his late teens and early twenties, was a great personal self-confidence, a sense of superiority over others, which was readily evident, an easy charm, which he often deployed and a certain degree of personal energy. I would also note that he was not an entirely even tempered young man and did, on occasions, reveal a bit of a temper. However, I cannot know what was on his mind, on these occasions.

I hope it all goes well for Britain, this time. It has declined much, as a nation, in many ways, since I left. I hope this new coalition will lead to some kind of revival in its national fortunes.

I shall watch the situation with interest. Well done to all concerned, for making the democratic choice possible and not succumbing to the alternative, which would have been very unfair to the electorate.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 6 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, please go to:
http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/
Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/
Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

The end of democracy.

Democracy, as the term is commonly understood, could soon be at an end, in Great Britain. As I write, deal making is underway which could thwart the will of the British public, and install another unelected British Prime Minister, and return a much maligned Labour government to power, again.

Nick Clegg, whom once I knew, but now no more, is presently deciding with whom to strike a deal. For four days, he negotiated with the Conservative party but, seemingly not satisfied with their offer on electoral reform, he is now discussing what the Labour party can offer him and his party. It seems that the Labour party is offering more than the Conservatives: they look set to give Nick Clegg the electoral reform (to Proportional Representation) that he seeks. It may be that a Liberal-Labour coalition is about to form. Now, why should this concern us?

Well, it is simple. The British electorate tried very hard to vote Labour out. Labour lost around 100 seats at this election - about as many as the Tories gained. The message seems clear: the electorate wanted Labour to go. After all, the Tories ended up with the greatest proportion of votes. Now, however, it is in Nick Clegg's power to restore Labour to government, in exchange for electoral reform and power sharing for his own party. In fact, the deal as I understand it, would mean that the Labour party enacted the Liberal's manifesto.

I would like you to think about that. The policies of a party which came a poor third in the elections, could soon be enacted - when the vast majority of people didn't want them. Not only that, but the party that the people really didn't want to see continue in power (well, most of them, anyway), could soon be returned to power. Thus, the voting intentions of the electorate could soon turn out to be meaningless. Britain could end up with a goverment that almost all didn't want - and policies that almost no-one would agree with. All of this is in the hands of Nick Clegg and his rather small Liberal Democrat party. This is all rather undemocratic. The people of Britain could soon have foisted on them, a government they didn't choose and policies they don't want. What's more, is that all of this is largely in the hands of one man: Nick Clegg, who didn't do anywhere near as well at the polls as everyone expected.

Should it be that a Lib-Lab pact is struck and a Labour coalition government comes to power in the UK, then it means the end of democracy in the UK. An unelected Prime Minister and an unelected government, will be in power. What is more, once electoral reform is enacted, this very circumstance would become a permanent feature of the political landscape of the UK. All it would take is for the Liberals and Labour to form an alliance at any future election, and they could keep themselves in power, forever. There would not even be any point in holding an election - since the losing parties could, in most circumstances, band together to keep out the winner (unless they had over 50% of the vote...which isn't likely).

The next few days could mean the end of any real democracy in the UK. The irony of it is, that this end will come about through seeking a "better form" of democracy, in PR. It isn't better. It just means that, after each election, the government will be decided not by the people, but by the politicians striking deals among themselves. In such circumstances, there may as well not be an election at all. I am coming to think that, under certain circumstances, "democracy" can be nothing more than an elaborate fraud upon the public.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 6 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, please go to:
http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/
Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/
Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Nick Clegg's dilemma.

Nick Clegg now faces a peculiar dilemma, one that is most unenviable in many ways. He is stuck between doing the right thing, by his principles, or the right thing, by his ambition. It seems likely that he cannot have both.

Nick Clegg's principles dictate that he should support the party that won the "most votes and most seats" in the General Election of Great Britain, 2010. Now, this would be the Conservative (Tory) Party. They won the most seats - at 306 - but not enough to be able to rule, successfully, without the backing of another party. So, Nick Clegg's principles state that he should support the Conservatives and come to some sort of coalition deal with them. That would satisfy what he says are his moral guiding principles, in this situation. However, there is a complication. Nick Clegg's ambition is to secure electoral reform, such that proportional representation is introduced into Britain. This would mean that the Liberal Democrats would play a much greater role in government FOREVER, were it enacted. At every subsequent election, the Liberal Democrats would secure a significant number of seats and are likely to have real power, forever after.

Yet, the party offering a referendum on proportional representation is NOT the Conservatives, but the Labour Party. The Conservatives have offered an "inquiry" on electoral reform, but, as yet, have not stated that they would offer a referendum on PR (though their stance may soften and change, which must be Nick Clegg's hope). What heightens the importance of this situation, is that the Liberal Democrats only have this one chance to secure proportional representation, because only in a rare hung parliament, do they have this bargaining power. This is the first hung parliament in well over thirty years - and Nick Clegg might be dead and gone before the next one.

Thus, Nick Clegg must choose between his principles or his ambitions. He must choose to back the Conservatives, and probably lose the chance of bringing in proportional representation (unless circumstances change) or he can choose his ambitions, and secure proportional representation through Labour's referendum.

The choice is even more complicated than it seems. You see, if Nick Clegg chooses to support the Labour Party (which lost around a 100 seats in the election), he would forever tarnish the name of his party, in many eyes, by supporting a party that has failed Britain. Should he turn his back on his principles, and go for his ambitions, Nick Clegg could destroy the Liberal Democrats.

Thus, Nick Clegg's choices are far from easy. With the Conservatives, he may abide by his principles, but alienate sectors of his own party. With Labour, he may succeed in his electoral reform ambitions, but ruin the reputation of his party, with the nation, for thrusting aside his principles and siding with a party that has singularly failed Britain, in recent years.

I hope Nick Clegg has a wisdom as great as his apparent charm - for now, what he needs, is more of the former, than the latter - though the latter may win over any objections within his own party, and without.

I should point out that I know Nick Clegg. We were at Robinson College, at Cambridge University together. We were exact contemporaries. However, I did not keep touch with him, after I left. It seems surreal, however, that one of the first people I met at Cambridge University (for he was one of the people present in my first few social gatherings at Cambridge), should turn out to be in a position of real power, in the UK, now. Nick Clegg must choose whom to back and thus, which party to empower to become Britain's government. Should he choose well, history will thank him for it. Should he choose poorly, history will damn him. So, he is faced with great opportunity and great peril. He has the chance, as few have, to write himself into the history books. He also has the chance to forever mar whatever good name he has.

Nick Clegg now faces a true and searching test of character. For it is character that will decide the fate of the UK and of Nick Clegg himself. Should he choose principles, over ambition, he will seen by history to have been a man of integrity. Should he choose ambition, over principles, he could very well permanently empower his party, in British politics, and himself, for the duration of his life - but lose the good will of history, for how it might judge his nature.

Now, cannot be an easy time for Nick Clegg. Nor is it an easy time for the UK. I hope Nick Clegg reflects carefully on his decisions and comes to the choice that is best for the country, and not just for his party, or self - for in the end, that is what politics should be about: serving the best long-term interests of one's country. Now, more than at any time, in living memory, Britain needs decisions of integrity from its politicians. I hope Nick Clegg proceeds, therefore, to be guided by a sense of what is right, for his nation and earns, thereby, the respect and thanks of posterity.

Best of luck Nick, on the days ahead, for Britain's sake.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 6 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, please go to:
http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/
Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/
Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Gordon Brown ex-Prime Minister, premium ranter.

Gordon Brown has done it again. He has, with the utmost creativity, invented a pattern of behaviour that would be beyond any normal person. He has launched into a huge - and apparently threatening - rant, against Nick Clegg, whilst ostensibly trying to have a conversation about forming a coalition to co-operate over ruling Britain.

Clearly, Gordon Brown is not quite all there. His action is such a self-defeating, self-destructive one, that one can only assume that he is not really thinking - he is just striking out in uncontrolled rage.

I tried to comment on the Daily Mail article that brought Gordon Brown's rage to my attention - but, as is usual with the Daily Mail, they CENSORED my comment and REFUSED TO PUBLISH IT. I have had this problem with the Daily Mail before. They have never successfully published any letter or comment post, I have tried to make. I find this a little odd, since other newspapers seem to have no problem publishing my comments. Perhaps the Daily Mail lives in a world of its own biases, prejudices and circumscriptions.

Well, here is the comment (roughly) that I tried to publish on the Daily Mail article about Gordon Brown's rant:

"A man who becomes furious, at a time like this, is not in control of himself. How, then, can Gordon Brown control a nation? He should never have been in this position, at all.

I do not envy Nick Clegg his decisions at this time. I only hope that he decides the best for Britain, and not for his party, or self."

Apparently, the Daily Mail thought my sentiments dangerously unprintable - since they didn't print a word of it. I wonder at their curious censorship choices. It seems to me that there is a lot more wrong with Britain than its political system: even its media seem questionable, when a simple, honest, unthreatening view, is not allowed to be printed, at all.

The other time the Daily Mail didn't print what I wrote it was about child development, of all things...yet, again, they didn't see fit to allow it past their censor. How strange...it is almost as if they censor, not my words, but my self.

Never mind. The fact remains that Gordon Brown does not have the emotional maturity to be a leader of anything, never mind a nation. It rather shocks me that Britain could ever have allowed a man like him, any power at all. Most countries have better ways to deal with such people.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 6 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, please go to:
http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/
Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/
Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)