Nelson Mandela's Legacy

From time to time people do great things and are recorded in history.

Nelson Mandela had no reason to forgive, nor to lead his country into an era of reconciliation - but he did and that has made him great!

What caused him to forgive, I have no idea but it is well documented that he was treated appallingly and was able to defeat any hatred that was within him.

Who can say how South Africa will progress after the tutelage of Madiba? There is a frailty in the human psyche that promotes greed and violence, which seems to be an easier path to follow than humility and peace usually at the expense of the innocent or underpowered.

Nelson Mandel's legacy is a bit different though just because the fundamental change in South Africa was through the reconciliation process. The challenges are still there but the possibilities for the nation are positive.
It is appropriate at the time of Madiba's death to reflect on the achievements of the man, but none of that would have been possible without the courage of F.W. de Klerk.
He too had vision and took a huge risk, based on the referendum among the white South Africans to break down apartheid, and to release Madiba.
There is much more to this story than I know!

The peaceful defeat of the apartheid regime gives the appearance, at least me, that it is easier to achieve resolution to conflict between race than conflict through religion - why is that?

French Forces [peacekeeper?] have gone into the Central African Republic! It is an outrage that we saw on television the corpses lying untended! The outrage being that they are corpses - through religious disharmony!
I have no idea of the issues here, but I do have empathy for those corpses and the families they belong to.

The 'scramble for Africa' by the European counties caused huge upheavals for African - the worst example has to King Leopold II in the Congo! Indigenous Africans can rightly are aggrieved.

The issue in the Central African Republic is between Africans. And you have to be careful when the fighting is because of religion. Underlying can be tribal issues, financial issues, land ownership issues or others.
But whatever the cause it is individuals that profligate the fighting.
If the fighting is because of religion, where are the leaders? Mandela promoted forgiveness and reconciliation and Christian, Islam, and most of the other religions promote the same thing! So why are they killing each other.

Mandela and de Klerk stepped up - why can't religious leaders step up and stop the killing? I'm not just talking the Central African Republic - give peace a chance!
 

JFK Shooting

I watched a few of the television documentaries on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of the US president. 

There seem to be a lot of conspiracy theories and I found it a little difficult to get my head around it all.

Investigations seem to have been carried out on all the aspects that happened, might have happened or were possible to happen and what I have to say in neither groundbreaking or controversial. 

The thing is, I regularly shoot rabbits. Not for the fun of it - just because it the requirement of a land owner to control rabbits.

In New Zealand rabbits are an introduced species and they damage our environment and compete with livestock for food.

So I am a practiced shooter but I am not anywhere near a sharp shooter - as Oswald has been described - but I hit more than I miss. And from time to time I make difficult shots that one might term a fluke - but flukes do happen. 

It is difficult to shoot downhill because of the theories of trajectory and the influence of gravity, so you aim lower than you normally would - but it is difficult to make the judgement of how much to allow for.

Myself, I tend not to shoot downhill because I invariably miss.

It is also difficult to shoot at a moving target. It would seem from where Oswald was and the direction of the car, there would have been no need to allow any lead. But regardless of that, the mind would have played tricks.

The scope apparently was a four power, and the pictures I have seen show that it is a small thing to peer through.

As well to be accurate, you need to be calm - I would think Oswald's heart would have been pumping with whatever emotion he was experiencing. Then, he had to work the bolt in the rifle to reload - each time shifting from a comfortable firing position.

I drew a line on the margin of a piece of paper. 1cm from the bottom, I marked 1mm from the perpendicular after 25cm, the gap from the perpendicular is 1.7cm. So obviously if the muzzle of the rifle moved 1mm when Oswald fired, at 70m he would have missed.

Movies and electronic games make us all think that pointing and firing results in hitting.

I was given the DVD of the movie Django. Using open sights from what I would call a 'long distance', he dropped a farmer - moving, ploughing a field. Now such a shot is possible but it is unlikely. As I said - flukes do happen.

So all I am saying about Oswald's shots is that they were remarkable.

Morals don't come into the shooting if Oswald (and or Ruby) was a nutter. 

The ease of acquiring firearms seems to me to be ridiculous. It would seem that in the US as many other countries, the justification for owning a firearm is 'self defense'. And that means, basically, you are prepared to shoot someone. That then brings in morals.

Oft said 'politics is a dirty game'. The forces of internal and external politics result in the will of the individual(s) excerpting the the mandate of the people/population.

Whatever the reason a democratically elected President was taken down by remarkable rifle fire.

Religion, Politics and History.

I'm not sure where this will all go, because I usually do not discuss religion or politics. I hope I can be diplomatic and inoffensive.

Last evening I saw images of starving starving children (due to human conflict in Syria), and of soldiers, now unknown, who went off to fight in the First World War. To be honest, I was outraged at what was happening to those children, and again at the waste of potential of those who went off to war, presumably so children do not have suffer as they are in Syria (and elsewhere) some one hundred years later.

There is an awful lot in this world and beyond that I don't understand! I cannot get my head around the concept of nothing, nor of the concept of infinity. Scientists tell us the Universe was created by a Big Bang which occurred in such a small fraction of a second that is unimaginable to me. Created from nothing - not an atom! Then the Universe has expanded to infinity ever since and is still expanding. (Not quite the right way of saying it, I know.)

I also have trouble with the visualization of heaven and of its antithesis. Perhaps it depends on your point of view: For a prostate sufferer, having a good pee is a form of heaven, and surely those starving kids in Syria know what hell is!

Point of view is where belief comes from: everyone is surely entitled to their own particular belief, problems only occur with what the belief of an individual, or collective  may cause them to do.

Within  humanity, there are many races, the reason for which is also difficult for me to understand - oh I know it is put down to 'environmental factors'. Apparently all races have similar DNA but the diversity of the visual astounds.
And why did people remain in inhospitable places like deserts or in areas of extreme cold?
And what is within the human psyche to distrust others who are different. It seems in history [and even today] there was no, 'Welcome stranger, you look different to me, but that's cool!' Instead, it is more like, 'There's a stranger, let's kill him!'
 Ethnicity has been the cause, excuse or side issue of wars over the ages.

I can understand that mankind in early history embraced forms of religion, hoping for favorable weather/harvests and for fertility. However I don't understand how or why early mankind were fascinated by and had great understanding of the stars. The moon and the sun are obvious but the was the solstice observed? Spring is announced by nature, as is autumn, so to know when the solstice occurs seems unimportant in the scheme of things.
But populations were somehow convinced to build great works [hugely labor intensive] to honour the solstices or/and their gods.
Faith and religion are good things because guidelines and rules are made for populations to follow, creating a form of order, but of course this created leaders and gave those leaders power - sometimes great power. And with that comes corruption.
Greed comes quite quickly and there seems to be something within the human psyche for leaders [religious or otherwise] to find  ways of amassing wealth at the expense of their followers. And of course the wealth of one group  became coveted and so was the cause of battles and wars.

It would appear that all culture had their religious beliefs, there own particular deities and way of honoring them. And there were prophets and holy men & women.

Then along came a man, know for his humility and meekness, who started off by doing some good deeds and performed miracles. He went into the wilderness (alone) and later says to his fellows, 'Follow me.' And this started a religion. Our modern time is tied to the birth of this man.

Some six hundred years  previously, a prince went out into the wilderness (alone) and he recieved enlightenment and discovered the meaning of life and his teachings led to an enduring religion.

Then twelve hundred years later, a man known for his honesty and trustworthiness went out into the wilderness (alone), and returned able to read and write, he united warring tribes and stopped inter-tribal fighting. He later took 10 000 soldiers and won a battle without bloodshed. Honoring this man led to another religion.

There are around 4 200 religions and presumably they all teach things like peace, tolerance, humility and all round goodness. The edict or dogma or whatever it is called is all well and good but how individuals interpret  their particular religion can be far from what the edict or dogma may say.

Charles Darwin espoused the theory of the survival of the fittest, and from what I have seen throughout my adventures, I have to agree with him.
So this leads to a couple of questions:
(1) Some religions have leaders and members - the most holy - who are celibate, so how can their particular holy line continue?
(2) Within the character of some people, there is an element of sympathy/empathy. In others, there is clearly not. Is sympathy/empathy a weakness to be exploited and ultimately unsurvivable - a trait that will die out?

In all nature, the object of life is to eat as much as possible and to procreate - and for mankind to survive, there is also a need for shelter.
In all nature, living is for self. Piglets for example suckling on their mother are only concerned in their own full stomachs - they care not if another dies through lack of food. The trait of sympathy/empathy makes mankind a little different to all other animals - sometimes.
If an apple was cut up to be shared among me and my peers as children, the one who took the largest piece was looked down upon and maybe castigated; that was our society and perhaps something to do with peer pressure. So according to Darwin's Theory, are we weaker and less likely to survive as one of the fittest?

The ancients 'who were in touch' with their gods - or used magic or other means - became leaders of their groups and politics quickly came came into play. And if the priest, or whatever title was given to him, was not the leader, he/she was close to, and provided 'divine' advice to the leader.
We know of the maxim; power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And perhaps this is a human frailty - or is that survival of the fittest thing again?

Through history for reasons of religion, politics or plain old greed there there have been atrocities. Those man on man (and not excluding the feminine variety) were mostly unrecorded and but history tells us of the well known instances  perpetuated by governments, warlords,  random leaders and indeed churches/religions.
One of the tools used has been and is terror. And this is another mystery to me because we all think that others should think as we do; so if you are not into terror it really makes you wonder.

Kings and Queens were surrounded by political intrigue and they, or their henchmen kept their position by the use of murder, terror or fear. And it is fair to say that throughout history, and in the scheme of nature, whoever is at the top gets knocked off, This happened by by various means - death being the ultimate but  these days, the process is more likely to be democratic and through the voting process.

I can't ramble on about this without pointing the finger.
To identify times of darkness within history is simple enough, but listing them means I need to put them in order and it would be easy to miss some. However some times of terror come to mind randomly - based on my imagination of fear in the hearts of those who were/have been victimized.
The Reign of Terror during the French Revolution (the thought of the guillotine does not sit well with me) , The Spanish Inquisition (torture and not being able to trust your neighbor), Roman Imperialism  (having to participate in the Colosseum 'games'), Belgium in the Congo (gross brutality), the Holocaust (mass murder), and all the other 'ethnic cleansing' and genocide episodes (Bosnia, Rwanda). The list is huge.
Then there were then there were the World Wars, followed by a Cold War, when nuclear weapons were amassed - enough to blow the plant to bits many times over! And some countries persist in testing in a bid to have their own!

To be blunt, dying is dying, fried by nuclear fusion, gassed, shot, blown to smithereens, or bashed by a rock (add what you like), the result is the same. Though there is a difference in dying and being killed! Those who use these ways of killing (or invent them) justify it in some way but personally, in their heads, what really are they actually thinking?  


Human beings have complex brains, and I wonder how far back intelligence goes. When they built the pyramids  the Egyptians, they were using mathematics that many student of today struggle with.
So it is reasonable to suggest those Egyptians had a similar brain capacity to what  we have today.
We have all these emotions/things; love, hate, pride, forgiveness, sympathy, greed, and more stored in out psyche.

I just wonder what goes on in peoples heads when they are pulling triggers, detonating bombs, wielding bush-knives, stabbing or bashing to kill and maim innocent people.

We all know right from wrong. We cannot help what/how we feel but we do have control of how we behave.

There is just one other thing about the human psyche, we need and respond to love - nobody loves a terrorist. 

I shed a tear for those starving kids of Syria and I punch the air in support of a student girl who survived a gunshot wound to the head while rightfully seeking education.

Violence - In Particular. Family Violence

I attended a talk presented by two women from the Women's Refuge, and I found some of the statistics they presented to be alarming! Here we are in little old NZ and we are one of the worst countries for domestic violence.

Now I'm no expert on the subject, but I have seen my share of life and thought it would be a good idea to toss around some thoughts on the subject.

The two women delivering the talk certainly knew their stuff and have had a lot of experience in Women's Refuge and I have no doubt that they have helped many women through high stress situation - and I applaud them.

In NZ we have in place 'anti smacking [of children] legislation' which has been an attempt to protect children from family violence. However at the back of my mind, I believe that taking that 'disciplinary tool' away from parents leaves a void so the defining of boundaries for parents is made a little more difficult.

In the talk, the women told us that violence in the home was a 'learned practice'. If a parent is violent toward a child, then that child will have violent tendencies to it's off spring.

They certainly have the data to back that statement, and while I have no disagreement with what they said, I don't think that is the full story.

In distant history, something happened to cause humankind to rise up and become different to the other animals on this planted. The process can be defined in religious, scientific or mystical terms, depending on personal belief, but in the end we are among the animal population of this planet and Charles Darwin's theory of 'survival of the fittest' fits human beings as much as any other living thing.

Violence is, if you like, our heritage. Like other animals, prehistoric man fought and killed for food and to procreate! The through history the fight to 'reach the top' has known no bounds - ether personally or nationally. Wars of the past were indeed butchery, unlike the conventions of war today, but the end has been the same - it leaves people dead or maimed!

There are certain things that places humans above animals : love, compassion, conscience, logic, generosity - also the antithesis of those qualities.

So how did things happen as they have? The Colosseum in Rome where people who were threats to the government were executed for the pleasure of the citizens - and the gladiators. Genocide through the ages. Crusades. Slavery.  The Inquisition. Wars.

Just a few words, but violence on a huge scale and a distinct lack of love, compassion, conscience. logic or generosity.
 Inventors and scientists have worked out how to kill more efficiently and on a larger scale. For example, what is the mind set of the person who invented the machine gun? Then what is the mind set person behind the machine-gun as he sees his fellow man being mown down?

A lot of killing has been done in the name of religion - maybe religion is not the problem, but the people therein.
Lord Acton's truism, that all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely is exemplified in in Paul I Wellman's book, Glory, God and Gold when he was discussing religious intolerance of Catholic Spain, but it is true for any religious intolerance. Both the Roman and Protestant hierarchies were governed by the same principle of jurisdiction - the criminality of heresies. Whoever believed wrongly - that is otherwise than the Holy Office of the Catholics, or, say,the Venerable Consistory of the Calvinists - believed nothing. And he who believed nothing thereby committed the crime of treason to God and deserved capital punishment. Persecution hence became a sacred duty, an act agreeable to God, and the greater the intolerance, the greater the value.

The Women's Refuge representatives told us there was no excuse for violence  and that included alcohol and drugs. I thought about that, and at first disagreed, but it is terminology. I have seen that men - no, not only men - become more aggressive when stimulated by alcohol.
But they are right - it is not an excuse. But it is a reason!

There are few among us that are totally nonviolent. The most placid and mild-mannered person I knew was my mother, but she liked it when the movie or television baddie got his just deserts!
The big hits in sport are applauded and the crowd bullies those they do not like.
All this is entertainment - like in the Colosseum - but it is still violence.
Huge numbers of young people are in control of the trigger (or other weapons) in their electronic games - many of these are graphic.

But violence is not just the physical stuff. As  walked down the street recently, behind me were on older couple. For some reason the woman wanted to go to some shops, in a different area of town. The man obviously did not so he was loudly protesting and being aggressive.
The man's mouthing off would have embarrassed his wife into silence and acquiescence he used the tool to get his own way, so to him it was effective. Did I do anything? No, a verbal confrontation on the street would have embarrassed the woman further and I could not see the man to judge if he was prone to physical violence.

So what do we do about violence? I wish I had a workable solution, but it is a tough nut to crack.

Some things will not happen :
Censorship.There will be violence in the movies, on television, on computers and in books. Now it is often claimed that such things have little effect. Well, it was pointed out by those two women that violence is learned behavior. Anyway there are many who believe violence in the medial has a minimal effect.
Curbs on alcohol & drugs. In the real world the acquisition of these things is easy.

Laws are in place and the police are to be commended for what they do. Times are tough for them.
The prisons are full and costly - parolees very often continue to be troublesome.

The bottom line though is exactly what the two women said, 'There is no excuse for family or domestic violence.
This is a flat statement, and entirely correct.

Despite all the long history of violence above, today there is no excuse. I guess we have to make a distinction, because there is and will remain aggression and an element of violence in sport, so lets say there is legal and illegal violence.

So we accept there is no excuse for family or domestic violence and while the two women conceded that women do commit the crime, the majority is that women and children are victims of  violence committed by men.

The tough question is, 'what do we do to prevent/stop family/domestic violence?'

I am no expert in the field and I have no panacea. My first suggestion is to utilize the same tool that 'Quit Smoking' use - it is not a cool activity.
Encourage peers to speak up and denounce violence.
Teach the principle of action/reaction. At the first outburst, an aggressor can be calmed by an approach of non aggressive reply.  The technique needs to be learned.
Help by Women's Refuge is very good, but a hotline number needs to be more public and available.
People seem not to want the police to be involved. It should be advertised that the police are very helpful - and life saving - and can be trusted.
We all need to watch out for each other.
It seems that an aggressor will hit back if a wife/partner complains to the police or Women's Refuge. Perhaps the perceived blame (on the wife/partner) would be less obvious if the appropriate numbers were displayed by way of a mail drop - pamphlet or fridge magnet.

I understand that there is soon to be an appeal for Women's Refuge funding - it is good to support them.

Job Interviews

For some, it is not an easy thing to win through the selection process to be successful in getting a job.

I'm going to have a go at employers! They may say that they are concerned about the people who apply, but they know that there are plenty who are looking for work, so they do not have to think about those people they reject.

I know a young woman (23) who has had a dozen interviews but has been unsuccessful in actually getting a job. But she has been notified by only one of the prospective emloyers the reply was - 'Thank you for your application, you interviewed well but we have decided on someone with more experience.'

You can't argue with that. It is fair that a person is not what the employer is looking for.

However, with this young woman there are 11 prospective employers who have not bothered to let her know that she was unsuccessful.
Now I have interviewed a lot of people in my time, and I found the time to let people know the outcome of the interview.
One outfit, a Government outfit, wanted to know if she knew the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi! But still did not have the courtesy to let her know that she was unsuccessful. And they re-advertised a week later!

In most cases it may not be the employer who is responsible to let unsuccessful applicants know, maybe it is the personnel officer or the receptionist.

It is nothing but laziness and bad manners on their part!

Long Memories

I cam across this picture taken in the 1940 centenary commemoration of the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand's treaty with Maori and the founding document of the country.

I like the hats!

New Zealand continues to make recompense to Maori for injustices that the early settlers committed - some perhaps unwittingly,  other outright dirty practices.

Several governments had addressed Maori grievances and some are ongoing with some being a bit ridiculous like Maori claiming rights to the airwaves and water resources.

People more learned than me are carrying on the process and somehow I would expect an end to the compensation and an end to the claims resulting in a thing called 'unity' and just getting on with life without grumping between races. At the moment you have the Maori crying 'victim' and the rest crying, 'not again!

Yesterday was was the anniversary of the marriage of the Chinese Princess Wen Chen to the Tibetan Emperor. And this is the reason that China lays claim to Tibet - the marriage was a political one where Tibet was seeking peace after being defeated in war.

The marriage was in AD 641! [Some say there are no texts that actually state that the woman existed]

I hope the Maori claims have been settled before 1372 years are up!

Capitalism Model - A Crock

My old mate Loti used to regularly tell me the politics is a dirty game and as it turns out, his work is somewhat political, but not in the sense of parliament - much in life has an element of politics.

Myself, I'm not so interested in politics but I believe in good fiscal management and sensible policies giving the majority a fair go. Maybe that sounds air-fairy and a bit socialistic but we are after all a society.

The drivers in the world economy at present are China, USA, Great Britain, Europe (Germany) and increasingly, India, Indonesia as well as Japan.

Little old New Zealand is stifled under a MMP system  that in theory should provide balance but in fact is like driving a Model A on the Auckland motorway.
And we have this thing called a 'global economy' where it seems economic sense to transport raw materials to China, have goods manufactured there, and then transport them back here to be sold.
It is also thought good economic sense to for companies here to have call centers in Manila to solve problems encountered in this country.

I have long espoused the belief that there are too many people carrying out 'unproductive jobs' but are earning huge money. There is disparity.
To go back to my old nursery industry: There is a limit to the number of trees one person can plant in a day - physically - and there is a limit to the price customers are willing to pay for a tree. So in fact the customer dictates the earning capacity of the nursery worker.

Now, take the past CEO of Telecom. He was being paid 7 million pa and the question I have is, 'What was his daily production?'
So called corporates [or their boards] seem to think that 'if you pay peanuts, you hire monkeys'. That is not so at all and there is plenty of evidence that expensive CEO's do not always deliver, and then the corporation has to pay a fortune to get rid of them. And of course there are the bonuses.

If you look at a case that I know of: A man with a family business of market gardening - producing food. He had to sell up because his business became unviable as - because of the global economy - those same vegetables could be imported at a lower cost of production that he could deliver.
Oh that's very good for the consumer! Yes but what about the man and his family and the care of them on the taxpayer - oh yes, that's the consumer!

So, back to the high-earners of the world. How come people in the entertainment industry are so rich? By entertainment, I mean all, from sports stars to movie stars to music artists.
How come some of these 'reality stars' end up having so much influence and become rich, simply by displaying themselves on the television?
Do they produce food, do they build roads, carry out water project or carry out sanitation work?
So what makes them worth so much money?
Well I can't answer that - the population seems to have a thirst for this sort of thing and of course the advertisers pay for them to display/recommend their product.
Just have a look at a TV series called 'Cribs' where you are shown around celeb's houses. Clearly most have more money than they know what to do with it.
I guess as long a folk want to gawk, these people will be too highly paid.

I really do not believe that politicians understand the importance of jobs.
During the Labour Party's governance that saw the corporatisation of government departments in the period around 1987, there was a mass loss of jobs, especially manual jobs. A government would call those jobs, 'unskilled' and that is the first error they made.
But it is arguable that the economy was in such a bad state that drastic measures had to be taken.
It is the government's job to manage the economy, so if the economy was failing, who's fault was that? Then who was it that lost their job?
But was the economy in such a bad state? Or was the corporatisation a theory in a government by individuals - a personal agenda?
Anyway, I wrote to my Member of Parliament pointing out that they should check their sums because those people employed contributed to society and the government was in fact changing the basic fabric of society.
Pride would disappear, more police would be needed because of high unemployment and disillusion within effected groups. I pointed out that the jobs returned 25 -30% back in tax and another 10% (then) in gst. Around jobs there is a required infrastructure - schools, shops and the like.
The lack of jobs in the rural areas would cause movement to the large centers creating problems there.
Unhappily, I was right.

I was gobsmacked when I saw a documentary about a car manufacturing plant in India. They were making these dinky, small cars mainly for local sale - huge numbers of them.
The factory was totally automated! In a country with a huge population and a low wage economy, they automate a car factory? Financially the project will be profitable but where is the social, human responsibility?

So the global economy and the capitalistic model we are currently in has sent jobs off shore and tends to carry out policies that are acceptable to 'bean counters' without looking after the welfare of  citizens.
In New Zealand, we have this thing called a social welfare system. This system was designed to 'help the people who fall through the cracks'. All well and good but there is a lot more to well-being than just enough money to live on! For certain I don't really know what goes on and some rip the system off, and others have to fight for their rights.

Modernity (now there's a word) has resulted in many manual jobs being made redundant by technology. And it is difficult to find people to do manual work. But I have done my share of hard physical work and there is a satisfaction to be gained through achievement. There is pride in your work - if you are happy with your employer - the second thing I mentioned in my letter to my MP. Pride in what you do is a major motivator and sadly it is lacking in many areas of New Zealand today.

They called the 1987 model 'Rogernomics'  and his theory was pretty much that of 'trickle down' - where the wealthy are healthy because their expenditure generates jobs and the poor therefore prosper. Clearly the theory has failed - it was nuts to start with - the wealthy (other than a few philanthropic individuals) tend to look after themselves and nothing much trickles down.

The social structure was changed by Rogernomics but especially in the job market. Today the 'work ethic' is lacking and the more manual jobs are filled by temporary workers from overseas.
You will find a work ethic among builders, plumbers, mechanics, electrician - that is where there are apprenticeships. Why? Mentoring. Before the wholesale dumping of government jobs, the older guys mentored the younger guys, kept them in order and taught the skills. All that was lost.

And the theory that privatization made a business model did not quite turn out to be correct. The rail service had to be bought back by the government!
And look at Solid Energy - the management looked after themselves financially, with bonuses, and in comfortable office space so the workers have been put off and the company owes millions.

We can't turn back the clock and 'things will never be as they were'. But have any lessons been learned? I have no answers but the only accountability politicians have is through the ballot box - is that enough?

Cats in New Zealand

I don't much like cats these days, although I had a lot of affection for my childhood pet cat, Bib, who rubbed heads with me most mornings and used to lick my hair! Somehow I believed that enzymes in a cat's spit actually aided healing! I used to allow bib to lick my wounds.

Another cat I had was Toodles, who was a real character - not at all affectionate and not that very dependent on me. We shared space and he would follow me around.

One Gareth Morgan (an economist) has advocated that cat owners should not replace cats that died, so eventually due to attrition, cats would die out in New Zealand.

I will list my complaints against cats: Cats rub against you to wipe gunk from their eyes and their teeth! Cats can slobber and that spittle it not healthy around the house. Cats find soft soil to defecate and urinate - a nurseryman's nightmare as he has to cover stores of peat and potting mix! Cats have dandruff which can be a severe human allergen. 

Gareth Morgan is correct that cats are killers of birds, lizards and larger insects! 

Cat-lovers are correct that cats kill rodents and rabbits and many claim that their cats do not touch native birds.

Cats do not distinguish and I suppose the killing comes in many instances from 'rough play'.

TV interviewed the SPCA man who threw in that doing away with cats 'would upset the balance of nature'. Hardly here in New Zealand - a little bat is the only indigenous mammal New Zealand was blessed with. So if you take the SPCA point of view, cats have already upset the balance of nature. Cats cannot be claimed to be within nature's balance in New Zealand.

Around here, people release cats 'to fend for themselves' when they decide they no longer want to care for them. Most usually those cats die, and I have found carcases but the rabbit numbers are exploding indicating that the cats have little effect.

Personally, I don't think domestic cats have much effect on birds, lizards, insects, rodents or rabbits - they get the easy ones. Feral cats are different but I have not heard of an effective control for them.

The thing is though, cats do contribute to the economy. How many Vet jobs would be lost without cats? What about the retailers who sell/manufacture food and cat comfort stuff?

An economist has no way of quantifying the value cats give as comfort to people, young and old, and a learning tool to the young.

On balance, even though I'm not fussed on them, cats probably do more good than harm.

Aroma sticks

'Filling the air with fragrance' actually does my head in, and when I smell this stuff in a house, I usually exit as fast as I can - the fragrance mat linger, but I won't.

There was one of these on a motel we stayed at recently, so I just shoved it outside. Then there was on in my sister's room - sorry I put up with it as long as I could.

Anyway, I was given a tarpaulin and I noticed the fragrance of oil on it. And yes, the 'giver' admitted that she had spilt a little oil from an aroma stick bottle on it.
Well I stored it in the shed were I was unlikely to smell it.
A few weeks later, I needed a tarpaulin and while the smell still lingered, it was dry [as it was when I took possession of it].

I placed the tarp on the grass as a clean surface, and to my surprise, the area of grass was desiccating! I now have a patch of dead grass on my lawn caused by this fragrant oil.

So if it kills my grass - what is it doing to the lungs of those who breathe it in?