The answer lies within, so why not take a look now

There's something so comforting about listening to Cat Stevens. I guess because my Dad would have had Cat on high rotation back in the early seventies, I must have heard it a lot, so it's firmly imprinted in my brain. Same goes for Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix, although my own personal music taste is more folksy, more like Cat than the heavy guitars of Page, Plant or Hendrix.

I love music which fuses styles from different cultures, using instruments that would never traditionally appear together, to create something unique and beautiful.

I can't get enough of bands like Kila, Capercaille, Taffetas, Baka Beyond, Diya Singh. I also love alternative country performers, like Gillian Welch, Nickel Creek, the Dixie Chicks and the Waifs. It must be the mandolins/banjos/bagpipes that get me hooked, because I just love the sound of these different instruments playing together.

This may be the reason why I loved the Police so much as a teenager. Recently reading Sting's autobiography, "Broken Music" I was reminded of the fact that he played the double bass and how this was such a unique combination for a trio at that time in musical history.

The other lasting impression which his book left on me, related to his experience in Brazil upon taking the herb ayahuasca. He describes taking the herbs at a religious gathering there, whereupon everyone in the small hall soon began to groan and cry with pain, then run from the room to retch, with their stomachs violently convulsing. After some time, the room settled as each person began to see all kinds of visions, in their altered states.

His own visions were fascinating, leaving me wondering whether the herbs had allowed him to see either his own past life, or that of his ancestors.

As much as I'd love to see a glimpse of such past lives, I don't think I'd have the courage to go through the whole experience of taking the herbs. I'll just have to settle for what comes in my dreams, meditations and imaginative wondering.

Just an idea

It just occurred to me that although the current U.S. administration seems to be dominated by what is being called the "Religious Right", and many people are up in arms about how the U.S. is no longer a secular society (if it ever was) and that religion is at the root of all the bad politics happening there, I suspect that this is a really simplistic view of what is really happening.

Every politician knows that to be elected to power, they have to appeal to the majority of the people. Your chances of being elected if you're a member of a minor party are low, and if you are a member of a major party, you would never be allowed to campaign for issues that only interest the minority. To keep their job politicians must toe the party line, and depending on what's at stake, they often act in whatever way they see necessary to stay in their position of power.

George Bush claims to "talk to God" for guidance in his role and has people in his administration who also claim to be devout Christians. This may be true, but I suspect that it is in their benefit to claim this, because it will appeal to a lot more voters if they do. I'd like to get my hands on some statistics, but I rekon the Bible belt is a huge proportion of the U.S. population.

George Bush isn't really about supporting love of God. He's about supporting the elite and the elite supporting him in return. I doubt he would have any real understanding of the needs of the people who live in the middle of the U.S., but he's gonna say God tells him what to do, because that would be reassuring for the many Christians who vote from that region.

The "Religious Right" is just a smoke screen for the elite to act our their dirty struggle for power in the U.S. It's a pity, because a result of this situation, along with the actions of a minority of Christians (the evangelical ones) is that religion is getting a really bad rap right now.

I disagree with Richard Dawkins that religion is the root of all evil. I believe the human tendency to seek power and privilege and to treat 'others' inhumanly in the process, is the real cause of war and atrocity.

How to recognise ideology

I've made a lot of mistakes in my life. I make poor choices and do and say many things I feel bad about afterward. I feel plain stupid when I realise I have repeated the same mistakes over and over again. Thankfully I rejected the Catholic idea of sin a long time ago (8 years of formal Catholic education and 30 odd years of its general influence provides a big bundle to drop, believe me), but the tendency toward feeling guilty which is part and parcel of the whole sin idea is a lot harder to release. I guess I'm still working on this one and I find that it is a real challenge to recognise when I'm tending to act as a result of guilt, to let this go, and follow my inner voice about what's right.

It's not just a cliche. Catholic guilt hangs on.

It's interesting to note that when one becomes a parent, this tendency to feel guilty can play a large part in shaping one's parenting style. I think this is true for parents of many different religious backgrounds, so I suspect it's not just a Catholic attribute.

Which is why I have to slam a book which recently found its way into my hands. The warning bells started going off the minute I received it, because I have this theory that when someone enthusiastically gives me a book I have not asked for and show little interest in, it's usually going to be a blatant piece of ideology. This book has nothing to do with religious guilt, but it presents a very bigoted point of view, nonetheless. It's a parenting book which makes many black and white judgements about what's good and what's not good for kids. There is great potential for many parents to feel absolutely guilty about themselves and their parenting style upon reading this book.

It's called "Parenting a Free Child: An Unschooled Life" and it's by Rue Kream.

Rue is convinced that parents have no right to control their children in any way, because this is disrespectful of the innate wisdom and intelligence that children posess. She also says that by sending children to school they become victims of institutionalisation and this will set them up for a lifetime of unhappiness.

I feel that these two beliefs have some value. (you'll notice I say 'belief' not 'fact') I believe that children have much wisdom that is ignored because the adult world usually doesn't look to children for answers. I also think that many children are miserable in school, for a whole variety of reasons, whether it be because they are being bullied, or because their teacher doesn't understand their particular needs, or they are struggling with the work, or because they find the environment stifling.

Rue goes overboard, however in suggesting that children cannot be free in either a typical home environment, where the parents have household rules and limits on children's behaviour, or a school environment. This bigoted view fails to recognise that there can be positive outcomes for children, no matter what their circumstances are, and that even in ideal situations, children can still suffer negative experiences. Children and their families and their school experiences are so varied, it is impossible to prescribe one untimately 'right' experience for any one of them.

I could have agreed with her in recognising that school causes much unhappiness in children, because when my own children showed how unhappy they were in school this year, I pulled them out before the year was over. I cannot agree with her however, because she goes overboard in suggesting that the solution to this problem lies in parents homeschooling their children for as long as they can and living their life with the children as their central focus.

The problem I have with this idea is that her method negates the needs of parents. Homeschooling is a huge commitment of time and energy and not everyone is capable of making such a commitment, for all kinds of reasons. Rue is going to make a lot of people feel guilty about not providing their children with this experience, if they take her opinion on board.

She stresses that parents must be attentive to the child's needs at every possible moment. One example I recall is that if the child had an idea for a project in the evening and needed some supplies, the parents should show they care for her, by going out to the store to get what the child wanted, no matter what time of day it might be. She never mentions instances where she might be absolutely exhausted at this time of day, and she asks the child to wait until she next goes to the store. I am completely amazed at this. Is Rue Kream the new Wonderwoman of the 21st Century?

She uses the word 'abuse' to describe some actions of parents which I think many parents may have done at some time or other, and which I do not believe constitute abuse. An example I recall is where she states the importance of giving a child food when they say they are hungry, even if it is close to mealtime. My children sometimes show great hunger as I am preparing the evening meal, but it would be a big distraction to the task at hand (they say women are aces at multitasking, but I tend to burn the food if I try to do something else at the same time) and would make the time we can all eat even later if I were to stop and prepare a separate snack for them, so my response is that they can have a piece of fruit. Sometimes they will come back after they have eaten the fruit and say they are still hungry, but if dinner is only 10-20 minutes away, I will ask them to wait, and I don't think this is abuse. A writer has to be very careful about the way in which they use the word abuse. They are going to put a lot of people offside, and create much unnecessary anxiety for parents who may take their opinion on board, if they are going to use the term so freely.

In first reading this book I felt enormous guilt and then felt really sad and depressed for a few days. Then I started to feel angry and I realised that I had taken a real hardliner's opinion on board and judged myself harshly.

Parents, don't use this book to beat yourself up. There are many ways to show your children you love and respect them. This book presents an extreme opinion by an author who may be trying to encourage others to aim toward an ideal, but in doing so, is creating a bit of ideology that would be best left on the shelf.