Why do we still change our clocks in Autumn and Spring?

Posted by on

In the 19th century, the railroad connected people across distances so great that time zones needed to be implemented to align rail schedules. In the 20th century, the aeroplane eliminated all time zones, at least for pilots and airport personnel. Time is about coordination.

Some people think that daylight saving time (DST) nowadays does more harm than good. A state commission in Massachusetts has recommended that the state move its official time zone from Eastern to Atlantic Time and do away entirely with the back and forth of daylight saving. The move would give Massachusetts more daylight in the evenings – currently, winter sunsets start as early as 4.11 pm.

The original idea was to reduce energy use by providing more sunlight in the summer mornings. Savings in electricity costs and stress on the electric grid have been cited as reasons for changing clocks between summer and winter. But since energy demand actually peaks in the early afternoon in winter, longer evenings would actually reduce the need for artificial lighting. A 2008 report by the Department of Energy found that in 2005, when the US extended summer hours for a few more weeks into autumn, electricity use decreased by a small amount.

The Massachusetts commission, concerned about children waiting for school buses in the dark, also recommends delaying school start times, resulting in a better alignment with adolescent sleep patterns, driven by hormones. Later school start times also result in higher test scores and fewer teen car accidents.

If Massachusetts acts alone on this, it could cause a certain amount of chaos, so the commission recommends that the state should only make this move if a majority of other north-east states join in.

Seems sensible. But Steve Hanke, a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, suggests we use one universal 24-hour clock, followed by everyone on the globe. Pilots and stock exchanges use it already. This would mean that in some places, the sun would rise at, say, noon, instead of 7 am. It works in China, which has one official time zone for the entire country, despite covering five time zones geographically. Local custom dictates at which hour work begins and ends. Hanke thinks it’s only a matter of time before this practice is adopted globally, and our increasing reliance on technology may lead us there. (based on an article in New Scientist by Chelsea Whyte).

I’m not at all sure about one universal 24-hour clock, and what the advantage would be. Surely light, and the movement of the sun around the planet, has to be taken into account? I am writing this at 17.45 Eastern time,and it is dark outside. Being told that, after all, it is 13.45 would be a stretch for me at my age. I suppose one could get used to it, but I wonder how long it would take for 7 billion people? Could someone ”enlighten” me?

The end of liberal democracy and humanism? (Part 2)

Posted by on

Continued. from yesterday: Writer Huval Noah Harari sees three broad directions for humankind:

1. Humans will lose their economic and military usefulness, and the economic system will stop attaching much value to them.
2. The system will still find value in humans collectively but not in unique individuals.
3. The system will, however, find value in some unique individuals, “but these will be a new race of upgraded superhumans rather than the mass of the population”.

By “system”, he means the new kind of society that will evolve as bioscience and information technology progress at their current breakneck pace. As before, this society will be based on a deal between religion and science, but this time humanism will be displaced by what Harari calls “dataism” – a belief that the universe consists of data flows, and the value of any entity or phenomenon is determined by its contribution to data processing.

It is quite possible that massive and indigestible “Big Data” will eventually collapse under its own weight. But in two other areas, Harari is perceptive. The first is that our confident belief that we cannot be superseded by machines – because we have consciousness and they cannot have it – may be naive, because machine consciousness will be possible but because for Harari’s dystopia to arrive, we will need super-intelligent machines. and consciousness will not be necessary or required.

The second is the potential of bioscience. Even the Economist recently ran a cover story entitled: “Cheating death: the science that can extend your lifespan.” But the exciting new possibilities offered by genetic technology will be expensive and available only to elites. So the long century in which medicine had a “levelling up” effect on human populations, bringing good healthcare within the reach of most people, has come to an end. Even today, rich people live longer and healthier lives. In a couple of decades, that gap will widen into a chasm. (Part of an article by John Naughton, The Guardian, 28 August 2016, commenting on Yuval Noah Harari’s book, “Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow”.

My comment: Not a lot of this is new. Some years ago my wife and I were talking to someone from the OECD. He let slip that planning was afoot to create a giant “living bubble“ a massive dome under which elite, chosen human beings could live while climate change laid waste to the outside world, a world consumed with famine, mass migration and warfare. (Ihave to point out that, meeting him some years later he denied ever having said anything of the sort!) But maybe it is not so far-fetched. It can only happen when the mass of humanity have “lost their economic and military usefulness” and where a tech-savvy crowd of super- humans have arranged to live in safety, each for 150 years.

The end of liberal democracy and humanism? (Part 1)

Posted by on

According to Yuval Noah Harari, in his book “Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow” there is new challenge to liberal democracy. It’s primary roots lie not in ideology but in bioscience and information technology. He sugesrs that in the 21st Century “the train of progress is pulling out of the station – and this will probably be the last train ever to leave the station called Homo sapiens. Those who miss this train will never get a second chance. Those left behind face extinction. In order to get a seat on it, you need to understand 21st century technology, and in particular the powers of biotechnology and computer algorithms.”

“The main products of the 21st century will be bodies, brains and minds, and the gap between those who know how to engineer bodies and brains and those who do not will be wider than the gap between Dickens’s Britain and the Madhi’s Sudan. The defining features of the liberal democratic order is likely to be upended by the astonishing knowledge and tools that we have produced in the last half-century”.

For most of human history, Harari argues, humans believed in a cosmic order. Their world was ruled by omnipotent gods who exercised their power in capricious and incomprehensible ways. Then came science and, in some parts of the world at least, science has triumphed and belief in a transcendental order has been relegated to the sidelines. We have acquired powers that in pre-modern times were supposed to be possessed only by gods. With belief in god dying where will humans find meaning? “The modern world,” writes Harari, “promised us unprecedented power – and the promise has been kept. What about the price? In exchange for power, we are expected to give up on meaning of life”.

Humans are handling this at present by turning towards humanism (and its less dry and clinical version: modern Epicureanism, a belief that “sanctifies life, happiness, kindness and respect for others). Harari, however, argues that bioscience and information technology will ultimately destroy the foundations on which humanism is built. And since liberal democracy is constructed on the worship of humanist goals (“life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” by citizens who are “created equal”), then the new technologies are going to tear liberal democracy apart.

How come? He says fhat the life sciences are undermining humanist individualism, suggesting that “the free individual is just a fictional tale concocted by an assembly of biochemical algorithms”. Likewise it is denying human free will. People may have freedom to choose between alternatives but the range of possibilies are increasingly determined by external algorithms as the “surveillance capitalism” practised by Google, Amazon etc becomes ubiquitous – to the point where internet companies will eventually know what your desires are before you do. ( A summary of a review by John Naughton, The Guardian, 28 August 2016).

My comment: Do you think human beings, once they understand what is being done to them, will tolerate being treated like ciphers? I don’t. These huge tech companies have to be put back where they belong – serving humanity. Because something can technically be done doesn’t mean that it is either necessary or wise. We have to fight back – these changes are harmful and unnecessary.

Tomorrow, in part 2, I will address what Hariri thinks will happen to human beings.

The people are parting company with the corporations

Posted by on

The disconnect between the people and the business community community has reached huge proportions in the US. Corporations are enjoying record profits but investing very little in the economy. Only one third of Americans believe large corporations are having a positive effect on the country and only 2 in 10 people surveyed say they have confidence in big business. The latter are in denial, thinking that if they explain their needs better people will come round. These needs include expanding international trade, immigration reform, reducing deficits, relaxing regulation, cutting corporate taxes and social programs like Social Security and Medicare.

(Interjection: What they think the whole point of life is is a mystery. Just making profits and allowing the bosses to run away with huge incomes?).

Meanwhile, the number of companies listed on the stock market has dropped by half from 1997 and 2012, and start-ups have not created nearly enough jobs to offset the losses caused from globalization. The troubles of business are magnified by social media,in terms both of outright criticism and also by plain lies and untruths that gain traction. There are no truth filters. Never before has business had such an image problem.

Much of the corporate agenda is stalled in Washington (except tax reduction). TTIP and TTP are both dead. Immigration reform looks a non-starter and much needed infrastructure repairs and improvements (which are plainly necessary) won’t get done because the Republicans will authorize no spending. Regulations are indeed being scrapped for the sake of business, although this may come back to bite them as safety standards drop. The stock market is doing well in the expectation of lower taxes and more profits.

(Interjection: regulations were there to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizen. When the citizen finds he or she has no protection and is forbidden to sue corporations, the backlash will surely come, big time)

And now the Republicans are proposing to lower corporation tax substantially, on the bogus “principle” that it will act as a spur to commercial and industrial activity, and that the reduction in tax income will be more than paid for by the expected productivity and investment. The Republicans just tried that in Kansas, and as a result Kansas is bust. The idea has never worked and never will, if only because the business owners capture any benefits, if there are any.

Meanwhile, “top” businessmen are smarting at the comments of Trump and Sanders. Do we feel sorry for them? This is the beginning of the end for American business domination, excepting, perhaps, hi-tech – if China doesn’t out-perform it.

The best news sources

Posted by on

Despite significant advances in media and communication technology, high quality journalism remains something hard to come by. Newspaper revenues are in decline, caused by a shift to reading the news online. To make matters worse, many people choose to get their news via social media, eschewing the need to visit news websites at all. As a result, most people do not read high quality analysis. Both the internet and the printed newspapers are dominated by tabloids, who are notorious for sensationalising news, deliver poor quality and often superficial reports, and largely promote a right wing authoritarian worldview.

To combat this lamentable development, I’ve listed here some newspapers and magazines which I think are well worth reading. And if given the opportunity, I would recommend paying for your news as much as possible. If you are at university, speak to your librarian- your library may be subscribed to some newspapers already, allowing you to bypass paywalls.

In America, one of the best news websites is Vox.  I frequently quote Vox for all sorts of things. They get into the details of public policy; the subtle differences between Congressional healthcare plans or tax proposals for instance. They have a global outlook, coverings events like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Brexit thoroughly. They also produce some very informative videos. On YouTube, their video explaining the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia is fantastic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veMFCFyOwFI. Vox is very progressive in its outlook, but they are very aware of the criticisms of their ideology. Like most American progressives, they’re very conscious of issues of identity (race, gender, class etc), but they’ve had writers like Mark Lilla argue that Democrats ought to be more unifying in their rhetoric. Overall I’d wholeheartedly recommend them.

The nearest thing Britain has to Vox is the New Statesman. Like its American cousin, its unabashedly progressive, but also has some dissenting writers. Its explanatory journalism is excellent. The New Statesman also has strong coverage of culture, with long sections dedicated to book and theatre reviews. But it isn’t as global as Vox; a sizeable majority of its articles are about events within the UK.

For great, balanced coverage of the whole world, The Economist is a great site. They are amongst the most global of news organisations, covering elections in every major country. Their articles are always interesting and thought-provoking. I also like the Economist’s relatively unique ideology- it’s liberal, pro-globalisation, but far more fiscally conservative than its main competitors. It’s articles are written anonymously, so it reads as if it could have been written by one person, particularly as all of its writers share roughly the same views. Thus, the Economist could be seen as a bit of an echo chamber, but none of its arguments are from ignorance or superstition.

A magazine I enjoy reading but shouldn’t be taken too seriously is the Spectator. It’s generally very conservative, but with some liberal writers as well. It’s articles are always provocative and well-argued. Like the New Statesman, it has excellent book, TV and theatre reviews. Having said that, some of it’s columns are complete nonsense- someone even recently argued that Britain crashing out of the EU without a deal would be a good thing. James Delingpole, a notable climate change denier, is a frequent contributor. Also, some of it’s writers are a bit prejudiced. Taki, who write the High Life column, seems to hold refugees and Muslims in contempt. He’s an ardent fan of Trump, and believes in a Jewish conspiracy to influence Washington, a bit like Pat Buchanan. Overall, the Spectator is very entertaining, and if you’re not a conservative, it’s a great way to have your views challenged. But if an absolute dedication to factual accuracy is what you’re after, you best look elsewhere.

I am more lukewarm about newspapers than the magazines mentioned above. I would recommend the Times and the Guardian in the UK, and the Washington Post and New York Times in America, for solid and up to date news and sports coverage. The Times and Washington Post are relatively balanced, with writers from both the right and left (though the Times is slightly more conservative.) The Guardian and New York Times are fairly left-wing, the Guardian especially so since the rise of Jeremy Corbyn. While they all offer relatively good information and analysis, I find they aren’t as informative and detailed as the magazines. They can be guilty of using clickbait to attract readers. The newspaper most guilty of this is the Independent, which often writes poor quality but controversial articles to get attention. These articles simply adhere to leftist dogma and notions of social justice, with no acknowledgement of an alternative perspective.

I’m afraid I can’t recommend any television channel in good conscience. All of them cover the news simplistically. Fox News is the worst offender, choosing the eschew the important developing story of the Trump administration’s links to Russia. Fox is a barrage of propaganda and hyperbole, which holds any dissenting view in complete contempt. It is also guilty of vile misogyny, frequently judging women by their appearance. It’s worth noting that Fox’s female presenters are considerably younger than the men.

Other television channels have the opposite problem. By adhering to strict impartiality, they cannot offer meaningful analysis of events. They simply list various points of view which are more eloquently explained elsewhere. They host debates between commentators which frequently descend into shouting matches, leaving the viewer with no idea of what the truth is. Other commentators will avoid questions (Kellyann Conway), or even lie. Impartiality can also allow mistruths to be presented as alternative opinions. The obvious example is climate change, which can be presented as a genuine debate when in reality, there is a consensus amongst scientists that climate change is caused primarily by human activity.

If you’re a busy person, radio can be a great way to get the news. You can listen to it while doing work or eating. Unlike its television wing, BBC radio is worth checking out. The World Service is still a strong as its ever been, and for British listeners (or anyone whose interested in British politics), Radio 4 is well worth a listen. Of course, the BBC’s impartiality limits the depth of its analysis. But unlike on television, there aren’t any shouting matches. Commentators have time to explain their views, and are also properly challenged for their views. In America, NPR does some very interesting programmes. I would avoid commercial radio though. Partly because much of your time will be wasted listening to adverts. But also because it isn’t as good quality. Talk radio in America is hopelessly right wing, with radio hosts spewing out conspiracy theories about the Clintons or Obama not being a real American.

 

 

 

The Americanisation of British politics

Posted by on

In my previous post, I talked about how British culture is becoming more American, and how this is largely to the country’s detriment. Unfortunately British politics is also being Americanised, and the effects are similarly harmful. Here are a few examples:

The first is an increasing political polarisation, and as a consequence, an increasingly adversarial political culture. Throughout much of the 20th century, it was difficult to tell the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. America’s parties were less about ideology and more about representing  demographic groups and regions. Democrats represented socially conservative poor white farmers living in the South, and then increasingly black people who wanted civil rights. Republicans represented businesses and middle class people living in the North East and the Midwest. But now, everything has changed. Republicans have adopted a doctrine of nationalism, while still being dependent on fiscally conservative donors. Democrats have also become more ideological- they are a far more socially liberal party than even just ten years ago. This has helped them appeal to young people, college graduates and pro-immigration ethnic minorities. Today, America is a very polarised country, with Democrats and Republicans seeing each other as complete enemies.

Traditionally, Britain’s parties were more ideological than America’s. The Labour Party has always been socialist, though its socialism was moderated by Christianity and applied practically through trade unionism. Meanwhile, it has always had an intellectual wing, first started by the Fabian Society. Labour’s intellectuals largely reside in North London, where the party still enjoys considerable support. The Conservative Party was less ideological- its opposition to radical change and support for traditional institutions won it support in market towns and villages across the country, as well as the wealthier parts of the inner city. With the exception of the 80s, Labour and Conservatives were able to work together on issues like housing, rebuilding the country after WW2, the NHS, schools and policing.

However, Britain’s parties are now just as polarised as America’s. On the one hand, Labour is led by an unreconstructed socialist. Jeremy Corbyn proposes a radical expansion of the state. Partly in the form of renationalising various industries. But mostly by spending vastly increased sums of money on virtually every aspect of government. Schools, hospitals, infrastructure and the police would all receive far more money than today. To pay for it, Labour proposes increasing taxes on the top 5% and borrowing more. On the other hand, the Conservative Party has become increasingly nationalistic, especially since Britain’s decision to leave the EU last year. Despite having played an instrumental part in creating the European Single Market, the party now views it as a mortal threat to the country. The common sense harmonisation of regulations the Single Market provides is consistent with the Thatcherite desire to reduce barriers to companies doing business around the world. But Conservatives now want to make it harder for British businesses to operate in Europe, and don’t seem to care that our influence on European politics is waning- this is all worth it to restore Britain to greatness. The Conservatives’ perception as an anti-EU, anti-immigration party is hurting its standing amongst young people, a record proportion of whom voted against them earlier this year.

It isn’t just political polarisation that is making British politics more American. There is an increasing dependence on strong leadership for electoral gain. In the 2017 election, Theresa May played down the fact she is a Conservative, and instead focused on herself as a strong leader. She asked people to vote for ‘me and my team’ to make a success of Brexit. Similarly, Jeremy Corbyn has become a cult figure for many people, who see him as a socialist messiah. Chants of ‘oooaah Jeremy Corbyn!’ could frequently be heard at Labour rallies. In the age of mass media, personality seems to matter more than ever.

One of the most worrying aspect of political Americanisation is the tide of anti-intellectualism sweeping through popular discourse. Expert opinion is often dismissed out of hand, even when there is a consensus. While there isn’t as much explicit climate change denial as there is in the US, environmental issues were barely discussed in the 2017 election despite 2016 being the hottest year on record. When it was, it was assumed that new technologies and increasing fuel efficiency will save the day. Scarcely did anyone talk about the need for swift and decisive government action necessary to rid our cities of killer diesel. Air pollution- which frequently violates EU limits and results in premature deaths for thousands- wasn’t mentioned. Anti-intellectualism was also evident in economic debates. The Conservatives were guilty of gross and misleading optimism as to what would happen if we left the EU without a deal. Labour were naive in the extreme as to how much debt would be accumulated as a result of their planned spending increases, and they vastly overestimated the amount of revenue gained by their proposed tax rises.

As I said in my previous post, there are many wonderful things about America, at least culturally speaking. But politics is one area that the country definitely doesn’t excel at. Instead, I believe Britain and America could learn from Europe, and in particular, Germany, Austria, the Low Countries and the Nordic Countries. There, policy is a far greater factor than personality in determining election outcomes, even if some personalities have come to be attributed with positive traits; Germans largely see Merkel as a safe pair of hands. Parties have a less adversarial relationship with each other, and instead work together in the national interest. People do not dismiss their opponents with vulgar or nasty insults. And while there is a great diversity of opinions (more so than the US due to a greater choice of parties), there is also a general respect for the facts, experts and the findings of academic studies. Of course, Europe is far from perfect: Poland and Hungary show worrying signs of becoming increasingly authoritarian. But the nations of Europe are capable of reforming, as seen by Italy’s recent adoption of a new electoral system. In contrast, Britain doesn’t look to be making urgently-needed reforms anytime soon, and America is as entrenched as ever.

The right to die

Posted by on

The Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland are the three European countries that permit assisted suicide for non-terminal illnesses that cause unbearable suffering, taken to include mental suffering.

A 2007 independent survey found that 80 per cent of people supported assisted dying for the terminally ill, but only 43 per cent did for those who are not definitely terminally ill. For many, assisted suicide is a step too far, even for the terminally ill. “This (assisted suicide)is not compassion – it’s abandonment,” says Stephen Drake of the US group Not Dead Yet, which opposes the idea.

In general, the public only approve ending life for those with terminal illnesses, but draws the line on depression and other mental ills. Unlike with most physical illnesses, there are no blood tests or brain scans that can give someone a definitive diagnosis of a psychiatric problem. Also, people with mental illnesses are frequently given different diagnoses at different points in their life, and no one knows if that means their first diagnosis was wrong or their condition has genuinely changed. We still don’t know enough to be able to say how a condition will progress. The US National Institutes of Health has said that the whole system of classifying mental illness is flawed and needs to be based more on neuroscience, and has launched a major research effort to base diagnosis and treatments on the underlying problems at the levels of genes, neurotransmitters and brain circuits.

In reality, Belgian doctors, for instance, know the pitfalls and only a minority of requests are granted to people with mental disorders. At a Belgian psychiatric hospital, they granted 48 out of 100 requests, although only 35 people completed the act. Psychiatrists must believe the person is mentally competent, has had a long-standing wish to die and that there is no prospect of treatment. Typically they have more than one psychiatric diagnosis, which may include depression and a personality disorder.

Common sense tells us that someone in mental anguish, but not terminally ill, could be seen as being in a worse situation than if they had known they had just weeks to live. The misery of mental disorder goes on and on, endlessly. Just having the option of assisted suicide can help. Even if they choose not to take it at least they have had a choice, and if they take the assisted route it is better than a violent, lonely, unplanned death.

These points are disputed by religious groups and disability rights activists. They believe that legalising assisted dying sends a message to people who are disabled, sick or elderly that their lives are worthless. (based on an article by Clare Wilson)

I personally think that this comes under a similar banner to abortion. I can see the danger of some ruthless money-grubbing relative engineering the death of a sick family member for private gain, but on balance I think each individual owns his or her own life, and it is for them to say when that ends and not succumb to the moral scruples of others, especially some religious people, who advocate a morality that they are unwilling to adopt themselves. We have been bullied and manipulated for far too long by churches who subscribe to an all-powerful god who seems unable to stamp out sin, violence, theft, misery, and end of life diseases. My message: mind your own business!

Suggestion: everyone asking for assisted suicide should be assessed by three different doctors, and nothing should be done unless there are three serious requests from the patient to prove they are serious.

Are Oxford and Cambridge being racist? Part 2

Posted by on

What is the job of a university? To produce people who can think laterally, not literally; who can think critically and for themselves; who can mentally assemble information in a logical way, and transmit the information to others in a clear, concise manner.

It is not the job of universities to reflect the racial make-up and ethnic origins of the country. The job of preparing racial minorities for an equal adult life lies with the schools and it is the responsibility of the government to facilitate integration and education of minorities by making schools and their teachers first class. Yes, universities should quite naturally look like the population they serve, but youngsters have to be educated and prepared first – at school. This requires adequate funding. Education (true education, not learning by rote and taking useless tests all the time – something conservatives seem to love) should be the most important investment a nation can make. The Scandinavian countries got the message, why can’t the British?

Which brings me to private schools. In my last term at my own private school, I took part in a debate on the abolition of private schools, and, at risk of being lynched, proposed the motion before 600 boys: “This House would abolish all private schools”. I lost! Surprise, surprise. What I now think is that the taxpayer should fund such a huge improvement in State schools that private schools wither on the vine. Don’t abolish them; make them irrelevant. Then there would be a level playing field and we can forget the endless complaining about the present system, the unfairness, the vested interests, and the sniping. Ah! That will be the day!

Are Oxford and Cambridge being racist? Part 1

Posted by on

“Oxford and Cambridge Universities are being accused of a form of “social apartheid”. More than 80% of their offers go to “the top two social classes, the children of barristers, doctors and CEOs”, many of them privately educated pupils from the south-east. In 2015, one in five colleges at Cambridge and one in three at Oxford failed to admit a single black A-level student. Yet, confronted with these figures, Oxbridge has blamed everyone but themselves.

“Former Cambridge admissions officer Andrew Tettenborn strongly disagrees. Most college fellows today are people who haven’t gone to private schools: a big majority are on the Left and “plagued by the usual middle-class guilt complex”. You need only look at how many students of Indian, Pakistani or Chinese origin get places there to see there is no discrimination against minorities. The truth is that only a few hundred black Britons scored the requisite three As or above, and even fewer were attracted to apply.

“It’s not as if the Government hasn’t made a concerted effort to level the field, said The Times. If a university wants to raise annual tuition fees above £6,165, it has to sign an agreement showing how it plans to recruit more disadvantaged pupils. Last year, universities spent £725m on school visits, summer programmes and bursaries in an effort to do just that.
The fact remains that Oxford and Cambridge, compared with Harvard or other top US universities, is still astonishingly white, said Priyamvada Gopal in The Observer. But the fault doesn’t just lie with them: it lies in Britain’s education system, in the unequal contest between its pampered independent schools and its woefully underfunded state ones that struggle to attract good teachers.

“Equally deleterious, said Clare Foges in The Times, is the bias that occurs after university. Such is the romantic hold that Oxford and its dreaming spires exert on the national imagination, recruiters to the top jobs lazily assume the mere fact of having gone there makes you special. Instead of trying “to break more people into Oxbridge”, we should be “breaking the Oxbridge stranglehold on the best opportunities”.

I will comment on this collection ofobservations tomorrow. To do so here would make the post far too long.

Debasing the language

Posted by on

When my wife and I were growing up, she in Virginia, I in England, we never ever, either of us, heard our parents, their friends, our friends, use crude language. Indeed, I remember a teacher telling the class, “We have an amazing language with a huge vocabulary. There are subtle, clever and inoffensive ways of expressing your annoyance or distaste about something without using vulgar bathroom terms”. I heard the “f”word used by my fellow soldiers in the army but only among themselves, never in front of women or older people.

Now it seems acceptable to use the ”f” word, a..hole, the human excrement word and so on in too many conversations. This is especially so on the internet, where anonymous louts and bullies direct these terms at everyone they disagree with, safe in the knowledge that no one knows who is uttering them.

In some ways it is even more shocking that this type of language is used in plays and movies by playwrights and writers who are presumed to have some form of education. This is justified by saying they are a reflection of “real life” as it is lived (and you old f**ts need to know what how ordinary people converse).

Total nonsense!! Using cuss words, swear words, trash-talk, lavatory vocabulary is a sign of lack of imagination. Let me repeat that: lack of imagination. They add nothing to a show, but merely illustrate how second-rate and uncreative you really are. The audience can hear this vocabulary every day – they don’t need it in the theatre as well.

People rebelling against poverty, inequality and globalisation have my sympathy, but once they use foul, derogatory language they demean themselves and win no friends. As my teacher said, “We have a wonderful language. Use it imaginatively”.

American roads are becoming simply dangerous

Posted by on

I, on this blog, have frequently deplored the state of American infrastructure in general, but one might reasonably assume that the roads in the nation’s capital might be in good shape. Assume nothing!

Last night we drove home after a concert on the Beltway, the major highway that rings Washington DC. There was fierce, driving rain and it was pitch black. There was no lighting on this major 8-lane highway.

We wanted to reach a turnoff onto an arterial road towards the city centre. It was 10 p.m and I could barely see through the windscreen. Steering blind, I went off the main road at the intersection, or thought I was doing so. Instead, it was so dark that I hit a grass mound and then a concrete block, left there by the road builders. There was no safety shoulder to the rosd. We ended up stranded between two streams of traffic that were moving at about 60 mph. We couldn’t go forward onto either the main highway or the access road, because the traffic was too dense. In any case there sat the concrete block. Instead, wondering what damage had been done to the car itself, I was able to reverse with zero visibility through the rear window, not knowing where I would end up, fingers crossed, and expecting any moment to be rear-ended. This was the most dangerous thing I have had to do in fifty years. We did have a few seconds of respite that allowed us to back onto the roadway and drive away down the access road and safely home.

I describe this incident to illustrate the dire state of the roads, the inadequte signage, the lack of lighting at intersections, the suddenly disappearing shoulders, the indistinct lane markings, and the dangerous obstructions beside the highways. Bless the EU and its attention to safety and signage! It appears that American politicians are more concerned with maintaining over 600 overseas military bases than maintaining the roads the citizens drive on. My wife and I are lucky to be alive, and lucky the cars was not totalled.

The Americanisation of British culture

Posted by on

One of my first posts on this blog was about how contrary to popular perception, Britain is not the polite and civil country Americans imagine it to be. http://hanrott.com/blog/the-plight-of-british-civility/. In my view, Americans watch far too much Downton Abbey and don’t realise how ugly things have become here. In reality, Britain is increasingly American- your average Brit has far more in common with your average American than with the aristocrats that dominate period dramas on TV. Here are a few examples: (I’ll mention the relatively non-political issues here, and then talk about the Americanisation of British politics tomorrow.)

Fast food. Americans invented what has become known as fast food. KFC, McDonalds and Pizza Hut are all American. For the most part, Europe has resisted the fast food phenomenon, partly because most Europeans see themselves as more sophisticated and cultured than Americans. Not so in the UK, where fast food has rapidly grown in popularity. In particular, the number of takeaways has proliferated. While these places offer cheaper food than restaurants, they are still more expensive than cooking at home. They are also contributing to a rapid increase in child obesity, particularly in the major cities and working class towns. I believe the solution to this lies in the tax system: tax fast food restaurants and takeaways at punitive rates, in order to tax healthier restaurants and cafes less. I’m not sure exactly how this would work, but there must be a way.

Big cars. There are an increasing number of American-style SUVs and sports cars on Britain’s roads. Nowhere more so than the inner London, despite the obvious impracticalities. These cars are more likely to kill or severely injure pedestrians in an accident, worsen pollution and air quality, and are often a vulgar display of wealth. London’s mayor has recently introduced a charge for old polluting vehicles which wish to drive in the centre of the city. I believe this doesn’t go far enough: SUV’s, pickup trucks and other ridiculously large cars should be banned from driving in our major cities altogether. And after 2025, I would also impose severe taxes on anyone who wishes to buy a car that isn’t hybrid or electric.

Foul language. Now I’m not one of these old conservatives who believes every use of a curse word world is a sign of Britain’s social and moral decline. But as a society, we seemed to have adopted the American habit of using swear words as frequently as we can. This is a completely unnecessary development, which only coarsens the language and the way we treat each other. We should be far more civilised and courteous in my view, particularly around children.

Long working hours. Britain is becoming more like America in its working culture. People are expected to work far too long, even if their contract doesn’t explicitly require it. This causes stress and anxiety, and can be particularly harmful for children who don’t see their parents often enough. America doesn’t impose minimum holidays, nor does it guarantee maternity and paternity leave. After Britain leaves the EU, we will have the freedom to do the same, and I’m very worried working hours will be lengthened in a desperate attempt to stay competitive.

Student debt. It’s well known that American university tuition fees are extortionate. But at least there is a generous system of financial aid to help the worse off. In Britain, fees may be well below their American equivalents. However, they are much higher than anywhere else in Europe, and there is little in the way of financial aid. To make matters worse, the government recently abolished a grant for lower-income students, which will only deter those from working class backgrounds from applying to university. The solution is to abolish universities and courses with poor career prospects, and instead use the money to help poor students studying at the more prestigious institutions. This would result in fewer people going to university. But those still attending will not suffer from financial insecurity.

I’m aware I’ve portrayed Americanisation very negatively here. I must stress that I think there are lots of wonderful things Americans have brought to Britain. I’m a big fan of Netflix and American TV generally. I like a lot of American music. Although fast food isn’t quite my thing, I like traditional American cuisine, particularly the way the Southern states make ribs. American companies, from Google to Bank of America, have made Britain a wealthier place- even if they don’t pay their fair share of taxes. But overall, I’m very critical of the way Britain has so keenly adopted the worst aspects of American culture. Like America, Britain is addicted to debt. We borrow vast sums of money, only to spend it on things we don’t need: big cars, fast food, expensive houses, and in some cases, degrees. We then spend our money the wrong way; our quaint and historical high streets are in decline, their business diminished by American-style shopping malls and supermarkets. This debt-fuelled consumerism is making us miserable. We work long hours to pay our debt off, instead of spending time with friends and family. The state encourages people to take on large mortgages, instead of fostering an affordable rental sector. Epicurus, with his emphasis on simple living and a stress-free life, would have looked at the Americanisation of British culture with absolute horror.

 

Taxing the rich

Posted by on

Anyone who supports fair taxation has heard this line a million times: “If you raise taxes on the rich, they’ll just move away.” The argument sounds commonsensical. Opponents of higher taxes on the wealthy make it without much fear of contradiction. But new research exposes this argument for what it really is, a fabrication.

A joint study from Stanford University and Treasury Department researchers, examined 3.7 million tax-filer records over a recent 13-year period. Millionaires simply do not flee in droves to low-tax states, the data show, when their home states raise taxes on the wealthy.
Millionaires, it turns out, consider many factors when deciding where to live. Their family ties, their professional and personal contacts, and their businesses all make them less likely to migrate than the general population, not more.

This report should give a major boost to state efforts to raise revenue from the ultra-wealthy. The usual suspects have lost a key weapon in their arsenal. (“Millionaire Migration and Taxation of the Elite: Evidence from Administrative Data”, Cristobal Young, Charles Varner, Ithai Lurie, and Richard Prisinzano, American Sociological Review, May 2016).

I believe quite a number of people left France when Hollande raised taxation significantly. Gerard Depardieu was the main name mentioned. In fact, our next door neighbours in London moved from Paris (he is a banker) to work in the City, complaining about tax, although that was only one reason. So it can happen, although its effect on the economy is probably slight. Anyone so hung up on tax, aand tax alone, as to permanently leave their country must be a rare bird. The problem is that the dictum about driving out the rich, made up as a political weapon to frighten the public and opposition parties, has now been repeated with religious passion so often it is now part of right-wing received belief, and is trotted out by every think-tank and conservative news operation, without thought, statistics or proof. People now believe it. It will take more than one report to shift it. Moght I suggest that some might just work harder to replace the cash lost to taxes?

The “special relationship”: forget it

Posted by on

Under Barack Obama, as former State Department official Jeremy Shapiro informed the Cheltenham Literature Festival last week, US diplomats viewed the notion of a “special relationship” with the UK as “a joke”. Unkind words, perhaps, but Shapiro “did us a favour” by telling the truth. The phrase “had freshness and relevance” when Winston Churchill coined it after the Second World War. But today, on this side of the Atlantic, it “generates unrealistic expectations and encourages prime ministers to behave like poodles”. I banned the term when I was British ambassador to Washington in the 1990s. It made us look “needy” and pathetic. It was even used against us in negotiations: I was accused of damaging the special relationship when Britain did not toe the US line. America, it’s true, is our most important ally. But “in truth, the US only has one special relationship. That is with Israel, because of its influence over the US Congress.” We should remember this when US-UK trade talks begin: “warm and fuzzy words” will mean nothing at the negotiating table. (Christopher Meyer, The Daily Telegraph)

I read this excerpt from the Daily Telegraph with amusement because after 23 years of living in the United States I have heard mention of the “special relationship” with the UK
precisely once, and that came from someone who had been in military intelligence, and had served in England. And yes, the relationship with Israel superceded it long ago, for reasons of electoral fundraising. Surprise, surprise. Britain outside the EU is even less of an attraction. Naturally, foreign service people concentrate on the powerful bits of the world – China, India, the EU. The right-wing conservatives expecting a special deal from any US President are going to be disappointed. Britain is somewhere a third down the list.

Kaiser Wilhelm and Trump, similaries between Germany and the U.S. (part 2)

Posted by on

(A bit long but scary reading and hopefully worth your time)

For starters, both countries exhibit the familiar warning signs of excessive military influence. In Germany, the Army was essentially “a state within the state,” and scholars have all documented how military dominance distorted German thinking about its security and led to an overreliance on military power and an overly confrontational foreign policy. The German military used domestic organizations like the Navy League and the writings of co-opted academics to make its case to the German people; in America, the Pentagon runs its own public relations operations and weapons manufacturers give generously to think tanks that favor increased defense spending.

Under Wilhelm Germany abandoned Bismarck’s reliance on diplomacy and subordinated that function to the dictates of the General Staff. When asked about the wisdom of the Schlieffen Plan, for example, Foreign Minister Friedrich von Holstein replied “if the Chief of the General Staff … considers such a measure imperative, then it is the duty of diplomacy to concur in it and to facilitate it in every way possible.”

Wilhelmine Germany did face genuine strategic challenges, with a resentful France on one side and a rising Russia on the other. Yet Berlin consistently exaggerated the actual dangers it faced, especially when one remembers that it took on France, Russia, and Great Britain (and later the United States) and nearly won. Even worse, Germany managed to solidify the alliance that opposed it, instead of working assiduously to undermine it. When exaggerated German fears about a hypothetical future decline led its leaders to launch a preventive war in 1914, they were (as Bismarck might have put it), “committing suicide for fear of death.”

One sees a similar pattern in the United States today, where threat-inflation is endemic, the utility of force is exaggerated, and the role of diplomacy is neglected or denigrated. Professional militaries have powerful tendencies to inflate threats, because worrying about remote dangers is part of their job and doing so helps justify a bigger budget. They are also prone to think that force can solve a multitude of problems, when it is in fact a crude instrument that always produces unintended consequences (usually failure!)

Consistent with this pattern, the United States routinely views third-rate powers like Serbia, Iraq, Iran, and others as if they were mortal dangers, treats problems like the Islamic State as if they were existential threats, and tends to assume these difficulties can be solved by blowing more stuff up or sending in another team of special forces. The results of these efforts have been mostly disappointing, yet few in Washington are willing to question this approach or ask why “the world’s best military” isn’t winning more often.

This trend began long before Trump became president, but his own policies are making it worse. We have a general atop the Pentagon for the first time since the early 1950s, another heading up the National Security Council, and yet another as White House chief of staff. At the same time, we have a clueless secretary of state who is either deliberately trying to destroy the State Department or is doing so in fit of absent-mindedness. Like Wilhelmine Germany, in short, U.S. foreign policy is increasingly long on brawn but short on brains.

Wilhelmine Germany and Trumpian America share another trait: an inability to get their finances in order. Germany was Europe’s most dynamic economy before World War I: It had overtaken Great Britain as an industrial power and was leaving France far behind. It also boasted outstanding universities and a world-class scientific establishment. Yet the German state was chronically starved for funds, even as it tried to maintain Europe’s most powerful army, build an expensive modern navy, and pay for social programs that were quite generous by the standards of the time.

And why was Germany in this pickle? Because neither wealthy Junker landowners nor rich German industrialists wanted to pay taxes, and both groups had the political influence to stop the government from raising them.

Again, sounds familiar? America suffers from chronic budget deficits at the state and federal levels, in good part because 1) it spends far more on defense than any other country, 2) it provides lots of entitlement programs for its citizens, and 3) its wealthiest members keep demanding tax cuts, and buy political support for this proposal. Meanwhile, public education, infrastructure, universities, and institutions that helped assimilate new arrivals — are all atrophying for lack of resources and political commitment.

There are ways in which Wilhelmine Germany and Trumpian America are different. America’s overall security situation is far more favorable than Germany’s was. It remains the only great power in the Western hemisphere, the only possessor of truly global power-projection capabilities, and the owner of a robust nuclear deterrent — and it has valuable allies in several key regions (at least for now).

Let us hope that is the case, because another critical difference is more worrisome. Chancellor Theobald Bethmann-Hollweg knew the kaiser was a loose cannon and didn’t want him messing up the chancellor’s own plans to exploit the crisis in 1914. Wilhelm wss kept firmly out of the loop, and ironically, bore little direct responsibility for the war, whatever his personal defects may have been. By contrast, Trump is still in charge of the executive branch, and for the most part it is doing his bidding. The generals may have been able to temper some of Trump’s worst instincts, but he’s still managed to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, alarm key allies, cause a precipitous drop in global confidence in the United States, undermine the Iran deal, fuel escalating tensions on the Arabian Peninsula, and repeatedly pour gasoline on the delicate situation with North Korea. Because top officials are still following his orders, Trump’s personality defects are more worrisome and consequential than Wilhelm’s were.

All of which suggests that we may need more effective means for constraining the Divider-in-Chief. The Founding Fathers created a divided government because they understood deeply flawed people sometimes get elected, and they did not want the country to be overly vulnerable to one person’s flaws or ambitions. They also created mechanisms to remove such a leader when circumstances warrant. I hope it does not come to that, but for now I’ll take some comfort that such mechanisms exist. Stephen Walt, Foreign Policy – I have heavily edited this and apologise for it still being too long!

Comment: This is the crucial test for Republican Senators and Congressmen – are they true, patriotic Americans, or are they time-servers and permanent fundraisers, indifferent to the calamitous drop both in respect from abroad and the financial and health security of citizens at home? When, if ever, will these people stiffen the sinews and get rid of this dreadful interloper? One year is enough!