Moral depravity

Posted by on

Lorelei Armstrong writes to the New Scientist complaining  (tongue in cheek) that “atheism does not seem to lead to moral depravity, despite measured prejudices”. (New Scientist, 19 August, p 22)

“I was promised moral depravity. Which way to moral depravity?”.

Quite. Actually, non- believers are often those who help the old and the poor and who are less likely to end up in jail for dishonest acts.  To suggest that because you are not a declared Christian you must be morally depraved is outrageous.

There is a very famous born-again, in-your-face, tele-evangelist  in Texas called Joel Osteen who has a huge house, earns an annual fortune from his followers and has a private jet, among other goodies.  He was recently in the news  for doing absolutely nothing for the people, his own congregation included, made destitute and homeless by  hurricane Harvey, compounding his un-christian behaviour by publically claiming that he is busy helping the sufferers.  If all that is being said about him is true, then who is morally depraved?

 

Queuing

Posted by on

“Queueing has become a symbol of Britain’s civilised, fair, quiet way of doing things. But is it all it is cracked up to be? The person at the front of the soup kitchen line gets fed first even if the one at the end is hungriest. The youth at boarding gate five gets to sit down before the pensioner with an arthritic hip. There is more genuine fairness in Mediterranean countries where people do not have the decency to queue but do have the decency to not queue well. When buses arrive, for example, you don’t see groups of young men muscling their way to get on first. People generally give way to the weakest and frailest. To think queuing is morally superior is to confuse fairness with orderliness, a particularly British mistake.”  (Julian Baggini in The Guardian)

This is total nonsense.  Nowadays in London nobody queues.  This is because so few bus passengers are  British.  The bus arrives and everyone moves towards the entrance in a phalanx.  No, there is seldom any pushing and shoving, but nor does anyone “give way to the weakest and frailest”.  You could have been there at the bus stop for a quarter of an hour, but it doesn’t stop people from Mediterranean countries and elsewhere edging on board first and taking the vacant seats.  Why?  Because there are no longer any unspoken courtesies or accepted ways of doing things.

I live (in London) on the same street that my grandmother lived.  There  used to be an orderliness about life there.   A real queue formed for a bus,  and, yes, old, frail ladies were nonetheless allowed on first because manners and consideration were important.  People (generally) walked on the left hand side of the pavement because this is the side you drove on; now there is no accepted side, just dodgems.  My point may seem petty but these little things made the boring but necessary things in life easy and predictable.  There is nothing wrong with “orderly”.   Mr Baggini of the Guardian is too young to remember little politenesses and courtesies – or, apparently,  orderliness as well.

(My wife thinks I’m getting crotchety and grumbly.  Well, I guess “yes”, maybe I am!).

 

Spying and the British

Posted by on

Part of an interview conducted  by Sarah Lyall with David Cornwell ( John Le Carre) and Ben Macintyre, writers on the theme of spying:

Sarah Lyall:   Is there something about the British psyche that makes spying, or at least duplicity, an enticing prospect?

Ben Macintyre: We Brits are particularly susceptible to the double life, aren’t we? Is it because we are a sort of theatrical, and sort of unfaithful, culture?

John le Carre: I think it’s because hypocrisy is the national sport. For our class in my era, public school was a deliberately brutalizing process that separated you from your parents, and your parents were parties to that. They integrated you with imperial ambitions and then let you loose into the world with a sense of elitism — but with your heart frozen.

B.M. There is no deceiver more effective than a public-school-educated Brit. He could be standing next to you in the bus queue, having a Force 12 nervous breakdown, and you’d never be any the wiser.

J.L.C. When you’ve become that frozen child, but you’re an outwardly functioning, charming chap, there is a lot of wasteland inside you that is waiting to be cultivated.

S.L. David, you’ve spoken about your childhood, your outrageously criminal father, how you were sent to boarding school when you were 5, the lies that permeated everything. How did all this come to play when you were recruited by MI5?

J.L.C. The truth, in my childhood, didn’t really exist. That is to say, we shared the lies. To run the household with no money required a lot of serious lying to the local garage man, the local butcher, the local everybody. And then there was the extra element of class. All my grandparents and all my aunts and uncles were entirely working class — laborers, builders, that sort of thing. One of them worked up telegraph poles. And so out of that to invent, as my father did, this socially adept, well-spoken, charming chap — that was an operation of great complicity. And I had to lie about my parental situation while I was at boarding school. I only mention these things because they’re the extremes of what can warp an Englishman.

B.M. What you’ve just described — is it the root of your fiction? Your ability to think yourself into someone else?

J.L.C. Absolutely. I mean childhood, at my age, is no excuse for anything. But it is a fact that my childhood was aberrant and peculiar and nomadic and absolutely unpredictable.

A personal comment: As it happens, John Le Carre preceded me by seven years at the same boarding school.  I totally agree with his comments about it.  The difference between him and myself is that I am the only person I know who was never interviewed by the, er, government – I would have made a disastrous spy.  The experience did, however, incline me to the civilised and humane teachings of Epicurus.  The “wasteland inside me” simply had to wait 50 years to be cultivated.

Unhappy teenagers, No. 2

Posted by on

Last Saturday I discussed the the unhappiness of teenagers.  I would now like to pursue the subject Why has their unhappiness reached such huge proportions? Many reasons have been put forward: a rise in the divorce rate,  a shift away from intrinsic to extrinsic goals, which can lead to a sense of not being able to control things, and higher expectations from parents who expect their kids to get to university. ; and technology, which is addictive, and which  is also accused of addling the brain.

But another interesting reason has been put forward. Children aren’t learning critical life-coping skills because they never get to play anymore. One researcher says that anxiety and depression is caused by the decline in opportunities for free play and the increased time and weight given to skills like reading.
If play seems trivial, it’s not. Play is brain-building for babies and young children. There is a sequence of how children develop, from the moral and emotional to the social and intellectual, says Dr. Ellen Littman, a clinical psychologist. Each phase requires building certain muscles, whether to do maths or make a friend.

“There is a developmental sequence and you can’t violate it all that much,” Littman days. For example, circle time in preschool is not about learning the alphabet or mastering Old MacDonald as much as it is learning to be part of a group, mastering the art of taking turns, and starting to listen.But preschool is increasingly about preparing kids for kindergarten, which used to be about play, but now operates more like first grade. Kids are expected to sit for longer and focus on more academic tasks, relegating play to recess. In 1998, 30% of teachers believed that children should learn to read while in kindergarten. In 2010, that figure was at 80%.

Children can do mathematics in first grade, but they are not developing the normal skills that come from interacting with play, including how to manage their emotions. Playing—unstructured time, with rules set by the kids (no adults acting as referee)—is how kids learn independence, problem-solving, social cues, and bravery. Adults fail to let kids have any independence for fear they will be abducted or hit by a car. Children learn to control their own lives when adults aren’t around to do it for them.

Too many parents micro-manage their kids’ every mini-success (while extolling the virtues of failure ) , helping them with homework, science projects, setting rules, then wondering why they can’t set their own.  They expect their children to try their hardest—at everything: school, music, soccer, piano, judo, street dance. They say it’s not all about winning, but celebrate winning in spades. They encourage kids to find a passion and make sure they are not sitting at home on their phones, or—god forbid, feeling bored.

Some answers

– Free play is not optional. It’s essential to healthy development.- Pull back on organized, adult-led activities, and allow kids to organise their own play, where they set the rules and parents play a less dominant role. But actually plan the free time to make sure it happens
– Try to get schools to open in the afternoons with monitors, but no organized activities.
– Advocate for a shorter school year and lots of downtime for dreaming.
– ban homework for young kids. Homework does more harm than good. Encourage kids to read actual books, and ban on computers during certain hours.
– children can’t be good at every subject. Let them fail a bit.

Epicurus and American Exceptionalism

Posted by on

Contrary to the insinuations of the American Right, most US liberals are not anti-patriotic, or even unpatriotic. The vast majority are proud Americans. Where most sensible people draw the line is between American patriotism- a simple affinity with the American state and its people- and American Exceptionalism, or the belief that America is uniquely important amongst the nations. There are several good reasons to reject the Exceptionalism mindset:

The first is the lack of evidence to support any such notion. America has achieved an awful lot, even given its size. A disproportionate number of inventors, scientists, and people working in the creative industries are American. The country has the world’s largest economy and military. Its contributions to every aspect of human endeavour are legion. But it has also committed some ruinous transgressions. America’s original sin- slavery- still leaves a mark on the country in the form of seemingly intractable racial divisions. Despite the wishes of the Founding Fathers, it has pursued a foreign policy of military adventurism, lured by the false god of imperial ambition. None of this is to suggest that America is uniquely evil; I disagree with a particular sort of leftist that deems the West to be far more immoral than the rest of the world. Equally, anyone who knows American history cannot claim that the country is especially benign.

The notion of Exceptionalism is problematic when applied to any country, not just America. It leads to a jingoistic mindset, in which a nation comes to believe that the normal rules of human decency and respect no longer apply to them. Exceptionalism is particular harmful when given a religious justification. It’s very difficult to argue that America should abandon its state of overreach abroad, when so many believe God made America special, and therefore any American influence abroad must be beneficial. A similar phenomenon currently grips Russia; Orthodox priests bless fighter jets that go off to bomb Syria. The logical end result of Exceptionalism is perpetual war in the name of conquest and national glory.

Exceptionalism is also economically harmful. Protectionism has long been justified on the basis that American made goods and food are somehow inherently superior. Similarly, for centuries China refused to trade with the world because of the belief that the Chinese made the best of everything. But economic isolationism leads to ruin. It was free trade Britain, not protectionist China that dominated the industrialised world for so long, despite the former’s inferior population size and natural resources.

Exceptionalism can lead to some extreme cases of wilful ignorance. If your country is uniquely wonderful, then why learn about the rest of the world? Many parts of America are plagued by a stifling insularity, which will only worsen the country’s standing in the global education league tables as knowledge of the world becomes ever more important in a globalised and multicultural society. This lack of broad knowledge can be very off-putting to newcomers, making it harder for America to attract the world’s most talented people.

Going forward, Democrats need to do far more to challenge any notion of an exceptional America. Doing so can often appear unpatriotic, particularly in rural toss-up seats. But difficult as it may seem, the holistic repudiation of American Exceptionalism is a crucial part of changing Republican dominance in so-called ‘flyover country.’ Democrats can longer pretend to be Republican-lite on values issues. Building a lasting and sustainable electoral coalition means transforming the public’s preconceptions of what being a loyal and patriotic citizen involves. If Americans can take pride in their country, while acknowledging that it can be just as flawed as anyone else, then a more inclusive and humane patriotism can emerge.

Best of the Week #14 A friendship with Iran

Posted by on

Apologies for posting this late, I’ve been very busy all day. This will be the last of the Best of the Week series for the time being. It has been really enjoyable and interesting responding to various news articles, whether briefly to a selection of articles, or analysing one or two in more detail. But I really want to be more creative on this blog, so I’ll be doing more original posts on Sundays. Also, I’ll be posting more about Iran and the Middle East over the coming months, largely because I’m taking a module on Iranian history at university. 

We’re very critical of Saudi Arabia here on the Epicurus Blog. Only yesterday, Robert wrote an excellent piece on how the Saudis are increasing water shortages in Arizona by driving up food production there, instead of growing food locally. We strongly disapprove of the Saudi interpretation of Islam, Wahhabism, which roots out individual freedom and is often the ideological backbone of many terrorist organisations. Nor do we find favour with the Saudi bombing of Yemen, which has resulted in extraordinarily high civilian casualties. Saudi Arabia is one of the most authoritarian and oppressive societies on earth- it’s demise is all but inevitable in our view.

So it makes little sense for the governments of the West to give the Saudis such strong support. They don’t share our values or promote Western interests. They’re a declining power. And their hostility to Iran is driven by the Sunni-Shia divide and a rivalry for influence in the Middle East, not a benign opposition to Iranian-sponsered terror, and certainly not for a love of Israel.

The common defence of the NATO-Saudi alliance is as follows. Saudi Arabia provides us with key intelligence we need to defeat terrorists. We need their oil, or at the very least, we need global oil prices to stay low. And we need the Saudis to oppose Iran and the Iranian desire to spread Islamism across the Middle East.

Personally I don’t buy any of that. Saudi intelligence may be somewhat useful, but far more intelligence comes from Israel and Jordan. We don’t actually buy much oil directly from the Saudis, so even if global oil prices were to spike in the event of our alliance ending, our supply of oil would remain intact. With the rise of renewables, the days of oil are numbered. And I don’t believe that Islamist governments are all that much worse than secular dictatorships. The regimes of Saddam Hussein, Gadaffi and Assad have been just as cruel as the Iranian government. In fact, Islamist governments tend to have more popular support and sympathy than secular dictatorships because at least in theory they base their policies on the Qu’ran- which resonates with any Muslim-majority nation.

So if Saudi Arabia isn’t worthy of Western backing, what should our Middle East policy be? For John Bradley, the obvious answer is to ally ourselves with Iran. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/forget-our-misguided-friendship-with-saudi-arabia-iran-is-our-natural-ally/pugpig_index.html Although Iran is an authoritarian regime, it it fundamentally different to Saudi Arabia insofar as it does not try to export its ideology. Shia militias like Hezbollah, while aggressive and unstabilising, do not pose an existential threat to the West the way Sunni extremists like ISIS and Al-Qaeda do. Rather, Iran has done far more to fight groups like ISIS than Saudi Arabia, largely because it is willing to commit boots on the ground and not just funding.

To an extent, the West’s alienation of Iran has been driven by Israel’s disproportionate influence on our foreign policy. Israel sees Iran as mortal enemy. For the most part, this is justified- Iran has repeatedly promise to annihilate Israel. But frightening as that sounds, Iran will not be able to destroy Israel, even if it acquires nuclear weapons. Israel is already a nuclear power, Iran is rational enough not to risk MAD. What the pro-Iran scholars overlook is Iran’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which want to destroy Israel and have actively engaged war with the country, mostly because of an ideological opposition to Israel’s existence. So if we want to ally ourselves with Iran, we must be prepared for significantly worsened relations with Israel, even if the rabidly anti-Iran Netanyahu administration were to be replaced by a Zionist Union-led government.

Overall, I agree entirely with Bradley’s critique of Saudi Arabia. I also sympathise with his opprobrium of Western foreign policy more broadly. But I wouldn’t go as far as to endorse a formal alliance with Iran. I certainly approve of the Iran deal, which is a far more effective way of preventing a nuclear Iran than any other means. Israel and Saudi Arabia need to realise that due to its economy and population size, Iran will inevitably be a regional power. What the West and Israel need is a policy of containment- both towards Saudi Arabia and Iran. We should have good diplomatic relations with both countries, while preventing either one from dominating the Middle East. This approach would be much like Britain’s policy towards Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In a region where no major power shares our values, a moderate, pragmatic approach is best.

 

 

We’re running out of water

Posted by on

It was water scarcity that destabilized Syria, sparked a war, and sent more than 1 million refugees fleeing into Europe. Analysts have attributed the Arab Spring revolutions in several countries to shortages of water, and thus grain and rapidly rising food prices, pushing about 150 million people into poverty, according to the World Bank.   Now, water shortages are spreading to the United States.

n 2008 King Abdullah, in order to maintain the  political stability of Saudi Arabia, stopped the production of wheat and other water-intensive crops such as hay, and directed Saudi food companies to search overseas for farmland with access to freshwater.  He  promised to subsidize their operations.

Almarai, which is Saudi Arabia’s largest dairy company,  bought land in Arizona in 2015, and  began pumping up billions of gallons of water in the Arizona desert to grow hay and wheat, which it exports back to the Middle East. Analysts refer to this as exporting “virtual water.” It is more cost effective to use the Arizona water to irrigate land in America and ship the hay to Saudi Arabia rather than filling a fleet of oil tankers with the water.   Arizonans living near Almarai’s hay operation say their groundwater is dropping fast as the Saudis and other foreign companies increase production. They are now worried their domestic wells might suffer the same fate as those in Syria and Yemen.

In January, more than 300 people attended a meeting in rural La Paz County, Ariz., to listen to the head of the state’s water department discuss how long their desert aquifer would last. Five sheriff’s deputies stood guard at the event to ensure the meeting remained civil.   Thomas Buschatzke, Arizona’s water director, defended the Saudi farm, saying it provides jobs and increases tax revenue. He added that “Arizona is part of the global economy; our agricultural industry generates billions of dollars annually to our state’s economy.”

But state officials admit they don’t know how long the area’s water will last, given the increased water pumping, and announced plans to study it.  (A precis of an article by Nathan Halverson, April 11, 2016)

What is at the root of all this, aside from global climate change?   Population growth, the one subject that no one will talk about,  religious denominations in particular.   There is massive, unrestrained growth in population, particularly in hot, waterless moslem countries. It isn’t just bad governance they suffer from, but lack of family planning and freedom of women to choose how many children they have.  For those who think that too many people have no affect on water resources and food, don’t complain about massive migrations and an increasing number of wars,

Unhappy teenagers, No. 1

Posted by on

Something is undermining young people’s mental health, especially that of girls. A study conducted by Jean Twenge, professor of psychology at San Diego State University, looked at four studies covering 7 million people, ranging from teens to adults in the US. Among her findings: high school students in the 2010s were twice as likely to see a professional for mental health issues than those in the 1980s; more teens struggled to remember things in 2010-2012 compared to the earlier period; and 73% more reported trouble sleeping compared to their peers in the 1980s. These so-called “somatic” or “of-the-body” symptoms strongly predict depression. Children are being diagnosed with higher levels of attention deficit hyperactivity and everyone from 6-18 is seeking more mental health help and more medication. It has to be said that an inability to focus or trouble sleeping do not in themselves mean children are depressed.

The trend is not a uniquely American phenomena: in the UK , the number of teenagers 15-16 with depression nearly doubled between the 1980s and the 2000s and a recent survey found British 15-year-olds were among the least happy teenagers in the world.  Those in Poland and Macedonia were the only ones who were more unhappy).

Next Tuesday, after two posts by Owen Bell,  I will continue with some explanations that have been put forward, plus suggestions about how to improve the situation.

 

.

Less of a country, more a crime scene

Posted by on

Nigeria is in the grip of a kidnapping epidemic.  “From the fluvial habitats of the Niger Delta to the hubs of Lagos,” no citizen is safe from this menace. More than 1,500 people are kidnapped every year, “either to be held hostage until ransomed by moneyed relatives” or to be killed by ritualists who believe human sacrifice is a way to earn favour with the gods.

This scourge is a consequence of our society’s insatiable lust for money. “Nigeria has a culture that deifies the rich, and so everyone is looking for quick wealth one way or another.” In churches and mosques across the country, worshippers lower their heads and pray for a bigger bank balance. There is a consensus among Pentecostal churches here that material wealth is a sign of God’s love, and that if any congregants have the misfortune to be poor, well, they simply need to work harder at striking a deal with the Lord. No wonder the country has become associated with “get-rich-quick schemes like kidnapping, cybercrime and robbery”. Officials can condemn the evil deeds of kidnappers all they want, but nothing will change until we mend our warped value system.   (Olaniyi Olayemi, The Guardian, Lagos).

Years ago my company exported to Nigeria.  I delegated sales there to an independent agent, who  did well until the naira collapsed.  The actual customers paid what they owed, a lot by our standards,  but the money disappeared in the Central Bank of Nigeria, never to reach our bank account.  Too late I discovered that it is impossible to do business there in an honest or rational way.  The financial rewards seem tasty, but are mostly gained, however much at arms length, by dubious means.  Of all the societies to prate on about God I think the Nigeroans make the tribal christians in countries like the United States look like genuine saints, which tends to be hard.  Nigeria still owes me a lot of money, but I treat it as a lesson – do not deal with religious hypocrites.

Can obesity be inherited?

Posted by on

Women trying to conceive have long been told to eat well, and cut down on alcohol, to increase their chances of having a healthy baby; now it seems the same kind of advice could be applicable to men. A study has found that when obese men lose weight, the DNA in their sperm undergoes “epigenetic changes” that may predispose their children to be slim, rather than overweight. The researchers studied the sperm-cell DNA of obese men before and after they had gastric bypass surgery, and while they found no genetic change to their genes, they did find thousands of alterations to non-genetic structures in the sperm. Team leader Romain Barres, of the University of Copenhagen, speculates that these changes could have been caused by the weight loss – and that they could be passed on to the men’s offspring. It is just a hypothesis, but if correct, he said, the message would be that men also need to “take care of themselves before they have children – novel for them”. ( BBC News online)

The argument is that if men allow themselves to get obese it is no one else’s business. I don’t hold with that; obese people have a disproportionate number of ailments and illnesses and the condition costs health services huge amounts of money that can only come from taxing you and me. But happily, this news, if actually broadcast and re-broadcast might offer just the right message and incentive to large Dads -.”Don’t be like me; be slim and athletic, my son”.

Epicurus and the Nordic Model

Posted by on

Yet another of my Modern Philosophy posts, this one inspired by my recent travels to Sweden. I’m going to continue with this series for the time being. Hope you enjoy!

In 2016, Bernie Sanders ran a passionate and determined campaign for the Democratic nomination. He did so with very few endorsements from Democratic figures and no major financial backers. Although he was ultimately unsuccessful, he forced Clinton to address the issues he was raising, and in doing so, moved the Democrats to the left.

During his campaign, Sanders often referenced Sweden and Denmark as countries the United States could learn from. This was unsurprising given those countries’ low levels of corruption, high quality of life and low income inequality- the latter was of particular concern to Sanders. The Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland) were proof that reducing inequality didn’t necessarily lead to poverty or low levels of economic growth, contrary to Republican orthodoxy. Unlike the writings of Marx or Engels, these countries offered practical examples of how to create a fairer society given the reality of global capitalism.

Unfortunately, Sanders and his supporters failed to understand what the Nordic Model actually is, or why it can’t be implemented in the United States. Partly because Sanders’ proposals for tax and government spending aren’t quite the same. But also because the Nordic Model isn’t just an economic model, it’s a political culture that depends on having a certain sort of country and society.

Economics first. Sanders’ proposals certainly would’ve taken the United States in a more Nordic direction. He would raise taxes substantially on the rich and moderately on the middle class, in order to pay for the sorts of benefits the Nordic people take for granted: universal healthcare, payments to support having children, maternity and paternity leave, paid holidays, free university education, etc. But Sanders’ tax increases wouldn’t be sufficient to pay for a Nordic-style welfare state. The fact is, while taxing the rich helps to reduce inequality considerably, it doesn’t do an awful lot to raise revenue. In order to acquire the sort of funding needed for the Nordic Model, vast sums of money need to be raised from the middle class and the poor. This isn’t just in the form of a higher income tax, but higher payroll taxes and a VAT- a sophisticated federal sales tax that is implemented every time value is added to a product or service. Moreover, the Nordic countries have lower corporation taxes than the United States in order to be business friendly, so their tax system is actually quite regressive. Ultimately, were Sanders to propose that Americans pay the same tax rates as the Nordic people, he would be hopelessly unpopular, largely because that level of taxation results in a vastly increased cost of living.

But the Nordic Model’s irrelevance to America goes beyond its unfeasibly high tax rates. The Nordic countries are extremely different from the United States in almost every way. For a start, they’re much smaller; Sweden, the largest country, only has 10 million people. Implementing the Nordic Model in Vermont or New Hampshire would be far easier than in America as a whole. More importantly, the Nordic countries have very high levels of trust and the world’s lowest corruption levels. People believe that the government cares for them and represents them. America, with its history of government scandals, abuses of human rights abroad, and strong libertarian and individualistic culture, would be distinctly unsuited to a system that depends on the government to deliver services effectively. The US government is simply too inefficient and distrusted to be popular. The Nordic countries also have a culture of egalitarianism. CEO’s take far lower salaries, and pay their lowliest employees more despite the absence of a minimum wage. Unions are celebrated for advancing workers’ rights. Any ostentatious display of wealth is frowned upon. There are no Donald Trumps in the Nordics, and hardly anyone who admires him.

If the Nordic Model is not a good model for America to follow, then what is? I would suggest Germany would be a better example. Before taxes and benefits, German inequality is actually higher than the United States. The country achieves its relatively low inequality levels through a system of social insurance that follows a contributory principle- the more you pay in, the more you get out. So German payroll taxes are very high; there are all sorts of programmes from healthcare to unemployment insurance you have to pay into. But unlike in the Nordic countries, it is your money that you will receive eventually. Following the German model would allow Americans who like their private health insurer to stick with them, while moving towards a system of universal healthcare. It would address Republican concerns that the money will be taken by the government, only to be wasted away on an irrelevant project. It would be in keeping with the American culture of individualism, by making people feel as if they are contributing towards something that personally benefits them, rather than any arbitrary notion of the greater good. But the higher level of savings would also allow America to invest in infrastructure and R&D. The economy would move away from an unsustainable dependence on consumption. Furthermore, a German-style economy would likely reduce America’s trade deficit, and grow the manufacturing sector by making it easier to borrow.

Overall, Bernie Sanders is right. American levels of poverty and income inequality are far too high. The country is badly educated and poorly skilled. The infrastructure is outdated. The absence of universal healthcare and affordable higher education is a scandal. But there’s no point in chasing an unachievable goal. The Nordic countries run a lot of things very well. But they do so partly because they are small countries with a history and culture of prioritising equality above all else. And also because they are willing to put up with extremely high taxes, a high cost of living and a lower disposable income. The federal government should foster a more comprehensive and sophisticated social insurance system. But it needs to demonstrate to Americans that these programmes represent value for money for the individual, even if that individual happens to be wealthy. The Nordic focus on spending to redistribute money will go down poorly in a country historically opposed to socialism and enthralled with giving people the opportunity to become rich.

Epicurus and romantic love

Posted by on

How should we view the teachings of Epicurus with regard to romantic love?

Epicurus was not the only ancient Greek, philosopher or not, who regarded romance between men and women as potentially either overwhelming or excruciatingly painful – and all points in between – thus detracting from peace of mind. Epicurus himself had nothing against pleasure, of course, but like many Greeks of his day the idea of marrying for love was strange. You married to have children. Romantic love came along much later in Western history. If you fell in love it could be a roller-coaster ride between ecstasy and exquisite happiness on the one hand, and disappointment and the agony of loss on the other. It was just too disruptive, took over your life, could involve jealousy, misunderstandings and furious argument.

The Greeks were, and still are, a very laid back lot. It seems to be in their genes. Life has always been tough in a land with few resources but plenty of sunshine. It is no accident that the idea of peace of mind took root there. It would be better, they thought, to have male friends who ( might?) provoke argument, but less passion. The warnings from Epicurus to avoid politics arose for the same reasons as his warning against passionate love.

Different times, different cultures. As a supporter of Epicurus I recognise the dangers of extreme, and sometimes blinding, emotions, but I have reservations about his views on love and politics. Both are part of the human experience., and loving another human being is a wonderful thing.

Rejection

Posted by on

Why do we find rejection so upsetting? After all, it’s almost never life-threatening to be rejected. The reason lies in our interdependence.

Human beings need one another in order to thrive, particularly at the beginning of our lives. During that period of development the baby will die if there is no one there to look after it.. That’s why it feels so important to be approved of, to be liked and accepted by others.

But rejection, hurtful though it can be, can be helpful if you can make it work for you rather than distress you. It can actually help you create something even better. Indeed, in many fields if you want to succeed, rejection comes as part of the territory. The trick is not to take it seriously, but try to step back and see your project through the eyes of others, working out what was sub-par and how you can improve in future. James Dyson, who has invented new concepts of carpet cleaner, says, “Failure is the best medicine – as long as you learn something”.

Anders Ericsson, a professor at the University of Colorado, observed the practice habits of violin students in Berlin from the age of five until they reached adulthood. He found that the most powerful predictor of success, of whether students became “elite” violinists, was how many hours of practice they put in, how determined they were to improve. The author Malcolm Gladwell popularised this idea, which has become known as the “10,000-hour rule”, proposing that it takes approximately 10,000 hours of dedication, of being criticised and reacting constructively to that criticism, to succeed and achieve true excellence.

A rejection doesn’t mean you failed. It means you tried. Aside from this, I would suggest that human beings have never in history been so busy.  With modern communication and travel being made so easy (but computers a constant pain), we hardly have a moment to stop and think.  Getting the attention of the world with what you believe is a great invention or a striking piece of music, for instance, has never in history been so difficult.  People are  distracted, overwhelmed.  So try and try again while you have the energy to do so.  Yes, try again.

The scandal of child marriage

Posted by on

Based on state marriage license data and other sources, advocacy groups and experts estimate that between 2000 and 2015 alone, well over 200,000 American children — nearly all of them girls — were married. In nearly all cases the husband was an adult.

The  Tahirih Justice Center, which  that works to end violence against women and girls, has produced an analysis of the myriad statutes governing marriage in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Among their findings:

Twenty-five states do not set a minimum age at which a person can get married, and eight more set it at an age lower than 16. Alaska and North Carolina, for example, set the age at 14. In New Hampshire it’s 13 for girls, 14 for boys

In all of these states, minors who are below a certain age – it varies from state to state — must still get a judge’s approval to marry.  But most states do not specify that the ruling judge has to have expertise in  family, juvenile or domestic relations.  Very few states require that the child be appointed his or her own counsel, and only two states have  laws specifying that a judge cannot approve a marriage solely because the child’s parents have consented. Nine states expressly permit pregnancy as a reason to lower the minimum marriage age.

All of this makes it hard to ensure that a girl isn’t being pressured into marriage by her own family or an adult partner who, but for the marriage, would be subject to prosecution for statutory rape. What’s more, even in states that do officially set the age of marriage at 16 or higher, judges are generally allowed to overrule the limit and let a child marriage go forward.

The Tahirih Justice Center hopes that the report will spur lawmakers to correct the loopholes that they’ve identified in each state’s statues. So far progress has been slower than advocates would like. But interest in the issue is growing and over the last two years Virginia, Texas, and New York have all passed legislation that put in place “meaningful safeguards.” Before in New York, marriage was formally allowed for children as young as 14, with a judge’s permission. Now, the “age floor” is set at 17, and even then, approval is required by a judge who must determine that the minor is not being coerced, among other criteria. And the minor is appointed an attorney with training on domestic violence and forced marriage.   (a lightly edited version of a report by NPR, August 2017)

So in New Hampshire, for instance, a girl can get married almost before she gets a Facebook page and her first tattoo? Are they really serious?  Girls mature more quickly than boys, and there is a (tongue-in-cheek) case for the proposition that a good many men at far too young at 30 to get married, but girls married at 13?  I would call this a Predator’s Charter, which would never have been allowed had more women stood for election, and had “good ‘ole boys” at the golf club not  had the lower age limit written into law, or left vague,  years ago. And what are the parents of these children thinking?  Get all this cleaned up!  To say the least it is immoderate.

 

Spurning the rule of law. Part 2 of 2

Posted by on

From Tomgram:

Though the U.S. regularly espouses and pretends to practice the rule of law, successive administrations have chosen to forswear important international agreements,  largely for military reasons. Among those not even signed are the 1969 Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, the 1997 Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty, the 2002 Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, the 2006 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, and the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Signed but not ratified are the 1977 Protocols I and II to the Geneva Conventions, the 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Add to this list the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, ratified in 1972, from which the U.S. withdrew in 2002. Then there are agreements to which the U.S. is a party, but which the US ignores or circumvents. These include the 1928 Kellogg-Briand General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy; the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Article VI of which states: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”); and the United Nations Convention against Torture and selected provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

We don’t do prisoners of war; we do “unlawful enemy combatants.” We don’t do torture; we do “enhanced interrogation.” And of course we don’t engage in other illegalities, like “extraordinary rendition” or targeted killing or the use of black sites where hostile parties can be disappeared.  (Gregory D. Foster is a professor at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., a West Point graduate, and a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War.)

I remember travelling in the United States in the early 1060’s and listening to local radio commentaries on world events.  One thing that linked them all (nowadays not often heard) was the vitriol directed at the United Nations, which came only slightly behind the Soviet Union in terms of alledgedly trying to undermine and disarm the freedom- loving United States.  This it was doing by discussing nuclear disarmament, prevention of war and so on.  The paranoia in right-wing districts was quite as great as it is now.  The United States was the “indispensible nation”, even if the term hadn’t yet been invented. The military- industrial complex was stoking up fear and expanding at a accelerating rate into every state in the union.  “Defense research” was already huge as a proportion of gdp.

By the 1980s all this frenetic, wasteful activity was pointless because the US had surpassed the USSR in miitary power (the secret services knew and the Russians knew, but it was too late. The whole machine employed too many people by then, and Congressmem needed their votes).  Rome was an empire whose feet stood four- square on military might.  Eventually the cost, and some handy pillagers and rapers from the North, armed only with shields and bucklers did for a sapped and spent nation. For ancient Huns now read modern islamists.