Trump Tower: It tells you a lot, without speaking

Posted by on

I am in the middle of two weeks of jury duty, or, at least, standing by for jury duty. Yesterday I wasn’t required (white, old and looks like he might be rude to the judge about the number of incarcerations in the US, maybe?). In any event, I had half the morning off, so, feeling adventurous, I visited the Trump Tower hotel on my way home and announced that I would like a coffee.

Trump Tower is the converted old Post Office headquarters, and it shows. The inner atrium is a great well that reminded me of a Victorian railway station. There are no platforms, but you nonetheless expect a train to arrive at any minute. Indeed there was some sort of strange horizontal metal arrangement suspended from the top of the nine floors that reminded me of railway lines. After an initial struggle to tell the waiter that all I wanted was a cappuccino-and-no-I-am-not-a-resident, I was seated on a hideous plush sofa and could observe the gigantic American flag hanging on the wall, four versions of Fox News, complete with the necessary blondes, on massive screens behind the bar, totally incongruous and fussy chandeliers, and the Louis IXX gilt chairs (yes, I know there was no Louis IXX, but does Trump and his architect?). I did a mini-tour, locating Ivanka’s beauty salon. I think she must be in South Korea preventing the next nuclear war, because she wasn’t there.

At length the cappuccino arrived. It was the worst cappuccino I have ever had in my life. No taste at all, and the bubbles looked as if they came out of a fire hose. When I finished I had to pay, with tip, $13.00. This is the most expensive coffee I have ever had. The question is whether taking $13.00 from me constitutes a Presidential conflict of interest, in which case readers can look forward to the worst cappuccino in history actually getting into the legal history books. The adventure should have made me grumpy about wasting time and money. Instead it set me up with as much Epicurean ataraxia as I needed for the rest of the day because everything falls into place. I am now convinced that we can add bad taste to the other misdemeanors.

Epicurus and Islam

Posted by on

This is the first in a new series of posts titled, Epicurus and Modern Philosophy. Robert has done an excellent job of covering the issues of the day. But given that Epicurus was a philosopher, I wanted to write a series of posts on the biggest ideas affecting the modern world- from a Epicurean perspective, of course. These will be political philosophies, economic models, or merely teachings from wise people. But today, I thought I’d start with a religion, and given that the nature of Islam is so contentious in today’s political and national security debates, I believe I should start with it first. For the most part, these posts will run every fortnight, with a more usual post on the weeks when a Modern Philosophy post is not due. Finally, I’d add that next week’s post will also be different, because I’ll be covering a emotional, yet quintessentially Epicurean issue, so look out for that!

There’s a certain tendency on much of the political Right to ascribe the primary cause of terrorism to Islamic doctrine. For these anti-Islam conservatives, the violence contained in the Qur’an, the Hadith, as well as in the Prophet Muhammad’s life, proves that Islam itself must take responsibility for the actions of its extremist adherents. They argue for explicitly anti-Islam policies, such as state-enforced monoculturalism, restrictions on immigration and even travel for Muslims, and in some extreme cases, deportation for the Muslims already living in the West- all in the name of national security.

Having taken international relations modules (amongst other things) at Exeter University for two years now, I have spoken to no academic or professor who shares this view. The consensus amongst international relations scholars is that parts of the political Right overemphasise Islamic theology when explaining why Jihadi terrorism occurs. For instance, why is Jihadi terrorism such a modern phenomenon despite the fact that Islam has existed for hundreds of years? Rather, political and socioeconomic factors- the increase in anti-Western sentiment, nationalism, poverty, and disillusionment with peace as an ineffective means of political reform- are far more effective at explaining terrorism. The question of whether Islam itself is a religion of peace is neither here nor there. The fact is that most Muslims are peaceful people, and deserve the right to be presumed innocent as much as anyone else. Any attempts to curb the rights of the civilian Muslim population as part of a counter-terrorism strategy are likely to be ineffective as best; they are likely to reinforce the impression that Western policymakers are prejudice against Muslims, fuelling a violent backlash amongst a small minority.

However, just because most Muslims are peaceful and have as much of a right to migrate as everyone else, doesn’t mean that Islam is Epicurean or even liberal. Fundamentally, Islam is about submitting oneself to God, a perfect supernatural being. The God of Islam demands absolute obedience, with the threat of hell for those who resist his will. This leaves little room for individual discretion when making moral decisions- if its God’s will, it must be done. So if you were a Muslim, you couldn’t decide for yourself that sex outside marriage may not be so bad. If God forbids it, it cannot be done. I personally find this a frightening way of thinking. It places faith in the infallibility of the divine above the reasoning of the individual, thus robbing the individual of the right to make decisions for themselves and take responsibility for them. Having the obedience to rules be at the heart of a belief system makes the life of the individual unfree. This is reflected in wider society: Islamic societies and cultures tend to be authoritarian and patriarchal, with those who command and those who are commanded.

Now Islam is far from unique in demanding full obedience to the supernatural: Christianity and Judaism do too, and even polytheisms encourage their followers to obey the gods, though the reward and punishment system tends to be far more sophisticated than the heaven/hell afterlife. Equally, the socially conservative (by Western standards) values of Islam are largely shared by Orthodox Jews, practising Catholics or dedicated Hindus. My frustration with the debate concerning Islam is that there are many on the political Left who claim that this isn’t the case: that virtually all Muslims are Western-style liberals who love feminism and gay rights. That simply isn’t the case at all. For instance, all beaches in Spain are currently clothing optional- you can enter any of them completely naked legally, should you choose to. Now suppose there was a very large influx of Muslim immigrants into Spain, so that Muslims were now the majority religious group. Would that law permitting such widespread nudity survive? I have my doubts. Again, the same could be said for many other conservative religious groups.

The point is that for too long, much of the Left believes the Islamic world can be just as liberal as the West, given time and enough of our money. This is a delusional fantasy, as recently shown by Turkey’s (albeit narrow) embrace of an executive presidency led by an authoritarian strongman, Recep Erdogan. The reason why the West has become more liberal is because Christianity has declined, and the Christians that remain have largely compromised and secularised their religion to the point where it would be longer recognisable to the Christianity our forefathers practised even just a century ago. The only way for the Islamic world to become as liberal as the West in its social attitudes and political practises, is if Islam reduces in its popularity and influence on public policy. But that isn’t going to happen. Unlike in the West, the Islamic world is not becoming more secular- much of it is actually becoming more Islamic. And unlike Christianity, Islam has no major tradition of secularism anyway. From its founding, Islam has been used as a political ideology as well as a religion. Conversely, most Christians see at least some value in secularism. Jesus saw a clear distinction between church and state, as evident by his desire not to get involved in political affairs. Most Muslims will always want Islam to play a prominent role in government, even if they don’t necessarily support an Iranian-style theocracy. The desire for Western-style secular government is scarce amongst Muslims, especially those living outside the Western world.

In conclusion, the point of this post was not to dissuade Muslims from adhering to their religion. I have a great respect for the Islamic world and its people. I don’t believe it is inherently prone to violence, and its rich history and culture shows that there is hope for what is currently a troubled region. Going forward, I am hopeful that Islam will make a success of itself. But I don’t accept the absurd logic of Western liberals, that Islam will be a success on the West’s terms. The Islamic world is not the West, and can take pride in that. We have different ways of thinking: the West is very much based on individualism, which Muslims understandably reject as being antithetical to God’s will and a harmonious society. Therefore, we should stop pretending we share the same values, and work to build a better world with our differences in mind.

Soldiers have to act morally, too

Posted by on

Upstanding conservatives believe that each of us must take personal responsibility for our actions – with one exception. Soldiers, it seems, can flout the law, because their job is so uniquely stressful. This was the argument put forward by lawyers for Sergeant Alexander Blackman, who in 2011 shot dead an injured, unarmed Taliban fighter, with the words: “Shuffle off this mortal coil, you c***.”

Thanks in part to the energetic campaigning of the right-wing press – his murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter, and his prison sentence slashed. It’s not just “lefty civilians” who feel “squeamish” about this judgment. As I discovered when I taught a course in leadership ethics for the British Army, most soldiers take the law very seriously indeed. They know that “it is precisely the law, and its underlying morality, that distinguishes soldiers from murderers”. Turning Blackman into a “poster boy for military honour” is an insult to the vast majority of those who serve their country without crossing that line. “Everyone in Helmand was stressed. Not everyone shot their prisoners.” (Giles Fraser, The Guardian)

When I myself was in the British Army no time was given to teaching us what we could or couldn’t do. It was left to the individual, specifically the officers, to say what was acceptable when dealing with the local population (in my case the Cypriots). We were 19 yesr olds, thrust into a dangerous place where you could be killed by a bomb or injured by demonstrating school children throwing bricks. The temptation to respond in kind was considerable. No one mentioned the law or even told us to “win hearts and influence people”, and yet my men never fell legally or morally out of line in respect of the Cypriots. Moderation was the watchword. Epicurus might have been proud of us, I hope.

Military extravagance

Posted by on

Some while ago, in the Washington Post, Walter Pincus, an expert on the American military and a prominent critic, raised once again the scandal of the long-standing  division of command in the military, something even Eisenhower couldn’t overcome.  The rivalry between the three arms of the military is such that they constantly duplicate each other’s efforts.  If one gets a fancy new plane the others want something similar (but bigger and faster).  This costs the taxpayer untold amounts of money.  Each arm of the services its own elaborate management and intelligence arms.  And yet no one will point out the great untold story: these armchair generals are lousy at winning wars!  Aside from the first Gulf War, can you remember a case where the US actually won a war?  Certainly not Iraq or Afghanistan.  But if you say so you are in danger of being considered unpatriotic.  Unpatriotic?  Actually, patriotism is ensuring that you have good soldiers, sailors and airmen capable of strategic and tactical thought, fast on their feet and original of mind, not bureaucrats waiting for buggin’s turn. Patriotism is about doing the job and at a reasonable cost. And now Trump wants to increase the military budget?

Epicurus seems to have despised both politicians and the military, such as it was. He lived at a time of constant war and was disillusioned with the uselessness of it and the incompetence of military types. The awe and respect afforded to top generals in the US, despite their collective track record, is remarkable. Perhaps it’s because most civilian leaders are even less worthy of respect. But one day the public will wake up to what a huge waste of money and resources the overfunded military really is.

Is this Putin’s real agenda?

Posted by on

Scott Pruit, US Environmental Protection Agency chief, made headlines for his recent denial that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the primary control knob for Earth’s climate. Of course, the truth is that growth in CO2 emissions is the main contributor to the climate change we see. Without emissions abatement it seems inevitable that pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will be catastrophic for most, if not all, nations.

Pruitt’s appointment makes that reshaping less likely. This is not about the science. It is not about economic priority setting nor conflicting values. It is not about a desire for small government, the primacy of individual freedom or myopic belief in capitalism. The only fact that matters is that solving the climate issue means killing the fossil fuel industry – arguably the most influential on the planet.

Zero-carbon technology is now cheaper and easier to install. Renewables promise individual freedom through energy self-sufficiency. The world economy is at a crucial inflection point, and the US is well placed to ride the storm and capitalise on the next economic revolution. But vested interests dominate the landscape and US policy could delay the revolution.

The Russian economy is, on the other hand, a basket case. Apart from oil and gas, it produces little anyone wants to buy. Clean energy is likely to put its economy in a death spiral.

Serious questions have been asked about the role of Russia, the world’s fifth largest greenhouse gas emitter and the largest oil producer, in the election of Donald Trump. Perhaps it’s time to expend more effort asking why it wanted him in power.
(The above, edited, article, by Owen Gaffney, appeared the New Scientist under the headline “Putin’s real prize?”)

Trump might (have) genuinely wanted a reset with Russia, and it suited him to have the Russians interfering with the election, undermining Hillary. Putin, for his part, as the article above suggests, wants a climate change denier in the White House. Protecting his oil revenue is his biggest objective, even though Trump said he wanted to reduce energy prices by promoting fracking, which is hardly in Russia’s short-term interests. The financial stakes are huge, not only for Russia, but also for the Americans, mostly of Republican persuasion, who have financially fed off the largesse of the oil industry and have sublimated their better instincts and their morality in favour of accepting jobs and cash from Exxon and others. It’s a sordid story, illustrating why Epicurus warned us against too close an involvement with politics. Meanwhile, what were those Trump supporters doing talking on the phone to the Russians, overheard by most of the West’s secret services?

Pesky opinion surveys

Posted by on

In America we are pestered continually, sometimes two or three times a day, by companies who want to know “how they did”. I refer to opinion surveys, which proliferate everywhere. When I lived in England I used to slightly envy those who were asked their opinion about anything. Being extaordinarily opinionated myself it was irritating when friends and neigbours were asked what they thought and I was ignored. Be careful what you wish for! Now I wish they would leave me alone.

What is all this about? Well,it’s a total management cop-out. Indeed, one shouldn’t even use the word “management”. Interface with the customer has now been delegated to young people who do their nest to please you, with little training and knowledge about the company and its products. Ask them to be put through to their supervisor and they don’t know who he or she is or what to do about your request. There is no one you can talk to. The “management” sits behind an iron curtain in splendour, unapproachable by mere customers, although, the case of big public companies, one can Google the top management if you have a complaint, and write to the CEO or the President of Sales (the job title inflates as the person concerned gets more remote from the customer – have you noticed that?)

The only way a company can find out how it is viewed by the customer base, it seems, is by opinion surveys. No one thinks of sitting with the order clerks and judging their performance personally; they get an opinion survey to do it. Half the time the survey asks you how you were treated by the youngster on the phone, not what you think of the company and its products. Poor kids! They are judged but their well-paid bosses are not, and should be. The surveys never ask, “Do you think thisis a well-run company?”

When I ran a business all complaints, however minor, came over my desk and I spoke to the customer personally. I never hid behind the (excellent) ladies in the order or accounts departments. We thus had a loyal set of customers. I blame the Business Schools for the way companies behave nowadays – they have taught executives to be little lords, too grand to deal with the hoi polloi. It’s a disgrace. Oh, well. They’ll all be working for Chinese companies in due course, that is, if they have jobs at all.

I have no doubt the Epicurus, were he alive today, would resist the idea of corporations asking their customers to take up valuable time telling the what they think of their junior staff. He would make the point that the rest of us are fighting for just a little time to ourselves for peace, contentment and relief from advertisements and computer problems. Leave us alone, he would declare.

Blame it on the baby boomers?

Posted by on

Bruce Gibney has written a book called “In a Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America” (I can comment on the account of the book and its review by Dana Milbank because I am not a boomer). The Boomers, Gibney says, are guilty of “generational plunder”. They are accused of “the mass, democratically-sanctioned transfer of wealth away from the young and towards the Boomers. In addition to making a mess of Social Security and Medicare, they dragged the national savings rate down to 5% between 1996 and 2016, from 10% between 1950 and 1985. They were (are) divided bitterly into two camps: the Woodstock counter-culture types and their ideological opposites, who created the modern religious right. These two blocs have been at war since the 1960s and it has paralysed the country for a generation; more than a generation, actually – look at how the Senate is being ruined and its traditional, bi-partisan way of working being undermined at this very moment. This is the fruit of the un-giving, unforgiving and uncompromising natures of the two ideologies.

It was never like this when I first traveled around America, penniless, hitching rides and being offered more wonderful hospitality than could never be returned in two lifetimes. Yes, there were weirdos who thought the United Nations was taking over America and those frantically building nuclear shelters, but back then there was an open, can-do atmosphere. You could be given a ride in a hearse driven by an African American one moment, and a ride in a corporate jet by the Chairman of a big corporation the next. Democrats and Republicans were working together (more or less) for the good of the country. Now, no one trusts the hitch-hiker or the young, foreign visitor. And watch out carefully if you are clad in moslem garb.

But most serious is the accusation of generational plunder; it has been the Boomers who set the stage for the obscene gap between the rich and the poor, who gave free rein to the banking scam artists and set the stage for the 2008 financial bust. Greed has been raised to the level of art, and we have ended up with a President and a top level of government which is mind-bogglingly rich and is setting about cementing the power of the oligarchy and dismantling the rights and the protections of the very people who voted them in. This is the crowning achievement of the Boomers, even if most in the new government are not technically boomers, just inheritors.

Syria: the implications for British and American politics.

Posted by on

Given the comprehensive case against NATO intervention in Syria, as made yesterday, the response from the both the British political establishment and the electorate has been appalling. The government has failed to condemn America’s actions, preferring to curry favour with the Trump administration in the hope of a good trade deal post-Brexit. The Liberal Democrats, who bravely opposed the intervention in Iraq, now rally behind the call to war, ignoring Trump’s anti-liberal nationalism, bellicose rhetoric, and support for Brexit. UKIP, which like Trump, previously had an isolationist foreign policy, remains dubiously silent.

The only prominent voice of sanity vis a vis Syria is Jeremy Corbyn. Now the ideology and leadership qualities of Corbyn leave much to be desired. Under his tenure, Labour has slumped in the polls, and is widely perceived to be irrelevant in the post-Brexit political order. During the referendum campaign, the Labour leadership’s contribution to the Remain cause was lacklustre, in which real conviction and zeal for the European cause was conspicuously absent. Corbyn fails to make a convincing case for his brand of democratic socialism, preferring to rally against ‘austerity’ without prescribing a credible alternative, adding to his perception as overly spendthrift and fiscally irresponsible. He has failed to see off the threat of Scottish nationalism- a key promise of his. Even on foreign policy, his closeness with Hamas, Hezbollah and Sinn Fein are worrying at best. His frequent appearances on Russian and Iranian state TV, where he fails to condemn the human rights abuses committed by those nations, betrays an anti-Western bias common amongst the socialist left. This gives needless credibility to his right-wing critics, who view him as unpatriotic and anti-British.

Corbyn can be relied upon to oppose any Western intervention, because his socialist ideology views such interventions as expression of post-colonial oppression, in which the former imperial powers seek to enrich themselves at the expense of the developing world. Now that isn’t necessarily always the case: the interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone were successful in preventing more killings, and in the case of Rwanda, genocide occurred due to lack of intervention. Nor is the Marxist paradigm of post-colonialism entirely accurate in the case of Syria: it would be disingenuous to suggest that NATO members don’t care about the immorality of Assad’s crimes, and are only proposing intervention to increase their influence in the region. Nevertheless, Corbyn’s anti-war views ought to be commended in his instance, even if they aren’t entirely for the right reasons. This is partly because they run contrary to public opinion, which is generally supportive of some sort of intervention, even if regime change is still opposed by a majority. One of the reasons why Corbyn was elected Labour leader was because he was viewed as a man of principle, even if his principles weren’t always agreeable. This was juxtaposed to his opponents: Kendall, Cooper and Burnham all seemed to be spewing out politically correct inoffensiveness, talking a good talk on making Labour electable and helping the poor, without ever challenging popular misconceptions or outlining a programme of real change. For many on the Left, Trump’s bombing on Syria has reminded them why they supported Corbyn, even if they have grown more sceptical of him over time.

Like the British public, the American public is generally supportive of some sort of intervention, without supporting regime change. What distinguishes America from Britain is that the anti-war movement has energised the Democratic Party against Trump, whereas the British left remain hopelessly divided. Comedians, civil rights activists, journalists, Democratic politicians and ordinary protestors have all eloquently spoken out against Trump’s foreign policy. They do not necessarily share Corbyn’s aversion to all Western interventions, but rightly regard Trump’s actions as short-sighted and likely to lead to more violence in the long term. The American Left will reap the rewards of this opposition. When it becomes apparent to a majority of Americans that Assad is no closer to being ousted from power, the Democrats will be swept into office. Having said that, they can only fully capitalise on anti-war sentiment if they repeat the 2008 primary, selecting an anti-war candidate. Nominating someone with similar foreign policies to Hillary Clinton would be a tactical error.

The response from the American left is not the only reason to be more optimistic about anti-war opposition in America than in Britain. As president, Trump has far more control over foreign than domestic affairs. Therefore, foreign policies ought to have greater bearing on Americans’ view of him than the British people’s view of Theresa May. The British people are also distracted by Brexit, which involves not only the complicated Article 50 process, but an economy which has already worsened (primarily in the form of inflation, the devaluation of the pound, and many major banks’ deciding to move jobs overseas) and will probably continue to do so. Despite Trump, the outlook for the American economy is more bullish, which means foreign policy will play a greater role in the public debate. If the anti-war movement is to succeed in Britain, it must put its differences aside and unite under Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour. This won’t guarantee electorate success, or even make it much more likely. But it will provide a coherent narrative, forcing the interventionists to defend themselves more vigourously. It also makes the nomination of another Syrian non-interventionist more likely once Corbyn resigns, following Labour’s all but inevitable defeat in 2020.

 

Syria: Why intervention is not the answer.

Posted by on

The ongoing civil war in Syria is a mess, in which there is no obvious solution to. The Western consensus is that the intentional killing of innocent civilians by the Assad regime without impunity, is a state of affairs that cannot be allowed to continue. Assad has repeatedly denied his citizens basic human rights. The civil war started when he refused the popular outcry for democracy, preferring to shoot at unarmed protestors; the backlash led to the civil war we see today.  As a direct result of Assad’s actions, thousands of people have been killed and millions forced to seek refuge in foreign countries. The latest use of chemical weapons against civilians is but a small aspect of this tragic tale.

The immorality of the Assad regime, and Russia and Iran’s choice to support it, is indisputable. The only question is what the West ought to do about it. For Trump, as well as a broad range of figures from the internationalist left to the neoconservative right, the answer is direct military action, with the intention of reducing the number of civilians murdered by the Syrian army. Very few people would suggest overthrowing the Assad regime altogether, because that would be a prolonged and costly war, which would bring us into direct confrontation with Russia, a nuclear power. But the interventionists argue Syria is an instance where the international community has a Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Syrian civilians from slaughter. At the very least, humanitarian concerns ought to take precedence over traditional notions of state sovereignty or our national interests.

To an extent, the interventionists have a point. Assad’s deliberate killings of his own people certainly give NATO a right to intervene. State sovereignty can be violated to prevent genocide or human rights abuses on a large scale. The interventionists are right to be concerned about Russia and Iran extending their influence via the entrenchment of the Assad regime. They are also right that Russia and Assad are more concerned with defeating the rebels and the Kurds, than defeating ISIS. The priority for Russia and Assad is to wipe out any liberal opposition, thereby reducing the probability of a NATO intervention by making their only opponents the Al-Nusra Front (a terrorist group with Al-Qaeda origins) and ISIS. Most of the Russian bombings have been directed at the Free Syrian Army, not those normally deemed ‘terrorists.’ To complicate things even further, Turkey, a NATO member, continues its battle against the Kurds, who want to use some of what is currently Turkish land to create an independent Kurdish state. But the rest of NATO sees the Kurds as a key ally against both Assad and ISIS.

But despite the interventionists’ largely correct description of current events, they are mistaken in their policy prescriptions. For a start, Trump is merely acting on impulse. He has no proper understanding of the region, nor a long term vision of its future. At least with the Iraq War (an intervention Trump repeatedly criticises despite having supported it at the time), Bush wanted to create a democratic Iraq, because he believed Hussein was the biggest obstacle to democracy in the Middle East, and of course Hussein had committed human rights abuses on a similar scale to Assad. But Trump promised an ‘American First’ foreign policy, in which potential interventions would be considered based on the consequences for US interests. Now he has broken his campaign promise, instead justifying the bombing of the airfield on the basis that innocent children are being killed by Assad. This also breaks the promise to normalise relations with Russia (which was never workable given that Trump is opposed to the Iran deal, Iran being a key Russian ally.) To be fair to Trump, he isn’t the only president to have campaigned on a policy of non-intervention, only to have broken it upon entering office: Reagan, Clinton and Bush behaved likewise. But for interventionists to praise Trump for the bombings, when there is clearly no long term strategy, is the height of foolishness. Unless NATO fully commits to overthrowing Assad, intervention will only prolong the conflict, resulting in more civilian deaths and refugees.

There are two things NATO can do. The first is to develop a better refugee policy. Overall, its clear that Syria will remain a war-zone for the foreseeable future. So the question of refugees will not go away. Its also clear that Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are already hosting more than their fair share of refugees, given how poor those countries are. As nice as it would be to make the wealthy Gulf States take in more people, we can’t force them, so Europe and North America must step up to the challenge. To ensure the wellbeing of both the host states and the refugees themselves, refugee policy must be increasingly made on a supranational basis, with the EU, the US and Canada co-operating for their mutual benefit. Refugees must be resettled according to where there is affordable housing, where local infrastructure can cope, and where the local economy can support them. Having each country decide for themselves how many refugees to take and where to put them, does not ensure this at all. Overall, the number of refugees living in the West ought to increase for the time being. But the important thing is to guarantee that every country takes their fair share so no locality is overburdened.  It goes without saying that refugees ought to be vetted, but they already are, contrary to Republican conventional wisdom. Humanitarian assistance to refugee camps in Syria and Jordan needs to be increased, given that not everyone can move to the West.

NATO must also come to terms with the fact that relations with Russia and Iran will not be normalised as long as they continue to support the Assad regime. Those like Trump that would like to ‘get on with everybody’ are simply living in an alternative reality. Although the Iran deal may be the best solution to a nuclear Iran in the short term, the idea suggested by paleoconservatives, of an alliance with the Islamic Republic, is simply preposterous. When Israel talks of Iranian funded terrorists, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or insurgencies in Iraq, we ought to listen. As for Russia, the EU and the US must continue sanctions as long as Russia continues to support Assad, and Russian-backed militias continue to undermine the Ukrainian government. As Margaret Thatcher used to say, ‘this is no time to go wobbly.’

I’m going to follow up this article tomorrow, with a piece on the implications of the civil war on British and American domestic politics. I have to confess, I’m not an expert on the Middle East, so feel free to correct on any factual errors I may have inadvertently made. I’m also going to start a new series next Monday, so look out for that. 

Eating meat

Posted by on

In a poll 8.6 percent of the 3,000 Americans surveyed said that during a typical week, they ate no meat (poultry and fish excluded). Some 56 percent ate meat one to four times a week, and 31 percent ate it five or more time a week.

A later poll asked the same questions, plus an additional one: Has the recent publicity linking processed meats to an increased risk of cancer caused you to change your eating habits? It turns out, about 30 percent of respondents said “yes”. But the results showed that Americans’ meat-eating habits haven’t shifted much.

However, there is a subtle shift, owing to the information out there about the health effects of meat eating. A lot of people are saying that they want to eat less meat, and they are increasing consumption of vegetables, regardless of age, income or education. ( adapted from the NPR website)

As a trending vegetarian, who eats meat on occasion when my wife, a stellar cook, takes the trouble to cook it (she knows how I feel, of course), I wouldn’t eat beef or pork if l lived alone, but defend the right of others to do so. However, what comes out of all this is the fact that people are oblivious to so much that will do them harm. It took decades for cigarette smokers to get the message, and you still see people hastening their own deaths by lung cancer. Getting messages through and changing lifetime habits in human beings is a long and arduous process, and in the case of beef, telling people that beef-rearing is a major cause of climate change and ruins the environment seems just too much of a stretch, although true.

Are we doomed?

The age of vulgar language

Posted by on

The jokes and other slogans in greetings cards have become so rude and potentially offensive that shops are having to take action. Branches of the stationery shop Scribbler now carry a sign in their windows, warning that some of its cards are “of an adult nature”. Paperchase has gone a step further: it has started putting explicit cards on the top shelf.

Could someone explain the cultural advantage of using four letter words and references to body parts, especially those of women? I am truly mystified. I remember my English teacher saying that those who use disgusting language do so because they are basically inarticulate and have lousy command of the language. A civilised person has no need of vulgarity. And yet, this form of speech and writing seems to be increasingly acceptable. Of course, one person’s “disgusting” is part of another person’s indispensible, if limited, vocabulary – I understand that.

We went last summer to the National Theatre to see a production of “The Three Penny Opera”. They must have used the f**k word fifty times. It truly added nothing to the original words and songs; it just showed a lack of imagination. We walked out at half time and failed to stay and watch the f*****g.

Please give me a good reason why vulgarity is exchanged for perfectly adequate other forms of speech and is thought “artistic”.

Silly bits of British political correctness- no wonder there is a backlash!

Posted by on

Cambridgeshire: Punt chauffeurs in Cambridge were advised this year that they must deliver a safety briefing before every trip up the River Cam. Among other things, passengers should be told not to let their hands dangle in the water, and that amplified singing is banned. Large illustrated “safety information” stickers in the punts will reinforce the message.

Norfolk: Student union officials in Norwich stopped undergraduates wearing sombreros at a freshman’s fair because they deemed it offensive to Mexicans.

University of East Anglia students were handed the straw hats by a Tex-Mex restaurant that was running a stall at the fair. But union representatives quickly confiscated the hats, saying that non-Mexicans wearing them were guilty of “cultural appropriation”.

Hertfordshire: Britain’s oldest pub was urged to change its name. Ye Olde Fighting Cocks, in St Albans, was founded in the eighth century, and has had its current name since 1872. But the animal rights group Peta said it should now be changed, to “reflect today’s rejection of needless violence and help celebrate chickens as the intelligent, sensitive and social animals they are”. Peta associate director Mimi Bekhechi suggested, as a more suitable alternative, Ye Olde Clever Cocks.

Cornwall: At Bodmin Town Council meetings, the biscuits were reportedly being handed around with blown-up photocopies of their packaging, so that attendees could check their ingredients before tucking in. New rules, to make life easier for allergy sufferers, also insisted that if necessary, the list of ingredients be translated into other languages and offered as a “talking book”.

West Midlands: Delegates at the National Union of Students’ Women’s Conference in Solihull were asked to use “jazz hands” instead of clapping, because of reports that the sound of applause was “triggering anxiety” among some attendees. In a tweet, the union’s Women’s Campaign said whooping could also be “super inaccessible” – and urged delegates to “be mindful”.

Yorkshire: Inspectors marked down a Yorkshire care home because staff addressed residents as “love”, “darling” and the like. The Care Quality Commission described carers at the home in Harrogate as “very nice” – but said the terms of endearment could be regarded as “demeaning”.

Oxfordshire: An old red telephone box that residents of Banbury in the UK use as an informal library was scheduled for demolition – because British Telecom was concerned that the shelf installed to hold the books might fall down and hurt somebody. “We had a complaint about the wobbly shelving from a resident,” a BT spokesman said. “Imagine if we had ignored it and little Janet or John had been injured.”

I don’t know whether people are just spoiled or super-sensitive or whether authorities are being patronising, but we have managed without this silly stuff for 200,000 years or more, and perhaps we ought to grow up? For instance, Yorkshire men and women have been calling each other “love” and “darling” for five hundred years at least. If you really object to it, smile nicely and politely ask if they would use your name.Yes?

Inheritance Tax

Posted by on

To The Guardian
The debate on inheritance tax focuses on the wrong issue: the lower threshold for IHT. The real problem is the upper threshold – not a precise value set by Parliament, but we all know it exists. Above it are so many exemptions, trusts, loopholes, schemes, dodges and scams, that IHT becomes entirely voluntary.

Two-thirds of Britain’s 60-million acres are owned by 0.4% of the population, and are largely exempt from IHT. As this land never comes to market, these grotesque perpetual fortunes distort life for the other 99.6% of us. If massive landowners had to pay 40% IHT, like anyone else, it would raise tens of billions per year; 92% of people never pay IHT. It’s a tax you don’t have to pay until you’re dead; and land cannot be hidden or removed to a tax haven; what’s not to like?
Martin Lyster, Oxford

The inheritance tax, or, rather, the ineffectivenes of the inheritance tax, is a scandal in both the US and UK. I have only lobbied Congress once. My wife and I were doing our little bit to protect the IHT, which Republicans are always trying to abolish. My pitch was this: “Back In 1776 you guys rebelled against Good King George, and one of the things you wanted gone was a self-perpetuating aristocracy. Over two centuries later you are now deliberately creating an inherited aristocracy of wealth, passed from generation to generation with the help of unscrupulous accountants and lawyers. One should be able to pass on money and possessiont one’s children, but in moderate amounts. The debate should be the meaning of “moderation”. Multi-millions do not denote moderation. I should have also said that massive wealth buys education at Harvard and Yale as well – with all the benefits great contacts bring in life – generation after generation.

An independent, spontaneous view of Brexit, April 3, 2017

Posted by on

from Martin Dean, Taunton Somerset:

“We in Britain are a peculiar crowd; we like certainty, stability and equilibrium. In a few words, we like to know what will happen next. Unfortunately, that situation is far from the norm for most people outside the Westminster bubble, and I expect quite a few within it.
As we all know we are faced with Brexit and we are all unsure of where the negotiations will lead. Even at this early stage there is sabre rattling over the subject of Gibraltar and we have not even started on the thorny subject of the Irish border. There is hostility in the air, no wonder the poor British public is bewildered and confused.This is not what they voted for (or against) and they fear for what other unstated issues will emerge in the next two years.

“Add to that the state of the political parties. Labour is in meltdown and seems incapable of mounting a credible opposition. Its statements are confusing at best and meaningless at worst. I will be kind and say it is talking to itself, but in reality I feel it is talking to its Metropolitan activists. The County Council elections next month will see how far it has fallen.

“The Lib Dems are trying but they are starting from a pitifully low base line that the nice Mr. Clegg gave them. Progress is being made, but it will be light years before they can make a real impact. I see their position as being similar to that in the late 1950s /early 60s when they had a handful of MPs. Then they won Orpington (now read Richmond) but then slow progress with only Local Council election victories. That is the outlook for them.
UKIP are in free fall, although they will always attract the Daily Express (and quite a few Daily Mail) readers. Their goal has been scored… what else is there left for them to achieve?` Their only positive point is that they have kept the BNP away from the political
scene.

“The Conservatives have not done anything really bad although the Budget was a shambles. The Brexit negotiations will test their mettle.

“Hence we have a political vacuum and we don’t like it. Not many people like what they are experiencing so they run for safety. In a largely conservative nation, people will support the Conservatives, hence their ‘popularity’. It’s not that the population like them, it’s just that the alternative is unacceptable.

“This is a depressing analysis of how I see things from the deep provinces. I fully accept we are far removed from the centres of power and in many ways we are a victim of what is thrown at us. At the moment we in Taunton Deane are a test bed for the Government’s Universal Credit. Not many people down here know that – they are not impacted. However we at the Foodbank have seen demand jump by 64% since it was introduced. Wait and see what will happen when it is rolled out across the UK. The Metropolitan areas will be forced to stop navel gazing and look at issues outside their comfort zone.
Meanwhile the next test which will give a reasonable guide to the national mood will be in May. Watch for the ripples on the political pond at the County Council elections. Thankfully London and many conurbations are not involved. That way the media will be forced to report from The Sticks. They will probably go to Kent or Buckinghamshire – areas safe with existing grammar schools.

“One further point which I feel needs including. I sense that there is an overwhelming sense of apprehension within the country because we don’t know what will be debated/agreed at the Brexit talks but more importantly, we don’t feel the Government can negotiate effectively. The Budget showed their incompetence (as well as the opposition’s) as the Government’s blunder was not spotted by the politicians and their party machines but by the BBC’s political correspondent. If we fail delivering our routine domestic policies, what hope have we at the complicated issues over leaving the EU?
We must recognise that most people in the UK are not political animals. Some can cope with domestic events, very few are interested in European issues, let alone wider world wide affairs. Interest is only taken when it hits home and confronts them. I recall the headline from The Times in 1896… ‘Fog in Channel, Europe isolated’. Things really haven’t changed a great deal, so no wonder we are more than concerned”. (Martin Dean, Taunton, Somerset, England)

Sham charity

Posted by on

Honenu is an Israeli Zionist legal aid organisation, providing legal help to suspected terrorists, violent settlers, and receives from both Israel and overseas. It has assisted over 15,000 Jews accused of violence on behalf of Am Yisrael. It is alleged that it bankrolled over 15,000 Jews, including the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin, among others. It operates as a tax exempt organisation in the United States.

I quote their website: “Many individuals in these situations suffer from emotional, financial, and legal pressures. Most are confused and disoriented as to how to proceed with the Israeli legal system and the serious ramifications of such a trial. Some of these noble citizens remain free, some are incarcerated, but all are in need of proper and assertive, but costly legal defense. Honenu is there to assist them”.

On the one hand the US has been trying to broker peace between the Israelis and their settlers on the one hand and the Palestinians on the other. Meanwhile, the US government has been allowing an American organisation, exempt of tax, to raise money to undermine its own efforts for peace. This is not reasonable or moderate. No one can stop Honenu from raising money to aid terrorism -it’s called “free speech” – but if it does so it should pay tax like anyone else. It is not a charity. Charities do not encourage violence and land grabs.