God save the leakers!

Republicans are exercised at the moment about leaks emanating from the White House and other government departments.  For them this is a much bigger issue than Russian interference during the election, or whether it’s acceptable to prevent  moslems  from countries, which so far have no connection with terrorist activity, from entering the United States.

What can we, as Epicureans, say about government leaks?  Well, if you are happy with the chaotic and unpredictable conduct of the government so far, and  you are content to accept the string of misrepresentations and straightforward lies that emerge from the President and his Praetorian guard on a daily basis, then we can conclude that  that you are quite happy to accept the situation in return for status, a fat salary, a bit of power and a reduction in your tax.  Governing  justly and fairly for all the people, ethics and morals are presumably of little interest to you.

But  it seems there are some office holders and functionaries who still have a measure of moral backbone and an ethical outlook, and who love their country.   These people, small in number no doubt, are uncomfortable with the policies, the tone and the blunders that they see being committed and the campaign promises blatantly broken on the behalf of the super-rich.  These are the patriots.  They have a conscience. They are the heroes and heroines of the modern United States, uncovering the things Trump wants covered and revealing the unethical, cruel and devious plans of the Administration to the taxpayers, who pay the salaries of the office holders and who deserve to know what is happening and what damage the rest of us can look forward to.

God bless the Leakers!

 

 

Ripping out the smoke detectors even as the house begins to burn

“We seem intent on blinding ourselves, ripping out the smoke detectors even as the house begins to burn”.  (Bill McKibben, founder of climate change campaign 350.org, in Wired magazine, February 2017)

And this is from Tom Engelhardt, who produces Tomgram:
“The the most unforgivable of crime of all , is about to be wrought by an unparallelled crew of climate change deniers and so-called climate skeptics.  They, and largely only they, have taken crucial positions in every department or agency of government in any way connected with fossil fuels or the environment.  Among his first acts was to green-light two much-disputed pipelines, one slated to bring the carbon-dirtiest of oil products, Canadian tar sands, from Alberta to the Gulf Coast; the other to enable the frackers of the Bakken shale oil fields of North Dakota.  In his yearning  to return to a 1950s America, President Trump has promised a new age of fossil-fuel exploitation.  He’s evidently ready to leave the Paris climate agreement in the trash heap of history and toss aside support for the development of alternative energy systems as well.  The White House website was scrubbed of all reference to climate change.  Both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will each undoubtedly be erased by Trump’s climate deniers, and this at a moment when we learned that, in 2016, the planet’s temperature had broken all heat records for an unprecedented third year in a row.  From 2013 to 2016, according to NASA, the planet warmed by well over a half-degree Fahrenheit, “the largest temperature increase over a three-year period in the NASA record”.  There can be no question that we look forward to a world of ever more extreme weather events.
The new Trump budget includes, among other damaging items, a 24% budget cut that  would virtually eliminate Great Lakes restoration, reducing the funding from $300 million to $10 million. Among the 38 core programs being cut are lead cleanup, methane emission reduction and brownfields restoration plus a steep cut to NOAA’s climate research, including eliminating funding for “external research, coastal management, estuary reserves and coastal resilience,” programs essential to coping with rising sea levels in a period of global climate change. The cuts to NOAA threaten climate research as well as the weather forecasting that detects storm patterns, droughts, massive rain storms, all exacerbated by climate change.  Heat and more heat, is what the future holds for our children and grandchildren.
Barring stunning advances in alternative energy technologies or other surprises, this again is too obvious to doubt.  So those, including our new president and his administration who are focused on suppressing both scientific knowledge about climate change and any attempt to mitigate the phenomenon, will be committing the most basic of crimes against humanity. (part of a posting on Tomgram,  Feb 6, 2017, Copyright 2017 Tom Engelhardt).
No further comment needed from me.

The joys of drinking wine

Just a quick non-political post this week, I’ll be back with my usual in-depth analysis of a geopolitical issue next Monday. That’s because I’m about to attend a Roman-style symposium. I will be dressed in a toga, eat food that hasn’t been in fashion since the death of Christ, and of course, enjoy a fine selection of mostly Italian wines.

Now drinking wine is an excellent pastime for a variety of reasons. Its a wonderful drink to go with a meal; its a firm belief of mine that every wine has a meal that perfectly complements it. Wine is the right balance of alcoholic strength. Spirits are too strong to be enjoyed on their own, they must be diluted with a mixer. Beer, ale and cider on the other hand, fill the stomach with too much gas, meaning that drinking a decent quantity can become quite difficult. Its also a firm belief of mine that wine-drinking has a certain elegance and sophistication to it- from the design of the wine bottles and glasses, to the sheer variety of flavours that make being a wine connoisseur a uniquely useful talent. Moreover, I find that wine is appropriate for almost any occasion. Its served at weddings, funerals, family celebrations, getting a job, losing a job,  Christmas- even every Sunday should you take the words of Jesus literally.

Now if you don’t like the taste of wine, my only response is pity. I don’t have anything against you, I simply believe that you’re missing out on one of life’s greatest pleasures. But since this is the Epicurus blog, I must stress that you should enjoy your wine responsibly and in moderation. There’s nothing elegant or sophisticated about insobriety- as a student, I know that better than most!

Cheers! Have a lovely week, I’ll be back soon.

Epicureans against political hypocrisy

Thought for a Sunday. The following was originally published in the New York Times. A commentary on political hypocrisy:

And Jesus Said Unto Paul of Ryan …

What would Jesus tell House Speaker Paul Ryan about looking after the sick and the needy?

A woman who had been bleeding for 12 years came up behind Jesus and touched his clothes in hope of a cure. Jesus turned to her and said: “Fear not. Because of your faith, you are now healed.”

Then spoke Pious Paul of Ryan: “But teacher, is that wise? When you cure her, she learns dependency. Then the poor won’t take care of themselves, knowing that you’ll always bail them out! You must teach them personal responsibility!”

They were interrupted by 10 lepers who stood at a distance and shouted, “Jesus, have pity on us.”

“NO!” shouted Pious Paul. “Jesus! You don’t have time. We have a cocktail party fund-raiser in the temple. And don’t worry about them — they’ve already got health care access.”

Jesus turned to Pious Paul, puzzled.

“Why, they can pray for a cure,” Pious Paul explained. “I call that universal health care access.”

Jesus turned to the 10 lepers. “Rise and go,” he told them. “Your faith has made you well.” Then he turned back to Pious Paul, saying, “Let me tell you the story of the good Samaritan.

“A man was attacked by robbers who stripped him of clothes, beat him and left him half dead. A minister passed down this same road, and when he saw the injured man, he crossed to the other side and hurried on. So did a rich man who claimed to serve God. But then a despised Samaritan came by and took pity on the injured man. He bandaged his wounds and put the man on his own donkey and paid an innkeeper to nurse him to health. So which of these three should we follow?”

“Those who had mercy on him,” Pious Paul said promptly.

Jesus nodded. “So go ——”

“I mean the first two,” Pious Paul interjected. “For the Samaritan’s work is unsustainable and sends the wrong message. It teaches travelers to take dangerous roads, knowing that others will rescue them from self-destructive behaviors. This Samaritan also seems to think it right to redistribute money from those who are successful and give it to losers. That’s socialism! Meanwhile, if the rich man keeps his money, he can invest it and create jobs. So it’s an act of mercy for the rich man to hurry on and ignore the robbery victim.”

“How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven,” Jesus mused to himself. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter heaven.”

“Let me teach you about love, Jesus — tough love!” Pious Paul explained. “You need a sustainable pro-business model. And you need to give people freedom, Jesus, the freedom to suffer misery and poverty.”

“The Lord God has anointed me to bring good news to the poor,” Jesus replied, emphasizing the last two words. Then he turned to a paralyzed beggar at his feet.  “Stand up!” Jesus told the man. “Pick up your mat and go home.” As the man danced about joyfully, Pious Paul rolled his eyes dismissively.

“Look, Jesus, you have rare talent, and it should be rewarded,” Pious Paul said. “I have a partner, The Donald, who would like to work with you: He’d set up a lovely hospital, and the rich would come and pay for you to heal them. You’d get a percentage, and it’d be a real money-spinner. Overhead would be minimal because every morning you could multiply some loaves and fishes. You could strike it rich!”

n “Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God,” Jesus said. “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received comfort.”

“Oh, come on, Jesus,” Pious Paul protested. “Don’t go socialist on me again. Please don’t encourage class warfare. The best way to help the needy is to give public money to the rich. That then inspires the poor to work harder, galvanizes the sick to become healthy, forces the lepers to solve their own problems rather than kick back and depend on others. That’s why any realistic health plan has to focus on providing less coverage for the poor, and big tax benefits for the rich. When millions of people lose health care, that’s when a country is great again!”

 “From everyone who has been given much,” Jesus told him, “much will be required.”

“Well, sure, this hospital would have a foundation to do some charity work. Maybe commissioning portraits of The Donald to hang in the entrance. But let’s drop this bleeding heart nonsense about health care as a human right, and see it as a financial opportunity to reward investors. In this partnership, 62 percent of the benefits would go to the top 0.6 percent — perfect for a health care plan.”

Jesus turned to Pious Paul on his left and said: “Be gone! For I was hungry and you gave me no food; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; and I was sick, and you did not help me.”

“But, Lord,” protested Pious Paul of Ryan, “when did I see you hungry or thirsty or sick and refuse to help you? I drop your name everywhere. And I’m pro-life!”

“Truly, I say to you,” Jesus responded, “as you did not help the homeless, the sick — as you did not help the least of these, you did not help me.”

Organic food – what we know so far (The last posting of four about food)

Modern, high-intensity farming is charged with causing food to lose some of its goodness.  Could organic food offer an alternative?

This is a controversial question. Antioxidant levels are higher in organically grown plants, according to a meta-analysis of existing studies published last year. However, in 2012 researchers at Stanford University in California found no strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious.

“In general, for minerals, the differences [between organic and inorganic] are pretty small,” says biochemist Donald Davis. One reason for the nutrient declines seen in some of today’s vegetables is down to breeding – making broccoli heads larger, for example – and organic growers tend to plant the same varieties as non-organic growers, he says.

Another complication is that it is difficult to make a direct comparison of organic and non-organic crops. “You have to take enough samples to grow on a very controlled patch, and expose them to exactly the same treatment,” says Paul Finglas of the UK’s Institute of Food Research in Norwich. “There may well be some evidence that some organic foods are different – such as in vitamin C – but it’s not going to make a big nutritional impact.”

Things look better for organic milk. Recent UK and US studies found that organic milk from cows reared outdoors had higher amounts of antioxidants and omega-3s. The difference is down to diet. “Cattle on organic farms are provided much more access to pasture and fed a much higher proportion of forage-based feeds,” says Charles Benbrook, who showed in 2013 that organic milk produced in the US contains a healthier ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids than non-organic milk. “Grass and legume forages are the building blocks for omega-3 fatty acids, while corn – which plays an important role on conventional farms – is the basis for omega-6.”

One area of concern is the low intake of omega-3s. These essential fatty acids, particularly long-chain omega-3s found in oily fish and shellfish, are vital for growth and development. The average intake among adults in the US and UK falls far short of the recommended amount, largely due to the fact that many people eat little or no seafood. “Omega-3 is probably one nutrient that [Western] people have a deficiency in – at least, they’re not at the optimum level,” says Eric Decker, a food scientist at the University of Massachusetts.  Meanwhile, people are consuming more omega-6 acids, found in vegetable oils. These are important too, but in excess amounts they can trigger the body’s inflammatory response.

What’s worrying some is that changes in farming methods are making some foods lower in omega-3s and higher in omega-6s. This has been shown most clearly in fish. Half of all fish consumed globally now come from aquaculture, and farmed fish have a different nutritional profile to wild-caught varieties. Wild salmon, for example, is an excellent source of omega-3s, because it feeds on smaller fish that have eaten omega-3 rich algae. But farmed fish are increasingly fed vegetable oil, boosting their omega-6 levels.

Last year, a study of salmon sold in the UK found that farmed salmon had twice the amount of fat as wild salmon, a lower proportion of omega-3s and significantly more omega-6 fatty acids – although the authors stress that farmed salmon is still a good source of omega-3s. Similar trends have been seen in organic and non-organic milk and beef , though these contain far less omega-3 than fish.

Fortification is one way to tackle this problem – hence the array of omega-3 enriched products, such as juice and yogurt, now on the market.  (adapted from an original article by Chloe Lambert in the New Scientist).

We are living through a major tipping point

I would like to interrupt the posts on food with a thought that occurred to me yesterday morning.

I believe that the effects of the Trump corporatist/oligarchic coup will guarantee that, far from “making America great again”, America is now signalling by the recent election that it is past its zenith and is heading downwards as the sole world super-power, shedding its moral influence and  respect.  China is set to take its place and is playing a clever game to that effect  all over the world, while America writhes in a mixture of agony on the one hand and indifference and lack of knowledge and accurate information on the other.

It is 2017.  It is exactly one hundred years since the United States intervened in the Great War and effectively supplanted Great Britain as the dominant world power (yes, it took 50 years or more for the British to accept it, and some Brexiters still haven’t).  Go back yet another 100 years and the defeats of Napoleon at Trafalgar and Waterloo in 1815 was the final coup de grace that cemented the world power of Britain, based on its naval power, fueled in turn by the industrial revolution that had began around 40 or so years before.  And in 1714, the Treaty of Rastatt concluded the War of the Spanish Succession, which left the Hapsburgs (and the Holy Roman Empire) at the zenith of their territory and power in Europe.

Is this all coincidence, or is one hundred years the “time limit of dominance” for a great power to stay dominant?  Is there something spooky about the second decade of a century?  Probably not – it could all be coincidence – the similarities don’t go back very far.  But it does seem that, after about one hundred years a super-power loses its sense of direction.  Maybe it’s because the elite has cornered the market in money?  Maybe the people are fed up with the wars and the taxation necessary to be top dog and start asking  “what is the point?”  Or the military has become unable to win any more and has lost credibility (read the Boer War and Iraq).   Or the country has grown lazy and corrupt, educational standards are declining  and the nation has forgotten what made it great?  Or all of the above.

Anyway, we are living through the pivot point where the United States is most likely to decline, however much it spends on futile military escapades.

How have modern farming methods affected the nutrients in common foods? (Third posting of four)

Beef

Beef from cattle reared outdoors on grass is less fatty and contains more omega-3 fatty acids than cattle reared indoors and fed mainly grain. However, consumers preferred the taste of latter, according to a 2014 study.

Pasta

Today’s pasta might be less nutritious thanks to modern, fast-growing wheat varieties introduced in the 1960s. Levels of zinc, iron and magnesium remained constant in wheat grain from 1865 to the mid-1960s, then decreased significantly as yields shot up.

Carrots

Carrots from the 1940s contained less than half the vitamin A levels of carrots grown in the US 50 years later. The reason? A preference for more orangey carrots. The colour comes mainly from the pigment beta-carotene, which the body can use to make vitamin A.

Milk

Milk from cows reared the old-fashioned way – mainly feeding on grass outdoors – has a better nutritional profile of proteins, fatty acids and antioxidants than milk from cows reared indoors and fed intensively.

Spinach

Spinach is a good source of iron, but its iron content was once thought to be 10 times higher. That was the result of a historical error that may have been perpetuated by the spinach-derived superpowers of the cartoon character Popeye. There is no clear data about whether the iron content of spinach is changing due to modern agriculture.

However, fluorescent lighting in supermarkets can be beneficial to spinach . A 2010 study found that spinach leaves stored in simulated retail conditions had higher levels of vitamins C, E, K and folic acid. After nine days of continuous light exposure, folic acid increased between 84 and 100 per cent. In spinach stored in darkness, nutrient levels stayed the same or fell.

Eggs

Eggs have been the subject of health scares over cholesterol, but now they are promoted as a health food. A 2012 study found that UK eggs are getting more nutritious, with lower fat and cholesterol compared to eggs from 1989 – probably because of smaller yolk sizes. They also contained more selenium and vitamin D than in the past, thanks to improved hen feed.

Tomatoes

Supermarket tomatoes are often labelled as “vine-ripened”, but that doesn’t always mean what you hope. It may be ripened on the vine but the vine may not have been attached to the plant. However,  the downsides of early picking are small and an unavoidable consequence of consumer demand. If you pick a tomato grown at home it tastes fabulous because it’s absolutely ready to eat. “But there’s no way you could do that at a commercial level because of the bruising that would occur if ripe fruits were transported through a typical supply chain. There has to be a compromise somewhere.

Frozen fruit and veg

They may not be fashionable, but frozen fruit and vegetables are often nutritionally better than fresh, experts say. Frozen veg is extremely good in terms of nutritional value because it really has been in suspended animation from the point of harvest. You can leave it on the plant longer, so it’s at a better ripening stage when it’s picked.

Peas

Can lose half of their vitamin C in the first 48 hours after harvesting, but if frozen within 2 hours of picking they retain it. Frozen peas are much more nutritious than peas you buy ready to shell. Furthermore,  frozen foods often have fewer additive, freezing being a preservative.

Bread

Humans have been making bread for 10,000 years, but the way we do it has changed dramatically in the last half-century. In 1961, a new method of mass-producing bread was devised at the Chorleywood laboratories, just north of London. It used extra yeasts, additives called processing aids and machinery to slash fermentation times, so a loaf could be made in just a few hours. Around 80 per cent of bread consumed in the UK is now made this way, and the Chorleywood process is used to some extent in many other countries.

But there are concerns that such methods have altered the digestibility of bread, and this may explain why many people with irritable bowel syndrome name bread as a trigger. For a significant subset of those with IBS, the condition is thought to be linked to gut bacteria reacting to fermentable foods, causing bloating.

Last year, Jeremy Sanderson at King’s College London and colleagues compared the effects of fast and slow-fermented breads on gut microbiota from donors with IBS and those free from it. They found that sourdough bread – which is left to rise for several hours using its natural yeasts – produced “significantly lower cumulative gas” in the IBS donors’ microbiota than fast-fermented bread. The theory is that if bread is left to ferment for longer, its carbohydrates will reach the gut in a predigested state and gut bacteria won’t react so much. “If you under-ferment bread and add a lot of yeast, it’s hardly surprising this will set up problems for people who have a problem with fermentation in their gut,” says Sanderson.

Slow-fermented breads may benefit other groups too: sourdough produces a lower glucose response in the body than other breads. What’s not yet clear is whether eating slow-fermented breads would lead to a general improvement in the gut flora of healthy people. “That’s difficult, but it’s a reasonable hypothesis,” says Sanderson. “After all, bread-making probably evolved to match what the gut could cope with.”  (Excerpted from an article the New Scientist by Chloe Lambert)

Is modern food processing and storage bad for us? (second posting of four)

Fruit and vegetables in supermarkets might look shiny and fresh, but often they were picked several days earlier. Some nutrients, particularly vitamin C and folic acid, begin to oxidise as soon as picking happens, but manufacturers use chilling and packaging techniques to minimise the resulting losses. “Lots of these reactions are driven by enzymes, and if you want to slow an enzyme reaction right down you chill it. However, if you are choosing between organic leeks from a distant country or locally grown,  go for the fruit and vegetables grown locally and subject to the  shortest possible supply chain.    As if to illustrate this, a 2003 study evaluated the nutritional content of broccoli kept in conditions that simulated commercial transport and distribution: film-wrapped and stored for seven days at 1 °C, followed by three days at 15 °C to replicate a retail environment. By the end, the broccoli had lost between 71 and 80 per cent of its glucosinolates – sulphur-containing compounds shown to have cancer-fighting properties – and around 60 per cent of its flavonoid antioxidants.

Many kinds of mass-produced fruit and veg – most famously tomatoes – are picked unripe so that they bruise less easily during transit. They are then sprayed with ethylene to ripen them. Some studies suggest that tomatoes harvested early have lower antioxidant activity and less flavour. If a fruit is left on a plant until the end of its life cycle, it’s able to recycle all the energy from the plant.  If you pick it early you truncate that process and get less sugars into the fruit, which are needed to bind the nutrients.

Similarly, processing has become a maligned word in the context of food, but there are some cases where it enhances a food’s health benefits. In fact, you arguably get more benefits from processed tomatoes, such as in purees, sauces or ready chopped in cans, than fresh.

Processed tomatoes tend to be harvested at a riper stage. In addition, lycopene – a compound tomatoes are rich in, and which has been shown to protect against cancer – is much more readily absorbed by humans from tomato paste than fresh tomatoes. “The more processed a tomato is, the more lycopene is available,” says Collins. “Processed tomatoes are often very concentrated, so you’re actually getting a greater quantity than you would use if you made your own sauce.” However, she adds that the heating used in processing destroys vitamin C.

Although salad leaves that have been picked and stored for several days before being eaten are a bit less nutritious than a freshly harvested lettuce, chilling and using packaging to reduce oxygen exposure may slow the nutrient loss. And any loss of nutrients must be weighed against the fact that these products may encourage people to eat better overall.

The bottom line is that although aspects of today’s food production, processing and storage might make what we eat a bit less nutritious, they are also making foods more available – and this is far more important. The majority of us consume far less fruit and vegetables than we ought to. We eat too much fat, sugar and salt and not enough oily fish.

The most important thing you can do is eat more fruits, vegetables and wholegrains, and cut down on highly refined, human-made foods, vegetable oils and added sugars. If you’re worrying about nutrient losses from cooking or whether your food is straight from the farm – those differences are minor compared to the differences you’d get from eating unprocessed foods.

Is our food less nutricious? (First posting of four)

Have modern intensive farming methods – many of which solved malnutrition problems when they were first introduced –  affected the mineral and vitamin content of what we eat?

In 2011, Donald Davis, a now-retired biochemist at the University of Texas, compared the nutrients in US crops from 1950 and 2009, and found notable declines in five nutrients in various fruits, including tomatoes, eggplants and squash. For example, there was a 43 per cent drop in iron and a 12 per cent decline in calcium. This was in line with his 1999 study – mainly of vegetables – which found a 15 per cent drop in vitamin C and a 38 per cent fall in vitamin B2.

Fruit and vegetables grown in the UK have shown similar depletions. A 1997 comparison of data from the 1930s and 1980s found that calcium in fresh vegetables appeared to drop by 19 per cent, and iron by 22 per cent. A reanalysis of the data in 2005 concluded that 1980s vegetables had less copper, magnesium and sodium, and fruit less copper, iron and potassium. The introduction of semi-dwarf, higher-yielding varieties of wheat in the green revolution of the 1960s means that modern crops contain lower levels of iron and zinc than old-fashioned varieties.

Davis and others blame agricultural practices that emphasise quantity over quality. High-yielding crops produce more food, more rapidly, but they can’t make or absorb nutrients at the same pace, so the nutrition is diluted. “It’s like taking a glass of orange juice and adding an equal amount of water to it. If you do that, the concentration of nutrients that was in the original juice is dropped by half,” says Davis.

Other scientists say that, although some nutrients are declining, the losses aren’t significant enough to warrant  health concerns.  Over the last century, lifespans have become longer, people are bigger and stronger, and a lot of that has to do with the food supply being better.  There is a also problem with comparing cultivars being grown in the 1930s with often quite different strains of plant grown today, the year and the date of harvest.   Methods of measuring nutrition have also changed.

The fact seems to be that differences in nutrient levels are relatively small. Most of us get enough iron, magnesium, and calcium. (adapted from an article in New Scientist by Chloe Lambert).

The problem may become worse with climate change.  Last year, researchers at Harvard University warned that crops grown in the future will have significantly less zinc and iron, owing  to rising levels of carbon dioxide.  The team grew 41 different types of grains and legumes, including wheat, rice, maize, soybeans and field peas, under CO2 levels crops are likely to experience 40 to 60 years from now. They found that under these conditions, wheat had 9 per cent less zinc, 5 per cent less iron and 6 per cent less protein than a crop grown at today’s CO2 levels. Zinc and iron – but not protein – were also lower in legumes grown under elevated CO2. ( There will be three more postings on this important topic, if  access to the internet, interrupted four times during the last few days, allows).

Musings on the Netherlands and Turkey

On Wednesday 15th March, the Netherlands will hold a general election. In the American and British popular imaginations, the Netherlands is a socially progressive nation with a well-functioning democracy, and a high trust in its institutions. Relatively speaking, that perception is largely correct. But the Dutch increasingly believe their values are under threat, not from domestic affairs or even the EU, but from the Islamic world.

Despite its reputation for ethnic homogeneity, the Netherlands is home to a sizeable Turkish minority. Many are Turkish citizens who are entitled to vote in the upcoming Turkish constitutional referendum, which will give the President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, considerably more power, reducing Parliament to a mere scrutiny body. Turkey would effectively become like Russia: an authoritarian executive presidency. The Kemalist traditions of secularism and the separation of powers would be consigned to the history books. Following the failed coup to oust him, Erdogan is understandably nervous. But his style of rule is increasingly dictatorial. Human rights abuses are becoming more common, freedom of speech is in decline, and anti-Western and pro-Russian sentiments are on the rise.

Erdogan enjoys considerable support in Turkey, but due to a lack of accurate polling, no one is sure how the referendum will go. So to ensure the maximum possible support, the government has sent ministers to Turkish diasporas living in Europe. In France, authorities allowed campaign events to go ahead. But in most other countries, most notably the Netherlands, ministers have been prevented from holding rallies. European authorities have cited security concerns, arguing that that bringing in foreign political divisions would be dangerous. Turkish politics is very passionate, so campaigns are likely to result in violence. There’s also the question of whether its appropriate to hold domestic political events abroad. It would be a bit like Benjamin Netanyahu going to America to tell American Israelis to vote for him, only that Erdogan’s ideology is even more extreme that the Israeli right.

In response to the Dutch ban on Turkish political campaigning, Erdogan has labelled Mark Rutte (the Dutch PM) and his government ‘Nazis’ and ‘fascists.’ The governing party in Turkey, the AKP, believes Europe is gripped by endemic Islamophobia, and that this is yet another attempt to restrict the rights of Muslims to their free speech. In particular, many Turks believe Rutte has enforced the ban because of the upcoming Dutch elections, in which Rutte’s liberal VVD party is only narrowly ahead of the anti-Islam PVV. This is despite the fact that the ban is supported across the political spectrum.

There are two worrying trends here. The first is the increasingly reactionary, paranoid and conspiratorial nature of Turkish political dialogue. The Dutch are well within their rights to regulate foreign political campaigning in their own country. No one is preventing  the Turkish Dutch from voting, nor from receiving information about the referendum. All responsible authorities must judge whether an event poses a high security risk, and have the right to cancel such events if they have reason to believe they will. The somewhat violent nature of Turkish protests against the ban, both in Turkey and the Netherlands, shows that the Dutch’s fears may not be unfounded. To suggest that this constitutes fascistic behaviour is hyperbolic and delusional.

The second is the fragile nature of liberalism in the Netherlands. The Dutch, for the most part, are an open and welcoming people. Turkish immigrants solve the labour shortage that exists in the Netherlands’ high-wage, low unemployment economy. They help mitigate the effects of an ageing population. Many Dutch welcome the country’s increasing multiculturalism. But there’s a perfectly legitimate concern about the Turkish’s social and political views. Its clear that a considerable proportion of Turks support the AKP’s increasingly socially conservative and theocratic politics. I personally have a friend of mine who is Turkish, and despite being very culturally Western, supports Erdogan fervently.

The Turkish-Dutch clash must be contextualised in the broader rift between Europe’s increasingly secular and liberal white supermajority, and its growing Muslim population, which is overwhelmingly religious and socially conservative. Many second and third generation Muslims feel disillusioned with the godless hedonism that permeates the country they grew up in. In the most extreme of cases, they become radicalised. But in most instances, they simply feel apathetic and angry. Its important to mention that this disillusionment is not  entirely irrational. Muslims in Europe are much poorer than the general population, and are less likely to be employed. To varying degrees, they also face both institutional and casual discrimination. Western society, with its relentless focus on material wellbeing and instant self-gratification, is far from perfect. Liberals have too often sung the praises of multiculturalism and tolerance, while failing to economically empower the immigrants they purport to love.

However, the problems associated with Islam that the Netherlands faces, does not warrant the support of Geert Wilders and his PVV. Wilders is ideologically opposed to freedom of religion for Muslims. He believes in a complete ban on the burqa, a ban on all mosques, and a ban on the Qur’an. He doesn’t believe Islam can be practised peacefully, instead preferring to compare the Qur’an to Mein Kampf. In the unlikely event of a PVV-led government, Wilders’ policies would only make problems worse. Muslims would quite rightly take to the streets in protest. The Netherlands would lose its reputation as a strong liberal democracy, perhaps forever. I’m not knowledgable enough of Dutch politics to make a firm endorsement, but I would tentatively suggest that Dutch Epicureans vote for the incumbent VVD, simply as a tactical measure to keep out the PVV. Rutte is far from perfect, particularly his stance on the Zwarte Pete controversy, but the Dutch economy is relatively stable and the country remains most socially liberal than most. The authoritarianism, nationalism and populism of the Turkish government must not incline us to respond in kind.

Ayn Rand and President Trump

I don’t know whether this is generally known, but Trump, who inherited a lot of his money, is a fan of the writer Ayn Rand, the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and chief publicist of “objectivism” and libertarianism. He is surrounding himself with other admirers of the notion that there are makers and takers, and that the takers are parasites who get in the way of morally superior innovators.  Worse than that, the latter actually have to pay tax to support the takers (horrors!).   Rand’s attitude was that government is evil and deliberately puts obstacles in the way of those accumulating wealth.  “Man exists for his own sake. The pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, not of the happiness of anyone else.  He shouldn’t make sacrifices for others”.
Trump, as is well known now, believes that “winning” is all and that the means justify the ends.  The ends are wealth and power. Women are simply adornments; the poor are “losers”.  ” Be a killer”, Fred Trump (father) reputedly told his son,”then you are a king”.
Among the disciples of this moral-free, inhuman and distasteful philosophy that treats people as commodities are Bannon, of course, Rex Tillerson, new Secretary of State, and Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA.  There are others as well in the threatening new government.  Andrew Pudzer, Secretary of Labor (who opposes the minimum wage and wants to automate fast food) was another admirer, now, blessedly, turned down by Congress.
Not only is libertarianism and objectivism anathema to normal decent people, but Ayn Rand claimed to have taken the bit about happiness being man’s highest moral purpose straight from the writings from Epicurus.  She might well have, but she took it totally out of context. Epicurus would never have recognised this as a humane, thoughtful, approach to human relationships; on the contrary, his approach was that friendship and getting on well with people created happiness – unless you are autistic (which I agree you can’t help) you get no joy out of using and exploiting people and treating them like money machines.  “Objectivism” and libertarianism have nothing to do with Epicureanism and never did.  It’s all part of the “fake news” ethos of the alt-right.

Let us all thank messy eaters

Researchers at the Arizona State University Institute of Human Origins have found that our species’ first ancestors began to climb down from trees to retrieve snacks they had dropped. Anatomical evidence from the 6-million-year-old fossilized remains of Sahelanthropus peinaó—which was unearthed earlier this year in South Africa and is now believed to be the last common ancestor shared by chimpanzees and modern humans—suggests that the animal frequently descended from the jungle canopy to retrieve food that fell from its hands owing to inattention, overeager eating, or a loosening grasp as it dozed off after a meal.

According to the researchers, everything humans have accomplished as a species—from “colonizing every corner of the planet, to building the Colosseum, to walking on the surface of the moon”—can be traced back to that first human forebear “sweating and breathing heavily as it struggled down a tree trunk” to recover a snack .

At some point in the Miocene epoch, one of the hominids realized that if it wished to continue snacking, it would have to come down from the tree, wander out onto the savanna, pick the morsel up, and put it back in its mouth. This was the impetus for several other key adaptations, including the increased brain size and cognitive capabilities that are the hallmarks of Homo sapiens. They began gradually developing the ability to form abstract thoughts—including planning, problem-solving, projecting into the future, and evaluating alternative options—as they grasped the notion that if they did not retrieve the food they would go hungry. Moreover, complex human emotions, from regret to longing to a desire for remediation, are also said to have begun emerging as humans began to reflect on the meals they dropped.

Speech arose from the grumbling about having to climb down the tree. The hominids’ final shift to becoming an exclusively ground-dwelling species is said to have occurred roughly 5 million years ago when, having finished the snacks they had retrieved, they looked at the trees, realized what a hassle it would be to climb all the way back up there, and opted instead to take a nap on the ground.

Does all this really matter? Not really, but it takes your mind for a moment off the world political situation!  That’s what Epicurus would have advised us to do – if possible.

Warning: don’t fall in love with a foreigner

The Tories pride themselves on being “family-friendly”, says Giles Fraser. Yet their belief in nurturing this precious institution doesn’t extend to “those of us who fall in love with foreigners”. Under a policy introduced in 2012 – and upheld last week by the Supreme Court – Britons applying to bring a non-EU partner or spouse to live with them in the UK must earn at least £18,600 a year. So no problems for the Queen and Prince Philip, and an effective bar to “scam marriages set up for money, or lonely men conned into acquiring mail-order brides from Belarus over the internet”. But what about the rest of us? Nearly 40% of Britain’s working pop­ulation, and a majority of its young people, earn less than that; in which case you and your partner either have to live apart or “shove off and set up family life elsewhere”. When my foreign-born wife and I went to a registry office to set a date for our marriage, we were interrogated as if we were “smuggling heroin though passport control”. The UK is now “the least-welcoming country to mixed-nationality couples in the Western world”.  (Giles Fraser, The Guardian).

Returning from France a year or two ago, my wife, who is American, had a very unpleasant conversation at UK passport control in Paris with a very aggressive official.  She was reluctantly allowed into England, but even though she is legally  allowed  to be there for up to six months in a year.  The effect of this sort of treatment  is discouraging for those who, not contemplating immigration, are simply visiting for more than a week or two (we were staying 4 months). At one point we talked about her staying in England for several years as my spouse, in order to apply for  British citizenship.  For various reasons we never did it, but now the time has passed – it is just too difficult, queueing at the Croydon office being just a small part of the problem.  Britain, once uniquely open-minded and well-informed about the people and politics of foreign countries, is perceived to be suspicious and sometimes even hostile to foreigners, taking its cue from the right-wing Tories, “cabin’d,  cribbed, confined, bound in by saucy doubts and fears”.

Trumpcare health: Between a rock and a hard place

Some while ago Trump attacked the high cost of deductibles associated with Obamacare and said  they are “practically useless”.  What he didn’t say is that the man he has chosen to replace Obamacare from the scene, Tom Price, is all in favour of high deductible health plans, with patients paying for routine health problems from individual health savings accounts.  The theory is that this stops abuse of the system.  It would, in theory, lower premiums, but it isn’t possible to lower both  premiums and deductibles at the same time.  Trump at one point promised a more comprehensive health service, but this is impossible if everyone isn’t paying into the system, which is a feature of the ne Republican health bill.
Obamacare  requires health insurance policies to cover  a huge range of services, from maternity, preventive screening to birth control and drug addiction.  Trump seems to think you can lower prices,  have better care, more choices and no mandates  and, simultaneously, lower premiums.  As it is, because Obama knew he couldn’t get a general tax raise through Congress, he and the Democrats had to pay for the new range of Obamacare services (never previously enjoyed by poorer people),  by reducing reimbursements from Medicare, increasing the tax on pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers and employers with gold-plated insurance policies .  They extended the Medicare payroll tax to the self-employed and investment income earned by wealthy investors, and made young, healthy people buy comprehensive insurance.
Was this huge expansion of healthcare somewhat draconian?  In a sense it was, and it hasn’t worked well financially for many people, faced with ever-rising premiums.  Now the (divided) Republicans have an opportunity to get rid of this enforced communitaire law and re-introduce “liberty”, deregulation and “community choice”. But they have the problem that they can’t relieve the young people and the rich investors who are helping pay for universal coverage  without reducing the services offered to the sick and the poor, the sort of people in the countryside who voted for Trump.  They will call the spade a fork and blame the Democrats, but the fact is there is no easy way to replace Obamacare without the sick getting sicker, and people dying .
The current bill, experts said, falls far short of the goals Trump laid out: Affordable coverage for everyone; lower deductibles and health care costs; better care; and zero cuts to Medicaid. Instead, the bill is almost certain to reduce overall coverage, result in deductibles increasing, and will phase out Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.  Call this a betrayal of what Trump promised.
The rational answer is a single payer system, similar to that in the UK, France and other countries (wonderful if adequately funded). But no, absolutely no, said the opponents – that is “socialised medicine”.  Healthcare has advanced technologically so far and is so expensive in comparison with the post- war situation, that the ” free market” is simply incompetent to cope with the scale, the complexity and the number of poor, sick people in a civilised way.  The Epicurean answer is single payer, and tax people accordingly to pay for it.  Health is the most precious thing we have (speaking as someone who only yesterday learned that the local hospital , having cured me of cancer once before has just despatched a second bout, this time before it developed really seriously).