“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
Philip K. Dick, quoted in the Penobscot Bay Pilot, Maine
Militias and the law
The danger posed by America’s militia groups was brought home when the FBI revealed it had thwarted a plot by one to kidnap the Democratic governor of Michigan. These bands of armed vigilantes have become increasingly visible, staging protests and organising street patrols with the purported aim of protecting property.
Alarmingly, they claim to have the Constitution on their side, citing the Second Amendment’s mention of the importance of a “well-regulated militia” to protect the state. But that’s hogwash. What that phrase meant is that, rather than relying on standing armies, which were perceived as a threat to liberty, leaders should be able to call on groups of able-bodied citizens who would act under their command. There has never been a right in any state for a group of armed individuals to set themselves up in opposition to, or in competition with, the civil authorities.
The fact that Biden has been fairly and decisively elected and will be the next President does not mean that groups of armed thugs will go away. They will continue to be an ominous threat. A physical threat, too, and deeply unsettling to those of us law-abiding people who value safety, law and order, the Constitution and Epicurean peace of mind – not necessarily in that order.
State and local officials should have no hesitation in enforcing the law. which is on their side. (Adapted from articles in The Week and the New York Times 24 October 2020)
An apt quotation
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” (Harlan Ellison, quoted in the I newspaper).
My comment: More than ever in history has there been less excuse for being ill-informed and spreading fabrications and lies. We are almost inundated with news and opinion online, on TV and in the Press. What is missing in some people is approaching that news with critical intelligence. Is it really likely that the election was interfered with on a scale massive enough to be invisible to investigators? Is it really likely that State Republican officials are going to declare a fair election in favor of the opposing party if they know for a fact that all votes were valid and were counted and re-counted?
But we have heard all this multiple times. Three cheers for integrity and honesty! May everything come off the boil, peace of mind return and plodding common sense triumph.
Couples don’t grow more alike
Scientists in the US have disproved an enduring theory in social science – that couples in long-term relationships come to look like one another. The “convergence in physical appearance hypothesis” dates back to a 1987 study based on an analysis of photographs of a small number of married couples. The idea attracted wide attention, and even found its way into psychology courses.
Now, however, scientists have re-investigated it – and have found it isn’t true. The Stanford University team compiled a database of pictures of 517 couples, taken soon after they had married and between 20 and 69 years later. They then assessed facial similarity using two methods – human judgement and a “facial recognition algorithm” – and found no evidence that the couples’ looks had converged over time.
But they did discover that at the start of a marriage, couples tended to look more alike than random pairs. Pin Pin Tea-makorn, a co-author of the study, published in Nature Scientific Reports, speculates that people may be attracted to people who look like them because we prefer the familiar: “Since we grew up being familiar with ourselves in the mirror, or our family members, we tend to develop likeability to people who look similar to us.” (The Week 24 Oct 2020)
My comment: Speaking only for myself, I would never have married my wife had I felt she looked remotely like me. She is exponentially better looking. In fact, just better all round. What weird subjects researchers do pick to research! However, Mr. Pin Pin (your name is the best bit of this snippet of news), thank you for a moment of amusement.
Interruptions: tips on how to stop them
May I report an effective way to counter interruptions while I am talking?
In the 1980s, I sat on the council of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs trade union in the UK. Meetings were always attended by the extrovert and voluble general secretary, Clive Jenkins. He would frequently interrupt speakers during what were otherwise disciplined and strictly non-interrupted meetings in order, as he put it, “to be helpful and progress business”.
One member, who seemed to be interrupted more than others, developed the technique of instantly stopping speaking and waiting in silence until Clive, with his usual sweet smile of acknowledgement, had finished. She would then immediately continue speaking at precisely the same point in the sentence she had been delivering as when interrupted. There was never any loss of sense, grammar or syntax. It was as if the interruption had never occurred. This was so effective that it eventually cured Jenkins of his habit.
It is a very difficult trick to carry off, but it can be devastating.
From Bryn Glover, Kirkby Malzeard, North Yorkshire, UK. (published in the New Scientist).
My take: Some people assume a conversation to be competitive – who can “win” the debate and best persuade the audience. This attitude starts in childhood, and is very British. The habit (really annoying, and one I used to be mildly guilty of) gets back to upbringing. Glad to hear that a public figure (which Clive Jenkins certainly was, in England) was capable of absorbing the message.
Tax cheats
“By systematically defunding the IRS, rich tax cheats and their allies in Congress have all but guaranteed that they won’t ever have to pay what they owe. We’re not talking about loopholes or manipulation of the tax code. Just plain old illegal tax evasion. Unless something changes, over the next decade, they’ll steal $7.5 trillion from the American people, and most of that theft will be committed by the top 1% of earners.
“Our country can raise trillions of dollars just by making sure the rich pay what they owe.” (Patriotic Millionaires, 11 December 2020).
My comment: It’s bad enough having such a huge gulf between rich and poor, but our elected representatives, instead of being champions of the sick, poor, the homeless and financially struggling, are in cahoots with the super-rich, casting a blind eye on tax fraud, making the wealth gap worse, and in hoc to them rich for election expenses. Just at this very moment Congress (for Congress read senate Republican
) are rejecting proposals to help the covid-struck poor through the current health crisis. UnEpicurean. Also un-Christian.
No, I’m not supposed to talk party politics, but I consider this to be about common sense, decency, thoughtfulness of others and building a healthy nation.
The mutant strain of covid from Spain
A mutated strain of Covid-19 carried by holidaymakers returning from Spain could be partially responsible for the current “second wave” in Europe, a study has suggested. Like all viruses, SARS-CoV-2 mutates as it replicates inside its human hosts. Now it appears that a variant called 20A.EU1, first detected in farm workers in northern Spain in June, is the dominant strain across much of Europe. The Swiss/Spanish study, which has yet to be peer-reviewed, found that in September it was present in 40% to 70% of cases in Switzerland, Ireland and the UK. The mutation’s features include an alteration to the spike protein which the virus uses to latch onto cells. However, it remains unclear if this affects its transmission rate, or the symptoms it causes. (The Week, 7 November 2020)
Comment: In all the rejoicing we have seen about the successful approval of the vaccines, nobody has assured us that the latter works with the mutated strain. And if it has mutated that quickly who is to say it won’t do so again before the bulk of the population has a vaccine available to it? I absolutely want to be vaccinated, and have no sympathy with anti-vaccers. Just asking.
How Covid has opened prison doors
America locks away far more people – about 2.1 million – than any other nation. But the pandemic could be what finally caused it to unwind its “signature practice of mass incarceration”.
In the spring, the rapid spread of Covid-19 forced officials to take radical steps to reduce prison overcrowding. Inmates were released early; and wrongdoers who’d normally have been sent to jail were given non-custodial terms instead. As a result, the population of the country’s local jails and state prisons plunged by 170,000 between February and May.
Since then, officials in some areas have abandoned these measures, and started refilling their jails again. But others are thinking of making the temporary reforms permanent: issuing fines for minor, non-violent offences, making more use of drug rehabilitation programmes, and – crucially – only jailing people once they are convicted. Currently, local jails “hold more than 480,000 people awaiting trial”. Still “legally presumed innocent”, they make up about two-thirds of the local jail population. Critics say that freeing more inmates will lead to a surge in crime, but there’s little evidence of it yet. Either way, Covid has provided the US with an opportunity to at least experiment with “decarceration”. (Lind So, Reuters and The Week, 7 November 2020)
My comment: Many people who are incarcerated have mental problems and should be treated medically. Others are very young, and jailing them probably makes them crooks for life, when in fact they made a stupid mistake and, with training and better education, they could prove to be useful citizens. And then, of course, you have the thorny matter of race and racism.
For heavens sake – more rehabilitation! Give these people a chance to go straight.
A strange dinner in China
Comedian Bill Bailey is deeply serious about wildlife. He campaigns for various animal charities, and his home in west London doubles up as an informal animal sanctuary. It’s a passion that has led him into some bizarre situations.
On a tour of China in 2012, for instance, he was invited to a restaurant where Eurasian eagle owl was on the menu. He ordered the bird, “and before they cooked it I said, ‘No, I want it to take away’, so they wrapped this live bird in parcel paper and we drove off with it in a taxi.” In the car, he rang an expert, who said the owl could probably be safely released if it wasn’t traumatised. “It wasn’t depressed – it was just trying to rip its way through the paper with these gigantic talons, so we drove to some woodland and let it go.
That restaurant visit cost me about £200 and we didn’t even get a meal, but I like to think we did the right thing…”
(Michael Odell in The Times, and The Week, 7 November 2020)
Comment: Nice to read a harmless, cheerful piece of news. Must look for more, if such exist!
Face shields are “not effective”
Face shields have been recommended for use by hairdressers, and are worn by teachers in some schools. But plastic face shields are not effective at stopping airborne droplets from escaping from an infected person’s mouth, according to a study in Japan.
Computer simulations showed that almost 100% of droplets under five micrometres (released when people talk and breathe) got past the visor, along with 50% of the larger droplets (over 50 micrometres) that are released with coughs and sneezes. The World Health Organisation says the shields, which do not completely cover the face, should be used with a mask. (The Week, 3 October 2020)
My comment: I posted the above wondering what the point of a face shield would be if you had to wear a mask with it. The reader is probably thinking the same. Why don’t they test these things before they sell them?
Latin quip.
“Numquam praestantibus in re pública gubernanda viris laudata est in una sentencia perpetua permansio”.
Sticking with what they think has never helped political leaders.
We are in this mess for a good reason
Twenty years ago, watching big American companies move production to China, I clearly remember thinking “We will bitterly regret this. Short-term it will look innocuous, yes, reducing prices for consumers. Long term it will mean that China will be a super-power, challenging the United Stares. Living standards will become static, jobs fewer and worse paid, and the great mass of Americans will become bitterly resentful. Meanwhile, the US will have to spend more to restrain China, which has no comprehension of democracy or human rights.
As it happens, I was right – and, much as I can do nothing about it personally, my peace of mind is roiled as I think about the implications for the young, who will have to struggle with what to do, short of another world war. China is ruled by a megalomaniac, and we know what that can mean. Thousands were slaughtered in the struggle against Hitler. But this time there is no powerful United States to shut him and his yes-men down.
Worryingly, the priority of many of our politicians seems to be to make the rich richer. The latter, however, by and large (there are some great exceptions) don’t care about the country. They have hideaways in places like New Zealand. They resist even paying a fair share of tax. Don’t rely on them to lift a finger to help resisting China, where many are making fortunes.
The forebear of native Americans
A man who lived in Siberia about 14,000 years ago is the earliest known person in the world to have the specific mix of genes seen in people with Native American ancestry, analysis of DNA from a fossilised tooth has revealed.
This suggests the link between ancient Siberian and Native American people is much deeper and stronger than previously thought, says He Yu at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany.
Yu and her colleagues dated the fossilised tooth, originally found near Lake Baikal in southern Siberia, to about 14,000 years ago in the Upper Palaeolithic era. They then extracted and sequenced DNA and compared it with sequences from ancient and modern Native American people.
Their analysis revealed the man as the earliest ever discovered with the specific mixture of ancient north Eurasian and north-east Asian ancestry commonly present in Native American people. The earliest previously known individual in the world with similar ancestry lived about 11,500 years ago.
It is thought that the ancestors of modern Native Americans first migrated to North America from Siberia at least 15,000 years ago across the Bering land bridge – a piece of dry land that at that time connected modern Russia and what is now Alaska. (Journal reference: Cell, DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.037. Layal Liverpool, New Scientist 30 May 2020)
My comment: Some years ago my wife and I visited a native American reservation in Utah. A more depressing experience is hard to imagine: few jobs, a lot of alcohol consumed, and poor health. We bought some artifacts, which mainly served to illustrate ancient skills, but not modern ones. The economic straits of the locals were very clear. Not a happy visit.
Self-image
I was ruminating about self-image – my own in this case – and reflecting on its importance.
The idea of oneself emerges as one grows up. Does it stay with you all your life? I suppose this varies from person to person. The purpose of this is to encourage the reader to examine honestly his or her self-image and ask how it emerged.
In my particular case I think it grew out of being sent to a boy’s boarding school at the age of eight through eighteen, and afterwards being corralled with males only and through two years in the army. I was only liberated at university (with a glad cry!).
Why do I say liberated? Because in most groups of young men there is the inevitable aspiring “leader” and/or bully, out of which gangs emerge and followers follow. The bullying at school was very distressing. One contemporary of mine threw himself in front of a train; another had what I believe was a mental breakdown. Too big to be bullied myself, I was nonetheless disgusted, especially since the adults shrugged. When I became a school prefect I made it my mission to crack down on bullying, delivering an impassioned speech on the matter to the headmaster. I may have been (temporarily successful), but who knows what happened after I departed?.
The effect of this whole experience was to encourage the belief in equality, empathy, unselfishness, understanding, kindness, politeness and putting oneself in the shoes of others. Of course, only an onlooker can say whether I, as an individual was successful or simply kidding myself. I made mistakes as a young adult, of course, but would like to think that I quickly realized my mistake, cringed, and usually apologized.
Whether running a business, working alone, dealing with acquaintances or neighbors, I feel that what I later understood to be Epicureanism was firmly implanted because of the dog-eat-dog behavior I lived through at school. I don’t feel my attitude to others has changed.
What about you?
A changed America
“The paradigm shift of the 1980s really was equivalent in scale and scope to those of the 1960s and the 1930s. Key intellectual foundations of our legal system were changed. Our long-standing consensus about acceptable and unacceptable conduct by big business was changed. Ideas about selfishness and fairness were changed. The financial industry simultaneously became reckless and more powerful than ever. The liberal establishment began habitually apologizing for and distancing itself from much of what had defined liberal progress. What made America great for centuries, a taste and knack for the culturally new, started to atrophy in the 1980s.
This conservative momentum – the Reagan revolution – kept charging ahead through the 90s and onwards. Eye-glazing changes in business and financial regulations gave oligarchs their spoils, while leaving the majority of Americans in a state of ever-increasing economic insecurity, stranded on the wrong side of a canyon of income inequality not seen since the Gilded Age.
The villainous masterminds of the story – people like the Koch’s, Richard Mellon Scaife, Joseph Coors, and Robert Bork, and think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, hid their plan to make a tiny number of people super- rich and replace FDR’s New Deal, projecting a veneer of philosophical and ethical worthiness that persuaded the media and the public that it would be best for everyone if business was less restrained.
This was achieved firstly by manipulating the boring rules and regulations that protect the public from predatory capitalism. Secondly, the rich conservatives ramped up the pre-existing spirit of extreme individualism and self expression that took off in the 1960s. The message was: “O.K, hippies and liberals, you win. From now on, it’s maximum freedom and individualism for all. You have your sexual and artistic self-expression by all means. You do your thing and we’ll do ours” (that is, make pots of money). Thirdly, conservative interests played on the longing for the “good old days”, manufacturing nostalgia for a public ready for calm after the tumultuous 1960s.
The book brings us up to date with the virus that has tested us and found us wanting. On top of the unaddressed climate crisis and the extreme form of short-term, profit-obsessed capitalism that serves only the plutocrats, it is clear that the current paradigm is played out. Support for Trump is a cry of anger and frustration, a cri de coeur from a huge section of the population who feel the promise of America has evaded them. They blame Washington while in fact it is the “conservative” plutocrats and money men who have skewed life to their own selfish benefit and then blamed Democrats and the Washington civil service. We have to restore the sharing of economic power and wealth we once had. Enough is enough.
(Adapted slightly from a review by Tom Krattenmaker of a book by Kurt Anderson: “Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America: A Recent History”: (Random House, 2020)
Tomorrow: other reasons why we went wrong, not to be easily corrected.