Our lousy American TV services

Posted by on

“These days, the “news” is a single hyped-up story — a mass shooting or Comey’s appearance before Congress – are often presented in near-apocalyptic fashion. Such an approach is meant to glue eyeballs to the screen in a situation in which viewers are eternally restless and there are so many other screens available. This single story approach is both relentless and remarkably repetitious because a lot of the time next to nothing new is known about the supposedly unfolding event (which is nonetheless presented as if our lives depended upon it). To fall back on the anchor of Avon, it often seems like a tale told by a collective idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

“What this form of news certainly does is suck all the air out of the newsroom. On some days, when one of these 24/7 events is running wild, you could be excused, at the end of half an hour of “national news,” for thinking that nothing other than the event at screen center had happened anywhere on Earth. And I mean nothing. Not even the weather, generally such a favored subject of the nightly news because it offers disaster in its most picturesquely chaotic and yet expectable form.”
(Tom Engelhardt, Tom Dispatch)

And yet the CNN approach it is effective.  Tom Englehardt is right – CNN in particular, with its breathless ” breaking news” formula, can be compulsive watching.  He mentions the Comey hearing, which we were glued to – and then we had to go online to find out from the Guardian or BBC what truly apocalyptic events were going on in the rest of the world. The CNN approach, like that of Fox News, makes a ton of advertising money.  It suits the the American public, whose tastes are generally of a parish pump variety, that is, most people don’t care much about what is happening in North Korea or Yemen, or how many people are starving in Yemen.  They are, fleetingly, exercised about local news and tribal matters, like how their political party, right or wrong, is doing today, and having a grumble about the “others”.   People complain about the attention span of the c. 10 year old President, but attention spans are pretty short in general.

From an Epicurean standpoint one should be seeking peace of mind and pleasure in its broadest sense. Getting riled up by stupid tweets and over- excited talking heads is not conducive to ataraxia.  The problem is that tuning out of it all – an option – is just what Trump and his crowd want us to do.

 

No trade deal with the EU?

Posted by on

“A quarter of British exports to the EU (worth £3bn a month) go through Calais. At present they are waved through as “EU goods”. But if we crash out of the single market without a new trade deal, every consignment of British goods will have to be inspected to ensure it meets EU regulations. France has no incentive to invest heavily in expanding its customs service just to keep British exports flowing smoothly. “The M20 and M2 motorways will become giant truck parks as drivers wait to be inspected.” The same is true the other way: over 10,000 trucks go in and out of Britain from the EU every day, transporting “vital food and goods”. If huge customs delays build up, “who will organise food rationing in our supermarkets”?

“Voters should be warned of the real consequences of “no deal”. Yet even as we chose  who should lead this nation through “the most important negotiations since the War” during the election, there has been no real debate. “Instead, silence reigns.” (Will Hutton, The Observer)

This is, of course, deliberate.  The Tories want to ram through Brexit if they can, with as little “confusing” fact as possible.  Either they are being less than honest with the electorate or they simply haven’t thought through the consequencies of failure to keep trade with the EU healthy and buzzing.

No respectable EU politician has an interest in making it easy for Britain.  Macron, the new President of France has sweetly said never mind, if after two years things aren’t settled you can always re- join.  In other words,  he for one is going to make Brexit absolutely excruciating and he wants to lure foreign bankers and manufacturers away from Britain.  Others in the EU want to stop more exiters in their tracks.

I was asked yesterday by an acquaintance of Roumanian origin, were I a politician what single British historical political decision would I want to reverse. By coincidence I had been idly casting my mind back over dreadful political decisions made since Anglo-Saxon days.  I replied that, with the possible exception of  the provocation of civil war under King Charles I in the 17 th Century,  Brexit is the most disastrous decision made in a thousand years of British history, and that it will have an horrendous effect on the British way of life and its economy.  Horrendous-ness has already started.  The only good thing will be to eventually see all those reactionaries in the Tory party lose their seats – and maybe hide their heads in shame (that will be the day!).   But wait land see.

America has lost its legislators

Posted by on

“We are in an ugly era of people who do not understand what the legislative branch is even for,” says Andy Karsner, who served as assistant secretary of energy for efficiency and renewable energy in the George W. Bush administration and is now based in California, working with entrepreneurs as managing partner of the Emerson Collective.

The Trump administration and Republican leadership in Congress, Karsner said, “have no skill set, they have no craftsmanship. They have no connection to the time when people passed legislation.”

In the not-so-old days legislation was drawn up, informally debated and edited by Congressional aides, many of them long- term employees with years of experience. The congressman could give them an outline of what was wanted  and they would draft it as a law.  Then came the dire Tea Party and the so- called “Freedom Caucus”, whose objective was/is the dismantling of ” big government” and the distribution of the savings to rich patrons as tax recuctions.  Scores of Congressional aides were fired while the Republicans concentrated on State rights, using templates drawn word- for- word from the corporate- funded organisation ALEC ( American Legislative Exchange Council).   Meanwhile Republican Congressmen themselves have increasingly been recruited by multi- millionaires who promise them lifetime income in return for voting as required.  Apparently poorly educated, but ambitious, these people are not thinking of the United States of America, for sure.

And this is how we get into a situation where no one quite knows how to draft a new health bill and replace Obamacare.  The latest news is that 22 million people will lose their medical coverage if the current bill (which was drafted secretly and which few have actually read) won’t be voted  on until July at the earliest,  as the Republicans bicker about the headline bits of it.  The devil will, of course, be in the detail.

Epicurus and Secularism

Posted by on

This is the last of the Modern Philosophy series for the time being. I’ve really enjoyed writing about an Epicurean take on modern ideas, but I wanted to end the series for now to make my posts more varied. This is also a follow-up to the last Modern Philosophy post on Christianity, where I discussed Christian theology but not the role Christianity plays in contemporary political life. I must also add that I didn’t mean for post on Christianity to be so acerbic. Most Christians are fundamentally good people, I just take issue with many of their beliefs. 

It should go without saying that freedom of religion is essential to the functioning of any liberal democracy. In order to protect religious freedom, the state must be secular; if the state affiliates with any religious organisation, it will almost certainly enact legislation that discriminates in favour of that religious organisation. But just because the state should be secular, doesn’t mean that politicians have to be non-religious. Famously it was a Christian, William Wilberforce, who led the fight to abolish slavery in Britain(though slavery’s proponents were equally Christian.) Leaders of a wide variety of faiths have made immense contributions to political and social reform, and not just in Britain- Martin Luther King was a pastor.

However, the distinction between the private religious beliefs of an individual and their political outlook is not a straightforward one to make. Religions are amongst other things, systems of morality. They give people an ethical code that influences their views on a variety of policy issues, particularly the ‘hot-button’ issues like abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia. But everything from pacifism to the welfare state has been justified on a religious basis. The Christian socialists that constituted a majority of my teachers at secondary school believed their faith compelled them to oppose war and support the state’s efforts to look after the poor.

So it’s completely reasonable to take into account a candidate’s religious affiliation and beliefs when judging if they are suitable to hold office. During the 2008 Republican primaries, Christopher Hitchens described Mitt Romney’s Mormonism as ‘fair game’, because the Church of Latter-Day Saints did not admit black people during part of Romney’s adult lifetime. More recently, the former leader of the British Liberal Democrat party, Tim Farron, resigned because he believed being the leader of a liberal party was becoming incompatible with being a faithful Evangelical. He said that he remained a liberal as far as policy was concerned, but felt people were judging him for his personal views. Farron is obviously wrong if he is suggesting religious people are unwelcome in politics. Charles Kennedy was a successful Liberal Democrat leader and just as much a Christian as Farron. What people objected to was Farron’s views on the social issues- views that were a direct result of his religious beliefs. Those views may have an impact on how he thinks about those issues politically, despite him professing otherwise. Moreover, holding socially conservative opinions raises wider questions about Farron’s judgement and character.

Much has been made of the hardline Presbyterianism of the Northern Irish DUP, who have just formed a confidence and supply agreement with the Conservatives so the latter can govern. I doubt very much that the DUP will be able to impact social policy in Great Britain, because that would be seen as a foreign imposition. Rather, the DUP may actually push the Conservatives to the Left. On Brexit, the DUP want to continue an open border with the Irish Republic, and a comprehensive deal with the EU that includes a customs arrangement and tariff-free access to the Single Market. This increases the chances of a prolonged transition period to soften the immediate impact of leaving. It also means that May’s mantra, ‘No deal is better than a bad deal,’ will no longer guide the negotiations. Not having a deal is no longer an option. Besides Brexit, the DUP have won a £1 billion block grant to Northern Ireland. This has already shifted economic politics to the left, as Scottish and Welsh leaders are demanding extra funding be also given to them. It raises the question that if there’s no money left and we must tighten our belts, as the Tories repeatedly claim, then why is there enough money to keep them in power? There is a lot to worry about the deal with the DUP, but their religious views remain a secondary concern for the time being.

In defence of Christians, they are not the only people whose religious views should be up for scrutiny. It would be perfectly legitimate to ask questions to the Muslim mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, what his personal views are on the social issues. Now as Mayor of London, Khan is in no position to impact the sensitive issues of conscience. But imagine if he publicly stated that he believes homosexuality is a sin against Allah, even if he supports gay marriage as government policy. Would his left-wing following view him differently? Quite possibly. Christians are right that their religion is subject to public examination more frequently than any other. This is partly because Christianity is by far the most popular religion in the developed world, but the Christians’ critique remains truthful.

Having said that, Christians can hardly claim to be victims of a secular inquisition, at least anywhere in the developed world. In the United States, the right-wing media constantly portrays an image of Christians being attacked by militant Democrats who want to violate Christians’ religious freedom. This is a ludicrous assertion. Christians make up roughly 75% of America’s population. The non-affiliated make up only 20%. How 20% can be persecuting 75% is beyond silly. The reality is that American government and politics is overwhelmingly dominated by Christians, with the non-religious being hopelessly underrepresented. This doesn’t mean that the non-religious are suffering from formalised discrimination. But the reality is that Americans are more likely to vote for a Christian than a non-religious person, because they associate Christianity with decency and morality, and many view religion as a necessary pre-requisite to living a moral life. This is partly a hangover of the Cold War fear of ‘Godless communism.’ But if the Democrats really want representatives to be socially representative of their constituents, they should start pushing for more non-religious Congressmen and women, just as they already believe women and ethnic minorities should be better represented.

Overall, as I’ve said before, I don’t have a problem with people of any religious background who wants to make a difference in government. But that doesn’t mean your social views, which may be a result of your religious beliefs, should be free from proper scrutiny. In Western Europe, where the non-religious and non-practising make up the vast majority of the population, society needs to be kind and sensitive to the religious, and not make them feel as if they are being singled out for disproportionate criticism. Equally, in America, where most people at least say religion is important to them, more needs to be done to ensure the voices of the non-religious are heard in the public realm. The stigma against electing a non-religious representative must end. And the right-wing media must stop lying that Democrats’ support for social liberalism constitutes a violation of Christians’ religious freedom.

 

Best of the Week #4

Posted by on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03YjwYb7_J8. The first video in the Best of the Week series, a 5 minute opinion piece by Ezra Klein on why Trump’s policies are a greater scandal than his Russia ties. Trump promised to be a different sort of Republican, protecting entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, even if it came at the expense of wealthy people like him. Instead, he is completely at ease with a Senate Republican bill that cuts Medicaid considerably. His broken promises to both Republican primary voters and the general electorate ought to shame him.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/15/13593670/donald-trump-jonathan-haidt-social-media-polarization-europe-multiculturalism. An important piece on the detrimental effects of social media on politics, particularly in a multiethnic democracy that is increasingly tribalistic. Social media can insulate its users from having to engage with viewpoints they disagree with, creating an online echo chamber. When politics becomes based on ethnicity, this means people fail to see the political perspectives of other ethnic groups. The consequences are potentially dire. I agree with Haidt’s scepticism of social media, it’s a topic I shall elaborate upon in a future post.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/defending-white-interests-can-never-be-right-83hlb2xpm. Staying on the subject of identity politics, Aaronovitch argues that so-called ‘white interests’ can never be justified in a society where whites are the supermajority of the population, and thus do not face any challenge to their collective wellbeing. Any demands for ‘rights for whites’ will inevitably come at the expense of civil rights for minority groups. Intended for a British audience, but well worth a read if you aren’t British as well.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/06/does-working-class-need-ask-its-labour-party-back. Labour is increasingly becoming like the US Democratic Party. It does well amongst young people, ethnic minorities, graduates and urban residents. Similarly, the 2017 UK election made the Conservatives more like the Republicans: the party of the working class white rural voter who probably doesn’t have a degree. Like Republicans, Conservatives are more likely to be wealthy, but they live in areas with fewer opportunities and thus have a more acute sense of pessimism. A long read, but well worth it.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/view-from-switzerland_britain-is-the–laughing-stock-of-europe-/43270490. An idea of how Britain is increasingly perceived abroad, even from a conservative country outside the EU. If you’re British, this makes for grim but important reading.

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/brexiteers-versus-economists-one-year-on.html. A short blog on how contrary to popular perception, the economic forecasts of the Brexiteers have failed to materialise, and the much-maligned ‘experts’ may have been right after all. I still think it’s too early to tell how exactly Brexit will impact the UK economy, but this article confirms my already-pessimistic prognosis.

On another note, last week I posted about choir music. It turns out a lot of the titles I suggested were genetic titles that apply to lots of different pieces. I apologise for the error, it shows just how scant my musical knowledge is. I can’t remember the exact pieces of choir music I loved so much. But to compensate, here is the link to the Trinity College Choir archive. http://trinitycollegechoir.com/webcasts/listen-again/browse/ You can find some absolute gems in there. I’m aware that all of the articles I’ve recommended this week may leave you feeling despondent, so hopefully some good music will cheer you up!