Truby King and an origin of pervasive anxiety

Posted by on

Human beings possess a strong survival mechanism in the brain, directly linked to our bodies, able to signal Fight, Flight or Freeze.  When threatened our bodies are flooded with adrenaline. This part of our brains, primitive but effective, develops in utero starting at around 7 weeks. A baby, with this strong survival instinct, finds the world a scary place. If in hunger or pain, the child doesn’t know that they are not going to die.  It becomes stressed and makes this known by screaming, and needs to be comforted.  If it is not soothed by words or touch, it begins to develop a brain and bodily system that is on hyper-alert, something it might never grow out of.  

Recent findings in neuro-science show that early experience has a profound effect on the way the brain forms. It senses threats everywhere, and so it works too hard, too often and too long.  It is on permanent alert, fearful of confrontation, always wanting to please. This can in some cases turn into chronic attention seeking. Eternal vigilance” best describes the idea, and it is a lifetime sentence.

In the first part of the last century a New Zealander called Truby King created a nursing service.  The nurses were told to start discipline on day one. Babies should be made comfortable between feeds, but not be picked up, cuddled or reassured – at all.  

My sister and I are part of that generation. We had a Truby King nurse and were trained to have no ataraxia to speak of.

Truby King is best known for establishing the Plunket Society, set up to apply scientific principles to nutrition of babies, and strongly rooted in eugenics and patriotism. In 1917 “Save the Babies” Week had the slogan “The Race marches forward on the feet of Little Children”. In his first book on mothercare, “Feeding and Care of Baby”, Truby King sought to teach mothers domestic hygiene and childcare with the help of a network of specially trained nurses.

The Truby King method specifically emphasised regularity of feeding, sleeping and bowel movements, within a generally strict regimen supposed to build character by avoiding cuddling and other attention. It involved making the child comfortable, but not picking it up at all, whether crying or no. His methods were controversial. In 1914 the physician Agnes Elizabeth Lloyd Bennett publicly opposed his stance that higher education for women was detrimental to their maternal functions and hence to the human race. He also excited controversy, during his efforts to export his methods to Australia and Canada, owing to his views on infant feeding formulas. He believed in “humanized” milk with the protein reduced to 1.4% to match breast milk, against the general paediatric consensus at the time in favour of high protein feeds. The work of the Plunket Society was credited with lowering infant mortality in New Zealand from 88 per thousand in 1907 to 32 per thousand over the next thirty years, although it has since been argued that this was due less to its specific methods than to its general raising of awareness of childcare.

This stuff is thoroughly discredited now. The damage done affected at least a generation.
Why am I telling this story? Because we have to beware of self-promoting “experts” and the fads that are always appearing. Epicureans use common sense. But, in passing, it is Sir Frederick Truby King who is responsible for my interest in Epicureanism and the peace of mind it ought to bring.  Thanks, Fred.

An Epicurean pleasure!

Posted by on

Figures from France have revealed a tenfold increase in the number of Britons applying for French citizenship. They show that 386 Britons filed applications to become French in 2015, rising to 1,363 in 2016 and to 3,173 in 2017. Over the same period, the number of UK nationals obtaining French citizenship increased from 320 to 1,518. Fiona Mougenot, who runs an immigration consultancy in France, said many applicants were prompted by a wish to retain European citizenship.

Very sensible. If I didn’t already have two nationalities I would be tempted, too. The French way of life is changing; you can see this very clearly in Paris, which is becoming Americanised, for younger business people anyway. But outside Paris the pace of life, the countryside, the food, the wine, the language, (most of) the climate – all are a delight, despite de-population in country towns and villages. The French are now speaking more English, too.

The hypocrisy of libertarians

Posted by on

I first became interested in politics through reading books by libertarians. I read books by Richard Maybury, who amongst other things, believed that America should never have got involved with WW1 and WW2, that Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional, and that heroin should be legal. However wacky his ideas may seem in retrospect, his writing style was concise and easy to understand. His ideas resonated with me at the time, because I went to quite a rough school where I believed most people didn’t want to work hard, so the thought of a welfare state bailing them out seemed unbearable. I believed in a social Darwinist paradise, where everyone succeeded or failed on their own merits. I also believed that freedom was the most important principle, even if it came at the expense of equality, order or social cohesion.

Aged 16, I changed schools to a better one. It was at my new school that I realised my libertarianism had been mistaken. For the first time, I met other people who described themselves as libertarians. But they weren’t consistent in their belief in freedom. They wanted the state to enforce cultural norms to promote a strong national identity, not allowing minorities to visibly express their own distinct way of life. They advocated an extremely tough law and order stance, even with evidence showing that high incarceration rates do not necessarily reduce crime. They also wanted more government spending on things that would benefit them, such as more education investment or subsidised trains. I realised many so-called libertarians were simply conservative nationalists, who only called themselves libertarians to appeal to young people.

The reality is that pure libertarianism isn’t liberating at all. People won’t be free if the government doesn’t provide certain social goods. People won’t be free to get any job they want if the government won’t provide a decent education to everyone. Freedom to move is restricted if the country’s transportation system is poor. A certain degree of regulation is actually liberating because it gives businesses certainty they won’t be discriminated against. That’s the purpose of the European Single Market- to provide a level playing field for all European businesses by subjecting them to the same rules. Most importantly, conjectured notions of freedom mean nothing to those stuck in poverty, which will increase dramatically in the absence of any social security system.

Now I haven’t completely renounced my libertarian views. A healthy scepticism of the state is good, because both historically speaking and even today, the biggest oppressor of humanity is government. Even in liberal democracies, civil liberties are violated far too often. Outside the developed world, the state is frequently responsible for brutal repression and mass murder. Governments have a legal monopoly on violence, which means they are uniquely dangerous and must be held to account. I also think a scepticism of government economic intervention is good. Government spending is often wasteful and inefficient, even as markets are far from perfect either. For the most part, government ownership of industry is less preferable to a highly competitive and well-regulated private market. Libertarian economic thinking is particularly useful when understanding monetary policy; artificially low interest rates, quantitive easing and fractional reserve banking frequently lead to credit bubbles, which when burst, cause immense damage.

Overall on most issues, I still lean in a libertarian direction. I’m often opposed to government attempts to change personal behaviour, even if much of that behaviour is bad, i.e eating too much, smoking, taking drugs, having unprotected sex with multiple people etc… I don’t like the government getting involved in lots of foreign conflicts. I still think protecting individual liberty and private property rights is crucial for any society to flourish. But the doctrinaire libertarian orthodoxy of my teenage years has been thoroughly renounced. Partly because as a general rule, I no longer indulge in utopian thinking. But mostly because individuals are most free when they are healthy, well educated, and secure from deprivation. A strong safety net allows people to take risks, thereby enhancing the dynamic economy libertarians purport to champion. There’s nothing wrong with advocating entrepreneurialism and a can-do spirit. But sometimes, we need a little bit of help along the way.

Wendy Cope, British poet

Posted by on

“Bloody men are like bloody buses —
You wait for about a year
And as soon as one approaches your stop
Two or three others appear.

You look at them flashing their indicators,
Offering you a ride.
You’re trying to read the destinations,
You haven’t much time to decide.

If you make a mistake, there is no turning back.
Jump off, and you’ll stand there and gaze
While the cars and the taxis and lorries go by
And the minutes, the hours, the days.”

Wendy Cope, “Serious Concerns”

If you liked that one…………….

“The day he moved out was terrible –
That evening she went through hell.
His absence wasn’t a problem
But the corkscrew had gone as well.”

Wendy Cope, also in “Serious Concerns”

Why did I pick these items? Epicureanism shouldn’t be dry and dusty. Funny things are important pleasures.

Is integration really such a good thing?

Posted by on

Why does everyone assume these days that integration is such a good thing, asks Giles Fraser in The Guardian. Louise Casey’s “community report”, published last week, simply took it for granted that it’s inherently unhealthy for communities to keep themselves to themselves. But why shouldn’t they preserve their distinct character? It’s precisely that which makes them a community in the first place. “What a miserably grey one­-dimensional place [the world] would be if the dominant model of middle-of-the-road liberal secular capitalism became the only acceptable way of living.” To hear Communities Secretary Sajid Javid berating people for not embracing Britain’s “shared values” is to be reminded of the Borg, those Star Trek villains who travel the universe forcibly subsuming other cultures. “We are the Borg,” they say. “Surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.” There we have it. For integrationists, “good community is little more than a dash of cultural colour at homeopathic levels: a calendar of exotic festivals, some religious fancy dress”. But having a different way of life, or seeing the world in a different way? Please God, no!  (Giles Fraser, The Guardian)

Well, Giles, thank you for your perspective, but, as a liberal Epicurean who is dedicated to human rights and the decent treatment of all people, wherever they come from, I have to disagree and vote for integration. I believe that cultural diversity is a bit over-sold.

Human beings feel comfortable in “tribes”. We no longer call them that, but this is an inescapable fact. A “tribe” is a group on people with shared values, outlooks, even the same politics.  You feel comfortable with your tribe, whether it is based on religion, education, language or skin colour.  People with shared values feel they can say what they think and know they will not be harshly judged.  Constantly being on edge, anxiously avoiding offense to some religionist or foreigner is not fun. In the long term it is stressful. There are areas in the UK where English isn’t the lingua franca after three generations. This is divisive and, I think, discourteous to the natives. If you desire to move to another country and it is hospitable enough to welcome you, good manners demand that you make an effort to fit in.  To adopt any other attitude is to be arrogant. “You’ve joined us; we haven’t joined you”.

Having said that, everyone of whatever race, colour or social position, should be treated with kindness, courtesy and good humour  They should have help with housing, schooling etc and encouraged to be a productive member of society.  If, like the young ladies who audited my old company’s books, you have educated yourself, thrown off the veil and joined the majority culture, you will be highly respected, not to mention esrn well. Why not? They would have had much less respect where their parents came from.

Doing something practical about inequality

Posted by on

Let us have a discussion about what is “political”!

Below is a short piece about inequality in the United States, and how the Oregon government is going to tax companies with “extreme CEO-worker pay gaps”. To the furious CEOs and committed libertarian capitalists I’m sure this is purely (party) political, to be overturned at the earliest opportunity. Other people believe that extreme inequality is disastrously bad for the country and is not likely to end up happily. History tells us that societies that are not cohesive and are regarded as unfair break apart and violence eventually ensues. To me this is a social problem and system break-down that heralds political turmoil, is very much in the purview of Epicurean commentators. Aside from it being immoderate, social upheaval is bad for pleasure and peace of mind. If you disagree please explain.

“A year ago the Portland, Oregon local government voted to slap a surtax on corporations that pay their chief executive officers more than 100 times what they pay their typical workers. This is the first tax penalty on corporations with extreme CEO-worker pay gaps in America, and may not be the last.
“Much like the Fight for $15, this bold reform could well spread like wildfire. Indeed, we may look back at the Oregon vote as the dawn of a new “pay ratio politics.” The key driver of the Portland tax: city council member Steve Novick, who has pressed on doggedly to win passage of this landmark reform.
“The Portland surtax will rely on new federal pay ratio data. Thanks to a Securities and Exchange Commission regulation announced last year, publicly held corporations will this year have to start calculating the ratio between their CEO and median worker pay. The first of these ratios will go public about now.
“These federally mandated pay ratio disclosures will make it easy for states and cities to adopt Portland-style surtaxes — if they have the political will to do so. In Portland, local officials had that will, and their deliberations showed just how broad the potential political support may be for leveraging the public purse against corporate pay practices that increase inequality.
For Novick, the tax is all about sparking a national movement against inequality. “CEO pay is not just an eye-catching example of, but a major cause of, extreme economic inequality,” he notes. “Extreme economic inequality is — next to global warming — the biggest problem we have in our state”. (Onequality.org)

Rage on social media

Posted by on

There’s no such thing as any season of goodwill when it comes to political debate on social media. It’s all about fury and outrage. Even when tweets are funny, you can taste the “anger inside the sugar coating of smug satire”. Rage is contagious – it spreads like an infection across online forums, which have a vested interest in stoking it. It’s part of what has been dubbed the “outrage economy”. Shrill, divisive opinions attract eyeballs and yield a “double payoff” for publishers and platforms, as posts are then shared by people who both agree and violently disagree with them. Sharers come to enjoy, even grow addicted to, this easy way of displaying righteous indignation. And “so the cycle of provocation continues”, as people yield to the temptation to correct perceived wrongness with “a caustic retort” online and one side’s scratch becomes “the other side’s itch”. Any sense of empathy or curiosity is lost in the “riotous rhetoric of online dispute”. We can’t do without our devices, but now and then we desperately need to log off for a few days to regain a sense of perspective.(Rafael Behr, The Guardian)

Moderation is what partly distinguishes Epicureanism from other philosophies. Yes, for good reasons this blog has liberal, un-didactic views – we should be finding ways to get on with one another, not using derogatory or foul language against those who disagree with us.  One can have passionately held views, but listen and understand the views of others, even if they have echoes of the days of Mussolini or Hitler.  Quietly asssembling your rational reasons for disagreeing is the trick, and asking (with a smile detectable in your words) “have you ever considered this from another point of view?”. Of course, dealing with mentally sick or deranged people is an altogether more tricky matter. Epicurus would advise us, in the cause of calm, to ignore them and refuse to engage.

Child rearing

Posted by on

Experts in child-rearing believe we have a lot of it wrong these days. They think parents are too invested in their children’s minute to minute happiness. They are too protective, too eager for their children to be proved academically outstanding, too reluctant to accept the kids are not all going to excel equally, indeed, far too hands-on. The experts have the following historical and psychlogical points of view:

1. A strong emotional and physical attachment to at least one primary caregiver (parent, aunt, adopter and so on) is said these days to be crucial.  But for most of history, and across all cultures to varying extents, the emphasis has been for the mother not to get too emotionally invested in a newborn or young infant who might die or sap her energy and health, and consequently the well-being of the family or community.  No apparent damage seems to have been done to children, as far as we know.

2. Co-sleeping, on-demand feeding and constant parent-child play – now associated with “attachment parenting” should serve both parties or be abandoned.

3.  Too much is made of the uniqueness of every child, alongside an “everyone’s-a-winner” mentality. Obsessed with children’s happiness, US parents, “tolerate mediocre academic performance and rail against teachers who expose our children’s failings”. Treating children with kid gloves for fear of harming their self-esteem is doing them no favours.

4.  Learning through observation, play and autonomy are critical.  Children are more resilient and inquisitive than we think.

5.  There is too much emphasis on shielding children from harm, thereby undermining their natural inclination to learn adult survival skills, social and practical.

6.  Benign neglect in parenting can be positive. “Go ahead; try it. They’ll thank you later on”.

7.  Collaborative projects and play are key to creativity. Formal classroom work is less important. Children need balance between freedom and structure to optimise their creativity.  There is a programming language called Scratch, which is supposed to be good, also Minecraft – let the kiddies loose!

“It is time to unwrap the seedlings from the cotton wool in which we have enwrapped children, plant them in rich soil and make sure they don’t grow up into another generation of overprotected kids”.

It would be interesting to know what Epicurus would have thought of the efforts to overturn the generally adopted modern methods of child-rearing. I strongly suspect he would have concurred. Something radical has to be done about the unhappiness of children today. Not all of it can be put down to Facebook et al.

Book information:

“Raising Children: Surprising insights from other cultures”, by David Lancy,Published by: Cambridge University Press
“Lifelong Kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers, and play” by Mitchel Resnick, Published by: MIT Press
(Based on an a review of the above books by Shaoni Bhattacharya, New Scientist)

The latest UK privatisation rip-off and disaster

Posted by on

Questions are swirling about the British government’s apparently lax oversight of its major outsourcing contractor Carillion before it collapsed last week, leaving thousands of British private-sector workers unpaid. Up to 30,000 small firms are thought to be owed money by the sprawling company. It has emerged that in the three months leading up to its liquidation Carillion was not overseen by a crown representative, which usually happens when a government supplier has financial difficulties. The Cabinet Office minister, David Lidington, has told parliament the government will continue to pay those among Carillion’s 19,500 UK staff working in public-sector jobs, such as NHS cleaners and school catering, but thousands more in the private sector face being cut loose. Jeremy Corbyn says Carillion’s collapse proves it is “time to put an end to the rip-off privatisation policies that have done serious damage to our public services and fleeced the public of billions of pounds”. Vince Cable, the Lib Dem leader, said: “The government has mismanaged contracts so that fat cat bosses are able to get away with millions, hedge funds are able to make millions, while their jobs are at risk.” (The Guardian, Jan 16, 2018)

The National Audit Office has looked at 700 existing public-private projects and concluded that there was little evidence that any of them have delivered any financial benefits. They are generally 40% more costly than if they had continued in government management. There are currently 716 operational private finance deals with a capital value of 60 billion pounds. Annual charges for these deals amounted to 10.3bn pounds in 2016-17,and even if no new ones are entered into the existing ones are due to continue until the 2040s, costing nearly 200 billion pounds.

Privatisation is gospel to “conservative” politicians, whose conservation seems to be restricted to conserving pally relationships with Big Money and (are we allowed to guess?) reaping just rewards for their pains? Privatisation is window-dressing at best; at worst it is jobs for the boys, well paid ones, too. The British taxpayer has been ripped off for too long.

How Britain should treat Trump.

Posted by on

Donald Trump is by far the most unpopular US president amongst British people in living memory, and that’s a huge low considering how unfavourable George Bush was with Brits. Admittedly, part of that is post-colonial snobbery; Trump epitomises an American brashness and distinct lack of intelligence and sophistication, serving a British narrative of cultural superiority. But it’s also because of Trump’s policies. The wall, the attempted Muslim travel ban, his support for torture, and the pretence of being one of the people while passing enormous tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans- are all met with strong disapproval. Britain is hardly alone in disliking Trump, though perhaps the British have been more vocal in our criticism than people elsewhere.

Despite an anti-Trump consensus in Britain, the country is divided as to how to treat him. For the left, we should distance ourselves from him as possible. Trump should not be given a state visit, nor should Britain sing his praises in exchange for the possibility of a trade deal. The left regards Trump as too toxic and prejudice to work with. It’s also worth noting that due to his historic unpopularity, Trump will probably be gone by 2021 if not sooner if he is impeached. So the economic consequences of not working with him are minimal. It is more important to build good relationships with Democrats, who will soon retake the US Federal Government. The Democrats will not work as well with people who they believe strongly supported Trump.

Much of the right disagrees. In occasional instances, such as Nigel Farage, the right likes Trump. What is more common is the belief that the structural forces that made Trump president also benefit the right in Britain- concerns about immigration, opposition to social liberalism, scepticism of globalisation, the desire for a business-friendly politics. The demographics of Trump support and Conservative support in 2017 are roughly the same: older, rural, white voters without university degrees. Therefore Britain should work closely with Trump for our benefit, even if we may disagree with some of Trump’s more erratic outbursts. Vocal Brexiteer and Tory backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg recently met with Steve Bannon for precisely this reason. The right favours significant divergence from the EU’s economic orbit. To compensate for the losses this would create, they regard it as essential Britain signs a free trade deal with America, and quickly, even if it means dealing with Trump and downgrading Britain’s regulatory standards and welfare state in the process.

To a limited extent, the right has a point. There has been a far greater public outcry over the possibility of a Trump state visit than there ever was over dictators visiting Britain. The UK frequently plays host to leaders of authoritarian regimes such as China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kenya. Working with people we don’t like is often necessary, such as working with Stalin to defeat Hitler. Britain should have a cordial relationship with the US, not seeking to antagonise Trump or comment on America’s domestic affairs unless it has a direct impact on its own wellbeing. I’m not opposed to a state visit for Trump; we may not like him, but he is still President of the US, a crucial ally and trade partner.

Where I strongly disagree with the right is that I don’t believe Trump is a reliable ally, so we can’t depend on him. Cutting ties with the EU for the possibility of a trade deal with the US is an exercise in futility. Partly because Trump is an instinctive protectionist, as clearly seen in the Department of Commerce’s 300% tariff on Bombardier aeroplane imports from Northern Ireland. Trump sees the world as a zero-sum game, where a good deal for other countries must come at America’s expense and vice versa. He believes the increasing amount of trade China and Mexico are doing is to America’s detriment. A US-UK trade deal, even one negotiated with a Democrat, would almost certainly be impossible to pass the British Parliament. There would be concerns about British agriculture being unable to compete with cheap US imports, the opening of the NHS to American procurement companies, and a general fear of being dominated by American multinational corporations. It’s also worth noting that Britain’s current trading relationship with the EU is far more sophisticated and comprehensive than anything possible with a conventional free trade agreement.

Britain should treat Trump like it treats everyone else. It should show Trump the respect that his office is due. But Britain must never sacrifice its standards or values to curry favour with an unstable, unpredictable, and increasingly disliked man.

 

How to solve the loneliness crisis

Posted by on

We’ve long been concerned with the loneliness crisis here on the Epicurus Blog. Loneliness is becoming more of a problem, and not just amongst the elderly. Despite the rise of social media (or perhaps because of it), we have fewer friends, and we aren’t as close to them. Ties between neighbours aren’t as strong as they once were. We often live far from our hometowns and families, to go to university or get a better paid job. Traditional social institutions like churches, trade unions, working men’s clubs and political parties have declined. This has resulted in a whole host of problems, such as drug abuse, alcoholism, increased rates of depression and other mental illnesses, and in extreme cases, suicide. More information can be found here: http://epicurus.today/the-age-of-loneliness-by-hgeorge-monbiot/.

However, it would be a mistake to view increasing rates of loneliness as an inevitable part of the modern world. I think there are many things that can be done to reduce it, without sacrificing economic growth or the freedom to migrate. It is not globalisation or capitalism per se that is causing loneliness, but the way our society has handled it.

Firstly, we need a rethink of what retirement should look like. Many people retire, only to find that they lose contact with their friends from work, and no longer have a strong social group. Instead of insisting people retire suddenly at a given age, why not make it more common to work part time or flexible hours during your late fifties and early sixties. That way, instead of being pushed into a sudden change of lifestyle, people would have the chance to build social ties outside of work while continuing their friendships with colleagues. Retirees should also aim to live as close to their families as possible, so they can help their children and see their grandchildren. There should be more voluntary activities and societies for retirees.

A significant contributor to loneliness, at least in the USA and the UK, is excessively long working hours. No employment contract should mandate working more than 40 hours a week, nor should it ever be compulsory to work Sundays, with the exception of the armed forces and emergency services. This wouldn’t have the impact on economic growth that may be assumed; Germany’s economy is very productive, and they work the fewest hours in Europe. This should be accompanied by a culture change towards a continental European-style aversion to shopping on Sundays. It may be a bit inconvenient, but we would all be better off. Spending time with friends and family is more important than the right to shop whenever you want.

There also need to be more activities for young people. Traditional centres of entertainment like nightclubs, pubs and live music venues have declined, sometimes precipitously, to the detriment of our economy and social fabric. The government should do more to promote the nighttime economy, by reducing business rates and taxes on alcohol bought at establishments- offset by higher taxes on supermarket alcohol. Restrictive licensing laws should be relaxed.  There also need to be more activities for young people who don’t like alcohol or sport. Universities fill this gap quite well with societies, but those who don’t go to university are often left in a social and cultural vacuum.  Making transport affordable for young people is also crucial in an era where we live increasingly further apart.

It’s worth noting how common loneliness is amongst young families. It’s very common for people to have children, only to find that their children take up so much of their time, their friendships suffer considerably. This may be one of the hardest instances of loneliness to solve, since children have to be looked after, and childcare is very expensive. Virtually all social groups for people with young children are geared exclusively towards women. So its going to be very difficult to improve social ties between young families as long as men are expected to be the breadwinners, while women do the bulk of raising children. I’m all in favour of a Nordic-style system of ultra-flexible maternity and paternity leave. But ultimately, our culture has to change, something which isn’t likely as long as our aversion to stay at home dads remains.

In this post, I’ve tried to be optimistic in my conception of a society that isn’t as atomised and individualistic as our own. And while I certainly believe we can do far more to address loneliness, the long term trends are only getting worse. Amongst ambitious young people at the top universities, there is a prioritisation of career success and being culturally globalised above maintaining good contact with existing friends. As a young man in Britain, I’ve lost a lot of friends due to people moving away and wanting a radically different life. For young people who don’t go to university, there is a lack of investment (both public and private) in activities for them. Getting a job and a relationship is seen as more important than making friends. An increasing awareness of mental health issues is encouraging. But British and American culture is incredibly materialistic and society incredibly divided. I believe the loneliness crisis is going to get a lot more severe.

 

This is how it’s done! True political spin!

Posted by on

Judy Wallman Trump, a professional genealogy researcher in southern California, was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that President Donald Trump’s great, great uncle, Remus Trump, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and President Trump share this common ancestor.

The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory. On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: “Remus Trump, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.”

So Judy recently e-mailed the President for information about their great, great uncle, Remus.

Believe it or not, President Trump’s staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:

“Remus Trump was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory. His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.”

What can one possibly add?

Free movement within the EU may not survive.

Posted by on

The free movement of people is the EU’s “most incendiary issue”.   This “sacred principle” to which the Brussels ideologues remain devoted isn’t just a sticking point in Brexit negotiations, it’s a source of tension across the Union: currently, France violates its spirit by patrolling the Italian border to stop migrants slipping through. More than that, it’s played a key role in creating Europe’s mass migration problem. Movement of people from poor, chaotic countries to rich, stable ones has long been a fact of life – what’s new is “the miraculous invitation offered by a borderless Europe”. It sends a message to the world: “set foot on any Greek island, or on the southernmost rocky prominence of Italy”, and you can “make your way unhindered to the flourishing nations of Western Europe”. Underpinning it is a basic refusal to accept that member states have different needs: northern ones benefit from an influx of cheap labour, but many of the migrants are trapped in Italy, which has 40% youth unemployment. To save the EU, free movement will have to be restricted. The only question is how organised or chaotic that process is going to be.  (Janet Daley,The Sunday Telegraph).

Of course, the above is written by a journalist on a reliably right- wing  paper with a bias towards Brexit.   Nice remarks about the EU are not plentiful in the Telegraph.  However,  this is a very fraught subject.  What  she writes is valid, especially for stressed countries like Greece and Turkey, which have taken the brunt of migration from Syria.  But if Northern countries want cheap labour so badly, why are migrants trapped in Italy?  The reason is political, not economic – the resentment caused in Germany, Sweden etc by too many migrants applesring too quickly.

Could the EU survive without freedom of movement?  Why can’t you have a free trade area or a customs union and still restrict movement of labour?  The answer is that you could, but free movement of services, goods, capital and labour are sacrosanct in Brussels, which wants a level playing field in standards , work rules etc, but also yearns for political union from the Atlantic to the borders of Russia.   This sounds like an empire in all but name, and many people object to losing their national identity. Some sort of compromise probably needs to be negotiated if the EU isn’t going to succumb to right- wing political parties fed up with freedom of movement.

 

The cry of the super-rich

Posted by on

 I Did it All Myself                     

 I did it all myself.

For sure, I did it all myself.

I never used networks or old college friends

On whom the success of so many depends.

I went out to work at the age of eighteen

Thin as a rake, but determined and lean,

And I laid rows of bricks and mixed tons of cement,

Made ten bucks a day for my food and my rent.

Twelve hours with no break did I labor on site,

And I did my book-learning by candle at night.

Then one day the boss man said, “Hey, come here, kid,

I’ve been watching you, boy, and I like what you did.

You’ve got brains, you work hard, but your problem is knowledge.”

So I chucked it and went to community college.

I learned my house building from sewer to gable,

And earned extra money by waiting on table.

 

Then I built up a  company, just as I’d planned,

Scouring the country, developing land.

I have been real successful, the business has grown,

And I’ve ten million bucks that I’ve made on my own.

I’d have made twice as much and could maybe relax

If it wasn’t for government, liberals and tax,

The planners, the lawyers, the dumb regulations,

Activist judges, red-tape strangulations;

The NIMBYS who get up a great caterwaul

When you build on a green field a new shopping mall.

It’s always the do-gooding, meddling few

Who complain at the loss of some trees or a view.

 

No, all the restrictions should now be relaxed

And government prohibitions be axed.

We don’t need these laws, they all need up-ending,

And let’s call a halt to all government spending.

Send bureaucrats off up to Mars in a rocket,

But stop pilfering profit from my hard-earned pocket.

Sack all pen-pushers, ignore stupid rules

Made for the work-shy and drawn up by fools.

The need for it’s gone, it is all over-blown.

After all, what I’ve done, I have done on my own.

………..Truth replies

Are you telling me your parents had nothing to do

With the bundle of talents and hang-ups that’s you?

Where is the mention of school on your part,

That taught you the culture and gave you a start?

You must owe a debt to some of your teachers,

Those lousily paid and unrecognized creatures.

Who established the college you studied at later?

It wasn’t the wages you earned as a waiter.

Who paid for the roads that we all take for granted?

Our whole infrastructure was not simply planted,

But grew from decades of investment, and sacks

Of public subventions you now spurn as “tax”.

What is the value you put upon peace,

Containment of crime and the role of police?

 

Who bought your houses, your suburban sprawls,

Your gas stations, offices, car parks and malls?

Why, government workers, contractors and such

And similar folk whom you now hate so much.

The fortune Five Hundred fattens and waxes

On recycled money from Federal taxes;

Directly or not, here’s a thought to astound:

You probably shared in this merry-go-round!

Who laid the ground rules that draw to this nation

Immigrants swelling a huge population,

All needing housing?  These guys you can thank

For increasing your profits and cash in your bank.

Have you had no advantage from new medication?

Half the research is paid from taxation.

Have you had no advantage from rules about drugs,

Or water we drink, free of threatening bugs?

I bet were you sick I would hear through your sobs

“Wish they’d get a grip and start doing their jobs.”

Scrap Social Security?  Wow, you are plucky,

But perhaps, just like you, everyone will get lucky,

The market might rise and its rise might not vary,

Believe that? Believe in the good Christmas Fairy!

 

Thank God for the people who faithfully strive

To frame equal rules which have let business thrive,

Where corruption is modest, the playing field fair

And the whole business culture’s not governed by fear.

You’d have a real reason to grumble and moan

If you had to do business in Sierra Leone.

 

No, none of us prosper alone, I would say.

A little humility goes a long way.

Robert Hanrott,       January 2006

The dynamics of American decline

Posted by on

“In the decade before Donald Trump entered the Oval Office, there were already signs of a long-term trajectory of decline, even if the key figures in a Washington shrouded in imperial hubris preferred to ignore that reality. Not only has the new president’s maladroit diplomacy accelerated this trend, but it has illuminated it in striking way.

“Over the past half-century, the American share of the global economy has, for instance, fallen from 40% in 1960 to 22% in 2014 to just 15% in 2017 (as measured by the realistic index of purchasing power parity). Many experts now agree that China will surpass the U.S., in absolute terms, as the world’s number one economy within a decade.

“As its global economic dominance fades, its clandestine instruments of power have been visibly weakening as well. The NSA’s worldwide surveillance of a remarkable array of foreign leaders, as well as millions of the inhabitants of their countries, was once a relatively cost-effective instrument for the exercise of global power. Now, thanks in part to Edward Snowden’s revelations about the agency’s snooping and the anger of targeted allies, the political costs have risen sharply. Similarly, during the Cold War, the CIA manipulated dozens of major elections worldwide. Now, the situation has been reversed with Russia using its sophisticated cyberwarfare capabilities to interfere in the 2016 American presidential campaign — a clear sign of Washington’s waning global power.

“Most striking of all, Washington now faces the first sustained challenge to its geopolitical position in Eurasia. By opting to begin constructing a “new silk road,” a trillion-dollar infrastructure of railroads and oil pipelines across that vast continent, and preparing to build naval bases in the Arabian and South China seas, Beijing is mounting a sustained campaign to undercut Washington’s long dominance over Eurasia”. (excerpt from The World according to Trump, Or How to Build a Wall and Lose an Empire”. By Alfred W. McCoy

My comment:  It doesn’t nearly end there. The educational system is all awry.  The costs have sky-rocketed as universities have invested huge sums in …sports facilities and expensive sports staffing, and then put lousily-paid adjunct professors in front of paying students. The level of general knowledge is getting worse (history? dismal; you can’t run an empire if you know no history).  The medical system (I sound like a record) is only o.k if you are rich;  in fact life generally is great – as long as you are rich.  You now have a President who wants to halt immigration and build a useless wall if he can, without asking who is to do the painting and plumbing. The constant flashes of racism and shootings of black men by white police hide the fact that too many are indifferent to foreigners and have been taught to fear them, especially moslems.   The hi-tech industries of California seem to be staffed by Indians, as far as I can see.  Americans don’t have the skills? Visit MIT, as my wife and I did a while ago,  and you imagine you are in Hong Kong or Peking  (they have to have an off-campus establishment for secret work, where presumably the  Chinese are absent).

Even though as a teenager I and my school friends all knew the days of the British Empire were ending, the interesting thing debated in the Debate Society was what would come after the end of it.  But meanwhile the media was running daily, copious pieces about the Commonwealth and remaining dependencies.  People were engaged and interested.  The UK was an outward looking country.  Huge numbers of men and women had lived and served overseas  (my sister in India, myself in Cyprus, for instance).  Compare that with the United States, where the people with foreign experience are the military and a handful of foreign service officers and adventurous students.   What goes on in, say the Middle East remains of little interest to most people, except in the Washington bubble.   This is not healthy.