It was reported this week that the combined wealth of the top thousand in the UK now stands at £360bn. This is three times higher than when New Labour took power ten years ago. These days some financiers seem to be getting US$1 billion annual bonuses! Is our only measure of success and morality to be made in money?
It also cannot surely be true that a 'New Labour' policy actually wishes to promote this division of national wealth. Is it fair? In a market economy, it is natural and right to allow the forces of supply/demand to govern much of the economic activity that takes place. However it cannot be an absolute priority that in a democratic society government should have no role to play at all in how wealth is made or shared out. Society has an interest! We must be reaching a limit now, and it cannot be right that decisions for society as a whole depend on the personal views of a very few, just because of money. You might of course argue that these 1000 rich people in the UK represent the brightest and the best of our nation, and should naturally be allowed to make political decisions for the rest of us, but I doubt if that is true!
Other aspects are causing concern. It does not seem to me to be right that there is no upper limit to the wealth any one individual should be allowed to control. Our laws should not be so restrictive as to protect the interests of only the very rich. on the other hand it is most important that those with inventive minds should be encouraged to develop new things and benefit personally from doing so. It would seem that the individual should benefit within his own lifetime, but that it is not the responsibility of society as a whole to guarantee that the inventors' heirs should benefit to the same extent. I see no problem in allowing untalented children to inherit something significant, but perhaps this should be measured in a few millions rather than billions. Society requires some balance. However charitable and good a man may be, he should not alone be allowed to bend society to his own way of thinking!
There is undoubtedly a problem of how to encourage costly research by business by allowing them to make a fair profit. Set against this, must be doubts whether we can really in a civilised society allow the poor to die in millions every year of diseases such as HIV, malaria, cancer, tuberculosis etc, merely because there is no profit to be made. The same might be said about famine, drought, violence and war where again we fail all the time.
Charles Dickens was most upset by the attitude of the American government because in the 19th century there was no copyright law in the USA, books printed in England were pirated in the USA without the payment of any royalties to the authors.
A broader view must now also be taken over the way the Americans and other Western countries pirate the brains of developing countries and persuade them to leave home to work in the West. Immigration of professors, doctors and scientists to the West is also a form of pirating intellectual property - only that the 'property' resides in the heads of clever people rather than on patent and copyright documents. Pillaging the schools and colleges of the developing world by the West for intellectual excellence is hardly a good example when at the same time we argue that patents, copyrights, and brands, often made by these immigrants, should be sacrosanct (by twisting the arms of politicians) for a long time ahead.
In a world where individuals and companies can earn billions, we need to rethink and explain more clearly why we are so strict on the theft of intellectial property when at the same time millons die of disease and we allow individuals to decide how our societie shsould be run - by the power of the purse. My suggestion is that nations should fund generously research that affects us all (malaria) until a solution is found. For individuals we should cap the wealth that any one person can accumulate in a life time by judicious taxation. We cannot call ourselves civilised if we ruthlessly exploit every business opportunity while millions die every year through neglect.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Training Children to Eat
Of course I agree with the idea that babies should be breast-fed. In fact I was recently surprised to read that many modern mothers still think that powdered milk is just as good as breast milk! I thought we had solved that one 30 years ago. Perhaps every generation has to begin again.
As a father and a grandfather, I have suffered vicariously for many years watching mothers forcing those extra few spoonfuls into the mouth a child, who looks to me to be on the verge of vomiting and who is intelligent enough to know even at the age of two or three what a sympathetic grandfather is already thinking. I have never really understood this compulsion in women to force their children to eat!
It could be of course that nature and evolution has inculcated into women the feeling that since food is a scarce commodity the tribe may not eat again for many days. We must eat as much as possible as quickly as possible. Who knows when we may eat again!
My method in teaching children to eat is quite the opposite - at great personal sacrifice (in gaining weight) to myself. If a child does not eat in the time allotted, I eat their share instead. They then have to wait to the next meal. This sort of competition teaches children from an early age that they will go hungry if they complain too much or seem too reluctant to eat. Even in evolutionary terms children need to learn how to look after themselves early on. Male lions after all always get the lion's share, and cubs need to learn this quickly or die.
I am not a doctor, but I can't help wondering whether people who suffer from anorexia must have developed an unhealthy dislike for food at a very early age. All those extra spoonfuls forced into their little mouths at the age of two or three may have lasting and harmful effects.
Certainly using my methods, my family has never suffered from not wanting to eat. Indeed so successful is my method that I now need to introduce a counterbalance - we do seem to eat too much chocolate, cream and cake! I am working on it. At least we are not thin!
As a father and a grandfather, I have suffered vicariously for many years watching mothers forcing those extra few spoonfuls into the mouth a child, who looks to me to be on the verge of vomiting and who is intelligent enough to know even at the age of two or three what a sympathetic grandfather is already thinking. I have never really understood this compulsion in women to force their children to eat!
It could be of course that nature and evolution has inculcated into women the feeling that since food is a scarce commodity the tribe may not eat again for many days. We must eat as much as possible as quickly as possible. Who knows when we may eat again!
My method in teaching children to eat is quite the opposite - at great personal sacrifice (in gaining weight) to myself. If a child does not eat in the time allotted, I eat their share instead. They then have to wait to the next meal. This sort of competition teaches children from an early age that they will go hungry if they complain too much or seem too reluctant to eat. Even in evolutionary terms children need to learn how to look after themselves early on. Male lions after all always get the lion's share, and cubs need to learn this quickly or die.
I am not a doctor, but I can't help wondering whether people who suffer from anorexia must have developed an unhealthy dislike for food at a very early age. All those extra spoonfuls forced into their little mouths at the age of two or three may have lasting and harmful effects.
Certainly using my methods, my family has never suffered from not wanting to eat. Indeed so successful is my method that I now need to introduce a counterbalance - we do seem to eat too much chocolate, cream and cake! I am working on it. At least we are not thin!
War and Violence
In 12th century England, William Marshall, as a little boy, was given by his father to King Stephen as a hostage for his good behaviour! The King rather liked the little boy and eventually returned him safely to his family - instead of hanging him from the battlements in reprisal. How brutal and uncivilised people were in those days - prepared to execute a little boy if it became necessary! Chivalry was tempered by an acceptance of violence.
There was even a time (the peace of God) in the 11th century when the Christian Church was close to banning the use of violence on a Saturday or Sunday, and even the carrying of weapons at all. How far we have regressed since those times!
I apologise to all those who undertook war in past centuries if I once thought them brutal and uncivilised. We are worse! Today I am very unclear what rules apply! Indeed what rules apply to anyone contemplating the use of force. I took it for granted that in war, the Geneva Convention applied. I am surprised to find that in certain circumstances the Geneva Convention could be overruled by the say-so of top politicians. I was 12 years old when the Nuremberg trials set a new standard for the punishment of international genocide and crime. In 60 years since, we have forgotten already what Nuremberg meant and it looks as if those making decisions today however bad will get away scot free!
We seem to have lawyers arguing as public affair Representatives that even torture is acceptable in certain circumstances and that perpetual imprisonment without trial is possible if we dislike those enough, who fight for an alien idea. Evidence these days is merely constructed to obtain the desired short-term solution. Being economical with the truth is thought to be the right way to win and how they must roar with laughter in the privacy of their conference rooms at the naivety of the rest of us.
Isolated and badly educated politicians are making 'personal decisions' without regard to what expert advisers and consultants might be saying. If nothing else, it suggests that government is not any more based on democracy - that need to pay heed to what an electorate might think. For a long time, I was impressed by the idea of a rule-of-law that even nations had to obey. Now I am not so sure what is happening! International affairs have nothing to do with democracy at a time when the world has become a village.
Perhaps it is a time of transition. The last two thousand years supported many different religions and philosophical ideas because because they were separated by huge distances and we scarcely knew what other alien peoples thought or why. Sadly the 'death of distance' brings us face-to-face with each other in a way that was impossible over the last two thousand years. Sunnis and Shias now kill each other only because they have just realised they both exist.
Now the moment of truth is that we have to learn to live with each other, and our politicians are not helping much at a time when many of us are sympathetic to the strange and alien peoples we meet all the time! Where are we going?
Iraq is a catastrophe, the consequences of which may be with us for the next century. I am not so much against the pragmatic objective of solving global problems, but against the incompetence, ignorance and inefficiency of those that try. Much needs to be done to make the world a better place but there is hardly any point in trying if hundreds of thousands have to die. What is going to happen in Iraq is that eventually the armies and politicians will slyly announce "victory" and go home with their tails between their legs.
There was even a time (the peace of God) in the 11th century when the Christian Church was close to banning the use of violence on a Saturday or Sunday, and even the carrying of weapons at all. How far we have regressed since those times!
I apologise to all those who undertook war in past centuries if I once thought them brutal and uncivilised. We are worse! Today I am very unclear what rules apply! Indeed what rules apply to anyone contemplating the use of force. I took it for granted that in war, the Geneva Convention applied. I am surprised to find that in certain circumstances the Geneva Convention could be overruled by the say-so of top politicians. I was 12 years old when the Nuremberg trials set a new standard for the punishment of international genocide and crime. In 60 years since, we have forgotten already what Nuremberg meant and it looks as if those making decisions today however bad will get away scot free!
We seem to have lawyers arguing as public affair Representatives that even torture is acceptable in certain circumstances and that perpetual imprisonment without trial is possible if we dislike those enough, who fight for an alien idea. Evidence these days is merely constructed to obtain the desired short-term solution. Being economical with the truth is thought to be the right way to win and how they must roar with laughter in the privacy of their conference rooms at the naivety of the rest of us.
Isolated and badly educated politicians are making 'personal decisions' without regard to what expert advisers and consultants might be saying. If nothing else, it suggests that government is not any more based on democracy - that need to pay heed to what an electorate might think. For a long time, I was impressed by the idea of a rule-of-law that even nations had to obey. Now I am not so sure what is happening! International affairs have nothing to do with democracy at a time when the world has become a village.
Perhaps it is a time of transition. The last two thousand years supported many different religions and philosophical ideas because because they were separated by huge distances and we scarcely knew what other alien peoples thought or why. Sadly the 'death of distance' brings us face-to-face with each other in a way that was impossible over the last two thousand years. Sunnis and Shias now kill each other only because they have just realised they both exist.
Now the moment of truth is that we have to learn to live with each other, and our politicians are not helping much at a time when many of us are sympathetic to the strange and alien peoples we meet all the time! Where are we going?
Iraq is a catastrophe, the consequences of which may be with us for the next century. I am not so much against the pragmatic objective of solving global problems, but against the incompetence, ignorance and inefficiency of those that try. Much needs to be done to make the world a better place but there is hardly any point in trying if hundreds of thousands have to die. What is going to happen in Iraq is that eventually the armies and politicians will slyly announce "victory" and go home with their tails between their legs.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Is Modern Politics Democracy?
The Press are often inclined to talk as if democracy as originally defined is working wonderfully well in modern times, and as if it is self-evident that what we have in the United Kingdom, the USA and many other countries is pure unalloyed democracy. The tragedy of Iraq has been brought about by a naive belief that 'democacy' is working well at home and should therefore be spread around the world. It is fairly obvious that democracy as understood in 2007 is failing us and many other nations too. If for no other reason, the original definition of 'democracy' has very little to with the modern reality of rough-and-tumble politics actually practiced. How has this come about?
The international sphere impinges directly on nations livelihood and economic success. There is so little evidence of democracy in the United Nations, The World Bank, the IMF, global development banks, the WTO or even the EU in Brussels. Decisions in these organisations are decided by representives appointed by governments. Or to be more explicit, by top government leaders who would never consider asking a voter for an opinion. In this way wars are undertaken on the say-so of individual politicians without consultation and famines kill off many in Africa although problems have been identified long ago. Whatever it is, it is not democracy. It is a pity that disastrous decisions are being made by politicians who have scarcely ever left home and have limited knowledge of the world.
Of course, politics has always been the province of the influential and the rich. Your chance of becoming a successful politician is greatly enhanced if you are a lawyer (and they say a teacher) where the gift-of-the-gab is critical. Lawyers are trained to put forward (bad) arguments orally in open court. The UK parliament is such a debating chamber and only those able to debate in public are likely to succeed. Perhaps once an excellent way to ensure we are governed well with transparent arguments made in open forum. Unfortunately, politicians have to be lawyers, who seem to have more regard for the law than the truth, and have become public relations managers for their clients. How can democracy flourish in the old sense of the word.
Voting systems are manipulated by politicians to the extent that the results of elections are by no means clear. In the UK we often have government by a minority who neverthless get more seats in parliament than anyone else. Amusingly machiavellian, but surely it cannot be democracy!
The world of education has changed in the last 50 years. Many of us have university degrees in science, engineering and business,and are quite capable of looking after ourselves. However there is no path in the UK from one profession to another, and many of our experts who one might have thought were needed in this technological age seem unable to move into politics. No wonder many technical decisions fail and billions of pounds are lost when the politicians involved come from a different non-technical world. In fact it seems that many senior politicians have only succeeded by joining a political party at the age of 20! Leave it too long, you are barred from political life for ever.
The world has become globalised - as they say; we live in a global village. The odd thing is that there many hundreds of thousands of administrators and international executives who have lived their lives overseas in many different countries. They know the politics and cultures of the world well. This contrasts greatly with most of our politicians (and civil servants)who have very seldom ever lived overseas and who one suspects are inclined to believe their own propaganda about how terrible foreigners are - except of course one must not discriminate against them - already a contradiction in terms!
Many modern diplomats and ambassadors now have less experience of the world than international business. Even those diplomats with experience of and empathy for the world are hamstrung by the need to get every decision rubber-stamped by their own government, only 5 seconds away by telephone or e-mail. It is clear that the diplomatic world is frozen into immobility most of the time when confronted with difficult decisions. If in doubt, do nothing!
Politics needs money and large amounts of it. Recent reports from the USA suggest that presidential candidates are already collecting a few hundred million dollars - a month! This may be a practical way of succeeding in politics, but it surely is not democracy when so many people are excluded from ever trying.
It may be human nature to compete for positions at the top of society, and we are still very much at the evolutionary stage of being 'red in tooth and claw' as we jockey and fight for status. A few hundred thousand dead in Iraq is just part of the price we pay. Integrity and honesty are not a great help in reaching the top in politics - which of course excludes many of our best people at once! There is already a great contrast between the intelligent and thoughtful people we see on television every day and the shifty, uneducated stare of the average politician trying hard to be economical with the truth.
It would seem we are in a transition stage globally. It is clear that we cannot long endure a situation where ignorant domestic politicians rule the roost while at the same time there are increasingly many well-educated people from all nations, who know the world intimately and yet have little influence on what happens. This situation has no balance and one might predict that major changes will have to take place if we wish to have a world ruled by democracy, especially in the USA, the UK and Europe. We don't have it at the moment!
This all sounds pessimistic! I suppose it is. We are killing people deliberately and by neglect. One way out is to introduce a new political idea - democracy! Perhaps it should be tried one day.
The international sphere impinges directly on nations livelihood and economic success. There is so little evidence of democracy in the United Nations, The World Bank, the IMF, global development banks, the WTO or even the EU in Brussels. Decisions in these organisations are decided by representives appointed by governments. Or to be more explicit, by top government leaders who would never consider asking a voter for an opinion. In this way wars are undertaken on the say-so of individual politicians without consultation and famines kill off many in Africa although problems have been identified long ago. Whatever it is, it is not democracy. It is a pity that disastrous decisions are being made by politicians who have scarcely ever left home and have limited knowledge of the world.
Of course, politics has always been the province of the influential and the rich. Your chance of becoming a successful politician is greatly enhanced if you are a lawyer (and they say a teacher) where the gift-of-the-gab is critical. Lawyers are trained to put forward (bad) arguments orally in open court. The UK parliament is such a debating chamber and only those able to debate in public are likely to succeed. Perhaps once an excellent way to ensure we are governed well with transparent arguments made in open forum. Unfortunately, politicians have to be lawyers, who seem to have more regard for the law than the truth, and have become public relations managers for their clients. How can democracy flourish in the old sense of the word.
Voting systems are manipulated by politicians to the extent that the results of elections are by no means clear. In the UK we often have government by a minority who neverthless get more seats in parliament than anyone else. Amusingly machiavellian, but surely it cannot be democracy!
The world of education has changed in the last 50 years. Many of us have university degrees in science, engineering and business,and are quite capable of looking after ourselves. However there is no path in the UK from one profession to another, and many of our experts who one might have thought were needed in this technological age seem unable to move into politics. No wonder many technical decisions fail and billions of pounds are lost when the politicians involved come from a different non-technical world. In fact it seems that many senior politicians have only succeeded by joining a political party at the age of 20! Leave it too long, you are barred from political life for ever.
The world has become globalised - as they say; we live in a global village. The odd thing is that there many hundreds of thousands of administrators and international executives who have lived their lives overseas in many different countries. They know the politics and cultures of the world well. This contrasts greatly with most of our politicians (and civil servants)who have very seldom ever lived overseas and who one suspects are inclined to believe their own propaganda about how terrible foreigners are - except of course one must not discriminate against them - already a contradiction in terms!
Many modern diplomats and ambassadors now have less experience of the world than international business. Even those diplomats with experience of and empathy for the world are hamstrung by the need to get every decision rubber-stamped by their own government, only 5 seconds away by telephone or e-mail. It is clear that the diplomatic world is frozen into immobility most of the time when confronted with difficult decisions. If in doubt, do nothing!
Politics needs money and large amounts of it. Recent reports from the USA suggest that presidential candidates are already collecting a few hundred million dollars - a month! This may be a practical way of succeeding in politics, but it surely is not democracy when so many people are excluded from ever trying.
It may be human nature to compete for positions at the top of society, and we are still very much at the evolutionary stage of being 'red in tooth and claw' as we jockey and fight for status. A few hundred thousand dead in Iraq is just part of the price we pay. Integrity and honesty are not a great help in reaching the top in politics - which of course excludes many of our best people at once! There is already a great contrast between the intelligent and thoughtful people we see on television every day and the shifty, uneducated stare of the average politician trying hard to be economical with the truth.
It would seem we are in a transition stage globally. It is clear that we cannot long endure a situation where ignorant domestic politicians rule the roost while at the same time there are increasingly many well-educated people from all nations, who know the world intimately and yet have little influence on what happens. This situation has no balance and one might predict that major changes will have to take place if we wish to have a world ruled by democracy, especially in the USA, the UK and Europe. We don't have it at the moment!
This all sounds pessimistic! I suppose it is. We are killing people deliberately and by neglect. One way out is to introduce a new political idea - democracy! Perhaps it should be tried one day.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
UK Pensions
A UK pension it is said is not enough to keep a couple in old age. It is about £7000 per year in 2007, much less than in France or Italy. Of course, it is said the British government has been prudent in the long term and continental pension funds will go bankrupt quite soon. It is not quite clear how socialists have allowed this to happen! But perhaps these days 'New Labour' and the Communists are turning into good capitalists because they have no choice.
It is a different argument on private (company) pension funds. Many of us get two or more pensions, one from the government and one from our employers. When Chancellor Brown removed surreptitiously £5 billion per year from private pension funds, it was done so cleverly that no one noticed for a decade. Now many private companies are shutting down their old pension funds which paid pensions on final salary and this implies less money for company pensioners years into the future.
One factor no one likes to talk about is that for many years the government allowed companies to take 'contribution holidays' as their pension assets were above 105% of their liabilities. It is said companies saved $19 billion over that period due to buoyant stock exchanges.
An intelligent observer might have assumed that this £19 billion would have been put aside for a rainy day. For it is clear that rainy days do occur over the forty year period which must be spent accumulating assets to pay pensions. But no! The UK government insisted that this £19 billion should be paid out to shareholders as profits (dividends). Again I am suprised that it is a Labour government which rewards the shareholders in preference to the future pensioners.
Of course, a future British government could reverse the decision on the £5 billion per year tax on pension funds, but don't count on it. The fact has become evident over recent years that there is a disconnect between governments and their ability to plan for 40 years ahead. I imagine for the average politician it is hardly worth the trouble with sea levels rising and carbon Dioxide levels out of control. We have to fight our own battles over 40 years, but as in the past it will be the 'rich that gets the pleasure, and the poor that gets the blame'.
The problem for government is how to hold the ring between those of us who do not save for the future, either because we are too poor or too careless over that 40 years and the prudent who believe that they have to look after themselves- but don't wish to see their savings taxed away by profligate governments.
It is a different argument on private (company) pension funds. Many of us get two or more pensions, one from the government and one from our employers. When Chancellor Brown removed surreptitiously £5 billion per year from private pension funds, it was done so cleverly that no one noticed for a decade. Now many private companies are shutting down their old pension funds which paid pensions on final salary and this implies less money for company pensioners years into the future.
One factor no one likes to talk about is that for many years the government allowed companies to take 'contribution holidays' as their pension assets were above 105% of their liabilities. It is said companies saved $19 billion over that period due to buoyant stock exchanges.
An intelligent observer might have assumed that this £19 billion would have been put aside for a rainy day. For it is clear that rainy days do occur over the forty year period which must be spent accumulating assets to pay pensions. But no! The UK government insisted that this £19 billion should be paid out to shareholders as profits (dividends). Again I am suprised that it is a Labour government which rewards the shareholders in preference to the future pensioners.
Of course, a future British government could reverse the decision on the £5 billion per year tax on pension funds, but don't count on it. The fact has become evident over recent years that there is a disconnect between governments and their ability to plan for 40 years ahead. I imagine for the average politician it is hardly worth the trouble with sea levels rising and carbon Dioxide levels out of control. We have to fight our own battles over 40 years, but as in the past it will be the 'rich that gets the pleasure, and the poor that gets the blame'.
The problem for government is how to hold the ring between those of us who do not save for the future, either because we are too poor or too careless over that 40 years and the prudent who believe that they have to look after themselves- but don't wish to see their savings taxed away by profligate governments.
Public Schools
I suppose I have to admit I went to a preparatory and public school in England a long time ago 1942-1952! I suspect all that hardship and discipline has not changed me very much. I am more sorry for my parents who only saw me sometimes! You will say I am cold and ruthless, but at least I am still a gentleman.
The arguments in the UK are strange. Perhaps our politicians are helpless. Over my life time we have had a number of Labour governments, but they have not abolished Public Schools. One wonders why! At one point in my life (1945) I was going to be looked after from 'cradle to grave', but no one talks like that any more. Public schools seem to give a good education, but presumably to the wrong people.
The basic argument for reasons of equality is that we must allow individuals to decide for themselves. I would argue that interference from on top eventually leads to disaster as one serious ignorant political mistake affects everyone. Perhaps that is what I mean by freedom - to be left alone within the law to do what I want.
There is also the question of using earned money well. What is noticeable is that many people send their children to State schools and are consequently quite rich (nice cars, nice holidays, nice hospitals and nice houses). Others who seem to value education (or perhaps it is indeed status!) spend their money on education, discipline and civilisation. Was it not in Communist States that everyone was going to be paid the same?
I notice recently that many of the (well-educated) boys I was at school with do not live in the UK any more. Their addresses are in Australia, Canada, the USA and indeed many other places. Those against Public school must be pleased to hear that so many have left England already. Standards in England will have risen!
So what is the problem? It surely must be that even the most socialist or communist leader finds that there is a limit to what they can do - short of revolution. There is not enough money to change the UK educational system. Public Schools have grown up slowly over the last 200 years and to abolish them will cost too much - even our Socialist and Communist leaders send their children to Public Schools (although they try to keep it secret).
Just think what might happen if Public Schools were abolished! Parents freed from this burden would be able to spend £25-50,000 per year on something else. Would the rest of society approve and would taxes subsequently rise on everyone, who did not send their children to private schools.
I suspect that as long as we value individual freedom it will be impossible to abolish Public School. Politicians, especially successful New Labour politicians, like them for their children and perhaps it is better that some of us spend our money on education rather than wine, women and song! I dread to think what I might do if I had an extra £25,000 per year to spend on myself instead of on education!
The arguments in the UK are strange. Perhaps our politicians are helpless. Over my life time we have had a number of Labour governments, but they have not abolished Public Schools. One wonders why! At one point in my life (1945) I was going to be looked after from 'cradle to grave', but no one talks like that any more. Public schools seem to give a good education, but presumably to the wrong people.
The basic argument for reasons of equality is that we must allow individuals to decide for themselves. I would argue that interference from on top eventually leads to disaster as one serious ignorant political mistake affects everyone. Perhaps that is what I mean by freedom - to be left alone within the law to do what I want.
There is also the question of using earned money well. What is noticeable is that many people send their children to State schools and are consequently quite rich (nice cars, nice holidays, nice hospitals and nice houses). Others who seem to value education (or perhaps it is indeed status!) spend their money on education, discipline and civilisation. Was it not in Communist States that everyone was going to be paid the same?
I notice recently that many of the (well-educated) boys I was at school with do not live in the UK any more. Their addresses are in Australia, Canada, the USA and indeed many other places. Those against Public school must be pleased to hear that so many have left England already. Standards in England will have risen!
So what is the problem? It surely must be that even the most socialist or communist leader finds that there is a limit to what they can do - short of revolution. There is not enough money to change the UK educational system. Public Schools have grown up slowly over the last 200 years and to abolish them will cost too much - even our Socialist and Communist leaders send their children to Public Schools (although they try to keep it secret).
Just think what might happen if Public Schools were abolished! Parents freed from this burden would be able to spend £25-50,000 per year on something else. Would the rest of society approve and would taxes subsequently rise on everyone, who did not send their children to private schools.
I suspect that as long as we value individual freedom it will be impossible to abolish Public School. Politicians, especially successful New Labour politicians, like them for their children and perhaps it is better that some of us spend our money on education rather than wine, women and song! I dread to think what I might do if I had an extra £25,000 per year to spend on myself instead of on education!
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Music
One of my 19 year old students continually has earphones in his ears and I asked him how often he listened to music! His reply was 'all the time', every hour of every day. Now that surprised me as I only occasionally listen to music - I almost wrote 'hardly ever'. I did read recently that music helps develop the brain, but as a teacher this is not as obvious to me as the theory might imply.
I was drummed out of the school choir whem I was 7, which may not have given me a feeling of welcome, particularly in church. God seemed only to like children who could sing!
This lack may be due to my coming from another age long ago. After all my growing up to the age of 15 covered the years 1939-1949 when perhaps the second world war prevented much music being practiced by anyone. I do remember the hymns in church, the songs of Vera Lynn (Harbour Lights), patriotic songs from America sung in school (John Brown's Body), German military songs (Lili Marlene), but these made little impact on me. I was quite intrigued to hear that perhaps King Henry VIII wrote 'Greensleeves'! It made him sound more romantic that the history books implied.
Later in my teens at school, we listened to Brahms and Bach during afternoon tea, but these were much too difficult for me to enjoy at the age of 14. It was only when I started work in London that I was able to go to the more popular concerts at the Albert Hall and Royal Festival Hall that I began to get a feel for music. But I found nusic too emotional and upsetting. Where others seemed to get profound enjoyment, I became depressed. Chopin conjured up visions of Polish Cavalry bravely fatally charging German 'Tiger' tanks, Tchaikovsky visions of Napoleons 'Grande Armee' perishing in the snows of Russian winter, and even of Viennese operetta with its military balls and beautiful countesses showed me a world that I could never hope to aspire to. So on the whole music can depress me. Even the beauty of the "Pastoral Symphony" is tinged with sadness in a countryside gone beyond recall. My reaction does not seem to be the case with other people.
The only music I really liked was Venezuelan folk music - Hugo Blanco and Simon Diaz - which I met on going to Caracas in 1961. The Venezuelans knew how to dance and I was entranced at the age of 26 by the sensuous, sinuous dancing of the 'meringue' by the prettiest nubile girls in the world (apart from the Philippines!). Unfortunately my own dancing was not good and most young people in 1962 were transfixed by American and Italian music. Folk music was not popular! I watch the young dancing in 2007 and am afraid it all looks rather primitive to me - a mating rite put on for the benefit of the tribal elders, of whom I am now one. It all certainly looks more fun and primeval that the dancing of 1950, but not so very civilised.
Then about 1962, the Beetles emerged from Liverpool. It was another ten years before I realised who they were and I had generally assumed all pop music must be American. I have never understood why the Beetles were so popular. Then as I travelled more, I began to feel the rhythms of Indian and Arabic music, but no one from the West seemed to hear what I heard! It was switched off before I had time to listem.
So I wonder. Is everyone uplifted by the sound of music or are there some people around who, like me, get depressed. Recently I have come to the conclusion that the reason I do not listen to music much is that it paints a sad picture of the world, or perhaps a picture of the world as it should be, but is not. No wonder I get depressed! My interest in music is related to society, history and human behaviour, and not so much to sound!
I was drummed out of the school choir whem I was 7, which may not have given me a feeling of welcome, particularly in church. God seemed only to like children who could sing!
This lack may be due to my coming from another age long ago. After all my growing up to the age of 15 covered the years 1939-1949 when perhaps the second world war prevented much music being practiced by anyone. I do remember the hymns in church, the songs of Vera Lynn (Harbour Lights), patriotic songs from America sung in school (John Brown's Body), German military songs (Lili Marlene), but these made little impact on me. I was quite intrigued to hear that perhaps King Henry VIII wrote 'Greensleeves'! It made him sound more romantic that the history books implied.
Later in my teens at school, we listened to Brahms and Bach during afternoon tea, but these were much too difficult for me to enjoy at the age of 14. It was only when I started work in London that I was able to go to the more popular concerts at the Albert Hall and Royal Festival Hall that I began to get a feel for music. But I found nusic too emotional and upsetting. Where others seemed to get profound enjoyment, I became depressed. Chopin conjured up visions of Polish Cavalry bravely fatally charging German 'Tiger' tanks, Tchaikovsky visions of Napoleons 'Grande Armee' perishing in the snows of Russian winter, and even of Viennese operetta with its military balls and beautiful countesses showed me a world that I could never hope to aspire to. So on the whole music can depress me. Even the beauty of the "Pastoral Symphony" is tinged with sadness in a countryside gone beyond recall. My reaction does not seem to be the case with other people.
The only music I really liked was Venezuelan folk music - Hugo Blanco and Simon Diaz - which I met on going to Caracas in 1961. The Venezuelans knew how to dance and I was entranced at the age of 26 by the sensuous, sinuous dancing of the 'meringue' by the prettiest nubile girls in the world (apart from the Philippines!). Unfortunately my own dancing was not good and most young people in 1962 were transfixed by American and Italian music. Folk music was not popular! I watch the young dancing in 2007 and am afraid it all looks rather primitive to me - a mating rite put on for the benefit of the tribal elders, of whom I am now one. It all certainly looks more fun and primeval that the dancing of 1950, but not so very civilised.
Then about 1962, the Beetles emerged from Liverpool. It was another ten years before I realised who they were and I had generally assumed all pop music must be American. I have never understood why the Beetles were so popular. Then as I travelled more, I began to feel the rhythms of Indian and Arabic music, but no one from the West seemed to hear what I heard! It was switched off before I had time to listem.
So I wonder. Is everyone uplifted by the sound of music or are there some people around who, like me, get depressed. Recently I have come to the conclusion that the reason I do not listen to music much is that it paints a sad picture of the world, or perhaps a picture of the world as it should be, but is not. No wonder I get depressed! My interest in music is related to society, history and human behaviour, and not so much to sound!
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Scientific Research
I took a degree in sciences in 1958, which is now 48 years ago! My career was indeed in industrial chemistry all over the world. Over all that time I was never approached by anyone in authority to give an account of what dangerous basic research I might have been carrying out. It might be that my employers submitted a secret report as to my activities but I doubt it. Indeed chemistry lends itself to many other scientific disciplines such as medicine, pollution, botany, or biology. How would I prove that I had never done any research at all on these in my little laboratory in the corner of my kitchen and made terrible new discoveries.
I suspect therefore that the ability of any or all government authorities, who are mostly lawyers anyway, to keep a track on what is really happening in science is vain. Of course perhaps everyone with a degree in any way related to science should submit an annual return - similar to a tax return- which would explain the wonderful discoveries made in a year. I still can't quite fathom why that apple fell on my head yesterday, but I am working on it!
I suspect therefore that the ability of any or all government authorities, who are mostly lawyers anyway, to keep a track on what is really happening in science is vain. Of course perhaps everyone with a degree in any way related to science should submit an annual return - similar to a tax return- which would explain the wonderful discoveries made in a year. I still can't quite fathom why that apple fell on my head yesterday, but I am working on it!
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Religion & Holy Week
I noted the recent correspondence on the existence of God, and am giving it more thought this Holy Week. It seems to me that the great weakness of all religions is that they accept the existence of God - the blind watchmaker, the computer in the sky, the revelation of a good book etc - but they all quickly agree that God does exist, but are very reluctant to undertake any real research or discussion - because that comes very close to blasphemy or heresy. We all know how we punish heretics. I wish they would agree! There is always the problem about what happened before God existed and why he felt so lonely. My own conclusion is that my powers of analysis are quite the equal of the priests I have met in Riyadh, Tokyo, Caracas, Seoul, Manila, Lagos or even Canterbury, but they still prefer to pretend that the others are wrong and they only are right. I can see I may be wrong but not that all the others are equally right. I suppose I do think that there is an absolute truth somewhere even if I have not found it yet.
I spent 10 years going into a Christian church every day, and must have been brainwashed quite well for a time. I have always been fond of history and find the first 350 years of Christian history fascinating. But what Jesus, as a wonderful philosopher, is reported to have said in the New Testament seems to a have little to do with subsequent ritual and dogma invented yars later. I wonder why no one wanted to teach me the history of the early Christian Church in any detail? I only discovered the books of Josephus recently and was amazed they were actually suppressed at school! Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls seem important, and yet so-called holy men want to pretend they do not exist. This shows little faith in God! I am also not clear why religious rules change with time. I would have thought that rules would have been timeless and applicable to all time. I am slightly surprised in Manila to find Catholic services in English quoting the King James Bible, when in the 16th Century many Englishmen were burnt at the stake for using English at all! It was a surprise that Joan of Arc became a saint in (was it?) 1927. It seemed a long 600 wait to find out! I can understand the historical and political reasons, but not a religous justification for a volte face merely to please the French. The other aspect of religion is that it has depended on cultural isolation to protect the faithful. Religion in the Philippines has only a limited truth, because it has inherited a Spanish way of thinking. Many British and Americans tend to be protestant for much the same historical reasons. Islam in the Middle East depends more upon history than truth. All this is falling apart in 2007, and I would predict religious authorities are already have great difficulty in preaching one truth when the din of other truths can be heard all the time. The young are going to be confused!
I always fondly greet the stutue of Philip II of Spain here in Manila whenever I pass by, and consider that but for Divine Providence Philip II might have been King of England - and of the Philppines at the same time. My recent researches show that San Beda is indeed the Venerable Bede, Anglo-Saxon if not English - and there are number of schools in Manila dedicated to St Thomas Moore ("I am the King's good servant but God's first"). They still belong to me culturally, even if I have strayed somewhat from the fold in the last 500 years! Eostra (Easter) is of course the Anglo-Saxon Goddess, and even the days of the week in English follow the old Norse Gods. Surprising that no one has changed them yet in Easter Christian services! Happy Easter!
I spent 10 years going into a Christian church every day, and must have been brainwashed quite well for a time. I have always been fond of history and find the first 350 years of Christian history fascinating. But what Jesus, as a wonderful philosopher, is reported to have said in the New Testament seems to a have little to do with subsequent ritual and dogma invented yars later. I wonder why no one wanted to teach me the history of the early Christian Church in any detail? I only discovered the books of Josephus recently and was amazed they were actually suppressed at school! Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls seem important, and yet so-called holy men want to pretend they do not exist. This shows little faith in God! I am also not clear why religious rules change with time. I would have thought that rules would have been timeless and applicable to all time. I am slightly surprised in Manila to find Catholic services in English quoting the King James Bible, when in the 16th Century many Englishmen were burnt at the stake for using English at all! It was a surprise that Joan of Arc became a saint in (was it?) 1927. It seemed a long 600 wait to find out! I can understand the historical and political reasons, but not a religous justification for a volte face merely to please the French. The other aspect of religion is that it has depended on cultural isolation to protect the faithful. Religion in the Philippines has only a limited truth, because it has inherited a Spanish way of thinking. Many British and Americans tend to be protestant for much the same historical reasons. Islam in the Middle East depends more upon history than truth. All this is falling apart in 2007, and I would predict religious authorities are already have great difficulty in preaching one truth when the din of other truths can be heard all the time. The young are going to be confused!
I always fondly greet the stutue of Philip II of Spain here in Manila whenever I pass by, and consider that but for Divine Providence Philip II might have been King of England - and of the Philppines at the same time. My recent researches show that San Beda is indeed the Venerable Bede, Anglo-Saxon if not English - and there are number of schools in Manila dedicated to St Thomas Moore ("I am the King's good servant but God's first"). They still belong to me culturally, even if I have strayed somewhat from the fold in the last 500 years! Eostra (Easter) is of course the Anglo-Saxon Goddess, and even the days of the week in English follow the old Norse Gods. Surprising that no one has changed them yet in Easter Christian services! Happy Easter!
Sunday, April 1, 2007
UK Leadership
This week there developed a discussion on 'leadership' in the press and why we don't have any good leaders any more. I do not think we have less potential leaders than we did in the past, but our society has changed. More indeed are better educated. Many of us are alone and independent financially and politically in possession of the latest news. At the same time globalisation has created a newly educated international business class (of which I am one), who are not well-regarded by the politicians at home. It still troubles me that I am not allowed to vote in the UK as if I am not really English any more.
Politicians themselves to be successful stay at home in small parochial districts that do not lead on to any understanding of international affairs. The broad Scots accents of our government confirm this! How many of our politicians have ever lived abroad in other cultures? This is a terrible handicap for good global governance. The people who have been overseas for many decades are not normally part of the democratic system. The UN, World Bank, IMF, the EU, Regional Development Banks etc are not democracies either.
The modern competitive market system which encourages economic success and freedom,with which I might agree in some respects, also has its downside. For example it seems to me that many of our best university graduates, once it is recognised they won't reach the top (in politics or business) to eliminate competition are retired early on adequate pensions: It is 23 years now since I retired. There is little interchange in the UK between one profession and another, so these potential leaders are lost to society. Indeed it also looks as if to be a successful leader in modern society either in politics or business it is necessary to cut corners and practice dubious moral practices. This has resulted in people reaching the top - such as Bush and Blair - whose eyes are to the main chance with very little grounding in morals or ethics. I would not be invited, but would I want to be part of such a system?
Modern instant communications have also destroyed individual independence and initiative. Decisions - and the leaders making them - really need to be spread as widely as possible throughout society with many decisions delegated to the lower levels. Yet the advent of the computer means all decisions have to be sent to the top. There is no point in having 'leaders' if they are prevented from making decisions by some higher authority some 5 seconds away by telephone, but 10,000 kms by distance. This last week we have the Captain of a formidable British warship 'Cornwall" abandoning his own sailors and soldiers, and letting them be captured on the orders of Tony Blair in London. What is the point of training leaders in the British Navy when they are not allowed to make decisions for themselves?
This is symptomatic of modern politics that leaders are not wanted because orders are reserved to the very top. It is one of the problems of modern society that a few politicians at the top demand to be in control while at the same time more of us than ever before are free to do our own thing. We have therefore a void opening up between domestic politics and the fact that millions are no longer attached to the countries they originally came from. In these circumstances, leadership is downgraded
and yet one might suspect that eventually the global democratic pressure cooker will explode in unexpected ways as the old concept of national sovereignty loses control
Politicians themselves to be successful stay at home in small parochial districts that do not lead on to any understanding of international affairs. The broad Scots accents of our government confirm this! How many of our politicians have ever lived abroad in other cultures? This is a terrible handicap for good global governance. The people who have been overseas for many decades are not normally part of the democratic system. The UN, World Bank, IMF, the EU, Regional Development Banks etc are not democracies either.
The modern competitive market system which encourages economic success and freedom,with which I might agree in some respects, also has its downside. For example it seems to me that many of our best university graduates, once it is recognised they won't reach the top (in politics or business) to eliminate competition are retired early on adequate pensions: It is 23 years now since I retired. There is little interchange in the UK between one profession and another, so these potential leaders are lost to society. Indeed it also looks as if to be a successful leader in modern society either in politics or business it is necessary to cut corners and practice dubious moral practices. This has resulted in people reaching the top - such as Bush and Blair - whose eyes are to the main chance with very little grounding in morals or ethics. I would not be invited, but would I want to be part of such a system?
Modern instant communications have also destroyed individual independence and initiative. Decisions - and the leaders making them - really need to be spread as widely as possible throughout society with many decisions delegated to the lower levels. Yet the advent of the computer means all decisions have to be sent to the top. There is no point in having 'leaders' if they are prevented from making decisions by some higher authority some 5 seconds away by telephone, but 10,000 kms by distance. This last week we have the Captain of a formidable British warship 'Cornwall" abandoning his own sailors and soldiers, and letting them be captured on the orders of Tony Blair in London. What is the point of training leaders in the British Navy when they are not allowed to make decisions for themselves?
This is symptomatic of modern politics that leaders are not wanted because orders are reserved to the very top. It is one of the problems of modern society that a few politicians at the top demand to be in control while at the same time more of us than ever before are free to do our own thing. We have therefore a void opening up between domestic politics and the fact that millions are no longer attached to the countries they originally came from. In these circumstances, leadership is downgraded
and yet one might suspect that eventually the global democratic pressure cooker will explode in unexpected ways as the old concept of national sovereignty loses control
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)