Last night the BBC promenade concerts were disrupted at the Albert Hall. The Israel Philharmonic Orchestra was interrupted by demonstrators espousing the Palestinian cause. I cannot see any purpose in doing this as the orchestra was there for the music and the BBC does its best to cultivate some sort of international harmony with its "Proms" performances. What would have been the reaction if a group of Israeli sympathisers had disrupted a Palestinian performance? No doubt there would have been a furore.
By all means demonstrate for the Palestinian cause outside of the auditorium and counter demonstrate too; but was there a need for such vehemence?
In my opinion the Palestinians have been treated unjustly by both history, the international community and the Israelis. But, from an historical point of view the Jewish community has been treated much more abysmally; so we need to recognise this fact too if there is ever going to be a peace settlement. Both nations deserve a homeland where they can live in peace, preferably together and I believe this is possible. What is the problem to develop an Israeli and Palestinian commonwealth along the lines of the western and central Europe? This may seem idealistic but why not try and aim for it rather than all the vengeance?
For many centuries both communities lived in harmony. They could do so again if some hard headed and courageous decisions were made to set aside the hatred and negotiate a solution. We managed to do this in Europe after the worst atrocities in human history were committed during the second World War.
Friday, 2 September 2011
Shakespeare a Fraud?
"A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet". Why are we still questioning whether the bard wrote the plays or not? There is not much evidence to say that he did not. Why not just sit back and enjoy them. The bard must have had a hard time writing all those words with a quill - knock me down. Please leave him to rest.
The story line of the film "Anonymous" looks like rubbish to me so I shall not go to see it even for a laugh.
The story line of the film "Anonymous" looks like rubbish to me so I shall not go to see it even for a laugh.
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
More on the Riots
Everyone is talking about the riots so why not me?
This is the time for all reasonable politicians to unite to agree a solution. They all have an opinion and most of these opinions range from pure criminality, to the breakdown of the family, to social liberalism, to poverty and poor education. All of these no doubt are part of the mix within the problem and part of the mix in the solution. We need action this time not just platitudes to find a a resolution. The police and the justice system may find it increasingly difficult to keep order on the streets if we do not find an answer. We should consider the fact that the increasing economic downturn will make life even more difficult for all of us including those who feel that they have to turn to looting to obtain the things in life that they desire. Effective action will require the investment of money, resources and commitment to reverse the the social ills that have been a decades in the making and have been simmering to boiling point.
Another factor that should be taken into account is economic liberalism and the influence of advertising. In many respects economic liberalism has been a good thing and it has enabled our society in general to obtain the desirable things of life. A house, its furniture, a car and all sorts of electronic goods including portable 'phones and computers have been ,up until now, easily affordable for most of the people in our society. Economic liberalism has also allowed us to make fashion statements by the provision of cheap and often throw away clothing. We can also afford cheap wine and alcohol and afford foreign holidays and party time. All of the good things in life have been fuelled by an economic boom created by economic liberalism , which in turn has been encouraged by advertising. The markets had never had it so good up until about 2007.
There are four classses of people who are participating in the market:
the rich who can afford what they want and when they want,
the middle and working classes who save for what they want.
the middle and working classes who have participated in the boom by dint of credit - this forms the overwhelmingly largest part of the market,
the poor whether they are working or not who cannot afford anything more than a life of subsistence.
To really get the economic boom going the market requires advertising to persuade the middle and working classes to part with their cash - usually on credit. All sorts of mechanisms are devised and no one f is immune to parting with their cash by many types of persuasion. This includes me, one of the biggest sceptics of all- how many times have I gone into a supermarket to buy just one item but have come out with ten. Why did I have to buy a gadget that will charge my 'phone and other devices from a portable sun panel? I have never used it.
Advertising has a powerful effect; now it is everywhere on the television, on a hoarding, on the radio, in the newspaper and on the Internet and you simply cannot avoid it. Of course, adverts are useful to let you know where and when products are available. But, what if they are used to promote a glamorous or dangerous life style, which appears to be cost free especially if it is obtained on credit? What if celebrities such as footballers are promoting fashion wear in the accompaniment of gangsters? What influence does this have on young people? What happens when our media and television broadcasts promote a free and easy life style of showing off the latest fashion, electronic gadgets, HD and 3DTV etc. ? Perhaps all this consumption is OK if you can't afford it but what happens if you cannot? What happens if the good things of life are constantly being pushed in your face and tempt you. Surely it means debts for the middle classes, sometimes crippling debts, on credit cards? The enormous private debt mountain has caused as much problem for our economy as public debt. We now face a seriously damaged economy caused by excessive credit; one which will affect the middle classes and poor alike.
For the poor, all the advertising and promotion means something different; sometimes it means depriving their children of consumer goods which everyone believes are essential for the good life or resorting to the "loan shark". This is not a good position for a poor family to cope with. Most poor families succeed in bringing up their children not to rob or steal. Some do not and their children end up stealing what they cannot get by legal means. Economic poverty exacerbated by social poverty and poor education creates the problems seen on the streets. Some people cannot see through the purpose of advertising and the tricks that are played on them to obtain more and more goods.
We need something more than just punishment to get delinquent youngsters back on the straight and narrow . We need incentives, like a job, so that they can pay for the things they have been persuaded or tempted to possess. We need to allow them to get their self respect back.
Advertising is poorly regulated in the western economies perhaps the best control would be for each advertisement to be compelled to show, prominently, the real price of their products and not to pretend that it is easy to go into a shop and walk away with a product by snapping your fingers.
There have been very few experiments that have been or can be conducted to prove what effect the the media and advertising have on the community. In 1999 Bhutan became the last nation in the world to allow television to be watched. Cable television was introduced with 47 channels. Within 3 years there was a crime wave. A stable and relatively crime free nation was transformed. Serious law breaking had broken out and many elements in the community turned to excessive alcohol consumption and drug use. It was probably not the television itself but the content of the 47 channels of MTV, crime movies, lifestyle programmes, celebrity culture and adverts promoting the good life which cast their spell on a naive population - perhaps it has done the same to us.
This is the time for all reasonable politicians to unite to agree a solution. They all have an opinion and most of these opinions range from pure criminality, to the breakdown of the family, to social liberalism, to poverty and poor education. All of these no doubt are part of the mix within the problem and part of the mix in the solution. We need action this time not just platitudes to find a a resolution. The police and the justice system may find it increasingly difficult to keep order on the streets if we do not find an answer. We should consider the fact that the increasing economic downturn will make life even more difficult for all of us including those who feel that they have to turn to looting to obtain the things in life that they desire. Effective action will require the investment of money, resources and commitment to reverse the the social ills that have been a decades in the making and have been simmering to boiling point.
Another factor that should be taken into account is economic liberalism and the influence of advertising. In many respects economic liberalism has been a good thing and it has enabled our society in general to obtain the desirable things of life. A house, its furniture, a car and all sorts of electronic goods including portable 'phones and computers have been ,up until now, easily affordable for most of the people in our society. Economic liberalism has also allowed us to make fashion statements by the provision of cheap and often throw away clothing. We can also afford cheap wine and alcohol and afford foreign holidays and party time. All of the good things in life have been fuelled by an economic boom created by economic liberalism , which in turn has been encouraged by advertising. The markets had never had it so good up until about 2007.
There are four classses of people who are participating in the market:
the rich who can afford what they want and when they want,
the middle and working classes who save for what they want.
the middle and working classes who have participated in the boom by dint of credit - this forms the overwhelmingly largest part of the market,
the poor whether they are working or not who cannot afford anything more than a life of subsistence.
To really get the economic boom going the market requires advertising to persuade the middle and working classes to part with their cash - usually on credit. All sorts of mechanisms are devised and no one f is immune to parting with their cash by many types of persuasion. This includes me, one of the biggest sceptics of all- how many times have I gone into a supermarket to buy just one item but have come out with ten. Why did I have to buy a gadget that will charge my 'phone and other devices from a portable sun panel? I have never used it.
Advertising has a powerful effect; now it is everywhere on the television, on a hoarding, on the radio, in the newspaper and on the Internet and you simply cannot avoid it. Of course, adverts are useful to let you know where and when products are available. But, what if they are used to promote a glamorous or dangerous life style, which appears to be cost free especially if it is obtained on credit? What if celebrities such as footballers are promoting fashion wear in the accompaniment of gangsters? What influence does this have on young people? What happens when our media and television broadcasts promote a free and easy life style of showing off the latest fashion, electronic gadgets, HD and 3DTV etc. ? Perhaps all this consumption is OK if you can't afford it but what happens if you cannot? What happens if the good things of life are constantly being pushed in your face and tempt you. Surely it means debts for the middle classes, sometimes crippling debts, on credit cards? The enormous private debt mountain has caused as much problem for our economy as public debt. We now face a seriously damaged economy caused by excessive credit; one which will affect the middle classes and poor alike.
For the poor, all the advertising and promotion means something different; sometimes it means depriving their children of consumer goods which everyone believes are essential for the good life or resorting to the "loan shark". This is not a good position for a poor family to cope with. Most poor families succeed in bringing up their children not to rob or steal. Some do not and their children end up stealing what they cannot get by legal means. Economic poverty exacerbated by social poverty and poor education creates the problems seen on the streets. Some people cannot see through the purpose of advertising and the tricks that are played on them to obtain more and more goods.
We need something more than just punishment to get delinquent youngsters back on the straight and narrow . We need incentives, like a job, so that they can pay for the things they have been persuaded or tempted to possess. We need to allow them to get their self respect back.
Advertising is poorly regulated in the western economies perhaps the best control would be for each advertisement to be compelled to show, prominently, the real price of their products and not to pretend that it is easy to go into a shop and walk away with a product by snapping your fingers.
There have been very few experiments that have been or can be conducted to prove what effect the the media and advertising have on the community. In 1999 Bhutan became the last nation in the world to allow television to be watched. Cable television was introduced with 47 channels. Within 3 years there was a crime wave. A stable and relatively crime free nation was transformed. Serious law breaking had broken out and many elements in the community turned to excessive alcohol consumption and drug use. It was probably not the television itself but the content of the 47 channels of MTV, crime movies, lifestyle programmes, celebrity culture and adverts promoting the good life which cast their spell on a naive population - perhaps it has done the same to us.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
0.2 % UK growth
Part of the blame for the poor growth of the UK economy has been attributed to the Royal Wedding. This is of course nonsense. Before the Royal Wedding we were all happily informed that it would boost our trade and of course that was nonsense too. You can't have it both ways. I hope the happy couple see it for what it is -Duckspeak so quack quack.
Poor old Badger
It looks as though the UK is going to bend to the opinion of farmers and allow a badger cull in a limited area of the south west of England. There is also pressure on the Welsh Assembly to allow a similar cull in Pembrokeshire. There is little doubt that badgers can become infected with bovine TB and that they can become a source of infection and transmission of the disease. Other animals can also become infected including deer, foxes, rats, cats and even humans. What remains clear is that the primary source of infection and transmission of the disease are the cattle themselves. There is very little evidence that a cull of badgers will significantly decrease the spread of bovine TB. It is possible that frightened badgers will run away from a cull and carry the disease with them and thereby increase the incidence of diease.
The probable solution to the problem involves a combination of vaccination programmes, improved animal husbandry, greater control on cattle movements and better control of grazing etc. and just keeping badgers and cattle apart. Of course, this is difficult and costly - better to blame the poor old badger; kill it and hope the problem goes away. Unfortunately, the problem will not go away by using this ignorant and irrational approach.
We need to do our best to defend the livelihood of farmers for obvious reasons. But farming should not be defended to the cost of all wild life in general. The attitude that no other living creature, be it plant or animal, should be allowed to interfere with our farms could be disastrous. The health of all animals and plants on the planet requires some form of competition between the species. Human beings rely on the rest of nature just as much as they rely on farms; by damaging the rest of nature we could ultimately damage ourselves.
We should not be sentimental about our wildlife. I do not support any form of violent protest against the cull or those who conduct it. There have even been reports that journalists are being threatened merely for reporting the cull . This is unacceptable. If the cull goes ahead it will probably fail to the embarrassment of all concerned so any protest should be peaceful.
The public are overwhelmingly opposed to this cull even if they are not prepared to go out and demonstrate. The public at large is, however, opposed to violent protest; why go out of your way to upset them?
The best way for consumers to prevent this cull would be to buy products only from those farmers who respect their animals fully and those who also show some respect for the environment around them. The case for organic and bio-dynamic farming becomes stronger.
The probable solution to the problem involves a combination of vaccination programmes, improved animal husbandry, greater control on cattle movements and better control of grazing etc. and just keeping badgers and cattle apart. Of course, this is difficult and costly - better to blame the poor old badger; kill it and hope the problem goes away. Unfortunately, the problem will not go away by using this ignorant and irrational approach.
We need to do our best to defend the livelihood of farmers for obvious reasons. But farming should not be defended to the cost of all wild life in general. The attitude that no other living creature, be it plant or animal, should be allowed to interfere with our farms could be disastrous. The health of all animals and plants on the planet requires some form of competition between the species. Human beings rely on the rest of nature just as much as they rely on farms; by damaging the rest of nature we could ultimately damage ourselves.
We should not be sentimental about our wildlife. I do not support any form of violent protest against the cull or those who conduct it. There have even been reports that journalists are being threatened merely for reporting the cull . This is unacceptable. If the cull goes ahead it will probably fail to the embarrassment of all concerned so any protest should be peaceful.
The public are overwhelmingly opposed to this cull even if they are not prepared to go out and demonstrate. The public at large is, however, opposed to violent protest; why go out of your way to upset them?
The best way for consumers to prevent this cull would be to buy products only from those farmers who respect their animals fully and those who also show some respect for the environment around them. The case for organic and bio-dynamic farming becomes stronger.
Thursday, 7 July 2011
Cooling of the planet
A study by Dr Robert Kaufmann and his colleagues, and which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on July 5 th, has proposed an explanation why increasing levels of carbon dioxide have not lead to ever increased atmospheric temperature during the period 1998 t0 2009. During that period global average temperatures have not increased as much as they should have done according to climate models. The reason, concludes Dr Kaufmann, is that coal fired power stations have doubled the amount of coal burned during this period , and this coal burning has not only substantially increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but it has also substantially increased the amount of sulphur dioxide. It is an irrefutable fact that carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas and that, with all other things being equal, an increase in the concentration of this gas in the atmosphere will warm the planet. It is also an irrefutable fact that, all other things being equal, an increase in the concentration of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere will cool the planet.
During the period 1998 to 2009 the effect of the concentration of one gas in the atmosphere offset the effect of the other. Therefore, the mean temperature of the planet did not show a substantial increase or decrease.
Climate change sceptics have jumped upon the fact that the planet has not been warming up as predicted is evidence that global warming caused by man's activities does not exist. Clearly they are wrong: Dr Kaufmann's findings are not inconsistent with global warming or cooling theory or climate science in general.
We should not be relieved by the fact that global warming has temporarily been arrested by pumping industrialised quantities of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Sulphur compounds are quickly removed from the atmosphere by rain. If and when coal burning and other sources of human produced sulphur dioxide are reduced or eliminated the atmosphere will quickly warm up. The carbon dioxide is not so easily or quickly removed from the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide should not been seen as pollutants; they are part of the natural cycles of the planet and are naturally released into the atmosphere by both living and geological processes including volcanoes. Without carbon dioxide the planet would become too cold to support much of the life on our planet as we know it today, including ourselves. The danger to the environment does not stem from the fact that carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide are in the atmosphere per se, but from the rate of change of their concentration. If the rate of change is too fast, plants and animals, including ourselves, may not have enough time to change to the new atmospheric circumstances and become extinct.
Some scientists and engineers have proposed that pumping sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere could be used as a solution to global warming. Other scientists have opposed this as being potentially dangerous. It seems that we have been conducting an unwitting experiment with the atmosphere by increasing the concentration of both sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide to dangerous levels and very quickly. What happens if a sudden volcanic eruption rapidly increases the level of sulphur dioxide to an even higher level? We could be faced with a sudden and unexpected global cooling for two, three years or more years; one that is not offset by the global warming and our harvests could be devastated.
We must do something to tackle the increased production, by our own activity, of both carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide before it is too late, otherwise we could be faced with having to artificially maintain our planet's atmosphere. There is no room left for climate sceptic complacency.
During the period 1998 to 2009 the effect of the concentration of one gas in the atmosphere offset the effect of the other. Therefore, the mean temperature of the planet did not show a substantial increase or decrease.
Climate change sceptics have jumped upon the fact that the planet has not been warming up as predicted is evidence that global warming caused by man's activities does not exist. Clearly they are wrong: Dr Kaufmann's findings are not inconsistent with global warming or cooling theory or climate science in general.
We should not be relieved by the fact that global warming has temporarily been arrested by pumping industrialised quantities of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Sulphur compounds are quickly removed from the atmosphere by rain. If and when coal burning and other sources of human produced sulphur dioxide are reduced or eliminated the atmosphere will quickly warm up. The carbon dioxide is not so easily or quickly removed from the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide should not been seen as pollutants; they are part of the natural cycles of the planet and are naturally released into the atmosphere by both living and geological processes including volcanoes. Without carbon dioxide the planet would become too cold to support much of the life on our planet as we know it today, including ourselves. The danger to the environment does not stem from the fact that carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide are in the atmosphere per se, but from the rate of change of their concentration. If the rate of change is too fast, plants and animals, including ourselves, may not have enough time to change to the new atmospheric circumstances and become extinct.
Some scientists and engineers have proposed that pumping sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere could be used as a solution to global warming. Other scientists have opposed this as being potentially dangerous. It seems that we have been conducting an unwitting experiment with the atmosphere by increasing the concentration of both sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide to dangerous levels and very quickly. What happens if a sudden volcanic eruption rapidly increases the level of sulphur dioxide to an even higher level? We could be faced with a sudden and unexpected global cooling for two, three years or more years; one that is not offset by the global warming and our harvests could be devastated.
We must do something to tackle the increased production, by our own activity, of both carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide before it is too late, otherwise we could be faced with having to artificially maintain our planet's atmosphere. There is no room left for climate sceptic complacency.
Every Nation has the Media it deserves
The quote "Every Nation has the Goverment it deserves" is attributed to Joseph de Maistre a polemical author born in the the mid 18th century. It is my view that there is an element of truth in this but it is often quite difficult, even in a true democracy, to remove quickly an incompetent, weak or corrupt government.
I some respects a similar aphorism could be applied to the newspapers "Every Nation has the Media it deserves". During the current media "crisis" in the the UK we should not rush to judgement. If and when all the facts emerge, and it is proven that some newspapers have behaved unethically, then the nation has a simple solution. No member of the public should buy newspapers which indulge in unethical practices. I doubt, however, that this will ever happen.
I some respects a similar aphorism could be applied to the newspapers "Every Nation has the Media it deserves". During the current media "crisis" in the the UK we should not rush to judgement. If and when all the facts emerge, and it is proven that some newspapers have behaved unethically, then the nation has a simple solution. No member of the public should buy newspapers which indulge in unethical practices. I doubt, however, that this will ever happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
