Here is a man who really hates Alain de Botton

And isn't afraid to say so. At length.

Not all of it is repeatable. This bit is:

"Alain de Botton specialises in a kind of humdrum potted sagacity, the kind of stuff that has all the outward appearance of insight while managing to avoid saying anything at all. This mushy nothingness can take the form of pointless tautology (‘In a meritocracy, success comes to seem earnt – but failure deserved’), excerpts from the Dictionary of Twee Vacuousness (‘Magnanimity: the one who was right does not say ‘I told you so,’ the one who was wronged does not seek vengeance’), outright untruth (‘Choosing a spouse and choosing a career: the two great decisions for which society refuses to set up institutional guidance’), inspirational pap (‘Our real motivation comes from people who don’t believe in us’), and the final spluttering descent into total incoherency (‘The end logic of our relationship to computers: sincerely asking the search engine “what should I do with the rest of my life?”‘)."

The writer is not a fan of Julian Baggini either, but you have to scroll down to the comments for that.

"My swastika"

That disturbing phrase is the headline of this piece on an Economist blog. In an understated manner, the writer, a Jewish man, describes finding a swastika graffiti'd on his doorpost. In London. In 2014.

It is in the truest traditions of the Economist that the writer turns to the data and finds grounds for optimism (the Whig view of history is alive and well in the Economist): "modern Britain is indeed an almost uniquely benign place for Jews (lapsed or otherwise) to live", he says. It is good of him to say so. But I am disgusted.

Instinctively, I regard decent treatment of Jews as a good test for the decency of any gentile society as a whole. On analysis, I think that instinct is well-founded.

Testing how a society treats minorities in general is less revealing. Some minority groups are deserving of sympathy or special treatment in some way: the very poor, the badly disabled, criminals. It is interesting to know how a society treats these people, what we might call its weakest members, but one will always be looking at how a special case is handled, and sometimes hard cases make bad law. On the other hand, some minority groups are ones that might 'recruit' you or your children: drug addicts, Buddhists, the very rich, left-handed people. It is hard to generate a real 'them and us' feeling with such minorities. Equally, some minorities don't have clear entry criteria ('very spiritual' people) or any self-identity as a group (twins). Some minorities are only contingently minorities: Muslims and (practising) Christians are two minority groups in Britain now, but one was a majority and perhaps the other will be; but Jewish people will always be in the minority.

Jewish people are just people. They are not fortunate or unfortunate and there is obviously no reason why the law or society should single them out for any special treatment. But they are an identifiable minority, whom gentiles can in theory pick on without fear of picking on their own children and without fear of having the tables turned on them. In theory and, in too many places and at too many times, in reality too.

So my theory is that if you want to know whether a gentile society is a fundamentally decent society then you should look at the lives of its normal Jewish members. I like to think of Britain as fundamentally decent. I hope it stays that way.

What's wrong with Juncker? Or, the British Question

The Economist has some nice-ish things to say about Mr Juncker (e.g. "probably the least bad choice"). I was pleased to see that he is "On the “social” wing of the Christian Democrats", which sounds like it comes from Borgen. I think it means he is well to the left of Nick Clegg.

But that aside, what does he stand for? Well, I have been to his campaign website (so that you don't have to). It is fair to say that I went for the merchandise but I stayed for the policies. More interesting than I thought it would be - see below the break for what he says about the British Question.

Sex workers' rights

Here is an interesting article in the LRB, perhaps best summed up in this quotation:

"If sex workers claim they aren’t victims, we expect them to say they chose sex work voluntarily, that they find their work fun, or a therapeutic public service, that they are empowered. We’re not satisfied if they say that it’s a crappy job, but they’re doing OK. But why should workers have to be having fun, or be satisfied with their job, before they can earn the right to join a union, or have legal protection from violence?"

I am put in mind of the Borgen episode where Birgitte Nyborg wrestles with whether prostitution should be legalised, the relationship with human trafficking and so on. But even that did not go so far as to have the sympathetic sex worker say that it's a pretty rubbish job but, even so, that's no reason why we or our clients should be in trouble with the police.

There is a straightforward libertarian position: so long as there is no coercion, there should be no criminal sanction. But in this context, we suddenly find libertarianism at its least inspiring. We are not talking about JS Mill and experiments in living; we are not talking about a thousand flowers of freedom blooming; we are not with Pitt the Elder proudly declaiming "The poorest [sex-worker] may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail — its roof may shake — the wind may blow through it — the storm may enter — the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter — all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!" We are simply saying that if consenting adults want to engage in an unsatisfying and rather regrettable line of employment then they may. It's the argument you could make for legalising working in a call-centre or as a dwarf for being thrown - but only if you couldn't think of any better argument.

Indeed, it is so uninspiring that it isn't the argument that anyone actually makes for legalisation. If you're a feminist or a conservative then you can say that you are in favour of protecting vulnerable women (who isn't?). If you're on the left you can argue for empowering people to lead valuable self-actualised lives through sex work. If you're on the right, you can say that it's always going to happen, so why bother the police with trying to stop it? They all have more persuasive force than saying rubbish jobs should be legal too.

I agree with the premise of the rhetorical question in the quotation. Everyone's job has good bits and bad bits, and you wouldn't want to have to persuade the state that your job had enough good bits to it before you were entitled not to be beaten up or raped for having that job. But I would stick with the happy hookers if you want to change the law: you already have the libertarians on your side - it's the others you need to worry about.

Capital, income and Piketty

There is, it seems, plenty to say about Thomas Piketty's book. Below are some thoughts - longish, but slightly leavened by evil twins - prompted by a response to it.

A right-wing Canadian

It's Ted Cruz, sympathetically profiled by the New Yorker here. Or is that intended to be unsympathetic? I warmed to him, anyway.

Another great Spectator Competition

In this competition readers were invited to step into the shoes of a well-known writer of your choice and submit a poem or piece of prose in praise or defence of something you would not expect them to champion. I give you my favourite one in full:

next to of course god mister gove i
love you futuring the past as be-
ing where it is and me oh man i buy
it. no more grammarblind i see
just where youse backwards going to
which is (damascus roadwise) why
i’ll kidlike batandball along with you
and ‘i’ my dots from here on now by
gollygosh i will. you mister gove
(britannia shake the spear) have shown
the world your eng lit treasure trove
which being never ruleless rules alone
and leaves us (fools too late learn)
rueing all (god save america) we strove
to write — so (stripped of stars) we turn
to you the master teacher mister gove

Alan Millard/e.e. cummings