1. Why Birmingham is not rich - poor public transport. Is good public transport (part of the reason) why London is rich?
2. She was 0-6 0-5 and matchpoint down - and she won!
3. The facts are true, the news is fake: why Taleb will not talk to English journalists (apropos of l'affaire Roger Scruton).
4. How quickly mores change. 20-something adult woman gets engaged to man of similar age she has known for many years - and is met with disapproval. Her love-life would have been nearly the world's most boring story a generation ago. Now it is a news story - or at least, an online magazine story. I am sorely tempted to take the (old-fashioned) feminist line on this: would anyone have expressed disapproval if she were a man? (By which I mean: a man marrying a man?) Human societies are capable of some weird varieties - don't be at all surprised if teen marriage comes back into vogue one day.
5. The gender gap in voice pitch has halved in the last decades, with women moving toward the lower pitch levels of men. Sounds like a laboured metaphor for a worthy novel.
6. Why the world of sperm donation helps the likes of Wickham and hurts the likes of Darcy.
7. The world as seen from America: a woman goes to the Gaeltacht and suggests it is one of few places where promoting native identity is uncontroversial. I suggest: most of the world.
8. "Thus, in several dimensions, areas in the US where Scandinavian descendants live resemble a ‘Scandinavia in miniature’." Worth looking at together with this piece on inequality in the Economist.
Monday, 15 April 2019
Monday, 8 April 2019
The Entitled Under Attack
Here are two articles, about completely different topics, but which struck me as having a common theme.
The first is this. It's an enjoyable piece by Caitlin Flanagan dealing with the American university entrance cheating scandal: Flanagan once worked at a posh Los Angeles school with children of the kind who feature in the scandal.
The second is this. It's Giles Fraser continuing his controversial thoughts on Brexit, this time responding to a point Will Self made about listening.
As I say, two completely different stories. So what is the common theme?
Entitlement - and the wrath of the entitled when scorned.
From Flanagan's piece: "These parents—many of them avowed Trump haters—are furious that what once belonged to them has been taken away, and they are driven mad with the need to reclaim it for their children. The changed admissions landscape at the elite colleges is the aspect of American life that doesn’t feel right to them; it’s the lost thing, the arcadia that disappeared so slowly they didn’t even realize it was happening until it was gone. They can’t believe it—they truly can’t believe it—when they realize that even the colleges they had assumed would be their child’s back-up, emergency plan probably won’t accept them. They pay thousands and thousands of dollars for untimed testing and private counselors; they scour lists of board members at colleges, looking for any possible connections; they pay for enhancing summer programs that only underscore their children’s privilege. And—as poor whites did in the years leading up to 2016—they complain about it endlessly. At every parent coffee, silent auction, dinner party, Clippers game, book club, and wine tasting, someone is bitching about admissions. And some of these parents, it turns out, haven’t just been bitching; some of them decided to go MAGA."
From Fraser's: "The Brexit debate can be characterised, without too much deformation, as one between a group of people who are used to being listened to and a group who are not. The Remain heartlands are in London, and university towns like Oxford and Cambridge. These places were most enthusiastic in signing up to the petition to cancel Article 50. They are used to being listened to. ... Pin your ears back. In 2016, the clear majority of those who spoke asked to leave the EU. Yet ever since, the political class have pretended not to understand, thus insinuating that what was said was itself unclear. It wasn’t unclear, they just didn’t like it. And so what we need now is not more coffee and chat. We need a whole new political class." (See also this, polite comments by Rob Ford in reaction to more overt signs of Brexit Derangement Syndrome on the part of Jolyon Maugham.)
Still, those entitled people will probably be OK. The abolition of slavery in the southern states of the US was a massive blow to the wealth of the wealthiest (must of which was held in the form of slaves). But within 10 years, they had bounced back. I'm sure that Remainers and doting parents of the coddled mediocre will bounce back too.
The first is this. It's an enjoyable piece by Caitlin Flanagan dealing with the American university entrance cheating scandal: Flanagan once worked at a posh Los Angeles school with children of the kind who feature in the scandal.
The second is this. It's Giles Fraser continuing his controversial thoughts on Brexit, this time responding to a point Will Self made about listening.
As I say, two completely different stories. So what is the common theme?
Entitlement - and the wrath of the entitled when scorned.
From Flanagan's piece: "These parents—many of them avowed Trump haters—are furious that what once belonged to them has been taken away, and they are driven mad with the need to reclaim it for their children. The changed admissions landscape at the elite colleges is the aspect of American life that doesn’t feel right to them; it’s the lost thing, the arcadia that disappeared so slowly they didn’t even realize it was happening until it was gone. They can’t believe it—they truly can’t believe it—when they realize that even the colleges they had assumed would be their child’s back-up, emergency plan probably won’t accept them. They pay thousands and thousands of dollars for untimed testing and private counselors; they scour lists of board members at colleges, looking for any possible connections; they pay for enhancing summer programs that only underscore their children’s privilege. And—as poor whites did in the years leading up to 2016—they complain about it endlessly. At every parent coffee, silent auction, dinner party, Clippers game, book club, and wine tasting, someone is bitching about admissions. And some of these parents, it turns out, haven’t just been bitching; some of them decided to go MAGA."
From Fraser's: "The Brexit debate can be characterised, without too much deformation, as one between a group of people who are used to being listened to and a group who are not. The Remain heartlands are in London, and university towns like Oxford and Cambridge. These places were most enthusiastic in signing up to the petition to cancel Article 50. They are used to being listened to. ... Pin your ears back. In 2016, the clear majority of those who spoke asked to leave the EU. Yet ever since, the political class have pretended not to understand, thus insinuating that what was said was itself unclear. It wasn’t unclear, they just didn’t like it. And so what we need now is not more coffee and chat. We need a whole new political class." (See also this, polite comments by Rob Ford in reaction to more overt signs of Brexit Derangement Syndrome on the part of Jolyon Maugham.)
Still, those entitled people will probably be OK. The abolition of slavery in the southern states of the US was a massive blow to the wealth of the wealthiest (must of which was held in the form of slaves). But within 10 years, they had bounced back. I'm sure that Remainers and doting parents of the coddled mediocre will bounce back too.
Friday, 5 April 2019
Unknown unknowns
There are lots of problems out there. Just think of any of the ones you have heard of: climate change; the weird debates about transgenderism (whatever you think about this issue, you must think there is a problem of some kind); stagnant wages in the West; the threat from automation; the impending insect apocalypse; Brexit.
You have heard about all of these issues. You might even think that you have heard too much about some of them. So consider this: because you have heard about these problems, you can be sure that there are lots of other clever and important people who have also heard about them and who are desperately thinking up solutions. That means - surely - that there's a decent chance that these issues will join the Schleswig-Holstein Question, anarchist terrorism and the hole in the ozone layer in the ranks of difficult problems that have been solved. Not necessarily easily or cheaply, but solved all the same.
Take, for example, the threat of a return to the politics of the 1930s: extremism, fascism, racism, lack of faith in democracy, succour for the (nearly as bad) enemies of fascism, such as communism. We can all agree that this would be awful. Indeed, we pretty much all do agree about this, from the most ardent Remoaner to Dominic Cummings. So if that is indeed what is happening, despite the united views of anyone who is anyone that it should not happen, then it's not exactly creeping up on our blindside: you can hardly move without bumping into someone who has detected real-life fascists or is busily comparing some political nobody to Hitler.
So I don't think you need to worry about this problem. There are lots of clever and important people out there who are on the look-out for a return to the 1930s: if someone suggests building concentration camps or uniformed parades of party members or a dictatorship of the proletariat or special clothing for Jewish people, you can be sure that those clever and important people will spot the parallels and put a stop to it.
So those are the known unknowns. But what are the unknown unknowns? While our guns are pointing out to sea to ward off the fascists arriving by boat, what dangers are creeping through the jungle behind us?
Here's one thought.
The 1930s led to World War II. There are lots of bad things about the politics of the 1930s quite apart from the War, but the War was very bad.
There was also another very bad war - World War I. And just as WWII resulted from the world and politics of the years that preceded it, so WWI resulted from what came before it.
When we look back at the 1930s, we see the terrible harbingers of doom: economic hardship, the gathering storm clouds, rearmament campaigns, militarism, revanchism, people in uniforms with funny salutes. So when we look back at the 1900s and 1910s, we should also be seeing the harbingers of WWI. But we don't. We see the wonderful Edwardian summer of the world, the sophistication of fin de siècle society, the culmination of the long period of peace, the first era of globalisation, the developments of modern thought and technology, female emancipation, psychiatry, etc, etc. The Vienna of Wittgenstein and Freud! The Paris of Picasso and Apollinaire! Doesn't your heart swell to think of it?
When someone tells you that they see parallels between today's world and the world before WWI, especially anyone who writes for The Economist, they are normally telling you that they are seeing something nice, particularly about global free trade. But surely seeing such a parallel should be every bit as worrying as someone seeing a parallel between the world of today and the world of the 1930s?
You have heard about all of these issues. You might even think that you have heard too much about some of them. So consider this: because you have heard about these problems, you can be sure that there are lots of other clever and important people who have also heard about them and who are desperately thinking up solutions. That means - surely - that there's a decent chance that these issues will join the Schleswig-Holstein Question, anarchist terrorism and the hole in the ozone layer in the ranks of difficult problems that have been solved. Not necessarily easily or cheaply, but solved all the same.
Take, for example, the threat of a return to the politics of the 1930s: extremism, fascism, racism, lack of faith in democracy, succour for the (nearly as bad) enemies of fascism, such as communism. We can all agree that this would be awful. Indeed, we pretty much all do agree about this, from the most ardent Remoaner to Dominic Cummings. So if that is indeed what is happening, despite the united views of anyone who is anyone that it should not happen, then it's not exactly creeping up on our blindside: you can hardly move without bumping into someone who has detected real-life fascists or is busily comparing some political nobody to Hitler.
So I don't think you need to worry about this problem. There are lots of clever and important people out there who are on the look-out for a return to the 1930s: if someone suggests building concentration camps or uniformed parades of party members or a dictatorship of the proletariat or special clothing for Jewish people, you can be sure that those clever and important people will spot the parallels and put a stop to it.
So those are the known unknowns. But what are the unknown unknowns? While our guns are pointing out to sea to ward off the fascists arriving by boat, what dangers are creeping through the jungle behind us?
Here's one thought.
The 1930s led to World War II. There are lots of bad things about the politics of the 1930s quite apart from the War, but the War was very bad.
There was also another very bad war - World War I. And just as WWII resulted from the world and politics of the years that preceded it, so WWI resulted from what came before it.
When we look back at the 1930s, we see the terrible harbingers of doom: economic hardship, the gathering storm clouds, rearmament campaigns, militarism, revanchism, people in uniforms with funny salutes. So when we look back at the 1900s and 1910s, we should also be seeing the harbingers of WWI. But we don't. We see the wonderful Edwardian summer of the world, the sophistication of fin de siècle society, the culmination of the long period of peace, the first era of globalisation, the developments of modern thought and technology, female emancipation, psychiatry, etc, etc. The Vienna of Wittgenstein and Freud! The Paris of Picasso and Apollinaire! Doesn't your heart swell to think of it?
When someone tells you that they see parallels between today's world and the world before WWI, especially anyone who writes for The Economist, they are normally telling you that they are seeing something nice, particularly about global free trade. But surely seeing such a parallel should be every bit as worrying as someone seeing a parallel between the world of today and the world of the 1930s?
Let's talk about probably the single most successful political actor of 1914: Gavrilo Princip. He assassinated the heir to the Austrian throne because, as he said during his trial, "I am a Yugoslav nationalist, aiming for the unification of all Yugoslavs, and I do not care what form of state, but it must be freed from Austria." Sure enough, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was set up in 1918 and became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929. The pomp of the Austro-Hungarian Empire became one with Nineveh and Tyre, thanks to a short guy who was born a serf. Princip - 1; crowned heads of continental Europe - 0.
What Princip perhaps saw was that a terrorist act could trigger a massive over-reaction from a large, multi-ethnic polity, governed by nervous leaders worried that their regime that did not enjoy the complete support of their population, and that such an over-reaction could cause a massive crisis and the overthrow of that regime. That's not a unique insight: terrorists always seek an over-reaction from their opponents - that's the only way they win. But some regimes are particularly prone to it: the paradigm case is the colonial regime garrisoned by a few soldiers far from home and outnumbered by the local population, reliant on their acquiescence and fearful that that acquiescence will quickly turn to hostility.
Note that Princip's story is not the story of the 1930s. The story of the 1930s concerns what were recognisable nation states based on broadly ethnic lines (Japan, Germany, Italy), with irredentist/expansionist ambitions, being taken over by very unpleasant but not altogether unpopular regimes that were (wrongly) confident of their prospects in a war.
The story of the 1910s, by contrast, is of multi-national empires (Austria, Russia, Germany) that were governed by broadly pleasant but not so popular regimes that were (rightly) not confident of their ability to survive domestic turmoil. The result of World War II was regime change - Italy, Japan, Austria and Germany are still with us (albeit Germany spent some time in 2 parts), but with nicer people in charge; the result of World War I was redrawing the map: Poland! Czechoslovakia! The Baltic States! A bigger Romania! Yugoslavia - still ruled by a royal family - but a new royal family!
This story of the 1910s was not one that only took place on the continent: WWI ended with the multi-ethnic United Kingdom, again ruled by pretty decent people, also divided into something more closely resembling British and Irish nation states based on ethnic lines. And you don't need to know much Irish history to know that it also involves terrorism being used to generate over-reaction by the British authorities.
(You could say that both WWI and WWII were about the triumph of the single-ethnicity nation state over the multi-ethnic empire: WWI was about dismantling the old empires, benign though they were in many ways; while WWII was about preventing Japan and Germany from creating unpleasant multi-ethnic empires. The next set of wars to be fought in Europe also fits the pattern: it was about dismantling the multi-ethnic state that was Yugoslavia. All credit to the Scots, Balts, Czechs and Slovaks for going about it peacefully.)
We have terrorists today. Those terrorists, both in their white supremacist and Islamist flavours, seek the same thing, namely over-reaction from a nervous liberal elite, unsure that it really commands the support of the population it rules, triggering a crisis from which their favoured reforms might emerge.
We also have multi-ethnic states today, governed by cultivated, educated and reasonably decent people - the equivalents of the rulers of Europe in the 1910s. Even leaving aside the multi-ethnic nature of the EU, it is not news that the individual big member states, Germany, France and the UK, are themselves becoming multi-ethnic in the manner of old European Empires (or Yugoslavia) and less like the (broadly) single-ethnicity nation states who were the problems in the 1930s.
History does not repeat itself. But that does not stop us learning from it. And the learning is not just that there are bad people out there, fascists and so on, who might take over your country and lead it astray. It is also that the problem might be the good people who are already running your country: good people who might over-react to the actions of people they see as bad (terrorists, certainly, but also "extremists"? "populists"? people who say nasty things on the internet?) in order to send a message to dissatisfied, restless, divided or unconvinced populations. There's more to avoiding war than stopping bad people from taking power.
Of course, WWI also involved a rising continental power, a declining English-speaking power, a weak/powerful Russia and some alliances that were meant to create stability. So no worries there. But I seem to recall that train timetables came into as well ...
What Princip perhaps saw was that a terrorist act could trigger a massive over-reaction from a large, multi-ethnic polity, governed by nervous leaders worried that their regime that did not enjoy the complete support of their population, and that such an over-reaction could cause a massive crisis and the overthrow of that regime. That's not a unique insight: terrorists always seek an over-reaction from their opponents - that's the only way they win. But some regimes are particularly prone to it: the paradigm case is the colonial regime garrisoned by a few soldiers far from home and outnumbered by the local population, reliant on their acquiescence and fearful that that acquiescence will quickly turn to hostility.
Note that Princip's story is not the story of the 1930s. The story of the 1930s concerns what were recognisable nation states based on broadly ethnic lines (Japan, Germany, Italy), with irredentist/expansionist ambitions, being taken over by very unpleasant but not altogether unpopular regimes that were (wrongly) confident of their prospects in a war.
The story of the 1910s, by contrast, is of multi-national empires (Austria, Russia, Germany) that were governed by broadly pleasant but not so popular regimes that were (rightly) not confident of their ability to survive domestic turmoil. The result of World War II was regime change - Italy, Japan, Austria and Germany are still with us (albeit Germany spent some time in 2 parts), but with nicer people in charge; the result of World War I was redrawing the map: Poland! Czechoslovakia! The Baltic States! A bigger Romania! Yugoslavia - still ruled by a royal family - but a new royal family!
This story of the 1910s was not one that only took place on the continent: WWI ended with the multi-ethnic United Kingdom, again ruled by pretty decent people, also divided into something more closely resembling British and Irish nation states based on ethnic lines. And you don't need to know much Irish history to know that it also involves terrorism being used to generate over-reaction by the British authorities.
(You could say that both WWI and WWII were about the triumph of the single-ethnicity nation state over the multi-ethnic empire: WWI was about dismantling the old empires, benign though they were in many ways; while WWII was about preventing Japan and Germany from creating unpleasant multi-ethnic empires. The next set of wars to be fought in Europe also fits the pattern: it was about dismantling the multi-ethnic state that was Yugoslavia. All credit to the Scots, Balts, Czechs and Slovaks for going about it peacefully.)
We have terrorists today. Those terrorists, both in their white supremacist and Islamist flavours, seek the same thing, namely over-reaction from a nervous liberal elite, unsure that it really commands the support of the population it rules, triggering a crisis from which their favoured reforms might emerge.
We also have multi-ethnic states today, governed by cultivated, educated and reasonably decent people - the equivalents of the rulers of Europe in the 1910s. Even leaving aside the multi-ethnic nature of the EU, it is not news that the individual big member states, Germany, France and the UK, are themselves becoming multi-ethnic in the manner of old European Empires (or Yugoslavia) and less like the (broadly) single-ethnicity nation states who were the problems in the 1930s.
History does not repeat itself. But that does not stop us learning from it. And the learning is not just that there are bad people out there, fascists and so on, who might take over your country and lead it astray. It is also that the problem might be the good people who are already running your country: good people who might over-react to the actions of people they see as bad (terrorists, certainly, but also "extremists"? "populists"? people who say nasty things on the internet?) in order to send a message to dissatisfied, restless, divided or unconvinced populations. There's more to avoiding war than stopping bad people from taking power.
Of course, WWI also involved a rising continental power, a declining English-speaking power, a weak/powerful Russia and some alliances that were meant to create stability. So no worries there. But I seem to recall that train timetables came into as well ...
Tuesday, 2 April 2019
The Dangerous Sports Club
"I first met David Kirke founding member of the Dangerous Sports club at a Piers Gaveston party in Oxford."
"A young Nigella Lawson played croquet from a sedan chair supported by 4 members of the club."
"Xan Rufus Isaacs managed to get his double decker ( complete with passengers who had won the trip as a prize in a tv show ) half-way up the slope. The plan was to attach skis to the bus. It was the smart bus conductors uniform he was wearing that probably made the Swiss realise he was deadly serious."
"I look after an archive of pictures of club activities which include an early attempt at skiing on grass in the summer by attaching blocks of ice underneath skis."
"Much effort went into selecting a decent vintage and designing the label. But no-one knew how to market the wine. I think we were drinking it at a party David gave in Fulham. There was someone there who after drinking his glass of wine proceeded to eat his wine glass. I could hear the crunching sound."
If you want to see the archive of pictures referred to above (sample captions: "Hugo Spowse jumping over Basingstoke"; "David Kirke and Mark Chamberlain, after the failure of the Midori Melonball ( the Bubble) to get to France due to adverse winds, Dover, 1987") then this is the link for you.
"A young Nigella Lawson played croquet from a sedan chair supported by 4 members of the club."
"Xan Rufus Isaacs managed to get his double decker ( complete with passengers who had won the trip as a prize in a tv show ) half-way up the slope. The plan was to attach skis to the bus. It was the smart bus conductors uniform he was wearing that probably made the Swiss realise he was deadly serious."
"I look after an archive of pictures of club activities which include an early attempt at skiing on grass in the summer by attaching blocks of ice underneath skis."
"Much effort went into selecting a decent vintage and designing the label. But no-one knew how to market the wine. I think we were drinking it at a party David gave in Fulham. There was someone there who after drinking his glass of wine proceeded to eat his wine glass. I could hear the crunching sound."
Monday, 1 April 2019
Harbin after the Festival
Not long ago, I gave you the link to photos of the Harbin Snow and Ice Festival in all its finery. Now you might interested to see what it looks like as it melts.
Thursday, 28 March 2019
Miscellaneous links
1. The magic routine that won the World Championships of Magic is impressive.
2. Bribery to improve democracy? The proposal is more modest than the headline. I still don't like it, but I'm not quite sure why.
3. "Storing it was a problem. I made a bedside table out of it, put it under my desk, in my wardrobe and in the garage. Christmas 2014 was the cheapest ever; everyone got toilet roll. At work, I wrapped up an 18-roll pack for our white-elephant game – a bit like secret Santa – and everyone fought over it. I gave them out for family birthdays because they were coming so thick and fast, but they sent a mix of qualities and I always kept the more expensive mega rolls, which were softer and more luxurious, for myself. When I moved across state, I had to rent a trailer to take the toilet rolls with me." What it's like to win a lifetime's supply of something.
4. Nice article by Alex Massie. What sort of country do we want? (Not about Brexit.)
5. This is well-said about the ridiculously millenarian tone of coverage of Trump. In line with my own thoughts, but with an interesting take on the mis-uses of history. Brexit really is a big deal. Big in the sense that joining the Common Market was a big deal. But Trump is just one guy, and one, moreover, who is not particularly good at anything other than self-promotion.
6. Lovely video of a baby moving around inside the womb. Scientific advances would seem likely to lead to pro-life policies. But then again, ask scientists who work on climate change or on biological sex differences in humans how much impact they are having on policy.
2. Bribery to improve democracy? The proposal is more modest than the headline. I still don't like it, but I'm not quite sure why.
3. "Storing it was a problem. I made a bedside table out of it, put it under my desk, in my wardrobe and in the garage. Christmas 2014 was the cheapest ever; everyone got toilet roll. At work, I wrapped up an 18-roll pack for our white-elephant game – a bit like secret Santa – and everyone fought over it. I gave them out for family birthdays because they were coming so thick and fast, but they sent a mix of qualities and I always kept the more expensive mega rolls, which were softer and more luxurious, for myself. When I moved across state, I had to rent a trailer to take the toilet rolls with me." What it's like to win a lifetime's supply of something.
4. Nice article by Alex Massie. What sort of country do we want? (Not about Brexit.)
5. This is well-said about the ridiculously millenarian tone of coverage of Trump. In line with my own thoughts, but with an interesting take on the mis-uses of history. Brexit really is a big deal. Big in the sense that joining the Common Market was a big deal. But Trump is just one guy, and one, moreover, who is not particularly good at anything other than self-promotion.
6. Lovely video of a baby moving around inside the womb. Scientific advances would seem likely to lead to pro-life policies. But then again, ask scientists who work on climate change or on biological sex differences in humans how much impact they are having on policy.
Monday, 25 March 2019
How to measure progress
This is one way to do see how far we have come:
This is the same page from two editions of Ladybird's Peter and Jane Book 1b. (The top one is the original 1964 edition and the bottom one is from an edition that I can't identify but appears to be about 10 years later.) At this crucial juncture in the narrative, Peter and Jane's parents are preparing for Christmas.
We can look at the pictures for clues as to scientific progress (note that both parents have taken advantage of recent advances in hair dye) but I am sure you are most struck, as I am, by how male emancipation progressed through these years.
In the decade or so that saw the UK affected by major developments, as The Beatles came and went, Concorde took her first flight and abortion and homosexuality were legalised, Peter and Jane's household has also seen a revolution: the father has been permitted to remove his coat and tie while sitting at home. Small steps, one might say, but the liberation of men from restrictive, oppressive and antiquated clothing has been a a major symbol of progress towards equality. Although we can't see them, it is a fair bet that the stiff black leather shoes worn in the first picture have been replaced by a more comfortable brown pair, perhaps in suede.
You will see that the father in the lower picture has been entrusted, like a small child, with a 'big and important job', namely holding the ribbon. It is apparent that he is delighted to be of service, but equally apparent (not least from his manifest reluctance to hold the ribbon by anything more than the faintest pinch), that he has no idea what he is doing and he is deeply afraid that he will be called upon to do a more tricky job such as cutting something or (horror of horrors) tying a bow. Such was the infantilised plight of men in the bad old days. The widespread adoption of sellotape in the home has subsequently revolutionised men's lives and I suspect that a 1990s reprint would show the father being entrusted with the entire wrapping process while the mother's supervisory skills were employed elsewhere.
The main development affecting women's lives over these years was the invention of the cardigan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)