Luck of the draw

From telegraph.co.uk

Do you count yourself as lucky? I do, but I suppose it mostly depends on the comparisons we make or fail to make.

I was lucky in all kinds of obvious ways from the time and country of my birth onward. In the developed world there are millions of us living our comfortable lives with worries previous generations would have treated to a tubercular splutter of disbelief.

We have our ups and downs of course, but materially most of us are lucky. We have our personal tragedies too because death comes to all and is so often untimely or painful. Yet in spite of the omnipotence of death we are lucky compared to earlier generations.

So are some people more lucky than others? David Cameron was born with the proverbial silver spoon in his mouth, but do we count this as luck? I think we do.

What about Blair? Bonkers in my view, but lucky enough to be charming in a way I’ve never quite fathomed. Maybe if I’d met him I’d know.

I’m sure luck plays a major part in our lives. I’m lucky to have made a reasonable career decision when I discovered I was passably good at chemistry. I could have given chemistry a miss and opted for something with deeper appeal, but I didn’t yet the choice turned out reasonably well.

However I wasn’t well equipped to make the choice anyway – there was a hefty element of luck. Maybe my parents buying me a chemistry set for Christmas had a hand in it. A proper fifties chemistry set it was too, one where you could discover the combustible delights of sulphur and iron filings.

The books and comics of the time were stimulating too and my parents believed strongly in the educational value of regular reading. Another stroke of luck – I was born at a time when books were available to borrow free of charge from public libraries.

Looping back to political careers - are politicians such as Cameron and Blair talented, lucky or a bit of both? Which is the more powerful asset? Impossible to say of course, but I think with a enough talent, politicians are often able to twist lady luck around their little fingers.

Doesn’t say much for the present lot though does it?

READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

The rise and rise of stupidity

As the world becomes more and more complex, we are presumably obliged to become more intelligent in order to cope. Otherwise, relative to a general increase in social, political and economic complexity, we might expect to see a corresponding rise in stupidity.

Oh dear!

Intelligence is supposedly dictated by genes and upbringing – good old nature and nurture. We can’t yet improve on nature, so how does nurture respond to steadily increasing complexity?

I think the simple answer is that it doesn’t. Intelligence is a social construct and when social complexity increases, the bar is raised. As the bar is raised, we understand less and less about our own society. In relative terms we become less intelligent - less able to devise rational responses to complex situations.

To my mind this is why modern politicians seem so stupid. Increasing complexity has raised the bar beyond their capabilities. Their best bet is to look after number one as the complexity of political and economic problems takes viable solutions beyond their intellectual reach.

To some extent this is offset by more accessible sources of information, but checking sources and comparing narratives still takes time and many can't because there is already an official narrative. Political leaders and senior bureaucrats for example.

They must rely on official sources and official narratives plus the opinions of their pals and paymasters. They don’t have the time to check any of it, so the bar rises and leaves them floundering. Misinformation, irrelevance and outright lies are their inevitable coping strategies. 

Reducing complexity is a much better coping strategy, but complexity creates powerful vested interests leading to even more complexity as its beneficiaries line their nests. So what can we do about a rising tide of complexity?

Not much. It is possible to glean insights from those people who find ways to describe aspects of complex situations without pretending to have all the answers. Insights can be found anywhere, from the Simpsons to a philosophical analysis and they do give some relief from endless streams of futile narrative.

Apart from a few genuine insights, it is still possible to locate good sources of information. Another way to cope with that rising bar is a sceptical and even cynical personal philosophy. Yet how many of us have one of those?

And tomorrow the bar rises again.

READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

A bit rich: Richard D Hall's conspiracy club

It took two passes through Alvechurch to find; Google Maps can be a bit approximate. Having wedged the car into sort of a parking space, I went up the stairs of the Sports and Social just in time, showing my email ticket to the girl, who stood at the door with the man himself. He gave me an appraising glance: maybe I didn't quite look like his typical audience, some hundred of whom were already settled with their pints and partners.

My phone lit up with a new text. My friend, who'd long recommended Rich Hall's website to me, had come down with pneumonia again. I stood at the bar, which was already out of Banks' and the alternative ale, but still had mild on tap.

The lights dimmed, and off we went on a wild ride through conspiracy country.

There was more than met the eye about numerous killing-spree cases, including that of Derrick Bird, a balding 52-year-old man described by one eyewitness as in his twenties and with short, spiky black hair, whose taxi had its roof bar both on and off at different points in the day, and who was allegedly captured on CCTV the second time past the cab rank in Whitehaven when in his car, but (for some unexplained reason) not the first time a few minutes earlier, when the gunman had stepped out of the vehicle with his shotgun and would have been more easily identifiable.

The 7/7 bombers were innocent.

9/11 didn't happen the way they say. Flight 175, a Boeing 767, could not have been travelling at 500+ mph at that low altitude, and the steel construction of the South Tower was too strong to be penetrated by an airliner; though a cruise missile could have done it, perhaps disguised in some outer shell or hologram.

As to the last, yes, aircraft can fly faster in higher, thinner air, but according to this internet forum there is a difference between the maximum permissible speed and the maximum possible physical speed. Hall's own computerised flight path reconstruction shows the craft descending, then levelling out before impact; parts of the same internet discussion suggest that the appearance of its still being under pilot control might be given by its safety program, which automatically lifts the nose when the speed limit is exceeded. Also, even if the steel skeleton of the tower was impenetrable, the windows and cladding weren't, and thousands of gallons of volatile, burning aviation fuel travelling at half a thousand miles an hour would be quite sufficient to make a bomblike explosion.

And yet...

It was no news to the audience, or to me, that the mainstream media lie, distract and trivialise, and that the alternative media are now infested with shills, spooks and trolls; that we are in an era of competitive empire-building and the largely muslim Middle East has been targeted for systematic destabilisation.

It was also no surprise that the entertainment media have a socially disruptive tendency, endlessly picturing family squabbling and breakups as the norm. Nor that one group is set against another, as for example in the case of benefit claimants - Hall showed a snap of the Channel 5 poster that asked unemployed locals for their views, which merely suckered the volunteers: this is not the first time that I have seen the media invite people to dine without letting them know that they were on the menu. American lawyers and police confirm that you should say nothing to police, even if (especially if) you're innocent; that also goes for the apparently sympathetic interviewers for TV and radio.

Well, since my friend wasn't there and I had to work next day, I left at the nine o'clock break to catch BBC1's Question Time, another heavily steered program (told by the ever-garrulous David Dimbleby to hurry her answer, Melanie Phillips retorted that he only wanted her to come to his conclusion).

Yes, if not exactly comfortable with it, at least I'm used to the idea that we're continually lied to and bamboozled, made giddy and daft. We now have the documentary evidence that Ted Heath knowingly misled the nation about the constitutional implications of the 1972 Common Market vote; Julian Assange is still holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy so that he can't be extradited by a vengeful American government furious at, not his lies, but his revelation of inconvenient truths; Edward Snowden voluntarily kissed his successful life goodbye in order to unveil the creepy surveillance of the people by over-resourced spying organisations.

There is organised evil abroad. I just wish Richard Hall wouldn't over-egg his pudding.

READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Cameron warns EU to respect UK independence

"We are particularly concerned by the situation in England - every country should respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the United Kingdom."

- Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking at a press conference with Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel on Wednesday 26th February 2014 (see 3 p.m. note):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10664833/Ukraine-crisis-Ukraine-searches-for-missing-billions.html

Corrections and clarifications: for "England" and "United Kingdom" substitute "Crimea" and "Ukraine". Apologies for any misunderstanding caused.

However, we wish to point out that Mr Cameron has pledged a referendum on EU membership in 2017 if the Conservatives win a majority in the next General Election, or "When the moon is in the seventh house/ And Jupiter aligns with Mars" or "the twelfth of never", whichever comes last.

READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

How we laughed

 

 - I've just opened another washing up liquid, I don't know if you want to get a spare.

- I'll wait and get one of those big Fairies for 99p from Lidl.

- Big fairies? Are they like the dog-poo fairy, clumping around picking dogshit off the pavement and bemoaning their genes? Not pretty and petite so they can't be used in Disney? "These f-ing wings are useless, it's all about power to weight ratio."

- "I'm big boned. I know I could lose a bit off me front but me arse is perfect."

And off she went, laughing and saying "You've brought on me old trouble again."

READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

That double-faced companion

Above all things he feared imagination, that double-faced companion, friend on one side and foe on the other – friend in so far as one distrusts it, and enemy if one goes trustfully to sleep to the sound of its sweet murmur.

Ivan Goncharov – Oblamov

Spinoza distrusted imagination, seeing it as the primary form of defective and deceptive thinking. However, both his view and Goncharov’s may have been influenced by the absurdly superstitious worlds in which they found themselves.

These days we value our imagination, often equating it to creativity. Yet I think Spinoza and Goncharov had a point and we should distrust its sweet murmur. It seems to me that vast swathes of political reasoning are little more than the sweet murmur of imagination swirling around some more or less nebulous utopian core.

Impossibilities dressed up as possibilities, like a dream where we swoop and soar through fluffy clouds supported by nothing better than the power of the unconscious mind to pooh pooh physics.

One day there will be an app for people who hanker after a more active imagination. An app which knows our habits and limitations will trawl the web to find some imaginative yet personalised possibilities complete with bespoke ads and special offers...

...and that’s enough imagination for one day.

READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Where our enemy hides

In my view a significant proportion of the public sector generates junk. This is largely achieved by ignoring efficiency and by gold-plating regulations.

The private sector also generates junk via market logic – if the customer can be persuaded to accept it, then junk it is.

So we end up with two broad types of junk and have been conditioned to accept both. This is politically convenient because it generates an endless source of misdirection over those we see as the political good guys and those we see as bad. Good junk versus bad junk.

In order to form an idea of an unknown situation our imagination borrows elements that are already familiar.

Marcel Proust - À la recherche du temps perdu

The real problem seems to be one of power – obviously. If governments, bureaucracies or global companies have too much power then they abuse it by filling our lives with junk. They don’t necessarily abuse it because ratbags are running the show, although that’s often the case, but because there is no adequate opposition. We are insufficiently junkphobic.

So we have far too many regulations, far too many constraints on individual freedom and vast global companies buy their way into the corridors of power and our lives. These trends are obviously not desirable, but the surest way to misunderstand them is to present modern politics as an antiquated left/right dichotomy.

There is no left/right dichotomy except in our political traditions which have long outlived their usefulness. The same applies to traditional political parties.

The only political issue is who has the power, what they are doing with it. If those with the power collude as they now do, then we have power structures which cannot be effectively opposed from a traditional left/right standpoint.

So the only political reality is global trends in political and economic power. The old left/right dichotomy doesn’t even come close to an adequate narrative.

This is not where our enemy hides.

READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.