Cab Calloway (1907 - 1994) was an American singer, songwriter, dancer, bandleader, conductor and actor. He was associated with the Cotton Club in Harlem, where he was a regular performer and became a popular vocalist of the swing era. His career more or less spanned the 20th century, he led one of the most popular dance bands in the United States from the early 1930s to the late 1940s.
Calloway had several hit records in the 1930s and 1940s, becoming known as the "Hi-de-ho" man of jazz for his most famous song, "Minnie the Moocher", originally recorded in 1931. He reached the Billboard charts in five consecutive decades (1930s–1970s).
In 1980 he appeared in the film The Blues Brothers (performing Minnie the Moocher, of course) Not many people can look back on 65 years in the showbiz limelight!
Last Tuesday's C4 documentary 'Alcohol, Dad and Me' may have helped reopen the debate on addiction and whether it is really enough for the State to stand back and let so many individuals be trapped and flounder.
Businesses and government have a two-part strategy to exploit your weaknesses:
make profits and raise taxes from your self-indulgence
say it is your choice so they can’t be blamed and sued
Companies will do whatever is profitable and are tempted to reduce ethical issues to relative-cost calculations. For example in 1970s USA Ford produced a model, the Pinto, known to be fire-hazardous, but worked out that the estimated $50 million compensation for 180 anticipated deaths was less than half the expense of modifying the vehicles to make them safer.
The State is expected to take a wider, less commercial view; besides, at first sight the figures seem to argue for stringent control of alcohol and tobacco:
UK alcohol taxes in 2021/22: £13.1 billion, vs ‘health, social and economic consequences, estimated at between £21 and £52 billion a year.’
That said, the revenues quoted above don’t include the income and corporation taxes and National Insurance contributions generated by the industries concerned. Taking them into account, perhaps ‘Pinto maths’ might win the argument after all.
[In the case of gambling, coldly considered, it already looks like net profit for the country - c. £3.1 billion in tax receipts, vs ‘annual economic burden of harmful gambling … about £1.27 billion.’ Does that make it right?]
Moral issues can’t be simply resolved by analysing cashflow; that’s the sort of thinking that could even be used to justify killing unproductive people, which is exactly what the writer and socialist George Bernard Shaw advocated in 1931 - and again in 1948.
Keeping the debate on the ethical level, liberty is a strong counter-argument to puritanical bans, though one has to weigh freedom in one’s personal habits against the harm and expense they cause to others.
A test case for that assessment was America’s experiment with Prohibition (1920-1933). Note that the Eighteenth Amendment did not forbid drinking alcohol; it proscribed the ‘manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors.’ The term ‘manufacture’ implies large-scale production, so technically ‘home brew’ might be considered unexceptionable. The real target was the commercial exploitation of these products.
It’s often been supposed that Prohibition was a failure, but that may not be so. Not only were there definite health benefits but the popular idea that crime and violence increased may also be mistaken, as this 2019 article on Vox suggests. What brought it all to an end was the Depression: in 1933 the revival of the alcohol industry increased employment, made profits for associated businesses and raised much-needed revenue fot the Government.
On the other hand, if the 1933 Banking Act that curbed investment banking had been introduced when Prohibition started, maybe America would have been both more temperate and much wealthier, and there would have been no Depression.
Obviously there are challenges in trying to uproot well-established enterprises that batten on the vulnerability of individuals, but Prohibition was introduced on the back of much popular support and clearly did reduce alcohol consumption. The clampdown might have worked even better if Canadians had not helped to undermine it; it was this that hardened the previously porous border between the countries.
In the UK, the three vices discussed so far are money-makers and the costs to the NHS are only a fraction of the overall disbenefits, which are diffused throughout the economy, so the Government may not be so motivated to take action as if all costs impacted directly on the Treasury.
Tax hikes on alcohol and tobacco may sometimes be justified in terms of dissuading overconsumption, but one has yet to hear of many people giving up drinks and smokes because of the expense. My father started his tobacco habit when the local shopkeeper sold children a cigarette and a match for a penny; once addicted, his generation might have cheerfully called fags ‘coffin nails’ but it didn’t stop them buying packets of ten and twenty at a time as adults.
What would happen if drinkers and smokers all ‘went on strike’? It could be argued that the State is hooked on the income; and our political representatives are liable to be lobbied by powerful interests, too.
So the official strategy is to legalise, regulate and tax; and to try to keep the damage down to some acceptable level (measured how?), without going all-out for abolition.
Another element in that policy is to throw the responsibility back on to the addict. ‘Please drink responsibly’; ‘smoking kills’; ‘when the fun stops, stop’ - there. we told you! It was your free choice; we wouldn’t dream of interfering with your liberty; and there are organisations to help you - Drinkaware, ASH and NHS Stop Smoking, GambleAware - more fool you if you don’t seek help.
This plays on our perception of ourselves as free and rational, but the long-term recovery rates for the seriously addicted make for discouraging reading.
Even if we give up hope of turning the tide on the first three vices, should we also give in to the clamour for legalising currently illicit drugs? There is tremendous pressure to normalise cannabis use, even though the modern, genetically modified strains are so much stronger than what was around 50 or 60 years ago; and now one sees articles linked from social media suggesting the health or mental benefits of LSD.
The discussion of disbenefits needs to widen. It’s not enough to talk about serious illnesses and fatalities, or increases in criminal behaviour. A major objection to letting the young be ‘stoned’ - even if that doesn’t happen in their school years - is the tiredness and apathy that hold them back in those crucial years of early adulthood.
I saw that last when working in a scheme to help 15-year-olds who had been out of the education system for some time. One was falling asleep at nine in the morning, during the group session designed to raise morale and aspirations. He didn’t last there.
Another, a very nice lad who habitually referred to cannabis as ‘bud’ or ‘bud-dha’ and was desperate to stop even though his friends and family were a constant temptation, turned to religion, praying five times a day as Islam expects, and listening to beautifully-sung hymns to help his meditation. It’s not his fault that the amateur makers of the CD waited a few minutes into the light hypnosis to begin their perorations on the wickedness of Jews; I hope he made it through one temptation without falling into the other.
It’s not just poor fallible individuals who should be expected to behave responsibly; the State cannot disclaim its own share of responsibility.
Two intelligence sources tell Fox News Al Qaeda leader Ayman Al Zawahiri was killed in the CIA drone strike. "Over the weekend, the United States conducted a counterterrorism operation against a significant Al Qaeda target in Afghanistan," the senior administration official told Fox News. "The operation was successful and there were no civilian casualties."
Back to mono again…but this time in painting not photography. My exceedingly excellent tutor said to use a single colour only plus white to help learn about tonal values. She is a really good teacher.
Herewith the results of my efforts: top one is in oils and the bottom one is acrylic both using burnt sienna plus titanium white (the EU banned flake white in the weird belief that artists might mistake it for toothpaste.)
The headline quotes 1 in 4 as willing to pay more for sustainable packaging; that is, 1 in 4 said they might be willing to pay more whilst 3 out of 4 don't want to pay more or can’t afford any more price increases on anything, but that isn’t mentioned, they don’t matter as they don’t support the narrative.
As with so much today corporations are following the agenda for all things climate change, for that is what this is actually about, it has nothing to do with saving precious resources. What all these aims have in common is more expense for the consumer, at a time when inflation is at its highest in thirty odd-years, earnings are falling in real terms and basics in particular energy are not only becoming a very expensive necessity but will naturally mean the general public will cut back as they have already started to do on various items.
Sometimes I wonder what planet these people and organisations are on. During a period of financial stress for the many they faff about adding costs to items that may well be off the agenda all together in the next year; what is the advantage for them in that?
Already in the magazine a piece on Philip Schofield, yes him, whose own wine brand (wine brands are the new celebrity cause célèbre, all must have one) is going to promote for the same reasons cardboard packaging i.e. bottles. No quibble with that but its sustainability advantage over glass is doubtful; will it also be cheaper? No comment on that point - with glass techniques producing thinner and much lighter bottles the advantage is not that obvious.
I have to admit I can’t stand Philip Schofield, my problem, a modern day version of the obsequious Uriah Heep, but plenty do like him as his endless appearances prove.
It seems that along with diversity managers, sustainability managers are now onboard most big firms. It seems sometimes as though the private sector is mirroring the public sector in creating jobs for the boys. If sustainability is something they deem necessary why not use one the agencies who specialise in the subject? No, can’t do that, they need the name of their own sustainability manager on the letter heading to prove how worthy they are, so another layer of management is created that we all pay for one way or another.
Sustainability is just another arm of the climate change industry, and it is an industry. Oil producing firms are changing to sustainable forms of energy not because they are particularly of the belief that they are polluting the planet but because having their arm forced by green led governments simply means they switch to an alternative way of producing profit that allows them to stay in business.
Companies like Shell have moved into a range of businesses that enable them to use their huge resources and carry on making money. The fact that the man in the street has had to dig ever deeper just to stay afloat is not their or the green lobby's concern and so it is with the extension into sustainable products.
This quote from a Conde Naste article is taken out of context but you can tell from it which way the wind is blowing:
‘with the promise that the current climate crisis can be turned into a business opportunity through innovation, engineering and eco-modernisation. If many of these schemes come to pass they will be lucky to have anyone left to afford their ‘business opportunities.’
Conspiracy theories aside there can be no doubt now that the green lobby has infiltrated the government hierarchy and workings of state, not just here but throughout much of the western world.
Another part of the same document:
‘Last year, poor social and environmental performance caused the CEO of the world’s largest mining company to resign; the stock of three chemical giants plummeted; and corporations were called to the carpet for poor emissions offset programs. This shows that climate action is no joke among the public, and the stakes are only going to get higher.’
The truth is the public would likely know nothing about it, What happened was a leak on the performance and the threat from woke banks and institutions threatening the funding of further projects unless they comply, so the part about the public apart from the green blob is disingenuous.
They don’t want you to travel, yet apart from a few asides will not come out with that fact outright and we see the creeping agenda: EVs that few can afford, the subsidy to the same EVs being withdrawn and the edge they have in running costs now evaporating with other ways of taxing.
It can’t be a coincidence that world wide we are seeing airports in chaos and ferry ports blocked. All the excuses have only a modicum of truth, as the fact that people would want to get away after two years of lockdown was obvious, yet here we are with everyone conveniently blaming everyone else.
The utter disconnect between what they wish for and what is possible, and it isn’t with current technology, is highlighted here; as he says at the end, we are being led by political science:
Not only do they not want you to drive, they don’t want you to fly or travel unless it is by public transport. It will be made as difficult as possible in the short term by the mandating of vaccine passports; even if we in the UK are slow to this others will lead and all will follow. Only private jets as already will be exempt for the elite and the rich, anyone who thinks this will not happen is kidding themselves. The lying and scaremongering will continue unabated as it has been shown to work.
Schipol Amsterdam airport has just announced it will restrict the number of flights by ten per cent; interesting, as it is in the last phase of building a terminal to increase passenger numbers. So where did this bad business decision come from? It comes of course from the Dutch government who own the majority of the airport's holdings, the same government who are wanting to stop 50% of Dutch farming.
Were the Dutch public when they voted for this lot aware what was in store for them? If they were then on their collective heads be it, but I doubt that any political party would be shouting these policies from the rooftops, it will if at all be buried in the small print.
Sustainability has already been voiced by no other than the clothing industry which now has advocates of so called sustainable materials at much higher prices as the way forward despite years of the Primarks of this world dominating the industry. This philosophy is being applied to everything, in a recession of which we are on the edge, a lowering of living standards, and with wage stagnation over the last ten years. Simply, few will be able to afford this new way forward; in a growth economy there may be some justification for it in some areas, but that is not the case and won't be for years with the debt that has been forced on us.
Yet none of this will make the slightest bit of difference as outside the western woke world no one is listening. The climate change argument has no traction in places like China and India so we are impoverishing ourselves for nothing.
(President Trump warning in 2018 against overedependence on Russian energy supplies)
- Not laughing now, are they?
And finally, for those who believe that Britain should be turned into a version of Jurassic Park we have smug ‘conservationist’ Chris Packham at odds with smug SNP windbag Ian Blackford over Sea Eagles carrying his lambs away. My wish would be for the Sea Eagles to up their game and carry both of them away.
Blackford said this awhile back:
“Blackford’s calls come less than three years after a non-native mink killed his three-year-old ducks — named Mrs McGregor, Mrs Campbell, Mrs Morrison and Mrs McFarlane“
The price that’s paid for all this re-wilding and moves to sustainability have a price that is worth paying - until, that is, it affects you.
We will all be scavenging soon if this lunacy is allowed to carry on.
I first became aware of Darrell Scott when he appeared on the BBC's Transatlantic Sessions many years ago. Last weekend he popped up again on SKY Arts as one of the members of Robert Plant's Band of Joy in an hour long concert recorded in Nashville and very good it was too! I believe the whole thing is on YouTube somewhere.
Anyway, Scott is an exceptionally fine musician and songwriter of American folk music loosely categorised as Americana or Roots music.
Now that the contest for the Conservative leadership has been whittled down to two candidates, we should look at what qualities might make a good leader.
Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite nerves and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous.
Erstwhile Chancellor Rishi Sunak humblebrags that his greatest weakness is working hard. Potentially that could be a problem, if as PM he allows himself to get over-involved in minutiae to the detriment of ‘helicopter overview.’
With Liz Truss we have the problem of deciding whether she is stupid or lazy; or even both. For example, in the runup to the invasion of Ukraine she walked into a meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and told him ‘that the UK would never recognize Moscow’s sovereignty over the Voronezh and Rostov [Russian!] regions.’ It was hardly her first gaffe, but this one was huge: if you are going to confront a potential enemy, you absolutely must get your facts right. Lavrov accused her afterwards of being ‘unprepared.’
Truss has tried to ‘channel’ Margaret Thatcher, e.g. by the tank photo-op, and her choice of clothing for this leadership debate, thereby inviting damaging comparison, as Edwina Currie pointed out. At the least, this self-undermining image policy argues an inability to foresee presentational pitfalls, in a profession that relies so heavily on appearances.
Ability to dominate others
When General Montgomery first met Winston Churchill, the latter offered him alcohol. Monty replied, ‘I don’t drink and I don’t smoke, and I’m one hundred per cent fit.’ Churchill leaned forward and said, ‘I drink, and I smoke, and I’m two hundred per cent fit!’ Smiling at the memory decades later, Monty told the interviewer, ‘I thought then, we’ve got our man,’ i.e. someone with the aggression to lead the country to victory.
I may be wrong, but although Truss is ambitious, she doesn’t seem to have Thatcher’s intimidating diligence, force of personality and social skills, all necessary to bring the (still mostly male) serpents around the Cabinet table to order. I can imagine her as PM being briefed against, early and often.
Sunak is certainly clever - he used to be an investment analyst for Goldman Sachs (aka the ‘vampire squid.’) Like Gordon Brown, perhaps, he may come up with strategies, schemes and flowcharts - but can he lead? Like Truss, I think he’s a bit of a stiff, a natural big-corporation tie-wearer who chimes wrong when he tries casual as in the debate:
When Sven-Göran Eriksson chose David Beckham in 2001 to lead England in the World Cup, he said (and I wish I could find the quote) that Beckham had a winner’s state of mind that he could instinctively communicate to the rest of the team. That was borne out by England’s 5-1 victory against Germany in the qualifying rounds.
Beckham has often been guyed as apparently slow-minded or semi-inarticulate, but some people put one off by seeming too glib or ‘too clever by half.’
Does either Sunak or Truss pass the Beckham test?
Long-term vision
It’s been a long time since British politics has had a statesman at the helm. We stumble from one crisis to another; even Margaret Thatcher, voted in to ‘sort out the unions’, needed to cast about for a wider econo-political strategy and had to be guided into monetarism by Sir Keith Joseph.
In a way it can be an advantage not to have any beliefs. One of the reasons for Johnson’s entry to Number Ten is that his eyes had been fixed on personal greatness since childhood, irrespective of any moral or political principles. Rackety and sloppy, he was allowed to take over because he could see which way the political tide was turning, even while PM Theresa May was trying to hold it back, Canute-like.
Johnson’s egregious sense of entitlement, noted at Eton, is to many an attractive quality, even though perhaps it shouldn’t be. He has always felt that the rules needn’t apply to him; he is in a way a modern, a posh version of Neal Cassady. He is irrepressible - his resignation statement (7 July) and Parliamentary speech during the subsequent confidence debate (18 July) were amazingly bullish. Nothing will keep him down; goodness knows what further personal triumphs are ahead of him.
But what of our future?
The UK and the US have been systematically weakening themselves for what? forty years? while the East has been rising so rapidly at our expense and with the support of our multinational companies and globalist political class.
What will Sunak or Truss do to turn the tide? Do they want to?
