|
How do you solve a problem like
Nick Griffin?
(With apologies to the Sound of Music)
We've had
a big debate regarding whether or not it was justifiable to allow
Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, to participate last week
on 'Question Time' on BBC1. At the time I was in Normandy and
I saw no reference to it in the French newspapers. They had their
own debate of the moment - the proposition that the 22 year old
son of President ('Emperor') Sarkozy should become the chairman
of a public organization which deals with the redevelopment of
the main commercial area of Paris, 'La Defense' - a very prestigious
area. He has no relevant qualification for the appointment -
in fact he is a university student and just retaking the second
year of his law degree. Finally, last week, after all the clamour
against such obvious nepotism, the son decided not to put himself
forward for the position. The presence of a fascist or a Trotskyist
on French TV, however, isn't considered to be anything special.
Whether from the extremes of the left or the right, it is normal
to hear a wide range of opinion. But not so in England.
Even
though we can hear and read everything on the internet and in
the papers, it seems that we ought not to hear such opinions
on publicly funded television. Not because it is likely that
Nick Griffin will say something that is against the race relations
legislation, but because he has an opinion which is not acceptable
to many people. And because the fact that he would be sen on
the tele could mean that some people would be convinced by his
argument of England for the whites. It seems that we are children
who have to be protected from a malign influence rather than
adults who live in a democracy - adults with a right to listen
to everyone's opinions, even if they are not politically correct
or are plain irrational.
I
saw the broadcast and, obviously, the members of the audience
(who had written their own questions) did not share his opinions.
It was also obvious that, when he was not surrounded by sympathisers,
Nick Griffin was lost. He was not capable of presenting
arguments to persuade normal people of his (irrational) opinions.
His policy of presenting himself as the non-racist face of fascism
failed. To do so and at the same time to defend the leader
of the Klu Klux Klan as someone who is not very violent at all,
was not a brilliant idea. In reply to the accusation that
he had denied the holocaust, neither was it very clever to say
in his defense that he had never been convicted of it - particularly
when it is not even a crime in this country. But he is
not a very intelligent man. I do not think that we shall
have a prime minister called Nick Griffin in the foreseeable
future.
But
Peter Hain and the other extremist protestors are also in an
irrational position. What the antifascists think is, as far as
they are concerned, true and so it is not possible that the fascists
have a point of view which is in any sense justifiable - thus,
they do not have the right to express themselves. The anti-fascists
have for many years tried to silence the BNP and its friends
rather than argue with them. From time to time we see this attitude
to aspects of social behavior arrive and then depart rather like
the tide. The difficulty of talking openly about immigration
started in the 50's and has continued until almost now. It was
connected to the fact that a large proportion of the immigrants
were people of 'colour' and we managed to mix racism (an important
ethical question) with the practical problem: how and to what
extent can we house and integrate into our society all the people
who want to come here? The refusal to see these two things as
different has put us in a position where it is almost only the
fascists who have been willing to talk about it. The liberals,
mainly of the middle classes, have demonstrated, but only to
show their disapproval of the fascists and not to propose solutions
to the practical problems suffered, for the most part, by the
working classes.
It is dangerous to have forbidden subjects - ones
of which we cannot speak in polite society. Not only is it contrary
to the essence of free speech, but it risks the creation of a
boil which will eventually have to be lanced and the contents
cleaned up. It is better to avoid its formation in the first
place. We can be proud of our law regarding incitement to racial
hatred. It is a good compromise between the ability to express
ourselves and the right to make someone's life miserable or even
dangerous. Now, however, seeing that I am Welsh and thus more
indigenous to these isles than Nick Griffin, I must consider
whether the descendants of the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings and
the French should leave these shores in order to liberate this
country for me and my fellow countrymen and also of course for
our sheep - black and white. We Welsh can never be accused of
racism.
Harry
Potter and the magic prayer
Just after
we got back from a skiing break in Annecy, a religious friend,
presumably in an attempt to win me back to the faith, told me
that her equally religious daughter had gone out for a long weekend
with friends to the ski slopes in France, only to find that they
were shrouded in cloud. After two days of this, time was running
out and the daughter said to her friends: "What do think
we should do?". To which the reply was: "What can we
do?". The daughter said: "Well we could pray for the
weather to clear up". She did and it did - for the remaining
hours of their stay! The daughter used to be the leader of a
sales team for a large company and somehow I can just hear her
telling God that he had failed to meet his target for sunshine
upon the righteous.
Now of course
the previous week, when we had gone up Mount Semnoz to ski, we
too had found that our heads were in a cloud. We could barely
see where we were and the weather forecasts were not looking
good. As you may guess, I did not pray for better weather and
neither so far as I know did Heather. Somehow, though, for the
next three days that was precisely what we had - bright sunshine
and beautiful snow.
If I were still religious and had prayed, then
I might have believed such glorious weather to be an answer to
prayer. Or perhaps not, because my experience of prayer for good
weather for church outings when I was young was that the result
was about as reliable as the long-term weather forecast, despite
the amount of faith displayed by our leaders. In fact, in my
church, we gave up on the concept altogether. I'm not sure that
we had in mind the chaos theory idea that the beating of a butterfly's
wings here might cause a hurricane on the other side of the world,
but we came to the conclusion that it was selfish to ask for
any particular sort of weather for ourselves, when it might be
exactly the opposite of what someone-else needed. We decided
that must be why God ignored our requests for sunshine. And so
we took our macks instead.
There
are, however, large sections of the evangelical wing of the Church
in America, particularly, which believe not just in God the weatherman,
but in God the Capitalist - a God who has promised believers
all sorts of good things, both spiritual and material. All they
need to do is, in the jargon, "claim the promises of God".
It is the Harry Potter version of Christianity - one where all
you have to do is say the right incantation, waive your wand
and behold, you get what you want, be it money or health! In
the febrile atmosphere of such churches, any apparent example
of the working of such promises is acclaimed as confirmation
of God's faithfulness to his people. They tithe their money to
their churches knowing that if they have faith in their God in
his new role as investment manager, then he will give them what
they ask for - the bread they cast upon the waters will be returned
to them - which is one of those promises. If they are not successful,
then it is down to their lack of faith. And the Churches have
malls instead of bookshops.
Amongst
the superstitious generally, the events in their lives which
accord with their superstition are made a lot of - the others
are largely ignored. They are put down to a failure to use the
correct make of frogs leg or eye of newt when carrying out the
incantation. The Boxer Uprising in China of 1900 against modernism
and Christianity was a good example of this way of thinking,
as 'In Our Time' reminded us the other week. The Chinese peasants
belonging to this martial-arts based religion believed that through
training, martial arts, diet and prayer, they could perform extraordinary
feats, such as flight, and would be immune to swords and bullets.
They went into battle against the government troops believing
that they were invincible. When they were shot and killed, defects
in their religious ceremonies prior to the battle, or the presence
of "unclean" women during those ceremonies, would be
blamed for their vulnerability.
But
it is not just the churches or the superstitious. The American
investment fund boss, Bernard Madoff, relied on a similar mentality
- the wish to believe. He became the incarnation of God the Investment
Manager, conferring upon his carefully chosen people a return
on their investment at a rate which was seemingly impossible.
And of course it was. He used the money of new investors to pay
the promised returns to the established investors - not forgetting
to take a substantial cut for himself along the way. He helped
his marks to convince themselves that, just like the Boxers and
the Harry Potter wing of the church, they were immune to reality.
People persist in failing to understand that if something looks
too good to be true then it almost certainly is.
Of course,
because his fraud could clearly be proved, Mr Madoff will end
his days in gaol. Not so, however, the many other purveyors of
false hope who wriggle and twist and tell us that all we had
to do to avoid disaster was put another wing of bat in the cauldron.
A flight of fantasy or There are never enough
hours in the day
It
was just the other day that the death was reported of one of
the last four of the veterans of the first world war hitherto
surviving. He was 108. His three remaining comrades in arms are
aged between 107 and 112. And these are men, and men do not usually
live for as long as women. In fact currently, there are 7 times
as many female centenarians in Britain as men. Now attaining
the age of 100 does not rival Methuselah, but it is nonetheless
far beyond the Psalmist's three score years and ten.
And
becoming a centenarian is on the increase. In 2007, there were
9,300 centenarians in the UK as compared to about 100 in 1900.
Bearing in mind that those now aged 100 or more were born around
1900, then it is clear that, with all the medical advances we
have seen since then, we can look forward to vastly increasing
numbers. In the last 40 years, the number of centenarians has
increased tenfold and so it seems reasonable to assume that in
40 years time that figure will reach at least 90,000.
For
years, ever since as a young lawyer I consulted my first copy
of the actuarial tables, I have been telling people that the
longer they live, the greater the age they can expect ultimately
to live to. This takes a while to sink in, but I generally find
that their eyes un-glaze when I point out that three score and
ten, or perhaps three score and fifteen now, is the average innings
for all just-born babies. It takes into account the risks we
will encounter during our lives from illness or dangerous sports
like, well like any kind of sport really. But if, having got
to, say, 50, we've managed to avoid them, and being alive is
a good indicator of that, then that increases the likelihood
of our living to a reasonably ripe old age.
Of
course the actual life expectancy at birth varies from person
to person, not only because of the amount of danger we expose
ourselves to, but it is also influenced by where you are born
and who you are born to. This is clearly unfair. I therefore
intend to write to Brussels to suggest a new European Directive.
It would provide for the Standard European Life Expectancy and
would fix it at 75 years.
Does
a fixed life span mean that I am in favour of euthanasia for
everyone once they have reached the end of their Euro life-span?
Well, it could be an answer in a world with an ever-increasing
population, but no. Quite obviously though, if in reality we
have the actual life-span which nature has bestowed upon us,
but are deemed to have a lifetime lasting only 75 years, then
something has to change. That something would be the length of
the year. We would each therefore have a personalised variable
length year. The older we got, the longer our variable year -
to be called the Euroyear" - would have to be in order to
accommodate our increased life expectancy.
Now
this is not a wind up. Alright, it is a wind up, but think of
the benefits it could give us. At the age of 50, my life expectancy
was actually 84 years. That means that, on average, each of my
Euroyears was 84/75ths of a calendar year or 409 days. At my
present age, the age at which the tables anticipate that I will
fall off my twig has increased to 87 years. My Euroyear"
would therefore have increased by 14 days so that now it is 423
days long. Allowing as well for the previous years when my Euroyear"
was underestimated because I hadn't then lived long enough to
demonstrate my longevity and you have an almost exponential increase
in length for my Euroyear".
Now,
apart from the creation of Eurojobs, where's the benefit? Well,
as they get older, everyone complains that time rushes by faster
and faster. With my proposal this would all stop. Instead, as
we got older the years would get longer rather than shorter.
As an alternative, you could have the choice of this extra time
being reflected in a longer week - currently my Euroweek would
stand at 8 earth days, a possible disadvantage if I still worked,
but no problem now that I am retired. Or at last we could have
that thing which everybody wants - more hours in the day: an
extra 4 for me to be exact.
It's
amazing what a lawyer's training can do for you.
Apathy
and disillusionment
It is Sunday 21 June
2009. According to the TV this morning, there was a demonstration
in the streets of Teheran yesterday. This, notwithstanding
the command by the supreme head of Iran to the contrary and the
menaces implicit in his speech of a violent reaction against
those who decided to continue to protest.
The theme of the protestors
is summed up on a card carried on the foreheads of many of the
them: it says "Where is my vote?". Up until now,
there has been no reply, apart from the fury and arrogance of
those in power. Press
TV, the official
English voice of the Iranian government makes little mention
of the extent of the protest. Its Election Blog stops with
the announcement of the victory of Mr Ahmadinejad.
George Galloway, the British
MP and leader of the Respect Party, presents a programme on Press
TV and has a column in the Daily Record, a Scottish newspaper.
He has written in his column - "We have to accept Ahmadinejad's
re-election, not least because all our best friends in that region
don't have any elections at all." Even if this were
true - and we can cite Israel to the contrary - would this be
justification for electoral fraud? But this is the pompous
man who said to Saddam Hussein - "Sir, I salute your courage,
your strength, your indefatigability.". (To see this
stomach-churming moment click here.) And in the meantime
we see that there are ordinary people with the courage to put
their lives at risk to demand real democracy. Of course,
just like President Mugabe, the government of Iran blames its
problems on that great foreign power, England - England which,
it seems, is the most evil of all the western powers.
In the real England, we see
a situation where the MPs, whom we have elected under a fair
system, are not very popular. But it is not just because
they have made such a mess of their expenses. Yes, this
hasn't helped the situation at all, but lack of trust in politicians
has been, just like the flu, endemic in our society for many
years, for many decades even. Why? Because even if
the system permits us to vote for the candidate we choose, we
end up each time with a government which will do anything it
can in order to remain in power. It gradually becomes less and
less responsive to us and to what we see as necessary.
We have the word "Spin"
to describe the manipulation of information necessary to try
to persuade us that things are not really as we believed them
to be. Because of their failure to be straight with us,
we no longer listen to them. We know that it will not be
the truth - or at least it will not be the whole truth and nothing
but the truth. And so we are no longer interested in voting.
Our apathy robs us of our vote.
Having borrowed immense amounts
of money in order to support our banking system, Gordon cannot
now accept that it will be necessary to reduce to some extent
our outgoings (his so-called "Investment") in the future.
He cannot bring himself to use the word "Cuts", even
if it is obvious to us all that it will be necessary. He
is petrified in a position where he cannot admit the truth, because
spin has become a part of this character. Unfortunately,
he is not unique in the characteristic. I admit that not
all politicians are alike, but it is a very widespread tendency
and so we cannot be sure that any politician will tell us the
truth. In our view, they are all tarred with the same brush.
Which is sad.
What to do? Personally,
I would prefer a system where there was separation of power as
between the government and the legislature, but we won't see
that in the foreseeable future. In its absence, therefore,
I would have primaries to select the candidates and so not just
end up with the candidates selected by the party apparatchiks.
There ought to be a right of recall of any MP, as in California,
where he or she does something unacceptable. And then thirdly,
I am not convinced that it ought to be possible to make a long-term
career out of being an MP. American presidents are only
allowed two terms of office. To be well paid, but only
be able to sit for say three parliaments would, with the other
proposals, probably create MP's less under the control of the
party system. Accepting that political parties are necessary,
the balance between the control exerted by the party and the
independence of opinion necessary in a representative democracy
should shift towards independence.
I hope never to need to go
onto the streets in order to demand real democracy in our country,
but we see at the moment a dangerous growth in support, not for
the mullahs, but for fanatics of the fascist persuasion.
In order to avoid a continuing decline in the faith we have in
our system of democracy, and the consequent encouragement of
extremism, we must take seriously the need for a real change
in our political world.
Life as a story
The
star of reality TV and OK magazine, Jade Goody, died on mother's
day 2009 in a blaze of publicity, both here and abroad - Le Monde
for instance described her as the Princess Di of the poor. She
became known because of her appearance on Big Brother. But then
on Celebrity Big Brother, she made some very impolite remarks
about Shilpa Shetty, a star of Bollywood. Jade was expelled from
the house and became a hate figure for British society. She became
despised not only for her racism but also for her loud mouth,
general ignorance - she thought East Anglia was abroad somewhere
- and lack of education: the very 'qualities' which had made
her famous in the first place.
There
then followed a period when, with the help of the publicist Max
Clifford, she gradually rehabilitated herself in the minds of
the celebrity-magazine buying public. This was not hindered by
the fact that Max Clifford represented Shilpa Shetty as well.
Public forgiveness was stage-managed to everyone's mutual profit
and, indeed, Jade was appearing on the Indian version of Big
Brother to show just how un-racist she was when the terrible
news was given to her of something which was all too real.
And
so the public accepted her back into its arms on a wave of emotion.
She had lived in the full glare of publicity and now was to die
in the same way. The controversy over her making a few millions
of pounds from this last phase of her life merely ensured that
she made even more money, as did Max Clifford. But most people
were perfectly happy for her to make as much money as she could
in order to support her two sons after her death. As she said,
she wanted to make sure they had the best education they could
get :an education which she had not had - the factor which had
both given her wealth and nearly taken that wealth away. And
she married in church and made sure they would all meet in the
hereafter by having herself and her children christened and so
accepted into the Christian faith.
Now
we have been here before. Princess Di comes to mind - someone
generally regarded as an attractive, if not very bright, woman
who was wronged by the Prince whom she married in a fairy-tale
wedding and who was then 'murdered' when about to find happiness
in the arms of another, according to her pantomime villain of
a prospective father-in-law.
Now,
the two stories are certainly not the same, but they are both
stories made up of elements that could be found in any melodrama.
There is romance, pathos, infidelity, religion, a mother's love,
redemption, forgiveness and tragic death. And it was all presented
by their publicists and the media, those professional story tellers,
in a way which tugged at our heart strings to the maximum extent.
The regret and the soul-searching of the Montagues and Capulets
when they discover the deaths of Romeo and Juliet are reflected
in the public's reaction to the deaths of these two modern heroines.
But
both of these people are actually yesterday's news. The band-waggon
has moved on. The story has changed to star a socially awkward,
unemployed, rather unattractive, 47 year old Scottish woman,
who has "never been kissed". But she is a woman
who had the courage to stand up in front of an initially hostile
and highly sceptical audience and judges on "Britain's got
talent" and sing so well that she brought the house down.
Since then there have been 75 million* hits on her performance
on YouTube and press coverage throughout the world. Demi
Moore brought her to the attention of the American public through
her Twitter site, saying that she was in tears after watching
the performance. Again, a melodrama with a plot as implausible
as you can imagine - a triumph of talent and innocence over the
superficiality of looks.
Since
the show was broadcast, we have found that she has learning difficulties,
was bullied at school, visits old folk on behalf of her church,
was her elderly mother's carer until she died two years ago,
that for many years she had singing lessons and took part in
talent shows with her mother's encouragement. And now,
finally, she has triumphed against all the odds. Could
it get any better? Perhaps she will finally be kissed.
But will she be able to build on her success or will she
ultimately be broken by it like many of her predecessors? We
cannot know, but we shall watch as the story continues to unfold
- at least until the next character comes on the scene and displaces
her in our living soap opera.
* as at 24 April 2009
The cucumbers on the roof
Our
mothers came to lunch on Sunday: they cover most of the last
century from Zeppelins to e-mails. My mother was telling us the
story of how one day during the last war she heard my grandmother
shouting for help from the garden. There was an air-raid shelter
dug into the ground, on the roof of which a thick layer of earth
was piled up as additional protection. In the spirit of
'Dig for Victory', my grandmother had planted cucumbers on the
roof and had gone out to dig the patch over. She had dug
her spade in only to find that she had made contact with the
casing of an incendiary bomb, which must have fallen harmlessly
in the previous night's air-raid.
Fortunately
it did not go off in response to my grandmother's direct hit
either. The bomb disposal squad was called by my mother in her
official, albeit somewhat unlikely, capacity as the air-raid
warden for the street and they made it safe. It's the sort of
event in life that stays with you.
Later
that day, I was standing by the sink of one of the houses we
let to students, washing from my hands the dust from an old wardrobe
which I had been breaking up. We needed to replace it and there
was no way we could get it down the rather narrow staircase in
one piece. It had come with the house, which had been sold to
us some years previously by an elderly lady who had lived there
for a very long time. And so I suppose the dust I was washing
away represented, in some sense, the history of that house.
When
we meet someone new, of course, they have no idea what our history
is. The people who have featured in our lives over the years
know the part of our history which they have shared with us and
whatever-else we choose to tell them, but friendships come and
go and, during even the longest friendships, there are things
which will have happened of which the friend will not be aware.
And
so there is no-one who really knows everything which has happened
to me and how I reacted to all those events: not even me. I,
who lived through it all, cannot remember everything which has
happened to me. My memory of my own life is necessarily very
selective.
But
there is a sense in which everyone knows my history, because
the events in my life and how I dealt with them, together with
that accident of history, my genome, have made me the person
I am today. And so someone who has only known me for a short
time sees me for what I am now, rather than seeing what I am
now, but through the distorting lens of what I was in the past.
For
there is no doubt that it takes some time for us to adjust to
the changing personality of our friends. But it takes even more
time to adjust to our own changing personalities. My initial
reaction, for example, is still to think of myself as the tongue-tied
adolescent I was with, now, just an artificial veneer of self-confidence.
Of course, the reality is that I have long since ceased to be
timid and am now probably at my happiest when having a good conversation.
Which
all goes to underline the need to move on from the past. The
question is much more what I am going to do today and tomorrow.
The past has its share of stories which are worth telling, but
the present is where we live. And so we should take a look at
ourselves every so often and reflect on who we are now and what
our strengths and weaknesses are, so that our past does not impede
our future. We should wash away the dust.
Abu Qatada and human rights
This
is an essay where I do not know, as I begin to write, what my
conclusion will be. But, to start with, let's be honest: Abu
Qatada is not someone I would invite into my home. He is an extremist
Moslem cleric who has said some hideous things. If anyone converts
from being a muslim to some other religion then he is in favour
of that person's murder, and also that of the rest of his family.
He has advocated the killing of Jews and attacks on Americans.
His disciples have included some very nasty muslim extremists.
Mr
Justice Colins, of SIAC, the court dealing with these things,
having seen all the evidence against him, open and secret, said
of him that he was "a truly dangerous individual".
He came here on a false passport in 1993 and, ironically, was
granted asylum on the ground that he would be subject to religious
persecution if returned to his home country of Jordan. Irony
is clearly written over everything in this case: he is using
Human Rights legislation to resist being returned to Jordan despite
his hatred of everything for which Human Rights stand.
And
yet, he has now been awarded compensation by the European Court
of Human Rights* ('ECHR') of £2,500 (although not the £170,000
claimed) because he was detained for a while under laws which
allowed indefinite detention of foreigners who appeared to be
a grave threat to national security. The basis of the finding
was not that he was not a threat to national security but that
his detention was discriminatory, as the House of Lords had already
found. This was because the law only applied to foreigners
and not to UK nationals as well. The law was therefore
changed, and now, in a modified form ('Control Orders' - a form
of house arrest), it applies to everyone equally. Which
is nice.
At
almost the same time, the House of Lords has decided** that this
man can be returned to his country of origin, Jordan, where he
has already been convicted in absentia of terrorism. He will
be tried again, but it is said that some of the evidence on which
the original conviction was founded was obtained by torture of
the witnesses. And that evidence will be used again. This
is what the controversy has been about.
Torture
is absolutely prohibited by all human rights conventions. But
the House of Lords has decided that the question of using evidence
allegedly obtained by torture is not the deciding factor.
The question is whether there is "a real risk that Qatada's
trial in Jordan would be flagrantly unfair in character, course
or consequences". In the light of the memorandum of
understanding signed between the UK and the Jordanian governments
as to how Qatada would be dealt with upon his return, they held
there was no real likelihood of such risk.
The
Lords said that the Human Rights convention, as previously interpreted
by the ECHR itself, did not require a trial process of the standard
which would be required for someone in the countries which had
signed the convention - only that it should not be flagrantly
unfair. The use of evidence allegedly obtained by torture
(and there is after all no actual proof of that it was so obtained)
was only therefore one consideration amongst many. So then,
we can send someone back to his country of origin where he would
face a trial process which we in Europe would regard as unacceptable,
but which nonetheless is not likely to be 'flagrantly unfair'.
Which does seem to be just a little discriminatory.
One
of the problem with human rights is that we know the sort of
gross breaches of human rights which we think should never be
allowed. We can put names to them - Hitler, Pol Pot etc. But
when we try to write down what we mean in a convention we inevitably
fail to allow for the unknowable complexities of human life in
a very different future. This is part of the reason why
we now have so much difficulty in finding a way to deal with
someone who is flagrantly evil and is a danger to national security.
The
other difficulty is that the simple solution of trying him here
for any crimes he has committed here has been ruled out. Why?
Because in the opinion of MI5 and the government the trial
process would apparently reveal too much about the technology
used to obtain the information required to produce a conviction.
Although it seems that this disclosure it is not a problem for
other countries in Europe.
Quite
clearly, the House of Lords has tried to find a way to deport
someone that no-one wants here, without at the same time offending
the principles of the Human Rights Act. Personally, I am
not convinced that they have or that the ECHR will think that
they have succeeded. What is really needed, though is a
change in policy to allow evidence of crimes committed here to
be prosecuted here, despite the misgivings of MI5. It would
cause far less damage to the fabric of our human rights than
that which we have seen arise from their attempts to detain without
the need to prosecute for actual crimes. And human rights
are important to us as well as to Mr Qatada.
*Click here for link to summary of ECHR
judgement
**Click here for House of Lords Judgement
Charles Darwin
and purpose
This
year we celebrate Darwin's bicentenary. He was born on 12 February
1809. The widespread media coverage has given us a greater insight
into the man and his theories. As we know, at the centre of his
revolutionary theory of evolution is his concept of the survival
of the fittest. Organisms which are slightly different to others
of their kind will have a different probability of survival -
whether better or worse. Those which have the better chance of
surviving, by being better adapted to their surroundings or being
better able to compete with other organisms, will be more likely
to live long enough to reproduce. It's as simple as that.
That
such a simple concept was so revolutionary is surprising to us
now. Darwin though amassed a tremendous amount of evidence during
his years of voyage on the Beagle and then for many years after
that. It showed the vast number of subtle variations which existed
within the same species and which spread in a continuum across
to other species. Up until then, it had been accepted that there
was little variation within species and that there were clear
differences between the species. This was despite the obvious
evidence from plant and dog breeding which showed that major
changes in a species could be brought about quite easily and
quickly.
But
there was something else. The pre-Darwinian world was supposed
to have meaning, to have purpose. Darwin's world had no need
of purpose. By definition, evolution was not aiming at any particular
goal: it just happened. This seemed to most people to be completely
unnatural. And recent experiments on young children reveal the
idea of a purposeful world to be their normal state of mind.
According to the researchers, children as young as three attribute
purpose to things. When 7 and 8-year-old children were asked
questions about inanimate objects and animals, it was found that
most believed they were created for a specific purpose. Pointy
rocks were there for animals to scratch themselves on. Birds
existed "to make nice music", while rivers exist so
boats have something to float on. "It was extraordinary
to hear children saying that things like mountains and clouds
were 'for' a purpose and appearing highly resistant to any counter-suggestion,"
said the researchers.*
Of
course whether this 'normal' state of mind is innate or comes
from upbringing is unknown. But a purposive way of looking at
things is natural for adults as well. It is though more a wish
to see purpose in what befalls us in life, rather than accepting
that our lives are simply the subject of chance events. This
wish to see purpose in seemingly random events is exemplified
by the astonishing pronouncement of a recently promoted catholic
bishop that the devastation and deaths caused by Hurricane Katrina
were the result of the sexual immorality of the people in Louisiana.
I wonder what he will make of the bush fire disaster in Southern
Australia this week.
But
his pronouncement also illustrates the quite logical consequence
that such a belief in purpose means that we are more likely to
believe that we have a reasonable prospect of controlling our
'destiny' by non-rational means. We can try to become the more
moral people the Archbishop would have us be, we can pray or
we can perhaps head the warnings of our horoscopes.
And
it seems that in hard times, when human beings feel that they
are losing the normal sort of control they have over their lives,
they do indeed rely more on superstition, spiritual searching
and conspiracy theories. Studies show that people in risky professions
- deep-sea fishermen for example - perform a greater number of
superstitious rituals than those with desk jobs. Those living
in high-risk areas of the Middle East are far more likely to
carry a lucky charm or avoid walking under ladders than others.
A 2007 study* showed a 50% increase in the growth rate of evangelical
churches in the US with the downturn of each economic cycle.
Uncertainty about our lives, whether at work or at home, tends
to makes us unhappy and so it is not surprising that we look
for ways, whether real or imaginary, to take back control. Although
whether this genuinely gives us all happiness or just makes a
large umber of us more neurotic is, in my view, open to debate.
So
then, whilst Darwin showed us a new way of looking at life and
death, many people have a real problem facing up to the consequences.
For them there seem to be two options. The first is a refusal,
mainly by the very religious, to accept the validity of the overwhelming
evidence in its favour. For the others there is the possibility
of accepting the theory without ever thinking about its consequences,
something which experience tells me is quite widespread. Perhaps
in another two hundred years time, we shall as a species, have
evolved the ability to live with reality? Maybe. Perhaps by then
pigs might also have evolved the ability to fly.
*
see New Scientist , 7th February 2009 - "Natural born believers"
The inertia
of belief
I
remember when I was about 12 years old riding my scooter along
the garden path and trying to work out what to 'believe in God'
really meant. According to the books I had read, the words had
connotations of to 'trust in, cling to and rely on' God's Son.
And, of course, if you did believe then eternal life would be
yours. But for all these extra words, the basic point was that
there had to be absolute acceptance. To doubt was to sin. And
it was that which I found difficult. How is acceptance of something
in any sense possible unless there is some convincing evidence
that it is true? And no proof is offered; merely assertion.
Now
if I want to climb Everest, I know that my best bet is to find
myself an experienced Sherpa, one who has done the climb many
times before and so who can guide me in (relative) safety to
the top. In that sense I shall believe in him, I shall rely upon
him, although not absolutely - I know that we may still get into
difficulty.
This
illustrates the problem that the various religions have. They
each profess, alone, to be able to guide us (by very different
paths) safely to the top of their Everest - to eternal life.
The difficulty is that none of these guides or their illustrious
predecessors over the millennia have ever been there themselves
and come back, or can produce any evidence that the people they
have guided have actually found the safety of eternity.
Belief,
however, is not confined to religion. We have political beliefs
- I can for instance believe in peace. But in reality all that
means is that I want peace - and if necessary I suppose that
I have to be prepared to fight for it! One may be motivated by
a belief in Socialism. I, however, do not have to believe in
Socialism in order to know that, like most people, I have a strong
emotional reaction against unfairness (especially towards me)
and feel empathy for those in a worse position than me. These
are enough to motivate me to do something, without the need for
any underlying system of beliefs.
Communism,
that extreme form of socialism, asserted that all would be well
if we were all equal. Not that it ever lived up to its own agenda,
but since the 80's it has suffered a rapid decline and is now
unrecognizable as any form of Marxism even in China. Economic
reality has ultimately defeated a long-held set of beliefs. Mind
you, pure market-based capitalism as a belief system is hardly
credible in the light of present circumstances either.
This
is the main problem with beliefs: if I say that I believe something
to be true, then I have an emotional need to try to justify it,
whether I have doubts or not. That is a large part of the reason
why communism lasted for so long even when it was quite obvious
that it had failed. By having beliefs, I paint myself into a
corner. Politics ought surely to be based on pragmatism - what
works - rather than the rhetoric of belief.
And
then we have quasi-religious beliefs such as astrology or those
underlying 'complimentary medicine'. Now it has been shown by
that cynical group of people we call scientists, that most types
of complementary medicine are of no more use than flower power
was in the 60's or girl power was in the hands of the Spice Girls.
So we have a contradiction. We live in a time when there is a
call for proper evidence-based medicine in the NHS, rather than
relying without question on what doctors have always believed
works. At the same time, however, many people choose to
accept a rag-bag of mystical ideas which are, by and large, based
on mutually contradictory versions of how the body functions,
but all under the overall banner of complementary medicine. Of
necessity this results in equally contradictory ways of curing
the body's ills, although this contradiction is never pointed
out by its practitioners.
Obviously
complementary medicine does not extend to serious illness, because
there is a tacit understanding that these things shouldn't be
relied on for anything life-threatening - hence the substitution
of the phrase "Complementary Medicine" for the original
description "Alternative Medicine". For minor or chronic
ailments, however, people will spend money on them. They feel
justified in doing so because it is their belief that "it
works for them", rather than accepting that people do sometimes
just get better or feel better because the body has managed to
repair itself or because their mood has changed. The placebo
effect is a wonderful thing.
Maybe
such beliefs remain popular despite contrary evidence because
they are largely protected from argument. For many people
there seems to be an unwritten rule that all beliefs are 'personal'
and so not susceptible of debate, especially when they are based
on wishful thinking regarding illness and death. To accept
that they are wrong is not an option. For them, there is
no requirement that a belief should have been arrived at rationally
- and so, by the same token it cannot be challenged by reason.
The consequence is to encourage lazy thinking.
For
these reasons, therefore, I think that it would be useful to
abolish the word belief altogether. I cannot see what the word
adds to any debate, except for a false degree of certainty -
after all, logic tells us that there is nothing that we can believe
in, in the strong sense of being absolutely certain of it, unless
we are insane or fools or have been convinced of it by a charismatic
speaker.
I
personally do not feel the need to believe, for instance, that
the sun will rise tomorrow. I simply live my life on the
assumption that it will do so, based on the available evidence.
I shall continue to do so until I see a reason not to -
albeit perhaps for only a brief period! I don't even 'believe'
in logic. I use it because it works where no other approach produces
results which reliably accord with reality.
So
then, I don't have the need for the certainty or the self-delusion
of beliefs. Instead, perhaps rather boringly, I have working
assumptions based on evidence. And these days we should
all surely be asking not just for evidence-based medicine, but
for evidence-based living. In doing so, we might at last
rid ourselves of the cloying inertia of belief.
A Christmas
reflection
Just
before Christmas, there was a poll in Russia to find the most
popular Russian of all time. 50 million people voted. It was
a close run thing. In the end, Alexander Nevsky, a 13th century
warrior prince came first and second was reformist Prime Minister
Pyotr Stolypin, who was assassinated in 1911. In a strong third
position though, came Uncle Joe (Stalin). He had in fact been
leading until just before the poll closed.
Now
tell me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he some sort of dictator? The
one who sent millions of people to their deaths in the work camps
of the Gulag and because of whom millions more perished in political
purges or during the forced collectivisation of farms during
his rule from the 1920s to his death in 1953? The poll was inspired
by a similar poll carried out in this country to find the greatest
Brit. The result was a close call between such luminaries as
Newton and Darwin, but ultimately the winner was Winston Churchill.
Alright, he was a war leader, but he was leading the fight against
a dictator. And that dictator is still apparently revered by
rather strange groups of people who see an iron fist as the main
requirement for a leader - providing, of course, that they can
be in his gang, even posthumously.
Now
I am not suggesting that the Russians who have just voted for
him would actually have been in Stalin's gang if they had been
alive during his reign of terror. Somehow, it seems that the
passage of time has instead enabled them to down-play the horror
of what happened in favour of a sentimental attachment to the
presumed stability and greatness of the country during that period.
In the same way, many people in Zimbabwe will be looking back
at the stability and wealth that there was when the minority
white population was in charge of what was then called Northern
Rhodesia following UDI. That of course, just like the Russian
example, is to confuse a wanting for stability and a comfortable
life with the means of having it. If dictatorship were indeed
the only means of achieving such ends, then it would be a sad
day.
Such
selective vision is however commonplace in us humans. In fact,
I suspect that with the lack of interest that there is in politics
and the lack of trust in politicians, a surprisingly large number
of people would not be too bothered if they never had to vote
again. They would accept the lack of liberty which that would
imply as the necessary cost for getting rid of the annoyance
of the current political order. If only we could agree on someone
to replace them - perhaps we could borrow Barrack Obama for the
duration.
I
was struck over the Christmas period by the amazing and beautiful
descriptions of God contained in the carols and oratorios sung.
He (for 'he' it is) is great, loving, all-knowing and able to
do for us everything we need. He is wonderful. Of course, his
care for us hardly seems to tie in with the reality of our lives,
but we nonetheless continue with our idolisation of God. It seems
to me that we have moved on from appeasing the local dictators
- the spirits of the trees and the rivers and instead we have
created a supposedly benign mega-dictator. We have managed to
define God in such a way that he is a paradigm of all that we
could ever want - the perfect benign dictator - and having so
defined him, it seems impossible to remove him from his position.
It would destroy our dreams.
Dictatorship,
however benign it may appear to be on the surface, is still though
an aggregation of power in one persons' hands, or perhaps I should
say in the hands of a group of people. Because, as we all know,
a dictator cannot dictate without the aid of his gang of supporters.
This is true in the playground where the bully needs to have
mates in order to be really effective, just as much as for Stalin
or Saddam Hussein who needed people who would accept the reward
offered in exchange for being enforcers - even if it was just
the reward of not being themselves in the firing line. Are the
clerics of any religion any different? When we cease to acknowledge
the rule of their particular God, we know that he will visit
terrible vengeance upon us in the form of plague, floods, pestilence
and earthquakes. We know this, because the religious folk tell
us so. And they are more than happy with such an arrangement.
They are, after all, in God's gang. You cross them at your peril.
The
relationship between the gang members is inherently unstable,
based as it is on competition to please the man with the ultimate
power and so improve your position in the pecking order. And
when the dictator dies, there is always a power struggle. But
how much more difficult must it be to maintain order when the
dictator has no earthly form. Where the adherents must decide
on very limited information what the dictator would have wanted.
After all, this is what we see with religions. And in the sectarianism
which is rampant in all religions, we see the disorder that would
be expected where there is no tangible presence to keep control,
with followers of the different sects at war with each other.
Often literally.
But
in the more civilised parts of the world, I suspect that there
is a growing realisation that we should not take all this too
seriously. There are still the true believers who take it all
seriously, but for the vast majority in this country and in Europe
generally, I think that these days the idea of God can be put
into the same category as homeopathy or reflexology. We dip into
it in a rather embarrassed way when we have nowhere-else to go
but, otherwise, we live our lives without taking much notice
of the shouty people who want us to chastise ourselves for our
sins or have numerous children. It may even be for once that
a dictatorship will come to an end simply because no-one can
be bothered to be afraid any longer - interestingly, it may be
ended through apathy rather than conflict.
It's all
in the mind
Scientists
have reported an experiment they have carried out on a blind
man. He was blind because he had had a stroke which had damaged
the part of his brain which enabled him consciously to see things.
His eyes and the optic nerves were unaffected, as was the part
of the brain to which the optic nerve reported. They put him
in a room with lots of things in it and asked him to walk across
it. He succeeded in doing so without colliding with any of the
obstacles. He was unaware at a conscious level of having seen
anything, but his sub-conscious brain had seen' everything and
guided him accordingly.
Functional
magnetic resonance imaging has apparently come a long way and
now it really is possible not only to localise where different
functions of the brain take place, but also to see them take
place in response to external stimuli. In this way a picture
has built up which tells us that we are both very different to
how we normally perceive ourselves and that Freud was not quite
as far away from the truth as we nowadays tend to imagine. Because
now it seems that in fact the vast majority of processing goes
on at a sub-conscious level, with only occasional reporting back
to the conscious level of the results. This is true of what we
would see as intellectual tasks as well as everyday things. We
see this in doing the cross-word, where we look at a clue and
have no clue as to the answer. Give it ten minutes and, preferably,
a complete distraction, and upon returning to the clue, the answer
is blindingly obvious. Likewise, we go to sleep unable to see
an answer to a problem only to wake up with a much clearer picture
of how to deal with things. From the research carried out, it
seems that it is both when we are awake and also when we are
asleep that our subconscious is beavering away to produce solutions.
It never shuts down.
We
are not surprised when we walk down the street without consciously
making an effort either to walk or to avoid collisions with other
people. But of course, babies don't do that. They have to learn
to walk, to take avoiding action. But they soon sub-contract
that work to the sub-conscious so that they can get on with other
things. And it seems that those other things include not only
the motor tasks which we have to manage in order to stay upright,
but also, at least in part, the higher, rational activities that
we need to engage in order to determine the meaning of life,
the universe and everything. After many years of study and of
practice of the law, the mere presentation to me of a problem
would normally automatically bring to the fore at least the outlines
of its solution. Presumably from my subconscious. That in turn
would suggest to my conscious brain how to investigate further.
Then, by combining my background knowledge together with
the consciously acquired new data from e.g. the case-law I consulted,
the most likely solution would gradually emerge into my conscious
brain. Apparently that's how it happens.
So
what exactly does the conscious me do? The latest research suggests
that the sub-conscious is processing all the information we take
in, but the conscious brain ('the mind') decides what information
it actually needs for what it has determined is required for
its purposes. It then extracts that information from the basement
level. Current theory is that the conscious brain is there to
manage things. It is there to keep records and plan; to keep
to the fore a picture of who we are and what we want to achieve.
Unlike other animals we have long term goals. And to have these
it is reasonable to assume that it is efficient for us to be
more than just dimly aware of ourselves as entities. In order
to plan for the future, we have to see ourselves as part of a
process in time - to imagine ourselves in our planned future.
To interact socially and so co-operate as successfully as we
do with others, we have to be able to recognise them as beings
similar to ourselves and understand how they think. We have to
stand in their shoes. We must be fully self-conscious.
And
in all of this, is there a place for a mind separate from the
brain? There seems to be no need for one according to the scientists.
But for those who still think there is one, I wonder how they
would explain Alzheimer's disease? The dualist's non-material
mind is supposed to be the real me and allow 'me' to continue
into eternity. With Alzheimer's, however, accompanying the progressive
loss of the memories is the inevitable loss of personality, the
loss of 'me'. It seems odd that a brain disease can mean that
the non-physical mind parallels the physical brain's decline,
so that there is essentially nothing left of the real me to go
onto the next life - neither personality nor memories. You would
think that my eternal spirit would at least have a back-up copy
of me to use in case of emergency, both during my life and afterwards.
For more detailed information about fMRI etc. please
see the web-site for 'In our Time', 13th November 2008
Swiss rolls
The
Swiss have given the world many notable things - the Swiss Army
knife, the cuckoo clock and, of course, the Swiss Roll. What
they gave us on Sunday last (30 November 2008) was, however,
quite extraordinary. Despite the disapproval of the USA and the
UN drugs authority, they voted Yes' in a referendum in which
they were asked to approve the continuation of a regime under
which the State supplies heroin to long-term heroin users.
Throughout
the 1980s and early 1990s Switzerland had one of the highest
rates of heroin addiction in Europe. In cities such as Zurich,
Basel and Bern it was common to find addicts injecting and dealers
selling publicly in the streets and parks. Users often shared
needles, leading to high HIV infection rates, and in the spread
of Hepatitis. In an attempt to reduce the spread of such diseases,
the Swiss health department began introducing needle exchanges,
followed by clean injection rooms where addicts could take their
illegally-bought heroin in a safe environment, supervised by
a nurse.
For
many, the next logical step was to start prescribing heroin to
those addicts, many of them already ill, who really did not seem
able to get off drugs. And so in 1998, following a referendum,
the law in Switzerland was changed to allow a ten year experiment
in the state supply of heroin. The prescription of heroin was
allowed to junkies who had tried everything else, but had been
unable to give up the drug. Its prescription was though part
of an overall strategy, involving help from psychiatrists and
social workers as well, in an attempt to help the addicts to
normalise their lives.
Under
the scheme, patients can take heroin several times each day but,
to have the supply, they must go to a clinic where they inject
themselves as a nurse watches. There is no chance therefore of
the heroin being taken away for sale on a black market. Although
the dose is not in practice limited by the state, the amount
mostly chosen for injection by addicts themselves is just enough
to satisfy their cravings but not enough to cause a big high.
This means that after a relatively short period of time, they
are fit to leave and get on with their day. Those who have jobs
go back to work. For those who have families, it is possible
to have something approaching a relatively normal life.
The
permanent change in the law had already been approved by Parliament
earlier this year, but the (mainly religious) right wing in Switzerland
demanded a referendum on the basis that it was morally wrong
to supply heroin to people who were never likely to become abstinent.
In their view, it was only right to supply heroin where the 'treatment'
had as its likely outcome that the addicts would give up their
habit entirely. Otherwise, how could it be regarded as 'treatment'?
So why did the Swiss decide last week by a majority of over two-thirds
to adopt the more pragmatic view? Well, the previous ten years
were an experiment and the results are now in:
- Crimes committed by heroin
addicts have dropped by 60 percent since the program began in
1994;
-
- Patients reduce consumption
of other narcotics once they start the heroin program and suffer
less from psychiatric disorders;
-
- The number of drug-related
deaths has dropped from around 400 addicts per annum 15 years
ago to about 150 per annum now.
-
- Studies show that the
programme costs about 50 Sfr per day per addict, which is a lot
less than the cost to the state of policing, imprisonment and
dealing with the poor health of those not on the programme.
And
there is another, unforseen, result: the incidence of heroin
use has dropped from 850 new users in the year 1990 to only 150
new users in the year 2002 and has continued at this lower level
since. This contrasts with the situation regarding the number
of users in the UK, Italy, and Australia, which has continued
to rise. It seems that the supply of heroin by state-run clinics
has changed the image of heroin use. From being the rebellious
act of rock stars it is now seen as being an illness which needs
therapy. Finally, for the Swiss, heroin seems to have become
a 'loser drug', with its attractiveness fading for young people.
Switzerland
is now looking at extending the idea to other drugs, notably
cocaine. Other countries, such as Australia, Germany, Denmark
and Holland are seriously looking into the adoption of the policy
for their heroin addicts.
To
give state help to people to continue to take heroin for the
rest of their lives may seem shocking to those with absolutist
moral views. For those of those of us who are not so hide-bound,
however, it makes simple humanitarian sense to help people who
have little real prospect of overcoming what is a dreadful disability
and, at the same time, to relieve society of the consequences
of the criminality which would otherwise inevitably accompany
their sad lives. Maybe one day, even in this country, we shall
benefit not only from Swiss Rolls, but Swiss pragmatism.
Class
Everyone
'knows' that we in Britain are more class-bound in our attitudes
than anyone-else, except perhaps the Hindus in India. We are
known to define ourselves in terms of a range of classes and
sub-classes from upper class to working class. And we look down
on or up to each other accordingly.
Following
the takeover by William the Conqueror, it was he and his entourage
who took the positions of power and became the new upper class,
much no doubt to the chagrin of the previous Anglo-Saxon aristocracy,
who would have regarded them as 'nouveaux' and 'arrivistes' and
just, well, too français.
We
didn't really have any other major upsets after that until the
aftermath of the two world wars. Oliver Cromwell did have a go
at changing things permanently, but the fact that he didn't really
do class was probably the reason why his new order didn't last
much after his death. At the top level, after all, the trappings
of class are a reward for faithful service. If you don't reward
your followers well, particularly after a civil war, then they'll
transfer their allegiance to someone who will.
I
do wonder, however, to what extent class is still important in
society, rather than being simply an echo from earlier times.
Advertisers, for example, faced with getting a good return on
their budgets categorise us in terms of income, jobs type, educational
attainment and many other measurable factors and target adverts
accordingly. They do not take much notice of the traditional
class divisions.
Now
it is certainly true that there is still a nebulous idea of class
which permeates society and much time and ink has been used in
trying to categorise people by their titles, manners, accents
and use of the word 'lavatory'. But do the class divisions have
any generally agreed definition? Is class useful in describing
people? Personally, I find it very difficult to use it in a way
which tells me anything very useful about any individual. Rather,
I find myself trying to shoehorn a person into my rather vague
notions of a class category, when in reality no individual can
be defined so simplistically.
Most
of us have characteristics which cross traditional class divides
to some extent. I dare say that even the toffs like bangers and
mash from time to time. If we look at individuals, we see that
each will belong to many different social groups: the banker
who goes to Aston Villa matches; the lawyer who goes to evening
classes at the local comp to improve his French; the newspaper
editor who belongs to the local bowls club. In the detail of
what we do, we are able to see each other in more than the monochromatic
light of class.
It
is perhaps an irony of our times that the stately homes are now
largely owned by the National Trust (i.e us), or else by aristocratic
owners reduced to making ends meet by letting the public parade
around them and hiring them out for corporate events. Such is
the relevance of our old class system.
Indeed
probably the most visible 'class' nowadays (in the media, at
least) is a new group of people - the Celebrity Class, which
is a mixture of everyone who has somehow contrived to get in
the public eye, from actors and billionaires to the latest winner
of Big Brother or the X factor. It is a class of all classes
and possibly both the most desired and most despised of all of
them. And also the most irrelevant to the reality of almost all
of our lives.
But
whatever I may think about the relevance of class, it is still
true that I am not likely to mix much with other groups of people
who do not share one or more of my interests. Why would I? And
my interests are quite likely to be influenced considerably by
how I was brought up, my education and the type of work I do.
In itself this is not a problem: we do what we want to do and
mix with whom we want to mix. And if an aristocrat does not want
to mix with me simply because of his perception that he is superior
to me, then his blinkered vision is his problem.
John
Prescott, as we have seen in his documentary, in being fixated
on seeing things from a working class perspective, is similarly
blinkered. I was brought up in working class circumstances, with
the tin bath hanging on the outside of the kitchen, but do not
now define myself by that. I had my opportunities, as did my
parents, and we took them. As did John Prescott. By my own efforts,
and with the support of my parents, I have moved on.
But
this is not a way open to everyone. And it is here that a real
class problem exists: amongst that underclass of people, who
live in dreadful conditions and who do not have the choices which
the rest of us have. They cannot take advantage of the chances
that education gives if they are not encouraged to attend school,
if they take drugs or are in prison. They will not maximise their
chances of good health if they live in conditions where chips
are the only vegetable. For us to talk about equality of opportunity
for them is vacuous: even if excellent schools and health systems
are there for them, the major influence in peoples' lives remains
that of their parents or indeed parent. Statistically, the children
of well-educated, well-off parents will usually progress just
as well if they go to reasonably well-performing state schools
as if they go to private schools. For the other extreme in society,
no amount of external provision of opportunity will overcome
the malign influence of a home where there is no thought of trying
to improve their position; where it is perfectly normal for state
benefits, rather than work, to put burgers on the table and to
keep the TV turned on in the corner of the room.
Can
we deal with this in any way? You would think that the Conservatives
would say that it is up to each person to 'get on his bike' and
sort himself out. It is therefore all the more surprising that
the Conservative sponsored 'Centre for Social Justice', run by
former conservative party leader Ian (Duncan) Smith is saying
just the opposite. (See http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk ). They say that more state-sponsored
intervention is needed in such families to help them to cope
with their circumstances and so lift them out of poverty and
into a more productive life. As always, the devil is in the detail,
both that of the policies and of the individuals lives. Combining
the need for intervention to help such people out of those circumstances
with the need to let them take responsibility for their own lives
as much as possible is very difficult but, it seems, is possible
granted the will, and money, to do it.
So
then, it seems to me that we can live with most of our class
system. After all, its influence on most of our lives is largely
imaginary, but it helps us to promote the picture that foreigners
have of us - as totally bound up in tradition. That, of course,
is why they continue to come and spend money here as tourists.
What we do not want them to see, however are the conditions of
those at the bottom of the heap . And that is where the influence
of class is real and, sadly, not imaginary.
Poppies
Last
week I went to the funeral of a Coleshill man who had been killed
by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan a fortnight before his regiment
was due to return home. I decided that I would go and attend
- out of solidarity.
I
did not imagine I would be able to get into the Church: I did
not even try, but stood instead with about 300 others outside
the packed church. There was supposed to be a relay of the service
to those outside, but the PA system did not work. Instead we
stood talking in low voices beneath our umbrellas in the cold
and rain. The people around me were of all ages and all types.
It was half-term and so there were quite a lot of youngsters
amongst the crowd of people. I ended up standing by and chatting
to someone I know who runs discos for a living, but who was there,
like me, not because he knew the soldier or his family, but simply
because he felt that, as someone who lived in the town, he should
be there.
The
Church itself is set in extensive grounds at the back of the
shops which form the High Street and which act as a sound barrier
to the passing traffic. It was almost as if we were in the rural
world of yesterday. Except that the day's events were very much
of today. Finally, the coffin was taken from the Church down
to the cemetery by his former comrades in arms. A sergeant amongst
the group pall-bearers was clearly having great difficulty preventing
himself from crying. It was a moving event.
Whilst
always being against the war in Iraq, I felt that the war in
Afghanistan was justified in international law and also on moral
grounds. Al Qaeda had just carried out the attack on the Twin
Towers in New York and the Taliban government had fully supported
Al Qaeda in what it had done. The Taliban had imposed a repressive
regime on its citizens which, morally speaking, as far as I could
see was not much different to the infamous Cambodian regime of
Pol Pot. And so I hoped, and for a while it appeared, that some
semblance of a civilised life could be brought to the country.
The terrible excesses of the Taliban's virulent extremism became
history. Education for women was restored and people could go
about their lives without being arrested by the thought police.
As
time has gone on, however, things have not gone as well as we
might have hoped. Why? Well, it seems to have been the usual
combination of an unwillingness to put money and people into
the aftermath of the war and the consequent return to power of
local gangsters (the so-called "Warlords") in the now
all too familiar power vacuum which followed the defeat of the
Taliban. Yet again, the idea of winning the hearts and minds
of the populace seems to have been relegated to a distant second,
whilst the undermanned armed forces try just to bring security'
to the various regions of the country. Why are they so undermanned?
Mainly because of that other war - the one in Iraq. That and,
it seems, a close-minded approach to doing things.
Somewhat
ironically, I was wearing a poppy as I stood outside the church.
Afghanistan is the world's leading producer of opium (82% of
global opium production), cultivating 1,650 square kilometres
of opium poppies and a potential 6,100 metric tons of opium in
2006. The policy at the moment is to try to eradicate poppy crops,
thus removing a major source of income for the Taliban and Al
Qaeda, but also leaving the farmers in remote villages unable
to make a reasonable living and so antagonising the community
in consequence.
An
alternative to this has been suggested by the Senlis Council
(http://www.senliscouncil.net). Put simply, it is that instead
of destroying the poppies, their planting should be done in a
controlled way with suitably high price paid to the farmers in
order to allow the legal production of the number one pain-killer,
morphine. Virtually the whole of the world's production of morphine
goes to about 20% of its population - i.e the developed countries.
The other 80% of the world largely goes without, despite the
fact that they suffer more pain than we do, granted for instance
the much later diagnosis of cancer, and therefore its untreatability,
and the much higher incidence of Aids in, for instance, Africa.
The detailed proposals are on their site and have been referred
to in the press on a number of occasions.
The
American administration, no doubt still smarting from the abolition
of prohibition in the 30's, is against it. They list a number
of reasons for this, most of which could be overcome granted
the will to do so . Perhaps the two reasons given which stood
out as being quite insane, however, are as follows:
- 1.
"There is no demand for it". Quotas for the legal production
of heroin poppies are set through an international body and are
based on previous usage in each country. But the cost of morphine
is high and so doctors in developing countries do not prescribe
for their patients what they simply could not afford to buy.
So there is no demand. Welcome to the world of Kafka!
-
- 2.
"Pain relief should not be the priority - priority should
be given to anti-Aids and anti-cancer drugs". As if preventing
or curing illness on the one hand and pain relief on the other
are somehow mutually inconsistent!
Sometimes
I despair of the stupidity of those in charge. Maybe the new
American administration will think differently.
The herd instinct
In
prehistoric times when hunters and gatherers worked together
to get food for the table, there can have been no real concept
of money. What after all would you use it for? There was no Waitrose
then; nor were there gas bills. The more skilled hunters may
well have demanded the mammoth fillet instead of the scrag-end
in recognition of their skills and there may have been bartering
where the neighbour had a particularly desirable stone necklace
or flint axe. But the idea of an object representing some sort
of abstract value had not yet arrived. There was no system of
tokens which could be exchanged for something-else later on.
When
society became more complex, however, simple bartering was no
longer sufficient. In order to allow trade to expand, money was
undoubtedly necessary. It enabled you to value something at the
point when the job was done or the item sold. You could then
carry its value around with you and use it at a later time or
in a different place to buy whatever it was you needed. Of course
it was originally based on gold. And so the money itself was
actually "worth" something - everybody recognised its
scarcity and so valued it highly. They still do.
However,
a system of currency does not actually require that coins have
intrinsic value or be backed by gold. Which is as well, granted
that Gordon sold the majority of ours back in 1999, leaving us
with only 300 tonnes of gold, then worth just under £3
billion as against a total amount of currency circulating of
about £750 billion.
But
the coins and notes we use only have to be accepted by all of
us to have the value stated on them for the system to work. And
we all unthinkingly sign up to that idea by the acceptance of
salaries etc. for the work we do, instead of being paid in legs
of lamb or washing-up liquid. We can take our money to the shop
and buy turnips or caviar as we choose or we can save it for
a rainy day. With money we can all get what we want, when we
want it, as long as we all believe in its value. Of course when
we lose confidence in its future buying power, as in Zimbabwe,
then its 'value' can diminish rapidly.
The
problems really start, however, when you try to make money out
of money. Businesses need money to trade. Big companies need
enormous amounts of money to build skyscrapers, roads, ships
and planes. Of course they borrow from the banks, but they also
issue shares in order to raise the money. The shareholder buys
a stake in the company and, in return, the company will pay him
dividends, if it is successful. But the shares are themselves
a saleable commodity. They can be traded on the stock market.
This is where it can all go wrong because it is where the gambling
instinct comes to the fore - buying and selling shares in a fluctuating
market in order to make a profit on those transactions. No longer
is it just a question of dividends in exchange for a capital
investment, with the possibility of an eventual capital gain.
And
so we have millions of people in suits being paid to guess how
the value of shares will change, minute by minute, in response
to, yes, the underlying value of the company and its trading
prospects, but also, just as importantly, to that very strange
thing called 'market sentiment' or what is really just herd instinct.
For
the market is based only in part on reason. It seesaws between
opposite extremes of value based on the wisdom of the crowd -
gossip, received wisdom about what will happen in the next few
days or weeks. Why? Because as humans that's what we do: we follow
fashion, and stock traders are no different; they too follow
the herd. We find it very difficult to follow our own path when
all around us are acting differently. In connection with the
first stock market crash in 1720 - the South Sea Bubble - Isaac
Newton said that he could not calculate the madness of people.
Mind you he was probably feeling sore through having lost £20,000
from that very crash. John Maynard Keynes commented, "Markets
can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent".
But,
despite all the evidence, we seem to believe that we are not
really gambling, but taking a reasoned view of our investment.
In times of healthy economic growth, with stocks going up in
consequence, it is easy to convince ourselves that the gains
are the result of our special foresight. And when markets fall,
we are like gamblers who are convinced that just another throw
of the dice will reverse our fortunes.
It
is high time that we recognised that there is no difference in
essence between the racing tips in the Sports Argus and the stock-market
tips in the FT or between the man in the cloth cap trying to
work out the form of the runners and riders in the 3:30 at Uttoxeter
and the stock-market traders in their red braces. I would send
the lot of them off to Gamblers Anonymous.
Secrets, lies and mobile phones
The
President of Formula One, Max Moseley was, as we all know, videoed
engaging in the sort of conduct which is the life-blood of tabloid
newspapers. His predilection for sado-masochism with prostitutes
put him and Formula One on the front page of The News of the
World' for all the wrong reasons. But the newspaper felt it had
to appeal not to mere prurience, but to high morality in order
to put him on the front page. And so it alleged that the role-play'
was based on a Nazi/Holocaust theme and that, accordingly, it
was in the public interest to run the story in all its detail.
Moseley
sued, but not for defamation (where he would certainly have either
lost or at least not been awarded any damages) but for invasion
of privacy. He alleged that the Nazi allegations were untrue
and that accordingly he was entitled to respect for his "private
life", meaning that the paper had not been entitled to publish
what it did. The judge found the Nazi allegations to be unfounded
and so awarded substantial damages and costs to Moseley. In an
interview with the BBC the other day, Moseley complained that
the revelations had caused severe embarrassment to his wife and
children. He said, in effect, that that was all the newspaper's
fault - what he did in his private life was up to him. He was
entitled to keep his secret life secret, even from his wife.
Perhaps particularly from his wife. The general reaction on the
web can be summed up in the words "what incredible arrogance!".
Miriam
Margoyles, the film and stage actress, was the subject of Desert
Island Discs a few weeks ago. Her choice of records was
interesting, as was the wonderful choice of a luxury to take
onto the island - a flush toilet. During the programme, however,
she told us that 40 years ago she had revealed to her Jewish
mother that she was a lesbian. Her mother had had a stroke a
few days later and died shortly afterwards. Miriam Margoyles
blamed this on the shock of her revelation and said how much
she had regretted saying anything about it. She believed that
such things did not need to be talked about where it might upset
the hearer to know. She therefore disagreed with those running
Stonewall who demand that all homosexuals 'come out'. In their
view, solidarity between homosexuals is vital in order to overcome
the prejudice which certainly did exist 40 years ago and undoubtedly
still exists, although to a lesser extent today. Whilst I can
see the point of what they are saying, the gentler view expressed
by Miriam Margoyles seems to me to be quite justified.
There
are of course some arrogant people who pride themselves on saying
precisely what they think at all times. Most of us though exercise
our discretion over what we reveal to others, very often for
good and, I would suggest, morally justifiable reasons. Although
"Thou shalt not bear false witness" is one of the commandments,
and liars are to be consigned to the flames of Hell, little white
lies have always been regarded as justifiable. All babies are,
of course, beautiful. Really. But what do you do if you discover
that your best friend's husband is having an affair? Is it anything
to do with you? Most agony aunts seem to advise that you might
perhaps say something to the errant husband, but that you should
not say anything to the wife.
So
what is the difference if you are a journalist dealing with the
peccadilloes of the rich and famous? The standard thinking is
that these things need to be revealed if it is "in the public
interest". The public is most certainly interested, fascinated
even, when such things happen. But that does not mean that it
is necessarily in the public's interest that they be revealed.
In
this country, however, it seems that it is enough that the deception
has occurred in order to justify the suggestion that that person
is not fit to govern us or to take decisions where integrity
is necessary. If he has deceived his wife, then will he not deceive
us? Well, in the case of such deception by the man in the street,
the answer is: probably not, actually. Such behaviour is usually
reckoned to be in a different category to the rest of what we
do. But the ruling classes and the rich and famous are not the
man in the street. And whenever a window is opened on their lives
we seem to see a tendency amongst them to think that they can
get away with anything; that, just like Max Moseley, they are
exempt from the requirements of the morality normally expected
to be observed by mere mortals. But if they do not feel constrained
by the ordinary decencies of life then, as in many a civilisation
before, that general state of immorality can cause major problems
to the country as a whole.
If
they do not feel concern that a god is looking on and judging
their actions, then it may be that the newspapers have to take
on that role: investigating what they do and revealing all to
a fascinated public. Although I hesitate to say so, perhaps the
job of the newspapers is, after all, to bring the rich and famous
down a peg or two.
Democracy and the short term
In
1774, the parliamentarian Edmund Burke said:
- "Your
representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment;
and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to
your opinion."
Some
60 years later, in 1838, 'The People's Charter' was published
by the Chartists, a movement for political and social reform
in the United Kingdom. The charter stipulated the six main aims
of the movement as:
- *
Suffrage for all men aged over 20
* Electoral districts with equal numbers of voters
* Voting by secret ballot
* An end to the need to own land in order to be an MP
* Pay for Members of Parliament
* Annual election of Parliament
At
first glance, there appears to be no conflict between the statement
made by Burke and the demands of the Chartists, the first 5 of
which were finally accepted in 1918. But two of their demands
make Burke's statement of principle difficult to achieve in practice:
the requirement that MP's be paid a salary (so that non-toffs
could stand for election) and having an annual election to Parliament.
Why? Well in the last few weeks we have seen the reason for this
inconsistency played out in the democratic system of America.
A
large majority of Congressmen turned down the $700,000,000,000
(is that enough noughts?) bail-out package following the banking
crisis. They were of course entitled to exercise their judgement
and say "no" if that was what they believed. But the
reports of why those in marginal seats actually said no are very
instructive. It was reported that there had been a violent reaction
against the bill from the grass roots. They had telephoned their
congressmen in droves to tell them of their disapproval. The
elections for the House of Representatives were to be held only
a few weeks later and so the congressmen had to bow to the immediate
will of the people rather than exercise their own judgement,
or face the near certain loss of their seats and their salaries.
The impending election meant that they could not take a long
term view of the rights and wrongs of the bill. And so we see
that the fact that people are now career politicians, relying
on their salaries, makes their role as independent thinkers much
more fragile. Even worse, were there actually to be elections
every year, then their representative role would be even further
diminished. They would become simple proxies for their constituents.
And I am not convinced that this would produce sensible long-term
results. We need people who can reflect in an informed way on
the great issues of the day and then decide on our behalves accordingly.
But
then we look at the morality of what happened. The grass roots
were against the package on the basis that it would be grossly
unfair and immoral to reward the fat cats who had got them into
the mess in the first place - despite the fact that the ordinary
Joe would suffer just as much, if not more, from the lack of
action to prop up the banks (and so the fat cats). A clear case
of an irrational mob reaction. But this was soon abandoned when,
a day later, the stock market had its biggest fall ever. Main
Street finally realised that this affected not only the super
rich, but them as well via their pension funds, the availability
of credit and so, ultimately, their own jobs. The telephone calls
for rejection of the bill became outnumbered by those in favour
of it.
No
doubt some congressmen breathed a sigh of relief, realising that
they could do as they had always wanted to and vote for the bill.
But having frightened the executive and the party leaders with
their initial rejection, there was then something else which
came into play. The bill was passed on Friday with the benefit
of an extra $100,000,000,000 in scrapings from the Pork Barrel
- tax breaks for local groups in their constituencies, like the
$7 million for the children's wooden arrow makers in Myrtle Point,
Oregon - given to bribe those (presumably unprincipled) Congressmen
whose votes could be bought. They were given something that they
could wave under the noses of their potential electors, so bolstering
their chances of keeping their jobs.
Thus
we see that capitalism, condemned as being an activity based
on selfishness and greed, is probably no worse in practice than
our democratic system of governance, which is also ultimately
based on selfishness, that of the voters and of some, at least,
of their representatives. Mind you democracy is probably still
the best system we have - in principle. We just have to get the
practicalities sorted out, so that long term needs can stay on
top. This time it was only achieved by the skin of our teeth.
Sharkanomics
I
am still reeling from the fact that Damien Hirst has made £111
million from the recent auction sale at Sotheby's in London,
mainly of the works which remained unsold at the various galleries
through which he normally sold them, plus a few new works.
From
what I have seen in the news reports, they seemed mostly to follow
the same theme - an animal or fish preserved in formaldehyde
or butterflies on a painted background. There was for instance
"The Golden Calf", sold for £9.2m - a young bull
in a tank of formaldehyde wearing a golden disc. Or you could
have for £9.6m "the Kingdom", which is a preserved
tiger shark in a tank. If your budget didn't stretch quite that
far then for £541,000 you could have bought "Strawberries
and cream", described as "butterflies, manufactured
diamonds and household gloss on canvas". And all this at
a time when the financial world went into melt-down, with Mr
Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary announcing in the same week
that the various Banks' toxic assets (the mortgage backed instruments)
would be taken off their hands by the American taxpayers and
realised gradually over the natural lifetimes of those loans,
meaning that their present day value (or lack of it) would cease
to be of immediate relevance.
Now
it is not unusual for an artist to produce works which are similar
to each other. The same haystack can be seen in very many different
pictures by Monet, although each in different lighting conditions
- that being the point of it all. And Chaim Sutine produced pictures
of sides of meat, a part skinned rabbit and a plucked chicken.
These are hung alongside works by Renoir, Cézanne, Picasso
etc in the Orangerie in Paris and just one floor down from Monet's
world famous 'Nymphéas'. But pickled animals? Just as
the financial world seems in recent years to have been a house
of cards, so I cannot help but think that these latest purchases
will not prove to be quite the investment opportunity they may
appear to be.
The
banks depend on confidence to keep going. Once that disappears,
then the system stops working. Assets which have a realisable
value in the long term such as those based on house loans, some
at least of which will be paid off normally, suddenly have no
short term value, simply because no-one is interested in buying
them. Without buyers, assets, however valuable they may seem,
simply have no value.
The
art world depends not on confidence, as such, but on that even
more changeable thing, fashion. If an artist is not fashionable,
then no matter how technically brilliant he is or how much his
works may engage your emotions, big money will not be paid for
them. Billionaires will not want to show off such works to their
friends. And that is what it seems mainly to be about. After
all, it is difficult to imagine people discussing the finer points
of the Golden Calf's tank or the precise concentration of the
formaldehyde used. Even the poor calf was just the product of
nature. The golden disc is the only other thing and it is difficult
to see long conversations ensuing from it. No, the point of it
all is to own something which is both fashionable amongst your
peers (i.e. can be called "cutting edge art") and has
cost a lot.
But
if Damien Hirst had only produced a single work, then it would
be highly unlikely to fetch significant money. There has to be
a body of work which can, over time, make the artist well-known
and create a clientele all of whom have a vested interest in
seeing the works they have bought go up in value. Having bought
one work, they can be persuaded to buy more, but at increased
prices and then to persuade their friends to do so as well. Why?
Well, the more they are willing to pay for new works, the more
the works they have already bought will appreciate in value.
That is how it works. And so, rather like a pyramid selling scam,
it goes on until...until the earlier sharks start to rot, (which
they do despite the formaldehyde) or until someone finds a new
Damien Hirst, when the bubble in the original Damien's work will
start to deflate.
It
has probably got to the point where Hirst no longer much cares
about the money. He must after all be amongst the world's super
rich. But his policy of producing lots of works which are similar
to each other must in itself also eventually devalue the brand.
Too many sharks in formaldehyde, whether wearing a golden crown
or dressed in goggles and a snorkel tube will not be good for
the resale market.
So
it is to be hoped that the Banks have not invested in such works.
If they have, then I can imagine a latter-day US Treasury Secretary
announcing that they have set up a mechanism for taking the Bank's
latest toxic assets off their hands and, this time, having to
throw them back into the sea.
Colliding worlds
After 15 years of construction work the Large Hadron Collider
at CERN has started to accelerate each of two contra-rotating
beams of protons to just under the speed of light. The point
of all this (and of the 10 billion euro cost) is to try to recreate
the presumed conditions in the first trillionth of a second after
the big bang'. This will be done by smashing the two beams of
protons together. A direct hit will produce an unimaginably high
temperature which will destroy the protons themselves. It will
turn them back into pure energy. As the temperature then reduces
there should be a re-creation of all the intermediate stages
which preceded the coming into existence of those protons 13.7
billion years ago at the dawn of the universe.
Or
so it is hoped. The point is that no-one really knows what will
happen. It is a big experiment. There are a number of theories
to explain the sub-atomic world, but none of them so far are
actually borne out by experimental data. In order to explain
the very existence of mass, the theories posit the existence
of the so far never-detected Higgs boson (with its flip side,
the Higgs field). Such particles should finally be seen in the
aftermath of this 'small bang'. If not, the theories are dead
in the water.
But
none of the theories we have go on to explain the macro world
- the world we can see, with its gravitational pull. We do not
have the so-called grand unified theory of matter which is the
holy grail of physics. Not even Einstein could crack the problem.
It
has become even worse since his day because observations of deep
space now tell us both that there is insufficient observable
matter (i.e. mass) to hold the galaxies together and also that
the galaxies are flying apart at too great a velocity to be explained
by current gravitational theory. Rather than tweak the gravitational
constant, some physicists have proposed the existence of 'dark
mass' and its counterpart 'dark energy' to explain what is going
on. What are they? Nobody knows, because they are undetectable
by current methods. They are only at present a conjecture to
deal with an anomaly. But it is hoped that the LHC will ultimately
tell us this and everything else about matter as it replays before
our very eyes what happened when particles started to condense
out of what had been, until then, simply pure energy.
So
then, we live in exciting times. But it seems that not all of
us share that excitement. There is the obvious question of cost.
What is the point of spending so much money to find out the answers
to questions that most people do not have the ability to understand
or think relevant? But then most people do not understand that
without quantum theory, which no-one really understands, apart
from a relatively few mathematicians on our planet, we would
not have the semi-conductors (electron tunnelling) or hard disc
drives (read-write heads using giant magnetoresistance) needed
to run our computers. Neither would we for instance be able to
make progress with increasing the output from solar cells. No,
I am not thinking of that.
What
I am thinking of is the contrast between, on the one hand, the
open-minded wish of the scientists involved in the CERN experiment
to test their theories, if necessary to destruction, in order
to be able to explain how the world works and, on the other hand,
that other global phenomenon of the last few weeks - the closed
mind of Sarah Palin.
The
candidate to be the vice-president, as well as being a self-declared
pit bull with lipstick, is also a creationist. She is someone
who would not therefore know the meaning of having an open mind,
of looking for explanations of what goes on around us. After
all, the good book tells us all we need to know.
It
tells us for instance in Genesis chapter 1 vs 11 to 19 that plants
were growing and producing seeds and that trees were bearing
fruit on the third day. That of course was just before the fourth
day, when the sun finally appeared in the sky "to give light
upon the earth" and so, a day too late, enabled photosynthesis
actually to take place. She and her friends would no doubt completely
disagree with the matter of fact programme I saw on the television
the other day relating to fossils: for creationists, the various
prehistoric eras never existed. The fossils are just God's little
joke.
Neither
does she think that there is anything in the warnings of the
scientific world when they say that there is about a 95% probability
that man is causing global warming and that as a consequence
we need to curtail our CO2 producing activities. Maybe that's
because it's so cold in Alaska that global warming sounds attractive..
And
so we have a potential leader of the free world who makes George
Bush look almost intelligent and even liberal in his views -
at least he has finally accepted the basic global-warming argument.
So if I believed in a god, I would even now be on my knees praying
for long life for John McCain. We'll just have to hope for his
sake that God herself isn't a hockey mom. I wouldn't give much
for McCain's chances if she is.
A whiter shade of pale
We
were in Annecy, France and on what was a very warm night, we
decided to have an early meal at a restaurant in the town. Because
it was only 7 o'clock, the restaurant was almost deserted and
so we were given a table right by a wide, open window looking
out directly onto a canal. The canals going through the town
were at one time used for commerce, as witness the steps down
to the canal. These days, however, the only traffic on the canals
consists of the ducks and some swans sailing by. The water, coming
from Lake Annecy, is so clear that you can see the unblinking
gaze of the swan as it lowers its head under the water looking
for food.
Opposite
the restaurant is one of the many buildings lining the canal.
Blue-flowered wisteria grows up the front of the whole of its
four storeys to the roof itself, twisting around the balconies
and windows on its way. Tiny sparrows landed on the window ledge
right beside us and looked meaningfully at our meals. I looked
back at them sternly to discourage them from making kamikaze
dives to take my steak away.
Afterwards,
we walked around the park at the side of the lake in the just
darkening evening. Tourists were taking photographs and the pedalos
were coming back to their moorings for the evening. A boat which
is effectively a very large floating restaurant, 'La Libelule'
(the dragonfly'), on the other hand was just going out on a cruise
of the lake with its compliment of diners. It was a perfect evening.
Until the telephone call.
It
was a call to confirm the arrangements for a visit to see some
friends at our twin town, Chassieu, the following week. The bad
news was that they have a swimming pool. Perhaps we would like
to bring our bathing costumes? Now my legs have not seen any
serious sunshine for many a long year and so are as white as
any you are likely to see amongst the holiday-makers on the beach
at Weston super Mare. I wondered aloud whether the world was
ready for legs like mine, but received little sympathy.
We
arrived back at the apartment and sat in the verandah with its
sliding doors pushed wide open. Outside, the children from one
of the other flats were playing a rather noisy version of hide
and seek. Eventually, the local child-catcher came for them...
No, I must have been dozing: it was the parents calling them
to come back in. And so peace descended once again. Until late
on, it remained warm enough for the crickets to carry on chirping,
but then we started to see lightning flashing behind the mountains
on the other side of the lake, although they were so far away
that we could not hear the thunder. The lamp-post in the quiet
road outside started blinking on and off in the sultry evening
heat. We had some gentle music playing in the background and
I had a glass of a very nice local white wine in my hand.
But
my mind was still on the need for an all-over (almost) sun-tan.
How to achieve it in just five days? I could simply sit out on
the lawn in my swimming trunks soaking up the sun, but then the
neighbours would see me. Perhaps I could disguise myself with
a large bushy beard and glasses? No, the last man who did that
has just ended up at the war crimes tribunal.
Perhaps
in my case I should instead simply shave off my beard and lose
the glasses - maybe then no-one would recognise me? Alternatively,
for the next few days I could make the ultimate sacrifice and
get up early to catch the morning sun as its bronzing rays shine
into the relative privacy of our verandah. Or perhaps there is
a tanning spray-booth in the town.
And so passed a night in which I was chased by barbers, hid amongst
bushes and finally walked confidently out onto a beach glowing
with a sort of orange colour to the admiring glances of all around.
Such is vanity. But vanity is a hard and unrelenting task master
and so, one way or another, the suntan starts now.
|
