Happy shiny people

This article in the Guardian about the cult of measuring "happiness"   reminded me of something that Karl Popper wrote in 1948:

"Do not aim at establishing happiness by political means. Rather aim at the elimination of concrete miseries. Or, in more practical terms: fight for the elimination of poverty by direct means - for example, by making sure that everybody has a minimum income. Or fight against epidemics and disease by erecting hospitals and schools of medicine. Fight illiteracy as you fight criminality. But do all this by direct means."

The intuition is simple and straightforward. The things that make the members of a political community happy are diverse, so whose happiness are we going to prioritize? The things that create misery tend to be common to everyone. There is an asymmetry, ergo public policy is unlikely to have much impact if it aims at promoting happiness. It might be more successful and generate political support if it tackles miseries that everyone has some risk of experiencing.

The writers of the US Declaration of Independence seem to have spotted this: life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Strange that neither New Labour nor the Tory/LibDems seem to have noticed. Or maybe they have. Vague policy goals like social mobility and happiness are perfect if you want to do nothing or despair of doing anything about real human misery.

Criminal Injustice System: Joe Paraskeva

I wonder if you are as appalled as I am by this story of the way our great justice system has treated a  young vulnerable man called Joe Paraskeva who voluntarily sought help for his bi-polar affective disorder. He has been imprisoned  in a young offenders institution; his only crime was, in his paranoia, to damage the door of the hospital room he was detained in. The judge, on the basis of a risk assessment carried out by an "expert" who had never actually met Paraskeva, sentenced him to serve a minimum of two years with no maximum - ie he can be held in prison indefinitely. What kind of "justice system" imprisons people who need and seek medical help for their mental health problems? If you want to do your small bit to hold the authorities to account there is a petition you can sign.

Mike Waterson RIP

Anyone who thinks it is important to keep alive a space in our culture for music from the people, by the people and for the people will be mourning the death, yesterday, of Mike Waterson.  There is a a nice obituary in the Guardian. Here is a link to The Watersons singing The Good Old Way, a hymn some date to the Civil War (though more likely  it's from the 18th Century, but who knows...?). A sweet hope of Glory in my Soul!"

Quiz

Imagine the following situation. You are sitting in a meeting trying to reach a collective decision. You make an innocuous  contribution to the discussion which  nobody, apart from the Chair of the meeting, disagrees with. The reaction of the Chair is to call you and/or your comment "inane". Recall the dictionary definition of the word: "silly; stupid; not significant". It's not very nice. Should you:

a) Lie on your back with your legs in the air and bare your throat;

b) Give them both barrels and just say what is on your mind (and everyone else's);

c) Offer them the Glasgow handshake.

Where I was brought up c) was the normal sanction for breaches of social decorum - recall the NRA's "An armed society is a polite society" - especially if  discreet bulges in the jacket are allowed: think signaling. But let's rule it out as a viable option in a professional context. 

Experience teaches me that the meek do not inherit the earth - or anything else for that matter. There is no pie in the sky when you die so no virtue in indulging megalomaniac, egotistical, bullies. Bullies thrive on lack of resistance and the less resistance they encounter the more audacious their sense of entitlement becomes. They really do only understand one language, though of course under threat they resort to the stock response: "Please Sir, I didn't do anything. He did it to me first!". Anyway a) is a non starter if you want anything except a one way ticket to Palookaville.

That leaves us with b). It's a bit ugly and you come out looking like the awkward, cussed, bad guy who told an off colour joke in front of the maiden Auntie. It's a no win situation, but really what else can you do?  There are times when either you have to concede all the best tunes to the Devil or you have to say: "Hier stehe ich und kann nicht anders".

Trumpity Trump

I received the following from Andy Wightman who read my previous post. Looks to me like he is doing good work in rooting out the facts of the matter. You can read about it yourself from his website.

Colin,

Saw your blog on Trump film. This story is rich with possibilities for study. I've written a brief report (which includes a section on the arrest of the film-makers) at

http://www.andywightman.com/trump/index.htm

Of particular interest are these clips which taken together form an episode in a US Golf Channel programme on Trump's golfing adventures

http://www.twitvid.com/videos/menieconcerns

best wishes

Andy

You've been Trumped (by Grampian Police)

If you want to get upset about something I suggest you might turn your attention to this. The back story is of a British and a Canadian journalist being arrested and charged with breach of the peace by Grampian Police for, in essence, asking awkward questions. They apparently interviewed members of   Donald Trump's organization about the treatment of locals who do not want to sell land they legally own. Apparently the patrons of Trump's luxury golfing resort  mustn't be offended while they sip their martinis by the sight of the great unwashed squatting just outside the barbed wire. Clearly the organization later thought better of it and in the hope of covering over the traces had a word with Inspector Knacker who sent the boys round. You think this only happens in China, Russia, Belarus? No, it happens here in as little time as it takes to put a Masonic apron on.  In theme park Britain we mustn't upset rich investors must we? Anyone read Julian Barnes' England, England?

New College

The Guardian is today still printing comments repeating the false plagiarism allegations about the courses that will be offered by A. C. Grayling's New College of the Humanities. This despite yesterday publishing a letter from the Dean of the University of London's International Programme which confirms in its essentials the points I made in my last blog entry. The capacity of apparently intelligent people to shout their mouths off without the slightest attempt to understand the facts of the matter is something that never ceases to amaze me. Yes, we all have knee-jerk reactions to some things and I can see that in the present political context the funding of higher education is a controversial subject, but the English chattering class habit of proffering strong opinions without bothering with the inconvenience of facts can get a bit tedious. No wonder that in international comparison most of our so called "public intellectuals" are a bit, well, second rate. It would perhaps be unduly provocative to suggest that the establishment's uncritical worship of "PPE flash" might have something to do with it.

Staying on an Oxford theme, I'm a bit surprised that the Warden of  New College (the Oxford one that is) has entered the fray and condemned Grayling's choice of name for his outfit. All a bit unseemly. And come on, nobody that matters is going to confuse New College, Oxford with the New College of the Humanities. The argument that there will be reputational spillover seems pretty far fetched. Has Regent's Park College (Oxford) suffered in any material way from having to put up with the existence of Regents College (which actually is in Regent's Park) or Regent's Park Community College in Southampton? Undoubtedly the punters at all three of these institutions differ enormously (not least in the size of their own or their daddy's bank balance) but is there any serious evidence that the name similarity has confused anybody?