Donald Trump is a curious figure, but then the world of politics is full of curious figures.
As I write, the USA is looking towards its next presidential elections, and the propect of Donald Trump being the Republican candidate cannot be ruled out. Neither can the prospect of him becoming president.
I have just read an essay in a national newspaper by the veteran columnist and obnoxious idiot Max Hastings, in which he examines the Trump phenomenon. He refers to Trump the racist, Trump the liar, Trump the opportunist, and I have three questions.
First, what is his definition of the word racist? Second, in what sense is Trump any more of a liar than hundreds of other American politicians? Third, in what sense is Trump any more of an opportunist than hundreds of other American politicians?
Hastings also refers to moderate, rational Americans, but fails to make clear who these people actually are. So far as I am aware, I have used the word moderate in only two of my previous blog posts, and in both cases I asked what the word means. I have used the word rational in only one previous blog post, and in a context which I think made my meaning clear.
I am not a fan of Donald Trump, but he comes across as a man who speaks bluntly about issues that matter to ordinary Americans, and I am not surprised that many ordinary Americans warm to him. Hastings does not warm to him, however, and claims that:
The policies of Donald
Trump, if they can be dignified as such, include building a wall across
the U.S. border with Mexico to keep out illegal immigrants, and making
South Koreans pay cash for the presence of American troops to defend
them from the North.
While I accept that building a wall along the frontier with Mexico would be very expensive, and also that it might not prove very effective, I am not prepared to dismiss it as a bad idea. If nothing else, it suggests that Trump is at least taking the immigration debate seriously.
As for making South Korea pay for American troops, I would prefer to see American troops removed from South Korea altogether. If North Korea with its struggling economy can afford to maintain a threatening stance towards South Korea, then surely the far more prosperous South Korea can afford to maintain a more terrifying stance.
Perhaps the most revolting assertion made by Hastings is that millions of whites hate him [Obama] — for not being white. If white people hate Obama, then it is perhaps more likely because they hate what he has achieved - or not achieved - during his two terms in office.
Saturday, 27 February 2016
Saturday, 20 February 2016
Will your tumble dryer catch fire?
In November last year, the American company Whirlpool announced a major recall of tumble dryers, after it emerged that hundreds of them have caught fire. The dryers which caught fire were apparently manufactured by either Indesit or Hotpoint, both of which are subsidiaries of Whirlpool.
The affected dryers were apparently all manufactured between 2004 and 2015, and so it seems that for around eleven years a large multinational company was selling large firebombs without apparently realising it. I can't help but wonder how many overpaid muppets were on the payroll of Indesit and Hotpoint during those years.
People who report owning one of these dangerous tumble dryers are being put on a waiting list to be visited by a repair man (described as an engineer) who will supposedly make the appliance safe. To speed things along, some people have been given a free replacement, while others have taken advantage of an offer to buy a new dryer at a discounted price.
While it might seem at a glance that Whirlpool are taking this seriously, the truth would appear to be very different. Consider the following points:
I find it curious how - so far as I am aware - not one of Britain's elected politicians has dared to speak out on this matter. Surely it would not be hard for either David Cameron or Jeremy Corbyn to make a public statement urging Whirlpool to move a bit faster.
Update: a national newspaper has recently observed that:
Another update: Whirlpool has now given in to pressure from Trading Standards, and is now advising customers to disconnect their faulty tumble dryers until the modification work has taken place.
It appears that this in turn resulted from Trading Standards giving in to pressure from Which Magazine and from London Fire Brigade, who believe that a faulty tumble dryer caused a fire in a tower block in Shepherd's Bush in August 2016. I wonder if anyone in either Whirlpool's head office or in the British government is going to resign over this fiasco.
The affected dryers were apparently all manufactured between 2004 and 2015, and so it seems that for around eleven years a large multinational company was selling large firebombs without apparently realising it. I can't help but wonder how many overpaid muppets were on the payroll of Indesit and Hotpoint during those years.
People who report owning one of these dangerous tumble dryers are being put on a waiting list to be visited by a repair man (described as an engineer) who will supposedly make the appliance safe. To speed things along, some people have been given a free replacement, while others have taken advantage of an offer to buy a new dryer at a discounted price.
While it might seem at a glance that Whirlpool are taking this seriously, the truth would appear to be very different. Consider the following points:
- At least one national newspaper has reported that it may take more than three years for Whirlpool to fix every faulty tumble dryer in the country. How many houses will burn down in the meantime?
- People who are disabled or who care for disabled people are rarely given any priority.
- A Hotpoint tumble dryer owned by Dennis Marinakis caught fire even after it had been modified and supposedly made safe.
- Modification work is prioritised by date order, which hardly makes sense in rural areas. Once an engineer has driven a long distance to a remote town or village, it would make sense to modify all the dryers in that location on the same day.
I find it curious how - so far as I am aware - not one of Britain's elected politicians has dared to speak out on this matter. Surely it would not be hard for either David Cameron or Jeremy Corbyn to make a public statement urging Whirlpool to move a bit faster.
Update: a national newspaper has recently observed that:
Leon
Livermore, the chief executive of the Chartered Trading Standards
Institute has ... told the Observer: ‘Central government itself does have
back-up powers to force companies into recalls and to take action. So we
would call on the government, in particular the Department for
Business, Innovation & Skills, to take action before someone dies.’
Another update: Whirlpool has now given in to pressure from Trading Standards, and is now advising customers to disconnect their faulty tumble dryers until the modification work has taken place.
It appears that this in turn resulted from Trading Standards giving in to pressure from Which Magazine and from London Fire Brigade, who believe that a faulty tumble dryer caused a fire in a tower block in Shepherd's Bush in August 2016. I wonder if anyone in either Whirlpool's head office or in the British government is going to resign over this fiasco.
Friday, 5 February 2016
Asylum and hypocrisy
It is reported that the United Nations has spoken out about the ongoing residence of Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. I won't comment on what they have said, but rather on the situation as a whole.
Since 2012, Assange has been living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in a bid to avoid being extradited to Sweden to stand trial for rape. For most of that time he has been granted asylum by the Ecuadorian government.
On the one hand I do not think it is right that Ecuador should help Assange to avoid criminal charges, but on the other hand I am aware that the United Kingdom has for many years now allowed foreign criminals to avoid justice in their own homelands by allowing them to remain in this country as refugees.
I am reminded in particular of two Indian men who were wanted on terror charges in India who were allowed to remain. Asylum is supposed to be granted where people are under threat of persecution because of their beliefs, not because they have committed crimes.
I'd be surprised if there have not also been many abuses of asylum status by criminals taking refuge in Sweden.
Related previous posts include:
Air strikes against Iraq are wrong
Since 2012, Assange has been living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in a bid to avoid being extradited to Sweden to stand trial for rape. For most of that time he has been granted asylum by the Ecuadorian government.
On the one hand I do not think it is right that Ecuador should help Assange to avoid criminal charges, but on the other hand I am aware that the United Kingdom has for many years now allowed foreign criminals to avoid justice in their own homelands by allowing them to remain in this country as refugees.
I am reminded in particular of two Indian men who were wanted on terror charges in India who were allowed to remain. Asylum is supposed to be granted where people are under threat of persecution because of their beliefs, not because they have committed crimes.
I'd be surprised if there have not also been many abuses of asylum status by criminals taking refuge in Sweden.
Related previous posts include:
Air strikes against Iraq are wrong
Sunday, 31 January 2016
Treason and hypocrisy
I have been planning for some time to write about the supposed German holocaust of the 1940s, but that would require more time than I have available to me right now.
What I will note today is this famous quote from Lord Shawcross, who was the lead British prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials:
There comes a point when a man must refuse to answer to his leader if he is also to answer to his own conscience.
I am not sure that the British establishment has ever allowed this pearl of wisdom to apply to British people - or indeed to people whom they regard as British.
It is reported today that the BBC has argued that William Joyce - also known as Lord Haw Haw - should never have been convicted of treason by the British government on the grounds that he was an American national.
It is also noted that the British government during the Second World War interned people who were suspected of being sympathetic to the German government. The German government sent people to concentration camps on the grounds of their political views, and so too did the British government.
It is curious how people in the political arena can often be adept at spotting hypocrisy in their rivals, but can be utterly blind to their own hypocrisy. In the time I have been writing this blog, I have tried to avoid writing anything which could be seen as hypocritical, and I am pleased that no one has yet accused me of hypocrisy. Comments are welcome as always.
Related previous posts include:
The outdated concept of treason
What I will note today is this famous quote from Lord Shawcross, who was the lead British prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials:
There comes a point when a man must refuse to answer to his leader if he is also to answer to his own conscience.
I am not sure that the British establishment has ever allowed this pearl of wisdom to apply to British people - or indeed to people whom they regard as British.
It is reported today that the BBC has argued that William Joyce - also known as Lord Haw Haw - should never have been convicted of treason by the British government on the grounds that he was an American national.
It is also noted that the British government during the Second World War interned people who were suspected of being sympathetic to the German government. The German government sent people to concentration camps on the grounds of their political views, and so too did the British government.
It is curious how people in the political arena can often be adept at spotting hypocrisy in their rivals, but can be utterly blind to their own hypocrisy. In the time I have been writing this blog, I have tried to avoid writing anything which could be seen as hypocritical, and I am pleased that no one has yet accused me of hypocrisy. Comments are welcome as always.
Related previous posts include:
The outdated concept of treason
Sunday, 24 January 2016
The economics of the minimum wage
The United Kingdom has high levels of unemployment. The level fluctuates, but even in a supposedly good year it will be sufficiently high to ensure that worklessness remains a way of life for far too many people in this country.
An employer can advertise almost any number of job vacancies which pay only the minimum wage, and still expect to fill possibly every single vacancy. Doubtless there may be exceptions where certain very specific skills are required, but I don't see much evidence of actual exceptions.
People who claim jobseekers' allowance soon find out that their payments can be sanctioned at almost any time, and so the incentive to find a job - even at a low wage - soon becomes obvious.
On the one hand, it might seem pointless for an employer to offer to pay more than the minimum wage when they do not need to pay any more in order to fill their vacancies. Then again, a lot of employers rely on the flexibility provided by overtime.
Not everyone is prepared to work overtime, however. In the past few months I have talked with a young woman who was unwilling to work overtime at any price, and with a man who was unwilling to work overtime unless he were to be paid around ten pounds per hour - which is significantly more than the minimum wage.
When employees refuse to work overtime, an employer must either recruit more staff, or pay a recruitment agency to supply more staff, or else allow a backlog of work to build up. Given that newly recruited staff are often of little use until they have received some in-house training, then a backlog of work might build up even where more staff are recruited. In other words, there is an advantage to having existing employees agree to work overtime, and paying above the minimum wage can assist in that process.
A related point is employee retention. It is not productive for managers to be perpetually engaged in recruiting and training new staff, and so there is an obvious incentive for most employers in having their existing staff remain on the payroll. Nevertheless a lot of employers face quite serious problems of staff turnover.
Paying above the minimum wage can probably help employers to retain staff, although there is no magic formula here. There are many reasons why an employee might leave, and not all of them are related to money.
In my experience, people who work either for the minimum wage or for not much more than the minimum wage tend to be efficient and dedicated. Nevertheless, an employer who pays significantly above the minimum wage can expect greater efficiency in the long term through lower levels of staff turnover and higher levels of overtime.
Related previous posts include:
Fellow blogger is wrong about the minimum wage
We get monkeys anyway
An employer can advertise almost any number of job vacancies which pay only the minimum wage, and still expect to fill possibly every single vacancy. Doubtless there may be exceptions where certain very specific skills are required, but I don't see much evidence of actual exceptions.
People who claim jobseekers' allowance soon find out that their payments can be sanctioned at almost any time, and so the incentive to find a job - even at a low wage - soon becomes obvious.
On the one hand, it might seem pointless for an employer to offer to pay more than the minimum wage when they do not need to pay any more in order to fill their vacancies. Then again, a lot of employers rely on the flexibility provided by overtime.
Not everyone is prepared to work overtime, however. In the past few months I have talked with a young woman who was unwilling to work overtime at any price, and with a man who was unwilling to work overtime unless he were to be paid around ten pounds per hour - which is significantly more than the minimum wage.
When employees refuse to work overtime, an employer must either recruit more staff, or pay a recruitment agency to supply more staff, or else allow a backlog of work to build up. Given that newly recruited staff are often of little use until they have received some in-house training, then a backlog of work might build up even where more staff are recruited. In other words, there is an advantage to having existing employees agree to work overtime, and paying above the minimum wage can assist in that process.
A related point is employee retention. It is not productive for managers to be perpetually engaged in recruiting and training new staff, and so there is an obvious incentive for most employers in having their existing staff remain on the payroll. Nevertheless a lot of employers face quite serious problems of staff turnover.
Paying above the minimum wage can probably help employers to retain staff, although there is no magic formula here. There are many reasons why an employee might leave, and not all of them are related to money.
In my experience, people who work either for the minimum wage or for not much more than the minimum wage tend to be efficient and dedicated. Nevertheless, an employer who pays significantly above the minimum wage can expect greater efficiency in the long term through lower levels of staff turnover and higher levels of overtime.
Related previous posts include:
Fellow blogger is wrong about the minimum wage
We get monkeys anyway
Thursday, 14 January 2016
Mortocracy versus democracy
Once again I find myself with so many things to write about, but I have opted to reply to a message I came across on social media a few weeks ago. The author - I cannot recall who he was - expressed a dislike of democracy. He said he preferred republicanism, and his argument was along these lines: In a democracy, my rights can be removed according to the wishes of the electorate; but in a republic my rights are protected by a constitution. I will assume that the author was an American national.
I have written in a previous thread about mortocracy, which I define as government by the dead.
Nowadays, democracy is normally envisaged as government according to the will of the people, as expressed at the ballot box. Mortocracy is government according to the dictates of people who are no longer alive. Examples of mortocracy include the Geneva Convention, which was most recently ratified in 1949.
The USA has a written constitution which cannot easily be amended. According to Wikipedia:
A proposed amendment becomes an operative part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (currently 38 of the 50 States).
By contrast, the United Kingdom has a constitution which is not written in any single document, and which can be amended by any act of parliament - passed on a simple majority vote.
The constitution of the USA can be interpreted by judges, and it is normal for judges to the supreme court to be appointed on the basis of how they are expected to interpret the constitution. In a sense this is vaguely democratic. The people elect the president, who then appoints judges to the Supreme Court. Nevertheless it is at best a bizarre form of democracy.
I recall once complaining that a federal judge in the USA had acted undemocratically by overturning the policy of an elected body. Someone replied that the ruling was democratic as it arose from a lawsuit brought by local people. The logic of that escapes me.
I recall also once remarking in a debate that a federal court ruling had been overturned on appeal. Someone replied that he could wait for the Democrats to return to power and - as he put it - reassert the constitution. I asked if he thought it proper that a Democrat administration should interfere in the judicial process, and he replied that the ruling in question was the work of judges appointed by a Republican administration. I then asked him if under a Democrat administration all appointments to the judiciary would be politically neutral, and he conceded that this would not be the case.
When people in the USA bring lawsuits based on the constitution, they will often argue that they are defending the constitution, but I wonder if any one of them truly cares about the constitution.
For example, proponents of the misnamed American Civil War argue that the constitution did not allow any of the states to leave the Union. In that it was utterly undemocractic, as each of the eleven states which left the Union in 1861 did so by the will of their elected politicians.
However what proponents of the misnamed American Civil War rarely admit is that the misnamed American Civil War was by that logic a violation of the constitution. If the states were not allowed to secede, then the citizens of those secessionist states were still technically American citizens. The war deprived many of them of their lives, but in most cases without the privilege of trial by jury, which is guaranteed by the constitution.
People who support government by written constitutions are almost certainly not truly interested in democracy, and are almost certainly hypocrites. I am proud to be a democract, and not a mortocrat.
Related previous posts include:
What is mortocracy?
I have written in a previous thread about mortocracy, which I define as government by the dead.
Nowadays, democracy is normally envisaged as government according to the will of the people, as expressed at the ballot box. Mortocracy is government according to the dictates of people who are no longer alive. Examples of mortocracy include the Geneva Convention, which was most recently ratified in 1949.
The USA has a written constitution which cannot easily be amended. According to Wikipedia:
A proposed amendment becomes an operative part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (currently 38 of the 50 States).
By contrast, the United Kingdom has a constitution which is not written in any single document, and which can be amended by any act of parliament - passed on a simple majority vote.
The constitution of the USA can be interpreted by judges, and it is normal for judges to the supreme court to be appointed on the basis of how they are expected to interpret the constitution. In a sense this is vaguely democratic. The people elect the president, who then appoints judges to the Supreme Court. Nevertheless it is at best a bizarre form of democracy.
I recall once complaining that a federal judge in the USA had acted undemocratically by overturning the policy of an elected body. Someone replied that the ruling was democratic as it arose from a lawsuit brought by local people. The logic of that escapes me.
I recall also once remarking in a debate that a federal court ruling had been overturned on appeal. Someone replied that he could wait for the Democrats to return to power and - as he put it - reassert the constitution. I asked if he thought it proper that a Democrat administration should interfere in the judicial process, and he replied that the ruling in question was the work of judges appointed by a Republican administration. I then asked him if under a Democrat administration all appointments to the judiciary would be politically neutral, and he conceded that this would not be the case.
When people in the USA bring lawsuits based on the constitution, they will often argue that they are defending the constitution, but I wonder if any one of them truly cares about the constitution.
For example, proponents of the misnamed American Civil War argue that the constitution did not allow any of the states to leave the Union. In that it was utterly undemocractic, as each of the eleven states which left the Union in 1861 did so by the will of their elected politicians.
However what proponents of the misnamed American Civil War rarely admit is that the misnamed American Civil War was by that logic a violation of the constitution. If the states were not allowed to secede, then the citizens of those secessionist states were still technically American citizens. The war deprived many of them of their lives, but in most cases without the privilege of trial by jury, which is guaranteed by the constitution.
People who support government by written constitutions are almost certainly not truly interested in democracy, and are almost certainly hypocrites. I am proud to be a democract, and not a mortocrat.
Related previous posts include:
What is mortocracy?
Sunday, 27 December 2015
Of Jews and paedophiles
As 2015 draws to a close, a national newspaper has published a list of notable people who died in the past year. Cilla Black and Jimmy Hill are among the more prominent names, but Lord Janner is also mentioned, and with these words:
Besides being a politician, Lord Janner was also a barrister and a writer.
He was a Labour MP for 27 years, from 1970 to 1997.
Lord Janner was president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews from 1978 to 1984 and was a prominent campaigner in the efforts to gain reparations for victims of the Holocaust.
No mention of him raping children.
Janner was first outed as a paedophile in 1991, but no charges were brought. In April 2015, another national newspaper reported that a retired police officer called Kelvyn Ashby had been forbidden from charging Janner, apparently on the grounds that he was an MP.
Janner went on to avoid being charged in 2002, 2006, and 2013 - each time in spite of substantial victim testimony. The Daily Mail reports that:
Update: this newspaper report about the trial of Jeremy Thorpe in 1979 is relevant.
Besides being a politician, Lord Janner was also a barrister and a writer.
He was a Labour MP for 27 years, from 1970 to 1997.
Lord Janner was president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews from 1978 to 1984 and was a prominent campaigner in the efforts to gain reparations for victims of the Holocaust.
No mention of him raping children.
Janner was first outed as a paedophile in 1991, but no charges were brought. In April 2015, another national newspaper reported that a retired police officer called Kelvyn Ashby had been forbidden from charging Janner, apparently on the grounds that he was an MP.
Janner went on to avoid being charged in 2002, 2006, and 2013 - each time in spite of substantial victim testimony. The Daily Mail reports that:
Ten
days ago Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders announced
there was enough evidence to charge Janner with 22 offences against nine
alleged victims – but he could not be prosecuted because he has severe
dementia.
The
CPS claimed Janner was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 2009. But analysis
of his activities since then shows he went on at least 20 foreign
trips, including to Israel and America as part of his work fighting
anti-semitism and bringing Nazis to justice. He was still chairman of an
all-party Parliamentary group two years ago.
This man was eager that one group of people - supporters of the National Socialist regime - should not escape justice (or injustice perhaps), but was also eager that he should avoid justice for his own crimes.
It is also notable that the establishment seemed eager to protect Janner all the way along the line. Consider this timeline.
- 1979: Margaret Thatcher leads the Conservative Party to victory in a general election. Her close friend and fellow Tory MP Peter Morrison is an active paedophile. Allegations that Liberal MP Cyril Smith is also a paedophile result in his being questioned by police just once. Muslim grooming gangs may already be operating in the United Kingdom.
- 1989: Mrs Thatcher's government brings in legislation for the prosecution of National Socialist veterans living in Britain.
- 1991: Labour MP Greville Janner, a Jew, is first outed as a paedophile, but is protected from prosecution. Britain still has a Conservative government, now led by John Major.
- 1997: A Labour government led by Tony Blair allows Janner to enter the House of Lords.
- 2000: Tony Blair confirms an annual Holocaust Memorial Day.
- 2001: The British National Party becomes aware of Muslim grooming gangs operating in the north west of England, and begins campaigning for prosecutions. Labour is still in government, and Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister.
- 2002: Janner is again protected from prosecution for his crime. Labour is still in government, and Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister.
- 2004: BNP leader Nick Griffin is secretly filmed by the BBC talking about Muslim grooming gangs.
- 2005: Griffin is charged with inciting racial hatred, presumably to punish him for daring to talk about Muslim grooming gangs. Labour is still in government, and Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister.
- 2006: Griffin stands trial, and is cleared. A retrial is promptly announced. Janner is again protected from prosecution for his crimes. Labour is still in government, and Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister.
- 2009: The BNP wins two seats in the European Parliament, and the press begin reporting the prosecution of a small number of Muslim paedophiles. Janner apparently begins suffering from Alzheimers, but continues working. Labour is still in government, and Gordon Brown is now the Prime Minister.
- 2013: Janner is again protected from prosecution for his crimes. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are now in government, and David Cameron is now the Prime Minister
- 2015: David Cameron is able to form a majority Conservative government. Janner is protected from prosecution once again, this time on the grounds of a medical condition which does not prevent him working.
Update: this newspaper report about the trial of Jeremy Thorpe in 1979 is relevant.
Related previous posts include:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)