The changing world order

The world order (if there ever was such a thing) is changing, and not in a good way. Of course what seemed stable when I was young was simply a function of not having lived through very much change. The 1970s saw Britain grappling and coming to terms with its diminished role in the world. There was the joining of the European Economic Community (EEC), the joining and departure from the European Monetary System (EMS), the decision not to adopt the single currency, and finally Britain's exit from Europe.  There was decimalization and the first supermarket to arrive in Steyning. There was the end of Franko's dictatorship in Spain, Solidarity in Poland, the collapse of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin Wall, German reunification.  More recent was the delegation of power to the central banks and the control of inflation.  So it hasn't really been all that stable. But there was a sense that in terms of international relations, we were moving towards greater economic integration and away from large scale military conflicts. There were the small "skirmishes"; the Falklands, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, then Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, but nothing on the scale of the two world wars, and since 1946, no use of nuclear weapons. So until the first early twenty-first century, things seemed to be moving in a generally in positive trajectory. There were hiccups like the 2008 financial crisis, but economies recovered.

Today that optimisms seems harder to sustain. Tension between China and the West over Tiwan, between Russia and the West over Ukraine, the resurgence of authoritarian regimes in Turkey, Hungary and Poland, not to mention the climate crisis, are beginning to cast a long shadow. The proliferation of a fragmented media landscape and the growth of social media is turning politics towards a toxic focus on identity devoid of a shared set of facts, let alone shared values. The collaboration of authoritarian regimes, swapping ideas on how best to stay in power and beat back pressure from the world's well meaning democracies is setting up a battle not between the ideologies of communism and capitalism, or between state run economies and market economies, but between competing systems of control, democratic representation or authoritarianism, between faith in institutions and faith in (or obedience to) personalities. And while democratic regimes believe they hold the moral high ground, their increasing inability to deliver, either economically or politically, will lead to more frustration and a further decline in trust in institutions, putting democracy itself at risk. It seems that for the twenty or so years I have left, the future looks pretty bleak.          

The 2022 F1 Season

Assuming the Red Bull and the Mercedes are as equally matched next year as they were this, Lewis Hamilton will have to find a way of dealing with Max Verstappen's driving. While I'm not a competitive racing driver, as a long-time follower of Formula 1 motor racing (and an unabashed Hamilton fan) I am worried that Verstappen has found an overtaking maneuver that is both risky and currently highly effective. While drivers generally move towards the apex from the outside of the track as they approach a corner, Verstappen, when executing an overtake, comes into the corner on the inside of the car ahead and breaks very late into the corner. While technically he may be abreast of the car he is trying to overtake on entry to the corner his excess speed and the fact that his car is now pointing less towards the apex than the car he is trying to pass means that the only way for the other driver to avoid a crash is to leave the track limits. That will either cost time or mean that if he is deemed to have gained an advantage, he will have to yield the place to Verstappen. In other words, Verstappen will make the overtake by forcing his opponent of the track in a risky, some (including me) would say reckless, move. Yet that kind of driving is often just called "highly competitive racing".  But in my view, as we saw at Monza this year then the two drivers did collide  (Verstappen was slightly behind Hamilton when the shunt happened), diving down the inside put both drivers at unnecessary risk. It forces the innocent party to accommodate the aggressor. 

Although this may be a slightly stylized representation, it makes the point that while technically in a fraction of a second, Verstappen will be ahead of Hamilton and the corner is "his", there is no way for Hamilton, who is turning into the apex, to avoid a collision unless he steers left meaning he will exceed track limits (assuming there is a runoff area). Unless the stewards begin to impose time penalties for diving down the inside and forcing the other driver out of track limits (as was the case in the first lap in Yas Marina) he will continue to use the maneuver to his advantage.

So were I in a position (which clearly I'm not) to give Hamilton some advice, it would be this; go into the simulator over the winter and try different approaches to the corner to  neutralize Verstappen's "inside lunge" overtake.

Otherwise he'll have to rely on being quicker and more reliable, which simply may not be enough for his eighth world championship.  

Verstappen wins in controversy

Verstappen's victory in the Yaz Marina Grand Prix will go down in history as one of the most controversial races ever in Formula 1. With the championship to play for, Hamilton drove a flawless race from the outset, gaining the lead before the first corner from second place on the grid. He led the entire race, but the race and his eight championship was stolen from him in the penultimate lap by a terrible decision from race control. 

Nicholas Latifi had crashed five laps from the end, bringing out the safety car. Hamilton had passed the back-markers while Verstappen had not. Verstappen used the safety car to come in for a fresh set of soft compound ties but Mercedes decided to leave Hamilton out on a worn set of hards. With the safety car having eliminated Hamilton's twelve second lead over Verstappen, he might yet have won had Verstappen had to pass the back markers, although the odds were now very much in Verstappen's favor. 

But race director Micheal Masi's inexplicable decision to let the back-markers past the safety car handed Verstappen his victory on a silver platter. With no gap between him and Hamilton and on a fresh set of softs to Hamilton's completely warn hards, it was a given that Verstappen would pass Hamilton on that last remaining lap. 

Was Red Bull's strategic decision making better than Mercedes' more cautious approach? Perhaps. But in the end, without the good fortune of allowing Verstappen to clear the back-markers under the safety car rather than under race conditions, that strategizing would have been moot.  Sadly, it was a bitter end to a great season or motor racing.

Verstappen or Hamilton?

Controversy surrounds the incident between Verstapen and Hamilton on the first lap of the final race of the 2021 Formula 1 championship in Yaz Marina. Did Hamilton gain an unfair advantage by leaving track limits at turn N?  Verstapen and Red Bull clearly think so. Mercedes, on the other hand, sees Hamilton leaving the tack not as a deliberate decision to gain an advantage, but as a necessary maneuver to avoid a collision that would have taken both cars out of the race.  The race stewards decided in Hamilton and Mercede's favor. 

While I may not be a completely impartial observer, I agree with the stewards' decision. Verstapen's move to take the position from Hamilton down the inside at the entrance to the corner was risky, some (including me) would say reckless. Coming from about two car lengths behind, he braked late into the corner bringing himself alongside Hamilton's car. Notably, he was not clipping the apex of the corner but was nearer to the middle of the track, leaving Hamilton nowhere to go.  At the apex, Verstapen was pointing his car towards the outside of the corner and Hamilton had no option but to leave the track or cause an accident that would have ended both their races. Which of course would have suited Verstapen nicely since he was leading the championship only by dint of having won more races since they were even on points. And there is little doubt that was in Verstapen mind. 

It's worth noting that this isn't the first time he'd pulled this kind of stunt. The incident at Monza in which he ended up colliding with Hamilton, bringing his car over the top of  the Mercedes and injuring Hamilton in the process looked remarkably similar. And there have been others. Verstapen seems ro have learned that there are few consequences for pushing the risk envelope with that maneuver. 

While it unclear whether Hamilton gave back all the advantage he gained from leaving the track, I think the stewards may have felt that it was about time Verstapen was sent the message that would not be allowed to take the lead by forcing another car off the track.  Whoever wins the race (still in progress) I think the stewards made the right call.     

The Decline and Fall of the American Dream

Martin Luther King had a dream. The country's Founding Fathers apparently had one too, an ideal to be aspired to, the Great American Democratic Experiment. Their dream was to create a country based on principles, not race, ethnicity and tribalism, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".  

Yet in the two hundred and forty five years since the Declaration of Independence was signed, that dream has proved elusive.  Granted the country as created enormous economic wealth in aggregate yet it remains remarkably unequal, not just in outcomes, which is to be expected, but in opportunity which should not be.

With the new millennium, a generation has begun pushing more forcefully to realize that dream, and to grapple with the sins of the past that still cast a long shadow, sometime real, sometimes imagined. With it has come a shift in culture towards compassion and collectivism and away from the rugged individualism that once was central to so many Americans' sense of identity.  

David Brooks, writing about his visit to the National Conservatism Conference, sees the right as turning to the state as the only tool left to ward off the woke evil corporate behemoths, the indoctrinating mind-control of higher education and the cultural censorship of the so called main-stream media. Some of what Brooks fears is already happening.  Conservative legislatures are gerrymandering electoral districts to their advantage, and putting partisan electoral officials in place of supposedly neutral ones. They are banning books from schools and dictating curriculum.  That may stem the tide for a while. 

But suppose the "NatCons", if (or rather when) they get the levers of power, they go further. Trump has already set the stage for a more authoritarian approach to governing. If the illiberal regimes he so admires (Turkey, Hungary, Belarus) are the template for the NatCons' philosophy, censorship and increasing curtailing of speech and thought deemed inconsistent with the national interest (i.e., their philosophy) may come next. 

Ultimately, that may not only mark the end of the American Dream as a set of aspirational principles, it may also cripple the American Dream's economic component. International trade with Europe could suffer, universities will attract fewer top-notch faculty from abroad, entrepreneurs may find other more attractive places to work. And when innovation and trade suffer, the economy follows, and as it does, the immigration needed to make up for a declining birthrate will decline. Assuming that the country does not implode in something approaching civil war, America will sink into a slow fading-away, no longer seen as the beacon of freedom it once was.  So the the GOP, I humbly suggest, "be careful what you wish for".  

Get Back

Peter Jackson's editing of the three weeks of footage of the Beatles at work, leading up to the rooftop concert, provides some interesting insights into the creative process and team dynamics.   

First, the creative process. It was quite remarkable to hear how some relatively vague initial ideas quickly came to sound like the songs everyone knows ("Get Back", for example).  While the emergence of an almost finished product seems miraculous, it is a function of, and a testament to, their experience of working together and their skill at coming up with parts that fitted so well. In the end, their competence as a group of musicians allowed them to turn in an almost perfect performance in minutes rather than the hours or days it takes less seasoned players.

The other fascinating aspect of the film is the team dynamic. In the first episode, McCartney is trying to take a leadership role (something Brian Epstien provided, at least regarding work schedules, until his untimely death) but McCartney is clearly struggling. George Harrison seems to have retreated in to a passive aggressive relationship with McCartney. McCartney's belated and rather ham-handed and attempts to placate him only make matters worse and Harrison walks out of the film (and, at least temporarily, the band).

Also interesting is the relationship between Lennon and McCartney; in a secretly recorded conversation, Lennon admits to having acquiesced to whatever McCartney wanted and seems resigned to it. Lennon also comments on how Harrison feels undervalued. It is not clear to me from that conversation whether McCartney quite understood how his behavior had affected the other members of the group.  I imagine the dynamic between Lennon and McCartney had evolved over the years (since McCartney was "hired" by Lennon into the Quarrymen and was also younger than Lennon).  

I was struck by the contrast with the Amadeus String Quartet which formed while its members were also quite young (in their mid 20s - not quite as young as the Beatles). The Amadeus Quartet remained productive, cohesive and amicable until Peter Schidlof's death led to the remaining members' decision to stop performing after 40 years together. One big difference, of course, is that Amadeus Quartet formed when its members were in their mid-twenties while the Beatles came together in their late teens.   

Peter Jackson commented on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert that his film, despite being crafted from the same raw footage, tells a quite different story from that of the film "Let it Be".  I'm not sure it does. While it is true that the members of the band were still having fun playing together at least some of the time, there are clearly big issues that aren't being addressed; George Harrison's feeling under--appreciated, Richard Starkey in some sense resigned to being "just the drummer", even tension between Lennon and McCartney over creative ideas. The joking, seemingly a throwback to their early, more care-free days as teenagers, may make the day-to-day bearable, but does nothing to resolve the underlying tensions. 

And while Jackson tried to downplay the effect Yoko Ono had on the dynamic, he may be missing the point. It's true that Yoko didn't insert herself into their work but Jackson misses two things - first what Ono says to Lennon when they are at home, although given that it was McCartney who finally called it quits that may be lees of the issue than simply her presence in the studio. She may not have said anything but while she was there, Lennon's attention was divided between her and McCartney; and since McCartney had been used to Lennon's undivided attention when they were creating together in the early days, that may have been what convinced him that they could never get back to the close collaborative relationship they once had.  The Get Back sessions were, it seems, an attempt to go back to the band's creative roots working less experimentally and more simply and collaboratively and a big part of that was the Lennon-McCartney writing partnership. If McCartney felt that they could never get that back because Lennon wasn't as completely focused on the band as he had once been, McCartney may have felt that the experiment had failed and it was time to move on. 

Returning to the issue of the dynamics and personalities, Lennon seems much less goal-oriented than McCartney and seemingly would have been happy to continue to working. But my sense is that McCartney wanted to keep moving forward, keep putting out records, keep in the limelight, and didn't see the Beatles as being able to deliver on his schedule.

Might things have turned out differently had Yoko Ono not come into their lives or had McCartney recognized his attempts to lead the groups after Epstien's death were not working? Perhaps: but the question is rather pointless.  What really matters is that, in the end, the Beatles gave us a catalog of extraordinarily creative work for which we should simply be immensely grateful.

The Rittenhouse Verdict

The jury's verdict in the Rittenhouse case has, unsurprisingly, been controversial. Much stems from the confluence of two issues; the use of deadly force and inequitable treatment based on race. As has been pointed out, had Rittenhouse been black instead of white, is it almost inconceivable that he would not have been arrested on the spot (or even shot by the police) rather than allowed to return home to turn himself in later. That (among other things) is one aspect of the racial component. Another might be his becoming a cause célèbre for Fox, which again would be unlikely to have happened were he a black teenager. That afforded him an expensive, high profile and well prepared legal defense team instead of an over-worked public defender.

However, those were not the questions the jury had to consider; it was asked rather to determine the very narrow question of whether someone carrying a weapon has the right to use deadly force to defend him or herself in the particular circumstances of the case. There were three different instances; in the first, Rittenhouse was chased by an unarmed man; in the second he was attacked by a man wielding a skateboard; and in the third he was threatened with a hand gun. In the first two, Rittenhouse shot and killed his assailants; the third was seriously injured. 

Rittenhouse was acquitted in all three instances. His defense was that even when being threatened or attacked by someone who was either unarmed or armed with an everyday object (a skateboard) he was  justified in fearing for his life and hence justified in using deadly force.  While it seems a stretch that he would be in fear of his life when set upon on by someone who was unarmed, the defense suggested that had Rittenhouse been overpowered, his assailant would have taken his gun and used it to shoot him.  Although to the man on the London omnibus, that seems highly unlikely, it cannot be unequivocally ruled out, which may explain the jury's verdict.  The jury also did not consider (or were not asked to consider) whether putting oneself needlessly into harm's way in a somewhat provocative manner made the claim of self-defense less robust. 

Ultimately, the verdict seems to pave the way for anyone carrying a gun to claim that the person they shot might have taken their gun and used it against them, making their killing justified based on that hypothetical scenario. A similar case concerning the killing of Ahmaud Arbery is currently underway and the same defense will almost certainly be used. Gun rights activists assert that the "Only Thing That Stops A Bad Guy With A Gun Is A Good Guy With A Gun". The problem with that philosophy is that who the good and bad guys are is in the eye of the beholder. The trajectory we appear to be on leads almost inexorably to everyone needing to carry a gun. That's not what I think of a civil society and is certainly one I don't particularity want to live in. 

Vic, Chief Gravity Tester

Vic, chief gravity tester and my bunk buddy, left us this morning at 5:27 after a very short illness. He was probably no more than eight years old.

Although he may have been sick for some time, he showed no symptoms until ten days ago. Diagnosed with a stomach ulcer a week ago today, we had hoped he'd make a full recovery. But despite making progress mid-week, he took sharp a downward turn yesterday from which there was no coming back.

Vic (short for victim of animal cruelty) came to us on April 1st 2015. He'd been shot three times in the head with a .22 rifle by a local teenager who thought it would be fun to shoot stray cats. Vic underwent surgery and two of the three bullets were removed. It is a miracle he survived at all. Judith rescued him from a parent who she judged was quite unfit to look after him, and brought him to live with us. She adored him - he was definitely her favorite.  

Vic was mischievous and smart. When he wanted your attention he would jump onto a counter-top and bat things—plastic bowls, plastic jars of treats, pens—to the ground; then he'd stare at you to make sure that he'd gotten your attention. I can see his face, head cocked quizzically to one side, peaking out from the alcove to make sure I was paying attention. Sometimes he just liked to bat things of counters for the fun of it, earning him the honorary title "chief gravity tester".

My bunk buddy

 

He wasn't the most social of our feline family, nor the most affectionate but he was the strongest character. While he slept in the bedroom most nights among a gaggle of cats, he'd occasionally sleep next to me with his head on my pillow.

And occasional work companion

 

 

From time to time he would curl up under my chair while I was working and very occasionally sleep in my lap with his head on the keyboard shelf or on the desk with his head on my arm.

 

 

It's hard to believe he'd only been part of the family for six and a half years - his presence was so strong that it is hard to remember a time before he arrived or imagine a time without him. His passing will leave a huge void in our lives, but he's in a much better place now than he was last night and this morning. God speed Vic. May the force of gravity be with you, always; as you are in our hearts.

 

Taking a sun bath at the breakfast table

Inflation

When demand exceeds supply, firms can either keep prices the same and stock out, or raise prices which has the effect of reducing demand.  Covid has had an odd effect on both supply and demand. For the lock down it reduces the demand services (no one was eating out or taking trips abroad) and but had little effect on demand for goods; if anything it may have risen as money not spent on services shifted to spending n goods. At the same time covid disrupted supply; less was made as firms adapted to the demands of health protection and different work practices needed to combat the pandemic. And the "Great  Resignation", a function of people having to reevaluate their priorities, made permanent some of the reductions in service provision, further bolstering demand for goods. 

The result has been a steep rise in prices with the rate of inflation more than tripling to well north of 5%. Some (including Paul Krugman) has argued that the situation is temporary since it was cased by the supply chain disruption that will abate in 2022. However, some features are structural shifts will won't return to the status quo pre-pandeminc. Moreover price rises and price reductions are seldom symmetric; prices rise quickly and fall slowly (if at all). So even if the recent price rises were a result of a temporary disequilibrium between supply and demand, once consumers have gotten used to paying more, prices may not come done much. So inflation this year and next will likely be well above the 2% target set by the Federal Reserve. 

No time to loose

A few years ago I bought several cheap but stylish watches. Each was about $20, so I decided to have one for summer time and one for daylight savings time. That way I'd never have to adjust my watch when the clocks changed. 

Early this morning the clocks went back and I put on my daylight savings time watch. I hadn't worn it since March 13^th and almost certainly hadn't adjusted for several weeks before then. 

Checking against my phone and my desktop clocks, both of which are synced to internet time, my cheap $20 watch is seven seconds fast. Since at some point last year I did make sure is was within a second or so of internet time, it has gained only seven seconds in six months or longer. 

When I think back to my second watch, a Tissot my father gave me when his colleagues gave him a new one on his retirement, that Swiss movement made by a company renowned for its accurate time pieces, had to be adjusted practically every day.  That's the kind of remarkable progress which comes with the passage of time. 

A Vigilante Society

Two stories in the news this week illustrate the United States' decent into a vigilante society; the first is the trail of Kyle Rittenhouse, accused of murder for shooting dead two people and wounding a third, allegedly in self defense.  Rittenhouse, who was not from Kenosha, Wisconsin, had traveled across state lines claiming to want to protect Kenosha property owners from having their stores looted or destroyed by demonstrators protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake, who is Black, by a White Police office (who has not been charged int the shooting). The other is the case of Ahmed Arbery, who was chased down and shot by three self-appointed vigilantes. In both cases, self-defense is being cited as justification for the killings. Yet in both, untrained civilians with no, or in the Arbery case highly dubious, legal authority took it upon themselves to mete out their own personal version of "justice".  We are in danger of substituting the rule of law for the rule of the most heavily armed. 

Time to put up

The two hold outs against passing the "Build Back Better" bill are standing in the way of the Democrats holding Congress just over a year from now.  While Congress, and Democrats in particular appear incapable of getting any legislation passed, Biden's poll numbers are tanking. 

Oddly, that may give Biden some leverage. He has only to convince Manchin and Sinema will likely follow suit - she won't want to be the one person to have sunk the Democrats entire post-Trump agenda. 

So what will it take to get Manchin on board?  How about threatening to primary him from the left?  If he sticks to his guns the Senate is lost anyway, replacing him with a progressive won't make any different to the Dem's control of the Senate.  But if he likes his job, and I suspect he does, he'll reach a compromise pretty quickly.

Thumbs down

Facebook, WhatsApp and Instgram were all off-line this morning. According to the New York Times "it was unlikely that a cyber-attack caused the issues. That’s because the technology behind the apps was still different enough that one hack was not likely to affect all of them at once."  That suggests that all three platforms were taken down deliberately by someone inside Facebook, perhaps even by the company itself. Why might they do that? Perhaps its intent is to rile up its users to by showing how much people rely on these platforms in the hope that their dismay at begin deprived of Facebook's services can be channeled into preventing Congress (or the DoJ) from legislating or ruling to curtail the company's out-sized influence.  

Hostage taking

Senator's Manchin and Sinema are holding hostage the Democrats reconciliation bill, the central plank of Biden's "Build Back Better" agenda, that would address a range of important problems and is widely popular nationally to boot.  Yet both Manchin and Sinema have been completely unforthcoming as to what they want to see.  While they might claim that showing your hand is a poor negotiating tactic, they are not haggling over the prices of a used car. They are ironing out a policy agenda in which all Americans have a stake. So that's not going to wash. 

I'm speculating that there's another reason. For Manchin it's his base and his donors; he's from coal country and doesn't want to upset workers (and owners) in the coal industry by supporting a move away from fossil fuels.  

For Sinema, it doesn't seem to be her electors' interests that she's defending (Biden won Arizona while Trump won West Virginia, Manchin's state). It has been suggested, and this seems eminently plausible, that it's her donors, in particular the pharmaceutical industry, whose interests she is looking after. Admitting that would be electoral suicide, but she hasn't got a fall back explanation for her reluctance to sign on to "Build Back Better".   

"It’s simply not who we are"

Referring to the incident in which a Border Patrol agent was seen whipping Haitian asylum-seekers President. Biden said, “It’s simply not who we are”.  The sad truth is, it's exactly who "we" or at least some of us are.  

I suspect, anecdotally, that this behavior reflects attitudes held by a significant proportion of law enforcement and those in red states.  We are a deeply divided nation and anti-immigrant sentiment combined with the "othering" of those who are deemed to have broken the law paves the way for this kind of behavior. 

Combine the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram experiment, with declining trust in institutions including in the rule of law, particularity acute among rural conservative leaning folk, and you have a recipe for violence (they'd call it "self-reliance") against those they see as outsiders. This incident and January 6th insurrection, not to mention the killing of unarmed mainly black men by self-appointed vigilantes, are where this leads. 

Vaccine mandates

 

Biden announced a sweeping and quite draconian executive order yesterday requiring employers of over 100 people to in turn require their employees to be vaccinated. While the intent is clearly in the public interest that order is a mistake. 

Those who are not not yet vaccinated are likely to see this as over-reach which will hurt Democrats in next year's mid-terms. And firms in red states where vaccination resistance is highest may well not enforce the order, setting up an ugly legal fight; that will delay the order's implementation, negating it's effectiveness (and that's assuming it withstands the challenge).  

A better approach might be to acknowledge that vaccination is a personal choice, albeit one with implications for the health of others, but internalize the externalities, for example by allowing hospitals to change more for the treatment of unvaccinated patients who contract covid, or allowing them to triage covid patients on the basis of vaccination status without liability.  The higher cost of a decision to forego vaccination would be borne by those making that personal choice while protecting their freedom to make bad choices. That increased cost might well be more effective than a mandate.  

The future of Afghanistan

There is much discussion among the punditry as to what the future holds for Afghanistan. Will the Taliban be a new improved Taliban 2.0? Starting as the end, I suspect not. Religions are inherently conservative; they are based in faith; and faith is often, perhaps even axiomatically, impervious to facts. The Taliban has promised to be a nicer Taliban, respectful of women and education; but while the Taliban leadership may be making promises it knows Western donors want to hear so as to ensure that the money taps aren't turned off, it's unclear that the foot soldiers, steeped in its peculiar brand of Islam are on board with those pronouncements. Early evidence from the country suggests they are not. Indeed it's not clear that the leadership means what is says, at least as a matter of principle. 

However there is some reason to believe that foreign nationals who could not be evacuated before the US pulled out on August 30th might yet get out without having to flee across a Taliban controlled land border.  The Taliban might want to get the "trouble-makers" off Afghan soil and avoid incurring the immediate wrath of the foreign governments on whose largess the country's economy depends. 

But for Afghan nationals the prospect is bleaker. The Taliban understands that foreign powers will not want to go into battle (again) for the sake of human rights half way round the world.  The primary rationale for the invasion twenty years ago was to deny Al Qaeda safe haven; standing up the institutions of civil society was a goal adopted only after the invasion, and one which the US may well now have realized was overly ambitious.  That provides the Taliban with much greater governing flexibility.  And they are unlikely to permit a mass exodus of those who have enjoyed a taste of freedom; that would be to admit that their world-view is not the be-all-and-end-all.  

The question has been asked whether those who have become accustomed to a less medieval form of government over the last 20 years will "push back", holding out the prospect of resistance and reform or even the possible over-throw of the newly reinstated Taliban regime. That seems based more in hope that reality.  The more likely outcome is increasingly harsh repression (much as is currently happening in Myanmar at the moment - about which, tellingly,  there is no reporting in the US media). With the US and its allies now departed and the camera crews packed up and gone, Afghanistan will be out of sight, out of mind for the West. The Taliban will then have a freer hand and few qualms about imposing its interpretation of Sharia law in the same brutal fashion is has in the past.   

Reconciliation

"Democracies evolve in a conflict of factions. They achieve greatness by their reconciliations." Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State.

Behind the fall

Two things stuck me today watching the BBC coverage of the Taliban's rout of the Afghan government; one was a surprise the other not. The unsurprising thing was seeing Taliban fighters with M-16s or similar - but clearly modern US made automatic weapons. We're quite used to seeing pictures of the Taliban with AK-47s left over from the Russians entanglement in the country so seeing American weapons brought home the point quite graphically. 

The other, and this was a surprise, was learning that the Taliban had been secretly negotiating surrender arrangements with regional leaders for 18 months, but only put them into effect just as the Americans were preparing to leave. That explains the rapidity with which they captured territory; its not that the Afghan army and police decided at the last minute they would not put up a fight; it appears the handover of power local has long been prearranged. That this wan't known or understood by the US suggests a huge intelligence failure. 

Yet despite the rush to pin the blame on the Biden administration, in the bigger picture its calculus ultimately is the same. Certainly many who might have left had the Taliban only advanced at the speed US intelligence had expected will likely now not be able to. Yet they might also have chosen to stay and the scenes of chaos may reflect that fact that more people are now trying to flee the country (following the example of their ex-president) because of the speed of the Taliban return to power than would otherwise have been the case. 

Biden was clear in his address today that the US is not in the business of nation-building. Yet that is clearly what the last 10 years in Afghanistan were all about. Osama bin Laden had been killed and Al-Qaeda's ability to train and organize had apparently be degraded to the point that it no longer presents a threat to US homeland security. So the counter-terrorism component of the US mission in Afghanistan was accomplished meaning that staying longer was only about nation-building.  

This raises the question of ambition versus what is achievable.  As a Brit I have noticed (a huge generalization of course) a tendency for America, with the best of intentions, to try and establish 'copies' of itself in other places. While numerous politicians of both parties have eschewed nation-building, that does seem to have been a goal of the post invasion strategy in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  One might argue that the post-cold war attempt to transition the countries of the ex-USSR and the Communist block more generally to Western-style market economies and democracies was similarly an attempt to reshape those countries in its image.

The ambition may have been commendable though not everyone agrees that a foreign power imposing its systems and values on another country is anything but modern day colonialism.  But putting that aside, the ambition far outstripped what was realistically achievable.  The Brits tried to govern Afghanistan in the 19th century, the Russians tried in the 20th; and both failed. So the notion that the US would do any better may have been over-optimistic.

As with America's ambitions for post-cold war Russia, its aspirations in Afghanistan were too ambitious and insufficient attention paid to context; meaning that ultimately the attempt to turn the country in to a Western-style 20th century democracy has, after 20 years, ultimately failed.  It has been said that the 19th century belonged to Britain, the 20th to the US, and the 21st will be China's.  If that's the case, then who knows, perhaps China can find a way to impose its values and systems on other countries more successfully that its colonial predecessors?    

The last straw

As if to underscore the inevitability of the Taliban's return to power, Ashraf Ghani, Afghanistan's president has fled the country.

And, according to the Guardian's real time reporting, within 20 minutes of his departure the Taliban had entered Kabul. 

Ghani's departure is a highly symbolic end to to the American effort to stand up Western-style democracy in Afghanistan. Its nation-building project in Afghanistan is now unequivocally at and end.  

The American-Afghan war is, to all intents and purposes, now over, just 53 days shy of a platinum anniversary.   If America's twenty year anniversary gift to Afghanistan would have been china, China might be breathing a sigh of relief.

Taliban win the long game

I have written about the US occupation of Afghanistan and the decision to withdraw (April 18th, July 14th) and there is little in broad terms I can add to those posts. It was almost inevitable that once the Americans (and NATO) forces left Afghanistan, the Taliban would take back the country.  They live there, it's their home; the Americans are there temporarily and it's not their home. That gives the Taliban numerous strategic advantages; they can be more patient, they have better intelligence; they have a better understanding of the culture and the political situation on the ground (something the Americans appear to lack); and they are hard to identify from other Afghan civilians. So their resurgence was not a surprise. What was perhaps surprising was the remarkable speed with which this unfolded, in a matter of days rather than weeks. Some have dubbed this, with some justification, another "Saigon moment" for America. 

There are a few comments, perhaps more of a post script, that might help explain the surprising speed with which the Taliban had retaken the country.

First was corruption and mismanagement in the Afghan government; corruption undermined support for the government particularly amongst the security forces, many of whom, according to the Economist, had not been paid for months. While Biden had said that it was time for the Afghans take complete responsibility for defending their country from the Taliban, it seems his administration, perhaps from incomplete intelligence, may not have understood the fragility of the armed forces' morale and commitment. That has led to desertions in the field as the Taliban advanced. 

Second, like many things (Climate change for example) the worse things get the faster they deteriorate. As the speed of the Taliban advance became clear this week that contributed to a sense of inevitability and further undermined the will of Afghan soldiers to put their lives at risk for a government many didn't believe in.  Just as the Taliban were well equipped with Russian material (AK-47s and grenade launchers) they had seized after they drove out the Russian thirty years ago, I expect we will see them driving captured Humvees and brandishing American supplied M-16s before long.  

The Russians lasted 9 years, 1 month, 3 weeks and 1 day, according to Wikipedia; the America almost made it to its twenty year anniversary.  And the appropriate gift for a twenty year anniversary? China. 

Crossroads #2 - Artificial Intelligence

The NHS is addressing the shortage of medical professional by filling the gap with artificial intelligence as a was to increase the efficiency of the staff it has. While that doesn't seem on the face of it like job displacement, it really is in two senses.  First, it reduces demand for medical staff which in effect means in future, were supply to increase that additional supply would no longer be needed. And secondly, it demonstrates more broadly how human skills are replaceable by AI. It also reinforces the idea that highly skilled knowledge work is at least if not more vulnerable to AI replacement than other kinds of work. 

With potentially mass unemployment looming, two possible futures seem to emerge at least from an ideological perspective.  One involves state intervention and financial redistribution, the other leaves everything to economics and markets. Left to market forces, income inequality will rise, which in turn will fuel social unrest, populism and the further erosion of trust in institutions in general. The upshot will likely be a more authoritarian crackdown possibly with deep political undercurrents.  

Redistribution will be less unpopular in countries accustomed to more state intervention such as France Germany and even China. As a result these kinds of states will likely suffer less dislocation even while seeming to fare less well economically in the short run. And while it's true that as Keynes noted, "in the long run we are all dead" how we get there makes a difference.     

Crossroads #1 - Climate crisis

Yesterday the IPCC released a report concluding that on the basis of the preponderance of evidence, the current disruptions we are seeing to the climate (drought, wild fires, floods and other extreme weather events) and now irreversible.    

But things could get a great deal worse unless governments act now The window to avoid a catastrophe of truly global proportions is closing. 

While some may complain that the left (i.e., scientists and the elites) have been crying wolf for too long which is why no one is listening, the fact remains that this slow rolling crisis may be too momentous to stop. 

Do windmills cause cancer?

 

Of course not; that's just a right wing anti-green energy conspiracy theory, propagated on Facebook and by Fox.  But what about this: "Trump voters spread disease"?  Well that's a 'yes'; the unvaccinated mask-less "it's not a problem because Trump said it wasn't" types are the main vectors of spread for the delta variant.  How may of the Sturgis motorcycle rally were wearing masks this year - probably few or none; and how many were not GOP or Trump voters -  again probably few or none.  

But it's worse than that; not only are they disease vectors, they are also the incubators for potentially more deadly and more contagious variants.   

So when the next variant, more virulent and more contagious than delta, arrives, remember this: it's here because Trump voters refused to follow the guidelines that would have prevented it.  When it does we should call it "Trump-pox".

Fair and Balanced - who needs it?

"Fair and Balanced" is Fox "News" slogan. It's a little ironic because that's precisely what it isn't; but maybe Fox thinks that by calling their brand of distorted-realty conspiracy-theory-filled hate mongering is "Fair and Balanced" often enough, some of their viewers may even half believe it?  But that's not my beef here. 

Today I'm at my wits end with The News Hour. First Judy Woodruff, who I believe produces the show as well as presenting it, aired Kevin McCarthy spewing is usual ridiculous nonsense, about no evidence for this and infringement of freedom there.  We know his shtick now so we don't need to hear it again; in Nancy Pelosi's words he's a complete moron. But she didn't air much of Biden's speech (or any of it now that I think about it). We heard more from the mouths of habitual liars than from the President. How crazy is that? 

Ms. Woodruff, I understand you're trying to put "fair and balance" into practice instead of using it as a slogan, but frankly if one "side" is sensible science based policy and the other is wacky pot stirring and hate-filled garbage, you really don't need to be "balanced".  As Maggie Thatcher said of the IRA many years ago, they need to be deprived of the oxygen of publicity.  If you are going to report GOP nonsense, just foot-note it; mention that some nut-ball said more stupid stuff (don't air them saying it) and move on. The only people who might accuse you of being unfair are the dildos at Fox and they'd say that wherever you do; so screw them. Just report the facts and leave all the nonsense for the brain dead Fox viewers.  

Dusty Hill

Yesterday music lost Dusty Hill, ZZ-Top's bass player.  I wasn't a huge ZZ-Top fan, that is until I want to see them play. My wife, thinking I was a fan, bought the tickets and it was a bit of a surprise to both of us when we arrived - I think it was at Shoreline - and I found out who was playing and she found out I didn't like the band as much as she thought I did. But anyway, we settled in and before very long I was hooked. Just three guys, a great sound and a show. What a show! From the furry guitars, the huge chrome mic stands, the lighting. 15 years on I can't put my finger on why I was so captivated, but I remember telling my musician friends afterwards what an impression the band had made. I only listen to them occasionally these days, but I still remember how in awe I was of the show they put on. RIP Dusty Hill.

Carrying the can

 

Today the CDC is recommending that the vaccinated mask up again when indoors; that's infuriating. It means that not only did I take the precaution of getting the vaccine, I am also having to mask up to protect the unvaccinated who are too stubborn or too stupid (or both) to get a shot. More annoying still, many of those unvaccinated are almost certainly wandering around without a mask because 'wearing a mask (or getting vaccinated) is an infringement on their personal freedom'; To which I say this: your piss-ant behavior is impacting my freedom, you ignorant, selfish, whiny troglodytes.  

Why is the GOP is resisting vaccination?

 

They say it's about personal choice. Bull. It's about not wanting covid to be controlled during Biden's fist two years so that they can win back the House in 2022. Trump screwed up the initial response which left half a million Americans dead. If Biden were to been seen to have gotten covid under control and the country almost back to normal that would make him look good and Trump and his acolytes (i.e., almost the entire GOP) look like the incompetent, self-serving, spineless douche-bags they really are. So the GOP wants to keep vaccination rates down and covid alive November 2022. 

Jims Jordan and Banks, comedians

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vetoed two of minority leader McCarthy's nominations to the select committee investigating the January 6th insurrection yesterday.  As apparently "shocking" as this was, it was completely predictable. First, McCarthy has made it clear that he is completely beholden to Trump.  So anyone who might be even mildly non-partisan was not a contender for the Republication slots on the committee.  

Jim Jordan had made it clear from his Emmy-nomination-worthy theatrical performance on the Benghazi hearings during the House's "investigation"  into Hilary Clinton's emails that he was not remotely interested in fact-finding, but sees committees as opportunities for partisan grandstanding. He'd also been instrumental in promoting the Big Lie and was involved in the organization of the insurrection, allegedly.  

Jim Banks had also made clear from his comments this week that like Jordan, he was intending to use the committee as a platform to peddle a revisionist version of events. “Make no mistake, Nancy Pelosi created this committee solely to malign conservatives and to justify the left’s authoritarian agenda. I will not allow this committee to be turned into a forum for condemning millions of Americans because of their political beliefs.”  Hardly a voice of a serious open-minded thinker. 

So the two Jims' rejection was entirely to be expected. And equally predictably, McCarthy announced the the Republicans would do an "investigation" of their own, obviously an attempt to preempt the select committee with its own distorted version of events. We'll have two documents, one saying Trump was to blame and the other saying it was Hilary, George Soros, BLM, Antifa, and, of course, the Jews.

Indeed, one might have imagined that this was precisely what McCarthy had intended from the get-go were it not for the fact that he was apparently taken off guard by Pelosi's decision, all of which only seems to show how McCarthy, like many of his Republican colleagues, misread his political opponents and Nancy Pelosi in particular.   

Why Republicans should take climate change seriously

One of the effects of climate change appears to be the reduction in predictable precipitation in areas nearer the equator; in the Americas this means Central America. Since many Central American countries have economies that are significantly agricultural, increasingly frequent droughts will create an economic incentive to move north to places not as acutely affected by climate change.  At the same time economic hardship will lead to unrest and repression resulting in civil rights abuses, creating additional pressure to flee to less repressive countries. The result will be an increase in the number of people trying to enter the USA and the blurring of any distinction between economic migrants and political refugees. That makes climate change as much a priority for Republicans as for Democrats. 

Border walls and ramping up enforcement will only lead to greater a humanitarian disaster; the problem needs fixing at its source. Historically the emphasis has been on political intervention to support friendly (and sometimes) democratic governments south of the border but that is no longer enough. The US will need to address climate change both at its root, for the longer term through curbing of carbon and methane emissions, and through mitigation in the shorter term with initiatives to help countries whose economies are being adversely impacted by climate change.     

Republican climate deniers may have no compunction about going down in history as the cult that destroyed life on earth as we know it, but perhaps they may take notice when they realize that failing to fix the climate problem might increase the "browning of America" of which they seem mortally afraid. 

Trump and vaccines

The Economist notes that the one thing Trump's administration did get right was the relaxation of regulation that allowed much faster than normal development of a covid vaccine. But now Trunp's  supporter's and his boosters (Fox) are railing against the vaccine Trump heralded as the very thing that would save the country.  While that seems odd, it is in fact in entirely predictable.

Had Trump won the election he would be calling on everyone, his supporters in particular, to get vaccinated, and berating Fox to do the same. He would be touting it as the life-saving solution to all our problems, health and economic. 

But he lost, and now doesn't want Biden't administration to get any credit for rolling out the vaccine (something his administration completely failed to set in motion) and getting the country back to normal. He'd rather the Biden vaccination program fail so that he will have something to berate it for in 2024.  Making his supporters sicker, and more economically distressed as a result, helps stoke the grievance that he hopes will boost his standing and influence in the next presidential election.    

Forever Wars

Biden has been criticized by George W. Bush, no less, for leaving Afghanistan before "Mission Accomplished".  And it is true that the creation of a stable functioning democracy looks imperiled. The Mujaheddin outlasted the Russians in the 1980s and the Taliban (which owes its existence to the tribal conflicts between the Mujaheddin fighters) have done the same to the Americans in the 21st century, using weapons captured from the Russians.

It is fair to say that the US withdrawal may lead to the collapse of the Afghan government and the return of the Taliban theocracy which is indeed tragic for a great many Afghans, women in particular.  While it has been pointed out that we still have troops in Germany, that is a flawed comparison; the US could pull its troops out of German and the Nazis would not return to power. (US forces are there for a quite different Cold War related reason). 

If, as seems likely, the withdrawal of US troops results in the Taliban reimposing their medieval theocratic regime, it will be a sad day, but only seen as a failure by those who view the US' role in exporting its model of democracy and maintaining it by force. (Some might argue that looks a lot like colonialism but that's a digression). If one takes a less paternalistic view of America's role in the world, one that does not include "nation-building", then the removal of Al Qaeda training camps was indeed accomplished some while ago. And the goal of creating a democratic state is perhaps best seen as more of an idealistic after-thought.      

Utilities

Utility, noun: "an organization supplying the community with electricity, gas, water, or sewerage".  Over the course of a century the term "utility" has come to be synonymous with "always on". Yet as PG&E is now demonstrating that is a misnomer and a misconception.  The adjective, "the state of being useful, profitable, or beneficial" (which is closer to its use in economics) suggest that anything which we want or find to be of use has "utility". But to expect it to be "always on" is only a function of habit and a developed country habit at that. There are may parts of the world in which electricity supply is intermittent; and California is now one of those places.   

When a party isn't a party

When there's only water? No, not that kind of party. The Communist Party of China. We call it a party, perhaps for historical reasons, but perhaps it would be better to think of it more like part of the Chinese civil service. It's members are unelected; they are chosen in part for ideology; they are probably lots of family connections (Guanxi). It's also not wedded to any economic orthodoxy, as evidenced by the embracing of free market principles, only maintaining power.  So a bit like the British civil service of the 1950s? Lots of old boy club connections, coming from the "right background", "dependable chap" that kind of thing.  The parallel isn't by any means perfect, but perhaps should stop thinking of the Communist Party of China as a left leaning political movement. It's a now venerable Chinese institution.       

50 years ago...

About 50 years ago my parents replaced the 405 line black a while television with a wonderful ITT 625 line color TV. Some months earlier we'd been to visit one of my father's (wealthier) colleagues and I'd watched Star Trek on their color set; I remember being stunned by the blue color of the phaser beams.  But what pushed my father into getting  the new telly was Wimbledon; specifically my mother who was a huge Wimbledon fan was keen to see tennis in color.  

The set had four button, one for each channel (BBC1, BBC2, and ITV and one spare that we may have tuned to ITV South; we generally watched the London ITV broadcast) that were tuned to the channel by twisting them until you got to the right broadcast carrier wave frequency. The color was pretty finickity and the TV repair man had to come out from time to time to adjust the horizontal hold.   

I was the beneficiary of her devotion to the tournament as she'd knit while watching and I got a new pullover (sweater) every year. I can still see them to this day - the first dark and light blue, grey and white flecks, the second the same patterns but in green.   

I was reminded of all this as I set here today watching the first round of the tournament on my phone! No more TV repair people to come to adjust your set; the color is perfect right out of the box. All on a device that I can take with me where ever I go. 

We often bemoan the disconnect between visions of the future and the reality (flying cars, or even self driving cars etc...) but for me a color TV in my pocket is a wonderful example of the future having arrived bigly. 

Afghanistan

There are two schools of thought on withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan. One is that Al-Qaeda has been dispersed and the threat is no longer localized in Afghanistan, so keeping troops there is not an effective use of the military's resources. Moreover, in removing troops from Afghan soil, the Taliban may find less local support making common cause against the invading infidel.  The other is that the Taliban remain a threat to the Afghan government and without an American presence they may will retake control of the country. The modernizing reforms achieved since the US occupation began would be rescinded and the country would revert to the oppressive values the Taliban espouse. 

Where one comes down on this probably hinges on whether one sees the US' role in the world providing a policing presence or as exporting its values (or for some people, neither).  If one sees the US' role only as policing or simply defending the homeland then the troop withdrawal is the obvious answer. If one still sees the US' role as exporting its values, then it should have stayed. 

That Biden chose to leave suggests either that a more inwardly focused perspective is taking hold here (some would characterize it as the "America First" position) or that there has finally been a realization that imposing values on another sovereign nation with a completely different culture and history is harder than it looks. It requires a sustained, often heavy-handed presence which those being "asked" to reform might justifiably see as colonization.

On my watch

My first watch, Itta gave me. I was seven or eight. It was a Timex with an expandable spring metal strap. I can see it vividly in my mind's eye, now fifty plus years on.  Watch number two was my father's old Tissot. He bequeathed it to me when his colleagues bought him a new watch for his retirement. Mr Hughes, the affable Welshman who taught physics at Worthing High, thought it would be interesting to test the luminous hands and dial with a radiometer; it was almost off the scale, perhaps 10 time the legally permitted limit for radioactive sources so my father had a jeweler scrape off the radium infused luminous coating.  

At Imperial I think I may have had a digital watch with a small calculator - all metal buttons.  Next was a chunky Bulova, an electronic analog watch I bought from a catalog while I was working at IBM. Judith bought me my next one, a Kenneth Cole fashion item, chunky and heavy, very masculine (not at all me). Then there was a gap of about 10 years when I didn't wear a watch, instead using my new cell phone if I needed to know the time.

When went back to wearing a watch the Kenneth Cole had stopped (not that long ago now) and I bought the Olevs on Ali Express. I paid $29 for the first one but then found the same watch in a variety of colors, all for $16, in several different Ali Express stores. I now have five or six. The Tissot, which my father assured me was a top of the line Swiss watch (which apparently he had acquired on the black market in Tehran in 1945), needed winding every day and generally had to be adjusted at least once a week to make sure it told the right time. My Olevs have gone over six months (perhaps longer) and have lost (or gained) no more than three seconds. That's real progress, and about time too.     

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Today Britain is mourning the passing of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. After 73 years of marriage, one can only imagine how hard it will be for the Queen to deal with such a loss and ones heart goes out to her. 

While for the most part what the public saw of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip was carefully managed, I was stuck, many years ago, by what seemed to be a tiny glimpse of what their private life might have been like. 

When Imperial College was granted its own independent charter in 2007, Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip came to the Exhibition Road entrance for a ceremony celebrating the College's departure from the University of London.  I was able to watch the proceedings which were live-streamed on the Internet.  

After the ceremony was over, there appeared to be a signing of a visitors book. At that point I think everyone expected the feed to be cut, but instead the camera (and more importantly the microphones) were still on.

Prince Philip signed first. For some reason he appeared to be taking his time, while the the Queens waited. To my complete surprise, apparently a little irritated with the delay, she rebuked him: "Oh, do get on with it, you silly old fool" is what I remember her quietly saying to him. 

While initially slightly shocking, on reflection it seemed to me incredibly humanizing and rather endearing. Behind the facade of the pageantry of the monarchy as an institution, here was a couple that had been married for almost 60 years, subject to many of the same emotional stresses and strains common to almost any marriage, a couple that had settled into a very comfortable routine of togetherness. That I found rather heart-warming.      

Misunderstood

Biden was hailed as "Mr. Bipartisan" - until he wasn't. Today the papers are confused that Biden appears to be pushing ahead with his agenda without bipartisan support.  This is to misunderstand Joe Biden; he was bipartisan, not as and end in itself, but as a means to an end - getting legislation passed in the Senate. Reaching across the aisle was the means available to him in the Senate and he used it in the service of getting stuff done. 

But it seems that there is no willingness to compromise on the Republican side. Biden tested the waters early on with the stimulus package. He tried to reach a deal with some of the moderate GOP senators but they were there only for show, to provide their base with a talking point that "They tried, they really did."

So if there is no acceptable means of getting stuff done with bipartisan support, then Biden, ever the pragmatist, will do whatever it takes.  It's not about bipartisanship; it's about accomplishing something meaningful; and if adhering to the former renders the latter inadequate and insufficient, then bipartisanship has to go. 

Stalking horses

The Washington Post reported that pro-Trump candidates are causing a headache for the GOP old guard. Mitch McConnell is quoted as saying that he only cares about electability (translation: "I want to get back to being leader of the Senate"). 

Whether McConnell gets his old job back or not, the effect on the political climate in Washington will be significant. By initially putting up a slew of far right, almost undetectable candidates in the primaries there is a good possibility that only slightly less extreme candidates end up being nominated. They are seen by the independents and old-guard republicans in contrast as acceptable enough to get them elected to the Senate the general election, particularly if the alternative is a progressive Democrat. The result will almost certainly be a further shift to the right in the Senate and even less chance of passing any bi-partisan legislation.           

Happy anniversary

March 15th 2020 was the last time I left the property - that is until today.  Three hundred and seventy two days of what was effectively house arrest. That ended at 10:15 today when I left to get the first dose of my Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine.  

While it is overstating it to say it has been a nightmare, a bad dream perhaps, from which I am just waking up, it is nonetheless a year gone with no gigs, an little else other than work and practicing.    

So, at 60, bring on the new normal and lest see where that takes us...  

Not my problem, John

No one likes hot potatoes, and Trump was one of the hottest. Mueller punted on holding him to account in the Russia election interference investigation, hinting that it was really up to Congress (and the House indeed did give it their best shot, first for the Ukraine call, which was a much clearer case than the Russia election interference scandal, and then for his role in Insurrection Day which was (or should have been) a slam dunk. There Mitch McConnell did much the same thing, saying after he voted not to convict, that the judicial system was where Trump should be held to account.  The institution to which Mueller passed the buck ultimately passed it on to the judiciary. The buck clearly only stops when it's no longer too hot to hold.         

Unconstitutional

Listening to Trump's pugnacious and mendacious defense team's closing arguments, I was reminded of leaders around the world who, when bought to justice, claim in their defense that the judicial system holding them to account does not have the authority to try them. 

In Trump's case, that question had been settled when the Senate voted that the impeachment was permitted under the constitution. Continuing to make the unconstitutionality argument after that decision only emphasized how undemocratic Trump and his team are. And by extension, so are all the senators who considered Trump culpable but voted to acquit on the grounds of unconstitutionality.

covid as a diagnostic for racism

Harassment and attacks, some physical and violent, against Asian-Americans has been on the rise since covid. Trump has been blamed for inciting this by his use of terms like Chinese virus and Kung-flu. While that has clearly had an effect, the reality is deeper and darker; Trump's words were oxygen blown onto already smoldering embers.

To see why this is not about language and terms per-se but about the underlying racism that the words tapped int, consider the Chinese virus vs the British [covid] variant. If it was the simply language that was the cause of the rise in ethnically targeted violence, then one would expect to see a rise in violence against Brits; which of course there hasn't been. So it can't be the language but the interaction of the language with underlying attitudes. In other words racism.  

As a footnote on language, it's also interesting that it's only some ethnic groups who we label as "Something-Americans", for example, Asian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, African-Americans. As a British ex-pat I'm not called a British-American even though I am a US citizen.  It seems as though groups that have been and are still discriminated against have taken on this labeling heuristic to emphasize that they are actually American; those who have not suffered racial discrimination—Brits, Scandinavians, Germans (and isn't that interesting!) for example—have, luckily, no need to send that signal.

Taking the long view

Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times

Covid has changed the way we see the world; and not metaphorically.  Of course there's the fact that we are now seeing our friends and colleagues in small boxes on a small and not in person. But Zoom aside, things look different.  I may be imagining things but what first struck me looking at this image of Mitch McConnell from today's New York Times is that is was taken with quite a long lens (perhaps a 300mm telephoto in 35mm format). The background seems too close to the figures in the middle ground who appear closer than they are to the foreground.  The depth of field is very shallow as well, again a feature of a picture taken with a long lens. 

Which got me to wondering whether photojournalists had swapped their normal-wide angles like the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 for something like the Nikon AF-S 120-300mm f/2.8E. Why? Well if they used to get into a scrum of journalists quite close to the subject they'd need the shorter length lens. But with covid getting close to people like McConnell isn't possible. Everyone not in "the bubble" must be being kept at a very safe social distance, so you'd need a long lens. So taking the long view is just good sense. 

Deliberation

The Senate today concluded the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump without an conviction. What is slightly surprising when one compares a trial in the courts with this trial in the Senate is the absence of jury deliberation. 

In a court trial, the jurors would sit and discuss the evidence they had heard during the trial; but that didn't happen here. Of course, logistically with a jury of 100 it is far more difficult to replicate the process of deliberation, but it appears not to be "required" of the jurors in an impeachment. I am speculating that this was something that would have had to have been negotiated between Sens. Schumer and McConnell in setting up the structure of the trial. 

Would it have made a difference had a way been found for them to do so? In the highly partisan atmosphere in Washington, it seems unlikely; but I suppose it's just possible that it might have.     

Criminal negligence or reckless endangerment?

Never mind dereliction of duty; Trump's willful decision not to come to the aid of those under attack in Congress on January 6th should be seen as criminal negligence or even reckless endangerment. 

Typical defense strategies against allegations of criminal negligence include asserting that the defendant's actions were the result of a mistake or accident, or, and potentially most applicable here, that the defendant did not know that his actions (or inaction) created a risk of danger. 

Trump was watching the riot taking place, had been informed that people in the Capitol were in serious danger (is there any other kind?) but when asked to act to stop the insurrection, he chose not to. 

Perhaps reckless endangerment comes even closer. The FindLaw website defines "reckless endangerment" as "the criminal offense of recklessly engaging in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death to another person. Whether you meant any harm or not, creating a situation that puts someone else at risk is illegal".  FindLaw also writes that recklessness "means the person knew (or should have known) that his or her action were likely to cause harm".

Trump's failure to act during the insurrection, not to mention his actions leading up to January 6th, seem to fit this description. Suppose instead of a riot Trump had been watching a several hundred people drowning and had, at his beck and call, lifeboats that a could have saved most or even all of them. To not issue an order that the lifeboats be deployed to save the drowning looks like reckless endangerment. And that is exactly what he did (or did not do). When asked by numerous staffers, family members and even by those who were presently being attacked when they called him for help, he chose to do nothing. He simply watched on television as the insurrection roll on, apparently pleased with the way things were going. Add to this his prior acts; telling those now drowning, before they entered the lake, that the water was shallow when in fact it was deep or telling his supporters the election was rigged when the courts had determined that it wasn't, and you have a pretty solid case.    

McConnell argued today that this is not the end of the matter and that Trump may still face consequences in the legal system.  While McConnell maneuver to avoid being seen as party to the attempt to convict Trump in the Senate is despicable, I hope he is right on this and that the law catches up with Trump. All his life he has evaded accountability.  Perhaps this time he went a bridge too far. Perhaps now his past misdeeds will finally lead to his undoing.

Not so co-equal after all

Congress, the judiciary and the executive are supposed to be "co-equal" branches of government. Increasingly however, Congress has ceded power to both the executive and the judiciary. Laws are challenged and overturned in court seemingly with increasing frequency and presidents have taken increasing power to their office including decisions regrading military action which is constitutionally a Congressional prerogative.  But there can be no clearer indication of the surrender of Congress to the judicial branch than its decision to ignore its own ruling today.

All those senators who voted to acquit Trump today on the pretext that to do so would be unconstitutional are, in so doing, saying that the decision the Senate's prior ruling in the impeachment process that a president may be impeached even after leaving office is non binding and has no legal force.  By default therefore any determination regarding the constitutionality of impeachment of a president after leaving office falls to the judiciary. 

It will be interesting to see, as I assume over time we will, which GOP senators who voted to acquit did so because they thought Trump wasn't guilty of causing the insurrection and which thought he was but tried to weasel out of defying Trump by hiding behind an unconstitutionality defense. Those in the first camp must now rely solely on the support of MAGA faithful. Those in the second have to hope that their voters either have short memories or are prepared to overlook their disingenuity.  Either way, the Trump debacle of a presidency will be a stain on the country's history not just in future living memory—60 years hence—but in perpetuity.

Impeachment, Act II Scene 4 - The art of McConnell's comedy...

...is Timing. 

First, notwithstanding the fact that the issue was irrelevant, McConnell's argument about the constitutionality of the impeachment was self-defeating. He argued that impeachment was improper since it was for the sole purpose of removal from office and Trump was no longer in office.  But consider the timing.  The articles of impeachment were presented to the House and voted on while Trump was still in office. McConnell suggested that the articles were not transmitted to the Senate for trial until after Trump had left office which is why the trial was now unconstitutional. But the reason for that delay was that the Senate was in recess and could not receive them (Fedex anyone?). Why wasn't the Senate in session? Because McConnell chose not to recall it.  By not recalling the Senate he created this constitutional loophole for his party to walk though; that they could not try Trump after he'd left office though they could have done had McConnell convened the Senate after the House passed the articles and before Biden's inauguration.  

Second, his speech today on the Senate floor excoriating Trump was fun to hear, but as has been said many times in this blog, way too late. Had he come out forcefully as he did today condemning Trump's lies after the election rather than after the acquittal, Insurrection Day might not have happened.  But what about the legal challenges McConnell hid behind for so long; 'it is within his rights to pursue all legal avenues' McConnell said on the Senate floor in December.  But when all those challenges failed, then he could have made the same statement he made today and the course of history would likely have been changed. 

McConnell himself argued today that Trump's failure to act to stop the insurrection once it was underway made him guilty. He also argued that the consequences of Trumps lies leading up to January 6th were clearly foreseeable. So, by that same argument, if McConnell himself was able to predict the consequences of the Big Lie yet failed to challenge it as forcefully as he has just done, he too is guilty by negligence of contributing to the insurrection. And so he should resign.

Impeachment, Act II Scene 4 - Acquittal

Despite voting to call witnesses this morning, the trial of Donald Trump concluded today with a 57 to 43 vote to convict, short of the two thirds majority required for the motion to pass. Interestingly, one senator, Richard Burr of North Carolina who, on the prior question on constitutionality of this impeachment, had earlier voted that it was not, nevertheless voted to convict.  For the record the other GOP senators who voted to convict were Bill Cassidy (Louisianan.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Mitt Romney (Utah), Ben Sasse (Nebraska) and Patrick Toomey (Pennsylvania).  

That raises an interesting question (which I hope scholars with expertise in this area will shortly opine on) as to who has the final say as to the constitutionality of an impeachment. The Constitution identifies the Senate, rather than the judicial branch, as the sole body that is empowered to try impeachments but does that mean they have the ultimate authority to interpret the constitution as to when impeachment is or is not constitutional?  It is possible they do not and that the vote it took last week to proceed should properly have been decided by the Supreme court. But were that the case, shouldn't Trump's legal team have immediately challenged in the courts the Senate's vote to proceed with the trial?  That they did not suggests either incompetence (certainly plausible) or that they implicitly acknowledged the legitimacy of the Senate in ruling on the constitutionality question. Note, too, that no Senators, who might have had standing to bring such a case, chose to do so.   

That failure to bring a legal challenge as to the Senate's right to decide the constitutionality question implicitly endorses that right. It follows then that Senators were in essence legally required to vote on the merits of the case and not its constitutionality, since constitutionality was now a settled matter, regardless of how they had voted on the question when it was presented earlier in the trial.  This provides the basis for Richard Burr's decision who, having voted against the impeachment's constitutionality, nonetheless voted to convict Trump on the merits of the case. 

Turning to McConnell's speech after the trial, McConnell made a fierce statement of condemnation saying essentially that Trump's actions leading up to the insurrection were what caused it to happen. But, he suggested, he did not vote to convict because he felt that would violate the constitution. While I have some sympathy for the argument he made and can see how a strict Originalist would likely have reached that same conclusion, the question of constitutionality was no longer at issue; it was settled by the Senate in its earlier vote. Even if he disagreed with the constitutionality of the impeachment (which he explained he did), he should have been bound by his oath as a juror in the trial to proceed and decide based on the merits. Judging by the unambiguous statements he made on the Senate floor this afternoon, he clearly holds Trump responsible for the insurrection; which can only mean that by not judging based on the merits he has violated the oath he took and thus he should resign.

It's not what he did...

Trump's defenders argue, amongst other things, that what he did doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense since it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that his words led to the insurrection (at least now they've admitted that what took place was an insurrection). While most reasonable people, polls show, actually find that hard to swallow, it's not what he did that is really instructive. It's what he didn't do that matters more. While they argue that Trumps might not have seen that his actions could have led to the insurrection and thus he is not to blame, once the insurrection was underway, he can no longer hide behind the "no one could have seen it coming" defense because 'it' was now clearly there and no longer a indeterminable hypothetical. And it was his lack of action (and by some accounts his pleasure in seeing what he had wrought) that is so telling. He took no action to quell the riot although many options were available, both in his executive capacity as commander-in-chief and in his symbolic role as the president sworn to uphold the country's democratic institutions. Watching, unconcerned, from the shore when someone is drowning is tantamount to culpability.  Sometimes in-actions speak louder than words.   

Impeachment, Act II Scene 3 - Calculus

The outcome of the second impeachment of former reality TV host and president Donald Trump is, and has always been, a forgone conclusion.  He will be acquitted thanks to the self-interest and lack of principle of forty-odd GOP senators.  Unless...

It is conceivable that some GOP senators figure out that if they continue with the Trumpification of their party, they may jeopardize the party's long term future and even their own. Those on the moderate side could loose to the Democrats and those in the Trumpiest states could loose to more extreme primary opponents. Almost all would prefer Trump out of the picture, even though they can't say so publicly, as his erratic behavior and unpopularity outside his fevered base remains something they can't control and represents a potential danger to their party's popularity.  

Which leads us to the calculus; if they conclude that enough GOP Senators will vote to convict and so bar Trump from office, his force in the political realm would be diminished and they need not fear political retribution. On the other hand if he's not convicted, a vote in the affirmative would lead to Trump's exacting revenge and the end of their political careers.  So that's their homework assignment; find out where all the GOP votes in the Senate might be and weigh the odds of Trump as a spent force against voting to acquit and having to live with the label of subversive enablers (or in some cases unindicted co-conspirator). 

Their decisions may rest on whether they can find their way back to the door where they checked their consciences and their principles (at least, those that came in with some). Given their behavior over the last few years, I'm not wagering anything that they'll be able to. 

Mr. Sheppard

Mr Sheppard was our milkman. I'm quite surprised that his name came back to me almost instantly after fifty plus years, yet I can't remember the name of someone I met the day before yesterday. Psychologist no doubt will have a good explanation, but this post is about what I do remember, not what I can't. 

For the first ten or so years of my life, milk, vegetables, meat and bread were delivered to the back door. Steyning, where I grew up, was (and still is) a village of about five thousand.  The dairy wasn't on the high street but on Charlton Street (as in Bobby), the narrow road that ran parallel to it. We seldom went there that I recall and I have no recollection of ever being inside. 

Three times a week Mr. Sheppard would arrive in his green and yellow electric powered milk cart, whirring and clanking as it made its rounds. He'd pull up outside the gate sit for a minute doing his paperwork on a clipboard. Then he'd go to the back of the cart, select the bottles he needed for our order that day, put them in his wire milk-bottle basket and make his way to the back door.  

He rang the bell only once a week to settle up. My mother would pay him, in cash, which he'd put into an old leather pouch slung over his shoulder and across his chest. Otherwise, we'd leave the empties in a 2x2 white plastic-coated-wire milk bottle holder outside the back door (the "tradesman's entrance") which he'd collect to take back to the dairy, replacing them with the full ones my mother had ordered. 

Milk bottles in the 1960s were tall and tapered. In the mid 70s they were replaced by the shorter squatter variety in the picture.  At the time the change seemed traumatic, a much loved institution giving way to ugly modernity. Only now do I begin to understand the organizational enormity of switching from one size of bottle to another.      

The milk bottle holder may have been a new-fangled invention because my earliest memories are of the bottles standing free, but with a small red plastic disk (with a small chip in one side) on the top of one of the empty bottles; that was the indicator which my mother would set to let Mr Sheppard know how many bottles we wanted that day. The new wire bottle holder came with a panel on the front and a red plastic pointer to show that day's milk order. I know it was wire because as the plastic coating on the handle aged and chipped, the wire underneath began to rust.  

The bottles were glass, reusable, and sealed with aluminium foil. The color indicated what kind of milk was in the bottle. To open the bottle you simply pushed your thumb down in the center of the foil cap and lifted if off. I think, but I'm not sure, that my mother had some kind of plastic cap she would put onto opened bottles before they went back into the fridge. 

Our usual order was two gold tops and two silver tops. Gold top had more cream (technically, it was milk from Jersey cows) and the big treat was getting to be the first to pour the milk on one's morning's cereal WITHOUT shaking the bottle first so you got all the cream which had floated to the top of the bottle.  

When I was about ten or so, we started getting green-top milk. Green was my favorite color and I'd seen green foil tops on Mr, Shepard's cart, so that's the kind of milk I wanted. Green top was unpasteurized and tasted even creamier than gold top. My parents promised that if, in a blind taste-test, I could tell green-top from gold-top, they would order a bottle of green-top for me; I could and they did, at least for a while. 

As family of three with one dog, a border collie called Patch, we probably drank, collectively, a pint an a half to two pints a day; from breakfast cereal, to a glass of milk with lunch, milk in tea and often a glass dinner for me at dinner. My grandmother, who die when I was about 5, drank stout - Nana's "black milk" as my mother called it.

Mr. Sheppard retired when I was about eight or nine, which would make him about a hundred an ten, so I doubt he's still with us. But he remains an indelible part of my childhood.