Category: Media

Evolution Politics

Wake up John. The herald of today was there in the late 1990s. There was me fascinated by the possibilities of the INTERNET. Buzzing modem squeaking down a phone line. With such peculiarities as Y2K behind us the new century provided broadband access to everyone. Almost everyone. Eventually, being off grid became a sales tag for remote rural settings.

Meanwhile, good old-fashioned popular entertainment media was desperately trying to make itself relevant to the new era. Proliferation of reruns were not enough. Stale formats dwindled. In that maelstrom, reality television was born. Technology shaped what became possible. It was a horror to me but then again, I was just out of touch.

Big Brother is a strange beast. Watching joe average or minor celebrities make complete fools of themselves for big bucks – how could that work? It did, bigtime. Undeniably scoring with the public. It spawned lots of similar shows bombarding us with unscripted chat seen through the tight lens of an edited television show.

Not quite like throwing Christians to the lions, familiar to Romans, but a social experiment open to participants combative as much as caring behaviour. Watching relatable and unrelatable volunteers try their best to seem nice or nasty as they thought appealing.

25-years on, now British politics begins to resemble reality television. That creation provided a pathway through our screens to capture our attention. To make names out of relatively unknowns. Or to revive careers waning.

I said “begins to resemble” without realising that I’m being a dinosaur. It’s here. A politician can’t anymore stand on a soap box and pontificate about the world. The grand ark of a well written speech is destined for the dustbin. Every presentation needs to be framed as if they are in the jungle (I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here![1]).

Reality shows are becoming a training ground for political personalities. Forget the serious need to do an apprenticeship. That one has been hijacked too. The basic grind of administration and casework can be bypassed if the candidate is a good enough showman or woman.

Going back to the 1990s, I think a lot of us were naive about the coming technologies. There was an imagining of the information superhighway[2] as a great educator. A positive liberator. A forum for better communication. Making it easier for people to have a real dialogue with the elected officials. Thus, solving problems, cutting down bureaucracy and engaging communities.  

Of course it is those things. The naivety came with the blindness to the huge entertainment possibilities. How reality and make-believe can get intermingled. How dominant personalities would capture the cameras like Hollywood stars.

With that fuzziness between reality and make-believe storytelling takes on a new importance. That’s what political managers have discovered in abundance. Medium and message have always been closely linked. Now, a would-be star or demigod must take that ever more seriously to win.

[1] https://www.itv.com/imacelebrity

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/videos/czv20818q2no

Probabilistic Predictions

Uncertainty is the only certainty. Not a radical statement. As long as I live, dealing with uncertainty is inevitable. Unavoidable everywhere. I wouldn’t have it any other way, even if it can be uncomfortable.

Prominent Ancient Greeks may have travelled to Delphi for advice as to what the future may hold. There’re those three enigmatic witches who warn Macbeth of his fate. History and fiction are littered with references.

For me, I can pick-up a newspaper and look for a daily astrological prediction. One I like. I can flick around social media and see more prophecies than ever. Mostly gibberish. There are those convinced of their foresight.

Despite a cynical disposition towards the above, science can be applied to the world of uncertainty. Generally, the proposition is that an element of the past and present will be reproduced in the future. This is not absolute. However, human engineered systems tend to behave with a degree of predictability.

Empirical methods, where society collects data from the past and present, can be useful in trying to forecast what may happen next. The more deterministic the systems under study, the more useful acquired data can be. For these, forecasting challenges mount for the new, novel, or radically altered.

I’m writing this given the interest there is in probabilistic safety. There are figures that hit the headlines that are almost incompressible. If the rationale behind the numbers is not clear then incorrect assumptions result. Tiny numbers from 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-9 are quoted in the News (SI Units). What do they mean? Let’s start with simple probability.

If an occurrence is certain then a numerical value of “1” can be given to it.

Absolute certainty is a rare thing. I can say that the Sun will rise tomorrow, and most people will take that as a statement of certainty. Intriguingly there’s the most incredibly improbable case where the solar system is thrown into instability and the Sunrise isn’t as expected.

If an occurrence never happens then a numerical value of “0” can be given to it.

Absolute impossibility is only possible with absolute knowledge. So, again it’s rare. I can say that human time-travel, to and from the distant past, is only fiction to next discover that a way has been found.

Let’s say we live in a world where the probability of occurrences ranges from the 0.99999, with ever more “9s”, to a number as small as 1 x 10-30[1]. A quecto.

These extreme numbers are nice for physicists and astronomers to play with, but they are outside normal engineering practices. As yet, we do not have the means to operate at the level of these limits. Time will tell. Or I maybe wrong.

By the way, I used the word “occurrence” above to denote anything that can happen in an instant. When talking about undesirable happenings, that can mean an incident, accident, mishap, slip, failure, or error. Each of these has a definition. Often more than one.

Next. I’ll go back to the tiny numbers more commonly quoted.

POST: For extraordinary numbers we need look no further than the nimble electron. So far, the best measurement for the life of an electron suggests that one now will still be around in 66,000 yottayears (6.6 × 1028 yrs). That’s about 5-quintillion times the current age of our universe. 

[1] https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/metric-si-prefixes

Peaceful Border

It’s superfluous to say so. Canada is not the US, and the US is not Canada.

It quickly becomes clear. I’ve been fortunate to visit places east-west and north south. Although not the far snowbound North. The two countries do share geography. Rocky Mountains stretch across the North America. From British Columbia to New Mexico. The Great Plains span North America. A stark contrast to the mountains, as a huge expanse. In the East, the rolling landscape of the Appalachian Mountains runs from Newfoundland to Alabama.

It’s not the same with social and economic geography or history. A profound difference has been forged by Canada’s citizens over a couple of hundred years.

If we look back to the late 17th and early 18th centuries the new world was a hugely different place than it is now. Britain, France, Spain, and their allies were fighting over vast territories. European conflicts translated into competition and trade wars. Eventually, America colonialist brought about a revolution, so there would be no need for royalty, aristocracy, or an imposed church. Rejecting their British masters, even if they did keep their system of laws.

At the start of the 19th century, the US did invade Canada with a couple of conflicts. So, the idea that the US may wish to annex a part, or all of Canada is not entirely new. I’m going to have to read up on the Battle of Stoney Creek of 1813. It seems a namesake of mine played a pivotal role in preventing the US from taking Canada[1]. No relation – I’m (almost) sure. Irish heritage.

My assumption is that US President Trump is doing what he has done times before. Mark out an extreme position from which then to shape future negotiations. That’s not so mad as it might appear. It’s not nice when considering the cordial relationships that have characterised so much of the recent past. Kicking at the sides of an ally.

Stretching over thousands of kilometres (or miles if you prefer), the boarder between the US and Canada is one of the most peaceful in the world. To reignite conflicts of a couple of hundred years ago is not a wise option. I’m sure Canada could call upon a great deal of support if the worst-case scenario were to prevail.

Mutuality may not be fashionable. It needs to be made fashionable, again. The notion of a win-win scenario where both parties benefit, it’s real, it’s not mythical. Both US and Canada are sovereign. It’s best for the world that it stays that way.

[1] https://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/vincent_john_7E.html

The Legacy of Paine

Reading a little of Thomas Paine’s rantings about the inequities of monarchy, it’s clear why he is remembered as a key part of the story of American Independence.

It’s not surprising that he viewed the British institutions of the 17th Century as arbitrary and tyrannical. An Englishman fervently attacking his country of birth. Pointing out every flaw and deficiency in respect of the condition of the common man.

He was a revolutionary provocateur and a provocateur of revolutions. His widely read pamphlets, the social media postings of the day, stimulated the American Revolution. A cry for freedom and escape from everything he thought rotten in Europe. America being a potential beacon of hope. Denouncing the English aristocracy sealed his fate. Now, he known as a founding American. So, where are we after 250 years[1]?

Europe to a great extent, slowly but surely, followed the American experiment. The power of privilege, the monarch, the aristocracy diminished, and the common man, and eventually woman too, asserted their rights through the ballot box.

Britain, although there are committed republicans, hasn’t thrown off the monarchy. It’s adapted its role in such a way that it retains popular public support. Europe has many “bicycling” monarchs who hold colourful ceremonial roles mostly as a celebration of traditions.

Are the roles of the continents reversing? Are the American States drifting towards a new monarchy? That concentration of arbitrary power and privilege in one place. It’s a situation for political philosophers to ponder.

Take recent utterings in the News that are wholly wrong. The European Union (EU) is in part, so that Europeans can be more like Americans. That’s not a popular thing to say so I’d better step with care. Although, much as changed in the post-war world, federalism isn’t coming to Europe any time soon.

The EU solves the historic diplomatic problem of asking – I want to call Europe. Who do I call? Recent generations in both continents have benefited tremendously from the constructive and positive dialogue across the Atlantic.

Back to my question. Are the roles of the continents reversing? Imagine Europe as the premier global bastion of freedom, democracy and liberty. A renaissance of enlightenment, of free speech and human rights. Perhaps it is already.

Sadly, it would be wrong of me to record this as fact. With the rise of populism and right-wing fantasists, we would do well to go back and read Thomas Paine. Although, that’s not an entirely a clear-cut line to take. Paine was very much in favour of small government and self-reliance. Traditional Republican themes. I’ll take his revulsion at tyranny.

[1] The Bicentennial culminated on Sunday, July 4, 1976, with the 200th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

Two Centuries

The News can be overwhelming. It’s a constant barrage of terrible calamities, inadequacies, and past failures. I guess, that’s the manner of the daily News cycle. Put out a positive press release and watch it get ignored. Report of catastrophes and every media outlet copies the stories.

It’s as well to remember that within a week a new round of headlines displaces what was there before. It’s as well to step back. Perspective is an interesting phenomenon. It condenses the past, so that we see the major events more clearly. The nitty gritty of the everyday often fades and only the significant happenings remain.

Let’s dabble in the macro and not the micro. What’s the big picture? It’s time to do a simple comparison. Take the first 25-years of the 20th Century and compare with the first 25-years of the 21st Century. Certainly, at the end of this year a complete summing-up could be done.

For now, I’ll do a random sweep across those two generations separated by a century.

Let’s think. There were no powered aeroplanes in 1900[1]. Few had an inkling that a world war was on the way. We were just figuring out what an Atom might be. Even the motor car was mostly for wealthy folk. The railways were king.

In 2000, I remember the optimistic fireworks and the controversy over the millennium dome. The forgotten panic of Y2K now seems strange. The World Wide Web[2] was getting traction amongst geeks. Mobile phones were gaining ground. Few saw the attack of 9/11 coming.

Being a child of the last century it’s easier to appreciate the changes. Let’s face it, today’s 25-year-olds had history lessons about subject that many people lived through. Although, there are a growing number of centenarians, most of them were in inkling in the parents’ eyes or babies pre-1925. Thus, we need to relay on the writers of history.

Here’s a proposition that warrants testing. Compared with the first 25-years of the 20th Century nothing much has happened in the first 25-years of the 21st Century. I know any division in time is an arbitrary matter. The Earth spinning on its axis cares little for human affairs. 24 hours in a day come and go whatever we do. That said, my proposition above does run contrary to the way people may feel about time passing. If indeed it does pass.

In both periods we might measure significance by the impact events have on people. There’s a propensity to say that world wars top the list in any account. That may well be fair. However, if we look at the growth in global population and the general improvements in human health despite that fact, then this is the greatest point to note.

When I say, nothing much has happened between 2000 and 2025, by comparison, it’s more to do with the pivotal moments that led to the creation of the technologies that we all now take for granted. Mastering the elements of science has made the biggest difference.

I’d say, in the public and social field, of politics, philosophy and economics[3] and we are as perhaps foolish as we have ever been. Convince me otherwise.

[1] https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/powered-aircraft/

[2] https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Weaving/Overview.html

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/23/ppe-oxford-university-degree-that-rules-britain

Collecting First Editions

Somewhere in several cardboard boxes I have books. Now, I know not where they are. Most of these books were published by Hodder and Stoughton. There were numerous print runs. Popular fiction.

What attracted me to these books was a character played by Roger Moore. No, I’m not talking about James Bond. Moore is probably best known for his portrayal of Bond. This was before he got that cinema role and global fame.

Author Leslie Charteris created a character called The Saint. That is Simon Templar. Roger Moore, as The Saint ran as a British TV series in the 1960s. What ran was an honest crime mystery series, with a Robin Hood style hero, who always won the day. His nemesis was a police inspector, even if they did cooperate towards righteous ends. The Saint didn’t always play by the rules. He fought tooth and nail to topple the ungodly.

Collectables are first editions of Leslie Charteris books. At one time they would appear forgotten in High Street charity shops. That day has gone.

The Saint Plays With Fire is worth revisiting. It’s a warning – especially now.

Relationship with the EU

Monday, Monday[1]. It’s a wonderful 60s song. Harmonies and mood are perfect. I wonder if the harmonies and mood will be perfect for the Prime Minister (PM) on Monday. Already the Sunday Press are setting the stage for Monday’s performance.

Reset, recalibration, reheat, rekindle, re-whatever. It’s a moment when relations between the UK and the European Union (EU) can make realistic progress[2]. In world full of uncertainty (could be a song in that one), for once the direction of travel is a constructive and positive.

I think the word “deal” is getting overplayed. Indications are that there’s no fundamental shift from Brexit meaning Brexit, as one former PM liked to say. In fact, the current PM is being highly cautious in the light of his Party’s reading of the latest opinion polls. For no sane reason I can think of, the swivel-eyed loons of the far-right are making hay.

It’s astonishing me how dim-witted the Conservative Party is in objecting to something when they don’t even know, for sure, what it is. Mind-blowing. And the rum cult of Reform Party doing the same with extra bile. What a load of prehistoric fruit loops.

Brexit supporters are spreading misinformation, again. Saying that UK has no influence. It’s true, the UK doesn’t have votes in the European Council or Parliament, but significant influence can be exercised on standards, and regulatory guidance, nevertheless. A better “deal” can bring much greater influence. Absolutely vital in the digital world, and for the UK, a country with a services-based economy.

Brexit has cost the UK dearly. The UK Treasury would have billions more in its coffers if the 2016 referendum had never taken place. The standard of living of every person in the UK is lower because of Brexit bungling. Ideally, that great mistake is an event to be written up for the history books and then forgotten.

On top of the above, uncharacteristic moves in the US, with Trump tariffs there’s nasty hit at the UK’s future prosperity. There couldn’t be a better time to repair relationships with the UK’s nearest neighbours. The countries with which we share most of our long history.

Even for those on the political right, practically, the EU is never going away, so until the day the UK rejoins the block, it’s wise to have the best possible relationship in all matters. Goods, services and people need to connect as a case of mutual benefit.

It’s time for hope. An optimistic tone should be set. A smile. Let’s hope we are singing Monday, Monday so good to me, Monday morning was all I hoped it would be. Naturally, that there be no crying, come Monday evening.

[1] https://genius.com/The-mamas-and-the-papas-monday-monday-lyrics

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-eu-reset-trade-deal-starmer-b2752285.html

Action Shapes Outcomes

There’s a foolishness that comes with great power. It gets played out every day over the News media. It’s when notable person x or y says words to the effect; nothing will happen unless I do it. This common notion gets projected to us through mass reporting and commentary.

Every second is a pivotal moment. A last chance to move, or a last chance to act. As if time stops when we know it branches into countless possibilities. Fine, pivotal life or death moments do exist. It’s only that they are less numerous than we might be led to think. Drama takes its place in the theatre of the everyday[1].

There’s an ancient lesson to learn. It goes like this, in a simple demonstration. Place any finger into a glass of clear water. Now, remove the finger and observer the hole.

It’s a lesson Archimedes would appreciate. Although he’s famous for displacement being an indicator of what’s doing the displacement. Between the two it’s the water that’s the constant. The ebbing and flowing of time. At least as we humans perceive it.

It’s not that an individual can’t make a difference. Far from it. Individual action can make a dramatic difference. Doing the right thing at the right time, if the opportunity arises, can be the difference between catastrophe and nothing much in particular, as an outcome. In the world of major accidents, designers and operators desperately try to avoid the possibility that a single act or failure that leads to catastrophe, but it does, on rare occasions happen.

The point in discussion is the matter of what is indispensable. How often do we get to choose what is indispensable? After an event, it’s easier to answer the question. Looking back, it can be said that the factor that made the most difference was this one or that one. Before an event, we are in the land of probabilities and shiny crystal balls. Mathematics and mysticism.

The Cuban Missile Crisis[2] offers a lesson. It was only in retrospect that people learned of the action of a Soviet Naval officer who prevented a submarine from launching a nuclear torpedo.

History tells how the pivotal moment arrived. That said, there was no way the man concerned knew before time that his role would be indispensable. History would be written dramatically differently if a nuclear engagement had happened.

In the end it comes down to doing the right thing at the right time when the opportunity arose. Sometime swimming against the tide of events. Not magic exuded by a powerful individual strolling the stage.

POST: A better one. All The World’s A Stage By William Shakespeare · Jim Broadbent https://youtu.be/gUJBEy-tbo0?si=NMkIRpIr8H0wdTgv

[1] https://youtu.be/caaPlIX6AkM

[2] https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/cuban-missile-crisis

Humanity and Tolerance

Who doesn’t know this short sentence? “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. It has a particular meaning in play Romeo and Juliet. It’s Juliet saying she doesn’t care about her loves’ family name. The source of their great troubles. Being elegant and fragrant it’s no surprise that Shakespeare chose to speak of a rose.

More broadly this phrase makes the point that calling something different doesn’t change its core characteristic. Roses might not be the best example since naming these flowers plays a big part in distinguishing between one and another. So many modern hybrids. Instead, let’s go for trees. “An Oak by any other name would be a noble tree”. Which remains appropriate despite the number of different types of Oak trees.

Over the weekend, I was standing under a large ancient Holm Oak[1]. It had to be pointed out to me that that this type of Oak tree is evergreen. Most Oaks are not. An aged, stately and weathered one is definitely a noble tree.

I’m finding the News reporting of the moment mixed-up and confused. The word “diversity” gets thrown around like a political football. Let’s be clear. Diversity is everywhere. It is not unusual. Names are labels that we use like a scatter gun. Often to try to pick-out, to differentiate one group of humans from another. Not always with good intentions in mind.

Let’s remember our essence and intrinsic quality is that we are human. We live on planet called Earth and we need to find ways to get on with each other.

Today, there’s rather a lot of us. Globally, over 8 billion. However, that’s not the key factor. Let’s face it, in Shakespeare’s time there was a fraction of that number[2]. All the great strife and troubles he wrote into his plays are here now, as much as they were in his time. Proportionally, the diverse range of people and their ways of living haven’t changed that much.

It would be wise to heed the lessons of history. As we segment, categorise and slot groups of people into specific camps. The digital age, social media has added a dimension to this process. Now, likes and dislikes pigeonhole people into “similar” groups.

Here, I’m trying to keep the topic generic. Recent judgements from eminent judges, although necessary, hasn’t added a much to social harmony. To say “the law is an ass” is no understatement. I certainly wouldn’t want to fly on an aeroplane designed by lawyers. Although, it would be safe since it would never get off the ground.

I believe, we should treat each other in a way that respects that we are human, and thus diverse. That means tolerance and mutual understanding are essential. Not optional. Creating the need for bathroom police is the dumbest thing venerable British judges have done in a while.

[1] https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/british-trees/a-z-of-british-trees/holm-oak/

[2] In 1600, around William Shakespeare’s time, the estimated world population was around half a billion. London’s population was about 245,000.

Cartoons capturing us

To me, it’s fascinating how a few lines of pen and ink can sum up so much. One of the great underestimated influences is the power of the cartoon. They speak of their times, they speak of social niceties, they speak of the ever-moving conveyer belt of humour.

Every day the cartoons of MATT[1] sum up, in a witty way, what the News has to say. A little composed abbreviation of an event, a thought, or an idea. Not the least bit easy to do unless that’s your talent. Believe me, I’ve had a go, and the results were not good.

A picture can tell a thousand stories. Substitute for page of words. Often this is said about photography and not so much drawing. Pictures have a language all their own. Their properties escape the communication difficulties that language can throw up.

Back to the few lines. A minimalist drawing in black and white with a sentence is the basic format. I wonder which comes first. The witty line or the image? I’ll bet that varies from person to person. An idea must spring from the mind first.

Let me say right away that not every cartoon hits the mark. I’ve got a daily tear-off New Yorker cartoon[2] calendar. It has a cartoon for the day. In the morning, I’ve torn off the last day and pondered at the worst of them, thinking what on earth were they on when they selected this one.

The reason I started writing these words is a reaction to the cartoons of H.M. Bateman[3]. He’s from another era. A world of English etiquette that has faded with time. Although, I expect if you go to the races at Royal Ascot[4] Bateman’s world lives on in its modern form.

What came to my mind is the link between social media and Bateman’s view of the world. A lot of his cartons depend on the notion that just below the surface the English are about to explode at any moment. Like the 1970’s sitcom character Basil Fawlty.

Under the social equilibrium that enables society to function there’s a seething mass of rage. A bubbling anger that can spill over at the least provocation. Then reason turns into unreason.

A sense that a minor faux pas reveals a sense of injustice that has simmered for years. One small social blunder and an avalanche descends on the poor victim. So, is social media behaviour merely an extension of a human characteristic that has aways been there? That we can easily take a violation of etiquette or social norms wholly out of proportion.

And my further thought. Have certain unscrupulous politicians learnt how to exploit this suppressed emotion. Have encouraged the volcano to explode on que. Prodded and poked it. Even having lifted the vail on the weaknesses of you and I, meant that they could get away with innumerable gaffes, and blunders. There’s an essay for a bored writer to take-up.

[1] https://www.chrisbeetles.com/

[2] https://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/daily-cartoon

[3] https://www.hmbateman.com/

[4] https://www.ascot.com/royal-ascot