Remembrance, Memory & War

Remembrance & memory are two different things. Remembrance is an action. Something we usually do deliberately. Memory is the mind storing something from the past. As I've aged I have realised that there have been many memories & a great deal of data stored in my brain over 80 years. Sadly remembrance is becoming more difficult as the years pass.

In the case of memories no one's life is filled with happiness & people or events that are good memories. There are usually things that we would rather forget. It seems that we have little control over what is remembered & what is forgotten. It might be good if we could chose which memories to store & which to erase. Apparently there are techniques to influence & improve memory. But I think it's a bit late for me to do that. The brain itself selects which memories to solidify & which to forget. A lot depends on the emotional impact of the event. 

We are currently celebrating 80 years since VE day. Personally I am very ambivalent about this sort of remembrance. Human history is littered with wars of varying magnitude from skirmishes to full blown world wars. England fought in over 120 wars across 170 countries post the Act of Union in 1707. Prior to 1707 England fought in the Hundred Years' War, the Wars of the Roses, and the English Civil War for example.

We do not celebrate anniversaries of all these wars I'm glad to say. I can see nothing to celebrate about war. It is pointless, cruel & destructive. It is generally brought about by men seeking territory, power & wealth. There is huge death, destruction & suffering. Often it is the weak & defenceless - women, children & the elderly who suffer most. What is there to celebrate? 

This week we are celebrating the end of the 2nd world war. All wars do end. History shows us that war achieves nothing positive. Over the years millions of people have been killed or maimed. Homes & infrastructure has been destroyed & rebuilt. 

Its a repeating, man made cycle. We now have ways of fighting that don't involve hand to hand fighting. It is done from control centres miles away from the actual conflict. Soldiers kill without even seeing the "enemy", led by powerful men in capital cities who have never been in harms way & have no concern for the "collateral damage" they instigate.

The only winners from war are the people & companies who profit from the clearing up & rebuilding after the devastation. Malthus had a theory that because population expands at a faster rate than the earths ability to provide what we need, we need events to control population. War, pestilence & famine.

 

If there is a god perhaps this is the inbuilt way of control & balance? If there isn't maybe we live in a self controlling universe that will carry on despite us & our pathetic ways of trying to be in control of something much greater than us. 

Responsibility & Opting Out - Individual or Corporate?

I have just had an email from an organisation called Swiftaid telling me that one of my major charity  donations has automatically been registered for Gift Aid. There are tax reasons, according to my accountant, why this shouldn't happen & I tell all the charities not to do it. My first thought was that this was a scam. But when I checked it out it wasn't.

I am really cross. Hopefully I have stopped this in it's tracks. But this is the first I have heard about this new change of responsibility, presumably by many charities. Moving responsibility away from organisations onto individuals isn't a new thing. Now there are several. The most well known is automatic organ donor registration, for which there was huge publicity & did not happen overnight. 

Now there is also National & GP Data opt out. The balance has switched from individuals giving consent to them knowing they have to opt out. In other words affirmative action is ending. The responsibility has shifted. I'm sure this is much easier for the organisations, It saves them time & money. I'm not convinced that it is beneficial for the individual though. Personally I want to be able to make a choice, whether to opt in or opt out.

Most people are perfectly capable of making choices as long as they are aware of the choice to be made. We can make a "pre-emptive opt out" or  "withdraw consent". However that relies on individuals being notified in advance of the choice to be made & given any relevant information. The big problem is that despite our advanced technological age often relevant information is hidden away in small print or a button or link that people may not notice. 

Additionally not everyone spends their time on computers as I do. Not everyone is tech savvy. Not everyone has the time to check things out on reliable sources.

This seems to be a growing trend. I really think it is a retrograde step & will cause confusion & individuals being opted in to things they do not want to be. I suspect it is not in the spirit of Human Rights, but I can't think which one it might infringe. 

Basically we are moving to a Big State & increased power away from the individual.    

 

Privatisation - Maggies Mistake?

"In the U.K., privatization accomplished wonders. By 1979, the borrowings and losses of state-owned industries were running at about £3 billion a year. But from 1989 to 1990, companies privatized by the Thatcher government fattened the government purse by some £2 billion" - Harvard Business Review 1992. The key phrase here is "fattened the government purse". As with so many political decisions the short term gain obscured the long term resulting problems. 

The initial premise was the concept of privatisation to propel innovation & efficiency & promote competition. It seems to me that where privatised companies are natural monopolies, like all the utilities, water & rail for example, this simply does not work. There is no competition in either example. The consumer cannot choose between price & service quality. It's a one stop shop. There is no alternative.

To my mind any profit should have gone to investment in both maintenance & improvement of service. Not to inflated salaries & bonuses & shareholder dividends.

I have just watched the BBC documentary "Thames Water - Inside the Crisis". It was illuminating. It changed my perceptions & made me very sympathetic to the people who actually work there trying to make a very inadequate system work adequately. What it revealed about the state of the infrastructure is shocking. The only reason it hasn't failed even more than the dreadful pollution of our rivers, lakes & seas is the dedication of the workers. Workers who don't know whether they will continue to have jobs given the state of the finances. They have a debt of around £19 billion.

How on earth could that happen if the company was being well managed? Obviously it couldn't. At the time of privatisation Thames Water had no debt.

Large companies have a duty to shareholders and have to keep increasing profits. That model will never work for essentials & is even more unsustainable when the owners of the companies are not British. They do not have the interests of the British public at the heart of their business model. 

At least 70% of the English water industry is controlled by foreign-based firms. This includes a wide range of investors, such as super-rich individuals, banks, hedge funds, foreign governments, and businesses based in tax havens.

Half of the "big six" energy suppliers are owned by foreign companies, including EDF Energy. Foreign-owned companies also have a significant stake in other utilities, such as electricity distribution and supply companies.

BT is owned by Bharti Overseas Pvt Ltd (Indian), Patrick Drahi (Franco Israeli), T Mobile Holdings (German), & Altice UK SARL.

There is only one set of railways, one water main, one gas line and one power grid. 

To my mind we are now paying the price of Thatchers privatisation. The chickens have come home to roost. I can accept that this is perhaps the benefit of hindsight. But it has been a catastrophic mistake. The only winners are the senior managers on inflated salaries & bonuses & the investors.

It is time to try to put this right.

 

Transgender & Body Dysmorphia

I was born a woman & have always thought of myself as a woman. So I am not able to imagine what it might be like experience BDD. I have seen the sexual landscape change enormously in my lifetime. The mores that I grew up with have largely disappeared. That can be both good & bad. It's not my job to judge. I would like to understand though.

The UK Supreme Court has just ruled that the legal definition of a woman should be based on biological sex. Because of my age & experience that does seem to me to be logical. The impact on trans people & many areas of life in the UK will be huge. But Trans people will still have their rights protected by the Human Rights Act.

I can clearly remember when being homosexual was illegal. Naively I didn't think I knew any homosexual or lesbian people at the time. But statistically I must have. Looking back I can identify people who were probably in that category. Thank goodness we have come to realise that being gay is part of being normal. Now I have several lovely close friends who are gay. We have moved on & are mostly more tolerant.

I find transgender a much more complex situation to deal with. So I googled to find out more - as you do.

Body dysmorphia, also known as Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD), is thought to be caused by a combination of factors, including genetics, brain chemistry, & environmental experiences. A family history of BDD or other related mental health conditions, like OCD or depression, may be factors. Differences in brain structure & activity in individuals with BDD, particularly in areas responsible for processing visual information and regulating emotions exist. Some researchers also believe that low levels of serotonin, a neurotransmitter, may play a role. Bullying, teasing, abuse, or neglect, can significantly increase the risk of developing BDD. Western society's emphasis on physical perfection and beauty can contribute to negative body image and feelings of inadequacy, potentially triggering or worsening BDD. That is exacerbated by social media, which often portrays unrealistic standards of beauty. Perfectionism & low self esteem can also be factors.

I am wary of the current trend to over medicalising & over diagnosis of people today. I am not convinced that it helps. I'm not talking here about physical conditions like Cancer or Parkinsons. I'm talking more about the power of our brains to create thoughts & perceptions that may not be accurate. There is evidence that we humans have a tendency to live up to a diagnosis, particularly a mental one.

However, the fact is that humans are far more diverse that we knew. Medical science has moved on & there is very interesting neurological research that is producing evidence to explain much that should make us more accepting of difference.

 

Surely we can simply accept that we are different, not only in how we look, but what we believe, what our cultural norms are. If we can't do that we will just become more judgmental & adversarial.  

Role Models & Responsibility.

A role model is someone looked to by others as an example to be imitated. They are admired and their behaviour  is copied. Role models can be good or bad. I might admire someone who has good characteristics such as ethics, skills, experience, humanity. On the other hand many people follow role models that I would consider bad because their characteristics are misogynistic, self serving, unethical even cruel. I could easily name people in both categories, but maybe its better if you decide for yourself. 

The point is we humans do tend to follow other stronger, possibly more charismatic, or even dictatorial people. If we follow role models because they provide inspiration, guidance, and a blueprint for success and positive behavior that is a good thing. Our parents are our first role models. They shape our character. Good parenting is important to the healthy development of a child. 

People may follow bad role models due to many factors, the desire to fit in, the perception of being cool or successful associated with negative behavior, and the influence of peer groups or media. Some may be drawn to negative role models as a way to define themselves or seek validation from those who share their negative views. Again I could easily name some, but I'm sure you can too. 

The reason I'm posting about this is there needs to be a balance with the good role models outweighing the bad, because there will always be "bad actors" trying to achieve prominence. My feeling is that we are at a tipping point & I am going to use the words good & evil here. It seems to me that negative, undemocratic, unethical role models have far too much sway in our world today. Impressionable people worldwide are either voluntarily following them, or are too afraid to speak out against them. A lot of this is driven by the internet & social media. We cannot let that continue.

In order to stop this in it's tracks we all have to take responsibility. We have to be prepared to challenge & speak out against a great deal that is happening in our world. We cannot be passive & hope that others will act on our behalf. Individually we may not have much power, but collectively we can really change things. 

We must retain our freedoms to speak & to act. We must use that to influence decisions & actions.

My Trade Deficit v Trumps

I have a trade deficit with M&S & Sainsbury's among others. I buy most of my food & household goods from them. I must have spent a fortune over the years. But they don't reciprocate, they don't buy anything from me. So I'm really p..... off. I think I should operate tariffs against them. The fact that I don't make anything they might want to buy is immaterial. A trade deficit is unfair & annoying. I feel badly mistreated. 

That is the "logic" behind what Trump has done with tariffs worldwide. He certainly didn't base them on a combination of existing tariffs and other trade barriers (like regulations). He had a mathematical formula 

that no one had ever heard of which took the trade deficit for the US in goods with a particular country, divided by the total goods imports from that country and then divided that number by two. He simply thought he could eliminate the US's goods trade deficit with each country. Unbelievable!

Americans spend and invest more than they earn. The US buys more from the world than it sells. As long as that continues, the US will continue to keep running a deficit despite increasing tariffs with global trading partners. The "great deal maker" simply doesn't understand economics & trade. Worse still, if there are any dissenting voices, & there are, he doesn't listen. All he listens to is the sycophants who actually clap him in televised cabinet meetings. It's all about ego & image.

Thomas Sampson of the London School of Economics said: "There is no economic rationale for doing this and it will cost the global economy dearly." He is not alone.

The markets showed Trump exactly what they thought of his tariffs. Stocks plummeted. Trump panicked & there is a 90 day pause for everyone except China. He is in a trade war with China now. Good luck with that Trumpy. 

This is all very unstable & seat of the pants / back of an envelope stuff. The markets don't like instability. They want to plan years ahead. You don't invest in a new factory or new machinery if the world is unstable. You batten down the hatches.  

Meanwhile people lose jobs & things cost more. Just what America voted for!

 

Protectionism

Trump doesn't seem to understand that he is not protecting America by imposing tariffs. Quite the opposite, but more of that later. Tariffs are normally put on goods, not on entire countries. Trump is acting like a Mafia boss going round businesses for "protection money" so that he won't do something worse. Considering the harm already done it's hard to imagine what that might be, but I'm sure Trump will do his best.

To protect something is to preserve or guarantee it, often by legislation. Protectionism is shielding a country's domestic industries from foreign competition by taxing imports, using import tariffs, quotas on imports, or the use of subsidies. Protectionism raises prices on imported goods for consumers so causes inflation. Domestic producers may be better off if consumers buy alternative goods made at home. It may preserve some jobs, but considering what Musks DOGE has done, that seems very unlikely. Many American jobs have already gone. Generally it's a right wing, nationalist, way of doing economics. In Trumps case, he is completely re-writing the playbook & the markets are responding in horror.

China in particular is playing hardball. "Losing face"in China is equal to losing the respect of others, so avoiding this situation ("saving face") is very important in Chinese culture. The Chinese government prides itself on being strong & cannot afford to allow Trump to win this fight, however much it costs them, because it would make them look weak. The imposition of 125% on Chinese goods is frankly ridiculous.

I think I am fairly rational, so I find it impossible to imagine the reasoning, (I use the term loosely in Trumps case), or rationale, that led him to go down this self destructive route. Unless America can find a way to stop him, I think they are doomed & the world will suffer the consequences until he is booted out. 

I just hope that can happen before he serves his full term. Wake up America!