It's boom time for atheist polemics. Last year we had the implacable Richard Dawkins with "The God Delusion". Almost (and deservedly) unnoticed, the lightweight AC Grayling followed with "Against all Gods" (how can you take someone seriously if he lifts his title from Phil Collins??). Now Christopher Hitchens is weighing in with "God is not Great". There are three long extracts from the book on Slate.
I don't always agree with Hitchens's politics -- and judging from the fact that he has mutated from a leftie to something of a neocon, neither does he. But he is a good writer, and clearly a man of integrity. His anti-religious views are strongly held, and he is at his best when describing, in fascinating historic detail, how the message of the main religions may have been muddied by the intervention of man (though it's not clear why that's God's fault). But the main thing that emerges from this book, and from Dawkins', is that on the biggest question of all -- is there a God? -- any answer you choose can be no more than a matter of faith.
Others can and no doubt will carry out a complete exegesis of Hitchens' book. For myself, I was brought up short by the very first paragraph of the first extract on Slate. Hitchens outlines his four "irreducible objections to religious faith", of which the first is "that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos".
Whoa there big boy!! What exactly is the truth that you choose to believe instead? The latest version of the "Big Bang" theory that I recall reading suggested that the universe expanded from a blob of matter smaller than a tennis ball to its current size in less than a trillionth of a second, which certainly makes God look like a bit of a slacker for spreading the job out over six days, then taking a rest. Or maybe Hitchens is a fan of string theory, which is the current favoured way of unifying the laws of physics. The math of string theory only works if you postulate the existence of at least eleven dimensions, or large numbers of parallel universes. One practitioner denied that it was a completely untestable hypothesis, saying that it could be put to the test if one had a particle accelerator as big as the Milky Way! It's hard to see how choosing to believe this kind of stuff is any different from believing that God created the whole thing.
The simplest formulation I have ever seen for the most basic of metaphysical questions is "why is there something, rather than nothing?" Your answer to that, and mine, and Dawkins' and Hitchens', will never be susceptible to scientific proof. While you wait to find out the answer, whether you seek wisdom and solace in string theory or the Sermon on the Mount is entirely up to you.
Friday 27 April 2007
Monday 23 April 2007
Cricket, lovely cricket?
This is not supposed to be a sports blog, but here comes a second sports-related posting in quick succession, posing the question: has there ever been a more dispiriting sporting event than the World Cup, now mercifully nearing its conclusion in the West Indies?
I don't mean aesthetically dispiriting. There's been plenty to enjoy from a sporting standpoint: the emergence of Bangladesh, the success of Ireland, Malinga's four wickets in four balls (how does he not rabbit-punch the umpire every time he bowls??), Nixon reverse sweeping Murali for six, power hitting by Hayden et al for Australia, and so on.
No, what's bothering me is that the whole bloated spectacle is further evidence of the way that money is destroying the simple enjoyment of sport. There can be no justification for the sheer length of the tournament aside from the desire of the broadcasters to wring the maximum possible return out of their investment. Teams have been idle for days on end, and there was even a provision for "rest days" at one point. For goodness sake! I played more cricket than that when I was second XI wicketkeeper for my school all those years ago!
Then there are the acres of empty seats that we have seen at just about every game. Of course, it hasn't helped that India and Pakistan were knocked out so early, but really, was it necessary to build 20,000 seater stadia in places like Grenada (population 90,000) or Antigua (even smaller)? That's equivalent to putting about 15 MILLION seats in the new Wembley. Some of these islands are never going to see regular international cricket again. What's more, the aggressive pricing of the tickets has meant that far fewer tourists than expected made the trip to the islands (one side-effect: the Barmy Army's travel subsidiary has gone broke). It's a fair bet that the local tourist season will turn out to have been worse than usual, because a lot of non-criket-loving travellers will have opted to stay away.
Even worse, the locals have been shut out. Given that cricket has been losing ground in the West Indies as young athletes are seduced by the big money available in US basketball, this is a huge missed opportunity.
And overshadowing it all, of course, has been the mysterious death of the Pakistan coach, Bob Woolmer, which is likely to be the only thing this event is remembered for in the years to come. The culprits and the motivation may never be known, but is there anyone who thinks that money was not involved in some way?
I don't mean aesthetically dispiriting. There's been plenty to enjoy from a sporting standpoint: the emergence of Bangladesh, the success of Ireland, Malinga's four wickets in four balls (how does he not rabbit-punch the umpire every time he bowls??), Nixon reverse sweeping Murali for six, power hitting by Hayden et al for Australia, and so on.
No, what's bothering me is that the whole bloated spectacle is further evidence of the way that money is destroying the simple enjoyment of sport. There can be no justification for the sheer length of the tournament aside from the desire of the broadcasters to wring the maximum possible return out of their investment. Teams have been idle for days on end, and there was even a provision for "rest days" at one point. For goodness sake! I played more cricket than that when I was second XI wicketkeeper for my school all those years ago!
Then there are the acres of empty seats that we have seen at just about every game. Of course, it hasn't helped that India and Pakistan were knocked out so early, but really, was it necessary to build 20,000 seater stadia in places like Grenada (population 90,000) or Antigua (even smaller)? That's equivalent to putting about 15 MILLION seats in the new Wembley. Some of these islands are never going to see regular international cricket again. What's more, the aggressive pricing of the tickets has meant that far fewer tourists than expected made the trip to the islands (one side-effect: the Barmy Army's travel subsidiary has gone broke). It's a fair bet that the local tourist season will turn out to have been worse than usual, because a lot of non-criket-loving travellers will have opted to stay away.
Even worse, the locals have been shut out. Given that cricket has been losing ground in the West Indies as young athletes are seduced by the big money available in US basketball, this is a huge missed opportunity.
And overshadowing it all, of course, has been the mysterious death of the Pakistan coach, Bob Woolmer, which is likely to be the only thing this event is remembered for in the years to come. The culprits and the motivation may never be known, but is there anyone who thinks that money was not involved in some way?
Brian Clough, the novel
"The Damned Utd" by David Peace, a fictional account of Brian Clough's disastrous spell as manager of Leeds United, has just come out in paperback. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in football. (Although the blurbs on the cover try to sell it to a non-football audience, I don't think a book that features full league tables for the old First Division on half-a-dozen pages is likely to have a very broad appeal).
Read this and you'll certainly agree with Clough's description of himself as "Old Big 'Ed". You'll get some idea of his devotion to his family and his unhealthy fear of failure and his capacity for self-deception. One thing you won't get, perhaps surprisingly, is much insight into what made him so successful at Derby County and later at Nottingham Forest. Whatever it was, he doesn't seem to have made much effort to put it into practice at Elland Road. Still, it's a rollicking good read, and a book I will definitely return to sooner rather than later.
Read this and you'll certainly agree with Clough's description of himself as "Old Big 'Ed". You'll get some idea of his devotion to his family and his unhealthy fear of failure and his capacity for self-deception. One thing you won't get, perhaps surprisingly, is much insight into what made him so successful at Derby County and later at Nottingham Forest. Whatever it was, he doesn't seem to have made much effort to put it into practice at Elland Road. Still, it's a rollicking good read, and a book I will definitely return to sooner rather than later.
Friday 13 April 2007
Return ticket for BR?
The Times reported this week that discussions are underway that could lead to the gradual re-nationalisation of the UK's railways. It appears that the infrastructure company, Network Rail, is in discussions about also taking over the operation of the trains themselves in Scotland, when the current franchise expires at the end of the decade. In the argot of the industry, this would "reunite the wheels with the tracks". The railways in Scotland would be run by a not-for-profit company (like Network Rail itself). Presumably, if the test in Scotland were deemed a success, the same model could be applied across the rest of the UK as each franchise expired.
In terms of growth in passenger numbers, the UK railways are the most successful in Europe. Nevertheless, just about every day brings new evidence that the privatisation of the industry has been an expensive failure. While France (and Germany and Spain and Italy...) are building new high-speed lines, the UK has spent a fortune on rebuilding one line (the West Coast main line), only to find that the fancy new tilting trains purchased to run on the line cannot be operated at full speed. Trains purchased for commuter lines south of the Thames can't be put into service because they would overload the power circuits. Lunatic leasing arrangements mean that perfectly good rolling stock is taken out of commission as the operating companies try to save money, leaving commuters standing on crowded trains, or simply left behind at the station. Fares spiral ever higher.
The railways are now costing the taxpayer much more in subsidies than they ever did in the days of the old British Rail monopoly. Transport experts regularly declare themselves baffled as to why this is the case. I don't suppose I have a full explanation, but I can think of some pretty good reasons why this has happened. I've heard from people within the public sector that politicians simply did not foresee the number of people that would try to get their snouts in the trough as public services were privatised. Nowhere is this more true than on the railways. I've written here before that my simple commute to London saw me contributing to the coffers of several companies: the car park operator, Network Rail (as operator of the station and the tracks), the train operator, the leasing company that leased the train to the operator, the engineering company carrying out the track maintenance for Network Rail....I'm sure I am missing out a few but the point is clear enough. This is an enormous explosion of overheads.
I think another factor is that the break-up of the old monopoly, contrary to expectations in many quarters, was bound to lead to higher costs even on a like-for-like basis. British Rail was not only a monopolist but also a monopsonist -- the sole buyer for certain services. Workers are the most obvious example. In the old days, if you wanted to drive a train, you worked for BR. You could try to push up your wages and benefits through the union, but you couldn't quit to make more money for similar work elsewhere. In today's environment, you can do exactly that. Unions were quick to realise that the ability of drivers and others to move from one operating company to another gave them plenty of leverage to bid wages up. (One of the worst forecasts at the time of privatisation came from the Economist, which said -- approvingly -- that the breakup of BR would end forever the unions' power over the rail industry). Train driving is now so lucrative that the job appeals to university graduates.
It's beyond doubt that most train users in the UK would like to see the industry back in public hands: after more than a decade of private sector ownership, even BR is looked on with something close to nostalgia. Taxpayers are paying more and passengers are getting less. If the talks in Scotland offer a new way forward, the rest of the UK will be anxious to get on board.
In terms of growth in passenger numbers, the UK railways are the most successful in Europe. Nevertheless, just about every day brings new evidence that the privatisation of the industry has been an expensive failure. While France (and Germany and Spain and Italy...) are building new high-speed lines, the UK has spent a fortune on rebuilding one line (the West Coast main line), only to find that the fancy new tilting trains purchased to run on the line cannot be operated at full speed. Trains purchased for commuter lines south of the Thames can't be put into service because they would overload the power circuits. Lunatic leasing arrangements mean that perfectly good rolling stock is taken out of commission as the operating companies try to save money, leaving commuters standing on crowded trains, or simply left behind at the station. Fares spiral ever higher.
The railways are now costing the taxpayer much more in subsidies than they ever did in the days of the old British Rail monopoly. Transport experts regularly declare themselves baffled as to why this is the case. I don't suppose I have a full explanation, but I can think of some pretty good reasons why this has happened. I've heard from people within the public sector that politicians simply did not foresee the number of people that would try to get their snouts in the trough as public services were privatised. Nowhere is this more true than on the railways. I've written here before that my simple commute to London saw me contributing to the coffers of several companies: the car park operator, Network Rail (as operator of the station and the tracks), the train operator, the leasing company that leased the train to the operator, the engineering company carrying out the track maintenance for Network Rail....I'm sure I am missing out a few but the point is clear enough. This is an enormous explosion of overheads.
I think another factor is that the break-up of the old monopoly, contrary to expectations in many quarters, was bound to lead to higher costs even on a like-for-like basis. British Rail was not only a monopolist but also a monopsonist -- the sole buyer for certain services. Workers are the most obvious example. In the old days, if you wanted to drive a train, you worked for BR. You could try to push up your wages and benefits through the union, but you couldn't quit to make more money for similar work elsewhere. In today's environment, you can do exactly that. Unions were quick to realise that the ability of drivers and others to move from one operating company to another gave them plenty of leverage to bid wages up. (One of the worst forecasts at the time of privatisation came from the Economist, which said -- approvingly -- that the breakup of BR would end forever the unions' power over the rail industry). Train driving is now so lucrative that the job appeals to university graduates.
It's beyond doubt that most train users in the UK would like to see the industry back in public hands: after more than a decade of private sector ownership, even BR is looked on with something close to nostalgia. Taxpayers are paying more and passengers are getting less. If the talks in Scotland offer a new way forward, the rest of the UK will be anxious to get on board.
Tuesday 10 April 2007
See George read
George W. Bush has read a book. Actually, he claims to be a pretty voracious reader, but now he's telling all his friends to read his latest discovery: The History of the English-speaking Peoples since 1900, by the British historian Andrew Roberts. Roberts's contention is that the English-speaking countries (well, some of them, and you can probably guess which) are responsible for most of what is good in the world. When the burdens of global hegemony finally became too much for them, the British naturally passed them on, in the manner of a relay baton, to the Americans. It's no surprise that this sort of world view might appeal to someone like Bush, with his quasi-messianic self image.
One of the friends to whom Dubya recommended Roberts's book was Mark Steyn. Steyn seems quite content with his role as the boy standing on the burning deck of the USS Bush, and gave the book a positive review. However, another copy (actually, two) fell into the hands of Jacob Weisberg of Slate, who was rather less impressed. He accused Roberts of being "as sloppy as he is snobbish", suggesting that a careful reading would find a factual error on just about every page.
Anyway, as the new intellectual hero of the right, Roberts pitched up in this week's Sunday Times with a blast at the conduct of the UK servicemen held in Iran: "Military dignity meets the Diana effect". Roberts opines that the Royal Navy has let down itself, the country and the captives themselves. He argues that the captives should have offered no more than "name, rank and serial number" to the Iranians. However, according to most of the commentary I have seen from actual military men in recent days, this convention only applies if you are captured by the enemy in wartime. Since we are not (yet) at war with Iran, it isn't relevant to this case.
Roberts's article gives the appearance of being hastily-written, with plenty of bad syntax and clumsy phrasing. But the sentence that caught my eye was this one: "To state anything more than name, rank and serial number is all that a captured serviceman should ever do". Read it again: it actually says the exact opposite of what Roberts intends it to. Very impressive. This guy is to history what Dan Brown is to literature -- no wonder Bush likes him.
One of the friends to whom Dubya recommended Roberts's book was Mark Steyn. Steyn seems quite content with his role as the boy standing on the burning deck of the USS Bush, and gave the book a positive review. However, another copy (actually, two) fell into the hands of Jacob Weisberg of Slate, who was rather less impressed. He accused Roberts of being "as sloppy as he is snobbish", suggesting that a careful reading would find a factual error on just about every page.
Anyway, as the new intellectual hero of the right, Roberts pitched up in this week's Sunday Times with a blast at the conduct of the UK servicemen held in Iran: "Military dignity meets the Diana effect". Roberts opines that the Royal Navy has let down itself, the country and the captives themselves. He argues that the captives should have offered no more than "name, rank and serial number" to the Iranians. However, according to most of the commentary I have seen from actual military men in recent days, this convention only applies if you are captured by the enemy in wartime. Since we are not (yet) at war with Iran, it isn't relevant to this case.
Roberts's article gives the appearance of being hastily-written, with plenty of bad syntax and clumsy phrasing. But the sentence that caught my eye was this one: "To state anything more than name, rank and serial number is all that a captured serviceman should ever do". Read it again: it actually says the exact opposite of what Roberts intends it to. Very impressive. This guy is to history what Dan Brown is to literature -- no wonder Bush likes him.
Tuesday 3 April 2007
Scottish politics: beware of the Neverendum
It's looking more and more likely that the elections for the Scottish Parliament in May will see the nationalist SNP take the largest number of seats and form the government at Holyrood. If that happens, the SNP has promised that it will hold a referendum on full independence by 2010.
This fills me with dread: not because I think the Scots have no right to make this decision, but because I believe I've seen this movie before, in Canada. Unfortunately, I can't tell you how it ends, because it never does.
The largely francophone Canadian province of Quebec first elected a "separatist" government, led by the Parti Quebecois, in 1976. It held a referendum on sovereignty in 1979, which was soundly defeated. But the separatists kept getting back into government, and finally plucked up the courage to hold another sovereignty referendum in the mid-1990s. This one was defeated too, but only by a hair's-breadth majority of about 1%. The separatists claimed the result was unfair ("yes, we were defeated, but by money and the ethnic vote", quoth the party leader at the time, Jacques Parizeau) and vowed to try again until they got the result they wanted. This hasn't happened yet, and the poor showing of the PQ in the recent Quebec election means the issue may be on the back-burner for a few more years. But it will be back -- after all, it only takes two separatists to form a party and try to win public support.
Unfortunately, there are reasons to fear that this pattern could be repeated in Scotland in the coming years:
* opinion polls show that in both Quebec and Scotland, many more people are prepared to vote for the sovereignty party in an election than to vote for independence in a referendum. Elections are always about a wide range of issues. It seems that many Scots will vote against Labour to express their disgust at the Iraq war. This does not mean that they will support a referendum on independence, but it will put the SNP in a position to hold one.
* in both Quebec and Scotland, there is no other convincing alternative to the incumbent party. In Quebec, the Liberal party is the main pro-Canada voice. The Conservatives, powerful across much of the rest of the country, have struggled for a foothold in Quebec. When Quebecers want to vote against the Liberals, they turn to the PQ. There is a clear parallel in Scotland: people want to punish Labour but can't stand the Tories, so they will turn to the SNP.
* the sovereignists themselves try to confuse and soften the issue as much as possible, in order to maximise support when the referendum is held. In Canada, the PQ tried to win the 1975 referendum by calling for "sovereignty-association" with the rest of Canada. (This prompted one Quebec comedian to note that what his fellow citizens really wanted was "a free and independent Quebec in a strong and united Canada") There are signs that SNP leader Alex Salmond is thinking on these lines, pledging to retain the pound and keep the Queen as head of state. It probably won't work, but it will help to muddy the waters, and make it impossible to judge the real meaning of any election result.
If the SNP wins in May, I have one piece of advice, courtesy of Douglas Adams: DON'T PANIC! Canada has prospered despite the persistent threat of the departure of Quebec, which not only accounts for 25% of the population, but also physically separates Atlantic Canada from the rest of the country. The economic dangers posed to the rest of the UK by the possible departure of Scotland would be very limited, particularly given the existence of the EU. Those of us living in England and Wales should simply hope that the Scots can make a firm decision, one way or t'other, in a reasonable period -- but I wouldn't bet on it.
This fills me with dread: not because I think the Scots have no right to make this decision, but because I believe I've seen this movie before, in Canada. Unfortunately, I can't tell you how it ends, because it never does.
The largely francophone Canadian province of Quebec first elected a "separatist" government, led by the Parti Quebecois, in 1976. It held a referendum on sovereignty in 1979, which was soundly defeated. But the separatists kept getting back into government, and finally plucked up the courage to hold another sovereignty referendum in the mid-1990s. This one was defeated too, but only by a hair's-breadth majority of about 1%. The separatists claimed the result was unfair ("yes, we were defeated, but by money and the ethnic vote", quoth the party leader at the time, Jacques Parizeau) and vowed to try again until they got the result they wanted. This hasn't happened yet, and the poor showing of the PQ in the recent Quebec election means the issue may be on the back-burner for a few more years. But it will be back -- after all, it only takes two separatists to form a party and try to win public support.
Unfortunately, there are reasons to fear that this pattern could be repeated in Scotland in the coming years:
* opinion polls show that in both Quebec and Scotland, many more people are prepared to vote for the sovereignty party in an election than to vote for independence in a referendum. Elections are always about a wide range of issues. It seems that many Scots will vote against Labour to express their disgust at the Iraq war. This does not mean that they will support a referendum on independence, but it will put the SNP in a position to hold one.
* in both Quebec and Scotland, there is no other convincing alternative to the incumbent party. In Quebec, the Liberal party is the main pro-Canada voice. The Conservatives, powerful across much of the rest of the country, have struggled for a foothold in Quebec. When Quebecers want to vote against the Liberals, they turn to the PQ. There is a clear parallel in Scotland: people want to punish Labour but can't stand the Tories, so they will turn to the SNP.
* the sovereignists themselves try to confuse and soften the issue as much as possible, in order to maximise support when the referendum is held. In Canada, the PQ tried to win the 1975 referendum by calling for "sovereignty-association" with the rest of Canada. (This prompted one Quebec comedian to note that what his fellow citizens really wanted was "a free and independent Quebec in a strong and united Canada") There are signs that SNP leader Alex Salmond is thinking on these lines, pledging to retain the pound and keep the Queen as head of state. It probably won't work, but it will help to muddy the waters, and make it impossible to judge the real meaning of any election result.
If the SNP wins in May, I have one piece of advice, courtesy of Douglas Adams: DON'T PANIC! Canada has prospered despite the persistent threat of the departure of Quebec, which not only accounts for 25% of the population, but also physically separates Atlantic Canada from the rest of the country. The economic dangers posed to the rest of the UK by the possible departure of Scotland would be very limited, particularly given the existence of the EU. Those of us living in England and Wales should simply hope that the Scots can make a firm decision, one way or t'other, in a reasonable period -- but I wouldn't bet on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)