Archive for the ‘Behaviour’ Category

Obama and the “birthers”

December 6, 2013

Hearing Obama speak today about Nelson Mandela, I was wondering what Obama’s legacy would be.

I am not convinced that the US requirement that only those born in the US can become President makes any sense in today’s world. It may have had a purpose once upon a time but it seems to me to be particularly inappropriate to “The American Dream”.

In any event the requirement is on the books and if it could have been shown that Barack Obama had not been born in the US before he was elected President, he could have been ineligible and his candidature would have ended. The convolutions of the birthers who have tried to make their case with strange and exotic conspiracy stories about his birth in Kenya or of not having been born in Hawaii or of being an Indonesian citizen or of being a dual citizen, have been very entertaining but have not developed much traction. Their strident and often racist tone has not helped them much.

In two years Barack Obama will complete his two terms and go down in the record as the 44th President of the US. Probably he will be remembered most for having promised much but for not having been able to deliver. He will be remembered more for his risk aversion and not so much for Osama Bin Laden having been killed on his watch. I have a feeling that he may not wish to be remembered for how Obamacare finally turns out. He will not be remembered as we remember Nelson Mandela today.

Where he was actually born – one would think – is a little irrelevant now.

But a little story in the Washington Post makes me think that he has not been completely transparent about his early life.

After denial, White House now says Obama lived with uncle

The White House acknowledged Thursday that President Obama lived with his uncle for a brief period in the 1980s while he was a student at Harvard Law School — despite previously saying there was no record of the two having met.

“The president did stay with him for a brief period of time until his apartment was ready,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in a statement. “After that, they saw each other once every few months, but after law school they fell out of touch. The president has not seen him in 20 years, has not spoken with him in 10. “

Onyango “Omar” Obama faced a deportation hearing earlier this week following a drunk-driving arrest. During the hearing, he said that the president had lived with him while he was a student at Harvard. 

The Boston Globe reported in 2012, after Omar Obama’s arrest, that the White House said he had “never met his famous nephew.” The White House now says it only told the Globe that there was no record of the two having met — not definitively that they hadn’t met.

In its report Thursday, the Globe confirmed that the White House initially said that there was no record that they had met. It said the White House never asked for a correction. ….

Omar Obama comes from his father’s side of the family and is a Kenyan national. Obama was not close to his father, who left the family when the president was very young.

Obama’s relationship with his uncle is also news to scholars of the president, who also found no evidence that the two had met, according to a 2011 Washington Post report.

Omar Obama, 69, was allowed to stay in the United States following his hearing. The White House emphasized that it did nothing to assist him in his deportation case. He had said following his arrest that the president would help him out.

It all strikes me as a little odd. Why would Obama/the White House deny knowing or meeting his uncle? Was he so scared of being accused of interfering in his Uncle’s case that he was prepared to lie? Or was he/is he afraid that the Omar connection could lead elsewhere? And the current explanation that nobody had asked Barack Obama before making the previous denial does not seem very credible. If that denial, about such a personal event, had been issued without Obama’s knowledge, then somebody at the White House was pretty incompetent.

But it makes me wonder as to what would happen if, after Obama has completed his two terms, it comes to light that he was – in fact – ineligible to have been elected President under Article Two of the U.S. Constitution? After all Pope Joan is now legend!

Would the record of his Presidency be expunged? Would all legislation signed by him fall? Would the next President then become the 44th President? Would he lose his pension? Could he be prosecuted? for what?

NSA covers less than 10% of the world’s mobile communications!

December 5, 2013

It’s only arithmetic!

The NSA has much room for improvement and probably needs to increase its budget by a factor of 10.

  1. The National Security Agency is gathering nearly 5 billion records a day on the whereabouts of cellphones around the world.
  2. The ITU expects the number of cell phone accounts to rise from 6 billion now to 7.3 billion in 2014, compared with a global population of 7 billion.
  3. (NSA) records feed a vast database that stores information about the locations of at least hundreds of millions of devices.
  4. People make, receive or avoid 22 phone calls every day.
  5. The NSA has a budget (secret) of about $52 billion (estimate).

Number of records available to be spied on = 6 billion x 22 /2 = 66 billion.

Five billion records may seem like a big number but it is not as comprehensive as one would expect to see from anybody aspiring to be “Big Brother”. The NSA records only 7.58% of the world’s mobile communications.

If the NSA (and Obama)  truly aspire to being the “Big Brother” of this Brave New World, they are going to have to step up their game. They need to increase their surveillance of mobile communications by at least a factor of 10. Moreover they need to start recording more of the content and not just the location of these devices.

Clearly the NSA needs a budget of about $500 billion per year just to come close to this goal!

Compassion – and common sense – in short supply with the UK authorities

December 1, 2013

Compassion is something disappearing from the UK –  from both sides of the political divide. Common sense has little part to play when it comes to the behaviour of officialdom.

Two stories from the UK caught my attention this morning. One, in the right-leaning Telegraph, reports on how Social Services in Essex, with the support of an acquiescent – but apparently rather dim – Judge, not only took a baby away from an Italian woman – but took it away before birth and ordered a caesarean section just so that they could get access to the child!! Ripping children from a mother’s womb in the UK of the 21st century! Not just a Nanny state but a Nanny State in Jackboots. (It has been some 30 years since I lived in the UK but I was amazed on a visit earlier this year at the extent to which the Nanny state does permeate ordinary life. The “do-gooding” Health and Safety blanket thrown across the entire country to stifle the population is particularly ludicrous – and ineffective).

The second story is in the very left-leaning Guardian and is about the Jackboots worn by the Home Secretary Theresa May and the whip she wields when it comes to the deportation of unwanted asylum seekers. But – and not for the first time – she does not seem particularly skillful in wielding her whip. She might have found that transferring the asylum seeker to a hospital run by the  Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust more “effective” than a botched £100,000 charter flight which didn’t go anywhere.

So, one story in a right-leaning paper about the arrogant excesses of a left indoctrinated Social Services and a second story in a left-leaning paper about the arrogant excesses of a right-wing politician trying desperately hard to be populist. The one illustrates the oppression by the “do-gooding left” which always “knows best”. And the second illustrates the oppression by those in power trying to perpetuate their position. And – as far as I could see – neither paper chooses to give much prominence to the excesses of their own kind!

The Telegraph‘Operate on this mother so that we can take her baby’

A mother was given a caesarean section while unconscious – then social services put her baby into care. 

Last summer a pregnant Italian mother flew to England for a two-week Ryanair training course at Stansted. Staying at an airport hotel, she had something of a panic attack when she couldn’t find the passports for her two daughters, who were with her mother back in Italy. She called the police, who arrived at her room when she was on the phone to her mother. The police asked to speak to the grandmother, who explained that her daughter was probably over-excited because she suffered from a “bipolar” condition and hadn’t been taking her medication to calm her down.

The police told the mother that they were taking her to hospital to “make sure that the baby was OK”. On arrival, she was startled to see that it was a psychiatric hospital, and said she wanted to go back to her hotel. She was restrained by orderlies, sectioned under the Mental Health Act and told that she must stay in the hospital. …… a High Court judge, Mr Justice Mostyn, had given the social workers permission to arrange for the child to be delivered.

The GuardianPrivate plane carrying ‘near to death’ asylum seeker forced back to UK. 

Home Office officials were refusing to comment on Saturday evening on an apparently botched effort to deport a seriously ill man from Britain by private plane. A jet chartered by the government was forced to return to the UK with Nigerian Ifa Muaza and immigration officials still on board, after a 20-hour flight that saw the plane prevented from entering Nigerian airspace. It diverted to Malta, where an angry dispute broke out with the authorities over the plane’s right to use its airstrip.

The aircraft then had to return to Britain, landing at Luton, where Muaza, a failed asylum seeker who was said last week to have been near death after a 100-day hunger strike, was taken off by stretcher and returned to Harmondsworth detention centre near Heathrow. The flight is estimated to have cost the Home Office £95,000- £110,000. Muaza was the only detainee on board, according to sources. ….. 

Will buying “likes” on Facebook and Twitter translate into votes?

November 29, 2013

Perception can be reality. And fake “likes” are being used to generate fake perceptions of popularity and goodness. Whether humans are dumb enough to be taken in by fake perceptions and whether perceptions can be converted into real voters and customers remains to be seen.

The assumption within the public relations and advertising industry is that  buying “likes” on social media actually leads to some advantage for the person/thing/company being liked. Clearly some companies perceive “likes” as being an effective – if unproven -advertising form. There seems to be no shortage of people offering ways of buying and boosting “likes”. Offers are readily available to arrange “2000 Facebook likes for only $17, or 5000 for $35 or 100,000 for $500”. Carlo De Micheli and Andrea Stroppa have been looking at Twitter and the underground market

De Micheli and Stroppa

De Micheli and Stroppa

 

We estimated fake accounts make up for 4% of Twitter’s user base

Does this make sense?

  • Facebook makes it harder to create fake accounts yet openly declares: “As of June 30, 2012, we estimate user-misclassified accounts may have represented approximately 2.4% of our worldwide MAUs and undesirable accounts may have represented approximately 1.5% of our worldwide MAUs. 
  • Every account can follow up to 2000 people. 
  • By statistically excluding overlapping fake accounts, just on the 12 main marketplaces (Fiverr, SeoClerks, InterTwitter, FanMeNow, LikedSocial, SocialPresence, SocializeUk,  ViralMediaBoost), it turns out there are around 20M fake followers on sale right now. 
  • Followers are sold at an average price of $18/1000 followers (barracudalabs). 
  • Sellers can make between $2 and $36 per fake account 
  • Multiplying it out definitely shows a multi-million-dollar market

Apart from entertainment figures wanting to boost their apparent popularity, the buying of “likes” has now become a routine matter for politicians facing elections. They are relying on the herd mentality to lead  to an increase of votes in their favour. The risk they take is that humans – when acting as a mob or a herd – don’t like acknowledging or being accused of acting like dumb animals. But the risk of this backlash is being taken as being small. Politicians in India are now all rushing to buy “likes” – as just another legitimate advertising ploy. They have been paying for favourable articles about themselves and negative articles about their opponents in the print media for many years. But even the most socially illiterate politicians – who wouldn’t know a tweet from a twit – are spending a great deal of money to be able to show huge numbers of “likes”!

What part fake likes and dislikes are going to have in the Delhi elections next week and the national elections next year, remains to be seen. It could be quite effective in a city like Delhi where the penetration of social media among the new urban population is high  but among whom political awareness is still relatively new.

FirstPostIn a new sting operation, Cobrapost has revealed how certain IT companies in India are working to manipulate social media campaigns by buying fake FB likes and followers on Twitter, and running negative campaigns against rivals of their clients and also engaging in creating panic among minority groups. The report states that the most of these companies are working on the behest of BJP and Modi, but also work for Congress sometimes, and in addition manage campaigns for multinational firms, corporations etc as well. …….  In a statement to Firstpost, Facebook said that where fake likes and profiles are concerned, “It’s a violation of our policies to use a fake name or operate under a false identity, and we encourage people to report anyone they think is doing this.

CobrapostOperation Blue Virus also makes certain stunning revelations. If the claims of the companies exposed are to be believed, among political parties, BJP is at the forefront in social media campaign, so is its Prime Ministerial candidate Narendra Modi, with scores of companies working overtime for him. This puts a question mark on the claims of the BJP leadership that there is a wind blowing in favour of their party and Narendra Modi. The larger-than-life-image that Team Modi has assiduously carved out for Modi over the past one decade may not be that real, rather invented, and is reminiscent of the Goebbellian propaganda, to sway the opinion of gullible public. It is no surprise then that even a milder criticism of the BJP’s star campaigner invites scathing attacks from his followers on social media, claimed to be in millions in count. 

Paul Joseph Goebbels would have been in his element.

 

A liking for alcohol is genetic

November 28, 2013

Yet another paper which purports to show that bad behaviour is due to genetic compulsions. In this case a faulty gene is supposed to cause compulsive consumption of alcohol. If all bad behaviour can be shown to be due to genetic compulsions, it follows that nobody can be held accountable for their behaviour.

The press release is from Newcastle University but the researchers come from five universities. It is a 10 year project funded by the Medical Research Council to study genetic effects on alcohol dependence. “.. we don’t understand about how and why consumption progresses into addiction, but the results of this long-running project suggest that, in some individuals, there may be a genetic component”  says Professor Hugh Perry (MRC), “…. it could help us to identify those most at risk of developing an addiction and ensure they receive the most effective treatment.”

Genetic screening of the foetus and abortion of the alcoholicly inclined perhaps! Prevention being better than an impossible cure.

Quentin M. Anstee, Susanne Knapp, Edward P. Maguire, Alastair M. Hosie, Philip Thomas, Martin Mortensen, Rohan Bhome, Alonso Martinez, Sophie E. Walker, Claire I. Dixon, Kush Ruparelia, Sara Montagnese, Yu-Ting Kuo, Amy Herlihy, Jimmy D. Bell, Iain Robinson, Irene Guerrini, Andrew McQuillin, Elizabeth M.C. Fisher, Mark A. Ungless, Hugh M.D. Gurling, Marsha Y. Morgan, Steve D.M. Brown, David N. Stephens, Delia Belelli, Jeremy J. Lambert, Trevor G. Smart, Howard C. ThomasMutations in the Gabrb1 gene promote alcohol consumption through increased tonic inhibitionNature Communications, 2013; 4 DOI:10.1038/ncomms3816

Newcastle University Press Release

Researchers have discovered a gene that regulates alcohol consumption and when faulty can cause excessive drinking. They have also identified the mechanism underlying this phenomenon.

The study showed that normal mice show no interest in alcohol and drink little or no alcohol when offered a free choice between a bottle of water and a bottle of diluted alcohol.

However, mice with a genetic mutation to the gene Gabrb1 overwhelmingly preferred drinking alcohol over water, choosing to consume almost 85% of their daily fluid as drinks containing alcohol – about the strength of wine.

The consortium of researchers from five UK universities – Newcastle University, Imperial College London,  Sussex University, University College London and University of Dundee – and the MRC Mammalian Genetics Unit at Harwell, funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC), Wellcome Trust and ERAB, publish their findings today in Nature Communications.

Dr Quentin Anstee, Consultant Hepatologist at Newcastle University, joint lead author said: “It’s amazing to think that a small change in the code for just one gene can have such profound effects on complex behaviours like alcohol consumption.

“We are continuing our work to establish whether the gene has a similar influence in humans, though we know that in people alcoholism is much more complicated as environmental factors come into play. But there is the real potential for this to guide development of better treatments for alcoholism in the future.”

…. a team led by Professor Howard Thomas from Imperial College London introduced subtle mutations into the genetic code at random throughout the genome and tested mice for alcohol preference. This led the researchers to identify the gene Gabrb1 which changes alcohol preference so strongly that mice carrying either of two single base-pair point mutations in this gene preferred drinking alcohol (10% ethanol v/v – about the strength of wine), over water.

The group showed that mice carrying this mutation were willing to work to obtain the alcohol-containing drink by pushing a lever and, unlike normal mice, continued to do so even over long periods. They would voluntarily consume sufficient alcohol in an hour to become intoxicated and even have difficulty in coordinating their movements.

So my preference for scotch rather than Newcastle Brown Ale is probably also genetic!.

Class war in France as Hollande takes on the cavaliers

November 25, 2013

1. In France equestrian centres enjoy the relatively low VAT rate of  5.5% or 7%.

2. The EU naturally feels it necessary to poke its nose into anything it pleases

In a judgement handed down on 8 March (1), the EU Court of Justice ruled that France incorrectly applied the directive on the common system of value added tax (VAT) (2) by applying a reduced rate to certain transactions related to equidae.

The court upheld the European Commission’s first grievance whereby France may not apply a reduced rate (5.5%) to transactions related to horses when these animals are not intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs or in agricultural production. It maintained that the directive authorises a reduced VAT rate for live animals “normally” intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs and for transactions related to equidae, particularly horses, for agricultural, forestry or fishery activities, to the extent that they constitute deliveries or services intended for use in agricultural production.

3. The equestrian brigade (the cavaliers) are seen to be part of the privileged classes and as such a clear target for Francois Hollande and his old-fashioned class warfare objectives. The EU directive gives Hollande a wonderful excuse to triple VAT on the cavaliers. But for the cavaliers Hollande is not the right horse to bet on.

Paris equestrial protest

French cavaliers take to the street – image The Guardian

The Guardian: François Hollande’s plan to treble VAT on equestrian centres will ‘send 80,000 horses to the abattoir’, warns industry. 

A French mood of mutiny that has rippled through Brittany and infected teachers, farmers and shopkeepers, skipped species on Sunday when horses took to the streets of Paris to complain about tax rises. Thousands of disgruntled horse and pony riders rode through the French capital to complain about tax increases they say will put many of them out of business and send 80,000 animals to the abattoir.

The “cavaliers” blocked roads from the symbolic Paris squares, Place d’Italie, Place de la Bastille and Place de la Nation, in protest at government plans to almost treble VAT on equestrian centres. It was the latest manifestation of the growing revolt over President François Hollande’s tax reforms, many of them aimed at reducing the country’s public deficit to meet European Union demands.

The EU bureaucracy is essentially “socialist” in  that they are all paid for by taxes and they will do anything to make work for themselves and to expand their areas of work to ensure their own continuance. Support for all forms of publicly funded bureaucracy seems to be the core value of all socialist parties in Europe. If there was any group which needed to be disenfranchised it must be those who live off public funding – and not only in the EU but also within the member countries of the EU. Of course that line of thought leads to all politicians being banned from voting. And maybe that would not be so bad either.

When JFK was shot, I was asleep

November 22, 2013

It is a day for memories.

I was 15, in Calcutta and had ongoing final school exams.

When JFK died at 1230 CST on 22nd November, it was almost midnight in India and I had just gone to bed. I was first to wake up the next morning around 5am to do my last minute review for the days exams. But I always started by going through the sports pages and the comics in the papers. The news just made the headlines in the editions of the two newspapers we got – The Statesman and the Amrita Bazar Patrika. For a 15 year-old schoolboy JFK and Jacqueline Kennedy represented all things American and all things admirable. I woke my parents after seeing the headlines in a state of disbelief, as if they could somehow make the news disappear.

I cannot remember what exam we had that day but I do remember that we talked about nothing else. Within our little group at school we were in the throes of just becoming politically aware. Within our group we had staunch capitalists and die-hard communists (of the Soviet Union persuasion since India had had a border war with China the year before) and every shade in-between. But political leanings were irrelevant that day. There was a sombre, subdued mood among the entire class and the teachers. Few had much experience of violent death. We all knew that our final exam results would be decisive in the choice of which University we would get into and that our futures depended on our results, but there was an underlying realisation that this event, far away across the world, was something probably much more important and fateful than our exam results.

Of the 10 in our group, two have died. In reality and in hindsight, for each of us, the exam results we achieved has probably had a much greater direct effect on our careers over the 50 years since then, than JFK’s asassination. But something inside each of us, I think, changed that day. Whatever JFK may have achieved as a politician is fading rapidly as time passes. But the impact his death, and the manner of his death, had on those of his time will remain till they, too, pass on.

I cannot remember much about those exams 50 years ago. But I can remember with astonishing clarity exactly how I felt when I first saw the headline that JFK had been shot dead. It is a crystal clear emotional recall which I cannot fully articulate.

Good news today: “Green groups walk out of UN climate talks”

November 21, 2013

The UN Climate conferences must count as the most useless, misguided and profligate international cooperation ever.Therefore one hopes that this report in the Guardian is true. The best thing that could happen would be if everybody walked out of these orgies of decadence and the world could forget the last two decades of waste.

I doubt it will happen, since these UN jamborees provide a wonderful and regular forum for the do-gooders and the catastrophe mongers to gather and wallow in their delusions. Mostly financed by taxes. The IPCC is at best a disgrace to both science and to international cooperation. I suspect the green groups think they will get valuable publicity with their walk-out stunt but will all return tomorrow.

They are on to too good a thing and I doubt that they will walk out never to return. But I can always hope:

The Guardian: 

Environment and development groups together with young people, trade unions and social movements walked out of the UN climate talks on Thursday in protest at what they say is the slow speed and lack of ambition of the negotiations in Warsaw. 

Wearing T-shirts reading “Volverermos” (We will return), around 800 people from organisations including Greenpeace, WWF, Oxfam, 350.org, Friends of the Earth, the Confederation and ActionAid, handed back their registration badges to the UN and left Poland’s national stadium, where the talks are being held. 

“Movements representing people from every corner of the Earth have decided that the best use of our time is to voluntarily withdraw from the Warsaw climate talks. This will be the first time ever that there has been a mass withdrawal from a COP,” said a WWF spokesman. 

“Warsaw, which should have been an important step in the just transition to a sustainable future, is on track to deliver virtually nothing. We feel that governments have given up on the process,” he said.

The perversion of “government of the people, by the people, for the people”

November 17, 2013

One hundred and fifty years ago on 19th November at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln articulated a powerful piece of rhetoric. A description of government in a “free” society which in the context of his time was bold and visionary. Probably the two most quoted phrases in his address are “the proposition that all men are created equal” and his closing “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”

Yet it is precisely these two powerful phrases of rhetoric which 150 years later, in the world as it exists today, are leading to a perversion of behaviour which is antithetical to his intentions.

The first basic perversion comes from Lincoln’s blunder in stating that “all men are created equal” when what he really should have said was “all humans shall be treated equally”. In fact Pericles funeral oration, which Lincoln is thought to have used as a source gets it more correctly “If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences”. Pericles confined himself to behaviour and did not bring creation into it.

Lincoln was addressing behaviour not genetics. “Equality” is – or should be – an  issue of man’s behaviour to man – not of our make-up or of our inherent qualities or failings at the time of our births. It is indisputable that at birth all humans are not “equal” and we have the privilege to be different and therefore individual. Our genes differ – thank goodness. Without such a variation in a species natural selection has no role and evolution is impossible. Physically and mentally and in the environment we are born into, we are not equal. No doubt our development as we grow up is widely different and fundamentally affected by the manner in which we are brought up, educated and the resources made available to us. But nurture does not  – and can not – replace nature. Legislation or wishing will not alter your genes. You can legislate for providing special education for the less intelligent or for special medical care for those born physically or mentally disadvantaged, but you cannot create clones of us all – after the event. It is here in trying to address differences of genetics as being inequalities of behaviour that perversion lies. “Afiirmative action” in the US or “reservations” in India are merely euphemisms for selective and intentional discrimination. Inequitable behaviour against some is used as a weapon to try and compensate for the genetic and environmental disadvantages of others. Not always of course, but very often. Legislation in Europe and in Scandinavia for “gender equality” tries to wish away gender differences by – sometimes – enshrining inequitable behaviour against men (usually) to try and compensate for the perceived genetic or environmental disadvantages of women. All around the world legislation intended to ensure the equality of behaviour sometimes tries, instead, to eliminate the genetic or environmental differences between people. Genetic and inherent differences in people cannot be addressed by considering them to be behaviour to be corrected. To be individuals we must first be different and that difference is to be celebrated not eliminated.

It is both a logical and a practical perverison. If in fact we were all created equal then we would all behave equally, we would have no individualism and there would be no issue. Since we are not, in fact, born equal, and it is equitability of behaviour experienced by all that we wish to ensure, then it is perverse to use a legislated, intentional  inequality of behaviour to correct for some other inequality of behaviour.

The second phrase “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth” has become a slogan and an anthem for democracy. Lincoln possibly took this from the 1819  opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall  “The government of the Union then …..  is, emphatically and truly, a government of the people. In form, and in substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.”   There is nothing wrong, I think in either of these two formulations. The perversion of this proposition flows from the fact  that “of the people” is now taken – universally – to mean an equal vote for every individual and a vote for every individual. Even though these individuals making up the “people” are not – and can not – be equal. And it is here – in putting universal suffrage on a pedestal without recourse to merit – that the perversion lies.

The result is that it is mere existence as an individual that suffices to have an “equal vote”. And if everyone has the vote it is assumed that “democracy” has been attained – as if it were some sort of state of grace.  The only real criterion is that of age, even if some countries still have some other criteria in force. The merit of the individual is irrelevant. Votes can and are bought by promises or by free meals or by money or by a bus-ride. A “bought” or coerced vote weighs as heavy as one that is freely given. (There is nothing wrong in buying or selling votes – the flaw lies in that the seller has a vote equal to that of free elector). A fool has the same vote as a wise man. A large tax contributor is equated to a small tax contributor. Government servants paid for by taxes have the same weight of vote as the tax payers. Priests and politicians have the vote. The behaviour of an individual does not affect his vote. Experience, intelligence, wisdom, competence or criminality are all considered equally irrelevant. A majority vote is considered to be the “will of the people” where “constitutions” are supposed to prevent excesses against minorities. But constitutions are subject to the same majority vote. One hundred and one idiots take precedence over one hundred wiser men. And we inevitably get the politicians that universal suffrage deserves. This democracy and its universal suffrage needs also to be tempered by merit. But meritocracy smacks of elitism and no self-respecting socialist could tolerate that.

Universal Suffrage which ignores merit has led to the Lowest Common Factor becoming what counts and not the Highest Common Multiple that is being sought. And that was not, I think , what Lincoln intended.

But all that does not diminish the importance and brilliance of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. It is as powerful today as it was when I first read, learned and recited it over 50 years ago. But, in contradiction to his words, The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here”it is what he said there that is remembered much more than what was done there:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth

China relaxes highly successful one-child policy

November 15, 2013

It was no doubt authoritarian and draconian and there may well be many unforeseen emotional and psychological side-effects to come for many generations, but the bottom line is that the Chinese one-child policy has done the trick insofar as population numbers is concerned. The Chinese population will reach its peak of just under 1.4 billion around 2020 and will then decline dropping to less than 1 billion by 2100. Around 2020, India’s population will exceed the Chinese population and will continue to increase until about 2060 reaching a peak of about 1.7 billion. Then by 2100 the India population will have declined to about 1.5 billion.

ReutersChina unwrapped its boldest set of economic and social reforms in nearly three decades on Friday, relaxing its one-child policy and further freeing up markets in order to put the world’s second-largest economy on a more stable footing.

The sweeping changes helped dispel doubts about the leadership’s zest for the reforms needed to give the economy fresh momentum as three decades of breakneck expansion shows signs of faltering.

The chart below is based on an analysis of the World Population Prospects 2010 and not on the latest 2012 projections. However the numbers and trends are largely the same.

WPP2010 Population projections till 2100

WPP2010 Population projections till 2100

Even if fertility rates now increase much more than predicted, the Chinese government now has a tried and tested – if disliked – population control method to fall back on. An increased fertility rate is now absolutely necessary to avoid a major aging challenge after about 2050 when the ratio of the working population to the supported population could reach crisis levels.