An Unexpected Early Lesson in Life

"Fifteen love" said David. "No,no,no it's fifteen all" corrected Stanley his older brother. The two had improvised a game of 'tennis' in a corner of the ground floor of Ribstone House, one of the blocks of council flats that were known as The Morningside Estate in Hackney (circa 1946). The tennis ball, was authentic but everything else was improvised. Hands for rackets, lines chalked on the wall for boundaries of play. Johnny, aged 8, was their sole, somewhat bemused, spectator. "Why did you say 'love' ?", the small boy said. "That's what it's called when you haven't yet scored" said Stanley. "And anyway it's fifteen all" he added quickly. I soon learned that, as and when you won more points, you had to say 'fifteen', then 'thirty', then 'forty' and then 'game'. If it got to 'forty all', you had to say 'deuce' instead.

For young Johnny, this was the unlikely beginning of understanding that life is not always logical and that, despite this fact, it can be enhanced by accepting a small degree of magical thinking. After all, who would deny that the rather peculiar and unlikely scoring nomenclature in the game of tennis - and in contradiction of all the norms of science and mathematics - actually enhances the game?!

Political Correctness (PC)

In his recent TV programme on Channel 4, Trevor Phillips, suggested a strong connection between political correctness and the rise of 'popularism'; Trump, Farage, LePen, Brexit etc.I have been suggesting this for some time and was pleased to see Trevor Phillips - ex head of the Commission for Racial Equality - addressing this important issue. But let me take a closer look at PCness.

We need to distinguish between, on one hand, words/phrases that are liable to give offence and, on the other, opinions that can cause offence. The potential for offence generated by words/phrases varies over time and common usage. For example, the f-word has been largely blunted by its constant use in the popular TV comedy, "Mrs Brown's Boys" as well as its ubiquitous use from building-sites to the board-room. Calling a homosexual man a "queen" is not the eyebrow raiser it once was. Having said that the use of these words/phrases is often unwise and sometimes can give offence. Why refer to a Jewish man as a 'yid' when it is just as easy to say Jew and avoid the possibility of being taken for an anti-Semite?

On the other hand, it is unreasonable to claim to have been offended by an expressed opinion when you have the option of countering with evidence to the contrary. If you opine that the Holocaust didn't happen, I can counter with massive amounts of evidence that it did. If the opportunity to challenge isn't there - for example, it's in a TV documentary - frustration is understandable as is the suspicion of bigotry/offence.

How is this connected to 'popularism'? Over-use of accusations like 'sexist', 'homophobic', 'Islamophobic' have generated latent frustration in the general public. Politicians have been overcautious in trying to avoid giving offence. The menace of violent Islamic extremism has been down-played by politicians for fear of causing a violent anti-Muslim backlash. The populist politicians have broken through these bounds and this is resonating with the feelings of the person-in-the-street. Is this a good thing?

To the extent that these issues are now on the agenda, yes. Is this not putting the wrong people in powerful positions? Also, yes. We have to hope that this is a passing phase and that these people will be seen for the opportunists they are and will eventually be replaced by much better and wiser leaders.

A Population Paradox

I had two ‘ancestors’ in the last generation, my mother and my father. I had four in the generation before that. Going back generation by generation, I can estimate the number of my ancestors at any particular time by calculating 2ⁿ, where n is an estimate of the number of past generations. Jesus Christ was born 2000 years ago; say, 80 generations. 2 to power 80 is approximately 1 followed by 24 zeros, or one million, billion, billion. Current scientific estimates of the human population at the beginning of the first millennium centre at about 300 million. My calculations seem to be overestimating by a factor of 3.3 million, billion and that’s only my ancestors; what about yours and everyone else’s? What’s gone wrong?

 

It is apparent that the 2ⁿ assumption overestimates the number of ancestors at generation n in two ways. Firstly, males can impregnate more than one female; the number of biological fathers will therefore be overestimated. Secondly, groups of siblings among the ancestors will have the same parents. Do these sources of over-estimation account for a 3.3 million, billion error factor? And, remember, we are only considering my ancestors and ignoring those of the 6 billion others currently in the world? Can someone please explain?

 

 

John Jacob Lyons

Brexit Derailed?

The people voted 'out'. The High Court ruled that MPs must endorse before the process can begin. The Government want to start the process without delay so they've appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

My view is that the Supreme Court will agree with the High Court decision but will clarify that it will not be necessary to go through the lengthy procedure normally required for an Act of Parliament. They will say that it was not clear whether the Referendum was granted by Parliament as 'advisory'  or 'executive/ binding'. Therefore MPs need to vote on a simple issue. Did they intend the referendum to be binding on Government? If a majority vote 'Yes', then the Brexit process can be triggered.

If I'm right, Brexit hasn't been derailed.

"How's Your Food?"

Have you noticed that your waiter/ waitress always puts the question to you just after you've transferred a substantial forkful of victual into your mouth? You have haven't you?  I have a theory.

I suggest that it's part of their front-of-house training. To indicate "Yes, it's fine" without generating an embarrassing food-overflow, you can either nod your head slowly or make a 'thumbs-up' gesture. Easy to do. To indicate that all is not satisfactory you will have to shake your head and finish your mastication of the mouthful of food before you are able to explain the reason for your dissatisfaction. Similarly for a 'thumbs-down' gesture. Unless you suspect you've been poisoned, you will usually opt for the affirmative option that involves far less hassle. And - of course - they know it!! An essential lesson for any aspiring waiting person. QED !!

WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT TO HAVE CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION?

I have consistently argued that it is absolutely essential for a sovereign country to be able to choose the number, usual occupation and character of those wanting to come to the country in question. Why?

Firstly, why do we need immigrants at all? The answer is straightforward. There is never a perfect match between the needs of industry and the skills of the working population. Therefore we need to attract people from abroad able to provide the relevant know-how/ skill-sets. In addition, we need to do our humanitarian duty by providing a safe haven for a reasonable share of genuine refugees fleeing the ravages of war, natural disasters etc. However, immigration policy at any time has to strike a balance between these considerations and the impact of population increase on infrastructure and facilities such as housing, the NHS, etc. Obviously we also need to ensure that individual immigrants do not pose a threat to our security.

While we are in the EU we cannot say 'no' to anyone from another EU country. It is simply impossible to strike the balance I refer to above. If the country is doing well relative to our neighbours in the EU, the entry-demand from these countries increases significantly for obvious reasons and net immigration soars. Our infrastructure/ services are unable to cope at short notice, a crisis ensues and our wellbeing takes a dive. Additionally, we find it difficult to say 'yes' to needed skilled applicants from non-EU countries - such as computer programmers from India - because of these same pressures.  It is also much more difficult to refuse entry to those coming from the EU that are not known terrorists but who, we believe, may well pose a security risk.

This issue will become much more acute as the EU continues to expand to include more countries.

I believe that it is very important for the UK to get complete control of immigration and this is why I have voted to leave the EU.

"I'm In My 80th Year !!"

My friends were quite astounded when I came out with this declaration over coffee yesterday afternoon. "But you were only 78 in January last" said Rosie - quite accurately. I replied that by my calculations I must have been conceived in early April 1937 and, therefore I have existed as an individual from then until now, early May 2016; which is 79 years and one month. Hence I'm now in the 80th year of my existence. Silence.

Finally Rachel nodded wisely and pointed out that this line of thought had implications for the ethics of abortion. Quite the intellectual is our Rach. We had evidently traversed from the rhetorical nursery slopes of calculating the implications of my age to the controversial black run of abortion ethics. Oh my!

Although the estimated date of conception is relevant to estimating the duration of my existence, if you discount a purely religious argument - which I do - it isn't relevant to the issue of abortion ethics. The relevant concept from a purely humanitarian view is the estimated date of sentience. That is the estimated date from which the fetus has some sense of self and can feel pain. Since there is no way of estimating this with any accuracy, the relevant experts have to come up with a consensual  arbitrary estimate based on their knowledge and experience. In the UK, except in very exceptional circumstances, the legality of abortion can only be considered prior to 24 weeks from estimated conception.

But, re-traversing to the nursery slopes folks; I really am in my 80th year of existence.  Ain't I bloody ancient?!