Naz Shah’s Point.

Labour MP Naz Shah made a flippant comment on social media suggesting Israel be transported to America and which led to her humbling apology in the House of Commons. Her only mistake was to not make her suggestion as a reasoned argument. In the 1920’s many Jews fled Russian persecution. Around that time America banned Jewish immigration into the country so deflecting it to Palestine. Over the years British policy was to limit this flow into Palestine. Before and after WWll Jewish immigration continued until there was a sizable population in Palestine and suggestions of partition began leading to Arab conflict. American sympathisers funded the purchase of Jewish weapons from Russia. In 1948 the ‘Jewish Council of Palestine’ proclaimed The Jewish State of Israel which was immediately backed by US President Harry Truman. Further conflict resulted in the international recognition of the Israeli state. It is quite possible European Jews would have far rather migrated to the US and that the Jewish state in Palestine would not have succeeded without US funds and the recognition given to it by the US President. Since then American money has continued to pour into Israel to such an extent that Israel could be rightfully called ‘Little America in the Middle East.’ It is against this background that Naz Shah’s made her flippant comment. It is also likely the strong Jewish lobby in the US would welcome their kin and that Israelis would likewise feel at home there. It’s also likely the widely felt xenophobic fear within Israel would feel at home with the similar fear permeating the US. Naz Shah’s comment is not deserving of an apology even though it was flippantly made. 

The Price Corporation. (cont.)

The Price Corporation is a multinational public company. Our shares are priced at £1 and we currently have over six million shareholders in different countries. Our business is in the reduction of consumer prices for our shareholders. Currently producers and retailers fix a price for a product and the consumer’s only choice is whether or not to buy. As such there is no pressure the consumer can exert against profiteering which leads to corporate profligacy especially with regard to executive pay and lavish buildings. The business of the Price Corporation is to reduce this excessive profit taking by re-balancing the power of the consumer and companies and corporations, and in so doing make a fairer economic system. By becoming a shareholder in the Price Corporation one makes the commitment to follow its trading policies. These policies are created by our team of dedicated researchers who analyse companies for signs of profiteering. If a company is found to be spending their income wastefully on CEO pay, lavish offices, lobbying etc that don’t directly contribute to their consumers interests our researchers are able to calculate a reasonable price for their products and inform shareholders of our corporate policy to not pay more. If refused the corporation and all its shareholders reserve the right to refuse to do business with such companies until such time they agree with our terms of payment. 

The Price Corporation.

Arising from cold war game theory that underpinned our nuclear survival during the cold war a view of human function evolved. We are all, they believed, self-serving individuals. That then mutated into current political theory whereby the market place is essentially seen as a more democratic process than any governmental democracy because politicians are themselves self-serving individuals however much they profess to be serving the public good: Hence small government, the selling off of public amenities the NHS and the BBC leaving politicians to serve themselves with inflated expenses. The Conservatives and Blair’s Labour Party were directed by their (American) advisors to adopt these theories as a conscious policy to ‘improve’ our democratic process. ‘The Prisoner’s Dilemma’ and Game Theory suggested if we all compete as self-serving individuals then society and consequently we all will benefit. But these theories make one mistaken assumption, that we all have equal standing. A game equalises the players standing and The Prisoner’s Dilemma assumes equal standing but in real life there is a huge variation, and that variation skews the consequences grotesquely. This policy, adopted to improve democracy, becomes an instrument to destroy it. Powerful voices dominate and grow stronger whilst the lesser voices of the majority go unheard. This is where we’re currently at. So here’s the challenge. How does the majority create one powerful voice to exert our presence? For example imagine going into a shop and when asked to pay saying, “I’m a shareholder of the Price Corporation and our corporate policy is to reduce prices wherever possible. We deem that the price of your cappuccino is not £2.45 but £1.50 and as such here is £1.50. Not accepting this price will cause our one point five million share holders to cease using your services.” Obviously this idea requires refinement but please suggest your own.

Dear Parent or Guardian

Dear Parent or Guardian of   Gordon   mouse,

            As Head Mouse I have a duty of care to both staff and students in this school. To this end it is vital we instil a high level of both moral and social behaviour in our young mice as to not do so would cause stress to staff and fail our students in their passage to adulthood. With this in mind I am revising our disciplinary rules as follows.

1-     Your mouse may be verbally chastised at times when he or she fails to achieve acceptable behavioural standards. If at home they express distress at this treatment it is important to confirm the teachers judgment as appropriate.

2-     Teachers are permitted to instil a modicum of fear in their students where necessary. Throwing non-harming items such as rulers, wellingtons and blackboard rubbers etc are all parts of a teacher’s managerial ‘toolkit’ in the classroom.

3-     Likewise a teacher’s screaming and shouting is appropriate when it has the beneficial effect of instilling a moral lesson and releasing stress. It is an important life lesson for all pupils to experience the release of justified anger.

4-     The option of corporal punishment is considered necessary in order to reflect the judicial system of adult life. Failure to provide an early awareness of these harsher sanctions could be seen as neglect.

5-     Though a last resort and in extreme cases capital punishment is deemed a necessary alternative to expulsion, as the latter reflects badly on the school.

Your assistance in these disciplinary measures will be greatly appreciated.

The F1 Computer Game.

IBM’s Watson Analytics apparently makes sense of all our nefarious data. Pump it full of binary steroids and it will tell you what to think. Notice in F1 for every driver there is a whole bank of digital operatives only marginally less than required for a moon landing. Back at the factory only the cleaner wields mechanical aids, so between the cleaner and Hamilton few wrestle directly with physical reality. Maybe this is why F1 is struggling to be a spectacle of human interest. I mean however high tech an Amazon distribution centre might be it will never make a spectator sport. So the only thing that might make this weekend’s Chinese GP anything like interesting is the unforeseen glitch in Hamilton’s engine that’s put him last on the grid. The winner is a given, ‘but how far will H get in his reckless drive through the field?’ That’s the human content that’s somehow been lost between regulations and computers. The plucky Spitfire pilot that flies home with only one wing is a thing of the past, it’s all been reduced to zap or not zap thanks to software like Watson. And Bernie’s attempts to throw a spanner in the works with a new qualifying system look like whacking a Mercedes with his teddy bear to slow it down. But computers are amazing, I love them, they can do the donkeywork in the wink of an eye. Then again we’re not donkeys but we might be if IBM’s Watson Analytics tells us what to think. 

Poor Mr Cameron.

Unaccustomed as I am to any conciliatory feeling towards this Conservative government I’m feeling a slight pity for Cameron. Anyone with a six figure taxable asset or earnings will via their accountant be introduced to a keen tax advisor who will open up a market stall of commodities to meet your every tax saving need rather like a door-to-door salesman shows loo brushes and dishcloths. Both accountant and advisor will assume you are an intelligent man of the world who will wish to minimise your tax bill by any means possible. In the face of this paradigm that paying tax is more immoral and plain stupid than avoiding paying tax, all legal of course, one chooses a nailbrush and two ironing board covers. A case in point. Said advisor suggests assigning said asset to a third party that resides in a foreign land unaccustomed to the ways of income tax because it only has three residents and a dog. You no longer own the asset but you do own the third party that does own it, and as no one knows this connection because it was written on a piece of paper subsequently eaten by the dog it all moves into the realms of the intangible. Nowhere in this whole process is there any thought for morality. It’s as if paying tax would be akin to putting your money on a bonfire and everyone knows that’s just silly. This is the environment Cameron, Osborne and the rest of the Bullingdon Club were brought up in but since the furore about corporations ‘legally’ avoiding UK tax the condemnation has moved to morality, an aspect of tax avoidance previously considered unimportant. So now the Panamanian pandemonium has the morals of wealthy individuals in its headlights and poor Mr Cameron has his own familial immorality to consider.