Snide

There are many things to like about living in Britain. The history, scenery, diversity and a largely benign environment are wonderful as are many other things.

But the thing that seems to irritate me the most is the depressing attitude towards achievement. This tweet sums it all up:

Oh, that would be amazing RT @colm_ryan: Or the gold medal note could be "Well done you, but it's not like you cured cancer or something".

Not everybody is interested in being a cancer researcher. Not everyone is a towering intellect, capable of curing cancer (something I note that neither Richard Wiseman or Colm Ryan have done either.)

 And don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the Olympics - it's a massive corporatist money-grabbing operation and I wish London hadn't won the 2012 Olympics. As far as I can see, it looks like there is certainly the appearance of massive opportunities for fleecing attendees, sponsors, governments and probably the athletes as well.

 But given that there is a forum for people who are motivated by their sports to compete and achieve things, the one thing that I cannot abide is the constant shitting on their achievements, or indeed anyone else's achievements.

Just because you have a set of interests and priorities does not give you any right to sit in judgement of someone else's. As long as someone is not harming someone else, I really don't care what gives them a buzz, and if they do exceptionally well at it, well, good for them.

I might not give a shit about how fast you can run 100 metres, but if you can run it faster than anyone else on the planet, well, good for you! Well done for trying to be the best at something, even if it's not going to cure cancer. And the same argument applies to any other kind of achievement: legally made lots of money? Good for you! Won a crossword competition? Aces! Won the Champions League? Great! 

There's nothing wrong with someone else achieving, other than it may make you look at your own lack thereof. And if you don't like what you see, don't blame people who get off their arses. They don't do it to make you look worthless, you do that all by yourself.

Too much government

I found this article via twitter. An absolutely fascinating read on why government consultations tend to generate so little useful response and why the whole concept of getting people affected by legislation to comment on it is largely pointless and self-defeating.

If I was a cynic, I'd almost say it was designed to be a self-defeating object.

Isn't it ironic that the same people who demand clarity from business in their dealings with the public commit the most egregious crimes against plain speaking themselves?

We don't need more regulation. I don't believe we need ANY regulation, but if we must have regulation it should be reasonable to expect that you do not need to spend 20 years in government to be to decipher the rules that apply to you.

Late night classical music

Skin Deep

This is a bit left-field for me, so if you're expecting swearing or political discussion you may as well go somewhere else. Sorry.

Based on the passionate and enthusiastic recommendation of another blogger, I sneaked across a bit of darkest London today to see some art. If you want to read an informed and intelligent review of the art, read the recommendation.

I am going to try and articulate my own view of the main reason I went to see the exhibition: the Great Wall of Vagina. I was baffled as to how looking at hundreds of fanny lips could possibly be an emotional experience (of any other emotion than lust or something childish!)

But after talking to the incredibly helpful (and rather attractive!) lady who greeted me as I walked in, I could really understand how humbling it was. Hundreds of women had exposed their most private parts in a celebration of femininity. Aged from 18 to 76 and spanning transgenders in both directions, twins (apparently not identical in every respect!), a mother and daughter and some incredible piercings, there really was a wide range of cunt on display. Amazingly, however, they were all unique, all different and, due to the casting, impossible to identify as young or old.

The book accompanying the exhibition tells the story of the creation of the works - in itself an amazing story. There are also tales of many of the women - why they did it and how they discovered the project. The reasons ranged from the banal to the amazing, with courage and humour featuring strongly.

There is some other art there which is also amazing (the glass cast of the inside AND outside of a vagina left me boggling) and a video of the artist describing the project and some of the technical issues he faced.

I walked out of the gallery stunned and humbled, both by the bravery of the women who had exposed themselves to show the world that there is no such thing as a "normal" vagina and by the commitment of the artist.

There is a powerful tale in the Hay Hill Gallery and if you're in the area with 20 minutes or half an hour to spare before 2 June, you could really do worse than go and see it.

I hope you do.

A problem with any kind of "representation"

I am, by and large, unconvinced by the concept of collective bargaining. It inevitably implies that most of the people who are represented by the union don't get the exact deal that they want. More importantly, I am equally convinced that, as with our parliamentary "representatives", once you hand over your interests to them, they become secondary to the interests and the motivations of the "representative".

Here is a case in point:

For every £10 given to The Labour Party £4 comes from #Unite. Not one Labour spokesperson supports their strike #learnthelesson #TUSC
- Nancy Taaffe on twitter

Now, I don't know who Nancy Taaffe is and I don't know if her statement is factually correct, but it does point out that given her beliefs and views, her "representatives", both within Unite (who continue to give money to Labour despite the lack of support) and Labour (who also refuse to support her) clearly aren't representing her and people who feel like her.

But the bigger problem is actually with Nancy Taaffe herself, and anyone else who believes in concepts like social and collective action and welfare to the exclusion of the value of the individual. Because I'm sure that this time next year, Nancy Taaffe and her ilk will still be contributing their union dues and will still be moaning that Labour doesn't represent her as she makes her cross next to the Labour candidate at the next election.

And the blind, tribal loyalties of Nancy and people like Nancy are exactly why there is a disconnect between people and their representatives. The representatives know they can count on a certain number of blind adherents and therefore they only have to tailor their policies enough to appeal to a relatively small number of "swing" voters (in parliament) or can carry on regardless (unions).

So, Nancy, perhaps you'll think about withdrawing your support from the union and from the Labour Party now?

No, I didn't think so.

Those amoral libertarians! #greshampodcasts

In the unlikely event that you did not know, I am very keen on podcasts provided by Gresham College. The are free and fascinating lectures on a wide variety of topics, and in the main, the lecturers are incredibly clever, entertaining and amusing. Indeed, I posted a particularly sound one yesterday.

However, no-one is perfect, and in one particularly special podcast, they chose an MP to pontificate on the lack of acceptability in boardroom pay.

Just savour that for a nanosecond: an MP, the very epitome of entitlement and thieving self-righteousness, passing comment on someone else. However, in the main, he didn't do a bad analysis of some of the issues and some of his proposed solutions are actually quite thought-provoking, if slightly impractical.

But then, of course, he goes off the rails. First he says:

In 1970 Milton Friedman famously wrote that the only social responsibility of business is to make as much money as possible. To gung-ho libertarians this provided the perfect justification for unrestricted plundering, irrespective of the consequences for society or the rest of the economy.

And also:

So rewards for failure subverts the very principle of private property itself. Yet the libertarian right’s response is to do away with regulation altogether.

Now, this is typical statist thinking. And frankly, it's quite annoying. The most militant libertarians I know are quite happy to voluntarily contribute to their own welfare provision and to the welfare of others.

Health and other welfare insurance works in the same way as insurance does: by pooling risks, some people win, some lose, but everyone has a greater degree of certainty in the provision for the unexpected. This gives everyone an incentive to share the burden of providing for welfare, even in an anarchist society.

And because there is a much greater social interdependence as there is no state "safety net", there is also a much greater likelihood of people actually taking care of each other, simply because you don't know whether you may not wind up needing their help in years to come. It's naked self-interest working to keep others.

There is certainly no indication in any libertarian or anarchist literature I've ever read that says that libertarianism is, by definition, amoral or any more selfish than any other form of society. Indeed, because there are so few of the protections of the powerful that are offered in modern social democracy, I would actually argue that the exposure of unlimited liability would make most businesses much more careful and conservative in the way they transact.

On the other hand, it's not entirely surprising that one of the entitled thugs who currently tells us all how to live our lives should be so disparaging of a philosophy that holds that his class of arrogant, self-righteous bullying is not and has never been necessary for a civilised, tolerant, economically stable and integrated society.

The futility of financial regulation

Via the excellent and amazing Gresham College.

Micropoem

It fucks you up, insomnia.
It may not mean to, but it does.
It aggravates the fears you had
And adds some extra, just because

(Just because I didn't want to lose it.)

Ballsy!

The world's most expensive coin (for @AboutLondon)

On Sunday I had the pleasure of attending The London Mint Office's exhibition of one of the world's rarest coins: a 1933 gold "Double Eagle".

The exhibition was at Goldsmiths Hall in Foster Street. You had to sign in to attend the display, which I found a bit odd, I suspect I will get spammed to death now, but anyway ...

The Goldsmiths Hall is a "venue" with lots of old gold- and silverware on display. You can rent it out, apparently, and the organisers had rented the Livery Hall, which is an incredible sight and well worth a look if you ever have an excuse to see it. Not only is it sumptuously decorated and lit with wonderful chandeliers, but the stained glass windows are a wonderful record of the wardens of the Goldsmiths' Guild.

The exhibition itself was surprisingly small, occupying the tiniest corner of the Livery Hall. It consisted of merely 23 golden coins of various ages and denominations, and the aforementioned Double Eagle.

I have to say, I was quite disappointed with the showpiece of the exhibition - it simply doesn't look like five million quid on the hoof. However, the attendant was very knowledgable and was able to impart a vast amount of numismatic knowledge to me in a very short time.

Out of the other parts of the exhibition, the real "stand-out" coin (ha! ha!) was the "high-relief" 1907 Double Eagle, which apparently had to be "struck" five times to get the high relief. This made the coin very difficult, expensive and time-consuming to produce. It really does make for a beautiful coin though.

Another remarkable moment and discovery in London!