PARCA/Nosey: Difference between revisions
(→Wed-Head-xxxiii: Update) |
|||
| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
/*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ |
/*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ |
||
======Wed-Head |
======Wed-Head xxxiii pt1====== |
||
Wednesday Headway's Second Hate (=Pet, thankfully) |
Wednesday Headway's Second Hate (=Pet Hate, thankfully) |
||
As I said last week (in my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xiii>), hatred is a bright, fierce emotion and I try not to indulge in it myself, not least because - to repeat - I missed the meeting where we decided stoicism was no longer to be numbered among the virtues. But 'pet hates' are arguably a different breed entirely - no pun intended. |
As I said last week (in my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xiii>), hatred is a bright, fierce emotion and I try not to indulge in it myself, not least because - to repeat - I missed the meeting where we decided stoicism was no longer to be numbered among the virtues. But 'pet hates' are arguably a different breed entirely - no pun intended. |
||
The late leftist novelist Iain M. Banks gave one of his characters a line to the effect that there is really only one sin: selfishness. Last week I gave a speech-act analysis of (among other things) one of my pet hates: promise-breaking. A strong case can be made that this is indeed often a form of selfishness: if you cancel an appointment at short notice without good reason, say, then you're signalling that you are the |
The late leftist novelist Iain M. Banks gave one of his characters a line to the effect that there is really only one sin: selfishness. Last week I gave a speech-act analysis of (among other things) one of my pet hates: promise-breaking. A strong case can be made that this is indeed often a form of selfishness: if you cancel an appointment at short notice without good reason, say, then you're signalling that you are the more important party to the arrangement and that your counterparty's interests matter less - so suck it up, why don't you? |
||
As well as being inconsiderate, promise-breaking is inefficient, too, by the way, because people shape their plans around their obligations and arrangements. My plans, say, |
As well as being inconsiderate, promise-breaking is inefficient, too, by the way, because people shape their plans around their obligations and arrangements. My plans, say, may be optimal given that were adhere to our arrangement, but if you let me down then, had I known, I might well have organised my time quite differently. |
||
| ⚫ | Another increasingly widespread form of selfishness is self-indulgence. Virtue-signalling is a good example of its being widespread but, admittedly, its fairly innocuous: there are much more malign forms. My Wed-Head of 29th September last year (at <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xxvi-pt2>) republished the late economist Friedrich von Hayek's essay 'Why I Am Not A Conservative' which was included by way of afterword in later editions of Hayek's 'The Constitution Of Liberty' (see my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xxvi-pt1>). I'm not sure I'd put my name to an essay with that title, not even if it was clarified (ie for a British readership) with a change to 'Why I Am Not A (Small-C) Conservative', say. But I'd readily put my name to a very, very similar if rather less catchily-titled essay, Why It's Very Misleading To Label Me A (Small-C) Conservative'. The gist of Hayek's argument, with which I agree and which applies to me, too, is that he is actually a (Popperian?) progressive whose faith lies exclusively in methods and approaches that work with the grain of human nature rather than against it. Our common critique of naive egalitarianism (ie most egalitarianism) is that it is self-defeating. Hayek is seen as a figure of the right or centre-right, but the best known exponent of that view is a philosopher of the centre-left, the late John Rawls, whose 1971 book 'A Theory of [(Distributive)] Justice' is still standardly cited half a century later - as, indeed, is the lste Robert Nozick's reply to Rawls, his 1974 book 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia'. These two books, which represent the (social) 'contractarian' and 'libertarian' traditions in US political philosophy, have their roots in Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke (via J. S. Mill) respectively. |
||
[[ COULD segue into TMacL via AMacD & DrKW. If not:= ]] |
|||
| ⚫ | Another increasingly widespread form of selfishness is self-indulgence. Virtue-signalling is a good example of its being widespread but, admittedly, its fairly innocuous: there are much more malign forms. My Wed-Head of 29th September last year (at <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xxvi-pt2>) republished the late economist Friedrich von Hayek's essay 'Why I Am Not A Conservative' which was included by way of afterword in later editions of Hayek's 'The Constitution Of Liberty' (see my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xxvi-pt1>). I'm not sure I'd put my name to an essay with that title, not even if it was clarified (ie for a British readership) with a change to 'Why I Am Not A (Small-C) Conservative', say. But I'd readily put my name to a very, very similar if rather less catchily-titled essay, Why It's Very Misleading To Label Me A (Small-C) Conservative'. The gist of Hayek's argument, with which I agree and which applies to me, too, is that he is actually a (Popperian?) progressive whose faith lies exclusively in methods and approaches that work with the grain of human nature rather than against it. Our common critique of naive egalitarianism (ie most egalitarianism) is that it is self-defeating. Hayek is seen as a figure of the right or centre-right, but the best known exponent of that view is a philosopher of the centre-left, the late John Rawls, whose 1971 book 'A Theory of [Distributive] Justice' is still standardly cited half a century later - as, indeed, is the lste Robert Nozick's reply to Rawls, his 1974 book 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia'. These two books, which represent the (social) 'contractarian' and 'libertarian' traditions in US political philosophy, have their roots in Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke (via J. S. Mill) respectively. |
||
My kind of progressivism advocates a really thorough-going localism built on sound societal incentive structures. Most of my political views are, I think, fairly moderate: I'm broadly socially-liberal, fiscally conservative, centre-to-centre-right, Blairite**-to-One-Nation-Conservative (ish). You get the picture. (Incidentally, I don't blush to be called right-wing but, once again, I think it misleads.) Indeed, I am somewhat fond of saying that the only thing seriously radical about my politics is my localism. The word 'radical' connotes leftism, but doesn't necessarily imply it; for example, Margaret Thatcher's longest-serving finance minister's chancellorial memoir is subtitled 'Memoirs of a Tory Radical'. And my localism is definitely radical - perhaps even extreme! |
My kind of progressivism advocates a really thorough-going localism built on sound societal incentive structures. Most of my political views are, I think, fairly moderate: I'm broadly socially-liberal, fiscally conservative, centre-to-centre-right, Blairite**-to-One-Nation-Conservative (ish). You get the picture. (Incidentally, I don't blush to be called right-wing but, once again, I think it misleads.) Indeed, I am somewhat fond of saying that the only thing seriously radical about my politics is my localism. The word 'radical' connotes leftism, but doesn't necessarily imply it; for example, Margaret Thatcher's longest-serving finance minister's chancellorial memoir is subtitled 'Memoirs of a Tory Radical'. And my localism is definitely radical - perhaps even extreme! |
||
[[ **I don't remember John Major much distinguishing himself as prime minister but, in <https://www.youtube.com/embed/Cu0vCeoVQ0U>, Gresham Institute Professor Vernon Bogdanor is more generous, citing both men's efforts to improve our public services; there is certainly little doubt that Major's desire to do so was sincere - as was Tony Blair's: Blair was still in office when he admitted in 2005 that "every time I've ever introduced a reform in government, I wish in retrospect I had gone further." In 2002 Blair had told his party's conference that "I believe we're at our best when at our boldest. So far, we've made a good start, but we've not been bold enough," and the following year he told them that "I can only go one way. I've not got a reverse gear," on both occasions implicitly echoing what he'd made absolutely explicit in 1999: "You try getting change in the public sector and the public services. I bear the scars on my back after two years in government and heaven knows what it will be like after a bit longer. People in the public sector were more rooted to the concept that 'if it has always been done this way it must always be done this way' than any group of people I have come across." (He should try living in Highland.) ]] |
|||
[[ **TODO= Bogdanor |
|||
]] |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | North of the border there exists a form of self-indulgence that I have baptized the 'Caledonian Conceit'. I have satirised this as the view that the laws of behavioural economics cease to apply north of the Tweed, presumably because Scots are a uniquely selfless people with an intuitive sense of the common good quite lost on the self-regarding FEBs south of Berwick. (By 'conceit' I of course here mean an ungrounded belief held dogmatically without justification.) Indulging the Caledonian conceit has had damaging consequences for Scotland: the (very good) 2011 Christie Report (see my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xiii>) might be truly great if this conceit hadn't be allowed to infect it, and most of the principle flaws of the 2015 Community Empowerment Act can largely be traced to it, too - in particular, the almost systematic evasion of a couple of plain and simple truths: that you empower people by giving them rights, and you create rights by imposing corresponding duties on counterparties (see my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xvii> where, towards the end, I introduce readers to another coinage of mine, 'Deontic Empowerment', that attempts to capture both those truths). An observation that I later kicked myself for omitting from that article, by the way, is that arguably the best known set of rights in the world, the first ten amendments to the United States constitution, turns out on close inspection not to be a 'Bill of Rights' at all, but rather a 'Bill of Duties': the first five words of the justly celebrated first amendment are "Congress shall make no law..." |
||
To repeat, self-indulgence is a form of selfishness. [..] |
|||
To repeat, self-indulgence is a form of selfishness. That self-indulgence is selfish is, one would think, a truth so obvious as to be scarcely worth mentioning but, for no reason I can account for, it apparently lies in a state of serious neglect. Two of our election candidates are presently indulging themselves particularly badly, for which reason I am sorely tempted to use this and next week's Wed-Heads to say why. I hestitate to do so because it amounts to negative campaigning in favour of the other three, particularly the Tory and the Indy (because the Nat is a shoo-in anyway). I have already 'campaigned' (the wrong word for my journactivism, but I'll use it anyway) in favour of Sarah Fanet (who needs no help) and Dr Fiona Fawcett (who, unfortunately, needs plenty) in last week's Wed-Head (at <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xxxii>) and in my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/making-friday-finer> two days later respectively. Sadly, Mr MacLennan simply hasn't engaged enough with yours truly for me to be able to campaign positively for him earlier (but see below) - there's no reason why he should of course, but for me it's a bit of a shame. |
|||
TODO= segue |
|||
"There is no setting the point of precedence between a louse and a flea," observed Samuel Johnson. Dr Johnson has, arguably rather undeservedly, earned the ire of literate Scots for an entirely apocryphal episode supposed to have taken place ahead of a visit to Edinburgh Castle in the company of Johnson's friend and biographer, James Boswell (himself a Scot), and one of Boswell's compatriots and friends Mr William Nairne, a lawyer. Myth has it that Johnson cracked an irresitible joke when conversing with Nairne, who apparently needed little prompting to enthuse about Scotland being a land of stunning scenery, wonderful views, and so on (which it is), including, specifically, many "noble, wild prospects." But, as Boswell records in his 'A Journey to the Western Islands of Scotland and The Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides', the incident never took place: "Lest it should be supposed that I have suppressed one of his sallies against my country, it may not be improper here to correct a mistaken account that has been circulated, as to his conversation this day. It has been said, that being desired to attend to the noble prospect from the Castle Hill, he replied, ‘Norway, too, has noble prospects; and lapland is remarkable for prodigious noble wild prospects. but, Sir, let me tell you, the noblest prospect which a Scotchman** ever sees is the high road that leads him to England.’ This lively sarcasm was thrown out at a tavern in London, in my presence, many years before." Whereever and whenever Johnson said it, the ire is probably undeserved because Johnson was the kind of wit who, much like the later Oscar Wilde, having thought of some wisecrack never could resist blurting it out. |
|||
There is no setting the point of precedence between a louse and a flea, observed Dr Samuel Johnson. |
|||
[[ **Rather ironically the producers of TV's 'Blackadder III' cast a Scot to play Dr Johnson in the episode where Baldrick burns the only manuscript of Johnson's dictionary. However, that actor's finest hour (in the Chrchillian sense) is at <https://www.youtube.com/embed/FX51mwWyVFY> which - especially if you've never seen Peter Richardson's masterpiece, 'The Supergrass' - should be PLAYED LOUD! ]] |
|||
[[ TODO= Dr Johnson on Scotland ]] |
|||
Well, Angus MacDonald is neither louse nor flea, and the laudably motivated if borderline delusional Kate Willis might be dense but she's certainly no louse. (And if she's a flea it's a cognitive flea.) Nevertheless, Johnson's dictum sadly applies to the candidacy of both, because both candidates are being almost equally self-indulgent. The reader will have to wait for a few days to learn why that is true in the former's case, but for the latter, the Scottish Green Party's ludicrous policy platform is almost the 'Caledonian Conceit' incarnate - or it would be if the Green Party's proposed programme for south of the border wasn't almost equally risible, which it certainly is. Now, I take issue with socialists on all sorts of grounds and (like Tony Blair, probably) I deplore the hard left for all sorts of reasons - but I loathe the hard left for one reason and one reason only: for being so implacibly hell-bent on destroying the values and incentive structures that gave rise to our great Western civilisation in the first place. The classic statement of the former is Max Weber's 'The Protestant [(Work)] Ethic'; for the latter, a socioeconomic policy programme that disincentivises effortfulness fails a pretty basic test for sanity. Whether Dr Willis herself is actually sane is, on balance, more likely than not, I concede - but at least the converse would provide her with a ready excuse for the otherwise monstrous self-indulgence of advocating and defending on the stump the demented social policies that her party so ridiculously advances. |
|||
Well, Angus MacDonald is neither louse nor flea, and the laudably motivated if borderline delusional Kate Willis might be dense but she's certainly no louse. (And if she's a flea it's a cognitive flea.) Nevertheless, Johnson's dictum sadly applies to the candidacy of both. |
|||
There's such a sin as allowing the best to become the enemy of the good. In this case, the best possible outsome would be for Kate Willis to lose next month, and the second best outcome would be for Angus MacDonald to lose. (There are, of course, a mere five candidates chasing four seats on Highland Council, so only one candidate will lose out by virtue - or, more likely, vice, unfortunately - of winning the fewest first-preference votes on 5th May - see <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/how-id-vote-1>.) |
There's such a sin as allowing the best to become the enemy of the good. In this case, the best possible outsome would be for Kate Willis to lose next month, and the second best outcome would be for Angus MacDonald to lose. (There are, of course, a mere five candidates chasing four seats on Highland Council, so only one candidate will lose out by virtue - or, more likely, vice, unfortunately - of winning the fewest first-preference votes on 5th May - see <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/how-id-vote-1>.) |
||
Revision as of 16:17, 27 April 2022
NoseyPARCA is an online newsfeed about Plantation, Fort William
Nosey press releases are typically issued by Jennifer Seitz and published on EMD's (=Mark Drayton's) eponymous 'Download' on SubStack - see link (in subheading) below. Most releases are drafted by Mark and edited by Jennifer. Nosey house style is basically Mark's, and other contributors are encouraged to adapt theirs to his, within reason.
Archive (NB: This is usually updated first)
April 2022
<#1> (11th April), <#2> (13th April), <#3> (17th April), <#4> (18th April).
END of archive
NB: Occasionally, entries are added to the above list a day or so in advance of the scheduled publication of a release.
Style and process
Nosey house style for press releases is, first, to refer to them as 'press releases' rather than 'news releases' because that's the vernacular. However, 'NEWS RELEASE' is used in the heading of the release itself because it is more accurate and editors are familiar with both terms.
Each draft release begins with:
/*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ DRAFT ONLY - NEWS RELEASE - DRAFT ONLY /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/
Each issued release begins with:
/*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ NEWS RELEASE - NEWS RELEASE - NEWS RELEASE /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/
A typical release generally continues with something along the lines of:
NEWS RELEASE Community councillor announces new initiative to [...] DD MONTH YYYY FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
As yet, Nosey have never needed to embargo a press release (but you never know, right?).
A typical release generally concludes with with something along the lines of:
Entirely predictably, Mr Drayton couldn't resist further adding that, ideally, residents should join the <https://NextDoor.co.uk> social-networking platform/app rather than relying on Facebook, say. "I don't trust that censorship-loving [Mark] Zuckerberg bastard any further than I could comfortably excrete him," Mr Drayton has previously explained. "Fuck that cunt." As we reported six days ago, Mr Drayton's views regarding Mr Zuckerberg are all-too-well known to readers of his 'Wednesday Headway' SubStack columns, part of his so-called 'Drayton Download': on 8th & 15th September 2021 Mr Drayton re-posted a long article by British-born science journalist Nicholas Wade defending the 'lab-leak' hypothesis of Covid-19's origin; Mr Drayton's brief introduction (at <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xxv-pt1>) forthrightly condemned Facebook for censoring discussion of the theory. Mr Zuckerberg remains unavailable for comment. END NOTE FOR EDITORS Further information about this release can be obtained from the following: (for NoseyPARCA DOT WordPress DOT com) Jennifer Seitz (Secretary) that.tiresome.rationalist AT gmail DOT com (as a member of Fort William, Inverlochy, and Torlundy Community Council) Mark Drayton EddieMDrayton AT gmail DOT com /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/
The "Fuck that cunt" quotation is sometimes included, sometimes omitted. Kind of depends on whether it's my time of the month. -Jx
--
For office use only:-
Drafting Area
Making Monday
Marking Monday's ANZAC Day.
Pop quiz, assholes: which Union Jack T-shirt clad public school educated punk rocker's far-more-successful** post-punk band's second album closed with an Eric Bogle cover that's been played on cheap guitars by newly-discharged angloglot veterans after every conflict since Vietnam (during which it was written)?
**than the punk-era 'Nipple Erectors' aka 'The Nips', which he fronted from 1978.
I used to strum a bit of guitar, and the only song I never failed to screw up the vocal to in performance - by crying, basically - was Peebles-born Bogle's "And The Band Played Waltzing Matilda." Sometimes I broke earlier, but the line that always got was the one about faces turning away. Sung from the inside, it's wrenching. So, this being ANZAC day and with yet another war for control of the Black Sea raging even as you read this, please spare six minutes plus change to listen to, say, <https://www.youtube.com/embed/_IcomIB-F-I>, performed live in 2013. Alternatively, if you literally only have five minutes, try 1985's <https://www.youtube.com/embed/gsXEGvX_ksI> where, interestingly, he omits the cruellest** verses - possibly for the same reason - and when, like me, he had real teeth. In both senses, probably. (And that's your final clue, kids.)
[[ **April being the cruellest month haha. YouTube's million-view (ie million-ear) studio version is online too, at <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKURhqmSLmM>, with links to several versions of Bogle performing the song himself. ]]
Musically, Bogle's competition third-placer (source: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_the_Band_Played_Waltzing_Matilda#Background>) sounds like a downbeat parade march but, actually, only the last verse is about a parade: the others are about fighting. Or not fighting. Bogle wrote it in 1971 during the Vietnam War but being Australian he set it in 1915 and Wikipedia says wrongly that it's about the Battle of Gallipoli but the lyrics refute that. The Allies made two attempts to win control of the Dardenelles Strait linking the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, at Gallipoli in April and Suvla Bay in August and, although the protagonist mentions the Gallipoli Peninsular early on, he later makes clear that he was wounded at Suvla.
All this was Churchill's idea: he was high-up in the admiralty at the time and, war having only broken out the previous year, Russia was already critically short of shell. Then, as now (hilariously enough) Russia's only warm-water port was at Sevastepol on the Black Sea's Crimean Peninsular.
Famously, Germany lost the first world war for exactly the same reason it lost the second: because it fought on two fronts, east and west, at the same time. But, to fight, Russia needed not just personnel, sixteen million of whom were killed in the second, by the way, but artillary shell, too. And Churchill knew it was hell's own job to ship shell through the northern passage to St Petersburg so he figured to de-mine the Dardenelles Straight and ship it past Constantinople (now Istanbul) into the Black Sea, the problem being that to de-mine a fairly narrow waterway you have to clear the banks of enemy artillery, thus the two British-led but largely ANZAC-manned Bosphorus campaigns.
Suvla was never likely to succeed but the April attempt failed for the most ridiculous reason: having landed unopposed the British commanders merely ordered camp to be made on the beach instead of capturing the overlooking high ground, on which the Turks wisely placed their artillary the very next day. Other spectacular examples of British command expertise in that same year include the Battle of Loos in northern France when, on 26 September, nearly 10,000 Brits spent three-and-a-half hours attacking German positions, achieving absolutely nothing but suffering 8,246 casualties, during which the Germans suffered no casualties whatsoever. Brilliant.
News Release #5
<https://NoseyPARCA.WordPress.com> news release #5 - 26th April 2022
/*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/
DRAFT ONLY - NEWS RELEASE - DRAFT ONLY
/*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/
NEWS RELEASE
Community councillor accuses FITCC chair of "sartorial treachery"
26 APRIL 2022 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Fort William, Inverlochy, and Torlundy Community Council chairman Mr Mark Linfield is "in serious danger of becoming a traitor to his own T-shirt collection," jokes community councillor Mark Drayton as he relaxes after another long day in front of a laptop writing emails and drafting articles for his 'Drayton Download' SubStack. Drayton, presently the only community councillor presently to live in Fort William's only high-SIMD (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation) estate, Plantation, has had rather more time to write since last Tuesday evening because he now has much less to read. "As well as barring me from future meetings, FITCC have apparently decided to remove me from the email list because I haven't heard a peep out of [FITCC secretary] Tricia [Jordan] since. I consider that to be pretty foolish, because both she and Mark [Linfield] have readily acknowledged the quality of the analysis I've done on several documents this year alone, with comments like 'good spot' and 'I totally agree.' I'm giving them a few more days - maybe a little longer - to cool-off before I go through the archive and marshall the evidence. After all, as [hard-left US activist Saul] Alinsky's fifth rule rightly states, 'ridicule is man's most potent weapon.'"
(TBC)
[..] He confirmed that his SubStack (at <https://DraytonMark.SubStack.com>) would be the "centre of operations" for this, but also that other social network platforms would be "drawn into the circle," enabling questions to be posed publically (as comments below the master copy of this very news release at <https://DraytonMark.SubStack.com/p/news-release-4>, or privately by email, NextDoor message, or even SMS (to 07933 760031).
Entirely predictably, Mr Drayton couldn't resist further adding that, ideally, residents should join the <https://NextDoor.co.uk> social-networking platform/app rather than relying on Facebook, say. "I don't trust that censorship-loving [Mark] Zuckerberg bastard any further than I could comfortably excrete him," Mr Drayton has previously explained. "Fuck that cunt."
As we reported exactly a week ago, Mr Drayton's views regarding Mr Zuckerberg are all-too-well known to readers of his 'Wednesday Headway' SubStack columns, part of his so-called 'Drayton Download': on 8th & 15th September 2021 Mr Drayton re-posted a long article by British-born science journalist Nicholas Wade defending the 'lab-leak' hypothesis of Covid-19's origin; Mr Drayton's brief introduction (at <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xxv-pt1>) forthrightly condemned Facebook for censoring discussion of the theory.
Mr Zuckerberg remains unavailable for comment.
END
NOTE FOR EDITORS Further information about this release can be obtained from the following: (for NoseyPARCA DOT WordPress DOT com)
Jennifer Seitz (Secretary) that.tiresome.rationalist AT gmail DOT com
(as a member of Fort William, Inverlochy, and Torlundy Community Council)
Mark Drayton EddieMDrayton AT gmail DOT com
/*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/ /*\ \*/
Wed-Head xxxiii pt1
Wednesday Headway's Second Hate (=Pet Hate, thankfully)
As I said last week (in my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xiii>), hatred is a bright, fierce emotion and I try not to indulge in it myself, not least because - to repeat - I missed the meeting where we decided stoicism was no longer to be numbered among the virtues. But 'pet hates' are arguably a different breed entirely - no pun intended.
The late leftist novelist Iain M. Banks gave one of his characters a line to the effect that there is really only one sin: selfishness. Last week I gave a speech-act analysis of (among other things) one of my pet hates: promise-breaking. A strong case can be made that this is indeed often a form of selfishness: if you cancel an appointment at short notice without good reason, say, then you're signalling that you are the more important party to the arrangement and that your counterparty's interests matter less - so suck it up, why don't you?
As well as being inconsiderate, promise-breaking is inefficient, too, by the way, because people shape their plans around their obligations and arrangements. My plans, say, may be optimal given that were adhere to our arrangement, but if you let me down then, had I known, I might well have organised my time quite differently.
Another increasingly widespread form of selfishness is self-indulgence. Virtue-signalling is a good example of its being widespread but, admittedly, its fairly innocuous: there are much more malign forms. My Wed-Head of 29th September last year (at <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xxvi-pt2>) republished the late economist Friedrich von Hayek's essay 'Why I Am Not A Conservative' which was included by way of afterword in later editions of Hayek's 'The Constitution Of Liberty' (see my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xxvi-pt1>). I'm not sure I'd put my name to an essay with that title, not even if it was clarified (ie for a British readership) with a change to 'Why I Am Not A (Small-C) Conservative', say. But I'd readily put my name to a very, very similar if rather less catchily-titled essay, Why It's Very Misleading To Label Me A (Small-C) Conservative'. The gist of Hayek's argument, with which I agree and which applies to me, too, is that he is actually a (Popperian?) progressive whose faith lies exclusively in methods and approaches that work with the grain of human nature rather than against it. Our common critique of naive egalitarianism (ie most egalitarianism) is that it is self-defeating. Hayek is seen as a figure of the right or centre-right, but the best known exponent of that view is a philosopher of the centre-left, the late John Rawls, whose 1971 book 'A Theory of [(Distributive)] Justice' is still standardly cited half a century later - as, indeed, is the lste Robert Nozick's reply to Rawls, his 1974 book 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia'. These two books, which represent the (social) 'contractarian' and 'libertarian' traditions in US political philosophy, have their roots in Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke (via J. S. Mill) respectively.
My kind of progressivism advocates a really thorough-going localism built on sound societal incentive structures. Most of my political views are, I think, fairly moderate: I'm broadly socially-liberal, fiscally conservative, centre-to-centre-right, Blairite**-to-One-Nation-Conservative (ish). You get the picture. (Incidentally, I don't blush to be called right-wing but, once again, I think it misleads.) Indeed, I am somewhat fond of saying that the only thing seriously radical about my politics is my localism. The word 'radical' connotes leftism, but doesn't necessarily imply it; for example, Margaret Thatcher's longest-serving finance minister's chancellorial memoir is subtitled 'Memoirs of a Tory Radical'. And my localism is definitely radical - perhaps even extreme!
[[ **I don't remember John Major much distinguishing himself as prime minister but, in <https://www.youtube.com/embed/Cu0vCeoVQ0U>, Gresham Institute Professor Vernon Bogdanor is more generous, citing both men's efforts to improve our public services; there is certainly little doubt that Major's desire to do so was sincere - as was Tony Blair's: Blair was still in office when he admitted in 2005 that "every time I've ever introduced a reform in government, I wish in retrospect I had gone further." In 2002 Blair had told his party's conference that "I believe we're at our best when at our boldest. So far, we've made a good start, but we've not been bold enough," and the following year he told them that "I can only go one way. I've not got a reverse gear," on both occasions implicitly echoing what he'd made absolutely explicit in 1999: "You try getting change in the public sector and the public services. I bear the scars on my back after two years in government and heaven knows what it will be like after a bit longer. People in the public sector were more rooted to the concept that 'if it has always been done this way it must always be done this way' than any group of people I have come across." (He should try living in Highland.) ]]
North of the border there exists a form of self-indulgence that I have baptized the 'Caledonian Conceit'. I have satirised this as the view that the laws of behavioural economics cease to apply north of the Tweed, presumably because Scots are a uniquely selfless people with an intuitive sense of the common good quite lost on the self-regarding FEBs south of Berwick. (By 'conceit' I of course here mean an ungrounded belief held dogmatically without justification.) Indulging the Caledonian conceit has had damaging consequences for Scotland: the (very good) 2011 Christie Report (see my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xiii>) might be truly great if this conceit hadn't be allowed to infect it, and most of the principle flaws of the 2015 Community Empowerment Act can largely be traced to it, too - in particular, the almost systematic evasion of a couple of plain and simple truths: that you empower people by giving them rights, and you create rights by imposing corresponding duties on counterparties (see my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xvii> where, towards the end, I introduce readers to another coinage of mine, 'Deontic Empowerment', that attempts to capture both those truths). An observation that I later kicked myself for omitting from that article, by the way, is that arguably the best known set of rights in the world, the first ten amendments to the United States constitution, turns out on close inspection not to be a 'Bill of Rights' at all, but rather a 'Bill of Duties': the first five words of the justly celebrated first amendment are "Congress shall make no law..."
To repeat, self-indulgence is a form of selfishness. That self-indulgence is selfish is, one would think, a truth so obvious as to be scarcely worth mentioning but, for no reason I can account for, it apparently lies in a state of serious neglect. Two of our election candidates are presently indulging themselves particularly badly, for which reason I am sorely tempted to use this and next week's Wed-Heads to say why. I hestitate to do so because it amounts to negative campaigning in favour of the other three, particularly the Tory and the Indy (because the Nat is a shoo-in anyway). I have already 'campaigned' (the wrong word for my journactivism, but I'll use it anyway) in favour of Sarah Fanet (who needs no help) and Dr Fiona Fawcett (who, unfortunately, needs plenty) in last week's Wed-Head (at <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xxxii>) and in my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/making-friday-finer> two days later respectively. Sadly, Mr MacLennan simply hasn't engaged enough with yours truly for me to be able to campaign positively for him earlier (but see below) - there's no reason why he should of course, but for me it's a bit of a shame.
"There is no setting the point of precedence between a louse and a flea," observed Samuel Johnson. Dr Johnson has, arguably rather undeservedly, earned the ire of literate Scots for an entirely apocryphal episode supposed to have taken place ahead of a visit to Edinburgh Castle in the company of Johnson's friend and biographer, James Boswell (himself a Scot), and one of Boswell's compatriots and friends Mr William Nairne, a lawyer. Myth has it that Johnson cracked an irresitible joke when conversing with Nairne, who apparently needed little prompting to enthuse about Scotland being a land of stunning scenery, wonderful views, and so on (which it is), including, specifically, many "noble, wild prospects." But, as Boswell records in his 'A Journey to the Western Islands of Scotland and The Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides', the incident never took place: "Lest it should be supposed that I have suppressed one of his sallies against my country, it may not be improper here to correct a mistaken account that has been circulated, as to his conversation this day. It has been said, that being desired to attend to the noble prospect from the Castle Hill, he replied, ‘Norway, too, has noble prospects; and lapland is remarkable for prodigious noble wild prospects. but, Sir, let me tell you, the noblest prospect which a Scotchman** ever sees is the high road that leads him to England.’ This lively sarcasm was thrown out at a tavern in London, in my presence, many years before." Whereever and whenever Johnson said it, the ire is probably undeserved because Johnson was the kind of wit who, much like the later Oscar Wilde, having thought of some wisecrack never could resist blurting it out.
[[ **Rather ironically the producers of TV's 'Blackadder III' cast a Scot to play Dr Johnson in the episode where Baldrick burns the only manuscript of Johnson's dictionary. However, that actor's finest hour (in the Chrchillian sense) is at <https://www.youtube.com/embed/FX51mwWyVFY> which - especially if you've never seen Peter Richardson's masterpiece, 'The Supergrass' - should be PLAYED LOUD! ]]
Well, Angus MacDonald is neither louse nor flea, and the laudably motivated if borderline delusional Kate Willis might be dense but she's certainly no louse. (And if she's a flea it's a cognitive flea.) Nevertheless, Johnson's dictum sadly applies to the candidacy of both, because both candidates are being almost equally self-indulgent. The reader will have to wait for a few days to learn why that is true in the former's case, but for the latter, the Scottish Green Party's ludicrous policy platform is almost the 'Caledonian Conceit' incarnate - or it would be if the Green Party's proposed programme for south of the border wasn't almost equally risible, which it certainly is. Now, I take issue with socialists on all sorts of grounds and (like Tony Blair, probably) I deplore the hard left for all sorts of reasons - but I loathe the hard left for one reason and one reason only: for being so implacibly hell-bent on destroying the values and incentive structures that gave rise to our great Western civilisation in the first place. The classic statement of the former is Max Weber's 'The Protestant [(Work)] Ethic'; for the latter, a socioeconomic policy programme that disincentivises effortfulness fails a pretty basic test for sanity. Whether Dr Willis herself is actually sane is, on balance, more likely than not, I concede - but at least the converse would provide her with a ready excuse for the otherwise monstrous self-indulgence of advocating and defending on the stump the demented social policies that her party so ridiculously advances.
There's such a sin as allowing the best to become the enemy of the good. In this case, the best possible outsome would be for Kate Willis to lose next month, and the second best outcome would be for Angus MacDonald to lose. (There are, of course, a mere five candidates chasing four seats on Highland Council, so only one candidate will lose out by virtue - or, more likely, vice, unfortunately - of winning the fewest first-preference votes on 5th May - see <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/how-id-vote-1>.)
Neither of those outcomes seems at all probable: MacDonald and Willis both look set to be elected, the latter handsomely. It's not certain - nothing like as certain as it is that Cllr Sarah Fanet will be relected - but it's looking very likely. So, if we can't have the best, what would be the good?
I'm not going to swing-in behind either of the two other fine candidates, Dr Fiona Fawcett (Con) and Mr Thomas MacLennan (Ind), both of whom would undoubtedly be highly effective in their own way. Instead, I'm going to fantasise about a possible third-best outcome. Dr Fawcett's quarter-century of experience fighting for her patient's** interests in the NHS will stand her in great stead when it comes to confronting the bureaucrats in Inverness, but she'll nevertheless need quite some time really to learn the ropoes before she can be an effective voice so the place to start is with the candidacy of Mr MacLennan - who knows the ropes already.
**Unlike Willlis, Fawcett actually is a medical doctor, not a mere PhD.
As I wrote the other day, MacLennan's USP ('unique selling point') is his long experience. It's hard to exaggerate this. Come election day Sarah Fanet will have clocked-up about five months experience as a councillor - which isn't much, true, but it is at least five months more, on my understanding and Mr MacLennan excepted, than the other three candidates and, indeed, all three new councillors in Caol and Mallaig put together! To put it another way, if Dr Fawcett loses then the seven councillors representing the Northeast Linnhe conurbation in Inverness will have more than TWENTY TIMES more experience fighting for us to get our fair share of capital spending** than they will if Mr MacLennan does. (Eight years is ninety-six months, plus Fanet's five makes one hundred and one.)
That sounds like a bloody good reason not to vote for Fawcett (as if, anyway, Scots typically have to be most forcefully remonstrated with to prevent them from voting Tories into office). But it isn't. It's actually a damn good reason to vote FOR her. And here's why:-
There's arguably a much better way of making best use of Mr MacLennan's expertise, which would be to pay him whatever councillors get - twenty-something grand or so, from memory - to become a consultant, coach, and mentor etc too ALL SEVEN Linnhe Bay councillors. Who'd pay him to do that? Well, if MacLennan were to cease campaigning and endorse Fanet, say (I've a vague idea that MacLennan is a Nationalist, but it doesn't affect the argument), the beneficiary would, presumably, be Fawcett. So there's a strong argument that the Scottish Conservative Party should pay Mr MacLennan and, even in Scotland, the Tories aren't famous for being short of a bob or two.
In MacLennan's place, I'd insist on treating all seven councillors equally. If I'm right about MacLennan's political leanings he's likely to be hostile to Conservatives anyway but, regardless, that'd be my demand. MacLennan might well baulk, at least initially, at being paid by the Tories - but since my proposal would result in cold hard cash moving from their coffers to his wallet, there's a chance he might be persuadable.
What gives me a certain amount of hope is my current impression of Mr MacLennan - whom I've yet to meet, by the way. Nevertheless, I get the feeling that he's a man with a strong sense of duty. If I'm right, he and I have a few other things in common, too. We both want the people of this locality to thrive and flourish, and we both know that the key to this is a thoroughgoing commitment to localism. He might acknowledge, too, that there is a fair amount of common ground between the Scottish Conservatives and Nationalists about that, witness: that the Tories did not oppose the passing of the 2015 Community Empowerment Act (see my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xvii>).
My proposal may or may not appeal to Mr MacLennan's sense of duty. But it might be his duty to think about it.