I HAVE heard far too many times that sanctions do not work, and so here I wish to make a case for them; I like sanctions.

It’s not a big, lengthy, complex case, just a simple one.

Take for example, a couple of countries.  One country starts doing bad things, so the other decides to impose “sanctions”.

Most people understand this, but they think that it is about persuasion — that sanctions are a way to force the country to stop doing bad things.

* Economic sanctions, typically a ban on trade, possibly limited to certain sectors such as armaments, or with certain exceptions (such as food and medicine);;
* International sanctions, coercive measures adopted by a country or group of countries against another state or individual(s) in order to elicit a change in their behaviour;
* Pragmatic sanction, historically, a sovereign’s solemn decree on a matter of primary importance and has the force of fundamental law;
* Trade sanctions, economic sanctions applied for non-political reasons, typically as part of a trade dispute, or for purely economic reasons, and typically involving tariffs or similar measures, rather than bans.
–wikipedia.org

Then, when this bad country continues to do bad things regardless of our “sanctions”, many people declare “sanctions” to be of no use, that they have failed in their coercive purpose.

Indeed, it goes further — these people all-too-often claim that if you impose trade sanctions which are shown not to work, then it is we who lose out — so they claim that sanctions actually damage us and not them!

But I am saying that it doesn’t work like that.

I disagree with wikipedia.org descriptions above.

Think of it this way — a country is doing bad things, so we do not want to do business with them.  We do not want to associate with them. We do not anything to do with them.

That’s all there is to it. Simple.

It is not about how we relate with them while they are bad (we actually don’t want to relate to them at all!), nor is it about making them miss us — miss dealing with us. Rather, it is about us not dealing with such people becaue they are bad.

It is a moral and ethical stance.

In my opinion, it is about doing what is right.  It is not about finding a way to deal with baddies, it is not about exerting influence, power or coercion. It is simply about cutting bad people off.

On that basis, it is the correct thing to do, even if it “harms” us in some economic way.

If we continued to deal with bad regimes, we would be tacitly condoning badness, so sanctions give us the moral high ground.

If other countries did the same, then the bad countries really would be isolated, and may then change — but that is not the point, change is not in our remit, we cannot and ought not to seek regime change, even when it is clearly evil.  The most we can do is impose sanctions.

That is h0w sanctions work.

KANT’S Categorical Imperative suggests that there is a morality based on duty. Duty is a morality that must be obeyed or else we become savages.

When I “did” Kant at university, it was explained to me that people sentenced to prison or death would have to be imprisoned or killed — even if the world was suddenly about to end! The law is the law regardless.

Kant tended to be used as the opposition to “Utilitarianism” — the philosophy that underpins the law of the United Kingdom.

Utilitarianism very much depends on clearly defined boundaries (which is also its primary weakness).

The entire idea of justice under utilitarianism is about weighing up the good versus the bad — will an action have an overall nett gain or loss, will more people be made happy — will happiness increase.

The effect on the British legal system — from the famous MP, John Stuart Mill — is apparent even today.

Take for example a murder. If the person who committed the murder is not considered a danger to others, then the sentence will be slight, whereas, a drunk driver would receive a harsher sentence because of the risk posed to society.

Even though we have a utilitarian system, the newspapers pretend that we have a Kantian system and ask how come a drunk driver can get a punishment that is worse than that given to a convicted murderer.

But, when you think about it, is this not common sense? Take a woman — for example — who has taken years of abuse from her husband, and who finally snaps and stabs him to death — is she a general threat to lives? Will she be likely ever to harm anyone again? Compare that to the rapist or drunk driver — the repeat offender who cares not for other people’s lives.

The weird thing about Kant and his laws, is that — in the style of “an eye for an eye” — a murder deserves death. But what of a mass murderer? You can only kill the prisoner once, even if the prisoner has killed hundreds?

• So how can a punishment ever fit the crime?

The answer is that punishment can never fit a crime, and that a wrong should not generate another wrong. Two wrongs do not a problem solve.

The old saying, “Two wrongs do not make a right — but two Wrights made the first aeroplane” is beautiful for it shows that the power of combined good is greater than combined wrongs — good means we can fly!

There is another old saying — “A problem shared is a problem squared”. This is sometimes, erroneously, given as “a problem shared is a problem halved”. “Shared” rhymes with “squared”, and it’s truth is obvious, can you quote a single instance where sharing a badness or telling of a bad thing diminished the problem?

• What if a reaction to a crime (punishment) is less about the crime and the criminal, and more about the state, the people, the victims and survivors?

If a murderer is found guilty of killing a human being and that killing a human being is said to be a really bad thing, then how can we, or the state then kill the murderer? That would be two wrongs.

What does this say about us/ the state?

On the other hand, if the state shows compassion, it says a lot about the state and the people (that they are good)… but how to manage that without appearing too soft?

The basis of utilitarianism is that we minimise the overall amount of bad and try to increase the amount of goodness.

If a person is a murderer, but not a risk to the general population, what is the problem? If there is a potential threat to the population — then incarcerate the person, simply to protect the population — get them out of society… but they are not being punished, they are not being treated badly at all, because that would be bad generating more bad. They are merely kept away from causing harm to the general population — and this means a nice cell, some satellite TV, and a comfortable existence.

• The newspapers love this and say how is this justice? Victims and their families want bad things to happen to the guilty. Retribution.

Retribution is a Biblical word, and as such some people feel that it is God’s way — fundamental Christians and Muslims see retribution as right, that acts have consequences, and crimes have punishment.

I find that interesting, especially as such religions purport to believe in God’s Judgement — if that is so, then why are THEY judging? Are they pre-empting The Almighty?

As an aside, it is interesting to consider whether Jesus was crucified by Kantian law or Utilitarian philosophy — was it the letter of the law or that he posed a great threat to the greater good as the state saw it?

Funny that the Bible came up, but then so much of law is based on Roman Law and Canon Law, so we ought not to be so surprised really.

Consider this: for people to take justice seriously, it needs a sword — in allegorical paintings and statues, the sword of Justice is usually represented as being held in the right hand, and a balance or scales on the left hand. How sad that a legal system requires punishment — retribution,  or at the very least a deterrent –  simply to be taken seriously. The implication is that things are weighed up, judged and then a verdict given that must be obeyed or else a new crime (against the law itself) is committed and the sword of justice comes into play.

How far our law has strayed from their original Canon law and Roman Law roots!

Mind you, justice in the Bible is considerably erratic, inconsistent and weird.

However, there is one aspect in there, though, that is almost always now overlooked — the idea that “Justice” can be about satisfaction (rather than Utilitarian “happiness” per se).

This justice is about striking a deal, finding an answer that the concerned parties can agree to. This is an incredibly unusual idea, and I think it is worth pausing here to get to grips with this notion.

Justice is served when those involved are “satisfied” with the outcome.

So if someone robs you, and you are happy if he just gives your stuff back, then that is justice — rather than going to prison of x years under a Kantian system or getting off with community service under a utilitarian system.

• This style of justice is on a case-by-individual-case-basis — not a fixed and inflexible rule.

The problem with such justice is that it is unquantifiable — and open to the persuasive influence of a silver-tongued Mark-Antony, but that is as human as the concept of satisfaction and reparation. In fact it is essential when you think about it; how else can people reach a compromise?

Interestingly, it also opens up the possibility of considering the criminal’s feelings — can it be possible to find a judgement that both the victims and the perpetrator can agree on as being fair? A “fair cop”?

It may even be possible to connect the criminal to the victims more directly — reparation or personal compensation — such that instead of paying a fine to the state, the money is taken from the guilty criminal and paid directly to the victims.

Suddenly, there is a way to have the punishment fit the crime — but only in the sense that the conclusion is appropriate, apt, and fitting.

Would any or all of this have an effect on the criminal that is different from any outcome under Kant or Mill?  I reckon it would; I think a lot of criminals regret getting caught, and do not feel their punishment is fair.

• When the criminal, the victims, the newspapers and the general public can all feel unfairness, then something is definitely wrong.

Instead of advocates quoting precedent cases and verdicts or the technicalities of legal language, and a Judge presiding over the advocates and directing a jury on points of law — the Judge’s role could be more about bargaining and trading to reach a successful conclusion — that of satisfaction.

There once was a time when men shook hands on deals, gave their word, and their word was their bond. They were called “gentlemen”, but when it was necessary, they were honour-bound to challenge each other to duels. They always “demanded satisfaction” — and everyone understood that satisfaction was a matter of honour.

At the end of the day, a Judge who can resolve a case before him in such a way that it is considered to be fair by all or most, has to be far better than any one-size-fits-all general philosophical or religious ideology that I have found.

LET’S begin with a quote from Winston Churchill:

“History will be kind to me for I intend to write it”

This resonates with the famous dictum: that history is written by the victors.

In a conflict, there are two opposing sides, and one of them will be the victor, and will predominate, dominate and write history from their point of view.

When those in that position of power are challenged, the challengers are called terrorists, insurgents, rebels, guerrillas, saboteurs and revolutionaries.

That is, until the challengers succeed, take power and rewrite history (revisionism).

So the simple answer to the question: “what is terrorism?”, is that it depends on what side you are on.

Now, in case my reasoning here is considered too vague and arid, allow me to give an example.

Nelson Mandela.

Here’s the scene: the country of South Africa had a stable, peaceful and internationally recognised government that was being challenged by terrorists called the ANC.

Nelson Mandela decided that peaceful means were getting their cause nowhere, and so he co-founded the MK guerrillas– the pro-violence, armed division of the ANC.

Mandela raised funds abroad and quickly started bombing campaigns.

He was eventually captured with the help of American spies and went to trial where he escaped the death penalty when he was found guilty.  He was instead sentenced to life imprisonment.

While in prison, Mandela became a lawyer through a correspondence course with The University of London.

In the 1980s, Mandela’s MK guerrillas were particularly violent and there were many innocent civilian casualties, so in February 1985 President PW Botha offered Mandela freedom if he would denounce the violence. Mandela refused.

Meanwhile, international pressure was mounting against the South African government’s apartheid policy, and the opportunity for change came when President Botha suffered a stroke and was replaced.

On 2nd February 1990, the new President, F.W. de Klerk, started the change away from apartheid by removing the ban on organisations like the ANC, and by setting Mandela free.

So on 11 February 1990, saboteur, guerilla, bomber, and terrorist, Nelson Mandela walked free after 27 years in prison.

Mandela was quickly elected to President of the ANC, and he began a peaceful, political and diplomatic way forward for South Africa in close partnership with President de Klerk.

• President de Klerk and Mandela were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 1993.

In April 1994, South Africa went to the polls, and the ANC won to make Nelson Mandela their first Black President, with former President de Klerk as second in command. Mandela was also the oldest — at 75.  He refused to go forward for a second term, and retired after his 5 years in 1999 when he got married to his third wife.

“…The USA government has removed Nelson Mandela, Tokyo Sexwale and Sidney Mufamadi from its list of global terrorists. .. the removal is only for the next 10 years.”
[USA takes Mandela off Terrorist List Temporarily, Clipped News,  2003-08-10]

Yet, somehow, Nelson Mandela has become universally considered as a “good man”, an example of goodness and kindness.  Let’s face it, he is going to be rewritten in history as a hero.

Maybe the story of the ANC resonates with the Taliban or with the IRA or with any terrorist group.  It certainly shows that yesterday’s violent terrorist is tomorrow’s Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning president.

[Edit: June 2009] Mandela later admitted that the ANC violated human rights in its struggle against apartheid and criticised those in his own party who attempted to remove statements supporting this fact from the reports of “The Truth and Reconciliation Commission” (rewriting History).[/Edit]

And this is not an isolated example, just look at Ché Guevara — He is another revolutionary, one of the insurgents and revolutionaries from Castro’s Cuban revolution.

Guevara even wrote the manual on guerilla warfare, and was considered to be incredibly violent and dangerous.  He was infamous for personally shooting his own men who tried to desert him and his cause. He was a serial trouble-maker and instigated several terrorist organisations throughout South America, being responsible for destabilising most of that continent with effects felt to this day.  he was eventually captured and executed in Bolivia of all places!

Yet Ché is ADORED and venerated today.  This evil terrorist has somehow become one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century (according to Time Magazine), and the  Alberto Korda photograph of him (“Guerrillero Heroico“)  was declared “the most famous photograph in the world”!

So, again, what is a terrorist? and what is terrorism? — the best answer is “I don’t know yet”!

OUGHT we to get rid of someone who has been caught doing wrong, or ought we to given them another chance?

Put another way, how can lessons be learned from experiences if you are taken out of the situation?

I am thinking just now about the current “expenses scandal” where MPs have been caught red-handed fiddling expenses.

In any area of work, mistakes can be made, and lessons are gleaned from the experience — but only if the person continues in that same job.  Having been caught, this person is very unlikely to repeat the same mistake.  Whereas a fresh new replacement is likely to fall into the same traps.

Experiences are both good and bad, to deny the bad or to concentrate only on the good is imbalanced and patently wrong — yet that is exactly what happens in politics today.

A recent example of right thinking would be Jonathan Ross OBE.  He was fined and suspended for broadcast comments made regarding Russell Brand having sex with Georgina Baillie, and leaving many messages boasting about this on her grandfather’s telephone answering service while on air.

To his credit, Mr.Ross has returned to his job, and no doubt lessons will have been learned.  It ought to be good form him — character building — and we (the public) should recognise this, and also share in the growth process by learning to forgive and forget.  On the other hand, Mr.Brand resigned from his BBC job, and so will be far less likely to have learned anything from the experience other than the ability to run away from responsibility.

The public bay for consequences, and it seems that most people think the worst consequence is losing the job, when in fact, it is harder to face up to everyone, repent and work hard to regain respect and confidence again.

We live in a most peculiar world in this respect.  Take for example TV shows such as “The X-Factor” — if you are bad, then the public vote you off — but (for some unfathomable reason), this gives you the chance to repeat your awful performance — the one that everyone hated so much — one more time! Why? It is not as though this was a second chance.

In shows like this, only good experience is successful, one slip-up and it could cost you dearly.  There is no chance to redeem yourself, no growth, no development, no second chances.

This is true in relationships of all kinds — family, work, friends, partners, teams and so on. You cannot turn your back on someone for making a mistake, and you mustn’t bear a grudge either.

Of course, repeat offenders have not learned anything and ought to be removed from the situation as full and final punishment in the (probably vain) hope that some lesson of some kind might filter through.

Discretion is the key — not absolute laws nor hard-and-fast rules.  Forgiving and being forgiven is crucial in maturing and growing as a person.  Learning from bad and good outcomes is vital for survival.

RESPONSIBILITY has shifted to the individual away from the likes of companies and institutions.

Long ago, when I was young, the world was quite different, fundamentally different in fact.  I know the world has changed, but I am not convinced that the changes have been for the better in respect of the individual.

You see, at one time, for example, criminals robbed banks.  So the banks shifted the onus over to us over a period of time, and under the guise of progress, security or even customer services!

As a result of one of the biggest changes, we are each of us at risk of being mugged when we visit ATMs.

Think — if you were a criminal, would you bother to rob a bank when you could get money easier by making customers your target?  All you have to do is make them empty their account at the cash point.

Banks came up with PINs. This is a further shift of responsibility onto you and I; beforehand, the responsibility for fraudulent use of a bank card was either the bank or the shop — definitely not us!

We had a card with a signature on the back.  If the shop did not compare the signatures, then it was at risk of losing money when the bank refused to honour the transaction. It was easy to look at the signatures on the slip, check CCTV and so prove that the person committing the fraud was not the customer.

However, now, the PIN method means that if a card is used for a transaction, the PIN must be correct, and if the PIN is correct, then the shop and the bank are off the hook; you must have disclosed your secret PIN — therefore the fault is always yours.

Your only defence is to find a way of showing that the PIN was obtained in some criminal way, perhaps through surveillance, or by somehow capturing it during on-line or telephone banking activity — and that’s nigh on impossible for most bank customers.

The fact is that the old system protected the customer far better, but it cost the banks (and shops) more money.  The new way suits them better, and the con is that it is sold as a “good thing” to customers.

Another example is the car alarm.

Before car alarms, people used to discover that their car had vanished, and they would then report the theft to the police.  However, as a result of car alarms, what happens now is that criminals wait in hiding for you to unlock your car, and then attack you — to hijack your vehicle.

They may steal your car as you park it, as you are departing, or even as you wait at traffic lights!  The main thing to realise is that car alarms have made your car safer, but at the expense of vastly increasing your risk of physical injury and mental trauma.

This sort of thing is everywhere today.  It is your responsibility to shop around for the cheapest quote, it is your responsibility to protect yourself — to get a firewall, some anti-virus software, a car alarm, a 5-lever mortise lock, a burglar alarm, some CCTV, motion sensors, web cam, bodyguards, insurance policies and so forth.

Is it any wonder that we feel so oppressed, so paranoid, so insecure?

It started with incentives, cheaper insurance with an alarm, cheaper bills with direct debit or on-line banking — but this has led us all to a vulnerable place where we are open to great harm if we let our guard down for an instant!

I know people who have lost faith in the NHS, they check everything on-line, refusing to take the word of a GP.

Each one of us is now responsible for our own diet.  If we are fat or ill, then it is our own fault — it is certainly not the government’s fault, nor has it to do with marketing, selling or making food. We are even held accountable for what we throw in the rubbish — apart from eco-friendly, green or whatever other initiatives (we are now responsible for saving the planet), we have to shred everything in case of identity theft — yet there are so many recent scandals involving personal data loss by the government!

The result of this culture is people refusing to vaccinate their babies, and for some to take archaic religious beliefs over standard education (especially regarding creationism and evolution).

Can anyone really depend on their pension? Do we need personal, private healthcare and education? Can we rely on the government?  Are we safe and secure from crime and terror?

A growing number of people are disillusioned with the stress of all this responsibility and yearn for the old days — when Estate Agents were responsible for selling houses, GPs were responsible for health, banks took care of money, and things like pensions, and education were dependable.

Who can we trust?  — religious leaders? politicians? bankers? school teachers? dentists? doctors? supermarkets? lawyers? the BBC? CNN? Islam? Christianity? Bono? Bob Geldof?

We cannot all be experts in everything – even with the internet! Why can’t responsibility be collective (shared) once more? What are we paying for?

A LOT of people seem to think that “Free Speech” is a basic human right, and that it allows you to say anything at all about anything or anyone at all.

However, that is not the case; Freedom of Speech is simply the right to hold religious and political views, and to voice them.  It is an important principle, for it means that the state cannot become a dictatorship.

It is a so-called democratic principle; people can stand up and speak their beliefs — they can disagree with the state, and everyone in it, and they can recruit and persuade people to take a stance in opposition to the government.  THAT is freedom.

• Free Speech does not cover gossip, privacy, lies, publicity, rumours, half-truths, or opinions on hairstyles or reviews of restaurants.

There are usually, reasonably and sensibly, laws to protect against libel, slander and defamation.

However, it is plain rude and bad manners to decry; there’s an old, and wise adage: if you cannot say anything good, then say nothing at all.

We’re supposed to be civilised — and civil to each other, after all.  I have no right to suggest this or hint that, particularly when I have not been asked.

In this blog, I exercise my right to discuss things that I find interesting.  There’s no harm intended. Sometimes I voice my opinion on philosophy and morality with regard to religion and politics, and in doing so, I hope to set records straight (as I see it), and show things in a different light.

I see this more as a privilege than a basic human right, and I also allow people to comment on articles posted here too, to disagree and to offer something better.

Quite why so many people — especially in the United States of America (where they have this actually written down for them)  manage to misunderstand what Free Speech means is simply amazing!

The 1st amendment to the USA’s constitution is not intended to protect you when you call someone ugly, fat, black, disabled, stupid, talentless, and so forth — think about it; what kind of system would be designed to allow such wanton disrespect, rudeness and ill will?

Think too that the right and privilege you have to voice your opinion on religion and politics carries the implication that you are to be taken seriously by those listening — you shall be given respect for holding your own personal and thought-out views. What would be the point otherwise — what good is  free speech if no-one listens, or if you are threatened in some way?

This in turn implies that — if people are respecting you — you must respect their religious and political beliefs, and respect their right and privilege to hold them freely — equally without harassment.

Yes, strange as it may seem you have to accept that some people are fascist, some are Nazi, some are Communist, some are Protestant, some are Catholic, some are Muslim, and some are gay (and so forth)… just as they have to accept you for being YOU.

That’s what Free Speech is and what it implies for everyone.  I just wish it was still true; but we now live in rude times full of incivility, intolerance, unforgiveness and insensitivity.

We have trouble with reality TV culture, with privacy of celebrities, with publicity, with blogs, with Google Street View, and with new counter-terrorist legislation, so what happens next will be very interesting indeed!

I HAVE heard people refer to “Born-Again Christians” (i.e. various Protestant sects) as “Christians” — and everyone else is a non-Christian!

Yet the original, or oldest, Christians are the Roman Catholics, and Catholics see themselves as Christian, and followers of Christ. They call themselves “Christians”.

I hope to show that this is an attempt to hijack the word for Evangelical Charismatic Protestant sects, and to show what a Christian really is, and what it really means today.

In simple historical terms, a Christian is a Roman Catholic — or else a member of a denomination that is in protest of Catholicism.

I guess that the same could be said about the word, “gay”; it was once explained to me that homosexuals arranged a campaign demanding equal rights and equal treatment in the belief that they as “Good As You”.

This was abbreviated to a G.A.Y. campaign, and we all gradually became familiar with GAY marches and parades around the world.

Later, this came to replace the word “gay” in the English language, such that most people now take “homosexual” and “gay” as interchangeable having the exact same meaning.

But some folk resent the “hijacking” of the word, “gay”. It used to mean light of heart, happy, content. The new meaning is in poor taste.

I remember seeing Tom Hanks collect his Oscar for the movie called “Philadelphia”, and suggesting in his acceptance speech, that when homosexuals die of HIV/AIDS, they go to heaven — Christian heaven! Seriously.

Yet Christians and homosexuals do not mix. If homosexuals can hijack “gay” AND “Christian”, then what’s next — English?

But, when you think about it some more, you see that Christianity is pretty much the default position — if you are British you are probably Christian of one type or another, practising or not; it’s a Christian country and part of Christendom.

All British culture is based on Christianity, the laws too — the history of the country is one hundred per cent Christian — from the Crusades through the Reformation to the present.

So it almost goes without saying that a person is a Christian.

It’s pretty much that simple; if you are not a practising Muslim or Hindu, for example, and even if you are atheist, then you are a Christian simply be default — the Church and State are together in that the Bishops sit in the House of Lords and pass all our laws in the name of the Queen, who is The Defender of The Faith and head of the Anglican Church.

Mind you, I can see why people might actually LIKE the sects to steal the “Christian” moniker, the Latin “christianus” meant cretin; the Romans used to throw Christians to the lions, and because the Christian martyrs refused to give up their religion, to run away, or even to fight back, they were thought to be acting like complete idiots.

Throughout the Roman Empire (i.e. the civilised world), if someone was stupid, they were called “Christian”. The word meant that.

Being called a “Christian” back then was a grave insult!

Romans were proud, and would stand up for their family, their loved ones, their liberty, for their country, their rights, and especially their own lives.

Hmm. The Romans may have had a point!

Personally, I don’t tend to use the “gay” word, and I think I can handle both meanings.

“Christian” is something I see used, abused and misused far more often — so it is more annoying. The Catholics have a point, but so do the sects, and maybe even the Christian gays too.

In conclusion, the only sensible way is to think in terms of culture and history, and, to a lesser degree, of personal experience and judgement.

If you do that, then you would have to therefore accept Christianity as being all-inclusive — the default position for the great, unwashed, idiotic, masses (including Catholics, sects and gays).  And this means that the Protestant sects are wrong in claiming the word for their own exclusive use!

In closing, here’s a cautionary note: even though we have a definition of Christianity that includes most (the evangelical sects are a minority), the main problem seems to be where the minority is located — the so-called Bible-Belt of the USA.

The Protestant sects wield a lot of influence over the White House; apparently, schoolchildren in the USA are being taught that Evolution is nonsense, and that Adam and Eve is true!

ELVIS made it a hit. It’s been covered by the Blues Brothers and many others. But Jerry Leiber & Mike Stoller’s “Jailhouse Rock” is a very strange song indeed. It is all about homosexuality in prisons. There can be no question of that.

You see, it is set in a male prison. That’s right — a “Jailhouse”. There is only one gender — male. Jails tend to be set up like that, men with men, women with women.

Now, it seems that the authorities decided to throw a “party” for the inmates…

“The warden threw a party in the county jail..”

Soon “The joint was jumping and the place began to swing” — “swing”? really?

Yes, it seems the offenders were dancing with each other –

“Everybody on the whole cell block was dancing to the jailhouse rock”.

However, not everybody was dancing after all –Sad sack wasn’t…

“Sad Sack was sittin’ on a block of stone
Way over in the corner weepin’ all alone
The warden said Hey buddy don’t you be no square
If you can’t find a partner use a wooden chair”

We can only conclude that Sad Sack took the warden’s advice and either found a “partner” (another man), or else used a chair!

I have no idea what was intended by “The whole rhythm section was the Purple Gang”, but I think it is pretty clear what was going on from this verse:

“Well number 47 said to number 3
You’re the cutest jailbird I ever did see
I sure’ll be delighted with your company
Come on and do the jailhouse rock with me”

This is the only time I have ever heard reference of cuteness between men, let alone felons!

The fact that “Shifty Henry” and the chance to break-out and escape was foregone in favour of “Sticking around to get my kicks” is conclusive, don’t you think?

AN hypocrite is someone who hides intentions or true personality. At least, it is almost everywhere except where people speak English.  For some unknown reason, in English, the word has a different meaning.

When someone preaches something, but practices the exact opposite, then (but only in English) that person is accused of being an hypocrite, or of acting hypocritically. I am going to show that being an hypocrite is (a) normal, (b) healthy, (c) necessary for a civil society, (d) honest and (e) one of your human rights.

First of all, it is interesting that there are two different meanings.  To find out why, it might help to look up the origins of the word.  I did that, and discovered that it comes from the ancient Greek, hypokrisis (ὑπόκρισις), which meant acting.

The Greeks are often called the first civilisation because they were the first to have organised and worked so well together as a society, that they had “free time” or “leisure” to fill with “luxurious” activities — activities that were not required for existence or comfort, things like philosophy, politics, sculpture, games, and writing poetry and plays.

They invented play acting as a way to dramatically tell tales.  To speak the written words is tantamount to lying or being inauthentic — the actor “pretends” to be another character, and the audience allow this in an entirely new type of social contract; it was understood that the actor was being hypocritical.

From this, it’s not much of a leap to the modern meaning of the word in most countries.  It has drifted away from actors on the stage, and is applied to anyone, anywhere, who is hiding their motives or intentions, or who pretends to be sad in public to gain sympathy, or who pretends to be clever and educated or from some high-class background.

Is that so bad?

Well, I guess the stock answer would be that as long as no harm was intended (or done), or as long as it was not done to gain advantage. But then, when I thought about it a bit more, I realised that being an hypocrite is standard mode for everyone on a romantic date or attending a job interview. These are clear cut examples of people hiding their true feelings, personality, and intentions in order to gain an advantage, a competitive advantage.

In fact, it seems to be well understood and socially acceptable — indeed it is expected that one should put one’s “best foot forward”.

Hmm. Let’s take this a bit further. Society, it seems to me, holds in great esteem, behaviour that is considered polite and well-mannered.  A person is expected to be courteous and caring, regardless of mood or circumstances, otherwise they will be found in contempt.  So people start their letters with “Dear Sir” and finish with “Yours Faithfully”, and they bid each other “Good Morning”, and ask “How’s the family?” or “How’s it going/ how are you?” — and while this is classic hypocrisy, it is an highly rated personal quality of character.

The professions are supposed to be able to divorce their feelings from their professional lives — lawyers will argue a man’s defence in the full knowledge of his guilt, surgeons will operate without horror, and we expect that of them.  We expect civility and hypocrisy from waiters and bar-tenders (we expect a warm welcome whatever their mood)!

The stiff upper lip of the British, the “Poker” Face — they are hypocritical things.

So is hypocrisy a bad thing? — No, obviously not! It is a normal mode of behaviour, and something that ought to be encouraged as the pinnacle of civilisation.

But what of the English-American accusation?  This is a different meaning; this is about saying one thing and doing the exact opposite.

Well, let’s think it through.  If you are addicted to drugs, drink or cigarettes, and yet you say to your children not to use drugs, drink or cigarettes, you will be “accused” of being an hypocrite. Well, to me, that is understandable — and furthermore, an addict would be the best person to advise someone on the subject!  If that’s hypocrisy, then I am OK with that!

The thing is that this is a classic Tu quoque ad hominem fallacy (see “How Words manipulate Part 2“) — the format is:

• A makes criticism P.
• A is also guilty of P.
• Therefore, P is trashed.

For example: “Thomas Jefferson argued that slavery was wrong and should be abolished, but since Jefferson himself owned slaves, how could slavery be wrong?”.

Slavery was either right or wrong, regardless of Jefferson’s actions. The validity or truth-value of Jefferson’s argument is not affected by his participation in slavery.

Another example: “You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well.”

The English interpretation of “hypocrisy” is therefore nonsensical.

Everything that comes under English Hypocrisy is actually a fallacy — meaning that it is flawed reasoning, illogical, and basically dead wrong.

In other words, and to be perfectly clear about this, when an English person “accuses” someone of being an hypocrite, they are talking nonsense / baloney/ bollocks.

In fact, when you think on this a bit more, it starts to become clear that in such cases (in all English cases), the truth lies in the opposite direction — that the person being accused is the one who is right, and the accuser is wrong. Just turn it around and ask why would it be better to have a drug addict promoting drug-taking than to be accused of being an hypocrite?

A fat person is the best person to tell someone of the pitfalls of a bad diet with no exercise.  A criminal is the best person to stop someone taking up a life of crime. This is NOT hypocrisy; this is truth.

I am not a fan of over-simplification, or dumbing-down. I would hate it is everyone became ingenuous, rude or brutish instead of being polite, civilised and refined. I like hypocrisy because I understand it.

A man may take a wife and together they may have a baby girl.  Females make themselves attractive to men, so this man  will naturally find other females attractive. This is not cheating on his wife.  He is not a hypocrite because of his marriage vows. Some of the attractive females may be the same age as the daughter, but this is not weird.  The man may be very prudish about his wife and daughter, but still joke with his men friends about passing girls or Page 3 pictures.

The point I am trying to make is that we would go insane if we were not able to act in character, to adopt a role or mode, to put on a uniform and be a policeman, but to also be able to play the role of father, son, brother, lover and the rest.  We would be crazy if we could not be hypocritical and if we could not compartmentalise mentally.  It is not insincerity or being false, it’s actually about being honest if not truthful — the man refuses to see his daughter/ wife/ mother/ sister/in-laws in the same way as he sees a lap-dancer.  Because he can only be in one role at a time — he is not a father when he looks at the attractive girl, and he does not act like one of the lads with his wife. Yes, this is hypocrisy, but it is a good thing, and it is much closer to the real truth than anything else I can think up.

And if you are a public figure, and if you are gay or if you take drugs, are you supposed to do anything to avoid being called a hypocrite by ignoring your responsibility as a role model?

What good would come from that or for being rude at a job interview, being frank and straightforward on a date, or flirting with relatives?

I really do believe that it is OK to promote values that you want to promote — you have that right.  It is fair to say that just because you are a weak sinner doesn’t mean that you cannot try to set a better example by keeping up appearances — who wants to wash their dirty linen in public?

There is the weird result of the investigation here — hypocrisy is not only a good thing, but it is THE good thing; it is about being considerate to other people, and inwardly honest (if not outwardly honest) too.

THE British are obsessed with two things: the weather and house prices.

The great many TV shows relating to property is a clue to how important this is to us; there’s something about “bricks and mortar” we love to invest in. In this post I shall try to explain why dropping the price of your property is a bad idea, and that everyone should act like a proper investor and wait for the tide to turn!

Banks were reckless, lending money on easy terms to almost anyone, and this got us all into trouble when the tipping point was reached last year, and enough people defaulted on their repayments.

There is a slower or lower growth rate, and possibly even a recession.  A recession is the opposite of growth.  An economy may recede back to some previous level — last month’s, last year’s, or the level of a few years ago.  I suppose a “depression” is when an economy falls to levels of many years ago. So a recession in itself is not the end of the world as we know it, it all depends on how far the economy recedes.

Growth is all about more.  More consumers buying more consumables. Ultimately growth is about confidence; if you think you are secure for a few years ahead, you may feel OK about taking on a bigger mortgage or buying more things on credit.  Buying more things means more things are needed to be made — and this means more employment.

The opposite is clearly true.  Recession is about a lack of confidence.  You don’t feel it’s a good idea to risk a loan or have a big credit card debt.  You tighten your belt to play safe, but this means the shops are full of things no-one is buying, so orders dry up, people are laid off and companies go bust.

Banks that were reckless when they were confident, become cautious and stop extending credit to everyone — just in case their customers lose their jobs and cannot repay the loans.

People who have a house on a mortgage cannot move to a bigger house or a better neighbourhood  — they can only move to a house of the same value — a “sideways” move, a relocation.  This is because they cannot obtain a new mortgage or top-up — and that’s about it for the property market just now!

Even people who own a house outright (who have paid off their mortgage, for example), are stuck — they cannot downsize because they need people to buy their properties to access the equity tied up in them. Executries are the same — selling a dead person’s house requires buyers.

First time buyers (FTBs) cannot get a mortgage or a loan for the deposit.

The result is that the property market is in the doldrums.

So what to do?

Some people suggest that dropping the asking price for a property would stimulate the market — but how is that going to work when there are no loans on offer?  It might stimulate the relocation market, but not by very much; ultimately a loan will be required somewhere in the chain of events.

In fact dropping the price of your home is the worst thing you can do at this time.

Just like recession,  the value of the property is that it grows – property is an investment.  If the growth slows or stops, the investment is bad.  The value can drop back to last month’s, last year’s or worse.

The investment may be “bad” if you’ve had a property for many years — but that begs to be compared with alternative investments over the same term.  In present day terms, not much has been a good investment. But then again, investments like this are usually considered medium to long term, so investors will just wait for the markets to resume growing again in a few years.

However, if you’ve only had the property for a year or three, then the devaluation could knock you into negative equity — which is worse than a bad investment; it’s an actual LOSS if you sell now. You will sell for less that you bought it for — potentially for less than you need to pay off the mortgage!

Obviously that is crazy — no-one would just sell for less — there would have to be very compelling reasons to give away their house and money like that!

However, there is a section of the market between what I’ve just described.  This section is people who have owned a property for a few years, and who might be persuaded to drop their price on the grounds that what they lose they will gain in the buying of their next property.  They are told that it balances out because all properties are dropping — not just theirs!

They can be even be persuaded to drop their price because they can take the hit, they can accept a loss of profit margin, they can abrorb the loss because it allows them to sell and move on to a new house — lots of people just want to move for all sorts of reasons, including getting fed up where they are!

Now here’s the thing…

If enough people get persuaded to drop their asking prices, the market starts to die.  This is because property is an investment.  Who wants to buy a house that doesn’t go up in value?  Who wants to buy a house that might drop further — and create immediate negative equity?

Consider this example:

Imagine two houses side by side.  Both are available, one is for sale and would cost you £500 per month in mortgage repayments.  The other would cost you £500 in rent.  Same house, same outlay.

Now, in good times, if you paid the rent, you’d be chucking away £500 a month — but the £500 mortgage is being offset by the increase in equity.  After a number of years, the rent would still be £500 or more, but the mortgage would effectively be £300 a month (realised on sale, of course). Another way to look at this would be to say that they are equal, but when the house is sold, you get a lump sum to add to the mortgage for buying the next property — allowing you to climb the property ladder to bigger or better houses.

However, in bad times, the opposite is true.  The rent looks like the best option.  It’s £500 a month — and if you lose your job in the recession, then state benefits will cover it straightaway.  But the £500 mortgage is scary — you do not get state benefits to pay for it for the first six months — that’s three grand deeper right there. You cannot sell unless you HAVE to, so you drop the price to to cut your losses.  You have to give away the property or have it “repossessed”, and negative equity means you will still have debt — but if you act quickly it might be better than the three grand in arrears!

Which would YOU choose at THIS time — the rented house or the one for sale?

The best advice to homeowners is to stay put. DO NOT DROP YOUR PRICE.  Act like a real investor and wait it out! If push comes to shove, and you absolutely need to move, then rent out your house and move into rented accommodation yourself.

Things will soon improve.

I say this because markets ultimately are driven by demand.  There is a need for housing, be it rented or bought. There are simply not enough houses to meet the demand for renting — or investing.

Once confidence returns with loans, FTBs will buy cheaper properties again, allowing people to move on up the ladder to new builds and so forth.

Confidence will only return once the “bottom” has been reached, and only when the statistics and measures have stabilised. Only then is growth inevitable.

Everything will have been cleaned out, there will be winners and losers.  It will be out with the old and in with the new.  Shares and stocks will stop falling, enough people will have lost their jobs.  The new and young will flex and begin building it all up once more.

People will decide that they have been careful and thrifty for long enough — they will want some risk, they will want a reward for the hard times