Category: One-handed!

I last visited Greece (Corfu, Athens, Samos) in 1991, so my return there in January was an opportunity to “reset” my impressions (hot, dirty, not as nice as Turkey).

First of all, it wasn’t that hot, but this was in January 🙂

Second, I found the people we met (casually but also in longer discussions) to be really nice (even kind) relative to other Mediterranean cultures.

Third, I am pretty sure that Athens about as clean/nice as Istanbul 😉

But here are a few more impressions, based on Leiden University College’s six majors.

Culture, history and society: Greece has a long and well-documented history. Its influence on Rome, and thus Europe, was profound, even if it was often mythologized. As a society, the Greeks are more traditional (conservative) than northern Europeans. The culture is a lot more relaxed, but that attitude can also be annoying. My favorite phrase on the trip (learned from a Greek) was “in theory…”, which should be offered near any statement regarding timing, opening of shops, office or museums, pricing, etc. Oh, and the British should give back the bloody Elgin Marbles. It’s a crime against the Greek people.

Global public health: The population is relatively poor, but there are government and NGO-efforts to keep people safe(r) from Covid. Public bathrooms were not common, street markets were cleaned up quickly after close, there were very few stray dogs (but many cats). The lifestyle is lower stress, but poverty can end it prematurely.

Governance, economics and development: Corruption is widely-acknowledged but change is unlikely (dynastic politicians). Much development is/will happen if/when the post-financial crisis diaspora returns. The cost of living is very high relative to wages (Greek PPP-GDP/capita is half the Dutch level). Foreigners/tourists can bring money but exacerbate corruption. Government treatment of “anarchists” in Athens is appalling.

International justice: The Greeks are on the front-line of tensions with (authoritarian) Turkey and (shitshow) Syria. The EU should have done a lot more to fund the Greek/EU border control. I doubt TR will attack GR, but Cyprus is always a sore-spot. It would be better if Cyprus would reunite, but — as we saw in Lebanon and Bosnia — it cannot be run by sectarian factions.

Sustainability: The people are too poor and few (10 million) to worry much about sustainability. They are experiencing record heat and wildfires (made worse by cutting fire fighting budgets and spending on weapons). The prices for meat are lower than for fish or cheese (!), which is good for tradition/protein but bad for sustainability.

World politics: Greece was abused by DE and FR after the financial crisis, as those governments wanted their banks to get repaid. As a result, IMO, the Greeks have turned to China, which will not end well (my recent post). Greece’s importance (see “justice” above) will only grow as forced migrations increase with climate and political instability.

My one-handed conclusion is that Greece is a lovely country full of nice people who are mis-led by corrupt politicians who make them poorer and abused by foreigners who have forgotten how heavy is the burden of poverty.

I just spent a few weeks in Greece, on holiday. Greece has been through a lot of stress since the 2008+ financial crisis (I think the country should have declared bankruptcy), but now it has a “friend”: China.

China is investing in Greece’s largest port, exporting plenty of goods to Greece, and also building “soft” ties like these ==>

The accompanying text (left) is a bit cringe (click to enlarge), but it is typical for Chinese diplomacy: allowing for some overlap between China’s greatness and that of the supplicant country. (There was also an American-sponsored plaque at this location. It was all about how the Americans were proud to pay for restoring Greek history, under the direction of Greeks. No USA! USA! I miss the old days…)

So my story here is simple: China, as Greece’s new “friend,” is not such a good friend.

It goes like this: Greece is that girl in school who has not taken good care of herself. Yes, she’s a bit obese, but she’s facing issues beyond her control as best she can. Sadly, the cool kids — France and Germany — are not that interested in obese Greece (they even tease her!), so Greece is a bit depressed. But China is there! China says nice things to Greece, helps her with her ports and economy. China is a real friend. Why not date?

So then Greece ends up pregnant, and China is busy. “But China — we were friends and now I’m pregnant — can’t you help me?”

After some silence, China reacts: “Sure you can have my kid, but I’m not gonna support you, and neither will anyone else, since it’s my kid. I’ll call you later… maybe.”

The story, in other words, is that Greece — like many countries participating in China’s “Belt and Road initiative” — is getting fucked (watch this), and it’s not going to turn out well.

Just remember what’s happened to Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Xinjiang.

My one-handed conclusion is that China’s “friendship” is worse than isolation and poverty.

* Why do so many countries accept it? China is totally fine about bribing rulers who don’t care about their citizens and then leaving those citizens with debts even heavier than the French or Germans might assess.

I know that Americans tend to make a very big deal about their Constitution, but it’s a big deal for a few reasons. One is the Bill of Rights, which was (technically) added to the constitution as the first 10 amendments in 1791.

The other day, I was thinking about the lack of rights in China. “But wait,” I said to myself. “Surely, there must be a few of the basic 10 in China!?!”

Nope:

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In China, the Communist Party of China (CPC) controls religion, speech, press, assembly, and assembly. These freedoms are not available.

Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In China, the CPC controls access to guns and the Army. This freedom is not available.

Amendment III: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
In China, the CPC has “stationed” party workers in Uigur homes.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In China, the CPC decides who gets searched or seized in a closed process without due process.

Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In China, “justice” and punishments is administered via closed courts. China has the highest number of state executions in the world. Private property is routinely seized without just compensation.

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
In China, trials are often slow. The accused can be held for long periods without charge or trial, access to lawyers and/or evidence against them.

Amendment VII: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
In China, trial by jury is unknown. The common law is not observed. In many commercial cases, defendants are found guilty without a hearing.

Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
In China, defendants are held without bail and massive fines have been levied against “enemies of the state.” Executions are common.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In China, the CPC controls rights and tells citizens if and when they have rights.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In China, power is centralized in the CPC. There is no such thing as provincial and/or popular powers.

My one-handed conclusion is that the Chinese do not have the rights of Americans, and that affects how governments and citizens interact.

I wrote this for our students, but it applies to all of us, young and old:

There’s a lot of stress over failure, getting “low” grades, and other types of under-achievement within our amazing student body. I am sure that you’ve had bad days or outcomes, but how have you “processed” them? As something shameful to hide or an opportunity to learn or dial back your expectations?

Anyway, this article reminded me of this topic (worth reading), and I want to try a bit of “celebrating failure” here, with my own example:

I was 21, just graduated from university, didn’t know what I wanted to do or where to work. I took an unpaid job with a start up (building a platform for matching real estate borrowers and lenders) and got to work. I was going to make a market! Well, the timing was wrong and my boss was abusive — blaming me for not being loyal enough or working hard enough, even though I was earning 80% of the firm’s revenue at times (we staffed from 2 to 6 and then back to 2).

It turns out that I was not to blame. My boss was just an asshole who used abuse to control rather than working as a partner with respect.

After 2 years of that, I was nearly burnt out but realized (via a girl I started dating) that I was in an abusive relationship. Oh, and it doesn’t help that my boss was also my step-father. (My mom had died 4 years earlier…)

I got out of there, and within a few weeks I got 3 job offers (paid!) on the same day. I took the best one (with the Vets — another story)

My one-handed conclusion: Bosses who make you feel bad are bullies, not leaders. I learned that there are always other jobs out there with people who will appreciate you. I learned from my failure…

So what’s your story of embracing and learning from failure? [hit reply!]

…was Monday. (He was born on 15 Jan 1929.)

Nicole Hannah Jones used excerpts from MLK’s speech to a hostile audience without telling them the words were King’s. The transcript below is worth reading, to remember what he (and others) fought for, and to notice how there’s still a ways to go…

I was invited to give an MLK speech today and a small number of members of the group hosting me wrote and then leaked emails opposing my giving this speech, as it dishonored Dr. King for me to do so. They called me a “discredited activist” “unworthy of such association with King”

So, I scrapped my original speech and spent the entire first half of it reading excerpts from a bunch of Dr. King’s speeches, but without telling anyone that I was doing so, leading the audience to think King’s words were mine. And, whew, chile, it was AMAZING.

Here is some of it:

“It was in the year 1619 that the first BLACK slave was brought to the shores of this nation. They were brought here from the soils of Africa and unlike the Pilgrim fathers who landed here at Plymouth a year later, they were brought here against their will…”

Wherever you see Black in caps, it’s bc I subbed out Negro to not give it away.

“For more than 200 years Africa was raped and plundered, a native kingdom disorganized, the people and rulers demoralized and throughout slavery the BLACK slaves were treated in a very inhuman form…”

“White Americans must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society… The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and racism…”

“The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power. A nation that continues year after year to spend more $ on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death

“The crowning achievement in hypocrisy must go to those staunch Republicans and Democrats of the Midwest and West who were given land by our government when they came here as immigrants from Europe. They were given education through the land grant colleges…”

“These are the same people that now say to black people, whose ancestors were brought to this country in chains and who were emancipated in 1863 without being given land to cultivate or bread to eat; that they must pull themselves up by their own bootstraps…”

“What they truly advocate is Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor…

“We know full well that racism is still that hound of hell which dogs the tracks of our civilization.”

“Ever since the birth of our nation, White America has had a Schizophrenic personality on the ? of race, she has been torn between selves. A self in which she proudly professes the great principle of democracy and a self in which she madly practices the antithesis of democracy.”

“The fact is, there has never been a single, solid, determined commitment on the part of the vast majority of white Americans to genuine equality for Black people.”

“The step backwards has a new name today, it is called the white backlash, but the white backlash is nothing new. It is the surfacing of old prejudices, hostilities and ambivalences that have always been there…”

“The white backlash of today is rooted in the same problem that has characterized America ever since the black man landed in chains on the shores of this nation.”

“Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance… with each modest advance the white population promptly raises the argument that BLACK AMERICANS HAVE come far enough.”

“…for the good of America, it is necessary to refute the idea that the dominant ideology in our country, even today, is freedom and equality and that racism is just an occasional departure from the norm on the part of a few bigoted extremists.”

“If America does not respond creatively to the challenge to banish racism, some future historian will have to say, that a great civilization died because it lacked the soul and commitment to make justice a reality for all men.”

“Why do white people seem to find it so difficult to understand that the Black people are sick and tired of having reluctantly parceled out to THEM those rights and privileges which all others receive upon birth or entry in America?”

“I never cease to wonder at the amazing presumption of much of white society, assuming that they have the right to bargain with the BLACK for their freedom…”

Oh, the uncomfortable silence as I read Dr. King’s words at a commemoration of Dr. King’s life when people had no idea that these were his words. When I revealed that everything I said to that point was taken from his speeches between ’56 and 67… Can you say SHOOK!

Then I read all the names that white Americans called King: charlatan, demagogue, communist, traitor — and brought out the polling showing more than three-quarters of Americans opposed King at his death while 94 percent approve of him now.

I left them with this: People who oppose today what he stood for back then do not get to be the arbiters of his legacy. The real Dr. King cannot be commodified, homogenized, and white-washed and whatever side you stand on TODAY is the side you would have been back then.

In fact, most white Americans in 1963 opposed the March on Washington where Dr. King gave the “I Have A Dream Speech” with that one line that people oppose to anti-racism like to trot out against those working for racial justice.

When the speech was over, Father Pfleger, who had been been cheering me on from the crowd, whispered in my ear: That’s what you call the “You Gone Learn Today” speech and I 💀. Because, yeah.

This is why the 1619 Project exists. This is why the decades of scholarship that undergirds the 1619 Project exists. Because if we do nothing, they will co-opt our history and use it against us.

Dr. King was a radical critic of racism, capitalism and militarism. He didn’t die. He was assassinated. And many, including Regan, fought the national holiday we’re not commemorating. If you haven’t read, in entirety, his speeches, you’ve been miseducated & I hope that you will.

One-handed conclusion: MLK was — and is — right.

I’ve been revising a paper on the potential impacts of increasing water scarcity (driven by climate change as well as other unsustainable practices). One of the areas facing the greatest risk is agriculture, and thus food production and food (in)security.

This weekend I read that “food prices hit 46-year high,” which is not a good sign. It gets worse:

The high prices come despite expectations that total global production of grains in 2021 will set an all-time record: 0.7% higher than the previous record set in 2020. But because of higher demand (in part, from an increased amount of wheat and corn used to feed animals), the 2021 harvest is not expected to meet consumption requirements in 2021/2022...

Since I am interested to see if this is “just me” or a sign of an increasing trend, I wanted to look into n-grams on this topic. The most famous — Google’s n-gram viewer — is for books, so I found one that focusses on TV news coverage (using captions 🙂 and got this “density function” for the string food AND (security OR insecurity) AND climate:

Here’s a word cloud from the transcripts linked to the search:

My one-handed conclusion is that we do indeed need to start worrying that our demand for food (and especially meat) in combination with increasing constraints on food supplies is increasing food insecurity for many of the world’s poor. Sure, the rich will be able to buy estate-grown coffee and organic lamb for a few decades more, but those poor people will be the source of both humanitarian (moral) crises and security risks for the rich.

For the past ten years, Amsterdam has hosted a light show festival on the canals during the dark winter months. This show has been popular with locals and tourists alike, and people can see the lights from both land and water.

This year, due to the ongoing chaos of Covid (policy), most of the lights are turned off at 5pm, in line with Covid restrictions requiring that bars, restaurants, most stores and museums, and other tourism-related activities stop by 5pm.

But this makes no sense for an outdoor light festival. Why not leave the lights on and let people walk by (or come on their boats) to see them? Why not, since take away food and drink are allowed after 5pm, encourage small businesses to set up shop, selling drinks and food at some installations?

One reason why not might be is that the festival is primarily devoted to the interests of “business partners,” i.e., the boat companies looking for ways to attract tourists during the off season. (I hate these companies for their enormous, ugly floating blockades.)

Now I looked briefly at the financial statements of the stichting (non-profit foundation) that runs the festival, and I see that over 60% of its funds come from the city and ±15% comes from “sponsors,” but that would not be the first time that the city has subsidized tourism. (I was scanning quickly through the Dutch, so please comment on my mistakes or information I missed.)

What’s ironic (or “funny” as the Dutch would say) is that the current city government has vowed — after years of “please fuck, smoke and piss all over our city” promotions — that Amsterdam Tourism would spend less time on attracting foreigners and more time on engaging with citizens. 

Turning off the lights at 5pm, at the same time as the boats stop running but NOT at the same time as residents wold want to enjoy their city, seems to contradict this message.

My one-handed conclusion is that Amsterdam has lost a golden (lit!) opportunity to make a Festival that truly serves its citizens and small businesses. 

---

Update 10 Dec [in Dutch]: The lights will stay on until 10pm 🙂

H/T to MV

The Dutch like to say they are a “direct” people, in the same way (I assumed) that Americans and Israelis are “direct”

I don’t think so. In some circumstances (e.g., splitting the bill, commenting on your timeliness, or in “getting to the point”), they are direct — and I like that.

But when it comes to criticism (no matter how objective and/or useful it might be), they are less happy with direct.

I was told once that it was fine to be direct, face to face, but not in a public (e.g., meeting) setting.

You can see elements of this one-thing-in-public, another-in-private perspective in Dutch culture:

• Gedoogdheden (“tolerances” — read my post on Dutch vs California “tolerance” — but here meaning “not being too strict, for the general good”) are when something is illegal but allowed. In this category, you get the ongoing practice of the [formally forbidden] Catholic faith in the 17th century, a willingness to host various blasphemers, the open trade in soft drugs (and not-soft drugs), and various tax dodges.
• Variations on racism (from Zwarte Piet to the kindertoeslagaffaire), hypocrisy (anything where agriculture/industry meets sustainability), and corruption (there are many “interesting” relations between companies and politicians; the Royal Family).
• Intense internal debates, discussions and fights that are not shown in public.

Now let me be clear that the Dutch are not really that bad (the NL is in the top of 10% of countries, IMO), but the problem here is perceptions, i.e., that the Dutch as direct when they are not… always (or consistently).

It’s a good time to note that my background combines Silicon Valley, academics,  economics, the port of San Francisco, and years of independent travel. So I am pretty direct.

… and most people are not, which means they are probably “fine” with the ways of the Dutch. OTOH, some people are not OK, because they get a different experience than they expect (the bullets above will help you guess what’s surprised and upset people).

---

Aside: Why are the Dutch (and many other cultures) this way? One factor is that people who are “stuck with each other” tend to put a lot of weight on giving and saving face, as they need to get along, and it doesn’t always help to criticise someone who you may later need for help. In “not-stuck-with-you” cultures (where there’s a lot of migration and change, such as “settler countries“, the academic world, ports, the places frequented by travellers), it’s much easier to say what you think, because the worst outcome is going away, which most people there often do. So, when it comes to “exit, voice, loyalty,” The Dutch (and others who can’t exit) stay silent rather than speaking up (voice) or obeying laws (loyalty). I’m sure this factor deserves more thought (please comment on any part of this post!), but it’s a start.

---

My one-handed conclusion is that you should be careful in accepting or understanding the Dutch when they claim they are “direct.” You don’t need to ask for examples; you only need to speak in ways that are direct without threatening “face.” In other words, don’t melt the snowflakes.

Economists have long attracted criticism for saying “you don’t need anything; you just want things,” and then rejecting the (common) response of “what about air? I need air to live” with the rejoinder “you don’t need to live, you just want to live… Suicides provide proof of that difference.”

---

This post is not pro-suicide. I am putting suicide into a larger context. If you have suicidal thoughts, then get help from others who have experienced and overcome such thoughts. Here’s more from US, British and Dutch health authorities. 

---

Indeed, we see copycat suicides by those who admire someone who killed themselves. We see (willing) suicide bombers who kill themselves for their cause. We see soldiers on “suicide missions” who are willing to die for their country or comrades. In less-violent terms, we also see humans and other species where individuals forgo their chance to reproduce to help raise the offspring of others, for a mix of personal and collective reasons.

Indeed, we see many communities and states where “genetic suicide” via a range of (in)actions ranging from withdrawing from mating to running towards certain death has contributed to the group’s survival and prosperity. These are cases in which self-sacrifice strengthens collective outcomes and thus increases “group fitness.”

We (as a group) have not lost our ability to have suicidal thoughts, but you (as an individual) don’t need to let them run your life. What you need is a way of re-framing thoughts of worthlessness or self-sacrifice into a goal of long-run effectiveness that works because you make a difference not once but many times. Killing yourself will not help your tribe or group or cult or club get ahead compared to contributing to collective strength.

(I’ve long wondered what recruiters tell suicide bombers. Besides “72 virgins,” do they promise that that individual’s death will turn the tide to victory? Given that bombers can’t give post-bomb feedback, I’m guessing that recruiters lie a lot.)

Pushing back from individual actions to national outcomes, it’s easy to see how self-sacrifice helps groups. Most nations trace their history to founders who spoke out rather than remaining silent, who sacrificed rather than remain in comfort. In successful states, leaders are lauded for contributing to the greater good. In failed states, selfish leaders cannot united a divided people.

In today’s geo-political reality, most people live in nations defined by past sacrifices, fear the disruption of would-be suicidal “revolutionaries,” and seek leaders against challenges from Man and Nature.

In the pre-Anthropocene world, we consumed natural resources and destroyed environments in our competition with each other and our desire for comfort and ease. Now, those habits are part of the “sustainability challenge” in which climate chaos, collapsing biodiversity and natural resource shortages not only slow and reverse our progress but also pit every nation, tribe and community against the others, in a struggle to one “least worst off” in a world of shrinking possibility.

What we need now is not more suicides but more self-sacrifice — via lower consumption, childlessness, refusing destructive jobs and so on — that is designed to help the group. We need people who feel better when they forgo a flight abroad; we need societies that admire these people more than “jet-setters.”

My one-handed conclusion: We won’t need to live empty lives if we want to live full lives. Find your place and purpose, and you have found life.

I am a big fan of figures that show how various ideas relate to each other.

I use the “2×2 of goods” to explain how water should be managed by economic or social/political means.

I have set out how social sciences relate to each other and how underlying “truth” changes as you move from sciences to humanities. I summarised that difference in this post:

The humanities (language, history, philosophy) illustrate the diversity of human existence just as the sciences (biology, physics, etc.) illustrate our similarities. This explains how scientists can collaborate and agree on the “big picture” while failing to see the point of humanities studies that don’t seem to draw any conclusions (and sometimes seem locked in eternal battles over the “right” element drawn from a pile of subjective perspectives)

…and now I am back with a new figure that maps risk and uncertainty into a 2×2 that overlaps with objective (science) and subjective (humanities) views:

The reason for this figure, as with all my figures, is to highlight how “we” are often talking past each other when we make comments based on unstated assumptions.

Thus: “This cake is good” (lower left) is not the same as “this cake is fresh” (upper left), “this cake uses a secret recipe” (upper right) or “I’m not sure if we’re gonna get cake out of the oven” (lower right).

My one-handed suggestion is that every discussions and debate begin by establishing how each participant “sees” the topic at hand (subjective/objective? humanities/social science/science, etc.), as that reduces confusion related to mismatched baselines.