segunda-feira, 14 de outubro de 2024

Reflexão (Youtube) - Roger Scruton: Why Intellectuals are Mostly Left

 

Crystal clear...





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYo4KMhUx9c

The Spectator - We oldies can’t help but think of death

(personal underline)

(sublinhados meus)

We oldies can’t help but think of death

Society might not like to talk of dying, but we are confronted by it almost every day

‘Portrait of the Artist's Mother’ by James McNeill Whistler (1871)

I used to think a lot about Switzerland and how to accrue enough morphine to top myself when the time comes. But yay, at last, an assisted dying law seems likely and I can stop plotting.

No one talks about death. But oldies think about it all the time, not deliberately – it just inserts itself into everything. I’d like to write another trilogy, but will I finish it? Doubt if I’ll last through novel 1, never mind 2 and 3. When the garden centre chap tells me to buy tiny saplings and avoid 15-foot trees which will likely die, I know I’ll be dead before the three-footers look anything like a copse. But he quotes the ancient Greek proverb, ‘Society thrives where wise men plant trees in whose shade they will never sit’. So, now we now have a young orchard, a mini-copse and lots of trees mostly hidden by their tree-guards.

Every day, confronting my wall of necklaces and earrings, I think I should be getting rid of some of them, not adding to them. (But ‘not needing’ is not the same as ‘not wanting’ is it?) Every time I slap a hormone patch on my bum, I think of my doc telling me (not because she believes it, but she needs to cover her back) that continuing with HRT in my eighties could be the death of me. I’ve been on it since my forties and thank it for my energy and generally upbeat attitude. If I die, I die, but it’s been a good life.

Other frequent thoughts are: how many more summers have I got? Can I risk signing another TV contract? How will I bear it if John goes before me? How long will I be able to climb these stairs? Am I leaving my affairs in reasonable order?

The last is the only serious one really. You do need to leave life with crystal clear instructions, with everyone knowing what’s in your will. You don’t want to cause nasty surprises or family fall-outs. I wrote a will 12 years ago and a file for my offspring, about finances, leases, mortgage, passwords, etc. But in 12 years, things have changed a lot: siblings have died, we moved house, I re-married, sold my house, grandchildren were born… So the lesson is, yes, write a will, but review it every five years.

My children will get what’s left of my lolly which won’t be much after what I hope will continue to be a spendthrift, merry old age. But I also plan to leave a bit to six charities that I have cared about for years. Deciding who gets what and how much took a bit of serious thought, and selfishly, I decided to restrict myself to the organisations which have given me the most satisfaction working with them. One is the Royal Society of Arts, which I once chaired and which has been plugging the holes in society since 1754. Then there is the Soil Association, which runs Food For Life, teaching children to love healthy food, and schools and other organisations to serve good food. They also help farms to go organic, caterers to serve sustainable food, and badger governments to back nature-friendly food and farming. Charities don’t pay inheritance tax. And you can feel your halo glowing warmly.

I’ve also been sorting out all those things I really don’t want to think about, like organising an LPA (Lasting power of Attorney) so my children can manage my affairs when I’m incapable of doing it myself, and writing a ‘Living Will’ or ‘Advance Instruction’ about how to treat me, or more important, not treat me, when I’m gaga or speechless or dying. 

But where to put this? Your lawyer, doctor and children should have copies I guess, but frankly they are unlikely to be there at the critical moment. My 97-year-old mum, Peggy, was quietly dying with Alison, her carer (who knew her wishes) holding her hand as she lay peacefully in bed. At that moment the nursing assistant assigned to help put her to bed at 6 p.m. arrived, realised at once from Mum’s laboured breathing that she was dying, and promptly ran for the phone to call 999. Mum’s carer called to stop her, trying to tell her Peggy didn’t want to be kept alive, but the poor woman, trained to save life, was determined, and Alison didn’t want to leave Peggy to wrest the phone from her hand. So the ambulance was called. But my mama, an actress who knew her exits and her entrances, died minutes before the paramedics arrived. 

Whew. Too many old people are kept alive by a system designed to save life at all costs, even if it means repeated dashes to hospital, often violent resuscitations, more stays in hospital when they just want to be at home. One answer to this might be to have Do Not Resuscitate tattooed on your back and chest, but that seems a bit extreme. Better might be, I think and hope, to belong to the Lions Club, a charity with a simple solution: they provide a little bottle you keep in your fridge with your medical details, and instructions to resuscitate or not, inside. Paramedics are trained to look for the Lions Club Logo on a sticker by your front door, and know to look in your fridge. Of course, all this sorting and planning doesn’t make the grim bits of old age go away, but it helps on the peace of mind front. I recommend it.

Livro - Sapiens (História breve da Humanidade)

 

Felizmente que, como este, ainda há livros para ler.











The Spectator - The new dark age (Douglas Murray)

 (sublinhados meus)


The new dark age

(Getty/iStock)

We have entered a new dark age. I’m not just referring to the situation in Britain since last week. Though if I were, that too would seem irrefutable. I mean in a far broader sense – that the world has entered a new dark age.

The first dark age was characterised by a lack of information. For centuries almost nobody – even the most privileged people of the day – had access to any knowledge. The second dark age, by contrast, is characterised by a surfeit of information. Indeed there is so much information around us that nobody has a chance of absorbing even a calculable portion of it.

Never mind the millions of books published each year, or the billions of podcasts. Consider the trillions of opinions thrown out every day. The noise created by the half a billion people who use Twitter tends to dominate. But what about the almost three billion people (nearly half the planet) pinging messages to each other on WhatsApp? Today people have information coming at them all the time from every direction, and almost no ability to sift it.

Let me give one example that came my way this week. I hadn’t heard much of the Lancet since the Iraq war. That was when a magazine previously known only among those interested in peer-reviewed medical journals made huge headlines. For no clear reason, the journal decided to publish an article far away from its area of competency. The piece attempted to put a number on civilian deaths in Iraq. Its methodology was shown to be badly flawed, but the figure it came up with got thrown around anyway.

Personally, I chalked it up as one of those occasions when a publication completely delegitimises itself. If I can’t trust a specialist journal on something I know about, then how could I trust it on things I don’t know about? I can’t, and so I never had cause to trust the publication again.

Of course there is a danger in that, because if previously trustworthy journals delegitimise themselves, then there is one less reliable source. And if that happens many times – say, over the course of two decades – you are soon in a place where almost nothing can be believed, all the while being bombarded with information from such sources.

Anyway, the Lancet cropped up again this week. Once again it seems to have decided to get into the area of working out how many deaths have occurred in a war – this time, how many will be attributable to the conflict in Gaza over the past eight months. The outlandish yet weirdly precise figure of 186,000 deaths was put forward, which is far outside any previous estimates from any source in the region. What’s more, the figure was proposed at one and the same time as ‘not implausible’ and ‘conservative’ as an estimate.

The deranged mobs on social media caught wind of the story from an allegedly unimpeachable source and promptly ran with it. One thing they failed to note was that the article was not an article. It was a contribution to the ‘correspondence’ section, or letters page of the Lancet.

Ordinarily this would be counted as bad form. We have some splendid letter-writers in The Spectator, and the occasional oddball as well. But if somebody wrote a letter to this magazine and made some outlandish claim in it, it still would not be quite right to pass around the internet the idea that this was something which we had endorsed. It would just be one person’s opinion.

But in the new dark age that sort of detail gets lost. Earlier this week, as the Labour government got under way, a number of our wonderfully informed MPs joined the throngs of people passing the Lancet’s figure around social media. Perhaps they were appalled at the possibility that the figure was true. Or perhaps they wanted to whip up their base of activists online and try to get ahead of the outrage by leading it. Or perhaps they are just ignorant as swans.

On social media the Labour MP Zarah Sultana proclaimed: ‘The Lancet – the most prestigious medical journal in the world [as though Ms Sultana had surveyed all the relevant journals and soberly landed on this assessment] – conservatively estimates that the death toll in Gaza could be 186,000 or more.’ She went on to conclude that the UK should end any arms sales to Israel. In short order this message was read more than a million times.

The Irish Times joined in the fun. What was once Ireland’s leading broadsheet repeated the claim as a headline article, with the number attributed to a ‘British medical journal’. The UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese – a political, partisan hack if ever there was one – also helped spread the error across the world. On the BBC’s Newsnight, an ‘author and climate activist’ called Mikaela Loach repeated the claim, noting that Joe Biden is often called ‘Genocide Joe’ because he had ‘aided and abetted’ the killing of… and here the number was trotted out again, without any challenge from the BBC presenters.

What all these people were apparently doing – knowingly or otherwise – was picking up an unsubstantiated claim, misrepresenting the source, presenting it as something it wasn’t while the cover of a once–recognised specialist publication gave a veneer of truth to the claim.

Of course, many of the people who did this are just the sort of people who would rail against talk of ‘fake news’. But we are so far beyond that. As I say, it’s a new dark age, characterised not by monkish silence, but by uninformed howling.

Almoços (Escola Alemã 2 - DSL2)

Almoço em 04.10.2024 na Trafaria, na antiga Casa Marítima com João Leite, Manuel Ribeiro e Carlos Medeiros.








The Spectator - Why are Chinese students giving up on architecture?

 (personal underlines)

(sublinhados meus)

Why are Chinese students giving up on architecture?

I recently convened an urban studies summer school in a top university in Shanghai and asked the assembled class of architectural master’s students: ‘Who wants to be an architect?’ Not one hand was raised.

This was not the typical reticence of Chinese youngsters; this was a class of architectural students who have given up on architecture. They are all hoping to escape architectural education, so that they might progress to classes in AI, digital transformation or some other hi-tech sector where they believe jobs exist. For them, architecture is a dead end.

As my Chinese students are discovering, there are too few jobs in the sector, the pay is low and the work is unappealing. Notwithstanding the Norman Fosters and Zaha Hadids of this world, the same is largely true in the West, where the average salary for a five-year qualified architect in London is £45,000. But architecture retains its appeal in the West, in part because it is seen as a high-status profession, not a job.

Architecture only emerged in China as a viable independent profession 25 years ago. As the country modernised, students had more freedom to choose creative degrees. Architecture was seen to be an easy-going, inspiring career. It was also an escape route from rote learning and the promise of a laborious desk job.

But now, in China’s tightening jobs market, thousands of arts graduates are competing for each role. Internships are often unpaid, while junior architects earn as little as £400 per month. The nine-nine-six working week of old (working 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week) is back. Chinese architecture students seem desperate to avoid it.

Many still hope to reach a well-paid job, of course, consistent with their status and years of studying. But the reality they face is very different. Studying architecture is increasingly considered to be a sign of decadence or gullibility. What sort of fool studies architecture in the hope of a more comfortable life?  This attitude is a symptom of a bigger problem. In recent decades, the Chinese understood that they could represent their aspirational goals through their buildings. ‘Better City, Better Life’ was the slogan of the 2010 Shanghai Expo, which was intended to showcase China’s urbanity and civilised development to the rest of the world. Of late, that belief in building ‘the future’ (or as it’s sometimes referred to, ‘China’s century’) has been replaced with a sense of cynicism.

China has fallen out of love with architecture. China’s pragmatic former leader Deng Xiaoping once said that it doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white so long as it catches mice. The same mantra increasingly seems to apply to China’s attitude to construction. It doesn’t matter who designs and constructs a building so long as it works.

Which explains why university architecture courses are disappearing. The numbers of students enrolling in the subject has slumped to unsustainably low levels in many leading universities. Even engineering – for decades the top subject chosen by parents for their children – is in decline, largely due to the parlous state of the construction sector and the economy more broadly.

It would be a step too far to say that China’s architectural renaissance is over, but its real estate sector has been in the doldrums since the country’s draconian Covid lockdowns. When China Evergrande Group, one of the country’s largest development companies, was liquidated in January with £240 billion of total liabilities (the world’s most indebted developer), the mainstream construction sector and its secondary businesses struggled to survive. The Chinese Communist party intervened to minimise the impact on the rest of the economy, but it was impossible to contain the fallout. China had constructed more than 745 million square metres of surplus commercial housing. The construction industry has now stagnated, falling by 4 per cent year-on-year. 

An outsider might not notice this slump, in large part because there is still plenty of building going on across China. Unfortunately, many of these are projects that left the architect’s drawing board years ago. There is little new work coming in to fill the order books. People are getting nervous.

I have also noticed among Chinese architecture students a growing acceptance of the western belief that there are ‘limits to growth’. They no longer believe in the project of building the future. Could it be that the turn away from architecture – which has happened so swiftly and casually – reflects a pessimistic shift in how young Chinese people see their role in society? Or are they merely responding to the economic fluctuations taking place? It’s not entirely clear.

To stabilise things somewhat, the CCP has said that it wants to oversee the ‘construction of a digital China’. Design students have responded by giving up on building the physical world, in the hope that they might earn more constructing the virtual one.

The Spectator - France descends into chaos hours before the Olympics starts

 (sublinhados meus)


(personal underlines)

France descends into chaos hours before the Olympics starts

Thousands of passengers have been left stranded after a sabotage attack on France's railways (Getty)

France’s Olympics could not have got off to a worse start. Hundreds of thousands of train passengers have been left stranded after the country’s high-speed rail lines were targeted by a series of suspicious fires. Rail company SNCF says it’s a ‘massive attack aimed at paralysing the network’, with security services suggesting this morning that the far left may have been behind the attack. Whoever is to blame, one thing is clear: France’s president Emmanuel Macron will be furious. The world’s eyes are on Paris tonight as the opening ceremony gets underway. Macron wanted them to see France at its best; instead, they will see a country in chaos.

The man behind tonight’s opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics is Thomas Jolly. True to his surname, the theatre director promises a stunning show that will surprise and thrill. Above all, the ceremony will be a ‘celebration of cultural, linguistic, religious and sexual diversity in France’.

No one can argue that France is diverse, but is there much to celebrate? There once was.

French president Emmanuel Macron surveys Paris ahead of the Olympics (Getty)

The last great global event France hosted was the football World Cup in 1998 and, for the first time in their history, the French won the tournament. It was a gloriously diverse team. They were dubbed ‘black-blanc-beur’ (beur is a colloquial word denoting someone born in France of North African heritage, such as Zinedine Zidane, the star of the 1998 triumph). More than one million French partied in the Champs-Elysées after the 3-0 thrashing of Brazil in the final. 

It was the high point of what the French call vivre-ensemble, or ‘live together’; a favourite phrase of politicians at the time, today it is rarely heard.

‘Live together’ began to die out a decade ago. In June 2016, France hosted the European football championships and to coincide with the event the sports sociologist William Gasparini reflected on that 1998 victory. In his view, it was a time when the West brimmed with confidence, the ‘end of history’, as we were told. ‘Unemployment was falling, the economy was performing well and France was winning,’ explained Gasparini. The euphoria evaporated in the new millennium.

Gasparini cited the 9/11 attack in 2001 as a significant factor in the deterioration of vivre-ensemble because some French began to regard their Muslim fellow citizens with suspicion.

In his 2004 book, The War for Muslim Minds, France’s leading expert on Islamism, Gilles Kepel, contrasted the hospitality of Britain in granting asylum to figures from the Islamic world to the intransigence of France. ‘What French officials fear is that the social malaise felt by Muslims in the suburbs of major cities…will be expressed as religious extremism, leading eventually to violence and terrorism,’ wrote Kepel.

This fear has been realised, not because France began granting asylum to radicals but because of the emergence of the internet. Kepel pinpoints the launch of YouTube in 2005 as a seminal moment in the re-Islamification of some young European Muslims. Extremists used the site to proselytise and propagandise, and the results have been dramatic.

A major survey in 2020 reported that three quarters of French Muslims under 25 placed Islamic law over Republican law; among the over 35s, this figure fell to a quarter.

Asked in 2016 if France could ever return to the vivre-ensemble of 1998, Gasparini replied: ‘I don’t think we can go back on this enchanted interlude…we are now in a France that is in doubt’.

The following month, in Nice, an Islamist in a 19-ton truck murdered 86 people who were celebrating Bastille Day. That was the last of the large-scale massacres in France, but since then there have been many more Islamist attacks, including the murder of two school teachers.

Far from being a country of vivre-ensemble, France has become a nation where its citizens live ‘face to face’. Those are the words of the former minister of foreign affairs, Gérard Collomb, uttered when he resigned his post in 2018.

It was meant as a warning to French president Emmanuel Macron, but Collomb’s cri du cœur went unheeded. Worse, through his indifference and incompetence, the president has stirred anger among another demographic afflicted by a similar ‘social malaise’ to that experienced by many French Muslims in the inner cities. These are the ‘proles’ in the provinces, the yellow vests who demonstrated their discontent on the street in 2018 and then at the ballot box last month.

In the Europeans elections this summer, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally triumphed in 93 per cent of the country’s municipalities and in 96 out of 101 departements. Only the cities offered any resistance; here the radical left La France Insoumise (LFI) did well, campaigning on little else than the plight of Palestinians in Gaza. This appealed to Progressives and also Muslims, 62 per cent of whom voted for LFI in the European elections.

The National Rally also dominated the first round of voting in the parliamentary elections and would have won a majority of seats in the second round but for a hastily concocted ‘cordon sanitaire’ by Macron’s centrists and the bourgeoise left.

According to the historian of French Institutions, Philippe Fabry, the cordon sanitaire is ‘no longer ideological, it is sociological’, a revival of the class contempt that characterised the last years of Louis XVI’s reign: ‘The nobility of the Republic is refusing to allow the people to intrude into their place of life and power,’ was how he described Macron’s strategy to Le Figaro this week.

Perhaps nothing demonstrates the collapse of France’s multicultural myth more than two op-eds published during the recent parliamentary elections: one was signed by 80 prominent Muslims and it urged people not to vote for the National Rally because of their ‘racism’. The other was backed by 100 notables, many from France’s Jewish community, and urged people not to vote for the left-wing New Popular Front because, they said, it was a ‘threat’ to Jews.

This is the bitter reality of France today; a country with deep and dangerous fractures. This won’t, of course, be on display this evening. We’ll be treated to Macron’s version of France, a Progressive Utopia. If pipe dreaming was an Olympic event, Macron would win gold.

terça-feira, 8 de outubro de 2024

Reflexão - All In (In conversation with President Trump)

 What media wants and what we must and should do are two completely different things!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blqIZGXWUpU

Música - Delicate transitions (Gavin Luke)

 




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN5BODZPxnc

The Spectator - J.D. Vance was a weird teenager. So were most of us


(sublinhados meus)


J.D. Vance was a weird teenager. So were most of us

The real weirdos are now in control

(Getty)

Two photos from the youth of Republican vice-presidential candidate J.D. Vance have recently surfaced and are filling his opponents with glee. In one of them, he’s dressed as a woman, with shoulder-length golden hair, a look of yet-to-be-plucked wistfulness, and three days of teenage stubble. The other shows him loitering in a men’s bathroom, a faint aura of The Munsters about him, as three smiling young women (fellow members of his Ohio school’s student government) pretend to relieve themselves standing up into a row of urinals. Along with his views on abortion (at the battier end, admittedly, of the pro-life movement) and his strong take on women’s role within the family – ‘If your worldview tells you that it’s bad for women to become mothers but liberating for them to work 90 hours a week in a cubicle at the New York Times or Goldman Sachs, you’ve been had’ – they have given fuel to the Democrat idea that, like Trump, Vance is ‘weird’ and has a problem with the opposite sex.

Whether this will hit home with voters is another question. Democrats will have their work cut out for them arguing that the first photo is proof of anything unsavoury – since when did they disapprove of men in women’s clothing? Equally, how can a party associated with unisex public bathrooms cavil at the second (couldn’t Vance put the photo forward himself as evidence of early, swinging open-mindedness about gender)? There may be an oddity about both snapshots, but the fact is they’re hardly unique. For most teenage boys – those who don’t necessarily shimmy through high school years as an Alpha-hit with their female colleagues – adolescence is a profoundly unsettling time, one of sweaty awkwardness, existential doubt, and bottles of Biactol drained as quickly as a wino downs a litre of hooch. Vance’s photos do nothing but paint him as a fairly normal teenager. To see true adult weirdness, one need only watch clips of Kamala Harris’s unprompted maniacal laughter or the way running mate Tim Walz’s mouth hangs goofily open at times, like Fozzie Bear expressing wonder on the Muppet Show.

Besides, what if Vance was a ‘weird’ teenage boy? Most of us, men and women, still shudder with horror at our teenage selves and will sympathise. The writer Dennis Potter once said we should look back on our youth with a kind of ‘tender contempt, and we’ll probably find the second part of that emotion much easier to access. It’s not that we were wicked, more we had a tendency to be fatally unguarded, manically egocentric, and clueless about what would work for us and what wouldn’t. We trusted too much, our weaknesses were freely on display, and we’d mistaken the imminent, lasting afflictions of our lives (oh, how they fly in like planes once adolescence kicks in) for temporary conditions that could be solved by a new haircut or a change of clothes. It’s in your teenage years you fall most recklessly in love, not only with potential romantic partners but with your friends as well, sure you’ll be sitting round the same (or better) tables with these people for the rest of your life’. In such a state of naive trustfulness, Vance and those like him can surely be allowed a few klutzy indiscretions. One Nikki May, treasurer of the same student council which supplied that female trio of urinal-botherers, had this to say about the young Vance: ‘He was a great student and guy. I am very proud to say I went to high school with J.D. and very impressed of the man he has become.’

Could that be said of all of us? Like many, I look back on my own teenage years and can only sympathise with Vance. There is a photo of me aged about 15, fresh-faced and perky looking, the wall of my room at school covered with pictures of the Kray Twins (don’t ask me why this gruesome pair appealed to me – I supposed it was to do with masculinity, danger, and good tailoring). I even wrote a play about them, performed as part of a school drama festival, with squeaky-voiced public schoolboys snarling at each other in cockney-rhyming slang or lines I’d lifted verbatim from the Long Good Friday (you have actually to hear the line ‘I’ll have his carcass dripping blood by midnight’ delivered in a Rees-Mogg accent to realise these things don’t always translate). But then, Ronnie and Reggie were only part of the weirdness. There were the series of true crime books about people like Dennis Nilssen or Myra Hindley. Or the lip gloss and eyeliner I wore, David Sylvian style, in the early 1980s, or the antique cigarette holder I (tragically) waved about for a season, or the way I’d dab on fake stubble with my sister’s mascara to try to gain underage entry to Chelsea nightclubs. Would any of this help a political career?

Well, perhaps it might. Weirdness has quite a good track record when it comes to success. Morrissey hung out in graveyards. The young Margot Robbie had clear-lensed spectacles made up, just so she could look like Harry Potter. Steve Jobs never washed and had heinous BO. And though none of them were in politics, you could argue that those who have known true weirdness in their youths, blundering through the awful phantasmagoria of adolescence, learn at an early age about real injustice: that teenage charisma is bestowed by the gods far more randomly than wealth.

Besides, who’ll disagree completely with Vance’s 2021 statement that the US (and by extension, Great Britain) is ‘effectively run by a bunch of childless cat ladies’ who are ‘miserable at their own lives and the choices they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too’?

Cats aside (I have two myself), it would take a somnambulist or a Starmer supporter not to notice that in the last woeful decade, western culture seems to have been taken over wholesale by the most unpopular kid in the class: the one who mistrusted fun because they never had any, was out to sabotage everyone’s love life as they didn’t have one of their own, and was the mortal enemy of laughter, having provoked it themselves only unintentionally. The kid who invariably sneaked gleefully on their classmates and got a pat on the head from teacher for so doing. For over a decade or so we’ve exalted these people, told ourselves they’re on the side of the angels, thanked them as they squatted over us and – in boardrooms, editorials, on quangos and, recently, in landslide governments – handed them power. J.D. Vance can sleep easy, I’d guess, because what could be weirder than that?

The Spectator - How to quit like the Japanese

 (sublinhados meus)


How to quit like the Japanese

For many, the idea of quitting a job they hate, of walking into their boss’s office and telling him or her in no uncertain terms what they think of it (and them perhaps), and then striding out without a backward glance, is a delicious one, a pleasant daydream to be enjoyed on the dreary daily commute. But for the Japanese, the idea of resigning from your company is positively traumatic, so much so that the latest boom industry here is agencies who will take care of the whole messy business for you.

There are now dozens of so-called ‘resignation firms’ in Tokyo, which will act as an intermediary between the prospective resignee and their company. The firm will deliver the news of the desired departure, negotiate the terms of release and take care of all the paperwork. The typical cost for the service is quite reasonable for Japan – about £150, or half that if you are just a part-timer.

A particularly successful example is the artfully named ‘Momuri’ (Japanese for ‘I can’t take it any more’). Momuri received 174 requests (a company record) for resignation assistance on the last day of the annual Golden Week holiday (5 May). This is the peak quitting period as the prospect of a return to work, with no more holidays until a brief one in August, looms depressingly large. This angst even has its own name, gogatsubyo (May blues), a more intense version of Sazae-san syndrome, a reference to the work-related gloom that descends on Japanese people at the end of the weekly animated sitcom Sazae-san (7 p.m. Sunday).

The resignation companies report the main reason people give for wanting to quit is that the reality of the jobs they have taken differs from their expectations. That sounds like characteristic Japanese polite understatement to me and could probably be translated as ‘My job is a living nightmare’ or ‘I’m a Japanese salaryman/woman, get me out of here!’

Despite various government attempts to pep things up (flexi-time, dress-down Friday, working from home), Japan’s employee lifestyle can be an utterly miserable affair. Working hours are punishing, often involving excessive amounts of overtime. This is sometimes even unpaid (‘service overtime’), if you are unlucky enough to work for one of the notorious ‘black’ companies who exploit their staff mercilessly.

Then there is the rigid hierarchy and strict protocol of a Japanese office, somewhat redolent of a medieval court, but with no jesters allowed to lighten the mood. This not only means having to pour your boss’s drinks on obligatory late-night drinking sessions (when most staff would rather just go home) but extends to the language used in every interaction. A junior can only address a senior using humble respectful language. This chore, combined with all the other potential etiquette pitfalls, puts staff constantly on edge for fear of offending.

The mental-health consequences of this are a serious problem and appears to be getting worse: there were nearly 3,000 suicides last year ascribed to work-related stress, and a similar number the year before. And it’s not clear that companies are doing much to help. The worst case I heard about was a bank that built a gleaming new office block in the centre of Tokyo, with the un-usual feature of balconies where staff could take a break and enjoy the skyline. Unfortunately, the work culture was in all other respects so brutal that the balconies were more often used for suicide jumps. The problem became so bad that the company was forced to take action. Which they did – by removing the balconies.

So work is hell (often, not always – there are decent companies too). But why then would escaping from this hell be so difficult? The problem lies partly in the attitude the Japanese have to their work and how it defines their position in society. I once interviewed a famous businessman who explained that ‘Japanese people feel like they are working for Japan’. They see it as like being in the army; a hard life but one must do one’s duty. By quitting you are essentially letting the side down – the side being Japan. It is tantamount to deserting.

Which makes the face-to-face encounter itself, the admission of failure and its aftermath – the sour mood that must be endured as you serve out a notice period and train up your replacement, all the time conscious that you have sown disharmony and added to the already heavy burden born by your colleagues – an intolerable prospect. It is perhaps understandable that many Japanese people are choosing to leave the whole painful process to the professionals.

It is also part of a broader societal trend. Just as in the professional sphere, so too in the domestic is much of the awkwardness of life being either outsourced or automated. For instance, while there were always match-makers in Japan, taking the hard work out of finding a suitable life partner, and specialist agencies to investigate the background of your prospective match (to save you having to ask), there are now also professional ‘match-breakers’ (wakaresaseya) who can be employed to facilitate a separation if you wish to divorce your spouse but can’t face the confrontation.

It makes you wonder where all this is heading. To a world where you can go through your entire life without ever having a difficult conversation – or perhaps any meaningful face-to-face interaction at all? A frictionless, perhaps even contactless, future.

Fotos - Céus





















The Spectator - The horror of airports

 (my underlines)

The horror of airports

There is not a single redeeming feature

(Getty)

You really have to force yourself to love flying. Sitting on the tarmac for an hour and a half with an air conditioning unit that won’t turn off and two babies locked in a battle of who can scream the loudest is not in my ‘Top 10 Days Well Spent For Zak’. But the plane is an experience. Though commercial air travel has been a possibility since 1914 – some argue earlier in the case of airships – we still go through that shudder of glee (or fright) when the plane does the impossible and leaves the ground. For all of the pitfalls of flying, the miracle of air travel means there’s always something endearing about planes.

This does not apply to airports. Airports have no excuse. An airport is a Westfield with fewer knives. An airport does not need to go anywhere, to fly 40,000 ft in the sky with temperatures below -50°C. The airport is like the aeroplane’s lame younger brother. There is nothing good about an airport. Name one thing. And don’t say duty free or I’ll start rocking and beat myself over the head with one of those grotesquely large Toblerone bars.

You can rank British airports as much as you like, but they’re all the same. Horrible. That said, Luton Airport will always come in last place because it is a bungalow and reminds me of a documentary I watched about Chernobyl when I was ten.

I believe that the airport is designed to ruin your holiday so that you’ll book another one to make up for how bad the last trip was. It begins with the getting there. I tend to travel to the airport in the seedy hours of the morning. This is not because I like waking up in the dead of night with an upset tummy and all the focus of a toddler after a packet of discontinued blue Smarties. It is because I am cheap and Ryanair likes to send you to places before the nightclubs close. I recognise that this is counterproductive. The trains are never running and I always end up booking an Uber with a driver who tells me the coach would have been cheaper (he’s getting a two-star review and no tip). 

I only ever travel with a carry-on bag. I don’t bother with checked luggage. I think I might have a Christian Bale on the set of Terminator Salvation level meltdown if I did. This means my first port of call is security. Security staff need a lesson in efficiency. They’ll spend half an hour chewing gum and throwing all of your personal items onto their dirty metal table just to find your haemorrhoid cream (it’s 101ml). It’s also one of the slowest processes known to Man. Forty-five minutes can feel like 45 hours as you shuffle behind a family of six shouting about grandad’s whereabouts. 

After security you must run the gauntlet that is the aforementioned duty free. Duty free is a real head thumper. I actually feel sorry for the staff who work there. I’m sure back in the glory days of air travel – 1973: the year David Cassidy flew to Heathrow Airport – duty free was somewhat glamorous. Now it’s all about flapping soggy strips of card in bleary-eyed, teary-eyed faces to the brain-altering loop of Jess Glynne’s ‘Hold My Hand’. I’ve learnt that the best way to deal with duty free is to blink a lot and mumble gibberish as fast as you can. This should create the illusion of insanity and the salespeople will leave you alone. Just make sure the security don’t see you or you’ll be dragged off to a barren room behind W.H. Smith’s and beaten for information. 

The terminal is the sunken place – it ranks higher than Sartre’s Huis clos on my list of most existentially upsetting things. The world doesn’t make sense here. Drinking a pint of lager with a Nando’s at 3.50 a.m. is perfectly normal. Sleeping on the ice sheet ground with all of your possessions on display is fine. Buying Rhonda Byrne’s The Secret with no intention of reading it is par for the course. I hate it here, though a small part of me loves the theatre. Everyone is equal in the terminal. Hugh Grant could be sat in the Stansted Burger King and few would care. A huge cross section of society is kettled into a circular arena, forced to make the choice between Jamie’s Italian (hasn’t that gone bust?) or a dank Joe and the Juice. The answer is always Wetherspoons. 

When the pilot finally turns up three hours after your departure time, the gate will open. Then it’s another wait while the priority passes are scanned. By this point, you’d be happy to fly in the hold with the dogs just to leave this modern Gomorrah behind.

The late A.A. Gill wrote a brilliant piece about picking his daughter up from the airport when she was 19. In it, he wrote about watching two sisters run towards each other and break down in tears. ‘Without words, you knew that a parent had died,’ he wrote. I don’t like airports. I think I’ve made that pretty clear. But there is nowhere else on earth that captures life’s briefness. Arrivals. Duty free. Departures. 

Reflexão - O homem deles na ONU (Alberto Gonçalves)

 (sublinhados meus)


O homem deles na ONU

O problema não é o ínfimo eng. Guterres, a quem Israel fechou as fronteiras como qualquer pessoa civilizada fecharia a sua casa. Nem a ONU. O problema é o mundo, ou a parte ocidental dele.

Após o Irão bombardear Israel, socialistas de toda a Ibéria apressaram-se a demonstrar sincera solidariedade. Com Israel? Nada disso: com o eng. Guterres, coitado, que acabara de declarado persona non grata pelo governo israelita e proibido de entrar no país. Além de uns espanhóis com prestígio no Rato, e do recomendável sr. Lula, o carismático Pedro Nuno Santos, por exemplo, afirmou o seguinte: “Quero manifestar toda a minha solidariedade e apoio ao Secretário-Geral da ONU, António Guterres, pela forma corajosa como tem defendido a paz e condenado todas as formas de violência no Médio Oriente. Lamentamos e repudiamos as declarações do Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros do Estado de Israel que atingem toda a ONU – e não apenas o seu SG. A escalada de violência tem de terminar e deve ser estabelecido um plano para a paz e para o reconhecimento internacional de um estado palestiniano, no quadro da solução dos dois Estados. Neste contexto, o governo não pode permanecer indiferente às declarações do MNE de Israel, em coerência com o discurso recente do Primeiro-Ministro nas Nações Unidas. Esperamos, portanto, uma reação oficial do governo português.”

Foi notável esta incursão do dr. Pedro Nuno pela política internacional, já que não se lhe conhece uma única opinião sobre os mísseis (“basílicos”, disse uma especialista na Sic Notícias) iranianos. Ou os rockets do Hezbollah. Ou os psicopatas do Hamas. Ou os ataques do Iémen. Quando o ainda chefe do PS espreme bem espremido o Médio Oriente, o que mais o aflige é o desrespeito da única democracia da região pelo eng. Guterres. No que toca à reacção do governo português, o dr. Pedro Nuno não precisou de esperar: sete minutos antes do seu penetrante texto no X, ou Twitter, os Negócios Estrangeiros já haviam “lamentado profundamente a decisão do Governo de Israel”. E acrescentado que a “missão” do eng. Guterres “é indispensável para assegurar o diálogo, a paz e o multilateralismo. Insta-se o governo de Israel a rever a sua decisão”. E insta muito bem.

Não se percebe o que motiva tamanho consenso entre a oposição e o governo, ou o dr. Pedro Nuno e o dr. Rangel. Patriotismo, a bela arte de exaltar um compatriota por ridículo que seja? Partilha de convicções geo-estratégicas? Pior que tudo é a hipótese de ambos acreditarem de facto na “forma corajosa” como o eng. Guterres “tem defendido a paz e condenado todas as formas de violência no Médio Oriente”, e concordarem que a criatura “é indispensável para assegurar o diálogo, a paz e o multilateralismo”.

Em primeiro lugar, o eng. Guterres não tem “condenado todas as formas de violência no Médio Oriente”. O que ele faz – recorrente e explicitamente – é condenar a título de “escalada” cada acto de retaliação israelita aos ataques de que é alvo. Quanto aos ataques propriamente ditos, o eng. Guterres, a fim de simular isenção, limita-se a lançar uns suspiros raros e difusos, por norma sem identificar os agressores. A “paz” que ele “defende” prevê por omissão a extinção de Israel e estende-se, nos guinchos dos anti-semitas, “do rio até ao mar”.

Em segundo lugar, o eng. Guterres está longe de ser “indispensável para assegurar o diálogo”, palavra que aliás ele proferia abundantemente ao tempo em que era primeiro-ministro (com resultados espantosos). Imagine-se a mesa onde se discutiriam os eventuais acordos. De um lado, Israel. Do outro, terroristas, violadores e assassinos que não admitem a existência de Israel. Ao centro, um espécime que, assaz legitimamente, Israel considera “apoiar terroristas, violadores e assassinos”. O sucesso das negociações seria inevitável.

Não tenciono especular acerca do que leva o eng. Guterres a dizer o que diz, e a calar o que cala. É irrelevante apurar se se trata de dinheiro, carácter, ideologia, distúrbio ou chantagem. A verdade é que interesses subterrâneos (ao estilo dos túneis de Gaza), mas “descobríveis” (ao estilo dos túneis de Gaza), despejaram a figurinha certa no lugar certo. Ninguém serviria tão fielmente os propósitos da ONU quanto aquela gelatina desconsolada, sem sabor nem decência, sem pigmento nem vergonha. O problema não é o ínfimo eng. Guterres, a quem Israel fechou as fronteiras como qualquer pessoa civilizada fecharia a sua casa. O problema também não chega a ser a ONU, agremiação que há demasiados anos ergueu o “sionismo” a inimigo número um e único, e que agora já dispõe de funcionários alistados nas fileiras do terror.

O problema é o mundo, ou o rumo que a parte dita ocidental do mundo decidiu tomar. Nas mãos de líderes (?) débeis ou puros vendidos, “sensíveis” e “tolerantes”, o Ocidente teima em ceder a senhores e a culturas a que não falta vontade, que infelizmente acumulam com a escassez de escrúpulos e a intolerância radical. De um lado, “abertura”; do lado oposto, conquista. Neste cenário, a excepção é Israel, que por necessidade trava as guerras que abdicamos de sequer prevenir. Se Israel não vencer, a célebre “escalada” será igual a esta estranha época: de pernas para o ar. E vai conduzir-nos a um fundo de que não se vê retorno.

sexta-feira, 4 de outubro de 2024

The Spectator - Israel was right to ignore the West (Douglas Murray)

 

(sublinhados meus)

Israel was right to ignore the West

Getty Images

There are sources in the Jewish tradition that warn against exultation at the downfall of one’s enemies. But I am not Jewish, and so I have exulted greatly these past two weeks.

If you follow most of the British media, you may well think that the past year involves the following events: Israel attacked Hamas, Israel invaded Lebanon, Israel bombed Yemen. Oh and someone left a bomb in a room in Tehran that killed the peaceful Palestinian leader Ismail Haniyeh.

Of course all this is an absolute inversion of the truth. Hamas invaded Israel, so Israel attacked Hamas. Hezbollah has spent the past year sending thousands of rockets into Israel, so Israel has responded by destroying Hezbollah. The Houthis in Yemen – now so beloved of demonstrators in the UK – sent missiles and drones hundreds of miles to attack Israel, so Israel bombed the Houthis’ arms stores in Yemen. And Hamas leader Haniyeh, who was born under Egyptian rule and died in Tehran, never brought the Palestinian people anything but misery.

On 7 October last year Israel was surprised by a brigade-sized invasion of terrorists into its territory. These terrorists raped, murdered and burned their way as far inside Israel as they could get. How this intelligence and military failure was possible is something that Israelis still have to work out. But the first answer is because they face a fanatical, ideological opponent which wants to destroy them. Hezbollah joined in the action on 8 October. All these attacks were funded and orchestrated by the Revolutionary Islamic government in Iran, which as I write this is sending hundreds of ballistic missiles at Israel from Iran – strikes that have so far proved a failure.

Hamas still holds a hundred Israelis hostage inside Gaza, but the Israeli government has managed to bring half the hostages home already. For many people in the first days of the war, it seemed impossible that even one hostage would be able to come back to their families alive. So this is no mean feat in itself. Aside from saving the hostages, the other most important thing for Israel has been to strike and destroy the proxy armies of Iran who wish to make the whole of Israel unlivable for Jews.

All this time the governments in Britain and America have given the Israelis advice which mercifully they did not listen to. Earlier this year, Kamala Harris warned that the IDF shouldn’t go into Hamas’s Gaza stronghold in Rafah. As she wisely said: ‘I’ve studied the maps.’ Fortunately the Israelis did not listen to Kamala’s beginners’ guide to Rafah. They went into the Hamas stronghold, continued to search for the hostages, continued to kill Hamas’s leadership and continued to destroy the rocket and other ammunition stores that Hamas has built up for 18 years.

Next came the complete destruction of Hezbollah, which has the blood of hundreds of Americans and other nationals on its hands, as well as that of Israelis. Not to mention the fact that this foreign army of Iran has immiserated Lebanon for 40 years. The Christians of that country have dwindled to a minority as these Shiite fundamentalists have taken a once thriving country and turned it into yet another ayatollah-dominated hellhole.

Then, in a series of attacks which historians are already studying, everything went kaboom for Hezbollah. First thousands of its operatives were targeted all over Lebanon and Syria. Having decided that phones were not a safe means of communication, the terrorists had recently reverted to pagers, but someone managed to get into the supply chain, put a small amount of explosive in every Hezbollah device and then blew the balls off the people who were hoping to destroy their neighbours. Then Hezbollah’s walkie-talkies also suddenly detonated. Much of Hezbollah’s leadership – including those involved in the killing of 241 American marines in their barracks in Beirut in 1983 – met up in person to discuss all this, during which they too were killed in a strike.

The British and American governments among others had told the Israelis that there should be no escalation. But fortunately they weren’t listened to. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had gone to New York to address the various despots and kleptocrats on First Avenue; so the ultimate leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, thought that this would be a safe moment to get together with the few remaining members of his organisation. Before going on stage in New York and observing the traditional walkout of ‘diplomats’, Netanyahu ordered the final strike. While he was up there, Hassan Nasrallah went to meet his maker.

By this point, there is nobody left in Hezbollah. They’re all gone. All of the leadership, every one of their commanders, while their lower-level operatives are trying to get their testicles reattached in the hospitals of Beirut. It’ll be wall-to-wall wreath-laying for the Hamas and Hezbollah fanboys.

But there it is. The wisdom of the international community is that ceasefires are always desirable, that negotiated settlements are always to be desired, and that violence is never the answer. As so often, these wise international voices have no idea what they are talking about.

Israel’s enemies have spent the past year trying to destroy it, as they have so many times before. But it is they who have gone to the dust, with the regime in Tehran the only thing that is, for the time being, still standing. Absent that terror regime, and not just Israel but the whole of the Middle East has a bright future. Sometimes you need war to make peace. Sometimes there is a price to pay for trying to finish the work of Adolf Hitler. Who knew?