Blog

Opinion & Analysis

Monday, January 18, 2010

No need to take to the streets when logic is on your side

TONY ALLWRIGHT

OPINION: Left-wing politics has the monopoly on shouty protests because of a lack of intellectual rigour

SOME TIME ago I wrote something supportive of Israel and critical about the behaviour of Arabs towards Palestinians. This elicited some threatening if anonymous responses from people who were clearly left-leaning. This has me thinking.

What is the common thread when you see, in the West, demonstrations, marches, violence, threats concerning this or that? With the exception of football hooligans and a few neo-Nazi groups, they always seem to come from the left.

Those “Not in Our Name” thousands who demonstrated against the Iraq war formed the centrepoint of the left’s campaign. Yet was it not odd that right-leaning supporters of the war did not also stage demonstrations under banners such as “Free the Iraqi People”?

The demonstrations during the UN climate conference were all in favour of anti-global-warming action. Yet where were the counter-protests to “Stop wasting taxpayers’ money on a scam”?

People who object to multinationals such as McDonald’s or Shell under the rubric of anti-capitalism are the ones who see fit to smash up their premises or physically obstruct their projects. Why don’t rightists smash up icons of leftism such as trade union offices?

Individual threats of physical harm are invariably directed against right-leaning individuals. Think, for example, of the movie or video game depicting the assassination of George Bush. By contrast, rarely do you hear that, for example, raging lefties like George Galloway need bodyguards, except for perhaps intrusion by the press. Left-wingers know they can express their views without fear of intimidation from their opponents, which cannot be said for the pro-capitalism camp.

The fascistic dictators Franco, Mussolini and Hitler were
responsible for perhaps 10 million non-combat deaths. Yet they
are vilified far more than the Soviet communist despots whose
tally was around 36 million, or Mao Tse Tung, responsible for a
further 50-70 million.

It is utterly wrong to suggest that modern righties or lefties should
be compared with those evil, blood-drenched tyrants, other than in
aspects of ideology. But on a street level, the left does seem more
inclined to direct action than the right.

Is it just that lefties are more sure of themselves, more
courageous, more outspoken, more correct, and thus prepared to
be more physically assertive? While righties can do no more than
cower in the corner, in a fog of shame?

“

Why
don't
rightists
smash up
icons of
leftism
such as
trade
union
offices?

Or is there something deeper at work? Some would maintain that the atheistic left lacks the constraints of a more Christian right. But I believe there is a more prosaic explanation. Logic is overwhelmingly on the side of the right, or as Margaret Thatcher once pithily observed, “the facts of life are conservative”.

For example, it is logical that if you give people the freedom to improve themselves, that is what they will generally do. With freedom to chose their own leaders, it’s logical that they’ll try to select ones who have their constituents’ best interests in mind. If everyone has such freedoms, then society as a whole will improve. If you enforce people’s property rights and contracts, and protect them from crime, they will be even better able to improve themselves. If you provide rewards for particular behaviour, you will get more of it, whether it is benign (think of hard work fostered by low taxes), or less desirable (such as long-term unemployment encouraged by generous welfare). If you provide services or benefits completely free of charge and without regard to their costs (eg medical, schooling, subsidies) we have seen how you get unlimited demand and unlimited complaint.

Thus it is very difficult for the left to develop a coherent basis for countering policies that are guided by such flights of reason. That is why it must resort to waffly arguments such as what is “fair”, what is “compassionate”, what is “hurtful”, the implication being that everything on the right is heartless. Such terms are intrinsically emotional while presenting no logic. Therefore to push them you have to put your own emotion into play. This in turn leads to the shouting.

Pitting right-wing logic against left-wing passion is a contest that no side can really win, because neither can comprehend the other, nor wants to. But on a brighter note, left-wing passion goes a long way towards explaining the undoubted superiority of the left when it comes to the modern arts. This may be because the right use the left-side of the brain, which is the part that is strong on reason, whereas the left use the right-side, where artistry lies. Left, right, it’s all very confusing. But at least when the left are singing they’re not doing damage.

Tony Allwright is an engineering and industrial safety consultant; www.tallrite.com/blog.htm

Published column as JPG

More on this subject in two blog posts entitled “The Passionate Left and Logical Right”
and “Right-Wingers Are No Good at Music”

to the Irish Times

Logic and the left - 20 January 2009

Madam, – That Tony Allwright’s superficial article (“No need to take to the streets when logic is on your side”, Opinion, January 18th) could be published in Ireland’s paper of record is ample evidence of the need for some basic philosophy to be taught in our schools.

Mr Allwright concludes that the right is “rational” and the left “emotional”. Graduates from a school philosophy course would be able to tell him that both sides employ more or less adequate chains of reasoning, starting from different assumptions about such things as the way the world is and what people are really like.

Likewise, individuals are motivated in different ways by complex mixes of reason and emotion. It is the job of philosophy to analyse and reflect on these reasons and assumptions. Perhaps with greater public familiarity of this extraordinary history of ideas, we could envision a more sophisticated public discussion on these matters. – Yours, etc,

KINGSLEY GOODWIN,
Castle View, Lynally,
Tullamore, Co Offaly.

Madam, – Tony Allwright suggests right-wingers have a monopoly on logic and intellectual rigour. There are two problems with this:

1. Mr Allwright’s poorly reasoned article fails to define adequately what left or right means any more. The distinction originally derived from the seating arrangement of the National Assembly after the French Revolution of 1789. The debate has moved on from these obsolete divisions. Many people’s views elude the corporate and statist pieties of either so-called side.

2. Fox News.

– Yours, etc,

SEÁN Mac CANN,
Trillick, Co Tyrone.

Madam, – Only the left take to the streets? Who were those people demonstrating against Obama’s welfare Bill at every public rally in the US recently? Closer to home, I was unaware our entire police, medical and Civil Service workforce was composed of members of the left as they protested against the recent pension levies and other cutbacks. – Yours, etc,

GERRY CARR,
Randolph Avenue, London.

Madam, – Given that the conservative right in the US (under the banner of the Tea Party movement) has been taking to the streets since a few weeks after Barack Obama assumed the presidency, it may be that a disposition to public protest has more to do with distance from the reins of power than the logic or passion of the argument.

The evidence from the demonstrations that hastened the collapse of left-wing regimes across Europe 20 years ago might also suggest that it is the powerless of whatever political hue who are the most likely to engage in “shouty protests”. – Yours, etc,

GERRY MORRISSEY,
The Rise,
Mount Merrion, Co Dublin.

A chara, – In very recent memory, the “logical” right has given us the ugly, hate-filled and reason-free Tea Party protests in the US, replete with guns, white supremacy and claims that Barack Obama is a socialist Muslim Manchurian candidate; last year’s anti-abortion rally in Dublin; and protests by hardline religious groups against anti-discrimination protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the UK. Were those not “shouty” enough? – Is mise,

PÓL Ó CIONNAITH,
Leonard’s Court,
Clanbrassil St, Dublin 8.

*E-mailed comments to me*	*My e-mailed responses*
From: Gerry Xxx Date: 18 Jan 10 Does the term "Tea Party" ring any bells? +++++ From: Gerry Xxx Date: 18 Jan 10 That's not the point. Your article claims that the Right doesn't assemble to protest.	18 Jan 2010 Yes it certainly does. These were remarkable in that they were the most well-behaved, civilised protests that anyone could remember. Yes there was some shouting, but there was no damage, no roughstuff, and pretty much everyone took their rubbish home with them. Left wingers would be ashamed of such insipid behaviour at a protest! Thanks for your comment.
E-mail Comment From: Barry Yyy Date: 18 Jan 10 Hi Tony, Your mention of Margaret Thatcher reminded of a recent TV programme which had Michael O'Kennedy speaking of his experiences with her during negotiations concerning Northern Ireland. He was quite unimpressed by her in that she had a tendency to reduce everything to a trite oversimplification. This seems to be a tendency of "Righties" and we need look no further than Fox news commentators for confirmation of this. By the way... I think there could be a new career for you there as you would fit in very well. Unfortunately, and I think you had your tongue at least half-way into your cheek when you penned today's column, this unwillingness to delve into the issues with due intellectual rigour is evident in your piece. Whatever about that, you score ten out of ten for smugness. If you can understand why the leafy suburb of Killiney does not suffer from the same level of anti-social behaviour as Nielstown, you are on the way to understanding why the protests from the left are inclined to be angrier. In fact, come to think about it, the right rarely if ever get sufficiently exercised to protest about anything. This is not because they are any different from the left, but rather they are quite the same. The fact is that nothing that happens under a right wing government is likely to adversely effect them enough for them to protest. So, a consultant engineer living in an affluent part of the city is a whole lot less likely to march on the street than a community activist who sees crippling social deprivation around them daily. One person lives in quite excellent circumstances and sees little to suggest that this is going to change. The other lives in an environment that deprives people of their dignity and sees little to suggest that this is going to change. So who is going to be angry and protest? Of course at this point it must be said that any professional who became successful most likely did so through hard work. Unfortunately, often when this is said, the subtext is that anyone who was prepared to work hard would have been able to achieve the same. This of course is complete nonsense. My father was a very intelligent man, but being form the wrong side of the tracks was never likely to receive 3rd level education. At one point in his working life as a printer he did 15 hour night shifts 5 days a week for 11 years. His reward for hard work was an early grave. I know this is lost on you as to stand up for such notions as fairness and compassion would be just making waffly arguments. Across the road from where I live is a green space littered with the residue of regular bonfires, discarded furniture, syringes, bottles and refuse. I think it would be a great idea if you and any like-minded friends who would care to join you, could come to Drumalee estate and knock on the doors there and explain to the residents that they have every opportunity to improve themselves. That they have no excuse for being below the poverty line as they and their children have the same access to excellent education as their Killiney counterparts. Because they do, don't they Tony? All the best Barry +++++ From: Barry Yyy Date: 20 Jan 10 Hi Tony, I am grateful for your reply, as I'm sure you are a busy man. I meant no insult by anything I said in my mail. No insult was intended regarding my Fox news quip. Rather that you would feel comfortable there with their take on issues. But I do not believe that the criticism that directed at Fox news regarding the style and content of it's broadcasts is just because people of different hues do not like it. (see Brit Hume's crass statements regarding Buddhism) I do considered the tone with which you made your contentions, which I dealt with later in my mail, to be smug. If you are interested in fostering debate, it might be an idea to write in such a way as that your article may not be misunderstood as a put down of the left, by suggesting that they are all passion and no logic. Or perhaps a put down was exactly what you intended, but I fail to see how that would help to enable dialogue. My comments concerning your environment were meant to underline how a person's environment and living conditions will have a formative impact on their outlook on life. This is not man and not ball Your statements regarding the achievements of Capitalism are correct. I am not anti-Capitalist nor pro-Socialist. I am pro-people. My perception is that the Capitalist viewpoint deems that the free market system will enable a rising tide to lift all boats. Unfortunately not all boats are lifted. The socialist/communist aspect is that the system itself is sacrosanct which often ends up with people being sacrificed (sometimes literally) for the system. My belief is that in the end there are no systems that are good or evil in themselves, the difference lies in the hearts of the people operating them. When the negative side of human nature takes hold, all systems fail. We agree that Capitalism in itself does not ensure equal opportunity. I have always questioned statements that begin "There will always be........." It's not long ago that "There will always be violence in Northern Ireland" was a popular sentiment. So when you say there will always be those who fail to reap the benefits of opportunity, I am not about to change the habit of a lifetime. It was not bad luck of laziness that demanded that my father's generation worked hard for modest benefits and relatively poor conditions. In many cases they were simply exploited. The much improved conditions workers enjoy these days were not a product of any benign motivation on the part of Capitalists. These conditions were fought for by those dastardly union activists. If anyone thinks that this type of activism belongs in the past, I can assure them that my time as a staff representative explodes that myth completely. I am not suggesting that we can work towards a society where every person attains equal benefit, but at least we can try to give them access to that opportunity. I cannot for a second entertain the notion that Ireland in 2010 does anything like enough in this regard. I note that you suggest that it makes sense to provide extra support for those who are disadvantaged. Perhaps you could write a piece for the newspaper suggesting how this could be achieved? I still contend that the main source of access to the benefit of opportunity is education. Unfortunately we run up against the shadier side of human nature when we suggest that we should work towards an education system whereby all second level schools in all parts of the country are sufficiently enabled to turn out students who can compete for 3rd level places. Some people I have spoken to about this are honest enough to state openly that they do not want their childern's chances lessened by any increase in competition for college places. They also ask the question of who will repair their cars, sweep their roads, and be low paid clerical workers in the civil service if a high percentage of school leavers go to college? Finally, I do not expect that you will have time to reply to this or even have to time to read it. But again, I am grateful that you took the time to respond to me. All the best Barry	19 Jan 2010 Thanks for writing, Barry. It is strange how phrases like “Righties” and “Fox news” are used in a way that implies an insult, when in fact they are complimentary. You accuse me of smugness and living in Killiney as if this had anything to do with the contentions I put forth, yet assiduously avoid addressing the actual arguments. The man not the ball? You help to make my point. It is all very well experencing compassion for less fortunate people, but unless it is accompanied by a desire to actually do something that would help rectify their situation it is nothing but a feel-good emotion. Capitalism is the greatest force for lifting people out of poverty that the world has ever known. It lifted countless millions out of subsistence peasanthood in Europe after the Industrial Revolution and indeed across vast swathes of the world. Democratic governance dramatically facilitated the growth of Capitalism and hence wealth. It is China’s embrace of Capitalism, albeit while maintaining its brutal authoritarian grip, that has lifted half a billion people out of poverty in a generation. In India, which moved away from left wing policies only in the early 1990s, the figure so far is a hundred million. Are these not wonderful achievements? Is this not a lesson that one would want to continue to apply, to encourage the further destruction of poverty? If someone is concerned about the wellbeing of the poor, where is the virtue in promoting incentives that foster continued poverty rather than opportunity for advancement? My point is that these truths are so self-evident that there is no rational argument against them. Therefore if someone doesn’t like them (because, for example, they entail more power for the individual and less for the State) his/her only recourse is to scream and shout and throw things because his/her arguments make no sense. Opportunity, of course, as you rightly imply, does not guarantee success for every individual. But on a broad scale it provides more success for more people than lack of opportunity, so should be embraced and Capitalism is what generates most opportunity. Nevertheless, there will always be those who fail to reap the benefits of opportunity, whether through disability, bad luck (your Dad perhaps?), personal choice or laziness (definitely not your Dad). It makes sense to provide extra support to the first two categories at least, but especially to ensure that they have the same opportunity as everyone else, that there is no systematic blockage to opportunity. I do not claim that every person today has equal opportunity, but would advocate that societies strive to achieve this. Capitalism and other right-wing policies are the most effective route to achieving this on a permanent basis. Redistributing other people’s money is the least effective long-term solution and is a disincentive to wealth creation. In summary this is not a discussion about whether society should do something to alleviate poverty, but whether rightist or leftist policies are more likely to achieve this for the greater number of people.

Dissenting Column a week later
(Illustrates my point - all emotion, not logic.
Great phrase: “A logical approach? Yes, undoubtedly. But is it reasonable, is it even rational?”,
ie I am logical and irrational at the same time; a classic oxymoron.
Hope the writer does better in his PhD thesis!)

The Irish Times - Monday, January 25, 2010

Right is divorced from reason, reality

OWEN CORRIGAN

The left-wing rational position is rooted in an acceptance of human and social reality

SOMETHING IS definitely wrong when defenders of right-wing politics defend their essential “logic” with recourse to irrational argument.

An opinion piece on these pages last week (‘No need to take to the streets when logic is on your side’, January 18th, by Tony Allwright) advanced the idea that left-wing politics suffers from a lack of intellectual rigour. Too busy wringing our hands, we left-wingers have little time to construct logical arguments so resort to getting all “shouty”.

[Tallrite Note: “Shouty” was never my word - a sub-editor inserted it without my knowledge]

Yet is logic really a defining feature of the right? In a narrow sense the right-wing view of society is driven by logic.

Low taxes spur people out the door and into employment where they work hard, generate wealth, and take care of themselves, while at the same time those low taxes reduce the scope for state interventions designed to help those who cannot help themselves. This, of course, is a good thing – anything to stop those lazy welfare scroungers leeching off the rest of us.

A logical approach? Yes, undoubtedly. But is it reasonable, is it even rational?

Instead of seeing a collection of atomistic individuals, the left sees a collective of interdependent humans. The “human” part is important here. Humans fail. Humans sometimes need assistance to do the things they could not otherwise do.

While leftists are often dismissed as being idealistic, is it not even more idealistic to cleave to a view of society where no one makes a bad decision or where those who start the race face down are all assumed to be capable of pulling themselves up? In failing to examine their assumptions the right advances a world view divorced from reason and reality. The intellectual heft of the left-wing position is rooted in this pragmatic acceptance of human and social reality.

By contrast, irrational assumptions characterise the right-wing view. It is assumed that humans will always act in their own best interests, when experience tells us they do not, and it is taken on faith that the market functions perfectly. But perfect markets exist only in textbooks.

The other pillar of the left consists in embracing the fact of our inescapable interdependence. The fallacy of individualism is plain to see when we consider the consequences of adopting some of the right’s favoured policies.

Cut taxes right back to the bone and abolish various welfare supports and you may well encourage people back into work. But don’t start complaining when you have to step over the destitute on your way to your morning commute and don’t be surprised when you get home to find you’ve been burgled by people driven to criminality.

Social change is something that must be wrested from, not waited on. Those of us who believe that a society without fairness or compassion is not worth living in must continue to make demands for social change.

There are many arguments for doing so which, unlike those advanced by the right, are not only logical, but rational too.

Owen Corrigan is a PhD student in social policy at Trinity College Dublin

+ + + + +

Interesting riposte from the redoubtable Mark Humphrys

Owen Corrigan provides a good example of how the left encourages crime.
Complaining about capitalism, he [Corrigan] says: “Cut taxes right back to the bone and abolish various welfare supports and you may well encourage people back into work. But don't start complaining when you have to step over the destitute on your way to your morning commute and don't be surprised when you get home to find you've been burgled by people driven to criminality.”
You can almost hear his glee at the thought of hard-working bourgeois middle-class people getting burgled
Of course, no burglar in the West is driven to it. They do it because that's the type of person they are. They do it because they are greedy, lazy, selfish bullies.

+++++

Irish Times Letters - 29 Jan 2010

Left, Right, Left

Madam, – Owen Corrigan (Opinion, January 25th) has not, I think, added any clarity to the question of right or left, simply following the path of identifying people with opinions with which he disagrees as being right-wing.

I do agree that “humans fail and humans sometimes need assistance to do the things they could not otherwise do” but fail to see how this recognition defines one as left or right wing.

Mr Corrigan seems to insinuate that it is only those he considers left wing who believe in a society of fairness and compassion, both sadly lacking nowadays. As a Christian I believe in such a society and strive as best I can to promote it.

To this end I do not qualify as left or right wing. I am opposed to the killing of the unborn and, in fact, to any killing, and I campaign against abortion and the death penalty. I take part in pro-life marches and I also took part in the two marches against the invasion of Iraq. Therefore, according to Mr Corrigan, I must be pretty much mixed up indeed! – Yours, etc,

MARY STEWART,
Ardeskin,
Donegal.

It wasn't until August 2010 that I stumbled upon a post from January 2010, which is a robust rebuttal of my column, heavy with ad-hominem attacks. Published on line by An Phoblacht, which is the mouthpiece of IRA/Sinn Féin, it is by someone called Julia Carney and it is safe to say she doesn't like Tony. What a compliment! ;-]

Return to Top of Page

Return to Index of Columns

Hit Counter

Gift Idea
Cuddly Teddy Bears
looking for a home

Click for details “”

Neda Agha Soltan;
shot dead in Teheran
by Basij militia

Good to report that as at
14th September 2009
he is at least alive.

FREED AT LAST,
ON 18th OCTOBER 2011,
GAUNT BUT OTHERWISE REASONABLY HEALTHY

BLOGROLL

Adam Smith

Alt Tag

Andrew Sullivan

Atlantic Blog (defunct)

Back Seat Drivers

Belfast Gonzo

Black Line

Blog-Irish (defunct)

Rolfe's Random Review

Jihad

Terrorism
Awareness Project

Religion

Iona Institute
Skeptical Bible

Leisure

~~Graham's Sporting Wk~~

Blog Directory

Eatonweb

Discover the World

My Columns in the

	Irish Times
	Sunday Times

What I've recently
been reading

“The Lemon Tree”, by Sandy Tol (2006),
is a delightful novel-style history of modern Israel and Palestine told through the eyes of a thoughtful protagonist from either side, with a household lemon tree as their unifying theme.

But it's not entirely honest in its subtle pro-Palestinian bias, and therefore needs to be read in conjunction with an antidote, such as

See detailed review

+++++

This examines events which led to BP's 2010 Macondo blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP's ambitious CEO John Browne expanded it through adventurous acquisitions, aggressive offshore exploration, and relentless cost-reduction that trumped everything else, even safety and long-term technical sustainability.

Thus mistakes accumulated, leading to terrifying and deadly accidents in refineries, pipelines and offshore operations, and business disaster in Russia.

The Macondo blowout was but an inevitable outcome of a BP culture that had become poisonous and incompetent.

However the book is gravely compromised by a litany of over 40 technical and stupid errors that display the author's ignorance and carelessness.

It would be better to wait for the second (properly edited) edition before buying.

As for BP, only a wholesale rebuilding of a new, professional, ethical culture will prevent further such tragedies and the eventual destruction of a once mighty corporation with a long and generally honourable history.

Note: I wrote my own reports on Macondo
in May, June, and July 2010

+++++

A horrific account of:

	how the death penalty is administered and, er, executed in Singapore,
	the corruption of Singapore's legal system, and
	Singapore's enthusiastic embrace of Burma's drug-fuelled military dictatorship

More details on my blog here.

+++++

This is nonagenarian Alistair Urquhart’s incredible story of survival in the Far East during World War II.

After recounting a childhood of convention and simple pleasures in working-class Aberdeen, Mr Urquhart is conscripted within days of Chamberlain declaring war on Germany in 1939.

From then until the Japanese are deservedly nuked into surrendering six years later, Mr Urquhart’s tale is one of first discomfort but then following the fall of Singapore of ever-increasing, unmitigated horror.

After a wretched journey Eastward, he finds himself part of Singapore’s big but useless garrison.

Taken prisoner when Singapore falls in 1941, he is, successively,

	part of a death march to Thailand,
	a slave labourer on the Siam/Burma railway (one man died for every sleeper laid),
	regularly beaten and tortured,
	racked by starvation, gaping ulcers and disease including cholera,
	a slave labourer stevedoring at Singapore’s docks,
	shipped to Japan in a stinking, closed, airless hold with 900 other sick and dying men,
	torpedoed by the Americans and left drifting alone for five days before being picked up,
	a slave-labourer in Nagasaki until blessed liberation thanks to the Americans’ “Fat Boy” atomic bomb.

Chronically ill, distraught and traumatised on return to Aberdeen yet disdained by the British Army, he slowly reconstructs a life. Only in his late 80s is he able finally to recount his dreadful experiences in this unputdownable book.

There are very few first-person eye-witness accounts of the the horrors of Japanese brutality during WW2. As such this book is an invaluable historical document.

+++++

“Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies”

This is a rattling good tale of the web of corruption within which the American president and his cronies operate. It's written by blogger Michele Malkin who, because she's both a woman and half-Asian, is curiously immune to the charges of racism and sexism this book would provoke if written by a typical Republican WASP.

With 75 page of notes to back up - in best blogger tradition - every shocking and in most cases money-grubbing allegation, she excoriates one Obama crony after another, starting with the incumbent himself and his equally tricky wife.

Joe Biden, Rahm Emmanuel, Valerie Jarett, Tim Geithner, Lawrence Summers, Steven Rattner, both Clintons, Chris Dodd: they all star as crooks in this venomous but credible book.

ACORN, Mr Obama's favourite community organising outfit, is also exposed for the crooked vote-rigging machine it is.

+++++

This much trumpeted sequel to Freakonomics is a bit of disappointment.

It is really just a collation of amusing little tales about surprising human (and occasionally animal) behaviour and situations. For example:

	Drunk walking kills more people per kilometer than drunk driving.
	People aren't really altruistic - they always expect a return of some sort for good deeds.
	Child seats are a waste of money as they are no safer for children than adult seatbelts.
	Though doctors have known for centuries they must wash their hands to avoid spreading infection, they still often fail to do so.
	Monkeys can be taught to use washers as cash to buy tit-bits - and even sex.

The book has no real message other than don't be surprised how humans sometimes behave and try to look for simple rather than complex solutions.

And with a final anecdote (monkeys, cash and sex), the book suddenly just stops dead in its tracks. Weird.

++++++

A remarkable, coherent attempt by Financial Times economist Alan Beattie to understand and explain world history through the prism of economics.

It's chapters are organised around provocative questions such as

	Why does asparagus come from Peru?
	Why are pandas so useless?
	Why are oil and diamonds more trouble than they are worth?
	Why doesn't Africa grow cocaine?

It's central thesis is that economic development continues to be impeded in different countries for different historical reasons, even when the original rationale for those impediments no longer obtains. For instance:

	Argentina protects its now largely foreign landowners (eg George Soros)
	Russia its military-owned businesses, such as counterfeit DVDs
	The US its cotton industry comprising only 1% of GDP and 2% of its workforce

The author writes in a very chatty, light-hearted matter which makes the book easy to digest.

However it would benefit from a few charts to illustrate some of the many quantitative points put forward, as well as sub-chaptering every few pages to provide natural break-points for the reader.

+++++

This is a thrilling book of derring-do behind enemy lines in the jungles of north-east Burma in 1942-44 during the Japanese occupation.

The author was a member of Britain's V Force, a forerunner of the SAS. Its remit was to harass Japanese lines of command, patrol their occupied territory, carryout sabotage and provide intelligence, with the overall objective of keeping the enemy out of India.

Irwin is admirably yet brutally frank, in his descriptions of deathly battles with the Japs, his execution of a prisoner, dodging falling bags of rice dropped by the RAF, or collapsing in floods of tears through accumulated stress, fear and loneliness.

He also provides some fascinating insights into the mentality of Japanese soldiery and why it failed against the flexibility and devolved authority of the British.

The book amounts to a very human and exhilarating tale.

Oh, and Irwin describes the death in 1943 of his colleague my uncle, Major PF Brennan.

+++++

Other books here

Click for an account of this momentous, high-speed event
of March 2009

Click on the logo
to get a table with
the Rugby World Cup
scores, points and rankings.

After 48 crackling, compelling, captivating games, the new World Champions are, deservedly,
SOUTH AFRICA

England get the Silver,
Argentina the Bronze. Fourth is host nation France.

No-one can argue with
the justice of the outcomes

Over the competition,
the average
points per game = 52,
tries per game = 6.2,
minutes per try = 13

Click on the logo
to get a table with
the final World Cup
scores, points, rankings and goal-statistics