Current Affairs

As some people will know, there are three quasi-official languages in Scotland:

1. English
There is an official dialect known as Scottish English, which mostly represents the dialect of English spoken in lowland (South Central and Borders) Scotland.

2. Scots
This is another variant of the English language, also spoken across much of southern Scotland. It represents a more archaic form of spoken and written English, and can be difficult for speakers of Standard English to understand. In practical terms, Scots and Scottish English intermingle and are often used in the same conversations.

3. Gaelic
Scottish Gaelic, a member of the Goidelic language family, is still spoken extensively in the North, East and West of Scotland. When I visited Skye in the late 1970s, a majority of residents used Gaelic in their daily lives, only using English to talk to us “bloody tourists”.

The interesting development that I am seeing on Twitter since I Followed a number of Scottish Twitter users is the use of a hybrid form of English for tweets, sort of a cross between Scottish English and Scots. Here are two recent examples:

They'll just start a wee rampage cos an adult got fed and didnae starve wi great Nobleness so they could a admire em, select em as moral

— Rattlecans (@rattlecans) July 14, 2017

1. The approach to gay people in Chechnya
The comments by the President of Chechnya are straight out of the eliminationist playbook. Those of us who studied European history in high school know the pathology well. In Chechnya, gay people are officially held in about the same regard as Jews were in Germany around 1941.

2. Brexit continues to be a shambles
The Brexit negotiations continue to stumble forward. All of the evidence is that the Conservative Party is now negotiating with itself over Brexit, with “hard” vs. “soft” factions arguing it out in front of a weakened Prime Minister. In the meantime, the Labour Party sits uncomfortably in nowhere-land. They seem to be working on the assumption that if they say nothing, they will profit at the next election from the Conservative party in-fighting.
The EU Referendum last year was essentially the culmination of 30 years of internecine struggle in the Conservative Party. It was a concession offered by David Cameron to (as he saw it) settle the issue of British attitudes to the EU once and for all. Except that the result did not match the script that he had written in his head, and now the UK is trying to stagger through a process that has never been tried before, with no certainty of any upside to the country.
The electorate has to shoulder most of the blame here. Although opinion polls appear to show a majority now against Brexit, that was not how people voted in the recent General Election. They punished pro-EU parties, and voted for parties whose platforms explicitly or implicitly supported Brexit. Absent a clear signal of disapproval of Brexit, this charade and shambles will continue.

3. Conspiracy Theories
One classic argument that I have read again in the last two days is that some ideas originally dismissed as conspiracy theories turned out to be true. The implication being that conspiracy theories deserve to be taken seriously.
Er, no. For every conspiracy theory that turned out to have elements of truth (and one must be careful, an element of truth does not make an entire hypothesis correct), there are dozens and dozens of conspiracy theories that turned out to be total nonsense, and continue to be total nonsense. This classic argument is somewhat analogous to the “stopped clock is right twice a day” argument, where coincidence is passed off as causation. Or, as Carl Sagan once said, “people laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo The Clown”.

The trigger for my decision (which is probably a year overdue) to stop posting content to Facebook was the intemperate reaction of several people to my posting warning that I tend to take a hard line on people talking nonsense about the issue of abortion. I received two warnings essentially saying “be careful what you write”, and one comment essentially telling me that I needed to talk to somebody who actually had an abortion.
Now…abortion is what in the UK they term a “third rail issue”. That is a UK phrase referring to a topic that no political candidate or politician ever wants to discuss, for the obvious reason that no matter what you say, some group of people will be pissed off and angered.
Abortion, by the way, is basically a non-issue in the UK at the present time. It was accepted by the majority many moons ago that it is a private matter between a pregnant woman and her medical professionals. This is in contrast to Ireland, where until recently abortion was totally illegal. We watched in the UK for decades as well-connected or wealthy women or daughters of the well-to-do would quietly slip out of Ireland to other countries for a “long weekend” or a “minor medical procedure”.
As is usual, when you try to ban something for which a demand will always exist, whatever it is you try to ban still continues to exist, it just goes under the radar, and public hypocrisy abounds.
As per the comment that I needed to talk to somebody who has had an abortion…I have met one woman in the UK who had an abortion many years ago. Additionally, I have received one private message from a lady friend in the UK in the last 24 hours who did undergo an abortion many years ago. As one might expect, it was a matter of considerable angst for her.
One accusation commonly hurled at people who are perceived to be “pro-abortion” (that phrase, by the way, is a classic strawman fallacy, and deserves nothing but contempt as a response) is that they see abortion as like a teeth-cleaning, some trivial event that requires no thought. “Shit, I’m pregnant again! Better go to Acme Abort this weekend AGAIN”. That sort of casualness. In reality, anybody with life experience knows that is not so. I know this is not so, even though I am not a woman. So when I get comments implying that I lack the experience to comment, I’m sorry…that is a rhetorical strawman, an attempt to shut me down. No, not playing.
The attempts to ban abortion in the USA are doomed to failure, and clearly represent an impertinent intrusion on the rights of women to control their life decisions. As a libertarian, I find that sort of governmental intrusion to be flat-out wrong. I will work against it at any chance I get.
If I am told that my worldview makes me “pro-abortion”, or in favour of murder, I will dismiss those strawmen in short order. Like many statements made by people who regard abortion as a form of murder, those are not good-faith arguments. They are merely attempts to shut down debate in favor of emotional and accusatory statements.

Step forward Rhodri Philipps, aka the 4th Viscount St. Davids. The exemplification of a pompous, pretentious, fast-talking cad and bounder, with multiple banktruptcies in his past, plus failed business ventures. Oh, and he thought that it was OK to threaten anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller, along with issuing all manner of juvenile insults online about her ancestry.
The good news is that Mr. Philipps looks to be headed to a room with bars for 12 weeks.
He seems like a nice man.

1. Political ideology – obsolete and misleading classification schemes
Those people who have read more than a small number of my prattlings online (including the people who have had to listen to me actually saying this in person) will know that I am not interested in discussions about the political spectrum that fixate on left vs. right or liberal vs. conservative. I regard those classification schemes as a combination of obsolete, irrelevant and dangerously misleading. (the right vs. left classification originated in the French Revolution, which didn’t exactly occur a few years ago…). The political positions of the major US political parties have actually swapped over in the last 120 years. In the 1860s the Republican and Democratic parties held general positions that are the opposite of where they are today. This is a historical change that is routinely ignored by partisans.
This Tweet storm, converted to Storify, explains many of the slow changes in the positions of the major US political parties in a way that tries to avoid the simplistic liberal vs. conservative dichotomy.

2. What happens if a US election can be shown to be fraudulent? (answer: nobody knows)
One of the big issues that the US faces as a representative democracy at most levels, is what should and can happen if compelling evidence emerges after that the fact that an election was incorrectly or illegally influenced to the point where the result cannot be trusted.
There are no clear rules for what to do in that scenario, at any level in the legal system, including in the Constitution. The courts, understandably, are reluctant to become involved in issues of electoral malfeasance, unless clear violations of narrowly drawn statutes exist (such as rules governing campaign finance). However, the scenario being postulated by many people, where external actors are trying to distort election results, does not fall neatly into any category of legislation. When the Supreme Court was asked to become involved in the recount dispute that broke out in Florida following the 2000 Presidential election, they basically punted, preferring to stay out of what they (probably correctly) saw as a partisan dispute where the law had little of any clarity to say to direct them, and where they would be in a no-win situation no matter which way they ruled.
There is no law that can cleanly and unambiguously be applied to actors who attempt to subvert the electoral process. If, for example, a PAC throws $10bn at a Senate race, that is arguably a gross distortion of the political process; however, due to the conflation of speech with money used to disseminate speech, as laid down by SCOTUS in the infamous Citizens United ruling, spending large sums of money to influence the political process is currently totally legal provided certain funding and expenditure rules are obeyed, and even if the rules are not obeyed, the penalties are irrelevant and trifling when compared with the prize that can be won by the illegal behavior.
The US legal system is not currently organized to punish bad behavior by election actors in any useful or punitive way. If violating electoral law led to winning candidates being immediately disqualified, you can be sure that electoral laws would be respected a lot more, but none of the existing participants in the process wants that to be a possible outcome (remember the old parable of the fox in charge of the henhouse).

1. The slow descent towards bankruptcy for Oklahoma and Kansas
both Oklahoma and Kansas have been electing Republicans to office in record numbers over the last 10 years. However, the GOP message of fiscal discipline does not seem to be doing either state much good. They have steadily increasing levels of debt. In the case of Oklahoma, the state’s credit rating has been downgraded recently, as its debt hit the #900m mark. The failures in OK seem to be that revenues have fallen significantly below predictions. This is an analysis of the stare’s finances. Kansas has also seen its debt rise, as the policies of Governor Sam Brownback of heavy cuts in taxation have failed to generate enough economic activity.

2. When you lie and get caught, people start digging
Mark Chelgren, the GOP state senator from Ottumwa who was caught falsely claiming to have received a business degree from a Sizzler steakhouse franchisee, also founded a gun manufacturing company despite a 2006 disorderly conduct conviction.
When you are found guilty of lying to the public, and people start digging, all of your deceits can be exposed. I am seeing a pattern here.

3. The opioid resurgence in the USA
Perceptive commentators such as Chris Arnade and J.D. Vance have written about the explosion of drug addiction in rural American communities.
This is not a new phenomenon. In a previous married life, I had in-laws living in Gladewater TX, and the Fire Department there was regularly called to the scene of meth lab explosions. It was always the same story – massive damage to the kitchen, a strange gray-white deposit all over the place, and a complete inability of the house occupants to remember exactly what it was that they were cooking when the explosion occurred.
Meth addiction is common throughout rural Texas, but especially so in East Texas, where the predominance of forest provides plenty of below-canopy hiding space for drug manufacture and distribution.
This article puts the whole addiction phenomenon into context. Effectively, as per Chris Arnade’s back row/front row analogy, the front row folks get addicted to Oxycontin, while the back row folks end up addicted to heroin, Fentanyl, and meth.
I have some issues with the article, especially it’s implied endorsement of 12 Step programs, which, despite their pervasiveness and popularity, have next to no scientific evidence to back up their claims of efficacy.