Is a Dog the Ideal Companion?

Dear G.

I have spent some time mulling over the conundrum that your idea of
getting a pet dog has posed for me. Dogs are doubtless very rewarding.
For different people there will be different 'perfect' dogs, but they
each have much to offer, and with the great variety available it is
possible for many people to find a good fit. You can feed a dog and it
is grateful, you can take him for a walk and he will love it (and be
grateful), you can tell him off and he will be contrite, without
answering back. Dogs will watch you sit down and will come and lie at
your feet; they will look up at you with questioning but admiring
eyes, dimly understanding the barest outline of your thoughts or moods
-- but wholly trusting. An ideal companion you might think. How could
a human (man or woman) compete? A human would want to walk when you
want to sit, would doubt your facts and question your conclusions.
They might eat with gratitude the food you put in front of them, and
look at you with admiring incomprehension; but they would want to walk
north when you want to walk south, want to throw sticks for you to
chase (dammit!) instead of picking up your sticks, and worst of all
they might want to climb onto the furniture and into your bed.

Yet I cannot get out of my head the idea that a pet dog is a surrogate
companion, a stand-in for a human companion. Is the problem one of
choice; we can choose our dog but with a human companion they are at
least in part choosing us? Is it perhaps a question of communication,
for amidst all those words we often fail to make it clear what we do
want and what we do not want of our companion? That is not simply
because of the complexity that words allow, but from shyness; the
difficulty of talking to an equal.

Ah! perhaps a glimmer of the answer is filtering through to my dull
brain -- 'equality'. There is an asymmetry in the man/dog relationship
that is absent (or less marked) in the more equal relationship between
two humans. How refreshing it is to be always right, always boss. No
one is going to question the superiority of a human companion when it
comes to playing duets, or having a conversation. But it is often
tiring, and sometimes humiliating to deal with an equal; even more so
with a self-appointed superior.

Did you get that dog?

L. Cawstein
cawstein@gmail.com

Suicide: hindered and assisted

"In a world of limited resources, to keep one person alive is to condemn another to death."    

     There has been considerable discussion in the media during the last 5 years of the law regarding 'assisted suicide'. There has been no similar consideration of the law re 'hindered suicide', though I think the two issues are linked.

      Our reluctance to allow the legal killing of another human being is understandable. It does not take much imagination to conjure up situations where pressure is put on disabled people to consent to their removal, for reasons that concern the interests of the carers and not the patient. The present unofficial system in Great Britain seems to work, to some extent; assistance can be given, but is never legally condoned, so any protest, by any party, could lead to the prosecution and disgrace of the assister. It is pragmatic, if also ridiculous;  but it seems that a majority of British citizens believe it preferable to any alternative. Oregon State and Switzerland represent a tiny minority of polities that allow 'assisted suicide'.

    I am here suggesting that to prevent a person from dying may represent an intrusion into individual sovereignty as much as to prevent a person from living; a violation of their human right.  

    I am putting forward the notion that to contribute to a person's death by doing nothing is vastly different from contributing to their death by a positive action. There should be greater clarity on whether knowing of someone's intention to take a lethal dose constitutes 'complicity', or simply 'minding your own business'. 

    When an overwhelming majority of people believed in minute-by-minute supervision of everyone's life by an all-attentive, all-powerful (though otherwise very human) God, one could shrug and say "It is God's will". We (mostly) do not now think of a real God of that type, though there is practically no serious debate as to what we do mean (or could) mean by 'God' [1]. However, it seems to me that the metaphor of "God's will" still has some meaning, even for an atheist. We all die, by a 'law of nature'; some sooner, some later. It is in a way unfortunate that many deaths can now be prevented very easily, for now the line between life and death is drawn, not by external natural forces, but by human ones. We have the terribly difficult task of deciding where to draw that line.

    In a world of limited resources, the decision becomes slightly easier, for to keep one person alive is to condemn another to death. 

    

(Edited, 8th Jan 2025)

References:

[1] West, I.C. (2019) "God for Atheists", AuthorHouse, Bloomington IN. ISBN:978-1-7283-9399-5 (sc); ISBN:978-1-7283-9398-8 (e).

Productive Thinking

We spent some time trying to outline a systematic approach to thinking productively, stimulated by the mere title of Susan Stebbing's "Thinking to Some Purpose" (Pelican, London, 1939).

I suggested "Ten Obstacles to Clear and Productive Thought", as follows.

[1] Ignorance: in spite of the resources of the internet it is still a problem that most of us most of the time do not sufficiently know 'the facts'.

[2] Prejudice: we assume we know, and we often assume what we want to be true, which makes our error all the more difficult to rectify.

[3] Manipulation: we can be played upon by clever advertising, or 'hidden persuaders'.

[4] Potted thinking: we reduce an argument to a sentence, to make it easier to remember and express, even when the truth slips out with the detail.

[5] Ambiguities of language: it is surprizingly hard to say exactly what we mean, and to know what someone else means from what they say. Emotive language can pack a lot of argument into a single work (e.g. 'freedom').

[6] Logical slips: for example Post hoc ergo propter hoc, (or mistaking correlation for causation), and Petitio principii  (or circular argument, which used to be called "Begging the Question" until that term got high jacked by the ignorant to mean simply "posing the question". 'Wise men give wise answers; this is a wise answer, because/therefore this is a wise man.').

[7] Attention span: we often drop a subject, or get side-tracked, before its goal has been reached.

[8] Conflict: is often avoided on emotional grounds when it should be welcomed on logical grounds.

[9] Circles: to find oneself repeatedly covering familiar ground suggest that the argument is being directed by a sub-conscious pilot.

[10] False syntheses: if repeated cases tend to illustrate the same general truth you have either discovered a valuable general principle, or a hobby-horse.

L. Cawstein
cawstein@gmail.com

Remembering World War One

 

Dear David Cameron,

I and my colleagues jibbed at the idea of 'celebrating'  (in 2014) the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War. It should certainly be 'remembered', but with shame for the incompetence of our military, the arrogance and incompetence of our politicians, and the foolish jingoism of the citizenry. We should acknowledge with humility and awe the courage of the millions of combatants of all nations, and record with regret the immense loss of life. But we do not think that 'to celebrate' is the appropriate verb.

We object to the idea of significant extra money being spent on this commemoration. We already have our Armistice Sunday (though even that we might lay to rest when its centenary comes round). To that we could perhaps add a lecture in the Albert Hall on the 'Failures of Diplomacy that led to the Outbreak of War', and perhaps also a sermon elsewhere on 'Love thy neighbour' or 'Blessed are the peacemakers'.

Above all we object to the slightest hint that someone seeks to make political capital from the event, or attempts to boost the morale of the nation by remembering this gigantic fiasco. It was an old fashioned European war of national self interest waged with excessively destructive weapons, and as such one of the least justifiable wars in our history.

Yours sincerely, Ian West

 

Ian West, 12 Longhirst Village, NE61 3LT

Debt, Deficit and the NHS

" Let us pay for our own National Health Service. Currently it is being paid for by foreigners. We need a tax rise! Might we agree one if it saved the NHS.  "

The coalition government (in 2010) made reduction of the debt its headline objective, yet 3 years on the debt is far from shrinking; it is still growing! We sit in a leaky boat, vote in a captain and crew with the mission to make us seaworthy; the pumps are on, yet we are still sinking ever lower in the water. We must of course fix the leaks, but we can in the short term pump faster.

One great weakness of democracy is that it is almost impossible to win the popular vote by offering to cut services or raise taxes. MPs see it as suicide for themselves and for their party. Cutting services has the extra disadvantage (discussed elsewhere) of putting people out of work, reducing income tax revenue and raising welfare expenses.

My proposal therefore is to raise taxes. If I shook a collecting tin and called the passing shoppers to help restore the bank capital squandered by the financial sector over the last 10 years I doubt I would get so much as a tin button. Some people would volunteer money to fund libraries, some enjoy opera, and some like submarines; but these are divisive beneficiaries. What we need is a goal that is universally popular, such as the National Health Service. Who would not dip into their purse for our beloved NHS? I therefore suggest we all pay this as an additional, specifically earmarked tax, and think of it as paying for the NHS, which we all clearly want [3].

I have done a little research to set the Treasury on its way. Taking figures for England (the regions can follow, or argue a special case), we have a population of 53 million of which 17.3% are under 15, which means an adult population of 43.8 million. The NHS budget for England in 2010/11 was 105 B£, which means £2,396 per working adult [1]. I suggest we all pay this as an additional, clearly separate, tax explicitly to pay for the NHS; and to abolish the deficit.

Mean annual income in Britain is £29,000 [2], so the average person can clearly afford to pay an extra £2,396 in this NHS-tax. But 25% of the population earn less than £14,500 a year and would find this extra tax well-nigh impossible. They will have to persuade a better-off person to fund their healthcare for them; difficult, but not impossible. The wealthy 1% of the population (500,000 people) should find themselves supporting 4 or 5 additional citizens besides themselves; and big banking bosses will have 300 pro bono cases on their list of beneficiaries (if they fully pay their UK taxes).

Some of you will think this is ludicrous?  But it is essentially the system we have at present. With our progressive income tax, we ask those earning 5 times average salary to pay 14.8 times average tax. (There is a still higher rate beyond that.) Our taxes, paid more or less willingly, are used to fund welfare for the less-well-off. Though I currently receive less than the mean national income, I am very willing to pay the tax, and to forgo my share of the NHS budget to let a less-well-off but younger person benefit. For I am over 70 and no longer need healthcare. Palliative care is sufficient for the over 70.

Other readers may wonder if this extra tax would do the trick. Currently it would, but only just. The Deficit this year is 7.1 % of GDP (more than half of which goes in interest payments to debt-holders) [4]. Our national (average) health-spend (public and private) is around 10% of GDP while the NHS part is around 8% of GDP (which, incidentally, is less that comparable figures for USA, France, Germany, Switzerland, and Greece; we are not squandering money on an over-lavish health service.[5]).  A tax hike (as suggested here) would reverse the deficit and start to pay down the debt. As that came down the interest payments would also come down.

Of course, raising taxes has its own depressing effect on the economy, for with less money in our pockets we buy less goods and services. But if we price our goods and services correctly we should be able to sell more abroad.

With 2 more years of the current deficit our debt would grow from 82.8% to 97.0 % of GDP, and interest payments on that debt would rise. Even more alarming would be a change in our credit rating and a rise in the comically low rate of interest (around 2% for 10-year UK government debt). (Comically low because lower than inflation [6].) We do not have time for dithering.

There you are, Ladies and Gentlemen; over to you! Let us pay for our own National Health Service. Currently it is being paid for by foreign capitalists, and entirely for their own benefit.

References:

[1] http://www.nhsconfed.org/priorities/political-engagement/Pages/NHS-statistics.aspx

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom

[3] Tongue in cheek! I wish to point our that we voluntarily pay taxes for things we want.

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

[5] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielknowles/100168975/why-the-nhs-will-define-the-2015-election/

[6] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22948333

 

Ian West, 12 Longhirst Village, NE61 3LT

L. Cawstein
cawstein@gmail.com

Winter Fuel Payments

Do you think that better-off pensioners should pay for their own winter fuel, and their own bus-passes? Of course they should! And of course they do, don't they? Not only their own, but they pay for the winter fuel and the bus-passes of the less well off as well. Because they pay their taxes.

I hope that Iain Duncan Smith never said anything about the "better off pensioners" voluntarily paying for their own fuel and transport. Voluntary taxes are a bad idea. It is, of course, true that the better-off can voluntarily do whatever they want with the money that remains to them after taxation, but how that is spent must be left to them. There must be no suggestion whatever that they 'should' do this or that with their remaining money; just to pacify the silly hue-and-cry of the media and of the people who do not understand where the money comes from that funds all public services in this country.

However, it would be good if we could evolve and annunciate a rationale for a progressive tax system slightly more sophisticated than the old "squeeze them till the pips squeak". For example, wealth that accumulates suggests excessive income. The "poor are always with us", and we have always had the rich as well; so maybe that is as it should be. But the rich should not get richer and the poor (relatively) poorer. That seems to indicate an inadequately progressive tax policy.

The bad thing about voluntary taxes is that the willing, the sensitive, and the vulnerable will pay while the busy, the thoughtless, and the selfish will not pay. We should tax wealth, not conscience and good citizenship.

L. Cawstein
cawstein@gmail.com

ProgNoteSmetana

String Quartet No.22 in B-flat, K.589 — W. Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791)

i. Allegro, ii. Largetto, iii. Menuetto & Trio , iv. Allegro assai
In 1789 Mozart, getting desperate for money, visited Berlin where he met and played before King Friedrich Wilhelm II of Prussia (himself an amateur cellist). He came back to Vienna intending to write 6 quartets for the King and 6 'easy' piano sonatas for his daughter Princess Frederike. Of the latter, only one seems to have been written — Mozart's last piano sonata. Of the quartets, Mozart only wrote 3; ours is the second, written in the summer of 1790. Mozart received part payment, but had the plates engraved at his own expense; they were published the following year, a week or two after Mozart died. A distinctive feature of all 3 'Prussian' quartets is the prominent and interesting cello part, intended no doubt for the king himself to play.

String Quartet No. 1, "Kreutzer Sonata" — Leoš Janáček (1854 – 1928)

i. Adagio/Con moto; ii. Con moto, iii. Con moto/Vivo/Andante, iv. Con moto/Adagio/Più mosso
Stubborn originality seems to be the keynote of Janáček's professional life. He was clearly an able pianist and organist, but difficult and wayward. A Brno choirmaster at 19, he entered the Prague Organ School at 20. Without a piano in his digs, he is supposed to have marked black and white rectangles on the edge of his table and practiced on that. He was expelled after criticising his teacher (Skuherský ), but allowed back in to win top place on graduating the following year. After teaching for a few years he took a place at the Leipzig Conservatoire but found his teachers inadequate and left after 5 months for Vienna where he stayed for over a year studying composition. His submission for a prize was rejected as "too academic" and he returned to Brno (1880), where he founded an organ school (which he directed for the next 38 years), and married. During the next 20 years he collected folk music, published musical criticism and composed, mostly choral church music. In the anguish following the death of his 20 year old daughter he wrote Jenůfa (performed with success in Brno, 1904); though it was 12 years before Jenůfa was staged (to great acclaim) in Prague. For the last 11 years of his life, Janáček was romantically obsessed (from afar) with a young woman called Kamila Stösslová, producing a late flowering of masterpieces. Our quartet was written in 1923. Each of its four movements contains many changes of tempo and mood, so that the conventional descriptors seem nonsensical. The key structures are even more difficult to squeeze into conventional forms. However, it has a title and so a story or message; presumably that of Tolstoy's novella which portrays carnal passion as destructive and abstinence as creative (except of children).

String Quartet no. 1, in E minor ———— Bedřich Smetana (1824 – 1884)

i. Allegro vivo appassionato, ("inexpressible yearning for something I could neither express nor define, but also a kind of warning of (my) future misfortune.")
ii. Allegro moderato à la Polka, ("brings to mind the joyful days of youth")
iii. Largo sostenuto, ("the happiness of my first love")
iv. Vivace, ("my joy in following [national elements in music]...until…checked by the catastrophe of the onset of my deafness,")
Smetana composed his first quartet at the age of 52 (1876) and titled it "Aus meinem Leben" ("From my life"). Son of a successful brewer at a time when Bohemia was in the Austrian Empire and obliged to speak German, young Bedrich showed a talent at the piano from an early age. After hearing Liszt perform, he resolved to emulate Mozart in composition but Liszt in technique. From the age of 14 he was educated away from home, at Německý Brod, Prague, and Pilsen. There the late teenager's pianism shaped his lively social life and he fell in love with Katerina. Qualifying at 19, the penniless youth followed Katerina to the Prague Music Institute where he managed to get taken on for composition lessons while earning his keep by teaching piano. He obtained Liszt's support in founding (1848) a Piano Institute which gradually became fashionable with the nationalist elite. Success allowed marriage. In 1856, 3 of his 4 children having died and his ability as a performer deemed second rate, he took a job in Gothenburg where his success as teacher and conductor was gratifying, but not satisfying. His wife died in 1859, and he remarried 15 months later. Throughout his years of struggle, rejection and loss, Liszt was a valued mentor, and friend. Only in 1861, on the building of a Czech opera house, did his fortunes begin to change. For there was no Czech opera. Smetana had first to learn the Czech language, and then to invent the genre. Success came at last in 1866 when his first 'nationalist' opera (The Brandenburgers) was finally staged, followed within weeks by his far more popular Bartered Bride, which soon became an international success. Smetana continued to encounter opposition in Prague, ostensibly for his 'Germanism'; but eventually produced a string of 8 operas. From 1874, encroaching deafness, marital problems and declining health, led (1876) the family to retire to the country, where Smetana was able to compose some late masterpieces, including this quartet and the Má Vlast tone-poems. Smetana died in an asylum at the age of 60, but revered as the father of Czech national music, and especially opera.