The cumulative effects of trivial cheating

There are two stories in the New York Times today which illustrate the scope and scale of the problem we have with corruption. This isn’t about America where these stories happen to come from, we have the same problem in the UK. It’s about our collective inability to “do the right thing” and our willingness to cheat even at the most banal level. Take the first story:

Texas Passes Bill to Make Some Fish Tales a Crime

That is rather a misleading headline, which is ironic given what I’m writing about. The story is not about people in pubs who idly brag about the size of some fish they caught, it is specifically about cheating in fishing tournaments:

Senator Glenn Hegar, a Republican who sponsored the bill, said it was intended to address cheating in high-level bass fishing tournaments, some of which offer tens of thousands of dollars in prizes. In one notorious case in 2009, an angler who entered the Bud Light Trail Big Bass Tournament on Lake Ray Hubbard, east of Dallas, put a one-pound lead weight inside the stomach of the 10.49-pound bass he had entered to win the grand prize, a $55,000 fishing boat.

“Some people are literally taking scissors and cutting off the tail of a fish to make it fit into a certain category,” Mr. Hegar said. “Unfortunately, they’re not playing by the rules.”

Trimming a fish tail with scissors? That’s cheating at a pretty trivial level, but when you scale it up and involve a large number of people all willing to cheat on what they may each regard as a trivial level, then we have this problem:

Raj Rajaratnam, the billionaire investor who once ran one of the world’s largest hedge funds, was found guilty on Wednesday of fraud and conspiracy by a federal jury in Manhattan

As the article explains:

What made Mr. Rajaratnam stand out was not his proprietary computer models nor his skills in security analysis. Instead, colleagues marveled at the deep set of contacts he had cultivated inside Silicon Valley executive suites and on Wall Street trading floors.

All of these people he cultivated were willing to blur the edges or even cross over the line completely. They knew right from wrong. Yet had Rajaratnam had only one or two contacts willing to cheat he could not possibly have had the success he had, but he had hundreds of them all willing to cheat. How absurd would it be if every contestant in a fishing tournament cheated on the same level as well? It becomes a farce.

There is a growing problem in society with people willing to cheat, to get an edge if they think they’ll get away with it, and it’s becoming farcical.

It’s long past time to put some moral standards back into our lives.

As Thick as Two Short Plancks

So the European Space Agency have proudly released their all-sky image of the universe, and quite stunning it is too. Bravo. Except, no. On reading further and hoping to access high-resolution images I find that one is not available. As Dr Tauber explains on the BBC web site, “We have also reduced the resolution of the image to something which is more manageable for people to look at. Otherwise it would just be too big.” What a bunch of conceited scumbags these people are.

NASA releases masses of high-definition imagery all the time, from Hubble, from Mars, from everything, and what a joy it is. I’m not sure whether I’m more annoyed at ESA treating us as imbeciles, “just too big” for us to look at indeed, or for their academic selfishness in purposely withholding scientifically and culturally significant material. Apparently “one or two groups” have already tried to make “unauthorised interpretations”. How shocking, and how backward this is.

I’m not happy. I think either a change of policy is required, or a change of personnel followed by a change of policy.

Not Google Earth View (Copyright ESA)

Lights, Camera, Action

Most commentators have stopped saying Derrick Bird “snapped” and are now thrashing around instead to find his motive. I think we may need to go back forty years for that. Derrick Bird was born in 1957, and I think it may be significant that he was born within a few years of two other mass-murders, Michael Ryan (Hungerford) born in 1960, Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane) born in 1952. So I think it’s not the year they committed their crime that matters, nor their age at the time, but that they were young and impressionable when Hollywood released films such as these:

Get Carter (1971)
High Plains Drifter (1973)
Death Wish (1974)
The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

These were highly acclaimed ultra-violent films that dealt with retribution, portraying a solitary individual successfully exacting revenge and being widely admired by the cinema-going pubic for it. Allowing of course that each of these three murderers had different “triggers” that prompted them to put their fantasies into effect, I do think it’s possible films such as these could have provided them with a rationale for their actions. That was to settle scores and die in a blaze of glory. In their world, the outcomes were justified.

Here’s the score-settling tally for Bird: He settled scores with his brother and the family solicitor over a family dispute; he settled scores with his taxi-driving colleagues over alleged fare stealing; he tried to settle a score with a scuba-diving instructor; and he targeted passers-by seemingly at random. I wonder if they weren’t as random as we imagine, but perhaps they represented fare-paying passengers who he felt had disrespected him in some way. I can certainly imagine as a taxi driver he might have a problem with cyclists. I’m not saying all taxi drivers do or should, but seeing as he now seems to be an intolerant individual maybe he saw cyclists generally as a nuisance. So, see one, kill one. Likewise if he sees someone who reminds him of passengers who never tip, or someone who might have thrown-up in his cab once, or maybe even the guy who robbed him. It’s death by association.

You need the means and you need the motive to carry out something like this, but I think you also crucially need the self-justification.

Outrage >> Knee >> Jerk

It had to happen. It’s been years since we had a shooting outrage, but within minutes of the latest one, and on the basis of no knowledge whatsoever, we have the first knee-jerk reactions calling for tighter gun control.

First of all it has been reported that this guy held his license for 15 years. Is there any possibility whatsoever we could make gun license applicants wait fifteen years to see if they were going to do anything stupid? On top of all the other existing conditions and restrictions? Would that work? Of course not. In the 15 years he held his license, some 750 people (as near as I can find out right now) have been shot dead by people not licensed to carry guns.

It is suggested that he “snapped”, perhaps provoked in a family dispute. It has also been reported he told a taxi driver he’d argued with the night before, “There’s going to be a rampage tomorrow,” and then he went home and armed himself with two weapons. He was dissuaded on that occasion by a friend’s daughter. I feel desperately sorry for her right now, how must she feel? But at that point, even then could he have been stopped? How many people get angry but never follow through? Could she have reported him? What if it turned out he was only making an idle threat? It must happen a million times. How about the hospital where he is supposed to have gone for help, only to be turned away?

In the event, after killing his twin brother, he calmly went to the home of the family solicitor, waited for him and killed him, before going to Whitehaven to settle a grudge with former co-drivers. That done, and all in cold blood, he went off on his killing spree. It doesn’t seem to me he “snapped”, he made a calculated decision and followed it through. Even the killing of his brother could not have been a “snap” decision, it occurred at a quarry and not at the home of either of them. So they met there, and Bird took his guns with him.

How do we legislate against that, other than “No guns, no way”? I think everyone who’s asking that question right now is asking the wrong question. I would be much more interested in a debate about personal responsibility. He was able to rationalise his actions before he took them. How did he get there? I think that’s the more frightening aspect.

OMG, I am so honoured!

This has just landed in my in-box, and frankly I am overwhelmed. Thank you, thank you, thank you to everyone who nominated me, I feel so humbled to receive your recognition. My life will not be the same after this. Who is the Presidential Who’s Who anyway?

Dear Mark,

You were recently chosen as a potential candidate to represent your professional community in the 2010 Edition of Presidential Who’s Who.

We are please to inform you that your candidacy was formally approved February 28th, 2010. Congratulations.

The Publishing Committee selected you as a potential candidate based not only upon your current standing, but focusing as well on criteria from executive and professional directories, associations, and trade journals. Given your background, the Director believes your profile makes a fitting addition to our publication.

There is no fee nor obligation to be listed. As we are working off of secondary sources, we must receive verification from you that your profile is accurate. After receiving verification, we will validate your registry listing within seven business days.

Once finalized, your listing will share prominent registry space with thousands of fellow accomplished individuals across the globe, each representing accomplishment within their own geographical area.

To verify your profile and accept the candidacy, please visit here. Our registration deadline for this year’s candidates is March 31th, 2010. To ensure you are included, we must receive your verification on or before this date. On behalf of our Committee I salute your achievement and welcome you to our association.

Sincerely,
MarkAnthony McGuiness
Chief Operations Officer

Presidential Who’s Who
134 Rockaway Ave
Valley Stream, NY 11590, USA

The Death of the Photographer

I was rather taken aback when I went to the Telegraph web site recently to read up on a topic I was interested in. I found three or four reports on what I was looking for, but they were all videos. Aside from one photo in a paragraph that linked into these stories, there were no other photos, and aside from the introductory text on the same paragraph, there was no other text. I would have expected this on the BBC web site, after all they are a television broadcaster, but the Telegraph exists in the world of the printed word.

Writing imposes certain disciplines, it trains the mind to think and construct arguments, to make points, to reason. Writing also works because it has to be read, and you have to think to read.  With words, you can re-read a sentence and ponder any deeper meaning. Writing can be Googled, linked and quoted. The written word, therefore, helps us to tease out knowledge and improve our understanding because it makes the writer think about what he’s writing, and gives the reader time to think and digest that meaning.

Video is an entirely different medium. That’s not to say that a well-written and well delivered piece to camera cannot have any impact, on the contrary, it can have massive impact which can be multiplied when transcribed and made available to a wider audience. But it’s impossible for a commentator to alter a single word or phrase without having to re-record the whole segment, it’s tedious for the viewer to rewind and play a clip repeatedly to review a comment, and all too easy to “space out” and miss a crucial point.

But my greatest disappointment is for what this video-only trend means to the art of photography. It is of course a tired cliche to say that a picture is worth a thousand words, but I really believe that, even in this photoshopped era. However, it does not follow that video at 30 frames per second is worth thirty thousand words per second. A short video clip may indeed be worth less than an excellent photograph because in my view, the skilled photographer can capture a moment in time which we can then study at length.

News media are struggling to maintain full complements of journalists as it is, but if they also need more cameramen to record video then traditional stills photography will be sacrificed. I don’t think a frame-grab from video is the same thing. So I see fewer photographers out there in future and the diminishing of a remarkable medium for documenting social and political history. Would Robert Capa’s “Death of a Loyalist Soldier” have resonated down the ages if it had been a clip on YouTube? I don’t think so.

Robert Capa's "Death of a Loyalist Soldier", now thought to have been staged

The Reader’s Digest, fondly remembered

This is really sad news. Reader’s Digest in the UK has gone into administration. I remember as a child in Singapore many years ago that, despite being surrounded by learning at an outstanding boarding school, in particular spending hours in a well stocked library, Reader’s Digest was my most valued source of knowledge and the real agent for the broadening of my outlook on life.

The magazine had a wide and eclectic range of essays, all well written in an accessible, informative style. I enjoyed the mix of jokes and real life anecdotes, even the adverts seemed to impart knowledge. But I especially treasured William Funk’s word quiz in particular. So valuable was this magazine to me that I would use some of my modest allowance to buy a copy and devour it, every page, cover to cover.

It was in Reader’s Digest that I read about the life of President Kennedy; of the dangers of smoking (even then!): and of real life struggles against adversity by many extraordinary yet ordinary people. In some respects, Reader’s Digest was a forerunner of Dorling Kindersley’s books in the way they explained and illustrated their stories. I didn’t get the same buzz again until many years later when I bought a set of Encyclopedia Britannica.

I tried a subscription to it here in the UK a couple of years ago, but I think really our 24 hour news culture and the Internet had killed it off. Practically everything I read in it I had already read about somewhere else. We have an incredibly wide source of knowledge and information today. My main sources are the Viigo rss feed on my BlackBerry, and through it Huffington Post, the New York Times, the Daily Telegraph, Slashdot and Techcrunch. I also use Google and Wikipedia a lot, and for a good handle on what passes for the current conversation, Facebook and Twitter.

Given all that, it’s hard to see how there could be a role for Reader’s Digest in any format. But I still have a great sense of loss.

Sir Alan, You’re Fired

I would truly like to know how the latest series of “The Apprentice” managed to get such adulatory coverage right across the media. The winner seems to be getting more attention than Prince Harry did for going to Afghanistan, the only thing missing was The Drudge leaking the result before it was officially announced. And this for a tired programme that over the years has turned itself into a send-up of “Wacky Races” with Sir Alan Sugar himself becoming a cartoon character of a businessman. If that’s how he treats people who work for him I certainly wouldn’t set foot inside his boardroom for a paltry £100,000.

When I started watching the first series it was in the hope of seeing bright young people showing ingenuity and business acumen, a showcase for British entrepreneurial talent. Instead, we see Dick Dastardly, Muttley the Dog, Penelope Pitstop and a whole cast of others compete in a series of wacky challenges with ever more emphasis given to celebrating failure. I appreciate that the exercises are little more than scenarios to let a group of people work together to see how they perform. They are just like team-building exercises where you have to cross an imaginary river with a piece of rope, a plank that’s too short and a lot of shouting at each other. Success, therefore, is not whether you get across or not, but how well you work together and how well one of you leads the team.

What we end up with is a “boardroom” meeting where skill at passing the buck is what gets you through to the next round. It doesn’t matter how useless you were during that week’s challenge as long as there was someone else you could make look more useless than you. The formula could have been used to accentuate the positive and in the early series that’s the way I tried to view it, open minded and optimistic. But the producers, as is so common today, have felt the need to go down-market for audience share, to compete with “Big Brother” on it’s own territory, to show us contestants disintegrating before our very eyes. It has not been a happy spectacle.

So Sir Alan, I’m sorry but, “You’re fired.”

How much is Free Speech worth?

There’s an old saying along the lines that something free is only worth what you paid for it, or put another way, if it’s free it isn’t worth having. So what of free speech? What good does it actually do us? I can see how in times past it was a serious matter that you should be able to criticise the king without fear of losing your head, or challenge religious orthodoxy, or develop new scientific thinking. Free speech has enabled civilisation to advance, it was crucial to the spread of new ideas, new thinking, new understanding. But as crucial as it was, free speech did not represent new ideas, new thinking or new understanding, it was merely the tool to bring them about. Today we have a lobby that worships free speech as if it were an end in itself. There is a scene in “Life of Brian” where the fleeing anti-hero loses a sandal and some of the chasing mob pick it up and worship it. Free speech should be something we use to get from A to B, like a sandal, and that’s all it is. That’s not to say it’s bad, that’s not to say we shouldn’t have it, that’s not an attack on free speech as a concept.

Where we do have a problem with free speech is with the zealots who worship it and who strive to extend it’s boundaries beyond reason, the sandal worshipers in that Python film in other words. To them, it is perfectly okay to insult Christians, it is perfectly okay to insult Jews and it is perfectly okay to insult Moslems. To them, free speech is paramount, it matters above all else. If they see that any Moslems, for example, are offended by cartoons mocking the Prophet then it becomes a matter of principle to them to torment those Moslems beyond endurance. Free speech is paramount. Free speech must prevail. The Christians and Jews have already been beaten into submission by the free speech lobby, but is that right? To complain or criticise on the basis of reasoned rational thought is one thing, but should it be acceptable to insult anyone for no reason other than to extend the limits of free speech? It is almost a religious obsession with some of the free speech fanatics, just criticise them and see the reaction. The irony would be lost on them.

The problem is that free speech is not being used to advance new ideas, new thinking or new understanding. It has been hijacked by those who are intolerant. To them the feelings of other people are an irrelevance before the altar of free speech. No one who is hurt to see their sincerely-held faith mocked, or is offended by foul or abusive language, actually matters. Indeed, it sometimes seems they are deliberately targeted for offence. Free speech did not come to us for free, it was hard won and a high price was paid for it. Right now we have lost it, and it is not doing us any good. On the one side we have whistle-blowers trying to tell us about corruption in Europe and who are being suppressed. Where are the free speech zealots when you need them, banging their drums and demanding attention? On the other side we have idiot Danish cartoonists who become a cause celebre instead. We need to win back free speech, it is too important to allow the zealots to run riot with. I am never going to stand up and defend the right of someone to be gratuitously offensive.

Dealing with Air Rage

“Drunken passengers who take advantage of cheap duty-free alcohol while waiting for delayed flights have caused a dramatic rise in ‘air rage’ incidents, it emerged last night.”
“Pilots called on the courts to take stronger action against those putting passengers’ lives at risk.”
Daily Telegraph report on increase in ‘air rage’ incidents.

Reading the above makes me very sad. I suspect the pilots mean us, the travelling public, I suspect they don’t mean the air travel industry that creates the problem in the first place. Those who run the airports and the airlines are breathtakingly indifferent to the plight of those they laughingly refer to as “self-loading cargo.” If they were forced to stand for hours passing through endless frustrating and demeaning queues and checks only to be finally herded onto planes with cramped and uncomfortable seating to spend further hours breathing stale air, I can promise you, they would all suffer from air rage too. Alcohol, cheap or otherwise, is just the match to a mountain of inflammable tinder.

By the time you’ve arrived at the airport, already stressed-out from the journey, and you’ve stood in a painfully slow-moving queue to reach the check-in desk, haggled over the inadequate baggage allowance, put liquids into transparent plastic bags, made your way to the security-check queue, had the indignity of stripping almost to your underclothes, putting your mobile phone, credit cards and small change into a tray, being summoned to walk slowly through the metal detector before being body-searched, and taking your shoes off to put through the radar, you have already spent a significant part of your life being ritually and publicly humiliated. Somewhere in amongst all that you will have had your ticket and your passport checked, after queuing separately on each occasion of course. Then you find yourself in limbo-land, a shoppers’ paradise except that the goods on sale are only fractionally less than high street prices. Apart from the booze, that is.

Finally you are summoned to board your flight. Well, what do you know, there’s a queue to have your ticket checked before you can get into the waiting area where you have to sit and wait yet again, and when boarding does start, there’s a mad scramble to form another queue to have your ticket and passport inspected one more time. And after what seems like a lifetime, you find yourself on the plane at long last. Now you have to find somewhere to stow what little hand baggage you’ve been allowed because there never seems to be enough room in the overhead compartments. That’s why those in the know were so anxious to board first. But anyway, you’ve done it, after all your trials and tribulations you’re on board and you’ve stowed your things. Now you can sit back and relax in your comfortable seat. Not a bit of it.

In order to deter all but the most determined and hardy travellers, the airlines have deliberately made their seats as cramped and uncomfortable as they can be. Airplanes are always overcrowded, you see, and if they could get you to sit two to a seat, one on another’s lap, they would. As it is, they leave you to play elbow-boxing with the person in the seat next to you for use of the arm rest; they simply do not care for your comfort. They simply do not care for your health, either, so to save a trivial amount of money they recycle the cabin air until it is putrid and almost dangerous to breath. So there you sit, for hours on end, uncomfortable, exhausted, deeply resentful, and developing an airplane-induced headache. Is it any wonder the cabin crew find some passengers fractious? Is it really the right response for them to confront such passengers with a heavy handed approach that will only get them irate to such an extent they can then rough them up, put handcuffs on them, and have them charged with air rage? Is cheap alcohol really the problem here? I think not.

Travel in happier times. Note the cabin crew using a stick to welcome passengers to their destination

Travel in happier times. Note the cabin crew using a stick to welcome passengers to their destination