The original story:
The evolution of creationism
 By Christopher Caldwell
The Financial Times
5 September 2008

Summary of the story:
This knowledgeable FT columnist says there is scant evidence that Sarah Palin is really any sort of creationist, let alone a very fundamentalist one. 

livingissues comment:
Sarah Palin may or not be a brilliant choice by Senator McCain to be his vice-presidential running mate in the race to the White House. But to condemn her candidacy on the basis that she is a creationist seems odd. The evidence that she might be an evolutionary sceptic seems to have come from a remark during the race for her present office, the governership of Alaska.

According to one scientific blogger’s account she seems rather informally to have suggested that children ought to be taught both Darwinian and creationist accounts of evolution. There seems little wrong in that. After all, such teaching might amount to a science lesson in Darwinism and a religious studies, or a sociology, lesson in creationism.

Besides, there are - as Caldwell suggests - many shades to creationism (and Mr Caldwell, I guess, is not a huge fan of any of them). Some very serious thinkers have opined that all the Darwinism in the world still leaves plenty of room for God, and maybe even in the unfolding of the development of species. 

One gets the impression that Sarah Palin does not have strong feelings on the matter. She may even speak in the cannily knowledge that an awful lot of people do. Either way, she seems to have figured that the trick is let children know that the debate is out there. The rest, they can wrestle with for themselves.

The original stories:
Georgia’s PR agency lashes out at Russian ‘propaganda’
Matt Cartmell
PR Week
14 August 2008

Russia-Georgia War: The PR Battle
Mark Stone,
Sky News Reporter
13 August 2008

Georgia has won the PR war
Peter Wilby
The Guardian
18 August 2008

Summary of the stories:
The success of the Georgia PR campaign following Russia’s military intervention has been widely noted. The front page of PR Week and The Guardian highlighted how Georgia’s PR company Aspect launched its own broadside against PR rivals advocating Russia’s case. “I’m on the side of the angels,” Aspect’s founding partner, James Hunt, told the magazine. “There are agencies (GPlus) that work for Russia. But I don’t know how they can be comfortable about that.”

The original stories:
England to be most crowded in Europe
“The population of England will increase by a third over the next 50 years as it becomes the most crowded major nation in Europe, official forecasts suggest.”
by Christopher Hope, Home Affairs Editor
The Daily Telegraph
6 May 2008

Race chief wants integration push
BBC Online
3 April 2004

80 million Britons, and no one you can trust…
“A future I’m glad to miss….”
By Peter Hitchens
The Daily Mail
30 August 2008

Summary of the stories:
Britain will overtake Germany and France to become the most populated major country in the EU in 50 years’ time with 77 million residents, according Eurostat, the statistical service of the European commission. Naturally, as our stories show, there is a mixed response.

livingissues comment:
Just to focus on economic well-being, there is no correlation between population density and standard of living. Chad, Sudan and Botswana have extremely low population densities and a very low standard of living (though Bostwana’s is improving). Australia has a low population density but a high standard of living. The Netherlands is densely populated and has a high standard of living. Bangladesh has a high population density, and a low living standard.

So the preference Malthus seemed to show for a small population receives very mixed support from history.

The experience in the UK has been consistent in the anti-Malthus direction. For hundreds of years as the population has grown so has the standard of living.

However, eighty percent of the UK’s population increase between now and 2060 is predicted to be from direct or indirect immigration and economics hasn’t been the real controversy, at least until recently. The cultural integrity of the UK has seemed to matter more as an anxiety (for those who were worried at all).

There is intense argument as to whether the UK has mishandled the integration of existing immigrants. Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality and an impeccable liberal has labeled multiculturalism a disaster which had caused racial isolation. He has called for it to be scrapped. Ken Livingstone, the former Labour mayor of London, strongly disagreed, and cited London as a rainbow triumph.

Of course “multiculturalism” is a weird word: it can mean a “melting pot” culture, or the right of each of us to indulge in “identity politics”.

For sure, without social integration based on a common identity, tensions and conflict among competing communities - particularly between new and old ones - are costly. The few British-born Muslims planting bombs on our streets in protest at western values are but an extreme manifestation of the threats posed (even if an unrepresentative one even among Muslims).

It would appear logical that unless there is social integration more immigration will pose more of the problems that Trevor Phillips fears multiculturalism has caused (social breakdown in inner cities etc.). His solution – which appears sensible – calls for integration, common values and identity. British Muslims, should be viewed and see themselves as British, he believes, just as Jews are and do.

There might be cause to regret the extent and failures of past immigration policies. But we have to accept that the UK population will grow still further until 2060. More workers, a larger market and influx of educated trained talent could be a major bonus for the UK. But it would be a tragedy not to learn the lessons of past mistakes and then to repeat them on an even greater scale.

The original story:
“Our aimless, feckless, hopeless youth?”

Boris Johnson column
The Daily Telegraph
19 August 2008

Summary of the story:
There was a bit of a media “storm” (ie, a slight delighted fuss by commentators) when Boris Johnson, London’s Tory mayor, contradicted the social views of his leader, David Cameron. Mr Cameron had made a speech which seemed to imply that Britain was “a broken society”

livingissues comment:
David Cameron seems quite keen on honing a few simple messages, and “the broken society” looks like being one of them. The ebullient Boris was never likely to sign up for such hand-wringing, especially since he is now in charge of big chunks of Britain’s Olympic efforts. He is cast (improbably but wonderfully) as youth leader and tourism chief to a world festival of sporting endeavour which will inspire new levels of volunteering. One doubts Boris thinks Britain is broken, but he certainly won’t pander to the idea when he must big-up the depth and width of the nation’s strengths and niceness.    

The original story:
“Lack of role models” fuels gangs
BBC Online
8 August 2008

Summary of the story:
A lack of parental and other adult role models is driving young people into gangs, according to the Prince’s Trust.

livingissues comment:
The bad news is that this research is not comparative. It provides no insight to how it was ten, twenty or thirty years ago. Hence it is difficult to know what to make of the fact that one in three young people in the UK say they do not think of their own parents as people they respect.

The good news is that these research findings debunk the image of youth out of control. Only 3% of youth take drugs regularly and only 2% carry a knife.

The new data seems to confirm a modern trend. Our fellow citizens seem to rely on each other rather than the outside world for rules and information. More than half of the teenagers (55%) cited friends and peers as role models and almost a quarter (22%) said young people are looking for role models in gangs.

We sort of suspect this, don’t we? Everything about modern culure makes us suspect that people are gossiping amongst themselves rather than listening to authority figures. What’s more, the young see evidence of older people abandoning adulthood. So what’s to admire? 

Modern PR assumes that for all age groups, not just teenagers, “individuals looking for news, information and cues are relying less on institutions and more on each other”. Which suggests that trust and community still matter very much. 

People have always joined gangs to gain an identity. The 1960s had its problems with Mods, rockers, skinheads and the Tongs. The 1970s saw football hooliganism become a major youth sport. All such movements involved rebellion against traditional family and societal authority. But most gang members in the past went on to build their own family units. (Carol Sarler usefully pointed this out in The Times.) This research offers no suggestion that the future will be much different.

The original stories:
Climate change catastrophe by degrees

Summary of the story:
The press widely reported and discussed the views of Bob Watson, the environment department’s chief scientific adviser and a veteran campaigner for action on climate change. His fresh message was that whilst it is important to fight for “mitigation” (that is, avoidance) of man-made climate change, we need to prepare for “adaptation” to quite severe change. In particular, we should fight to try to limit climate change to a 2 degree warming (over pre-industrial norms), but we should prepare for 4 degrees of change.   

livingissues comment:
There is very little official recognition that it is unlikely that climate change policy will be sufficiently rigorous to make a big difference. Indeed, one could argue that there is chronic denial - even dishonesty - from politicians and officials. After all, they routinely discuss their policy suggestions as though they will (a) happen and (b) “save the planet”.

It is interesting that Mark Lynas’ piece in response discusses how we “must” hold the line at 2 degrees, and even aim for zero emissions by 2050 and carbon-mopping up thereafter.

It seems far more likely that at least for a generation or so, we have to face that climate change will not be hugely dented by mitigation policies (unless energy shortages force massive uncertainty and price increases). So we’ll be adapting, not mitigating. It may not want to admit it, but DEFRA seems to be getting the message.

The original story:
McDonald’s adds 4,000 new UK jobs
BBC Online news
6 August 2008

The basics of the story:
Fast-food chain McDonald’s has launched a recruitment drive to add 4,000 jobs in its UK restaurants to meet increasing demand for its meals. While some service sector firms are cutting jobs, McDonald’s said it needed to increase its workforce to cater for two million more customers a month.

livingissues comment:
For most people, budget and lifestyle both come into their dining decisions. Thankfully, most of us exist in more than one social reality. Plenty of us grab a cheap fast-food bite one day, and linger over a pricey slow-food pasta the next. And yet some people seem to define McDonalds as the end of civilisation.   

There are obvious differences between fast food and haute cuisine. Craft, price and skill come into it. But carbohydrate, fat, protein and vitamins bring pretty much the same benefits (and risks) regardless of the form they’re served up in.

Top chefs are rare.  That’s why they become celebrities and command top wages. Meanwhile, nobody knows the name of the relatively low-paid cooks at the local McDonald’s. Its customers, however, know exactly how their meal will taste before they eat there.  Repeat visits to McDonald’s are not about experimentation, as they might be with celebrity chefs.

So, McDonald’s is hiring 4,000 staff at a time of economic gloom, and we can celebrate. It suggests that McDonald’s is also right to hope the Oxford English Dictionary may revise its definition of “McJob”. Certainly, the current definition insults millions of customers who eat there, while degrading the tens of thousands of staff who serve them.

The original stories:
International law on trial
John Lloyd
Financial Times Weekend Magazine
26/27 July 2008

International courts are undeniably flawed but…
Letter to the FT
Chris Stephen
2/3 August 2008

The stories in brief:
John Lloyd (a distinguished senior journalist) wrote a piece which wasn’t by any means antagonistic to the idea of international courts of justice. However, focussing on the trials of Serbian nationalist leaders, Mr Lloyd found many senior legal figures (several deeply involved in the trials) who have severe doubts on various grounds.

Chris Stephen replied robustly that that courts had found serious culprits and (apart from serving justice) had usefully removed them from regional politics.

livingissues comment:

This is a very difficult area and the arguments in these two pieces of writing do at least clearly show how sharp the collision of valuable views can be.

The main prejudice against international courts is a sub-set of the prejudice against the United Nations and other attempts at world government. This is that such bodies erect a powerful sense that they are more right, more liberal, than national governments. But it is interesting how often the UN is found wanting, and certainly found wanting in democratic respectability. So there may be merit in reminding ourselves of the value of sovereign countries (preferably strongly rooted in democracy or some other accountability), warts and all. 

One difficulty (not really stressed here) is that one might argue that the legitimate leaders of legitimate causes should not be be held solely responsible for the activities of their willing and well-informed followers.

There is also the problem that many leaders of causes who recommend or carry out violent acts and then go on to become heroes or at any rate legitimate leaders. Modern Israel and South Africa were both formed in part as the result of vicious terrorism. The IRA recommended and carried out violent acts as it fought for its goals. What ensures that the leaders of these groups are not war criminals? That they won? That it is inconvenient to prosecute them? That their wickedness was not as great as the Serbian leaders’?

One might argue that these are matters for the countries concerned, and that if they can’t bring themselves to prosecute their own villains, then the “international community” ought to do it for them. In practice, the countries concerned often have to facilitate the arrest and delivery of their own villains. Again, that will often be a matter of political convenience - which may well coincide with justice but isn’t necessarily the best driver of criminal proceedings.

The original stories:
The Sunday Times reviews books on the world food crisis
The Economist reviews one of them

Summary of the stories:
Two important and widely-reviewed books describe the modern global food crisis (bad food, too little of it, too much of it wasted) and identify villains (high-tech agri-business and supermarkets). That’s all normal: there are a lot of such books. What’s interesting is that these books should receive favourable reviews from right-of-centre mainstream journals, one of which is perhaps the UK’s most important source of economically-literate commentary.

livingissues comment:
At first sight it is odd that journals committed to the free-market should have anti-corporate, luddite books reviewed by people who cheerfully promote an anti-corporate, luddite view. But we need to remember that books page editors are in the arts section of their journals, and are employed to bring something a little gentler to the mix. What’s more, most writers of whatever economic persuasion are half in love with the Green agenda, even if their heads would tell them it’s probably nonsense. Besides, they are from a “me” generation which holds its own body to be a temple, and is hyper-sensitive to insults to it. That means they are prone to imagine they are under assault.

So we must expect lots of nonsense about food.

It is of course true that a combination of technology, subsidy, state interference, widespread affluence, a good deal of poverty, and the free market (some of them in all places, all of them in a few) have made food a fascinating issue. Roughly speaking, some people eat way too much whilst others eat way too little. (And yes, there are conservation issues too.)

But what’s missing from the current debate is the understanding that the planet is now feeding vastly more people than it ever did before. And doing so quite well.

The question is, what will be the next evolutions of what has been for millennia a fast-changing agricultural scene?  Do we really believe that big firms won’t be at the heart of the next chapter in the story? Is it really clever to demonise them? 

The original stories:
Patrick Jenkins (The FT) on Welsh suicides
Stefanie Marsh (The Times) on Massachusetts pregnancies
Rod Liddle (Sunday Times) on knife crime

Summary of the stories:

The first two of these stories are accounts by journalists visiting the places where teenagers are exhibiting strage behaviour (22 young suicides in rundown Bridgend, Wales; 18 teenage pregnancies in a school in a small US fishing and tourism seaside town). The third is a robustly anti-stereotypical account of the UK wave of knife killings.

All these accounts are unhysterical and serious. They have in common a decent scepticism that we know why these events have happened. Gangs, poverty, disadvantage, ignorance are all discussed, but are largely dismissed as rock-solid causes.  

livingissues comment:
One oddity about human behaviour is that it is prone to fashion. That’s to say that people, and especially young people, will often do what they see their fellows do, even if it’s destructive, or self-destructive. They will also be drawn to the dark side, even if experimentally. Sometimes such experiments can get real and fatal.

This is not exactly irrational behaviour, since seeking thrills or affection or drama is often perfectly sensible or explicable.

The adult world can sometimes control teenage behaviour, by taxing such “bad” products as it controls, or punishing it. But quite often, the fashion simply moves on. After all, the one thing that we know about fashion is that it constantly changes.

It seems that knife crime is more common (more fashionable?) amongst blacks than whites. There is evidence (at least as reported in the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph and probably leaked by Scotland Yard, the UK capital’s police headquarters) that black men are implicated in about half of all knife crime in London (though they are less than ten per cent of the population). Amongst under-18s, it seems likely that more than twice as many kife crimes are committed by blacks as by whites. (It is much less clear if the victims are disproportionately white, but it seems quite possible.)