September 14, 2010
Idiot, or Thug?
As Osborne’s Axe begins to fall, pleas for exemption are coming thick and fast.
And no surprise. Andrew Rawnsley recently highlighted how the Coalition is cutting deeper and quicker than any government since the 1920s. The pressure is on for organisations to hang on to whatever funding they have – at the expense of rivals if need be.
Hot on the heels of Rawnsley’s claim that ministers fear “lynch mobs”, yesterday police Chief Superintendent Derek Barnett supplied his own eye-catching declaration:
” ‘In an environment of cuts across the wider public sector, we face a period where disaffection, social and industrial tensions may well rise,’
‘We will require a strong, confident, properly trained and equipped police service, one in which morale is high and one that believes it is valued by the government and public.’ “
Or as the Guardian headlined it: “Police: We can’t take care of cuts protests if you cut us”.
The warning is clear. In order to secure a basic minimum of stability, the coercive power of the state is needed to repress those elements so desperate and disadvantaged they’ll risk life and limb by rioting in the street. So make sure the police guarantee that basic minimum, by giving them loadsa muneh.
But I’m not a police officer. I’m a self-appointed representative for academic arts and humanities funding. So let me offer an argument on behalf of my own interest group – which comes at the expense of the rozzers (it’s a dog-eat-dog world, what can I say?)
Studying the arts and humanities brings inumerable and often incalculable benefits to individuals, as well as to wider society. But let’s consider just one practical benefit of this study, by applying two basic analytic tools.
The first is familiar to historians: a basic knowledge of, and ability to critically employ, the facts of history.
The second is familiar to trained philosophers: the argumentative dilemma (i.e. impaling your opponent on one of two argumentative horns by logically forcing them to pick between two unacceptable options).
Bringing these tools to bear, let’s examine another of Superintendent Barnett’s utterances:
“From the massacre in 1819, that took place not so many miles away from here, to the current day alcohol-related disorder, history teaches us that there will always be widespread threats to the public peace”
1819 massacre, you say? Near Cheshire? Why, Mr Barnet can only be talking about…er, the Peterloo Massacre. Here’s what Wikipedia (hardly a byzantine source available only to crusty scholars) says of that event:
The Peterloo Massacre (or Battle of Peterloo) occurred at St Peter’s Field, Manchester, England, on 16 August 1819, when cavalry charged into a crowd of 60,000–80,000 gathered at a meeting to demand the reform of parliamentary representation. [...]15 people were killed and 400–700 were injured. The massacre was given the name Peterloo in ironic comparison to the Battle of Waterloo, which had taken place four years earlier.
So, the example a top police officer gives of “professional” policing of public protest is a massacre in which mounted officers killed innocent citizens. Lovely.
That’s the history, now the philosophy.
Two options:
Either: Mr Barnet is a thug who surreptitiously refers to public massacres for a range of possible motives. (These might include: attempting to further intimidate lawful protestors; warning the Government that the police are liable to kill if they don’t get their funding protected; or assuring the Coalition that the force has its back and will charge into the crowds, sabers-drawn if necessary).
Or: Mr Barnet is a spectacular idiot lacking the most basic grasp of history, who deserves widespread ridicule, and whose wider competence might now be called into question.
See how powerful the arts and humanities can be? They teach you to think clearly and accurately. They promote the sorts of minds we want in Britain. Clear and accurate thinkers, graduating from our universities. Minds which may one day occupy positions of power and influence.
And so that’s just one of the many reasons arts and humanities funding should be protected. Or at any rate, it’s better than giving the money to idiots/thugs (delete as applicable).
Tom Kealy said,
September 14, 2010 at 8:41 am
Just to lob a grenade into the works……
You should give all the money to Science. We could stimulate the economy, fight cancer and still understand the finer points of the Illiad, all in one day. We’d also provide much more societal benefits than artsy types!
Left Outside said,
September 14, 2010 at 8:48 am
Wow, I hope this gets cross posted.
What a moron/twat.
I’m not sure what worries me more, the idea that he’s a moron promoted beyond his (feeble) ability, or that he is perfectly suited to his job because he is a total thug.
Idiot, or Thug? (via Bad Conscience) « Left Outside said,
September 14, 2010 at 8:50 am
[...] As Osborne's Axe begins to fall, pleas for exemption are coming thick and fast. And no surprise. Andrew Rawnsley recently highlighted how the Coalition is cutting deeper and quicker than any government since the 1920s. The pressure is on for organisations to hang on to whatever funding they have – at the expense of rivals if need be. Hot on the heels of Rawnsley's claim that ministers fear "lynch mobs", yesterday police Chief Superintendent Derek … Read More [...]
Luis Enrique said,
September 14, 2010 at 11:04 am
good catch!
Paul I suspect you may personally take more credit for thinking clearly and accurately than your education. How would we evaluate the truth of your statement? First we’d have to control for IQ, to ensure we’re not just finding that smarter people think more clearly and accurately. Once we’ve done that, we’d have to see whether people with an arts and humanities education exhibit clearer and more accurate thinking than those with science or other educations.
Of course I don’t have that data, but based on reading arts and humanities educated newspaper columnists, I’d suggest there’s a racing chance you might find the exact opposite is true.
Paul Sagar said,
September 14, 2010 at 11:14 am
Luis and Tom, I’ll admit the sciences are very important too.*
Let’s take a third of police funding and split it between us.
–
* though of course economics is not a science, let’s just be clear about that.
Luis Enrique said,
September 14, 2010 at 11:44 am
it’s science-ish
(read that Solow essay I sent you! for others, link here:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/british-decline/
Tom Kealy said,
September 14, 2010 at 12:08 pm
You can’t do proper tests in econ: ergo, It’ll never have the same ‘gold standard’ truthiness as, say, my one-time specialty, physics.
Paul Sagar said,
September 14, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Luis – thanks for reminding me, I do want to read that
grrl said,
September 14, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Luis Enrique,
@ “Paul I suspect you may personally take more credit for thinking clearly and accurately than your education. How would we evaluate the truth of your statement? First we’d have to control for IQ, to ensure we’re not just finding that smarter people think more clearly and accurately. Once we’ve done that, we’d have to see whether people with an arts and humanities education exhibit clearer and more accurate thinking than those with science or other educations.”
so then, ‘evaluate the truth of [Paul's] statement’ would go in two steps:
1) Control for IQ [measurement supposed to take place using a random method (would need to know exactly which one)]
2) after having completed 1, proceed to see “weather people people with an arts and humanities education[group A] exhibit clearer and more accurate thinking than those with science[group B] or other educations[group C]” . And then what?
My statement is: whatever ‘result’ your (science-ish, as you say) evaluation will bring, Paul Sagar [as individual belonging to group A] can still take more credit for thinking more clearly and accurately than… [insert whatever people you want, with another education]
Note: a study to convince you of the truth of MY statement would go like this: you choose the ‘composition’ of the groups A(Humanities), B (Science), and C (else) as you wish[surely by using a dice? – for asuring required ‘randomness’], and I reserve the right to choose the IQ Test I think is appropriate [without using a dice, as I have my own method to choose the best and most appropriate IQ-Test that always proves what I want to say)].
On another note, if I would be “reading arts and humanities educated newspaper columnists” that would lead me to thinking “the exact opposite is true” , I would simply change the newspaper…
Peter said,
September 14, 2010 at 3:25 pm
What an utter tool.
Mark said,
September 14, 2010 at 3:43 pm
O
Mark said,
September 14, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Does studying humanities cost money?
Rich H-S said,
September 14, 2010 at 10:20 pm
I heard the ‘news’ that the rozzers weren’t going to be up to handling the revolt and was away from any other media outlet (staffed by predominantly arts and humanities graduates) and so was left with having to assume that the poor man had been misquoted or misread. Seems that he made a genuine mistake and honestly thinks it is OK to attempt to blackmail the country to do his will on the pretext of a possible social eruption. I tell you, if that fella worked for me he’d be sacked by now.
James A said,
September 14, 2010 at 11:33 pm
Q: What’s the difference between mathematics and philosophy?
A: To do mathematics, all you need is a pen, some paper and a rubbish bin. For philosophy, all you need is a pen and some paper.
Chris Brooke said,
September 15, 2010 at 8:25 am
(I think the original form of the joke is “Why are philosophy departments cheaper than maths departments?”")
roger said,
September 15, 2010 at 10:49 am
I don’t think it is an arts versus science argument. Both disciplines provide intelligent clear thinkers and both disciplines overlap. No one is 100% science or art, but a blend of the two, grey areas and all that. What is clear is that we face a wholesale replacement of the system by which we live, from a state based to a private industry based one.
State based systems have the money flows within them generally being used to further the interests of the state, which is the practical mechanism which governs and admistrates us. Private systems by contrast see the money flow directed towards satisfying profit requirements. This results in a general hemorage of cash from doing useful work in the system, ie paying for the armed forces to protect us from terrorists, the police to help stop getting our stuff nicked, the NHS to look after us when we fall ill, the fire service to rescue us from car crashes and put our house fires out, the teachers and schools who will educate the next generation who in turn will be the ones looking after us when we get old. The list goes on.
The police officer is right in concluding that there is an increase likelyhood of some sort of upheaval, which is natural considering the asset stripping the general public see happening to their nation. The police are right to identify they are underfunded- how many crooks get away with it? What he is saying now is he is so financially restricted that he hints he can no longer protect the elements of Govt that have instigated the situation. But the same applies to all of us, the cuts are so deep, destructive, not promised, not based on anything more than dogma that benefits a wealty privileged few.
What is clear is the banks have been withdrawing money out of the economy at an alarming rate, this is not sustainable and has to stop. http://www.bankofenglandact.co.uk/
Once this has been addressed we should be able to fund to something like the required levels, all the public services. The soldiers would be properly equiped, the police would catch crooks, the hospitals and schools would be there to repair and educate, us etc etc
Art and science do go together very well. In the second world war science provided the technology, but art delivered the message to raise moral at home and to our troops abroad, and to destroy the moral of our enemy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ttbnb/The_Culture_Show_The_Art_of_World_War_Two_A_Culture_Show_Special/
Ironic that seventy years after having to protect our assets from an aggressor, from overseas, science and art must again come together to protect them once more but this time from an enemy within. If we fail a new dark age will descend upon us, but if we succeed there may not quite be broad sunlit uplands, but a hope we can improve on what we’ve got, to the benefit of all, rather than a wealty privileged few. Good Luck to all of you.
Paul Sagar said,
September 15, 2010 at 11:11 am
Chris, James,
It’s a pretty bad joke in either form. Or at least, I don’t get why it’s supposed to be funny.
roger said,
September 15, 2010 at 11:15 am
Oh I forgot this
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-nhs-direct/signatures.html
Please sign and email it to all your friends & relatives, work buddies and mates.
James A said,
September 15, 2010 at 11:19 am
Ahem, yes, not particularly funny, I’ll grant you that.
Let me try again:
Q: How did the constipated mathematician solve his problem?
A: He worked it out with a pencil.
Peter said,
September 15, 2010 at 9:25 pm
I thought that that philosophy joke was pretty funny. Definitely stealing that one!
Paul Sagar said,
September 15, 2010 at 10:04 pm
I liked the pencil one.
Peter said,
September 16, 2010 at 1:22 pm
How come the LibCon piece was butchered? This version’s much better.
Paul Sagar said,
September 16, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Er, basically, I think it’s because Sunny believes that nobody will read articles more than 350 words long, and so feels compelled to chop everything down to that length.
Even if it means making the article incoherent and stupid.
The same thing happened yesterday to Left Outside’s post about equality, which makes a lot of sense at his place but reads like crap at LibCon.
Peter said,
September 16, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Fair do’s, it’s his house after all. Though I like long articles, provided they’re good long articles, and aren’t 10000 words when 1000 will do.
Paul Sagar said,
September 16, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Well, I have two prbolems with it (which I’ll need to take up with Sunny if it continues)
1. It’s short-sighted; yes, we don’t want overly-long, boring, unreadable dissertations on LibCon. But equally, sometimes to say something properly it takes a little time – and we should expect people to make some effort not simply pander to the lowest common denominator.
2. It’s got my bloody name on it. And I don’t like incoherent butcher-jobs being out there with my name on them.
Peter said,
September 16, 2010 at 3:05 pm
1. Agreed 100%.
2. Ah OK I assumed that the editing process would be something like this:
i) author sends article to editor
ii) editor makes changes, sends back to author
iii) either changes are OK and the article gets published, or author and editor discuss the changes until both are happy
If it’s not like that, I can see why it might be annoying.
Paul Sagar said,
September 16, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Well sometimes I submit then SH edits, but in this case SH just took it, butchered it and posted it. My impression is that sometimes he rushes edits through and doesn’t check if the piece still makes sense afterwards.
Taking Individuals Seriously « Bad Conscience said,
September 17, 2010 at 7:35 am
[...] if they simply got clear in their own thinking. Chief Superintendent Derek Barnett may be a thug (or an idiot), but his warnings about riots should nonetheless be heeded. When people experience debilitating [...]