Who are Americans voting for this week?
November 2nd, 2020 by Roger Darlington
Tuesday 3 November 2020 is a big day in the United States with a massive amount of balloting going on.
Everyone knows that Americans will be electing the next President and Vice-President for a four-year term. The choice is between Donald Trump and Mike Pence for the Republicans and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for the Democrats.
But there’s a lot more going on.
All 435 members of the House of Representatives are up for election for a two-year term. Currently the Democrats have a majority in the House.
One third of the 100 members of the Senate are up for election for a six-year term. In fact, this year 33 seats are up for election on the normal routine with two more seats to be filled as special elections, making 35 in all. Currently the Republicans have a narrow majority in the Senate.
But that’s not all.
There are 13 Governor posts up for election – 11 in states and two in territories.
There are 86 state legislature elections too (all states – except one – have bicameral legislatures).
That’s still not all.
Arizona, South Dakota and Montana are voting on legalising recretaional marijuana; Maryland is voting on legalising sports betting; Mississippi is voting on a new flag; and Puerto Rico is holding a non-binding referendum on statehood (for the fifth time).
That’s far from all – but you get the idea …
And campaigning in these elections doesn’t come cheap – especially when effectively there are no limits on what can be legally spent, This year’s election campaigns will spend a total of nearly $14 billion.
Posted in American current affairs | Comments (0)
What is the most important relationship in global politics?
October 30th, 2020 by Roger Darlington
In my last posting, I wrote about a talk hosted online by the London School of Economics. The talk was delivered by Fareed Zakaria who is an Indian-American journalist, political scientist, and author. He was introducing ideas from his new book “Ten Lessons For a Post-Pandemic World”, The session was chaired by Andrés Velasco, formerly finance minister of Chile and currently the Dean of the School of Public Policy at the LSE, who led the discussion which followed.
Velasco asked Zakaria whether populism, which we have seen in Britain, the United States, Brazil, Hungary and elsewhere, would be a winner or loser from the coronavirus crisis. Zakarai believes that the pandemic will dramatically increase the already severe inequalities in income and wealth with smaller businesses and sectors like retail and hospitality being hit especially hard.
He expects that, as a result, there will be a push for an expanded role for the state which would favour centre-left political parties rather than right-wing populist parties. As a believer in the benefits of free markets, he would not wholly support this. He spoke in favour of the Danish model where there are both strong markets and strong government – what Velasco called “flexi-security”.
A key issue for both Zakaria and Velasco was trust. Populism has denigrated the expertise of scientists and elites but they expected the coronavirus crisis to correct some of this. At the international level, Zakaria wanted to see a better integration into the world order of the rising economies of of China, India and Brazil. He identified the relationship between the United States and China – currently so tense – as the most important in global politics.
Posted in World current affairs | Comments (0)
“The next crisis could be the last crisis.”
October 29th, 2020 by Roger Darlington
Before the global pandemic, I would regularly attend free evening lectures at the London School of Economics. Now such events are all online and this week I attended a particularly fascinating talk by Fareed Zakaria who is an Indian-American journalist, political scientist, and author. He was introducing ideas from his new book “Ten Lessons For a Post-Pandemic World” which I have now ordered.
Zakaria emphasised that with globalisation “We have been living a life of greater risk” with faster growth but more inequality and instability. He contrasted the terrorist threat of 9/11 and the economic crisis of 2008 with the current global pandemic and underlined that, in the case of Covid 19, “It has affected every human being on the planet” and so “This is the most universal crisis which has faced us”.
He explained that zoonotic viruses which jump from animals to humans have always been with us, but that modern methods of food production almost guaranteed a new pandemic. He pointed out the fallacy of believing that “nature has a fondest for human life”. Chillingly he asserted that, unless we change the way we live, “The next crisis could be the last crisis”.
He pointed out that countries which have faced previous zoonotic crises like SARS and MERS have learned the lessons and acted more decisively this time. This has been the case with nations like China, Taiwan, Japan and Vietnam. But he was not confident that Western countries would learn the lessons of Covid because of our sense of inertia and superiority.
Posted in World current affairs | Comments (0)
What the United States Supreme Court now looks like
October 27th, 2020 by Roger Darlington
A mere one week before the US presidential election when it looks as if the Republicans will lose both the White House and the Senate, Amy Coney Barrett – nominated by Donald Trump and approved by the Republican-controlled Senate – has been appointed to the country’s Supreme Court.
- In the history of the United States, there has only been five women members, two black members and one Hispanic member of the Supreme Court. Following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg and her replacement by Barrett, the present membership of the Court includes three women members and one black member.
- Following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg and the appointment of Barrett, six of the justices are Roman Catholic and two are Jewish. Neil Gorsuch was raised Roman Catholic but now attends an Episcopal Church.
- Following the appointment by President Trump of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, there is now a conservative majority on the Court. All the conservative members were appointed by Republican presidents, while all the liberals were appointed by Democratic presidents. Since Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett are young by Supreme Court standards, Trump is viewed to have a secured a legacy that will last decades.
However, as I wrote in this blog posting, if the Democrats take both the White House and the Senate in next week’s election, it would not be unreasonable if Joe Biden nominated two additional members to the Court, although currently all he is promising is a six-month review of the Court.
Posted in American current affairs | Comments (0)
A review of the new film version of “Rebecca”
October 26th, 2020 by Roger Darlington
If you’re going to remake a classic movie, you need a lot of confidence and talent and perhaps a new angle.
English novelist Daphne du Maurier wrote the famous “Rebecca”, published in 1938, and Alfred Hitchcock directed the film version of 1940 which won the Academy Award for Best Picture. It was an impressive cast: Laurence Olivier as wealthy widower Maximilian de Winter, Joan Fontaine as his new second wife, and Judith Anderson as the domineering housekeeper Mrs. Danvers.
This 2020 version simply lacks the same star power. Director Ben Wheatley is no Hitchcock, most of his previous work being for television, and the ballroom sequence in particular is rather histrionic. American Armie Hammer was presumably cast as Maximilian in order to make the movie more marketable to US audiences, while Lily James as the ingénue does her best but was probably cast to win over younger viewers.
Where the remake scores over the original is in the sets and settings. Hitchcock shot his version in California, whereas Wheatley – reflecting the English location of the novel – gives us some wonderful locations in Dorset and Hertfordshire for the stately home of Manderlay and in Devon and Cornwall for the coastal sequences. Also Kristin Scott Thomas is chillingly wonderful as Mrs Danvers.
Released online at a time when the coronavirus pandemic has closed most cinemas and postponed many other films, the new “Rebecca” is worth watching but no challenge to the 1940 classic.
Posted in Cultural issues | Comments (0)
You can’t beat a good pun
October 21st, 2020 by Roger Darlington
I changed my iPod’s name to Titanic. It’s syncing now.
England has no kidney bank, but it does have a Liverpool.
Haunted French pancakes give me the crepes.
This girl today said she recognized me from the Vegetarians Club, but I’d swear I’ve never met herbivore.
I know a guy who’s addicted to drinking brake fluid, but he says he can stop any time.
A thief who stole a calendar got twelve months.
When the smog lifts in Los Angeles U.C.L.A.
I got some batteries that were given out free of charge.
A dentist and a manicurist married. They fought tooth and nail.
A will is a dead giveaway.
With her marriage, she got a new name and a dress.
Police were summoned to a daycare centre where a three-year-old was resisting a rest.
Did you hear about the fellow whose entire left side was cut off? He’s all right now.
A bicycle can’t stand alone; it’s just two tyred.
The guy who fell onto an upholstery machine last week is now fully recovered.
He had a photographic memory but it was never fully developed.
When she saw her first strands of gray hair she thought she’d dye.
Acupuncture is a jab well done. That’s the point of it
I didn’t like my beard at first. Then it grew on me.
Did you hear about the cross-eyed teacher who lost her job because she couldn’t control her pupils?
When you get a bladder infection, urine trouble.
When chemists die, they barium.
I stayed up all night to see where the sun went, and then it dawned on me.
I’m reading a book about anti-gravity. I just can’t put it down.
*********
Posted in Miscellaneous | Comments (2)
Ever heard of the rape of Nanjing?
October 20th, 2020 by Roger Darlington
In 1931, Japan occupied a whole swath of north-east China called Manchuria. Then, in 1937, the Japanese moved to occupy as much as possible of the more-populated parts of China.
At this time, the capital of China was Nanjing and, over six weeks from mid December 1937 to mid January 1938, Japanese troops occupied the city murdering, raping and looting on a huge scale.
Since most Japanese military records on the killings were kept secret or destroyed shortly after the surrender of Japan in 1945, historians have been unable to accurately estimate the death toll of the massacre. In 1946, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo estimated that over 200,000 Chinese were killed in the incident. China’s official estimate is more than 300,000 dead based on the evaluation of the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal in 1947.The Chinese have never forgotten what they call the rape of Nanjing, but the Japanese authorities continue to downplay the massacre and most Japanese know very little about it.
I have been to the city of Nanjing [my account here]; I have seen two films on the massacre, “The Flowers Of War” [my review here] and “City of Life And Death” [my review here]; and I am currently reading “China’s War With Japan 1937-1945” by Rana Mitter [details here].
To understand modern-day China, you have to know something about the country’s “century of humiliation” from the mid 1840s to the mid 1940s. of which the war with Japan – and most especially the rape of Nanjing – is a deep part of the nation’s psyche. You can learn more here.
Posted in History | Comments (0)
How can the Democrats make the American political system a bit fairer?
October 10th, 2020 by Roger Darlington
Everybody knows that the 2016 presidential election was won by Republican candidate Donald Trump even though the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton won almost three million more votes. The explanation is that the President is not elected directly but chosen by an Electoral College which is biased in favour of the smaller rural states which generally vote Republican.
The bias is caused by the fact that, in accordance with the US Constitution, representation of each state in the College is on the basis of a combination of the number of members in the Senate (two for each state regardless of size) and the number of members in the House of Representatives (roughly proportional to population).
For all practical purposes, the Constitution is unamendable in any substantive sense because the threshold for change is too great in such divisive times. A proposed amendment has to secure a two-thirds vote of members present in both houses of Congress. Then three-quarters of the state legislatures have to ratify the proposed change.
So, is there any way that the Electoral College (and the Senate) could be made a bit more representative of the American electorate short of amending the Constitution? There are at least three possibilities.
- At present, Washington DC has no representation in Congress but it does have three seats in the Electoral College on the grounds that, if it was a state, it would be entitled to two seats in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives. If Washington DC was made a state, it would not change the composition of the College, but it would give the Democrats – the capital is very Democratic – two more seats in the Senate which electorally has a serious conservative bias.
- At present, the territory of Puerto Rico has no representation in Congress or in the Electoral College. If it were granted statehood, it would have one seat in the House, two in the Senate and three in the College. The Democrats would probably win all of these seats.
- At present, California – with a population of 40 million, by far the largest in the union – has two seats in the Senate, 53 in the House and therefore 55 in the College. If you combine the 23 smallest states in the union, collectively they have a population the same as California but no less than 46 seats in the Senate. If California – the largest of the states – was divided into four states, each with the standard two senators, this would give present-day California 8 seats instead of 2 in the Senate and 61 members instead of 53 in the College. Californians generally vote Democrat.
If, as I expect, the Democrats win the White House, the House and the Senate next month, they should make these changes and, in doing so, make the US federal system just a bit more democratic.
Posted in American current affairs | Comments (0)
Which countries suffered the greatest death tolls in the Second World War?
October 8th, 2020 by Roger Darlington
World War Two was the deadliest conflict in history. An estimated 70-85 million people perished. But some countries suffered very much more than others. Precise figures are impossible to determine and new research has revised some previous estimates. For the purpose of this blog posting, I am going to use figures from the Wikipedia page on World War II casualties.
Obviously the nations that launched the conflict and were defeated suffered heavy casualties: notably Germany 6.9-7.4 million and Japan 2.5-3.1 million.
The main western allies had lower losses: notably Britain 450,000 and the United States 420,000. It was the allies in the east that suffered the greatest losses: the Soviet Union 20-27 million and China 15-20 million.
I think that many people appreciate the terrible magnitude of the Soviet deaths, but I suspect that most people do not realise how much China suffered.
China’s wartime history is very much in my mind just now because this weekend I saw a film about the battle for Shanghai in 1937 [my review here] and I am currently reading the book “China’s War With Japan 1937-1945” [details here].
Special mention should be made of Poland. About 6 million Poles died. As a percentage of its pre-war population, this was 17% – the highest figure for any country.
Posted in History | Comments (0)
A review of “The Eight Hundred”, a controversial film on the battle for Shanghai in 1937
October 6th, 2020 by Roger Darlington
For more than seven decades, the American, British and Russian film industries have given us one war movie after another representing the successes of their nations in the Second World War. Now that the Chinese film sector is such a powerhouse, it is understandable that it would want to get in on the act. The problem is that the (second) Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945 presented no great victories for the Chinese – but it did involve at least one heroic defeat.
At the end of the three-month battle for Shanghai in 1937, Chinese troops made a last stand in the Sihang Warehouse between 26 October – 1 November. The six-storey concrete building was situated just across the Suzhou Creek in full view of the British-controlled International Settlement so, at the time, the conflict was in the world media.
This film of that battle is one of the most expensive to have come out of the Chinese film industry. It is reputed to have cost some $80M (although so far it has earned around $450M) and it is the first Asian movie to be shot entirely in IMAX. The work was co-written and directed by Guan Hu and the large cast is headed by Chun Du as the commander of the Chinese forces Xie Jinyuan.
It is a bombastic movie with little charactisation or subtlety, but it is an exciting work with excellent special effects (created by western companies). The event is to the Chinese what the Alamo was to the Americans or Dunkirk was to the British and it deserves a wider Western appreciation.
The “Eight Hundred” has many ironies. For a start, the number of Chinese troops involved was actually 452 (the 800 figure was a deliberate exaggeration to boost morale). Next, the Chinese 88th Division had been trained by the Germans since at this point there was no German/Japanese Axis.
Above all, the film has been produced at a time when the Chinese Communist Party is in tighter control of the nation than at any time since Mao, but no communist troops were involved in any part of the battle for Shanghai. Instead all the the Chinese soldiers in the conflict were members of the National Revolutionary Army (NRA) commanded by General Chiang Kai-Shek) who subsequently lost a civil war with Mao’s forces and fled to the island of Taiwan. So the flag raised on the top of the warehouse is the pre-communist Chinese flag that is now used by Taiwan.
It will be apparent, therefore, that this is a film that presents political complications for the Chinese Communist Party. Its release was delayed by a year and it was censored including a cut of 13 minutes, so its appearance and popularity are not universely welcomed in this totalitarian nation.
Having said that, all regimes like a herioc story and the Sihang Warehouse has long been restored with the inclusion of a museum on the battle (but, on my two visits to Shanghai, I was not even aware of the incident).
Link: the defence of the Sihang Warehouse click here
Posted in Cultural issues, History | Comments (0)