Twitteretter

I am following with interest the vaccine distribution saga. The EU is complaining, and rightly so, that it is not getting the supplies contractually committed, due to export restrictions in other countries. The UK, the US and India, to name a few, are, by different, open or stealthy methods, blocking those exports, maybe also rightly so. In the meantime, fraudulent vaccine supplies are appearing and many who get a chance are jumping the vaccine queues, to get ahead, regardless of their need, putting their wish for a holiday, for example, ahead of the lives of the vulnerable. This is a sorry state of affairs. It turns out that the vaccine is not only a prevention method for a specific illness, but a diagnostic method for several others, lack of solidarity and selfishness, short sightedness and low integrity, both at the individual and national levels, since states are, after all, an imperfect reflection of the imperfections of their citizens. Time to show some patience and stay cool? Le...

The title is one of my favourite quotes, which I have tried to live my life by. It is from ‘The Miser’, a great Moliere classic, incisive and thought provoking, as all his work. The meaning is clear. What one promises does not matter, only what one delivers does. What got me thinking about this, specifically, was the Chancellor’s announcement of a 1% pay rise for NHS workers. I remembered the famous, or I think we now can really start calling it infamous, Brexit bus. An extra 350 million per day for the NHS. The pay rise equates to 450 million per year. Then I realised, maybe we misunderstood and Boris Johnson and Co never meant pounds, but rather, pence. But even then, this week’s pay rise would only be a third of that downgraded promise. The trouble is that politics and government are based on a promise to delivery premise, on the citizenship voting on the basis of promises and, those benefiting from that vote, delivering on such promises. Something in this cycle seems a tad broken L...

In terms of morality, it is not difficult to talk a good game, to take the moral high ground when decisions are theoretical. But, as they become real, and as the stakes get high, we soon find talk is cheap and not many who talk the talk will walk the walk. We are seeing a startling example of this with coronavirus vaccination. I was offered to vaccinate, well before my turn is due, a couple of days ago, in that grey area of unclaimed vaccines. The temptation to yield, to give in, to lower the bar and walk from the moral high ground to the valley of convenience was certainly there. The decision, should I have taken it, not that hard to justify to myself. Surely my importance to economic activity and my efforts to develop solutions to coronavirus itself making me deserving of early vaccination, a win for society should I take the chance offered. A duty, almost, to jump the queue. But also false, a theft of a vaccine from someone who needs it more than me. My turn will come, in due course...

This post stems from a combination of experiences I have had of late with the courts and my observation of how people like Donald Trump go about their business, or life (not sure they see a difference between these two concepts). These days, justice is not only blind (as it should, in the sense that it does not see status, class, education, faith or any other grounds on which to treat those it judges unequally) but also very slow. To the point that, quite often, when it rules, it may be too late for justice. Mr. Trump relies on this, throwing money at delaying court rulings, appealing continuously, pretending to seek all avenues for justice to be done, in reality looking for justice to not be done, not because of an unjust ruling but the lack of one. Many deserving plaintiffs find that, by the time the ruling comes, it is too late to matter. This is fundamentally unjust. As a society, we must ensure we resource and protect justice enough so that it is not only blind, but also timely Le...

After an unprecedented technological race, humanity has researched, developed and approved several vaccines against the virus which shook our society at the start of last year. The approval comes with record speed and may provide a welcome solution to the otherwise possibly unsurmountable social problems the pandemic is creating.   We now can continue to develop, to grow, to increase wealth (the distribution of which is not for this post) without unpalatable sacrifices of life. Alas, vaccination success will rely on its adoption, on a sufficient percentage of the population accepting it. Given the speedy development and approval, many are justifiably wary of its potential risks. Humanity will, once again, split down the middle, those who believe in institutions and in the fundamental virtue underpinning society and those who believe in conspiracy, exploitation and nihilist individualism as their only antagonist. It is not a matter of safety, but of outlook. My arm is ready, is your...

Following events at Capitol Hill on confirmation day, as well as the many misdemeanours in which the US President has engaged in beforehand, both during and before his presidency, Joe Biden is being asked to consider a presidential pardon in the fashion of that issued by Gerald Ford to Richard Nixon. The rationale is to heal the nation and allow it to move on, united. This would be a grave error. Trying Mr. Trump, both in impeachment proceedings and likely a number of times in the courts, is not about retribution, but about justice and morality. A pardon would give him and those of his nature carte blanche , send the message that democracy, rule of law and society’s integrity are fair game and can be attacked with impunity. Where Trump may have failed, others will succeed. I have written about appeasement before, and its historical failures. Trump has become what he is because he has, through life, got away with it (whatever ‘it’ was). Getting away with it again will not change him...

I woke up this morning to news that Donald Trump is refusing to pay Rudy Giuliani for his legal services during the last months of his presidency, when he has run up a bill of staggering proportions, combination of the former’s insistence in persevering with lost legal battles and the latter’s extortionate fees. This is not surprising, but rather the chronicle of a death foretold, to borrow a Garcia Marquez title. To paraphrase Albert Einstein, it is lunacy to expect results to change when all else remains the same. Mr. Trump does not pay, unless he really has to, for services or even taxes. He has built his alleged fortune and destroyed his reputation by following this simple method: Take goods and services, only pay after long protracted legal processes that not all suppliers can either afford or have the energy for. It works for many, like him, born into money and privilege. I will watch with interest, amusement and a cold beer that ultimate of pathetic battles, Trump vs Giuliani...

The title of this post may be over optimistic. Right now, the new gold rush may be cannabis decriminalisation. But still, that specific vertical’s current popularity is extremely opportunistic and not sufficiently durable to qualify as a trend. The real gold rush with legs is tech startup. We all marvel at the success stories of the new tech giants and their unprecedentedly fast growth, which is not that unprecedently fast, as you would see if you cared to look at the previous rise of railway companies, steel makers, car and supercomputer manufacturers. Still, a successful tech start-up is the path to huge wealth today. But are entrepreneurs who succeed in new tech driven by the promise of those riches, or are they motivated by the chance to change the World, impact lives, improve processes or fix malfunctions? As a tech entrepreneur, I have my answer, which, like many things in life, follows the 80/20 rule, impact 80, riches 20. But others may have others, to paraphrase Groucho Marx L...

I had a conversation yesterday about the morality of denying poor children free school meals during half term with an indignant, rather beautiful, interlocutor. Her fury was directed at the immorality of such decision by the UK Conservative government and those who support them. But this, more than a moral question, is a perception question. The great majority of those denying school meals don’t want children to starve. The problem is that they have bought into a narrative in which parents can indeed afford to feed their children and, by receiving free school meals, will be able to divert money to other uses, fags, drink, gambling, etc. Framed this way, the decision is no longer immoral. Sadly, the assumption is far off the mark. Many poor households don’t make those indulgences. Some others may prioritise them over children’s nurture. When you imagine, or believe, an alternative narrative from the comfort of your own home, you risk making horrifying decisions with the best intentions...