Thursday, February 27, 2014

Travel

Jess and I broke up in May 2011, and I find it remarkable that I travel more now than I did when I was dating someone who worked for an airline! Granted, most of my travel has been local (and as an adjunct to my work) but here's a list of all the places I've been over the past three years:

Dublin 31 Jan - 2 Feb 2014
Sydney/Wellington/Beijing 8 Jan - 26 Jan 2014
Coventry (Limmud) 22 Dec - 23 Dec 2013
California with Lucy 25 Oct - 10 Dec 2013
Birmingham 15 Nov - 17 Nov 2013
Bury folk festival 18 Oct - 20 Oct 2013
Liverpool 4 Oct - 6 Oct 2013
Ironbridge 20 Sep - 22 Sep 2013
Mom in England/Amsterdam 23 Aug - 4 Sep 2013
Israel 10 Aug - 17 Aug 2013
Edinburgh 2 Aug - 5 Aug 2013
Manchester International Festival 12 Jul - 14 Jul 2013
Salford 17 May - 19 May 2013
York 19 Apr - 21 Apr 2013
Amsterdam 12 Apr - 14 Apr 2013
Ireland (Ring of Kerry/Dingle) 29 Mar - 2 Apr 2013
Chester 1 Mar - 2 Mar 2013
Glasgow 8 Feb - 10 Feb 2013
San Francisco 19 Jan - 27 Jan 2013
Rome 7 Dec - 10 Dec 2012
Edinburgh fringe 17 Aug - 20 Aug 2012
Atlanta (Aunt's funeral) 21 Jun - 2 Jul 2012
Lake District 16 Jun - 18 Jun 2012
Amsterdam 27 Apr - 1 May 2012
Atlanta 14 Apr - 24 Apr 2012
San Francisco 28 Jan - 6 Feb 2012
Prague 24 Dec - 29 Dec 2011
Cape Town 10 Nov - 21 Nov 2011
Edinburgh Festival 12 Aug - 15 Aug 2011
Mom in England/Paris 21 Jul - 31 Jul 2011
Atlanta/California 25 Jun - 10 Jul 2011

My next trip will probably be a weekend in Geneva, and I am currently thinking of places to go over the Easter holiday in April.  However, as this is also over Passover, I want it to have a Jewish connection as well.  The obvious destinations are Germany, Poland and Hungary, but I'm actually interested in Moscow and St Petersburg.  Flights to Moscow are only £160 (US $260) and a good 3-star hotel is only £40 (US $66) per night, but the average high is 11C (52F).  If I wait a few more months, the average temperature in July is 23C (73F) and St Petersburg gets four more hours of sunlight per day!

Of course, the ultimate Passover trip would have to be to Egypt, where the average high is 28C (82F)!  I could get a flight for under £300 (US $500) and decent hotels in Cairo are as low as £10 (US $15) per night.  However, following the military coup in February, both the US Department of State and the British foreign office advise against travel outside of Cairo.  And besides, the whole story of Exodus -- the Jews enslaved in Egypt, the ten plagues, the parting of the Red Sea -- is completely without evidence.  Still, it's a nice story, and I'd love to see the pyramids regardless.

Lastly, Denmark makes an unlikely entry thanks to its collective effort to evacuate 7,800 Jews by sea following Hitler's occupation in October 1943.  I don't think I'd spend a week there, but 3-4 days would be worthwhile, flights are only £63 (US $105) and I'd get back in time for the communal seder at my synagogue.

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Effective altruism


When I was younger, I donated money to a range of nature and wildlife charities, mostly because I didn't care too much for humans.  I also spread my donations around, rather than focus on a single one.  Growing older and (perhaps) wiser, I decided to start making monthly donations to a single charity, and I chose the British Red Cross, partly because I now appreciate how important humanitarian campaigns are, but mostly because I couldn't be arsed to research UK charities.

Of course, no sooner did I set up the direct debit than a newspaper revealed that the CEO of the British Red Cross was paid £184,000 (US $307,000) per year!  While I appreciate the Red Cross is a large organisation that requires strong leadership, and that a good CEO will more than earn his salary through fund-raising, and that his salary represents only 0.08% of expenses, I still had an issue that the head a charity earns more than the UK prime minister (£142,000/year).

I don't have any deep, personal convictions that make me want to give to a specific cause, so in lieu of that I went online to find a charity.  What I found was that there are over 180,000 registered charities in the UK, not including small charities (less than £5,000/year) that are not required to register.  The 10 biggest are:
  1. The Arts Council of England --  A quasi-government agency which "champions, develops and invests in artistic and cultural experiences that enrich people's lives" by spending £621 million/year of taxpayer money.
  2. The GAVI Fund Affiliate -- Its web-site clearly spells out its agenda: "Enters into pledge agreements with sovereign IFFIm donors and approves funding of programmes with IFFIm proceeds."  "IFFIm" is the International Finance Facility for Immunisation, which was technically set up by the UK, France, Italy, Norway, Australia, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden, and South Africa, but was really established by Bill Gates.  (GAVI stands for "Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation.")  I don't think they are interested in donations of less than US $750 million.
  3. Cancer Research UK.  Their pithy motto is "We beat cancer" although, in spite of raising £515 million/year, I think cancer is clearly winning.
  4. The National Trust (or to use its full name, the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty) raises £405 million/year for conservation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (but not Scotland).  Founded in 1895, it tends to focus on English country houses.  It is the largest membership organisation in the UK, one of the largest landowners in the UK, and its president is Prince Charles.  It motto is "For ever, for everyone."
  5. Oxfam started in 1942 as the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, to petition the British government to allow food through the World War II blockade into Axis-occupied Greece.  (Over 300,000 civilians starved to death in Athens alone.)  It shortened its name in 1965, and today it raises £318 million/year mainly through its 700 charity shops selling recycled clothes and second-hand books.  It was recently in the news for asking Scarlett Johansson to stop endorsing SodaStream because one of their factories is in an Israeli settlement in the West Bank. Instead, Ms. Johansson resigned as Oxfam's ambassador, citing "a fundamental difference of opinion in regards to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement."  I've discussed this with an employee of Oxfam, who clearly believed Oxfam was in the wrong on this.  Well done, Ms. Johansson.
  6. The Save the Children Fund was also established in response to a British food blockade, although this time it was to Germany after World War I.  (Britain continued the blockade after the armistice treaty had been signed!) The founder outlined what she saw as the rights of every child:
    • The child must be given the means requisite for its normal development, both materially and spiritually.
    • The child that is hungry must be fed, the child that is sick must be nursed, the child that is backward must be helped, the delinquent child must be reclaimed, and the orphan and the waif must be sheltered and succored.
    • The child must be the first to receive relief in times of distress.
    • The child must be put in a position to earn a livelihood, and must be protected against every form of exploitation.
    • The child must be brought up in the consciousness that its talents must be devoted to the service of its fellow men.
  7. Number 7 is the International Finance Facility for Immunisation, which really just turns its funds over to GAVI, so I'm not sure how much of its £240 million/year is really just counted twice.
  8. The British Heart Foundation raises £213 million/year for heart disease, and has over 730 charity shops in the UK.  Unfortunately, along with Cancer Research UK, the Alzheimer's Society and Parkinson's UK, the British Heart Foundation supports animal testing.  My personal feeling is that, while animal testing has undoubtedly helped humans, it is (and always has been) far too uncontrolled, used too quickly and with little consideration given for the welfare of the animals, before or after testing.  In the UK, new drugs are still required to be "tested" on two species of mammals (including a "non-rodent") and over 4 million scientific experiments on animals took place in 2012, a rise of 8% over the previous year, with primates and genetically modified animals being used more often.  Until this is controlled, I really have trouble funding animal research.
  9. The British Red Cross comes in at £214 million/year.  I should note (in case you didn't read the entire newspaper article--shame on you) that the CEO's pay went up by 12 percent as the charity’s revenue went down by three percent over the past three years.
  10. And this one surprised me: The Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind (with the working title, "Sightsavers") raises £173 million/year!  Started only in 1950 by a blind lawyer, its patron is the Queen, and its goal is to eliminate "preventable" blindness throughout the developing world, which is primarily caused by cataracts and the trachoma bacteria. It is one of only nine charities given a 'high performance' rating by the UK Department for International Development last year, plus the CEO is only paid £65,000/year.  However, for every £1 it raises, it spends nearly 24p on fund raising.

The next 10 include The Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Salvation Army, Macmillan Cancer Support, Marie Curie Cancer Care, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Christian Aid, the Cup Trust, and Genome Research Limited.  (The RNLI is the equivalent of the US Coast Guard, except in the UK it is entirely funded by donations and volunteers.)

Special callout goes out to The Cup Trust, number 19 on the list, which raised £176 million in funds yet disbursed just £152,292 in grants to charitable causes!  The Trust borrowed money from individuals and used it to purchase bonds, which were then sold to the same individuals at well below market value.  They in turn sold the bonds at market value and donated the proceeds to the Trust, which then repaid those loans.  So I lend £1 to the Trust, it buys a bond worth £1, and sells it to me for 50p.  I then sell the bond for £1 and donate the £1 to the Trust, which pays me back the £1 I originally loaned it. So what's the harm?  Because that £1 "donation" is now eligible for "Gift Aid."

In the US, where you have to file your taxes, you deduct charitable donations from your gross income, so you don't pay tax on it. In the UK, where most people don't file taxes, the government created a scheme where charities could "claim back" the tax paid on donations, which is worth about 28p per £1.  And the Cup Trust duly submitted a claim for £46 million (US $77 million).  The audacity is just staggering.  Fortunately, the HMRC (UK's equivalent of the IRS) denied their claim.  The Charity Commission then investigated but found that, since the Trust did give away 0.08% of its income to charitable causes, it was a bona fide charity!  Of course, this certainly calls into question the point of the Charity Commission if it finds such fraud in flagrante and still does nothing about it!

Number 20 -- Genome Research Limited -- is wholly owned by "The Wellcome Trust," which was set up by Sir Henry Wellcome, an American with a ridiculous mustache who came to the UK in 1880 to sell medicine in tablet form.  Although tablets had been in use in America for 40 years, in England pharmacists were still grinding medicine with a mortar-and-pestle.  Wellcome ushered in the age of modern medicine by trademarking the term "tabloid," giving free samples to doctors, and doing direct marketing to consumers.  And it made him stupendously wealthy.  The Trust is the third wealthiest foundation in the world, worth around £14.5 billion.  (For comparison, Bill and Melinda Gates is #2 and J. Paul Getty is #6.)  And last year it apparently gave £93 million to Genome Research.

"Tabloid," by the way, became generic for anything in a compressed form.  Traditional "broadsheet" newspapers were 29.5 inches x 23.5 inches, but when compact newspapers measuring 17 × 11 inches were introduced, they became known as "tabloids."  But I digress...

So anyway, the point of all this is I'm looking for suggestions. A friend recommended Hope for Justice, which works to end human trafficking in the UK.  While I think that's an admirable goal, I'm not entirely sure what they do.  Their web site mentions they "helped" 78 people last year, but is rather vague on the specifics.  They also don't disclose--although I read elsewhere--that they are a Christian-based organisation, and I've always been wary of Christian-based organisation because their brand of charity can be--shall we say--rather selective. (i.e. We're happy to help, as long as you're a white, straight, and Christian.)  Of course that's a gross generalisation, but again I'd need to do more research before I signed up.

She also suggested a group that promotes a "Living Wage," which is somehow calculated as the minimum a person actually requires to live on.  (As opposed to the "minimum wage," which assures you will be on government benefits for the rest of your life.)  Unfortunately my libertarian beliefs are in conflict with this idea, and that artificially inflating wages helps no one in the long term.  As a citizen of the world, suggesting that people in London should earn £8.80 (US $15) per hour when more than a third of the world's population lives on less than $2 a day seems biased and short-sighted.

It has to be a UK charity, simply for tax purposes. Lots of worthwhile causes but hard to judge their effectiveness.  If you have any recommendations, let me know. 

P.S. Two charities which never fail to bring a smile to my face are Worldvision -- which gives donkeys to farmers -- and the Donkey Sanctuary -- which takes donkeys away from farmers.  In my cynical little heart, I  just know these two are working in collusion.


Saturday, February 15, 2014

Six years

Hard to believe I've been in the UK for six years.  That's as long as World War II lasted!  Actually, I'm a little premature--I still have four months to go--but once I hit the arbitary six year mark, I can apply for citizenship (or "naturalisation") so I'm starting to look at the requirements.
The fee is £874 (US £1,464) and the process is as follows:
  • I can either apply by mail -- in which case I need to surrender my US passport during the process -- or I can make an appointment with the local council to "verify" my passport (another £72).
  • Their stated goal is to process most applications within six months, although they give no guarantee.  You can't even call them to ask about the status until after six months have passed!
  • If approved, they will send me an invitation to a "citizenship ceremony" to swear an oath to the Queen.  I have 90 days to attend one.
  • After the ceremony I will get my certificate of British citizenship, as well as a "commemorative gift of local flavour."
  • I can then apply for a UK passport (another £81) by sending in my (brand new) naturalisation certificate and my US passport.
  • I will be invited to an interview to prove I am who I say I am.  (You'd think they would have figured this out before making me a citizen!)
  • Once complete, they should issue me a UK passport (and return my US passport) within six weeks.
So all told this will cost just over a thousand pounds (US $1,719), take at least eight months, require three appointments, and all so I can...um...hang on...let me think...nope, there's nothing I will be able to do as a "citizen" that I can't already do as a "resident."  That's kind of a bummer.
So why do it?  Because six years ago I said I would.  Of course, my life has completely changed and the reasons I said that are no longer relevant, but I'm still here and perhaps that's cause enough.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Eurovision

I've written about Eurovision before (twice, actually) but when I stumbled upon this video of all the Eurovision winners since 1956, I had to share.  It's 35 minutes long, but highlights are 1969 (7:13), 1974 (11:25), 1981 (15:35), 1988 (19:40) and 2006 (30:27)

It's also interesting to note, after discussing English in my last post, that 13 of the past 15 winners -- Sweden in 1999, Denmark in 2000, Estonia in 2001, Latvia in 2002, Turkey in 2003, Greece in 2005, Finland in 2006, Russia in 2008, Norway in 2009, Germany in 2010, Azerbaijan in 2011, Sweden in 2012, and Denmark in 2013 -- were all sung in *English*!  (Actually 18 of the last 22 were sung in English, but since 4 of those were Ireland, one was the UK, and one was an instrumental, it seemed unfair to count them.)

I enjoyed the earlier songs -- things seemed to go downhill after 1969 -- but I also enjoyed 1994, 1995 and 1996 (starting at 23:24).

Monday, February 3, 2014

Pinyin

In 2003, in northern China, archeologists found tortoise shells dating to 6600-6200 BCE which had geometrical carvings similar to ancient Chinese characters.  Remarkably, the next example of Chinese characters doesn't appear until 5,000 years later, when animal bones dating to 1200 BCE were found carved with information about the Shang dynasty. The general consensus is that the tortoise shells were just symbols, that proto-writing developed around 2000 BCE, and that true writing* was already established by 1200 BCE.

This is actually quite late compared with Mesopotamia, where proto-writing developed around 3400-3200 BCE with Sumeria cuneiform, and was true writing by 2600 BCE. (It is unclear if Egyptian hieroglyphics developed independently around the same time, or were influenced by cuneiform.)  Around 1850 BCE, the semitic tribes took hieroglyphics and converted it into a written alphabet based on sounds.  For example, the Semitic word for "house," bayt, starts with "b", so the Egyptian hieroglyph for "house," per, was used to write the sound [b]. The advantage is that, because there are only a limited number sounds the human mouth can make, there were relatively few letters in the alphabet. (The disadvantage is that the word has no relation to the object, and as languages developed and diverged, the words changed until they were completely different.  This is how Hindi, French, and English can all be descended from the same language.)

(In Mesoamerica, proto-writing began around 900 BCE, and developed into true writing around 600 BCE.  These are the only known instances of writing developing independently.)

Like hieroglyphs, Chinese probably started as "pictograms" where each character represented an object, but evolved into "logograms" where the characters became more abstract and represented ideas, which could then be put together to express more complex or nuanced ideas.  In modern Chinese, there are over 4,000 characters, although only around 2,000 are generally used. The advantage of this system is that it is easy to guess the meaning of a word based on its underlying letters.  In addition, because pronunciation is completely divorced from the character, as spoken languages diverge and words are pronounced differently, they are still written the same.

The disadvantage is that to be fluent, you have to know 2,000 characters!  You can't work out a word by its spoken sound, and you can't "guess" at a letter.  It is also rather hard to fit 2,000 characters on a keyboard.

As early as 1605, Jesuit missionaries began writing Chinese words using Roman letters, but it wasn't until the Communists -- trained in Moscow in the 1930s -- introduced a phonetic alphabet which became known as "Pinyin."  In 1940, Chairman Mao made Pinyin an official language, it began to be taught in schools, the plan was to completely replace Chinese characters!  However, it hit one snag: Pinyin was based on the pronunciation of Mandarin Chinese, and so would have required speakers of all the regional languages to learn Mandarin first!

Fortunately the plan died out and Chinese characters are alive and well.  However, Pinyin is still widely used to help Westerners with place names and to help with basic pronunciation.  The problem is, the Roman alphabet isn't very standardized, and pronunciation for the letter "b," for example, widely differs between English and French, while "x" is pronounced differently between Italian and Portuguese!  . So while "f," "l," "m," and "n" are pronounced like their English counterparts, here are some examples (all from Wikipedia) to scare you:

Pinyin

English pronunciation

b

unaspirated p, as in spit

d

unaspirated t, as in stop

g

unaspirated k, as in skill

h

roughly like the Scots ch, as in loch

j

No equivalent in English, but similar to an unaspirated "-chy-" sound when said quickly. Like q, but unaspirated. Not the s in Asia.

q

No equivalent in English. Like punch yourself, with the lips spread wide with ee. Curl the tip of the tongue downwards to stick it at the back of the teeth and strongly aspirate.

x

No equivalent in English. Like push yourself, with the lips spread and the tip of your tongue curled downwards and stuck to the back of teeth when you say ee.

zh

A sound between choke, joke, true, and drew, tongue tip curled more upwards. Voiced in a toneless syllable.

ch

Very similar to nurture in American English, but strongly aspirated.

r

Similar to the English z in azure and r in reduce, but with the tongue curled upwards, like a cross between English "r" and French "j".

z

unaspirated c, similar to something between suds and cats

c

like the English ts in cats, but strongly aspirated



-i

-i is a buzzed continuation of the consonant following z-, c-, s-, zh-, ch-, sh- or r-. In all other cases, -i has the sound of bee.

e

a diphthong consisting first of a back, unrounded semivowel (which can be formed by first pronouncing "w" and then spreading the lips without changing the position of the tongue) followed by a vowel similar to English "duh".

ai

like English "eye", but a bit lighter

ei

as in "hey"

ao

approximately as in "cow"; the a is much more audible than the o

ou

as in "so"

ang

like song in some dialects of American English

er

like "bar" in American English

ia

like English "yard"

ie

similar to the initial sound in yet

ian

like English yen

u

like English "oo"

uai

like as in why

un

like the English won



In addition, spoken Chinese--unlike English--is a "tonal" language, where the same sound has different meaning based on the stress. The tone can be "flat," "rising," "falling," "rising-falling," or "neutral."  (I'm not sure the difference between flat and neutral.)  Originally Pinyin did not indicate the tone, so the words for “mathematics” and “blood transfusion” would be spelt the same!  Fortunately diacritics (accents) were added to the letters, but as English speakers aren't used to these, either, it doesn't provide much help.

As you can see, Pinyin is a hybridized solution that is not particular suitable for any Westerner, and then only allows one to speak Mandarin, not any of the other 9 regional dialects spoken in China!  (Although to be fair, thanks to the Communists most people know Mandarin, and there are over a billion native speakers.  However, they will probably be much more interested in practicing English with you than listening to you butcher Mandarin.

Finally, to paraphrase a brilliant essay on this:
Thus, relative to other languages, Mandarin is simply hard to master for the average English-speaker.  English, in contrast, is mercifully easy for the foreign learner. English lacks gendered nouns, so there is no need to remember that “sun” is male and “moon” is female. English also boasts a remarkably simple and flexible grammar system, a heritage of its Anglo-Saxon roots. English is a mutt of a language, a strange concoction of Germanic Old English, Viking Norse dialects, Norman French, and a bit of Greek, meaning English not only has an impressively rich vocabulary, but is related to a large number of the world’s most common languages. Mandarin, on the other hand, is only related to Tibetan and Sherpa.

* Proto-writing are things like information signs, which are simple ideas which require you to already understand the context.  True writing allows someone to express a complex idea that another person can reconstruct.

Saturday, February 1, 2014

Trip photos

Picassa used to be brilliant about sharing photos, and I could embed photos directly in a blog post.  Unfortunately, as part of Google's inevitable corporate march towards "evil," they revamped it to force people to go to Google+.  In their mind, the few people who had not signed up to Facebook were really holding out for something much more complicated.  Unfortunately they forgot about the few of us (about 85% of the planet) who did not *want* to be on Facebook. As a result, in addition to making it much more complicated to upload and manage my photos, you have to click-through to actually see them.  But on the bright side, while you're on Google+ you can see my complete lack of status updates, my dismal participation in any forums, my empty profile, and a few other things that only people actively stalking me might be interested in.  Enjoy.
New Zealand
Beijing