Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘donald-trump’

Donald Trump’s opinions are rarely worth taking seriously. The man is ignorant, stupid and dishonest. So it was disconcerting to find something falling from his lips which I sort of agreed with.

When asked to comment on the length of time the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln had been at sea – at that time 250 days – Mr Trump said “not long enough.” Like so many of Mr Trump’s offerings this was a crass and tactless way of putting it. But the man has a point.

No doubt continuous cruising is a hardship but sailors have always had to endure this. Indeed in the days of sail voyages were often measured in years rather than months or days.

Drake’s famous voyage round the world took three years; Magellan’s pioneering circumnavigation would also have taken him three years but he died on the way. All Captain Cook’s exploratory voyages in the Pacific took three years each. The Bounty took a year to sail from England to Tahiti before the crew famously mutinied rather than do the return journey.

Dana’s “Two Years Before the Mast” (now perhaps an obscure book but still worth reading) were occupied by just two voyages: New England to California and California to New England. There was no Panama Canal at the time. This may also explain the length of Darwin’s voyage in the Beagle, which took five years.

Well that was then and now is now. The appearance of steam ships effectively stopped really long cruises because of the need to refuel. Thus the Russian Baltic fleet took seven months to get to its thrashing at the Battle of Tsushima, but this included stops for coal.

During the first world war the need for fuel curtailed long voyages, with the exception of some German surface raiders which survived by taking coal and supplies from the ships they captured. The outstanding success was the Wolf, which managed a cruise of 15 months before successfully returning to Germany.

In World War 2 also the outstanding feats of endurance came from German auxiliary cruisers (merchant ships converted for surface raiding), who could resupply from their captives. The Pinguin managed 390 days, and the Atlantis actually clocked 602 days, with one brief landing at the Kerguelen Islands, which were uninhabited at the time and so offered no R and R possibilities.

This was a stressful existence because raiders were eagerly hunted by the Royal Navy. Both ships were eventually sunk by British heavy cruisers.

The voyage of the Atlantis is exceptionally well-documented because both the Captain and First Officer survived the war and penned accounts of their exploits. As the Captain had preempted the German market the First Officer wrote his in English. The need to combat stress and homesickness in the crew was met by having a sort of on-board holiday place in which contingents could enjoy leisure and recreation. Only a call to action stations would disturb them.

I have not been able to find anything on US Navy exploits in the Pacific, where there was a lot of resupplying at sea, but some more recent incidents are recalled by old salts here.

The harsh fact is, I fear, that navies generally do not operate those nice “X number of trips and go home” arrangements common in air forces. Once war breaks out crews generally stick with their ships, and some get luckier than others.

In times of peace the leadership will try very hard to keep crews entertained, occupied and regularly rested and recuperated. Once war breaks out priorities shift.

It will be objected, of course, that what happens in wartime should not happen in peacetime but if you are vigorously bombing another country then this is not peacetime. US governments are reluctant to admit they are at war because that requires the approval of Congress.

I do not wish to seem unsympathetic. No doubt eight months continuous on an aircraft carrier is hard work. Those enduring it may care to compare their situation with that of cruise ship crews, who routinely have contracts up to ten months long with no days off.

Comments here from distressed passenger who asked some questions the cruise lines would rather not have asked.

If that does not cheer you up then we must alas resort to an old saying popular in moments of distress in the Royal Navy: if you can’t take a joke you shouldn’t have joined.

Read Full Post »

Having sworn off Hong Kong politics I am certainly not going to start writing about American ones.

Besides, what American electors get up to is really none of our business. If citizens of the Land of the Free wish to be represented on the international stage by a convicted criminal, serial sex pest and compulsive liar, that is their choice.

I am, though, concerned about reports that the titans of US tech have been lining up not only to make the usual polite noises about a new president, but to throw money at his inauguration and express admiration and allegiance to the Orange Catastrophe.

Press people are not much better, I admit. Six months ago Mr Trump was being written about in the sort of condescending tones usually reserved for unsuccessful stand-up comics. Now we are treated to thoughtful analysis of Mr Trump’s possible policies.

In their innermost thoughts most of these writers are well aware that Mr Trump does not have policies. To have a policy you must first read and think about the issues involved. Mr Trump notoriously does neither. Where other people have policies he has prejudices and impulses.

The prejudices are unchanging and unchangeable. The impulses come and go from day to day, under the unhelpful influence of Fox News. Neither the prejudices nor the impulses are hampered by any close examination of the real world.

Still, none of the press people has been adopted as courtiers. Whereas at the Inauguration on Monday the tech tycoons were lined up for the cameras. The nobodies in the background are members of the new Cabinet, who are apparently going to get the same respectful attention as Mrs Thatcher’s Cabinet got from her.

The problem this poses is nicely exemplified by the flourishing market in bumper stickers for embarrassed Tesla owners to put on their cars. These run to variations on “I bought this car before we knew that Elon was mad”. An entertaining option: “I bought this car before Elon became First Lady.”

Fortunately I had not got round to buying a Tesla of any kind. Also, having never been a Twitterer I have effortlessly avoided X. As I have no ambitions to move to Mars I suppose I am pretty Muskproof. Which is just as well, because I know what a Nazi salute looks like and I am looking at one now.

However my computer is an iMac. It is a very fine computer and it is a recent purchase. I can hardly give it up. But I understand the big Apple man has made his bow although he doesn’t seem to have attended the inauguration.

Definitely in the picture, though, are the billionaires responsible for my two favourite pieces of time-wasting software, Youtube and Facebook, as well as the modern journalist’s essential tool, Google.

This integration of digital imperialism with the political kind must be a worry in a good many places. There is mounting evidence that indulging in extensive internet use is toxic for children and young people. And if there is no attempt to stem the torrent of lies it can be pretty disturbing for adults, too.

It will be a source of much justified resentment if attempts to deal with these problems in Europe or South America are opposed by the US in the name of “free speech”.

We all like free speech and we all recognise, as our local government occasionally reminds us, that it has limits. Steven Pinker asserts (in “The better angels of our nature”) that humanity was elevated to a new level of sympathy and gentleness by the invention of the novel, and the resulting invitation to put yourself in other people’s place and imagine what they must be thinking and feeling.

According to Mr Pinker this was a slow but dramatic change, leading to a great reduction in violence generally. This raises the question: what is five hours a day of web browsing doing to people? I am not sure what the answer to this question might be but it seems increasingly likely that the answer is “nothing good”.

So the titans of tech are poisoning our minds. And if we use their stuff I suppose we are in danger of complicity. They invite you in, but only so that they can sell you to advertisers. It seems under the circumstances the least you can do is install a good ad blocker. This also has the important benefit of making Youtube much more enjoyable.

I cannot unfortunately recommend the further step of urging our government to restrict nasty internet content. This is because our leaders have a track record of using laws intended for other purposes to harass or punish activities they disapprove of, like fund-raising for unliked causes, playing unliked tunes in public, running independent bookshops or dubiously loyal restaurants, and so on. They’re doing quite enough censorship already.

Read Full Post »