Radio

I was again without mp3 player. In desperation I turned to the radio function on my cell phone, an interesting experiment not likely to be repeated. I haven’t really listened to radio for years and now I remember why.

It was truly frustrating that there is no radio in the Stockholm subway. I don’t understand how it is possible to have cell phone coverage in the whole subway but not even a single radio station.

My main gripe with radio of today is of course content. Babbling morons dominate the airwaves with their inane chatter, occasionally interrupted by annoying advertising or a mediocre song. The music may be old or new. If new, songs are repeated about once every hour until I start hating the songs, the artists, the stations and the record companies viscerally. If old, a very narrow range of once popular songs is played. These old song are of a higher quality than the average new song, but even classics become boring after a few listenings within a short time span.

How can radio change and appeal to me again:

• At least one radio station should be functional in the subway.
• Minimise small talk. Any DJ saying anything other than “That was … by …” or “And now … by …” should be fired.
• Ads must be shorter; maximum 10 seconds every two or three songs.
• Station IDs should be very short, just the name of the station which requires two seconds. No description or self-aggrandizement is acceptable since we are already tuned in.
• A greater variation of both old and new songs is necessary. No new song should be played more often than once every 8 hours, no old song more than once a month.

SIFO Statistics show that radio listening is down, both number of listeners and length of time that listeners spend on radio. However, internet radio is growing by maximising music, minimising ads and DJ talk. If FM radio wants to survive, they know whom to emulate!

The two country hypothesis

There are two very different types of countries.

The H-type Country

The first type of country is the historical country or H-type country. It is a result of long historical processes involving geography, ecology, demography, climate, culture and economic forces. Most countries are of this type. The H-type country has many of the following characteristics:

• Easily defensible borders
• A contiguous landmass with low transport costs and no need to change transport mode
• Common culture, history and language
• A ruling class that identifies with the prevailing culture
• Immigration based on similar culture and language, emigration based on ideology
• A legal code based on tradition and historical precedent
• A common historical enemy neighbouring country
• Historically, a low need for foreign trade due to complementary economic activities
• A political discourse with heterogeneous givens, focused on details and pragmatism

The I-type Country

The second type of country is an entirely different species. It is a conscious creation with a specific ideology. I-type countries will succeed or fail to a large extent due to the ideology they are based on. If the ideology is in tune with human nature and the specific situation of the country, the country will prosper. If not, it will wither and fail. This type of country is something fairly new in human history, and has many of the following characteristics:

• A common ideology that permeates all aspects of life, including the economy, culture and the law
• A common enemy ideology
• Migration based on ideology
• A ruling class that identifies with the prevailing ideology
• A legal code consistent with the prevailing ideology and with barriers to change
• A converse ideology limited in its means of expression
• A political discourse focused on universals and with implicit assumptions consistent with the prevailing ideology

As I-type countries develop over time they tend to drift away from strict adherence to the chosen ideology. A common culture and language will develop and eventually they tend to become H-type countries. Former colonies are not usually I-type countries. Anti-colonialism is a strong force, but once a country has become free of undue foreign influence, the ideology says little of how a country should be organised. The ruling class that embodies the culture of an H-type country or the ideology of an I-type country does not have to be a minority.

Examples of I-type countries:

Country	Ideology
USA	Freedom
Switzerland	Subsidiarity
Pakistan	Islam
Hong Kong	Capitalism
USSR	Communism
Israel	Judaism
Kampuchea	Marxist agrarianism, the “Anka” doctrine

The Scale

Clearly there are many nations that do not fit exactly into either category. Therefore it may be useful to instead describe countries as being somewhere on a spectrum or scale. At one end is the pure I-type country, at the other a pure H-type country. It should be possible to place all countries somewhere on this scale. Most would be toward the historical end of the scale.

Pathetic

This is a very interesting word and its usage over time speaks volumes about our language, those who use the word and our society in general. The word comes to us from the Greek pathos, a well known concept in drama. Pathetic in contemporary English usage has two diametrically opposed meanings. From Wiktionary:

1 Arousing pity, sympathy or compassion.

The old man’s pathetic pleas for forgiveness stirred the young man’s heart.

2 Arousing scornful pity or contempt, often due to miserable inadequacy.

You can't even run two miles? That’s pathetic.

You're almost 26 years old and you still can't hold a real job? That's pathetic.

So the word has two meanings, the first almost forgotten except among scholars. The second with the converse meaning, annoyingly overused among teens half a generation ago and still quite popular. How is it possible for a word to suddenly turn into its opposite? I am very curious to know when the second definition started to be used, I imagine it was sometime in the twentieth century, not before. The development of the word pathetic mirrors that of bad, another word that suddenly has inverted its previous meaning, at least if you believe Michael Jackson.

What does all this say about our post-modern society? Is failure and suffering nowadays the result of conscious choices, leaving no room for real pity? Has the world become an essentially just and comfortable place without real victims? Is it so important to seem successful that any hint of weakness is an unsightly social more and has our language consequently been amended? Have we lost our sense of community and our solidarity for those less fortunate than ourselves?

I don’t know the answer to these questions but I intuitively see this small change in our language as a bad sign that our society is not developing in a healthy manner. Our increasing wealth is leading to the instant gratification of every desire and changing our bodies in ways unmatched in history. The free flow of information is leading to the abolition of mystery and the complete understanding of every cause for every effect. Neither we as individuals nor our culture is adapted to these new circumstances of existence. I see rough times ahead.