For evil to triumph
Sir: As screenwriter of the recent film Good, I was interested by the references to it in Kate Williams’s thought-provoking piece (‘We are forgetting great evils’, 22 August). For my part I think the recent spate of films about Nazi Germany has less to do with an ‘obsession with Hitler’ or a desire to ‘excuse those who committed the atrocities’, as Williams would have it, and more to do with events in America during the first decade of this century. While in no way wishing to compare the Bush regime to Hitler’s, it was striking how blithely so many Americans (and Britons) found themselves able to go along with a government that within a few years of its election had manufactured a pretext to invade another country, sanctioned torture and even built its own concentration camp. Had it been equally easy, we wondered, for German citizens to accommodate themselves to the rise of Nazism? These parallels are certainly what motivated the American star Viggo Mortensen to appear in our small British film.
Judging from her comments, I sense that Williams has only seen the trailer of Good — which is where the words she quotes describing Mortensen’s character as ‘a devoted father’ appear. (The words are not in the script or the film, where he is distinctly lacking in devotion in this respect.) Since the film is out this week on DVD, she now has the opportunity to watch it in full.
John Wrathall
Via email
Heat and light
Sir: After reading Sarah Standing on light bulbs (Standing Room, 29 August) I paused for thought (even though I know it’s not fashionable). It occurred to me that the heat emitted by incandescent light bulbs — which excites so much critical comment — is not just a simple waste of energy. It contributes to the heating of the room and house in which it is situated. In cold or temperate climes like ours, where background heating is required for most of the year, this contribution to the general warmth will have to be replaced by something else — probably extra output from the central heating.
So before we are all frogmarched by politicians into the flickering twilight of so-called energy-saving bulbs, would it not be a good idea to think a little and to draw up an energy balance sheet for a typical dwelling? After all, to maintain a given building at a given temperature in a given climate will require a fixed and definite amount of heat, whatever the source of that heat. Less heat from light bulbs will mean more heat needed from fires or radiators, unless we are prepared to tolerate cooler homes. Better insulation will save energy. Changing the light bulbs won’t.
James McFarlane
Ludlow, Shropshire
Taxing added value
Sir: Bryan Forbes wants to know (‘My view of a lake is being taxed’, 22 August) why he is being penalised for living in a nice house. He is being taxed on value, not penalised. If he has improved the utility of his home by improving the view he has presumably increased its value. Whether one’s home improvements have been made by the sweat of one’s own brow or by paying someone else to do it is irrelevant to the resulting increase in value. The fact that council tax is based on property values is what is giving rise to his perceived problem. There has been no comprehensive revaluation since the current system was cobbled together in the retreat from the poll tax, it having been an attempt to break the link with property values for local taxation.
Ian Read
Brackley, Northants
Sir: Bryan Forbes superbly covers several issues that make any sensible voter scream. He points out that there are plans for us to be taxed more for all sorts of things associated with our house, such as it having a scenic view, it being in a quiet road, having double-glazing and the like. However, it has also been reported that the government is proposing to increase our council tax if we don’t have double-glazing. So as far as double-glazing is concerned, we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
Clive Cowen
Ramsden, Oxfordshire
Just war
Sir: The concept of the ‘just war’, stemming from St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, includes the requirement of ‘proportionality’ — that is, that the war be waged in a manner proportional to the case, and not needlessly vicious. Perhaps we can turn this round in the case of Lockerbie. The exercise of compassion should be proportionate to the case, and not needlessly indulgent. On this criterion, it can be said that Mr MacAskill failed.
David Damant
London WC2
Why the bombs were dropped
Sir: In response to Taki’s column about the atomic bombs dropped on Japan (High Life, 22 August), I’d like to offer an alternative view. After the war ended in Europe with the division of Germany having moved west of Berlin, a million Russian soldiers were being moved east to join the invasion of Japan. Truman, and the British, did not want a tripartite division of Japan on the basis of their dealings with the Russians in Europe. Notwithstanding that a million lives might have been lost in taking the islands on the way north and invading Japan itself, I have no doubt that the impending arrival of the Russian army was the main reason the bombs were dropped, so ending the war almost overnight and enabling the US to take sole control of Japan.
Nick Winton
Via email
Lily’s lyrics
Sir: Martin Vander Weyer rightly points out (Any other Business, 22 August) that the excesses of the Noughties have yet to be captured in fiction. Until a worthy successor to Martin Amis is found, can I direct him to the lyrics of Lily Allen, whose ‘weapons of mass consumption’ perfectly satirises the era of New Labour.
Hugo Machin
London W6
Comments