I am now writing here:
http://garymonro.blogspot.com/
Hope to see you there,
Thanks,
Gary
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
On Your Marks
The BBC reports on some woman's quest to drop the 'apostrophe s' use in the possessive case. Kate Burridge is, apparently, a linguist:
Good old context. We've already seen the results of children's education using 'context' as a means of learning English. Or, rather, not learning English. This ridiculous notion - context - is nothing more than assuming or guessing. Context is what you rely on when making an effort just doesn't appeal.
Anyway, Burridge isn't just some flimsy linguist out to make a name for herself. She's a serious academic. The BBC reports on her latest project:
Indeed. But it's the rules that create the clarity. Referring to the example given above, context might not give clarity of I simply write 'the sisters books'. Context might clarify - but it might not. But the rules definitely will clarify.
In the heady world of linguistics Burridge isn't alone. Here's another one:
Right. So if something as simple as the apostrophe is confusing the answer is: drop it. Not: learn how to use it.
Anyway, it's one of those Have Your Say articles on the BBC site and I sent them a ill-humoured contribution. It's still not posted so, unless they get desperate for feedback (and they haven't had much so they might) I guess another one bites the dust.
The normal apostrophe is useful but not the possessive, she says. Its supporters say it avoids ambiguity in meaning, (like sisters' books / sister's books), but Burridge thinks context makes it redundant.
Good old context. We've already seen the results of children's education using 'context' as a means of learning English. Or, rather, not learning English. This ridiculous notion - context - is nothing more than assuming or guessing. Context is what you rely on when making an effort just doesn't appeal.
Anyway, Burridge isn't just some flimsy linguist out to make a name for herself. She's a serious academic. The BBC reports on her latest project:
She is currently backing a campaign to get the "yeah-but-no-but" catchphrase of Little Britain character Vicky Pollard entered into the Collins English Dictionary.
Phew. I was wondering when that phrase was going to make it.
...the emphasis should be on clarity, rather than rules, argues Burridge
Indeed. But it's the rules that create the clarity. Referring to the example given above, context might not give clarity of I simply write 'the sisters books'. Context might clarify - but it might not. But the rules definitely will clarify.
In the heady world of linguistics Burridge isn't alone. Here's another one:
Roy Corden, professor of language and literacy at Nottingham Trent University, says rules often make things more confusing.
"Take the apostrophe, there is so much confusion over how to use it you have to wonder if it has become dysfunctional," he says.
Right. So if something as simple as the apostrophe is confusing the answer is: drop it. Not: learn how to use it.
Anyway, it's one of those Have Your Say articles on the BBC site and I sent them a ill-humoured contribution. It's still not posted so, unless they get desperate for feedback (and they haven't had much so they might) I guess another one bites the dust.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Climate change - a ramble....
Disclaimer: I know almost nothing about climate change.
But even so I believe a few things. Here they are: climate change can be created by man's activities. For example, burning down forests (plants fix carbon that, in the atmosphere, isn't great stuff to be breathing), churning out industrial waste into the air or waters. And so on. Second: climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon; it has, to the best of our knowledge, always happened in a more or less cyclical way (global warming followed by global cooling) and at any point in time we are in the process of one or other of warming or cooling. Third, the measured - and, as far as I am aware, undisputed - changes to our weather systems suggest we're in a warming phase.
I'd like to know a bit more about it. But, you see, the information available generally seems either lightweight - from the media - or contradictory - from most other sources - and, unless I can devote huge amounts of time to researching (I can't) I feel I'll be forever confused. I tried to read a Guardian report on climate change (or, rather, Bush's attempts to undermine measures to tackle it) and I read the same assumptions and I see the same contradictions.
Here's what I mean. The Guardian's thrust in this article is that Blair (the good guy) is seeking to save the world again and Bush (the bad guy) is trying to stop him. The Guardian has obtained leaked documents that demonstrate Bush's dastardly plan.
Already the alarm bells ring. So the Guardian accepts the 'science of climate change' (meaning, I assume, that climate change is definitely the fault of man) as gospel and, contrary to the principles of proper science, any challenges to the theory are simply attempts to undermine it.
It seems Bush has removed facts - or opinions - from the documents the US is going to present to the G8 summit in July. He:
My knee-jerk reaction is that it's a bit silly to deny the affects of global warming on human health. The down cycle normally ends in an ice-age which won't be very healthy at all. And deleting the idea that it's started also seems pointless. As best I understand it, there is plenty of evidence that it has started - just not so much on who or what is causing it.
But surely to assert that human activity is to blame for climate change is as silly as to assert that it has no influence at all. The mix of human activity and the awesome power of natural processes will affect our environment almost certainly. The question though is to what extent each of the two - man and nature - actually affect things. One's influence will be greater than the other's. Maybe much greater. Which is it and where is the evidence?
The report goes on:
Do we know that we can reverse global warming by our own efforts? Has the natural cycle of warming and cooling been shown to be irrelevant in this case?
Are any changes that do occur to the environment irreversible? (I like the 'irreversible and long-term' bit - if it's irreversible then of course it's long-term.)
Yes, yes, yes... We all know that mankind is 'contributing' - we're told often enough. But how much? If we're contributing 10% of the warming affect while nature is doing her own thing with the other 90% by warming us up then, really, I say stuff cleaning up our act and let's find out ways of surviving the inevitable.
The point is, I'm not rabidly opposed to the idea that human activity is the main cause of global warming. I would say that looking after the quality of your air, your rivers and your land is both practical from a health point of view and patriotic from the point of view of preserving your country's natural beauty. Further, it is strategically sensible to find ways of weaning us off oil. But I am suspicious of so many assertions about global warming - and man's role in it - in the press that, when you look at them closely, seem to raise more questions than answers. I am suspicious of the advocates of the idea that industrial activity is 'the cause' of global warming because so many of them have a less than enthusiastic attitude towards industry generally anyway.
And I am not sure the US always does the most sensible things all the time - it's perfectly feasible that it is not helping poorer countries to at least manage their own emissions of pollutants. But it is difficult to know what to believe when scientists who toe the line are lauded as experts to be endlessly quoted while those that do not are criticised by the press. And then other scientists again present arguments that evidence suggest there's actually some cooling going on too.
Maybe I should just believe what I'm told and start a riot at the G8 summit. Nobody would criticise that, would they?
But even so I believe a few things. Here they are: climate change can be created by man's activities. For example, burning down forests (plants fix carbon that, in the atmosphere, isn't great stuff to be breathing), churning out industrial waste into the air or waters. And so on. Second: climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon; it has, to the best of our knowledge, always happened in a more or less cyclical way (global warming followed by global cooling) and at any point in time we are in the process of one or other of warming or cooling. Third, the measured - and, as far as I am aware, undisputed - changes to our weather systems suggest we're in a warming phase.
I'd like to know a bit more about it. But, you see, the information available generally seems either lightweight - from the media - or contradictory - from most other sources - and, unless I can devote huge amounts of time to researching (I can't) I feel I'll be forever confused. I tried to read a Guardian report on climate change (or, rather, Bush's attempts to undermine measures to tackle it) and I read the same assumptions and I see the same contradictions.
Here's what I mean. The Guardian's thrust in this article is that Blair (the good guy) is seeking to save the world again and Bush (the bad guy) is trying to stop him. The Guardian has obtained leaked documents that demonstrate Bush's dastardly plan.
The documents obtained by The Observer represent an attempt by the Bush administration to undermine completely the science of climate change...
Already the alarm bells ring. So the Guardian accepts the 'science of climate change' (meaning, I assume, that climate change is definitely the fault of man) as gospel and, contrary to the principles of proper science, any challenges to the theory are simply attempts to undermine it.
It seems Bush has removed facts - or opinions - from the documents the US is going to present to the G8 summit in July. He:
? Removed all reference to the fact that climate change is a 'serious threat to human health and to ecosystems';
? Deleted any suggestion that global warming has already started;
? Expunged any suggestion that human activity was to blame for climate change.
My knee-jerk reaction is that it's a bit silly to deny the affects of global warming on human health. The down cycle normally ends in an ice-age which won't be very healthy at all. And deleting the idea that it's started also seems pointless. As best I understand it, there is plenty of evidence that it has started - just not so much on who or what is causing it.
But surely to assert that human activity is to blame for climate change is as silly as to assert that it has no influence at all. The mix of human activity and the awesome power of natural processes will affect our environment almost certainly. The question though is to what extent each of the two - man and nature - actually affect things. One's influence will be greater than the other's. Maybe much greater. Which is it and where is the evidence?
The report goes on:
Among the sentences removed was the following: 'Unless urgent action is taken, there will be a growing risk of adverse effects on economic development, human health and the natural environment, and of irreversible long-term changes to our climate and oceans.'
Do we know that we can reverse global warming by our own efforts? Has the natural cycle of warming and cooling been shown to be irrelevant in this case?
Are any changes that do occur to the environment irreversible? (I like the 'irreversible and long-term' bit - if it's irreversible then of course it's long-term.)
'Our world is warming. Climate change is a serious threat that has the potential to affect every part of the globe. And we know that ... mankind's activities are contributing to this warming. This is an issue we must address urgently.'
Yes, yes, yes... We all know that mankind is 'contributing' - we're told often enough. But how much? If we're contributing 10% of the warming affect while nature is doing her own thing with the other 90% by warming us up then, really, I say stuff cleaning up our act and let's find out ways of surviving the inevitable.
The point is, I'm not rabidly opposed to the idea that human activity is the main cause of global warming. I would say that looking after the quality of your air, your rivers and your land is both practical from a health point of view and patriotic from the point of view of preserving your country's natural beauty. Further, it is strategically sensible to find ways of weaning us off oil. But I am suspicious of so many assertions about global warming - and man's role in it - in the press that, when you look at them closely, seem to raise more questions than answers. I am suspicious of the advocates of the idea that industrial activity is 'the cause' of global warming because so many of them have a less than enthusiastic attitude towards industry generally anyway.
And I am not sure the US always does the most sensible things all the time - it's perfectly feasible that it is not helping poorer countries to at least manage their own emissions of pollutants. But it is difficult to know what to believe when scientists who toe the line are lauded as experts to be endlessly quoted while those that do not are criticised by the press. And then other scientists again present arguments that evidence suggest there's actually some cooling going on too.
Maybe I should just believe what I'm told and start a riot at the G8 summit. Nobody would criticise that, would they?
New crime crackdown
At last the government is planning strong, uncompromising attacks on those criminals who infect our society. Zero tolerance of this scum will mean peace in our time. According to a government minister:
"What we are talking about is an intelligence-led approach to enforcing the law."
Good. You can't usually just catch a criminal in the act of doing wrong. Find out about them before they're about to do it - or, at least, soon aftwerwards. Then lock 'em up and throw away the key. The government's obviously serious about its desire to clean up our streets.
The minister also confirmed 'the policy would be vigorously enforced with the assistance of informers from the public'.
So this new crackdown on a new type of feral criminal will require public spirited assistance too. Fair enough. Criminals will be watched by all of us and will be reported by informers who 'will be encouraged to report breaches of sweeping bans on the habit'. Together, we can defeat this scourge on our society. We must all join in though - it's a public duty.
Okay, enough already. Wake up. This isn't really happening. Well, it might be, but this isn't a war against muggers, or 'happy' slappers or the yobbery that makes up the fabric of British life these days. It's not a war against people who are difficult to catch , complicated to deal with and immune to the legions of social workers employed in looking after them.
This is a war against that most dastardly of threats to our peaceful way of life: smokers.
Now, I detest smoking, I will avoid smokey pubs at all costs and I think putting one of those things anywhere near one's mouth is an early indication of insanity - or, at least, a submerged but real desire to shuffle off this mortal coil.
But while the habit is legal - and earning untold billions for the exchequer - government should keep its grubby hands out. If people want to kill themselves let them. If the government can't resist meddling - and, let's face it, it can't - then it should have the decency to clear up real crime first before targetting the easy prey.
Get the priorities right and deal with the crime that really matters - the difficult stuff, in other words. We suffer more at the hands of muggers with a coshes than we do at the hands of teenagers with a pack of ten...
"What we are talking about is an intelligence-led approach to enforcing the law."
Good. You can't usually just catch a criminal in the act of doing wrong. Find out about them before they're about to do it - or, at least, soon aftwerwards. Then lock 'em up and throw away the key. The government's obviously serious about its desire to clean up our streets.
The minister also confirmed 'the policy would be vigorously enforced with the assistance of informers from the public'.
So this new crackdown on a new type of feral criminal will require public spirited assistance too. Fair enough. Criminals will be watched by all of us and will be reported by informers who 'will be encouraged to report breaches of sweeping bans on the habit'. Together, we can defeat this scourge on our society. We must all join in though - it's a public duty.
Okay, enough already. Wake up. This isn't really happening. Well, it might be, but this isn't a war against muggers, or 'happy' slappers or the yobbery that makes up the fabric of British life these days. It's not a war against people who are difficult to catch , complicated to deal with and immune to the legions of social workers employed in looking after them.
This is a war against that most dastardly of threats to our peaceful way of life: smokers.
Now, I detest smoking, I will avoid smokey pubs at all costs and I think putting one of those things anywhere near one's mouth is an early indication of insanity - or, at least, a submerged but real desire to shuffle off this mortal coil.
But while the habit is legal - and earning untold billions for the exchequer - government should keep its grubby hands out. If people want to kill themselves let them. If the government can't resist meddling - and, let's face it, it can't - then it should have the decency to clear up real crime first before targetting the easy prey.
Get the priorities right and deal with the crime that really matters - the difficult stuff, in other words. We suffer more at the hands of muggers with a coshes than we do at the hands of teenagers with a pack of ten...
Monday, June 20, 2005
"Not fit for the 21st century"
This is Blair's damning verdict on the EU. Tough words? Or weasel words? I think weasel words.
Remember: this is the man who had to be bounced into giving us a say on the EU Constitution. Had he got things his way he'd have forced it on us, telling us all along, through his big, false grin, how it was just a 'tidying up exercise' and part of a 'modern' EU for a 'modern' world etc etc.
Even as the French rejected it he couldn't bring himself to condemn any aspect of the EU or its rotten constitution. And then the Dutch delivered the finishing blow and still he couldn't condemn the EU for what it is - a dictatorial, monumental waste of money, resource and time.
Only now, now that the French are trying to distract attention away from the fact that their citizens don't want the Constitution or anything that they believe it stands for, are we hearing some smatterings of Blair's true feelings about the EU. Only when Thatcher's rebate is being endangered do we hear even a squeak from Blair about the need to reform the CAP. Only now, when he's facing a concerted attack from the EU and is caught between a rock and a hard place - because he knows we'll string him up from the nearest lamp-post if he gives in to the French - does he let some of his truer thoughts about the EU be known.
But, be sure of this. Had the French and Dutch said yes to the Constitution and had his hand not been forced, Blair would have been selling the EU and its Constitution to us as if his life depended on it. Not once would he have blathered on about the EU not listening. And not once would he have demanded an about turn on the way the EU spends the money it takes from us.
The EU isn't fit for the 21st century or any other. And nor is Tony Blair.
Remember: this is the man who had to be bounced into giving us a say on the EU Constitution. Had he got things his way he'd have forced it on us, telling us all along, through his big, false grin, how it was just a 'tidying up exercise' and part of a 'modern' EU for a 'modern' world etc etc.
Even as the French rejected it he couldn't bring himself to condemn any aspect of the EU or its rotten constitution. And then the Dutch delivered the finishing blow and still he couldn't condemn the EU for what it is - a dictatorial, monumental waste of money, resource and time.
Only now, now that the French are trying to distract attention away from the fact that their citizens don't want the Constitution or anything that they believe it stands for, are we hearing some smatterings of Blair's true feelings about the EU. Only when Thatcher's rebate is being endangered do we hear even a squeak from Blair about the need to reform the CAP. Only now, when he's facing a concerted attack from the EU and is caught between a rock and a hard place - because he knows we'll string him up from the nearest lamp-post if he gives in to the French - does he let some of his truer thoughts about the EU be known.
But, be sure of this. Had the French and Dutch said yes to the Constitution and had his hand not been forced, Blair would have been selling the EU and its Constitution to us as if his life depended on it. Not once would he have blathered on about the EU not listening. And not once would he have demanded an about turn on the way the EU spends the money it takes from us.
The EU isn't fit for the 21st century or any other. And nor is Tony Blair.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
British children banned from 'real' maths
Overseas schools which teach the English school curriculum have their own maths exam - the International GCSE.
Some UK schools want their pupils to take that exam rather than the standard English GCSE because the English GCSE includes coursework - something even this government now realises makes the exam too easy - and it does not cover maths in the depth that maths teachers want to teach the subject. In short, the English GCSE is not as good as the one set for foreign schools.
Well, English schools are not allowed to teach the International GCSE syllabus. From The Telegraph:
David Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said:
The International GCSE is recognised by English colleges as a rigorous alternative to course-work based GCSEs - for which students can buy ready-made course-work essays from the internet.
It's all a bit strange really, I mean, this government keeps blathering on about giving people choice but then seems reluctant to offer such choice in the realm of education. I wonder why.
Actually, I don't. It's simple really. The International GCSE might be a bit too tough and if the government is to meet its university targets (50% of pupils going on to study in one) then it must make things as easy as possible. So foreign schools teaching to the English curriculum get the more rigorous exam, English schools get the dumbed down version.
And, of course, if foreigners and the English are taking the same exams then there's the danger of comparisons being made. And that will never do. Because when we compare Blair's kids with the rest of the world's - perhaps using the PISA tests - well, things don't quite go according to script.
Some UK schools want their pupils to take that exam rather than the standard English GCSE because the English GCSE includes coursework - something even this government now realises makes the exam too easy - and it does not cover maths in the depth that maths teachers want to teach the subject. In short, the English GCSE is not as good as the one set for foreign schools.
Well, English schools are not allowed to teach the International GCSE syllabus. From The Telegraph:
In a ruling condemned as "bureaucratic rubbish", state schools are banned from offering the International GCSE because it is not accredited by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the exam regulator, which says maths GCSE must have a coursework element.
David Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said:
"Just as there is a crying need for lower attaining pupils to demonstrate functional numeracy, so too it is critical that students going on to take A-levels can sit GCSEs that match their needs. It does not make the slightest bit of sense to stop state schools from entering pupils for this exam."
The International GCSE is recognised by English colleges as a rigorous alternative to course-work based GCSEs - for which students can buy ready-made course-work essays from the internet.
It's all a bit strange really, I mean, this government keeps blathering on about giving people choice but then seems reluctant to offer such choice in the realm of education. I wonder why.
Actually, I don't. It's simple really. The International GCSE might be a bit too tough and if the government is to meet its university targets (50% of pupils going on to study in one) then it must make things as easy as possible. So foreign schools teaching to the English curriculum get the more rigorous exam, English schools get the dumbed down version.
And, of course, if foreigners and the English are taking the same exams then there's the danger of comparisons being made. And that will never do. Because when we compare Blair's kids with the rest of the world's - perhaps using the PISA tests - well, things don't quite go according to script.
Kelly hours
The Labour government, awesome in its stupidity, intends to provide out of hours 'care' to the nation's school children.
The plan is for breakfast clubs and after-school clubs, effectively meaning that your children can be in school from 8am to 6pm. Or - to look at it another way - your children would be absent from their homes, their parents and their siblings for most of their waking week.
Why is this being done? The Labour Party News Agency tells us:
This will cost another ?680 million on top of the normal school budget. But - worry ye not - because the government is going to spend it wisely. Yes siree:
Well, call me naive but I don't see how orgainsing such a scheme can possibly cost ?16 million. Local charities, churches and schools organise all sorts of stuff for nothing. How on earth does the government justify ?16 million?
But the killer is the 'behaviour improvement programme'. These stupid, stupid people pursue their Stalinist control programmes oblivious to the reality of life and, importantly, oblivious - or in denial - of the fact that it is their own policies that have created or exacerbated the legion of social problems this country now faces.
How on earth does the government expect to ever improve the behaviour and life-chances of our young when (a) they work against the authority and cohesion of natural family and (b) they then facilitate - through schemes like Kelly Hours - minimal contact between off-spring and whatever parents they might actually possess?
This Thatcherite obsession with 'choice', taken into the social realm, is nothing to do with choice at all. Like so many other aspects of the wholly destructive Labour programme, 'choice' isn't the reason for their actions, it's the excuse for them. Kelly couldn't give a monkey's about choice. What she really wants is to pursue her social engineering project and ensure employment parity for - and the votes of - women.
Ashamed perhaps at the abandonment of her own family in favour of the dizzying heights of being part of the Blairite delinquency programme she wants to ensure that the rest of us to follow suit.
Soon, we'll hear again from Blair about 'respect' and all the usual rubbish about something needing to be done about yobbishness. And then he'll move onto praise the Kelly scheme - and its detachment of children from the one source of this elusive 'respect' - and he won't even register the terrible contradiction in his words.
The plan is for breakfast clubs and after-school clubs, effectively meaning that your children can be in school from 8am to 6pm. Or - to look at it another way - your children would be absent from their homes, their parents and their siblings for most of their waking week.
Why is this being done? The Labour Party News Agency tells us:
The issue was choice for parents and children.
This will cost another ?680 million on top of the normal school budget. But - worry ye not - because the government is going to spend it wisely. Yes siree:
This includes ?16m for the "national remodelling team" which will help implement the changes and ?32m for a behaviour improvement programme.
Well, call me naive but I don't see how orgainsing such a scheme can possibly cost ?16 million. Local charities, churches and schools organise all sorts of stuff for nothing. How on earth does the government justify ?16 million?
But the killer is the 'behaviour improvement programme'. These stupid, stupid people pursue their Stalinist control programmes oblivious to the reality of life and, importantly, oblivious - or in denial - of the fact that it is their own policies that have created or exacerbated the legion of social problems this country now faces.
How on earth does the government expect to ever improve the behaviour and life-chances of our young when (a) they work against the authority and cohesion of natural family and (b) they then facilitate - through schemes like Kelly Hours - minimal contact between off-spring and whatever parents they might actually possess?
This Thatcherite obsession with 'choice', taken into the social realm, is nothing to do with choice at all. Like so many other aspects of the wholly destructive Labour programme, 'choice' isn't the reason for their actions, it's the excuse for them. Kelly couldn't give a monkey's about choice. What she really wants is to pursue her social engineering project and ensure employment parity for - and the votes of - women.
Ashamed perhaps at the abandonment of her own family in favour of the dizzying heights of being part of the Blairite delinquency programme she wants to ensure that the rest of us to follow suit.
Soon, we'll hear again from Blair about 'respect' and all the usual rubbish about something needing to be done about yobbishness. And then he'll move onto praise the Kelly scheme - and its detachment of children from the one source of this elusive 'respect' - and he won't even register the terrible contradiction in his words.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
A wander round the blogosphere
I'm up to my ears at the moment so am blogging sporadically. When I get a bit of time to do anything blog-like I'm actually reading a few of the blogs I used to read - which I haven't done for a couple of months now. Our systems are down this afternoon so here's a snap-shot of this afternoon's little gander...
Quote of the month is an innocuous little thing written by EU-Serf - I doubt he remembers he even wrote it. But in a response to somebody who suggested that the UK was a nothing island that would be even less if it left the EU the Serf responds:
Priceless. Think about it. Who cares? I mean, I'm intensely proud of the UK and I am very happy when my country is spoken well of but... so what? Let the world ignore us if, in return, we can be a peaceful, happy, decent island-race. You can say the same about growth, size of the economy and so on. Peace and prosperity - and happiness - are not dependent only on the thickness of your wallet.
John at the England Project invented a new word - dunghackery. It's not too difficult to work out what it means - but if you're feeling a little slow take a look at his definition.
Civitas has a great article about the religious hatred law - WARNING: you'll need some peace and quiet and an awake mind to follow what is sometimes a (deliberately) roundabout argument. Very good though.
A couple of the points: how come we're going to specially protect certain groups from the incitement of hatred but not all of us generally? Why are the rest of us not special enough to be protected from the results of incitement?
The article also points out that if the law is enacted we couldn't talk about a group who carried out hateful acts because by dexscribing these hateful acts we would be inciting others to hate them also... The article goes on in this vein but illustrates clearly how Blair's crawling for the Muslim vote is simply illogical.
For me, I wonder whether condemnation of the appalling treatment of suspected child 'witches'carried out by a minority of Africans in this country would be considered an incitement to hatred. If I described to a group of people the torture and depravity undergone by these poor children I would expect at least a couple of my audience to feel, amongst other things, a sense of hatred towards the perpetrators. Do I go to prison for this? Or just keep my mouth shut?
The Policeman's blog makes the point about Linda Walker (shot her air-gun at the ground in front of low-life chavs who were harassing her - got 6 months and lost her teaching job). If such people knew Mrs Walker was properly trained and armed they would have thought twice about vandalising her property. I'm not sure where I stand with arming the population - worries me some days, seems self-evidentally right to do it on others - although if they restricted it to married, employed men over the age of 30 I think I'd go for it.
The Liberty Cadre comments on a letter in the Telegraph from Professor Philip Stott about climate change. (The blog's link is wrong - the letter is here). Professor Stott's point is that we don't know to what extent human activity - of the many factors influencing climate -is affecting the climate - or if it's affecting it at all. Further, we do not know what difference any action we take will have nor can we predict anything. In fact, he suggests, it is possible that doing 'something' could make things worse. The man will need a police guard for uttering such heresies....
Meanwhile the new blog Once More continues to grow in stature. The quality of some of the posts is exceptional and more than once I have found myself reading an argument in the Comments sections and agreeing in turn with both sides of the coin. Acting as a kind of conservative think-tank it's becoming one of the blogosphere's great Blogs. Take a look...
Quote of the month is an innocuous little thing written by EU-Serf - I doubt he remembers he even wrote it. But in a response to somebody who suggested that the UK was a nothing island that would be even less if it left the EU the Serf responds:
The fact that we are still one of the largest economies in the world, are members of G8, we have nuclear weapons and a permanent seat on the security council are all of no importance?
Besides, who cares if it is true. I am not very interested in my country's standing in the world.
Priceless. Think about it. Who cares? I mean, I'm intensely proud of the UK and I am very happy when my country is spoken well of but... so what? Let the world ignore us if, in return, we can be a peaceful, happy, decent island-race. You can say the same about growth, size of the economy and so on. Peace and prosperity - and happiness - are not dependent only on the thickness of your wallet.
John at the England Project invented a new word - dunghackery. It's not too difficult to work out what it means - but if you're feeling a little slow take a look at his definition.
Civitas has a great article about the religious hatred law - WARNING: you'll need some peace and quiet and an awake mind to follow what is sometimes a (deliberately) roundabout argument. Very good though.
A couple of the points: how come we're going to specially protect certain groups from the incitement of hatred but not all of us generally? Why are the rest of us not special enough to be protected from the results of incitement?
The article also points out that if the law is enacted we couldn't talk about a group who carried out hateful acts because by dexscribing these hateful acts we would be inciting others to hate them also... The article goes on in this vein but illustrates clearly how Blair's crawling for the Muslim vote is simply illogical.
For me, I wonder whether condemnation of the appalling treatment of suspected child 'witches'carried out by a minority of Africans in this country would be considered an incitement to hatred. If I described to a group of people the torture and depravity undergone by these poor children I would expect at least a couple of my audience to feel, amongst other things, a sense of hatred towards the perpetrators. Do I go to prison for this? Or just keep my mouth shut?
The Policeman's blog makes the point about Linda Walker (shot her air-gun at the ground in front of low-life chavs who were harassing her - got 6 months and lost her teaching job). If such people knew Mrs Walker was properly trained and armed they would have thought twice about vandalising her property. I'm not sure where I stand with arming the population - worries me some days, seems self-evidentally right to do it on others - although if they restricted it to married, employed men over the age of 30 I think I'd go for it.
The Liberty Cadre comments on a letter in the Telegraph from Professor Philip Stott about climate change. (The blog's link is wrong - the letter is here). Professor Stott's point is that we don't know to what extent human activity - of the many factors influencing climate -is affecting the climate - or if it's affecting it at all. Further, we do not know what difference any action we take will have nor can we predict anything. In fact, he suggests, it is possible that doing 'something' could make things worse. The man will need a police guard for uttering such heresies....
Meanwhile the new blog Once More continues to grow in stature. The quality of some of the posts is exceptional and more than once I have found myself reading an argument in the Comments sections and agreeing in turn with both sides of the coin. Acting as a kind of conservative think-tank it's becoming one of the blogosphere's great Blogs. Take a look...
Monday, June 13, 2005
Get them young
The government is displaying more of its Stalinist credentials. The Times reports that its agents in the field (teachers) are acting as spotters for any swarthy three year olds with dodgy parents who might be hoodies in the making. They believe a criminal can be spotted from as young as three years old. I think that's undiluted bull but then I'm not an intellectual.
The plan is to target these kids with special help with their studies - reading, writing etc - so as to keep them on the straight and narrow. I thought school was supposed to do that for all its students anyway. Am I missing something here?
The worst cases (according to Sunday's Telegraph) will find their parents being marched to parenting classes.
Of course, the anti-family Labour Party, in its attempts to re-engineer the human race so that it fits in with their ideas of how things ought to be, is having to deal with problems of its own making (again). Having encouraged mums to go out to work it's now finding their abandoned off-spring are turning into little monsters.
Solution? Support two-parent families and admit they're the best way to raise children!
Actually, no. Not in this life-time, sunshine. In fact, Labour are going to do what they always do - spend more money. By 2008 schools will open from 8am to 6pm as surrogates for the parents many children will never have. Labour, its social libertarianism creaking at the seams, will replace you and I with breakfast and after-school clubs, rendering fathers (for the few kids that have them) completely redundant and mothers as merely pleasant accessories.
Of course, the kids that were restless, aggressive and disruptive at school will still be restless, aggressive and disruptive at school. It's just that school will last even longer giving them even more time in which to make life miserable for their young colleagues.
Once again, Labour tinkers at the edges of the problem but lacks the guts to get to the core of it.
The plan is to target these kids with special help with their studies - reading, writing etc - so as to keep them on the straight and narrow. I thought school was supposed to do that for all its students anyway. Am I missing something here?
The worst cases (according to Sunday's Telegraph) will find their parents being marched to parenting classes.
Of course, the anti-family Labour Party, in its attempts to re-engineer the human race so that it fits in with their ideas of how things ought to be, is having to deal with problems of its own making (again). Having encouraged mums to go out to work it's now finding their abandoned off-spring are turning into little monsters.
Solution? Support two-parent families and admit they're the best way to raise children!
Actually, no. Not in this life-time, sunshine. In fact, Labour are going to do what they always do - spend more money. By 2008 schools will open from 8am to 6pm as surrogates for the parents many children will never have. Labour, its social libertarianism creaking at the seams, will replace you and I with breakfast and after-school clubs, rendering fathers (for the few kids that have them) completely redundant and mothers as merely pleasant accessories.
Of course, the kids that were restless, aggressive and disruptive at school will still be restless, aggressive and disruptive at school. It's just that school will last even longer giving them even more time in which to make life miserable for their young colleagues.
Once again, Labour tinkers at the edges of the problem but lacks the guts to get to the core of it.
Geldof the egotist
Former Liberal leader David Steel fears Bob Geldof's latest stunts are in danger of turning his anti-poverty campaign into an ego trip.
In an letter to the Times newspaper, Lord Steel said: "Deliberately peppering his utterances with swear words and appearing in public carefully disheveled is not setting a good example of behaviour."
Geldof has called for a million protestors in Edinburgh and a flotilla of boats to cross the English Channel. He also encouraged children to play truant from school to join in the 'fun'.
Lord Steel criticised Geldof for implying he was somehow in a position to invite the Pope, Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela to be involved in Live 8.
It does seem that his holiness has become a little big-headed. Most of us realise that Bono's thought of himself as Jesus Christ for most of his career but now it seems Geldof's on the god-wagon too. I wonder, will these global-sized egos be able to co-exist without some sort of fallout?
Now that would make Live 8 interesting...
In an letter to the Times newspaper, Lord Steel said: "Deliberately peppering his utterances with swear words and appearing in public carefully disheveled is not setting a good example of behaviour."
Geldof has called for a million protestors in Edinburgh and a flotilla of boats to cross the English Channel. He also encouraged children to play truant from school to join in the 'fun'.
Lord Steel criticised Geldof for implying he was somehow in a position to invite the Pope, Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela to be involved in Live 8.
It does seem that his holiness has become a little big-headed. Most of us realise that Bono's thought of himself as Jesus Christ for most of his career but now it seems Geldof's on the god-wagon too. I wonder, will these global-sized egos be able to co-exist without some sort of fallout?
Now that would make Live 8 interesting...
No more religious hate
Yeah, right.
The problem with the religious hatred bill is that it talks about banning comments 'likely to offend'. Well, now. Offence is in the ear of the beholder. And some people are much, much more easily offended than others.
It is ludicrous for the government to claim that he bill won't affect criticism, commentary or ridicule of faiths. If it doesn't affect these things then what the hell (hehe - a pun) is it for? Do they seriously believe that no religious person will be offended by portraying the Pope as a rock and roller? ('Spitting Image - remember that?) Wouldn't the legislation have been used against the BBC for showing Springer - the Opera? And the Muslims - for whom this bill was created in the first place - are known for their sensitivity regarding their Prophet. And they're not known for their appreciation of the finer points of free speech. Isn't this all just a little worrying?
I wonder if 'offence' will be determined in the way MacPherson decided racism would be determined? As far as MacPherson was concerned, if a person felt an assault was racist then it was. The very act of feeling was sufficient.
Will we have people clutching their breast, feeling faint with horror as some two-bit comedian lampoons their particular prophet?
And exactly how am I, an atheist, going to be protected (as is proposed) from some of the fruitcakes in my area who offer me eternal damnation and the promise of an eternity of hell if I don't accept the Lord Jesus into my heart? Should I make a political point and fall to the floor as if my feelings are irrevocably wounded and prosecute the fire and brimstones wallahs, using the full force of the law?
I jest, of course. But there may very well be opportunistic prosecutions, carried out by organisations with a chip on their shoulders and a point to prove. It seems inconceivable, for instance, that Salman Rushdie's silly jibes at the Muslim prophet wouldn't have resulted in the use of such a law. If it had succeeded then we would have known that free speech was dead. If it had failed then the legislation would have been viewed by Muslims as completely useless. Where's the winner in this?
I do hope for the sake of the tens of thousands of people who want nothing more than to quietly pursue their religious beliefs without causing annoyance to anyone that the few fanatics that exist in all religious systems (and non-religious, to be honest) don't start using this as a way to score points. If they do, nothing good can come of it. This legislation might buy the craven and deeply dishonourable Labour Party a few more Muslim votes - and I wouldn't be surprised to see the law used in favour of Muslims over the rest of us. But in the longer term if it's used maliciously then it will do more harm than good. I hope it doesn't make it into law. If it does, I hope nobody uses it. We're better off without.
The problem with the religious hatred bill is that it talks about banning comments 'likely to offend'. Well, now. Offence is in the ear of the beholder. And some people are much, much more easily offended than others.
It is ludicrous for the government to claim that he bill won't affect criticism, commentary or ridicule of faiths. If it doesn't affect these things then what the hell (hehe - a pun) is it for? Do they seriously believe that no religious person will be offended by portraying the Pope as a rock and roller? ('Spitting Image - remember that?) Wouldn't the legislation have been used against the BBC for showing Springer - the Opera? And the Muslims - for whom this bill was created in the first place - are known for their sensitivity regarding their Prophet. And they're not known for their appreciation of the finer points of free speech. Isn't this all just a little worrying?
I wonder if 'offence' will be determined in the way MacPherson decided racism would be determined? As far as MacPherson was concerned, if a person felt an assault was racist then it was. The very act of feeling was sufficient.
Will we have people clutching their breast, feeling faint with horror as some two-bit comedian lampoons their particular prophet?
And exactly how am I, an atheist, going to be protected (as is proposed) from some of the fruitcakes in my area who offer me eternal damnation and the promise of an eternity of hell if I don't accept the Lord Jesus into my heart? Should I make a political point and fall to the floor as if my feelings are irrevocably wounded and prosecute the fire and brimstones wallahs, using the full force of the law?
I jest, of course. But there may very well be opportunistic prosecutions, carried out by organisations with a chip on their shoulders and a point to prove. It seems inconceivable, for instance, that Salman Rushdie's silly jibes at the Muslim prophet wouldn't have resulted in the use of such a law. If it had succeeded then we would have known that free speech was dead. If it had failed then the legislation would have been viewed by Muslims as completely useless. Where's the winner in this?
I do hope for the sake of the tens of thousands of people who want nothing more than to quietly pursue their religious beliefs without causing annoyance to anyone that the few fanatics that exist in all religious systems (and non-religious, to be honest) don't start using this as a way to score points. If they do, nothing good can come of it. This legislation might buy the craven and deeply dishonourable Labour Party a few more Muslim votes - and I wouldn't be surprised to see the law used in favour of Muslims over the rest of us. But in the longer term if it's used maliciously then it will do more harm than good. I hope it doesn't make it into law. If it does, I hope nobody uses it. We're better off without.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
