" It is not in the nature of politics that the best men should be elected. The best men do not want to govern their fellow men."George E. MacDonald
" Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct."Thomas Jefferson
Friday, 16 May 2008
Quote of the day
Is it time to shrink the state to more manageable proportions?
The Telegraph asks an interesting question today “Who is the 'right leader' for our hard times”? Sparked by Broon’s waffle about providing the right leaderhip.
Even more adventurously they ask: “Do we need a politician running Britain at all”?
Maybe the question they should really be asking is: “Do we need anyone running Britain at all”?
Personally I am not really sure I want much so-called leadership at all. Belgium seems to have managed well enough with no parliament recently. Could we manage mostly at a county level?
We have after all a perfectly good royal family to represent the country. The queen probably knows more about politics than any two prime ministers put together. They are certainly more in tune with practical environmentalism than the average politician.
So combine the Royal family with a parliament that has responsibility for maintaining the legal system, the armed forces and the currency. Claw back every last parliamentary privilege and power ceded to the unelected EU commission.
Have a watchdog to police MPs propriety and finances. Make it impeachable to renague on election promises. These people should be the servants of the Nation, not it’s patrician ruling class.
Given that we have had a millennium’s worth of very, very, bad legislation in the last decade let's make it as difficult as possible for them to ever pass any new legislation again. Without at least 75% in favour.
The state should be kept very firmly away from telling the citizen what to do.
Let local democracy, take care of all the other details.
Works for me…
Even more adventurously they ask: “Do we need a politician running Britain at all”?
Maybe the question they should really be asking is: “Do we need anyone running Britain at all”?
Personally I am not really sure I want much so-called leadership at all. Belgium seems to have managed well enough with no parliament recently. Could we manage mostly at a county level?
We have after all a perfectly good royal family to represent the country. The queen probably knows more about politics than any two prime ministers put together. They are certainly more in tune with practical environmentalism than the average politician.
So combine the Royal family with a parliament that has responsibility for maintaining the legal system, the armed forces and the currency. Claw back every last parliamentary privilege and power ceded to the unelected EU commission.
Have a watchdog to police MPs propriety and finances. Make it impeachable to renague on election promises. These people should be the servants of the Nation, not it’s patrician ruling class.
Given that we have had a millennium’s worth of very, very, bad legislation in the last decade let's make it as difficult as possible for them to ever pass any new legislation again. Without at least 75% in favour.
The state should be kept very firmly away from telling the citizen what to do.
Let local democracy, take care of all the other details.
Works for me…
Thursday, 15 May 2008
Quote of the day
" Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable."Laurence Peter
" The manipulation of statistical formulas is no substitute for knowing what one is doing."Hubert M Blalock Jr
Lies, damned lies, and - Government Inflation Figures
Inflation has been much in the news recently. It will probably feature frequently enough it the months and years to come. It is of course an official government measure despite it’s (probably intending to) sounding like it could be done by Which. The Consumer Price Index (CPI), Apparently annual inflation – the Government’s target measure – was up from 2.5% in March to 3.0% in April.
Not all that much one might imagine. And what is inflation anyway? Inflation is rising prices and costs. Anything that puts up a cost, such as an increase in road tax, or the cost of electricity, or the cost of your mortgage. Effectively it means your money is worth slightly less. You can also get the reverse.
So an accurate measure of inflation really tells you something about what is going on in the economy. The only trouble is the government figures are effectively a lie.
In almost standard New-Labour operating rules the measure and the target have become all important. Reality seems to come a poor second. They are basically fiddling the figures, like they do with ‘A’ level passes and it seems, almost everything else.
The official measure of inflation depends on what particular prices and costs are being officially kept track of. If they aren’t being measured then they don’t contribute to official inflation figures. If you only kept track of the price of video recorders and Ladas for instance inflation would probably be pretty low, maybe falling.
The real inflation experienced by us all in our daily lives bears little resemblance to what the New-Labour amusingly attempt to claim are accurate figures. I expect they will have arguments marshalled to justify why they leave some things out and measure others, probably almost as good as those Gordon Brown used to deny the promised referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
As disposable incomes become squeezed, people are increasingly forced to limit their spending to essentials like food, energy, housing. These are the things going up the most steeply. As our spending shifts more towards “non-discretionary” items and services our experience of inflation also get worse. If you spend a larger portion of your income on energy bills, for example, you will then also experience a much higher rate of inflation.
The index is also biased towards relatively cheaper goods like clothing, CD players, etc. rather than more expensive services like transport and childcare.
Who cares how much a new flat screen TV costs when they can put the purchase off, you have to buy groceries and have the energy to cook them. You may not be able to avoid paying for child care if you want to work. You need petrol to get to work. The rate of inflation as experienced by many households in the UK is probably multiple times more than the official figure.
Probably the CPI's worst omission is that it doesn’t factor in domestic costs like council tax and mortgage interest. There will not be many people who’s council tax has not risen well over inflation over the past 10 years.
Oh – and if you try to save for a rainy day inflation slowly (or maybe not so slowly) eats into your savings.
At just 2% it will reduce the value of £5,000 put away to £4,712 after just 3 years and that's with inflation of 2%. Imagine what's happening to your savings if your personal inflation rate is running at 5%, or even 10%. If the return you are getting on your money is less than the inflation you experience you might as well spend it all now because it will have less buying power later.
Not all that much one might imagine. And what is inflation anyway? Inflation is rising prices and costs. Anything that puts up a cost, such as an increase in road tax, or the cost of electricity, or the cost of your mortgage. Effectively it means your money is worth slightly less. You can also get the reverse.
So an accurate measure of inflation really tells you something about what is going on in the economy. The only trouble is the government figures are effectively a lie.
In almost standard New-Labour operating rules the measure and the target have become all important. Reality seems to come a poor second. They are basically fiddling the figures, like they do with ‘A’ level passes and it seems, almost everything else.
The official measure of inflation depends on what particular prices and costs are being officially kept track of. If they aren’t being measured then they don’t contribute to official inflation figures. If you only kept track of the price of video recorders and Ladas for instance inflation would probably be pretty low, maybe falling.
The real inflation experienced by us all in our daily lives bears little resemblance to what the New-Labour amusingly attempt to claim are accurate figures. I expect they will have arguments marshalled to justify why they leave some things out and measure others, probably almost as good as those Gordon Brown used to deny the promised referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
As disposable incomes become squeezed, people are increasingly forced to limit their spending to essentials like food, energy, housing. These are the things going up the most steeply. As our spending shifts more towards “non-discretionary” items and services our experience of inflation also get worse. If you spend a larger portion of your income on energy bills, for example, you will then also experience a much higher rate of inflation.
The index is also biased towards relatively cheaper goods like clothing, CD players, etc. rather than more expensive services like transport and childcare.
Who cares how much a new flat screen TV costs when they can put the purchase off, you have to buy groceries and have the energy to cook them. You may not be able to avoid paying for child care if you want to work. You need petrol to get to work. The rate of inflation as experienced by many households in the UK is probably multiple times more than the official figure.
Probably the CPI's worst omission is that it doesn’t factor in domestic costs like council tax and mortgage interest. There will not be many people who’s council tax has not risen well over inflation over the past 10 years.
Oh – and if you try to save for a rainy day inflation slowly (or maybe not so slowly) eats into your savings.
At just 2% it will reduce the value of £5,000 put away to £4,712 after just 3 years and that's with inflation of 2%. Imagine what's happening to your savings if your personal inflation rate is running at 5%, or even 10%. If the return you are getting on your money is less than the inflation you experience you might as well spend it all now because it will have less buying power later.
The Sweet Tooth Gene
According to scientists in Canada, based at the University of Toronto, they had discovered a genetic basis for the sweet tooth a sweet tooth gene they are calling (appropriately enough), GLUT2 (though it apparently stands for GLUcose Transporter rather than gluttony).
It seems that those with the gene consistently consumed more sucrose (table sugar), fructose (simple sugar), and glucose, no matter their age or sex, than those without it.
The scientists discovered that those with GLUT2, in the older group consumed up to 30 grams of sugar a day more than those without it and those in the younger group with the variation drank up to five times more sugary drinks - and 20 times more sweets.
So it may turn out taking in more sugar and the corresponding tendancy to put on weight, rot your teeth and get diabetes may be genetic.
So for those of you with the genetic variant the good news is that there may be no need to feel guilty about having a sweet tooth.
The bad news is that there is still the need to deal with it - and it may be more difficult…
It seems that those with the gene consistently consumed more sucrose (table sugar), fructose (simple sugar), and glucose, no matter their age or sex, than those without it.
The scientists discovered that those with GLUT2, in the older group consumed up to 30 grams of sugar a day more than those without it and those in the younger group with the variation drank up to five times more sugary drinks - and 20 times more sweets.
So it may turn out taking in more sugar and the corresponding tendancy to put on weight, rot your teeth and get diabetes may be genetic.
So for those of you with the genetic variant the good news is that there may be no need to feel guilty about having a sweet tooth.
The bad news is that there is still the need to deal with it - and it may be more difficult…
Wednesday, 14 May 2008
Quote of the day
" A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true."Demosthenes
The truth is out there…
It seems that secret files on Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO’s) seen in the UK are being released.
Now Unidentified Flying Objects just about sums it up. They are basically something that someone saw in the sky that they could not work out what it was.
Now even pretty sensible people can wonder what on earth they are seeing under the right circumstances.
I remember years ago whilst driving at night seeing what looked like a weird glowing object in the sky, that apparently changed shape between lenticular and globular. A surefire Alien Space ship you might think. We decided to investigate. After several miles we got close enough to see it was a blimp lit up and floating above a small airfield. The apparent change in shape a result of seeing it from different angles.
Of course we could have been reprogrammed by the alien occupants of a real space ship to think that - Cue twilight zone music, doo do doo do...
If you then factor in those who don’t think carefully, or those who really badly want to believe the earth is some sort of Watford Gap interchange for aliens … Then there the downright sad and loopy who just want attention. Well it is easy to see how these reports get generated.
Why were the reports kept secret? I would suspect, especially during the cold war, against the chance someone had spotted an experimental aircraft, or weapon, either ‘ours’ or ‘theirs’. If one was spotted and needed some disinformation to obscure the details the UFO enthusiasts might be an excellent tool for that too.
In the middle ages it was the dog heads, men with faces in their chests, monopods with big feet, devils and such now it is little green men. Now it’s greys and a whole collection of others to go with them.
The truth is out there - and it is probably far more mundane, at least when it comes to little green men, than many would apparently like.
Now Unidentified Flying Objects just about sums it up. They are basically something that someone saw in the sky that they could not work out what it was.
Now even pretty sensible people can wonder what on earth they are seeing under the right circumstances.
I remember years ago whilst driving at night seeing what looked like a weird glowing object in the sky, that apparently changed shape between lenticular and globular. A surefire Alien Space ship you might think. We decided to investigate. After several miles we got close enough to see it was a blimp lit up and floating above a small airfield. The apparent change in shape a result of seeing it from different angles.
Of course we could have been reprogrammed by the alien occupants of a real space ship to think that - Cue twilight zone music, doo do doo do...
If you then factor in those who don’t think carefully, or those who really badly want to believe the earth is some sort of Watford Gap interchange for aliens … Then there the downright sad and loopy who just want attention. Well it is easy to see how these reports get generated.
Why were the reports kept secret? I would suspect, especially during the cold war, against the chance someone had spotted an experimental aircraft, or weapon, either ‘ours’ or ‘theirs’. If one was spotted and needed some disinformation to obscure the details the UFO enthusiasts might be an excellent tool for that too.
In the middle ages it was the dog heads, men with faces in their chests, monopods with big feet, devils and such now it is little green men. Now it’s greys and a whole collection of others to go with them.
The truth is out there - and it is probably far more mundane, at least when it comes to little green men, than many would apparently like.
Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Quote of the day
“ Beauty comes in all sizes - not just size 5.”Roseanne Barr
” Sex appeal is fifty percent what you've got and fifty percent what people think you've got.”Sophia Loren
Booty is in the eye of the beholder…
Now there surely has to be a biological reason why, contrary to fashion magazine hype, the average guy (according anecdotal evidence) actually prefers a girl with a little padding especially on the derriere. I have long assumed that many of the features men find attractive in women are actually reasonably reliable indicators of good health and fertility. Signs they might make a good mate. The reverse is probably also true.
Now, according to a study published in the journal ‘Cell Metabolism’ by the Harvard Medical School, moderate amounts of subcutaneous fat on the buttocks and thighs may actually be good for you.
It seems this sort of fat decreases insulin resistance, a cause of diabetes and may produce hormones known as adipokines, which boost the metabolism.
The National Obesity Forum’s Dr David Haslam, suggested the report cast further doubts on the usefulness of Body Mass Index (BMI) as a way to assess whether someone was unhealthily overweight, as it does not differentiate between different types of fat.
Weight Concern’s Dr Ian Campbell, remarked: "If there is something about subcutaneous fat which is protective, and actually decreases insulin resistance, this could help open up a whole new debate on the precise role fat has on our metabolism."
Women have a tendency to lay down more subcutaneous fat, particularly on their legs and buttocks than men. So ladies there is probably a sound biological reason why men tend to look favourably on a j-lo stylie rear end - so wear that bootylicious padding with pride.
Now, according to a study published in the journal ‘Cell Metabolism’ by the Harvard Medical School, moderate amounts of subcutaneous fat on the buttocks and thighs may actually be good for you.
It seems this sort of fat decreases insulin resistance, a cause of diabetes and may produce hormones known as adipokines, which boost the metabolism.
The National Obesity Forum’s Dr David Haslam, suggested the report cast further doubts on the usefulness of Body Mass Index (BMI) as a way to assess whether someone was unhealthily overweight, as it does not differentiate between different types of fat.
Weight Concern’s Dr Ian Campbell, remarked: "If there is something about subcutaneous fat which is protective, and actually decreases insulin resistance, this could help open up a whole new debate on the precise role fat has on our metabolism."
Women have a tendency to lay down more subcutaneous fat, particularly on their legs and buttocks than men. So ladies there is probably a sound biological reason why men tend to look favourably on a j-lo stylie rear end - so wear that bootylicious padding with pride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)