“ A welfare state is frightened of every poor person who tries to get in and every rich person who tries to get out.”Harry Browne
“ The more one considers the matter, the clearer it becomes that redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State.”Bertrand de Jouvenel
Thursday, 27 March 2008
Quote of the day
A short comment on Mme Sarkozy and ‘that’ picture
The Sarkozys are on a state visit to the UK. President Sarkozy really seems to be looking to improve/upgrade the relationship between the UK and France. He looked smart, hansom and businesslike, his wife Carla, a former model, looked beautiful, cool and sophisticated when meeting the Royals.
As mentioned she is a former model and there is in existence a tasteful enough nude photo of her, taken before she ever imagined she might ever became the ‘first lady’ of France, that is going to be auctioned at Christies.
There is nothing she need be embarrassed about, she was honestly making her independent way in the world and that was a part of it. It owes something in style to the French artist Georges Seurat. If it were in oils no one could argue that it wasn’t tasteful art.
But the good old UK tabloids seldom fail to make us look like lowlifes. The visit proved and opportunity too tempting for them miss. They published the picture together with a leering two faced “Welcome to Great Britain, Madame Sarkozy”.
If it was not intended to be a calculated insult it could easily be taken as such. It could certainly be represented as such by anyone so inclined. Especially if they considered the politics of the tabloid and the government.
If a paper wished to publish the picture, maybe it would perhaps have been better to have done so before the visit, or wait until it was done. Or better still just printed an article to accompany it rather than trying to be ‘clever’.
As mentioned she is a former model and there is in existence a tasteful enough nude photo of her, taken before she ever imagined she might ever became the ‘first lady’ of France, that is going to be auctioned at Christies.
There is nothing she need be embarrassed about, she was honestly making her independent way in the world and that was a part of it. It owes something in style to the French artist Georges Seurat. If it were in oils no one could argue that it wasn’t tasteful art.
But the good old UK tabloids seldom fail to make us look like lowlifes. The visit proved and opportunity too tempting for them miss. They published the picture together with a leering two faced “Welcome to Great Britain, Madame Sarkozy”.
If it was not intended to be a calculated insult it could easily be taken as such. It could certainly be represented as such by anyone so inclined. Especially if they considered the politics of the tabloid and the government.
If a paper wished to publish the picture, maybe it would perhaps have been better to have done so before the visit, or wait until it was done. Or better still just printed an article to accompany it rather than trying to be ‘clever’.
New Report critical of UK asylum system
The independent Asylum Commission haspublished a report critical of the way asylum seekers are treated in the UK.
The system does seem to be far from satisfactory. It takes far too long to make decisions and implement them, keeping people in limbo. It does not appear to consistently implement those decisions when they are made. The decisions do not always seem to make sense to a ‘layman’. It is actually illegal to employ ‘illegals’ and the punishments for doing so appear to be becoming increasingly draconian, so they cannon provide for themselves.
It must be said that many of the cases of asylum seekers that one hears about look far more like economic migration than actual genuine asylum seeking.
This impression is bolstered by the undeniable fact that the UK has many more‘asylum seekers’ than any other state in the EU. The natural question that arises is: If all these people are genuine asylum seekers, then given that many have to travel through large areas of Europe to get here, why do they not claim asylum at the first opportunity, as they are supposed to?
One can’t help but wonder if the welfare state is part of the attraction - and part of the problem. It is the nature of the system that actually makes it a problem. The chance of enjoying the ‘benefits’ of they system is an undeniable magnet. The drain on the system caused by large numbers of people who have never contributed to it is a problem, a serious one in certain areas.
If there were no welfare state, or broadly it could not apply to those who had not significantly contributed to it, this would remove the ‘drain’ and much of the problem. It might also make the UK less likely to be a preferred destination. In addition those who came in reality as economic migrants could be honest about it either working and contributing to society, or go elsewhere, possibly back home.
Surely those willing to work hard to honestly obtain a better life and who want to become British and adopt our values might be considered to be more of an advantage than a disadvantage.
It seems it is only under a social welfare system like ours, designed as if it operates in isolation, that this would be a problem at all, before the advent of the welfare state it would not have been. One wonders if this might be a main driver behind New Labour’s desperate desire for a compulsory national identity card system, that and their apparently compulsive desire to regulate the population, in as many aspects of their lives as possible.
Before the advent of the welfare state incomers who did not contribute to, or preyed on society, would have found it uncomfortable, even impossible to stay and left, or fallen foul of the law and been forced to leave. The Honest and hardworking would have settled and become British. In any even there would have been no ‘drain’.
The system does seem to be far from satisfactory. It takes far too long to make decisions and implement them, keeping people in limbo. It does not appear to consistently implement those decisions when they are made. The decisions do not always seem to make sense to a ‘layman’. It is actually illegal to employ ‘illegals’ and the punishments for doing so appear to be becoming increasingly draconian, so they cannon provide for themselves.
It must be said that many of the cases of asylum seekers that one hears about look far more like economic migration than actual genuine asylum seeking.
This impression is bolstered by the undeniable fact that the UK has many more‘asylum seekers’ than any other state in the EU. The natural question that arises is: If all these people are genuine asylum seekers, then given that many have to travel through large areas of Europe to get here, why do they not claim asylum at the first opportunity, as they are supposed to?
One can’t help but wonder if the welfare state is part of the attraction - and part of the problem. It is the nature of the system that actually makes it a problem. The chance of enjoying the ‘benefits’ of they system is an undeniable magnet. The drain on the system caused by large numbers of people who have never contributed to it is a problem, a serious one in certain areas.
If there were no welfare state, or broadly it could not apply to those who had not significantly contributed to it, this would remove the ‘drain’ and much of the problem. It might also make the UK less likely to be a preferred destination. In addition those who came in reality as economic migrants could be honest about it either working and contributing to society, or go elsewhere, possibly back home.
Surely those willing to work hard to honestly obtain a better life and who want to become British and adopt our values might be considered to be more of an advantage than a disadvantage.
It seems it is only under a social welfare system like ours, designed as if it operates in isolation, that this would be a problem at all, before the advent of the welfare state it would not have been. One wonders if this might be a main driver behind New Labour’s desperate desire for a compulsory national identity card system, that and their apparently compulsive desire to regulate the population, in as many aspects of their lives as possible.
Before the advent of the welfare state incomers who did not contribute to, or preyed on society, would have found it uncomfortable, even impossible to stay and left, or fallen foul of the law and been forced to leave. The Honest and hardworking would have settled and become British. In any even there would have been no ‘drain’.
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
Quote of the day
“ Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.”Clive Staples Lewis
NICE advise alcohol ban for expectant mothers
NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) who withhold life saving treatments to save the Government money are changing the advice they give to pregnant women concerning alcohol. Up ‘till now they have advised that small daily amounts were fine, a unit of alcohol a day.
Now the health facists are insisting women should not drink any alcohol in the first three months of pregnancy.
When pressed NICE conceded the change was not on the basis of any actual evidence – but, for puritanical political social control reasons. It seems they just feel people are drinking too much these days so arbitrarily decided to change the advice.
Typically New Labour’s Chief Medical Office, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, was enthusiastic about the change.
The advice is of course largely useless, as it is likely many women will not actually initially be aware they are pregnant. So, even if they are inclined to be dragooned by the State, who clearly think they know better than the rest of us lower orders, they will be unable to obey these instructions without going permanently tee total.
NICE’s Dr Gillian Leng said people - particularly women, were drinking more and they wanted to send a "clear message"; "Women should be advised not to drink."
So what it boils down to, is that these people, who make life or death decisions, about whether we can have treatments or not, just don’t fee that the average woman is actually up to making a sensible, informed decision, based on actual evidence, for themselves.
Now the health facists are insisting women should not drink any alcohol in the first three months of pregnancy.
When pressed NICE conceded the change was not on the basis of any actual evidence – but, for puritanical political social control reasons. It seems they just feel people are drinking too much these days so arbitrarily decided to change the advice.
Typically New Labour’s Chief Medical Office, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, was enthusiastic about the change.
The advice is of course largely useless, as it is likely many women will not actually initially be aware they are pregnant. So, even if they are inclined to be dragooned by the State, who clearly think they know better than the rest of us lower orders, they will be unable to obey these instructions without going permanently tee total.
NICE’s Dr Gillian Leng said people - particularly women, were drinking more and they wanted to send a "clear message"; "Women should be advised not to drink."
So what it boils down to, is that these people, who make life or death decisions, about whether we can have treatments or not, just don’t fee that the average woman is actually up to making a sensible, informed decision, based on actual evidence, for themselves.
Tuesday, 25 March 2008
Quote of the day
“ Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't.”Anon
“ One of the best ways to keep peace is to be prepared for war.”George Washington
NUT suggests pupils 'lured' into UK armed forces
It is their conference week - and the UK National Union of teachers (NUT) in the form of Catherine Brennan, have raised their skirts and are showing their anti military unmentionables in public.
They are attacking the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for giving careers advice in schools, alongside banks and the local council, marching in the opposite direction to the current New-Lab stance claiming pupils are being 'lured' into joining.
Mealy mouthed Steve Sinnott, the NUT general secretary briefed that he was ‘concerned’ youngsters from ‘poorer backgrounds’ were being targeted.
"Youngsters from the most disadvantaged backgrounds have more limited opportunities in life than youngsters from better off backgrounds.
"It's simply a fact. I am not saying that youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds cannot get something from a career in the military."
There is an apparent subtext here that one might suspect may indicate a certain masked antagonism and contempt.
He rather betrays his prejudices in that he seems absolutely unconcerned about those ‘youngsters’ from what he presumably feels are probably ‘better off backgrounds’ enticed into Sandhurst… I don’t suppose he is suggesting that they can’t get something from a career in the military either.
They are attacking the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for giving careers advice in schools, alongside banks and the local council, marching in the opposite direction to the current New-Lab stance claiming pupils are being 'lured' into joining.
Mealy mouthed Steve Sinnott, the NUT general secretary briefed that he was ‘concerned’ youngsters from ‘poorer backgrounds’ were being targeted.
"Youngsters from the most disadvantaged backgrounds have more limited opportunities in life than youngsters from better off backgrounds.
"It's simply a fact. I am not saying that youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds cannot get something from a career in the military."
There is an apparent subtext here that one might suspect may indicate a certain masked antagonism and contempt.
He rather betrays his prejudices in that he seems absolutely unconcerned about those ‘youngsters’ from what he presumably feels are probably ‘better off backgrounds’ enticed into Sandhurst… I don’t suppose he is suggesting that they can’t get something from a career in the military either.
Monday, 24 March 2008
Quote of the day
“ You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."Abraham Lincoln
Brits no longer believe fad diet claims
It seems Britain is becoming disenchanted with the claims of fad diets. Over the last 5 years sales of slimming products have dropped by a third. This may also hold true for low calorie and reduced fat products, as growth in that market appears to be plateauing.
After years of trying diets, with no discernable signs of success, people finally seem to have stopped believing the diets' claims anymore.
Mintel, the market research people state: "Attitudes to dieting have become more negative with a higher proportion of consumers believing that they are hard to follow, confusing and may be harmful."
This may be more promising than it seems. If the public are wising up about fad diets maybe they are also capable of learning the same lessons about politics. What with two of the major parties (New-Labour and Lib-Dem ) manifesto promises now clearly proven to be, like the diet’s claims; “Not subject to legitimate expectation”
Frankly, if they cannot be held to their promises, at least to a reasonable extent, then there is little point in voting for them at all. Especially when Parliament's power and relevance diminishes with every new ‘treaty’.
Of course, by now, many of us will have realised that the most reliable way of loosing pounds, at least from your pocket, is not by means of a New-Fad diet, it is to vote New-Labour. It will not be your waist you are watching, so much as their waste and ineptitude - your wallet loosing weight ;-)
After years of trying diets, with no discernable signs of success, people finally seem to have stopped believing the diets' claims anymore.
Mintel, the market research people state: "Attitudes to dieting have become more negative with a higher proportion of consumers believing that they are hard to follow, confusing and may be harmful."
This may be more promising than it seems. If the public are wising up about fad diets maybe they are also capable of learning the same lessons about politics. What with two of the major parties (New-Labour and Lib-Dem ) manifesto promises now clearly proven to be, like the diet’s claims; “Not subject to legitimate expectation”
Frankly, if they cannot be held to their promises, at least to a reasonable extent, then there is little point in voting for them at all. Especially when Parliament's power and relevance diminishes with every new ‘treaty’.
Of course, by now, many of us will have realised that the most reliable way of loosing pounds, at least from your pocket, is not by means of a New-Fad diet, it is to vote New-Labour. It will not be your waist you are watching, so much as their waste and ineptitude - your wallet loosing weight ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
