For the children

Everybody has to pay some tax.

It's the only practical way to fund things along the lines of road networks, police, defense...and I don't argue with this. Because it's for the greater good.

Not some mythical "For the greater good" which some politicians seem to believe in. No, for a strictly observable and demonstrable greater good that you can point to. "Look, you see that road? We paid for that!"

This isn't a problem to me.

This is opposed to such things as- *takes a deep breath and tries to calm down* - just look at the policies of your local governments. If it has the word "empowering" in the description it's probably an example of a fluffy "for the greater good" policy. I could find one, but it's bad for my blood pressure.

No...I couldn't resist. A few days ago the UK Prime Minister announced that that 300 million pounds would be available to give broadband to the families of poor children.

Surely this is a good idea, right? Well...actualy...no. Free internet access is available throughout most of the UK. No - really, it is. Go to your local library to access the freely available government (ie, tax payer) funded internet.

But surely it's good for the Children? Won't someone just think of the children??

Oh - yes, the children. Let's try and help the children.

Let's not be cynical and think that it's one of a number of last ditch attempts to salvage a dying administration. After all, it's not like they arn't 20% behind in the polls.

But lets look at the details of the scheme. They're proposing vouchers of upto £700 per poor family, means tested of course.

Thats...£700....well, lets see. I can order a stock, off the shelf computer from here for a shade under £200. That's for a single system, one off, from a for-profit company. Imagine the discount they'd offer for say, a thousand?

I admit, I wouldn't want to use this computer myself - but that's because I play games. We're not talking about providing games machines for the poor, but internet machines. I'd bundle office type apps with it as well...

But lets stick with £200. Because I don't believe in feeding evil empires, I'd say ignore windows and stick linux on the beast. Easier to maintain, manage and control. Oh, and it's free. Even with office apps and other toys - it's free.

But how much would it cost to use it as an internet machine?

Now, as to the cost of internet...if we were to go with a cheap dial up modem connection they're available for less then 5p per minute. That's £3 per hour...to be honest, for an hour a week that's rather expensive. For a year that's £150. Hmmm.

Broadband....with 30 seconds of hunting I can find this - internet for £10/month, broadband. Not a great service....certainly won't handle large downloads or the like - but it is enough for academic work. For all of £120 a year, constant access...

Assuming the computer is on for 4 hours a day, with a 250 watt power supply, at 10p/KWH, that's..um...£36.50 over the year in electricity.

So for a year I can get a family online for HALF what the government wants to spend, using FOR PROFIT companies. But the government seems to have forgotten something. You can't give computers away to people who don't know how to use them without providing support.

That's were I'd stick all the money made from the bulk orders. Technical support and educational materials available through the system. How do you make enough money to support that? Well, take the broadband package - get it near cost.

But allow the company to sell the users a cheap and very easy upgrade to increase their maximum download per month. Allow them to make a profit on it. Not a huge one...but enough to make it worth their while...

All in all, this scheme could be made to be very workable. It really could. Back of envelope numbers say I can give one million families internet access. (Compared to the governments

If it wasn't for a very basic point. Why are we providing it in the first place?

The government finances are in a bad way - credit crunch, falling tax revenue while costs are increasing. Why increase spending for something that could have minimal effect?

And why are we means testing this? If parents can't afford the internet, why make a distinction between those who can't quite...and those who don't work?

In my eyes, this is another government handout to the "poor and needy" - read "Long term unemployed with children" in order to buy votes and look good.

This could be a good scheme, maybe. Maybe.

But to be honest?

I believe it has as much chance of actually working on budget, with any significant and measurable improvement to education as...as....as likely as reasonable gun control laws in the UK.

No chance.

Articles of faith

There are many articles of faith that people hold.

Some of these hold true - so far, the sun has always risen tomorrow. Things fall down. The more complicated something is the more ways there are for it to go wrong.

Other articles of faith are unprovable - there is a god. He cares. There is intelligent life on Earth.

Then...then there's the ones that really do deserve a good fisking behind the bikeshed. (And if you don't know what a fisking is, look it up! It's possibly not what you think)

But today I choose to attack the belief that women make better drivers.

You see, I believe that anyone can be a bad driver - and as my evidence I present this:

It was the ultimate expression of road rage. A furious woman driver died after ramming another vehicle and spinning her wheels so fast that her own car
burst into flames.
Serena Sutton-Smith, 54, burnt to death after refusing to get out of her Vauxhall Nova as she sat with her foot flat on the accelerator.
She spun the wheels so fast that her tyres disintegrated and the metal rims sent a shower of sparks into the engine, igniting the brake fluid and setting the car on fire.
Appalled onlookers urged her to get out of the car as the flames licked around her but she told them to “F*** off”, an inquest in Gloucester was told.

Now, I'm not saying that men are better drivers.

I'm just saying be careful....you never know who's in the other car.

They're all equally dangerous.

Oh, the assumptions....

For those of you who don't follow the news as closely as I do, here's a story you may have missed.

A bar in Australia is in trouble for offering drinks vouchers to female guests who are willing to hang their underwear up on the bar. See here for a few articles...

Now, I'm not for or against this idea really, to be honest. What a business wants to do to get attention.....which they've certainly got - is up to them.

But what gets me is the response of...well...let's call it "a certain vocal minority". Let's not name names though.

Not for a few lines.

But don't take my word for it, let's start quoting..

"Carolyn Worth of Melbourne Centre Against Sexual Assault ....... said: "It sends a very bad message, and it is one made very explicit. It's almost an invitation to sexual assault.""

Lets start with the purely pedantic. If you invite someone to sexually assault you and they do, it ceases to be sexual assault. Because you asked them to...and they did what you asked. What you would call it, I don't know...rough? Weird Adult Roleplay? I don't know - but it's definitely something you've *literally* asked for.

Now secondly, more on a "synchronise your dogmas" point of view - I was under the impression that a victim of a sexual crime was never to be blamed and that they were the Victim. (It's a point I'd quibble with to a degree, but that I do agree with, mostly. But that's another post entirely).

Here, this person is claiming that actually, it is possible to provoke an assault. Definitely off message...but moving on.

Yes - it's sending a bad message. I'd agree.

But short of stopping every other bad message, what's her point? Hell, let's look at her definition of "Bad". It's something she doesn't like. Bad is a moral judgement.

How about banning all those bad messages on eating unhealthy food (aka anything but salad), replacing all those models with Real Women and insisting that everyone should cover every inch of flesh in case something bad should happen. Like...um...sunburn. Or inciting every man in three hundred yards to do something unlawful.

Actually, yes. Men.

You know, if I saw a women drunk on the streets sans underwear...I'm fairly sure I could restrain myself. I'm pretty certain that every man I work with could say the same thing. I'd go so far as saying that 99% of men would be able to restrain that inner demon forcing them to rape, pillage and murder any men, women, children and underage goats they may come across.

Because most people don't like hurting each other.

But the simple assumption by this woman is that all men are rapists. That men can not control themselves. That a little bit more flesh will tip them into a frenzy of depravity.

By her reasoning, women should stay at home hiding themselves from view to stop men triggering this bestial desire.

My message to her?

Go have a drink and CHILL.


(All quotes are taken from The Register article...but they're sprinked though out the rest of the reports. The register just happens to bring them all together. I was going to use more then one....but the rage...)

Equality junk...

Now, if you've been here for a while, you may have noticed something.

I believe in quality - not the biased, me first equality of most modern feminists - but Equality, between everyone. After all, isn't fairness....fair?

But "Being fair" doesn't often come into the matter - take for example, this report by the UK government quango that complains about the lack of equality.

I'm not going to deal with the whole report - my lunch just isn't that long. But lets look at a couple of points, while I'm here..

First, I'm going to ignore the "Are these really the most powerful jobs?" argument - because that's very open to debate. Certainly they have power...maybe not The Most Power, but...

But anyway, back to the point. From the press release..

"There are fewer women MPs in Westminster, where they make up just 19.3 percent of all MPs. "

That's from the third paragraph. But looking into the report, the change, this "fewer women" was a drop of....wait for it...0.2%.

Or, to be clear - one female MP died, Gwyneth Dunwoody, the longest serving female MP in Parliament. So to make their point, they use the death of a long serving public servant (and no matter your political views, she was a public servant) to make their case.

They don't mention that a female candidate attempted to replace her - Tamsin Dunwoody, her daughter. They forget that she lost the seat because, by a huge margin.

But - nope - this is evidence that "women's power" is increasing ever so slowly.

One death.

Talking of one...let's talk about Prime Ministers...let's talk about Margaret Thatcher- one women. How many years in power...?

Nothing like a fair, unbiased report...but no, this report has an axe to grind.

--

Or another little quibble.

One of the categories they look at is..."Small businesses with women the majority of directors" - no direct link, it's in the PDF they link to.

So lets be clear here - based on last years figures, 14% of small businesses were controlled by women. Sounds clear, right? Or maybe not...

• Husband and wife teams don't count - not a female majority
• Small businesses with only one "director" don't count. Definition is plural
• Any even mix doesn't out
• If you've got an odd numbered board - which is common to prevent deadlocks - and it's even apart from the casting vote...it doesn't count

So this "clear" definition hides a multitude of excluded directors. And it's such an odd definition to use...not the percentage of small business directors who are female - but the majority of female controlled boards. It's not directly comparable to well, anything - it's a useless number.

Call me cynical, but why pick such an odd definition - unless the more typical one doesn't show the point you want?

--

And one final point. I'm willing to believe "female power" is slowly increasing, over all. But I'm finding it increasingly hard to take this report seriously. Take this paragraph, copied completely without edits - but the bold is mine...

"This year's report, which traditionally estimates the number of years at the present rate of progress it will take for women to achieve equality in key areas, indicates that compared to previous year's predictions it will now take 15 years longer (a total of 55 years) for women to achieve equal status at senior levels in the judiciary, and women directors in FTSE 100 companies could be waiting in the wings a further 8 years (a total of 73 years)."

55 years + 8 years = 63 years.

This report has odd non-obvious definitions, uses the death of one person as a significant statistical point and can't even COUNT.

So being interested in Equality, what do I think of this report?

Well, what do you think I think?

I have a dream...

There are many dreams that people dream.

Some dream of equality and opportunity for all. Others dream of chocolate and summer. Still others wake with memories of dreams that really shouldn't be mentioned near anyone under, ohhh, 25. Even then, cold showers advised.

This morning, I wasn't any of those people.

This morning I climbed into awareness from the deepest, darkest pits of childrens literature. A den of sin and depravity that would shame the worst of us.

I was dreaming....of the Famous Five.

Yep, that's right. Island off the coast of a small fishing village and all.

And in this dream, all I wanted - no really, ALL I wanted was a cold ice cream on the beach.

Sad, isn't it?

Mornings

Morning is not my favourite time of day.

There's no real surprise here - you're warm, cosy and tucked under a quilt, with eyes closed and mind a million miles away...

So being ripped from that little spot of paradise is always going to be aggravating. But what's really annoying me of late is other people in the morning.

Here's a little guide to Me in the Morning.

1) If you wake me up and tell me to do something, or want me to remember something...don't bother.

The odds are if you're lucky - and I mean extremely lucky - I might remember you woke me up. Maybe.

I live with cats, so I'm perfectly used to being woken up then falling asleep with virtually no memory of it. If you do happen to try and it fails, it's your own darn fault!


2) My alarm in the morning is annoying. I accept this.

Complaining about it won't help.

Why not? Because I use it because it's annoying!

It's on my mobile, so it could be hidden anywhere - and I have to get out of bed to search.

It goes off every five minutes so if I do hit snooze...it's not for long...

It's loud so I can hear it.

And it's the most annoying tune I can find - because it has to be!

So if you find the thing annoying.....find me a replacement that works, rather then complain!


3) When I go running in the morning, I like to have a shower the minute I get back...mainly because being hot and sweaty isn't my favourite thing in the world.

So asking me to do something when I get back might annoy.

Asking me to do something that involves going upstairs will probably annoy.

Saying that I need to go downstairs and then upstairs will certainly irritate.

Doing it twice, before I've had a cup of tea will make me sarcastic.

You've been warned..