Now I'm grumpy.
Not only do I have to be up and alert on the morning after a bank holiday, but the BBC are giving air time away to a politician to lie.
Turn on the radio and we hear a labour politician being asked "What don't you like about the VAT rise?". His answer, paraphrased slightly, was:
1) Because they promised not to (but they and the lib dems were going to increase national insurance.
2) Because it's regressive
3) Because it's a tax on jobs
All this and the presenter didn't even query any of them. Now, I know the general election was last year and people might not rememebr it that well. So lets look at these claims.
1) The conservatives very clearly said (at some cost) "We have no plans to increase VAT". But they didn't promise it - they were amazingly clear on this.
2) Regressive. Define regressive. This term now seems to mean "any policy we don't like" - if it doesn't actually benefit the target groups a politician cares about, it's regressive. It's a meaningless word, and I'll show you why.
Lets say that you're going to increase tax in such a way that someone earning 10,000 a year pays an extra £10 but someone earning £30,000 pays £30 extra - that sounds progressive, right? Well.... no. You can still call it regressive. Or progressive.
Yes, the rich are paying more - but so are the poor. Indeed, if the £30K person paid £20 more then labour would be dancing up and down, it's regressive, regressive! Because as a percent, the rich are paying less of their income.
So to pass this test the poor both must pay less in absolute terms and as a percentage of income. Which makes virtually any cut you think of making regressive. Which is surprisingly difficult.
Oh, and the third point, about a tax on jobs? All taxes cost jobs. National Insurance is paid by both employers and employees. So, by definition, any increase is an actual tax on jobs.
VAT increases prices for everyone. So that's 2 actual lies and one meaningless statement - not even a follow up question.
An interview as hard of Jelly.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Sunday, December 19, 2010
A few words of advice
You will know fear; you will know pain and then you will die.
These words should have been written in blood on the church door hosting the carol service I was at today. Indeed, adding "Abandon all hope all ye who enter here" would be to err on the side of caution.
First, let me state my position - I am not a Christian. I just have a thing for carols and singing. This means that I actually listen to the music. Today... this was not a good thing. And for the record, I have sung in amateur choirs with pretentions of standards.
First; the music. It is not an exacting standard to expect all the players to keep their instrument in tune; not close to it, near it or in spitting distance. On it.
And, for that matter, asthmatics should not be allowed to play a flute.
Second, the singers. Imagine, if you will, the spectrum of female singers who can be termed alto or soprano. There exists a point on this line, above the altos - and from this point every singer is alto. Yes, perhaps they can sing some soprano lines. Indeed, they might even sound nice on occasion.
But this is the same as a scalpel and a sword. Yes, you can behead someone with both - but this does not mean they are interchangeable.
Don't let a high alto pretend to be anything but what she is.
Ever.
Then, there is the choice of music to play...
Carols are beloved of many for a reason - classic tunes, lyrics learnt in the depths of childhood in a time when snow was special and hope lived.
This is why you should restrain any musical director who dreams of re-writing descants for them. Or tweaking the final verses so as to confuse everyone but the choir, who are ignoring everyone else anyway.
And while we're talking, know your limits. This applies to musical directors, alcohol and cake. Don't even dream of doing anything more than "the usual" with 5 rehearsals. With something odd or different, allow 10. If including an orchestra, changes to almost every part and new songs...christmas really does begin in June.
The Right Reverend Irrelevance. Yes, this might be the fullest you've seen your church since...last Christmas. This does not mean you're allowed to sell your Alpha course. Nor should you spend the first 10 minutes running through fire exits, the contents of the program (that we have in our hands), where the money raised in the offering is going, how persecuted christians in general are and how the world is a terrible place.
Talking of terrible places. If you pick out 8 readings, there is no requirement to play Holy Book Roulette. You don't need genesis, revelations, all the gospels and two random books. You can have real structure and meaning. You can have a theme - even, dare, I say, a message. Of the readings I think 3 had a relationship with christmas. If by message you mean mentions something which you later may rely on in court. Sorry, church.
But random quotes?? And, more to the point, if at any point your reading from *any* biblical book just sounds like an eidolon from Maelstrom - then you've really, really picked the wrong quote.
And finally, the choir. Oh the choir. There is much I could say. If your altos over-ride not the rest of the choir but the entire church singing, they need to be told to calm down and listen to themselves.
If your choir can't even stand up at the same time, there's no way they'll start singing at the same time, except at gunpoint.
But I'm going to restrain myself by saying that I believe the entire choir would have been improved by a single, simple addition.
A hand grenade.
/rant
These words should have been written in blood on the church door hosting the carol service I was at today. Indeed, adding "Abandon all hope all ye who enter here" would be to err on the side of caution.
First, let me state my position - I am not a Christian. I just have a thing for carols and singing. This means that I actually listen to the music. Today... this was not a good thing. And for the record, I have sung in amateur choirs with pretentions of standards.
First; the music. It is not an exacting standard to expect all the players to keep their instrument in tune; not close to it, near it or in spitting distance. On it.
And, for that matter, asthmatics should not be allowed to play a flute.
Second, the singers. Imagine, if you will, the spectrum of female singers who can be termed alto or soprano. There exists a point on this line, above the altos - and from this point every singer is alto. Yes, perhaps they can sing some soprano lines. Indeed, they might even sound nice on occasion.
But this is the same as a scalpel and a sword. Yes, you can behead someone with both - but this does not mean they are interchangeable.
Don't let a high alto pretend to be anything but what she is.
Ever.
Then, there is the choice of music to play...
Carols are beloved of many for a reason - classic tunes, lyrics learnt in the depths of childhood in a time when snow was special and hope lived.
This is why you should restrain any musical director who dreams of re-writing descants for them. Or tweaking the final verses so as to confuse everyone but the choir, who are ignoring everyone else anyway.
And while we're talking, know your limits. This applies to musical directors, alcohol and cake. Don't even dream of doing anything more than "the usual" with 5 rehearsals. With something odd or different, allow 10. If including an orchestra, changes to almost every part and new songs...christmas really does begin in June.
The Right Reverend Irrelevance. Yes, this might be the fullest you've seen your church since...last Christmas. This does not mean you're allowed to sell your Alpha course. Nor should you spend the first 10 minutes running through fire exits, the contents of the program (that we have in our hands), where the money raised in the offering is going, how persecuted christians in general are and how the world is a terrible place.
Talking of terrible places. If you pick out 8 readings, there is no requirement to play Holy Book Roulette. You don't need genesis, revelations, all the gospels and two random books. You can have real structure and meaning. You can have a theme - even, dare, I say, a message. Of the readings I think 3 had a relationship with christmas. If by message you mean mentions something which you later may rely on in court. Sorry, church.
But random quotes?? And, more to the point, if at any point your reading from *any* biblical book just sounds like an eidolon from Maelstrom - then you've really, really picked the wrong quote.
And finally, the choir. Oh the choir. There is much I could say. If your altos over-ride not the rest of the choir but the entire church singing, they need to be told to calm down and listen to themselves.
If your choir can't even stand up at the same time, there's no way they'll start singing at the same time, except at gunpoint.
But I'm going to restrain myself by saying that I believe the entire choir would have been improved by a single, simple addition.
A hand grenade.
/rant
Friday, November 26, 2010
How would you explain this to the children?
Have a read at the article, here.
I'm not going to quote it, but a summery would be "A women describes how she's doing all she can, up to breaking down because of running out of petrol, because she's afraid she doesn't have enough money in the account. She's doing this to send her two girls to a private school, at the cost of £8,000 a term - but she has (at least) 3 children. One of them is a boy in a state school."
Now, she does try to justify this - girls do better in single sex schools, they'd love to do the same for their son by they just can't afford it. That it's the most critical years for the girls now.
But what I'm trying to get my head around is, how will she explain to her son that for most of his life he's been relatively poor - if she can't afford petrol, that's relatively poor.
He's been relatively poor for his entire life while is parents have spent everything they had - house included - at a rate of £24,000 a year (3 terms a year, 24K a year) - on his two sisters.
That's £24K a year for 5-18...that's £24*13 = £312,000. Not including university.
How could any one explain that to their youngest child?
I'm not going to quote it, but a summery would be "A women describes how she's doing all she can, up to breaking down because of running out of petrol, because she's afraid she doesn't have enough money in the account. She's doing this to send her two girls to a private school, at the cost of £8,000 a term - but she has (at least) 3 children. One of them is a boy in a state school."
Now, she does try to justify this - girls do better in single sex schools, they'd love to do the same for their son by they just can't afford it. That it's the most critical years for the girls now.
But what I'm trying to get my head around is, how will she explain to her son that for most of his life he's been relatively poor - if she can't afford petrol, that's relatively poor.
He's been relatively poor for his entire life while is parents have spent everything they had - house included - at a rate of £24,000 a year (3 terms a year, 24K a year) - on his two sisters.
That's £24K a year for 5-18...that's £24*13 = £312,000. Not including university.
How could any one explain that to their youngest child?
Monday, November 22, 2010
Grumpy is in the building
Here I am, sleepy and tired on a Monday morning.
I turn on the radio (about 7.20?) in the morning and I find the Today program is interviewing people about the coalition's plans to change the nature of council housing. (Aka, houses owned by the local council and rented out at reduced rates to "those in need" - typically about 50% of "market rates".)
These annoyed me.
The first example was a women who had a council house - they may have said why, but I didn't hear. She was studying to be a nurse; this would take 3-4 years, but she would be able to "better herself" without the council house, or so she says.
Lets call that four years in a place with the same commercial cost as mine. So that's a rent of £500/2 = £250 a month discount. So £250*12 = £3,000 a year. So, over the period of three to four years while studying that's £9,000 to £12,000.
Lets compare that to Little Johny, who's a good student, worked at school, lives with parents. Like huge numbers of students he'll have to take out loans and receive no actual support from the state - I didn't, and you don't need much in the way of "wealth" to do this. Bugger all, in fact.
Would little Johny get 9-12K in aid...?
Interview 2 was from a women who moved into a council house with her mother and family in 1984 - about 26 years ago. She's still living there.
She considers the council house "hers" - she's inherited it from her mother, effectively. Never moved out, has been subsidised for her entire adult life; almost certainly most of her life. Said that if they lost the place they would be expect to be paid for all the work they've done in the past - painting, cleaning, etc.
Total cost - half her housing costs for 26 years and administration+maintenance costs for the same.
Social housing is important... but I'm really having issues understanding why some parties are opposing the reforms.
Because they just seem fair - to those who pay for it all.
---
Edited because I first posted just a title
I turn on the radio (about 7.20?) in the morning and I find the Today program is interviewing people about the coalition's plans to change the nature of council housing. (Aka, houses owned by the local council and rented out at reduced rates to "those in need" - typically about 50% of "market rates".)
These annoyed me.
The first example was a women who had a council house - they may have said why, but I didn't hear. She was studying to be a nurse; this would take 3-4 years, but she would be able to "better herself" without the council house, or so she says.
Lets call that four years in a place with the same commercial cost as mine. So that's a rent of £500/2 = £250 a month discount. So £250*12 = £3,000 a year. So, over the period of three to four years while studying that's £9,000 to £12,000.
Lets compare that to Little Johny, who's a good student, worked at school, lives with parents. Like huge numbers of students he'll have to take out loans and receive no actual support from the state - I didn't, and you don't need much in the way of "wealth" to do this. Bugger all, in fact.
Would little Johny get 9-12K in aid...?
Interview 2 was from a women who moved into a council house with her mother and family in 1984 - about 26 years ago. She's still living there.
She considers the council house "hers" - she's inherited it from her mother, effectively. Never moved out, has been subsidised for her entire adult life; almost certainly most of her life. Said that if they lost the place they would be expect to be paid for all the work they've done in the past - painting, cleaning, etc.
Total cost - half her housing costs for 26 years and administration+maintenance costs for the same.
Social housing is important... but I'm really having issues understanding why some parties are opposing the reforms.
Because they just seem fair - to those who pay for it all.
---
Edited because I first posted just a title
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Burning bridges
If you've not heard yet, the London Fire Brigade is taking fireworks night off.
Yep, that's right - the Fire Brigades Union are calling them all out on strike, because of what they clearly consider to be critical and unresolvable differences with the management. After all, if they were resolvable they'd talk first, right?
Well, have a look here
Union position
Sounds moderately damning - new shift patterns could mean a lot of things, but they don't seem to say what's so terrible about these new patterns. But surely there must be some room here for some debate, negotiation? There must be a reason why they want to change the shifts?
A little further down...
Let me unleash my inner cynic. The firemen spend most of this 15 hour shift asleep or playing games - and this is what the unions are afraid of their members losing. But wait, further down still:
The employers are trying to improve the public safety - more community safety and the like. They've been trying to negotiate this for so long that a child could have been born during this process and grown up enough that you could talk to them about the concept of fire safety.
The union is striking on the day when that same child is most likely to die in a fire.
They need to get a grip.
Yep, that's right - the Fire Brigades Union are calling them all out on strike, because of what they clearly consider to be critical and unresolvable differences with the management. After all, if they were resolvable they'd talk first, right?
Well, have a look here
Union position
The union claims firefighters were being threatened with the sack if they do not agree to new shift patterns. FBU general secretary Matt Wrack said: "We do not want to take this action but we have no choice. The alternative is to allow London's firefighters to become doormats for their employers to walk on."
Sounds moderately damning - new shift patterns could mean a lot of things, but they don't seem to say what's so terrible about these new patterns. But surely there must be some room here for some debate, negotiation? There must be a reason why they want to change the shifts?
A little further down...
Ahhhh, now I understand. Your members are paid for a 15 hour nightshift, during which they.....wait for fires?"There are no cuts, no job losses, this is about reducing a 15-hour night shift, adding those hours to the day shift and doing more community safety work and firefighter training."
Let me unleash my inner cynic. The firemen spend most of this 15 hour shift asleep or playing games - and this is what the unions are afraid of their members losing. But wait, further down still:
Talks have been going on for 5 years. After FIVE YEARS of talks, with a half-way compromise (with no details on "range of other benefits" it's hard to say more) available the union involved decides to call a strike on the busiest night of the year."The crucial fact being ignored in all of this is that if we can agree a compromise with the FBU on different start and finish times, the whole process ends immediately. Talks have been ongoing for five years, and a compromise from the original proposal of two 12-hour shifts, to an 11-hour day and 13-hour night, with a range of other benefits, are still firmly on the table."
The employers are trying to improve the public safety - more community safety and the like. They've been trying to negotiate this for so long that a child could have been born during this process and grown up enough that you could talk to them about the concept of fire safety.
The union is striking on the day when that same child is most likely to die in a fire.
They need to get a grip.
Monday, October 25, 2010
What to do when ill...
I want you to imagine - you're ill.
You've been running a temperature for days, quite high at times. Paracetamol, plenty of fluids etc, What would you do....
1) Stay in bed, huddled in blankets and read/sleep/do nothing
2) You're ill and can't go to work - a chance to do all the housework/dusting/sorting of photos/crocheting
3) Nothing. I'm ill, I'm allowed to not do anything. Daytime TV!
4) Chart your temperature, log all your drugs and try and determine how effective paracetamol is as an antipyretic and determine how long it's effective for
What can I say?
Have thermometer, will meter?
You've been running a temperature for days, quite high at times. Paracetamol, plenty of fluids etc, What would you do....
1) Stay in bed, huddled in blankets and read/sleep/do nothing
2) You're ill and can't go to work - a chance to do all the housework/dusting/sorting of photos/crocheting
3) Nothing. I'm ill, I'm allowed to not do anything. Daytime TV!
4) Chart your temperature, log all your drugs and try and determine how effective paracetamol is as an antipyretic and determine how long it's effective for
What can I say?
Have thermometer, will meter?
Friday, September 17, 2010
I'll stop at the second paragraph
Morning all
As my Stars partner has failed to send me a turn, I'm having to resort to blogging this morning wake me up. This is fine, because first I went to a couple of news websites, to see what was happening in the world. And I found this.....
Where scientists fear to tread... why would scientists fear to tread? Oh, that's right. Because of women like her. Because if they find in a nice, blind study something that backs up a common prejudice feminists and "writers" will come down on them like a ton of bricks. Science should NEVER fear to tread somewhere.
Because it's possible for science to be wrong. Scientists are fallible people to. But science has (in most fields) this pesky ability to find these errors and correct them. Some times it takes longer then others - they once believed in the aether - and now we know better, because they went and made a test for it.
If there isn't a way to prove it wrong, it's not science.
So she wants scientists to go away, or at worst, only prove her pet little theories right, because... oh, never mind the because. Look at the next line.
"leaving the merits of scientific evidence aside". Right. So she doesn't care about what the science shows - because she's going to ignore it anyway, because she is right and science is irrelivent.
Oh, and the final line cracks me up. After telling the historians to bugger off and leave history alone she then has the audacity to talk about "historically".
So what she wants is for us to ignore history and science and accept that women are equal (and/or better) , that the reason women aren't equal is because of the prejudices of men and that we should ignore anyone who says anything to the contrary.
The thing is, the world isn't that simple. What we should do is accept this and understand, not ignore and stifle debate. There are differences you can observe in your own home and the world is better because of this.
Well, with a pair of consenting adults...
As my Stars partner has failed to send me a turn, I'm having to resort to blogging this morning wake me up. This is fine, because first I went to a couple of news websites, to see what was happening in the world. And I found this.....
Dr Cordelia Fine's new book, Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society and Neurosexism Create Difference, argues against the idea that male and female brains are programmed by nature to provide contrasting talents and skills. Fine's conclusions provide a timely warning against taking too seriously the deluge of books and articles that would have us believe that men are biologically advantaged when it comes to mathematics, racing driving or map reading – and that women are naturally more intuitive and nurturing, so better at childcare and multitasking (they can look after a child and clean at the same time). No marks for guessing that "masculine" skills tend to be the ones with status in our particular society.
So, let's see. Some feminist is releasing a book and is trying to get free advertising. Her friend in the guardian (if only via the "sisterhood") repeats the core message, saying that we should ignore science that shows differences between men and women. Or at least be very skeptical about it.
Oh, and as a side issue, being good at maths, science and reading doesn't seem to hold any status at school - it makes you more of a target then anything else.
Historians would be unwise to enter? I'm sorry? The point of a historian is to tell us what happened in the past and try to understand it. To reach the cause of events explain, so that we can learn from the past. So why should they be unwise to enter - it's not their fault. Oh, you mean that what they find might be different to what you believe? *mutter* Those who forget the past are condemned to repeating it.
Gender difference is a thorny issue and historians would be unwise to enter where even some scientists fear to tread. But leaving the merits of scientific evidence aside, history shows that whenever women start to demand equal access to what have traditionally been men's roles, theories about their "natural" unsuitability tend to emerge.
Where scientists fear to tread... why would scientists fear to tread? Oh, that's right. Because of women like her. Because if they find in a nice, blind study something that backs up a common prejudice feminists and "writers" will come down on them like a ton of bricks. Science should NEVER fear to tread somewhere.
Because it's possible for science to be wrong. Scientists are fallible people to. But science has (in most fields) this pesky ability to find these errors and correct them. Some times it takes longer then others - they once believed in the aether - and now we know better, because they went and made a test for it.
If there isn't a way to prove it wrong, it's not science.
So she wants scientists to go away, or at worst, only prove her pet little theories right, because... oh, never mind the because. Look at the next line.
"leaving the merits of scientific evidence aside". Right. So she doesn't care about what the science shows - because she's going to ignore it anyway, because she is right and science is irrelivent.
Oh, and the final line cracks me up. After telling the historians to bugger off and leave history alone she then has the audacity to talk about "historically".
So what she wants is for us to ignore history and science and accept that women are equal (and/or better) , that the reason women aren't equal is because of the prejudices of men and that we should ignore anyone who says anything to the contrary.
The thing is, the world isn't that simple. What we should do is accept this and understand, not ignore and stifle debate. There are differences you can observe in your own home and the world is better because of this.
Well, with a pair of consenting adults...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
