Teaching Gruber

John Gruber runs one of the most visited blogs on the entire internet. Most of your humble Devil's readers will never have heard of him, because he writes about technology in general and (largely) Apple in particular.

Today, John is outraged by a particularly stupid Grauniad article (and who isn't, eh?): the article is a comment on Apple by well-known fantasist, Mike Daisey.

But the serious problem is that The Guardian ran this piece (in the Tech section, not Opinion, no less) without any sort of note alluding to the fact that Mike Daisey is a known fabulist who completely made up stories about labor abuses in Apple’s Chinese supply chain.

Mike Daisey doesn’t have zero credibility regarding Apple — he has negative credibility. He’s a liar.

Shame on The Guardian.

Mr Gruber is an American, and so we cannot be surprised at his... well... surprise. Yes, yes—we Brits know that the Grauniad is a joke, whose articles are written by the kind of people on whom you would not piss were they ablaze.

But, as I said, Mr Gruber is an American. So, quite apart from comedically mis-spelling Grauniad, I would like to give John an insight into the British view of that newspaper. And that has been rendered remarkably easy by The Daily Mash, via their excellent line of searingly insightful merchandise.

Perhaps we can all club together to send one of these over the pond to John?

Otherwise, I have a spare somewhere...

Welcome to the stupid

The fact that arts students possess almost no conception of science is a regular joke amongst those of us who have actually studied hard sciences, and so one doesn't have high hopes for any magazine the tagline of which is "Arts. Culture. Spirit".

Even so, this piece of ignorance—spotted by new environmental blog Haunting The Library—is quite brilliant.

The entire planet is affected by global warming, and polar bears in Antarctica aren’t the only ones facing changes.

Indeed. Because polar bears don't actually live in the Antarctic—they are exclusive to the Arctic. If polar bears are moving to the Antarctic, then that would certainly entail a great deal of change.

But they aren't. So, Chronogram magazine wins the Pig-Ignorant Loser Of The Day award.

Well done!

Of course, one shouldn't be too hard on the poor dears—after all, one of the main reasons that the whole Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) fraud has so captured the imagination is that those who report on it in the media have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.

As both your humble Devil and the eminent Bishop Hill have reported a number of times, the BBC, for one, seems to be extremely short of reporters who are actually trained in science.

Education: an institutional failure

Your humble Devil tends to get more angry about the piss-poor state of our education system than anything else. Why?

Quite simply because if you give someone a good education then they have—regardless of social background—the tools to better their life. You cannot get a good job if you are unable to read or write, or even speak, at least your own language properly.

If people choose not to take advantage of this potential... well... we shouldn't have to support their laziness. But if they have never been given the most basic equipment, then it becomes far more difficult to blame them when they cannot make a life beyond the dole.

In our modern world, education makes a life: it's that simple.

And no matter what the tractor statistics say, our education system is failing appallingly. One only has to read To Miss With Love on a regular basis to get the personal stories of how and why this is happening; to gain a wider perspective, articles like this are depressingly common.

The analysis of final year work produced at Imperial College London found that UK students made almost three times as many errors in English compared to their foreign counterparts from China, Singapore and Indonesia.

Bernard Lamb, Emeritus reader in genetics at Imperial and president of the Queen's English Society, found that his 18 home grown students had an average of 52.2 errors in two pieces of assessed course work and the final degree exam, while the 10 overseas students averaged only 18.8 errors.

The UK students, attending one of the best universities in the world, all had excellent A-level results, or equivalents, yet all their written work had to be corrected for English.

"Overseas students were much better in avoiding word confusions and errors with apostrophes, other punctuation, grammar and spelling," he said. "We need to raise the very poor standards of UK students by introducing more demanding syllabuses and exams, more explicit teaching and examining of English and by consistent and constructive correction of errors by teachers of all subjects," he said.

As Tom Paine points out, this is because of a systematic failure in our education policy.

As someone trying to learn Chinese, I know the height of the language barrier those Chinese students have crossed. If they can write better English than a native speaker with "good" A levels then, trust me, something is rotten in the state of British education. I do not hesitate to name that rottenness for you. British educationalists are more concerned about agitprop than truth. They are interested, not in opening minds, but in closing them.

As someone who had an excellent education, your humble Devil is often excoriated as being out of touch with the concerns of ordinary people. This is not the case: as an Etonian, I know what good education looks like.

Further, unlike those who continually and tediously advocate the return to legitimacy of grammar schools, I am more interested in policies that will deliver a good education to everyone—not just a select few.

Having compared the outcomes from our education system with others, I firmly believe that the Swedish-style voucher model is the way to go.

This model was profiled by the Economist some time ago; unfortunately that article has disappeared behind a pay-wall, but the introduction there can be combined with a quote from the article that I put in one of my older posts.

Introduction:
FEW ideas in education are more controversial than vouchers—letting parents choose to educate their children wherever they wish at the taxpayer's expense. First suggested by Milton Friedman, an economist, in 1955, the principle is compellingly simple. The state pays; parents choose; schools compete; standards rise; everybody gains.

Simple, perhaps, but it has aroused predictable—and often fatal—opposition from the educational establishment. Letting parents choose where to educate their children is a silly idea; professionals know best. Co-operation, not competition, is the way to improve education for all. Vouchers would increase inequality because children who are hardest to teach would be left behind.

Quote from older post.
The strongest evidence against this criticism comes from Sweden, where parents are freer than those in almost any other country to spend as they wish the money the government allocates to educating their children. Sweeping education reforms in 1992 not only relaxed enrolment rules in the state sector, allowing students to attend schools outside their own municipality, but also let them take their state funding to private schools, including religious ones and those operating for profit. The only real restrictions imposed on private schools were that they must run their admissions on a first-come-first-served basis and promise not to charge top-up fees (most American voucher schemes impose similar conditions).

The result has been burgeoning variety and a breakneck expansion of the private sector. At the time of the reforms only around 1% of Swedish students were educated privately; now 10% are, and growth in private schooling continues unabated.

Anders Hultin of Kunskapsskolan, a chain of 26 Swedish schools founded by a venture capitalist in 1999 and now running at a profit, says its schools only rarely have to invoke the first-come-first-served rule—the chain has responded to demand by expanding so fast that parents keen to send their children to its schools usually get a place. So the private sector, by increasing the total number of places available, can ease the mad scramble for the best schools in the state sector (bureaucrats, by contrast, dislike paying for extra places in popular schools if there are vacancies in bad ones).

More evidence that choice can raise standards for all comes from Caroline Hoxby, an economist at Harvard University, who has shown that when American public schools must compete for their students with schools that accept vouchers, their performance improves. Swedish researchers say the same. It seems that those who work in state schools are just like everybody else: they do better when confronted by a bit of competition.

Schools must be entirely freed from government control—no national pay deal for teachers, no national curriculum, abolition of catchment areas, and no pen-pushing Local Education Authorities stealing a third of the money.

Almost unbelievably, Cameron and his merry men seem to be stutteringly edging towards such a policy. In the Telegraph, Dave writes that he will address our educational failure.

Take school reform. In today's top-down system, all too often parents have to take whatever school they're given. We're going to put meaningful choice in their hands by smashing open the state education monopoly so that any qualified organisation can set up a new state school. This will help raise standards across the board.

What some of these changes might entail were viewed by your humble Devil on Channel 4 News last night. Although Michael Gove might be one of the creepiest-looking men on the planet, he might actually be pushing the Conservatives down a positive route.

The Conservatives are threatening a cull of teachers in poorly-performing schools if they are elected to government.

They plan to get rid of what they call bad teachers and put the poorest performing schools in England into the hands of independent organisations. Based on what has happened with academies taking over failing schools, senior Tories expect a quarter to a third of staff in these schools would be removed as part of their plans to improve standards.

It is part of what Conservative strategists plan as an assault on teaching standards in the classroom which would also see the end of national pay awards and a massive switch from traditional teacher training.

Good. National Pay Awards are one of the stupidest things ever devised—a £2000 pay rise quite obviously buys you more in the depths of Yorkshire than it does in Surrey.

Shadow Schools Secretary Michael Gove believes that academy schools like the Harris Academy in Norwood, south London show the way.

Since the new team took over the old failing school half the staff have gone. The academy thinks that was central to turning around results.
...

A basic minimum for teachers' pay, currently just over £20,000 a year, would be set but individual headteachers would be free to spread around their own budgets in salary and bonuses.

This is entirely sensible—it gives schools the facility to control their own spending, to set their priorities. Oh, and it'll piss the unions right off—something that was imediately obvious when some bitch from the NUT popped up on the programme, making the usual veiled and not-so-veiled threats.

However, some argue that such a plan would not be effective.

Fuck the teaching unions: as I have consistently argued—most recently in the case of the Royal Mail—the public services are not supposed to be run for the benefit of those who work in them.

On top of all that, Mr Gove wants to parachute thousands of new teaching recruits straight into schools, bypassing the established courses and traditional teacher training and replacing what he believes is a seam of underperforming staff.

This is another good thing: if you want good people to go into teaching, then you need to lower the barriers to entry. Making people do pointless shit like the PGCE simply discourage them from entering the teaching profession in the first place.

All of these things are good measures, but they are meaningless without the crucial element of customer choice.

If a school wants to pay bonuses to good teachers, where is the money going to come from?

If a business provides a good product, then it grows because more people will buy that product: there is a reward.

Under a voucher system, good schools would gain more pupils and, thus, more funding through the vouchers. If there is no reward for the school through increased funding, then how will that school reward teachers? Or gain more money for investment?

It can only be through artificial assessments by bueaucrats, and that brings us back to the central, box-ticking problem.

The Tories are stumbling in the right direction, but they are still missing the central point of setting school free: that these schools do, indeed, compete for customers. If they cannot, there will be no incentive for improvement, and no way to measure it that does not include tractor statistic-style bureaucracy.

As such, I find myself moved to repeat what I wrote the last time that Cameron announced something of this sort.

Yes, Dave, you are quite correct in all of that but as usual you are totally unable to understand what makes these systems work. For fuck's sake, get the state out of schooling!

Abolish the hugely wasteful LEAs, pen-pushing institutions which gobble up huge amounts of money—money that should be going to the schools—and produce precisely fuck-all of any use (apart from keeping large numbers of extraordinarily lazy people in work).

Issue school vouchers to children so that they and their parents can make the choice of school for themselves. If a school is failing to educate the child properly, then the child can move to a better one. This sustains competition between schools which, as we have seen, raises the quality of almost all establishments.

Privatise all schools and colleges, and allow any two teachers to start one. Do not interfere in teaching methods and do not interfere in disciplinary procedures. Just measure the results at the end: ensure that schools publish their results and allow the parents to choose where to send their children.

Half of the problem with our "broken society" is that people do not feel that they have enough choice. And remove choice and consequence from people and you infantilise them: this is the legacy of 60 years of the Welfare State. If you start to give people a choice in their future and the future of their children—which is pretty much what education is: their future—then you will be a good way along the road to fixing the problems that we have.

In the name of fuck, Dave, you have a working system in front of you. You have cited the Swedish model and yet you seem determined to subvert the system because you do not seem to understand why it works.

OK, that's fine: you are too stupid to understand. In that case, don't try to understand it: just accept that it does work and implement the fucking system!

And, in the name of all that's unholy, get the state out of education.

Right now, we have an education system in which 50.4%—yes, that's over fifty fucking percent—of adults have low literacy levels.

Get the state out of the education system and give people their future back.

And if the NUT get in the fucking way, hang the cunts. I'm fucking sick of these bastards destroying the future of thousands—nay, millions—of people.

Here's an idea, in fact: let us calculate the difference in life-time earnings between a literate and non-literate person, multiply that by 30 million and then bill the fucking teaching unions.

That ought to shut them up, the evil fucks that they are.

Lack of education

I'm afraid that your humble Devil simply counldn't be arsed to comment on the exam results again this year. Besides, in the face of yet more record results, Juliette has rather neatly summed up the explanatory options.

Now, I'm no expert on this particular subject. But I find that, at times like this, it helps to look at all the possible explanations—and ask yourself which one is the most likely.

Is it most likely that Britain's young people are naturally evolving into a super-intelligent master race, with at least twice the average IQ of their typical counterparts twenty years ago?

Is it most likely that their inherent mental abilities haven't changed, but the educational system is so vastly superior to how it was back in the day—with its brilliantly high standards, passion for excellence, and highly skilled, motivated teachers—that pupils still score far higher marks in equally hard exams?

Or is it most likely that the government is blatantly juking the stats in a pathetic and cynical attempt to make our shitty education system look effective?

Personally, I just don't know. Why don't we ask professional hag Melissa Benn? According to her, grammar schools are still ruining the chances of those poor, wee comprehensive children. Luckily, she has a solution.

A document published this week, Ending Rejection at Eleven Plus [PDF], shows just how easily grammar schools could be phased out...

The paper is published by a "think"-tank called Comprehensive Future which, campaigns for "fair admissions". It is a little bit unfortunate that darling Melissa didn't have space in her article to mention that she is a member of Comprehensive Future's Steering Committee. Never mind.

Melissa's little organisation spends its time, of course, lobbying the media and politicians because, outrageously, parents keep voting for more selection—and we can't have that now, can we?

Mind you, Melissa ends her article on a paragraph which, probably unintentionally, rather sums up the whole education system. [Emphasis mine.]

The record-breaking GCSE results this year, many of them achieved at schools serving some of the most deprived areas of the country, show just what can be done within a comprehensive framework, with high expectations of all children not just a privileged few. Many of this year's high achievers would have likely failed the 11-plus.

I'm not sure that's what you meant to write, Melissa, but you are oh-so-right: many of this year's high achievers would, indeed, have failed the 11-plus.

Not that doing so would necessarily hold them back, eh, Polly...?

Children are a lifestyle choice

Your humble Devil has to say that I agree with this extract—and this extract only—of this Daily Mail comment piece.

As a woman with no children, I am constantly outraged, too, at the way the Government heaps incentives upon prospective parents.

Money for fruit and veg, child support, baby's trust fund, help with childcare, flexible bloody working, tax breaks. Never mind the ludicrous idea of putting IVF on the NHS, as if having a baby were a God-given right and not a blessing.

I believe that women should pay for the services of a midwife and health visitor. I don't have a child in education, so how about the Government gives me some money towards cat food?

As Trixy points out, children are a lifestyle choice: why the hell should everyone else have to pay for them?

I fail to see why I should have my money taken from me and given to other people for their lifestyle choice.

I go to the gym a lot. That's quite good for me so how about I get a gym allowance?

Inevitably, of course, people will pop up in comments to whinge on about how "we need lots of children to maintain our economy"; "and who," they will say, "will wipe your arse when you are in the nursing home?"

First, including those on disability benefit, we have well over 5 million unemployed people in this country—no doubt they would welcome the chance to have a job wiping my arse. I did such a job for a year and, although it was hard, it was perfectly tolerable—fun, even—and infinitely preferable to sitting around on benefits.

Which brings up another issue: unemployment is much higher amongst young people—with all of these arse-wiping jobs going begging, the benefits bill would be quite substantially reduced. It would be even more reduced if there were no—or somewhat less of a—marginal deduction rate for getting off benefits and working.

Third, we do not need an ever-expanding population to pay for those not working. Assuming a near-consistent growth in GDP, what we would most likely end up with is fewer people with a higher per capita income—a good thing, surely?

Whatever the merits of any of the above, the current system—whereby we subsidise the poorest, most feckless in society (for it is they to whom the marginal benefit rates really make a difference—not to mention the priority on the council housing list) to have yet more children who will, often, emulate their parents' lifestyle—is absolutely fucking insane.

The only thing that I would say that is that I don't mind subsidising a good education—if children are well-educated, then they do, at least, have some hope of breaking out of the cycle of crap into which they are often born.

That does require a bit of will-power, of course, as Shane Greer illustrates.

Much though people on the Left like Milburn would like to give the world (and by world I mean poor people) a great big hug, tell them everything will be ok, and promise they’ll fix it for them, the truth is everything won’t be ok and they can’t fix it. Life’s tough, and it isn’t fair.

Was I at a disadvantage when I decided (originally) that I wanted to become a barrister and I came from a family with one parent working (on low pay) and one unemployed? Absolutely. My family didn’t know anyone in the professions. But because of how they raised me I understood that I had to fight for what I wanted, I had to make my own connections. And I did; phoning up the bar library in Belfast until I managed to collar a barrister who would speak to me for a few minutes and let me follow them around for a few days (thank you Niall Hunt).

Was I at a disadvantage when I decided I wanted to work in politics, had no connections and parents who couldn’t afford to support me while I did an internship for free? Absolutely. But because of how they raised I knew I had to make my own opportunities, so I made a phone call to someone in politics I didn’t know at all (Donal Blaney), scraped together the money to go down to London to visit him and built a relationship I didn’t have before. With his support I applied for and got an internship in the States that provided free accommodation and paid for my flights. That internship ultimately lead me to where I am now.

My experiences shaped who I am, and I wouldn’t change them for the world. Overcoming adversity is character building, opportunities that don’t get handed to you on a plate are more rewarding and more valuable, and I’m doing what I’m doing now because of, not despite of, a system of internships that isn’t fair.

Rather than teach people to rely on the State for answers, Milburn and co would achieve a great deal more if they taught them to rely on ourselves.

And that is the very worst thing about the Welfare State: it was set up with the best of intentions but it has, alas, led people to rely on the state rather than themselves.

Ultimately, of course, the state has no money but what it steals from the productive people in this country, and the more it steals the less productive they become. And, unfortunately, politicians have long ago worked out that the best way to get elected is to bribe people with other people's money—and sometimes their own.

The only thing that is going to lead to a collapse in our economy is if we carry on subsidising people in the way that we do currently—it isn't sustainable, and it cannot continue.

Quote of the day...

... from his Ecclesiastical Eminence, on the subject of schools.

The education system is run by people who think that what parents want for their children is secondary to what the state wants - which is to say what the educational bureaucracy wants. Children, they believe should be taught to think like bureaucrats, which is to say rarely, uncreatively and only in a progessive, left wing manner.

His solution, of course, is to privatise all schools and remove the government from the education curriculum. Because otherwise you end up with utter shit like these "science" papers, posted by the Libertarian Alliance blog: Biology, Chemistry and Physics.

As long time readers will know, your humble Devil did quite a bit of science—Biology, Chemistry and Physics at GCSE, Biology and Chemistry at A Level and two years of a Microbiology degree—and I can tell you that the questions posed in these papers are derisory. Most of them actually require no hard science knowledge at all (the Biology paper is particularly derisory).

Seriously, I had to answer harder questions than these at the age of 12 (in the Eton Scholarship exam) and these are supposed to be GCSE papers. Anyone who thinks that education has not been dumbed down or that exams have not got easier is quite simply wrong, and will receive only 54% (A*) for writing their name correctly.

Fucking hellski...

I love this consensus we've got going...

We are, of course, constantly being told that the anthropogenic climate science is absolutely settled and that anyone who doubts it is a liar or a madman—in short, a "denier".

And yet, people who know what the fuck they are talking about keep on coming out of the woodwork and gainsaying all of this. Today, via Watt's Up With That, it is James Hansen's former supervisor at NASA who has stated that he does not believe in this load of old crap: EU Referendum provides a comprehensive precis... [Emphasis mine.]

First published by the Senate EPW blog prop. Jame Inhofe, this has it that James Hansen's former NASA supervisor has declared himself a sceptic. Hansen, he says, has "embarrassed NASA" and "was never muzzled", although he should have been.

Our current hero is retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr John S Theon. As Hansen's former supervisor, he joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made," Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on 15 January 2009. "I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results."

"Hansen," he says, "was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it)." He thus embarrassed NASA "by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress."

Theon is also declaring "climate models are useless." His own belief concerning AGW is that "the models do not realistically simulate the climate system." There are many very important "sub-grid scale processes" that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit.

"Furthermore," he says, "some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it." Theon also charges that these scientists "have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists."

This, he adds, "is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy."

Seriously, the only irrational people on this planet are those who do not seriously doubt the... ah... science behind anthropogenic climate change.

As I have said many times, I and the other eeeeeeevil deniers are going to be proved to be absolutely correct, and those who have whole-heartedly embraced this hokum are not only going to look very stupid but also—having diverted billions from the economies of all nations and restricted growth and technological enhancement in the poorest countries—they are going to have the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings on their consciences.

And when all of this is eventually blown wide open, it will take many years before any scientists are ever taken seriously again. And, given the way that the scientific community has behaved over this issue, that is the very least that they deserve.

What a bunch of cunts...

Why drink is seen as "the demon drink"...

It's all so obvious, really, once you read Nightjack's lexicon of how to ensure that you walk away scot-free from any police station or criminal action.

Remember to fake a drink problem if you haven’t developed one as a result of dealing with us already. Magistrates and Judges do seem to like the idea that you are basically good but the naughty alcohol made you do it. They treat you better. Crazy I know but true.

Then having accepted this, and duly logged said drink problem in the crime book, the CPS pass the evidence onto the state so that the government can conclude that everyone is fundamentally decent and would do nowt wrong were it not for the evils of booze.

And so whatever bunch of fucking shysters are in government at the time can conclude that the only way to cut crime is to ensure that nobody—apart from the massively-subsidised shysters themselves—can afford to buy drink.

Fucking hellski.

Passive smoking and the salt mines

[This is a guest-posting by DaveA.]

It has always been a puzzle to me as to why Hitler wasted millions of Reich marks on Cyclon B cyanide at Auschwitz-Birkenau, when all Adolf had to do to exterminate the Jews, Slavs and gypsies was to send them to the nearest smoke filled bar.

Not many people know it, but Hitler was the first person in modern times to ban smoking in public places and he also walks away with the caravan for first coining the phrase Passivrauchen—passive smoking.

The Ministry of Science and Education, and the Reich Health Office, produced posters depicting smoking as a habit of Jews, jazz musicians, Gypsies, Indians, homosexuals, blacks, communists, capitalists, cripples, intellectuals and harlots. Health professionals were sent to schools, terrifying children with tales of droopy penises and racial impurity.

While the ball was rolling in the Third Reich, Stalin was purging 20 million plus kulaks, and from 1928 scientists that did not fit in the Soviet ideology were either removed from their pots or dispatched to the salt mines. It would seem history is repeating itself.

Passive smoking is at worst a minor health worry—like walking down the high street breathing in traffic fumes—or is entirely harmless. The cat was out the bag in 2003 when the peer reviewed Enstrom/Kabat report was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and longest study ever commissioned, lasting 38 years from 1960 to 1998, involved 114,000 Californians of whom 35,000 had partners who were smokers. The conclusions were: “The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.” And “Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, primarily asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, has been associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, but the evidence for increased mortality is sparse.” Just in case it is crossing your mind the 38 years research was funded 95% by American Cancer Society (ACS) and 5% by tobacco companies.

The main protagonists are Herr Glantz and Comrade Thun—both are on the payroll for the ACS. Please note Enstrom based his research on Cancer Prevention Studies 1 and 2 (CPS1, CPS2), data supplied by the ACS. To begin with Glantz and Thun descended into ad hominem attacks on Enstrom/Kabat and questioning the accuracy of their data, supplied by them to refresh your memory!

Alison Tonks Associate Editor of the BMJ wrote in response to Glantz and Thun...

I feel quite embarrassed following the debate on this article. Many postings look more like a witch hunt than a scientific debate.

... and Richard Smith, the Editor of the BMJ, commented...

Fourthly, I found it disturbing that so many people and organisations referred to the flaws in the study without specifying what they were. Indeed, this debate was much more remarkable for its passion than its precision.

Also around that time Dennis Bray—who works for the Institute for Coastal Research, GKSS Geesthact, Germany—said...

“The paper examines silencing through a systematic examination of the "rapid responses" to a smoking study published in the British Medical Journal claiming that second hand smoke is not as dangerous as conventionally believed. Media coverage of the smoking study is also examined, as is the question of whether there is self-silencing by the media regarding doubts about the negative effects of passive smoke. The results suggest that the public consensus about the negative effects of passive smoke is so strong that it has become part of a regime of truth that cannot be intelligibly questioned.”

Now it gets dirty. Herr Glantz and Comrade Thun since 2005 have gone out of their way to have Professor Enstrom removed from his post at University Of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) by accusing him of scientific misconduct.

Also just in case Enstrom and Kabat come up with the “wrong results” again he has been denied any further access to CPS2 and ACS’ data [PDF].

This Soviet style (with a hint of McCarthyism) is now spread across the board where any dissent is treated with personal attacks, trashing of their work and telling all sorts of porkie pies that undermine legitimate science [PDF].

Professor Carl V Phillips, a Canadian Epidemiologist, also has had a knock at the door in the early hours of the morning and no doubt will be doing his bit for Saxo’s share price.

“The two we published, by James E. Enstrom and Michael Siegel, both deal with the issue of environmental tobacco smoke. This commentary adds a third story of attacks on legitimate science by anti-tobacco activists, the author's own experience. These stories suggest a willingness of influential anti-tobacco activists, including academics, to hurt legitimate scientists and turn epidemiology into junk science in order to further their agendas. The willingness of epidemiologists to embrace such anti-scientific influences bodes ill for the field's reputation as a legitimate science.”

And...

“Enstrom cites the reign of terror over biology under Stalin as one example of politics trumping science. Though the Soviet case is rather extreme (we North Americans who dare question the scientific orthodoxy only have our careers threatened; not our lives, at least so far), it is not the most extreme. Many cultures were hobbled for centuries because of religious adherence to pseudoscience, and damage to people's health was one of the many results.”

(Space has prevented me from presenting a whole catalogue of 1984 tactics and suppressions of the truth. If you want more I can easily supply.)

In America, the general population have been brainwashed by the Surgeon General (scripts from Herr Glantz) to the level that very few people in America believe passive smoking is harmless and the new soundbite there is that there is “no safe level of passive smoke.”

Disturbingly most Americans have emerged from Room101 also believing that passive smoking is equally dangerous as active smoking. Epidemiology in the US is now demoted to the level of junk science and a nation has been lied to by big government, supposedly a democracy.

Jesus wept.

I Am Livid: The Podcast

I have been reading I Am Livid for some years now, and find it most amusing—and often actively hilarious. However, in recent times, Mr Angry seems to have been pouring his energies—having combined them with those of Cliff Jones of This Is This—into a podcast.

My Angry's first podcasts were (sort of) solo and rather more than intermittent, although I have listened to them all. But now Mr Angry and Cliff have got their shit together and are churning out a new podcast every week, I thought that I would commend it to you all: you can subscribe through iTunes, or subscribe to the feed.

It's basically two people wittering on about life, current affairs and their own lives, but it's a fuck sight funnier and more entertaining that Chris cocking Moyles, at any rate...

Welcome to Britain!

We do hope that you enjoy your stay.

Just been born? Well done, and welcome to the UK, the land of logic.

We strive to make it as unpleasant as possible, with as much intrusion into your personal life as... well, as we see fit really. I'll just flag up some highlights, but you really should go over to The Nation Of Shopkeepers for the full manual: the reading of this document is entirely voluntary, by the way, unless you decide not to read it—in which case it is compulsory.

And remember! I feel it only fair to remind you that ignorance of any law—including the 3,000+ that we have introduced over the last decade—is not an excuse. Although, of course, we are a tolerant people: those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

Your body will belong to the state, perhaps even in death. The state will use huge resources and violence to ensure that you comply with this dictat. Your thoughts and speech will be policed, and you may well be screened for crimes they think you may commit in future ~ perhaps ones you have not even thought of yet. Don’t worry, they only have your best interests at heart.
...

We’re a tolerant bunch, and what you do in your own bedroom is none of our business, unless you and your partner like to take photographs of it, in which case we may decide you are now a sex offender and put you in a prison with people who rape children.

We will take a good proportion of the fruits of your labour to provide you with sub standard heath care, education, retirement provision and housing. We will also take a poll tax to enable us to provide you with the highest quality propaganda—it’s what we do.
...

In order to keep you on your toes, and to provide some excitement in your life, we will bring in thousands of new laws every year. Don’t worry, though, these are special laws just for you—we will often ignore them. We promise to undertake to build an ever growing band of armed police, fluorescent jacket wearing jobs worths and government spies to assist you stay on the right side of the law. Don’t worry too much about voting—all the major brands are all but identical, and anyway, we have a special club in another country where we make up most of these laws.

However, if you do decide to exercise your right to vote, do please ensure that you vote for one of Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat. This will ensure that there is no disturbance in the Civil Service, so that we can just carry on exactly as before—as a result, you can continue to enjoy the glorious status quo.

Do make sure that you don't vote for any of the smaller parties; we only allow them to exist to maintain the illusion that you have some kind of choice. We do like to spread the word that any vote for such a party is a "wasted vote"—as opposed to a "productive vote" (which is where you vote for a party that you don't believe in simply because they might get elected)—and you wouldn't want to throw away such a valuable tool for change, would you now?

Especially, please do ensure that you don't vote for any kind of Libertarian Party—they really would mess up our cosy oligarchy. But it isn't ourselves and our highly profitable sinecures that we ar considering: we are only thinking of your comfort.


After all, if those dangerous libertarians ever got into power, you might actually have to think for yourself and you really don't want to get involved in that kind of thing, do you?

A paradox: having too much and nothing at all

Ever since Question That flagged up her blog at The Kitchen, I have been reading To Miss With Love; it is the diary and musings of a very-determined and, I suspect, very talented black teacher in an inner-city school.

Today's post is an odd one which draws on the strange dichotomy inherent between the different classes of children—those who are well-off and those who are poor. Miss Snuffleupagus is wandering around a village fete, comparing the home-made cakes and simple games (and even simpler prizes) with the massive and massively expensive entertainments put on in the city; she compares the different price put upon different possessions by the children here and in the city.

I grab three bean bags, made out of stockings and beans and throw them at the homemade posts with coconuts on top. I hit one. It falls to the ground. I leap about happily, because I've won. And what have I won? I've won the coconut. I wonder what my kids would say to that. How boring they would find this place, and how irritated would they be to win a coconut. Their expectations are so different from the children here. One boy, about 10-years-old, excitedly explains to me that he won 2 lollipops from the 'lollipop dip'. My kids would have laughed in his face.

How bizarre it is that these children, who in monetary terms, for the most part, have far more than my children will ever have, yet, in tangible terms, have far less. I'm guessing that in their homes, converted from old barns, they don't have wide-screen televisions in every room. I'm guessing that they don't have the latest PSP games either. If they had, they would not be so keen to throw a coconut and delight in taking home their prize.

What privilege it is to have so little. What advantage these children have, to have been schooled in such a way so that they want to win a lollipop. They'll never meet my kids, not while they are young at least. They might meet my kids when they are older, when they've moved to London to take up their first job as bankers in the city, and they pop into McDonalds and my kid serves them the hamburger. Yes, I suppose one day, they will finally meet. And even then, I'm not sure that either child will know just how crucial the ability to appreciate that coconut was to their futures.

It is an interesting thing, is it not? As I have pointed out before, whilst I had an excellent schooling and good food, my parents strictly rationed my TV time—and, indeed, we had a little 12" black and white TV until I was about 14 or so, when my father got a bonus and went and bought our first colour TV and a video recorder. We never had a computer at all—no, not even a games console of any sort. Instead of designer trainers and the latest football top, I had clothes handed down from my father and my cousin; instead of MacDonalds' (or at least chips) every day, we had—very occasionally and as a special treat—fish and chips from the local shop, two or three times a year. We didn't get computer games and expensive electronics for birthdays or Christmas; our presents from relatives were usually capped at £10, apart from my parents who would spend anything up to about £25.

What we did have were things that encouraged us to think and invent and imagine: Lego was very popular and, of course, we were encouraged to read at every opportunity. My parents had collected an enormous number of books over the years (they were both English Literature students when they met at university) and had quite different tastes, so we were able—nay, encouraged—to read as many as we could.

I guess that the main difference is that we may not have had PSPs and games and TVs and such, but we were never starved of intellectual stimulus: we were never discouraged from thinking, imagining and creating our own worlds and stories and creatures. Our richness came from the encouragement of our intellectual development and not from a surfeit of expensive, designer goods.

And this is just another reason why I despise those currently running our schools, those who would merely have children tick the boxes and pass the exams; intellectual stimulus can be made from the cheapest, most mundane things (as Blue Peter always attempted to show); stimulating imaginations is, ultimately, cheap.

And whilst I am ready to acknowledge that many parents prefer to give their children goods in place of said stimulation, this is where our schools should take up the slack. But they are failing to do so: how are children meant to grow, and learn, and imagine when all that is considered important in education is how many increasingly worthless A*s you can get in a formulaic exam?

Allow children to imagine, and you open up the world to them; open up the world and they can imagine something bigger still—they can create universes of their own. Limit them, shut them down, and all that they have is a small box—trapped in it, they can rail at the world but ultimately never escape.

And that is why this load of fucking horseshit from Polly Toynbee, seen via Iain Dale, is not simply demagogic and unpleasant, but actively evil. [Emphasis mine.]

At one point during the lively discussion about how history should be taught, Douglas Murray said that one of the benefits of learning about great people in history is that it encourages children to think “that could be me” - a sense that individuals matter. Given how much of a Labour lover Toynbee is one would have thought that she might have agreed with this, given that it seems to fit with Brown’s “aspiration agenda.” However, she attacked Murray’s argument and said that to tell children that they could achieve greatness was to fill their heads with fairy tale nonsense. Apparently we live in a society where only the very rich achieve greatness. She went on to say that America’s notion that ‘anyone can make it if they work hard’ is simply a way of “keeping people in their place.” I couldn’t quite believe what I was hearing, and during the Q&;A session I asked her to clarify her remarks and suggested that there was no better way of “keeping children in their place” than by telling them not to bother aspiring to greatness. I’m pleased to say that my questioning was met with general approval by the audience, but Polly just reiterated her notion that we live in a society where only the rich can make it etc. I then put it to her that not all great figures from history were born wealthy (or indeed achieved wealth), at which point she reverted to some safe ground - America bashing.

As a (relatively young) Conservative it is one of my core beliefs that individuals should aspire to better themselves, and society, through ambition and hard work. A world run by Toynbee would be a world where children are encouraged not to try, as “they’ll never make it in to the history book. That’s just where rich people end up.” Frightening stuff.

Toynbee is not on the side of the poor: never make that mistake. Polly Toynbee is one of those evil little cunts who would keep the poor in poverty, so that they may be rescued by the likes of Toynbee, that she may take her place in history.

Polly Toynbee—along with the rest of her ilk: the disgusting Champagne Socialists and "social reformers"—have destroyed ambition over the successive generations. They see the world as disgusting and full of evil; they deplore the acquisition of wealth but they not only crave it themselves, but are usually already wealthy.

The strange thing is that, whilst she deplores wealth, Polly seems to be obsessed with it; to her, having money is the only thing that matters. For Polly Toynbee, selfish old harridan that she is, nothing is more important than cash.

I still say that imagination is more valuable; I still say that being able to live your life in the way you wish, through making your own choices, is far more satisfying; I still say that money is not the be-all and end-all of life. It is why mothers stay home with their children, though they know that they harm their careers: because money is not the ultimate goal—happiness is.

If one views the Scriptures as moral philosophy rather than simply the ravings of nutters who believe in an imaginary friend, it is easy to see that they are right about some things: after all, the love of money is still the root of all evil. But that is too glib: it is the valuation of money, in and of itself, as the only thing that matters that leads to evil.

People with money may well have more possessions (or, as we have seen, they may not). Ultimately, it is the power to dream that sets us apart, and we should never stifle that in anyone, especially the poor: for anyone can dream, no matter their station or the size of their bank account, and to try to shut that down, as Toynbee would, is to remove all hope and, ultimately, all joy from life.

It is Toynbee and those like her who keep the poor in their place—and it is an evil thing to do. But how could it be otherwise: for Toynbee loves only money and, as we have just reminded ourselves, the love of money is the root of all evil.

What a fucking hideous, embittered little cunt she is. Perhaps she should meet with Miss Snuffleupagus, who finishes her post (so much more insightful than any of Polly's empty, tired drivel) thusly...

Back home, as I position my coconut prize in the middle of my front room's mantlepiece, giving it pride of place, I think about how unfair it is that my children have so much, and as a result, have so little. And I decide I must always keep this coconut, so that I can remember that in life, the simplest things, have the greatest rewards.

Indeed. I can't imagine Polly doing the same: can you? I imagine that the only thing that Polly has that resembles a coconut in anyway is her raddled, badly trimmed, old minge. Although it is probable that her heart is just as hard...

Crap education

And here's yet more evidence of the efficacy of our glorious education system.

Many undergraduates misspell basic words such as "their", "speech" or even "Wednesday" in essays, it is claimed.

First year students are the worst offenders, despite already spending at least 13 years in the education system.
...

Dr Ken Smith, a senior lecturer in criminology at Bucks New University, said "atrocious" spelling was rife among new undergraduates, with many failing to apply basic rules, such as "i before e, except after c". The words "weird", "seize", "leisure" and "neighbour" are regularly misspelt by students, he said.

The comments come amid growing fears that many sixth-formers are leaving school lacking basic skills.

This is pretty fucking shoddy, right? Still, no doubt Dr Ken Smith will be attacked by John Bangs of the NUT who, if you remember, said...

Michael Gove really has to be careful not to denigrate the high quality of education in England's schools...

Yup, gotta love that high quality of education, eh? As Timmy says...

Pretty good result for that £90 grand odd spent on the little darlings over the years, innit?

My, the intense joys of the government provision of services.

Indeed. But then Dr Ken Smith irritates the crap out of me by proposing a silly solution.

Writing in Times Higher Education magazine, Dr Smith said mistakes were now so common that academics should simply accept them as "variants".

"Teaching a large first-year course at a British university, I am fed up with correcting my students' atrocious spelling," he said. "But why must we suffer? Instead of complaining about the state of the education system as we correct the same mistakes year after year, I've got a better idea. University teachers should simply accept as variant spelling those words our students most commonly misspell."

No. That is not the point of education, you nitwit. Look, the English language has evolved as it is in order to wring every nuance of meaning from the words that we have, even from the flexibility of grammatical and syntactical construction. If I may quote Timmy again (criticising the Spelling Society, which we have met before)...

Yes, Inglish Spolling is difficult, weird even, but it does allow us to be precise in our meanings.

Quite. I regard the English language as the finest on the planet because of its flexibility and subtlety, and English people should be able to write and speak their own language. And whilst university professors may regard "variants" as acceptable, many employers will not. And nor will I.

Our company is looking to recruit another designer, and I am in charge of that recruitment process: if I see "variants" on a curriculum vitae, that CV will go straight into the round file. The design market is pretty saturated with candidates: we don't need to hire people who cannot write their own language, no matter what their portfolio is like.

May I suggest an alternative approach for Dr Smith and his friends? That they remove a mark every time a word is misspelled and that they continue to remove marks, possibly on an escalating scale, until the student learns how to fucking spell?

Because, as we all know, incentives matter.

UPDATE: when criticising the Spelling Society, I pointed out that a Classical Education was A Good Thing.

Thus, the SS argue for a simplification of the language. But, on the flipside, I have not needed to spend my precious time expanding my vocabulary by rote, for my knowledge of Latin and Greek allow me to ascertain the likely meaning of complicated words without actually having to sit down and learn them. Hence, our spelling system has saved me time.

Thus, I believe that the fulfillment of the Spelling Society's aims would, in fact, directly lead to a debasement and contraction of the English language and thus conjure a far duller world described with a paucity of linguistic allure.

As such, I would like to thank the email correspondent who sent me a link to this entirely worthy Early Day Motion.

EDM 2016

LATIN IN THE PARK

10.07.2008

Brake, Tom

That this House welcomes the initiative of the Iris Project, Latin in the Park, as an excellent opportunity for people from all backgrounds to learn Latin and about ancient culture free of charge in a friendly and relaxed setting; recognises that the project enables adults and families to explore various aspects of ancient culture, such as women in the ancient world, religion, the history of the Roman Republic and other subjects; further recognises that Latin may be viewed as an elite area of study discouraging wider participation; and draws attention to the fact that this initiative promotes access to the classics amongst all and any local communities.

It is indicative of the piss-poor educational attainment and Luddite qualities of our representatives that only 32 of the 646 have bothered to sign this EDM. To put this in perspective, 87 of these rancid, Philistine fuckwits signed the EDM praising Cuba and its evil, Communist rulers.

Iz not the teechaz folt. Itz de langwage.

I can't seem to find it online, but The London Paper carried a story yesterday on the inbility of Britons to spell common words, such as "embarrassed", "liaison", "separate" and "friend".

Half of all Britons can't even spel [sic]

... screamed the headline, wittily.

Naturally, the usual suspects—such as computer spell-checkers—were held up for blame, but the really stupid fucking comment came from John Gledhill of the Spelling Society (of which, more later).

"It's not the fault of the teachers, nor of the students, but of the archaic spelling system which they have to learn," he said.

"In effect, we are still using 16th-century spelling for a 21st-century language."

John Gledhill is a stupid fucking cunt; of course it is the fault of the teachers and of the students that they are unable to spell their own language: in fact, it's a fucking disgrace.

Amongst other things, Samuel Johnson published the first English Dictionary—in an attempt to standardise spelling—on 15 April 1755, so, whilst there may have been some changes, it isn't as though the students are being caught out by a mutable standard, is it?

So, yes, it is the fault of teachers and students.

However, all is not as it seems. You see, I thought that John Gledhill might simply be a disingenuous prick, frightened of annoying the teaching lobby. But no, John Gledhill has an agenda.

"How so?" I hear you ask. After all, from its monicker, surely one would assume that the Spelling Society is dedicated to ensuring the correct construction of the English language?

Um, no. For the Spelling Society is not quite what it seems.

The Spelling Society started in 1908 (as the Simplified Spelling Society), and has the aim of raising awareness of the problems caused by the irregularity of English spelling and to promote remedies to improve literacy, including spelling reform. The Spelling Society publishes leaflets, newsletters, journals, books and bulletins to promote spelling reform of the English language.

Or, to put it another way, the Spelling Society is an organisation with a vested interest in "proving" that the people of Britain cannot spell their own language.

I am pretty sure that many of them cannot, but this is a failure of our education system, not of our language. Further, your humble Devil does not support imposed systems of language any more than he does of government; the near-infinite subtlety of the English language is, in part, derived from the roots that influence the spelling of words.

The Spelling Society argues that, without our somewhat idiosyncratic constructions, children (won't somebody think of the children?)—especially those who are dyslexic (won't somebody think of the disabled children? If only our spelling was different, maybe Tiny Tim could be saved...)—would no longer have to be taught spelling (why?) and they could do more constructive things instead.

Thus, the SS argue for a simplification of the language. But, on the flipside, I have not needed to spend my precious time expanding my vocabulary by rote, for my knowledge of Latin and Greek allow me to ascertain the likely meaning of complicated words without actually having to sit down and learn them. Hence, our spelling system has saved me time.

Thus, I believe that the fulfillment of the Spelling Society's aims would, in fact, directly lead to a debasement and contraction of the English language and thus conjure a far duller world described with a paucity of linguistic allure.

And, at any rate, the SS should certainly be declaring their interest in an article such as that which appeared yesterday, rather than using a name that deliberately gives the impression that their perceived aims are the very opposite of the actuality. So fuck you John Gledhill, and fuck the Spelling Society.

Oh, and teachers?—don't think that you are off the hook, you useless fuckers...

Post haste

Apparently, the opening up of competition in postal services has not been particularly beneficial.

The liberalisation of the UK postal service has produced "no significant benefits" for either households or small businesses, a report has said.

That is the initial finding of an independent review of the UK postal sector commissioned by the government.

It warned there was now a threat to the Royal Mail's financial stability.

The Royal Mail's 350-year monopoly ended at the start of 2006, when other licensed operators were given the right to collect and deliver mail.

And yet again the BBC publishes an entire article on this subject and mentions the EU... No, wait, guess how many times?

That's right: none. Not one, single mention.

And all of this is only possible because of the unique way that the BBC is funded, i.e. by a government-sponsored tax and tens of millions of pounds worth of cheap loans from the EU.

UPDATE: Trixy has a rather lovely little rant on this subject.

I had the enjoyable task of trawling through the Post Office review today and, as I have been saying for over a year now, the dramatic changes in the postal market have been brought about because of EU legislation.

In 2006 the UK's postal market was fully open to competition and in 2006/07 Royal Mail reported their first losses of £29 million in 350 years.

The report said that small businesses and domestic consumers haven't benefited but they weren't likely to as those areas of the market are costly. Businesses come in and cream off the profitable business post, leaving Royal Mail to fulfill the Universal Service Obligation of post box collection and door to door delivery a minimum of six days a week.
...

And the media? Well, they're none too keen on even mentioning the EU angle. A journalist at the BBC told me that the EU directive wasn't mentioned in the report. How they can possibly say that when I had the report in front of me and it repeatedly mentioned it is quite astonishing. I suspect they just don't like to admit that the Parliament they are monitoring and the politicians they know don't have the power they think they have. It's easier to ignore it than find out how laws in this country are really made. Just think if they had to monitor the work of the European Parliament, or if they covered the number of new laws the European Commission makes every week!

Much easier to just pretend it isn't there. So we don't get to find out the real reason behind so many decisions made in this country. And it makes me sick, it really does.

Quite. Go and read the whole thing...

UPDATE 2: Timmy points out that neither the Guardian nor the Times mention the EU either.

Guess what, that doesn’t mention the European Union either, the reason that we have the liberalisation of the Royal Mail.

I wonder why they don’t mention it? Or the fact that there’s not a great deal we can do about it?

Well, who would have thunk it?

You know how EUphiles often say that the EU simply doesn't matter to The People, that it is always a low priority compared to immigration, or crime, or rubbish collection, or Post Offices?

Does anyone not think that if people were actually told the fucking truth about where this legislation is coming from that people might actually rate the EU rather higher as an issue?

And does anyone not think that that is why our poiticians are so utterly fucking desperate not to draw people's attention to these areas?

Because, you see, the EU project is the right thing for the people and they must be coerced or conned into it whether they like it or not...

UPDATE 3: well, that's pretty much a full house, don'cha think?

So, that’s the Times, The Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Sun, Mirror, Mail and Express.

All of them carried the story about the liberalisation of the Royal Mail.

Not one of them mentioned that it’s all due to an EU Directive. Not a single sausage from any of them.

Do these people actually read the reports they report upon?

I wouldn't have thought so, no. The only other explanation, of course, is that there is a conspiracy of silence.

So, what is it—ignorance or deceit?

Strike me down with a feather...

In the wake of the various teachers going on strike for more pay, Burning Our Money has been diving into the figures.

Meanwhile, the ludicrous Jim Knight, Schools Minister, has released a Good News Bulletin. He says:

“Teaching is now one of the most sought after professions thanks to increases in the average teacher’s salary by 19% in real terms to an average of over £34,000; cuts bureaucracy and tougher disciplinary powers for staff.

...

First, let's note that last year the government spent [PDF] £41.5bn on schools in England. That's up from around £23bn in 1997-98, an increase of about 80%. Which is one whole shedload of money.
...

The bottom line? Just as they've dumbed down our exam system, Labour has also seriously dumbed down our school staff rooms.

In fact, the proportion of school staff who are full-time qualified teachers has plummeted from 69% in 1997 to a mere 49% now: a 20% drop which means that fewer than half the people now employed in schools to educate our kids are full-time qualified teachers...

Salaries up by 19% to an average of £34,000: that doesn't sound too shabby to me. I can quite see why one of their unions might be on strike, can't you? Anyway, do go and read the whole thing: it's depressing reading.

And naturally, our teachers were entirely deserving of this largesse; they've got... ooh... at least 19% better, eh? Er, apparently not. [Emphasis mine.]

A school is paying sixth-formers as young as 16 to teach lessons instead of hiring qualified supply staff. It has put a team of 24 A-level students on standby to fill in when regular teachers are away, paying them £5 for each 50-minute lesson they take. The headmistress says they do a better job than qualified adult teachers hired from supply agencies.

Fucking hellski.

Students are still morons shock!

In May, the UK Libertarian Party has been invited to engage in a debate at the political society of Trinity College, Oxford. Ahead of that, the student paper, Cherwell, has published an article on the party's policies.

Which is, of course, all very well except that it demonstrates just how pissing ignorant students are, even at our "top" universities. And so, since they have fired the opening salvo, I feel duty-bound to reply (oh, and it is a pleasure too).

Let us take the first idiot into our stride, shall we?

Guy Levin, President of OUCA, said, “I’m looking forward to the visit, and I’m sure it will be of interest to some of OUCA’s members.

“Regardless, I think that a vote for the Libertarian Party is a wasted vote. Those who agree with broadly libertarian principles of lower taxation and less state interference would be best served by a Conservative government."

You are, Guy, without doubt, a fucking moron. Those who believe in "lower taxation and less state interference" might be better served by a Conservative government, but not even tribalist fools like The Dude think that those desiring "broadly libertarian principles" will be best served by a Tory government.

The Tories have absolutely committed themselves against tax cuts and not a single one of their policies advocates less government on any level.

The Tories have absolutely committed themselves to remaining within the EU; one of the singularly most damaging entities on the planet. Further, since the EU controls a significant amount of our legislation, a goodly amount of things that the Tories are promising are simply not possible.

Furthermore, libertarianism is about both economic and social freedom and if you think that the Tories are pro the latter, then you are so stupid that you should never open your mouth ever again.

Now, you may believe that the Tories are the only other party that has a chance of getting into power, but that is an entirely different argument. After all, if all of the people that I know personally who hold their nose whilst voting for the Conservatives actually voted for a party that they believed in, then so-called minor parties might have a better chance of getting anywhere.

“I personally disagree with many of the Libertarian Party’s proposed policies, such as the total abolition of income taxes...

Why? Do you think that this tax—which was introduced to fight the Napoleonic Wars—is in some way morally right? Or is it that you are so used to the idea that you will happily grant the government access to your intimate earning detail because... well... that's just what one does?

Let me quote the Adam Smith Institute again, if I may.

If the government sector had grown only in line with inflation, rather than far above it, taxpayers would be £200 billion better off – enough to abolish income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax.

But hey! Guy's only a student: I don't expect him actually to look up any figures. He's at Oxford, you know, and Oxford students are just the cleverest, most well-informed chaps in the entire country, don'cha know (they aren't. That was sarcasm. I've known too many of them to believe that shit. It's a great pity that they all seem to believe it).

... the NHS...

Because that's just great isn't it? Ten times more deaths from C. difficile than any other country on the world and 17,000 people a year dead, unnecessarily, because you support a state monopoly. I hope that you fucking pray for forgiveness for supporting the unnecessary deaths, of 47 people a day, every fucking night, sunshine.

And I hope that your god forgives you, because I won't.

... and state pensions,” he added.

Riiiight. Because state pensions are just the absolute best, aren't they? Anyone remember the desultory rise of a few years ago? What was it: 75p a week? Nice one.

As I have consistently pointed out, NICs is not only a Ponzi scheme con but also costs more than twice as much as comparable private schemes: but then, students wouldn't know anything about that, would they?

Another Oxford student, who describes himself as a Liberal Democrat, said, “From their website, the Libertarian Party’s main policy seems to be abolishing income tax. That’s just infeasible in the modern era. They don’t offer any realistic solutions or projected figures. To me, their income tax policy seems irrational and ridiculous.

Of course it does, my poppet; but that is why we are coming to speak to you. Because, you see, we have actually done the number-crunching and we know what we can afford. Unlike you, you see, we have actually trawled through the government's spending figures and we know, pretty much, where everything is spent.

“If they are coming to Oxford to talk about their policies, I’m sure any audience would tear them to pieces.”

Oh, I'm looking forward to it: believe me. We are going to shake up your comfortable, middle-class, dissociated-from-the-grunts assumptions and your nice, social democrat lives. We are going to quote figures that you have never heard of; we are going to show you why your policies are not merely wrong-headed but actively evil.

We are going to pull you fuckers to pieces and if just a few of you go away and contemplate what you have heard, then we will consider it a victory.

Martin Nelson, President of the Oxford University Liberal Democrats criticised the party ‘s policy line on the grounds that its practical application was too inflexible.

He argued, “Real freedom of choice depends upon the economic situation in which you find yourself. We simply do not think that you can take a policy [of libertarianism] and extend it to every situation.”

Bollocks. Either you are free to make your own choices or you are not. How many on The Times rich list are from humble backgrouds? Did they assume that they could never become multi-millionaires?

Now, I'm aware that it might be difficult to explain the problems of the poverty trap to a bunch of middle-class student wankers who assume that, because they are at Oxford, they are the creme de la creme, but we shall do our very best.

Whatever people might think, we are not about supporting the rich but about giving the poor the opportunity to shine. We are not about holding people back, but about giving everyone the chance to be great.

That the middle- and upper-class pricks of Oxford should disagree with this aim is not surprising, but it should be challenged.

UPDATE: it has been pointed out to me that I may have been a little harsh with these young student types, and possibly that is the case.

However, what it is indicative of is the unthinking, knee-jerk statist attitude of the young (and it is distressingly prevalent in the not-so-young too); we can't do x because... because... well, we just can't.

[stamps foot]

Seriously, I did rather hope that there might be a little more contemplation from Oxford students. But no, apparently the audience will "tear [us] to pieces". We shall see...

Educating the masses

It seems that Archbishop Cramner has been sent this amusing little nugget.

1. Teaching Maths In 1970:
   A logger sells a truckload of lumber for £100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?


2. Teaching Maths In 1980:
   A logger sells a truckload of lumber for £100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or £80. What is his profit?


3. Teaching Maths In 1990:
   A logger sells a truckload of lumber for £100. His cost of production is £80. Did he make a profit?


4. Teaching Maths In 2000:
   A logger sells a truckload of lumber for £100. His cost of production is £80 and his profit is £20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.


5. Teaching Maths In 2008:
   A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of £20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers.)


6. Teaching Maths 2018:
   أ المسجل تبيع حموله شاحنة من الخشب من اجل 100 دولار. صاحب تكلفة الانتاج من الثمن. ما هو الربح

Most entertaining. Or it would be were there not a large grain of truth in it...

Teachers' strike

Oh look! Another bunch of useless state employees are on strike. What a fucking surprise.

About a third of schools in England and Wales have been disrupted by the first national teachers' strike in 21 years.

The walkout by thousands of teachers has closed or partially closed up to 8,000 schools, forcing working parents to stay at home or find childcare.

And the children will actually have learned more today than they would otherwise do...

The National Union of Teachers (NUT) is staging more than 50 rallies, as members demand a 4.1% pay rise rather than the 2.45% on offer.

Look, you silly cunts, you aren't going to get 4.1% because there is nothing in the coffers. Quite apart from that, given the lack of educational attainment by state-school children, the simple fact is that you do not deserve any kind of pay rise.

If we had a voucher system, of course, this kind of shit wouldn't happen. And we shouldn't have a national fucking pay deal anyway.

Gordon Brown has described the strike as "unfortunate and regrettable".

Thank you. This has been stock reponse #832/08.

I am just wearied by these bastards...

My scientists are better than your scientists

One of the counter-"arguments" that climate change alarmists like to wheel out, when one points to any long list of scientists who refute the AGW catastrophe theory, is that they are not real scientists or, failing that, that they are not proper climate scientists.

Via the hugely prolific Tom Nelson, this Climate Resistance post takes one of the IPCC's recent reports and decides to test how "scientisty" their authors are. The results make incredulous and hilarious reading.

There were 380 contributors to the report [PDF of contributors]. A thorough and exhaustive analysis of the backgrounds of these experts (or were they?) was too ambitious (it's Christmas, and we have wine to drink, and mince pies to eat, too). So, we focused on the contributors who operate in the UK. Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3 epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management / insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren't clear about whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology. But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20 social scientists.

Even those who might be properly classified as climate scientists were not exactly all that they might seem; in other words, they were mostly research associates and many were not even in proper climate science. Could this be right? Climate Resistance decided to check the US contributors...

Of the 70 US contributors, there were 7 economists, 13 social scientists, 3 epidemiologists, 10 biologists/ecologists, 5 engineers, 2 modellers/statisticians, 1 full-time activist (and 1 part time), 5 were in public health and policy, and 4 were unknowns. 17 worked in earth/atmospheric sciences. Again, we gave the benefit of the doubt to geographers where it wasn't clear whether their specialism was physical, or human geography.

And yet Andrew Dessler—whom the post is fisking—has yet more arguments up his sleeve, and they are slapped down equally quickly.

In a follow-up post, Dessler has set about 'Busting the 'consensus busters'' by ridiculing the qualifications of Inhofe's 400 experts, starting with a certain Thomas Ring. In the comments section he justifies this approach:

I agree it would be quicker to simply note the qualified skeptics on the list (there are probably a few dozen), but, from a rhetorical point of view, I think pointing out these immensely unqualified members of the list is more effective.

Well, we can all play that game... Included as contributors to WGII are Patricia Craig, Judith Cranage, Susan Mann, and Christopher Pfeiffer, all from Pennsylvania State University. It's not that these people aren't experts in their field - they probably are. Our problem with their inclusion on the list of Contributors to the IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment report is that their jobs are (in order) website-designer, administrative assistant (x2), and network administrator.

Also on the list is Peter Neofotis who appears to be a 2003 graduate of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology from Columbia. Are there many experts in anything who graduated in 2003?

Well, quite. And these people have been included on the list of a so-called scientific report issued by the IPCC as contributors to the report. Had Climate Resistance not decided to look them up—and do read the whole thing for yet more exciting revelations—you might have thought that they were scientific experts and marvelled at the huge number of acclaimed climate science experts who had contributed.

Can anyone honestly say that this was not a dishonest action by the IPCC, that this was not deliberately intended to mislead readers and to give a false impression of the capabilities of those who had composed the report?

The IPCC are liars and as the whole anthropogenic climate change crap unravels—even on the Left—they cling ever more desperately to their outdated theories by propagating yet more obfuscations, half-truths and outright lies.

Wake up, people!—we are being lied to, and it is so that the political establishment can make complete slaves of us all.