Limiting Family Size For Those On Benefits

 Politics  No Responses »
Nov 042012
 

Those sneaky Tories have announced plans to limit child related benefits so that families with large numbers of children would only get benefits for the first two. With this, they have implied that “out there” is a large population of benefit scroungers who make tons of cash by simply breeding like rabbits.

And of course when you put it that way, it sounds like a great idea. Why should those in work pay for the comfort of those too lazy to do anything other than breed like rabbits?

Except those benefits are for the children involved. It is always worth remembering that any benefit cuts in this area will have a negative effect on the children involved. Or do the Tories plan to take into care any “surplus” children by force?

And even if there were a large number of benefit scroungers benefiting from the “generous” child related benefits, they are almost certainly far outnumbered by those who are not scroungers, but need benefits for genuine reasons.

What about the carpenter who whilst he earns a reasonable wage to support himself, his wife, and a single child, suddenly finds himself the father of sextuplets ?

What about the house husband whose wife previously earned big money as a hot-shot barrister, had 6 children over a number of years and who suddenly finds himself along with those six children after his wife is killed in a road accident ?

Or the single mother who works hard at a cleaning job, but finds it hard looking after her three children that her feckless husband left her with ?

The Tories have come up with a scheme to punish the poor, and yet have sold it in such a way as to get those poor to support it. What you could call a masterpiece of Machiavellian politics.

 

Mocking Islam

 Politics, Religion  No Responses »
Sep 232012
 

Over the past few weeks, there have been dramatic (and violent) protests over a certain anti-Islamic film clip from which were originally released to YouTube on the 1st July this year. The film was made in America, but apart from that it’s origins appear very shady although an organisation called Media for Christ, although it seems there are multiple organisations with that name.

It would appear that the film is a deliberate attempt to stir up trouble in the Middle-East, and it appears that Islamic extremists have played into the hands of the film makers. Whilst peaceful demonstrations against the film are both understandable and indeed perfectly justified, some of the reactions come across as extreme or bizarre in the extreme :-

  1. Attacking a US diplomatic missions (and even killing the US Ambassador in Libya) when the US government had no involvement in the film.
  2. Ransacking a Catholic cathedral in Niger … even if the original film-makers were Christian, the Catholic church had nothing to do with it.
  3. Increasing the bounty on Salman Rushdie’s life despite his condemnation of the film.
  4. Torching various US fast-food businesses. Sure the food is awful, but burning the business down is a little extreme.

What is less well known is that most of the protests around the world were peaceful (excluding a touch of flag burning). It is also remarkable that the protests happened to have occurred on or around the 11th September, which may have something to do with another event in history. It is also interesting to note the reactions of Libyans to the storming of the US consulate in Bengahzi – which probably had nothing to do with the film.

Given the numbers who turned up at the various violent protests, it is blindingly obvious that the overwhelming majority – however unhappy they may be with the film – are not violent extremists.  But the violence does give the impression that Islam is extremely intolerant of any form of criticism. Of course that is not limited to Islam as most religions have their extremists who react in similar ways, but it does seem that Islam is particularly prone to extremism.

Criticism? Of course this latest film probably (I haven’t seen it) doesn’t qualify as criticism, but is probably just some Christian extremists trying to get a rise out of Islamic extremists. Mocking someone’s beliefs is fundamentally a nasty thing to do. But so is threatening people with eternal damnation.

But genuine criticism also seems to generate this sort of reaction. And the dividing line between genuine criticism and mocking someone’s beliefs is very grey; you could even argue that mocking Islam to generate the kind of reaction it provokes is itself a piece of criticism through demonstration (although  going too far).

Criticism is not necessarily a bad thing. At “best” it allows for misconceptions of Islam to be corrected – perhaps that the death penalty for apostasy is a radical interpretation, and at “worst” could provoke a useful discussion.

 

Julian Assange and Pussy Riot

 Politics  2 Responses »
Aug 182012
 

Last night I caught someone droning on about the similarities between the case of Pussy Riot and Julian Assange, and that with the right of freedom of speech comes the responsibility for responsible use of that right. I very quickly turned off as any comparison is ridiculous.

Pussy Riot are in prison today as a direct consequence of their attempted use of their right of free speech; whereas Julian Assange at most is facing legal trouble as an indirect consequence of his use of the right of free speech. Certainly on the face of it, Julian Assange’s legal troubles have nothing to do with the Wikileaks website.

It is certainly true that Pussy Riot’s actions inside the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow was to some extent ill-advised. They could well be guilty of some sort of aggravated trespass crime, but it would seem to me that they are being punished for something else – their imprisonment for 2 years is by far out of proportion to what they have done. And it appears that even the victim (the church) also believes this is excessive as they have asked for leniency.

It is true that insulting someone’s religion in their place of worship is perhaps going too far for a protest, and perhaps should be punishable by a couple of days in prison. But sending them to prison for two years looks to everyone like an excuse to put them away to stop them protesting against Putin‘s autocratic rule. The funny thing is that Putin’s minions could not have done something more effective at demonstrating that his regime is a repressive one.

Julian Assange on the other hand is effectively charged (the UK courts have made it plain that he can be regarded as being charged with the crime even though a peculiarity of the Swedish justice system means he hasn’t as yet been charged) with some sort of sexual misconduct. Which on the face of it has absolutely nothing to do with his Wikileaks activities. Whilst there may be some oddities about the case, the only possible action for an honourable man would be to go to Sweden to answer the charges.

The conspiracy theorists would argue that this is all just a way of the US getting their hands on Julian Assange to rush through their own court system to punish him for “treason”, espionage, or some other crime. It is highly unlikely that Julian could be legally extradited for treason (which is likely to cause a considerable amount of laughter considering that Julian is no a US citizen) or espionage (which is after all at an international level purely a political crime). But it is just about possible that there is some US involvement in the charges he faces in Sweden – perhaps simply as a way of harassing someone whom the US government has a certain amount of anger with.

It is really rather extraordinary that Julian is claiming political asylum with Ecuador in preference to relying on the justice systems in the UK and Sweden; frankly he has better protection in either Sweden or the UK from any US actions than he would do in Ecuador which although has granted him asylum for publicity reasons is far more likely to let the US quietly grab him in exchange for a few billion in foreign aid.

The Alternative Olympics Medal Table

 General, Politics  No Responses »
Aug 042012
 

This is being written during the games, so the table is at a certain point in time; I will update once the Olympics have finished … and make it more complete, but the point stands.

Whilst the Olympics is not really about statistics, those of us with that perversion do tend to want to see the numbers. And every time the Olympics comes around, I get slightly irritated by the medal tables that appear. The headline medal tables simply rank countries in order of the number of medals their athletes have won, which is a spectacularly dumb way of ranking countries – with most other metrics there is the option of looking at deaths per thousand people, etc.

At present the standard medal table is led by China and the US. Both are enormous countries, so of course they get a lot of medals. And indeed the people in the US are probably saying that the US is outperforming China by the simple fact that it has pretty much the same number of medals despite being ¼ of the size! And that is quite right – so why do we not have a table of countries ranked by the population per medal – i.e. if a country has 50 gold medals, and 5,000,000 people then there is one gold medal per 100,000 people. If we do a table for that, we get some very different results :-

Rank Country Gold medals Population Population per medal
1 Great Britain 10 62m 6.2m
2 USA 21 314m 15m
3 China 20 1339m 67m

These results are very different and there very well may be other surprises if the full medal table is calculated. There are those who might claim this is a simple trick to get the UK on the top of the medal table, but it is not as simple as that … indeed this alternative medal table may well be helpful to larger countries. After all it shows that despite their total medal haul, they are not doing nearly as well as they should do!

Mitt Romney’s Olympic-Sized Blunder

 Politics  No Responses »
Jul 272012
 

No, not that one. His gaffe at criticising the ability of the British people to competently host the Olympic games may be foolish in the extreme. After all the time for such criticisms is not on the eve of the games, but well in advance when things could be done – all his comments have done is demonstrate that he has very little ability in the realm of international diplomacy. And makes it less likely that any British officials will take his more serious comments seriously in the future.

Given the imminent start of the London 2012 Olympic games, it is hardly surprising that everyone has concentrated on this aspect of Romney’s comments. And it certainly points him out as being totally unsuited to any kind of international diplomacy. But another comment also points the way to Romney being unsuited to being a US president; and in some ways is very much more serious.

He also commented on the fact that he had met with the chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (commonly and incorrectly known as MI6), which is a far more serious lapse in judgement that may indicate unsuitability for “domestic” matters as opposed to international matters. His meeting with the head of SiS was hardly top-secret, and the fact that it has been leaked hardly a matter for panic. The common practice of keeping such meetings private is probably more a legacy of SiS very secret existence – up until it was established on a statutory basis in 1994, the British government would refused to comment on any aspect of SiS; even whether it existed or not.

In security terms, you only comment on things that are secret if the benefit of doing so significantly outweighs the advantages of secrecy. Romney’s comments about this meeting indicate that he does not take security seriously; whilst this comment would on the surface would seem to compromise only British security and there in a very small way, his comments are likely to ring alarm bells with any US official involved in security. He would of course deny that his comments reflect a negligent attitude to US national security, and would quite rightly point out that there was no negative impact on US national security.

But it is not what he has revealed, but the fact that he revealed anything at all that indicates his attitude is wrong.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries