Browse > Home / Archive by category 'The Human Condition'

| Subcribe via RSS


Off With Their Heads!

By Leslie Clark
January 12th, 2011 at 1:34 am | 2 Comments | Posted in The Human Condition

Just a brief thought for the day…

Given that a few choice words and crosshair symbols can so obviously generate a climate in which a disturbed lone individual can kill those with whom they disagree with, will the National Union of Students be altering their “decapitation strategy” against Liberal Democrat MPs over tuition fees?

I mean, we wouldn’t want any students to take those words as an instruction now, would we? Indeed, some have already gone as far as to stage a mock execution of Nick Clegg. At the student protests in London last year, many acted on this leaflet.

Has humanity really reached a stage in which political rhetoric and sloganeering has to be interpreted literally?

Obama “has told us conscious lies” about Iraq…

By Sara Scarlett
December 8th, 2010 at 1:45 pm | 1 Comment | Posted in International Politics, The Human Condition, US Politics

If you have a spare 10-20 minutes – then I strongly recommend the thoughts from the man behind the last big leak:

What interesting to note is that Daniel Ellsberg’s behaviour can hardly be said to have brought the American hegemon to her knees. Ultimately he didn’t put US civilians at risk and he didn’t put US troops at risk. In fact, what he did contributed to the end of the Vietnam war. I’d say that’s a win on the side of the people.

All that liberals have to look out for now is whether the authorities treat Assange any differently than any other alleged rapist.

Tags:

Breeding Hellfire!

By Andy Mayer
November 26th, 2010 at 12:43 pm | 2 Comments | Posted in The Human Condition, UK Politics

“We’re going to have a system where the middle classes are discouraged from breeding because it’s jolly expensive, but for those on benefit there is every incentive… well that’s not very sensible.”

soon-to-be Conservative peer Howard Flight to the Evening Standard, 25th November

 The ironic context of Howard Flight’s now infamous interview was to note he had been right in 2005, when sacked by Michael Howard, for claiming there was scope for deeper cuts than Howard was letting on. Within that interview are comments that those on the Liberal Democrat left and Ed Miliband would agree with:

he opposes the sharp increases in tuition fees. He fears they will prove a major disincentive to people of his own background going to university, and will generally limit social mobility. “Two of my nieces and nephews, both of them very bright, gave up university halfway through because they didn’t want the financial burden,” he said. As with the child benefit reforms, Flight fears the rich will be fine, the very poor will be subsidised, leaving what he calls the lower middle class trapped in the middle and unable to improve themselves.

He also said, with no hint of foresight:

“We have reached the state of an elected tyranny of the professional politician… Partly because of the media scrutiny, MPs feel they cannot say anything except the blandest nonsense.”

And duly the media have obliged… a selection of comments from over 200 articles below

“The horrors of the Nazi regime had killed eugenics stone dead some 30 years before his bizarre intervention and there is no evidence that the pseudo-scientific belief that the human race can be improved by selective breeding was making a comeback”Guardian

The crude eugenics of Mr Flight, suggesting the children of well-off parents are somehow innately superior to those of other families, are so disgusting in modern Britain that he doesn’t deserve to be made a law-maker.” – Mirror

Howard Flight cannot have spent much time in close proximity to anyone who is working-class” - Independent

Politically his comment, particularly the language used, was unwise in the extreme. His apology swiftly afterwards, his only real option, given the pressure that is still being applied to David Cameron to block his peerage. In the PR terms he hates he created an unwelcome story from nowhere that distracted the Prime Minister from his preferred agenda of the day of talking about sunshine and happiness. Agree or disagree with Flight, that is a political problem.

The two underlying issues though, to what extent should the welfare system be compassionate versus encouraging smart choices, and what are the unintended consequences, particularly on the margins, are difficult and important debates. 

The British welfare system is unusually child friendly. Many other countries limit support to small families, don’t provide boosts to housing priority, or have child poverty targets that entrenches such generosity. Large families do tend to be associated with higher levels of poverty, both in this country and across the world. There are poverty incentives built into that system. Once there it is much harder to get out of the system with a large family than not. This ‘breeds’ resentment between those trying, and those acting perfectly rationally in response to the system.

As a result the comments Flight made, albeit using different language are also expressed on council estates. In the BBC soundbites last night we saw Ed Miliband sitting down with Tesco workers talking about welfare reform and the ‘squeezed middle’. One makes a reference to her dissatisfaction that while she and her husband both work, her neighbours along the balcony produce kids and can somehow afford designer clothes. Same point, less inflammatory.

Further this is a Cameroonie debate. This is the politics of fairness, incentives and nudges. It looks like in five years of the wilderness Flight got the new agenda, he just didn’t read the script. For that he deserves his second day of hard lessons in media training, but not to be treated like some latter-day Dr. Mengele.

Military Keynesianism: Part II – Ezra Klein Edition

By Sara Scarlett
November 1st, 2010 at 11:00 pm | 5 Comments | Posted in Economics, Policy, The Human Condition

A little while ago I mentioned the growing trend among Democrats to suddenly be in favour of military spending in hope that it will provide a stimulus to the economy.

Well, Ezra Klein has written a special, special little article which continues in the same vein:

I’m pretty skeptical that a war with Iran would do much for the economy. It’s not just that the inevitable spike in energy prices would grind everything to a halt (and what if Russia or Venezuela or OPEC decide to stand with Iran?), but the war itself wouldn’t be large enough.

Wow.

Just wow…

The article continues in the same vein then ends:

That seems like the right way to use the military for economic ends: Since it’s unpalatable to simply subsidize certain industries or marshal hundreds of billions for certain investments, but it’s indisputable that you need to give the military anything it asks for, you have the military decide every tank needs to run off solar panels, or, to use an even more unlikely example, that we need a national highway system “to allow for mass evacuation of cities in the event of a nuclear attack.” You could imagine both infrastructure investments and energy independence fitting the bill today. Then you get your stimulus but you don’t need to have your war.

All of it is just so awful. An American ‘Liberal’ writing the sentence: “to use the military for economic ends” – it’s quite possibly the worse sentence I’ve ever read in my entire time in politics. I don’t think anyone has been quite so blatant about wanting to invade somewhere to bolster their economy since the British Empire.

Then there is the simple economic truth that government spending does not stimulate the economy. Ever. Under any circumstances. No. Not even WWII: read this if you think that.

You may believe that government spending for the sake of providing services is good and proper but you have to admit that government spending for the sake stimulating the economy is something different. Don’t take my word for it, read Bastiat – available here.

“there never was a good war or a bad peace…”
-Benjamin Franklin

(Ezra’s article may be satire. I honestly think it might be… I just don’t know. So, I’m just writing this to cover my arse in case it does turn out to be satire. Which it honestly might. Seriously…)

“What Would Ayn say…” No. 2

By Sara Scarlett
March 14th, 2010 at 8:15 pm | 3 Comments | Posted in The Human Condition, WWAS

Just spotted on Dailymail.co.uk:

Donna Simpson already weighs 43st, but she is determined to nearly double her size to become the world’s fattest woman. The 42-year-old from New Jersey, U.S, is set on reaching the 1,000lb mark (71st) in just two years. Remarkably she insists she is healthy, despite now needing a mobility scooter when she goes shopping.

Despite my instincts to the contrary, I personally fall down on the ‘each to their own’ side of the fence when it comes to this sorta thang. Then I read this:

To fund the massive $750 weekly food shop, she runs a website where men pay her to watch her eat fast food.

Ayn would approve.