Wednesday, February 14, 2007
"It's for the children!"
The Times brings us a story about unhappy UK children. They are the unhappiest in the Western World, according to the headline. A quick reading of the story reveals that it's based on a so called "well-being table". From my poor reading of the story, it seems that this has been compiled under the guidance, funding and direction of UNICEF.
The story tells us one of the authors is a "Jonathon Bradshaw"; further into the story, we're told that a "Professor Bradshaw" ("a leading authority on child poverty" - for which I read child poverty pays his wage) tells us how this report, shows us that the unhappiness is down to inequality.
There is clearly an obvious problem of self-interest for Bradshaw which isn't pointed out in the story. The UNICEF report appears embargoed until 10:00 am GMT Today so I can't confirm if the "two" Bradshaws are in fact the same person, but I'll go with my instincts (see I'm in touch with my feminine side) and assume they are.
The full title of the report shows the study is limited to rich countries, which is all well and good especially as it can then avoid any embarrassing revelations such as children in some poorer countries being happier than some in rich countries; after all where would the child poverty industry be then professor?
The professor of course cites inequality as the reason, but is it really, I cannot believe that children in say Italy, Switzerland and Ireland (all well above the UK) live in a less unequal society, if anything I'd say their societies are more unequal.
The report seems a damming indictment and I imagine it's conclusions are probably correct, but we wont even start to address the issues by looking at irrelevancies like so called poverty. It would be different if children were being forced to go out to work to earn money to live, but that's clearly not the case.
Our attitude in the UK has changed considerably over the years, primarily no child can ever undertake any activity with a modicum of risk, ironically the main reason cited being to "protect them", but I think it's having the effect of making the world dull and boring for them, no wonder they're unhappy. It may be prefect preparation for being a subject of the nanny state, but it's hardly going to make for happy well-rounded citizens. The lesson here is if you want happiness you must set them free, you cannot have happiness without freedom. It's a powerful lesson which our government will have to take to heart sooner or later.
The story tells us one of the authors is a "Jonathon Bradshaw"; further into the story, we're told that a "Professor Bradshaw" ("a leading authority on child poverty" - for which I read child poverty pays his wage) tells us how this report, shows us that the unhappiness is down to inequality.
There is clearly an obvious problem of self-interest for Bradshaw which isn't pointed out in the story. The UNICEF report appears embargoed until 10:00 am GMT Today so I can't confirm if the "two" Bradshaws are in fact the same person, but I'll go with my instincts (see I'm in touch with my feminine side) and assume they are.
The full title of the report shows the study is limited to rich countries, which is all well and good especially as it can then avoid any embarrassing revelations such as children in some poorer countries being happier than some in rich countries; after all where would the child poverty industry be then professor?
The professor of course cites inequality as the reason, but is it really, I cannot believe that children in say Italy, Switzerland and Ireland (all well above the UK) live in a less unequal society, if anything I'd say their societies are more unequal.
The report seems a damming indictment and I imagine it's conclusions are probably correct, but we wont even start to address the issues by looking at irrelevancies like so called poverty. It would be different if children were being forced to go out to work to earn money to live, but that's clearly not the case.
Our attitude in the UK has changed considerably over the years, primarily no child can ever undertake any activity with a modicum of risk, ironically the main reason cited being to "protect them", but I think it's having the effect of making the world dull and boring for them, no wonder they're unhappy. It may be prefect preparation for being a subject of the nanny state, but it's hardly going to make for happy well-rounded citizens. The lesson here is if you want happiness you must set them free, you cannot have happiness without freedom. It's a powerful lesson which our government will have to take to heart sooner or later.
Tags: media, government, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: freedom, government, media
Monday, February 12, 2007
Cameron drugs row
It's no great secret that I'm perhaps not quite in full accord with the Conservative party and the policies of David Cameron.
This weekend we had the spectacle of, the holy media as moral guardian of our nation, informing us that David Cameron smoked some cannabis whilst at Eaton. Why is this relevant to anything is a mystery to me, that he or any other politician may have smoked or taken some drug at some point in their lives is irrelevant. Of course if had an ongoing drug habit that would be different, but let's face some facts, drugs, including illegal ones are fairly widely available. Drugs are bound to be an object of curiosity to people and there will be a temptation to try some no doubt, at some point in most people's lives. That someone does try some drugs in no way disqualifies them from public office or makes them unfit to lead a political party, or makes it hypercritical if at some later point they argue that illegal drugs should remain illegal.
This issue should be a non-story, we expect our politicians to (generally) be honest, but in return for some honesty, the media shouldn't hound and make issues out of things that are irrelevant. Whilst David Cameron has (in the past) never denied or admitted taking drugs, the reason no doubt is precisely because of this kind of stupid media storm, it would have be so much better that when asked he could say: "yes occasionally in the past I've taken some drugs".
In order to lead the way, I'll put my hand up to this and: "yes occasionally in the past I've taken some drugs". I wouldn't advocate or encourage anyone else to do so, it was something that I did at that time. I have no excuses, but I didn't harm anyone (and I doubt any great harm was done to me).
Let's see the media put me on the front page.
This weekend we had the spectacle of, the holy media as moral guardian of our nation, informing us that David Cameron smoked some cannabis whilst at Eaton. Why is this relevant to anything is a mystery to me, that he or any other politician may have smoked or taken some drug at some point in their lives is irrelevant. Of course if had an ongoing drug habit that would be different, but let's face some facts, drugs, including illegal ones are fairly widely available. Drugs are bound to be an object of curiosity to people and there will be a temptation to try some no doubt, at some point in most people's lives. That someone does try some drugs in no way disqualifies them from public office or makes them unfit to lead a political party, or makes it hypercritical if at some later point they argue that illegal drugs should remain illegal.
This issue should be a non-story, we expect our politicians to (generally) be honest, but in return for some honesty, the media shouldn't hound and make issues out of things that are irrelevant. Whilst David Cameron has (in the past) never denied or admitted taking drugs, the reason no doubt is precisely because of this kind of stupid media storm, it would have be so much better that when asked he could say: "yes occasionally in the past I've taken some drugs".
In order to lead the way, I'll put my hand up to this and: "yes occasionally in the past I've taken some drugs". I wouldn't advocate or encourage anyone else to do so, it was something that I did at that time. I have no excuses, but I didn't harm anyone (and I doubt any great harm was done to me).
Let's see the media put me on the front page.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Shove an RFID up an apparatchik (Not literally)
Looking at various things yesterday, I came across this gem on this DVLA website, scroll down to "Number plates and registration marks" and then "Electronic number plate trial feasibility report" a pdf report on some trails the DVLA has been running.
The idea is for an RFID chip to be included in your number plate, or tax disc, which can then be read by government (and no doubt other) chip readers for various purposes.
I haven't gone through the report myself, a quick look in the introduction tells us all we need to know about how apparatchiks work. Apparently a provision was introduced in the Vehicle Crime Act 2001 to allow this, and deliberately worded so. So these so called civil servants plan their statist oppressions some five or six years in advance.
Of course the wonderfully gender neutrally named "Ladyman" was only to pleased to authorise the trials (perhaps "for the children" or to "protect against terrorism" or maybe there's a new platitude) which have been taking place.
Anyway I know all my readers will be as pleased as I am by the success of the project; it will also come as no surprise to find the EU is also looking into this, and indeed this helped spur on the DVLA trial.
Personally I don't remember seeing any of this reported in the media, (I admit I could easily have missed it), but I suspect our crusading journalists; don't even have enough motivation to check out government websites for snippets of stories. They're far too busy chasing princes girlfriends, reporting on big brother and other banalities.
The idea is for an RFID chip to be included in your number plate, or tax disc, which can then be read by government (and no doubt other) chip readers for various purposes.
I haven't gone through the report myself, a quick look in the introduction tells us all we need to know about how apparatchiks work. Apparently a provision was introduced in the Vehicle Crime Act 2001 to allow this, and deliberately worded so. So these so called civil servants plan their statist oppressions some five or six years in advance.
Of course the wonderfully gender neutrally named "Ladyman" was only to pleased to authorise the trials (perhaps "for the children" or to "protect against terrorism" or maybe there's a new platitude) which have been taking place.
Anyway I know all my readers will be as pleased as I am by the success of the project; it will also come as no surprise to find the EU is also looking into this, and indeed this helped spur on the DVLA trial.
Personally I don't remember seeing any of this reported in the media, (I admit I could easily have missed it), but I suspect our crusading journalists; don't even have enough motivation to check out government websites for snippets of stories. They're far too busy chasing princes girlfriends, reporting on big brother and other banalities.
Tags: statism, state apparatchiks, media
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: media, state apparatchiks, statism
