"Only in America could the rich - who pay 86% of income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by those who pay nothing."
That's a tweet that wandered past recently. I can't begin to reply to it in a tweet. So here I am in Blogger again.
Firstly, I was unaware that the top rate of income tax in America was 86%, perhaps because it's nothing like that much. A quick Wikipedia check suggests between 21% & 16% "Effective income and payroll tax rate".
Somebody is hyping that 86% a little. But lets ignore that and just nod our heads sagely and say "Hmm yes, the rich sure are liable for a lot of Income Tax on all that money".
Notice I use the word "liable". Unfortunately, the very rich end of any countries population can afford to use tax loopholes like offshore tax haven accounts, declaring spouses as employees, declaring business expenses, and evading tax liability in basically as many wonderful ways as their tax avoidance guru accountants can suggest to them. Since we are dealing with people in the $400,000+ income bracket here, such avoidance quickly adds up to tens of thousands of $ per person. Hundreds of thousands for the super rich. Add them all together and ... that's a fair few million / billion in lost tax revenue. Most of it legal.
The bottom end of the salary scale doesn't get as much chance to avoid tax legally, but lets face it, wherever you look on the income scale, people will be attempting to pay as little tax as possible. If it's taxed at source in your pay packet though like a vast majority of working Joe's and Joanne's, that's it. It's paid in full. No argument.
Right down at the bottom you get the black economy of cash in hand work. Add all of that lot up together and ... hey .. it's also a fair whack of cash. Although individually we're only talking about a few $100 to $1000 avoided, there are a lot more poor people than rich people. Figures are murky here. A big chunk of low paid workers still pay the income tax and just struggle on in life, so we can deduct that from lost tax. It seems likely that the total tax evasion of the lower classes is still a lot less than the massive sums avoided by the upper classes.
BUT.
The argument is screwed from the start. The problem is, if EVERYONE at the top, bottom and middle of society actually paid the taxes without either legal or illegal tax avoidance then the amount taxed on everyone could be less. The problem is all the loopholes and dodges, mainly at the upper end of tax avoidance, that get exploited and never dealt with.
And it also ignores the far bigger problem of corporate tax evasion. The entire loss in tax income across all income tax for all citizens of the US is far smaller than the loss in tax due to corporate tax evasion. That doesn't even get a mention.
You can spot this one in the current fiscal cliff farce talks in Washington. Yes it is pretty pointless talking about solving a trillion $ debt problem by increasing personal taxation on the wealthy. But nobody in government has the balls to say "Well actually, it's the companies and corporations we need to collect proper taxes from".
And that folks. Is capitalism at work. It owns the government, it maintains the loopholes and god forbid anyone should try and address the real problem because they'll threaten you all with job losses and economic recession if you even dare think about it.
See?
Wasn't going to fit in a tweet was it?
29 Dec 2012
18 Dec 2012
The Gun Debate (cynical version) MOAR GUNS!
If you ever wanted a study in flawed logic, some of the messages and debate coming out of America following the vile tragedy of the recent school shooting is a good place to start.
It stirs emotion. This is good. But...
I follow a bit of an eclectic bunch on Twitter even after my own selective preferences, so I see a weird and broad spectrum of reactions scroll past. Here we go!
On the far left are those who can't believe fellow Americans want to stick with free gun ownership. They look at gun death rates in countries with gun control and wonder why on earth people want them around. I'm with these guys. They are in a vocal minority.
Also on the far left are those that utterly mistrust the US Government. They want to keep any guns and rights they have to defend themselves against their own government. Many see a coming collapse in America and want to protect themselves when it does happen. This could be true. If you want to be a hero and you're sure you're right? Keep an illegal gun or two for the end of times.
A little way in from there are those arguing for a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatics (either or both). They argue this kind of tragedy can only occur with guns designed for relatively rapid fire, but they still want rifles, shotguns and many of them pistols. Some for reason of defence against criminals, some for the above reason of defence against the US government. I sort of get this. It would be a decent step in the right direction. I don't think it will stop the next school massacre though. A couple of handguns and clips full of ammo will do plenty of damage.
Moving to the right there is the argument that guns are not the problem, but a screening and mental health check of gun owners is required. There's a bit of a hole in this one. It seems the killer in this case took his guns from, and killed his mother. He wouldn't of had a mental health check. Here is where we start to depart from logic. This one is pure and simple "I want my guns! Blame and identify mentally ill people!" ... Little realising it's their guns that can be used by the loony and that health screening won't catch everyone who has a bad Monday.
Sadly also in here are those who jumped to identify asberger's as a mental health problem that caused the shooting. Just no. I'm not aware of any link for decades between asberger's syndrome and violence. Cut that crap out.
There's another one in here that it's violent video games that do it. Not the guns. Oh jeez. Really? Well ok. You run your own nation. Go ahead. Ban all violent video games. I bet you in a few months time even after a ban like that, another bunch of innocents will be shot and you'll be looking for something new to blame. This one really is insane. The kinds of violent video games they are talking about exist in all the gun control countries as well. They have death rates sub 20 per year. America is 9,000+?! Logic fail and again "I want my guns! Blame something else!".
[Yes. There is an argument for trying to persuade the public that age limit's on games mean something. Wandering off on my own view for a while, the same is true for DVD's. It seems to be trivial for parents now to ignore age ratings on video and games simply because they have an older child that wants to watch it or play it. I don't think that's right. I don't think the age ratings games and DVD's get are always right either, but it would be better to have parents try harder to enforce the guidance. Kid's are exposed to enough violence and stress via main stream broadcast media already. There are good reasons why we put time and money in to rating films and games. But I digress...]
Further right are those wanting to give all school staff bullet proof vests and concealed firearms to protect the children they send to school. Oh come on! MORE guns will solve gun crime? Every nursery teacher wants to be Rambo? Logic here has taken an acid trip but .. spot the meme yet? "I want my guns!"
And in an odd camp. All on it's own. Are those that simply say "They aren't taking my guns". These guys also say "I want my guns!"
There are some (mainly women I've noticed) who have decided they now need to buy and train with firearms out of fear. I can see the fear, of all the reasons, I can see the straight line logic at work on this one, but ... ouch. This was a mum who was shot and her guns taken to commit mass murder, and here's a bunch more women (people in general) motivated to go buy guns and keep them at home. This is the self-perpetuating "I want my guns" logic at work. It's fear. America wants guns because they live in fear? Possibly. It's still more guns though.
My own position can be expressed a little like this:
"Hey! Everyone in the UK. We've had gun control for ages, but it's clearly a restriction on our freedom. So all those in favour of everyone having a semi-auto handgun and an assault rifle raise a hand!". Looks around the room. Looks at America. No. That's not going to work here. We don't get classroom's full of children slaughtered with guns much, and we're pretty ok with that. Virtually nobody in the UK would even entertain the thought of adopting US gun culture.
I'd call that pretty clear cut from my "smug, self satisfied European outlook". Yup. We are smug. Our kids don't get shot at the rate of 30+ mass killings in schools since 1999. That's something to be smug about. I'm smug. I'm self satisfied, and the children are not getting shot.
Looking back at the spectrum of response in America to the idea of gun control? Change is going to be incredibly hard. I know Obama made some "we must change" noises. But I'm not seeing much in the way of substance yet. Cynical me also realises that we've seen so many multiple shooting incidents in America, why should this one change anything?
So .....
Innocent children died. Horribly. I can't imagine the fear and horror of the dead or of those who survived. I'd expect that kind of trauma to scar many of them for life. It's vile and disgusting.
The chances of America actually changing? Are minimal indeed. I hope. But I doubt. The vast majority of reactions boil down to "I want my guns!".
Sorry America. You want them? Then you get used to people dying by them, and incidents like 20 children being slaughtered should be page 12 news. It comes with the territory.
It stirs emotion. This is good. But...
I follow a bit of an eclectic bunch on Twitter even after my own selective preferences, so I see a weird and broad spectrum of reactions scroll past. Here we go!
On the far left are those who can't believe fellow Americans want to stick with free gun ownership. They look at gun death rates in countries with gun control and wonder why on earth people want them around. I'm with these guys. They are in a vocal minority.
Also on the far left are those that utterly mistrust the US Government. They want to keep any guns and rights they have to defend themselves against their own government. Many see a coming collapse in America and want to protect themselves when it does happen. This could be true. If you want to be a hero and you're sure you're right? Keep an illegal gun or two for the end of times.
A little way in from there are those arguing for a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatics (either or both). They argue this kind of tragedy can only occur with guns designed for relatively rapid fire, but they still want rifles, shotguns and many of them pistols. Some for reason of defence against criminals, some for the above reason of defence against the US government. I sort of get this. It would be a decent step in the right direction. I don't think it will stop the next school massacre though. A couple of handguns and clips full of ammo will do plenty of damage.
Moving to the right there is the argument that guns are not the problem, but a screening and mental health check of gun owners is required. There's a bit of a hole in this one. It seems the killer in this case took his guns from, and killed his mother. He wouldn't of had a mental health check. Here is where we start to depart from logic. This one is pure and simple "I want my guns! Blame and identify mentally ill people!" ... Little realising it's their guns that can be used by the loony and that health screening won't catch everyone who has a bad Monday.
Sadly also in here are those who jumped to identify asberger's as a mental health problem that caused the shooting. Just no. I'm not aware of any link for decades between asberger's syndrome and violence. Cut that crap out.
There's another one in here that it's violent video games that do it. Not the guns. Oh jeez. Really? Well ok. You run your own nation. Go ahead. Ban all violent video games. I bet you in a few months time even after a ban like that, another bunch of innocents will be shot and you'll be looking for something new to blame. This one really is insane. The kinds of violent video games they are talking about exist in all the gun control countries as well. They have death rates sub 20 per year. America is 9,000+?! Logic fail and again "I want my guns! Blame something else!".
[Yes. There is an argument for trying to persuade the public that age limit's on games mean something. Wandering off on my own view for a while, the same is true for DVD's. It seems to be trivial for parents now to ignore age ratings on video and games simply because they have an older child that wants to watch it or play it. I don't think that's right. I don't think the age ratings games and DVD's get are always right either, but it would be better to have parents try harder to enforce the guidance. Kid's are exposed to enough violence and stress via main stream broadcast media already. There are good reasons why we put time and money in to rating films and games. But I digress...]
Further right are those wanting to give all school staff bullet proof vests and concealed firearms to protect the children they send to school. Oh come on! MORE guns will solve gun crime? Every nursery teacher wants to be Rambo? Logic here has taken an acid trip but .. spot the meme yet? "I want my guns!"
And in an odd camp. All on it's own. Are those that simply say "They aren't taking my guns". These guys also say "I want my guns!"
There are some (mainly women I've noticed) who have decided they now need to buy and train with firearms out of fear. I can see the fear, of all the reasons, I can see the straight line logic at work on this one, but ... ouch. This was a mum who was shot and her guns taken to commit mass murder, and here's a bunch more women (people in general) motivated to go buy guns and keep them at home. This is the self-perpetuating "I want my guns" logic at work. It's fear. America wants guns because they live in fear? Possibly. It's still more guns though.
My own position can be expressed a little like this:
"Hey! Everyone in the UK. We've had gun control for ages, but it's clearly a restriction on our freedom. So all those in favour of everyone having a semi-auto handgun and an assault rifle raise a hand!". Looks around the room. Looks at America. No. That's not going to work here. We don't get classroom's full of children slaughtered with guns much, and we're pretty ok with that. Virtually nobody in the UK would even entertain the thought of adopting US gun culture.
I'd call that pretty clear cut from my "smug, self satisfied European outlook". Yup. We are smug. Our kids don't get shot at the rate of 30+ mass killings in schools since 1999. That's something to be smug about. I'm smug. I'm self satisfied, and the children are not getting shot.
Looking back at the spectrum of response in America to the idea of gun control? Change is going to be incredibly hard. I know Obama made some "we must change" noises. But I'm not seeing much in the way of substance yet. Cynical me also realises that we've seen so many multiple shooting incidents in America, why should this one change anything?
So .....
Innocent children died. Horribly. I can't imagine the fear and horror of the dead or of those who survived. I'd expect that kind of trauma to scar many of them for life. It's vile and disgusting.
The chances of America actually changing? Are minimal indeed. I hope. But I doubt. The vast majority of reactions boil down to "I want my guns!".
Sorry America. You want them? Then you get used to people dying by them, and incidents like 20 children being slaughtered should be page 12 news. It comes with the territory.
1 Dec 2012
Welfare Mythology
Current popular wisdom in economic circles is that the welfare state is doomed and in part, or entirely to blame for some of the economic troubles of the world.
First off, there are components to this generic Welfare term.
Pensions, healthcare, social security.
Pensions
In my humble opinion, the problem with pensions is not only that when birth rates decrease, fewer people are around to generate the wealth for the pension pots, but also the constant bubble mentality of pension fund planners. Expected annual growth of funds is estimated too high over lengthy periods of time. All it takes is a few years downturn or an unforeseen event in the basket of bonds & shares to knock a big hole in the finances.
So my view on pensions? Yeah big problem. Anticipating yields over 30 years simply isn't something we seem to be good at. There are far too many unknown variables. We even seem to have entirely failed to take in to account changing demographics as a factor. It's more a case of stupidity than the pension plans of the world sucking the life out of economies. Hey ... Guess what kind of people it is that manage the pension funds and happily promise high yield returns? Nope. It's not that guy who's worried about loosing his job through ill health at the factory, it's that other guy who just got a huge bonus and has private healthcare.
Sadly the end result is. Yes. Pensions are now a problem for developed economies all over the place.
Healthcare
Here I've got a bit of an inside view on the UK's NHS problems. Being a bit of an oldie it spans a few years. Over that time I've seen a continuing cycle:
"We need cheaper centrally managed healthcare, it's an economy of scale"
vs.
"We need regional efficient, effective deployment of services"
There are many back arguments to the above, but that's the cycle I've seen repeating often with each change of government. So what happens then?
A few things. The old sites need to be sold off, often in such a bulk that it distorts the market a little in each region. Sometimes the huge sites lie dormant for years and years. They need paid security to stop travellers and squatters moving in. They don't immediately sell for millions and fund the changes. Funnily enough, when the call comes back to centralise, the derelict ex-hospital sites aren't considered because they are now so out of date and in need of demolition that it's cheaper to do a deal with a developer on a PFI deal on a new site, or expanding a smaller existing site.
So there's your every 4 year+ for various developers to take a bite out of the NHS. A fair few years back, the NHS had to bin it's own property management and architects. "Couldn't afford them. Would be cheaper to out source it". Ping. Wave goodbye to staff who previously had decades of experience managing NHS property. That costs! And welcome in PFI Bob and his golf buddy friends. No. Actually they aren't quite as bothered about getting value for money for the tax payer as the guy who was being paid by the tax payer. They'd rather have a new BMW / Audi for the family, and a nice big wedge of cash out of the next deal thank you very much. Oh. And they know less about hospitals than the people we just put out of a job.
It's not just the property department either. (Can you tell what side of the NHS I dealt with yet?). Every time this contraction, expansion cycle happens, it's taken as a chance to shed some staff along with the few that just can't physically work from the new locations. There goes some more in house skill.
The personal skill factor of employee's is something I see ignored. I think it costs businesses a hell of a lot more over time than is appreciated, especially so in an organisation as huge as a government or health service. It's like constantly stripping the bonus efficiency you had out of a system and binning it. It's also often false economy. Binning the NHS property management levels actually cost more in external consultancy fees even before you get to the increased costs in contract administration, and you're doing with people who know less than the people you had, so on a time charge basis, you're just screwing yourself badly.
Sighs.
Point is. I've seen the NHS get mauled like this time and time again. Every time you get a new bunch of suits and ties who gouge out a profit for as long as they can. PFI was a gift to everyone except the NHS and the tax payer. You're not talking pennies here. Each cycle of change would be flipping costs in the £100's of millions *per county*. A big chunk of that was heading in to private firm hands with the emphasis firmly on profit ahead of value for tax-payers money.
It's even possible. That there may have been the odd bit of behind closed door deals going on. Contractors like public funded work. The bills get paid.
Back to the point. No. Actually, I don't see the NHS as being an entirely impossible idea. I see continual greed and mismanagement, right up to government sanctioned PFI deals, cashing in on the NHS time and time again. I see skills being bled out of the system with very little chance for a system to develop before it's ripped up and changed again. Then there's Mr Economist pointing his finger at it and saying "Hey the NHS costs too much". It never stood a chance Mr Economist. Guess who kicks these cyclical changes off? The finance and economics departments looking for targeted savings with each change of boss. There is no easy billion £ saving, so lets just re-organise the whole thing again, and by the time you've done that, I'll have my pay packet and be out of the door.
Social Security
By now I've almost lost the will to keep typing.
Just no. Are you honestly telling me, that if someone gets made redundant, or falls ill, we as a society just don't give a shit. Nope. I don't want to put my employment insurance with one firm and my health insurance with another, because I've seen what profiteering ass-holes run insurance funds. I've already got private pension funds in my past that are worth nothing now. The government wanted me to go on to those because they didn't want to pay so much out on my state pension. Cheers guys. Nicely shafted me again. So no. I'm not buying that private insurance is safe at all, if it even ever paid out. "We're you miss sold PPI?"...
Blurgh
I'm getting so fed up with the stupidity and narrow minded view on "Welfare" same as the "Socialism" warmongering. I'm fed up with people who have run systems that have constantly failed for decades to be telling us that the only hope of salvation is more of the same. Maybe try figuring out the economics for a system not based on greed for once in the entire history of the human race? What if you did run a health service with very tight monitoring of *any* external profit made from tax-payer money? You supply towels? Beds? Buildings? Machines that go ping? We want to see all your accounts and you're allowed X% profit. No more.... Well ideally, you'd actually get value for money with fair profits and wages resulting from it. In reality? You'll get falsified salary claims, beefed up expenses, all the same old greed as usual, just via new and different methods. Even so. I'd still rather give my method a try than let people die for loosing a job.
First off, there are components to this generic Welfare term.
Pensions, healthcare, social security.
Pensions
In my humble opinion, the problem with pensions is not only that when birth rates decrease, fewer people are around to generate the wealth for the pension pots, but also the constant bubble mentality of pension fund planners. Expected annual growth of funds is estimated too high over lengthy periods of time. All it takes is a few years downturn or an unforeseen event in the basket of bonds & shares to knock a big hole in the finances.
So my view on pensions? Yeah big problem. Anticipating yields over 30 years simply isn't something we seem to be good at. There are far too many unknown variables. We even seem to have entirely failed to take in to account changing demographics as a factor. It's more a case of stupidity than the pension plans of the world sucking the life out of economies. Hey ... Guess what kind of people it is that manage the pension funds and happily promise high yield returns? Nope. It's not that guy who's worried about loosing his job through ill health at the factory, it's that other guy who just got a huge bonus and has private healthcare.
Sadly the end result is. Yes. Pensions are now a problem for developed economies all over the place.
Healthcare
Here I've got a bit of an inside view on the UK's NHS problems. Being a bit of an oldie it spans a few years. Over that time I've seen a continuing cycle:
"We need cheaper centrally managed healthcare, it's an economy of scale"
vs.
"We need regional efficient, effective deployment of services"
There are many back arguments to the above, but that's the cycle I've seen repeating often with each change of government. So what happens then?
A few things. The old sites need to be sold off, often in such a bulk that it distorts the market a little in each region. Sometimes the huge sites lie dormant for years and years. They need paid security to stop travellers and squatters moving in. They don't immediately sell for millions and fund the changes. Funnily enough, when the call comes back to centralise, the derelict ex-hospital sites aren't considered because they are now so out of date and in need of demolition that it's cheaper to do a deal with a developer on a PFI deal on a new site, or expanding a smaller existing site.
So there's your every 4 year+ for various developers to take a bite out of the NHS. A fair few years back, the NHS had to bin it's own property management and architects. "Couldn't afford them. Would be cheaper to out source it". Ping. Wave goodbye to staff who previously had decades of experience managing NHS property. That costs! And welcome in PFI Bob and his golf buddy friends. No. Actually they aren't quite as bothered about getting value for money for the tax payer as the guy who was being paid by the tax payer. They'd rather have a new BMW / Audi for the family, and a nice big wedge of cash out of the next deal thank you very much. Oh. And they know less about hospitals than the people we just put out of a job.
It's not just the property department either. (Can you tell what side of the NHS I dealt with yet?). Every time this contraction, expansion cycle happens, it's taken as a chance to shed some staff along with the few that just can't physically work from the new locations. There goes some more in house skill.
The personal skill factor of employee's is something I see ignored. I think it costs businesses a hell of a lot more over time than is appreciated, especially so in an organisation as huge as a government or health service. It's like constantly stripping the bonus efficiency you had out of a system and binning it. It's also often false economy. Binning the NHS property management levels actually cost more in external consultancy fees even before you get to the increased costs in contract administration, and you're doing with people who know less than the people you had, so on a time charge basis, you're just screwing yourself badly.
Sighs.
Point is. I've seen the NHS get mauled like this time and time again. Every time you get a new bunch of suits and ties who gouge out a profit for as long as they can. PFI was a gift to everyone except the NHS and the tax payer. You're not talking pennies here. Each cycle of change would be flipping costs in the £100's of millions *per county*. A big chunk of that was heading in to private firm hands with the emphasis firmly on profit ahead of value for tax-payers money.
It's even possible. That there may have been the odd bit of behind closed door deals going on. Contractors like public funded work. The bills get paid.
Back to the point. No. Actually, I don't see the NHS as being an entirely impossible idea. I see continual greed and mismanagement, right up to government sanctioned PFI deals, cashing in on the NHS time and time again. I see skills being bled out of the system with very little chance for a system to develop before it's ripped up and changed again. Then there's Mr Economist pointing his finger at it and saying "Hey the NHS costs too much". It never stood a chance Mr Economist. Guess who kicks these cyclical changes off? The finance and economics departments looking for targeted savings with each change of boss. There is no easy billion £ saving, so lets just re-organise the whole thing again, and by the time you've done that, I'll have my pay packet and be out of the door.
Social Security
By now I've almost lost the will to keep typing.
Just no. Are you honestly telling me, that if someone gets made redundant, or falls ill, we as a society just don't give a shit. Nope. I don't want to put my employment insurance with one firm and my health insurance with another, because I've seen what profiteering ass-holes run insurance funds. I've already got private pension funds in my past that are worth nothing now. The government wanted me to go on to those because they didn't want to pay so much out on my state pension. Cheers guys. Nicely shafted me again. So no. I'm not buying that private insurance is safe at all, if it even ever paid out. "We're you miss sold PPI?"...
Blurgh
I'm getting so fed up with the stupidity and narrow minded view on "Welfare" same as the "Socialism" warmongering. I'm fed up with people who have run systems that have constantly failed for decades to be telling us that the only hope of salvation is more of the same. Maybe try figuring out the economics for a system not based on greed for once in the entire history of the human race? What if you did run a health service with very tight monitoring of *any* external profit made from tax-payer money? You supply towels? Beds? Buildings? Machines that go ping? We want to see all your accounts and you're allowed X% profit. No more.... Well ideally, you'd actually get value for money with fair profits and wages resulting from it. In reality? You'll get falsified salary claims, beefed up expenses, all the same old greed as usual, just via new and different methods. Even so. I'd still rather give my method a try than let people die for loosing a job.
30 Nov 2012
Pond scum
Despite my best efforts.
"Pond Scum"
A reasonably accurate way to describe the human race.
We learn nothing. Despite knowing it for years. Example? Oh I don't know, take the recent UK paedophile revelations. Looks on shelf. Yeah. Lets take the Leveson report and Murdoch as well.
What's going on here then? Well. A bunch of people did illegal, immoral and wrong things. Raping children, hacking a dead girl's voice messages, bribing the police and so on and so on.
This happens because as a species we already know that if 49 people in the room say "Ah just do it. Press the button, give the guy a 240v electric shock and then we can all go home". The chances are the guy on the button, whether he wants to or not, will fry the victim. Peer pressure. We all suffer from it.
Where we excel at being pond scum however is:
We naively assumed that our governments and officials in places of power were somehow better than that. Wrong. Actually, if you give people power and opportunity to cover things up, they'll tend to go with that. Stop wagging your finger at the government. I'll bet you're just as bad. I am. It's just my lies and cover ups tend to extend to covering up for forgotten appointments, instead of forgetting to mention to anyone about this guy raping small children or taking a bribe as a police officer.
Thing is. The government and the police get the chance to cover up *really big things!* for years and years and years. Better yet, they can get fairly wealthy at the same time. It's win win.
The other factor in our pond scum skill is:
We have no culture at all for dealing with it. There is no incentive for anyone to break rank and reveal wrong that they've been a part of. First, they'll get victimised by everyone else that's still in on the cover up. But being a brilliant bunch, the general public, despite being better off for the knowledge will lynch them as well. Maybe 2% of the population will be smart enough to go "Hey thanks! You're a bit of an asshole for all that, but at least you did the right thing in the end".
Leveson is pond scum gold. Corruption upon corruption, with only the corrupt investigating the corrupt, to find that they don't need to change anything because that would annoy the corrupt people that started the need for Leveson in the first place.
Paedophile cover up. Same deal. Huge public swell in demand for enquiries, some credible queries and evidence of very notable public figures being involved. And what do we get? Lord McFuckingAlpine. Sorry. Lord McAlpine (fucking), in my opinion deliberately trying to stifle public debate about allegations. To my knowledge, not one single case of libel has been heard or proved. Not one. NOTHING. McAlpine is 100% bluff and bullshit and the only reason that I can see for that is HE IS PROTECTING KNOWN PAEDOPHILES. They might be live, they might be dead, I don't know. But that appears to be his aim as determined from his own actions. Not one thought of "Maybe we should do the right thing here". Just pure denial, concealment and cover up.
Pond scum.
We excel at it.
"Pond Scum"
A reasonably accurate way to describe the human race.
We learn nothing. Despite knowing it for years. Example? Oh I don't know, take the recent UK paedophile revelations. Looks on shelf. Yeah. Lets take the Leveson report and Murdoch as well.
What's going on here then? Well. A bunch of people did illegal, immoral and wrong things. Raping children, hacking a dead girl's voice messages, bribing the police and so on and so on.
This happens because as a species we already know that if 49 people in the room say "Ah just do it. Press the button, give the guy a 240v electric shock and then we can all go home". The chances are the guy on the button, whether he wants to or not, will fry the victim. Peer pressure. We all suffer from it.
Where we excel at being pond scum however is:
We naively assumed that our governments and officials in places of power were somehow better than that. Wrong. Actually, if you give people power and opportunity to cover things up, they'll tend to go with that. Stop wagging your finger at the government. I'll bet you're just as bad. I am. It's just my lies and cover ups tend to extend to covering up for forgotten appointments, instead of forgetting to mention to anyone about this guy raping small children or taking a bribe as a police officer.
Thing is. The government and the police get the chance to cover up *really big things!* for years and years and years. Better yet, they can get fairly wealthy at the same time. It's win win.
The other factor in our pond scum skill is:
We have no culture at all for dealing with it. There is no incentive for anyone to break rank and reveal wrong that they've been a part of. First, they'll get victimised by everyone else that's still in on the cover up. But being a brilliant bunch, the general public, despite being better off for the knowledge will lynch them as well. Maybe 2% of the population will be smart enough to go "Hey thanks! You're a bit of an asshole for all that, but at least you did the right thing in the end".
Leveson is pond scum gold. Corruption upon corruption, with only the corrupt investigating the corrupt, to find that they don't need to change anything because that would annoy the corrupt people that started the need for Leveson in the first place.
Paedophile cover up. Same deal. Huge public swell in demand for enquiries, some credible queries and evidence of very notable public figures being involved. And what do we get? Lord McFuckingAlpine. Sorry. Lord McAlpine (fucking), in my opinion deliberately trying to stifle public debate about allegations. To my knowledge, not one single case of libel has been heard or proved. Not one. NOTHING. McAlpine is 100% bluff and bullshit and the only reason that I can see for that is HE IS PROTECTING KNOWN PAEDOPHILES. They might be live, they might be dead, I don't know. But that appears to be his aim as determined from his own actions. Not one thought of "Maybe we should do the right thing here". Just pure denial, concealment and cover up.
Pond scum.
We excel at it.
12 Nov 2012
Remembrance Day
Reality check time.
To me. Remembrance Day is remembering the almost unbelievable numbers of souls who died in two world wars. The clue is in the "Remembrance" part. From that. My heart and mind is reminded every year of the duty to never allow such global insanity and death to happen again. That is "In their honour". I Honour them by remembering, learning and preventing.
What spooks me a little. Is the subtle twist on that to make it "Thank you to everyone serving in the forces" day. Just stop right there.
In the UK it's "Remembrance" day. It's Remembrance of the deaths in the two world wars. Nothing else. Not "And thanks guys that we might send to another pointless deaths counted in millions upon millions".
I guess growing numbers of people are unaware of the death toll of the two world wars. It becomes abstract over time. This is why we have a Remembrance day. So it doesn't become an abstract. We remember and learn.
Here are the simple facts:
Dead, wounded and missing. First World War: 31,500,000
Civilian and Military deaths. Second World War: 52,200,000
Total from both:
83.7 million
Pause.
Look at that number.
Remember that every single year and why we can't let it happen again.
This year it's bugged me enough to write this little post. Remembrance day (to me) is about remembering the past and learning from it. Nothing else. It doesn't begin to creep in to a celebration of the Military. It's honouring the deaths of unimaginable millions who came before us.
There is nothing wrong with respecting those who put themselves in the military, but that is a totally different issue.
To me. Remembrance Day is remembering the almost unbelievable numbers of souls who died in two world wars. The clue is in the "Remembrance" part. From that. My heart and mind is reminded every year of the duty to never allow such global insanity and death to happen again. That is "In their honour". I Honour them by remembering, learning and preventing.
What spooks me a little. Is the subtle twist on that to make it "Thank you to everyone serving in the forces" day. Just stop right there.
In the UK it's "Remembrance" day. It's Remembrance of the deaths in the two world wars. Nothing else. Not "And thanks guys that we might send to another pointless deaths counted in millions upon millions".
I guess growing numbers of people are unaware of the death toll of the two world wars. It becomes abstract over time. This is why we have a Remembrance day. So it doesn't become an abstract. We remember and learn.
Here are the simple facts:
Dead, wounded and missing. First World War: 31,500,000
Civilian and Military deaths. Second World War: 52,200,000
Total from both:
83.7 million
Pause.
Look at that number.
Remember that every single year and why we can't let it happen again.
This year it's bugged me enough to write this little post. Remembrance day (to me) is about remembering the past and learning from it. Nothing else. It doesn't begin to creep in to a celebration of the Military. It's honouring the deaths of unimaginable millions who came before us.
There is nothing wrong with respecting those who put themselves in the military, but that is a totally different issue.
6 Nov 2012
E-cigs (what you may not know)
Hey it's my blog.
I'm allowed to ramble.
Electronic cigarettes. One way to stop inhaling a vast wad of lung blackening gack. On the surface of it, not a bad idea at all! But here's some insight from a relatively recent tester...
It works.
I went from my regular intake of roll ups down to 1, maybe 2 a day. I didn't buy the first ecig with an intent to stop either. I was intrigued and thought I'd give one a try. How fast it replaced smoking is pretty impressive.
Little side note here. This could be because it's a healthier way to pump nicotine in me at potentially massive doses. That "Oh E-Cigs!" urge could just be "Oh! Pure nicotine!". Which when you think about it, might not be such a brilliant plan.
Put that aside though. Potentially, it's a much healthier and far cheaper way of improving on a tobacco habit. So what's the blog post about?
Initial smoker looks at e-cigs and wants something roughly cigarette like. Something roughly the same size and not that weird please. I did. First kit I got was just a tiny bit larger than a standard superking cigarette. So what's wrong with that?
A couple of things. At that size you're limited by the power of the battery which seems to peak around 300mAh, many being much lower rated. That's the power that heats the coil that gives you the vapour. At this kind of level it's something that will last a few hours with a low power "atomiser". That's the bit that heats the fluid in to the vapour you inhale.
Trouble is, low power, small sized atomisers aren't all that great. You don't get a big fluid reservoir so you have to keep topping things up. You don't get a big surface area of heat because your battery won't take it, so topping it up is even more important for a consistent vape (smoke) experience.
Enter the world of "shiny".
Shiny is what E-Cig forums call all the bits and pieces you then buy to improve on your initial vape. A word of advice here. Keep track of every penny or cent you pay out on e-cig land. Match it up against what smoking was costing you. I reckon it'll take you at the very least 2 or 3 months to begin to break even given the savings on tobacco in the UK.
You get tied to the initial battery format you bought, trying to find the best atomiser / fluid combination for the batteries you spent money on. You also start sampling the range of flavours to find you really don't like quite a lot of them. If you're lucky, you've found a site that only sells top quality items. But a majority of this stuff is mass produced from China, and in my limited experience, sometimes barely meets the test of "suitable for purpose".
Why mention that? Because some of the shiny you'll end up buying sooner than you thought will be replacements for parts you thought might last a few months, but now it's failed on you after two weeks, it feels too late to return it, but it's still useless.
Still. You're determined to stay off the evil tobacco toxins, you stick with it. (Like me). And about £250 later ... hopefully. Still behind breakeven on the fluids and different combinations of systems I've tried. I might have something that will work.
It's nothing like that initial "I want it to look like a ciggie" perception. It's four times the battery power. Manual switched not automatic. More like a cigar than a cigarette, and I have no idea if it'll finally be "the solution" or not.
I've got a worrying theory this straight hit of nicotine habit is enabling some hefty spending in search of an optimal method that doesn't actually exist in E-Cig format. That... Or maybe I'll strike lucky this time and end up with something that will last a few months and make the breakeven worthwhile.
Oh and something else they don't tell you. E-Cig fluids are VG or PG based, or a mix of the two. Some cartridges and tanks will work fine with pure PG, some work far better with a stronger VG ratio in the mix. Basically, expect leaks, burnt atomisers and disappointing taste while you figure all of that out on the way.
Point is? Unless you were a casual smoker anyway, you have to expect figuring out a reliable E-Cig alternative to smoking will cost you a LOT more than that initial kit you may be looking at. Still. How much value do you put on zero tar and 99% less carcinogens while you figure it out? A fair bit apparently. So I'll keep trying...
I'm allowed to ramble.
Electronic cigarettes. One way to stop inhaling a vast wad of lung blackening gack. On the surface of it, not a bad idea at all! But here's some insight from a relatively recent tester...
It works.
I went from my regular intake of roll ups down to 1, maybe 2 a day. I didn't buy the first ecig with an intent to stop either. I was intrigued and thought I'd give one a try. How fast it replaced smoking is pretty impressive.
Little side note here. This could be because it's a healthier way to pump nicotine in me at potentially massive doses. That "Oh E-Cigs!" urge could just be "Oh! Pure nicotine!". Which when you think about it, might not be such a brilliant plan.
Put that aside though. Potentially, it's a much healthier and far cheaper way of improving on a tobacco habit. So what's the blog post about?
Initial smoker looks at e-cigs and wants something roughly cigarette like. Something roughly the same size and not that weird please. I did. First kit I got was just a tiny bit larger than a standard superking cigarette. So what's wrong with that?
A couple of things. At that size you're limited by the power of the battery which seems to peak around 300mAh, many being much lower rated. That's the power that heats the coil that gives you the vapour. At this kind of level it's something that will last a few hours with a low power "atomiser". That's the bit that heats the fluid in to the vapour you inhale.
Trouble is, low power, small sized atomisers aren't all that great. You don't get a big fluid reservoir so you have to keep topping things up. You don't get a big surface area of heat because your battery won't take it, so topping it up is even more important for a consistent vape (smoke) experience.
Enter the world of "shiny".
Shiny is what E-Cig forums call all the bits and pieces you then buy to improve on your initial vape. A word of advice here. Keep track of every penny or cent you pay out on e-cig land. Match it up against what smoking was costing you. I reckon it'll take you at the very least 2 or 3 months to begin to break even given the savings on tobacco in the UK.
You get tied to the initial battery format you bought, trying to find the best atomiser / fluid combination for the batteries you spent money on. You also start sampling the range of flavours to find you really don't like quite a lot of them. If you're lucky, you've found a site that only sells top quality items. But a majority of this stuff is mass produced from China, and in my limited experience, sometimes barely meets the test of "suitable for purpose".
Why mention that? Because some of the shiny you'll end up buying sooner than you thought will be replacements for parts you thought might last a few months, but now it's failed on you after two weeks, it feels too late to return it, but it's still useless.
Still. You're determined to stay off the evil tobacco toxins, you stick with it. (Like me). And about £250 later ... hopefully. Still behind breakeven on the fluids and different combinations of systems I've tried. I might have something that will work.
It's nothing like that initial "I want it to look like a ciggie" perception. It's four times the battery power. Manual switched not automatic. More like a cigar than a cigarette, and I have no idea if it'll finally be "the solution" or not.
I've got a worrying theory this straight hit of nicotine habit is enabling some hefty spending in search of an optimal method that doesn't actually exist in E-Cig format. That... Or maybe I'll strike lucky this time and end up with something that will last a few months and make the breakeven worthwhile.
Oh and something else they don't tell you. E-Cig fluids are VG or PG based, or a mix of the two. Some cartridges and tanks will work fine with pure PG, some work far better with a stronger VG ratio in the mix. Basically, expect leaks, burnt atomisers and disappointing taste while you figure all of that out on the way.
Point is? Unless you were a casual smoker anyway, you have to expect figuring out a reliable E-Cig alternative to smoking will cost you a LOT more than that initial kit you may be looking at. Still. How much value do you put on zero tar and 99% less carcinogens while you figure it out? A fair bit apparently. So I'll keep trying...
2 Nov 2012
Dad thoughts...
This one's about the UK attitude to kids.
It's because I have my kids to entertain and it's revealing. You'd think in this day and age, a playground for kids would be fairly easy to find. Councils provide them, moan about how much they cost, teenagers get drunk and smoke there when the sun goes down (because there's no where else to go). It's a playground. A fairly central social hub.
Well not really. If you're new to an area, try finding a playground. It's not on Google Maps or more local searches. I can't speak for all councils, but they often aren't listed on council websites, not at all around here. They don't get listed in "Local attractions" either. Somehow the playgrounds of the UK have managed to slide past the internet world entirely unnoticed.
The only way I've discovered to find them is to ask people who have kids and have lived in the area for long enough to know a couple. It's bizarre. Even amongst that sample, you'll find people who know of one place, but not another, or 'think there still is one there but not sure'. It's just very odd. Never seem to be signposted. Not marked on maps. Not listed in yellow pages ...
Still. Not to be utterly defeated. Lets search for indoor play areas instead...
Now an odd thing happens here as well. For those of you who have kids, will know by the time 8-9-10 kicks in, kids generally are no longer interested in indoor play areas. Not only that? They are positively unwelcome even before that age. Most complaints I hear in indoor play hellzones are about older children mixing with the younger kids in play areas and tears resulting. Generally a parent gets glowered at. It's all good fun. Point is. What the hell is the 7yr+ kid supposed to do? A few tired arcade machines seems to be the answer. Neat. Just what I wanted to do, pay to go to a large noisy building and then pay even more to let them play computer games instead of stay at home and do it for free.
What bugs this Dad anyway is this void around youth, I'd say worst from 7 to around 14. By the time 14 is kicking around, they can blend in with the skate park crew and things like 10 pin bowling, lasertag, all that kind of stuff opens up. Below 7 the indoor play area exists. I'm struggling to figure out how the British cope with 7 to 14. It's almost like they are just inconvenient, not wanted in adult places, get in the way in toddler places, not big enough to mix at the skate park
Sighs.
It just feels to me that somehow in other countries I've visited that isn't the attitude. In countries where I can't even speak the language, I've usually been able to find playgrounds either from road signs or just because they sensibly put them smack bang in the middle of the shopping arcade. What could be simpler? Kids hate being dragged to the shops, coffee houses / restaurants are happy to serve near enough so you can watch the kids. Kids happier, parents happier, less pissed off kids around, shop owners happier, everyone happier!
I guess in the UK there would be complaints about the noise, or that teenagers hang around it at night and make a mess, or it costs too much ... I'm not sure what it is. But it doesn't seem to happen in the UK.
And a heads up. Yes teenage kids do need to hang around places with other teenage kids doing stupid things like learning to cough up smoke, discovering hangovers and grope the wrong people. That's part of growing up.
Pointless rant. I just wish the British were a bit more inclusive when it came to children, provided more and moaned a hell of a lot less. Maybe even valued them? Seems a bit strange not to consider children as little people who get darn bored unless us provider adult types actually provide some form of entertainment or inclusion. The other side of the rant is perhaps stirred by all the recent pedo allegations flying around. It's saddening and sickening. How can it be so easy for things on this scale to be brushed under a carpet for years with countless victims? Reminds me it's not just some people that ignore or consider kids a liability in Britain. It seems to be the prevalent attitude. No wonder it seems so easy to ignore them.
It's because I have my kids to entertain and it's revealing. You'd think in this day and age, a playground for kids would be fairly easy to find. Councils provide them, moan about how much they cost, teenagers get drunk and smoke there when the sun goes down (because there's no where else to go). It's a playground. A fairly central social hub.
Well not really. If you're new to an area, try finding a playground. It's not on Google Maps or more local searches. I can't speak for all councils, but they often aren't listed on council websites, not at all around here. They don't get listed in "Local attractions" either. Somehow the playgrounds of the UK have managed to slide past the internet world entirely unnoticed.
The only way I've discovered to find them is to ask people who have kids and have lived in the area for long enough to know a couple. It's bizarre. Even amongst that sample, you'll find people who know of one place, but not another, or 'think there still is one there but not sure'. It's just very odd. Never seem to be signposted. Not marked on maps. Not listed in yellow pages ...
Still. Not to be utterly defeated. Lets search for indoor play areas instead...
Now an odd thing happens here as well. For those of you who have kids, will know by the time 8-9-10 kicks in, kids generally are no longer interested in indoor play areas. Not only that? They are positively unwelcome even before that age. Most complaints I hear in indoor play hellzones are about older children mixing with the younger kids in play areas and tears resulting. Generally a parent gets glowered at. It's all good fun. Point is. What the hell is the 7yr+ kid supposed to do? A few tired arcade machines seems to be the answer. Neat. Just what I wanted to do, pay to go to a large noisy building and then pay even more to let them play computer games instead of stay at home and do it for free.
What bugs this Dad anyway is this void around youth, I'd say worst from 7 to around 14. By the time 14 is kicking around, they can blend in with the skate park crew and things like 10 pin bowling, lasertag, all that kind of stuff opens up. Below 7 the indoor play area exists. I'm struggling to figure out how the British cope with 7 to 14. It's almost like they are just inconvenient, not wanted in adult places, get in the way in toddler places, not big enough to mix at the skate park
Sighs.
It just feels to me that somehow in other countries I've visited that isn't the attitude. In countries where I can't even speak the language, I've usually been able to find playgrounds either from road signs or just because they sensibly put them smack bang in the middle of the shopping arcade. What could be simpler? Kids hate being dragged to the shops, coffee houses / restaurants are happy to serve near enough so you can watch the kids. Kids happier, parents happier, less pissed off kids around, shop owners happier, everyone happier!
I guess in the UK there would be complaints about the noise, or that teenagers hang around it at night and make a mess, or it costs too much ... I'm not sure what it is. But it doesn't seem to happen in the UK.
And a heads up. Yes teenage kids do need to hang around places with other teenage kids doing stupid things like learning to cough up smoke, discovering hangovers and grope the wrong people. That's part of growing up.
Pointless rant. I just wish the British were a bit more inclusive when it came to children, provided more and moaned a hell of a lot less. Maybe even valued them? Seems a bit strange not to consider children as little people who get darn bored unless us provider adult types actually provide some form of entertainment or inclusion. The other side of the rant is perhaps stirred by all the recent pedo allegations flying around. It's saddening and sickening. How can it be so easy for things on this scale to be brushed under a carpet for years with countless victims? Reminds me it's not just some people that ignore or consider kids a liability in Britain. It seems to be the prevalent attitude. No wonder it seems so easy to ignore them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)