Michael Meacher's letter

Posted on May 10, 2012 by Cai

I saw this letter on Twitter this morning:

The annual Sunday Times Rich List yields four very important conclusions for the governance of Britain (Report, Weekend, 28 April). It shows that the richest 1,000 persons, just 0.003% of the adult population, increased their wealth over the last three years by £155bn. That is enough for themselves alone to pay off the entire current UK budget deficit and still leave them with £30bn to spare.

Second, this mega-rich elite, containing many of the bankers and hedge fund and private equity operators who caused the financial crash in the first place, have not been made subject to any tax payback whatever commensurate to their gains. Some 77% of the budget deficit is being recouped by public expenditure cuts and benefit cuts, and only 23% is being repaid by tax increases. More than half of the tax increases is accounted for by the VAT rise which hits the poorest hardest. None of the tax increases is specifically aimed at the super-rich.

Third, despite the biggest slump for nearly a century, these 1,000 richest are now sitting on wealth greater even than at the height of the boom just before the crash. Their wealth now amounts to £414bn, equivalent to more than a third of Britain's entire GDP. They include 77 billionaires and 23 others, each possessing more than £750m.

The increase in wealth of this richest 1,000 has been £315bn over the last 15 years. If they were charged capital gains tax on this at the current 28% rate, it would yield £88bn, enough to pay off 70% of the entire deficit. It seems however that Osborne takes the notorious view of the New York heiress, Leonora Helmsley: "Only the little people pay taxes."
Michael Meacher MP
Labour, Oldham West and Royton

Continue reading →

Charlotte Allen: No point, just whining.

Posted on June 2, 2009 by Cai

The Guradian's published a Comment is free article by Christian author Charlotte Allen. It's called "Atheists: No God, just whining", with jovial abstract: "Atheists are a tiresome, self-pitying bunch whose primary motivation isn't rationalism but anger". Oh yes, this is already looking like a good one. Well, I read it. And the only thing that struck me was the bizarre irony of someone complaining about whining taking the place of valid argument, by whining in place of valid argument. There are fifteen paragraphs in Charlotte's essay, and I think only one valid point is made throughout. I'm going to reproduce and deconstruct it briefly because, well, because I can. And I think it's interesting that an essay of such meagre calibre has been published in not one but two major newspapers. Let me begin:

I can't stand atheists – but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.

Well we're off to a good start. Allen opens with a short paragraph which really serves as an excellent preview for the rest of the essay — it's a sweeping generalisation, offensively bigoted (try rehashing with "jew" in place of "atheist" and submitting this to The Guardian), contains no argument, and displays a startling lack of self-awareness. Continue reading →

Dear Jacqui

Posted on April 29, 2009 by Cai

Dear Jacqui.

It is clear from all independent observers that the UK government don't really understand the technological developments of the last 6 or 7 years.

Those who don't want to be tracked in their communications can EASILY avoid it. This maximises false-positives on human and automated telecommunication surveillance. Ever heard of RSA? It really is a truly marvellous piece of mathematics, you might want to check out sometime. Wikipedia (heard of that?) has a good introduction here. Look at this one too. This, too. Isn't technology fascinating?

I hear many modern universities teach courses in computers and technology, so there's probably a lot of fairly knowledgeable people around for you to talk to, if you felt so inclined. Oh, the stories they could tell you!

As a non-terrorist, I'm afraid you have no right to know who I associate with.

Emergency powers!

Faith Schools: Why They're a Really Bad Idea

Posted on April 26, 2009 by Cai

As the title suggests, this short article is about faith schools, and why they're a really bad idea.

To begin with, I'm going to have to make some assumptions. I don't want to have to argue everything through from first principles, so let me first detail my starting point. I think I'll need just three ideological presuppositions to argue my case. First, pluralism is good. By this I mean that we should have some respect and tolerance for other cultures and opinions. Notice here that I don't mean that all cultures and opinions are equally valid. In fact, this is my second assumption — cultural relativism is bad. By this I mean that no matter how strongly a person or group of people believe something, that doesn't make it true. Some things really are universally and objectively wrong. I'm sure we can all agree that genital mutilation and smacking children are not only wrong, but that people who disagree with us are actually incorrect, by some objective metric. If we don't submit this point, then right from the start anything goes. Rape, murder, anything. If rape is wrong, it's wrong objectively. This second assumption may seem to be in tension with the first, but I don't think it has to be. We can find the point of agreement by saying that everyone's entitled to their opinion, but that we don't have to take them all seriously; though we certainly shouldn't be dogmatic about which ones we do and don't. Finally, I'm going to assume that needless human suffering should be avoided. Hopefully this maxim won't require me to defend it. I should also point out that I'm speaking as a British citizen here, so my knowledge and analysis relate to faith schools as governed by UK law.

I'm basically going to address three things in this essay. I'm going to detail what I think's wrong with faith schools; outline some criticisms. I'm going to try to look at arguments put forward in defence of faith schools, and dismantle them. Then I'll try and come up with some suggestions about what should happen.
Continue reading →

Joseph Alois Ratzinger

Posted on March 26, 2009 by Cai

I'm finding it quite hard to think about the Pope. He's saying some truly evil and stupid things; but can he be blamed?

I'm talking, of course, about his recent public anti-condom statements. He said:

[AIDS is] a tragedy that ... cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.

Well, he's just wrong. You don't need to look for more than 30 seconds to find the UN saying

The male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

or Leslie Ramsammy, the World Health Assembly President saying

The statement by the Pope is inconsistent with science, it's inconsistent with our experiences and it is not in sync with what Catholics have experienced and believe.

Now, everyone knows that when religious leaders talk about what's right and what's wrong, they're drawing from medieval ignorance and not from modern enlightenment. But like it or not, most people in the world are religious, and a huge number of religious people follow a religious leader as part of their faith. This gives these people a huge amount of power. There are currently about a billion (!) Catholics in the world, and a lot of people take what the Pope says very seriously.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [Matthew 16:18-19]

Which makes his a position of extreme responsibility. Which makes him (literally) pontificating whereof he is ignorant -- and matters of sexual health and disease prevention are apparently such things -- so dangerous.

So who's at fault, and what's to be done? Is it Ratzinger's fault? Assuming he's not grotesquely cynical, he really believes he has unique access to the will of his god and is sharing his acquired wisdom with his flock.

Well, his flock aren't at fault. If you're extremely poorly educated and brought up from birth to follow Catholicism (a belief-system already known for its insidious affect on mental health) you probably can't help but follow Ratzinger's terrible advice.

So I'm forced to conclude that, yes, it is entirely Ratzinger's fault. Let's not make excuses about this. I don't want to hear "oh, I'm sure he thinks he's doing the right think". Yes, I'm sure he thinks he's doing the right thing, too; but when you've got that much power, you'd better make damned sure that you're actually correct with what you proclaim. And he's most-definitely not correct about this one, and an untold number of people will now suffer as a direct consequence of his Hyde Park Corner-esque ravings.

Perhaps he's mad. Perhaps the Pope is a literal sociopath. But he doesn't really act like one, if you take his behaviour in the context of the Catholic faith. So he's uneducated, and either bewilderingly stupid or wilfully ignorant and (given that if it were the former, he probably wouldn't have got elected) it's probably the latter.

So Ratzinger can legitimately be blamed personally for the ruin he's currently bringing upon the lives of so many of the faithful.

So what's to be done? Well, although I'm not a violent person, and nor do I generally approve of murder in cold blood, I can at least see the argument for the justification of the killing of mass-murders. Not sure I agree with it, but at least I can see where they're coming from. But, ethical considerations aside, it would be a poor strategic move to actually try and kill the Pope. Not only would one be almost-certainly unsuccessful; but even if one managed it, a new and (most-likely) indistinguishably unpleasant one would be almost immediately be elected, and no progress would be made. I've suggested elsewhere that perhaps a citizen's arrest for crimes against humanity would be the way to go, since that would more fruitfully incapacitate Ratzinger, whilst bringing almost as much awareness to his transgressions. But on reflection it's just completely impractical.

So what is the answer? I really don't know. At least lots of people are coming out and complaining about the Pope's loud ignorance. That's certainly better than the slight grumbling that has followed other outrageous and intellectually and morally offensive statements made by religious leaders. And rational people everywhere can keep calling the bullshit they encounter. But with so many people suffering and dying, and with Ratzinger and his cronies with their imaginary infallibility, can this be enough?

Costa Coffee hates everyone

Posted on January 19, 2009 by Cai

I was walking through the Grand Arcade today, when I saw this:

Costa Coffee heat lamps

What the hell is that?! Heat lamps are bad enough when it's outside, but inside?! What's more, there is nobody sitting "outside" under those (similarly pointless, but at least not energy-consuming) umbrellas, so Costa Coffee are heating some seats for precisely no reason.

I'm actually finding it difficult to imagine how they can justify this, even to themselves. I think I'm going to write to them.

Madness in Mississippi

Posted on January 19, 2009 by Cai

What the Jesus is this? I'll tell you what it is, it's a proposed bill that a Mr. Gary Chism wants passed in Mississippi which would require all school textbooks on evolution to carry a disclaimer. Astounding. Well, let's be rational - maybe he has a valid point. Why don't we look carefully at the proposed disclaimer, and see if it has anything to offer us.

Let me begin at the top:

The word 'theory' has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles.

Well, that's certainly true. "Systematically organised knowledge" is a fairly good description of the meaning of the term in a scientific sense ("knowledge" being a fairly key term). Although it's a bit weird to mention all of the non-scientific meanings of the word on the front of science textbook, isn't it? That's just going to confuse the issue... I'm sure Mr. Chism is about to clear things up, though.

Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world.

Observations? Yes. Assumptions? Well, that's a fairly vague claim. Yes, there are issues with theory-laden observation and unconfirmed auxiliary statements, but it hardly seems fair to claim that scientific theories are "based on ... assumptions". At least that needs some in-depth philosophical argument, and is by no means obvious (or even necessarily true).

They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.

That is certainly true. It seems like Mr. Chism knows all about how science works!

Now we get to the good stuff:

This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things.

Wow. Ok, this single sentence is so entirely false, that I'm going to break it down even further.

evolution, a controversial theory

No. Evolution is not a controversial theory. There are still open questions within evolutionary research, but it's not exactly controversial.

some scientists present

"Some scientists"? Those are weasel words if ever I heard them. I'm not going to deny that someone who has been university-educated has disagreed with evolution, but "some scientists" suggests that there's at least a sizeable minority of peer-respected scientists who are on the other side. The AAAS doesn't think so, neither does the IAP. They're definitely not the only major academic organisations who completely advocation evolutionary theory, just the ones I found in 3 minutes of actually looking.

scientific explanation for the origin of living things

This is just flat-out wrong. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life. The clue's in the name. Perhaps Mr. Chism isn't too hot on detecting clues, though.

Ok, now comes:

No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory.

Yes. Absolutely true. What does this have to do with evolution again?

Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things.

"Unproven". Using that deep understanding of the nomenclature of the philosophy of science again. "Unproven" like the theory of relativity, and the theory of Romans, I guess? And I'm not sure who's claiming that undirected forces somehow "produce living things"... I'm not even sure that makes sense... If only Mr. Chism had imparted his understanding of the matter to us...

There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook...

"Origin of life" stuff creeping in here again, what a shame. And what's this? Unanswered questions in science? What a valid point!

Study hard and keep an open mind.

Yes. That really is good advice. But make sure you keep the "mind" part of "open mind", because otherwise you might end up as a Republican representative.

[Found via Ed Brayton. More discussion on his blog.]

Cai Wingfield

Tag Archives: rant