Just so busy.
I haven’t had time to update the page for a while for which I apologise. The continuation of my Quantum Physics theme will happen very soon I promise. Right now all my time is taken up with work and the legal entanglements of buying a house. Add on top of that the fact that I’ve been on call for work for 3 of the last 4 weeks and my attempts to get at least 5 hours of badminton in per week to try and trim this waistline down and there’s not much time left over for the intensive work that the posts require. I have to make sure they are readable for the average person that may arrive here with no knowledge of Physics.
On a vaguely less pathetic note did anyone see Newsnight last night? Is the government in a pickle of what? Paxman tore the Treasury official to pieces over the absence of a public spending review this side of the next election! To paraphase… the government has promised more spending and won’t reveal where the money is coming from. We are all collectively in a massive debt and it cannot come from nowhere. Either costs have to be cut – in defense, schools, roads, hospitals or whatever you choose, or we all have to pay more tax. If we don’t and the national debt rises above 75% of GDP then we risk losing our A+ credit rating as a country and that is a downward spiral we do not even want to contemplate. Gilt rates would fall, bank investment would fall, money would leave the country like rats abandoning a sinking ship and that would put the entire economy in peril. Exchange rates and Interest Rates would shift to accomodate this and all to our detriment.
Also of interest in the news today was that among Gordon ‘oh crap the shit hit the fan’ Brown’s eleven new bills for parliament is one seemingly innocuous one which guarantees the right of children to not fall below the poverty line. Yes, that is indeed very peculiar. You really did read that right. If the bill goes through then children will have the right to not be in whatever is considered poverty. The accepted measure, for the purposes of the bill, is that any child who’s parents have a total income less than 60% of the median of household income in the UK will be considered to be ‘in poverty’. This has been deliberately introduced as a law and not as a principle to work towards to spite the Conservatives who will be responsible for paying the penalties from Government funds should they win the next General Election (as seems likely). David Cameron has not stated that his party will endorse this principle ergo Labour makes it a law to force them to adhere to it in the knowledge that they won’t have to pay for it and then can attack the new Conservative government for not meeting the targets they themselves set! It’s absolute madness.
It is a ridiculous measure. In some areas of the country 60% of median income is more than enough. In others a larger income may be insufficient. But then if the parents are slackers and don’t choose to go out and do jobs they could do and just slack on benefits why should you and I pay taxes to not only give them benefits but then pay them penalties for them falling short of this abstract figure?
And what happens if median income shifts downwards? More children will be in the same or more need but will not be recognised as such. And if the median shifts upwards because just a small fraction of people earn a vast amount of money then children who do not need more specifically will be classes as in Poverty and we will be paying out to them! This is a free market and this is a capatilist democracy (in principle even if not in reality) so if you can’t afford to have children then DO NOT ****ING HAVE ANY. If you want to have children and can’t afford to raise them then you are ****ING doing them a disservice. You are bringing them into an environment that you cannot support them in. SO DO NOT DO IT! If you do have children and you cannot look after them properly because you lack the wit or intelligence or the will to provide for their needs then you should expect to have them taken off of you and given to families that can take care of them. You should NOT expect me and the rest of the hard workers and talented people in the country to pay for you to sit on your asses and F**K.
There is that really awful film where the main character is a total dunce in the army and wakes up centuries later as the most intelligent person on the planet. That is where we are headed. Girls on council estates with IQ’s under 80 having multiple children before they are 20 while educated people with careers and wealth have 1 or 2 kids in their 30’s or 40’s. I hate to sound like I endorse Eugenics but people should in some way have to prove they have the ability to support their children before they are allowed to have them! That is not Eugenics nor is it Fascism – you know what it is? It is Utilitarianism. It is Humanism. It is also sodding common sense.
Critical Thinking, Politics | PadainFain June 30, 2009
6 Comments to “Just so busy.”
The fundagelical problem with humanism | Hurtling Through Space — July 8, 2009 @ 8:17 am
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By vanessa, July 6, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Hi there, came here through your friend Jumile’s website and thought I might offer a reply.
Firstly I think you have ignored the number of pensioners who live on 60% or less of Median, which is almost the same as working class families in percentages supplied by defra.
Secoundly I don’t think you hold into account the vast numbers of inidviduals that have been forced to work for less since the start of the recession. By no fault of there own are in a worsend situation and into poverty. While I agree there aree too many Jeremy Kyle contestants out there I feel you are judging too harshly those that do work hard to make ends meet (single parents ‘not by choice’, families with one earner whlie the other looks after the children and household). The only way out is teaching children morals and values again. Even if it means bringing back oldfashioned religios teachings and disipline.
By vanessa, July 6, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
Perhaps you have forgotten those who have lost their jobs in the recession or are forced to work for less (single parents ‘not by choice’ and single income familie’s included have taken are real blow). Pensioners take an almost equal percentage of those living under the 60% median. You are right to critisize the amount of ‘Jeremy Kyle’ candidates, but instead of getting angry with them perhaps petitioning for oldfashioned morals and values being installed in schools would help combat the liberal idealogies of free sexual behaviour and free child handouts. Are you so lucky that you and your wife have above average incomes? Are your children going to be farmed off to state childcare for ‘their’ benefit or ‘yours’. Be careful when you judge the vulnerable (children).
By Mark, July 6, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
No I absolutely agree. People who’s situation worsens through no fault of their own should get help. People to whom this happens are the type who will try to get out of the situation and need a helping hand while they do. As you put it, it’s the ‘Jeremy Kyle’ types that shouldn’t be allowed to put themselves into the problem bracket in the first place!
My wife doesn’t work by the way so our children won’t be heading off to childcare!
We do need old fashioned discipline I agree but this government won’t let us have it. Nothing has changed about the teaching of right and wrong in schools but our liberties have been stripped away by the government. I won’t get into a huge debate over smacking children but I will say that taking away the parent’s choice to use it is wrong and is only done because some might abuse that power. Well by abusing it they are breaking the law and violating the child’s rights so there’s already law covering that, so why remove the liberty from us all?
And I’m sorry but I must most deeply disagree with you mentioning religion. Humanist and Utilitarian beliefs existed long before religion and will continue to exist long after religion has disappeared into the annals of ancient history. One does not need a fairy godmother to understand right and wrong.
By vanessa, July 6, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
Well as far as I am aware there are no humanistic doctrine or manifesto’s that state that woman under a certain age cannot express sexual freedom with as many partners as they like. Nor does is state they be married or need a sufficient income. ‘Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism….individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire’. On the religious standpoint Genesis 3 : By the sweat of your brow, you will produce food to eat until you return to the ground. And again the 10 commandments: 6 days you shall work and on the seventh you shall rest. As far as sexuality is concerned I don’t think I need to go there.
Personally I don’t find Humanism protects morals and values but rather devalues them to excuse liberation of sexual behaviour. So perhaps a ‘fairy godmother’ is needed afterall?!?
By PadainFain, July 8, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
I think it’s fair to say that Jumile has responded to your comments sufficiently for me to just link this discussion to his blog:
http://hurtlingthroughspace.com/?p=489
However I will try to address your points in a future post because it would take more than a simple comment to deal with the many issues you talk about.