Horrid mind-worm of the day

Glam-metal bureaucrats

From a thought sequence about Trevor Phillips and the "motley crew" of the Equalities Commission.

Morality versus Reality

There is an annoying tendency - amongst the left pretty much everywhere and amongst the right in the USA - to try to conflate their morality with some vision of reality. Morality is the way you thinks things should work, reality is the way they actually do.

So attempts to describe the way thinks do work - our vain attempts as humans to peer into the darkness of reality - are essentially amoral (whether they are correct or incorrect.) What's more, they say nothing about the moral views of the person concerned. As an engineer with an obscure speciality, often dealing with the law, and an amateur physicist and economic critic, I come across this confusion quite often.
If a client came to me and said that one of their staff had been arrested for the possession (on company equipment) of "extreme pornography" contrary to section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, it is bugger all use to the client me whittering on about this being an appallingly illiberal piece of legislation brought in by an authoritarian government driven, as ever, by their PR strategy, as a result of a single issue campaigner.

Instead, and obviously, I'd advise them to find a lawyer and point them both at the possession defences in ss 64, 65 & 66, and to the limitations of vicarious liability.

Currently, chez Timmy, there is much discussion about the Laffer curve. There is a rabid insistance from the left that there is no such thing as a maximimally raising tax level. Yet, mathematically, this is trite. If you raise no tax at 0% tax (anything time 0 is 0), governments raise tax (yup, yes, and I had a loud argument with HMRC's "helpline" auto-responder yesterday) and that if people were taxed at 100% they wouldn't bother earning (this is possibly the one area of doubt), then basic maths (and differential calculus - thanks to Dave Gillies) mean that there are one or more maxima. And, on or more of these will be an absolute maximum. That's reality, not morality.

Now, the maths doesn't tell you much. It doesn't tell you where the maxima may be found or the shape of the curve. Nor does it enter in to political discussions about whether we should indeed be trying to raise as much tax as possible or just enough to pay for government. Or how much government that should be. Or the relative efficiencies and consequences of different tax types - production, consumption, income, flat or progressive. Just that if you keep raising any tax (or the overall tax burden) eventually you will get to a point where your revenue declines.

Moralities differ - and that difference should be permitted in a liberal society. I like a drink, Muslims believe alcohol to be haram. No problem - I'm not going to force them to have a drink and, provided all I get is a disapproving glance and am banned from drinking when I enter (the profoundly illiberal) Saudi, its something that I can live with. Ditto pork, homosexuality, drugs, the poor - we all have different opinions on what the correct moral actions should be. However, none of that valuable difference entitles us to different realities.

Security Geek Pills

'Nuff said.

Ugly man halts ugly building because of ugly wind farm?

I'm not sure I'm happy about supporting Alex Salmond in anything he does and I'm not the greatest fan of wind farms but ...

"more damage to Scotland than virtually any event in Scottish history"

Look, it's just a golf course. We've got hundreds of the buggers. And this ain't the Crystal Palace ...

Image via the Evening Times.

1. Golfers should be looking where the ball goes, you know.

2. Having Prestwick round the corner hasn't noticeably dimmed the demand for golf at Royal Troon.

3. It's the damn Germans who make the wind turbines, not the Chinese.

4. You're no angel - you're building on an SSSI.

Dear Argentina,

The maximum range of the Trident D-5 rocket carried in the Vanguard class submarines is, according to Wikipedia, over 7,000 miles. Which is somewhat more than the distance between Plymouth and Buenos Aires.

Why would we need one to be anywhere near the Falklands?

Note: Yes, I know that the boats are based in Faslane not Devonport ...

Strange Priorities

Or probably not.

Unilad - unfunny joke - definitely; offensive - certainly seems to have been; should have been banned? I don't think so. Result - spaffed all over the Guardian. Well, okay, they're somewhat more "right on" than I am.

10 year old deaf girl is kept as a slave and sexually abused for nearly a decade. Unfunny, offensive and, guess what? Actually illegal in a significant number of ways. So, what do we get from the "Manchester Guardian"?

Your search - Ilyat Ashar site:guardian.co.uk - did not match any documents. 

I did try another few searches as well - the wife's name, even "false imprisonment manchester" - nothing relevant. The most recent article returned on the Gruniad's own search engine for the last search was this.

Nothing from Polly (well, she wouldn't unless the accused were Tory councillors, would she), nothing from Jane Martinson, nothing from any of the legion of feminist ranters. I think they are seriously fucked up. And I don't mean that in a nice way. Update: The Guardian posted this article at 17:00 on Mon 13th. From "a senior news writer", not from any of the legion of the overpaid opinionated.

All my own work

But posted somewhere else. I retain it here for reasons of simple ego.

The world is not 'fair'. Reality owes you nothing. It is mere childishness to think otherwise and wilful ignorance to demand that others act according to your delusions.

Actually, having thought about it, "Reality owes you nothing except death" would have been even better.

Fools on the loose

Freemen on the Land. What can you do with them. Hunting with hounds has been outlawed, we can't just 'hang'em from the yardarm' anymore and the stocks have been banned as "too good for them". Oh dear.

I mean, just what does this mean:

All words/whirreds(null) that follow/fall low(null) shall be of common/calm man use only and where “spellings”/ “sounds”/ “mal-intents” are null and void ab initio, ad infinitum, nunc pro tunc;

Go on? Apart from the simple gibberish, the author clearly misunderstands the words "null" and "void" in the legal context. Which is strange. Because this purports to be a legal document.

Okay, and they don't like "Unam Sanctum",  Boniface VIII's attempt to claim the moral high (hog?) ground back from Dante. Great. I don't like it either. Mind you, neither did Phillip (IV) King of France. Having rad it, he then had Boniface's palace assaulted, the Pope captured and humiliated, to the extent that Boniface dies just over a month later. Oh, and it had nothing to do with the "Holy Roman Emperor" - it was a battle of ideas between the Papacy and the Kings of France and, to a lesser extent, England. Anyway, ever heard of this wee thing that happened in the 16th and 17th centuries? Generally called "the Reformation". And, what about the Enlightenment?

"Lawful rebellion" in accordance with Article 61? Find the barons and make your complaint for redress. Go on ... Then get the 25 to meet and swear to them. Please. It will occupy your time ...

"The Dummies Guide to Freedom" - err, they don't get this, do they ...

And what about this pretentious bollocks:

Let it be known by all concerned, interested and affected parties that I, the Freeman known as Michael-John of Bernicia (the Grantor-Trustee), have been entrusted with the Soul Mission of founding the Universal Community of Self-Realisation, for the highest benefit of the emancipation, upliftment and self-realisation of Mankind,

Fuck me. That could almost have come from the founding directive of "Comment is Facile" ...

Why do apparently intelligent people get caught up in this utter drivel? Interestingly, quite a lot of them appear to be just that wee bit older than me. I might just have to blame LSD.

An apposite comparison?

I'm not a strong believer in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. I'm a professional skeptic and cynic about authority. Tamsin Edwards has a new post up, were I would probably be categorised as a "lukewarmer". But the methods used to force the debate, especially the "you're not a published climate scientist so you can't comment" really grate, especially when:

1. They are never applied to CAGW supporters such as Monbiot (journalist and polemic) or Gore (professional hereditary politician and some-time journalist).
2. People are commenting within their field of expertise - be it statistics, economics, computer modelling or atmospheric physics.
3. The CAGW gurus seem to spend a lot of time and effort making sure that climate scientists with diverging opinions don't get published.

But, there we go. That seems to be the way this particular niche in science goes at them moment. Until, Luboš Motl (a theoretical physicist, not a climate scientist) came up with a fairly telling analogy:

Climate alarmism and astrology

However, I want to make one more important point. The specialization may be a good thing but too specialized disciplines run a much higher risk that they could be totally wrong: the whole discipline could be based on a misconception. What do I mean?

What I mean is that the comment "We're just like the heart surgeons and you shouldn't ask anyone else" may also be exploited by the astrologers, if I pick a specific example of a discipline that is almost generally accepted as a pseudoscience.

An astrologer could tell you: "I am the only expert in astrology. I have been doing horoscopes for 40 years and earned millions of dollars by doing so. The astronomers and biologists who wrote an article that disagreed with me aren't really certified experts in astrology. You should better listen to astrologers when they're talking about the impact of planets and about the horoscopes; everyone else is a layman."

And I really think he has a very valid point. I'm not saying that climate science is as wrong as astrology, that (all) climate scientists are as mendacious as astrologers. But the "how dare you disagree" point is debunked. Astrology was considered valid for far longer than real science has been ...

Éoin Clarke: Outrageously Stupid

Now, I know that's not news but he's outdone himself this time with "A call to establish an International Banking Crimes Tribunal". Being a lefty, of course, crimes include facilitating legal voluntary payments between consenting adults:

Worse still, UK banks took payments from families in poverty for FarePak Christmas Hampers even though they knew they were calling in the debts of that company before Christmas and that families would be left stranded

things they simply aren't guilty of:

Moreover, our banks have flogged cash machines to racketeers who charged customers £1.50 per withdrawal.

{Note to the socialist or terminally dim (but I'm channelling Mr Clemens again ...): Diebold and NCR may indeed be evil but, regardless, they're not banks!}

and uses the example of the ICC (120 States Parties not including, as well as the USA, the two most populous nations in the world - China and India) as:

the entire world

But then he outdoes himself with a "perfect Ritchie":

The powers of the court are for others to discuss but the concept that a court would be able to apply unlimited fines and recommend bankers for trial seems a good starting point.

Civilised places, you utter statist filth, generally award punishments after the trial.

I suppose a war of words is better ...

It's a while since I've had a bit of a rant about the Falklands. Still, the Argentinians seem to be making up for my lack ...

"Do you even know what moral means," replied a Malvinas hardliner. "If you regret that we left the English with 31 ships out of combat then you never had any sense of morality."

Goodness - 31 ships "out of combat" - damaged beyond combat use, perhaps? Well, if you count a couple with the odd cannon shell hole and Onyx running aground, I count that they damaged 21. What about:

Argentines are saddened that Prince William "will arrive on our soil in the uniform of a conquistador, and not with the wisdom of a statesman who works for peace and dialogue between nations," the country's foreign ministry said.

Hmm, bit effing late. Never mind 1982, what about the offers to take the discussions to the Hague between 1947 and 1955? Who was it who said "No, desgraciado extranjeros sucios" then? Hint, the Brits probably didn't speak Spanish ... Note: Edited for spilung

In which your blogger relocates

I really don't know why I was doing it last night but I ended up googling this nym. I which I discovered that I lived in Australia. Canberra to be precise.

This came as a slight surprise both to me and to Mrs SE. While, as a committed libertarian and a professional cynic, I have no problem with the Antipodeans labelling their seat of government "evil", politicians tend not to be particularly "surreptitious" about anything - even expenses fraud. But, no, Hotfrog darling, out by a mere 10,000 miles or so.

Surely not even "Wee Eck"?

Could be that daft? This must be simple insanity or a throwaway political jibe from Peter Hitchens (I'm not a common enough reader of his column or, frankly, his paper to have a prejudged opinon):

Paradoxically, Scotland might bring Berlin time to England – by negotiating its own Scottish time zone north of the border. 

Surely anybody who has paid any attention to the debate that there is a strong even-causal link, not just correlational, between how far north you live in the country and your opinions on whether we should adopt Central European Time. Heathen southerners, like Rebecca Harris MP (51.5°N) who sponsored the Private Members' Bill (and clearly doesn't understand the meaning of the word "conservative") are significantly for, as opposed to, for example, Dr Elidh Whiteford MP (57.5°N),against. Although a special note of thanks must go to Christopher Chope OBE MP (at a mere 50.7°N), no matter the reasons for or the substance of his objections.

Retaking the Political Compass

As I do, intermittently, I've had another go at the "Political Compass" test. Today, I appear to be marginally more right-wing and a bit more libertarian than previously.

My Political Views
I am a center-right social libertarian
Right: 1.53, Libertarian: 4.92

Or, 1.75 & 4.67, on a slightly different version.

Pretty much the same areas, pretty consistent with before.

And another lovely comment.

Via "Delta Bravo Sierra":

I am busy fighting giants all day while Odin sips mead in valhalla. I am the 99%!

Lovely comment

From a some-time collaborator, Henry Crun:

The OED defines chutzpah as "See Labour Party in Opposition post May 2010."

Is Google Ads Broken?

Well, damaged, anyway.

I've been reading about the great Ed'n'Ed versus the unions bust-up. On CiF. Because if you want to find out what the delusional end of the socialist co-operative are thinking it's either there or Tax Research UK.

Anyway ...

I keep getting:

Ads by Google

Marines: State of Mind

Want to be a Royal Marines officer? Visit our new Facebook© page.
facebook.com/RoyalMarinesGreenOps

I'm struggling to think of a less Bootneck Officer clique than the watermelons and crusties who hang around on CiF?

Sherlock gets it wrong.

I'm not going to indulge myself in the whole litany of errors in military and computing matters that inflicted "Hound of the Baskervilles" last night. My family had to sit through my muttering and you deserve better.

Just two though, both regarding the irritating Major Barrymore (and not about his being an irritating martinet - not making Lt Col does take some people like that):

• WTF is this beard thing? He's in the Army not the Royal Navy (and is neither a Drum Major in a Scottish Regiment nor a Pioneer Sergeant.) That you have some people wearing scruffy beards whilst on patrol in Afghanistan is one thing but it doesn't translate to smart beards in the UK. But that's the producers not Sherlock himself.
• The medals in the picture of him and his dad. Sherlock decrees it is mid-1980s and that the father has a DSO. Complete bollocks, of course. The Dad is wearing the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, instituted in 1993 (and not awarded until 1995), a General Service Medal with one bar and the Gulf War (1990 / 91) medal. And he doesn't have the South Atlantic Medal that the "Falklands veteran" he is declared to be would wear (this would be to the left or right of the GSM, depending on when he earned them, all campaign medals having the same precedence therefore being warn in order of award.)

I know, pointless pedantry. But given that the whole drive behind the character is pedantic attention to detail ...

Do Ministers Ever Learn Anything From Their Departments?

Well, it seems not.

Dennis McShane, expenses cheat (but not {yet} proven crook), bully, suspended Labour MP and former "Fifth Columnist on behalf of the EU in the British Government" thinks that the Countess of Wessex should sell some jewellery she was given by the Bahraini Royal Family and use the money to "benefit victims of the civil unrest."

So, there are a few problems with this.

Firstly, it is unclear whether these are HRH Sophie's to sell or part of the Royal Collection.

Secondly, these are official gifts. You either refuse them when offered, or you keep them. An international diplomatic version of that hideous sweater your aunt knitted for you that you can only bring yourself to wear when she visits and you can't throw out because, ugly though it is, you care more about her feelings than very occassionally looking like a bit of a prat. Ed notes: Although, with official gifts, you might be able to return them if you've either broken the rules or there is a significant problem. Sort of like Mugabe and Ceaucescu having their honorary knighthoods annulled.

Lastly, we have a member of the socialist internationale insisting the British Royal Family should interfere in the politics of another state? That's a fantastic turn-around from the usual insistance that they keep their unelected opinions out of our politics.

BBC - journalistic accuracy

Apparently, George Galloway was "Dundee's leader" in 1980. He was Vice-Chair of Dundee Labour Party and might have become a councillor (at his second attempt) on 1 May 1980. However, the Lord Provost was Jim Gowans and Galloway didn't even become the Party Chair ("Secretary Organiser?) until 1981. And the proposal for twinning came from then-Councillor Colin Rennie.

Well done the MSM.