Longrider

I haven’t been following the Winter Olympics – sport tends to bore me rigid. However, I can understand why a winning team would want to have a bit of a celebration. The puritans in the IOC don’t seem to think so, though.

Victorious players emerged from the dressing room, still in their uniforms and with gold medals hanging from their necks, more than half an hour after beating the United States 2-0.

During their impromptu celebration on the Vancouver ice rink Haley Irwin was pictured pouring champagne into the mouth of team-mate Tessa Bonhomme, while another player tried to drive the ice-resurfacing machine and honked the horn.

Honked the horn, eh? Wow! Quelle horreur! And so what? Young people win a big competition and let off a bit of steam? This is news? Oh, yes, this is news alright:

Others lay stretched out on the ice drinking from champagne bottles and beer cans.

The demon drink!

Marie-Philip Poulin, 18, who scored both goals, is still under the legal drinking age of 19 in Vancouver but was pictured on the ice with a beer in her hand. The drinking age in Alberta, where the Canadian team trains, is 18.

Which just goes to show that Canada is as daft as the USA when it comes to such silliness. 18 is plenty old enough, frankly.

It wasn’t just the drinking that enraged the puritans, oh no, they smoked cigars! Poison! Eeeeevil! We’re all gonna die! Second third fourth fifth-hand smoke! Run for the hills!

Step forward Gilbert Felli to comment on this display of flagrant wickedness:

But Gilbert Felli, IOC executive director of the Olympic games, said: “It is not what we want to see. I don’t think it’s a good promotion of sport values.”

Prior to the rise in purselipped, petty, peevish, puritanism, it was precisely the values I would expect. People win, people have a party to celebrate. Big deal. It’s harmless and for the participants, a bit of fun.

God help us in the sterile new world where people like Gilbert Felli run things; dry, barren, dull, tedious, righteous and mind-numbing.

Yesterday’s news was awash with the conviction of Khyra Ishaq’ mother for her killing. No one watching could remain unmoved by what this child endured during her short life. Another Victoria Climbié, unfortunately.

Various people were interviewed and the usual hand wringing indulged in. The inevitable line was trotted out – “what can be done to ensure that nothing like this happens again?”. The answer, frankly, is “nothing”. For no matter what measures are taken, there will always be the odd one that will slip through the net. The only way to be sure that children are sufficiently monitored to prevent all such tragedies will involve a blanket level of state surveillance that makes the telescreen appear positively benign. Risk exists. We have to balance that against the liberty of the innocent majority. To do otherwise is absurd. But, then, look at the people we are dealing with. Absurd doesn’t even begin to cut it. Besides, who watches the watchers?

Much was made by Graham Badman and the odious hobgoblin Ed Balls about Khyra being taken out of education and home educated. You can see where this is going, can’t you? If the authorities have the right to enter the home and interview children – alone, if possible – as recommended in the Badman Report, then this could have been prevented, they assert. Because Khrya’s mother and step father took her out of school and apparently home educated and used that as a shield to hide the abuse, it follows in these peoples minds, that others are doing likewise.

Balls and co distrust home education and want the local authority to register and monitor home educators – ostensibly to check for abuse – but deep down, they hate the idea that children have been removed from the state indoctrination scheme and more free thinkers is the last thing they want. There is something deeply obscene about ministers and their hangers on who will use one tragedy to justify yet more surveillance of the innocent majority.

Perhaps the question they should be asking is why a depressive mother and schizophrenic step-father were granted custody in preference to the biological father?

Melanie Reid wants us to pay the Chandlers’ ransom.

As The Times has revealed, Somali pirates have reduced their ransom demand for Paul and Rachel Chandler, the kidnapped British sailors, from the original $7 million sum to $2 million (about £1.3 million).

One does not need to see another picture of poor Mrs Chandler, separated cruelly from her husband and wasting away in distress after four months, to be overcome with the impulse to phone up the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and ask them, a mite rudely, what they receive taxpayers’ money for if not to use it in emergencies like this.

I don’t need to – I am well aware that the minute taxpayers’ money is used to free these hostages it is a green light for the pirates to target UK citizens for more. This is not what taxpayers’ money is for.

Forget the precedent about not negotiating with terrorists (as long as they’re not Irish). Enough is enough.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is a principle for a very sound reason – every ransom paid is encouragement for more. Freeing the Chandlers by paying off the pirates places every UK citizen who may be travelling in the area at greater risk. Never, never, never negotiate with hostage takers. Yes, it’s bad for those who are taken, but allowing the problem to escalate as a consequence of moral cowardice as espoused by Reid makes matters worse. Better still, send in a task force to carry out a rescue. I thought we had learned that one in the wake of Entebbe.

This is a one-off that, were it not so tragic, would resemble a farce. Two middle-aged yachties, by no means rich, retire early and decide to amble round the world under sail. They are kidnapped by pirates in the expectation that anyone in a pleasure craft in that part of the world is a first cousin of the Emir of Dubai.

It is not a one off. Pirates are busily hijacking anything worth taking in the area. That they misjudged the Chandlers’ wealth is neither here nor there and is not an excuse for a taxpayer bail out. They should have stayed well clear of the area. They made an error of judgement. While I feel sorry for them, errors of judgement have consequences. Sorry, but risking other people just to free these two is wrong and Reid is an idiot.

There, but for the grace of God and a better pension plan, might go any one of us.

Well, no, actually. If I decided to sail a yacht around the world, I’d avoid the Somali coast by rather more than a few hundred miles. This is because I am aware of the pirate activity going on.

You know, if you asked the British public tomorrow what they thought, I suspect you would get a resounding vote to pay the ransom.

Really? You think so? The majority of comments to the piece suggest otherwise.

That said, there is always the odd idiot. Step forward Peter Marshall:

Predicable old Poms. The floodgate arguments. You hear it before they think it.

Er, that’s because that is precisely what happens when hostage takers smell easy money. They come back for more.

Every other country somehow manages to deal with kidnapping and ransoms but the UK?

Indeed. Israel, for example.

I alluded to my education in the previous post. While I was perfectly happy with the English language teaching I received, my feelings towards the mathematics teaching is entirely negative.

I failed my eleven plus at maths. You might assume – correctly – that maths is not my strong point. I struggled from the off – whereas language and self-expression were never a problem. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. However, as this piece in the Times points out, maths – and the times tables – are important, so weakness it may be, I still need to have a grasp of it.

When I was in primary school, tables were learned by rote. We repeated ad nauseum “two times two equals four” and so on. In order to move onto the next table, we had to recite the current one in front of the class. I found the whole thing terrifying – to the point where I dreaded maths lessons. I faltered through my two times table and failed, utterly and completely, to get through my three times. The teacher eventually gave up on me. At the time, I was much relieved. However, I subsequently lacked the foundations for basic maths and struggled at every step thereafter.

As an adult, I realised that people learn in different ways. A colleague who was an erstwhile school teacher pointed out to me why I simply cannot learn by rote. I need to be able to visualise and see practical applications before a concept takes root. Much, I suspect, like Penny Topsom:

“I had a fear of maths, a real problem with it,” says Penny. “So when I had to help my sons with their tables, and one of them pointed out that the list of tables I’d produced didn’t look like a ‘table.’. I decided to change the way they were written and come up with my own version.”

Penny’s grid produced patterns to the tables that she didn’t realise existed before. Suddenly maths began to make sense.

For me, it started to make sense when my father talked to me about building roofs. More so when I worked in a bar during my college years. Mental arithmetic – and times tables – are pretty essential when totting up bar orders.

She has now written a book about her method, called “Multiplication rules” and she adds: “whether a child should be answer them instantaneously, with a teacher and an entire class staring at them, I’m not sure. Most of us when put under pressure, panic and go completely blank  and this is where I think most peoples’ dread of times tables comes from. I’m sure it was this that made me few like a complete ‘maths numptie’ never once being able to answer these question!”

Been there, done that, understand completely. My maths teacher when I was in the second year of my junior school (year 5 these days) has much to answer for. Times tables are important; they are the building blocks upon which maths is built. It would have helped me if they were taught intelligently to those of us who simply do not absorb information by rote.

Via The Appalling Strangeness, my attention is drawn to this over at Illiberal Conspiracy. I’m not going to fisk it – although it is eminently fiskable – as The Nameless Libertarian has already done a fine job of dissecting its awfulness.

No, there’s something else that I want to add here. As someone who does not have children, I am something of a disinterested and objective observer. To my eyes, Sam Bumby is an example of the education we see today. I have all too often had to deal with the output of modern education in the workplace – the poor levels of literacy and numeracy being only part; the poor standard of critical thinking is, perhaps, worse.

When I was sixteen (the age of the author of the piece) I knew it all, too. As I grew older and reached adulthood, I realised that perhaps I didn’t know as much as I thought I did. I, too, was indoctrinated. Fortunately, I’ve managed to throw off those shackles – although it took seeing the Labour Party in power for me to finally realise just how dire was my mistake.

On reading Bumby’s output (and inwardly squirming at the unthinking propaganda unsullied by facts, reason or logic) I am reminded of an incident some thirty-odd years ago when I was a little younger than he is today. We were set some English language homework that involved carrying out a critique. In my youthful enthusiasm for the task, I wrote “this is a load of old rubbish!” Ah, the folly of youth, eh? When it came back following marking; scribbled in red ink in the margin was the comment: “So is this!”

So, when I read statements such as this one:

It sounds to me just like an idea to privatise the school system, an idea which allows any idiot with a ton of money to influence and indoctrinate youngsters with their own opinions.

I desperately want to get out a red pen and scribble in the margin; “Like the idiot who wrote this, for example?”

Sam Bumby has failed to comprehend a basic principle; education is the responsibility of parents, not the state. Parents, not the state know what is in the best interests of their childrens’ education. The state is merely a provider – and given the output I have observed; not a very good one.

So, having read Sam’s essay and being a generous sort, I’ll give it 4/10 – could do better.

——————————————-

Update: Tory Totty also comments.

Rowan Williams opines in the Groan. He argues that we start our lives dependent on others. True, enough. But to argue, as he does, that we should be continuing to do so is absurd – that if we become individuals, we by default ignore the plight of others.

If you live in a world where everything encourages you to struggle for your own individual interest and success, you are encouraged to ignore the reality of other points of view – ultimately, to ignore the cost, or the pain of others.

Poppycock! There is no such encouragement. As individuals, we have individual responsibility to ourselves and for the effect our actions (or inactions) may have on others. A sense of personal responsibility is closely tied into ethics. At no time do I, as an individual, ignore the cost or pain of others and I resent this silly man’s assumption that individualism does this.

The result may be a world where people are articulate about their own feelings and pretty illiterate about those of others. An economic climate based on nothing but calculations of self-interest, fed by a distorted version of Darwinism, doesn’t build a habitat for human beings; at best it builds a sort of fortified box room for paranoiacs.

Idiocy of the first water. Economics has always been based on self-interest and that’s precisely how it should operate. I partake of a transaction because it is in my interest and the other party does likewise – we both come out as winners, having achieved our desired outcomes to our mutual satisfaction. If there was no self-interest at play, neither would bother. The baker would have no incentive to bake bread, the farmer no incentive to farm, and we would all have to do everything for ourselves rather than trade. The only distorted view of Darwinsim here is Williams’. But then, every representation of rambling, rhetoric from this absurd man is invariably risible rot.

We have, to some extent, looked into the abyss where individualism is concerned and we know that it won’t do.

No we haven’t. There is no abyss. Individuals have within them the capacity for good and evil – it is up to each to act according to their conscience. And, individuals are capable of philanthropy as much as they are capable of selfishness. It is foolish in the extreme to simply equate individualism with self-indulgence. But, then, this man is a collectivist, so I should expect no less.

This is a moment when every possible agency in civil society needs to reinforce its commitment to a world where thoughtful empathy is a normal aspect of the mature man or woman.

You don’t need to be the Borg to do that. Individual men and women do this all the time.

Williams then gets all religious – well, you’d expect that and I see no point pointing out that there is no evidence whatsoever that his God is committed to us or even exists. That’s for another time and another place.

Part of his point about politics resonates, though…

Politics left to managers, and economics left to brokers add up to a recipe for social and environmental chaos, and threaten the possibilities for full humanity.

The problem here is that economics is not left to brokers, is it? We have those damned politicians poking about in matters for which they are supremely unqualified and succeed only in making matters worse than if they had left well alone. Get the politicians out of things and they can only get better, frankly.

Once again Williams demonstrates that being highly educated and intelligent is no bar to rampant stupidity.

…as others see us.

HT from Longrider, a particularly good blog with entertaining but trenchant views…

Trenchant, eh?

incisive or keen, as language or a person; caustic; cutting: trenchant wit.

Caustic; cutting… Fair enough. I can live with that.

Hugh Muir whinges about Boris Johnson’s spending plans.

It is true of all politicians that one shouldn’t necessarily pay too much attention to what they say. Much more instructive is how they spend.

Well, yes, that’s fair enough. Given that they are spending other peoples’ money, they do have a tendency to be profligate. Oh, that isn’t what Hugh is complaining about?

Johnson said he would spend less, and thus there are going to be fewer buses and fewer police officers, and now that he has unveiled his cultural spending plans, one can see, through those budgetary arrangements, something about his social philosophies.

Spending less is good, no?

No, it seems…

Hooray for USA Day, an event likely to receive around £100,000. Boo to Black History Month, down from £76,000 to £10,000, and Africa Day, which sees it’s funding from London’s government fall off a cliff. From £100,000 to nothing.

Um, apart from wasting money on USA Day, I’d say that Boris is moving in absolutely the right direction. The figures for all of those should be zero as politicians should not be wasting taxpayers’ money on such things. Want a Black History Month? Spend your own money on it.

The Johnsonian view was that Livingstone bolstered his own position by channelling funds to groups that were traditionally supportive of him; some black communities, some Asian. So to hell with that.

Again, absolutely.

Livingstone took the traditional view that one of the best ways to foster community relations in the capital, a legal requirement under the Greater London Authority Act, was to use public money to assist groups seen as disadvantaged.

That, frankly, is a piss-poor piece of law – it shouldn’t be up to the Mayor to “foster relations” – yet another piece of unnecessary legislation. And spending money on “disadvantaged” groups (i.e. one likely to vote Labour) is a disgraceful waste of council taxpayers’ money – money that should be spent on proper services and infrastructure, not social engineering.

The Johnsonian approach again is different.

Good.

There is no element of crusading or social engineering.

Good.

He is into diversity;

Oh, bugger…

but that isn’t the same thing as equality.

That old canard. Equality of opportunity is one thing. Equality of outcome is nonsense.

It isn’t his job to make the playing field level, especially if it means throwing money at groups and initiatives favoured by the left.

Absolutely. So, what’s the problem here?

That even in matters pertaining to the social fabric, the mayor looks to the market. He will gladly assist schemes that are likely to gain attention and thus attract commercial sponsorship, but is far less keen on public funding for schemes on the sole basis that they may be a social good.

I’d say that’s eminently sensible. Again; you want an event to celebrate a particular group – you fund it or find someone who is willing to do so for you. Then go ahead, have your celebration. If Johnson is pushing in this direction, he’s doing the right thing.

Black History Month constitutes a social benefit…

Does it bollocks. It’s nothing more than identity politics. There’s history and that’s it.

…in that it seeks to highlight areas of history that otherwise might forgotten and to recognise contributions that might otherwise be overlooked.

Oh, do just fuck off, will you? If you want to highlight aspects of history that you feel have been “overlooked” then highlight them by all means – but not with other peoples’ money.

And why isn’t there a White History Month, some ask? Because every other month of the year is White History Month.

That’s it, wheel out the race card. Victimhood poker again… There is history and that’s it. History doesn’t come in any particular colour and nor should it.

But Black History Month, for all its good intentions, isn’t an obvious commercial vehicle. The Johnsonian view is that these things must pay their way.

And Boris is perfectly correct. He is not stopping people holding their celebration, he is merely insisting that the taxpayer doesn’t fund it.

Some will read this and say, quite right Boris, this is life as it should be. Value for money at last and an end to special pleading.

Quite right Boris, this is life as it should be. Value for money at last and an end to special pleading.

Bill Sticker commenting here on my post about the eco-loonies.

In addition I feel the wife should tell their eco-bullying offspring that unless she shuts up and gets a life, they will disinherit her and leave the lot to Guide dogs for the Blind, or better still the RSPCA, who will try to stiff said irritating offspring on the inheritance tax.

I realise that having a fit of the giggles over one’s breakfast is unseemly, but I had an excuse…

Despite the AGW scaremongering consensus falling apart quicker than a sand castle at high tide, the watermelons continue to preach their religion with unabated piety. First up, we get the Bishops. Although, I suppose we should expect religion from them…

The bishops of Liverpool and London have called on us to give up our iPods for Lent, which starts today, Ash Wednesday. That’s a sacrifice of which most of us, of a certain age, can heartily approve, since we don’t actually own iPods. But we might wonder what the point of it all is.

Well, they got that right, I suppose. I don’t own an iPod and have no desire to. But, if I did, I wouldn’t give it up for Lent, being a heathen un-believer and all that.

Today’s bishops are always encouraging us to ask “Why?” So let’s oblige them. Part of the answer, when it comes to this annual fast-fest, seems to be that the climate-change lobby has hi-jacked Lent and that the Church has wholeheartedly gone along for the ride. It turns out that that the iPod ban is only a one-day contribution – Day 20 – to the Christian relief agency Tearfund’s annual Carbon Fast. This also enjoins us to “choose an energy supplier that sources all its energy from renewable sources” (Day 3), ask “what your MP is doing to tackle climate change” (Day 17) and to refrain from flushing the loo (Day 43), which might fill the house with the air of the medieval mystic, but is actually aimed at saving water.

Oh, good grief! The pious nonsense is palpably painful. Can I bear to read on? A carbon fast, indeed. Haven’t these people noticed that the wheels are coming off? Even if I did believe in a big bearded man in the sky, I’d still find this preachiness too much to take. So, no, I won’t be indulging in a carbon fast. Indeed, I might find some red meat to grill over the charcoal on the barbecue – that’s if the spring gets going in time.

Item number two tells us just how corrosive the green religion has become to personal relationships.

Martin Davis, a retired solicitor from Cheltenham, wants to get rid of the family dog. “There are enough productive animals in the world without keeping unproductive ones,” he tells his wife Caroline. “It uses up time and energy and leaves a trail of dog-food tins and plastic bags.” She disagrees vehemently, claiming that it is natural to have animals in the home; they provide comfort and a link with the outdoors.

So that’s what it comes down to? Everything must be justified as a utility. What does this man want to do with the family dog, given that it is so useless? Shoot it? And what about all the other animals on the planet that don’t actually have a use? Kill them?

If these quibbles sound familiar, it’s probably because you have your own stock of pea-green domestic disputes bubbling away. As climate change and the extent to which we must all play our part in reversing it continues to dominate news agendas, families are becoming increasingly rattled by aspects of green behaviour.

No they fucking don’t sound familiar. It takes a particularly pious, preening, self-righteous, weapons grade bell end^TM to do that.

Mrs L and I do not have any such quibbles, probably because we view this eco-wankery with equal derision.

To add to the green tensions, the Davises’ 27-year-old daughter Agnes has strong ideas on what constitutes a sustainable diet. “I’m horrified by how much meat comes into my parents’ house,” she says. “They eat it with every meal. It’s not just the environmental impact — the energy and methane involved in meat production — but it’s unhealthy.

God, what a self-righteous little cow! How much meat goes into her parents’ house is none of her damned business. I suggest Mrs Davies divorces Mr Davies and takes the dog with her – that, at least, has no pretentions and won’t make her life a misery by preaching at her. Dogs just pant, lick and want to go walkies – simple souls that are easily pleased. Given the choice between a dog or an eco-warrior, I’ll take the dog; they’re more environmentally friendly – I don’t have to listen to them droning on about carbon bloody footprints or cow farts or whatever. They’ll just fetch the slippers and slobber over them.

“Whenever we get together we end up having this kind of row, whether it’s about imported vegetables or whether it’s greener to live in a town or in the city.”

Oh, get a bloody life, people.

It gets worse, mind…

Donnachadh McCarthy, an “eco-auditor” who visits people’s homes to give advice on how the occupants can reduce their impact on the planet, has also noted a rise in eco-disputes.

WTF!?! An eco-auditor? Jebus! And I suspect that following that visit, the tensions are increased rather than decreased. I’ll not be having one of those coming round, thanks very much.

There is a sickness in our society. I suspect people don’t have enough real things to worry about… Well, I can’t think of any other explanation for this rampant nonsense.