Climate change

I am not going to sit here and try and persuade you in one way or another on the issue of whether a) the climate is changing for the worse or b) if humans are causing it, really you are all intelligent people; you have probably made your mind up as to which side of this very contentious argument you lie. What I would like to share is this video and the viewpoint that if you are not 100% sure if it is happening or not, using an argument along the same lines as Pascal's Wager you should do something about climate change. Whatever little you can.

Difficult subject

After someone linked to this post about self defence I was set off thinking about rape. This is another of those subjects about which I have doubt and uncertainty; not of course on whether it is evil, but how we get rid of it.

Actually I have even more doubt about if we can. How many more years of civil society and punishment will it take to eradicate it from society?

Sorry for anyone who was expecting anything erudite and informative on the subject but I am stumped basically because while it is utterly evil, all the things that have been suggested so far that are guaranteed to annihilate it are also in their way evil. Obviously (as far as I am concerned) the death penalty is right out. Something else often put forward is castration (in general chemical rather than physical) but will that really help, it will remove the ability but will it extinguish the desire, or will the frustration cause more violence? Life, meaning life, imprisonment is of course an option, well it would be if our prison system wasn't screwed royally, full of the disaffected that several governments have failed to educate. As opposed of course to those deserving of being banged up, the very politians themselves.

Wether or not spoon

The story being run about a branch of JD Wetherspoon in Wallasey limiting parents' drinks has me in two minds. Not about the whys and wherefores of pubs and pub chains setting their own rules about children being allowed in (especially now you don't need to apply for a separate children's certificate to go with your licence). I think that they should be allowed to make whatever rule they want to (as long as it is explained properly, without fibbing or hiding behind laws that are irrelevant).
No my doubt is about what JD Wetherspoon think their chain is about, when I first started using them, they were no children allowed, no TVs etc, just about the beer and food. Then a while back they switched to getting children's certificates and fitting TVs showing Sky Sports news and big matches. Now they are trying to dissuade parents with children staying. What will be next: timing people having a quite pint with the paper to ensure they don't use up a table for too long? Having restaurant like "at least one main course per person" rules?
They are already sliding down the quality list as far as beer is concerned and commit the cardinal sin of putting pump clips up for beers they don't have on, maybe this mucking about will put another nail in their popularity.

For once I am not sure what I really think

It started with an item from Chris Dillow painting the immigration spike as a symptom of the skills gap using the latest unemployment figures to support the idea. Then Jackart responded with the thesis:

The "skill" in question is the willingness to turn up for work, work for a full day, then turn up again the next day, sober. This "Skill" needs to be repeated 5 times a week, 48 weeks a year.

Chris has now posted over on Liberal Conspiracy something that I can only suppose is meant to be a rebuttal. It lacks somewhat given that all it actually does is throw into the ring a bunch of statistics. Yes it is fair enough to point out that the headline figure includes people who while not "employed" are making themselves useful, keeping house, or worshiping at the temple of knowledge for example, but that doesn't actually counter the key point of Jackart's argument. There are at the core of the figures a number of people who are doing their damndest to avoid acquiring or holding down a job. How long should the welfare state support these people for? Is it just a touch of crypto-fascism within me that means I occasionally agree with those that say that there should be a cut off point after which someone who has no intention whatsoever of being a useful member of society, whether through employment or otherwise should be cut off, completely. And if we go down that route how do we safeguard those that need the help, those that have genuine health problems that prevent them from being part of the workforce for example. Or is this country rich enough that we can afford to keep a few spare humans knocking around for the hell of it and pay economic migrants to do the work instead?

As the title suggests unlike most of these posts where I rant away and make firmly sure you know what I think, on this subject I really don't know my own mind.