Abolish The BBC.

The Jonathan Ross, Russell Brand crap really is taking up an inordinate amount of column inches. Even I as someone who has called for their violent deaths find the coverage excessive.

Still I may as well use the incident as a hook a hobby horse of mine- the abolition of the BBC.

Supporters of the BBC and the licence fee like to claim that it is essential to ensure quality programming and compare it favourably to British commercial television as well as to American television.

The comparison with British commercial stations is fair enough and the BBC does indeed produce better television than any of our commercial broadcasters. Although this is hardly surprising when they have to compete against a state behemoth which can outbid them for talent and monopolise various niche markets. The sole exception to this is sport where Sky is clearly superior to the BBC. In other words the BBC crowds out the commercial sector who therefore have to resort to lowest common denominator stuff.

American television provides a picture of what commercial television can do when it is allowed to thrive in the absence of a national broadcaster. For all that BBC supporters like to mock US broadcasting, which is portrayed as a non stop drip of Jerry Springer, police chases and ads, the fact is it outperforms British television in almost every field.

The output of C-Span puts the BBC;s political coverage to shame, the original drama series produced by the likes of HBO and FX are far superior to anything the BBC has done in the last 20 years and Comedy Central doesn't consider it to be the height of comic genius to bully elderly actors. It's noticeable that a lot of the BBC's quality output is made in association with an American channel for example The Blue Planet was made in association with Discovery and Rome was made in league with HBO.

If we had no BBC our television output could develop in this direction.

I'm A Trendsetter.

On the subject of those two tossers Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross can I just point out that I hated them long before it became fashionable. As I said on another blog in January:

"After Moz left the stage, "celebrity fans" Jonathan Ross, David Walliams and Russell Brand took to the stage to pacify the crowd."

And yet no one had thought to take a hand grenade along in case of this eventuality!

See I was calling for their violent death way before they started bullying an elderly man and his grand daughter!

{via}

How Much Damage Can A President Do?

I suppose a lot of people thinking of voting for Obama assume that there is only so much that a president can do, so he is unlikely to do that much harm. Yet history shows that this isn't the case, the last time that the Democrats were as powerful as they will be if Obama wins was from 1965 to 1969 under Lyndon Johnson.

The measures he enacted in that period caused damage that lasted for decades. The explosive growth of crime in the United States more or less began with his creation of a vast welfare state and pro criminal activism from a liberal supreme court. By my back of an envelope estimate*, the explosion in homicide rates from the start of Johnson's "War on Poverty" up until welfare reform was passed 30 years later left around 200000 Americans dead. That's around 50 times as many Americans as have died in an actual war in Iraq.

Obama's voting record on crime suggests that he too is likely to to enact pro criminal legislation:

his eight-year voting record in the Illinois Senate shows the Democrat was on occasion an agent of isolation who took stands - particularly on anti-crime legislation - that put him to the left of his own party.

Mr. Obama was the only member of the state Senate to vote against a bill to prohibit the early release of convicted criminal sexual abusers; was among only four who voted against bills to toughen criminal sentences and to increase penalties for "gangbangers" and dealers of Ecstasy; and voted "present" on a bill making it harder for abusive parents to regain custody of their children, a Washington Times review of Illinois legislative records shows.

Incidentally was anyone surprised to see that the man arrested for the massacre of actress Jennifer Hudson's family in Chicago should have been in prison at the time of the crime?

Obama is going to have big majorities in both houses of congress for at least two years, and will have the ability to cause lasting damage to his country. Seeing as how he isn't even a Clinton style centrist this is an opportunity he is likely to pursue. At least the press will keep a critical eye on him or a slobbering tongue on his backside.


* Assuming that the murder rate was an average of 3 per 100000 higher over that 30 year period and the US population averaged about 220 million in that period this makes the total number of excess homicides around 200000 (3 * 2200 * 30).

Obamacons & The Obama Con.

A lot of conservatives, even real ones, have endorsed Barack Obama for the presidency. There are times when it is reasonable for a conservative to endorse the left candidate, if for example the right of centre candidate is too extreme or the left of centre candidate is a pragmatic moderate or if the incumbent needs to be punished.

There is no incumbent in this election. The Republicans have nominated a centrist with a long tradition of moderation who until he became the GOP nominee would receive lavish praise from liberals for this trait and his running mate is a governor with a track record of integrity, competent government and pragmatism. Meanwhile the Democrats have nominated the Senator with the most extreme left wing record in that chamber and a running mate who has been wrong on every major issue for three decades (experience isn't much of a virtue if you have no capacity for learning from it).

In other words there is no intellectually coherent reason for conservatives to go gaga over Obama. It can only be seen as bandwagon jumping. In some ways it is reminiscent of the conservatives who flocked ofBlair in the mid 1990s, except that for all his faults Tony Blair actually was on the right of the Labour Party, in the zone where many right of centre figures could feel more at home with his polices than the Tories. Obama isn't an American Tony Blair but an American Tony Benn.

Sure McCain hasn't run his campaign too well but that shouldn't be a factor that knowledgeable people consider too much if they are aware of the respective candidates records.

Labour Still Doomed.

Labour's revival in the opinion polls to the point where some polls are suggesting a hung parliament isn't as bad as it appears. At the end of the day the same underlying factors that put Labour 20-30 points behind are still in play and will reassert themselves over the long haul. In particular Gordon Brown's personality will drag Labour down.

I've said before that I do not believe surveys which claim that alternative leaders would do no better for Labour. Brown is insecure, secretive, hyper partisan and indecisive so I cannot see how replacing him with someone who is not could fail to benefit Labour in the long term.

Whilst the Conservatives need to be more coherent in dealing with the financial crisis they shouldn't be too worried at this point. By cementing Gordon Brown in place Labour's boost in the polls might be the most damaging blow they could have incurred.

Our Next Home Secretary?

Sadly not, but Conservative MP David Davies (not to be confused with David Davis), deserves a round of applause:

David Davies said black police representatives in London had behaved worse than the apartheid regime in South Africa by urging ethnic minorities not to join the Metropolitan Police force.

In a speech to the National Black Police Association annual conference, he also slammed the organisation for not allowing white people interested in fighting racism to become full members.

His comments sparked an angry reaction from delegates. Up to a dozen walked out in protest and others slow-handclapped the MP for Monmouth, who was likened to a BNP extremist.

I had assumed the BNP would support the NBPA's campaign to keep ethnic minorities out of the police.

{Via}

Moonbat Versus The God Botherers

Despite being essentially agnostic I find the fashion to bash religion in all its forms to be rather tedious. Like almost any phenomena, religion has both positive and negative effects and the simplistic God-Squad-bashing which only sees the negative qualities is as ignorant and irrational as anything preached by men in dog collars. Too many supposed secularists don't understand that secularism isn't the same as militant atheism.

George Monbiot is a case in point, in an article on how stoopid Americans aren't sophisticated enough to embrace their intellectual liberal superiors, a theory which I've debunked before, he claims:

One theme is both familiar and clear: religion - in particular fundamentalist religion - makes you stupid. The US is the only rich country in which Christian fundamentalism is vast and growing.

This is nonsense. The most educated regions of the US, based on academic performance and the location of elite universities are the most secular parts so superficially this makes sense. Yet 300 years ago New England and the North East were the most religiously observant parts of what would become the USA, the Puritans of New England were far more devout that the Presbyterians of Appalachia which is why they were so keen on executing witches in the North East. Yet even then New England had higher literacy rates and had established Harvard. So clearly Monbiot's claim is nonsense.

The contemporary example of heavily Mormon Utah ought to dispel the idea that religious observance makes you stupid as it is one of the most educated and economically successful states in the US.

Comrade May Speaks.

The Socialist Workers Party's proposals for the economy are always good for a laugh, here's the latest bureaucratic monstrosity they're proposing:

We should bring in compulsory pay audits for employers found guilty of discrimination

Did I say the Socialist Workers Party? Of course I meant the Conservative Party.

Polling Paranoia

Gary Younge goes race baiting. He's peddling conspiracy theories about black voters being denied the right to cast a ballot in the USA. He cites this statistic as evidence:

A recent CNN poll showed that 42% of voters are not confident their vote will be accurately cast and counted - almost three times the figure four years ago.

Really so after four years of fearmongering by the left people are more worried about an issue, who could have predicted that! He dismisses Republican fears of vote fraud by Democratic organisations like ACORN on the grounds that:

fraud is a serious issue. The trouble is it barely exists. In the six years since the Bush administration has made it a priority, barely 100 people have been convicted and fewer than 200 have been charged.

So if the small number of convictions is proof that no wrongdoing has taken place, then how many convictions have there been for voter suppression, which he does claim is taking place? He doesn't say.

This conspiracy theorising is in one sense comical, but partisan efforts to destroy confidence in democracy when your side loses is a potentially dangerous game to play.

Posting May Be Light.

Not because I'm busy or don't have access to a computer, but because there is literally nothing happening right now. I've just checked the BBC's news site and two of the top three domestic stories are that it rained in the Lake District but no one was hurt and there was a weak earthquake in the Midlands but no one was hurt.

Sex Education For 5 Year Olds- A Bold Step!

There is something to be said for the government's new plan to have sex education for 5 year olds. Not for preventing teenage pregnancy or reducing std rates which have grown steadily alongside the expansion of sex education. No, it is useless for the stated purpose.

However we all know that recruiting teachers is hard, the low morale, low pay and lack of respect for the profession have all been well documented by the teaching unions. This has led to a sharp reduction in the quality of teachers entering the profession with many barely literate or numerate.

Yet there is one group of intelligent and highly qualified people who are still willing to become teachers despite of all these problems- latent paedophiles. These people are a valuable source of talent for our schools and we need to encourage them to remain in the profession and the best way to achieve that goal is to provide them with regular opportunities to talk dirty to small children.

So three cheers for education minister Jim Knight for this brave new initiative.

Considered Reflections On Religion.

I have no strong views on the "Atheist Bus" controversy either for or against but the involvement of Richard Dawkins in the stunt makes me want to post this:



I am an equal opportunities offender so if anyone has similar quality footage of that nutter from Christian Voice I'd be happy to post that too.

The Sun Says....

Over at Conservative Home they have the reactions of some of the newspapers to "Yachtgate", the Sun's editorial is worth quoting:

"The integrity of the BBC is coming under question for the way it has treated the case of the Russian billionaire and his British contacts. Hundreds of viewers are complaining of unbalanced reporting — and with good reason. According to its own internal memo, hundreds of listeners accused the Corporation of bias against the Tories — pointing out that the party received NO cash at all. And it’s strange that the BBC only went into overdrive on the story AFTER George Osborne’s name was linked to oligarch Oleg Deripaska. When just Labour’s Peter Mandelson was involved it boasts it resisted making much of any allegations. Strange, that. And reason enough for their own enquiry into left-wing bias."

The BBC cannot be reformed, it's institutional left wing bias is too deeply ingrained. The Conservatives should cut their bdget massively when they are next in office.

Joe Biden Should Sign Up For This.

Can African American males attend a course on "Effective Interaction with African-American Males" that is currently being offered by the University of North Carolina?

The Political Cocoon.

I'm inclined to believe George Osbourne when he denies any wrong doing about discussing illegal donations, if only because the sum of money involved, £50000, is hardly worth breaking the law over in the context of a multi million pound party budget. It also feels like a Mandelson smear campaign.

Having said that anyone who can't see trouble ahead when dining aboard the yacht of a Russian Oligarch with an EU Commissioner and a scion of the world's most famous banking dynasty needs their head examined. It reinforces the idea of Britain being run by a small political class who regardless of nominal ideology have far more in common with each other than with those they represent.


Update: The Pub Philosopher has a good post on this subject. The role of Nat Rothschild in this is particularly interesting, how dare he find it outrageous when someone blows the whistle on a secret meeting between Oligarchs, politicians and EU Commissioners! His attitude is disgraceful.

Nature & Nurture.

In the previous post referring to a study showing ethnic differences in 5 year old, I stated my belief that the differences weren't innate. Something in the study reaffirms that belief, but I'll just provide a bit of context before I explain what it is.

One of the strongest argument that racial differences in intelligence are down to genetic factors rather than cultural factors has been the long standing IQ gap between blacks and whites that has been observed in the United States since mass testing was first undertaken by the US Army during World War One. The difference then and now is about one standard deviation or 15 points.

However if this is a consequence of genetic differences in IQ, then blacks and whites in the UK ought to show a similar gap. However the results of what appears to be an IQ type test from the Millenium Cohort Study are:

COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
White: 102.2
Mixed: 101.3
Indian: 98.3
Black Caribbean: 98
Other 95.7
Black African 91.4
Bangladeshi 88.6
Pakistani 87.4

In other words White children score 11 points higher than Black African children and just 4 points ahead of Black Caribbean children. The difference in both cases is much smaller than the US differences.

Ethnic Differences In 5 Year Olds.

This is interesting; a study has found that there are significant differences between British 5 year olds depending on their ethnic group. The results largely reflect the outcomes that are observed in older children in terms of GCSE results and other indicators.

Much of the conventional wisdom attributes ethnic differences in life outcomes to racism or institutional racism. I have never believed that and having read up on the subject (particularly the works of Thomas Sowell) I have long been convinced that the differences aren't imposed by society as a whole but rather generated internally. The fact that the differences are already present in 5 year olds pretty much torpedoes the racism argument and the policies that follow from making those assumptions.

The only viable causes are either innate differences or the idea of cultural capital. I favour the latter theory so it isn't a surprise to see that different groups treat their children in different ways.

The one real criticism of the study is that it fails to break down the "white" group into separate categories for the natives, for want of a better term, and the children of Eastern European migrants. I don't understand why the much smaller black and asian categories are divided into sub groups but whites are all lumped together. The absence of a Chinese category is also a pity.

Quote Of The Day.

Even a couple of years of declines in GDP and relatively high unemployment will not overshadow the remarkable economic achievements during these decades. These include unprecedented growth in GDP in formerly poor to very poor countries, such as Japan, South Korea, China, India, Malaysia, Chile, Spain, Portugal, and others. Growth in mainly market-oriented developing economies swept away dire poverty from hundreds of millions of families in Asia, Europe, and South America. This sustained growth also led hundreds of millions of others into middle class status, where they could afford to buy cars, well-equipped homes, television sets, cell phones, computers, and other goods that not long ago were considered well beyond the means of the typical family in all but a few countries.

~Gary Becker.

The financial crisis does not prove that capitalism has failed any more than a plane crash disproves the laws of gravity.