Eurocracy

William Rees- Mogg writes in today's Times on the EU constitution - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1052-1503692,00.html

I will nail my liberal colours to the mast. I am heartily in favour of the EU both as a trading organisation and as a forum for advancing humanitarian ideals by consultation. I am strongly opposed to the UK being subsumed into a European super state because of the consequent further distancing of political decision from the individual and the inevitable, in my opinion, ossification of the decision making processes. I am strongly opposed to the UK adopting the euro because to do so would not only fail to recognise existing economic differences due to geography and culture, but would also inevitably lead to inflexibility in dealing with future geopolitical events. This probably makes me sound like a natural ally of the grumpy Rees-Mogg, but in almost every other respect I find his views anathema. It is a sad day when the only political party a liberal can support is the Tories.

Ten Commandments

With respect to this Grauniad article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1414877,00.html

1. Think first.
Jonathan Dresner 2005-02-17 - 19:40:27

2. Think again.

3. Never be certain. The truth is out there but that doesn’t mean you can find it.

4. If you decide to do something, get on and do it.

5. Do it with enthusiasm.

6. And enjoy it.

7. Deal with the consequences.

8. Learn from experience.

9. Never regret.

10. And cos’ I promised .. "Thou shall not say, or write, 'whatever' just because thou art too
craven, or too idle, to explain what thou really meanest."

Humbug flavoured Bullshit

In my job I encounter rich veins, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor, of bullshit. Thanks to http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/ for the following:

http://www.jelks.nu/misc/articles/bs.html.

This is what philosophers do best, and Harry Frankfurt makes a grand job of explaining what it is about much political and corporate verbiage that makes us cringe. Look out for some of the most egregious examples in future posting.

Brains falling out...

Read this and weep..



http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1414920,00.html



The royal thinktank, at arms-length from the NHS bureaucracy and the brainchild of a notoriously independent and outspoken enthusiast, advocates health treatments that often appear to patients more personal and less institutionalised than those offered by conventional medicine, even though there may often be lack of "scientific proof" for their efficacy. Now the government is encouraging broader use under the politically attractive banner of more choice for the consumer, while at the same time softening the old image of a state bureaucracy with no interest in alternatives to conventional medical wisdom.

So why the scare quotes? Do our friends at the Grauniad know of some higher and more meaningful kind of proof?

"Last year, there was one trial suggesting aromatherapy only worked if the patient thought it worked. The conventional scientists would say therefore it doesn't work but that is the wrong conclusion. The conclusion is a complementary therapy works for those who believe in it."



Ah yes, and the Giant, invisible, omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent Pumpkin exists for those who believe in it. UPCHUCK.

Thinking about ethics while running..

Went for a run this morning. The site of my belly bulging over my waistband is quite revolting, so I have resolved to get a bit more exercise. Anyway, as I was enjoying one of the few flattish stretches, my mind turned to the issue of retribution. What if, I pondered, I were to have an illness that could only be cured by a bone marrow transplant, and what if the only possible donor were a convicted murderer with twenty years to serve? If the murderer saves my life, does he/she deserve to be freed? It seems to me that if one believed in retributive justice, one would have to free the murderer. If one believes that the sentence is meant to protect society, then whether the murderer is released should depend entirely on an analysis of the likelyhood of him/her re-offending. In this case surely such an analysis should be made fairly frequently, and there should be no minimum sentence?