Category: nannystate

Skin in the Game

The Intellectual Yet Idiot is a production of modernity hence has been accelerating since the mid twentieth century, to reach its local supremum today, along with the broad category of people without skin-in-the-game who have been invading many walks of life. Why? Simply, in most countries, the government’s role is between five and ten times what it was a century ago (expressed in percentage of GDP). The IYI seems ubiquitous in our lives but is still a small minority and is rarely seen outside specialized outlets, think tanks, the media, and universities – most people have proper jobs and there are not many openings for the IYI.

Context

A commentator from this ridiculous Globe & Mail Editorial. I’d have just linked the comment, but for some inexplicable reason, G&M’s comment section doesn’t provide links to comments.

Celtthedog 18 hours ago
Sigh. This is written with a sense of correcting a lot of nonsense.
I’m a Briton who lived in Canada for eight years. That doesn’t make me an expert in Canada, but it does mean I know a lot more about Canada than the writer of this editorial knows about the UK. So, here goes:
Back in the 1980s, Canada fought a general election on the basis of free trade with the United States. It was a heated debate, with issues like national sovereignty and national identity raised, along with those of economics.
The free-trading Conservatives won; the deal was done.
That’s the history. Now imagine if, on the basis of this result, subsequent Canadian governments, without putting it their party platforms, slowly but surely ceded more and more political and not economic, sovereignty to the United States. All the while denying they were doing so. As the process went on, it accelerated, and soon Canadians found their Supreme Court overruled by the US Supreme Court and that certain laws passed by the US Congress, lacking support in Canada, nonetheless became applicable to Canada. Pretty soon you’d start to question what the end destiny of this process was, only to be told by your elected representatives not to worry, political union with the United States was not on the cards.
The analogy is imperfect, but the fact is in 1975 the UK held a referendum on remaining in a “common market” (to quote from the actual ballot paper). Since then, successive parliaments have surrendered more and more of our sovereignty to the European Union — mostly in a series of treaties which polls repeatedly showed were overwhelmingly opposed by the majority of Britons (for the past 30 years polls have consistently shown that only around 20% of the British people support political union with Europe).
It’s fine for you to say the British are wrong to hold these views, just as it would be fine for me to tell you that Canada should form a political union with the United States. It’s not fine to deny people their democratic right to reject such union — or to lie about it.
I won’t waste too much time correcting the misconceptions in here about Scotland. I’ll only note that if a leave vote was so beneficial to the Scottish Nationalist Party, you may want to ask why the SNP’s chief ventriloquist, Alexander Salmon, and his dummy, Nicola Sturgeon, campaigned so aggressively for the “remain” side. Trust me, it wasn’t out of any love for Britain.
Frankly, the view of the English towards the Scots Nats is beginning to resemble that of English-speaking Canadians to the Quebec Nationalists — political blackmailers whose bluff needs to be called.
This newspaper has called for Canada to become a republic when Queen Elizabeth II dies. I understand why. Canada wants to cut the final colonial tie and become a completely sovereign nation. I respect that. But how about dropping he hypocrisy? We want to return to being a completely sovereign nation, too.

Your house isn’t worth anything.

It’s easy when you’re an ‘institute’ to eliminate an entire source of equity when you’ve got a narrative to advance.

The results are startling — and explain why seniors’ poverty is set to rise unless action is taken to tackle the retirement savings crisis, including boosting the GIS and expanding CPP.

John Michael McGrath dug down.

David Cameron’s Britain

Where the foxes caper unmolested, and the government unpacks your school lunch…

Teachers can lawfully “confiscate, keep or destroy” unhealthy snacks in children’s school lunch boxes, a Government minister has said.
Lord Nash, an education minister, said that the child in question and a second member of staff should be present during the search. Parents must also be warned that the searches might take place.

(h/t Roseberry)

Sigh.

So, just to reiterate:

  1. The OPM hack gives everything, including contact info.
  2. To help protect employees the Feds source a private credit protection company.
  3. They send the connection info out via the same medium that was vulnerable in the first place.
  4. Are surprised that…they’ve created another vulnerability.
  5. They go back to #1.

I’m just so glad that Justin Trudeau is so hyped about giving Canadians a voice that he’s all in favour of online voting.

The Sound Of Settled Science

Sugar is the new fat;

In 1974, pediatrician William Crook wrote a letter to a medical journal in which he named cane sugar “a leading cause of hyperactivity” (what we now call ADHD). This truism has been so persistent that it was immortalized on an Old Navy “Let’s Blame the Sugar” T-shirt for babies. Researchers debated Crook’s claim for decades. The scientific consensus now? According to the National Institute of Mental Health, “more research discounts this idea than supports it.” They cite one study as a possible explanation for the myth’s persistence, in which “mothers who thought their children had gotten sugar rated them as more hyperactive […] compared to mothers who thought their children received aspartame.” It was belief about sugar’s ill effects that biased the mothers’ perception.
[…]
Real science, as Ioannidis reminds us, is slow and humble. Only time will tell if the current level of sugar alarmism is warranted, or if many years from now the comparison of sugar to cocaine will look a bit ridiculous. Should that be the case, governments and policymakers will be in the unenviable position of backtracking on yet another dietary guideline, further undermining the public’s trust in science as an enterprise. The research on sugar might be right – but our history of bias shows that we have a tendency to jump the gun on sugar due to moral furor.

We need a famine.
h/t Meatriarchy

Yes, it is.


Now, I’m no accountant, so please correct me if I’m wrong, but if they’re banked then then can be withdrawn, which if I know civil servants, means retirement date – vacation days – sick days = stop working day.
So, at $20/hour = $160/day * 15,000,000 days = $2,400,000,000.00 for zero productivity days.
That’s 2 Billion, 400 Million dollars that have to be accounted for if those days are ever used.
Use it, or lose it union lovers.

What Would We Do Without Researchers?

Weighty Matters;

I’ll cut right to the chase.
If you’re going to conclude that diet soda consumption is linked to weight gain and increased abdominal circumference you’d damn well better control for diet as a whole given that diet beverage consumption may simply be a marker for people who eat more indulgent foods and think, erroneously, that choosing the diet pop with their mega combo will somehow protect their weights and waists, and because there is no known plausible mechanism for a direct link. This study didn’t.

Like climate and environmental research, what government wants, government gets.

Navigation