[human rights] there's no such thing

Charles Robertson is thought provoking again on the subject of "Handing Out Rights". He dislikes phrases such as:

The joint report by [...] says [a particular group of people] in Jersey should have more rights, independence and choice.

Really? What rights? Because rights come with responsibilities. Your right not to be assaulted gives me a responsibility not to hit you. So upon whom will the corresponding responsibilities for these new rights fall? What's the betting that it's you, me, and our wallets, and we're not really talking about rights at all, but services?

Read the whole thing. I replied thus:

I don't believe in "rights" at all. The concept of a right is that there must be a right "from" something or someone and even where there's a right "to" something, it implies that there is someone to hand that right out in the first place.

In the political sphere, this usually means the government. The only way to get the government to guarantee "rights" is by legislation. And legislation on social issues goes against the whole fabric of a democratic society - it accepts that the government can do things to you and that you need protection from that.

There is a subtle assumption here that you don't run the government - the government rules over you. I don't accept that in the least. My model of a government, the image I have in my mind's eye, is that of representatives, temporarily appointed by us, taking care of the daily running of the army, health care for the aged and so on.

We fight for and negotiate our own conditions and pay a flat tax for those who are incapable due to age, youth, insanity or ill health. Those we employ to take care of these things are accountable to us. This is the so-called government.

This is the concept behind Secretaries in the British government, i.e. officially servants of either the crown or the people but not rulers from Westminster or Washington.

They may have the "right" to enjoy office for some time but it's still a very wonky term.

[olympics] criminal wastage

From Steven Bainbridge on that scandal:

£400,000 of taxpayers' money:

Submitted to the BBC for nothing:

Please read his whole article.

This is more than just government wastage. This is serious criminal incompetence. Who were the people who came up with that? Who employed the people who came up with that? In what shape or form would that ever be accepted by the public? Where exactly did the £400 000 go? How can the cost of an Aston Martin and more go into a piece of paper?

[quiz time] scientific teasers

Answers here.

1. Truth, beauty, strange, charm, up and down are types of what?

a. Quarks

b. Farks

c. Sparks

2. What does VTOL mean when applied to an aircraft?

a. Very Tired Old Lady

b. Vector Transition Overload Laser

c. Vertical Take Off and Landing

3. What is an eolic power station?

a. Nuclear

b. Hydro-electric

c. Wind powered

4. What is the fundamental difference between an autogyro and a helicopter?

a. A helicopter has powered rotors

b. An autogyro has only two blades to the rotors

c. A helicopter has a powered hub but free spinning rotors

5. What would a Conchologist be interested in?

a. Shellfish

b. Shells

c. Shell Oil

6. Which common animal is properly known as Mus Musculus?

a. The Grey Muskrat

b. The Hamster

c. Mouse

7. Which is the densest planet in our old nine planet solar system?

a. Mercury

b. The Earth

c. Jupiter

8. Which element has the highest melting point?

a. Carbon

b. Helium

c. Molibdenum

9. Which is the largest organ in the human body?

a. The lungs

b. The skin

c. The hair

10. What's the difference between venom and poison?

a. Venom is injected by biting or stinging

b. Poison is injected by biting or stinging

c. Venom is alkaloid

Answers here.

[food for thought] is this the reason

I had to think long and hard whether to include this here or over at Blogpower. Possibly better here.

[paris hilton] justice in the world

The release of this sad monstrosity, even if she has been dog-tagged, is a clear travesty but even more nauseating is the way groups have jumped on the bandwagon:

Civil rights leader Rev Al Sharpton condemned the release as showing the "double standards" of the US legal system.

"This early release gives all of the appearances of economic and racial favouritism that is constantly cited by poor people and people of colour," he said. "There are any number of cases of people who handle being incarcerated badly and even have health conditions that are not released."

This blogger, stangely, feels a sort of pity for her - she can't help her roots. Nevertheless, in a week of Awards, Paris is hereby presented with the Liz Hurley Award, in the category: "Famous for being Famous". Well done, Paris!

[u.s. president] the candidates

I wanted to cover the Democratic debate but firstly, things got in the way and secondly, Ruthie did it better. A bit rushed this morning so forgive me for also swiping her pic for my post.

Essentially, having now seen both sides of the debate, I can only conclude that America is in trouble and on both sides of the Atlantic we're entering the era of almost open influence by NGOs, e.g. the CFR backed SPP and others and by the EU which the majority of people in Britain are supposed not to support .

A glance through the credentials of the major candidates leaves only Osama officially unaffiliated and too wet behind the ears to elect. The others are dire.

And as Ruthie said:

It's noteworthy that only one of the Democratic candidates (one of the ones whose name I am unsure of) supported instituting English as the official national language of the United States.

Fred is CFR, the Lizard Queen is so evil in her antecedents that it's not worth repeating over and over, Rudy the Transvestite is a one trick mayor [Ruthie will kill me for this] and none of the others impress.

Ron Paul has shot himself in the foot and is too old anyway.

Your comments?