Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts

Monday, November 03, 2008

It's A Feature Not A Bug

I could have guessed what the answer would be when I saw that the charge was that they were 'out of touch with the best modern childcare techniques'.

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Don't Blame Me!

Yes, indeed: truly that Gove speech is the gift that keeps on giving. Still, for all that I've enjoyed seeing one of our betters out himself as a total retard, there's a lingering sense of unease here. Just why is everyone blaming it all on social conservatives?

If the argument is that Gove's speech was an example of the Cameroonies reaching out to social conservatives, all it proves is how utterly divorced these people are from what socio-cons are actually saying. On the contrary, Gove's attack on Nuts and the like, based as it was on one part femilunacy to one part snobbery, is exactly the sort of chattering class fan service the Cameroonatics have made their own.

Friday, May 23, 2008

Why Social Workers Suck

They can't diagnose dysfunction because the liberal concept of the family is so screwed up in the first place.

Exhibit A (Key line: 'The Glasgow-born doctor argued that insanity was a perfectly understandable reaction to the madness of society and famously linked psychosis to bad parenting - while fathering ten children with four women.')

Exhibit B (Key line: 'From the age of 13, I spent days at a time alone while my mother retreated to her writing studio - some 100 miles away. I was left with money to buy my own meals and lived on a diet of fast food.')

We shouldn't let liberals keep cats.

Monday, January 29, 2007

Very Nuclear Family

Sorry if posts seem even more incoherent than usual, but I’m still coming to terms with being a family man. I mean, I’m still single with no kids, but after reading this post from Iain Dale, I realise that’s no reason to feel left out. After all, if we accept the Dale hypothesis that a family is just whatever random group of individuals happen to be occupying the same post code at the same time, well, I see no reason why people should be allowed to discriminate against monocentric family groups. After all, if critics are going to claim that single people can’t be a family just because a family needs to consist of more than one person, I have one word for them: schizophrenia.

But seriously, don’t think I’m criticising Dale’s post here. It strikes me as at least 1000% more honest than anything from his slippery ‘everything’s special’ leader. The only problem is that Dale doesn’t follow his own logic through to its natural conclusion. As Joe Single, I can see a case for paying relatively over the odds tax-wise to help ensure the next generation get the best start in life, but once we move outside the traditional family structure, what’s the case for subsidising even the most dysfunctional arrangements ? Or, to put it another way, if all lifestyles are equal, how can anyone justify taxing some and subsiding others ?

More profoundly though, what’s with the claim that all lifestyles are equal anyway ? We know that’s not true. The data is in – and has been for ages – some family groups do dramatically better than others. In and of itself, that’s hardly a compelling case for government intervention, except if you’re the type of deranged statist who thinks the government should issue fat licences. Oops.

Hey, how come all types of food aren’t ‘special’ ? Why aren’t Tories claiming that there are many different kinds of ‘healthy’ ? After all, in both cases what we’re talking about here is statistics. There must be plenty of folks still eating a full English breakfast every day well into their 80s, so how come the Tories want to set up their own CID (Cheeseburger Investigation Division) to clamp down on unlicensed kebab dealers, while claiming that kids could be raised by wolves with no harm done ?

Monday, December 11, 2006

Them Liberals Are So Literate

Uh oh – looks like IDS has been caught telling the truth. Clearly, when a guy’s just published a report about raising kids, the obvious question to ask is about the role of gays. At least it is if you work for the MSM. IDS answered the question the way most of us would thereby provoking mass hysteria amongst the usual suspects shocked – shocked! – at the suggestion that the world didn’t revolve around them.

Needless to say, first to collapse on the chaise longue was Iain Dale, with a post registering 8.5 Sullivans on the freakout meter. Amusingly, this proved to be too much even for his fanboys, hence a nifty example of rowing back: even if IDS didn’t say what Dale said he did, what he did say sounded like he might have said what Dale said he did.

Hey, this blogging lark’s going to get much easier if that’s the new standard. I feel a post coming on about Dale’s habit of drowning kittens. Not that he ever actually admitted to doing that, but he hasn’t explicitly ruled it out either so, y’know, sauce for the goose, right ?

That’s not it though. What’s really interesting is the response of the Blogosphere's Greatest Living Englishman when a commentator jibed him about his initial post (and remember, comments are moderated on his blog, so there’s no question of impersonation). Read on, and behold the level of argumentation in Mr Camoron’s Nice Nu Tory Party.
Urbane, why don't you just fuck off and read another blog. What about bigots r us? You;d feel quite at home.
So, if you’re filling in your tax return right about now, just remember: it’s because people like Dale know how to spend half your income better than you do.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Return Of The Curse Of Call Me Dave Again Part II

Looks like the puffy-faced reptile has done it again. Truly, he is the closest British politics has to an Angel of Death. Just as he completes his purging of social conservatives from the Party, even Liberals are starting to admit that maybe all kinds of relationship aren't 'special' after all.