Sure Start. Childcare tax credit. Working Families Tax Credit... billions have gone into pushing mothers into work. This costly project -- so dear to Labour's feminists -- was wrong-headed not only because it went against the wishes of most mothers, who preferred part-time employment, but also because it drew from funds we now discover we didn't have. Also, just as bad, it distracted us from a huge and growing problem: fathers who didn't work.
Frank Field, in his new role as Cameron's poverty guru, urgently wants to address the issue. He aims to stamp out the mentality that sees benefits, not hard work, as the means to survive. The coalition's new Work Programme, he predicts, will force millions of these young men to find a job or risk losing their benefits. Not, as now, "for up to six months", but for up to three years.
Field is right to target benefits. The only way to wean these young fathers off the addictive lifestyle of being paid for doing nothing is cold turkey. For many of these young fathers, the threat of no more benefits is, literally, unheard of: their fathers, and their fathers before them, have milked the system for years, never getting a job. "Industry" is a foreign concept.
President Clinton proved it works, painful as it was to all involved. Let us hope Prime Minister has the intestinal fortitude to see it through.
It's long past time that society does some social norming and sends the message that a given standard of living shouldn't exist for a person just because they are above ground and breathing.
Able bodied and refuse to work? Suffer deprivation, humiliation, and starve in a gutter. Let these types see that a few times and I guarantee their attitude will change.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
06/30/2010 5:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Fathers are pushed out of the households so the mothers can qualify for government money. Fathers are taught they have no value except as sperm donors and so learn to behave that way.
#3
#1, from the article they don't refuse to work. There are simply no jobs that offer a living wage for native Brits with an ounce of self-respect.
I think it IS tough trying to compete with immigrants who come from 3rd world hellholes and are glad for the chance to work 90 hours a week in nasty conditions for below minimum wage.
#4
It's circular. The benefits were designed for those women with children whose baby-daddies (whether or not they are husbands) are unable to provide even minimal support. Therefore some husbands made themselves scarce that their wives could qualify for support... and the gold-diggers (ok, brass-diggers, but even so) pushed out their men so they could have the money without the effort of caring for the man who was willing to work to provide it. And of course, then the boys saw they could have their fun without taking responsibility, so why bother themselves?
Unfortunately, no matter how unfair it is to the men who can't find work, as Scooter points out, the only way to break the cycle is cold turkey. It would be helpful if the men were offered training in some sort of employable trade before being cut off. ("Here, this is how you work a shovel on the road crew, and yes, you must bathe and brush your teeth every single day or you'll lose your place... and then you will not be able to go back on the dole.")
#5
I can see a lot of this in certain places of the good-ole USA.
My wife - who came here from the Philippines (read: no welfare or entitlements) is continually appalled when she see's the 'poor' here who are on welfare but fully able to work. It just amazes her that they can do that. The 'poor' here would be consider fairly well-off there.
I think the only solution (here) is to ramp up training and education programs and then announce that welfare will end (not reform - stop dead!) in 1 year. And then simply end it. Welfare is an addiction which, as mentioned, you simply need to go 'cold-turkey'.
Taking care of the 'poor' is not the Federal Government's business IMHO. If a state wants to do it - fine - they can use their own money.
#6
Both Britain and the US need to also crack down on an "education" system that doesn't prepare its students for even the most minimal type of job. Any "teacher" that has 25% or more of their class incapable of passing the minimum course requirements at the end of a term should be automatically terminated. That's going to require hammering HARD existing "teacher's unions" that protect incompetents from any form of consequences for their failure. I doubt that either the British or the American legislatures are willing to do that, so the cycle will continue.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/30/2010 13:39 Comments ||
Top||
#7
One generation's safety net is the next generations' cradle.
At the Guantanamo Naval Base prison, American military personnel are required to wear gloves when touching the Koran. It's the perfect metaphor for our official culture's obsequious behavior toward Islam. Terrorists the world over cite the Koran as the motivation and justification for their terrorist acts, yet journalists and government officials reflexively jump to the Koran's defense whenever it seems to be implicated in terror. Instead of thinking, Hmm, let's take a closer look at that book,' they assure us, on no evidence, that the terrorists have misunderstood the Koran.
Considering that large chunks of the world are sliding into the Islamic camp, it may be time to take off the gloves. We don't have the luxury any longer of living by pre-9/11 niceties such as we must respect religious differences'a formula which has come to mean that we mustn't even look into them. On the contrary, you respect differences by taking them seriously. And if the Koran is the motive force behind Islam's militancy then the Koran deserves serious examination, not perfunctory gestures of esteem.
Why bring religion into it?' you may ask. Well, because religion is what it's all about. Sincere Muslims believe that God wants the whole world to be subject to Islam. They're free to believe that, of course, but it would be very much in the interest of non-Muslims if they stopped believing it. If an unbeliever refuses to submit to Islam, Allah requires that his head be separated from his body. In light of this, it seems only reasonable that unbelievers should start thinking of ways to separate Muslims from their faith. We have ashall we say, vitalinterest in encouraging Muslims to reflect critically upon the facts of their faith. We can help them to do this, not by telling them we have deep respect for their religion, but by telling them we have deep misgivings about it.
Posted by: ed ||
06/30/2010 00:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And the fifth poured out his bowl upon the throne of the beast; and his kingdom was darkened; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,
and they blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores; and they repented not of their works.
#3
the image reminded me of a conversation I had once with an ethnic Pakistani
EPakistani- So what do you think of the way the Guards flushed the Koran
Myself - No much. In fact, it is physically impossible to flush a Koren. It simply can't be done.
EP- Hmmm. I accept your analysis. However, there must be some reason for the accusation.
Myself - Well there is. The simple fact is that lying is part of the war for our enemies.
EP - What.
Myself - Yes. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that part of the training of Al Qeuda forces is what to say to the enemy and this may be part of it.
EP - ???
Posted by: lord garth ||
06/30/2010 9:29 Comments ||
Top||
#4
EP - ???
Cognitive dissonance is such a useful ability. As the elect of God, the Muslims must by definition partake of all noble qualities, and none of the ignoble ones. Lying is ignoble, therefore Muslims cannot possible lie. Q.E.D. Likewise Muslims do not kill other Muslims, and all claims to the contrary by unbelievers shows only how mislead and evil they are.
I think you are correct. As I understand it many of the most influential ex-Muslims (e.g., Ali Sina, Mohammad Khan, Abdul Kassam, Nonie Darwish) experienced something of a cognitive dissonance phase, typically finding a surrah or two (or three or 20) which contradicted something they had been taught.
Also, the ethnic Pakistani (EP) reported this conversation to some of his learned friends who told him that Mohammad once said "war is deceipt" and his friends got ticked at him for having an infidel teach him what he should have known. I don't know what happened to him after that.
Posted by: lord garth ||
06/30/2010 14:09 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Wearing gloves actually makes a great deal of sense. You always want to avoid reverse contamination.
Posted by: Total War ||
06/30/2010 15:09 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I don't know what happened to him after that. Do you think they beheaded him?
#8
Wearing gloves actually makes a great deal of sense. You always want to avoid reverse contamination.
Pigskin gloves. Before touching a Koran, you dip them first into pork lard and then crushed pork rind.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
06/30/2010 16:01 Comments ||
Top||
#9
This is a very timely article given a recent conversation I had with one of my IT employees. As a matter of background, he comes from a relatively well-to-do muslim-Algerian family but he grew up here in the US. He is a very nice fellow, smart, well-educated and very westernized (he drinks alcohol, he smokes, he likes spending QT with the opposite sex, etc.) and considers himself a muslim of the moderate kind. (God knows we need more of those around.) While he clearly sympathizes with oppressed peoples around the world, especially any fellow muslims (such as the Palestinian people, for example), he condemns all violence, including any violence carried out in the name of Islam. He believes that muslim extremists who engage in any type of violent activity for their own personal or political reasons have distorted certain teachings in the Koran in much the same way Christian extremists who engage in any type of violent activity for their own personal or political reasons have distorted certain teachings in the Bible.
A few weeks ago we were enjoying a post-work conversation over a few beers and the recent Gaza blockade fiasco I know you are all very familiar with came up in conversation. We were able to have a very civil and respectful exchange in which I more or less expressed my support for Israel and he more or less expressed his support for the Palestinian people. (Note: it's never the Palestinian powers-that-be that are held responsible by Palestinian supporters, it's always the Palestinian "people" that they support; while conversely, the Israeli powers-that-be are always to be held accountable for their actions; but I digress.) I finally wrapped up the conversation by saying I would be more inclined to empathize with the Palestinian people and those who support them (i.e. the general muslim community for starters) if I felt they were openly and vocally against terrorism and muslim extremism. He said there was a vocal community of moderate muslims who spoke out against terrorism and muslim extremism in many forms. I replied that if thats the case, Im glad to hear it, but its not something I hear very much about and thats not because Im not looking for it; on the contrary, I said, I normally see the opposite wherein muslims are complaining about being persecuted for their beliefs and demonize or threaten anyone who questions what the Koran says. He replied with the following email and related thread so start from the bottom up if youre interested. Thanks for reading and Im curious to hear anyones thoughts on the matter. My apologies in advance for the terrible formatting below, hopefully it's not too difficult to follow. -eltoroverde
[names and contact info have been removed to protect identies of those involved]
-------
XXXXX, my friend (the professor from Columbia) finally wrote back.
Below is his reply.
~
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: XXXXX
Date: Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: [DC-Shias] URGENT - PROTEST: End Gender Apartheid - Free Nathalie Morin - Saudi Embassy Saturday June 26 1:30pm
To: XXXXX
your response was fine... well done.
id only add that we have a skewed notion of the sharia these days... a proper definition of sharia is "the human attempt to understand god's will at a given time and in a given place"... which means that it is always in flux and varies according to culture and context. What binds different sharias together across time and space is a "method" of determining gods will (otherwise known as fiqh - translatable as jurisprudence)... the set of rules that constitute fiqh have been consistent over time and function like a sort of black box... you add your inputs (place, context, etc..) and it gives you a set of localize rules as the product (Sharia)...
all of which is to say that the sharia is mutable, in constant flux, and highly flexible.
the core of islamic law that is considered immutable consists of quranic laws of which there are very few... there is a gender assumption in the quranic rules that distinguished between the sphere of female and male authority... but again, this is a rather limited set of rules pertaining mostly to inheritance and some aspects of marriage.
in sum: the sharia is very cultural specific and the immutable part of islamic law contains some gender distinctions but nothing on the scale that is enforced in saudi arabia.
*
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:14 PM, XXXXX wrote:
...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: XXXXX
Date: Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: [DC-Shias] URGENT - PROTEST: End Gender Apartheid - Free Nathalie Morin - Saudi Embassy Saturday June 26 1:30pm
To: XXXXX
XXXXX, I appreciate your curiosity.
Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia. To that end, Saudi views of Sharia are known to be extreme and oppressive even in the Muslim world. Their laws are also influenced by their culture. One good example of this is how women aren't allowed to drive automobiles in their country. This is clearly ludicrous.
MPV could argue with the Saudis regarding the legitimacy of their interpretations of Sharia but this would have no more affect than writing on water. It saddens me that our holy book, the Quran, which I grew up reciting, gets blamed for peoples inability to derive laws that should gracefully evolve with time without losing the idea behind the message. Any holy book could be misinterpreted to justify our personal motives and actions.
I hope I answered your question and look forward to more engaging discussions in the future.
Cheers!
----------
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:38 PM, ETV [me] wrote:
XXXXX- Thanks for sharing. No doubt this is an excellent example of American Muslims speaking out against oppressive Saudi laws and I welcome and celebrate their courage and conviction. That being said, as I understand itand please correct me if Im wrong because I dont claim to be a scholar in this area by any stretch of the imagination so I want to tread very lightly heremany of these oppressive laws are derived from certain aspects of Islam as put forward in the Quran (aka Sharia law ?). If that is in fact the case, it leaves me wondering why MPV does not focus their energies on the source of these oppressive laws rather than the vehicle that merely enforces them? In other words, where does the Saudi government find justification for these laws? Until that justification is addressed and reformed, I have a hard time seeing how MPVs efforts, noble as they are, will have any lasting effect on changing the oppressive laws of the Saudi government. Of course, I could have it totally wrong here so feel free to let me know where Im going off track.
----------
From: XXXXX
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 2:12 PM
To: XXXXX
Subject: Fwd: [DC-Shias] URGENT - PROTEST: End Gender Apartheid - Free Nathalie Morin - Saudi Embassy Saturday June 26 1:30pm
XXXXX, forgive me for emailing this to your work email address but I thought this was a perfect example of American Muslim solidarity against oppressive Saudi laws.
XX
----------
Begin forwarded message:
From: XXXXX
Date: June 21, 2010 12:02:21 PM EDT
To: XXXXX
Subject: [DC-Shias] URGENT - PROTEST: End Gender Apartheid - Free Nathalie Morin - Saudi Embassy Saturday June 26 1:30pm
MPV (Muslims for Progressive Values), both the national organization and the local DC chapter, are staging a protest in Washington DC in support of MPV-Ottawa for the release of Nathalie Morin from Saudi Arabia.
Attached flyer for the protest. This constitutes a press release - so please distribute as widely as possible.
Text of flyer below (as required for most press releases).
PROTEST
Saturday June 26th, 2010, 1:30 pm in front of the Embassy of Saudi Arabia
601 New Hampshire Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20037
To denounce the confinement of Nathalie Morin and her children, and foreign nationals, in Saudi Arabia
Canadian, Nathalie Morin who is 26 years old, along with her three small children, has been held against her will in Saudi Arabia by her common-law husband since 2005. A victim of conjugal violence, confinement and abuse, Nathalie must return to Canada with her children. But in Saudi Arabia a woman must have the authorization of her male guardian to leave the territory and her aggressor will not allow this.
Gender apartheid and the male guardianship system of Saudi Arabia is a violation of womens human rights and international law. As long as the U.S. and Saudi governments consider Nathalie and her childrens case a private affair, they will not deploy all efforts to ensure their safety and bring them home to Canada. During this time, Nathalies condition continues to deteriorate as the abuse worsens.
On June 26th and 27th, representatives of the Saudi government will participate in the G-20 summit in Toronto to discuss the economy. In June 2009 Obama stated in his speech in Cairo: «But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.» We call on President Obama to defend human rights by demanding that any foreign nationals held captive in Saudi Arabia be allowed to exit the country.
This protest is to declare to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the U.S. Government that Americans are demanding Nathalie Morin and her children, as well as any foreign nationals held captive, be returned to their countries immediately, that they respect the human rights of women and children and ensure the safety of Nathalie Morin and the safety of her children.
The other day, noting Bret Stephens' analysis in Commentary as to why Iran cannot be contained, Jonah Goldberg made a very shrewd throwaway aside: "Arguments like this tend to get ignored not because they aren't persuasive, but because they are," he said. "The political and psychological costs of accepting the premise are too high. So, denial inevitably triumphs."
And thus our Iran "policy": There will be no US military strike. There will be no international sanctions regime. And so the mullahs will go nuclear, because letting them go nuclear requires least of us -- and there will always be scholars and experts ready to justify our inertia as farsighted realpolitik. Thus, the rehabilitation of "containment": That we can do. Iran, says Zbigniew Brzezinski, "may be dangerous, assertive and duplicitous, but there is nothing in their history to suggest they are suicidal."
But plenty in their history to define them as murderous. Given that the world, excepting hopefully Israel, is determined not to punish them for their behaviour, the behaviour is clearly not suicidal. Mr. Brzezinski and his fellow-thinkers are idiots.
Dr Brzezinski is a man who has been reliably wrong about everything that matters for decades and whose decision to route American support for the Afghan resistance through the malign double-act of Saudi Arabia's Prince Turki and Pakistan's ISI has had consequences we live with to this day. He is the master of unrealpolitik, and so naturally his is now the new conventional wisdom: Iran is not "suicidal". Therefore, it can be contained.
Like Japan before Pearl Harbor. As I recall, the action that triggered that was the order to cut off of fuel oil contracts to Japan, without which her armed forces would not move.
Even a non-suicidal Iran is presumably intending to derive some benefit from its nuclear status. Entirely rational leverage would include: Controlling the supply of Gulf oil, setting the price, and determining the customers; getting vulnerable emirates such as Kuwait and Qatar to close US military bases; and turning American allies in Europe into de facto members of the non-aligned movement. Whatever deterrent effect it might have on first use or proliferation, there is no reason to believe any "containment" strategy would prevent Iran accomplishing its broader strategic goals. Besides, as Bret Stephens points out, Soviet containment was introduced a couple of years after we'd nuked Japan. Iranian "containment" would follow years of inaction, in which the ayatollahs have been allowed to nuclearize in full view of the world and with the acquiescence of many American allies. Unlike 60 years ago, there is a basic credibility issue: Despite President Obama's line that Iran is "isolated", it's just been elected to the UN Commission on the Status of Women, and its president in the last year alone has been received in China, Venezuela, Turkey, Denmark, Brazil, Bolivia, Afghanistan, Senegal, The Gambia and various other places most of which are at least nominally American allies. If he were to be any more "isolated", Ahmadinejad might get the occasional night at home to wash his hair. So "containment" seems unlikely to impede any non-suicidal moves by Iran.
But let's flip Dr Brzezinski's point around: An American might conclude that Iran isn't suicidal. But can the Iranians make the same confident claim about America? After all, we've just let them go nuclear -- not under cover of darkness, as Pakistan did, but in slow motion and in open contempt of the US and its European negotiators. Why would you do that? Iran doesn't observe even the minimal courtesies of mutually hostile states: It seizes foreign embassies at home, and blows them up on the other side of the world; it kidnaps the sailors of permanent members of the UN Security Council in international waters; it seeds terrorist proxies in Gaza and Lebanon, and backs terrorist attacks all over the world. And it pays no price for any of this. If you can't rouse yourself to prevent a rogue state with a thirty-year consistent pattern of behavior getting nukes, what else won't you rouse yourself for?
On September 10th 2001, America was the preeminent nuclear power in the world. We forget now that the following morning's attack was aimed not only at the symbols of US military and financial power but also at the heart of government itself. A combination of the vagaries of scheduling and the bravery of Flight 93's passengers saved us, on a day of horror, from the additional burden of a Robert C Byrd presidency or some such. Osama bin Laden set out to decapitate his enemy - and Mullah Omar, al-Qaeda's patron in Afghanistan, cheerfully signed off on it. Presumably, he's not suicidal, either. Yet he made a calculation about the American response that concluded the attack would be worth it.
Remember how quickly the objections to retaliating against Afghanistan began? Suppose there was a "nuclear transfer" to Sudan or Hamas, and Iran was most likely responsible: Do you think an Obamafied Washington would take action? Or would they express "grave concern" and go to the UN to get a resolution? I think we know the answer.
Now let's suppose one of those nuclear transfers detonates somewhere or other and kills tens of thousands of people, but the provenance isn't 100 per cent clear: Bombing raids on Tehran? Or back to the Security Council? You might not be so sure of the answer, but I'll bet, after the last few years, Iran is.
How about the big one? The ayatollahs nuke Tel Aviv and puts Israel out of business. What's the US going to do? Flatten Iran? Or hit a couple of cities and leave it at that? Iran believes we are a hollow superpower. It concluded from our behavior that it could go nuclear with impunity. And, whatever the unrealpolitik crowd tells itself, it has now concluded it can be nuclear with impunity. In a supposedly unipolar world, the planet's wealthiest states, from Norway to New Zealand, can project no meaningful force, while moribund basket cases nuke up.
That sounds like a transitional phase, don't you think?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
