text:
Aims of the Blog
ManicBeancounter
Thoughts and Analysis, mostly on Climate Change Policy
All posts in category Socialism
The Morning Star's denial of the Venezuelan Dictatorship
Guido Fawkes has an excellent example of the hard left's denial of realities that conflict with their beliefs. From the Daily Politics, this is Morning Star editor Ben Chacko saying that the UN Human Rights Watch report on Venezuela was one-sided.
The Human Rights report can be found here.
The recent demonstrations need to be put into context. There are two contexts that can be drawn upon. The Socialist Side (with which many Socialists will disagree) is from Morning Star's piece of 25th August The Bolivarian Revolution hangs in the balance.
One of the world's largest producers of oil, on which 95 per cent of its economy depends, the Bolivarian socialist government of Venezuela has, over the last 17 years, used its oil revenues to cut poverty by half and reduce extreme poverty to 5.4 per cent.
The government has built social housing; boosted literacy; provided free healthcare and free education from primary school to universities and introduced arts, music and cultural analysis programmes and many others targeting specific problems at the local level.
This is sentance emphasises the hard-left bias.
The mainly middle-class protesters, most without jobs and income, accused President Nicolas Maduro of dictatorship and continued with their daily demonstrations and demands for a change of government.
Folks without "jobs or income" are hardly middle-class, but might be former middle-class. They have been laid low by circumstances. Should they be blaming the Government or forces outside the Government's control?
From Capx.co on 16th August – Socialism – not oil prices – is to blame for Venezuela's woes. Also from upi.com on 17th February – Venezuela: 75% of the population lost 19 pounds amid crisis. This is the classic tale of socialism's failure.
Government control of food supplies leads to shortages, which leads to rationing, which leads to more shortages and black market profiteering. This started in 2007 when oil prices were high, but not yet at the record high.
Inflation is rampant, potentially rising from 720% in 2016 to 1600% this year. This is one of the highest rates in the world.
The weight loss is due to food shortages. It is the poorest who suffer the most, though most of the population are in extreme poverty.
An oil-based economy needs to diversify. Venezuela has not. It needs to use high oil prices to invest in infrastructure. Instead, the Chavez regime expropriated the oil production from successful private companies and handed to Government Cronies. A graphic from Forbes illustrates the problem.
About a decade ago at the height of the oil price boom, Venezuela's known oil reserves more than tripled, yet production fell. It now has the highest oil reserves of any country in the world.
Crime has soared, whilst people are going hungry.
Maybe a million children are missing school through hunger and lack of resources to run schools. Short-run "successes" based on expropriating the wealth of others have reversed to create a situation far worse than before Chavez came to power.
Oil prices are in real terms above the level they were from 1986 to 2003 (with the exception of a peak for the first Gulf War) and comparable to the peak reached in 1973 with the setting up of the OPEC Cartel and oil embargo.
The reality is that Socialism always fails. But there is always a hardcore always in denial, always coming up with empty excuses for failure, often blaming it on others. With the rise of Jeremy Corbyn (who receives a copy of the Morning Star daily), this hardcore has have taken over the Labour Party. The example of Venezuela indicates the long-term consequences of their attaining power.
Kevin Marshall
by manicbeancounter on 05/09/2017 • Permalink
Posted in Economics, Prime Minister Corbyn, Socialism
Tagged Corbynistas, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour's Hard Left, Morning Star, Venezuela
Posted by manicbeancounter on 05/09/2017
https://manicbeancounter.com/2017/09/05/the-morning-stars-denial-of-the-venezuelan-dictatorship/
John McDonnell accusation that Grenfell fire victims were murdered examined
At Glastonbury (which people think to be a music festival) John McDonnell MP, the shadow chancellor, and closet Marxist made the accusation that the victims of the Grenfell fire were murdered. Guido Fawkes has a video recording here. He repeated these allegations in videoed interview with the NME, a publication when I was at school stood for New Musical Express. He tried to justify the comments when asked about the comments by Andrew Marr. All three are reproduced in an appendix.
From McDonnell's perspective, any causes of the fire that can be determined by an inquiry conducted experts in their fields objectively assessing the evidence, are superficial. But before the evidence has been evaluated, the ultimate causes are the wrong decisions of political opponents, particularly the Tories, but also within the former mainstream of the Labour Party. McDonnell and his fellow travelers know the true interests of the people and can point to instances in the past where they have stated these ultimate causes, and have not been listened to. The fact that these anointed people have not been listened to is not only a failure of democracy, but the resulting in deaths are murder.
But look at it from a different perspective.
As Andrew Marr pointed out, the legal definition of murder, (the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought – see below) does not embrace acts of indirect killing. At most such unintended killings a lesser form of manslaughter. This does not change by pointing out a long tradition of its use, any more than racial theories are valid through centuries of use.
The BBC corroborates that long tradition.
It was in the 19th Century that philosopher Friedrich Engels sought to prove that society commits "social murder" in his book Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844.
"When society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death… When it deprives thousands of the necessaries of life… forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues… its deed is murder," he wrote of Victorian England.
Engels went on to found Marxist theory with fellow German philosopher, Karl Marx.
Such thinking was developed into a conspiracy theory. When society does not progress towards a socialist utopia, as the forces of history dictate, it must be due to the collective and secretive actions of the capitalist class who would lose out. "Social murder" has benefits for those perpetuating those actions. Under Stalin, when the collectivization of agriculture failed to progress towards the socialist utopia, it was due to a conspiracy by the kulaks. In a famine, this gave justification for closing the grain supplies off to these peasant farmers and feeding the cities. Similarly, when factories failed to meet arbitrary targets, it must have been due to managers sabotaging production for the capitalist enemy. Simply being "outed" by another was sufficient evidence to being shot after torture and a show trial.
English Common Law long ago developed the concept of trial by jury. Charges must be clearly stated and substantiated by evidence. The prosecution must convince a jury of the accused's peers beyond reasonable doubt. The accused have the right to rebut any allegations. The judge overseas proceeding to make sure established rules and procedures are adhered to. It recognizes that no matter how good a case might appear to be, it might be fundamentally flawed. By approaching the issue an alternative perspective, what appears to be a convincing case might not be so watertight, or could completely unravel. Of course, by allowing the defendant to speak, it might work the other way. A defense based on outright lies and contradictions will serve to convince a jury of the prosecution's accusations. In so doing, the aim is for the decision of the court to be the truth.
The development of the British concepts of "fair play" and "a level playing field" emerged alongside those developments in criminal trial by jury. However, a new word entered the Oxford English Dictionary last month, which indicates that trend has now sharply reversed.
Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.
The objective facts of the Grenfell fire can only be established by careful examination of the evidence by competent persons. In assessing those facts, real lessons can be learned, not only to prevent such a horror occurring but possible for people in social housing to be served better. What John McDonnell has achieved in his pronouncements, based on his blinkered prejudices, is to derive conclusions based on empty opinions and anger. As a result, any objective assessment that might show that non-Tory politicians share in the blame will be drowned out, along with the lessons about the limits of political competency.
Appendix – John McDonnell's Claims
McDonnell at Glastonbury 25th June 2017
Is democracy working? It didn't work if you were a family living on the 20th floor of Grenfell Tower. Those families, those individuals, 79 so far and there will be more, were murdered by political decisions taken over recent decades. The decision not to build homes and to view housing as only for financial speculation rather than meeting a basic human need murdered those families. The decision to close fire stations and to cut 10,000 fire fighters and then to freeze their pay for over a decade. They were political decisions.
McDonnell Interview with NME – Grenfell Tower from 5.35
My Transcript, without editing.
We're all angry. We're all angry.
We are angry because we know the causes of that fire. You know, we know what we know that that the physical causes might have been a fridge that burst on fire, the cladding was wrong or .. that will come out at the inquiry, but I think we know roughly that what those causes are. But the real causes are decisions made by successive Tory Governments in particular. Who basically refused to build homes, in London in particular. And then housing then being used not for housing need but for speculative gain. And as a result you get people crammed into unsafe tower blocks and as a result people lose their lives. It's a scandal, an absolute scandal.
We, we've campaigned over the years, for house building, council house building and investment in the housing program. Jeremy and I have been campaigning on that for nearly thirty years. In addition to that we have been campaigning for thirty years for safety. We were both members, in fact we set up the Fires Brigade Union Parliamentary Group that as far back as…. One speech I dug out was 2004 when I was calling for sprinklers as part of safety measures. So what we have said is when we go back into Government, first of all we will start building homes again. We have promised a million new homes. Half of them will be council houses. And that we tackle some of the housing crisis that we have got. Secondly we will ensure that we invest in our public services and that does to me making sure that homes are safe. Last year Labour put up an amendment to legislation which said that landlords should have a legal responsibility to make sure that their homes are fit for human habitation. That was voted down by Conservative MPs, 75 of whom were landlords. Absolutely disgraceful. So when we go back in we'll build homes and make them safe.
McDonnell on Andrew Marr Show 17th July 2017 Grenfell from 10:35
Unedited Transcript
AM Do you regret saying that the people who died in the Grenfell tower were killed by political murder?
JMcD No I don't regret that. I was extremely angry with what went on and I am a West London MP. This site is not far from … Political decisions were made which resulted in the deaths of these people. That's a scandal.
AM But murder means a specific thing. Murder means a volition to actually kill another human being – intentional killing.
JMcD There is a long history in this country of concept of social murder where decisions are made with no regard to the consequences of that, and as a result of that people have suffered. That whats happened here and I am angry about that.
AM Do you regard it as murder?
JMcD I believe that social murder has occurred in this instance and I believe that people should be held accountable for that.
AM So who are the murderers?
JMcD I think that it has being a consequence of political decisions over the years that have not addressed the housing crisis that we have had. That have cut back on local government, so proper inspections have not been made. Cut back 11,000 firefighters jobs been cut as well. Even the investment in aerial ladders and things like that in our country.
Appendix – definitions
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1209
the unlawful killing of another person without premeditation or so-called "malice aforethought" (an evil intent prior to the killing). It is distinguished from murder (which brings greater penalties) by lack of any prior intention to kill anyone or create a deadly situation.
the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.
Posted in Labour in Opposition, Socialism
Tagged Grenfell Fire, John McDonell, Marxism, Post-truth
https://manicbeancounter.com/2017/07/23/john-mcdonnell-accusation-that-grenfell-fire-victims-were-murdered-examined/
Will Jeremy Corbyn change his Shoot to Kill Policy?
Last night three Islamic terrorists first used a van to mow down pedestrians on London Bridge, then went on a stabbing rampage that left even are dead and 48 injured At least one of the cowardly attackers was wearing a fake suicide vest, no doubt to deter anybody trying to defend the innocent. This will be the likely reason why eight police officers discharged a total of 50 rounds to ensure the terrorists were dead. Terrible as this attack was, it was very small scale to the Paris attacks of Friday 13th November 2015 that left 130 dead and hundreds wounded. This was the response of Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn to those attacks in an interview with Laura Kussenberg
LK : If we saw the kind of horror in Paris here if you were Prime Minister would you order security services onto the streets to stop being killed.
JC : Of course you bring people onto to the streets to stop people being killed, to prevent and ensure there is safety within our society, but its much better that it is done by the Police than security services, but it is much better we have strong and effective community policing; neighbourhood policing; and a cohesive society that brings people together. Obviously that is essential so that is one of the messages that I will be putting to the Prime Minister.
LK : But if you were Prime Minister would you be happy to order people – police or military – to shoot to kill on Britain's streets?
JC : Err, I would , I am not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general. I think that is quite a dangerous – and I think it can often be counterproductive. I think that you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can. There are various degrees of doing things as we know. But the idea that you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely you have to work to try to prevent these things happening. That's got to be the priority.
So when terrorists are rampaging on the streets, killing and maiming people, Prime Minister Corbyn will be unhappy for police officers to shot them dead to protect the innocents. With that policy, I am sure the lives of the terrorists could have been saved last night. But not before they had killed and injured quite a few more. So potential jihadists will know that if they do launch a terror attack, it will not necessarily be a suicide mission, and they will be able to bag a few more infidels before being overpowered by community police officers.
By the same line of thinking, if horror of horrors, negotiations failed in a nuclear war, and an aggressor unleashed its missiles against us, Prime Minister Corbyn would be unhappy launching a retaliatory strike. In doing so he would no doubt save millions of lives in aggressor country. Knowing Prime Minister Corbyn's pacifism and dithering, would be aggressors will be emboldened to flex their muscles.
But it gets worse. This is what the Guardian wrote about Jeremy Corbyn in 1996.
Every few years, the London Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn indulges his romantic support for Irish republicans by using his parliamentary privileges to give them a publicity platform. These occasions always also provide a showcase for Mr Corbyn's abiding qualities: his lack of wider political and moral judgment, his predilection for gesture politics, his insensitivity to the feelings of most Londoners and his indifference to the policies of his party… Mr Corbyn's actions do not advance the cause of peace in Northern Ireland and are not seriously intended to do so. It is surprising that a politician as clever and important as the Sinn Fein leader should be bothered with him. Grown-up people ought to keep this childish sideshow in perspective. Mr Corbyn is a fool, and a fool whom the Labour Party would probably be better off without.
When dealing with the problems of Northern Ireland, Jeremy Corbyn spoke to Sinn Fein. In so doing the political wing of a terrorist organisation were able to gain ground at the expense of the peaceful Social Democratic and Labour Party. Similarly he called the terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah friends, helping them to legitimacy at the expense of more moderate and peaceful representatives of the Palestinian people. The people who should be most afraid of a Prime Minister Corbyn are those in the Muslim Community who want to live peacefully in a free country. This I believe is the vast majority of the Muslim community. Corbyn is drawn to the noisy and ideological types, who hate liberal democracy for something more akin to Saudi Arabia. Another group are who should be afraid are members of the LGBT community, given what Islamic ideology has to say about homosexuality. The Jewish community are clearly afraid. Whilst a few years ago a majority supported Labour, around 13% do so now.
One of the wonderful things about our liberal democracy is that people have a secret ballot. The vote is between them and their conscience. Jeremy Corbyn is well-meaning, but is a dangerous fool. He should not be trusted with the highest office in the Mother of all Parliaments by anyone who believes in diversity and freedom to practice ones own beliefs.
Whilst I was writing this, Jeremy Corbyn announced that he now supports a shoot-to-kill policy. But the first action as Prime Minister will be to commission a report on the changing nature of the terrorist threat. He views the ways of making a more effective police force is more numbers and higher pay. Nothing about improving the quality of service, and stopping unnecessary bureaucratic hindrance. There is also nothing about listening to those with mainstream democratic views in preference to the anti-democratic extremists. Corbyn then quickly changes the subject.
Posted in Prime Minister Corbyn, Rule of Law, Socialism
Tagged Friend of Hamas, Islamic Ideology, Jeremy Corbyn, London Terrorist Attack June 2017, Muslim Community
https://manicbeancounter.com/2017/06/04/will/
Labour Manifesto is misleading the British Public
Today Ed Miliband formally launched the Labour Election Manifesto 2015. See the summary at the BBC.
David Cameron has called it a con trick. (Hattip Conservative Home)
This con trick claim can be substantiated by reading the Manifesto. Here are a few snippets.
On the Economy, Labour realize they have an uphill struggle. A couple of examples
"We will cut the deficit every year with a surplus on the current budget.."
The current budget deficit is the difference between tax revenue and current spending. To get the total deficit you need to add in (what used to be called) capital expenditure.
Remember Gordon Brown's Golden Rule of only borrowing to invest?
Ed Miliband will return Britain to the days of 2001-2008, when Labour built a structural deficit of £50-£70bn. It is this reason that there is still a huge deficit, not the credit crunch. Labour still do not understand the public sector capital investment does not provide financial returns. New roads, schools and hospitals are not constructed to generate revenue like in a business but to provide social returns. Properly spent, overall welfare is increased, despite capital spending creating additional financial burdens in terms of staffing and maintenance.
"There is not a single policy in this manifesto that is funded by additional borrowing."
This is grossly misleading. Labour are committed to at least maintaining current spending levels. When there is a deficit that means new additional borrowing is required, adding to the total debt. What Labour mean is that additional spending will be funded by additional taxes.
Discouraging entrepreneurship, jobs and growth
There is a subsection headed "We will back our entrepreneurs and businesses"
The measures are tiny. Instead here are a scattering of policy initiatives which will likely damage British businesses and help undermine economic growth.
"We will reverse the Government's top-rate tax cut."
British Entrepreneurs will be discouraged from investing in Britain. They will go elsewhere.
"We will abolish the non-dom rules…"
Ed Balls in January said
"I think if you abolish the whole (nom-dom) status then probably it ends up costing Britain money"
There on a lot of people who rely on the non-doms for jobs. Many invest money in Britain.
"We will close tax loopholes that cost the public billions of pounds a year,"
The tax system will become even more complex, especially for small businesses. This could reduce revenues.
"We will end unfair tax breaks used by hedge funds and others"
A major part of Britain's exports come from the financial services sector. Labour's antipathy to this sector threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs and may demote the City of London to a second tier financial sector.
"We will increase the National Minimum Wage
We will ban exploitative zero-hours contracts
We will promote the Living Wage"
The cost of employing people will rise. Businesses who do not toe the official line on the living wage might be unable to sell to the State Sector. Start-up businesses will be reduced and small businesses will not expand as inflexible employment laws will increase the risks of taking people on. The unemployed will become locked out of jobs. Youth unemployment will rise.
"We will freeze gas and electricity prices until 2017"
Prices have been rising because of the Climate Change Act 2008 that Ed Miliband was responsible for steering through Parliament. There is huge investment needed in new sources of electricity. That ain't going to happen if profit rates fall. This is a policy to ensure the lights go out in a couple of winters time.
"We will introduce a fairer deal for renters"
This will be at the expense of landlords, many of whom rent as a business.
"We will expand free childcare from 15 to 25 hours per week for parents of three- and four-year-olds, paid for with an increase in the bank levy."
See point 4 on the City of London
I am really concerned that a Labour Government will jeopardize the prosperity of this country, and my children's future. Rather than learning from past Labour continue to deceive themselves through spin. Rather than and admitting that they got things wrong Labour blame others.
Posted in Government Spending, Socialism
Tagged David Cameron, Ed Miliband, General Election 2015, Gordon Brown, Labour Manifesto 2015
https://manicbeancounter.com/2015/04/13/labour-manifesto-is-misleading-the-british-public/
Feynman on Communist Science
I am currently engrossed in GENIUS: Richard Feynman and Modern Physics by James Gleick
In July 1962 Feynman went behind the Iron Curtain to attend a conference on gravitation in Warsaw. He was exasperated at the state of Soviet science. He wrote to his wife Gweneth:-
The "work" is always: (1) completely un-understandable, (2) vague and indefinite, (3) something correct that is obvious and self-evident, worked out by long and difficult analysis, and presented as an important discovery, or (4) a claim based on stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot), (5) an attempt to do something, probably impossible, but certainly of no utility, which, it is finally revealed at the end, fails or (6) just plain wrong. There is a great deal of "activity in the field" these days, but this "activity" is mainly in showing that the previous "activity" of somebody else resulted in an error or in nothing useful or in something promising. (Page 353)
The failings of Government-backed science are nothing new.
Posted in Science & Non-science, Science - the Boundaries, Socialism
Tagged Richard Feynman, Science & Non-Science
https://manicbeancounter.com/2015/02/07/feynman-on-communist-science/
Extreme Socialist-Environmentalist Ideation as Motivation for belief in "Climate Science"
Professors Lewandowsky, Oberauer & Gignac have now produced papers two internet opinion surveys. The "Hoax" paper was from a survey placement on pro-climate science blogs. The second was from a cross-section of the US population. Both claim evidence that the rejection of "climate science" is associated with extreme "free-market worldviews". I find two opinion surveys do show a clear relationship between the agreement with "free-market" statements and disagreement with the "climate science" statements. But in US survey clearly shows that extreme views on both "free-market" and "climate science" statements are held by tiny minorities, with most occupying the middle ground. Conversely the blog survey is dominated by responses that are both pro "climate science" and anti "free-market". There is no evidence from the papers that enlightened expert scientists and their supporters are trying to save the world from an avoidable catastrophe, but plenty of evidence that people with strong and dogmatic political beliefs are using "climate science" as a vehicle to foist those beliefs on everybody else.
Professors Lewandowsky, Oberauer & Gignac have now produced two opinion surveys that, they claimed certain political views were behind rejection of "climate science". In "NASA faked the moon landing:Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science" (hereafter LOG12 (blog survey)), they say
..we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science.
In "The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science" (hereafter LOG13 (US survey)), they say
Free-market worldviews are an important predictor of the rejection of scientific findings that have potential regulatory implications, such as climate science, but not necessarily of other scientific issues.
I have previously looked at the other major claim of the two studies – that conspiracist ideation leads to a rejection of science. This claim I found to be false when looking at conspiracy theories unrelated to science or policy.
In examining the relationship, I first look at the "climate science" belief against aggregate "free-market" statements. This is then put in the context of number of respondents. Then I examine the evidence presented as to whether "climate science" informs political choices of its supporters, and for the contrary view.
Evidence for "Free-market" views and rejection of "Climate-Science"
For LOG13 (US survey) study I have plotted the distribution of belief in "climate science" against belief in "free-markets". With five "free-market" statements and options 1 to 5, the possible scores are 5 to 25. Please note that the X axis is reversed. That is, moving from left to right increases with the rejection of free markets. This is plotted against the rounded average response to the four "climate science" questions1. This "climate science" band I have colour-coded by a traffic light system, with red for reject, amber for neutral and green for accept.
The highest scores for "free-market" statements have a preponderance of the red and pink for net reject of for "climate science". Conversely, strong belief in "climate science" is related to anti "free-market" statements, with those with no net belief either way on climate most thickly spread over the middle ground of political opinion.
This is shown by the "climate science" acceptance ratios2 against the "free-market" scores.
The graph clearly shows that the higher the score for free markets, the greater the rejection of "climate science". The reverse relationship is not so clear-cut. Responses with the most extreme anti "free-market" opinions are not the strongest accepters of "climate science". Further those who are in middle on the political scale are also net neutral on the climate issue.
The LOG12 (blog survey) has one extra "free-market" statement. This I have ignored for this study. With only were only four responses to each statement the aggregate possible scores range for five statements 5 to 20. Lack of a neutral option means lack of the amber "climate science band".
Even allowing for the absence of a neutral amber option, the proportion of respondents taking the more extreme positions on climate appears much greater. This is clarified by the climate acceptance ratios.
Compared with the US population, in the blog survey rejection of the "free-market" is a much stronger predictor of the acceptance of "climate science". Conversely, acceptance of the "free-market" is not quite so strongly associated with rejection of "climate science", but it is still a strong association.
Numbers of Respondents
In the above I have only looked at the split belief respondents for each "free-market" score. Including the number of respondents helps clarify the picture.
There is a normal distribution of responses on "free-market" beliefs. Over a quarter of responses were net neutral. The most frequent "climate science" band is amber, with 423 (42%) of responses. The overall climate acceptance ratio is 0.09. That is the American public are neutral on "climate science", with "accepters" being almost exactly offset by "rejecters". Strong belief in climate change is the preserve of a small minority. Further, although the majority of the 44 responses on climate band 5 net reject the "free-market", 13 are net accepters and 3 are neutral. Every indication is that the American public does not view global warming a pressing problem.
So where do those who frequent "pro-climate science" blogs stand?
Compared to the US public, the vast majority of respondents on the blog survey were strongly anti-free-market and also presented a very strong belief in "climate science". The dark green strong accepters of "climate science" form 69% of total responses, outnumbering the strong rejecters more than 10 to 1. In all the furore over the blog survey paper, there was little mention, apart from by me, that a study was published on a group of people that were a very small minority of the total responses, and accessed only from blogs that are virulently hostile to their views. But for that very reason, it becomes a very good survey of the beliefs of the most fervent supporters of "climate science".
So which comes first for these dogmatic supporters? Is it the evidence of science that leads to the necessary political policies? Or is "climate science" just a means to subvert the democratic process, and impose extreme political or pseudo-religious beliefs?
lead or follow Political belief?
If belief in the projected harm of rising greenhouse gas levels, the policy used to combat that issue would be closely derived from it, and tailored to it. Much in the same way that cancer treatments are closely tailored to the needs of the patient, taking into account both the effectiveness and harms of the treatment. If it is the other way round, then there will be leaps of faith, and biases all over the place.
The evidence of the two papers, and the writings of lead author Stephen Lewandowsky, show the authors to be upholding political beliefs as the driver of belief in science. Examples include
The LOG12 (blog survey) paper fails to reference any overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of the catastrophic global warming hypothesis. The evidence is that the vast majority of climate scientists believe in trivial propositions. There is no evidence presented of belief in extreme versions of "climate change" by the experts. Nor is there evidence that climate scientists" are free of the normal motivations for studying a subject. That is belief in the value of the subject.
The use of the term "climate denial" suggests that, for the authors, "the catastrophic global warming hypothesis" is not a normal scientific hypothesis capable of falsification by the evidence, but a self-evident truth. Thus anybody who disagrees must do so from some errant thought processes. By implication, a "free-market worldview" is also based on a set of errant beliefs.
The language of the LOG13 (US survey) suggests a bias. This quote from the introduction
People who embrace a laissez-faire vision of the free market are …… than people with an egalitarian-communitarian outlook.
The normal term for people with a "laissez-faire vision" is "libertarian", with the antonym being "authoritarian". The author's outlook is more socialist and environmentalist. The authors avoid using more meaningful terms, as that would create prejudice against their conclusions.
Failure to recognise bias in the questions. Three of the five "free-market" questions contrast with an "environmentalist" alternative. Therefore, it should be no surprise that a conclusion is reached that people with a libertarian outlook "are less likely to accept that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet than people with" socialist- environmentalist views.
Failure to acknowledge that the rejection of "climate science" on political grounds could be because no distinction is made in the public domain between science and policy. People who question policy, whether of wind farms or rising costs of energy, are accused of science denial. Further, the LOG12 (blog survey) shows that the strongest supporters of "climate science" believe the association.
Failure to acknowledge that the language of "climate science" is similar to the language of politics, as opposed to the language of hard sciences or engineering. Particularly when some of the short-term prophesies have been contradicted, we get mealy-mouthed excuses and ex-poste justifications. Mike Haseler's recent survey of opinions from sceptic blogs found
..that most of the 5,000 respondents were experienced engineers, scientists and IT professionals, most degree-qualified and around a third with post-graduate qualifications.
People used to precise measurements and judging success by results will think "climate scientists" talk rubbish. On the other hand, mainstream politicians will understand it.
The overwhelming evidence for catastrophic climate change, the analysis of policy effectiveness and the guidelines for effective policy implementation are totally lacking.
What is clear from the US survey is that those with extreme belief in both climate science and socialist-environmentalist views are very few. Further, the studies present no evidence that the "scientific" views are anything more than something that those with extreme left beliefs have arrogated to push their dogmatic opinions. Yet climate mitigation means essentially removing individual freedom on certain lifestyles and democratic choice from energy policy, placing it in the hands of people with extremist and intolerant beliefs. It is not just people who oppose "climate change" who will be no longer have their opinions represented, but (in the case of the USA) the vast majority of the population.
I have found these results by various trying different hypotheses, along with comparing and contrasting between the two surveys. I have only shown my results graphically. The statistical significance of the conclusions can be calculated by others. The key relationship is in the blog survey, for the 955 responses that express overall support for the climate science statements (score 11 to 16). Magnitude of disagreement with the "free-market statements" is a strong predictor of magnitude of support for the "climate science".
There is also a need for evaluations of the surveys by professional opinion pollsters and occupational psychologists, with experience of setting opinion surveys.
All first time comments are moderated. Please use the comments as a point of contact. I will not publish approaches in this way. All email addresses are treated as confidential. The opinions expressed are my own, and I have received no funding for this work.
Note – "Out of Office" until 11th Aug
Climate Science Bands
In the LOG13 questionnaire there were 5 options, from 1 for "strongly disagree" to 5 for "strongly agree". For each respondent, the "Climate Science Band" is obtained by the rounding the average of the questions to the nearest whole number. These bands are traffic light coded as below.
LOG12 (blog survey) did not have a neutral option, hence there is no amber.
Acceptance Ratio
There are two issues with using the average responses. First is that a negative response is a positive number. Second is that LOG12 had only four possible responses for each question, whereas LOG13 had five with the addition of a middle neutral, option. The Acceptance Ratio converts the responses as follows.
Please note, that the calculation of the acceptance ratio is calculated from average responses to all the "climate change" questions and not on the average of the "Climate change bands.
The five "Free-market" statements
FMUnresBest An economic system based on free markets unrestrained by government interference automatically works best to meet human needs.
FMLimitSocial The free market system may be efficient for resource allocation but it is limited in its capacity to promote social justice. (R)
FMMoreImp The preservation of the free market system is more important than localized environmental concerns.
FMThreatEnv Free and unregulated markets pose important threats to sustainable development. (R)
FMUnsustain The free market system is likely to promote unsustainable consumption. (R)
Posted in Climate Change, Climate Change Analysis, Science & Non-science, Socialism, Spin (Propaganda)
Tagged Climate Alarmism, Climate Sceptics, Climate Science, Free-market Ideation, Libertarianism, Opinion Surveys, Stephen Lewandowsky
https://manicbeancounter.com/2014/04/21/extreme-socialist-environmentalist-ideation-as-motivation-for-belief-in-climate-science/
Lewandowsky – Climate Scientists should be listened to because they are wrong
Stephen Lewandowsky has another couple of papers out. From e! Science News
Scientific uncertainty has been described as a 'monster' that prevents understanding and delays mitigative action in response to climate change. New research by Professor Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Bristol, and international colleagues, shows that uncertainty should make us more rather than less concerned about climate change. In two companion papers, published today in Climatic Change, the researchers investigated the mathematics of uncertainty in the climate system and showed that increased scientific uncertainty necessitates even greater action to mitigate climate change.
The scientists used an ordinal approach — a range of mathematical methods that address the question: 'What would the consequences be if uncertainty is even greater than we think it is?'
Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair in Cognitive Psychology and member of the Cabot Institute at the University of Bristol, said: "We can understand the implications of uncertainty, and in the case of the climate system, it is very clear that greater uncertainty will make things even worse. This means that we can never say that there is too much uncertainty for us to act. If you appeal to uncertainty to make a policy decision the legitimate conclusion is to increase the urgency of mitigation."
Co-author, Dr James Risbey of Australia's CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, said: "Some point to uncertainty as a way to minimize the climate change problem, when in fact it means that the problem is more likely to be worse than expected in the absence of that uncertainty. This result is robust to a range of assumptions and shows that uncertainty does not excuse inaction."
If we assume that catastrophic climate change is a fundamental truth, the authors are right. The task of climate science is to reveal that truth to the world. If that truth cannot be accurately accessed, then the consequences of unmitigated climate change will be greater than if they could be. But if there is no fundamental truth to be revealed then all what you have is a number of dogmatic people who cannot accept that their theories are not backed by the evidence. The failure to understand the path to climate catastrophe might be due to no climate catastrophe in prospect. Persistent failures increase the likelihood that the belief in the fundamental truth of climate catastrophism is just a cult. Circumstantial evidence is in the unique methods and language of the "science"; moral certitude; failure to appreciate climate change could be a trivial problem; belief in their infallibility; reliance on belief in science, as opposed to accepting science that fails to be falsified; failure to recognize that those who disagree may also have valid viewpoint; and the denigration of anybody who asks questions as heretics deniers. Further, the solution is always the same, fitting in with an extremist socialist-environmentalist world view. There is no recognition that mitigation policies can fail. If mitigation can avert climate catastrophe it is a tautology to state that if mitigation is only practiced in a few minor emitting countries, those countries will bear all the cost of policies, and future generations will endure virtually all the consequences. The same is tautological truth applies if mitigation is practiced globally, but fails to reduce emissions.
The pay walled papers are here and here.
Update :Jo Nova has a satirical take on the latest Lew papers.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/new-lewandowsky-study-finds-uncertainty-monster-under-his-bed-will-cost-billions/
Posted in Climate Censorship, Eco-Fanatics, Public Relations and Climate Change, Science & Non-science, Socialism
Tagged Climate Science, Climatology as a Cult, Stephan Lewandowsky, Uncertainty
https://manicbeancounter.com/2014/04/06/lewandowsky-climate-scientists-should-be-listened-to-because-they-are-wrong/
Watermelon Energy Policy – Green Renewables backed by Red Diesel
My last past was on the Fulcrum Power application to build a 20MW diesel power station. I predict that this will be part of the next big scandal to hit so-called renewables sector.
Fulcrum Power are planning to become part of the National Grid's STOR (Short Term Operating Reserve) scheme. The STOR End of Year Report 2011/12 summary is
In 2011/12 National Grid procured on average 3230 megawatts (MW) for the six seasons, at a cost of £70.4m in availability payments. This was made up on average of 2160 MW for the Committed service and 1071 MW for the Flexible service. The actual MW availability provided through STOR during the peak demand of each day between 1st April 2011 and 31st March 2012, averaged out at 2172 MW. This represents an increase of 6.2% over the average MW availability for peak of each day during the 2010/11 term.
There were 421 successful STOR tenders in 2011/12, of which 191 units were Committed service providers and 230 units were Flexible service providers.
The average availability price for both Committed and Flexible STOR was £9.13/MW/h and the average utilisation price was £232.37/MWh. This represents an increase of 0.6% on 2010/11 average availability prices and a decrease of 7.7% on 2010/11 average utilisation prices.
National Grid utilised a total of 173.3 gigawatt hours (GWh) of STOR, yielding utilisation payments of £32.3m; and thus marks increases of 73% and 66%, respectively, when compared with the total STOR utilisation for 2010/11 and its cost.
The total expenditure for STOR during the 2011/12 term was £102.7m.
This 20MW scheme would add less than 1% to the total STOR capacity, which is currently costing just over £100m per year. Neither is this the
The STOR scheme is used at the moment in case of the emergency shut-down of a major power station. In the future I predict it is likely to be to cover two sources.
With increasing reliance on wind turbines, for in the sub-zero winter temperatures, caused by windless high pressure systems.
With the shutting down of the older generations of coal and nuclear capacity without new base-load power coming along, to provide peak time capacity on windless days.
The BBC report on the Fulcrum Power planning application stated
Two diesel power stations planned in Plymouth will compensate for fluctuations in supplies from green energy, say developers.
Green Frog Power got planning permission last year and Fulcrum Power has made an application for a similar power station.
Green Frog Power recently received financing of £75m to build 200MW of standby power. They must have these mini stations all over the place. They are not alone. The "STOR Market Information for TR19" report notes that in Year 7 showed that whilst the accepted STOR was around 3000MW, the rejected applications were about 6300MW. There is a huge amount of generating capacity out there of 3MW or more. However, much of this will be old diesel engines, with efficiencies far less than the coal-fired or nuclear power stations than are being shut down. The cost per kwh would also be about two or three times those of the coal-fired power stations, if used as base-load. But used as peak demand carrying load on windless days, they could be five to ten times the cost. The gas-fired power stations currently used for peak times could be switched to base load. All the extra diesel being used could hit car drivers in the wallets as well in the winter.
So the good point here is that the lights are unlikely to go out. We have plenty of temporary capacity. The bad news is that the dithering over shale gas and the banning of new coal-fired power stations could push energy costs through the roof and might even increase CO2 emissions.
James Delingpole likes to call the green movement "watermelons". That is, they are politically green on the outside, but socialist red on the inside. In Britain, diesel not used for transport does not carry excise duties. It carries a red dye, to easily identify its illicit use in road vehicles. British energy policy is likely to become a watermelon policy – green renewables on the surface, but red diesel at the safety core.
Green Frog Power
STOR scheme description
STOR scheme documents
STOR End of Year Report 2011/12
STOR Market Information for TR19
BBC on the Fulcrum Power planning application
Posted in Environment, Socialism, UK Energy Policy
Tagged Energy Policy, Green Frog Power, James Delingpole, National Grid, Red Diesel, Stor (Short Term Operating Reserve), Watermelon
https://manicbeancounter.com/2013/06/15/watermelon-energy-policy-green-renewables-backed-by-red-diesel/
Jesus a Lefty-Liberal, Guardian reader? Not likely
Dizzy thinks, but wrongly, about the political leanings of Jesus. He may have a point through the modern liberal Church of England.
Dizzy's posting on Jesus being a lefty-liberal is wide of the mark. He says
Seriously, if Jesus was alive today (a man's who's existence at least is not I think in dispute) he would be a Guardian reader. Yet, he would of course be pilloried for believing that he was the Son of an unprovable God, no doubt ridiculed for being a bit mad (oh the irony given the average Guardian readers hatred of prejudice towards the mentally ill), and his core beliefs about non-violence, turning the other cheek, forgiveness and the like would be dismissed out of hand.
I realise this is the second post in as many days where the subject of faith has come up, but honestly, I just don't comprehend the sheer hypocrisy of those on the so-called "Liberal Left" when they display so much hatred for a faith that is essentially in keeping with their values, all, so it seems because of the bit about God.
If a kid is brought up with the liberal moral teachings of Christianity but also believes in God is it really "evil"?
Apologies for labouring the point here, but politically speaking, if you look at the New Testament, the carpenter's son from Nazareth known as Jesus was essentially preaching a message that today would be seen as incredibly left wing. He was a little man standing up against an Imperial oppressor, he was preaching the evils of capitalism, and extolling the virtues of the weak and meek over the the rich.
Pardon my blasphemy for those that have an issue with it, but: Jesus Christ! Is it not patently absurd that Guardian readers should hate something so in line with their own beliefs just because it's not secular?
My reply (in three sections) was as follows.
You are correct if you follow the Rowan Williams School of theology. An alternative line is to quote Jesus on the important bits. Take Matthew 23:40. After saying the two greatest commandments are love of God and love of your neighbour as yourself. Jesus says "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments". Jesus was establishing a principles-based religion. If the law conflicted with this, then it was the law that had to give. So if someone needed healing on the Sabbath, they should be healed, despite the Jewish law saying you should not work. In Matthew's gospel, the holy men who went around proclaiming they are superior because they uphold the law better than others Jesus calls "hypocrites" and a "brood of vipers", as they were more concerned with appearances than the substance of faith in God.
Another aspect is forgiveness of sins. Human beings are fallible, despite their best efforts. They can leave the past behind without guilt and get on with being good.
Jesus today would have strong words for New Labour. For them the solution to every problem is more laws, more complexity and wads of cash. Political appearances are more important than substance. Principles are transitory – remember the need to balance the budget over the course of the business cycle? It was first re-defined then ditched. What would he have to say of the science of climate change, with any none-believers labeled deniers (the modern-day equivalent of heretics?). Jesus would probably quote the first commandment of Moses about "You shall have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3)
In these respects, Jesus was a Pre-Hayekian, though more dogmatic, and less diplomatic in his language.
Finally on the subject of Jesus was anything but someone who stood up to the Roman oppressors. For many Jews he was anything but the expected Messiah. They thought he would be like what Muhammad turned out a few hundred years later. A prophet-cum-military conqueror who would drive the Roman's into the sea. In fact Jesus studiously avoided the direct conflict with the military occupation. About paying taxes he said "give to Caesar what it is Caesar's and to God what is God's" (Mark 12:17)
I realise that proper theologians will disagree with my analysis that Jesus was more a classical-liberal in the tradition of Adam Smith and Fredrich Hayek than a Socialist. But what is without doubt in the non-conformist tradition is that Jesus was against putting appearances over form, and that the Love of God and Love of one's neighbour take precedence over religious traditions and rules. Furthermore, is the doctrine that we all sin, no matter how hard we try, but through the sacrifice of Jesus we are forgiven and can move on. This is hardly the attitudes of those politicians who claim to have all the answers, decry others are being always wrong (with ulterior motives), and never admit to their own falliability.
Posted in Christianity, Socialism, Spin (Propaganda)
https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/12/27/jesus-a-lefty-liberal-guardian-reader-not-likely/
The Berlin Wall, the DDR and New Labour
I remember twenty years ago watching as the people of the Socialist paradise surged across Checkpoint Charlie into the bright lights of the West, as the 28 year old Berlin Wall was breached. It was but part of a process that began with the Hungarians taking down the fence, and continued with the Velvet Revolution in Wencelas Square.
The fall of the Berlin Wall may not not have been the triumph of capitalism, but it was the collapse of communism. It represented the end of the era, started in 1917, that saw the deaths of 100 million people at the hands of their own governments in the name of a false utopia. The physical wall, that seemed so impenetrable, was felled with pickaxes and chains. The political system, buttressed by a vast system of informers and secret police, seem to crumble away even more easily. But the we share some elements of that repressive regime share today in this country. In the DDR
1. Everyone had to carry ID cards and constantly present them when asked.
2. A "democratic" country where parliament held no power.
3. Where the official properganda differed from reality.
4. Where every aspect of life was tightly regulated.
5. Arbitary arrest and detention.
6. Endless form filling and checking on every aspect of people's lives. And where that form filling served as a huge hinderance, but no useful purpose outside of the bureaucratic machine.
It is worthwhile to remember that a moderate socialist party contains elements of the authoritarian left of the Soviet bloc. Their instincts are that only government solutions are the valid, and that private initiative cannot be trusted. That the individual owes everything to the state, and errant views are by definition not just wrong but dangerous.
Whilst we remember died trying to escape the suffocation and those who were persecuted for the slightest protest, it is also worth a history lesson in how the mass of people lead dreary, impoverished lives, made worse by officialdom.
Thanks to John Redwood, who stimulated my thoughts.
Posted in Human Rights, Socialism, Spin (Propaganda)
https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/11/09/the-berlin-wall-the-ddr-and-new-labour/
How misleading economic assumptions can show Brexit making people worse off
In the interests of the EU should the EU council grant an extension to the UK?
An EU Withdrawal Parliament can agree on?
Are BETRAYAL, SURRENDER and HUMBUG appropriate words to use in Parliament?
Time to enact the boundary changes for a more level playing field at next General Election
Cornwall Alliance
andthentheresphysics
Climate Skeptics
Climate Depot – Mark Morano
climate4you
Climategate.nl
Global Warming Solved
Jo Nova: Science, carbon, climate & tax
Judith Curry's Climate etc.
Ruth Dixon's My Garden Pond
Science Matters – Ron Clutz
Tallbloke
Trust, yet verify
John Redwood's Diary
Libertarian Politics & Economics
Catallaxy Files
Fraser Institute
Australia Beancounting Methodology Christianity Climate Censorship Climate Change Climate Change Analysis Climate Change Economics Conservative Party COP21 Paris Credit Crunch Eco-Fanatics Economics Environment EU Referendum General Election 2010 General Election 2017 Global Warming Gordon Brown Government Spending Hockey Sticks Labour in Opposition Manchester Public Relations and Climate Change Science & Non-science Science - the Boundaries Skeptical Science Spin (Propaganda) Temperature Data Transport Uncategorized


text:
Sharon Marie Tate (24 de gener de 1943 – 9 d'agost de 1969) fou una actriu estatunidenca esposa del director Roman Polanski que morí assassinada per membres de la família Manson a la seva residència de Beverly Hills, Califòrnia (EUA).

Biografia
Nascuda a Dallas, Texas (EUA), Tate era filla d'un militar. A començaments dels anys 60 començà a treballar en diferents papers en sèries de televisió. Posteriorment, es feu famosa per la seva bellesa i per ser una de les promeses de Hollywood a més a més dels seus treballs com a model.

El 20 de gener de 1968 va contraure matrimoni amb el director de cinema Roman Polanski, amb qui havia treballat a Dance of the Vampires

La nit del 9 d'agost de 1969, quan es trobava embarassada de 8 mesos i mig, va ser assassinada per Susan Atkins, membre de la família Manson, tot i les seves súpliques perquè no matessin el seu fill nonat.

Filmografia

Enllaços externs

 The Official Sharon Tate Fansite
 Informació sobre la família Manson

Actors de cinema de Dallas
Actors de sèries de televisió de Dallas
Models texans
Morts a Los Angeles
Víctimes d'assassinat
Morts el 1969

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Workers Compensation Insurance Investigations | South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys | Criminal Defense Lawyers - Strom Law Firm, L.L.C.
A worker can commit worker's compensation fraud in a variety of ways. Some examples are claiming an injury that happened while not at work, delaying treatment, or filing multiple claims. Examples of employer worker's compensation fraud include denying valid claims, misclassifying employees to change their available benefits, or refusing to pay for workers' compensation insurance. It is also considered worker's compensation fraud to misclassify contractors, and it is similarly illegal to pay employees off the books to avoid paying worker's compensation claims.
Surveillance is used by insurance companies to verify that individuals were legitimately injured and are seeking treatment. Investigators might use audio, video, or other types of physical surveillance to check into claims of injury.
Interviews with co-workers, friends, and family are another way that insurance companies as well as checking in with the claimant. These might be conducted with individuals close to you to verify that you are receiving treatment. Relevant HIPPA laws, however, prevent individuals other than patients from gaining access to restricted health information.
Background checks are one avenue of investigation used by insurance companies. These checks can be conducted by checking credit history, employment records, and other public records. This can also mean checking on compensation claims from the past to see whether a company has been filed against multiple times.
If you file for worker's compensation, do not be surprised if the insurance company hires a private investigator to verify your claim of injury. Do not, however, let this discourage you from filing a workers' compensation claim if you have been injured on the job. These types of injuries are common, and worker's compensation insurance exists for an important reason. Contact an attorney right away if you need help defending your right to the compensation you deserve.


text:
Home Healthcare and health reform health and medical research Selling tobacco in pharmacies? No thanks!
On pharmacies, tobacco and sales
Selling tobacco in pharmacies? No thanks!
Editor: Melissa SweetAuthor: Melissa Stonehamon: January 29, 2020 In: health and medical research, Journal Watch, pharmacy, public health, tobacco control
In the latest edition of Journal Watch, Dr Melissa Stoneham reviews a recent study from Aotearoa/New Zealand that investigates a potential role for pharmacies in selling tobacco (as currently happens in the United States).
Dr Melissa Stoneham writes:
It's 10 pm and my daughter staggers out of her bedroom complaining of nausea, the shakes and a headache.
Running through the options for healthcare, I think about calling an after-hours GP – but a quick Google search reveals the closest one is over 30km away.
I could head to the Emergency Department at the hospital, but I wonder if these symptoms are in fact an emergency and if I would be using valuable resources that may be needed elsewhere.
My next thought is to head to the pharmacy down the road.
There my daughter receives some helpful advice, and we are both pleased with the outcome – just like so many other people, who report generally high levels of satisfaction with community pharmacies.
In 2018, there were 5,723 community pharmacies; the industry is good at promoting the value of pharmacists as sources of health and wellbeing information.
Study in the spotlight
With so many families visiting and trusting pharmacies as a setting to receive health advice, I have concerns about a recently published journal article that suggests pharmacies should sell tobacco.
Published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, the New Zealand researchers stated in the discussion that "there would be an important reduction in overall availability of tobacco if it were only sold through liquor stores or petrol stations, which are subsets of current retailers who sell tobacco, or through pharmacies, compared with the status quo."
The article, authored by Louise Marsh and colleagues, aimed to examine what would happen if tobacco was available only from pharmacies in NZ, or only from liquor stores or only from petrol stations.
One of the reasons for this study was to assess whether selling tobacco from these locations would reduce availability near schools. The study did not recommend one policy option over another, but explored the geo-spatial aspects of the impact of policy options for reducing tobacco availability in New Zealand, and contributing to Smokefree Aotearoa 2025.
Descriptive analyses were undertaken to determine the number and type of retailers, density by population and current smokers, and their location in terms of community deprivation, rural access, and proximity to secondary schools.
The study found there were 5, 243 tobacco retail outlets, with 46 percent being convenience stores, 20 percent being petrol stations, 17 percent being liquor stores and 13 percent being supermarkets. The total number of adults aged over 15 years in NZ was 602,000.
This equated to approximately one tobacco outlet per 115 smokers. There were 1,035 pharmacies identified, which equated to one pharmacy per 4,099 adults and one per 582 current smokers.
The majority of tobacco retailers, liquor stores and pharmacies were located in urban areas, with about one-quarter in semi-urban areas. There were fewer pharmacies in rural areas compared with tobacco retailers.
The researchers then mapped tobacco retailers and pharmacies in relation to walking distances from secondary schools. Fifty-four percent of secondary schools had at least one tobacco retail outlet within a 500 metre walk, and 83 percent of secondary schools had at least one outlet within a one kilometre walk. Fewer secondary schools had at least one pharmacy located within 500 metres (22%) and one kilometre (55%) compared with tobacco retailers overall.
Evidence suggests that if tobacco retailers are around a school, it is more likely that students will engage in experimental smoking and be susceptible to future smoking. Based on this evidence and findings from this study, the authors stated that changing the tobacco retail landscape to include pharmacies would result in an overall reduction in the availability of tobacco.
In addition, they stated that the positive aspects of tobacco only being available through pharmacies was the potential for reduced opportunity for the sale of tobacco to minors, reduced operating hours, and that pharmacists were already trained to provide brief smoking cessation interventions.
So, is selling tobacco at pharmacies a good idea?
The retail and policy context is quite different between America and New Zealand, with very few restrictions on advertising and promotion of tobacco in America.
Yet in 2015, a major US pharmacy brand (CVS) stopped selling tobacco. As of January 2016, 134 municipalities in California and Massachusetts had enacted tobacco-free pharmacy laws. In 2018, New York City implemented a tobacco-free pharmacy law as part of a comprehensive policy approach to curb tobacco use.
These policy changes may be in response to a 2016 CDC study, that found that two-thirds of US adults — including nearly half of smokers — favoured a pharmacy tobacco ban.
It seems even the pharmacists agree, with the American Pharmacists Association urging pharmacies and facilities that include pharmacies to discontinue the sale of tobacco products.
Emerging evidence suggests that the removal of tobacco from pharmacies could have a positive impact on health, so I am mystified as to why a research project would consider the sale of tobacco at a pharmacy as a viable option, especially in a country that has a goal to be smokefree by 2025.
The World Health Organization (WHO) states that the role of a pharmacy is among other things, to dispense prescription and non-prescription drugs, provide drug information to health professionals, patients and the general public, and participation in health-promotion programs.
The sale of cigarettes is incompatible with what pharmacies are supposed to do. The sale of tobacco in a health promoting environment such as a pharmacy goes against the important and growing role pharmacies play in our wellbeing.
When I contacted the Pharmacy Guild of Australia about this issue, they said they "don't support selling tobacco at any outlet".
Yet, it is not simply the sale of tobacco I am concerned about. It is also the advertising that would inevitably accompany the sale of tobacco products. Many children visit pharmacies and would be exposed to this advertising.
With organisations such as Quit Victoria promoting ways pharmacists could help someone quit smoking, it would create a paradox if any policies or regulations changed to enable pharmacies to sell tobacco.
Tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death and disease. There is no doubt that smoking kills.
It is important to prevent young people from being exposed to tobacco retailers around schools. But selling tobacco at pharmacies is not the answer. Keeping our pharmacies tobacco free for the sake of families and young people throughout Australia is paramount.
Note from Croakey
Dr Melissa Stoneham approached the authors of the study for a response to this article. Their reply follows.
"This blog has raised some points that we would like to respond to.
Citing US evidence for a NZ policy is possibly misleading. The retail and policy context is quite different between these two countries.
First, NZ operates in a 'dark market' where the marketing and sale of tobacco is subject to heavy restrictions, including an advertising and point-of sale display ban.
Second, NZ has a goal to be smokefree by 2025. Our research looks at various tobacco retail options for how we might achieve this goal, and where tobacco may be sold following 2025. The policy options described in our paper are focused on ONLY selling tobacco from one type of retail outlet, for example, liquor stores, petrol stations and pharmacies.
This includes examining whether the people working in the retail outlet have the opportunity to intervene and offer consumers cessation advice, whether sales to children and young people would diminish, that outlets that are not located on every street corner or visited daily (by most people) and therefore far less likely to trigger relapse purchases, and equitable access.
In contrast, the US does not have a national goal to be smokefree. There are very few restrictions on advertising and promotion of tobacco in the US, and no state in the US has yet enacted tobacco retail display bans, creating a very different marketing and point-of-sale retail environment for tobacco.
Pharmacies in the US are one of a large number of retailers selling tobacco, and are generally large supermarket style businesses which sell a vast array of products.
With regards to the role that pharmacies play, if the sale of tobacco would be accompanied with smoking cessation advice, it would be a health promotion program and in line with other health programs run by pharmacies in New Zealand such as supplying methadone.
Tobacco could possibly even be made prescription only (as was proposed in Iceland) and given over the counter in disclosed bags (like all other prescription medications). In addition, a New Zealand study to gauge support among pharmacists for selling tobacco, if it was not available elsewhere, found that 26 percent of pharmacists interviewed thought it was 'very likely' to 'extremely likely' that their pharmacy would sell tobacco.
This increased to 37 percent if it was shown that this strategy was successful elsewhere.
Our study did not recommend one policy option over another, but explored the geo-spatial aspects of the impact of these three policy options for reducing tobacco availability in NZ, and contributing to Smokefree Aotearoa 2025."
The article
How would the tobacco retail landscape change if tobacco was only sold through liquor stores, petrol stations or pharmacies? Authored by Louise Marsh, Crile Doscher, Claire Cameron, Lindsay Robertson and Frederieke Sanne Petrović‐van der Deen. Published in the ANZJPH early view on 8 January 2020.
About Journal Watch
The Public Health Advocacy Institute WA (PHAIWA) JournalWatch service reviews 11 key public health journals on a monthly basis, providing a précis of articles that highlight key public health and advocacy related findings, with an emphasis on findings that can be readily translated into policy or practice.
The Journals reviewed include:
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health (ANZJPH)
Journal of Public Health Policy (JPHP)
Health Promotion Journal of Australia (HPJA)
Medical Journal of Australia (MJA)
Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP)
Tobacco Control (TC)
American Journal of Public Health (AMJPH)
Health Promotion International (HPI)
American Journal of Preventive Medicine (AJPM)
Injury Prevention BMJ
These reviews are then emailed to all JournalWatch subscribers and are placed on the PHAIWA website. To subscribe to Journal Watch, click here.
Tags: #CroakeyNewshealthJournalWatchpublichealthtobacco
Sport can be an important part of Aboriginal culture for women – but many barriers remain
New report, packed with excellent reading – from #ACEM19. Download your free copy
Where are all the public health workers?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
UCSB Looks to Secure Third in Conf. Standings
May 26, 2016 at 5:10 am by Jorge Mercado
Coming off two solid comeback victories, the No. 19 UCSB baseball team will look to close out the season the right way as it hosts UCR in its final series of the season before the 64-team NCAA Tournament.
Billy Fredrick follows through at bat. Dustin Harris / Daily Nexus
The Gauchos head into the final weekend boasting a 36-16-1 record, 12-9 Big West, and sit comfortably at third place in the conference. After dropping its home series against CSUF a couple of weekends ago,
Santa Barbara has won four of its last five matches including a strong series win at UC Irvine this past weekend.
The Highlanders head into their last series of the season with a 24-28 overall record and a 10-11 conference standing, which places them in a three-way tie for fifth place.
For the Gauchos, clinching a series win over UCR in their final weekend would seal at the very least a third-place finish in the conference, giving them a strong chance to make the postseason thanks to their solid overall record and their great Rating Percentage Index (RPI) ranking. RPI is used to rank sports teams based upon a team's wins and losses and its strength of schedule, which currently stands at 19, the best of any team on the West Coast.
Although slim, it is possible that UCSB could also jump up to second place in the conference standings if it were to sweep UCR, in addition to a series loss by Long Beach State, who is currently in second place in the conference.
For the Highlanders, this weekend will be their last regardless of the outcome. Although they have won series over quality opponents such as LBSU and Cal Poly, they have not been consistent enough to be a great team. UCR has lost six of seven matches twice this season.
One player the Gauchos need to watch out for is junior outfielder Vince Fernandez, who was recently named Big West Player of the Week for his performance this past weekend in which he batted 10-19 (.526), scored six runs and batted in six over the course of four games.
Fernandez currently leads the team in batting average (.361), slugging percentage (.529), on-base percentage (.439), runs scored (39), hits (75), RBI (41), home runs (8) and walks (28).
UCSB will look to counter with strong hitters of their own such as sophomore first baseman Austin Bush who leads the team in RBI (43) and home runs (7). When its hitting is on point, Santa Barbara looks nearly unstoppable. In the 20 games this season UCSB has gotten at least 10 hits; it has been able to come away with victories in 17 of those occasions.
The Gauchos will also look to take advantage of the fact they are at home since they have scored 166 runs at home this season compared to 94 on the road. They also bat and get on base 60 points better at home while also pitching an ERA of 3.70 at home, which is much better compared to 4.49. It also helps that they are currently 23-4 at home as opposed to 10-12-1 on the road.
Crunch time has finally arrived for the No. 19 team in the country and now is the time to put up or shut up. Although it will be another year without celebrating a Big West championship, Santa Barbara has accomplished a lot this season and it would be a shame if it blew its opportunity to make consecutive NCAA regionals because it decided not to show up in the final weekend of the regular season.
The season has come down to the final weekend and it will be interesting to see which Gaucho team shows up: the young, inexperienced one, or the one that is ready to prove all the doubters wrong.
UCSB faces off against UCR in its regular season finale at Caesar Uyesaka Stadium on Thursday, May 26 at 3 p.m., Friday, May 27 at 3 p.m. and Saturday, May 28 at 1 p.m.
A version of this article appeared on page 9 of May 26, 2016's print edition of the Daily Nexus.
Jorge Mercado is the current Editor in Chief and was a Sports Editor before that since freshman year. He prefers to be called Merk as that was his nickname given to him by the gods. Sometimes, his evil twin Mork appears. Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.


text:
King Meets With French President Macron
King Felipe met late last week with French President Emmanual Macron at the Royal Palace in Madrid.
© Spanish Royal Household
The French leader was in the Spanish capital to also meet with new Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez to discuss, among other things, EU immigration policy.
His Majesty this month also met with Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno, whose trip to Europe has sparked debate about the fate of Wikileaks leader Julian Assange, who has been holed up at Ecuador's British embassy for years.
The King had an audience with the new head of Spain's conservative Popular Party, Pablo Casado, also in recent days.
The full agenda preceded vacation season in Spain. Members of the Royal Family will spent at least some time at Marivent Palace in Mallorca.
However, scandal surrounding King Juan Carlos and a former friend, has upended plans for a unified getaway.
The Royal Household is blaming a minor health problem for King Felipe's father staying away from Mallorca and planned sailing.
Posted on July 30, 2018 July 30, 2018 by Manuel QuinonesPosted in UncategorizedTagged Ecuador, Emmanuel Macron, Julian Assange, King Felipe, Lenin Morero, Madrid, Pablo Casado. Leave a comment
The Meaning Of A Picture
The Spanish Royal Household released the first images earlier this month of King Felipe meeting with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez in the monarch's office.
As Spanish media outlets often do, they talked to experts to figure out hidden meanings.
For one, the King and the prime minister appear to have a good and comfortable relationship, one expert said.
Some media outlets also noticed an absence of pictures of the King's parents — King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia.
Perhaps, they thought, the Royal Household wanted to distance the King from his father's ongoing controversies.
The King and the prime minister meet weekly, and the images came from a gathering that coincided with a meeting of the National Security Council.
The King and Queen have been extremely active ahead of the summer vacation season.
Posted on July 24, 2018 by Manuel QuinonesPosted in UncategorizedLeave a comment
Obama Meets With King Felipe
President Obama, during a visit to Spain, spent time with King Felipe at the fames Reina Sofía museum last week.
The King and the former U.S. president toured the complex, including Picasso's Guernica masterpiece.
©Spanish Royal Household
King Felipe also gifted Obama a book about Guernica.
Posted on July 15, 2018 July 15, 2018 by Manuel QuinonesPosted in UncategorizedTagged Barack Obama, Guernica, King Felipe, Madrid, Reina Sofia. Leave a comment
Corinna Is Back
Several Spanish news outlets have in recent days released leaked recordings from a German aristocrat who was friends with King Juan Carlos.
Corinna Larsen Adkins, also known as Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn, has for years caused controversy in Spain and helped lead to Don Juan Carlos' abdication.
Now, recordings from 2015 leaked by a disgraced businessman and former commissar, suggest the King used her as a figurehead for properties.
Leftist parties have called for an investigation of King Juan Carlos, but so far major parties and news outlets have given the issue scant or no attention.
The recordings also suggest Don Juan Carlos may have had money or properties hidden abroad, and may have taken advantage of an amnesty with tax authorities.
Posted on July 15, 2018 July 24, 2018 by Manuel QuinonesPosted in UncategorizedTagged Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein, King Juan Carlos, Spain. Leave a comment
King In Russia For Spanish Loss
King Felipe was in Russia today for the World Cup game between Spain and Russia.
The King worked to comfort the Spanish team after a lackluster showing and elimination.
King Felipe also took the opportunity to meet with Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev.
Posted on July 2, 2018 July 2, 2018 by Manuel QuinonesPosted in UncategorizedTagged King Felipe, Russia, Spain, World Cup. Leave a comment
King Wants 'Catalonia For All'
King Felipe and Queen Letizia went into what has become hostile territory late last week to hand out the Princess of Girona Awards.
Girona is a region is Spain, in Catalonia, with a relatively high rate of pro-independence sentiment.
Girona officials denied the King and Queen use of an arena there, citing repairs, and Catalan officials did not attend.
Still, the ceremony, organized by the Princess of Girona Foundation, appeared to be a success.
The King, during his remarks, called for a Catalonia "by all and for all."
The King and Queen, the day after the awards, also met with participants of a program to encourage young professionals.
Demonstrators for and against the Crown meant increased security surrounding the royal visit.
The King's daughter, as heir to the Spanish throne, is Princess of Asturias and Girona, among other titles.
The title dates back to when the prince or princes of Girona was the hair to the Crown of Aragon.
Posted on July 2, 2018 July 2, 2018 by Manuel QuinonesPosted in UncategorizedTagged Catalonia, Girona, King Felipe, Queen Letizia. Leave a comment