Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Durkin on Welfare

Martin Durkin is a controversial figure. Marxist libertarian and director of Channel 4's the Global Warming Swindle. His next documentary is on the Welfare state and looks set to be just as provocative. Here is an interview he did with Frontpage magazine:

"FP: [...] Tell us your thoughts and observations in terms of welfare. Where has it caused the most devastating effects?

Durkin: To most people, I imagine, welfare seems an obviously good thing. But in fact the corrosive and iniquitous side of welfare has been evident for many decades. It’s only now that people are poking their heads out of the trench and daring to say so. You can see the devastating effects of welfare in Britain, for example, in the exponential rise in single motherhood. The figures are astonishing. In the 1950s almost all children in Britain were brought up by their natural parents. Today, only around half the children in Britain are brought up by their natural parents. Half!

FP: Why has that happened?

Durkin: To see why that happened, let me paint you a picture. In the 1950s, the typical working man and his wife In Britain lived in an income-tax free existence. They kept every penny they earned. For an unmarried teenager, there was no council flat (the ‘projects’ I think you call them), no rent rebate, no rate rebate, no housing benefit or anything else. The burden of looking after her and the child fell on her family, friends or charity. Parents who discovered their daughters were pregnant were understandably furious – because they had to pick up the tab. That’s why Dad stomped round to the family of the boy responsible, to call him to account. They boy’s family understood the full economic implications of making babies and came down on him like a ton of bricks. From the real economic relationships there arose a real moral code – the value and the cost of things were clear.

The growth of welfare benefits has been huge since that time. And within that system a pregnant girl gets special treatment (top of the state housing list etc). The fear has gone. The old idea, “Don’t, for heaven’s sake, get pregnant. It would be a disaster” has gone. For many girls, getting pregnant is a ticket to get out of the parental home. This has been the subject of detailed studies. A ten percent increase in benefits, one of them finds, tends to increase the prevalence of single mothers by 17 percent.

FP: How has the Left played a role in this development?

Durkin: This whole trend in social policy was fuelled by the anti-family views of the left. The family was bourgeois. Divorce was even celebrated (at least among the serious Left and among tougher feminists). I suppose they thought they were doing young girls a favor. If they did, they were fatted-headed idiots. The effect is disastrous for all those involved. The levels of depression, violence and criminality among lone parents (and their wayward children and transient partners) is heartbreaking. As one commentator puts it, “The evidence that lone parents – and indeed those who cohabit – are very more likely to be victims of violence is worldwide, consistent and overwhelming.” In Britain single parents are about 20 times more likely to suffer domestic violence. A child of a single parent is 15 times more likely to be abused than a child brought up by two natural parents. A child brought up by their natural mother and a cohabite (non natural father) is at even greater risk – 19 times more likely to suffer violence and 74 times more likely to be killed.

It’s awful. To catalogue in detail the full devastating effects of welfare – also for example the crippling effects on men who are out of work – would take ages.

FP: Ok, but tell us some more negative effects.

Durkin: Overall, I think in general the bigger evil effects of welfare have been enormously underestimated, even by commentators who regard themselves as more pro-capitalist in their sympathies. Welfare is the basic cause of the deleterious cultural changes we have witnessed in the West over the past 60 years.

The Welfare State, pioneered in Britain of course, has corrupted this country to its core. It has transformed the country caricatured by Noel Coward and others – essentially pretty decent, self-reliant, and plucky – into a country which is thuggish, selfish, mindless, dispirited and lost. Gone is the British stiff upper lip. Modern Britons are moaning, self-pitying inadequates. The welfare state has bred a generation of obnoxious, drug-addled criminals and ne’er-do-wells. It has also, incidentally, burdened what was once the world’s biggest, most dynamic economy with the dead weight of an obstructive and vastly expensive state machine.

I’m sorry to sound cross about this, but I don’t think people fully realise what’s happened. Britain has, I think, the highest crime rate of any industrialised country in the world. It is twice as high as the US. The violent crime rate is higher in London than New York. Britain has the highest rate of drug abuse, the highest teenage pregnancy rate and the highest rate of sexually transmitted disease in the modern industrial world. What the hell happened?

FP: So what the hell happened?

Durkin: The logic is inescapable. Each slice of do-gooder social policy has had its own tragic, unintended effects. The weight and quality of evidence leaves no room for doubt. The Welfare State has been an unremitting disaster, beyond any hope of reform. It is not that the welfare state isn’t functioning properly, it is that the welfare state is in essence degrading.

In the US, I think much the same can be said of the effects of welfare on the black community. How did we get from the nobility of Martin Luther King, to the sordid, gun-toting, rantings of the gangster rappers? Does the Left imagine that this represents liberation? Larry Elder and others have no doubt what’s to blame. The story goes back to Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, which had people going door to door, encouraging people to get on welfare. Now, I understand, nearly 70 percent of today’s black children are born out of wedlock.

It can be demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that the modern ‘cultural trends’ which we lament have an economic cause, and are a direct result of state intervention. The Left do not see economic necessity as a proper reflection of actual human relationships, but some capitalist carbuncle. It’s clear now that in removing economic necessity from people’s lives (which is what welfare does), we risk sinking into barbarism."

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Standpoint magazine - Ditch the Life Jackets

Such an interesting magazine, Standpoint. Great lateral thinking here.

Ditch the Life Jackets
Michael Hanlon
Standpoint Magazine
October 2008

Flying is getting expensive - especially for the airlines. The latest rises in fuel prices have massively affected profits. So the decision by Emirates, the Gulf carrier, to save money by scrapping in-flight magazines sounds sensible at first.

The logic goes like this: all those glossy ads stuffed into the seat pocket weigh about a kilo. If there's one magazine per seat on a big plane such as the new Airbus A380 - which can carry 550 people - that's a lot of kilos. A lighter plane requires less jet fuel to go the same distance. If you get rid of the mags you can save several thousand dollars worth of kerosene on every flight.

But if you really wanted to save weight, or give your aircraft several hundred more miles of flying range, it would make more sense to jettison all the paraphernalia associated with emergency landing on water. Life jackets and inflatable rafts weigh much more than all that glossy paper - probably several tonnes for a large airliner.

This sounds crazy. Or at least like a measure that would doom the passengers on any flight that crashed on water. However, the truth is that on the rare occasions when a modern airliner crashes into the sea, most people on board are doomed whether or not their plane carries rafts and life jackets.

That is because all those reassuring illustrations on the safety card, the ones showing your plane floating gently on the ocean surface while everyone bobs off in comfy-looking yellow rafts, are pure fiction. What really happens when a large aircraft hits the water is very different.

Invariably one wingtip strikes the water before the other one, and even at the slowest possible speed of descent, the impact causes the plane to cartwheel and break up. The various bits then sink. As in the Comoros islands crash in 1996, the surviving passengers are likely to be those who are not wearing life jackets and can get out of the wreckage most quickly.

Indeed, in modern aviation history there have been no cases of large airliners putting down on water and remaining intact long enough for anything like the orderly evacuation shown on landing cards to take place. (It is different with small planes, which have greater structural integrity - here, water-kit makes sense.)

Life jackets and escape rafts are a vestige of the long-­vanished golden age of flying boats and propeller planes. Today their only real function is as a prop in the absurdist theatre of aviation safety. First the cabin crew frightens you by reminding you of dangers you probably weren't even thinking of, such as drowning; then it reassures you that the airline has thought of everything by providing a life jacket.

It's a show that comes at the cost of the genuine safety margin that would be provided by extra fuel in the tanks. You're quite right to ignore it and to read your in-flight magazine instead - if there is one.