LIberal Doublespeak – paying more is paying less

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11946112

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11947701

Liberal democrats are claiming that students who will pay more for their education in the future will be paying less.

Their argument seems to be that the longer you delay paying back a loan, and the slower you pay it back the better.

I’m a bit worried that politicians can make this argument so easily, I think this is the same way they think about borrowing on the national scale. At least on the national scale one thing they often seem to forget is that the cost of borrowing can change.

I think it is very disingenuous to claim that richer students will pay more for their loans because they will pay them back sooner. Also does this mean no one will have a choice but to borrow to pay for their education, will it be compulsory to take loans from the government, or will students be allowed to pay upfront if they have the money? Paddy Ashdown seemed to claim that no one will pay for their education (only pay it back later).

Did we enter the world of double speak?

If anyone knows where I can read the proposals for this legislation please let me know. Mr Ashdown suggested we should read, but didn’t say where.

Pret A Manger Against Science?

I really like the sandwiches that Pret make, but after reading the blurb on the back of my sandwich yesterday, I am a bit worried about their stance on science.

Pret A Manger Sandwich Pack

So if scientists are so terrible what lengths do they go to to avoid them? Does this mean they only employ liberal arts students in their shops were the sandwiches are made? Do they avoid using any scientific theories about hygiene? Are they going to remove the refrigerators and monitoring methods they use? What about their Coffee makers? They seem quite complicated, how can they be sure no science was used in the design?

Of course I appreciate that they make their sandwiches from recognisable ingredients rather than synthesising them using industrial chemicals, but I also think it is a bit spurious to claim that this doesn’t interfere with nature. Most of the food we eat isn’t really ‘natural’ they have been domesticated by the introduction of farming. (A notable exception are berries, because although we grow them we can’t really propagate them better than birds can, so can’t interfere with with the selection of the next generation).

Shame on Pret A Manger for propagating FUD, I thought your sandwiches were better than that.

Predicting the Future

Cartoons seem to be a pretty good way to predict the future…

Brown County Democrat, December 28, 1900.

… to think those guys in 1900 probably thought they were being funny.

I wonder if this proves Karl Marx was right in what he said about consumerism leading to production of useless products.