In praise of... logic

A Guardian editorial (sorry, "Leader" - hmm, "take me to your Leader") today laments the drop in numbers of physics A-level students. Just in case we're confused it helpfully notes that physics: "...deals with the constituents of the universe on which other scientific disciplines such as chemistry and biology depend." That doesn't mean you have to study physics in order to study those subjects (or IT, engineering etc.) though, does it? As anyone who has read the laughable, sorry, acclaimed, "Critical Mass" by Philip Ball, will be well aware, physicists now consider themselves a race of superior beings simply by dint of having studied a particular subject. And the Leader goes on to support them: "There will continue to be a great need for physics graduates in industries ranging from computer games (which attract top brains because of their complexity) to nuclear power, if the government, as reported, adopts a new nuclear building programme to combat greenhouse gasses." Love it. And is that the "top brains" that are complex or the computer games? If it was August or the skiing season I'd assume the editor was away and an intern (to reluctantly adopt an Americanism) was writing the editorial, sorry "Leader".

SteelyGlint suggests that perhaps it would be preferable for students to study logic.

Consider Zoe Williams' column on the previous page, which begins: "Two things have happened in the world of the wonder web. First, it emerged that Nigeria's third-largest source of hard currency, after oil and cocoa, is revenue from internet scams. I don't believe it, not unless its oil reserves are paltry, or it's selling its cocoa dirt cheap." No, Zoe dear, if Nigeria's oil reserves were paltry or its cocoa dirt cheap then revenue from internet scams might well be Nigeria's second-largest source of hard currency. If both its reserves were paltry and its cocoa cheap then internet scams might be its largest source of hard currency. How did this get past the sub-editor?

For the record I read on, as I caught a mention of eBay, a subject which interests me. Zoe seems to conflate the issues, though. The internet auction business model, over which we have allowed eBay a virtual monopoly - obviously we want to pay another tax - relies fundamentally on trust between buyers and sellers. eBay enforces this through its feedback mechanism (this is the innovation), but also through the courts. And a good thing, too. Though obviously not a reason to ignore the ancient dictum caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware"), as I think Zoe is trying to say.

Slight digression there, as today's Guardian was a vintage edition, with perhaps the single most nonsensical letter I have ever seen. Don't bother with the link: it's worth quoting in full:
"Going cold over taxation reforms
It is regrettable that Charles Kennedy has not yet seen the light on the 50p tax rate (Kennedy plans policy shift on taxation to woo floating voters, November 19). Aside from the usual arguments about taxing aspiration there is the point that those earning £100, 000 or more are those most able to influence their own remuneration. On the day after this policy is implemented they will have been hit by a tax rise of up to £1,000 for every £10,000 over £100,000 they own. They will demand or execute wage rises that compensate them for the tax rise. Those rises will be extremely disproportionate because for every additional £1 rise, there will be 50p going to the government. So far from contributing to social justice, the 50p rate makes inequality even worse.
Andy Mayer
London"
Hard to know where to start. Andy Mayer should be reassured, though, that in his fantasy world inequality would not be made "even worse", because , oh stuff it... the letter's drivel.

Kennedy has not yet ditched the idea of a redistributive tax, but has said he wants to be on the tax middle ground. Sigh! None of them, Tory, Labour or Lib Dem make any sense. I don't wake up on Monday morning and say to myself: "I think I'll have a middle-spending week". No, I buy this and that, have a couple of meals out and as a result I spend less, more, or about the same as average. Or, if I see I'm going to spend more money than I want to, then perhaps I'll stay in one evening. It's nonsense, this "we'll tax less than you" politics. OK, often one party (when in Opposition, of course) will say they'll spend the money "more efficiently". I think we all know that's tosh. Attempting to maintain the same level of provision whilst imposing spending cuts simply means deferring expenditure (rail, tube and building maintenance can always be pushed into the next 4 year term) or reducing the quality of services (2 year waiting lists, anyone?). So, Charles, what are you going to spend less on?