Install this theme
My ‘Google Reader’ starred items feed

There seems to be a problem with my IFTTT recipe, which I use to publish my ‘Google Reader’ starred items here.

I can’t be bothered to spend time figuring out what the problem is and how to fix it.

And, of course, I no longer use Google Reader.

If you happen to subscribe to this Tumblr, and wish to continue to subscribe to the things I like to read in my preferred Feedbin reader, you can do so with this:

https://feedbin.me/starred/edcMOVpk4dyFvOc—VNb5Q.xml

What Do Animals See In A Mirror?

A controversial test for self-awareness is dividing the animal kingdom.

#



via The Feature http://nautil.us/issue/13/symmetry/what-do-animals-see-in-a-mirror
The Female Sociopath

Amy Dunne of “Gone Girl,” Lisbeth Salander of “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” Cersei Lannister of “Game of Thrones.” If there’s one thing these cold, calculating ladies can teach us, it’s that we’re captivated by the female sociopath. But how did she rise to such prominence in our cultural imagination? The answer has everything to do with corporate “feminists” and the way they teach women to “have it all.”

#



via The Feature http://digg.com/2014/the-female-sociopath
On A Norweigan Tragedy And The Killer’s Book

When a person commits an atrocity, our immediate, stuttering questions are why and how; in providing us with 1,500 pages of explanation for his actions, perhaps Breivik had perversely given us something to be grateful for.

#



via The Feature http://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/aage-borchgrevinks-norwegian-tragedy-anders-behring-breivik-massacre-utoya-anders-breiviks-2083-european-declaration-independence
“Who?” and “How?” – What the public thinks of a Basic Income
Exploring a future welfare state

Exploring a future welfare state

When Sheffield Equality Group considered how to combine informing public attitudes to welfare alongside researching alternatives, Basic Income was an easy choice.

Jason Leman of the Sheffield Equality Group writes:

The group lobbies for reducing the gap between high and low incomes, in response to evidence (such as that presented in The Spirit Level) that societies with a narrower income gap have better social outcomes. Yet there are many barriers to reducing this income gap. One of these is the negative perception of those needing social support. This stigmatisation is encouraged by politicians who, like all bullies, look strong by punishing the powerless and a media who sell more copies if their copy inflames indignation. A Basic Income offers a transparently equitable way of reducing income differences, removing the stigma of benefits.

Drawing on Malcolm Torry’s book Money For Everyone along with other research, the group developed a questionnaire on Basic Income. The questionnaire presented evidence about the failings of the current welfare system and proposed Basic Income as a solution. After testing out a draft with each other we cut the questionnaire in half and simplified the language. Then we went out, to friends and acquaintances, and onto the streets of Sheffield, exploring what a future welfare state might look like.

Perhaps the first surprise was that people were generally positive about the idea. Four out of five supported the introduction of a Basic Income, with common responses being along the lines of… “that’s clever”, “I like that, I hadn’t thought of it”, “what a great idea”. One key argument for a Basic Income may be the growing precariat, the low-paid poor-conditions workers struggling with a shrinking welfare state. There seemed to be recognition that if business demands temporary and flexible workers a system of support is needed. This also applied to young people moving into and out of training schemes and education.  So is an Unconditional Basic Income about to sweep the nation?

There were three main questions that made support for a Basic Income more qualified. First was the detail. Our outline suggested progressive taxation would fund it – the rich would pay more, the poor would pay less, and everyone would get the same out. However, this does not explore the detail of what it would mean for people in practice. There are many models of what would fund a Basic Income and arguments about how realistic these mechanisms are. Public discussion around a Basic Income may need to extend to ideas such as Land Value Tax, negative interest rates, monetary reform, and so on. Without a clear funding mechanism the Basic Income could remain in the “nice idea but it’s not going to happen” basket of public perception.

Second came the immigrants. Who is defined as a “citizen” is key to the concept of “Citizen’s Income”. This issue is difficult to explore, as some people don’t want to appear prejudiced whilst others enjoy self-righteous exclusion of the ‘other’. To enjoy support from middle-England a Basic Income may need to be exclusive or demand a quid-pro-quo. In the future this might be an ignorant worry from when nations still meant something. On Sheffield streets decorated with tabloid headlines, community tensions, and everyday resentment, it was a live issue.

Third was the undeserving or the unmotivated. The “free-rider” problem is the universal thorn in the side of a Basic Income. For example, 85% of our respondents supported introducing a Basic Income for young people to support them in education or training. This support faltered if the Basic Income was made unconditional. Partly in mind was the lazy slob watching TV all day at the taxpayers expense; 42% thought that would happen with a Basic Income. Yet also in mind was a belief that a Basic Income could take away the motivation to engage with life. Speaking of a young family member who spent their days stoned and playing computer games, one (also young) respondent worried an Unconditional Basic Income would keep them in wasted comfort. As we are seeing with the current welfare reforms, conditionality can mean starving people into unpaid work, but the issue of motivation is well-intentioned and would need addressing.

A difficulty in exploring a Basic Income is that what someone thinks they would do in a given situation does not always match the reality. Most people in our survey said they would still work in an interesting flexible job if receiving a Basic Income. This dropped to 56% saying they would take a boring job with a long commute, especially younger respondents. This does have potential to raise a debate about whether boring jobs with poor conditions have any part in a decent society. However, this distracts from the reality that where a Basic Income has been introduced people keep working, allbeit sometimes on reduced hours

There were other indications that it is difficult to judge what people would really do if receiving a basic income. Four out of five people said they would take up a full-time voluntary post, however those already in a position to do voluntary work were less confident. Indeed, a Basic Income would entail such radical social change it may be difficult to predict precisely what social changes would result. Any future implementation would need to be adaptable and responsive to uncertainty.

Our research raised questions needing further investigation. Public support for a Basic Income has the potential to be strong. The faults of our complex, unresponsive and punitive welfare system are clear. The benefits of a Basic Income are self-evident. There is no problem with the “why?”. The challenge for gaining public support is to provide clear answers, or at least a clear way forward, where there questions over “who?” and “how?”. We hope to carry out a wider survey exploring some of these questions further.

You can read the full report at:

http://sheffieldequality.wordpress.com/next-steps/basic-income-survey/

The post “Who?” and “How?” – What the public thinks of a Basic Income appeared first on Basic Income UK.



via Basic Income UK http://basicincome.org.uk/article/2014/05/public-thinks-basic-income/
Show #115 – Barbado’ed – early slavery in America and the Caribbean
White sugar slaves in the fields of the Barbados

Slaves in the sugar fields of Barbados

From the end of the 16th Century until the late 17th, thousands of people from England, Ireland and Scotland – from criminals and street children, to people who fought against Cromwell’s army, we sent into slavery in American and the Caribbean. Many more were hoodwinked or kidnapped into “indentured servitude” that, for most, led to them being worked to death. When these European slaves joined with the new African slaves to rise up against the slave masters, the horrors of perpetual slavery and modern racism were born.

In this show, Donnacha talks to Don Jordan, one of the authors of White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain’s White Slaves in America, about the forgotten period of slavery.

Listen now:

And, if you liked the snippet of Damien Dempsey’s song at the end, here’s the full nearly 8 minutes of it:




via The Circled A http://thecircleda.com/2014/05/15/show-115-barbadoed-early-slavery-in-america-and-the-caribbean/
David Renton: The Killing of Blair Peach

‘As a campaign meeting, it must have been one of the biggest yet, a hundred National Front supporters, three and a half thousand police and thousands of Asian demonstrators.’ This was the way News at Ten began its report of the clashes in Southall on 23 April 1979, midway through the general election campaign that would end with the victory of Margaret Thatcher. The report contained footage of police officers arresting middle-aged men in turbans, women sitting down in the road and demonstrators with their heads swaddled in bandages.

via London Review of Books http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n10/david-renton/the-killing-of-blair-peach