What a shitbag...A dirty little two bob apologist scumbag for an imagined world where everything is perfectly balanced and in perfect symmetry and harmony, where the haves deserve it and the have nots can rot in fucking hell.
On show is the vile and filthy economist's bourgeois subjectivity, an instrumental, rational man - thus placed within a cocoon of sterile shit.
I would like to see his head (economist man) mounted on the end of a stick. And shit like that.
Stuff his budgie doon the fucker's throat for good measure as well. Only if the budgie is dead already -- I wouldn't want to be accused of cruelty to animals and shit like that.
I fucking hate economists me I do. Shit on Tim Worstall's grave. lot's of people want to do that.
I do. I am saving shit up for it.
addendum: Moany Sundial -- he 'did' an economics degree.
Hahahahahahahahahah!!!
Comments (4)
Exactly Dud. I feel the same about bloody physicists. Them and their "gravity" nonsense. Why shouldn't I fly if I want to?
Posted by Tom Paine | June 28, 2008 10:02 AM
Tom Paine wants his name back.
Channeler.
Posted by Will | June 28, 2008 12:05 PM
The turnout in Henley was just 50%, down nearly 20% on the general election.
Nothing particularly remarkable about that, but unless you think the majority of those staying at home were disaffected Tories and Lib Dems, it provides some context for Labour's showing. At the GE, Labour will reappear in third and….So fecking what?
Consider the following: a school has a shortlist of 3 applicants for a teaching post. All candidates are suitably qualified and performed well at interview. However, 95% of the school-workforce is male. So the head makes a decision to select the woman applicant to address the gender imbalance. The legislation will simply protect the head from accusations of anti-male bias if one of the other applicants decides to take his case to a tribunal.
Consider a similar situation where the imbalance concerns ethnicity and the same rules apply.
The best qualified will still get the job, but there will be legal protection for employers of integrity who are looking to help rollback decades of institutionalised discrimination in the workplace.
This measure is part of a wider bill that will force the public sector to publish pay rates in an effort to bridge/expose the gender wage gap, and also strengthens age-discrimination law.
It has received broad support from both the other major parties, although it is quite obviously the sort of legislation that a Tory administration wouldn't dream of putting on the statute books, and is a good reminder of why the Labour party is still worth supporting.
I don't expect any of this to stop the inane ranting of middle-class, white, male, right-wing nutbars, but then my expectations of that particular demographic are suitably low.
Posted by Will | June 30, 2008 1:01 AM
If you're interviewing for a position and people are similarly qualified you have to pick one anyway.
Why does anything need to be enshrined and what are the benefits to this additional compliance requirement?
Posted by Mike Alker | June 30, 2008 7:30 AM