Does the government believe in 'climate change'?

Recently a court case in the UK decided that London Heathrow Airport could not have another runway built because it clashed with the governments papers/commitments on climate change.

Now I'm going to ignore what mot lawyers would be interested in (how can a court make such decisions on government policy) and focus on the concepts behind climate change in the first place.

Instead I'm going to focus on why the government that is so committed to leading the way in carbon emission reduction seems so happy to build new runways, even when they are in some of the most stupid places you could image.

You see climate change seems to be to a topic that divides people down the middle, purely because those who do believe in it are so fervently passionate about it that it often affects their whole lives, it is, in a manner of speaking, their religion.

It effects everything from where they go on holiday, to the brand of tea they drink. A Muslim won't buy pork, a Christian may prefer fair trade, a climate an environmentalist may buy food that has been transported the shortest distance (no Australian wine or New Zealand kiwi fruit for you!)

Then you have the issue of whether it is actually happening. The average global temperature hasn't changed for the last ten years. Considering China has become a major economic player (and pollutant producer) in that time such a result is very odd indeed. Even at this moment everyone reading this is likely to be surprised, check it out since you inevitably won't believe me.

However, my problem is not with whether or not climate change is happening or not, but rather the two faced hypocrisy of those running the government. The government wants YOU to believe in climate change because then you cannot complain each time it hikes up petrol duty, each time it refuses to build a car park (thus making you drive around for 15 minutes trying to find a space) and it gets money for ticketing your car. Each time it raises road tax. Climate change is in effect a source of free money to the government. A licence to tax at will and to do so with the moral high ground, all the while being driven around the Westminster area in a nice Jaguar paid for by the public.

But what about the behaviour of the government itself? The government wants to expand Heathrow so that it has 3 runways. It wants to do this because it will make the airport more effect, it will increase the number of flights that are possible, it will create jobs and revenue. Revenue of course being the magic word.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that is bad. Our economy needs money. Without competition the jobs just go else where. All the other European Capitols have many more runways, usually 5 or more. But the point is how can you on the one hand tax anything that produces a mg of Carbon Dioxide and then on the other accept that Carbon Dioxide is just a part of life and economy. Either you accept that it is required if we're not to live in the dark ages (literally dark in this case) or you don't.

So I went looking for more evidence that the government really believes that climate change is real. I thought about the Thames barrier. "Wait a minute! They wouldn't have built that if there was no real threat of climate change!" I thought to myself. But alas no, having looked into it the barrier is actually there to protect London against seasonal changes in tides. It was conceived in a time when the worry of climate change was largely nothing more than a glint in the environmentalists eye. So that isn't it either.

So I'm throwing it out there, can anyone think of real evidence that the government cares about carbon emissions?

Sure they like you buying low emission technology, but that is probably because such techology is made in developed Western nations where we're concerned about that sort of thing.

I was talking to a plumber about boilers once (fascinating conversation, I wish you were there) he said that the more advanced boilers use less gas, but because they are more complicated there is more to go wrong and so you end up just spending the money you saved on replacement parts, and lets not forget where those replacement parts are made; a factory.

Not just any factory either, quite possibly one on the other side of the earth. So that fuel efficient boiler you own has parts made from steel in India, shipped to Japan where it is processed (again using energy) then shipped around the world again to you. How much carbon did you say you were saving?

Don't get me wrong I don't want to get all 'Clarkson' on you, I'm not trying to convince not to believe in climate change, all I'm asking is, genuinely; does the government?

Let the BBC live?

There is a general discussion going on these days about whether or not the BBC should be funded by what is essentially a tax. Anyone who has a device capable of receiving television in the UK is automatically required to pay a 'TV licence' that goes straight to the BBC.

Now I am a free marketeer, so my instinct is that this is wrong. TV should be chosen by the people and they can pay for what they want... or even better they don't have to pay at all because there are breaks for adverts to be shown and this allows the TV companies to pay for themselves. This works in most countries including the US from where we import many fine programs (the ubiquitous 'friends', 'Scrubs' the amusing comedy 'Big bang theory'etc). So instinctively I'm inclined to look at the insane amount of money that Jonathan Ross gets from doing what I essentially do everyday (be social, out going and ask people what they have been up to/working on) and I think what a load of rubbish, make them work for a living live everyone else, but I can't quite do it!

So why does my ever present free marketing spirit become more reticent when I consider the BBC? Quite simple: TV is garbage! I mean really now, I haven't watched a program on ITV for as long as I remember, the only programs I watch on Channel four have been imported from the USA. There is literally nothing on commerical TV produced in the UK that I have, or want, to watch.

The problem with commercial TV is that it is dependent on ratings so what we get is 'lowest common denominator' programs, that is programs that are so simple that everyone can watch them without requiring the slightest use of the neglected organ in your skull. This means that UK TV is just filled with mindless 'reality TV' shows that have the same draw on me as a request to massage the feet of someone with a fungal infection. It is just nasty.

I was talking to an 'intellectual' from Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago and he was saying how everyone listens to the BBC in Saudi, people have a huge respect for it internationally and this is in places that aren't exactly 'West friendly'. Looking at my own experience, I can see why. BBC iPlayer is on my favourites list on my internet browser... I don't think I've even checked if ITV have an online content provider. That says it all.

This is before we get onto issues like iPlayer, Radio 4 and Radio 1 which while Radio 1 plays music largely available on other stations I just can't imagine a commercial radio station producing the sort of thing found on Radio 4.

Lets put it another way when I'm driving home at 1 in the morning and the only thing available of the other stations is 'nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish' I am really, really glad that the BBC radio 4 exists and it isn't paid for by the hard core dance lobby.

With the money that BBC has in excess (through a moderate tax on everyone) excellent programs are produced and technological progress can be made (iPlayer) in which it would otherwise be too expensive to invest. My favourite programs ever made in the UK are Blackadder and Yes, Minister, both produced by the BBC (albeit years ago). All the while British culture is exported through BBC worldwide which is good for the nation too.

Finally the issue of it being a tax, yes it is a tax, lets be honest, calling it a licence doesn't really make it less of tax. But it is a tax for which the money paid goes directly to the product. It is not like other taxes where the money is taken off you then funneled into a big sack where the government then gives it to whoever they fancy, you know exactly where the money is going to go. This is good, because the BBC knows that if it ever stops producing quality and starts producing rubbish it is going to get kicked out into the cold faster than you can say 'Rupert Murdoch'. As a result (unlike with most government) they have the hot breath of redundancy just close enough so that they have to work hard and yield results otherwise they'll get their P45.

The more I think about it the greater it would be if all tax was like that. How much quicker the DVLA might answer the phone if they knew that if they didn't they may end up in the dole queue? How many retarded government schemes would be dropped if there was a direct specific tax to fund them, I would love to hear the conversation to even explain it:

"well sir, we're going to take money out of your earnings so that we can pay for youths caught joy riding to have driving lessons, so that they can joy ride safely" (this actually happened)

Many useless taxes wouldn't even be started because they are so pointless no one would go for it and those that didn't work after a few years would quickly get binned.

So there you have it, want to solve the tax problems? Get yourself a 'tax licence'.

Sarkozy, you've summed it all up!

I type this in the hope that in doing so my blood pressure will lower itself and my heart rate will return to normal. I've just spent I don't know how long rumaging though the various EU/EC/EEC treaties looking up various phrases here and there... yes, I know, very exciting.

I am trying to calm myself down because just thinking about how moronic the Treaty of Lisbon is makes me what to eat my keyboard.

The French President, Nicholas Sarkozy, proposed to remove from the Treaty of Lisbon the aim of "an internal market where competition is free and undistorted" . In previous treaties the wording was that the Community would seek "a system ensuring that competition and the internal market is not distorted". But the point was the same. Nick', however wanted this removed, and this alone perfectly explains why uniting Europe is like a communist and an avid economic liberal to agree on how to run a country, because in essence that is exactly what it is.

Apparently Nick wanted to alay the fears of his country men that the EU was becoming too "Anglo-Saxon". What, pray tell, does this mean? Too Anglo-Saxon, does that mean the EU is working more efficiently?

There is a world of difference between how the UK works and how the EU works.

In the UK competition is good, it means honest fair and hard working people do better than those who are lazy and/or incompetent. While the concept isn't perfect, it is generally the model we follow. In France competition is bad, which is why they are so quick to be protectionist. Despite this protectionism their real GDP growth is consistently lower than the UK. Even in the EU what they are concerned with is protectionism, think of Champagne, it is a noun really, it means a sparkling wine. But in the EU thats to Protected Designation of Origin Champagne means a wine from the Champagne region, everything else is 'sparkling white'.

And though I hate to come across as xenophobic (I'm sorry but if people are going to be pro-Europe then I have to put them straight) I can go on:

Spain had an unemployment level of 10% even before the credit crunch started;

Iceland is now completely bankrupt (unfortunately);

Greece, Portugal, Spain (and now apparently) Italy are also going down the pan and want a bail out from the EU

The only countries that actually contribute to the EU are Germany and the UK, the UK is obviously Anglo-Saxon... and where did the Angles and the Saxons come from? Oh yes, Germany... no wonder the EU is 'becoming more Anglo-Saxon' that is the style that actually works.

Out of all of Europe the UK has the longest working hours, coming behind the US on the global stage of course (another 'Anglo-Saxon' style country?).

Now, which way is the better way of life? That is another question. If I lived in Italy, if I had a villa, a pool, a small vineyard and panoramic views down the sweeping mountain side, I probably wouldn't care so much for economics myself, I probably wouldn't be too fussed about the stock exchange either and that is fine. I understand that completely. What I don't understand is why people think that people who work in completely different ways are going to be able to work together in a Union based on a common economic policy.

Waiiiiit a minute, say what?!

In the UK we have a teenage pregnancy problem. It is easily the worst in the whole of Europe.

We have this amazing policy in the UK which is the best way to prevent teenage pregnancy is to make sure everyone in the UK knows how to have sex. Now to me sounds like the least logical argument ever to stalk the corridors of power.

To me that is the same as; teach everyone to hotwire and car crime will go down. Or teach everyone how to shoot and gun crime will go down. Not only does it not make sense it is obviously going to make things worse and anyone could see that... anyone.

Up until now however I have always been under the illusion however that in the US, where as the behest of the religious Christian majority they teach abstinence, the situation was just as woeful. There I was lead to believe, just as here the clinics are filled with young mothers who are on their 13th unexpected pregnancy and their abstinence policy is ineffective.

But lone behold this is lies. While the pregnancy rate isn't great over in the US it has been consistently coming down since its peak in 1988

[Ventura SJ, Matthews MS and Curtin SC, Declines in teenage birth rates, 1991-1998: update of national and state trends, National Vital Statistics Reports, 1999, Vol. 47, No. 26; The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Sex and America's Teenagers, New York: AGI, 1994; and Maynard RA, Kids Having Kids,Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1997.]

Teen births, pregnancies and abortions are all constantly and almost unceasingly decreasing in the US under the policy of teaching ABCs (Abstinence, 'be' faithful, contraception, in that order).

Meanwhile in the UK, the country of 'enlightenment' we have a report stating:

"The Government-backed scheme tried to persuade teenage girls not to get pregnant by handing out condoms and teaching them about sex ...

research funded by the Department of Health shows that young women who attended the programme, at a cost of £2,500 each, were 'significantly' more likely to become pregnant than those on other youth programmes who were not given contraception and sex advice."

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198228/6m-drive-cut-teen-pregnancies-sees-DOUBLE.html#ixzz0ftV1BuCZ]

Well, I didn't see that coming! (on a minor note, £2,500pp, who was giving the seminar, Richard Branson!) Strangely this program originated in New York, it is just a pity they didn't try importing the ABC program instead.

Still you can understand really, just because something is tried and tested, just because it works well and would cost about £2,499pp less to implement than the other scheme that doesn't mean that is should be trialled in the UK does it!

The [in]equality bill.

The Times headline reads: "Churches win fight over discrimination". Harriet Harman has backed down and said she will not try and push the 'Equality bill' through Parliament again.

Well this is interesting, why would an 'equality bill' be prevented from becoming law? It has the word 'equality' in it and everyone likes that, right?

Essentially what was being pushed through was actually an amendment, it is a piece of law to force Churches to employ people that it deems inappropriate. Harriet Harman said that 'exceptions would be made' for ministers and priests, but essentially the other positions would of course have to be open to anyone, positions such as youth workers or the church accountant.

Now while I don't know of any church that could let alone would ensure that its accountant is Christian (unless it has an accountant amoungst its members) I am at a complete loss as to how a youth worker is different from a minister. Surely if they are leading in any real role it is essential they behave in a certain manner, just like the minister. Maybe I'm making a mistake and youth workers aren't actually roles models for the youth they lead? I don't think so though.

Does it make any difference if you have a youth worker or a minister telling you not to drink too much and then going out and getting drunk every Friday night down the local for everyone to see? I think not.

While Harriet Harman's attempts maybe considered admirable when considered in the light of 'equality' and fighting in the name of fairness, in the practical light of day the concept is hideously flawed.

Allow me to give an example of what I mean, would you think that it was unfair to give the post of head of the National Black Police Association to a black person? No, of course not, it is logical. In fact you would consider it rather remarkable if they chose a white person.

What about Stonewall hiring a person to work with 'youth' who while professionally would support the cause made it known publicly that they hated homosexuals? No, that would be ridiculous.

Would you let someone who spends most of their time intoxicated run a campaign for the government about sensible drinking, or even a temperance campaign? Not if you're sane.

The fact underlying all these points is that adhering to certain beliefs or behaviour is sometimes necessary for someone to be able to do a job, especially that of youth work, not even that of a youth worker.

The fact is if they don't adhere to that belief or behaviour they just won't be able to do the job in the same fashion as someone who does. Pretending otherwise it a logical fallacy for those who only like discrimination their way.

I know this sound unnecessarily harsh on Ms Harman and those of her ilk, but lets be honest it is true. I don't complain that I wouldn't be elected head of the Association of Libertarian Feminists because I know if they did elect me it wouldn't make sense. The same applies to churches.

Some see the equality bill as applying solely to homosexuals. But it doesn't, it applies to adulterers, alcoholics, the violent, and a host of requirements that are noted specifically in the Bible. Some of these things aren't illegal, but they would still need to be filtered out for someone to work in a church (you would hope).

I don't know why out of all the organisations mentioned in this article Harriet Harman feels the need to pick on churches specifically, but it appears that she isn't going to take it further, so on that well done to her. Maybe in future if people are going to force illogical equality upon us they would do it 'equally' and then maybe they will see what a baseless move it would be!

N.B.

Speaking of discrimination, isn't that would interviews are about? You have a number of candidates and you have to discriminate between them. I will will be discriminated against because I didn't go to Oxford for my undergraduate and others will be discriminated against because they don't have degrees. Isn't that the point? When it comes to working in a phone shop I would hope they would discriminate against people who don't have an interest in phones and in boxing I would imagine they discriminate against people who aren't violent. What about discrimination against the lazy, the stupid etc. Does a gym have to consider a trainer who is fat, smokes 50 a day and has an unhealthy lifestyle, or can you discriminate against them based on that lifestyle choice? Where is the line drawn?

How dare you seek to have the best chance in life!

So my last post was the definitive guide to class difficulties in the UK. It is excellent, I'm very pleased with it. As I read the Times article suggesting that private schools should be banned, I just wish everyone in Britain could read it (I imagine Google does too, but for different reasons).

It appears that in the wonderful world some people think equality is more useful than, well utility come to think about it. The concept that going to a school with other bright people gives you an advantage and that is unfair, so it is better to send us all to mixed school so we can all be equally stupid. It makes society worse, but at least it will suck for everyone, not just the few at the bottom of the pack.

It reminds me of what Jeremy Clarkson once said: 'socialists don't like helping the poor half as much as they like hurting the rich'. It appears he is a wise man. Grouping children together on how much their parents care about education is going to give the ones who do care an advantage over those whose parents don't. Those who are grouped in high level schools are going to have an advantage over those who are late developers and are therefore not put in high level schools. But this brings up a question, which is more important: everyone having exactly the same, or having a wholly functioning, intelligent civilised society that can support itself and those in it?

If everyone having the same is so essential then there are a few other changes that need to be made.

Parents should no longer bring up their children.
Some parents are smart others are thick, some are workaholics some are alcoholics. This isn't equal therefore all children should be brought up by the state.

Money
That is easy, time for Communism people it doesn't matter how hard you work or if your co worker is lazy, you should always be paid the same.

Intelligence
Some are born smarter than others, so not fair! If someone is more intelligent then they should be forced to drink until they kill enough brain cells so that we're all equally thick.

Good looks
We don't all look like Brad and Ange, so good looking people ought to start being forced to wear paper bags over their heads... that way everyone is equal

Hormones and fitness
Some of us have high testosterone and serotonin others have low, this isn't fair, it effects how we look, how fit we are, how strong we are, how much discipline we have. It makes a whole lot of sense to force the strong fit and healthy to smoke themselves into a state of bad health so everyone is on the same platform, after all some gifted people are so smug as to make use of their talents and succeed in sports and athletics. This is obviously unfair on those who spent their lives failing to move from the settee and so it must be rectified. After all think of when they go for a job, they will have less extra curricular activities on their CV!

This is of course an exercise in reductio ad absurdum, but nonetheless hopefully it makes a point. We are all different and life cannot be made 'fair' by state intervention. Sure we can help those at a natural disadvantage but some people are always going to have more opportunities than others. If we take that away from those people we're not helping anyone else, we're just confining our country to mediocraty and sending us back to the stone age.

The definitive guide to class in the UK.

This is starting to annoy me now. Everyone wants to express their opinion on why there is no class mobility. or why class mobility is so bad in the UK. The problem is most of the people who are expressing these opinions are journalists and politicians who chances are (by nature of their job) have no idea what problems there are for the working classes. So here it is, the definitive answer.

To begin after an introduction like that I feel I ought to explain a little about myself. Since this is the Internet and essentially anyone can read this however, it will be just that, a little.

My family heritage is based firmly in the working class. My fathers first job was digging roads and now I'm here a Barrister. So I feel I can state with confidence that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to class and class barriers.

Point number 1: Someone working class people just have an inferiority complex.

Some people who are successful in Britain still go on moping about how they don't really feel totally accepted in the middle class and how they still feel like outsiders. Allow me to put this in the plainest possible terms, just because you have an inferiority complex that doesn't mean that you don't fit in. What it means is that your insecurity is telling you that you don't fit in, despite the fact that you have in fact 'made it'. You have made the transition from one class to another. Your subjective feelings however are nothing to do with what anyone else thinks about you.

Admittedly this isn't something from which I suffer. As far as I'm concerned anyone who thinks they are better than me because they were born with money and I wasn't is actually proving the reverse. I have got to where they now are with less than what they had. This means that I'm superior, if they were as good as me then they wouldn't be where I am, they would be on a beach in Barbados living off their controlling interest in Virgin, in other words they would be Richard Branson, who now I come to think about it, wasn't born with money either, in fact he was born with very limited academic ability.

Point number 2: Some state schools are useless, but not for the reason you think.

Bla bla bla, private schools are so unfair, state schools aren't good enough bla bla bla. I'm so tired on this argument I don't know where to begin. The state school I went to was dire. I don't mean 'oh you didn't get an A*' dire, I mean 'pat that kid down for knives' dire. This got better at sixth form, but it was still no picnic. But the question to ask is why did it get better in 6th form? Th reason is that all the people who didn't want to be in school left. That is why it got better. It was still underfunded, the teachers still had to pay for their own white board pens, but the people who didn't want to be there left, and that is what counts. The attitude of the pupils who are there. Everyone in private school not only wants to be there, but wants to be there so badly that they are willing to pay £9,000 per year to be there. You don't pay that unless you really care about what you're coming out with (or you're so rich £9,000 is nothing but they often don't do well). The idea that public schools are better because they are better funded and therefore have better equipment is like me claiming that Marcel Fischer is a better fencer than me because his Épée cost more than mine. It may be true but it has nothing to do with why his is better (assuming he is of course!).

My school was rubbish because the attitude of the pupils was not one of competition and wanting to get the best marks possible. It was because it was filled with idiots, who thought school was "s***" and then left to spend their life on benefits and shop lifting, that isn't a generalisation, that is two case studies.

The fact is if these people went to a public school they would be kicked out and their backward looking educational outlook would leave with them. That just didn't happen in my school because the state makes it illegal for them not to go to school. As a result the morons must go somewhere and that somewhere was the same place that I went to learn.

Now those of a Guardian reading disposition love to say that failing state schools is a fault of the government. This is rubbish. All my teachers did their best under the circumstances and a good few went above and beyond what was required of them. But that doesn't change the fact that you're teaching an idiot, not because they aren't intelligent, but because they place no value in knowledge, to mis-quote the famous philosopher 'Chris Rock' "nothing pleases a [chav] more than not knowing something". To go slightly higher brow, Proverbs 1:22 “ How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, And fools hate knowledge.

And this is something that Guardian readers can't grasp, some people are fools. They are not stupid, they do not lack resources, they lack no good only that they are fools. I don't consider these people below me or anyone else for that matter. I don't think they are particularly bad, 'but for the grace of God go I' as John Bradford once said (well technically referred to himself in the third person, but we'll ignore that for the sake of simplicity).

These people need support but it is not more money for teachers and it is most certainly not banning private education from the rich. There is little the state can do because the attitudes that these people need are instilled by their parents and their families at large, this is something that the state just cannot do, no matter how much socialists like to think it can. It is society at large which has an effect on these people, not some man in number 10 who will never see or meet them. But I guess socialists don't like that idea, because it means you can't just load the blame on Parliament and anyone who so evil as to be rich.

No, if people really wanted to reform the education system they would do thus: they would allow parents to send their children to whichever school they like. This way parents who care about education will all go to good schools with others who are the same. Those who don't care about education will let their children go to whichever school is easiest because they don't care. The former schools could then focus on the dizzy heights of accomplishment and the later could focus on providing the type ambition and life skills that they may not be getting else where. It isn't a perfect solution I know, but then as I've already said, this is just one fight that the state cannot sort out on its own. It is in the hands of their families.

Point number 3: No one asks at interviews what is your fathers occupation.

There seems to be a thought that somehow when you go for an interview you will be given the job because you are middle class or upper class. No I don't know about you but I've never been asked what is my fathers occupation in an interview, so I fail to see how they are going to know whether anyone is upper, middle or lower class (or anything in between). Dress code, language and accent can all be modified if needed rendering one class indistinguishable from the next. The only indicators are the names of the schools and the universities. Frankly if there was a new convention introduced that the name of the schools were not allowed to be put on CVs and application forms (replaced with a serial number instead) I would have no problem with this at all. As for Universities generally Oxford and Cambridge give preference to state school candidates so there is unlikely to be class bias there. There is of course the issue of contacts, but I consider nepotism separate from class discrimination, I will address this later.

Point number 4: getting more people to go to university would do nothing, in fact it would be a hindrance.

Labour thought that sending everyone to University would make things fair. It doesn't. Not even slightly. First of all, we need to face facts that not everyone is intelligent enough to do a chemistry degree, in which case teaching them media studies isn't going to cut it. Getting more people to go to University just devalues degrees, this means that the value of the degree becomes less important forcing people to decide on other factors, such as, oh I don't know, contacts! All the while we don't have any plumbers and so we have to import the whole of Poland to compensate (which I imagine the Polish aren't too happy about). Although the people who really are well off can afford to just do a masters or an MPhil putting them ahead of those who cannot afford to do so. This brings things right back to class and money, except everyone has wasted three years of their lives doing a useless degree when they could have been working. That's the thing about money, the rich always have more of it.

Point number 5: nurture or nature, logically it would make sense for middle class couples to have intelligent children.

Oh my, middle class children earn more! How can this be? Well lets just think this through shall we? Whether you think intelligence is due to DNA or whether you think it is down to your upbringing, either way this favours middle class children. Between the ages of 2 and 10 I constantly harassed my father with every question my youthful mind could muster. Since my father has the patience of Job, rather than telling me to shut up before he drove off a cliff (we were often in the car at the time I recall) he told the time and effort to answer these inane questions. When we were travelling we would have a game of 'Capitols', one person names the country the other person has to state the capitol city. To this end I was devastated the other day when I couldn't remember the capitol of Romanian was Bucharest. Anyway, the point is that my cerebral development had as much to do with my parents intelligence and reception to knowledge as it had to do with to which school I went. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that stupid parents cannot give birth to intelligent children, but logically it is going to be less likely. The result of this is obvious, intelligent children are likely to grow up and have high earning jobs. It isn't rocket science, and it isn't a class conspiracy.

While I did intend for this evaluation to be comprehensive, I didn't expect it to be so long, so I'm going to cut it in two here.