It is something of a tradition to interpose overindulgence with a little intellectual challenge in the form of Christmas lectures, so I thought I would drop a pebble in. Brian Cox is the scientist de jour and I intend to use some of his words to ask a question.
Prof Cox is a clever and amiable man and I like him. In his 'Why does e=mc2?' book (with Jeff Forshaw), that I am currently reading he says that all science rests on observation. He points out that, no matter how passionately you believe something, if you cannot prove it by experiment, then it has no scientific value. In fact he quotes Richard Feynman on the subject; 'no matter how beautiful your theory, no matter how clever you are or what your name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong'.
Now, whilst Prof Cox is happy to unequivocally state such things in support of the material in his book, he forgets it when something with which he ideologically agrees comes along. Global warming for instance. Global Warming we have been assured is real and is caused by Man and is due to our output of Carbon (by which these clever scientific types mean Carbon Dioxide). This has been researched and having found that the temperature rose some 400 years before there was a rise in CO2, the scientists decided to wheel out Al Gore to lie for them, fronting a film with the word 'truth' in it, to dispel any thoughts that it might be contrary.
Then, when the never ending warming predicted by the ever increasing CO2 levels ceased in 1998, the scientists thought it too insignificant a detail to mention. As all their dire warnings and predictions are actually based on computer models that they themselves devised and nothing else (again, something they don't seem to make too clear), an experiment was conducted. Past weather and atmospheric conditions were fed into the models to see if they accurately predicted what we know actually happened.
They didn't. Which isn't that surprising when you consider the software was written to support a premise, not to assess data in an unbiased way. Every objective observation tells us that the hysteria about AGW is just that, hysteria. It isn't scientific and it is far from settled. Yet for Professor Brian Cox and many like him, scientific tenets are sometimes not that important. Why?
Thursday 29 December 2011
Plod On Plod
In a previous blog, I noted that officers who were suspected of not investigating a 'pistol whipping' properly were being investigated themselves and so were on restricted duties. Now we hear of possible corruption involving the most senior of police officers and they are not suspended as, we are told, an investigation is merely a process to see if there has been any wrongdoing.
How strange that such differing standards apply and how normal that they believe such obvious lies and deceits are all we deserve.
How strange that such differing standards apply and how normal that they believe such obvious lies and deceits are all we deserve.
Britain In 2011
As the year comes to a close Britain finds itself in an interesting situation. In an attempt to prove we can rise above the chaos all around comment is made of Britain's historic virtues, its national character and the 'been here before, survived' creed. Whilst this is all historically true, it is not so now. The British character has been eroded and dissolved, from within and without. What has happened? We must go back a little way.
Tony Blair is a strange man. He is not a megalomaniac though some of the signs were there. He stopped short of seizing power for absolute control, merely grabbing what he needed to ensure his tenure was as untrammelled as possible; he did not want power where responsibility would also come into play, he was in love with the wealth of power. Tony Blair did not have traffic lights changed as his escorted entourage traversed London, to speed his way. He was only interested in the effect it generated; that it proclaimed him a great man.
Blair claimed to have felt the hand of history on his shoulder, though it was actually his imagining that the thing he craved was happening. Blair wanted a legacy, something for which he would be remembered for all time, such as a great man should. He also went about his acquisition of wealth with an ambition and drive that only a venal man with a greedy wife behind can. Blair saw in the writings of his namesake, George Orwell, a manifesto for his own greatness. That he should find a Squealer who so exactly fitted the role, in every way, was magnificent.
Whilst this utter weakling and his chosen, even weaker placemen, formed a government, the march of the Left continued. All academe, much of the Judiciary and almost all the media was beholden to the ideology of the Left. No amount of evidence could convince them of anything contrary to their thoughts. This Left ideology despised Britain and its culture; it had to be destroyed. Key to this was the undermining of religious belief and the established norms of family life. (Look at the truly Orwellian statement of the Left liberal Nick Clegg recently, that no-one would want to go back to the Fifties. A time of honesty, hope, low criminality and social cohesion underpinned by the traditional family unit).
So we found ourselves as the close of the Twentieth Century approached, in the hands of a man who sought personal enrichment as his overweening principle and goal, at a time when the institutions were in need of strong leadership and control. Now was not the time to drift. But a sudden acceleration of agendas set by activist homosexuals and the continuing entrenchment of racism by the race industry, was promoted by elements of the Blair government such as Mandelson. The aim being not to offer succour to these people as much as to undermine those who would naturally question actions taken in support of such moves.
We were to forget the real past and imagine that 1997 was Year 1. Immigration was allowed to pass unchecked to destroy British jobs at the lower level, to break the cohesion of British society and to change the culture. It was loudly shouted that these newcomers must be allowed to keep their own 'culture' and ways here. To ask them to speak English was absurd we were told. If they want Sharia law what of it? If they live in enclaves and die under gangmasters and councils and shops print in their languages, then who should speak against it?
Greed became good, because otherwise there would be something wrong with Tony Blair. Each person should consider themselves above all others, should consider their own welfare first. This has manifested itself in many ways, from the 'don't criticise me' binge drinking to the riots of the summer, when the trainer seeking youth decided they could take what they wanted with impunity and rain wasn't forecast (always a riot killer, so intent on their cause are they).
Corporations, with banks in the lead started to do very strange things, not least allowing executives to be hired on packages that included bonuses whether they succeed or fail. Only a very corrupted society could let that pass. Senior officers in every course of government life became useless and detached, adhering to political correctness and Left ideology against sense and role. Hence senior fire officers consider a rescue successful if they get a person out of their predicament, even if dead through their inaction.
And so it is. Britain is a denuded, despised country, with self loathing causing much of the misery, assailed by external enemies smelling weakness and challenged by new economic realities that we will not rise to challenge, because we must shackle ourselves to a corrupt regime of totalitarian ideas, across the narrow sea. Britain can do it, can win against this sea of insanity, but as Britons, with allies of many nations, who all subscribe to a similar view of decency and courage, of selflessness and of community. People together, against those weighed down by heavy chains of guilt and ideology, some bad governments others malicious activists for harm. If Cameron were a Conservative, 2012 could be the year, as things stand perhaps it won't be.
Though politicians of every stripe should be aware that people will not stand idly by forever.
Tony Blair is a strange man. He is not a megalomaniac though some of the signs were there. He stopped short of seizing power for absolute control, merely grabbing what he needed to ensure his tenure was as untrammelled as possible; he did not want power where responsibility would also come into play, he was in love with the wealth of power. Tony Blair did not have traffic lights changed as his escorted entourage traversed London, to speed his way. He was only interested in the effect it generated; that it proclaimed him a great man.
Blair claimed to have felt the hand of history on his shoulder, though it was actually his imagining that the thing he craved was happening. Blair wanted a legacy, something for which he would be remembered for all time, such as a great man should. He also went about his acquisition of wealth with an ambition and drive that only a venal man with a greedy wife behind can. Blair saw in the writings of his namesake, George Orwell, a manifesto for his own greatness. That he should find a Squealer who so exactly fitted the role, in every way, was magnificent.
Whilst this utter weakling and his chosen, even weaker placemen, formed a government, the march of the Left continued. All academe, much of the Judiciary and almost all the media was beholden to the ideology of the Left. No amount of evidence could convince them of anything contrary to their thoughts. This Left ideology despised Britain and its culture; it had to be destroyed. Key to this was the undermining of religious belief and the established norms of family life. (Look at the truly Orwellian statement of the Left liberal Nick Clegg recently, that no-one would want to go back to the Fifties. A time of honesty, hope, low criminality and social cohesion underpinned by the traditional family unit).
So we found ourselves as the close of the Twentieth Century approached, in the hands of a man who sought personal enrichment as his overweening principle and goal, at a time when the institutions were in need of strong leadership and control. Now was not the time to drift. But a sudden acceleration of agendas set by activist homosexuals and the continuing entrenchment of racism by the race industry, was promoted by elements of the Blair government such as Mandelson. The aim being not to offer succour to these people as much as to undermine those who would naturally question actions taken in support of such moves.
We were to forget the real past and imagine that 1997 was Year 1. Immigration was allowed to pass unchecked to destroy British jobs at the lower level, to break the cohesion of British society and to change the culture. It was loudly shouted that these newcomers must be allowed to keep their own 'culture' and ways here. To ask them to speak English was absurd we were told. If they want Sharia law what of it? If they live in enclaves and die under gangmasters and councils and shops print in their languages, then who should speak against it?
Greed became good, because otherwise there would be something wrong with Tony Blair. Each person should consider themselves above all others, should consider their own welfare first. This has manifested itself in many ways, from the 'don't criticise me' binge drinking to the riots of the summer, when the trainer seeking youth decided they could take what they wanted with impunity and rain wasn't forecast (always a riot killer, so intent on their cause are they).
Corporations, with banks in the lead started to do very strange things, not least allowing executives to be hired on packages that included bonuses whether they succeed or fail. Only a very corrupted society could let that pass. Senior officers in every course of government life became useless and detached, adhering to political correctness and Left ideology against sense and role. Hence senior fire officers consider a rescue successful if they get a person out of their predicament, even if dead through their inaction.
And so it is. Britain is a denuded, despised country, with self loathing causing much of the misery, assailed by external enemies smelling weakness and challenged by new economic realities that we will not rise to challenge, because we must shackle ourselves to a corrupt regime of totalitarian ideas, across the narrow sea. Britain can do it, can win against this sea of insanity, but as Britons, with allies of many nations, who all subscribe to a similar view of decency and courage, of selflessness and of community. People together, against those weighed down by heavy chains of guilt and ideology, some bad governments others malicious activists for harm. If Cameron were a Conservative, 2012 could be the year, as things stand perhaps it won't be.
Though politicians of every stripe should be aware that people will not stand idly by forever.
Thursday 8 December 2011
Wahay! QT
Well, a few minutes in a left wing historian called Tristram has proven that a) he doesn't understand the Euro crisis and b) that he will support the socialist dictatorship without question, to the end. He asserted that the British economy is tied to Europe (it isn't, we trade with lots of people) and that we will crash if the Euro does. Actually, if the Euro were deleted tomorrow, individual nation states would float their currencies and trade their way back to success. Trading with, er Britain.
Medhi Hasan is on there too and displaying once again, just how truly dim he is. This programme, on the rabidly left liberal BBC, is of no enlightenment but can be sport. It depends how many of the non left leaning audience are allowed to talk, those that managed to get in.
Medhi Hasan is on there too and displaying once again, just how truly dim he is. This programme, on the rabidly left liberal BBC, is of no enlightenment but can be sport. It depends how many of the non left leaning audience are allowed to talk, those that managed to get in.
Wednesday 7 December 2011
Eurosceptic Cameron
If a bloke in a red jacket, with a black hat and surrounded by a pack of dogs says he is against fox-hunting, he is probably pulling your leg. When David Cameron says he is a Eurosceptic, he also isn't being entirely straight. As a committed friend of the European Union, who is prepared to be a tad less than truthful about offering referenda to the population to support these friends, David Cameron is a Eurosceptic in the same way that the moon is made of green cheese.
His constant promises of repatriating powers from the EU has the ring of Blair about it; he repeatedly says it, hoping that at some point we will come to think that he has actually done it. He must have, surely, by now. Nope, no intention. Talking tough because he is weak.
Those involved in the EU meet and talk about the Euro crisis, focussed just on saving their idiotic monetary construct. Not at any point to do they actually consider the real situation and what has to be done. They are only, only interested in their own positions. Sickening. Germany keep complaining that Merkel is compared to Hitler. Not by me and not that I have seen. The comparison is with Hitler's Germany, with the Kaiser's Germany; a country that wanted to dominate Europe, just as it does today. Nein, nein says Merkel, the Germans don't want to take over Europe, it is just that everyone should do what Germany says.
This strange world where the whole of the Eurozone should become Greater Germany, but no 'conquest' is intended is like a murderer saying it was an accident that he stabbed someone 147 times. France of course thinks that there should be fiscal union but with national governments staying in charge, which is a stupid unworkable idea, but has the attraction of leaving France continuing to run things behind the scenes. Won't happen Shorty.
And Cameron sees this bunch of madmen and women as a club he should be part of. The Eurozone is a disaster, the EU is a failed socialist attempt at creating a Europe wide dictatorship and like socialism everywhere it has failed. But still these grasping, corrupt dorks won't give up. The reason Britain should stay in the EU doesn't exist. There isn't one. Hint; Blair wanted to join the Euro. Anything he wanted was bound to be wrong and designed to enrich him personally. Stuff your promised referendum where the sun don't shine David (and don't continue to insult our intelligence with your pathetic, 'it isn't a treaty') just get us out of the EU. Now.
His constant promises of repatriating powers from the EU has the ring of Blair about it; he repeatedly says it, hoping that at some point we will come to think that he has actually done it. He must have, surely, by now. Nope, no intention. Talking tough because he is weak.
Those involved in the EU meet and talk about the Euro crisis, focussed just on saving their idiotic monetary construct. Not at any point to do they actually consider the real situation and what has to be done. They are only, only interested in their own positions. Sickening. Germany keep complaining that Merkel is compared to Hitler. Not by me and not that I have seen. The comparison is with Hitler's Germany, with the Kaiser's Germany; a country that wanted to dominate Europe, just as it does today. Nein, nein says Merkel, the Germans don't want to take over Europe, it is just that everyone should do what Germany says.
This strange world where the whole of the Eurozone should become Greater Germany, but no 'conquest' is intended is like a murderer saying it was an accident that he stabbed someone 147 times. France of course thinks that there should be fiscal union but with national governments staying in charge, which is a stupid unworkable idea, but has the attraction of leaving France continuing to run things behind the scenes. Won't happen Shorty.
And Cameron sees this bunch of madmen and women as a club he should be part of. The Eurozone is a disaster, the EU is a failed socialist attempt at creating a Europe wide dictatorship and like socialism everywhere it has failed. But still these grasping, corrupt dorks won't give up. The reason Britain should stay in the EU doesn't exist. There isn't one. Hint; Blair wanted to join the Euro. Anything he wanted was bound to be wrong and designed to enrich him personally. Stuff your promised referendum where the sun don't shine David (and don't continue to insult our intelligence with your pathetic, 'it isn't a treaty') just get us out of the EU. Now.
Thursday 1 December 2011
You Can't Say That
Jeremy Clarkson says that public sector strikers should be taken outside and shot and the humourless, the nanny state led morons and the dictators jump up and down in outrage. A woman representative of a teachers union says on QT, that he shouldn't be allowed to say it because in Columbia union people are taken out and shot. Her point being that she is a representative of those doing the shooting in Columbia. You mustn't oppose her view and you must keep quiet. Because she says so.
A Labour MP said that if Clarkson had a heart attack, he would be picked up by an ambulance crew and treated by paramedics he wants shot. Except Labour idiot, he doesn't. Not just because it was a joke, you twerp, but because he was complaining about strikers, not people who were working, which is what they would have to be doing to pick him up.
In fact I am heartily sick of public sector unions (not necessarily the people who pay for them) who keep claiming they represent low paid people, who work hard caring for the sick and elderly etc. So who is it that are killing our old people in NHS hospitals, who cannot educate our kids? No this strike was about challenging a non Socialist government whilst pretending it is about pensions. And then about pensions the public sector workers have not paid for and are way above equivalent private sector workers' pensions.
If Cameron wasn't showing himself as a weak left wing politician, these destructive forces would be less keen to take on the government. Public borrowing is still going up, but the Conservatives are trying to get it back under control and allow the productive sector to grow us out of the mess we are in. The unions want a high tax society where people like them get to control what your money is spent on (and that they have access to it too). Look at the salaries these union bosses award themselves, then ask who you want spending your money; you or them?
A Labour MP said that if Clarkson had a heart attack, he would be picked up by an ambulance crew and treated by paramedics he wants shot. Except Labour idiot, he doesn't. Not just because it was a joke, you twerp, but because he was complaining about strikers, not people who were working, which is what they would have to be doing to pick him up.
In fact I am heartily sick of public sector unions (not necessarily the people who pay for them) who keep claiming they represent low paid people, who work hard caring for the sick and elderly etc. So who is it that are killing our old people in NHS hospitals, who cannot educate our kids? No this strike was about challenging a non Socialist government whilst pretending it is about pensions. And then about pensions the public sector workers have not paid for and are way above equivalent private sector workers' pensions.
If Cameron wasn't showing himself as a weak left wing politician, these destructive forces would be less keen to take on the government. Public borrowing is still going up, but the Conservatives are trying to get it back under control and allow the productive sector to grow us out of the mess we are in. The unions want a high tax society where people like them get to control what your money is spent on (and that they have access to it too). Look at the salaries these union bosses award themselves, then ask who you want spending your money; you or them?
Monday 21 November 2011
90 Year Old More Thoughtful Than PM
The Duke of Edinburgh has told it like it is to an MD of a wind farm company and in so doing has proved that, at 90, he is more on the ball and scientifically and socially aware than our Prime Minister. Now we know that Clegg is a supporter of wind energy because his wife has been involved in the 'movement', but the PM has no such excuse. Oh yes, except that daddy in law gets about £1000 a day from subsidised wind farm operators.
The Duke said that the turbines are useless, because they don't work all the time and so need stand by power stations to cover for their shortfall. A child would see that this makes them pointless. But the government, as ever supported by vested interests (and I'll leave it to you to decide what kind of 'support' that is) apparently have no such vision. Chris Huhne of course is just an idiot.
You see, like the Lords of old, people who don't rely on an income from elsewhere, a sinecure or two from industry, tend to make unbiased judgements based on reality and common sense. Now both houses are mere sheds of placemen we have no protection whatsoever. Hence the Duke's comment being more important now than ever.
Tax, such as is demanded by the NGO's and activists leading the government by the nose, never drove innovation, but incentives do. That is why there is no real effort by industry to deal with man made pollutants and only the money seeking scammers and their inane stories of global disaster are thriving, on the stupidity of parliaments.
The Duke said that the turbines are useless, because they don't work all the time and so need stand by power stations to cover for their shortfall. A child would see that this makes them pointless. But the government, as ever supported by vested interests (and I'll leave it to you to decide what kind of 'support' that is) apparently have no such vision. Chris Huhne of course is just an idiot.
You see, like the Lords of old, people who don't rely on an income from elsewhere, a sinecure or two from industry, tend to make unbiased judgements based on reality and common sense. Now both houses are mere sheds of placemen we have no protection whatsoever. Hence the Duke's comment being more important now than ever.
Tax, such as is demanded by the NGO's and activists leading the government by the nose, never drove innovation, but incentives do. That is why there is no real effort by industry to deal with man made pollutants and only the money seeking scammers and their inane stories of global disaster are thriving, on the stupidity of parliaments.
IPCC: Placed Story?
At the weekend there was an article in a broadsheet about the gun at the centre of the police shooting, that preceded the riots in London. It seems that an earlier incident may not have been properly investigated and an opportunity to take that gun out of circulation, potentially missed.
The gun, a Bruni 92 replica that had been converted to fire live ammunition was used in a 'pistol whipping' at a hairdressers and the officers who followed up the incident have been put on 'restricted duties' whilst their actions are investigated. The suggestion was that they could have found the gun and precluded the incident that led to rioting.
The story isn't very substantive and has the smell of being planted. Even if the gun had been seized after the earlier incident, why are we to suppose that Mark Duggan, if he wanted a gun wouldn't have acquired a different one? The story seems designed to distract attention from the actual shooting, immediately after which it was claimed that Duggan had fired first. Not only was this not true, it now appears the gun was in a sock, in a shoe box.
Once again it seems that armed police attending an incident have been extremely ready to open fire, presumably keyed up by the nature of their briefing. The logic appears to be that a criminal with a gun will always use it, whereas we only get that impression when considering armed police. The strategy and tactics applied in armed incidents seems at best to be childish.
If this story was planted and the finger points at the IPCC, it is a disgraceful attempt to obfuscate and distract, in a very serious inquiry. I wish they were more concerned with helping the police correct aberrant behaviour. It is what the public think they are paying for.
The gun, a Bruni 92 replica that had been converted to fire live ammunition was used in a 'pistol whipping' at a hairdressers and the officers who followed up the incident have been put on 'restricted duties' whilst their actions are investigated. The suggestion was that they could have found the gun and precluded the incident that led to rioting.
The story isn't very substantive and has the smell of being planted. Even if the gun had been seized after the earlier incident, why are we to suppose that Mark Duggan, if he wanted a gun wouldn't have acquired a different one? The story seems designed to distract attention from the actual shooting, immediately after which it was claimed that Duggan had fired first. Not only was this not true, it now appears the gun was in a sock, in a shoe box.
Once again it seems that armed police attending an incident have been extremely ready to open fire, presumably keyed up by the nature of their briefing. The logic appears to be that a criminal with a gun will always use it, whereas we only get that impression when considering armed police. The strategy and tactics applied in armed incidents seems at best to be childish.
If this story was planted and the finger points at the IPCC, it is a disgraceful attempt to obfuscate and distract, in a very serious inquiry. I wish they were more concerned with helping the police correct aberrant behaviour. It is what the public think they are paying for.
Or Is It This?
The Germans continue to be outraged at any suggestion that they intend to build a European empire. It is not in their character apparently, as the First and Second World Wars were just aberrations and we should take no notice of history. So why are the decisions Germany takes, causing governments to tumble across Europe, to be replaced by unelected EU placemen?
The Germans say that whilst the Euro is set to serve their purposes, everyone would be OK if they would just be more like Germany; hard working, thrifty, blond. I might have made that last bit up, but it seemed to fit....
Funny they never mentioned this need when enforcing 'their' Euro on all the others. Still, having prospered from it and it having caused the current mess, surely Germany should pay up to avert the crisis? Er, no. Apparently, it is nothing to do with them. OK, if that is the case then the Germans should allow countries to break away from the Germanic confines of the Euro and float their currencies, to work their own problems through.
Nope, can't do that either. And why not? Because the EU is an empire. See, we get there no matter how you look at it. From a realists point of view, or even trying to square the German logic, it always comes back to the fact that the Germans are in charge and crucially, want to be.
This is as dangerous as it sounds too, as if the financial crisis wasn't bad enough in itself. And of course, France sits on the sidelines waiting to make their move, because, as every French politician knows, they run Europe.
The Germans say that whilst the Euro is set to serve their purposes, everyone would be OK if they would just be more like Germany; hard working, thrifty, blond. I might have made that last bit up, but it seemed to fit....
Funny they never mentioned this need when enforcing 'their' Euro on all the others. Still, having prospered from it and it having caused the current mess, surely Germany should pay up to avert the crisis? Er, no. Apparently, it is nothing to do with them. OK, if that is the case then the Germans should allow countries to break away from the Germanic confines of the Euro and float their currencies, to work their own problems through.
Nope, can't do that either. And why not? Because the EU is an empire. See, we get there no matter how you look at it. From a realists point of view, or even trying to square the German logic, it always comes back to the fact that the Germans are in charge and crucially, want to be.
This is as dangerous as it sounds too, as if the financial crisis wasn't bad enough in itself. And of course, France sits on the sidelines waiting to make their move, because, as every French politician knows, they run Europe.
Saturday 19 November 2011
Germany And The Euro
There has been much squealing from Germans and EU supporters about the suggestion that Germany has designs on running Europe. On the one hand we have politicians such as those on Question Time saying that they are fed up with people who cannot forget the War. It was asserted that mentions of the War are now frequent and pathetic, as it bears no reference to today.
Which War would that be? The First or the Second? Would it have been fair, for instance, to have complained about always mentioning the War when warning about Hitler and Germany in the 1930's? Mainly through the Marshall Plan, Germany was generously rebuilt by those they sought to destroy. Today, the Germans have an excellent economy based on their own values and hard work and their domination of the eurozone.
Now the stupid idea of pushing the German economic standard onto Greeks and Italians is falling apart and the Germans are getting outraged. Worse, Cameron jumps out of a Spitfire to lecture them on the problems they are causing and the Germans show their true colours.
Britain will have to join the Euro because the pound will fail, they say. Which is odd, as the Euro is in a bigger mess than the pound and why must we join the Euro anyway, what would that achieve? Nothing, but it does expose the mindset of the conqueror. They are also rabidly salivating over imposing their 'bank tax', specifically designed to undermine the City and destroy further the British economy. It is their version of the Blitz or bombing our Spitfire factories.
The tax also frees up the EU from receiving funds from national governments, who can be fickle and also it gives them more funds to try to prop up their ridiculous construct. And it is the fact of just how ridiculous the Euro is that shows the truth of German intentions. Why would you set up something like the Euro, which imposes the German economic standards on countries that cannot survive in such a system, unless you intended to destroy them and then take them over?
The Germans are very careful not to give money in bailouts to support their mess, until 'political union' is achieved. So, no peace until you surrender? And the French are keeping their heads down, letting Germany take all the 'empire' flak, while they hope that unification occurs and Germany is exhausted achieving it. Then they will step forward to take over and really ruin Europe.
So yes, it is right to talk of German intentions, though of course it is not the War. This is a deliberate attempt to ridicule and distract. Only stupid people plan to fight the last war, just as only stupid people don't learn from history.
Which War would that be? The First or the Second? Would it have been fair, for instance, to have complained about always mentioning the War when warning about Hitler and Germany in the 1930's? Mainly through the Marshall Plan, Germany was generously rebuilt by those they sought to destroy. Today, the Germans have an excellent economy based on their own values and hard work and their domination of the eurozone.
Now the stupid idea of pushing the German economic standard onto Greeks and Italians is falling apart and the Germans are getting outraged. Worse, Cameron jumps out of a Spitfire to lecture them on the problems they are causing and the Germans show their true colours.
Britain will have to join the Euro because the pound will fail, they say. Which is odd, as the Euro is in a bigger mess than the pound and why must we join the Euro anyway, what would that achieve? Nothing, but it does expose the mindset of the conqueror. They are also rabidly salivating over imposing their 'bank tax', specifically designed to undermine the City and destroy further the British economy. It is their version of the Blitz or bombing our Spitfire factories.
The tax also frees up the EU from receiving funds from national governments, who can be fickle and also it gives them more funds to try to prop up their ridiculous construct. And it is the fact of just how ridiculous the Euro is that shows the truth of German intentions. Why would you set up something like the Euro, which imposes the German economic standards on countries that cannot survive in such a system, unless you intended to destroy them and then take them over?
The Germans are very careful not to give money in bailouts to support their mess, until 'political union' is achieved. So, no peace until you surrender? And the French are keeping their heads down, letting Germany take all the 'empire' flak, while they hope that unification occurs and Germany is exhausted achieving it. Then they will step forward to take over and really ruin Europe.
So yes, it is right to talk of German intentions, though of course it is not the War. This is a deliberate attempt to ridicule and distract. Only stupid people plan to fight the last war, just as only stupid people don't learn from history.
Friday 18 November 2011
Disparate Ideas
Isn't it odd how adherents to Left ideology (so that includes David Cameron) can hold views that are completely unaffected by facts and reality? Take wind farms. They produce very little electricity and even then at unpredictable times, so there always has to be a back up power station running to make up the shortfall. This makes them entirely pointless. However, politicians continue to funnel wheelbarrow loads of our cash to the people who build and operate these behemoths.
That the money goes, yet again, mainly to foreigners only makes things worse. They use exotic and dangerous metals in their generators, mined in Canada, shipped to China where workers are poisoned in the manufacturing process. Then shipped to the UK, to be erected in massive quantities of concrete. Being useless of course, they are not a commercial proposition, but instead rely on forced payment in the form of subsidies and feed in tariffs.
The need for any such energy generation device is of course, to combat Global Warming. Cameron and his co-religionists have come to understand that as man pumps more CO2 into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, so it acts as a trap for heat and the planet warms. He is happy to destroy our economy in support of his faith, which must also be why he ignores changing circumstances.
There has been no warming since 1998 and yet CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise. This is perhaps not surprising because CO2 is only a minor 'greenhouse gas' and no one mentions that the overwhelming force in this area is water vapour. Yep, clouds. In fact, shown up as one of his most spectacular lies in his graph of CO2 and warming, Al Gore had things the wrong way round. CO2 content in the atmosphere did go up and so did the temperature, but it was temperature first then CO2 rose about 400 years later.
Something else causes global warming, just as it has before, when we didn't have NGO activists lobbying government with their junk science ideas to destroy the capitalist West. The IPCC is not a group of climate scientists at the top of their game producing peer reviewed scientific reports, it is largely activists and students, with some scientists who obtain their livelihood from the warming scare.
Why do politicians believe 'scientists' who say that an absolute truth has been found and should not be opposed or tested, when these are the basic tenets of science?
That the money goes, yet again, mainly to foreigners only makes things worse. They use exotic and dangerous metals in their generators, mined in Canada, shipped to China where workers are poisoned in the manufacturing process. Then shipped to the UK, to be erected in massive quantities of concrete. Being useless of course, they are not a commercial proposition, but instead rely on forced payment in the form of subsidies and feed in tariffs.
The need for any such energy generation device is of course, to combat Global Warming. Cameron and his co-religionists have come to understand that as man pumps more CO2 into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, so it acts as a trap for heat and the planet warms. He is happy to destroy our economy in support of his faith, which must also be why he ignores changing circumstances.
There has been no warming since 1998 and yet CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise. This is perhaps not surprising because CO2 is only a minor 'greenhouse gas' and no one mentions that the overwhelming force in this area is water vapour. Yep, clouds. In fact, shown up as one of his most spectacular lies in his graph of CO2 and warming, Al Gore had things the wrong way round. CO2 content in the atmosphere did go up and so did the temperature, but it was temperature first then CO2 rose about 400 years later.
Something else causes global warming, just as it has before, when we didn't have NGO activists lobbying government with their junk science ideas to destroy the capitalist West. The IPCC is not a group of climate scientists at the top of their game producing peer reviewed scientific reports, it is largely activists and students, with some scientists who obtain their livelihood from the warming scare.
Why do politicians believe 'scientists' who say that an absolute truth has been found and should not be opposed or tested, when these are the basic tenets of science?
Thursday 17 November 2011
Strathclyde Fire And Rescue
Much of the destruction of the fibre and strength of this country has been brought about, quite deliberately by people who have pushed what would be recognised as ideas of the political Left. These people, seeing that Marxism was ignored by many and rejected by most of the populations in the West, decided on another tactic. No longer would their agitation cause the masses, who were desperate for such leadership the Marxists imagined, to rise up, but instead they would join the Establishment.
By becoming teachers they could infect children's minds, always the most vulnerable, with their unaccepted ideas. Then these people would go on to run teacher training institutions to ensure all teaching became of the Left and to run Universities, all the better to catch the idealist but immature students, so willing to become activists. Judges were corrupted and little by little all official thinking, of any stripe accepted many of the basic principles espoused by Marxists.
This is why there is so little difference between politicians today, why the justice system is skewed to favour criminals (it helps to undermine the capitalist system) and so on and so forth. It brought about the virus that is Political Correctness and its pronouncement of the things you 'cannot say', to affect basic thinking and create thought crimes.
Naturally, the corollary of this is the idiotic ideas pursued by our 'authorities' and the lack of courage of our essential services, from police to Army. This has all been apparent and we see many manifestations of its evil affects, but seldom in sharp focus. Today we have news of Strathclyde Fire And Rescue Sevice. Seldom can the people of a region and the Brigades own rank and file have been so poorly served.
We read that a woman fell down a hole and broke her sternum and several ribs, which also caused a punctured lung. Trapped, she was partly immersed in water and cold. It was two hours before her daughter found her and called for help, so the situation was already serious. The Fire Brigade (we shall call them thus, in honour of their noble tradition, rather than recognising their new, trendy titling that is staggeringly inaccurate, in referring to it as a 'service') naturally arrived promptly.
An ordinary fireman was lowered on a rope to see what the situation was below. Enter onto the scene media relations officer Paul Stewart, who arrives just as a paramedic prepares to be lowered down to assist the woman, considering her situation 'time critical'. Stewart becomes aware that he is the most senior officer present and stops all activity, ruling that it is too dangerous according to the 'Fire Services' policies.
Here we have that sharp focus on Left ideology that is often lacking. Stewart has no appreciation of the situation, no care for the suffering, nor in fact the life of the accident victim, he is overwhelmingly concerned with the set of rules that govern his life. There must be no discussion or dissent, there is nothing but the rules to guide us here, he is saying. It is the same mindset that made him 'notice' he was the senior officer.
Not only did another senior officer with the same 'I'm with stupid' badge, back up the initial on the scene idiot, Stewart, but when the woman subsequently died the 'Service' decided it could find no fault with itself and no apology was forthcoming. Indeed, they described the operation as successful as they did actually get the woman out. Dead, but out. She had been there for six hours after the Brigade arrived. A coroner has described her initial injuries as 'survivable'.
Despite his direct responsibility for these life threatening but survivable injuries become life ending, Paul Stewart arrogantly spent his time at the inquest in self-justification, his lack of concern for the victim and her family continuing. His belief was, he assured the court, that there was not a 'time issue' in the rescue. This was something he doubtless 'believed' because he chose to ignore the paramedic as being of no value in the 'rescue'.
The belief of our 'leaders' in Global Warming and the economic destruction they are prepared to enact to 'combat' it, the insults to settled, two parent heterosexual families, the lack of action by senior police officers in the London riots and this event in Strathclyde are all of a piece. Usually the blame is lost in the amorphous mass of actions and reasons bandied about, but here the simple straightforward stupidity of left-liberal ideology is clear. It is designed to undermine our society, to ultimately destroy capitalism, which the people failed to desire despite agitation by Marxist activists, so it must now be forced.
That it kills people is just a part of the revolution, surely you can understand the necessity? Marx preached a lot of tosh about politics whilst requiring others to fund his extravagant lifestyle, so why should his followers not try to gain in the form of senior positions, with large salaries from what they seek to destroy? They are stupid, after all.
By becoming teachers they could infect children's minds, always the most vulnerable, with their unaccepted ideas. Then these people would go on to run teacher training institutions to ensure all teaching became of the Left and to run Universities, all the better to catch the idealist but immature students, so willing to become activists. Judges were corrupted and little by little all official thinking, of any stripe accepted many of the basic principles espoused by Marxists.
This is why there is so little difference between politicians today, why the justice system is skewed to favour criminals (it helps to undermine the capitalist system) and so on and so forth. It brought about the virus that is Political Correctness and its pronouncement of the things you 'cannot say', to affect basic thinking and create thought crimes.
Naturally, the corollary of this is the idiotic ideas pursued by our 'authorities' and the lack of courage of our essential services, from police to Army. This has all been apparent and we see many manifestations of its evil affects, but seldom in sharp focus. Today we have news of Strathclyde Fire And Rescue Sevice. Seldom can the people of a region and the Brigades own rank and file have been so poorly served.
We read that a woman fell down a hole and broke her sternum and several ribs, which also caused a punctured lung. Trapped, she was partly immersed in water and cold. It was two hours before her daughter found her and called for help, so the situation was already serious. The Fire Brigade (we shall call them thus, in honour of their noble tradition, rather than recognising their new, trendy titling that is staggeringly inaccurate, in referring to it as a 'service') naturally arrived promptly.
An ordinary fireman was lowered on a rope to see what the situation was below. Enter onto the scene media relations officer Paul Stewart, who arrives just as a paramedic prepares to be lowered down to assist the woman, considering her situation 'time critical'. Stewart becomes aware that he is the most senior officer present and stops all activity, ruling that it is too dangerous according to the 'Fire Services' policies.
Here we have that sharp focus on Left ideology that is often lacking. Stewart has no appreciation of the situation, no care for the suffering, nor in fact the life of the accident victim, he is overwhelmingly concerned with the set of rules that govern his life. There must be no discussion or dissent, there is nothing but the rules to guide us here, he is saying. It is the same mindset that made him 'notice' he was the senior officer.
Not only did another senior officer with the same 'I'm with stupid' badge, back up the initial on the scene idiot, Stewart, but when the woman subsequently died the 'Service' decided it could find no fault with itself and no apology was forthcoming. Indeed, they described the operation as successful as they did actually get the woman out. Dead, but out. She had been there for six hours after the Brigade arrived. A coroner has described her initial injuries as 'survivable'.
Despite his direct responsibility for these life threatening but survivable injuries become life ending, Paul Stewart arrogantly spent his time at the inquest in self-justification, his lack of concern for the victim and her family continuing. His belief was, he assured the court, that there was not a 'time issue' in the rescue. This was something he doubtless 'believed' because he chose to ignore the paramedic as being of no value in the 'rescue'.
The belief of our 'leaders' in Global Warming and the economic destruction they are prepared to enact to 'combat' it, the insults to settled, two parent heterosexual families, the lack of action by senior police officers in the London riots and this event in Strathclyde are all of a piece. Usually the blame is lost in the amorphous mass of actions and reasons bandied about, but here the simple straightforward stupidity of left-liberal ideology is clear. It is designed to undermine our society, to ultimately destroy capitalism, which the people failed to desire despite agitation by Marxist activists, so it must now be forced.
That it kills people is just a part of the revolution, surely you can understand the necessity? Marx preached a lot of tosh about politics whilst requiring others to fund his extravagant lifestyle, so why should his followers not try to gain in the form of senior positions, with large salaries from what they seek to destroy? They are stupid, after all.
Wednesday 16 November 2011
Inflation
We don't talk much about inflation these days, because we don't seem to see an across the board, upward movement in prices. Across the board being the important bit. Clothing prices, technology prices and many other such items don't seem to have gone up much, if at all. House prices obviously have been depressed.
So where is the inflation coming from? Well, food prices have been volatile, for not readily discernible reasons and energy prices in particular have sky rocketed. Then there is increased income tax, NI, VAT and things like petrol duty. But the government is also behind the rise of energy prices to a large degree. Firstly, foreign companies have been allowed to buy our utility companies (something that is often not permitted in their own country) and most of these companies are now foreign owned.
Secondly, the regulation of these companies is extraordinarily lax and they have increased prices for greater profit, massively (again, something their own countries forbid, hence the interest in coming here), which is the governments fault. And lastly they have been slammed with 'green taxes' and enforced 'buy ins' of ridiculously expensive 'renewable' energy, which is added to the bill. Forced, by the government.
So all in all, the main reason your life is so difficult, is a direct consequence of government action or inaction. Your life is being ruined by the very people who are supposed to run things competently on your behalf. Indeed, the cost of government is due to the incompetence of the people buying in equipment for the MoD or the NHS IT system or indeed, any PFI project. Or Global Warming, or any other of the myriad stupid scams that MP's with their special gullibility and their access to our money, fall for.
So where is the inflation coming from? Well, food prices have been volatile, for not readily discernible reasons and energy prices in particular have sky rocketed. Then there is increased income tax, NI, VAT and things like petrol duty. But the government is also behind the rise of energy prices to a large degree. Firstly, foreign companies have been allowed to buy our utility companies (something that is often not permitted in their own country) and most of these companies are now foreign owned.
Secondly, the regulation of these companies is extraordinarily lax and they have increased prices for greater profit, massively (again, something their own countries forbid, hence the interest in coming here), which is the governments fault. And lastly they have been slammed with 'green taxes' and enforced 'buy ins' of ridiculously expensive 'renewable' energy, which is added to the bill. Forced, by the government.
So all in all, the main reason your life is so difficult, is a direct consequence of government action or inaction. Your life is being ruined by the very people who are supposed to run things competently on your behalf. Indeed, the cost of government is due to the incompetence of the people buying in equipment for the MoD or the NHS IT system or indeed, any PFI project. Or Global Warming, or any other of the myriad stupid scams that MP's with their special gullibility and their access to our money, fall for.
The Scramble To Be The Most Idiotic
Well, troubled times do surely unleash some strange forces. Today we read that as the Eurozone causes worldwide economic turmoil and democracy is eroded right across Europe, Nick Clegg thinks now is not the time for less EU. It's a bit like finding you have gangrene and being pleased.
Also, a full on, square cornered nutcase in Germany says that Britain should follow the German lead as the rest of Europe are (that is Germany, the country definitely not empire building, OK). This is to support a tax on financial transactions he is backing. One that will hit London, so not an issue as far as he is concerned, harder than anywhere else.
But I have a better idea. Why don't we tax luxury cars. Like Mercedes, BMW's, Audi's, Porsche and Bentley's? That would not only be a tax on the rich but a tax that hits a rich country too, which must be the best thing surely?
Also, a full on, square cornered nutcase in Germany says that Britain should follow the German lead as the rest of Europe are (that is Germany, the country definitely not empire building, OK). This is to support a tax on financial transactions he is backing. One that will hit London, so not an issue as far as he is concerned, harder than anywhere else.
But I have a better idea. Why don't we tax luxury cars. Like Mercedes, BMW's, Audi's, Porsche and Bentley's? That would not only be a tax on the rich but a tax that hits a rich country too, which must be the best thing surely?
Monday 14 November 2011
Panorama - The Riots
Jeremy Vine did the voiceover for a BBC programme about the August riots, focussing on Manchester. Early on the point was made that the trouble there was probably due to the lack of success in London. Had the police there contained the rioting, the theory went, then copy cat attacks elsewhere would not have occurred.
There was no attempt to understand the reason for the rioting really, beyond a few facile comments about conditions of life and wanting some clothes. Certainly, Vine didn't trouble himself to recognise his part in causing the riots. People like him, with their idiotic views of the human condition, based on an ideological stance and what he thinks things should be like, rather than any experience, have shown the weakness on which the feral feed.
The same is true of the theory of copy cat riots. It was the weakness shown in London, as left liberal senior police officers found themselves out of their depth and froze while the city burned, that gave the thought its genesis around the country. Whilst the BBC, who probably cannot understand why so many people who are poor and misunderstood, let down their biggest supporters (the BBC) by rioting, did actually mention the damage and heartbreak caused to ordinary people, they couldn't help reverting to type.
A map of 'deprived' areas was shown and this was then overlaid with the locations of arrested rioters homes. 50% we were told came from these deprived areas. Or, to put it the way the BBC can't, half didn't. The programme didn't really tell us anything, but it was interesting to see a senior officer being so critical of colleagues in London. That he was right doesn't make it any less surprising. We wait to hear what official enquiries make of the police (in)action.
There was no attempt to understand the reason for the rioting really, beyond a few facile comments about conditions of life and wanting some clothes. Certainly, Vine didn't trouble himself to recognise his part in causing the riots. People like him, with their idiotic views of the human condition, based on an ideological stance and what he thinks things should be like, rather than any experience, have shown the weakness on which the feral feed.
The same is true of the theory of copy cat riots. It was the weakness shown in London, as left liberal senior police officers found themselves out of their depth and froze while the city burned, that gave the thought its genesis around the country. Whilst the BBC, who probably cannot understand why so many people who are poor and misunderstood, let down their biggest supporters (the BBC) by rioting, did actually mention the damage and heartbreak caused to ordinary people, they couldn't help reverting to type.
A map of 'deprived' areas was shown and this was then overlaid with the locations of arrested rioters homes. 50% we were told came from these deprived areas. Or, to put it the way the BBC can't, half didn't. The programme didn't really tell us anything, but it was interesting to see a senior officer being so critical of colleagues in London. That he was right doesn't make it any less surprising. We wait to hear what official enquiries make of the police (in)action.
A Perfect Society?
The Greeks have often been in a mess. Their mess, which they had to deal with. It wasn't great, but it was up to them to change it. They could seek help, but then they could accept or reject what was offered. Now they are in the EU, Greece to all intents and purposes doesn't exist any more and they must do what they are told.
The Greek PM dithered and was replaced by a technocratic coalition. The Italians, so long unable to get rid of Silvio have now watched as he is disposed of on the orders of the EU. His replacement wasn't even eligible, but suited the EU elites (having been one).
All of this, as Janet Daley so succinctly put it in her Sunday Telegraph column yesterday, is due to the continuing pursuit of left ideology, of a perfect system of government. Think of the supposed 'order' the French revolution was to bring to the system of government and society. But it just killed people in reality. The EU technocrats believe that they too have devised a perfect system, but people have to do what they are told for it to work.
Not a democratic society then. Rather, one run by benevolent elites and I'm sure Stalin saw himself in the same way. In Britain, Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are ancient protections that evolved due to the pressures of reality and as sensible reactions to those pressures. They are bottom up, practical solutions, from within society. It is why Britain has, on the whole had a functioning society without revolutions. That it has slipped more recently is entirely due to the rise of the left in the institutions, by which they corrupt society and from our slavish acceptance of rule from the Continent.
These failed systems of government never go away, because they are so beguiling for the elites that promote them. But they are nothing more than Utopian dreams that don't even get past the first muster. As soon as any structure exists, the elites start dipping their hand into the treasury and thinking up ever more rules to support their own comfort.
The placards, so popular at demonstrations these days, 'not in my name', naively believe that they live in a society where anyone is listening to their opinion. I also read at the weekend that it is ridiculous to claim that the Germans are trying to conquer Europe again. Nigel Lawson used the logic that why, if their intention was to takeover Europe, would the Germans destroy themselves with the economic mess that we have now?
Which kind of answers itself. As the Germans did institute the economic structure that is now (and so predictably) falling apart, then yes, the idea is wholly credible. It would be like saying that because Hitler really, really didn't want a war with Britain and really did believe that he could expand Germany, without a world war ensuing, meant that he never had any empire building intentions. We misread his invasion of Poland.
The EU is not just broken, it is not just dragging us all down by its insistence that we maintain the house built on sand, it is actively dangerous. We must see it destroyed. We must act. By so doing we will save the peoples of Europe and then they can be left to determine their own future. We need a European spring, we need to see the resurgence of democracy here.
The Greek PM dithered and was replaced by a technocratic coalition. The Italians, so long unable to get rid of Silvio have now watched as he is disposed of on the orders of the EU. His replacement wasn't even eligible, but suited the EU elites (having been one).
All of this, as Janet Daley so succinctly put it in her Sunday Telegraph column yesterday, is due to the continuing pursuit of left ideology, of a perfect system of government. Think of the supposed 'order' the French revolution was to bring to the system of government and society. But it just killed people in reality. The EU technocrats believe that they too have devised a perfect system, but people have to do what they are told for it to work.
Not a democratic society then. Rather, one run by benevolent elites and I'm sure Stalin saw himself in the same way. In Britain, Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are ancient protections that evolved due to the pressures of reality and as sensible reactions to those pressures. They are bottom up, practical solutions, from within society. It is why Britain has, on the whole had a functioning society without revolutions. That it has slipped more recently is entirely due to the rise of the left in the institutions, by which they corrupt society and from our slavish acceptance of rule from the Continent.
These failed systems of government never go away, because they are so beguiling for the elites that promote them. But they are nothing more than Utopian dreams that don't even get past the first muster. As soon as any structure exists, the elites start dipping their hand into the treasury and thinking up ever more rules to support their own comfort.
The placards, so popular at demonstrations these days, 'not in my name', naively believe that they live in a society where anyone is listening to their opinion. I also read at the weekend that it is ridiculous to claim that the Germans are trying to conquer Europe again. Nigel Lawson used the logic that why, if their intention was to takeover Europe, would the Germans destroy themselves with the economic mess that we have now?
Which kind of answers itself. As the Germans did institute the economic structure that is now (and so predictably) falling apart, then yes, the idea is wholly credible. It would be like saying that because Hitler really, really didn't want a war with Britain and really did believe that he could expand Germany, without a world war ensuing, meant that he never had any empire building intentions. We misread his invasion of Poland.
The EU is not just broken, it is not just dragging us all down by its insistence that we maintain the house built on sand, it is actively dangerous. We must see it destroyed. We must act. By so doing we will save the peoples of Europe and then they can be left to determine their own future. We need a European spring, we need to see the resurgence of democracy here.
Friday 11 November 2011
Independent Scotland
Scotland has produced some great thinkers and doers. Engineers and scientists, from a country with a high standard of education. That was then and the truth today is Scotland is a land of poverty. Poor health, poor education and a whining victim status as a national trait. And I say this being half Scottish.
I love Scotland and want its glory to return and its people to be a part of our Union. But we have people like Alex Salmond leading them astray. He wants an independent Scotland by which he means one that breaks away from Union with Britain and joins the European Union. So a country ruled from Brussels, or more accurately, a region ruled from Brussels.
Salmond does give an overriding impression of being an imbecile but he is canny enough to know that if he tries to break from the British teat he needs an alternative, to latch on to. He had hoped the EU would do for his Scotland what it had done (in the past!) for Ireland, but we now have the Eurozone disaster. This makes a contribution from Scotland to the EU more likely and the sum talked about is £8 billion.
For a country that cannot survive without funds from the English parliament they show little gratitude, let alone a firm grasp on reality. Desperate times concentrate the mind and as Scottish people come back to thinking about politics properly, they will turn increasingly against a dreamer such as Alex Salmond.
I love Scotland and want its glory to return and its people to be a part of our Union. But we have people like Alex Salmond leading them astray. He wants an independent Scotland by which he means one that breaks away from Union with Britain and joins the European Union. So a country ruled from Brussels, or more accurately, a region ruled from Brussels.
Salmond does give an overriding impression of being an imbecile but he is canny enough to know that if he tries to break from the British teat he needs an alternative, to latch on to. He had hoped the EU would do for his Scotland what it had done (in the past!) for Ireland, but we now have the Eurozone disaster. This makes a contribution from Scotland to the EU more likely and the sum talked about is £8 billion.
For a country that cannot survive without funds from the English parliament they show little gratitude, let alone a firm grasp on reality. Desperate times concentrate the mind and as Scottish people come back to thinking about politics properly, they will turn increasingly against a dreamer such as Alex Salmond.
Tom Watson MP
You don't have to love the Murdoch's or even side with them in any way to find Tom Watson offensive. Indeed if you have a strong sense of morality you would want to seriously question a man like James Murdoch and could not possibly like Tom Watson.
In fact I find it difficult to understand how West Bromwich East finds itself with such an odious person to represent the region? Is he representative of them? Are they all as low as him? A 'toadie' is how the Guardian described him. Hell, even Tony Blair called him 'discourteous'.
Watson is today famous for saying to James Murdoch, during a Parliamentary Committee session, that he was 'the first Mafia boss in history who didn't know he was running a criminal enterprise'. Clearly Watson is disinterested in the substance of the actions of News International, except where he can use it to make personal attacks on the Murdoch's. As I say, James might well be a nasty piece of work, but Tom Watson clearly is.
Whilst you can see Watson as being someone who would appeal to Gordon Brown, I wonder about this outburst. Does parliamentary privilege extend to committees? Because the reason that MPs can say what they like, is that, if denied the facility they would be unable to say things necessary for good government. Does Tom Watson represent good government? Does what he said hold high the standards of our MPs?
By his use of the word 'mafia' Watson betrays his detestation of the Murdoch family, which is irrelevant and beside the point. He then extends the analogy to say that James Murdoch runs a 'criminal enterprise', that is an organisation set up and designed to engage in illegal activity. Clearly this is not the case and this is a straightforward libel.
That some people at News International acted illegally and even if one of those was James Murdoch, that still does not make NI a 'criminal enterprise'. The House of Commons is much more of a criminal enterprise, as Mr. 'well fed' Watson can attest personally, having claimed the maximum allowed for food on his expenses. Obviously, there is no sane nor natural reason why the people of a nation should provide £4,800 in a year for sustenance to a well paid MP, but the rules they gave themselves allow it and by glory Watson will have it.
He did also over claim for some dining chairs and had to return a sum, which seems uncharitable after we have paid so much for his dining. No I don't need someone to be whiter than white to deal with the reprehensible activities of some at News International, but you cannot possibly use someone of such low moral fibre as Watson, to show our disgust by uncovering it. Had it not been the Murdoch's, one suspects that Watson would be seeking employment by an organisation with such tastes and standards.
In fact I find it difficult to understand how West Bromwich East finds itself with such an odious person to represent the region? Is he representative of them? Are they all as low as him? A 'toadie' is how the Guardian described him. Hell, even Tony Blair called him 'discourteous'.
Watson is today famous for saying to James Murdoch, during a Parliamentary Committee session, that he was 'the first Mafia boss in history who didn't know he was running a criminal enterprise'. Clearly Watson is disinterested in the substance of the actions of News International, except where he can use it to make personal attacks on the Murdoch's. As I say, James might well be a nasty piece of work, but Tom Watson clearly is.
Whilst you can see Watson as being someone who would appeal to Gordon Brown, I wonder about this outburst. Does parliamentary privilege extend to committees? Because the reason that MPs can say what they like, is that, if denied the facility they would be unable to say things necessary for good government. Does Tom Watson represent good government? Does what he said hold high the standards of our MPs?
By his use of the word 'mafia' Watson betrays his detestation of the Murdoch family, which is irrelevant and beside the point. He then extends the analogy to say that James Murdoch runs a 'criminal enterprise', that is an organisation set up and designed to engage in illegal activity. Clearly this is not the case and this is a straightforward libel.
That some people at News International acted illegally and even if one of those was James Murdoch, that still does not make NI a 'criminal enterprise'. The House of Commons is much more of a criminal enterprise, as Mr. 'well fed' Watson can attest personally, having claimed the maximum allowed for food on his expenses. Obviously, there is no sane nor natural reason why the people of a nation should provide £4,800 in a year for sustenance to a well paid MP, but the rules they gave themselves allow it and by glory Watson will have it.
He did also over claim for some dining chairs and had to return a sum, which seems uncharitable after we have paid so much for his dining. No I don't need someone to be whiter than white to deal with the reprehensible activities of some at News International, but you cannot possibly use someone of such low moral fibre as Watson, to show our disgust by uncovering it. Had it not been the Murdoch's, one suspects that Watson would be seeking employment by an organisation with such tastes and standards.
Thursday 10 November 2011
Heard It Before
After a serious depression, the German government pledged to make the nation stronger, to join with other European nations in a project to culminate in a single European polity. After the Sudetenland slips into the Union, all eyes turn to Poland to join. And Italy sees the sense of doing as Germany demands.
We have been here before you see. And whilst a sane man would think it ridiculous to start a war with huge loss of life, just to take over other countries, so today we see the destruction of economies to do the same thing. Rerun the scenario with France and Buonaparte (yes, he wasn't even French) if you like. There is a reason why Britain was slow to get involved with the EU project and it relates to why it is always Britain that tries to put things right in Europe, after the latest continental dictator has had his go.
It's probably not connected that France has recently been quietly increasing its military capabilities.
We have been here before you see. And whilst a sane man would think it ridiculous to start a war with huge loss of life, just to take over other countries, so today we see the destruction of economies to do the same thing. Rerun the scenario with France and Buonaparte (yes, he wasn't even French) if you like. There is a reason why Britain was slow to get involved with the EU project and it relates to why it is always Britain that tries to put things right in Europe, after the latest continental dictator has had his go.
It's probably not connected that France has recently been quietly increasing its military capabilities.
Ever Thought About Tax?
Have you ever considered what it costs to run this country? We want the government to run the Armed Forces, police, fire, health services, to empty the bins and many other tasks of collective importance. Then think how much they take off us, in income tax, NI contributions, tax on your car, petrol, on everything (pretty much) you buy. Add in the taxes companies pay (except those the boss of HMRC personally lets off their dues) and it comes to many hundreds of billions of pounds.
But then, under New Labour we found this wasn't enough and many billions more were and are being borrowed. Some of it is spent properly, some of it wasted, some of it spent on pointless projects and some fraudulently whittled away.
It is plain though, that the government does too much. It takes on costs for stupid socialist ideas that achieve nothing but keep some useless parasites in a salary. There are countless organisations, with countless employees doing nothing useful whatsoever and indeed often being a further drain on the productive part of the economy.
The Lords of Misrule have held positions of power for too long and it is time the childish politics of the last 15 years was put away. Most of the money a government raises is a direct waste, pointless. But we lack leadership that can a) see this or b) thinks there is anything wrong with it. So not only do we not have politicians of a calibre to deal with such important issues, but none who are even thinking along those lines.
But then, under New Labour we found this wasn't enough and many billions more were and are being borrowed. Some of it is spent properly, some of it wasted, some of it spent on pointless projects and some fraudulently whittled away.
It is plain though, that the government does too much. It takes on costs for stupid socialist ideas that achieve nothing but keep some useless parasites in a salary. There are countless organisations, with countless employees doing nothing useful whatsoever and indeed often being a further drain on the productive part of the economy.
The Lords of Misrule have held positions of power for too long and it is time the childish politics of the last 15 years was put away. Most of the money a government raises is a direct waste, pointless. But we lack leadership that can a) see this or b) thinks there is anything wrong with it. So not only do we not have politicians of a calibre to deal with such important issues, but none who are even thinking along those lines.
Roosting Pigeons At The BBC
Oh dear, how the nonsense of Left politics is coming unstuck.For those who pay attention things such as the left liberal support for homosexuals and homosexual hating Muslims, against Christianity was clear evidence of faulty thinking. Left liberals have a mechanism in their brains for blanking out inconvenient truths.
Now however, the stupidity of the views of the left liberals are in the full glare of publicity, being tested and seen to fail everywhere. The BBC love the EU. It is socialistic, big government oriented and based on high taxation so fits their ideals. They hate all things Christian and once famously had a spat over the wearing of poppies, being a respectful display, but the BBC is an institution that demands, but doesn't give.
Now we have the BBC trying desperately to 'report' the problems with the Euro without ever mentioning that the only way for the countries struggling to survive, is outside the beloved construct. That the whole EU project doesn't work and the worldwide pain the Euro is causing is 'worth it'.
They are also having to appear to support poppies as it is a cause celebre in light of world football wishing to ban the symbol from its tournaments. Yes, sticking your hand in a fire is a bad idea, unless your ideology tells you to do it, in which case it will be fine!
Now however, the stupidity of the views of the left liberals are in the full glare of publicity, being tested and seen to fail everywhere. The BBC love the EU. It is socialistic, big government oriented and based on high taxation so fits their ideals. They hate all things Christian and once famously had a spat over the wearing of poppies, being a respectful display, but the BBC is an institution that demands, but doesn't give.
Now we have the BBC trying desperately to 'report' the problems with the Euro without ever mentioning that the only way for the countries struggling to survive, is outside the beloved construct. That the whole EU project doesn't work and the worldwide pain the Euro is causing is 'worth it'.
They are also having to appear to support poppies as it is a cause celebre in light of world football wishing to ban the symbol from its tournaments. Yes, sticking your hand in a fire is a bad idea, unless your ideology tells you to do it, in which case it will be fine!
Eurozone, A Designed Disaster
The Euro is the child of two maladjusted cultures. Firstly, France seeking hegemony in Europe as it always has, decided this was the ultimate trick to con sovereign nations. Secondly you have Germany. Economically powerful, it felt it had the right to control Europe and using a currency mechanism made absolute sense. The French of course, were happy for them to pay for the project.
What is kept out of the current news stories, even though this crisis is of monumental importance, is the fact that the whole problem is the Euro itself. Although France and Germany hoped putting a currency in place before political union (which actually means France running a European empire) would cause a crisis, it was supposed to be small scale and as soon as it emerged, the elites would say the only answer was union and that would be it. Job done.
However, on the back of a worldwide downturn, events are running out of control (although there is also the irony that, as the EU is so badly run it allowed these Southern European countries to lie about finances and generally be unreliable on tax collection). All the talk of bailouts and debt cancelling is to save the political EU, nothing else. France and Germany consider that they are able to tell Greece, Italy et al what to do. Introduce austerity measures, cancel democracy, don't hold referendums, all to support their politics.
But what these impoverished countries need to do is to float their currency and work and export their way out of crisis. In the Eurozone, they cannot do this, so the only way to balance the books is to raise taxes (and actually collect them) but don't spend anything on public services, just repay the French and German banks.
Is this the Europe we want, the one David Cameron cleaves to? A single nation, based on a Leninist style of rule by elites, a cadre of unelected technocrats of no discernible ability? The Euro is a much worse disaster than it was designed to be, not least because the desire behind it is one of empire-building greed, of megalomania. Unless France and Germany are faced down by strong politicians the future is bleak but predictable. But the world is dominated by centre-Left idiots like Cameron and Obama, with the scheming Chinese hovering in the background, helping the French to be stupid.
What is kept out of the current news stories, even though this crisis is of monumental importance, is the fact that the whole problem is the Euro itself. Although France and Germany hoped putting a currency in place before political union (which actually means France running a European empire) would cause a crisis, it was supposed to be small scale and as soon as it emerged, the elites would say the only answer was union and that would be it. Job done.
However, on the back of a worldwide downturn, events are running out of control (although there is also the irony that, as the EU is so badly run it allowed these Southern European countries to lie about finances and generally be unreliable on tax collection). All the talk of bailouts and debt cancelling is to save the political EU, nothing else. France and Germany consider that they are able to tell Greece, Italy et al what to do. Introduce austerity measures, cancel democracy, don't hold referendums, all to support their politics.
But what these impoverished countries need to do is to float their currency and work and export their way out of crisis. In the Eurozone, they cannot do this, so the only way to balance the books is to raise taxes (and actually collect them) but don't spend anything on public services, just repay the French and German banks.
Is this the Europe we want, the one David Cameron cleaves to? A single nation, based on a Leninist style of rule by elites, a cadre of unelected technocrats of no discernible ability? The Euro is a much worse disaster than it was designed to be, not least because the desire behind it is one of empire-building greed, of megalomania. Unless France and Germany are faced down by strong politicians the future is bleak but predictable. But the world is dominated by centre-Left idiots like Cameron and Obama, with the scheming Chinese hovering in the background, helping the French to be stupid.
Wednesday 9 November 2011
Border Controls
I have to say that Theresa May would have less problem with Immigration if her government had a strong policy on the subject, otherwise I do have some sympathy. The nit running the Border Agency, seems like the head of the CPS to think his appointment is of a political nature and he should make policy decisions himself. He has said that the problem goes back to 2008, so I wonder if the idiot Cooper, calling for full disclosure of all relevant documentation should really be so keen.
New Labour of course, famously decided that we didn't need border controls and checks on people working here could be performed by recruitment agencies and employers. I hear today as well, that Yvette Cooper has called on May to tell the truth, which kind of implies she has been lying up to now. Hardly polite speech and I would have thought a liar would have been seen as a kindred spirit, very New Labour.
I remember being told years ago that checks on non EU nationals were not being carried out fully, by order, so people could openly lie about qualifications and family resident in the UK, to obtain permission to come to Britain. So it is nothing new and not confined to EU nationals.
Why do politicians make the simple job of maintaining a national definition, so hard?
New Labour of course, famously decided that we didn't need border controls and checks on people working here could be performed by recruitment agencies and employers. I hear today as well, that Yvette Cooper has called on May to tell the truth, which kind of implies she has been lying up to now. Hardly polite speech and I would have thought a liar would have been seen as a kindred spirit, very New Labour.
I remember being told years ago that checks on non EU nationals were not being carried out fully, by order, so people could openly lie about qualifications and family resident in the UK, to obtain permission to come to Britain. So it is nothing new and not confined to EU nationals.
Why do politicians make the simple job of maintaining a national definition, so hard?
Bargain Hunt
Comet has been sold for £2, which gives some indication of the mess it is in. The new owners say there is no plan to close stores and the company will carry on trading as is for the next few months. I'm not sure I can see a future for Comet though. The sort of changes needed should have happened long ago and no short term strategy would seem to offer salvation.
I saw only asset strippers as being interested and we shall have to see if that is the way it turns out. As I have said before, the time is right for an established player to take advantage of these weaknesses to secure market share, though with the lead feet they have shown to date, I doubt they will. The sector needs some radical rethinking of the way they do business and the service they can offer. It needs different relationships with suppliers, involved more with product development and a structural change to incentivise staff, localised.
Argos put out job ads for strategic staff who can 'think outside the box' and 'bring new ideas' to the company. They then ask for experience of large retail and a MBA, to maximise the chances of recruiting someone who fits into the current box and doesn't have an iota of initiative. The problems in companies starts with the way they recruit and I don't think anyone realises this yet.
I saw only asset strippers as being interested and we shall have to see if that is the way it turns out. As I have said before, the time is right for an established player to take advantage of these weaknesses to secure market share, though with the lead feet they have shown to date, I doubt they will. The sector needs some radical rethinking of the way they do business and the service they can offer. It needs different relationships with suppliers, involved more with product development and a structural change to incentivise staff, localised.
Argos put out job ads for strategic staff who can 'think outside the box' and 'bring new ideas' to the company. They then ask for experience of large retail and a MBA, to maximise the chances of recruiting someone who fits into the current box and doesn't have an iota of initiative. The problems in companies starts with the way they recruit and I don't think anyone realises this yet.
Tuesday 8 November 2011
Let The Farce Be With You
A line of smart, well presented people stand proud in slightly purple shirts. Vapour swirls around brightly lit by a light we cannot see, but cutting through the otherwise dark night. The wet, black ground shines and glistens in the glare.
The camera shot changes to now show a view, from outside; the comforting glow from a shop, PC World/Curry's it says. A voice is heard, 'serve you, I will'. The camera moves slightly from side to side, then down, revealing just in front of the serried ranks of staff, Yoda. 'Oh hi' says the store manager.
'News of the dark forces, there is' says our green friend. 'Yes', replies the manager walking with the Jedi into the store, 'shutting all their stores apparently'.
'Good prices a buyer will not make', continues the small guru, 'but friend he be, that is served well'. Indeed.
Anyway, you get the drift. Yoda had to be a better choice than Darth Vader. Undoubtedly there is something cool about Darth Vader, but for heavens sake, so is there about the Sheriff of Nottingham when Alan Rickman plays him, but it is still wrong.
The camera shot changes to now show a view, from outside; the comforting glow from a shop, PC World/Curry's it says. A voice is heard, 'serve you, I will'. The camera moves slightly from side to side, then down, revealing just in front of the serried ranks of staff, Yoda. 'Oh hi' says the store manager.
'News of the dark forces, there is' says our green friend. 'Yes', replies the manager walking with the Jedi into the store, 'shutting all their stores apparently'.
'Good prices a buyer will not make', continues the small guru, 'but friend he be, that is served well'. Indeed.
Anyway, you get the drift. Yoda had to be a better choice than Darth Vader. Undoubtedly there is something cool about Darth Vader, but for heavens sake, so is there about the Sheriff of Nottingham when Alan Rickman plays him, but it is still wrong.
Best Buy Ever
Best Buy is to close all its UK stores, probably by Christmas. The inevitability of this was writ large soon after they opened. Brash, unexciting and with a style that is tasteless and cheap the company moved into a crowded sector, with no USP.
The bosses are saying, 'it's OK though, we are making lots of money elsewhere', but if I were a shareholder I would be asking the people who issue such smug assertions, 'why?' Why think you can sail into the UK and be successful just because you arrive? What was missing that you provided? The idea was so hopeless they either didn't bother to check with anyone here first, or if they did it must have been someone of the calibre of Tony Blair, who just told them what they wanted to hear.
Mugged over for a lot of pounds sterling Best Buy are retreating with their tail between their legs. Comet are probably breathing a sigh of relief. I wouldn't. Comet is the British version of Best Buy, Shabby, aiming at the wrong sector, no 'stand out' offering and out of date thinking.
Bloody funny to see the PC World/Curry's ads launch majoring on customer service and then alongside a Tesco ad saying they employ specialists in their electrical department. I was nearly on the floor laughing. Tesco; pretending to be anything other than a multiple seller. Had they restyled and separated their electrical's, making it a store within a store, then perhaps the specialist staff bit might have worked.
Why does the assistant smell fishy? Not because he does dodgy deals but because he has just come from the fish counter because electrical's were short of staff. Now, did you want me to fillet that toaster? I see Tesco these days as an aggressive, soulless warehouse leading the way with the new supermarket disease of loads of supervisors running around, ordering staff about and getting in the way of customers (whilst ignoring real issues under their nose).
So, in an upside down world, PC World don't see themselves as a specialist and Tesco do. Watch out too, for the soon to appear Christmas panic. I predict that a number of struggling retailers will soon go into overdrive trying to attract custom with ever crazier offers. If you have a good offering, stay clam, maintain your resolve and things will be OK. They may not be stupendous, but steely nerves will see you through. It is not so much what you buy and what you sell, as your philosophy. You get it right, because you think right.
The bosses are saying, 'it's OK though, we are making lots of money elsewhere', but if I were a shareholder I would be asking the people who issue such smug assertions, 'why?' Why think you can sail into the UK and be successful just because you arrive? What was missing that you provided? The idea was so hopeless they either didn't bother to check with anyone here first, or if they did it must have been someone of the calibre of Tony Blair, who just told them what they wanted to hear.
Mugged over for a lot of pounds sterling Best Buy are retreating with their tail between their legs. Comet are probably breathing a sigh of relief. I wouldn't. Comet is the British version of Best Buy, Shabby, aiming at the wrong sector, no 'stand out' offering and out of date thinking.
Bloody funny to see the PC World/Curry's ads launch majoring on customer service and then alongside a Tesco ad saying they employ specialists in their electrical department. I was nearly on the floor laughing. Tesco; pretending to be anything other than a multiple seller. Had they restyled and separated their electrical's, making it a store within a store, then perhaps the specialist staff bit might have worked.
Why does the assistant smell fishy? Not because he does dodgy deals but because he has just come from the fish counter because electrical's were short of staff. Now, did you want me to fillet that toaster? I see Tesco these days as an aggressive, soulless warehouse leading the way with the new supermarket disease of loads of supervisors running around, ordering staff about and getting in the way of customers (whilst ignoring real issues under their nose).
So, in an upside down world, PC World don't see themselves as a specialist and Tesco do. Watch out too, for the soon to appear Christmas panic. I predict that a number of struggling retailers will soon go into overdrive trying to attract custom with ever crazier offers. If you have a good offering, stay clam, maintain your resolve and things will be OK. They may not be stupendous, but steely nerves will see you through. It is not so much what you buy and what you sell, as your philosophy. You get it right, because you think right.
Monday 7 November 2011
M5 Crash
The horrific scenes of the pile up on the M5 motorway are truly shocking. Of course we need to understand how the accident happened, but probably more important we need to be clear as to why fires started. Cars generally don't catch fire in accidents, but if petrol is leaking and either a metal on metal spark, or the electrics of a car ignites it, then there is little that can be done. But I think that hydraulic fluids are to blame too often.
I am absolutely sure I read some years ago, that the standard for such fluids was changed and a more flammable fluid was brought into use. The brake master cylinder on many cars of course, is near the exhaust manifold. I cannot find anything to substantiate this though at present.
Currently, the police are concentrating on the theory that a firework display a few hundred yards away from the motorway caused a cloud of smoke so dense that it obscured the view of the drivers and caused the accident. Presumably, the dense cloud was fairly localised as the other carriageway didn't have a similar accident at the same time, 'caused by the smoke'. I have never seen a 'firework display' cause enveloping clouds of smoke even at a big show and in the immediate vicinity, let alone some distance away, over some trees and then down an embankment.
I realise the police tend to be steered by the sensation seeking media, which includes the BBC very much in the advance guard these days, but it might be nice if they phrased it that they were considering and investigating the possibility, rather than help the press ramp up half-witted ideas.
Talking of half-wits, it is truly disgusting to see the usual crowd pop up and try to get accidents such as this to support their political ideas. This crash we are assured,. would have been worse had the 80 mph limit been in force. Naturally, there is no explanation as to why this would be the case. It is like the complete non story a few weeks ago showing a Ford Focus crashing into a wall at 120mph. The car was absolutely demolished and the point made that many ordinary cars of capable of close to such speeds these days.
Thing is, very few people drive cars of any description at such speeds except the odd lunatic and criminals trying to avoid taking responsibility for their crimes. And I don't think any of these also drive into very solid objects at 120mph. Even they are tempted to reduce their speed by braking, even if they do ultimately crash.
This is the same type of cant that underwrites the 'speed kills' twaddle. We are shown pictures of kids mown down by drivers doing 40 where the 'limit' is 30. At 40 mph we are told the child will die, at 30 she could have lived. Back in the real world drivers brake, so the speed isn't 40 at impact and no reference is made to why the child is in the road. Children do unexpected things, so we should be ready for the unexpected, they say.
Whilst true, you do need to base that on something. If you are near a school, only a moron doesn't watch out for kids (though still a moron, some of course will be watching their speedometer rather than the road, so as not to break mandatory speed limits). Personally, I try to drive to the prevailing conditions rather than slavishly match the constant exhortations on sign posts, this however involves thinking for yourself, which I believe may have been outlawed recently.
Speed doesn't kill, disparity of speed does. Quite often accidents are caused by drivers panic braking when they enter a patch of fog, for instance. The car behind is not so challenged by the appearance of fog and may slow down but not drastically. This is where he meets the much slower, panicked driver. If these two don't crash, the wave of progressive braking behind them probably will result in a crash. But as we don't appear to teach people to drive any more, just obey rules, this sort of thing is more likely to occur.
The loss of life on the M5 is what is important. To try to minimise the likelihood of it happening again should be our goal. But with the prospect of cameras attracting some ambitious policeman's attention and a need for drama heightened, we are more likely to get guesswork and supposition. Any dedicated professional trying to properly understand what happened is likely to be told he is taking too long and costing too much money. A result is needed while Sky News are still focussed on the story.
I am absolutely sure I read some years ago, that the standard for such fluids was changed and a more flammable fluid was brought into use. The brake master cylinder on many cars of course, is near the exhaust manifold. I cannot find anything to substantiate this though at present.
Currently, the police are concentrating on the theory that a firework display a few hundred yards away from the motorway caused a cloud of smoke so dense that it obscured the view of the drivers and caused the accident. Presumably, the dense cloud was fairly localised as the other carriageway didn't have a similar accident at the same time, 'caused by the smoke'. I have never seen a 'firework display' cause enveloping clouds of smoke even at a big show and in the immediate vicinity, let alone some distance away, over some trees and then down an embankment.
I realise the police tend to be steered by the sensation seeking media, which includes the BBC very much in the advance guard these days, but it might be nice if they phrased it that they were considering and investigating the possibility, rather than help the press ramp up half-witted ideas.
Talking of half-wits, it is truly disgusting to see the usual crowd pop up and try to get accidents such as this to support their political ideas. This crash we are assured,. would have been worse had the 80 mph limit been in force. Naturally, there is no explanation as to why this would be the case. It is like the complete non story a few weeks ago showing a Ford Focus crashing into a wall at 120mph. The car was absolutely demolished and the point made that many ordinary cars of capable of close to such speeds these days.
Thing is, very few people drive cars of any description at such speeds except the odd lunatic and criminals trying to avoid taking responsibility for their crimes. And I don't think any of these also drive into very solid objects at 120mph. Even they are tempted to reduce their speed by braking, even if they do ultimately crash.
This is the same type of cant that underwrites the 'speed kills' twaddle. We are shown pictures of kids mown down by drivers doing 40 where the 'limit' is 30. At 40 mph we are told the child will die, at 30 she could have lived. Back in the real world drivers brake, so the speed isn't 40 at impact and no reference is made to why the child is in the road. Children do unexpected things, so we should be ready for the unexpected, they say.
Whilst true, you do need to base that on something. If you are near a school, only a moron doesn't watch out for kids (though still a moron, some of course will be watching their speedometer rather than the road, so as not to break mandatory speed limits). Personally, I try to drive to the prevailing conditions rather than slavishly match the constant exhortations on sign posts, this however involves thinking for yourself, which I believe may have been outlawed recently.
Speed doesn't kill, disparity of speed does. Quite often accidents are caused by drivers panic braking when they enter a patch of fog, for instance. The car behind is not so challenged by the appearance of fog and may slow down but not drastically. This is where he meets the much slower, panicked driver. If these two don't crash, the wave of progressive braking behind them probably will result in a crash. But as we don't appear to teach people to drive any more, just obey rules, this sort of thing is more likely to occur.
The loss of life on the M5 is what is important. To try to minimise the likelihood of it happening again should be our goal. But with the prospect of cameras attracting some ambitious policeman's attention and a need for drama heightened, we are more likely to get guesswork and supposition. Any dedicated professional trying to properly understand what happened is likely to be told he is taking too long and costing too much money. A result is needed while Sky News are still focussed on the story.
Friday 4 November 2011
People Are Amazing
Question Time last night was more interesting than usual (or maybe me having a bad cold made it seem interesting). Ed Balls was, as you would expect, talking arrant nonsense 99% of the time, Theresa May was toeing the party line, we had a poet who was very 'of the people', but like a broken clock right sometimes.
Dimbleby drummed his fingers waiting for Peter Hitchens to finish speaking as he plainly wasn't interested in what he had to say and even seemed to laugh at his suggestion that he achieved happiness through his belief in God. Hitchens did have what seemed like a childish outburst at Balls though, saying 'he could do his job better, any day of the week'. But then when you think about the level of incompetence of Ed Balls you realise Hitchens was just being accurate.
Someone in the audience said that she thought public sector workers were special people, low paid and deserved more than private sector workers. Dim carefully avoided asking her if she worked in the public sector, just as he cut off the erudite girl who was making a point he wasn't interested in. A teacher made the point that the government were reneging on a deal he entered when he became a teacher. True, but a) that is the main role of government these days it seems, to start things on bold promises and pull the rug later, when reality bites them, and b) it still isn't funded.
The public sector don't seem to be able to grasp that what they have been promised as pensions they haven't paid enough to cover. They might pay a lot (a policeman said 11%) but it still doesn't pay for what they get. For that, they take money off other people, who will almost definitely be on a worse deal than them (and probably paid less too. They kept mentioning teachers as low paid, and then an example was given of a teacher on £38K at retirement (very low paid, you'll agree) will get a £25K pension. Sweet.
The EU was the best bit though and Dim didn't have to direct things away from dangerous statements either, everyone was dim enough on their own. No one grasped that what is going on at the EU is, at best disingenuous. Greece isn't being bailed out, for two reasons. One, the money is for French, German and American banks and two, once the austerity measures are imposed as the cost of getting the money(!), the Greeks will still be caught in the Euro, with no ability whatsoever to get out of this crisis.
We keep hearing that if the Euro collapses it will be disastrous for the world, but without any explanation as to why. Because it would be no more a disaster than when they all joined up (that was just the seed of a disaster). What has been shown in the clear though, is the lengths to which the EU elites will go to destroy opposition and the absolute lack of democracy in the institution.
Dimbleby drummed his fingers waiting for Peter Hitchens to finish speaking as he plainly wasn't interested in what he had to say and even seemed to laugh at his suggestion that he achieved happiness through his belief in God. Hitchens did have what seemed like a childish outburst at Balls though, saying 'he could do his job better, any day of the week'. But then when you think about the level of incompetence of Ed Balls you realise Hitchens was just being accurate.
Someone in the audience said that she thought public sector workers were special people, low paid and deserved more than private sector workers. Dim carefully avoided asking her if she worked in the public sector, just as he cut off the erudite girl who was making a point he wasn't interested in. A teacher made the point that the government were reneging on a deal he entered when he became a teacher. True, but a) that is the main role of government these days it seems, to start things on bold promises and pull the rug later, when reality bites them, and b) it still isn't funded.
The public sector don't seem to be able to grasp that what they have been promised as pensions they haven't paid enough to cover. They might pay a lot (a policeman said 11%) but it still doesn't pay for what they get. For that, they take money off other people, who will almost definitely be on a worse deal than them (and probably paid less too. They kept mentioning teachers as low paid, and then an example was given of a teacher on £38K at retirement (very low paid, you'll agree) will get a £25K pension. Sweet.
The EU was the best bit though and Dim didn't have to direct things away from dangerous statements either, everyone was dim enough on their own. No one grasped that what is going on at the EU is, at best disingenuous. Greece isn't being bailed out, for two reasons. One, the money is for French, German and American banks and two, once the austerity measures are imposed as the cost of getting the money(!), the Greeks will still be caught in the Euro, with no ability whatsoever to get out of this crisis.
We keep hearing that if the Euro collapses it will be disastrous for the world, but without any explanation as to why. Because it would be no more a disaster than when they all joined up (that was just the seed of a disaster). What has been shown in the clear though, is the lengths to which the EU elites will go to destroy opposition and the absolute lack of democracy in the institution.
These Are Not The PC's You Are Looking For
Yep, PC World is to run another Star Wars themed advert this year. You have to say they were spectacular last year and maybe we should be looking forward to the visual feast. The message is that PC World have great customer service, though based on what they don't say.
However, the character of choice this year is..... Darth Vader. Please correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't he just the tiniest bit evil in the films? Not lovable or cute, but dark and forbidding. Anyway it is he who inspects the customer service on offer by PC World, just as if he were inspecting the Death Star. I presume the stores have been checked for vulnerable air conditioning ducting that might let an X wing Fighter in.
So all in all it would appear that PC World are really saying, 'Come over to the dark side, we have cookies'. Brilliant ad no doubt, but failed message. I think someone is too tied up in getting the Star Wars ad without thinking through why.
However, the character of choice this year is..... Darth Vader. Please correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't he just the tiniest bit evil in the films? Not lovable or cute, but dark and forbidding. Anyway it is he who inspects the customer service on offer by PC World, just as if he were inspecting the Death Star. I presume the stores have been checked for vulnerable air conditioning ducting that might let an X wing Fighter in.
So all in all it would appear that PC World are really saying, 'Come over to the dark side, we have cookies'. Brilliant ad no doubt, but failed message. I think someone is too tied up in getting the Star Wars ad without thinking through why.
Wednesday 2 November 2011
Always The French
It is perhaps now quite well known that the Common Market/EEC/EU is a French attempt at creating a French empire (once again), but perhaps it is not so widely recognised how the scheming and machinations of French politicians has caused many major problems.
French attempts to dominate Scotland in the 1600's (indeed to talk it into becoming a French colony) lie behind much of the animosity of the Scots towards England. Similarly, French involvement in Ireland was responsible for the troubles there. That is not to say the English didn't cause plenty of problems too, just that resolution wasn't on the cards as the French were continually whispering in ears.
The American War of Independence was largely backed by the French and subsequent attempts to turn the US against Britain were common. In Europe of course, Napoleon made his desires clear and France started the 1870 Franco-Prussian War. France was very big on threatening Germany before the First World War, but made a spectacular mess, again, of defending itself and required others to rescue them.
Having rolled over in the early stages of the Second World War, with de Gaulle hiding in Britain, it was suggested that the two countries should be united. Which two countries would that be then Mr. de Gaulle? Britain and...... oh yes, you personally. Not a good bargain, non? The French also have a great propensity for calling themselves an Empire. They love the grand sounding word. Britain had an empire in reality, but didn't actually call the state itself, the British Empire.
The French decided they wanted nothing to do with NATO as it was mainly an Anglo-Saxon concern, but when it all kicked off in Serbia they demanded to be involved and demanded to be told of NATO plans. Once informed, they passed on the information to their Serbian friends.
Now we have the latest failure of French politicking, the disaster of the Euro and the destruction of the Greek, Italian, Irish, Portuguese and Spanish economies. With France and Germany threatened by their own hubris.
French attempts to dominate Scotland in the 1600's (indeed to talk it into becoming a French colony) lie behind much of the animosity of the Scots towards England. Similarly, French involvement in Ireland was responsible for the troubles there. That is not to say the English didn't cause plenty of problems too, just that resolution wasn't on the cards as the French were continually whispering in ears.
The American War of Independence was largely backed by the French and subsequent attempts to turn the US against Britain were common. In Europe of course, Napoleon made his desires clear and France started the 1870 Franco-Prussian War. France was very big on threatening Germany before the First World War, but made a spectacular mess, again, of defending itself and required others to rescue them.
Having rolled over in the early stages of the Second World War, with de Gaulle hiding in Britain, it was suggested that the two countries should be united. Which two countries would that be then Mr. de Gaulle? Britain and...... oh yes, you personally. Not a good bargain, non? The French also have a great propensity for calling themselves an Empire. They love the grand sounding word. Britain had an empire in reality, but didn't actually call the state itself, the British Empire.
The French decided they wanted nothing to do with NATO as it was mainly an Anglo-Saxon concern, but when it all kicked off in Serbia they demanded to be involved and demanded to be told of NATO plans. Once informed, they passed on the information to their Serbian friends.
Now we have the latest failure of French politicking, the disaster of the Euro and the destruction of the Greek, Italian, Irish, Portuguese and Spanish economies. With France and Germany threatened by their own hubris.
Tuesday 1 November 2011
Bale Out!
So the EU, having offered enormous sums of money they don't have or know where they can get it from, to rescue the banks who loaned money to Greece, now see the Greeks asking their people what they think. It is a bit like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas but maybe it is the right thing to do. Naturally, it has thrown the EU elites into raptures of panic and upset the markets too.
The Greeks have lied about their economic position previously, to join the EU and the Euro. They have been somewhat remiss in collecting taxes and generally making the country work. People retire early on big pensions. Only an institution as fundamentally corrupt and stupid as the EU could have allowed it to go on for so long. The others in a mess, always believed the EU was looking after their finances; if they needed extra funds they would come from 'papa EU'.
But how very dare the Greeks ask their people to give their view? Have the elites not made it clear repeatedly, that democracy has no place in the modern EU? David Cameron manages to toe the line, so how very embarrassing that some backward, broken down, bankrupt country be so ungrateful as to hold a referendum.
And we are told by vested interests that the EU is essential to our economic survival, yet it is the very organisation that, by continuing to support the Euro beyond all bounds of reason merely because it underpins their political objectives, is dragging down not just the British economy but that of the whole world. France and its partner in crime, Germany have, as usual, a lot to answer for.
The Greeks have lied about their economic position previously, to join the EU and the Euro. They have been somewhat remiss in collecting taxes and generally making the country work. People retire early on big pensions. Only an institution as fundamentally corrupt and stupid as the EU could have allowed it to go on for so long. The others in a mess, always believed the EU was looking after their finances; if they needed extra funds they would come from 'papa EU'.
But how very dare the Greeks ask their people to give their view? Have the elites not made it clear repeatedly, that democracy has no place in the modern EU? David Cameron manages to toe the line, so how very embarrassing that some backward, broken down, bankrupt country be so ungrateful as to hold a referendum.
And we are told by vested interests that the EU is essential to our economic survival, yet it is the very organisation that, by continuing to support the Euro beyond all bounds of reason merely because it underpins their political objectives, is dragging down not just the British economy but that of the whole world. France and its partner in crime, Germany have, as usual, a lot to answer for.
BBC 'News'
Wow, the BBC seem to be ramping up the bias on their news, unless it is just someone controlling breakfast news today. After a report about how manufacturing seems to be picking up, the 'advert' for its next slot asked how companies would cope with consumer spending down and growth down. The report about the anti-capitalism tents (I don't know if there are any people involved) at St Paul's had close ups, repeatedly, of a banner saying 'What would Jesus do?'. This of course appeals to the Left liberal type, lacking a religious motivation as well as basing their ideology on spite as they do. The banner is clearly designed to appeal to the conscience of the religious, which is a cruel trick by people who clearly don't have a conscience at all.
A piece about the government's attack on gang culture involved interviewing a Professor who provided some nice attacks on the suggestions, but little helpful advice and a woman who had grown up in a respectable family, yet still joined a gang. Her comments were listened to or ignored depending on which bits fitted left liberal ideology. When she said she doubted the government initiatives would work, there was great interest. When she said that she made the choices that caused her to join a gang (and ultimately leave) she was ignored.
Making choices suggests empowerment as opposed to victim status and as every fool knows people only join gangs because they are in some way victims. I'm not forced to pay for the Guardian (well, apart from it surviving on state funded advertising!) so why am I forced to pay for an ideologically corrupt institution like the BBC?
A piece about the government's attack on gang culture involved interviewing a Professor who provided some nice attacks on the suggestions, but little helpful advice and a woman who had grown up in a respectable family, yet still joined a gang. Her comments were listened to or ignored depending on which bits fitted left liberal ideology. When she said she doubted the government initiatives would work, there was great interest. When she said that she made the choices that caused her to join a gang (and ultimately leave) she was ignored.
Making choices suggests empowerment as opposed to victim status and as every fool knows people only join gangs because they are in some way victims. I'm not forced to pay for the Guardian (well, apart from it surviving on state funded advertising!) so why am I forced to pay for an ideologically corrupt institution like the BBC?
Monday 31 October 2011
War And Peace
The Italian press are reporting that a return of terrorism is likely if the labour reforms demanded by the EU are enacted. Now, whilst it might be Italy that is wrong in this scenario, it is nevertheless a fact. But just as the Euro assumes all countries have identical financial and economic situations, so the EU itself assumes ever country has the same systems of justice and social standards.
Nick Clegg believes this too and David Cameron has been swept up thinking the EU is actually a functioning Utopia. In Britain, I can go to Scotland and leaving aside some local traditions and customs, feel no different than at home. This is patently not true if I were to go to Italy. There is only the slimmest of shared experience. This has been covered up by the EU technocrats as of no consequence, because as they get their way, national traits will be steamrollered out of existence. Except they aren't.
The fault lies with the short-termism of politicians. They do not act for the long term good of their country, but for the short term, gains that reflect on them immediately (because we are too stupid to understand the long game). So they do not examine a system and see how best to achieve an end result, they just pile in and expect things to turn out OK. If an effort had been made to create a European standard, to show up the nature of our shared civilization, it may still have not been instantaneous, but we would be well on the way.
Instead, the nearest we get is forced solutions; a Europe wide police force, employment laws, health and safety edicts, Human Rights and the Code Napoleon. The usual big government solution, top down instruction. They didn't even consider best practice here, otherwise much would emulate the UK systems, rather than imposing French ones that don't even work well there. No, the EU had at its core the kernel of a decent idea, but instead of cleverly working out a system to suit a diverse citizenry, they designed a system to suit French politicians and technocrats. It was bound to fail. Arrogance always does.
Nick Clegg believes this too and David Cameron has been swept up thinking the EU is actually a functioning Utopia. In Britain, I can go to Scotland and leaving aside some local traditions and customs, feel no different than at home. This is patently not true if I were to go to Italy. There is only the slimmest of shared experience. This has been covered up by the EU technocrats as of no consequence, because as they get their way, national traits will be steamrollered out of existence. Except they aren't.
The fault lies with the short-termism of politicians. They do not act for the long term good of their country, but for the short term, gains that reflect on them immediately (because we are too stupid to understand the long game). So they do not examine a system and see how best to achieve an end result, they just pile in and expect things to turn out OK. If an effort had been made to create a European standard, to show up the nature of our shared civilization, it may still have not been instantaneous, but we would be well on the way.
Instead, the nearest we get is forced solutions; a Europe wide police force, employment laws, health and safety edicts, Human Rights and the Code Napoleon. The usual big government solution, top down instruction. They didn't even consider best practice here, otherwise much would emulate the UK systems, rather than imposing French ones that don't even work well there. No, the EU had at its core the kernel of a decent idea, but instead of cleverly working out a system to suit a diverse citizenry, they designed a system to suit French politicians and technocrats. It was bound to fail. Arrogance always does.
The Stupid Race
As David Cameron does everything in his power to prove that he has absolutely no idea what goes on in the lives of ordinary people, who have had to work for a living, up pops a contender for the 'Most Stupid' title. Cameron wanders from irrelevant dingbat idea to picking exactly the opposite of the correct position on every important point. He believes in AGW, thinks wind farms have some utility and supports the idea of the EU.
But Nick Clegg may have the drop on him. He thinks we would commit 'economic suicide' if we pulled out of the EU. What, I wonder does he think is going on inside the EU, if it is not economic suicide? Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. And frankly, I don't think we should stay in a construct just because the Deputy PM's wife is doing nicely out of it thank you. Mind you, that is all the Project is about; the promotion and fulfilment of vested interests.
We should leave, leave now and hope that someone of sense rises to the fore in Europe, else war is not far off. France will see to that. It has spent the last five decades politicking to get the Germans to pay for its empire, but the Germans know a thing or two about taking over other countries and are not so easily misled. The Sunday Times said we are being forced into a United States of Europe by this financial crisis. That is the sort of cant Clegg (and Cameron) believe. In no way does, or would the unification of Europe under Franco-German rule resemble the US. Its entire design is to recreate a Soviet nation of absolutism.
But Nick Clegg may have the drop on him. He thinks we would commit 'economic suicide' if we pulled out of the EU. What, I wonder does he think is going on inside the EU, if it is not economic suicide? Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. And frankly, I don't think we should stay in a construct just because the Deputy PM's wife is doing nicely out of it thank you. Mind you, that is all the Project is about; the promotion and fulfilment of vested interests.
We should leave, leave now and hope that someone of sense rises to the fore in Europe, else war is not far off. France will see to that. It has spent the last five decades politicking to get the Germans to pay for its empire, but the Germans know a thing or two about taking over other countries and are not so easily misled. The Sunday Times said we are being forced into a United States of Europe by this financial crisis. That is the sort of cant Clegg (and Cameron) believe. In no way does, or would the unification of Europe under Franco-German rule resemble the US. Its entire design is to recreate a Soviet nation of absolutism.
Friday 28 October 2011
A Bit Obvious, Dave
Is David Cameron just a less accomplished Blair, or are we a bit wiser after having such a duplicitous character in No10? Dave, Davey-Boy, the Big D, says that the British people don't need a say on Europe, there is nothing to worry about. Then starts screaming about the poor bankers and the EU upsetting them.
We know how Blair got rich and we know how cosy Brown was with banks (only helpful people get to open the new Lehman building, even if it didn't last long!), but now we seem to be being told that Cameron is on the same train. We could have got you out of this pickle Dave. All you had to do was give us the referendum and then (as it would have been a resounding 'out' vote) you could go to Brussels with some real ammo.
You see, unlike the stories you and your ilk tell us Dave, you can't have some EU, you either do what you are told or you leave. And you don't want to leave, do you Dave? Why not? What is in it for you, because there really isn't anything in it for us?
Dave, get your head out of the bubble for a second. It was St Crispin's day last Tuesday, making this an excellent time of year to stick two fingers up to the French (and Germans). And yes I know it is not supposed to be true, but then nor is 'seal up the walls with our English dead'. The power is in the image.
We know how Blair got rich and we know how cosy Brown was with banks (only helpful people get to open the new Lehman building, even if it didn't last long!), but now we seem to be being told that Cameron is on the same train. We could have got you out of this pickle Dave. All you had to do was give us the referendum and then (as it would have been a resounding 'out' vote) you could go to Brussels with some real ammo.
You see, unlike the stories you and your ilk tell us Dave, you can't have some EU, you either do what you are told or you leave. And you don't want to leave, do you Dave? Why not? What is in it for you, because there really isn't anything in it for us?
Dave, get your head out of the bubble for a second. It was St Crispin's day last Tuesday, making this an excellent time of year to stick two fingers up to the French (and Germans). And yes I know it is not supposed to be true, but then nor is 'seal up the walls with our English dead'. The power is in the image.
Thursday 27 October 2011
Amazonian
Profits down 73% at Amazon. Oops. But hey, the idea is that they spend on the hardware now, to create a large captive client base for 'soft' products later. A little pain now is necessary for the bigger picture to evolve. Which is a great idea if someone else with a broad UK profile and access to a larger library wasn't around.
This means that Kindle will have to compete with other products, which wasn't quite the plan. I think it was supposed to dominate. Certainly the amount of advertising seemed to be aimed that way. Kindle, Hoover, Windows, that kind of thing.
But now is a bad time to take a rather large dent in profits and I don't think it is all Kindle based. Amazon does too much (a common complaint, but still true), but more importantly it's pricing mechanism is driving the company not the other way around. Running a business is about finding smart ways to make a margin, but Amazon have targeted crushing the competition. It isn't working, but so far they are sticking with it. I wonder how it is going? 73%.
There is a similar arrogance at work in our supermarkets. They have acquired a belief from somewhere that they can do what they like (surely not from politicians?) and rather like Banking, seem to be run by some remarkably stupid people. Years ago Sainsbury's used to regularly make the news because offers advertised around the store were not repeated at the till. So when you checked your receipt you found that the half price fish fingers were in fact charged at full price. Just a mistake, the central computer hadn't been updated with the offer, sorry. But it kept happening. So careless. No really, care less.
Tesco launch a massive media campaign about price drops, even getting them to add that this time it is a real price war. Except it wasn't. They had quietly put up the prices, so that they could drop them to much fanfare later. The greedy so and so's even 'dropped' the price to somewhere higher than they were a couple of months before. And rioters who raid their stores go to jail!
This means that Kindle will have to compete with other products, which wasn't quite the plan. I think it was supposed to dominate. Certainly the amount of advertising seemed to be aimed that way. Kindle, Hoover, Windows, that kind of thing.
But now is a bad time to take a rather large dent in profits and I don't think it is all Kindle based. Amazon does too much (a common complaint, but still true), but more importantly it's pricing mechanism is driving the company not the other way around. Running a business is about finding smart ways to make a margin, but Amazon have targeted crushing the competition. It isn't working, but so far they are sticking with it. I wonder how it is going? 73%.
There is a similar arrogance at work in our supermarkets. They have acquired a belief from somewhere that they can do what they like (surely not from politicians?) and rather like Banking, seem to be run by some remarkably stupid people. Years ago Sainsbury's used to regularly make the news because offers advertised around the store were not repeated at the till. So when you checked your receipt you found that the half price fish fingers were in fact charged at full price. Just a mistake, the central computer hadn't been updated with the offer, sorry. But it kept happening. So careless. No really, care less.
Tesco launch a massive media campaign about price drops, even getting them to add that this time it is a real price war. Except it wasn't. They had quietly put up the prices, so that they could drop them to much fanfare later. The greedy so and so's even 'dropped' the price to somewhere higher than they were a couple of months before. And rioters who raid their stores go to jail!
What Would You Have Done?
Suppose for a moment that you have been accused on rape by your cleaner, which means you have been arrested and held in a cell for a while. Then you are put on trial. Very quickly the trial falls apart as the 'victim' very clearly isn't telling the truth.
The question is, how would you feel? Relieved immediately I'm sure, but what about when you consider what happened? Would you be incredulous that you had ever been arrested let alone that it got to court? I mean, it all fell apart so quickly that a little stress testing before hand should surely have shown up the flaws? What if you were also someone 'important' and this had all happened in the full glare of publicity?
I would imagine the normal person would kick off mightily and a somewhat more famous person seek some redress, noisily. Now think about the Strauss-Kahn case. He seems to be taking things quite calmly. Which started my conspiracy nose twitching, even though I don't generally get caught up in the crop circle, the US government did 9/11 craziness.
You see, from what I recall, Strauss-Kahn was kicked out of the IMF and Christine Lagarde installed in lightning quick time. Even teachers accused of interfering with their charges get suspended until proven guilty and yet a very important executive, of an internationally important organisation was out on his ear as soon as the allegation was in. And I wonder why.
The IMF have recently been muttering about pitching in to support the Eurozone, which drags in countries like Britain, whereas before we could avoid more costly payments. A useful extra source of income and one that you might have thought would be more diligent. The Eurozone is in crisis because some states are having the wrong 'exchange rate' applied to their currency, the one-size-fits-all Euro. It is set to work for countries like Germany and France of course (after all, it is their empire) and the problems it is causing Southern Europe were as predictable as night following day.
So the obvious solution is to release them from their obligation and let them float their own currency. But if they were so allowed it would weaken the imperative of a single political union, which is what the objective is, not solving the Euro crisis. This then requires any and all efforts to be applied to propping up the Euro until the political union is in place and there is frantic activity taking place, well out of sight of the compliant media to exactly that end.
The question is, did Strauss-Kahn object to the IMF being dragged in and so was disposed of, the threat being 'look what we can do, now be quiet and go away', probably with an 'or else' added for good measure. The great game of creating a Franco-German version of the USSR is well under way and nothing can be allowed to stop it, not even high profile figures. It would be like allowing someone to expose the lies about WMD before the Iraq invasion.
The question is, how would you feel? Relieved immediately I'm sure, but what about when you consider what happened? Would you be incredulous that you had ever been arrested let alone that it got to court? I mean, it all fell apart so quickly that a little stress testing before hand should surely have shown up the flaws? What if you were also someone 'important' and this had all happened in the full glare of publicity?
I would imagine the normal person would kick off mightily and a somewhat more famous person seek some redress, noisily. Now think about the Strauss-Kahn case. He seems to be taking things quite calmly. Which started my conspiracy nose twitching, even though I don't generally get caught up in the crop circle, the US government did 9/11 craziness.
You see, from what I recall, Strauss-Kahn was kicked out of the IMF and Christine Lagarde installed in lightning quick time. Even teachers accused of interfering with their charges get suspended until proven guilty and yet a very important executive, of an internationally important organisation was out on his ear as soon as the allegation was in. And I wonder why.
The IMF have recently been muttering about pitching in to support the Eurozone, which drags in countries like Britain, whereas before we could avoid more costly payments. A useful extra source of income and one that you might have thought would be more diligent. The Eurozone is in crisis because some states are having the wrong 'exchange rate' applied to their currency, the one-size-fits-all Euro. It is set to work for countries like Germany and France of course (after all, it is their empire) and the problems it is causing Southern Europe were as predictable as night following day.
So the obvious solution is to release them from their obligation and let them float their own currency. But if they were so allowed it would weaken the imperative of a single political union, which is what the objective is, not solving the Euro crisis. This then requires any and all efforts to be applied to propping up the Euro until the political union is in place and there is frantic activity taking place, well out of sight of the compliant media to exactly that end.
The question is, did Strauss-Kahn object to the IMF being dragged in and so was disposed of, the threat being 'look what we can do, now be quiet and go away', probably with an 'or else' added for good measure. The great game of creating a Franco-German version of the USSR is well under way and nothing can be allowed to stop it, not even high profile figures. It would be like allowing someone to expose the lies about WMD before the Iraq invasion.
Wednesday 26 October 2011
More And Less Union
The European Union is a busted flush. It was a bad idea from the outset (I know not everyone would agree, but Hitler and Napoleon had supporters too, didn't make it right though) and only survived because the elites adopted the old British bobbies saying, 'move along, nothing to see here'. Now people are looking and they don't like what has been going on. The careful rules to protect the power of the elite, the special shops that only they can use (all heavily discounted of course) and the disappearing money.
Added to this now, we have the idiocy of supporting a currency that doesn't fit every country in the so called Eurozone, but is forced on them regardless. You know when you try to put the wrong lid on something and it just won't fit? You realise and stop trying don't you, but this is exactly what the Eurozone is currently facing and endless meetings are taking place to find a way to make the lid fit. It is the classic ideological conundrum; how to make the answer you want fit reality (which is stubbornly different).
We have to stop waiting for our political 'leaders' to raise the Europe issue; we must do so ourselves. It is time that the cosy agreement between our three main political parties to not mention the EU during elections was ended. Let us get serious about democracy while we still have it and demand our say. Not just in a referendum, but always, at every stage. And the repatriation of powers is not something to aim for (as Cameron suggests he might, one day), but an essential legal requirement to put Britain back on its correct footing.
But exiting one Union because it was madness to have even joined is only part of the historic requirements on our shoulders today. The Union that makes up the United Kingdom should be recovered. Oh, I'm sure the little dictators that seemed to have popped up out of nowhere in Scotland in particular, will claim it is a plot is smother their country again, but clearly it isn't. Britain is much weaker without Scotland and Wales as integral parts. Look to our history and the contribution these people have made to our nation.
Yes, more effort is needed, in these technologically capable times to make wealth creation more widespread (and that includes looking to England's North, too), but generally together we are stronger. It was, again, to weaken Britain and increase the ease with which the EU could swallow up our countries that the 'regions' were created in the first place. Perhaps the cruellest of jokes; pretend independence.
Look how stupid the leaders are. Look at the crackpot and unfinanced schemes they implement to win your hearts and trick your minds. Scotland in particular is heading towards a very Greek future. Remember too some of the great minds and achievements of the past. But what is Scotland famous for today? Nothing positive and everything with a whinge. In an age when being a victim is in vogue, Scotland leads.
The Welsh have quietly ignored the suggestion that they too get on with being stupid and the country is seriously turning around. No more patronising and uneconomic steelworks to appease them. Real effort by the people is bringing rewards. Though many of the civil servants will have to retrain; that bit of patronising job generation cannot go on.
To achieve all of this the United Kingdom first needs a great leader, the likes of which we have not seen in a long time. A leader unlike the venal, snivelling wretches we have had of late. A leader of vision and purpose, who puts the nation and its people first. It can be done, but it needs a radical change in mindset. A drastic move away from the Leftist brainwashing to which we have been subjected in the West for too long. Don't let those rich-enough-to-be-Socialist prats who invade St Paul's and other places have their way any more. The fight back needs to start now.
Added to this now, we have the idiocy of supporting a currency that doesn't fit every country in the so called Eurozone, but is forced on them regardless. You know when you try to put the wrong lid on something and it just won't fit? You realise and stop trying don't you, but this is exactly what the Eurozone is currently facing and endless meetings are taking place to find a way to make the lid fit. It is the classic ideological conundrum; how to make the answer you want fit reality (which is stubbornly different).
We have to stop waiting for our political 'leaders' to raise the Europe issue; we must do so ourselves. It is time that the cosy agreement between our three main political parties to not mention the EU during elections was ended. Let us get serious about democracy while we still have it and demand our say. Not just in a referendum, but always, at every stage. And the repatriation of powers is not something to aim for (as Cameron suggests he might, one day), but an essential legal requirement to put Britain back on its correct footing.
But exiting one Union because it was madness to have even joined is only part of the historic requirements on our shoulders today. The Union that makes up the United Kingdom should be recovered. Oh, I'm sure the little dictators that seemed to have popped up out of nowhere in Scotland in particular, will claim it is a plot is smother their country again, but clearly it isn't. Britain is much weaker without Scotland and Wales as integral parts. Look to our history and the contribution these people have made to our nation.
Yes, more effort is needed, in these technologically capable times to make wealth creation more widespread (and that includes looking to England's North, too), but generally together we are stronger. It was, again, to weaken Britain and increase the ease with which the EU could swallow up our countries that the 'regions' were created in the first place. Perhaps the cruellest of jokes; pretend independence.
Look how stupid the leaders are. Look at the crackpot and unfinanced schemes they implement to win your hearts and trick your minds. Scotland in particular is heading towards a very Greek future. Remember too some of the great minds and achievements of the past. But what is Scotland famous for today? Nothing positive and everything with a whinge. In an age when being a victim is in vogue, Scotland leads.
The Welsh have quietly ignored the suggestion that they too get on with being stupid and the country is seriously turning around. No more patronising and uneconomic steelworks to appease them. Real effort by the people is bringing rewards. Though many of the civil servants will have to retrain; that bit of patronising job generation cannot go on.
To achieve all of this the United Kingdom first needs a great leader, the likes of which we have not seen in a long time. A leader unlike the venal, snivelling wretches we have had of late. A leader of vision and purpose, who puts the nation and its people first. It can be done, but it needs a radical change in mindset. A drastic move away from the Leftist brainwashing to which we have been subjected in the West for too long. Don't let those rich-enough-to-be-Socialist prats who invade St Paul's and other places have their way any more. The fight back needs to start now.
Tuesday 25 October 2011
The Madness Goes On
I wonder if, during the Great Depression politics was subsumed by a sideshow? Did the statesmen of the time try to resolve the financial crisis (doubtless all seeking advantage) or did they, as now try to support some ridiculous political idea on the side, that is designed only for an elite (as empires generally are)?
Cameron is supposedly fine about his MP's voting against his edict (why issue one then?) and says he understands. I'm sure he understands a number of things in politics, but good government isn't one of them. He truly is just creating another branch of the Labour Party. This country needs to avoid the EU like the plague, as it is, literally, a plague on all our houses. Cameron claims not to see this. He feels the EU is a great institution, though needs some reform.
He says he is going to demand that reform. Firstly, he is a small part of the EU and can demand until he is blue in the face, but they will do precisely what they want to do. Secondly, he isn't even being sincere. Why did he agree to the last Treaty obligations if he wanted to exert some muscle? Why not make your case from the moment you took office? Because he is as much a lap dog of Brussels as was the definition of self serving cowardice, Tony Blair, before him.
Consider what Cameron says and then does. He said he was in favour of a referendum on the EU now he is fervently against it. He said he wants smaller government and a bigger society, but by continuing to agree to (illegally!) transferring sovereignty to Brussels he is playing his part in making the biggest of big governments. His only consistency is in supporting the undemocratic EU, as this accords with denying the people of this country a democratic vote on its future.
Why is a political empire across Europe a good thing? Particularly one that allows no democracy (your MEP's do not make the law in the EU, they just sign it off on instruction). The Euro clearly doesn't work but they are doing anything but using common sense to resolve the crisis. Why would a system of law that negates Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and Common Law, replacing it all with the Code Napoleon that makes the state the entity and the people its vassals, be a good idea? Why, to consider a small, but important detail, do their police have immunity from prosecution?
The EU is the most corrupt form of banditry the World has ever seen, so perhaps we should not be surprised that senior politicians in a (just about) democratic country, prevail on their colleagues to put self before the Country and its people. The wealth of Blair awaits those who play by the rules.
Cameron is supposedly fine about his MP's voting against his edict (why issue one then?) and says he understands. I'm sure he understands a number of things in politics, but good government isn't one of them. He truly is just creating another branch of the Labour Party. This country needs to avoid the EU like the plague, as it is, literally, a plague on all our houses. Cameron claims not to see this. He feels the EU is a great institution, though needs some reform.
He says he is going to demand that reform. Firstly, he is a small part of the EU and can demand until he is blue in the face, but they will do precisely what they want to do. Secondly, he isn't even being sincere. Why did he agree to the last Treaty obligations if he wanted to exert some muscle? Why not make your case from the moment you took office? Because he is as much a lap dog of Brussels as was the definition of self serving cowardice, Tony Blair, before him.
Consider what Cameron says and then does. He said he was in favour of a referendum on the EU now he is fervently against it. He said he wants smaller government and a bigger society, but by continuing to agree to (illegally!) transferring sovereignty to Brussels he is playing his part in making the biggest of big governments. His only consistency is in supporting the undemocratic EU, as this accords with denying the people of this country a democratic vote on its future.
Why is a political empire across Europe a good thing? Particularly one that allows no democracy (your MEP's do not make the law in the EU, they just sign it off on instruction). The Euro clearly doesn't work but they are doing anything but using common sense to resolve the crisis. Why would a system of law that negates Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and Common Law, replacing it all with the Code Napoleon that makes the state the entity and the people its vassals, be a good idea? Why, to consider a small, but important detail, do their police have immunity from prosecution?
The EU is the most corrupt form of banditry the World has ever seen, so perhaps we should not be surprised that senior politicians in a (just about) democratic country, prevail on their colleagues to put self before the Country and its people. The wealth of Blair awaits those who play by the rules.
Monday 24 October 2011
Referenda
There has been an enormous buzz about this somewhat forced debate today on whether a referendum on their future should be allowed for the people. Cameron got himself in this mess by clearly saying what suited him, at the time. The principled objection of quite a number of Conservative MP's throws his shallowness into sharp profile.
What amuses me though is the standard of the Left media reporting. As usual they are only interested in bashing the Tories, so for them the whole story is Tory disunity. Actually, the only issue here is whether the imploding EU is something we should be part of. It costs us an enormous amount of money and it offers us no benefit. By 'us' I mean the people of the United Kingdom, excepting senior politicians. They are very much inside the EU tent and have no intention of upsetting the gravy train.
This backward, inward looking cabal of anti-democratic tinpot despots are still desperately calling black, white to keep their sinking ship afloat. The Euro is destroying the EU, but just by denying it, the problem is solved apparently. and it is to be one of these people, that is David Cameron's fervent desire. We are threatened that if we left the EU, the countries remaining would not trade with us. When the lies have to be that blatant, you know they have nothing, no argument.
Let us be clear. Cameron is trying to deny that the British people want a say and that say is that they want to break away from the bunch of crooks calling themselves the EU elite. He shows exactly the same contempt for democracy that his masters in Brussels do. At this moment of political crisis across Europe, the real conversations going on are not those about Greek bailouts, they are the preparations to unite Europe as a single nation. This has always been the goal and they do not want to miss the opportunity that this crisis presents. Strangely, for once, the German people could save Europe, by having no part of this Soviet takeover.
That Cameron is so terrified of the people's vote is important, because neither he, Parliament, the Queen or the people can hand Britain to a foreign power. No one has that ability, but Ted Heath did exactly that. That is the real scandal, that these days politicians have come to act as if they are above the law. They have (and this is not unnecessarily dramatic, just true) committed treason, it is as simple as that. They have handed effective control of this country to a foreign power, Brussels and it was never in their gift to do so. It is a war that Germany and France have been fighting since the Second World War and their empire is crashingly close. But financial crisis is making their duplicity plain. There may be much violence unless these extremists are defied whilst some democracy remains.
The principled objection by some Tories is to their credit, there were scant few Labour MP's with principles (as ever) and of course, the Lib Dems just look for opportunities and popular schemes to get power. Popular in the Westminster bubble that is.
What amuses me though is the standard of the Left media reporting. As usual they are only interested in bashing the Tories, so for them the whole story is Tory disunity. Actually, the only issue here is whether the imploding EU is something we should be part of. It costs us an enormous amount of money and it offers us no benefit. By 'us' I mean the people of the United Kingdom, excepting senior politicians. They are very much inside the EU tent and have no intention of upsetting the gravy train.
This backward, inward looking cabal of anti-democratic tinpot despots are still desperately calling black, white to keep their sinking ship afloat. The Euro is destroying the EU, but just by denying it, the problem is solved apparently. and it is to be one of these people, that is David Cameron's fervent desire. We are threatened that if we left the EU, the countries remaining would not trade with us. When the lies have to be that blatant, you know they have nothing, no argument.
Let us be clear. Cameron is trying to deny that the British people want a say and that say is that they want to break away from the bunch of crooks calling themselves the EU elite. He shows exactly the same contempt for democracy that his masters in Brussels do. At this moment of political crisis across Europe, the real conversations going on are not those about Greek bailouts, they are the preparations to unite Europe as a single nation. This has always been the goal and they do not want to miss the opportunity that this crisis presents. Strangely, for once, the German people could save Europe, by having no part of this Soviet takeover.
That Cameron is so terrified of the people's vote is important, because neither he, Parliament, the Queen or the people can hand Britain to a foreign power. No one has that ability, but Ted Heath did exactly that. That is the real scandal, that these days politicians have come to act as if they are above the law. They have (and this is not unnecessarily dramatic, just true) committed treason, it is as simple as that. They have handed effective control of this country to a foreign power, Brussels and it was never in their gift to do so. It is a war that Germany and France have been fighting since the Second World War and their empire is crashingly close. But financial crisis is making their duplicity plain. There may be much violence unless these extremists are defied whilst some democracy remains.
The principled objection by some Tories is to their credit, there were scant few Labour MP's with principles (as ever) and of course, the Lib Dems just look for opportunities and popular schemes to get power. Popular in the Westminster bubble that is.
Thursday 20 October 2011
Bloody Democracy!
David 'Cast Iron Guarantee' Cameron is running scared. Having promised, absolutely with a cross my heart and cast iron guarantee, to hold a referendum on Europe he reneged after having used it as a trick to get (nearly) elected. Cameron seems to have a fundamental disagreement with the electors inasmuch that he doesn't think he is there to serve anyone, but just to be important and tell people what to do. It is the belief of most of our political class.
He then said that if 100,000 people signed a petition online, then parliament would debate the subject. That number was quickly and easily surpassed in support of a referendum on the EU, so initially an 'oh dear, there isn't time' ploy was tried, but here we are now with a debate looming. But damn it all, democracy is again being an inconvenience, because the MP's want to be able to vote according to the wishes of their constituents, rather than doing what Cameron says.
The debate was going to happen while the man impassioned about democracy in other countries and a deep Eurosceptic who thinks we should stay in, was not going to be about, so he is now desperate to bring it forward to Monday. The Tory policy of never talking about 'Europe' doesn't seem to have panned out too well.
James Delingpole has proclaimed him the Worst Tory Prime Minister Ever, but I don't think he is there quite yet. The lies and weakness of Edward Heath still take some beating. But I don't know that it is the confusion of a Coalition that is causing these problems. I do seriously wonder how bad Cameron would have been had he received a decent overall majority; he shows all the signs that he would be a 'Blair Too' and that really would have shot him straight to the top of the charts.
He then said that if 100,000 people signed a petition online, then parliament would debate the subject. That number was quickly and easily surpassed in support of a referendum on the EU, so initially an 'oh dear, there isn't time' ploy was tried, but here we are now with a debate looming. But damn it all, democracy is again being an inconvenience, because the MP's want to be able to vote according to the wishes of their constituents, rather than doing what Cameron says.
The debate was going to happen while the man impassioned about democracy in other countries and a deep Eurosceptic who thinks we should stay in, was not going to be about, so he is now desperate to bring it forward to Monday. The Tory policy of never talking about 'Europe' doesn't seem to have panned out too well.
James Delingpole has proclaimed him the Worst Tory Prime Minister Ever, but I don't think he is there quite yet. The lies and weakness of Edward Heath still take some beating. But I don't know that it is the confusion of a Coalition that is causing these problems. I do seriously wonder how bad Cameron would have been had he received a decent overall majority; he shows all the signs that he would be a 'Blair Too' and that really would have shot him straight to the top of the charts.
Instinct
I remain confused. What is instinct and how does it get passed on? I say passed on, but some say this is the wrong way of looking at it, that it is no more passed on than the ability to grow a limb in the right place. I think that not only misses the point, but kind of underestimates the importance and complexity of the limb issue.
Instinct may be seen as a behaviour, but it is a very, very important one and something that cannot be left to learning. Those for whom the ideology of Darwinism must be followed at all times, will say that it is just that the behaviour seen as an instinct just means those are more likely to survive, just like having the best placed limbs does. But for me, this is even weaker that the evolution theory that only the best survive.
A baby kangaroo is born, clings to its mothers fur, climbs up to the pouch, crawls in and feeds on the teat there. That is quite a chain of events to encode let alone for it to have evolved and only its children survived. In a survival of the fittest competition, making things that difficult for the newborn would seem a recipe for disaster, but then I'm not tied to the ideology, just seeking answers.
In every debate I've seen though, the original question of instinct rapidly shoots off into discussions of behaviour and I don't think that is the place to start. For me, I question how the instinct comes about. I feel that it is a learned behaviour that is so important that through some mechanism it becomes implanted and yes, then grows just as sure a piece of us as a limb.
Problem is though, whether through Darwinian luck or learned behaviour that realises, even at an unconscious level, its importance and is encoded, how did the first Joey make the trip? I guess at some point kangaroo's may have assisted the newborn on its way, but then, progressively decided they couldn't be bothered and left the tot to his own devices, by which time the encoding was in place.
I don't think this is blind watchmaker stuff though. I think there is a mechanism that tells the brain to hard wire certain things that are repeatedly important. Like when I exercise and this damages the muscle, which repairs itself but 'decides' to repair itself stronger all the better to meet the challenge it didn't cope with so well before. Why would our bodies 'assume' that? Why is the repair not random in its achievements, making the muscle sometimes stronger sometimes not.
It is not an evolutionary benefit, it is an instant benefit and we all do it. Oh I know, it is only creatures that developed this trait that survived, hence it is universal. That is part of the problem I have with the Theory of Evolution; that all pronouncements about it rely on hindsight, a wonderful gift but not very useful for scientific endeavour. In fact, it positively inhibits it.
Instinct may be seen as a behaviour, but it is a very, very important one and something that cannot be left to learning. Those for whom the ideology of Darwinism must be followed at all times, will say that it is just that the behaviour seen as an instinct just means those are more likely to survive, just like having the best placed limbs does. But for me, this is even weaker that the evolution theory that only the best survive.
A baby kangaroo is born, clings to its mothers fur, climbs up to the pouch, crawls in and feeds on the teat there. That is quite a chain of events to encode let alone for it to have evolved and only its children survived. In a survival of the fittest competition, making things that difficult for the newborn would seem a recipe for disaster, but then I'm not tied to the ideology, just seeking answers.
In every debate I've seen though, the original question of instinct rapidly shoots off into discussions of behaviour and I don't think that is the place to start. For me, I question how the instinct comes about. I feel that it is a learned behaviour that is so important that through some mechanism it becomes implanted and yes, then grows just as sure a piece of us as a limb.
Problem is though, whether through Darwinian luck or learned behaviour that realises, even at an unconscious level, its importance and is encoded, how did the first Joey make the trip? I guess at some point kangaroo's may have assisted the newborn on its way, but then, progressively decided they couldn't be bothered and left the tot to his own devices, by which time the encoding was in place.
I don't think this is blind watchmaker stuff though. I think there is a mechanism that tells the brain to hard wire certain things that are repeatedly important. Like when I exercise and this damages the muscle, which repairs itself but 'decides' to repair itself stronger all the better to meet the challenge it didn't cope with so well before. Why would our bodies 'assume' that? Why is the repair not random in its achievements, making the muscle sometimes stronger sometimes not.
It is not an evolutionary benefit, it is an instant benefit and we all do it. Oh I know, it is only creatures that developed this trait that survived, hence it is universal. That is part of the problem I have with the Theory of Evolution; that all pronouncements about it rely on hindsight, a wonderful gift but not very useful for scientific endeavour. In fact, it positively inhibits it.
Argos It
Well, as I predicted the decline of Argos gets ever more evident. Profits down 94% (Guardian) is saying something and quite loudly, though it seems Management can't hear it. The Argos business lost its MD in June and she hasn't been replaced yet. Why? And a review of how they do business concluded that they were doing the right things.
Despite this, or perhaps because of it(?) they are also looking into other areas, a TV channel and insurance sales, books, anything it seems. What the hell is Argos about and where is the leadership? In a booming economy retail life is like little skirmishes in war. Generally the army (business) is kept in good order and lower level officers fight little battles here and there. The army moves in the direction the General sets, but not with any panic.
A recession is a full scale battle, when the deployment of forces and the use of different aspects of the army needs to be played well. The General needs to be visibly active and calm, issuing clear commands. What of the above applies to Argos? Head Office recruit buyers who have no experience, which given a glance at the catalogue comes as no surprise. If it is an attempt to break the cycle and bring in fresh thinking it is to be applauded, though HRG don't seem to show that kind of initiative.
If you had to think of what Argos currently resembles most, I think it would be Woolworths. They are selling way too much in too many areas, relying on the bottom end of the market and without a clear strategy. I predict that the share price will start to suffer soon.
My other two favourites are probably reaching decision time too; Best Buy and Comet. Which one will go first, because go they will. There is over capacity in the electronics retail sector and both offer no clear advantage for customers. They are only worth the (knock down) value of their stock. Curry's/PC World stand to gain, but given that their profile continues to address the bottom end of the market and with no bold statements from the leadership, may not do half as well as they could.
This is fairly apparent , but the fact that the share price resolutely fails to move upwards, suggest the market is concerned about the lack of endeavour too. My bet is that the share price will move up, as the sector clears out the dead wood, but surely the objective should be to strike early and seize the day?
Despite this, or perhaps because of it(?) they are also looking into other areas, a TV channel and insurance sales, books, anything it seems. What the hell is Argos about and where is the leadership? In a booming economy retail life is like little skirmishes in war. Generally the army (business) is kept in good order and lower level officers fight little battles here and there. The army moves in the direction the General sets, but not with any panic.
A recession is a full scale battle, when the deployment of forces and the use of different aspects of the army needs to be played well. The General needs to be visibly active and calm, issuing clear commands. What of the above applies to Argos? Head Office recruit buyers who have no experience, which given a glance at the catalogue comes as no surprise. If it is an attempt to break the cycle and bring in fresh thinking it is to be applauded, though HRG don't seem to show that kind of initiative.
If you had to think of what Argos currently resembles most, I think it would be Woolworths. They are selling way too much in too many areas, relying on the bottom end of the market and without a clear strategy. I predict that the share price will start to suffer soon.
My other two favourites are probably reaching decision time too; Best Buy and Comet. Which one will go first, because go they will. There is over capacity in the electronics retail sector and both offer no clear advantage for customers. They are only worth the (knock down) value of their stock. Curry's/PC World stand to gain, but given that their profile continues to address the bottom end of the market and with no bold statements from the leadership, may not do half as well as they could.
This is fairly apparent , but the fact that the share price resolutely fails to move upwards, suggest the market is concerned about the lack of endeavour too. My bet is that the share price will move up, as the sector clears out the dead wood, but surely the objective should be to strike early and seize the day?
Wednesday 19 October 2011
Static Travellers
The Dale Farm eviction has kicked off. On TV we have seen a genuinely distressed protester, concerned that the police easily walked in through a fence at the back, totally unexpected. The protester is of course just that, a protester, not an owner of the land. Her annoyance was merely at being outsmarted, claiming as she did that the bailiffs should have come in first. Thy may well have done, but it was obvious that a breach of the peace was likely, due to outsiders being present, barricades built and people chained to heavy objects.
This twerp, was bleating about the authorities not following the rules, whilst insisting 'her side' didn't need to. In a way she was appealing to the camera (as these idiots do) as an info box at the bottom of the Sky News picture showed a poll result, with 92% thinking the 'Travellers' should be forcibly evicted. Clearly they only have the support of society wreckers, not society.
With rent-a-mob (they call themselves political protesters, but I just go for accuracy) throwing rocks at the police, they also bleated that the police were being violent. A Marcusean 'lying is telling the truth' commentator in the studio was saying that the police were causing the trouble, causing a breach of the peace. I think, as I have said in other posts, people are beginning to understand what these people are up to and the scales are falling from their eyes.
Basically, all of these protesters act like self indulgent children, just like babies crying for more sweets. Their arguments have all the same lack of cohesion and resort to ludicrous lies to make some case that only works in their heads. The 'Travellers' naturally are no better. Chancers and exploiters of weakness, this time someone has stood up to them.
Examine their claims; they have nowhere to go, the eviction doesn't give them time to make other arrangements and it is all a conspiracy because they don't live a 'normal' life. Well, the process has taken ten years, which I think is sufficient time to make alternative plans. As for their difference from 'normal' people, it certainly isn't because they are Travellers, bearing in mind that they have bought a piece of land and illegally built on it a permanent settlement.
No, the only way that they are different is that they believe the law should apply to others but not them. And the protesters are not there for them. Oh some of them doubtless will be dreamers, but the hard core will be there merely to cause a nuisance and highlight Travellers as a minority that is 'suffering'. This is to cause a schism in our society and civilisation. They are political terrorists and should be jailed just as the rioters were. They should be shown that we are intolerant of them and that the police will support the law abiding and the greater part of our settled society.
This twerp, was bleating about the authorities not following the rules, whilst insisting 'her side' didn't need to. In a way she was appealing to the camera (as these idiots do) as an info box at the bottom of the Sky News picture showed a poll result, with 92% thinking the 'Travellers' should be forcibly evicted. Clearly they only have the support of society wreckers, not society.
With rent-a-mob (they call themselves political protesters, but I just go for accuracy) throwing rocks at the police, they also bleated that the police were being violent. A Marcusean 'lying is telling the truth' commentator in the studio was saying that the police were causing the trouble, causing a breach of the peace. I think, as I have said in other posts, people are beginning to understand what these people are up to and the scales are falling from their eyes.
Basically, all of these protesters act like self indulgent children, just like babies crying for more sweets. Their arguments have all the same lack of cohesion and resort to ludicrous lies to make some case that only works in their heads. The 'Travellers' naturally are no better. Chancers and exploiters of weakness, this time someone has stood up to them.
Examine their claims; they have nowhere to go, the eviction doesn't give them time to make other arrangements and it is all a conspiracy because they don't live a 'normal' life. Well, the process has taken ten years, which I think is sufficient time to make alternative plans. As for their difference from 'normal' people, it certainly isn't because they are Travellers, bearing in mind that they have bought a piece of land and illegally built on it a permanent settlement.
No, the only way that they are different is that they believe the law should apply to others but not them. And the protesters are not there for them. Oh some of them doubtless will be dreamers, but the hard core will be there merely to cause a nuisance and highlight Travellers as a minority that is 'suffering'. This is to cause a schism in our society and civilisation. They are political terrorists and should be jailed just as the rioters were. They should be shown that we are intolerant of them and that the police will support the law abiding and the greater part of our settled society.
Tuesday 18 October 2011
Here We Go
The first objections to Shale Gas are appearing. I see news reported that the recent minor tremors in Blackpool were due to the 'fracking' that is a part of extracting Shale Gas. Though the report also said that these tiny rumbles were not likely to get larger if the extraction continued and that they would cause no damage, I'm guessing all the latter stuff will get lost. No, I think we will be seeing 'Shale Gas Causes Earthquakes' and that will be it.
In the Sunday Times (hell, that used to be a good paper) I read a story about how the climate was very much hotter 55 million years ago and that even the poles were lush with vegetation and the temperature and humidity that was likely would have meant large scale, long lasting hurricanes would have raged.
Entirely to be expected the article went on to say that this was due to there being more CO2 in the atmosphere and that we are causing that again through our burning of fossil fuels. Whilst it did point out that the current situation is something less than 500 parts per million of CO2 in the air and that 55 million years ago is was more like 1,500-2,000 ppm, it did skip some important detail.
It struck me that there was a glaring omission in the article; why did the CO2 concentration increase? And why so sure that this was responsible for the warming? Usually, it is the other way around, the increase follows the warming. Still, a computer model said it would cause the storms and you know computers, they are never wrong. Not least because the 'experts' knowledge of weather is absolute and complete and programmers only write perfect software, that is never influenced by ideology.
In the Sunday Times (hell, that used to be a good paper) I read a story about how the climate was very much hotter 55 million years ago and that even the poles were lush with vegetation and the temperature and humidity that was likely would have meant large scale, long lasting hurricanes would have raged.
Entirely to be expected the article went on to say that this was due to there being more CO2 in the atmosphere and that we are causing that again through our burning of fossil fuels. Whilst it did point out that the current situation is something less than 500 parts per million of CO2 in the air and that 55 million years ago is was more like 1,500-2,000 ppm, it did skip some important detail.
It struck me that there was a glaring omission in the article; why did the CO2 concentration increase? And why so sure that this was responsible for the warming? Usually, it is the other way around, the increase follows the warming. Still, a computer model said it would cause the storms and you know computers, they are never wrong. Not least because the 'experts' knowledge of weather is absolute and complete and programmers only write perfect software, that is never influenced by ideology.
When No Means Yes
There is a naive belief in many people that, as you can prove things right or wrong that anyone postulating something must be honest, because otherwise they would be found out. There are several problems with this though. Firstly, as with any propaganda if you repeat it often enough people come to believe it. Secondly, it has become too prevalent lately that people accept the utterances of 'experts', mainly it seems as it releases those people from having to consider the matter themselves.
Lastly though is the more pernicious reason and the most dangerous. Because the Left don't accept proof and truth. For them, like political correctness it is wrong to judge anything that the Left believes. Marcuse, possibly deified by now by the Left, said that fiction was truth and that reality and truth were not, er real.
So, reconsider all you have heard about, for instance Global Warming. When was the last time you heard a debate about it? OK, how about if you have ever heard a debate about it. Exactly. The subject has been censored by the Left. It cannot be debated because it is a Left ideology and therefore above discourse. That is why the Royal Society say it is a pure truth that should not be investigated (which of course, is pretty unscientific).
It is why you find yourself saying, when someone tells you a joke that despite making you laugh you feel may be at someone else's expense, 'you can't say that!' Political Correctness is just a Left tool to stop debate, to claim that they are always right about everything.
In the last Question Time, sections of the audience booed anything related to Tory changes to the NHS and cheered any mention of working for the NHS, that it was a brilliant system and in fact any mention of public service at all. These people were not interested in the outcome for the health of people in the NHS, nor reality, they just supported an ideological position. This was the day, after all when news of yet more scandal, involving neglect to the point of killing in NHS hospitals was released.
Of course the 'discussion' wittered on for a while, about 'reform' but no one seemed to connect the fact that nurses were not feeding patients, not ensuring they could and did drink, not helping them with toilets or keeping them clean. All this is regularly reported and yet nurses are uniformly painted as angels. Why, when spending was increased so massively, did it translate into much worse service? Why have doctors seemingly forgotten their most basic skills, with children sent home when they have meningitis or broken bones. Why has nursing sunk so low?
Hospitals are now even more of a death sentence than they used to be, but can you imagine how hard it must be for those who do their job properly? Surrounded by degree educated, high minded colleagues who care nothing for patients, but are acutely aware of their own self worth and that a chat amongst workmates is more important than some old woman's pain relief. These nurses need not fear rebuke, the NHS rarely acts against them. But interestingly, the same regulatory bodies act extremely swiftly to get rid of people who show up the patients suffering.
You are being lied to on a massive scale. Sometimes it is just some grubbing politician or lazy public sector 'executive' on the make, but often it is because of Left ideology. Their goals long ago were to undermine Western culture and its economic underpinnings, to destroy the family unit and promote homosexuality and other 'victims' and 'minorities' because these would also destabilise society. They are able to do this because their truth is different to your truth; there is no such thing as reality. Kick a rock, Leftie, kick a rock.
Lastly though is the more pernicious reason and the most dangerous. Because the Left don't accept proof and truth. For them, like political correctness it is wrong to judge anything that the Left believes. Marcuse, possibly deified by now by the Left, said that fiction was truth and that reality and truth were not, er real.
So, reconsider all you have heard about, for instance Global Warming. When was the last time you heard a debate about it? OK, how about if you have ever heard a debate about it. Exactly. The subject has been censored by the Left. It cannot be debated because it is a Left ideology and therefore above discourse. That is why the Royal Society say it is a pure truth that should not be investigated (which of course, is pretty unscientific).
It is why you find yourself saying, when someone tells you a joke that despite making you laugh you feel may be at someone else's expense, 'you can't say that!' Political Correctness is just a Left tool to stop debate, to claim that they are always right about everything.
In the last Question Time, sections of the audience booed anything related to Tory changes to the NHS and cheered any mention of working for the NHS, that it was a brilliant system and in fact any mention of public service at all. These people were not interested in the outcome for the health of people in the NHS, nor reality, they just supported an ideological position. This was the day, after all when news of yet more scandal, involving neglect to the point of killing in NHS hospitals was released.
Of course the 'discussion' wittered on for a while, about 'reform' but no one seemed to connect the fact that nurses were not feeding patients, not ensuring they could and did drink, not helping them with toilets or keeping them clean. All this is regularly reported and yet nurses are uniformly painted as angels. Why, when spending was increased so massively, did it translate into much worse service? Why have doctors seemingly forgotten their most basic skills, with children sent home when they have meningitis or broken bones. Why has nursing sunk so low?
Hospitals are now even more of a death sentence than they used to be, but can you imagine how hard it must be for those who do their job properly? Surrounded by degree educated, high minded colleagues who care nothing for patients, but are acutely aware of their own self worth and that a chat amongst workmates is more important than some old woman's pain relief. These nurses need not fear rebuke, the NHS rarely acts against them. But interestingly, the same regulatory bodies act extremely swiftly to get rid of people who show up the patients suffering.
You are being lied to on a massive scale. Sometimes it is just some grubbing politician or lazy public sector 'executive' on the make, but often it is because of Left ideology. Their goals long ago were to undermine Western culture and its economic underpinnings, to destroy the family unit and promote homosexuality and other 'victims' and 'minorities' because these would also destabilise society. They are able to do this because their truth is different to your truth; there is no such thing as reality. Kick a rock, Leftie, kick a rock.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)