I enjoy seeing a successful woman in an expensive car, be it Bentley or Porsche, I think it is highly appealing. My feelings are the exact opposite if the female is actually the wife of a rich man and does nothing with her day but fret about herself, book treatments and meet up with others in her air-head circle to talk about reality TV.
Basically, I have always been attracted to clever women. I am not threatened or intimidated by them, which is it seems, amazingly common with the male of the species. I like to think I am a fair judge, but can be ridiculously naïve at times. It has never occurred to me that men and women are anything other than different versions of the same thing. I never considered that they might be inherently inferior.
Likewise, meeting people who originate from places other than these shores who may have a different colour skin, I also just take them on the merit they present. Hell, when I was at school we saw that African people were darker skinned and that was as far as my thinking went; people lived in Africa too, but they had a darker skin.
I didn't make the 'intellectual' leap to conclude that this made me superior. Even when the distinct lack of any parallel with the societal developments in Europe was considered, when pushed all I would do is wonder why. Perhaps it was the heat?
So, if I met an 'African' I wasn't surprised by the colour of his skin. This means I am not Left wing. They shriek about it in perpetual surprise. Culture however, is something I am less forgiving about. God may have decided the colour of your skin, but you choose your culture.
If your culture is to treat women as inferior to men (because the men in question are fundamentally weak and resort to the tactics of the bully to gain and maintain ascendency), then I detest you. Or maybe your culture is to lie and cheat in order to gain advantage and power. This means you exhibit the fundamentals of Marxism. You see others as existing only for what you can get out of them.
Obama was elected because he was black and that is very wrong, both because his colour should be irrelevant, but also because black people should never have been deprived of opportunity, which would probably have meant a black President ages ago. But Obama was also a terrible President, not because he was black, but because he is a snake. Like our own Tony Blair, he was just out for himself.
Theresa May is terrible not because she is a woman or that she is white, but because she lacks principles. (And it seems, a spine). She has been told by the nation to take the UK out of the EU; she is a politician so she is bound, by Parliament's promise to obey that specific demand, but also because MP's are there to serve the public will. Additionally, she presented a party manifesto to get elected to power that emphatically restated that commitment.
Now, the wholly unsurprising attitude of the bureaucrats around her (that we should not leave the greatest agglomeration of bureaucrats the world has ever seen) is convincing her to do their bidding instead. Which is weak and unprincipled.
She keeps saying the opposite of what she does, but maybe I am wrong and will be surprised. Maybe she will say to the EU that she has tried to play nice but enough is enough, now stop being childish and sort things out properly. Maybe.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Friday, 6 July 2018
Saturday, 1 March 2014
Ukraine
There is much debate as we approach the 100th anniversary of the start of WW1 about whether Britain should have stayed out, exactly why it was fought, is the Blackadder version actually what the Left believe to be a documentary?
But one thing is clear, a small incident in a backwater kicked off puffed up indignation from powerful countries looking for an excuse to take offence. Countries took 'positions' not to protect anything tangible, but to validate action they wanted to take anyway.
And then there is the excuse for WW2; that Germans in a foreign country needed protecting.
Which brings us to where we are today in the Ukraine. The EU has been in the region (and was heavily involved in the trouble at the inception, trying to scoop Ukraine into its empire), but have you any idea what they have been saying, what they propose? No, didn't think so.
The US? Here the weak and habitual work-dodging President, Obama, seems to have had a recollection that the Russians are the enemy. So he is quoting in that weird, homely, insincere way platitudes of American resilience and standing firm. And Russia should take care. Who knows, he might even try to find out what the hell is going on out there and maybe even, where 'there' is.
Russia under Putin, it has to be said is doing a half decent job of catching the West out and getting his own way. Yet the feeling always is that he is a thick, thug and spends all his time concentrating on corruption and how to get away with it. But the thug bit is definitely there, so he will push the military side. And he won't want to lose influence in a region such as Ukraine. Not sure, apart from the 'democracy' shout, what the reason is for the US (or the squeaking Cameron) to get involved.
Unless it is to posture against 'the enemy' Russia. in which case there will be war.
But one thing is clear, a small incident in a backwater kicked off puffed up indignation from powerful countries looking for an excuse to take offence. Countries took 'positions' not to protect anything tangible, but to validate action they wanted to take anyway.
And then there is the excuse for WW2; that Germans in a foreign country needed protecting.
Which brings us to where we are today in the Ukraine. The EU has been in the region (and was heavily involved in the trouble at the inception, trying to scoop Ukraine into its empire), but have you any idea what they have been saying, what they propose? No, didn't think so.
The US? Here the weak and habitual work-dodging President, Obama, seems to have had a recollection that the Russians are the enemy. So he is quoting in that weird, homely, insincere way platitudes of American resilience and standing firm. And Russia should take care. Who knows, he might even try to find out what the hell is going on out there and maybe even, where 'there' is.
Russia under Putin, it has to be said is doing a half decent job of catching the West out and getting his own way. Yet the feeling always is that he is a thick, thug and spends all his time concentrating on corruption and how to get away with it. But the thug bit is definitely there, so he will push the military side. And he won't want to lose influence in a region such as Ukraine. Not sure, apart from the 'democracy' shout, what the reason is for the US (or the squeaking Cameron) to get involved.
Unless it is to posture against 'the enemy' Russia. in which case there will be war.
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
Four More Years
What can you say? Politics in Western civilisation is really f****d up. Here we have the greatest economy in the world (if you forget the debt) electing a man who bases his political principles on self first. He had to get re-elected, it was really important to him. The White House is nice, people treat you nice when you go visit, the pay and perks are a hill of beans. And, when he looks in the mirror he can honestly say, without a quiver of doubt, that he is a good man; he likes what he sees.
Then he has to get dressed, go downstairs and get with the business of running the country. This bit is boring, tedious and not something that Barack Obama spends too much brain power on. Why should he? He did this President thing for what he gets out of it. Much like our own Tony Blair, BO is particularly good at posturing. He talks the walk.
The hurricane was due to Global Warming which he is going to deal with and he personally did all the clearing up, don't you know. And mends shoes overnight, with really tiny, perfect stitches. If you listen to Obama you hear a stream of that-can't-possibly-be-true statements, but the thing is, once said they can't be un-said so in a way they become true. Sound daft? Well it happens all the time with the Left.
Ex-Mayor of London Ken Livingstone was involved in a televised discussion the other day about wind turbines, the new industrial landscape, modern satanic mills. He said, to substantiate the importance of 'renewables' that we have just had hurricane Sandy and look at the devastation that caused and we have only had a temperature rise of less than 1 degree. Civilisation he said, would be destroyed by the end of this century unless we do something.
When asked if Sandy was due to global warming he smoothly said we cannot be sure of individual events, blah, blah, blah. But hold on. In that simple, short burst, he had given the distinct impression Sandy was due to our affect on climate and that things were going to get very much worse and wind turbines could help stop it. None of which is actually true, but it is now 'out there'. (Man's output of CO2 is insignificant when applied to planetary systems, it increases after temperature rises, not before, there has been no rise in global temperature since 1997 and wind turbines increase significantly the price of energy to consumers and even then cause more CO2 production, not less. But they do make subsidy farmers rich).
So Obama exists in a world where saying is doing. Just as Blair used to announce initiatives (that he then dropped, quietly) with much triumphant fanfare, as if it was an achievement itself. Are people really that thick? Surely they didn't vote for Obama to get more speeches about promises that remain and will be, unfulfilled? Not really no, they forget what he says in detail (as they are supposed to), what they actually voted for was money-tree politics, money-tree economics.
Obama based his 'success' over the last four years on borrowing. He piled debt on debt to keep the people feeling good. He operated the same economics that the insane Ed Balls promotes over here. It worked for Blair (well, as long as you forget the financial crash, obviously).
And people like 'no pain'. For them the fitness mantra 'no pain, no gain' is anathema. And boy are they under the anaesthetic! The most important thing Romney said in his campaign was the 47% thing. He said that 47% of the population would vote for Obama because he pays them, either as state workers or as benefit claimants. So here we have the conundrum of modern, Western politics.
The politicians themselves exist in a world removed from reality and indeed from politics itself. Their world consists of 'winning' arguments with their political opponents, showing up their political opponents and increasing their own wealth and standing amongst world wide peers. The work of government, such as it impacts on them, is done by policy wonks for whom they are nominally responsible. (And now with a second term those wonks, with a warm glow of comfort at 4 more years, will be really dangerous).
Romney was absolutely right about the client state that has been created. The divide between Democrats and Republicans goes something like this. Romney has to convince people to put the country first, that by creating a strong and workable framework, America will then be able to afford an affluent society with more employment and more to spend on social costs. And of course, that he can deliver that.
Obama on the other hand can say anything he likes, he has no intention, or possibly no ability to do any of it, but it is what the audience wants to hear and he just needs to get elected. His people will vote for him because he won't turn on them. He will keep the welfare taps open, he will continue to employ legions of non-productive and counter-productive public sector workers.
They are not concerned with the country, but with themselves, they just want what they want. If the economy goes to hell, so what, the state will always exist - borrow more, whatever! For them, money is not produced by successful businessmen and through making and selling things, no for them money grows on trees.
Similarly, Obama can play the race card, which I suppose we should take in good grace as it is the real slap down for what was done to them in the past, a new 'white man's burden'. You see, whilst it would be outrageous (and probably illegal) to vote for a white man because he is white, it is not only OK to vote for a black man because he is black, it is also OK to shout about doing it! It doesn't matter if he is a fool, he's our fool, kinda thing.
So there you have it, not so much a great socialist victory as a victory for self interest and greed. Not by bankers or millionaire businessmen (how dare they have big houses and yachts and aircraft, they are exploiting the 10,000 they give work to), but by bureaucrats and petty jobsworth's, by make-work non-jobbers in diversity and outreach progammes and by those do not want to work (those who can't have an excuse).
Unless the wealth-creators of America can manage a work-around, can succeed despite Obama in the White House then the US has some real problems ahead. Today, citizens of the United States, having been asked what they can do for their country, by a small margin replied, what can my country do for me.
Then he has to get dressed, go downstairs and get with the business of running the country. This bit is boring, tedious and not something that Barack Obama spends too much brain power on. Why should he? He did this President thing for what he gets out of it. Much like our own Tony Blair, BO is particularly good at posturing. He talks the walk.
The hurricane was due to Global Warming which he is going to deal with and he personally did all the clearing up, don't you know. And mends shoes overnight, with really tiny, perfect stitches. If you listen to Obama you hear a stream of that-can't-possibly-be-true statements, but the thing is, once said they can't be un-said so in a way they become true. Sound daft? Well it happens all the time with the Left.
Ex-Mayor of London Ken Livingstone was involved in a televised discussion the other day about wind turbines, the new industrial landscape, modern satanic mills. He said, to substantiate the importance of 'renewables' that we have just had hurricane Sandy and look at the devastation that caused and we have only had a temperature rise of less than 1 degree. Civilisation he said, would be destroyed by the end of this century unless we do something.
When asked if Sandy was due to global warming he smoothly said we cannot be sure of individual events, blah, blah, blah. But hold on. In that simple, short burst, he had given the distinct impression Sandy was due to our affect on climate and that things were going to get very much worse and wind turbines could help stop it. None of which is actually true, but it is now 'out there'. (Man's output of CO2 is insignificant when applied to planetary systems, it increases after temperature rises, not before, there has been no rise in global temperature since 1997 and wind turbines increase significantly the price of energy to consumers and even then cause more CO2 production, not less. But they do make subsidy farmers rich).
So Obama exists in a world where saying is doing. Just as Blair used to announce initiatives (that he then dropped, quietly) with much triumphant fanfare, as if it was an achievement itself. Are people really that thick? Surely they didn't vote for Obama to get more speeches about promises that remain and will be, unfulfilled? Not really no, they forget what he says in detail (as they are supposed to), what they actually voted for was money-tree politics, money-tree economics.
Obama based his 'success' over the last four years on borrowing. He piled debt on debt to keep the people feeling good. He operated the same economics that the insane Ed Balls promotes over here. It worked for Blair (well, as long as you forget the financial crash, obviously).
And people like 'no pain'. For them the fitness mantra 'no pain, no gain' is anathema. And boy are they under the anaesthetic! The most important thing Romney said in his campaign was the 47% thing. He said that 47% of the population would vote for Obama because he pays them, either as state workers or as benefit claimants. So here we have the conundrum of modern, Western politics.
The politicians themselves exist in a world removed from reality and indeed from politics itself. Their world consists of 'winning' arguments with their political opponents, showing up their political opponents and increasing their own wealth and standing amongst world wide peers. The work of government, such as it impacts on them, is done by policy wonks for whom they are nominally responsible. (And now with a second term those wonks, with a warm glow of comfort at 4 more years, will be really dangerous).
Romney was absolutely right about the client state that has been created. The divide between Democrats and Republicans goes something like this. Romney has to convince people to put the country first, that by creating a strong and workable framework, America will then be able to afford an affluent society with more employment and more to spend on social costs. And of course, that he can deliver that.
Obama on the other hand can say anything he likes, he has no intention, or possibly no ability to do any of it, but it is what the audience wants to hear and he just needs to get elected. His people will vote for him because he won't turn on them. He will keep the welfare taps open, he will continue to employ legions of non-productive and counter-productive public sector workers.
They are not concerned with the country, but with themselves, they just want what they want. If the economy goes to hell, so what, the state will always exist - borrow more, whatever! For them, money is not produced by successful businessmen and through making and selling things, no for them money grows on trees.
Similarly, Obama can play the race card, which I suppose we should take in good grace as it is the real slap down for what was done to them in the past, a new 'white man's burden'. You see, whilst it would be outrageous (and probably illegal) to vote for a white man because he is white, it is not only OK to vote for a black man because he is black, it is also OK to shout about doing it! It doesn't matter if he is a fool, he's our fool, kinda thing.
So there you have it, not so much a great socialist victory as a victory for self interest and greed. Not by bankers or millionaire businessmen (how dare they have big houses and yachts and aircraft, they are exploiting the 10,000 they give work to), but by bureaucrats and petty jobsworth's, by make-work non-jobbers in diversity and outreach progammes and by those do not want to work (those who can't have an excuse).
Unless the wealth-creators of America can manage a work-around, can succeed despite Obama in the White House then the US has some real problems ahead. Today, citizens of the United States, having been asked what they can do for their country, by a small margin replied, what can my country do for me.
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
Is There Any Hope?
On BBC Breakfast, discussing the US Presidential elections they said that surely Romney represents all that went wrong recently, deregulation, capitalism? It is this kind of loaded, when did you stop beating your wife, statements that makes the BBC the ridiculous rump it is, that makes listening to them on any subject entirely pointless. If that was true then so would be that Obama, representing the socialist approach is harking back to Stalin and mass murder by the State.
This story that has been planted in people's minds is very dangerous. Capitalism is what has enriched the world, has led to major advancements on every front. Marxism, socialism has at the very least introduced systems to hold people down and at the extreme, tyranny. Allowing a person or a group of people absolute power, taking away earnings so that the State in the form of these people will decide how your money should be spent, is so obviously a bad idea that it is incredible that, through the spread of a story, it has become the norm.
Look at how it invades without substance. Jeffrey Archer isn't well liked and was guilty, but why did he get the longest sentence for perjury ever? Because he was a Conservative. Why, when MacShane has been found to have defrauded Parliament and the taxpayer through expenses fiddles is the law so slow in pursuing him? Because he isn't a Tory. Why was Tony Blair not impeached, why was he not arrested over the lies leading to the invasion of Iraq, why not for the illegal slaughter of farmers animals? Because he isn't a Tory.
The Conservative Party have done nothing to earn this reputation, it is a story put about, constantly by the Left and like all propaganda, with repeated telling it comes to be believed. Thatcher did many extremely good things for Britain, including a rebate from the EU, which we are told by the Left is impossible. But she is demonised without real substance and yet 13 years of a corrupt Labour administration passes with scant mention (because the 'Right' don't do slurs, generally).
Whilst a few individual Tories were corrupt and were imprisoned for it, Blair and Brown institutionalised sleaze and were open for business of a very corrupt kind, but who was prosecuted? Mandelson for lying on a mortgage application? No, that is only wrong if you do it.
One thing is certain though, no matter what the narrative of the Left says, if Obama gets in again, to spend another 4 years posturing with no substance, America is doomed.
This story that has been planted in people's minds is very dangerous. Capitalism is what has enriched the world, has led to major advancements on every front. Marxism, socialism has at the very least introduced systems to hold people down and at the extreme, tyranny. Allowing a person or a group of people absolute power, taking away earnings so that the State in the form of these people will decide how your money should be spent, is so obviously a bad idea that it is incredible that, through the spread of a story, it has become the norm.
Look at how it invades without substance. Jeffrey Archer isn't well liked and was guilty, but why did he get the longest sentence for perjury ever? Because he was a Conservative. Why, when MacShane has been found to have defrauded Parliament and the taxpayer through expenses fiddles is the law so slow in pursuing him? Because he isn't a Tory. Why was Tony Blair not impeached, why was he not arrested over the lies leading to the invasion of Iraq, why not for the illegal slaughter of farmers animals? Because he isn't a Tory.
The Conservative Party have done nothing to earn this reputation, it is a story put about, constantly by the Left and like all propaganda, with repeated telling it comes to be believed. Thatcher did many extremely good things for Britain, including a rebate from the EU, which we are told by the Left is impossible. But she is demonised without real substance and yet 13 years of a corrupt Labour administration passes with scant mention (because the 'Right' don't do slurs, generally).
Whilst a few individual Tories were corrupt and were imprisoned for it, Blair and Brown institutionalised sleaze and were open for business of a very corrupt kind, but who was prosecuted? Mandelson for lying on a mortgage application? No, that is only wrong if you do it.
One thing is certain though, no matter what the narrative of the Left says, if Obama gets in again, to spend another 4 years posturing with no substance, America is doomed.
Friday, 16 March 2012
Friday Feeling
What is going on with Cameron and Obama? Obama is issuing a seemingly endless stream of platitudes about Cameron and Britain, best mates etc etc. He flies Cameron to a basketball game! Janet Daley has speculated on her blog that maybe an agreemnet is being reached over Iran.
But now we have this bizarre notion of releasing oil reserves to bring down the price of oil (as opposed to reducing tax, which is what a Conservative would do). Mind you, Iran likes high oil prices so maybe there is something in it.
I have always said that it would be a great idea to develop a technology to replace oil, if only to stuff the regimes in the Middle East, who since they became wealthy on oil revenue have acted very much like spoilt children. Complete with tantrums.
When you see them all lined up for the photo shoot, Samantha Cameron seems genuinely unhappy to be in the limelight and Michelle unhappy that people think Barack is the President. I'm sure she gives her husband a sense of perspective away from the cameras.
Don't you just love the display of disconnection when Cameron, talking to US students said that the price of filling up a car in Britain would make them faint. Luckily, it doesn't particularly concern the ferried-around Prime Minister with a multi million pound cushion, who seems completely unaware of where much of the eye-watering cost to the motorist comes from.
Does Cameron the PR man know how he comes across? I mean an honest version of him, confronted by an old lady freezing to death because she can't afford to heat her home, due to his love of the Green scam, would say 'I don't care'. Because that is how he appears; stupid for believing such dumb ideas as wind farms and Global Warming and careless because he never does anything to help the people of Britain. He is completely and utterly wrapped up in being a politician, as if it were an end in itself.
But now we have this bizarre notion of releasing oil reserves to bring down the price of oil (as opposed to reducing tax, which is what a Conservative would do). Mind you, Iran likes high oil prices so maybe there is something in it.
I have always said that it would be a great idea to develop a technology to replace oil, if only to stuff the regimes in the Middle East, who since they became wealthy on oil revenue have acted very much like spoilt children. Complete with tantrums.
When you see them all lined up for the photo shoot, Samantha Cameron seems genuinely unhappy to be in the limelight and Michelle unhappy that people think Barack is the President. I'm sure she gives her husband a sense of perspective away from the cameras.
Don't you just love the display of disconnection when Cameron, talking to US students said that the price of filling up a car in Britain would make them faint. Luckily, it doesn't particularly concern the ferried-around Prime Minister with a multi million pound cushion, who seems completely unaware of where much of the eye-watering cost to the motorist comes from.
Does Cameron the PR man know how he comes across? I mean an honest version of him, confronted by an old lady freezing to death because she can't afford to heat her home, due to his love of the Green scam, would say 'I don't care'. Because that is how he appears; stupid for believing such dumb ideas as wind farms and Global Warming and careless because he never does anything to help the people of Britain. He is completely and utterly wrapped up in being a politician, as if it were an end in itself.
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Bin Laden Still Dead
There is something not quite right about the recent 'Gotcha' with the killing of millionaire recluse Osama bin Laden. See, when Raoul Moat was shot, I didn't need to see the bodies, with holes, to be convinced as there was enough circumstantial evidence. Now I know the order of importance is somewhat different here, but the whole thing was videoed so surely there is footage to prove it was the nutter himself, without having to show us the gory bits. All this, 'yep we got him, definitely him, but we won't show you any kind of substantive evidence and we disposed of the body at sea. Really quickly', just doesn't wash. This we are to take on trust, but from people who have also said he used his wife as a human shield, quickly followed by no he didn't. So which bits are made up and which bits true?
I also liked the dithering bit. Obama has a reputation for not being keen on making definitive decisions, you know, ones that he could be held responsible for. Kind of makes you wonder if he really thought through being President, what with the way the job spec. for that role reads. 16 hours I hear; he spent 16 hours deliberating on what to do once he knew where Osama was. See how you do. The question was, 'we have found the location of the most wanted man in the world, the man who committed the worst atrocity in US history. Should we go get him?' You can see the difficulty can't you?
And so it comes back to trust. The Left managed to sow the line that Bush was as thick cold custard and comedians repeat it endlessly, but we don't hear that about Obama, despite all the evidence. Now this might be because he isn't actually dumb. or because it is only the Left who think slurs are the best way to conduct intelligent politics. Obama doesn't strike me as being all that reliable, which is why I see him as no more than a US version of Tony Blair (it doesn't get worse than that). If I could borrow a Left tactic for a moment then; those still pictures showing an enrapt Obama might just be the military showing him the Chris Morris movie 'Four Lions'.
I think bin Laden is dead, but something tells me that the recent 'event' isn't all that we are being sold. He may not have been killed there or there maybe something they need to hide regarding the way he was killed. I don't know, but the more you think about it the more questions arise. If the Pakistani's didn't know anything about the raid, how come there was no armed opposition from their military when four very noisy helicopters drop from the sky and then there is considerable mayhem and shooting? Particularly when a military facility was so close at hand?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)