The BBC just cannot stop themselves from going flat out against their charter commitment and adding their own ideologicall bias, whenever they feel like it. Humble Kate on the programme plotting the Earth's year did her usual sterling job and there was some genuinely interesting points put across extremely well. Educationally, in many areas I would rated it as some of the finest I have seen.
But Lordy, when they get a chance to introduce Man Made Climate Change the quality falls off a cliff. And it is not just that they believe it so they say so, oh no, they are clearly aware that it doesn't stack up, because of the planning that goes into how this element is introduced and presented.
Melting Arctic sea ice was the subject. First the winter was mentioned and then Kate went straight on to talk about the fact that the sea ice has melted to a far greater extent over the last few years. But clearly the ice doesn't melt during winter, so she was talking about a summer melt. Why should she wish to confuse these two things in your mind? Because she would then have had to say that in winter the sea ice covers a greater area than it did.
The other nice little touch was to address the natural instinct that this may be wrong as we have just had a few cold winters in Britain. This she said, couldn't be taken as important as it was only two or three winters. So her two or three 'massive melts' are statistically important and proof of something Man is responsible for, but a couple of cold winters are insignificant. Which one is it?
Items such as the formation of clouds and the way massive storms develop near lakes etc were excellent and because there was no political point to make, presumably based on the best knowledge. The bits where they were happy to repeat made up stuff was when an ideology the BBC supports was touched upon.
I just loved the fact that, overall the assumption was that people watching the programme would be so thick that they would blindly accept that repeated ice ages (which naturally required intervening warming) had occurred, but 'Global Warming' was caused by man's output of CO2. The fact that this is unproven as we cannot see the mechanism by which this is true and also don't understand the full complexities of climate change, seems to concern them not a jot.
Nor does the fact that the planet isn't warming, but CO2 output continues. In fact the only place that Man Made Global Warming occurs is in the computer models of people who want MMGW to be true.
The other thing that stunned me was the explanation of how ice ages occur. Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I have never heard this 'combination of circumstance' cause before. Seemed highly plausible, but why hadn't such an important and fundamental fact found its way into my head before?
Monday, 12 March 2012
Friday, 9 March 2012
France -Always The Same
I was reading an Air Pictorial magazine from 1971 last night. It was querying the defence implications of joining something called the 'Common Market'. The leader column decried the suggestion by Ted Heath and Monsieur Pompidou, that such matters could be discussed later -nothing changes in politics does it!
They also disliked the fact that France had left NATO but was happy to gain from its protection, as all the countries around them were members, without paying for it. Wherever you look, the French turn up as a duplicitous and disgraceful 'relative on the make', a perpetual nuisance and scrounger, lacking any morals.
Who can claim that God doesn't have a sense of humour? He may have needed to rest on the Seventh day, but he must have had some fun along the way. Why else would a country of such stunning beauty have such awful people imposed upon it?
They also disliked the fact that France had left NATO but was happy to gain from its protection, as all the countries around them were members, without paying for it. Wherever you look, the French turn up as a duplicitous and disgraceful 'relative on the make', a perpetual nuisance and scrounger, lacking any morals.
Who can claim that God doesn't have a sense of humour? He may have needed to rest on the Seventh day, but he must have had some fun along the way. Why else would a country of such stunning beauty have such awful people imposed upon it?
This Recession And Banks
We are all aware I think of the central role played by banks in the financial mess we currently find ourselves in. It was a case of very stupid people being allowed to run banks, with greed as an overriding motive. This is common, as even children display this proclivity if not reined in by their parents. The role of parent to banks of course is supposed to be supplied by government agencies.
But let us think back. When the seeds were sown of this disaster the principal banking centres of the world had Clinton and Blair in government. Stupidity certainly breeds stupidity and here it was full blown and at the highest level. Clinton indeed kicked off the whole thing by insisting (in law no less) that banks give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them.
Banks then saw a need to 'hedge their bets' and bundled and sold on debts. Everyone had their eye on the profits and didn't consider the consequences. It really is that simple. Here, we also had the unstoppable Gordon Brown on a crusade of his own imagining. He used the liquidity the banks provided to borrow insanely and urged other people to do the same, by keeping money rates low. 'What happens when rates go up?' nobody asked.
Indeed, this also slipped Brown's mind. Either that or he simply didn't care and there is plenty of evidence that was the case. On top of this we had the communist experiment taking place in Europe, where to support a power grab, a single currency had been 'agreed' by 27 countries across Europe. The one size fits all imposition was a disaster waiting to happen. It completed the perfect storm of financial crisis.
But what has happened since? What is happening today? Well, banks are handing themselves handsome bonuses and pushing up interest rates and not loaning businesses money, all without any real complaint from Ministers. Quantitative Easing is pouring new money into banks and the 'rescue' of Greece is just money that the EU gives to banks that Greece owes money too.
Do you see the connection? No matter how grave the situation, no matter what you think should be done to get us out of the financial downturn. all that is actually happening is money is being channelled to banks. Something, reader is afoot and I don't know what. Clearly you and I are not party to it.
Consider. Tony Blair (or Gordon Brown) did one 'good thing' according to popular history and that is giving independence to the Bank of England. They didn't but hey, gingerbread houses don't exist either but there is a story. The Bank's sole 'job' was to keep interest rates low. A political objective then.
But in what way is printing money (Quantitative Easing) compatible with 'keeping interest rates low'? It is, naturally, a prime cause of inflation. But we are still doing it and by 'we' I mean the Bank of England, so what is going on? Why are politicians and the BoE ignoring this sacred directive and the political consequences of driving up inflation? It must be a pretty important reason and it isn't to help the economy.
I don't think it is a Right Wing conspiracy and I don't think it is driven by Jews as I'm sure the left would aver, I think in all honesty that it is because the politicians have given too much power to banks and now cannot rein them in. Frankenstein has created a monster. It is a time of national disaster and we need a Churchill, but what have we got? A Cameron and a Lord Haw-Haw (Nick Clegg).
But let us think back. When the seeds were sown of this disaster the principal banking centres of the world had Clinton and Blair in government. Stupidity certainly breeds stupidity and here it was full blown and at the highest level. Clinton indeed kicked off the whole thing by insisting (in law no less) that banks give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them.
Banks then saw a need to 'hedge their bets' and bundled and sold on debts. Everyone had their eye on the profits and didn't consider the consequences. It really is that simple. Here, we also had the unstoppable Gordon Brown on a crusade of his own imagining. He used the liquidity the banks provided to borrow insanely and urged other people to do the same, by keeping money rates low. 'What happens when rates go up?' nobody asked.
Indeed, this also slipped Brown's mind. Either that or he simply didn't care and there is plenty of evidence that was the case. On top of this we had the communist experiment taking place in Europe, where to support a power grab, a single currency had been 'agreed' by 27 countries across Europe. The one size fits all imposition was a disaster waiting to happen. It completed the perfect storm of financial crisis.
But what has happened since? What is happening today? Well, banks are handing themselves handsome bonuses and pushing up interest rates and not loaning businesses money, all without any real complaint from Ministers. Quantitative Easing is pouring new money into banks and the 'rescue' of Greece is just money that the EU gives to banks that Greece owes money too.
Do you see the connection? No matter how grave the situation, no matter what you think should be done to get us out of the financial downturn. all that is actually happening is money is being channelled to banks. Something, reader is afoot and I don't know what. Clearly you and I are not party to it.
Consider. Tony Blair (or Gordon Brown) did one 'good thing' according to popular history and that is giving independence to the Bank of England. They didn't but hey, gingerbread houses don't exist either but there is a story. The Bank's sole 'job' was to keep interest rates low. A political objective then.
But in what way is printing money (Quantitative Easing) compatible with 'keeping interest rates low'? It is, naturally, a prime cause of inflation. But we are still doing it and by 'we' I mean the Bank of England, so what is going on? Why are politicians and the BoE ignoring this sacred directive and the political consequences of driving up inflation? It must be a pretty important reason and it isn't to help the economy.
I don't think it is a Right Wing conspiracy and I don't think it is driven by Jews as I'm sure the left would aver, I think in all honesty that it is because the politicians have given too much power to banks and now cannot rein them in. Frankenstein has created a monster. It is a time of national disaster and we need a Churchill, but what have we got? A Cameron and a Lord Haw-Haw (Nick Clegg).
In The News Today
Back in the news is the inability of white people to adopt black children. This is caused by good, old fashioned racism by the leftie social workers. And this is the real deal, not the pretend racism that is thrown around all the time. This is an ideological stance that black people are different and must not be affected by white people. Not bad for stereotyping. I'm not sure the black child of British born black people is too concerned with their African heritage, but the social workers are. Sure, as they grow up they might have a 'genes reunited' moment, but that doesn't mean they reject their British heritage and go to live in the Congo.
The racism here is based on the belief of white left liberals who know, in their very soul, that non-white people are inferior and need the special care and attention that white, left liberals have in their hearts. Why else all the race equality paraphernalia? Why the insistence on setting up black organisations, for groups such as black police officers? Why would it be racist if there were a white police officers organisation? Black people, they feel, need special help. Why else does the left treat 'ethnics' as if they were children?
It has been a very effective weapon in maintaining white hegemony in socialist circles and in maintaining a tension between people of differing colour skins. Left to their own devices people, like water find their own level. Indian people may keep some traditions for instance and maybe dress in an Indian style, but they will buy a coat, because it's bloody cold. Integration occurs, not sublimation, but integration. And we all get along, unless the leftie pops up to stir up difference again -it is in their genes I think, having done it for so long on class lines.
It strikes me that most of all, social workers must hate mixed-race marriages (as they are called; they are just people with different colour skin usually).
I find it ironic that on the day Cameron is signing us up to some other European initiative he has been too busy to mention, this time the protection of women against violence, he is also lamenting the deaths of six servicemen in Afghanistan. Ironic, because the regime he is supporting with our soldiers lives has a very different, entrenched view of the value of women.
You could take the view that the Afghans as a nation are backward and pretty despicable and in a real sense you would be right, countries and their borders create political entities. But it isn't actually the 'race' Afghan you dislike, it is the culture, or its absence. I think that it is patently obvious, not ideologically obvious or religiously obvious, that women are pretty much like men. Each tends to have something they do better than the other, but overall you could expect the same capability, intellectually out of both.
That is a human view. But it is not one that some countries can accept and there is no way of getting away from it, it is mainly Muslim countries that have this problem. People talk of 'advancement' but they really mean being more like us. I don't mind if a country doesn't, cannot build a Sistine Chapel. I care that, having learnt to talk they cannot develop a simple concept like fairness. Woman stays at home all day, looking after the children she has borne; man sits at a desk and earns money. In what way is one superior to the other? It is a division of labour to achieve a practical outcome.
Actually, Islam is a Socialist religion I think. Both revolve around a power bloc of almighty elites and both seek to rule by sowing discord to ensure there is no popular focus on their arrogance.
(Thinking about it, I do find it academically interesting why some countries cannot build a Sistine Chapel. Why, in all the world does the central part of Africa have no history of great buildings? We know of them in South America, we know of them in South East Asia. Europe of course has an immense tradition in this respect. By far the greatest achievements of ancient Man are in Egypt, but why did this ability not exist a little further South? I'm not trying to make what a Socialist would call a racist point here, I am just genuinely mystified.
How is it that a Briton builds a massive castle, or church, a Mexican builds a step pyramid and an equatorial African decides to give it a miss? I cannot believe there is an anti-Bob-the-Builder gene in that continent. If we all came 'out of Africa', what has happened? I don't think you could get the answer on a postcard).
The racism here is based on the belief of white left liberals who know, in their very soul, that non-white people are inferior and need the special care and attention that white, left liberals have in their hearts. Why else all the race equality paraphernalia? Why the insistence on setting up black organisations, for groups such as black police officers? Why would it be racist if there were a white police officers organisation? Black people, they feel, need special help. Why else does the left treat 'ethnics' as if they were children?
It has been a very effective weapon in maintaining white hegemony in socialist circles and in maintaining a tension between people of differing colour skins. Left to their own devices people, like water find their own level. Indian people may keep some traditions for instance and maybe dress in an Indian style, but they will buy a coat, because it's bloody cold. Integration occurs, not sublimation, but integration. And we all get along, unless the leftie pops up to stir up difference again -it is in their genes I think, having done it for so long on class lines.
It strikes me that most of all, social workers must hate mixed-race marriages (as they are called; they are just people with different colour skin usually).
I find it ironic that on the day Cameron is signing us up to some other European initiative he has been too busy to mention, this time the protection of women against violence, he is also lamenting the deaths of six servicemen in Afghanistan. Ironic, because the regime he is supporting with our soldiers lives has a very different, entrenched view of the value of women.
You could take the view that the Afghans as a nation are backward and pretty despicable and in a real sense you would be right, countries and their borders create political entities. But it isn't actually the 'race' Afghan you dislike, it is the culture, or its absence. I think that it is patently obvious, not ideologically obvious or religiously obvious, that women are pretty much like men. Each tends to have something they do better than the other, but overall you could expect the same capability, intellectually out of both.
That is a human view. But it is not one that some countries can accept and there is no way of getting away from it, it is mainly Muslim countries that have this problem. People talk of 'advancement' but they really mean being more like us. I don't mind if a country doesn't, cannot build a Sistine Chapel. I care that, having learnt to talk they cannot develop a simple concept like fairness. Woman stays at home all day, looking after the children she has borne; man sits at a desk and earns money. In what way is one superior to the other? It is a division of labour to achieve a practical outcome.
Actually, Islam is a Socialist religion I think. Both revolve around a power bloc of almighty elites and both seek to rule by sowing discord to ensure there is no popular focus on their arrogance.
(Thinking about it, I do find it academically interesting why some countries cannot build a Sistine Chapel. Why, in all the world does the central part of Africa have no history of great buildings? We know of them in South America, we know of them in South East Asia. Europe of course has an immense tradition in this respect. By far the greatest achievements of ancient Man are in Egypt, but why did this ability not exist a little further South? I'm not trying to make what a Socialist would call a racist point here, I am just genuinely mystified.
How is it that a Briton builds a massive castle, or church, a Mexican builds a step pyramid and an equatorial African decides to give it a miss? I cannot believe there is an anti-Bob-the-Builder gene in that continent. If we all came 'out of Africa', what has happened? I don't think you could get the answer on a postcard).
Thursday, 8 March 2012
Question Time, Again
Still no idea why I subject myself like this, but sometimes it is good sport to watch the couldn't-care-less-about-the-damage lefties coming up with ideas of the greatest stupidity. Like someone skewering the extremely self impressed Will Self by saying, if there are not many £2m houses, why have a tax on them? Self then squirmed and twisted, but grudgingly admitted it wasn't a great idea, but then suddenly said 'but I didn't think of it!' as if that had any importance. He just wants it for the usual leftie reason; spite.
Will Young is for gay marriage, apparently. I guess people on death row would vote to abolish capital punishment. I still don't understand why the homosexual community don't understand that society invented marriage to create a family unit as a stable way to raise children. That the 'attraction' is just to procreate, we are a slave to it. Homosexuals cannot procreate and this is the essential difference.
A man who cannot supply the seed or a woman who cannot conceive are not the same as homosexuals in this respect, because they are drawn to the opposite sex by nature, as if they could conceive. Homosexuals are drawn to the same sex, contrary to the genetic coding to procreate and that is not a dangerous thing. It is a fact. I'm sure we could devise drugs to make everyone gay, but I'm not sure there is a future in that.
I don't really see it as a command from God, so the Church's angle is not something I am concerned with, it is the power politics being enacted by some homosexuals. I'm sure also that homosexuals, who demand that the word 'normal' cannot be applied to sexuality (which kind of ignores why one human being would be attracted to another at all), want to have marriages just like everyone else so they can claim to be mainstream. It is why they also demand to be handed or allowed to purchase children (the child of course, having no rights in our society).
Will Young keeps talking about being terrified by certain language, well he should try seeing it from the position of someone who doesn't think he has power on his side. Those people have to suffer, literally in silence, an outrageous assault on the freedom of speech that we once had. A world where I can have an opinion that someone else may oppose. We don't have to fight or even get nasty. We can just debate, disagree or ignore. But gays apparently need something else. They need to have a special category of crime; hate crime. This of course is based on the way you think. And that isn't worrying?
Hold on though, I don't think you are allowed to oppose Climate Change, so perhaps it is any leftist agenda that is protected by the tag hate crime?
Will Young is for gay marriage, apparently. I guess people on death row would vote to abolish capital punishment. I still don't understand why the homosexual community don't understand that society invented marriage to create a family unit as a stable way to raise children. That the 'attraction' is just to procreate, we are a slave to it. Homosexuals cannot procreate and this is the essential difference.
A man who cannot supply the seed or a woman who cannot conceive are not the same as homosexuals in this respect, because they are drawn to the opposite sex by nature, as if they could conceive. Homosexuals are drawn to the same sex, contrary to the genetic coding to procreate and that is not a dangerous thing. It is a fact. I'm sure we could devise drugs to make everyone gay, but I'm not sure there is a future in that.
I don't really see it as a command from God, so the Church's angle is not something I am concerned with, it is the power politics being enacted by some homosexuals. I'm sure also that homosexuals, who demand that the word 'normal' cannot be applied to sexuality (which kind of ignores why one human being would be attracted to another at all), want to have marriages just like everyone else so they can claim to be mainstream. It is why they also demand to be handed or allowed to purchase children (the child of course, having no rights in our society).
Will Young keeps talking about being terrified by certain language, well he should try seeing it from the position of someone who doesn't think he has power on his side. Those people have to suffer, literally in silence, an outrageous assault on the freedom of speech that we once had. A world where I can have an opinion that someone else may oppose. We don't have to fight or even get nasty. We can just debate, disagree or ignore. But gays apparently need something else. They need to have a special category of crime; hate crime. This of course is based on the way you think. And that isn't worrying?
Hold on though, I don't think you are allowed to oppose Climate Change, so perhaps it is any leftist agenda that is protected by the tag hate crime?
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
Police Shooting - Update
And here it comes; no weapon discovered 'so far' in the GMP shooting incident. What will the line be if they find a gun locked in a metal case, in the boot? That, because he didn't raise his hands he was going for a gun, which we now know he had? Really the things we are supposed to take as serious comment these days is beyond parody. In Alice in Wonderland the eponymous character says she is able to believe six impossible things before breakfast. This is a feat routinely achieved by politicians and senior police officers these days and something they think we share with them.
Once again, what really happened, I feel sure, is that poorly trained officers were given guns and sent on a mission. Their weapons, para military garb and aggressive training were combined with a briefing that they should expect to face men 'with weapons'. Now, as the stand-off in the film Crocodile Dundee 2 proved, it is the nature of the weapon that conditions the response.
If you have a man with a knife in your gun sight you do not have to shoot him until he is in a position to actually harm someone. If you have an armed man besieged, you do not shoot him to get it over with, even if it is disrupting traffic in Chelsea.
The tactics and deployment of armed police is, I maintain, flawed psychologically. Worse, I think this is recognised but for some reason it has been decided not to address it. The IPCC assiduously avoid asking difficult questions that would reveal inadequacies in the police use of firearms. Training is conducted in a strange way that seems to assume Britain is awash with guns and anyone is a potential killer.
Children are castigated for playing openly with patently toy guns, because 'it could get them shot'. which is true, but instead of the police seeing the children as at fault we should recognise the danger lies in the faulty thinking of the men with real guns; the police.
The need for more armed police these days is an unfortunate fact. The need to have them trained to the highest standard would have seemed pure common sense. Apparently not.
Once again, what really happened, I feel sure, is that poorly trained officers were given guns and sent on a mission. Their weapons, para military garb and aggressive training were combined with a briefing that they should expect to face men 'with weapons'. Now, as the stand-off in the film Crocodile Dundee 2 proved, it is the nature of the weapon that conditions the response.
If you have a man with a knife in your gun sight you do not have to shoot him until he is in a position to actually harm someone. If you have an armed man besieged, you do not shoot him to get it over with, even if it is disrupting traffic in Chelsea.
The tactics and deployment of armed police is, I maintain, flawed psychologically. Worse, I think this is recognised but for some reason it has been decided not to address it. The IPCC assiduously avoid asking difficult questions that would reveal inadequacies in the police use of firearms. Training is conducted in a strange way that seems to assume Britain is awash with guns and anyone is a potential killer.
Children are castigated for playing openly with patently toy guns, because 'it could get them shot'. which is true, but instead of the police seeing the children as at fault we should recognise the danger lies in the faulty thinking of the men with real guns; the police.
The need for more armed police these days is an unfortunate fact. The need to have them trained to the highest standard would have seemed pure common sense. Apparently not.
Monday, 5 March 2012
Police Shooting
Once again we have a man dead after the deployment of armed officers and again in a planned operation, where the police decided the ground on which they operated. The plan appears to have been that the three men in question should be surrounded in a public car park, tear gas deployed and the occupants threatened by armed police.
Not sure about the tactic of using the gas, but there may be some sense to it that isn't immediately apparent, though I wouldn't suggest that anything impeding the sight-line of armed officers would be terribly helpful. I wonder too if the possiblity that the targeted men might try to drive away had been considered, bearing in mind the approach was made whilst they were in a vehicle?
But whether through the usual tactical ineptitude, or because of reasons wholly to do with the actions of the criminals, our armed police once again opened fire and once again we meet a wall of silence about whether the targets were armed. What was the actual reason, the absolute need to open fire?
Let's be clear on this. If a criminal finds himself facing armed police it is entirely his responsibility to ensure the police feel no need to shoot him. I don't feel a huge concern that criminals end up getting hurt. My problem is with the willingness of the police to shoot people at all. It is not just that the police train armed officers inadequately, it would appear that the training is inappropriate too.
Tactics, the actual weapons used and deployment are of great concern. That the IPCC do not see it as their job to urge caution and suggest change is outrageous. I am certainly not comfortable with the police becoming judge, jury and executioner. Whilst we act with vigour to convict soldiers of 'crimes' in war zones, our armed police are a protected breed, loosing off rounds with impunity.
Why does the publicly accountable body, the Greater Manchester Police and the publicly funded though doubtlessly unaccountable IPCC, both feel they have no need to reassure the public about the actions of armed officers? Were these men armed? They already know the answer, it cannot possibly affect any subsequent court case to release the information now, but we can't have it. The reason is likely to be the concoction of justifications that everyone is 'happy' with, politicians, legal advisors and police.
I don't understand why no-one seems to think a better trained and more competent force of armed police officers would be a good thing. We deserve better.
Not sure about the tactic of using the gas, but there may be some sense to it that isn't immediately apparent, though I wouldn't suggest that anything impeding the sight-line of armed officers would be terribly helpful. I wonder too if the possiblity that the targeted men might try to drive away had been considered, bearing in mind the approach was made whilst they were in a vehicle?
But whether through the usual tactical ineptitude, or because of reasons wholly to do with the actions of the criminals, our armed police once again opened fire and once again we meet a wall of silence about whether the targets were armed. What was the actual reason, the absolute need to open fire?
Let's be clear on this. If a criminal finds himself facing armed police it is entirely his responsibility to ensure the police feel no need to shoot him. I don't feel a huge concern that criminals end up getting hurt. My problem is with the willingness of the police to shoot people at all. It is not just that the police train armed officers inadequately, it would appear that the training is inappropriate too.
Tactics, the actual weapons used and deployment are of great concern. That the IPCC do not see it as their job to urge caution and suggest change is outrageous. I am certainly not comfortable with the police becoming judge, jury and executioner. Whilst we act with vigour to convict soldiers of 'crimes' in war zones, our armed police are a protected breed, loosing off rounds with impunity.
Why does the publicly accountable body, the Greater Manchester Police and the publicly funded though doubtlessly unaccountable IPCC, both feel they have no need to reassure the public about the actions of armed officers? Were these men armed? They already know the answer, it cannot possibly affect any subsequent court case to release the information now, but we can't have it. The reason is likely to be the concoction of justifications that everyone is 'happy' with, politicians, legal advisors and police.
I don't understand why no-one seems to think a better trained and more competent force of armed police officers would be a good thing. We deserve better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)