Welcome all those sharing my existence, by which I don't mean reading this blog, but in fact just being alive at the same time. What is consciousness is a big question, but let's not do that just now and agree for now that it is 'not being asleep'.
So the primroses have given way to a massive bloom of bluebells in the woods and the warmer days see a good scattering of butterflies. Can it be true that warmer weather beckons? As the days grow longer, the trees green over and the Sun becomes stronger, I usually say, on the dog walk that 'soon we will be doing this in T shirts'. (It is more depressing when it turns to 'not so long ago we were doing this in T shirts').
Optimism and taking joy in the simple fact of a summers day are wonderful things and stave off the depression of greed and never having enough. We see this from the benefits claimant who thinks of themselves as a victim because they cannot afford the latest trainers or TV and in the mega rich who are searching for something that apparently money can't buy, but their ability to dodge needing an education (in life, but often it seems, at all) has left them ill equipped to identify what that might be.
David Moyes is no longer Manager of Manchester United which spurs many thoughts. Should he have been given the summer to reorganise the team and to hell with this season? Was it just too much for him and if so was he 'set up' by Ferguson to fail, to show even more clearly what a great Manager he was? Did Ferguson choose his moment with precision, even if he meant no harm to his replacement, as the team was becoming staffed with mediocre talent?
In the last game, against Everton Fletcher was probably Man U's best player, which is a terrible place to be as he is usually someone you can rely on to be useless. The defence is disorganised and was under Ferguson, the 'strike force' non existent. And the continued over-rating of Rooney continues. At the weekend he was less a £300,000 a week player and more £25,000. A year.
Usually, getting rid of the Manager is to increase the productivity on the pitch, but here it needs to be the start of a wholesale clear out. But can they afford what needs to be done?
Tuesday, 22 April 2014
Tuesday, 1 April 2014
BBC: No Point Complaining
To support the lies of the anti-capitalists pushing the Global Warming scam, the BBC has gone into overdrive with its propaganda. Now, whilst in a sane world this would attract a sustainable complaint, it is not the worst of it.
Last night the BBC wheeled on Roger Harrabin to talk about Global Warming. He said the glaciers in the Himalayas are melting (we dealt with that ages ago- isn't happening), the Arctic melting (he means in the summer, not mentioning it comes back in the winter) and other tired lines.
The problem is though, the BBC omitted to mention that their employee, given this airtime, has a vested interest in the continuation of the Global Warming theme. He has a financial interest. He is involved with Green projects from which he personally benefits.
The BBC feels that it is so morally superior that anything is justified. What is actually the case is that the stench of corruption is so prevalent, that they can't smell a new arrival.
Last night the BBC wheeled on Roger Harrabin to talk about Global Warming. He said the glaciers in the Himalayas are melting (we dealt with that ages ago- isn't happening), the Arctic melting (he means in the summer, not mentioning it comes back in the winter) and other tired lines.
The problem is though, the BBC omitted to mention that their employee, given this airtime, has a vested interest in the continuation of the Global Warming theme. He has a financial interest. He is involved with Green projects from which he personally benefits.
The BBC feels that it is so morally superior that anything is justified. What is actually the case is that the stench of corruption is so prevalent, that they can't smell a new arrival.
Expert, Textpert, Choking Smokers
Are there any honest scientists around these days? Any who got into science for the science and the thrill of discovery? Because the airwaves are constantly referring to 'experts' pontificating about something or other and they are usually more interested in their involvement than its veracity of accuracy.
Today, strangely soon after 5 a day was questioned due to the new hatred for sugar, we are told that 5 a day is not enough. No, to hell with the sugar, you need 7 portions a day of fruit and vegetables. Now I don't know about you, but I would expect this to be science based and tell us something important and provable.
I would expect that the science would show how our bodies interact with the food we eat and helps to prolong our lives. But nope, we still don't really understand that so it is a survey. Wonderful 'experts' have told us that they have found that people who live longer eat lots of fruit and vegetables. Were other aspects of their lifestyle factored out?
In fact, how do they know that the food they ate was a causative factor in their long life? What about genetics, exercise, wealth?
Then we have the wailing banshees of Global Warming. I cannot believe, actually, really cannot believe the news stories that reported the latest IPCC comedy script. How could anyone say, with a straight face that Global Warming has been worse than we feared, when there hasn't been any for 17 years?
Why are we even listening to people who a) can't explain why they didn't predict the lack of warming and b) can't explain how the supposed Global Warming actually occurs? Anyway, the rise in temperature over the last 150 years has been 0.7 degrees. This is not only insignificant and irrelevant, we also have no idea how out of kilter that is with historic climate variations.
What we do know is that it has been warmer and colder before without our CO2 having any input and that as we continue to pump out CO2 the temperature hasn't risen. Sure, anti-capitalist, AGW alarmists and even some people who support them and are scientists as well, have come up with some catch-all, speculative comments to explain away everything they get wrong, but generally they don't want to talk about it.
There is proof that CO2 isn't warming the globe, but none to say it does. All of the posing by the IPCC led by a railway engineer, doesn't change the fact that the only story they have is, there has been some overall warming and at the same time we have produced more CO2, so they must be linked.
Or maybe it was because Charles Dickens wrote some books, in that time window and reading them causes Global Warming. Really, that is no wilder than what we are asked to believe by the alarmists. Why otherwise would the latest IPCC report say Global Warming, even in the weird world they inhabit is less than we thought and the summary says 'we're doomed, doomed I tell you'.
Is it because the summary is for 'policymakers' so it is the bit that has to contain the con?
Today, strangely soon after 5 a day was questioned due to the new hatred for sugar, we are told that 5 a day is not enough. No, to hell with the sugar, you need 7 portions a day of fruit and vegetables. Now I don't know about you, but I would expect this to be science based and tell us something important and provable.
I would expect that the science would show how our bodies interact with the food we eat and helps to prolong our lives. But nope, we still don't really understand that so it is a survey. Wonderful 'experts' have told us that they have found that people who live longer eat lots of fruit and vegetables. Were other aspects of their lifestyle factored out?
In fact, how do they know that the food they ate was a causative factor in their long life? What about genetics, exercise, wealth?
Then we have the wailing banshees of Global Warming. I cannot believe, actually, really cannot believe the news stories that reported the latest IPCC comedy script. How could anyone say, with a straight face that Global Warming has been worse than we feared, when there hasn't been any for 17 years?
Why are we even listening to people who a) can't explain why they didn't predict the lack of warming and b) can't explain how the supposed Global Warming actually occurs? Anyway, the rise in temperature over the last 150 years has been 0.7 degrees. This is not only insignificant and irrelevant, we also have no idea how out of kilter that is with historic climate variations.
What we do know is that it has been warmer and colder before without our CO2 having any input and that as we continue to pump out CO2 the temperature hasn't risen. Sure, anti-capitalist, AGW alarmists and even some people who support them and are scientists as well, have come up with some catch-all, speculative comments to explain away everything they get wrong, but generally they don't want to talk about it.
There is proof that CO2 isn't warming the globe, but none to say it does. All of the posing by the IPCC led by a railway engineer, doesn't change the fact that the only story they have is, there has been some overall warming and at the same time we have produced more CO2, so they must be linked.
Or maybe it was because Charles Dickens wrote some books, in that time window and reading them causes Global Warming. Really, that is no wilder than what we are asked to believe by the alarmists. Why otherwise would the latest IPCC report say Global Warming, even in the weird world they inhabit is less than we thought and the summary says 'we're doomed, doomed I tell you'.
Is it because the summary is for 'policymakers' so it is the bit that has to contain the con?
Tuesday, 25 March 2014
Met Office May Have It Right
The BBC via its science editor David Shukman is pushing the latest output from the Climate Change Propaganda Unit otherwise known as the Met Office. This time however, after repeated attempts to predict the weather based on Climate Change ideology and getting it spectacularly wrong, they may have hit on a winning formula.
Apparently, the Met Office thinks that our summers will be hot, unless they're not, dry unless it rains and our winters will be milder, but sometimes cold with snow. Which sounds very much like the weather Britain has had as far back as I can remember.
In fact its unpredictability and variability is precisely why the British have a reputation for always talking about the weather. The twist of course, is that this variability is now portrayed as new and due to human factors affecting the climate.
Interestingly, neither Shukman nor the Met Office are troubled by the lack of science involved in reaching these politically motivated results. The Met Office is 100% on board with the Left oriented, anti-capitalist project that is Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Ask the Met Office why so many scientists have a problem with their prognostications and why their 'consensus' is almost entirely derived from vested interest, Left wing political organisations and they will refuse to talk to you. Offer to debate the subject and they will say it is a settled issue so there is no need. Because they have no ability to prove their case and they know it.
Generally, you can tell if you are being duped (and that it is a Left wing project) if you are not allowed to object to it, debate it, or that you are in some way defective if you disagree. Debating a con is not the way forward as many a criminal would tell you, so the weapon of choice of the Left is the one that shuts out and closes down debate.
Argument and 'proving your case' has long been the way the British have done things. It has shaped our culture and a broader civilisation and it has achieved great things. It is a fundamental of true liberty. So it is no surprise it is something the Left avoid as if it were a contagious plague. For them, it would be utter chaos if everyone was allowed to have an opinion and openly state it.
A command and control system cannot function unless the workers are kept in place, uneducated and with no ambition, without access to any forum for exchanging ideas. For their own good, of course.
Apparently, the Met Office thinks that our summers will be hot, unless they're not, dry unless it rains and our winters will be milder, but sometimes cold with snow. Which sounds very much like the weather Britain has had as far back as I can remember.
In fact its unpredictability and variability is precisely why the British have a reputation for always talking about the weather. The twist of course, is that this variability is now portrayed as new and due to human factors affecting the climate.
Interestingly, neither Shukman nor the Met Office are troubled by the lack of science involved in reaching these politically motivated results. The Met Office is 100% on board with the Left oriented, anti-capitalist project that is Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Ask the Met Office why so many scientists have a problem with their prognostications and why their 'consensus' is almost entirely derived from vested interest, Left wing political organisations and they will refuse to talk to you. Offer to debate the subject and they will say it is a settled issue so there is no need. Because they have no ability to prove their case and they know it.
Generally, you can tell if you are being duped (and that it is a Left wing project) if you are not allowed to object to it, debate it, or that you are in some way defective if you disagree. Debating a con is not the way forward as many a criminal would tell you, so the weapon of choice of the Left is the one that shuts out and closes down debate.
Argument and 'proving your case' has long been the way the British have done things. It has shaped our culture and a broader civilisation and it has achieved great things. It is a fundamental of true liberty. So it is no surprise it is something the Left avoid as if it were a contagious plague. For them, it would be utter chaos if everyone was allowed to have an opinion and openly state it.
A command and control system cannot function unless the workers are kept in place, uneducated and with no ambition, without access to any forum for exchanging ideas. For their own good, of course.
Monday, 24 March 2014
The Importance Of Bureaucracy
In Britain today, public sector workers and particularly those in charge of anything, have an absolute belief in their own moral superiority. When something goes wrong, they are most concerned that no blame is attached and no-one is held accountable. Public officials are, they feel, saints who only have the purist of motives. If something goes wrong, it cannot be their fault.
So, to hear that Kettering Hospital puts its 'reputation' above patients lives is no surprise, really. A young girl has an operation to remove her appendix and subsequently bleeds to death. A number of issues of hand-over and handwriting are mentioned, but the glaring omission in the 'care' provided was the gap between her last observation and when they found her dead - nine hours.
Although the hospital carried out an investigation into what happened, it will not disclose the contents of that report to protect their staff whose mental health might otherwise be endangered. It has the added benefit of being able to hide who might be responsible and exactly what went wrong. After all, what purpose would knowing that serve? None of the saints and angels involved meant any harm.
I can't help thinking that many of the problems in our public services would be at least lessened if not completely cured, if public servants were held to account in the same way private firms are. Come to that, the politicians could be required to fall in line too, or pay the price. But I think that really is the block on reform. MP's will not countenance any suggestion that they should be accountable! Elections are bad enough, what with all the twaddle required to deceive voters!
And in the end Kettering Hospital upholds its reputation by not letting you know how bad it really is and no changes will be made for the better, because it was only an accident and as no one, but the victims family, suffered no-one will be that concerned if it happens again. As long as the cloak of invisibility is still available to the guilty parties.
Remember, whilst you might struggle to forgive yourself if there was an accident in which someone died, but where you could have done nothing to help, these people through indolence and a criminal level of negligence have allowed a death that was preventable in all likelihood and they continue to turn up to collect their wages despite being woefully inadequate.
So, to hear that Kettering Hospital puts its 'reputation' above patients lives is no surprise, really. A young girl has an operation to remove her appendix and subsequently bleeds to death. A number of issues of hand-over and handwriting are mentioned, but the glaring omission in the 'care' provided was the gap between her last observation and when they found her dead - nine hours.
Although the hospital carried out an investigation into what happened, it will not disclose the contents of that report to protect their staff whose mental health might otherwise be endangered. It has the added benefit of being able to hide who might be responsible and exactly what went wrong. After all, what purpose would knowing that serve? None of the saints and angels involved meant any harm.
I can't help thinking that many of the problems in our public services would be at least lessened if not completely cured, if public servants were held to account in the same way private firms are. Come to that, the politicians could be required to fall in line too, or pay the price. But I think that really is the block on reform. MP's will not countenance any suggestion that they should be accountable! Elections are bad enough, what with all the twaddle required to deceive voters!
And in the end Kettering Hospital upholds its reputation by not letting you know how bad it really is and no changes will be made for the better, because it was only an accident and as no one, but the victims family, suffered no-one will be that concerned if it happens again. As long as the cloak of invisibility is still available to the guilty parties.
Remember, whilst you might struggle to forgive yourself if there was an accident in which someone died, but where you could have done nothing to help, these people through indolence and a criminal level of negligence have allowed a death that was preventable in all likelihood and they continue to turn up to collect their wages despite being woefully inadequate.
Monday, 17 March 2014
Which Empire?
Trying to pick the bad guy in the Ukraine incident should be easy, bearing in mind Putin is involved, but it isn't. Take the current flashpoint, Crimea. Lots of ethnic Russians live there and they are completely happy to 'rejoin' Russia rather than stay part of the Ukraine. So, a referendum is organised and it probably didn't even need to be rigged, 95% want to be with Mother Russia.
Surely, though, this still amounts to Russia interfering with the internal politics of another country, not least due to the military in and around the country? Undoubtedly, yes. But when we look at how this all came about we find that it was the EU attempting to sign up Ukraine to deals that are really the early stages of joining the EU and all is not so clear.
No referendum there and in fact a semi-violent overthrow of the existing regime to allow the EU to keep on track, absorbing the Ukraine into their empire. And I'm not sure that joining a completely undemocratic, command and control superstate is what the Ukrainians think the EU is about, (the EU are somewhat coy about mentioning it).
So rejoin the corrupt and flawed former Soviet Union state of Russia, or sign up with a proto-Soviet Union in the making, such is the choice facing the Ukraine.
Where Do You Hide A Boeing 777?
The Malaysian Airlines jet mystery would be an interesting intellectual problem, were it not for the fact that it had 239 people on board. It is an agony not knowing, not knowing that someone is dead and grieving or whether to have hope that they are still alive, even though it can be dashed in a moment.
But all we can do currently is speculate in an effort to find it and answer the questions. So what do we appear to know? That the aircraft was completely 'normal' in its crew, fuelling and all other issues relating to its flight to Beijing. That it turned soon after crossing over the sea, back towards Malaysia, crossed the peninsular and turned off the devices most likely to give away its location.
Reports now suggest that it flew low, at 5000 feet. All of this suggests two things, that the aircraft was deliberately taken in this direction and that it was trying to hide its intentions. This further suggests a third, that dying was not part of the equation. If crashing the plane into the sea, or just blowing it up were the objectives then these actions would only make knowing about it and finding the wreckage more difficult and why would that ever matter?
But if you wanted to land somewhere, unobserved then this would be what you would need to do. The question then, how on earth can you land something as big, noisy and obvious as a Malaysian airliner without someone noticing. Someone at least, inclined to mention it?
Naturally, countries run by idiots, like North Korea fit the bill, but what would be the agenda, for North Korea let alone the pilot? The easiest place to hide something of course, is in plain sight. A Malaysian aircraft landing in Malaysia is hardly news, but you would hope that the airfield receiving it would have had some filed flight plan, to allow it to land, and then when the story broke, mention it.
Maybe a fictitious flight was invented? Not sure how easy that is, in Malaysia. But then, how to explain 239 passengers in the wrong place, who are not allowed to contact anyone?
No, it seems most likely that the plane has landed somewhere and some nation, or elements within it are hiding it. But as above, a motive for such an action is unclear and would have to have involved at least both pilots and the conviction to carry it out with some threat to the passengers. The pilots could have been coerced by a terrorist taking over the plane, or who had the ability to fly it himself, but that doesn't change anything, other than blame and detail.
For me, the plane has been landed somewhere West of Malaysia, where no-one would report or notice the aircraft. But it is still the most bizarre of actions.
But all we can do currently is speculate in an effort to find it and answer the questions. So what do we appear to know? That the aircraft was completely 'normal' in its crew, fuelling and all other issues relating to its flight to Beijing. That it turned soon after crossing over the sea, back towards Malaysia, crossed the peninsular and turned off the devices most likely to give away its location.
Reports now suggest that it flew low, at 5000 feet. All of this suggests two things, that the aircraft was deliberately taken in this direction and that it was trying to hide its intentions. This further suggests a third, that dying was not part of the equation. If crashing the plane into the sea, or just blowing it up were the objectives then these actions would only make knowing about it and finding the wreckage more difficult and why would that ever matter?
But if you wanted to land somewhere, unobserved then this would be what you would need to do. The question then, how on earth can you land something as big, noisy and obvious as a Malaysian airliner without someone noticing. Someone at least, inclined to mention it?
Naturally, countries run by idiots, like North Korea fit the bill, but what would be the agenda, for North Korea let alone the pilot? The easiest place to hide something of course, is in plain sight. A Malaysian aircraft landing in Malaysia is hardly news, but you would hope that the airfield receiving it would have had some filed flight plan, to allow it to land, and then when the story broke, mention it.
Maybe a fictitious flight was invented? Not sure how easy that is, in Malaysia. But then, how to explain 239 passengers in the wrong place, who are not allowed to contact anyone?
No, it seems most likely that the plane has landed somewhere and some nation, or elements within it are hiding it. But as above, a motive for such an action is unclear and would have to have involved at least both pilots and the conviction to carry it out with some threat to the passengers. The pilots could have been coerced by a terrorist taking over the plane, or who had the ability to fly it himself, but that doesn't change anything, other than blame and detail.
For me, the plane has been landed somewhere West of Malaysia, where no-one would report or notice the aircraft. But it is still the most bizarre of actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)