"Be always at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors ...and let each new year find you a better man."Benjamin Franklin
Thursday, 31 December 2009
Quote of the Day
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
UK Glorious Leader's New Year Speech
The Glorious Leader and saviour of the world Gordon Brown delivers his New Year’s message to his grateful people.He warned voters not to "wreck the recovery", presumably by voting for someone other than him in next year’s election that has been forced on him.
One wonders if he sees voters who don’t wholeheartedly support him as “saboteurs” and “wreckers”. Maybe they need to be lured out and dealt with for the good of the nation.
One fears the speech may be open to misunderstanding so I have helpfully provided a commentary to assist with certain passages…
Gordon: “important legislation making long-term changes in energy, climate change, health, pensions, planning, housing, education and transport, 2008 will be a year of measurable changes in public services. important legislation making long-term changes in energy, climate change, health, pensions, planning, housing, education and transport, 2008 will be a year of measurable changes in public services.”
Translation: “we will be legislating (as quietly as possible) massive tax hikes to try to cover our pissing away tax payers hard earned cash. We will hide this by pretending it is to save the planet. Maybe we will set some more target that will mess everything up and fiddle the figures to pretend we met them.”
Gordon: ”we will not shirk but see through changes and reforms in the vital area for our future - secure energy, pensions, transport, welfare, education, health and national security.
We will strengthen the democracy and unity of our country. Our priority at all times, our guiding purpose: One Britain of security and opportunity for all the British people.”
Translation: ”So say good-by to some more ancient rights, liberties and freedoms. We will be building power stations where we want and really don’t want to be bothered by your reasonable objections. Oh and if you think you will be allowed to just do things like taking a picture of Nelson’s column or possibly a member of the constabulary shoving an old man over then think again. You can be harassed and arrested for that now.”
Gordon: “ Our strong economy is the foundation. And with unbending determination, in 2008, we will steer a course of stability through global financial turbulence.
The global credit problem that started in America is now the most immediate challenge for every economy and addressing it the most immediate priority.”
Translation: “Our economy that I badly damaged when I was chancellor and carried on treating like my personal piggy bank as PM is pretty shot, but maybe, if I keep saying it’s strong some of you might be stupid enough to believe it. In any case it is the nasty American’s fault and in no way nothing to do with me whatsoever and I do hope you don’t notice everyone else seems to be starting to recover so much more quickly."
Gordon: ”To lead in the skills of the future and create a full employment Britain, we will guarantee young people the right to school or college, an apprenticeship or training free of charge until the age of 18. This is the greatest change in education in our country in half a century.”
Translation: “Unfortunately young people don’t have much hope of getting a job since I did so much to bugger the economy… so I will make sure they stay in full time education - and off the unemployment books as long as humanly possible.”
Gordon: ”To lead in safeguarding the environment, the climate change bill will make Britain the first country to legislate legally-binding cuts in carbon emissions.
And because a good environment is good economics, we will take the difficult decisions on energy security - on nuclear power and renewables - so British invention and innovation can claim new markets for new technologies and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.“
Translation: ”We will tie a stealth taxation ball and chain round the economy’s leg and as I said build Wind farms and Nuclear Power stations where we damned well please – Got it?”
Gordon: "To build for the future of our families and our economy, we are starting the biggest housing programme to boost owner occupation - and will provide historic levels of investment in transport and infrastructure through Crossrail, at Heathrow and across the country.
Translation: ”We will build crap housing and instant sink estates where we please and by historic we mean something as useful and popular as the Beaching cuts. There’s historic for you”
Gordon: ”we will not be deflected from our commitment to cleaner hospitals and to change to increase the opening hours of GP surgeries.”
Translation: ”Lets hope the thicko voters don’t remember we have had over a decade to fix all this stuff already and just made it noticeably worse. Especially GPs hours with that cocked up new contract we came up with, everyone knows you used to be able to get your own Doctor to visit your home in an emergency, now you have to talk to NHS direct on the phone and then get to make your own way to a centre or call an ambulance if they think you need it.”
Gordon: “We have other promises to keep, from neighbourhood policing in every community to the renewal of our democracy and the revival of confidence in our political process. We will define a new citizenship of rights and responsibilities - and establish a new points system as a condition of living and working in Britain.”
Translation: ”Yes I know you don’t trust the police much anymore after we politicised them got them arresting law abiding members of the public instead of criminals and tied them up with targets and red tape so they cant patrol. But we hope if we start to pick on those immigrants we encouraged in the first place as stealth ideological social engineering maybe you won’t vote for that bastard Griffin.”
Gordon: ”And in 2008, with firm conviction and resolve, we will make the case for the United Kingdom - standing up for the cause of the Union and against secession, showing people in all parts of the country that for so many of the challenges our country faces - from climate change to terrorism - there are no Wales-only, Scotland-only or England-only solutions.”
Translation: ”…and talking of bastards... You little shit Salmond! If you think you are cutting away what’s left of my political support you have another think coming. You just want to be a big frog in a small pond and are throwing away the large big UK pond the Scots are already in charge of - Idiot!!”
Gordon: "And in 2008, with firm conviction and resolve, we will make the case for the United Kingdom - standing up for the cause of the Union and against secession, showing people in all parts of the country that for so many of the challenges our country faces - from climate change to terrorism - there are no Wales-only, Scotland-only or England-only solutions.”
Translation: ”In your face Salmond. – one peep from you and we will nail you with being soft on terrorism, especially after you let that Libyan out of jail”
Gordon: "This season is above all a time to pay tribute to those who serve and sacrifice for our country, often in places far away. And we pledge that the men and women on the frontlines of our security, at home and overseas, will have all the resources they need for our defence and their own safety.”
Translation: ”Hurrah for our good old troops!! See how patriotic I am folks… don’t you pay any mind to the fact that we have looked down on the sort of people who are willing to defend their country for decade. Or that we have cut their numbers, equipment and funding to the bone - while expanding the civil service and useless parasitic Quangos. Or the fact that to actually supply half decent kit after a public outcry we are going to gut other areas of defence funding even more. Hurrah for the troops!”
And hey folks! Don't forget you can take a Labour Manifesto Promise straight to the failing bank of Neverpay.
It's Legal, it's official you can't reasonably expect them to deliver on them.
Thursday, 24 December 2009
A Merry and Happy Christmas to all
Christmas Eve... For many of us it conjures happy childhood memories. Memories loaded with excitement and happiness form a time when the world, especially at Christmas, seemed a more magical, happy and safer place.
Each year it seems to be commercialised, diluted and spread out back earlier and earlier. Even so, at it’s heart is that core. Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.
Charles Dickens encapsulates it in his Pickwick Papers when he writes:
“Happy, happy Christmas, that can win us back to the delusions of our childish days; that can recall to the old man the pleasures of his youth; that can transport the sailor and the traveller, thousands of miles away, back to his own fire-side and his quiet home!”
Still for many of us these memories - and the feelings they can still call up, makes us just a little more patient and tolerant at this time of year. A little more generous of spirit, slightly slower to anger.
The celebrations may pre-date Christianity. They always did and still do contain much that has very little, on the face of it, to do with the teachings of Christ. Never-the-less much that is at the core of Christmas as we know it, Christian or Pagan do in a very real sense have at their core the best of “Christian” values.
Values worth having because they generally make life better for all - if we hold to them. That we should hold to, no matter what belief, or philosophy.
So here’s wishing the world - and everyone in it, good cheer and best wishes this Christmas.
Still for many of us these memories - and the feelings they can still call up, makes us just a little more patient and tolerant at this time of year. A little more generous of spirit, slightly slower to anger.
The celebrations may pre-date Christianity. They always did and still do contain much that has very little, on the face of it, to do with the teachings of Christ. Never-the-less much that is at the core of Christmas as we know it, Christian or Pagan do in a very real sense have at their core the best of “Christian” values.
Values worth having because they generally make life better for all - if we hold to them. That we should hold to, no matter what belief, or philosophy.
So here’s wishing the world - and everyone in it, good cheer and best wishes this Christmas.
As Dickens said:
“I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round, as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys.”
Here’s a hope that we can try to be like his reformed character Ebenezer Scrooge from A Christmas Carol and carry that spirit of decency with us into the new year when he proclaimed:
"I will honor Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year."
“I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round, as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys.”
Here’s a hope that we can try to be like his reformed character Ebenezer Scrooge from A Christmas Carol and carry that spirit of decency with us into the new year when he proclaimed:
"I will honor Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~###~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scrooge was better than his word - He did it all... and infinitely more…
He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world.
Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.
…it was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge.
May that be truly said of us, and all of us! …God Bless Us, Every One!
He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world.
Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.
…it was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge.
May that be truly said of us, and all of us! …God Bless Us, Every One!
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
Quote of the Day
"As long as I have any choice, I will stay only in a country where political liberty, toleration, and equality of all citizens before the law are the rule."Albert Einstein
Don't you know who I am?
Picture this. He has tattoos. “HATE” and “ACAB” on his knuckles and a spiders web on his neck.
He is shaved bald and struts imperiously. He is walking his dog Bruno. It is some unspecified sort of bull terrier. The dog defecates on the floor near a “no fouling sign” and he walks on by, just leaving it.
A young mother takes him to task over it and he blankly refuses to do anything about it telling her “It aint Brunoe's fault, he's only a puppy and no way am I going to pick up shit, you think I'm do'in that you are stupid” Suppose she stood up to him anyway and there was a fierce argument over it...
What would you think of our dog walking example? You would think he was scum wouldn't you?
You might think he relied on his physical power to avoid admitting responsibility and doing something he considered beneath him.
Now suppose the dog walker was female, maybe a UK government minister... say the Solicitor General to pick a post at random. The post is currently held by ID card and dog loving Vera Baird MP for Redcar.
If it was her would you change your opinion?
The confrontation over the dog mess was sufficiently fierce, or the dog fouling sufficiently annoying, for members of the public to call the police.
In this instance, despite the police becoming involved... well a community support officer anyway. No action was taken. No fine for allowing a dog to foul, no nothing.
When the hapless Support officer attended the scene when they didn't show sufficient biased deference she reportedly demanded of him “Don't you know who I am?” Maybe they had thought it shouldn't matter who she was. That the law should apply equally to all...
No action was taken but, it is reported, the dog owner got an official apology.
I wonder who go to clean up the mess?
You might be forgiven for thinking that, practically speaking, there is one law for the political elite and one for the rest of us.
I suspect you could be sure if it had been an ordinary member of the public they would have been instant fodder for Police figures, probably getting a fixed penalty fine, possibly being arrested and having their DNA taken if they had no ID.
He is shaved bald and struts imperiously. He is walking his dog Bruno. It is some unspecified sort of bull terrier. The dog defecates on the floor near a “no fouling sign” and he walks on by, just leaving it.
A young mother takes him to task over it and he blankly refuses to do anything about it telling her “It aint Brunoe's fault, he's only a puppy and no way am I going to pick up shit, you think I'm do'in that you are stupid” Suppose she stood up to him anyway and there was a fierce argument over it...
What would you think of our dog walking example? You would think he was scum wouldn't you?
You might think he relied on his physical power to avoid admitting responsibility and doing something he considered beneath him.
Now suppose the dog walker was female, maybe a UK government minister... say the Solicitor General to pick a post at random. The post is currently held by ID card and dog loving Vera Baird MP for Redcar.
If it was her would you change your opinion?
The confrontation over the dog mess was sufficiently fierce, or the dog fouling sufficiently annoying, for members of the public to call the police.
In this instance, despite the police becoming involved... well a community support officer anyway. No action was taken. No fine for allowing a dog to foul, no nothing.
When the hapless Support officer attended the scene when they didn't show sufficient biased deference she reportedly demanded of him “Don't you know who I am?” Maybe they had thought it shouldn't matter who she was. That the law should apply equally to all...
No action was taken but, it is reported, the dog owner got an official apology.
I wonder who go to clean up the mess?
You might be forgiven for thinking that, practically speaking, there is one law for the political elite and one for the rest of us.
I suspect you could be sure if it had been an ordinary member of the public they would have been instant fodder for Police figures, probably getting a fixed penalty fine, possibly being arrested and having their DNA taken if they had no ID.
Monday, 21 December 2009
Quote of the Day
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."Thomas Jefferson
UK State encroachment backs off, but not far enough
The UK's New Labour Government seem to have backed off slightly from their frankly crazily draconian extremes of their criminal records check system after public outcry.
As usual the public are far too reasonable and don't complain nearly enough, about anything like enough.
The legislation was supposedly brought in to prevent another “Soham” child murder and essentially tries to and succeeds in treating practically any adult who may anything to do with children as a paedophile unless proven otherwise.
In practice this amounts to, effectively, a licensing system the individual must pay for themselves to be allowed to interact with the young.
The ludicrous - and typical for the New Labour State - thing is that there were perfectly good existing systems in place that, if they had actually been followed, would almost certainly have prevented the Soham murders.
Rather than address the failure to follow the existing system, New Labour rail-road through new, hastily and ill conceived authoritarian legislation. Legislation, that it is difficult to imagine would ever have been acceptable to previous generations, who had a greater respect for our historic ...and rapidly becoming just historical traditional liberties.
All of this is the New Labour states instinct to legislate and the ostensible reason is to protect children Ahhh. And with New labour there is always a subtext and one suspects layers of agenda.
The sub text will be “So it can not be a good thing to resist it can it?” It is there to keep children safe. In the same way as their National ID scheme is always to “fight organised Crime and Terrorism”. Speak out against it and you are “soft on crime”.
Despite the state's tactical withdrawal on some of the more draconian aspects of the legislation and the insane consequences that come from it the legislation is still Owellian.
It also, most dangerously of all in my opinion, establishes the precedent that the State rules who may interact with the young not the citizen.
Before the clime down it was seriously preventing job sharing friends looking after each other's children by private arrangement. May still impact of what mutual arrangements parents are allowed to make amongst themselves to drive their kids to school.
In the case of the women they were both police officers so were presumably subject to vetting anyway when they joined up. Insane. If this was not deliberately intended to result by the legislators then it was a piss poor piece of legislation. But then that is par for the course with the current government that apparently does not do thinking things through or joined up thinking.
As I mentioned what is being slipped in without anyone seeming to be aware is the precedent that the sate rather than the parent decides who is allowed to interact with and influence the citizen's child.
The State distracts like a grinning performing magician. “Look at my hand nothing up my sleeve Ladies and Gents, Girls and Boys.”
As usual the public are far too reasonable and don't complain nearly enough, about anything like enough.
The legislation was supposedly brought in to prevent another “Soham” child murder and essentially tries to and succeeds in treating practically any adult who may anything to do with children as a paedophile unless proven otherwise.
In practice this amounts to, effectively, a licensing system the individual must pay for themselves to be allowed to interact with the young.
The ludicrous - and typical for the New Labour State - thing is that there were perfectly good existing systems in place that, if they had actually been followed, would almost certainly have prevented the Soham murders.
Rather than address the failure to follow the existing system, New Labour rail-road through new, hastily and ill conceived authoritarian legislation. Legislation, that it is difficult to imagine would ever have been acceptable to previous generations, who had a greater respect for our historic ...and rapidly becoming just historical traditional liberties.
All of this is the New Labour states instinct to legislate and the ostensible reason is to protect children Ahhh. And with New labour there is always a subtext and one suspects layers of agenda.
The sub text will be “So it can not be a good thing to resist it can it?” It is there to keep children safe. In the same way as their National ID scheme is always to “fight organised Crime and Terrorism”. Speak out against it and you are “soft on crime”.
Despite the state's tactical withdrawal on some of the more draconian aspects of the legislation and the insane consequences that come from it the legislation is still Owellian.
It also, most dangerously of all in my opinion, establishes the precedent that the State rules who may interact with the young not the citizen.
Before the clime down it was seriously preventing job sharing friends looking after each other's children by private arrangement. May still impact of what mutual arrangements parents are allowed to make amongst themselves to drive their kids to school.
In the case of the women they were both police officers so were presumably subject to vetting anyway when they joined up. Insane. If this was not deliberately intended to result by the legislators then it was a piss poor piece of legislation. But then that is par for the course with the current government that apparently does not do thinking things through or joined up thinking.
As I mentioned what is being slipped in without anyone seeming to be aware is the precedent that the sate rather than the parent decides who is allowed to interact with and influence the citizen's child.
The State distracts like a grinning performing magician. “Look at my hand nothing up my sleeve Ladies and Gents, Girls and Boys.”
Saturday, 12 December 2009
Quote of the Day
"Theory helps us bear our ignorance of facts."Andrew Carnegie
"Scientists should always state the opinions upon which their facts are based."Unknown
"What we see depends mainly on what we look for."John Lubbock
"Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed."Thomas Henry Huxley
"Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition."Adam Smith
Friday, 11 December 2009
Predictably... Unpredictable
The met office is at it again predicting record highs that is. This time for Summer 2010.
Logically, sooner or later they may even turn out to be right if only by sheer chance and persistence .
But one can't help feeling that they are simply thinking... "Hmmnnn Global warming... Well it's bound to be hot isn't it? I Know! Lets just predict that. Not enough people will remember if we get it wrong again anyway."
I am sure we all remember the blistering "Barbecue summer" of 2009, with record highs predicted by the met office.
There was the recession and we were looking forward to being able to enjoy it in the UK for once. We had visions of Bournemouth being more like Niece. They coined the term Stay-cation in anticipation.
The Barbecue summer predictably failed to materialise and there was a last minute surge in Non European (Euro exchange rate being poor) bookings to escape the rain. Turkey anyone? Then it just kept raining with autumn seeing flood defences being overwhelmed... again.
Meteorologists if they are honest admit they can really only accurately predict the weather up to about five days ahead. Long term predictions about "big weather" effects, such as global warming for instance come from "Climatologists".
Also in line before the again predicted Barbecue summer is a mild winter
Interestingly the bookies, who make a good living out of calculating the odds - and getting it right - are shortening the odds on a white Christmas. More Turkey anyone?
One has to wonder about all these warm predictions. But some might not consider the Met Office boss John Hirst to be 100% disinterested and objective. He was reportedly leaning on his staff recently over the scandal at the Climatic research unit. He was very keen they all sign to "defend their profession" and state they had the "utmost confidence" in the evidence questioned. Without it seems looking too closely at the leaked emails.
Long range weather forecasts should not be simply Warmist propaganda. They should be as objectively accurate as possible. Even if the climate is warming it will surely be a trend but an average trend, not up every year.
Now if my boss leaned on me that way it would make me feel uncomfortable, Jobs are important in a recession.
It has apparently been suggested by some scientists that "The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming."
So it seems if you want to work you had better know what side your bread is buttered on.
Clearly the "Barbecue summer" side...
Logically, sooner or later they may even turn out to be right if only by sheer chance and persistence .
But one can't help feeling that they are simply thinking... "Hmmnnn Global warming... Well it's bound to be hot isn't it? I Know! Lets just predict that. Not enough people will remember if we get it wrong again anyway."
I am sure we all remember the blistering "Barbecue summer" of 2009, with record highs predicted by the met office.
There was the recession and we were looking forward to being able to enjoy it in the UK for once. We had visions of Bournemouth being more like Niece. They coined the term Stay-cation in anticipation.
The Barbecue summer predictably failed to materialise and there was a last minute surge in Non European (Euro exchange rate being poor) bookings to escape the rain. Turkey anyone? Then it just kept raining with autumn seeing flood defences being overwhelmed... again.
Meteorologists if they are honest admit they can really only accurately predict the weather up to about five days ahead. Long term predictions about "big weather" effects, such as global warming for instance come from "Climatologists".
Also in line before the again predicted Barbecue summer is a mild winter
Interestingly the bookies, who make a good living out of calculating the odds - and getting it right - are shortening the odds on a white Christmas. More Turkey anyone?
One has to wonder about all these warm predictions. But some might not consider the Met Office boss John Hirst to be 100% disinterested and objective. He was reportedly leaning on his staff recently over the scandal at the Climatic research unit. He was very keen they all sign to "defend their profession" and state they had the "utmost confidence" in the evidence questioned. Without it seems looking too closely at the leaked emails.
Long range weather forecasts should not be simply Warmist propaganda. They should be as objectively accurate as possible. Even if the climate is warming it will surely be a trend but an average trend, not up every year.
Now if my boss leaned on me that way it would make me feel uncomfortable, Jobs are important in a recession.
It has apparently been suggested by some scientists that "The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming."
So it seems if you want to work you had better know what side your bread is buttered on.
Clearly the "Barbecue summer" side...
Saturday, 5 December 2009
Quote of the Day
"He that cannot reason is a fool. He that will not is a bigot. He that dare not is a slave."Andrew Carnegie
No room for science that is not "on message"
It has been a while since I have posted, as has been pointed out to me.
The reason is twofold. I have far less time to spare for blogging than I used to and I frankly despair that it makes any difference. The public sometimes seem indifferent to the lies, obfuscations and fiddles of politicians.
I listen sometimes to a sound bite or even news report and the broken logic and confused reasoning is truly incredible to behold. And they do it with straight faces too. You can practically see the fishing hook in the reporters mouth sometimes.
It’s certainly not because there was nothing to post about.
There is something that has disturbed me quite a lot recently. You see it every now and then in the news.
Most recently, ahead of the Copenhagen talks, over the fuss caused by those leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, in the UK that suggest leading ‘climate scientists’ may have fiddled figures and destroyed data to bolster the anthropomorphic theory of climate change, Man Made Global Warming.
The UK Premier and Glorious Leader Gordon Brown came out strongly in defence of consensus global warming with another personal contribution of hot air in the Guardian ranting:
"With only days to go before Copenhagen, we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics,"
Now why anyone in their right mind would by now imagine Gordon Brown to be competent in anything - let alone “climate science”, when he is clearly a complete buffoon in his own claimed area of expertise… economics, I fail to grasp. Better for the warmists camp if he had kept quiet.
His mere mention of it almost makes one want to seriously review everything one knows about “flat earth science”, in case there just might be something in it after all :-)
Surely it is "anti science" to fiddle results? To bolster your own research? To destroy data that someone who is questioning your figures asks for? To discount evidence against your theory. Or indeed to shout down opponents, denigrate them.
The language becomes even more suspect when another politician Ed Miliband (David Milliband’s not so famous younger brother), branded anyone who is not fully on New Labour’s political message as, “dangerous and deceitful, climate saboteurs”.
David is the one Hills seems to like.
Ed, like David, soaked up Marxist Theory at his father Ralph’s knee so he probably knows a thing or two about class enemies and re-education. One wonders when they will enact legislation to lock these climate saboteurs in mental institutions and outlaw their deceitful lies.
That it is all over climate change in this particular instance is almost irrelevant to my point. If the science is good it can stand on it’s own feet. It can stand up to scrutiny, It does not fear verification. It certainly does not need the sort of language employed by religious or old style soviet leaders.
As soon as one hears things couched in that sort of intemperate hyperbole Brown and Milliband deployed you know you are dealing with a deep belief like a religious or political conviction, not subject to being moved by reason or proof and willing to do anything to protect and support their dogma or belief.
But it is not in relation to just one of the state’s pet enthusiasms you see this dubious attitude wherever it surfaces in a certain mind set.
Recently it was discovered by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) that the original recommendations for an individual’s average daily calorie intake, which were made in 1991, underestimated the average requirement by up to 16%.
The official UK guidelines were and still are at the time of writing, 2,000 calories for women, 2,500 calories for men and 1,800 calories for children aged five to 10, 16% below the real figure.
The first official thoughts seem to be concern that revising the guidelines might risk sending "mixed messages", rather than concern for accuracy.
It was reported that health campaigners were concerned that the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) could seek to "sweep this report under the carpet" in a bid to avoid sending out “mixed messages “in the middle of an “obesity epidemic”. Especially as New Labour are looking at the introduction of new food-labelling schemes. The FSA has spent two years evaluating new methods of labelling and this will change things
This view was bolstered when The National Obesity Forum partnered with the government’s Department of Heath chipped in warning that it was a ‘dangerous assumption’ that adults could consume more calories each day.
Advice Service Diet Scotland representative Lorraine McCreary, said: “People have lived with these established guidelines for a long time and most people understand if they go above the recommended intake they are likely to put on weight” she went on to say she thought it would be “very confusing for people.”
Again, when New Labour’s drug aviser complained that government policy on drugs didn’t fit with the science or the advice the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) were giving the government he was ruthlessly forced out by Alan Johnson the UK Home Secretary to shut him up.
The unfortunately named Professor, David Nutt had criticised Labour politicians for "distorting" and "devaluing" the research evidence in the debate over illicit drugs. Pointing out that some "top" scientific journals had published "horrific examples" of poor quality research on the alleged harm caused by some illegal drugs.
UK police boss Johnson said the Professor’s comments “damaged efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs”.
Time and again we see those who run the UK state have scant regard for whatever may, or may not, be the actual facts.
Their prime concern seems to be that science is "on message", that it should be forced to bolster whatever policy they happen to have, shoehorned to fit with any square corners roughly hacked off to fit the round hole they insist it will be going in.
Whether it is to enable them to criminalise and control vast swathes of the British public or to find new and inventive ways of stealthily taxing them (for their own and the planet’s good of course) in these straightened times.
The party dogma machine just grinds away. Anyone who questions it, right or wrong, is shouted down, ground under, called bad names, briefed against.
No wonder people are more interested in voting for the X-Factor TV show, at least they get the chance to do that once a year and their vote influences the outcome of the contest.
The reason is twofold. I have far less time to spare for blogging than I used to and I frankly despair that it makes any difference. The public sometimes seem indifferent to the lies, obfuscations and fiddles of politicians.
I listen sometimes to a sound bite or even news report and the broken logic and confused reasoning is truly incredible to behold. And they do it with straight faces too. You can practically see the fishing hook in the reporters mouth sometimes.
It’s certainly not because there was nothing to post about.
There is something that has disturbed me quite a lot recently. You see it every now and then in the news.
Most recently, ahead of the Copenhagen talks, over the fuss caused by those leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, in the UK that suggest leading ‘climate scientists’ may have fiddled figures and destroyed data to bolster the anthropomorphic theory of climate change, Man Made Global Warming.
The UK Premier and Glorious Leader Gordon Brown came out strongly in defence of consensus global warming with another personal contribution of hot air in the Guardian ranting:
"With only days to go before Copenhagen, we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics,"
Now why anyone in their right mind would by now imagine Gordon Brown to be competent in anything - let alone “climate science”, when he is clearly a complete buffoon in his own claimed area of expertise… economics, I fail to grasp. Better for the warmists camp if he had kept quiet.
His mere mention of it almost makes one want to seriously review everything one knows about “flat earth science”, in case there just might be something in it after all :-)
Surely it is "anti science" to fiddle results? To bolster your own research? To destroy data that someone who is questioning your figures asks for? To discount evidence against your theory. Or indeed to shout down opponents, denigrate them.
The language becomes even more suspect when another politician Ed Miliband (David Milliband’s not so famous younger brother), branded anyone who is not fully on New Labour’s political message as, “dangerous and deceitful, climate saboteurs”.
David is the one Hills seems to like.
Ed, like David, soaked up Marxist Theory at his father Ralph’s knee so he probably knows a thing or two about class enemies and re-education. One wonders when they will enact legislation to lock these climate saboteurs in mental institutions and outlaw their deceitful lies.
That it is all over climate change in this particular instance is almost irrelevant to my point. If the science is good it can stand on it’s own feet. It can stand up to scrutiny, It does not fear verification. It certainly does not need the sort of language employed by religious or old style soviet leaders.
As soon as one hears things couched in that sort of intemperate hyperbole Brown and Milliband deployed you know you are dealing with a deep belief like a religious or political conviction, not subject to being moved by reason or proof and willing to do anything to protect and support their dogma or belief.
But it is not in relation to just one of the state’s pet enthusiasms you see this dubious attitude wherever it surfaces in a certain mind set.
Recently it was discovered by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) that the original recommendations for an individual’s average daily calorie intake, which were made in 1991, underestimated the average requirement by up to 16%.
The official UK guidelines were and still are at the time of writing, 2,000 calories for women, 2,500 calories for men and 1,800 calories for children aged five to 10, 16% below the real figure.
The first official thoughts seem to be concern that revising the guidelines might risk sending "mixed messages", rather than concern for accuracy.
It was reported that health campaigners were concerned that the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) could seek to "sweep this report under the carpet" in a bid to avoid sending out “mixed messages “in the middle of an “obesity epidemic”. Especially as New Labour are looking at the introduction of new food-labelling schemes. The FSA has spent two years evaluating new methods of labelling and this will change things
This view was bolstered when The National Obesity Forum partnered with the government’s Department of Heath chipped in warning that it was a ‘dangerous assumption’ that adults could consume more calories each day.
Advice Service Diet Scotland representative Lorraine McCreary, said: “People have lived with these established guidelines for a long time and most people understand if they go above the recommended intake they are likely to put on weight” she went on to say she thought it would be “very confusing for people.”
Again, when New Labour’s drug aviser complained that government policy on drugs didn’t fit with the science or the advice the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) were giving the government he was ruthlessly forced out by Alan Johnson the UK Home Secretary to shut him up.
The unfortunately named Professor, David Nutt had criticised Labour politicians for "distorting" and "devaluing" the research evidence in the debate over illicit drugs. Pointing out that some "top" scientific journals had published "horrific examples" of poor quality research on the alleged harm caused by some illegal drugs.
UK police boss Johnson said the Professor’s comments “damaged efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs”.
Time and again we see those who run the UK state have scant regard for whatever may, or may not, be the actual facts.
Their prime concern seems to be that science is "on message", that it should be forced to bolster whatever policy they happen to have, shoehorned to fit with any square corners roughly hacked off to fit the round hole they insist it will be going in.
Whether it is to enable them to criminalise and control vast swathes of the British public or to find new and inventive ways of stealthily taxing them (for their own and the planet’s good of course) in these straightened times.
The party dogma machine just grinds away. Anyone who questions it, right or wrong, is shouted down, ground under, called bad names, briefed against.
No wonder people are more interested in voting for the X-Factor TV show, at least they get the chance to do that once a year and their vote influences the outcome of the contest.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
New Labour's Child Catchers
The UK Orwellian NewLabour state is desperately rolling out the quite sinister National Children's Database designed to contain details of and track everyone in the UK under 18.
One wonders how long it will be before they decide to keep the details for life...
The alleged reason for it is to enable "more co-ordinated services for children" and of course to ensure none slips through the net like Victoria Cimbie.
It is questionable if such a database would in fact have prevented her death, or that of baby "P", local co-ordination, lower case loads and effective working practices would almost certainly have far more impact and cost far less.
In the same way they try to uses the fear of terrorism to justfy a national ID database. It is well known thatID cards would never have prevented the London Tube suicide bombers. Or those who attempted to bomb busy London clubs and attacked Glasgow Airport.
This governemt though seems to have only one kneejerk reponse, cataloguing, regimentaion and control of the ordinary citizen - and it seems their children too.
It is terrifying to think of the numbers of people who will have access to what should be private details of our children. Will all council employees be vetted in the same way as youth workers? No. The potential vulnerability that access to this data lays children open to is truly concerning.
Then there is the potential to just loose the details releasing them into the public domain.
The way local councils have misused anti terrorist laws gives an indication they are not to be trusted with our children's details, that are effectively also our details. How long before they routinely check them to establish where you live for instance?
Those who take comfort that these are the twilight days of New Labour and hope the scheme will die a death with their electorial demise are probably fooling themselves. Once rolled out could an new incoming governemnet be trusted to remobve such a big state friendly tool of control?
Maybe the economic facts of life might make a difference. The database is currently slated to cost £224 million, as with all such things this will be underestimated by a whole order of magnitude. Perhaps in the end it will prove to be too expensive.
One wonders how long it will be before they decide to keep the details for life...
The alleged reason for it is to enable "more co-ordinated services for children" and of course to ensure none slips through the net like Victoria Cimbie.
It is questionable if such a database would in fact have prevented her death, or that of baby "P", local co-ordination, lower case loads and effective working practices would almost certainly have far more impact and cost far less.
In the same way they try to uses the fear of terrorism to justfy a national ID database. It is well known thatID cards would never have prevented the London Tube suicide bombers. Or those who attempted to bomb busy London clubs and attacked Glasgow Airport.
This governemt though seems to have only one kneejerk reponse, cataloguing, regimentaion and control of the ordinary citizen - and it seems their children too.
It is terrifying to think of the numbers of people who will have access to what should be private details of our children. Will all council employees be vetted in the same way as youth workers? No. The potential vulnerability that access to this data lays children open to is truly concerning.
Then there is the potential to just loose the details releasing them into the public domain.
The way local councils have misused anti terrorist laws gives an indication they are not to be trusted with our children's details, that are effectively also our details. How long before they routinely check them to establish where you live for instance?
Those who take comfort that these are the twilight days of New Labour and hope the scheme will die a death with their electorial demise are probably fooling themselves. Once rolled out could an new incoming governemnet be trusted to remobve such a big state friendly tool of control?
Maybe the economic facts of life might make a difference. The database is currently slated to cost £224 million, as with all such things this will be underestimated by a whole order of magnitude. Perhaps in the end it will prove to be too expensive.
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Food for thought
The UK government and it's indirectly government financed “pressure groups” and “Charities” have been really pushing the anti obesity thing for some time now with talk of taxing certain food products plus having set minimum prices for alcohol and punitive taxes on it too.
If you are overweight you are not just morally reprehensible because the Puritanical socialist-patrician classes don't approve of you.
No from their tone you are not just a resource hogging criminal because you are personally destroying the UK's National Health Service.
Now it seems you threaten the whole planet, every last one of us, every creature and plant you are personally making “Climate Change” worse and you must be stopped.
If you are overweight you are not just morally reprehensible because the Puritanical socialist-patrician classes don't approve of you.
No from their tone you are not just a resource hogging criminal because you are personally destroying the UK's National Health Service.
Now it seems you threaten the whole planet, every last one of us, every creature and plant you are personally making “Climate Change” worse and you must be stopped.
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Arrested for filming changing of the guard?
Well that is interesting. It seems. The UK Government has been busy “protecting” us all from TERRORISM and ORGANISED CRIME again… oh so quietly.
Why quietly? Because as is usual when they are ”protecting” us It is at best a two edge sword, but usually just involves another mechanism that is curiously suited for oppression.
Even Dame Stella Rimmington former head of MI5 thinks the New Labour State is exploiting the fear of terrorism to restrict our civil liberties - and she ought to be able to spot it if anyone can.
So what have New Labour quietly sneaked in under the radar this time? Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act is what. It is supposedly there to stop TERRORISTS gathering intelligence on the police and Armed Services by taking pictures of them.
Now what did they do with Communists who wanted to take pictures of sensitive stuff and situations during the Cold War? Presumably arrested them for spying. They didn’t need such a law then. Presumably the government of the time had a greater regard for civil liberties.
Part of the blizzard of new laws that make it an offence to do things like commit murder on a Tuesday as opposed to say just committing murder. Then there would be committing murder on Wednesdays whilst wearing a hat…
So what does this effectively do? It gives the police the power to arrest anyone filming them or taking a picture of them, say for instance, when they are doing something that might lay them open to criticism.
It seems even the rank and file police officers feel this may be a step too far and their “union” the Police Federation have expressed concerns.
We have already had it repeatedly demonstrated that the New Labour Sate and their pet New Labour senior police officers can be relied upon to misuse any such legislation, practically as soon as it is passed to suppress political dissent and embarrassing revelations/facts. Even to the extent of having senior opposition ministers arrested.
And they have the nerve to criticise Mugabe, when he is only watching them and learning.
Why quietly? Because as is usual when they are ”protecting” us It is at best a two edge sword, but usually just involves another mechanism that is curiously suited for oppression.
Even Dame Stella Rimmington former head of MI5 thinks the New Labour State is exploiting the fear of terrorism to restrict our civil liberties - and she ought to be able to spot it if anyone can.
So what have New Labour quietly sneaked in under the radar this time? Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act is what. It is supposedly there to stop TERRORISTS gathering intelligence on the police and Armed Services by taking pictures of them.
Now what did they do with Communists who wanted to take pictures of sensitive stuff and situations during the Cold War? Presumably arrested them for spying. They didn’t need such a law then. Presumably the government of the time had a greater regard for civil liberties.
Part of the blizzard of new laws that make it an offence to do things like commit murder on a Tuesday as opposed to say just committing murder. Then there would be committing murder on Wednesdays whilst wearing a hat…
So what does this effectively do? It gives the police the power to arrest anyone filming them or taking a picture of them, say for instance, when they are doing something that might lay them open to criticism.
It seems even the rank and file police officers feel this may be a step too far and their “union” the Police Federation have expressed concerns.
We have already had it repeatedly demonstrated that the New Labour Sate and their pet New Labour senior police officers can be relied upon to misuse any such legislation, practically as soon as it is passed to suppress political dissent and embarrassing revelations/facts. Even to the extent of having senior opposition ministers arrested.
And they have the nerve to criticise Mugabe, when he is only watching them and learning.
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
New Labour State Reclassifies Cannabis
It seems the New-Labour State has, in the face of it’s own advisors best advice, decided to reclassify cannabis as a class b drug.
Given that this decision is not based on the merits of the case, especially as having it de classified saw a 4% drop in its use, the immediate question that arises is, “What is their agenda?”
Interestingly, they effectively plan to record a persons details on the first “offence” and fine them on the second “offence”.
I don’t know what the percentage of the UK population is that at some time has tried cannabis but I suspect it is very significant. I would imagine thousands of essentially law abiding otherwise non criminal users are detected by the police every year.
To give an idea of the numbers, when surveyed 10% of people asked actually admitted they had used an illegal drug in the past year, that is around 3,100,000 people. Given that many of the repondants may not have admitted using drugs and that the majority of drug use involves cannabis that is a huge pool of potential cannabis users.
One effect of these new rules is likely to be a massive increase in the number and rate of additions to the New Labour State’s disguised National DNA Database.
Another effect is likely to be a considerable increase in revenue for the State in the form of fixed penalty or so-called “on the spot” fines.
Could either of these considerations influenced a cash strapped government anxious to push through a massively unpopular national DNA database?
Then there is the matter of pretending to be ”tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime”…
Given that this decision is not based on the merits of the case, especially as having it de classified saw a 4% drop in its use, the immediate question that arises is, “What is their agenda?”
Interestingly, they effectively plan to record a persons details on the first “offence” and fine them on the second “offence”.
I don’t know what the percentage of the UK population is that at some time has tried cannabis but I suspect it is very significant. I would imagine thousands of essentially law abiding otherwise non criminal users are detected by the police every year.
To give an idea of the numbers, when surveyed 10% of people asked actually admitted they had used an illegal drug in the past year, that is around 3,100,000 people. Given that many of the repondants may not have admitted using drugs and that the majority of drug use involves cannabis that is a huge pool of potential cannabis users.
One effect of these new rules is likely to be a massive increase in the number and rate of additions to the New Labour State’s disguised National DNA Database.
Another effect is likely to be a considerable increase in revenue for the State in the form of fixed penalty or so-called “on the spot” fines.
Could either of these considerations influenced a cash strapped government anxious to push through a massively unpopular national DNA database?
Then there is the matter of pretending to be ”tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime”…
Tuesday, 20 January 2009
Welcom to A new US president
Today is the inauguration of President Elect Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America. Arguably one of the most powerful offices on the planet.There is an incredible optimism associated with this particular inauguration. It is seen as a sea change in US politics and society. It is doubly poignant as it comes after Martin Luther King Jnr’s day and is in many respects the realisation of his dream.
Everyone speaks of a black president. As someone pointed out to me it is largely in people’s minds. Barak Obama is in fact 50% black and that somehow makes him just “black”. You could use the same logic to say he was “White”.
Whatever, many people have invested a huge amount of hope in him. Maybe they should dial back on that just a little? He is human, not a superman. He does not have a magic wand.
If people build him up unrealistically in their minds they are likely to be correspondingly unrealistically disappointed if he can’t deliver on their every wish.
So here is a hope that people don’t expect too much and too fast and then get annoyed if he can’t do miracles. Especially with all the troubles the world is beset with right now.
Between Memorial Bridge and Arlington Cemetery, there is an inscription on the memorial to the Seabees, the U.S. Navy Construction Battalions. It says:
“The difficult we do immediately. The impossible takes a little longer.”
Tuesday, 13 January 2009
Quote of the Day
" The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."Thomas Paine
" At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols."Aldous Huxley
" Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."Martin Luther King Jr
" To those searching for truth - not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope."Thomas Edison
Potential threat UKs food security in New EU Rules
There are the beginnings of worries for security and self sufficiency in a number of areas, especially energy security, as recently highlighted over the European dependency and vulnerability to continued supply of gas from Russia.
Now it seems the UK’s food security is threatened by the EU. Another area where the UK no longer retains sovereignty over it’s own laws. They are now dictated by the EU.
Though it never really saw light in the MSM the reason Gordon Brown could not reduce VAT enough to be any practical use was that he was not allowed to reduce it below 15% by EU law.
So how is our food security damaged by the EU? Because they are changing the rules on how pesticides and the like are assessed. They have decided that scientific assessment is no longer a good enough test. Now they want to base it the ‘rigorous’ test of "perceived hazard" instead. What next, consulting astrologers?
Presumably this plays well with the green lobby and will help drive up prices to aid the Organic producers, but it has the potential to seriously threaten many of the UK’s crops and virtually wipe out carrot growing in the UK.
The National Farmer’s union is opposed. Their deputy president Meurig Raymond stated: "The lack of sound science behind the plans is a major concern,"
"We cannot support measures which reduce the tools available to farmers and growers to produce crops and that could ultimately jeopardise future food supply and security."
One of the main problems is that because of the UK’s generally damper climate than Europe certain pesticides are much more useful to combat diseases particularly associated with wet weather like potato blight.
The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs are also concerned. A spokesperson stated: "We believe the proposals could hit crop yields without noticeable benefit for human health.”
"We've done our own impact assessment on the matter but the European Commission has not."
It is feared close to a quarter of produce will be lost in the UK if the plans go through, including the total carrot crop and a 20% reduction in cereal production.
Now it seems the UK’s food security is threatened by the EU. Another area where the UK no longer retains sovereignty over it’s own laws. They are now dictated by the EU.
Though it never really saw light in the MSM the reason Gordon Brown could not reduce VAT enough to be any practical use was that he was not allowed to reduce it below 15% by EU law.
So how is our food security damaged by the EU? Because they are changing the rules on how pesticides and the like are assessed. They have decided that scientific assessment is no longer a good enough test. Now they want to base it the ‘rigorous’ test of "perceived hazard" instead. What next, consulting astrologers?
Presumably this plays well with the green lobby and will help drive up prices to aid the Organic producers, but it has the potential to seriously threaten many of the UK’s crops and virtually wipe out carrot growing in the UK.
The National Farmer’s union is opposed. Their deputy president Meurig Raymond stated: "The lack of sound science behind the plans is a major concern,"
"We cannot support measures which reduce the tools available to farmers and growers to produce crops and that could ultimately jeopardise future food supply and security."
One of the main problems is that because of the UK’s generally damper climate than Europe certain pesticides are much more useful to combat diseases particularly associated with wet weather like potato blight.
The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs are also concerned. A spokesperson stated: "We believe the proposals could hit crop yields without noticeable benefit for human health.”
"We've done our own impact assessment on the matter but the European Commission has not."
It is feared close to a quarter of produce will be lost in the UK if the plans go through, including the total carrot crop and a 20% reduction in cereal production.
Friday, 2 January 2009
Quote of the Day
" The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses."
Malcom X
" During a war, news should be given out for instruction rather than information."
Joseph Goebbels
" The interpretation of our reality through patterns not our own, serves only to make us ever more unknown, ever less free, ever more solitary."Gabriel Garcia-Marquez
" If they give you lined paper, write the other way."
William Carlos Williams
When is a Terrorist not a terrorist?
Has anyone else noticed how “terrorists” are suddenly “militants”?
I first noticed it when all the UK news channels suddenly seemed to start referring to the terrorists who attacked Bombay as “Militants”. Murdering scum encapsulates it nicely for me. Certainly they are terrorists. Undoubtedly Islamicist ones as well.
Difficult to think what else to call them but terrorists.
The term “militants” brings to mind the industrial unrest of the 70s in the UK, maybe Arthur Scargill’s lamentable comb over look and donkey jackets. The unions generally didn’t go in for suicide bombings, rocket attacks, or tote Kalashnikovs. Even the IRA drew the line at suicide bombings.
Now the people firing missiles into Israel, who seem to be the proximate cause of the recent flair up, are also “militants”, at least to the mainstream media.
It is difficult to imaging two such organisations as the BBC and Sky randomly and spontaneously starting to use the term at the same time, or to understand why they might - so one must presume it is not spontaneous.
Who’s agenda then? Unless they are running some sort of news cartel then logically it is likely to be the UK Government.
Why would it suit New Labour to phase out the term terrorist? News-Speak? Or more NewSpeak?
What don’t they want us thinking now…
I first noticed it when all the UK news channels suddenly seemed to start referring to the terrorists who attacked Bombay as “Militants”. Murdering scum encapsulates it nicely for me. Certainly they are terrorists. Undoubtedly Islamicist ones as well.
Difficult to think what else to call them but terrorists.
The term “militants” brings to mind the industrial unrest of the 70s in the UK, maybe Arthur Scargill’s lamentable comb over look and donkey jackets. The unions generally didn’t go in for suicide bombings, rocket attacks, or tote Kalashnikovs. Even the IRA drew the line at suicide bombings.
Now the people firing missiles into Israel, who seem to be the proximate cause of the recent flair up, are also “militants”, at least to the mainstream media.
It is difficult to imaging two such organisations as the BBC and Sky randomly and spontaneously starting to use the term at the same time, or to understand why they might - so one must presume it is not spontaneous.
Who’s agenda then? Unless they are running some sort of news cartel then logically it is likely to be the UK Government.
Why would it suit New Labour to phase out the term terrorist? News-Speak? Or more NewSpeak?
What don’t they want us thinking now…
Thursday, 1 January 2009
New Year 2009
Another year rolls into the past and the next hoves into view.
Farewell 2008. Let us hope 2009 brings better things to and for, the world and each of us, than the year just gone did.
Having New year on top of Christmas seems to be over doing things. Should we take a leaf out of the Roman's book and move it to when the world wakes up?
Would that have the southern hemisphere putting in a bid to move it completely?
In any event - Have a Happy Peaceful and Prosperous New Year - Everyone!
Farewell 2008. Let us hope 2009 brings better things to and for, the world and each of us, than the year just gone did.
Having New year on top of Christmas seems to be over doing things. Should we take a leaf out of the Roman's book and move it to when the world wakes up?
Would that have the southern hemisphere putting in a bid to move it completely?
In any event - Have a Happy Peaceful and Prosperous New Year - Everyone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)