Feminism 101

Julie points out another 'The Net Will Kill Us All' story. It's all good, but what really struck me was this bit:

After a moment of feminist outrage, Blair tweeted her reaction to last week's issue of More! magazine, which included an "inside men's minds" special. Blair's tweets were potentially defamatory and More! magazine could have demanded she delete them or risk the threat of a lawsuit. But they didn't. Instead, they retweeted her insults, cashing in on the free publicity.

Almost instantly, a tirade of indignant readers updated their status with vicious remarks…

So a femiloon slimes a magazine, non-insane people come to the magazine's defence, and this proves La Bigot is the real victim here. Huh?

Against that background it's hard to take seriously the authorette's whine that no one confronted her face to face after she slimed her colleagues. Does anyone seriously doubt that if they had, she'd have whined about The Harassment?

Update:

Link fixed!

We're All One Big Bastiat Tribute Band!

Yes, indeed: England go out the them! on the hottest day of the year. An economic boom surely follows, right?

By the way, for any five-oh sceptical of it all, I have one thing to say: just think of the overtime!

Update:

Heh. Few folks left on the kerb with this one. Bastiat wrote the Parable of the Broken Window to explain what he thought was bonkers about economics, namely that all economic activity is treated as good, even if - like replacing broken windows - there's no net gain at the end of it all. In contrast, if it's mere activity that you're after, replacing all the shop windows put through during the normal post-world cup exit near-riots ought to guarantee an economic boom (to say nothing of all that police overtime). Bastiat's theory could have been tested to destruction, except - as Ross notes - the sheer awfulness of England seemed to drained the life out every the most committed lunatics.

Shocka! Appeasement Still Working As Well As Ever (Part II)

If I understand President Ogabe's position correctly, it's that when a guy stands on a table screaming 'Allah Ackbar!' while hosing down his fellow troops, only a bigot could possibly read some kind of religious angle into all that. On the other hand, when a oil rig explodes the key factor is that the company concerned used to be called 'British Petroleum'.

Hmmmm.... apart from anything else, what's the theory of the crime here? The guys at BP were all drinking tea while watching the cricket when something, something, something and then there was a huge explosion.

What's the middle bit here? Still, before we anoint Tony Haywood as an other bold Atlas holding up an ungrateful world, let's remind ourselves of his company's fine record of crocodile feeding.

Yep - just as long as econuttery was a good way to shiv their competitors, BP were down with the program. It's only now, when they've become the latest folks to discover that you can go to bed with liberals, but they won't respect you in the morning, that BP have suddenly decided that Big Government isn't all sunshine & song, after all

Shocka! Appeasement Still Working As Well As Ever (Part I)

Don't be shocked, but The Dave throwing the Army under the bus last week didn't actually result in anyone except him and his cronies actually 'drawing a line' under anything much.

Here we go again!

The thing is that the vile little toad - Adams, not Cameron - has a point. If you take the absurd precedent set by Saville seriously, then why not? In fact, Adams's position is arguably less absurd than Saville's, being based on the latter's pseudo-legal precedent rather than carved out of whole cloth as Saville's train wreck legal reasoning was.

The Paras Killed Stephen Lawrence

They said if I wasted a vote on UKIP, a military hating freak might get into No 10 and they were right!

Yes, indeed: an enquiry set up to appease leftist fanatics and grievance farmers, headed by a liberal judge and making up the rules as it went along has found that everything the Left ever said is right. Who'd have thunk it?

Besides, any enquiry that involves this guy is clearly well-founded.

The Good Doctor reminds us of the previous winner of 'Best in Show':

Perhaps the fact that the inquiry was open to the public had something to do with the nature of the resulting report. The public gallery regularly overflowed with activists and extremists, who did not hesitate to jeer and mock the witnesses with whom they disagreed; the head of the inquiry, Sir William Macpherson, rarely admonished these spectators, thus creating an officially sanctioned atmosphere of intimidation....

At the beginning of the report, Macpherson defended the unusually “adversarial” manner in which the inquiry was conducted. “Cross-examination of many officers was undoubtedly robust and searching,” he wrote. A few pages later, without noticing any contradiction, he mentioned that when one Mr. Gompertz, the counsel for the police, was questioning Mrs. Lawrence, “The nature and content of the questions made Mrs. Lawrence protest that her perception was that she was being put on trial. Wisely Mr. Gompertz desisted.” In short, only the accused could be questioned.

This is how the left rewrites history: they wait until all the sane people have died, got old or otherwise moved on with their lives, next they hire Judge Skippy to hold an enquiry to prove that everything they said is right, then they announce that the subject is closed and it's time to 'move on'.

Give it twenty years and Judge Euan Blair will be presiding over an enquiry into the Orgreave Massacre of striking miners by Thatcher's SS.

All of which shows how useless our nation's Certified Conservatives actually are. Every time the left announces one of these bogus enquiries, they fall for it hook line and sinker. They're like Charlie Brown trying to kick that ball, while Lucy the Leftist suddenly announces that solicitors for the nominated patsy will only be allowed to question witnesses through the medium of mime.

Still, in its own way, it's kind of reassuring that no matter how predictably awful the mass of career conservatives are, The Great Dave always manages to find new and exciting ways to be even worse. The only good thing you can say about Cameron's Jane Fonda act is that at least we're not engaged in any wars at the moment. Otherwise, throwing the Army under the bus would be the height of irresponsibility.

Hey, I guessing this means all this grovelling to the left wasn't just about The Electability after all. Prime Minister Dave turns out to be just like Candidate Dave, and his whole philosophy of government is of public office as the continuance of campaigning by other means.

But while we're on the subject, I'd like to follow Dave's example and apologise to the nation for the Tories electing this pillock as leader. True, I've never been a party member, don't know how the Party's organised and think 90% of the members are drones, but that doesn't mean I can't sincerely pay tribute to these fine upstanding citizens, aside from their role in helping to destroy our nation.

Of course, some may say I'm being a little harsh but, fortunately, as Chairman of the House of Dumb Inquiry Into Actual Conservatism, I rule their evidence 'inadmissible'.

More seriously though, this case is just another example of the toxic nature of Cameronism.

We're supposed to admire how Cameron's nifty theft of the left's talking points has neutralised the political effects of Saville's ranting, but consider the wider issues - aside from stabbing the troops in Helmand in the back.

Saville claimed that the troops - acting as agents of a democratically-elected government in support of local law enforcement - acted provocatively by entering an area that a bunch of thugs in balaclavas had decided should be a no go area for cops. Moral equivalence isn't even the half of it. Any public servant accepting the supposed right of lunatics to declare de facto independence from the rule of law would be bizarre, but a judge? And if it's provocative to insist that the law is enforced everywhere in the country, why can't the Paras opt from Saville's nasty witch hunt, held years after the fact?

It turns out that the medium is the message. Whether it's Macpherson announcing that the lack of any evidence of racism is itself proof of racism, Saville claiming that there's no reason to believe a terrorist with a tommy gun was up to no good, or any of the other bazillion atrocities against reason over the last few years, the common theme is the left's ability to force through its own narrative as the accepted version of events. The whole point of these freaky show trials is that even as they debase the justice system, they establish the left as the guys who own the mint.

First They Came For The Homicidal Lunatics....

Further evidence for my theory that when hipsters claim to oppose paedophiles, they actually mean it in the purely abstract sense, rather than in the sense of opposing any predator that's ever actually existed.

In the same spirit, I would now like to out myself as a libertarian. Yes, indeed: I strongly believe police officers should not be allowed to randomly machine gun passers-by from their squad cars.

Still, that does raise one question for our hipster friends: in so far as Roy Whiting was convicted for a sexual offence against a child, got a slap on the wrist, moved on up to actual homicide, but is still allowed taxpayer's money to play 'Find That Loophole' just what does it take for our sofitikeyted pals to agree that yes, indeed, he is beyond the pale?

Straight From The Horse's....

Steyn catches a liberal OD'ing on scopalamine:

So ethnic cleansing of Jews is a “liberal” position? Albeit an “anti-establishment” one? What’s interesting is that, after spending so many years huffily insisting they’re not anti-Semitic but merely “anti-Zionist”, the British left is now happy to put an explicit call for “the Jews” to be returned to the land of Auschwitz under the category of “criticism of Israel”

As ever, I say: if it's the right that's so extreme, how come it's always liberals who fantasise about murder and ethnic cleansing?

The Ever-Evolving Gospel According To The Reverend Dale

Personally, I'm thinking Iain Dale has been kind of hard on David Laws:

Sometimes, you just hold your head in your hands and think 'how on earth did people like this get through the candidate selection procedure?'....

[David Cameron's] called Laws to account and I hope any Conservative does the same if they encounter people in the Government who hold similar lawless, and profoundly dishonest views. They should be chucked out of Parliament for good - not just suspended.

Oops. My mistake. He was actually writing about Philip Lardner, who had dared to question the gay agenda.

Meanwhile, Daily Mail readers were treated to the sight of the Reverend Dale giving David Outlaws the written equivalent of a full Lewinsky.

So, for those of you keeping score at home, this means that if you think the question of who an elderly grandmother, running a B&B half way up a mountain in Mid-Wales, rents a room to is purely a private matter, you, sir, are worse than Hitler! On the other hand, if you think the question of who an MP uses public money to rent a room from is a not a private matter, then you, sir, are also worse than Hitler!

The good news is that if only we can trick Laws into trying to rent a room off an elderly Christian lady, the whole gay rights movement might implode into some kind of logical death spiral.

And, No, Civil Liberties Nuts Don't Support Actual Civil Liberties Either

Good news: we've now found a new source of renewable power. Stick magnets on Cast Iron Dave and his constant U-turns could power a small city.

Of course, the real question is this: which is the greater force of nature? Cameron's gutlessness, or Harperson's stupidity?

Say, what you like about Mad Hattie, but at least her room temperature IQ means she keeps letting the truth slip out. Here she is on the case against anonymity:

[Harperson] said: 'We know that it is often only after many rapes that a defendant is finally brought to court and it is only at that point, often, when previous victims find the courage to come forward.

'By making rape defendants anonymous you are going to make it harder to bring rapists to justice.'

Errr...OK.

Hey, apart from anything else, can you imagine what Harpic's like playing Cluedo:

It was Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory with the Dagger.... or in the Kitchen with the Revolver.... Dining Room with the Spanner. How about the Garden with the Chainsaw? Listen dammit, as a member of the Rape-Industrial complex, he's clearly guilty anyway. Stop whining about the specifics!

Needless to say, the requirement that citizens be charged with committing a specific crime, at a specific time and place, is designed precisely to stop the State cobbling together Frankenstein's Case. Stripped of its Grrrrl Power! blather, Harmful's position is nothing more than the legal codification of the belief that there's no smoke without fire.

This is an actual civil liberty issue, not one of the approximately eleventy million totally, vital liberties that lurked undetected until 1997. So where are the Gitmo Groupies when we need them?