Battle of Britain Memorial Flight Welcomes Newest Member

Atheists: Still Desperatly Seeking Relevance

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........

I'd put it all down to Daddy issues, except for the amusing bit at the end. Yes, indeed, there's nowt so behind the times as the avant garde.

This Is Being A Poodle

Like I keep saying, The Dave will always find new ways to nauseate.

At least when the usual suspects accused Tony Blair of being a poodle, it was over actual policy. Blair, like Bush, believed there was no possibility of long-term security as long as the Middle East was allowed to remain a cesspit, hence his support for invading Iraq.

Meanwhile, a car load of Senators demand the Head of Her Majesty's Government presents himself like a schoolboy going to the headmaster's office and he folds like a row of tents. Odds of M. Sarkozy or Frau Merkel turning up for a meeting with the MPs for Cornwall? More or less than the chances of the whole county breaking off Devon and drifting to Spain?

That's what hacks me off so much about this guy. It's not just that individual policies are insane, it's that his whole worldview is a train wreck. What does it say about him that he can't see something fundamentally wrong with the idea of a British PM submitting to an inquisition by hack politicians from a foreign land?

Today's Deep Thought

If liberals treated criminals like they treat conservatives, and vice versa, the country would be a lot better off.

And Talking Of The BBC...

Haven't they done well to get a whole series called 'How To Beat Tough Times' completed and on air in such a short time considering that three months ago they were predicting a massive upturn any minute?

Next up: the BBC discovers homelessness

As I Was Saying...

Now Lord Taylor has been charged, surely that apology from the BBC can only be a matter of time?

About That 'Tone' Thing...

Following on from the post below, one of the stupidest excuses for liberal thuggery is that, gosh darn it, they're all in favour of robust political debate, but they just prefer a civilised tone.

Kathy Shaidle drives a stake right through the heart of that idiocy here:

Finally, having run out of counter-"facts", sarcastic liberal now objects to your "tone."

You ask if one recites pi to the 50,000th decimal place without error, but does so in a Mickey Mouse voice, if that renders said recitation inaccurate.

Triumph Of The Shrill

As I understand the basics of the John Gaunt case, he compared a member of our ruling class to a Nazi, then got forced out of his job by a state body.

So no Nazi overtones there at all then.

Personally, I think we dodged a bullet. If calling them Nazis means they use the power of the state to hound you out of your job, think what they do when you call them perverts?

But what are the odds, hey? We've had eight years of BushChimpler slurs but with the Obamamessiah in the White House and Useless Dave in No 10, liberals are suddenly against harsh language. Can't we all just get along?

Well, no, actually. Consider the actual casus belli here: Councillor Heinrich's bonkers idea of keeping kids in care just to make some anti-smoking point. This isn't even a case of either/or. In contrast to the theoretical risks of passive smoking, the lousy outcomes for kids in care are a fact. Kids are having their lives blighted just because some spooky wierdos don't dig fags. This is the type of thing that's supposed to enrage decent people.

Still, now we have the High Court's verdict that's it's unreasonable to call Michael Stark 'ignorant', we have to.... well, actually this is the Blogosphere, so we can say what we mean, unlike the fearless MSM, which has fearlessly grovelled to the thugs at OFCOM. We can say that Councillor Michael Stark is a vicious little rat and a bully, a fascist dolt who's readiness to resort to thuggery is a testament to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of his ideas. In so far as he supports using some of the most vulnerable people in society as sock puppets in his stupid crusade, he is a sicko, little deviant who's unfit to be trusted with the keys to the stationary cupboard, far less the fate of young children. 'Ignorant' is unfair only in so far as it suggest his problem is stupidity rather than depravity. On the contrary, his determination to choke off the public debate speaks to a man under no illustrations about the utter failure of his twisted ideology in the marketplace of ideas.

In fact, the only people worse than Herr Stark are the MSM drones who cravenly accept the right of agents of the state to do all but burst through the studio doors shouting 'Satire Squad! Step away from the mike!'..... all the while lamenting that their crappy, dull, government-approved stations are failing.

Once you have High Court Judges picking through commentary and deciding what's lawful and what's 'undirected abuse', the whole 'free speech' thing is DOA. You can't have worthwhile political commentary if everyone's looking over their shoulder for Big Government to suddenly leap out and announce that no one expects the OFCOM Inquisition (but, since we're on the subject of undirected abuse, what was the actual point of Jerry Springer: The Opera)?

Actually, all this is still giving liberals too much credit. This is an exercise in simple thuggery, and some of them aren't even trying to hide it: check it out.

Yes, indeed: state harassment of right-wing commentators is a good thing because it restricts right-wing commentary. A-huh!

All of which proves that, as usual, I am right: liberalism can only succeed by force or fraud.

Post In Which I Brilliantly Draw Together Two Disparate Elements To Make A Serious Point

Never ones to miss a chance for absurd liberal preening, BBC4 on Tuesday aired a program celebrating the 50th anniversary of the publication of 'To Kill A Mocking Bird'.

Yes, indeed: liberals are standing up and bravely denouncing lynch mobs and racism, come what may!

But there's more to it than the left's habit of courageously speaking out against dragons, just as soon as St George starts typing up his after-action report. Consider what the central plot device is in TKAMB: a false rape accusation.

Lynch mobs and Jim Crow laws strike liberals as red-hot issues, but a black guy facing a false rape charge? Ancient history, dude!

The liberal obsession with supposedly detecting super-secret racism everywhere merely rams home the point how absurd is the idea of lynch mobs of Klansmen running round Britain's streets. They may as well denounce bear baiting or witch craft. Meanwhile, under the legal arrangements favoured by Harriet Harperson and friends, Tom Robinson would surely have been found guilty, racism or no racism.

All of which brings me back to the BBC and their plans for a 'Man's Hour'. What are the odds of 'Britain's Campest Man' and pals taking time out from probing each other's depths to cover false rape accusations? Better or worse than the chances of them airing about a thousand cutesy interviews with faux lad, performing seal manginas like Nick Hornby et al? Hey, it's not like they can say they're short of material.

Sounds Like A Job For Liberalman!

In case you missed it, here's last week's Things That Offend Muslims Story.

Don't worry though: in a break with tradition, it's only a tiny minority of extremists, but the moderates think we should pander to them anyway.

I know - I was shocked too, but there you have it.

But wait... what's this?

The move comes despite the subject being a compulsory part of the national curriculum.

While parents have legal rights to withdraw children from religious and sex education classes, no automatic right exists to pull them out of lessons such as music.

Zut Alors! Even now, I imagine Marxist pillock Peter Lee is disappearing into a phone booth to do a quick change....

I mean, that's right, isn't it? These guys indisputably are ignoring a compulsory part of the national curriculum (an actually compulsory part, this time), so Captain Tolerance will doubtless be ready to write them a ranty letter in ALL CAPS, right? It's not like our nation's educrats are just gutless bullies and degenerate snobs, right?

Book Burning: Not Always A Bad Thing

Well said, Sir!

Hey, if it's great literature, why are liberals so keen to ram it down the throat of schoolkids?

Actually, I've always thought of it as the literary equivalent of the old line about Stephen Fry: it's what stupid people think of as an intelligent book. AB puts it right in the X-ring:

In all great novels there is some quality of moral ambiguity, some potentially controversial element that keeps the book from being easily grasped or explained. One hundred years from now, critics will still be arguing about the real nature of the relationship between Tom and Huck, or why Gatsby gazed at that green light at the end of the dock across the harbor. There is no ambiguity in "To Kill a Mockingbird"; at the end of the book, we know exactly what we knew at the beginning: that Atticus Finch is a good man, that Tom Robinson was an innocent victim of racism, and that lynching is bad. As Thomas Mallon wrote in a 2006 story in The New Yorker, the book acts as "an ungainsayable endorser of the obvious."

For extra credit, he could also have pointed out the humbuggery inherent in a book stuffed full of absurd caricatures where one of the leads opines that 'You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view'. Huh?

Indeed, at one point, Good Ol' Atticus takes time out to explain to Scout the difference between the fine, upstanding, (i.e. liberal) town dwellers, and the barely human rural folks.

It's noticeable that for a book supposedly about race, blacks barely feature at all, and when they do, it's purely as powerless victims of the system, rather than actual, fully-rounded characters. The racial theme is merely a pretext for ostentatious liberal moral preening combined with class hatred of the white working class. Then again, isn't that modern liberalism in a nutshell?

UPDATE:

A drive-by lib offered this in the comments..

this is the dumbest thing i've read today.

...thereby refuting the argument that Harper Lee's main stroke of genius was realising just how much filthy lucre there was in working out a way for none too sharp liberals to feel smart without the inconvenience of actual thought.

Still, it set me thinking. There's a whole extra layer of humbuggery over here. You just know that in any British (alleged) classic, the narrator would be one of the poor (but proud) folks and the middle classes would be depicted as brutes, hypocrites and the like. All of which is by way of saying that the rise of the Cult of TKAMB in the UK might just be a useful barometer of the British left's slow switch from representing the workers to representing the social workers.

The Most Perfect Example of BBC Balance Evah!

Yes, indeed: the BBC has decided to balance up the femiloon rantings of Radio 4's 'Woman's Hour' with a 'Men's Hour'. Which is not a wholly hideous idea, except when you hear what it's actually going to cover:

Called Men's Hour, the new series will “delve into unchartered emotional territory for men, bringing real candour to the challenges of relationships and life”, the corporation claims.

Blurgggh!

Seriously, someone should tell them: it's women who indulge in all this emotional crap. Pretending that they're super-deep is a way for them to fantasise about being special snowflakes, without needing to rely on actual achievement.

Just what definition of 'man' is the BBC using here anyway?

Ah yes:

However, in contrast to the matronly manner of Jenni Murray, the Woman’s House presenter, the show will also feature Louie Spence – described as the campest man on TV – as a regular fixture.

And there you have it, the BBC's definition of balance: on the one had we have shrieking, feminazi, vampire Hell-demons, on the other, whiny, mangina, cuddle bitch ladyboys. This is balance at the BBC.

Even Guardian Writers Don't Read The Guardian

Julie's reading the Guardian, so you don't have too.

First, there's prolier than thou Cath Elliot, writing from a sink estate in Glasgow (right?) about why the middle class suck, suck, suck!!!!

They're the ones who get to make the big decisions that impact on our lives, and they're also the ones who we see every day working hard to ensure that their class is protected and cushioned when times get tough.

Say what, Cath? Would that be like devoting space to an overpaid flack's plea for the government to keep spending taxpayer's money on overpaid flacks? Is that what you mean?

They Said If I Wasted A Vote On UKIP Felons Would Walk Free And They Were Right!

I guess we're just lucky enough people believed all those Certified Conservative Intellectuals when they claimed Cast Iron Dave was a secret conservative, after all.

Oops.

By now, I'm guessing all but the most committed of kool aid drinkers have to admit that Cameron's 'conservative principles' are the Atlantis of British politics: even those who believe they exist have to admit they're sunk without a trace.

It's not all bad news though. Amusing as it is - in a nauseating kind of way - that so many leftists have now belatedly decided that prison works (apparently, the last 13 years must have been some other Labour party), criticism from the left may just mean the pro-criminal lobby have to make actual arguments, instead of just dismissing all their critics as knuckle-dragging bigots.

Mind you, not to go all Laban, but there was always something strange about the 'People's Party' deciding that, hey, if it comes down to choosing between brutal thugs who make life hellish for everyone else on our nation's sink estates, or their victims, their sympathies are all with the hoods.

As far as the debate itself goes, I'm with the guy on one of the police blogs who said that claiming our current system proves prison doesn't work is like saying that you took a paracetamol a week ago, but you've now got a headache so, hey, painkillers must be a right-wing myth.

Still, it does raise one more question: if prison is a failure because a six month sentence can't convert a guy with multiple convictions for violence into a model citizen, what does that say about the arm of government that spends 11 years failing to teach kids to read? Are we allowed to say that doesn't work either?

Liberalism: Your F2 Philosophy

As in 'Force or Fraud' - the only two ways by which liberals can successfully advance their squalid ideology. Or sometimes both at once.

MSM: Wrong Again

Is there a more annoying genre of journalism than the one where people who've never had a proper job berate everyone else for being distracted by trivia, instead of embracing their particular hobby horse?

I think of them as the 'how can you eat lunch while there's polar bears dying in Africa?' stories. Latest example: here.

The thing is Glover's article doesn't even make sense on its own terms - and not just because the landlord sounds kind of cool. Glover implies that the whole footy thing is just a distraction from the real issues. Really? Consider the Fabio Capello story.

Here was a guy who was wafted into the hot seat on a cloud of media hype. Anyone who pointed out that he lacked relevant experience, never having managed in England or at international level, was labelled a luddite Little Englander. No, siree, Jack: this was a new era, and if Fabulous Fabio needed to stuff the payroll with cronies and all but declare himself emperor, well, that was the price of progress.

Hey, it worked for a while, but even then, some morons were heard to suggest that doing the double over Andorra wasn't quite the achievement the MSM portrayed it as and maybe Capello's achievements merely reflected England returning to their natural level after being dragged down by the borderline lunacy of his predecessor. Still, if you listened to the MSM, times they were a-changing, and if Capello seemed more comfortable tearing into the traditional values of English football than explaining what he wanted to replace them with, well, that just proved how sophisticated he was (and never mind that his tactics seemed mightily to resemble those discarded by Continental teams a generation ago).

Nemesis arrived in South Africa. It turned out that the MSM's Designated Messiah was an autocratic bully totalling lacking in any ability to lead those whose skills he needed for success, while his supposedly superior intellect didn't stretch to actually coming up with any answers for England's problems.

So, in summary then, absolutely no resonance with anything or anyone else in the country. Our 'watchdog' media backing a total chump is just a one-off and we can safely ignore any further consideration of Mr Fabio Camerello.