Thursday, April 29, 2004
Large parts of academia seem to survive purely through their ability to generate paranoia. They produce reams of meaningless blather in the hope that people will be sufficiently intimidated by it not to point out it's total rubbish, lest everyone else laughs at them for being such an idiot. Of course, not everyone cringes:
Practitioners of this type of "pretend"social science try to make out that there is no such thing as knowledge, and that all opinions are equally valid. The claim is that all we have is "talk", though they prefer the word "discourse". You may have your discourse; someone else will have another. Science in all its forms is just another discourse, so they maintain. Being unwilling to undertake the demanding work that is science, they assert that one opinion is as good as another. If they were right, there would be very little reason to go to university.
One of the figleafs for Blunkett the Borgs plan for compulsory
Still, as uselessly inefficient as this measure will be, if it works it could be truly terrifying.
Thanks to the excellent Moorewatch for the link.
Violent crimes booming, but it's alright, the Beeb's here to reassure us:
Violent crimes recorded by the police rose by 11% in the last quarter of last year, Home Office figures show.
The government said much of the increase was due to greater reporting and recording of low-level thuggery - which rose by 21%.
But, as Slick Willy would say, it depends what you mean by low-level:
More serious violent crimes such as homicide and serious wounding rose by 13%, compared to the same quarter in 2002, while "less serious" violent crime such as assaults was up 21% to 106,000 incidents.
Could part of the reason for crime being out of control involve the inspiring leadership of senior police officers who are more like MPs than MPs are ? Or are the authorities tied up tracking down real criminals ?
Who cares ? The governent will just find a scapegoat anyway. Even the loopiest of Liberals must be thinking the witchhunt against bangey things has now long passed the point of absurdity, so it's time to find a whole new set of witches to burn.
Ah yes.... vitamin XXX. It's all the fault of beer. I'm unconvinced. I have myself been studying beer for several years, yet I have not once seen even the coldest cans of ale attack anyone.
But, there's no stopping the health nazis:
A SUMMER blitz on underage and binge drinking will be announced today as latest Home Office figures show a 10 per cent rise in violent crime
As they said on Blankety Blank, the clue is in the question. We have thugs running round the streets causing chaos and the government thinks the blame lies with John Smith, Johnny Walker and Jim Bean. Right. Nowt to do with the fact that a large section of the population is incapable of accepting any responsibility for its behaviour. So, they get blasted then beat someone senseless - THE BREWERS MADE THEM DO IT. Of course. Meanwhile, the self-same government that refuses to take real action against convicted thugs wants to do to the recreational drinker what they did to recreational shooters. So the innocent get nailed, while the scum go free - that's the magic of government.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
JohnJo reports that Action Man is going all metrosexual. He's a certified dolphin riding eco-wheenie. WTF ?
Of course, it's the spirit of the age. Feminazi's failed to convince girlies that they'd rather play with Meccano than Barbie, so now they're going the other way. They're trying to geld a generation of boys. And if the boys don't like it ? Well, that proves how disruptive men are, so they need even more brainwashing. That's the magic of education - where else can you adopt a policy of outright contempt for half your customers with complete impunity ?
Now the left is trying to repeat the trick. Just as they flipped from trying to convince ladies that building sites where great places to work to trying to label any man more masculine than Blair as a potential psycho, they're trying the same with race. Armani Trev's latest effusions on British culture can be seen as an attempt at this kind of switch. They've stopped trying to convince us that the culture of Sudanese slave traders is every bit as valid as British culture, now - just as they tried to redefine manhood as being a kind of reject woman - they're trying to define down Britishness to a meaningless gloop. We're ditching the hard stuff, like democracy, equality under the law, freedom - instead we're going to, like, get in touch with our inner moppets.
Consider Action Man, in his transistion from tank driving hard man, to lycra wearing ponce, as the perfect metaphor for what Phillips and the rest of his fellow race hustlers want to do to British culture.
Talking of the Beeb, the Imperial Torturer reveals - don't be shocked - that Auntie is fronting activist tools as unbiased observers. Hard to believe I know.
So, a bunch of whiny tossers from Britain's most useless government department have spoken out against the war. As a matter of interest, have these people ever spoken up in favour of Britain or the importance of taking bold decisive action ? For that matter, have these people ever been right about anything ? Can't we fire the lot of them and turn the FCO into something more useful for Britain, like a penguin hospital ?
Mel P puts the boot into these degenerate weasels.
Needless to say, the complainant hit all the L3 red buttons: he was 'treated inhumanly', his wife was traumatised, he was 'degraded' and subject to 'verbal abuse'. And, indeed, there are grounds for complaint in his treatment. He alleges he was held for forty-eight hours without food or water, hand and ankle-cuffed for the whole time. Yet even this is not as straight-forward as it appears, the lovely Jeremy kept repeating that the complainant was only suspected of fraud - sort of like Harold Shipman then, who was initially investigated for forging wills. Plenty of major felons have been initially busted for minor offences, only later being identified as the serious offenders they are - take the Yorkshire Ripper, initially arrested for picking up a prostitute. In a nation at war, there is a natural tendancy to take seriously any sign of suspicious behaviour amongst would-be entrants. Yet, not once was it suggested that any of the blame may lie with the people who issued this warrant in the first place.
Nope - to JV this case suggested that people should give up on America. Never mind that four million Britons travel there each year, one case like this was one too many. There are only two million Muslims in Britain yet twice as many Britons have blown themselves up in an Israeli bar as were detained in this latest incident, but I'll bet JV doesn't think there's any conclusions to be drawn from events in Paddy's Bar. Certainly, given that even Captain Hook got British citizenship, we can't hardly complain that British passport holders get a hard time from US immigration.
The thing is, of course, that there really are grounds for complaint here. Being held for 48 hours without food or water, having abuse screamed at them and the like is no way to treat the citizens of a (nominal) Ally. The Foreign Office should have called in the US ambassador, the Brit-hating thugs manning that facility should be fired. This isn't unreasonable, but to try and spin it into some kind of broadcast denuciation of an entire nation is not just insane. Quite simply, it's bigotry in its purest form.
Just how long are people going to buy into the meme that Blunkett is kind of a nice guy, who just keeps getting frustrated by the system. Nope - he's a Grade A scumbag. Check out this report:
People who refuse to register for the government's planned ID card scheme could face a "civil financial penalty" of up to £2,500, it has emerged.
David Blunkett said not making registering a criminal issue would avoid "clever people" becoming martyrs.
No two ways about it, the Left hates Tony Martin. If he had any sense of social responsibility at all, he'd have let them kill him. But here's a case that'll pop their little L3 heads open - what to do when the victim and the assailants get killed ?
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Talking of Laban Tall and debunking stupid memes, he hits the nail on the head with his take on the latest Tony Martin 'revelations'. Hardly, had the echos of the first shot died away than the L3 and their TINO accomplices (and in fact the TINO has been very active in pushing this line) engaged in a campaign of personal destruction against Martin. Never mind the morality of this, LT sums up why this is legal nonsense:
Two points here. The first is that the question of whether he should have been imprisoned is nothing at all to do with his views. I'm surprised that Marcus (isn't he a lawyer ?) is able to ignore the distinction between opinion and action. The Birmingham Six were arrested while travelling to the funeral of a Republican activist. One of them after release gave a speech in Belfast urging republicans to send more British troops home in body bags. But vile as their politics may have been, it doesn't constitute proof that they killed twenty-four people in Birmingham in 1974. Only Government front-bencher Chris Mullin knows who did that - and he ain't saying.
Indeed - to spell it out, the law allows citizens to use reasonable force, with the test of reasonableness being their perception of the threat. That's it. That's the test. Nowhere does it say anything like 'reasonable force, except where the guy is kind of weird'. Tony Martin could be a cannibal and the test would still be the same.
What the Tony Martin case really proves is the total amorality of our governing class. Here we have people whose supposed justification for persecting Martin is the defence of the Rule of Law and the fear of anarchy and vigilantism. Well, here's a case where the law is clear, yet it is the self-same people who want to inject an extra-legislative element into it, to somehow 'prove' Martin is a murderer by dint of the fact he's nuts, as though 'equal under law' means 'equality, but only for Kool Aid drinkers'.
There's a Heisenberg Effect here too. We have a (morally) innocent man who was brought before the Courts, served his sentance and was released. Yet still the L3 persue him. He is overtly harrassed by the Filth, the slightest (and stupidest) allegations become banner headlines, while on page five alleged professionals write columns proving he's evil, sick, worse than.... Actually, the world would be a better place if the L3 could condemn people like Ian Huntley nearly as readily as they condemn a farmer defending himself against a gang of professional criminals. But they don't. For years on end the full force of the political establishment has been directed against Martin. And he's showing signs of madness ? Who'd have thunk it ?
It would have been great if Tony Martin looked like Hugh Grant, talked like Sean Connery and thought like Stephen Hawking. He doesn't, so we'll just have to rely on the facts of the case. Tony Martin was abandoned by the state, alone, isolated and under attack by a gang of professional criminals. Had he done nothing he may well have been one more dead householder (incidentally, compare and contrast the coverage of the slaughter of innocent householders in the L3 media against the bulk-order-of-onions spectacular over Martin's rehabilitation of a professional criminal).
Instead, he defended himself and found that the state not only had no interest in protecting him, it was antagonistic to his survival: calling the police useless is too kind - they're positively harmful.
That's why the case struck a chord. The public instinctively understands what Martin was going through. It what the're going through, the slowly dawning revelation that there is no sanctuary: nowhere and nobody is safe. Britain's going through it's very own 'Fall of Rome' except this time the Centurians are out there protecting the Huns.
Laban Tall has a lot to say about one of the stupidest L3 memes in current circulation, namely the ol' 'Christians are just like the Taliban'. As LT points out, Canary Wharf is not at risk from low-flying Vicars. All I'd add is that there's one other obvious difference: the L3 can at least make a full-throated condemnation of Christians. Liberals can't go more than 48 hours without suggesting that Jihadis are an invention of the tabloids, Dubya and the
Friday, April 23, 2004
Every now and again a pair of stories come up which, while being objectionable in themselves, when viewed together confirm beyond all reasonable doubt that this country is under the control of lunatics. Try this one for starters:
David Blunkett has pledged to push ahead with ID card legislation after an opinion poll said most people would be happy to carry one.
The home secretary said he wanted a bill paving the way for a national ID scheme to become law before the next general election.
Which is enough to trip anyone's humbug sensor. And indeed futher down we find this:
The MORI survey was commissioned by an IT consultancy which has worked on projects with the government.
It revealed 80% of those questioned backed a national ID card scheme, echoing findings from previous polls.
Firstly, what's with this 'an IT consultancy ' - if the Beeb can publicise this poll, they can surely tell us who commissioned it (ditto the 'previous polls'). Instinct tells me there may be a connection between this poll and one of Blunkett's other statements:
[The home secretary] said he would bring in outside expertise to ensure the system worked.
So, the BBC feels no shame in carrying the results of a survey commisioned by an unidentified company that may well stand to score huge contracts from the very policy it's advocating. How fortunate we are this doesn't involve Dubya or Haliburton - the Beeb would turn the Screechometer up to 11. Does the Beeb think 'conflicts of interest' only happen in America ?
Still, for the full load of irony, today's the day we're reminded just how awful the government is at dealing with actual baddies:
David Blunkett has lost his legal bid to stop a suspected Algerian terrorist being released on bail.
The detainee, known only as "G", has been held without charge or trial since December 2001 and claims his open-ended detention is making him mentally ill.
The Home Secretary had claimed G's mental condition was not serious.
But the Special Immigration Appeal Commission (SIAC) upheld its January ruling that the 35-year-old should be freed on bail under house arrest.
As ever, the Beeb misses the key point - the detention is only indefinite until he decides to leave the country. He can quit any time he wants. What he couldn't do was enter Britain and move about freely - the only 'human right' he's being denied is the right to enter Britain. Some call it cruelty, some call it a basic part of soverignty.
So, taken in aggregate, what have we learned today ? Banging up terrorists is BAD, but insisting that no one can leave the house without paying the government for the privledge is OK. To protect against terrorism, we need to ensure that grannies going the corner shop for a bottle of milk must show their papers to some man in blue, but not only are we obliged to let Bin Ladenoids enter the country, but we can't bang them up when they get here. We have to put them under house arrest - enforced how exactly ? The ever-reliable tags ? And, for the sake of argument, why can't they train recruits/assemble bombs/sort out the laundering of cash or more or less most of the 'job' without leaving the house ? Answer: they can, and the government's too busy trying to push through legislation turning the right to freedom of movement into a privledge to deal with the actual baddies.
What an absolute trainwreck.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
...which is tinfoil backwards, which is what I was thinking of when I read this post over at Black Triangle. Naturally, the MMR debate has attracted it's fair share of Kooks, just like Sep 11, Robert Maxwell and the like. And ? Anthony rages against 'Anti-vaccinators, anti-war groups, the far right and other extremists all have a "special insight" into a hidden world, where they can see the real motives for actions which the media and government conspire to hide from ordinary people.' . Indeed, but that is hardly all, or even most, of the anti-MMR [emphatically not the same as 'anti-vaccine'] campaigners. To try and claim all the critics of the scientific establishment are mired in the fever swamps of ZOG spotters and the like is merely to demonstrate the self-same paranoia with a sign change.
In another post, Anthony quotes a poster to an anti-MMR website, who says 'Hi everyone just received my long awaited letter from my m.p. should have guessed it really, the usual rubbish about there being no link,and all the usual poorly done studies eg brent taylor and elizabeth miller, infact i bet you know it word for word. Seriously though no mention of why my son has a huge abdomen and not thriving as he should, no mention on why blair won`t increase faith in the mmr by admitting to leo, no mention of parents being accused of munchausens when they complain of vaccine damage.' Anthony expects us to find this self-evidently absurd, but it's hard to see why.
I don't know anything about the poster's son, but there are questions to be asked about the other two issues. As far as the Leo-MMR story goes - yes, it matters. If the directors of BT are all dumping stock or the head of Air France flies BA, then you're entitled to question if they know something you don't. Gummer force feeding his kid a hamburger looks more and more like a model of leadership conpared to Blair. As for Munchausens, what can you say ? Here, bogus diagnosis were used to destroy families and the scientific community did nothing. Even today, there's a notable contrast between the hatred directed at Wakefield and the deafening silence about Meadow. Are there no lessons to be learned about this fiasco ? It's no argument in favour of self-regulation, and the news that Munchausens was used as a stick to beat MMR families is an accurate barometer of just how low these people can go in their attempts to destroy opponents. As ever, they can claim that it's 'just politics', but it sure is a funny way to behave when you claim to be defending the integrity of science.
Peter C is getting a hammering in some quarters over this post. Certain persons are of the opinion he should be burned at the stake for that most modern of crimes 'insensitivity'. My own view is that you can say what you want, but a young woman is still going to die horribly. To paraphrase the Life of Brian, even if PC headlined his post 'Whore Faces Divine Justice', how could things be any worse ?
Nope, when the L3 start taking out an onion it usually implies that they've got something to hide. So it is in this case. We can smile at poor, dumb, Lara's statement, yet what is her statement but a logical conclusion drawn from L3-influenced health education efforts ? To suggest to the L3 that STDs may make promiscuity a bad idea is to commit the worst form of heresy. However bad the AIDS epidemic gets, the L3 will continue to argue for any measure other than cutting down on shagging, justifying their position by talking up the effectiveness of alternative counter-measures far beyond any rational judgement of their worth - condoms, for example, dramatically cut down the risk, but they surely don't eliminate it. Against this background, can we really blame Lara for buying into the idea that, with a few, simple, measures, she could keep buying tickets without winning the lottery ? And can we really not blame those supposed public-health experts who helped put that thought in her head, and thereby condemned her to death ?
The Metropolitan Broadcasting Corporation uncovers yet another tentacle of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy - and by an amazing coincidence it allows them to put the boot into country folk. Personally, I realised there was something up with those people when I drove through East Anglia and noticed all the scarecrows were wearing white hoods and bedsheets.
Yes, we can have a vote, but we better use it wisely, otherwise we can go right back to that polling booth until we get it right.
Nothing argues against the EU more than it's own supporters. Take the L3 reaction to the proposed referendum. See what the L3 press said about it here and here, or check out some of the attitudes on display (inevitably) at the Beeb's 'Have Your Say' forum. Try this statement:
There should definitely not be a referendum. Until the general public stops relying on the narrow-minded red-top newspapers to feed them an opinion on Europe, I believe that the government is right to overrule their wishes.
And there you have it. The EU is the mechanism by which the truly enlightened will finally free themselves from the dreadful drudgery of having to, y'know, actually win elections, build public support and the like. The dumb masses can shove it, only those who really know what the continent needs will be allowed to have a voice. Some of us have been saying this for years, but it's still great to get it out of the horse's mouth.
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
I haven't written much about the whole 9-11 inquiry thing, since there are people far more qualified than me to talk about American politics, Americans, for example. My own view, for what it's worth is that, as ever, the Democrats are flirting with self-parody. In fact, Blame Bush! sums up the Democrat position better than they could themselves:
Condoleeza's no doubt in hot water with her massah over that little slip up yesterday. As the title of a classified memo shockingly reveals, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States". I know, I was floored when I heard it, too. I mean, who the hell knew?
Apparently, Bush knew, yet did nothing. Once this memo is completely declassified and Bush's dirty little lies are exposed to the whole world, it may even be discovered that Osama has hated us for a long, long time. If so, why didn't Bush do anything about it? Why didn't he ground all the planes, close the airports, evacuate every tall building in the country? Why didn't he hold out an olive branch of peace and understanding to Al Qaeda, so that we could avoid this bloody war, and join hands as brothers and sisters under one big, giant, rainbow of love?
Which is the point, of course. The L3 say Bush let it happen, that he could've stopped it somehow. But they never actually say what they wanted him to have done. Consider this report from Ann Coulter:
Last week, 9/11 commissioner John Lehman revealed that "it was the policy (before 9/11) and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory." Hmmm ... Is 19 more than two? Why, yes, I believe it is. So if two Jordanian cab drivers are searched before boarding a flight out of Newark, Osama bin Laden could then board that plane without being questioned. I'm no security expert, but I'm pretty sure this gives terrorists an opening for an attack.
This is happening now, when everyone knows exactly what the threat is. The L3 won't put their right-on posturing aside even to prevent mass murder, but Bush should've been able to bring in measures to protect the whole of America against any form of attack by unknown assailants.
Contary to what the Kraut said: one thing in this war is certain - whenever action is taken to deal with the threat we have the L3 lying in the road whining about the BushHitler, John AshKKKroft and the like. The charge against Bush is that, based on sketchy reports of possible activity somewhere in the US, he didn't take some unspecified action to protect America. The charge against the Left is that they have taken very specific actions that have inhibited the ability of Western Civilisation to defend itself. If Bush failing to take some, never quite stated, action renders him unfit for public office, what should be done with the people whose policies actively helped Al-Quaida strike at America ?
Monday, April 19, 2004
Who'd have thunk it ? We'll get the chance to vote on the fate of our nation. Isn't that nice of Blair ? It raises the question of how he thinks he get away with though. Here's my suggestions:
- Rely on the awe and universal love in which he is held by the Great British Public
- Postpone referendum until the right moment - April 2058
- Slogan: Europe - it's somewhere to exile Mandelson
- Referendum ballot paper offers choices of Agree or Yes
- Persuade BBC to run special serious of educational programs, such as 'If…we don't sign up' , a sober analysis of the effects of voting no, featuring flesh-eating zombie cannibal Nazis.
- Allow Lord Chief Justice Woolf and his colleagues at the High Court to provide a really up-to-date definition of 'majority'
- Ban showing of war films on TV, in favour of films highlighting successful Anglo-European co-operation in history.
- Order historians to find an example of successful Anglo-European co-operation.
- Friends in the press will reveal - exclusively - that the head of the 'No' campaign cheated on a maths test 32 years ago
- Get Sir John 'Sock Puppet' Stevens to arrange the arrest of 15 million right-wing extremists on election day
- Make postal voting compulsory to encourage everyone to participate, not just people who exist
- Persuade his father-in-law to let Hitler out on day release, providing he endorses the 'No' campaign while free
- Advertise phone number for free tickets to an England game, then when anyone phones up unleash a lethal charge of electricity down the line
- Hey, I make this fifteen at least
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Sir Ian Blair,
"That to me is the great nightmare. We have to have a position in which in public places - on behalf of the whole community, in what I would describe as a 'one-nation' view - the public police provide an equitable service to all."
That's the thing though. Not only that Blair is turning down the most (possibly only ?) chance for reinforcements - but the arguments used expose the other thing wrong with British policing. Sure, the thin blue line may have got just too thin, but people like Blair have loaded policing with political baggage. Instead of the simple matter of taking scum off the street, Blair and his ilk have reinvented policing as form of social engineering. That's why people turn to private security, not only because they can gurantee to be available, but also because they will actually patrol, rather than neglecting law enforcement in favour of reinventing Britain.
Excellent work at Biased BBC. Don't be shocked, but it turns out the Beeb's definition of an ordinary, everyday, concerned citizen, isn't quite what you think it would be.
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
I was in the pub last night (surprise!) when over the other side of the bar I saw a NUT member, a paedophile and a junkie - he was sitting with a couple of his mates.
Just my little joke. Besides, while the NUT may indeed be the Everest of Idiotarianism, the rest of the teaching profession is somewhat Himilayan. Plenty of people have commented on the NASUWT's latest attempt to wrest the Golden Moonbat off the NUT, - try here and here - but, late as ever, I've just got to put in my 2p worth.
Should you be in the fortunate position of not having heard this effussion, here's a short summary: violence in schools is all Lady Thatcher's fault. Really. Hey - no trust involved, read it for yourself.
In a none-too-unprecedented move, the Moonbat-in-questions charges are mostly self-fisking:
The legacy of Thatcherism has led to a rise in aggression and bullying in schools, a teachers' leader said yesterday.
Given that Lady T stepped down before most of them were born, this is something of a stretch.
Pat Lerew, president of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, said that, nearly 20 years after Margaret Thatcher declared that there was no such thing as society, parents who grew up in the 1980s had produced a generation of youngsters brought up to be selfish and to think the only thing that mattered was money. Mrs Lerew, a teacher at Amery Hill School, in Alton, Hampshire, said that "pupil behaviour is the problem which is proving the hardest nut to crack". Families who ranked things according to their monetary value had little respect for teachers, she said.
Note that: President=no traction for the L3 to claim 'itzonlyafringeelement...'. They elected her, so what's she saying must strike a large number of teachoids as perfectly sane. It's hard to know where to start with this. You surely don't have to be a howling mad Conservative (like moi) to suspect something when every single moonbat who talks about the Thatcher Years refers to the same five word quote sans any context at all. If you do know the context, then you'll realise exactly why Princess Patsy swerves round it. Lady T was attacking exactly this type of slimey evasion of responsibility: teachers have a basic responsibilty to ensure the school environment is safe, Patsy and her fellow travellers have renounced that responsibilty, passing the buck for violence on to some vast abstract thing called 'society' . Bullying ? Nowt to do with her, guv - it's society to blame. And that's the nice side of it, the other consequence is far worse.
The readiness to unload individual responsibilty in favour of claiming victimisation by massive, global forces is the defining mark of modern Liberalism. Not only does it allow teachers to ignore thuggery but, more than that, it drives the violence in the first place. The argument that everything would be just ducky, if we weren't for Lady T, Big Business, the rich, the CIA, Jews, or anyone else leads naturally to the conclusion that, should you hit rough water, why, you're clearly being victimised and so are quite within your rights to say the Hell with it, and give someone a good kicking.
There are other signs of the toxic philosophies being peddled in our schools in Patsy's speech. Try this:
Speaking at the union's annual conference in Llandudno, north Wales, Mrs Lerew said: "Today's parents were growing up in the 1980s, Thatcher's children, when there was no such thing as society and it was everyone for themselves, when anything that had a monetary value was sold and anything that had no monetary value was therefore of no value.
That sneering at money. The basic belief that to be a hard-working, productive member of society is to be somehow evil. Ayn Rand said it best, but we should all worry that our kids are being taught by people who think the fact they survive by leeching off the productive members of society makes them morally superior to those who actually work should worry us all.
Next, Patsy shows signs of light dawning, but it is soon smoothered under her all-consuming victimhood:
Teachers, who were useless anyway and therefore poorly paid, typified the failures in the success race and were continually undermined by politicians and the media.
Did the sub-editors cut out the bit where she explained why it was the job of our public representatives and a free press to spout propaganda for special interest groups ? And how does approximatly 65K pa for a job with 12 weeks holiday a year count as poorly paid ? That what the head of a secondry school can expect to recieve, together with - like all teachers - one of the most generous final salary pension schemes available today. If people percieve Patsy as a dirty, workshy, bloodsucking parasite, then it may reflect something other than filthy lucre, or a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Small wonder then that the children of the day grew up with attitudes that have now manifested themselves in their own children." Mrs Lerew added that schools were now trying to cope with the problems caused by Thatcherite attitudes. "This drive to be first and the devil take the hindmost attitude has bred an inevitable rise in aggression and bullying."
...because nothing influences a teenager more than the example of his parents. Maybe it's just me, but the rise might reflect the fact that Patsy and her 'hard-working professional' colleagues talk about it being inevitable as though violence was kind of like the weather, instead of something they're being paid to control.
Just a thought.
The rise in indiscipline coincided with the time when teachers were "the chief whipping boys for politicians and the press", she said.
Quick - hand me the nano violin, I want to play a sad song for all those teachers out there, cruelly expected to work for their salary.
Mrs Lerew said: "Unfortunately, while during the 1990s the concept of a caring society began to return, this has not been reflected adequately in the media and in too many films and television programmes, violence and aggression are the norm, tacitly acceptable, with antisocial behaviour considered cool and the continuance of yob culture and increasing use of weapons the result."
You just know her concept of a caring society is one where the producers are bled dry to fund more bums like her. But what's all this about violence in the media ? Hearing a Liberal complain about falling standards in the media is like hearing Timothy Leary complain about drug abuse. Since about 1965, all a guy has to do to be hailed as a great artist is photograph himself with a crucifix up his bum. If the Left are trying to tell us that suddenly they're all for media standards, they can shove it - they're about thirty years and six million Mary Whitehouse jokes too late.
Childhood was being "eroded" by the worlds of adverts, fashion and pop music which encouraged youngsters to grow up too quickly, she said. Now that parents felt the need to "protect" their children from the dangers of the wider society, young people were missing out on many important developmental experiences and "they have not had the gradually evolving independence of walking, using public transport and socialising without adult supervision that many of us enjoyed", she said.
...and, of course, being mugged by some of Patsy's victims of society. No doubt, Lady T is to blame for that too.
She added: "There is often a lack of common sense which is masked by a thin veneer of sophistication."
As opposed to the teachers who have their defiencies right out where everyone can see them.
Sunday, April 11, 2004
So, in a U-turn of Majoresque proportions, race-hustling scuzball Trevor Phillips is reborn as John Bull. Trev P is A-OK with Britain, we can wear our England shirts with pride and having a Nativity scence in school is not necessarily illegal. Isn't that nice of him ?
Others have already expressed their scepticism, for example here (don't forget the comments), but for me the clincher was in today's Times. Armani Trev wants the government to provide free hols for the teenagers. Another dipstick raid on the paypackets of our increasingly small productive population is bad enough, but check out the Deep Thought behind it:
Mr Phillips disclosed details of policy proposals that the CRE is preparing for the Government on introducing free adventure holidays for teenagers when they become full citizens.
“The greatest anxiety about cultural differences is among people who have had no contact with immmigrant communities. We want everyone to have the chance to discover what they have in common,” Mr Phillips said.
Note that, the problem is with 'people who have had no contact with immmigrant communities'. Yep, indeed. It's all down to the natives, again. But, moving on from the honkey-hating overtones, the idea itself exposes the basic cynicism of Armani Guy's supposed conversion. All we need to do, saith Trev, is to, y'know, get together, chat, hang out, and everything will be OK.
I recall that a couple of years ago the body of a male child of approximatly five years and African appearance was found floating in the Thames with signs of having been ritually sacrificed. How does that fit in with Trev's Brave New Non-Multi-Culti World ? Are the people who object to that just suffering from a lack of contact with immigrants ? Will it all make sense if we all get together and hold hands ?
Trevor Phillips may claim to have abandoned multiculturalism but he remains wedded to it's central tenet: that all cultures are equal, that no value judgements can be made between a culture where they carve the genitals out of young girls and one where they don't. So the millionaire race baiter claims to support a common British culture ? Yes, but only if the parameters of this culture are drawn so broadly as to be meaningless. Instead of defining all cultures as equal, Trev seeks to define everything as part of British culture. Instead of screeching that natives must accept human sacrifice as part of immigrant's, equally valid, culture, now Trev will argue that it's part of British culture. Big difference.
It's just another iteration in the attempts to deligitimise British culture. The L3 have failed to cast British culture as inherently evil, so now they're trying to define it down to meaningless. Now, everyone and everthing is British.
....and it's from one of our top suppliers:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has told the congregation at Canterbury Cathedral the resurrection means that no one is forgotten by God.
Speaking on the tenth anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda that left 800,000 people dead, he said the world must not stand by while tragedy takes place.
"It is not that we wielded the weapons; but the nations of the world stood by in indecision and distractedness while the slaughter went on.
"Some lives, it seems, are still forgettable; some deaths still obliterate memory for those of us at a distance," he said.
Unless the slaughter occurs in a country with a four letter name, or a leader whose initials are the same as the Southhampton Hilton or there's quite a lot of sand there, in which case all bets are off. His Majesty's Imperial Toturer has more on what Beardy doesn't think constitutes reason to intervene.
If you logged onto to the BBC website earlier today you'd have seen education correspondant Sean Coughlan in full-on BBC educating-the-tabloid-poisoned-masses mode. Under the headline 'The strikes that never happen' and the tagline 'Is the image of angry teachers at their annual conferences really fair?', smug Sean assured us that the NUT weren't really a bunch of moonbat nutters after all.
Funnily enough, by the PM the story had disappeared, but there was another story, also filed by Sean Coughlan, featuring the self-same group of moderates:
Teachers say schools should not be facing budget problems while there was "unlimited" spending on the military in Iraq.
The National Union of Teachers' conference in Harrogate heard accusations that schools were once again set to face funding problems.
And delegates approved a motion attacking the spending on war in Iraq while public services lacked funding.
"We should spend more on schools not explosives," the conference was told.
Who says we can't combine the two ? Give the staff room at the average school a Semtex makeover and the quality of education would improve no end (specifically: it would still suck but at least it wouldn't cost as much).
"When schools are counting paperclips and worrying about the cost of washing up liquid in the staff room, what kind of accounting is there for spending on Chinook helicopters?" asked Nick Grant of Ealing.
"When will the military be holding a car-boot sale to buy weapons?"
As fresh now as it was in the Sixties. Given that we pay good money to a tool like this, funding can't be all that tight.
But, is there some kind of unwritten rule that the worse a group of public sector non-workers are at their job, the more they talk about irrelevant garbage ? So, they wouldn't have gone into Iraq ? Yes, but they won't go in the shower either, so screw the dirty hippy scum.
In the 'lost' article, Sean opines that the NUT aren't moonbats, it's just that...
This mis-match between how it appears to the public and how it is in reality owes almost everything to the over-heated, over-publicised Easter weekend of the NUT annual conference.
...because conference is where these pondscum forget that's there's normal people watching and reveal their true feelings.
I think it was a commentor at Biased BBC who said it, but isn't it strange how the L3 adjust their definition of minority depending on circumstances ? (Answer: no it isn't, they've always been lying scum). Peter Cutherbertson provoked mass lifting of skirts over heads when he pointed out a poll showing 28% of British Muslims don't have issues with blowing up Trafalger Square - surely he must realise it was only a small minority ? (although given that 28% is about 250 000 of them, you got to wonder how many you need to plant a bomb).
Yet, somehow, on the way here from there, the definition has changed, now the fact approximatly 10 000 out of a population of 15 million Iraqi Shi'ites have gone on the rampage means we're facing a mass uprising. Anyone would think the Left changed its definitons merely to put Britian in the worst light. Perish the thought.
Sounds like the penny is starting to teeter in certain quarters:
The head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has echoed criticism of Muslim leaders for not doing enough to denounce acts of terrorism.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor told the GMTV Sunday Programme he agreed with comments made by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey.
Crivens! Is there something in the Holy Water ?
Needless to say, there's some Grade A backsliding coming up:
Cardinal Murphy O'Connor also called on the West to tackle the gross poverty and inequality which was the root cause of terrorism.
"If the western world were to devote itself in a very real and sacrificial way to helping the two thirds of the world and especially those parts of the world that live in gross poverty, and did it in a way that actually denied themselves, then I think we'd have a more peaceful world." He said part of the terror threat came out of countries that felt they had not been treated justly.
Watch out for those Botswanan suicide bombers, Cardinal!
As with much else, the L3 attitude to slipping standards in education is infected with the idea that it doesn't matter very much anyway: Conservatives are selfishly trying to limit the number of qualifications in circulation when there's no reasons at all why everyone shouldn't have one. Just give everyone everything, and we'll all be happy.
The latest developments at Manchester Uni exemplify exactly why it does matter.
It is no longer enough to have straight grade As to become a medical student: would-be doctors must also display "humility", a leading university has decided.
Admission tutors at Manchester University are rejecting applicants to study medicine if they do not demonstrate the hitherto rare quality.
Given that medicine is the definitive case of a matter of life & death, it's hard to regard this sort of thing as anything except terrifying: if you've got jammed, you want a good doctor, not a human teddy bear. So why do it ?
The move is part of a bid to distinguish between the thousands of applications from candidates with top A-level results. A large increase in teenagers getting A-grade A-levels - 22 per cent were awarded the top grade last year, compared to just seven per cent in 1983 - has left universities struggling to find ways to distinguish between candidates.
Given that the government has given up testing the important stuff, there's a certain logic in Unis basing their decisions on marginal, touchy-feely garbage. Still, it doesn't fill you with confidence for the future of the medical profession. (and nevermind that this reliance on subjective assessment will inevitably result in a ballooning number of lawsuits).
There's something stirring in the crypt:
Shadow Chancellor Oliver Letwin has slammed plans to introduce ID cards, saying there is no evidence they would help fight terrorism.
He warned the move could prove costly and affect civil rights, while its benefits were still questionable.
"I really worry about whether we are embarking on a course of action that will be expensive and complicated and has civil liberties implications and will ultimately be unproductive," he said speaking on BBC Radio Four.
"We really ought to be very careful before we go down that road that there is a practical outcome that is worth a candle," he added.
Mr Latwin conceded that a series of plans to introduce driving licences, passports and cards with fingerprints and other biometric information might not be disastrous in themselves.
But he warned that in 20-30 years' time, British citizens might find their freedoms have been eroded.
Friday, April 09, 2004
We Conservatives tend to be a little negative about taxation, forgetting the many positive things government has given us, such as help for the deserving poor, the protection of the legal system and groundbreaking research. Who could consider all this and not pay their taxes with a smile ?
In case you missed the latest instalment of the Beeb's documentary strand 'If…', let me summarise it for you: WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
Actually, that's 90% of the Beeb's output, only the particular form of the apocalypse d'jour varies. This time it was obesity (hence the title 'If…we don't stop eating'), which gave us the always enjoyable sight of Liberals trying to square the circle. On the one hand the L3 wished to preach to us about the dangers of being a bloater, on the other there's a whole new PC victim group to coddle. As a result the program veered crazily between Jabbah the Hut lookalikes bemoaning the fact people call them fat and men in white coats proclaiming that every extra pie takes six weeks off your life.
The Zeppelins depressed me. All my life I've been waiting to get my turn as an official victim of society and when I find one group I can make the grade for, it's with this bunch of losers. Really - it was grim. One of the talking heads (described bizarrely as a 'former obese person') claimed that obesity was a word used to categorise fat people by thin people. What word she thought we should use to describe lard scoopers, she did not say. More to the point, call it what you will - it's still not healthy.
Still, at least the Sumo Squad were only interested in self-destruction. To listen to the rest of the contributors, it's a wonder any of us have survived this far. Taken at face value, their comments would stop anyone heavier than Kate Moss making plans for next Christmas. Funnily enough, they did have an answer though. Amazingly, the cure for obesity involves massive government intervention - not unlike the cure for every other L3 crisis, then.
Naturally, no true Liberal would think of blaming obesity on the obese. Nope - it's all a ….. Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Like everything else. Via a time warp from the 60s, one talking head claimed the 'system was a problem, in the way we feed our nation'. Yeah, the system, man….. we're not feeding people right - if we put the food up the nose instead of in the mouth, that would really help to cut down over-eating. Plus, there's apparently too many stimuli that encourage over-eating - meaning what ? Who knows ?
Food companies, we were assured, use the 'same techniques as tobacco companies' - which apparently means they advertise. A voice-over talking about the causes of obesity naturally featured shots of the golden arches. In case you missed the implication, the voice-over spelled it out - Britain was getting fatter, 'just like any Americanising country'. Will that Uncle Sam never cease his evil plots ? Is it just me, or do other people not think of chicken madras as health food ? How come we never see shots of fatties gobbling down Belgian chocolates ? Is there some kind of agenda here ? Ditto, the references to pharmaceutical companies investing in obesity research. Here, you have billions of pounds being spent to try and find treatments for a condition the Beeb just got through telling us will kill everyone in Britain, and all the L3 can do is sneer that the successful company stands to make huge profits from it. Let's hope they all fail utterly then!
Any remaining thought that the programme was about weight in any but the most superficial sense was dispelled as soon as a representative appeared from the 'Food Commission' - ignore the pseudo-official title, they are simply a Marxist front group which uses food issues as a Trojan Horse through which to promote their disgusting ideals. Similarly, we were informed that since obesity is most common in deprived areas, being poor makes you fat (needless to say, justifying huge programs to supply cheap, healthy food). Well, possibly, or it could be that the same personality characteristics that commonly match to extreme obesity also make these people lousy employees ? Funnily enough, no one asked that question.
The program ended on a high point when it noted that opponents of this kind of Nanny State garbage will oppose it by calling it Nanny State garbage. Liberals have always had a problem with the Right calling things what they are - hence, PC. In a supposedly witty riposte to that line of argument, one of the L3 noted that people who complain most about the Nanny State tend to have nannies. Yer what ? As Paul points out, the people who have nannies are babies - who don't really engage with public health issues. Assuming that the El Cubo meant people who employ nannies, it's still senseless. The L3 have spent forty years campaigning to get the government out of the bedroom, now they want it hiding in the fridge but it's only Lord Snooty who could possibly object ? What if you have breakfast in bed ? Would it be a civil rights issue then ? Loonier than that though, the Liberal in question then suggested there would be less opposition if they changed the meme from Nanny State to Parent State. Like, totally. Has anyone got the number for the Menendez brothers ?
The Beeb's standard Bad Dog/Good Dog rhectoric was in full flow. Trying to dictate the nation's tastes was 'bold, decisive leadership'. Government had to 'get to grips with it' rather than 'leaving it to industry'. That the contents of my fridge were not necessarily a matter for either Tony Blair or Shell was never discussed. No, government had to intervene because - and here I quote directly from one talking head - 'the slaughter cannot go on'. It says a lot about where the Beeb is at right now that even this didn't trigger the BS warning.
You will be staggered to learn that the prescriptions for getting the nation fit again all happened to be a load of statist garbage: ban advertising, cut welfare benefits to fatties, lower the price of healthy food and tax unhealthy food.
No, actually, I made one of them up. Can you guess which ?
The weirdest ides was to introduce free, compulsory school dinners. I have to admit that personally, I think this will really help kids grow up healthy since nothing will helps kids to grow up free of the mental problems associated with Liberalism like forcing them eat the products of socialism five days a week.
The closest we got to honesty during the whole program was when one L3 admitted that he worried that obesity may break the NHS. That was more like it. Obesity points to one of the major problems with the NHS - that people are relieved of responsibility for their own health. Why exactly should postmen be taxed to provide health care for the chocolate-obsessed 40 stone wives of businessmen ? Nevertheless, the Liberal in question worried about a 'brave, new, rather unpleasant world where you only get health care if you can pay for it' - y'know, sort of like how buying food works, yet still we have a problem with obesity not starvation. Who'd have thunk it ? In a similar vein, the former fatty mentioned above noted that she thought it would be unfair if lardies were held responsible for their condition.
This is the central hypocrisy of the Liberal position on obesity. They talk at great length about how dangerous it is, they blame McDs, the Colonel and A N Other big company, yet what of their own responsibility ? How did we ever get to the point that people can claim it's unfair to hold someone responsible for their own body weight ? Or that Big Business is forcing us to eat junk food ? We're all victims, we can't do anything about it. We can't not eat, we've been brainwashed. We need a government program. Personal responsibility ? The L3 have written it out of the picture. Obesity really is a perfect example of Liberal activism. They get to push their rancid views while all the time undermining the only thing that could cure the problem.
One of the things that most tees me off about the Gay Rights movement is the sheer humbuggery. They proclaim their right to shout about their lifestyle from the rooftops, but should anyone so much as whisper a word against it, the self-same people start piling up the brushwood and shopping for a stake. What was that about equal rights again ? Anyway, all of this is by way of saying they don't always get away with it.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
So, is it Tet II ? Beats me, but the baddies may think so. All through this war the self-'sploders have seemed to be obsessed with the media. Check out the way 'Bin Laden' has changed his tone, from intially babbling about crusaders and such, to now sounding more like Al Gore, except more pro-American. He (or his impersonator) is clearly reacting to reports in the western media, tailoring his image to fit in with the needs of the L3.
Indeed, the initial strike on Sep 11 seems to have been the result of too much 'Sex & The City'. Bin Laden seems genuinely to have believed that America was a nation of decadent, latte drinking fools, who'd collapse when faced with actual violence. Oops. Equally, the media narrative for Tet is of a stunningly-successful Pearl Harbour-style attack which broke America's will to fight the war. Actually, things were a little different in reality - the VC was crushed, never again to play a major part in the war, and it was the media's own outright lying which persuaded anyone otherwise. Nevertheless, the Islamofascists may be conciously trying to rerun Tet. All of which means that the thirty-six years of anti-western Liberal lying may have convinced their new heroes to bleed themselves to death on a disasterous offensive.
Won't Robert Fisk be pleased when he realises ?
I can't be the only one with his BS meter twitching when I see the amazing coincidence in today's headlines. First we have this:
THE discovery of a plot to detonate a “dirty bomb” laced with poisonous chemicals in London justified the introduction of tough measures to combat terrorism, David Blunkett said yesterday.
The Home Secretary praised the police and security services for disrupting the terrorist plan and said it proved that he had not been exaggerating the security threat.
His words were echoed by Sir John Stevens, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who said that Britain was “in a state of real danger” of a terrorist attack.
Then, staggeringly enough, there's this:
COMPULSORY identity cards came a step closer yesterday when David Blunkett said that his proposed scheme for foreign citizens could be extended to Britons without the need for further legislation.
It had been expected that cards would be voluntary for British and EU citizens unless further primary legislation were passed in about ten years.
The Home Secretary’s announcement that a draft Bill, expected by early next month, had been agreed by the Cabinet dismayed a range of Labour backbenchers who are to oppose ID cards, although dissent is not thought to be as widespread as the revolt over university top-up fees.
Monday, April 05, 2004
This is totally it, final proof that Blair is in league with the Devil - I mean, it's great that a guy gets on with his father-in-law, but this is too much: Blair's got nicely positioned for a roasting over his wheeling & dealing on
Sunday, April 04, 2004
Looks like someone has been missing out on his Kool Aid ration:
Expanding family planning services has had little impact on teenage pregnancy rates, research suggests.
A study by a Nottingham economist says providing extra clinics may even lead to increase in rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
Professor David Patton, was examining how people behave with a "safety net".
He suggested knowing there was easier access to the morning after pill and treatment for STIs may encourage teenagers to take more risks.
Say it ain't so ? You mean it's not a good idea for the government to encourage people to drive everywhere at 200 mph providing they've got airbags ? Nada Sierra, comrades.
Are British schools dumbing down ? Ask popular fictional character Adolf Hitler. Meanwhile, the educrats have come up with a new response to the epidemic of plagirism: call it something else and ignore it. Maybe Conservatives should try that ? We could claim that cheating on our taxes is just another way to support public services.
Could it get any worse ? Where educrats are concerned there's really no limit to the screw-ups possible. Mel P reports that not only has government dumbed down the exams, they've simultaneously managed to make them too hard for the folks at the lower end of the curve.
So that's where we are: exams are too hard and too easy. Isn't socialism great ?
Anti-White graffiti is found at a school in the West Midlands and the response from the school is instant: blame the natives. Clearly, the sight of English people wearing England shirts in an English school is too much to bear for the RoP. Of course, for the full load of irony recall L3 reaction to France's headscarf ban. In the Liberal's world it's OK for the Jihadis to parade round in full Islamists Regalia, but a T-Shirt with the three lions on, now that's fighting words....
Friday, April 02, 2004
There's an idea floating round, one believed even by normally sensible people, that immigration control is some sort of selfish dog-in-the-manger deal. Us Brits keeping all the prosperity for ourselves, instead of (if you're a Liberal) sharing it all out amongst the world's unfortunates (those that desert their country and come here anyway) or (Libertarians) allowing talented people to come and enrich us with their skills (if riding in the back of a lorry counts as skill). Well, Laban Tall sums up perfectly why we need our borders sealed.
The Beeb's 'If…' series of documentaries is fast becoming Liberalism's Mad Woman in the Attic. Ignore the ludicrous scenarios, keep a sickbag handy for the clonking recital of Liberal platitudes, and you can see that the series has the redeeming value of giving a perfect insight into the true nature of modern Liberalism.
The latest effusion featured the Beeb hypothesising (fantasising would be a better word) about a future, female-dominated world. A succession of power-dressed alpha females paraded across the screen, occasionally interspersed with men who shave once a week, if you get my drift. As ever, the Beeb's argument relied on nutty extrapolation, wild leaps of faith and just plain weird sociological theorising.
Although on the surface an exercise in Feminazi triumphalism, it nevertheless summed up better than P J O'Rourke could have what exactly is wrong with Liberalism. In one scene a government minister is opening a new, super-dupper, mega-nursery thingy. She tells the crowd that 'child care is not a private arrangement but the beginning of socialisation and education' - a clearer statement of Liberal Fascism nature would be hard to find.
Similarly, the Minister's Big Idea for child care also revealed a lot about Liberal prejudices - she wanted to recruit all graduate nursery staff. Say what ? 'You're great at writing essays, so you're just the person to look after kids'. Is there any reason, other than blind snobbery, why this should be thought a good idea ? The Beeb, being the Beeb, didn't feel the need to explain - as ever, the truly enlightened just knew that that was true. Equally well thought out was the Minister's desire to both raise wages for carers massively, and make child care affordable. You can do both together, but someone's got to pay for it. The Beeb didn't feel the need to go into who exactly.
The main value in this strand of documentaries was always seeing the intellectual train wreck of modern Liberalism unfold on the screen, most of all the sight of alleged front rank Liberals performing intellectual Hari-Kari. My personal fave was Oona King MP claiming that the hours Parliament worked prevented talented people becoming MPs - well, you said it, dear.
Still, that reminds me of my major beef with the whole deal. King claims Parliament works too many hours - could that have anything to do with Ms King and her fellow travellers pathological desire to regulate everything in the world ? The programme didn't ask. They never ask, instead Liberal clichés are spewed forth as unarguable truths. Talking heads complained about lack of workplace nurseries - but is this even a good form of child care ? You can think mothers should go back to work straight from the maternity ward without being enthusiastic about that concept - but no, no dissent was allowed to puncture that particular bubble. Or any other.
In fact, the whole programme had seemed at times to be the result of some kind of Children In Need style sponsored clichéfest. In the Beeb's Never-Never Land, women don't carry out a variety of tasks in a single day, instead they…… no, it's too horrible to say. But, Ladies, please - if you want more respect, learn to speak for more than two minutes without using the J-word, m'kay ? Similarly, women apparently do better in the modern workplace because there's no longer any formal beginning and end to the day. Let's not even think about that, except to note that it's a possible explanation for the dominance of women in firewfighting, police work, surgery, the armed forces and countless other professions where clocking-off has always had a flexible meaning. Yada, yada, yada. Femindroids complained about 'men in suits' who 'network on the golf course' and are obsessed with rigid hierarchies. It really was perfect fodder for buzzword bingo, as various hags paraded across the screen angrily denouncing men as sub-human dolts, while merely revealing the complete lack of original thought in modern Liberalism.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, the programme learned into a bizarre sociobiological slant: men are doomed because the Y-chromosome is picking up a few mutations. Hello ? Then, to follow that piece of chop logic, they pointed out that sperm counts are dropping. Never mind that these figures are debatable, what exactly does that have to do with the price of fish ? If reproduction is the mark of a good leader, does that mean Elizabeth I was a terrible monarch ? At what precise point would sperm production be to low for a bloke to be an effective manger ? And does this apply to barren women ? If not, why not ? Given that the L3 can be guaranteed to freak when people talk about the genetic basis of IQ, there was a certain degree of humbug on display here.
The programme then lurched into a parallel universe, complaining about the 'male-dominated' conflict in Ulster' Say what ? Not only have there been plenty of distaff tangos, but all the evidence seems to be that in the general Ulster population the women are crazier than the men. But that was an giveaway to the real line the BBC was trying to push.
The programme wasn't actually a boy/girl thing, rather it was a Liberal/nasty people thing. A female US President wanted to end the WoT by initiating dialogue - as though the possibility of a woman becoming President wasn't one of the reasons the Islamofascists hate America in the first place. The central hate figure was a career woman who neglected her family so she could climb the corporate ladder. Boo capitalism! One of the talking heads looked forward to the day when 'empathy was as important as reading a balance sheet' - presumably the scriptwriters won't mind losing their pensions on the stock market providing the fund manager really feels their pain (the Dot.Com boom having proven, once and for all, how unimportant the balance sheet is). The Beeb was really talking about a Liberal fantasy land: Bin Laden just have some unresolved issues, you can pay nursery staff £1000 a week and still have affordable child care and people can become tippity-top entrepreneurs while still having sixteen hours a day free with their families. This wasn't a documentary, this was a graphic warning of the dangers of drinking the bong water.