Thursday, December 31, 2009

Quote Of The Day

After last night's (near) 'Death Note' incident, I'm going to try something a little different and give you this example of liberal torettes from the Yazzmonster:
There is nothing more pernicious in life to the millions who are unhinged or troubled than the idea of others living lives of perfect contentment.
OK, so she's nuttier than a nutty thing, but she certainly states the left's position more straightforwardly than most: even if you think the country is kind of OK, that just means you must be contributing to someone else's misery, you fascist!

But note the humbuggery too. The Yazzmonster is taking out an onion for all the excluded on the margins of society, yet - as evidenced perfectly by her AMAB ranting - there's no people like leftist people for denouncing whole groups as not just wrong, or even evil, but as savage subhuman degenerates whose very presence pollutes our national life. I'll take a shot in the dark and say that if redundant dads do feel socially excluded, it's no such much the Christmas trees that do it, so much as the mainstreaming of the views of feminazi loons like the Yazzmonster who denounce them as lice to be crushed.

Quote of the Day

The Maha Rushbo on why socialism sucks:
This massive new entitlement is going to obliterate tolerance. This whole notion of live and let live, there isn't going to be any more of that. Every American is going to be looking at neighbors with jealousy, resentment, and anger at whatever medical care he or she receives because not everybody's gonna get the same. That's the way socialism works.
Exactly. The problem with the 'Common Good' isn't just defining what's good - hard enough though that is - it's defining the limits of what's common. Once everything belongs to everybody, then anything that goes to anyone means taking something from everyone. What's the quid pro quo when you're in hock to the whole country?

Audience Participation

I was going to say something about how the Blogger dashboard has improved a lot since I first set this blog up, then I realised that was back in 2003. Kablooey!

Anyway, it's pretty good, and the comments now work. So what do you think? Tastes like chicken? Needs more salt? As the Great Sir Freddie once said: we'll breakfast at Tiffanys, we'll sing to you in Japanese, we're only here to entertain yooooooooooooou.

Monday, December 28, 2009

Work/Train Wreck In Progress...

Alright, the Haloscan commenting system is soon to become a no comments at all system, which means back to Blogger. Except that doesn't work, so I'm guessing my template must die too

All of which means if next time you're here the site is bright yellow, that's why.

This could be a long job....

MSM Journalist Admits: We Suck!

Not in so many words, obviously. Still, it's good to see at least one jouno taking the kool aid IV out of his arm. The only thing is that this raises the obvious question: how does he square this with the MSM's criticism of that naughty old internet?

It turns out that everything those pesky bloggers said was right. The MSM has soft-pedalled on Islam - personally, I think other factors are at play, but let's pretend it was the lawyers wot done it: even if we buy the MSM's argument that some of what's on-line is potentially defamatory, that doesn't make it unreliable. The MSM was happy to use the bogeymen of crazed bloggers smearing innocent terrorists when it suited them, so it's way too late for these people to pose as principled defenders of free speech.

Y'Know, I'm Not Sure Tax Cuts Will Require Cuts In Services After All...

Read it and scream....

Noted Ecomentalist Calls For More 4x4s

In case you were still taking Copenhagen seriously....

Nigerians On A Plane

Thinking further about yesterday's post, it's no wonder the left is emphasising the whole Nigerian thing. After all, the Ummah's Undie Bomber might not have damaged any planes, but he's sure blown a hole in the left's credibility.

There's the obvious point that - again - the passenger on an airliner who turns out to be a terrorist is the one who fits perfectly the profile for a terrorist (or would have done if airlines were allowed to profile passengers). That ought not to be a surprise, but it sure seems to keep passing the left by. If the evidence for Gerbil Worming was as strong as the evidence for profiling, conservatives would be biking to work, but instead the left insists that since profiling wouldn't necessarily pick up one of those Chinese Catholic suicide bombers we hear so much about, the whole thing's a bust.

Which is point two right there. The left's always justified its opposition to profiling on the grounds that they have supa-smart alternatives - all of which utterly failed in this case. No fly lists and no liquids allowed? No problem!

The precise details of how exactly the various governments screwed it up are still being revealed, but one thing's for sure: the only serious opposition the Boxer Bomber faced was from the random collection of civilians on the flight with him. Indeed, while the professionals were asleep at the wheel, the ordinary Joes - or Jakkes - attacked with such skill and effectiveness that I understand the hipsters want to have them all jailed.

Even more surprisingly for students of hipster rhetoric, these de facto citizen soldiers managed to achieve all they did without slaughtering any Sikh pharmacists or inadvertently imposing the Fourth Reich.

But that's not the best of it: in so far as this particular Man of No Affiliation had the background of a Nigerian David Cameron, that would tend to debunk just about every excuse hipsters have ever deployed for that completely random collection of individuals who keep getting caught up in terrorist incidents. Poverty? Disenfranchisement? Lack of educational opportunities? If this guy's a victim, who isn't?

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Terror At 40,000 Feet, Insanity At Ground Level

Ross asks some good questions about the Boxer Shorts Bomber, but misses the key one: just what surreal excuse are the usual suspects going to come up with this time?

I don't think the whole 'isolated incident' thing is going to work this time. Come to think of it, it's not even an isolated incident of 'Apparel-Related Terrorism On A Trans-Atlantic Flight'.

Of course, the hipsters have already started up on 'Operation Snowjob' or, to put it another way, anyone know where this Man of No Affiliation came from originally? I think it came up on the TV once or twice, but I missed it in amongst all the shots of Lagos, people in traditional West African dress and Nwankwo Kanu scoring for Portsmouth.

Apparently, there were no casualties on the airliner, but the whole nation of Nigeria has been thrown under the bus. All of which proves the Victimhood Poker truly is the Rosetta Stone of politics. If this poor, misguided, young scallywag had spent his time in London indulging in recreational rapes and drug dealing, he'd have been a 'man from Central London' - a Man of No Appearance, in fact. But now the MSM are scrambling to throw sand in the public's eyes, and suddenly it's all Nigeria, all the time. Will no one think of the 'vast majority of peace-loving Nigerians'?

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

'Science' != 'Whatever Scientists Do'

For once, the ecochondriacs have got a point: it's so easy when writing about Climategate to concentrate on individual outrages such as one tree forests and miss the wider context. We should never let indivudal frauds blind us to the basic insanity of the whole project.

There's a great round up here, but I'd just like to pick up on one point S2 makes since it really strikes at the heart of what's gone wrong with climate science.

Theories are like opinions, everyone has them, but to qualify as a bona fide scientific theory, it has to meet certain criteria and chief among them is the issue of falsifiability. To put it another way, a theory has to make predictions that can either be proven or disproved.

Consider Pasteur's debunking of the theory of spontaneous generation. He predicted that nutrient broths kept in flasks protected by filters would remain germ free. Had bacteria grown in these flasks, that would have destroyed his theory. In reality, the broths stayed bug free and so the germ theory was strengthened. That's how science is meant to be done. Climate science? Not so much.

For a group of people so anxious to claim status as secular priests of science, it's remarkable how much climate scientists play fast and loose with this basic principle of science. As far as I can tell, climate science predicts, well, everything, up to and including zombie attacks. Hot/cold, wet/dry, it's all good. It's not so much science as a giant game of Buckaroo where these guys load each and every result onto their model until the point where it collapses into a bucking train wreck.

No doubt these guys would claim that, hey, politics is a contact sport, you've got to go along to get along, blah, blah, blah.... True enough, but they're the ones who keep blathering about how they're the Guardians of True Science. They're Eric Cartman demanding we respect their authoritah... right up until they get caught talking nonsense, in which case it's just politics. Lab coat on, lab coat off. Whatever works best at that particular moment.

Why take their science any more seriously than they do themselves? To paraphrase Ghandi, as far as climate science goes, I would welcome it.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Save Our Smackheads!

Hey, say what you like, but at least we've found a case of Islamic violence that liberals don't support. He should have claimed it was a protest against Israel that got out of hand.

Still, this does throw some light onto the true nature of the Nu Tories. In so far as the main excuse for conservatives supporting the Ayatollah Khameron is that he's actually a hard-line conservative who just plays a liberal squish on TV, it's hard to reconcile that theory with the reality that the Cameron Party has not only embraced the left's agenda, which can sometimes be excused as political realism, it's also embraced the underlying world view, which never can be.

Consider Chris Grayling's recent attempt to reach out to the right: he wants to allow householders to kill burglars. Say what?

As Julie says, who's asking for that? Homicidal householders are a liberal caricature. There's no better barometer of the demented state of modern liberalism than that these people really think folks who smash their way through front doors at 3 AM are all loveable old lags called Lefty, but the nation's home-owners are sadistic killers just waiting for the chance to torture innocent smackheads to death.

What the right wants, and has wanted for years, is a meaningful, right to self-defence. One that isn't subject to being retroactively revoked years after the fact should liberal activists manage to contrive a plausible atrocity story around us actually defending ourselves or our families. Or, to put it another way, if 'reasonable force' is such a reasonable concept, why don't we apply it more widely?

Sunday, December 20, 2009

'Top Judge' Wonders: Uhh... Maybe Our Lawless Scum Coddling Wasn't Such A Good Idea After All

Good News: a top judge has finally admitted that thugs are, literally, getting away with murder.

Bad News: his reasoning is a complete train wreck.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge declared that there should be long jail sentences for those who launch violent attacks – even if they do not mean to kill.

He said cases of ‘one-punch manslaughter’ were being treated too leniently. Greater weight should be given to the outcome of the attack than to the intention and ‘crimes which result in death should be treated more seriously
Say what? The offence is the offence. What the right is saying - and has said for years - isn't that there should be different penalties for the same crime depending on how it affects the victim, it's that when a violent headcase strikes a man in the head, death is an entirely predictable outcome of the crime, and so a murder rap is more than justified. Even Baroness 'Papers Please' Scotland gets closer to the truth:
‘If there is anyone who does not know that if you punch someone they may fall over, strike their head and then die, we should do everything possible to enlighten that person.
Or we could just kick them off the bench?

This is where rubber meets the road. The law, as passed by Parliament is quite clear that these cases are murder. It's the bewigged ones who have spent decades defining murder up to the point where anything short of flamethrowers hardly counts.

As ever, there's a wider issue here. Judges hate hate hate the mandatory life sentence for murder, but instead of doing the decent thing and resigning to campaign for a change in the law, or even just the moderately sleazy thing, and campaigning against it while still in office, what they've done instead is evade the clearly-expressed will of Parliament by tightening the definition of murder to the point of absurdity.

It's great that they're finally deciding to treat killing people as more serious than, say, tax evasion (but, say, why now instead of over the past twelve years), but it doesn't change the fact we only got here because a lawless judiciary was allowed to ignore the law of the land in favour of its own far-out lefty nonsense. Whatever happens in these particular cases, the fact remains we still have a judiciary that thinks Parliament's output comes stamped with the word 'For Information Only'.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Quote of the Day

Kathy Shaidle says what half the country has been wanting to say for years:
We're always scolded that we should be grateful to our "foremother" feminists who paved the way for us in the workplace, but all most of them did was turn offices into sucky boring swear-free non-stop birthday parties and gossip factories littered with cat pictures.
...but don't forget the constant lawsuits too. Hey, if the sexes were reversed, this would be worth at least five million.

And Finally...

If the right is so extreme, why do liberals have to lie about just who's really committing crimes?

And Another Thing...

Again, if it's the right that holds the patent on 'inflammatory rhetoric' and the like, how come it's always right-wing public figures that are the victims of violence?

Boys Will Be Boys!

Looks like the Moviegoer of No Appearance has been convicted of ABH, or as the BBC chooses to put it, 'Boy Found Guilty of Bleach Attack'

Ah yes: kids today: scrumping apples, playing truant and trying to blind people in bleach attacks. If it's the right that's so extreme, how come it's always liberals who carry water for savages?

Thursday, December 10, 2009

About That Budget Deficit.....

This must be what they call investing in 'hospitals and schools'.

Moviegoer of No Appearance

Somehow, instinct tells me this guy probably wasn't from 'Leeds' so much as somewhere a few miles west of there... but wait: Mr Liberal would like to point that there's a ban on naming the defendant so the newspapers can't report any identifying characteristics. So there!
But her bearded 6ft 3in attacker was desperate for revenge, said Tim Capstick, prosecuting.
Oops. Guess it's only some identifying characteristics they're not reporting (although the beard strongly suggests another one of those Amish).

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

Worst Attempt At Racial Victimhood Evah!

Has to be seen to be believed.

On the plus side, at least that kind of wraps up the whole 'only whites can be racist' thing, right? Besides, as one of the commentors said, if Tiger only prowled round his own ethnic group, he'd die a virgin.

Liberal Tourettes Claims Another Victim

This time it's Guardian weenie Hugo Rifkind accidentally letting his inner loon out in public.

The opening section is merely retarded, dependent as it on trying to create an analogy between engineering and biomedical research on the one hand, and the gerbil warming crowd on the other. Or, put it another way, Rifkind wants to compare two of the most tightly-regulated areas in science and technology to a bucnh of loonies busily playing musical datasets.

Hey, try getting a drug on the market while claiming that you've lost the original data from the clinical trials. As for building bridges, well, the folks in Workington might have had their town cut in half, but at least they don't have to put with people insisting that the bridges are still there, and anyone who says they aren't is in the pocket of Big Construction. Still, since Rifkind raises the point, how about a National Institute for Climate Excellence, huh? We can even use the same acronym.

Still, wacky though it is to see a liberal go all misty eyed about pharmaceutical companies, the real money quote is later on:
Where has it come from, this sudden consensus among Britain’s right-wing punditry that there’s some kind of scam going on here? Yes, Delingpole, I mean you, and plenty of others, too. What gives you the right?
And that is why people talk about liberal fascism.

The liberal concept of freedom means everyone has the right to their opinion.

There's a fundamental humbuggery here too. Rifkind claims to be ever so 'umble, because he's ready to defer to whatever the scientists say. But hang on a mo, we know exactly what they're going to say: we're all going to die and the only solution is Big Government, Bigger Taxes and Speech Licences. These people are exactly the same type of Guardian-reading tools as Rifkind himself. Liberals like Rifkind might defer to the geeks, but only providing they're liberal geeks. How about those guys in the biotech industry who claim restrictions on genetic modification are strangling progress? Do they qualify for the Magic 'No Public Debate Required' Pass?

(And as for that whole 'Bell Curve' thing....)

For that matter, how about those of us who were scientists, but escaped to the Free World? Are we qualified to have an opinion? We might not be current, but we could point out that 'Climate Science' is an oxymoron.

The whole point of a scientific theory is that its falsifiable - it makes predictions that can be shown to either be true or false. Climate science? Not so much. A cold winter proves the climate's changing, so does a mild one. Ditto, hot summers, rainy summers, cold summers.... it's all good. Besides, if needs be, they'll just compare summer temperatures in 2007 to winter temperatures in 1968 to hide the decline or something. It's not corrupt, it's just science, advanced fraudology. Besides, you need to look at the context, or as Ann Coulter says:
Global warming cheerleaders in the media were quick to defend the scandalous e-mails, explaining that, among scientists, the words "trick," "hide the decline" and "garbage" do not mean "trick," "hide the decline" and "garbage." These words actually mean "onion soup," "sexual submissive" and "Gary, Ind."

(Boy, it must be great to be able to redefine words right in the middle of a debate.)

Also, of course, the defenders said that the words needed to be placed "in context" -- the words' check was in the mail, and they'd like to spend more time with their families.

I have placed the words in context and it turns out what they mean is: gigantic academic fraud.

America The Beautiful

Now this is the way to handle liberals! You can almost imagine the dialogue:
Liberal Whiner: Having to wait for the executioners to find three veins is cruel!

Real American: OK, you win! We'll just kill him more slowly with the one drug then.

Liberal Whiner: Doh!

Today's Slice Of Open Borders Theatre

Finally! The Government's clamping down on those pesky Chilean immigrants selling their daughters into forced marriages. Or sons. Or whatever.

True, there are plenty of reasons to be sceptical about this marriage, all things considered:
The ‘heartbroken’ 18-year-old chose to live with 19-year-old Diego Andres Aguilar Quila, who had to leave the country recently after his student visa expired.
OK, so maybe he's married a British woman for the visa. On the other hand, he's married to a British woman, so you can't say he hasn't earned it the hard way.

Still and all, in so far as this is in no sense of the word a 'forced marriage', this surely meets the main criteria for 'open borders theatre', namely the blind enforcement of arbitrary rules against sympathetic targets, thereby press-ganging them as sock puppets in the left's endless agitprop production 'Evils of Nasty Racists What Refuse To Embrace Glorious Open Borders System'.

Monday, December 07, 2009

Who Knew The Men Of No Appearance Was A Franchise Operation?

Looks like they've opened a branch in New Zealand.

(H/T to Lurker)

Sunday, December 06, 2009

Race Hustling Pseudo-Con In Fraud Shocka!

Who'd have thunk it? Race hustling whiner and professional Tory turncoat St John of Taylor is facing fraud allegations. Financial fraud that is, not just the whole 'pretending to be conservative' thing.

As Laban says, the BBC will be heart-broken. Then again, what about that? Since at least 1992, when St John's elephantine sense of entitlement and sneery contempt for the bumpkins managed to single-handedly lose a safe Tory seat, the BBC has been promoting him as some kind of human litmus test. Any suggestion the Tories should move right, and particularly on culture war issues, and sure as night follows day, there would be St John to perform his party trick of reading Guardian editorials while prefacing every paragraph with the phrase 'as a conservative myself....'.

Now he's busted. Hey, in so far as the left seems to be pretty keen on Britain apologising for, well, just about anything, isn't it time for the BBC to apologise to the British right? We've had nearly two decades of our state broadcaster providing a platform for a fraudster to defame a huge chunk of the country.

If nothing else, what about the voters who had the good sense not to fall for the hype in 1992? The BBC has spent seventeen years implying that their criticism of Taylor was just a pathetic attempt to hide their raycist motivations. Now it turns out that the bumpkins had him bang to rights. It was the sofisticaytes at the BBC who were too plain prejudiced too see that the yokels had a point after all. If apologies are your bag, this would certainly seem an apologising matter, right?

Friday, December 04, 2009

We're Safe Forever

Finally, someone's taking seriously the risk of hijackings by pop tarts.

In related news, liberalism will kill us all.

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

This Is What I Would Have Written (If I Could Write)

Kathy Shaidle sums it up perfectly.

'Top Gear' Even Cooler Than We Suspected

It's all about having the right enemies. Good quote too from Benny Boy. Very..... moderate.

We Hate Them Because They're Scum

Ranting Stan has a good post on the bizarre 'Baby P' report (short summary: social workers suck, so give them huge pay rises). Hey, it's not exactly the same as the Macpherson Report.

Stan hits the nail on the head. It's not about who reports to who, or how many department heads there are, it's about a warped culture. It's bad enough that these people are obsessed with pandering to designated victims, no matter how dysfunctional their behaviour - see Victoria ClimbiƩ for further details - but they've also absorbed the deranged feminist idea that the traditional families is, by definition, evil.

That's why they let certain of their 'clients' get away with cultural quirks, like starving their children to death, but will bend over backwards to victimise any family without the magic victim card.

That's point one right there. There a clear pattern of prejudice and attempted social engineering here. These people are extremist kooks pushing their own agenda. They don't have bad judgement, their judgement works fine, they're just basing it on different criteria from what people who aren't socialist thugs do.

Which is point two. Consider this from the case above:
She was taken into a room with a nurse and social worker who apparently told her: 'We would like Zak to go into foster care to assess how he feeds. You have legal rights but be warned if you oppose this we will go straight to court and have all your parental rights taken away.'
Now, isn't that nice? Again, this is not about judgement: a citizen was pressured to give up her legal rights by the threat of further victimisation. You could have Perry Mason stop by and he couldn't argue that as anything other than an outrageous example of lawless thuggery. And that goes with swords, oak leaves and gold cluster for a system that permits them to do this.

To the point: social workers are extremist lunatics who abuse public office to lawlessly victimise innocent families while abandoning politically-inconvenient children to a hideous fate, and now they're complaining of low social status? They're lucky to be allowed to walk the streets.