Thursday, January 21, 2010

Quote of the Day

Norman Tebbit gets to the heart of the matter:
For the moment, at least, I will not succumb to the temptation offered me by the commenter called “James (1)”, who would like a conversation about “third world immigration, Islamification and a non-indigenous demographic time bomb” – although I would observe to opponents of Islamification that it is quite difficult to beat a something with a nothing.
Exactly right - for all the supposed negativity of conservatism (mainly defined as 'not signing onto to the ten squillion pound boondongle d'jour), it's noticeable that, even forty years later and with complete cultural dominance, the sixty-eighters have never managed to construct anything like a positive vision of society. Instead, we have fifty-somethings still trying to bag the oldsters by making rubbish flicks about how bad the 1950s were.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Reminder: Liberty Is Not Actually A Civil Liberties Organisation

Here's Universal Shami preaching in defence of the vital civil right to parade round in fascist regalia. The thing is there's at least two problems with her position.

The first problem is that the pro-regalia tendency don't just want the freedom to wear the uniform of this nation's enemies in time of war, they want the state to repress the freedom of anyone who might think worse of them for being fascist weenies, lest they discriminate against these charmers.

Problem number two is that non-partisan campaigning group Liberty only ever seem to get excited about the liberties of certain people. If the right to wear enemy uniform in wartime is an essential part of British liberty, how about the vital Right to Comedy?

Was the gag funny? Probably not, but neither are most club acts, and no one's suggesting their performances should be interrupted by cops jumping out shouting 'Satire Squad! Drop the mike, you're under arrest'! Armed entertainment criticism would be a strange use of police resources at the best of times, but there's the other thing that there may not even have been an actual offence committed.

I'm not a lawyer, but these people are, so let's hear what they say:
Threats can be calculated and premeditated, or said in the heat of the moment. The defendant does not have to have the intention to kill but there has to be an intent that the person to whom the threat has been issued would fear it would be carried out. Where it is doubtful whether the threat carried the necessary intent a charge under section 4 Public Order Act 1986 may be appropriate. Refer also to Public Order Offences incorporating the Charging Standard elsewhere in the Legal guidance.
OK, so let's see what Sec 4 says:
The following types of conduct are examples which may at least be capable of amounting to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour:

* threats made towards innocent bystanders or individuals carrying out public service duties;
Hey, I'll take a shot in the dark here and say that the definition of 'towards' requires the accused to actually address the alleged victim, not be tapping away on a twitter feed that the victim has to be specifically told to look for.

These airport guys remind me of nothing so much as the old joke about the woman who called the police because her neighbour was sunbathing nude in his garden. The cop comes round, looks out the window and says 'I can't see anything', and the woman says 'you can if you go upstairs and climb on the wardrobe'.

All of which is by way of saying, they must have gone to an awful lot of trouble to be harassed, alarmed and distressed.

To the point, in so far as a young man exercising his right to free speech has been seized by agents of the state on a charge that's legally absurd and morally ludicrous, it is exactly the type of thing a soi dissant civil liberties organisation should regard as nearly as important a freedom as the right to coerce employers into hiring people dressed in enemy uniform.

The Tipping Point

Is modern liberalism dependent on victimhood? Well, consider that the Guardian has now started running tearful articles on the discrimination Muslims could face, if the government were to introduce profiling.

Coming soon: how right wing necromancy could lead to your kids being eaten by zombies!

Hey, if our hypothetical doctor really is an 'Islamic moderate' whose country is being torn apart by terrorist lunatics, wouldn't he be onboard with just about any measures to clamp down on Islamic terrorists? After all, Miami Cubans aren't known for the deep love and affection for communism.

But we don't profile: that would be uncivilised. Instead, we have compulsory nudie scanners. Hey, I admit I haven't checked up on our ever-expanding Human Rights Act in the last 48 hours or so, but I'm thinking that if a demand you get your virtual tackle out before flying doesn't contravene your human rights, they aren't worth having.

Oh yeah.... profiling isn't 100% reliable. Meanwhile, the panty bomber buys a one-way ticket with cash while on a 'no-fly' list, but this doesn't say anything about the efficacy of non-profiling methods - and neither does the fact he used a liquid explosive that doesn't show up on scanners anyway.

Folks, I think we're reaching a tipping point. Liberals always love the pose of Olympian detachment, coolly deciding between various competing claims, but that dog won't hunt anymore.

Leaving aside drivel about lack of efficacy - despite 100% of Islamic terrorists being found to be Islamic - the case against profiling always was that it was better to slightly inconvenience everyone than to make people who exactly match the profile of the last hundred or so people to commit acts of terrorism onboard airliners feel slightly uncomfortable by asking them more questions than an 88 year old Jamaican grandmother would face. So now we have a system where your teenage daughter will be required to go through the nudie scanner four or five times in front of drooling imbeciles while the guy with 16 South Yememese stamps in his passports gets waved through because we don't want to make him feel uncomfortable.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Shocka! Pandering To Thugs Fails

Who'd have thunk it? A rapper turns out to be a violent retard.

Talk about the clue being in the question. We've got a problem with violence in schools, so a government minister teams up with a scumbag low-life. Hmmmm.... I think I see the problem.

I'll take a shot in the dark here, but if Ed Balls really wants to do something about thuggery in schools, he might try treating these people as the douchebags that they are, instead of treating violent insanity as a wacky, but enriching!, cultural quirk

Mel Brooks Did It First

Hipsters' knee jerk obsession with sticking it to The Man reaches its logical conclusion.

Note too how the splendid senator from Wisconsin gets slipped in there along with the mass murdering leftists. No context required when dealing with the right, obviously.

Golden Future Postponed

I can't wait to see how they blame this on a white guy...

Best Give Up On The Whole 'Development' Thing Then......

Today's Africa's screwed up and it's all your fault story.

Liberal Hate Speech

I was just reading NNW's post on Avatar when I realsied something about it: take away any wider issues and you're still left with a genuinely bloodthirsty movie, where Americans (and, it is strongly implied, conservative ones) are depicted as fascist thugs, then slaughtered in large numbers.

Hey, unlike certain David Camerons I could mention, I'm a real conservative. Let Hollywood make what it can sell, but in so far as liberals are queueing up to see conservative caricatures butchered, can we at least have to end to all this talk of liberal 'nuance' versus hateful conservatives?


And now, the same point from an actual literate person:
Yes, movies traffic in absurd super-simplifications. But we’re supposed to accept that of the deployment of several hundred, every soldier save one is a low-IQ cold-blooded murderer. What does “Avatar” build up to? Watching the invading soldiers — most of whom happen to be former American military personnel — die is the big cathartic ending of the flick. Extended sequences show Americans being graphically slaughtered in the natives’ counterattack. The deaths of aliens are depicted as heartbreaking tragedies, while the deaths of American security forces are depicted as a whooping good time.

Truthers Gone Wild!

Laban points out a guy who's blown the lid! off the death of St Jean the Martyr.

Yes, indeed. It's easy to mock, but mainstream Trutherism isn't much better these days. Here my old pal Tommy explains how just because the Truthers couldn't even get a verdict against Captain Chaos herself, Cressida Dick, she's still, like, totally guilty:
Yes, the jury in the "health and safety" show trial - used by the state to put the matter on hold until it was "old news" [it was a conspiracy to hide the conspiracy? - DJ] - specifically exonerated Ms Dick [well, quite - DJ]. Perhaps the lethal errors were all made after she - as Gold Commander - transferred control to CO19. Certainly there is no proof she was involved in discrediting an innocent victim in the disgraceful campaign of lies and spin which followed Jean-Charles's murder [yep, it's another conspiracy theory - DJ]. Perhaps history will even remember her for her role as head of the Metropolitan Police's "Diversity Directorate" more than for that day of national disgrace [opinion stated as fact without supporting argument - DJ]. Perhaps.

The question still remains. In honouring a woman whose name is tied to that monstrous injustice, what message, dear reader, does our Prime Minister intend to convey? [Message? How about 'YOU LOSE, LOSERS'? - DJ]
Still, don't get the feeling I'm bracketing Indymedia guy with the mainstream of Trutherism. After all, at least our pal from Bristol's conspiracy theory is internally consistent. Once you accept his fundamentally loopy premise, the rest of it hangs together. That sets him apart from the rest of the Truther movement.

Indeed, not to give aid and comfort to the insane, but if Truthers are genuinely enraged over their failure to land a glove on their hate figures, they might want to try producing a coherent story. It speaks to the essential bigotry driving this movement that no explanation is required for just why, say, police officers would cooperate with a vast conspiracy to terminate a small-time crook. They're pigs, it's what they do, init?


Walk them cats back! An anonymous commentor claims to be shocked - shocked! -that anyone could call Truthers conspiracy nuts, claiming they just question police procedures, to which I reply thus:

i/ the only way the death of St Jean could have got more publicity would have been if he was riding along with Princess Di. In so far as the Truthers have been trying to blow the lid! on this case for nearly five years, I think we can safely conclude all the answers are in. They may not like them, or believe them, but there's something deeply gutless about claiming they're just 'asking questions'. They're not, they're making accusations and they should come out and say that - although, to be fair, Tommy certainly does that, which leads on to point two...

ii/ If the Truther were really just concerned about procedures, they'd write about that, instead of ranting about 'Death Squads' and the like. Au contrair, from the start the Truther movement regarded this case as a Rosetta Stone that exposed dark forces that were secretly pulling the strings behind the scenes in the sham democracy of the United KKKingdom.

It's way too late to pretend they're just concerned about how cops do their thing.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Best Headline Evah?

This story probably says something profound about modern Britain, but my mind's gone too blank to work out what.

Today's Good News Story

Hey, sharks need to eat too!

Still, if these freaks genuinely believe they can sell people on a speedboat being rammed by a huge whaler, it looks like we've finally found some econuts who don't mind polluting their bodies with 'chemicals'.

Libs: Even More Pathetic Than We Thought

Mind you, I'm right behind the whole libs killing themselves thing.

Strong, Independent Career Woman Whines Like Little Girl

Heh. It's just like that episode where Buffy sued the Master after he said she had a fat backside.

Like Mark says, just what more does this hag want? She's had an insanely pampered life, but now she's the Rosa Parks of science? Clearly, those beasts at the Royal Society were so keen to fire a lady director, they had to go to the trouble of hiring one in the first place just so they could sack her, but only after keeping her on for four years to hide the true nature of their evil plan.

You know, with deep thinkers like that on the bridge, it's a wonder British science is sinking so fast.

As it happens, there may be one other reason why she got the ol' heave ho:
Lady Greenfield's removal comes after the Royal Institution incurred huge losses during a major refurbishment project she masterminded. The £22 million project left the body so short of funds that its auditors raised questions about its ability to continue operating.

The body's trustees decided that the position of a full-time director was no longer affordable in the light of funding problems that has left it more than £3 million in the red.
Steering your organisation into a £3 million sized hole is bad. Not seeing why that could be a problem really should be a sacking offence.

It's not as if there isn't evidence of pilot error:
Supporters of Lady Greenfield say she had modernised the charity, which aims to connect the public with the world of science, but had been regarded by some as too stuffy and outmoded.
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed how often modernisation precedes total disaster? I guess keeping track of the red ink isn't part of the New Girl Order.

All in all, you have to have some sympathy with the Royal Society.... but only if you're stupid. Greenfield's whole schtick is and always was professional victimhood (try this for a 2002 example). These guys must have known right from the off that they were hiring a divisive femiloon but they were prepared to go along with that as long as she aimed her unhinged rants at everyone else.

To the point: no less a scientist than Newton claimed to be 'standing on the shoulders of giants' - meaning he recognised the contribution of those who had come before him. Femiloon ideologues go the other way: everything that came before is a product of the Patriarchy and therefore bad, Bad, BAD! They insist we all hail them as the First Woman To.... , then they goose-step in and announce the need to modernise everything in the whole world, until it all goes horribly wrong and then they claim the worker bees let them down.

The Royal Society has sown the wind and they can reap the whirlwind: Death to the Manginas!

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Stop Being Outraged By The Wrong Things!

Hey, at least she has a real job, but wait.... what's this?
Since the age of 18, she had been a party activist for the Lib Dems but later became disillusioned.

She quit the party in April and declared it had been 'drifting into the wilderness and neglecting their supporters'.
Another one? Are there any conservative candidates who are actually, y'know, conservatives?

Monday, January 11, 2010

Anyone Else?

So is this guy a mangina or just realistic about the women on the jury?
She told detectives she was being harassed by a stalker and later blamed a random motorist after they were involved in a minor car crash.

He was arrested on suspicion of harassment and held by police for 20 hours before being released without charge....

The mother of two made up the allegations between November 2007 and June 2008 to seek attention, said David Morgan, prosecuting....

‘Don’t be fooled into thinking that she should get a sympathy verdict.

She has caused immense distress to friends who thought she was in real danger. She was selfish,’ he added.
Say, Dave, anyone else 'caused distress'? Anyone at all?

Liberal Sinks Own Boat, Libertarians Climb Aboard

Smug liberal freak David Aaronvitch advances a stunning new argument: people who don't dig the gay agenda are secretly gay themselves.

Hey, fat boy, 1975 called: they'd like their talking points back. Well, either that, or Dave's standard issue leftism means he secretly fantasises about indulging in orgies of tax-cutting.

All of this is his way of claiming that the right are really huge hypocrites - unlike leftists who have no morals at all and don't care who knows it. Also - and I know this may shock you - Dave's noticed that some folks in the Third World aren't down with sorting sex out man to man....

Don't worry though. The obnoxious open borders booster manages to swerve round the obvious implication of his position. See, Western supporters of traditional values are totally the same as the people who want to string up interior designers.

Still, that's not the biggest outbreak of humbug in his article. Try this:
The sexual conservative’s true hypocrisy is that he doesn’t really believe in his own idealisation. Men will be inflamed by the sight of hair, women will bear other men’s children at the fall of a veil, boys will suddenly cast off the tedious ways of heterosexuality and put on the gaudy garb of gayness.
Say what? There's only one side of the great divide that obsessed with the idea that men can be inflamed at the drop of a hat. Hell, the article itself makes no sense unless you assume that, without the iron grip of PC, our nation's socio-cons will be out there whipping the public up into a queer-bashing frenzy.

Compared to the reigning ideology on the average university campus, social conservatives are the John Stuart Mills de nos jours. Which is lucky because libertarians are increasingly giving up the fight, throwing their own ideology under the bus as soon as the chance to score some hip points comes along. Quote of the day? Really?

There's the obvious point that Fatty Dave's deliberate collapsing of the distinction between those who support traditional values, and those who want to impose them, is a common trick of the totalitarian-minded, but it goes a little deeper than that. One of the central points of libertarianism is the distinction between those who use violence and those who don't - to suddenly decide that it's no big deal after all is to expose just what a fraud most modern libertarianism is.

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

The Left Is Eating Its Own

Maybe she is a good writer, but she sucks at victimhood poker.

Then again, how much sympathy can you have for someone who played the Chick Card like a violin in the early days? Are we sure there weren't any up and coming white guys whose scripts got binned in favour of her eleventeenth script about a tough, independent woman making her way in a male-domina.......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Quote of the Day

Rick Darby is thankful for small mercies when it comes to the Boxer Bombers:
Incidentally, the Chosen One didn't mention the name Abdulmutallab, he of the weaponized groin. The public might have gotten the impression that the "suspect" was a M____m. Thankfully, though, he refrained from saying the Dutchman had "acted stupidly."
...which is lucky, 'cause I'm thinking a beer summit is right out this time.

Your Country Needs You... send your kids to a lousy school.

This bizarre confusion about who's serving who is par for the course where educrats go, but I note two related pathologies in that article.

One is the bonkers view of just how normal people live in this country. Consider the average middle-class income versus typical school fees: really, no one is sending their kids private just out of one-upmanship. After all, buying his'n'her Beemers would be cheaper and more fun. No wonder these people think they can keep bleeding the middle classes dry with endless taxes if they really think the average family has north of £10K pa to spend just to impress the neighbours.

But that's not the best of it. Consider the other Deep Thought underpinning this article. The implication is that the middle classes should send their kids to Hell Street Comp otherwise.... What, exactly? We'll be left with schools dominated by the working class? Gott in Himmel! How will our nation survive?

Hey, not to go all Laban, but back in the day our nation had a whole network of working class orientated educational bodies and, spookily enough, none of them were nearly as awful as the average comp. Seems to me that it was the education of the working class falling under the control of people like Professor Woods that marked the beginning of the death spiral in the first place.

I'll guess we'll have to wait to find out just *why* educational institutions serving predominately working class kids is a bad thing. That goes double for finding out by what loony toon calculus middle-class parents who scrimp and save to provide their kids with a good education are the bad guys.

Actually, as they used to say on Blankety Blank, the clue is in the question. Parents send their kids private precisely so as to avoid an education system dominated by hard-left loons ranting about the evil middle-class (most of whom probably earn a lot less than Woods does). Hey, it's not 'prejudice' when they really are a bunch of loons.