Mixed Messages?

...Or just proof the rules are different for the High Priests of the Media.

The Mail supports restrictions on free speech when it comes to you-know-what, but issues pious proclamations about the vital importance of the press being free to slime a dead guy.

Elves!

Because it's still funny.

Liberals: Still Scum

I'm thinking this case is the perfect microcosm of the difference between left and right.

Yes, indeed, HSBC were their usual sleazy selves, and it's disgraceful that their senior management have managed to avoid disbarment for conduct that would have got a small town IFA strung up, but at least they've faced some consequences.

Meanwhile, the supposed charidees wot exist to help the helpless? Ah yes: they traded on their (undeservedly) good reputations to lead the marks into the lion's den, and they've got away with the cash, their reputations intact and in all probability a press release ready to go asking for the government to give them a grant to help protect their clients from predatory capitalist pig dogs.

Victim of No Appearance

Further proof for my theory that, just like the Ultimate Question & Answer in the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, you can either know the felon's background or the victim's, but never the two at once.

Yep, two Afghanis - probably Mormons - stalk the streets and rape a 'woman'.

Really? Any particular type of woman? Anything in particular driving this choice of victim? Considering she was pulled off the street, there can only be a limited number of things that could have driven them to target this particular victim. It's not like they were driven by an irrational hatred of left-handed dental technicians.

Hey, in so far as this was a premeditated rape of an Infidel woman by Islamosavages, exactly as demanded by the Koran, this is a textbook case of a hate crime. This is what 'hate crime' means: the use of violence to intimidate members of the target demographic.

Needless to say, m'learned friends huffed and they puffed, but then they carefully steered round the elephant in the room on their way to Jokesentanceville:

Jailat Khan, of Beeston, Leeds, was ordered to be detained for five years and Shahzada Khan, of Leeds, was ordered to be detained for four years after both admitted kidnap and rape.

Sentencing the pair on Tuesday, Judge Christopher Batty said they had targeted a vulnerable woman alone in the city centre and the effect on her was 'immeasurable'.

Phew! Just think if it hadn't affected her so badly, he might have let them off with a light sentence. As it is, it now appears you can take part in a brutal rape and get exactly the same sentence Jeffrey Archer got for perjury.

Meanwhile, the femiloons have all gone quiet. Well, duh! They can sneer all they want at the Fifties, but compared to their craven toeing of the leftist line, the Stepford Wives look like Madonna.

Quote of the Day

Hey, some of us have been saying this for years:

Dave Cameron always knew he was born to rule. What he never stopped to analyse, unfortunately, is the more important question of why – ie to what useful purpose – he might have been born to rule.

Actually, I think the truth is even worse. It's increasingly obvious that The Dave doesn't even think the 'why' comes in to it. He simply rules by divine right. Hence the tantrums and the thuggery when any of the lower orders question God's representative on Earth. Hence the contempt for public opinion except in the most cynical posing for contrived photo-ops way. Hence the refusal to engage with even the most basic demands of the job - like turning up (five holidays already this year).

I give it two years before he starts selling indulgences.

'Loser' Is The Word

I'm in two minds about the MSM's born-again Davosceptics. It's great that they're finally managing to remove the kool aid IV from their rectum, but some of us ignorant chav scum got there years ago.

Equally, it's all second order stuff. Back in the day Cast Iron Dave's arrogance, paper thin skin and snobbery were all useful clues to how he would ultimately govern, but now he is PM, we don't need clues any more, we know exactly how he governs: badly.

Like I keep saying, The Dave's success was based on two myths: firstly, that he was an political genius and secondly, that he was a brilliant manager. Blowing a General Election in the middle of a recession scuppered the first one, and now his total incompetence is managing to kill off the second.

The Dave's whole appeal as a touchy-feely moderate was based on the idea that he could run a Labour government better than the Labour Party, and anyone who suggested that liberalism just doesn't work was clearly some kind of right-wing extremist who had no place in the modern conservative party.

Apparently, no one pointed out to The Dave that running as a technocrat sneering at the stoopid ideologues only works if you're more competent than a drunk five year with ADHD who hasn't slept for three days. As it is, Call Me Dave's whole reign has been like a giant experiment to disprove the old line about even blind pigs finding the odd truffle. At this point, talking about his control freakery, dubious land deals and five holidays a year counts as letting him off the hook. It's utter failure that's the outstanding feature of his time in office.

I think we can take a lesson from Ace of Spades blog, and it's running gag of referring to the Obamamessiah as SCoaMF - as in Stuttering Clusterfuck of a Miserable Failure. The Dave don't stutter, but he's more than made up for it with the rest of it, so why pretend he's anything other than a loser?

What James Murdoch Should Tell The Select Committee

I knew exactly as much about phone hacking as Theresa May knew about abandoning border controls, or John Prescott knew about blowing half a billion on a failed reorganisation of the Fire Service.

Theresa May, Or Possibly May Not

Who can tell, huh? It's always the little things that trip you up, like the defence of the realm.

Now Theresa is busy deploying the Reverse Nuremberg defence: whatever happened, they weren't following orders, plus the dog ate her briefing documents and she didn't know nuffink, guv.

It does raise an interesting philosophical question: which possibility is worse? Theresa May is too thick to work out that border security is important, or she just decided that there were higher priorities than stopping the Mad Bomber coming in?

Whatever the specifics though, this case has exposed the fault line in Cameronism. The Dave's whole selling point was that he wasn't some nasty old right-wing extremist, he was a cool, middle of the road unifier - once he'd finished purging all the conservatives out of his party anyway. In reality, Cameron's supposed reasonableness boiled down to the Tories taking all the face card jobs in Whitehall (oops - guess the coalition thing scuppered that) but leaving Labour appointees in place to get on with the job.

Whatever May did or did not do, in so far as it was a central part of Cameron's strategy not to clear out activist civil servants, he bears ultimate responsibility for the fact that liberals are free to continue to push liberal policies, even after Cameron's Cronies all got their keys to the Executive Washroom.

This Is Why We Can't Have A Referendum On The EU

The Government doesn't want the distraction when it's dealing with the really important stuff....

Vince Avoiding Tax

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the only time politicians aren't telling the rest of us how to run our lives is when they're busy denying all responsibility for anything in their own lives?

Ann Got There First

This isn't much of a mystery. To paraphrase Ann Coulter, the only difference between people like Cameron and actual liberals is that The Dave wants the right to beat his servants.

As much as current employment laws offers opportunities for shakedowns'n'slacking, they're nothing compared to the discrimination industry, but don't hold your breath for Dave to take on Victims R Us.

Ditto, with sword, oak leaves and gold cluster, the public sector unions.

It's not about improving competitiveness, it's about screwing down the working man some more. As usual with the Nu Tory Revolution, the ordinary Joe will get the shaft, while the race hustlers, femiloons and other associated bums will keep coining it in.

Wizard of Oz Calls for Three-Line Whip On Motion To Look Behind Curtain

Include me out of all that deep thinking about why Cameron called a three-line whip over the referendum vote. I can't help thinking there's less to it than meets the eye.

Cast Iron Dave rose with the help of two myths, one that he was a brilliant political operator, and two that he was the Smartest Guy in the Room. In reality, he blew an election against a gibbering loon in the depths of recession, while his term in office has been such a chaotic train wreck of U-turns, bungling and sleazy compromises that he makes John Major look like Churchill.

All that Cameron has left is an essentially tautological argument: he's the leader becuase he's the leader. He has no choice but to devote all his time to bullying everyone outside the bunker - with his record, it's all he has left.

Liberalism: Multiple Fraud Disorder

Don't be shocked, but one of the most famous cases in psychology turns out to be a really huge fraud.

It's all very disappointing though. Alex Haley had just claimed to have tracked down one of the personalities to her home village.

Meanwhile, some of us are still wondering about people who claim to be Certified Super Genii, but keep falling for obvious frauds. Still, claiming a young girl has sixteen people living in her head is still less goofy than claiming dangerous felons can be rehabilitated by six months of group therapy twice a week, and at least 'Sybil' didn't take an axe to anyone's head.

Special Ed: Conservative Hero

Wait..... did I sleep through Conference Season?

No, it just seemed that way. It says something about the pointless of the modern party conference that the closest we got to an actual conservative point during the whole nightmare came from Ed Milliband.

Personally, I liked Special Ed's idea to divide businesses into 'good' and 'bad' categories with different laws and tax rates for each. It's like a liberal version of the Flat Tax, a way to sweep away bureaucratic complexity in favour of a more streamlined system. True, you could say it's a little arbitrary and open to corruption, but not noticeably more so than what we have now, and at least we won't have the pretence that it's anything other than the raw exercise of government power.

All that's without considering the other upside. In so far as the leader of Britain's main party of the left has called for the state to abandon the whole 'equal under law' thing in favour of the legal equivalent of a blank cheque, with nary a dissenting voice on the left, Special Ed has exposed the true nature of the left's civil liberties frauds. What could be more injurious to liberty than the state claiming an open-ended right to arbitrarily victimise any business it pleases? Don't ask Shami and pals though - they're too busy investigating allegations that a terrorist was given lukewarm milk on his coco-pops.

Trembling in the Shadow of Latte (And Other Stupid Ideas)

In so far as Certified Liberal Deep Thinker Vince Cables' latest line of attack is to accusse the right of wanting to send kids up chimineys, it does ram home an important point: there are no good arguments left for liberalism.

People on the right are arguing that a recession is no time to be treating our last surviving private businesses as pinata donkeys full of employee freebies, meanwhile the left is relying on girly hysteria....

Actually, that same dynamic applies to just about any issue. That's the dark secret of liberalism: they don't want to keep university campuses free of conservatives because they think we're morons, they want it because they know we're not. Ditto, in any nation without a bloated state broadcaster with its hand on the scales, Vince Cable would be a national joke.

We should be mocking these people like the loons they are, but instead, the conservative establishment not only treats them like political heavyweights, it allows them to set the terms of the debate, as though there were any kind of meaningful middle-ground to be reached with people who compare opposing compulsory employer-paid aromatherapy with support for child labour.

Enough already, there's no reason to pander to the deranged. On the contrary, the more they have to come out and argue for liberlalism, the more obvious it becomes that 'liberal intellectual' is more a diagnosis than a description. Hence the liberal obsession with hate speech: they need to shut down the debate because every time they have to compete in the marketplace of ideas, they go bankrupt.

The BBC: Fellating Felons On The Licence Fee

Anyone listening to the Jeremy Vine Show yesterday would have got the treat of alleged comedian Johnny Marbles stopping by to talk about his charity swim down the Thames.

No, wait - it was a real comedian what did that. Meanwhile, Johnny is known for one thing: assaulting an elderly man, but apparently that's all you need in Beebland to justify being treated like Tom Cruise opening a new movie.

No, my mistake again - Tom might have to face the odd critical comment, instead of yukking it up with the presenter about how he nailed an old guy. On the plus side, we've surely killed any suggestion that it's the Right which encourages extremism?

Actually - and typical for the BBC - even without the bias the interview failed as journalism. Far from being spontaneous, Thugboy admitted unprompted that he had been stalking Murdoch beforehand, but Vine completely missed it.

Then again, the whole 'educate and inform' thing was conspicuous by its absence. Instead, we had Thugboy's unchallenged ranting about how the Murdochs 'lied' - but without ever explaining what they were lying about or why we should believe him.

Instead of asking his guest to justify his slanders, Vine concentrated on the important stuff: feeding his new pal sob sister lines about how Mrs Murdoch attacked him, and how hard his jailing was on his son, and did he think he was oversentanced?

Surprisingly enough, he did. Plus Jeremy helpfully pointed out that someone who did the same to Fiona Bruce only got a fixed penalty. Yes, indeed: our nuanced friends at the BBC are now claiming to be baffled why assaulting a witness giving evidence to Parliament is treated more harshly than the same offence in the High Street.

Needless to say, no one was there to point out that here was an individual who carried out a violent assault in a self-confessed attempt to 'humiliate' his victim and demonstrate contempt for Parliament, and our State broadcaster was doing all but driving the getaway car.

More to the point, the BBC spent the recent riots on Defcon One Vigilante Alert. Now we have a supposed anarchist who claims the right to assault anyone who, in his opinion, is obviously guilty, even if they've never been charged with a crime and the BBC treats him like an honoured guest. Hello?

Let's check the scorecard here:

Shopkeepers defending their businesses against arsonist and looters: vigilantes.

Leftist thugs attacking people they despise, but who haven't been convicted of anything: Tom Cruise.

BBC moral authority: screwed.

That Depends What The Meaning of 'Elite' is....

I certainly agree with the wider point Ed West is making here, but seriously... David Cameron as the poster boy for the benefits of elitism? It was guys like Cast Iron Dave who sunk that boat in the first place.

No doubt about it, Cameron is a member is good standing of the elite, but much good that's done any of us. The more we're reminded of his credentials, the more we notice how little he's actually achieved. And no, he's not just a victim of bad luck. Never mine the implementation, he's barely capable of putting together a coherent policy in the first place. Consider this: no matter how often we're reminded that The Dave is the World's Smartest Man and the Greatest Orator Evah! I defy anyone to quote a single memorable line from him.

Well, OK, there was that whole 'Hug A Hoodie' thing, but the Cameroonatics don't like to talk about that.

That's the point right there: Dave's elite, but there are guys driving taxis who could mount a more coherent defence of conservative values than Prince Dave.

Those Tory Cuts....

Looks like things have got so bad they're having to focus on the bare essentials.

And, no, it isn't just a bit of fun:

Under the £75,000 initiative, 3,600 Sure Start children’s centres will be sent LazyTown-branded activity packs including recipe ideas and a sticker chart

It's like all the worst ideas from Nu Labour are converging into one big ball of stupid.

The BBC: Focusing on the Key Issues

As we approach the tenth anniversary of 9-11, the BBC asks why aren't you peasants queueing up to watch a soft-focus portrayal of the lighter side of totalitarian lunacy?

Yes, indeed: Muslims killed thousands of Infidels on September 11 but now pesky Islamophobes refuse to watch emetic depictions of jovial jihadists, so there's fault on both sides.

Needless to say, you have to look elsewhere for the real story, including a truly Pythonesque twist:

The Muslim members of ACTRA decided to sit this thing out, and so every warm fluffy moderate Muslim on the show is played by a Protestant or Catholic, Italian or Indian. As comedy of bicultural manners goes, it's like a surreal latter-day PC version of the old vaudeville act "The Hebrew and the Coon," where the Hebrew was the genuine article and the Coon was played by Al Jolson.

Yep - the only way the left could get its Allahawful paean to moderate Muslims off the ground was by hiring fellow liberals to dress up as moderate Muslims.

No wonder the BBC likes the show - that's pretty much been its approach to covering Islam for years. They could combine the two approaches and have a BBC version where the Muslim characters don't speak, and instead the lefty university professors from next door keep stopping by to tell the audience what the Muslims would have said.

Another Reason Why Cameronism Is A Really Huge Fraud

Ace makes an interesting point over here. Basically, he's saying that ideology will only ever win over 35% of the electorate. Getting a workable majority requires a candidate who can project a personality voters feel comfortable with.

Superficially, this sounds like the Cameron doctrine. After all, these guys have never been reluctant to sneer at those nasty old 'right-wing ideologues' what keep scaring the horses, but hang on a minute.... Sure, Cameron doesn't dig the ideology - and let's assume that his obvious contempt for them doesn't cost him any votes amongst the 35% - but where's the evidence that he is able to appeal to the electorate? Where's the proof that the snooty, stand-offish, sleazy suckweasel appeals to anyone much at anything more than a relieved 'at least he's saner than Gordon' level?

Astonishingly Enough, Cameronism Still Not Working

One term Tories? Why not? It's not like The Dave can run on his record is it?

Of course, arguably, the whole point of Cameronism was to achieve nothing. Nasty old right-wing ideologues were thrown under the bus, and instead Cast Iron Dave's Nu Tory Party promised to take over and change things very, very slightly.

And that was how the Tories achieved a 100 seat majority.

But never mind the wider issues, Cameronism doesn't even make sense on its own terms. Cameronism relied on a tacit quid pro quo with the labour placemen in the bureaucracy. Cameron and pals would move into the big offices and the leftists would be left in place and in peace to keep pushing their own agenda. Hence why under a nominally-conservative government we had cops standing around watching rioters go on the rampage - it was Labour appointee police managers following liberal doctrines, but the Tories still got the blame anyway.

This is brilliant politics.

Robert Peel: Vigilante!

Focusing like a laser on the key issue, as ever, liberals have decided that the real problem with law and order breaking down is that it encourages ordinary people to defend their communities.

Oh sure, they're all for it when the defenders are exotically ethnic, but when the white trash get involved, why, that could ruin the riot for everybody.

Liberals claim to be terrified by the prospect of people taking the law into their own hands, even when there's no law to be had in the district anyway. There's plenty of humbuggery on show here, not least in hearing deranged cop-haters explaining why only fascist pigs are competent to protect the public, but the central issue is this: the argument against vigilantism is a constitutional as well as a moral absurdity.

Consider Sir Robert Peel's own principles of law enforcement, specifically number 7:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Or, to put it another way, the police are just citizens in uniform, which means the idea that one group of citizens are required to curl up in a ball and await rescue from another bunch of citizens makes not a lick of sense. If it's illegal for one group of citizens to patrol their own neighbourhood, then that would surely apply to hirelings of the state drafted in from out of town.

Then there's principle number 1:

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

My unnuanced take on that is 'prevent' means in the sense of 'stopping it happening' not 'standing around filming it, then arresting the perp two weeks later'.

Letting scumbags run rampage and catching them later might be safer for the police, but the citizen is under no moral or legal duty to let himself be victimised merely for the convenience of the police.

Quote of the Day

From a predictable source:

London, the progressive dream: shopkeepers of every race and creed, looted by thieves of every race and creed.

Ann Got There First

Ann Coulter covers our recent festivities. I'm not sure she's right about the racial breakdown - you'd think she'd know better than to trust the BBC - but she does revisit some of the old classics, like the Shannon Matthews non-kidnapping - remember that?

All of which is by way of making an important point: no, this didn't come of the blue. All that's happened is that a whole year's worth of Saturday nights have come at once. No one can say they weren't warned.

I'd say Ann would be able to get a whole book out of this stuff, but she already has.

You should read the whole book, but for now, a short summary: nothing is accidental. Liberals have been relying on mob violence since at least the French Revolution. Liberals stoke mobs, protect them, then create absurd heroic narratives about it all afterwards. They can't win in the marketplace of ideas, so they try and persuade chavs to burn the it down.

You May Not Be Interested In War, But War Is Interested In You

It's a sad sign of the times when Trotsky makes more sense than a soi-dissant conservative home secretary, but here we are with our cities burning and Theresa May is still jabbering about policing by consent.

That will be some negotiation, all right: maybe she's hoping she can get them to agree to only loot one in every two shops?

Of course, this is par for the course for the Nu Tories. The essence of Cameronism is the belief that everything is negotiable and the shortest distance between two points is always straight down the middle.

The worst of it is that this isn't mere spinelessness. On the contrary, in the demented world of the Nu Dave Order, moral equivalence is not only a sign of sophistication, it's their sole raison d'etre. They might be awful at running the country, but look how nuanced and sophisticated are their positions!

The country's burning and silver-spoon degenerate fops are penning oestrogen-laden articles lamenting the incivility of those awful right-wing Mobophobes. Exhibit A here.

Hey, shoot looters, don't shoot looters. There's arguments either way, but nothing sums up the sheer fecklessness of Cameronism like a member of the demographic that's been busy complimenting each other on their fiddling while London burns suddenly start demanding the purging of anyone who says they can smell smoke.

'Modern Conservatism' is a sick, disgusting fraud. A incestuous dogpile of smug, elitist, no-marks looking down their noses at anyone with a proper job, even while they can't even pass the basic test of maintaining law and order.

PC Update

Old Meme: Raycist police officers refuse to clamp down on evil drug-dealing filth becuase they hate black people

New Meme: Raycist police officers execute drug-dealers because they hate black people

A 'Peaceful Protest'

Looks like the enemy within have chosen their line on the Tottenham riots: a peaceful protest about the shooting of 'a man' was hijacked by mysterious extremists.

Hello?

In the real world, people who protest in support of a would-be cop killer with multiple convictions are themselves generally considered pretty extreme. What's the line here? That the peaceful protesters are opposed to the use of violence, except for the whole 'shooting cops' thing?

Again, the contrast is obvious between the BBC's pious denunciations of extremist rhetoric when Oslo comes up, and the self-same organisation pushing a moral equivalence between the forces of law and order and a bunch of lunatics who belive they should be above the law. Just in the past 24 hours, the BBC has given more house room to conspiracy nuts and racist buffoons than five years of the Daily Mail.

Bottom line: does the BBC think there is likely to be more or less violence when a state broadcaster is prepared to propagate myths about executions and police brutality?

Riot In Tottenham, No Blondes Involved

Yes, apparently, it's a Mob of No Appearance, with absolutely no defining characteristics whatsoever, although it's certain they were provoked into by da cutz.

Hey, I'm not an economist, but I'm pretty sure shooting gunmen is pretty much fiscally neutral.

Still, let's check the scorecard here: two references to her work in 1500 pages prove Melanie Phillips caused the Oslo massacre, but there's no connection between outbreaks of mass lawlessness and a wider environment where a Labour MP coming out in defence of the vital human right to shoot at police officers without consequence is treated as a perfectly reasonable position.

Quote of the Day

Via Ace of Spades blog, some badly-needed perspective on America's decision to drop the bomb on Japan, and evidence of a more general problem:

Arthur T. Hadley said recently that those for whom the use of the A-bomb was "wrong" seem to be implying "that it would have been better to allow thousands on thousands of American and Japanese infantrymen to die in honest hand-to-hand combat on the beaches than to drop those two bombs." People holding such views, he notes, "do not come from the ranks of society that produce infantrymen or pilots." ... That is, few of those destined to be blown to pieces if the main Japanese islands had been invaded went on to become our most effective men of letters or impressive ethical theorists or professors of contemporary history or of international law.

Shorter d'Ancona: The Dave Just Needs New Ways To Bamboozle You Idiots

Pal, it ain't a perception problem when the guy really does suck. Besides, on most issues Cameron's not the fireman, he's the arsonist.

How Government Budgets Work

You can't tell me it's any different in Britain. Well.... except that it always turns out that the taxpayer is funding astroturf campaign groups to run studies proving that lack of dairy products in space causes 20,000 deaths per year.

The Amy Thing

Given that this is a blog dedicated to the idea that smart is the new stupid, I guess it makes perfect sense that this guy has produced the sanest thing I've read this week about the death of Amy Winehouse.

Forget the MSM's attempts to turn her into a martyr or a monster. The truth is she was neither a hero nor a villain, she was simply a young girl crushed under the weight of her own talent and now she's dead and it sucks.

Hollywood Still Awful

Interesting theory over at Big Hollywood on just why modern movies are terrible.

I'd actually say he's underestimated the awfulness of liberalism. These guys not only have a downer on individual responsibility for bad behaviour, they don't believe in moral judgements in the first place - not unless the villain has blond hair anyway.

Consider the difference between 1971's The Omega Man and 2007's I Am Legend. In 26 years we've gone from Colonel Neville under siege by Matthias's crazed cult to Will Smith fighting CGI monsters. Of course, one problem may be that by 2007 standards, Matthias's cult were probably saner than half of California but at least they had a coherent motivation. Absent that, what are you left with? Two hours of Will Smith shooting at computer graphics.

In fact, it's a double whammy. Hollywood not only won't produce villains with any more coherent motivation than an urge to drown puppies, they simply assign any vaguely right-wing characters to the same puppy-drowning demographic.

Consider Michael Douglas in Wall Street, Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men or Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross. Chances are you can quote at least one line from each. They were meant to be villains, but they had rational motivations and the ability to explain why they believed what they did. In short, they were believable. Now? It's all drowned puppies and mutants.

Say, Does Anyone Know What Colour Hair The Oslo Attacker Had?

I don't know, but I kind of get the feeling the media is trying to make some kind of point when they keep telling us the attacker was a blonde. Are they trying to tell us that there's some kind of non-blonde terrorists out there?

Hey, and after all those years of liberals telling us there was no point profiling airline passengers...

It's All Fun And Games Until Someone Loses A Pie

... As Ann Coulter once said.

Yep, liberals tried to throw stuff at her too. Ditto, Jeremy Clarkson, Bjorn Lomberg and seemingly everyone who's ever spoken out against the left in any way. That's in addition to the whole 'riots' thing, of course.

Meanwhile, Sharon Shoesmith, Abu Hamza and Gary Glitter all remain not only resolutely unpied, but also the subject of approximately 1 billion editorials equating even the mildest criticism of them with coded support for lynch mobs - and if there's one thing the liberal media can't stand, it's people encouraging violent thugs....

Then again, the left's decision to give up actual arguments, and make juvenile acts of intimidation the central plank of their platform is probably a case of making the best of a bad job. Consider allegedly serious politician Tom Watson's line of attack on Murdoch: apparently he's a doddering, incompetent old fool who spends all day drooling on his paperwork, and also a sinister puppet master single-handedly responsible for making British liberals look like a bunch of whining no-marks.

Mind you, you can kind of see why they're worried - the last time they got so worked up about a supposedly senile evil genius, he won the Cold War. Ralph Miliband was never the same again.

Still, all that's way better than the latest conspiracy theory. Apparently, Murdoch pledged his support for Cameron so in return The Dave will push policies supported by Murdoch.

Really?

It never worked that way for the Tory base. On past form, Murdoch's lucky Cameron didn't announce a £1 billion bailout for the Guardian.

High Priest Loses Faith

Guido is uncharacteristically gentle with the now-ex Cameron groupie Peter Oborne when he deserves much worse, and not just because Oborne's rose-tinted specs only seem to come out with MPs from a certain demographic.

Oborne is shocked - shocked - to find sleaze going on here, but who was hiding that from Petey in the first place? On the contrary, Oborne spent years writing about the question marks over Cameron's integrity. Which is to say he spent years sliming anyone who raised questions about Cameron's integrity. Now he's finally where the bumpkins and bigots got to years ago, he wants us to admire his integrity.

Oborne wasn't just wrong about Cameron, he was the opposite of right. You'd have been better off listening to just about anyone in the conservative base instead of Certified Deep Conservative Thinker Peter Oborne.

Even now Oborne doesn't get it. The Coulson thing doesn't just undermine Cameron's moral posturing, it also undercuts the main excuse for Cameronism in the first place. We were assured that whatever Cameron's ideological shortcomings, he was a political genius. Now he's landed himself in a completely unnecessary scandal, where's all that genius gone?

Planet of the Conspiracy Nuts

Say what you like about Russell T Davis, but at least his latest effusions are thought-provoking, even if the thought is 'hey, I never knew his stuff was ghost-written by a drunk, homeless guy'.

Second thought: how come whenever ones of the staff at the ever-unbiased BBC goes feral, they all go feral in the self-same way? They never suddenly announce that Cast Iron Dave should slash housing benefit and use the savings to bolster the RAF, or that we should have our own Second Amendment. No, it's always some guy who think the right is, like, totally evil.

Where's the diversity?

On the plus side, at least he is unusually candid about how he reached his diagnosis: he thinks the right is too harsh on media luvvies. Yep, these people are all about the hospitals & schools & long lunches at chintzy restaurants. He probably thinks the right are selfish too, all poncing round Barnsley with their coal-mining friends.

But that's not it. Liberals have always been leeches. No, the real question is this: in so far as the head honcho has now outed himself as an off-the-scale loon, are you still a tin-foil hatted kook if you complain about liberal bias in his shows?

PC And The Shrunken Mandate

NNW isn't too impressed by the left's response - or lack thereof - to Weinergate.

Indeed, it's not just Weiner that's been left exposed. It's hard not to notice that the left's conception of freedom looks a little... shrunken? Flaccid? Inadequate?

Libs think anyone who has issues with the Honourable Member's Honourable Member appearing in in-boxes across America is, like, a total square but if he had used a felt tip to write 'Islam Sucks' on his junk beforehand, they'd have demanded the death sentence.

Of course, we've been here before. Hell, after years spent defending Clinton, Weiner flashing his majority to all and sundry probably seems refreshingly normal to them.

Liberals are proverbial for turning into Bernard Manning once one of their guys falls foul of PC, but the corollary is often missed. Professional conservatives endlessly jibber-jabber about the need to ditch the embarrassing bumpkins in the base, get with the PC program and reach out to all those groovy youngsters who were just waiting to vote conservative, but were put off by the lack of tackle twittering. But how does that work exactly?

In so far as leftists in both the US and Britain ditch their PC principles faster than a speeding e-mail once one of their guys is in the frame, why even pretend it's anything other than a stick to beat conservatives with? Criticising Cherie Blair's sleazy dealing is The Sexism, but John Prescott can use his private office like a harem, and that's 'just John' as Tony helpfully explained. Why even bother to play in a rigged game?

Professor Dawkins Was Not Available For Comment

Uber geek Paul Nurse has decided that the real problem with British science is that the public won't just shut up and take it all on faith.

Curiously enough, FoI requests and all, they still manage to bang in plenty of requests for taxpayers' money and press releases announcing that school vouchers cause cancer.

On the plus side, at least his complaints about 'FoI Aggression' have neatly laid to rest the myth that scientists are a bunch of whiny wimps. Maybe we need some research into why people don't trust geeks? After all, what could possibly be wrong with this:

Nurse said that scientists were not blameless. At the University of East Anglia, they were too defensive in their responses to freedom of information requests over climate change, but their experience was one among many that highlighted a need for better training for scientists in the most appropriate way to respond to information requests.

Curiously though, it takes a commenter called randstead to point out the problem with that little theory:

One small but not important point , Phil Jones planned to avoid FOI requests , BEFORE he got a single one...

Now lets talk numbers UEA received just six FOI requests between January 2005 when the act was introduced, and January 2009, while in 2009 it received 97 FOI requests 59 from people asking or information on contracts between the UEA and the foreign met offices they said were preventing publication of the data, remember CRU's claims on this front mostly fall apart once investigated.
These number are tiny in real terms , while its only from FOI requests that we learned that the research papers reviewed in the investigation of CRU where not selected by the RS as claimed but by UEA , that the head of the one review never actual did any interviews , that for one review there is no accurate record of what question where asked nor what the answers are...

Another commenter, conflation, includes the full text of one e-mail:

Phil Jones wrote: Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc ! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

In other words, geek face card Paul Nurse writes an article calling for people to take scientist's public pronouncements on faith, while utterly misrepresenting his opponents in the self-same article.

That's Clue Number Two right there. For all the talk of diversity, there's apparently no one around to tell Nurse that his point is absurd. Scientists are disinterested seekers after truth, but it just so happens that their personnel rosters are exactly the same as you get if they were enforcing an ideological blacklist.

All of which is the real message of Climategate. What's wrong with British science isn't just that there's a lot of corruption, it's that corruption has become the new normal, with supposed thought leaders like Nurse on hand to denounce anyone who doesn't accept senior scientists threatening to delete inconvenient data as a perfectly normal practice.

Up, Down... Who Cares? Just Give Us Your Money!

Yes, indeed: the new Big Bad is Global Cooling which, being the opposite of Global Warming, obviously means that we need the opposite policies, so say hello to tax cuts, rolling back red tape and all pigs to the trough capitalism....right?

Richard Dawkins' New Book: 'Hey, This God Thing Is Pretty Neat, After All'

In so far as the Archbishop of Canterbury's attack on the Ayatollah Khameron has succeeded in making The Dave look good, it counts as a miracle all on its own.

Not everyone can make Lord Snooty look statesmanlike, but having a too crazy for the Guardian leftist whose organisation is Britain's largest landowner wax lyrical about poverty and democratic mandates certainly qualifies.

On the plus side, we now know what the Pope was doing over here last year: sneaking into Lambeth Palace with a false moustache on to convince Archbishop Weirdo that the way back for the Anglican Church was to go over das edgen like a fruitenloopengaggle.

It's that German humour again.

Either that, or the Archbishop really thinks people turn to religion to answer the central mysteries of human existence, like whether or not giving greater autonomy to low-level business units will lead to a more responsive health service.

Apparently, when Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers, he was actually referring to fully paid-up members of the National Union of Pacifistic Trades. On the other hand, at least the Archbishop accepts that the Ten Commandments are still valid, even if he thinks they're not exactly set in stone.

Still, there's a certain irony here. The Archbishop is trying to curry favour with the left by adopting their idiotic worldview wholesale, and never mind that the people he's trying to pander to just plain don't like Christianity in the first place. He ought not to be criticising Cameron, he ought to be learning from his example. The Dave was a heroic reformer just as long as he was sliming the right, but as soon as circumstances forced him to threaten the supply of £40K pa non-jobs, that Strange New Respect disappeared faster than you can say 'worse than Fatcha'!

So it always is: you can get into bed with liberals, but they won't respect you in the morning.

On the Other Hand...

On the plus side, in so far as the Sharon Shoesmith case featured the Supreme Court attacking Ed Balls from the left, I think that pretty much closes out the debate on our independent judiciary.

Not that there isn't a certain rough justice in seeing Balls get the shaft. After all, not only does his government introduce all this nonsense, they also presided over the infiltration of the public services by freaks like Shoesmith in the first place. On the other, other hand, the Nu Tories have predictably jumped on this case like a vampire jumping on a sun bed. As ever, there's no one there who can see that this is an example of Labour's stealthiest, and most destructive, tax.

All across the country, there are Sharon Shoesmiths: lazy, arrogant, entitled idiots, free to cause organisational chaos in the sure and certain knowledge that the worst they'll face is double secret probation.

Never mind cutting taxes, or streamlining government departments. Being able to fire deadbeats again would revive the economy overnight.

She's Not Erin Brockovch, She's The Plant Owner

There is no better barometer of how utterly liberalism has hollowed out the British left than that so many soi-dissant socialists have chosen to elect Sharon Shoesmith as Baby Seal D'Jour.

These people claim to be the modern avatars of the poor but proud union members who took on and beat ruthless pit owners. Now they're rallying around someone who got paid more than a cabinet minister but still presided over a department in such a state of chaos that a young child could be tortured to death with no one noticing.

Add in Shoesmith's sneering one-liners like 'I don't do blame', and what we have here is the perfect pin-up girl for the unaccountable elitists who dominate the modern left. If the EdMilliband Unit wants to work out why the Earthlings don't trust Labour, he may want to think about not allowing his party to offer aid and sanctuary to smug, overpaid trash like this.

Red On Red

Now do you believe me?

Like I keep saying, Ken Clarke is the John Prescot of the Tory Party. Just like the other fat fraud, we keep getting told that Clarke is in touch with the man in the street, but the only evidence for this is endless columns by media luvvies claiming that Clarke's boorishness is proof of authenticity. Appointing this tool as the voice of the conservative base is just a roundabout way of stereotyping grass roots conservatives, just as Lord Two Jags was a Northern Uncle Tom.

Of course, that's not to say the left aren't full of it too. They're enraged becuase someone tried to excuse evil by coming out with a load of blabber about nuance? And? Did he infringe on their patents or something?

Liberals have spent years finger-wagging about the crudity of the common herd, and their goofy ideas about good and evil. Now they're trying to convince us that they just can't bear to see a felon go free?

Hell, liberals even have a long history of taking out onions for sex offenders, providing the victims are under the age of majority. For proof of this, consider how none of them have found anything exceptional in Clarke's claim that statutory rape is no big thing, if the victim consents.

So the guy running the justice system doesn't understand the concept of 'age of consent' and no one on the left thinks that's a problem? Of course.

For that matter, what's with the femiloons complaining about trivialising rape? These people claim that everything in the whole world is just like being raped. What is the whole date rape thing if not an attempt to expand the definition of rape to the point of absurdity? Meanwhile, the central feature of Clark's plan is to give actual, genuine rapists a cut in their sentences, and feminists have nothing to say about it.

And then there's this....

On Wednesday, Browne, a 45-year-old mother of two who was attacked in 2003 by a serial sex offender freed from prison early, broke down in tears as she confronted Kenneth Clarke....

She's a liberal heroine!

It is significant that her voice cracked with emotion on BBC Five Live, not when she recounted the assault she endured, but when she described her fight to bring her attacker to justice, which, she says, won't be over until Sierra Leone-born Mohammed Kendeh, currently in prison for yet another crime, is finally deported. Kendeh, who attacked her in a park as she trained for the London Marathon, has thus far avoided deportation by claiming a right to a family life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act – a defence that Browne says is an insult to his many victims, who may never recover.

She's a raycist!

Plus, you'll never guess what....

"My attacker had previously sexually assaulted six other women in the same park, and escaped a custodial sentence. He was in prison for burglary but because he was released after four months of his 13-month sentence, he was free to attack me."

Liberals complaining about the justice system being soft on predators is like Ken Clarke calling people fat.

Reminder: Feminism Is A Parasitic Ideology

As analogies go, I'm thinking waving £50 notes in front of a homeless guy's face is more like it, still it is interesting to see even a social conservative like Laban taking a hard line on this.

Behold the power of the Dark Side!

Heh. But there's a serious point here: in so far as mainstream social conservatism turns a blind eye to the rise of feminism, it has condemned itself to ever-increasing irrelevance. Indeed, in so far as socio-cons' white knighting instincts lead them to defend even the most deranged behaviour by the New Grrrl Order, there is often little to choose between them and feminists when push comes to shove.

All of this matters because for all the blather about empowerment, the defining feature of feminism is its parasitic nature. Even these stupid marches are proof of that:

The SlutWalk London website states more should be done to protect victims.

Never mind the logic fail - surely the point of protection is that they won't be victimised in the first place - who's going to provide this protection? Since the marchers claim to be marching on behalf of the whole female species, it mus be some other sex they're expecting to sort all this out.

In other words, these misandric loonies claim that the very people they denounce should do everything possible to protect them, even as they themselves disavow any responsibility for their own survival. Or to put it another way, they want men to continue to act on their traditional feelings of chivalry, while they demonstrate their contempt for the same traditions.

Hey, the KKK might have had some wacky ideas, but even they didn't expect their victims to string themselves up.

Authorities Do Not Yet Have A Motive Clue

Interesting Philosophical Question: do these people come out with this brand of garbage because they're stupid enough to believe it, or just because they think we are?

'Shut Up!' He Explained, 'Up Yours!' They Replied

Talking of the evil Daily Mail reading masses, how about that referendum, huh? Who knew that arranging for a column of Metropolitan luvvies to demand the public vote their way wouldn't work?

That was the honking great crack that ran through the whole 'Yes' campaign. They talked about fairer votes and fixing democracy even as they ran one of the most avowedly elitist campaigns in history. The more they claimed that voting 'Yes' was the choice of the A-listers, the more they reminded people just how detached these people were from their own lives.

Libertarianism: Supporting The Human Right To Leave Horses' Heads In People's Beds

I find that blogs with 'Liberty' in the title are generally awful - so NNW had the field to himself after all.

Still, NNW scores a bulls eye on the essential humbuggery of libertarianism: for folks who profess to be all about the freedom, they aren't half certain about what views will and won't be permitted in the New Libertarian Order.

Ditto, with the other elephant in the room. Consider what we're talking about: the supposed right of a small group of fanatics to issue threats to wreck an event supported by millions of their fellow citizens. Where's the liberty in allowing lunatics to impose themselves on other people?

Knee-jerk scepticism of authority is just gullibility standing on it's head. Instead of blindly accepting violence from the state, it's blindly accepting it becuase it's not from the state. Ditto, there's no point libertarians trotting out that dreadful old cliché 'pre-crime' then seamlessly shifting into talk of 'slippery slopes'. Perhaps we ought to start calling 'slippery slope' arguments 'pre-tyranny'?

But there's something more to it than all that. Consider this charming comment:

I hold that liberty has a higher purpose and is an awful lot messier than simply making the world safe, fluffy and Disneyfied for readers of the Daily Mail.

It is double minded to claim decency when dissenters are rounded up and locked away, although it is easier to rationalise when they are demonised as loons or closet Marxists.

Uh huh. Looks like it won't just be certain opinions that aren't allowed in the New Libertarian Order. Mind you, considering the Daily Mail is Britain's best selling newspaper, I'm guessing there's going to have to be a whole lot of liberating going on before Utopia arrives.

Alarmist? Consider the implications of that comment: violent lunatics are merely 'dissenters' meanwhile opponents of extremist thuggery want a world that's fluffy and Disneyfied. In other words, not only is violence a valid means of political action, but those who oppose violence are, by definition, contemptible and weak.

This belief in violence not only as a means to an end but as purifying force, sweeping away the bourgeois conventions of a society that is both corrupt and corrupting is an avowedly fascist idea, all the more so when combined with contempt for the Daily Mail reading masses. At least Marxists put it more poetically when they talk of a 'Democracy of the Committed' but the end result is the same: a totalitarian vision of a world reborn in violence and blood-shed.

All of which leads to the dirty little secret that really gets under libertarian skins. These loons wanted a revolution, instead they got briefly detained by the police. This isn't a story about heroism and repression, it's a story about a bunch of juvenile prats being prevented from acting out by agents of the state using a minimum of force and with the support of the vast majority of the Great British Public. And libertarians think this is a winning issue for them? Some day soon we're going to find out that the libertarian movement is being secretly run out of the Home Office.

Best Comment So Far On Bin Laden's Death Scene

Over at NRO:

Wow, Obama really does hate rich people! Bin Laden moves up from a cave to a mansion and Barack wacks him.

Hey, we're just lucky the Yanks found him before we did, otherwise there's no telling how much money Dave would have given him.

God Save The Queen's Head

Yep, it's a tricky dilemma all right. Speaking as a real conservative, and therefore someone who even in his resting state generates as much patriotism as 1.6 million David Camerons, I was tempted to watch the Royal Wedding, but then I remembered I'm not gay.

Besides, it has the same flaw as every other wedding: no matter how much you slice and dice it, you're still seeing a man descend into the bowels of Hell itself.

On the other hand, not watching sounds republican, which is a form of liberalism, and therefore may lead to being the kind of snivelling little weenie who's spent the last two weeks telling all and sundry how you're totally not going to watch the wedding, 'cause that's the kind of rebel tiger you are.

Yes, indeed: they're prepared to risk being seized by the Royalty Squad and arrested under the Compulsory Watching Act of 2011.

Spare us. Recent events have confirmed it is - literally - braver to sing karaoke than be a republican right now.

So what to do? There's only one answer find a place where it's on but there's no need to actually watch it. And on a sunny public holiday too. It's tough, but on the other hand if I drink Bombardier, I reckon I can get up to 2.6 million Camerons.

Two Great Post on the Kung Fu Kristalnacht

First up, Woman on a Raft summarises the precise legal basis for the police's action - or, more specifically, the complete absence of any basis.

So, a citizen was deprived of his liberty without the ghost of the shadow of the memory of a legal basis, and dear old Shami and the rest of the usual suspects on the left have either suddenly remembered an urgent dental appointment or they're actually telling us that he must have done something, otherwise he wouldn't have been arrested.

Still, if nothing else, here's a great line from Jim Treacher:

Oh, we see how it is, England. A black man can’t have a hit song?

Greatest Leader Ever (And This Time We Mean It)

OK, I'll grant that it's kind of tough to find anything useful to say about The Dave, but this is kind of desperate.

Yes, indeed: The Dave has had a personality transplant and now he's turned out to be exactly the guy the MSM told us he was in the first place. I take it this is also by way of admitting that all their reporting back then was garbage, right? Now he's turned over a new leaf and everything will will be different from hereon in.... and just in time for the elections coming up in two weeks too! What are the odds, hey?

Karaoke Squad! Drop the Mike and Come Out With Your Hands Up

Police cutbacks: are they always a bad thing?

This is the important caveat that has to borne in mind when the police claim that electing Chief Constables would allow extreme extremists to be elected. There's always been a logical flaw in the idea of an extremist winning an election, but now they're just ramming home the point that for the police, the mainstream apparently flows through Hampstead.

Try this:

A Hampshire police spokesman last night said.... ‘If a victim believes that an alleged crime is racially aggravated, the police will treat it seriously. Investigations into this incident are continuing.’

First up: that's alleged victim, Comrade Officer. Second, in this era of 'me resources fell down the stairs, guv' policing, actual, real 'that'll need stitches' crimes are ignored all the time. They have chosen to pursue cases of malicious singing just as they have chosen not to pursue real crimes. Public servants who waste public money on fringe lunacy being subject to criticism is how it's meant to work. It's a feature not a bug.

On the plus side, that guy's just lucky it wasn't 'Rock the Kasbah'.

Left Goes Full Retard

Oops - looks like they forgot to dial down the crazy.

Never mind anything else, is Mr Llewellyn really the best person to be demanding people have proper 'Anglo-Saxon' names?

I guess we're just lucky it isn't anyone from UKIP appointing himself 'Non-Anglo Name Finder General' - otherwise we'd never hear the end of it. Which is kind of the point.

I'm a real conservative - unlike some David Camerons I could mention - so I all for free speech. What I object to is these guys being able to let their freak flag fly, then whip off the balaclava, put a suit on and have the MSM present them as disinterested seekers after truth and justice.

'Shut Up', Nick Clegg Explained.

Great though it always is to see Simon 'Straight Choice' Hughes coming out - as it were - for honest debate in politics, I'm thinking the Lib Dems latest meltdown might just point to a certain lack of self-awareness.

As I understand it, they're generously allowing folks to discuss AV, but only providing they discuss it in a way Lib Dems approve of.

Yep, they're all about The Democracy these guys. Not only is their position absurd from first principles, it's also a perfect metaphor for what's wrong with AV. We can discuss politics, but only providing we discuss it in approved ways, and we can vote, but only providing we have a voting system that guarantees the Lib Dems win seats no matter how many £9,000 fees they forget to mention before the last time they faced election.

Modern Life In A Nutshell

This story has everything!

The only thing I'm wondering is how they're going to find a white guy to blame it all on.

Quote of the Day

Andrew Breibart describes a common experience:

I just started to see trends in my personal experiences that ran so contrary to what the media narratives were. At first I was flummoxed by it and then I just started to listen to certain people on the radio who were more clear-thinking than the professors that I had in college.

I remember thinking when I was in college that a lot of these known Chomsky-like, verbose high lefty thinkers made absolutely no sense, but I thought that was my problem.

Liberalism's big ace in the hole is that they've managed to persuade people that if they can't make sense out of liberal ideology, that's just becuase their brain doesn't work properly. Equally, I'm thinking most conservatives have been through that one point in their life when they suddenly realise that, yes, liberalism is an incoherent mess of prejudice and degeneracy after all.

Actually, the whole interviews good - Breibart's big thing is that he realises that politics is just a subset of the wider culture war. We could do with a guy like him over here.

Satan's Representative on Earth Says Something Right

Still a scumbag though!

Hey, we're moving towards elected police chiefs - no thanks to 'sir' Al's Labour Party - so I guess we'll soon find out if the Great British Public want their money spent on real police officers, or on paying grandstanding berks in uniform to act like the Polly Toynbee of Solihull.

UPDATE:

Thinking further about this, consider the contrast between this guy and the Cop Bloggers. Police Officers informing the public about how a public service goes about its business have to metaphorically write wearing dark glasses and a false beard, meanwhile this guy can denounce members of the public while hiding behind his badge and no one bats an eyelid. Is that the perfect example of the Nu Police's demented worldview or what?

Arise, Sir Geoffrey!

Hey, they've got to do something to get those
Yorkshire voters back!

If nothing else, that plus this means that at least we can retire the myth that the Nu Tories are savvy political operators. Of course, the whole 'blowing the election' thing kind of hinted at that too.

Also debunked: the myth that liberalism is a kinder, gentler ideology than nasty, old conservatism. For all their supposed extremism, you'd struggle to find a more blatant example of class hatred from any of those old timey Thatcherites. We're supposed to admire Dave's Drones for their bold denunciations of the last two Nazis in Britain, meanwhile they want to introduce exit visas for the lower orders.

True, this particular outbreak of liberal fascism does owe something to the particular pathology of Cameron and his fellow aristoprats, but as far as the wider issue goes, it's noticable that even the sob sisters at the Guardian can only quibble about the specifics of who should fall foul of the Department for Holiday Control.

Well, Cameronism turns out to be a mix of liberalism and snobbery, who didn't see that coming? Apart from the MSM obviously. They're still busy trying to work out why Cameron refuses to drain the swamp. Why would he when he holds pretty much the same opinions they do anyway?

Goldilocks Goes Fascist

Seems like only last week liberal artistocrats were whining and yammering about The Diversity!

Hang on... it was last week.

But a week's a long time in politics the completely non-partisan pursuit of truth and beauty, and so now they're shocked - shocked! - anyone could accuse them of being obsessed with The Diversity!

So for those of you keeping score at home, the Tories are bad for diverting money from the arts to dealing with real issues, but Queen Liz blowing the budget on hiring m'learned friends to harass journalists is just good sense.

But anyway, it turns out that the artistocrats pay neither too much or too little attention to diversity, they pay just the right amount, and you better believe it or else.

All of which shows why 'Respectable Conservatism' is such a waste of time. Last week liberals were sliming conservatives for not buying into their jibber-jabber about diversity, now they're attacking conservatives for calling their sliming what it is. In other words, if conservatives refuse to let liberals smear them as really huge raycists, then that proves they're even more raycist. There's literally no right answer.

As long as conservatives accept the right of liberals to set the terms of debate, there's no way to win. As it is, even a snooty uber-squelch like Letts has managed a more full throated condemnation of these liberal parasites than almost anyone in the Tory Party has managed for years.

Stores Trashed By Mob, Still Looking Better Than Special Ed

You know you're a liberal if... you're more enraged by a lone banana being thrown on a football pitch than you are by hundreds of bottles being thrown at police officers.

Apparently, while BananaGate demands we look into the dark heart of British football, riots breaking out at a leftist demonstration are just one of them things. In fact, Libs are enraged that anyone could accuse them of supporting mayhem.

See, that's the thing right there: if liberals spent half as much energy condeming the rioters as they do condemning people who condemn their failure to condemn them their condemnations of the ConDems that condemn them wouldn't be so plain contempable.

As it is, they're so angry about the 'slur' that the Labour Party is thinking of convening a special committee to investigate the option of moving towards the possibity of potenial disciplary action for any party members found to have taken part in the violence. Meanwhile, the liberal side of the MSM has started featuring tear-jerking articles about leftists who were at the riot but not with the riot.

In other words, the people who endlessly jibber-jabber about hate speech and 'unconcious discrimination' are now arguing that mentioning their public expressions of support for thuggery is some kind of underhand trick.

It's not as if the thuggery is some kind of wacky byproduct of an otherwise good cause. Labour lost the election, but they still think they should be allowed to implement their agenda anyway. What was noticable about the demonstration was that it didn't seek to advance any coherent cause or point of view, merely to demand that everyone else continue to fork over the cash to Labour's payroll vote or else. If it wasn't any attempt to subvert the democratically-expressed will of the people by intimidation, what was it?

The Great Experiment Goes Bad

I don't think this is what 'Republic' means.

The Rich Are Different

Fatty Johann is shocked that being a waster doesn't always lead to a well-paid job. Naturally, the solution is for everyone else to hand over their wallets and let the government build some kind of 'welfare system'.

See? That's the kind of bold thinking which explains how we ended up with the hard working kids of today as compared to our skivving ancestors.

Or something.

Still, Fat Boy manages to samba round the other elephant in the room. Yes, he was an idle, self-obsessed little brat - rather than now, when he's a very big one - but he managed to pull out of it and become a media-luvvie. And?

The privileged and the pampered have always been able to indulge in self-destructive lunacy confident that their background would protect them from the consequences. What's new since the 1960s has been people like Hari trying to re-brand dysfunctional insanity as morally superior to those conformists squaresville losers, who waste their lives doing actual 'jobs'.

If there's one thing more than any other that afflicts 'disaffected yoof', it's that they've bought into the myth pushed by spoilt rich kids like Hari that screwing up your life makes you a heroic rebel striking a blow against The Man.

Kosovo With Kamels

By my reckoning, the US has now dropped approximately a squillion times more explosive on Libya than Reagan ever did back in the day, without receiving any of the whining from the Usual Suspects.

Of course, Reagan was bombing hapless conscripts wandering round the desert while the Obamamessiah is trying to take out terrorist training camps and Ghaddafi himself...

Wait, that's not right.

Nope, our ever-egalitarian friends on the left are OK with incinerating teenagers but arranging explosive enemas for dictators is simply beyond the pale. That makes no sense, but that appears to be a common problem right now.

Liberals were shocked that President Bush didn't have an exit strategy for Iraq (except for the whole 'winning' thing) but now they've landed us in a war without any actual entry strategy. We've gone to war to support the rebels, but without the slightest idea who they are and what they're trying to do - it's the geo-political equivalent of voting Lib Dem. Meanwhile, the actual tactics appear to be modelled on the British justice system, with force being delivered to targets in exactly inverse proportion to their significance. Imagine the air campaign as the equivalent of those police forces that arrest vicars for hate speech while ignoring honour killings.

Of course, Colonel Ghaddafi has connections to terrorism, sort of like Minister of the Crown Martin McGuiness, and he doesn't enjoy the kind of popular support the guys roaming round eastern Libya with AK47s have. Indeed, polls show 100% of people in areas occupied by people with AK47s support the people with AK47s.

The whole charge sheet against Ghaddafi appears to boil down to the idea that he's being unduly harsh in his treatment of guys rampaging round with AK47s. He's carrying out atrocious atrocities, even though the MSM has had more luck trying to flush out casualties from global warming than a bona fide case of anything Saddam wouldn't do on a slow weekend.

The MSM need to bring back the old crew from Kosovo days - those guys knew how to run with a bogus atrocity story.

Winning!

Inevitable: Charlie Sheen meltdown comedy

Not Inevitable: The identity of the star in the best one.

(Culture) War Is The Answer

There is no better example of the eclipse of the traditional left by liberalism than the sight of Labour councils slashing services to protect non-jobs for their cronies.

If nothing else, it certainly undermines anything Special Ed may say about the supposed greed of the right. But don't except The Dave to make that point. In fact, don't expect him to say anything much at all. It's noticeable that pretty much all the running on exposing labour sleaze has been made by people outside the Tory Party.

No doubt the usual suspects will claim that this was all part of The Dave's brilliant plan, but they won't be able to explain just how this all fits in with Cameronism in the first place. After all, Dave was hailed as a Certified Super Genius for throwing ideology under the bus in favour of touchy-feely, bipartisan consensus. Conviction politics was out, to be replaced by a bold new era of European-style politics where the public had the choice of a left of right of centre party and a right of left of centre one.

Now it turns out that - in a twist obvious to everyone except Professional Conservatives - the left's definition of 'bipartisan' means conservatives agreeing with everything they say. Otherwise all bets are off, hence why Labour councils are passing scorched earth budgets and leftists are explaining that rioting is just a particularly vigorous form of debate.

It turns out that the World's Smartest Man bought a bottle of mineral water to a gun fight. What middle ground are we meant to find exactly with people who deliberately slash services to the vulnerable in an attempt to protect six figure salaries for bureaucrats? Or who claim trying to kill a police officer is just youthful exuberance?

These are the people the conservative movement is meant to be taking on. If they weren't upset, that'd be a real problem. Meanwhile, our allegedly conservative PM is still enraged that somewhere in Britain there are people who don't think the EU is all that.

Prince Andrew Calls For Left To Quit Over Links With Paedophiles

As I understand the left's current position on paedophiles, it's that they should be allowed to move next door to a playground or a primary school, but not hang out with Prince Andrew.

Hey, I'm sure his bodyguards will protect him.

I'm thinking the left may want to think carefully about emphasising that Prince Andy is 'unelected' and 'unaccountable' at the same time as the Supreme Court is busy gutting the Sex Offenders Register.

Consider the full implications of the left's position: the Sex Offenders Register has long been the left's favourite example of how sex offenders are tightly-monitored (and pay no attention to the scouser behind the curtain). Yet now, in so far as the Supreme Court has decided that the Sex Offenders Register isn't allowed to register someone just because he's a sex offender, the left's strategy has been crippled. Now they're prevented from carrying out the monitoring they claim can stop perverts striking again, all down to a handful of leftist philosopher kings on the bench.

Meanwhile, all Andy did was go to a few parties!

Phat Phraud Phails Physics

Obese fabulist Martin Samuels took time out from his busy schedule of making stuff up about attractive women to prove once and for all what we always suspected about hoplophobes:

Clearly, [Ashley Cole] attracts all manner of trouble on too many occasions to be blameless, but to allow any fool to own a firearm that can blind, maim or, if the most unfortunate circumstances combine, even kill is an accident waiting to happen.

Curiously enough though, even plenty of fools understand the difference between a firearm and an air rifle. And no, the law doesn't recognise the concept of 'close enough for government work'.

Yep, I know what you're thinking: he isn't really that clueless, he's just hoping his readers are so he can rile them up with the idea of ethic gentlemen rampaging round the Home Counties with AK47s, but no - he really is that stupid:

There should have to be justification for possession, even for air rifles, because there are a lot of idiots out there and the less access they are given to explosive devices the better for us all.

Anyone who says something that stupid deserves to shot repeatedly with a pellet gun until they can name what exactly the explosive is in an air rifle. Either that or they can explain why a country GP shouldn't be allowed to own an air rifle but the right of a fat fraud to publish bigoted rubbish is a vital bulwark against tyranny.

Bernie Madoff Calls for More Wimmin On Boards

In a stunning rebuttal to everything that the right has ever said about them, femiloons have called for ambitious young women to shun Corporate Britannia and start their own businesses.

I keed, I keed!

As if that was ever going to happen! No, the usual suspects have decided to try and use the power of the state to mau mau real businesses into hiring them for Director of Eqwality Krap non-jobs....

...all of which proves, in and off itself, that men are better than women. We might believe some stupid stuff, but at least men in, say, Liverpool aren't daft enough to believe that forcing BigBiz PLC to put Paul McCartney on their board is going to make the slightest difference to their lives.

But, hey, it's like Harriet Harperson never went away!

Actually, scratch that. At least the switch from feminist hag to snivelling girly man has bought a certain clarity to the process:

Lord Davies, a former boss at Standard Chartered, said recently: ‘If companies don’t take a radical change in attitude, and hire more women at the top, then we will have to introduce quotas.'

He is expected to announce that shareholders and headhunters will be expected to abide by a new code of conduct to look for more women on their boards.

Wait, I thought the finance industry was meant to be evil?

Still, you have to say he does sum up the essential thuggery of the feminist movement perfectly. There's no pretence that it's anything other than a shakedown. It's the exact analogue to business in the Third World where you need to choose the President for Life's brother-in-law as your preferred supplier before you'll get a foot in the door.

Hell, given recent events, companies could end up moving to take advantage of the cleaner business environment in Tripoli.

But that's not the best bit - look who's chief cheerleader for this:

City ‘superwoman’ Nicola Horlick yesterday heaped pressure on the Government by coming out in favour of quotas.....

‘I am not a feminist and, as I say, I believe in meritocracy, but sometimes you have to create rules initially in order to give certain sections of society a chance.’

Yes, that Nicola Horlick!

But it's OK. It turns out that it was the fault of the regulators that Superfemiloon dropped £14 million on a guy whose empire was audited by a tiny firm from the sticks.

Hey, if Lord Mangina gets his way, looks like we'll all be getting the benefits of that kind of leadership.

Geek Baffled By Whole 'Democracy' Thing

C'mon, you know he wanted to say 'Intereferes in' here, right?

These guys are supposed to be pushing back the frontiers of human knowledge but they're still struggling with the mystery of why taxpayers get to decide where their money gets spent. All of which kind of hints at the problem.

They're supposed to be our best and brightest, but it just so happens that out of all the people who know how to do science, none of them turn out to be people who question the idea that the government should just fork over huge quantities of other people's money, no questions asked.

Their minds are open to extreme possibilities, except for the extreme possibility of hiring any conservatives. Just this once, diversity isn't a good thing. Meanwhile, anyone who questions the objectivity of results produced by a political monoculture investigating hot-button issues is clearly some kind of right-wing hack.

The Absolute Moral Authority Of The Amoral

Well, yes, this is all very well, but the real question is surely this: was Brandon Rhode 'warm, funny and blunt' too?

I think we should be told.

I also think we should be told two more things too:

• Just who's paying for Ms Murder's visit to the Sceptic Isle anyway? Would it , by any chance, be Cliff Scummer-Smith (now officially the World's Sleaziest Lawyer)?

• If the company that makes a chemical that's subsequently used in an execution has blood on their hands, how exactly does someone who raises their son as a murderous savage qualify for an Absolute Moral Authority card?

Important PC Update

New rules issued: being crazy enough to be sectioned doesn't mean that you're not perfectly capable of running the country, however any mental condition whatsoever, including but not limited to, Aspberger's, OCD and Arachnophobia, still means that you can in no way be held criminally responsible for your actions in a court of law.


Wait.... suddenly it all becomes clear.

Atrocity Story Goes Bad

The Telegraph is shocked - shocked! - to find out that bank underwriters are taking customer's outgoings into account when calculating how much they can borrow. This would never have happended when that nice Scottish guy was PM.

Unfortunately, even the Telegraph commentors aren't daft enough to fall for this. Read and enjoy the smell of jorno flambé.

Because Liberals Say So

Surely the real question here is why it's barbaric and stupid to believe a therapist can stop a man being attracted to other men, but also barbaric and stupid to believe that a therapist cannot stop a man being attracted to children?

Tungsten Carbide Drills

I can't be the only one who read about the Yazzmonster's heartrending article on the horrors of life as a jounrno-luvvie and instantly thought of this.

But Does Sarah Palin Understand The Offside Rule?

The results are in for the contest to find the stupidest comments about the Andy Gray affair and - shockingly - it's been a clean sweep for the Daily Mail.

Heading up the 'Amateur' category is a thought-provoking article by Kelly Smith - the thought being 'who the hell is Kelly Smith'? The answer apparently is someone who played girl-football or, as she modestly puts it, 'one of the best players in the world'.

Heh. Think that one over. She's one of the best players in the world, providing you exclude the hundreds of millions of better players who are the wrong sex. Her entire claim to fame is that she can compete successfully when men aren't allowed to compete at all, but she's complaining that men aren't welcoming enough to chicks who want to invade the men's game? Hello? I make that Self-awareness 0 Irony 5.

Still, in a sad echo of her sporting career, Kelly's lunacy is completely outshone by a male professional. Yep, proving once again you can take the man out the Guardian, but can't stop him being a huge mangina, Martin Samuels offers this:

This is Karren Brady's point about women being defined solely by gender in football. Nobody would link all male referees in the same way. If Gray held a dim view of Mike Riley, for instance, he would not have presumed the same of Mike Dean, purely because he was also a man called Mike.

Huh? I liked these guys better when they just called everyone Hitler. As it is, this analogy doesn't even make sense on its own terms.

There's no policy to rush anyone called 'Mike' straight up the ladder, we're not being constantly asked to subsidise a whole parallel world of Mike-only leagues, Mike Development Officers and the like, and you can criticise 'Wall Street II' without Michael Portillo demanding you be fired and Michael Buble writing a protest song.

Other than that, it's a perfect fit.

Fat Martin's point is just a more slippery version of the one from Kelly the Fantasist. Women officials will start with a three goal lead, but we all have to congratulate them on scoring a hatrick.

But that's not the best of it. No, as befits a true professional, Mart manages to leave Kelly in the dust and reach whole new heights of humbuggery. Yes, indeed: the Sexist-Finder General just happens to be the same guy who uses bogus quotes to try and smear a real woman of achievement as a bimbo.

Lord Taylor Convicted, BBC Still At Large

And we're still waiting for that apology.

Gravitas

Stop refusing to take her seriously you sexist pigs!

That Ferry Has Already Sailed Jenny........

Via Julie, we find out that leftists in Liverpool are playing the Scouse nationalism card.

Hey, it's like they've never heard of Luciana Berger. Who she? The beyond Cameronesque rich kid who was parachuted into a Liverpool constituency despite not knowing much of anything about the place she supposedly represents - although, on the plus side, her defence that you can't ask a girl a football question at least means Andy Gray's got one supporter in the house.

In fact, she hadn't even been elected before she started giving the finger to the Scouse trash - and folks like Jenny sucked it up and said 'please sir, can I have some more'?

Pretty much the defining feature of a proud and self-confident peoples is that they don't accept being treated as latter-day rotten boroughs by rich families in the capital. In so far as Jenny and pals have no issues with this, they're in no position to lecture anyone else about pride.

....

Oh, and by the way, here's a question for Jenny and the rest of her 'proud Scouser' friends: if the Army was full of people from Hampstead and Dibden Purlieu, would the Guardian still be as keen on its 'All War Crimes, All The Time' coverage?

Sarah Palin: Referee

Hey, just think of those liberal heads exploding!

As I understand it, abortion is a purely personal matter, but taping the private conversations of two guys is perfectly fine. I guess Andy Coulson is in the clear then, after all. On the plus side, maybe if we can convince liberals that Osama Bin Laden works for Sky Sports, they'll let us tap Jihadist communications.

If nothing else though, these two guys have done a bang up job of exposing the humbuggery of the whole Grrrrl Power movement. Up until two minutes ago Karen Brady was the Boadicea of Business. Now suddenly she's a victim.

Then there's the twelve year old referee herself. She got a decision right - see, she is a heroine after all. Also, the Titanic reached its first port of call on schedule.

Call me harsh, but I'm wondering what the reaction would be if we were talking about a 25 year old Premiership official called, say, Julian D'Arcy Cameron, or Rupert Clegg? The same folks defending Referee Barbie would be going ape. Meanwhile, in so far as dad and his lad going to a Premiership match now sets dad back the best part of a hundred pound, can the FA at least start issuing a list of which matches will be referred by greenhorn lesbian Eskimos and which by actual officials?

Daily Mash>Telegraph Blogger

Telegraph blogger James Kirkup makes a good point - and by 'good' I mean 'moronic' - when he points out that it would not be fair to say to say the same things about Christians that people say about Muslims.

Yes, indeed. And 'Jaws' would have been a lot sillier if it had featured a penguin instead of a great white shark. Words have actual meanings.

Hell, even a satire site does better than this. In fact, they make a point many have missed:

Tom Logan, professor of complicated issues at Reading University, said: "Baroness Warsi may say these are cultural rather than religious values and these countries are behaving in a way that is not truly muslim. But they say they are and it's reasonable to assume they know as much about Islam as she does.

Hey, maybe we should try claiming we are Islamophobic, but only that other Islam, the one with all the murders.

"When someone says 'it's okay, they're not very muslim' they're not saying 'it's okay, they'll have a sneaky glass of cider' they're saying 'it's okay, they're not very supportive of imprisoning women who have been raped'.

"A lot of people have a problem with rape victims being jailed, particularly on religious grounds. That doesn't make you a Nazi. It actually makes you the opposite of a Nazi."

When Islam claims that it goes dark at night becuase the Sun goes into a muddy puddle at the end of the world, that's either right or wrong. Let's spin it round: why don't people like Kirkup try applying the same scepticism to the Religion of Muddy Pools that they do to Christianity?