Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Disintegration!

As far as recent events go, I think Ross puts it best.

In so far as the world's policeman has decided to lock himself in the station and smoke his way through the evidence locker, it looks like we're screwed. Still, let's see if we can grasp at a few straws while we wait for Mark Steyn's new book 'Some Parts Of New Hampshire Alone'.

First up, let's admit that the schadenfreude aspect is a guilty pleasure. Who isn't sick of US bloggers sneering at Euro-peons and their stoopid, socialist ways? Now the Land of the Free has become the Land of the Freebie, at least we won't have to hear any more from the 'Nuke Europe!' loonies.

Not that Europe doesn't deserve plenty of criticism. Whatever the obvious advantages of life under the US defence umbrella, it has been a powerful factor in Europe's descent into Po-Mo madness. Not only has it freed Europeans from the financial burden of defending themselves, it's freed them from the psychological aspect of it too. In effect, we have become a continent of scroungers, with all the pathologies that implies. Now, finally, it looks like Europe will have to take responsibility for its own survival.

In so far as this new world demands greater European cooperation on rebuilding our barely-present defences, that means the EU is in trouble. That might seem like a paradox, but it isn't really. When Eurocrats talk about an EU Army and the like, they talk about it as a natural outgrowth of the EU, complete with a Commissioner for Artillery, with a staff of 10 000 and offices in St Tropez. In other words, a method for pushing federalism rather than actually achieving anything. The times are too serious for that: we really do need to get something in the field ASAP and, as luck would have it, we already have an alternative model for the common defence in NATO - and all without the bureaucracy or the sleaze.

The EU apologists have always exploited a false duality: you've either accept Brussels and the Common European Paperclip, or you're a Little Englander/Frenchie/German/Czech.... ad infinitum. It's either some guy from Athens ruling on the bus timetables in Manchester, or you'll need to apply six months in advance for a visa to go on a booze cruise. NATO neatly debunks that theory. European troops can work together just fine, even while still maintaining their own doctrines and traditions.

It's not all grim. In so far as the US is retreating from the world, that's going to open up commercial opportunities for someone, why not a Europe that's finally having to stop sponging and start pulling its weight?

Then there's The Issue. Actually, I give it ten days until all the folks who demanded America elect Obama as the ultimate in slavery reparations suddenly decide America is still AmeriKKKa after all. The folks who invented 'institutional racism' aren't going to let a little thing like a black president derail the gravy train, but at least some of the conservative movements' alleged intellectuals might finally swallow a clue pill and realise there's no point 'reaching out' to these loonies. They're making a life and a living stirring up racial antagonism and the only way conservatives can possibly appease is to stop being conservative.

Similarly, in so far as liberalism depends at least in part on white guilt, that's going to be a tough sell with charmers like the Reverund Wrrrright stopping by the White House for afternoon tea. We might finally be seeing the end of the cultural cringe in which it's obligatory to claim all cultures are equal, except western culture which is the worst evah!

The coming freak show has the additional benefit of hopefully finishing off libertarianism as a political force. In so far as this position mainly consists of loftily denouncing right and left as, like, totally the same, maaaaan, its going to be tested to destruction in the next four years. Ditto, back home in a Europe facing up to the realities of the modern world, I don't expect whining about the vital importance of the right to smear your naked body with marmite and run down the high street will be a big seller.

It's going to take an exceptional leader to repair the damage from four years of these loonies in power, and fortunately it looks like the conservative movement has found one. After a reception that makes the Salem witch trials look restrained, the closest the left came to landing a glove on Sarah Palin was claiming that she was 'inexperienced'. Well, that problem will solve itself soon enough.

Note too that in amongst all these disasters, Proposition 8, an initiative blocking gay marriage, passed in California. Yep, that California! Hey, are we sure it's conservatism that's the problem, rather than, say, the appalling quality of conservative politicians?

Which brings me on to my next point. Considering John McCain's descent from principled maverick to senile demagogue, why are conservatives still supposed to be impressed by candidates who are popular with the MSM? McCain was an MSM pin-up just as long as he denounced the conservative movement, but as soon as he became a threat to the left, he was a shuffling embarrassment. Key point: any conservative can be hailed as a courageous truth teller for denouncing the right, but don't think the MSM will call them in the morning. Hopefully, the point will finally hit home with some conservatives.

The flip-side is the number of 'moderate conservatives' who hailed John McCain as the right choice, shortly before slithering over to the Obamamessiah's side. Again, I'm hoping the conservative movement's face cards will finally realise that there's no point trying to appeal to people who prefer the low-conservatism candidate, since sooner or later they'll switch to the candidate with no conservatism at all anyway.

Finally, let's return to the beginning. Specifically, what was really wrong with the ranters over at lgf and the like was this: America might indeed have been less socialist than Europe, but that reflected the hard work and commitment of past and present generations of the American right - it wasn't some God-given state of grace. Large parts of the American right forgot that, and now the US is U/S for at least four years. But whatever happens to America, the American ideal lives on, because it is a good one.

Monday, November 03, 2008

It's A Feature Not A Bug

I could have guessed what the answer would be when I saw that the charge was that they were 'out of touch with the best modern childcare techniques'.

Midfielders Of No Appearance?

Heh

Actually, some of us have been saying for years that liberalism is at its heart an ideology for people who can't deal with the law of consequences.

Question D'Jour

Who to believe? The professional or the sleaze who took years to find out he was in the wrong party?

Like I've said before, what is it about soldiering? The troops don't insist on writing long articles about how to put on a West End musical, set dangerous felons free or whine like a little girl, so why don't liberals show them the same courtesy?

Still, it is proof that all leftist arguments ultimate devolve down to sticking their fingers in their ears and singing loudly.

Friday, October 31, 2008

Magistrates, Your Intellectual Superiors:

How out of it are our betters on the bench? This much:
But she was shown mercy by District Judge David Copper after he was told how she had bought the £3.10 box of Nestle chocolates to say sorry.

Judge Cooper, sitting at South East Suffolk Magistrates Court, told her: "That is a very sweet gesture. I have never heard of that happening before.
That's funny, 'cause I'm an ignorant right-wing moron and even I've heard of it happening before. Take this case for example:
A convicted killer who went on a drug and drink-fuelled rampage in Northampton has apologised to the police officer he punched ... by sending her a bunch of flowers and box of chocolates.

Timothy Harris also floored another innocent victim during his angry outburst in the early hours of New Year's Day and had been told to expect a jail sentence.

But the 43-year-old was yesterday given a second chance after Northampton Crown Court heard how he had become a "different man", secured a job and given up drink and drugs.
Like one of the folks says over here:
I imagine that a lot of officers will be receiving petrol station flows and tins of Quality Street after this from "quite unique" violent killer thugs, if that's all it takes to dodge 3 years in pokey
Well, quite. The only people who can't work this out are apparently all sitting on the bench.

Meanwhile, like I said over at Julie's place - if only the underclass were as diligent and adaptable when pursuing lawful ends as when playing the system, then we wouldn't have an underclass.

"They Read Lines For A Living"

No Mainstreaming Going On Here!

Actually, it's an interesting moral question: who's worse, the scumbags who did this, or the sleazy hipsters who'll doubtless hail it as 'bold' and 'transgressive'

MONA Maternity

Are you ready for the Mothers of No Appearance?

Clearly, Methodists the lot of them.

Outrage D'Jour

I could almost take liberals' deranged hoplophobia, if only it was matched with a desire to punish the folks who actually use guns. But no: every handgun in the country gets melted down, but this guy will be out in time for the next Olympics.

In Another And Better World....

For an explanation, as if you needed it, of just why the left will die in the ditch rathger than give up the licence fee, consider what's happening to another, once-respected, media organisation that sold its soul to the liberal cult.

Speaking Truth To No Power!

There's already been plenty of good comment on the Brand/Ross situation, so I'll just add two things:

In so far as our national broadcaster now apparently defines itself in opposition to the nation's most popular newspaper, can the much despised Daily Mail readers finally get an opt out from the licence fee? True, there are other public services people might not necessarily use, but at least the NHS doesn't spend its time denouncing the healthy as Nazi vampires.

Point two is this: do not in any way shape or form allow the BBC and its groupies to convince you that this is just a side-issue or a proxy. It goes to the heart of what's wrong with the BBC.

As Evan Sayet would point out, there's no underlying comedic or satirical value to making obscene phones to elderly people. They weren't taking on the powerful 'Fawlty Towers Lobby'. They were victimising an elderly man simply to demonstrate their contempt for those pesky 'social mores'. This was just an extreme example of the BBC doing what it does pretty much 24-7: tear down the concepts of civilised behaviour and promote dysfunctional sleazitude.

They're still doing it right now, every time they try and defend themselves by caricaturing the critics as as semi-senile lemon suckers who aren't down wid da kids, as though objecting to obscene phone calls to elderly gentlemen was some wacky olde worlde eccentricity. In the bonkers world of the modern left the equation is simple: right is wrong and wrong is right, and once you work that out, everything they do makes much more sense.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Quote Of The Day

A commentor at B-BBC hits the nail on the head:
BBC's HYS is asking should comedians challenge our "social mores". I replied "yes" they should, and then I typed out my favourite Bernard Manning joke. So far it hasn't been allowed through. But lets keep pushing those boundaries kids!

Well, They Do All Look The Same Anyway....

Hey, it's not like they need to deal with issues of identity in their job, is it?
He was invited by mistake, when the NBPA wanted to hear from his near-namesake, former shadow home secretary David Davis.
I thinking their failure to get promoted may not entirely be down to racism after all....

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Quote Of The Day

You invited me to come here, if you wanted someone just to turn up and give the same old speech you should have picked somebody else.
A Tory with testicles? Who knew?

Say, Anyone Know Where Al Gore Is?

London, I'm guessing.

Well, Stop Subsidising Them Then

Jovial Jack Straw has rightly been flamed for his descent in terminal humbuggery, but the clue is in the language he uses:
In a speech at the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, Mr Straw will say that the Government needs "to reclaim the language of punishment and reform" when it is talking about offenders.
He will say: "Two simple words: it's time we had them back. They are straightforward words. Their meaning is clear...

"And with reform. The word implies an obligation on behalf of the offender to make an effort to make amends...

The public expect the justice system "to punish those who have broken the law", he will say, adding that it is time "to go back to the sort of plain English we all understand".

He will suggest that some of the language around how to deal with offenders has been hijacked by the criminal justice lobby, which is concerned with phrases like the "criminogenic needs of offenders.
Hey, is it just me or is anyone else starting to see a theme here?

Even the Telegraph spots the problem with that. The language has been fine for the last eleven years - it's the actual policy that's been the problem. Straw can say what he wants, but every time we get to peek behind the curtain at who actually runs the justice system, it turns out to be people like this:
The Sentencing Advisory Panel, which advises the Sentencing Guidelines Council, said there should be a presumption that thieves, burglars and anyone convicted of dishonesty should not receive a jail term.
In fact, it's worse than that. Not only do we have moonbats lodged in the system itself, Straw's government actually pays out taxpayer's money to activist groups to push this stuff. In other words, the Home Office uses our money to pay activists to lobby the Home Office in support of criminals.

In the unlikely event Jack Straw really has been mugged on the road to Damascus, the first thing he could do would be to stop wasting taxpayer's money on pro-criminal astroturfing.

You Know What'll Help Us Ride Out The Recession?

More femiloon witch hunts!

Grievance hustling - it's the original recession proof industry.

Heh

This almost works, but to go the whole way, you'd have to insist that the fact schoolkids who play regularly are fitter than those who don't just means that they must have already been fit when they started playing.

I'm Still Waiting For The Guy Who Hammers A Nail Into His Own Testicles

Hmmm... if waterboarding is torture, how come we can't stop liberals queueing up to get 'tortured'? You never get them filming each other applying 240 volts to each other's genitals.

Well, not while working anyway.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

We Have Aways Been At War With Eastasia

Hey, you can't accuse the BBC of just plain refusing to report suspicions about the crime figures. Nope, BBC's Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton actively mislead the public on this issue.

That might sound harsh, but consider that when that article was written, informed citizens could hardly not have been aware that something was going on, yet Mark Easton, BBC Home Affairs Editor and certified better-than-you, refused to engage with the substance of any of these charges. It's all bluster and airy dismissal, as if the mere fact the BBC disagrees with these charges is proof enough that they're bogus. Indeed, if you wanted a textbook example of how the BBC's bloated status encourages it to try and dictate the news agenda, this would be it.

Doubtless, if it hadn't all gone horribly wrong, the BBC would still be claiming that the crime figures were fine even today. Meanwhile, the people who did warn of these problems, who were sneered at by the likes of Easton - right up until they were proven right - will still be idiots and hacks the next time they blow the whistle.

Best Talibin Story Evah?

It's for the polar bears!
Last week it was the turn of Frank Hughes, who runs a small scaffolding hire company. The inspector asked him how he disposes of his waste.

Frank said he doesn't. He explained that scaffolding is a relatively simple business which doesn't generate waste.

But you must eat lunch, the inspector retaliated. I bring sandwiches, Frank told him. And before you ask, I take the wrapping home with me.

In which case, you're breaking the law, the jobsworth informed him. Sandwich wrappings are classified as industrial waste within the meaning of the Act. You need a licence to dispose of them.

And since you don't have one, you are committing a criminal offence. Frank would be hearing from the litigation department in connection with this heinous crime and could expect a minimum fine of £300.
Like I keep saying, if liberals ever deny the existence of vampires, start sharpening the fence posts. Liberals have spent years denying that this sort of thing happens, but here it is. Now suddenly it turns out they were lying just like us loonies always said they were.

Ditto, I'm sure the local authority will generously drop the case (now they've been exposed) but I'm equally sure that no one will lose their job over this. Let's stop the tape here: these people tried to extract money out of someone on bogus grounds. Isn't that kind of illegal? Equally, even if it doesn't rise to the level of a felony, shouldn't people who claim they can our spend our money better than us be setting the bar just a little higher than 'not technically breaking the law'?

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Today's 'All Cultures Are Equal' Story

Negotiating with these guys should work just fine.

Hipsters Still Wrestling With Their Daddy Issues

So this is the dawn of the libertarian revolution then? Slightly provocative slogans on buses. Take that you suburban squares!

Seriously, I'm thinking these guys are going to have to take it to the next level.

Anyway, what's with an atheist bus? Does that mean when it gets to the journey's end it just sits there and rots? Or maybe it means it only goes ten miles per hour and ends up nowhere near its destination, but that's all the fault of the faster, more comfortable 'faith buses' which steal all the good passengers.

Still, let's give our perpetually teenage friends some credit. At least they've outed themselves. At least they admit to pushing atheism - actually, that should be Atheism - rather than claiming they're just secularists who simply want to move towards a more tolerant, progressive world where people will come together and EXTERMINATE THE IGNORANT SKY FAIRY WORSHIPPING NEANDERTHALS.

On the other hand though, when sane people think of the negative effects of religion on bus travel, they tend not to think of Christians, but these people can only ever attack the Religion of Peace in the context of a more general condemnation of religion. Well, whatever propagates your DNA, but could they at least stop hailing their own heroism?

Lord Snooty Goes On Patrol

How determined is the Telegraph to trash its reputation? This determined.

All of which rams home an important point about liberal multiculturalism: only certain cultures qualify. The same people who pat themselves on the back for their nuanced take on honour killings, can't string two sentences together about Americans without calling in the Stereotype Squad.

That goes double where the military is involved. At least when these people are talking about America they content themselves with sneering and borderline racism. When it comes to stuff painted green, they're not only proudly ignorant, they actually think they're so super smart that they know better than the troops themselves.

Consider the incident with a bunker. A sergeant sees an enemy position but Tristan knows better. Hmmmm.... that's a toughey: who to believe ? A veteran NCO or a snivelling little mangina who pretends to be wounded so he can sneak off on a medevac chopper? Besides - if suppressive fire was that important, they'd have taught it at Oxford, right?

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Re-Return of The Pathological Conservative Yet Again, Part II

I thought we were sadistic lunatics victimising innocent sex offenders? Nope - now it turns out that we are the sex offenders.

So next time you hear these people claim that the conviction rape for rape is too low, remember, this is the standard of evidence they prefer to work with.

(via)

And They Hit An Afghan Wedding Party Too

I've never been one of those conservatives who accused liberals of throwing their hand in with the forces of evil after September 11.

Nope, liberals were supporting anti-western vermin long before then. Hey, there is literally no one liberals won't pretend to believe if it means they can slag off the west.

At risk of stating the obvious, the whole liberal cult's account of history only makes sense if you believe the evidence supplied by Goebbells. To put it another way, liberals claimed it was perfectly credible that a single raid killed ten times more people than every air raid on Britain during the entire war, one thousand times as many as killed by the thousand bomber raid on Cologne and even twice as many people as were killed in both atomic strikes on Japan. These claims struck liberals as eminently possible.

Again, to hammer the point home: in any other context liberals are obsessive Hitler-spotters, ever ready to see Nazi overtones in any statement by a conservative. It turns out that the only thing that isn't 'just like something out of Nazi Germany' is a myth dreamt up by Hitler's propaganda ministry. Ditto, while conservatives are supposed to not discuss immigration, crime and pretty much everything else for fear of encouraging those elusive 'right-wing extremists', liberals are fine with propagating a lie used by actual Nazis to spread the myth of German victimhood.

What They Do

The Cameron Years have already provided us with no end of sleazy, obnoxious or just plain loopy pronouncements from the Nu Tories, but one stands head and shoulders above the rest for pure toxicity: Tim Loughton explaining that the only reason respectable members of the public hate social workers is because they're too stoopid to know what social workers 'actually do'.

Rarely can a single statement has summed up so much of what is wrong with a political ideology, illuminating as it does both the elitism and the moral nihilism at the heart of Cameronism. What, for the sake of Loughton's foul argument, are social workers actually doing in a case like this?

Of course, social workers may be acting honourably in trying to stop children being cared for by their own grandparents, but they sure do seem to act like people with something to hide:
On their side were three council officers and a note-taker. On ours were Gail and Graham, myself (invited as a friend) and Norman Lamb, though Social Services had twice rung to say his presence would be ‘inappropriate’ – hinting darkly that there could be facts that the Curlews might not want their MP to hear.

Mysteriously, no such incriminating allegations materialised.
Let's assume Loughton is as morally retarded as he appears - just as an MP, doesn't social workers trying to pressure people not to involve their elected representative offend him?

But, no, thanks in large part to the tacit support of pretendey-cons like Loughton, these people are quite openly fascistic:
‘This is all to do with Mr Curlew not working with the department in a co-operative way,’ she said.
Isn't this like a bank robber blaming the teller for her own murder on the grounds that she should have just handed over the money?

To put it another way, these thugs are justifying their destruction of an innocent family on the grounds that the victims were insufficiently cooperative in their victimisation.

Doubtless, in another dimension Matthew Hopkins is kicking himself for not having thought of that.

Oops, no: can't say that: might imply life after death. Only Marxist atheism is allowed:
Another accusation against them is that they’ve told the children they can have ‘secrets’ from their foster carer.

This may sound incriminating – until you hear what the secret is. The children have been told by their foster carer that they can’t say their prayers: ‘We don’t do God in this house.’

They were upset and Gail reassured them: ‘You can pray in your head. God still hears. It can be a secret.’
And thus was shattered the image of social workers as Marxist fanatics. Needless to say, the negative effects of prayer must be another topic which only people with special social worker jedi training are aware of.
The children’s guardian – appointed by the State...
So at least you know she's independent!

But anyway:
The children’s guardian – appointed by the State – insisted the children had told her they wanted to live with the foster mother. I asked where the conversation had taken place. She said it had been in the foster carer’s house.

‘Would it be helpful to interview them at their grandparents’ house too, in case they are saying what the adults want to hear?’

‘I’m not going to work at weekends,’ she replied. ‘Why not meet them on neutral ground one weekday afternoon?’

‘I’m not committing to anything,’ she said angrily. ‘I’m not going to be told what to do.’
And what's more she won't tidy her room!

Hmmm... shouldn't supposed experts on raising children sound a little less like they're fourteen years old themselves?

And now there's the inevitable sequel.

Again, to repeat a point made above, if social workers are acting ethically, why are they so desperate to prevent public scrutiny? Forget Loughton's blathering, the issue is absurdly simple. Should public servants be able to arbitrary destroy families, try to intimidate the victims from asking their elected representative for help and publicising their case and even attempt religious indoctrination?

To ask it is to answer it. Loughton's position is not sophisticated or nuanced - it's just plain depraved. On the one hand we have degenerate Marxist fanatics who destroy entire families to make trivial political points, on the other soi dissant conservatives who throw their principles under the bus rather than rub shoulders with the common herd. Maybe the question we need to ask is this: what do Tory MPs actually do?

Thursday, October 16, 2008

The Clue Is In The Question

Yes, it's a mystery why Glasgow Airport would be worried about Islamic terrorism. But wait... could it be that Hell will freeze over before these people protest this?

Don't Worry About The Bailout

The one thing that I think speaks in favour of the government's 'throw money at the banks' policy is that leftists have come out against it. Leftists only ever embrace fiscal responsibility when the case for more spending is irrefutable. Aromatherapy for smackheads will pay for itself, but jailing low-life so they can't commit more crime is just crazy talk.

Consider what the self-same people enraged! at the bailout think makes perfect sense: NHS sailing holidays, graffiti walls, positive-thinking courses for people who deserve to feel terrible, paying chav scum more than the average teacher earns, free houses for scrounging chav scum, free houses and plasma screens for Al-Chavs and braille for all those blind squash players and air traffic controllers.

Against all this, the bailout makes perfect sense. Hell, at least this way we'll get the chance to build up a nice stockpile of stubby pens on chains.

BBC: Lying For The Common Good

And people said my plan to put scopolamine in the BBC's water supply was stupid! Behold the latest fruits of my brilliant plan!

Yes, there's a lot to be said about the specifics of this particular case, but we shouldn't let that obscure the more general point. Right up until Thompson's attack of clarity, Beeboids were insisting that detecting any bias in the BBC's coverage was proof positive that you were some kind of crazed, Nazi, moron bigot. Now, suddenly it turns out that there is bias there, but good, happy, justifiable bias - and, furthermore, we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Consider the brass neck of the BBC's position: finally admitting the critics were 100% right, our publicly-funded state broadcaster states that not only has it spent years spinning for a particular ideology as a matter of policy, it intends to keep on doing so, all the while still slimeing critics of the BBC - especially the ones who claim it's abusing its dominant position to behave unethically.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

No Mainstreaming Going On Here!

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me:
A college lecturer who was caught naked in bed with a schoolgirl walked free from court yesterday after admitting to an 'error of judgment'.

More MONA Minors

"A number of people" thought to be involved. So no machete-wielding cats or rabbits then? That's a relief. The last thing we need is Tiddles going on the rampage.

Meanwhile, the search continues for the MSM's missing journalistic integrity...

Blowback Express Now Arriving At Platform Two...

Y'know I can see some kind of contrast here:
Tube workers Vic Cooney and Carlos Rozza, whom Mr Jean-Marie had accused of taunting him with jokes about biting the heads off black jelly babies at Caledonian Road station, were suspended and subjected to a fierce interrogation 'like something from the Sweeney'.

The two men were prosecuted for racially aggravated harassment but were cleared by a crown court jury in November 2006.

London Underground later agreed to pay Mr Jean-Marie £125,000 in an out-of-court settlement.
Whereas:
Mr Mahoney, who has 25 years' service and led 500 passengers off a train along the tracks to safety after the 7 July bombings, said his allegations of bullying against co-worker Daniel Jean-Marie were not acted upon because he was white.

Mr Jean-Marie was not suspended and never properly questioned about Mr Mahoney's claims...

Mr Mahoney, who was not directly involved in the 'Jellygate' affair, told Watford employment tribunal of an incident during the criminal trial when Mr Jean-Marie burst into his office and started taking photographs of him, which he feared would be used to smear him as a racist.

The Irishman said: 'I was very shaken. I felt it was to intimidate me and I became very concerned about my personal safety and that of my family.'

But managers did little to protect him and victimised him for making the complain.
But wait... I thought only whites could be racist?

Not that the tide has totally turned though. £125 000 vs £6000? I guess the jelly babies must have pushed it over the top.

Culture War: Why It Matters

I was as appalled as anyone by this case, but the real kicker is in the comments, where we find out that the Magistrate in question was this guy:
Tony Pomeroy is a magistrate member of the Board. He was appointed a magistrate in 1984 on the former Canterbury Bench and is now on the East Kent Bench. For some years he was a member of the Bench Training and Development Committee dealing with appraisals. He sits on Employment Tribunals and on the Independent Schools Admission Panel. He was a former member of the Kent Probation Board, the Social Security and Child Support Appeals Panels, Board of Visitors of Canterbury Prison and Consumer Council for Water. He is a school governor and for some years an advisor at the local Citizen Advice Bureau. He retired from a career as a pharmaceutical research chemist.
Hmmmm.... I thought these guys were all about having a judiciary that 'looks like Britain'. Apparently, you can never have too many QUANGO prince liberal kooks.

However important you think it is for magistrates to be 'representative' of the community ('not very' in my case), they surely should represent the community, in the sense of upholding the values of the public, as codified in law. Pomeroy and the rest of these Trojan leftists don't do that. Instead they hijack the courts and conscript anyone who comes before them as sock puppets in their little agitprop theatre productions.

This is the elephant on the table that the Nu Tories just won't address. For the sake of their slippery argument, let's take their propaganda at face value and pretend Cameron really is this century's Churchill: it still wouldn't matter. Current Tory policy is all top down. They can do what they want in Parliament, but as long as the actual business of the state is carried out by activist loonies like Pomeroy nothing will really change.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Liberals Shocked By Whole 'Consequences' Thing

Yes, it's a mystery alright. Liberals have spent years denouncing anyone with a real job as a dupe or a fascist (depending on how high up the ladder they are), and now they're shocked! to find that the yoof are lost in Fantasyland.

Hmmmm.... does this mean those of who talk about a 'culture war' are still fascists or not?

I only ask because some of us would say that we got here in large part because schools decided to get involved in the 'personal development' business in the first place. Also significant: a government who's response to cultural collapse is to talk about setting up goofy programs in primary schools. That should do it!

Outrage D'Jour: Come Back Femillons!

What more can you say?
A barrister has caused outrage by suggesting a rape victim could not have been upset by her ordeal because there were photos of her on Facebook looking happy...

Colin McCarraher, defending, told Reading Crown Court last week: 'What we have is a person who has post traumatic stress but is quite capable of going out and having a good time at a fancy dress party.'
But even that's not the outrage. This is:
The barrister's attempt to save his client from a lengthy prison sentence failed and Deputy Circuit Judge Stanley Spence jailed Francis for five-and-a-half years.
Lengthy? As in dog years?

I'm guessing at least some femiloons will pile on the scumbag lawyer, but that's a side issue. Here we have a dangerous predator being given a the type of sentence you'd expect for diddling the VAT man. To put it in context, it's precisely 1.375x longer than Jeffrey Archer got for perjury.

Again, I return to that point: this is who liberals are. While the femiloons invent ever more loopy definitions of victimisation, actual, real predators do less time than it takes to get some university degrees. Where's their outrage?

Nope - it not about 'violence against women', it's about pushing the left's agenda. Traditional families, businesses: Bad. Violent felons: good. It's all about the left's cult of indiscriminateness.

Thursday, October 09, 2008

PC: Not All Bad

Chalk one up for the blowback files! Pious lefty pillock Harry Enfield falls foul of a ridiculous racism complaint.

But wait.... I've just remembered: Harry and pals are quite clear that if something is perceived as racist then it obviously is. That must make Harry the Bernard Manning de nos jours - except without the jokes.

The People's Champagne

City fat cats, doncha' hate 'em?

Quote Of The Day

Liberalism as a mental illness? What makes you say that?

Still, at least the comments include this better than Shakespeare summary of where we are today:
We've gone from "When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, big league ball players, the toughest boxers" to "Those of us with vivid memories of middle school..." in a matter of two generations. Somewhere out there lies an America that may have disappeared for some time, but will arrive again, maybe a century from now.

The Boudica Of Today Comes Out Of Hiding (For One Night Only)

Nu Tory pin up Margo James, who is a lesbian, has emerged from hiding to complain about being labelled a 'Lesbian Conservative'... while speaking at an event run by Stonewall.

Hmmm... either her supporters are going to have to drop the claim that she's the Henry Ford of PR, or stop their hysterical whining every time someone points out the absurdity of The Margon's coy 'dance of the one veil' over her sexuality.

Of course, there is another interpretation of her complaint about being called a 'lesbian conservative'. After all, she is one of Dave's pals. Seriously though, if we drop the lesbian thing, what else does she bring to the table?

I'm not sure she can trade on her conservative bona fides. She's certainly seems confused about where exactly soi dissant conservatives are supposed to stand on the whole collectivism/individuality debate.
There is so much wrong with this government's policy, gay people should not just vote Conservative, they have a duty to vote Conservative
And thus was ended the debate over whether or not the Nu Tories had an obnoxious sense of entitlement!

What, for the sake of The Margon's deranged argument, if her hairdresser really thinks the only reason the NHS sucks is lack of money or that the EU could screw up a sunny day? Does he need a waiver signed by Sir Elton?

How about her supposedly brilliant political skills? Try this:
I think gay people have got more angst on this issue than anybody else because gay people are paying in, through their taxes and actually using far less of the NHS because they tend not to have families, less of the education system for the same reason and all the more reason to be angry with this government for the waste of their taxes.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is where I came in. As I pointed out at the time - and was assailed by her freak show supporters for doing so - if we had a party list system, we could indeed have 'lesbian conservative' candidates, 'bisexual conservative' candidates and 'bitter ex-SIS operators who have to return to the shadowy world of international espionage to stop a deadly terrorist plot that could kill millions' candidates. Unfortunately, we don't have that system, we have a constituency-based one which means MPs are supposed to represent the interests of all their constituents, even the lumpy, dumpy breeders who think 'eating out' means going to Mackey Ds, and that education is kind of important, actually.

Ditto, if education really is such a yawner, could these folks at least stop whining about Clause 28 even as they foist gay propaganda on young children? Hey, it's not as if parents run round demanding government restrictions on leather goods and vaseline.

One more thing - as Snafu points out, her argument doesn't even stand up on its own terms. Sure, gayers might place less demand on the education system, but what of the rest? It's not just HIV, there are other STDs, drug abuse and all the other aspects of the gay lifestyle. Crunch question: if it turns out that the balance of payments was the other way round, does that mean Margo James, who is a lesbian, would cross-over, as it were?

Still, in amongst all The Margon's triumphalist crowing, there is a serious point. Yes, social conservatives have been utterly defeated both in the Tory Party and society in general, and speaking as one myself, I'm glad that even Margo James, who is a lesbian, admits that. Key point: in so far as Margo James, who is a lesbian, is prepared to admit openly that there really is a gay agenda (just like us fascists said!), and even boast about its success, can they at least stop all claiming to be Ann Frank?

Nope, the gay rights movement doesn't support fascistic restrictions on free speech, religious freedoms and the like through fear of persecution - they support them because they need this power to remake society. This is what the gay agenda means.

But there's more to it than that. What social conservatives need to do - before heading to the hills - is to tie this can to the Tories. The hipster, Metropolitan progressive Nu Tories are now in total command of the Party, and soon will have control of the whole country. At last we'll have the chance to evaluate the progressive agenda in all its glory.

It's worth ramming that point home now, because I guarantee that a few years down the line Margo James, who is a lesbian, and pals will be blaming all their failures on the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Bombs: Yes, Badges: No

I guess liberals don't always feel the need to understand the 'root causes' before dealing with 'extremism' after all. Hmmmm... how do we know that this won't just lead to more badge-wearing?

Of course, what the guy should have done was gone to sunday service at the Church of St Adolf the Martyr, then libs would have been right behind him, wouldn't they?

Ditto, I guess these guys are safe just as long as they avoid any badge related activities.

Oh.... and then there's this guy. Probably a Buddhist, right?

It Wisnae Me!

I got accused of Cameron Derangement Syndrome the other day. Can you believe that? So just to forestall these evil libels, I pass on this link without comment. Remember, just like the BBC I'm only reporting, not commenting.

PDS: Confirmed Case In Britain

Further evidence for my theory that, liberal hysteria to the contrary, the Daily Mail just isn't that good an example of right wing thought: Quentin Letts, Daily Mail columnist and full-time Cameron groupie filing a column full of unhinged, misogynistic lunacy.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Exactly

This isn't just good news on its own terms, it shows that even some folks in the legal system are aware of the honking great contradicition at the heart of the system.

While liberals in the legal system invent ever-more bizarre human rights, the family courts are allowed to ignore even long-standing principles of justice:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled their rights had been infringed because they had no legal redress for the loss of their child in 1998.
Well, quite.

This is the thing: there's nothing novel about what critics of the system are demanding. They just what the same protections for families that the courts give to terrorists.

No, Not That

Pretendey African Camila Batmanghelidjh writes in the Independent:
first we have to communicate the importance of human life. It's not a lesson of morality; preciousness of life has to be emotionally experienced and practically realised. In writing off one person, we facilitate violence as a repercussion.
She's writing about the criminal justice system, of course. What else did you think it could be?

(via)

Humbug Of The Year

Who said this about his little movie defaming Italian partisans?
This simply shows that in Italy the wound is still open. ... It is up to Italians to come to grips with their past, not up to me or James McBride or the film
Yep, Spike Lee, the race hustling weenie, accuses someone else of being obsessed with past grievances.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

His Wallet Was Weighing Him Down

Like I keep saying, the thing about The Dave is not that he's consistently appalling, it's that he always manages to be appalling in new and innovative ways. The guy can't even exercise honestly. Seriously, what next? Weight lifting with balloons on each end of the barbell?

UPDATE:

@Rob: Heh.

PDS? Oh Yes!

And thus was refuted the argument that Palin Derangement Syndrome was another 'right wing myth'.

More Open Borders Theatre

Immigration officials almost knacker up a charity gig by detaining the headline act on bogus grounds.

See? That's what happens when you have border controls. Clearly, the only answer is open borders unless you hate charity.

Moral Dwarf: Terror Laws Are Baaaaaaaaad!

John Le Carre thinks the war is, like, a total fraud being used by The Man to steal all your freedoms, and you know you can trust the judgement of a guy who admits to considering defection to the USSR.

As I understand it, Le Carre was curious about the true nature of Marxist dictatorship, but thinks fighting terrorism is definitely an attack on our freedoms. Not to put to fine a point on it, but when it comes to assessing the threat from Islamofascism, I wouldn't put to much stock by the opinion of a guy who spent the Cold War fantasising about life in the Soviet Union.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Moronic Convergence Continues

Further evidence that all the world's stupidities are combining into one big ball of moronic.

Femiloon Barbara Ellen claims that a Ministry of Justice commissioned report produced by a load of femiloons totally crushes charges that the Ministry of Justice is dominated by femiloons. Well, I'm convinced!

On the other hand, in the same post she warns us that there are some women you just can't trust.

Personally, I'm on tenterhooks waiting to see what she'd say about a guy in a custody battle with a Jewish ex-wife.

Yoofs: Not As Stoopid As You Might Fink

Considering they've survived eleven years in the Gulag,, I'm quite impressed with these figures. I'm guessing even the disappointing 12% figure would be higher if not for the presence of the PC KGB.

Quote Of The Day

A long one this time, Ace puts his finger on what's wrong with the folks who think we should just ignore the current chaos in the financial markets:
I know precious little about economics and still less about South American economics, but I do know this: The history of South America is nothing but big booms (during which South American countries grow more rapidly than any mature economy) followed by profound busts -- depressions, basically....

Is it really true that the "markets sort out depressions and panics" more efficiently than would be had by Big Footing Government Intervention?

Is it really true that it's rational (and healthy) to have six or eight years of 10% growth followed by four or six years of severe economic contraction of 10% and unemployment reaching, who knows (I don't), 30%?

I don't believe that. I believe the boom-times are irrational and "artificial," in the sense that they're not based on any reasonable estimation of future economic growth, and the massive busts are even more irrational and artificial.

They are "natural," however, in the sense that that's how people behave, and will keep on behaving, forever, until the end of time.

And even if that's "natural" (which I concede it is), I cannot concede it's healthy or desirable. Nor can I concede this represents the best, most efficient growth trajectory possible. I do not believe that South American economies are healthier for the fact they essentially start out again from zero, almost as if they're rebuilding after a Road Warrior scale apocalypse, every fifteen years.
This has always worried me about economics in general. It all works fine proving you assume that everyone is an atomised unit moving logically to maximise his economic efficiency.

That'll be the day. Right now, it's more like a rampaging mob. True, they'll disperse eventually, but just how much of the town centre will they burn down beforehand? Also true, to keep the analogy going, torching the local amenities may indeed create room for new and more exciting developments, but can the gains really be enough to make it worthwhile to rebuild from scratch?

I think a lot of this anti-intervention sentiment arises from the libertarians and their hope for an annihilating disaster which will sweep away statism and leave them free to rebuild the world as a libertarian utopia.

Well, y'know, that's them, but there's no reason why conservatives should take tips on damage control from people who fantasise about a Year Zero.

UPDATE:

In case you missed it, we had a drive-by by a libertarian in the comments. I always delete that stuff on sight - hey, they're always fantasising about being Neo in amongst the sheeple, so I say give them the persecution they obviously get off on.

All of which is by way of saying that's what TDK is referring to in amongst asking a good question: namely - and I hope this is a fair summary - in so far as government brought on the crisis anyway, why trust them to fix it?

The quippy answer would be 'you broke it, you bought it' - and the more I think about it the better that sounds. After all, banking has never really been a free market at least as far back as King Henry carving the nads off bankers (don't tell Harriet Harman about this). Equally, given the central importance of filthy lucre to ever other industry, government can no more let the free market run free here than they can let the taps run dry to teach the utility companies a lesson. The potential collateral damage is too great.

There's also Ace's original point, namely that the defining feature of booms and busts is that the market isn't working rationally. Sure, it might be natural for markets to implode at regular intervals, but is an economic Hiroshima every so often really a good thing? Crunch question: are the dangers of government intervention really worse than the risks of allowing an economic collapse? Yes, say libertarians they are. Well OK, but lets be clear about what it is these people are advocating: total disintegration of the global economy. You don't have to be a caricature 'statist' to quail at that.

About That Non-Existant Mainstreaming of Paedophilia

JuliaM wants to know just what it takes to get barred from working with kids.

Chicks, hey? Isn't it obvious?

No need for weasel phrases like 'suggestive of' in the case of the Reverend & Mrs Nonce, but that one just does not excite our not at all mainstreaming pals.

See, that's the thing. Plenty of hipsters - particularly the libertarian ones - keep telling us that - gosh darn it! - they're all up for nailing perverts to the wall, but you start zapping child rapists and then something, something, something until we're living in the Fourth Reich.

They're never too specific about how we get from taking out the garbage to Strength through Joy, but their loony paranoia doesn't even stand up to cursory examination here. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that a prerequisite for a slippery slope is that it should actually be a slope. Au contraire, in this case the issues couldn't be more clear cut. There's no 'profiling' required here, what we have is a 100%, self-confessed, unrepentant pervert flicking a v-sign at decency - and getting away with it.

There's more to it than that though. Let's approach this the other way. The usual suspects justify harassing teachers with the wrong views by claiming that the natives are just one blog post away from forming rampaging mobs of racist killers. Meanwhile, a pervert can openly advocate paedophilia with nary a whisper from our pals. That's revealing in two ways: not only does it show the essential humbuggery of the folks who claim they're ready to tear perverts limb from limb except, y'know... yada, yada, yada, it also flags up just how the lack of condemnation affects how the perverts view themselves.

Put it this way: in so far as Mrs Hart was comfortable defending outright perversion, it suggests a certain confidence that there were people out there who'd offer a sympathetic ear. Crunch question: does the hipsters refusal to forthrightly condemn perversion make it more or less likely that potential perverts will choose to act on their impulses?

Friday, September 26, 2008

Quote Of The Day

Mr Broon, guestblogging over at Ross's place:
This is not a time for novices, we need a proven failure in charge!

Kill Da Pigs II

The non-hateful left strikes again!

And no, you can't even say these people were misguided idealists, or vindicated by history. Their sole claim to fame is that they were cop killers. Again, I say it: this is who liberals are. They support violent lunatics because they're violent lunatics. There's no deeper thought here, liberals will support anything and anyone opposed to western civilisation.

Lassie Must Die!

This is what baffles me: surely at some point even the most libtarded of individuals must look at this stuff and realise these people are nuts.

The Daily Mail: Pro-Choice

I've said it before and doubtless I'll say it again, but the left's characterisation of the Daily Mail as the epitome of modern conservatism is ludicrous when you look at just how much liberal kool aid the Mail actually drinks.

Sadie Nicholas asks 'How CAN A Man Murder His Own Children?' Beats me, but I bet the answer involves scumbaggery somewhere. Maybe she should ask Rosa Monckton? On the same morning, Ms Mockton explains that killing your child is kind of bad, but youse got to have sympathy for the killer, right?

You'll never guess what the difference is between these two killer parents.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Well, It Worked So Well In Schools, Right?

Liberalism: even screwing up the Beautiful game.

It's not just the 'all must have prizes' thing though. Yes, the FA is right, the behaviour of some parents and coaches is terrible, but the answer is surely to give them - and even their clubs - the old heave ho'. In so far as this new policy punishes everyone while leaving the lunatic fringe barely affected, it might just be the perfect example of liberalism in action.

Question D'Jour

As so often with cases like this, I've got to ask: what exactly is the risk from unregulated clown activity?

Quote Of The Day

Another great line from the comments at Dirty Harry's Place:
I think the biggest problem with the culture war is just how many tens of millions of people don’t realize we’re in one.
Yes, that pretty much covers it.

Liberals Support The Troops Like O J Simpson Supports Family Values

This is how much the left hates the troops: no cats.

On the plus side, at least we've got some libs on record as supporting profiling...

Winning The Culture War

Another central belief of this blog is that it's a losing proposition for conservatives to get drawn into arguments about particular issues while letting liberals set the term of the debate. Take tax rates. You can argue for lower rates, but it's a losing proposition in a culture where government spending is seen as the only route to progress.

Or take recent events. Right now, the hipsters are all a flutter about the inquest into the death of St Jean the Martyr. This, they hope, will blow the lid! on how State Death Squads murder people totally for no reason at all.

Meanwhile, this case has slipped past without so much as a raised eyebrow from the hipsters. Now, why might that be?

There are simply no objective grounds for claiming that the Matrydom of St Jean is the reification of the darkness at the heart of modern Britain but the death of 'Lois' is a yawner. Or, to put it another way, the right can and should take on the cop-hating scum currently oozing out of our nation's sewers, but we need to do more than that. We need to stop letting them set the terms of the debate by default.

The hipsters want to claim the death of St Jean is the Most Important Issue Evah! Well, let them make that case, because when they do they're exposing who they are. They're telling us what motivates them. They're not guardians of public morals, disinterested seekers after truth or crusaders for justice. They're agenda-driven lunatics, and it's past time we stopped treating them as anything other than that.

See, I Was Right!

Depending on who you ask, we've either dodged a bullet on the economy, or this time next year we'll be living in Mad Max World. Either way, I think it's fair to say that I was totally right.

One of the central points of this blog is that stupidity is underrated. Consider the origin of the crash: banks believing that a group of supa-smart peeople had found a way to turn lousy loans into something less stupid.

Oh sure, I might be over-simplifying, but I bet that's still not the stupidest thing written about this crisis. To the point: not one person in a hundred could explain how all this worked, but they just knew some dead smart folks somewhere had it all sorted.

Actually, I thinking maybe there was just one guy. Maybe he got run over by a bus? That would explain a lot.

In this environment it was somehow inevitable that the guy who steered HBOS onto the rocks would turn out to be an Oxbridge grad whose last job was at a supermarket. It's the generic skills, init?

This is about more than just the propensity of bankers to throw huge sums of money down a hole in the ground on the off-chance. It applies to people in general. The history of British politics in the last fifty years is pretty much the public being bilked into spending huge sums of money on white elephants in the vague hope that some really smart folks in Whitehall will manage to cure all our social problems.

Hey, why mock bankers? Say what you like about them, but compared to the Olympics, giving loans to crack heads looks like sound business judgement.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

That Wasn't Meant To Happen

Crivens! The hipsters' favourite search engine falls foul of PC. Even more delicious: it's all about the Most Important Operation Evah!

I believe the operative term is 'blowback'.

Run Screaming Out Of The Room?

Don't be shocked, but a disability rights group has claimed that testing for Down's Syndrome is super-dangerous. It's all hard science too:
Although they admit that their ratio is only an estimate, they are backed by a number of independent experts who fear inexperienced practitioners may also be to blame.
In related news, a blogger estimates that there is no limit to the rubbish the MSM will print.

Mind you, you can't hardly blame the MSM, not considering the example set by actual scientists. Take the defenestration of Professor Michael Reiss. Contrary to what our ever-balanced state broadcaster implies, Reiss is not a 'Creationism biologist'. Here's what he actually said:
Last week Prof Reiss - a Church of England minister - said creationism should be discussed in science lessons if pupils raised the issue.
As opposed to what exactly?

But no: that was all too much for the heirs to Galileo, who came up with a true classic of the witch hunter's art:
The society said some of his comments had been "open to misinterpretation".

This had damaged its reputation.
Say what? A statement of the blindingly obvious is a firing offence just in case someone else interprets it some other way.

This is like criticising Darwin because his work was used to support eugenics, except that his work really was used to support eugenics, rather than merely being open to being used to support eugenics.

It's not even good politics. Creationism survives because a large number of people are convinced that scientists will go to any lengths to push an atheistic agenda. Call it a hunch, but I'm thinking that this obsession with punishing anyone who dissents from the party line probably won't have anyone taking their tinfoil hat off any time soon.

It's especially a pity that these people have give into their inner Dawk at the self-same time even dyed in the wool lefties are starting to mock him.

Liberals: All Class, All The Time

RWN rounds up the 20 most obnoxious anti-Palin quotes. If nothing else, they nicely bury the myth that it's the right which is nasty.

Meanwhile, the left is celebrating their own version of the storming of the Bastille. Doubtless, if Baz wins there'll be a public holiday to celebrate the storming of the Palin e-mail account.

So there you have it, the liberal position in a nutshell: reading other people's e-mail is cool, unless they're terrorists, in which case it's an outrage. See? It makes perfect sense!

But At Least His Rights Were Respected...

Bad though this case sounds, the specifics of the (non-)escape are even worse.

Meanwhile, five months after the escape, the sweepstake is still open for which femiloon and/or hipster will be the first to suggest that avoiding offence may not be the main concern when dealing with a serial rapist.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

He's Reporting The Stuff British Journalists Just Won't Report

Michael Yon with British troops in Helmand Province.

Hey, You Know What We Need More Of Over Here?

Open Borders Lobby: people who claim it's racist to say that the immigration system should distinguish between a neurosurgeon from Madras and this guy.

The Left Has Lost Its Mind (Part II)

While the hipsters have been busily trying to cram September 11 down the memory hole, there are some deaths that bear revisiting again and again: are you ready for The Passion of St Jean?

It's time to check the scorecard. Apparently, September 2001 is ancient history, but the events of July 2005 are a hot issue. Hmmmm.... that makes the window somewhere between three years two months and seven years - guess these guys better step it up on their little movie before it too becomes, like, so ten minutes ago.

Of course, there is one problem here. How can I put this? There's not a lot of back story here for a whole movie. It's not like the police shot Frank Sinatra.

Fortunately, the left has a solution:
Interestingly, the main focus of the UK-Brazilian co-production isn't so much the death of Jean Charles as his life. It will look at how he, his cousins and friends lived it up in London.

'It's a life-affirming story, full of fun and laughter - and then tragedy strikes,' Luke Schiller, a key producer on the film, told me.
Yep, a whole film full of magic gauchos.

Of course, this sort of thing is inevitable given who St Jean actually was. I guess liberals don't like us to talk about how he got into Britain, so we'll just move onto his life as a fraudster working cash in hand as an electrician, despite being wholly unqualified. He was El Chavo.

Hey, if evading tax and building regulations is evidence of aufenticity! how come that doesn't apply to folks from Barking as well as Brazil? What chance a life-affirming story about a guy from Essex who sticks it The Man and his whole 'fuse' jive?

Bottom line: you could pick probably forty of the victims of July 7 and find a more interesting back story (then again, how many of the folks taking out onions for St Jean could even name five victims of July 7)?

Come to think of it, the Martyrdom of St Jean isn't even the most obvious case of a police firearms-related upscrew, so when are we going to see movies about James Ashley and Harry Stanley?

This is the thing: the left is telling us who they are. The Passion of St Jean isn't being made because they're hoping to produce an entertaining film. There is absolutely no artistic criteria by which the life of a sleazy fraud justifies a movie, except that it serves the left's agenda.

This isn't just moral equivalence. Liberals think the West is actually worse than the terrorists. That's why we get saccharine movies depicting sleazy crooks as tragic heroes, but you never get to see the original footage from September 11. It's why the same people who spread weird Truther theories about July 7 claim that the police were chomping at the bunch to shoot anything that moved two weeks later. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to help drive home that the real threat is from the forces of civilisation.

The Left Has Lost Its Mind (Part I)

How dare you question their commitment to fighting terrorism! Besides, I've just checked with the BBC and apparently it's the right that's full of thuggish losers.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Quote Of The Day

Another great line from a comment thread over at Dirty Harry's Place:
As for the Whoop and her pals, by imagining and fighting against oppression that doesn’t exist and persecution that will never take place, these creatures elevate themselves from their pointless, narcissistic, selfish, over-compensated existence, giving themselves heroic stature they don’t have to sacrifice for. It’s Dr. FeelGood, free of charge.

Assimilation

Personally, I think its great that at least one immigrant has made the effort to fit in with British culture.

They're All About The Justice

Something to remember next time you see some lawyer in the MSM waxing pious about justice.

Apparently, bombs going off, kids being murdered and industry being choked to death are all prices well worth paying for justice!, but low fees? That's just crazy talk!

Personally, I'm just glad no one in private industry is talking about letting murderers off the hook just to protect profits, otherwise liberals would be calling for air strikes. It's not even as if we're talking low wages in any sense that an Earth person would use it. Check out the figures:
under the new rates top Queen’s Counsel were on preparation rates (for work leading up to trial) of £91 an hour... a barrister would pocket about half of that after paying overheads, expenses, tax and so on.
Let us move smoothly past the humbuggery of liberals complaining about the cost of taxation, and consider this: preparation work - isn't that kind of like paying Dame Judi Dench for learning her lines? But still, for the sake of this ludicrous argument let's specify that for some reason our hypothetical QC never does anything other than preparatory work. He's still taking home an after-tax income of £3640 per week. Hey, in some parts of the country that's not considered a bad wage.

Of course, no one does only preparatory work:
For a day in court the rates range from £285 to £476 [per hour] for a top QC.
Just in case you're keeping track at home, that means an eight hour day earns scores them £3880.

At this point it's worth contrasting the legal profession with another well-subsidised group. Liberals hate, hate, HATE! farm subsidies, but look what the quid pro quo is: farmers are faced with everything from environmental regulations to production quotas. Meanwhile, lawyers bleed the taxpayer dry and claim it's just the free market in action.

Ditto, I'm pretty sure drilling thousands of metres into the Earth's crust to extract volatile hydrocarbons is not a simple task, but the same liberals who demand windfall taxes for energy companies would never dream of the same punitive measures being applied to lawyers.

Still, it's hard to have much sympathy for the government. Not only has the government's habit of outsourcing law making to the courts helped bloat the budget in the first place, it's also emboldened these people to the point where they feel they can strong arm a democratically-elected government into acting as a giant ATM.

In this, as in so many other areas, Parliament has utterly failed to live up to its role of acting as a check and balance on the power of the courts. Just to give two examples of what needs to be done, Parliament could remove the ability of lawyers to pervert the public debate by forcing lawyers to identify themselves as such when they appear in the media, instead of allowing them to pass themselves off as 'concerned citizens' or such like, and they could remove the ability of lawyers to choke off public criticism with libel suits.

After all, these are the folks who insist that the medical profession, the police and the Army can't be trusted and so they must be subject to having their actions picked over by the courts years after the fact. How come criticism of the legal system is subject to review by the self-same courts? Aren't these the folks who issue teary declarations about the importance of independent tribunals?

There are plenty of other measures that could be done, but all of them rely on our elected representatives being reunited with their spines, so I guess we may as well resign ourselves to ever more money going to lawyers. Still, in so far as these people would let murders go free just to make their point, could the MSM at least stop portraying them as guardians of justice?

Hey, Dorothy, What Do You Think of Traditional Britsh Values Right Now?

I'm thinking Laban is becoming the master chronicler of MONA related events. He's just passed on news of clashes between the Men Of No Appearance and the Men Of Fabulous! Appearance.

Of course, we must treat such incidents with the seriousness they deserve:

Yep, that's me: harsh! But can you blame me when even the guy breaking omerta wraps his statement up in every weasely liberal phrase imaginable?

On the other hand, who'd have thunk that the alliance between the Religion of Peace and the Religion of Getting A Piece would end badly? Well, yes, every rightist ever, but the gayers have spent years calling us fascists, so the sympathy buffer is kind of empty at the moment.

For sure, incidents like this, are a sign of the cultural death spiral in modern Britain, not only in terms of the thuggery itself, but also the reluctance to call it what it is. But few people are less qualified to complain about all this than you-know-who. Gayers have served proudly as shock troops in the liberals' war on British culture.

True, some would claim they were only against certain aspects of traditional British culture. At best, this position devolves down to a kind of cultural jenga, and the proposition that it's possible to hack away whole chunks of the underpinnings of British culture, while leaving the culture itself still in place.

More to the point though, whatever they claim to believe, the rest of their rhetoric makes clear these guys aren't just opposed to the family values, they hate the whole idea of people having values. That's why the same people who blather about The Homophobia, think blaming the spread of AIDS on Mrs Thatcher is a perfectly valid debating point.

The hysterical denunciations of those who support traditional values - let alone the open harassment - is just a symptom of the way the gay rights movement have fully bought into the left's cult of indiscriminateness. They're appalled that no one will take a stand against thuggery? Hey, they've spent years describing anyone who takes a stand for traditional values as a Naaaaaaaaaazi!!!!! Besides, who's to say that beating people up is wrong? Did the cat sit on the mat, or is it equally true to say that the mat sat on the cat? And what is this 'cat' thing anyway?

The gay rights movement bought fully into the left's core belief that the only truly moral position is no position at all. At the same time, they were perfectly happy to break bread with the Islamofascists when it came to denouncing Britain as the Worst Country Evah! It is only now, with our culture in ruins, that these people have suddenly realised that there really are worse cultures out there after all.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Palin Scandal D'Jour

Hey, at least the quality is creeping up!

At Least We Don't Need To Change The Acronym

From Men Of No Appearance to Men Of No Affiliation. Like I keep saying, the MSM should cut its prices in half - after all, you only ever get half the story.

Quote Of The Day

Over at Dirty Harry's Place they're discussing what kind of revisionist train wreck Hollyweird's Tarzan remake will turn out to be, and commenter Carolyn sums it up thus:
Yup, this time Jane screws the ape.

Animals have rights too, you know.

The Common Touch

Rob in the comments points out that Dave's New, Representative Tories have just had a photoshoot with... Tatler?

In fact it's worse than that. Not only is the Ayatollah Khameron intent on making us all nostalgic for the good old days of Blair, but now his wife is busy making Chezza look good. Greed and snobbery are never an attractive combination, but that's where it's at. Besides, doesn't everyone have £900 bags?

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Liberal Double-Dipping

See, that's the thing with cases like this. We keep getting told that we can't hold these people accountable because they're suffering from a terrible illness that makes them commit hideous crimes, but then we get told that we can't discriminate against someone just because they're kind of wacky.

Huh?

Which is it? Are these just regular guys with an embarassing illness, a kind of mental VD? Or are they victims of a hideous condition which drives them to extremes of homicidal rage? Well, actually both. The liberal position boils down to the belief that murderous insanity is no reason to deny someone their life's ambition to own their own chainsaw.

You can see why liberals prefer to call conservatives names, rather than discuss their actual ideology.

Zzzzzzzzzzz......

'Shocking' is not the word - trite and predictable are more like it.

Blind Pig Day

Put this down as a case of the stupidities cancelling each other out: Reason magazine interviews the US Libertarian Party's candidate for Vice President, and he makes a great point.
And so my answer is, has America really been unfair to minorities? No it hasn't. It was unfair to me. A white butcher's kid, whose father had no money, but nobody gave me a break. And do I have a chip on my shoulder? You're damn right I do. And I represent millions and millions of poor people in this country who weren't lucky enough to be poor and black, they were unlucky enough to be poor and white, and they can't get into Harvard. So maybe that country Barack's fighting for, he's got the wrong country here. He's been just fine in this country.
Don't worry though, normal service is resumed in the comments thread at Reason, with crazee rebel tigers lining up to burn the heretic.

Why Don't More People Do This?

First we had 'freedom of the use of the press' meaning anyone could print off their material of choice. Now that's become 'freedom of the press' which apparently means we have these super-citizens known as the press, able to ignore the law as it applies to lesser-mortals. Still, even accepting that, there's no way you can read freedom of the press as meaning that citizens are legally required to appear before MSM show trials.

Why on Earth would Sarah Palin want to give credibility to a bunch of partisan lunatics? Wrong question. Right question: just why do some many folks on the right think it's just a matter of fine-tuning their media skills, and suddenly the kool aid drinkers in the MSM will start playing fair?

Nope, the only conservatives the MSM likes are the ones that denounce other conservatives for being too conservative. There's the exception that proves the rule in Cameron. Sure, the MSM gives him a fair crack but that's only because he gobbles up the liberal agenda with a shovel. In the unlikely event that Cameron ever tacked to the right, he'd get slimed faster than you can say 'coke head'.

There's the flip-side to all this. If liberals have won the culture war, just why is the MSM so desperate to cast every conservative as Hitler? Or, to put it another way, if conservative ideas are so toxic, wouldn't simply reciting what conservatives believe be enough to damn them? No?

Considering it's supposed to be an utterly discredited ideology, liberals seem mightily afraid of letting any conservatism escape into the public square. Nope, the MSM's unhinged rantings aren't a sign of strength, they're a sign of weakness. Unhinged denunciations of opponents as Hannibal Lecter's crazier cell mates is not the sign of a string argument. So why do so many Official Conservatives want to give these losers credibility?

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Cognitive Dissonance?

Apparently, even the Indie staffers don't read their own rag. Today's headline story was a report claiming fewer woman are scoring top jobs. Typical sob sister stuff, but what was above it? Why, a full page banner photo of Bristol Palin and fiancée, of course. No mixed message there then!

Today's Inspiring Afirmative Action Post

Remember, they're trusted with guns while you're not because they're highly-trained professionals.

Support Our Murderous Troops!

Looks like there's some forms of discrimination the left thinks are just fine.

Of course, it's all an aspect of the wider culture war. This sort of thing is the natural result of supposedly respectable public figures who come out with garbage like this:
We should accept that we cannot impose democracy at the barrel of a gun,” he said in Islamabad. “We cannot drop democracy from 10,000 feet and we should not try.
Yep, that's what our troops are doing out there: randomly bombing from two miles up. I guess all those casualties are just the result of soldiers falling off the back of the plane.

At least with the collapse of Labour, we'll soon be rid of these these kooks.

Thought Police

Look like the weasels are circling Inspector Gadget. There's an enigmatic post on his blog, with some background from his publishers.

I guess they'll be trying the 'disrepute' route. The only thing is that no one can actually point out any actual inaccuracies in what Gadget said. Let's face it, if there was so much as a chink of daylight, the usual suspects would be popping up everywhere claiming 'Nine point six seven, actually!!!!!!'. The fact they aren't raises an important question.

In so far as Gadget's writings are accurate, but he's still (potentially) being charged with bringing the uniform into disrepute, what does it say about modern policing when even the top brass seem to be admitting that a fair account of what actually happens, by definition, brings the police into disrepute?

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

I Bet There's An Innocent Explanation For This

Fortunately, my nano-violin is back from its annual tune-up just in time to play a sad song.

Where'd All That "Absolute Moral Authority" Go?

Talking of the femiloon's nuanced approach to membership of the sisterhood, Guardian writer and raving loon Julie Bindel has been giving a rape victim a good kicking.

Actually, the clue is in the article itself. Bindel never gets round to making any actual arguments. Instead, we get the ludicrous claim that Mirren claiming that date rates are hard to prosecute means she wants to 'impose her twisted logic upon other women'. And you thought she was just giving an interview...

The point is that if someone - and a rape victim at that - expressing opinions Bindel disagrees with counts as them imposing their views, then that suggests that the femiloon's definition of oppressive conduct is kind of loose. Sure, Bindel is right to point out that rape doesn't always leave marks, but where exactly does Bindel draw the line between rape and normal sex? And is there any relation between her definition and the one used on Earth?

Quote Of The Day

Amongst other things, the MSM is claiming that the beasting of Bristol Palin is justified by the need to move forward the very important debate about sex education in schools. Not only is this a blindingly-obvious piece of self-serving rubbish, it doesn't even make sense on its own terms. Social conservatives aren't opposed to the principle of sex education in schools, we're just worried about the specifics of it.

No innuendo intended, but Ace puts his finger on it here:
Most people who object to sex ed in schools aren't against sex education -- they just want to do it themselves, and are frankly suspicious (with some good reason) that government-school sex-ed teachers will be a bit more pro-sex and bit less pro-abstinence than they'd like...

I think sex-ed in schools really is more effective as far as providing frank instruction in birth control. I'm guessing that many parents are uncomfortable with the whole discussion and, to the extent they do discuss birth control, do so vaguely and without much elaboration.

On the other hand, just like the immigration debate, the government could do an awful lot to build trust on the "enforcement" side of the issue. People just don't trust union-protected teachers to go out of their way and appear "uncool" and give real warnings of about the consequences of sexual activity.
Exactly. Most parents aren't against the idea of schools covering S-E-X, it's just that they have - almost certainly well-founded - fears about what kind of train wreck will result from putting it in the hands of groovy teachers.

PDS

I'm a firm believer in Ann Coulter's dictum that the effective conservative is always the one liberals are calling evil, stupid, insane or all three, so naturally I'm pleased by the reaction to Sarah Palin's candidacy.

This little summary is two days old, so probably doesn't include the last sixty or so talking points/rumours/LSD hallucinations, but it gives a nice sense of the left's effortless class. To think, some of us remember the days when the right was attacked for being too hostile to teenage mothers.

The thing I don't get is how Bristol Palin's pregnancy is supposed to vindicate all these stupid rumours. Take one of the (marginally) less crazy rumours, that Sarah Palin pretended to be pregnant to hide the fact Bristol was pregnant with Trig (and, again, I remind you that this one of the saner rumours). So now the Palins have released news of Bristol's pregnancy, that proves the Palins obviously engaged in a nine month conspiracy to hide a previous Bristol pregnancy. Huh? Plus why would someone who's supposed to be just the obscure chief exec of a bunch of moose molesting white trash bother about hiding a pregnancy anyway? Isn't that par for the course for a bunch of trailer trash from a small town like Alaska?

If Sarah Palin achieves nothing else, she's exposed the femiloons for what they are. When this stuff gets a pass, it kind of cuts the ground from under the femiloon's usual atrocity stories.

Ditto, the MSM. Having thrown whole hillsides full of mud at Palin with nary a hit, the MSM's new tactic is to claim that McCain was negligent in selecting a VP candidate who liberals could smear so easily. St Ann points out the obvious problem:
Barring some all-new, trivial and probably false story about Palin -- her former hairdresser got a parking ticket in 1978! -- the media apparently intend to keep being hysterical about McCain's alleged failure to "vet" Palin properly. The problem with this argument is that it presupposes that everyone is asking: "HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?"

No one's saying that.

Attacks on McCain's "vetting" process require the media to keep claiming that Palin has a lot of problems. But she doesn't have any problems. Remember? Those were all blind alleys.
At least there are some resources out that are more reliable than the MSM.

Monday, September 01, 2008

What If Someone Breaks In To Flytip In The Kitchen?

As I understand the left's latest big idea, we'll have informers on every block reporting to council wardens with the power to dispense instant fines. What could go wrong?

More to the point though, doesn't this kind of chip away at the left's arguments against self-defence? After all, these people have spent years waxing pious about the dangers of people 'taking the law into their own hands'. That position was at least internally consistent just as long as leftists could contrast professional police officers with our own lumpy, dumpy selves, but now the law is in the hands of semi-literate council thugs and bitter curtain-twitchers, it doesn't even make sense on its own terms.

The liberal position is that the nation's households are full of folks going to bed every night desperately hoping someone will break in so they can torture him to death but giving the same people special informers hotlines or council uniforms will turn them into disinterested servants of justice. Huh?