But What Is The Artist Trying To Say?

I think Dirty Harry does not approve of the 'Tropic Thunder' protest, but who can tell?

Neo-Prohibitionists Vs Femiloons

Yep, the two most humourless bunch of lemon suckers in modern Britain are facing off.

Don't be too hacked off though - the mistake was made 'in good faith'. That's OK then. If they'd told a naughty joke about Sir Elton, they'd be gone, but slandering the victims of serious sexual assault is just part of the rough and tumble of modern politics. Ditto, this insane policy may have been revoked where sexual offences are concerned, but rest assured that if a man is kicked senseless on his way home after a lager shandy, that too will turn out to be a contributing factor.

FAT SWAT

The government's decision to send outreach workers from the Minstry of Strength Through Joy nurses out to harass people guilty of Category 5 Fat Crimes gets even weirder.

Yep, unannounced visits. So PC Plod has to check with 'comunnidee leaders' before taking down Bin Laden's hideout, but having Frau Flick of the Health Gestapo suddenly hammering on some fatties' door is just ducky. Priorities!

This Isn't The Diversity You're Looking For

The People's Party strikes again!

Two things occur to me about this. The quid pro quo for working for nothing is that the kids will be getting the first foot on the ladder to becoming MPs - or, to put it another way and diversity! blather to the contrary, Labour has given up on hiring real people as MPs, in favour of recruiting obsessed wonks who've never held down an actual job.

The other thing is this: successful candidates will be expected to work for nothing in the most expensive city in the known universe. I guess no working class Northerners need apply?

Back When Adults Ran Foreign Policy

For an example of how transnational lunacy has stripped us of the ability to confront evil, consider how pop history deals with the US decision to nuke Nintendoland totally for no reason at all.

Georgia In Flames, Transnationalism In Ruins

The great thing about calling your blog 'House of Dumb' is that you don't feel under any pressure to feign knowledge. I don't mind being the only blogger in the UK who admits he has no idea what's going on in the former USSR. Either the barbarians are clawing at the door of western civilisation once again, or a great nation has found a leader who puts bonds of blood and honour over the self-serving rationalisations and slippery legalese of the degenerates who make up the world's permanent ruling class.

Whatever this invasion reveals or doesn't reveal about the Motherland, it sure throws new light on modern liberalism. Consider the reaction of the alphabet soup NGO's - as neatly summarised here by PM - apparently, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights isn't as Universal as you'd think. Either that, or condemning anyone outside the Anglosphere or Israel doesn't get the donations rolling in. Not since UNICEF produced an advert supposedly lamenting the suffering of children in war which featured jets raining down death on innocent villagers has the anti-American monomania of these people been so blatant.

Then there's Europe. As the true extent of Russian thuggery sinks in, an outraged continent has risen as one and shouted 'The US should do something!'. Not that the EU is afraid to spend money on big defence projects. After all, they are spending a bundle on the Galileo satellites which will duplicate America's GPS system. So soon you'll be able to drive to Uncle Mike's without being exposed to US mind control transmissions but the whole EU doesn't have a single armoured division to put between the Russian border and Kiev.

In fact, from a study of EU strategy and the order of battle for the European Rapid Reaction Force, Eurocorps und so weiter, it looks like the only scenario in which these forces can and would fight is a Martian invasion of Bruges - and even then the Belgians wouldn't turn up.

Don't be shocked, but it looks like having 'soft power' is the same as being 'differently rich'. But that's not even the half of it. The decayed state of Europe's defences is just a symptom of a more general malaise. After all, why spend money of arms when the will to use them is absent anyway?

The EU is the latter day equivalent of Victorian aristocrats getting together to pass resolutions announcing that only the profits made from land count as proper money. It is denial as foreign policy. Do these people really think being excluded from the group photograph at summits will deter Putin? Or, as the most notorious Georgian of them all would have said, how many divisions does international law have?

Rightists Publish Stuff, Liberals Outraged!

In so far as leftists always claim to be devill may care rebels and iconocalsts speaking truth to power! in the face of the Evil Right-Wing Oppresion, it's always illuminating to see their hysterical reaction to actual right-wing thought.

This one from the Indie is a classic of the genre. They're shocked - shocked! - by the thought that there are people out there campaigning for lower taxes. Who knew? Not our tolerant friends, that's for sure. They keep trying to cast the TPA's activities in sinister terms, but can't help but come off as kind of, well, lame actually. As I read it the charge sheet is as follows:

1. The TPA does research
2. It then publicises it

What warped genius could have come up with such a plan? Well, off the top of my head: Liberty, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Oxfam, Christian Aid, Greenpeace and NACRO., all of whom have used the self-same tactics - and with far less scrutiny. Of course, the TPA has never allied itself for murderous savages, so I guess it's not the same after all.

...Except No One In Britain Ever Died From Nuclear Waste

It occurs to me that if environmental law worked like criminal law, you'd be able to dump nuclear waste in the middle of a city, provided you agreed to stop by and check up on it once every fortnight.

The BBC Goes Feral

As I understand it, even 24 hour coverage on all channels isn't forcing enough people to watch the BBC's Olympic coverage. As a result, they've decided to escalate: from tomorrow they're sending out teams to break into people's homes and duct tape them to a chair in front of the TV. It's the only way they can justify the budget for sending 18 000 people to Beijing.

Don't Blame Me!

Yes, indeed: truly that Gove speech is the gift that keeps on giving. Still, for all that I've enjoyed seeing one of our betters out himself as a total retard, there's a lingering sense of unease here. Just why is everyone blaming it all on social conservatives?

If the argument is that Gove's speech was an example of the Cameroonies reaching out to social conservatives, all it proves is how utterly divorced these people are from what socio-cons are actually saying. On the contrary, Gove's attack on Nuts and the like, based as it was on one part femilunacy to one part snobbery, is exactly the sort of chattering class fan service the Cameroonatics have made their own.

You Think That's Big?

You should see the size of the solar panel it takes to power it!

I believe the phrase that pays is 'Maybe I'll believe it when they start acting like they do'.

FFS!

Radio 2's Jeremy Vine Show is running what it calls its alternative Olympic coverage. Meaning what? Interviews with druggie sleaze Dwaine Chambers, then with 'China enthusiast'.... George Galloway.

It's an interesting philosophical point which is worse: the BBC's obsession with promoting that scumbag or Galloway's own determination to ally himself with every anti-Western force on the planet, no matter how evil.

Kill Da Pigs

As a rule of thumb, I'm thinking that if someone's claiming it's the sight of shields and helmets that drives people to indulge in riotous insanity, they may not be moderates after all.

How does that work anyway? Are cops rampaging round threatening to throw their helmets at peace-loving ecoloons? How do you intimidate someone with protective clothing? And does Mad Bob freak out when he sees doctors wearing white coats? Admittedly, he's probably well used to that by now.

It's not even as if there's not already evidence of mayhem being planned. Actually, that's the bit that sticks in the throat. You just know that in almost any other context Bob Marxist-Andrews would be taking out an onion for those poor workers denied proper protection by the eviiiil bosses.

MONA Minor

Are MSM journalists completely lacking in self-awareness? Let's just consider that sub-genre of writing where a hackette writes a hand-wringy article about whether or not citizens should tackle yobs, even while she herself hides behind wheenie euphemisms like 'kids'. Who knew the Men Of No Appearance had a youth wing?

To the point: folks tackling 'youths' are risking being stabbed to death. All these girls are risking is whiny criticism by the usual suspects. Isn't it time these bints 'took a stand'?

Outrage D'Jour: Now With Extra Dhimmitude

The moronic convergence continues! Further evidence that all the bad things in the world are converging in one big stupid: Europe, Islamofasicsm and the lawless courts all in one big ball of stupid! It's the hatrick of badness.

Another One Bites The Dust

You know it sure is lucky that The Dave purged the candidate lists and imposed his own set of Dave's Drones - otherwise something embarrassing might have happened.

This is why it matters: no Tory leader in history has exercised such control over the choice of candidates. Equally, the purge was a key example of Cameroonacy in action. Long-serving conservatives with local roots were replaced with Nu Tory robots. The whole process was a defining moment in Cameroonacy. The obsession with centralisation, control freakery, contempt for traditional values and local communities, and also for the role of MPs as anything other than avatars of diversity, are all examples of Cameroonacy in action.

As more and more examples of lunacy emerge amongst The Dave's New Elite we're entitled to wonder what it all says about both Cameron's judgement and his underlying ideology.

Even More On What Social Workers 'Actually Do'

Now that we've got to put up with all that liberal triumphalism over the release of convicted sexual predator Barry George, it's worth reminding ourselves just how things work under the left's preferred model of tribunal.

Or rather don't: the average leftist would rather have a shower than let the public know just how they operate:

Secondly, there were often additional reporting restrictions. Some of these were sought by local authorities as soon as I called them to try to get their sides of the stories. Some of these orders were so badly drafted that our lawyers simply could not tell what we could say. Some bore no relation to the draft that we had been sent before the hearing. It costs money to fight such orders, money that local media may not have and nationals are reluctant to commit.

Then again, these guys really do have something to hide. Sample quote:

As soon as a care order is made, the local authority controls all communications between parents and children. In many cases contact is gradually reduced, sometimes from a few hours a week to an hour or so a month, at which point social workers can return to court and claim that the child no longer has a strong bond with his family.

This is a key point: it's not about anything as benign as bad judgement, poor management or the like - these tactics are so twisted and sick that anyone who uses them simply should not be employed in the first place.

Or consider the quote JulieM highlights. Again, there's no possible defence for either the sadism or the social engineering.

Ditto, it is a simple fact that these courts are protected from public scrutiny. Not even Rumpole of the Bailey could argue his way round that. As Camilla Cavendish rightly points out, the media is able to respect the anonymity of rape victims without a blanket reporting ban. This isn't a complex issue: you're either happy with secret courts or you're not.

To the point: while feral leftists claim that recent events in the real courts prove.... something, the self-same folks are perfectly happy with courts that violate just about every principle of justice. It's the perfect barometer of how seriously to take their rantings about Barry George.

Work Hard

Guys like this are depending on you.

The Libs' New Baby Seal

Don't be shocked, but it turns out that Barry George is a violent sexual predator.

Who'd have thunk it, hey?

Needless to say, this doesn't necessarily make him a murderer, but it does kind of cut the ground from under the left's point that anyone - maiden aunts, small children, pet cats - can find themselves fitted up by the filth. Ditto, it's always interesting to see how fast the femiloons can ditch their alleged principles when they conflict with the tactical needs of the moment. Maybe they need a new slogan: zero tolerance for violence against liberalism?

At least liberals are taking this revelation with their usual charm, good humour and originality. Highlights from the comments thread of that article:

Is she sniffing the compo.

- will smith, Rochester England, 2/8/2008 14:08

Why didn't she report it earlier.Coming out the woodwork now so she can have a bit of compensation from him.Ka ching!

- Mark, Wigan, 2/8/2008 15:41

It funny how she is so traumatised now there is the chance to make some money.

- Afro Lady, wolverhampton, 2/8/2008 17:08

So now they come crawling out the woodwork at the mention of compensation.....

- Jo, Paignton, 2/8/2008 16:08

And thus was ended the debate over whether or not liberals were talking point spewing zombies.

But let's not overstate the case. Liberals aren't just morons endlessly parroting the same asinine lines. They're also liars:

Fancy that, man in line for a big pay out is a rapist 25 years ago, why did'nt she come forward years ago instead of now

- Paul Downey, Liverpool, 2/8/2008 15:45

If Mr George is in line for compensation watch out for hordes of traumatised women to come out of the woodwork with lurid tales of how the scheming oddball ruined there lives. Nothing can make up for what they went through - apart from large sums of money that would help bring closure (and early retirement).

- Chubbarow, Nottingham, England, 2/8/2008 16:48

Where's the proof of these allegations?

- N Brown, UK, 2/8/2008 15:53

Marvellous now the poor man's been accused of rape, its got to do with going for compensation-if you were raped wouldn't you have reported it when the incident happened not wait 8 years, Ms Gray wants a chunk of his compensation no doubt.

- Dee, Hampshire, England, 2/8/2008 16:28

Yep, I guess even liberals can see that defending a self-confessed rapist might be a tough sell. Of course, if they had any integrity at all they'd admit he'd already been tried and convicted for the rape, but then again, if they had any integrity they wouldn't be liberals. As it is, we get this:

Just as I expected. As soon as he is acquitted, the newspapers dig up all the dirt they can to attempt to justify his wrongful conviction. Whatever else he did he did not kill Dando and that is the relevant point.

- James Danvers, London, 2/8/2008 16:27

"He was very strong but it was all pretty pathetic..".
This sounds very suspicious to me. I suppose all the dirt that the police can dig will now be offered to the newspapers who will use it with avidity.

- D James, Lancashire, UK, 2/8/2008 16:33

'Digging up dirt' = making public information that's embarrassing to the left.

Meanwhile, here's the dark side of the left's worship of victimhood:

Was he arrested and convicted of an offence ? She seems to have gotten over her shock and trauma sufficiently to speak to the newspapers !!

- John Williamson, Birmingham, England, 2/8/2008 16:54

Yes, the fact a victim of a serious sexual assault has put her life back together over the following quarter of a century means she's clearly wasn't raped.

Hello? Just for the sake of clarity, could the left define how victims of rape are supposed to behave? Alcoholism? Suicide attempts? Just what do they need to qualify as genuine victims?

Oh yeah..... don't get in the way of liberal talking points.

I think this case gives us the right metric to judge femiloon charges that the right doesn't take rape seriously enough.

But the winner of best in show is this one, with my comments in square brackets:

Why can't they leave the poor man alone [a 'poor' convicted rapist]. He's suffered enough [two and a half years for a serious sexual assault?]. Now it looks like all sorts of women will be jumping on the bandwagon saying he did this or that [and it looks like the courts agree: he did do it!]. They are just after some fame and money. [or possibly they're just sickened by liberals presenting a dangerous pervert as some kind of victim]

- Steve, Worcester, England, 2/8/2008 15:35

And there you have it. Liberalism in a nutshell: a rape victim is unfairly persecuting her attacker by publicly calling him what he is.

Chicks, hey?

All this hate comes down to one thing: the victim has got in the way of the canonisation of Barry George. Liberals love cases like this because it gives them a bloody shirt to wave when the subject of crime and punishment comes up, and capital punishment in particular. This is why liberal activists will spend years insisting on endless appeals and retrials until they can get the baby seal d'jour off the hook.

Even most liberals wouldn't normally attack a rape victim, but hey, if she didn't want to get slimed, she shouldn't have got in the way, right?

Outrage D'Jour: Special Open Borders Uber Alles Edition

The courts have backheeled the rules on bogus marriages. That was depressingly predictable, but the logic on show is a classic of the 'constitution as an ink blot' genre:

Baroness Hale said: "Denying those benefits to a couple whose relationship is genuine is neither a rational nor a proportionate response to the legitimate aims of a firm and fair immigration policy."

Let's ignore the sleazy sleight of hand - the whole point is that these relationships are not genuine - and consider the sheer brass neck of Hale's comments.

Hale is not resolving an ambiguity, filling in a gap in the law or interpreting statute. Her own justification makes it clear that she's not ruling on legal grounds, she's ruling on whether or not she think the existing policy is - to use her own words - proportionate or rational - an overtly political decision. She might have some worthwhile views on this, but there's no reason to privilege her views over any other citizens just because she has a good technical knowledge of the law, rather than, say, aviation, insurance or gas fitting.

To the point: Hale claims her legal status gives her the right to overrule a democratically-elected government, yet the self-same law makes clear that her position is a constitutional abomination.

It gets worse:

She said the right to marry was enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Except no one is arguing against the right to marry. It's the right to marry then get an automatic 'access all areas' pass that's the problem.

But here's the real insight into modern liberalism:

"My Lords, this scheme is an arbitrary and unjust interference with the right to marry," she said.

Arbitrary? The distinction between citizens and non-citizens is anything but arbitrary. It's central to the whole point of having a country. You might as well argue for a right to joyride since 'ownership' is such a vague concept.

Forget the specifics of the case: Hale's position is a clear as day endorsement of the whole open borders position. In fact, she's so committed, she's even ditched her trademark femilunacy. Compare her current position...

"Even in these days, when many in British society believe that there is little social difference between marrying and living together, marriage still has deep significance for many people, quite apart from the legal recognition, status, rights and obligations which it brings."

...with her original one:

This is exactly what Dame Brenda was doing when in 1980 she made her now infamous remark about marriage. ‘Family law’, she wrote, ‘ no longer makes any attempt to buttress the stability of marriage…Logically, we have already reached a point at which…we should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purpose.’

All of which exposes the other piece of humbuggery here. Hale and the rest of the open borders advocates argue that the whole 'nationality' is so over, so last year, but what other issue could cause a howling mad femiloon to ditch her principles like a red hot porcupine? The lengths to which the left will go to try and destroy ideals like citizenship and patriotism in and off itself is proof that these concepts still have power and relevance even after forty years of culture war.