Who'd have guessed that the Super Casino would be going to Manchester ? Apparently, the selection committee had to consider issues such as the influence of organised crime, drug abuse and violence, but they decided that these problems were outweighed by other points in Manchester's favour.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Steyn Quote D'Jour
Even better, it's about the smartest man ever:
[David Cameron's] also living in a country whose major cities have been hollowed out by Islamist cells. Nevertheless, as England decays into Somalia with chip shops, taxing the chip shops is the Conservatives' priority.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Govt Admits Reform Was Huge, Misdirected Failure
That'll be the day.
Cobbett is bang on here. A huge bureaucracy has been created, ultimately paid for by Joe Public, yet by the FSA's own account, standards are still appalling in the financial services industry. Hmmm....sounds like the FSA needs massive reform - but don't hold your breath waiting for that either.
Actually, of course, the FSA hasn't been able to find any actual evidence of malpractice, far less consumer detriment, in its industry. The FSA's indictment, such as it is, revolves around the claim that 'two-thirds of the mortgage lenders it sampled did not have satisfactory processes in place'. Not only that, but processes tended to be less robust in smaller operations.
Well, I don't know about you, but I was shocked - shocked! - to find out that John Smith's Mortgage Brokerage has less robust systems than the Halifax. Who'd have thunk it ? Still, I dunno, it seems kind of.... indirect somehow. If only there was some more obvious way to check the quality of John's advice ?
What it all boils down to is time-serving public sector zombies berating the productive sector for not being having the kind of mindless worship of paperwork and process that has made the parasite sector what it is today. You think banks are bad now, wait till they start working as cheaply and efficiently as the NHS.
Still, the FSA is at least being true to its roots as a product of the blood-sucking sector. What are we to make of the other participants in the pile-on, organisations such as the Citizen's Advice and other consumer groups....
Hold it right there. I happen to think that if the FSA was kicked out of the trough, the public would immediately benefit from not having to fund thousands of overpaid leeches, but will any 'consumer association' ever say that ? For that matter, would the MSM ever refer to any organisation formed to push that world view as a 'consumer association'. Not in this lifetime. The designation 'consumer association' is reserved for Liberal astroturf organisations pushing Big Government. Maybe there's a compelling case for socialism, but if there is, why do these people need to hide what they're about under weaselly designations like 'consumer group' ?
Nope, any time an alleged consumer group opens its trap, you know you're going to get made-over Marxism and Big Government boosterism wrapped in fluffy bunny rhetoric about 'protecting the consumer'. For proof of that, look at their comments this time round. They're worried that banks may be lending money to people who can't repay it (which makes no sense until you remember that Liberals think business is like the public sector in that the more money you waste, the more you get).
OK then Libs, you win: from now on banks won't be allowed to victimise the working classes by offering them services. Only middle-class professionals with golf club memberships will be allowed to use banks. But wait...do I hear someone whining about 'financial exclusion' ? Why, yes, I believe I do.
So, in summary, banks are evil for lending to people who aren't even doctors or lawyers, but they're also evil for not lending to these people. But don't let that convince you that 'consumer groups' are anything less than disinterested defenders of the public good.
Cobbett is bang on here. A huge bureaucracy has been created, ultimately paid for by Joe Public, yet by the FSA's own account, standards are still appalling in the financial services industry. Hmmm....sounds like the FSA needs massive reform - but don't hold your breath waiting for that either.
Actually, of course, the FSA hasn't been able to find any actual evidence of malpractice, far less consumer detriment, in its industry. The FSA's indictment, such as it is, revolves around the claim that 'two-thirds of the mortgage lenders it sampled did not have satisfactory processes in place'. Not only that, but processes tended to be less robust in smaller operations.
Well, I don't know about you, but I was shocked - shocked! - to find out that John Smith's Mortgage Brokerage has less robust systems than the Halifax. Who'd have thunk it ? Still, I dunno, it seems kind of.... indirect somehow. If only there was some more obvious way to check the quality of John's advice ?
What it all boils down to is time-serving public sector zombies berating the productive sector for not being having the kind of mindless worship of paperwork and process that has made the parasite sector what it is today. You think banks are bad now, wait till they start working as cheaply and efficiently as the NHS.
Still, the FSA is at least being true to its roots as a product of the blood-sucking sector. What are we to make of the other participants in the pile-on, organisations such as the Citizen's Advice and other consumer groups....
Hold it right there. I happen to think that if the FSA was kicked out of the trough, the public would immediately benefit from not having to fund thousands of overpaid leeches, but will any 'consumer association' ever say that ? For that matter, would the MSM ever refer to any organisation formed to push that world view as a 'consumer association'. Not in this lifetime. The designation 'consumer association' is reserved for Liberal astroturf organisations pushing Big Government. Maybe there's a compelling case for socialism, but if there is, why do these people need to hide what they're about under weaselly designations like 'consumer group' ?
Nope, any time an alleged consumer group opens its trap, you know you're going to get made-over Marxism and Big Government boosterism wrapped in fluffy bunny rhetoric about 'protecting the consumer'. For proof of that, look at their comments this time round. They're worried that banks may be lending money to people who can't repay it (which makes no sense until you remember that Liberals think business is like the public sector in that the more money you waste, the more you get).
OK then Libs, you win: from now on banks won't be allowed to victimise the working classes by offering them services. Only middle-class professionals with golf club memberships will be allowed to use banks. But wait...do I hear someone whining about 'financial exclusion' ? Why, yes, I believe I do.
So, in summary, banks are evil for lending to people who aren't even doctors or lawyers, but they're also evil for not lending to these people. But don't let that convince you that 'consumer groups' are anything less than disinterested defenders of the public good.
As I Was Saying…
Spookily enough, the topics of the last two posts kind of feed into a comment I left earlier at Laban’s place. It was in the comments to this post where someone asked if people would be so worried about the fall of Christianity if there wasn’t a well-known peaceful religion clawing at the door of western civilisation, ready to replace it.
The simple answer is that nature abhors a vacuum. There’s no either/or there. Islam is an opportunistic infection, taking advantage of a body already rotted by Liberalism. Let’s face it – Islam isn’t advancing through the force of the ideology. Islam teaches that people are slaves to a brutal moon god who demands blind obedience even on the most trivial of things. The closest you get to any kind of hopeful message in Islam is the belief that if you kill enough Infidels, you’ll get an invite to Big Mo’s Whorehouse in the sky.
But what is it faced with ? The Liberal world view is based upon the idea that we are at a unique moment in human history when now, for the first time ever, a civilisation can get by without the family, a shared narrative, a code of honour, objective truth, a sense of consequences or, well, any of the other 871 things the Left sneers at whenever traditional values are mentioned. Apparently, every civilisation that has existed in the past 5000 years has been a ghastly mistake.
Well, now we've got a chance to test that hypothesis. European sophisticates vs deranged savages.
Oops.
The rise of Islam is the perfect barometer of just how sick our civilisation is, proof positive of the essential hollowness of the Liberal ideal of multicultural, omnisexual intellectuals sitting at pavement cafes, discussing trends in post-modern architecture over the lattes. When our civilisation is less inspiring than the rantings of a sociopathic nonce from the 7th century, we’ve got real problems.
The simple answer is that nature abhors a vacuum. There’s no either/or there. Islam is an opportunistic infection, taking advantage of a body already rotted by Liberalism. Let’s face it – Islam isn’t advancing through the force of the ideology. Islam teaches that people are slaves to a brutal moon god who demands blind obedience even on the most trivial of things. The closest you get to any kind of hopeful message in Islam is the belief that if you kill enough Infidels, you’ll get an invite to Big Mo’s Whorehouse in the sky.
But what is it faced with ? The Liberal world view is based upon the idea that we are at a unique moment in human history when now, for the first time ever, a civilisation can get by without the family, a shared narrative, a code of honour, objective truth, a sense of consequences or, well, any of the other 871 things the Left sneers at whenever traditional values are mentioned. Apparently, every civilisation that has existed in the past 5000 years has been a ghastly mistake.
Well, now we've got a chance to test that hypothesis. European sophisticates vs deranged savages.
Oops.
The rise of Islam is the perfect barometer of just how sick our civilisation is, proof positive of the essential hollowness of the Liberal ideal of multicultural, omnisexual intellectuals sitting at pavement cafes, discussing trends in post-modern architecture over the lattes. When our civilisation is less inspiring than the rantings of a sociopathic nonce from the 7th century, we’ve got real problems.
That’ll Leave A Mark
America’s chief (only ?) sane Lib Kirsten Powers sums up exactly what’s so annoying about professional atheists. At least religious nuts claim God’s on their side – these people claim the right to behave like pigs just because.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Very Nuclear Family
Sorry if posts seem even more incoherent than usual, but I’m still coming to terms with being a family man. I mean, I’m still single with no kids, but after reading this post from Iain Dale, I realise that’s no reason to feel left out. After all, if we accept the Dale hypothesis that a family is just whatever random group of individuals happen to be occupying the same post code at the same time, well, I see no reason why people should be allowed to discriminate against monocentric family groups. After all, if critics are going to claim that single people can’t be a family just because a family needs to consist of more than one person, I have one word for them: schizophrenia.
But seriously, don’t think I’m criticising Dale’s post here. It strikes me as at least 1000% more honest than anything from his slippery ‘everything’s special’ leader. The only problem is that Dale doesn’t follow his own logic through to its natural conclusion. As Joe Single, I can see a case for paying relatively over the odds tax-wise to help ensure the next generation get the best start in life, but once we move outside the traditional family structure, what’s the case for subsidising even the most dysfunctional arrangements ? Or, to put it another way, if all lifestyles are equal, how can anyone justify taxing some and subsiding others ?
More profoundly though, what’s with the claim that all lifestyles are equal anyway ? We know that’s not true. The data is in – and has been for ages – some family groups do dramatically better than others. In and of itself, that’s hardly a compelling case for government intervention, except if you’re the type of deranged statist who thinks the government should issue fat licences. Oops.
Hey, how come all types of food aren’t ‘special’ ? Why aren’t Tories claiming that there are many different kinds of ‘healthy’ ? After all, in both cases what we’re talking about here is statistics. There must be plenty of folks still eating a full English breakfast every day well into their 80s, so how come the Tories want to set up their own CID (Cheeseburger Investigation Division) to clamp down on unlicensed kebab dealers, while claiming that kids could be raised by wolves with no harm done ?
But seriously, don’t think I’m criticising Dale’s post here. It strikes me as at least 1000% more honest than anything from his slippery ‘everything’s special’ leader. The only problem is that Dale doesn’t follow his own logic through to its natural conclusion. As Joe Single, I can see a case for paying relatively over the odds tax-wise to help ensure the next generation get the best start in life, but once we move outside the traditional family structure, what’s the case for subsidising even the most dysfunctional arrangements ? Or, to put it another way, if all lifestyles are equal, how can anyone justify taxing some and subsiding others ?
More profoundly though, what’s with the claim that all lifestyles are equal anyway ? We know that’s not true. The data is in – and has been for ages – some family groups do dramatically better than others. In and of itself, that’s hardly a compelling case for government intervention, except if you’re the type of deranged statist who thinks the government should issue fat licences. Oops.
Hey, how come all types of food aren’t ‘special’ ? Why aren’t Tories claiming that there are many different kinds of ‘healthy’ ? After all, in both cases what we’re talking about here is statistics. There must be plenty of folks still eating a full English breakfast every day well into their 80s, so how come the Tories want to set up their own CID (Cheeseburger Investigation Division) to clamp down on unlicensed kebab dealers, while claiming that kids could be raised by wolves with no harm done ?
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Rush Quote D'Jour
Rush Limbaugh puts his finger on what's wrong even with 'nice' Leftists:
'Having fun at a dream job' was cited by 39% of workers as important, with 17% saying 'making a difference in society' was most important. Thank God it's only 17%. Hitler made a difference.
MSM: Some Extremists More Equal Than Others
Just thinking about a couple of posts over at ATW. Tom Tyler rightly points out the somewhat selective reporting of racial attacks in the MSM. Doubtless, these people would justify this by claiming they have to be sensitive to the possibility of aiding extremist thugs..
Well, OK, Libs. Let’s go with that: media organisations should refrain from reporting that could help the cause of violent lunatics. Except that turns out not to be the Left’s position at all. When the lunatics in question are Islamofasicts – henceforth to be known as 'real thugs' rather than, say, the still-waiting-for-it Islamophobic backlash – any suggestion that the media’s reporting ('all atrocities, all the time') could be helping these lunatics has the MSM cranking the girly hysteria up to 11.
So which is it ? Are the MSM fearless seekers after truth ? Or is responsible reporting all the rage ? Or is it, and I'll admit I’m going out on a limb here, just that they’re a bunch of hacks who’ll report anything – providing it harms Britain.
Well, OK, Libs. Let’s go with that: media organisations should refrain from reporting that could help the cause of violent lunatics. Except that turns out not to be the Left’s position at all. When the lunatics in question are Islamofasicts – henceforth to be known as 'real thugs' rather than, say, the still-waiting-for-it Islamophobic backlash – any suggestion that the media’s reporting ('all atrocities, all the time') could be helping these lunatics has the MSM cranking the girly hysteria up to 11.
So which is it ? Are the MSM fearless seekers after truth ? Or is responsible reporting all the rage ? Or is it, and I'll admit I’m going out on a limb here, just that they’re a bunch of hacks who’ll report anything – providing it harms Britain.
The Leader They Deserve
Talking of the Tories, Tom Paine passes on a useful insight into what the Party’s bright young things really believe.
I believe the phrase is 'stick a fork in it, it's done'.
I believe the phrase is 'stick a fork in it, it's done'.
Judge, Rope, Scaffold - Some Assembly Required
So, now we know: even people convicted of actual attacks on kids doesn’t count as ‘dangerous’. But hey – how come the judges aren’t yammering about political interference this time ? Whenever it’s suggested that they should be sending more people to jail, the whining’s audible from South Korea. This time, not so much.
But let’s consider what the judges are really doing. It’s so obvious, even Nick Robinson has picked up on it. They are – as these Leftist tools would doubtless say – sending a message. They want some payback against John Reid, so they’re releasing dangerous predators. Huh ?
Just what kind of amoral degenerate do you have to be to reach the point where giving predators another chance to strike at innocent children in order to make trivial political points strikes you as a good idea ? And should people like that even be on the bench in the first place ?
A vote of thanks too for the Tories, reliably appalling as ever, for jumping onboard this particular bandwagon. No matter how awful you think John Reid is, he can hardly be personally responsible for the lack of prison places. I’d suggest the blame lies with another member of the Scottish Raj, but that’s by the by. In throwing their hand in with a bunch of activist judges seeking to hijack the legal process, the Tories have tacitly accepted one of the most toxic – and anti-Conservative - trends of recent years. Tories allowing short term politics to overrule long-term strategy ? Say it ain’t so!
But let’s consider what the judges are really doing. It’s so obvious, even Nick Robinson has picked up on it. They are – as these Leftist tools would doubtless say – sending a message. They want some payback against John Reid, so they’re releasing dangerous predators. Huh ?
Just what kind of amoral degenerate do you have to be to reach the point where giving predators another chance to strike at innocent children in order to make trivial political points strikes you as a good idea ? And should people like that even be on the bench in the first place ?
A vote of thanks too for the Tories, reliably appalling as ever, for jumping onboard this particular bandwagon. No matter how awful you think John Reid is, he can hardly be personally responsible for the lack of prison places. I’d suggest the blame lies with another member of the Scottish Raj, but that’s by the by. In throwing their hand in with a bunch of activist judges seeking to hijack the legal process, the Tories have tacitly accepted one of the most toxic – and anti-Conservative - trends of recent years. Tories allowing short term politics to overrule long-term strategy ? Say it ain’t so!
Coming Back At Ya
Steve’s wondering why religious people should get special exemption from gay rights legislation. Some of us would ask the opposite question. Why should gays get special rights in the first place ?
Sure, these people claim gayness is equivalent to, say, race, but I have six words for them: ‘not one drop of gay blood’. Doesn’t really work, does it ? No one’s talking about checking out someone’s family tree, it’s all about the life they lead. Hey, maybe there’s a genetic element to it, but maybe there’s a genetic element to being obese, or a drunk, or a smoker. No one’s demanding that being a fat chain-smoking hooch jockey is off-limits to debate, nope, it’s only the folks who like to hang out with all the boys who are a protected species.
Sure, these people claim gayness is equivalent to, say, race, but I have six words for them: ‘not one drop of gay blood’. Doesn’t really work, does it ? No one’s talking about checking out someone’s family tree, it’s all about the life they lead. Hey, maybe there’s a genetic element to it, but maybe there’s a genetic element to being obese, or a drunk, or a smoker. No one’s demanding that being a fat chain-smoking hooch jockey is off-limits to debate, nope, it’s only the folks who like to hang out with all the boys who are a protected species.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
So, Who Is Dangerous Then ?
Not that the Left is weak on sexual predators or anything. He'd have had more chance of time if he'd have gobbed a traffic warden.
Arrogance Or Delusion ?
Don’t laugh, but the Tories have decided to go after votes in the North. This, lest we forget, from the party whose list of preferred candidates – supposedly designed to produce a ‘party that looks like Britain’ – managed to include more councilors from Kensington and Chelsea than from the whole North-West plus Yorkshire. Still, at least they’re strong in the North-East. Oopsie – looks like not only do they have to parachute in candidates but …..well, you know. Not that all this implies any kind of contempt for Viz country. No, siree. Just how STOOPID do they think we are ?
Nice Shot!
The Reptile gives a righteous kicking to Richard Gott, ex-KGB agent and current idiot. It's all good, but don't miss the zinger he passes on in the last paragraph.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
The Case Against An English Parliament
Hey, at least when the Scots soak us, there’s a statistical risk the money will be spent on stuff like cancer drugs or education. Our fellow Englishmen have different priorities.
The Spoils System Of Child Care
Reading this post over at ATW I finally put my finger on what it is that so utterly nauseates me about the gay adoption movement. It’s their sense of entitlement. That’s bad enough when we’re talking about the welfare state, but to hear these people talk about how they’re being unfairly discriminated against by being deprived of their fair share of kids is more than flesh and blood should have to stand.
Back in the day, when it was all green fields round here and you could buy a mansion and still have change of a fiver, the adoption system was run for the benefit of the kids, but not anymore: now, successful agencies with great records for placing kids are being forced out of existence for depriving you-know-who of their rightful share of the spoils. Could there be a better example of the narcissism and shamelessness of the Pink Wedge ?
Back in the day, when it was all green fields round here and you could buy a mansion and still have change of a fiver, the adoption system was run for the benefit of the kids, but not anymore: now, successful agencies with great records for placing kids are being forced out of existence for depriving you-know-who of their rightful share of the spoils. Could there be a better example of the narcissism and shamelessness of the Pink Wedge ?
Bad News: We're All Crazy (Again)
Uh oh – looks like an old friend is back: the Pathological Conservative. Really, Liberals wax indignant about the supposed Conservative ‘War on Science’ but just how much respect should the Right have for people prepared to present any old garbage as science, providing it slimes the Right ?
Actually, great though the takedown of that study is, all I needed to know was that it featured two of the best markers for junk science, namely the claim that Stalin was actually right-wing, and reference to the work of that old Marxist fraud Adorno. Absurd twisting of definitions and blind acceptance of nonsensical rubbish are never a good basis for research.
This is not some obscure scientific eccentricity either. There’s the obvious point that folks like this are scoring swag from the taxpayer to produce semi-literate screeds denouncing Conservatives, but it goes a little deeper than that. Let’s leave aside any speculations on how Liberals think we should treat the disease of Conservatism, and just consider one specific area of policy. Right now, the same level of genius which produces work like this, is also driving government policy on crime and punishment. Or, to put it another way, the integrity-free hacks who produce reams of garbage proving Rightist are mental cripples, are the ones determining if and when paedophiles are ready to be released. Reassuring, hey ?
Actually, great though the takedown of that study is, all I needed to know was that it featured two of the best markers for junk science, namely the claim that Stalin was actually right-wing, and reference to the work of that old Marxist fraud Adorno. Absurd twisting of definitions and blind acceptance of nonsensical rubbish are never a good basis for research.
This is not some obscure scientific eccentricity either. There’s the obvious point that folks like this are scoring swag from the taxpayer to produce semi-literate screeds denouncing Conservatives, but it goes a little deeper than that. Let’s leave aside any speculations on how Liberals think we should treat the disease of Conservatism, and just consider one specific area of policy. Right now, the same level of genius which produces work like this, is also driving government policy on crime and punishment. Or, to put it another way, the integrity-free hacks who produce reams of garbage proving Rightist are mental cripples, are the ones determining if and when paedophiles are ready to be released. Reassuring, hey ?
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Fascists Appeal To Idiots For Sympathy
Ah yes – Islamopaths get caught telling the truth by Channel 4, so you know what that means: back into Muslims Fear Backlash After Tomorrow’s Train Bombing territory.
Personally, I think these guys are bang on.
Personally, I think these guys are bang on.
More Voting With The Backside
Talking of Blair, Matthew Parris pens a love letter to the Dear Leader in the Times. He lays out a tightly-argued thesis in favour of Blair’s underlying ideology.
Just kidding!
Nope, Parris praises Blair for promoting ‘tolerance’. What can he mean ? Admittedly, Parris makes weak attempts to try and link Blair’s position on the Most Important Issue Ever to more general trends, but his heart’s clearly not in it. Well, same ol’, same ol’. Except, of course, Parris is a former Tory MP and supposed commentator on political affairs.
See, that’s what’s so annoying about Parris and his ilk. Instead of taking the Peter Tatchell route and being up-front boosters for gay rights, they try to pass themselves off as Conservatives, yet on any issue even tangentially related to the MI2E, you can call their position even before the cards are dealt. Just who do they think’s buying it ?
Just kidding!
Nope, Parris praises Blair for promoting ‘tolerance’. What can he mean ? Admittedly, Parris makes weak attempts to try and link Blair’s position on the Most Important Issue Ever to more general trends, but his heart’s clearly not in it. Well, same ol’, same ol’. Except, of course, Parris is a former Tory MP and supposed commentator on political affairs.
See, that’s what’s so annoying about Parris and his ilk. Instead of taking the Peter Tatchell route and being up-front boosters for gay rights, they try to pass themselves off as Conservatives, yet on any issue even tangentially related to the MI2E, you can call their position even before the cards are dealt. Just who do they think’s buying it ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)