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.

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?

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.

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.

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.